This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Self Managed Super

Jump to new
Onlooker said:
Administering your own SMSF is not rocket science! Yes, you need to read up on a few things but there is plenty of literature (including "Superannuation for Dummies"
Click to expand...

It can be quite difficult and perhaps its not for all people who arent financially literate... but then again, many of them are just financially ignorant :
 
jono1887 said:
It can be quite difficult and perhaps its not for all people who arent financially literate... but then again, many of them are just financially ignorant :
Click to expand...

Administering your own super is complexed and dangerous.Its best to get professional help rather than getting an intrusive call from the ATO.

It reminds me of the the DIY homebuilder who attempts to build an extension of their home only to find out through failure professional help is required and the cost has doubled because of the undoing of the DIY persons efforts.
 
Hi all,

Older thread but didn't want to get flamed for starting another, you know.

I have a basic setup of SMSF question.

The Deed, ABN and TFN done, however when the ABN and TFN came back from ATO, they are in the name of 'The Trustee for Joe Bloggs Super Fund'.

Am i correct in thinking that I would think that one would then register a trading name under that entity with the original name of 'Joe Bloggs Super Fund'?

Thanks in advance.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by 'register a trading name'?

Do you mean what name you use in opening an account with an online broker?

Mine is called "The (my own name) Super Fund but on different documentation it appears differently, i.e. sometimes quoting the names of both trustees, sometimes "The Trustees, ......Super Fund", sometimes my own name, then the name of the fund, etc etc.

Might be good to ask whoever drew up the Deed etc for you.
 
Thanks for your reply Julia.

When I say a 'Trading Name', I mean a business name registered with the State authority for such, Dept of Justice Vic in my case, then register another ABN for that name, thus keeping the paperwork and accounts and such neat - in one name you know.

But if yours are in various names, then I guess all is ok.

I have sent an email but waiting for a reply so though i'd ask somebody that is already doing it as such. Learn from experience, you know.

Thanks again.

(You know - Should stop listening to and quoting teenage daughter - you know!!)
 


I agree, have to say I have recently moved from the UK to Australia and although I have had a great career and made some money, I've always just blanked saving for retirement. Coming to Australia was a relief to see the compulsory savings, and I soon got into the knack. Although I'm a little worried about what changes will be made over the 20 years when I want to retire.

I actually used a Newcastle Accountants and financial advisor Leenane Templeton who sorted all my worries about SMSF they are 'The Self Managed Super Specialists' at least I feel I am in control of my future now and they gave me a good insight into all areas. Well done Australia, I think you're on the right track.

Richard
 

Your super fund cannot operate as its own 'entity' as such (without a trustee). It is a little bit confusing.
A trust is not recognised under some australian laws (ie property) however is recognised by different laws (ie tax). So a trust cannot own assets - however a trustee can own a property IN trust for a trust.
Being recognised by the tax laws, means that a trust can earn income and hence pay tax!

So in response to your question the LEGAL name of your trust would be "Joe Blogs as trustee for The Joe Blogs Trust" a trading name is optional (and not normally required for SMSF). In which case it would be "Joe Blogs as trustee for the Joe Blogs Trust - trading as Joe Blogs Investments"

All legal documents (ATO, Bank statements etc) will show the trusts legal name.

have I confused you yet?
 
Can anyone answer this for me though?

Is it possible to purchase a Property through your SMSF, then rent the property (to yourself) and pay rent.
If you can, you could not claim the rent as contributions, however if there was a mortgage on the property (which a SMSF can now do) you could claim the gap betweeen rental payments and mortgage payments. It would be theoretical to own your own home and recieve tax benifits from it.

It sounds too good to be possible, and there are plenty of smarter ppl than me, so Im sure Im not the first one to think this way - therefore I am guessing that the tax dept would have closed the loophole already.

Does anyone actually know?
 

simple answer no
 

Yes you can purchase a property through your SMSF and then rent the property to yourself and pay rent. However, the value of the asset must be less than 5% of the total assets of the fund, as it would be categorised as an in-house asset.

