SMSF – A matter of self-interest
click to read more We are constantly barraged with calls for more regulation of the sector “for its own good” or warnings that, if something isn’t done, catastrophe lurks around the corner. Yet if you look at the facts, the system is healthy, provides good returns to members, makes prudent investment choices and is relatively low cost to administer.
go to site Now, I’m not saying an SMSF is right for everyone, it isn’t. You need decent balances to make it viable and the kind of person that can make good long term investment decisions while keeping meticulous paperwork. Not me in other words. There are many people it is just not a viable solution for. But for over 900,000 Australians in nearly 500,000 funds, it is.
my company Let’s look at the facts. For the three most recent years where performance has been measured SMSFs out performed both retail and industry funds. The average operating cost of an SMSF fell from 0.72% of assets in 2007 down to 0.57% in 2009 – less than average costs for either industry or retail funds1. With average assets of over $888,000 in 2009/10 (up from $475,000 in 2003/4) they exceed the average assts per member compared to other types of funds. Their rate of non-compliance at 2% is at around the same for other superannuation funds and the number of funds that fail in any one year is very small.
ip opzioni If the facts are so rosy then why the hullabaloo? In simple terms: “self-interest”. The large funds with, access to Government and the media, are worried about SMSFs not because they represent a systemic risk to the superannuation system but because of the risk they represent their own bottom line.
http://eminentreklambyra.se/?sisjandra=bin%C3%A4ra-optioner-fungerar&7ea=e8 Generally speaking, people setting up SMSFs are wealthy, older Australians with significant account balances. When they set up an SMSF they deprive large funds of those assets and the fees and commissions that go with them.
imp source It’s time that the retail and industry funds got called out on their blatant self-interest. Every time you hear certain bodies talking about the risks that SMSFs pose, or the need to impose new restrictions, ask yourself, is this really for the greater good or their own vested interests?
source link Government and regulators are equally to blame. While there have been no systemic abuse and no systemic failures, Government regulates like there has been, constantly imposing new restrictions on SMSFs as it fights to find ever more distant bogeymen that don’t exist in the real world.
follow site In the end, it comes down to self-interest. Are those in an SMSF better off serving the interests of big funds or themselves? In my view, as long as people know what they are doing when they are set up an SMSF, their own self-interest will ensure that the fund is run well and provides for their retirement needs.
http://www.mylifept.com/?refriwerator=bin%C3%A4re-optionen-funktioniert&0e5=d5 binäre optionen funktioniert Opinions expressed in the blog section of pubacct.org.au, including by IPA staff, are not necessarily those of the Institute of Public Accountants, unless otherwise stated.