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>
<div class="page" title="Page 3">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The Year of the Monkey offers great opportunities for Chinese investors who are looking to buy property in Australia. 
The benefits to investing in Australia’s housing market include the country’s healthy and comfortable lifestyle, the property market’s relative stability, and regulations that protect investors’ ownership rights. 
Australian rental properties often deliver yields in the range of 3 percent to 5 percent, plus the potential for strong capital gains over the long term. 
Housing values in Australia’s major capitals have been rising over the past few years, driven by low interest rates and high investor demand. 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Simply <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2016/chinese_ebook/english_guide.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a> to get your copy of Property Observer's eBook, Buying property in Australia: A guide for Chinese investors.
{rsform 54}
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Buying property in Australia: A guide for Chinese investors

<html><body><div>
Share markets in Australia have had a horror start to 2016 following weak performance in 2015.
Market losses are leading some investors to query whether to look elsewhere for investment.
Amid market volatility, some Australians will be eyeing residential property as a safer haven for their investments, not withstanding the likelihood of reform to the longstanding negative gearing system.
The prospects for Australian property over the coming year also mixed.
So what should you consider when reviewing your asset portfolio?
To download our handy guide from DPN to help aid your decision, <a href="/images/2016/DPN_ebook/DPN.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a>.
</div></body></html>

Property v Shares

<html><body>
Investing during times of market stress and volatility can be difficult. For this reason it’s useful for SMSF investors to keep a key set of things – call them rules – in mind.
The seven key rules, in my view, are: be aware that there is always a cycle; invest for the long term; turn down the noise; buy low and sell high; beware of the crowd; diversify and focus on investments offering a sustainable cash flow.
1. Be aware that there is always a cycle
The historical experience of investment markets – be they bonds, shares, property or infrastructure – constantly reminds us they go through cyclical phases of good times and bad. Some are short term, such as occasional corrections. Some are medium term, such as those that relate to the three to five year business cycle. Some are longer, such as the secular swings seen over 10 to 20 year periods in shares. But all eventually contain the seeds of their own reversal. The trouble with cycles is that they can throw investors out of a well thought out investment strategy that aims to take advantage of long term returns and can cause problems for investors when they are in or close to retirement. In saying this, cycles can also create opportunities.
2. Invest for the long term
The best way for most investors to avoid losing at investments is to invest for the long term. Get a long term plan that suits your level of wealth, age and tolerance of volatility and stick to it. This may involve a high exposure to shares and property when you are young or have plenty of funds to invest when you are in retirement and still have your day to day needs covered. Alternatively if you can’t afford to take a long term approach or can’t tolerate short term volatility then it is worth considering investing in funds that use strategies like dynamic asset allocation to target a particular goal – be that in relation to a return level or cash flow. Such approaches are also worth considering if you want to try and take advantage of the opportunities that volatility in investment markets through up.
3. Turn down the noise and focus on the right asset mix
The combination of too much information has turned investing into a daily soap opera – as we go from worrying about one thing after another. Once you have worked out a strategy that is right for you, it’s important to turn down the noise on the information flow surrounding investment markets. This also involves keeping your investment strategy relatively simple – lots of time can be wasted on fretting over individual shares or managed funds – which is just a distraction from making sure you have the right asset mix as it’s your asset allocation that will mainly drive the return you will get.
4. Buy low, sell high
One reality of investing is that the price you pay for an investment or asset matters a lot in terms of the return you will get. It stands to reason that the cheaper you buy an asset the higher its prospective return will be and vice versa, all other things being equal. If you do have to trade or move your investments around then remember to buy when markets are down and sell when they are up.
5. Beware the crowd and a herd mentality
The issue with crowds is that eventually everyone who wants to buy will do so and then the only way is down (and vice versa during periods of panic). As Warren Buffet once said the key is to "be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful".
6. Diversify
This is a no brainer. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket as the old saying goes. Unfortunately, plenty do. Through last decade many questioned the value of holding global shares in their investment portfolios as Australian shares were doing so well. Interestingly, for the last five or so years global shares have been far better performers and have proven their worth.
It appears that common approaches in SMSF funds are to have one or two high-yielding and popular shares and a term deposit. This could potentially leave an investor very exposed to either a very low return oif something goes wrong in the high -yield share that they’re invested in. By the same token, don’t over diversify with multiple – say greater than 30 – shares and/or managed funds as this may just add complexity without any real benefit.
7. Focus on investments offering sustainable cash flow
This is very important. There’s been lots of investments over the decades that have been sold on false promises of high returns or low risk (for example, many technological stocks in the 1990s, resources stocks periodically and the sub-prime asset-back securities of last decade). If it looks dodgy, hard to understand or has to be based on obscure valuation measures to stack up, then it’s best to stay away. There is no such thing as a free lunch in investing – if an investment looks too good to be true in terms of the return and risk on offer, then it probably is. By contrast, assets that generate sustainable cash flows (profits, rents, interest payments) and don't rely on excessive gearing or financial engineering are more likely to deliver.
Final thoughts
Investing is not easy and given the psychological traps that we are all susceptible to – in particular the tendency to over-react to the current state of investment markets – a good approach is to simply seek the advice of a coach such as a financial adviser.
 
