Don’t tamper with SMSF model

4 February 2010
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

Peter Townsend

Reform to self-managed super funds (SMSF) could cause greater complications in the sector, according to Townsend Business & Corporate Lawyers principal Peter Townsend.

In his response to the Cooper Review's examination of the SMSF industry and the issues surrounding the self-management of funds, Townsend stressed the importance of maintaining the status quo by continuing to allow all members to have a say in how a fund is run. However, he did highlight the need for trustees to be better educated about what to look out for when managing a fund.

In its review into the superannuation system, Phase III of the Cooper Review asked whether the current trust model is appropriate for SMSFs and if the model worked effectively for single-member SMSFs. It also asked whether the responsibilities of SMSF trustees for managing their funds' affairs should be less onerous than for trustees of super funds regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Association.

Responding the points 17.1 and 17.2 of the Cooper Review inquiry, Townsend said questions raised about the current SMSF model and the responsibilities held by members and trustees should not be changed.

"The member also being trustee is a sound model and it works. Look at the excellent compliance figures for SMSFs. Self-managed super is designed for closely-held groups — families, in fact. Rather than set a numerical limit, self-managed super should be available to all members of a family who want to operate their super together. All members should be trustees and have an equal say in how the fund is operated."

Townsend added that any changes to the current model could prove detrimental and cause problems in the long term. He questioned the merit of making SMSFs more complicated to run by having some members who are just members. This would likely make life harder for the adviser, and it could lead to more legal action from members who are not consulted about decisions made for the fund. It would also mean that some family members could dominate others in the fund."

Townsend added that while the current model worked well, trustees should be better educated about what they need to do when it comes to managing super funds, and what they should be looking for in a professional adviser. But he warned that the focus should not be to turn trustees into superannuation experts. Instead, the onus should be on placing them in a better position to choose quality advisers.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest developments in Super Review! Anytime, Anywhere!

Grant Banner

From my perspective, 40- 50% of people are likely going to be deeply unhappy about how long they actually live. ...

11 months ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

11 months 1 week ago
Anthony Asher

No doubt true, but most of it is still because over 45’s have been upgrading their houses with 30 year mortgages. Money ...

11 months 1 week ago

Deloitte Access Economics has raised concerns about the government’s recent changes to the Future Fund’s investment mandate, questioning the necessity and implications of...

9 hours ago

The APRA chair has confirmed the need to build resistance to geopolitical shocks as opposed to shying away from global participation....

9 hours 32 minutes ago

An industry body has praised the strong backing from institutional investors for Australia’s transition to renewable energy....

9 hours 45 minutes ago