Did you know your super might be paying insurance premiums you may not want? Many super funds will automatically provide you with

Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) insurance;

and Income Protection (IP) insurance in some instances

This  default cover can occur if you are 25 or older, have at least $6,000 in your super, and meet the fund’s eligibility requirements without your explicit approval. 

The premiums are generally deducted automatically from your superannuation balance, often in monthly instalments which is why they are often unnoticed.

The main trade off here is the lost retirement savings versus the additional financial protection. However, insurance inside super does have its pros, namely often being cheaper, easier to get, and easier to pay as opposed to external coverage.

So, insurance inside super isn’t necessarily a waste of money, but you should know what you are paying for and whether you need it. But before cancelling any insurance, consider whether you still need the cover, as replacing it later may be more difficult or expensive.

For further reading, see the Moneysmart link below and be sure to check your super statement for insurance premiums and coverage!

https://moneysmart.gov.au/how-life-insurance-works/insurance-through-super

Do you know what you’re paying for? Insurance premiums in your super

Wanting to enter the property market but can’t afford properties where you want to live? Why not Rentvest?

With housing prices having outpaced wage inflation in recent history, there are many people out there looking to buy their own homes, but being outpriced out of the areas where they ideally would like to live. So, what are the options?

Keep saving… but property prices keep climbing and leave you perpetually out of reach, even if you were to invest to try and boost the returns on savings.

Buy a cheaper property elsewhere as a stepping stone while you keep saving… but you may hate it where you end up living. Are you prepared to sacrifice whilst you build towards your dream home?

Rentvesting involves buying a cheaper property as an investment, whilst you continue renting in an area that you want to live in.

With Sydney rental prices averaging 3% (that is, you are paying 3% of the property value in rent per year), renting can be a smaller financial outlay compared to paying 6.5% p.a. interest on a home loan to buy and live in that same property. But many people say that rent is “dead money” – whereas paying off a loan is putting your money towards ownership of an asset!

So, this is where Rentvesting comes in. Rental yields of cheaper properties/houses in different states or even outer regions of NSW can be higher. If you work your numbers right, Rentvesting could potentially leave you with a cheaper loan repayment (from a lower purchase) whilst you live in your preferred location, with rental income that helps go towards covering your own rent payments.

- You have a property investment/asset that can help build towards buying your dream home in future.

- You can claim the costs of owning the property (including interest on your mortgage) as tax-deductions against the rental income, with any net losses accrued over time to offset future property net profits or Capital Gains.

- Investing comes with risks. With Property that includes tenancy issues, which could leave you without income if the property doesn’t have a tenant, whilst you still need to cover all the ongoing costs – including mortgage repayments.

- Property values can go up or down. Property price growth in different areas can differ. Investing in a property in a less desirable area compared to your dream home can still leave you lagging behind in any goals to upgrade to your dream home over time.

- Recent changes in tax legislation rules out negative gearing of net property losses against other forms of income, and implementing a minimum capital gains tax of 30% on investments, with some exemptions.

There are many different factors to consider when thinking about making any big investment decision, including when Rentvesting. You should seek guidance from a qualified Financial Advisor before making any decisions.

This week I chatting with a client about an old business they had and they were not sure if they closed down all of their accounts properly. So we decided to have a look at the state and federal government lost money registers.


We first started with ASIC's Moneysmart and found a business bank account balance of $500 that had been sent from the bank to ASIC because our client didn't close the account and the bank lost contact.


