Property developer One Living, backed by former Macquarie banker turned investment manager Chris Green’s investment firm, has unveiled plans to bring more institutional capital into housing to help address the national supply crisis.

The New York-based investor has focused his firm, GreenPoint Partners, on addressing the supply shortage hitting middle market housing in Australia.

It is backing the new One Living business to develop more than 1000 units along the eastern seaboard. The new firm is starting with a development on Mona Vale Road, on the border of Mona Vale and Pymble, in Sydney’s Northern Beaches, with around 140 apartments planned. They are eyeing off more sites across the city.

With cost pressures rising in the industry, One Living’s model is to be a vertically integrated developer-builder, so it can respond directly to the housing gap by removing the cost inefficiencies embedded in traditional residential delivery.

“We are building a platform designed to operate at scale and starting in a market where there’s a clear need for quality, attainable housing,” One Living joint managing director Joseph Scuderi said.

“It’s that missing middle – it’s that attainable end of housing… that’s what most Australians invest into and what Australians can actually afford.”

<img alt="Mona Vale" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="798dfa93-4941-4db6-a696-31e9dc18e81c" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%202.31.50%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=mKBqi5C_DmeiXS.AtJkcR8LQIxqCqmFi" />

GreenPoint Partners brings years of experience assembling and scaling real estate operating businesses across major markets. And Green sees a big opportunity in Australia.

“For its size, sophistication and importance to the community, Australia’s living sector has remained largely under-institutionalised, which represents significant opportunity,” Green said. “GreenPoint identified that gap, assembled the right team, and is backing One Living to build a platform that is aligned to market needs.”

Green said being a builder-developer would give the company the capacity and flexibility it required to deliver reasonably-priced homes.

“We want it to be at that attainable level; not super high end luxury but at that attainable level,” he said.

<img alt="Mona Vale" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="74a5344a-4b26-4d4a-ada3-056b1220be77" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%202.32.15%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=vY8hXHO4reBMdO8ZXMWCNtGZJofUPQ3j" />

&nbsp;

One Living will undertake a component of affordable housing in its schemes, which it will own and operate, and it could also run build-to-rent on some sites.

Green praised local policy settings.

“The NSW government is being very supportive, strategic and pragmatic in terms of how do we generate more supply of housing,” he said. “We think it’s actually positive for development and the bit that’s been lacking at that attainable level is that it’s lots of relatively small private developers, whereas we want to create an institutional platform.”

One Living is also&nbsp;looking at high-density projects and could take on more institutional funding in the future.

“The way we will be able to achieve economies of scale is through size,” Green added.

Joel Robinson

One Living enters Sydney's new apartment market with Northern Beaches site acquisition

It's been several years since there's been an opportunity to buy a brand new townhome in Melbourne's coastal suburb of Mordialloc. Even apartment developments in recent times have been few and far between in the area.

Local developer LDS Property identified the gap in new housing, securing a site on White Street, directly opposite&nbsp;Woodlands Golf Club Mordialloc. They've recently launched&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-townhouses/wm-residences-mordialloc-102-white-street-mordialloc-vic-3195">WM Residences</a>, just 13 townhouses which they have already started building.

Projects by Buxton Director Heath Thompson, who is selling WM Residences, says the townhouses x that perfect middle ground be

"Mordialloc residents have had limited options to downsize within the suburb, often forcing them to look elsewhere despite long-standing ties to the area," Thompson says.

"With very little comparable new supply coming to market, projects like WM Residences are well placed, particularly as buyers look to capitalise on current conditions amid constrained supply."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6109]

The development, designed by regarded architecture firm&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/ewert-leaf">Ewert Leaf</a>,&nbsp;adopts a deliberately restrained architectural approach, focusing on simplicity, durability and liveability rather than overt design gestures.

The boutique scale is central to the offering. With only 13 three-bedroom residences, each home is configured to prioritise functional layouts and everyday use, supported by private terraces and secure two-car garages.

Ewert Leaf’s design response leans into a calm, neutral material palette. Interiors are defined by oak flooring, white walls and soft finishes, creating a consistent and understated backdrop. The approach avoids trend-driven detailing in favour of longevity, with an emphasis on natural light and spatial clarity.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6110]

Beyond aesthetics, the homes are designed to meet contemporary performance expectations. Each residence targets a minimum 6-star energy rating, incorporating double glazing, comprehensive insulation and all-electric Bosch appliances.

The project’s location supports a walkable coastal lifestyle, sitting within close proximity to Mordialloc’s foreshore, Main Street retail strip and the train station. Local cafés and dining venues, including Suburbia Deli and Hendriks Café, are within a short walk, reinforcing the area’s established neighbourhood character.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6116]

While <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/mordialloc-vic-3195">Mordialloc</a> is often defined by its beach and pier, the project taps into other areas of day to day living, offering easy access to local food, casual dining and transport, rather than positioning itself purely as a lifestyle retreat.

WM Residences reflects a continued trend across Melbourne’s coastal suburbs towards smaller-scale, design-led townhouse developments, particularly on infill sites where proximity to amenity is already established.

With construction commenced prior to its market entry, the project aligns with a growing preference among buyers for developments with visible progress and defined delivery timeframes.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=134646]

WM Residences fills gap in Mordialloc townhouse market

&nbsp;

Developer GURNER™ Group has revealed $1.65 billion in residential sales nationally across the 12 months to December 2025, driven largely by the continued momentum of its Docklands wellness-focused precinct, Elysium Fields.

The sales result was generated across seven projects in Victoria and New South Wales, headlined by Elysium Fields, GURNER™’s $2.75 billion mixed-use precinct planned for Harbour Esplanade in Docklands.

The project has recorded more than $500 million in sales across the first three towers, equating to around 580 apartments sold.

The first tower, Helios, has now sold out of its 240 private residences, with GURNER™ preparing to release a premium penthouse collection comprising 15 three-bedroom penthouses in coming weeks.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=144441 project_image_fid=370975]

Elysium Fields is being developed on the long-held 20,000 sqm Docklands site at 208-226 Harbour Esplanade, which had remained undeveloped for more than two decades prior to GURNER™ taking over the project around four years ago.

Construction has now commenced across four towers ranging between 18 and 30 storeys, with Hamilton Marino and Maxcon appointed as builders.

Once complete, the precinct is expected to comprise around 1,100 residences, alongside retail, hospitality and public realm uses integrated throughout the site.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=144441 project_image_fid=370981]

Designed by Fraser &amp; Partners in collaboration with GURNER™ Design House, the project has been positioned around the developer’s broader focus on wellness-led residential living.

“We don’t sell apartments. We create a true luxury lifestyle that simply doesn’t exist elsewhere in the market today,” Founder and Executive Chairman Tim Gurner said.

“To deliver that requires an extraordinary level of detail, coordination and discipline across multiple verticals, from design and hospitality through to wellness and service.”

“We’ve always believed that living extends far beyond the physical residence. It’s about how you feel the moment you arrive, how you live day-to-day, and the ecosystem that supports that.” 
[smartcode_project:default project_id=144441 project_image_fid=370977]

The project’s design places a heavy focus on landscaping, wellness amenities and biophilic design principles.

Plans include around 3,700 sqm of landscaped gardens and open space throughout the precinct, alongside a retail and dining offering spanning approximately 5,000 sqm.

The broader public realm strategy centres around what GURNER™ describes as the “Path of Life”, an urban forest and landscaped pedestrian environment intended to connect the various buildings and wellness spaces across the precinct.

The apartments themselves will incorporate a range of wellness-focused inclusions, including purified air and water systems, circadian lighting, antimicrobial surfaces, and optional in-home wellness upgrades.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=144441 project_image_fid=370980]

Gurner said the company’s experience through its Saint Haven wellness clubs had directly informed the residential offering now being incorporated into Elysium Fields.

“We’re seeing a clear global shift toward longevity, performance and proactive health,” Gurner said.

“Our role is to deliver that in a way that feels seamless, highly private and beautifully resolved within the environments we create.”

A large component of the wellness offering is planned through the resident amenity and health facilities proposed within the precinct.

That includes plans for bathing and recovery facilities spread throughout the towers, incorporating mineral pools, saunas, steam rooms, flotation therapy, red light therapy and wellness lounges.

The developer is also seeking approvals for what it describes as a “reverse ageing medical clinic” within the precinct.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=144441 project_image_fid=370978]

According to project information released by the group, the proposed facility would include cryotherapy, IV infusion therapy, infrared and dry saunas, PEMF beds, MRIs, DEXA scans, brain scans and blood analysis services.

Within the first tower, Helios, residents will also have access to a dedicated amenity offering known as the Sky Private Club.

