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>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Howard government, when flush with revenue, made a bad tax decisions which continue to haunt current policy makers. 
It removed the tax on the retirement phase of superannuation, this has been partly resolved by current government’s recent changes. But the Howard government also replaced the full taxation of real capital gains with concessional treatment of capital gains (only 50% of gains taxed). This remains as a tax avoidance loophole which both parties acknowledge but are reluctant to act upon.
The reason is straightforward. Assets put into superannuation in the accumulation phase and held until the retirement phase, can then be sold with no, or minimal, capital gains tax payable. This a major incentive to put assets into super and hold them until the retirement phase.
Without further changes to superannuation taxation, this is simply going to worsen the social problem of the well-off adopting tax minimisation strategies by piling as many assets into super as possible. Remember, it will still be possible to contribute up to A$100,000 per annum as non-concessional contributions.
Consequently, the well-off could easily build up a pool of assets of several million dollars or more, which when sold in retirement will still get very, very, favourable capital gains tax treatment under super.
If superannuation assets in retirement are under the A$1.6 million cap, no tax will be payable on capital gains from sales of assets. If assets are above the cap, the tax rate applied to capital gains is 10%.
For example, an asset costing $100,000 and held for 15 years, increasing in price at an average of 7% per annum would be sold for $276,000. If in super, tax payable would be $17,600. If outside of super, on the top marginal tax rate (including levies) of 49%, the tax payable would be $43,096.
If the concession on capital gains tax was reduced (without addressing the concessionary rate in super), the incentive would be even bigger. For example, if the concession was reduced to 25%, tax payable on the capital gain outside of super would be $64,644, an even larger gap to the tax payable in super of $17,600.
Putting $100,000 per annum into super for 15 years with an average 7% capital gain per annum generates a portfolio worth $2.7 million. The capital gains tax savings on this being in super, rather than outside, are more than $1 million!
So, what are the consequences if a brave government elects to reduce the concession applied to capital gains tax? If they make no changes to super tax arrangements there are at least two likely consequences.
First, there is increased incentive for individuals to set up self managed super funds to exploit these tax arbitrage or minimisation loopholes.
Second, despite taxation of earnings on retirement income balances over the A$1.6 million cap, maximising non-concessional contributions into self managed super funds will remain attractive, to take advantage of the difference in capital gains tax rates on assets inside versus outside super – to the detriment of future government budgets.
The consequences for self managed super funds incentives to borrow (via non-recourse arrangements involving trusts) to purchase assets such as property are unclear. As described on one adviser’s website:
Such borrowing will enable trustees to acquire assets over and above the assets that can be obtained from contributions. The caps on contributions can therefore be “overcome” by such borrowings.
However, it is doubtful that there are tax arbitrage benefits from using leverage to purchase assets via super (because higher marginal tax rates mean higher tax deductions for interest on borrowings outside of super).
For reasons of social equity, any general changes to the capital gains tax rate will also need to address capital gains tax within super. Admittedly there is already a lower concession in the case of super (two-thirds of gains are taxed versus one-half).
But that means taxing capital gains in super at only a 10% rate, leaving strong incentives to thwart higher capital gains tax by locating assets within super. Failing to reduce the capital gains tax concession in super would be likely to undo a substantial part of the effectiveness of any general changes the government has already made.
Kevin Davis is research director of Australian Centre for Financial Studies and Professor of Finance at Melbourne and Monash Universities, Australian Centre for Financial Studies. He is an author for The Conversation and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-davis-3497" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Despite superannuation changes, one tax loophole remains: Kevin Davis

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Government recently released for public consultation the third round of exposure draft legislation and explanatory material to lower the annual non-concessional contributions (‘NCCs’) cap to $100,000 and restrict eligibility to make NCCs to individuals with superannuation balances below $1.6 million from 1 July 2017.
While this legislation is in exposure draft form only (and has not yet been introduced in Parliament as a Bill) it’s important for advisers and those hoping to get some more money into super by way of NCCs to become familiar with the latest proposals. If the latest proposals get finalised as law, they may be effective from 1 July 2017, leaving a small window of opportunity for people to act.
Perhaps the most time sensitive change is the lowering of the annual NCC cap to $100,000 (down from $180,000) for FY2017 and the corresponding reduction in the amount allowed to be contributed under the three year bring forward rule (the current amount is $540,000 – this is to be lowered to $300,000 from 1 July 2017 subject to transitional rules).
The other key change is the requirement that an individual must have a total superannuation balance (‘TSB’) immediately before the start of each financial year (‘FY’) of less than the general transfer balance cap which is $1.6 million for FY2018 - to be indexed in increments of $100,000 - to be eligible to make further NCCs.
From 1 July 2017, if a member has a TSB of more than $1.6 million on the prior 30 June they will be precluded from making further NCCs.
The practical implication of this, simply put, is that a lot of people may want to make contributions prior to 1 July 2017. However, the complexity of the new proposals means that expert advice and, in particular, appropriate advice – bearing in mind the Australian financial services licence (‘AFSL’) rules – needs to be provided.
The importance of timing is probably best illustrated by a practical example.
