Thread: Fund managers

Originally Posted by scarry

I have stuck with commercial property over the years.

Yes but that is not super. Maybe if you had an approved "self managed super fund" you could invest in that area and attract the tax benefits but I am not sure.

It is wise to not put all your eggs in one basket and I have mine in three areas - a small taxed pension from a defined benefit super scheme, my private super as listed above and like you investment property (residential not commercial) which provides a small taxed income.

You said you have done better than super but is that before or after Tax which is often the big equaliser. Depending on your age, super is tax free if you do not withdraw before 60 and fully tax free after 60 where even if negative geared you will pay tax at your PAYG rate on your commercial properties. It is certainly a big issue for me on my residential stuff.

Cheers

Garry

Originally Posted by garrycol

You said you have done better than super but is that before or after Tax which is often the big equaliser. Depending on your age, super is tax free if you do not withdraw before 60 and fully tax free after 60 where even if negative geared you will pay tax at your PAYG rate on your commercial properties. It is certainly a big issue for me on my residential stuff.

Cheers

Garry

Correct, the tax benifits are way better with super,and it is a good idea not to put all eggs in one basket.

What we should have done is bought them in a SMSF,but the rules were different in those days,and finding good advice was also difficult,as it often is today.
We could transfer them over but the costs,stamp duty,capital gains tax, etc makes it a very expensive exercise.They are owned by a family trust which helps.

Even with the extra tax that we pay,they are still ahead of our super.

Well another roller coaster ride this week for super - down $10K one day - up ten the next down 10 the next - as a commentator said in the paper today fund managers are now in a herd mentality and basing decisions on what others are doing and not on the economics - "if the market is selling so am I, if the market is buying so am I". Those management fees do not seem to be getting good performance from managers - anyone can follow the pack. When "blue stocks" are swinging 3 - 4% on a daily basis there is something wrong with the processes within the market.

On another performance note, the average super fund returned its highest figures in 6 years in 12/13 with the most popular growth fund rising 15.5% but todays paper claims the market went up 17% so the most popular super fund under performed - just investing in the ASX or All Ords Management Fund would have been better.

This indicates to me that Fund Managers and Financial Advisors are really not doing their stuff and not earning their high commissions. Maybe these should become performance based.

Garry