August 5, 2025 • 34 mins
Property investors have watched the Melbourne market sink for a decade. But the tide is turning, early investors are being rewarded as the latest numbers for Victoria show green shoots in the nation’s second biggest city.
Stuart Wemyss of the ProSolution Private Clients group joins Associate Editor - Wealth, James Kirby in this episode.
In today's show, we cover:
- Green shoots for Melbourne as city prices lift
- A long way to go, how Victoria did nothing for a decade
- Property tax - Victoria no worse than interstate rivals
- The townhouse opportunity in our major cities
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 (00:11):
Hello, and welcome to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. I'm
James Kirkby. Welcome aboard everybody. Now you know that in
the property market this year has been one outstanding question.
Is Melbourne a bargain or is this a city which
is going to be stuck in the second division from
(00:32):
a property perspective from now on? And we touched on
this issue more than once in recent shows. And we
know also that property taxes hit Melbourne heard last year,
and the question is will we see nationwide property taxes
this year? We look at that as well. But first
we're going to investigate are the numbers telling us anything
(00:53):
now in mid twenty twenty five and has this station?
Has this city turned really interesting? My guest is Stuart
Whims of the pro Solution Group, something of an expert
on this veccin question. How are you, Stuart?
Speaker 2 (01:07):
I'm really well, James. Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
It's great to have you back. You know what I
want to I can't think if I think of anybody
who has sort of articulated how bad Melbourne prices have
been on every measure, it's been you. And so why
don't you tell us just in a snapshot from a
numbers perspective, how poor this city has been compared to
(01:30):
what it should be over said the last ten years.
And by the way, folks, the figures go back ten years.
This is not a one year thing. This is a
decade long.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
And I think that's a good point to kick off
for James, because a lot of common tree is quite
short term, whereas when we look at ETFs and other investments,
quite often we're presented with, you know, what's happened over one,
five and ten years and allows us, you know, to
weigh up short, medium and long term returns. I think
we should be doing the same in the property market
(01:59):
as well. I mean, the numbers are pretty ordinary over
a ten year period, and this is just the median
house value so excluding apartments is about half a percent
per annum growth over the last ten years, or sorry,
three percent growth over the last ten years. But we
know that inflation's been about three percent as well, so
(02:21):
in real terms native inflation, no change over a teen
year period.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
And the nwide median is about six percent right well
for ten.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Years, so three percent above inflation.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Yes, and that's on every measure. Then on the five
year measure, Melbourne's five year numbers are hopeless, so less
than one percent a year, and nationwide you know what
we're doing ten that's extraordinary. And even right up to
one year figures, the medium was east and Melbourne was
(02:56):
zero in front of it, zero points six to five,
so half percent, so it actually got it almost got worse,
did for a mint?
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Yeah, over five years neative inflation, it's an approximate annualized
decline of about three percent per annum, which means in
real terms, house prices or median house price is fourteen
percent lower today than it was five years ago. So
in I mean, if you've been an investor in the market,
hopefully you outperform the median. But if you're an investor
(03:24):
in the Melbourne market, you know, like everything in a rising,
title ships rise and vice versa, really hard to buck
the trend. When the trend is you know, property prices
are ten to fifteen percent lower in real terms than
they were five years ago.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
And they were just add folks, you know this is houses, right,
which is the best apartments one in five per selling
at a loss. Okay, so we'll just park that for
one mon We say, okay, well that's the recent history
of what our listeners want to know from every stat
including obviously in Victoria. But you know, it's interesting, Stuart.
I had lunch with a financial advisor in last week
(04:00):
and he said that all the action among these clients
was will you should you buy in Melbourne? And some
of them have been buying in Melbourne. Why wouldn't they
when you well, on a strict metric of just looking
at the numbers, if you're in Sydney and you've watched
(04:21):
your prices tick along so nicely, say over five years
at seven point six percent a year, which is pretty juicy,
and you look at the other city in Melbourne, which
is not that very different, and it's tracking at no percent.
Basically it's doing nothing. Then it would seem but it's
seemed for a long time to be a bargain. So
(04:42):
here's a million dollar question that everyone's been hanging on for.
Is there anything in the numbers now that suggests to
us that a turn I believe, I'm sure you believe
there will be a turn, But is there anything in
the numbers that suggests a turn could be occurring?
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Yeah, it's certainly changed. At the beginning of this year,
James and I should say, and we'll be familiar with
this with all the discussion around Perth. Interstate investors are
the first ones to re enter the market. It's always
interstate investors, and we saw that in Perth. And if
you speak to any buyers agents in Melbourne, they'll tell
you that the majority of inquiry from investors are interstate investors.
(05:24):
And I guess you know, probably because we've been beaten
down in Melbourne in terms of how bad the government
is and the debt and all these sorts of things,
maybe we don't have that perspective that interstate investors do.
But cautality produce a daily price index, and I quite
like it relative to meeting house price movements because it
(05:46):
uses a hedonic methodology, which means it's trying to compare
apples with apples, so it's looking at land sized number
of bedrooms and so forth, where a Meetian house price
comparison really isn't a comparison of like with like. And
so if we have a look at how that's tracking,
it turned. In fact, all states started to turn positive
in terms of growth early February this year and we're
(06:08):
tracking about five point eight percent annualized growth in Melbourne
between February and today, it's the last six months. To
put that in context, Sydney's about six point one, Perth
about seven point one. Adelaide's slowing down. It's three point nine,
which is kind of interesting. Brisbane's the standout eight and
a half percent, so they're all sort of six to
eight percent really in that range. In Melbourne is in
(06:31):
that range, which is very rare. We haven't seen that
for five years, probably haven't really seen it for ten years.
But I think when markets change, you know, it's the
data lags a little bit, and so we'll see it
in the data probably towards the end of this year
in terms of compelling case. But the word is from
buyers agencies that certainly demand is increased, so there's greater
(06:55):
people going to open houses, inspections, more interest parties, more
bidders at auction and so forth. There isn't any major
price movements yet, but it's always that sort of activity
that precedes price movements.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
So you're saying the Deadly index is now pretty good.
It's showing six percent YEP for it's showing six percent
annualized return over the last six months. So on that
basis if it did what it's been doing everyd for
the last six months. We're coming back, we're coming back
into investible territory from the numbers. And then you're also
(07:34):
saying that though this is harder to get data on
the signals bitter numbers, the very tempo of the market
is improving as well. Are you convinced by that those numbers.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Are totally convinced? And we've seen it on the seller
and buyer side, so James. So we've seen some clients
sell apartments or houses and for whatever reason, for different reasons,
and the results that have been able to achieve have
been exceeded expectations, whereas again that hasn't happened for the
really the last ten years, when we've had a client
(08:11):
sell of property, normally we've been a bit disappointed with
the results rather than pleasantly surprised. So definitely the market's changed. Definitely,
we're starting to see green shoots of growth and it
doesn't surprise me after ten years of no real growth.
