32, single? married? children? SMSF is a glorified way of...

  1. 2,465 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 56
    32, single? married? children?

    SMSF is a glorified way of wasting money by propping up accountants and auditors with the need to pay them to do something rather simple. find a bad accountant, they wont even set up the fund correctly to give the trustee the ability to borrow and pledge assets.

    there is a number of negative that i can see for your situation is that cost associate with borrowing within super structure is much higher, about 2000 in legal fees/bank related charges associated with the loan. you can't offset any -ve gearing and if you need to make additional contribution to fund any fees or shortfall from income to meet repayment, you cant withdraw that money when you needed.

    As a general guide you need a minimum of $200,000 in existing super savings for an SMSF to be a cost-effective option. That’s because on amounts under $200,000, the fees on a typical retail, industry or corporate super fund are generally cheaper.

    if you want another property, think about family planning, put the houses from inheritance into a family trust, may be even the one you have invested too, this will protect your hard earn from possible "ex wife" to be.

    in my opinion, i would buy the house either in personal name or in family trust. borrow 110% include stamp duty and legal fees using the equity of your existing investment. this will create a huge -ve gearing for you and reduce taxes. each year recycle the savings from the tax to the loan account.

    well done. you are sensible.
    Last edited by Jazz6868: 23/08/16
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.