Govt could handcuff SMSFs

I fail to see how the name "Self Managed" will continue if there is legislation forcing members to take "madatory advice".

While I understand the government might perceive a risk to future pension payments from their own back pocket, the critical attraction to SMSF's is the fact that they are "Self Managed".

People tend to forget that one of the reasons why there are so many SMSF's is that the so-called "professionals" did not earn their keep in the run-up to and aftermath of the GFC. I am sure that a lot of these people thought that they could do better.

The problem is that they jumped straight off the deep end to devise their own investment strategies without gaining a proper understanding of investment risk and how it impacts upon investment returns. It's difficult to grow your investments if you don't have a primary strategy for capital preservation.

Sadly investment "advice" does not always embrace investment risk either. It's often about tipping people into strategies or products without gaining a proper understanding of their individual circumstances and the risks they face.

Fortunately there are some in the investment community who are thinking about this but they are sadly at present, in the minority.

It's codswallop from self-serving Arnhem Investment Management because the SMSF sector has performed far better than institutional fund managers. Do some research to confirm this fact. The reason is simply because SMSF are looking after their own interests, instead of professional investment managers, who are looking to extract fees, despite any supposition that they have "greater skills".

Absolute rubbish, not based on the facts, which are that overall SMSF's have outperformed the so callled professionals.
What is a worry is that there are people out there professing to be experts who write such irresponsible and unsupportable nonsense.

I have an SMSF - why not just cut out the middle man and ask the CFMEU how it should be invested, rather than a planner from my industry fund.?(yes I have one of those too) Many are set up for stupid reasons - people who didn't have the foresight or skill to tick "cash unit" in 2007 but think they will do a good job avoiding the next crash?

Mandatory once? Yearly? Mandatory to seek advice, or to follow it?

I think many people get into SMSFs specifically BECAUSE they got advice from a planner! I don't know if Wilson was trying to be ironic, but "extract fees" is the raison detre of many, many SMSFs.

Agree with Wilson Sy that its self serving codswallop of the firt degree.
It's against the evidence and concerning that a so called expert comes up with this sort of dangerous nonsense.

With over four decades of Accounting and Banking experience, I hardly need to seek professional advice.

This subject is so stupid - all I can detect, is that this is a move by (so-called) experts, trying to conjure up business.

One only has to pause for a short time, to remember the large number of Investors who have been let down by the plethora of inexperienced "professionals".
My support goes 100% to Wilson Sy, who makes a lot of sense.

I think there needs to be a balance. Like one writer has said if these fund managers were good one would happily pay for their service. But if you listen to any of the business news channels and even so called professional business magazines how often do they get it right. And yes the SMSF trustee could get it wrong but the tone of the article does appear self serving.

Does this article have any creditability? It gives no sources but refers only to "Government". Please Mr Smith, precisely who in "Government" is pushing this. Let us into the secret. This is arrogant in the extreme, particularly in the light of past "professional performance". If only "professional advise" would increase the chances of the safety of our investments. Dream on brother!