We then searched the NSW revenue lost money register and found a further $150 which was an unpaid dividend for an investment the company held.
So it pays to occasionally look and see if you have any lost money. Here is a summary of where you can look and what you can find:

The federal government holds three main types of lost money. ASIC holds money that banks, life insurers and companies couldn’t return to their owners, such as bank accounts left untouched for seven years (if the balance was over $500), matured life insurance policies, and money from shares and takeovers. The ATO looks after lost and unclaimed super. Services Australia holds Medicare refunds it can’t pay because it doesn’t have the person’s bank details.

https://moneysmart.gov.au/find-unclaimed-money


ATO (lost super, $21bn+; search through myGov)


https://www.ato.gov.au/media-centre/21-billion-dollars-in-lost-super-find-yours

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/getmedicarebenefits

The states hold most of the rest: uncashed cheques, overpayments and refunds, wages, deceased estates, rental bonds, unclaimed lottery and TAB prizes, and, importantly for shareholders, unpaid dividends. Which state holds money from a company often depends on where the company was based, not where you live, so check them all.

https://www.revenue.nsw.gov.au/unclaimed-money/return-unclaimed-money

https://sro.vic.gov.au/unclaimedmoneysearch

https://www.pt.qld.gov.au/other-services/unclaimed-money/about-unclaimed-money

https://wa.gov.au/service/business-support/business-accounting-and-reporting/unclaimed-money

https://www.treasury.sa.gov.au/Our-services/unclaimed-money/search-for-unclaimed-money


TAS, Department of Treasury and Finance


https://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/budget-and-financial-management/guidelines-instructions-and-legislation/unclaimed-money


ACT, ACT Treasury / Public Trustee and Guardian


https://www.treasury.act.gov.au/unclaimedmoneys

https://treasury.nt.gov.au/dtf/territory-revenue-office/unclaimed-money

Are you missing out on part of the $25bn in lost funds

Sixty thousand dollars of tax on $100,000 of income. That's the eye-watering outcome staring down some family trust owners under Labor's proposed 30 per cent minimum tax floor — and it's why the most popular private wealth structure in Australia is heading for extinction.

The discretionary family trust has been the backbone of private wealth in this country for generations. Flexible, tax-effective, and battle-tested through every government and market cycle. But from 1 July 2028, distributions will cop a 30 per cent minimum tax, with no grandfathering. Worse still, if you distribute to a "bucket company" — a common strategy — the legal fraternity is warning of straight-up double taxation, with no offset or credit to protect you.

The government has offered a three-year window for CGT-exempt restructuring, but stamp duty is another matter entirely. The states have gone quiet, and CPA Australia's Jenny Wong nailed it when she called this a "postcode lottery" — the same restructure could cost one business nothing and another tens of thousands, purely based on geography.

Here's my concern: we're being asked to make expensive structural decisions based on rules that don't yet exist. And if there's a change of government in 2028 — which is no longer the certainty it once seemed — we could see the whole thing rolled back, triggering another round of stamp duty as families scramble back into trusts.

Family investment companies are shaping up as the likely replacement, potentially with different share classes to give distribution flexibility. But the ATO is already flagging Part IVA anti-avoidance concerns, so don't assume you can simply replicate trust flexibility inside a company wrapper.

My advice? Don't act prematurely. Model your options, understand what a fixed trust or corporate structure might look like for you, but hold off on any major restructure until the legislation is actually passed. Right now, we're all boxing at shadows.

James Gerrard - Trusts wealth crackdown creates double taxation trap – your new options

Written For The Australian - Trusts wealth crackdown creates double taxation trap – your new options

Nearly two-thirds of Australians over 67 rely on the age pension for at least part of their retirement income. That's a big number — and a big bill for taxpayers, costing the federal government over $60 billion a year, or close to 10 per cent of total spending.

So how does our system actually stack up globally? Better than you might think. The full age pension pays singles $31,223 and couples $47,070 annually — enough to cover roughly 90 per cent of what ASFA considers a "modest" retirement. Throw in the pension concession card and its thousands of dollars in health, energy and transport savings, and it's a meaningful safety net.

Compared to OECD peers, Australia spends just 2.5 per cent of GDP on pensions — well below the 9 per cent average and a fraction of Italy's 16 per cent. Our pension equals 26.2 per cent of the average wage (13th on the OECD list), and our access age of 67 is bang in line with global norms. Denmark, by the way, is heading to age 70 by 2040 and possibly 74 by 2060. Ouch.