First, let’s compare the current position with the proposed changes.
Under the current law, we have an annual NCCs cap of $180,000. Under the current bring forward rule, the total NCCs cap for the current FY and the next two FYs of $540,000, provided that:
· NCCs in that first FY exceeded $180,000
· the member did not trigger the bring forward rule in any of the two prior FYs and
· the member is under age 65 at any time during the first FY.
However, the following changes are proposed from 1 July 2017:
· The three year bring forward rule is retained but the annual $180,000 NCCs cap is to be reduced to an annual $100,000 NCCs cap.
· Individuals with total super balances of greater than $1.6 million on each prior 30 June are unable to make NCCs in next FY.
· Transitional rules apply, meaning that if an individual has triggered the bring forward rule and has not fully used their NCCs bring forward amount before 1 July 2017, the remaining bring forward amount will be reduced on 1 July 2017 to reflect the new annual caps.
 So, how does this work in practice?
Take Jane. Jane is under 65, and has not triggered the bring forward rule in FY2015 or FY2016. She had $100,000 in super on 1 July 2016, and made a NCC of $200,000 on 25 October 2016. She now wants to (and is in a position to do so) make further NCCs.
If Jane makes another NCC before 1 July 2017, she can contribute a further $340,000 (as she gets the benefit of the full $540,000 bring forward cap).
But if Jane waits until 1 July 2017 to make a further NCC, the maximum amount she can contribute is a further $180,000. Why? Because as Jane did not fully use her NCC bring forward amount before 1 July 2017, the remaining bring forward amount is reduced on 1 July 2017 to reflect the new caps. The bring forward cap on 1 July 2017 is $380,000, so $380,000 - $200,000 (her NCC made on 16 September 2016) = $180,000.
What if Jane triggered the bring forward rule in FY2016? Let’s say that Jane makes an NCC of $200,000 in FY2016. If she waits until 1 July 2017 to make another NCC, the transitional cap of $460,000 will apply. That means that Jane can only contribute a further $260,000 ($460,000 -$200,000).
You can see how the timing can result in NCCs of $540,000 versus NCCs of $460,000 or $380,000 depending on whether Jane invoked her bring forward rule in FY2016 or FY2017. What a difference a day or a year can make!
You can see from the above figures that many clients will appreciate being contacted by their advisers to give them a heads-up about this limited window of opportunity, and some clients will almost certainly want to make contributions prior to 1 July 2017.
But in light of the new AFSL regime, advisers will have to be careful in terms of how they convey this information to clients. It’s really important that advisers make themselves familiar with the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) relating to financial services and financial product advice.
Broadly, if you make a recommendation or provide an opinion that is intended to influence a person in relation to a financial product, or could reasonably be regarded as being intended to have such an influence, then you are providing financial product advice. An SMSF is considered a financial product under these rules.
So how can you keep clients updated on the proposed superannuation reforms if you don’t hold an AFSL, or you hold an AFSL but don’t want to provide a Statement of Advice?
Remember that you don’t need to be within the AFSL regime if you provide factual advice only. Factual advice, according to ASIC, is objective and factual information that is not intended to influence a person’s decision on a financial product. For example, providing a client with a government factsheet on the superannuation reforms (you can find a list of these on the budget website) would be factual advice. But what if a client presses you for further information, like ‘ok, I’ve read the factsheet, but what do the new NCC rules mean for me?’ ASIC RG 244 contains a template for dealing with these sorts of questions, with a handy introduction:
I can give you some factual information about making extra contributions to your superannuation this financial year, but I’m unable to provide you with any advice about contributing to your superannuation fund. If you would like personal advice about contributing to superannuation, I can set up a meeting for you with someone from our financial advice team. [Naturally, this wording could be varied to suit the circumstances as many accountants will need to refer such matters to an adviser who has an AFSL.]
Providing this factual information may then equip the client to make a decision on their own, and the client might then instruct you to assist them to facilitate the contribution to super. If this is indeed execution only (ie, the client has already made up their mind, and simply wants you to make it happen), then an AFSL is not required, but remember to be aware of the necessary disclaimers.
If you’re unsure of what should be included in the disclaimer, the <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au/strategy-compliance-kits/non-licensed-afsl-smsf-advisers-kit/" target="_blank">DBA Lawyers non-licensed (AFSL) SMSF Advisers Kit</a> contains templates of various execution only services, including a range of disclaimers that can be used.
Alternatively, the client may press you for a recommendation tailored to their personal circumstances. Making such a recommendation would fall within the AFSL regime and would therefore need to be handled by an appropriately licensed adviser.
For detailed coverage of this topic, you might also want to watch this <a href="https://www.dbanetwork.com.au/dbalawyers/seminars3/6106/Special-SMSF-Training" target="_blank">webinar</a>.
DBA Lawyers can be contacted <a href="https://www.dbalawyers.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Property 101: The new NCC rules and the new AFSL regime

<html><body>
APRA has released updated governance requirements for APRA-regulated superannuation trustees with a revised prudential standard and prudential practice guide on governance. 
