The tax office this morning released its quarterly SMSF statistical report for June 2015.
As part of the release of the new report, the June 2014 quarter estimates for assets held by SMSFs under LRBAs have been revised from $9.3 billion to $15.1 billion.
According to the ATO, the increase in the estimates can be attributed to some growth in the use of LRBAs by SMSFs and “improved data collection” through the new SMSF annual return.
However, the ATO cannot distinguish between these two factors.
“There’s two reasons for the revision. One of them is natural growth in the industry in this area, but the other one is because we just two years prior to this made a very significant change in the way we collect information. And we’ve been working with the industry to report better to us,” an ATO spokesperson told SMSF Adviser.
“So there’s a mixture of natural growth and a mixture of the industry better reporting their holdings to the ATO.
“We revise figures for the past as we get more and more information. So with the June 2014 figures, we now basically have 98 per cent of the annual returns that we’re going to get. We have the actual data for the first time for that year. So the actual data is telling us the figure of [$15.1 billion].”
The ATO estimates SMSF assets held under LRBAs equal approximately $15.6 billion as at June 2015, representing 2.6 per cent of total assets held by SMSFs.
This report is the 35th in the ATO’s series of SMSF quarterly statistical reports about the SMSF industry, with the quarterly SMSF statistical report for the September 2015 quarter expected to be released in late November.
More to come.
You will also note that it is the value of the assets under LRBA, not the amount of the borrowing. Virtually all of mine have an LVR of less than 50%, so if this was representative throughout the industry, it will represent approx. 1.3% of total assets. Not even statistically relevant.
Who cares? Maybe lobbyists for large funds who’ll make alarmist claims aimed solely at trying to keep members in their funds.
If I have a negatively geared property in my own name and my SMSF just holds cash and shares I have the same assets building up for retirement – so why don’t these large funds complain about negative gearing in general? It doesn’t affect them.