Hello, and welcome to The Australian's Money Puzzle podcast. I'm James Kirby, the World editor at The Australian. Welcome aboard everybody, and we're not a news program, as you know, but we are alert to news as it happens. And just now there's a lot happening for investors around super around financial advice, and the landscape is altering quite quickly, and I think you know, to be a complete investor, you do need to be up to speed with what's happening.
You don't need to know everything, you don't need to know all the macro and all the speculation, but you do need to know the terms in which you are investing, and that's what today's show will actually hinge on. You need to be up to speed. And my guest is very much up to speed on all things in this area because he's the editor in chief of the Cannexus Group. And the Cannexus is a financial publishing and information group
but has all sorts of arms. It does some professional magazines by financial planners, for instance, and it has a Connexus Institute, which is a not for profit think tank and that issues reports in the area. His name is Alex Bikovich first time on the show. Lovely to have him.
How are you, Alex can I James, thank you for having me.
I've picked a good week to have you, haven't I really I don't think I've had as many calls from the general newsdesk all year as this week because there's so much happening. In fact, there's a Senate committee tomorrow on Super for instance, where they're hauling hauling the SeaBus Chairman Wayne Swan in front of them.
At last, against his will.
I believe against his will it would seem it would seem so. And there's been big news on the three million super tax, which was the biggest sort of policy change in Super some time this week, All sorts of things happening, So good to have you on. Look, why don't we start first of all with Super and what's happening around Super? Because I think people are I have to tell you that people are concerned about some of
the issues in the industry funds. Every industry fund is different, but they're all running broadly the same way, and many of them Australian Super, Hester, UNI Super, they've all had cock ups from want of a better world in recent times. SeaBus is outstanding of course, because ASIK are taking them to court for delayed payments to on death benefits and disabilities. The APPA are also investigating them, So a whole bunch
of issues around around them and people. Interestingly enough, as you'd probably know, Alex, a lot of journalists and media people were in Cebus because they were in the old media super which was hoovered up by Cebus in the way of these big funds.
That's right. Yeah, I was a member of Media super myself before setting up a self managed superfund.
Snap, so was I. But I could go back to two or six for that one. But here's the thing. What's your initial impression of this. Is it a year where we say this is the year the super funds actually had to professionalize and come to the table and sort out some of the issues that are not actually, in many occasions in the best interests of individual investors.
Yeah, thanks, Jamee, And I like the way that you frame it at the outset. This is a week where a whole range of financial services policy debates, you know, political fights are coming to a head. But I'd probably say that every week in the last thirty years of compulsory super has been contentious and there have been big political issues just on the super funds themselves. You know,
we are seeing more scrutiny from regulators. The way that the superannuation industry is regulated is really important to understand because it has two separate regulators, one that's prudential in opera and another one that covers conduct in ASSEIC and so no one has a full piece of the sector and they just each look at different little bits, but both of them are really looking, as is the Parliament, at the sort of growth and growth of industry super funds,
which you'd have to say is one of the biggest developments in the Australian economy.
Four trillion dollar industry now.
Four trillion dollars is it's just ticked over in the last few days in terms of the public reporting of that does include the SMSF sector. But the important thing around super is not so much the number, but the fact that it has effectively a twelve percent maybe one day fifteen percent and your lie's growth rate right, so that pool really is never shrinking and I think that's the first thing to understand about why we're seeing this scrutiny. Partly it is just a function of the increasing size.
You're talking about the world's third biggest pool of retirement assets, despite US having a much smaller population than comparable nations. And you're also talking about a pool of assets that's twice the size of the Australian economy, which is really hard to get your heaterin.
But here's the thing. I suppose people see these issues and they are in super funds, and it's only natural that people would say, will the investment performance of my super be diluted or damaged or weakened by obvious weaknesses in other parts of the funds? At c BUS, for instance, you know, if they're delaying payments to death benefits and treating people badly on that front, is that going to hit my investment performance if I can't see if I can't access a ORT or UNI super for some reason
because they've got some it cockup? Well have they got it cockups in the investment department? And I think that's what people are worried about. Well, yeah, what do you think? What would you say to people who come up to you on the street and say, I'm worried about my industry fund because it's getting all sorts of bad publicity.
Well, the first thing I'd say is that it's awesome they're engaged with the superannuation and what their fund may or may not be doing. I think it's important to hold them to scrutiny. They are fiduciaries, they have a really strong legal obligation to members, and so you know, it's great that we're holding them to account. There's two separate issues that are really being looked at the moment.
The one is, as you say, really you could describe as member experience the way that funds are engaging with their members things like death benefit claims, insurance claims, and there's a strong body of evidence that these things need to improve. In terms of the links between that and the investment performance, maybe you could argue that in so far as people are leaving the fund and that therefore that reduces the quantum of the assets that they can invest,
that could have a flow on effect. Or in so far as it's distracting key C suite executives from the fund to some of these other issues, then you know you could argue that's having an effect. But really I think you would want to in truth separate these kind of member experience in communications issues which are really important and which need to improve and which deserve scrutiny from
the investment performance. But the other area where the regulators are cracking down and where we're seeing a lot of media activity is on the governance. We're seeing this, of course, most notably in the case of c BUS, where there have been long standing ties to the CFMAU, the now defunct trade union, infamous trade union, and these issues have been bubbling away for a long time, not just in industry super funds which are union link but right across
the sector. Who are the right people to be sitting on the boards of these organizations, which is a really powerful organization. What sort of competencies should they have and what governance processes do they have in place to ensure that they're investing in a way that's in line with members' best interests That I think has a much more meaningful and direct influence over the return that members are actually getting.
One of the things you mentioned there before, when we talk about how much is in super a trillion dollars, it just so happens. It just occurred. In the September quarter, Ato figures that the SMSF sector has passed a trillion dollars right, So there you go. Very roughly a quarter of all the money in super is in the SMSs. Do you self managed super funds? Many of our listeners are interested in smsfs. They often write in and should I start one, et cetera. We're always having a debate
about how much you should have in smsfs. But I just want to ask you, do you think that this will that this very this rocky period for the big industry funds will benefit self managed super funds? And if people leave interotry funds, I'm guessing they don't go to another one. I'm guessing they actually do start an SMSF. What's your experience there?
Look, there's a range of places where people go, is my experience. And what the research would show is that statistically,
very few Australians switch funds at all. And that, you know, because we have a default system, and the whole system was set up by the unions and and buy the people who were advocating for it to be a default system that would work in the background while you were living your life and you didn't have to really think about So, you know, we have seen a slight uptick in people switching out of funds in the last year or so, and particularly see BUS in more recent times
has seen some outflows. You know, whether that's fair or not. I don't think it's necessarily a reflection on the returns they have or haven't been receiving. But I also don't think it's I think it's a good thing that people are paying attention to these governance issues.
Our listeners would wouldn't be typical and that they would be paying That's why they listened to the show. So here's the thing you were saying about the flow on effects. So let's say money flows out of a fund. I'm not going to pick any fund, but let's say one fund it constantly has bad news a month after month, and the money starts to flow out. That is, there are net outflows, right, so there's more money going out.
And let's say their investment team were unchanged. What could occur that what would be the problem that they'd have to charge more to Is that it that their costs would effectively have to go up because their revenue is going down or how would it work well?
I think that would be a big decision to make. And there's all sorts of regulations that would prevent them from that being their first port of call, but it changes their liquidity profile, right, So it means if you are seeing people in outflow, it naturally changes the way you invest because you need to be in a position
where you can pay people out. And the thing about a lot of big industry super funds, particularly those that have a very young membership base, is they invest in a way where they don't expect to be paying people out in pensions for many decades. On the whole, that allows them to invest in venture capital, It allows them to be a little bit more aggressive in the share market, and so if they were to start to see outflows, that would meaningfully change their investment behavior in that way.
The other thing is that you know, the size of the poll obviously determines what sort of assets you can invest in, and a lot of super funds have a real preference, rightly or wrongly, for big unlisted assets like airports and toll roads and things that you and they co invest or they directly invest in these assets, not always via a managed fund, So you know, to the extent that was depleted, that would be a very real difference in terms of their investment strategy.
Is it Does it concern you when you see occasionally big losses in that onlisted area commercial property obviously are several funds, but also occasionally, out of the blue, we see big funds taking you know, a big hit on obviously a big bet on something here and there.
It does consume me to some extent, because you know, you never want to see a loss either by an individual private household or by a major super fund. But I think it's important to remember these funds are pretty well diversified. And the other thing I mean, as a journalist, you want to jump on these stories. We're right to
focus on them. But the thing I worry more about, James, is actually that you've got this culture, particularly within the big funds, of real cautiousness and political correctness, and they don't want to be too they don't want to take on any risks. They'd all happy, happily be fast followers,
but they don't innovate. I worry that therefore sometimes they're missing opportunities frankly, where you know, the investors they've got on start are very keen to pursue an opportunity, but they're so scared of media Backlasher of getting it wrong, and as your listeners will realize, getting it wrong sometime is a really healthy and normal part of investing right, and these are entirely well diversified.