The amendments to the prudential standard include requiring RSE licensees to have in place a governance framework, requirements for these policies to address the nomination, appointment and removal of directors, board renewal, director tenure limits and board size. 
The prudential practice guide has been updated to clarify APRA’s expectations regarding key governance practices, to support the new requirements set out in the prudential standard. 
Helen Rowell, APRA deputy chairman said APRA places significant importance on sound governance of the superannuation industry, and these refinements to the prudential framework support the ongoing evolution of governance practices across the superannuation industry.
Final SPS 510 will take effect on 1 July 2017, but APRA expects RSE licensees to consider the guidance in SPG 510 immediately.  
Further details of the requirements, including the final prudential standard and prudential practice guide can be found <a href="https://www.apra.gov.au/Super/Pages/Governance-arrangements-August-2015.aspx" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Property 101: APRA releases enhanced governance requirements for superannuation trustees

<html><body>
Rroblems buying a home is a major issue for almost every Australian under 30, according to Rick Cosier, a financial adviser and Principal of <a href="https://www.selectadviser.com.au/adviser/profile/richard+cosier_5204584" target="_blank">Healthy Finances Ltd</a>.
He noted on a CuffeLinks blog that a measurement of official house price data and mortgage costs by comparison website RateCity looked at the salary required for a single person to afford repayments on a 30-year loan. 
The main criterion was that the individual could not spend more than a third of their income on housing costs. Here are the results for Sydney:
Median House Price: $825,000
Loan Size: $660,000
Interest Rate: 4.74%
Monthly Repayment: $3,439
Annual Income Needed: $137,556
But Cosier suggests these figures are not an accurate reflection on what is happening.
"First, few single first home buyers earn $137,556. 
"Secondly, the median house price in Sydney is now a lot more than $825,000.
<a href="/images/2016/10/27/Median%20prices.jpeg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/27/Median%20prices.jpeg" alt="">
"Thirdly, people are clearly spending more than one third of their income on loan repayments."
He suggested property prices are more than seven times average income levels.
<a href="/images/2016/10/27/Price%20to%20income%20ratio.jpeg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/27/Price%20to%20income%20ratio.jpeg" alt="">
Whilst not many 30-year-olds earn $137,556, Cosier thought it’s quite possible that a 30-year-old couple can be jointly earning $120,000. 
"Given the lower tax rates that two incomes generate over the single person, a 30-year-old couple could generate sufficient income at today’s interest rates to make the necessary mortgage payments listed above."
However, he noted home ownership in Australia has fallen from 71% to 67% in the last 20 years, and more significantly, for Australians aged between 25 and 34, the proportion has fallen from 39% to 29%, and for ages 35 to 44, from 63% to 52%.
First home buyers now make up only 13% of new home loans.
He observed that overseas buyers and investors appear responsible for much of the post-2010 surge, and favourable tax concessions are pushing homes out of reach for a high percentage of younger Australians.
Anecdotal evidence from clients suggests that the desire to get a foothold in the property market is causing many people to adopt strategies that are increasingly risky.
He suggests if the debt repayment becomes difficult due to unemployment, interest rate rises, a property downturn, divorce or an unexpected pregnancy, both the parents and the children could suddenly have a major cash flow problem. 
"It wouldn’t take much for both to lose their homes."
</body></html>

Home ownership struggles will drive changes: Rick Cosier

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
The SMSF Association has produced compelling evidence that the Federal Government should increase the concessional contribution cap for people aged 50 and over and extend the carry forward of concessional contributions.
Research undertaken for the organisation by the actuarial consultancy firm Rice Warner “conclusively shows” that people only begin making significant voluntary contributions to superannuation from their mid-50s onwards.
The research confirms what the Association has long been telling policy makers: that there is a sharp difference between compulsory and voluntary contributions to superannuation – the former increase gradually over time while the latter jump dramatically in the years leading to retirement.
The Rice Warner research used a sample of 14,351 SMSF members provided to the Association by BGL, a leading SMSF software provider.
This research graphically shows why people aged 50 and over need to have a more generous contribution cap than the $25,000 that will apply from 1 July 2017.
The Association has argued for the Government to retain the current $35,000 cap for older workers and notes that even a compromise of a $30,000 cap for those over 50 years will still benefit fund members trying to save their superannuation savings to achieve a dignified retirement.
The research highlights the significant impact that voluntary contributions can have on a fund member’s superannuation balance.
The research also highlights that if the carry forward concessional contribution limit was increased from a balance of $500,000 to $750,000 it would benefit 13% of the members in the sample, of which half would be female. This measure alone would go a long way towards building adequacy for women.
The Association believes that this change would increase the effectiveness of the Government’s carry forward policy and deliver better results for people who have had volatile incomes throughout their careers and are trying to build adequate retirement savings.
These important policy changes will allow a greater opportunity for people to achieve a secure and dignified retirement by building their retirement savings.
It’s also significant that women’s contribution patterns show that when they are in the workforce they are engaged with their superannuation in an SMSF, and this particularly applies when they are in the 60-plus age group.
Rice Warner CEO Michael Rice said the underlying focus of the research was to measure the impact of recently proposed legislative changes to tax treatment in superannuation on SMSF members and potential refinements.
