Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 299

SMSF borrowing ban is a solution in search of a problem

The case against LRBAs (Limited Recourse Borrowing Arrangements) is unclear, but there could be bad news for SMSF trustees who want control over their investment strategy, regardless of whether they intend to use an LRBA or not. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has confirmed the retention of LRBAs for SMSFs, while it is Labor Party policy to ban them.

An LRBA is a borrowing whereby an SMSF can purchase a specific asset with debt. The debt is limited in recourse to the asset purchased and not the other assets of the fund. From a financial risk-return perspective, the ‘economic’ asset of the fund is the equity component (the purchased asset value less the limited recourse debt). LRBAs can work well for property assets because they are often large value, steady annuity-like investments that are beyond the reach of the average SMSF without the borrowed amount.

What the regulators say

On 22 March 2019, the Treasurer publicly released a report prepared by the Council of Financial Regulators (CFR) and Australian Taxation Office on Leverage and Risk in the Superannuation System.

The report showed that 8.9% of all SMSFs have an LRBA representing 5.2% (or $3.8 billion) of total SMSF assets. The CFR said: “Given this magnitude, LRBAs are unlikely to pose systemic risk to the financial system at this time.”

However, the report expressed concern with the “prevalence” of property as the main asset purchased under an LRBA, which was most common with “low balance” SMSFs with balances under $500,000. As a consequence of “significant implications for the security of individuals’ retirement saving” (supposedly those with low balance funds), the CFR concluded that their “preferred” option was to remove the exemption allowing SMSFs to access LRBAs.

So, while LRBAs pose no systemic risk to the financial system, a portion of self-funded retirees could be subjected to high levels of risk through a concentrated exposure primarily to residential property, particularly in the event of a general property market downturn. They argue this risk could revert back to the government via greater dependency on the government-funded pension system. However, there is no attempt to evaluate the systemic risk or why SMSFs are particularly vulnerable. Indeed, it could be the case that SMSFs are better positioned to deal with a generalised downturn due to lower leverage, less incentive to negatively gear and the protection afforded by mandatory superannuation contributions.

Borrowing by SMSFs

There is some great data on LRBAs in the report compiled by the ATO from audited annual accounts prepared by SMSFs.

While the number of funds with LRBAs has steadily increased to 8.9%, the value of LRBA assets as a portion of total fund assets has plateaued and even declined from 5.3% in June 2017 to an extrapolated 5.2% in June 2018 (although with current lending practices and declining property prices, the actual percentage could be lower). The portion of SMSFs in the “low balance” bracket invested in residential property has declined from 39% in 2016 to 36% in 2017.

Concentration has also been increasing amongst SMSFs with LRBAs. The report found that “over 90% of the SMSF LRBA population within the $200,001 to $1 million fund size ranges had an LRBA concentration of greater than 50%.” What is not clear is the portion of net LRBA assets (the equity) as a portion of net fund assets. This is a reasonable measure given the limited recourse structure and would undoubtedly show much lower levels of concentration across the board.

The report also paints a concerning picture with respect to leverage ratios of LRBAs invested in residential property. For example, funds with leverage ratios greater than 50% increased from 68% in 2016 to 73% in 2017. However, funds with leverage ratios greater than 70% declined from 29% in 2016 to 26% in 2017, implying overall leverage is falling (and is probably much lower today).

What is also missing from the analysis is a lenders’ perspective of LRBAs. How do LRBAs compare to other investment loan products by key measures of risk? Loan to value ratio (LVR) is a key indicator of risk: lower the LVR, the lower the risk. The data provided in the report does not provide much granularity around LVR. However, crudely dividing the average LRBA borrowing by the average LRBA asset provides a system-wide LVR of 49% as at June 2017. By comparison, Westpac’s dynamic LVR across its mortgage book at the same time was 52%, implying it is riskier than LRBA loans.

Another concern expressed by the CFR is that LRBA lending has gravitated to the non-bank sector where they have less control. This problem is not insurmountable with targeted regulation.

The politics

The report does not support the Labor case to ban LRBAs. Banning LRBAs for residential property investment is a small piece of Labor’s housing affordability policy on the premise that LRBAs make housing less affordable. This premise is speculated in the report but not supported by its conclusions (or even the earlier Productivity Commission Report on superannuation). Unlike negative gearing and CGT policy announcements by Labor, LRBAs have virtually no revenue impact on the budget, so the incentive to change is not for fiscal reasons.

The current government on the other hand is taking a more pragmatic approach. It is adopting the CFR’s second preferred option of targeted regulation, most of which it says it is adopting anyway as a response to the Financial Services Royal Commission. It wants to see more data, which makes sense given the tectonic changes that have occurred over the last year.

Implication for SMSF trustees

The options put forward by the CFR do nothing less than limit the investment options available to SMSFs. We have written on the subject of SMSFs investing in residential property in the past. We don’t sugarcoat the risks, but we do think it is a suitable strategy for some investors at certain stages of their retirement savings journey. The CFR acknowledges that SMSFs acquire residential property “early in their lifecycle”, which is a sensible strategy for an anticipated 30+ years of accumulation.

The debate needs to shift back to the quality of advice and selling techniques that influence SMSF trustees to make investment decisions. This would be the same advice a trustee should presumably receive if they thought it was sensible to invest over 50% of their retirement saving in venture capital, or a single small cap listed company or many other investments that are riskier than leveraged residential property and much more easily available and executable than an LRBA. When will the CFR contemplate a ban on those investments as well just to prevent them from happening?

