Another Lobbyist puts pen to paper Non-Recourse, this is just the start. I'm sure we will see the rollout forms being lost in the mail and sent back to the Super members to re fill the form because the full stop was missed at the end of the last sentence. Anything to keep their Master Super Fund from leaking their assets to the punters who actually want enough to semi-retire by 55 and can only do it with the power of gearing into property inside a SMSF.
With an 11.8% annual capital growth rate in residential property over the last 20 years in Australia, shifting your super up a couple of gears into a solid big city resi property will get you there faster than our friends in their plush suites receiving their 9% of investment monies every quarter to put into something that will more than likely not compund at 11.8% anyway.
Hello Pat thanks for your response. I have read both books your predecessor published, entitled; 1. tax battles and 2.trust magic. Both books are now part of my reference library that I have built up over the last 13 years.
I wrote a letter to the editor of the financial review last night in response to the self serving article that I mentioned in my previous post. This lobbying by the institutions and fund managers needs to be countered by SMSF investors by writting to their member of parliment with a copy to the minister whose portfolio includes super, I assume that is the treasurer but will check.
Because you are an advisor a protest letter by you alone would be viewed as somewhat self serving and that is why it is important that SMSF investors raise the issue and I would ask that you encourage your clients to speak up.
In the late 1990's when the retail super funds were telling porkies about how SMSF investors were rorting the system by setting up unit trusts to circumvent the gearing restriction in super I sat back and did nothing and was horrified when the negative gearing option was closed off.
As you pointed out in your post above the retail super industry is all about defending their turf. I have no problem with retail fund managers skiming off the cream of a super funds earnings if the individual is happy to park his investing brain with the retail crowd. I do have a major issue though when these retail sharks will manipulate government policy to deny SMSF investors the same privileges that they operate under.
The warrant gearing model that the government has allowed with limited recourse is a brilliant piece of legislation and it needs to be defended strongly.
When I have composed a letter to my member of federal parliament and the appropriate minister, I will set up another thread and post the correspondence and would appreciate other SMSF investors on this site to do the same. It is important that correspondence is seen to be from SMSF investors and not a form letter to obtain the maximum impact.
There is also an SMSF organization that represents self managed super interests and I will contact them. Not sure of their web address will do a search
