In the submission, published last week, ISA said that data indicates most SMSFs are poorly diversified, with approximately two thirds having an “overwhelming” majority of assets in either high-risk assets or low-risk assets.
According to Reece Agland, manager of superannuation products and services at Superannuation Australia, a wholly-owned subsidiary of “not-for-profit” lobby group Taxpayers Australia, ISA “deliberately misled” the FSI about diversification in SMSF investment.
“Once more we see the ISA attacking SMSFs because it is concerned at the flow out of the industry fund sector into the self-managed sector,” said Mr Agland.
“The ISA makes out the fact that some SMSFs are largely invested in safe investments as a bad thing, as if all superannuation funds must have the same investment strategy,” he added.
“If you are in retirement phase or near retirement phase, as many SMSF members are, it makes sense to invest in low-risk investments. This is the optimal investment strategy to protect your income. This is a good thing, not a bad thing,” he said.
Taxpayers Australia also stated that ISA fails to mention its funds also now allow people more choice in their investment options, and include both high-risk, high-return options and low-risk, low-return options.
“It is hypocritical of the ISA to complain that SMSFs can invest in either high-risk or low-risk investments when their member funds allow the same risk taking within an industry fund,” Mr Agland said.
“Should industry funds be banned from making such options if they are such a risk? Of course not. The investment strategy needs to better match the needs of each individual member and this can best be done in a SMSF,” he added.
John G,
Well said , yes all groups need to understand it is the client’s money and nobody elses. ISN is bleeding and will continue to bleed as the have a very cyclops view of the whole advice industry. Interesting to note the fees their advisers charge clients for advice though.
I am in my late 70’s retired & sometimes have 20/80 & all the way to 80/20 in risky/safe investments. All depending on how much time I want to spend on net or studying & how volatile markets are(& to an extent the size of my pot).Icouldn’t afford to do this & sleep @ night any way other than with a SELF managed super fund. After all it’s MY money & Help is not cheap! Those with ulterior motives should Rack Off!
Personally, I look forward to the day the Industry Super Fund sector are required to give members the same options to pay for financial advice as public offer funds do.
I.e. to allow members to pay their financial adviser for their services via their industry fund super – be it fee for service or AUM-based.
Has seemed ridiculous to me that this ‘closed-shop’ arrangement has been allowed to operate this long.
I believe there should be an enquiry into industry super funds and as with the unions I believe they will find much to be angry about. People I have met who worked for industry super funds have some interesting stories to tell. Why is it Australian super can run an anti public offer super fund campaign yet the public offer super funds don’t play the blame game. I am waiting for the day that industry super funds come under the same laws and rules as all other super funds.
A change of government has changed the tone of the articles in every news medium. They are now holding ISA to account, only because that is what the government is doing. To me this shows the lack of real reporting and the regurgitating of the rubbish that is produced by the government. So much rubbish printed. I would like to take copies of each report just to show how wrong these people were in the past.
Deliberately misled? Is that all? During the FoFA and MySuper PJC hearings they lied – said group commissions have “100% upfront commissions”.
We must understand, the ISA is above the law!