Blame lower caps, not property spruikers

property funds management government and regulation self-managed superannuation funds SPAA SMSFs smsf trustees smsf professionals SMSF government chief executive financial adviser

2 October 2013
| By Staff |
image
image
expand image

The Government's lowering of concessional contribution caps has had more to do with people opting for negative gearing outside of super than the siren call of property spruikers, according to SMSF Professionals' Association of Australia (SPAA) chief executive Andrea Slattery.

She said SPAA research had shown that the lower concessional caps had prompted the move to negative gearing outside of super, yet there had been little response from regulators and little discussion of the damage such moves were causing to Government revenue.

"It seems to us at SPAA that any train wreck will most likely occur there, and for one simple reason. "SMSF [self-managed superannuation funds] trustees, if they seek advice on any investment, require advice from a licensed financial adviser to assess whether the investment is appropriate to the circumstances of the fund and its members," Slattery said.

"Individuals don't require professional advice to consider their particular circumstances before they invest in geared property, suggesting these investments pose a higher risk compared with SMSFs, where far stricter protocols are in place."

In a column to SPAA members published this week, Slattery cited recent commentary by the regulators and the Reserve Bank suggesting that SMSFs were, potentially, a vehicle for speculative demand for residential property.

However she said that it would be wrong to suggest that property was an inappropriate investment for SMSFs.

"We have constantly warned that SMSFs must approach property, like all investments, armed with the best professional advice," Slattery said. "Property is not an inappropriate investment per se; but it must be appropriate to the fund and consider the member's circumstances, just like all investments."

She said that where SPAA strongly disagreed with regulators and critics of the sector was in the suggestion that SMSF trustees were "listening to the siren call of the property spruikers and gearing up to rush headlong into unsuitable residential property investments".

"The figures don't bear this out," Slattery said. "At June 30, property assets in SMSFs stood at $75 billion, of which $58 billion was mostly commercial; $17 billion was residential. With total assets at $495 billion, it means residential property comprises 3.4 per cent of all SMSF assets."

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Time to Go

I really can't see how getting rid of the safeguards with no other changes achieves anything at all. We're still the ea...

1 day 22 hours ago
Rob

Nowhere else in the world do innocent bystanders have to pay for the losses incurred to investors due to failed business...

2 days 1 hour ago
Time to Go

Yet everything states profitability is much higher in a larger practice. As a smaller planning practice it is a hard sl...

3 days 18 hours ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

10 months 1 week ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months 4 weeks ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

10 months 1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND