<html><body>
RE/MAX Western Australia’s managing director Geoff Baldwin has spoken out against potential changes to current stamp duty dispensations for first home buyers, saying that if the relief was decreased or abolished there would be dire effects across the market.
 “The negative affect the ceasing of stamp duty relief for first home buyers would be extremely damaging however, when this segment of the market stagnates it ripples up through all price ranges and the effect would be crippling”, said Baldwin.
“If you take a line through New South Wales and Victoria where subsidies have been abolished, first home buyer activity has dropped to 8% and 12% respectively, compared to the current 22% in Western Australia (RP Data).
“Historically, in a healthy market, first home buyers account for around 25 to 30% of all buyers.
“The established home market has already taken a massive hit through the government’s recent actions in changing the First Home Owner Grant whereby those building new homes receive $7,000 and people buying established only $3,000.
“To abolish first home owner stamp duty concessions would be extremely short sighted as it will a negative impact the whole market and hence the Industry, just at a time where we are again experiencing some prosperity in the property sector.”
 
</body></html>

jrichardson-uRX5hFdKfN

Rumoured cuts to stamp duty relief for first home buyers would be “extremely damaging”: RE/MAX

<html><body>
Last month residential property stock on the market decreased to the lowest level seen since February 2011, according to SQM Research.
Nationally, there were 334,683 unsold properties last month, down 3.6% from the month before and 4.8% from July last year. <a href="https://www.sqmresearch.com.au/" target="_blank"></a>
<a href="https://www.sqmresearch.com.au/" target="_blank">SQM Research</a> says the market "remains in favour of sellers", with low stock levels pointing to an active market. However, the research firm also notes the rate of decrease has slowed, particularly in Sydney, which saw a yearly stock decline of 8.7%. There, annual stock declines between 15% and 25% were previously recorded.
Of the results, SQM Research managing director Louis Christopher says: "The national housing market overall remains buoyant with real estate listings being absorbed at a fairly fast pace and buyers moderately outnumbering sellers.”
<table border="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td>City</td>
<td>July 2013 total </td>
<td> June 2013 total</td>
<td>July 2014 total</td>
<td>Monthly change %</td>
<td>Yearly change %</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Adelaide</td>
<td> 16,453</td>
<td> 15,819</td>
<td> 14,593</td>
<td> -7.8%</td>
<td> -11.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Brisbane</td>
<td> 26,150</td>
<td> 26,624</td>
<td> 25,615</td>
<td> -3.8%</td>
<td> -2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Canberra</td>
<td> 3,555</td>
<td> 3,250</td>
<td> 3,140,</td>
<td> -3.4%</td>
<td> -11.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Darwin</td>
<td> 1,302</td>
<td> 1,531</td>
<td> 1,582</td>
<td> 3.3%</td>
<td> 21.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Hobart</td>
<td> 4,280</td>
<td> 4,137</td>
<td> 4,063</td>
<td> -1.8%</td>
<td> -5.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Melbourne</td>
<td> 46,748</td>
<td> 43,237</td>
<td> 41,432</td>
<td> -4.2%</td>
<td> -11.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Perth</td>
<td> 19,353</td>
<td> 21,220</td>
<td> 20,049</td>
<td> -5.5%</td>
<td> 3.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Sydney</td>
<td> 23,207</td>
<td> 22,504</td>
<td> 21,179</td>
<td> -5.9%</td>
<td> -8.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>National</td>
<td> 351,397</td>
<td> 347,074</td>
<td> 334,683</td>
<td> -3.6%</td>
<td> -4.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
 Source: SQM Research
The largest monthly decrease was recorded in Adelaide, where stock on market fell by 7.8% to 14,593 homes. On a yearly basis, Canberra had the greatest decline, with an 11.7% decrease to 3,140 homes on the market. Darwin was the only capital city where a monthly increase in stock levels was recorded. Stock on market climbed 3.3% in July to 1,582. The city also saw the biggest yearly jump of stock on market, of 21.5%. The firm also recorded a small month-on-month decrease in asking prices for houses, of 0.2%. Unit asking prices saw an increase of the same proportion on a national level for July.
</body></html>

National stock levels down to three year low in July: SQM

<html><body>
The Northern Territory government has <a href="/expert-insights/buying/65-first-home-buyers/31152-northern-territory-s-fhog-directed-to-new-builds-only-from-2015" target="_blank">abolished its first home owners grant for established homes</a>, extending the grant only to new dwellings from January 2015.
While announcing the changes, Treasurer David Tollner acknowledged that first home owners grants have added upwards pressure on housing prices. The government cited economist Saul Eslake’s <a href="/news/28532-the-senates-inquiry-into-affordable-housing-six-submissions?start=1" target="_blank">submission to a Senate inquiry into affordable housing</a>. Eslake criticised the grant, saying that when applied to established homes, it "served to simply to exacerbate the already substantial imbalance between the underlying demand for housing and the supply of it."
According to Tollner, the unintended inflationary effects of the first home owners grant were a factor in the government’s decision to abolish the grant for established homes.
"That’s why the Territory government will direct the first home owners grant solely towards the construction or purchase of new homes from next year," said Tollner.
"By targeting the first home owners grant towards the purchase of newly built homes, the grant is more likely to contribute to growth in housing supply and employment in the construction sector."
The Territory government will maintain the payment for first home owners of established homes for eight months.
"...ultimately, we want this grant to encourage the construction of new homes, create more jobs in the residential construction sector and improving housing affordability by increasing housing stock." Tollner said.
"This is a far better result than merely creating a churn in existing dwellings that is widely accepted as having an inflationary effect on the cost of housing."
Eslake is not the first industry figure to criticise the first home owners grant. Writing on the grant last year, <a href="/expert-insights/buying/65-first-home-buyers/23442-wednesday-june-12-observer-slow-demise-of-first-home-owner-grant-schemes-wakelin" target="_blank">observer Monique Sasson commented</a>:
"The scheme is meant to make property more affordable for first home buyers. Unfortunately, experience shows that the grants don’t achieve this end.  Instead, the nominal increase in purchasing power it delivers to first home buyers transmits directly into higher prices for the properties they hope to buy.
"The real beneficiaries are the vendors of properties that first timers buy."
The Northern Territory follows Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory in its removal of the first home owners grant for established properties.
 
 
</body></html>

Northern Territory government acknowledges that FHOGs for established houses have "inflationary effect"

<html><body>
Investors should seek an independent second opinion when investing their super savings in property, according to the Real Estate Buyer’s Agents Association of Australia (REBAA).
The industry body’s president Jacque Parker urges investors to question advisors offering inflated property values and guaranteed rents.
“The real estate industry has always attracted its fair share of ‘shonky’ selling agents and it’s disappointing to hear advisors accepting kickbacks from developers under the guise of “financial advice” and taking advantage of innocent investors,” says Parker.
REBAA’s warning comes amid reported claims of advisors receiving higher than standard commission payments for recommending off the plan residential apartments as self-managed super fund investments.
Earlier this year, property commentator <a href="/expert-insights/investing/29276-standby-exclusive-tips-from-the-experts-on-how-to-spot-a-dodgy-operator" target="_blank">Neil Jenman told Property Observer</a> that "property spruikers are getting commissions ranging up to $50,000 per property".
Parker advocates engaging an accredited buyer’s agent for a second opinion on property investments. Buyer’s agents do not sell real estate but specialise in finding, evaluating and negotiating property purchases on the behalf of buyers.
 “The old saying ‘if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is’ certainly applies here,” said Parker.
“If you are an investor who is considering investing your superannuation in property, then we would highly recommend you get an independent second opinion from a buyer’s agent.
“Independent buyer’s agents do not sell real estate or accept any kickbacks from other sources for doing so.
“If they do and they don’t disclose this to the buyer then they are contravening Section 47 of the Agents Act.”
Parker claims that using a buyer’s agent can save investors thousands of dollars.
 
