As reported in SMSF Adviser, ISA stated in its submission to the FSI that data indicates most SMSFs are poorly diversified, with approximately two thirds having an “overwhelming” majority of assets in either high-risk assets or low-risk assets.
Taxpayers Australia has since said ISA is “attacking” SMSFs because it is concerned about leakage from industry funds to the SMSF sector.
“The ISA makes out the fact that some SMSFs are largely invested in safe investments as a bad thing, as if all superannuation funds must have the same investment strategy,” said Reece Agland, superannuation products and services manager at Taxpayers Australia.
“If you are in retirement phase or near retirement phase, as many SMSF members are, it makes sense to invest in low-risk investments. This is the optimal investment strategy to protect your income. This is a good thing, not a bad thing,” he said.
Taxpayers Australia also stated ISA fails to mention their funds also now allow people more choice in their investment options, and include both high-risk, high-return options and low-risk, low-return options.
“It is hypocritical of the ISA to complain that SMSFs can invest in either high-risk or low-risk investments when their member funds allow the same risk taking within an industry fund,” Mr Agland said.
“Should industry funds be banned from making such options if they are such a risk? Of course not. The investment strategy needs to better match the needs of each individual member and this can best be done in a SMSF,” he added.
ISA having a shot a risk. What a classic. They seem to forget to tell their members about unlisted illiquid property exposures which are valued infrequently or justify why a “Balanced” profile can be 90% allocation to Growth assets. Maybe give a bit more info on “private company” investment and “Alternatives” while you’re at at ISA. Probably a good TV ad for you in that one.
I knew this day would arrive. Finally we’re seeing the ISA being called out for what they really are. Enjoy the ride guys, you deserve it.
While the ISA hides behind their veil of secrecy, in relation to true fee disclosure, remuneration of directors, the tax perks their employees receive etc, their opinions on just about everything should be completely disregarded and, at the very least, not reported. These groups use the ‘not for profit’ label as some sort of badge of honour, almost as if they are a charity. How long do you think The Salvation Army would keep its ‘charity’ tax status if was sponsoring football teams for millions of dollars, obtaining naming rights to stadiums and appeared to have a bottomless pit of money to spend on negative advertising. Why don’t some journos go after that stuff?
I am astounded by comments from ISA and other stakeholders in the super debate. Do these ISA types really believe their own propaganda. ISA etc are losing the game and they know it. Many other providers are extending their services to copy the flexibility of SMSFs. They copy and at the same time criticize. Gee I am glad I have my own and another 100 or so funds to administer and I don’t have all the nonsense [to] worry about
Perhaps the leakage of members funds is reducing the ISA’s ability to name a few more football stadiums.
I wonder if ISA would be willing to participate in a risk profile review taking into account the risk profiles of its industry fund members (taking into account their age and proximity or particicpation in retirement)the relative risk weighting of industry funds. I am sure if the same was done for SMSFs there would be a higher risk in industry funds compared to SMSFs.
Pull your head in ISA and look after your members rather than attacking SMSF’s for your own gain. If ISA did look after its members with the same degree of risk, return and flexibility of SMSFs I am also sure it would go a long way to addressing memeber leakage from industry funds.
Hear hear.
Appalling that ISA uses a government inquiry as a forum for low grade advertising.
ISA should mind its own business. Everyone is sick of their negative noise. All they are doing is undermining consumer confidence in superannuation. Ever thing ISA says is dramatic, extreme and if it contains the slightest element of fact is distorted into fiction