Picking on the wrong guys again... Anti SMSF agenda.

Shaddam IV

Shaddam IV

Well-Known Member
Silver Stacker
So it's OK to allow foreign investors to walk in and simply buy residential properties as they wish, but it is a danger to the economy for Australians to buy property with their self managed super funds? There is definitely a bit of class warfare and spin going on here.

SELF-MANAGED superannuation funds (SMSFs) that take out ever-larger property loans in search of rapid financial gains could risk the country's financial stability, the Reserve Bank of Australia has warned.

In its twice-yearly financial health check for the nation, the central bank highlighted an increase in household risk-taking off the back of record-low interest rates, especially by SMSFs, and reminded banks that it was giving heightened scrutiny to their lending standards.

"Changes to legislation in recent years have permitted superannuation funds, including SMSFs, to borrow for investment, for example to purchase property [and] since then, property holdings by SMSFs have increased and this type of investment strategy is being heavily promoted," the Reserve Bank said.

- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...y-e6frg926-1226726855272#sthash.kaDsSKNX.dpuf
Click to expand...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...rate-environment/story-e6frg926-1226726855272


.
 
It's a bit of a slippery slope. There are many variables involved in this new trend in using your SMSF to purchase property. To be able to advise people to take this course you have to have an Australian Financial Services License and a lot of so called "advisers" are not. This puts people in a high risk situation. Not only that, this raises the property investment figures causing property prices to rise.
Currently there isn't much regulation on this sort of super investment and the sprukers are cashing in on the opportunities
 
elninjo said:
It's a bit of a slippery slope. There are many variables involved in this new trend in using your SMSF to purchase property. To be able to advise people to take this course you have to have an Australian Financial Services License and a lot of so called "advisers" are not. This puts people in a high risk situation. Not only that, this raises the property investment figures causing property prices to rise.
Currently there isn't much regulation on this sort of super investment and the sprukers are cashing in on the opportunities
Click to expand...

As someone who has had an SMSF since the early 1990's with a unit trust that holds properties in it, 100% owned by our SMSF I have listened to this garbage for over 20 years.

This hatred of SMSF's owning property is driven by the broking houses share broking carpet baggers and their criminal mates the industry union thugs , the retail reptiles, the financial planners whose RG146 training gives them enough financial nous to put on a postage stamp.

What a joke lets go back to the GFC and remember how the financial indusry raped the vast majority of Australians who were not in SMSF's.

The slippery slope is the financial industry greasing up the poor sheeple so they can really ream the next generation out of their super like they did with 80% of the boomers.

Owning Commercial/retail property in an SMSF that is sensibly hedged using gold and silver bullion will ensure that when the barbarians are at your draw bridge... its up and your moat of liquidity will ensure your retirement generating assets continue to allow you live off your golden years


Kind Regards
non recourse
 
+1. Nothing wrong with leverage in SMSFs. Just don't get suckered into over leveraged shite by spruikers (like, say, 2-3% yielding Sydney residential property). If you are likely to get suckered, don't operate an SMSF.
 
nonrecourse said:
elninjo said:
It's a bit of a slippery slope. There are many variables involved in this new trend in using your SMSF to purchase property. To be able to advise people to take this course you have to have an Australian Financial Services License and a lot of so called "advisers" are not. This puts people in a high risk situation. Not only that, this raises the property investment figures causing property prices to rise.
Currently there isn't much regulation on this sort of super investment and the sprukers are cashing in on the opportunities
Click to expand...

As someone who has had an SMSF since the early 1990's with a unit trust that holds properties in it, 100% owned by our SMSF I have listened to this garbage for over 20 years.

This hatred of SMSF's owning property is driven by the broking houses share broking carpet baggers and their criminal mates the industry union thugs , the retail reptiles, the financial planners whose RG146 training gives them enough financial nous to put on a postage stamp.

What a joke lets go back to the GFC and remember how the financial indusry raped the vast majority of Australians who were not in SMSF's.

The slippery slope is the financial industry greasing up the poor sheeple so they can really ream the next generation out of their super like they did with 80% of the boomers.

Owning Commercial/retail property in an SMSF that is sensibly hedged using gold and silver bullion will ensure that when the barbarians are at your draw bridge... its up and your moat of liquidity will ensure your retirement generating assets continue to allow you live off your golden years


Kind Regards
non recourse
Click to expand...

Well that is partially my point in relation to the financial services industry. Guaranteed weekly rental amounts (that cant delivered), brokerage fees for the service in the vicinity of $8000 and on top of that an additional $30,000 commissions on the sale and trail income for the life of the loan............Let the buyer beware you say? Sure I do too but you would not believe how many smucks don't look past the prize. Those are the ones that fail and are left with no super at all for retirement. You don't think that needs regulating?
 
