On Thusdays Lateline on ABC television a spokeswoman for the Australian Super Industry stated that SMSF could bring down the Australian economy as some $400B was invested in them. She mentioned that the housing and share market were particularly at risk. The government may well target SMSF at the next budget. What do you think? Regards Errol43
I think the super fund industry is running scared. Would love to see the stats, but I suspect there has been a massive withdrawl out of retail/industry super funds and into SMSFs.
Sounds like a hokey proposal to me.... any reasoning behind her argument ? Recent analysis's (?) (Fin Review) of SMSF investment classes (Art, collectibles, classic cars) etc showed that they've performed on average better then their industry equivalents.
This from Sept 2009: http://www.supersystemreview.gov.au...mary_smsf/SMSF_statistical_summary_report.pdf p.2: SMSF have $332bn of assets, which is 30.9% of all super. Annual Growth rate is 20%, compared with 8% for APRA funds. So that figures, 332bn + 20% = approx 400bn. IMHO what is at risk is the annual bonuses of the crooks running the retail/industry funds.
I think I should pay more attention before starting new threads Here is the transcript http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/201104/s3192002.htm You can watch the video on ABC iview but its not working at the moment
I certainly don't like the cut of this ladies jib when she says people should have a minimum before they start looking into SMSFs and forced diversification into what? realestate? banks? no thank you. I can't wait to find out what she thinks should be the minimum amount? 500k?
I called Australian Super yesterday, and the first thing that you get is a recorded message asking you to sign up for a petition to increase super to a mandatory 12 percent. Of course they don't mention that most people under 50 will never see their super, it will have been given to the banksters as bailout before then, and the fact that employers will start shedding staff with the extra cost. Not much use being entitled to 12% super when you haven't got a job, or if your hours have been cut because of it. Super used to be a good thing, but it's time is over due to the GFC, it is a deep trough of money waiting to be sucked up by the criminal bankers and their politician poodles. Just ask the Irish how their super funds are going. Earlier this year Gillard said that she wanted to give the banks access to the Australian Super pool. looking after the blue collar workers eh?
From a super perspective: If you invest in shares, or managed funds, or have it sitting in cash, these are all financial instruments that can be controlled and taken away (to an extent). If you have it in cold, hard PMs, that are in your possession .... well, the banksters getting control of this is going to be a lot harder.
But to quote quite a few people - how do you create an income stream with just PMs? Without an income stream - and I know that may be considered rentier capitalism but is it simply savings you want in retirement (in which case you savings are at the mercy of the metal suppressions) or do you want to use your savings to make money but supporting the process of capitalism (e.g loans for good works etc) For no religious reason: So if you believe we are returning to silver monetisation - as per a dinari a day for the workers - then hoard PMs, or if not, as my jewish friend often says: Jesus saves. Moses invests.
How do you create an income stream? You sell your PMs and buy a house/houses or stocks once they become attractive again.
Just watched the clip, Hate how the woman suggests we should diversity into 2,3,4 asset classes within SMSF. Well I have diversified into 2, Gold and Silver. What about those that just have a sole investment property into their SMSF. To even mention we should have a minimum before we can setup SMSF is ridiculous. I can see more stringent changes coming in, the big funds are struggling as there is probably a run slowly happening as more people bail. Slam
Can't see it happening for a while if the Cooper Review recommendations are anything to go by, see Part 2 Chapter 8, although there seems to be some scope for minor changes. But if the Gov't commissions another review in the future it would be worthwhile keeping a close eye on it.