Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 586

Coalition's super for housing plan is better than it looks

Housing affordability is shaping up as a major topic as we head toward the next federal election. The numbers are staggering. Ten years ago, the median house price in Sydney was $880,000, and in Melbourne it was $630,000. Today, those figures are $1.7 million and $1.2 million respectively. This equates to an annual increase of 7.93% for Sydney and 6.8% for Melbourne.

Meanwhile, wages have not kept pace. Over the last decade, gross income growth has averaged just 2.18% per year for Sydney and 2.03% for Melbourne. This disparity is continuously widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Children of well-resourced parents have been able to enter the market by drawing on the Bank of Mum and Dad, and this demand has driven prices up further, making affordability even harder for those without such support.

The housing market today faces many challenges, all connected and making the problem worse. A sharp rise in migration has led to greater demand for properties, putting pressure on an already tight market. At the same time, there is a growing shortage of skilled workers and building materials, slowing down the construction of new homes. Militant unions pushing for higher wages are also driving up building costs.

Bureaucratic delays add even more problems. Red tape, slow approvals, and the rising costs of regulation make it difficult to start new housing projects. And here’s the catch-22: government incentives meant to help first homebuyers—like reduced stamp duty and special deals—often have the opposite effect. These measures increase demand, which puts more pressure on the market and drives prices up, making homes even less affordable in the long run.

Yet another hurdle is mortgage insurance, which is required for buyers with less than a 20% deposit. For example, analysis from Mozo.com.au shows that if you bought an $850,000 property with a 5% deposit of $42,500, the lender’s mortgage insurance fee would be almost $38,000 – nearly as much as your deposit.

To make matters worse, mortgage insurance is not transferable from one lender to another, even though there are only a few providers in the country. This makes it virtually impossible for anyone with less than 20% equity to refinance their property with a different lender on better terms, because they would need to pay for mortgage insurance all over again.

The Coalition proposes a unique scheme that allows homebuyers to invest up to $50,000 or 40% of their superannuation (whichever is less) toward the purchase of a new or established home. I have been dead against previous suggestions to draw on super, because of the long term detrimental effect on people’s balances, but this scheme has a way to deal with that. Participants are required to refund the withdrawn amount, along with any earnings, when the house is sold. The "interest" rate used to calculate the earnings will be tied to the capital growth of the home.

This scheme will also be available to people who separate later in life, especially to assist women into home ownership, noting the current income and employment gaps compared to men. Participants must live in the property as owner-occupiers for at least 12 months and provide a minimum deposit of 5% of the purchase price, excluding the amount withdrawn from their superannuation. Upon selling the property, they must repay the withdrawn funds along with any proportional gains or losses.

Think about Kerry and Sam, both aged 35, who each have $84,000 in superannuation. Through diligent saving, they have scraped together a deposit of $85,000. But if they buy now, they’ll be liable for nearly $21,000 in mortgage insurance, which will be added to their loan and remain a burden for the life of the loan. However, if they chose to withdraw $36,000 each from their superannuation under the proposed Super Home Buyer Scheme, the mortgage insurance would drop to just $6700. If they focused on paying off the mortgage quickly, in a few years they may be able to get the loan to valuation ratio below 80%, and then be free to refinance at a cheaper interest rate. The ability to access their superannuation has saved them over $14,000, which is a massive return on the $72,000 they have borrowed from their super.

This case study shows the benefit of the superannuation access scheme. Using super funds reduces the loan size, improving loan-to-valuation ratios, and potentially improving eligibility, especially if income is limited. And a smaller loan can be paid off faster, using simple techniques like fortnightly repayments.

If the property appreciates by 3% annually and they sell in five years, the $36,000 each has borrowed from super must be repaid, plus a 3% notional interest matching the capital gain. This strategy helps build financial security by reducing loan interest and increasing property equity through capital growth. The Coalition needs to add just one feature: make mortgage insurance transferable between lenders. This would be a game-changer.

 

Noel Whittaker is the author of 'Retirement Made Simple' and numerous other books on personal finance. See noelwhittaker.com.au. This article is for general information only. Noel's latest book, Wills, death & taxes made simple, is available now.

 

45 Comments
Trevor
November 19, 2024

It always seems to be about what the government needs to do. What about the individual? Work harder at school, get a good job and save up to buy a place to live. Old fashioned I know.
Tradesmen make good money but we seem to have a shortage. Not sure why that is.

Disgruntled
November 20, 2024

I'm sure you're aware of the food pyramid, you know, big bit at the bottom stacked full of all the things we should eat lots of, rising in layers with things we should eat less of in each layer all the way to the top.

Well the economy is the same because it is how the government and business and WEF want it.

Except at the bottom we have the working poor doing the low paid jobs, with job status and wages/salary rising in each layer until you reach the top.

Reality is, is there are not enough higher paying jobs for everyone who wants one and the economy depends on a large group of working poor.

john
November 19, 2024

It's a crazy world where I have seen lots of mansions with either one or none living in them like at Noosa. Assume these sorts of projects are frequently those with means using them as tax dodgers somehow. And we have some people living on the streets or families in tents.

David
November 18, 2024

I understand house prices in Victoria are currently going backwards, is this being celebrated? Check the figures but Vic has the 2nd highest wage growth in the country and negative house prices. Isn't think what everyone has been cheering for? Improved house affordability?

Dudley
November 19, 2024

"Isn't think what everyone has been cheering for? Improved house affordability? ":

It is. 'Absolutely'. Provided it is everyone else's house; not one's own (especially when under mortgage - best to avoid mortgage).

Ian
November 18, 2024

I agree with the Coalitions proposal to use part of one superannuation balance as an investment in one's private house while that capital remains an asset of the fund. I have been advocating such a structure for years. The missing link in the proposal is to recognise that a large proportion of the expenditure on a house today is in part to purchase the "family home" but significantly to purchase an oversize home to capitalise on its investment value over time. A family of four can quite comfortably live in 150 to 180 m² home, but the average homes under construction nowadays 250 to 280 m². The difference is a straight out investment by those people (and good luck to them because that is a good decision) but the taxation system needs to recognise that it is artificially inflating the housing market for folks to chase investment returns. Easy to fix by adjusting capital gains tax rules.

Phill
November 20, 2024

Here here, Ian! Keating's big failure was to exempt the family home from CGT, thus making it the most popular investment.

Disgruntled
November 21, 2024

Howard and Costello introducing the 50% discount after 12 months was more damaging.

It went from decent yields on your investment property to, who cares about yield? Give me that CG, baby.

Yields were 7%, 8%, 9% even 10% and capital growth was cnsistent

Now we have investors happy to get 2% as long as the CG is there

john
November 18, 2024

Lots of good comments here, but much of the suggestions, including Noel's, worsen the law of supply and demand.
Also be aware that those looking forward to a part pension may ruin that if they provide 'the Bank of Mum and Dad'. Subject to the 5 year rule.
Only trouble with some of the suggestions is that many bureaucrats would be required to regulate, monitor etc.
I see young ones buying plenty of what I would call 'junk' as well as 'smashed avocado'. We never bought much of it when we were young. 'Junk' mainly from China, resulting in hoarders as seen on TV.
A massive residential building program needs to be started like the old Snowy Scheme of way back. Also then there is no excuse to be unemployed.
Banks should be made to include LMI style issues in their calcs.
Dudley fascinates me.

Wildcat
November 17, 2024

LMI could be underwritten by the government. How many payouts get made vs a small charge by the govt?

Surely this is simpler?

Steve
November 17, 2024

Yes Noel, lets juice up demand by giving people access to more money to bid at auction. Your presumption that access to super would reduce loan sizes is optimistic I suspect, human nature is more often to buy a bigger/better property. Another example of why economics is called the dismal science.

