Fixed Interest
Morgans offers an extensive range of fixed interest products and services to help you achieve your investment objectives. Your adviser will help you incorporate fixed interest into your broader wealth management strategy.

Invest for income
Cash management accounts
Cash management accounts
Enjoy the convenience of our at-call cash facilities with competitive interest rates. Our preferred products offer direct bank deposits in your name with reputable Australian banks, providing easy access to your funds. Link your account to your share trading account for seamless settlements and have dividends and interest payments deposited directly. Your adviser will manage paperwork and transactional instructions, relieving you of administrative tasks.

Term deposits
Enhance your returns and build an income portfolio with our term deposit options. Held at reputable financial institutions, term deposits offer fixed terms and higher interest rates compared to at-call accounts. You can benefit from our preferential relationships with leading banks and Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions (ADIs) to find the best term and interest rate for your needs.
Morgans provides foreign currency term deposits with attractive rates for deposits exceeding AU$100,000, and flexible/structured term deposits, allowing you to combine floating and fixed interest rate payments based on your outlook on future interest rate levels.

Listed debt and hybrids
As a major participant in the Australian listed fixed interest securities market, we can offer you advice as well as a range of new investment opportunities from a range of Australia's largest banks and industrial companies.
Listed debt and hybrid investments deliver higher levels of income, paid regularly; some also offer the benefits of franking. Your adviser can build a tailored income portfolio for you, which unlike managed fund alternatives, can be constructed to take into account your specific objectives and risk profile.

Government and corporate bonds
A government bond is a debt obligation of the issuing government, signifying that when you invest in a government bond, you are essentially lending money to the issuing government. As a debt obligation, the issuer is obligated to make all contracted payments. Bonds, being wholesale debt securities, are traded by institutional investors and are not subject to a prospectus.
We offer a comprehensive Government bond investment service, including custody facilities. Bonds improve portfolio diversification and help reduce portfolio risk while providing stable income.

Exchange-traded Government bonds
Exchange-traded bonds on the ASX provide holders with access to bonds issued by the Australian Government providing a low-risk security and diversification for investment portfolios.

News & Insights

Last week, I discussed how Trump was using tariffs in economic policy. I explained that the administration aims to pass a significant, comprehensive bill: an omnibus bill, which includes the Reciprocal Trade Act; reduces the corporate tax rate to 15% and imposes a 10% revenue tariff by April. I also showed that, despite commentary to the contrary, this tariff revenue was not inflationary, contributing a maximum of 0.8% to the US Consumer Price Index (CPI).
However, this week what we've seen is that Trump has used tariffs not for economic purposes but rather for social policy, in attempting to address the social crisis in the United States. This social crisis helps explain much of how Trump was elected and why he now has substantial support.
This situation began in 2000 when China entered the World Trade Organization, which allowed its exports to enter the US market. At the time, tariffs were exceptionally low, around 1–2%.
Over the next decade, the US experienced deindustrialisation. 12 million American workers losing their jobs and never got them back. This created a significant social crisis in the US, contributing to a social collapse. This collapse led to a massive increase in drug dependency, particularly within the American working class. A key work on this issue was written by Nobel Prize winners, Sir Angus Deaton and his wife Anne Case in 2020, titled Deaths of Despair.
In the book, Deaton points out that the US overdose deathrate increased from under 20,000 before 2001 to 92,000 in 2020. Overdose deaths rose further to 108,000annually by 2024. Notably, young men are twice as likely to die from these drug overdoses as young women.
Peter Navarro, Senior Counsel Trade and Manufacturing in the Trump administration, made his career at Harvard researching American trade with China. He claims that 76,000 of those drug deaths are directly linked to fentanyl use. From a social policy perspective, Trump's recent actions, including threatening to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada within a month and introducing a 10% tariff on China, reflect a shift towards addressing the flow of fentanyl into the US. This is not simply a trade war but, as Navarro asserts, a "drug war" aimed at reducing the influx of fentanyl and fentanyl-laced drugs.
In response to these threats, Canada has pledged $1.3 billion to police its border, and Mexico has committed 10,000 troops to patrol its border. I would bet that no 25% tariffs will be imposed on Mexico and Canada in fact, I am highly confident of this. Fentanyl, which is involved in most drug-related deaths, primarily originates from Mexico and is produced with chemicals from China. The 10% tariff in China could be a precursor to a similar revenue tariff later in the year as part of the omnibus bill. Remember, Biden before he left office, already levied a 100% tariff on Imports of Chinese Electric Vehicles into the US.
Historically, during Trump's first term, Trump had a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who promised to reduce the flow of basic chemicals to Mexico that were used to produce fentanyl. However, in response to the latest 10% tariff, China has stated that "fentanyl is a US problem "and has declined to cooperate as it had promised in the past.
The key question now is whether US tariffs on China will harm Australian exports to China. Australia's Iron Ore Exports to China are valued at $84 billion annually. China's steel Industry is the largest in the world.
Will US Tariffs on China damage Chinese steel exports? When we examined Chinese exports of steel last year, we found that very little Chinese steel is exported to the US. According to US data, the majority of Chinese steel is exported to the Indo-Pacific, with Vietnam being the largest importer (at 9.96%), followed by South Korea (9.1%), Thailand (5.3%). the Philippines (5.2%), Indonesia (4.5%), Türkiye (4.4%), The UAE (4.0%) and India (3.2%). The amount of Chinese steel sent to the US is minuscule. Therefore, it is difficult to see how any US tariff on Chinese steel would have a significant impact on Australian exports to China.
Morgans clients receive access to detailed market analysis and insights, provided by our award-winning research team. Begin your journey with Morgans today to view the exclusive coverage.

