<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The fastest growing sector in the economy today is not mining, retailing or even education. It’s superannuation, which accounts for almost 30% more than the total savings held by the banking and mutual sector.
Self-managed superannuation is the fastest growing form of investment vehicle.
This has altered the landscape of both property and share investment. In the property market there are well-established regulations and safeguards. The stock market is a different story.
The proposed takeover of David Jones by the South African-based Woolworths and the deal made by Woolworths to buy Solomon Lew’s stake in David Jones, who happens to own an equally large share of Country Road (another takeover target of Woolworths), highlights the problem.
The board of the takeover target recommends to its shareholders what to do, but there is no formal requirement for shareholder approval. It’s assumed if the shareholders sell, that’s their approval. If they don’t sell, they don’t approve.
In the case of David Jones, a wealthy, assertive investor is getting a side deal not available to other investors.
Why should this happen?
In other countries, a formal takeover requires shareholder approval, thus discouraging side deals to occur where some walk away with large profits and others get what they can.
David Jones
The David Jones takeover provided an opportunity for some to simply profiteer, to the extent they could make more money linking this deal with others, thus cornering Woolworths to pay for deals it may not have planned.
If anything, the David Jones scenario raises questions as to whether a takeover of this nature is manipulative, unfair to ordinary shareholders and a distortion of the market mechanism.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has intervened, asking questions about the side deal protecting the interests of David Jones' shareholders by intervening in Woolworths' $2.2 billion takeover bid for David Jones.
As ASIC threatens to withhold its consent to the scheme of arrangement, a core part of the $2.2 billion takeover is arguing that a collateral benefit to one shareholder is not available to the other shareholders. The board is so keen to push the takeover that they are prepared to sell the takeover on the basis that the millions made on the side by Lew should not kill the deal.
Directors should of course be supporting the interest of the company as a whole and of all the shareholders. In the past the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/dec/14/australia.theairlineindustry">Allco Finance Group takeover of Qantas</a> had the same set of facts. A takeover favouring those few in particular linked to the board is a further reason for ASIC’s intervention.
ASIC is not about increasing share prices - it’s about access to a fair price. If one shareholder gets a huge side bonus which increases the prices, should those getting the crumbs be happy? Are their shares the same of those getting the bonus?
ASIC had failed in the Federal Court to force David Jones to secure an <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/asic-steps-into-david-jones-country-road-battles-with-demand-for-independent-valuation-20140702-zstnq">independent valuation of the “collateral benefit”</a> that Woolworths was offering to one of its shareholders simply to buy his support for the David Jones scheme of arrangement. ASIC can always withhold a letter of consent for the scheme, on the grounds that all David Jones shareholders are not being treated equally.
In response, David Jones has provided shareholders with additional information to help show shareholders how this deal was done.
All this could be resolved if shareholders were given the complete, true facts in an accessible manner, and if takeover predators were forced to make the same offer to all and let shareholders decide.
Why the loophole exists
Law reform in the area of takeovers is well overdue and belongs to another age. Unlisted companies don’t require shareholder approval for takeovers on the presumption that shareholders don’t have enough information. The idea is public information and scrutiny aren’t as readily available as for listed companies.
This thought process belongs to a pre-internet era and is not very relevant today. The rule has been kept as it tends to favour larger investors who play the game of takeover and sales. Allowing other smaller shareholders more power would complicate the game, which explains why governments have kept their distance from changing these laws.
The world has moved on, and it’s only a matter of time before the predators and profiteers further manipulate the hordes of superannuation investors in the market to extract extraordinary profits.
It’s time for a closer look at shareholders' rights, together with the regulation of the market place, to discourage two-tier takeover offers - one for the well-connected and aggressive market operators and another for the other shareholders.
Michael Peters is lecturer at <a href="https://www.asb.unsw.edu.au/Pages/default.aspx" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">Australian School of Business</a>.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

To protect SMSF investors the stock market needs the same safeguards property has

<html><body>
Self-managed super funds have significantly outperformed their APRA-regulated rivals in six out of the past eight years, <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wealth/those-who-dare-to-diy-set-the-pace-on-super/story-e6frgac6-1226956597252">reports the Australian</a>.
A report from National Australia Bank shows that on average SMSFs had beaten APRA-regulated funds by 22.5% over the period, after paying all costs.
The numbers indicate a $500,000 investment in an SMSF at the start of the 2004-05 financial year would have returned $345,571 net by the end of the 2012 financial year, compared with the average APRA-regulated fund returning $190,100 net.
Recent figures from the Australian Taxation Office show SMSFs have grown by 26.5% to reach more than 1 million members.
The SMSF Professionals’ Association of Australia (SPAA) chief executive Andrea Slattery said recently: “The number of trustees and members exceeding 1 million is an important milestone for the SMSF industry, clearly demonstrating that there is a growing number of people wanting to take direct responsibility for their retirement savings”.
David Gall, executive general manager of banking and wealth solutions at NAB, told the Australian the results showed SMSFs were not a one-hit wonder.
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/" target="_blank">SmartCompany</a>.
</body></html>

SMSFs are a better bet than rival super funds: NAB

<html><body>
The recent ASIC review of SMSF advice revealed a number of areas for improvement in the advice-giving process.
Given the risks associated with a DIY option, ASIC has issued guidelines on the things advice providers and investors should discuss and consider before setting up an SMSF.
They outline some practical tips that advice providers can use to improve the quality of SMSF advice they provide to investors.
ASIC set out a scenario as to appropriate advice when it came to a SMSF with a likely low opening balance:
An AFS licensee conducted its regular review of advice files with a focus on SMSF advice.
The licensee reviewed a file for a couple in their 40s who sought financial product advice on all aspects of their financial situation.
The SOA recommended the investors set up an SMSF by rolling over their existing superannuation balance of $87,000.
At first glance, and based on the investors’ existing superannuation balance alone, the licensee thought the advice appeared to be inappropriate.
However, a thorough review of the advice file and SOA revealed that the investors:• were both professionals, with a combined income of $700,000;
• had multiple trust and company structures established;
• in addition to their family home, had multiple investment properties, including a rural property. They also had debt relating to these investments—however, the value of investments far exceeded their level of debt;
• had lower superannuation balances than expected, given their age and income, because they were self-employed. Accordingly, the investors had not been required to make compulsory superannuation contributions and had only made irregular voluntary contributions in the past;
• had minimal levels of insurance; and
• had a cash flow surplus and were seeking advice to ensure they were making the most of all their financial opportunities.
The SOA had also recommended that the investors fully utilise their concessional contributions cap and transfer their rural property (valued at $600,000 and held in their personal names) into their SMSF.A complete review of the advice file revealed that, although the starting balance of the SMSF was low, the advice was appropriate because:
• the recommendations in the SOA ensured that the fund would quickly build to a cost-effective level;• the investors already had corporate structures and were familiar with arranging their finances in this manner; and
• the SOA covered issues such as information about product replacement, insurance, estate planning, cash flow and efficient debt management.
The licensee was able to efficiently complete its review because the advice file was easy to follow, contained a full fact find and detailed file notes, and the SOA was clear, concise and easy to read.
Commentary:
The advice was appropriate because the investors’ personal circumstances demonstrated they had experience with different assets and investment structures.
They also had the ability to build the SMSF balance quickly and ensure that the SMSF would be cost-effective for them over their lifetime.
</body></html>

ASIC advice on the appropriate establishment of a low balance SMSF

<html><body>
Where problems are perceived to exist with the SMSF sector, its important policy decisions are based on reality and hard facts, not ideology and hearsay.
The seemingly inexorable rise of self-managed funds is the most striking dynamic of Australia's superannuation system. More so because the rise of self-managed superannuation has been driven by the choice and determination of individuals rather than by government policy direction.
Self-managed funds are the only funds realising the vision set for Australia's superannuation system – to enable people to make themselves financially independent in retirement and avoid reliance on the age pension.
Generally SMSF members are achieving this goal while the members of the large industry and retail funds are not. The average balance in a self-managed fund account is over $500,000 compared with average account balances in industry and retail funds of less than $30,000.
The higher balances in SMSFs result from people maximising their concessional and non-concessional contributions and from the returns generated by their assets. Yet self-managed superannuation is not just for those paid higher. ATO statistics show that 66 per cent of SMSF members are on incomes of less than $80,000.
One important outcome of self-managed superannuation is enabling a generation of Australians to fund their retirement and old age within their own lifetime, instead of leaving a pension tab on the table for the next generation to pick up.
The fact that a million Australians, with more joining every day, are willing and capable of taking charge of their retirement savings, and doing a good job of it, is to be applauded.
However, it seems success breeds envy and draws criticism.
You'll hear it said that self-managed funds are driving up property values, distorting capital allocation, investing too conservatively, investing recklessly, straining the Budget, getting an unfair tax advantage and are costly to run.
We challenge each of these claims as they are often driven by ideology, or self-interest or are just plain wrong.
Take the claim that SMSFs are used to gain an unfair tax advantage.
Members of self-managed funds are subject to exactly the same tax rules as members of pooled super funds.
Critics are quick to point out the top 20% of income earners get the lion's share of super tax concessions but they don't always acknowledge that the top 20% also pay the lion's share of income tax. They get 57% of the tax concession but pay 64% of income tax. So, as you would expect, the value of their super tax break is proportionate to the amount of tax they pay, and actually a bit lower.
Or take the claim that super tax concessions are an unsustainable drain on the Budget.
Tax incentives to save for retirement are sensible policy because in the long run it's cheaper than paying out the age pension. If super tax incentives are reduced, less will be saved, fewer people will be financially independent and more will have to rely on a full or part taxpayer-funded pension.
Are SMSFs too costly to run? It's true that a relatively low account balance in a self-managed fund will cost more to administer than one held in a pooled super fund. But above around $100,000, costs are comparable or much lower. Two-thirds of self-managed funds have an operating expense ratio to assets of less than 1% and 40% have an expense ratio of less than 0.25%.
It’s not just about cost. The main reason people set up self-managed funds is to take control of their savings and more are doing so relatively early in their working lives. They make a commitment to save and as they build their assets, the relative cost of running their fund comes down. They are being helped by the emergence of a range of low-cost, online fund management service providers.
The real cost issue in superannuation is the fees charged by the large industry and retail pooled super funds, which are estimated to have consumed a quarter of these funds' returns in the past decade, a cost borne by their members.
Another common criticism of SMSFs is that they drive up property prices through highly leveraged investment. But no hard evidence is presented to back up this claim. Very low interest rates and an inadequate supply of new housing is likely fuelling property prices more. SMSFs actually put quite a small proportion of their assets into residential property – around 3.5% and this has been steady for five years. They put three times as much into commercial property, often linked to the owners' business.
Some people, on dubious advice, may be starting an SMSF to borrow to buy a residential property. Having one highly leveraged asset is clearly not a sensible strategy. To the extent that it is occurring it should be managed through better advice, credit restraint by lenders and regulation of property promoters.
In pondering the report of <a href="/expert-insights/finance/38702-property-and-smsf-murray-financial-system-inquiry-recommendations2" target="_blank">David Murray's Financial System Inquiry</a> and, in due course, the forthcoming tax white paper, the government should reflect on the singular success of self-managed funds in achieving the objectives of the superannuation system, appreciate the motivation of people who set them up and recognise the social and economic benefits they deliver.
Duncan Fairweather is executive director of the SMSF Owners' Alliance. Contact him <a href="https://www.smsfoa.org.au/contact" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Are SMSF’s causing property values to increase and receiving an unfair tax advantage? Duncan Fairweather

<html><body>
ASIC has accepted an enforceable undertaking from Ascentiv Group Pty Ltd, based in Mascot, New South Wales, and its sole director, Mr Chris Pappas.
An ASIC surveillance of Ascentiv, the holder of an Australian financial services (AFS) licence, found concerns about Ascentiv's advice to clients to establish or use a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF).
In particular, ASIC had concerns about Ascentiv's failure to:
<ul>
<li>ensure its representatives provide SMSF advice that was appropriate and in the best interests of their clients</li>
<li>adequately manage conflicts of interest</li>
<li>adequately monitor and supervise its representatives, and</li>
<li>ensure its representatives were adequately trained and competent to provide SMSF advice.</li>
</ul>
According to ASIC, surveillance also found that Ascentiv failed to provide its clients with clear and concise statements of advice. 
"Instead the statements of advice were very lengthy and difficult to understand, making it difficult for Ascentiv's clients to make informed decisions about the advice provided to them," ASIC said.
"Under the EU, Ascentiv has agreed to cancel its AFS licence and write to some of its existing clients to inform them of the EU and the clients' rights to dispute resolution."
Mr Pappas has also undertaken to:
<ul>
<li>give a copy of the EU to any AFS licensee that authorises him to provide financial services in the future;</li>
<li>complete further SMSF specialist training before becoming a representative of an AFS licensee; and</li>
<li>refrain from becoming an AFS licensee or office holder of an AFS licensee for two years.</li>
</ul>
ASIC Deputy Chairman, Peter Kell said elf-managed super funds are not appropriate for everyone. It is important that the advice provided to clients of financial advisers is appropriate for those individuals' needs and circumstances.
'ASIC further expects that AFS licensees that provide SMSF advice to adequately monitor their representatives and have processes which lead to the provision of high quality SMSF advice," he said.
"ASIC will intervene where it finds the quality of advice provided by advisers and the supervision of those advisers by the licensee to be lacking."
ASIC acknowledges Ascentiv and Mr Pappas' cooperation throughout the process.
</body></html>

