Sub Heading

Author: Provision Wealth

Is Australia’s economy “built on shaky foundations” that are “about to collapse”?

Date: Nov 23rd, 2017

I don’t normally comment directly on articles by others but an article by Matt Barrie with Craig Tindale called “Australia’s economy is built on shaky foundations, and it’s about to collapse,” has been sent to me several times for comment so I thought I would make an exception this time. 

The gist of the article seems to be that growth in the Australian economy has been built on “a property bubble inflating on top of a mining bubble, built on top of a commodities bubble, driven by a Chinese bubble” and that “Australia has relied on China for too long – our whole economy is built on China buying our stuff. And it’s about to collapse.”

This note takes a look at this risk.

Crash calls for the Australian economy are like a broken record

The first thing to note is that there is nothing really new in the latest call for a collapse in the Australian economy. In fact, for as long as I have been an economist there have been calls for the Australian economy to collapse. Back in 1985, I recall going to presentations on fears the economy might soon “default” and require a rescue by the IMF. The crash calls have accentuated post the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). The Australian economy was supposed to have crashed when the mining investment boom ended in 2012-13 and every year since then there has been an ad on the internet titled “Australian recession 2014: why it’s coming, what to do and how you can profit” but the year just keeps getting updated to the current year. I guess it will be right one day. 

Is China about to collapse?

China is Australia’s number one trading partner so Australia is more vulnerable to the Chinese economy than in the past. But warnings of a Chinese collapse have been around for years now and I continue to regard it as unlikely. The most common concerns about high and rising debt in China miss the reality that China’s high debt growth reflects its high saving rate (of around 46% of GDP compared to around 22% in Australia), which in turn gets largely channelled through the banking system as its capital markets remain underdeveloped. China does not rely on foreign capital (in fact it supplies savings to the rest of the world) and to slow its debt growth, it actually needs to save less and spend more (so very different to countries that normally have debt problems!) and broaden its capital market beyond the banks. But this will take time and the Chinese authorities will not act precipitously. And in the meantime, yes, there is a risk that some corporate loans will go bad but don’t forget much of the growth in debt has gone from state-owned banks to state-owned businesses and will be supported by the Government if there is too much trouble (just like the Chinese Government solved its local government debt problem of a few years ago).

But isn’t China at peak commodity demand?

Similarly, concerns about China’s property market and commodity demand are misplaced. The Chinese property cycle has regular ups and down as the property market is generally undersupplied but the Government periodically tries to keep a lid on prices. But every time there is a downturn in the property cycle (usually after Government moves to cool it down), out comes new crash stories. The “ghost cities” stories of a few years ago were evident of this but were literally just scary stories – they are part of an effort to decentralise away from crowded cities and the biggest “ghost city” (Ordos Kangbashi) is now almost full. The reality is that much of China continues to have a housing shortage as the population urbanises and many of the apartments built 20 years ago are now substandard and need to be replaced. So demand for steel and concrete from the property market is likely to remain strong for many years to come. Similarly, much of China remains under developed in terms of infrastructure. So yes, China is trying to wind back excess capacity in some sectors that have got ahead of themselves but peak raw material demand from China is a long way off. Yes, Chinese growth could slow towards 6% over the next few years but I doubt a hard landing any time soon. Certainly there was no sign of any hard landing in China when I visited it again in the last week – things were just as frantic as ever!

Australia has always had some export dependence

It’s worth noting that over the years Australia has always seemed to have some dependence on some foreign country in terms of export demand – the UK, Japan, it’s now China but as China’s industrialisation phase slows I suspect other countries will just jump into the commodity demand space (Vietnam, India, Pakistan) and in any case our relationship with China is also shifting across to services.

But the mining boom has long ended so why hasn’t the Australian economy collapsed already?

If Australia is so dependent on the commodity price boom and mining investment boom, why didn’t it crash when they crashed after 2011 and 2012-13 respectively? The simple answer is that the Australian economy is actually less dependent on mining and hence China than many commentators claim. In reality, mining activity is only 7% of Australian economic activity (or GDP) and agriculture is 3%, which taken together hardly suggests an excessive reliance on exports and China.

The mining boom basically meant that south east Australia – and sectors like manufacturing, tourism and higher education along with housing – was suppressed by high interest rates and the high Australian dollar. Once the commodity and mining investment booms went away and interest rates and the $A fell, south east Australia was able to bounce back offsetting the slump in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and parts of Queensland. So Victoria, NSW and even Tasmania were able to go from near recessionary conditions and at the bottom of state rankings a decade ago to now being at the top.   

