subscribe to our newsletter

Townsend slams FSI’s ‘bias’ stance on SMSF borrowing

Miranda Brownlee
11 December 2014 — 1 minute read

The FSI's recommendation to ban direct borrowing in SMSFs is based on an ‘inconsistent’ and ‘flawed approach’ to the regulation of super, says an industry lawyer.

According to Townsends Business and Corporate Lawyers principal Peter Townsend, the FSI final report suggests super should be treated solely as a ‘savings vehicle' rather than a broader wealth management vehicle; a notion which he said is “fraught with difficulties”.

Mr Townsend said the report’s recommendation that SMSF borrowing be banned because it does not comply with the ‘savings vehicle’ philosophy is “biased against SMSFs unless public offer funds are similarly turned into solely savings vehicles”.


If this notion of super as a savings vehicle was to be accepted consistently, Mr Townsend said funds would be banned from investing in anything other than the safest and least volatile of investments and certainly not the share market.

“Even the most blue-chip sector of the market cannot guarantee a complete lack of volatility and therefore should be more appropriately put in the ‘wealth management’ box not the ‘savings’ box,” he said.

“This new characterisation of superannuation would permit only the least volatile of investments – term deposits backed by the strength of Australian banks with their new capital adequacy requirements as recommended by the report.”

Mr Townsend also questioned the need for the inquiry to address borrowing in SMSFs at all.

“The truth of the matter is that with assets subject to borrowing accounting for only about 1.7 per cent of all assets held by SMSFs, the borrowing ban is a solution to a non-problem,” said Mr Townsend.

“It is designed to make the public offer funds feel better after the report severely criticised their fees and has nothing to do with the proper administration of self-managed superannuation.”

Chan & Naylor managing director Ken Raiss also believes the recommendation “reflects the ongoing hypocrisy of the broader financial services sector”.

“The notion that an SMSF should not be able to borrow for investments like property but that APRA-regulated funds can via geared managed funds, as proposed in the report, is a showcase in duplicity,” said Mr Raiss.

“Taking away the opportunity to borrow within a SMSF structure is fundamentally at odds with the original intent of the FSI, which was to define a future financial system that will best meet Australia's evolving needs and support Australia's economic growth.”


Miranda Brownlee

Miranda Brownlee


Miranda Brownlee is the deputy editor of SMSF Adviser, which is the leading source of news, strategy and educational content for professionals working in the SMSF sector.

Since joining the team in 2014, Miranda has been responsible for breaking some of the biggest superannuation stories in Australia, and has reported extensively on technical strategy and legislative updates. Miranda has also directed SMSF Adviser's print publication for several years. 

Miranda also has broad business and financial services reporting experience, having written for titles including Investor Daily, ifa and Accountants Daily.

You can email Miranda on: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Townsend slams FSI’s ‘bias’ stance on SMSF borrowing
smsfadviser logo
join the discussion

Latest poll

What is the best solution to improve access to SMSF advice?

Website Notifications

Get notifications in real-time for staying up to date with content that matters to you.