[AMA] Hi Ozb - I'm a Private Wealth Advisor

LSplice89 on 06/02/2025 - 15:16

Hey OzB,

I'm an experienced Private Wealth Financial Advisor, and I’ve spent over a decade helping professionals, business owners, and high-net-worth individuals navigate the complexities of personal finance and wealth management. Whether it’s retirement planning, investment strategies, tax efficiency, intergenerational and legacy planning I’ve seen and handled it all.
Given the ever-evolving financial landscape and the unique challenges it presents, I thought it would be great to host an AMA. I'm here to answer your questions about:

  • Investment strategies – How to build and grow wealth effectively
  • Retirement planning – Making sure you're on track for financial independence
  • Market trends & economic shifts – What they mean for your portfolio
  • Risk management & insurance – Protecting your wealth and family
  • Estate & legacy planning – Ensuring a smooth wealth transfer
  • Financial planning for business owners & executives – Maximizing opportunities
  • Debt management & tax-efficient strategies – Keeping more of what you earn

A bit about me: I spent the first deceade of my career as a Private Wealth Advisor in Australia’s largest Private Banks and now run recently running my own business, focusing on helping clients make confident, informed financial decisions without the fees associated with the Private Bank offering.

Disclaimer: While I’m here to provide general financial insights and information, this does not constitute personal financial advice. Every situation is unique, and I recommend consulting a financial professional for specific guidance.

So, OzB, what do you want to know about financial planning and wealth management? Ask me anything!

Introduce Yourself

closed Comments

  • altomic on 06/02/2025 - 15:19
    +9

    What is your net worth?

      • ihbh on 06/02/2025 - 15:27
        +6

        Net worth without age is not very meaningful.

        • MS Paint on 06/02/2025 - 15:29
          +16

          36 is my guess

          • ihbh on 06/02/2025 - 15:30
            +31

            @MS Paint: Either that, or 88 other people took the splice username before him.

          • Splice89 on 06/02/2025 - 15:32
            -2

            @MS Paint: roughly :)

              • eug on 06/02/2025 - 18:24
                +32

                @montorola: Well you can ask anything, but he doesn't have to answer everything. :)

              • R-Man on 06/02/2025 - 20:04

                @montorola: Id say they disclosed their age before even posting the AMA

              • niggardly on 08/02/2025 - 09:37
                -1

                @montorola: Wjere is the question asking for age? I cant find it.

        • niggardly on 08/02/2025 - 09:35

          The question didnt ask for age. This how AMAs work (just answer the question).

      • JIMB0 on 06/02/2025 - 19:36
        +4

        Why such a low super balance and no other assets besides a ppor?

        • onceupon8 on 07/02/2025 - 09:42
          +11

          Because your PPOR is one of the best investment opportunities - property appreciates so much in Australia, and the capital growth is tax free.

          It is similar to super but without the age restrictions to get it out. Advantage over super: you can easily leverage at low rates (home loan rates). Disadvantage over super: you don't get the tax deduction on the way in on your contributions. But as you are limited to $30k per year concessional contributions, if you are already contributing that much (or if your income is over $250k which lowers your tax saving due to Div 293), your PPOR is a better investment.

          • whyisave on 07/02/2025 - 20:40

            @onceupon8: You gave such concise and useful information, you need to do an AMA too ;-)

          • Splice89 on 07/02/2025 - 22:35
            +1

            @onceupon8: The balance of accessing super and tax rates without pensions concessions generally at present makes.sense to go heavy in your PPR. Your points are all very valid

          • TooSerious2 on 09/02/2025 - 16:27
            +2

            @onceupon8: Which might be a big part of the reason we're in a housing crisis

          • ihbh on 14/02/2025 - 13:20

            @onceupon8:

            property appreciates so much in Australia

            Before you treat this as Gospel, have a look at Japan from the 90s and China in the last couple of years.

      • ChickenAdobo on 09/02/2025 - 15:45
        +1

        You are doing well for 1989. Im guessing no kids?

        • Splice89 on 10/02/2025 - 09:15

          2 kids

          • ChickenAdobo on 10/02/2025 - 11:41
            +1

            @Splice89: Even better. Congratulations you are doing well than the majority of Australians.

    • tessel on 09/02/2025 - 13:10

      Asking the important questions.

  • AustriaBargain on 06/02/2025 - 15:20
    +4

    Are investment properties necessary to grow wealth the most? Why shouldn't we be buying Australian company shares instead, or even shares like Apple or whatever Buffet favours these days. And is there a chance that the ALP will follow through and build "too many" houses and curbing migration to match and pop the housing investment bubble forever (outside of inner Sydney at least)?

    • Splice89 on 06/02/2025 - 15:25
      +9

      Great question and a common one I receive from clients. I truly believe property should be considered as part of an overall investment strategy but not solely relied upon. Firstly you PPR (Principal Place of Residence) is tax-free which is incredibly beneficial long term, investment properties can obtain the benefit of negative gearing, however, the appeal is reducing at present (particularly here in Melbourne) due to ongoing costs (i.e Land Tax etc). Majority of my clients would have 1 or 2 Investment Properties but they have been selling in the past 3-4 years due to the reasons I outlined above. The final thing around property is it is illiquid and comes with high transaction fees (agent costs, maintenance etc) which you don't get from an Investment Portfolio. As for Political changes you mention, I can't foresee what will happen but housing is a political football and therefore maybe another reason as to why you shouldn't rely on it solely.

      • AustriaBargain on 06/02/2025 - 15:31
        +4

        If I came to you and said I'm a young guy in my 30s, I just inherited 500k, I already own the home I want to live in for the next few decades, should I buy an investment property or Apple shares if I want the most spending money by the time I'm 60, which would you recommend? Buying 500k in shares or using the money to borrow to buy a 1.2 million dollar investment property or whatever. Maybe the housing market is more predictable, but which of the two will probably make a lot more money over the next 30 years? Buffet says he bought his house for a song many decades ago and it's worth millions now, but he would have made more if he bought stocks and bonds instead.

        • Splice89 on 06/02/2025 - 15:36
          +1

          Congrats on owning your own home. I would suggest building a multiple asset class portfolio that is well positioned given your age and timeframe ahead. This would be in Australian Equities, International Equities, Property (liquid), Private Assets (Hedge Funds, Private Equity, Infrastructure etc). Your ability to benefit from compounding returns given your age, if modelled up, will be significant. Compounding returns after all are the 8th wonder of the world (Einstein). I wouldn't just put it into Apple shares, absolutely not. An Investment Property could make sense but once again, you are just invested in one asset class in one jurisdiction which isn't our preference.

      • AustriaBargain on 06/02/2025 - 18:25
        +2

        Seems like red tape is being cut. Keep reading about local homeowners complaining about apartments being built near them that are are made up majority apartments rent controlled for low income people. That has to put downward pressure on houses when there's 100 households who now aren't competing for rent in those nearby houses. And it's to like the PM has his finger on the migration knob and is like "data says there's 100 extra apartments now, better let in 100 more migrants to fill that new gap in the rental market". Or maybe that's how politicians do work, feels like it at the moment.

        • 1st-Amendment on 06/02/2025 - 22:44
          +5

          That has to put downward pressure on houses when there's 100 households who now aren't competing for rent in those nearby houses.

          Problem is that for every 100 apartments being built, they're letting in a 1000 more people. Pressure on prices will continue to go up until one of those two things change drastically, Adding 10% more apartments or cutting immigration by 10% simply won't cut it.

          • Antikythera on 08/02/2025 - 01:50
            +1

            @1st-Amendment:

            for every 100 apartments being built, they're letting in a 1000 more people.

            you mean you don't think people want to live 10 people to an apartment?

        • greatlamp on 10/02/2025 - 10:38

          Unfortunately the reality is far worse. The immigration knob fell off and is under the sink somewhere.

          We have around 400,000 students in this country and another 400,000 migrants on a student visa - who would be eligible for citizenship when they finish their studies.

          In addition there are a couple hundred thousand migration visas every year.

          When immigration is higher than your own population growth rate how can infrastructure ever be sufficient? This guarantees wage suppression and house price growth will continue.

          This is under the ALP, the liberal party is going to find ways to prop up the housing market even further, allowing superannuation to be used to purchase housing, encouraging hedge funds to build and own rental properties.

