Wealth Kingdom

Author: Shane W. Miller

  • Newbie Investor Traps

    Investing is a critical tool for wealth building, but many new investors often enter the market with enthusiasm and minimal knowledge. Coupled with snake oil salesmen on social media selling you their dogshit investment courses, this can lead to avoidable losses. These errors can be demoralising and hinder long-term success. Without a doubt most beginners make the same mistakes. 

    The first is a lack of research. It is one thing to not know all the acronyms or the exact nuances of placing an order on the stock market. That comes largely with experience over time, but many, many investors will buy a stock without ever doing any research. They hear that Ai is the future so they buy a stock that has Ai in the name without checking if the directors have any experience with tech, or if the company has patchy revenue. 

    Social media has spurred this mistake on, with hype surrounding certain assets like cryptocurrency. On another level there is an overconfidence bias when starting anything new. If you know nothing about a topic, you also don’t know why you may be wrong. 

    Even the most solid investments can go awry. You can’t foresee every risk. I myself purchased ownership in a ticketing company for small Australian events three months before the Covid pandemic. The company was solid and so was their business plan yet the business went on to fail due to something no one would have ever predicted. Luckily for me, it was a part of my larger portfolio. I had diversified, something beginners don’t tend to do, especially if they’re starting with low capital. Beginners with low capital to start off with should consider an ETF rather than one (even really good) asset.

    “Buy low, sell high” is what everyone says, right? One problem with that is there is no crystal ball. There is no one to tell you when exactly low is. Investing isn’t about perfect timing. So many beginners sit on the sidelines wondering if it is the right time to invest. Media noise makes it nearly impossible to time the market. This leads to a problem, beginners often focus on trying to catch a falling knife rather than focusing on time in the market. They ignore tried and true methods like dollar-cost-averaging to smooth out entry points and ignore long-term data because they think they know the markets better than anyone else. 

    This leads to another problem. Panic selling and overbuying that magnifies losses. This happens from a loss aversion bias. Losses feel roughly twice as painful as gains feel good. Losing five hundred dollars feels far worse than gaining five hundred dollars to beginners. Realistically, this comes from a lack of clear planning. Experts know when they are going to exit a stock often before they ever place the investment itself. After your research, you may think Seven Group (SGH) is undervalued. Your research leads you to think it is worth forty-five dollars but it is currently forty-two dollars. An expert knows they want to cash out as it approaches their forty-five dollars and they stick to that plan. Beginners don’t ever set a plan to begin with. If the stock tumbled to thirty-eight dollars the investor with the plan has more information to make a decision whilst the beginner has no idea what to do so they panic. Information kills panic. 

    Beginners often trade in and out of assets frequently as they learn and make mistakes. That creates a hidden issue. Fees and costs eat up the profits that beginners do manage to make. You have to factor in these costs when comparing returns.

    This regular jumping in and out not only accrues fees, it also ignores the power of compounding. Driven by impatience for quick returns and poor understanding of exponential growth. In short, short-term holds don’t let dividends accrue and won’t let them be reinvested. A thousand dollars can grow fairly quickly if you are receiving dividends and reinvesting them back into the stock. Buying and selling quickly essentially means the gains are not compounding. 

    The journey of investing is as much about discipline and patience as it is about knowledge. Beginners are prone to mistakes. Some people call it an ignorance tax we must all pay when doing something new. These errors are largely preventable with education, planning, and emotional resilience. Understanding common pitfalls and how to avoid them sets the foundation for sustainable long-term investing success. 

    Not financial advice. This article is for general information only and does not consider your personal objectives, financial situation, or needs. Always seek professional advice before making investment decisions.

  • Poverty Killer

    Can we eradicate poverty? Not manage it, not reduce it, but kill it off entirely. Charities, politicians and economists have worked on this for decades. Last year, a new answer emerged from US policy makers. One that shifted from welfare to ownership. 

    Although not the first time it has been suggested, the “Trump Account” is the largest social welfare experiment in close to a hundred years. The universal baby investment account is for babies born in America from December 2024 through January 2029. All newborns receive a thousand dollars (USD) into an investment account when they are born from the government. It is essentially a form of superannuation for newborns. The parents are free to add to this whilst the children are under the age of 18. This gives every child a stake in the economy from day one.

