Shares

AI comes for the software giants, and Australia is no safe haven

Daniel Petre has invested millions of dollars in software companies over the years. Now, with markets worried that rapid advances in artificial intelligence will all but wipe out their growth, the veteran venture capitalist is the first to warn that there will be plenty of casualties.

Or, as he describes it, “roadkill”. With every new announcement outlining new tasks that AI platforms can automate – the latest was Anthropic’s Claude, which can apparently replicate the work that specialist legal software does – technology stocks look deeper into the abyss.

That development, overnight on Tuesday, pushed the Nasdaq-listed shares of LegalZoom, which provides services to small legal practices, down 19.7 per cent. Thomson Reuters dropped 17 per cent. Atlassian, the Sydney-headquartered, New York-listed workplace software developer, saw its shares down 8.7 per cent. On the ASX, accounting tool Xero and logistics management platform WiseTech Global both took big hits.

“For some big software companies there are big switching costs, or they may have inputs from lots of changing private datasets that are difficult for an AI platform to match, but the key driver in the market today is that there will be lots of [software] businesses that aren’t that strong,” said Petre, the co-founder of Airtree Ventures and a former Microsoft executive.

Beyond the public markets, Petre is heavily invested in some of the country’s biggest and most promising private software businesses, from graphic design platform Canva to workplace tracking group SafetyCulture.

“Investing has now got a lot harder than it has been for the last 10 years and if a venture capital firm is not worried about this, then you have to question their capabilities in understanding what is happening,” he said.

Markets have been stunned by how quickly AI platforms like Claude seem to be able to offer tools that are comparable with software firms, allowing so-called vibe coders to build models without possessing specialist skills.

Alex Pollak, the chief investment officer at Loftus Peak, which has more than $1.1 billion under management, said the sell-off in software stocks was “probably overdone” and that products released by companies like Anthropic were unlikely to match those produced by traditional players, who can also provide ongoing support and frequent updates.

On Tuesday, Xero chief executive Sukhinder Singh Cassidy made a similar argument as she tried to convince investors that Xero’s accounting software was AI-proof. Atlassian chief executive Mike Cannon-Brookes will be pressed to do the same at his company’s quarterly earnings call on Friday.

Cloud and software names account for about 19 per cent of the Loftus Peak Global Disruption Fund, with about $700 million under management, and Pollak said it hasn’t sold these names yet. But he said the AI revolution “was creating this schizoid stockmarket” as investors fret over disruption, spending on infrastructure and how to monetise the new technology.

“This is the most disruptive moment for business and society since the introduction of the internet in 1999. We’ve been poring over this for months now, we can’t find a single industry that’s not affected by AI,” Pollak said.

“It is going to work. It’s already commercial, it’s deployed widely enough. It’s got enough acolytes, power users and corporations using it. We’re not going back. The question then becomes, is it being priced properly?”

Defensive moats

Two start-up founders who recently raised big money to build AI that will automate professional tasks also claim to be unperturbed by Claude.

Thomas Kelly, the chief executive and co-founder of Heidi Health, a medical scribe platform last valued at $US465 million ($662 million), and Phil Thurner, whose legal practice management software developer Nexl is now worth $100 million, both said their products were too embedded in the way that their customers worked to be easily replaced by AI-led replacements.

“The key question is where value actually accrues. In industries with low regulatory barriers and high interoperability, large general-purpose AI platforms will put real pressure on specialist software by abstracting away systems of record. We are already seeing early signs of that,” Kelly said.

“Healthcare is different. Value does not accrue solely to the model, it sits in regulatory compliance, deep clinical integration, trusted workflows and longstanding partnerships. You cannot simply plug in an API and operate safely at scale, and consumer AI platforms are not compliant with healthcare regulation in Australia, the US or Europe.”

An API, or application programming interface, is used to let different digital services and applications communicate and work together.

Thurner said Anthropic was an API business rather than a software rival, making its money from token usage, with more interest in pulling users away from OpenAI than replacing legal technology software vendors.

He said software like Nexl had a “defensive moat” against the disruption through its own data models, its grounding in firm-specific proprietary data and hard-earned knowledge of those businesses’ workflows. Anthropic and OpenAI were more of a threat to applications with limited features, he said.

“For serious vertical platforms Anthropic is more of an enabler,” Thurner added. “I’d frame this less as Anthropic eating legal tech and more as Anthropic competing to be the backbone for legal and professional-services AI. The real question for vertical software players is whether they’ve built real depth, or just a thin user interface on an AI model.”

Ahead of its earnings call, Canaccord Genuity analyst David Hynes said there was little Atlassian could do to turn negative sentiment around in the short term. He said Atlassian’s own AI efforts were going well, and its margins were generally growing across its applications.

“For an analyst who’s spent nearly 20 years covering a space that’s generally been loved, it’s wildly frustrating,” Hynes wrote. “It’s a fear of the unknown, the disprovable AI-bear thesis, and for that, there’s no magic elixir.”

Petre’s Airtree Ventures co-founder and a current partner at the firm Craig Blair said there was more variation in the impact of AI on software than was currently being displayed by a general market sell-off.

“The market is right that AI will have profound effects across software, services and investment businesses, but it’s not yet very discerning about who will benefit versus who will face headwinds,” he said.

“The future isn’t cleanly utopian or dystopian – outcomes will be shaped by new business models, products and pricing regimes so the future is nuanced and less predicable than simple headlines suggest.”

AI comes for the software giants, and Australia is no safe haven2026-02-05T14:38:35+11:00

Tech sell-off isn’t stopping. Thank goodness for this quiet miracle

Like the audience at a three-ring circus, investors don’t quite know where to look.

On Tuesday night, software stocks got clobbered because artificial intelligence was going to demolish their business models. On Wednesday night, tech stocks got clobbered because AI isn’t demolishing things fast enough.

While the selling pressure on software and data stocks eased, a wave of selling hit AI stocks after investors decided they were very displeased with the December quarter results of chipmaker AMD.

This was a strange one. AMD smashed analyst expectations for both profits and revenue – revenue in its data centre business surged 39 per cent in the December quarter, and is forecast to surge 60 per cent in the March quarter. Chief executive Lisa Su used the very technical term “going gangbusters” to describe the demand AMD was seeing.

“What I would tell yo16 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE & CYBER CRIMEu from someone on the inside is that AI is accelerating at a pace that I would not have imagined,” Su told CNBC.

And how did AMD’s share price react? Down 16 per cent on Wednesday night, of course.

This dragged Nvidia down more than 3 per cent, tech darling Palantir down almost 13 per cent, data centre junior CoreWeave down more than 7 per cent, Oracle down 4.5 per cent and the Nasdaq Composite index down more than 2 per cent at its intraday low, before it bounced a little.

The problem, apparently, was that AMD’s guidance was a little softer than the market wanted to see. For investors, that clearly didn’t quite add up. If demand is going gangbusters and AI investment is climbing seemingly by the minute from Tulsa to Tasmania, shouldn’t those growth rates be even stronger than they are?

This is another perfect example of what veteran tech investor Alex Pollak, chief investment officer at Loftus Peak, described as the market’s “schizoid” approach to the AI revolution.