The upper 15 levels of the building will include private lounges, dining spaces, rooftop amenities and optional private wellness studios integrated within residences.

The Helios tower itself comprises 260 apartments ranging between 60 sqm and 300 sqm, including a collection of penthouses.

That includes a planned two-storey penthouse spanning around 600 sqm with uninterrupted bay views.

The Elysium Fields precinct is being delivered in partnership with Digital Harbour Holdings, a consortium that includes the Liberman family, which controls the development rights across the Docklands site.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=144441 project_image_fid=370979]

The sales result comes as GURNER™ continues expanding its national development pipeline beyond Victoria.

“We have a strong pipeline across Australia and are now focused on scaling into key markets including New South Wales and Queensland, while continuing to build on our Melbourne base,” Gurner said.

“We currently have more than $3 billion in the market, growing to over $5 billion by October, and expect to materially outperform last year in the 2026 calendar year.”

The result also reflects the continued strength of the upper-end apartment market in Melbourne, particularly for owner-occupier-focused product with large-scale amenity and lifestyle offerings.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=144441]

Record result anchored by the Group’s “utopian” Elysium Fields precinct – defying market headwinds in Docklands.

Elysium Fields drive Gurner to $1.65 billion in apartment sales over 2025

National Australia Bank (NAB) will fund <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/palmera-residences-gold-coast-18-garfield-terrace-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Palmera</a>, a $1 billion, 52-level luxury residential tower being developed by Central Equity in one of the Gold Coast’s most tightly held coastal locations at Northcliffe.

The project, launched recently by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/central-equity">Central Equity</a>, one of Victoria’s largest private residential developers, comes at a time when construction funding for large residential developments has become increasingly competitive as lenders tighten exposure to the sector.

Multiplex has been appointed the builder, and construction is now underway.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365784]

Since its first project, Central Equity has delivered more than 85 residential developments with a combined end value exceeding $8 billion.

Palmera reflects Central Equity’s growing focus on the Gold Coast luxury apartment market and continues a relationship between Central Equity and NAB that dates back to the late 1980s, when the bank funded one of Melbourne’s earliest inner-city residential towers at a time when high-rise apartment living in the CBD was largely unproven.

“NAB’s funding of Central Equity’s $36 million CBD development in the late 1980’s to the financing of the billion-dollar tower today highlights the long-term relationship between the two organisations in delivering major residential projects” said Central Equity Founder and Chairman Eddie Kutner.

He said NAB’s early support was instrumental in helping establish the company’s development model.

“When we commenced our first residential tower in the late 1980s the concept of funding off-the-plan apartments was still largely untested in Australia,” Kutner said.

“NAB recognised the opportunity early and supported the project when others were uncertain. That relationship has now continued for more than 37 years across many developments.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365771]

Central Equity was established in 1987 when Melbourne’s CBD and Southbank precinct were still dominated by warehouses and commercial buildings. Fewer than 100 residents lived in Southbank at the time, and large-scale residential development in the inner city was not widely considered.

Recognising changing demographics and lifestyle preferences, the company began developing high-rise residential projects designed to bring permanent residents into the city centre.

Central Equity has provided accommodation for approximately 40,000 residents across Melbourne’s CBD and Southbank, while also incorporating supporting infrastructure including essential lifestyle facilities like retail spaces, childcare facilities and neighbourhood activity centres.

Central Equity has spent many years assembling the Palmera development site on the corner of Garfield Terrace and Frederick Street in Northcliffe, creating a supersite of around 3,300 sqm.

The developer said the Palmera apartment tower reflects its long-term view of the Gold Coast as a growing and increasingly diversified economy.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108274 project_image_fid=365768]

Supported by infrastructure including the light rail network, major road upgrades expanded education, hospital and medical facilities and continued expansion at the Gold Coast Airport with more international and domestic flights.

Positioned in the tightly held Northcliffe precinct, the 52-level tower will deliver 347 apartments, targeting buyers seeking a high-end coastal lifestyle, from downsizers to interstate investors.

Designed by Marchese Partners with interiors by DBI, Palmera has been conceived as a next-generation residential offering, featuring a collection of oversized apartments, with premium three-bedroom residences offering sweeping northern views stretching from Surfers Paradise through to Burleigh Heads.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=108274]

NAB funds $1 billion Surfers Paradise apartment development, Palmera

Two years after completing one of the newest developments in North Sydney, developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/aqualand-australia">Aqualand</a> is turning its attention to the rapidly evolving St Leonards apartment market.

The developer, which completed AURA by Aqualand on North Sydney's Walker Street, has lodged plans for a 5,918 sqm site at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/33-37-herbert-street-st-leonards-nsw-2065">33-37 Herbert Street, St Leonards,</a> seeking approval for a pair of residential towers rising above a shared podium opposite Royal North Shore Hospital.

The proposal forms part of the broader transformation underway across the St Leonards-Crows Nest precinct, where former industrial and commercial sites are increasingly being redeveloped into high-density mixed-use projects tied to major transport infrastructure.

<img alt="Aqualand" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2cc428cf-fe70-4cac-9cd5-264ad53af62c" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.51.56%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=otKSnHtbjAvAddOnovyXQMgcAwE6DMe1" />

According to the planning documents, the site sits “within the St Leonards–Crows Nest Strategic Centre, identified by the NSW Government as a key area for accommodating future jobs and housing across Sydney.”

The proposal has been designed by fjcstudio, formerly FJMT Studio, and is being progressed through the State Significant Development pathway due to its scale and affordable housing provision.

The scheme would comprise 413 apartments, including 46 affordable housing units, alongside retail and commercial uses fronting Herbert Street. The project would also include communal open space, landscaping, a swimming pool, gymnasium, children’s play areas and podium-level resident amenities.

Planning documents show the development would consist of a part-13, part-39 storey tower form positioned above a four-storey podium.

“The development comprises a unified podium that activates the street interface, and two setback towers to accommodate new housing supply while maintaining an appropriate human scale at ground level,” fjcstudio noted in its Design Report.

The northern and southern towers have been shaped to respond to the surrounding skyline while also limiting overshadowing impacts to nearby public open space, particularly Talus Reserve.

The design report said the differing tower heights were intended to “contribute to a varied skyline while responding to the surrounding built form context and solar access considerations.”

<img alt="Aqualand" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="36da62dc-ff9e-41f2-a7e3-7be38373751c" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.51.45%E2%80%AFAM_0.png?VersionId=Mo6Rp2r.XRLTzIfg_PEEpw8NepDH8UBs" />

The site sits directly opposite Royal North Shore Hospital and within walking distance of both St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

While the site itself sits just outside the formal Crows Nest Transport Oriented Development boundary, the planning documents repeatedly reference its alignment with the broader TOD objectives reshaping the Lower North Shore.

“The site is located adjacent to St Leonards Station and in close proximity to Crows Nest Metro which is within the Crows Nest Transit Orientated Development Accelerated Precinct which has been identified by the NSW Government to support housing delivery,” the Design Verification Statement noted.

According to fjcstudio, the project has been designed to respond to the broader transition occurring across St Leonards, where increasing residential density is being concentrated around transport infrastructure and employment hubs.

“The broader precinct is undergoing significant change, with a mix of existing mid-rise buildings and newer high-density developments,” the report stated.

“Recent and approved projects indicate a consistent shift toward taller built form, typically organised as tower-and-podium typologies with more active ground levels.”

The proposal includes close to 6,000 sqm of retail and commercial space across the ground floor and podium levels, designed to create a more activated street edge along Herbert Street.

Aqualand’s plans would also introduce a landscaped podium shared between the two towers, with communal open space in the form of a podium rooftop designed to support resident interaction and improve urban greening outcomes. The scheme would also introduce pocket parks at the northern and southern ends of the site, including a landscaped area at the corner of Herbert and Ella streets designed to improve pedestrian amenity and soften the streetscape.

&nbsp;

The proposal is being progressed through the NSW Government’s Housing Delivery Authority pathway, which was introduced to accelerate housing supply across the state. The application was declared State Significant Development in April 2025 following an expression of interest process.

<img alt="Aqualand" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="faf6d97d-2671-454f-b85a-fe1c6a7be608" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%209.51.49%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=diVd28OBVr5.YV.7prrOz.uAanwwwm7a" />

St Leonards has been particularly active with new developments in recent weeks. Developer SP Setia’s <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-sp-setia-targets-st-leonards-skyline-with-40-storey-tod-tower">plans for a new 42-storey tower</a> recently went on exhibition through the same pathway, while <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">Stockland’s 52-storey tower proposal</a> was also recently unveiled.

Aside from the St Leonards project, which is expected to take around nine months to move through the approvals process ahead of a potential 2027 launch, Aqualand is also preparing to launch Boronia, a new apartment project in Roseville comprising around 111 apartments on Larkin Street.

