Asic

ASIC has cancelled the Australian credit licence (ACL) of Dominique Grubisa&rsquo;s company Master Wealth Control Pty Ltd (Master Wealth Control), effective from May 2021.

ASIC cancelled the ACL on the basis that Master Wealth Control has not engaged in the credit activities authorised by its credit licence.

Since February 2020, the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 allows ASIC to cancel a credit licence if the licensee has not engaged in the credit activities authorised by the credit licence within a specified 6-month period.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=2881 project_image_fid=148737]

Master Wealth Control held an ACL from 29 March 2011 to 3 May 2021 (number 400712). During this time, ASIC found that Master Wealth Control did not engage in any authorised credit activities under its credit licence in the period commencing 18 February 2020.

At ASIC&rsquo;s request, Ms Grubisa has also removed statements on the website claiming she was an &lsquo;ASIC licensed debt specialist&rsquo; and held an &lsquo;ASIC Financial Services Licence&rsquo;.&nbsp;

Neither Ms Grubisa nor her companies currently hold any authorisations or licence to provide financial services, ASIC advised.

ASIC&rsquo;s investigation into Ms Grubisa remains ongoing, it added.

Master Wealth Control may apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of ASIC&rsquo;s decision.

Master Wealth Control can apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of ASIC’s decision

jchancellor

ASIC cancels Dominique Grubisa’s Master Wealth Control credit licence

<html><body>
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
The proposed review of Mortgage Broker Remuneration Structures, suggested by the Finance systems Inquiry (FSI), posed some interesting questions, and as an experienced lender, Bluestone Mortgages would like to offer our perspective on some of the suggestions made. 
Our view is that the current remuneration system supports positive consumer outcomes, and that any change would, in the words of Gaden’s partner, Jon Denovan, be a “disservice” to the community. 
The reasons for our view are manifold. If the aim of the ASIC Review is to ensure quality consumer outcomes by assessing the impact of different remuneration structures, it is important to look carefully at the potential ramifications of any changes proposed. 
Having assessed the potential impact of alternative structures, we have come to the conclusion that any change to the current structure would negatively affect competition in the sector, due to their potential effect on consumer equity, access and the range of loan products available. 
A question of equity 
First, to equity. No discussion of the remuneration issue at hand is meaningful unless it is first understood that not all lenders, and not all consumers, are created equal. In fact, some lenders and some consumers are likely to be more affected by a move away from the current remuneration structure than others – and not in a positive way. 
We know that over 50 percent of consumers now choose to access home finance via mortgage brokers. Any move to charge a fee for service for brokers is likely to negatively affect consumers who choose non-bank lenders over the banks. 
Which brings us to the question of who these consumers really are? 
Often, they are individuals who, while entirely worthy of credit and able to service a loan, for one of many reasons – often outside their control – do not meet the prescriptive boundaries of traditional banks. Bluestone is one of a number of non-bank lenders which specialises in providing services to the many Australian consumers who find themselves in this category. 
A change in the current remuneration structure would mean that this group of consumers, as well as others who chose a mortgage broker, may be required to pay an upfront fee, whereas consumers (often so-called ‘ideal borrowers’) who choose to deal with the banks directly, would not. 
This is clearly not equitable. 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
A threat to access 
We then come to the interlinked issue of access. The monopoly of size, scale and market share of the big four and other traditional banks means they already have extensive proprietary distribution channels. Some of the banks have over a hundred years of traditional savings and loan infrastructure, and do not in any way see brokers as being essential to their business success, or even necessary. 
Non-bank operators, on the other hand, have shaped their businesses in an entirely different environment. Brokers have played a central role in their business growth, providing distribution services to the lenders and, the crucial other side of the coin, access to the growing group of customers who are no longer required to deal solely with one of a few major players, offering a relatively homogenous product range to a relatively homogenous pool of “ideal borrowers”. 
There’s no question in our mind that a change to current remuneration structures would put the use of brokers out of the financial reach of the vast majority of their target market. 
This would mean that a large and growing group of Australians would be denied access to one of the most fundamentally important financial transactions they are ever likely to make - buying a home. (And that’s without addressing the wider policy considerations around the role of home ownership in reducing the burden of caring for an ageing population into the future). 
Wider choice, more options, more competition 
Which brings us to the third – and also interlinked – part of our argument. And that is the fact that the current model actually promotes healthy and positive competition among lenders, which in turn leads to more options and greater choice for consumers. Which must surely be the kind of outcome the ASIC Review is trying to achieve. 
In fact, it’s clear that it is in fact thanks to the current broker remuneration model, and the free access it offers, that consumers are no longer limited in choice to the products and practices offered by the big four and other traditional banks. And clearly consumers are voting with their feet – more than half now access their home finance through a mortgage broker. 
In summary, from Bluestone’s lender perspective, the mortgage broker remuneration structure as it stands promotes not only consumer choice and competition, it also gives more consumers more access to more options than any alternative model. 
All of which lead to a much higher quality outcome for consumers than any alternatives posed to date. 
Royden D’Vaz is national head of sales &amp; distribution at Bluestone Mortgages and can be contacted <a href="https://www.bluestonemortgages.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

