[amgsl55]

That was the other thing, have it managed or self manage.......

depends if you have time or can be bothered with the head fucks

I have my commercial managed as i don't have time to field phone calls but I use my tradespeople for repairs and maintenance.

[looney]

Hmmmm, interesting one with a bit more detail

First thing that strikes me is your proposed townhouse is part of a block of 12 townhouses, seemingly all strata titled. The area might be approved for 10 story development; but one townhouse alone isn't going to attract a developer who would have to buy the majority if not the lot. Easier said than done, so the upside potential may be very limited from that point of view.

You could do it based purely on the rental return and maintaining the view from your current house; but my earlier point of having all your SMSF eggs in one tiny basket still holds true.

Coming at it from a different angle, you say you have a "small unit complex" now. If you own it outright or could pay it out with equity from other sources, you could transfer that into your superfund under the $180k per year or $540k over any 3 year period. Downside is it is treated as a sale so you pay stamp duty again; but taking the long term view it's a much smaller consideration. Then all the income from it is taxed at superannuation rates rather than marginal or company tax rates. You could then use that income to invest in blue chip companies paying strong fully franked dividends. You could build up your SMSF balance very substantially over 25 years ++.

I wouldn't worry too much about what may or may not happen with Government changes into the future.

Thanks Scott,

the intention is to deter developers, here on the GC they like to gobble up prime unit complexes and redevelop.

by being the only hold out, I want to stop it being developed. and if i can use my super fund to do that is better as I don't want to be swayed if it was an asset I could readily sell.

as for my other small complex, I'm happy with its current situation, it is neutrally geared and can just sit there for a while, its in a prime position near some major developments, and has major redevelopment potential.  Anyway under the rules residential cannot be sold to your SMSF it has to be completely arms length and would not qualify.

I understand that its putting a big chunk into 1 basket of my Super, but at the same time I can actually reap a benefit of it for the next 20 years rather than it just sitting there.

[Aircon]

Not starting an argument, but I know someone with a SMSF who spends a little over $1k a year in fees.

It can be done cheaply enough, but you have to put in some hard yards (hours), which can probably be put to better use.

It's with ESuperfund FYI

They actually have an offer at the moment of free setup and first year free compliance fee.

[anotherforumuser]

Coming in late I skimmed over the replies to see if anyone spoke about this. I was looking at property with super in the past and I thought I was told that you couldnt invest super money into a property if you had to take a loan on it. You had to buy it outright or buy a share in a property that was bought outright.
This is a memory from many years back and rules may have changed or I could have totally got it wrong at the time. I also know my local Honda Dealer bought the property next door to his shop as a Super investment and was possibly paying it off so that could put paid to my other thought. Anyone know the facts on this? I have a feeling Scott will.

[amgsl55]

Coming in late I skimmed over the replies to see if anyone spoke about this. I was looking at property with super in the past and I thought I was told that you couldnt invest super money into a property if you had to take a loan on it. You had to buy it outright or buy a share in a property that was bought outright.
This is a memory from many years back and rules may have changed or I could have totally got it wrong at the time. I also know my local Honda Dealer bought the property next door to his shop as a Super investment and was possibly paying it off so that could put paid to my other thought. Anyone know the facts on this? I have a feeling Scott will.

You can now borrow for property or share investment. The repayment interest is a bit higher though.

[360c]

Coming in late I skimmed over the replies to see if anyone spoke about this. I was looking at property with super in the past and I thought I was told that you couldnt invest super money into a property if you had to take a loan on it. You had to buy it outright or buy a share in a property that was bought outright.
This is a memory from many years back and rules may have changed or I could have totally got it wrong at the time. I also know my local Honda Dealer bought the property next door to his shop as a Super investment and was possibly paying it off so that could put paid to my other thought. Anyone know the facts on this? I have a feeling Scott will.

The rules changed about 4 years ago to allow SMSF's to buy property using limited recourse loans. In other words the lender only has recourse on the property in the event of default and no other assets of the fund. Hence stringent lending requirements and low LVR's.

[mondi]

The rules changed about 4 years ago to allow SMSF's to buy property using limited recourse loans. In other words the lender only has recourse on the property in the event of default and no other assets of the fund. Hence stringent lending requirements and low LVR's.

So how is that loan paid back??? I am assuming that the income derived from the IPs goes straight into the SMSF and paying off loans???

[anotherforumuser]

Thats great news, thanks for that. Off to the real estate guide I go.  

[dkabab]

Can you buy a house with your smsf then rent it to yourself? Would this have any benefit. Just thinking out loud.

[amgsl55]

Can you buy a house with your smsf then rent it to yourself? Would this have any benefit. Just thinking out loud.

No, has to be at arms length.