Evans Dixon US Masters Residential Property Fund URF under scrutiny – Warnings were given 3 years ago


The Australian Financial Review has released an article (behind paywall) today focusing on poor performance of Evans Dixon’s internal funds marketed heavily to many of their clients. The main focus is on the fall in value of their own stock but equally on the heavily fee laden products such as US Masters Residential Property Fund (URF).

source AFR and Bloomberg

Well that’s almost exactly 3 years after another finance website, EVISER,  that I was very proud to be apart of, called out the fund as “A magic pudding, just not for investors” and “one of the most expensive managed funds we’ve ever laid our eyes on”. Here is that full extensive article written by John Nunan and Richard Livingston for Eviser in MAY 2016 and bear in mind that the fund was showing positive returns at the time but hiding its true colours. All data on fees and charges were relevant as of May 2016 but may have changed in the last 3 years.

US Masters Residential Property Fund: A magic pudding, just not for Investors

We explain why the US Masters Residential Real Estate Fund is one of the most expensive managed funds we’ve ever laid eyes on.

KEY INFORMATION

Fund: US Masters Residential Property Fund

Fund manager: URF Investment Management Pty Ltd (part of Dixon Advisory Group)

Closing date: N/A (fund is listed on the ASX)

Website: http://www.usmastersresidential.com.au/

PRODUCT SUMMARY

Product type: ASX listed managed fund

Investment type(s): International real estate

Performance benchmarks: None

ASX code: URF

Minimum investment: N/A

Distributions: Semi-annual

Fund size (at 31 Mar 2016) $622m (market capitalisation)

Inception date June 2011 (listed on ASX in July 2012)

Performance (since inception) at 31 Mar 2016 11.7% per annum (calculated by Dixons based on share price performance, including dividends and adjusted for rights issues).

FEE SUMMARY

Investment management fee: 1.24% pa (plus GST)

Administration fee:  0.25% pa (plus GST)

Responsible entity fee: 0.08% pa (plus GST)

Custodian fee: 0.02% pa (plus GST)

Other:  listing fees, salary and wages recharges, office admin recharges, asset disposal fees, asset acquisition fees, structuring and arranging fee, debt arranging fee and handling fee (see table in article for more information)

Performance fee: None

Buy/sell spread: N/A (traded on ASX)

The Magic Pudding is a classic Australian children’s book that tells the story of a pudding that, no matter how often it’s eaten, is always available for its owners to eat next time they’re ready for a meal.

The US Masters Residential Property Fund (ASX Code: URF) is the magic pudding of investment vehicles – a continuous buffet of fees for the manager and promoter, Dixon Advisory Group (now Evans Dixon) and its associates. When we first read the fund’s financial statements we were amazed at the number of different fees Dixon and its associates (which we’ll refer to simply as ‘Dixon’) were able to charge to the fund. However, buried deep in the balance sheet or related party notes, we’d find yet another fee.

But it’s not just the fees that worry us about this fund. We have so many questions about the fund, its strategy, the strength of its balance sheet and the risks, that even if we were to ignore the fee load, we’d be unlikely to ever get comfortable making an investment.

The fund and its investment strategy

Launched in 2011, and listed on the ASX in 2012, the fund was initially presented as an opportunity for Australian investors, with the benefit of a strong Australian dollar, to invest in residential real estate in the New York metropolitan area (mainly Hudson County, New Jersey) at attractive valuations. Rental yields were expected to be greater than 8 per cent a year.

Over time the investment strategy has morphed into what is today, a strategy of buying and renovating properties in neighbourhoods undergoing rapid growth and gentrification, with the intention of ultimately leasing them. This has transformed the fund into less of a passive, rent earning investor and more of a property speculator, with a large proportion of the fund’s earnings coming from revaluations of the properties it owns (more below).

Property investors know that managing (and renovating) a property isn’t a simple or cheap exercise and this shines through in the portfolio owned by this fund. The fund requires a large range of services, with the key ones provided by Dixon. In addition to being the investment manager, Dixon provides the following paid services: the responsible entity; administration and accounting; architecture, design and construction; property management and leasing; property acquisition and disposal; execution, structuring and arranging (capital raisings); and debt arranging. Dixon also charges a handling fee when it raises new capital from its clients.

You won’t be surprised to learn this shopping list of services isn’t cheap. Details of some of the services and the fees charged can be found in the Services and Fees  section of the fund’s website. In Table 1, we’ve summarised these and the others we’ve found scattered throughout the financial statements and the Product Disclosure Statement (PDS).

We’ll return to the smorgasbord of fees in a moment. First let’s take a quick look at what the fund owns and where the money comes from.

The portfolio

Pictures of funky Brooklyn, Manhattan and Hoboken townhouses are scattered throughout the regular quarterly updates (click here for the 31 March 2016 update). However, it’s not what the properties look like, or where they’re located that’s of interest to us. We’re focused on whether they’re being leased or not.

Table 2 shows the fund’s portfolio at 31 March 2016, including both freestanding properties owned directly and multi-family buildings owned through various joint venture entities. The status of these properties is as follows:

Occupied (leased) – 63 per cent
Renovation/turnover – 34 per cent
For lease – 3 per cent

Due mainly to renovation works, effectively a third of the fund’s assets aren’t available for lease. Combined with rising valuations and falling rental yields, this means the days of the fund being a high yielding investment are gone, at least for now.

In the year ended 31 December 2012, the fund earned $4.2 million of rental income on an average investment property balance of $67 million. Given the rapidly growing nature of the fund it’s a very rough estimate, but this equates to an average rental yield of over 6 per cent. Revaluations of properties contributed another $5.7 million of profit (a little more than the rent).

Fast forward to 31 December 2015 and the (now much larger) fund earned almost $22 million of rental income on an average investment property balance around $703 million. That equates to an average yield just over 3 per cent. Meantime, property revaluations contributed almost twice as much as rent – about $40.8 million.

These figures highlight the increasingly speculative nature of the fund’s investment portfolio and also why the fund has struggled to generate positive operating cash flow since its inception. Even if the fund shifts to a position where the portfolio is fully (or almost fully) leased, this basic proposition is unlikely to change, at least anytime soon.

In the 31 March 2016 update Dixon estimated that the fund would earn another USD11.4 million in rent from the properties currently being renovated. While this might eliminate last year’s $14.4 million ‘core’ loss (see Table 4 and related discussion below) it would only reduce the negative $30.6 million operating cash flow, not turn the fund into a positive operating cash flow producer.

The fund has a low level of income, high level of expenses and relies on non-cash items to turn a profit. This, together with its growing acquisitions, means that it has had to continually tap unitholders on the shoulder for further capital and borrow from a variety of sources.

The current funding structure for the fund is set out in Table 3. A key feature is the two tranches of URF Notes that were issued in 2014 and 2015 and pay a fixed interest rate of 7.75 per cent.

The use of borrowing adds to the speculative nature of the fund’s portfolio. In the case of the URF Notes, often the fund is effectively borrowing money at 7.75 per cent to buy assets which won’t earn a cent initially, will have substantial sums spent renovating them and then will be put out to lease to earn rental income at a rate of say 3 to 4.5 per cent (although hopefully calculated on an upgraded book valuation).

Put this way, it’s fairly obvious why the fund’s strategy is such a cash drainer in the early years and how it could come unstuck. A downturn in the New Jersey or Brooklyn property markets (where most of the fund’s assets are located) could place pressure on both the ability to revalue the properties upwards (post renovation) and flat or falling rents. In this scenario the ability of the fund to pay its interest bill and generate a reasonable profit for unitholders, could be pushed a long way into the distant future.

Depending on the severity, a property downturn could cause the fund to have to sell properties in order to repay the URF Notes (which mature in 2019 and 2020) and other debts, exacerbating the fund’s problems in generating cash.

The early year cash flow drought associated with the underlying portfolio is magnified by the substantial levels of fees and other expenses incurred by the fund.

Let’s take a look at them in more detail.

Financial analysis

To put it bluntly, we’ve seen very few fee-fests like this fund. Perhaps some of the crazy tax deals beat it – for instance, managed agricultural schemes – but we struggle to recall a more traditional investment fund that’s paying fees in the order of five per cent or more (calculated as a percentage of the net asset base), year-in, year-out.

Admittedly, it’s not an apples for apples comparison to something like an Australian share fund, since property is typically a more expensive asset class to manage. But asset class alone doesn’t explain the continually high fee load being borne by this fund.

Table 4 shows the fund’s accounting results for each year since it was launched, and Table 5 shows some key financial ratios. We’ve used our own display format as it better demonstrates how the fund loses money on a ‘core’ basis each year, but generates a profit through renovating and revaluing the properties and, perhaps even more importantly, foreign exchange (FX) gains. It also highlights the amount of fees that have been paid by the fund since it was created.

At 31 December 2015, the fees totalled almost $100 million, and there’s a chance we’ve missed some as the fund’s disclosure of fees is both complicated and in a constant state of flux. If there’s an easily digestible summary of the fees paid by the fund somewhere on the Dixon website, we haven’t found it.

We’ve already discussed the fund’s low level of income and high levels of URF Note interest. When you add in the fees, it explains the large operating cash outflows the fund has experienced since launch. Cumulatively, the fund has burned through almost $50 million in operating cash flow between launch and 31 December 2015.

Fees on borrowed money

Dixon is paid an extraordinary array and volume of fees, but that’s not the only issue. Despite earning fees for managing and renovating the portfolio, making
purchases and sales and raising money, Dixon is paid an investment management fee of 1.24 per cent (for whatever aspect of the fund’s investment management that hasn’t been paid for already), together with administration (0.25 per cent), responsible entity (0.08 per cent) and custodian fees (0.02 per cent). Added together, these percentage fees add to 1.59 per cent, plus GST.

Scarily, these fees are paid on the gross assets of the fund, so it currently works out at around 3 per cent based on the unitholders equity (with all the transaction based fees on top). This is a massive fee load but even worse, the fact the fees are on gross assets gives Dixon a strong disincentive to deleverage the fund (at least, by diverting income or asset sale proceeds to paying down debt) since they’d effectively be costing themselves a substantial amount of money. A perverse incentive like this is the very reason we don’t like geared investment vehicles paying fees on gross assets.

So there you have it: the fund is an extraordinarily expensive cash burner. However, the fund has survived and prospered, largely on the back of three critical factors: property revaluations, foreign exchange gains and the ability to regularly source new capital and borrowings.

Performance

Table 4 demonstrates how the fund relies on property revaluations and foreign exchange gains to compensate for large ‘core’ losses. While the gains on  revaluations may ultimately be reflected in a higher level of rental income (or asset sale proceeds) the FX gains are ‘one-off’ profit items that may not be  repeated, or may even reverse themselves in future years.

Worryingly, through to 31 December 2015, FX gains on translation contributed almost 100 per cent of the cumulative post-tax accounting profits of the fund.
Effectively, for all of the fund’s activity and the substantial revaluation gains made as a result of renovations, the fund’s accounting profits to date have more to do with the recent depreciation of the AUD against the USD than anything property related.

In the 31 March 2016 update, Dixon reported that the fund has produced returns of 11.7 per cent a year since its launch in June 2011. However, over that same period, the US dollar itself has returned over 7 per cent a year (measured in AUD returns) and a simple US property , such as the Vanguard REIT (NYSE Code:  VNQ), has returned around 11.5 per cent.

In AUD terms, that works out at almost 20 per cent a year for a simple real estate , that doesn’t have the development risk or financing risk associated with URF. URF is a great example of reasonable absolute performance hiding terrible relative performance.

Risk

More worrying than the lacklustre performance is the amount of risk taken to achieve it. At first glance, a debt-to-equity ratio for a property trust of just under 50 per cent (at 31 March 2016) is nothing to get too worried about. But this fund is no ordinary property trust. It’s part property owner, part developer, part FX speculator (due to the fact it has issued the URF Notes in Australian dollars) and part guarantor of the juicy Dixon fee arrangements.

Without knowing whether Dixon intends to ease off the ‘buy and renovate’ strategy, repay the URF notes, or restructure some of the fee arrangements it’s difficult to tell when this fund may produce positive operating cash flow, or indeed whether it will ever do so. That means it’s relying on being able to raise further capital, borrow, or sell assets at a profit in order to pay the bills.

The problem with this type of approach is that everything can come unstuck at once. A downturn in the property market would make it difficult to sell assets
at a profit and tough to borrow or raise capital (except at a large valuation discount). In that scenario, the fund may be forced to sell assets at discounted
valuations to raise cash and if that happens the debt to equity ratio can increase rapidly.

