Malaysian developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/s-p-setia">SP Setia</a> is the latest to jump into St Leonards booming Transport Oriented Development precinct.

The developer, which has previously delivered Sapphire by the Gardens apartment development in Melbourne, identified the Atchison Street site in 2023. It filed a Scoping Report around 12 months ago, and now has revealed the designs for the new&nbsp;40-storey mixed-use tower.

The State Significant Development Application covers <a href="https://next-portal.urban.com.au/projects/14650/summary">20-22 Atchison Street</a>, a 1,374 sqm site positioned between St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cox-architecture">COX Architecture</a>, the project would deliver 181 apartments, above a four-storey commercial podium, five basement levels, and new public domain works along Mitchell Street. The apartment mix comprises 35 one-bedroom apartments, 39 one-bedroom-plus-study apartments, 85 two-bedroom apartments, and 22 three-bedroom residences.

The proposal has been lodged as a shop-top housing development under the NSW Government’s TOD planning pathway, which allows increased density around key transport infrastructure. The site sits within the recently rezoned Crows Nest Accelerated TOD Precinct.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b799673d-48e2-46b0-801a-0e33a9330100" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20site.png?VersionId=dPh0UfwfaHpbFL1R7H1cbZNbIW0CHbCC" />

SP Setia acquired the Atchison Street site as part of its continued expansion into the Australian apartment market. In comments made to City &amp; Country (The Edge Malaysia) in 2023, SP Setia President and CEO Datuk Choong Kai Wai described the acquisition as “a strategic move” aligned with the group’s post-pandemic market recovery strategy.

“Our target for this exceptional development is local and overseas buyers, including first-home buyers, downsizers and investors,” Choong said.

The tower has been designed as a slender vertical form rising from a mixed-use podium, with COX Architecture positioning the development as a response to the evolving St Leonards and Crows Nest skyline.

“The purpose of the project is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality housing at a strategically located site and deliver a built tower outcome that is consistent with the desired future character of St Leonards and aligns with the TOD controls,” the design report stated.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b1a85eee-76f7-436c-a6da-73ba827b9b13" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20entry.png?VersionId=dA9jHGPMcm.dDbwk4QfxqWiY5bfh3UVt" />

The podium would incorporate retail uses fronting Atchison Street, commercial tenancies, landscaped communal areas, and pedestrian improvements along Mitchell Street. Vehicle access and loading would be consolidated via Atchison Lane.

Residents would have access to more than 665 sqm of communal indoor and outdoor spaces, while the development proposes 96 parking spaces across five basement levels.

The proposal also includes a commitment for 10 per cent of residential floor space to be allocated toward affordable housing through a monetary contribution.

COX said the tower form responds directly to the emerging high-density character of the precinct while seeking to maximise solar access, cross ventilation, and outlook from apartments.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2163f85c-f63b-4be3-aafa-f8763976cec5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Article%20Feature%20Image%20%28Grid%29_5.png?VersionId=WiAmtIKJ6.ZQ41EtYEQ1fol7AeorKBlL" />

“The building is orientated towards north,” the Apartment Design Guide compliance report noted, adding that the tower’s slim form was driven by the constrained inner-urban site dimensions.

The design also incorporates landscaped setbacks and communal open space at podium level, intended to soften the interface with surrounding streets and improve pedestrian amenity.

The project adds to a growing wave of redevelopment proposals reshaping St Leonards and Crows Nest following the opening of the Sydney Metro City line and the NSW Government’s push for higher-density housing around major transport nodes.

Last week Stockland filed plans just down the road. They want to build a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/601-pacific-highway-st-leonards-nsw-2065">52-storey tower on Pacific Highway</a>.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">First look: Stockland plans 52-storey, 538-apartment St Leonards tower&nbsp;</a>

Joel Robinson

First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> has revealed plans for a new mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, advancing a proposal that would reshape the southern gateway to Newcastle’s city centre with one of the city’s tallest residential buildings.

The State Significant Development proposal, now on exhibition, seeks approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/bowline-10-dangar-street-wickham-nsw-2293">43-storey tower</a> immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange. The project would deliver around 200 apartments, including 42 affordable housing dwellings, alongside 99 co-living units, a 171-room hotel, retail space, and new public domain integrated through the site.

The scheme marks a significant escalation of plans previously approved for the site. Urban Property Group took over the prominent 2,904 sqm parcel, where excavation and demolition had already commenced under an earlier consent for a 14-storey mixed-use development.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="58a96dd9-407f-4d20-86b4-94e4bfeef74b" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20podium.png?VersionId=LGlf08pdFGAZDzvx_CXC4XakHNZRuEE0" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/sjb-architects">SJB</a>, the tower has been conceived as a landmark transit-oriented development anchored to the Newcastle Interchange precinct. The proposal includes 245 build-to-sell apartments across a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom residences, as well as two penthouses. Fifteen apartments and one operational unit are earmarked for NDIS housing. The co-living component would add a further 99 units, while the podium would accommodate retail uses and hotel facilities.

SJB said the site presents “a valuable opportunity to anchor the precinct by setting the standard for design, active ground planes and character at the key southern gateway.”

The architecture responds directly to the site’s position beside major transport infrastructure and within one of Newcastle’s fastest-evolving urban renewal precincts. The tower form sits above a sculpted podium designed to frame new public spaces, including a through-site pedestrian link connecting Station Street to Hannell Street, landscaped plazas, and activated retail edges.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a7bd6ff0-f7db-4ce8-a6dc-ea56e72c6149" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20lanne.png?VersionId=xzf39VADyhj7zBQY2I9fx9vI62u2tuSb" />

The design report describes the project as part of the broader transition of Wickham into “a vibrant, high-quality mixed-use urban precinct” that leverages proximity to the station, open space, and regional connectivity.