    The purpose of this policy is to kill poverty before it ever starts. Kids from the poorest families will likely face incredible hardship and their families are unlikely to be able to contribute much further to the accounts. That thousand dollars could make a world of difference for society’s poorest because that thousand will have grown quite meaningfully by the time they can access it.

    Using a conservative rate of return for these accounts to keep them in line with most similar of other financial products. At age 18 if you had no more contributions your account would have still more than tripled. By the ages of 20 to 25 it would be enough for a car or even a chunk towards a house deposit. By retirement you would have almost a hundred thousand dollars in your pocket. That’s upward mobility with no additional government spend or family help. 

    This giant financial experiment is not without risks. Ones that will likely take decades to play out. Let’s be honest, the account works better with more contributions. The poorest will likely have the need to pull it out as early as possible, negating some of the gains that would have come. Modern 18 year olds may also be partial to blowing it all on small luxuries rather than milestones. There is a real concern that a teenager who hasn’t had access to a proper financial education may mishandle the money. Further policy will likely be needed for this account to be fully effective. 

    The larger effect that lawmakers hope this new program will have is huge by comparison. It creates a generation of National Stakeholders. When young people have money, economies move. We’ve seen it before. When the post-war Baby Boomers first gained disposable income, they didn’t just buy cars and clothes, they built industries. Their spending helped fuel entire sectors of manufacturing, retail, entertainment, and housing. It gave rise to confidence, ambition, and an economy that grew from the bottom up. The same dynamic could emerge again. A generation with their own investment accounts will enter adulthood not as consumers of debt, but as owners of capital. That changes how they spend, what they build, and how they see their place in the system. What worked once to ignite prosperity could very well work again. This time, with compounding. 

    Not only does it boost the economy and raise GDP, it reduces crime and promotes better health. Much of crime comes from the side-effects of poverty and a lack of reasonable opportunity. Putting money into the hands of young people, when they arguably need it the most in life, creates a pathway. A pathway to a car to get to a job. A pathway to business. A pathway to university. A pathway out of abusive relationships. Welfare supports consumption, but ownership builds capital, mobility and choice. Poverty costs the economy far more in downstream effects along with the human cost. It is cheaper to plant a tree than to rebuild an entire forest. 

    The cost is also relatively small compared to other social welfare programs too. To implement this in Australia, it would have cost roughly two hundred and ninety million dollars in 2025. That is 0.0164% of our yearly GDP or almost the exact same as a program like the instant tax write off scheme. In other words, perfectly in line with similar welfare programs if not cheaper overall.

    Some commentators that have criticised the policy have pointed out that more money won’t fix all family dysfunction. They are probably correct. Money alone won’t fix every form of family dysfunction, but generational poverty is far more about access to assets than lack of morals. Whether the baby investment accounts can break that cycle is still unknown. For the first time in decades policy makers are trying something big enough to matter. Time will tell whether the eradication of generational poverty is within reach.

  • The Price of Ethical Super

    The superannuation industry has recently been overrun with ads for “ethical” super funds. Appealing to Gen Z, who are far more eco conscious than their predecessors. These funds are often more about selling morality than they are about your retirement. These funds promise that your retirement nest egg will support a greener future. They also fall short of supporting your retirement. 

    Although Gen Z are far more conscious than the generations before them, they are also some of the most financially inexperienced. The current education system provides little to no context to them about their super accounts or retirement. For many young people, the first time they interact with a super fund is via these ads promising ethical investments for their funds. The problem can be summarised quickly and concisely. Returns matter. They matter a great deal. These funds target young morals, whilst ignoring the fundamental purpose of the account in the first place. There is no amount of marketing that can change the fact these ethical funds consistently underperform. 

    If a company underperforms even by 1% when you are 25, that can be the difference of $365,000 by the time you hit retirement for the average person. That is a significant difference to your lifestyle. That’s the difference between comfortably heating your home in the winter and shivering because the pension can’t cover power bills. 42% of the elderly actively avoid using their heating due to the cost, 13% go without a heater all winter due to financial pressures. Many of these ethical funds are far underperforming 1% returns compared to regular funds. 

    There is even a lobby campaign to have them classified as a separate type of fund so that analysts aren’t able to compare them properly. If ethical funds are placed in their own category, analysts can’t compare their performance against regular funds. You can’t be seen as underperforming if no one is allowed to compare you. Let that sink in, they aren’t lobbying for improvements to environmental policy, social justice or anything like that. They are lobbying to ensure they can continue to sell you financial products marketed as “ethical”.

