Should we give Australian businesses access to our super?

Australia’s richest get together to ‘scheme’ for your super.

Should we give Australian businesses access to our super?

Australia’s richest man and woman were part of a select group of billionaires, millionaires and money managers who have hatched a scheme to access your super.

The Superfunds Roundtable meeting was held at the luxury home of billionaire Anthony Pratt – AKA ‘The Cardboard King’ – to push a proposal for super funds to lend money directly to Australian businesses.

This plan would effectively bypass banks and give Aussie businesses access to the $2.4 trillion pension pot.

Joining Mr Pratt were billionaires Gina Rinehart and Lindsay Fox, Bega Cheese boss Barry Irvin and the father of Australian superannuation, Paul Keating.

Some Australian businesses are finding it difficult to access capital, so it makes sense that they would look for low-hanging fruit – and the hundreds of billions of dollars tied up in super seems as good an apple as any to target.

While the idea that Australian businesses could borrow money from superannuation instead going offshore for debt financing seems appealing, there may be setbacks, some that affect older Australians.

Companies can issue corporate bonds for financing, which super funds can already buy. However, Australia’s corporate bond market is under-developed and would need to be deeper and more liquid to provide diversification benefits to issuers and investors.

Then there’s the risk associated with lending to business. Banks that lend money to entrepreneurs will often ask for the house as collateral, but should that business fail, it’s more than a business owner's house at risk – it’s the homes, livelihoods and retirements of many Australians.

Also, super funds don’t have the resources to micro-manage money so, unless there’s sufficient reward for doing so, the cost of setting up that aspect could come at the expense of super fund holders.

And, as the money in superannuation is not ‘owned’ by the funds or financial institutions, once a fund holder hits retirement, the money in the account can be withdrawn at any time. It doesn’t happen too often, but if a financial crisis were to hit, you can bet they’ll take it out in a heartbeat.

Should this plan proceed, it may lead to legislation that would prevent members from withdrawing at will, effectively blocking the freedom to access their own money. Super fund holders may also be forced to take out annuities which, instead of allowing them the freedom to use their money as they see fit, would pay them a measured, fortnightly income.

The upside to the proposal is that Australian businesses could more easily access capital that would keep their costs down, making it easier for them to flourish and provide a knock-on effect for the economy. But who would profit from the lower overheads? Business owners or the people who provide the money for them to make more?

It may also help super funds diversify their investments, which would benefit members moving from accumulation to pension phase. Most funds are geared towards growth, but it could be helpful to have diversification and have a greater choice of fixed-income investments. As the population ages, retirees typically switch from accumulating assets to selling them, which leads to increased demand for fixed-income assets.

Mr Keating believes this is where our ageing population would benefit.

“The super scheme that I set up was focused on accumulation. Now that Australians are living longer and moving into retirement, we need superannuation phase two. That means funding retirement, guaranteed income. It means tapping into long-term income streams,” he said.

In fact, Mr Keating seems to be a fan of the idea.

“We need another choice in our financial system. I don't see any fundamental reasons, other than institutional stodginess on the part of the super funds and stubbornness on the part the banks, to putting this together and getting something done,” he said.

Read more at The Australian Financial Review

Do you think this is a good idea? Would you trust super funds to lend your money to the right types of business? How do you feel about losing the freedom to manage your money as you see fit?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Eddy
    27th Nov 2017
    10:23am
    Given the right legislative regime I could be convinced it is a good idea, however I am not so sure this current government is willing to put the interests of superannuants ahead of the business interests. The idea of Australian money being used to finance Australian businesses and development projects appeals to me. The concept is not so different to the current regime where super funds invest in the share market with it's attendant risks. As long as super funds can accurately assess the risks it could be a good thing.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    2:02pm
    It depends on what those businesses and ventures are, Eddy - if they are active contributors to this nation all well and good.... we need a long-term strategy not more of the short term grab.....

    I'm not in the business of enriching the already well-heeled.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2017
    3:57pm
    Accessing local money is a no brainer but changing the rules so that your super is no longer your super is plain wrong.
    When the next GFC hits it is already understood that the banks will freeze YOUR MONEY and that you will only be permitted to take out whatever the banks decree. And if the banks get into financial bother they will take depositor money. That one is also set up in APRA legislation...as it is all around the world.

    I have discussed this issue on several occasions on this website. People who think 'it will never happen in Australia' are deluding themselves. The vultures have been circling super for some time and the trap is set. This is not dreamin'. It is fact.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    6:07pm
    Umm - somebody said that next or full impact GFC, a flow-on from the last one that never really finished - was due in 2018....

    Conspiracy theorists will tell you that's why the Queensland LNP set itself up for a turkey shoot up there... by putting up a list of turkeys... so they can skate over this and blame Labor....

    I doubt they're that smart.... same with Big Mal of the Moneylenda Mafia...
    bigpella
    27th Nov 2017
    10:41am
    NOT bloody likely.
    Old Geezer
    27th Nov 2017
    10:42am
    In the US they are called corporate bonds and guess what folks our super funds already invest in them so why not have our own corporate bonds instead?

    It is a good idea and I'm glad to see talk of keeping our super money here rather than overseas.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    3:17pm
    Thank you for your wisdom, OG - now move on to the matter of trust.. and of trust of trusts...
    Travellersjoy
    27th Nov 2017
    10:57am
    I would trust them to see me as another sheep for their fleecing!

    My present super fund trustees put me and my super first. If they thought these corporate bonds were legitimate and in my interests, I would trust them to purchase judiciously, but not otherwise.