If the fund had a property portfolio generating, say, a 5 per cent rental yield, with expenses running at 2 per cent a year, the story might be very different. In that case, it might be able to sit tight, pay its interest bills and wait for a recovery. However, the fund’s constant operating cash outflows means it has to continually tap unitholders and lenders for more cash and if that dries up, the conservative approach is to assume it will have big problems.

Summing it up

We could dig further into the property portfolio – for instance, analyse per square metre lease rates for Hoboken rental properties – but it really doesn’t matter. This fund has produced relatively little for investors versus alternative investments, largely because it suffers under a crushing fee and expense load that has eroded a lot of the gains produced by FX movements and a buoyant underlying property market.

Looking forward, with FX gains more difficult to come by, unitholders are taking on an enormous amount of risk since the fund is now substantially leveraged and has an expense load that keeps on increasing. It’s unclear exactly how a property downturn might play out, but our concern is that this fund could end up suffering a crunch and suffer massive losses from having to sell assets on the cheap.

If you know enough about New Jersey property to be bullish on freestanding Hoboken houses, buy one directly, or team up with some fellow investors to do so. But if you’re simply an Australian SMSF trustee looking for some exposure to global property and infrastructure, there are plenty of better options available. You simply don’t need this fund, or the expense and the risk that comes with it.

Disclaimer: This article is general in nature and does not take your personal situation into consideration. This article is not a recommendation of any investment or facility mentioned in it, and you should seek financial or legal advice specific to your situation before making any financial and/or investment decision. This  disclaimer is in addition to our standard Terms and Conditions. The Product Disclosure Statement (Offer Document) for this fund can be found here.

Are you looking for an advisor that will keep you up to date and provide guidance and tips like in this blog? Then why not contact me at our Castle Hill or Windsor office in Northwest Sydney to arrange a one on one consultation. Just click the Schedule Now button up on the left to find the appointment options.

Liam Shorte B.Bus SSA™ AFP

Financial Planner & SMSF Specialist Advisor™

SMSF Specialist Adviser 

 Follow SMSFCoach on Twitter Liam Shorte on Linkedin NextGen Wealth on Facebook   

Verante Financial Planning

Tel: 02 98941844, Mobile: 0413 936 299

PO Box 6002 BHBC, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153

5/15 Terminus St. Castle Hill NSW 2154

Corporate Authorised Representative of Viridian Select Pty Ltd ABN 41 621 447 345, AFSL 51572

This information has been prepared without taking account of your objectives, financial situation or needs. Because of this you should, before acting on this information, consider its appropriateness, having regard to your objectives, financial situation and needs. This website provides an overview or summary only and it should not be considered a comprehensive statement on any matter or relied upon as such.

#SMSF Alert : ATO guidance on related party SMSF loans (LRBAs) – Update


ATO guideline LRBAs

The ATO have issued long-awaited guidelines providing SMSF trustees with suggested ‘Safe Harbour’ loan terms on which trustees may use to structure a related party Limited Recourse Borrowing Arrangement (LRBA) consistent with dealing at arm’s length with that related party.

By implementing these “Safe Harbour” loan terms, SMSF trustees are assured by the ATO Commissioner that

..for income tax purposes, the Commissioner accepts that an LRBA structured in accordance with this Guideline is consistent with an arm’s length dealing and that the NALI provisions do not apply purely because of the terms of the borrowing arrangement.

It is absolutely essential that all non-bank SMSF borrowing arrangements (LRBAs)  be reviewed prior now extended to 1 Jan 2017

 Where has this come from?

The ATO first released and then re-issued ATO Interpretative Decisions in 2015 (ATO ID 2015/27 and ATO ID 2015/28), dealing with Non-Arm’s Length Income(NALI) derived from listed shares and real property purchased by an SMSF under an LRBA involving a related party lender – where the terms of the loan were not deemed to be on commercial terms.

These ATOIDs state that the use of a non-arm’s length LRBA gives rise to NALI in the SMSF. Broadly, the rationale for this view is that the income derived from an investment that was purchased using a related party LRBA, where the terms of the loan are more favorable to the SMSF, is more than the income the fund would have derived if it had otherwise being dealing on an arm’s length basis.

NALI is taxed at the top marginal tax rate, currently 47% – regardless of whether the income is derived while the fund is in accumulation phase where tax is normally 15%  or in pension phase when the income would usually be tax exempt.

After that bombshell, the ATO announced that it would not take proactive compliance action from a NALI perspective against an SMSF trustee where an existing non-commercial related party LRBA was already in place, as long as such an LRBA was brought onto commercial terms or wound up by 30 June 2016.

The Nitty Gritty Details of the Safe Harbour Steps

The ATO has issued Practical Compliance Guideline PCG 2016/5. As a result, provided an SMSF trustee follows these guidelines in good faith, they can be assured that (for income tax compliance purposes) their arrangement will be taken to be consistent with an arm’s length dealing.

The ‘Safe Harbour’ provisions are for any non-bank LRBA entered into before 30 June 2016, and also those that will be entered into after 30 June 2016.

Broadly, this PCG outlines two ‘Safe Harbours’. These Safe Harbours provide the terms on which SMSF trustees may structure their LRBAs. An LRBA structured in accordance with the relevant Safe Harbour will be deemed to be consistent with an arm’s length dealing and the NALI provisions will not apply due merely to of the terms of the borrowing arrangement.

The terms of the borrowing under the LRBA must be established and maintained throughout the duration of the LRBA in accordance with the guidelines provided.

Safe Harbour 1 Safe Harbour 2
Asset Type Investment in Real Property Investment in a collection of Listed Shares or Units
Interest Rate

Note: as of 10 Jan 2019: The RBA no longer round the rates to the nearest 5 basis points.

RBA Indicator Lending Rates for banks providing standard variable housing loans for investors. Use the May rate immediately preceding the tax year.
(2015-16 year = 5.75%)(2016-17 year = 5.65%)(2017-18 year = 5.8%)(2018-19 year = 5.8%)(2019-2020 year = 5.94%)
Same as Real Property + a margin of 2%
Fixed / Variable Interest rate may be fixed or variable. Interest rate may be fixed or variable.
Term of Loan Variable interest rate loans:

Original loan – 15 year maximum loan term (both residential and commercial).

Re-financing – maximum loan term is 15 years less the duration(s) of any previous loan(s) in respect of the asset (for both residential and commercial).

