ASIC initiates super property investment review
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has announced a targeted review of property investment via superannuation funds.
The regulator said the review will focus on requirements to disclose stamp duty payments in Regulatory Guide 97 Disclosing fees and costs in PDSs and periodic statements (RG 97).
It said this was in the context of concerns having been raised that the disclosure impacts performance test results and discourages investment in property by superannuation funds.
ASIC Chair Joe Longo said the agency was responding to consultation at the recent investor roundtable convened by the Treasurer.
“This is exactly the sort of actionable idea to address regulatory issues ASIC is open to testing,’” he said.
“If the review finds appropriate changes will deliver benefits without undermining disclosures, then ASIC will act. We want to ensure red tape isn’t unnecessarily holding back investments.
“A significant portion of Australia’s $4 trillion superannuation system already invests in property assets, but we have heard there is appetite for more.
“This review will allow us to look at the way our regulations govern the calculation of fee-adjusted returns and encourage transparency and investment in our economy.”
Longo said the review would also consider whether class order relief should be given to bring consistency to how internally and externally managed private credit arrangements are disclosed.
“A change like that could encourage internal management meaning lower costs for superannuation members as well as continuing to support safe credit growth for business borrowers.”
The review will be led by ASIC and include industry representatives, and Treasury. The review will report by 30 November.
Absolute bunch of rubbish. ASIC showing again (in my opinion) that they’ll entertain making life easier for big super interests, yet do very little, or arguably nothing for financial advisers.
The changes to RG 97 reduce member transparency. If a member is paying a fee for owing the asset (i.e. stamp duty), then this should be reported within the performance.
This idea of disclosing the actual costs of owning the asset making an asset unattractive to invest in is garbage. To then ask for the law to be changed to reduce disclosure…. what is going on?
Financial advisers are required to disclose costs of an investment, such as brokerage, buy/sell spreads and whatever else.
Big super potentially wants to invest in residential property. This change likely assists that objective greatly.
Farcical.
Yep the proof of Industry Super Funds owning Canberra grows every week.
ISF & the ALP want to own residential property on mass, and have a lifetime of rent from young generations locked out of owning a home.
They have taken SGC to 12%, so people have less savings to a home.
Now they want to open easy access to ISF trying to control housing.
Corrupt, Self Interested, Power Hungry Communist are ISF & ALP.
Sure – invest your super in illiquid assets like property – get to over $3m cap and then start paying Grimm Jim’s unrealised capital gains tax – sounds like a winner strategy to me….
Upon reading the headline, I thought maybe ASIC were going to finally do something about the dubious property valuations in industry super funds. However silly of me. Instead ASIC are going to work with these funds to reduce disclosure of costs to manipulate the performance data. Ha ha, only ASIC could be so biased and brazen!
Totally predictable. Did you see who they invited to the meeting where all this came from?
ASFA has been calling for this…..