You know, there's always that pent up demand and also
that when you look at relative performance, you know, Adelaide
(08:33):
looks like it's cooling off a little bit. It's had
a significant period of growth. You know, the best performing
market across the capital city through to March Brisbane, I
mean Brisbane. I think we will continue to kick along,
albeit maybe a slower growth than in the past. And Sydney's,
you know, from an affordability perspective, in terms of entry
(08:53):
level investment grade property really difficult for most people.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Oh well, that's a crucial point, isn't it. From the
interstate perspective, can you tell us a little bit more
about entry level differences?
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Yeah, certainly.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
So.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
If you want a house in Sydney and you're not
prepared to make any compromise, any significant compromises, you're probably
going to buy a cottage somewhere between five to ten
kilometers from the city on one hundred and one hundred
and fifty square meters. You're going to probably have to
pay two to two and a half million for that property,
(09:28):
whereas in Melbourne you can get something that fits similar description,
maybe slightly larger land and your budget needs to be
sort of one point one to one point two and above,
say one one to one five for instance. So that's
more manageable for a lot more people than what Sydney is.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
That gap is enormous. Can you recall when the gap
was ever so big?
Speaker 2 (09:52):
No, I mean because Melbourne had a really strong run
up until the last decade. Melbourne actually had quite a
strong run in terms of property growth really between well
starting ninety eighty until twenty fifteen or circle that amount.
It was from memory about eight percent compounding or something,
so it's above average. So we had a really strong
(10:13):
market in Melbourne until that time. It's taken a breather,
not a surprise. We know markets move in cycles, flatt
and growth cycles, so no, but the gap is certainly significant.
And I guess when we look at the other major
capital city being Brisbane, people might be a bit reluctant to,
you know, invest in Brisbane. After it's done almost twelve
percent per annum after over five years, they might think, Okay,
(10:36):
you've got the Olympics. There's a lot of positive sentiment still, but.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Hard to keep that up with in a twelve percent
pe it's not.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Going to get that. That's definitely not going to keep up.
But I think it'll still be positive right through to
twenty thirty two, right through to the Olympics, because sentiment
in the short run drives markets. But I don't think
the Olympics fundamentally changes the market. So the fundamentals aren't changing,
but I think the positive sentiment will continue.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
What we might do here, folks, and this is really good.
Of what I wanted to get Stuart to do was
to tell it to basically took us through strictly on
the numbers, whether Melbourne looked like it had turned and
the evidence, the hard evidence is actually that it is turning.
Now we only have six months and it's only houses.
But as as Stewart said, he's totally convinced that it
(11:24):
is turning. And I think just if you're a believer
in reversion to the mean, which I am, then you
have to think that this is the start of it. Now,
what do I do is just park it there for
one moment. What I'm going to do, by the way,
next next Tuesday, and this Cavallo is going to come
on the show and she's going to talk about Melbourne
deep dive right the actual city, the areas, the districts,
(11:45):
if you're interested, I'm sure you are, and how it's
going to how she thinks it's going to perform. But
there's one big question which Stuart again has been very
across and one of the perhaps one of the reasons
that Melbourne's trough extended at least a year further than
a reasonable person might expect, and it's got to do
(12:05):
with tax and I think we will pick that up
on the second part of the show because first of all,
it's a hot issue remains an issue in Victoria, a
cloud if you like, over a potential rebound there, but
also something of a cloud over the wider market because
it seems to me every second suggestion and submission going
into this tax summit later this month from the government
(12:28):
is going to hit property. We'll be back in a moment. Hello,
Welcome back to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. I'm James
(12:48):
Kirby and I'm talking to Stuart Weams of the pro
Solution Group. Stewart is, among other things, a regular contributor
of course to the Wealth vertical on The Australian, which
I hope you have had a look and checked out.
It was launched last week or into our second week.
You'll see a lot more stories, commentary videos on wealth
(13:11):
and of course the Money Postle is there and getting
some oxygen which is great and I think you'll find
that we've got a bigger team now on wealth and
it's really I think it's something that the paper has
really got behind, which is terrific and I'm delighted to
see it now. Folks. We talked about property, and we
talked about Victoria, and we talked briefly about tax and
(13:31):
I want to put a couple of things to Stuart.
The obvious question is whether Victoria itself, whether the tax
regime there halted or extended the trough and the poor prices. Now,
there's been a lot of noise around the tax in
Victori because there's a lot of taxes. There's ten taxes.
But actually you were saying on close inspection, hear this, folks,
(13:54):
on closed inspection, Victoria's taxes aren't that bad for most
people most of the time.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Yeah, So I had to look, James, what happened over
the last ten years in New South Wales, Victoria and
Queensland to give some context around this. And certainly all
the states are as bad as each other. I mean,
that's the answer, and that's really I mean, that's where
they get a lot of their tax revenue from that.
But a big one, yeah, land tax and stamp giddy
So if you look at the growth over the last
(14:21):
ten years, New South Wales has increased land tax revenue
by twelve point six percent compounding perannum over a teen
year period, Queensland a little bit more, thirteen percent, and
Victoria fifteen percent compounding each year on average over the
last ten years. So certainly Victoria is the worst there,
(14:42):
but not by a huge margin. Maybe not. I was
kind of surprised by this.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Yeah, So thirteen for Sydney and thirty in for Brisbane
obviously and fifteenth Forts. So they're all been they've all
been racking up the land taxas and of course they've
been a top of prices have been They've become the
key revenue your owner for governments. Okay, but picking up
on what happened to Victoria and whether their land tax
(15:08):
was much worse than other states didn't really martin it.
I think the issue was the impression the state gave
by introducing ten separate property taxes of perhaps seven of
them are quite arcade, then most people will never pay them.
But the impression they gave was that they were out
to tax property and the outcome was that investor stead away.
(15:29):
What do you think of that? Contention.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
First of all, one hundred percent is said in the
short term sentiment rather than fundamental strives markets. And if
you already own property in Queensland or New South Wales,
you know, buying an additional investment property in that jurisdiction
might actually give rise to a lot more land tax
because it's a marginal rate system compared to say investing
(15:52):
in Melbourne. But a lot of people have been dissuaded
from investing in Melbourne because certainly the government has been
out to tax property investors, which is true across the board.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
You by just experience the listeners the distinction you were
making between the two states and the tax I've what
the margin reate means.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
So we did a analysis. I remember it's probably about
twelve months ago now for a client comparing you know,
do you buy another investment property in Queensland or do
you buy one in Melbourne? And the client already held
an investment property in Queensland. And because it's in a
marginal rate system, I think the first around six hundred
thousand is tax free in Queensland and then as you
(16:32):
climb in terms of land value, the higher the rate
of tax. Much like our individual income tax rate system,
and so we did the comparison just on a land
and land tax is only one of many considerations, but
we did the comparison. Although Victoria had introduced higher rates
of land tax in a dollar value perspective, for this client,
it was going to be cheaper to invest in Victoria
(16:54):
compared to adding a second investment property in Queensland.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
Isn't that interesting?
Speaker 2 (16:59):
Yeah, So we've got to be conscious of these things,
and we're not going to structure something purely around land tax.
