The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has identified eight red flags which would make it ‘extremely unlikely’ for an investor to gain any advantage from using self-managed super funds (SMSFs) and warned that Australian investors who consider this option should be aware of the potential downside to such a strategy.
The regulator said that SMSFs might be an attractive option for only those investors who wished to have more control over their superannuation investment strategy and who had real skill, care and diligence to manage it.
According to ASIC, SMSFs were not an appropriate investment option for people who wanted a simple superannuation solution and who had a low level of financial literacy.
The remaining potential red flags, identified by ASIC, included:
ASIC Commissioner Danielle Press said, “ASIC believes that consumers are all too well aware of the potential benefits that might stem from using a SMSF, but are not equally alive to the considerable risks and responsibilities that come with the deal.
“SMSFs are not for everyone simply because not everyone can meet the significant time, costs, risks and obligations associated with establishing and running one.”
According to the Australian Tax Office figures, as at 30 June 2019, there were 599,678 SMSFs in Australia holding nearly $748 billion in assets, making total assets held in SMSFs larger than those in either industry ($719 billion) or retail ($626 billion) funds.
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.