As to the gap between rent and mortgage payments, if you borrow against the property, then you need a separate trust or entity arrangement for the property to isolate borrowing risk from other assets. As a result, I doubt that any tax losses will be offset against other income in the SMSF, although not a tax expert so not sure on this bit. Also, if you sell the property before retirement you will have to pay tax on it which you would not pay if you owned outright. Also if you can claim any losses, the tax saving is only at 15%.

So not worth doing IMHO
 
Could anyone direct me to a website which gives recent (say last 3 months) benchmark figures for different types of funds - balanced, growth etc. When I was involved with an FP he used to give me a sheet from UBS headed "Investment Funds Performance" which gave figures for the varoius UBS funds and a benchmark figure (which I assumed was an average across the industry) for the most recent 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and so on. I no longer have a relationship with this FP and my Google seems not up to the task of finding this sheet.

Thanks
 

The simple answer is there no actual classification of balance or growth funds.
It really is determined by the funds classification and what it perceives itself.

So what you can do however is look at the ASX200 benchmark for Australian shares or a MSCI index for international shares.

What a benchmark does is a justification of fees or funds marketing against their competitor.
I suggest you get away from that and start looking at what you want to acheive for a goal.
FP will always benchmark you. If you are losing money but ahead of the benchmark does that make you feel good?
We arent talking about HSC here.Its your money so look after it.
 
I understand what you are saying lasty but comparing to a benchmark would (hopefully) give some assurance or confirmation that I was on the right track with my strategy. If I was to find myself drifting too far outside what they were showing, I would need to do a rethink.
 

I agree with the other two comments. You have to be extra careful with anything transaction that is not at arm's length.

Tainted transactions like the one you suggested have to be approached very careful.....seek professional advise.
 

sorry, dont have time to do all your homework atm, but with UBS, enter the code into Google and that will give you the figures for that fund..ie UBS0001au UBS0002au etc

Go to the UBS site for all the codes.

Various sites such as Morningstar give info, as does SMH and Fin review.

I personally think benchmarking is worthwhile, for several reasons.

Deciding what to benchmark against can be tricky.

In my case the bulk of my investment assets are in an "assertive" SMSF pension.

If I outperform most, or all of those after tax, then that is a qualified success.

Sure it is great to never lose money, but the percentage of investors who managed that during the GFC would be relatively small.

Its a fairly simple thing to do, so long as you take snapshots of yr complete portfolio on the appropriate dates, and use Excel, it takes 5 minutes, you can benchmark to yr hearts content. Fin Review is easy
 

IMO, accumulation indexes (in AFR) are best as this includes total returns including dividends. Using non accumulation indexes is prone to error if your portfolio dividend yield does not match the index yield.
 
gooner said:
IMO, accumulation indexes (in AFR) are best as this includes total returns including dividends. Using non accumulation indexes is prone to error if your portfolio dividend yield does not match the index yield.
Click to expand...

Agree, in the instance of Index benchmarks.

However, I think the returns shown for Managed Super funds is inclusive of dividends?
 
gooner said:
Yes you can purchase a property through your SMSF and then rent the property to yourself and pay rent. However, the value of the asset must be less than 5% of the total assets of the fund, as it would be categorised as an in-house asset.
Click to expand...

This is obviously for a residential property. Obviously it is going to be extremely difficult to meet the 5% rule. As a general rule - a member cannot have the use of the asset.

You can purchase a commercial property however, and rent it back. Not a problem.

Duckman
 
awg said:
Agree, in the instance of Index benchmarks.

However, I think the returns shown for Managed Super funds is inclusive of dividends?
Click to expand...

awg

Yes super fund returns include dividends. But note that returns are on a pre-tax basis usually so do not reflect CGT, franking etc. By having low turnover in a SMSF and focussing on franked dividends, you can enhance return significantly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The role of Private Equity
Replies
7
Views
2K
Dona Ferentes
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
  • Poll
What do you consider a comfortable after tax wage?
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
basilio
Vanguard plans to tackle locals in super
Replies
9
Views
3K
divs4ever
Basic chart analysis/chart reading 101 for beginners
Replies
10
Views
4K
Gunnerguy
G
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...