Second SMSF implies, a different legal entity, so two actual full on running SMSF, so it has its own bank account, HIN, investments etc, double the annual compliance.
'So if you set up a second SMSF and have assets segregated, that’s all fine but as soon as you start playing around and manipulate funds between retirement and accumulation phase then we’re going to have a closer look and ask people what’s going on there.”''
I take this to mean, fund 1 is 100% pension, and fund 2 is 100% accumulation, the next year, they swap over, then the year after its 50/50% each then back to 100/0% pension.
So each fund has a purpose and they are 'locked in'.
Is it worth having two SMSF? it costs more.. ok... next.. people talk about investing one fund in one method say 100% growth assets, and the second fund 100% non-growth assets, compared to 1 big fund 50/50 in the methods. There can be merits, i didn't look into it in great detail, as depending on what way you go, if you put growth in pension fund, means pension is higher and higher each year, so you are drawing out more and more (what you can't get back in), but with a blended fund, some of your pension is taken from non-growth assets.... so its give and take.....