K
November 15, 2024

The idea of robbing Super to pay Mortgage can only inflate house prices more, IMHO. It is a bad idea except for house owners who will continue to feel wealthy.
But some reform wouldn't go astray. The UK, as I understand it, has purpose built, tax free savings accounts, one type specifically for their Super equivalent and another specifically for house deposits. There's an incentive to use your own money and not rob your older self. That seems a much better idea than anything we have on the election table here.

Cam
November 20, 2024

Sounds like First Home Saver which we already have in Australia.
Some have no spare cash to use it. Others want new cars , holidays, etc and a new house.

Darmah
November 15, 2024

Housing costs are driven by supply and demand.
This is just another well meaning but ultimately misguided policy that will only increase demand and push prices higher.
Most Australians (immigrants included) choose to live in and around our three largest cities, due to greater opportunities for education and work.
I lived in Sydney in the 1970/80’s and the population was about 2.5 million, now it’s 5 million.
If we could entice younger family’s to move to regional areas by relocating opportunities for work and services, maybe the main issue with supply, high land prices, might change.

Disgruntled
November 16, 2024

Government has also had a habit of juicing the market on any weakness above X so it is not entirely Supply and demand.

If demand softens and prices start to fall, government will allow market forces to certain extent, after that the intervene.

Tony
November 15, 2024

Sorry Noel but you’re on the wrong track here. The real agenda here is to undermine super, just like they did during COVID.
Any initiative to add more to demand just drives up prices.
Economics will fix this, people will simply not afford the prices, so prices will stagnate or fall.
Otherwise our grandchildren will be living in caves!!

Bruce
November 15, 2024

There is no one magic wand and the last thing we need is more 'first-home-seller grants'! Decrease demand for housing by slowing immigration, encourage further build-to-rent apartment blocks, only allow negative gearing on new properties, cap the obscene amounts that former farmland is sold to for new development (why should the last farmer benefit from selling at $30m to $40m when the true value as a going concern farm may be $2m or $3m) which would significantly reduce land cost and thus overall new home cost, further increase state land taxes on 2nd lifestyle homes (holiday homes) (currently reducing house prices in certain parts of Victoria). All these measures would assist to increase supply and reduce prices.

Trevor
November 16, 2024

“cap the obscene amounts that former farmland is sold to for new development (why should the last farmer benefit from selling at $30m to $40m when the true value as a going concern farm may be $2m or $3m)”

“further increase state land taxes on 2nd lifestyle homes (holiday homes)”

Hmmm. Politics of envy? Extreme socialist ideology?

Victoria is an economic mess. Not a good example to follow imo.

Wildcat
November 17, 2024

Bruce I don’t want to live in a socialist utopia thanks. No negative gearing, this is akin to taxing inflation which is ridiculous. Restrict it to the property only perhaps so not against other income like a company or trust losses are quarantined.

Capping the price for farmland. OMG next you’ll be capping house price growth by government FIAT. This is such an atrocious idea I don’t know where to start.

Greig
November 23, 2024

So Trevor & Wildcat you are okay with crony capitalism .... aka socialism for the priviliged, but not for the masses??
Government/Councils decide with a stroke of their pen whether the land can/should be re-zoned from agricultural to housing; government power results in private gains. Shouldn't some of those gains then be captured by the very government that bestows it!?
Similarly, our tax dollars pay for roads & infrastructure that leads to capital gains for privately held land. That is socialism! Government expenditure resulting in private gain; but I guess that is okay since it benefits the Landed Gentry and not the great unwashed?
Capitalism is perfectly fine, but crony capitalism is what we have and more importantly what we have been brainwashed to accept as 'normal'. We continue to punitively tax earned income while giving a free pass to unearned income and capital gains.

