Mailbag: incl. The new Super tax: An inheritance tax by stealth? October 22, 2023

31:41And you want something that's at the top right of that chart, i.e. really high quality, really good value. and you want to focus on those ones first and survey the landscape. You'll often look around and they'll be like, well, there's a lot of stuff I like. Not much I like the price on it, in which case don't do a damn thing. Sometimes there'll be a kid in a candy store. It's like, oh, my gosh, everything's for sale. And that'll usually be when things are really scary, such as a global pandemic or an outbreak of a global war or something like that. But that's kind of what you've got to have to get these great bargains.

32:13But more often than not, you'll just see a general spread of things. And then you make the decision based on the opportunity set that is in front of you. Full stop. I can't add much to that, mate. I think that's pretty much bang on. I think I would just say, to use one of my favorite political cliches, I reject the premise of the question, which is which one's more important? If you only use one, then don't do it by the ETF. Yeah. Because I don't think, and again, I mean that with absolute respect to the questioner. The simple reality is you just need to be really, really careful about trying to dumb it down to one number and say, well, therefore it's this.

32:57Now, range of numbers. There's no perfect valuation. There's no perfect growth forecast. You go to these things roughly right and you'll be roughly wrong a lot and roughly right hopefully more often than not. And that's how you kind of move forward. so i think um i've for what it's worth i've just i've just said speaking of ram walking things back i've just said i wouldn't use one i wouldn't use one either if you made me use one it'd actually be a founder ceo if it came to that if you if you want to rank anything i found a ceo who still had meaningful skin in the game i would choose that and yes i would overpay sometimes yes i'd underpay other times but if you're gonna make me choose one number that's what i'm choosing now i don't want to do one number i don't want to ever do that but if i had to that's what i would choose If you held a gun to my head and said, pick one, I would choose that.

33:41It must be valuation because growth is a function of growth. Growth is a function of value. It's just how it works. Can I very quickly, a few times now we've sort of said, I'll just buy the ETF. And I want to avoid the mistake, the misunderstanding that we say that derisively in any way, shape or form. Okay, yeah. Yeah. Because some of them are, oh, well, you know, us geniuses, leave the stock picking to us and you should do an ETF because you're just not smart. And I mean, that's not the intent with which it's said. I actually - Just quiet listeners. No, we're not that smart. So they're not going to overshune.

34:19That's the assumption. But on the off chance, one of them did miss that part of it. Keep going. Please don't. I've got ETFs. That's how I invest in the US. I own all of the big US stocks, but through an ETF. And my hands are full here. The ASX has got me more than busy, right? So I don't say it in a derivative way. And also, I would say that, not I would say, fact and historical precedent would say that those that have done the ETF have outperformed 80 % of professional money managers and do consistently. i really i've mentioned this before a while ago but i i'm very fond of the writings of morgan housell is a former colleague of ours from us motley form brilliant writer buys books uh really smart guy and he was on a podcast and he was someone was asking him was like well how do you invest in this it's all in etfs and and the uh interviewer was like oh why would you do that for you're leaving money on the table why would someone with your knowledge and experience and the rest of that.

35:25And he goes, everyone always assumes that I'm compromising here. It's like, I've done very well. I've done exceedingly well over the long term here. You don't need to apologize or scratch your head as to why I am doing this. I am doing this because it is relative to what I prefer to spend my time on, by far the greatest bang for my buck. So I really want to emphasize that point here is that there is, it's not only that there's no shame in buying an ETF, There's a huge amount of intellect in buying an ETF. And frankly, too many of us, male, 99 % of the time, shouldn't be picking shares. It's only because we all feel as though we are, you know, God's gift to investing and that, you know, we're the next Warren Buffett.

36:10I think if any of us had the slightest degree of humility, that's probably what we should all do. Can I just get very quickly, just humor me on this, because the question was asked before, and I want to say this just to show people how you can do something pretty basic. It might be informative. The previous, I was going to say caller, listener, was about Domino's, right? And I haven't looked at Domino's for example. I thought you might ask me after you answer. You know, crap, I better do some research on the fly here. But this is what I did and take this for what it's worth. So in 2023, they earned$1.48 per share.