You're talking strictly in the investment sense of getting an investment as opposed to getting a process wrong like a payouts or whatever. Payments Okay, on also on super it would seem, and he says, I say this, folks carefully, it would seem that for all the attention, for all the what they used to call many calumintions of coverage on the plan to introduce a new supertax of fifteen percent on amounts over three million on believe it or not, on realized gains, which was daft, I thought that plan
looks now like it's not going to happen. Alex, could you tell us what you think at least is going on.
There's at least a chance that it happens about you know, we're running out of time. We're in the last sitting week of parliament, possibly the last sitting week of the government's first term, depending on when we go to an election. There's two different theories. One is that the shot clock simply has run out and This is a pretty ambitious government. There's seventy pieces of legislation that they want to get
through this year. Clearly that won't happen, but there is a view that given as your listeners will remember some of the proposals they took to the last election, including the franking credits proposal and the negative gearing proposal, anything that scratches up on a tax, albeit one that should only affect people with three million in their account or more.
There are some who think they're sort of scared of the politics here, and you know, there were some They don't have the bipartisan support for this and that makes it very difficult. And partly that's because of the way that they've drafted. And I totally agree with you that the unrealized gains proposal is mad, as is the lack of indexing here, so that one day this will capture a very large number of Australians.
Yeah, every year captures more people with inflation. Okay, So it looks like for now it looks extremely unlikely that the three million tags will get through folks in this week, and that would mean that it doesn't get through at all until there's another sitting of parlems, which would be
co post elections. So one last thing on this, Alex, I suppose they could bring it to the election and then it would be an election promise, and then they'd have a stronger chance, have a stronger mandate of getting it through on the far side, especially if they cleaned it up and amedded a bit more of a practical attax as opposed to the sort of very complex dog's breakfast of a plant is.
At the moment, they could, but I'd be very surprised to see that, James, given they promised no changes to super last time. I think they'd be more likely to do the opposite, which would be not take it to the election and then potentially introduced its subsequently.
All right, so they would bring it back, they just wouldn't bring it to elections possibly.
I Actually, while this does affect superannuation and there's an important precedent here, particularly for people who have SMSs, this is not really a superannuation story. This is much more a budget and tax story. It's about trying to shore up the fiscal position in a way that they were hoping would be inoffensive. But they're structured in a way that has meant it's not billionaires here who are affected by this. There's also plenty of regular farmers and small
business owners. So I think that's been either a misstep in the drafting. You know, they didn't quite realize those were the cohorts who would be affected.
Okay, Yeah, it's funny, isn't it. There Every government looks for that inoffensive tax and unfortunately there's no such thing. Okay, take a break. Hello, Welcome back to The Australian's Money Puzzle. I'm James Kirby. I'm talking to Alex Vikovic. He's the editor in chief of the CONNECTSUS group, and we are talking news. We are talking very much news on the run here for you the investor, because as I mentioned,
need to know this. It's worth hearing what's going on. So, for instance, from that first segment there, I wouldn't be waiting around for this three million super tax to the extent that it affects you, or more pertinently, to the effect to the extent that it might affect you someday should you be successful and you're investing over the long term. So let's just put that to one side for the moment. Similarly, now I think this affects a lot of people. The
big troubles at the big industry funds. The issue, folks, is for as an investor, the issue is can they quarantine the ineptness and competence that's coming through on the bureaucracy if you like, of the big funds from their investment teams. I don't know. I don't know if they can. They have so far, that's all I can tell you, but I don't know if they can forever. I mean, if a fund is completely inept in lots of ways,
it's likely to be superb in the investment department. Now, you also published this professional planner magazine more than a magazine the topic, it's a website, et cetera, and you cover all the news there. Financial advice it too, is sort of stuck in a bit of a political mire. Isn't that There was a plan by the Minister Stephen Jones to overhaul financial advice in a fairly significant way, cut a lot of red tape and allowed the big industry funds to expand what they offer in financial advice.
Could you is it humanly possible to distill all that and tell us what's going on?