</body></html>

Don’t be lured in by “one stop shop” SMSF advisors: REBAA

<html><body>
Last night's episode of Location Location Location Australia showed buyer's agents Veronica Morgan and Bryce Holdaway helping out two relocating couples.
Though one couple was upsizing and the other downsizing, they were both forced to negotiate the tricky realities of moving far from home.
Veronica was working with retirees Sue and Barney. After living in Port Macquarie for 16 years, they wanted to relocate to Wagga Wagga, where their son and his young family lived.
The couple, who have been married for 47 years, raised their own family in Wagga Wagga before moving northward to the beach.
For their return to Wagga, they wanted a three bedroom house with a double garage and a shed, which was close to the grandkids.
Their move, which they think might be their final one, had to be done on a tight budget of $350,000.
With limited stock on market in Wagga, Veronica was tasked with finding them the perfect final home among very few options.
She started by taking the couple to their preferred area of <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">Turvey Park</a>, in the heart of Wagga and only minutes from their son Ben. The three bedroom house, on the market for $329,000, had three bedrooms, a shed and a backyard.
The recently renovated home was a lot smaller than what Sue and Barney were used to, and the couple believed it would take a lot of hard work to make it worthwhile. It was immediately struck from the list despite its great location and the search continued.
The second house they inspected was in <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">Kooringal</a>, south of Turvey Park but only four kilometres from their son's home. The bigger house, with three bedrooms, only had a single car garage and the shed was on the small size.
While Sue loved the brick bungalow with an open plan kitchen, Barney was pretty skeptical. At $339,000, the house fell under their budget - but only just.
The third home they inspected was in <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">Bourkelands</a>, four kilometres from Central Wagga. The former site of a military base, developers have recently taken a liking to the area, with new builds popping up.
The house, which also had a $339,000, had a double garage, an open plan kitchen and living room layout. The master bedroom came with a walk in robe and ensuite, which also appealed.
With somewhat shabby bathrooms, the house (pictured below) would require a little bit of work. It <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-nsw-bourkelands-116920539" target="_blank">remains on the market</a>, with its asking price now at $332,500. 
<img src="/images/2014/09/24/1.jpg" alt="">
After visiting three homes, none of which ticked all the boxes and all a step down from their dream home in Port Macquarie, the true reality of downsizing began to set in.
Sue and Barney showed just how difficult it is to downsize, especially from a home you love. Though they both wanted to be closer to their family, they weren't quite ready to make the final purchase of their life - especially if it meant settling for a home they weren't happy in.
In the end, although they couldn't find the perfect home, Sue and Barney decided they needed to be in Wagga. So they sold their Port Macquarie home and set out to rent a house in Wagga while waiting for the right home to come onto the market.
This article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
 Bryce teamed up with Melbourne couple Ben and Amelia, who had the opposite move in mind.
They were planning to migrate northward, to the Gold Coast. After watching prices skyrocket in Melbourne, they decided they wanted more warmth and luxury for their dollar.
The upgraders, who want a family home they can grow into, had a budget of $1 million. They've been searching for a home in the Gold Coast for some time, but were finding the interstate property inspections a little impractical.
Enter Bryce. He was tasked with finding them a four bedroom home with a minimum of two bathrooms, a pool and canal views. Ben and Amelia wanted something close to the beach, with plenty of entertaining space.
Bryce was optimistic about their prospects, especially on their budget. The property market's downturn means that homes are more affordable than before, and it's a buyers' market.
According to Bryce, good capital growth potential can again be found in the Gold Coast, with high price growth in the southern states spurring on upgraders just like Ben and Amelia.
Their hunt began in <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">Broadbeach Waters</a>, at a home situated right on the canal. The four bedroom, four bathroom house had a pool and a six car garage. Unfortunately, it required some renovations - but with a price of $800,000, there was plenty of money leftover in the couple's budget for that.
It seemed, however, that Ben and Amelia had other things in mind. They weren't interested in extensive renovations, and wanted at least two living areas.
So house number one was a bust, and they moved along to house number two: a <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">Mermaid Waters</a> house with two open plan living areas. The contemporary tiled house had four bedrooms, four bathrooms and a spot to tie up the boat.
There was also an outdoor entertaining space by the pool. On the market for $995,000, it was within their budget, and made a good first impression.
But Ben and Amelia, it turned out, wanted a home with a better indoor-outdoor flow. So house number two was also out.
The <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-qld-broadbeach+waters-116288195" target="_blank">third home they inspected</a> was one on main road, which caused some concern. But its huge contemporary interior space and layout, pictured below, won them over. The home, on a wide plot, also included a pool and spa facing the canal, with its own jetty.
<img src="/images/2014/09/24/2.jpg" alt="">
While the home's bedrooms weren't amazing, the outdoor entertaining area was enough to win them over.
The house had a $1 million asking price, but it turned out that the vendors had accepted a $950,000 offer previously, and finance had fallen through.
They inspected a final house, a single storey home with two large living areas and four bedrooms in Broadbeach. The house, which the couple wasn't keen on, had an asking price of $950,000.
The price gave Amelia and Ben a point of comparison, and solidified their preference for the third home.
Knowing that the vendors had accepted a $950,000 offer, Bryce proposed a $930,000 to $950,000 price for the home. Amelia and Ben decided to put in a $920,000 bid, and were happy to play the waiting game.
However, so was the vendor, who rejected the bid. Amelia and Ben pushed up their offer to $945,000 - which, after a few days of waiting, was accepted by the vendor.
By knowing the previous offers put in on the house, Amelia and Ben were able to gauge the vendor's needs, securing the home for $55,000 under the asking price.
</body></html>