A detailed public art strategy has also been prepared for the development. The strategy positions the project as “a transit-oriented development of state significance at the gateway to Newcastle’s city centre” and outlines a series of integrated artworks responding to Newcastle’s industrial and transport heritage.

Creative Road’s curatorial framework for the project, titled Unveil, draws on “stratified surfaces, carved volumes, and light-filled apertures” while referencing Newcastle’s transformation from an industrial city into a contemporary education and technology hub.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="77a882bb-14b1-4d28-99ff-9438e39508c0" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20site.png?VersionId=cevgo_vN0eKPK78P8YcEu3mKPLkpFqE7" />

The proposal is being advanced through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway after being declared State Significant Development in June 2025. The accompanying scoping report states the development aims to “maximise the site’s proximity to the Newcastle Interchange by delivering transit-oriented development” while increasing housing supply and affordable housing provision within the Newcastle LGA.

Urban Property Group’s plans align with the long-term strategic vision established under the Wickham Master Plan, which identified the interchange precinct as suitable for substantial uplift in height and density. The current proposal would significantly intensify that vision, positioning the tower among the tallest developments proposed for Newcastle.

The site sits immediately north of the Newcastle Interchange, bounded by Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street. It is surrounded by a rapidly growing cluster of residential towers and mixed-use projects that have emerged following the completion of the light rail and transport interchange.

First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s latest tower at Wickham interchange

Bottega House has completed settlement of a landmark riverfront site in Macquarie Street, St Lucia, representing its first major Brisbane development.&nbsp;

Positioned on the banks of the Brisbane River, the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/180-macquarie-street-st-lucia-qld-4067">premium site at 180 Macquarie Street</a> features uninterrupted river frontage in one of Brisbane’s most tightly held residential precincts.&nbsp;

The proposed development, currently under assessment with Brisbane City Council, has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/plus-studio">Plus Studio</a> with interiors by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/mim-design">Mim Design</a> and will deliver a boutique collection of premium residences positioned specifically for owner occupiers and downsizers.&nbsp;

The residences are set to redefine luxury apartment living in the area, with a focus on architectural quality, refined finishes, landscape integration and elevated amenities including curated wellness facilities, resort-style pools and recreation spaces rarely seen in the local market.&nbsp;

Exclusive sales for the project will be led by Keenan &amp; Byrne, ahead of an anticipated launch later this year.&nbsp;

Bottega House Managing Director Nick Malloch said the project reflects the group’s ambition to deliver a highly curated residential offering within one of Brisbane’s most tightly held precincts.&nbsp;

“This is an incredibly rare riverfront opportunity and one we have approached with a long-term perspective,” Malloch said.&nbsp;

“Our vision from the outset was to create a boutique collection of residences that feel more like private homes than traditional apartments, with generous proportions, refined finishes and exceptional amenity throughout."

Malloch says there is a&nbsp;lack of premium owner-occupier stock of this quality in the market, particularly for downsizers wanting space, privacy and a true lifestyle offering without compromise.&nbsp;

"Demand is expected to be strong given the scarcity of premium riverfront opportunities of this nature within Brisbane’s inner-west."&nbsp;

Bottega House secures landmark riverfront site in St Lucia 

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-6" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" dir="auto">
<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-2" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" dir="auto">
The arrival of the first piling rig officially marks the commencement of construction at SIERA’s new beachside apartment development, Exhale, in Northcliffe.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/exhale-surfers-paradise-8-enderley-avenue-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Exhale</a>, a glass-encased tower featuring 54 large-scale apartments at 8 Enderley Avenue, is SIERA’s third Gold Coast development. It follows the recently completed PIPIS Bilinga beachfront project, which achieved suburb-record prices, and the soon-to-be-completed Chevron Island development, Tapestry.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359603]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/siera">SIERA</a> Founder and Managing Director Brent Thompson said the arrival of the piling rig represented a significant milestone for the development, which is scheduled for completion in late 2028.

Over the next month, around 260 piles are expected to be installed as work progresses on the basement structure. The building is anticipated to rise above ground level early next year, before unveiling its sculptural glass curtain wall, developed in collaboration with specialist façade engineers.

“The façade was designed to maximise panoramic coastal views while creating a distinctive architectural identity,” Thompson said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=355935]

Designed by BDA Architecture, Exhale will comprise just 54 two- and three-bedroom residences across 26 levels, a level of low-density living rarely delivered in this beachside pocket between Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach.

The project has been conceived as a resident-only building, with no short-stay accommodation permitted. SIERA says the model is intended to appeal to long-term owner-occupiers rather than transient holiday demand.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=361052]

Residences have been designed with large-format layouts and expansive glazing, with most apartments featuring more than 30 metres of glass frontage to maximise natural light and ocean views.

The amenity offering spans two levels and centres on wellness and lifestyle, including a heated magnesium pool, sauna, yoga and Pilates studio, gymnasium, private dining facilities, cinema lounge, and dedicated surfcraft storage.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359607]

More than half of the apartments have already sold. SIERA has also opened a sales gallery for Exhale at its Chevron Island commercial premises, near its Tapestry tower and the site of its second Chevron Island apartment development, which is slated to launch in early 2027.
</section>
</section>

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112661]

SIERA kicks off construction at Northcliffe tower Exhale

Local Little Bay residents, along with buyers from premium postcodes across Sydney’s affluent Eastern Suburbs, have dominated purchases in developer-builder Urban Property Group’s first Eastern Suburbs apartment development, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/este-little-bay-jennifer-street-little-bay-nsw-2036">ESTE Little Bay</a>.