Where I think reform is coming is means testing — specifically, the family home exemption. Consider this: a retired couple in a $5 million Sydney home can collect a full pension worth $50,000 a year, plus up to $150,000 in aged care support. Meanwhile, the renting couple next door with $1.5 million in super get nothing. That's not fair, and it's not sustainable.

The Grattan Institute wants home equity above $750,000 included in the assets test. Policy Institute Australia wants the threshold set at $500,000. Given the Albanese government has already shown appetite for touching negative gearing and capital gains tax, I'd be genuinely surprised if the family home exemption isn't on the table by the 2027 budget.

Fair warning to homeowners banking on the current rules — they may not last.

James Gerrard - How Australia’s age pension compares to the rest of the world

Written For The Australian - How Australia’s age pension compares to the rest of the world

Ban property lending inside super? Fine, say Australia's most determined SMSF investors — we'll just buy a villa in Sicily instead.

The Albanese government's ban on residential property lending inside SMSFs was meant to cool the sector's appetite for bricks and mortar. Instead, from what I'm seeing, it's simply redirected the hunt. Trustees who can no longer gear into an Australian house are now looking at Aussie commercial property — and increasingly, at overseas markets where cash purchases are within reach.

The numbers tell the story. Around a quarter of SMSF assets sit in property, but less than 2 per cent is offshore. That figure hasn't budged in five years, but I think it's about to.

Why? Because $300,000 doesn't buy much in Sydney, but overseas it stretches remarkably far — a ski house in Japan, a colonial home in Mexico, sea-view flats in Georgia, or that Sicilian villa. Buyer's agent Kitty Parker recently picked up a New Zealand commercial property for under $67,000 with a 23 per cent gross yield. Try finding that in Parramatta.

But here's where I urge caution. Buying overseas in your SMSF is not a weekend hobby. Your trust deed and investment strategy must permit it. The sole purpose test still applies — meaning no family holidays in your Tuscan farmhouse. Related party rules mean your cousin can't rent your Greek unit. Break these and the ATO won't care how charming the olive trees are.

Then there's the practical mess: different time zones, currencies, languages, tenancy laws and tax regimes. Multiply every headache of a domestic investment property by ten.

My concern is that unfamiliarity breeds losses. Slick agents will push overpriced off-the-plan stock in overdeveloped areas dressed up as "opportunity." If you're serious about offshore SMSF property, engage an independent buyer's agent who works for you — not the developer.

James Gerrard - SMSF investors eye overseas property after budget lending ban

Written For The Australian - SMSF investors eye overseas property after budget lending ban

Could Canberra's backdown on the so-called "death tax" have handed wealthy families a quiet workaround? I think it might have.

When the government caved to public pressure and exempted testamentary trusts from the incoming 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trust distributions, it left a curious gap. Testamentary trusts – trusts activated only through a will after death – retain a very generous tax perk dating back to 1980: distributions to minors are taxed at adult marginal rates, meaning up to $22,500 per child per year can flow through tax-free once the Low Income Tax Offset is applied. Compare that to a standard family trust, where a minor pays up to 47 per cent on anything above $416.

Here's where it gets interesting. Picture Tom, mid-40s, high income, three young kids. His elderly mother Kate needs aged care. Tom gifts her $1m to cover the refundable accommodation deposit. Kate keeps her pension (the RAD is exempt from the assets test), and when she passes, the $1m returns to Tom's estate via her will – which conveniently contains a testamentary trust clause. Tom invests the money, generates $55,000 a year, splits it between his three kids, and pays zero tax. Had he kept the money in his own name, he'd have handed nearly half to the ATO. Had he used a family trust, the new 30 per cent rule from July 2028 would bite.