John N
November 15, 2024

Why not (a) scrap Property CGT concessions in TOTAL eg everyone pays CGT on the sale less rate of annual CPI (b) allow owner occupiers to claim loan interest interest deductions against their PAYG tax up to a loan cap principal of $xxx,xxx for a period of x years. Remove the 50% CGT discount & Negative Gearing on investment properties and if then not affordable due to net income v's cost to own then it is not a viable option for an investor. Stops the property flipping by so called owner occupiers where they pay zero CGT on sale of property. True owner occupiers will not be impacted as they are buying for the long term. Levels the playing field and probably puts a serious dent in the larger property as a business strategy. "Real" Investors could put their money towards more productive producing investments which benefit the broader economy. Allows the RBA to use their blunt instrument of short term cash rates without being stymied by cost of home loan payments that cash rates impact. Does put a hole in PAYG collection but could be offset by other options eg increase GST. Still would have the supply shortfall issue to deal with. Perhaps stop adding to the population intake (demand) until the supply side catches up to where it can cope/match population growth.

Roger
November 18, 2024

CPI underestimates inflation due to manipulation of composition to hold the number down. This reduces cost of indexation, but allows governments to waste more nominal fiat currency on harebrained schemes and public sector growth.

Disgruntled
November 15, 2024

Neither major party has real plans t make housing affordable (cheaper) they just tinker on the fringes to make unaffordable housing affordable to some (early movers)

Labor Co Ownership Scheme (my preference to be honest of the two deals)

Liberal Accessing your Superannuation

Ted
November 17, 2024

The system works very well in Singapore. The big difference is that the Singapore government is trying to help its citizens, not bleed them dry and become welfare dependent like Australia's current government. Having said that, cut immigration to the bone, limit foreign ownership of residential property, and get rid of the crazy taxes attached to property investment, and the market will fix itself.

OldbutSane
November 15, 2024

This scheme would not solve anything, except potentially reduce retirement savings (especially for those who never sell the home). Super is for retirement, nothing else. Part of the housing problem is not only supply, but the fact that houses now have to be so big (like everything else eg cars), so they naturally cost more (and probably wouldn't want a boring 2 bedroom/1 bathroom flat as a starter - few, if any of these being built).

Peter c
November 15, 2024

You are correct about house sizing for sure, a relative is trying to get a small (22 square) house built even though the majority of builders have one in the catalog they have said not worth building a display home as no body would buy it, even though it’s $120000 cheaper than the Mc Mansions .

OldbutSane
November 17, 2024

You are right but 22 squares (200 sqm) used to be a very big house!!

Teresa C
November 15, 2024

The only problem with Noel’s argument is the young people will lose as the policy will only increase home prices immediately and there will be a less money available in the end. (On average, super will outperform any increase in home prices over decades).
This proposal is another example of a “first home SELLERS grant”. The winners will be people who sell homes to first home buyers.

The problem is complex and the solutions also difficult because it needs a solution which is unpopular with the current owners of capital.

Any proposal must be based on the following question, “will this increase or decrease home prices?”

If it will increase prices then ignore it , if it decreases prices try it.

John G
November 15, 2024

Many years ago, when building societies were lending on a 10% deposit, there was no mortgage insurance. Outlaw the imposition of mortgage insurance and force the banks to carry the risk. This would increase due diligence and reduce availability of mortgage funds. Banks would still lend on less than 20% deposit in order to keep the volume of business up as high as prudently possible. Some reduction in lending would occur, reducing the price pressure demand on housing.

Interest rates on each bank's loans above and below a 20% deposit should be required to be the same otherwise they would increase rates on the less fortunate (standard moneylender gouging).

Simon
November 17, 2024

Yes, why should the borrower bear the risk. It is the lender's role to do that and set interest rates accordingly. And put more effort into evaluating lenders and working with them during their lifetime. Oh - that's what banks used to do.