    The IPA/LNP will look for any way to sucker Australians into handing over our super to slavering banksters and corporates, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with my interests or the national interest.

    When I see any indication that vulture capitalism is securely leashed, I will reconsider my view, but not before. A Royal Commission into the finance sector, especially banks and insurance, is long overdue. Ask me again when it is over.
    Old Geezer
    27th Nov 2017
    11:07am
    If you don't manage your super yourself how do you really know where it is invested?
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    2:06pm
    These 'business people' are always free to approach the super funds for some investment... no need in any way for them to handle the cash as well.

    Wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them - and never forget that with each 'project' or 'venture', THEY take out massive amounts before a sod is turned for 'fees'', 'administrative costs', remuneration for directors, and so forth.

    I'll say it again - how the hell do you imagine clowns like Slim Mehajer got their hands on millions to throw around? Not from working or actually producing a finished project - they do a Bondie and a heap of cream off the top goes to their own personal companies and family etc as costs as I explained above.

    So - when the 'venture' goes bust -the investor is left holding the bag, and the 'board' etc have already made good their escape with a few lazy mill or so.

    Time for a savage tightening of company rules and an upgrade from the good old days of the Robber Barons, when anything went as long as it meant cash for them
    arbee
    27th Nov 2017
    3:43pm
    Trebor I don't often agree with you, but this time I do 100%.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    5:04pm
    I'm not always right, arbee, but I sound good doing it.... the proof is, as always in the eating...
    GeorgeM
    27th Nov 2017
    9:31pm
    Absolutely, Travellersjoy and TREBOR. Keep these mobsters away from our Super - they will surely destroy it with no trace.
    Mez
    29th Nov 2017
    9:48am
    Exactly right Old Geezer!
    I do manage my own asset classes online and I can see that only the International Shares and Private Equity mainly are performing well, especially since Trump came on the scene!
    Do not rely on financial advisors in your fund because I have heard that the commission you would pay them is useless as many do not care about your super and your 1 to 2% commission is wasted!
    You all have the right to request that to be removed by calling them and you WILL save money.
    It also pays, and I mean PAYS well to regularly go online to monitor the performances of your asset classes and change the percentages accordingly.
    I am not a businessperson but over time, one picks up the gist of it all.
    Zach
    27th Nov 2017
    11:02am
    This is something that must be seriously challenged. Big business did not get big by playing nice. There is much blood on the floor from smaller players that have crossed the bigger players and we all know that their corporate conscious is somewhat compromised as is their social conscious
    In a perfect world this would be a great solution, but the is a severely compromised world and there are too many unscrupulous high flyers that would happily steal your retirement
    Old Geezer
    27th Nov 2017
    11:08am
    So it's OK for your super fund to invest in US corporate bonds then but not Aussie ones. Not very patriotic at all.
    arbee
    27th Nov 2017
    3:54pm
    Old geezer get your head out of the sand. There is nothing patriotic about giving our hard earned super to these robber barons. They are ruthless and have destroyed many good Australian small businesses on their way to the top, that is what I call, "not patriotic".

    Don't know your background, but mine was a small business owner years ago employing about 30 people, and we had to fight every day against ruthless multi nationals whose only aim was to undercut us out of business to gain a monopoly for themselves. When they gain their monopoly then up go the prices. We never lost out to them though because 90% of customers are prepared to pay a little more and get excellent service.

    They would not care about destroying our super if it was of benefit to them
    Old Geezer
    27th Nov 2017
    5:38pm
    So you prefer those in the US to destroy your super instead?
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    6:08pm
    Not when we Lock the Gates in many ways, OG - and go full gangsta Sinn Fein..... We Stand Alone Together..... for a change...

    Anyone wanting to trade here can ask for entry and agree to the full terms or not bother.
    Dollars over Respect?
    27th Nov 2017
    11:17am
    NEVER !!!
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    3:17pm
    Couldn't lie straight in a coffin...
    cupoftea
    27th Nov 2017
    11:35am
    I have been waiting for this they did the same in the U.K in the uk you get the full pension no matter how much you have,was it not Rinehart that tried to stop her kids having access to there trust till they were 50 thats her own she does not even know you They will try any way to get hold of our money ,I am going to get advice this week to draw or not to draw
    Alexii
    27th Nov 2017
    11:38am
    There's no way that I would trust anything the likes of Rinehart and Pratt come up with. I can only feel very suspicious of their schemes which I am sure would be devised to benefit them and their ilk. I am quite satisfied with where my money is now and I don't want them being able to get their hands on it.
    GeorgeM
    27th Nov 2017
    9:35pm
    Add to that Paul Keating as well - the financially illiterate Treasurer who created the biggest recession most of us have seen, and who created the Super system as a diversion (after shutting down the Pension fund) with massive holes exploited by the rich (who naturally love him) for decades. No more stupid irresponsible ideas from him!
    Alexii
    27th Nov 2017
    10:43pm
    Yes, i had little regard for the "world's greatest treasurer".
    ray from Bondi
    27th Nov 2017
    11:48am
    so the ultra rich are going to become richer on or wage rises that have been converted to super over the years, what guarantees are we going to about the "sorry there is no money but I am oaky you can live on the pension that will not pay for a rental".
    it is only a matter of time to the Orwellian government takes it or the rich either way we plebes will not benefit.
    ray from Bondi
    27th Nov 2017
    11:50am
    that should be OUR no OR

    27th Nov 2017
    11:58am
    Providing that safeguards were put in place and solid assets were used to support the borrowings, I can only see an upside. Big business employs a high number of Australian workers and any method of increasing business should mean more jobs. The funds may be cheaper than commercial rates but still higher than investor rates so it could be a win/win. Super fund managers already invest the funds in shares, some Australian, some overseas so it could be argued that super funds are investing in big business now.
    Old Geezer
    27th Nov 2017
    12:01pm
    Super funds already invest in overseas corporate bonds so why not invest in Aussie corporate bonds instead?
    Rae
    27th Nov 2017
    2:20pm
    It depends entirely on the risk and the coupon in my opinion.