36:54Let's call it$1.50, right? So I'm going to do a valuation right in real time here. Let's see. I hope this works. But I'm not going to do it based on anything other than a what if. And I think what ifs are really valuable when it comes to this kind of approach. Because it's not that I think this is going to happen, but I know what would happen if this happened, if you know what I mean. So let's do it this way. So they made$1.50 and I'm going to pull out of thin air the assumption that they're going to grow their per share earnings at 15 % per annum. Now that's incredible, by the way, for a company of its size.

37:26And I think any shareholder would be sort of happy with that. Now you can argue, well, I think it would only be this, or I think it would, well, fine, you can do those what ifs. In fact, to be thorough, you should do a whole spread of what ifs. But I'm going to do this. So I'm going to get my calculator out,$1.50 times 1.15. and I'm going to grow that$1.50 by 15 % for five years. One, two, three, three, three dollars and two cents per share. Okay. There's my per share earnings for the year 2028. And then I'm going to go, well, that's pretty good growth. It's a pretty successful company if it manages to do that.

38:02P of 25. Again, you can say, no, no, no, it would be this. It would be that. Fine. You do you, right? I'm just doing an exercise here. And I multiply those numbers together And it says to me that the share price in five years time will be$75.43 if I was to do that. So then the question is, well, is today's price good? Well, what do I want as an investor? People can come up with their own number, but I want at least 10 % per annum. Call me greedy. Call me unrealistic. I want 10 % per annum. I'm not factoring in dividends here as well. And Domino's pays a dividend. So I should factor this in. But this is, as I said, this is rough and ready real-time analysis here.

38:42So I'm going to now take that 75 and I'm going to divide it by 1.1. I'm going to do that for five years. One, two, three, four, five. Lends me a$46.83. Now, what does that say? Well, it doesn't say anything about the future, but it says this. It says if, and there's a lot of big ifs, as you like to say, if is the biggest little word in the English language. Yep. If Domino's grows its earnings at 15 % per year. if the market attributes a multiple of 25 in five years time. And if I want a 10 % rate of return, and if I'm going to ignore dividends, I shouldn't pay more than$46.83. Now, the reason I do that is to show you that we didn't need a spreadsheet.

39:24We didn't need to talk about margins. We didn't need to talk about macro forecasts. I think anyone can do this. And I think that you can play around with a whole bunch of different scenarios, but you will find a number. And I've got a number here that's got 18 decimal places on it just from that analysis. And even though I'm pulling these numbers out of thin air, it's still informative to me. It says to me right now, having done that exercise, it's just like, well, you know, I either need a higher multiple than what I assumed, or I need faster growth than what I assumed, or some combination of the two, or I need to be prepared for a lower rate of return for me to buy shares now.

40:04That's how it works. Those are literally the inputs and the outputs. That's it. Now, as someone who has done the research, you will probably say, yes, but don't forget 2023 was in a bit of an abhorrent year and you're using a false base and there'd be a whole bunch of insight around that. So I don't want anyone to take my numbers that I made up on the spot as face value. But I do really just want to, just to answer this question here, How do you do it? Start by doing some very, very level eight, year eight maths, and you can go a long way with that. Yep. Nicely put, mate. Very nice. Sorry, mate.

40:40It was a long ramble. No, it was good. It was really good. The podcast is done now. Motley Fool Money. For more, subscribe to the free newsletter at fool.com.au forward slash listener.

40:53Let's get a question from Benjamin who says, Good evening, guys. love the pot as always this was sent in the evening obviously this is now sunday morning so what's morning andrew's been for his run uh love the pot as always just offering a brackets a poorly thought out close bracket perspective for you to consider regarding your recent chat about the 30 tax on super on unrealized gains we talked about that recently he says which can be um offset by unrealized gains he says i totally agree with all fallacy especially in relating to holding large value, less liquid assets, e.g. property. Do you think, asks Benjamin, maybe it could be a quiet way of implementing an inheritance tax on larger balances as they accrue within super, as assets sent through a will would not trigger a capital gains tax event and therefore not be taxed.

41:45This way, they get to take their pound of flesh on the way for growing balances from people, quote, rich enough to cop it, close quote, though at a decent rate, but does not affect them if they have poor returns and fall back down amongst those less fortunate or less wealthy i think you'll have more nuanced thoughts or understandings about it really good question what do you want you can go first i'll let you go you're more of a more of a tax wonk than i am it sounds it sounds reasonable enough at first glance but i haven't i haven't thought about it as deeply as perhaps i should to give any valuable insight but what do you i know you have what do Yeah, I have a little bit.