More than housing

This has not just been driven by housing-related activity, smashed avocados and flat whites (how come Chai tea brewed with soy never gets a look in?) but also in services like tourism and higher education (our third biggest export earner), which are booming. Even manufacturing is looking better. In fact, for many Australians the China driven mining boom was more a curse than a blessing – the saying in Sydney was that the people of western Sydney were paying the price for the mining boom in Western Australia.

Housing construction is starting to slow causing many to wheel out the disaster scenarios again. But the contribution to economic growth from growth in housing construction is regularly exaggerated. Last year it contributed around 0.3% directly to growth and indirect effects are likely to have taken that contribution to around 0.6%. In other words its relatively modest and a housing construction slowdown should be easily offset as the drag on growth (of around 1-1.5% per annum) from slumping mining investment is nearly over, infrastructure spending is booming (partly on the back of the asset swap program), non-mining investment looks to be bottoming at last and export volume growth is strong.

What about a house price crash?

Yes, there is a risk of a house price collapse but it’s a lot more complicated than most people think as pointed out in my last house price note . Basically: we have not built enough housing to keep up with strong population growth since mid-last decade (see the next chart); the boom lately has been confined to Sydney and Melbourne (which were more harmed than helped by the mining/China-related boom); and the deterioration in lending standards has been modest with, for example, little in the way of the NINJA (no income, no jobs, no assets) loans that caused so much trouble in the US. 

Source: ABS; AMP Capital

Sydney and Melbourne home prices are likely to fall by 5-10% (like in 2008 and 2011-12) but a crash is unlikely unless unemployment goes up a lot (unlikely), the RBA raises rates aggressively (again unlikely) or the current unit supply surge continues for several more years (again unlikely with approvals off their peak). 

More than “dumb luck” in Australia’s 26-year expansion

While luck has played a role in Australia’s 26 years of economic expansion, it’s worth noting that the China-related boom only really ran for eight or nine years of it (from 2004-2012), and a significant contribution came from the economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s that made the Australian economy more flexible in responding to shocks. Also, sensible economic policy meant that we managed the China boom well (by avoiding an overheating economy and running budget surpluses), which meant we were better placed to ride out the global shock from the GFC and the subsequent end to the commodity and mining investment booms.

26 years of economic expansion has left the Australian economy with lots to show for it: the economy is 129% bigger in real terms than it was when the 1990-91 recession ended, per capita GDP is up 61%, unemployment is less than half its early 1990s high and our dependence on foreign capital as measured by the current account deficit relative to GDP is about one third smaller than it was 26 years ago. Sure we can do better – underemployment, weak wages growth and poor housing affordability are serious problems and we seem to have given up on serious economic reform – but the economy is in better shape than some give it credit for.

Australia versus the world

Finally, I should note that while we are not in the crash camp for Australia, we remain of the view that it will be a while before interest rates can rise and that Australian economic and profit growth will be subpar compared to other countries for a while yet. As a result, we remain of the view that while Australian shares have more upside they are likely to remain relative underperformers versus global shares for some time yet and that the Australian dollar still has more downside. This is really just a continuation of the “mean reversion” of the huge outperformance in Australian shares versus global shares and in the Australian dollar seen last decade. 


Source: AMP Capital 22 November 2017

Author: Dr Shane Oliver, Head of Investment Strategy and Economics and Chief Economist at AMP Capital is responsible for AMP Capital’s diversified investment funds. He also provides economic forecasts and analysis of key variables and issues affecting, or likely to affect, all asset markets.

Important note: While every care has been taken in the preparation of this article, AMP Capital Investors Limited (ABN 59 001 777 591, AFSL 232497) and AMP Capital Funds Management Limited (ABN 15 159 557 721, AFSL 426455) makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of any statement in it including, without limitation, any forecasts. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. This article has been prepared for the purpose of providing general information, without taking account of any particular investor’s objectives, financial situation or needs. An investor should, before making any investment decisions, consider the appropriateness of the information in this article, and seek professional advice, having regard to the investor’s objectives, financial situation and needs. This article is solely for the use of the party to whom it is provided.