Fixed interest rate loan:

Rate may be fixed for a maximum period of 5 years and must convert to a variable interest rate loan at the end of the nominated period. The total loan term cannot exceed 15 years.

For an LRBA in existence on publication of these guidelines, the trustees may adopt the rate of 5.75% as their fixed rate provided that the total period for which the interest rate is fixed does not exceed 5 years. The interest rate must convert to a variable interest rate loan at the end of the nominated period. The total loan term cannot exceed 15 years.

Variable interest rate loans:

Original loan – 7 year maximum loan term.

Re-financing – maximum loan term is 7 years less the duration(s) of any previous loan(s) in respect of the collection of assets.

Fixed interest rate loan:

Rate may be fixed up to for a maximum period of 3 years and must convert to a variable interest rate loan at the end of the nominated period. The total loan term cannot exceed 7 years.

For an LRBA in existence on publication of these guidelines, the trustees may adopt the rate of 7.75% as their fixed rate provided that the total period for which the interest rate is fixed does not exceed 3 years. The interest rate must convert to a variable interest rate loan at the end of the nominated period. The total loan cannot exceed 7 years.

Loan-Value –Ratio

LVR

Maximum 70% LVR for both commercial & residential property.
Total LVR of 70% if more than one loan.
Maximum 50% LVR.

Total LVR of 50% if more than one loan.

Security A registered mortgage over the property. A registered charge/mortgage or similar security (that provides security for loans for such assets).
Personal Guarantee Not required Not required
Nature & frequency of repayments Each repayment is to be both principal and interest.

Repayments to be made monthly.

Each repayment is to be both principal and interest.

Repayments to be made monthly.

Loan Agreement A written and executed loan agreement is required. A written and executed loan agreement is required.
Information sourced from Practical Compliance Guidelines PCG 2016/5.

Potential Trap to be aware of: Importantly, as part of this announcement, the ATO also indicated that the amount of principal and interest payments actually made with respect to a borrowing under an LRBA for the year ended 30 June 2016 must be in accordance with terms that are consistent with an arm’s length dealing.Information sourced from Practical Compliance Guidelines PCG 2016/5.

Where to find the Indicator Rate in future year:

The PGS referred to: Reserve Bank of Australia Indicator Lending Rates for banks providing standard variable housing loans for investors. Applicable rates:

  • For the 2015-16 year, the rate is 5.75%
  • For the 2016-17 year the rate is 5.65%
  • For the 2017-18 and 2018-19 years the rate is 5.8%
  • For the 2019-20 year the rate is 5.94%

For 2019-20 and later years, the rate published for May (the rate for the month of May immediately prior to the start of the relevant financial year)

It is the applicable rate under Column N of the above spreadsheet (click on link). The rate seems to have started in August 2015 but I assume we must use the May rate from now on.

In referencing the Indicator Rate you can use:
Ref: Title: Lending rates; Housing loans; Banks; Variable; Standard; Investor
Lending rates; Housing loans; Banks; Variable; Standard; Investor
Frequency: Monthly
Units: Per cent per annum
Source RBA
Publication Date 04-Apr-2016
Series ID: FILRHLBVSI

Example – Real Property taken from Practical Compliance Guideline PCG 2016/5 Example 1

A complying SMSF borrowed money under an LRBA, using the funds to acquire commercial property valued at $500,000 on 1 July 2011.

  1. The borrower is the SMSF trustee.
  2. The lender is an SMSF member’s father (a related party).
  3. A holding trust has been established, and the holding trust trustee is the legal owner of the property until the borrowing is repaid.

The loan has the following features:

  1. the total amount borrowed is $500,000
  2. the SMSF met all the costs associated with purchasing the property from existing fund assets.
  3. the loan is interest free
  4. the principal is repayable at the end of the term of the loan, but may be repaid earlier if the SMSF chooses to do so
  5. the term of the loan is 25 years
  6. the lender’s recourse against the SMSF is limited to the rights relating to the property held in the holding trust, and
  7. the loan agreement is in writing.

Consistent with ATO ID 2015/27 and ATO ID 2015/28, the LRBA is not considered to have been established or maintained on arm’s length terms. The income earned from the property, which is rented to an unrelated party, will give rise to NALI.

At 1 July 2015, the property was valued at $643,000, and the SMSF has not repaid any of the principal since the loan commenced.

To avoid having to report NALI for the 2015-16 year (and prior years) the Fund has a number of options.

Option 1 – Alter the terms of the loan to meet guidelines

The SMSF and the lender could alter the terms of the loan arrangement to meet Safe Harbour 1 (for real property).

To bring the terms of the loan into line with this Safe Harbour, the trustees of the SMSF must ensure that:

  1. The 70% LVR is met (in this case, the value of the property at 1 July 2015 may be used).

Based on a property valuation of $643,000 at 1 July 2015, the maximum the SMSF can borrow is $450,100. The SMSF needs to repay $49,900 of principal as soon as practical before 30 June 2016.

  1. The loan term cannot exceed 11 years from 1 July 2015.

The SMSF must recognise that the loan commenced 4 years earlier. An additional 11 years would not exceed the maximum 15 year term.

  1. The SMSF can use a variable interest rate. Alternatively, it can alter the terms of the loan to use a fixed rate of interest for a period that ensures the total period for which the rate of interest is fixed does not exceed 5 years. The loan must convert to a variable interest rate loan at the end of the nominated period.

The interest rate of 5.75% applies for 2015-16 and 5.65% p.a. applies from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017. The SMSF trustee must determine and pay the appropriate amount of principal and interest payable for the year. This calculation must take the opening balance of $500,000, the remaining term of 11 years, and the timing of the $49,900 capital repayment, into account.

  1. After 1 July 2016, the new LRBA must continue under terms complying with the ATO’s guidelines relating to real property at all times.

For example, the SMSF must ensure that it updates the interest rate used for the loan on 1 July each year (if variable) or as appropriate (if fixed), and make monthly principal and interest repayments accordingly.

Option 2 – Refinance through a commercial lender

The fund could refinance the LRBA with a commercial lender, extinguish the original arrangement and pay the associated costs.

While the original loan remains in place during the 2015-16 income year, the SMSF must ensure that the terms of the loan are consistent with an arm’s length dealing, and relevant amounts of principal and interest are paid to the original lender.

The SMSF may choose to apply the terms set out under Safe Harbour 1 to calculate the amounts of principal and interest to be paid to the original lender for the relevant part of the 2015-16 year.

