I have a SMSF lite with a retail fund. The costs are around $300 a month (from memory its about 0.3% of assets in direct investment) and I don't have all that much in it; $80,000 makes me feel a little sad given my age (wtf happened?). For the record it's invested $16,000 in the funds Aus index, $16,000 IHD, $16,000 VAS, $16,000 VHY and $18,000 VTS. I started it last year and viewed it as my training wheels for when I started to really invest. I got the pleasure of experiencing the August correct and subsequent tanking and to be honest didn't feel that bad. August was no GFC but at least I have a little more confidence in my risk tolerance.
Direct investing lets me pursue a low cost dividend strategy. Franking credits work to your favour in the super environment with its 15% tax rate leading to franking credits being paid to you in November.
The returns on my superfund pre the switch to direct investments had been opaque. I had no way of knowing how they came to the % return they did. With control over my investments I can see exactly the number of units/shares I have, when dividends and franking credits are paid and I get to see the DRP do its thing buying more shares. It now feels like a process that I can control and I now trust. It makes it feel more like your money and something I am interested in for the first time rather than the set and forget approach commonly held towards super.
A reason, beyond higher costs, to not go the whole SMSF route could well be the cheaper insurance available in a retail or industry product. You could leave a small amount in a industry fund with insurance attached and have the bulk of your funds in a SMSF if you want to hold onto cheap cover. I've seen plenty of people do this over the years.
With all that said I certainly see the appeal of a low cost industry fund. My wifes super is in HostPlus(?) and has done remarkably well in comparison to my retail fund. I'm hoping with direct investments things will improve. At least now I will know the returns are my fault.