Buyer Beware

Thanks Wol.

If you feel you can 'beat the market' then SMSF are the way to go. Statistically though - SMSF overwhelmeingly underperform the market historically (long term) as the average SMSF during the double digit return years of 2003 - 2007 had around 30% invested in cash. The last 12 months of returns make SMSF look good mainly because of this large cash holding - this strategy is not a long term goer though and anyone starting a SMSF needs to understand that beating the market long term is very difficult. And besides - who wants to come back from holiday with a letter box full of SMSF stuff to go through. No thanks. Horses for courses.

Reasonable

[QUOTE=Wol;6635005]Your first point: not necessarily, one would think about such things well in advance of dotage: however you are correct <g>.

I hadn't heard about the facility to re-invest, which sounds worthwhile in some cases. I am still very much in the early stages of researching SMSFs and, like most things to do with pensions and the tax concessions attaching am very aware of the way that even innocent mistakes can rebound to your detriment![/QUOTE

If you were under 65 you would have been talking about 4% minimum drawdown.

You should be aware that being over 65 you cannot contribute to any super fund (smsf or otherwise) unless you meet the work test. If you use a service like SC they take care of all compliance matters.

Regards

Reasonable

In my view smsfs and beating the market have no connection whatsoever. A smsf is vastly more flexible than a commercial super fund. Also, in Wol's case, being all cash, it would most likely be more cost effective that a commercial super fund.

ozzieeagle

The Arab Bank has the best Cash Management account of any Bank in Aus apparently.

I change my Foreign Currency there, and I noticed people at the counter that had came miles... like the otherside of Melbourne to Coburg to deal with them, so I really sat up and took notice.

http://www.arabbank.com.au/deposit-a...gement-account

Not exactly what your after, but something worth considering with other funds you may have.

Buyer Beware

The cash fund of the super fund I am invested in returned over 7% (after taxes and fees) for the 2007/08 financial year. The management fee was also only 0.02% (next to nothing). What is the point of having more flexibility if it means you are more likely to end up with less money at retirement. The SMSF marketing over the last 18 months has been so misleasing that the regulators and the Government has specifically stated that they are going to crack down on the industry and on those SMSF that are not complient - which there are many of.

Wol

May I ask which fund this was?

Wol

[quote=Reasonable;6638035] I didn't realise until I'd done quite a lot of reading about SC via the link that they are part of ING! I had a meeting with an investment guy at ING a week ago in Sydney, and his estimate of the annual fees was a fraction of that quoted on their website! Buyer beware, indeed....

Reasonable

You obviously have a thing about smsfs. The 7% was easily achievable but I doubt the .02% fee.