Wayne Swan - Economic Pygmy

[Ves]

I was seeking clarification with respect to investments going bad in Super. Public super funds are eligible for some compensation if they invest in something that goes bad, e.g. Banksia. SMSFs are not.
I thought you might have been referring to that.

Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs? Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?

As sptrawler has said, at least people who are motivated to set up a SMSF, with all its legal obligations and restrictions, are making a genuine attempt to provide for themselves. I'd have thought that warranted approval rather than criticism.

Overall SMSFs are doing very well, outperforming most of the public super funds.
I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you are apparently antagonistic toward the sector.


Many SMSFs have a Trust Deed which precludes any gearing. I doubt that many are doing much borrowing at all.

This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.

 

[McLovin]

Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs? Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?

Of course I'd rather that. I question whether the average person really understands debt well enough that they should be leveraging their retirement. Just imagine the carnage that would have been wrecked on SMSF's if they had been leveraged to equities through the GFC.

As sptrawler has said, at least people who are motivated to set up a SMSF, with all its legal obligations and restrictions, are making a genuine attempt to provide for themselves. I'd have thought that warranted approval rather than criticism.

I'm not criticising them. I made a statement that there is no need for someone to leverage their superannuation in order to retire comfortably. It only adds unnecessary risk. Privatised gain, socialised loss. As the Americans like to call it.

 

[sptrawler]

I was seeking clarification with respect to investments going bad in Super. Public super funds are eligible for some compensation if they invest in something that goes bad, e.g. Banksia. SMSFs are not.
I thought you might have been referring to that.

Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs? Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?

As sptrawler has said, at least people who are motivated to set up a SMSF, with all its legal obligations and restrictions, are making a genuine attempt to provide for themselves. I'd have thought that warranted approval rather than criticism.

Overall SMSFs are doing very well, outperforming most of the public super funds.
I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you are apparently antagonistic toward the sector.


Many SMSFs have a Trust Deed which precludes any gearing. I doubt that many are doing much borrowing at all.

Thanks for the relief v/v Julia.
Mclovin if you want to debate the rights and wrongs of a smsf. Please start a thread I will give you plenty of feedback. Maybe you could start the thread "why you should give your money to someone else, to lose"

Just read your last post, Mclovin, if you read up you would know smsf are the most conservitive investors. But you probably know that, you also probably know that retail funds are still geared 60-70% in shares,

 

[McLovin]

Thanks for the relief v/v Julia.
Mclovin if you want to debate the rights and wrongs of a smsf. Please start a thread I will give you plenty of feedback. Maybe you could start the thread "why you should give your money to someone else, to lose"

Constructive as always.

 

[sptrawler]

This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.

Yeh, right people who have done it are strawmen, people like yourself are?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.

As one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.

The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.

Explain how this is a "Strawman Argument".

gg

 

[Julia]

This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.

Really? I'm sure you'll be happy to justify that statement.

Burglar has started a thread "Why I joined ASF".
I'm getting pretty close to starting one entitled "Why I'm leaving ASF". It will be because of the constant petty sniping instead of constructive discussion.

 

[Julia]

Of course I'd rather that. I question whether the average person really understands debt well enough that they should be leveraging their retirement. Just imagine the carnage that would have been wrecked on SMSF's if they had been leveraged to equities through the GFC.

Agree. This is sadly demonstrated on the Storm Financial thread.
I just don't think the average person with a SMSF does get involved in leveraging.
I suppose there might be some stats on this somewhere. Might be interesting to follow up.

I'm not criticising them. I made a statement that there is no need for someone to leverage their superannuation in order to retire comfortably.

Whilst I agree that leveraging Super is very risky (it's something I'd never dream of doing), I'm not sure you can so categorically say that it's possible to retire comfortably without leverage. It obviously depends on when you started contributing to super, your age, your anticipated retirement age, your income etc.
Given that many current retirees did not make super contributions throughout their working lives, they are not retiring 'comfortably' at all.

And there's no certainty that even with increased compulsory contributions retirees of the future will not be drawing on a government pension, especially if lump sum withdrawals continue to be allowed.

 

[Ves]

Really? I'm sure you'll be happy to justify that statement.

You've completely misrepresented the essence of his argument (ie. he is anti-SMSF, when he is really just doubtful of the benefit of borrowing in such a structure).

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

You've completely misrepresented the essence of his argument (ie. he is anti-SMSF, when he is really just doubtful of the benefit of borrowing in such a structure).

As one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.

The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.

Explain how this is a "Strawman Argument".

gg

 

[sptrawler]

You've completely misrepresented the essence of his argument (ie. he is anti-SMSF, when he is really just doubtful of the benefit of borrowing in such a structure).