Option 3 – Payout the LRBA

The SMSF may decide to repay the loan to the related party, and bring the LRBA to an end before 30 June 2016.

While the original loan remains in place during the 2015-16 income year, the SMSF must ensure that the terms of the loan are consistent with an arm’s length dealing, and the relevant amounts of principal and interest are paid to the original lender.

The SMSF may choose to apply the terms set out under Safe Harbour 1 to calculate the amounts of principal and interest to be paid to the original lender for the relevant part of the 2015-16 year.

Each option will have many advantages and disadvantages – so it is important to understand what the practical implications of each option are, and how physically you will approach each option. Seek specialised advice on this matter as it is not a strategy suitable for DIY implementation

Important Note to 13.22C or Unrelated Unit Trust Investors

The guidelines provided in this PCG are not applicable to an SMSF LRBA involving an investment in an unlisted company or unit trust (e.g. where a related party LRBA has been entered into to acquire a collection of units in an unrelated private trust or a 13.22C compliant trust). As such, trustees who have entered into such an arrangement will have no option but to benchmark their particular loan arrangement based on commercial loan terms, or to bring the LRBA to an end.

Please visit out SMSF Property page to get details on all available strategies for SMSF property investors.

UPDATE (Relief for those caught by Budget measures)

In a letter to an industry association, the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, has outlined transitional arrangements to allow additional non-concessional contributions above the proposed lifetime limit in certain limited circumstances. Contributions made in the following circumstances may be permitted without causing a breach of the lifetime cap:

  • where the trustees of a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) have entered into a contract to purchase an asset prior to 3 May 2016 that completes after this date and non-concessional contributions were planned to be made to complete the contract of sale. Non-concessional contributions will be permitted only to allow the contract to complete provided they are within the relevant non-concessional cap that was applicable prior to Budget night, and
  • where additional contributions are made in order to comply with the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) Practical Compliance Guideline (PCG) 2016/5 related to limited recourse borrowing arrangements, provided they are made prior to 31 January 2017.

Additional non-concessional contributions made under these proposed transitional arrangements will count towards the lifetime cap, but will not result in an excess.

I hope this guidance has been helpful and please take the time to comment. Feedback always appreciated. Please reblog, retweet, like on Facebook etc to make sure we get the news out there. As always please contact me if you want to look at your own options. We have offices in Castle Hill and Windsor but can meet clients anywhere in Sydney or via Skype. Click here for appointment options.

Liam Shorte B.Bus SSA™ AFP

Financial Planner & SMSF Specialist Advisor™

SMSF Specialist Adviser 

 Follow SMSFCoach on Twitter Liam Shorte on Linkedin NextGen Wealth on Facebook   

Verante Financial Planning

Tel: 02 98941844, Mobile: 0413 936 299

PO Box 6002 BHBC, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153

5/15 Terminus St. Castle Hill NSW 2154

Corporate Authorised Representative of Viridian Select Pty Ltd ABN 41 621 447 345, AFSL 51572

This information has been prepared without taking account of your objectives, financial situation or needs. Because of this you should, before acting on this information, consider its appropriateness, having regard to your objectives, financial situation and needs. This website provides an overview or summary only and it should not be considered a comprehensive statement on any matter or relied upon as such.

SMSF Using an Unrelated Unit Trust for Property Development


Following on from my previous article How a SMSF can Purchase a Property with a Related Party – Using a 13.22c Trust , another strategy for those wishing to engage in property development with their SMSF involvement is for the fund trustee to invest in a unit trust that holds the development land / existing property by subscribing for units in the unit trust with partners so that no related entity group owns more than 50% of the units in the trust.

Propert Development

Where the fund trustee invests in an unrelated trust the trustee for the unit trust is not required to comply with the requirements of regulation 13.22C of the SIS Regulations. This means that the trustee for the unit trust can borrow to fund the land development without the fund trustee breaching the in-house asset rules in s71 of the SIS Act.

To make it very clear the unit trust will be unrelated if the fund trustee and its associates do not:

  • exercise Sufficient Influence; or
  • have a fixed entitlement to more than 50% of the income and capital of the unit trust; or
  • have the power to remove or appoint the trustee for the unit trust.

So each SMSF or related group of investors can own exactly 50% in combination between them and still maintain an unrelated trust and meet the above requirements.

Keep it simple as it  is important that the units in the unit trust carry equal rights to income and capital so that you do not also trigger the non arm’s length income provisions under s295-550 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (1997 Act).

The diagram below shows 2 unrelated Self Managed Superannuation Funds investing in a unit trust equally (50/50) to carry out a property development. One of the SMSFs uses as related party loan to fund their purchase of the units. Remember it is only the units that are offered as security not the property in the trust.

Unrelated Unit Trust

Each SMSF contributes $350,000 and the property is developed for a total cost of $700,000 and sold for $1m. The$300,000 profit flow back through the Unit Trust to the unit holders equally.

Sufficient Influence

Where two unrelated SMSFs each hold 50% of the units in the unit trust, it is important that the trust management decisions are decided on a 50/50 basis. It should be very clear from documentation and minutes of the trust that decisions are made jointly.

How to avoid distributions to the SMSF being treated as non-arm’s length income?

Where the SMSF invests by way of a unit trust structure, any income received by the fund trustee may be treated as non arm’s length income and taxed at 47% under s295-550(5) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (1997 Act), where:

  • the parties are not dealing at arm’s length terms; and
  • the fund trustee receives an amount it would not otherwise have received if the parties were dealing on arm’s length terms.

Similarly, income the SMSF derives as a beneficiary of the trust, other than because of a fixed entitlement to income, will be treated as non arm’s length income and taxed at 47%.

Therefore, it is important to ensure that the unit trust is a fixed trust, meaning that the entitlement of unit holders to receive income and/or capital from the unit trust is fixed and indefeasible. However, even with a fixed trust it is necessary for the income to be no more than the income that would have been derived if the parties were dealing with each other at arms-length (s295-550(5)).

Managing powers of trustee appointment or removal

Again to avoid falling foul of the legislation, the constitution of the trustee company of the unit trust should be designed to ensure that the SMSF trustee and/or its associates do not have the power to control the trustee by effectively having the power to appoint and remove the trustee for the unit trust by reason that they hold a majority of the shares in the trustee. One trap is a constitution that allows the chairperson to have a casting vote where the chairperson is a SMSF Trustee or representative of the SMSF trustee.

