Self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) in select states can hit their maximum balance through leveraged investments.
The specifics of this piece pertain to Australia but I feel it is also relevant to discussions worldwide about borrowing to invest within retirement accounts, as well as being a practical example of perspective informing position; how where you stand depends on what you see.
In September 2019 the Australian Tax Office (ATO) warned around 18,000 SMSF trustees in writing of penalties for maintaining an insufficiently diversified portfolio. 98% of these SMSFs had taken out non-recourse loans to invest in property.
Superannuation funds are not allowed to borrow to invest except when they are. A niche industry of accountants, advisers, and financiers has grown around setting up structures to enable SMSFs to make geared investments.
And why not? An SMSF with a Sydney property owned outright would be half-way to meeting the $1.6m transfer balance cap. Why wouldn't you want to juice property returns with leverage and concessional tax rates?
An important aside: this is really only a Sydney-Melbourne thing. The relative affluence of Sydneysiders and Melburnians is due to the property values in those capital cities. They enjoy slightly more financial wealth than Australians elsewhere but carry correspondingly higher debt.
Back to the ATO's warning. Your opinion, I think, depends on whether you focus on the form, substance, or purpose of superannuation.
If you view superannuation substantively as a tax-efficient way to invest in the form of a separately regulated legal entity then the ATO risks strangling innovation through heavy-handed enforcement of prudence.
On the other hand, if your focus is the historical purpose of superannuation as a deferred supplement to aged welfare then you're probably wondering why the ATO hasn't thrown the book at a scheme that upends the priority of longevity over gains and risks making that supplement negative.
Ultimately, the analogy of putting eggs in one basket is imperfect. It's more like borrowing eggs to fill an immobile basket, chained to the fortunes of one locale. Perhaps those drastic but selective gains are better achieved outside your super fund.
The specifics of this piece pertain to Australia but I feel it is also relevant to discussions worldwide about borrowing to invest within retirement accounts, as well as being a practical example of perspective informing position; how where you stand depends on what you see.
In September 2019 the Australian Tax Office (ATO) warned around 18,000 SMSF trustees in writing of penalties for maintaining an insufficiently diversified portfolio. 98% of these SMSFs had taken out non-recourse loans to invest in property.
Superannuation funds are not allowed to borrow to invest except when they are. A niche industry of accountants, advisers, and financiers has grown around setting up structures to enable SMSFs to make geared investments.
And why not? An SMSF with a Sydney property owned outright would be half-way to meeting the $1.6m transfer balance cap. Why wouldn't you want to juice property returns with leverage and concessional tax rates?
An important aside: this is really only a Sydney-Melbourne thing. The relative affluence of Sydneysiders and Melburnians is due to the property values in those capital cities. They enjoy slightly more financial wealth than Australians elsewhere but carry correspondingly higher debt.
Back to the ATO's warning. Your opinion, I think, depends on whether you focus on the form, substance, or purpose of superannuation.
If you view superannuation substantively as a tax-efficient way to invest in the form of a separately regulated legal entity then the ATO risks strangling innovation through heavy-handed enforcement of prudence.
On the other hand, if your focus is the historical purpose of superannuation as a deferred supplement to aged welfare then you're probably wondering why the ATO hasn't thrown the book at a scheme that upends the priority of longevity over gains and risks making that supplement negative.
Ultimately, the analogy of putting eggs in one basket is imperfect. It's more like borrowing eggs to fill an immobile basket, chained to the fortunes of one locale. Perhaps those drastic but selective gains are better achieved outside your super fund.
Comments
Post a Comment