April 15, 2025 • 31 mins
Falling interest rates, a wild share market and an election campaign where both parties are falling over each other to throw money at first-home buyers...it's the perfect conditions for a lift in residential prices throughout 2025.
Stuart Wemyss of the Prosolution Private Clients group joins Associate Editor- Wealth, James Kirby in this episode.
….
In today's show, we cover
- Green light for price growth in the residential market
- An investor's guide to the election promises made to home buyers
- Why apartments may do better than stand-alone homes
- Keeping up with the ATO clampdown on property investors
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Hello, and welcome to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. I'm
James Kirby. Welcome aboard everybody. We've been concentrating a lot
on the share market and there is just now perhaps
something of a brief calm at these last few days
on US markets. Maybe this is a chance for everyone
listening to take stock think about if they're properly set,
(00:35):
are they fully up to date on the threats and
the opportunities of what's been going on, which we've been
covering fairly intensity, And we will get back to it
pretty quickly. But meanwhile there's a lot of news to
catch up with for anyone interested in property, in the
value of their home, in investment property of any type,
or helping other people perhaps to get into the market,
(00:56):
because the federal election which we are in the thick of,
has suddenly become we'd seen in terms of handouts at
least all about home buyers first home buyers, and we
will give you a quick catch up on what's happening
there at the start of the show. Also, I want
to bring up the point and discuss the concept historical
(01:17):
concept really well proven that when there is a share
market shakeout, there is a shift towards property by investors,
and the evidence is there that investors are coming back
into the market. But we will talk and we will
basically interrogate that as well. My guest today is Stuart
Wems of the pro Solution Private Client Group.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
How are you, Stuart, I'm really well, James plenty going on,
so thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Isn't it just for the broader audience that theme that
people move back into property when there is a share
market shakeout? We saw it after COVID's that was beyond now,
that was extraordinary, thirty percent phone the stop market and
people went straight into property and there was double digital
lifts across the board. Off the back of that. We've
(02:02):
seen even before this share market drop. And remember that
at one point the US share market and in what
might be the frustrating we don't know what has happened
off Tarrafs was nearly down to twenty percent from the top.
But we have seen investors coming back into property in
any event before this. Some people say, oh, they couldn't
(02:25):
possibly you know, properties, so dear, the yields are so low,
what do you think?
Speaker 2 (02:31):
It definitely has an impact volatility, because that's One of
the things with property is that has much lower volatility,
about half the rate of volatility of the share market,
and I guess we have a sense of that anyway,
a property feels secure. It's not traded every day, so
you don't get the same sort of price fluctuations, and
that makes investors feel a little bit more comfortable. So
(02:53):
it's always a good reminder for property investors that shure
the share market is volatile, and that's normal, that should
be expected. This nothing's going to change there. The returns
still in the long run are good, but it is
more volatile. But when we get a reminder of that,
of course, it tends to push people in the property direction,
and then future expected returns another consideration. The share markets
(03:14):
had a great run over last well, the US market
over the last thirteen years, and just generally in markets
maybe over the last ten. But if we don't expect
the next ten to be as good as the last decade,
well then maybe investor start looking to other asset classes.
And then finally, the backdrop of falling interest rates or
potentially falling interest rates, which is exactly what happened during COVID,
(03:39):
of course, and which really stimulated property. But that has
a big impact on demand for lending and then of
course more money flowing into the property market. So it's
almost a perfect storm really for the property market in
a positive sense.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Perfect conditions you mean, yeah, correct, that's what I meant.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Yet wrong word.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
I wouldn't discree with you at all. The banks would
seem to be ready to lend, the yields are stable,
the prices were expected to go let's say five percent
or so. Nation might in any event if they did that,
with their yields of two and three percent being realistic
for people from many people, that would be persuasive. I'm
(04:21):
really talking about metropolitan properties there there are better years,
of course, and every property is local, so there's that
to consider. And the rates some of the banks starting
to move already. I see on the fixed side they
are dropping, and of course they're dropping their cash rates
as well, ever so quietly, but they're all doing it systematically.
So we have that. So you have that, you have
(04:43):
good conditions. You might think, on paper, what might be
the bare case here? What might stop property lifting?
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Global recession and therefore an economic slow down in Australia
as well. I mean that could have an impact particularly
if we then see rising unemployment. Rising unemployment is not
good for the property market, of course, so that could
be a potential downside. And I know there's been a
bunch of economists called the probability of a recession in
(05:13):
the US sixty seventy percent or something like that. But
it's just retrick, isn't it. No one really knows.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
I saw her gold that Sachs literally moves the last
few days. They move their probability of recession from just
over fifty to just under fifty. It's really borderline, but
it's obviously a borderline risk.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Yeah it is. And I think look, Australia is somewhat
not completely insulated, of course to a global slowdown, not
by any stretch of the imagination. But Australia's in a
pretty good position economically. So I think that's a potential downside,
but I don't think it's a real material risk that
I'd be thinking about today. It's a possibility, but I
don't think it's likely.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
So you heard it here. For US folks, the conditions
aren't ideal for a probably what you might call it
better than expected return from residential property this year calendar
twenty twenty five. Certainly, I certainly think that is the case.
Or property as local as I say so, you'll probably
find that the numbers will be better, say in Victoria
(06:12):
than Perth, where Perth has been flying for so long
and Victoria has been so subdued for so long. One
other thing, just on that sort of big picture of
view for everybody. We were talking about first home buyers.
So there is now so many grants. I actually have
a list. I have a list of all the different
grants and I try to keep up, and now there
are two that sort of lock everything else to the sides. Really,
(06:32):
and we might just explain to listeners. The Labor alp
the government, their big ticket first home buyer package was
announced virtually on the same day as Peter Dutton. Now
Labor already had a shared Equity plan which we've had
a look at, that's going to be pushed to the sidelines.
I think for the simple reason that the First Home Guarantee,
(06:53):
which was already the most popular scheme of the country
whereby you can buy a property for five percent, that
used to be a small, smallish, restricted, totally regulated program.
It now goes universal. Basically anyone in Australia buys a
house for the first time, can do it a five
percent now, Stuart, I think that means everyone in Australia
(07:14):
from now on, assuming they get re elected, would be
on a five percent posit unless they happen to have
a rich mom and dad or something or there around
five hundred a year or something. So what does it
mean for the wider market if the first home buyer
market moves to a standard where most people have only
a five percent deposit?