But I think looking at these numbers puts it all
in context. And actually, James, they give us a four
year projection of what they think is going to happen
to land tax. So in New South Wales they're predicting
a six percent increase per annum over the next four years,
(17:20):
Victoria seven point eight so are just below eight percent,
Queensland thirteen point one percent. So in four years time,
if their projections are correct, Queensland will be the highest
taxing state from a land tax perspective. So again, I
guess it puts all in context, doesn't it.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
Whose projections are there? Again, Well, they're treasury, the state
treasure or you're rocking budget yeah, you're rocky off the forward estimates. Yeah,
well I certainly believe them, right.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Yeah, Well they're not going to underplay it, are they.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Yeah, no, they're not. Okay, now you heard it hear
first folks. All right, So that's very interesting what we
have we have been not the impression. Certainly the Queenslander
is the little taxing steed and Victoria's a high one
close and space suggests it's a closer run thing, and
I think listeners would be worth knowing. Stuart's exercise looking
at state budgets et cetera suggests that actually Queensland's going
(18:09):
to race up and wanted champion here. Okay on tax Now,
on the broader issue of nationwide tax the tax sum
are coming up. Everyone's got two per spies about what
they might do to property. It does seem property as
are setting duck here, particularly homes, particularly negative gearing CGT.
Every submission that I see suggests zoning, you know, zoning
(18:32):
in basically wealth taxes, but wealth tax become de facto
of property taxes many times. What do you think is
coming down the line.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Well, I mean there's been a lot of talk about
capping negative gearing rather than abolishing it completely. And you know,
of the times, James, I've seen some investors gear very
heavily to the extent where which is kind of stupid,
to the extent where they're taxable incoming zero and they're
not paying any income tax whatsoever to me, So at
(19:02):
the fringes, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I think a cap probably makes sense, and that cap
probably should be a dollar cap. So maybe you can
claim up to fifty thousand dollars per individual or something.
Who knows what that number looks like. But I think
having open ended to the extent where you could have
a very high income earner aggressively gear to the extent
(19:23):
that they pay no tax doesn't probably make a lot
of sense.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
Right, So it's one of those extreme it's extreme with
someone having you know, twenty million in a SMSF. It's
an extreme yep, yeah, yeah, optimization for one of a
better word of the rules. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
And the federal government, I mean, they wouldn't like the
increase in land tax either, by the way, because you
can claim a tax doduction for it. So really the
federal government is picking up what thirty or between thirty
and fifty percent of the bill in terms of in
terms of state land tax, So that's sort of problematic
as well. You know, I think that it'd be great
for the government to do something around affordable housing, more
(20:03):
affordable housing, I should say, not affordable housing in the
way we normally refer to it.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
So is there any market initiative they can take to
do that. There's a very good question actually coming up
in a moment to round this. We'll get to it
in a second. But do you see anything they can
do well.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
They had a few years ago, they had the National
Rent Affordability Scheme NAZRA, where they gave some tax benefits
if you rented a property twenty percent blow market value. Yes, yes, Well,
maybe if they play around with negative gearing capital or something,
maybe there's an additional incentive that they can give to investors,
particularly investors that are renting out established property rather than building. You,
(20:41):
because we're talking about we want to spread the extra
supplier geographically, maybe they could do something like that, have
a tax incentive if you decide to rent your property
twenty percent below blow market and maybe even offer longer
rent tendancy agreements to provide security for pans that might
be a smart initiative.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Yes, I certainly think they could explore, as you say,
initiatives and investor incentives, and we just hope it doesn't
become a sumbat about slashing investor incentives, because if you
get the investor incentives right, you can really make a
difference in a positive way. Think of the downside of
the program for instance, which has been you know, has
made a difference and it's an investment incentive. We'll come
(21:24):
back to that in a moment, because we've got some
great questions. All right, back in a moment. Hello, Welcome
back to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. James Kirkby talking
to Stuart Weems. Okay, Carl says, this is a really
(21:49):
good question. I don't understand why governments are not doing
more to enable people in inner city suburbs to build
townhouses or other forms of medium density housing. It seems
like we're missing that middle, the gap between high rise
apartments and detached homs. And I know this one off
all of the housing issues, but it's a big part
of the solution. I completely agree with you, Karl. So
(22:12):
you know, we think about certainly Melbourne and Sydney the
fabric of the cities. We are starting to have apartment
towers and houses very little in between, townhouses, great investments,
law maintenance classified with houses I think really ultimately rather
than apartments in the volosophy of things. Would you agree
(22:33):
with that, Stuart.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
Yeah, And we're having this discussion. It's having this discussion
yesterday with some people from the property industry talking about
unwillingness of older people to downsize their homes just because
they can't find something that they want to live in
the location that they're in. So they don't necessarily want
to go to a retirement village, of course, but you know,
a large apartment complex doesn't necessarily suit them. They would
(22:57):
like to downsize to something, you know, that's relatively attractive,
but maybe a townhouse or something like that, or a
villa unit style accommodation. But there really just aren't that
many being built. The Gratton Institute did some work on
this James earlier this year about the density of Australian's
capital cities and tagged you know, Melbourne is probably one
(23:19):
of the least dense cities of its size compared to
cities around the world, and you know, Melbourne can spread out.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
You know.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Of course where Sydney's got the challenge, they're going to
have to face it either way because of course geographically
they're yeah, they're hemmed in, so they've got to got
to find a solution. It's interesting to say that both
state governments Victoria and New South Wales have come up
with some planning around this in terms of to try
and streamline at townhouse and low rise construction. It only
(23:49):
happened in March in Victoria and February in New South Wales,
so it's early days to see whether that's going to happen.
But one hundred percent there's got to be more density
and that's good for existing investments to change because it
increases the productive value of land. So anyone that's invested
in those investment grade locations, Whilst we might think more
(24:11):
density is bad news, it's actually good news. And because
it does increase that underlying land.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
Value it yes, of course it does, yeah, which is
what it's all about. Yeah, that's very interesting observation, and
I would back it. One other thing, Carl. We're saying
just about not that much in between. It's interesting. I
saw Murvac an executive meet the point that forty percent
of their apartment, says are to downsizers now, so they're
(24:37):
obviously zoning in there are the sort of middle to
upper end and creating property that those sort of people want,
and as Carl is pointing out, it's not there. Really
good question and thanks for picking it up, Stuart. Okay,
there's a question from Steve and Dylan. They're on the
same issue. If you'd like to read those questions.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Yeah, okay. So Steve says, I'm an engineer who has
experienced a highly unorthodoxed wealth management journey due to intergenerational
wealth transfer, and it's attracted me to the financial advisory sector.
I'm currently studying the graduate diploma of Financial planning. Can
you offer some advice for a mid career professional transitioning
(25:19):
into financial services? Noting that one of the breadcrumbs that
led me down to this path was how frequently you
state that financial advisors will be in short supply. Any
advice would be greatly appreciated, and then Dylan goes on
to ask, you know, what is the outlook for financial
advisors and the financial advice industry and how may AI
(25:39):
impact its future?