          Why don't they care? Simple. The wealthy are getting wealthier, it literally isn't a problem for them or the media or their corporate partners.

          To them, there have always been poor people, they are like seagulls, they just ignore them and move on.

      • Butterchurner on 07/02/2025 - 13:52
        +9

        "There is zero chance of that… they are one of the most incompetent governments in living memory."

        Imagine thinking that after witnessing the last LNP government. Perhaps you need to rephrase to 'I don't like the things they followed through on' or 'I don't agree with taxing the upper class more'.

          • whyisave on 07/02/2025 - 22:18
            +4

            @1st-Amendment:

            Yeah like wasting an entire year and hundreds of millions of dollars on a referendum whose only result was to divide the country.

            That referendum was in the pipeline, until the "right" person/party was in power, and then the lobby groups started to make preparations for the referendum, because I don't think the Liberal party would have allowed that, when they were in majority power before.

            Besides, the referendum was just to enshrine a specific pro-indigenous-aligned lobby group into the constitution, ie. it was not something blanket for indigenous people, but only a group that would advocate for them, that was to be part of the country's constitution.

            Basically, if that had gone through, then all the mining companies or developers that need to negotiate or compensate all of the various tribes for access to minerals, mines, land (under native title)…could just be done through 1 lobby group.

            I don't know if that was the plan, but it felt the indigenous group were not getting a treaty (like in NZ), and better questions could have been asked, instead of just 1 question,….if there was so much money that was going to be spent behind a referendum.

            • 1st-Amendment on 08/02/2025 - 09:16
              -1

              @whyisave:

              That referendum was in the pipeline, until the "right" person/party was in power,

              Whatever the back story, it was still a terrible decision made by the weakest PM in living memory.
              Because decisions are judged on outcomes, and this decision cost a lot and achieved nothing. It actually achieved less than nothing because the only outcome of the exercise was a more divided country. A negative outcome. Imagine what else could've been achieved in that year that could've made the country more productive instead.

              I can't think of anything any other PM has done that was more destructive to the country than that. Happy to hear nominations…

              • Hardlyworkin on 08/02/2025 - 09:46
                +2

                @1st-Amendment: Albanese might be weak though he has a strong and competent front bench. The last government and the current coalition have not much to offer.

                • 1st-Amendment on 08/02/2025 - 10:01
                  -8

                  @Hardlyworkin:

                  Albanese might be weak though he has a strong and competent front bench

                  Lol such as? Name some names and let's see…

                  The last government and the current coalition have not much to offer.

                  The part you failed to do was provide something specific to compare. Just like the last poster 'I don't like the LNP' is not an argument. Name me some policy decisions you think are worse than the things I mentioned above and we'll see who did worse.

                  • nigel deborah on 10/02/2025 - 07:03
                    +3

                    @1st-Amendment: Something I've seen first hand is the change from pro-consulting in the LNP to anti-consulting with Labor, in the public service. Huge amounts of money have been saved with most consulting spends dropping 30-60 percent. The scandal sped things up but it was going to happen regardless.

                    The minister also sets clear department KPIs and measures performance against them, unlike his LNP counterpart. They certainly appear much better at managing the APS.

                    • 1st-Amendment on 11/02/2025 - 16:29

                      @nigel deborah:

                      Huge amounts of money have been saved

                      How much exactly? Please proved details so we can evaluate. Was it more or less than the hundreds of millions spent of a referendum that achieved nothing?
                      Because until you have figure how do you know?

                      with most consulting spends dropping 30-60 percent

                      But what is the loss of value? That is the important part which you and the Labor government always fail to grasp.
                      Spending $1 to make $2 dollars is a much better ROI than spending 50 cents to make 20 cents. But the economic illiterati always only see the $1 spend and cry about it.

                      The minister

                      Which one?

                      also sets clear department KPIs

                      You say this like you just learned a new word. You know that KPIs have been a thing for decades. Just because you've just learned what they are just now doesn't mean it's new for everyone else.

                      • nigel deborah on 11/02/2025 - 16:48
                        +3

                        @1st-Amendment: APS consultant spend was down $624 million in 23-24 versus the same period the prior year.

                        They have set a target of another $527 million in savings for 24-25.

                        So yes, a lot more than what was spent on the referendum.