<a href="https://www.ampcapital.com.au/smsf-suite/product-suite">Dr Shane Oliver</a>, head of investment strategy and economics and chief economist at AMP Capital is responsible for AMP Capital's diversified investment funds. He also provides economic forecasts and analysis of key variables and issues affecting, or likely to affect, all asset markets.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Property 101: Seven rules for SMSF investors

<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>
GUEST OBSERVER
Through ATO ID 2015/27 and ATO ID 2015/28 the ATO seem to have cemented their position in relation to the application of s 295-550 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) to related party limited recourse borrowing arrangements (‘LRBAs’). 
Importantly, the ATO has since <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Super/Self-managed-super-funds/In-detail/News/Non-arm-s-length-limited-recourse-borrowing-arrangements" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">confirmed</a> that their approach to this issue in future private rulings and litigation will be consistent with their view in ATO ID 2015/27 and ATO ID 2015/28.
In December 2014, DBA Lawyers director Daniel Butler noted that: 
SMSFs that are not benchmarked should consider doing so before any ATO audit activity occurs. Hopefully, the ATO may provide an amnesty to encourage SMSFs to benchmark to arm’s length. The big question here is whether the ATO will require retrospective adjustment.
Well it appears that the hoped-for amnesty has arrived. At a meeting of the Superannuation Industry Relationship Network on 10 November 2015 the ATO confirmed that SMSF trustees should review their LRBAs to determine whether they were established and maintained on terms that are consistent with an arm’s length dealing. While not certain, it also appears that the ATO <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Super/Self-managed-super-funds/In-detail/News/Non-arm-s-length-limited-recourse-borrowing-arrangements/" target="_blank">will not require retrospective adjustment</a>, stating that
We will not be selecting an SMSF for review for the 2014-15 year or earlier years purely because the fund has entered into an LRBA.
The ATO is to be commended for this pragmatic and fair approach. Allowing SMSF trustees to review and amend their loan terms seems fair and reasonable, particularly given various uncertainties that existed up until recently regarding related party LRBAs.
The amnesty is not open ended however, with SMSF trustees being encouraged to take the actions suggested before 30 June 2016. From that time:
The Commissioner may allocate compliance resources to review an LRBA of an SMSF for the 2015-16 year or later years.
Further, while the ATO is not dedicating compliance resources to review an LRBA of an SMSF until 1 July 2016, if the ATO come across an SMSF with a non-commercial LRBA via their usual activity in the meantime, the income of the SMSF might be taxed at the non-arm’s length income tax rate of 47% in accordance with s 295-550 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth). It is clear then that it is in the best interests of SMSF trustees to get their house in order sooner rather than later. 
So what does this mean for SMSF trustees with an LRBA related party loan?
We understand that with a diminishing number of banks willing to lend to SMSFs, related party loans may seem like an appealing option. However SMSF trustees need to be careful to ensure that related party loans are strictly on an arm’s length basis to prevent SMSF income being NALI.
For those looking to enter into a new LRBA with a related party lender, proper benchmarking is crucial. In practical terms this means approaching a number of bank/unrelated lenders and obtaining quotes for the kind of loan terms they would offer to the SMSF in their particular circumstances, and then ensuring that the related party loan mirrors the terms offered by the unrelated lenders. For those who have already entered into an LRBA with a related party lender, now is the time to closely review your LRBA to ensure that it will stand up to ATO scrutiny. 
Favourable loan terms which may suggest that a related party loan is not on an arm’s length basis include:
·         <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/view.htm?docid=%22AID%2FAID201528%2F00001%22" target="_blank">loans with 0%</a> or low non-commercial interest;
·         <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/view.htm?docid=%22AID%2FAID201528%2F00001%22" target="_blank">high loan to value ratios</a>; and
·         <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/view.htm?docid=%22AID%2FAID201527%2F00001%22" target="_blank">single lump sum repayment</a> at the end of the loan term rather than regular periodic repayments.
Further Training and Assistance
Advisers can brush up on the key considerations by signing up for <a href="https://www.dbanetwork.com.au/dbalawyers/seminars3/2712/3722/SMSF-Core-Course" target="_blank">Unit 10: LRBAs in the DBA Lawyers Core Course</a>. DBA Lawyers also offers a <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/smsf-borrowing-alter-terms/" target="_blank">service of altering the terms of an existing LRBA borrowing</a> and also <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/smsf-borrowing-loan-refinance/" target="_blank">prepares documents to refinance an existing LRBA borrowing</a>.
Those who are concerned that the favourable terms of their related party loan may give rise to NALI should seriously consider changing the terms of their loan to ensure that the parties are in the same position they would have been in had they dealt at arm’s length. While the ATO are yet to define a ‘safe harbour’ it is certainly prudent to mitigate the risks by having well-documented ‘benchmark’ evidence to indicate arm’s length terms and conditions.
Philippa Briglia is lawyer and Bryce Figot is director, DBA Lawyers and can be contacted <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

