Hiring SMSF loan-processing support: test the entity handoff

To assess an SMSF loan-processing candidate, give them two fictional files in which a company name repeats but its stated capacity differs. Ask them to match each item to the case, entity and capacity supplied in the instructions. A correct company name alone must not close the request.

This is a hiring exercise for preparation support, not a test of investment advice or legal structuring. Its purpose is to establish which work a new hire can perform under your review arrangements. Use it only when SMSF administration is genuinely part of the vacancy.

Decide which capability you are buying

“SMSF experience” can mean chasing documents, maintaining a preparation register or supporting a specialist reviewer. Ask what the candidate personally owned, what instructions they received and who accepted their work. Then specify the capability your vacancy actually needs.

For example, distinguish a collection assistant who records incoming items from a processor expected to reconcile several party-specific requests before assembling a review pack. Both roles can be useful. They do not have the same starting requirements or supervision needs.

ASIC’s Moneysmart guidance explains that SMSF borrowing adds complexity, warns that incorrectly prepared loan or property documents can be difficult to change, and states that SMSF advice requires an AFS licence or authorisation. Keep those advice decisions outside this assessment.

Write the preparation responsibilities and reviewer availability into your loan processor hiring brief. Do not use an administration work sample to infer that someone can select an investment, establish a structure, interpret a deed or decide who may sign.

Supply the complete fictional instruction map

Give every candidate the same materials below. All names, identifiers, instructions and documents are invented. The identifiers are training references, not ACNs, ABNs or actual customer records. The map is an exercise input, not a representation that a proposed arrangement is legally valid.

The responsible reviewer is Morgan. The candidate may index items and prepare an internal reconciliation. Morgan alone decides whether a request is satisfied and whether anything may proceed externally. No sending, signing or alteration of source documents is permitted.

Case and instruction	Entity and training ID	Capacity to preserve exactly	Open request
A / A-v1	Harbour Trustees Pty Ltd / E1	Trustee for Cedar Super Fund / F1	A1: reviewer-requested confirmation for this entity and capacity
A / A-v1	Cedar Custodian Pty Ltd / E2	Trustee for Cedar Holding Trust / H1	A2: reviewer-requested confirmation for this entity and capacity
B / B-v1	Harbour Trustees Pty Ltd / E1	Trustee for Banksia Super Fund / F2	B1: reviewer-requested confirmation for this entity and capacity

For this exercise, “confirmation” means a mock text card identifying the requested case, entity and capacity. It is not a lender document category or evidence of legal sufficiency. The candidate compares the supplied fields; Morgan retains the substantive review.

The repeated company is deliberate. E1 is the same training entity in A and B, but the supplied fund capacity is different. Creating one “Harbour” folder or relying only on an entity-ID match loses the distinction being assessed.

The AUASB’s GS 009 investment guidance, paragraph 369, describes an LRBA asset held in trust for the SMSF. That narrow description explains why capacity labels deserve attention; auditor guidance is not a processor checklist. Actual arrangements and evidence requirements must come from the responsible professionals.

Give these three incoming cards

Ask the candidate to build a reconciliation with columns for request, source card, case, entity, capacity, comparison result and question owner. These are the entire card contents relevant to matching:

• D1: filename “Harbour confirmation”; case B; Harbour Trustees Pty Ltd, E1; trustee for Banksia Super Fund, F2.
• D2: filename “A2 confirmation”; case A; Cedar Custodian Pty Ltd, E2; trustee for Cedar Holding Trust, H1.
• D3: filename “Case A Harbour”; case A; Harbour Trustees Pty Ltd, E1; capacity and fund reference omitted.

No further information may be inferred from filenames. The candidate has authorised access to both fictional cases for this exercise, but a card associated with B must not be included in A’s pack merely because E1 appears in both.

Request an initial reconciliation, then issue the revision below. Separating the two stages lets you see whether the candidate first understood the matching problem rather than merely copying a final answer.

Change the capacity label, not the company

Morgan issues A-v2: “For request A2, replace the capacity label ‘trustee for Cedar Holding Trust / H1’ with ‘trustee for Cedar Property Holding Trust / H1’. E2 and its company name are unchanged. This corrects the exercise instruction label only. A1 is unchanged. Do not amend D2. Hold A2’s prepared output while I determine what revised confirmation is needed. Continue reconciling A1 and B1.”

Before receiving A-v2, the candidate has prepared an internal cover sheet P-A2 listing A2, E2, the old capacity label, A-v1 and source D2. Ask for an updated map and an affected-output list. There is now enough information to identify the exact change without guessing whether a company, trust or legal relationship has changed in reality.

Use a field-level answer key

Output	Expected result	What it reveals
A1 against D1	Not a match: case B and capacity F2 differ, despite matching company and E1.	Whether the candidate checks capacity instead of treating an entity match as sufficient.
A1 against D3	Case and entity match; capacity is missing. Keep A1 unresolved and ask Morgan which clarification to obtain.	Whether the candidate preserves an unknown rather than supplying F1 from the request.
B1 against D1	All supplied comparison fields match B-v1. Record “fields match; awaiting Morgan’s acceptance”, not “loan requirement satisfied”.	Whether mechanical reconciliation stays separate from substantive acceptance.
A2 after A-v2	Map becomes A / E2 / trustee for Cedar Property Holding Trust / H1 / A-v2. D2 retains its original wording and no longer matches the current label.	Whether an instruction correction is kept distinct from changing the source evidence.
Prepared output P-A2	Hold the old cover sheet. Prepare a clearly marked replacement draft using A-v2, identifying D2’s mismatch and Morgan’s pending decision. Preserve P-A2’s history.	Whether the candidate can isolate the affected output without clearing the underlying query.

A1 remains open; B1 can advance to Morgan’s internal review; A2 remains held. Neither the corrected map nor the replacement cover sheet establishes that D2 is acceptable. Those different states are the result the assessor should look for.

Translate the evidence into an actual starting scope

Assess the error pattern, not a single SMSF score. A candidate who accurately records the cards but matches D1 to A1 needs supervised reconciliation practice; describing years of exposure does not remove that gap. If the role only requires collection and indexing, that may still fit its narrower brief.

Someone who distinguishes F1 from F2 but treats a matching card as final acceptance needs a clearer review boundary. Someone who handles both distinctions but finds the local register unfamiliar may need systems training rather than a different specialist hire. Record the task observed, the training required and who can provide it.

If independent preparation is essential from the start and no reviewer has capacity to supervise the missing skill, continue the search or redesign the vacancy. Do not broaden a candidate’s remit just to fill the seat. Use your shortlist comparison record to retain this evidence alongside other assessed requirements.

The broader document-pack workflow covers indexing by entity, period and version. This exercise adds a specific hiring test: recognising that the same entity can appear in supplied instructions under different capacities, and that matching names does not establish request completion.

Bring the defined responsibilities, supervision available and experience you need to a Mortgage Talent hiring discussion. Ask what relevant experience can be evidenced; this guide does not promise specialist availability or SMSF advice.