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Okay, terrific. We might put the AAI one's probably hard
to tackle in the context of this show, in that
we'll find ourselves drifting all over the place to every
other conceivable practice of AI. I saw this morning a
rating or bit writing some funeral FLMs using AI to
write a bitcheries and it backfired badly. Okay, now you're
(26:01):
in a great position to answer this, and we're flattered
by the way on the show that we have people
who are thinking about becoming financial advisors listening to the show,
people who are training as financial advisors, which tells us
that we're taking seriously, which is good. So Okay, I
always say I am saying it's something I'm saying. The
numbers are there. The financial advisory sector is shrinking, it's
(26:22):
still shrinking. It went it actually got smaller this year.
The number of whether the Australians have doubled, the number
of financial advisors will be cut in half. You would
think it's an opportunity for Steven dinnan. What do you
have to tell them, Stuart.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
I think it's a great opportunity. I mean, you look
at the projections around just superannuation industry. It's about over
just a little over four trillion today by twenty thirty
five ten years time, it's eight trillion, is the RBA projections.
And then you have intergenerational wealth transfers, so baby boomers
passing moneys on. I guess the three million dollar super
(26:59):
tax will probably exacerbate that or bring it forward. So
there's a lot of positive you know, sort of tail
winds for the industry. And you know, the banning of commissions,
which I think was back in twenty thirteen. James might
you might know it better than me.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
It was pretty hein which was two sixteen. Yes, absolutely, yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
It was the best thing that I think the country
did for financial advice because before that we had commission
based people and their core competency was really salesmanship. Today
an advisor's core competency has to be advice. And the
younger generation that's coming through, you know, in their thirties,
are really engaged with it. They want to learn more
(27:41):
about property. You know. Unfortunately, as Steve will find out,
that the formal education has nothing about property, which is
ridiculous given it's a major asset.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
I mean, the advisor qualifications, it's a listed securities, it's
all that.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
It's all listed securities, insurance, all that sort of stuff
nothing about property. So I think anyone getting into the industry,
you know, they want to probably get some good work
experience because that's really where you're going to learn the trade,
I guess, and learn more about property and how it intersects.
It's not all about property, but it's a missing part
of the piece. And what I hope for the industry
(28:17):
moving forward is that we have more asset class agnostic advisors,
so that you can go to someone and say what
combination of property and share should I have, and you're
going to get impartial advice on them.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Okay, I think that would be the best type of advisor.
Of course, it would be the advisor who's maltias to,
who has no biases, who doesn't say I really understand shares,
so you should buy shares, or doesn't say I really
understand property so you should buy property, which I'm sure
happens very good.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (28:44):
Final questions are from Don, and Don has led outs
some pretty difficult questions on the new Supertax, but we'll
try and bounce to them at speed because they are
actually what most of them are, actually relatively easy to answer. Okay,
He's first question, if you are over seventy five. Is
it true that you can't use strategies such as recontribution etc.
(29:09):
In relation to managing your super and the super tax
I'll take that one on the answer on that one
is that once you're over seventy five, you are restricted
to a SGC super guarantee charge contributions and whatever is
allowed in the very relative restricted area of downsizing where
(29:29):
you'd have to sell the family home and you'd have
to prove that you did that to get those later
contributions into super, So that area is very limited to you,
I would think, Don, And none of this, by the way,
is advice. Is information only? Okay, Stuart? Are the rules
different if yourself a super fund is fully in pension mode?
Are the rules different? About? What the rules different?
Speaker 2 (29:51):
On?
Speaker 1 (29:52):
What does he mean there? I wonder?
Speaker 2 (29:54):
I don't know, maybe if it relates to the recontribution strategy.
Maybe Don was asking whether you can still do the
recontribution strategy if your self managed super funds in pension phase,
and the answer is yes. A self managed super fund
can have multiple pension accounts or accumulation account that will
relate to one member, and it's very flexible in that regard.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Yeah, what I thought. So, okay, does the fifteen percent
extra tax on values over three million? Okay? What's talking
about here is the new supertax, which is fifteen percent
tax on earnings over on earnings on amounts above three million?
Will it apply? Will pension withdrawals during the year be
(30:37):
added to the year end value? In other words, he
wants to know, in terms of their calculation computation stacking
up to get to that three million figure, do pension
withdrawals during the year Are they included? The answer is yes,
of course there are.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Yeah, so you can't magically avoid the tax just by
withdrawing a little bit of money on the twenty ninth
of June. They'll add that back to levy the tax.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
That's how the Frank dividend came in too, wasn't it
that the Frank evident were basically rolled in there? So
you've got to look very close. Yet, this is an
extraordinary tax. It's a completely new tax. The reason there
are so many questions is people have never been taxed
on unrealized games before, and it has all sorts of consequences.
Just like Darnas pointed out on for instances, your pension,
(31:26):
our pension withdrawals included, Yes, they're added back. Are Frank
dividend included, Yes, in a way they are. It takes
some explaining, but take it from me that that your
Frank dividend income is relevant to the computation of the
number and all sorts of things coming up. For instance,
another one the other day was about it works like
it works like CGT. So it's a personal tax. So
(31:48):
you get this bill and you can pay it yourself
or your super fund must pay it. If you've got profits,
they are tax If you've got losses, you don't get compensated.
You can only carry them forward, which is all fine,
But from Harrison's point of view, for instance, if you
were unfortunate enough that in the end you were talking
about in the state rather than your active super fund,
(32:08):
your inherent tours would not get that. They'd get taxed.
They'd get the tax buil for your profits, but your credits,
if you had losses, would just be chucked in the win.
They would have no value. So there's all. There are
twenty different sort of outcomes here, which oftens like us
find fascinating and most people and the more you dig
(32:29):
into it, the more you realize, Oh my, this is
one messy, sloppy tax that's just going to be a nightmare.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
I think it's like inheritance tax, James, like in the UK,
no one actually pays it, Like no one's said the
government's not going to raise any revenue from these unrealized
gains tax because no one's going to pay it.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
But what's the number? I don't want to go in this.
Oh yes it is, but I shouldn't guess on air.
So so they are not going to raise anything like
the amount they said they'd raise, Unlike the land tax
forward estimate Stewart that you can't take seriously. Don't take
the two nine six perceived income from the government seriously
because unlike land tax, you can avoid the division two
(33:08):
nine six terribly easy. You just simply ensure that you
never get three million, or you ensure that it's split,
or you ensure that it comes out before it hits
three There's so many things you could do, not to
mention valuations, which, gosh, guess what you can get a
variety of them, I depend I imagine and depending on
who you call, would that be? Is that an outrageous
(33:30):
thing to say?
Speaker 2 (33:31):
No, it's not but there's got to go through an audit.
So it depends on how flexible you're order to read.
Speaker 1 (33:38):
Yes, okay, it has to be, of course it does.
But there would be shall we say there there would
be variables around around unrealized valuations. Deffinitely, Yeah, for sure,
you thought so. Okay, maybe we'll leave it at that
for this week. Hey, Stuart, thank you very much for
coming on the show. Very interesting. My pleasure is always
I am just about convinced. Yes, I think that Melbourne
(34:01):
has turned and I don't see anything to stop that
turn extending. Now is if it can do it in
this if we can do it in the middle of
the winter season where the rates happened fallen yet to
anything like they're supposed to, you have to think that
the wind is behind those numbers. Okay, thanks Juart pro
Solutions coming on the show, and thank you folks for
everything in the way of correspondence. The email is the
(34:26):
money Puzzle at the Australian dot com dot au. We'll
hear from you soon.