The developer also has approvals in place for the next stage of the Barangaroo precinct, which will feature new residential, retail, hospitality and community uses, alongside a new metro entry across the five-hectare site.

More than 50 new retail destinations are planned for Central Barangaroo, alongside a 270-metre-long boulevard connecting Hickson Park to Nawi Cove. Together with Harbour Park, more than 50 per cent of the precinct will comprise public open space and parkland.

First look: Aqualand joins St Leonards apartment party

Superannuation

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
After sharp share market falls when headlines scream about the billions wiped off the market the usual questions are: what caused the fall? what’s the outlook? and what does it mean for superannuation? The correct answer to the latter should be something like “nothing really, as super is a long-term investment and share market volatility is normal.”
But that often sounds like marketing spin. However, the reality is that - except for those who are into trading or are at, or close to, retirement - shares and super really are long-term investments. Here’s why.
Super funds and shares Superannuation is aimed (within reason) at providing maximum (risk-adjusted) funds for use in retirement.
So typical Australian super funds have a bias towards shares and other growth assets, particularly for younger members, and some exposure to defensive assets like bonds and cash in order to avoid excessive short-term volatility in returns.
The power of compound interest
These approaches seek to take maximum advantage of the power of compound interest.
As return series for commercial property and infrastructure only go back a few decades I have used residential property as a proxy. Because shares and property provide higher returns over long periods the value of an investment in them compounds to a much higher amount over long periods.
So, it makes sense to have a decent exposure to them when saving for retirement.
The higher return from shares and growth assets reflects compensation for the greater risk in investing in them – in terms of capital loss, volatility and illiquidity – relative to cash &amp; bonds.
But investors don’t have 90 years?
Of course, we don’t have ninety odd years to save for retirement. In fact, our natural tendency is to think very short term. And this is where the problem starts. On a day to day basis shares are down almost as much as they are up. See the next chart. So, day to day, it’s pretty much a coin toss as to whether you will get good news or bad.
So, it’s understandable that many are sceptical of them. But if you just look monthly and allow for dividends, the historical experience tells us you will only get bad news around a third of the time. If you go out to once a decade, positive returns have been seen 100% of the time for Australian shares and 82% for US shares. On a rolling 12 month ended basis the returns from shares bounce around all over the place relative to cash and bonds.
However, over rolling ten-year periods, shares have invariably done better, although there have been some periods where returns from bonds and cash have done better, albeit briefly. Pushing the horizon out to rolling 20-year returns has almost always seen shares do even better, although a surge in cash and bond returns from the 1970s/1980s (after high inflation pushed interest rates up) has seen the gap narrow.
Over rolling 40-year periods – the working years of a typical person – shares have always done better.
This is all consistent with the basic proposition that higher shortterm volatility from shares (often reflecting exposure to periods of falling profits and a risk that companies go bust) is rewarded over the long term with higher returns.
But why not try and time short-term market moves? 
The temptation to do this is immense. With the benefit of hindsight many swings in markets like the tech boom and bust and the GFC look inevitable and hence forecastable and so it’s natural to think “why not give it a go?” by switching between say cash and shares within your super to anticipate market moves.
Fair enough if you have a process and put the effort in. But without a tried and tested market timing process, trying to time the market is difficult. A good way to demonstrate this is with a comparison of returns if an investor is fully invested in shares versus missing out on the best (or worst) days. The next chart shows that if you were fully invested in Australian shares from January 1995, you would have returned 9.7% pa (with dividends but not allowing for franking credits, tax and fees).
If by trying to time the market you avoided the 10 worst days (yellow bars), you would have boosted your return to 12.4% pa. And if you avoided the 40 worst days, it would have been boosted to 17.3% pa! But this is very hard, and many investors only get out after the bad returns have occurred, just in time to miss some of the best days.
For example, if by trying to time the market you miss the 10 best days (blue bars), the return falls to 7.6% pa. If you miss the 40 best days, it drops to just 3.6% pa.
The following shows the difficulties of short-term timing in another way.
Portfolio 1: A fixed balanced mix of 70 per cent Australian equities, 25 per cent bonds and five per cent cash; 
Portfolio 2: A “switching portfolio” which starts off with the above but moves 100 per cent into cash after any negative calendar year in the balanced portfolio and doesn't move back until after the balanced portfolio has a calendar year of positive returns. We have assumed a two-month lag.
Over the long run the switching portfolio produces an average return of 8.8% pa versus 10.2% pa for the balanced mix. From a $100 investment in 1928 the switching portfolio would have grown to $218,040 compared to $705,497 for the constant mix.
Key Messages
First, while shares and other growth assets go through periods of short-term underperformance relative to bonds and cash they provide superior returns over the long term. As such it makes sense that superannuation has a high exposure to them.
Second, switching to cash after a bad patch is not the best strategy for maximising wealth over time.
Third, the less you look at your investments the less you will be disappointed. This reduces the chance of selling at the wrong time or adopting an overly cautious stance.
The best approach is to simply recognise that super and investing in shares is a long-term investment. The exceptions to this are if you are really into putting in the effort to getting shortterm trading right and/or you are close to, or in, retirement.
DR SHANE OLIVER is the Chief Economist and Head of Investment Strategy at AMP Capital
</body></html>

soliver-smf6LQXgW9

Why super and shares really are long-term investments: Shane Oliver

<html><body>
A 21-year-old Melbourne woman is due to appear before Court today as part of investigations into a major fraud and identity theft syndicate, which resulted in alleged thefts from the superannuation and share trading accounts of innocent victims worth of millions of dollars.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) have been conducting investigations into the multi-layered cybercrime activity for more than twelve months. This operation is now being conducted as part of the Government’s joint-agency Serious Financial Crime Taskforce (SFCT).
ASIC and the AFP allege the woman worked as part of a syndicate which used fraudulently-obtained identities to commit large-scale online fraud.  
It will be alleged the syndicate used stolen identity information purchased from dark net marketplaces, together with single use telephone SIM cards and fake email accounts, to undertake an ‘identity takeover’.
These identities, fraudulently created to mimic real individuals who unknowingly had their identities compromised, were then used to open bank accounts at various Australian banking institutions. Investigations have uncovered at least 70 bank accounts created using fraudulently-obtained identities to date.
Once the false identities and accounts were established, ASIC and the AFP allege the syndicate committed cybercrime offences to illegally steal money from the superannuation accounts of these victims, and from their share-trading accounts in ASX-listed companies.
Investigations are continuing to identify the number of affected victims and the scale of the alleged fraud, though it is expected to be worth millions of dollars. The superannuation companies and market participants involved are providing ongoing assistance to the investigation and the ASIC and AFP acknowledges their extensive cooperation to date.
ASIC and the AFP further allege the syndicate laundered the stolen funds through an overseas contact to purchase untraceable assets such as jewellery. It is believed the money was then transferred back to Australia through cryptocurrencies.
AFP Manager Cyber Crime Operations, acting Commander Chris Goldsmid, said this complex and detailed investigation revealed cybercrime occurring on multiple levels, and is an example of strong partnerships between Commonwealth Government agencies working together to disrupt organised crime that affects the Australian community.
“The consequences of the breaches we have discovered are far-reaching, and can be traced back to cybercrime offences that impact everyday Australians.
“From identity theft, where innocent victims have their personal details stolen and sold online in dark net marketplaces; to hacking and phishing – this investigation has illustrated the devastating impacts that compromise of your identity can have,” a/Commander Goldsmid said.
ASIC Deputy Chair Daniel Crennan, QC, said this matter highlights the challenging era of the digitalisation of the criminal economy.
“Cybersecurity threats such as data breaches and financial system attacks are a major concern for ASIC and we will continue to pursue not only cyber-related market and superannuation offending but also the need for institutions to maintain their obligations to ensure they have adequate cyber resilience,” he said.
Investigations into the syndicate are continuing, and further arrests and charges have not been ruled out.
The 21-year-old woman is due to be charged with a range of offences:
<ul>
<li>Conspiring to cause unauthorised access and/or modification of data - multiple offences (contrary to 11.5 and 477.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995(Cth));</li>
<li>Conspiring to cause unauthorised modification of data knowing that the modification was unauthorised, and being reckless as to whether the modification will impair the reliability and security of the data – multiple offences; (contrary to 11.5 and 477.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth);</li>
<li>Conspiring to dishonestly take or conceal articles in the course of post, contrary to sections 11.5(1) and 471.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth);</li>
<li>Conspiring to dishonestly obtain property by deception, contrary to subsections 321(1) and 81(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (VIC);</li>
<li>Dealing in proceeds of crime valued at AUD100,000 or more – multiple offences (contrary to section 400.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth);</li>
<li>Dealing in personal identification information – multiple offences (contrary to section 372.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth);</li>
<li>Dealing in personal financial information – Multiple offences (contrary to section 480.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth);</li>
</ul>
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Online fraud syndicate allegedly siphoning millions from shares and superannuation accounts: ASIC