Could this become a widespread strategy? I have my doubts. Part IVA anti-avoidance provisions loom large, especially if the money moves shortly before death and the will is freshly amended. There are also real-world risks – the parent spending the funds, a Family Provisions Act challenge, or pension and aged-care fee consequences from the initial gift.

My honest view? It's unsavoury, the risks are high, and practical use will likely be limited. But the loophole exists – and Canberra should probably close it before someone tests it.

James Gerrard - A potential trust tax loophole that’s survived Canberra’s ‘death tax’ U-turn

Written For The Australian - A potential trust tax loophole that’s survived Canberra’s ‘death tax’ U-turn

If you've been dreaming of buying an investment property inside your self-managed super fund with a bit of borrowed money, the clock is ticking — and it's ticking loudly.

Thanks to a last-minute deal between Labor and the Greens, one of the most powerful wealth-building strategies for retirement is being shut down. Buying residential property in an SMSF using leverage, then flicking the switch to tax-free rental income and capital gains after age 60, has been a go-to play for years. Not anymore.

The ban on SMSF property lending kicks in 45 days after the legislation gets royal assent, which puts the effective deadline somewhere around mid-August. And whether that deadline applies to contract date or settlement date? Still unclear.

If you don't already have an SMSF set up, I'd say you've probably missed the boat. Between establishing the fund, rolling over your super, getting loan pre-approval, finding a property, doing due diligence and exchanging contracts, six weeks is a serious stretch. If you already have an SMSF, you've got a fighting chance — but only if you move now.

That said, don't run around like a headless chicken. There are exemptions worth knowing about. Commercial property inside an SMSF with a loan is still on the table, and I expect this to be the next hot spot for investors, particularly small business owners who want to be their own landlord. After years of sluggish growth, commercial could finally have its moment.

Residential property in an SMSF is also fine if bought outright — expect a tilt toward cheaper regional markets as trustees adapt.

For everyone else, family investment companies are being touted by accountants, but tread carefully — the ATO's Part IVA rules are unforgiving. And with negative gearing disappearing and a 30 per cent minimum CGT looming, the property investing landscape has fundamentally shifted.

James Gerrard - SMSF property investors race deadline as ban kills key strategy

Written For The Australian - SMSF property investors race deadline as ban kills key strategy

Here's a contradiction worth chewing on: the federal government keeps telling us it wants to fix the housing crisis, yet it's quietly running a scheme that pays retirees to stay put in their oversized family homes.

It's called the Home Equity Access Scheme (HEAS), and right now more than 18,000 retirees are drawing tax-free loans of up to $70,600 a year at rates well below anything a bank would offer. And here's the kicker — you don't need to actually be on the age pension to access it. You just need to be *eligible*. That opens the door to almost anyone over 67 who owns a home, including some very comfortably-off retirees.

To be clear, I think the HEAS is a genuinely good scheme. It gives older Australians the option to fund their retirement without having to sell the family home. But you can't have it both ways. If the government is serious about intergenerational fairness — and hitting mum and dad property investors, family trusts and testamentary trusts in the recent budget in the name of that fairness — then why is HEAS sitting untouched, actively encouraging retirees to hold onto four-bedroom homes that young families would give their right arm for?

Meanwhile, the whack-a-mole continues. Squeeze investment property in personal names, and investors pivot to SMSFs, where capital gains tax is just 10 per cent and drops to zero in pension phase. The FAAA has already flagged a surge in property spruikers pushing SMSF property investment on social media. My prediction? Once Canberra clocks what's happening, super will be the next target.

The uncomfortable truth is that current housing policy isn't coherent. It penalises the middle while leaving one of the biggest levers — encouraging downsizing — completely unpulled.

James Gerrard - Government scheme pays retirees to stay put, worsening housing crisis

Written For The Australian - Government scheme pays retirees to stay put, worsening housing crisis

Could the government's helping hand actually be pushing first-home buyers off a cliff?