Hello, and welcome to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. I'm
James Kirkby. Welcome aboard everybody. Now you know that in
the property market this year has been one outstanding question.
Is Melbourne a bargain or is this a city which
is going to be stuck in the second division from
(00:32):
a property perspective from now on? And we touched on
this issue more than once in recent shows. And we
know also that property taxes hit Melbourne heard last year,
and the question is will we see nationwide property taxes
this year? We look at that as well. But first
we're going to investigate are the numbers telling us anything
(00:53):
now in mid twenty twenty five and has this station?
Has this city turned really interesting? My guest is Stuart
Whims of the pro Solution Group, something of an expert
on this veccin question. How are you, Stuart?
Speaker 2 (01:07):
I'm really well, James. Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
It's great to have you back. You know what I
want to I can't think if I think of anybody
who has sort of articulated how bad Melbourne prices have
been on every measure, it's been you. And so why
don't you tell us just in a snapshot from a
numbers perspective, how poor this city has been compared to
(01:30):
what it should be over said the last ten years.
And by the way, folks, the figures go back ten years.
This is not a one year thing. This is a
decade long.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
And I think that's a good point to kick off
for James, because a lot of common tree is quite
short term, whereas when we look at ETFs and other investments,
quite often we're presented with, you know, what's happened over one,
five and ten years and allows us, you know, to
weigh up short, medium and long term returns. I think
we should be doing the same in the property market
(01:59):
as well. I mean, the numbers are pretty ordinary over
a ten year period, and this is just the median
house value so excluding apartments is about half a percent
per annum growth over the last ten years, or sorry,
three percent growth over the last ten years. But we
know that inflation's been about three percent as well, so
(02:21):
in real terms native inflation, no change over a teen
year period.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
And the nwide median is about six percent right well
for ten.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Years, so three percent above inflation.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Yes, and that's on every measure. Then on the five
year measure, Melbourne's five year numbers are hopeless, so less
than one percent a year, and nationwide you know what
we're doing ten that's extraordinary. And even right up to
one year figures, the medium was east and Melbourne was
(02:56):
zero in front of it, zero points six to five,
so half percent, so it actually got it almost got worse,
did for a mint?
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Yeah, over five years neative inflation, it's an approximate annualized
decline of about three percent per annum, which means in
real terms, house prices or median house price is fourteen
percent lower today than it was five years ago. So
in I mean, if you've been an investor in the market,
hopefully you outperform the median. But if you're an investor
(03:24):
in the Melbourne market, you know, like everything in a rising,
title ships rise and vice versa, really hard to buck
the trend. When the trend is you know, property prices
are ten to fifteen percent lower in real terms than
they were five years ago.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
And they were just add folks, you know this is houses, right,
which is the best apartments one in five per selling
at a loss. Okay, so we'll just park that for
one mon We say, okay, well that's the recent history
of what our listeners want to know from every stat
including obviously in Victoria. But you know, it's interesting, Stuart.
I had lunch with a financial advisor in last week
(04:00):
and he said that all the action among these clients
was will you should you buy in Melbourne? And some
of them have been buying in Melbourne. Why wouldn't they
when you well, on a strict metric of just looking
at the numbers, if you're in Sydney and you've watched
(04:21):
your prices tick along so nicely, say over five years
at seven point six percent a year, which is pretty juicy,
and you look at the other city in Melbourne, which
is not that very different, and it's tracking at no percent.
Basically it's doing nothing. Then it would seem but it's
seemed for a long time to be a bargain. So
(04:42):
here's a million dollar question that everyone's been hanging on for.
Is there anything in the numbers now that suggests to
us that a turn I believe, I'm sure you believe
there will be a turn, But is there anything in
the numbers that suggests a turn could be occurring?
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Yeah, it's certainly changed. At the beginning of this year,
James and I should say, and we'll be familiar with
this with all the discussion around Perth. Interstate investors are
the first ones to re enter the market. It's always
interstate investors, and we saw that in Perth. And if
you speak to any buyers agents in Melbourne, they'll tell
you that the majority of inquiry from investors are interstate investors.
(05:24):
And I guess you know, probably because we've been beaten
down in Melbourne in terms of how bad the government
is and the debt and all these sorts of things,
maybe we don't have that perspective that interstate investors do.
But cautality produce a daily price index, and I quite
like it relative to meeting house price movements because it
(05:46):
uses a hedonic methodology, which means it's trying to compare
apples with apples, so it's looking at land sized number
of bedrooms and so forth, where a Meetian house price
comparison really isn't a comparison of like with like. And
so if we have a look at how that's tracking,
it turned. In fact, all states started to turn positive
in terms of growth early February this year and we're
(06:08):
tracking about five point eight percent annualized growth in Melbourne
between February and today, it's the last six months. To
put that in context, Sydney's about six point one, Perth
about seven point one. Adelaide's slowing down. It's three point nine,
which is kind of interesting. Brisbane's the standout eight and
a half percent, so they're all sort of six to
eight percent really in that range. In Melbourne is in
(06:31):
that range, which is very rare. We haven't seen that
for five years, probably haven't really seen it for ten years.
But I think when markets change, you know, it's the
data lags a little bit, and so we'll see it
in the data probably towards the end of this year
in terms of compelling case. But the word is from
buyers agencies that certainly demand is increased, so there's greater
(06:55):
people going to open houses, inspections, more interest parties, more
bidders at auction and so forth. There isn't any major
price movements yet, but it's always that sort of activity
that precedes price movements.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
So you're saying the Deadly index is now pretty good.
It's showing six percent YEP for it's showing six percent
annualized return over the last six months. So on that
basis if it did what it's been doing everyd for
the last six months. We're coming back, we're coming back
into investible territory from the numbers. And then you're also
(07:34):
saying that though this is harder to get data on
the signals bitter numbers, the very tempo of the market
is improving as well. Are you convinced by that those numbers.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Are totally convinced? And we've seen it on the seller
and buyer side, so James. So we've seen some clients
sell apartments or houses and for whatever reason, for different reasons,
and the results that have been able to achieve have
been exceeded expectations, whereas again that hasn't happened for the
really the last ten years, when we've had a client
(08:11):
sell of property, normally we've been a bit disappointed with
the results rather than pleasantly surprised. So definitely the market's changed. Definitely,
we're starting to see green shoots of growth and it
doesn't surprise me after ten years of no real growth.
You know, there's always that pent up demand and also
that when you look at relative performance, you know, Adelaide
(08:33):
looks like it's cooling off a little bit. It's had
a significant period of growth. You know, the best performing
market across the capital city through to March Brisbane, I
mean Brisbane. I think we will continue to kick along,
albeit maybe a slower growth than in the past. And Sydney's,
you know, from an affordability perspective, in terms of entry
(08:53):
level investment grade property really difficult for most people.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Oh well, that's a crucial point, isn't it. From the
interstate perspective, can you tell us a little bit more
about entry level differences?
