Hello, and welcome to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. I'm James Kirby Well, the editor at The Australian. Hey, welcome aboard everybody. In every episode we cover listener questions and I have to say today's batch of questions is really exceptional and I just want to say thanks to everybody involved. I get more ideas for the show and what to do on the show and have on the show from your questions and your comments, complaints, observations than anything else,
so keep them rolling. Later on we'll hear from a listener, for instance, who lives overseas and wants to come back to Australia. We've got an investor in Perth who's worried that the Eastern staters are taking over. Have a question from Robert who says his bank is trying to pull a fast one, basically because he signed on for a mortgage at a rate and when it to sign the papers, the rate was lower. I've experienced that. I'm really interested
to pick up on that question. And keep in mind, folks, if we can do something for you, let us know. You'd be surprised how quickly an organization responds when they get a call from a show like ours. Okay, now today, I think we need an advisor here to talk about issues in property and many of your questions. Someone who's across property and is also across that advice friend of the show, a regular on the show. It's Bruce Brammel. How are you, Bruce?
Not to be any thanks James, thanks for bringing me back.
Lovely to have you back. Always good to have you on. I know that we would be of a similar vintage, and we might have I don't know what age your guys are, but mine are now of the age for the starting just starting to look around and be aware of the mountain they have to climb to get into property in any way, but obviously particularly as a home buyer.
And one of the things apparently that they're all saying to each other, if you don't mind, is that you know, the prices are just tipping along at the moment, very much at the sort of average rates. In some parts they're quite slow, and there's a sense that you don't
have to move now. There's also a sense of fatalism, and this is really something that is on the cards, I think, and I see it reported and I see it anecdotally this sense of fatalism with younger investors, where they're saying, look, it's just out of my never going to be able to afford to buy a house, and so I'm going to go to Japan for two weeks in ski something like that. So we have this attitude that it's just become so hard, it's too hard, so
forget it. Do you come upon that And what would you say to someone who said that to you?
I guess I don't say as much of it. From a client perspective, payble reading the media and generally being involved. Why could you be younger? They're still in hospital, there's still a little while off from them. But we do see clients coming in who who often have started on the deposits and might have a reasonable amount and want to know what to do with the deposit money while they're continuing to save us, and how should we invest in them into cash if you're going to buy in
the next couple of years. Look, parts of the country are quite slow, Victoria in particular. Other parts of the country are running rampants. What we it's a generational thing to a degree. Back in the sixties and seventies, when that generation, which included my parents were buying a house. I tended to do it quite a lot younger. They had kids a lot younger. The average age of having kids I think when when I was born was about twenty three, twenty four, twenty around that sort of thing,
and buying home was a bit easier. But they're also doing it on one income as a general rule, or say an average at one point one incomes per household, whereas nowadays the average person's average household buying is probably at one point eight incomes. Was a lot single people buying as well, But yeah, have run hard. But like everything, James,
it's cyclical. And if people are finding it tough now, which is partly about industrates have come off very low intustrates and they've risen fairly strongly to November last year. You know it's cyclical and when prices get too high,
prices will come back. People who are finding it tough have just got to make In my opinion, it's about priorities and if there are kids in their twenties or young adults in their twenties or thirties and their primary goal is to buy a home, then going off to scan in Japan, for two weeks is going to be a reasonably pretty expensive holiday.
But logically, if I say to you, I have I earn one hundred thousand dollars and I want my house is going to cost nearly a million, I can never do it, Isn't that? What do you say to that? What do you say to the relatively logical observation that on one hundred ground you can never buy a million dollar house?
No, you can't. You just you simply can't do it one hundred thousand dollars. Have you got two people on one hundred thousand dollars? And it makes it a lot easier put somebody doing a hundred thousand dollars is unlikely about to buy. It depends on expenses. They've changed the way they do loans and lending and affordability in the last seven or eight years, and it makes it a lot more divilt because they do actually dive deeper into
your expenses. Now that's what you earn is almost less relevant than how much you spend, and they go and look into it. When you're applying for a loan, they look at your savings, they look at what you're spending your money on and categorize it to see if the expenses are the same. You used to be able to just go with this minimum.