    How can you tell if it is worth the money until the figures are on the table?

    Yes OG you are correct and Australian debt is already part of the mix.

    This is a silly notion as Corporations already source capital from share sales and bond issues.
    Curious
    27th Nov 2017
    12:10pm
    Superannuation funds have been established to benefit those, who worked hard all their working life and at retirement to enjoy their fruits of labour. The priority of a superannuation is the welfare of its superannuants. As such, the fund manager should invest wisely according to the financial plans designed for the needs of the superannuants. The purpose in establishing superannuation funds has been to empower workers to manage their own hard earned money for their life style in retirement and keep away from the old age pension if they can. In theory it sounds good, in practice we have a long way to go.

    Just because the total sum of our superannuation funds are into trillion dollars, it is not a "low hanging apple" for the taking by corporate finance. This vehicle for investment, like any other investments, must be assessed on the basis of the degree of risks versus the rate of return.

    If the top-end of town thinks, they can establish an investment vehicle that can benefit the superannuants, our national economy and all businesses in Australia, please give us a blueprint of their business model and their implementation plans. Without a due diligence process, no superannuation fund will have the right mind to be a partner to this corporate finance scheme. The concept is good but we are not talking here about investing a basket of fruits. A prospectus is needed here. Without it, the concept is only good for a luncheon idea and no more.
    don
    27th Nov 2017
    12:30pm
    No leave our super alone , it is all ready invested in Australian and over seas companies. Are they planing to create another lot of Bond's, Skase's , Connel's etc, ? leave us poor at their mistakes and make multi millionaires of them.? They can't help themselves , plain greed.
    maelcolium
    27th Nov 2017
    12:35pm
    So the billionaire club want to have access to the trillions of OUR superannuation because they are so starved for funding? Give me a freaking break! The interest rates are at their lowest in modern history and yet these parasites want to provide better returns than are currently being provided - is that the proposal? You know what? That is just bullshit.
    These are the same people who plunder OUR natural resources, who evade OUR taxation burden, who sell OUR property to overseas interests and now they want access to OUR savings! There is a saying in business circles which is " F&*K yourself and the horse you rode in on" - I suggest this language is something they would understand.
    Nettie
    27th Nov 2017
    6:04pm
    Well said.
    Mez
    29th Nov 2017
    10:21am
    Super funds scheme is already part of the CFMEU who helped to set it up in the first place so I don't think that big business will have any say in it.
    Australian Shares are not performing well so people like me are investing in International Shares and Private Equity so Australian big businesses will need to lift their game as they cannot access our supers!
    Andy
    27th Nov 2017
    12:36pm
    they can keep their greedy hands off, do not forget when the Government did this they almost wiped super out, many people lost all they had, and all they got back was a letter saying sorry if they want more money let them take it from each other.
    Tib
    27th Nov 2017
    12:38pm
    The liberals have tried to get professional CEO 's to run our industry funds which make more than the commercial funds. Now they want a to give our money to big business. How long before they get every dollar we own......not long!
    cupoftea
    27th Nov 2017
    12:40pm
    So these company's cant get finance,the only time you cant money is if you are a bad risk
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    3:20pm
    Most of them are in reality - couldn't run a corner store without Uncle Mal's Family shoring them up every which way. Couldn't survive in a genuinely open market.
    ozrog
    27th Nov 2017
    12:44pm
    Noway. Restrict access to our own money. The government needs to remember it belongs to us nobody else. Not governments not businesses , us its ours.
    floss
    27th Nov 2017
    12:44pm
    The people that have put forward this idea have in the past screwed some one to get where they are and have been ruthless in doing so. So leave my super the way it is in a Industry fund ,at least I have trust in them. I have followed the paths of two of these people and have not been impressed greed is their main motivator.
    Old Geezer
    27th Nov 2017
    5:42pm
    What about your industry fund being already invested in US corporate bonds? You trust the US companies more than Aussie ones?
    *Imagine*
    27th Nov 2017
    1:00pm
    Some may not have heard of secured notes and unsecured notes issued by business to raise capital. These notes, some valued at $100 face value each, and available on the ASX pay interest, usually above that obtained by investment banks. The secured notes are backed by capital and may be transferred into shares after a fixed period. Unsecured notes are just that. Your investment could collapse into nothing. There are many examples e.g. Harris Scarfe who were losing money but didn't reveal the fact, instead they issued unsecured notes. The holders of those unsecured notes lost everything when Harris Scarfe folded. Then there was a class action to recover perhaps 5c in the $. I imagine that this is the aim of the super rich - pass the risk to the investor and at the same time help themselves to as much extra income as possible. If they want money then they can issue secured notes, so I see this drive as an other way of grabbing our super with no comeback for the investor, who didn't even have a say in where their money went. NO THANKS
    Old Geezer
    27th Nov 2017
    6:16pm
    There was an Aussie company that went broke and had secured notes that had to be paid before any other creditors. The creditors had a meeting and as they were going to get nothing decided to lobby the liquidators that the notes should rank equally with other credit. Liquidators agreed and note holder got 5c in the dollar instead of all their money back. Note holders then had a class action against liquidators and won. I often wonder who actually paid the note holders?
    invisible sock
    27th Nov 2017
    1:06pm
    If it's such a good idea, why don't the billionaires lend their own money?
    Star Trekker
    27th Nov 2017
    2:10pm
    Yes why don't they. If they have billions, all together they would have trillions.
    Rae
    27th Nov 2017
    2:23pm
    Because their money is sitting safely in Tax Havens waiting for deflation of asset prices when cask becomes king and debt disastrous.
    Rae
    27th Nov 2017
    2:23pm
    cash not cask.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    3:21pm
    Tax on Tax Havens needed - at a rate of 35%..... if your corporation/group whatever has cash stashed and you live here and/or operate here - you pay....
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    6:20pm
    Oh - and the rule for the rich is 'never lose your capital' - in other words, you can always find a large number of suckers to fund your business for you while paying you as a board member or president or whatever, with all the perks involved for free - meaning they never touch their own money... and if it goes belly-up - it is the small investor who rots in the tropical ocean of Loss while being torn apart by predators.......