Yeah, well, you're right that it is a difficult one to distill because the crux of the problem with financial advice is actually how complex the laws themselves are. So it's no surprise that the debate around that complexity also tends to be fairly complex. But basically it is what we see in a lot of areas in the markets, which is there is a genuine and probably very you know, needed impulse by governments to regulate, which is what we've
seen over the last twenty years. There were a ranger scandals that you've now you know that your paper was covering, and as was I in the financial planning world, largely in the kind of bank owned sort of structure that exists.
And the banks basically sorted that out by running and they dumped it. Right, So we're left. But here's the odd thing. There's fifteen thousand advisors left. There was thirty thousand at the time of all the Fluid Commission, and the fees are about five grand a year on an ongoing basis for people. So anything you see that can improve that situation happening.
Now, Yeah, Well, the first thing I'd say is in the last couple of years, you know, we spoke earlier about coming out of media super and going into an SMSF myself. And one of the things that precipitated that and came along with that was becoming a comprehensive advice client, which I'm a big believer in, and I pay a
lot of money. I'm not a rich guy. I'm a journalist like yourself, and I you know, I do pay these exorbitant rates now for comprehensive advice, and I've got to say, I think it's pretty good value.
So does it save you five grand a year?
At least it saves me five grand a year or more? I would say, James in In avoided disputes with my spouse, And I think that's really what it provides you is you know, it provides peace of mind, It provides relationship benefits, and all sorts of things.
Could you tell us what I don't just in nature? The real benefits of paying for that advice in nature? Are they tax Are they stopping you doing something? Are they telling you something you didn't know? What is it?
I think it's primarily sort of lifestyle and psychology for me, in terms of the knowing that there's a professional that's in your court to help you through big life moments, whether it's a pay rise, a redundancy, a change in your situation and inheritance. And also, you know, we all get flooded with these communications from fund managers and others.
If something does occasionally pique your interest, you know, having a support staff to a financial advisor that you can just quickly flick that to, I find that enormously helpful. So I think it's just having someone in your corner in what is even for those of us like you and I who are paid to understand these things. It is notoriously the complex, right, So that's the first thing I'd say is I do think it's worth it at
the prices they're asking. The question is what model do we come up with for regular workers, mums and dads who will never be able to afford that, which increasingly there's a large number in that pool right given cost of living. And so it's funny you mentioned the banks getting out. It's a controversial view and my personal view is banks probably need to be part of the solution because that is the organization that most Australians have their
primary financial relationship with. And yet, as you say, if you walk into a bank branch tomorrow, or more likely use your bank app and you ask for financial advice. It's not clear what process is triggered, but what is clear is most of the banks provide little if any financial advice these days, and so the other one given the banks have got little interest at least until the laws change to make them more complex and less expensive
to comply. That other option that is coming up, which the government's trying to do something about, is expanding the options within your super fund, the amount of advice that is provided by the fund and in the fund. And that's a pretty good idea on paper. For the same reason I just said. People have an existing relationship, they're
defaulted into this fund. A lot of their questions will be about SUPER invariably, But given the politics we've just spoken about and how contentious Super is, there's a lot of issues associated with.
Is there anywhere nearer reality than in Parliament than.
I have had a few small achievements. It's fair to say over the last couple of years they have wound back a few small things. But most financial advice providers would say that's not moving the dial. It's certainly not helping them reduce their cost.
The idea of redrafting legislation to the point that the big super funds can expand advice for every day investors.
Where's that at, Well, that's currently there's an exposure draft, there's draft legislation being written at the moment. The problem is the lobbyists around the space just don't agree at all on what's what the model should look like. And the dispute James is around whether or not funds should be able to collectively charge their members for the advice.
Which is what they want, right, that's what they want.
That's what they want. Apparently they haven't said so publicly. It's important to say, but that's what my sources suggest, and that's what it is believed they are advocating for in private.
Logic would suggest that's how they always want to do things, isn't it really.
And it's important to that is how the existing model works for what's called intrafund advice, which is a much narrower scope form of financial advice.
Okay, and it's explained to listeners what's wrong with that?
Well, it depends on your frames of reference.
What people say is wrong with that?
Yeah, I mean what's wrong with that is that one of the main findings of the Banking Royal Commission, if people remember, was this idea of fees for no service, where people were paying out fees for advice or for investment services and then not receiving the benefit of that. And critics would say, this is the same thing where you're a super fund member, you don't feel you need advice, or you don't even know they offer advice, and yet
you're subsidizing somebody else's advice. Some people take issue with that on principle.