February Reporting Season 2025 has kicked off. The February reporting season offers a crucial window into corporate Australia's health, with company-specific performance taking precedence over macro considerations. While earnings and share prices have shown remarkable resilience since the August reporting period, the focus shifts to companies' ability to maintain margins and drive growth amid subdued trading conditions, particularly as earnings growth moderates in FY25.
With a modest earnings outlook companies have been forced to adapt to the softer trading environment. Our focus in February is on companies and sectors that continue to see margin resilience and positive earnings trends. Large caps is another area to monitor given historically high valuations and strong performance over the past 12 months. Last August demonstrated that high expectations and in-line results might not be enough. The recent swing in the AUD will also complicate FY25 earnings and those exposed to currency fluctuation could see earnings volatility around the result.
In The Month Ahead this month, we highlight three companies from our key results to watch: Pinnacle Investment Management (PNI), Superloop (SLC) and Lovisa (LOV).
Pinnacle Investment Management (PNI)
RESULT: 5 FEBRUARY 2025
We expect outperformance driven by performance fees
We expect a strong result from PNI, driven by a combination of higher FUM through the period and strong performance fee contribution. We expect PNI can outperform consensus expectations based on higher performance fees. Key numbers include underlying 1H25 NPAT (forecast +105% on pcp to A$61.9m); and affiliate profit share (forecast +82% on pcp to A$68.1m).
Core flows and leveraging Horizon 2 spend
Current momentum and the outlook for flows is always in focus. We expect confident commentary from PNI, in part supported by new affiliates (e.g. Lifecycle). Horizon 2 spend has ramped up in recent years (primary driven by Metrics) and the market will be looking for some commentary or evidence that returns are starting to materialise.
Cashed up and ready
PNI has ample ‘dry powder’ following an equity raise in Nov-24. Commentary on the early performance of recently acquired stakes and the pipeline will be in focus.

Superloop (SLC)
RESULT: 21 FEBRUARY 2025
FY25 outlook
SLC expects FY25 underlying EBITDA of $83–88 million. We estimate $35.8 million for 1H25 (41% of full-year earnings), slightly below market consensus of $38 million (as of Jan 17, 2025). Since guidance was set in Feb 2024, there’s potential upside. One-off $5.5 million expenses in 1H25 include legal fees from ABB’s failed takeover and costs for acquiring Optus/Uecomm fibre assets (finalising by Mar 2025). A Vostronet earnout will also impact cash flow. Despite this, we expect net debt to decline slightly.
NBN subscribers (organically and Origin originated)
We forecast SLC will deliver slightly fewer NBN net adds in 1H25 (+31k yoy to 354k) vs +33k yoy in 1H24. This is due to our assumption that SLC has prioritised the material Origin migration. This assumption could prove conservative. Origin is, by our maths, the largest single EBITDA driver in FY25. We expect Origin to have ~155k NBN subscribers at year end, noting some of the Origin labelled ‘subscribers’ include voice products which SLC does not provide. We also assume organic growth in Origin is relatively slow in 1H25 due to the migration from ABB onto SLC. This should hopefully re-accelerate above its historical ~4.5k monthly net adds in early 2H25, although this is not within SLC’s control.
Business
The business segment remains challenged (NBN/macro driven price erosion), but we should still see some growth and are optimistic competition should settle in the latter half of CY25. We await clarification on the industrial logic around the Optus fibre acquisition which is likely largely back-haul cost avoidance for Smart Commmunities, and also provides SLC with the ability to more efficiently bring to market new product innovations (revenue upside).