    I've explained it before.... Clivagina Mining floats Ginacliva Mining, and to do so (as a separate legal entity, BTW), they put in maybe $500k to own a MAJOR portion of the shares immediately - $500k worth of $0.10 shares.... they float 49% on the market and wait for the rise in share value..... in short order, only the few who got in on the ground floor (all old mates - well I nevah!.. maybe a few lucky ones) actually own any significant number of shares.

    Say those $0.10 shares go to $5.00 - that's $4.90 a share profit on 500,000 shares, or a cool $24m or so easy profit for doing nothing ....held by Clivagina Holdings.... meantime Clina and Gyve are pulling director's fees, and pushing off consultant fees to their own companies, while securing a massive retirement package from the deal and getting all running costs paid for.... including the private jet to the mine site etc and a few little run-arounds on the side...

    Hard to get yourself out of the habit of such easy 'work'........... and you risk next to nothing in reality,and recoup your initial investment within a very short space of time via director's fees etc.
    arbee
    27th Nov 2017
    6:22pm
    Rae, if the betht yu can do is pik up on speling erors then yu reely are a sad kase
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    7:56pm
    .. it's your lithp that is causing concern....
    Rae
    28th Nov 2017
    8:14am
    Yes arbee I do need to read my posts before posting. Thanks.
    Chrissy L
    27th Nov 2017
    1:07pm
    It would need cast iron safeguards to protect superannuants from people like the Clive Palmers of this world, as well as a government guarantee to protect funds.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    6:22pm
    Silly - governments only bail out banks and big cheeses... the little old mum and pop gets to rot in the hot sun while being devoured by predators....
    rowette
    27th Nov 2017
    1:12pm
    Below is the paragraph, from above, that would make me hesitate to ever agree with any scheme such as this:
    "Some Australian businesses are finding it difficult to access capital, so it makes sense that they would look for low-hanging fruit – and the hundreds of billions of dollars tied up in super seems as good an apple as any to target."
    If the banks will not lend to them, then why should these businesses have access to the everyday working Australian's superannuation funds.

    And Yes Old Geezer, they may already have some of our Australian super money invested overseas but, I believe, that if this came to pass then businesses would take this option over a bank funded loan, and how many BIG businesses have gone Kaput!!!!
    plodder
    27th Nov 2017
    1:12pm
    I know. there is road work going on in my street. think I will pop over and ask one of their workers to manage my super. after all, they obviously are not robbers, and the return on undetected meth labs (that's 99.99% of them) is quite promising.
    forget about Paul Keating backing this scheme. his record is to always be on the side of corporate greedy who are obviously only successful because they steal.
    Zach
    27th Nov 2017
    1:15pm
    Each to their own Old Geeezer Trolling is so immature
    rowette
    27th Nov 2017
    1:36pm
    Well said Zach,I would sometimes make a comment on this site but stopped after seeing comments like Old Geezer replying to everything that someone posted. Always in a negative, deriding way.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    2:11pm
    Non Illegitimi Carborundum, rowette...
    Rae
    27th Nov 2017
    3:46pm
    OG is correct though. Fixed Interest is bond buying and includes Australian and International government and corporate bonds already so I don't quite get the article at all. Every balanced fund holds this type of debt already.

    Unless these business people are offering triple BBB junk bonds and the coupon is over 20%. Somehow I can't see that happening.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    7:57pm
    Buggar -that Non Illegitimati Carborundum... I'm going back to Wome....
    vinradio
    27th Nov 2017
    1:15pm
    No!.This could be a disaster in the making. They can raise funds from eslewhere, thanks.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    2:14pm
    If the banks are stupid enough to loan them billions on a 'business plan' - KNOWING that from Day One these same crooks will be taking fees and costs of many kinds into their own coffers, and that many such 'venture' go bust leaving millions and billions unpaid (Lord HOW?) ..... the banks are stark raving mad.

    So would a super fund without a solid guarantee.. better still - wouldn't the fund be better off formulating its own investment in solid ventures? that way they'd have minimal costs over and above the existing.

    Anyway I still like the idea of super all under one roof, one rate, same rules for everyone... and any investment controlled by an elected board, acting on the merits of applications direct.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    5:12pm
    Lessee now... ummm... The Australian Universal Secured Superannuation Investment and Employment Scheme (AUSSIES) - providing secure investment of YOUR super while providing employment for Australians (even those with 754 Visas - meaning if you are a born and bred Aussie you can't get a job here)....