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Firstly from a housing affordability perspective, making houses more affordable
for first home buyers, I would say both sides of politics,
their policies are moronic, stupid, dumb, ineffective. I don't know
what other words I can strive it. Okay, So it's
not going to do anything really, it's not really going
(07:56):
to help. It's going to be inflationary for prices. And
I think the only thing, the only people it's going
to serve people that already own property. And we're seen
at time and time again with these sorts of policies.
So unfortunately they need to be looking at the supply side,
not to demand side. But if we look at first
home buyers deposities tends to be their element that restricts
(08:17):
them in terms of their capacity to be able to
afford to pay more or spend more on a property,
because obviously you've got with borrowing capacity. There's two elements.
There's serviceability, which is really about your income and expenses,
and then security, which is can you do you have
enough money to secure the loan? Do you have enough
assets to secure the loan? And I find first time
(08:38):
buyers tend to be weak on security but stronger on serviceability.
And if you look at the default rates in Australia,
they're very low and even claims on mortgage insurance. So
when people do actually borrow more than eighty percent and
they have to sell that property because they're in financial strife,
the chances of making a loss are pretty low. So
(08:59):
I like this game. I think it's good in terms
of really helping first time buyers get into the market because,
as I said, that saving that deposit, whether it's a
twenty percent deposit or even something smaller than that, and
then having to pay mortgage insurance, which costs about three
or four percent of a loan, really does hamper housing affordability.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Importantly, folks, if you haven't read the detail level. What's
really interesting, but this ALP offer is that it's five percent,
and even buying a house for the first time can
buy that house at five percent, and it can be
old house or a new house. That's so important from
a macro perspective. That means forget it. It's not even
attempt at getting more people or more supply into the market,
(09:42):
but it's sure as how opens it up because people
will say, oh, I can buy any house I like
for five percent. So that's the ALP offera. I just
want to try to whizz through this. That's to give
away from the ALP coalition to be fair, is considerably
more targeted and whatever else. It isn't allowed on existing properties.
It is strictly on new properties, isn't it. And basically
(10:02):
the first time buyer can slam their interest expense as
a tax deduction. Isn't that it up to twelve hundred
dollars per annum for five years in a rule, and
they get it the treatment like many other people get
our negative gearing in that they actually can get a
tax break on their home, which is quite a new thing.
(10:24):
What do you think of that policy that was Stutton's
offering the weekend.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
I mean, it's good that it's limited to new build
houses only new build properties dwellings, I should say, only
because it will hopefully increase supply, and particularly for developers
that trying to build apartments post COVID with the cost
of constructing those apartments and then therefore the need to
charge more because it just costs them more. Of course,
(10:49):
that will help affordability from that perspective, but as I said,
first time buyers tend to struggle on the deposit the
security side, rather than the serviceability side, so it certainly
helps us serve stability, but I'm not really sure that's
for them getting into the market.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
The people is actually getting to the heart of it,
which is the deposit.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yeah, it is, but it's broad based, right as you
just said it's and we're spoken in these podcast on
many occasions, James over the last couple of years about
apartments versus houses, and they've started to catch up gues apartments,
but we've said the gap between house prices and apartment
prices are pretty wide, especially in Melbourne. Well, the ALP
(11:29):
policy will help that, won't it. You should see a
resurgence I think in the apartment market because that's really
where the more affordable dwellings, that's where you can start.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Very interesting Okay, yeah, take that on board, folks. It's
very interesting times in property. Everything that we've talked about
is about the potential of the potential to stimulate the market. Basically,
whatever else you think about the market, that is what
these issues are throwing money at for us to on buyers,
which allows them to borrow more, which allows them to
(12:00):
pay more. And similarly, the psycle suggests repeatedly that people
move towards property if they get scared in the share market,
and there's plenty to be scared about at the moment. Okay, short,
break back in a moment. Hello, and welcome back to
(12:25):
The Australian's Money Puzzled podcast. I'm James Kirby. I'm talking
to Stuart Wems pro Solution Private Clients Group, who regularly
writes a course on property and wider issues for The
Australian and is qualified on a variety of different qualifications
to talk to us in this area. Now, Stewart, you
wanted to talk to me and to our listeners about
(12:50):
what the tax office is up to at the moment.
In relation to property that they should know about that
isn't necessarily advertised or written about.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Yet that's right, they're on the warpath. James. We've had
more audits of clients tax returns for obviously been lodging
for the twenty four financial year over the last few months,
and we've had over the last two decades, so there's
certainly more activity there. And we saw in the budget
that there was an allocation of seventy five million towards
(13:23):
a personal income tax compliance program, so they're obviously throwing
more resources at it. But the challenge for taxpayers is
that the ATO doesn't really need a lot more resources
because they're getting data feeds from everywhere. They're getting data
feeds from the banks, from the titles office, so they
know when you buy and sell, from rental bond authorities
so they know when you're going to rent out of property,
(13:45):
and then lately they've been getting data even going back
to twenty eighteen from property management software, so they'll know
what sort of income and expenses you've been paying as well,
and they can use all that data data match and
find what they would regard as higher risk taxpayers, so
you know where there's discrepancies from what they might think
(14:08):
is the normal, and then send you out a letter
and say please explain. And of course it's a that
the burden of proof rests on the taxpayers, so that
ATO doesn't have to prove that the deduction is wrong
or the income is wrong. It's you You've got to
prove it.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
It's a tough arrangement. Yeah, absolutely, And what would be
the for listeners? What would be the areas in which
they are phishing? Do you think?
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Yep? They're tacking two main areas, repairs and maintenance and
interest deductions there tend to be the sort of two
largest if you like. And with repairs and maintenance, they're
trying to delineate between what is a genuine repair, so
it's just returning it to its original condition when you
bought the property, and what is actually an improvement. And
(14:56):
we had a case the other day where a client
changed switchbox, an electrical switchbox and the property and on
the invoice electrician wrote that the previous wiring didn't comply
with an outdated code, but it was a relatively new switchbox.
