There’s no SMSF conspiracy

Hi Peter,

I totally disagree with what you’ve written. ASIC is extremely concerned about people being pushed into SMSFs by property spruikers and shonky accountants, and so they should be. Most people with SMSFs do not need them. To make it worse, they then email me all sorts of basic questions showing they have no idea of what they’re trying to do.

Maybe you could publicise the fact that the penalty for getting it wrong is 46.5% of the fund’s taxable assets at previous June 30. For example, if the fund had $2m in it, and half of that was taxable, the penalty would be $465,000.

Regards,

Noel Whittaker

A: Hi Noel,


Like you and ASIC, I am concerned about property spruikers and people with small balances going into property in SMSFs but you can't seriously argue that there is anything wrong with someone with $700,000 in super using $200,000 as a deposit and borrowing $200,000 to buy an investment property with the other $500,000 in shares, term deposits and cash? If there is please explain it to me.


By the way there are piles of stock spruikers, bond fund spruikers and adviser spruikers who lose piles of money for Aussies every downturn and where is ASIC then? Do I have to mention Storm? I wrote at least two stories on those so and so's in the Telegraph and ASIC did not even contact me!


Thanks for your feedback mate but I don't think SMSFs have to be afraid of manageable borrowings inside a fund just because of spruikers. As I say, if you think you can set me straight I am always happy to listen to someone like you.


One last thing John Symond and Matt Comyn, head of retail at CBA, say the loans to SMSFs are small despite what newspapers say and I reckon they'd know.


Read Noel's response here.



Read Answer