Industry fund Club Plus Super is working on what could potentially be the next evolution of its direct investment option — property for members.
The fund launched member direct options for term deposits in March last year and fitted out its direct investment platform with S&P/ASX300 shares and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) earlier this month.
Club Plus chief executive Paul Cahill said the property option was in its "embryonic" stages due to a number of regulatory and logistical issues the fund had to work through, as well as the need for a third party to manage property assets and rental arrangements.
"It can be done but we've got to go through the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority on this — it's a whole new game for everyone," he said.
"You can't actually do it direct. It gets a bit clunky if your hot water system goes in the middle of the night in this property and the beneficial owner of it is actually the trustee.
"You have to bring a company in to sit as an intermediary — probably a Ray White working in conjunction with someone else to manage the rental side of it."
Cahill said the fund was assessing two options for members: members individually purchasing an investment property, or fractional ownership where a member could invest funds across a number of properties in conjunction with other investors.
"It's all good and well on paper — it's once you actually start getting down into the machinery that it gets a bit interesting," Cahill said.
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.