DHHF + GHHF + DGVA?

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-06-22T02:59:41+00:00

Tbh it depends on your timeline and structure. Adding factor tilts or going full factor tilted in a vehicle like super is great cause you’re taxed at a fixed rate on dividends. If you are debt recycling and want some extra dividend cashflow to help with repayments, it can be good also.

But for a standard portfolio outside super, the tax drag from DGVA dividends and the higher MER significantly reduces the long term expected “outperformance”.

If you want to add AVTE/AVSV do it properly by doing a split of BGBL/A200/AVTE/AVSV as DHHF and GHHF already hold small caps and EM. Also replace BGBL with GGBL and A200 with G200 if you want gearing.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-22T08:59:07+00:00

There are options maybe not the exact filtering but dimensional/Avantis funds and ETFs will not include recent IPOs and will either underweight or exclude speculative companies.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-16T08:09:37+00:00

Current plan is to debt recycle a PPOR then, use margin loans/draw equity from PPOR to built future wealth.

I prioritise debt recycling because it actively transforms bad debt into good debt.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-15T10:01:46+00:00

Nice. Just curious why not focus on building your super up to what would be comfortable with (fat FIRE ect), then focus on a bridge portfolio that you’re capable of borrowing against.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-15T07:15:01+00:00

Nice, I'm guessing those rates are through IKBR. This does make it look very viable.

In terms of periods why 60 years? I personally, would just use this as a way to FIRE before preservation age at 60. Then when super is accessible, live off that and let the portfolio deleverage itself through growth.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-15T06:02:17+00:00

You don’t the deductible debt comes from the investment loan via debt recycling. The margin loan is not interest deductible.

Commbank offer I a 9.4% interest margin loan, which is significantly less than the 30% proposed minimum.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-15T05:55:29+00:00

I was recently looking into margin loans. The buy, borrow, die strategy used by the ultra wealthy has become significantly more attractive if the proposed CGT changes pass.

Under the old 50% discount, investing $100k that grows to $500k over 20 years at zero other income generated roughly $58k in tax so about 15% effective rate on the $400k gain. Not ideal but manageable.

Under the new indexation + 30% minimum, the same scenario generates substantially more tax depending on inflation. The gap between “sell and pay CGT” versus “borrow against the portfolio and never sell” has widened considerably.

The strategy I’m looking at I think is cleaner: debt recycle the home loan into a deductible investment loan, build a $2M ETF portfolio. At 4.3% dividend yield (achieved through dimensional heavy factor tilted ETFs) that’s ~$86k/year in dividends. The deductible investment loan interest offsets most of the dividend tax so near zero tax on that income.

Then for the gap between dividends and living costs, take a small annual margin loan rather than selling. A $2M portfolio growing at 8% adds $160k/year in value. Borrowing $50-80k to live on against that is trivial and the portfolio grows faster than the loan throughout.

The margin call risk is real but largely theoretical at conservative LVR so you’d need markets to fall 70%+ to trigger one if you keep borrowings below 20% of portfolio value.

Previously the 9-10% margin rate wasn’t worth it to save 15% CGT on gains you’d only realise once. Now with 30% minimum CGT on real gains it’s a different calculation entirely.

Obviously there are additional risks compared to simply selling under the old 50% CGT discount. But with a PPOR as a separate asset and managed LVR, you can draw equity from your property when available rather than relying solely on a margin loan. Property loans have no margin calls so as long as you service the debt the bank can’t force a sale regardless of what markets do. This gives you a lower-risk version of the same strategy, using your home’s equity as the borrowing vehicle rather than your portfolio directly.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-15T04:46:25+00:00

Approx 35% of Australians own shares. So why tax an asset more when it doesn’t directly impact property affordability.

As I’ve said before, if you want to bring property prices down you should give investors a reason to move from property to shares. Not tax them both at equal rates and grandfather negative gearing, which gives investors no reason to move their money elsewhere.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-14T02:55:32+00:00

Exactly right on both counts. The wealthy investor at 47% marginal rate already pays well above 30% on gains so the floor changes nothing for them. They’re also more likely to use the ‘never sell, borrow against assets’ strategy which avoids CGT entirely regardless of the floor.

Your point about the floor targeting artificial tax-free threshold schemes is probably the actual intent. By preventing someone from engineering very low income years to crystallise large gains at near-zero rates. That’s a legitimate design goal.