    So if not ethical, then where has money been best placed?It can be cut a thousand different ways, and that’s exactly how many under performing funds keep attracting new customers. So let’s ignore the marketing noise and look at what actually matters. The returns. Last year the top 3 moderate funds by return were:

    • LegalSuper (Returned 10.75%)

    • HostPlus (Returned 9.63%)

    • UniSuper (Returned 9.3%)

    Now it is worth noting that although LegalSuper drastically outperformed everyone else, their performance was an outlier and their fees were very high. The same is true for HostPlus to a lesser degree. 

    Generally speaking one year results can be outliers, and data older than five years doesn’t always reflect how a fund is run today. No one should take performance as far back as 2015 with any real weight. Over a 3 year timeline, where data is still likely to be relevant, once we adjust for fees the top performers have been:

    • HostPlus (Returned 9%)

    • UniSuper (Returned 8.33%)

    • AusSuper (Returned 8.15%)

    Very similar themes appear when looking at high growth funds. Aware Super does enter the picture as a competitor.

    Picking the correct fund is one of the most important decisions you will make in your life, and will likely need reviewing every 5 years or so. The difference of 1 or 2 percent can determine just how vulnerable you will be when you are elderly. Don’t trust your future to green gimmicks. Your superannuation exists to fund decades of your life after you retire.  

    For a regularly updated ranking list, you can go to – https://ozviz.com.au/super-rank/

    Data for the Article provided by Finder.

  • Millenial Luxury

    The Baby Boomers grew up in a world where luxuries were expensive. A meal out took up close to 7% of a baby boomer’s average weekly income. By the same measure, a coffee from a cafe would take up more than 1% of a Boomers weekly income. Preparing meals at home and making coffee yourself was not a lifestyle choice but a financial necessity.

    That was the late 1970s. The world has changed considerably since then. Australia has sold off its industries in favour of a “Big Australia”. Today’s 20 to 30 year olds experience almost the exact opposite world. Luxuries have become cheap. Necessities have become expensive. For Millenials a meal out costs less than 5% of their weekly income. Coffee from a cafe takes up less than half of 1% of that same income. 

    Whilst a weekly grocery shop took up 17% of a Baby Boomers weekly pay, it takes up around 25% for Millenials. They don’t eat more than Boomers either. On wages alone, Millennials could buy nearly three times as many cafe coffees as Boomers, but far fewer groceries. Luxuries and necessities prices flipped. 

    Few dispute that Baby Boomers and millennials came of age in entirely different economic realities. What has been given little to no attention is how the stock market caused such a dramatic shift in consumer behaviour. 

    By the early 2010s the stock market saw a rise in growth investing as opposed to dividend investing. Thanks to the extreme growth of tech companies like Facebook and Google, 25 cent dividends from legacy brands were no longer popular. Investors looked for super charged growth vehicles to supercharge their portfolio. As a company executive, to attract a higher stock price, you had to chase growth. For consumers, especially millennials, that pursuit of growth created an era of cheap luxuries. Often without them even realising it. 

    Uber delibretaly remained unprofitable, choosing to burn cash to entice millennials with fee or heavily discounted rides. Netflix remained unprofitable for years to attract more of a market share in young viewers. Flashy e-commerce brands you’ve never heard of regularly ate the cost of shipping just to get them to order products. An entire generation entered adulthood in a world where their lifestyle was effectively subsidised. Investors loved every moment of it, salivating over growth numbers caring more for the number of users than the bottom line. 

    That culture of growth at all costs soon found a new expression in consumer finance. Buy now, pay later. You can’t split a home loan into four payments but you can split a tv, your phone and even a burrito into smaller payments at zero interest. Boomers had to save for their wants, millennials can walk out of the store while only paying 25% for them. A $20 meal became four $5 instalments spread over two months. For many, five dollars felt trivial compared to the cost of a meal out. By contrast, a home made meal will probably run $35 if they are lucky. That’s not to mention the time it takes to cook the meal itself. 

    None of this was available to the Baby Boomers. Instead they had to save for larger purchases and a meal out was somewhat of a special occasion. This divergence in experiences fuels generational tension. Boomers criticise discretionary spending they think is frivolous. Millennials blame previous generations for housing becoming unattainable. 