ASIC accepts enforceable undertaking from Ascentiv Group relating to SMSF advice 

<html><body>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/01/18/510_rediscover.jpg" alt="" width="445" height="212">
SPONSORED POST
Millers Point has one of the richest cultural and architectural histories in Sydney, with picturesque heritage buildings and historical landmarks.
Boasting breath-taking views, tree-lined streets and the serene tranquillity of Observatory Hill, as well as an energetic arts and cultural scene, Millers Point has something for everyone.
It’s a mere moment’s stroll to the theatres, cafes and restaurants of the Walsh Bay arts and cultural scene, the bustling shops and pubs of The Rocks, or a quick trip into Sydney’s CBD.
The doorstep of The Rocks
Framed by Sydney Harbour Bridge and Sydney Opera House, and nestled on the edge of breathtaking Sydney Harbour, The Rocks offers an unrivalled blend of the old and new.
From intimate heritage architecture and cobblestoned laneways, to stylish modern bars, some of Sydney’s finest restaurants and curious places to shop and explore.
With the MCA as one of its modern ambassadors, The Rocks is emerging as Sydney’s new cultural precinct, and has been transformed into a creative nucleus of contemporary art, festivals and evolving pop-up spaces.
The Rocks: it’s a perfect blend of culture, cuisine and experiences that are worth savouring.
For more information on Millers Point and The Rocks visit <a href="https://www.rediscovermillerspoint.com.au" target="_blank">www.rediscovermillerspoint.com.au</a>
</body></html>

Millers Point – the heart of Sydney

<html><body>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/01/18/510_rediscover.jpg" alt="" width="445" height="212">
SPONSORED POST
Millers Point has one of the richest cultural and architectural histories in Sydney, with picturesque heritage buildings and historical landmarks.
After more than a century in public ownership, most of the Millers Point properties now being offered for sale retain a remarkable level of original and intact building fabric, form and architectural detailing and finishes. Together and individually they are a rare and potentially unique heritage resource in Australia.
All properties sold in Millers Point are accompanied by strict heritage protections; including NSW Heritage Council-endorsed Conservation Management Plans.
These contracts ensure new property owners are fully informed of their responsibilities when purchasing a heritage listed property.
They include extensive detail for purchasers on the heritage maintenance obligations and the types of works that are permitted on the properties.
For more information on the Millers Point sale program please visit <a href="https://www.rediscovermillerspoint.com.au" target="_blank">www.rediscovermillerspoint.com.au</a>
</body></html>

Protecting our heritage in Millers Point

<html><body>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/01/18/510_rediscover.jpg" alt="" width="434" height="207">
SPONSORED POST
The NSW Government’s Millers Point sales program continues to deliver excellent results with the auction of seven properties in late 2016 for a combined $35.22million.
The sales included the highest value single property sold to date – a block of 12 one bedroom apartments on the corner of Merriman and Bettington streets, which sold for $12.3 million.
Interest in Millers Point continues to be strong, with the most recent sales recording an average rate per square metre of $19,462 (floor area), an increase of 23 per cent compared to the Millers Point sales program to date.
Other properties sold include:
<ul>
<li>15 Lower Fort Street, sold for $5.05 million.</li>
<li>36 Argyle Place, sold for $3.71 million</li>
<li>66 Bettington Street, sold for $2.42 million</li>
<li>61 Kent Street, sold for $2.11 million</li>
<li>42-44A High Street, sold for $4.81 million.</li>
<li>46-48A High Street, sold for $4.82 million.</li>
</ul>
A total of 125 Government - owned properties in Millers Point have been sold to date, with the proceeds delivering much needed social housing for the 60,000 vulnerable families and individuals on the waiting list.
For more information visit <a href="https://www.rediscovermillerspoint.com.au" target="_blank">www.rediscovermillerspoint.com.au</a>
</body></html>