Glenn
November 14, 2024

Sure…. But my problem is that any early release of super seems to go directly or indirectly down the throat of the local club poker machines (the givt will never draft rules tight enough to prevent this).

I also think there’s a pathway in having govt provide the LMI instead of commercial enterprises ( I need to make an ethical disclose here as a shareholder) which
hopefully might reduce premium ( rare fir me as an acknowledged capitalist).

Incidentally while it’s been a while since I had up to date numbers I’d say traditionally LMI is waived about 1/3rd of the time. It’s not like everyone pays it

lyn
November 16, 2024

But to those who do have to pay with less than 20% deposit, in today's market it's crippling to young buyers. Releasing some super increases deposit to minimise LMI. Super fund can attend day of settlement for funds transfer just as bank and solicitors do ensuring released funds are used for right purpose, shouldn't be hard to legislate with 2 sentences to define use and attendance by fund on settlement day in relevant super legislaton as Amendment.

DanM
November 14, 2024

High entry cost to home ownership inevitably contributes to rental market competition. Elevated rental returns support and perhaps accelerate property prices escalation.
People who buy a house typically exit the rental market. Several welcome consequences likely result: less housing demand should moderate price escalation over time; lower rental cost should benefit those saving to enter the market thereby further increasing owner-occupiers. Lower rental returns should also attenuate demand for property as an 'nvestment'.
Wealth locked away in residential property reduces capital available for more productive purposes, especially research and development which should make a country like ours, with a well educated population, a true powerhouse not just a farm or a mine.

Kym
November 14, 2024

How does making it cheaper for first home buyers help increase the supply of housing? The supply side is not addressed by providing more avenues to increase buyers. If the example in the case study is the demographic in the seat for this super for housing policy, then it is just another example of middle class welfare. The reality is that the current interest rates make development expensive. The Minns grand plan for NSW will see councils being compelled to have a designation of areas within proximity to transport hubs, that permit up to 6 story developments. Ask any developer if it makes economic sense to build a 6-story apartment block in the inner west given the average property price is breaching $1m. The acquisition costs are prohibitive and the interest rates further kibosh it.

Jack
November 14, 2024

Another innovation could be to relax super contribution requirements for younger people so that they can concentrate on paying down their mortgage and also increasing the limits on personal (after-tax) contributions for people over the age of 50 to allow them to build their super balances when the mortgage is more manageable and the kids are less of a drain on the household budget.
That way we could encourage home ownership and financial independence in retirement as well.

Dudley
November 14, 2024

Sounds good but the best time for a young person to contribute to super is when young - due to expected compounding.

The best time for a young person to save for a home is also when young.
Ideally using the "Bunk of Dad&Mum" or other rent 'free' accommodation:
https://www.google.com/search?q=firstlinks+%22Bunk+of+Dad%26Mum%22

'1 July 2024, the non-concessional contributions cap is $120,000'
Those over 50 will have increased means to make non-concessional contributions.

lyn
November 16, 2024

Dudley, you're keen on selecting Comment quotes. Yours --- " 'the best time for a young person to save for a home is also when young' ", ---- but we know they mostly don't as one can't put old head on most young shoulders so way must be found to help save/achieve home ownership in today's market. I almost sent comment last week's article re 60-64yr olds stats of super & still large mortgage, to support release super funds after 10yrs contributions to assist, but thought: what's the point as nobody takes on board nor interested to do so? Then Noel W comes up with article a week later so there's one interested person, if we all put heads together there may be solution but don't include super fund in advisory way as an industry grown up around them with vested interest. I believe if 30-35yr olds are settled with home it will lead to greater happiness within our younger of workforce if settled, thus perhaps more productive workforce because happy with security of own home. Aren't we all more productive if happy? My proviso is Super fund attends day of settlment ensuring no mis-use of funds. I'd even overlook the substantial sum only taxed at 15% on way in to Super as seems little to forfeit to get this clever country back on its' feet for longterm benefit with a happier workforce who will probably when afford, make after-tax super contributions for retirement because as they age will see benefit ( old heads etc). If we don't sort, last week's article suggested stats that 32yr - old super scheme is not fit for purpose, Govt/taxpayers will be forever supporting age pensions and aged rent supplement in higher numbers if young can't get on home ladder. Times change and must move with them to stay at top. No amount of calcs will influence as one can't calculate happiness numerically, no doubt you will find obscure hairy-scary philosophical equation to prove otherwise!