ASIC review into broker commissions: a lender's perspective

<html><body>
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
The government’s response to the Financial System Inquiry is good news for consumers and will help promote a competitive and diverse banking and financial landscape and we congratulate the government on accepting the majority of Inquiry Chair David Murray’s recommendations, which were handed down in late 2014.
The recent announcement by the government is good news for customers and will continue to enhance the integrity, competition and transparency in our financial system in Australia. 
I’m pleased to see there will be a stronger focus on competition in the sector, through the inclusion of competition in ASIC’s mandate and also through the commitment to review competition in the financial system by the end of 2017. 
CUA hopes this is just the beginning, and that we will see a continued focus on competition going forward, including regular rolling reviews of competition within the financial system.
We welcome the requirement for transparency around vertically integrated financial advice and mortgage broking businesses, owned by larger banks, and for higher standards in financial advice and acknowledge the steps the government and regulators, including the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), have already taken in recent months in response to recommendations which came out of the Inquiry.
The government’s decision earlier this year to not proceed with a levy on deposits was a sensible outcome which was in the best interests of Australians and customer-owned institutions like CUA. 
Likewise, I’m pleased to see the government has endorsed the steps already taken by APRA towards requiring the majors to hold more capital against home loans and the release of a discussion paper on capital levels for ADIs. Both of these are positive outcomes for consumers and customer-owned lenders like CUA. 
CUA looks forward to APRA implementing the broader international work on risk weights for mortgages - the so called Basel 4 approach - which could enable our sector to allocate more appropriate levels of capital to customers with lower loan to valuation ratios. This tailored approach has been missing from our repertoire and will be a major step forward for mutuals given our focus on the customer.
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The CUA would seek further details on some of the proposed actions and how they would impact CUA, including changes to the definitions around term deposits. 
We look forward to continuing to work closely with industry stakeholders, regulators and the Government on implementing these measures so Australians can continue to enjoy a strong, secure and competitive financial services landscape. 
 
Rob Goudswaard is Chief Executive Officer, CUA and can be contacted <a href="https://www.cua.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