The $250 million coastal project, one of the first new developments in the area in several years, has proven particularly popular with downsizers, especially those from Coogee and Bondi. One Double Bay downsizer paid $4.7 million for a four-bedroom penthouse, setting a new local apartment price record in the process.

Buyers have been attracted to the combination of coastal tranquillity, premium design and amenity-rich neighbourhood living. The walkable village setting, along with proximity to three of Sydney’s leading golf courses, New South Wales Golf Club, St Michael’s Golf Club and The Coast Golf Club, has also been a key drawcard.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112343 project_image_fid=352689]

Built across two low-rise buildings designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/hill-thalis-architecture-urban-projects-pty-ltd">Hill Thalis</a> and set along a lush, landscaped green spine, designed by leading landscape architect <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/landscape-architect/arcadia-landscape-architecture">Arcadia</a>, ESTE Little Bay offers a collection of one, two, three and four-bedroom residences with interiors by Richards Stanisich.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> Sales Director, Tom McIvor said the response to ESTE has been "nothing short of extraordinary."

“Buyers have been quick to recognise ESTE as a rare opportunity to invest in a coastal sanctuary that offers both seclusion and connectivity to the heart of Sydney,” McIvor said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112343 project_image_fid=352687]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/project-marketer/srm-residential">SRM Residential</a> Senior Director, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/project-marketer/srm-residential">Clayton Ross</a> said the local market has responded incredibly well, driven by ESTE’s exceptional location and the rarity it offers.

“We’ve seen strong interest from a variety of buyer groups, all of whom are drawn to the exclusivity and quality of the build and construction by the 4.5-star iCIRT-rated builder / developer, Urban Property Group. There’s truly nothing else like it along Sydney’s coastline.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112343 project_image_fid=352690]

The project also includes robust buyer protections, including Resilience Insurance’s Latent Defects Insurance, providing 10 years of structural cover, and an independent iCIRT-rating of the developer.

“The iCIRT-rating adds another layer of confidence,” Ross added. “Buyers see it as a safeguard for their investment and their lifestyle.” A highlight of ESTE’s offering is its exclusive wellness amenities, including a heated rooftop infinity pool and outdoor heated spa, a state-of-the-art Technogym fitness centre, and a sauna.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/este-little-bay-jennifer-street-little-bay-nsw-2036">ESTE Little Bay</a> is topped out and is on track to complete towards the end of 2026, with residents moving in before Christmas.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112343]

Eastern Suburbs buyers snap up ESTE Little Bay apartments

Sydney’s property market is known for high prices, competitive bidding, and mounting pressure on first home buyers. But change is on the horizon.

From late 2025, eligible first home buyers in New South Wales will have access to a new federal government initiative aimed at addressing affordability: the Help to Buy Scheme.&nbsp;

<h2>What is the Help to Buy Scheme?</h2>

The program introduces a shared equity model intended to reduce the upfront cost of entering the property market, particularly in high-demand urban areas such as Sydney.

The scheme operates under a shared ownership structure in which the federal government takes an equity stake of up to 40 per cent for new homes, or 30 per cent for existing dwellings. This arrangement allows eligible buyers to significantly reduce their loan size and avoid the added cost of Lenders Mortgage Insurance (LMI).

Under this model, purchasers can enter the property market with as little as a two per cent deposit, well below the traditional 10 to 20 per cent usually required. The government’s contribution is not a loan but a co-ownership stake in the property. As such, there is no interest or rent charged on its portion.

Because the government’s equity combined with the buyer’s deposit typically meets or exceeds the 20 per cent threshold, LMI does not apply. The remaining balance, generally between 60 and 70 per cent of the property’s value, is financed through a standard home loan with a participating lender.

The government's equity in the property remains in place until the buyer chooses to repay it voluntarily or until the property is sold. Buyers can buy back the government’s share over time, in increments of at least five per cent, depending on their financial situation.

There is no fixed repayment timeline, but the amount to be repaid will be based on the property's market value at the time of repayment, not the original purchase price.

<h2>How do you qualify for the&nbsp;Help to Buy Scheme?</h2>

To qualify for the Help to Buy Scheme, applicants must meet the following conditions:

<ul>
	<li>Be an Australian citizen at least 18 years of age.</li>
	<li>Be a first-home buyer who does not currently own property.</li>
	<li>Intend to live in the property as their primary residence.</li>
	<li>Earn less than $100,000 per year for individuals, or $160,000 for couples.</li>
	<li>Purchase a property within the regional price caps, currently $950,000 in Sydney, though this is expected to rise to approximately $1.3 million ahead of the program’s launch.</li>
</ul>

While the Help to Buy Scheme does not solve affordability challenges across the board, it does offer a more accessible pathway for a defined segment of the market, particularly younger buyers with moderate incomes who have been priced out of traditional lending routes.

The scheme is expected to commence in NSW in late 2025, as part of a national rollout.