Bubbles, busts, investor psychology…and bitcoin

Date: Nov 22nd, 2017


The surge in bitcoin has attracted much interest. Over the last five years, it has soared from $US12 to over $US8000; this year it’s up 760%. Its enthusiasts see it as the currency of the future and increasingly as a way to instant riches with rapid price gains only reinforcing this view. An alternative view is that it is just another in a long string of bubbles in investment markets.

Nobel Economics Laureates Daniel Kahneman, Robert Shiller and Richard Thaler and many others shown that investors and hence investment markets can be far from rational and this along with crowd psychology can drive asset prices far from fundamentally justified levels. This note provides a refresher on the psychology of investing before returning to look at bitcoin.

Irrational man and the madness of crowds

Numerous studies show people suffer from lapses of logic. In particular, they:

  • Tend to down-play uncertainty and project the current state of the world into the future – eg, resulting in a tendency to assume recent investment returns will continue;

  • Give more weight to recent spectacular or personal experiences in assessing probabilities. This results in an emotional involvement with an investment – if it’s been winning, an investor is likely to expect it to keep doing so;

  • Tend to focus on occurrences that draw attention to themselves such as stocks or asset classes that have risen sharply or fallen sharply in value;

  • Tend to see things as obvious in hindsight – driving the illusion the world is predictable resulting in overconfidence;

  • Tend to be overly conservative in adjusting expectations to new information – explaining why bubbles and crashes normally unfold over long periods; and

  • Tend to ignore information conflicting with past decisions.

This is magnified and reinforced if many make the same lapses of logic at the same time giving rise to “crowd psychology”. Collective behaviour can arise if several things are present:

  • A means where behaviour can be contagious – mass communication with the proliferation of electronic media are perfect examples of this as more than ever investors get their information from the same sources;

  • Pressure for conformity – interaction with friends, social media, performance comparisons, fear of missing out, etc;

  • A precipitating event or displacement which motivates a general investment belief – the IT revolution of the late 1990s or the rapid industrialisation of China which led to talk of new eras are examples upon which were built general believes that particular investments will only go up.

Bubbles and busts

The combination of lapses of logic by individuals and their magnification by crowds goes a long way to explaining why speculative surges in asset prices develop (usually after some good news) and how they feed on themselves (as individuals project recent price gains into the future, exercise “wishful thinking” and receive positive feedback via the media). Of course this also explains how the whole process can go into reverse once buying is exhausted, often triggered by bad news.

The chart below shows how investor psychology develops through a market cycle. When times are good, investors move from optimism to excitement, and eventually euphoria as an asset’s price moves higher and higher. So by the time the market tops out, investors are maximum bullish and fully invested, often with no one left to buy. This ultimately sets the scene for a bit of bad news to push prices lower. As selling intensifies and prices fall further, investor emotion goes from anxiety to fear and eventually depression. By the time the market bottoms out, investors are maximum bearish and out of the market. This sets the scene for the market to start rising as it only requires a bit of good news to bring back buying.

The roller coaster of investor emotion

Source: Russell Investments, AMP Capital

This pattern has been repeated over the years. Recent examples on a globally-significant basis have been the Japanese bubble and bust of 1980s/early 1990s, the “Asian miracle” boom and bust of the 1990s, the tech boom and bust of the late 1990s/early 2000s, the US housing and credit-related boom and bust of last decade and the commodity boom and bust of late last decade into this decade. History may not repeat but rhymes and tells us asset price bubbles & busts are normal.

Where are we now?

Our assessment in terms of global share markets is that we are still around “optimism”. Investor sentiment is well up from its lows last year and some short-term measures are a bit high, warning of a correction (particularly for the direction-setting US share market) but we are not seeing the “euphoria” seen at market tops. The proportion of Australians nominating shares as the “wisest place for savings” remains very low at 8.9%.

But what about bitcoin? Is it a bubble?

Crypto currencies led by bitcoin and their blockchain technology seem to hold much promise. The blockchain basically means that transactions are verified and recorded in a public ledger (which is the blockchain) by a network of nodes (or databases) on the internet. Because each node stores its own copy, there is no need for a trusted central authority. Bitcoin is also anonymous with funds just tied to bitcoin addresses. Designed to work as a currency, bitcoin therefore has much to offer as a low-cost medium of exchange with international currency transfers costing a fraction of what, say, a bank may charge.

However, bitcoin’s price in US dollars has risen exponentially in value in recent times as the enthusiasm about its replacement for paper currency and many other things has seen investors pile in with rapid price gains and increasing media attention reinforcing perceptions that it’s a way to instant riches.