    Sinn Fein, brothers (an' sistuhs).... we'll get this nation back on its feet yet.... soon as we get it off life support due to medical malpractice...... bloody politicians reckon slitting its throat is a tracheotomy ..... Is there a surge on in the house?
    moama jock
    27th Nov 2017
    1:27pm
    I simply cannot believe the childish negativity of some of the comments so far. Obviously the decision to participate in such an arrangement would be at the decision of the Trustees so if they are fearful they would avoid. These comments only further perpetuate the "tall poppy "syndrome. Quite obviously the instigators of the idea see a financial benefit for themselves but maybe if they are prepared to share any benefits there may also be a plus for superannuants so I say flesh out the idea in detail and let us evaluate. Remember we do not have to participate and we may be assisting Australia as a whole to progress and create jobs. So the advice for the worry worts is to delete all reference to the idea and forget your jealousy of the financially successful proponents.
    ozrog
    27th Nov 2017
    1:45pm
    Sorry but i don't think you have a clue. Its our money not the governments. How dare even think about using it and limiting our access ot our money. These business people can not borrow from any other source what does that tell you. I'm happy for them to take your super but leave mine alone.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    3:26pm
    'tall poppies' LMAO - Gina INHERITED a heap of cash, has no conscience, and is a user first and foremost....

    As for The Right Stuff-up Pratt (good name that), couldn't give a damn about him, but his head certainly is worth a Ph.D or two in Neo Phrenology, which is making a comeback.....

    These people have NO right to even consider appropriating other people's money for their own use, and to even consider that is a clear indication of their utter lack of morals and even sense.

    Now what I'd call 'tall poppies' - more like turds in suits.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    3:38pm
    Aye. Jock - ye mus' be a Lowlander t' think lah 'at!
    Gee Whiz
    27th Nov 2017
    1:48pm
    They're just greedy bastards. What happens to superannuants savings if the businesses go belly up.

    The big question of course is why won't the Banks finance them?
    rowette
    27th Nov 2017
    1:49pm
    My comments exactly further up the page
    Rae
    27th Nov 2017
    2:32pm
    If they go belly up the bond holders stand in line before the shareholders but a lot of nothing is still nothing.

    It would depend on the yield and the risk. If the banks won't lend to them then the risks are high and the collateral not worth much.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    5:20pm
    I recall one payout of 1c on the dollar - now how the HELL does a 'business' handling millions/billions get that bad?

    a. mal-practice and calculated self-interest first....

    Ahhh - here's a beauty for yez all..

    "In 1992, Bond was declared bankrupt after failing to repay a $194 million personal guarantee on a loan for a nickel mining project. His debts reportedly totalled $1.8 billion at the time.[17] In 1995, his family bought him out of bankruptcy, with creditors accepting a payment of A$12 million, a little over half a cent per dollar."

    Think it through, people - his FAMILY, who directly benefited from his chicaneries, bought him out of bankruptcy. Where Did THEY Get The Money? (fine print required) a. 'fees', consulting costs, directorship remunerations and costs and retirement package, gifts, manipulation of cash between companies.....

    The story of the three wells- well, well, well.... and the fourth - Well Inevah!

    Good old Bondie - only got away with $50m at the time, and went straight back into ripping off other people.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    5:21pm
    Next question, grasshoppers - What Has Changed Since Bondie/Skasey And Co?

    (homework due tomorrow 10 am - late penalties apply)....
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    2:00pm
    Hell, NO - we won't go!
    Priscilla
    27th Nov 2017
    2:07pm
    NO WAY! With the economy in such dire staights there is no way I would trust any business with my super.
    disillusioned
    27th Nov 2017
    2:17pm
    NO! Not the way they squander taxpayers' money on irrelevant advertising and consultants, and award themselves pay-rises, perks, humungous pensions, etc. I wouldn't trust them to manage my piggy bank!
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    3:31pm
    REPEAT:- If the banks are stupid enough to loan them billions on a 'business plan' - KNOWING that from Day One these same crooks will be taking fees and costs of many kinds into their own coffers, and that many such 'ventures' go bust leaving millions and billions unpaid (Lord HOW?) ..... the banks are stark raving mad.

    So would a super fund without a solid guarantee.. better still - wouldn't the fund be better off formulating its own investment in solid ventures? that way they'd have minimal costs over and above the existing.

    Anyway I still like the idea of super all under one roof, one rate, same rules for everyone... and any investment controlled by an elected board, acting on the merits of applications direct ........ADDS to last sentence:- WITH absolute safeguards in place.... one whiff of corruption or 'old mate's' handing out and you're OFF the board with NO recompense.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    3:37pm
    Don't forget Research and Development, disillusioned... Gina wants to get into the game of exporting 300,000 live cattle a year to China for big bucks - as I said before - there go the prices of steak etc here....

    Just like gas, petroleum, and every other resource - without reservation for THIS nation first, we are all in the grip and control of these 'global marketeers' - who set their own prices in what is rapidly becoming an oligarchic market place, and that's 'value added' prices for US, too, which includes transport of resource offshore and then back plus all other costs along the way - EVEN WHEN IT NEVER LEAVES OUR SHORES and is processed here!

    Now what kind of damned fool would sign up to a business arrangement like that?

    a. Our 'government' of two parties.

    The question that remains with me constantly in this debate is WHY does our government of two parties consider that it MUST be slave to the 'global economy' which is so clearly ripping off this nation and its people.

