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

Is DDO change to hybrids a drawback for investors?

Five charity-supporting investment vehicles

Gail Kelly reveals how her family gifts money

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Too many retirees miss out on this valuable super fund benefit

With 700 Australians retiring every day, retirement income solutions are more important than ever. Why do millions of retirees eligible for a more tax-efficient pension account hold money in accumulation?

Is it better to rent or own a home under the age pension?

With 62% of Australians aged 65 and over relying at least partially on the age pension, are they better off owning their home or renting? There is an extra pension asset allowance for those not owning a home.

Is the fossil fuel narrative simply too convenient?

A fund manager argues it is immoral to deny poor countries access to relatively cheap energy from fossil fuels. Wealthy countries must recognise the transition is a multi-decade challenge and continue to invest.

Reece Birtles on selecting stocks for income in retirement

Equity investing comes with volatility that makes many retirees uncomfortable. A focus on income which is less volatile than share prices, and quality companies delivering robust earnings, offers more reassurance.

Welcome to Firstlinks Election Edition 458

At around 10.30pm on Saturday night, Scott Morrison called Anthony Albanese to concede defeat in the 2022 election. As voting continued the next day, it became likely that Labor would reach the magic number of 76 seats to form a majority government.   

  • 19 May 2022

Keep mandatory super pension drawdowns halved

The Transfer Balance Cap limits the tax concessions available in super pension funds, removing the need for large, compulsory drawdowns. Plus there are no requirements to draw money out of an accumulation fund.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

30 years on, five charts show SMSF progress

On 1 July 1992, the Superannuation Guarantee created mandatory 3% contributions into super for employees. SMSFs were an after-thought but they are now the second-largest segment. How have they changed?

Investment strategies

Anton in 2006 v 2022, it's deja vu (all over again)

What was bothering markets in 2006? Try the end of cheap money, bond yields rising, high energy prices and record high commodity prices feeding inflation. Who says these are 'unprecedented' times? It's 2006 v 2022.

Taxation

Tips and traps: a final check for your tax return this year

The end of the 2022 financial year is fast approaching and there are choices available to ensure you pay the right amount of tax. Watch for some pandemic-related changes worth understanding.

Financial planning

Is it better to rent or own a home under the age pension?

With 62% of Australians aged 65 and over relying at least partially on the age pension, are they better off owning their home or renting? There is an extra pension asset allowance for those not owning a home.

Infrastructure

Listed infrastructure: finding a port in a storm of rising prices

Given the current environment it’s easy to wonder if there are any safe ports in the investment storm. Investments in infrastructure assets show their worth in such times.

Financial planning

Power of attorney: six things you need to know

Whether you are appointing an attorney or have been appointed as an attorney, the full extent of this legal framework should be understood as more people will need to act in this capacity in future.

Interest rates

Rising interest rates and the impact on banks

One of the major questions confronting investors is the portfolio weighting towards Australian banks in an environment of rising rates. Do the recent price falls represent value or are too many bad debts coming?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2022 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.