CUA applauds measures to promote competition in financial services

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/65714/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Australian government is planning to privatise the management of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission database of companies. This is a potentially damaging move which goes against the government’s own open data policy.
On behalf of the Australian government, ASIC currently charges businesses and individuals around A$50 million each year for company searches. The information covers everything from details of shareholders and company officers (A$19 per document) and their roles and relationships with other bodies, to financial reports and records of charges over company assets (A$38 per document).
It is undoubtedly a great money-spinner to charge members of the public more than A$1 per page for a downloaded pdf document. However, the original legislative purpose of making information about companies publicly available was surely not so that the Australian government could profit from selling that information. Indeed, there is no public policy or economic rationale for the charges.
I am yet to meet an economist who argues that levying costs on public information about companies helps markets operate more efficiently. What we’re actually doing is segregating the market into those who can afford public information about companies and those who cannot.
The movement of company data from public to private hands is likely to entrench the charges for public information about companies. The corporate database is likely to be treated as nothing more than a cash cow.
Inevitably the focus will be on how to fatten the cow. The question asked will not be should we make [so much] money from public information, but how can we make more? The adverse economic consequences and lost productivity benefits that flow from costly public data will not enter the calculations.
<h2>Malcolm Turnbull has supported open data</h2>
In March 2014 Malcolm Turnbull, then communications minister, made the following salient comments:
"To be frank with you, I think it is really regrettable that ASIC’s data is behind a paywall.
I have to say as a matter of principle, I don’t think the government should be charging the public for data.
Obviously these are tough and troubled times from a budgetary point of view – and there will be all sorts of contractual issues – but really, the productivity benefits from making data freely available are so much greater than whatever revenues you can generate from them.
Our goal is … wherever possible to make that data accessible and free."
Our prime minister’s reported comments are consistent with the Australian government’s own 2015 Public Data Policy. This commits to optimising the use and reuse of public data, releasing non-sensitive data as open by default, and collaborating with the private and research sectors to extend the value of public data for the benefit of the Australian public.
I know many accounting academics who wish to conduct research to inform public policy using the financial reports on ASIC’s database. They are prevented from doing so because they do not have a spare A$50,000 lying around to buy the data.
<h2>Better corporate and tax regulation</h2>
Academics are not the only ones who would benefit from making ASIC’s public data freely available. It would also help individuals to scrutinise corporate affairs and, in doing so, make valuable contributions to the Australian regulatory authorities. This is the Jerry Maguire principle of public administration: help me, help you.
In carrying out its regulatory functions, ASIC relies heavily on complaints and reports of corporate misconduct received from individuals. Let’s do a cause and effect analysis here: the higher the charges for corporate information, the lower the scrutiny of corporate affairs by individuals, the fewer complaints made to ASIC, the weaker and more untimely corporate regulation.
The 2014 Senate inquiry report into the performance of ASIC must have had such an analysis in mind when it recommended that ASIC charges be brought into line with other jurisdictions. Searching for public information about companies is free in New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
The 2010 Senate inquiry report into insolvency practitioners is archetypal of the public policy problem. This committee found overwhelming evidence of bad and illegal practices in the insolvency industry. These practices thrived while there was low scrutiny and costly and missing financial information. ASIC was unaware of the nature and extent of what was going on.
Similar to ASIC, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) relies on individuals to inform it of taxation misconduct by corporations. The same cause and effect analysis for complaints made to ASIC applies.
In carrying out its functions, the ATO is effectively hamstrung if individuals are unable to freely scrutinise the financial affairs of corporations and make timely complaints or reports. The heaving lifting of scrutiny and accountability in taxation falls on the few and the public purse is worse off because of it.
The 2015 Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance was remarkable not so much for the outlandish evidence of aggressive tax avoidance, but the incredulous expressions of senators in the Sydney hearing room as the evidence emerged. It was almost possible to read their thoughts: how could it be that we, the elected representatives of the people, could have missed this disgraceful state of tax affairs and for so long?
The answer, of course, is that there was a lack of timely genuine scrutiny by the public. It finally fell to investigative journalists such as Michael West (then of Fairfax) to blow the whistle after acquiring the financial reports of various multinational companies.
<h2>Cutting red tape for small business</h2>
Small businesses – often described as the engine room of the Australian economy – could also benefit from freely available company data. Small businesses and contractors should be able to educate themselves about the affairs of their corporate customers without having to pay the government for the privilege.
Unsecured creditors should be able to view the charges held against a company’s assets by secured creditors so they too can make informed decisions.
Employees and their representatives should likewise be able to freely access public information about corporate employers. Employees have an active and ongoing economic interest in a company, not least because of the employee benefits they accumulate such as annual leave, long service leave and superannuation contributions.
It is inefficient for the Australian government to levy charges that discourage timely regular scrutiny of large companies by employees. The social costs can be high when a company fails. Uninformed employees are likely to suffer shock and dislocation. Meanwhile the government often incurs the cost of paying out accumulated employee benefits.
<h2>In the public interest</h2>
Keeping public information about companies locked up behind paywalls and maintained by private interests is not in the public interest.
Free public information about companies in public hands will contribute to higher transparency, better governance and accountability, and less secrecy, incompetence, fraud and corruption. If the ASIC corporate database is sold, the opposite effects are virtually certain.
Jeffrey Knapp is lecturer/Accounting, UNSW Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jeffrey-knapp-128623" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Property 101: ASIC company data should be open and free – even Malcolm Turnbull agrees

