I suspect it isn't just an IT matter. A full audit, including one involving processes, is probably required and may involve outside bodies such as APRA. It would not surprise me when these situations occur, external audits are necessary.
I went through a similar thing when Caresuper merged with Spirit super last year. A month or so with the account locked.
It didn't cause me any grief, but surely they could speed up these processes.
Caresuper has currently locked its Direct Investment option for about a month while it changes its provider for this service. It was well flagged, but is still too long and this time its coincided with a period of high volatility in the markets.
Why would an audit require any multi day locking?I suspect it isn't just an IT matter. A full audit, including one involving processes, is probably required and may involve outside bodies such as APRA. It would not surprise me when these situations occur, external audits are necessary.
There used to be defined benefits schemes that involved sacrificing a portion of salary in return for a benefit upon retirement that was as per a formula, it wasn't dependent on any particular investment and its performance.so am guessing department heads ( in Federal Government ) and other career public servants would have something similar
Why would an audit require any multi day locking?
You take a snapshot of the database overnight and you can audit it after for decades if you want.
So even with technical incompetence involved, no excuse....
As this is not the only instance, it is probably worthwhile to try to read behind : why would that be?
I have 2 possible causes, anyone else?
Did anyone try to play smart and not actually process your direct share instructions so created a blackpool distinct from the market and funds now need to reconcile with the market?
Or would super funds have private investments in their books with pretend valuations so off that it becomes a legal liability and only a month break allows the duration needed to smooth the hit?
But often, these fxup ups are just incompetence more than conspiracy theories.
Really happy to move out of these
According to todays Australian, the issue is now dead in the water.
absolutelyOne can only hope it is. While it does not impact me, to impose a penalty on those who were adhering to the laws applicable at the time, is grossly unfair.
I'm not sure that is what the article is suggesting.According to todays Australian, the issue is now dead in the water.
even the mention ( discussion ) of unrealized gains runs a chill down my investing spineI'm not sure that is what the article is suggesting.
More that Mr Gregg may have been misleading.
Is that how you read it? Wishes more than text,?According to todays Australian, the issue is now dead in the water.
according to the AFR todayI have no doubt that Div 296 will go ahead now that Labor's position in the senate is strengthened.
I also think they will now have the power to push their intended method of determining the profit of the super account, which means the taxing of unrealised gains.
My only hope is that they tell the greens to go jump and don't lower the application limit from $3m to $2m.
It would be nice if Labor compromised and agreed to index the limit, but I don't think they will. They are going to use their new power on this.
.. to me that does not seem right. Not a bell curve fit.Lowering the threshold would increase the number of people affected from about 80,000 to 104,000.
but if the $2M was indexed, that would provide some clarity "going forward"according to the AFR today
.. to me that does not seem right. Not a bell curve fit.
according to the AFR today
.. to me that does not seem right. Not a bell curve fit.
Super tax more likely, Greens stand firm on $2m demand
Election gains by Labor and the Greens make it more likely big superannuation balances will be hit with more tax – and the measure may kick in at $2 million.www.afr.com
Not indexing it will probably get the clarity of get the f out.but if the $2M was indexed, that would provide some clarity "going forward"
Interesting.For those affected by dot point one, they cannot do a thing as there is no actual fund and the amount calculated is notional (annual pension x 16.) Sure it means a DB of around $187k and I certainly wouldn't mind that but keep in mind it is already taxed.
so does nearly everybody ,I wish they would just stop tinkering with super!
Interesting.
I get a fortnightly defined benefit pension from the CSS that has an associated notional value. i also have super accumulation and pension accounts.
My understanding is that the CSS fund doesn't actually generate any earnings. If I was over the $3m limit, Div 296 tax of 30% on zero CSS earnings would be zero, so the defined benefit would not be double taxed.
If, however, the notional value of the CSS defined benefit pension caused me to exceed the $3m limit, I would then be up for Div 296 tax on the earnings of the super accumulation and pension accounts for the balance greater than $3m.
I might be totally wrong about this. It's as clear as mud. I wish they would just stop tinkering with super!
For the first case, it is only if the $3.2m notional value grows to, say, $3.3m, then the $100,000 growth is the earnings of the fund and attracts the tax. However, I think the notional value stays the same for the life of the pension, so no growth and no tax.The situation is confusing to me. I don't profess to know the ins and outs but say some lucky dude has a DB of 200k pa. Multiplied by 16 the notional value is $3,200,000. As it it exceeds $3m then a tax would be levied on the $200k. It's not about earnings as such. Where they get the money to pay the tax, I haven't a clue as no actual fund exists for them. It's all notional.
The assume a person has a lesser amount of DB, say $80k pa, and another superannuation fund valued at $2m. The numbers work out ($80k pa x 16) + $2m = $3.28m. It exceeds the $3m so tax would be levied on $280k.
That's my understanding which is a simple one. It'll be more complicated than that but as far as I can work out that is how this proposal will broadly operate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?