I'm not here to discuss the specifics of my SMSFs portfolio.
The fact is that tens of thousands of people have lost their savings in MISs.
I know for a fact (because I have a copy of the fund register of unitholders) that there is a large exposure by SMSFs in this fund, which suggests to me that this would also be the case in other such funds.
Now that I understand the risk that one can lose not just some, but ALL of their capital investment in such schemes,( not clearly disclosed in the PDS at the time of investing imo) it defies logic that such investments can be appropriate for SMSFs.
You weren't asked to. You're the one who raised the matter of your SMSFs losses.
And I enquire again, many lost money who invested in MIS outside of the SMSF structure so is it implied that all MIS are banned, regulated by APRA or doesn't that matter? Carry the logic presented in regard to regulation of MIS to a conclusion and do not focus on a particular structure for investing as that is all an SMSF is despite the tax concessions.
So in your view it is OK for the 70 yo, who has struggled to put aside $10,000 or so to pay for his/her funeral or pass on to their children, to lose that because it is not in superannuation? However, as much as I disagree with it, it is your view and you are obviously entitled to hold that opinion.
We have a different perspective on this issue. To me it matters not whether funds are invested directly or via superannuation. The effect of losing those funds is the same on the people involved and just as damaging As far as I am concerned that is the prime issue not a tax structure. To consider only that aspect is, to my way of thinking, too narrow and blinkered. And if it is legal to invest in a product outside of superannuation then it should also be legal to invest through superannuation be it, unlisted funds, art work, CFD's options or forex.
Most interesting.
Trio Capital
ION
HIH
GIO
Centro
Quintex
Bond Corporation
Sonray Capital,
to name but few, were subject to regulatory and auditory requirements. What were the outcomes?
Evangelise away, bro. You are merely wasting bandwidth.
http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/1177702/burnt-banksia-investors-deserve-truth/?cs=82
''....The company collapsed with debts of $663 million after being given a clean bill of financial health from a Bendigo auditor only weeks earlier.
Most of those who lost out were pensioners and retirees. ...''
http://consumeraction.org.au/consum...unsupervised-finance-and-debenture-companies/
''...‘We’re concerned that, as things stand, debenture companies are allowed to look and feel like banks when they’re nowhere near as tightly regulated’ said Gerard Brody, Director of Policy & Campaigns at Consumer Action.
Consumer Action believes that written disclosure about the high risk nature of debenture investments in product information statements is undermined by the way some of these companies operate and present themselves. For example, the ability to rent Bank-State-Branch Numbers, commonly known as BSB numbers, can lead people to feel like they’re depositing their money into a traditional bank account.
We understand that the selling of BSB numbers is relatively common practice. But we believe this practice has been allowed to develop without regard for its potential impact on consumers. it is timely to examine what rules and responsibility should be placed on entities selling and buying BSBs.
‘Current regulation on debentures relies on “disclosure and investor education”. But any disclosure or education about risk is countered by their use of BSB numbers, in-branch ATMs and account offerings that look like regular savings accounts. We need to ask why a company like Banksia was allowed to look and feel like a bank – it’s confusing to say the least and has the potential to mislead inexperienced investors.
‘It’s often said that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. But, in the case of debenture companies, it can look like a bank and sound like a bank, but is certainly isn’t a bank,’ said Mr Brody....''
Those of us who made this recommendation on the Storm thread were soundly abused for our suggestion.I predicted something like this would happen, about now, two years ago , on the Storm Financial thread. I get no pleasure from being correct.
Education, education, education is essential for all investors.
Those of us who made this recommendation on the Storm thread were soundly abused for our suggestion.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...rges-for-banksia/story-e6frf7kx-1226537184720
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...ng-back-millions/story-fndgp8b1-1226544727940
http://www.standard.net.au/story/12...ry-fund-directors-liability-not-issue/?cs=383
"THE amount of insurance carried by directors of the failed Banksia Securities and Cherry Fund companies should not determine if they were sued for allegedly not carrying out their duties properly, the solicitor handling a class action legal case against them said."
I guess that's something a lawyer making money might say - but, there's little point paying a lawyer to sue if there's nothing in it for the client: Size (of the likely return from litigation) really does matter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?