Under the new model, purchasers can enter the property market with as little as a two per cent deposit, well below the traditional 10 to 20 per cent usually required

Help to Buy Scheme: What first home buyers in NSW need to know

<html><body>
Small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) owners are examining alternative ways to acquire and gear their business premises in the event that the government bars self-managed super funds from directly borrowing to invest using increasingly-popular limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs).
These SME owners are responding to a recommendation in the <a href="https://fsi.gov.au/publications/final-report/" target="_blank">final report</a> of the Financial System Inquiry, chaired by David Murray, that this form of borrowing be prospectively barred. There is speculation that the borrowing rules for SMSFs could significantly change in the months leading to the May budget.
Since September 2007, super funds have been permitted to borrow to invest – as an exemption to the general bar on borrowing – using limited recourse borrowing arrangements. The geared asset must be held in a holding trust until the loan is repaid and creditors cannot make claims against a super fund’s assets other than the geared asset.
SME owners are believed to be among the biggest, if not the biggest, users of limited recourse borrowing arrangements to gear investments – typically to their own business premises – through their SMSFs.
Significantly, business property is one the few types of assets that SMSFs are allowed to acquire from their members and other related parties. As well, business property is one of the few types of assets that funds can lease to related parties, including the members’ businesses, without being limited by the in-house asset rules in superannuation law.
In her latest newsletter, Meg Heffron, co-principal of SMSF administration group Heffron, asks a telling question for SME owners wanting to buy their business premises through their SMSFs: Does the possible demise of limited recourse loan arrangements “represent the end of the world as we know it” for SMSFs to acquire property if they don’t already have the cash?
It seems the answer is a resounding “no”, according to Heffron and Chris Malkin, senior consultant auditor with Baumgartner Superannuation.
Heffron and Malkin says the strategy that SME owners are likely to most use if limited recourse loan arrangements are barred is to arrange for their SMSFs to progressively buy their business premises through ungeared trusts or companies.
“I think ungeared trusts are much underutilised,” says Heffron, “probably because they are poorly understood.”
A typical strategy would involve the members of an SMSF and the SMSF itself owning units in the ungeared trust which acquires the business premises. And then the SMSF progressively acquires more units to eventually gain full ownership. Although the trust is ungeared, the law does not prohibit SMSF members from personal borrowing to acquire units in the trust.
Factors to think about when considering an ungeared trust as an alternative to a limited recourse borrowing arrangement include:
1. Security for the loan
With limited recourse loan arrangements, the geared business premises (or whatever other asset is being acquired) provide security for the loan whereas with a typical ungeared trust arrangement, SMSF members often borrow against the equity in their homes.
2. What’s at stake if the investment fails
This is, of course, linked to point one above. On the face of it with limited recourse loan arrangements, the geared business premises would be at risk if the investment did not succeed. Whereas with the typical ungeared trust arrangement, fund members would have borrowed against the family home and therefore the family home would be at stake. In practice, however, the contrast is not so clear cut.
Malkin emphasises that although with limited recourse loan arrangements, a financier can only make a claim against the geared asset, SMSFs often use almost all of their assets to pay the deposit or initial instalments on the investment. And lenders often require SMSF members to provide a personal guarantee, which typically means that their homes may also be at risk.
“Speaking as an owner of an SME, I usually try to divorce my personal assets from what I do with the business,” Heffron comments. “If I borrow to buy the business premises, I would like to have the loan secured on the business premises – not secured on my personal assets.”
3. Intended improvements to business premises
Under existing law, SMSFs using a limited recourse loan arrangement can only drawdown on the loan to make repairs not improvements to a geared property. (This applies to arrangements entered into after July 7, 2010.)
Heffron says that this bar on using borrowed money borrowed under limited recourse loan arrangements may make ungeared trusts more appropriate for an SME wanting to acquire business premises through their SMSFs and then to make significant improvements. Much depends on the circumstances, including professional advice received.
“The super fund or the family trust can buy more units in the ungeared trust,” says Heffron, “and that will provide the money to make improvements.”
4. Simplicity of strategies
Opinions differ among superannuation specialists about which strategy is simpler – limited recourse loan arrangements or ungeared trusts. Again much will depend on the circumstances.
Heffron believes that the limited recourse loan arrangement is generally simpler if the super fund does not intend to make improvements to the property and wants to simply rent it to the members’ business. This is partly because the geared asset is held in a holding trust until the SMSF makes the final instalments on the loan. There is no CGT event or transaction whenever the super fund makes loan instalments.
By contrast, Heffron says there is a CGT event with the ungeared trust strategy whenever the super fund acquires more units. Also Heffron warns in her newsletter that an ungeared trust is “permanently comprised” and loses its concessional treatment if it breaches the “fairly stringent” rules after a super fund invests in it.
5. Gearing tax benefits
From this perspective, the ungeared trust strategy would typically be the clear winner.
As Malkin explains, an SMSF member personally borrowing to buy units in the ungeared trust acquiring the business premises would be entitled to claim tax deductions for interest payments at his or her marginal tax rate. By contrast, an SMSF borrowing under a limited recourse loan arrangement would only be entitled to tax deductions at the standard superannuation tax rate of 15%.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

mlaurence-vhAHaLZT8y

SMSFs and geared business premises: Five factors to consider

<html><body>
Whose super did better than everyone else’s?
There was an average super return of 9.8% for the 2014-15 financial year, as calculated by Chant West.
They ranked the top-performing fund as Queensland’s public sector scheme QSuper, the second-biggest super fund in the country.
It returned 12.3% for its members.
Second placed was MTAA Super, the industry fund for the motor trades returning 11.7% for its members.
While most super funds took a beating in the GFC, Chant West director Warren Chant said the damage has been more than repaired.
“Since the GFC low point at the end of February 2009, growth funds have now delivered an impressive 88 per cent, putting them 37% above their pre-GFC high of October 2007,” he told TheNew Daily.
The full list of the top 10 is below, made up overwhelmingly of industry funds, with just one public sector fund and two retail funds making the list.
Overall, not-for-profit funds – which include industry, public sector and corporate funds (such as Telstra or Qantas) – returned on average 10.2%.
Retail funds, which are generally owned by banks on a for-profit basis, returned 9.6% on average.
The top 10 super funds for 2014/15
1. QSuper – 12.3%
2. MTAA – 11.7%
3. Statewide Super – 11.5%
4. AMP Future Directions – 11.5%
5. VicSuper – 11.1%
6. UniSuper – 11%
7. HOSTPLUS – 11%
8. Intrust Super – 10.9%
9. MLC Horizon – 10.9%
10. AustralianSuper – 10.9%
 
