LRBA stability has been understated
The stability of limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBA) within SMSFs has been understated, with their track record highlighting their longevity and safety compared to other forms of property lending, a non-bank lender has stated.
.
Bluestone head of specialised distribution Richard Chesworth said in dealing with mortgage brokers, accountants and financial advisers he has emphasised official numbers demonstrate the settled nature of SMSF borrowing.
“When you look at the ATO statistics, the size of the market, as in assets secured by LRBAs, has generally been between 6.5 and 7.5 per cent [of the total value of all SMSF assets] since about 2020, so it’s consistent,” Chesworth said.
“In regards to the debt, there are about 11 per cent of SMSFs with exposure to LRBAs, and at June 2024 there were $67 billion of assets under LRBAs with about $27 billion worth of debt against them.
“So the real message I like to drive home is this market is established. It’s been around for 19 years, which means we have SMSF loans that have been repaid. We have SMSF loans where the property has been sold.
“I don’t see it as a new safe haven that everyone is looking into, which is where some commentators with a vested interest in the lending for property are going down the path.”
He added these statistics countered criticism of the SMSF sector using LRBAs, noting they were relatively safer, in terms of failure rates, than other forms of lending.
“The LRBA market is mature, is operating well and is low risk because we’re looking at about a 33 per cent gearing of the overall portfolio,” he said.
“I was in a S&P presentation last year and figures they put forward showed that residential mortgage-backed securities had a 30-plus-day default rate of just over 1 per cent, but the SMSF residential mortgage-backed securities had a default rate of over 30 days of 0.1 per cent.
“That default can often be as simple as someone has set up their loan, but haven’t got their direct debit set up properly, so they miss their first payment and it’s reported on that basis.”
April 23, 2026
Jason Spits
smsmagazine.com.au
Hot Issues
- SMSF commercial property owners and Div 296 ‘misconceptions’
- Can I access my super early?
- Magnificent Seven: More diverse than they may appear
- Look for the red flags that signal unscrupulous advice
- Carer responsibilities don’t meet interdependency criteria: PBR
- LRBA stability has been understated
- From Bricks to iPhones: The Evolution of the Telephone
- Interest rates likely to stay higher for longer
- Iran conflict: Keeping perspective on market risk
- Most Valuable Industries in the World 2026
- In turbulent times, stick to your long-term wealth strategy
- SMSF trustees acting badly – further disqualification cases
- Know the difference between death benefit pension and normal pension or pay the price
- View Division 296 as two-stage event
- Rise in SMSF inflows indicate more people are moving into the sector
- Super versus trusts: What is the best option with Div 296?
- Thinking of establishing an SMSF? Don’t skip reading the rules
- Investment and economic outlook, February 2026
- Coercive control in SMSF becoming a hot issue
- Are downsizer contributions losing steam?
- What to look for when choosing a financial adviser
- AI use needed with proper safeguards
- Most Reliable Car Brands in 2026
- ASIC targeting high-pressure sales and inappropriate advice
- Investment and economic outlook, January 2026
- Australians not underspending their super
- Five financial steps for the new year
- ASIC warns investors on pump and dump scammers
- Don’t confuse contribution with roll-over when using proceeds from small business sale
- Missed SG exemption may not be problem
- Rare and vanishing: Animals That May Go Extinct Soon
Article archive
