The $1.6 million transfer balance cap revisitedBY KIMBERLEY NOAH, WILLIAM FETTES | VOLUME 11, ISSUE 4![]() The $1.6 million transfer balance cap (TBC) imposes a limit on the total amount that a fund member can transfer into an exempt (retirement phase) pension. The TBC was introduced ... Get articles like this delivered to your email - Sign up for the free weekly newsletter More Articles |
Latest News
AustralianSuper rolls out new investment data platform
|AustralianSuper has implemented a new investment data platform designed to improve portfolio oversight, risk management and decision-making as the superannuation fund expands its global operations.
The risks keeping APRA's new deputy chair up at night
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's (APRA) new deputy chair David Bradbury said the risks that keep him awake at night are those with the potential to threaten the financial stability of the super system or cause catastrophic losses for members.
Early access undermines super's purpose: Mulino
Assistant treasurer Daniel Mulino took an aim at plans by the opposition to let Australians dip into their super early, stating weakening preservation would undermine intergenerational protections and hurt the most vulnerable.
ART rolls out new investment technology platform
Australian Retirement Trust (ART) has launched a new portfolio management system as the $375 billion superannuation fund strengthens its investment capabilities targeting further growth.
Further Reading
Cover Story

In the right place
VASYL NAIR
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TEAM SUPERANNUATION FUND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TEAM SUPERANNUATION FUND
Team Super chief executive Vasyl Nair reflects on the winding path from law to superannuation, the people who shaped him and the changing role of super funds in people's lives. Vinny Vucago writes.










You have correctly addressed certain aspects of the TBC which could be regarded as unfair or at best applying unequally to persons on a Super related Pension. However, I would like to raise another issue resulting from the introduction of the TBC which I regard as unfair and which only applies to persons who do not own a home. As no consideration is given to such persons in deterring their TBC this results in a situation where such persons are in my opinion grossly disadvantaged in comparison to those who do own a home. There are many persons who have for example just about their TBC or not much more in their Super savings but have always rented or chosen to rent in preference to home ownership. Now, if those people purchased a home and consequently reduced their Pension they would be eligible (given all other factors are equal), to claim up to a full old age pension from the Government's coffers. So I believe one can fairly argue that such persons are grossly disadvantaged in comparison to people who for example own a $2M (or more), home but still get the benefit of the full TBC.