Originally posted by JonnoH
«Ms» mce-anchor
«Wilkinson» : We considered a number of different ways in which individuals may adjust their behaviour. We considered that somebody who's got a very large balance may choose—so somebody who is above the transfer balance cap—to adjust their portfolio in terms of whether their assets are supporting their pension phase or their accumulation phase, so they could actually make a readjustment within their existing portfolio. We considered that some members of a self-managed super fund may choose to try and get additional members into their self-managed super fund in order to the defray some of those costs. We considered that some members of a self-managed super fund may choose to take the share part of their portfolio and move it into an APRA fund, for example. We considered all of those and also that individuals could change their asset allocation as a consequence of this policy, noting that, of course, if you're investing for the long-term, you're also going to want to have a reasonably diversified share portfolio in order to support your retirement.
And from
https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05 A...ed costings/Question on Notice No 4.pdf?la=en
"The PBO considers that the behavioural assumptions used in the costingare similar to the illustrative behavioural responses discussed by Rice Warner inregards to self-managed superannuation funds."
And from
https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05 A...ed costings/Question on Notice No 2.pdf?la=en
"As noted in the response, there are also significant uncertainties around thebehavioural responses of affected individuals, superannuation funds and companies to the proposal. The PBO notes that all policy costings, no matter who they are preparedby, are subject to uncertainty."
Rice Warner come up with $550 million a year less so we can see the level of uncertainty involved.