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Soon after the election Treasurer Frydenberg flagged there would be an inquiry into retirement incomes. Since then, no details have emerged.
But there is gossip around Canberra there might be some action in the next couple of weeks on a review that would report before the end of 2020.
This issue, with compulsory superannuation its pointy end, and that of industrial relations, on which minister Christian Porter is doing a stocktake, have common threads in political terms.
They will test the clout of powerful interests outside the parliament, and of backbench activists within the Coalition. Meaning, they will test the Prime Minister.
In another life, Peter Collins was a NSW Liberal treasurer and opposition leader. These days, he’s deputy chair of Industry Super Australia, which he previously chaired for six years.
Collins told a Rice Warner summit on superannuation in Canberra on Monday that Scott Morrison had the opportunity to “reset the relationship” with industry and public sector superannuation funds, after the negativity of the Turnbull government - which was preoccupied with trying to curb union power in the industry funds. (It was less than pleased when the industry funds emerged from a Productivity Commission inquiry a good deal shinier than the retail funds.)
Collins also recounted how a few weeks ago, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had invited IFM Investors, the infrastructure investment vehicle for many industry funds (and overseas pension funds of a similar nature), to join the US Investment Advisory Council. This is described as “established by the Secretary of Commerce to solicit private sector advice on the promotion and retention of foreign direct investment” to the US.
It seemed the US administration had a rather more positive attitude to industry and public sector funds than the Coalition government.
Collins also points to the scope, under a “reset relationship” for these funds to do more on the infrastructure front in Australia. “There is no other pot of gold” for infrastructure, he says.
Not surprisingly, these funds are hanging out for the terms of reference for the retirement inquiry, in particular how they impact on the legislated rise due to start from mid-2021, to take the superannuation guarantee gradually from the current 9.5% to 12% by 2025.
The Productivity Commission saw the need for “an independent public inquiry into the role of compulsory superannuation in the broader retirement incomes system”. Others question the case for an inquiry when the various policy settings appear to be in place.
The PC has reported on necessary administrative reforms. Changes have already been made to the tax treatment of superannuation. Overhaul of the aged pension system doesn’t seem on the radar.
And, crucially, the rise in the super guarantee is baked into law - and, Morrison says, into Coalition policy.
But some are suspicious (and others hopeful) the retirement inquiry could pave the way for the government to seek to defer the July 2021 rise, and then put to the 2022 election the proposition that workers should be able to get the money through wage increases rather than having it locked away.
This would also set up a convenient issue for wedging Labor, which would be committed to the guarantee increasing. It’s easy to see the line – it could be portrayed as another case of the ALP wanting to “increase taxes” rather than giving employees their money.
If it all sounds too Machiavellian, it is worth remembering the Coalition has form on the issue.
The Howard government proposed workers should be able to “opt out” of the compulsory scheme and receive wage increases instead, although this didn’t go ahead. The Abbott government deferred rises until 2021.
New Liberal senator Andrew Bragg, who addressed Monday’s conference (although he avoided the guarantee issue for political reasons) is one of a number of Coalition backbenchers who oppose the rise to 12%. They are looking to the inquiry to leverage change.
They have an ally in the Grattan Institute, which argues the increase to 12% should be abandoned, maintaining “it would effectively compel most people to save for a higher living standard in retirement than they enjoy during their working lives”.
The temptation for scrapping the rise, or having some “opt out” system, becomes stronger when wages are flat – a problem reinforced by the latest figures this week.
But there is a strong counter case that such a course would be bad in practical and policy terms.
There’s no certainty workers would actually get the extra money, or all of it, in wage increases. Attempting to compel that would be complex and fraught.
More importantly, failure to strengthen further the compulsory system would disadvantage many individual retirees in the future and be an added burden on a later generation of taxpayers, as more people would be pushed onto full aged pensions.
While many Liberals don’t like the compulsory aspect of the super guarantee, it’s the history of the scheme (one of Paul Keating’s legacies) and most particularly the unions’ role - and the flow-on power that gives unions - that really rile them.
One would think, however, that much about compulsory superannuation fits with Liberal philosophy, which emphasises self reliance.
Admittedly the argument for workers having immediate access to their money, at a time of life when they face their most severe cost-of-living pressures, is seductive. But it short term thinking, from the points of view of both individuals and governments.
Much of the debate is being conducted around modelling, stretching out decades, calculating the competing financial implications for low income workers. But modelling, with its assumptions, carries a degree of false precision. It also represents one-dimensional thinking.
People on low incomes are naturally going to spend any extra money rather than save it. Yet for these people savings are what they need for the long term. This applies especially for women, for whom more, not fewer, ways should be found to augment their superannuation.
Forced saving might be unpleasant in the moment, but valued at the time of a more comfortable and secure retirement. Promises of the money being used for wage increases carry political appeal for a government now, but future governments would benefit if the aged pension burden is contained by a healthily growing compulsory super scheme.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121956/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-how-guaranteed-is-a-rise-in-the-superannuation-guarantee-121956" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

How ‘guaranteed’ is a rise in the superannuation guarantee?

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
The Grattan Institute has been caught out contradicting itself in its attempts to undermine the super guarantee.
Despite releasing research only a few weeks ago that claimed increasing the super guarantee to 12 per cent would not ease the burden on the age pension, today they are claiming that an increase will leave workers poorer, because it will reduce the amount they are entitled to through the pension.
Both can’t be true. Not only does one completely contradict the other and make a mockery of the claims, the modelling Grattan relies on to peddle these myths is deeply flawed.
Under their modelling, the effect of the superannuation guarantee on wages, pension indexation and taxation is incredibly overstated, and assumes women, low-income and self-employed workers don’t exist.
They double count salary sacrifice contributions, and overestimate voluntary contributions and the amount of age pension paid.
In short, they are wrong. Industry Super Australia analysis conducted by former senior Treasury official Phil Gallagher found the Grattan Institute’s modelling:
Overestimates the effect of a super guarantee increase on wages, pension indexation and taxation:
1. The Grattan analysis ignores the fact that only 57 per cent of people with employer contributions are likely to receive an increase in superannuation. A significant number of workers either receive contributions higher than 11 per cent, or lower than 7 per cent, meaning an increase from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent will not affect them.
2. Of 12 million employed people, only 6.1 million are likely to get a rise in super contributions. Exclusions of self-employed, public servants, academics, politicians, people under 18, employees earning under $450 per month and people over 74 impact the population.  It also assumes the Government has taken action on unpaid super when it hasn’t.
Overstates the amount of age pension paid and average life expectancy:
3. The Grattan analysis only includes the single rate pension which is 25 per cent more than a married rate pension for one partner.  Since the majority of pensioners are married, this produces a massive uplift in pension paid and a false conclusion that retirement incomes are more than adequate.
4. Grattan assumes that everyone lives until they are 92, getting far more pension than occurs if there is a distribution of life expectancy.
Overestimates superannuation contributions:
5. The Grattan analysis assumes continuous careers from age 30 to age 67, ignoring the fact that people take time out of the workforce for a range of reasons, most notably for parental leave.
6. There are no women in the model and no-one becomes self-employed in the model. 
7. Grattan double count salary sacrifice contributions and do not represent underpayment of super which affects 30 per cent of employees.
The Grattan Institute had been caught out contradicting itself, making its argument obsolete.
One week they’re claiming an increase in super won’t reduce the age pension, the next they claim people will be worse off because they will miss out on the age pension if they retire with more money.
Both can’t be true. This proves their analysis simply doesn’t stack up. Despite this, they continue to use deeply flawed modelling to peddle incorrect and misleading claims about the superannuation guarantee.
Any attempt to wind back the proposed super increase or freeze it altogether would not only affect Australians’ quality of life at retirement, it would increase the burden of the age pension on the budget.
MATTHEW LINDEN is the Acting Chief Executive of Industry Super Australia
</body></html>

Grattan Institute contradicts itself on super claims: Industry Super Australia's Matthew Linden

