ASIC has been told to maintain a purely regulatory role and to stay out of debate concerning starting balances for SMSFs.
In comments made to SMSF Adviser, Olivia Long, CEO of XpressSuper and Superguardian, spoke of her “surprise and dismay” upon learning of comments made by ASIC in which the regulatory body stated “the costs of establishing and operating an SMSF with a balance of $200,000 or below are unlikely to be competitive, compared to a fund regulated by APRA”.
Ms Long said she disagrees both with the ASIC statement and the regulator’s decision to make such a comment.
“There is simply no evidence that SMSFs with balances of less than $200,000 are run less efficiently than their wealthy counterparts,” she said.
Ms Long also made particular reference to the 2010 Cooper Review and the 2014 Financial System Inquiry which both looked at setting a minimum balance as a pre-requisite for establishing an SMSF.
“After examining all the evidence, neither of these vigorous inquiries thought there was any merit in the suggestion,” she said.
Despite prior investigation into the matter, “the thrust of this ASIC edict is self-evident: they want to discourage people to set up a SMSF with a starting balance of $200,000 or below”, Ms Long claimed.
“It seems the conclusions of two inquiries is not enough for some people,” she added.
Quick to point out there is a lack of attention and appreciation for those who are taking superannuation fund management into their own hands, Ms Long said “people adopting such a responsible approach to their superannuation should be encouraged”.
The SMSF sector, boasting approximately $600 billion in FUM, has frustrated the retail and industry funds, she said, as they deal with a large migration of members away from their services as they edge toward retirement.
While noting that ASIC has in the past effectively targeted spruikers and advisers who prey on the vulnerable, Ms Long reiterated that the regulator should maintain a strictly regulatory role.
“It is not ASIC’s role to enter the debate about the parameters of which the SMSF sector operates,” she said.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE SMSF ADVISER BULLETIN
- 22 Sep 2017ASIC permanently bans SMSF property spruikerBy Miranda Brownlee
- 22 Sep 2017Male SMSF investors ‘bigger risk takers’, says reportBy Staff Reporter
- 22 Sep 2017Lawyer flags subdivision trap with downsizer contributionsBy Miranda Brownlee
- 22 Sep 2017ATO urged to address ‘unknowns’ with LRBA reportingBy Miranda Brownlee
- 21 Sep 2017Lost and unclaimed super climbs to $18 billionBy Lara Bullock
- 21 Sep 2017ATO to release further guidance on reservesBy Miranda Brownlee
- view all
- Male SMSF investors ‘bigger risk takers’, says report
Male SMSF members tend to hold a greater share of assets in higher risk investments including domestic shares and property in comparison to ...read more
- Lawyer flags subdivision trap with downsizer contributions
SMSF trustees planning to make downsizer contributions have been warned that if a property has been subject to a partial sale in the 10 yea...read more
- ATO urged to address ‘unknowns’ with LRBA reporting
The ATO has been asked to provide further clarity around the events based reporting requirements for LRBA repayments, with the new requireme...read more
- view all