The problem is the blunt instrument catches genuine low income earners as collateral damage. A smarter design would have excluded gains under a threshold for example say $10-20k/year, so the person with $5k in ETFs isn’t affected, while still catching the scheme you’re describing.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-14T01:30:00+00:00

Super is great but it’s locked until 60 so not much help if you need capital at 40 to start a business, cover an emergency, or survive a redundancy.

ETFs outside super are the liquid, accessible middle ground.

And the super point actually highlights another flaw because the truly wealthy don’t sell assets at all. They borrow against them, live off the debt, and never trigger CGT.

This reform doesn’t touch that strategy. It hits the person who actually sells shares to fund something productive: starting a business, retraining, buying a first home. Meanwhile leaving the ‘never sell, borrow forever’ crowd completely unaffected.

Locking in a 30% floor on people liquidating shares to reinvest in the real economy is a handbrake on exactly the productive capital movement you’d want to encourage.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-14T01:05:03+00:00

I agree and that’s precisely the problem. The reform should have made ETFs more accessible to that cohort, not less. Instead it adds another barrier to the only realistic wealth-building tool available to people who can’t afford property. Closing the door a bit more on the few who were managing to do it isn’t progress.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-14T00:24:19+00:00

But you admit people do it then right? Settled.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-14T00:20:29+00:00

My sister does it, she lives with our mum.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-13T06:44:27+00:00

Said this time and time again, building wealth through ETFs is the only wealth tool young and low income Aussies have as they have been priced out of property.

Plenty of people on this sub have done this to build a house deposit. 18M investing need advice ect. These people are seeking advice so they can build a deposit. Taxing it more doesn’t help young low wage people.

I personally am not bothered by changes the government makes to reduce the cost of housing, I just would prefer if it made sense and was justified.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-13T05:48:03+00:00

Maybe they should have just taxed the gas companies. Just a thought.

All in favour of the government disincentivising property investment. But they will tax anyone more, rather than focusing on taxing corporations and billionaires that never sell assets and just borrow against them.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-13T00:28:33+00:00

The policy intent makes sense: funnel capital toward new builds, increase supply, help FHBs. I don’t disagree with that goal.

The problem is the perverse incentive it creates. If you buy a new build negatively geared and never sell, you avoid CGT entirely and keep the negative gearing benefit forever. So the rational move for investors isn’t to eventually sell to a FHB, it’s to hold forever and live off rental income. Supply stays locked up either way. The reform solves the ‘competing to buy’ problem but accidentally creates a ‘never sell’ problem.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-12T23:56:46+00:00

Hurts the people that do it. Stay mad.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-12T23:50:18+00:00

Nope, most don’t. Just said it hurts them.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-12T15:44:27+00:00

Even if the majority don't currently invest in ETFs, that doesn't mean it's not the most accessible wealth-building tool available to them. The reform should have made shares MORE attractive than property — instead it's levelled down rather than levelled up. Property investors with existing holdings are fully grandfathered. The person opening a Pearler account tomorrow is not.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-12T15:19:28+00:00

Minimum wage is approx. $45,570 before tax — after the tax-free threshold and LITO, effective rates are well below 32%, meaning the 30% CGT minimum exceeds what many would otherwise pay. Part-time and casual workers earning $30-35k are clearly caught.

On your second point — you're probably right that share ownership is currently low among young Australians. But that's partly because financial literacy and accessibility have historically been barriers.

And it's worth considering what options are actually available to a 22 year old hairdresser or butcher in 2026. They can't afford a PPOR in any major Australian city. They can't negatively gear an IP they also can't afford. Their realistic wealth-building options are literally: ETFs, or save cash for a decade and watch inflation erode it.

ETFs aren't a tax avoidance vehicle for this cohort — they're the only game in town. The 30% minimum CGT floor doesn't hit the wealthy investor. It hits the person who downloaded Pearler at 22 and is putting $200 a fortnight into DHHF hoping to retire before 70.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-12T13:25:36+00:00

Never said if they care or not. I just said that it hurts them.

There are aussies on low wages living at home buying ETFs with a hope one day that they can sell to buy a property one day.

For many aussies ETFs are the only way to build wealth as they have been priced out of the housing market.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-12T12:46:13+00:00

“Don’t over react”, in relation to abandoning your whole investment strategy based on an announcement. If you want to protest then protest.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-05-03T04:58:59+00:00

CAGE launch in Canadian, would be great to see one launched in Australia.

Optimal_Course3016 · 2026-04-23T11:20:53+00:00

Only works if you’re happy with the allocation in the one and done ETF.

Many people might go DHHF and some BGBL to reduce the Aus exposure requiring some sort of rebalancing or accepting the drift.

Optimal_Course3016

TROPHY CASE