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Open and shut. Most Australians would be worse off over their lifetimes if compulsory super contributions were lifted.   
Compulsory superannuation was <a href="http://www.keating.org.au/shop/item/the-story-of-modern-superannuation-31-october-2007" target="_blank">sold</a> to Australians on the basis that it would make us better off.
But as the government prepares for an <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/policy/tax/retirement-incomes-face-review-20190524-p51qsi" target="_blank">independent inquiry</a> into retirement incomes, <a href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/" target="_blank">new Grattan Institute research</a> finds that increasing compulsory contributions from 9.5% of wages to 12%, as has been legislated, would leave many Australian workers poorer over their entire lifetimes.
They would sacrifice a significantly increased share of their lifetime wage in exchange for little or no increase in their retirement income.
The typical worker would lose about A$30,000 over her or his lifetime.
More compulsory super means lower wages
Superannuation delivers higher incomes in retirement at the expense of lower incomes while working.
Yet the superannuation lobby usually presents <a href="https://www.afr.com/personal-finance/superannuation-and-smsfs/australians-don-t-want-a-dickensian-retirement-20190530-p51sq5" target="_blank">only one side of the pact</a>, urging an increase in compulsory super to get the higher retirement incomes while ignoring the income that workers have to forgo to get them.
Compulsory super contributions are paid by employers. But <a href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/2019/04/do-superannuation-increases-come-out-of-workers-wages/" target="_blank">they appear</a> to come out of funds the employers would otherwise have spent on wages.
This means increases in compulsory super come at the expense of wage increases – something that was acknowledged when compulsory super was set up (indeed, it was <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/unfair-super/3231046">part of the reason it was set up</a>) and has been <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/unfair-super/3231046">acknowledged</a> by advocates of higher contributions, including the former opposition leader Bill Shorten).
Grattan Institute calculations suggest that lifting compulsory super to 12% by 2025 will take up to <a href="https://theconversation.com/20-billion-per-year-thats-how-much-higher-superannuation-could-take-from-wages-116353" target="_blank">A$20 billion a year</a> from workers’ pockets. For most, the trade-off isn’t worth it.
The reality is that most Australians can already look forward to a <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-should-worry-less-about-retirement-and-leave-super-at-9-5-106237" target="_blank">better living standard in retirement</a> than they had while working – even if they <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/the-reassuring-truth-about-retirement-incomes/" target="_blank">interrupt their careers</a> to care for children. Workers with interrupted employment histories lose super in retirement, but get larger part-pensions.
The poorest Australians get a clear pay rise when they retire: the age pension is worth more than their after-tax income while working.
Other Grattan Institute research finds retirees are <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/money-in-retirement/" target="_blank">more comfortable financially</a> than any other group of Australians and are much less likely to suffer financial stress than working-age Australians.
It needn’t lead to better retirement
So what about Middle Australia?
Despite the “<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/save-early-and-often-to-harness-the-power-of-compound-interest-20180201-h0rvwq" target="_blank">magic</a>” of compound returns, just about all of the extra income from a higher super balance at retirement would be offset by lower pension payments, due to the pension assets test.
It is always possible the pension rules will change, but it isn’t usually regarded as wise to assess proposals on the basis of changes that haven’t happened and aren’t being suggested.
Pension payments themselves would also be lower under a 12% superannuation regime. They are <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/seniors/benefits-payments/pension-rates" target="_blank">benchmarked to wages</a>, which would be lower if employers have to put more into super.
The graph below shows that the big winners from higher compulsory super would be the wealthiest 20% of Australian earners, who would benefit from extra super tax breaks and would be unlikely to receive the age pension anyway.
Higher compulsory super redistributes income from the middle to the top. Middle earners would be no better off.
<hr>
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283240/original/file-20190709-44472-ai5pg0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283240/original/file-20190709-44472-ai5pg0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Over a lifetime, it could be a net loss
As higher compulsory super would leave Middle Australians no better off in retirement, but poorer while working, it follows that it would make them poorer over their entire lives.
How much poorer? We calculate that, after adjusting for inflation, the typical (median) 30-year-old Australian worker earning A$58,000 today would lose about 2.5% of wages each year and get less than a 1% boost to retirement income.
As a result, that person’s lifetime income would be almost 1% lower – about A$30,000 lower.
A post published on the <a href="https://blog.grattan.edu.au/?p=901&amp;preview=true" target="_blank">Grattan Blog</a> today gives more detail on the method we used to calculate the impact of higher compulsory super on lifetime incomes.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283187/original/file-20190709-51273-1u9ttt7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283187/original/file-20190709-51273-1u9ttt7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
And it would cost the budget
Higher compulsory super might be justified if it saved the budget money on the pension – because those savings could be used to compensate middle-income earners via lower taxes or more services.
But in fact, higher super would cost the budget.
Our modelling shows that lifting compulsory super to 12% of wages would cost taxpayers an extra <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/money-in-retirement/" target="_blank">A$2 billion to A$2.5 billion</a> per year in super tax breaks, <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/super-tax-targeting/" target="_blank">overwhelmingly</a> directed at high-income earners.
Those extra super tax breaks would <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/super_charter_report.pdf" target="_blank">dwarf</a> any budget savings on the age pension until about 2060 – by which time there would be 80 years of budget costs from compulsory super to pay back before the whole exercise saved the government money.
Here’s the bottom line, worth keeping in mind in the lead-up to the independent inquiry: it’s hard to think of a policy less in the interests of working Australians than more compulsory super.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120002/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Brendan Coates, Program Director, Household Finances, Grattan Institute
Owain Emslie, Associate, Grattan Institute
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/super-shock-more-compulsory-super-would-make-middle-australia-poorer-not-richer-120002" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

More compulsory super would make middle Australia poorer, not richer: Grattan Institute