Where has anybody shown statistics of smsf borrowing? at all.
You really need a reality check. Maybe you have done that and found yourself wanting, who knows.

 

[Ves]

Where has anybody shown statistics of smsf borrowing? at all.
You really need a reality check. Maybe you have done that and found yourself wanting, who knows.

Statistics??? What has this got to do with what we are talking about?

 

[Ves]

As one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.

The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.

Explain how this is a "Strawman Argument".

gg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

[sptrawler]

Statistics??? What has this got to do with what we are talking about?

Read your post #69 you were making a statement, I was asking if you could substantiate it. Obviously you have lost the plot somewhat.
Maybe the night is late and you are misting

 

[Ves]

Read your post #69 you were making a statement, I was asking if you could substantiate it. Obviously you have lost the plot somewhat.
Maybe the night is late and you are misting

I'm not going to join the dots for you, but the intention of McLovin's post was certainly not to suggest:

Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs? Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?

or to suggest:

As sptrawler has said, at least people who are motivated to set up a SMSF, with all its legal obligations and restrictions, are making a genuine attempt to provide for themselves. I'd have thought that warranted approval rather than criticism.

My question is how does suggesting that leverage may be risky and unsuitable for SMSF and therefore if it goes wrong who pays for the retirement shortfall due to these mistakes suddenly mean that he is questioning the motivation of SMSF trustees and saying that they shouldn't bother to fund their own retirement through their SMSF?

It's a complete misrepresentation in my eyes and it's quite common on this forum, hence my comment that it is a "Strawman argument." It isn't even a sniper remark on my behalf, that's just victim mentality to suggest that.

 

[McLovin]

Agree. This is sadly demonstrated on the Storm Financial thread.
I just don't think the average person with a SMSF does get involved in leveraging.
I suppose there might be some stats on this somewhere. Might be interesting to follow up.

Maybe not at the moment, given the general distaste for debt. But there'll always be the next boom and bust, and that's when people who are levered get caught with their pants down. At the moment, everyone thinks debt = bad. But I'm sure back in 2006-2007 when the debt restriction was removed it made great sense.

Whilst I agree that leveraging Super is very risky (it's something I'd never dream of doing), I'm not sure you can so categorically say that it's possible to retire comfortably without leverage. It obviously depends on when you started contributing to super, your age, your anticipated retirement age, your income etc.
Given that many current retirees did not make super contributions throughout their working lives, they are not retiring 'comfortably' at all.

And there's no certainty that even with increased compulsory contributions retirees of the future will not be drawing on a government pension, especially if lump sum withdrawals continue to be allowed.

That's true. But, I don't think the answer to that is to increase risk in the hope of realising greater returns, to make up for shortcomings in the other factors you mentioned.

 

[Some Dude]

Don't feel bad Dude,

I too was in denial when Fraser buggered the economy up and ole Hawke/Keating came in.

Just look forward to a better future under Abbott/Hockey. your children will thank you.

I think you are confusing rose coloured glasses for my prescription ones



For example, using the logic espoused thus far by the OP of the graph, one could say that the current government has reversed a trend it inherited despite the GFC.

I'm sure that is not the message they want to project so I am trying to establish what the basis for the comparison is.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.

As one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.

The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.

Explain how this is a "Strawman Argument".

gg

As one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.

The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.

Explain how this is a "Strawman Argument".

gg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Too easy mate.

Explain your reasoning.

It is a dreadful accusation to accuse someone of a Strawman Argument.

Do not ever refer me to Wikipedia to explain your actions. It is demeaning and lacks substance.

Give me your reasons why this is a "Strawman Argument"

gg

 

[sptrawler]

PLEASE could one of you Wally's tell me how much debt smsf's have. I think you are all talking rubbish, i doubt there is any debt attributed to a smsf.
If there was the ATO would be all over them.
Vespurian you seem to have all the answers, can you give me a link or any information to smsf debt?

 

[Ves]

Too easy mate.

Explain your reasoning.

It is a dreadful accusation to accuse someone of a Strawman Argument.

Do not ever refer me to Wikipedia to explain your actions. It is demeaning and lacks substance.

Give me your reasons why this is a "Strawman Argument"

gg

I explained it twice above - once briefly, then when you still didnt get it I explained it in more detail. Go have a read.

"dreadful accusation" (I would call it a critique of her argument, I'm not exactly saying she committed a crime or anything)

"demeaning and lacks substance" (sptrawler seemed a bit confused as to what a "Strawman argument" was in his first reply to me - so I kindly provided a link - looked like you were in the same boat to be honest).

"I'm going to leave" (complete over-reaction, but if you feel this way remember every time you post on a public forum, there are going to be people that disagree with you or disagree with your arguments or the way you have phrased them).

Seriously though, you guys crack me up. So content to dish out, but quick to play victim.