40's something have money - but need advice

[misterhorsey]

So the latest update:

We have done the maths and have to come to the conclusion that we should not buy another investment property, so we now believe that maybe we should place $900k into Vanguard Balanced Fund or split across Vanguard Growth & Balanced funds. Comments on this forum suggest that a lump payment of the $900k would be best, as opposed to putting in say $200k every few months. Can someone explain why that would be the case?   

We think LIC company's like AFI and Milton are not as safe as Vanguard, simply because Vanguard is not a company structure. Anyone with thoughts on this? In addition, there is fully franked dividends in Vanguard like the LIC's, however we are trying to work out which of the diversified Vanguard funds (Balanced or Growth) actually pays the highest fully franked dividends.

We think that we are armed with so much more knowledge that we can take on the risk factors of placing most our savings into a Vanguard fund. We have based this on past history and think that if another recession should hit we have 2 years worth of cash in the bank to ride out tough times. After 2 years, we hope that there will still be dividends coming in to help us out and by about 5 years after that we can enjoy better times again. Only downside would be if we eat into our savings fund and then have no reserves for the next recession cycles that will follow for the next 30 - 50 years of our life. What to do then?

Over to you guru's to shoot holes through our thinking - we are especially in need of direction of the LIC's. We can't get our head round their level of safety. Thanks all!

I would have thought the Vanguard High Yield Fund ETF would pay the most franked dividends, tho I could be wrong.  In terms of Balanced v Growth, you'd think the Balanced would as it is more defensively set while Growth is aimed more at capital growth rather than income.

I just had some thoughts about managing the way you frame your thinking about investments. I think your change in investment strategy is part of a learning process, as it is for all of us, and you're making some great progress.

It's important to think about the risks going forward, but also perhaps to recognise the risks inherent in your approach up to this point!  You won't have perceived them as risks because you came out okay. 

But up til now wou've held most of your wealth in cash and undiversified property investments - which by any measure, is inherently risky.

(But Australia seemed to skip the painful deleveraging of the GFC - some might suggest that we skipped it by going into more debt and there may be a more painful reckoning later on...)

But while everyone on this forum is horrified by the amount you've had in cash, I think its worthwhile reminding yourself that although the value of cash declines over time due to inflation, the capital is secure. Meanwhile your punt on property investments went gangbusters and likely overachieved in respect of your expectations  - so it all kind of balanced out in the end.  Who knew how long this boom would go for?

So I guess I'm trying to say, it's one thing to learn about new risks and be fearful of the ongoing viability of LICs or Vanguard etc etc, but don't forgot that up til now you've had a very concentrated investment allocation.  It could be argued that your move to Vanguard funds is actually reducing your overall risk, but also probably reducing the possibility of the outperformance that you've had up to this point.

In terms of riding out tough times, you'll find that many companies still pay out dividends during tough times. Some companies will suspend, but many will still eke out something.

[iloveanimals]

So I guess I'm trying to say, it's one thing to learn about new risks and be fearful of the ongoing viability of LICs or Vanguard etc etc, but don't forgot that up til now you've had a very concentrated investment allocation.  It could be argued that your move to Vanguard funds is actually reducing your overall risk, but also probably reducing the possibility of the outperformance that you've had up to this point.

In terms of riding out tough times, you'll find that many companies still pay out dividends during tough times. Some companies will suspend, but many will still eke out something.

Thanks Mister Horsey for your wise reply. We are feeling much more confident with all our choices and are looking long term. It has been such an edification! Which would have never been possible with out everyone's help on this forum. One last investment bit - a friend recommended Defense Housing as a set and forget investment, which we might also consider.

[MidWestLove]

OP, I have re-read your thread and the most scary thing for me is how ... excited  you are. If passive investment is exciting (picking collection of funds, knowing the coolest, latest, most performant sectors, etc.) it is very dangerous to your long term financial health as it allows your pleasure seeking dopamine junkie 'reptile brain' to take over.

We are pleasure seeking monkeys, that is how we are wired internally. We will optimize pleasure and minimize perceived pain/loss. However, following greed/fear instincts in investment is
- stupid
- will rob you of majority of the return
- stressful and will leave you exhausted

Imagine  buying and selling properties because of the wind speed of that particular minute- who would do that? transaction costs, all of the stress, constant moving, will eat you alive.  so similarly, it matters less how precise you original asset allocation and a lot more on whether you can stick to this without
- talking to friends and neighbours about next hot tip ('defensive housing','nanotechnology','bio genetics' or whatever buzzwords)
-being able to stay away from constant checking on 'how did we do?' 'how did we do against X?'  (which is nothing pleasure seeking instinct of the gambler looking to 'win' and getting into greed/fear cycle)


if you are not able to stay away from constantly double-guessing yourself, from asking for or listening to 'hot tips', passive investment may not be for you to do on your own (either avoid it altogether or get an advisor who will protect you from you and from your inner gambler). if you are able to stick with this, write an actual Investment Policy Statement for yourself (what you want, why , how you will get there, what you will and will not do as a promise to yourself regardless of how tempting it may be in the moment), then passive investment is a good path to retain and enhance wealth in a way that allows you to live your life (the 'passive' part) without being it all consumed by business/other commitments.

[iloveanimals]

OP, I have re-read your thread and the most scary thing for me is how ... excited  you are. If passive investment is exciting (picking collection of funds, knowing the coolest, latest, most performant sectors, etc.) it is very dangerous to your long term financial health as it allows your pleasure seeking dopamine junkie 'reptile brain' to take over.

We are pleasure seeking monkeys, that is how we are wired internally. We will optimize pleasure and minimize perceived pain/loss. However, following greed/fear instincts in investment is
- stupid
- will rob you of majority of the return
- stressful and will leave you exhausted

Imagine  buying and selling properties because of the wind speed of that particular minute- who would do that? transaction costs, all of the stress, constant moving, will eat you alive.  so similarly, it matters less how precise you original asset allocation and a lot more on whether you can stick to this without
- talking to friends and neighbours about next hot tip ('defensive housing','nanotechnology','bio genetics' or whatever buzzwords)
-being able to stay away from constant checking on 'how did we do?' 'how did we do against X?'  (which is nothing pleasure seeking instinct of the gambler looking to 'win' and getting into greed/fear cycle)


if you are not able to stay away from constantly double-guessing yourself, from asking for or listening to 'hot tips', passive investment may not be for you to do on your own (either avoid it altogether or get an advisor who will protect you from you and from your inner gambler). if you are able to stick with this, write an actual Investment Policy Statement for yourself (what you want, why , how you will get there, what you will and will not do as a promise to yourself regardless of how tempting it may be in the moment), then passive investment is a good path to retain and enhance wealth in a way that allows you to live your life (the 'passive' part) without being it all consumed by business/other commitments.

I hope you don't mind but I had to laugh just a little at your overview - in a good way :)  Thanks for the feedback and I think we are taking it very seriously and have had many discussions about how we are going to manage this moving forward. But always good to get another reminder. Only time will tell - but we think we know what we are taking on. Fingers crossed. maybe I should update this forum in a few years to let you know how we went:)

[misterhorsey]

My sense is that the excitement your experiencing at this step is probably due from relief at confronting the confusion, doing your research, and settling on a strategy.  I don't think anyone who can manage to squirrel away as much cash as you and your partner are  likely to deviate from a committed strategy once you set their minds to it.

As for defence housing, I considered it at one stage. Didn't look too closely into it but I came away with:

Pros
- Guaranteed Attractive Rental Yield (for a fixed period)
- Reliable tenants (although its guaranteed rent, so the importance of their reliability is a bit moot)
- Hassle free management as Defence manages it

Cons
- Significant % of my net worth in one property
- Property located only near defence locations (metro properties were just as exxy as anything else on the market - cheaper regional properties suffer from an overeliance on defence and a few key industries)
- No CGT exemption as it wouldn't be a PPOR, which is a key attraction of property for me.

- Property seems expensive at the moment - in relation to wages and rents.  This last point is a subjective element so I've separated it from the above.

As a long term investment you could probably do worse.  Presumably Australia will always have a need for housing its defence staff.  But the lack of diversification and the price of property was enough for me to just give up and go into vanguard funds.

Maybe start a defence housing thread in the real estate to flush out any success stories?  I'd be curious to read it.

[iloveanimals]

My sense is that the excitement your experiencing at this step is probably due from relief at confronting the confusion, doing your research, and settling on a strategy.  I don't think anyone who can manage to squirrel away as much cash as you and your partner are  likely to deviate from a committed strategy once you set their minds to it.

As for defence housing, I considered it at one stage. Didn't look too closely into it but I came away with:

Pros
- Guaranteed Attractive Rental Yield (for a fixed period)
- Reliable tenants (although its guaranteed rent, so the importance of their reliability is a bit moot)
- Hassle free management as Defence manages it

Cons
- Significant % of my net worth in one property
- Property located only near defence locations (metro properties were just as exxy as anything else on the market - cheaper regional properties suffer from an overeliance on defence and a few key industries)
- No CGT exemption as it wouldn't be a PPOR, which is a key attraction of property for me.