ATO to act soon on related party LRBAs

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The last 12 months have been a roller coaster ride for SMSF limited recourse borrowing arrangements. I thought I’d take the opportunity to re-cap what’s happened.
FSI
The biggest change — or more accurately the biggest non-change — is the government’s decision not to action the recommendation coming out of the Financial System Inquiry.
The final FSI report — released in December 2014 — had recommended that the government:
[r]emove the exception to the general prohibition on direct borrowing for limited recourse borrowing arrangements by superannuation funds.
More specifically, it stated:
Government should restore the general prohibition on direct borrowing by superannuation funds by removing Section 67A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act) on a prospective basis.
It described the problem as follows:
… growth in superannuation funds’ direct borrowing would, over time, increase risk in the financial system … the Inquiry notes an emerging trend of superannuation funds using LRBAs to purchase assets. Over the past five years, the amount of funds borrowed using LRBAs increased almost 18 times, from $497 million in June 2009 to $8.7 billion in June 2014.
Naturally, this was a cause for concern for many in the SMSF industry. Also, some felt that the recommendation unfairly targeted all LRBAs where only some or a minority posed any concern. Of course there are risks with any borrowing, but I have seen many SMSF trustees carefully plan and meticulously implement LRBAs which greatly added to an SMSF’s ability to provide retirement benefits. Such carefully thought out investments added only a commensurate amount of increased risk for the increased amount of return.
The recommendation was a particular concern for those SMSF trustees who had signed contracts to buy properties off-the-plan. With such purchases typically one must wait well over a year before the apartment is built and a bank is ready to execute loan documentation. If the government changed the law in the meanwhile, such SMSFs could have been left in a tricky position.
Luckily, the government has adopted a ‘wait and see’ approach. More specifically, on 20 October the government responded to the FSI as follows:
The Government does not agree with the Inquiry’s recommendation to prohibit limited recourse borrowing arrangements by superannuation funds.
While the Government notes that there are anecdotal concerns about limited recourse borrowing arrangements, at this time the Government does not consider the data sufficient to justify significant policy intervention.
Accordingly, LRBAs are still allowable … at least for the time being!
Bank policies
The last 12 months have seen a marked increase in difficulties in getting a bank to agree to lend to SMSFs. Some banks appear to flat out refuse to enter into new LRBAs for the acquisition of residential real estate. As at the date of writing, it is too soon to say with certainty, but due to the government not banning LRBAs (as set out above) it is hoped that the major banks will re-enter the residential LRBA market.
New tax legislation
The passing of the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 2) Act 2015 (Cth) was a positive change. It clarifies that a look through approach can be applied to the bare/holding trust that is a mandatory feature of LRBAs.
This new law inserted into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) the concepts of an ‘instalment trust’ and an ‘instalment trust asset’. These include respectively an LRBA bare/holding trust and the asset that is owned via the bare/holding trust.
The legislation goes on to provide that where an investor (eg, an SMSF) has a beneficial interest in an instalment trust asset under an instalment trust, the asset is treated as being the investor’s asset instead of being an asset of the trust.