The three most significant of those proposed legislative changes were: the introduction of a $1.6 million cap on the amount that can be transferred from accumulation accounts to pension accounts, the reduction of the concessional contribution cap to $25,000 from $35,000 and the introduction of a $100,000 yearly non-concessional contributions cap (restricted to those with balances under $500,000).
The research shows that the proposed changes will have a material impact on the SMSF population and will restrict members’ ability to save in superannuation.” 
Andrea Slattery is managing director and chief executive officer of the SMSF Association and can be contacted <a href="https://www.smsfassociation.com" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

Research shows ‘strong argument’ to lift concessional cap

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/66209/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
So much of the national conversation about superannuation simply assumes that “savings for retirement” is synonymous with “superannuation savings”. This is a big mistake. 
This mistake partly explains why we got into such a mess with excessively generous tax breaks for super. It also underlies misguided plans to increase superannuation contributions to 12 percent of earnings. 
<h2>Super doesn’t equal retirement savings</h2>
Any sensible conversation about superannuation policy must start by recognising how households save for retirement, and why.
It’s become conventional wisdom that people will retire on their superannuation savings, perhaps topped up by the Age Pension. Even ASIC’s retirement savings calculator – which enables people to estimate their future retirement income – presumes that superannuation and the Age Pension alone will fund retirement. The assumption that superannuation accounts for the bulk of households’ retirement savings has underpinned claims that most Australians aren’t saving enough for their retirement. 
Yet the stark reality is that superannuation savings account for only a small portion – about 15% – of the wealth of most households. Even without counting the family home, the average Australian saves as much outside as inside the super system. For older households close to retirement, assets other than super are often even larger than the value of their homes.
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/139681/width754/image-20160929-27014-1xnfczl.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/139681/width754/image-20160929-27014-1xnfczl.png" alt=""></h4>
Super’s modest contribution to retirement savings is true for households of most levels of wealth and income, as confirmed by new analysis for the Grattan Institute of both ABS data and the Melbourne Institute’s HILDA survey. 
It is true that many of those with little wealth report a larger share of savings in superannuation than in other assets, but only because their total savings are small. For such low-wealth households, the Age Pension will always be their main source of retirement income.
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/139685/width754/image-20160929-27026-1ccwlzy.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/139685/width754/image-20160929-27026-1ccwlzy.png" alt=""></h4>
<h2>Even younger households save a lot outside of super</h2>
When confronted with facts about the modest contribution of super to retirement savings, super’s cheerleaders point out that the system is immature. Compulsory super only began in 1992, with compulsory contributions of 3% of wages, rising to 9% by 2002 and 9.5% since 2014-15. It will be another two decades before typical retirees will have contributed at least 9% of their wages to super for their entire working lives. So surely super will account for a larger share of household savings in future? 
While we might expect younger households to save more in super, and less outside, that’s simply not true. Their assets outside are typically as large as their assets inside superannuation, even without counting home ownership. This is so even for households in the 25-34 and 35-44 age groups who have had high levels of compulsory super for most of their working lives. 
<h2>Non-super savings will remain large</h2>
The enduring importance of non-super savings should come as no surprise. While compulsory superannuation forces people to save more via superannuation, there’s little evidence that non-super savings have fallen very much in response. 
A recent Reserve Bank of Australia study found that each extra dollar of compulsory superannuation savings was accompanied by an offsetting fall in non-super savings of only between 10 and 30 cents. As a result, compulsory super has added a lot to private savings in Australia – an estimated 1.5% of GDP a year over the past two decades. 
There is little reason to expect this pattern of non-super saving to change radically. Households hold a material portion of their wealth outside of super so that they have an option to use it before turning 60, and because they are nervous that government may change the superannuation rules before they retire.
Other asset classes, such as negatively geared property, are taxed lightly and so will likely remain an attractive vehicle for accumulating wealth. Whatever the motivation, most households heading towards retirement have substantial non-super, non-home assets to draw on.
Super as a proportion of total assets is somewhat higher for 55-64-year-olds when compared to younger households. This is partly because households aged over 55 contribute more voluntarily. They transfer assets they have already accumulated into super to attract a lower tax rate, knowing that if necessary they can withdraw immediately, or within a year or two. While this asset shuffling reduces their tax bills, it adds little to genuine retirement savings. 
<h2>One implication: super tax breaks should be more limited</h2>
Acknowledging super’s more modest contribution to retirement savings has big implications for retirement incomes policy. 
Since most Australians will rely upon a range of assets and income sources to support their retirement, we shouldn’t expect superannuation alone to provide an “adequate” or even a “comfortable” retirement, as the super industry demands. 
A number of prominent studies claim we face a retirement savings crisis, but they ignore non-super savings. This leads them to advocate ever-more-generous tax breaks so that super alone is enough to provide an adequate retirement income, even though the reality of retirement incomes will be different for most households. 