However, there are serious grounds for caution. First, because bitcoin produces no income and so has no yield, it’s impossible to value and unlike gold you can’t even touch it. This could mean that it could go to $100,000 but may only be worth $100.

Second, while the supply of bitcoins is limited to 21 million by around 2140, lots of competition is popping up in the form of other crypto currencies. In fact, there is now over 1000 of them. A rising supply of such currencies will push their price down.

Third, governments are unlikely to give up their monopoly on legal tender (because of the “seigniorage” or profit it yields) and ordinary members of the public may not fully embrace crypto currencies unless they have government backing. In fact, many governments and central banks are already looking at establishing their own crypto currencies.

Regulators are likely to crack down on it over time given its use for money laundering and unregulated money raising. China has moved quickly on this front. Monetary authorities are also likely to be wary of the potential for monetary and financial instability that lots of alternative currencies pose.

Fourth, while bitcoin may perform well as a medium of exchange it does not perform well as a store of value, which is another criteria for money. It has had numerous large 20% plus setbacks in value (five this year!) meaning huge loses if someone transfers funds into bitcoin for a transaction – say to buy a house or a foreign investment – but it collapses in value before the transaction completes.

Finally, and related to this, it has all the hallmarks of a classic bubble as described earlier in this note. In short, a positive fundamental development (or “displacement”) in terms of a high tech replacement for paper currency, self-reinforcing price gains that are being accentuated by social media excitement, all convincing enthusiasts that the only way is up. Its price now looks very bubbly, particularly compared to past asset bubbles (see the next chart – note bitcoin has to have its own axis!).

Because bitcoin is impossible to value, it could keep going up for a long way yet as more gullible investors are sucked in on the belief that they are on the way to unlimited riches and those who don’t believe them just “don’t get it” (just like a previous generation said to “dot com” sceptics). Maybe it’s just something each new generation of young investors has to go through – based on a thought that there is some way to instant riches and that their parents are just too square to believe it.

Source: Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg, AMP Capital

But the more it goes up, the greater the risk of a crash. I also still struggle to fully understand how it works and one big lesson from the Global Financial Crisis is that if you don’t fully understand something, you shouldn’t invest.

At this stage, a crash in bitcoin is a long way from being able to crash the economy because unlike previous manias (Japan, Asian bubble, Nasdaq, US housing in the chart above) it does not have major linkages to the economy (eg it’s not associated with overinvestment in the economy like in tech or US housing, it is not used enough to threaten the global financial system and not enough people are exposed to it such that a bust will have major negative wealth effects or losses for banks).

However, the risks would grow if more and more “investors” are sucked in – with banks ending up with a heavy exposure if, say, heavy gearing was involved. At this stage, I think it’s unlikely that will occur for the simple reason that being just an alternative currency and means of payment won’t inspire the same level of enthusiasm that, say, tech stocks did in the late 1990s (where there was a real revolution going on).

That said, it’s dangerous to say it can’t happen. There was very little underpinning the Dutch tulip mania and it went for longer than many thought. So it’s worth keeping an eye on. But as an investor I’m staying away from bitcoin.

What does this mean for investors?

There are several implications for investors.

  1. The first thing investors need to do is recognise that investment markets are not only driven by fundamentals, but also by the often-irrational and erratic behaviour of an unstable crowd of other investors.

  2. Investors need to recognise their own emotional capabilities. In other words, investors must be aware of how they are influenced by lapses in their own logic and crowd influences.

  3. To help guard against this, investors ought to choose an investment strategy which can withstand inevitable crises & remain consistent with their objectives and risk tolerance.

  4. If an investor is tempted to trade they should do so on a contrarian basis. Buy when the crowd is bearish, sell when it is bullish. But also recognise contrarian investing is not fool-proof – just because the crowd looks irrationally bullish (or bearish) doesn’t mean it can’t get more so.

  5. Finally, while crypto currencies and blockchain technology may have a lot to offer bitcoin’s price is very bubbly.

Source: AMP Capital 21 November 2017

Author: Dr Shane Oliver, Head of Investment Strategy and Economics and Chief Economist at AMP Capital is responsible for AMP Capital’s diversified investment funds. He also provides economic forecasts and analysis of key variables and issues affecting, or likely to affect, all asset markets.

