Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 61

Private Ancillary Funds suffer same ‘retail’ treatment as SMSFs

The uncertainty of when an SMSF meets ASIC’s ‘wholesale’ or ‘sophisticated investor’ test was covered in a previous Cuffelinks article: ‘When does an SMSF qualify as a ‘wholesale’ investor?. My experience is that the lack of clarity is also hampering much-needed philanthropic efforts, even as Australia strives to improve its performance in this socially-critical sector.

Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs) combine gift-giving with tax efficiency and are becoming increasingly popular in Australia. A more detailed descriptions of PAFs can be found here on the Cuffelinks’ website. Their benefits include:

  • a mechanism for inter-generational giving (the whole family becomes involved in philanthropy from an early age) and creating a family legacy
  • an amount removed from a donor’s other assets with the sole purpose of supporting philanthropic causes, within a tax-exempt structure
  • a more sophisticated and controlled approach to philanthropy with tax advantages.

Since setting up our family PAF, over the last seven or eight years, my original expectations have been exceeded. Our children, while still young, have become involved in donation decisions, we have been able to provide multi-year support to philanthropic causes and we believe our decision-making around how and when we give has improved significantly.

Indeed our involvement in the PAF community was a key determinant in my decision to join The Benevolent Society where one of my roles was in developing the Social Benefit Bond issue in late 2013 with our partners, Commonwealth Bank and Westpac.

Social Benefit Bonds are one form of impact investing and a powerful way of harnessing money for worthwhile causes. At the moment our investment policy is for up to 20% of our PAF’s investments to be impact investments.

However, in my involvement both as a PAF founder and with the Social Benefit Bond, a real impediment to the level of impact investing has been the application of the ‘wholesale’ investor tests under the Australian regulatory regime.

Regulation of financial investment products requires that an offer of investment products to ‘retail’ investors must be made under a ‘retail disclosure document’. These have stringent content requirements, particularly for a new product, and also involves the directors (among others) assuming an increased level of potential statutory liability. A ‘retail’ offer will generally involve:

  • significant increases in legal and auditor costs
  • establishment of formal due diligence and board sub-committees
  • a more precise and longer timetable
  • the issuer having an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL) that permits relevant interactions with ‘retail’ investors (for which more onerous regulatory requirements apply) or the availability of an exemption
  • the participation of a larger number of small investors with the resultant additional costs.

To date, the two NSW Social Benefit Bonds projects chose to undertake ‘excluded offers’, also known as ‘wholesale only’ offers, for which the above matters are not (or are lesser) considerations. I expect most future issues will do the same.

In general, to participate in a ‘wholesale’ offer, an investor will need to meet the defined requirements for being a ‘sophisticated investor’ or a ‘professional investor’ under the Corporations Act. 

PAFs and the wholesale investor tests

Cuffelinks has previously highlighted issues for Social Benefit Bonds conducted as ‘wholesale only’ offerings, made under an information memorandum.

One of The Benevolent Society’s closest supporters wanted to invest via an SMSF and, despite this person being a senior manager in financial services, the book-runners found it difficult to accept due to the regulatory uncertainty that the SMSF would satisfy the ‘wholesale investor’ tests. This uncertainty is due to a statement by ASIC that, for the purposes of sections 761G(6)(b) and (7) of the Corporations Act, the phrase ‘relate to’ should be given a broad meaning. Any financial service provided to an SMSF may ‘relate to’ a superannuation product and would therefore be a ‘retail’ offering unless the SMSF itself held more than $10 million in net assets. The provision of these services to such a ‘retail’ investor would have required significant additional costs described above.

Unfortunately, the issue is similar for the PAF community. Our PAF has been involved in transactions where all of the following have been adopted:

  • providing a certificate from a qualified accountant that in my personal capacity I am a sophisticated investor
  • acceptance that our PAF can be a sophisticated investor as long as all trustees are sophisticated investors
  • a complete prohibition on any PAF being considered to be a sophisticated investor unless it meets either of the $2.5 million in net assets or $250,000 of gross annual income tests.

These differing approaches are resting on different interpretations of sections 708(8) or 761G(7) of the Corporations Act. In particular, under section 708(8)(d), a ‘sophisticated investor’ is designated to include “a company or trust that is controlled by a person who [themselves] meets the requirements [of being a sophisticated investor]”.

ASIC has not been able to provide clear guidelines on what ‘control’ means for these purposes and accordingly, the different approaches are driven by the degree of conservatism in each organisation.

ASIC needs to take a ‘substance over form’ approach. If our trustees supplied a minute from a meeting of our PAF that identified me as the Investment Officer (who is ultimately responsible for the investments our PAF makes) and I was able to prove via a qualified accountant’s certificate that I am personally a sophisticated investor, this should meet the intent of the legislation.

It is disappointing that in recent impact investing transactions, some PAF and SMSF investors have been turned away from participating simply because of a lack of clarity. From a government policy perspective, state and federal, impact investing should be supported for the development of private sector funding strategies to reduce the burden on taxpayers of funding social and environmental projects.

 

Steve Hawkins is an investment banker at Fort Street Advisors, Chairman of The Benevolent Society Business Advisory Council and founder of a family PAF.

RELATED ARTICLES

Five charity-supporting investment vehicles

Gail Kelly reveals how her family gifts money

Philanthropy can blend tax deductions, engagement and impact

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Strategy

$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.

Strategy

Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.