It gives the following examples:
<ul>
<li>A dividend in respect of the asset is paid to the instalment trust (ie, the bare/holding trustee). Under the new law the dividend is treated as if it had been paid directly to the investor.</li>
<li>A trustee of an instalment trust (ie, the bare/holding trustee) disposes of the instalment trust asset. Under the new law any capital gain or loss is made by the investor, not by the trustee.</li>
</ul>
Also, although the changes were inserted into the income tax legislation, they also extend to GST. For example, the recently inserted s 235 820(5) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) contains the following example:
If the trustee [of the instalment trust] has a net input tax credit under the GST Act, the [SMSF] must apply the credit to reduce the investor’s cost base for the instalment trust asset (even if the [SMSF] is not registered or required to be registered for GST purposes).
In truth though, many were not too excited by the passing of the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 2) Act 2015 (Cth) as it simply confirmed what has already been industry practice for many years.
Related party lending
Naturally, it is possible for the lender to an SMSF to be a related party.
In 2010, in Australian Taxation Office Interpretative Decision ATO ID 2010/162 the ATO stated that ‘there is no contravention of section 109 of the SISA if the terms [of a related party SMSF loan] are more favourable to the SMSF [than had the parties been at arm’s length].’
Then, the NTLG Superannuation Technical minutes of June 2012 record that the following two questions were put to the ATO:
If a related party lender offers a discounted rate of interest to an SMSF under a section 67A borrowing arrangement, would the discount be considered a contribution received by the SMSF?
Can an SMSF enter into a borrowing arrangement … with a related party if a zero rate of interest is charged by the related party lender and only principal repayments, with no imputed interest, are made throughout the loan term in accordance with the loan agreement?
The ATO answered both in terms favourable to taxpayers (ie, no to the first and yes to the second).
Further, in the general NTLG minutes of December 2012, the ATO stated:
The ATO position on low rate loan arrangements and LRBA is that that they do not generally invoke a contravention of the SISA, do not give rise to non-arm’s length income under section 295-550 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA), do not invoke Part IVA of the ITAA 1936 and are not considered to give rise to contributions to the SMSF just from that one fact alone.
Accordingly, many had read this as being a ‘carte blanche’ for low — or even nil — interest related party LRBAs. At DBA Lawyers we had never been a fan of such arrangements and of course ATO comments in NTLG minutes are not binding.
Then, in December 2014 the ATO released Australian Taxation Office Interpretative Decisions ATO ID 2014/39 and ATO ID 2014/40. These both considered related party LRBAs with nil interest being charged and both stated that the ATO’s view is that the arrangements did give rise to non-arm’s length income.
Accordingly, the position that DBA Lawyers has long been in favour of is now broadly well accepted by all, namely, that related party LRBAs should be on the same terms that would be agreed with an arm’s length lender.
Conclusion
The last year has shown that LRBAs are here to say (at least for the foreseeable future), but we must be just as careful as ever in their set up. This care includes ranging from ensuring that a bank will lend, up to ensuring that — where there is a related party — the terms of the loan are reflective of what is arm’s length.
This article is for general information only and should not be relied upon without first seeking advice from an appropriately qualified professional.
 
