Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
  • subs-bellGet the latest news! Subscribe to the ifa bulletin

Banks to blame for SMSF gearing call

David Murray’s suggestion to ban limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs) reflects the influence of political lobbyists working for the major banks, says a director of the AIOFP.

Speaking to ifa, Michael Pinn said the FSI recommendation to ban direct borrowing by SMSFs is the result of the push by the banks to have greater control over investment choice, to the detriment of retail investors.

“Lobbying by institutions and vested interests continue to impact policy recommendations,” said Mr Pinn, who also heads up a Sydney-based financial advice and accounting firm.

“SMSFs were barred from using margin loans and other debt finance to purchase equities [and] now the same vested interests want to ban properly structured debt finance in direct property.

“The common theme seems to be that SMSF trustees – mums and dads – are either too dumb or too sneaky to be trusted with managing their own money.”

Mr Pinn said institutions and other vested interests are opposed to LRBAs because they have an underlying agenda to direct funds into “buying instalment warrants, investing in geared equities where someone else controls the money or some other more costly structure”, all of which generate revenue for these interests.

While the AIOFP director did concede there is legitimate need for “constructive guidelines and better education” on the issue, he said there was no evidence to suggest there is anything wrong with “properly structured geared investments”.

He added that an “independent adviser without vested interests” would be likely to raise a number of important issues with a client including the plausibility of negative gearing and tax considerations before advising them to gear into property in their SMSF.

The comments come as law firm Gadens issued a communication also condemning the FSI call to ban SMSF borrowing.

“Banning the ability for SMSFs to use leverage to build wealth inside the fund is likely to be a disincentive to the establishment of SMSFs, resulting in reduced competition and associated downward pressure on fees,” said partners Amber Warren and Jon Denovan in the document.

Comments (12)

avatar
Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
The maximum file size for uploads is 10MB. Only gif,jpg,png files are allowed.
 
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
Posting as
  • <p>1)It is more than likely the lobbying is coming from the big industry funds<br>2)One of the main reasons people buy property in super is to get leverage as they can only contribute $25-$35K (age dependant) into super every year. This is a ridiculous amount and will leave many people short with funds to retire on. If they ban borrowing then the contribution amount must be significantly raised to compensate.<br>3)In every asset class there are good buys and bad buys (Babcock and Brown anyone?) and property is no different, trustees much research and get as much advice as possible before committing to a property. <br>4)There probably needs to be more regulation around this issue, but an overall ban on leverage smacks of lobbying from the shadows<br>5)Just because an ex-banker delivers a report doesnt make it fact, think the previous government and the Henry report, bugger all of that report made it into the real world.</p>
    0
  • <p>You can check the SMSD stats at from the ATO at. <br><br><a href="www.ato.gov.au/Super/Self-managed-super-...-2014/?page=2#Tables" rel="nofollow">www.ato.gov.au/Super/S...</a></p>
    0
  • <p>Hi DFS: According to a recent survey by Investment Trends, 40% of new SMSF trustees are setting up SMSFs so they can buy property.</p>
    0
  • <p>This is not ANOTHER UNDERHAND SHOT as SMSF,s.<br>It is recognising a practice that does have a downside and needs cautous planning.<br><br>We probably are all in the SMSF sector but some of our risk profiles are drastically different.</p>
    0
  • <p>You talk to any property fund manager or anyone who has been to an auction lately and they will confirm that it is the massive influx of money from China that is inflating our property prices. The amount LRBA property purchases by SMSFs pales into insignificance compared to this. Just another underhanded shot at SMSFs.</p>
    0
  • <p>The real problem with SMSF with small balances is the extravagant accounting and audit fees charged by accountants Imagine the additional complexity in a LBRA. In addition to an audit fee and accounting fees and asic fees and other fees, the fees in running a smsf can easily be $5,000pa. On a fund that has $100k in equity thats 5%pa. If the client is only making 5% income net from property thats all their income going in fees. Investing in a Wrap account or small APRA fund looks cheap in comparison.<br> There has been absolutely no discussion on IFA about the rip off fees being charged by accountants and there needs to be. A lot of small investors are getting burned by these high fees charged by accountants</p>
    0
  • <p>Having worked with Finance, real estate and FP&amp;#039s over the last few years I would say there is equal blame to go around. The banks have certainly made it easy. Just look how many are offering LBRA solutions and how many Finance Brokers offering finance and how many SMSF have been established. The biggest growth has been in younger people with small balances taking it on themselves to set up a SMSF to buy property. These have been done WITHOUT input from a Financial Planner who have told them they need at least $200k. <br><br>The big problems are going to come when the Trustees lose their jobs, and can&amp;#039t meet the commitments. Next year is going to be tough for all concerned particularly with the drop in commodity prices. Historically A recession usually follows. A lot of people who bought off the plan probably paid too much. If they have to sell property in a SMSF they will probably use all their equity. The banks won&amp;#039t care and the real estate agents will get another commission.</p>
    0
  • <p>anyone got any idea of the total number of SMSF&amp;#039s that have been set up with the sole purpose of buying residential property through a LRBA?</p>
    0
  • <p>I&amp;#039m sorry but the claims of this nut just defy logic. Banks are in the business of lending money first and foremost. Lending to SMSF is a nice market that has opened up to them during pretty lean times in other areas especially business finance. Wealth management is important but more peripheral to the major operations of a bank. The suggestion that they would be lobbying for a ban on limited recourse borrowing is a claim developed in outer space by Mr Pinn. This does nothing for the credibility with AIOFP.</p>
    0
  • <p>SMSF&amp;#039s borrowing engaging in LRBA&amp;#039s has been the road to wealth by Banks, real estate agents and sprukers. Most bank (if not all) require trustees to act as guarentors for the loans and charge large fees and higher interest rates on the loans. I would welcome borrowing in super to be abolished.</p>
    0