But anyway, and so the ATO, because that was under
an order, the ATO said well, the whole expense then
(15:18):
is capital. It's not a it's not a repair, which
clearly it was a repair most of it.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
We thought it was definitively the mentenance. If it was
you had to do it, you weren't going to do
it anyway.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
Yeah, yeah, okay, So they're pretty aggressive there. So it's
about a record keeping make sure that you review the
invoices that you're getting and there's not going to be
any room for the ATO to argue that it is
actually an improvement to the property.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
The description on the invoice is very important.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Very important. Yeah, yes, that's the thing that they're going
to look for. And I would expect because of data
matching AI technology, I would expect taxpayers to experience these
type of ordits more often, particularly as property investors with
rise interest rates. The cost of negative gearing to the
ATO in terms of the tax break is a rising
(16:05):
cost of course something they're going to look at. And
with respect to interest, it's about making sure that there's
a direct connection between the interest that you incurred and
the asset that you're holding. So the key thing here
is being very careful about making sure there's a clear
audit trail between a new loan and a new asset,
(16:27):
and I would say that investors absolutely must split out
loans so that the debt just relates to that individual asset,
and you can even if you have multiple loans for
one asset. That's fine, but don't mix purposes. Certainly, don't
mix private and investment purposes. But even don't mix purposes.
Like you've got an investment loan, you use some for
(16:48):
a deposit for an investment property, and then some to
invest in the share market, for instance, you want to
split those two loans out, which is relatively simple, and
your mortgage broke or banker can do that for you,
but you definitely want to make sure there's a very
clear trail. And then the other two situations where people
get into trouble is where they use redraw. So if
they've repaid a loan and then they take money out again,
(17:09):
be very careful about doing that. And then second, secondly,
if you do a refinance during the year, and they
will know that you've done a refinance during the year
because I'll get that data. If you end up changing
loan amounts and loan balances and restructuring, just make sure
you've got good records surrounding that to demonstrate that the
loan purpose hasn't changed and it relates to certain investments,
(17:31):
but interest for investors, and it's our largest tax deduction,
and so it's absolutely one that you shouldn't put at
risk and only take advice from a registered tax agent too.
By the way, James, I've heard some terrible stories from
clients getting advice from a well meaning bank or or
friend to say, oh, look, just structure a loan this way.
Do this, it'll maximize your tax outcomes. But it's unfortunately
(17:55):
in some situations completely wrong when actually harms the tax
payer rather than helps them. So make sure if you're
going to do anything, check it with a tax agent.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
So keeping those lines clean, folks. Some people, despite their
best efforts entirely earnest things can just someone will send
something into the wrong account or whatever. So just keep
those things clean, as Stuart says. And the key one
is interest, which as we've had an investment property, your
interest costs are three four times what all the other
costs are often on a property. So really good information there.
(18:27):
Keep it in mind or your property investors out there,
particularly if you're thinking of reassessing the market. Now that
we have the conditions which we outlead at the start
of the show.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
And use an offset, James like, that's one way to
protect the tax deductible nature of a debt and not
change its original nature. So if you do have spare
cash and you want to reduce debt instead of paying
down the loan, attach an offset account and then put
it in the offset account. That way, you can always
take money out of the offset, use it for personal purposes,
(18:59):
whatever you want to do, but you're not impacting the
original tax darchniture of the day exactly.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
That's keeping it clean. As we're saying, yes, very good, Okay,
hopefully that's very clear to everybody. I imagine it is
very good. And you can hear the voice of experience there, folks.
All right, we'll be back in a moment. We have
some very interesting questions for you. Hello, welcome back to
(19:33):
the Money Puzzle podcast. You know, Stuart, I wonder that
notion of elasticity, how far can you push it? Like,
I don't know how many budgets I've done, but I
have probably done at least ten or twelve or fifteen
in a row. And there's always more money for the
tax office. Every year, the pore money on, the more
money in the tax office, and I presume how it
(19:54):
works is for every extra dollar they put in, they
get so many dollars back. But there must be a
point in time where diminishing returns sets in. You reckon
or are we anywhere near it? You'd have to think
that perhaps there are. You were just saying that they
seem to have all the data they could possibly need.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
Yeah, it's a case of productivity though, James. Over the
last five years, the amount of data they're getting and
the currency of that data, like real time data, has
increased one hundredfold.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
So the data is that what you mean?
Speaker 2 (20:26):
Thank giveness of the data. And so if you go
back ten years ago, they would have to do a
lot of manual work, have a lot of reporting, but
a lot of it would be manual. But it's so
easy now for them to identify you. There's ears ten
thousand taxpayers. Let's just send out a letter, cost them
no money because it's all electronic, goes through the tax
agent portal, all that sort of stuff, and then they
(20:47):
just create work for the rest of us. But it
doesn't cost them very much money. So the return on
investment for allocating because the total allocation to the ATO
four compliance activities in the most recent budget was just
under a billion dollars, so the return on that is significant.
It's a good use of funds because they're definitely going
(21:09):
to raise tax revenue as a result.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
That's the figure. We'd love to see the return on
the investment as such in every budget for the ATO,
but it would seem, in fact, it would seem to
be very clear that there is a hell of a
return because they keep expanding and giving them. Now that's
true for most regulators if the ACCIC has got more
cash up lay too, but the ATEO specifically seems to
be there every single time. Some really good questions coming up.
(21:32):
I've just probably have time for two. One is from John.
He says, as a first home buyer looking to take
advantage of the liberal policy which we didn't mention Steorge,
which is the fifty thousand that you can use from
your own SUPER to buy a house, John says, I
(21:52):
am wondering what investments strategy I should have in super,
following the general advice to young people. I have had
it in high growth, which has done well. Now I
am in a dilemma, should I move to a more
conservative strategy as I tend to use the funds in
the next year, or stay in growth strategy and hope
for a rebound. John, I think we get a version
(22:15):
of that question almost every week. First of all, what
you know because of the markets, the settings. The second
thing I would say to you is, yes, it's true
that the Liberal policy, which is a new policy which
we didn't mention because it's as much about super as
it is about housing. But in any event, the policy
which will kick off if they win, is that you
(22:38):
can use up to fifty thousand of your super to
buy your first home. Crucially, the other part of that
policy is that eventually you must return that money to
your superfund on the basis of how much your home
is worth when you sell it. So if you make
one hundred percent and you put in fifty thousand, then
(22:58):
you'd have to replace one hundred thousand back into your
super And that is not so much a catch. That's
very logical, but it is rarely mentioned in this So
let's cut it into two parts. Stuart, they're super for
home buying controversial policy. I think it would be popular
if it gets through. I think it would be used.
