Those who are in a position of responsibility in a highly-regulated environment should be receiving regular training, managing director at SMSF Law and Equity Protect Shane Ellis told SMSF Adviser.
“You don’t want to go blindly into an SMSF without fully understanding the responsibilities that are involved and [should be] working with competent professionals in support of what’s taking place,” Mr Ellis said.
However, Mr Ellis stressed he is “not an advocate” of other barriers to SMSF entry, including minimum account balances.
“I would never not encourage someone to go into self-managed super, because it just does so much more than industry or retail funds,” he added.
The comments follow an Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) recommendation that SMSF trustees should be required to have accredited training prior to establishing an SMSF.
“Our key point is that SMSF trustees should undertake structured education on their legal responsibilities and obligations when commencing their SMSF,” AIST chief executive officer Tom Garcia previously told SMSF Adviser.
“We also recommend that they engage in ongoing accredited training to maintain their knowledge. While it’s possible to outsource much of the work involved in running a self-managed super product, ultimately the duties of being a trustee remain and tax penalties apply,” Mr Garcia said.
George how could such an educated man so misread the evidence of successful SMSF’s.
Lin #7 said it perfectly… Think it through man.
George Lawrence, Your a LEGEND. you could not have stated it any clearer. The reason
SMSF are so popular now is because the “MANAGERS” who were so called managing other peoples money were HOPELESS and still had the gall to charge people for their incompetence. Why are`nt they being retrained. All the people ive met who have a SMSF seem to be very competent and have a good grip on whats going on.
“If It Aint Broke, Dont Fix It”
Just another was to raise the cost to me of managing my SMSF. A push to increase their fees, charging me time and money. It will then become the blocker, so people not working in the industry cannot run an SMSF.
I will still have to deal with dodgy prospectus data, market manipulations, mistruths that the regulatory authorities and auditors let pass thru, (or act on well after a reasonable person would act), and fine print that may be unconscionable – eg the banks with fine print clauses that one has agreed to an non-revokable, enduring power of attorney if one uses some services. I read the PDS/T&C, Unlikely that these sort of issues would be covered in a mandated education class, set on promoting how honest and ethically the financial industry operates.
Looks like a promotion of a major marketing opportunity, prompted by the fear factor generated by the superannuation funds losing their income.
The mind bogles at the number of courses that the glut of lawyers & regulators we are creating would like to require us to endure. If trustees need training ad nauseam what about executors, partners, benefifiaries,family,mates,neighbours etc. Surely the only requirement should be for a potential trustee to seek legal or financial advice before starting & say every few years subsequently.
You could say that a quality specialist adviser [i]is the education[/i].
Professionals need to get more savvy in how they engage with potential SMSF trustees during the decision making process and also ensure that they are providing more ongoing education to their SMSF client base.
I know that most of the clients who come to me have already done their research…
I actually agree with Shane and support the idea of some training for people taking on the responsibility of becoming a SMSF trustee.
More educated SMSF trustees leads to a stronger SMSF industry with less need for constant Government regulation and tinkering.
So basically a little more compliance / regulation upfront would mean less onerous regulation down stream.
As I see it if a client is going to establish an SMSF then they need a good advisor not a course. I give all my client good instruction with the parting words, “before doing any action out of the ordinary, ring me.”
You know who should be educated? The cowboys at the managed funds who wheel and deal then lose a load for their clients and then have the gall to charge obscene amounts of fees to do this. These people have no idea what it means to have the responsibility for someone else’s money. Why all this attack on SMSFs? Most of them are much better managed, and perform better, than the public funds. Would it be jealousy or the loss of revenue?
Strictly DIY investors, maybe. But consider this; superannuation is a trust, that is all. It is a trust that receives tax concessions as reward for meeting certain legal requirements.
Anyone can set up a company and a family trust, a discretionary trust, a unit trust, and they don’t require any training or ongoing development. They outsource the operational side of this to an accountant.
If Trustees are willing to do the same, i.e. utilise the services and skill sets of financial advisers and accountants, I don’t see the point in mandatory training.
So Shane, would you support the idea that all superannuation fund trustees – those ‘in a position of responsibility in a highly-regulated environment’ should firstly be certified and then undertake regular training?