The top 10 super funds 2005-2015
1. REST Industry Super – 7.7%
2. Telstra Super – 7.6%
3. Commonwealth Bank Group Super – 7.4%
4. CareSuper – 7.4%
5. AustralianSuper – 7.3%
6. Catholic Super – 7.2%
7. Cbus – 7.2%
8. QSuper – 7.2%
9. UniSuper – 7.2%
10. HOSTPLUS – 7.1%
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

CBUS sits in 7th place on past decade top 10 super funds

<html><body>
A Federal Court judgment this month provides telling lessons for members of self-managed super funds (SMSFs), including those operating small-medium businesses.
The court personally fined the husband-and-wife directors of their SMSF’s corporate trustee a total of $50,000 for a series of contraventions of superannuation law, including the making of 80 “loans” to members, namely themselves.
Fund money was also used to buy study cattle “for hobby purposes” as well as to pay veterinary bills and other related expenses without the fund earning income from the expenditure. The couple, who were the only members of their SMSF, operates a livestock business in Victoria.
Further, the trustees allowed their son to live in a fund-owned property without paying the rent required under the lease. And the fund had spent $48,500 on furniture before the lease commenced.
This court case – <a href="https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2014/2014fca1101">Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Superannuation) versus Graham Family Superannuation Pty Ltd, Ian Christopher Graham and Carolyn Ann Graham</a> – illustrates the risks when SMSF members mix their superannuation and their non-superannuation finances.
Peter Bobbin, principal of lawyers Rockwell Olivier in Sydney, says: “Without doubt, the couple used the super fund as a personal bank to fund their [pre-retirement] lifestyles.”
There is no suggestion in the judgment that the husband-and-wife trustee directors/members in this case used money from their SMSF in relationship to their business. However, Bobbin and Chris Malkin, the senior consultant auditor with Baumgartner Superannuation, say the case represents a warning for SME owners about the dangers of mixing their super, their business and personal finances.
“This case reminds me of the need for SME owners to quarantine their superannuation from their business activities,” says Bobbin. And Malkin believes that SME owners can face a greater temptation than other members to use their super money for purposes other than for their retirement.
“The simple reason is that the cash-flows of SME owners are sometimes stretched and some may see their super fund as a pseudo bank,” says Malkin.
The couple’s contraventions of superannuation law included breaching superannuation’s sole purpose test, providing financial assistance to members, exceeding the limits on in-house assets and failing to conduct dealings on an arm’s length basis.
This case should reinforce to SMSF members regarding some of the most fundamental provisions in superannuation law. These include:
<ol>
<li>The sole-purpose test: A super fund must be maintained for the purpose of providing retirement or death benefits to members.</li>
<li>The ban on providing financial assistance, including loans, to members or their relatives: Significantly, there is no exemption under the in-house rule (see next point) to the ban on providing financial assistance to members.</li>
<li>The in-house asset rule: SMSFs are generally prohibited from making loans, providing leases or having investments with related parties and entities that exceed 5% of its total asset value. (One of the very few exemptions to the in-house asset rule is business real estate.)</li>
<li>Arm’s length investments: A fund must make investments on an arm’s length, commercial basis.
</li>
</ol>
As Peter Bobbin of Rockwell Olivier says, the ATO in this instance did not revoke the SMSF’s complying status but had decided to pursue the trustees through the court.
When an SMSF is declared non-complying, its assets – less any after-tax, non-concessional contributions – are taxed at the highest marginal rate. This is widely regarded as an ultimate sanction against an SMSF.
Stuart Jones, author of the Australian Superannuation Handbook 2014-15 (published by Thomson Reuters) expects that the ATO is likely to apply its new administrative penalty regime, in force from July this year, to similar cases in the future.
Under the new penalty regime, the Tax Office can directly and personally fine SMSF trustees by imposing an administrative penalty (ranging from $850 to $10,200) intended to match the seriousness of the contravention. Therefore, the ATO does not have to go through the expensive and time-consuming process of seeking court-imposed penalties.
Jones says the commissioner still has the option of applying for a civil penalty court order of up to $220,000 for each offence, or even instituting criminal proceedings in certain cases.
Given the large number of contraventions in the Graham family matter, Malkin suspects the overall penalties would have been significantly higher if it had been dealt with under the new penalty regime.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.SmartCompany.com.au" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

SMSFs warned against using fund as 'personal bank'