    Then came the pandemic, which upended spending patterns in a way no business model had anticipated. With everyone stuck at home, the government was forced to pay everyone’s bills. Left with little choice, they flooded the economy with excess cash to keep everyone’s lights on. When the world opened back up that cash started to flow properly through the economy and prices rose. That dynamic helped fuel the inflation of recent years.

    That same inflation has led to consumers tightening their budget. Something millennial Australians weren’t used to in the slightest. The youngest millennial wasn’t even born during the previous 1991 recession and the oldest millennial was barely turning 10. As Millenials tightened their belt for the first time, experiencing their roughest economic period to date, companies found it impossible to grow. For Millenials, this marked the end of an era. The cheap rides, free shipping and easy credit that defined their young adulthood were gone. Replaced by higher costs and fewer shortcuts. 

    It was clear that subsidising growth was no longer going to work. That left companies abandoning a strategy that hade plagued our economy for almost 15 years. Sustained double digit growth proved unsustainable, even for the tech giants that had once set the pace. They needed profit to survive. 

    As growth gives way to survival, Millennials face an economy they scarcely recognise. Cheap coffee, free shipping and cheap credit have vanished,yet housing is more unattainable than ever. The real test is whether a generation shaped by subsidised luxuries can adapt to a harsher economic reality. 

    Read My Book

  • The Burger That Ended an Empire

    Around the world, a new McDonald’s opening barely earns a headline. Yet on January 31st 1990, when McDonald’s opened the first store in Moscow it was national news. Thousands lined the streets for not just a taste of a greasy burger, but the taste of capitalism.

    The journey to get there began twenty years earlier. During the 1976 Olympics, then McDonald’s chairman George Cohon pitched Soviet officials on bringing the golden arches to the Soviet capital. It would take nearly 14 years of negotiations to turn that idea into reality. 

    That timeline sounds absurd in today’s day and age, but at the time, the Soviet Union was closed for business to the rest of the world. Western companies, especially American ones, faced intense protections designed to shield Soviet industry from foreign competition. Modern economists call this protectionism. That is, a policy to keep foreign business out.

    In the case of the Soviet Union, that protection came at a cost. When there is no competition, local producers don’t have a reason to innovate or improve. Quality drops and shortages worsen. Limited choice, inefficient industry and empty shelves plagued the union. When McDonald’s arrived, it was more than an economic oddity. It was a mirror held up to Soviet life. 

    At a time when citizens queued for basic sugar rations, suddenly, one restaurant offered more food in one room than the average person physically saw in a month. To the Soviets, this wasn’t the capitalism they’d been warned about. This was capitalism they could actually taste. 

    The Soviet Union had long preached internally that everyday people were far better off under communism. The people were told capitalism creates greedy elites who hoard wealth. The sight of Big Macs flowing freely while Soviet shelves sat bare contradicted that narrative in a single, harrowing glance that was too hard to ignore. 

    The scale of the event drove the point home. McDonald’s hired 600 staff and had built a restaurant that seated 900 people. All of that was only for the first location. In a nation that claimed unemployment did not exist, 35,000 Russians applied for those jobs. On opening day more than 5,000 people braved the cold to be among the first customers, amongst them was future leader Boris Yeltsin. 

    This wasn’t just a restaurant launch. It was the first bite of a different world. McDonald’s had smashed the Soviet propaganda machine. The following year after the golden arches arrived in Moscow, the Soviet Union had collapsed. No single restaurant could topple an empire, but it exposed a truth millions of Soviets instantly understood.

    A new Russia emerged, one facing tremendous challenges, but no longer cut off from the world. As the old system faded, a symbol of the West stood glowing in Pushkin Square. Gone were the days of fighting for canned foods on empty shelves. The Big Mac had arrived.

    MY BOOK

  • Blame Howard

    At the end of the 1990s, Australian life was pretty damn good. Families had disposable income, groceries were cheap. We didn’t know it yet, but we were in the final moments of the Australian dream actually being attainable, with housing being accessible to all. All of that is now gone, in fact all the reality for all those things I listed is almost the exact opposite. For that, we can blame one person. John Howard. 

    In 2004, Barnaby Joyce changed Australia’s political landscape. Howard had held power for 8 years at this point, but he never had control of the Senate until Barnaby Joyce unexpectedly won a seat in Queensland for the Upper House of federal parliament. This gave Howard the majority he had chased for close to a decade. His policies would now stand completely unimpeded.