                        • Rick Sanchez on 12/02/2025 - 12:23
                          +1

                          @nigel deborah: Notice how he doesn't reply to this

                        • 1st-Amendment on 12/02/2025 - 14:08
                          +1

                          @nigel deborah:

                          So yes, a lot more than what was spent on the referendum.

                          You forgot to answer the question about value. The silence is deafening.

                          • nigel deborah on 12/02/2025 - 16:11

                            @1st-Amendment: Anyone who has spent 5 minutes in government can tell you consultants are not good value for money in 95% of cases. They're used to shed risk or out of convenience a majority of the time. The cases where it really is for world-class expertise that cannot be recruited for, it's still going on as those services are irreplacable most of the time.

                            It is fairly hard to back that up with data though as you'd need to look into the service delivery of specific APS business units versus their consultancy spend, way more effort than I am willing to go to given you're evidently not interested in changing your mind.

                            • 1st-Amendment on 12/02/2025 - 18:25
                              +1

                              @nigel deborah:

                              Anyone who has spent 5 minutes in government can tell you

                              I've spent longer than that and can tell you that public servants are much worse value. Back to the analogy, a $1 spend that returns $2 is better value than 50c spend that returns 20cents.

                              It is fairly hard to back that up with data though

                              So how can you make the assertion then?
                              At some point you must have seen some hard data to support your position, otherwise you just made it up because it felt right. Feelings are not a great method for success.

                              you're evidently

                              What evidence?

                              not interested in changing your mind.

                              My positions are evidence based, I'm yet to see some that show that a lowly paid lowly skilled public servant offers better value than a profit driven private sector business that has to compete in a free market to survive.
                              It could be that public servants actually do deliver better value than private sector but all the evidence says otherwise. The funny part is that you could get more value out of public servants if you offered higher salaries to attract better talent, but you'd also have to allow poor performers to be fired, and the Unions would never allow it.

                              Here's a test you can do at home. Take a look around you at all the 'nice' things you see, How many of those were produced by public servants?

                              • nigel deborah on 12/02/2025 - 21:44

                                @1st-Amendment: Even if what you say about public servants competency is true, it's public servants that write contracts and select consultants, so they'd do an equally bad job at that. All consultants do is provide advice to the APS, for the APS to then act on or implement. What you are referring to when you tell me to 'look around my house' is OEMs, designers, manufacturers, nothing to do with large consultancy firms.

                                Consultant's capitalist/financial motivations do not align with the goals of government, and this is why they tend to be terrible value. If you bring a consultant in to redesign your organisation, are they better off if they do a great job and it works as intended for 30 years, or if they do a shit, temporary job that relies on their expertise and has them back in 3 years on another contract? The latter - the best for them but a worse outcome for government.

                                It's hard as in time consuming, the data is there for anyone who wants to spend their time looking into it. But, I don't use specialist equipment to measure the colour of the sky - it is plainly blue - and the same applies here, it is so widely recognised that consultants are bad value that spending the time to prove it would be pointless. Besides, you'd just put your nose up at any information provided - you conveniently ignored the evidence I provided above that directly contradicted your initial claims about savings on consultancy spend and just switched tack to a new and equally pointless rant.

                                • 1st-Amendment on 13/02/2025 - 12:07
                                  -1

                                  @nigel deborah:

                                  Even if what you say about public servants competency is true, it's public servants that write contracts and select consultants, so they'd do an equally bad job at that.

                                  So we agree, Public servants (and their Unions) created this mess.

                                  What you are referring to when you tell me to 'look around my house' is OEMs, designers, manufacturers, nothing to do with large consultancy firms.

                                  All private sector businesses driven by profit, which is how all the good things in life ( ie value) get created. Do you see the pattern now?

                                  Consultant's capitalist/financial motivations do not align with the goals of government

                                  They do if you write a robust contract that stipulates it. And herein lies the problem. It's not consultants that are at fault, it is poorly educated public servants who allow shoddy contracts worth billions of dollars of other people's money to be wasted.

                                  it is so widely recognised…

                                  So opinion not evidence then…

                                  you'd just put your nose up at any information provided

                                  You are yet to provide anything other than your opinion. You used the word 'evidently' but then can't provide any actual evidence. Are you a public servant by chance?