One day, investors are panicking that AI players such as OpenAI and Anthropic are going to allow businesses and consumers to replicate the products of the cloud computing and software giants that have been market darlings for a decade. The next day, investors are worried that this process isn’t going fast enough.

Both of these sentiments can be right, of course – the AI players could wipe out the software players, and the AI players could face a squeeze on the earnings, operations and balance sheets if the speed at which they are monetising the AI revolution doesn’t match the speed at which they are investing in AI infrastructure.

What investors are wrestling with is the time frame over which both of these things occur, and, most importantly, the price that they should ascribe to these stocks as the AI revolution rolls on.

Indeed, after Wall Street closed for Wednesday night, we got more examples of investor nervousness. Google’s parent Alphabet smashed analyst expectations by producing a 30 per increase in profits to $US34.5 billion in the December quarter, but then shocked Wall Street by doubling it plans for capex spending in calendar 2026 to as much as $US185 billion, far above analyst expectations for about $US120 billion. Google stock fell 2 per cent in overnight trade.

Meanwhile, shares in chip design giant ARM fell almost 9 per cent on softer than expected earnings guidance.

It’s the market’s healthy scepticism

Obviously, this has felt very messy in the past few days. But zoom out, and the direction of travel looks a bit clearer.

Deutsche Bank strategist Jim Reid has examined the drawdown of a set of major stocks connected to the AI revolution (that is, the amount the stocks have fallen from their recent peaks), and the numbers tell the story of two fears. First, of AI disruption, and second, that there is going to be a nasty gap between AI investment and returns.

On the software side, names such as Duolingo (down 78 per cent from its peak), ServiceNow (down 53 per cent), Salesforce (down 45 per cent) and Adobe (down 41 per cent) are among the biggest casualties.

But even the stocks which are thought to be the safest bets in the AI revolution – the so-called shovel and pick names – have had a tough time of it. Nvidia is down 13 per cent from its peak. Palantir is down 24 per cent. Microsoft is also down 24 per cent. Broadcom is down 22 per cent. Oracle is down 51 per cent.

In other words, this has not just been about two days of confusion. This is the market’s very healthy scepticism about AI playing out over a period of weeks and months.

For all that though, it’s important to note that the S&P 500, the global benchmark for risk in financial markets, remains within 3 per cent of its all-time highs.

Indeed, while tech was having another conniption on Wednesday night, something remarkable happened. Eighty-two members of the S&P 500 hit one-year highs before midday, including giants such as Walmart, ExxonMobil, Johnston & Johnston, Caterpillar and wind turbine maker GE Vernova.

Indeed, seven of the 11 S&P sectors were in the green, suggesting that even as investors have shifted away from tech, they have not been shifting away from stocks, and the rally is broadening out.

For index investors – and let’s face it, that includes everyone from retail punters to superannuation funds these days – this is good news. As US strategist Warren Pies notes, never before has an S&P sector that is such a large chunk of the index (software is more than 8 per cent of the S&P’s total market cap) sold off so hard (a more than 25 per cent fall) and the market has remained within 3 per cent of all-time highs.

The numbers don’t lie. But it’s also true that this tech sell-off feels nasty, and for a very good reason: we’ve got lots of stocks down between 30 per cent and 60 per cent, and the market’s concentration around tech has been intense. This feels like a moment because it is.

Tech sell-off isn’t stopping. Thank goodness for this quiet miracle2026-02-05T14:38:09+11:00

I’ve never bought shares. How do I start investing?

nvesting for the first time feels a bit like going bouldering. It looks fun, but the fear of falling on your face and breaking a bone seems reason enough to stay away.

The good news is that it’s far less scary than you’d imagine, and there are many ways to protect against the financial equivalent of a broken bone.

We asked under-30s to send us their questions. Here are the results.

Q: What’s the first step to investing? Do I need a broker to get started?

There are dozens of online platforms that allow you to invest using your phone – no broker necessary. Many platforms no longer have a minimum investment amount, meaning that you can get started with spare change.

Start by creating an account with a trading platform (more about choosing a platform below) and deposit some cash into that account. Once your identity is verified, you can usually start investing immediately. The whole process can take less than five minutes.

The federal government’s Moneysmart website is a good source of reliable information for beginners.

Fractional investing, which allows you to buy a portion of a unit in a share or ETF rather than restricting you to buying only whole units, has made is easy and cheap for beginners to build a diversified portfolio.

Craig Semmens, the chief executive of stockbroking firm Phillip Capital Australia, says trading apps have made real-time news, price alerts, charts and commentary readily available to everybody.

“Advancements in technology have also meant overseas markets that once felt out of reach for retail investors are suddenly more accessible,” he says. “US heavyweights like Tesla, Apple, Meta and Nvidia sit in the same portfolios as the big four banks and the likes of Rio Tinto, BHP and Wesfarmers for example, giving investors exposure to sectors and stories shaping the global economy.”

 

Q: How much do I need to start investing? How often should I invest?

There’s no right answer to this, but investing small amounts regularly can be a good strategy for those who don’t have the liquidity to invest big sums in one go. It’s called dollar-cost averaging.

Some platforms allow people to invest with as little as $5 or $10.

One option is “round-up” investing. If you buy a coffee for $5.50, for example, the purchase gets rounded up to $6 and the additional 50¢ is invested into your portfolio.

Q: Is it better to invest in ETFs or individual stocks?

Choosing what to invest in can be a daunting task.

Patricia Garcia, a financial adviser at Your Vision Financial Solutions, says investing in ETFs is an easy and cheap way to diversify your portfolio.

Diversification is the process of investing across various asset classes, industries and geographies.

ETFs can be bought and sold on a stock exchange, just like a regular share, and they are automatically diversified given their multipart compositions.

“If you’re starting with a very small amount, and adding small amounts over time, you’re not going to be able to get much diversification if you’re building your own stock portfolio,” Garcia says.

Morningstar associate investment specialist Simonelle Mody says she previously bought individual stocks but found she underperformed the wider market so now buys ETFs. Plus, self-managing a portfolio of individual shares is time-consuming.

Q: What’s the best share trading platform in Australia?

Platforms have proliferated so it can feel daunting. The short answer is that different platforms serve different purposes.

The table below lists 20 of the most popular investment platforms, their minimum deposit amount and whether they offer US shares, ETFs and cryptocurrency.

Q: Are there any fees and costs when deciding to invest?

The cost of investing comes down to a combination of things including brokerage, trading, investment and administration fees. There’s no uniform way of charging, so it’s difficult for us to provide a list.

The above table shows the fees charged to execute a single trade. These are generally known as trading fees.

Some are dependent on the size of the trade, others are just a flat fee. Some platforms have zero trading costs, but charge administration fees.

Q: Should I invest in cryptocurrency?

Crypto is a complicated beast. If you get lucky, the returns can be eye-watering, but if you don’t, the losses can bring their own tears,

“Crypto should just be a high-risk part of a portfolio, if you’re wanting to do it as a sort of hobby on the side, and a very small percentage of your overall wealth creation strategy,” Mody says.

Q: Can I manage my own investments or should I go with a ready-made portfolio?