    Up until this point Australia had a long tradition of powerful unions. Unlike other western countries, Australia developed with workers holding a far greater share of influence. By 2004, the top one percent in America owned 33.4% of their nation’s wealth, in Australia, they only owned about 18%.

    This tradition of worker power started early in Australia’s story. In 1850 Victorian miners rebelled not against taxes like their American counterparts but for a fairer system. Although the Eureka Stockade is considered a military failure, the aftermath is considered a win for workers. Government walked away with the blame and miners gained proper political representation. 

    Years later, in 1890 after pressure from U.S. tariffs caused employers to try and slash sheep shearers’ wages, Australian unions banded together to bring the agricultural sector to a complete stop. Agriculture being the number one industry in the country at the time. This solidarity solidified worker representation within our system. It was clear unions needed to not just react to these crises, but to be proactive. 

    The Labor party was founded and it gave workers a clear pathway to parliament. The country battled back and forth throughout WW2 and the post war boom in relative balance until the 1970s changed everything. Wage growth was causing rapid inflation. The system that had built a nation was causing it to come unstuck. So the labor strategy changed. Hawke and Keating redefined the objective. Instead of dividing the pie evenly, they wanted to grow the pie overall without shrinking workers share. A bigger pie meant more for everyone. 

    By this time award wages acted as a safety floor for workers. Howard hated this, believing in individual contracts over collective bargaining. By 1998, he introduced legislation that allowed workers to sign contracts below that safety floor created by award wages. This put downward pressure on wages. If you demanded an award wage, employers could now go find someone to do it for cheaper. 

    With wage growth out of the way, Howard set his sights on your superannuation. Keatings long-term plan was to increase compulsory super contributions to 15% giving workers financial security as they aged out of the workforce. Howard hated this idea and capped super at 9%. Instead, he halved the capital gains tax. Cutting CGT meant that investors kept more profit when they sold property, making the investment much more attractive.

    This was a clear shift away from workers (particularly young ones) and towards capital investors. The end result was making property investment far more lucrative and attractive. This was the match that lit the modern property boom. Although the writing was yet to appear on the wall. Families felt wealthier thanks to rising house prices even though their wage growth was about to fall off a cliff and retirement just got further away than ever. 

    As Barnaby Joyce took his Senate seat in 2004,Howard finally had the green light for industrial reform at full scale. He took protections away from sole traders (mum and dad businesses) and introduced something known as work choice. Without a lesson on industrial relations, the changes essentially meant that unions could negotiate far less than before. In fact. it explicitly limited them to negotiating on only 5 conditions. This was his killshot to Australian workers. Make unions irrelevant, and it largely worked. Union membership fell heavily because they simply couldn’t protect you as well. 

    In 2025, disposable income for the average Australian family has dried up, houses are unattainable and retirement is a pipe dream. Workers are not represented by policy, capital markets are. All these changes were made by Howard. Labor infighting throughout the late 2000s stood in the way of repealing Howard’s policies and the Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison era solidified his changes for around a decade. Australian living standards have been in decline for almost 25 years now. The last 10 years have made it obvious but when we track back the data the culprit is very clear. The symptoms feel new, but their roots go back two decades. Blame John Howard. 

    MY BOOK

  • Santa Rally

    The festive season is officially here, and while families rush to find the perfect gift without breaking the budget, the stock market often gets overlooked. For those still keeping an eye on the markets, the atmosphere is filled with anticipation, as they sit on the edge of their seats, waiting.

    They wait all December, like eager children on Christmas Eve for something known as the “Santa Rally.” This famed event in the financial markets is often seen as a mythic phenomenon. The Santa Rally refers to the rapid and sudden rise in stock prices across the market, usually during the last week of December. The phenomenon was first recorded in 1972 by Yale Hirsch, who observed large, unexplained gains in his portfolio almost every year during the final five trading days of December.

    The largest Santa Rally occurred in 2008, with stocks rising over seven percent across the board. But don’t get too excited, the Santa Rally is never guaranteed. While it does happen, it doesn’t occur every year. In 2024, for example, the much-anticipated rally was nowhere to be found. Instead, stocks fell nearly two percent. Merry Christmas, right?