Location Location Location: Big moves and big decisions

<html><body>
Being the trustee of a self-managed super fund (SMSF) gives you the opportunity to manage your own superannuation investments and make your own investment choices.
As the trustee and member of a SMSF, you can have full control over how your retirement savings are invested, whether you want returns from property, shares or even art and collectables.
If you’re thinking of setting up a SMSF, your duties as a trustee will include devising an investment strategy, accepting contributions and paying benefits.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is the authority of SMSFs, enforcing the majority of regulations and restrictions that apply to the investment strategy. This morning Peter Iordanidis of the ATO provided an overview of SMSFs for trustees. 
Some top tips to ensure your fund is compliant:
<ol>
<li>
 Understand the sole purpose of your fund As a trustee, you must ensure that the sole purpose of your SMSF is to provide for its members in retirement. Even if you use a professional to do certain tasks on your behalf, you still must comply with super and tax laws to protect your members’ assets. To ensure that you get the full tax concessions available to SMSFs, you must pass the sole purpose test. Your investment decisions should be based on increasing returns to your fund. You need to consider diversification, risks and likely returns from your assets. You also need to consider your members’ needs and circumstances – even if you are the only member. For example, if you’re nearing retirement age, you may want to change your SMSF asset mix to include more low risk, low reward investments.  
</li>
<li>
Make sure you don’t get any benefit pre-retirement… With post-retirement benefits the sole purpose of your SMSF, you must ensure that you don’t use the fund to get any current day benefits, or you face penalties including the loss of your tax concessions, fines up to $220,000 or up to five years’ jail time. Trustees are prohibited from dipping into their funds to pay for bills, school fees or for any non-retirement investments. As a trustee you are prohibited from borrowing money from the SMSF pre-retirement (with some exceptions) and all transactions made with your SMSF must be made “at arm’s length”. Trustees must make and maintain investments on a strict commercial basis, while the purchase and sale prices of fund assets should always reflect true market value. You can use your SMSF to invest in a wide variety of assets, even art and collectables. You can use your fund for artwork and collectables, but you cannot enjoy a direct or indirect benefit from the investment by displaying it in your home or business prior to retirement. 
</li>
<li>
…And your family doesn’t either A fund is prohibited from lending money to a member of the fund or a relative of a member. The definition of relative is quite broad – this can include siblings, parents, children, and extended family members. The definition also covers the spouse of any family members. That means that you can’t lend money from your SMSF to your sister-in-law. Your SMSF is also prohibited from providing financial assistance to a member or a member of a relative, whether directly or indirectly. This means can’t use your SMSF as security for your child’s mortgage. Iordanidis provided the example of a husband and wife who were trustees of their SMSF. Their SMSF sold a property it owned, but no money was paid for the property, as the sale contract created a loan between the fund and the purchasers. However, it turned out that the purchasers were relatives of the husband and wife, which meant that they had made a loan to family members. The trust incorrectly advised the ATO that the loan was repaid in full, and the fund was deemed non-complying and stripped of its tax concessions. Trustees are generally prohibited from acquiring non-cash assets from related parties – a rental property, for example. 
</li>
<li>
Do your paperwork (or get someone else to do it for you) As a trustee for a SMSF, you have a range of annual responsibilities. You must keep your records up to date and value assets at their current market value at least once a year. You have to prepare financial statements, lodge an annual return and report contributions, even if no contributions were made that year. You’ll also need to lodge an income return every year from the year you set up your fund, for each member. Most of those duties can be performed by an accountant, but it’s your responsibility to make sure they are done and lodged with the ATO. The ATO also requires an audit of your SMSF each year, performed by an approved SMSF auditor who is registered with ASIC and has a SMSF Auditor Number. The auditor can’t be a trustee member of the fund, or your accountant who prepares your other financial statements. You’ll also need to make sure you appoint the auditor early enough for them to do the audit and for you to submit it.  An audit is required even if you haven’t made any contributions in the year.  When you engage professionals, make sure you have a clear understanding of their responsibilities. Any contraventions of super or tax law that are identified by your auditor must be fixed. You can ask the ATO for advice on how to go about rectifying any mistakes you’ve made.
</li>
</ol>
There are a range of other rules and regulations surrounding SMSFs that you need to know to receive full tax concessions (and avoid penalties). Go to the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/" target="_blank">ATO's website</a> to learn more.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE TO READ:
<a href="/expert-insights/finance/31952-ato-cast-doubts-on-smsf-property-zero-interest-loan-strategy">ATO cast doubts on SMSF property zero interest loan strategy</a>
<a href="/expert-insights/finance/31006-self-managed-super-funds-and-tax">Taxing times for self-managed super funds</a>
<a href="/expert-insights/finance/30159-smsf-borrowing-government-scrutiny-expected">Investors should expect SMSF borrowing to come under greater government scrutiny</a>
</body></html>