Important note: While every care has been taken in the preparation of this article, AMP Capital Investors Limited (ABN 59 001 777 591, AFSL 232497) and AMP Capital Funds Management Limited (ABN 15 159 557 721, AFSL 426455) makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of any statement in it including, without limitation, any forecasts. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. This article has been prepared for the purpose of providing general information, without taking account of any particular investor’s objectives, financial situation or needs. An investor should, before making any investment decisions, consider the appropriateness of the information in this article, and seek professional advice, having regard to the investor’s objectives, financial situation and needs. This article is solely for the use of the party to whom it is provided.

4 steps to help protect portfolios against political risk

Date: Nov 14th, 2017

When Australia’s High Court ruled deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce ineligible to sit in Parliament because of his dual New Zealand citizenship, the decision briefly sent tremors through equity and currency markets. It was a clear reminder that political risk matters to markets.

We face troubling political and geopolitical risk across the world: Trump, Brexit and, above all, the risk of nuclear confrontation with North Korea. Yet some investors, used to QE-fuelled rises, have simply forgotten about political risk and are maintaining highly concentrated portfolios, which exposes them to the fallout from political shocks.

To protect against heightened risk to portfolios, advisers and investors need to begin assessing political risk objectively from a multi-dimensional perspective. This involves four key steps. If they can grasp those steps, they will not only get better portfolio protection, but also gain a broader insight into the field of managing risk and uncertainty as investors.

1.    Put some odds on it

The first step is to put some probability on the risk of the event happening. As we headed towards Britain’s referendum on whether to remain in, or leave, the European Union, we believed the probability was 50/50: there was a 50 per cent chance a leave vote would win; and a 50 per cent chance Britain would stay in the EU. But the market was pricing in a much higher probability of Britain remaining – 80 per cent. Financial markets were pricing in the prevailing view in London and ignoring the rest of the country. The market, therefore, hadn’t priced in the risk of Brexit, especially in the pound. We took advantage of that gap and took a short position in the pound as a hedge.

2.    Assess likely impact

The second step is to determine the impact of the political event. If the impact is likely to be extremely high, then it may make sense to move to help protect your portfolio. A North Korean nuclear attack might be unlikely, but the impact would obviously be horrific.

But sometimes the market overstates the possible impact of a political event. The market frets about a Donald Trump impeachment or US political risk. But we believe the impact of an impeachment and political paralysis is relatively low.

The impact might be high in the short term, but not in the long run. For the first time in eight years we have the Republicans in control of both the Senate and the House and they are motivated to get a fiscal package announced before the mid-term election in 2018. So, it’s a risk we’re aware of but we’re not doing anything about it.

3.    Ask how much of that bad scenario is priced into the market.

The third step is to analyse how much the political risk is priced into the market. Broadly, if everyone is talking about a political risk, it’s usually priced in and it’s too late for us to do anything.

But other various measures provide guidance, including volatility and sentiment measures. Low volatility and crowded positions usually mean investors are not pricing in risk. Conversely, if investors are avoiding or have sold out of a position, volatility is high, valuations are cheap, and everyone is talking about it, then political risk is likely priced in.

Sentiment measures help gauge investor enthusiasm. If everyone is enthused about the downside, then bad news is priced in. If everyone is enthused about the upside, then risk is usually not priced in. Valuations measures such as price-to-earnings and price-to-book ratios for equities, and real effective exchange rates for currencies, are also useful.

4.    Construct a portfolio that accounts for risk

The final step is to construct your portfolio to account for the risk. That may involve using put options, shorting an asset class, or using currencies to hedge.

If we look again at North Korea, our previous steps have told us that the probability of an attack is low. That’s similar to what the broader market believes. But the impact if it did happen would be devastating, so we want some protection in the form of a ‘tail hedge’. (A tail hedge helps protect against extreme market event scenarios that are unlikely to happen, but have a very high impact.)

What is an asset class that would benefit in the unlikely event of a North Korean attack? Gold. Because the probability of an attack is low, we have a small 3 per cent allocation to gold. But if North Korea attacked, the impact would be so huge that the small allocation to gold is likely to multiply upwards of 300 per cent.

Currencies are another great lever for managing political risk. Italians go to the polls to elect a new government by May 20 next year. There is a risk, albeit relatively low, that Eurosceptic parties will do well, triggering fresh talk of a breakdown of Europe. But we don’t believe that risk is priced into the euro, which warrants a short position.