Bryce Figot is a lawyer at DBA Lawyers and <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/" target="_blank">can be contacted here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Recap on SMSF limited recourse borrowing arrangements

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
All newly acquired investments by SMSF trustees in collectables and personal use assets since 1 July 2011 have been subject to strict rules under reg 13.18AA of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (Cth) (‘SISR’).
However, SMSF trustees should be aware that the grandfathering relief in relation to such investments that were held prior to 1 July 2011 will come to an end on 1 July 2016. Therefore, to avoid potential penalties, SMSF trustees with grandfathered investments in collectables and personal use assets will need to consider the current rules carefully and take appropriate action before 1 July 2016 to ensure their investments are compliant. 
This article provides an overview of the rules concerning collectables and personal use assets. 
The origin of the rules
The current rules in relation to collectables and personal use assets arose in response to the 2010 Super System Review (also known as the Cooper Review). The Cooper Review expressed concern that there was an unacceptable risk that investments by SMSF trustees in collectables and personal use assets may be made for present day benefits rather than for the purposes of retirement. Accordingly, the final report recommended a total prohibition on SMSF trustees making such investments. 
However, the federal government rejected the recommended blanket ban and instead sought to allay these concerns by legislating certain restrictions which are contained inreg 13.18AA of the SISR which commenced 1 July 2011. 
Collectables and personal use assets
Regulation 13.18AA covers artwork, jewellery, antiques, artefacts, coins, medallions or bank notes, postage stamps or first day covers, rare folios, manuscripts or books, memorabilia, wine or spirits, motor vehicles, recreational boats, and memberships of sporting or social clubs.
As matter of passing curiosity, we note that collectables and personal use assets include antique firearms but not modern firearms. Moreover, we note that it applies to spirits and wine, but not to beer or pre-mixed drinks. 
No leases to related parties
Sub-regulations (2) and (3) of reg 13.18AA require that SMSF trustees must not lease collectables and personal use assets to a related party of the SMSF, or enter into lease arrangements in respect of these assets with related parties. A lease arrangement is a broad concept covering any agreement, arrangement or understanding in the nature of a lease.
No use by related parties
SMSF trustees must not allow collectables and personal use assets to be used by a related party of the SMSF.
Storage in private residence of related parties
Sub-regulation (3) of reg 13.18AA prohibits SMSF trustees from storing collectables and personal use assets in the private residence of related parties.
The drafting of this provision raises the question of whether it may be possible to store collectables or personal use assets in the offices of related parties where those offices are not a private residence. For example, might an SMSF trustee be allowed to store artwork in the business premises of a related party? 
The ATO has published material on their website which clarifies the position:
You can store (but not display) collectables and personal use assets in premises owned by a related party provided it is not their private residence. They can't be displayed because this means they are being used by the related party. For example, if your SMSF invests in artwork it can't be hung in the business premises of a related party where it is visible to clients and employees.
Remember to keep a record of the reasons for deciding on where to store the assets.
Though this is not binding on the ATO, as the regulator of SMSFs, it is consistent with the legal construction of the regulations and the ATO seems relatively likely to follow the views expressed in such public materials.
SMSF trustees must also make and keep written records of the reasoning behind any storage decisions. There is no specific timeframe as to when the written records must be made, however, the record must be kept for at least 10 years after the decision.
Insurance
The rules stipulate that SMSF trustees must insure collectables and personal use assets in the name of the SMSF within seven days of acquiring such items, excluding memberships of sporting or social clubs.
More specifically, reg 13.18AA(5) provides:
Each trustee of a regulated superannuation fund that is a self managed superannuation fund commits an offence if:
(a)  the fund owns a section 62A item, other than a membership of a sporting or social club; and
(b)  it is more than 7 days since the fund acquired the item; and
(c)  the item is not insured in the name of the fund.