42:22So let's kind of try and wrap it up. So I don't really know what the government's trying to do. We've said before, either it is poorly thought out or very deliberately thought out. And if it's poorly thought out, they haven't really considered that this is about the only time when unrealized gains are taxed in the Australian tax environment, which I think is terrible. They may be doing it because they want to change broadly the way we think about taxation. Maybe there are other unrealized gain taxation on the way, which would be scary and terrible, but that's possible. The other thing is maybe they know exactly what they're doing, and they are trying to get us to take assets out of super, where it's concessionally taxed, and put them in our own names, where it's over that$3 million threshold, which is what's been talked about, which would basically be taxed by another name.

43:12So rather than wanting or expecting tax in super from those gains, unrealized, they may be happy to say, well, okay, take them out of super, put them in your own name. Therefore, you avoid the unrealized gains tax. But then in your own name, if you sell them, you're eligible for or you're on the hook for higher tax rates because super is generally a lower tax environment. So that might be what they're trying to do. basically put a put a de facto cap a soft cap if you like on total super above which people would rather take their money and do something else with it so i i would speculate it's that i don't think and i i have no insight by the way no special insight i have no access to to treasurer charmers funnily enough he doesn't he doesn't call me very often uh he's never called me for the record um i don't suspect it's a it's a it's a version of inheritance tax i will say by the way the cgt stuff capital gains tax does apply for inherited assets but only at the point of sale not at the point at which the assets are transferred so there is that so the tax is still payable it would just be a timing difference rather than a size difference that you otherwise might cop when it comes to the way we think about superannuation i i could be wrong i could be very wrong but that's my best guess that that's kind of the way uh to think about it in terms of what what the government might be thinking so yeah speculating wildly um i think that's probably what's going on.

44:34I think they're probably all about trying to push money outside super or just collect it inside super. I don't think it's an inheritance tax per se. I think people would rather take it out than pay the extra tax. It's probably what'll end up happening. That being said, it could work exactly as you suspect that if it's done inside super at a higher tax rate, then they do collect some money, which would be, it would pull forward the inheritance component so again it won't change the size of it uh necessarily unless the inheritor has a lower tax rate so that's possible as well but that'd be my best guess i think it's just a terrible uh terrible policy generally i'm actually speaking of being um controversial i'm actually not opposed to the idea of inheritance tax for large estates um which is going to annoy a whole lot of people maybe fewer people and andrew calling you all idiots so i'll just remind you that if you're have a go at someone have a go at andrew not me um but i'm just not entirely sure that i i'm i'm really worried about inherited inequality uh we're always gonna have inequality as a country we're not a socialist country not a communist country there is there's a reality to you know there's value to um the system that actually ends up with inequality not as an aim but as an outcome because it means that people are incentivized to work and by gain i think we all do well as a society because of it i'd rather live in a a less equal very prosperous country than a very equal dirt poor country right it's an easy it's an easy decision uh but i am worried about uh the ability or willingness of inherited inequality to change the fabric of the country over a couple of generations we're already seeing the bank of mom and dad before people die helping out kids uh if you I'm sure you know people who have lots of money and they'll give that to their kids and their kids will end up with a very, very, very, very, very good head start.

46:30You'll know other people who don't have the ability to give their kids anything or not much at all. And so it's not a matter of just individual inequality if we both start from birth with the same system and we get to where we get to because outcomes are unequal. We start with meaningful inequality. That worries me meaningfully as a policy decision. Again, this is about policy, not about investing. So I actually, I do think there is some really significant issues to be dealt with when it comes to inherited inequality. I'm not so worried about earned inequality. It's an issue we should probably have a think about, but the inherited bit is where systemically things go off the rails real fast if you fast forward a couple of generations.