                                  you conveniently ignored the evidence I provided above that directly contradicted your initial claims about savings on consultancy spend

                                  I see some reading comprehension issues here. My first response to you merely asked for the savings, it wasn't a contradiction. I then also asked about value since actual savings cannot be known without knowing value. But you're doing everything to avoid producing evidence to support this claim. You've provided no evidence of value because you have none, and now you're trying to deflect.

                                  and just switched tack

                                  Nope. It's still may same initial argument, where is evidence of value?

                                  • nigel deborah on 13/02/2025 - 17:11

                                    @1st-Amendment: Then set an example by supporting your case with some 'evidence' - provide data showing of an improvement in department performance folllowing an increase in consultancy spend. Or are you the same as me, unwilling to go to the effort for someone who you think will just ignore you?

                                    In fact, in this whole thread of arguing with multiple people, you have provided exactly 0 evidence to support any of your claims. At least I am not being a hypocrit.

                                    • 1st-Amendment on 14/02/2025 - 09:29
                                      -1

                                      @nigel deborah:

                                      Then set an example by supporting your case

                                      I'm not the one making the claim.

                                      you have provided exactly 0 evidence to support any of your claims

                                      What are my claims? I merely asked some questions of the people making the claims. Here's where it started in case you've forgotten: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/16253440/redir

                                      YOU claimed cutting spend and setting KPIs was a example of better management of the APS. I merely asked how you landed on that opinion since cost and value are clearly different things (and gave an analogy to demonstrate). You've then spent the rest of the thread avoiding having to support that claim.

          • Butterchurner on 11/02/2025 - 13:42
            +2

            @1st-Amendment: "I've witnessed many LNP and Labor govt's I'm struggling to think of one worse. But feel free to defend your claim."

            Lol, really? On one side (current gov) you have a party keeping almost all its promises. On the other, you have this bunch of cretins: https://www.mdavis.xyz/govlist/

            "Yeah like wasting an entire year and hundreds of millions of dollars on a referendum whose only result was to divide the country. Name me anything any other government has done that did more damage than that?"

            Refer to point 1 (election promise). The only person who created division out of it and sunk it was Dutton. That's evident by the timing of the opinion poll shift, and the history of referendums in general.

            "Or how about during the worst inflation rise in history, caused by too much money in the system, their solution was to inject more money in the system. Real low-IQ policy going on right there."

            If you aren't a bot and genuinely believe inflation wasn't related to LNP actions and/or global economic pressures, god help us.

            "Thirdly, during the worst housing shortage in living memory, the largest immigration influx in history."

            Both majors support immigration, and we have a skills shortage.

            "You mean taking more of other people's money? This is you winning argument?"

            Yes.

            • 1st-Amendment on 11/02/2025 - 16:40
              -4

              @Butterchurner:

              Lol, really?

              You know the 'lol really' is not a valid counter argument…

              keeping almost all its promises

              Making stupid policy commitments and keeping them even though every one knows they are stupid is not a win.

              The only person who created division out of it…

              …was the person who decided to inflict it on us all. Accountability has never been strong with the Left. And here you are, trying to appoint accountability for Albo's terrible decision on someone else…

              If you aren't a bot and genuinely believe inflation wasn't related to…

              Accountability. Learn what it means.

              Both majors support immigration

              Yet another standard left wing fail-to-comprehend. 'Supporting immigration' is not the same as 'highest immigration numbers in history' Do you understand the difference or would you like me to dumb it down further? Are you also confused by the differences in 'legal immigration' and 'illegal immigration'?

              So it sounds like you don't dispute any of my 3 points I made. Voice referendum, Inflation, and Immigration all happened under Labor's watch and were all detrimental to the country, but your excuse for all of this is that it's somehow Peter Dutton's fault. Classic…

              • Butterchurner on 12/02/2025 - 11:43
                +3

                @1st-Amendment: "You know the 'lol really' is not a valid counter argument…"

                It's a perfectly cromulent argument against inanity. The scorecard on our respective comments reflects this.

                "Making stupid policy commitments and keeping them even though every one knows they are stupid is not a win."

                Lol.