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Yeah, certainly.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
So.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
If you want a house in Sydney and you're not
prepared to make any compromise, any significant compromises, you're probably
going to buy a cottage somewhere between five to ten
kilometers from the city on one hundred and one hundred
and fifty square meters. You're going to probably have to
pay two to two and a half million for that property,
(09:28):
whereas in Melbourne you can get something that fits similar description,
maybe slightly larger land and your budget needs to be
sort of one point one to one point two and above,
say one one to one five for instance. So that's
more manageable for a lot more people than what Sydney is.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
That gap is enormous. Can you recall when the gap
was ever so big?
Speaker 2 (09:52):
No, I mean because Melbourne had a really strong run
up until the last decade. Melbourne actually had quite a
strong run in terms of property growth really between well
starting ninety eighty until twenty fifteen or circle that amount.
It was from memory about eight percent compounding or something,
so it's above average. So we had a really strong
(10:13):
market in Melbourne until that time. It's taken a breather,
not a surprise. We know markets move in cycles, flatt
and growth cycles, so no, but the gap is certainly significant.
And I guess when we look at the other major
capital city being Brisbane, people might be a bit reluctant to,
you know, invest in Brisbane. After it's done almost twelve
percent per annum after over five years, they might think, Okay,
(10:36):
you've got the Olympics. There's a lot of positive sentiment still, but.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Hard to keep that up with in a twelve percent
pe it's not.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Going to get that. That's definitely not going to keep up.
But I think it'll still be positive right through to
twenty thirty two, right through to the Olympics, because sentiment
in the short run drives markets. But I don't think
the Olympics fundamentally changes the market. So the fundamentals aren't changing,
but I think the positive sentiment will continue.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
What we might do here, folks, and this is really good.
Of what I wanted to get Stuart to do was
to tell it to basically took us through strictly on
the numbers, whether Melbourne looked like it had turned and
the evidence, the hard evidence is actually that it is turning.
Now we only have six months and it's only houses.
But as as Stewart said, he's totally convinced that it
(11:24):
is turning. And I think just if you're a believer
in reversion to the mean, which I am, then you
have to think that this is the start of it. Now,
what do I do is just park it there for
one moment. What I'm going to do, by the way,
next next Tuesday, and this Cavallo is going to come
on the show and she's going to talk about Melbourne
deep dive right the actual city, the areas, the districts,
(11:45):
if you're interested, I'm sure you are, and how it's
going to how she thinks it's going to perform. But
there's one big question which Stuart again has been very
across and one of the perhaps one of the reasons
that Melbourne's trough extended at least a year further than
a reasonable person might expect, and it's got to do
(12:05):
with tax and I think we will pick that up
on the second part of the show because first of all,
it's a hot issue remains an issue in Victoria, a
cloud if you like, over a potential rebound there, but
also something of a cloud over the wider market because
it seems to me every second suggestion and submission going
into this tax summit later this month from the government
(12:28):
is going to hit property. We'll be back in a moment. Hello,
Welcome back to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. I'm James
(12:48):
Kirby and I'm talking to Stuart Weams of the pro
Solution Group. Stewart is, among other things, a regular contributor
of course to the Wealth vertical on The Australian, which
I hope you have had a look and checked out.
It was launched last week or into our second week.
You'll see a lot more stories, commentary videos on wealth
(13:11):
and of course the Money Postle is there and getting
some oxygen which is great and I think you'll find
that we've got a bigger team now on wealth and
it's really I think it's something that the paper has
really got behind, which is terrific and I'm delighted to
see it now. Folks. We talked about property, and we
talked about Victoria, and we talked briefly about tax and
(13:31):
I want to put a couple of things to Stuart.
The obvious question is whether Victoria itself, whether the tax
regime there halted or extended the trough and the poor prices. Now,
there's been a lot of noise around the tax in
Victori because there's a lot of taxes. There's ten taxes.
But actually you were saying on close inspection, hear this, folks,
(13:54):
on closed inspection, Victoria's taxes aren't that bad for most
people most of the time.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Yeah, So I had to look, James, what happened over
the last ten years in New South Wales, Victoria and
Queensland to give some context around this. And certainly all
the states are as bad as each other. I mean,
that's the answer, and that's really I mean, that's where
they get a lot of their tax revenue from that.
But a big one, yeah, land tax and stamp giddy
So if you look at the growth over the last
(14:21):
ten years, New South Wales has increased land tax revenue
by twelve point six percent compounding perannum over a teen
year period, Queensland a little bit more, thirteen percent, and
Victoria fifteen percent compounding each year on average over the
last ten years. So certainly Victoria is the worst there,
(14:42):
but not by a huge margin. Maybe not. I was
kind of surprised by this.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Yeah, So thirteen for Sydney and thirty in for Brisbane
obviously and fifteenth Forts. So they're all been they've all
been racking up the land taxas and of course they've
been a top of prices have been They've become the
key revenue your owner for governments. Okay, but picking up
on what happened to Victoria and whether their land tax
(15:08):
was much worse than other states didn't really martin it.
I think the issue was the impression the state gave
by introducing ten separate property taxes of perhaps seven of
them are quite arcade, then most people will never pay them.
But the impression they gave was that they were out
to tax property and the outcome was that investor stead away.
(15:29):
What do you think of that? Contention.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
First of all, one hundred percent is said in the
short term sentiment rather than fundamental strives markets. And if
you already own property in Queensland or New South Wales,
you know, buying an additional investment property in that jurisdiction
might actually give rise to a lot more land tax
because it's a marginal rate system compared to say investing
(15:52):
in Melbourne. But a lot of people have been dissuaded
from investing in Melbourne because certainly the government has been
out to tax property investors, which is true across the board.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
You by just experience the listeners the distinction you were
making between the two states and the tax I've what
the margin reate means.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
So we did a analysis. I remember it's probably about
twelve months ago now for a client comparing you know,
do you buy another investment property in Queensland or do
you buy one in Melbourne? And the client already held
an investment property in Queensland. And because it's in a
marginal rate system, I think the first around six hundred
thousand is tax free in Queensland and then as you
(16:32):
climb in terms of land value, the higher the rate
of tax. Much like our individual income tax rate system,
and so we did the comparison just on a land
and land tax is only one of many considerations, but
we did the comparison. Although Victoria had introduced higher rates
of land tax in a dollar value perspective, for this client,
it was going to be cheaper to invest in Victoria
(16:54):
compared to adding a second investment property in Queensland.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
Isn't that interesting?
Speaker 2 (16:59):
Yeah, So we've got to be conscious of these things,
and we're not going to structure something purely around land tax.