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION 
The recent case of Burgess v Burgess [2018] WASC 279 (‘Burgess’) continues a line of cases that consider the conflict that arises where a person acts as executor of a deceased estate while also receiving superannuation death benefits in their personal capacity.
Broadly, Burgess and the following cases revolve around the executor/administrator’s duty to collect assets of the deceased on behalf of an estate. As a fiduciary role, an executor/administrator must not, without proper authorisation, allow their personal interests to conflict with their obligations owed to the estate.
These cases are sure to have an increasing impact on death and succession planning in an SMSF context as around 70% of SMSFs are two-member funds and, in relation to couples, each spouse typically appoints their spouse as executor of their estate. Accordingly, many surviving spouses may thrust into a position of potential conflict in relation to their duties as an SMSF trustee\director and as an executor.
McIntosh v McIntosh – administrator was held to be conflicted
McIntosh v McIntosh [2014] QSC 99 (‘McIntosh’) involved a mother who was appointed as the administrator of her deceased son’s estate. While acting in that role, the mother also applied to three of her son’s industry/retail super funds to receive his death benefits in her personal capacity, which she received. If these death benefits had instead been paid to the estate they would have been distributed equally between her and her former husband (as the deceased parents) under the laws of intestacy in Queensland as their son died without a will. 
After some legal posturing between the mother’s and the father’s lawyers, the mother filed an application in the Queensland Supreme Court to determine the matter which found:
… there was a clear conflict of duty … contrary to her fiduciary duties as administrator. When the mother made application to each of the superannuation funds for the moneys to be paid to her personally rather than to the estate, she was preferring her own interests to her duty as legal personal representative to make an application for the funds to be paid to her as legal personal representative. She was in a situation of conflict which she resolved in favour of her own interests. As such she acted … in breach of her fiduciary duty as administrator of the estate …
Accordingly, the mother was required to account to the estate for the super benefits she had personally received. Also of note was in this case was the fact that the mother was a nominated beneficiary in respect of each of the super funds via non-binding nominations. Had binding death benefit nominations (‘BDBNs’) been in place, no conflict would have arisen. For further analysis of this case <a id="LPlnk850753" href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/smsf-strategy/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="NotApplicable">click here</a>.
Brine v Carter – executor was held not to be conflicted
Brine v Carter [2015] SASC 205 examined a potential conflict arising in the case of an executor which did not require the executor to account to the estate. Professor Brine had appointed his three children and Ms Carter, his de facto spouse, as the executors of his estate. Professor Brine had two super accounts/pensions in the same industry super fund. As one pension had no residual value and could only be paid to his surviving spouse, the dispute related to the remaining pension, which could be paid to a dependant or the legal personal representative (deceased estate). Professor Brine had completed a non-binding death benefit nomination in favour of his legal personal representative to receive this pension amount.
Ms Carter applied to the super fund trustee to receive the benefits in both accounts in her personal capacity.
Ms Carter had previously represented to the other three executors on multiple occasions that the estate was not an eligible beneficiary of the super benefits. However, after making their own enquiries, the deceased’s three children found out that they could claim the death benefit on behalf of the estate and proceeded with this claim.
The super fund trustee then exercised its discretion to pay both pension benefits to Ms Carter and the remaining executors formally disputed this decision. Due to her conflict, Ms Carter recused herself from any discussions or actions relating to the dispute notice issued to the fund trustee by the executors and did not object to it but remained an executor. Ms Carter in fact made further submissions to the trustee in her personal capacity claiming the benefits.
After the super fund trustee affirmed its decision and other dispute processes provided no further recourse, the remaining executors applied to the South Australian Supreme Court for an order that Ms Carter account to the estate for these benefits. The court found that:
<ul>
<li>Ms Carter was in a position of conflict regarding her duties as an executor.</li>
<li>Ms Carter’s appointment as an executor via the deceased’s will, while providing some acknowledgement by the deceased of a conflict, was not by itself sufficient to overcome her position of conflict. Rather, a specific conflict authorisation was required.</li>
<li>As the other executors claimed the super benefits on behalf of the estate and had full knowledge about their rights prior to the super fund trustee’s decision, they effectively consented to Ms Carter claiming the benefits in her personal capacity despite her conflict. From that point, Ms Carter did not act in breach of her duty as an executor as there was no connection between her breach and the benefit she received.</li>
<li>Ms Carter was not required to account to the estate.</li>
</ul>
Brine v Carter provides a particular set of facts that resulted in a somewhat incongruous outcome that allowed an executor to apply for and receive death benefits in her personal capacity despite a potential conflict arising. The court noted that had the other executors not been aware of Ms Carter’s application, and had they also not made an application on behalf of the estate, Ms Carter would have been liable to account to the estate. This outcome was therefore due to the particular facts in this case. In many other factual scenarios, the conflict could easily have resulted in the spouse having to account to the estate.
Burgess v Burgess – sacred trustee obligations
In Burgess v Burgess [2018] WASC 279 Mr Burgess died without leaving a will in May 2015 and was survived by his wife and two minor children. A year after his death, Mrs Burgess applied to become administrator of his estate and was appointed on 27 June 2016.
Mr Burgess had super benefits in four large public offer funds and Mrs Burgess made a claim to two of those funds to be paid her deceased husband’s death benefits. She applied for and received benefits from one fund prior to her appointment as administrator and applied for and received benefits from another fund after her appointment.
Mr Burgess’ estate (including any super paid to the estate) would be split among Mrs Burgess and their two young children. By the time of hearing, one super fund had paid benefits to the estate. The fourth fund had not yet made any payment and Mrs Burgess had not made any application to it. Further, there were no BDBNs in place in relation to any of the funds.
Due to the uncertainties, Mrs Burgess herself made an application to the Western Australian Supreme Court. Ultimately, the court followed the principles in McIntosh and found that:
<ul>
<li>Mrs Burgess would retain the benefits from the first super fund, as she was not an administrator at the time of application and thus no conflict had arisen in relation to the first fund.</li>
<li>Mrs Burgess was required to account to the estate for the benefits applied for and received after she was appointed. There was a conflict of interest and as administrator she was bound to claim the benefits on behalf of the estate after she was appointed administrator.</li>
<li>Mrs Burgess was bound to claim the remaining super benefits on behalf of the estate.</li>
</ul>
The court’s comments in Burgess demonstrate the strict fiduciary obligations placed on an executor or administrator. Martin J explained Mrs Burgess’ obligations at para [84] as follows:
In an age of increasing moral ambivalence in western society the rigour of a court of equity must endure. It will not be shaken as regards what is a sacred obligation of total and uncompromised fidelity required of a trustee. Here, that required the administrator not just to disclose the existence of the (rival) estate interest when claiming the superannuation moneys in her own right from the fund trustee. It required more. It required her to apply as administrator of the estate for it to receive the funds in any exercise of the fund trustee's discretion.
Martin J gave the following comments at para [85] regarding the fiduciary duties of an executor:
The interests of a deceased estate require a 'champion' who cannot be seen (even if they are not) to be acting half-heartedly, or with an eye to achieving outcomes other than an outcome that thoroughly advances the interests of the estate - to the exclusion of other claimants.
Martin J made the point that the undesirable outcome in this case might have been avoided had Mr Burgess made a will that explicitly contained a conflict authorisation or if he had signed BDBNs in relation to his super benefits. In lamenting the outcome Martin J at para [91] stated:
The result is, of course, messy for the family and less clear cut than might otherwise have been desired. However, that is a result of wider trustee integrity policy principles of the law which take effect and prevail. They are of vital importance and are applicable to universal circumstances extending well beyond the present rather regrettable factual situation. The present is a situation, I reiterate, that might have been avoided by the two measures I earlier mentioned.
Other important cases
In the case of Re Narumon [2018] QSC 185 the court considered whether attorneys under an enduring power of attorney (‘EPoA’) could validly execute both a BDBN confirmation/extension as well as a new BDBN on behalf of a member. Whether an attorney will have such power will depend on the SMSF governing rules, the EPoA document, the relevant powers of attorney legislation in the applicable state/territory and the federal superannuation legislation.
In Re Narumon the member (Mr Giles) became incapacitated and his attorneys under an EPoA, his wife (Mrs Giles) and his sister (Mrs Keenan), purported to both extend a prior lapsed BDBN and to execute a new BDBN, both of which provided for death benefits to be paid to them. The EPoA document did not expressly authorise the attorneys to enter into a conflict transaction. The Court found that the extension of the prior BDBN was valid since:
<ul>
<li>the fund’s governing rules allowed the prior BDBN to be confirmed and provided that any power or right of a member could be exercised by an attorney;</li>
<li>while the EPoA document did not expressly deal with superannuation matters, the meaning of ‘financial matters’ in the relevant (Queensland) legislation was wide enough to cover superannuation; and</li>
<li>while a ‘conflict transaction’ entered into by an attorney can invalidate a transaction, the confirmation of the prior BDBN was not a conflict transaction. While the BDBN benefited the attorneys it was found not to amount to a conflict as it simply ensured the continuity of Mr Giles’ prior wishes.</li>
</ul>
However, the new BDBN executed by Mrs Giles and Mrs Keenan was found to be a conflict transaction as it provided for a different payment of death benefits which slightly benefited Mrs Giles more than the extended BDBN. Thus, the new BDBN was invalid. For a detailed analysis of this case and its lessons <a id="LPlnk492694" href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/announcements/important-supreme-court-decision-provides-further-guidance-on-binding-death-benefit-nominations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="NotApplicable">click here</a>.
In the case of Re Marsella; Marsella v Wareham (No 2) [2019] VSC 65 the deceased’s daughter, who was also a co-trustee, was ordered to repay death benefits back to the fund and was removed as a trustee along with her co-trustee husband for acting ‘grotesquely unreasonable’ in conflict of her trustee duties and in bad faith. This case explores the high legal standards placed on SMSF trustees and highlights the need for careful attention to SMSF succession planning. For a detailed analysis of this case and its lessons <a id="LPlnk205523" href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/announcements/grotesquely-unreasonable-and-smsf-trustees-paying-death-benefits-re-marsella/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="NotApplicable">click here</a>.
SMSFs
It is important to consider the impact of these cases from an SMSF perspective as it is typical for the spouse of a deceased SMSF member to also be an executor or administrator of that member’s estate. In such a situation, a potential and real conflict may arise between the executor/administrator’s obligations as trustee of the estate and their desire to receive superannuation death benefits in their personal capacity. 
These cases reiterate the importance of planning for death and SMSF succession. In all cases, the conflict difficulties would likely have been avoided had the deceased had a will with appropriate conflict authorisations and/or BDBNs were in place to remove the trustee’s discretion as to whom death benefits could be paid.
In any super death benefits matter, advisers and trustees should ensure that applications to receive benefits are not made without first considering, among other things, the possible conflict implications. Moreover, advisers should recommend that their clients proactively implement SMSF succession and death benefit strategies that ensures the surviving spouse is not placed in a position of conflict that could undermine their ability to receive their spouse’s death benefits. This might involve special provisions in wills, EPoAs, BDBNs, death benefit deeds and other legal documents.
Conclusion
This line of cases illustrates that the courts treat the fiduciary duties of an executor/administrator in a strict and ‘sacred’ manner. Further, the courts will uphold these obligations despite what might be seen as a strict and inflexible approach resulting in an ‘unfair’ outcome.
DBA Lawyers is well placed to advise and document succession strategies to overcome these risks. We offer, among other services:
<ul>
<li>Succession planning advice</li>
<li>BDBNs</li>
<li>Death benefit deeds</li>
<li>Constitutions with successor directors</li>
<li>SMSF deeds with numerous succession strategies</li>
</ul>
For an article on succession planning strategies <a id="LPlnk80306" href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/smsf-deeds/smsf-succession-strategies-2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="NotApplicable">click here</a>.
Without proper prior planning, SMSF members could be left with conflicts, resulting in substantial time and cost hurdles in the event there is any dispute.
Shaun Backhaus is a Lawyer at DBA Lawyers  and can be contacted <a id="LPlnk319001" href="mailto:sbackhaus@dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="NotApplicable">here</a>.
Daniel Butler is a Director at DBA Lawyers and can be contacted <a id="LPlnk625190" href="mailto:dbutler@dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="NotApplicable">here</a>.
</body></html>

