Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
subscribe to our newsletter
The 'risk' of SMSF borrowing

The 'risk' of SMSF borrowing

Try as they might, the economists and pundits representing the APRA funds and large fund managers cannot prove that borrowing by SMSFs is a problem.

The so-called ‘greater risks’ that are referred to are Clayton’s risks – those you have when you don’t have greater risk.

In a recent article in Mortgage Business’s sister-publication SMSF Adviser, one economist, in my opinion, has displayed a breathtaking lack of logic by stating firstly:

Advertisement
Advertisement

Others have looked at this, including the Reserve Bank, and tend to agree it [SMSF borrowing] is having a relatively small impact at the moment.

And then later in the same article:

But more importantly, to the extent that the property market is looking overheated, this strikes me as one area that should definitely be changed. It’s a no-brainer.

So something that’s having a small impact definitely needs to be changed? Sorry, but that statement is the no-brainer.

The article essentially relies on three arguments: namely, that borrowing by SMSFs could be a problem in the longer term because:
• it might affect the property market
• it might lead to people losing money, or (get this)
• it might lead to different outcomes for people in SMSFs than in APRA funds.

Why should borrowing be banned or restricted simply because it might affect the property market? Not only is such a possibility unproven and unmeasured, it flies in the face of our free market system that allows for such effects and gives to each investor the right to assess that issue for themselves.

Why should borrowing be banned or restricted simply because it might lead to people losing money? Will any large institution guarantee that if you have your super with them you will never lose money?

Why should borrowing be banned or restricted simply because it might lead to different outcomes for different super investors? Never heard this curious argument before. Don’t members of different retail super funds have different outcomes? Haven’t the industry funds run a successful advertising campaign for about 10 years telling us about the different outcomes that might occur if you invest in an industry fund with no fees as opposed to a retail fund with fees?

Effectively what is being said is: it’s not fair that the big funds can’t use borrowing and the SMSFs can, so let’s stop it.

Give me a break!

The APRA fund industry is doing all it can to stop SMSF borrowing and the SMSF sector should be more vocal in fighting back. We need to tell Joe and Matthias that we and our legion of over one million members of SMSFs will not sit back and be forced to put our money with expensive APRA funds just because the retail sector is miffed about the numbers of members they are losing to the more independent SMSF sector.

The 'risk' of SMSF borrowing
Peter Townsend, SMSF borrowing, APRA funds, risk,
mortgagebusiness

 

Latest News

ASIC has approved the brand change of a Western Australian-based lender, which according to the bank will help facilitate the national launc...

The government has launched a consultation on making industry codes, such as the ABA’s banking code, legally enforceable. ...

Home loan interest rates can rise 43 to 52 basis points on average once fixed rate terms end, unless borrowers proactively negotiate, a new ...

FROM THE WEB
podcast

LATEST PODCAST: Coalition government and CBA delays

Is enough being done to ensure responsible lending?