Used to go with a sort of a former league thing that they just had they apply to everybody.
Yeah, and they didn't. They didn't really check it too hard. Nowadays they do. You can't. You know, the hems have changed.
What difference did that make? Bruce?
An enormous difference because mortgage brokers in the industry wasn't just mortgage brokers, the banks were allowing this as well. You could put through of us. I'm going back a while, but if you had mum and dad and two kids, then there was a minimum spend of that that might have been at the time about two and a half hour dollars. Now it's probably three or three and a half thousand dollars a month now. But that has changed dramatically. They don't just accept this is what the minimum that mom,
dad and two kids can live on. They actually look at your expenses and if you've got some private schooling or you've got some bigger expenses in there for whatever, they're going to see them and they're going to they're going to penaloge you for it. But they're going to include. That's when trying to determine how much it is that you can borrow, and what you can borrow is based
on what money's left over. If you can make some changes and find some spending cuts reduce your expenses, then you want to be doing that at the time that you're going to see a bank or broken about getting a mortgage, because they're generally going to want to see thirty sixty ninety days worth of weather expenses when you're
putting in your application. If they say three four hundred bucks a month or a week going out to Uber Eats or any of the delivery places, then they're going to see that it's a bit to fuil to hide.
Well, I'd be furious if some bank are pointed out to me so any element of my expenses as to whether I should cheer, is that or not. But it's really interesting you say that. It's really good to hear that. So, folks, if you are thinking of if you are of that persuasion that it's all too difficult, first of all, have a look and see what could change how you might get to it. But more broadly, Bruce, do you still always is it always your advice that you should own
your own home. I know it's I just want to check with you. Is it always in all situations virtually your advice?
Well, I think it's for a lot of people. It's a foundation stone of finances. The point about running a home is security aspect and those sorts of things. But you're building equity in a place. You're painting down a line at some point in the future, and it's rarely the twenty five or thirty years of a regular mortgage you're normally paying off before that. That the cost of putting a roof over your heads. Yes, you've still got rates, and you're still at electricity and gas and insurance and
all those other expenses. But the main cost of having a roof over your head is done when you when you finally paid off the mortgage. If you decide not to buy, you'll rent until you die. So if you don't buy a home and eventually pay it off, you'll be renting through until you're not on the earth anymore,
and there's an ongoing expense. Now, when you get to that sort of older age groups and youre applying for the age pension, they have a different level of pension higher level of pension for people who don't own their home, partly to cover and partly an acknowledgment of rent being paid, and a lower government age pension for those who do own their home. But it is a cornerstone for me or a foundation stone of wealth. That doesn't mean that's
right for everybody. And people have got to move every couple of years because that's their work who don't want to be tied down. Then if you're making that decision not to buy to rent, then you've got to make it work for you, is what I've always preached, and that is whatever you're not spending on a mortgage. So let's say your rent is whatever three grand a month and a mortgage that cost you four or four and
a half. Then whatever the case is, extra money that you're not using to pay a mortgage really needs to be going into some sort of longer term investing to help look after you when you're getting into your old years or in your retirement. Now. Whether you're putting that money to souper or other investments is another matter that you need to look at on a personal level. But renting is indefinite. Buying home has an endpoint for the largest part of having a ref ahead.
It could always be a book titled Bruce, if you decide not to buy your rent until you die, That's got a certain gravity.
But I'm very sorry, James, I am actually quoting myself on that one. Is the line from debtband Walking, which all right in two years at.