Not everybody wants to be with the government in shared
(23:20):
equity or whatever. But I think to John and all
the John's in the world out there, it's not advice,
it's just information that is only your deliberates when John,
it's not going to happen. It is absolutely not going
to happen. The LPR in charge, they are absolutely set
against that notion.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Yeah, I know you're a fan of it, James. I've
heard you speak positively about it before. I'm neutral on it.
I appreciate the fact that you've got to repay it,
so that's the thing I really like about it. But
my concern is if we start using super for housing deposits,
is it a slippery slope? What else are we going
to start using? Yes, before it really is just for
(23:57):
retirement savings. But I like the fact that you got
to pipe it back, so at least you're just borrowing
from your super. If you like, that's not so bad.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
My enthusiasm is more pragmatic than anything. If you can
pay for a Tommy Tuck surgery from your super, why
can't you? Why can't you do this? That's really where
I'm coming from. And also as I say, the whole
tax system is completely biased towards the homeowner, so it
is really just that pragmatic. It's a pragmatic support of
it more than anything, all Right. The second part then
(24:25):
was about moving from growth or it. Last week, two
different people came up to me and we're asking about
their super and whether they should change it or remove it.
This was literally the day, the scary day. So we
had the worst day since COVID on one session if
you're acall on the share market, and then we had
(24:45):
the best day since COVID. But everyone just remembers the
worst day. And two people that day I was in
the city, two different people who I don't know very well,
both came up to me asking about it, and it
struck me. So this must be really in people's minds.
What do you see to people who'll ring you on
it deep where the market force and say, listen, I'm
really worried. I don't know about my settings at all.
(25:07):
This seemed okay when everything was okay, but now I'm worried.
It tests people, doesn't it?
Speaker 2 (25:10):
It tests people? And my typical response not maybe to
John because you might need to use the money or
want to use the money in a relatively short period
of time. But if you're just a general investor in superannuation,
my answer would be, if it's worrying you, stop looking
at it because it's not really helping you. You're not
going to change the outcomes. And sometimes we think as investors,
(25:30):
just because something changes, like a return or the price
of an asset, we should have some sort of response
to that. Well, typically we shouldn't. We should just leave
it well alone and let time do its thing, and
we know in the long run will be much better
off for it. So volatility is normal. You should expect it.
We don't like it, But if you don't like it,
just stop looking at it because otherwise you'll end up
(25:52):
making a mistake in terms of selling out at the
bottom and then missing the recovery.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
I'm sure what you're saying is stop looking at it obsessively.
I suppose you're thinking about it strategically. Yeah. So, yes,
the fact that you can look at it every day
it's a mixed blessing. People used to just get reports
maybe once a quarter and they say, oh, it's gone up.
That's good, and they didn't have to pay attention. Now
you can look at it every day, and I know
that's great for transparency, But there's another side to it,
(26:20):
isn't there about how anyone who is an active investor
knows that you can overinvest. You can you know that
there's a difference between investing and trading, and you don't
want to have a trader's mindset with your super and
I imagine that's pretty useful thoughts for anyone in that area.
While we're at it, though, I think there's one other
(26:42):
point I just want to make on that, John, which
is that a lot of the big super funds the
classification of these three things conservative, balanced, and growth. To
the uninitiated, it seems like, well, they are what they
say on the label, but actually there's a lot of
evidence in our market that balanced is quite growth focused,
and growth is terribly growth focused. There's no legal definitions
(27:04):
on that, and there's a fair bit of rubber or
rubbery definition on that area, which the super funds. It
suits them and they don't want to talk about it,
and they certainly don't want a debate about it because
it suits them to have it that way. But it's
a time where you do worry about the fact that
people think they're super is more balanced or more conservative
than it actually is, or I'll just leave that one
(27:26):
sitting out there. The last is a question from ram
who says, and this only came in recently, so that
the budget was a couple of weeks ago. He says,
I have a question regarding the federal budget. What's the
point of a budget lock a lock in besides making
a select few feel important. I understand it's market sensitive information.
(27:47):
Why not release it publicly on market clothes experts have
enough time to react. Yeah, well, it came from the
whole thing of locking everybody in was on is on
the understanding that they could they weren't locked in, and
all their WiFi wasn't turned off and everything that they
could believe it orough they could move the market right,
so they could say, oh, look there's a change in
(28:08):
banking legislation or whatever which is going to change the
fortunes of A and Z banks, so I'll buy them now,
I tell my friend to sell them now or whatever.
It's extremely unlikely that would happen in the first place,
but that's what it's all about. And if it was
any consolation, it doesn't make you feel the slightest bit
importance to be locked inside in the room for a
long time half one to half seven, six solid hours.
(28:31):
So but that's the I'm sure people wonder what on
earth is it all about. That's what it's about. And
there's there's two, isn't there, Stuart. There's a media one
which is the one that gets all the attention, but
there's another one for anyone who's interested. Isn't it right?
If you work for an NGO, or you work for whatever,
senior Citizens of Queensland or something, and you want it's
important for you to be in there, you can register
(28:54):
and go in and that's almost as big as There's
a couple of hundred people in that one as well,
and they're under the same thing. They go in from
half one to half seven. And the tradition ram is
that you can't unleash the information until the treasure begins
his speech. The cynics in Canberra say it makes everyone
(29:14):
listen to the treasure. That's what it's all about.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
I can think of better ways to spend my time. James.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
That's right. Well, as I've mentioned on the show before,
the marvelous thing about it, the hard thing about it,
it's like it's like going for a very long run,
a marathon. But the plus side is that you remember
everything because you're in there for six hours studying and
you don't really know it for the rest of the year.
So that's I would say, I like it, but I
am I appreciate what it does for my brain in
those six hours. Okay, thank you and thank you Stewart
(29:43):
so much there to crunch through. Really interesting about the
share market nerves, if you like, and how that might
play into better property the even more money pushed at
the property market, which would all push up prices. Every
single one of those incentives would push up prices. We
know that, we know that's just an economic fact. May
get some young people into the market hopefully that as well.
(30:03):
Very interesting about the ATO I didn't know that. That's
worth keeping in mind everybody, and we will be back.
