SuperConcepts has revealed an analysis, based on 2,450 self-managed super funds (SMSF), which identified the top 10 exotic SMSF assets and why trustees typically invest in those assets.
Those were:
The most common exotic investments were split into two categories: “collectible” or “in-house assets”, with each of them having strict rules around how the assets should be treated.
Related News:
What Active Super’s greenwashing case can teach fund managers
ASFA launches financial crime initiative to keep Aussie savings ‘super safe’
The study described in-house assets as any asset subject to a loan or lease agreement with a related party or an investment in a related company or trust. SMSFs were not allowed to invest more than five per cent of its total fund assets in this category.
Additionally, some assets were specifically excluded from being an in-house asset, such as commercial property.
On the other hand, collectibles and personal use assets were a broader category that included artwork, jewellery, antiques, artefacts, coins medallions and bank notes, postage stamps and fist day covers, rare folios, manuscripts and books memorabilia, wine or spirits, cars, recreational boats, memberships of sporting or social clubs, and other assets used or kept primarily for person use or enjoyment.
According to the report, this category was characterised as the area where SMSF investment passion was on full display.
Simlarly to the first group, also collectibles are governed by a set of rules which included the following restrictions:
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.