Self-managed super funds: Top tips from the ATO

<html><body>
As the end of the financial year approaches, self-managed super fund (SMSF) trustees can employ a number of strategies to legally minimise their tax payments.
Graeme Colley of the SMSF Professionals’ Association of Australia says those strategies include after-tax and age-specific tax contribution.
“Making after-tax contributions to super, which could come from your personal savings, transferring personal investments or an inheritance, is one effective way to minimise tax,” says Colley.
While the maximum personal after-tax contribution for this financial year is $150,000, those aged 65 or over can contribute up to $450,000 over a three-year period.
“This allows you to make substantial contributions to super and build your retirement savings,” Colley says. But he warns SMSF trustees not to go over the after-tax contribution caps, with excess contributions attracting tax rates up to 46.5%.
The after-tax contribution cap will rise for the next financial year, says Colley.
“Remember, too, that from 1 July 2014, the after-tax contributions cap increases to $180,000. This means if you can trigger the bring-forward rule that a total of $540,000 can be contributed over the fixed three-year period.”
He explains that SMSF trustees who are aged 60 and over have a maximum tax deductible contribution cap of $35,000.
“These contributions include amounts you make as salary sacrifice, the Superannuation Guarantee or, if you qualify, personal deductible contributions. If you want to maximise your contributions before 30 June, make sure you talk to your accountant, tax agent or professional adviser so that your salary sacrifice agreement with your employer allows the maximum to be salary sacrificed,” says Colley.
Regulations apply to those aged 65 or over who still want to contribute to their SMSF.
“If you are 65 or older you will need to meet a work test to contribute to super in most cases. You will need to work for at least 40 hours during 30 consecutive days at any time during the financial year to make tax deductible and non-deductible contributions to super,” says Colley.
Once you reach 60 years old, all lump sums that you extract from your super fund is tax free, with some exceptions for government funds.
“However, before age 60 any lump sums that include a taxable component can be taxable. The taxable component includes the tax deductible contributions plus any income that has accumulated in your superannuation benefit. No tax is payable on taxable amounts of up to $180,000, in total, you receive before age 60. This amount is indexed annually,” says Colley.
He says that if trustees are eligible to draw from their superannuation, it may benefit them to wait until they are over 60 years old, or a later financial year.
</body></html>