Documentation

When the transaction is structured by way of an unrelated unit trust arrangement, the following documents should be prepared by an experienced legal expert (not off the shelf):

  • purpose specific unit trust deed and accompanying minutes of meeting; and
  • unit holders’ agreement all ensuring none of the requirements breached..

Gradual acquisitions of more units by the SMSF

Where a fund trustee invests in an unrelated unit trust the fund trustee may acquire the units held by the other party over time, subject to complying with the provisions of the SIS Act and keeping their related entity group to less than 50% of the overall trust units.  Keep in mind that where the unit trust is land rich, there may be a corresponding stamp duty liability and there may be capital gains tax implications for the initial owner as well as valuation fees at each transaction date.

Remember the Sole Purpose Test

In the zest for undertaking any strategy I always remind clients about the reason for undertaking any investment. Your aim should be to provide for a better retirement. If that is not the core purpose then you are breaching the sole purpose test and should reconsider the whole strategy. Also you must review or amend your fund’s investment strategy to ensure this investment falsl within it’s guidelines..

Important information (emphasised for use of this material):

The information in this article is provided for illustrative purposes only and does not take into consideration your personal circumstances. You are encouraged to seek financial, tax and legal advice suitable to your circumstances to avoid a decision that is not appropriate. Any reference to your actual circumstances is coincidental. Magnitude, Verante and its representatives receive fees from the provision of financial advice.

Are you looking for an advisor that will keep you up to date and provide guidance and tips like in this blog? then why now contact me at our Castle Hill or Windsor office in Northwest Sydney to arrange a one on one consultation. Just click the Schedule Now button up on the left to find the appointment options.

Liam Shorte B.Bus SSA™ AFP

Financial Planner & SMSF Specialist Advisor™

SMSF Specialist Adviser 

 Follow SMSFCoach on Twitter Liam Shorte on Linkedin NextGen Wealth on Facebook   

Verante Financial Planning

Tel: 02 98941844, Mobile: 0413 936 299

PO Box 6002 BHBC, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153

5/15 Terminus St. Castle Hill NSW 2154

Corporate Authorised Representative of Magnitude Group Pty Ltd ABN 54 086 266 202, AFSL 221557

This information has been prepared without taking account of your objectives, financial situation or needs. Because of this you should, before acting on this information, consider its appropriateness, having regard to your objectives, financial situation and needs. This website provides an overview or summary only and it should not be considered a comprehensive statement on any matter or relied upon as such.

Image courtesy of hywards at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Benefits Of Transferring A Business Property In To Your SMSF – Superannuation Strategy


Years after the 2008 financial crisis and some people have been slow to regain confidence in the share markets and low cash and term deposit interest rates leave them cold. A growing number of people have considered shifting their superannuation to the more self- directed option of a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF). Business Real Property

Small to Medium Business owners have always been at the forefront of adopting SMSFs and they have been particularly interested in this rapidly growing area for greater control of their superannuation savings and the flexibility of investments allowed in a SMSF structure. However the ability to either transfer their business premises into their SMSF via a contribution or sale, depending on their cash flow circumstances, has been attractive to many business owners.

Current legislation governing SMSFs, the SIS Act, allows a SMSF to acquire only three types of assets from the members or a related party. These assets are business real property, widely held managed funds and listed securities (shares).

Business real property is best defined as “any freehold or leasehold interest of the entity in real property where the real property is used wholly and exclusively in one or more businesses (whether carried on by the business or not).” This definition does not allow much leeway so you should seek professional advice to ensure that your property satisfies the requirements of the “wholly and exclusively” business use test and meets the definition of business real property prior to implementing this strategy

Benefits:

  1. Release equity to build the business – you can access superannuation funds to help fund business growth prior to retirement by way of a cash purchase by the SMSF.
  2. Tax minimisation – the property moves in to the concessionally taxed superannuation environment; 15% tax rate while members are in accumulation phase or exempt from tax when members are in pension phase.,
  3. Asset Protection – to protect the value of the business real property in the event of bankruptcy, litigation or changes to your industry destroying your market.
  4. Build funds for retirement – you have a bricks and mortar investment to boost your retirement funds earning market rent at concessional rates with the ability to avoid any CGT if sold later.
  5. If you are seeking new premises then buying in your super fund allows you the security of tenure that comes with being your own landlord.
  6. Helps in preparing a business for transfer or sale. If the new owner or family members cannot afford to buy the business and the property, you can sell the business premises and lease them the property.

Risks:

  1. You should always ensure the strategy meets the Sole Purpose test of providing for your retirement. It should stack up as a stand-alone investment in  its own right.
  2. If your business should fail and you can no longer lease the premises the you are hit with a double whammy with no income in your personal name and possibly an asset that is hard to lease to a new third-party
  3. While it may be a sound investment now, things may change and your company may outgrow the premises leaving you again with a commercial property that may be hard to sell to extract equity for your next move.
  4. Commercial, retail and industrial property is often a good income orientated investment with income well above that available from residential property but rarely sees the same degree of capital growth. You need to be aware of the trade-off and a diversified portfolio should be considered.
  5. Once you are in pension phase you will need to fund pensions so you need to ensure liquidity in the fund. This is fine while rented or you can make contributions but remember if not working after age 65 you cannot make further contributions to help with liquidity.

Transfers of business real property purchased from related parties must be transferred at current market value as if the transaction was to occur on an arm’s length basis. This requirement allows for very little manipulation of the market value and heavy penalties could apply if any transfer value didn’t stand up to audit and ATO scrutiny.

So you have three or more options when it comes to the strategy. Your SMSF can buy the property utilising cash currently within the SMSF as a normal purchase. If your fund does not have enough cash then you can look at using a Limited Recourse Borrowing Arrangement to borrow the shortfall. More details on that strategy can be found here.

Alternatively, you can structure the deal as an in-specie transfer (a contribution of an asset, in this case property, instead of cash). You are still subject to member contribution caps but we have moved properties worth up to $500,000 in for couples and $1,000,000 where the SMSF had 4 members using a combination of concessional contributions limits and the 3-year bring forward rule on non-concessional limits.

You may also be able to use the Small Business CGT concessions in conjunction with a short term LRBA to move a property of up to $1.445,000 in to the fund with careful planning.