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/67834/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
In it’s latest report, the Australian Securities &amp; Investments Commission (ASIC) found the big four banks sold products to some customers through their adviser network, with a fee for ongoing advice, but the advice was never given. 
None of this came to light until the banks were asked by ASIC to look at adviser compensation, following the introduction of the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) legislation in 2013. 
No wonder the banks were wary of their practices being investigated. Not only has it come to light that many customers (176,000 at the last count) were being charged for services they were not receiving but, in many cases, the banks didn’t have the data they needed to find out whether customers had been dudded or not. 
And ASIC is pretty sure why such systemic issues emerge at regular intervals, stating:
Cultural factors in the banking and financial services institutions covered by this report may have contributed to the systemic failures we observed. 
The ASIC report details the reason for the cultural failings it observed in the wealth management businesses of the major banks:
Some advice licensees prioritised advice revenue and fee generation over ensuring that they delivered the required services.
ASIC found that the IT systems in wealth management in the major banks were stone-aged at best. The banks appear to have no idea what they don’t know, but are all working to identify how many more customers need to be compensated. 
ASIC also found that some banks failed to keep complete or accurate records to enable compliance to be analysed. And in some cases, authorised representatives had taken customers’ files with them when they left the firms, making it impossible to check whether or not advice was given.
It appears that every time a question is asked of the big banks, another example of bad behaviour is unearthed.
In the recent questioning of bank CEOs by the House Economics Committee, questions were raised with all CEOs about systemic issues. The answers were generally evasive and short on specifics. 
For example, when talking about a different but related, financial planning scandal, Andrew Thorburn, NAB CEO, said:
“We did a review and we had an independent party come and do that review with us, and we concluded and we stand by that, that it was not a systemic issue.”
What Mr Thorburn and other CEOs neglected to mention was that the banks had, as revealed in ASIC’s report, all already been in the middle of deep discussions about so-called “fee-for-services failures” . The regulator wrote:
Of particular concern is that many of the banking and financial services institutions covered by this review publicly state that their core values include being customer focused, “doing what is right” for customers, and acting with integrity. We encourage the institutions reviewed in this report to consider how their culture may have supported these systemic failures, and why their stated commitment to providing excellent service to customers is not translating into good outcomes for customers in the many instances we identified in this report.
At long last, ASIC has highlighted cultural issues across the industry that the boards and management of the largest banks have long refused to acknowledge. 
The regulator has done its job and found compelling evidence that the culture of the banks is rotten. 
It’s over to the politicians now.
Pat McConnell is honorary fellow, Macquarie University Applied Finance Centre, Macquarie University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/pat-mcconnell-13137" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

ASIC report highlights a deep culture problem in Australia’s banks

<html><body>
ASIC has banned the Sydney mortgage broker Astna Shirtika Sahay after she let her father use her company’s credit representative authority and ANZ accreditation.

Ms Sahay’s father, Shiv Prakash Sahay, used her accreditations after he was banned for life by ASIC in 2015.

The corporate regulator found the Mascot based Ms Sahay was involved in 31 contraventions of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act through her father’s use of her accreditations.

Her company was Absolute Finance.

ASIC found Ms Sahay did not possess the necessary attributes of diligence, judgment, honesty and integrity and was not a fit and proper person to engage in credit activities.

Sahay’s banning is recorded on ASIC’s Banned and Disqualified Persons Register.

Ms Sahay has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of the ASIC’s decision.

Mr Sahay was sentenced last June 2020 in the Downing Centre Local Court on two charges of breaching section 82(2) of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth). 

After Mr Sahay pleaded guilty to the offences he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine months, which was wholly suspended immediately upon Mr Sahay entering into a nine-month good behaviour bond.

The court found that between October 2015 and October 2018, Mr Sahay continued to engage in credit activity in relation to 38 credit contracts for loans totalling over $17 million and earned $111,064 in commissions on these loans.

The matter was prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions after an investigation and referral of a prosecution brief from ASIC.

Sahay’s conduct was part of the consumer lending case study considered in the Financial Services Royal Commission.
</body></html>

ASIC found the Mascot-based Ms Sahay was involved in 31 contraventions of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act through her father’s use of her accreditations

Daughter joins father in ASIC mortgage broker ban

<html><body>
ASIC has commenced civil proceedings in the Federal Court over what the corporate regulator claims is an unregistered Perth based managed investment scheme providing unlicensed financial advice.

The scheme has raised over $11 million for property development purposes.

The proceedings are against Ms Monica Kaur, MKS Property Investments/Developments Pty Ltd (MKS Property), Paradise Property Group Pty Ltd (Paradise Property) as well as against Mr Sadu Singh, Mr Melvin Paul Singh and Ms Stephanie Lee.

“ASIC is concerned that Ms Kaur is providing unlicensed financial advice services and that she, together with the defendants, are involved in promoting and operating an unregistered managed investment scheme,” ASIC advised.

On 16 December 2020, ASIC obtained urgent interim orders:  

- restraining the defendants from removing their assets from Australia, disposing of their property, and freezing monies in their bank accounts including in Singapore; and

- preventing Ms Kaur, Mr Singh and Mr Melvin Singh from leaving Australia.