While some investors prefer to select their own stocks, others like the simplicity of investing in a pre-made portfolio, which is usually constructed according to an individual’s risk appetite and investment horizon.

But pre-made portfolios can be a little more expensive.

Morningstar’s Mody compared the fees for pre-made portfolios offered on six platforms. She assumed an initial investment of $1000, annualised monthly fees and a five-year investment period.

Mody also assumed a 7 per cent annual average return for a balanced portfolio over the next five years, which broadly aligns with Morningstar’s long-term return expectations.

The portfolios tend to include a component of ASX, S&P 500 and other high-performing, often tech-heavy, international stocks.

Some portfolios have delivered much higher returns in recent years – who cares if fees are high if your returns are shooting the lights out, right? – but past returns are not a reliable predictor of future earnings.

This comparison is focused on fees, does not account for variation in returns and should only be used as guide for further research by investors themselves.

Stockspot chief executive Chris Brycki defended his organisation’s comparatively high fee by saying: “For our fee, clients get access to a licensed financial adviser and free kids accounts. Our higher allocation to gold has also helped our portfolios outperform all other diversified options over one, three, five and 10 years.”

Q: Should I keep my money in the bank, or should I invest in stocks/ETFs?

While interest rates have been higher recently, the Reserve Bank of Australia is in a cutting cycle. This means the interest paid to savers with money in savings accounts is falling and at present, the best high-interest savings account rates are about 5 per cent. But money in a savings account is safe, which makes these accounts well suited for short-term goals, like holidays and emergency funds.

“Unfortunately, you can’t park all your money in a savings account and expect to build real wealth,” Mody says. “High-yield savings accounts definitely don’t come close to beating inflation over time, and even though it feels psychologically safer, you’re definitely quietly losing money every year.”

If you’re saving for a house deposit and keeping the money invested, it’s possible that if the market crashes, a substantial portion of your savings goes out the window with it. So, exercise caution.

Garcia says the risks associated with an ETF are fairly low.

“If you’re being exposed to thousands of units, thousands of different companies, there’s a very low chance that all of those companies will disappear,” she says.

Q: Should I buy Australian or overseas investments?

One isn’t better than the other, but it’s always good to diversify, and that includes by country. Australia’s economy is relatively small, so exposing your portfolio to larger markets is a useful way of buffering against fluctuations in the domestic market.

“Australia is a small country in the big scheme of things when it comes to the world economy, so it’s good to make sure that you’re exposed to multiple countries, and you can do that through pre-mixed portfolios, ETFs and managed funds,” Garcia says.

Q: Is it better to buy and sell or buy and hold?

It depends on what your investment goals are, but normally, the longer you stay invested in a diversified portfolio, the better.

“Short-term investing is much higher risk,” Garcia says. “It’s about time in the market, not timing the market.”

Mody agrees. “I have a long term-mindset and tangible goals, so I can grow my wealth steadily, as opposed to chasing those crazy returns through things like crypto,” she says.

One of her main goals is to achieve a $100,000 portfolio by age 30. She hopes to achieve this by dollar-cost averaging into ETFs monthly.

Q: What level of investment risk should I take as a young person?

Again, this is goal-dependent, but the general thesis is that the younger you are, the more risk you can afford to take. This is because you have more time to recoup any investment losses you might make.

That being said, if you intend to make a substantial purchase in the next couple of years using the money you have invested, investing may not be the right strategy. If you lose a decent chunk of your portfolio to market fluctuations, you won’t have time to build it back up again.

“If you’re wanting to buy a property in the next year or two, for example, you might not want to invest those funds because you don’t have what we call the right timeframe to invest. You have to be able to ride out the market ups and downs,” Garcia says.

She explains that it’s fine to invest if you’re willing to delay your purchase. Then, once you’ve recouped your losses you can sell all your investments and put the cash towards a deposit.

Semmens says to “be prudent. Don’t rush in. It’s about investing over the long term”.

Mody says losing money early into your investing journey can have a larger impact than later on, when you are more financially equipped to weather bad economic conditions. So, it’s worth considering how much you’re willing to lose.

Q: What are the tax implications of investing?

If you are invested in shares that pay dividends, these need to be included as income in your end of financial year tax return, and are taxed at your marginal income tax rate.

Tax implications also arise when you sell your investments – if they have appreciated in value.

But if you hold on to them, you aren’t taxed until you sell for a profit.

You will be taxed on your profit at your marginal income tax rate, but if you sell an asset like a share, an ETF or crypto that you’ve owned for at least 12 months, you will be eligible for a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount.

All you have to do is declare the capital gains, and the dates you bought and sold the asset on your tax return.

The table below shows the potential capital gains tax implications of a $1000 investment that has appreciated to $1400.

So, there it is. Do your research, start small and don’t be intimidated if you choose to embark on an investing journey.

I’ve never bought shares. How do I start investing?2025-09-05T18:25:05+10:00

What it takes to be in Australia’s top 1 per cent

If you earn a total income of $375,378 a year or higher, congratulations; you are in Australia’s top 1 per cent of taxpayers.

And if your total household gross income is above $531,652, your household earns more than 99 per cent of Australian households.

By contrast, the median Australian taxpayer earns $55,619, while the median household gross income is $92,856, and for the lowest 10 per cent, those figures are just $11,036 and $26,181, respectively.

Among the 1 per cent, there’s been a sharp increase in income over five years. The comparable figures in 2019-20 to be considered a 1 per cent-er were total income of $315,770 and household income of $460,028, which amounts to a rise of 19 per cent and 16 per cent, respectively.

These figures – derived from Australian Taxation Office and Australian Bureau of Statistics data by the Grattan Institute – provide one snapshot of wealth in Australia.

Grattan published the material ahead of Tuesday’s federal budget to help contextualise debates about the budget winners and losers, providing additional insight into what Australians earn and own.

Earnings discrepancies

If you’re thinking the income figures – and especially the average – seem lower that the figure you’ve typically seen quoted, you’d be right.

The most commonly quoted earnings figure is average full-time earnings (currently $104,765 a year), but this figure has limitations, such as excluding part-time workers.

It’s the kind of figure that leads us to think Australians are better off than they actually are.

Grattan’s housing and economic security program director Brendan Coates, deputy director Joey Moloney and associate Matthew Bowes say average full-time earnings is “not a good guide to the typical Australian’s income”.

“More than three-quarters of Australian workers earn less than the average full-time wage of $104,765 a year.”

Instead, considering the median is a more instructive measure. On this basis, the median full-time worker earns $90,416, a figure that drops to $67,786 when part-time workers are accounted for.

Location matters

To some extent, what you earn is a function of where you live.

Western Australia has the highest percentage of taxpayers in the top 45 per cent tax bracket – those who earn more than $190,000 – at 5.5 per cent. NSW and the ACT are not far behind, lagged by Victoria and Queensland.

But even in high-wage Sydney, those in the top tax bracket are an elite class; just 7 per cent of Sydneysiders earn an income that puts them in the top tax bracket, Grattan’s analysis shows.

Net wealth

Wealth isn’t solely a function of income. Debt has a big role to play, as do other assets such as your home, superannuation and investments.

By considering all of these factors, Grattan has calculated how much you need in total household net wealth to be considered in the top 1 per cent in Australia.

And not surprisingly it varies by age. Those between 25 and 40 require net wealth of $3.1 million to be in the top 1 per cent, while for those aged 41 to 64, that figure jumps to $7.7 million.

Households of over 65s have the highest net wealth – with the top 1 per cent of households controlling over $10.9 million each. This makes sense, given they’ve had more time to accumulate their wealth.

By contrast, the bottom 25 per cent of households have total net wealth of $78,000 for those aged 25 to 40, $332,000 for those aged 41-64 and $433,000 for those aged 65 and over.

Super and home equity

One of the questions people frequently ask about their super balance is how it compares to others their age.

Whether you’re tracking for a $5 million, $2 million or $500,000 retirement, where does your super rank in comparison to your friends and neighbours?

Super balances are another metric where age plays a significant role. The longer you’ve worked since 1992 – when employer contributions became compulsory under the super guarantee – the more you’ve received, and the more time that money has been invested.

Despite not having compulsory super their entire working lives, the 65+ cohort still has the highest balances across the age cohorts among the 1 per cent – with $2 million for individuals and $3.3 million for households – possibly as a result of moving assets into the lower tax super environment as they reach retirement.

But many in this cohort also have no super – the median balance for the 65+ age group is actually $0 – which can be attributed to the older end of this cohort having missed out on the super guarantee, and many older women spending little, if any, time in paid employment.

To have a super balance among the top 1 per cent if you’re 41 to 64, you’ll need $1.4 million as an individual or $2 million as a household, while a much lower balance of $293,000 for an individual or $473,000 as a household will get you there if you’re aged 25 to 40.

It’s a similar story for home equity, with those 41 and over – who typically bought their homes earlier and less expensively – having ridden successive property booms and paid down their mortgages significantly.

To be in the top 1 per cent for home equity, over 65s need equity of $3 million in their homes, while for 41 to 64-year-olds it’s $2.8 million and for those aged 25 to 40 it’s $1.3 million.

The overall picture

As shown above, what you need to rank in the top 1 per cent by all measures varies according to your age.

Regardless of your age, you need $375,378 in individual income, $531,652 in household income, but in terms of net wealth, super and home equity, the older you are, the more you need to maintain poll position.

What it takes to be in Australia’s top 1 per cent2025-04-11T09:32:12+10:00

AI investor ‘bubble’ echoes dotcom bust: Ray Dalio

New York | Investor exuberance over artificial intelligence has fuelled a “bubble” in US stocks that resembles the build-up to the dotcom bust at the turn of the millennium, billionaire investor Ray Dalio has warned.

Mr Dalio told the Financial Times that “pricing has got to levels which are high at the same time as there’s an interest rate risk, and that combination could prick the bubble”.

The warning from Mr Dalio, the founder of hedge fund Bridgewater Associates and one of the highest-profile figures on Wall Street, comes as concerns swirl over whether the boom in US AI stocks has gone too far.

Investors also remain concerned about elevated borrowing costs, worries that sharpened after Federal Reserve officials in December trimmed their expectations for rate cuts this year.

“Where we are in the cycle right now is very similar to where we were between 1998 or 1999,” Mr Dalio said.

“In other words, there’s a major new technology that certainly will change the world and be successful. But some people are confusing that with the investments being successful.”

The late 1990s saw a run-up in tech valuations, powered in part by low interest rates and growing adoption of the internet, followed by a brutal correction that came as Alan Greenspan’s US Federal Reserve tightened monetary policy.

The tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 index doubled in 1999, only to fall about 80 per cent by October 2002. The index has doubled since the beginning of 2023 as stocks such as AI-focused chip maker Nvidia have powered higher.

Wall Street stocks slumped on Monday (Tuesday AEDT) after DeepSeek, a Chinese AI company linked to a little-known hedge fund, published a paper claiming its newest AI model rivals those of OpenAI and Meta Platforms in performance, yet at a lower cost and with less sophisticated hardware.

Nvidia shed nearly $US600 billion ($1 trillion) in market value on Monday.

DeepSeek’s apparent success calls into question the potential returns on hundreds of billions of dollars invested by Silicon Valley companies in AI data centres, and whether China has managed to find a way to compete despite restrictions on its ability to import high-end chips from the US.

OpenAI, backed by Microsoft, last week announced a plan to invest up to $US500 billion in AI infrastructure. The company’s ChatGPT was the top-rated free app on the Apple app store until it was displaced on Monday by DeepSeek’s AI assistant.

‘Capitalism alone cannot win’

Mr Dalio, who retired as chairman of Bridgewater in 2021 but remains on the board, has long advocated economic engagement with China.

He wrote last year that “the key question isn’t whether or not I should invest in China so much as how much”. He warned, however, that the stakes in AI are unusually high.

“The tech war between China and the US is far more important than profitability, not only for economic superiority, but for military superiority,” he told the FT.

“Those who are going to pay attention to profitability with sharp pencils are not going to win that race,” Mr Dalio added.

Reinforcing the elusiveness of AI profit, OpenAI founder Sam Altman wrote on X this month that the company was losing money on its $US200-per-month ChatGPT Pro plan because of unexpectedly heavy usage.

As US technology groups invest lavishly, President Donald Trump has pledged to support American AI in his second term.

China has offered financial assistance for its AI industry, including the launch of funds set up to support its embattled semiconductor industry. Meanwhile, the US under former president Joe Biden extended billions of dollars of subsidies for groups to build chips on American soil.

Mr Dalio conceded that state support for jockeying AI developers was inevitable given the importance of winning the global race, even if it came at the expense of profit.

“In our system, by and large, we are moving to a more industrial-complex- type of policy in which there is going to be government-mandated and government-influenced activity, because it is so important.

“Capitalism alone – the profit motive alone – cannot win this battle.”

AI investor ‘bubble’ echoes dotcom bust: Ray Dalio2025-01-30T16:54:46+11:00

Financial Planning Message – December 2024

Following two remarkable years of global equity returns, it is understandable to approach 2025 with degree

of trepidation.

As the curtain draws on 2024, we are heading into 2025 with the same concerns we had at the start of 2024,
namely high interest rates, inflation and uncertainty/ geopolitical risks.

  • All eyes are on the sluggish Chinese economy and consumer sentiment, more importantly how the government stimulus measures will play out to revitalise the real estate sector, boost liquidity and increase demand to cater for overproduction. The potential of increased tariffs under the Trump administration will further exacerbate these challenges.
  •  2024 was the year of elections, more than 60 countries went to the polls, ( 50% of the world’s population ), this in turn created opportunity for the ‘improbable becoming possible’.
  •  Equity markets have largely navigated through the volatility of the bond market, however it is likely that the significant spike in yields going forward will weigh on equity valuations.
  • An optimistic outlook for the US – the base case is that the US ( as the main driver of financial markets ) is expected to progress to a ‘soft landing’ which is supported by further easing of interest rates, increased corporate earnings due to lower corporate tax, further de regulation of the financial sector and an increased investment in technologies leading to improved productivity.
  •  The Australian Economy faces many challenges in 2025. The economic risks in China, being our key trading partner, will impact adversely and become more evident as we progress into 2025. These challenges will be further compounded by high inflation from the geopolitical environment, higher government spending / deficits, inequality and no productivity for almost a decade will weigh on the RBA in keeping interest rates higher for longer.
  • A recent Mckinsey report on the Australian economy notes that our business investment is now at recession level, our productivity growth is at 30th place out of 35 developed countries, living standards are declining and are at a national emergency level. Our GDP growth now is the weakest since the 1990’s recession ( excluding Covid-19 ).

Federal Government spending hit 12.3% of Nominal GDP in September 2024.

The ‘Golden goose’ that produced our fair and prosperous society is gasping for air – (Mckinsey)

On balance, it appears there will be significant headwinds for the Australian households and the economy in
general as we enter 2025.

 

Accordingly, the festive season is a great time to enjoy a break but also make time to reflect on the past, take control of the present and ‘sow the seeds’ of success for tomorrow.

Some practical steps to align your long term strategy may include :-

  • Review Superannuation – Multiple funds or funds with high costs and low performance compromise your long term / retirement plans.
  • Review Non Super Investments – Re-evaluate performance and tax effectiveness, also rebalance / diversify.
  • Review cashflows and eliminate unnecessary lifestyle costs in light of the prevailing environment.
  • Let’s not forget managing your tax position, this is always relevant be it during your working life, in retirement (with respect to investments) or as part of your estate plan.
  • Make incremental savings ‘dollar cost average’ as opposed to taking a significant position when
    investing.
  • Diversification and history are our best friends, reflect and actively rebalance asset allocations.
  • Consider Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRP) given the attractive investment returns.
  • Confirm borrowing / refinancing options well before due dates and explore potential savings across
    relevant lenders – competition appears to be intensifying across the major lenders.
  • Insurance is always important, potentially critical during extreme business cycles as are likely to
    unfold in 2025. It is not desirable to execute forced sales at depressed values.
  • Those running a business – Document a business plan, complete a business valuation and be aware
    of the Small Business Capital Gains Tax concessions (SBCGT ).
  • Explore and utilise First Home Incentives – Including The First Home Super Saver Scheme ( FHSS ).
  • With the festive season upon us, I would like to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude to all our
    clients and associates, thank you for placing trust in AMCO.

In January 2025 AMCO celebrates 28 years since inception. The practice was founded on the vision of creating a long-term wealth management firm that enlarges and enriches the lives of those with whom we interact.

We are aware of the challenges you are facing during these uncertain times and are there to advise and navigate the environment with professional care.

From the team at AMCO, we wish you and your family good health, peace of mind and prosperity in the year ahead.

 

Merry Christmas.

Danny D. Mazevski
Chartered Tax & Financial Adviser
FIPA CTA FTMA MBA (Un.NSW/SYD) Dip.FS JP

 

Any advice in this document is of a general nature only and has not been tailored to your personal circumstances.
Please seek personal financial and or tax advice prior to acting on this information

Financial Planning Message – December 20242025-01-07T16:20:03+11:00

Warren Buffetts’ s 11 tips for investing and life

1. “If you’re smart, you don’t need a lot of money. And if you’re dumb, no amount of money is going to help you.”

If you’re smart you will understand the power of compounding interest. You will know the difference between a company that has a durable competitive advantage and one that doesn’t. And you will know how to value a company to determine if it is overpriced or underpriced. With that knowledge, you can take even a small sum of money and grow it exponentially to be worth millions of dollars. But if you’re dumb, even if you start with millions, eventually you are going to lose it all.

2. “The important thing is to know what you know and know what you don’t know.”

The secret behind Buffett’s incredible success is not an incredible intellect or being the all-knowing oracle of Omaha. In fact, it’s just the opposite. It’s actually about knowing what he doesn’t know. This stops Buffett from making investment decisions he isn’t qualified to make. An accountant would be inviting folly if he tried to play doctor.

Buffett feels the same way about investing. There are certain companies he has no idea how to value, and as a result he stays away from them. Then there are companies that he understands and feels very qualified to value – these are the ones that have made him super rich.

Buffett refers to this world of businesses that he understands well enough to value as his “circle of competence”– which means he is confident in his ability to value them. If he can confidently value companies, he can confidently tell if the sharemarket is undervaluing them or overvaluing them.

For Buffett, being able to spot when the market is undervaluing a company shows him where the big money is.

3. “Don’t save what is left after spending; spend what is left after saving.”

One gets rich by getting their money to work for them, but that won’t happen unless they first have money saved up to make that initial investment. For most people, the first money they have to invest comes from saving a percentage of what they earn from a job.

In Buffett’s teenage days, he was obsessed with saving money from the various little businesses he ran. And with his obsession for saving money came an aversion to spending it.

Buffett was so averse to spending money that he drove an old Volkswagen Beetle long after he had become a multimillionaire, and he still lives in the same house he paid $US31,500 for in 1957. In Buffett’s case, saving money was way more fun than spending money, unless, of course, he was buying stocks.

4. “My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and compound interest.”

Albert Einstein once said, “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it earns it … He who doesn’t, pays it.”

Buffett took this to heart early in his life and it truly has been the gift that kept on giving.

Here is how compounding interest works: $50,000 compounding at 10 per cent a year will be worth $55,000 after one year, $60,500 after two years, $66,550 after three years. After 10 years it will be worth $129,687. After 20 years it will be worth $336,375. After 30 years, $872,470. After 40 years, $2,262,962. After 50 years, $5,869,542.

In the first 10 years, we made $79,687 in interest on our $50,000 investment. But between the years 10 and 20 we made $206,688 in interest. And between years 20 to 30 we made $536,095 in interest. Between the years 30 and 40 we made $1,390,492 in interest. Between the years 40 and 50 we made $3,606,580 in interest. As the pot gets bigger, we make more and more in interest, which grows the pot even larger.

When Buffett took over Berkshire Hathaway, he stopped the company from paying a dividend so all the earnings would build up in Berkshire. Using his investment prowess, Buffett got Berkshire’s shareholders’ equity to compound at the phenomenal rate of 18.55 per cent a year for 59 years, growing shareholder’s equity from $US24.5 million in 1965 to approximately $US561.2 billion in 2024, for a total gain of 2,290,512 per cent.

Responding to the increase in shareholder’s equity, the market price for Berkshire’s stock, from 1965 to 2024, grew from $US12.50 a Class A share to $US632,000 a Class A share, which equates to an annual compounding growth rate of approximately 20.15 per cent.

Note: Our $50,000 investment compounding at a rate of 20.15 per cent a year, for 59 years, would be worth $2.52 billion in year 59, which is exactly how several of Buffett’s early investors ended up billionaires.

5. “From the standpoint of investments, you need two courses in a business school: one is how to value a business, and the other is how to think about sharemarket fluctuations.”

If Buffett was teaching a course in business school on how to value a business, he would teach students that there are basically two kinds of businesses.

(1) Businesses that sell commodity-type products, which have lots of price competition, low profit margins, low returns on equity, and volatile net earnings. These are the companies you don’t want to own.