    This has led to much speculation about what actually causes the Santa Rally and why it sometimes fails to show up. One theory is that it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps traders, anticipating the rally, unknowingly fuel it by creating extra demand. Others believe it’s simply holiday optimism affecting the market. During the holiday season, life tends to be good for most people with lots of food, presents, and time away from work. Whilst everyone is in a good mood, there may be a sense of optimism about the future, which could influence stock prices.

    While these theories may go some way to explain the Santa Rally, they likely don’t capture the full picture. After all, the rally doesn’t happen every year. One of the key factors behind the Santa Rally and why it appears unpredictably is the low trading volume in the financial markets between December 26th and 31st.

    During the holiday season, retail investors are often distracted, and large institutions like banks and superannuation funds tend to be quieter. Many of their employees and clients are on vacation. Let’s face it, getting anything done between Christmas and New Year’s is almost impossible. As a result, there are fewer transactions on the stock market during this period. Volume drops right off. When things are quiet, it doesn’t take much to spark a reaction. With little demand, even one large player making a move can shift prices. For example, a big firm fulfilling an off the cuff large order for a client can send demand soaring. Investors, eager not to miss out, quickly jump back in, causing the limited supply to be snapped up fast. In years when larger institutions don’t make these moves, the Santa Rally doesn’t happen. There’s simply no spark to ignite the fireworks.

    While the Santa Rally has long captured the imagination of investors, it’s become less predictable in modern years. Though it can be profitable, waiting for it is a bit like hoping for a shooting star. Honestly, whether the Santa Rally happens or not, you’re probably better off relaxing during the holiday break, rather than stressing over whether Santa will make an appearance on the market this year.

    Disclaimer: The content in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Please seek professional advice tailored to your individual circumstances before making any investment decisions.

    Want to read more about the stock market? Check out my book here

    MY BOOK

  • Mortgage freedom

    In Australia, the standard mortgage term is thirty years, but the average time to pay it off is closer to twenty-eight years. As Australians are qualifying for mortgages later in life, this presents quite a unique challenge. No one wants to be still paying off their mortgage at sixty-five. As a result, many are eager to pay off their loans as quickly as possible.

    It’s entirely possible for an average person to become mortgage-free faster than the term of their loan. This approach saves on interest and doesn’t require complex strategies. All it takes is consistency and a basic understanding of how your mortgage product actually works.

    When it comes to paying off your mortgage faster, there are two main strategies. The first is an offset account, which many people have heard of but may not fully understand. An offset account is essentially a savings account linked to your mortgage, where the balance of the savings reduces the interest you pay on the loan.

    In Australia, interest on mortgages is calculated daily, but most people pay it monthly. An offset account gives the bank more confidence in your financial reliability. For example, if you owe half a million dollars on your mortgage but have managed to save fifteen thousand dollars in your offset account, the bank sees that fifteen thousand dollars as available to reduce your debt. In other words whilst that money is in your offset account, you are fifteen thousand dollars less risky. It is a benchmark for how reliable you are. 

    Satisfied that you are financially reliable, they subtract the balance of your offset account from your mortgage balance when calculating interest. The larger the offset balance, the less interest you’ll pay. For example, without an offset account, you’d pay interest on the full half a million dollar mortgage. With fifteen thousand dollars in an offset account, interest is calculated on only four hundred and eighty five thousand dollars, as the bank sees the extra funds as part of your mortgage payment.

    Using an offset account is a highly effective way to save on your interest expense. Since less of your mortgage payment goes toward interest, more goes toward paying down the principal, helping you pay off your loan faster. For example, if your mortgage payment is a thousand dollars, an offset account allows a larger portion of that total monthly payment to reduce your loan balance instead of covering interest charges. Of that thousand dollar payment, three hundred of it may be interest charged. With an offset, it can be heavily reduced. Instead of seven hundred dollars going to the principal, it could be nine hundred dollars.

    An offset account is a great option for mortgage holders who want to save while repaying their loan. It offers flexibility, allowing you to withdraw funds when needed, for example, to cover unexpected expenses like car repairs or a new fridge. However, not everyone has extra money to set aside. Nearly half of all working Australians are estimated to be living paycheck to paycheck, meaning many mortgage holders may struggle to use an offset account effectively.

    Banks calculate mortgage interest daily, but most people make payments once a month. By the time you make your payment, interest has accumulated over the past 30 days, adding to the total cost of your loan.