Okay, and you're subsidizing somebody who's in there asking them on a hundred questions, and you're both paying the same rate, whether you're both paying the same rate always, whether you access it or not. Okay, very interesting, all right. I think that's probably all we can see on financial advice. It's worth bringing people up to date on that. It's
a pretty interesting area of folks. I think, just to make one final point on that, the industry, for all the talk around it, is very much stuck for now with a model which is highly regulated and surveys which for all of late have shown that they are saying the planners are saying that more than fifty percent of their costs are to do regulation as opposed to give new advice. That's no good. That has to improve, but it isn't something of a political quagmar Okay back in
a moment with some questions. Hello, Welcome back to the Australians Money Puzzle podcast. I'm James Kirby talking to Alex Pikovic, who's the editor of chief at the Kennexus Financial Group and someone who is very much across particularly across the goings on if you like the big picture about advice and super in the market, and particularly in Canberra, which is currently a course in its last sitting week of Parliament where they're trying to squash seventy bills squeeze seventy
bills through. Let's say, let's say that they won't get seventy bills through in the next few days. That's for sure be interesting to see if they get anything in relation to our world as investors through that would make a difference to us. We cover that in the first two segments. Now, some interesting questions. Lofty LOFTUI high Lofty. I have a question about tax and super. I'm invested primarily in low cost index funds through an industry super fundable.
There you are. I heard recently that taxes with help from returns to provide for future capital gains. Is this true? And who do this not cause a measurable tax drag on the portfolio over the long term? He tells us how much he has whether he should start SMSF. I think we might as well put the figure in. I don't like normally doing this, but you don't know who Lofty is, and nor do I don't have his surname,
and this is never advised. This is always information. But he's got half a minute, which is that sort of a moult that would have you starting to think about whether you should start them. Two parts to that question. The first part is about the how they deal with capital against tax and the big super funds, and they play a game on that where they give you a bonus if you stay and you lose it bit if you don't, so nothing. It's not it is how it works, Lofty, and that's you have to go with it or not
go with it. That's how they do it. Is that right, Alex? Have you any issue with that?
Yeah? That's right. And I'm glad you gave the figure, James, because when it comes to sfs, the figure is important, or at least it's seen to be important, so that you're right, I would say that shouldn't be the determining factor really of whether you set up an SMSF. I mean, I know, for me personally, it certainly wasn't about reaching
a certain threshold and then crossing over. For me, it was about wanting to invest in a particular asset that I couldn't through my through my up regulated super fund. So it's very much a personal to see. I'd also say, you know, I like the way Lofty is already thinking.
You know, if they're invested in low cost index funds through an Apple regulated fund, that already indicates to me that they are taking some control of what's called a choice product effectively or an investment option with then a fund, and you're starting to get closer to the reality of what an SMSF feels and looks like anyway, if you want so. It's clearly not a totally default option that
that Lofty's gone with here. So if they're already accustomed to low cost funds, then you know that probably sets you up well for an SMSF in some ways, because that's one way to sort of. There are higher costs of course associated with the running of the fund and the auditing and the tax accounting that you probably need.
And so if you're in low cost index funds by preference, well then you can use some of that, you know, that revenue that you might otherwise be spending on active management and put it towards the running of the fund is one thing to consider. But as you say, James, I certainly wouldn't take tax advice from a journalist, So I'd be going to get I'd be going to get professional advice.
Yeah, to anyone who's start, Certainly anyone out there, if you're going to start, you must Yeah.
And but I think the point to make is the motivations for setting one up. And for me personally, it's that freedom and control and willingness to spend your time running a fund. I think that needs to be a primary motivator, regardless of if you've got fifty grand in there or five million.
And as I always say to Lofty and all the Lofties out there, you've got to be prepared to fill out a lot of forms right forever. Hey, is there a figure that you personally feel a person would need any fund to start an SMSF.
Look, it's really contentious right as it gives its guidance. I think that actually some of these figures are overstated. I think the amount of money is not a problem, and plenty of experts I speak to increasingly with technolog which can bring the cost of servicing the particularly if you are already spending on, for example, a good accountant
or professional advice. I think you could have well less than five hundred thousand dollars and run a good self managed super fund, but only if you've got the financial literacy and the appetite to do it all.
So you're saying like, if somebody was really invested, if you like, in their own financial future, and were numerous and capable and obsessed with low cost, then they could start one from much much less. Is there a rock bottom figure of which you say, listen, it's not feasible.