Tax minimisation strategies for SMSF trustees: SPAA

<html><body>
In the current low interest rate climate, many first home buyers may be confused about the best option for their first home loan.
Choosing your home loan means striking a balance between your varying priorities. Are you after low fees? Or are you more interested in being able to capitalise on interest rate cuts? Maybe you’re happy to pay a bit extra now for protection against future rate hikes.
To help you with the daunting task of choosing your first home loan, Property Observer has four key tips:
<ol>
<li>
THINK LONG TERM Be prepared for your life circumstances to change over the course of your mortgage. You may be employed full time with a steady income, but there are lots of things that can affect your ability to make repayments further down the line. Babies, break ups and getting the boot at work can all make a serious dent in your financial plans. Think realistically about your life five or 10 years down the track, because you are about to make one of the biggest financial commitments of your life. 
</li>
<li>
FINANCE FIRST Before you’ve found your dream home, work on finding your dream mortgage. Speak to a mortgage broker prior to purchasing a home and look into securing a home loan pre-approval – while it isn’t a total guarantee that you will be able to finance your house, it’s as close as you’ll get. Getting pre-approval can help real estate agents take you seriously and give you an idea of your budgetary constraints. 
</li>
<li>
VARIABLE OR FIXED? With interest rates at a record lows, fixed rates have definite benefits. A fixed rate mortgage will lock your interest rate in and protect you from future rates hikes for a set period, usually three years. Fixed rates are also generally at competitive levels at the moment. However, there are many other factors beyond interest rates will determine what the best loan is for you. You may benefit from low monthly fees, a flexible loan arrangement or discounts for bundling your accounts with a single lender. Don't be afraid to shop around. A good mortgage broker will help you decide what is best for you. Once you’ve decided on a loan, it’s wise to revisit your loan with your broker on a yearly basis to see if it’s still the best arrangement for you. 
</li>
<li>
KNOW YOURSELF Choosing the best home loan is all about full disclosure and being honest with yourself about your finances. Many lenders offer loan repayment calculators that will help you determine how much you can afford to pay each month. While frugality generally pays, you may find that you just can't live comfortably without a certain level of extra spending money each month, so leave yourself a little room to move if you can. And remember, your financial decisions will determine what loans you have access to, especially now that your credit history includes more detailed information including when you pay your bills. </li>
</ol>
Shopping for your first home is an exciting time, and it's hard to reserve quite the same amount of enthusiasm for mortgage shopping. But taking the time to choose the right home loan can save you a lot of time and a lot of money down the track.
</body></html>