(2) Exceptional businesses, which have some kind of durable competitive advantage, as evidenced by little price competition, high profit margins, high returns on equity, consistent earnings, and are buying back their shares. These are the right companies to own, and once identified, Buffett would explain to the students how to tell if they are selling at a price that makes business sense to buy them.

Buffett’s course on sharemarket fluctuations would provide a historical study of what market forces create buying opportunities. He would teach the students the history of events and forces that dramatically affect stock prices, what drives them from insane highs to depressing lows, and how these events can affect the share prices of companies with a durable competitive advantage and in the process create investment opportunities.

6. “You don’t want to be a no-emotion person in all of your life, but you definitely want to be a no-emotion person in making an investment or business decision.”

Buffett’s investment decisions – after weighing the economics of the business and the price he is paying – are based solely on whether or not he believes he is getting good value for his money. He’s very cold about it. In his early days, if he had a position that was making him money, even if he loved the company, if something better came along, he would sell it in a nanosecond and go with the new prospect.

He bought and sold his favourite Capital Cities Communications several times before he settled into a long-term position with it. This is the reason Buffett doesn’t react with fear in a stock market panic. His lack of emotion enables him to see long-term value and buy when everyone else is running for the fire escape. It’s also why he doesn’t get caught up in the euphoria of a bull market and end up paying insane prices for businesses.

7. “The most important item over time in valuation is obviously interest rates. If interest rates are destined to be at very low levels … it makes any stream of earnings from investments worth more money.”

Let’s say that Company A constantly produces earnings of $10 million a year. In a world of 10 per cent interest rates, we would have to invest $100 million in bonds that were paying 10 per cent to earn $10 million a year. Buffett would argue that Company A is worth $100 million relative to a 10 per cent interest rate. ($100 million × 10 per cent = $10 million.) Now, let’s say interest rates dropped to 2 per cent. We would have to invest $500 million in bonds paying 2 per cent to earn $10 million a year. ($500 million × 2 per cent = $10 million.) Buffett would argue that Company A’s earnings of $10 million a year are now worth $500 million relative to the 2 per cent interest rate.

The same inverse relationship also exists when discounting the future cash flows of a business to present value. The higher the discount rate, the lower the present value. The lower the discount rate, the higher the present value. So, a payment of $10 million a year for 10 years, discounted to present value, using a rate of 10 per cent, would have a present value of $61.3 million. But if we used a 2 per cent discount rate, a payment of $10 million a year for 10 years would have a present value of $89.4 million.

When interest rates drop, the relative value of what businesses earn goes up – and eventually, stock prices will follow upward as well. But when interest rates go up, the relative value of what businesses earn goes down – and stock prices will eventually go down as well.

8. “Obviously, profits are worth a whole lot more if the government bond yield is 1 per cent than they’re worth if the government bond yield is 5 per cent.”

For Buffett, all investment valuations are invariably linked to interest rates. If you owned a share of Apple stock and it earned $6.43 a share in 2023, you would need $128 invested in a 5 per cent government bond to yield you $6.43. But in a world of 1 per cent government bonds, you would need $643 invested in 1 per cent government bonds to yield $6.43. So as interest rates go down, stock prices “tend” to go up. And if interest rates go up, stock prices “tend” to go down.

Why government bonds? If they are United States Treasury bonds, they are thought of as being risk-free of default. In 2024, 10-year US Treasury bonds traded at 4.3 per cent, which gave Apple’s $6.43-a-share-earnings a relative value of $149 a share, against Apple shares reaching an all-time trading high in 2024 of $225 a share, which was 66 per cent above its relative value of $149 a share.

Buffett’s response to this overvaluation was to start selling his holdings in Apple. Even the best of companies can become overvalued – and when they do, Buffett will often cut his position.

9. “We do like having a lot of money to be able to operate very fast and very big. We know we won’t get those opportunities frequently … In the next 20 or 30 years there’ll be two or three times when it’ll be raining gold and all you have to do is go outside. But we don’t know when they will happen. And we have a lot of money to commit.”

Charlie Munger used to put it like this: “You have to be very patient. You have to wait until something comes along, which, at the price you’re paying, is easy. That’s contrary to human nature, just to sit there all day long doing nothing, waiting. It’s easy for us, we have a lot of other things to do. But for an ordinary person, can you imagine just sitting for five years doing nothing? You don’t feel active, you don’t feel useful, so you do something stupid.”

This is not the investment strategy of any fund manager in the world. Hold billions in cash and wait for the world to fall apart. But it is true – every 10 years or so, the financial world does fall apart and stock prices tank across the board. It happened in 2000 when the internet bubble burst, it happened in 2008 to 2009 when Wall Street imploded with the mortgage-backed bonds, it happened in 2020 with the COVID shutdown, and it will happen again and again.

And when it happens, stock prices will collapse, and the banks of the world will do what they always do, which is print tons of cash to pull us out of it, which will ultimately be bullish for stock prices. The hedge funds, mutual funds, and investment trusts of the world can’t play Buffett’s waiting game, they can’t sit on cash waiting for the mega opportunity. But Buffett can. And so can you!

10. “Opportunities come infrequently. When it rains gold, put out the bucket, not the thimble.”

Buffett often talks about temperament. He means having the patience to wait for the right opportunity. By his own admission, he has sometimes sat waiting patiently for several years for the right investment opportunity to show up. And when it finally shows up, he takes full advantage and buys big.

Back in the 1980s, Buffett spent $US1.3 billion on Coca-Cola stock – which, today in 2024, is worth approximately $US24.4 billion. In the 1990s, he spent $US1.4 billion on American Express shares, which are now worth approximately $US32.4 billion. In the 2000s he bought $US14 billion worth of Bank of America stock, which was worth approximately $US35.1 billion in 2024 when he started thinning his position. In the 2010s, he spent $US31 billion for his Apple shares – which in the beginning of 2024 were worth a whopping $US176.8 billion before he started selling his position.

Invest big and win big if you follow in Buffett’s footsteps and buy shares in a company with a durable competitive advantage, and you buy it at a price that makes sense from a business perspective.

11. “There are a lot of businesses I wouldn’t buy even if I thought the management was the most wonderful in the world because they are simply in the wrong business.”

This goes back to something Buffett said in the 1990s: “When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for poor fundamental economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.”

Some businesses have inherent underlying economics that are so bad that even the best managers in the world can’t improve upon them. These are usually companies that sell a commodity-type product or service in which there is a lot of price competition, that historically sees a repetitive cycle of boom and bust. In the boom years demand outstrips supplies, creating huge profit margins, but in the bust years, low demand kills their profit margins, and their fixed costs end up killing them.

You can easily identify these businesses by an erratic earnings history – losses some years, very profitable in other years. They never buy back their shares, and usually carry a large amount of debt. All of which tells you it’s the wrong business to own – no matter what the selling price is.

The New Tao of Warren Buffet by Mary Buffett and David Clark, is published by Simon & Schuster.

Warren Buffetts’ s 11 tips for investing and life2024-11-25T17:12:28+11:00

Why Australia needs an institute for applied ethics

Capitalism depends on government to provide a trusted framework of rules around it. But when politics turns into reality TV, we must ask the ethical questions ourselves.