You're the quoting from yourself is now pleagerism, Bruce, quoting from yourself is the opposite of pleasurism. We all do it all the time. Good for you, Okay, I knew Bruce would be good on that particular issue. Just before we've got to questions I want to do. I want to get to questions quickly this week because as I say, there were so good and such a range of questions. But what the other's come up on the show a few times, it just ask you before we do, is
about rates. Okay. So we look at the media, or we look at the financial press this week, and it's all about how rates are going to go down and how gold for instance, gold, folks, is gold the commodity or gold as you buy them through bullion or ETFs is really starting to move as an alternative investment with a much clearer record than shall we say, private equity or private credit. And by the way, I've had some correspondence telling me that I'm too heavy and critical on that.
But the point I want to make is that globally rates are going down, but in Australia there is it's unclear if rates are going to go down in any time soon, and if they did, RBA rates we don't know to what extent the banks will cut rates. Anyway, where are you coming from, Blues When people ask you about that, If people are coming in your door and they're making plans and their plans hinge on the fact that rates are going to be cut, what do you tell them?
Well, look, you know, there's always there's two sides that The main side of the story, which is probably what we're talking about here, is people are wanting to buy a home. You can't bank on them. You just you can't. Now, I think competitive pressures are such that in the industry, you know, a bank, a lender, well a reasonable size lender, if they decide to pass it on or pass the vast majority of it on and others are hasn't to
do so, then they will pick up market share. It's as simple as that they get to advertise that they've passed it on in full, or they passed on twenty when the average only did ten, or if we're talking about a quarter percent, right, and they will pick up market share, and they will very quickly. The brokers out there will because brokers make up about three quarters of the markets now, of the market now of every loan, that's three out of every four loans that are done and done brokers.
Yeah, the most loans go through brokers.
Yeah, yeah, So the brokers are going to look at that most clients are at least a little focused or reasonably focused on on interustrates. And if lenders pass it on and other lenders don't, and there is going to be a flow of need to the lenders that do. What I tend to say is that competitive pressures are such that if a few go, more will go. You might. There is a lot of money to be made by
banks though in delaying passing it on. So if they delay passing it on by a few days or a week, then given the size of the loan books, particularly of the fom mags, there's a lot of money to be made by not passing on the seventeenth and delaying it to a twenty second or whatever. But there will be lenders that will take it as an opportunity in a marking opportunity to cut rates in full or even go a step further and off a thirty basis points.
Okay, you think it's sufficiently competitive in the banking circle that there will cut roots when the cuts come from the IBA.
I think so. Look, we're getting a lot of emails from the banks at the moment talking about fixed rates already been cust making some reductions, They're making some bets there, bond traders are beginning to price. I think it gets to move around. But the RBA made a statement in Whenever that was twenty twenty one about where they saw rates, and bond traders called them liars very soon afterwards. So was right the bond.
Traders, the bond vigilantes. Yeah, don't ever doubt them. The money markets will override central bank Sandy Day, folks, as we've probably seen that, and you know that, and you know not even here in the RBA has already in recent history been called out. And if the money market says basically going to fold in a very strong way, and the RBA are dithering and saying they mightn't. The likelihood is they will. Okay, now let's go to questions. We'll be back in a moment. Hello, and welcome back
to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. I'm James Kirby, the weorth editor at The Australian, talking to Bruce Brammel of Bruce Brammel, Financial financial Advisor, author and a regular guest on the show. Christopher, I'm an Australian government official posted abroad, commonly deployed to far away places for years at a time. And I don't own properly property, but i'd like to.
And if I bought my dream home on the New South Wales Coasted, would it be considered my principal place of residence even if I'm not living in this part one? If I rent out my principal place of residence while I'm posted overseas, would this mean it becomes subject to capital gains tax? Upon resaying? Okay, very clear, and none of this is advice. It's always information. If he doesn't own a place and he buys a place, then that's and he declares that his principal place of residence for
tax purposes. Can he come? Is that all clear and he can still be wherever he might be in what does he call it? A far away place?