Lovisa (LOV)
RESULT: 24 FEBRUARY 2025
Double-digit growth in earnings to continue
We see Lovisa’s half year result as an opportunity for it to remind investors of the growth in earnings it continues to deliver. We forecast a double-digit increase in revenue and income, all organic, driven by ongoing network expansion and higher gross margins. Our EBIT forecast of $93.1m is largely in line with consensus and represents 14% growth on 1H24. We forecast LFL sales of +1%. We expect the store count to have risen to 939, a net increase of 39 over the half, including 12 since the AGM trading update. This is clearly below the rate of expansion achieved in recent periods but maintains the positive long-term trend. We forecast a further increase in the gross margin to 81.5%. Lovisa’s results have seen some wild share price reactions in the recent year. We don’t expect a repeat in February, but the combination of a high P/E and high growth forecasts is always a potent mix.
The pace of expansion is due to accelerate
The key theme in the result will be the sluggishness of recent store rollout activity. The net addition of 39 stores we forecast for 1H25 falls 26% short of 1H24 and 55% below 1H23. In fact, if our number is right (and we are in line with consensus), it will be the slowest half year for network expansion since 1H21. Investors are justified in asking what’s going on. A key reason, in our view, is the need for Lovisa to consolidate after an extended period of very rapid growth in the US. The other reason is more nuanced. Lovisa has entered a large number of brand-new markets in the past two years. Its modus operandi is to spend around 24-36 months in any new market to become familiar with customers, landlords, competitors and price points before proceeding to expand. If we’re right, this is the calm before the storm and the pace of growth is about to get a whole lot faster.
We think it gets better from here
We think 2H25 will be a better (relative) period than 1H25. We forecast 63 net new store openings in the second half, with LFL sales growth picking up to +3%, despite comps getting more difficult. Earnings are always weighted to the first half (Christmas, BFCM and all that) but the 61/39 skew we forecast for FY25 tilts more to the second half than in any year since FY22.
Morgans clients receive exclusive insights such as access to the latest stock and sector coverage featured in The Month Ahead. Contact us today to begin your journey with Morgans.

In recent weeks, there has been much discussion about the inflationary effect of Trump tariffs. This is sparked by Donald J. Trump's proposal of a 10% revenue tariff. Interestingly, the idea of a 10% revenue tariff was first discussed during his first term. At that time, it was considered as a potential source of additional revenue to offset the Trump tax cuts enacted during his first term.
The challenge in passing finance bills in the U.S. lies in the legislative process. Finance bills can only be easily passed if they are reconciliation bills, meaning they have no effect on the budget balance. When a finance bill does not affect the budget balance, it requires only a simple majority in the U.S. Senate to pass. However, when a finance bill increases the budget deficit, it requires at least 60-votes in the Senate, making such bills much harder to pass.
During Trump's first term, the administration found that by reducing certain tax write offs or tax cuts for specific states, they could pass the overall tax bill without effecting the budget balance. This allowed significant tax cuts for individuals and a major corporate tax cut, reducing the U.S. corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Now, as Trump seeks to cut corporate taxes again—this time from 21% to 15%, matching the German corporate tax rate—he needs additional revenue to balance the bill. This is so he can pass it as a reconciliation bill, requiring only 51 Senate votes. This has led to renewed discussions about the 10% revenue tariff.
In contrast to the European Union, where a value-added tax (VAT) would be a straightforward solution, implementing a VAT in the U.S. is effectively impossible due to constitutional constraints. A VAT would require unanimous agreement from all states. This is impossible in practise. So, the idea of a 10% revenue tariff has resurfaced.
Critics, particularly within the Democratic Party, have argued that such a tariff would be highly inflationary. However, when questioned during confirmation hearings, Trump's Treasury secretary nominee, Scott Bessent, referencing optimal tariff theory, explained that a 10% revenue tariff would increase the U.S. dollar exchange rate by 4%. We note that this would result in a maximum inflationary effect of 6% only if 100% of domestic goods were imported. Given that only 13% of domestic goods are imported, the actual inflationary impact would be just 0.8% on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This makes the tariff effectively inflation neutral.
This idea was discussed by a panel of distinguished economists at the American Economic Association Convention in January, including Jason Furman, Christy Romer, Ben Bernanke, and John Cochrane. Cochrane noted that historical instances of tariff increases, such as in the 1890s and 1930s, did not lead to inflation because monetary policy was tight. He argued that the inflationary impact of tariffs depends entirely on the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. If the Fed maintains a firm stance, there would be no inflationary effect.
Trump's current plan is to pass a comprehensive bill that includes the Reciprocal Trade Act, corporate tax cuts, and the 10% revenue tariff. Peter Navarro, in a CNBC interview on 21 January, estimated that the revenue tariff could generate between $US350and$US400 billion, offsetting the cost of the tax cuts and making the bill feasible as a reconciliation measure.
With the Republican Party holding enough Senate seats, the legislation could pass by the end of April. The inflationary impact of the tariff, estimated at 0.8%, can be easily managed through moderately tight monetary policy by the Federal Reserve.
Morgans clients receive access to detailed market analysis and insights, provided by our award-winning research team. Begin your journey with Morgans today to view the exclusive coverage.