I've got Chris Cuff, the legendary Chriscuff coming up on
the next edition. We are going to talk about where
we are ano that there is something of a pose
we hope in the share market. It will give someone
a great opportunity to have a look across as to
(30:25):
where people have their settings.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Thanks Stewart, Thanks James, being found. As always that was.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
A Stuart Wems the pro Solution Private Client Group. Very good,
keep those emails rolling in the money puzzle at the
Australian dot Com dot Au. Today's show was produced by
Leah sammag Gloom
Hello, and welcome to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. I'm
James Kirby. Welcome aboard everybody. We've been concentrating a lot
on the share market and there is just now perhaps
something of a brief calm at these last few days
on US markets. Maybe this is a chance for everyone
listening to take stock think about if they're properly set,
(00:35):
are they fully up to date on the threats and
the opportunities of what's been going on, which we've been
covering fairly intensity, And we will get back to it
pretty quickly. But meanwhile there's a lot of news to
catch up with for anyone interested in property, in the
value of their home, in investment property of any type,
or helping other people perhaps to get into the market,
(00:56):
because the federal election which we are in the thick of,
has suddenly become we'd seen in terms of handouts at
least all about home buyers first home buyers, and we
will give you a quick catch up on what's happening
there at the start of the show. Also, I want
to bring up the point and discuss the concept historical
(01:17):
concept really well proven that when there is a share
market shakeout, there is a shift towards property by investors,
and the evidence is there that investors are coming back
into the market. But we will talk and we will
basically interrogate that as well. My guest today is Stuart
Wems of the pro Solution Private Client Group.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
How are you, Stuart, I'm really well, James plenty going on,
so thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Isn't it just for the broader audience that theme that
people move back into property when there is a share
market shakeout? We saw it after COVID's that was beyond now,
that was extraordinary, thirty percent phone the stop market and
people went straight into property and there was double digital
lifts across the board. Off the back of that. We've
(02:02):
seen even before this share market drop. And remember that
at one point the US share market and in what
might be the frustrating we don't know what has happened
off Tarrafs was nearly down to twenty percent from the top.
But we have seen investors coming back into property in
any event before this. Some people say, oh, they couldn't
(02:25):
possibly you know, properties, so dear, the yields are so low,
what do you think?
Speaker 2 (02:31):
It definitely has an impact volatility, because that's One of
the things with property is that has much lower volatility,
about half the rate of volatility of the share market,
and I guess we have a sense of that anyway,
a property feels secure. It's not traded every day, so
you don't get the same sort of price fluctuations, and
that makes investors feel a little bit more comfortable. So
(02:53):
it's always a good reminder for property investors that shure
the share market is volatile, and that's normal, that should
be expected. This nothing's going to change there. The returns
still in the long run are good, but it is
more volatile. But when we get a reminder of that,
of course, it tends to push people in the property direction,
and then future expected returns another consideration. The share markets
(03:14):
had a great run over last well, the US market
over the last thirteen years, and just generally in markets
maybe over the last ten. But if we don't expect
the next ten to be as good as the last decade,
well then maybe investor start looking to other asset classes.
And then finally, the backdrop of falling interest rates or
potentially falling interest rates, which is exactly what happened during COVID,
(03:39):
of course, and which really stimulated property. But that has
a big impact on demand for lending and then of
course more money flowing into the property market. So it's
almost a perfect storm really for the property market in
a positive sense.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Perfect conditions you mean, yeah, correct, that's what I meant.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Yet wrong word.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
I wouldn't discree with you at all. The banks would
seem to be ready to lend, the yields are stable,
the prices were expected to go let's say five percent
or so. Nation might in any event if they did that,
with their yields of two and three percent being realistic
for people from many people, that would be persuasive. I'm
(04:21):
really talking about metropolitan properties there there are better years,
of course, and every property is local, so there's that
to consider. And the rates some of the banks starting
to move already. I see on the fixed side they
are dropping, and of course they're dropping their cash rates
as well, ever so quietly, but they're all doing it systematically.
So we have that. So you have that, you have
(04:43):
good conditions. You might think, on paper, what might be
the bare case here? What might stop property lifting?
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Global recession and therefore an economic slow down in Australia
as well. I mean that could have an impact particularly
if we then see rising unemployment. Rising unemployment is not
good for the property market, of course, so that could
be a potential downside. And I know there's been a
bunch of economists called the probability of a recession in
(05:13):
the US sixty seventy percent or something like that. But
it's just retrick, isn't it. No one really knows.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
I saw her gold that Sachs literally moves the last
few days. They move their probability of recession from just
over fifty to just under fifty. It's really borderline, but
it's obviously a borderline risk.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Yeah it is. And I think look, Australia is somewhat
not completely insulated, of course to a global slowdown, not
by any stretch of the imagination. But Australia's in a
pretty good position economically. So I think that's a potential downside,
but I don't think it's a real material risk that
I'd be thinking about today. It's a possibility, but I
don't think it's likely.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
So you heard it here. For US folks, the conditions
aren't ideal for a probably what you might call it
better than expected return from residential property this year calendar
twenty twenty five. Certainly, I certainly think that is the case.
Or property as local as I say so, you'll probably
find that the numbers will be better, say in Victoria
(06:12):
than Perth, where Perth has been flying for so long
and Victoria has been so subdued for so long. One
other thing, just on that sort of big picture of
view for everybody. We were talking about first home buyers.
So there is now so many grants. I actually have
a list. I have a list of all the different
grants and I try to keep up, and now there
are two that sort of lock everything else to the sides. Really,
(06:32):
and we might just explain to listeners. The Labor alp
the government, their big ticket first home buyer package was
announced virtually on the same day as Peter Dutton. Now
Labor already had a shared Equity plan which we've had
a look at, that's going to be pushed to the sidelines.
I think for the simple reason that the First Home Guarantee,
(06:53):
which was already the most popular scheme of the country
whereby you can buy a property for five percent, that
used to be a small, smallish, restricted, totally regulated program.
It now goes universal. Basically anyone in Australia buys a
house for the first time, can do it a five
percent now, Stuart, I think that means everyone in Australia
(07:14):
from now on, assuming they get re elected, would be
on a five percent posit unless they happen to have
a rich mom and dad or something or there around
five hundred a year or something. So what does it
mean for the wider market if the first home buyer
market moves to a standard where most people have only
a five percent deposit?
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Firstly from a housing affordability perspective, making houses more affordable
for first home buyers, I would say both sides of politics,
their policies are moronic, stupid, dumb, ineffective. I don't know
what other words I can strive it. Okay, So it's
not going to do anything really, it's not really going
(07:56):
to help. It's going to be inflationary for prices. And
I think the only thing, the only people it's going
to serve people that already own property. And we're seen
at time and time again with these sorts of policies.
