And in other news super funds have had massive returns...
While the topic is hot...could you knock down your house and build 2 townhouses. Live in ine and negatively gear the other as your SMSF, rather than selling it off to the highest bidder? If so, would you be looking to over or under pay for the SMSF property?
There would be an arguement that market rate would be what the other townhouse sold for.
In addition without knowing your income and circumstances you may be in a better position to gear outside super.
Not a question for a forum i'm afraid.
75K plus super !!!
( I know I misquoted, but that’s probably my all time favourite BB quote)
75K plus super !!!
( I know I misquoted, but that's probably my all time favourite BB quote)
Wasn't it "75K plus super, c**ts". I think he'd had a pay rise last time he was here, too.
While the topic is hot...could you knock down your house and build 2 townhouses. Live in ine and negatively gear the other as your SMSF, rather than selling it off to the highest bidder? If so, would you be looking to over or under pay for the SMSF property?
There would be an arguement that market rate would be what the other townhouse sold for.
In addition without knowing your income and circumstances you may be in a better position to gear outside super.
Not a question for a forum i'm afraid.
I don't know if it's a requirement or not (IMO it should be), but I reckon an SMSF should be forced to have at least 3 income-producing assets, none of which is above 60% of the total. You shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket.
I wonder how many SMSFs were invested 100% in Bill Vlahos's Pyramid (sorry, Punters) Club.
And a mutual fund or managed fund would be considered to have multiple investments....and would need to be universally available and probably listed.
And in other news super funds have had massive returns...
Not bad considering the quarter of a billion or so spent on a new system. Tossers!
<span style="font-size:1.6em;">SMSF property rules</span>
You can only buy property through your SMSF if you comply with the rules.
The property:
- Must meet the 'sole purpose test' of solely providing retirement benefits to fund members
- Must not be acquired from a related party of a member
- Must not be lived in by a fund member or any fund members' related parties
- Must not be rented by a fund member or any fund members' related parties
However, your SMSF could potentially purchase your business premises, allowing you to pay rent directly to your SMSF at the market rate.
See the Australian Taxation Office's webpage on self‑managed super funds for more information.
- No alterations to the property - Until the SMSF property loan is paid off, alterations to the property cannot be made if they change the character of the property.
I will learn to quote
tinhillterror, it looks by those rules above you can't get the super to buy a property from yourself. Missus also mentioned if using one block with two houses on it, you'll also have to split the block to have two titles (i.e. one title for each house).
Having a SMSF purchase residential property can be far sounder than leaving it in super, seen people loose more in super fees and investments than you loose in resi property, at least you finish with a tangible asset.
I will learn to quote
tinhillterror, it looks by those rules above you can't get the super to buy a property from yourself. Missus also mentioned if using one block with two houses on it, you'll also have to split the block to have two titles (i.e. one title for each house).
Reboot, I added the link for the post above this one as that's where I copied the information from. Given it was full of formatting issues, I put it in my next post with clean formatting...
Having a SMSF purchase residential property can be far sounder than leaving it in super, seen people loose more in super fees and investments than you loose in resi property, at least you finish with a tangible asset.
I've seen inexperience people come into our office who had no idea what they were doing and were doing something cause Barry thought it was a good idea only to find they had set things up incorrectly which cost them more than if they didn't do anything in the first place.
Such a generalised statement lee.
Having a SMSF purchase residential property can be far sounder than leaving it in super, seen people loose more in super fees and investments than you loose in resi property, at least you finish with a tangible asset.
I've seen inexperience people come into our office who had no idea what they were doing and were doing something cause Barry thought it was a good idea only to find they had set things up incorrectly which cost them more than if they didn't do anything in the first place.
Such a generalised statement lee.
As is saying SMSF is bad, like AN said.
All investments have risks, people who dont take ownership of the decisions they make is more disappointing.
"I tried to get rich quick and failed, so give me my money back"
I have seen more people loose more money on the market than in resi property.
People who do it because someone said without fully looking at risks and making informed decision, were going to looser their money at some point, no matter what.