The government plans to legislate that the purpose of superannuation is to provide income to supplement or substitute the Age Pension. This implies that super tax breaks should cut out at the point that people no longer qualify for even a part Age Pension (a pre-tax income of A$75,000 for a couple). If the earnings on non-super savings are ignored, then this leads to super tax breaks for a lot of people unlikely to qualify for an Age Pension. 
The next round of reforms to super tax breaks will need to do better on this score. 
<h2>Another implication: no need to increase the Super Guarantee to 12 percent</h2>
Ignoring non-super savings may also lead policymakers to force people to save too much through superannuation. A common aim of retirement income policy is to support lifetime consumption smoothing: maintaining a more consistent standard of living across people’s lives. Compulsory saving via the Superannuation Guarantee forces people to save while they are working so they have more to spend in retirement. 
But there is no magic pudding when it comes to superannuation. Higher compulsory super contributions are ultimately funded by lower wages, which means lower living standards for workers today. 
In fact current levels of compulsory super contributions and Age Pension are likely to provide a reasonable retirement for most Australians. 
If we project forward the retirement income for a median income earner working for 40 years, and account for just compulsory super contributions – in other words, we ignore any voluntary superannuation contributions and savings outside of super – we find that today’s 9.5% Superannuation Guarantee and the Age Pension would provide the average worker with a retirement income equal to 79% of their pre-retirement wage (also known as a replacement rate). 
About two-thirds of income earners can expect a retirement income of at least 70% of their pre-retirement income – the replacement rate for the median earner used by the Mercer Global Pension Index and endorsed by the OECD. 
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/139706/width754/image-20160929-27014-1irgtgd.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/139706/width754/image-20160929-27014-1irgtgd.jpg" alt=""></h4>
Once non-super savings are taken into account, many workers are likely to have a higher standard of living when they retire in 40 years’ time than during their working life. This is before we consider that people have much lower spending needs in retirement, particularly in the later stages of life when government covers much of their largest costs of health and age care. 
This modelling of the future shouldn’t be a surprise. It matches what is already happening today. The non-housing expenditure of retirement-age households today, many of whom did not retire with any super, is typically more than 70% of that of working-age households today. 
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/139698/width754/image-20160929-27037-1npkr59.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/139698/width754/image-20160929-27037-1npkr59.jpg" alt=""></h4>
Current levels of retirement spending appear to be sustainable. Most households in retirement only draw down very slowly on their superannuation and their broader savings. Consequently, most are likely to leave material bequests. 
The policy implication is that there is no compelling case to compel households to save 12% of their income through the Super Guarantee as currently legislated. This would effectively compel most people to save for a higher living standard in retirement than they enjoy during their working lives. 
In practice, given typical retiree spending patterns, a 12% Super Guarantee will primarily result in larger bequests. It would be better to leave the Super Guarantee where it is – at 9.5% of wages. This is consistent with the 2009 Henry Tax Review, which found that the Super Guarantee of 9% then in force would be enough to give most Australians “a substantial replacement of their income, well above that provided by the Age Pension”. 
<h2>Ignore the vested interests</h2>
Powerful vested interests are pushing the idea that super equals retirement savings. Yet such a view is inconsistent with the facts. Super’s importance to retirement savings has been overblown for far too long. 
As the debate heats up over policy for Australia’s A$2 trillion super sector, recognising what households actually save, and why, would be a big step in the right direction.
John Daley is chief executive officer, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870" target="_blank">here.</a>
Brendan Coates is a friend of The Conversation and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-coates-154644" target="_blank">here</a>.
Hugh Parsonage is associate, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hugh-parsonage-210671" target="_blank">here</a>. 
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

The superannuation myth: why it’s a mistake to increase contributions to 12 percent of earnings

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/64733/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Federal Government’s plan to wind back superannuation tax breaks would create a fairer superannuation system more aligned to its purpose of providing income to supplement the Age Pension, according to new Grattan Institute analysis.
It would also contribute to budget repair.
The analysis shows how either of the reform packages proposed by both major parties would be a big step in the right direction. It explores how the current system provides much larger benefits to those with such ample resources that they will never qualify for an Age Pension. And it shows how the proposed changes would affect them - and pretty much nobody else.
As they debate the Coalition government’s proposals to wind back tax breaks on superannuation, politicians on all sides can do three big things: create a better and fairer superannuation scheme; take an important step towards repairing the Commonwealth budget; and show that our political system still works.
Both main parties have laid out their preferred reforms to super tax concessions. While they agree on all but the details, they are yet to strike a deal. Our new research shows what is at stake.
<h2>A better, fairer, super system</h2>
First and foremost, the proposed reforms to superannuation announced in the 2016 budget are about making super better, and fairer.
Tax breaks should only be available when they serve a policy aim. The purpose of super identified in the budget and <a href="https://sjm.ministers.treasury.gov.au/media-release/053-2016/">due to be defined in legislation</a> is to provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the Age Pension. Super tax breaks don’t fulfil this purpose when they benefit those who were never going to qualify for an Age Pension in the first place.
The plans of both the government and the ALP would be big steps towards aligning super tax breaks more closely with their purpose. They would trim the generous super tax breaks enjoyed by the top 20% of income earners – people wealthy enough to be comfortable in retirement and unlikely to qualify for the Age Pension.