So unfortunately they need to be looking at the supply side,
not to demand side. But if we look at first
home buyers deposities tends to be their element that restricts
(08:17):
them in terms of their capacity to be able to
afford to pay more or spend more on a property,
because obviously you've got with borrowing capacity. There's two elements.
There's serviceability, which is really about your income and expenses,
and then security, which is can you do you have
enough money to secure the loan? Do you have enough
assets to secure the loan? And I find first time
(08:38):
buyers tend to be weak on security but stronger on serviceability.
And if you look at the default rates in Australia,
they're very low and even claims on mortgage insurance. So
when people do actually borrow more than eighty percent and
they have to sell that property because they're in financial strife,
the chances of making a loss are pretty low. So
(08:59):
I like this game. I think it's good in terms
of really helping first time buyers get into the market because,
as I said, that saving that deposit, whether it's a
twenty percent deposit or even something smaller than that, and
then having to pay mortgage insurance, which costs about three
or four percent of a loan, really does hamper housing affordability.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Importantly, folks, if you haven't read the detail level. What's
really interesting, but this ALP offer is that it's five percent,
and even buying a house for the first time can
buy that house at five percent, and it can be
old house or a new house. That's so important from
a macro perspective. That means forget it. It's not even
attempt at getting more people or more supply into the market,
(09:42):
but it's sure as how opens it up because people
will say, oh, I can buy any house I like
for five percent. So that's the ALP offera. I just
want to try to whizz through this. That's to give
away from the ALP coalition to be fair, is considerably
more targeted and whatever else. It isn't allowed on existing properties.
It is strictly on new properties, isn't it. And basically
(10:02):
the first time buyer can slam their interest expense as
a tax deduction. Isn't that it up to twelve hundred
dollars per annum for five years in a rule, and
they get it the treatment like many other people get
our negative gearing in that they actually can get a
tax break on their home, which is quite a new thing.
(10:24):
What do you think of that policy that was Stutton's
offering the weekend.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
I mean, it's good that it's limited to new build
houses only new build properties dwellings, I should say, only
because it will hopefully increase supply, and particularly for developers
that trying to build apartments post COVID with the cost
of constructing those apartments and then therefore the need to
charge more because it just costs them more. Of course,
(10:49):
that will help affordability from that perspective, but as I said,
first time buyers tend to struggle on the deposit the
security side, rather than the serviceability side, so it certainly
helps us serve stability, but I'm not really sure that's
for them getting into the market.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
The people is actually getting to the heart of it,
which is the deposit.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yeah, it is, but it's broad based, right as you
just said it's and we're spoken in these podcast on
many occasions, James over the last couple of years about
apartments versus houses, and they've started to catch up gues apartments,
but we've said the gap between house prices and apartment
prices are pretty wide, especially in Melbourne. Well, the ALP
(11:29):
policy will help that, won't it. You should see a
resurgence I think in the apartment market because that's really
where the more affordable dwellings, that's where you can start.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Very interesting Okay, yeah, take that on board, folks. It's
very interesting times in property. Everything that we've talked about
is about the potential of the potential to stimulate the market. Basically,
whatever else you think about the market, that is what
these issues are throwing money at for us to on buyers,
which allows them to borrow more, which allows them to
(12:00):
pay more. And similarly, the psycle suggests repeatedly that people
move towards property if they get scared in the share market,
and there's plenty to be scared about at the moment. Okay, short,
break back in a moment. Hello, and welcome back to
(12:25):
The Australian's Money Puzzled podcast. I'm James Kirby. I'm talking
to Stuart Wems pro Solution Private Clients Group, who regularly
writes a course on property and wider issues for The
Australian and is qualified on a variety of different qualifications
to talk to us in this area. Now, Stewart, you
wanted to talk to me and to our listeners about
(12:50):
what the tax office is up to at the moment.
In relation to property that they should know about that
isn't necessarily advertised or written about.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Yet that's right, they're on the warpath. James. We've had
more audits of clients tax returns for obviously been lodging
for the twenty four financial year over the last few months,
and we've had over the last two decades, so there's
certainly more activity there. And we saw in the budget
that there was an allocation of seventy five million towards
(13:23):
a personal income tax compliance program, so they're obviously throwing
more resources at it. But the challenge for taxpayers is
that the ATO doesn't really need a lot more resources
because they're getting data feeds from everywhere. They're getting data
feeds from the banks, from the titles office, so they
know when you buy and sell, from rental bond authorities
so they know when you're going to rent out of property,
(13:45):
and then lately they've been getting data even going back
to twenty eighteen from property management software, so they'll know
what sort of income and expenses you've been paying as well,
and they can use all that data data match and
find what they would regard as higher risk taxpayers, so
you know where there's discrepancies from what they might think
(14:08):
is the normal, and then send you out a letter
and say please explain. And of course it's a that
the burden of proof rests on the taxpayers, so that
ATO doesn't have to prove that the deduction is wrong
or the income is wrong. It's you You've got to
prove it.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
It's a tough arrangement. Yeah, absolutely, And what would be
the for listeners? What would be the areas in which
they are phishing? Do you think?
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Yep? They're tacking two main areas, repairs and maintenance and
interest deductions there tend to be the sort of two
largest if you like. And with repairs and maintenance, they're
trying to delineate between what is a genuine repair, so
it's just returning it to its original condition when you
bought the property, and what is actually an improvement. And
(14:56):
we had a case the other day where a client
changed switchbox, an electrical switchbox and the property and on
the invoice electrician wrote that the previous wiring didn't comply
with an outdated code, but it was a relatively new switchbox.