47:07so um let me be more controversial actually while i'm wonking out on tax i actually don't think inheritance tax is the answer i think it's actually taxing um gains at a higher rate i don't like the 50 discount on capital gains tax love it personally i'll take it um but uh the reality is that we're we are taxing gains capital gains at a lower rate than earned income and that just means that those things compound faster and can be left to descendants in a more in equal way i don't think we need we shouldn't need uh meaningful inheritance taxes if we had meaningfully appropriate capital gains taxes for example so there you go i've annoyed the other half of the audience as well um capital v labor at the age-old debate yeah just quickly by the way on capital gains tax uh i i'm not saying i wouldn't uh i wouldn't do anything i'd go back to the old system where we indexed the capital gain for inflation i think it's just it was it was a beautiful system perfectly designed uh the government then changed it so they get rid of the indexation just give everyone half half price capital gains tax um i think that was a terrible decision i think it's bad bad policy for uh raising tax revenue i guess bad policy for inherited inequality so there you go mate that's my wonkiness did you want to have a thought or you gonna dodge the whole thing well i'll dodge it but i'll say this someone said at the start of the pod that all we do is repeat ourselves so i'm going to repeat myself into that But I always, I've got to look this up.

48:35I forget who to attribute it to, but someone very wise once said, in designing our politics and society, you need to do it in such a way as that after it's designed, you don't get to choose your place. So we all have a big lottery, right? And it's just sort of like, so you don't know where you're going to land. Generally speaking, if I've got lots of capital and you ask me to design the system, well, I'm going to design it in a way that benefits me. Even if I try really hard not to, it's just I'm going to be biased. If I'm someone whose income is derived through labor, I'm going to design it to be more favorable to me.

49:12And I've always thought that is the best, best, best way to design a society is to sort of say, well, we'll put our heads together. But afterwards, you don't get to say maybe, you know, where you or your kids land in that heap. So it's just like you want to be careful you don't favor the upper quartile too much because you might not be there. and you don't want to make sure that you give all your money to the poor because you might be at the top. So it's sort of like it's just a wonderful lens to look through which removes your own bias from that scenario. And I think if we were able, and maybe it's an impossible task outside of just a pure thought experiment, but I think we'd have some pretty good outcomes if we took our own situation, lived experience, biases out of it.

49:52We'd probably be able to design something that was far superior. yes uh and and the the biggest challenge with public policy is we don't have a lot of public policy minded people we have people who want to not do the exact reverse of that which is create policies that that that benefit their particular section of society either on behalf of themselves or their donors or their constituents or something else uh when i say constituents i don't mean the whole country i mean those who vote for them and that's the problem we've got is they don't do exactly what they should do which as you say is uh design the perfect system and then see where the chips fall they say well here's where the chips are and here's i'm going to design the system who was it was it you you'll know is it the victorian um jp morgan no the um uh the cost of living minister who owns like 70 properties or something you just like read the room guys like they just like i don't care how nice a person you are it's just like you you cannot you cannot possibly have any impartiality in that and and and frankly not just impartiality but you can have no without the most incredible effort of empathy and ability to the people that you're representing or purportedly looking after how can you possibly understand their scenario as someone who is so ostensibly is as wealthy like it it's like yeah it's like saying we're going to make uh an arsonist the head of the fire service right like just you're just not a good fit frankly you know so i i'm not going to defend a bloke with 17 properties other than to say i'm not saying there's anything wrong with 17 properties but i don't want to put the boot in him for that but i'm just saying if you're going to put someone out there to represent a certain section of the community yeah even then i i we just talked about you know design the system design the right system if someone can have 17 properties and genuinely fulfill their their their role as as a minister and there should be a minister across the league it's a stupid political you know trying to seem to be do something which is also stupid right i guess i'm just making the point that to your point about design the system and then you know the shoes fall where they fall if you can have someone who can who can faithfully discharge that responsibility despite that you know someone's having properties who could then say actually but the right thing for the society is for there to be more tax on properties for example yeah is it going to happen probably call me a cynic i don't think a guy like that is going to advocate for those kind of policies where it's just going to significantly and very acutely impact his personal situation?

52:19Probably not. But I'd like to think it was possible. And I guess the other thing is, I'd like to think if I was in the same situation where you were, we would try and do the right thing rather than think that benefited us, right? That's kind of, I mean, just talk about capital gains tax, right? I've said many times on Twitter and elsewhere, that would cost me money. You know, a stage three tax cuts I would benefit from, I don't think they're a good idea. And I think, you know, it should be possible. Here's me being Pollyanna. It should be possible that we get a politicians who would say this is not good for me but it's good for the countries i'll do it anyway and i guess i would i would like to think if i was in that position i would now it's easy for me to say that because i can yell from the sidelines on twitter and there's no chance of me actually having the vote to cast it would i would i say the same thing if i was actually casting my vote on the floor of parliament i hope so i maybe again maybe i'm not maybe i'm just being um maybe i'm being a bit pollyanna but i'd like to think that we could look past people's personal circumstances to say despite that you will still do the right thing It's possible.