Retirees with large superannuation balances will start paying some tax on their superannuation savings, but still pay much less tax than wage earners on lower incomes. For a small proportion of women with higher incomes later in life, the changes will reduce their catch-up contributions. Yet the changes will reduce the tax breaks far more for wealthier old men.
Claims that the budget changes will affect many low and middle-income earners are wrong. Our research shows the changes will affect about 4 percent of superannuants, nearly all of them high-income earners who are unlikely to access the Age Pension. Nor are the proposed changes retrospective. Many reforms affect investments made in the past, and no-one suggests they are retrospective. Rather, the changes will affect taxes paid on future super earnings, and entitlements to make future contributions to super.
Any plausible combination of the packages on offer would make the super system fairer. At present, someone in the top 1% of income earners can expect to receive nearly three times as much in welfare and tax breaks from super in their lifetime as an average income earner. The government’s changes would trim some of these excesses: the top 1% would instead receive just twice as much as low or average income earners. And by targeting tax breaks that go to the top 20 percent of income earners, neither side’s plan would see much of an offsetting increase in Age Pension spending.
<h4><a href="/images/2016/09/06/image-20160904-20235-2lmns1.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></h4>
<img src="/images/2016/09/06/image-20160904-20235-2lmns1.jpg" alt="">
<h4>
Modelling on super reforms The Grattan Institute, Author provided
</h4>
<h2>An unsustainable tax system for seniors</h2>
Decisions by the former Coalition Government to abolish taxes on superannuation withdrawals in 2007 and radically increase the amount senior Australians could earn before paying income tax have dramatically reduced the tax bills of older Australians.
These changes are one of the main reasons why households over the age of 65 (unlike households aged between 25 and 64) now pay less income tax in real terms today than they did 20 years ago. At the same time, the workforce participation rates and incomes of seniors have jumped. Generous super tax breaks have been funded by deficits. The accumulating debt burden will disproportionately fall on younger households.
<a href="/images/2016/09/06/image-20160902-20241-1ljhnvu.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><img src="/images/2016/09/06/image-20160902-20241-1ljhnvu.jpg" alt=""></h4>
Tax breaks to older Australians are also a major cause of the increase in the “taxed nots” identified by Treasurer Scott Morrison. The number of older Australians not paying any income tax has increased from three in four in 2000 to five in six today. The rise of these “taxed nots” coincides with the introduction of the Senior Australian Tax Offset in 2000, and tax-free super withdrawals in 2007.
<a href="/images/2016/09/06/image-20160902-20220-1h63t0l.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><img src="/images/2016/09/06/image-20160902-20220-1h63t0l.jpg" alt=""></h4>
<h2>Repairing the budget</h2>
The increased cost of services and reduced taxes per older household explain in large part why the Commonwealth budget is in trouble. For eight years, budget deficits have persisted at about 2 to 3 percent of GDP, and the future looks little better. The returned Turnbull government is putting a priority on budget repair, now described as a “massive moral challenge” by the Prime Minister. Winding back some of the tax breaks given to older Australians during the happier times of the mining boom is an obvious step.
The government’s super package would save the budget at least A$800 million a year. Alternative proposals by the ALP, which broadly supports the Coalition’s reforms, and then goes further, would save more than A$2 billion a year. Should Treasurer Morrison seek a deal with the ALP or the Greens, any “concessions” will mostly improve the budget position.
Nor is the Turnbull government likely to find more attractive opportunities for budget savings. Unlike most of the government’s savings measures, changes to super tax breaks are broadly popular. Electorates more likely to be adversely affected by the super changes – that is, those with more old and wealthy voters – tended to swing less to the ALP at the last election than other electorates. And a survey before the election showed that the proposals had more support amongst those most likely to be adversely affected.
<h2>A test for our political system</h2>
Even after the reforms, super tax breaks will still mostly flow to high-income earners who do not need them, and the budgetary costs of super tax breaks will remain unsustainable in the long term. Further changes to super tax breaks will be needed in future. But agreeing to the super package now before the Parliament would be progress in the right direction. And there is a broader issue at stake.
Super is only the first of a number of difficult choices that will come before the Parliament as government seeks to promote economic growth in a sluggish global economy, and bring the budget back under control. There is no easy road to these ends that will keep everyone happy all the time. Pragmatic compromise will be critical.
The proposed changes to super tax breaks are built on principle, supported by the electorate and largely supported by the three largest political parties. If we cannot get reform in this situation, then our political system is in deep trouble. In coming weeks, our MPs have the chance to show how government in Australia can still change the nation for the better.
John Daley is chief executive officer, Grattan Institute, and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-daley-1870" target="_blank">here</a>.
Brendan Coates is a friend of The Conversation and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-coates-154644" target="_blank">here</a>.
William Young is associate, Grattan Institute and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/william-young-260984" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

New Grattan research shows what is at stake in the superannuation debate

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/64297/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
There is little justification in giving rich households generous superannuation tax concessions, as wealth has a limited impact on spending and wellbeing in retirement new research suggests.