The whole deal has been sweetened by the fact that a number of the State Revenue Offices including NSW OSR have allowed concessional stamp duty stamp ($500) on in-specie property transfers whereby no cash has changed hands. This stamp duty saving can make transferring the business premises into a SMSF much more attractive. It should be noted that stamp duty is a state tax with no uniformity between states. Please seek legal advice always when dealing with stamp duty on property transfers and tax advice when moving assets between entities.

Remember the core philosophy behind Superannuation is that they must adhere to the Sole Purpose Test. While a strategy may help your business currently, its primary goal should be to provide for your retirement so the investment should always stand up as a viable investment regardless of your internal lease arrangements.
Check out the most common mistakes people make when dealing with property, borrowing and a SMSF here:

Property through super in a SMSF – Part 3: 20 most common mistakes

SMSF Borrowing: What Can I Do With An Investment Property Within The Rules.

Stamp Duty on Transfers of Property to an SMSF as at 01 Jan 2015

Keep updated by putting an email address in on the left hand column and pressing the “Sign me up!” button. 

Are you looking for an advisor that will keep you up to date and provide guidance and tips like in this blog? then why now contact me at our Castle Hill or Windsor office in Northwest Sydney to arrange a one on one consultation. Just click the Schedule Now button up on the left to find the appointment options.

Bye for now.

Liam Shorte B.Bus SSA™ AFP

Financial Planner & SMSF Specialist Advisor™

SMSF Specialist Adviser 

 Follow SMSFCoach on Twitter Liam Shorte on Linkedin NextGen Wealth on Facebook   

Verante Financial Planning

Tel: 02 98941844, Mobile: 0413 936 299

PO Box 6002 BHBC, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153

5/15 Terminus St. Castle Hill NSW 2154

Corporate Authorised Representative of Viridian Select Pty Ltd ABN 41 621 447 345, AFSL 51572

This information has been prepared without taking account of your objectives, financial situation or needs. Because of this you should, before acting on this information, consider its appropriateness, having regard to your objectives, financial situation and needs. This website provides an overview or summary only and it should not be considered a comprehensive statement on any matter or relied upon as such.

Landlords Insurance – a must for your SMSF Property


I trained in General Insurance in the UK after my Graduation and much of that time was in the complaints, claims and product design departments. So I know how things go wrong when people take out unsuitable policies or under-insure their properties. 24 years later and  nothing has changed, so I have been recommending people use a General Insurance Broker if they are inexperienced,  lack confidence or want help and advice about insuring their business, liability or property assets.

That brings me to the title of this blog and I asked my preferred Insurance Broker here in the Hills District of Sydney, who operates countrywide, to explain the insurance requirements for an SMSF buying property

Don’t skimp on your insurances because when the time comes and you have a claim, you won’t be congratulating yourself on how much money you saved on your insurance premiums.

If you have purchased property in your SMSF it is important for you to take the correct steps to insure your investment.

If you borrow against the assets in your SMSF the mortgagor will require you to have adequate cover for the asset and for the Liability obligations of the SMSF. If the assets of the fund cover the purchase in full however you are still required as Trustee of the fund to correctly insure the funds interests. The fund is not permitted to “self-insure” any assets or property. The ATO has strict guidelines regarding the duties and obligations of SMSF trustees so it is important to get your insurance program right.

The question arises: who takes out the property insurance and landlord’s protection insurance, the SMSF Trustee or the Holding Trustee? I refer to this content from Towsends Law on the matter

SMSF Trustee
The SMSF Trustee is entitled to take out insurances for the property as the Fund is liable under the loan and is also absolutely entitled to the benefit of the Property. 

As the Fund is ultimately the party that is detrimentally affected should anything happen to the Property, the SMSF Trustee should ensure that the Fund is able to claim for any damage that might occur.

Holding Trustee
The Holding Trustee is the legal owner of the land and is entitled to insure the property against damage, and likewise for landlord insurance.  Some lenders may also insist that the registered proprietor of the property holds an insurance policy for the property.

But it is important to keep in mind the nature of the arrangement between the SMSF Trustee and Holding Trustee should insurance be taken out by the Holding Trustee.  

As the Holding Trustee is a bare trustee it must make sure that it does not take any action unless it is directed to do so by the Fund Trustee, who is absolutely entitled to the Property.  This direction by the Fund Trustee should be done formally and in writing and confirmed by the Holding Trustee executing minutes to confirm this action.
 
Final Decision
The final answer is that both the Holding Trustee and the SMSF Trustee have an insurable interest in the land and that both are eligible to be the owner of the property insurance and landlord’s protection insurance over the property.  

In both instances all amounts payable in respect of the insurance should be paid by the Fund Trustee. Obviously the Holding Trustee must hold any policy proceeds on trust for the SMSF.

From a purely administrative position it would be easier for the SMSF to hold the insurances to avoid the constant but mandatory interplay between the SMSF and its bare trustee the Holding Trustee.  But the insurance company may have its own requirements as might the Fund’s Lender.

So our preference is to have all insurances for the SMSF in the name of the fund. You cannot have personal items or assets listed on a policy in your funds name, and likewise you cannot have your fund’s assets listed on a personal policy for some of your personal assets.

As with all insurances, you really do get what you pay for. The more optional extras you include in your policy the more protection you will have. Let’s go through a fairly standard Landlords Insurance policy and give some simple definitions of each section. Like your personal household insurance policy your landlord’s policy will have cover for both your Building and for your Contents. These are fairly standard; however it is important to read the definitions to determine which items come under which section of cover. You may be in for a surprise if you haven’t studied the wording properly.

Where a Landlords Insurance policy differs in comparison to your standard household insurance is in the additional covers offered.

  • Loss of Rent – This is to cover your lost income if you have a claim under your building and contents cover, and the property becomes uninhabitable as a result.
  • Strata Title Mortgagee’s Protection – This covers the mortgagee named in the Schedule as if they were “You” on the same terms as Section1 against physical loss or physical damage caused by any of the Defined Events (it does not include the Additional Benefits).
  • Deliberate Damage and/or Theft by Tenants – Cover for physical damage arising from deliberate, intentional or malicious acts and acts of theft to the Building or Contents by the Tenant.
  • Tenant Default – This cover if for loss of rent, payable by the Tenant, which arises from damage covered under the Deliberate Damage/Theft by Tenant section above or from breach of a written Lease agreement.

Chances are you’ve worked hard at acquiring your assets and building your Super for your retirement. Don’t skimp on your insurances because when the time comes and you have a claim, you won’t be congratulating yourself on how much money you saved on your insurance premiums. Instead you will be hoping your insurance policy will respond to your claim.

