For most SMSFs, the in-house asset rules have operated virtually as an absolute prohibition against the fund holding in-house assets. This is despite the limited scope for funds to hold 5% of their assets as in-house assets.
One of the difficulties with the 5% rule is that it required the trustee to remain vigilant. If the value of the in-house asset moved significantly relative to the value of the other fund assets - and there were many instances of this during the GFC - the fund could be caught out unwittingly.
It proved to be the saviour for some pre-1999 unit trust arrangements, allowing a slight buffer where the trustee didn't get their calculations quite right. Otherwise, the SMSF needed to have a considerable value such that 5% was significant enough to make a worthwhile investment.
So the recommendation that SMSFs wind their in-house assets down to nil will not have a major impact.
Interestingly, the same rules will not apply to APRA-regulated funds - typically funds with substantial balances, where 5% is enough for a worthwhile investment.
No comments:
Post a Comment