Retirement income is at the core of the controversy around the federal government’s proposed changes to superannuation and yet very little is known about how retirees actually spend their money.
Our research found that, despite the large variation in the income levels of households, wealthier households spend at a similar level to those with more modest wealth.
Retiree couples aged 65-74 spent just $33,200 a year on average, while single households of the same age spent an average of only $18,400 in 2014.
These figures fall below the benchmarks set by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA), which suggests a couple needs $33,784 a year to afford a “modest” lifestyle, and 20 percent lower than the $23,489 figure it benchmarked for single households in 2014.
In March, the federal government adopted the thinking from the Financial Systems Inquiry that superannuation’s objective was to provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the Age Pension. But Treasurer Scott Morrison remains under pressure not to go through with plans to limit lifetime non-concessional superannuation contributions to $500,000.
The government appears committed to other super reforms aimed at dismantling super concessions for the wealthy, announced in its May budget.
At present retirement income needs are estimated either as a proportion of income during the working life or by using income “standards” (such as those used by ASFA) which estimate the income needed to attain a given quality of life.
Our analysis, using data from the most recent Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, shows spending levels are largely driven by cost-of-living pressures such as geographical location (with spending highest in Sydney and lowest in regional South Australia). Household structure and home ownership are also important.
It’s likely that the wealthiest households are indeed “saving” – either deliberately to ensure they can pass on their wealth to the next generation, or to self-insure against possible future aged-care and health expenses – particularly if they own their home outright.
In comparison, retirees who are in the rental market spent on average $11,500 on rent – almost 40 percent of their total annual expenditure. This points to a need for a real focus on the plight of retirees exposed to the rental market, particularly single-person households.
With a large bulk of their spending swallowed up by rent, these households appear to struggle to afford basic household items. Our analysis showed households that rely on the Age Pension as their major source of income had much lower relative spending on health care and insurance – $1,900 annually, compared to $4,300 for self-funded retirees.
Single-person households also struggled, with almost 80 percent of households unable to reach even a modest standard of living.
For these households, increases in welfare payments or housing assistance will likely have a greater impact on well-being than raising the current 9.5 percent Superannuation Guarantee to 12 percent.
On the positive side, we found that superannuation already provides a valuable source of income for younger retirees – around one-fifth of annual income for those aged 65-74. Superannuation wealth has grown enormously over the past decade. In 2014, households aged 65-74 had superannuation assets 190 percent higher (in real terms) than their counterparts in 2002.
And this huge growth in superannuation and household wealth has coincided with increases in household spending, with current retirees spending more than previous cohorts.
Further growth of the superannuation system through greater participation and the rising Superannuation Guarantee will likely see the wealth of retirees continue to grow. But until there is a clearer picture of superannuation wealth and retirement income, it will be hard to ensure superannuation reforms deliver on their objective.
Eliana Maddock is research officer, Australian Centre for Financial Studies and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/eliana-maddock-293619" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Rich and poor retirees spend about the same

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER 
The Productivity Commission’s draft report on our super system may make self-managed super funds (SMSF) more popular.
The draft report, designed to stimulate discussion about competition in the superannuation sector, examines whether the system is working in favour of fund members.
It questions whether larger institutional funds and service provider groups are passing on benefits to fund members in the form of lower fees, better services or improved investment returns.
The report refers to SMSFs as a core segment of the superannuation industry, and a benchmark to which APRA-regulated funds can be compared.
The Productivity Commission’s findings so far will come as no surprise to many Australians, especially those who already have their retirement savings in a self-managed fund.
Granted, technology is improving and fees are coming down, but the Productivity Commission believes there is still a long way to go. Ultimately criticism of the way APRA-regulated funds operate could motivate many more Australians to take control of their retirement future and set up their own self-managed fund.
The SMSF sector is competition operating in its purist form - its members are individuals who have exercised their choice as free consumers to establish their own funds but they are not without vulnerabilities.
The government’s view that SMSFs swim ‘outside the flags’ means they are on their own when victim to financial misconduct. The Trio Capital fraud saw 400 SMSFs, who lost a total of $60 million, refused any form of government compensation or support. It’s vital trustees have access to the independent advice and guidance they need to avoid the traps.
The Productivity Commission is not just reviewing competition and efficiency in the superannuation sector, but whether trustees of APRA-regulated funds are acting in the best interests of members. 
Any doubts about trustees acting in members’ best interests will ring alarm bells. People all over the world are already becoming more cynical of institutions, from the ‘Brexit Effect’ to the ‘Trump Effect’, but here we might just see the ‘Super Effect’
Christopher Page is managing director of market intelligence company Rainmaker and can be contacted <a href="https://www.rainmaker.com.au" target="_blank">here.</a>
</body></html>

Review of super system will push more Australians into SMSF

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63395/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Productivity Commission has released its draft report setting out criteria for assessing the competitiveness and efficiency of the superannuation system. The final report will be delivered in November this year.
The study, the first stage of a three-stage exercise, is part of the Government’s response to the 2014 Murray Financial System Inquiry. Murray recommended that the Government “introduce a formal competitive process to allocate new default fund members to MySuper products, unless a review by 2020 concludes that the Stronger Super reforms have been effective in significantly improving competition and efficiency in the superannuation system.”
