Comments

• Victor | 22:03:12

  As a representative of a wrap-account provider (that is not owned or controlled by a bank), I can confirm that we have a number of SMSF clients who happily use the investment version of our product to manage part or all of their SMSF investment portfolio. Our online functionality makes it easier for investors to choose and manage their investments (including share trading) and it is available 24 hours a day. Our consolidated tax reporting also keeps the accountants happy at the end of each financial year. On the topic of investment choice, we offer over 250 managed funds across numerous asset classes as well as ASX-listed securities (including ETF options) through our Direct Share Choice option. On the topic of fees, our product has a capped admin fee for balances over $500,000. And if you were to combine this with our fee aggregation facility (i.e. linking family accounts), you will not collectively pay more than this maximum fee. The maximum admin fee on our product is $3,500 p.a. for clients wanting access to managed funds and direct shares. Admittedly we do not offer access to illiquid assets such as unlisted or business real property, but for the majority of investors, access to direct shares and managed funds is sufficient to more than achieve their retirement goals (with the right advice). So I tend to agree with Matt on his article based on what is appropriate for the MAJORITY of investors. I guess my main point is that retail super funds are not out to bleed their members dry and we offer a great deal of investment choice and online flexibility. As a final thought, if you MUST have a SMSF but it is not desirable or possible for you to be the trustee of your own fund, it may be worth considering a small APRA fund (SAF). Typically it has all the makings of an SMSF (including the ability to add business real property to your portfolio) but the trustee responsibility is borne by a professional corporate trustee. SAFs may be suitable for investors who feel that they do not fully understand the responsibilities of being a trustee or cannot be a trustee due to bankruptcy or non-residency for example.Thanks for your article Matt. There is a lot of hype about the virtues of SMSFs and it is good to stimulate some debate.

• Kimberley | 22:03:12

  Not sure I agree it's balanced when you start the article with why you DON'T need a SMSF . Whilst I agree there are pitfalls and some funds permit you to choose your specific investments, having an SMSF provides FAR greater control. Name me one fund manager whom I can ring in the middle of the night to get my exact portfolio value, calculate the gains and losses including CGT and instruct them to sell / buy shares but only if the trading opens at a certain price. There is far more control in being able to immediately place a buy or sell order directly with the broker and see it being filled within two minutes than there is sending an email or fax to a fund manager who may or may not be staring at their email / fax machine and who may or may not have a coffee break before placing my order. On top of that, the fund manager then charges me to key the exact same things I can key myself plus I have to pay his fees regardless of whether he makes me any money! I have been running my own SMSF for five years now and can assure you, if I can do it anyone can. I don't have any accountancy experience, I'm not a financial advisor or even a basic bank teller; in fact, I have trouble working out all the buttons on my TV remote control. But with a bit of patience, it is relatively easy to read the ATO and other website's publications and run your own super. I think you do the average person a great disservice by stating they DON'T need an SMSF perhaps if you had written MAY NOT NEED , I would have more respect for your opinion.

• Preety | 22:03:12

  Matt I found your article an interesting read but I'm afraid that I have to agree with Kat for much the same reasons. I've had an SMSF for approx 5 years and after being regularly done over by the existing funds which handled my workplace super before retirement I can honestly say the SMSF route has proved more beneficial to me.1 Access is easier, 2 If you get a good accountant to organise the necessary compliance audits it is much more reasonable from a cost point of view. I've had very fancy companies doing the audits initially (mainly due to being the new kid on the block) as a safeguard but it wasn't good value for money and caused me a lot of extra unnecessary work. They forgot that I was the customer and assumed that I worked for them despite giving them very detailed account information and paperwork. Not a good outcome I'm afraid.There are good people out there to do compliance auditing so I would suggest that people check them out on a regular basis to keep the situation competitive. Overall SMSF has been a good experience for me despite some of the pitfalls and a bit of a learning curve along the way. The Henry report may change this a little but that remains to be seen.