53:10It's just not likely is my point. That's all it is. And I feel is that whenever we have a system that we, this is a really great system. As long as someone who's really intelligent, wise and selfless is in that position, then it's a great system. I'm like, okay, but just such a person exists. And if they do, they're very rare. They're very, very rare. and it means that probabilistically in 99 % of circumstances, we're going to have someone who's not appropriately credentialed to make the decisions that matter. That's probably right. That's sad. Hey, let's go to a question from Michael who says, Hi, Andrew and Scott.

53:49Everyone tends to put Scott's name first. We don't want him to get a big head. He says, thank you very much. A quick funny story before my question. I will not be the Garfunkel to your Simon, Mr. Phillips.

54:01beautiful music together though oh yes uh great great i went to their concert a couple years ago it's great simon garfunkel did you yeah yeah they they they got the band back together oh my play it out at home bush it was it was really great yeah i saw sting play with i saw paul simon stay with play with sting oh not as a duet obviously but two two kind of the bit they did their own songs a bit of each other songs and a little bit together it was really really cool very would love to see simon a garfunkel big regret i never saw neil diamond live ah i wish i had seen him live but there you go uh a quick funny story back on the topic i think funny stories is michael before my question about eight years ago i decided i wanted to start investing i was in my mid-20s let me do the maths yes i hate you michael and knew next to nothing about the stock market so my completely novice brain thought quote, I should start with a blue chip stock, something that's safe and stable, something that's unlikely to go to zero during my lifetime, end quote.

54:58Now, being a listener of the podcast, I understand the word I was looking for was ETF. But back then, I settled on West Farmers because, quote, Coles will be around forever, right? End quote. Cut to the present day, and West Farmers is one of my best performing shares. But it has absolutely nothing to do with my original thesis. In fact, it seems to me that Coles was holding it back. It's a great example of how you shouldn't think you're a genius because you fell butt first into the right answer. Michael, you obviously have been listening because that pretty much describes Andrew and I. It goes on.

55:30So now I'm in a position where I'd like to do what I should have done at the start and purchase some ETFs as a stable backbone for my portfolio. But I'm a bit unsure which ones and how many to purchase. I could go with the Vanguard Australian Shares ETF or the Global ETF, NASDAQ, the asian tech tigers or anything else you might suggest what would be your top two or three to aim for thanks for all you do michael yeah mate on the spot two or three etfs go uh vas uh is that a company name or it's vanguard uh uh 200 is it or 300 300 yeah uh yeah can't go wrong with that It's on our podcast, Andrew Page.

56:15Can I help me out here? I own that one too, I think, in a super account somewhere. And NDQ for the NASDAQ 100, again, going back to an earlier question, I think that's a pretty good one. I actually, I mean, I haven't thought as, I haven't done the work really, but I would just say I would want it to be from, I think Vanguard's just a really good one because they run, they basically run it for the lowest profit and that's their competitive edge. and I think they're well aware of that. So they compete on fees and they've got the scale to effectively compete on fees. And I'm a big John Bogle fan as well who founded it all.

56:52So I think for me, I sort of bias towards that. So I think I would look to some of the Vanguard ones and just try and get the indices, the ETFs that track the broadest sort of indice and keep it vanilla. Forget about the hedging, forget about the equal weighting, forget about the sector specific stuff. just you know covers the asx 200 300 500 something like that same for the u.s market you know go go for and play some golf or do whatever else that makes you happy keep it simple um i just want to say though um uh i think a lot of us and i i am more guilty of this than anything is that we we all suffer from an inertia we we start off by doing things if the best of intentions and at the time feel as though makes an appropriate amount of sense.

57:43We invest our money and then later on through experience and learning just go, it wasn't the best move. But here I am. What can I do? And it's like, it's really dumb when you think about it, right? And he's like, well, I can press a few buttons and I can change that instantly. Like virtually instantly. And I say that knowing that if I really hand on heart, look at my portfolio, there is some stuff I really should put the bullet in and reallocate somewhere else. It's super hard to do. It's super hard to do. But I think it's just worth – it bears repeating to sort of say if – and I think all of us will find ourselves in that position at some point or another.