<html><body>
A representative from the Real Estate Institute of Australia (REIA) recently spoke before the Parliamentary Joint Committee Inquiry into the Financial Services Industry and highlighted a number of concerns for real estate agents and consumers in the SMSF space.
REIA chief executive officer Amanda Lynch, in the latest issue of the REIA’s newsletter, touched on these issues in further detail.
“Our involvement with this inquiry was at the request of the committee, although the REIA has been pro-actively working to address community and industry concerns about the blurring lines between real estate agents and the provision of financial advice,” explained Lynch.
It seems that one of the major concerns is the blurring of the line between the role of a real estate agent and the role of an SMSF financial planning adviser.
This concern is not just strictly related to real estate agents. Just recently, Park Trent Properties, who run seminars and education programs for property investors and promote property, <a href="/guides/asic-commences-proceedings-against-property-promoter-park-trent-properties">have been targeted by ASIC for their SMSF promotions</a>. ASIC explains that they are effectively carrying on an unlicensed financial services business.
Lynch contests that there is an issue, but that it’s limited within the real estate agent profession.
“While we recognise that for the most part, few if any, real estate agents are involved in the promotion of SMSFs, some of our members report that there is an increasing demand from accountants who managed SMSFs on behalf of trustees as well as vertically integrated organisations that approach agents seeking suitable properties,” she said.
She explains that the vast majority of real estate agents do not make estimates on rental returns or capital gain on properties.
However, those that do were noted to utilise statistics publicly available through the ABS, Bendigo and Adelaide Banks and the REIA’s own Real Estate Market Facts and Housing Affordability Report.
“Importantly, no payment is sought for this advice as it forms a basic part of being a real estate agent,” she said.
Lynch also recognised that there are “clusters of agents in certain areas with the dual role of also being a financial planner”.
Currently, a deterrent to this is the high cost of personal indemnity insurance to offer financial advice.
Instead, she also warned that financial advisers are approaching the real estate industry themselves – and not in the most scrupulous way possible. Her warning is towards those who use fast-track course methods to obtain qualifications to become a real estate agent.
They require no exams, are completely solely online and have a “very suspicious 100% success rate” she warns.
The REIA is seeking the de-registration of courses that offer a no course, no examination full success rate.
“These courses are not at all regarded by established real estate agents,” she said.
SMSF trustees have previously <a href="/guides/smsf-trustees-warned-not-to-take-financial-advice-from-real-estate-agents">been warned not to take advice from real estate agents</a> by ASIC commissioner Greg Tanzer.
“ASIC is aware that there has been a sharp rise in promoters recommending that investors either set up or use an existing SMSF to invest in property,” Tanzer said.
“These promoters may not be complying with the law.”
In response to these statements earlier this year, Graeme Colley, director of technical and professional standards at the SMSF Professionals’ Association of Australia, said that real estate agents might not actually know that providing this advice without a licence is illegal.
</body></html>

jduke-EHk3XBmHkn

The blurring line between real estate agents and SMSF advice

<html><body>
Trustees of self-managed super funds (SMSFs) are increasingly putting their retirement savings in jeopardy by granting high-risk, high-interest loans to unrelated businesses in an effort to boost returns in a low-interest environment.
Chris Malkin, senior consultant auditor with Baumgartner Superannuation, suspects that many of the SMSF trustees granting these commercial loans do not understand the extra risks and legal complications involved.
“Some funds are effectively turning themselves into lenders of last resort,” Malkin says. “High-interest, high-risk loans are hardly appropriate investments for super funds.”
Typically when SMSFs strike difficulties with lending money, <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/superannuation/44336-risky-business-using-a-self-managed-super-fund-as-a-personal-bank" target="_blank">the loans have been made to related parties</a>. However, a recent Federal Court case highlights the potential extra risks for super funds when making high-interest loans to unrelated parties.
In the case of <a href="https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2014/2014fca1034" target="_blank">Pozzebon (Trustee) v Australian Gaming and Entertainment Ltd (in liquidation)</a>, a husband-and-wife SMSF agreed in December 2013 to grant a $250,000 secured loan to a Perth-based business, which had agreed to provide security over corporate assets. Five months later, the company went into voluntary liquidation.
The SMSF then claimed that the liquidated company owed the fund $348,713 – $98,713 higher than the amount of the initial loan.
However, the Federal Court ruled the SMSF was an unsecured creditor after finding the fund had not registered the “security interest” on the relatively new Personal Property Securities Register within the required time.
Stuart Jones, author of the Australian Superannuation Handbook 2014-15, says: “The Pozzebon case serves as a warning to SMSF trustees chasing a higher yield that commercial loan investments are intrinsically problematic for most trustees in terms of the skills required to assess and manage the additional risks in such loans.”
Martin Murden, a director of SMSF consulting and auditing with the Partners Wealth Group, says his annual auditing of SMSFs show more funds are granting high-interest commercial loans. And he expects this trend to grow during the current financial year.
Murden believes that most of the SMSFs being drawn into investing in high-interest, high-risk loans already hold a high proportion of their assets in fixed interest and have become dissatisfied with prevailing interest rates.
He says such SMSF trustees typically don’t want to invest in residential real estate because of their concerns about a property bubble yet find the share market too volatile.
Stuart Jones of Thomson Reuters says there is nothing under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act (SIS) to prohibit an SMSF from investing in a loan to an unrelated borrower.
However, Jones says the loan would still need to comply with SIS investment rules including the sole-purpose test, trustee duties, arm’s length dealings and mandatory investment strategy. (Under the sole-purpose test, a super fund must be maintained for the purpose of providing retirement or death benefits to members.)
“The risks associated with a commercial loan would also need to be suitable as part of the fund’s written investment strategy,” Jones stresses. “Therefore, at minimum, a trustee considering an investment loan would need to establish a detailed risk-management plan for the life of the loan.”
Jones says if an SMSF trustee is going to “make loans like a bank”, it needs to assess the loan application and take security, ideally real estate, “like a bank”. This would typically require specialist and accounting advice to assess the loan investment and to ensure security for the loan or priority status among creditors in the event of a default.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