The reference to ‘owns’ is an interesting aspect of the drafting of sub-reg (5). It must be noted that most of the compliance requirements in reg 13.18AA are drafted using the language ‘holds an investment involving’ rather than ‘owns’ [emphasis added]. 
This difference in language raises the question of whether the requirement for taking out insurance in the fund's name would still apply in relation to investments in collectables and personal use assets which are held through an interposed entity. For example, could an SMSF trustee invest in artwork as a unitholder in a div 13.3A non-geared unit trust without the insurance requirement applying? If so, this would allow for more flexible insurance arrangements, such as having artwork insured as part of an overall gallery policy. 
Realisation of assets and related party transfers
Collectables and personal use assets must be realised for a market price determined by a qualified independent valuer if a related party receives an interest in the asset because of the realisation.
More specifically, reg 13.18AA(7) provides:
A trustee of a regulated superannuation fund that is a self managed superannuation fund commits an offence if: 
(a)  the trustee realises an investment held by the fund involving a section 62A item; and 
(b)  a related party of the fund receives an interest in the item because of the realisation; and 
(c)  the realisation was not at a market price determined by a qualified independent valuer. 
Though the ATO has long maintained that qualified independent valuers are desirable, it is notable that this is the first time that there has been an actual legislative requirement to utilise a qualified independent valuer.
Moreover, given the legislation is framed in terms of the SMSF trustee being the entity which ‘realises’ the collectable or a personal use asset, this raises the question of exactly what kind of dealings are covered.  
Neither ‘realises’ or ‘realisation’ are defined in the SISR. Therefore, in the absence of an express definition, we note that words should take their ordinary meaning. Relevantly, Macquarie Dictionary defines realise as follows:
4. to covert into cash or money: to realise securities.
5. to obtain as a profit or income for oneself by trade, labour or investment
6. to bring as proceeds, as from a sale: the goods realised $1000
7. to convert property or goods into cash or money.
Furthermore, the explanatory statement which introduced the provisions in reg 13.18AA uses the language ‘disposes of’. This would tend to suggest that disposal of the asset is required for the purposes of the regulations.
Though the above points are not entirely dispositive, it is arguable that a transfer of an asset directly to a member by way of in specie lump sum would not be caught by reg 13.18AA(7) and thus independent valuation would not be required. Naturally, however, this is a novel and untested construction and therefore the most prudent course of action may be to obtain a qualified independent valuation in any event. 
The end of grandfathering
As noted above, the rules in reg 13.18AA did not immediately apply to existing investments in collectables and personal use assets when the requirements commenced on 1 July 2011. This is because reg 13.18AA(9) provides that sub-regs (2)­–(7) do not apply to investments in collectables and personal use assets that were held by the fund on 30 June 2011. However, the rules will apply to such ‘older’ assets from 1 July 2016 because reg 13.18AA(9) ceases to be enforced as of 1 July 2016 (refer to reg 13.18AA(10)). 
Thus, SMSFs with grandfathered collectables and personal use assets must conform with reg 13.18AA by July 2016. For example, if artwork was stored at a member’s private residence, was not insured, or was leased to a member, the artwork must be leased to a third party at arm’s length terms and insured, or otherwise disposed of by 1 July 2016.
Penalties for contraventions
The prescribed penalty for contravention of any of the above rules is 10 penalty units (ie, $1,800 currently) for each SMSF trustee. This is another timely reminder of the advantages of using a corporate trustee over individual trustees. 
Where contraventions involve a collection of items, the potential for a penalty multiplier to apply to the facts should also be considered. Case law, such as Olesen v Eddy [2011] FCA 13 [32], Vivian v Fitzgeralds [2007] FCA 1602 [33] and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Derstepanian (2005) 60 ATR 518 [31] suggests that a multiplier approach is unlikely, however, no guarantee can be given about this and SMSF trustees should be very careful to ensure they comply with the rules.
Conclusion
SMSF trustees who have previously enjoyed grandfathered protection in relation to their investments in collectables and personal use assets held prior to 1 July 2011 will need to take appropriate action to ensure they meet the strict requirements of the SISR prior to 1 July 2016. 
This article is for general information only and should not be relied upon without first seeking advice from an appropriately qualified professional.
 
