Somewhat loose in the head some of you blokes. Super funds are invested in all sorts of things. Coles air a big borrower in super funds to grow their annual supply of tomatoes. The returns for super were better than other short term borrowings.

If super was invested in housing what makes you think it would raise prices, I think the opposite would be the outcome. We are talking about new housing, not existing.
The building price is far cheaper than the retail price of existing housing.

Doog, what raises the price of housing is the amount of eligible buyers. So anything that adds to the amount of buyers able to buy makes prices increase. Its basic supply V demand.

Chris, you say your 39YO son will not have enough in super to retire on. So tell me, how much of his own money has he invested in super.

If he has not, then why not, especially if he knows he will be short.

The incentives are there, its just that sacrifices have to be made and most wont do that.

As for using super for a deposit, the same applis as i saud to Doog. More buyers means increased prices. Its like a dog chasing its tail im afraid.

Butch you are just making that to suite yourself. Bill was not referring to individuals borrowing super. That is a coalition Kok arse idea.

Building company,s borrowing super as apposed to borrowing from a bank. Bricks and mortar investment has always been a winner. We are talking about new housing, not buying old stock.
There is not enough new stock on the market to service the demand for housing. As anybody knows to build a house costs far less than having to fight for an existing one.
So get the story straight.

If there was an excess of new houses on the market the bottom would fall clean out of overpriced established houses.

Doog, what Bill is talking about is self managed super funds borrowing directly. I have such a fund myself and since 2001 when i first borrowed through the fund, borrowing of this sort has been on/off then back on again. Billis wanting to once again change this.

Now my fund owns four properties and two of them provide permernant housing for families, so if the fund can no longer borrow where will these people live? Remembering, for every existing propery sold, many investors buy another. So if they cant borrow (assuming his laws are not retrospective)then the fund is less likely to sell and most certainly wont buy unless they use cash. Now given the rather poor rental returns on property, cashed up funds wont buy residential properties unless they steal them. This comes with its own set of problems.