                "…was the person who decided to inflict it on us all. Accountability has never been strong with the Left. And here you are, trying to appoint accountability for Albo's terrible decision on someone else…"

                It is laughable that you think the referendum was inflicted by one person, not the group who asked for it or the people who voted for the package which included it. Since you missed the point the first time, I'll put it in caps to help out. DUTTON DERAILED THE REFERENDUM.

                'Supporting immigration' is not the same as 'highest immigration numbers in history' Do you understand the difference or would you like me to dumb it down further? Are you also confused by the differences in 'legal immigration' and 'illegal immigration'?

                *LNP records record immigration: 1st-Amendment sleeps
                *ALP records record immigration: reeee foreigners!

                We are playing catch-up after Covid, to fill the aforementioned skills shortage, and a lot of the numbers are temp students (yes they can become citizens, but this is good for 'business'). I'm not a massive fan of immigration either (probably for very different reasons to you), but I get the premise. I also get that ALP is as brutal on illegal immigrants as LNP is, if not more so (https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/28/australia-passes-harsh-n…). Tell me you devour Murdoch media etc. without telling me.

                "So it sounds like you don't dispute any of my 3 points I made. Voice referendum, Inflation, and Immigration all happened under Labor's watch and were all detrimental to the country, but your excuse for all of this is that it's somehow Peter Dutton's fault. Classic…"

                The first point I've clearly blamed Dutton, which is again evident in the polls. It was good enough for many members of 'the right', including several within his own party room, but he had to obfuscate it for political point-scoring. The fact you think it was detrimental tells me all I need to know.

                The other two things, I didn't mention his name. Inflation - spiked with LNP, briefly peaked under ALP and has quickly been brought back to the target range. Immigration - refer to the previous point. Yes it's causing pressure, but the suggestion that it is the big issue is your opinion only. Perhaps we could eliminate private property hoarding (wait, LNP is happy with that so no doubt you're happy with it too).

                • 1st-Amendment on 12/02/2025 - 14:07
                  -2

                  @Butterchurner:

                  It is laughable that you think the referendum was inflicted by one person

                  You might want to Google that before you make a fool of yourself…

                  not the group who asked for it

                  Asking for something is different from having the power to enact something.

                  or the people who voted for

                  Most voters voted against, in case you forgot already.

                  I'll put it in caps to help out

                  Yeah I get that you have no idea. Putting that in caps doesn't improve your situation

                  *LNP records record immigration: 1st-Amendment sleeps

                  Guess again…

                  The first point I've clearly blamed Dutton

                  I know. What's laughable is you not knowing how things work.

                  Let me help you out with where you got this so wrong. A criticism of A is not an endorsement of B. You're entire argument is based around this logical fallacy.

                  And I'll repeat the is question every person here is conveniently avoiding: The part you failed to do was provide something specific to compare. Just like the last poster 'I don't like the LNP' is not an argument. Name me some policy decisions you think are worse than the things I mentioned above and we'll see who did worse.

                • Butterchurner on 12/02/2025 - 15:46
                  +3

                  @Rick Sanchez: Couldn't have put it better myself.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 12/02/2025 - 18:27
                    -1

                    @Butterchurner:

                    Couldn't have put it better myself.

                    Out of arguments I see. You and Rick Sanchez will make good company.

                    • nigel deborah on 12/02/2025 - 21:50
                      +4

                      @1st-Amendment: If you think you're holding the sane end of a reasonable argument you are completely deluded. It's not about politics anymore, you're just arguing in bad faith and embarassing yourself.

                      For example, on migration, the current government have not significantly changed any policy positions on visas or migration. You can complain that they are not taking action (I am in this boat, I would love to see a reduction in skilled and student visa numbers), but you can't blame them for the rise. Just the same way I don't blame the LNP who was in Government when this most recent spike begun.

                      • 1st-Amendment on 13/02/2025 - 11:51
                        -3

                        @nigel deborah:

                        If you think…

                        I don't think that. But this is a useful insight into how your brain works.

                        but you can't blame them for the rise

                        So just like I said, no accountability. If the government of the day isn't responsible for controlling immigration, who is?

