Shopping cart0 Items in Your cart
|
The Cooper Review into Self Managed Superannuation - What It May Mean for Australia's Rare Coin Market
Submited by andrew on Tue, 13/07/2010
If you haven't been following the financial news in Australia over the past few months, you may not have heard of the Cooper Review into Australia's superannuation system. The Cooper Review Panel has made no less than several hundred recommendations about the way that our superannuation system should run, easily the most relevant to those of us involved in the rare coin market are those that advise the Commonwealth Goverment to prevent SMSF trustees from investing in "exotic" assets such as art, rare coins and the like. So if these recommendations are enacted, not only will those Australians that have started up a self managed super fund be prevented from investing in such assets in future, in addition to that, any such assets already held will need to be sold within a five year period. As a member of ANDA's Cooper Review Sub-Committee, I've spent a bit of time over the past few weeks digesting the Review's contents; mulling over possible amendments that might be made to ensure a complete ban wasn't necessary to meet the Cooper Review Panel's (assumed) objectives, and determining what the likely consequences will be if any one of a number of scenarios play out, and have to say that it's been a torrid time! In my opinion, there are so many assumptions, misconceptions and errors in the information published by and attributed to the Cooper Review, I find it hard to accept the recommendations that have been made. The following cartoon captures a lot of the irony in the decision made by Cooper in relation to SMSF's investing in tangible assets such as rare coins and art.
That single incongruity is an indication of the widespread disbelief regarding the Cooper Review's recommendations. Geraldine Doogue, of the Breakfast program on ABC Radio National, interviewed just Mr Cooper last week, I thought that several of his comments during that interview were rather telling. The most alarming of them was: "If you want to buy paintings then do it outside your superannuation fund, it's not connected with retirement..." If that premise is the basis on which the recommendation to ban SMSF investment in tangible assets has been made, then it certainly is on shaky ground! Tangible assets have been regarded by people of all civilisations and eras as a store of value since the dawn of time, however in Australia in the 21st century they apparently fail the Cooper test: "Conceptually it's difficult to grasp the proposition that a ... SMSF is acquiring artworks .... for investment purposes." Several members of the Cooper Review Panel have since stated in print that they are quite aware that some SMSF trustees have outperformed the stockmarket with their investments in assets such as art, however they go on to cite a range of other factors that have caused them to recommend a blanket ban on SMSF investment in tangible assets: "...there are a heap of problems with artworks – is it actually a genuine painting, how much is it worth, am I going to be able to sell it..." (Mr Cooper again from the same ABC interview). Now, I don't know about you, but any investor that has half a brain and spends any modicum of money on a rare coin is quite used to resolving those very problems! Mr Cooper also stated that a description of investing in art "...doesn't sound like saving for retirement, it sounds like something else." Colour me crazy, but this simple insinuation surely isn't a sufficient explanation to reduce choice for a significant number of financially literate and prudent Australians that choose to acquire tangible assets as part of an their SMSF investment strategy. For mine, the most disappointing aspect of the Cooper Review's work to date is that there has been no visible attempt by the Panel to explore ways in which freedom of choice in relation to rare coins (and similar assets) can remain available, nor does it appear there's been due consideration paid to the impact these recommendations may have on the asset values of those SMSF trustees that have already chosen to allocate retirement funds towards tangible assets. Mr Cooper's summary of the situation is : "The proportion of funds that actually have these types of assets is so small...", which could lead someone to believe that the problem is inconsequential. Although it's been difficult to get accurate empirical data about this subject in the few short weeks since Cooper's recommendations have been made, I understand that the total amount of SMSF funds invested in tangible assets comes to 1.2% of total superannuation funds under management - a sum that quite easily runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Our interim calculations within ANDA regarding the size of this issue indicate that the total value of the numismatic market that could be affected by this decision runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars - it's been estimated that some 20% of the activity in the Australian numismatic market comes from self managed super. In an article in the Australian newspaper last week, Ms Meg Heffron (another member of the Cooper Review Panel) stated that "The review panel "does not accept as logical" claims that art and related industries would be greatly affected by the changes,anyone wanting to invest in such products could do so outside the self-managed super fund model." How in blazes anyone could possibly believe this is quite beyond me! If 20% of demand is taken out of a market, and that change occurs at the same time as an atypical amount of supply is injected into the market, then unless demand increases from a completely unprecedented source, then prices can only go in one direction, and that is unfortunately down. The decision to enact the Cooper Review's recommendations has not yet been made, although we understand that a decision will be made in the near future. Representatives of ANDA, the art, stamp and antique industries will be meeting with Treasury officials and other relevant ministers, and hopefully common sense will prevail. If you feel strongly about this issue, I urge you to contact the relevant government minister with your thoughts: The Hon Chris Bowen MP
categories [ Tags: ]
|
We need to buy tens of thousands of dollars worth of coins and notes each and every week of the year.
If you'd like to turn all or part of your collection into cash, get in touch with our expert staff and we'll be happy to start working on a deal with you. read more...
We have extensive experience in handling all Australian gold soveriegns and halves, from the Adelaide Pounds of 1852 right through to the last coins of George V of 1931.
All of the Australian gold coins in our online shop are described in detail, and are depicted by high resolution images showing each side. Our listings are also often accompanied by background information to the coin's history. read more...
At Sterling & Currency, we specialize in handling Australian coins dating from our nation's settlement in 1788 through to the introduction of decimal currency in 1966.
We have an extensive range in our online store of Australian gold, copper and silver coins - we're committed to offering our customers coins that are attractive for their grade and priced according to the current market. read more...
The Australian proof and UNC coins struck by the Perth Mint and the RAM are the most accessible coins available to collectors today.
Our online stock doesn't reflect all of the decimal coins that we handle on a regular basis, much less the stock we have access to, so if you're not able to find a particular coin that you're keen to add to your collection, let us know and we'll be happy to contact you when it becomes available. read more
I couldn't agree more. Even
| Feb 8th, 2012 at 11:20 pmI couldn't agree more. Even more alarming and smacks yet again of protectionism (Banks and insurance companies) is the idiotic recommendation that qualified accountants cannot advise on SMSFs. So in my case a double degreed finance professional CPA cannot advise on SMSF's bit a 3 month crash course diploma employee of a bank or large insurer can! I think we know who the Government reports to and it's not us. The working Joes of the world.
That the Cooper Review does
| Feb 8th, 2012 at 11:20 pmThat the Cooper Review does not have an issue with one particular industry superannuation fund operating a specialist fund investing solely in art, strikes me as being somewhat hypocrical. More importantly however, what I cannot understand is why the Cooper Review is recommending the divestment of "exotic" assets within a five year period. Why impose any period? By definition, SMSF's are terminating in nature. That is, the fund accumulates assets whilst the member or members are working; the member or members retire and the fund then supports the member(s) in retirement. Eventually, the member(s) die and the fund is wound-up.
Should the major recommendations of the Cooper Review be enacted, then a simpler, and indeed fairer, approach would be to prohibit SMSF's from aquiring new "exotic" assets, but enabling existing funds to divest of these and other assets as, and when the need arises. The need will eventually arise!
Post new comment