Overall, the suggestion of a ban on LRBAs looks like a solution in search of a problem. The implications of a property downturn on small investors are potentially adverse regardless of the structure through which they invest, and whether through their super or not. No evidence has been presented that the implications are necessarily more adverse for SMSF investors. There is no consumer outcry for more regulation in this segment, unlike so many other aspects of the financial services industry, and SMSF trustees want greater flexibility and an end to capricious regulatory changes. The CFR found no systemic risks, and the data seems to support the proposition that the majority of SMSF property investments are soundly based.

What is missing in the proposal to ban LRBAs is a clear benefit to consumers, or to the economy, or to the housing market, or to the financial system. Absent this, we are left wondering as to who really benefits from this proposed change to limit the investment opportunities open to SMSF trustees.

 

John Chauvel is a former senior debt capital markets executive with a major bank, and a current fintech entrepreneur. Adam Smith is a Director of The Super Group, an SMSF advice and administration provider. This article is for general information purposes and it does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

4 Comments
John C
March 29, 2019

True. Personally, I have suffered worse losses from other assets classes. I could go into details but its a bit depressing. Two comments: 1) fortunately I manage a disciplined asset allocation so my overall fund is up. 2) I don't have an LRBA, but I would have done better, even in the current market, if I had invested in an LRBA rather than some of these other investments. It's all about diversification and timeframe.

David Boase
March 28, 2019

It is interesting to read that the Council of Financial Regulators (CFR) preferred option is to remove the exemption allowing SMSFs to access LBRAs.
I quote from the article, in part: "So, while LRBAs pose no systemic risk to the financial system, a portion of self-funded retirees could be subjected to high levels of risk through a concentrated exposure primarily to residential property, particularly in the event of a general property market downturn. They (CFR) argue this risk could revert back to the government via greater dependency on the government-funded pension system."
In view of their concerns, I wonder what the (CFR) position is on labors proposal to disallow cash refunds of excess franking credits to individual and superannuation funds including SMSFs?

John C
March 29, 2019

I suppose accept some greater dependency of individuals on the government-funded pension system!

Gary M
March 28, 2019

We are seeing some apartments which have fallen in value by 40%, such as darwin, from the peak. If someone had leveraged into this market using their super money, intended to fund their retirement, it might be in negative equity now. Don't think it's an ideal way to save for retirement, although I acknowledge a lot of people have done well in property. You also can't set a policy according to the property cycle, so what might be good at one time is bad at another, eg now.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

How super became a poor deal for SMSF pensioners

Assessing Labor franking policy options

Are retrospective tax policies fair or foul?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Five ways the Retirement Review points to new policies

The Retirement Income Review goes much further than an innocent-sounding 'fact base', and is sure to guide policies in the run up to the next election. It will change how we think about retirement incomes.

Graeme Shaw on why investing is at a pivotal moment

Company profits have not improved for many years but higher valuations have been driven by falling rates and excess liquidity. Conditions do not suit a value and contrarian manager but here are some opportunities.

Retirement Review gives strong views on hoarding of super

The Review includes some profound findings, most notable that retirement income should include drawing down far more capital. Expect post-retirement products to proliferate under a Retirement Income Covenant.

11 key findings on retirement dreams during the pandemic

A mid-pandemic survey of over 1,000 people near or in retirement found three in four are not confident how long their money will last. Only 18% felt their money was safe during a strong economic downturn.

Bank scorecard 2020: when will the mojo return?

Banks severely cut dividends in 2020 but are expected to improve payments in 2021. History provides clues to when the banks will return to their 2019 levels of profitability, but who is positioned the best?

Generational wealth transfers will affect all investors

It's not only that 60 is the new 40, but 80 is the new 60. Many Baby Boomers spend up in retirement and are less inclined to leave a nest egg to their children. The ways wealth transfers will affect all investors.

Latest Updates

Shares

Hamish Douglass on big tech and life after COVID

On the sidelines of the Morningstar Conference, the Magellan co-founder reflects on the pandemic and which sectors are set to gain and lose. He says we were lucky the pandemic hit when it did (videos and transcripts).

Superannuation

Cost of running an SMSF receives updated judgement

Administration costs can rise for complexity, especially owning property in an SMSF, but fees are highly competitive from a wide range of service providers. The break-even cost is less than previously reported.

SMSF strategies

Three areas SMSFs should consider outsourcing

SMSF trustees often cite ‘control of my investments’ as the number one motivation for setting up their own fund. But it still makes sense to outsource some parts of a well-diversified portfolio.

Retirement

Apparently, retirees should learn to SKI

The Retirement Income Review demonstrated limited understanding of the risks faced by self-funded retirees implementing rational human behaviour. Spending to qualify for the age pension is not a solution.

Retirement

7-point checklist for managing the uncertain timing of death

Average life expectancies are a weak predictor of individual outcomes, and it's better to consider a range of probable lifespans. A plan that lasts to the average will disappoint every second retiree.

Exchange traded products

'Quality' ETFs under the microscope

Interest in 'quality' factor ETFs has increased this year, helped by very attractive returns. However, not all ETFs are created alike and there are divergences in portfolio traits which investors can identify.

Shares

Is growth of zombie companies real or fiction?

Much has been written about the rise of 'zombie firms' which should have gone bankrupt, but new research should be comforting to economists and investors alike, with focus on a particular segment.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2020 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 class service prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, has been prepared by without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Refer to our Financial Services Guide (FSG) for more information. 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.