                        Just the same way I don't blame the LNP

                        So what do you think it is that the government does? Just sits there twiddling thumbs while magic fairies make all the decisions on their behalf?
                        I'd love to hear you theory on how government policy is not the responsibility of the government. This should be good…

                        It's not about politics anymore, you're just arguing in bad faith and embarassing yourself.

                        Lol, you're the one who has no idea who is responsible for approving immigration visas… but sure, deflect and call names if you think that helps…

                        • nigel deborah on 13/02/2025 - 17:07
                          +3

                          @1st-Amendment: Your response to my comment that you are arguing in bad faith is to intentionally miss the point - thereby proving my point. You've provided some entertainment but are clearly not interested in a proper discussion.

                          • Rick Sanchez on 14/02/2025 - 00:09
                            +1

                            @nigel deborah: He's ozbargain's own Ben Shapiro ☝️🤓

                          • 1st-Amendment on 14/02/2025 - 14:51
                            -1

                            @nigel deborah:

                            but are clearly not interested in a proper discussion.

                            You're the only one running away from it with excuses.

                            Tell me who you think is responsible for the issue of immigration visas if not the Federal Government?

                            • marcozmitch on 20/02/2025 - 09:25

                              @1st-Amendment: this member he really likes to be political for the sake of it.
                              Ignore the @$$hole.

  • Benoffie on 06/02/2025 - 15:20

    Given the incoming changes to nursing home bonds on 1/7/25, what is the current market murmurs on the realities of Australia reintroducing either/both a death tax and an inheritance tax?

    And, if either/both of these occur, what do you believe is the likelihood of Trusts being included in this (considering their existing tax obligations)?

    • AustriaBargain on 06/02/2025 - 15:22
      +3

      Wouldn't the "death tax" be like in some American states, where let only affects money above 10 million dollars or whatever? Is there a single member on OZB who has more than 10 million of wealth per child lined up!? Wouldn't surprise me if JV was Rupert Murdoch actually…

      • Scrooge McDuck on 09/02/2025 - 15:35

        I have infinite wealth per child.

    • Splice89 on 06/02/2025 - 15:28
      +4

      There is already a death tax which isn't talked about enough, this is the tax paid by beneficiaries when they receive proceeds from a deceased superannuation portfolio (only on the taxed portion), however, there are strategies we employ overtime to reduce this as much as possible. As for other death taxes and inheritances taxes, given the way politics is going (and i'm no political expert by any means) you could likely expect one in the future to pay down our looming fiscal debt. I would think it would be more Personal rather than Trusts but I haven't heard too much in the industry on this as yet.

      • AustriaBargain on 06/02/2025 - 15:31
        +4

        Is that really a death tax, or tax that the original person would have paid anyway even if they cashed it out themselves?

        • Splice89 on 06/02/2025 - 15:36

          It is only paid on death so yes https://legalconsolidated.com.au/super-death-tax/

          • AustriaBargain on 06/02/2025 - 15:40
            +2

            @Splice89: It's still just on the taxable components though yeah? i.e., contributions that were made using pre-tax income, such as employer super guarantee contributions and salary-sacrificed amounts? And no tax would apply if the beneficiary is a dependent (such as a spouse or a child under 18)?

            • Splice89 on 06/02/2025 - 15:46
              +1

              @AustriaBargain: Spot on mate! You have no idea how many clients we see though who don't pay attention to this and recycle it overtime to reduce it.

            • mskeggs on 06/02/2025 - 15:47
              +3

              @AustriaBargain: Completely avoidable if you bequest to a spouse or dependent, or withdraw before death.
              If other taxes were so easy to avoid we would have no tax base.

              • Splice89 on 06/02/2025 - 15:49
                +1

                @mskeggs: Correct, only 'non-dependants' pay it which is the children largely - the hard part is knowing when someone will die but we've had cases when the parents are in palliative care and actioned this.

                • Benoffie on 06/02/2025 - 16:07
                  +1

                  @Splice89: Appreciate the replies 👍

                • sam-1966 on 06/02/2025 - 17:18

                  @Splice89: So if the superannuation is paid out before death, what are the tax implications on it?

                  • Splice89 on 06/02/2025 - 17:35
                    +1

                    @sam-1966: Zilch additional death taxes. Might incur tax on any capital gains not sitting in pension mode though … those gains are only 10% though if held for > 12 months

            • Worf on 06/02/2025 - 20:54

              @AustriaBargain: I thought salary sacrificed contributions are still taxed at the concessional rate (I.e., 15% for the average punter)… am I missing something?