Yeah, Chris ro think, firstly, check with your accountants specifically on that one. What the if you're not living in it and you're renting out, you're drawing an income, you've probably gotta lie and you're climbing tax deduction for it. You're climbing probably climbing tax deductions for rights, insurances, land tax, if that's what's happening, If that's what you're actually claiming, there's also something called the six year old. I'll come
back to a bit. If you're intending to come home and live in this, if you understand that it is the portion. What the ATO looks at is the portion of time that it was a PPOI you, principal place of residence versus how long it was rented out for.
So if you had it rented out for a couple of years, let's say you're coming home in a few years to retire, it sounds like you've been able to sease for a while and you have it rented out for three years, but then you when you come back, you live in it for another seventeen years or something and then sell us. If you were to do that, then three twentieths of the gain would most likely be accessible and the other seventeen twentieths wouldn't be on that
three twentieth. It's also at the fifty percent couple games discount because you've only asset for more than a year, and the amount of CGT that you would actually pay would be fairly small on a gain that you've held for that period of time. Do talk to your account about though, and specific taxation device is what you need in regards to that. There's also what's known as the six year rules. So a lot of expats will have a property illustrate they only go and work overseas for
a period of time. You have six years six and a half years, I think it is from the time that you turn it into an investment property to either return and move back into it or to sell it and have it CGT free. So this one's a little bit different to that, and that you won't have lived
in it. And the third thing I'll probably point out, Christopher is that if it becomes your dream home and you don't you read it out for a period and then you move into it and you never depart us until such times you're going out in the box, then you won't be paying any CGT on it. Anyway, you only pay CGT when you sell an asset. So if it was to be your dream home and that was going to be your last home, then the KA might
become a problem. For not a problem, but there might be a tax issue for your kids when they're selling it. But it shouldn't be in your lifetime if that's the case.
But interesting, Hey, Bruce, can I just double check on something. If the person owns the property, rents it, and then moves into it afterwards, if they're moving after six years, are you saying the first six years are not accounted for CGT.
No, that's if you've lived in it and it's been your principal place of residence, then you've moved. I have interstate, overseas, even across down Really, you have six years six and a half years to either sell us or to move back into it and maintain the CGT free status of the property.
So you have to have lived in it and left it and come back.
I would think so, But that is what I want Christopher to chat to an account about the actual technicality of that rule.
I hope that's interesting for you. It's what's exploring. Let's put it that way. We don't give advice, but it's what's exploring. All right. Want'll be this question from Stephen.
From Stephen, I'm a local resident of Mandura in Western Australia, recently bought an investment property locally and called the real estate agent for a rental appraisement apprais She automatically assumed I was in the States and was shocked when I said I wasn't, as the real estate agent said, we don't have any were Australian's buying houses here.
Eastern State colonists charging in carpetbaggers from Melbourne and Sydney pouring into Mandura. But hey, I tell you something. Do you want to know the reverse of that? People put their home up for sale in parts of Melbourne and they get flyers in the door saying moving to Queensland, such and such removals. We are around the corner and here's our phone numbers. So there you are two sets to every coin. Thank you for that, Steven. All right.
Question from Shankar SJ nk or I was amused by your example of what people do while listening to the podcast as blowing leaves. This is exactly what I do each week with my host, quavarn a backpack blower. You've identified your core demographic. M Perhaps I have a couple of those that's very interesting. Ones we must actually I must collect them and read a few out someday. Of
what people do listening to the show. We had a chap who was so fed up of the waiting for a builder to build something for him that he started building himself and sent me pictures of himself on the veranda doing what looked like quite elaborate building works. So there you are and other things. Shankar's question, however, is this my question relates to superannuation. I am fifty seven superbalance.