58:20Remember, this is – look, you know, this is one of the real advantages that shares has over property. I mean, it takes so long to sell property. It costs a fortune to do it. And even when you do it, you've got to wait six months to get – six weeks to get your money, you know, in most circumstances. On the share market, I can do it by the time my coffee's gone cold, right? So just remember that you can do that. And yes, some people will say, ah, but tax, but tax, but tax. That's true. But if you've got a long timeframe in front of you, then it's probably, you don't want to stay in a bad investment just to avoid a little bit of tax.

58:57And frankly, if it's a bad investment, you don't have any tax anyway. So, you know, don't ignore it, but don't overthink it. yes i think that's as long as you think about the tax i think that's right um etf choices i yeah i i've i've recommended to our members vanguard mate for the reasons you've suggested but one other really big one and well it's the same as actually your first point but i'll put it in a different context i hope to own my etfs the rest of my life which is a very long time and And even though the ETFs own roughly the same stocks, if I sell the ETF, I've got to pay capital gains tax on that.

59:37So if I've got to switch from the Vanguard ETF to a BlackRock ETF or an iShares ETF or an ETF Australia ETF, I'm going to have to pay tax on the gain I've made in the meantime. Now, at some point, that tax hopefully is very meaningful. But it also means that the cost of moving will be more than the cost of staying. So you say, well, OK, we'll stay then. that's true except if you if you're in the wrong etf you're paying higher fees for example another etf or you're in an etf provider you sort of end up not loving you end up with this devil's bargain of having to choose between two bad options and so the reason which is your initial point mate just putting in that context of long-term tax uh realities is if i gotta pay that if i gotta if i don't want to ever sell i want to start with the end in mind and i'm saying to myself which etf provider is likely to serve me best over the long term now i mean absolutely zero disrespect to any of the others completely and there's not a criticism of them at all but if i'm in a not-for-profit etf that's owned by the etf's own investors that maximizes the chance that we talk about alignment a lot that maximizes the chance that throughout my hopefully multi-decade holding period the interests of the unit holders i.e me are aligned with the interests of the people running the fund which is vanguard vanguard's not going to maximize profit the others are and i love profit right we invest in profit making businesses all the time i work for one you work for one um we're looking to maximize profit right andrew andrew can only afford his 15 lamborghinis because of the money the straw man makes from his members um that's how this works um but uh you know but that's it's important right it's important so i i honestly started with i if i had to if i had to place chips on long-term unit holder friendliness and maximizing that or minimizing the you know bezos talks about regret minimization framework right what am i going to regret am i going to regret if it ends up being a little bit more expensive over the next 40 years that would kind of be not cool but looking looking from this point forward minimizing regret i'm going with vanguard as my preferred provider because i want to own for those multi-decades i don't want to be you know if and let's let's pick a scenario where some other fund etf provider is the fee is double by then now i'm then okay well i'm now paying more fees but i don't want to sell because i've got to pay capital gains tax they've literally locked me in right because the capital gains tax is more than the fees so i stay but i'm still worse off than i had gone with a lower fee provider in the first place now there's also by the way last one last point there's no guarantee that the uh the vanguard fees will be lower because scale matters right even if you're for profit it may be the benefits of scale for the big guys overwhelm vanguard's ability so i'm not saying vanguard's going to have the lowest fees will always have the lowest fees but structurally i feel most comfortable i think i'll have least regret even if it doesn't work out well probabilistically i'd rather be with a big not-for-profit provider owned by its investors that's just the way i would choose to put my chips so for me it's absolutely vanguard um um to that point the blackrock i think a nasdaq utf is run by blackrock i think from memory um if i was going to own them for 40 years i do i do own vanguard um the asx 300 i own the vanguard global i think somewhere in my son's name i can't remember exactly i should know but i don't i also own the nasdaq one so so i'm talking about both sides of my mouth but if i had to choose even though we said earlier uh i think that's actually outperform the other after fees and over the long term would i go with that instead i'm not sure if i was going to buy two etfs I think I'd honestly just do the Vanguard Australian ASX 300 and the Vanguard Global and be done with it.