Dudley
November 16, 2024

"one can't put old head on most young shoulders":

Old head can show young (headless) shoulders likely consequences of actions / in-actions. The young then heed or not; their choice.

Some young (minority?) would be better off in various ways by maintaining mobility - without the anchor around their necks of home and family. Wild oats and hard knocks.

The (vast?) majority of young have almost no idea about accumulating capital.
Or about the calculations of how human capital is interconvertible to financial capital.
Life is better with some financial capital - like enough to buy a home at any time with cash, no mortgage.

Not showing such calculations is to leave the young fully exposed to exploitative old heads.
Not something that caring parents inaction should do.

Dudley
November 14, 2024

Better to only allow access to contributions in super in excess of Superannuation Guarantee contributions.

This could be simplified by having another category of super contributions denoted "Superannuation Guarantee Contributions" ("SGC") to distinguish from concessional contributions in excess of SG (and from non-concessional contributions).

If the SG is too large at 11.5%, reduce it.

Minimum wagers could reduce their marginal tax rate outside super to 0% by making concessional contributions in excess of SG (from $5,477.10 SG to cap of $30,000 / y) with a marginal tax rate of 10% or 15%.

In short term, Super fluctuates in capital value; might not be the safest savings.

Alan
November 14, 2024

This is similar to Singapore’s scheme under their CPF scheme? Interesting.

Doris
November 14, 2024

I agree - giving people more money will inevitably just bump up the property values of existing owners. Structural reform to the supply side to make home ownership more affordable is what is required for a lasting solution - not this type of short term popularist quick fix that will ultimately make things worse. Also, if you look at the proposal it says that people using the scheme will only need to re-contribute the relevant share of the sale proceeds unless they use them to purchase a new property - which is exactly what any rational person would do. So my guess is that once this money comes out, it's never going back in. Hello working into my 70s.

Mart
November 14, 2024

OK, I get the positives that this article outlines, but wouldn't such a scheme mean at a very simple level that (a) more 'available' money (i.e. 'loans' from Super) contributes to further pushing up prices of not enough housing stock and (b) older Aussies with a Super balance that they can access are the ones that can take advantage of the scheme, and so further distancing the ability of younger Aussies to get on the housing ladder (I accept there is an argument as to whether they should before building up capital to do so) ? I guess anything that allows folk to get on the housing roundabout more easily is probably a good thing, but the core issues that Noel articulates well at the start of the article still remain. With a Federal election on the horizon it will be interesting to see what all parties propose to address them. Not exactly holding my breath for sensible proposals .... !

Hugh
November 14, 2024

Now, being able to pledge some of your Super to avoid LMI sounds more interesting. No perverse incentives as not many will be willing to go bankrupt merely to get at their Super.....Which would go to the banks anyway.

Dudley
November 14, 2024

"Ten years ago, the median house price in Sydney was $880,000, and in Melbourne it was $630,000. Today, those figures are $1.7 million and $1.2 million respectively."

Mortgage cost:
= PMT(7%, 30, (1 - 20%) * 1700000, 0) = -$109,597.51 / y
= PMT(7%, 30, (1 - 20%) * 1200000, 0) = -$77,362.95 / y

'Survival' cost $30,000 / y

Total cost per spouse:
= (109597.51 + 30000) / 2 = $69,798.76 / y
= (77362.95 + 30000) / 2 = $53,681.48 / y

Minimum wage: $47,627 / y [ https://www.fairwork.gov.au/pay-and-wages/minimum-wages ]
Tax: $5,743 / y [ https://paycalculator.com.au/ ]
Net: $41,884 / y [ Super Guarantee it in addition to gross wage]

Outcome: prompt bankruptcy.

