ASIC should regulate SMSFs as a financial product: PwC

PWC by way of their comments have demonstrated their total lack of professional understanding of SMSFs. I imagine PWC receives sizeable audit remuneration from APRA regulated funds so one could be forgiven for thinking that their comments have a hidden agenda. Who in PWC actually made these comments to the FSI??

As far as I am aware the ATO is responsible for monitoring SMSF activity - not ASIC. As an Auditor of many SMSF accounts, there already is a requirement for an Investment Strategy - what value in ASIC monitoring a document when they dont really know the risk profile and long term expectations of fund members is? Would PwC like to comment on how these funds who were over exposed to, cash and term deposits fared in the recent GFC compared to the "industry and public offer Funds" managed by investment experts?? I guess as an auditor of large Financial Institutions who are a large part of the current superannution industry, that PwC would ike to see those institutions grow at the expense of an SMSF industry. Haven't we already got too much interference in our lives without more regulators wasting time and resources - after all the money belongs to the member/trustees of these Funds to do with as they see fit.

I claim that many SMSF who invested in cash throughout the GFC have performed better than number of professionally managed funds during the last 5 years. Retirees with large balances over $500,000 acted prudently by not to risking all of their funds in stock or real estate markets. Those under such levels can and do knowing well that they can make up the difference from the Centrelink if they lose. To PwC, prudent investment clearly means risking funds in stock markets alone w/o consideration to their fund size, risk profiles of individuals and stage of retirement.