    Anyone?
    Alexii
    27th Nov 2017
    10:52pm
    To think that we live in a resource rich country that is bled dry of its resources for the likes of these people and their foreign wealthy friends. They have no respect and no liking for the masses of people in Australia or anywhere else. The only respect they have is for the great god Money and to take that money from others.
    Linda
    27th Nov 2017
    2:24pm
    I have the opinion that every body and their dog knows there is a huge pile of money in superannuation and they all want to get some of it. Beware. The current government is low on proper regulation of anything they implement, leaving it up to the industry to do the police work. And, surprise, the industry is so full of their own interests they don't do a good job.
    weary
    27th Nov 2017
    3:00pm
    why do billionaires keep on working. Seems they never have enough. Most of the contributors to super have paid for the generations above them, the generations underneath them. They have funded their own retirement. Now their super is under threat from greedy people and governments. If their is any credibility left in our so called government they will put a stop to this nonsense at once. Weary
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    3:16pm
    None at all, weary.
    Anonymous
    27th Nov 2017
    3:33pm
    They keep on 'working' because they don't know the meaning of the word "enough".
    GrayComputing
    27th Nov 2017
    3:17pm
    Having been robbed of $1/2 million of my super by the GFC and MLC these super rich bastards still want more.
    Unbelievable bunch of robber barons. they should all be jailed

    27th Nov 2017
    3:28pm
    Terrible idea. Why should these greedy billionaires be able to access MY money when I can't? And what happens if they blow it? They are not to be trusted.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    4:05pm
    Oh, they'll find way to blow it - but significant portion of it will be spirited away into a safe haven, as above, via remunerations, fees, bonuses, consulting fees, and other 'costs' of doing business... usually by their own personal companies or those of family and mates.

    In reality this nation is no different from any other petty Third World trash heap... such as the Philippines, where 'people power' got rid of the Marcos regime with its extravagant lifestyle, only to see it replaced by another such regime, with a few trappings to make it look good as a 'government of the people'.
    arbee
    27th Nov 2017
    3:41pm
    No Way, not ever. Most of these people are have made their billions by walking all over little people. If they want money then get out into the financial world and borrow it, I do not trust them.
    Why is Keating a supporter, does he think it might help him buy more pig farms?
    Our super funds already invest in shares in the blue chip companies and that is as far as they should go.
    Rae
    27th Nov 2017
    3:56pm
    Our super funds also invest in fixed interest ie bonds both government and corporate. Take a look at your super fund site and it will tell you the % you hold in bonds ( fixed interest).
    floss
    27th Nov 2017
    3:47pm
    What a Pratt.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    8:00pm
    He inherited, too - otherwise he likely be on the dole queue.... Gina would fit like a glove in Housoville... Boganville...
    Alufool
    27th Nov 2017
    3:51pm
    The Australian debt market currently is so shallow (despite the govt saying we are drowning in public bedt) that these proposals are more than welcome . The existing debt instruments are inadequate for a lot of superfunds that should have a higher portion of debtthasn is currently available from basically term deposits!
    twiga
    27th Nov 2017
    4:02pm
    One wonders why "Some Australian businesses are finding it difficult to access capital" - perhaps they are considered high risk - why should our super funds ie $$ be exposed to high risk

    27th Nov 2017
    5:01pm
    I already have investment in Aussie Corporate Bond in my super portfolio - love my BHP, CBA and AMP bonds in addition to overseas bonds. Only a small part of my portfolio as part of overall investment strategy

    No idea what all this fuss is about
    *Imagine*
    27th Nov 2017
    5:44pm
    Then you didn't read the article properly did you? I have picked out this bit for you
    Should this plan proceed, it may lead to legislation that would prevent members from withdrawing at will, effectively blocking the freedom to access their own money. Super fund holders may also be forced to take out annuities which, instead of allowing them the freedom to use their money as they see fit, would pay them a measured, fortnightly income.
    You can sell your Corporate Bonds - this proposal is different. Perhaps a direct loan?? Who knows. I imagine that they don't want to float corporate bonds, otherwise they would.
    Old Geezer
    27th Nov 2017
    5:45pm
    Agree. Ignorance is sure showing it's ugly head today on this forum. Most have no idea what they are talking about or where their super is invested let alone whether it is good or bad.
    Old Geezer
    27th Nov 2017
    5:49pm
    Imagine now you know why I only have a small percentage of my wealth in super.
    Anonymous
    27th Nov 2017
    5:51pm
    "may" lead to legislation .....

    don't believe in whatif's or whyfores
    stop fighting windmills "Imagine" - you hae a wild imagination and like so many of the others on here only see negatives in everthing
    Anonymous
    27th Nov 2017
    5:52pm
    PS - you still have your brains don;t you - chose what instruments you invest your super in - DUH !
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    6:32pm
    Ah - so it's a matter of trust.....

    Enough said.... the answer is NO!!
    Anonymous
    27th Nov 2017
    6:56pm
    No Trebor - Its a matter of giving you choices and you using your brains to decide if you want a piece of the action or not

    Cannot believe the how ignorant some people are
    *Imagine*
    27th Nov 2017
    6:58pm
    Raphael, if there are what ifs and why fors, then they are in the article above, or more correctly in the half cocked plans of the mega rich who are reportedly circling the trillions in super. I simply stated that there are mechanisms for raising money now, there is no need for direct access to our super and bypassing established protocols. Which your post ignored. If your response is trying to justify the erroneous statement that you made, by having a go at me, forget it, it's a pretty pathetic way of arguing a point. What you don't obviously understand is that most ordinary workers have either no choice, or no idea where their super is invested, other than through the fund that the money is channelled through. If like those of us who run a SMSF, the average worker had a choice, then they would not want their money embargoed by large corporations. I reiterate, if companies wish to raise money, then they can do it through established mechanisms. If you want to give these corporate moguls free access to your money, feel free but leave me and others above out of it.
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    8:03pm
    So any suggestion from a couple of inheritors about some fantastic business opportunity if only all that lovely retirement lovely is placed in their hands, is a good deal?