ASIC alleges the defendants raised at least $11.3 million from around 300 investors during the period March 2017 to September 2020 through MKS Property. 

It is alleged that investors were encouraged to establish a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) and invest part or all of their SMSFs or other funds into property investments and developments set up by MKS Property and/or Paradise Property. 

These funds would be pooled together to invest in property development.

“ASIC alleges the defendants used investor funds, at least in part, for their own personal use and to pay returns to investors,” it claims.

On 17 December 2020, ASIC, with the assistance of the AFP, executed search warrants.

The orders are to remain until February 15.

ASIC’s investigation is continuing.
</body></html>

ASIC alleges the defendants raised at least $11.3 million from around 300 investors during the period March 2017 to September 2020 through MKS Property.

ASIC launch Federal Court proceedings over alleged unlicensed $11.3 million property development scheme

<html><body>
<div class="main-column">
<div class="row">
<div class="text-page-wrapper">
Mudasir Mohammed Naseeruddin (commonly referred to as Naseer or Mudasir) appeared in the Melbourne Magistrates Court charged last week facing seven counts of dishonest conduct.
Mr Naseeruddin was also charged with two counts of failing to exercise his power as a director and discharge his duty in good faith under the Corporations Act.
ASIC alleges that Naseeruddin dishonestly obtained superannuation funds from investors based on false representations, including representations that the funds would be invested in property development.
Naseeruddin was a director of Secure Investments Pty Ltd (Secure Investments) and Aquila Group Pty Ltd (Aquila) (both in liquidation).
ASIC also alleges that Mr Naseeruddin misused his position as a director of Secure Investments for his own benefit by using funds invested with the company to purchase shares for himself in a security company.
Each offence currently carries a maximum penalty of up to 15 years imprisonment.
The matter is being prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions after a referral from ASIC.
The matter was adjourned to the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court for committal mention hearing to April 6 next year.
It was in May 2020 that ASIC commenced civil proceedings and obtained urgent interim orders in the Federal Court against Naseeruddin, Secure Investments and Aquila due to concerns of misleading and deceptive conduct and the operation of an illegal managed investment scheme.
In October 2020, ASIC obtained orders to wind up Secure Investments and Aquila and declarations that Naseeruddin had operated a financial services business without the appropriate licence.
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="interaction-bar">
<div id="interaction-bar-row" class="row">
<div class="interaction-bar-inner">
<div class="interaction-bar-inner">
<h2 class="action-box-heading"><a href="https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/"> </a></h2>
<div class="action-box-content js-actionbox-content"> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Secure Investments/Aqulia Group director faces seven counts of dishonesty

<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>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

ASIC accepts enforceable undertaking from Ascentiv Group relating to SMSF advice 

<html><body>
Investment in residential property through self-managed superannuation funds has risen 11% in the past year. 
The big increase in property investment by SMSFs is revealed by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in its submission to the latest parliamentary inquiry on home ownership. 
"As at March 2015, the value of residential real property investments through SMSFs was $21.78 billion … up from $19.49 billion … in March 2014," the ASIC submission said. 
Despite the growth, residential property still makes up less than 4% of total Australian and overseas assets held by the 500,000 SMSFs. 
The Reserve Bank of Australia also observed that "although the share of the housing stock owned by these funds is small, it has grown quickly". 
Since the law changed in 2003 to allow SMSFs to borrow money, concern has increased about the influence of the small super funds on the housing market. 
SMSFs are the fastest growing sector of the superannuation industry and investment in property through SMSFs is consequently also growing, ASIC noted.
As at March 2015, the value of residential real property investments through SMSFs was $21.78 billion, or 3.7% of total Australian and overseas assets, up from $19.49 billion, or 3.6% of total Australian and overseas assets, in March 2014.
"There has been an increase in investment in residential real property through SMSFs of 11.78% from March 2014 to March 2015, and an increase of 58.69% since March 2011.
"ASIC’s primary role in relation to SMSFs is to regulate the gatekeepers—the financial planners, accountants, auditors and providers of products and services to SMSFs.
"We want to ensure that those who are advising retail clients about establishing and investing through SMSFs are providing good quality advice.
"We consider that gatekeepers have a critically important role in ensuring the overall health of the SMSF sector is sound.
"ASIC has publicly warned investors about misleading advertisements regarding the use of SMSFs.
"ASIC has also taken regulatory action in relation to the promotion of investment in residential property through SMSFs in a number of instances, including Money Choice, Charterhill and Park Trent," the submission noted.
</body></html>

Asic

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Asic

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News