With $500,000 flat, mortgage cost:
= PMT(7%, 30, (1 - 20%) * 500000, 0) = -$32,234.56 / y
Total cost per spouse:
= (32234.56 + 30000) / 2 = $31,117.28 / y
Minimum wage net of tax: $41,884 / y

Outcome: $10,000 / y savable per spouse.

Steve
November 17, 2024

I am with you Mart. Any policy idea that effectively feeds pent-up demand is only going to result in higher prices. For me, housing has become a speculative asset. Existing government policy (e.g. tax breaks, assets test, high immigration) only adds fuel to that fire.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Labor policies and the impact on housing

Fixing the construction industry house of cards

Why has nothing worked to fix Australia's housing mess?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Vale Graham Hand

It’s with heavy hearts that we announce Firstlinks’ co-founder and former Managing Editor, Graham Hand, has died aged 66. Graham was a legendary figure in the finance industry and here are three tributes to him.

Warren Buffett is preparing for a bear market. Should you?

Berkshire Hathaway’s third quarter earnings update reveals Buffett is selling stocks and building record cash reserves. Here’s a look at his track record in calling market tops and whether you should follow his lead and dial down risk.

US election implications for investors and Australia

The return of Donald Trump to the US presidency brings the prospect of more US tax cuts and deregulation, but also more tariff hikes, trade wars and policy uncertainty. Here's what it means for markets going forward.

Avoiding wealth transfer pitfalls

Australia is in the early throes of an intergenerational wealth transfer worth an estimated $3.5 trillion. Here's a case study highlighting some of the challenges with transferring wealth between generations.

Taxpayers betrayed by Future Fund debacle

The Future Fund's original purpose was to meet the unfunded liabilities of Commonwealth defined benefit schemes. These liabilities have ballooned to an estimated $290 billion and taxpayers continue to be treated like fools.

The rising tension between housing debt and retirement balances

Australians are taking more mortgage debt into their 60s than ever before. Retirement planning assumptions haven’t adapted and could result in future income projections that ultimately disappoint retirees.

Latest Updates

Shares

Australian stocks will crush housing over the next decade, one year on

Last year, I wrote an article suggesting returns from ASX stocks would trample those from housing over the next decade. One year later, this is an update on how that forecast is going and what's changed since.

Superannuation

Addressing the gender super gap

The harsh reality is that most women retire with significantly less superannuation than men. There are many reasons for the gender super gap and here are some possible solutions to fix the long-running issue.

Superannuation

Meg on SMSFs: Where are the risks in our major super sectors?

Given the amount of money in super, it’s not surprising that there is a lot of focus on risk. SMSFs are often portrayed as the riskier option for the community as a whole, but does that tell the full story?

Superannuation

Global pension reforms and how Australia can improve

With plans to retire next year, Mercer's David Knox looks back at the global pension index he helped create, the key trends and developments since inception, and what Australia can to do to get better.

Shares

Cyclical stocks will drive markets higher in 2025

Magellan's Head of Global Equities, Arvid Streimann, thinks that although stock price momentum will slow next year, cyclical companies will lead the pack. He outlines the risks to his forecast and the stocks he likes best.

Economy

How this GDP per capita recession compares to history

GDP was 0.3% for last quarter but the real story is this was Australia’s seventh consecutive quarter of negative GDP per capita growth. How does this economic drought compare to past ones, and what can we expect in future?

Investing

The mispriced investment opportunity in global defence

Markets benefitted from peace for 40 years, but a military resurgence is now underway, fuelled by geopolitical tensions and technological advancements. Defence spending is soaring, offering potential opportunities for investors.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2024 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.