The capitalist model, detailed in Milton Friedman’s 1962 classic, Capitalism and Freedom, is often criticised by non-economists for celebrating the pursuit of self-interest.

Yet capitalism’s claims to moral legitimacy come not only from its promotion of liberty, but also from its impressive claims to aggregate economic efficiency. Specifically, capitalism claims to produce community outcomes that are Pareto optimal, meaning that no one person can be made better off without at least one other person being made worse off.

Except as required by the law of the land, individuals in a capitalist system are not obliged to attend to the interests of another. They are free to pursue persistently divergent interests, as workers, investors and consumers. And those who run businesses have no social responsibility beyond the pursuit of profit.

But while the capitalist model is founded on the pursuit of self-interest, it will not function in the absence of trust. Mutual confidence in the functioning of the capitalist system is critical to its claimed efficiency benefits. A lack of trust means a suboptimal number and size of transactions, and underinvestment in innovation, with significant implications for the level of aggregate economic activity, productivity and real income growth. Moreover, a sudden loss of trust can have catastrophic social consequences, as the global financial crisis of 2008-09 illustrates.

A recent report by Deloitte Access Economics, commissioned by The Ethics Centre, explains how large gains in economic activity can be achieved with modest improvements in levels of trust.

Readers of this newspaper have observed how trust in business has been undermined by apparent failures to meet community expectations in the treatment of customers in many sectors of the economy, including through impenetrable information disclosures, automated customer call centres and store closures. And, like all other Australians, they would be wondering about their capacity to cope with the many ways in which businesses and governments might make use of advances in AI and robotics.

In the capitalist system, businesses are not to concern themselves with meeting community expectations, except to the extent that doing so increases profit. Ensuring that business meets community expectations is the responsibility of government.

As Friedman puts it, capitalism relies upon a functioning democratic system that both enables and obliges its citizens to elect governments to ‘‘determine, arbitrate and enforce . . . a framework of law’’ to ensure ‘‘free and open competition’’ and protection from ‘‘fraud or deception’’. And Friedman goes on to explain, if somewhat grudgingly, that government also has responsibility for attending to negative externalities and making adequate provision of public goods.

Capitalism casts business and ‘‘the rest of us’’ (Friedman’s expression) as adversaries, and government as our protector.

So, it is something of a paradox that, year after year, surveys of ‘‘the rest of us’’ report that, among the principal institutions affecting our lives – businesses, not-for-profit entities, government and the media – it is government that enjoys the least trust.

Capitalism demands a lot from government. Mostly, our political leaders fall short. Instead of attending to frameworks of law and enforcement, many have preferred the role of business-bashing critic, pointing an accusatory finger at business executives, not themselves, for having failed the pub test or for failing to meet community expectations.

It may be the case that the 24/7 reality TV show, through which citizens get to observe the workings of modern politics, encourages this sort of spectacle.

Yet, no matter its explanation, it is corrosive of effective governance, which depends upon elected officials having some detachment from outrage and mania, not seeking energetic immersion in it.

We have a problem.

Following the global financial crisis, serious thinkers around the world began questioning whether the adversarial contest at the core of the capitalist system might not be its Achilles heel.

Capitalism proposes a system in which business is motivated by nothing other than profit, and its executives by nothing other than self-interest, and leaves it to the rest of us, also motivated by nothing other than self-interest, to elect politicians to protect us with laws that we cannot possibly comprehend and regulatory bodies with which we can have no meaningful contact. This is not an arrangement designed to build trust.

Recent global efforts to make more transparent the social and environmental impacts of business activity, and to have business leaders accept accountability to the community for these impacts, seem to me to be steps in the right direction.

But these will only take us so far. The big problem we have is that, as individuals and as a community, we confront a set of ethical questions that are just damned difficult. And we have not invested sufficiently in respected institutions that might help us think them through.

In all democracies, there is a compelling case for centres of expertise that facilitate sober reflection. This is why we fund universities, a professional public service and, within the public sector, institutions that enjoy a higher level of independence, such as the CSIRO and the Productivity Commission.

Yet, when you reflect on the recent and emerging causes of a loss of trust in democratic capitalist systems, and the economic and social gains that would come from addressing them, you have to think that something is missing. That is why I have come to the view that it is time for us, as a community, to invest in an Australian Institute for Applied Ethics. This is a modest investment, promising very large rewards.

Ken Henry is a former Treasury secretary, and one of 1600 signatories of an open letter calling for federal funding for an Australian Institute for Applied Ethics.

Why Australia needs an institute for applied ethics2024-03-08T16:36:12+11:00

RBA change is coming, like it or not

More people, more input, more cooks in the kitchen. That’s ultimately the price the Reserve Bank of Australia will pay for a couple of years of bad or miscalculated calls, made in response to the pandemic.

Ironically, the review was conceived in the pre-COVID days when the RBA was criticised because inflation was running below its 2 to 3 per cent target range. All the attention is on what has happened since.

When money was flooding into the financial system and the economy, it is now clear the RBA board was too slow to apply the handbrake. The result is the highest level of inflation since the 1990s and an unprecedented 10 straight rate rises that were never going to be popular with ordinary Australians or politicians. No one seems to care that the unemployment rate is around its lowest level in nearly 50 years.

Right or wrong RBA governor Philip Lowe wears the blame. He will be all over the newspapers and nightly television news bulletins, even though markets (equities, bonds, currency) barely blinked. Mr Market saw the review coming, and now says the changes are some way off.

From the market’s perspective, next month’s budget is more material. Treasurer Jim Chalmers needs to set up the books for the next few years, which means finding more money. The economy is finely poised: it would be tempting to throw money around to ease cost of living pressures, although money’s tight and the inflation doesn’t need stoking.

In the meantime, old-head RBA watchers said it was a significant day. The fact that the central bank, which has such a great impact on Australians’ daily life, was subject to such scrutiny made it a historic day.

Lowe and the RBA will be hauled over the coals for what happened a few years ago, even though it was just as much the government stoking the fire that continues to burn today. The critics argue he should be accountable for the combination of low rates, forward guidance, yield curve control, quantitative easing and the term funding facility, which combined to whipsaw the economy and may yet cause a recession.

Of course, Lowe’s monetary policy is just one tool.

Once the commotion passes, we should all still be worried about the rising cost of rent and energy and how both can be addressed. The review doesn’t change that.

The review prompted plenty of thinking about the RBA, its corporate governance, board composition and decision-making. It recognised that in more normal times, the RBA had done well to keep inflation around the midpoint of its 2 to 3 per cent range for the past 30 years.

However, it is the past few years, a wartime for central bankers when no one escaped with a goldilocks path out the other side, that will now shape the direction of Australia’s monetary policy system.

What’s the answer to it all? Get more people involved in the decision-making. A specialist monetary policy board, fewer board meetings and more outsiders sitting around the table.

Reading between the lines, there seemed to be concern about how insular the RBA either is, or has become. Lowe is a perfect example; he’s got a great temperament for the governor’s job, is clearly smart and well regarded by colleagues and peers globally, but he is an RBA lifer and ingrained in current-day practice.

The creation of a new nine-person Monetary Policy Board, widely tipped by pundits, is about getting more rigorous thinking into rates decisions.

