Add new comment

What the FPA and the general public aren't aware of is, even with ATO product rulings, not everyone that was put into MIT's was suitable to be in one.
That doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't a good long term primary investment for some,... but certainly not everyone.
The problem stems from the fact that Banks had lent large sums of money to the promoters of these MIT's, then wanted their dough back immediately after the GFC. Some of the management of some of these MIT's have a lot to answer for.
Finally there were some accountants and financial advisers who saw this as a great opportunity to make a quick fast buck without considering the clients circumstances or the potential failures. Again this does not mean all accountants or all financial planners were driven by large commissions at the expense of their clients.
For some the the immediate tax deduction and the long term return on the investment (albeit between 5.0% p.a and 9.0% p.a.) depending on the project over an 11 year period was a reasonable outcome.
Just remember for those who have great insight after the event, some of those MIT's were listed in the top 200 on the ASX.
Great Southern for instance in about 2003 made a profit of $200m and made a distribution (dividend) payment of I think $120m to shareholders.