But I think looking at these numbers puts it all
in context. And actually, James, they give us a four
year projection of what they think is going to happen
to land tax. So in New South Wales they're predicting
a six percent increase per annum over the next four years,
(17:20):
Victoria seven point eight so are just below eight percent,
Queensland thirteen point one percent. So in four years time,
if their projections are correct, Queensland will be the highest
taxing state from a land tax perspective. So again, I
guess it puts all in context, doesn't it.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
Whose projections are there? Again, Well, they're treasury, the state
treasure or you're rocking budget yeah, you're rocky off the forward estimates. Yeah,
well I certainly believe them, right.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Yeah, Well they're not going to underplay it, are they.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Yeah, no, they're not. Okay, now you heard it hear
first folks. All right, So that's very interesting what we
have we have been not the impression. Certainly the Queenslander
is the little taxing steed and Victoria's a high one
close and space suggests it's a closer run thing, and
I think listeners would be worth knowing. Stuart's exercise looking
at state budgets et cetera suggests that actually Queensland's going
(18:09):
to race up and wanted champion here. Okay on tax Now,
on the broader issue of nationwide tax the tax sum
are coming up. Everyone's got two per spies about what
they might do to property. It does seem property as
are setting duck here, particularly homes, particularly negative gearing CGT.
Every submission that I see suggests zoning, you know, zoning
(18:32):
in basically wealth taxes, but wealth tax become de facto
of property taxes many times. What do you think is
coming down the line.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Well, I mean there's been a lot of talk about
capping negative gearing rather than abolishing it completely. And you know,
of the times, James, I've seen some investors gear very
heavily to the extent where which is kind of stupid,
to the extent where they're taxable incoming zero and they're
not paying any income tax whatsoever to me, So at
(19:02):
the fringes, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I think a cap probably makes sense, and that cap
probably should be a dollar cap. So maybe you can
claim up to fifty thousand dollars per individual or something.
Who knows what that number looks like. But I think
having open ended to the extent where you could have
a very high income earner aggressively gear to the extent
(19:23):
that they pay no tax doesn't probably make a lot
of sense.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
Right, So it's one of those extreme it's extreme with
someone having you know, twenty million in a SMSF. It's
an extreme yep, yeah, yeah, optimization for one of a
better word of the rules. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
And the federal government, I mean, they wouldn't like the
increase in land tax either, by the way, because you
can claim a tax doduction for it. So really the
federal government is picking up what thirty or between thirty
and fifty percent of the bill in terms of in
terms of state land tax, So that's sort of problematic
as well. You know, I think that it'd be great
for the government to do something around affordable housing, more
(20:03):
affordable housing, I should say, not affordable housing in the
way we normally refer to it.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
So is there any market initiative they can take to
do that. There's a very good question actually coming up
in a moment to round this. We'll get to it
in a second. But do you see anything they can
do well.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
They had a few years ago, they had the National
Rent Affordability Scheme NAZRA, where they gave some tax benefits
if you rented a property twenty percent blow market value. Yes, yes, Well,
maybe if they play around with negative gearing capital or something,
maybe there's an additional incentive that they can give to investors,
particularly investors that are renting out established property rather than building. You,
(20:41):
because we're talking about we want to spread the extra
supplier geographically, maybe they could do something like that, have
a tax incentive if you decide to rent your property
twenty percent below blow market and maybe even offer longer
rent tendancy agreements to provide security for pans that might
be a smart initiative.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Yes, I certainly think they could explore, as you say,
initiatives and investor incentives, and we just hope it doesn't
become a sumbat about slashing investor incentives, because if you
get the investor incentives right, you can really make a
difference in a positive way. Think of the downside of
the program for instance, which has been you know, has
made a difference and it's an investment incentive. We'll come
(21:24):
back to that in a moment, because we've got some
great questions. All right, back in a moment. Hello, Welcome
back to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. James Kirkby talking
to Stuart Weems. Okay, Carl says, this is a really
(21:49):
good question. I don't understand why governments are not doing
more to enable people in inner city suburbs to build
townhouses or other forms of medium density housing. It seems
like we're missing that middle, the gap between high rise
apartments and detached homs. And I know this one off
all of the housing issues, but it's a big part
of the solution. I completely agree with you, Karl. So
(22:12):
you know, we think about certainly Melbourne and Sydney the
fabric of the cities. We are starting to have apartment
towers and houses very little in between, townhouses, great investments,
law maintenance classified with houses I think really ultimately rather
than apartments in the volosophy of things. Would you agree
(22:33):
with that, Stuart.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
Yeah, And we're having this discussion. It's having this discussion
yesterday with some people from the property industry talking about
unwillingness of older people to downsize their homes just because
they can't find something that they want to live in
the location that they're in. So they don't necessarily want
to go to a retirement village, of course, but you know,
a large apartment complex doesn't necessarily suit them. They would
(22:57):
like to downsize to something, you know, that's relatively attractive,
but maybe a townhouse or something like that, or a
villa unit style accommodation. But there really just aren't that
many being built. The Gratton Institute did some work on
this James earlier this year about the density of Australian's
capital cities and tagged you know, Melbourne is probably one
(23:19):
of the least dense cities of its size compared to
cities around the world, and you know, Melbourne can spread out.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
You know.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Of course where Sydney's got the challenge, they're going to
have to face it either way because of course geographically
they're yeah, they're hemmed in, so they've got to got
to find a solution. It's interesting to say that both
state governments Victoria and New South Wales have come up
with some planning around this in terms of to try
and streamline at townhouse and low rise construction. It only
(23:49):
happened in March in Victoria and February in New South Wales,
so it's early days to see whether that's going to happen.
But one hundred percent there's got to be more density
and that's good for existing investments to change because it
increases the productive value of land. So anyone that's invested
in those investment grade locations, Whilst we might think more
(24:11):
density is bad news, it's actually good news. And because
it does increase that underlying land.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
Value it yes, of course it does, yeah, which is
what it's all about. Yeah, that's very interesting observation, and
I would back it. One other thing, Carl. We're saying
just about not that much in between. It's interesting. I
saw Murvac an executive meet the point that forty percent
of their apartment, says are to downsizers now, so they're
(24:37):
obviously zoning in there are the sort of middle to
upper end and creating property that those sort of people want,
and as Carl is pointing out, it's not there. Really
good question and thanks for picking it up, Stuart. Okay,
there's a question from Steve and Dylan. They're on the
same issue. If you'd like to read those questions.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Yeah, okay. So Steve says, I'm an engineer who has
experienced a highly unorthodoxed wealth management journey due to intergenerational
wealth transfer, and it's attracted me to the financial advisory sector.
I'm currently studying the graduate diploma of Financial planning. Can
you offer some advice for a mid career professional transitioning
(25:19):
into financial services? Noting that one of the breadcrumbs that
led me down to this path was how frequently you
state that financial advisors will be in short supply. Any
advice would be greatly appreciated, and then Dylan goes on
to ask, you know, what is the outlook for financial
advisors and the financial advice industry and how may AI
(25:39):
impact its future?
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Okay, terrific. We might put the AAI one's probably hard
to tackle in the context of this show, in that
we'll find ourselves drifting all over the place to every
other conceivable practice of AI. I saw this morning a
rating or bit writing some funeral FLMs using AI to
write a bitcheries and it backfired badly. Okay, now you're
(26:01):
in a great position to answer this, and we're flattered
by the way on the show that we have people
who are thinking about becoming financial advisors listening to the show,
people who are training as financial advisors, which tells us
that we're taking seriously, which is good. So Okay, I
always say I am saying it's something I'm saying. The
numbers are there. The financial advisory sector is shrinking, it's
(26:22):
still shrinking. It went it actually got smaller this year.