Can a spouse claim their deceased partner's super if they are also the estate executor?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Most retirees are financially secure. Many earn more than they did while working, the Grattan Institute finds. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-coates-154644"> </a>
It’s conventional wisdom that Australians don’t save enough for retirement. Most workers themselves <a href="http://csrm.cass.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/ANUPoll-ageing-money-feb-2016%257B%255C_%257D0.pdf" target="_blank">think</a> they won’t have enough to retire on, and their concerns are <a href="http://nabnews.efront-flare.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/MLCWealth-%2520Sentiment-Survey-Q1-2017.pdf" target="_blank">rising</a>.
But the conventional wisdom is wrong.
Our new report, <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/money-in-retirement/" target="_blank">Money In Retirement: More Than Enough</a> shows that most people who are actually retired <a href="https://www.mebank.com.au/getmedia/2046702b-39c0-457b-8950-80d75e716bcd/ME-s-14th-Household-Financial-Comfort-Report_August-2018.pdf" target="_blank">feel more comfortable financially</a> than the Australians younger than them who are still working.
Retirees of today tend to slow their spending as they age, tend to keep saving in retirement, and often leave an legacy almost as big as the nest egg they had on the day they retired.
When surveyed today the retirees of the future might be worried about their retirement, but economic growth means they will almost certainly be on even higher incomes than retirees today.
These findings might seem surprising: they contradict the repeated messaging from the financial services industry that Australians won’t have enough for retirement.
But that industry’s claims are based on research that overlooks two important points.
Retirees spend less over time
Much of the research assumes that retirees need to save enough to enable their incomes to <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working-paper-series/wp2014n05.pdf">keep</a> <a href="https://www.actuaries.asn.au/Library/Opinion/2015/ForRicherForPoorerRetirementIncomes2WEB.pdf" target="_blank">climbing</a> throughout their retirement in line with general wage growth.
Implicitly, it assumes that a retiree needs to spend 25% more at age 90 than at age 70, after accounting for inflation.
But our analysis shows that retired Australians tend to spend less over time, even those who have money to spare.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244006/original/file-20181105-74754-1c9ftyn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244006/original/file-20181105-74754-1c9ftyn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Young retirees might chalk up frequent flyer points, but they do it less as they get older.
Spending tends to slow at around the age of 70, and falls rapidly after age 80, to just 84% of what was spent at retirement age.
Even the wealthiest retirees spend less as they age. At the other end of the scale, pensioners receive discounts on everything from car registration to rates.
Our research finds that retirees spend less over time on food, alcohol, tobacco, clothes, furnishings, transport and recreation.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244008/original/file-20181105-74775-1cthlie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244008/original/file-20181105-74775-1cthlie.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
They spend more on health care as they age, but Medicare <a href="https://theconversation.com/young-australians-set-to-pay-for-government-policy-mistakes-35250" target="_blank">largely shields them</a> from the full costs. The modestly higher out-of-pocket costs they do pay are mainly due to <a href="https://theconversation.com/private-health-insurance-premium-increases-explained-in-14-charts-92825" target="_blank">rising premiums</a> for private health insurance.
Not only do most retirees not draw down their savings throughout retirement, many add to them.
Even among pensioners, one recent study found that the median (typical) pensioner <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0312896216682577" target="_blank">still had 90%</a> of what he or she retired on after eight years.
This means that calculations about the adequacy of retirement savings ought to be based on whether they are enough to maintain buying power (at best) rather increase it in line with wage growth.
Many <a href="http://www.industrysuperaustralia.com/publications/reports/nearly-half-of-australians-will-not-have-a-comfortable-retirement/" target="_blank">prominent studies</a> also ignore non-super savings, which are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-superannuation-myth-why-its-a-mistake-to-increase-contributions-to-12-of-earnings-66209" target="_blank">material</a>, especially for wealthier households.
They lead to misguided calls for ever-higher super contributions in order to ensure reach the point where super alone is enough to provide an adequate retirement income, even though many households will have income from other sources.
Most will have enough super
Our modelling shows that people starting work today will have adequate retirement incomes: workers of all income levels will retire on incomes at least 70% of their pre-retirement earnings – the so-called replacement benchmark used by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the <a href="https://www.mercer.com.au/our-thinking/mmgpi#contactForm" target="_blank">Mercer Global Pension Index</a>.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244011/original/file-20181105-74763-1bh59aw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244011/original/file-20181105-74763-1bh59aw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
In fact the median (typical) worker can expect a retirement income of 91% of his or her pre-retirement income.
This means that many low-income Australians will actually get a pay rise on retirement.
Even workers in their 40s and 50s today – many of whom didn’t benefit from the present high rate of compulsory super contributions for their entire working lives – can expect a retirement income of about 70% of their pre-retirement incomes.
So compulsory super can stay at 9.5%
It means that that there is no obvious case to lift compulsory super contributions from 9.5% to 12% of salary as presently legislated.
Doing so might further boost retirement incomes (especially among those low and middle earners unable to compensate for the higher contributions by winding back other savings), but at the expense of providing lower incomes while working.
As the <a href="http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/FinalReport.aspx?doc=html/publications/Papers/Final_Report_Part_2/chapter_a2-2.htm" target="_blank">Henry Tax Review</a> noted, higher compulsory super contributions are ultimately funded by lower wages than would have been the case, meaning lower living standards while in work.
As it happens, higher contributions would do little to change the retirement incomes of low and middle income Australians. Their extra superannuation income they provided would cut their age pension payments.
 
Higher compulsory contributions would also damage pensions in another way.
The age pension is <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/seniors/benefits-payments/pension-rates" target="_blank">indexed to wage growth</a> which would be lower if employers diverted a steadily increasing proportion of their employee budget to super.
It means the most fervent opponents of a lift in compulsory super contributions from 9.5% to 12% ought be those people presently on the age pension.
The government ought to oppose it as well. Diverting more of what would have been wages to more lightly taxed super will strain its budget. Scrapping the proposed increase would <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/not-so-super/" target="_blank">save</a> it an impressive A$2 billion a year.
We can find better ways to help retirees
Even if governments did feel it necessary to boost retirement incomes, lifting compulsory super contributions would be one of the worst ways to do it.
Loosening the age pension assets test taper could boost retirement incomes of around 20% of retirees, climbing to more than 70% over time. It would cost the Budget just A$750 million a year – less than half the cost to it of the proposed increase in compulsory super.
The real priority - by far the biggest bang for the buck in alleviating poverty in retirement - should be boosting Commonwealth rent assistance by 40%, providing an extra $1,410 a year for retired singles and $1,330 for retired couples.
Senior Australians who rent privately are much more likely to <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-poorer-australians-bearing-the-brunt-of-rising-housing-costs-87003" target="_blank">suffer financial stress</a> than homeowners. And renting will become more widespread as younger generations on low incomes find themselves less able to afford homes.
Australians have been told for decades that they’re not saving enough for retirement. Such claims are inconsistent with the facts. Most of today’s workers can already expect a comfortable retirement. Forcing them and future workers to save more money for retirement that they’ll never spend is simply a recipe for larger bequests.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106237/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
Brendan Coates, Fellow, Grattan Institute; John Daley, Chief Executive Officer, Grattan Institute, and Jonathan Nolan, Associate, Grattan Institute
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-should-worry-less-about-retirement-and-leave-super-at-9-5-106237" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Why we should worry less about retirement - and leave super at 9.5%: Grattan Institute

<html><body>
The nation’s largest super fund, the $140 billion AustralianSuper, has unveiled a contingency plan warning members it will freeze property funds for up to two years in the event of a crisis.
AustralianSuper will also prevent members from investing more than 70% of their savings in its property portfolio option, to which investors have flocked in recent years chasing high returns.
The fund has changed its rules, giving it the right to freeze any attempts at withdrawing savings from the $1.7 billion property ­option, prohibit the switching of funds out of the option, and stopping any new contributions into the option for a period of up to two years “in exceptional circumstances in response to a market stress event”.
The Australian reported the "surprise policy changes", which take effect from November 19, rank as the first sizeable industry fund to make the change.
It noted UK market panic triggered by the Brexit vote in 2016 saw a financial volatility, where UK property funds, such as those run by Aberdeen Asset Management, Aviva Investors and Standard Life Investments, were unable to sell the underlying commercial property assets quickly enough to meet demand for investors pulling their funds.
Then, when the funds were unfrozen, property values had fallen to such an extent that investor savings were in jeopardy.
AustralianSuper group executive Paul Schroder said the changes were being made to “manage risk and protect all members’ interests” after consulting members.
“This is a prudent step designed to ensure all members can continue to exercise investment choice over the long term and in all market conditions,” Schroder said.
“The fund is committed to the property option but these changes were necessary to ensure other members are not disadvantaged in the event of a significant ­property market correction in the future.”
AustralianSuper surveyed more than 1000 members who were invested in property about the types of rules they would be most willing to accept.
“Direct property assets can’t be easily bought and sold at short notice,” AustralianSuper told its members in policy update,” Schroder said. 
“If the market experiences a stress event which causes lots of investors to sell property assets at the same time, or makes it more difficult for investors to finance transactions, we may not be able to find willing buyers at reasonable prices.
“Having the ability to freeze the option provides a safeguard by allowing some time for the market to recover before selling property assets.”
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Property fund freezes part of AustralianSuper's crisis contingency plans