    Switching to fortnightly mortgage payments can significantly reduce your interest expense. Instead of letting interest build up over an entire month, you pay it off every two weeks. This means you’re reducing the principal twice a month rather than once, which helps lower the overall interest charged. Simply switching to paying every fortnight can wipe 7 years off of the average mortgage. 

    There is no need to pay extra. It is enough to just split a monthly payment in half. For example, if you normally pay fifteen hundred per month, you would instead pay seven hundred and fifty every two weeks. Since there are 26 fortnights in a year, this results in an extra full month’s payment annually, which helps reduce your loan term. 

    Someone doesn’t need to earn a fortune to pay off their mortgage, they just need to use the right tools. It’s not complicated, difficult, or even more expensive. And it’s absolutely worth the effort. After all, nobody wants to be paying off their mortgage in their sixties.

    Disclaimer: The information in this article is general in nature and does not constitute financial advice. It is for informational purposes only and does not take into account your personal circumstances, financial situation, or needs. Before making any financial decisions, consider seeking professional advice tailored to your specific situation.

    MY BOOK

  • My book, Wealth Kingdom

    Three years ago, I published my book, Wealth Kingdom. Whenever people learned about my work, they would flood me with questions about money, investing, and business. I never needed an excuse to talk about these topics for hours, but these conversations revealed something troubling. Most people were horrible with money. School had given them almost no financial foundation at all.

    When someone messaged me with a question about the stock market, I opened a Word document to write a proper, detailed response. I write often in part to get my thoughts in order. That night, I found myself expanding on what I had written earlier. Before I knew it, I had something that looked like a chapter of a finance book. Over the years, I kept building on that document until it became Wealth Kingdom. A solid foundation for money, written in plain English for regular people. The general principles of my book boil down to this:

    Debt from overspending is a common problem and it can devastate families. It’s nothing to be ashamed of and, more importantly, it’s fixable. Paying off debt is like eating an elephant. You have to tackle it one bite at a time. None of this will work if you keep overspending. Otherwise, you’ll be stuck in a cycle. No matter how big your debt is, the best way to tackle it is by creating a structured payment plan. Physically write it down on paper, not just in your head. Break it into manageable steps, mapping out each payment. Before making a plan, take a hard look at your spending habits and figure out what’s driving them. A little self-reflection now can save you from years of financial stress later.

    Saving is tough for many families. No matter how much you earn, it can often feel like there’s nothing left at the end of each pay check. The answer isn’t to stash away too much too quickly, only to take it out a week later to cover bills. Instead, pay yourself first. Set aside 10% of your pay check as soon as you get paid. You won’t miss 10% of your pay. Treat it like any other bill. You owe yourself 10% of everything you earn.

    Even after you’ve paid off your debt and built up a savings nest, inflation continues to erode your money’s value. Simply saving isn’t enough. Time will gradually reduce your purchasing power. To protect your wealth and maintain your standard of living, you need to invest. A thousand dollars doesn’t buy as much as it used to.

    When people first start investing, their emotions can take over. Some get overly excited about potential profits and rush in without checking the details. Others get too scared and never know when it’s the right time to invest. Dollar-cost averaging helps remove the guesswork and emotional highs and lows, making investing simpler and less stressful.

    Figuring out what to invest in can be overwhelming. In my book, I break down the stock market, real estate, and bond markets in detail, along with how money flows through these markets and the economy as a whole. Interest rates play a major role in controlling the flow of money across these markets. To succeed, it’s crucial to understand how interest rate changes impact different assets.

    Just like everything else in life, investing always involves risk. Some people avoid risk at all costs, while others like to jump out of planes. Safe investing lies somewhere in the middle. Risk is often measured by how much an asset’s price fluctuates. Uncertainty equals risk. In general, a steady price means less risk. 

    I never really set out to write a book at the start but as time went on it developed into one. Releasing a book can be incredibly daunting. Thank you to everyone who has already purchased a copy of Wealth Kingdom. If you haven’t checked it out yet, the book dives deeper into the topics covered in this article, along with many other essential concepts in proper detail. You can find it here and start building a proper financial foundation.

    Disclaimer: The information in this article is general in nature and does not constitute financial advice. It is for informational purposes only and does not take into account your personal circumstances, financial situation, or needs. Before making any financial decisions, consider seeking professional advice tailored to your specific situation.

