They wanted to buy residential property in Super. That strategy is dead and buried. скачать в хорошем качестве

They wanted to buy residential property in Super. That strategy is dead and buried.

As far as I’m concerned, residential property inside self-managed super is becoming increasingly difficult to justify. In this case study, we walk through why one experienced residential investor pivoted to commercial property inside their SMSF, and why the numbers made that decision logical rather than emotional. With current interest rates, setup costs, valuation fees and lending restrictions, residential property in super often only works at a 60% loan-to-value ratio. That means tying up more capital for a lower yield, which limits both growth and income over time. In this example, the clients had around $400,000 in their SMSF. When we compared a residential property returning roughly 3.5–3.7% net yield with a commercial property returning just over 6%, the difference compounded quickly. By purchasing at a 70% LVR instead of 60%, they were able to secure a higher-value asset with stronger income and a clearer retirement outcome. We also unpack how commercial valuations differ from residential, why lease strength matters more than comparable sales, how SMSF borrowing structures are set up, and why many first-time commercial buyers use specialist advice to reduce risk. The bigger lesson is this: SMSF property strategy isn’t about what feels familiar. It’s about which asset class actually produces sustainable income and debt reduction before retirement. If you’re considering property inside super and want to see whether residential or commercial makes more sense for your situation, it’s worth running the numbers properly. 📅 Book a strategy session https://calendly.com/trilogy-funding/... 📘 Free resource Equity Access Blueprint: https://www.trilogyfunding.com.au/equ...