William Fettes and Bryce Figot are lawyers at DBA Lawyers and <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/" target="_blank">can be contacted here</a>.
</body></html>

Collectables and personal use assets in an SMSF: Bryce Figot

<html><body>
Tim Mackay, principal of financial advice firm Quantum Financial, says property investors struggling to pay higher demanded deposits on off the plan purchases through their SMSFs need to be careful they do not breach Australian Taxation Office rules.
Abrupt lending policy changes on required deposit has meant some buyers have lost out on valuable tax deductions given the top up deposit balance was a non-concessional (or after-tax) contribution. 
His other recommendations to Australian Financial Review readers included:
<ul>
<li>Consider if the investment is worth keeping. It might be worth cutting losses rather than losing generous tax concessions or being forced to liquidate scheme assets on unfavourable terms;</li>
<li>Reduce costs;</li>
<li>Sell other assets in the fund to reduce the debt;</li>
<li>Contribute more to your super – either through personal contributions or salary-sacrificing (making pre-tax contributions);</li>
<li>Seek a better deal on your loan;</li>
<li>Review existing advice and question how it allowed you to get into mortgage stress.</li>
</ul>
Last week it was suggested one in three off-the-plan Bankstown district investors are facing financial distress completing purchase of their properties because of tough new lending rules for higher deposits.
Chan &amp; Naylor partner Peter Ristevski's analysis suggested he had not had anyone's sale fall through yet with second mortgages being secured at higher interest rates.
Financial planner Sam Henderson, chief executive of Henderson Maxwell, says he thinks buying a property using SMSF was a great idea for a solid long-term strategy, but only for the right people and under the right conditions. 
"The idea of an off-the-plan development diminishes my excitement owing to potential onerous sunset clauses (whereby developers can change the terms and price), banks altering their lending criteria between exchange of contract and settlement, developers potentially going bust and the common issue of being surrounded by scores of similar properties in overdeveloped suburbs," he suggested to AFR readers.
"Consider, for example, that you buy a $700,000 property and put down your 10% deposit of $70,000.
"Let's assume the bank has agreed to fund your loan of 80% (thereby allowing you to use $140,000 of your fund as a deposit) and that you will fund the stamp duty via your next contribution of $30,000.
"Let's say the bank changes its view on SMSF loans and drops its LVR (loan to value ratio) so it will lend to 60 per cent, as many of the banks do for commercial properties.
"Well, you've just done your $70,000 deposit!"
</body></html>

Off the plan SMSF investors face challenges under higher deposit era

<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>
The federal government has rejected the Murray review's proposal to ban self-managed superannuation funds from borrowing to buy property.
The new Treasurer Scott Morrison said yesterday there was insufficient evidence to support an immediate ban on borrowing.
"The information collected on this doesn't lead us towards that conclusion at this point," he said. 
However, regulators would be asked to monitor the situation closely and report their findings to the government, he said. 
The decision to reject a borrowing ban, which was recommended by the Murray Inquiry amid concerns about the stability of the system if property prices crash, will be welcomed by super fund investors.
In August then Assistant Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg gave the strongest signal yet that the then Abbott Government would not implement a recommendation to ban do-it-yourself super funds from borrowing to invest in property.
"I want to emphasise that we have been considering this recommendation very carefully but flag that we want to make sure the approach we take is proportionate to the risks that have been identified," he said adding to put it in context "only 0.07%, perhaps 6,500 properties, were held in an SMSF through a limited recourse borrowing arrangement in 2013." 
</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