The tax and compliance rules surrounding superannuation will change in the future, just as they have regularly changed in the past.
There are some rules that relate specifically to SMSFs although over the last 20 years there have only been a few changes that have targeted, and impacted the scope of, SMSFs.
The good news is that when the rules have changed, SMSFs are generally able to re-organise quickly to take advantage of any new opportunities.
It may require the help of an external adviser, which will cost money, however, there will be no delays or hassles imposed by other members’ interests or corporate bureaucracy and product manufacturers.
Similarly, the tax and compliance rules surrounding large APRA-regulated funds will change in the future, just like they have regularly in the past.
Unfortunately, laws often change quickly and with minimal notice, and not always for the better.
Where new legislation presents opportunities to optimise retirement savings, members of large APRA-regulated funds will need to wait until their fund chooses to implement the changes for members.
Many changes will also be constrained by the need to work through layers of bureaucracy. Even a simple change to add a new box to a standard form can take months.
The best that members of large APRA funds can hope for is that those in more nimble structures, such as SMSFs, make the required changes quickly and place competitive pressure on their fund to follow suit.
ASIC, in its recently issued CP 216, suggests that additional disclosure requirements be placed on advisers who recommend SMSF. Several of these make sense, however, the paper ignores the fact that there is no “zero risk” choice when it comes to superannuation. The regulator’s focus on SMSFs in isolation is unbalanced and fails to recognise that SMSFs can mitigate some of the challenges that come with being a member of a retail or industry fund.