But anyway, and so the ATO, because that was under
an order, the ATO said well, the whole expense then
(15:18):
is capital. It's not a it's not a repair, which
clearly it was a repair most of it.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
We thought it was definitively the mentenance. If it was
you had to do it, you weren't going to do
it anyway.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
Yeah, yeah, okay, So they're pretty aggressive there. So it's
about a record keeping make sure that you review the
invoices that you're getting and there's not going to be
any room for the ATO to argue that it is
actually an improvement to the property.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
The description on the invoice is very important.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Very important. Yeah, yes, that's the thing that they're going
to look for. And I would expect because of data
matching AI technology, I would expect taxpayers to experience these
type of ordits more often, particularly as property investors with
rise interest rates. The cost of negative gearing to the
ATO in terms of the tax break is a rising
(16:05):
cost of course something they're going to look at. And
with respect to interest, it's about making sure that there's
a direct connection between the interest that you incurred and
the asset that you're holding. So the key thing here
is being very careful about making sure there's a clear
audit trail between a new loan and a new asset,
(16:27):
and I would say that investors absolutely must split out
loans so that the debt just relates to that individual asset,
and you can even if you have multiple loans for
one asset. That's fine, but don't mix purposes. Certainly, don't
mix private and investment purposes. But even don't mix purposes.
Like you've got an investment loan, you use some for
(16:48):
a deposit for an investment property, and then some to
invest in the share market, for instance, you want to
split those two loans out, which is relatively simple, and
your mortgage broke or banker can do that for you,
but you definitely want to make sure there's a very
clear trail. And then the other two situations where people
get into trouble is where they use redraw. So if
they've repaid a loan and then they take money out again,
(17:09):
be very careful about doing that. And then second, secondly,
if you do a refinance during the year, and they
will know that you've done a refinance during the year
because I'll get that data. If you end up changing
loan amounts and loan balances and restructuring, just make sure
you've got good records surrounding that to demonstrate that the
loan purpose hasn't changed and it relates to certain investments,
(17:31):
but interest for investors, and it's our largest tax deduction,
and so it's absolutely one that you shouldn't put at
risk and only take advice from a registered tax agent too.
By the way, James, I've heard some terrible stories from
clients getting advice from a well meaning bank or or
friend to say, oh, look, just structure a loan this way.
Do this, it'll maximize your tax outcomes. But it's unfortunately
(17:55):
in some situations completely wrong when actually harms the tax
payer rather than helps them. So make sure if you're
going to do anything, check it with a tax agent.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
So keeping those lines clean, folks. Some people, despite their
best efforts entirely earnest things can just someone will send
something into the wrong account or whatever. So just keep
those things clean, as Stuart says. And the key one
is interest, which as we've had an investment property, your
interest costs are three four times what all the other
costs are often on a property. So really good information there.
(18:27):
Keep it in mind or your property investors out there,
particularly if you're thinking of reassessing the market. Now that
we have the conditions which we outlead at the start
of the show.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
And use an offset, James like, that's one way to
protect the tax deductible nature of a debt and not
change its original nature. So if you do have spare
cash and you want to reduce debt instead of paying
down the loan, attach an offset account and then put
it in the offset account. That way, you can always
take money out of the offset, use it for personal purposes,
(18:59):
whatever you want to do, but you're not impacting the
original tax darchniture of the day exactly.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
That's keeping it clean. As we're saying, yes, very good, Okay,
hopefully that's very clear to everybody. I imagine it is
very good. And you can hear the voice of experience there, folks.
All right, we'll be back in a moment. We have
some very interesting questions for you. Hello, welcome back to
(19:33):
the Money Puzzle podcast. You know, Stuart, I wonder that
notion of elasticity, how far can you push it? Like,
I don't know how many budgets I've done, but I
have probably done at least ten or twelve or fifteen
in a row. And there's always more money for the
tax office. Every year, the pore money on, the more
money in the tax office, and I presume how it
(19:54):
works is for every extra dollar they put in, they
get so many dollars back. But there must be a
point in time where diminishing returns sets in. You reckon
or are we anywhere near it? You'd have to think
that perhaps there are. You were just saying that they
seem to have all the data they could possibly need.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
Yeah, it's a case of productivity though, James. Over the
last five years, the amount of data they're getting and
the currency of that data, like real time data, has
increased one hundredfold.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
So the data is that what you mean?
Speaker 2 (20:26):
Thank giveness of the data. And so if you go
back ten years ago, they would have to do a
lot of manual work, have a lot of reporting, but
a lot of it would be manual. But it's so
easy now for them to identify you. There's ears ten
thousand taxpayers. Let's just send out a letter, cost them
no money because it's all electronic, goes through the tax
agent portal, all that sort of stuff, and then they
(20:47):
just create work for the rest of us. But it
doesn't cost them very much money. So the return on
investment for allocating because the total allocation to the ATO
four compliance activities in the most recent budget was just
under a billion dollars, so the return on that is significant.
It's a good use of funds because they're definitely going
(21:09):
to raise tax revenue as a result.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
That's the figure. We'd love to see the return on
the investment as such in every budget for the ATO,
but it would seem, in fact, it would seem to
be very clear that there is a hell of a
return because they keep expanding and giving them. Now that's
true for most regulators if the ACCIC has got more
cash up lay too, but the ATEO specifically seems to
be there every single time. Some really good questions coming up.
(21:32):
I've just probably have time for two. One is from John.
He says, as a first home buyer looking to take
advantage of the liberal policy which we didn't mention Steorge,
which is the fifty thousand that you can use from
your own SUPER to buy a house, John says, I
(21:52):
am wondering what investments strategy I should have in super,
following the general advice to young people. I have had
it in high growth, which has done well. Now I
am in a dilemma, should I move to a more
conservative strategy as I tend to use the funds in
the next year, or stay in growth strategy and hope
for a rebound. John, I think we get a version
(22:15):
of that question almost every week. First of all, what
you know because of the markets, the settings. The second
thing I would say to you is, yes, it's true
that the Liberal policy, which is a new policy which
we didn't mention because it's as much about super as
it is about housing. But in any event, the policy
which will kick off if they win, is that you
(22:38):
can use up to fifty thousand of your super to
buy your first home. Crucially, the other part of that
policy is that eventually you must return that money to
your superfund on the basis of how much your home
is worth when you sell it. So if you make
one hundred percent and you put in fifty thousand, then
(22:58):
you'd have to replace one hundred thousand back into your
super And that is not so much a catch. That's
very logical, but it is rarely mentioned in this So
let's cut it into two parts. Stuart, they're super for
home buying controversial policy. I think it would be popular
if it gets through. I think it would be used.
Not everybody wants to be with the government in shared
(23:20):
equity or whatever. But I think to John and all
the John's in the world out there, it's not advice,
it's just information that is only your deliberates when John,
it's not going to happen. It is absolutely not going
to happen. The LPR in charge, they are absolutely set
against that notion.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Yeah, I know you're a fan of it, James. I've
heard you speak positively about it before. I'm neutral on it.
