Stronger Super disadvantages SMSFs

self-managed-super-funds/government-and-regulation/SMSFs/industry-superannuation-funds/capital-gains-tax/SMSF/capital-gains/cooper-review/

10 October 2011
| By Damon Taylor |
image
image image
expand image

The banning of in-specie asset transfers, as announced within the latest Stronger Super reforms package, will disadvantage self-managed super funds (SMSFs) and expose them to greater costs and risks, according to Hewison Private Wealth.

John Hewison, CEO of Hewison Private Wealth, said while the proposed introduction of MySuper had been widely applauded, the ban of in-specie, off-market asset transfers for SMSF investors unfairly discriminated against self-managed super funds.

"The issue is that under the new reforms, SMSF investors have restrictions applied, but institutional and industry superannuation funds, which also use these transactions, are exempt," he said. "In addition, the ban will most likely impose additional brokerage costs on SMSF members and exposes their assets to greater risk, especially given current market volatility."

Hewison said that under the proposed reforms, SMSFs must now make these transactions through a recognised market, such as the Australian Stock Exchange.

"So using shares as an example, this means the investor must sell the asset on the share market, wait four days for trade to settle, transfer the cash into their super fund and rebuy the shares - taking up to a week to complete the transaction," Hewison said.

"Given the current market volatility, these measures are an unnecessary gamble for SMSF members which could impact the value of their assets in the process."

According to Hewison, the reforms follow the Cooper Review's speculation that SMSFs were using this type of transaction to minimise capital gains tax (CGT) by choosing the transfer date to coincide with a low price for the asset, most commonly publicly listed shares.

"But if this is a concern then it should apply equally to any entity, including individuals, trusts and companies that also commonly use this form of transaction - for instance, in lending shares to short sellers which it could be argued is market manipulation," he said.

"There is no logical reason to have singled out SMSFs, which are audited, when there is little evidence to suggest SMSFs are using in-specie transfers to avoid capital gains, and one could argue that institutional investors would have a far greater impact in this regard.

"This additional red tape goes against the grain of a simplified superannuation system, particularly when there are already systems in place to protect the integrity of self-managed super funds and auditors who should be trusted to do their job."

Homepage

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

The succession dilemma is more than just a matter of commitments.This isn’t simply about younger vs. older advisers. It’...

1 week 3 days ago

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

1 month ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

1 month 1 week ago

AMP has settled on two court proceedings: one class action which affected superannuation members and a second regarding insurer policies. ...

2 days 21 hours ago

ASIC has released the results of the latest adviser exam, with August’s pass mark improving on the sitting from a year ago. ...

1 week 5 days ago

The inquiry into the collapse of Dixon Advisory and broader wealth management companies by the Senate economics references committee will not be re-adopted. ...

2 weeks 5 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo