In short
Podcast Summary: Motley Fool Money - A Holiday Mailbag! December 29, 2023
Overview This episode of the Motley Fool Money podcast features hosts Scott Phillips and Andrew Page as they tackle a series of listener questions in a special holiday mailbag format. They discuss various topics, including property market dynamics, superannuation (super), the CAPE ratio, robo-advisors versus ETFs, dollar-cost averaging, and investing overseas.
Key Discussions
- The Property Market
- Question from Mark: If you could magically transform the Australian residential property market into an attractive investment, what would it look like?
- Scott's View:
- Property is a utility; everyone needs a place to live, which ensures demand.
- Current yields (2.5-3%) are unattractive compared to risk-free returns (around 5.5% in term deposits).
- Suggests that to make property appealing, it would need higher returns (yields of 5%) and lower prices to ensure growth and income.
- Emphasis on the disconnect between housing demand and affordability—higher demand does not equate to accessible prices.
- Increasing Super Preservation Age
- Question from Bryce: Why might the government raise the super preservation age?
- Scott's View:
- Concerns about the sustainability of superannuation if people withdraw large sums early.
- Suggests a structured withdrawal plan could ensure funds last through retirement.
- Highlights that longer life expectancies necessitate adjustments in super policies.
- CAPE Ratio Concerns
- Question from Simon: With the CAPE ratio around 30 versus a long-term average of 15, is the US stock market overpriced?
- Andrew's Response:
- CAPE ratio reflects earnings and can indicate market valuation.
- Warns that high CAPE ratios do not guarantee market crashes but could signal lower future returns.
- Points out that earnings growth is critical to support current valuations.
- Suggests that while the stock market may face challenges, it remains a viable investment option compared to cash.
- Robo-Advisors vs. ETFs
- Question from Andrew: Are the fees for robo-advisors worth it for lazy investors?
- Discussion:
- Both hosts agree that if a service helps individuals invest who otherwise wouldn’t, it's worth the fee.
- Direct investing through low-cost brokerages is encouraged for those who are able to manage it.
- Personal preference and lifestyle dictate whether a robo-advisor is suitable.
- Dollar-Cost Averaging
- Question from Andrew: Is it better to dollar-cost average every three months or invest all at once?
- Discussion:
- Andrew suggests that the frequency of investing is less critical than managing transaction costs.
- Highlights that making regular investments is beneficial, but trading fees should be considered.
- Investing in Overseas Markets
- Question from Ben: What are the implications of investing in US stocks and the associated tax laws?
- Discussion:
- Scott explains there are some tax implications, such as withholding tax on dividends, but capital gains tax is managed in Australia.
- Emphasizes the importance of understanding tax laws without letting them deter investments.
Key Takeaways
- Investment Philosophy: Both hosts emphasize the importance of understanding one's investment choices, being mindful of risks, and considering long-term growth versus short-term gains.
- Market Dynamics: They caution listeners about current market valuations and the potential for economic shifts impacting returns.
- Engagement with Listeners: The hosts encourage audience participation through questions, highlighting the interactive nature of the podcast.
Conclusion The episode wraps up with light-hearted banter, as the hosts prepare for the New Year, remaining optimistic about future investment opportunities and encouraging listeners to engage in financial literacy.
For more insightful discussions and financial advice, listeners are encouraged to subscribe to the newsletter at [fool.com.au/LiSTNR](https://fool.com.au/LiSTNR).
Written by AI. May contain mistakes. Listen to the episode to check what was said.
Transcript
Automatic transcript. May contain errors.0:06Welcome to Motley Fool Money, the podcast that is having a surprise mailbag. I'm Scott Phillips from The Motley Fool and it is almost the end of the year but not quite yet we thought we'd bring you a surprise mailbag edition because well frankly we're pre-recording this and we have a lot in the mailbag we really appreciate the questions and we want to get through some and we're bereft of ideas it's been a long year right so when you have a long list of questions coming it's like it just ticks a lot of boxes to do this so hopefully that makes sense we could have just pretended we're doing it for our listeners sake and that was, no, the news fairy has been a little absent.
0:48It is fair to say. It's a bit going on, actually, but the other thing is we're recording this almost a couple of weeks in advance, so we don't know what is going to be breaking over that period of time. And as you say, yes, we want to have a break. You jumped in before I had a chance to introduce you. So I'll have to let our listeners know, you are, of course, the one, the only, the straw man himself, Andrew Page. How are you, mate? I'm very good, sir. I'm very good. It's been a really great year. I've enjoyed doing the pod with you. I've enjoyed all of our listeners sending us in great questions and, yeah, charged up for an exciting 2024.
1:22Nice. The best thing is this isn't the last one for the year. We have another one coming. We are going to still do a regular mailbag on Sunday. So best of both worlds, two mailbags, three days, two podcast hosts, and three listeners. There's some symmetry to it. We will see how I go. Can I say, mate, all of the – you know, by the end of the podcast, we've only got three or four people listening. We seem to have heard of each of them because at least at least three people have said, I'm one of the people who listens to the end. So those three are apparently the three listeners who keep listening.
1:48It's entirely possible that's our entire audience, to be fair. So we'll have to see how that goes. Hey, look, I was under the assumption it was zero. So I'll take that as a massive win. Well, again, they say that. There's no physical evidence. Maybe we should have a code word at the end of the episode. We will do that one day. We should have a code word at the end of the episode. People can, people can, I don't know, tweet us or something if they've got the code word, maybe win something. We'll think about that Just for sheer amusement. Hey, mate, it's a mailbag episode. You are Andrew Page. We do have listeners who are interested in your opinions.
2:18And unfortunately, someone has asked, not about Bitcoin, thank God, because frankly, it's the end of the year and I want a break. It's about the other thing. Property? Yeah. Yeah. Mark says, greetings. I have some thoughts. Yeah, let's hear the question. Mark says, greetings, lads. Greetings, lads. I'm afraid there is no witty, insightful, or reflective preamble to my question today. Well, that's what we have time for. Sorry, Mark. No, I'm kidding. He says, let's cut straight to the chase. If you had a magic wand and were able to wave it over the Australian residential property market and magically poof it, is the word Mark uses, unconstrained into an investment option that carried equal weight and reward as investing in the stock market, what would it look like?
3:02And how would it differ from what we actually have today? if he says in brackets if you feel like not even a magic wand could foof the australian residential property market into a remotely attractive investment form then feel free to debate why this is the case love the pod love the debates love the realism you both bring keep it up regards mark okay mate foof the market for me what is it what is what is what is residential will set look like into that makes it an attractive investment idea well can i just clarify the question i'll make sure i don't like uh get here on a long run-up and just go in the completely different direction here so what needs to happen to make it an attractive investment class is that is that the heart of the question so he's saying uh what would uh what would it take to turn it into quotes an investment option that carried equal appeal and reward as investing in the stock market end quote oh well that's hard i mean equal appeal and reward i mean it's almost impossible because they are qualitatively different.
4:06I want to start off. Maybe the qualitative differences are the problem or at least they're things that would have to change. Yeah, not even a problem. I mean, this is a good thing that we've got the choice. I like that I can put some money into a bond or into a business or into bricks and mortar and even within bricks and mortar, commercial or industrial or residential or emu farm or art or gold or dare I say Bitcoin. No, don't say Bitcoin. anything anything so you don't you don't want them to be the same i get i get marxist coming from sort of the intellectual angle but i i guess i would start by by um saying and this is important because i i feel like it misrepresented um oh no i love i have i love property property as an asset yeah it's brilliant it is brilliant i mean you can live in it right like no other asset has that quality of it has very, very real utility.
5:00And that is, that is great. And it is something that always will be demanded. No matter, it's hard to see that being disrupted. I will always, unless I completely upload my consciousness to the cloud, I will always want somewhere to live. And I will always desire maximum comfort and luxury, you know, as we all will. We all, you know, take a, take a billionaire and I'm sure they'd take a bigger house if they had the chance. It is something that is very appealing and I get all of that. My angst with it has been the price. So the short answer is what would I do to change it? It was like, actually, I don't know if I would sort of force this on because there'd be unintended consequences by doing this.
5:48But if – look, here's the proposition as it sits today. I'm going to be a little bit local here, but I live in Sydney. You know, depending on what figures you want to look at, but the gross rental yield you're going to get at most investment properties, it's probably going to be 2.5%, 3 % if you're lucky. Yeah, right. Probably less. And you think, okay, well, and that's gross. That's before interest, before rates, before agents fees, before maintenance, before anything, right? And you think, well, I can get 5.5 % or so now, risk-free in a term deposit so it's just sort of like yeah is it a great asset yes is it is it is it appealing no now if you were to offer me a well-built property so that is i don't want to have any sort of maintenance nightmares and you know um in a area which is likely to have long-term demand you know so it's not out in the middle of whoop whoop where where demand can can disappear overnight and you could give me a gross yield of 5%, I'm all in, right?
7:00I back up the truck, I'll dump the shares and I'll invest in property, right? Because I can probably realistically get three to 4 % nominal capital growth just as a baseline assumption. I know that sounds like low to most people, but historically speaking, that's about the average. And I don't want to try and speculate on what prices are going to do, but just to have that as a baseline where I'm going to get a really good income stream and a bit of, I'm going to maintain the capital value in real terms of my asset and get a little bit of growth over the years in the income, that is a very appealing proposition.
7:34So that's what I would do. I would wave the wand and say, give me something where the yield and the investment proposition makes sense. My argument is it makes zero sense. And before anyone says it, it's like, ah, yes, but it's okay to have a very low yield, or in fact, even a negative real yield, because I'm going to get massive capital gain it's like well i hope so because if you don't it's it's everything falls apart and i know that historically has been the case but in a world where interest rates have gone up substantially um and in a world where there are very real affordability limitations and sorry one give me one more second i'll give you a real world anecdote as as you and i'm sure a lot of listeners know we're looking for after all of this we're looking to buy a house right top of the market Not to speculate in, not to flip, to live in.
8:22And I couldn't give stuff what the price is other than I just want the best deal that I can. In other words, the investment return is the security and safety and shelter that I will get for the next 30 years. That's the investment return. If I more or less maintain the purchasing power over that time, I will be happy, right? So do we like it and can we afford it without stretching ourselves to the utter limit of what is possible? then fine. So anyway, and then again, investment property is different from an owner-occupied property. But here's the interesting thing in the area that we're looking at above a certain figure, zero people here.
9:01Now there is, is there demand for housing in this area? Yes, there is huge, as there is in most places, massive demand. So that's weird. Why wouldn't there be anyone at this property below a certain figure there's 50 people coming through the door i i told you this story when we were renting with this place and and we we would look at a um again massive rental crisis huge undersupply and and at a certain value there was just no one looking at a house and and below a certain value again 50 people out the door so this is i think the thing people miss when they say oh yeah but australia is really nice and lots of people want to live here totally agree oh but there's lots of immigration and there's there's a massive there's a massive undersupply and huge demand like yes i agree but but but affordability limitations are real they kick in do i want to live in point piper yes will i live in point piper probably never why because i can't afford it right straw man breaks with a billion dollar mark maybe maybe right now you're getting to the stage where you can go to the outer outer rim of metropolitan sydney and it is still unaffordable for anyone and now you've got now you've now credit is much harder to come by you know both people are already working they've already stretched to the limit they're already paying a very high percentage of the disposal income just to service this thing and we'll be doing so for the next 30 years so will prices double every seven years maybe but you've got to ask yourself, what drives that?
10:33Where does the money, for every seller, there has to be a buyer. So your intention might be that this is it and I will only sell at this certain price. Well, okay, but are you going to get enough demand at that level where people can actually viably say, yes, I will do that and I can do that and I'm prepared to do that. My argument is you will hit that limit and I think we're actually already at that limit for certain areas and certain limitations. So all of this is just a very long way of saying, I would think what needs to happen to make it more attractive is better return potentials, i.e. lower prices.
11:11Yep. In that last sentence, you've stolen my entire thing. I was about the same, mate. So I'm going to almost try to say I have nothing to add in a very Charlie Munger style way. Yeah, it comes out of return potential, Mark. I am asset agnostic. where I get the best after-tax returns, not lowest tax returns, best after-tax returns, is the place I'm going to invest my money. And that's a combination of income, i.e. cash flow, whether that's dividends or rent or interest, and capital growth. And it doesn't really matter which way you get it. The tax is slightly different, so you've got to allow for any tax differences.
11:43But short of that, it's just a case of, you know, where's the return come from? You've either got to believe that the future growth is going to pay you back or you need lower prices at a lower growth rate. That's the only way to think about it. to Andrew's point. Only way to think about it. Because property is a lifestyle asset, people can only afford to pay so much that caps the growth of that asset price. Now, governments will do whatever they can to kick the can further down the road. So I would be the last person to say it can't happen. But is it likely to happen? Are I prepared to risk my capital that it will happen?
12:14No, they're two very, very different things. We might have 50-year mortgages. We might have, I don't know, $100 ,000 first-time buyers grants. I mean, there's ways governments can make this work. I fully expect those kinds of things. In 10 years' time, if house prices have doubled, I won't be surprised. I'll be unhappy and uncomfortable because I think it's an economic risk, but I wouldn't be surprised. But would I want to bet on it? No. And am I going to bet on that when I've got other options to invest in? No. Can I give you an analogy? Please. So we often talk about when you're buying shares, you want to buy – I mean, let's really dumb it down.
12:47At the end of the day, I want the share price to go up. And so I go, thanks, Captain Alvius. What drives the share price higher? And fundamentally, there's only two things that can drive it high. First is the improvement in the fundamentals, which is a fancier way of saying that the business is a better business. It makes more money and has the potential to make more money. And that potential generally acts as a support for the price. Let's put it that way. The other way is you can get an improvement in sentiment. And we see this all the time, right? In fact, we see companies just go to the moon on nothing more than a really good narrative and a good story.
13:27But what we also know is, in fact, have known for 100 years since Ben Graham first said that the market is a voting machine in the short term and a weighing machine in the long term, is that if that exuberance, if that expectation isn't ultimately supported by the fundamentals, then there's only one thing to correct. So the reason I bring that up, because I'm not trying to sort of pick on property here. It's the same in shares. It's the same in any asset class as well. We're at the stage in Australian property where the argument rests on what you'd call multiple expansion. In other words, a willingness and a preparedness and a capacity for future buyers to accept lower and lower and lower return potentials.
14:09And to your point, I wouldn't bet against it either because Australians are nuts. So I'm not betting against it. I wouldn't short the Australian property market. Right, exactly. Exactly. But that has been the story over the last 30 years. I mean, ask your older generations why they would invest in property because they were getting 7%, 8 % yields. That's why. And then someone said, well, I'm happy to take 5 % or I'm happy to take 4%. I'm happy to take 3%. Now we're at the point where it's like, well, I'm happy to be negative because I get a bit of a tax saving, but it's okay. It doubles every seven years.
14:39And it's sort of, that is multiple expansion writ large or maybe yield compression if I wanted to coin another term. And And that is okay. But again, one of two things has to happen. The fundamentals have to rise to support that. So in other words, you have to think that the income generating capacity of these assets rises substantially. In other words, you can significantly increase rents and find people that are able to pay that. Again, I'll go back to my example of when we were looking for this current house that we're in. It's just above a certain level. There's no one there because no one can afford it.
15:13Not because no one is not interested in the house in the area and having a home. And so to go forward from here, you are saying, okay, people are getting very ordinary yields, negative real yields and negative gross yields even on a nominal basis if you factor in a lot of the cost. But I think in the next five to 10 years, people will want an even poorer return potential. And if that happens, that will help drive the price that will get that yield compression further. but that's the bet so just be hyper aware i'm not going to say you're wrong in making that bet but that is the bet and i would say it's a it's is my favorite word is it's very an asymmetric bet in other words if you're right you'll get an okay return okay not not spectacular okay um and if you're wrong you could potentially well here's the other thing that's worth mentioning we talk about this I think in the in a recent mailbag which is you're going to you're going to find yourself in a situation where there is no when the music stops there's no there's no chair left to be grabbed here right and and then prices will go down okay fine maybe a 10 % price isn't the worst thing in the world maybe it's even in a healthy kind of thing in the world but when you're under leverage play you gave a great example of that before so it's sort of like in in the previous episode so it's like i've got 100 grand i buy a million dollar property property goes up 10 i've actually doubled my money because my 100 grand in equity is now 200 grand right and that's brilliant that's why people that's a big part of the reason why property is so appealing because of the very low risk nature of that but just remember that that 10 fall in terms of your or how that impacts you personally, you could wipe out your equity entirely.
17:09So you're getting a situation where a rather really, it's not a 10 % fall is not anything that dire, but for a lot of people that wipes you out altogether. And it's, sorry, I'm blathering and I'm all over the place, but my point is it's that asymmetric return. Get it right. We can have the argument as to what you think is likely. great you might get six seven percent you know gross nominal sort of return over the coming five years it's okay it's not terrible again it's juiced up a little bit by the debt okay that's cool but if it's not you could you could easily lose everything easily and that that to me is just a reckless bet i would say or am i being too harsh a little but that's okay uh i i think we've i think we've done this one hey mate let's let's move on to a question from bryce about super and about retirement he says hi scott and ram i think a couple of times recently you have suggested the government may at some time increase the preservation age i.e the age you can access super which is now 60 i'm wondering why they would do this as a self-funded retiree who does not qualify for an aged pension is no burden to the taxpayer are they i'm 57 so i should make it to the finish line.
18:22Thanks, fellas. Bryce. It's a really, really good question, Bryce. I think the reality comes down to the ability of those people to continue to draw down that money in retirement. I think the big unanswered question, the unresolved question, frankly, with political gutlessness across the spectrum right now, it's not going to get solved anytime soon. But the way superannuation is tapped, drawn down, spent, used up, and then effectively leaving people on the pension, or at least potentially on the pension, is unsustainable. It's too risky as a system. If I was going to design the super system from scratch, I would make sure that people can't take all lump sums out and then fall back on the pension.
19:04We've given massive tax breaks on contributions and on earnings to provide for retirement incomes, not for retirement cash splurges and then the pension. So if you think the system through, you're right, mate, If people were to take out regular small amounts from 60 to retirement, then there's no harm in them accessing super early. I have no issue with it whatsoever, actually. The challenge is whether there is enough money there for enough people and how quickly they take that out and what it does to the retirement settings, the retirement costs for the government, for the budget, and for taxpayers, obviously, at the end of the day.
19:40So there is no reason for it to be arbitrary in and of itself. There's no reason for it to be as high as 60 or 55 or 50. It could be any age, right? At some point, if I could reassure the government, the system, the ATO, the whoever, that my super was going to last me from point X today, 10 years, 20 years, to retirement or to death, then there's no reason why I couldn't access it earlier. The reality is that superannuation should be designed by any reasonable policymaker, I won't say politician, I'll say policymaker, to replace permanently and for good the pension. so how do you do that well if it was me as i said i would simply say you may only withdraw a maximum percentage of your super but you must withdraw a minimum percentage of your super from date x until death uh because that's what it's designed for it's designed to replace the pension but in the absence of that increasing the preservation age would simply push back that period of time so that there's less likelihood that money is spent before retirement that's why they might Before death.
20:41We could do it. Poor death. Sorry. Sorry. Thank you. Before death. That's why I like it. Ram? Well, the other thing is as well, when this thing was sort of put in train and retirement ages were more sort of standardized and the rest, we just didn't live as long. Yeah, right. We're living long. Actually, I got to catch myself here. I have heard some figures that we actually passed the peak of that. So in some developed countries, which is ironic, right? I think the US didn't go over that one. Yeah. So the U S is, um, uh, age spans are decreasing, um, just terrible lifestyles and diets and, and the rest of it.
21:17We're all very sedentary and we eat a lot of processed foods, basically. Um, not, not to make this a rant on, on, on all of that kind of stuff, but we eat factory food and we sit, we stare at screens all day and it's basically, you know, I'm not a doctor, but apparently it's not good for you. And, and we're sort of past that point. So maybe this problem solves itself. But, you know, that aside, we are living a lot longer. So that money has to last a lot longer. And the government, I think, is very cognizant of that when the demographers sort of talk to them and say, well, you know, you could easily live to 95.
21:50And oh, this is the other thing as well. When you hear, I think for an Australian male, the average life expectancy is 86 or something. I don't quote me on that, but it's something in that order. girls getting a few extra years than us which is cool but this is this is average life expectancy at birth yep when you say what's the average life expectancy for a 60 year old yep it's higher yes because you've gone through your teenage years right you've avoided all of that yeah um you you you've you've probably passed a lot of the lifestyle factors that may have uh it killed if you had a very unhealthy middle age.
22:29So in other words - Risk taking as kids, frankly, suicides and misadventures. Those things tend to peak out in your teens and 20s. 60 year olds don't base jump as a general rule, right? Yeah. While doing meth and whatever. They're probably the fit ones anyway, right? So at some point, you're just literally more likely to make it anyway, yeah. So when you get to 60, it can look like a large sum of money, but it's like, what? That may need to last 30. maybe even 35 years. And here's the other thing as well. It's usually a period of time where, at least in that early part of retirement, you've worked hard.
23:05You want to maybe do a bit of travel. You maybe want to enjoy your retirement. So there's that. And then towards the back end of it, your medical bills start to go up dramatically as well. So we just know what everyone, just human nature. I'm not even trying to be critical, but generally speaking, if you were to say to everyone, no, you can take your super out whenever you want. We would burn through that within three years. We'd have a hell of a party, but it'd be all gone, right? Maybe a couple of people would have the foresight to sort of hang on, but most of us wouldn't. And so that's why there's a set age.
23:36And I think that's why that age will be increased over time as well. Makes perfect sense. Hey, here's one from Simon, mate. Hi, guys. Love the podcast. So Simon, I have a question for you regarding the CAPE ratio or the cyclically adjusted price to earnings ratio. I've heard other experts, he says, say that because the CAPE ratio is at about 30 versus a long-term average of about 15, this means the US stock market is overpriced. They believe the CAPE ratio will at some point inevitably revert to the mean, i.e. share prices will fall. They say a high CAPE ratio is an indicator of low returns over the next 10 years.
24:13The prospect of investing in an overpriced market destined to fall makes me reluctant to buy shares. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks very much. Simon, first one to you first, mate. So this is from Robert Schiller, I think. Yes, it is. He's one of the people who was sort of sounding the alarm on the US housing crisis. And yeah, anyway, a lot of things he said, they're probably relevant to us here in Australia, but apparently it's different here. Let's not go down that path again. But anyway, he came up with this index. So it's just the PE, but we call it cyclically adjusted because what it tries to do is look through the cycle.
24:49It tries to take some of that cyclicality out. So like, you know, retail is a good example. Like, you know, when things are okay, they tend to do pretty well. And then they tend to have really bad years when things are a little bit tougher. So it's just like, well, let's smooth out some of that kind of stuff. And it's just sort of, it's a way to get a longer term lens on these sort of average multiples for the market. And multiples are interesting in the sense that they have a mean reversion quality to them. In other words, trees don't grow to the sky. Earnings can go up in theory forever for a company, but PEs can't, right?
25:27They tend to revert to the mean. So when people look at the cape of the US market as a whole, and they say it's 30, and they say the long-term average is 15, well, what does that mean? Now, you've got to be careful with absolutes. It doesn't mean, therefore, the market's about to drop in half. it does mean that statistically it's more likely near the top than the bottom. In other words, it's more likely that the gains of late have been more driven, full circle to what I was saying before actually, by multiple expansion and not earnings growth, which is cool. It's just fine. Maybe that's even based on some good expectation.
26:08And don't forget the other way for the PE to drop is not for the share price to drop, but for the earnings to rise significantly, right? So it's not always bad, but balance of probabilities, it is going to make it harder. In other words, that earnings growth better come through. And if you want above average returns, again, in aggregate over the whole market, you want to make sure that it's above average earnings growth. Maybe AI is the new productivity hack that just makes that happen. I don't know. But it kind of has to. And I've made the comment on the pod before. I do think the next 10 years are going to be a bit harder.
26:43I think we had a period of excess where we had free money sloshing around forever. We had a 40-year structural decline in interest rates that made us all feel like we're Warren Buffett geniuses. And we're coming into a new environment where inflation's now a thing and interest rates are higher. And we're sort of sailing into some of the wind here. So it's kind of like, well, again, I wouldn't guarantee anything based on where that metric is. but we are sailing into the wind as opposed to having the wind at our back. Does that mean you shouldn't invest? Well, the hard thing is you would have heard of the acronym TINA before.
27:23There is no alternative. Like, okay, these phenomena affect housing as well. This phenomena has impacts for fixed interest. This phenomena has impacts for all kinds of asset classes as well. So it's kind of like the person who sits on the sideline with very reasonable reservations over some of this stuff. It's like, well, you're going to put your money in cash, which is like eroding, even in good times at 3 % per year of purchasing power. Most, in my personal opinion, is at least 4%, 5%, maybe 6 % over the next sort of cycle. That's a pretty poor proposition. um so i think it means i think it means that you need to be pretty fussy and and i would again distinguish between the market and buying shares i don't invest in the market um i buy businesses that happen to be listed on the market and on average a lot of those businesses may be overvalued in historical terms looking through a cyclically adjusted pe ratio lens uh but there are a lot of exceptions to the rule too so i i think i think you just need i think it's a horrible phrase but it is more of a stock pickers market you can't you can't have as much of a laissez-faire kind of attitude towards it as maybe you otherwise could i largely agree with you uh i i think robert schiller is a very very bright very capable man uh i'm less likely to believe that someone's cyclical adjustments necessarily are indicative what the future might bring uh and or that the future will look like the past in this particular sense uh now a couple of couple of quick thoughts i just grabbed some data uh the data i've got from wire charts only goes back five years i can't go back any further than that five years ago it was 28.3 now it's 30.8 right now so is it that much higher and in fact between those periods of time it was almost always higher.
29:21So it was 29.54 by February of 2019, 30.1 by April of 19. From July 20 right through until August 2022, it was higher. And the last year it's been lower, so it's up on where it was a year ago, but it's also much lower than it was in November 2020 when it was 38.6. So I'm saying two things at the same time. First, I'm saying, don't worry about it. Second, I'm saying, but look at the history. You can't have both. So I'm not going to strongly say either what i'm going to say is i don't think there is a lot of reason to believe that it's an unsustainably high level in and of itself relative to history uh now i only go back five years maybe it was a lot lower before that and it's very possible i don't i think you made the point about investing in the market ram i think that's right i think the other thing though i would say is the market is a different shape than it has been in the past yeah the biggest companies are i think i'm pretty sure well bigger than for a long time in the past there were some really really dominant companies and they're kind of ebbs and flows now the fortunes of the companies that we love a bloody name for these things the magnificent seven is the most recent name replacing wax replacing fang replacing whatever else like people in our industry are nuts but those seven businesses are massive now if that so they're a dominant proportion of the market what we're really saying is will they be able to keep growing faster than the market has historically i wouldn't bet against that i don't know i'd want to leverage into it but i wouldn't bet against it i own shares and Amazon for what it's worth.
30:47I don't own Apple. I don't own Facebook. I don't own NVIDIA. I don't own whatever else the other top five or seven companies are. Am I prepared to say that those guys can't continue to grow quickly? So if you've got a large chunk of the market and an increasingly large chunk of the market growing quickly than it has in the past, I'm far from sure I want to look at the CAPE ratio and say, aha, this is obviously not sustainable. This obviously can't continue. Mean reversion is true only if you're reverting to a mean that represents the past, right? If something changes, you can't say, well, it doesn't look anything like when we had steel mills and car companies at the top of the S &P 500.
Read the full transcript
31:26Why would we not go back to those levels? Because they were capital-intensive businesses in saturated markets with limited ability to get outsized gains in terms of growth. We've talked a lot about AI in the last few months. We've talked a lot about tech. Now, I'm not making a strong argument to say you should invest the capes in irrelevant, buy with your ears pin back. I got to say though, the history of the market is anytime you said, yeah, maybe I shouldn't invest, not the world's best idea. We're recording this a couple of weeks in advance or 10 days in advance. I'm writing an article that's going to be published this afternoon.
31:56So you might have read it by the time this goes out. The S &P 500, don't know if you know this, this is unfair. How much do you reckon the S &P 500 is up over the last seven weeks? I know it's a lot. Yep. I want to say 15%. Spot on, nailed it. and the russell 2000 which measures the u.s small caps is up 23 now six weeks ago if you'd sent me this question we would have exactly the same conversation now the market read down for 10 % in the last seven seven weeks my point isn't haha see i'm obviously right my point is trying to work out what the future might look like on the basis of this and not investing because you're waiting for a better chance you're betting against history you're betting against capitalism you're betting against progress i i'm not saying you should invest if you're listening to this and thinking I don't care I'm going to wait knock yourself out if that's if that's what you want to do Simon I'm not going to I'm not going to tell you doing the wrong thing what I would say is I am very very happily fully invested I almost always will be um because surprises didn't happen on the upside over time right yes there's some and what else are you going to do well that's also true yeah exactly what else are you going to do so I get it I get the thought I get the concern for all I know between the recording of this podcast and the publication maybe the market's fallen 20 who knows um if it is i'll buy if it's up to 100 i'll buy i'll buy because let me say one more time one last time for 2023 i can say that with confidence by the way because we've already recorded sunday's episode uh for the last time in 2023 vanguard index chart look at that and say when was a bad time to buy yes in hindsight you pick the highs you pick the lows you can trade out in hindsight if you have a time machine you make a squillion dollars by the way proof time machines don't exist if they did people go back and make a squillion dollars front running this stuff uh and if it It hasn't happened by now.
33:33It's not going to happen. Why? Because time machines don't exist. But, you know, that's the reality of this situation. So I get the concern. I don't know what's going to happen next with share prices. I expect in 10 years' time we'll be glad we kept investing. So it's genuinely as simple as that for me. Yeah. Look, I would say that even if you, as I do, have lower return expectations, they're still going to be better. And I think that's what that Vanguard chart does a good job at. You can get hung up on what is the long-term average and what will the average compound annual growth rate be over the next five or 10 years.
34:08And we can have all kinds of interesting conversations about it. But I would suggest that whatever happens, good or bad, difficult times, good times, you will find that on a relative basis, relative to other asset classes that are out there, yeah, it'll be far more volatile. Absolutely. But over any meaningful stretch, it'll probably still be the best one. I mean, is it a tragedy that over the next 10 years, you take all of your excess savings and you put it in the market? And when you do the sums in 10 years time, it's like even when you adjust for inflation or all you've done is like maintain your purchasing power.
34:46I mean, that's not any of the results. We want to improve our wealth, like obviously. But if that is the outcome and the comparison was staying in cash, in a world where interest, well, inflation was, well, let's just be generous and let's just say it's 3 % a year, right? That's still 30, well, more because of compounding. But over 10 years, you're going to lose 30%. Yeah. Not nominally. I mean, the dollars are the dollars are the dollars. But, you know. You buy 30 % less stuff with the same money. Okay. if you're smart about it you probably find a good a good account which pays you a little bit of interest and and the rest of it but so you've you still got something i would say you're generally going backwards over time versus something that in purchasing power terms is at least maintaining itself and so even when you look at it through there it's like is that the outcome that i want not really is it better than the alternative yes and hence tina there is no alternative over any meaningful stretch and then if it's less than that where people go yes but the market could crash 30 % tomorrow.
35:47Yes, you're right. That's always and forever true. But then you're back to the problem of, okay, Einstein, time that for me. Are you going to be the first person in history who's ever been able to consistently and accurately do that? Maybe, but no one else has managed to ever do that. So it's kind of like, I guess I stay fully invested. And your point, mate, even with those crashes over the long term, unless you, if you need the money tomorrow, don't invest it. That's stupid. No, I've got to. If you don't need the money for three or five years, then generally speaking, it's still the best bet even with those crashes in there a bit uncomfortable a bit volatile you're still better off doing it doing it living through those than trying to avoid them just it just makes it mathematically has worked out that way no promises the future could be different to the past but you kind of wonder why it would be and i can't come up with a good excuse so that's why i invest in shares can i say one more thing too because you talked about an article i wrote one on last weekend for members which was the idea it is a tale of two markets so it's it's not as pronounced here on on the asx compared to the us where the magnificent seven had done all of the heavy lifting but the the i should pull it up here because i'm going to go blank on the exact specifics but if you look at the asx 300 the largest top 300 companies yep the i think i think this year that it is on track for something like a uh uh four or five percent return right it's okay price or including dividends uh including dividends okay i'm just i'm furiously clicking here sorry how's the weather scotch is it's really yeah how about those how about those how about those nets oh here we go okay so so no perfect perfect so factoring in dividends the asx 300 has so far advanced 8.8 it actually sits at a record high year to date okay and and but that's why i knew that that question because at the start of november it wasn't looking that great And then we've had this really sort of late rally here.
37:39So that's pretty good, 8.8%. It's not far off the long-term average. You're almost bang on it, in fact. But let's have a look at the small ordinaries index. That is the same index, the ASX 300, except you take away the top 100 companies. So it's the 201st, sorry, 101st to 300th largest company. And then dividends included, the year-to-date gain is under 1.5%, or at least it was last week when I wrote this. so that that is that is huge right and not only that the index is still where it was basically four years ago and it's actually the small odds is 16 below the high water mark that it said in early 2022 that's really interesting and then there's a s &p have this index called the emerging companies index which is smaller micro cap so it's the 300th to 650th largest companies a few liquidity factors in there as well.
38:31That's down 8 % over the last 12 months. So this is a long run up to say that all of the gains have been held by the top 100 companies or the big companies. In fact, you go on S &P's website, which I did, and I'm going to use price to sales here. It's a really rough measure and it's not a good one, but I have to because the average PE of the small ordinaries is negative because there's a lot of loss making companies in there. So just to make at a more even comparison, the ASX 50, the 50 largest companies, the price to sales, by the way, these are almost by definition, lower growth companies, right?
39:06Because they're far more mature. But the average share price is 2.2 times the revenue base of these companies. So price to sales of 2.16, in fact, for the ASX 50. For the emerging companies index, the small cap, micro cap, it's 1.1. In other words, relative to the sales being generated, the price to sales of the bigger companies are twice as expensive. So again, I point this out to sort of say, well, there's the market and we've seen what that's done. But I would, and this is really a rally to our members to say, I know it's been a pretty crappy year. Don't feel too bad because everyone in that space has done bad.
39:46But here's the good news. The good news is as we head into 2024, all of the big stuff is expensive and all of the small stuff is actually pretty cheap, you know? And so isn't that a good setup? Like, I mean, isn't that what you want for someone who is in the stage where they are allocating capital, not drawing down capital, but allocating capital that, yeah, okay, that's what the market is doing, but dig beneath the surface and you will find a lot of interesting companies that are actually, I would say, really, really good value at this point in time we i suspect we will look back in the years to come and i'll be like huh smaller micro caps was where it was at because while everyone was paying attention to the big end of town all of these other things flew under the radar and there's actually get some really incredible value there a lot of crap as well let's be real you know a lot of crap in this needs more time more analysis but it can be super rewarding but super rewarding and and to you know do the work and there are spoils to be had nice motley fool money for more subscribe to the free newsletter at fool.com.au forward slash listener.
40:56Mates, Andrew sent us an email. It says, hi, Scott and Andrew. Firstly, I want to say I love hearing you each week on... You know what he's going to say, don't you? Go on. The podcast machine. Hey. One last time for the year. I've been listening for the last year and your clear, frank advice is just what is needed, says Andrew. As a reformed economist, I also love the observations and ranty social commentary. The world needs more of it. Don't encourage us, Andrew. Oh, no, here we go. Speaking of which. And not to set Andrew off, but the property Ponzi scheme drives me nuts. For me, I don't count the value I have in my own home unless I decide to sell and move somewhere else.
41:33I don't want to leave. It's not liquid at all. Fair enough. I will say, as a quick comment. Well, I'm going to throw a quick comment in because the value of the home is effectively the saved rent thereafter. So you're right to say you can't liquidate it and claim the value in itself. But if you didn't have it, you'd have to be paying rent. So in an opportunity cost world, there is more value than just whether or not the dollar value is useful to you or not useful to you. Don't necessarily count the dollar value and say, I have that much money or I can liquidate that much cash. But an opportunity cost sense.
42:09The fact you have, in theory, at some point, whether you're mortgage free or not, But at some point, you're saving yourself some money ongoing. There is real economic value in that. There's always the opportunity cost. What else you can do with the money? I was going to say. But it's not worth zero, right? Because there's a foregone return. There's also a captured rent, if you like. Well, I mean, just, again, I know I'm the only, maybe me and Andrew are the only two people in the country who think this. But that's the return. That's the return, right? The return is having somewhere to live. That's the return, right?
42:43The return you get of buying a car is not what you can resell it for. It's the – you get transport. Yeah, so utility of being able to get from point A to point B. Yeah, exactly. Utility, right? Like, it's super important. Just on your – while what you said is true, you do have to net that off against interest payments. People say, oh, red money is dead money. It's like, it's true, it is. But so is interest. Right, correct. And you rightly mentioned opportunity cost as well. So, but yes, continue. On to my questions, Andrew. I'm time poor with two kids under two. And so I won't lie to myself that I'll make time to go deep picking the right stocks.
43:16So I've been focusing on ETFs and robo-investment platforms. My question to you is, do you think the extra fees are worth it for long-term lazy investors to use platforms like StockSpot versus a managed Vanguard fund versus just buying simple ETFs like the Vanguard ASX 300 ETF? What say you, Ram? uh look i think that the stock spot guys good guys um i know chris i like him i like what he's doing but i wouldn't use it i say that in the nicest way because because i can just open up a very cheap brokerage account there's you know brokers are everywhere throw a rock in sydney and you'll hit a stock broker or a real estate agent they're around and and um you can just you know pay a very low brokerage fee and get direct exposure to a vanguard or something like with very low fees the value of the stakes and the stock spots in this world uh and this is this is entirely appropriate they're providing you a service and so it's it's a if if they if the service they offer gets you over the line and gets you to do things that you otherwise wouldn't do then that is worth every cent that they charge like every cent that they charge like it's like the choice is between stock spot and doing nothing hell yeah go stock spot um and if you're very time poor and you really like the platform and it makes it easy and the costs i don't want to make it out like the costs are onerous they're not but they there's extra um it's like everything in the world right i could get takeaway every night and i never have to cook right never have to wash up right um but paying for the privilege but i'm paying for the privilege or i can go to the supermarket and cook it up myself be much cheaper and i've got to you know there's work involved that's the Which is better, takeaway or cooking yourself?
45:01Well, it depends on what you value more. So there's no right or wrong answer. But my answer for me would be that given – even I think if you're time poor, it doesn't take that long to – you've probably already got a brokerage account. And then you can just like type in the code of the one you want, hit buy and you're done. Like you can just set an alarm and do that every month. It's not – I don't think it's that hard to do. Having said that, if you like the service that these other platforms offer and they get you to do what you otherwise wouldn't, go for that, absolutely. Yep, I actually million percent agree, mate.
45:34Motley Fool has a service called ETF investor I've talked about before. I'm not going to spruik it again this time. We charge money to help you pick ETFs or you can do it yourself. And if you want to do it yourself, do it yourself, save the money you'd otherwise pay us. If you want someone to say, actually for a pretty reasonable fee, what do you guys think? You guys are the experts or you guys do this for a quid or whatever else. Can I have your help? And that's exactly what this is. so the question is simply as ram says are you getting value for the fee if you're if you're if you're better off by at least the fee pay the fee you know if you're if you i mean our service is 29 bucks if you get$30 worth of value pay the fee because you're a dollar ahead if you get$28 worth of value save the money and the same with any of these services platforms really look here's the thing right i think there are some really really really really really dodgy people in our industry there are also some really good people who are trying to make money for themselves by helping you do better and your job is to work out which is which and then of those who are genuinely trying to help you and trying to make some money themselves that's completely fine we're all we're not living a capitalist world none of us all of us work for money right it's not an evil thing to to expect value in return for the value you provide it's pretty funny when people accuse companies of profiteering but then would happily take a pay rise they're given by the boss like well hang on you're just profiteering from the fact that wages are going up no no i'm not but that company is yeah that's a that's a massive tangent um so yeah if you're getting value out if you're getting more value than you're paying do it if you're getting less value you're paying don't do it if you want to save the washing up and you that's that's worth something to you get the takeaway um if you know i'm cooking get the takeaway because the food's gonna be better but uh yeah i look i but so again like andrew said i wouldn't do it i think there is an easy enough way to get here's my here's my biggest concern with this and this is my my biggest bugbear with our financial well no it's not the biggest one there's a million one of the biggest ones is the percentage um percentage fees that you are being charged on an ongoing basis you know advice is hey here's a fee for this service okay great i've got your advice thank you i've paid your fee don't charge me again next week and the week after the week after that now yeah if that fee is low enough that it's still worthwhile because instead of 100 bucks up front i pay two dollars a week well that's fair but if i get one lot of advice i pay two dollars a week for the next 25 years i'm probably not getting looked after and you and i've said before am that over the last you know when you compare super funds the difference in fees can be up to 40 of the final value even though it looks like a small fee even though the percentage looks really small as a difference they add up so i would say just be really really careful i don't know stock spot i know it's business but i don't know it's fee so i'm not going to comment on stock spot but there's other platforms out there that yeah are just raking in the fees and really if it gets you going like it's interesting if it's better it's all of these things are better than nothing by definition if you wouldn't invest otherwise pay the fee you know you're better off having 50 bucks at the end rather than 100 except if the alternative was zero so it's just it's just worth it if it if it does the job for you if it gets you across the line i think that's the that's the key one for me i think that's probably where i'd i'd go from there yeah another good example is with i've got a friend who pays for a personal trainer right right right what are you doing man like you know it's expensive i'm not not having a go at personal trainers here right right right but but his his opinion was yeah but i won't do that i will i do not i lack the motivation for me to to go and uh uh do it by myself like i will just find an excuse but if i've made the booking with this guy i guess i have to rock up to the park and so for me it's what and then i actually go yeah that is money well spent and plus you probably you've got someone who knows what they're talking about too so you know rather than you making making it up but yeah that's a great example that's true for my wife and i i don't she does yeah that's it it works for her and it works for me and you know it's it's just it's just the value of the value of the money so i think that's i think that's super worthwhile hey um he's got a second question too mate he's a second question if you will allow it i'll allow it and so who's is that i'll allow it i can't think where's the reference yeah who is that you know people yelling at the podcast machine right now um it's like it It sounds like a judgey thing to say.
49:34Yes, exactly. I get one third of my salary. He says, think average Sydney salary in work shares in US dollars every three months as part of my employment. I've been burned in the past holding employee shares. So now I just sell them when I get them. Now I've paid down my debts. I'm planning to reinvest in an ETF or stock spot, et cetera, which is the question we just asked. Would you say it's worth trying to dollar cost average in this three month timeframe or just go for it in one transaction? I could sell all the shares when I get them and invest one twelfth every week for a quarter. But I wonder if the benefit of this is worth the extra trading costs.
50:10Thanks, Andrew. So I think at the bottom line, mate, this is effectively a question of how frequently is frequently enough? How frequently is too frequently for dollar cost averaging to work? What do you reckon?
50:25I mean, definitely the transaction costs are the thing to think about. I know for depending on how you're doing it, a lot of them will be percentage based. So it doesn't matter. Over a certain dollar value. Exactly. Yeah. Over a certain dollar value. I think mathematically it's probably better every day, but that's a lot of work and a lot of hassle. Yeah. And it probably doesn't swing it that much as well. I don't think there's any right answer. I think if there is a transaction cost dimension to it, then you're doing it once every three months is still like in the grand arc of time. Like it's not going to make any difference.
51:09Of all the regrets you have in life, it's not going to be, gosh, I wish my DCA was done in a more frequent basis. You'll still get all the benefits too. Markets don't move that much, that significantly in that kind of timeframes as to that, you know, you'll regret doing that. Mate, April 2020 is calling it, I'd like to speak to you. Right. Yes, that's true too. That's true too. I would just on employee shares, I would say it's hard to know without knowing what the company is, but I think they can be great. I think they can be really great. And they're very illiquid if it's not listed. And even if it is listed, there's usually trading rules around it.
51:53So it can be a little bit tricky. You do tend to get some concentration issues over time if it's just that's the only money that's sort of going into it. But if you are – and I think you're in a very privileged position being on the inside of the company. You've got a pretty good read on the culture, the vibe, how things are going. It's not inside information per se, and you can't quote-unquote trade it. But if you've got any sense that this is a company with a vision, a mission, and potential, you know, I wouldn't be so quick to – I only say this because I got – no names mentioned, but I did get employee shares of past employers and I did the same thing.
52:30I sold as soon as I could because of liquidity. That was the only, I had nothing bad about the company but I just, and I regret, I regret that. Like it was, it turned out it was a really great company and what was I thinking, right? So don't, if it's like, maybe you hate the company, you're just like waiting time to get out and it's like, you're waiting for it to crash in which case, absolutely do what you're doing. But if there is any sort of reason for optimism, I wouldn't necessarily rush to sell everything super quick. I agree, actually. I think I would be mindful of the waiting. Yes, the waiting.
53:03If you're getting a third of your salary every year, in three years you've got an amount that's the equivalent of your salary. In 10 years you've got three times your salary. You're probably not going to have anything like that in shares outside that. So it's going to get really, really messily overweighted pretty quickly. Ask people at Lehman Brothers how it felt when they had their job and their stock portfolio in the same place. Yes. So I completely agree with you, mate. I would probably find a point in between the other problem is you've got to pay tax on those shares as income. So you've got to have the cash flow to do that.
53:31When they're issued. Yeah, correct. So if you're not selling them straight away, then you've got to pay the tax without being able to sell the shares to get the proceeds. Which is a real, like I remember having the conversations, like it's so funny because the whole idea, the whole raison d 'etre here is to get, is to reward employees and to give them some buy-in. And you think, oh, that's great. What a great idea. And then we'd all get our shares and we'd go, what the hell i gotta pay tax on this this is this is outrageous and like yeah well it is an income it's just someone's bought the shares for it's so it's not but but it's a scenario where any value is off into the future it is uncertain and here and now i'm all i know is money is going out the door seems like a really bad deal right exactly exactly so i get it yep so look i hope that i hope that helps andrew hey um ben's got a question he says hi gents i'm a medium term listener recent subscriber first time question submitter there you go that's covering the time frames love for the pod he says especially the left-leaning rants in spite of the potential fallout from your audience i'm gonna say ben um i don't know that you would be wrong in terms of how our comments might be characterized but i think it says more about the state of politics than the state of our particular opinions um i don't i don't i don't know whether much of politics if you if you took today's politics back to 1980 certainly 1960 the political parties wouldn't recognize themselves um you know is it the overton window when things move yes so you find yourself all of a sudden the left of what otherwise would be the case i don't consider myself particularly left wing um i have have very specific views about certain things i disagree with jim chalmers and disagree with uh with angst taylor you know enormously in a whole lot of different things if it's more often left than right in the current environment so be it um i guess i would just say I mean, look, listeners will make their own conclusions or their own conclusions.
55:22But this doesn't start from a political perspective. It starts from what I like to think is kind of reasonably common sense. And if that puts me on the left or the right of issues, then kind of so be it. So, you know, if it's left-leaning, fine. If it's right-leaning, fine. I don't care. I just, I guess the risk will... Go on. I was going to say, the good thing is, is that by sort of having a foot in each camp, and I'm probably the same. I'm probably like socially left and sort of economically right type thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. And, but you kind of, I was going to say like, you know, you're always keeping someone happy, but it's more correct to say that you're always annoying someone.
55:54No one likes us. We never make it on social media, mate. The only way you make it on social media is you pick a cause and you go so hard down that line, you attract your fellow travelers who love you and retweet everything you do. I think I've said to you before, mate, I, every now and again, I look at the tweets that kind of get some good attention, the number of retweets or the likes or whatever. And the retweets, they're very different groups depending on what opinion I'm expressing. some of those people who could find themselves on one side of the spectrum will retweet one thing I say and another group entirely retweet something else I say and they must be confused.
56:23I think you're one of our guys. I think you're one of our guys. If we're left learning, so be it. I bristle a little bit at the description only because it presupposes a political preference first and then a policy view second. I hope we've demonstrated we're pretty flexible with the views we've expressed at different times. So I will say that. Anyway, Ben says, apologies for the lack of witty anecdotes. That's completely fine, mate. We'll supply the wit because we're good at that sort of stuff. Well, there'll be anecdotes. Let's not get carried away. At least that. We promise we'll say some things.
56:57I've only been investing in stocks for three to four years, says Ben. I've had the misfortune of making the most big ticket mistakes in that time. We'll no doubt continue to do so. You and us both, mate, we've been there as well. My question relates to your opinions or advice on owning stocks listed on overseas markets. I believe that one is only able to hold$20 ,000 in US stocks at any point or risk being exposed to the US tax laws. Equally, I looked into investing in Novo Nordisk of Ozepic fame, which is that new wonder weight loss drug apparently. But it was all too complex and too hard. Currently trying to get my head around the implications of owning stocks listed on the US stock exchange, while currently owning ASX listed offerings, particularly ETFs, with at least part US-based holdings.
57:42this may be a completely rookie question and it's likely been addressed in the past but i'm trying to avoid an awkward call from joe biden in the future thanks in advance ben ben i rest assured i don't reckon joe biden's making the tax calls so you're probably okay there uh but it's not an unreasonable question i'm not convinced he knows how to use a phone to be honest he's getting to that age where it's you know anyway biden trump as a as a pair for the next election is a weird coming on a whole lot of stuff. Dude, there's 330 million people in our country. And they're the two old white men that you can cut.
58:14Like, that's it. That's the best of the best that's going to lead the free world. Like, oh, try harder. There you go. Equal opportunity, like pessimism against the spectrum there. We're just annoyed with the boomers now. Ben, I own US shares. A couple of thoughts. The US can change the tax laws anytime they want. They're also quite kleptomaniac in grabbing assets from right around the world. We've had colleagues and friends who've come to Australia, and because they remain citizens, they're actually still exposed to US tax law, even though they're Australian and living in Australia doing Australian stuff.
58:50So it's all very, very screwed up. I'm not aware of any particularly onerous US tax implications, with two specific exceptions. The first is the US withholds 15 % of any dividends as withholding tax. We've talked about this before. You can offset that against your Australian tax because Australia and the US have a tax treaty. So it's not additional tax at all. Capital gains tax is all levied here. There is no US capital gains tax payable in the US. There is, however, at some level, I can't remember what level it is, an inheritance tax that is payable on death on your US shares. If you have over a certain dollar value of US shares at the time of death, it's a relatively small amount of money and it shouldn't be in my opinion it's like saying i'm not going to invest in shares because i might pay capital grand tax when i sell whether you like death taxes or not it's kind of one of those emotive things i think it's all overblown personally but um if i am lucky enough to keep compounding at a reasonable rate and live for a decent amount of time i hope i have enough money i've said this before i want to pay more tax if i can i hope my kids have an inheritance tax to pay and i will not give them any sympathy from beyond the grave you know paying a little bit of tax whether i shouldn't pay u.s inheritance tax given i don't live there is an open question.
1:00:01But I guess I get to invest in their companies on their exchanges. So I kind of, there's like so much complaining I can do about it. I'm not aware of any other owner's tax requirements. You have to fill out a form, W-8-B-E-N or BEND form. The Yanks love coding. So do the POMs. We don't code our tax forms anywhere near as well as the POMs or the Yanks do. So, mate, there is nothing in the tax law that has precluded me or stopped me from investing in US shares. There's no issues I'm aware of to be worried about. Be aware of them, of course. and do your taxes properly. But I'm not aware of any issues that it raises that would be in any way detrimental to my investing or would discourage me for doing so.
1:00:38About half of my investments are in the US. Very happy with that. Very comfortable with that, despite the different tax regimes. Any thoughts from you, Mike? No, I don't think so, other than just see an accountant because that's what they do. I did want to make one remark though. Having invested for three, four years and sort of saying, making every mistake. I just want to lean into that because that is, I think that's normal. I think that's, I think actually, I've made mention of this before. I think the most, the worst, this is going to sound counterintuitive. The worst thing that can happen to a new investor is to have immediate and significant success.
1:01:19And I've got friends who have done this. Because it teaches you the wrong lesson. i remember when i when my kids were younger we passed those skill testers you know they and you'd put in two dollars and a claw would go down you're gonna always say like it's rigged you'll never get it and then one day they just got to me it's like fine like this would be a teachable moment right and they won like both of them like what how is it and so for the forever after that every time i want a toy i do that i was like yeah but you got lucky on that they learned the wrong lesson and and and the people who have been in that situation they go well that's interesting i put two grand in and i doubled my money next time i'm gonna put everything in and it was a speculative miner that happened that did really well so i'm gonna buy more of those speculative you know lot of ticket type things because i'm sure to win yeah just got lucky just got like and so that you you get blind to the downside you might you make the mistake of thinking this is all super easy and you start going you start going way up that risk curve people who have had a bad start the problem for them is that they go this is all rigged it sucks i'm out i'm just going to invest in property like every other australian um maybe there'll be a teachable moment there and then not too distant future but but until until uh that kind of happens i think it's as painful as it is it is the lesson that you want if you can if you can not that it's all rigged and that it sucks and you shouldn't do it but if you if you can push through that you start investing with a much more risk aware attitude.
1:02:53You start getting a sense of like, okay, this isn't super easy. And you end up being a far, far, far better investor as a consequence. So I just want to sort of like, you know, I get it. It sucks. I'm sure it's not the experience you wanted, but if you can stick with it, that is, I think you will look back in time and go, actually, that was a good lesson. That was a good start that I had a rocky path in the early days. i think that's a really really good point mate and particularly yeah i think um the benefit yeah particularly if you're starting young you're starting with smaller amounts of money because you're earning less and all that kind of stuff they're also less expensive mistakes so yes if you're gonna make them make them you want to make them then i as you said because you learn the right lessons but also because when you make them you want to make them a smaller amounts of money rather than larger amounts you don't make your first mistake with a million dollars in the bank right that's no no no you've my two thousand dollar investment drops by 50 it sucks right but my a hundred thousand dollar investment I'm going to feel that right yes and again it might put you off if you can develop a bit of a bit of battle scars a bit of scarring that kind of helps protect you from the next one can be pretty useful 100 % mate we have absolutely outstayed our welcome with the two or three listeners that remain on the podcast and mate I don't feel comfortable saying this but I'm kind of over it I'm only going to do one more podcast this year okay yeah that's it I've had enough too one more is all I've got I'm not doing anything until next year That's right We're having a break Only one more podcast And nothing until 2024 God that's bad The worst part about it is We've actually recorded the next one We're going to make similar dad jokes next time Oh you know it The good news is Most of you aren't listening now So you'll hear them for the first time on Sunday But until then With bated breath For the best dad jokes You will find Relating to the change of the solar calendar Full on Cheers The Motley Fool and people appearing in this program may have positions in the companies mentioned.
1:04:46General advice only. Please speak to your financial professional to understand how it may pertain to your situation. Subscribe to the free newsletter at fool.com.au forward slash listener. The Motley Fool operates under financial services license 400691.
From the publisher
– ‘Pfoof’ the property market for me
– Why raise the Super preservation age?
– Isn’t the CAPE ratio too high?
– Robo-advisors vs ETFs
– How frequently should I dollar-cost-average?
– Isn’t investing overseas too onerous?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
