Super Fund Collapse: Which Funds Failed, What Happens Next

If you’ve been following the news about the Shield and First Guardian Master Fund collapses, you’re probably wondering what it means for your own retirement savings. The failures wiped out over $1 billion in savings for an estimated 12,000 Australians.

Investor losses from Shield and First Guardian collapse: $1 billion ·
Number of affected members: 660 (initial report) ·
Australian superannuation industry size: $4.3 trillion ·
Regulatory action: ASIC investigation underway ·
Government response: Proposed managed investment scheme crackdown

Five key facts summarise what we know so far about the twin collapses.

Which super fund has collapsed?

Shield and First Guardian Master Fund collapses

• The First Guardian Master Fund left 6,000 investors collectively owed $445 million, according to ABC News.
• The Shield Master Fund affected 5,800 investors facing losses up to $480 million, per the same report.
• Both funds were marketed to self‑managed super fund trustees and accessed via platforms including Macquarie, Diversa, Netwealth and Equity Trustees (ABC News).

Details of the collapse: $1.2 billion lost

“We are talking about industrial‑scale misconduct that has devastated the retirement savings of thousands of Australians.”

Sarah Court, incoming ASIC Chair (National Seniors Australia)

• Combined losses exceed $1.1 billion for 12,000 Australians, reports National Seniors Australia.
• Liquidators of First Guardian have recovered only $1.6 million from $446 million owed (National Seniors Australia).

Regulatory response from ASIC

• ASIC froze assets of First Guardian in February 2025 (ASIC).
• ASIC had already blocked investments in Shield in February 2024 (ABC News).
• Regulator is exploring compensation avenues; fewer than 2,000 of 11,000 eligible investors had lodged AFCA complaints by February 2026 (ASIC).

What happens if my super fund collapses?

Protection from the Superannuation Guarantee

• Unlike bank deposits (covered by the Financial Claims Scheme), superannuation is not government‑guaranteed (ASIC).
• If a fund is in the APRA‑regulated sector, the Government can appoint a trustee to wind it up, but investors in unregistered managed investment schemes like Shield and First Guardian lack that safety net (National Seniors Australia).

Steps for affected members

1. Contact the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) — complaints must be lodged before the deadline (National Seniors Australia).
2. Check whether your super platform (e.g., Macquarie, Netwealth) has agreed to a compensation scheme — Macquarie and Netwealth have committed $421 million combined (ABC News).
3. Contact the Take Your Super Back service for assistance (National Seniors Australia).

Why are super funds going down?

Mismanagement and fraud in managed investment schemes

• The Shield and First Guardian funds invested in high‑risk, unregistered schemes with poor governance (ABC News).
• ASIC’s incoming chair described the behaviour as “industrial‑scale misconduct” (National Seniors Australia).

Regulatory gaps exposed

• Australia’s $4.3 trillion superannuation sector has a blind spot: funds that direct member savings into unregistered managed investment schemes are not directly supervised by APRA (ABC News).
• The managed funds industry is worth nearly $4.75 trillion, with $2 trillion in similar schemes (National Seniors Australia).

The implication: regulatory gaps directly enabled the scale of this collapse.

Which are the failing super funds in Australia?

List of underperforming funds per APRA

• APRA publishes an annual heatmap identifying super funds with persistently poor returns and high fees (APRA).
• The 2024 heatmap showed dozens of funds with returns below the benchmark for five‑year horizons.

Worst super funds identified by Finder

• Consumer comparison site Finder regularly ranks the lowest‑performing funds based on fees and net returns (Finder).
• Many of the worst‑rated funds are small industry or retail funds, but “failing” usually means chronic underperformance, not insolvency.

Criteria for ‘failing’ (performance vs insolvency)

• A super fund can be labelled “failing” because it consistently delivers poor investment outcomes — but that is different from collapsing. Shield and First Guardian collapsed because the underlying assets were misappropriated; they were not APRA‑regulated funds (ASIC).

Will millions of Australians have no say in who inherits their superannuation?

Default beneficiary rules in super

• If you die without a valid binding death‑benefit nomination, the super fund trustee decides who receives your balance — typically dependents as defined by law (Australian Taxation Office).
• This means your super may not go to the person you would have chosen.

Proposed changes to inheritance laws

• The government has floated reforms to give members more control, including making non‑lapsing nominations the default (Treasury).
• No legislation has been introduced yet, but the collapse of funds like Shield and First Guardian adds urgency to broader member‑protection reforms.

Impact of fund collapse on beneficiary claims

• When a fund is wound up, death‑benefit claims can be delayed or reduced if the assets have been lost. Beneficiaries should contact the liquidator and ASIC (ASIC).

What this means: estate planning alone cannot protect a death benefit if the underlying fund has no money left.

Timeline of the Shield and First Guardian collapses

Key events unfolded over a two-year period, from initial intervention to government reform.

The pattern: each date marks a step toward accountability, but recovery for victims remains slow.

Clarity check: what we know and what we don’t

The catch: uncertainty around recovery means affected investors should act now rather than wait for clarity.

Voices from the collapse

“We are talking about industrial‑scale misconduct that has devastated the retirement savings of thousands of Australians.”

Sarah Court, incoming ASIC Chair (National Seniors Australia)

“This has been a devastating blow for our members who invested their life savings in what they thought was a safe super product.”

Ian Henschke, Chief Advocate, National Seniors Australia (National Seniors Australia)

The implication: both regulators and advocates acknowledge the human toll behind the billion-dollar figure.

The consequence

For the 12,000 Australians who lost savings in the Shield and First Guardian collapses, the path to recovery is narrow, time‑sensitive, and uncertain. The regulator’s actions and the government’s proposed crackdown suggest that future collapses may be rarer, but the present victims face a stark trade-off: file a complaint by 31 March 2026 or risk losing any chance of repayment. For every other Australian with super, the lesson is clear: check whether your fund invests in unregistered managed investment schemes, because if it does, your retirement savings are not protected like a bank deposit.

Frequently asked questions