X
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact
Get the latest news! Subscribe to the SMSF Adviser bulletin
  • News
    • Money
    • Education
    • Strategy
  • Webcasts
  • Features
  • Events
  • Podcasts
  • Promoted Content
No Results
View All Results
  • News
    • Money
    • Education
    • Strategy
  • Webcasts
  • Features
  • Events
  • Podcasts
  • Promoted Content
No Results
View All Results
Home News

Gadens slams Murray’s call to ban SMSF borrowing

International law firm Gadens has slammed the FSI’s recommendation to ban direct borrowing by SMSFs, saying it is likely to be a disincentive to the establishment of SMSFs.

by Katarina Taurian
December 9, 2014
in News
Reading Time: 2 mins read
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Gadens partners Amber Warren and Jon Denovan suggested the report’s calls for increased competition in the superannuation sector is contradicted by its calls for borrowing in superannuation to be banned.

“Banning the ability for SMSFs to use leverage to build wealth inside the fund is likely to be a disincentive to the establishment of SMSFs, resulting in reduced competition and associated downward pressure on fees,” Ms Warren and Mr Denovan stated in an article.

X

The article also said that the misuse of limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs) could be addressed through imposing certain restrictions which do not amount to an outright ban.

“The risk of mis-selling could be addressed by imposing some reasonable controls on SMSF borrowing, such as requiring an SMSF’s equity in the real estate to comprise no more than 50 per cent of the fund’s assets and total borrowings (being limited to, say, 80 per cent),” the article stated.

“Another option to address concerns in relation to the misuse of LRBAs would be to remove the ability of SMSFs to borrow funds from related parties, which are often provided to fund up to 100 per cent of the purchase price of the property. Such loans account for the majority of the small percentage of LBRA-related contraventions identified by the ATO.”

Ms Warren and Mr Denovan said it would be appropriate for the government to defer its consideration of any changes to superannuation until 2020, when the Productivity Commission will conduct a “fuller review” into the superannuation sector.

Tags: NewsSMSF Borrowing

Related Posts

Phillipa Briglia, Sladen Legal

LRBAs aren’t the only place for a bare trusts

by Keeli Cambourne
November 28, 2025

Philippa Briglia, special counsel at Sladen Legal, said one of those is through absolute entitlement which is dealt with in...

Terence Wong, director, T Legal

Choosing to opt-in or out of super insurance can have consequences on future claims: legal specialist

by Keeli Cambourne
November 28, 2025

Terence Wong, director of T Legal, said the plaintiff in Byrnes-Reeves v QSuper QSC 285 maintained consistently that his TPD...

SCA calls on govt to act on risk of financial abuse in SMSFs

by Keeli Cambourne
November 28, 2025

The SCA is urging the government to tighten regulations and controls around SMSFs and prioritise a review of financial abuse...

Comments 4

  1. kca says:
    11 years ago

    the sensible answer to borrowing in super is to make it 50% LVRs not ban it outright. This is broadly the UK system which has worked well

    Reply
  2. Bruno Festa says:
    11 years ago

    Not a mention in the Murray report about other lending outside of super- mortgage broking a vehicle finance.

    Don’t won’t to go there eh?

    Reply
  3. John Stankevicius says:
    11 years ago

    The borrowing laws should stay the way the are. People borrowing to purchase a property in super will own a property in the fund before they own their own homes.

    Further the individual has freedom of choice of direct investment and is not limited just the share market, cash or a managed fund.

    There will be property syndicates doing selling an interest in property rather than the members seeking out a property.
    Mr Murray being a Comm Bank executive has just improved the financial planning fees to the big 4 banks.

    Reply
  4. PCW says:
    11 years ago

    Notice all the protests coming from disguised self interests threats a.k.a. loss of fees, advice, revenue streams. Not the protection of assets, member’s rights, safety, benefits or trustee’s liabilities, all the things which should be prime considerations. What a mess we get out Simple Super into!!!!

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Join our newsletter

View our privacy policy, collection notice and terms and conditions to understand how we use your personal information.
SMSF Adviser is the authoritative source of news, opinions and market intelligence for Australia’s SMSF sector. The SMSF sector now represents more than one million members and approximately one third of Australia's superannuation savings. Over the past five years the number of SMSF members has increased by close to 30 per cent, highlighting the opportunity for engaged, informed and driven professionals to build successful SMSF advice business.

Subscribe to our newsletter

View our privacy policy, collection notice and terms and conditions to understand how we use your personal information.

About Us

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Collection Notice
  • Privacy Policy

Popular Topics

  • News
  • Strategy
  • Money
  • Podcasts
  • Promoted Content
  • Feature Articles
  • Education
  • Video

© 2025 All Rights Reserved. All content published on this site is the property of Prime Creative Media. Unauthorised reproduction is prohibited

No Results
View All Results
NEWSLETTER
  • News
  • Money
  • Education
  • Strategy
  • Webcasts
  • Features
  • Events
  • Podcasts
  • Promoted Content
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

© 2025 All Rights Reserved. All content published on this site is the property of Prime Creative Media. Unauthorised reproduction is prohibited