1:03:12And then if you want to add to there, by all means, go from there. Now, we said before, I think that's just going to outperform. So how do I say the same thing out of both sides of my mouth? Because if I'm talking about a super long-term holding period, then I kind of care more about the fund manager than I would if I was just asked outright, which one do I think has the best long-term investment outcomes? And that feels like I'm saying the same thing twice or different things, but about the same topic, it kind of is. But if I want to pass these ETF units to my kids and I want to minimize regret, I'm probably going Vanguard Global.

1:03:46Yep. Keep it simple. I mean, you know. Yep. The other thing I just, again, because that's what we do, repeat ourselves, is remember that, I mean, it's different if you're 63, but for anyone who's really below 35, 40 probably, the biggest swing factor is going to be the amount of money you save more than the return that you get. Now, that's not true. If you're going to invest in something, it's going to go to zero or potentially invest in something that's going to 10x your money. But all else, when you're starting getting to the point of which ETF am I going to choose, there's not going to be a massive gap between the very best and the very worst if you're sticking to the broad-based low-cost ones.

1:04:29Particularly ETFs, yeah. Really, you know? So I would say absolutely think about it. It's the right thing to think about, definitely. And Scott's made some excellent points. But moving the dial, in terms of break out a spreadsheet, you'll see what I'm talking about. The things that really move the dial is if you can save an extra 50 bucks a week and do that for 30 years, that's going to move the dial more than you can possibly imagine, right? That's so true. Can you live without a case of beer a week? I don't know, whatever dalliance you feel as though you can cut back a bit on. Gosh, what am I talking about?

1:05:01Inflation. $50 for a case of beer? I'm living in 1983. Anyway, you know what? You're not living in 1983. I used to sell, I worked in a grow shop when I was going through uni. And on special, you get a case of beer for$23. I still reckon$50. You know how you kind of anchor to stuff? Yeah. When a schooner of beer costs more than$4 and a case costs more than$25, I am still physically hurt paying that sort of money. I know inflation is a thing. I know they've gone up. I get it. Something's just sticking in your head. like that's how much a case of beer costs like yeah you say 50 i'm like that sounds reasonable like oh that's right they're not even 50 anymore i don't know it's yeah i was in the bottle shop the other day i was a four pack of uh craft beer was 30 bucks no yeah i'm like man i want to be mother's milk that stuff like that is yeah good news for me mate is i'm not cool enough to drink craft beer so i can i can actually still shop at the lower end of the price spectrum it's all relative but uh i'm not buying i'm not i think you'll find a case of uh or six pack of vb would be at least uh 20 25 i don't drink vb either let's let's let's yeah there's somewhere in between there what's a mystery okay all right well for listen to either who want a recommendation oh can i guess can i guess go on two is old well done how do you remember that yes i remember well i don't mind i don't mind the uh the darker beers but yes it's very good also i but an extra one for our South Australian listeners, Cooper's Dark Ale is very good.

1:06:28Oh, yes. So if you haven't tried Cooper's, you can't get it a lot of places in New South Wales. Maybe I'll get it probably everywhere in South Australia, but if you can try Cooper's Dark Ale, very good. Also, I'm a bit partial to Guinness, mate. Oh, yes. I do like it. I do like it. I like it a glass. Yes. We have gone way off tangent, which probably means it's time for us to call this to a halt, particularly as we're recording this on a Sunday morning. We're not drinking beers on Sunday morning. All of a sudden, I feel like a beer. Is it too early? Never. my old man just said sun's over the yardarm which I think means it's midday some will tell you five o 'clock but let's go to the pub alright on that note let the door slam and head off to drown our sorrows or otherwise thank you for listening thank you for spending a bit of time with us we hope you've enjoyed it if you got to the end of our beer recommendations I'd go actually what was your beer recommendation Rand give us this one see I like craft beer I like I like my Indian pale ales and the rest of it so can I There's a beer called Splicer.

1:07:24It's very... Bloody India Paila. Go on. Yeah, I like this. It's more flavor. It's almost like a fruity flavor. It's a very strong hop. So I like a hoppy beer. And it's called a Splicer. And I recommend it. No comment. I'm not sure I can come to that. Don't knock it to your tray. That's what I'm saying.

1:07:49I think I'll go on. What? No, that was it. With that, I reckon we're probably done. We are well. Thank you for being... Oh, really? Okay. I think we've got a really bad lag between... Until next week. Enjoy your beers and fool on. Bye. The Motley Fool and people appearing in this program may have positions in the companies mentioned. General 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 Licence 400691.