We don't need to know. My wife is fifty nine superbalance. Okay, they've got plenty of super She will likely work beyond sixty. I am not currently working. Both our super balances remain in big super and retail funds. Okay. As we're nearly sixty, I'm considering how and when to restructure for pension. Okay. Oh makes a lot of sense so far. First, first question, from Shankar. Are we missing a trick by remaining in these retail funds and not commencing an SMF. Big question
Bruce comes up all the time. People get to the retirement phase and then they say, will I start an SMSF. My instinct is, if you were that type, you would have done it years ago. What do you say? And this is not a by shake guards, this is for all the shake guards of the world.
Yeah. Look, certainly, with the balances that you've pointed out there, which are north of two and a half mill for the two of you, there's a lot of reasons that you might start in SMSF. One of those might be around cost. Certainly, I think that once you get to about seven to fifty or a mill, smsfs can start to make sense. They can start to make sense before that. But from my perspective, and I'm advising clients that seven to fifty to a mill can be where they start
to make sense from an overall cost perspective. Once you get to two and a half mill, almost inevitably it will make sense. It's not always about costs, though you can. A lot of retail funds will offer you the same opportunities that you can get for a similar cost. There's what's known as family fee aggregation. You might be at two different retail funds, but if you bought your funds to the same platform, the same fund provider linked them
in the background. That doesn't mean putting the money together, but linking them in the background. Then what you'll often find is that they look at your the relationship with husband and wife. Forgure, Okay, we've got one point five mili here, one point one mill here. We don't have two separate relationships. We've got sort of one relationship that is worth two five two point six million, and the fees come down accordingly as if you had one account
that was doing that roughly. That's one sort of potential opportunity you've said you're in retail funds at the moment, that would allow you the ability to buy the shares, the ETFs, and various other things that you wanted to if you want to take direct control. The biggest thing about self many service funds is control, and that's the reason that most people start them. It might be some
might be looking at expenses, but it's about control. Do you want to control the investments or do you want to work with an advisor to help you control the investments. By doing that, I mean buying direct share. A lot of people start their s misss because they want to choose to buy the hp O areal or to exclude certain things, and they've got certain interests investment interests that they want to follow and think that they can do
it just as well as the fund managers. Some will be able to do someone, but there are a lot of different options there. Start considering doing it at this stage in life when the guy to turn on a pension isn't necessarily about idea James, I don't think that that's a bad idea to.
Play Devil's advocate on it. Blue, So I would say, what about the fact that this looks like it would seem I don't know, but it would seem that I see no complaints about their retail super funds and they have pretty healthy superbalances, and so it would be worth asking could you really do better? And how much more
work would it involve? And at are you sufficiently equipped and energetic if you like to take on the substantial not just the logistics and paperwork of doing an SMSF, but the actual stress of being in charge of your own retirement when it has become exceptionally important to you. It's more important to you now than it was two years ago. That's just too just to play Devil's advocate there. Second part of Shankar's question is more or less the
same as the first. Would we move? Would will be better off moving to pension products in our existing providers. That's the playoff between that and SMSFS For you to decide, Shankar. I hope that's useful to you. Okay, I think you read the next one.
So from Robert purchased a property prior to auction earlier this year and received unconditional loan approval from the bank. Settlement was due at the end of August. His bank acquoted him and illustrate in June, but when he received the mortgage documents, the bank had increased the quoted rate by zero point two seven percents with us informing him, and obviously there'd been no RBA rate increases during that period.
When he questioned the change, was informed that they had withdrawn the special introductory offer at the end of July, after he purchased the property, but before he'd been given unconditional approval. It's now only a couple of weeks to settlements, and the idea of sourcing a line without delaying settlements could be difficult. Robert feels badly mistreated by the bank. They used a great offer to lure him in and then pulled the loan prior to him signing the documents and whatever.
