Don’t let a buyer’s agent’s marketing campaign become your retirement strategy

Existing arrangements are not expected to be unwound, and from what I understand, chatting with accountants, you need to ensure the contract for a property is entered into before the date (10 August), not whether settlement has occurred by then. That is an important distinction.

It means there is still a window for investors who already have their SMSF structure in place, have appropriate advice, have borrowing capacity, and have a suitable property ready to go. You may even be able to set up an SMSF before then.

But it is a very narrow window. And narrow windows can create bad behaviour.

Don’t cut corners

I know for a fact that some mortgage brokers are having record months. They are working around the clock to get SMSF residential property loans assessed, approved, and documented before the cut-off. I am also hearing that accountants are burning the midnight oil, helping clients establish or finalise SMSF structures so they can move quickly. That is understandable.

A rule change of this size creates urgency. It forces people to act. It compresses months of decision-making into weeks. It turns something that should be considered, measured, and strategic into something that can feel like a race against the clock. And that is exactly where the danger sits.

Owning residential property in an SMSF can be a good strategy for the right investor, with the right structure, the right advice, the right asset, and the right long-term plan. I have residential property in my SMSF, but it is not right for everyone.

The fact that the government is closing the door on new residential SMSF borrowing does not automatically mean everyone should try to rush through that door before it shuts. That is the mistake some people are at risk of making.

An SMSF is not just a buying vehicle. It is a regulated retirement structure. It comes with trustee obligations, compliance requirements, investment strategy considerations, liquidity issues, related-party rules, documentation requirements, and ongoing administration.

Critically, it requires advice. Proper advice. Not just a quick call with a broker. Not just a conversation with a buyer’s agent. Not just a spreadsheet that shows a property growing at a neat percentage every year.

I’m not qualified to provide financial advice, but speaking generally investors need to understand why they are setting up an SMSF, whether the structure suits their retirement strategy, whether they have enough superannuation balance to make it work (or can even roll it over into the fund in time), whether they can handle the costs, whether they have sufficient liquidity and whether the property they are buying actually fits the fund’s investment strategy.

This is not the time to shortcut financial advice. It is not the time to cut corners on accounting advice. It is not the time to ignore legal advice. And it is absolutely not the time to compromise on asset selection.

That is the point I want to make most clearly.

Don’t get stuck with a poor-performing property

A deadline does not turn a bad property into a good one. A ban does not turn a second-rate asset into a strategic retirement investment. And urgency does not override the fundamentals of property investing.

I am hearing a lot about buyer’s agents moving aggressively in this market. Some are pushing hard on the message that investors need to act before it is too late. I am seeing the emails. Many investors are probably seeing the same thing.

“Hurry.” “Last chance.” “Don’t miss out.” “SMSF borrowing is ending.”

That may be technically true, but it is also an environment where investors need to be extremely careful.

There are no endless great off-market deals sitting around waiting to be snapped up in a 45-day window post royal assent.

Good assets are still hard to find. Proper due diligence still matters, location still matters, land component still matters, tenant demand still matters, cash flow still matters, and future saleability still matters.

The basic rules of property investment have not changed simply because the clock is ticking. In fact, they matter more.

I have heard some very ordinary stories about some of the properties being presented by buyer’s agents to investors in this current rush. Properties that would not ordinarily pass the sniff test are suddenly being dressed up as “opportunities” because they come with a deadline attached. That should make investors nervous. That should make you nervous. It makes me nervous.

Some of these properties may be poor-quality assets. Some may be in inferior locations. Some may have too much maintenance risk. Some may require too much capital expenditure. Some may not be suitable for an SMSF structure at all. This last point is critical.

SMSF property is not the same as buying an investment property in your own name or another structure outside of an SMSF. There are strict rules around what can and cannot be done. A property that requires substantial improvements, renovation or rectification may create problems if the fund does not have the available capital, or if the works are not permissible under the borrowing structure.

Generally speaking, investors must understand the difference between repairs and improvements. They must understand liquidity. They must understand whether the fund can meet ongoing costs. They must understand what happens if the property sits vacant, if interest rates move, if insurance costs rise, if strata costs jump, or if the asset needs major work.

A poor property bought in haste inside an SMSF can become a long-term trap. And unlike some other investment decisions, unwinding it may not be simple.

There is another risk investors need to keep front of mind: lending.

Your debt strategy is just as important as the asset itself

Right now, there is a rush to get SMSF loans into the system. That is understandable. Brokers want to help clients. Lenders want to write business while they still can. Investors want to secure their position before the door closes.

But investors need to be very clear-eyed about the quality of the lending process. They need to know the valuation is sound. They need to know the debt level is appropriate. They need to know the repayments are sustainable. They need to know the fund has enough liquidity. They need to know what happens when the loan matures.