Having a SMSF purchase residential property can be far sounder than leaving it in super, seen people loose more in super fees and investments than you loose in resi property, at least you finish with a tangible asset.
I've seen inexperience people come into our office who had no idea what they were doing and were doing something cause Barry thought it was a good idea only to find they had set things up incorrectly which cost them more than if they didn't do anything in the first place.
Such a generalised statement lee.
As is saying SMSF is bad, like AN said.
All investments have risks, people who dont take ownership of the decisions they make is more disappointing.
"I tried to get rich quick and failed, so give me my money back"
I have seen more people loose more money on the market than in resi property.
People who do it because someone said without fully looking at risks and making informed decision, were going to looser their money at some point, no matter what.
I said nothing of the kind...although if you buy a property off a developer in a new estate, it is bad. I said that a great majority of people aren't suited to doing it, and are conned into it by spivs. If you've got a brain, and nerve, it's OK.,
And it's "lose", not "loose".
"Just in short, I think a lot of the avalanche is misguided and people are basically being sucked in by dodgy financial advisors and property developers."
Sorry your right, you made it sound like a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
I think the point is investments can be good are bad regardless of the investment, I was saying buying a resi property with a SMSF is a far more sound and less risk adverse strategy than margin lending or any other market strategy.
The point is the people that get SMSF they dont need or want or understand are the same people who would've got done on margin lending they can't service or paying $20K to a developer for brokerage fees, they will get skinned somehow, then blame everybody else.
You can do well with a good SMSF, and control it yourself, you can get some decent advise and structure for a flat fee, you will never make more money than your planner if you put in margin lending or on the market, there is a reason they have a nicer house than you and drive a merc.
Thanks for the insight guys.
Just a random question for those guys that are passionate about it, and obviously this isn’t advice I’m going to use.
You inherit $100K with the specific request that it is for your future what so you do with it? What are peoples first instinct?
"Just in short, I think a lot of the avalanche is misguided and people are basically being sucked in by dodgy financial advisors and property developers."
Sorry your right, you made it sound like a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
I think the point is investments can be good are bad regardless of the investment, I was saying buying a resi property with a SMSF is a far more sound and less risk adverse strategy than margin lending or any other market strategy.
The point is the people that get SMSF they dont need or want or understand are the same people who would've got done on margin lending they can't service or paying $20K to a developer for brokerage fees, they will get skinned somehow, then blame everybody else.
You can do well with a good SMSF, and control it yourself, you can get some decent advise and structure for a flat fee, you will never make more money than your planner if you put in margin lending or on the market, there is a reason they have a nicer house than you and drive a merc.
Borrowing to invest in shares or in residential property both have their advantages and pitfalls. Having a narrow field of investments is where you will always get burnt.
There are many good tax reasons property in a SMSF are great but again it depends on each individual situation. Someone in the top tax bracket for example would do better with it outside of super.
Remember too you don't need a SMSF to invest in property. Just about every blended fund does and do invest directly in property (they just buy bigger or do so with developing new blocks).
One thing lee, by law, a property investment is seen to be as risky as Australian shares. This is non negotiable and a financial planner cannot say that property is less risky than shares. To do can involve penalties as high as a jailable offence and is seen as giving incorrect advice.
Thanks for the insight guys.
Just a random question for those guys that are passionate about it, and obviously this isn't advice I'm going to use.
You inherit $100K with the specific request that it is for your future what so you do with it? What are peoples first instinct?
My personally, i'd leave it in the bank for a year and see how serious I am about what to do with it.
If I had non deductible debt i'd reduce that cause I don't like debt.
And in other news super funds have had massive returns...
Not bad considering the quarter of a billion or so spent on a new system. Tossers!
And sponsoring football teams.
plus bonuses.
Wasn't it "75K plus super, c**ts". I think he'd had a pay rise last time he was here, too.75K plus super !!!
( I know I misquoted, but that's probably my all time favourite BB quote)
fkn concr
Thanks for the insight guys.
Just a random question for those guys that are passionate about it, and obviously this isn't advice I'm going to use.
You inherit $100K with the specific request that it is for your future what so you do with it? What are peoples first instinct?
Bighouse.