Look, I mean it really depends. I mean, if you're spending more on the running of the SMSF than you are in the returns, then obviously that's not a good position to be in as a super fund. You know, I certainly have spoken to myself millennial investors, for example, who might only have one hundred thousand dollars in super and run perfectly good, self managed super fun ones that are you know, well governed and competitive with the upper
regulated system. So that's not advice, but I think much less around the number itself.
So there you are, you see you if you you want to be making, if you think about it, if it's five thousand, on't going for advice. And also what it costs, you know, really unless you're unless you're bringing in you know, five and a half or six, you have to subtract that from what you make. So keep that's what you've got to do, guys, keep that in mind.
I would just add, James, you do see the opposite as well, right, I know, I've heard of quite a few multimillionaires who have recently, you know, cashed in their SMSF, shut it down and moved back into an app regulated fund due to the ease with which they you know, they don't want to spend as much time anymore running the fund, or because there's a particular apper regulated industry fund or retail fund that they're that they're keen on. So it does happen both ways.
Yeah, And there's a point of which people might say, they might have started fund at forty and they might be seventy eighty and they say, oh, you know, it's all too hard. I can't do this anymore for a variety of reasons. And I'm not just saying mental decline. I'm just saying they started the fund because they wanted to have a million dollars in super and now they have, and I may say, but I don't have to do all that work anymore. Okay, we're slightly running out of time.
I'll just jump to one last question from Russell. It's hard, Russell says, it's hard. It's still hard to understand the risk of private credit. The sheer market is easy to understand. Any day you can drop twenty five percent or more. I like the way you put that, Russell, and it grows at an average of nine to ten percent per anamal for the very long term. What would be the black swan events that's severely or wipe out your investments? Hey, Russell,
they're black swan events. We don't know what they are. That's the whole thing. They're black swans. I don't mean to be facetious, but that's it. That's the nature of it. If I could tell you what the black swan events were, I'd have a hedge fund.
We don't know what they are, Jane's, but arguably, by it's very nature, we know what they are in the share market better than we know what they are in private credit. So that's the first thing that I'd say is the clue is in the title, and the fact that these are effectively loans that are not connected to public markets means by their very nature they are more opaque. It is less You're less able to work out what they're really worth, You're less able to obtain reliable research.
And I'm not saying people shouldn't invest in private credit. It's the hottest asset class in the world for a reason, right But that reason is that you can generate a return at the moment, or at least we've been able to over this past cycle, and that return is based on the risk involved, and so very much with private credit,
there are very real risks that the investors wear. The thing to think about mostly in private credit, in my view, is less a black swan event that might affect the market or the underlying loans, but more about the competency of the asset manager involved, assuming there is one involved, and if there's not, then I think that's a bit of a red flag for me, because you do see at the institutional level asset managers who truly do specialize in this space and have done it for hundreds of years,
and they've been through lots of different credit cycles, and that would give me a little bit more comfort. But even then, let's not pretend lending is easy, right credit Swiss was doing this for hundreds of years before it came unstuck. This is not an easy thing and it sometimes gets misconstrued.
Do you think the chances of the everyday investor getting into a good fund are slimmer now that it has become I do the hotest?
I definitely. I definitely think personally the best way to access private credit is probably through a large institutional investor where they are through economies of scale. So you know, the superfunds themselves are really loading up on private credit, not always in a good way. I mean, there are some examples. Australian super for example, is now doing its own direct lending in Europe without an asset manager. That
worries me a little bit. I don't know what Australian super certainly doesn't have hundreds of years experienced doing that. But nonetheless, I think if you want the returns from private credit, doing so in a large diversified institutional environment is probably a better way to do it in an
SMSSPH or as a private investor. There's still plenty of good private credit funds out there, but I also worry that some of the problematic funds that are most likely to be exposed if there was a black swan event, they are trying to raise capital from retail and wholesale avestors.
So I certainly think that regular listeners to this who are being attracted by the sort of ten percent plus returns on offer or whatever, this is definitely an area where you know, if it looks too good to be true, or if it you know, these are not bonds, it needs to be really well understood and it's a hot market, but I'd be cautious.
Okay, terrific, terrific. Thank you very much and thanks very much for coming on the show.
Alex.
Really good to have you. Alex Pikovich there from the CONNECTSUS Financial Group, Thanks Alex, Thanks Jows. I'd like to thank Leah samuelgluehod heroic work to get on TAK, not so much to produce the show, but to get to the point of producing the show today. So thank you Leah in particular, and let's have some emails please the money puzzle at the Australian dot com dot au. Talk to you soon.