And they need to think very carefully about refinance risk.

Because once new residential SMSF borrowing is banned, the lending market may change. It may become narrower. It may become less competitive. Some lenders may pull back. Some may reprice. Some may jack up rates outside the normal Reserve Bank cycle because the market is smaller, less liquid and less competitive. It’s happened before. That matters.

You do not want to rush into an SMSF property loan today only to discover later that you are stuck with a lender, stuck with an uncompetitive rate, or stuck with a refinancing problem.

Investors also need to understand that existing does not always mean flexible. Just because a loan is in place does not mean the future lending environment will be easy, or even guaranteed. Before signing a contract, investors should be asking serious questions about what the lending market may look like in three, five or seven years. For example, can the loan be refinanced, on what terms, with which lenders and at what rate?

What happens if the value comes in lower than expected? What happens if serviceability rules tighten? What happens if the fund’s balance changes?

These are not minor questions. They go to the heart of whether the strategy is sustainable.

The same applies to the SMSF itself. For investors who already have an SMSF established, already have an investment strategy, already have advice, and already have the structure in motion, this deadline may be manageable.

For those starting from scratch, it is a much bigger task. Setting up an SMSF should not be treated like opening an online bank account. It is a major retirement decision. It affects how your super is managed, who is responsible, what compliance obligations exist and how investment decisions are made.

I just got off the phone with my accountant Alexander Laureti from LMS Advisory (it’s 2pm on Wednesday, 8 July) to see whether a fund can be set up from scratch in order to arrange for a property purchase (with connected finance under an LBRA arrangement) before the cut-off date.

He said it can be done, but was quick to highlight all the risks I’m outlining in this article. He’s actually qualified to provide financial advice, and he suggested there would need to be a good case to move so quickly. He reminded me, however, that commercial property can still be purchased inside an SMSF under the LBRA regime. I have commercial property also in my SMSF.

He did flag that if someone is only setting up an SMSF because a buyer’s agent told them there is a property they need to buy before 10 August, that should be a red flag.

The order matters: strategy first, structure second, asset selection third, and execution last. Don’t put the cart before the horse.

The sequence matters

Right now, there is a risk that some investors are doing it backwards. They are being shown a property first. Then they are being encouraged to set up the SMSF. Then they are being pushed to find the finance. Then they are trying to reverse-engineer the advice around a decision that has already been emotionally made. That is not how serious investors operate.

In time, I suspect there will be a reckoning from this period. There will be people who rushed into SMSFs they should never have established. There will be people who bought properties that were not appropriate for their funds. There will be people who ignored advice, skipped steps or took comfort from the fact that “everyone else was doing it”.

There will be compliance problems. There will be liquidity problems. There will be asset-quality problems. There will be refinancing problems.

And there will be some investors who look back and realise they let a deadline make a decision for them.

That does not mean residential property in an SMSF is bad. It is not. For some investors, it can be an excellent long-term wealth-building and retirement strategy. It can provide exposure to a tangible asset. It can offer control. It can help diversify retirement savings. It can work very well when the fund is properly structured, the advice is right, the debt is manageable, and the asset is high quality.

But that is the key.

It has to be done properly. The property still has to be the right property. The numbers still have to stack up. The advice still has to be robust. The fund still has to be compliant. The lending still has to be sustainable. And the decision still has to make sense after the urgency has passed.

The worst reason to buy a property is that someone told you that time is running out. The best reason to buy a property is that it fits your strategy, it is underpinned by sound fundamentals, the structure is appropriate, the risk is understood, and the long-term outcome is clear.

That has not changed.

So, yes, the clock is ticking. Yes, the 10 August date matters. Yes, there is still a window for some investors.

But the basics of property investment do not disappear because legislation has created a deadline. So don’t get swept up in the wave, do not let fear of missing out replace due diligence, do not let a buyer’s agent’s marketing campaign become your retirement strategy and do not let a lender’s appetite become your risk-management plan.

And do not compromise on the quality of the asset simply because the opportunity to borrow through an SMSF is about to change.

Property investment has always rewarded discipline. SMSF property investment demands even more of it. The investors who get this right will be the ones who move quickly, but not recklessly. They will use the right advisers. They will follow the right process. They will test the numbers. They will scrutinise the asset. They will understand the structure. They will know why they are doing it.

Everyone else should pause. Because missing a deadline may hurt, but buying the wrong property, in the wrong structure – with the wrong advice – can hurt a lot more.

Phillip Tarrant is CEO of Managed, a podcast host, and an investor and property commentator. Follow him on LinkedIn.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make Smart Property Investment a preferred news source on Google.
Click here to add Smart Property Investment as a preferred news source.

Tags:

• Latest
• SMSF

Share