    How many shares can I sell you in the Harbour Bridge?

    Are they offering to run the show pro bono.. or anti bono? I guess welll need to check the qui bono to know....

    Meantime..... how many shares can I put you down for?
    Anonymous
    27th Nov 2017
    8:03pm
    I see - by your reckoning, the average punter is stupid, and so we should have no progress because we need to protect them from their own stupidity
    yep - good one !
    Old Geezer
    27th Nov 2017
    10:15pm
    Most people don't even worry about their super until nearing retirement. Talking to the ATO recently about unpaid employer super and they told me that too.
    Mez
    29th Nov 2017
    10:07am
    Bonds NOT doing well for some time and neither are Australian Shares.
    Better off putting mostly into the International Shares and Private Equity asset classes which have been performing really well on the average.
    Easily done online and SMSF are NOT a good idea these days.
    Anne Ozzie
    27th Nov 2017
    6:25pm
    Big business in Australia is NOT Australian - it is all incorporated overseas so it can hive its money off into the Cayman Islands or some other tax haven so it doesn't even pay tax in Australia. "Should this plan proceed, it may lead to legislation that would prevent members from withdrawing at will, effectively blocking the freedom to access their own money." That being the case how much money do you think you would you get back if they went broke and you know we have a boom and bust economy? You as a superannuant couldn't afford the legal fees to chase them.
    Rosret
    27th Nov 2017
    6:55pm
    What do people in the industry think?
    Why am I not feeling happy about this?
    Where is my financial security?