I appreciate the fact that you've got to repay it,
so that's the thing I really like about it. But
my concern is if we start using super for housing deposits,
is it a slippery slope? What else are we going
to start using? Yes, before it really is just for
(23:57):
retirement savings. But I like the fact that you got
to pipe it back, so at least you're just borrowing
from your super. If you like, that's not so bad.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
My enthusiasm is more pragmatic than anything. If you can
pay for a Tommy Tuck surgery from your super, why
can't you? Why can't you do this? That's really where
I'm coming from. And also as I say, the whole
tax system is completely biased towards the homeowner, so it
is really just that pragmatic. It's a pragmatic support of
it more than anything, all Right. The second part then
(24:25):
was about moving from growth or it. Last week, two
different people came up to me and we're asking about
their super and whether they should change it or remove it.
This was literally the day, the scary day. So we
had the worst day since COVID on one session if
you're acall on the share market, and then we had
(24:45):
the best day since COVID. But everyone just remembers the
worst day. And two people that day I was in
the city, two different people who I don't know very well,
both came up to me asking about it, and it
struck me. So this must be really in people's minds.
What do you see to people who'll ring you on
it deep where the market force and say, listen, I'm
really worried. I don't know about my settings at all.
(25:07):
This seemed okay when everything was okay, but now I'm worried.
It tests people, doesn't it?
Speaker 2 (25:10):
It tests people? And my typical response not maybe to
John because you might need to use the money or
want to use the money in a relatively short period
of time. But if you're just a general investor in superannuation,
my answer would be, if it's worrying you, stop looking
at it because it's not really helping you. You're not
going to change the outcomes. And sometimes we think as investors,
(25:30):
just because something changes, like a return or the price
of an asset, we should have some sort of response
to that. Well, typically we shouldn't. We should just leave
it well alone and let time do its thing, and
we know in the long run will be much better
off for it. So volatility is normal. You should expect it.
We don't like it, But if you don't like it,
just stop looking at it because otherwise you'll end up
(25:52):
making a mistake in terms of selling out at the
bottom and then missing the recovery.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
I'm sure what you're saying is stop looking at it obsessively.
I suppose you're thinking about it strategically. Yeah. So, yes,
the fact that you can look at it every day
it's a mixed blessing. People used to just get reports
maybe once a quarter and they say, oh, it's gone up.
That's good, and they didn't have to pay attention. Now
you can look at it every day, and I know
that's great for transparency, But there's another side to it,
(26:20):
isn't there about how anyone who is an active investor
knows that you can overinvest. You can you know that
there's a difference between investing and trading, and you don't
want to have a trader's mindset with your super and
I imagine that's pretty useful thoughts for anyone in that area.
While we're at it, though, I think there's one other
(26:42):
point I just want to make on that, John, which
is that a lot of the big super funds the
classification of these three things conservative, balanced, and growth. To
the uninitiated, it seems like, well, they are what they
say on the label, but actually there's a lot of
evidence in our market that balanced is quite growth focused,
and growth is terribly growth focused. There's no legal definitions
(27:04):
on that, and there's a fair bit of rubber or
rubbery definition on that area, which the super funds. It
suits them and they don't want to talk about it,
and they certainly don't want a debate about it because
it suits them to have it that way. But it's
a time where you do worry about the fact that
people think they're super is more balanced or more conservative
than it actually is, or I'll just leave that one
(27:26):
sitting out there. The last is a question from ram
who says, and this only came in recently, so that
the budget was a couple of weeks ago. He says,
I have a question regarding the federal budget. What's the
point of a budget lock a lock in besides making
a select few feel important. I understand it's market sensitive information.
(27:47):
Why not release it publicly on market clothes experts have
enough time to react. Yeah, well, it came from the
whole thing of locking everybody in was on is on
the understanding that they could they weren't locked in, and
all their WiFi wasn't turned off and everything that they
could believe it orough they could move the market right,
so they could say, oh, look there's a change in
(28:08):
banking legislation or whatever which is going to change the
fortunes of A and Z banks, so I'll buy them now,
I tell my friend to sell them now or whatever.
It's extremely unlikely that would happen in the first place,
but that's what it's all about. And if it was
any consolation, it doesn't make you feel the slightest bit
importance to be locked inside in the room for a
long time half one to half seven, six solid hours.
(28:31):
So but that's the I'm sure people wonder what on
earth is it all about. That's what it's about. And
there's there's two, isn't there, Stuart. There's a media one
which is the one that gets all the attention, but
there's another one for anyone who's interested. Isn't it right?
If you work for an NGO, or you work for whatever,
senior Citizens of Queensland or something, and you want it's
important for you to be in there, you can register
(28:54):
and go in and that's almost as big as There's
a couple of hundred people in that one as well,
and they're under the same thing. They go in from
half one to half seven. And the tradition ram is
that you can't unleash the information until the treasure begins
his speech. The cynics in Canberra say it makes everyone
(29:14):
listen to the treasure. That's what it's all about.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
I can think of better ways to spend my time. James.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
That's right. Well, as I've mentioned on the show before,
the marvelous thing about it, the hard thing about it,
it's like it's like going for a very long run,
a marathon. But the plus side is that you remember
everything because you're in there for six hours studying and
you don't really know it for the rest of the year.
So that's I would say, I like it, but I
am I appreciate what it does for my brain in
those six hours. Okay, thank you and thank you Stewart
(29:43):
so much there to crunch through. Really interesting about the
share market nerves, if you like, and how that might
play into better property the even more money pushed at
the property market, which would all push up prices. Every
single one of those incentives would push up prices. We
know that, we know that's just an economic fact. May
get some young people into the market hopefully that as well.
(30:03):
Very interesting about the ATO I didn't know that. That's
worth keeping in mind everybody, and we will be back.
I've got Chris Cuff, the legendary Chriscuff coming up on
the next edition. We are going to talk about where
we are ano that there is something of a pose
we hope in the share market. It will give someone
a great opportunity to have a look across as to
(30:25):
where people have their settings.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Thanks Stewart, Thanks James, being found. As always that was.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
A Stuart Wems the pro Solution Private Client Group. Very good,
keep those emails rolling in the money puzzle at the
Australian dot Com dot Au. Today's show was produced by
Leah sammag Gloom
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.