Agri schemes fail test
Less than one in ten agribusiness investment schemes on the market passed analysis by van Eyk Capital this year.
The subsidiary of van Eyk Research recommended only 5 out of the 73 tax-effective investment projects submitted to them last February.
Van Eyk Capital managing director David Marshall told yesterday's Advanced Taxation & Super Strategies conference that agribusiness will one day be a viable alternative asset class, however, there needs to be more balance for the industry to move forward.
He says of the 68 ASIC approved prospectuses which failed van Eyk's analysis, many are start-ups with no liquidity apart from generated cash flow.
Marshall says a balance between risk, reward and a sustainable business sector is required for a tax-effective investment or it can not be sustained in the long or even medium term.
The project's manager also comes under close assessment under van Eyk Capital's analysis, including technical skills and specific industry experience.
Marshall says he has spoken to many managers who don't have marketing knowledge or contacts in the industry. He says if management is not top quality, the tax scheme can be more easily attacked.
"A manager has got to have financial strength and a good reputation," he says.
Other tax-effective agribusiness investments failed to pass the growing location assessment, with the inability of gaining secured water one of the main problems.
Recommended for you
With wealth management M&A appetite only growing stronger, Business Health has outlined the major considerations for buyers and sellers to prevent unintended misalignment between the parties.
Industry body SIAA has said the falling number of financial advisers in Australia is a key issue impacting the attractiveness and investor participation of both public and private markets.
As advisers risk losing two-thirds of FUA during the $3.5 trillion wealth transfer, two co-founders underscore why fostering trust with the next generation is vital to retaining intergenerational wealth.
As advisers seek greater insights into FSCP determinations, what are the various options considered by the panel and can a decision be appealed?