Definitely doesn't need Government forced regulation. We already have far too much of that w.r.t. property, money and super. Yet more regulation won't solve anything and will just create other problems.
 
bordsilver said:
Definitely doesn't need Government forced regulation. We already have far too much of that w.r.t. property, money and super. Yet more regulation won't solve anything and will just create other problems.
Click to expand...

What sort of problems? I cant see how it could make the current manifestation any worse with regulation. So we just simply leave it the way it is do we? There are brokers out there who have financial services licenses who engage in helping people achieve these purchases regardless of the ramification to the investor. I think you really miss the point here. First I am not talking regulation on investments in this area I am talking regulation of the financial services industry. Did you not get that?

And no I personally dont see that the door is going to be closed on property investment with SMSF. What will happen, and its only a matter of time is the financial services industry will have further education and regulations place on them to ensure that the unsuspecting dont get taken for a ride. This is not a small thing here. Unless you are working in the industry or been burned by it(and clearly those who have commented are/have not) then you have no idea of the exploitation that is happening.

The current media comentary on this issue is not about closing the door of investors but rather regulating the industry.
 
Yet more pages of legislation on areas already with thousands of pages of legislation won't necessarily solve the problems and will just have unintended consequences.

For example, take the view that the global financial crisis was caused by a lack of regulation. This ignores the fact that there was already an abundance of regulation governing the banking and finance sector in the United States, and, indeed, globally.

Certainly, in the aftermath of the crisis, a batch of new international banking regulations have been implemented, most notably the Basel III accords. But it is rarely pointed out there was a Basel I and a Basel II. Each of these were substantial regulatory frameworks themselves.

Indeed, it has been argued that the perverse incentives created by Basel II's capital requirements (which encouraged banks to hoard AAA-rated mortgage backed securities) were one of the major causes of the crisis in the first place.

Other regulations administered by the American Securities and Exchange Commission protected the private ratings agencies - which granted the AAA grades - from competition. It gets worse. Jeffrey Friedman convincingly argued in Cato Policy Journal in 2009 that not even the SEC knew about this latter regulation, which it itself had imposed in 1975.

If there are too many regulations for even the regulators to keep track, then our problem isn't too little regulation.

The Australian monetary system is extremely biased with many perverse effects because of regulation. The Australian property market has a plethora of unnecessary regulations and legislation around all facets of developing, buying, selling, renting, owning and financing that artificially increase the cost of property substantially. When combined with the very large amount of legislation from the tax system and the monetary system, the distortions associated with property are immense. And then let's throw the already very highly legislated super into the mix and the future side effects from yet more nips and tucks will largely be unknown except in hindsight.
 
elninjo said:
Well that is partially my point in relation to the financial services industry. Guaranteed weekly rental amounts (that cant delivered), brokerage fees for the service in the vicinity of $8000 and on top of that an additional $30,000 commissions on the sale and trail income for the life of the loan............Let the buyer beware you say? Sure I do too but you would not believe how many smucks don't look past the prize. Those are the ones that fail and are left with no super at all for retirement. You don't think that needs regulating?
Click to expand...

So who are you suggesting regulate it. Our gubermint ? Our fearless employees of the state? Those ham fisted twits at ASIC who couldn't read a balance sheet to save themselves and think that cash flow is something that business people do when they cheat and don't pay their "fair" share :rolleyes:

Kind Regards
non recourse
 
The truth is the property market has gotten where it is because of government meddling.
If you removed that meddling, it would quickly fall on its arse, causing some big damage to SMSFs with property in their portfolio.
I'm more concerned that we just let Chinese investors in here to buy up the place. To prop up the retirement of Australians through property investment is one thing, but to do it for a nation of 1.5 billion people as well? No thanks.
 
Earthjade said:
The truth is the property market has gotten where it is because of government meddling.
If you removed that meddling, it would quickly fall on its arse, causing some big damage to SMSFs with property in their portfolio.
I'm more concerned that we just let Chinese investors in here to buy up the place. To prop up the retirement of Australians through property investment is one thing, but to do it for a nation of 1.5 billion people as well? No thanks.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
Earthjade said:
The truth is the property market has gotten where it is because of government meddling.
If you removed that meddling, it would quickly fall on its arse, causing some big damage to SMSFs with property in their portfolio.
Click to expand...
+1

Earthjade said:
I'm more concerned that we just let Chinese investors in here to buy up the place. To prop up the retirement of Australians through property investment is one thing, but to do it for a nation of 1.5 billion people as well? No thanks.
Click to expand...
-100. 1.5 billion Chinese do not want to buy here and even if they did there is no way that "we'd" be propping up their retirement through their property investment. Utterly ridiculous notion.
 
You really don't read for comprehension, do you? The use of hyperbole is not meant to be taken literally.
But the fact is Australian property is an attractive investment for wealthy Chinese. While this may be good for those with property as they inflate the bubble more, it's not good for anyone that actually just wants a property to live in. In the end, they'll just make the bubble pop harder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top