So is such a good question. I don't know about you, Bruce. Have you come across this. The first home I ever bought, I also fixed, so it was very important what the deal was. And I remember I fixed for five years. And when we sat down opposite the guy in nab and it's I noticed Robert hasn't. By the way, folks, you can mention went to these institutions anytime you wish, and we'll make a decision whether it's fair to mention
them in turn. But in any event, or when we got into sit down with my wife and when we got into to sign the documents, the banker was talking a nauseam about all sorts of things and then just mentioned the raid and I just noticed it was a half percent ire. Then we'd agreed all the way along, and we were at the last moment and I just said hang on second, blah blah blah, and he backtracked and said, yeah, And I don't know how much that meant to us over the years, but it was a lot.
So my point is that the whole first thing I would suggest to anyone in that situation is to kick back hard on the bank and see how they respond. Their not inflexible, and you have worked on a deal on the assumption of a reach which you all agree on, and they're changing it. It doesn't matter what the explanation is, they're changing it. What do you think, Bruce, That's what I think. What do you think? As an advisor on the ground?
Mortgage broker had on you need to settle. Basically, now you settle with a bit of a sour taste in your mouth. It probably is too late. We're getting pretty diffal. We don't know if about the circumstances you incomes all that sort of stuff. To see whether you do actually have time to go to another lender, I would probably suggest settling, pushing back on a bit and saying hang on a second, But it sounds like you've probably given
them a try. Push back on a bit. But the most important thing is settling, getting the property in your name. Once you've done that, you don't owe any loyalty to this bank. I would be it doesn't sound like you've
gone through a broker. I would probably suggest going to see a broker straight afterwards or even now and say this has happened, particularly if you've gone direct to a bank, I don't see a broker and explain to them what's happened, and see whether the rates, whether there are more competitive rates out there. If you did go through a broker, then get your broker to push back on the bank. It might not have an impact. They do have to cut off special rates at various periods of time. That's
what they do. The energy is to try to get people in the door. I would probably suggest settling, getting the place, and then looking to move on or to bash the bank. Go back and tell the bank that you want to that you're not happy with it, and you're going to leave. They've done a lot of work. They're not making any money really out of this. In
the short term. Banks make money the longer you hang around with them, and you might find in that situation that if you go and push back or threaten to leave, once the loan is settled, and say that you're unhappy that something might happen, and if it doesn't, take it, take it to the market, go and see broker.
Thank you for that answer. It's so good and really reflected your own skills, Bruce and experience. I didn't even know and even into my mind that you could after settlement take a second look, because in my mind that was it. That was the end.
I think in your cast, James, you were talking about a fixed right, and we don't now whether Roberts talking about a fixed right here or not. If he's talking about a fix right, then yes, then that's not going to necessarily be possible. If it's a variable right, yep, he doesn't have to hang around. There might be some phase.
You got to figure out whether the phase to get out, which are not as big as I used to be, but the pace to get out are worthwhile to get the new rights at a new bank or something like that, but fixed right to be the variable maybe less, sir.
Okay, so and also mortgage broker on that occasion, I think sounds like to be absolutely essential for anyone in that position. Very interesting, Okay, we'll take short break back in a moment. Hello, Welcome back to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. I'm James Kirby, Well editor at The Australian talking to Bruce Bramble, financial advisor, author, media figure and regular on the show. Now it's a question from Neil.
I heard Danielle Ekoye on the show a few weeks ago mention she never borrows to invest, but what about the property market? My question is, if leverage is a good idea, then why do more investors not borrow to invest in the share market as opposed to the property market? And he mentions one of the he mentions the NAB equity builder, which is often mentioned here and there for people who are leveradging, looking for what you might call a structured product, an arrangement to go into the share
market and borrow. Now, that was unusual. I was surprised that Danielle said that, but because she's in the market's a long time and a very skilled operator herself. But that's her view. Most people identify property and leverage property through negative gearing because there are specific tax advantages. Those tax advantages are also available to you if you buy shares.
So Neil just to enhance the question a bit. Why don't people borrow more often to buy investments outside property when they can negatively gear just like the negatively gear property. What do you think, Bruce, Why is it because the trauma of watching share prices bounce around every day?
