Australian Broker forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

ASFA calls for tighter SMSF controls

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 09 Jan 2013, 08:00 AM Agree 0
The relationship between mortgage brokers, accountants and real estate agents is "problematic" when it comes to SMSF clients, according to an ASFA submission to the Treasury
  • Country Broker | 09 Jan 2013, 09:12 AM Agree 0
    Oh Dear,
    Rhere are also commercial relationships between financial advisers and brokers.
    Tne statement that the loans are not regulated is a very grey area , if the trustee is corporate , it is clearly not regulated or if the property is commercial - not regulated.
    If the trustees of a fund are individuals and it is a RESI Investment , is it regulated or not under tghe NCCP . The commentary and oponions fails to address this issue.
    There is nothing wrong with a "one stop shop" so long as all commissions are revealed and all advisce is recorded.Real estate agents or buyers advocates are and can be a problem if they try and give advice care is needed here.
  • Allan Faint | 09 Jan 2013, 09:14 AM Agree 0
    maybe wrong but suspect the submitters are worried they are missing out on income
  • May | 09 Jan 2013, 09:32 AM Agree 0
    The Trustee of the SMSF is responsible for making their investment decisions. No matter what industry super funds try to argue, the SMSFs statistically have provided better returns than the so-called experts.
    Since setting up my SMSF I have not had negative returns due to poor performance and high fees.
    Who does the ASFA represent? Industry funds? Their concern is not for the members of the super funds but their own survival.
    It is clear they do not understand the current legislation that requires disclosure of commissions by mortgage brokers and any referral fees received by accountants. All the advisors are now under ASIC licensing and highly regulated.
    If the ASFA is so concerned about their members future retirement how do they explain my son's industry fund for hospitality REST which have been sending out a benefit statement of $0 yes ZERO balance for the last 5 years.
    The SMSF system and network of advisors who are experts and licensed in their field serve to provide 360 degree service to the SMSF trustee and this only serves to strengthen the investment decision advice. And we do not need further legislation to stop us from directly investing in a known property with known and assessable risks and returns rather than the fee-laden financial product based on property trusts with totally unknown properties.
    The ASFA should look to their advisors' lack of expertise in looking after their members funds instead of trying to cry foul because they are losing market share due to their own poor track record.
    Ultimately, it is my money, my retirement and I am totally responsible for it not some faceless super fund administrator offering some set options of percentages of totally unknown products.
  • Super funds are rip off | 09 Jan 2013, 09:50 AM Agree 0
    Currently I am with first state super, what it does is hold my money for few weeks before it is credited to my account. For these few weeks they sit on my money and reap reward imagine how much they are ripping off by doing this to every client. First state super is suppose to be best. Get out of them and take control with SMSF investment choice can be any.
  • Fan of May | 09 Jan 2013, 10:05 AM Agree 0
    Well said May, explained beautifully.
  • 1martym1 | 09 Jan 2013, 10:12 AM Agree 0
    The lady doth protest too much, methinks
  • Gibbo | 09 Jan 2013, 11:56 AM Agree 0
    Well done May and "we're done" with that issue.
  • Wayne | 09 Jan 2013, 01:12 PM Agree 0
    Well said May.

    The problem is that there will always be dodgy opperators out there who will take advantage of gullible people and no amount of regulation will prevent that. Certainly holding an AFSL won't, but Fund Managers will use this as an excuse to loby govt to make the changes to protect their incomes and the govt of the day, regardless of whom, will allow them to do it because that's how the system works.

    Sad really.
  • David | 09 Jan 2013, 03:55 PM Agree 0
    I'm sure I'm typical of the majority out there who are seeing appalling returns from retail, wholesale and industry Super Funds.

    I rolled $126k over in late 2006. Strangely enough, I hadn't received an update from my Planner since then. When I asked for an update late last year I was told my balance was now $96k. It seems my "Qualified" advisor was too scared to let me know this so the statements were never sent out. He also made no effort over 6 years to make recommendations of alternatives. No wonder so many are disillusioned and SMSF's are now making up around 40% of the market.

    I agree with May that the industry body is merely trying to protect their industry, which I would fully expect them to do. What I'm more scared about is the Unions pushing the current Government to tax SMSF's higher than Industry Funds. Sure, they don't want to lose funds under management but maybe if they made better investment decisions people wouldn't be so disillusioned.
  • Papery | 10 Jan 2013, 02:10 PM Agree 0
    Agree with May. I think the gist here is that if you are looking to move into SMSFs that you get good advice (pros & cons) & understand all the risks, beneits & ramifications especially if a borrrowing strategy is also being employed. The 'sales spin' needs to be balanced
Post a reply