The nine people would include the RBA governor, deputy governor, Treasury secretary and six outsiders. The review recommends that ‘‘external members should be able to make a significant contribution to monetary policy setting through expertise in areas such as open economy macroeconomics, the financial system, labour markets, or the supply side of the economy, and in the context of decision-making under uncertainty’’.

So, this specific rate-setting board should mean more challenge and debate to the house view, which appears to have become more entrenched. At the same time the review calls for RBA’s operatives to spend more time with board members, making it a bit of an each-way bet but a good use of what is a big and expensive research team. (The need to spare a day a week or so in the RBA’s offices surely tilts the external board positions towards academics.)

The undertones were that the board wasn’t functioning properly, either because it didn’t have the right people or the right information. Lowe defended his board at a press conference yesterday, saying discussion around the boardroom table was robust and not dominated by himself.

It’s all well and good to have more people in the room on rates decision day, but it does not mean the board will function more efficiently or come to better decisions.

But big boards do not necessarily mean better outcomes. Corporate Australia is littered with poor boards and ‘‘jobs for the directors club’’ type attitudes that ruin what can be otherwise good businesses.

Often the bigger the board, the more constipated the decision-making process. The other scourge is chairmen roping in old mates and colleagues from other boards.

Ultimately, whether a separate and bigger Monetary Policy Board works will depend on who is on it. It was a logical and welcomed decision to create the separate board, and clear rate-setters of the governance-type matters that tend to dominate board meetings.

The review recommended a transparent appointment process, starting with advertised expressions of interest. External members would be appointed for five years, and up to another year depending on the circumstances.

There would also be fewer board meetings; eight not 11. And the governor would have to front the press following each meeting to explain the board’s decision, with more emphasis on the expected path of inflation and the labour market. That shouldn’t prove too onerous. External board members would also be required to make one public address each year.

The idea of more communication is conceptually good, although post-meeting press conferences can be a double-edged sword. We’ve seen Federal Reserve chairman Jay Powell mix his messages in a live setting, which can leave the market with more questions than answers.

Fewer meetings mean more time between rates decisions and arguably more punting and reading the crystal ball for fixed income investors. There could be more focus on monthly/quarterly economic data, to fill the information void between meetings.

Market economists liked that there could be more briefings, as it should (in theory) help them with their forecasts. They also probably like that there would be an unattributed published vote after each policy decision.

Other parts of the review said RBA should work more closely with the government/ Treasury, although it remains to be seen how. The review said fiscal and monetary policy should be set separately, however the RBA and Treasury needed to ‘‘have a good understanding of the intentions of the other and informs better policy choices’’. The two institutions are already close, but the review said their co-operation should include increased information sharing on risks, scenarios and policy constraints, and some joint scenario analysis.

Lowe was gracious at his press conference, although it was clear he did not love all the recommendations. For example, he bristled at any notion rates decisions were his alone and thinks it’s important to be careful with the number of public messages out of the RBA to ensure consistency and stability.

Lowe said he would leave his reappointment to the RBA top job in the Treasurer’s hands. He said he would be happy to go around for another term if asked. If not, he said he would find another way to contribute to society.

The fact that the RBA was subject to a 294-page review and there were 51 recommendations suggests change is on the cards.

Next week’s CPI reading could be material to the situation. Economists are tipping a number just shy of 7 per cent.

For all the focus on Lowe, in the near term the real attention should be on Chalmers and the budget. That’s the real showstopper for the economy.

a.macdonald@afr.com 

RBA change is coming, like it or not2023-04-24T16:53:10+10:00

Financial Planning Message – December 2022

As 2022 draws to a close we are reminded of the recent period of intense volatility in capital markets and the reality that a global recession is likely next year.

 

Markets are pricing in a lower probability of a recession in Australia.

 

This in turn will depress corporate earnings and valuations across all asset classes and significantly increase default rates among high-risk borrowers.

 

The correction to valuations is likely to be more severe during this economic cycle due to valuations starting from elevated levels compared to previous corrections.

 

We are also yet to experience a high number of fixed loans move from fixed interest rates of sub 2% to levels of 5%+ prevailing rates, something in the order of $500bn are due to mature in mid to late 2023.

 

This will no doubt impact the already depressed property market in Australia.

 

All the major banks and APRA are keeping a close eye on this development as we progress into 2023.

 

As inflationary pressures persist ( highest in 40 years ), geopolitical tensions and tight labour supply, the  central banks are forced to aggressively press on with higher interest rates and keep for much longer.

 

The RBA has so far moved the cash rate from .1% in March 2022 to now 3.1%, markets are now pricing in another two .25% increases in early 2023 before a potential pause to evaluate the impact on inflation.

 

The Federal Reserve was pricing in a rate increase of just 1% in December 2021, it is remarkable that their view now is that it is likely to peak at approximately 5.25%.

 

Consequently, 2023 is poised to exert added stress to highly leveraged borrowers, specifically those that have acquired property / equities in 2021 / 2022, are now in nil or negative equity positions.

 

It is worth noting that during this business cycle, we have had an explosion of companies that have become addicted to cheap debt, on the other hand, these same companies are not generating sufficient cashflow to support increased interest payments.

 

Clearly, there will be consolidation particularly in property related businesses in 2023.

 

There are no doubt significant headwinds for Australian households and the economy in general as we enter 2023.

 

Accordingly, extreme caution and sound strategies need to be implemented for the year ahead, including but not limited to :-

  • Be clear on what and who matters given the many conflicting sources of information and ‘investment opportunities’ across the media.
  • Understand your portfolio and position appropriately taking into account your forward plans and risk / return / management costs.
  • Review cashflows and eliminate unnecessary lifestyle costs in light of higher interest rates in 2023.
  • Let’s not forget managing your tax position, this is always relevant be it during your working life, in retirement ( with respect to investments) or as part of your estate plan.
  • Focus on what can be controlled / influenced as opposed to factors over which we have no control or influence.
  • Make incremental ‘dollar cost savings’ as opposed to taking a significant position when investing.
  • Diversification and history are our best friends, reflect and actively rebalance asset allocations.
  • Consider Dividend Reinvestment Plan ( DRP) in light of the attractive valuations.
  • Confirm borrowing / refinancing options well before due dates and explore potential savings across relevant lenders – competition appears to be intensifying across the major lenders.
  • Insurance is always important, however potentially critical during extreme business cycles as are likely to unfold in 2023. It is not desirable to execute forced sales at depressed values.

 

In closing, we would like to take this opportunity and thank you for placing trust in AMCO since inception 26 years ago and making our Integrated Wealth Management practice what it is today.

 

We are aware of the challenges you are facing during these uncertain times and are there to advise and navigate all matters with professional care and promptness.

 

It is vital that fundamental mistakes are prevented during these critical periods, hence the need for sound advice.

 

From the team at AMCO, we wish you and your loved ones good health, peace of mind and prosperity in the year ahead.

 

Merry Christmas.

 

 

Danny D. Mazevski 

Chartered Tax & Financial Adviser

FIPA   CTA  FTMA  MBA (Un.NSW/SYD)  Dip.FS   JP

Financial Planning Message – December 20222022-12-22T08:01:23+11:00