Having heard that a number of stackers hold PMs in their SMSF, I was wondering if there was a dominant reason that people did so, especially given that it is arguable that holding them in a SMSF opens such investments up to more scrutiny due to regulation and audits. Do people hold them in a SMSF for: a) Asset segregation; b) Because their SMSF is the vehicle which had most funds available; c) Perceived privacy; d) Because I don't want that bitch/bastard of a spouse to get their lousy hands on it; e) To separate investments for retirement; f) Any other reason. Zargor
maybe this is a little off-topic, but you don't necessarily have to have an SMSF to have exposure to precious metals in your super fund. I'm a loooong way away from the point that would make it worthwhile to have a SMSF, but my super provider allows you to purchase a ASX listed entities up to a certain percentage of your fund balance, so I have positions in ETPMPM (an exchange traded fund that represents a basket of precious metals - gold, silver, platinum and palladium), and ETPMAG (an exchange traded fund that tracks the price of silver). I know it's not quite the same as physical, but physical isn't really an option for me in my super fund at this stage so it's the next best thing.
Insurance.. against inflation and against having too much allocated to shares in case they fall hard. now people say that during 08 GFC gold price fell.....look at aud/gold during that period to march 09...australian perspective is slightly different to US in my opinion.
1. For a higher return than most of the traditional funds have been achieving. 2. For security against any untoward collapse of the system. 3. Personal control vs another entity having control over your future retirement funds.