First home buyers: four tips for choosing a home loan

<html><body>
The First Home Saver Account scheme was one of the Rudd government initiatives axed in the Abbott government’s first federal budget.
Under the scheme, First Home Saver Accounts were given concessional tax rates and government co-contributions. Despite offering a concessional tax rate of 15% on interest earned in the accounts and awarding 17% co-contributions on the first $6,000 deposited by savers each year, the scheme failed to attract many savers preparing to purchase their first home.
The scheme’s low take up has been attributed to poor marketing and the regulations attached to the accounts. In order to qualify for the benefits, savers needed to deposit a minimum of $1,000 a year over four years before they could withdraw any money in the account. If the money was not used for a payment on a saver’s first home, it was added to their superannuation account.
Any new accounts created after 13 May will be ineligible for tax concessions or co-contributions. Existing accounts will not receive any co-contributions after 1 July 2014. National tax director of professional services firm BDO Lance Cunningham says that the government has begun winding down the scheme.
“It’s basically been abolished but with a phase out, so that from budget night you won’t be able to open any more new accounts. But for existing accounts, the co-contribution will cease from 1 July 2014.”
Savers who hold existing accounts will be able to receive co-contributions for deposits made in the 2013-14 financial year up until July.
“Be careful, it’s only a budget announcement,” says Cunningham. “But it seems to be fairly clear that if you make contributions before July this year, the co-contributions will be honoured.
“If you haven’t reached the co-contribution cap, which I think is about $6000, you might consider depositing more money in the next month to receive your co-contribution.”
Although co-contributions will end on July 1 this year, tax concessions will continue for another year.
“The tax concessions will still be available up until July 2015,” says Cunningham. “They will still be treated as First Home Saver Accounts, but the concession ceases after that date. After July 2015, they will be treated as any other account.”
Savers who have held their existing accounts for less than the four year period will have to wait until 1 July 2015 to withdraw their savings.
Steven Gunzburg is a 26 year old account manager who holds a First Home Saver Account. He says that though he understands why the scheme is being scrapped, it provided good incentives to save.
"I was contributing the maximum amount, which increased over the past 3 or 4 years, every year." 
"Mainly it was a fantastic way to incentivise people to think about saving from a much earlier age. There’s no way in the world that it’s going to make the vast majority of my deposit, but it helps you get into the right mindset."
Gunzburg opened his account when he was 18 or 19, after his mother explained the benefits of the scheme.
"My mum actually found out about it, explained it to us and I begrudgingly put quite a reasonable amount of my money into the account," he says. But Gunzburg says that the scheme had its downsides.
"Part of the problem with the scheme was that it was so complex and convoluted, it was incredibly hard to understand when and how you could access your money."
When the scheme was announced in 2008, the Rudd government predicted that 750,000 First Home Saver Accounts would be opened over the next four years. However, as of December last year, only 46,000 accounts had opened.
Late last year, <a href="/expert-insights/27494-first-home-saver-account-scheme-urgent-revision-calls" target="_blank">comparison website RateCity called for changes to the scheme</a>. Chief executive Alex Parsons said that at the time, none of the “big four” banks offered the accounts.
</body></html>

First Home Saver Accounts scrapped: What now?

<html><body>
Property investors are increasingly using self-managed super funds (SMSF) as low cost investment vehicles.  
But recent moves by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) serve as a helpful reminder to SMSF investors that nothing comes for free.  
ASIC issued three infringement notices to Esuperfund Pty Ltd for false or misleading online advertising. The online SMSF establishment and administration service provider has paid $30,600 in penalties after it ran advertisements and articles that misrepresented the costs and benefits of using its services or SMSFs.  The three statements ran between 31 January 2014 and 8 May 2014.
ASIC was concerned that one advertisement implied that Esuperfund clients would not pay any fees or costs when establishing a SMSF in 2014, while another article, entitled '9 Benefits of Setting Up A Self Managed Super Fund' misrepresented the costs associated with SMSFs in comparison to retail and industry superannuation funds.  
According to ASIC, a third advertisement falsely claimed that ASIC reviewed Esuperfund's operations yearly to make sure it was complying with its legal obligations.  
Esuperfund has now removed the statements from its website.  
Another SMSF service provider, Your Super Accountant, paid $2,040 after receiving an infringement notice for making potentially misleading statements about the costs of setting up a SMSF when using their services.  
Despite publishing claims on their website homepage that it was free to set up a SMSF with Your Super Accountant, investors were required to pay $200 upfront (20% of the annual administration fee) in order to be eligible for the "free" set up. The website homepage did not disclose that condition, or any others, when advertising the "free" service.  
ASIC noted that using a corporate trustee to set up a fund is never free.   According to ASIC deputy chairman Peter Kell, consumers should be on the lookout for services that advertise themselves as "free".
  "Some terms and phrases – such as "free" – have such a strong connotation for consumers that particular care should be taken so that investors are not misled," said Kell.  
"Setting up an SMSF is an extremely important financial decision and consumers should clearly understand the set up costs involved. ASIC has a particular focus on misleading claims that a financial product or service is 'free', as this may lead consumers to make inappropriate financial decisions," he said.  
Your Super Account has now amended the content on its website.
 
</body></html>

Jessie Richardson

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News