- Property seems expensive at the moment - in relation to wages and rents.  This last point is a subjective element so I've separated it from the above.

As a long term investment you could probably do worse.  Presumably Australia will always have a need for housing its defence staff.  But the lack of diversification and the price of property was enough for me to just give up and go into vanguard funds.

Maybe start a defence housing thread in the real estate to flush out any success stories?  I'd be curious to read it.

Misterhorsey very perceptive of you! Yes our excitement is related to actually related to confidence and clarity that we now have. Thanks so much for the info on the Defense Housing  - you know I think I will start a thread at some point on it – good idea. The reason we are partially considering it – is that we initially will only place half of our funds into Vanguard and leave the other half for a little while until we feel settled with it all. So we thought maybe DH might be a good investment if we get cold feet and want to go back into property – but not have the worry of it (at a cost) for about 10 years. 

[iloveanimals]

Hi everyone, if you have been reading my thread you should know that I have now got a Vanguard wholesale account and have put $50k into the Balanced Index Fund. Not watching the market - just putting in with out too much analysis as it is a long term investment. Ok so here is my question, we were going to put about $500k into the Balanced Index Fund but are now thinking of putting about $150k into the Australian High Yield Fund as it pays higher franking dividends - which is what we are after. What are your thoughts dear wise ones?

Thanks.

[urbanista]

Australian High Yield fund carries more risk as it is very concentrated. It is very close to active management as the fund no longer tracks the broad market. That's said if you put a small % of your total portfolio, reinvest the dividends and do not sell the units ever, it maybe ok.

[iloveanimals]

Australian High Yield fund carries more risk as it is very concentrated. It is very close to active management as the fund no longer tracks the broad market. That's said if you put a small % of your total portfolio, reinvest the dividends and do not sell the units ever, it maybe ok.

So if I read in between the lines - I think you are saying don't do it? I thought that it might be worth doing as it seems to resemble the Milton/AFIC model of paying mostly dividends.

[bigchrisb]

So if I read in between the lines - I think you are saying don't do it? I thought that it might be worth doing as it seems to resemble the Milton/AFIC model of paying mostly dividends.

If you like the Milton/AFIC model, why not invest direct with them?  Both are lower cost than VHY, and have been around for decades longer, with lower portfolio churn.

I know you earlier mentioned worries about the security of these investment vehicles- did you come up with a basis for this?

[iloveanimals]

So if I read in between the lines - I think you are saying don't do it? I thought that it might be worth doing as it seems to resemble the Milton/AFIC model of paying mostly dividends.

If you like the Milton/AFIC model, why not invest direct with them?  Both are lower cost than VHY, and have been around for decades longer, with lower portfolio churn.

I know you earlier mentioned worries about the security of these investment vehicles- did you come up with a basis for this?

I guess I have become a bit wary of the structures of Milton/AFIC due to the company structure and management bonuses and “free loans” to its employees etc, that can be found in their annual reports. I have to think that these deductions do have an effect on the profits that get re-distributed to it’s shareholders. I do get the point that these bonuses paid to its management are related to performance – so not always a bad thing.

 In regards to Vaguard  I became more of a convert what I read this  article  : http://jlcollinsnh.com/2012/09/07/stocks-part-x-what-if-vanguard-gets-nuked/

And from  Vanguards Annual Report some points that stood out were:

-   Rather than being publicly traded or owned by a small group of individuals, The Vanguard Group is owned by Vanguard’s US domiciled
funds and ETFs. Those funds, in turn, are owned by their investors.

-   The Funds did not have any employees during the year.
-   No fees were paid out of Funds’ property to the directors of the Responsible Entity during the year.

I know that Vanguard directors must be paid, but that seems to come out of the wholesale fund management fee that you pay, were as with Milton/AFIC it seems they take the management fee, pay themselves on top of that and then pass on what’s left to the shareholders.

I hope I am making sense!!!  What to you think?

[bigchrisb]

My read of the annual report is that the sum of all these costs (director fees, bonuses, wages etc), was the LIC's expense base.  Hence the MER was this cost, divided by the value of the investments.  And even once doing that, it comes out at lower than Vanguard.  Vanguard  has some pretty flash overheads - rather nice offices in the Melbourne Docklands, and some pretty well paid staff. 

Sadly, aside from replicating one's own index fund (and the cost/hassle that would entail), I don't think there are any really free lunches in finance.

For the record, I use both LICs and Vanguard.  I've had a better result over time from the LIC's, but its only early days.

[Dicey]

Sorry if this has been suggested previously. Can you build a nice granny unit on your property, move into it and rent out the main house? That, and putting all that cash to work in a diversified portfolio via Vanguard could give you everything you aspire to.

[iloveanimals]

My read of the annual report is that the sum of all these costs (director fees, bonuses, wages etc), was the LIC's expense base.  Hence the MER was this cost, divided by the value of the investments.  And even once doing that, it comes out at lower than Vanguard.  Vanguard  has some pretty flash overheads - rather nice offices in the Melbourne Docklands, and some pretty well paid staff. 

Sadly, aside from replicating one's own index fund (and the cost/hassle that would entail), I don't think there are any really free lunches in finance.

For the record, I use both LICs and Vanguard.  I've had a better result over time from the LIC's, but its only early days.

Thanks for the reply. It is certainly food for thought all round.

[iloveanimals]

Sorry if this has been suggested previously. Can you build a nice granny unit on your property, move into it and rent out the main house? That, and putting all that cash to work in a diversified portfolio via Vanguard could give you everything you aspire to.

Thanks for the idea. We can't build a granny flat on our property but have considered for it as an investment. But at the moment we are really over the property market, so will stay away and focus on share market.

[iloveanimals]

My read of the annual report is that the sum of all these costs (director fees, bonuses, wages etc), was the LIC's expense base.  Hence the MER was this cost, divided by the value of the investments.  And even once doing that, it comes out at lower than Vanguard.  Vanguard  has some pretty flash overheads - rather nice offices in the Melbourne Docklands, and some pretty well paid staff. 

Sadly, aside from replicating one's own index fund (and the cost/hassle that would entail), I don't think there are any really free lunches in finance.

For the record, I use both LICs and Vanguard.  I've had a better result over time from the LIC's, but its only early days.

Hi BigChrisB - just found this article about LIC's being a ponzi scheme : https://barnabyisright.com/2013/04/18/massive-fraud-in-australian-listed-investment-company-lic-sector/

[bigchrisb]

Hi,

That blog is linking to this fellow:
https://drbenway.blogspot.com.au/

If you have a read of his writing, you wouldn't want to put money into any form of asset!

At the end of the day, you need to be comfortable with what you are investing in, and be comfortable holding it for the duration.  Personally, I am comfortable with the LICs and see them as a better solution to a dividend growth style allocation than VHY.  But at the end of the day, choose what you feel comfortable with.

Better to make a decision that is 90% right, rather than defer in perpetuity while searching for perfection!

[Grogounet]

My take might be a bit different as others because the idea to have ALL or almost all my cash in retirement in shares and property isn't flying. That's just way too risky, especially when no buffer. Or you need at least 2/3 years of living expenses aside.
Even then, should the market drop,you would need to get back to work, and it might take years to get back to get to your defined level of capital needed.

The 4% rule is great, as long as you have some buffer. This country hasn't experienced recession in a generation, real estate and market all time high...
If I had all your cash, I would diversify. Obviously the shares index suggested are great however, because you are also in real estate, I would:
- First get some bonds, in fact a large percentage, to smooth the volatility
- Have a side hustle. Will help to transition into retirement, keep you active, but not too much and bring this extra revenue needed in case of market drop
- And leave plenty of cash - $200k - 3 years of expenses

You might have to work longer than what the others were expected, however, the day you retire, you know you can do, even when market crashes (not if)

I haven't read the whole three pages, I read the first and last one. If this approach was already suggested, apologies.

[iloveanimals]

Hi,

That blog is linking to this fellow:
https://drbenway.blogspot.com.au/

If you have a read of his writing, you wouldn't want to put money into any form of asset!

At the end of the day, you need to be comfortable with what you are investing in, and be comfortable holding it for the duration.  Personally, I am comfortable with the LICs and see them as a better solution to a dividend growth style allocation than VHY.  But at the end of the day, choose what you feel comfortable with.

Better to make a decision that is 90% right, rather than defer in perpetuity while searching for perfection!

yes he is a bit extreme eh! :)  Yes I agree about need to be comfortable with our choices - however this forum and people willing to share their advise and experiences have proven so valuable in our learning. Thanks!

[iloveanimals]

My take might be a bit different as others because the idea to have ALL or almost all my cash in retirement in shares and property isn't flying. That's just way too risky, especially when no buffer. Or you need at least 2/3 years of living expenses aside.
Even then, should the market drop,you would need to get back to work, and it might take years to get back to get to your defined level of capital needed.

The 4% rule is great, as long as you have some buffer. This country hasn't experienced recession in a generation, real estate and market all time high...
If I had all your cash, I would diversify. Obviously the shares index suggested are great however, because you are also in real estate, I would:
- First get some bonds, in fact a large percentage, to smooth the volatility
- Have a side hustle. Will help to transition into retirement, keep you active, but not too much and bring this extra revenue needed in case of market drop
- And leave plenty of cash - $200k - 3 years of expenses

You might have to work longer than what the others were expected, however, the day you retire, you know you can do, even when market crashes (not if)

I haven't read the whole three pages, I read the first and last one. If this approach was already suggested, apologies.

Without reading all 3 pages (and who could blame you for not doing that!) we have decided to do much of what you have suggested. Going to put about $150 to 200k aside for emergencies and then build our portfolio in Vanguard Balanced Index Fund and ATM just still contemplating the LIC's for their valued dividend returns. Thanks for your feedback.

[bigchrisb]

Thought it was worth commenting on Vanguard Australia's annual report here.  If you add up the fees charged by Vanguard Australia on its Australian funds under management, it came to over $50,000,000.  Yes, they manage a huge amount of money, on fees that are pretty low by the funds management industry.  I like them, and I use them.

However, they are far from cost free.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from Vanguard, but trying to highlight that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

[iloveanimals]

Thought it was worth commenting on Vanguard Australia's annual report here.  If you add up the fees charged by Vanguard Australia on its Australian funds under management, it came to over $50,000,000.  Yes, they manage a huge amount of money, on fees that are pretty low by the funds management industry.  I like them, and I use them.

However, they are far from cost free.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from Vanguard, but trying to highlight that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Thanks Bigchrisb. Yes totally understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch! I am am just trying to manage risk by utilising a company for our long term funds which we consider safe. Not sure if you have followed any of the Wells Fargo investment fraud that has taken place? Certainly has made us think so much harder about this.

[misterhorsey]

Thought it was worth commenting on Vanguard Australia's annual report here.  If you add up the fees charged by Vanguard Australia on its Australian funds under management, it came to over $50,000,000.  Yes, they manage a huge amount of money, on fees that are pretty low by the funds management industry.  I like them, and I use them.

However, they are far from cost free.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from Vanguard, but trying to highlight that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Indeed. They have to pay market rates to all their employees, else why would anyone want to work for them instead of an possibly higher payer active fund.

Philosophically I like their model as it takes away the incentive for a parent company, or management, to gouge the management company for short term gain.  Whether it makes a huge difference in fees is moot, but it takes away a structural incentive for squeezing investors by not acting in their interests, or perhaps more accurately, acting overwhelming against the interests of its investors.

[steveo]

My take might be a bit different as others because the idea to have ALL or almost all my cash in retirement in shares and property isn't flying. That's just way too risky, especially when no buffer. Or you need at least 2/3 years of living expenses aside.
Even then, should the market drop,you would need to get back to work, and it might take years to get back to get to your defined level of capital needed.

The 4% rule is great, as long as you have some buffer. This country hasn't experienced recession in a generation, real estate and market all time high...
If I had all your cash, I would diversify. Obviously the shares index suggested are great however, because you are also in real estate, I would:
- First get some bonds, in fact a large percentage, to smooth the volatility
- Have a side hustle. Will help to transition into retirement, keep you active, but not too much and bring this extra revenue needed in case of market drop
- And leave plenty of cash - $200k - 3 years of expenses

You might have to work longer than what the others were expected, however, the day you retire, you know you can do, even when market crashes (not if)

I haven't read the whole three pages, I read the first and last one. If this approach was already suggested, apologies.

Without reading all 3 pages (and who could blame you for not doing that!) we have decided to do much of what you have suggested. Going to put about $150 to 200k aside for emergencies and then build our portfolio in Vanguard Balanced Index Fund and ATM just still contemplating the LIC's for their valued dividend returns. Thanks for your feedback.

I think you will be completely okay now. I think once you get the idea of diversified index funds and having some form of a diversified portfolio you are good to do. In Australia I don't see the point of owning any house other than your PPOR. Property is just so expensive that you will probably always have enough in property if you own your PPOR.

I don't like the high fund ETF. I think you are better off in the Balanced Index fund. I think you will probably have too much money in cash but that's really not a big deal. It might even be better. The cash should make you fairly resilient.

[iloveanimals]

I think you will be completely okay now. I think once you get the idea of diversified index funds and having some form of a diversified portfolio you are good to do. In Australia I don't see the point of owning any house other than your PPOR. Property is just so expensive that you will probably always have enough in property if you own your PPOR.

I don't like the high fund ETF. I think you are better off in the Balanced Index fund. I think you will probably have too much money in cash but that's really not a big deal. It might even be better. The cash should make you fairly resilient.

Thanks Steveo I think you are spot on.