Less fearful investment

The recent events surrounding Barnaby Joyce’s eligibility, as well as the history of markets shows that political risk surrounds us, and that political events can rock markets and severely damage portfolios. Yet when political risks hit markets, investors are often caught by surprise. They then panic, as they did back in 2008, and often sell at exactly the wrong time.

I well remember back in October 2008 when the House of Representatives rejected a $700 billion financial rescue package, triggering one of the biggest stock sell-offs in history. The market had been expecting the bill to pass.

By firstly being aware of political risks, then objectively assessing those risks, investors can remove that emotional element and better prepare their portfolios to weather those risks. Not only is their portfolio potentially going to benefit, but their fears around investment performance and volatility will also ease.

Source : AMP Capital 8 November 2017 

About the Author 

Nader Naeimi has more than 19 years of experience in Australia’s financial markets, including 16 years at AMP Capital. As the Head of Dynamic Markets, he is responsible for leading the Dynamic Asset Allocation strategy for the Multi-Asset Group, as well as other macro strategies and asset allocations for several AMP Capital funds.

While every care has been taken in the preparation of this document, AMP Capital makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any statement in it including without limitation, any forecasts. This document has been prepared for the purpose of providing general information, without taking account of any particular investor’s objectives, financial situation or needs. Investors and their advisers should, before making any investment decisions, consider the appropriateness of the information in this document, and seek professional advice, having regard to the investor’s objectives, financial situation and needs.

Downsizing is not always the answer

Date: Nov 13th, 2017

If you’re pinning your financial hopes on the ability to downsize your home in retirement, you may need to think twice.

Many Australians don’t have enough in super to fund a quality retirement, but if you’re pinning your hopes on the value of the family home, it could pay to think again. Downsizing to a smaller place may not be a quick-fix solution for having insufficient super savings.

I’ve come across research showing one in three people think they’ll sell the family home – often their largest asset, to see them through their later years.

Downsizing is good in theory, and under new rules announced in the Federal Budget, from 1 July 2018 home owners aged 65 and over will be able to contribute up to $300,000 to super from the proceeds of selling their home.

This sort of contribution won’t count towards the before-tax or after-tax super contribution limits. The key test is that you must have owned your home for the past ten or more years.

Despite this new initiative, downsizing is not always the answer.

Firstly, do you really want to find yourself at retirement with no option but to sell a home you’re perfectly happy living in?

And after you’ve sold and put aside some proceeds into super or whatever investment you choose, you could be faced with taking a substantial downgrade in the type of housing or location you can afford.

A study by National Seniors Australia found that while the idea of downsizing can appeal to retirees, many still want to live close to transport and amenities, have a small garden and the opportunity to own a pet. There may not be many such options available, and the same research found that even if seniors can find an affordable alternative, the personal and financial ramifications of downsizingcan be a significant deterrent.

Many respondents to the survey said they didn’t know where to begin, that the process was too confusing, and that it simply wasn’t worth the cost and upheaval of downsizing.

Add to this the potential for baby boomers to still have adult kids living at home, and it’s easy to understand why many are staying in their bigger homes longer than they planned to.

This highlights how, while it works for some, downsizing your home can be an unreliable strategy for retirement funding.

If you’re pinning your financial hopes on downsizing, be sure to plan early – certainly in pre-retirement. Take a look at the market to see what properties appeal to you, check out the pricing, and be realistic about what your house might sell for.

For those of us still in the workforce, a strategy of steadily adding to your super may be more of a sure-thing to pay for a decent retirement. It could also be the clincher that lets you enjoy your family home for longer.

If you seek further assistance or information please contact us on |PHONE|

 Source: AMP 2 November 2017 

Paul Clitheroe is a founding director of financial planning firm ipac, Chairman of the Australian Government Financial Literacy Board and chief commentator for Money Magazine.

This article provides general information and hasn’t taken your circumstances into account. It’s important to consider your particular circumstances before deciding what’s right for you. Although the information is from sources considered reliable, we do not guarantee that it is accurate or complete. You should not rely upon it and should seek qualified advice before making any investment decision. Except where liability under any statute cannot be excluded, we do not accept any liability (whether under contract, tort or otherwise) for any resulting loss or damage of the reader or any other person.

Provision Insights

Subscribe to our Quarterly e-newsletter and receive information, news and tips to help you secure your harvest.

Newsletter Powered By :