Beware the property bubble loan trap for SMSFs chasing high yields

<html><body>
The Financial System Inquiry recommendations, which include limiting self managed superfunds’ investment in property, have been criticised by the Real Estate Institute of Australia (REIA) who remain unconvinced about the risks.
REIA chief executive Amanda Lynch said they welcome the release of the Inquiry as an opportunity to identify scope for concern, but see a number of recommendations that could burden home borrowers.
“REIA is not convinced that the risks associated with lending through self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) warrant the recommendations to limit the scope for SMSFs to invest in property,” she said.
“While we have well-documented concerns around the inappropriate marketing of property as part of an SMSF, REIA would be concerned by any move to restrict the possibility for mum and dad investors to secure their retirement through a balanced portfolio which includes property.”
The submission made by the REIA in August to the interim report noted that it is the place of the Inquiry to report on integrity and risks to the financial systems.
At the time, they warned that proposals around prohibiting SMSFs from leveraging into property “could be seen as passing an assessment on what are suitable investments for individuals.”
“Further, it ignores the fact that lending to SMSFs is such a very small part of the financial system that it is inconceivable that it presents a risk to it, even with further growth,” the submitted.
They noted that borrowers already have a number of restrictions, including the use of the property, the arms-length relationship with tenancies, and annual auditor scrutiny.
“To impose a prohibition on borrowing by SMSFs would put a constraint on the maximising of the profits of those funds and thus limit retirement savings,” the submission noted.
In fact, they made these four recommendations instead:
<ol>
<li>That the risk weights for insured loans be reduced. 
</li>
<li>That the current arrangements regarding negative gearing remain unchanged. 
</li>
<li>That a data base be developed to reduce information asymmetries between lenders and borrowers. 
</li>
<li>That the current arrangements regarding leveraging by superannuation funds remain unchanged.</li>
</ol>
</body></html>

The REIA’s four alternatives to restricting SMSF property investments

<html><body>
The Federal Court of Australia has made declarations and ordered Superannuation Warehouse Australia Pty Ltd (SWA) to pay a penalty of $25,000 for false and misleading “Free SMSF Setup” advertising.
The statements were made on two websites operated by SWA.
SWA, which provides online accounting and administration services for self-managed superannuation funds (SMSF), admitted that the statements were false and misleading. 
It consented to the declarations and additional orders requiring SWA to:
<ul>
<li>implement a compliance program;</li>
<li>post notices on the websites about the proceeding; and</li>
<li>notify consumers who applied to SWA for the free SMSF setup service about the proceeding.</li>
</ul>
The Federal Court found that between 22 January 2014 and 8 May 2015, the "Free SMSF Setup" statement on the websites was false, misleading and deceptive because it represented that SWA would set up an SMSF at no cost when in fact:
<ul>
<li>SWA’s online application form for the free SMSF set up service could not be submitted without authorising SWA to be the fund administrator for which there was a fixed monthly fee;</li>
<li>SWA requested applicants to put in place a payment plan for monthly payments of administration fees when it set up the SMSF; and</li>
<li>SWA charged monthly fees for its SMSF administration services.</li>
</ul>
These matters were not clearly or prominently disclosed on the websites.
In addition, between 22 January 2014 and 5 August 2014 applications for SMSF set up with a corporate trustee required a payment of $950 to be made to SWA, without this being clearly and as prominently stated on the websites where “Free SMSF Setup” was advertised.
In the judgment, His Honour Justice Beach found that the "Free SMSF Setup" representation was false or misleading in that:
"a)      the administrator consent was required for the “Free SMSF Setup”;
b)      the administrator consent affected the costs of the “Free SMSF Setup”; and
c)      monthly fees were required to be paid to SWA for its services.
In the circumstances the setup was not 'free'.”
ASIC Deputy Chair Peter Kell welcomed the decision saying establishing a self-managed superannuation fund is a significant financial decision. 
"Consumers should not be misled by advertising, including online.  
"ASIC considers that terms such as "free" convey a strong impression to consumers and should not be used where there is any charge or cost associated with the product or service advertised."
</body></html>

Free SMSF setup claims cop Federal Court fine

<html><body>
Property investments by SMSFs through limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs) could come under increased scrutiny of the tax office this year, says major accounting firm H&amp;R Block.
Last year, the ATO had expressed concern at LRBA loans that were not structured correctly, including incorrect registration of the ownership of property bought under an LRBA. It spoke of increasing its focus on the LRBA route.
Given the growth in the SMSF sector and the increasing popularity of strategies such as LRBAs, H&amp;R Block has tipped that property will remain a top priority for the ATO’s compliance work in the SMSF sector this year.
“I know the ATO always keeps a close eye on property investment and especially LRBAs,” H&amp;R Block's director of tax communications, Mark Chapman told SMSF Adviser.
This particularly applies to related party borrowings which may currently be structured on non-commercial terms, with a June 30 deadline to have these structures rectified, it said.
According to the ATO website, an asset purchased by an SMSF trustee through LRBA is held in a separate trust.
If the loan defaults, the lender's rights are limited to the asset held in the separate trust, but not to assets held in the SMSF.
In 2015, an ATO campaign saw 500 postcodes issued with warnings urging holiday home owners to ensure deductions were not made during periods a property was not available for let.
“With property rental a valuable source of extra income for millions of taxpayers, it can be expected that the ATO will follow up with some targeted reviews and audits this year,” Chapman was quoted as saying.
The “sharing economy” – “driven in part by the high levels of non-compliance amongst those driving for Uber or renting rooms through Airbnb,” would also be an area of scrutiny by the ATO, he said. 
</body></html>