That's the uncomfortable question I've been wrestling with as I look at the numbers behind the 5% Deposit Scheme. Since its inception, 248,000 Australians have used it to get into the property market, with 61,281 jumping in during the 2024-25 financial year alone. The pitch is seductive: skip the painful years of saving a 20 per cent deposit and get into a home now. But here's what nobody seems to be talking about — lenders insist on that 20 per cent buffer for a reason.

With property values softening, three RBA rate hikes already this year, and forecasts pointing to a further 5 to 10 per cent decline in dwelling prices, we're staring down the barrel of a negative equity problem that could engulf up to 100,000 recent buyers. Do the maths on an average $1m home: a 10 per cent fall puts the typical 5% Deposit Scheme borrower $50,000 underwater. Multiply that out and we're talking billions in combined negative equity.

What concerns me most is the fine print most buyers never read. The scheme has no income cap (someone on $500,000 can use it), no mandatory financial literacy requirement, and it's open to permanent residents who can simply leave the country. If they walk, the taxpayer foots the bill to the banks. That's not a housing policy — that's a contingent liability dressed up as compassion.

For those already caught in the squeeze, my advice is to ride the cycle. Property has always moved through growth, peak, fall and trough. Consider a granny flat for extra income (mind the CGT consequences), renovate to manufacture equity, or look at renting the property out before selling at a loss.

The real question is whether the government will eventually bail out the very buyers it lured in with wafer-thin deposits. I suspect we'll find out sooner than anyone would like.

Do
you
know
what
you’re
paying
for?
Insurance
premiums
in
your
super

Related Content

Wanting to enter the property market but can’t afford properties where you want to live? Why not Rentvest?

Are you missing out on part of the $25bn in lost funds

Written For The Australian - Trusts wealth crackdown creates double taxation trap – your new options

Written For The Australian - How Australia’s age pension compares to the rest of the world

Written For The Australian - SMSF investors eye overseas property after budget lending ban

Other
items
in
the
media
—

Do you know what you’re paying for? Insurance premiums in your super

Wanting to enter the property market but can’t afford properties where you want to live? Why not Rentvest?

Are you missing out on part of the $25bn in lost funds

Written For The Australian - Trusts wealth crackdown creates double taxation trap – your new options

Written For The Australian - How Australia’s age pension compares to the rest of the world

Written For The Australian - SMSF investors eye overseas property after budget lending ban

Written For The Australian - A potential trust tax loophole that’s survived Canberra’s ‘death tax’ U-turn

Written For The Australian - SMSF property investors race deadline as ban kills key strategy

Written For The Australian - Government scheme pays retirees to stay put, worsening housing crisis

Written For The Australian - First-home buyers in negative equity squeeze as property markets soften

Do you know what you’re paying for? Insurance premiums in your super

Related Content

Wanting to enter the property market but can’t afford properties where you want to live? Why not Rentvest?

Are you missing out on part of the $25bn in lost funds

Written For The Australian - Trusts wealth crackdown creates double taxation trap – your new options

Written For The Australian - How Australia’s age pension compares to the rest of the world

Written For The Australian - SMSF investors eye overseas property after budget lending ban

Other items in the media —

Do you know what you’re paying for? Insurance premiums in your super

Wanting to enter the property market but can’t afford properties where you want to live? Why not Rentvest?

Are you missing out on part of the $25bn in lost funds

Written For The Australian - Trusts wealth crackdown creates double taxation trap – your new options

Written For The Australian - How Australia’s age pension compares to the rest of the world

Written For The Australian - SMSF investors eye overseas property after budget lending ban

Written For The Australian - A potential trust tax loophole that’s survived Canberra’s ‘death tax’ U-turn

Written For The Australian - SMSF property investors race deadline as ban kills key strategy

Written For The Australian - Government scheme pays retirees to stay put, worsening housing crisis

Written For The Australian - First-home buyers in negative equity squeeze as property markets soften

Do
you
know
what
you’re
paying
for?
Insurance
premiums
in
your
super

Other
items
in
the
media
—