Author Topic: Australian Investing Thread  (Read 538156 times)

Anatidae V

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5914
  • Location: West Aus yo
  • Naps for all!
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2500 on: January 02, 2017, 06:33:53 PM »
I have a question. We currently have VAS ($10k) and VHY ($5k). We're right at the start of our investing journey, and haven't settled on an allocation target yet but I imagine it will be similar to Michael's, with VHY instead of REITs.

I want to add the international exposure to our portfolio at our next purchase, either VGS or VGAD. I don't understand the implications of the "hedged" nature of VGAD, but I understand it's a different way of dealing with the currency exchanges. Can someone explain it?

FFA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
    • Financially Free Australia
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2501 on: January 02, 2017, 07:02:01 PM »
Hi Anatidae V,
yes it's basically currency hedging. As per Vanguard VGAD : "The ETF is hedged to Australian dollars so the value of the Fund is relatively unaffected by currency fluctuations."

Usually investing in global shares, in addition to the underlying share price movements, you will get an additional effect if the AUD weakens (positive for global shares) or strengthens (negative for global shares) versus the underlying currency of the shares.

So in a currency hedged fund like VGAD they will trade AUD/USD derivatives (and others) to offset this effect, and give you a result more in line with the underlying share price movements, as if the AUD remained unchanged vs the other currencies.

There are different views but I think the majority suggest it's better long-term to be unhedged, provides more diversification and avoids the hedging costs. Some might try to switch depending on the prevailing exchange rate, but predicting currencies is not easy!!

marty998

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2502 on: January 03, 2017, 12:12:54 AM »
Yep... the hedged option will avoid impacts of the A$ moving around.

If the A$ goes from $0.70 to $0.50 you will miss out on this benefit.

Conversely, if the A$ heads back up towards parity, you will not suffer a currency loss.

Currency hedging is actually quite cheap these days... the going rate is between 2-3 basis points (0.02% to 0.03%) for the management fee, and a small (but variable) cost for the derivative contracts (usually rolling FX forwards).

There are few risks that can be completely eliminated in the world of investing. Currency risk is one of them. I think it is a small price to pay for piece of mind.

superannuationfreak

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2503 on: January 03, 2017, 01:03:16 AM »
Yep... the hedged option will avoid impacts of the A$ moving around.

If the A$ goes from $0.70 to $0.50 you will miss out on this benefit.

Conversely, if the A$ heads back up towards parity, you will not suffer a currency loss.

Currency hedging is actually quite cheap these days... the going rate is between 2-3 basis points (0.02% to 0.03%) for the management fee, and a small (but variable) cost for the derivative contracts (usually rolling FX forwards).

There are few risks that can be completely eliminated in the world of investing. Currency risk is one of them. I think it is a small price to pay for piece of mind.

Historically, if you have around 50% or less of your equities in international, volatility of an Australian portfolio has actually been reduced by leaving equities unhedged (intuitively, in bad times for the share market the AUD has weakened).  No guarantees, of course, that this will be true in the future.

A bigger issue, outside super in particular, is that hedging income is typically ordinary income.  Psychologically, I find it hard losing money on international shares but then still having to pay taxes on the (lower) hedging income.  Financially I'd rather hold any hedged international shares in super (most super funds will hedge at least some of your international shares).

LittleAussieBattler

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Location: Australia
  • Aussie Net Wealth Builder & Budgeter
    • Little Aussie Battler
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2504 on: January 03, 2017, 05:16:46 AM »
Anatidae V,

Are you doing this inside super or outside? Also what is your investment horizon?

There are two stashes you are saving for in Australia with FIRE. Your pre-preservation age stash, and your post preservation age stash. Depending on how long you have until preservation age hedging against the currency might not be worth it. As superannuationfreak said you might consider doing it in super as this will be your income only phase and accumulation will stop and you will be more sensitive to currency. However it is likely your super has stronger home bias and it won't affect as much of your portfolio.

From Debt to Net in 3 Years.

Anatidae V

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5914
  • Location: West Aus yo
  • Naps for all!
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2505 on: January 03, 2017, 07:34:27 AM »
This is outside Super, pre-preservation stash. Hoping to be FI around 2030 or earlier if it becomes possible.

FFA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
    • Financially Free Australia
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2506 on: January 03, 2017, 04:34:08 PM »
I hold a small percentage of hedged, e.g. 10% (of the global shares allocation only), and I keep that part inside Super. I would probably let it run higher if the AUD plunged down towards 0.50. And I would probably go fully unhedged if the AUD went back towards parity. But apart from those extremes I wouldn't play around too much.....

p.s. welcome back & happy new year superannuationfreak!

iloveanimals

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2507 on: January 04, 2017, 03:34:50 PM »
Hoping someone with a maths mind can assist me. I have recently invested in the wholesale vanguard balanced fund:
 
https://www.vanguardinvestments.com.au/retail/ret/investments/product.html#/fundDetail/wholesale/portId=8121/?overview

And I want to work out the growth value of what that fund value might be over the next 10 years. I have used vanguard's performance data from 2006 to 2015 to get an idea.

See screen shot attached of my spreadsheet to get an idea of how I am doing my calculations.

Many thanks - feel free to ask me questions about what I have done.

Thanks!




englyn

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2508 on: January 04, 2017, 08:53:45 PM »
I'm not too sure what you have done, nor what you're trying to do, sorry.
If you take the 10 year average return (assuming reinvestment of dividends) for that fund it's 5.57%. If you want to work out what your $100k would be in 10 years at that average return = 100,000 x (1.0557)^10 = $171,951
Anything else is a bit too unpredictable, anyway.

zinny1

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2509 on: January 04, 2017, 09:34:09 PM »
Hi all, after much (more) reading and time spent understanding how things work I have opened a CMC account and will deposit $20K tomorrow. I am currently thinking:-

VAS 10K
VHY 5K
VGS 5K

Any comments or opinions on this split? Should I look at a different balance? Different EFTs?

I will be adding deposits every couple of months (probably about ~$4K) for the foreseeable future.

This is my pre-preservation age 'stache - I will likely be working for another 10-15 years to fund both my super and investments.

Would appreciate any help - I do not know anyone in real life who invests in anything other than property.

Thanks.

GT

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1057
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2510 on: January 04, 2017, 09:41:33 PM »
Hoping someone with a maths mind can assist me. I have recently invested in the wholesale vanguard balanced fund:
 
https://www.vanguardinvestments.com.au/retail/ret/investments/product.html#/fundDetail/wholesale/portId=8121/?overview

And I want to work out the growth value of what that fund value might be over the next 10 years. I have used vanguard's performance data from 2006 to 2015 to get an idea.

See screen shot attached of my spreadsheet to get an idea of how I am doing my calculations.

Many thanks - feel free to ask me questions about what I have done.

Thanks!

My maths says that an initial investment of $100K in 2006 in that fund would now be worth $181K at the end of 2015, minus taxes that were applicable along the way.  So on average it was 8.1% growth/annum.

FFA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
    • Financially Free Australia
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2511 on: January 04, 2017, 09:51:57 PM »
Hi all, after much (more) reading and time spent understanding how things work I have opened a CMC account and will deposit $20K tomorrow. I am currently thinking:-

VAS 10K
VHY 5K
VGS 5K

Any comments or opinions on this split? Should I look at a different balance? Different EFTs?

I will be adding deposits every couple of months (probably about ~$4K) for the foreseeable future.

This is my pre-preservation age 'stache - I will likely be working for another 10-15 years to fund both my super and investments.

Would appreciate any help - I do not know anyone in real life who invests in anything other than property.

Thanks.
hi zinny1

first thing is oz/global split. I think 50/50 is a default. You have 75/25 which I'd consider okay but probably on the low end for international share exposure. It's ok if you want to tilt your investments towards home, and enjoy higher franked dividends which the Australian market offers.

second thing is the oz exposure. you have 50 VAS/25 VHY. I've posted too much through these pages about some concerns I have on the ASX300 being to concentrated. VHY is worse still. I'm happy with VAS as a default but I would complement it with something that gives you better diversification. MVW and EX20 ETF's are options I use for this. MVS is another focused more towards small co's. These will give you less yield than VHY but I believe you will have a better overall return AND lower risk. So you might consider substituting 25 VHY with 25 MVW or EX20.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 09:53:53 PM by FFA »

Dropbear

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2512 on: January 04, 2017, 11:05:48 PM »

...second thing is the oz exposure... I've posted too much through these pages about some concerns I have on the ASX300 being to concentrated. VHY is worse still. I'm happy with VAS as a default but I would complement it with something that gives you better diversification. MVW and EX20 ETF's are options I use for this. MVS is another focused more towards small co's. These will give you less yield than VHY but I believe you will have a better overall return AND lower risk. So you might consider substituting 25 VHY with 25 MVW or EX20.

I'm interested in this idea, FFA.  May I ask why you bought MVW and EX20, when they both aim to improve diversification, albeit with slightly different means?  Are these different approaches to diversification equally valid, even when they're with different companies and have different costs?

My initial thinking is that MVA's equal weighting of about 80 large companies (is this the ASX's largest 80 companies by market capitalisation?) looks more attractive than EX20, because the EX20 strategy sounds a little more arbitrary in weighting towards mid-tier companies simply because those companies are big without being in the top 20.  But MVA costs more than EX20 or even VAS.  Are there other important factors that need to be considered in this comparison?

zinny1

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2513 on: January 04, 2017, 11:16:53 PM »
Thanks FFA for the answer - all makes sense.

To clarify - you are suggesting 50% some combination of VAS & MVW or EX20 (even split? 25% each?) and 50% VGS?

I know ultimately it is my decision but I appreciate the pointers. Looking forward to your EBook!

iloveanimals

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2514 on: January 04, 2017, 11:32:23 PM »
I'm not too sure what you have done, nor what you're trying to do, sorry.
If you take the 10 year average return (assuming reinvestment of dividends) for that fund it's 5.57%. If you want to work out what your $100k would be in 10 years at that average return = 100,000 x (1.0557)^10 = $171,951
Anything else is a bit too unpredictable, anyway.

Yes I was probably tying myself in knots now that I think about it. I guess I was trying to work out the logic of property returns vs shares, and in addition if I should take on more risk and rather than just the "balanced fund" approach. Thanks for responding.

iloveanimals

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2515 on: January 04, 2017, 11:37:36 PM »
Hoping someone with a maths mind can assist me. I have recently invested in the wholesale vanguard balanced fund:
 
https://www.vanguardinvestments.com.au/retail/ret/investments/product.html#/fundDetail/wholesale/portId=8121/?overview

And I want to work out the growth value of what that fund value might be over the next 10 years. I have used vanguard's performance data from 2006 to 2015 to get an idea.

See screen shot attached of my spreadsheet to get an idea of how I am doing my calculations.

Many thanks - feel free to ask me questions about what I have done.

Thanks!

My maths says that an initial investment of $100K in 2006 in that fund would now be worth $181K at the end of 2015, minus taxes that were applicable along the way.  So on average it was 8.1% growth/annum.


Thanks for the response, it seems on the money  - I did more digging and noted that the Vanguard Balanced Index Fund saw an approximate average return of 5.57% per year over the past 10 years, therefore if I invested $100,000 in 2006, I would have a balance of approximately $171,951 in 2016.

FFA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
    • Financially Free Australia
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2516 on: January 05, 2017, 12:00:38 AM »
Thanks FFA for the answer - all makes sense.

To clarify - you are suggesting 50% some combination of VAS & MVW or EX20 (even split? 25% each?) and 50% VGS?

I know ultimately it is my decision but I appreciate the pointers. Looking forward to your EBook!
Sorry was not very clear, I would first decide how much global I wanted. Then look at the sub-allocation within Oz.

Assuming you want to stick with 25% VGS, that would leave 75% Oz.

You could then split the Oz, yeah even splits, or still put the majority in VAS and just pick one of the diversifiers MVW or EX20.

Examples could be :
50% VAS, 25% MVW or EX20, 25% VGS
25% VAS, 25% MVW, 25% EX20, 25% VGS   (slightly more admin with 4 holdings)
etc

Or, if you wanted to up the VGS to 50%, then you might do :
25% VAS, 25% MVW or EX20, 50% VGS

Hope that is clearer!

FFA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
    • Financially Free Australia
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2517 on: January 05, 2017, 12:07:35 AM »

...second thing is the oz exposure... I've posted too much through these pages about some concerns I have on the ASX300 being to concentrated. VHY is worse still. I'm happy with VAS as a default but I would complement it with something that gives you better diversification. MVW and EX20 ETF's are options I use for this. MVS is another focused more towards small co's. These will give you less yield than VHY but I believe you will have a better overall return AND lower risk. So you might consider substituting 25 VHY with 25 MVW or EX20.

I'm interested in this idea, FFA.  May I ask why you bought MVW and EX20, when they both aim to improve diversification, albeit with slightly different means?  Are these different approaches to diversification equally valid, even when they're with different companies and have different costs?

My initial thinking is that MVA's equal weighting of about 80 large companies (is this the ASX's largest 80 companies by market capitalisation?) looks more attractive than EX20, because the EX20 strategy sounds a little more arbitrary in weighting towards mid-tier companies simply because those companies are big without being in the top 20.  But MVA costs more than EX20 or even VAS.  Are there other important factors that need to be considered in this comparison?
They're the main differences Dropbear, MVW is equal weights whereas EX20 is traditional market cap. MVW includes the larger companies, whereas EX20 is the 21st to 200th in the ASX. MVW does some periodic rebalancing to the equal weights, so will have greater embedded transaction costs (and potentially distributed capital gains), but the rebalancing also can add value according to their research. They are a bit different and it's unclear to me which is superior but I think both improve diversification and the return vs risk, so I blend a bit of both along with my VAS. I have more in MVW which I started this time last year but I'm adding to EX20 now, it's a recently launched ETF.

Just to clarify, I still hold the majority of my Australia shares in VAS, approx. 60%. I'm targeting approx. 15% MVW and 7.5% EX20/MVS. Balance in some LIC's and a handful of direct shares.

iloveanimals

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2518 on: January 05, 2017, 12:13:45 AM »
Hoping someone with a maths mind can assist me. I have recently invested in the wholesale vanguard balanced fund:
 
https://www.vanguardinvestments.com.au/retail/ret/investments/product.html#/fundDetail/wholesale/portId=8121/?overview

And I want to work out the growth value of what that fund value might be over the next 10 years. I have used vanguard's performance data from 2006 to 2015 to get an idea.

See screen shot attached of my spreadsheet to get an idea of how I am doing my calculations.

Many thanks - feel free to ask me questions about what I have done.

Thanks!

A bit weird but responding to my own post....but wanted to let those of you that might be interested in the answer directly from Vanguard :

"Please note that the following figures represent approximation only and do not consider any tax implications. In addition, the figures below assume that distributions were reinvested into the fund.

The Vanguard Balanced Index Fund saw an approximate average return of 5.57% per year over the past 10 years.

If you invested $100,000 in 2006, you would have a balance of approximately $171,951 in 2016".
[/color]

SO that go me thinking - Vanguard above state that I would have reached $171,951 if I had reinvested the distributions over that period. I am concerned about this as my whole aim is to actually start to live off the distributions hopefully in about 3 years. I have $900k invested in the Balanced Fund and have worked out that based on past performance monthly returns can range anywhere from about $1500 - 3000 per month. If I don't reinvest the distributions then the value of my fund sounds like it will be fairly stagnant meaning it probably won't grow as much as I had hoped to secure my future in 10 years. Does any one have any experience or better knowledge than I in this regard? Many thanks.

zinny1

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2519 on: January 05, 2017, 12:22:49 AM »
Thanks FFA, totally clear. I will go 50/50 for the Aus/non-Aus exposure - now to decide between MVW or EX20 and what portion of my 50% Aus they might take up!

Thanks again - much appreciated.

MrThatsDifferent

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2520 on: January 05, 2017, 02:11:26 AM »
Thanks for posting the question zinny, I was going to do the same thing. And thanks for the response FFA.  I'm a bit nervous about trying to do this on my own, as I barely understand it. I'm going to do the Vanguard retail funds, even though they will cost me a bit more potentially, at least I won't have to get too caught up in it and I can deposit money easily. Because of your feedback FFA, I think I'll just do the retail versions of VAS and VGS at 50/50.  Keep it very simple. I'll work to get $100k in each as quickly as I can and then I'll look at any other options. I wanted to dip my toe in online brokerage with AFI, but it seems like I'll just be repeating VAS. I'll focus on the two retail funds first.

The worst part is the constant second-guessing of your strategy.

FFA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
    • Financially Free Australia
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2521 on: January 05, 2017, 03:38:15 AM »
Happy to help! Zinny1 please check out vaneck and betashares websites they have some research papers, worth a read before you decide. Of course they might be biased so reserve some skepticism.

MrThatDifferent, I think 50/50 VAS/VGS is a good, simple strategy that should stand the test of time. Adding in some MVW/EX20 diversifiers is an improvement, but not essential. If you're going to add something I certainly favour these over VHY, but that's just me. Others love the franked dividends and will lean towards VHY. Anyway no need to second guess, you can be confident in the strategy, just re-visit it every 3-5 years in case something fundamentally changed in the markets or some completely new products became available... Try to get into wholesale funds or ETF's as soon as you can because the retail fees are rather high   

zinny1

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2522 on: January 05, 2017, 10:49:43 PM »
Thanks for your help FFA - and to all the other contributors. Made my first EFT purchase today and felt some nerves letting go of that $20K. I hope it's easier each time! I fully appreciate that over the long term the likelihood is that they will do way better than HIAs at 2.81% but it's still nerve wracking!

Time to save, save, save for the next buy!

Thanks again all.

marty998

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2523 on: January 05, 2017, 11:31:57 PM »
Thanks for your help FFA - and to all the other contributors. Made my first EFT ETF purchase today and felt some nerves letting go of that $20K. I hope it's easier each time! I fully appreciate that over the long term the likelihood is that they will do way better than HIAs at 2.81% but it's still nerve wracking!

Time to save, save, save for the next buy!

Thanks again all.

Aww congratulations! Keep a look out for the share registry letters... you'll have to update your details - bank details, TFNs, emails etc...

qwerty8675309

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2524 on: January 06, 2017, 05:29:14 AM »
MrThatDifferent, I think 50/50 VAS/VGS is a good, simple strategy that should stand the test of time.

Yup, I second what FFA said about the 50/50 Aussie and international split. It's a good trade off between having franking credits and maintaining good exposure to international markets. Interestingly, I read an article about home bias the other day. Another reason they gave for having a 50/50 split is that it minimises 'regret' for having over-weighted international or Australian shares when one outperforms the other. It also helps to prevent 'fiddling' with allocations when you hear about worrying things in the media. They're some interesting psychological factors that I didn't really think about.

Here's a link to the article if anybody is interested (sorry if it has been linked before)

http://www.melbournecentre.com.au/mmfc/2009/Papers%20Submitted/Warren_Home%20Bias.pdf

Happy new year guys!

qwerty8675309

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2525 on: January 06, 2017, 05:52:01 AM »
SO that go me thinking - Vanguard above state that I would have reached $171,951 if I had reinvested the distributions over that period. I am concerned about this as my whole aim is to actually start to live off the distributions hopefully in about 3 years.

You need to think of it from a total return perspective when doing your calculations. Assuming that you spend the same amount each year, this may mean that the fund's distributions are greater or less than this spend. You would then reinvest part of these distributions or sell some of the units to make up for the difference.

starsky

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2526 on: January 06, 2017, 03:57:28 PM »
Hello,

I've been a lurker for quite a while and decided I should really do something about my finances in 2017. Would really appreciate advice on the below :)

I currently have about $100k saved up and would like to eventually buy a place of my own to live (moved back home with parents to save).

Last year I saved about $36k, and this year I plan to save a minimum of $40k.

I've been reading a lot about the oversupply and think that perhaps in 2018/2019 Sydney may feel the effects of the oversupply and unit prices will drop a bit and this is where I plan to make a purchase. However, this is still 2-3 years away.

My cash has been sitting in a savings account earning about 3% for a while now.

I've thought about the following options:
1. Put about $20-30k in ETFs, looking as VAS/VTS/VEU, leave the rest in savings account and wait till 2018/19 to buy PPOR
2. Buy an IP (looking at melb where the price point is lower and population steadily growing, looking for a neutrally gear property), keep saving for another 3 years, of which I will have approx $80-$120k for PPOR deposit (if the same rate of saving), parents have also offered to lend me $50k

I currently earn $110k pre tax (changed jobs recently so earning more).

Any advice is appreciated, perhaps I'm limiting myself to only those two options? I don't have any current debts besides HECs which which should be paid off in 2 years time.


iloveanimals

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2527 on: January 06, 2017, 08:22:56 PM »
SO that go me thinking - Vanguard above state that I would have reached $171,951 if I had reinvested the distributions over that period. I am concerned about this as my whole aim is to actually start to live off the distributions hopefully in about 3 years.

You need to think of it from a total return perspective when doing your calculations. Assuming that you spend the same amount each year, this may mean that the fund's distributions are greater or less than this spend. You would then reinvest part of these distributions or sell some of the units to make up for the difference.

Thanks for your response. Yes exactly! That is my concern - I can see an ongoing shortfall if we tried to live off the fund distributions, and that will start to dwindle away the funds / units. So I am now thinking that we are better off splitting the money and buying a investment property and at least that will give us some sort ongoing "fixed" income that is more manageable / predicable. Any thoughts on that?

marty998

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2528 on: January 06, 2017, 08:57:37 PM »
I currently have about $100k saved up and would like to eventually buy a place of my own to live (moved back home with parents to save).

Nicely done, it's not easy to get that first 100k but you've climbed that mountain already.

Last year I saved about $36k, and this year I plan to save a minimum of $40k.

Get used to it. A mortgage + bills (strata, water, council, insurance, electricity/gas) will cost you this much till you pay off the loan.

I've been reading a lot about the oversupply and think that perhaps in 2018/2019 Sydney may feel the effects of the oversupply and unit prices will drop a bit and this is where I plan to make a purchase. However, this is still 2-3 years away.

No one can predict the future. If everyone believes prices will fall in 2018, why wouldn't buyers just put their hands in their pockets and run and hide now? Thus causing prices to fall in 2017? No one can predict the future.

If you find a place you like, buy it. If prices fall, figure out how you can buy some more (which you seem to be thinking of anyway)

My cash has been sitting in a savings account earning about 3% for a while now.

Correction, 1.8% after tax.

mjr

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Brisbane, Qld
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2529 on: January 07, 2017, 01:38:15 PM »
SO that go me thinking - Vanguard above state that I would have reached $171,951 if I had reinvested the distributions over that period. I am concerned about this as my whole aim is to actually start to live off the distributions hopefully in about 3 years.

You need to think of it from a total return perspective when doing your calculations. Assuming that you spend the same amount each year, this may mean that the fund's distributions are greater or less than this spend. You would then reinvest part of these distributions or sell some of the units to make up for the difference.

Thanks for your response. Yes exactly! That is my concern - I can see an ongoing shortfall if we tried to live off the fund distributions, and that will start to dwindle away the funds / units. So I am now thinking that we are better off splitting the money and buying a investment property and at least that will give us some sort ongoing "fixed" income that is more manageable / predicable. Any thoughts on that?

An investment property may give you more consistency in a revenue stream, but don't forget that investment properties can easily go through periods of not being let and there goes your predictability.

That doesn't fix your main concern.  Unless you're of the view that an investment property returns significantly more than the fund (doubtful), you're still exposed to the risk of needing to draw down capital.  An investment property is far, far harder to access the capital than selling a few units of the fund.

Dropbear

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2530 on: January 07, 2017, 04:24:55 PM »
...MVW is equal weights whereas EX20 is traditional market cap. MVW includes the larger companies, whereas EX20 is the 21st to 200th in the ASX. MVW does some periodic rebalancing to the equal weights, so will have greater embedded transaction costs (and potentially distributed capital gains), but the rebalancing also can add value according to their research. They are a bit different and it's unclear to me which is superior but I think both improve diversification and the return vs risk, so I blend a bit of both along with my VAS. I have more in MVW which I started this time last year but I'm adding to EX20 now, it's a recently launched ETF.

Just to clarify, I still hold the majority of my Australia shares in VAS, approx. 60%. I'm targeting approx. 15% MVW and 7.5% EX20/MVS. Balance in some LIC's and a handful of direct shares.

Thanks for the info, FFA, that's really helpful!  My thought in reading about these options was that a more ideal diversifier ETF might have an equal weighting of 21-200 companies - like a cross between MVW and EX20.

iloveanimals

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2531 on: January 08, 2017, 12:09:25 AM »
SO that go me thinking - Vanguard above state that I would have reached $171,951 if I had reinvested the distributions over that period. I am concerned about this as my whole aim is to actually start to live off the distributions hopefully in about 3 years.

You need to think of it from a total return perspective when doing your calculations. Assuming that you spend the same amount each year, this may mean that the fund's distributions are greater or less than this spend. You would then reinvest part of these distributions or sell some of the units to make up for the difference.
Thanks qwerty! will do more maths :)

iloveanimals

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2532 on: January 08, 2017, 12:13:13 AM »
SO that go me thinking - Vanguard above state that I would have reached $171,951 if I had reinvested the distributions over that period. I am concerned about this as my whole aim is to actually start to live off the distributions hopefully in about 3 years.

You need to think of it from a total return perspective when doing your calculations. Assuming that you spend the same amount each year, this may mean that the fund's distributions are greater or less than this spend. You would then reinvest part of these distributions or sell some of the units to make up for the difference.

Thanks for your response. Yes exactly! That is my concern - I can see an ongoing shortfall if we tried to live off the fund distributions, and that will start to dwindle away the funds / units. So I am now thinking that we are better off splitting the money and buying a investment property and at least that will give us some sort ongoing "fixed" income that is more manageable / predicable. Any thoughts on that?

An investment property may give you more consistency in a revenue stream, but don't forget that investment properties can easily go through periods of not being let and there goes your predictability.

That doesn't fix your main concern.  Unless you're of the view that an investment property returns significantly more than the fund (doubtful), you're still exposed to the risk of needing to draw down capital.  An investment property is far, far harder to access the capital than selling a few units of the fund.

Thanks - Ok I get it. So what about changing over to a fund like VHY? or something similar? Meaning the expected cash distributions are much higher and also have reduced tax implications due to franked credits?

FFA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
    • Financially Free Australia
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2533 on: January 08, 2017, 03:25:54 AM »
...MVW is equal weights whereas EX20 is traditional market cap. MVW includes the larger companies, whereas EX20 is the 21st to 200th in the ASX. MVW does some periodic rebalancing to the equal weights, so will have greater embedded transaction costs (and potentially distributed capital gains), but the rebalancing also can add value according to their research. They are a bit different and it's unclear to me which is superior but I think both improve diversification and the return vs risk, so I blend a bit of both along with my VAS. I have more in MVW which I started this time last year but I'm adding to EX20 now, it's a recently launched ETF.

Just to clarify, I still hold the majority of my Australia shares in VAS, approx. 60%. I'm targeting approx. 15% MVW and 7.5% EX20/MVS. Balance in some LIC's and a handful of direct shares.

Thanks for the info, FFA, that's really helpful!  My thought in reading about these options was that a more ideal diversifier ETF might have an equal weighting of 21-200 companies - like a cross between MVW and EX20.
I think the EX20 is naturally much better balanced across sectors. There are a few LIC's based on the same thesis and you can research CIE and QVE also if you want even more background. The top20 is where the huge concentration issues are. It's probably a marginal call to equally weight in the EX20. For your background, traditional indices are market cap weighted and Bogle was strongly in favour of that to keep things simple and minimize transaction costs (although I doubt he ever looked closely at the Australian situation). Equal weights needs to be always rebalanced, which incurs greater brokerage and can realize capital gains, etc. So if EX20 were equally weighted I'd expect the MER to be higher again the MVW, and I'm not sure it would be worth the cost in that case.

So both are different approaches. MVW is more of an all-in-one solution as it gives you the large cap exposure too. EX20 needs to be blended with VAS or a traditional portfolio. EX20 is recently launched and still a small (but steadily growing fund). MVW has a bit more history and has already reached a decent size. Personally I like have a bit of both in my portfolio mix. But once again you can consider it an optional extra... If you want to keep things simple then stick to VAS.

marty998

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2534 on: January 08, 2017, 03:50:53 AM »
SO that go me thinking - Vanguard above state that I would have reached $171,951 if I had reinvested the distributions over that period. I am concerned about this as my whole aim is to actually start to live off the distributions hopefully in about 3 years.

You need to think of it from a total return perspective when doing your calculations. Assuming that you spend the same amount each year, this may mean that the fund's distributions are greater or less than this spend. You would then reinvest part of these distributions or sell some of the units to make up for the difference.

Thanks for your response. Yes exactly! That is my concern - I can see an ongoing shortfall if we tried to live off the fund distributions, and that will start to dwindle away the funds / units. So I am now thinking that we are better off splitting the money and buying a investment property and at least that will give us some sort ongoing "fixed" income that is more manageable / predicable. Any thoughts on that?

An investment property may give you more consistency in a revenue stream, but don't forget that investment properties can easily go through periods of not being let and there goes your predictability.

That doesn't fix your main concern.  Unless you're of the view that an investment property returns significantly more than the fund (doubtful), you're still exposed to the risk of needing to draw down capital.  An investment property is far, far harder to access the capital than selling a few units of the fund.

Thanks - Ok I get it. So what about changing over to a fund like VHY? or something similar? Meaning the expected cash distributions are much higher and also have reduced tax implications due to franked credits?

VHY has worse tax consequences. The fund rebalances every 6 months in December and June, triggering CGT on whatever they sell out out. Usually they will dump a stock entirely, rather than trim holdings, so you can have quite large capital gain distributions.

Trust me, I know this from experience when they rebalanced in June 2015 and sold down WPL, BHP and RIO and appeared to do something funny with WOW and WES.

It's fine f you are in the loweest tax bracket. Not so great if you are paying 39% or 49%

iloveanimals

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2535 on: January 08, 2017, 05:38:25 PM »
SO that go me thinking - Vanguard above state that I would have reached $171,951 if I had reinvested the distributions over that period. I am concerned about this as my whole aim is to actually start to live off the distributions hopefully in about 3 years.

You need to think of it from a total return perspective when doing your calculations. Assuming that you spend the same amount each year, this may mean that the fund's distributions are greater or less than this spend. You would then reinvest part of these distributions or sell some of the units to make up for the difference.

Thanks for your response. Yes exactly! That is my concern - I can see an ongoing shortfall if we tried to live off the fund distributions, and that will start to dwindle away the funds / units. So I am now thinking that we are better off splitting the money and buying a investment property and at least that will give us some sort ongoing "fixed" income that is more manageable / predicable. Any thoughts on that?

An investment property may give you more consistency in a revenue stream, but don't forget that investment properties can easily go through periods of not being let and there goes your predictability.

That doesn't fix your main concern.  Unless you're of the view that an investment property returns significantly more than the fund (doubtful), you're still exposed to the risk of needing to draw down capital.  An investment property is far, far harder to access the capital than selling a few units of the fund.

Thanks - Ok I get it. So what about changing over to a fund like VHY? or something similar? Meaning the expected cash distributions are much higher and also have reduced tax implications due to franked credits?

VHY has worse tax consequences. The fund rebalances every 6 months in December and June, triggering CGT on whatever they sell out out. Usually they will dump a stock entirely, rather than trim holdings, so you can have quite large capital gain distributions.

Trust me, I know this from experience when they rebalanced in June 2015 and sold down WPL, BHP and RIO and appeared to do something funny with WOW and WES.

It's fine f you are in the loweest tax bracket. Not so great if you are paying 39% or 49%

So Marty is there a better choice for High Yield Returns with less CGT impacts?

marty998

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2536 on: January 08, 2017, 11:49:39 PM »
I am no longer a fan of high yield. As Marcus Padley like to remind his readers "the higher the yield, the closer the price is to zero".

I used to be a chaser of high dividend stocks, but that led me to miss out on market darlings such as CSL. It also gave me a higher tax bill each year as I alluded to earlier.

I just buy VAS now and forget about it all to be honest. You can easily drive yourself crazy chasing the herd with whatever is flavour of the year.


starsky

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2537 on: January 09, 2017, 12:06:50 AM »
I currently have about $100k saved up and would like to eventually buy a place of my own to live (moved back home with parents to save).

Nicely done, it's not easy to get that first 100k but you've climbed that mountain already.

Last year I saved about $36k, and this year I plan to save a minimum of $40k.


Get used to it. A mortgage + bills (strata, water, council, insurance, electricity/gas) will cost you this much till you pay off the loan.

I've been reading a lot about the oversupply and think that perhaps in 2018/2019 Sydney may feel the effects of the oversupply and unit prices will drop a bit and this is where I plan to make a purchase. However, this is still 2-3 years away.

No one can predict the future. If everyone believes prices will fall in 2018, why wouldn't buyers just put their hands in their pockets and run and hide now? Thus causing prices to fall in 2017? No one can predict the future.

If you find a place you like, buy it. If prices fall, figure out how you can buy some more (which you seem to be thinking of anyway)

My cash has been sitting in a savings account earning about 3% for a while now.

Correction, 1.8% after tax.

thanks for your advice Marty:)

HappierAtHome

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5508
  • Location: Australia
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2538 on: January 09, 2017, 12:21:43 AM »
I am no longer a fan of high yield. As Marcus Padley like to remind his readers "the higher the yield, the closer the price is to zero".

I used to be a chaser of high dividend stocks, but that led me to miss out on market darlings such as CSL. It also gave me a higher tax bill each year as I alluded to earlier.

I just buy VAS now and forget about it all to be honest. You can easily drive yourself crazy chasing the herd with whatever is flavour of the year.

Soooo dumbing this down for someone like me who wants a "set and forget it" investment (likely to have periods of incapacity / disability in retirement; husband completely uninterested in the details of investing so anything I set up has to be super easy for him to both dump extra money into and receive regular dividends or other payouts): how does that transfer to the vanguard managed funds?

Does the High Growth Index Fund (https://www.vanguardinvestments.com.au/retail/ret/investments/product.html#/fundDetail/wholesale/portId=8134/?overview), with its higher average quarterly payouts, represent a 'higher yield' option than the Balanced Index Fund (https://www.vanguardinvestments.com.au/retail/ret/investments/product.html#/fundDetail/wholesale/portId=8121/?overview) or is "high growth" in the context of the managed funds NOT the same thing as high yield?

FFA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
    • Financially Free Australia
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2539 on: January 09, 2017, 12:41:14 AM »
Hi HappierAtHome, yes high growth and high yield are different... The high yield Marty is talking about is a category of Australian share funds or ETF's that focus on shares paying high dividends. Whereas the managed funds you are looking at are diversified funds, so they invest across all sectors - shares, property, bonds, cash, etc. These are broadly split into growth sectors (e.g. shares) and income (also known as defensive) sectors (e.g. bonds, cash). So the high growth refers to a high portion of growth at 90%. Balanced is 50/50%. I think the growth fund is 70/30%. Your selection should be based on your risk tolerance and ability to stick to the selection during market crashes/corrections. Hope this helps clear it up for you?

HappierAtHome

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5508
  • Location: Australia
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2540 on: January 09, 2017, 12:44:05 AM »
Hi HappierAtHome, yes high growth and high yield are different... The high yield Marty is talking about is a category of Australian share funds or ETF's that focus on shares paying high dividends. Whereas the managed funds you are looking at are diversified funds, so they invest across all sectors - shares, property, bonds, cash, etc. These are broadly split into growth sectors (e.g. shares) and income (also known as defensive) sectors (e.g. bonds, cash). So the high growth refers to a high portion of growth at 90%. Balanced is 50/50%. I think the growth fund is 70/30%. Your selection should be based on your risk tolerance and ability to stick to the selection during market crashes/corrections. Hope this helps clear it up for you?

That is exactly what I needed. Thank you.

marty998

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2541 on: January 09, 2017, 01:58:29 AM »
Sorry Happier, just went out for my evening run.

They both invest in a collection of indices (not just one). This is from the fine print on each of those links:

The High Growth one is:

40% S&P/ASX 300 Index,
31% MSCI World ex-Australia Index (with net dividendsreinvested) in Australian dollars,
5% S&P/ASX 300 A-REIT Index,
5% FTSE EPRA/NAREIT developed ex Australia rental index, Australian Dollar Hedged,
4.5% MSCI World ex-Australia Small Cap Index (with net dividends reinvested) in Australian dollars,
4.5% MSCI Emerging Markets Index (with net dividendsreinvested) in Australian dollars,
4% Bloomberg AusBond Composite 0+ Yr Index,
4% Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Index hedged into Australian dollars,
2% Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Government-Related and Corporate Index hedged into Australian dollars.

The balanced one is

22% S&P/ASX 300 Index,
17% MSCI World ex-Australia Index (with net dividends reinvested) in Australian dollars,
3% S&P/ASX 300 A-REIT Index,
3% FTSE EPRA/NAREIT developed ex Australia rental index, Australian Dollar Hedged,
2.5% MSCI World ex-Australia Small Cap Index (with net dividends reinvested) in Australian dollars,
2.5% MSCI Emerging Markets Index (with net dividends reinvested) in Australian dollars,
20% Bloomberg AusBond Composite 0+ Yr Index,
19% Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Index hedged into Australian dollars,
11% Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Government-Related and Corporate Index hedged into Australian dollars.

Lot more bonds in the second one. Likely to be a little less risky.

Vanguard will give you a consolidated tax statement for you to include in your tax return, so don't worry too much about the admin if you go down the managed fund route instead of the listed ETFs

misterhorsey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 264
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2542 on: January 09, 2017, 04:03:52 PM »
So Marty is there a better choice for High Yield Returns with less CGT impacts?

Yes, following on from Marty's comments, I wouldn't get too hung up on high yield if you are thinking long term.

Investments that churn out dividends may be tax effective due to the franking, but they throw cash at you regardless of your circumstances - thus triggering possible income tax in any given year.

At least if you have a stash of low or moderately yielding shares in a fund chugging away, the value of the investment will be growing, and if you do need to cash part out you can sell down a parcel and choose to do it when the timing suits you.  Some of the record keeping is fiddly, but I'd rather have an excel spreadsheet headache than a larger tax bill headache.

I think someone in the thread above recommended putting higher yielding investments (i.e, Australia, as opposed to International) in Superannuation as the earnings aren't taxed.

I guess it's all about diversifying your investment across various sectors and investment vehicles - which you have largely done with your balanced fund.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1368
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2543 on: January 09, 2017, 05:47:12 PM »
I am no longer a fan of high yield. As Marcus Padley like to remind his readers "the higher the yield, the closer the price is to zero".

I used to be a chaser of high dividend stocks, but that led me to miss out on market darlings such as CSL. It also gave me a higher tax bill each year as I alluded to earlier.

I just buy VAS now and forget about it all to be honest. You can easily drive yourself crazy chasing the herd with whatever is flavour of the year.

I like getting dividend payments but I don't see any benefit to chasing dividends. VAS in my opinion is the best option for Australian shares. I think if you have that, own your own house, have some bonds or cash and VGS then you are good to go.

iloveanimals

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2544 on: January 09, 2017, 06:53:34 PM »
I am no longer a fan of high yield. As Marcus Padley like to remind his readers "the higher the yield, the closer the price is to zero".

I used to be a chaser of high dividend stocks, but that led me to miss out on market darlings such as CSL. It also gave me a higher tax bill each year as I alluded to earlier.

I just buy VAS now and forget about it all to be honest. You can easily drive yourself crazy chasing the herd with whatever is flavour of the year.

Thanks Marty. Puts a number of things into perspective.

FFA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
    • Financially Free Australia
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2545 on: January 09, 2017, 07:04:36 PM »
yes agreed, I've long been in the VAS over VHY camp. Glad to see it's spreading, however I'm not sure I will ever succeed in convincing Rob_S :)

NotSure

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2546 on: January 09, 2017, 08:00:42 PM »
Hi,

Been reading this thread for a while, decided to finally post! :)

I wonder how much you keep in cash compared to investing (percentage wise)? I've started investing in late 2015, VAS and ANZ (VAS 20k and ANZ 15k), both did quite well to this date, but I also have ~600k in cash just sitting in banks earning next to nothing (our PPOR is paid off). We both are in late 40's.

I'm thinking buying more VAS and also VGS, but maybe Vanguard wholesale fund would be a better idea if I decided to invest ~400k?

Any input is appreciated.

FFA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
    • Financially Free Australia
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2547 on: January 09, 2017, 09:43:03 PM »
Hi,

Been reading this thread for a while, decided to finally post! :)

I wonder how much you keep in cash compared to investing (percentage wise)? I've started investing in late 2015, VAS and ANZ (VAS 20k and ANZ 15k), both did quite well to this date, but I also have ~600k in cash just sitting in banks earning next to nothing (our PPOR is paid off). We both are in late 40's.

I'm thinking buying more VAS and also VGS, but maybe Vanguard wholesale fund would be a better idea if I decided to invest ~400k?

Any input is appreciated.
I keep a relatively large emergency fund $100k which I assume roughly 3 years, and treat this outside the asset allocation. Then for the investment portfolio (excluding investment properties) I target 67% growth (nearly all shares) and 33% defensive (mostly cash but intend to add more bonds eventually). Yours seems very high cash%. But it's important to decide for yourself, in line with your own situation and risk tolerance. Shares, unlike cash, can do down and up. And although cash on the surface doesn't go down, beware it's loss of purchasing power, especially if inflation ever returns.

iloveanimals

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2548 on: January 09, 2017, 10:40:14 PM »
I am no longer a fan of high yield. As Marcus Padley like to remind his readers "the higher the yield, the closer the price is to zero".

I used to be a chaser of high dividend stocks, but that led me to miss out on market darlings such as CSL. It also gave me a higher tax bill each year as I alluded to earlier.

I just buy VAS now and forget about it all to be honest. You can easily drive yourself crazy chasing the herd with whatever is flavour of the year.

I like getting dividend payments but I don't see any benefit to chasing dividends. VAS in my opinion is the best option for Australian shares. I think if you have that, own your own house, have some bonds or cash and VGS then you are good to go.

Well Steveo I have 900k in wholesale Vanguard Balanced Fund  - and yes house is paid off. Was just hoping for slightly better reruns in order to ease up on working in the next few years....so thought I might shift some over to VHY or something similar for a "top" from time to time. Anyway as always on this forum - very good advise!

iloveanimals

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: Australian Investing Thread
« Reply #2549 on: January 09, 2017, 10:51:13 PM »
So Marty is there a better choice for High Yield Returns with less CGT impacts?

Yes, following on from Marty's comments, I wouldn't get too hung up on high yield if you are thinking long term.

Investments that churn out dividends may be tax effective due to the franking, but they throw cash at you regardless of your circumstances - thus triggering possible income tax in any given year.

At least if you have a stash of low or moderately yielding shares in a fund chugging away, the value of the investment will be growing, and if you do need to cash part out you can sell down a parcel and choose to do it when the timing suits you.  Some of the record keeping is fiddly, but I'd rather have an excel spreadsheet headache than a larger tax bill headache.

I think someone in the thread above recommended putting higher yielding investments (i.e, Australia, as opposed to International) in Superannuation as the earnings aren't taxed.

I guess it's all about diversifying your investment across various sectors and investment vehicles - which you have largely done with your balanced fund.

Thanks for your re-assuring words.