Thank you for this
@Pushka - hopefully this post gets merged with my earlier response to
@moa999 . I was just replying that I spoke to someone who suggested the SMSF route and invest in RE. In my instance, I was told it would be better (given age, income, 0 dependents etc) to invest in ready built homes and put them on the market for rent. I was also told that the super balance I have may not be sufficient to purchase a *good* property in a *profitable* suburb. So I wll have to invest my super and take a bank loan to cover the gap.
It was put it in such a way that 1. The rent covers the repayment to bank (for any loan taken to purchase the property) and some $ left (so positively geared) or 2. Make the property negatively geared and get some $ back on tax.
The logic seems air-tight, unless I'm missing something. Granted, what I was told is only the ever-so-rosy-story. I asked for what could go wrong and I was told not much ... #suspicious!