Millers Point delivers $35 million in one day

<html><body>
<img src="/images/2016/10/27/capital-bluestone-logo-retina.png" alt="" width="349" height="83">
SPONSORED POST
Karen Babilonia and Leonard Masacupan are kick-starting what they hope will be a substantial investment portfolio with their first apartment in Esplanade.
The couple have purchased a one-bedroom apartment at Esplanade on Norwest Lake – the area’s first fully integrated development that combines luxury living with a dining and retail precinct, boutique workspaces and a public boardwalk.
“Our hope is to become full time property investors – we’d love to own as many properties as possible,” says Karen. “Around 20 would be great but there’s no limit.”
“The drive to become investors came about after we read Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki in April this year. It was a real eye opener about how our money could work for us. It all snowballed from there and we bought our first investment in June this year.”
Karen is an Executive Assistant while Leonard is a Business Development Manager and Esplanade is their first foray into real estate.
“We’re first home buyers,” Karen says. “We plan to live in this apartment for around two or three years before turning it into an investment property. This apartment is our entry into the property market.”
The couple chose to buy their first property off the plan to keep the process as simple as possible and to keep costs down.
“Because we’re first home buyers we really liked that there aren’t too many decisions to be made when you’re buying off the plan,” Karen says. “Everything was really easy and straight forward – we just had to pick a colour scheme. 
“We also wanted to keep our mortgage as small as possible and buying off the plan is a much cheaper alternative compared to buying an established house and land.
“I’ve always wanted to be a Bella Vista home owner but houses here are very expensive. We’d be looking at over $1 million. This was a much more affordable option.”
Catch more on their property investment journey <a href="https://youtu.be/eM0KYE4ibQ4" target="_blank">here</a>.
Visit <a href="https://esplanadenorwest.com.au/" target="_blank">esplanadenorwest.com.au</a> or call 1800 088 800.
 
</body></html>

Make your money work for you

<html><body>
<img src="/images/2016/10/27/capital-bluestone-logo-retina.png" alt="" width="383" height="91">
SPONSORED POST 
Buyers have snapped up all available commercial workspaces in the mixed-use development Esplanade, creating a local sales record for Norwest Business Park in the process.
Marketed by PRDnationwide Norwest for development manager Capital Corporation, the 36 boutique workspaces in Esplanade have been sold for between $6200/sqm and $7500/sqm – averaging $6900/sqm – well above Norwest’s average of commercial rates of typically between $4500/sqm to $5600/sqm.
Esplanade proposes a diverse mix of 247 apartments across two residential towers 18 storeys in height with a host of resident-only facilities, three levels of boutique workspaces, waterfront dining and retail areas set on a significantly upgraded public boardwalk along Norwest Lake and about 400 metres from the Norwest station under construction as part of the Sydney Metro Northwest line.
Commercial buyers at Esplanade have been a mix of local professionals such as accountants, real estate agents and doctors, as well as investors.
Capital Corporation Managing Director Steve Grant is considered a pioneer of the Norwest Business Park, having delivered a $700M portfolio of 45 projects in the area, and accommodated the workspace needs of more than 580 businesses, since 1990.
“We’re breaking sales records for Norwest only because Esplanade is offering businesses what they want: great location, integrated development with residential apartments and a dining precinct, as well as boutique workspaces,” he said. 
“Businesses and investors obviously see the future value of the Sydney Metro Northwest railway line and the transformation of Norwest from a business park into a vibrant urban hub which has been kick started by Esplanade that brings the live-work-recreation combination together so thoroughly.”
The creative and urban workspaces at Esplanade can be designed to include exposed ceilings, polished concrete floors and outdoor rooms suitable for meetings or social work gatherings. Other features include communal meeting rooms and breakout areas.
The integration of high quality residential and boutique workspaces – coupled with lifestyle-driven elements such as waterfront dining – not only gives Esplanade a life after hours, it also brings a village feel to the workday that suits the business environment in Norwest.
PRDnationwide Norwest Director David Inkster said the majority of buyers were from the local market that recognised that Esplanade’s workspaces were a unique offering in a premium building with services and amenities not yet available in Norwest.
“There’s a social element to doing business in Norwest when the most productive meetings are often over a coffee or meal, making Esplanade - with its casual and formal dining options - the ideal workplace setting,” he said. 
“And there really isn’t any other specifically-designed commercial workspaces in Norwest that come with a wintergarden overlooking the lake within a short walk to the station,” Mr Inkster said.
Visit <a href="https://esplanadenorwest.com.au/" target="_blank">esplanadenorwest.com.au</a> or call 1800 088 800.
</body></html>

Property Observer

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News