    MY BOOK

  • Bunnings domination

    With five hundred stores Bunnings absolutely dominates the DIY hardware market like no other company. They have conquered Australia’s home improvement sector, crushing all competition under their proverbial steel-cap boots. Now, as Bunnings expands into unexpected product ranges like pet care, many are wondering what their next move will be. The Bunnings story carries an important lesson for businesses. In competition, never wound what you can’t kill.

    In 1886, two brothers arrived at Fremantle Port in Western Australia from England with no plans to stay. Robert and Arthur Bunnings intended only to visit their sister before continuing to America. After witnessing the construction boom unfolding around them, they made a life-changing decision to remain. Initially, they worked on the construction of an insane asylum. Within a few years, the Bunnings brothers had built a small empire of four brickyards. In the 1890s, Western Australia was a land of opportunity. So much so that the brothers struggled to secure enough raw materials to fulfil their contracts.

    After Arthur was side-lined by a horse-riding accident, Robert was left to tackle the supply shortages alone. In response, he made a pivotal decision. One that would lay the foundation for the Bunnings we know today.

    Recognizing the challenges of relying on external suppliers, he decided that they needed to own the supply rather than fight for his share of it. He sold their brickyards and purchased their first sawmill. In 1914, the sawmill burned down, but by then, Bunnings had already reinvested its profits to expand across Western Australia. By 1936, both brothers had passed away, and Bunnings was left to Robert’s three sons. Until this point, Bunnings’ growth had been fairly routine. That changed when the three brothers opened a hardware store in Perth during the 1960s. Instead of focusing on tradespeople, they shifted their focus to selling directly to consumers. Having already controlled the supply, they now sought to recapture a share of the demand.

    While their expertise and business experience provided a strong foundation, it could only carry their new venture so far. The hardware landscape back then was much more competitive and fragmented. Competition was fierce, with many other chains and a large number of independent stores. When Bunnings entered the market they weren’t the big fish in an empty pond like they are today.

    They began acquiring stores at an astonishing rate. This marked the lasting legacy of the second generation of the Bunnings brothers. The third generation of the Bunnings family, the cousins, accelerated the company’s growth. They acquired two of their largest competitors in the hardware sector. The largest sawmill company and Alco Handyman stores were now under Bunnings’ ownership. Not long after, in 1993, they acquired McEwan’s

    With the McEwan’s acquisition, Bunnings expanded to the east coast of Australia. McEwan’s operated in Victoria and New South Wales, but they also owned several brands in South Australia and Queensland. If there was a defining moment when Bunnings truly conquered Australia, this was it. 

    That was, of course, until Wesfarmers noticed the hold Bunnings had on the market. With a six hundred million dollar offer the remaining Bunnings family members stepped away from the business. Wesfarmers’ version of Bunnings is the one we recognize today. The big-box hardware chain quickly became virtually unrivalled.

    At this point, many people might wonder how this was ever allowed to happen. Unfortunately for Australian consumers, the ACCC did not consider Bunnings a threat to market competition.

    By 1994, Mitre 10 was the last major competitor preventing Bunnings from complete market domination. In 2004, Bunnings achieved what many thought was impossible. They acquired a string of Mitre 10 locations. Until this point, such a move was unheard of. It would be like Woolworths buying a single Coles store. Mitre 10’s business model operates as a cooperative, where multiple independent owners share the same brand. When Bunnings came knocking, many Mitre 10 store owners were eager to sell. In 2008, the ACCC ruled that these acquisitions did not significantly impact market competition and therefore raised no concerns.

    The only remaining obstacle was the small, family-run tool shops still struggling to survive. To seal their dominance, Bunnings introduced the slogan every Australian knows. “We’ll beat it by ten per cent.” That was enough to wipe out the few remaining independent hardware stores in rural areas. For these small businesses, a ten per cent price cut slashed their already thin profit margins. But for Bunnings, it barely made a dent in their bottom line.

    From there, Bunnings expanded its reach by acquiring businesses in garden care, electronics, and pet care. Step into Bunnings today, and you’ll notice their newest market push. They’ve dedicated three full aisles to pet products, from food and toys to accessories. Independent pet stores are now facing the same fate as hardware shops before them. Bunnings is coming for their market share.

    Bunnings remains completely unchallenged, with the ACCC making it clear they have no intention of stepping in. Only time will tell which retail sector Bunnings will dominate next. After all, for Bunnings, lowest prices really are just the beginning.

    MY BOOK