If you’re at all unsure on what you need, talk to an Insurance Broker. If you don’t know an insurance broker, then speak to the people you trust with your Investments and your accounts because they should be able to put you in touch with an Insurance broker they trust.

For more information please don’t hesitate to contact me.

The SMSF Coach or Verante Financial Planning do not request or receive any commissions or referral fees from recommending services from Insurance brokers, we just want the best professional advice for our clients.

For more detail on Investing in Property through an SMSF check out our previous articles

Property through super in a SMSF – Part 1: Background

Property through super in a SMSF – Part 2: The Process

Property through super in a SMSF – Part 3: 20 most common mistakes

SMSF Borrowing: What Can I Do With An Investment Property Within The Rules.

Can I borrow to buy a house and land package off the plan in my SMSF?

Keep updated by putting an email address in on the left hand column and pressing the “Sign me up!” button. Happy to take comments in the section below.

Bye for now.

Liam Shorte B.Bus SSA™ AFP

Financial Planner & SMSF Specialist Advisor™

SMSF Specialist Adviser 

 Follow SMSFCoach on Twitter Liam Shorte on Linkedin NextGen Wealth on Facebook   

Verante Financial Planning

Tel: 02 98941844, Mobile: 0413 936 299

PO Box 6002 BHBC, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153

5/15 Terminus St. Castle Hill NSW 2154

Corporate Authorised Representative of Viridian Select Pty Ltd ABN 41 621 447 345, AFSL 51572

This information has been prepared without taking account of your objectives, financial situation or needs. Because of this you should, before acting on this information, consider its appropriateness, having regard to your objectives, financial situation and needs. This website provides an overview or summary only and it should not be considered a comprehensive statement on any matter or relied upon as such.

Buying a Property for your SMSF – Why Use a Buyers Agent


I openly admit that I am not an expert in choosing properties (indeed my own personal history with property investing is dismal to say the least!). I work on the structure and strategy with my clients and recommend they do their own in-depth property research or lately I have been recommending people use a Buyer’s Agent if they are inexperienced or lack confidence or want help and advice but need to know that person is working 100% on their behalf.

That brings me to the title of this blog and I asked a local Buyer’s Agent here in the Hills District of Sydney who operates countrywide to explain the role and benefits of a Buyer’s Agent.  So here is our first Guest Post from Louis Fourie of My Choice Properties – Property Investment Advice | Buyers Advocacy | Real Estate Consulting

“Empowering clients to make the right choices!” –

My Choice Properties

Louis Fourie Property Advisor & Buyers Agent

Searching or looking for a home to live in or investing in property, could at best be an intimidating experience. You wouldn’t invest half a million dollars in a business without a strategy or without a business plan, then why would you invest that, or even more, into a property without a plan or strategy? With a process of consultation we determine what clients really need to reach their own personal property goals. Through step by step professional guidance we determine a strategy suitable to our clients needs and finally implement that strategy, finding the home or investment property that credibly suits the designed and agreed personal property strategy.

Why use us as your Property Investment Advisor and Buyers Agent:

  1. We work exclusively for the Property Investor/Home Buyer. We have no alliances with any real estate agencies, selling agents or property developers and we fight for our buyers! There’s a clear distinction between our services and those of selling agents. We don’t sell property, have no ‘stock lists’ and as exclusive buyer’s agent, we only act for the buyer not the seller.
  2. We give our clients choice and by doing independent research and providing professional guidance, we empower our clients to make the right choice and purchase their ideal property at the right price. You don’t have to rich and famous to use our services. We will save you money, time and stress, whatever your budget.
  3. We save our clients heartache. No more the need to try to figure out if my friends ‘advice’ at the BBQ to invest in that ‘hot’ area is credible or not! Believe it or not, but 80% of mistakes that’s made in investing in real estate are made at the buying stage.
  4. We are a fee for service organization and any potential commissions, discounts or fees that we could get back for our clients from developers or vendors; we diligently negotiate back for our clients as far as its possible, often resulting in our clients getting much better return in dollars than what they paid us for our professional services in the first place! This saving could often run into the tens of thousands of dollars or much more. We absolutely do not accept any sales commission or incentives from vendors, builders or developers. We are truly independent.
  5. We will not refer our clients to service providers that don’t have their best interest at heart. We have created a safe environment for property buyers with like-minded people all focused not on: ‘What’s in it for me’, but on: ‘What’s in the best interest of my client’.
  6. We carry appropriate and adequate Professional Indemnity insurance for the services we provide and are fully licensed real estate agents.

Why not build your property portfolio on good foundations? Make your next property acquisition an informed one.

For more information please contact:

Louis Fourie 

Managing Director -My Choice Properties Pty Limited

Tel 1300 24 21 12 | Mobile 0488 907 421

louis@mychoiceproperties.com.au

www.mychoiceproperties.com.au

The SMSF Coach or Verante Financial Planning do not request or receive any commissions or referral fees from recommending services like Louis’, we just want the best professional advice for our clients.

For more detail on Investing in Property through an SMSF check out our previous articles

Property through super in a SMSF – Part 1: Background

Property through super in a SMSF – Part 2: The Process

Property through super in a SMSF – Part 3: 20 most common mistakes

SMSF Borrowing: What Can I Do With An Investment Property Within The Rules.

Can I borrow to buy a house and land package off the plan in my SMSF?

Keep updated by putting an email address in on the left hand column and pressing the “Sign me up!” button. Happy to take comments in the section below.

Bye for now.

Liam Shorte B.Bus SSA™ AFP

Financial Planner & SMSF Specialist Advisor™

SMSF Specialist Adviser 

 Follow SMSFCoach on Twitter Liam Shorte on Linkedin NextGen Wealth on Facebook   

Verante Financial Planning

Tel: 02 98941844, Mobile: 0413 936 299

PO Box 6002 BHBC, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153

5/15 Terminus St. Castle Hill NSW 2154

Corporate Authorised Representative of Viridian Select Pty Ltd ABN 41 621 447 345, AFSL 51572

This information has been prepared without taking account of your objectives, financial situation or needs. Because of this you should, before acting on this information, consider its appropriateness, having regard to your objectives, financial situation and needs. This website provides an overview or summary only and it should not be considered a comprehensive statement on any matter or relied upon as such.

%d bloggers like this: