Top broker weighs in on super debate

by Julia Corderoy20 Mar 2015
First home buyers should be able to dip into their superannuation to help buy a property if it is restricted to new housing, according to a leading broker.

John Manciameli, principal of Hunterwood Solutions, told Australian Broker that early access to superannuation to help buy property is a good thing if it goes hand-in-hand with housing supply.

“If it doesn’t address the supply issue then it shouldn’t be done, it is simple economics. If it isn’t restricted to purchasing new homes then it will increase demand while the stock remains the same, which will just create a price spike,” he said.

For most Australians, their house is their greatest asset, says Manciameli, so any initiative to help them get onto the property ladder is going to benefit them in the long run.

“Property is one of the greatest wealth generators; it’s a major pillar in increasing wealth for most Australians. 

“Super was designed in the first instance to help Australians avoid the pension and increase their wealth. There is some sense in helping first home buyers to get on the property ladder this way and increasing their wealth.”

However, Manciameli told Australian Broker there will need to be certain regulations enacted.

“There will need to be some caveats around it such as you have to pay it back in 15 years, we can only do it with coordinated efforts from the government – so releasing land – and, obviously, you’re only allowed to buy brand new so it allows supply to come into the equation.”

In an online poll conducted by Australian Broker, 56.6% of brokers said first home buyers should be able to access their superannuation for a home deposit while 32.1% said they should not be allowed. The remaining 11.3% said they were unsure.
 

COMMENTS

  • by Kym 20/03/2015 9:03:58 AM

    First Home Buyers dont have much in super anyway!

  • by Well informed 20/03/2015 9:19:46 AM

    I agree with the idea of permitting a first home buyer to dip into super to help buy their first home. However, I disagree with a lot of the comments from this broker.. Surely if the objective is to help first home buyers to get on the property rung, then why limit their opportunities to new property only? Sounds like comments from a property developer who has their own self interests at heart.. A retiree who owns their property will not require rent assistance from the government. Financially they will be far better off than the person who has rented their whole life and continues to do so in retirement. I don't believe their should be any requirement to "pay back" their own money drawn from super. This is ridiculous!! It is their money, and they have just moved it from one investment strategy to another.. Imposing requirements to "pay back" the money could cause hardship. In my opinion, this should be kept simple; release of monies controlled to ensure they are genuinely invested into property. Must be owner occupied for min 12 months commencing within 6 months of settlement (like FHOG). Allow a maximum withdrawal of 50% of the fund value at any time. Make it a one off shot, no second chances at it.

  • by Goodo 20/03/2015 9:20:47 AM

    When will people learn to stop artificially inflating the market. The Govt did it via 1st Home owner grants & stamp duty discounts to offset the introduction of GST. In their wisdom the included all property and hence just pushed prices higher.

    Stay out of the market and let it set its own level. As existing property gets more expensive, new housing become the comparatively cheaper option.