This first stage does not assess the superannuation system; it merely sets out criteria for evaluating it. The second stage, to be delivered by mid-2017, will develop alternative models for the competitive process. The third and final stage will review the system. Only then, and only if the government finds there is still significant inefficiency, will it consider introducing one or more of the “models” developed in the second stage.
<h2>What’s at stake?</h2>
The efficiency of the superannuation system makes a big difference to incomes in retirement. Today, the system charges fees totalling about $16 billion, or 1% of GDP. There are too many unwanted accounts, too many funds, and many funds charge fees that are too high. Costs that are too high by even half a percent a year can reduce balances at retirement by over 10%, and many Australians are paying more than that in excess fees. The recent Stronger Super reforms and the Future of Financial Advice reforms have reduced fees somewhat, but billions of dollars in excess cost remain.
<h2>What the Commission proposes</h2>
The challenge in evaluating superannuation is to make sense of the system’s jargon and its maze of products, sales channels, governance structures, and performance metrics. Even people with real financial expertise struggle to assess funds' performance, and many members are inexpert and disengaged. What’s more, some providers and advisers have interests that are not aligned to those of members.
The Commission proposes a rich set of performance measures for this complex system. It begins from the Government’s announced objective for superannuation: “to provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the Age Pension”, and proposes five supporting goals, including maximising net returns, meeting member needs, providing appropriate insurance at least cost, complementing a stable financial system, and competition that drives efficient outcomes.
It then sets out separate criteria for the competitiveness and efficiency of the superannuation system. Sensibly, it notes that “competition in the superannuation system is not an end in itself, but provides benefits to the community as a whole and members in particular when it promotes efficient outcomes.”
It proposes that the system’s competitiveness be assessed by reviewing such measures as whether members are engaged and informed, whether advisers and sellers are acting in members' interests, whether funds compete on costs and pass on cost savings to members, and whether member outcomes are affected by vertical or horizontal integration.
The criteria it proposes for the system’s efficiency include net returns after fees and tax, the costs of the system, the extent to which the system’s services align to members' needs and preferences (such as risk management), and the extent of unpaid contributions and lost accounts.
These criteria are all sensible, though many will prove much easier to specify than to measure against an ideal or acceptable outcome. As the draft notes, work must begin now to ensure the data is in place when it is needed.
<h2>Three critical additions to ensure the process works</h2>
The Commission needs to build on its draft report in three directions.
First, it should be more explicit about the weighting given to different performance measures. Not all measures are equally important.
Second, it should be clear about what matters to different fund members. The draft notes that default and choice superannuation members have different needs; those needs should be clearly set out in the final report. Many of the 9.5 million Australians with default products are disengaged. Few will engage much until they near retirement, if they ever do. Many do not have financial expertise. That means that risk-adjusted net returns should be given strong weight in evaluating default products.
Lost accounts and unpaid contributions will also be particularly important for this part of the market. For the choice part of the market – currently about 5 million people – returns should remain paramount, but member engagement and advice quality may play a larger role.
Third and most critically, the Commission must strengthen the links between the three stages of its work. The government’s response to the Murray Inquiry and the Commission’s Terms of Reference for the first two stages make it obvious that the three are intended to work closely together. Stage 1 must define criteria that inform the development of competition models in Stage 2, as well as the assessment of those models against today’s model in light of the findings of Stage 3.
But the draft hardly discusses these links. For example, there is no discussion of how the proposed measures will inform Stage 2. And there is no discussion of which measures will help government decide whether to deploy the models designed in Stage 2. Without much tighter links between stages, the whole purpose of the process will be defeated.
At a minimum, the set of measures in Stage 1 must include the performance of funds by governance type (industry, public sector, and for-profit) in different competitive contexts (tender, awards, direct, and advised) and across product types (default and choice, accumulation and post-retirement).
It must also include the performance of tenders for investment management and administration separately. And it must include the implications of those segment outcomes for the whole system. That type of detailed assessment will be vital if the Commission is to assess competitiveness and efficiency and so inform the government’s decision about whether and how to change the competition model for default super.
<h2>Broader lessons?</h2>
The Commission’s process might seem cumbersome, but it could prove a model for a better way of developing policy. Superannuation is not the only sector in which competition seems to be leaving many consumers little better off.
There are at least two opportunities to roll out the multi-stage market assessment model. First, in its response to the Murray Inquiry, the Government has already committed to implement periodic reviews of competition in the broader financial sector.
More generally, last year’s Harper Review recommended that government set up a new body that would have the power to initiate what it called “market studies”. That was one of the few Harper recommendations the Government left hanging, perhaps because it wasn’t convinced a new body was needed.
But if the Commission’s three-stage process can credibly assess both superannuation system outcomes and the policy options to improve them, it could prove a model for further market studies, whether undertaken by the Commission, the ACCC, or some new body.
Jim Minifie is productivity Growth Program Director, Grattan Institute and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jim-minifie-10230" target="_blank">here</a>.
</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