The number of whether the Australians have doubled, the number
of financial advisors will be cut in half. You would
think it's an opportunity for Steven dinnan. What do you
have to tell them, Stuart.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
I think it's a great opportunity. I mean, you look
at the projections around just superannuation industry. It's about over
just a little over four trillion today by twenty thirty
five ten years time, it's eight trillion, is the RBA projections.
And then you have intergenerational wealth transfers, so baby boomers
passing moneys on. I guess the three million dollar super
(26:59):
tax will probably exacerbate that or bring it forward. So
there's a lot of positive you know, sort of tail
winds for the industry. And you know, the banning of commissions,
which I think was back in twenty thirteen. James might
you might know it better than me.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
It was pretty hein which was two sixteen. Yes, absolutely, yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
It was the best thing that I think the country
did for financial advice because before that we had commission
based people and their core competency was really salesmanship. Today
an advisor's core competency has to be advice. And the
younger generation that's coming through, you know, in their thirties,
are really engaged with it. They want to learn more
(27:41):
about property. You know. Unfortunately, as Steve will find out,
that the formal education has nothing about property, which is
ridiculous given it's a major asset.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
I mean, the advisor qualifications, it's a listed securities, it's
all that.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
It's all listed securities, insurance, all that sort of stuff
nothing about property. So I think anyone getting into the industry,
you know, they want to probably get some good work
experience because that's really where you're going to learn the trade,
I guess, and learn more about property and how it intersects.
It's not all about property, but it's a missing part
of the piece. And what I hope for the industry
(28:17):
moving forward is that we have more asset class agnostic advisors,
so that you can go to someone and say what
combination of property and share should I have, and you're
going to get impartial advice on them.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Okay, I think that would be the best type of advisor.
Of course, it would be the advisor who's maltias to,
who has no biases, who doesn't say I really understand shares,
so you should buy shares, or doesn't say I really
understand property so you should buy property, which I'm sure
happens very good.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (28:44):
Final questions are from Don, and Don has led outs
some pretty difficult questions on the new Supertax, but we'll
try and bounce to them at speed because they are
actually what most of them are, actually relatively easy to answer. Okay,
He's first question, if you are over seventy five. Is
it true that you can't use strategies such as recontribution etc.
(29:09):
In relation to managing your super and the super tax
I'll take that one on the answer on that one
is that once you're over seventy five, you are restricted
to a SGC super guarantee charge contributions and whatever is
allowed in the very relative restricted area of downsizing where
(29:29):
you'd have to sell the family home and you'd have
to prove that you did that to get those later
contributions into super, So that area is very limited to you,
I would think, Don, And none of this, by the way,
is advice. Is information only? Okay, Stuart? Are the rules
different if yourself a super fund is fully in pension mode?
Are the rules different? About? What the rules different?
Speaker 2 (29:51):
On?
Speaker 1 (29:52):
What does he mean there? I wonder?
Speaker 2 (29:54):
I don't know, maybe if it relates to the recontribution strategy.
Maybe Don was asking whether you can still do the
recontribution strategy if your self managed super funds in pension phase,
and the answer is yes. A self managed super fund
can have multiple pension accounts or accumulation account that will
relate to one member, and it's very flexible in that regard.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Yeah, what I thought. So, okay, does the fifteen percent
extra tax on values over three million? Okay? What's talking
about here is the new supertax, which is fifteen percent
tax on earnings over on earnings on amounts above three million?
Will it apply? Will pension withdrawals during the year be
(30:37):
added to the year end value? In other words, he
wants to know, in terms of their calculation computation stacking
up to get to that three million figure, do pension
withdrawals during the year Are they included? The answer is yes,
of course there are.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Yeah, so you can't magically avoid the tax just by
withdrawing a little bit of money on the twenty ninth
of June. They'll add that back to levy the tax.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
That's how the Frank dividend came in too, wasn't it
that the Frank evident were basically rolled in there? So
you've got to look very close. Yet, this is an
extraordinary tax. It's a completely new tax. The reason there
are so many questions is people have never been taxed
on unrealized games before, and it has all sorts of consequences.
Just like Darnas pointed out on for instances, your pension,
(31:26):
our pension withdrawals included, Yes, they're added back. Are Frank
dividend included, Yes, in a way they are. It takes
some explaining, but take it from me that that your
Frank dividend income is relevant to the computation of the
number and all sorts of things coming up. For instance,
another one the other day was about it works like
it works like CGT. So it's a personal tax. So
(31:48):
you get this bill and you can pay it yourself
or your super fund must pay it. If you've got profits,
they are tax If you've got losses, you don't get compensated.
You can only carry them forward, which is all fine,
But from Harrison's point of view, for instance, if you
were unfortunate enough that in the end you were talking
about in the state rather than your active super fund,
(32:08):
your inherent tours would not get that. They'd get taxed.
They'd get the tax buil for your profits, but your credits,
if you had losses, would just be chucked in the win.
They would have no value. So there's all. There are
twenty different sort of outcomes here, which oftens like us
find fascinating and most people and the more you dig
(32:29):
into it, the more you realize, Oh my, this is
one messy, sloppy tax that's just going to be a nightmare.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
I think it's like inheritance tax, James, like in the UK,
no one actually pays it, Like no one's said the
government's not going to raise any revenue from these unrealized
gains tax because no one's going to pay it.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
But what's the number? I don't want to go in this.
Oh yes it is, but I shouldn't guess on air.
So so they are not going to raise anything like
the amount they said they'd raise, Unlike the land tax
forward estimate Stewart that you can't take seriously. Don't take
the two nine six perceived income from the government seriously
because unlike land tax, you can avoid the division two
(33:08):
nine six terribly easy. You just simply ensure that you
never get three million, or you ensure that it's split,
or you ensure that it comes out before it hits
three There's so many things you could do, not to
mention valuations, which, gosh, guess what you can get a
variety of them, I depend I imagine and depending on
who you call, would that be? Is that an outrageous
(33:30):
thing to say?
Speaker 2 (33:31):
No, it's not but there's got to go through an audit.
So it depends on how flexible you're order to read.
Speaker 1 (33:38):
Yes, okay, it has to be, of course it does.
But there would be shall we say there there would
be variables around around unrealized valuations. Deffinitely, Yeah, for sure,
you thought so. Okay, maybe we'll leave it at that
for this week. Hey, Stuart, thank you very much for
coming on the show. Very interesting. My pleasure is always
I am just about convinced. Yes, I think that Melbourne
(34:01):
has turned and I don't see anything to stop that
turn extending. Now is if it can do it in
this if we can do it in the middle of
the winter season where the rates happened fallen yet to
anything like they're supposed to, you have to think that
the wind is behind those numbers. Okay, thanks Juart pro
Solutions coming on the show, and thank you folks for
everything in the way of correspondence. The email is the
(34:26):
money Puzzle at the Australian dot com dot au. We'll
hear from you soon.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.