              • SlickMick on 07/02/2025 - 13:16

                @Worf: They are Income is also taxed at 15% until pension phase, then no more tax. But if you don't have a spouse or child < 18, it is taxed when you die.
                Hence the death tax. The payout is unfairly being re-taxed.

              • Splice89 on 07/02/2025 - 22:37

                @Worf: Initially they are but ongoing depends on the accumulation : pension break up

    • whyisave on 07/02/2025 - 23:10

      murmurs … reintroducing either/both a death tax and an inheritance tax?

      "re-introducing" ?
      Was there an 'inheritance tax' before ?

      So, if the person gifted the money, while alive, it would not attract the tax,
      but if person passed away, and same money was given via inheritance, the receiver would pay interest ?

      How much interest, was this?

    • Korban Dallas on 09/02/2025 - 21:15

      Its bs liberal propaganda and politicial suicide.

  • MS Paint on 06/02/2025 - 15:25
    +16

    Do you prepay your tax using discounted gift cards?

    Do you have a tax credit with the ATO that you cannot access?

    • Splice89 on 06/02/2025 - 15:31

      I don't prepay tax using discounted gift cards nor have a tax credit with the ATO.

      • MS Paint on 06/02/2025 - 15:32
        +5

        So I know someone who isn't a client of yours then.

        • Splice89 on 06/02/2025 - 15:41
          +1

          That's a great strategy. One I wasn't aware of.

          • StalkingIbis on 07/02/2025 - 16:29
            +2

            @Splice89: Hes talking about the people who get scammed into buying gift cards to pay a scammer claiming to be the ato.

            • mrfuku on 07/02/2025 - 17:10

              @StalkingIbis: haha I don't think he is, its a slightly risky, but legit strat. IYKYK

  • 1st-Amendment on 06/02/2025 - 15:27
    +1

    What is the threshold to be considered 'wealthy' by the industry?
    I had a friend of a friend in private banking years ago and he told me once that there was a 'loose' guide for the entry level to private banking was that you owned your own home plus had $2.5M in other assets or net worth. This was just to get your foot in the door. Is this true, if so what would be considered the threshold for such a thing?

    • Splice89 on 06/02/2025 - 15:31
      +4

      Yes, the going rate is $2.5m for either debt or for investible assets (cash, share portfolio etc). I felt this was just a loose entry point and clients have been accepted for less depending on relationships. I will openly say, if you 'Bank' with a Private Bank, you are doing yourself a disservice as the mortgage rates are generally higher than what you would receive from a mortgage broker due to you having a relationship, not always the case but something I did see quite alot. The Financial Advice is reputable though given the amount of assets managed by Wealthy individuals there is cost / scale benefits.

      • Hangryuman on 08/02/2025 - 14:25
        +5

        Years ago with several IPs, and after an invitation email or something, I rolled into a Private Bank to see if they might offer any benefit to me.

        About half a dozen sharp-dressed men in suits magically appeared, and asked me a few questions before leaving me with one or two I guess they deemed most suitable.

        When they asked how much I had to invest, they quickly turned up their noses and left me to find my own way out.

        I later realised the keywords they were looking for were 'investible assets' - meaning cash I could give them so they could take their 1% commission or whatever.

        So Wealth Advisers typically are looking at your liquid assets they can control and charge their commission on. Illiquid assets like property - meh - they're not interested in that. I basically got to far cough.

        • 1st-Amendment on 14/02/2025 - 14:55
          +2

          So Wealth Advisers typically are looking at your liquid assets they can control and charge their commission on

          Yep, I learned that lesson early on. Since index funds outperform most 'wealth managers' their only job really is to skim your wealth through fees. Where a planner comes in handy though is navigating you through the various tax and regulatory obstacles which can end up costing you a bomb if you are not aware of them all.

  • ihbh on 06/02/2025 - 15:30

    Have you set up family trust/corporate trustee structure for yourself or do you just advise wealthy clients to do it?

    • Splice89 on 06/02/2025 - 15:31

      Absolutely!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join