It is partly about volatility. Shares are just simply far more volatile than property. I love both, as as said classes, and we've got clients with both obviously, but borrowing to invest in the share market is less popular because of things like if you're using a margin loan, because of marginal calls. When markets tend to fall quite heavily and there's a margin call, that can be a problem borrowing
to buy. The other way borrowing for share investment is potentially without margin calls, is to borrow against another asset, generally a property. So you might want to invest tax effectively into a share portfolio, divis or a share portfolio. I've got equity in my home, I'm going to borrow get a two hundred thousand dollars facility against my home. So go it against my home to invest in two
hundred thousand dollars worth of shares. You'll get a home run home loan rate on those on there, which can be one way of doing it. And you're investing in shares which will be returning dividends and distributions, and there'll be some negative most likely when you start, some negative gearing around that, so you can and do have that ability.
The chairs are just more volatile. The thing about property is when you're borrowing for property, is the normally leaning against the asset itself, and depending on which way you do it, ninety percent against the property, and then you need to either put up the remainder of the money or borrow the remainder of the money the extra twenty percent pusly stamp duties and put that against another property.
But I think the reason that most people it's less less well taken up is largely because of the volatility element of it.
Yes, and you're alluding there to the fact that the banks or lenders with property. If you say you've got a million dollar house, it's worth a million dollars, they'll take it as a million dollars. If you say you've got a million dollar shareport for you, they don't take it as a million do that. They ratchet it way back and they say we'll only assume that's worth They mark that down a fair bit for collateral purposes.
From a leanning, they tend to take it at face value. They might discount a little bit. They certainly do discount the income that comes from it when they're looking for loan. So if you've got a million dollar portfolio yielding four percent plus of franking credits, then they'll take twenty percent as a general rule, I think off that discount the income strain because dividends can be cut. But gfc's or co.
But don't they assume that rents, that the rentalss can be vacuant.
Yes, they do, but they assume that there's a percent rental vacancy on any given property. They yeah, two percent, as in two a couple of weeks a year or something. So they'll if you tell them that's worth five hundred bucks a week, they automatically discounted by probably about a similar sort of percentage of twenty percent. But that's the cover vacancy rates, insurances, the other costs of holding a property as well.
Okay, Yes, and as you said, the risk of a vacant property just now is more or less zilch. Okay. Finally, question from Ben if you would read.
That one, I'll read this one. But I think this is definitely quick for you, James. So from being how come you're expanding the Top Advisor's list to one fifty, well, not just expand it to fifteen thousand cover all advisors. Maybe an idea is to do like wines and categorize them best for small accounts, best for retire is best for big families.
Yes, thank you, Ben. The Top Advisors disc goes from one hundred two hundred and fifty this year on its seventh year. Ben, we're not exactly rushing. It started with fifty and two seventeen and then we opened it up to one hundred a couple of years ago, being very careful opening it up at at one hundred and fifty out of fifteen thousand. That's not exactly. It's a balance between offering something that's really useful and it's not so tiny that it's not useful. Because nobody can get into
these people. As to how big the list will get, I couldn't tell you. And as I like your idea of course, and by the way, so does Barons. And in the US they have sufficient data and scale that they do slice, and I said, like that, they have the best male and the best female and the best family advisors, and they have it stayed by state and
it's all quite marvelous. But they're doing it for twenty five years there and they have an enormous population, of course, but we are steadily and conservatively moving along on that one. So that's the explanation Ben, which I hope is good enough for you. All right, Hey, thank you very much, Bruce. Great to have you on today.
Absolute pleasure. Thanks for having me on Jobs.
Always great to have Bruce Brammel, Bruce Brammel Financial Advice on the show. Thank you everybody for listening. Do mention us to someone, one person you know, be lovely to spread the word about the show and keep the emails coming in the money puzzle at the Australian dot com dot au. Talk to you soon,