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The Financial Services Royal Commission spent the last couple of weeks uncovering misconduct in the superannuation industry. But as we clean up superannuation we should also fix another deficiency – the need to provide life-long incomes for retirees.
A recent survey found a third of Australians over 80 had run out of money. The rest want reliable life-long incomes. Funnily enough, there are many projects that need funds and can produce cash flows for decades – infrastructure particularly.
Superannuation funds are increasingly making infrastructure investments themselves. What is needed is a way to link the long-term cash flows derived from physical assets straight through to pensioners.
Investment markets are currently too conflicted to do so.
The status quo
Companies, and even governments entering long term projects mainly use short-to-medium-term bank loans to fund their activities. These loans must be refinanced regularly.
For reasons that the Financial Systems Inquiry could not explain, companies often borrow overseas and so are subject not just to the risk of changing interest rates, but also to fluctuating foreign exchange rates.
To reduce these risks they may enter into sophisticated hedging programs, but this only serves to move risk elsewhere in the financial sector.
Banks, which provide short term finance for long term projects, suffer regular liquidity crises when depositors want to withdraw their money. An IMF report records 129 crises in the 40 years before 2010.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232240/original/file-20180816-2903-1ufngwx.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Banking crises.
At the same time, about 70% of superannuation benefits are taken as “account-based pensions” – regular income streams that the pensioners draw down to pay their expenses.
This money has been invested in thousands of investment options, all of which provide liquidity so that pensioners can sell assets at any time.
But if the money is taken as regular monthly income, all of this liquidity is unnecessary – the funds could have been invested in something that produces monthly cash flows.
The alternative
Consider, for instance, a large infrastructure project that will generate revenue over 50 years, increasing over time more or less in line with inflation.
One could design a financial instrument that paid investors a fixed proportion of that revenue. If the investors were superannuation funds, they could issue annuity contracts that paid out these cash flows to pensioners for life.
The borrowers would face lower risks, as their repayments move together with their revenue. Both borrowers and investors would be unaffected by changes to interest rates or the market value of investments.
Why hasn’t this already been done? It is not that the cash flows from long-term investments are insufficient. They currently exceed all private and public pensions.
These kinds of financial instruments are already used on a very small scale in Australia.
The major obstacle to their wider use seems to be that the financial sector feeds off the excess liquidity in the market. Banks make money by rolling over short-term loans. Investment managers, stockbrokers and exchanges make money by trading superannuation assets.
The whole sector operates under a paradigm where liquidity is paramount. So they fail to address the risks this presents to banks, economies and to retirees.
It is not that people do not like these “life annuities” when they are explained appropriately, but that their advisers and other experts active in the financial sector at best ignore them and at worst actively discourage them (by emphasising the “need” for liquidity).
The ongoing problems of the financial sector must surely make us ask whether it is fit for purpose? Or, at least, how well is it fulfilling its functions of allocating capital and managing risks?
We need appropriate pipes to ensure the cash generated by long-term assets flows through to fund pensioners. What we have instead is a flood of liquidity, which regularly buffets not only the financial sector but the entire economy.
The impetus to fund both long-term projects and life-long pensions must ultimately come from superannuation fund trustees. They appoint those who select assets and must set up the systems to ensure the cash flows are paid to pensioners.
To do this, they must first free themselves from the paradigm that liquidity is paramount. They then need to employ people and consultants whose loyalty is to the members and not the investment markets.
They will have to set up structures to be able to evaluate the soundness of new projects, and secondary markets to allow for trading as necessary. Government and regulators will have to permit funds to collaborate in this process.

Trustees will also need to take the lead and give members access to annuity products, and disinterested and expert advice as to when these are suitable.
Anthony Asher, Associate Professor, UNSW
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/superannuation-trustees-should-find-long-term-assets-for-their-pensioners-101370" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Superannuation trustees should find long-term assets for their pensioners: Anthony Asher

<html><body>
The Royal Commission has heard the unpaid, unsolicited endorsement of Scott Pape, the Barefoot Investor, has created a $2.5 billion boost for the funds under management held with industry super fund, Hostplus.
The revelation came during proceedings of Kenneth Hayne's royal commission, when HostPlus chief executive David Elia referred to the "Scott Pape" effect, which, he divulged, had resulted in a $2.5 billion funds under management influx.
"The fund has actually grown by $14 billion over the course of the last two years," Elai told the commission.
"The Scott Pape effect... that accounts for about $2.5 billion.
"So if you take out the Scott Pape effect in terms of funds under management, there’s about $11 and a half billion dollars of growth that’s largely attributable to – well, it’s attributable to a number of things, investment performance.
"Hostplus, for the year ending 30 June 2017, delivered a 25 rate of return – I think it was – we were the best performing fund of 13.2 per cent."
In his last book, Pape points out he shut down his SMSF to instead invest in "the lowest cost fund in the world", the Hostplus Indexed balanced Fund, which charges a management fee of 0.06 per cent to track the ASX200 combined with a similar, indexed approach to global stocks. 
"This boring fund has beaten the pants off most stock-pickers", he wrote. 
His Barefoot Investor book also revealed he also invests in ChoicePlus', a HostPlus funds that lets you pick the specific investments within your superannuation portfolio.
The commission also heard Elia's testimony on corporate hospitality spending.
Elia said it was a necessary evil and absolutely met the legal requirement for superannuation funds to act in the best interests of members.
Hostplus spends hundreds of thousands of dollars entertaining employers at the Australian Open each year, the commission heard.
The bill for the tennis last year came to $260,000, which equated to less than 1¢ per member per week, Mr Elia said.
Hostplus gets most of its new members because it is listed as the default fund in workplace deals. 
Counsel assisting the commission, Eloise Dias, said the regulator had raised concerns about Mr Elia's spending after a report from a whistleblower.
The royal commission is examining whether spending on advertising and sponsorship is in the best interests of members.
Hostplus fees are comparatively low, at $87 a year, or $1.50 week, but its members have low balances vulnerable to erosion by fees and insurance premiums.
A review by Rice Warner in 2017 found claims by Hostplus members aged under 25 are very low and as a cohort they are "over-insured", Ms Dias said. 
Pape recommended Hostplus twice in his recent 280 page The Barefoot Investor book pointing to his own membership.
He mentioned he and his wife used to have a self-managed super fund (SMSF)..."because that's what wealthy, sophisticated people do, right?"
One of the reasons he shut it down was that he wanted simplicity.
"I love investing. But Liz? Not so much.
"And given that she's younger than me, and fitter than me, the chances are she'll outlive me. And an SMSF would be a technical and administrative nightmare for her."
The other key reason for snapping his own fund was Paps reckoned he'd found the lowest cost fund in the world
"It's also been one of the top-performing funds over the years.
"It's the Hostplus Indexed Balanced Fund, and it charges a tiny investment management fee of 0.02 per cent.
"In other words, 2 cents for every $100 invested (plus a $78 a year admin fee).
"There's no minimum balance," Pape noted.
Pape made his views known under the headline: The SMSF Lite that I use
He noted he had SMSF Lite with Hostplus (because he was already invested in their ultra-cheap Index Balanced Fund for his super).
"They call it 'ChoicePlus'. and it allows you to invest in any of Australia's biggest 300 companies on the stock exchange, together with a range of term deposits and ETFs." 
ChoicePlus needs a minimum of $10000 to kick things off, and costs $180 a year, "versus thousands for a traditional SMSF from an accountan," Pape advised.
By combining ChoicePlus with the Indexed Balanced Fund, Paps suggested he got the best of both worlds: "the cheapest super fund in the country together with the opportunity to pick and choose my own shares!" 
Property Observer noted HostPlus was recently named as the top performing super fund over three, five, seven and fifteen years.
</body></html>

Superannuation

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Superannuation

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News