    27th Nov 2017
    7:47pm
    another J.L.C labor inspired bait and of course well taken by the uneducated masses, such as labor mick, his offsider tremor, the toothbrush ala floss, the know-all, aluFOOL, the name speaks for itself, priscilla, now that is a name to remember, can't even get him/herself an original name!
    raphael, moama jock, old geezer, sorry but you you are wasting your time attempting to put some sense into these brainwashed individuals, ask them where their super is invested in and they'll give you a blank look, ask what investment means, most of them still believe money grows on trees.
    Australia be worried, be very worried!!!!
    TREBOR
    27th Nov 2017
    8:04pm
    Go back to sleep, heemie - we don't need your kind in the New Australia..... if we want knockers we can import them or hire them any time.... no need to feed local talent...
    Anonymous
    27th Nov 2017
    9:00pm
    so true heemskerk, but we have to set the record straight. Cant have this pack if whingers promoting lies
    Anonymous
    27th Nov 2017
    9:17pm
    labor trebor, seeing your answer and not surprising showing your true colours, it is great to see not everybody in Australia goes to sleep and most of us still see through the likes of you, your hanger-ons, labor micky, the toothbrush better known as flossy, priscilla, time to go on another tour, the know all, etc and your comments showing the stupidity these columns and the world has to put up with and jah, trebor labor is well known for hiring a crowd
    Golden Oldie
    27th Nov 2017
    8:33pm
    There was a pension scheme many years ago, paid by workers as an extra 7% in income tax, worth billions. Then we had a government that sold everything not nailed down, seriously depleting their income from these services, and also spending like there was no tomorrow, so they raided the pension scheme and now pensioners get cut after cut in successive budgets. We cannot trust the government ( proved), and we certainly cannot trust our greedy billionaires not to squander our superannuation.
    Anonymous
    27th Nov 2017
    9:37pm
    golden oldie it was the whitlam, hawke and keating governments who decided to put these contributions into general revenue, however believe these philistines, those the likes of labor mick, trebor etc and they will attempt to state it was the liberals who took the money
    MD
    27th Nov 2017
    9:39pm
    Most of the comment thus far, a few rare exceptions aside, seem to be little more than emotional hyperbole - an individuals gut feeling expressed as clap trap. With scant information consisting of a few broad sweeping comments and these given vague endorsement by a former PM has resulted in a cacophany of unqualified, opinionated, and downright bloody ignorance. How on earth can so many have so much to say about something they know so little about ? This article refers to an IDEA, supposedly discussed privately between wealthy business people and/or VIP's - so much for the privacy.
    Notwithstanding the Keating quote, what follows seems to lack substantiation. Did the author have access to the minutes of the "meeting" or was this article 'lifted' from another source ? Instead of going off half cocked by asking questions pertinent to an IDEA maybe a little more research wouldn't go astray. With the benefit of a few relevant facts then - perhaps - some of the resultant comment may (or may not) be warranted.
    Members of the Ku Klux Klan wore hoods to hide their identity (the hoods) didn't diminish their bigotry, ignorance or bloody mindedness, they were rednecks nevertheless.
    Old Geezer
    27th Nov 2017
    10:12pm
    They probably released a press release of the meeting to the jurnos on what they wanted to hear.
    *Imagine*
    27th Nov 2017
    10:27pm
    OG is on the ball MD, dare I suggest that you click on the supplied link in the second paragraph of the article (Superfunds Roundtable) this will lead you to the SMH article regarding Pratts meeting. It is educative to then follow related links to other articles, this action might dispel some of the "downright bloody ignorance" that you refer to.
    Alexii
    27th Nov 2017
    11:00pm
    Some people might be "ignorant" in your terms, MD, but surely any "ignorant" person should still have the right to say, "NO", to schemes by these excessively wealthy people wanting to get their hands on the hard earned superannuation money of these "ignorant" people and other workers. There's no way I want to see these barons getting control of my super.
    Old Geezer
    28th Nov 2017
    11:50am
    They already have your super money.
    MD
    28th Nov 2017
    2:13pm
    Belated thanks to response(s) that partly address my harangue. Obviously I'm guilty of the very sentence I'd pronounced on others. Imagine - me taking your advise and revisiting the article to correct my ignorance. Can you ?
    ex PS
    28th Nov 2017
    9:32am
    Australian Business should have access to your Super Fund Investment funds only if you have directed your fund manager to do so. If an individual wants to take the risk it is up to them, this type of transaction should come under the mantle of Australian Shares so that individuals have a choice.
    For instance within my Super Pension Fund portfolio I have many choices as to my investment strategy Balanced, Moderate (Low to Medium Risk), Aggressive, International Shares or Australian Shares (High Risk)and quite a few more options. The risk factor determines the potential returns.
    Their is no reason that this option could not be included as long as the option not to take it up is there. I don't understand why people get the impression that they are not in control of how their Super is managed?
    Old Geezer
    28th Nov 2017
    11:04am
    Like similar investments it would come under low or low to moderate risk.
    ex PS
    29th Nov 2017
    12:29pm
    I couldn't agree or disagree as I haven't been given enough information on how the lending would be structured. If it comes out as low to medium risk, it would return 7% at best and would have to compete with a lot of other well established proven investment options.
    Do we really need more exposure in this area?
    moama jock
    28th Nov 2017
    2:17pm
    Thank God for the likes of Old Geezer Trebor and several others who expound some common sense whereas so many others eg Labor Mick must spend most of their days looking for the reds under the bed.
    As a very unrich rusted on Conservative great credit must go to Keating and a loud wake up call to Turnbull and Morrison. Happy to grant an open clearance to both.They have no idea.
    My last words if you do not like it keep away no one is going to force you to invest and I fear for Australians if so many comments from super [would hardly be SMSF trustees ]members share these opinions. Bet you do not know where your super funds are invested probably mainly already invested with or through the filthy billionaires you so despise.Better to invest in union funds and provide income to the under privileged escorts ?
    Mez
    29th Nov 2017
    9:54am
    Ha ha! Totally agree but I don't know about union funds and I don't believe in SMSFs!
    Who are these "under privileged escorts" by the way?
    floss
    28th Nov 2017
    2:56pm
    The Greed is Good crowd is in full cry there must be some truth in the above article.
    MD
    28th Nov 2017
    3:30pm
    Imagine, having now followed advice herewith my latest ta
    ke on the matter.
    Although I confess to little love for big business, even less for the fat cat's skimming the cream an element of possibility - albeit small at this early stage - exists in this idea that may ultimately prove to be a beneficial all rounder.
    The Pratt example was a good case in point and underscores the possibilities. Lo and behold, even Westpac made a few bob out of the wheeling and dealing which goes some way to recouping what they (banks) missed out on due to "poor returns in long term loans".
    My but don't they epitomize our very own poor aussie battlers ?
    Intrinsically banks, businesses, super funds and the like are all about making money and capital that sits idle: collecting both interest and dust - little difference at times - represents little benefit to anyone.
    Comment by the Treasury Secretary made brief mention of tax considerations that may have the effect of pouring water on those business interests looking for a spark to light the fire. Risk and where the buck stops will determine whether this idea gets up and pollies in the meantime are probably sitting back on their haunches, tongues hanging out salivating at the prospects. If it means retirees lose control of and access to funds then it remains to be seen which side our pollies fall, business vs battlers - no bets taken on that one.
    Perhaps we should adopt a 'let's wait and see what develops' attitude, maybe this could prove to be a win-win all rounder. It sure as hell beats sitting back knocking any idea that we THINK lacks merit.
    This issue (and thereby most response) reminds me of a quip by a former US Senator; "You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts."
    Mez
    29th Nov 2017
    9:38am
    Considering that our super funds are OUR MONEY and NOT anybody else's, we ought to be consulted before any changes in legislations are made.
    Changing legislations must also be prohibited as it is highway robbery or grand theft otherwise!
    As it stands over recent times, global bonds and Australian shares are NOT performing wellwhile international shares and equity are doing famously so it leads me to believe that is the reason for our wealthiest business leaders eyeing at our super to FRITTER AWAY!
    If this happens, we need to do a mass revolt and withdraw all our super funds before they have time to put their dirty paws on our moneys!
    moama jock
    29th Nov 2017
    1:27pm
    Oh MEZ how can you be so naïve taking just one point from your post please tell me how you are able to "withdraw all our super funds before - - "
    moama jock
    29th Nov 2017
    12:59pm
    Mez,Without intentionally intending to be offensive to you Escorts read prostitutes and for the prior two days the daily newspapers have laboured on the alleged 100+ telephone calls by a stood down official on his business phone only adding to the many similar past occurrences.

    Leaving aside the grimy aspects lets hope that some flesh can be added to the idea and those that wish to participate can add another alternative to their investment portfolio
    Go Australia
    Blossom
    9th Dec 2017
    4:17pm
    If the businesses go broke where does that leave the super contributors??
    If you are still employed, even if you are self-employed you cannot withdraw your onw funds unless you can prove financial hardship. You have to fill out a lot of forms, give printed proof of hardship then wait weeks to withdraw some funds. By that time you could have lost your livelihood and you house. I personally know somebody who had to plead for funds or would most likely have gone bankrupt. His only employee would have lost her job and livelihood too. Also an employee where I worked prior to retirement was dying from what was initially cancer in his spine which was spreading and wanted to access funds so they could have a few days away from home or hospital at a small cabin where he and his wife had spent their honeymoon. His workmates took a collection to get together funds so they could do that just for a couple of days. He passed away about a month later.