prateek24-ezbwHMbNAk

ATO to focus on LRBA route to property investment by SMSFs

<html><body>
SMSF retirees need to save more to achieve their retirement goals due to a weaker investment outlook that indicates returns will remain lower for longer, according to new research.
According to a scenario from the report titled SMSFs Treading Water, a 65-year-old SMSF couple to afford a comfortable retirement (as defined by ASFA1) has increased by 17% from $702,000 to $824,000. 
However, 66% of SMSF trustees can remain confident (with an 80% probability) that they are well placed to live comfortably in retirement on $60,063 a year, according to the report by the SMSF Association and SMSF retirement experts Accurium.
At a higher spending level of $70,000 a year, 50% can be confident of achieving this goal, while 39% can be very confident of doing so. 
The median desired spending level in retirement for an SMSF couple is $78,800, up from $75,000 a year earlier, says the report. However, 24% of SMSF couples aim to spend over $100,000 a year in retirement. 
At an aspirational level of $100,000 a year spending, 28% can be confident and just 20% very confident. 
Another key finding is that the median balance for a two-member SMSF at retirement rose to $1.137 million for the 2016 financial year compared with $1.124 million for the previous year. SMSF median balances at retirement have risen 17% since 2010. 
Contrary to the widely-held belief that bequests are central to SMSF retirement plans, only 7% of SMSF households have specific inheritance plans. 
More than half of SMSF retirees cannot be reasonably confident (80% probability) of achieving their desired lifestyle in retirement, although about 25% can be very confident (95% probability).
One in four are unlikely (less than 50% chance) to achieve their goals.
SMSF Association head of Technical Peter Hogan said the report highlights that most SMSF trustees are still on track to meet their retirement goals, despite a difficult investment environment and low interest rates. 
“But for trustees and their specialist advisors, these are challenging times, especially on the investment front. From our perspective, this is why it’s critical superannuation has a sustained period of stability free from significant changes to give trustees greater confidence in the system.” 
Accurium’s general manager, Douglas McBirnie, said the Reserve Bank had said in July that the neutral nominal cash rate, a key indicator, was now 3.5% rather than 5% previously, indicating an increased probability of a ‘lower for longer’ situation — interest rates and equity returns remaining low.
“The upshot for the average SMSF household approaching retirement is that their improving balance has not been able to keep up with the increased cost of meeting their desired lifestyle in retirement,” said McBirnie.   “Even so, SMSF households are still better placed than most sectors of the community to meet their financial goals in retirement.”
The SMSF Association and Accurium study is the first report to provide detailed figures on how the retirement wealth of Australia’s SMSFs has changed post the 2016 SMSF annual tax returns. 
The report draws from Accurium’s database and looks at how SMSFs have fared in the 2016 financial year and considers how well prepared trustees are for retirement.
The research shows that although SMSFs are generally well prepared for retirement, lower expected investment returns means that trustees need to review their retirement plans to ensure they have enough capital to support their retirement goals.
It takes a probability-based approach which factors in more than 2,000 investment scenarios to show the capital levels required for trustees to retire with confidence of achieving the retirement lifestyle they want. 
Statistical analysis is drawn from a database of over 65,000 SMSFs (approximately 130,000 SMSF trustees) which precedes the Australian Taxation Office’s Statistical Overview for 2016, which is likely to become available in late 2017. 
Accurium’s dataset represents SMSF households who are phasing into retirement.
 
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Lower investment returns to stretch SMSF investment goals, says study

<html><body>
ASIC has accepted a court enforceable undertaking (EU) from Gold Coast-based accountant, Jenan Thorne of Saber Superannuation Pty Ltd after it found she had failed to act in the best interests of her clients and had prioritised her own interests above their interests.
The undertaking prevents Mrs Thorne (also known as Cenan Thorne or Cenan Dikmen) from providing financial services for a period of three years effective from 13 February 2019.
ASIC decided to review Mrs Thorne's advice when it discovered, during its investigation into Park Trent Properties Group Pty Ltd, that she was receiving referrals in relation to establishing self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) from Park Trent.
ASIC reviewed advice provided by Mrs Thorne when she was a representative of SMSF Advice Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of AMP Limited, and concluded that she had advised some of her clients to establish SMSFs without taking their circumstances into account.
ASIC found that Mrs Thorne hadn't properly considered her clients' existing superannuation arrangements or explored why they were interested in investing in direct residential property through an SMSF.
When recommending SMSFs to some of her clients, she had inappropriately scoped advice by excluding insurance and retirement planning.
ASIC also found that Mrs Thorne did not adequately stress-test SMSF strategies and had recommended SMSFs to some of her clients despite inadequate evidence to suggest that the strategies would provide increased retirement benefits.
Furthermore, Mrs Thorne had recommended that her accountancy practice, Saber Accountants Pty Ltd, prepare the annual accounts and tax returns for the SMSF clients.  This led ASIC to determine that Mrs Thorne recommended the services of a related party to create extra revenue for herself.
As part of the EU, Mrs Thorne has agreed to inform all her former personal advice clients about the EU and provide contact details of her former licensee, SMSF Advice Pty Ltd. Former clients of Mrs Thorne who have enquiries or complaints regarding her advice or conduct should contact SMSF Advice Pty Ltd.
ASIC expects financial advisers to comply with their best interests duty and pay particular attention to how they scope their advice to clients.
Prior to recommending SMSFs, advisers should critically probe why a client wants to set up an SMSF and what they hope to achieve. Advisers should also give adequate consideration to risk management and succession planning before setting up an SMSF for a client.
ASIC Commissioner Danielle Press said financial advisers have a legal obligation to provide advice that is in the best interests of their clients, not prioritise their own interests or simply implement client instructions. 
</body></html>

Latest Guides

Help to Buy Scheme: What first home buyers in NSW need to know

News

Editor's Picks

News

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Latest Guides

Help to Buy Scheme: What first home buyers in NSW need to know

News

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

News

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News