Tax Planning
Tax planning uses financial strategies to minimise tax liabilities and enhance after-tax income through measures such as salary packaging, Capital Gains Tax management, and strategic investments.
Minimise tax liabilities and maximise after tax income
After tax income
After tax income
Maximising after-tax income involves implementing strategic financial planning methods to legally reduce tax obligations. This involves optimising deductions, utilising tax credits, and exploring tax-efficient investments. By minimising tax liabilities, individuals and businesses retain a greater portion of their earnings, enhancing overall financial well-being and flexibility.
Salary packaging
Salary packaging, or salary sacrificing, is a tax-smart strategy for employees seeking to optimise their finances. By receiving non-cash benefits in lieu of part of their salary, individuals can reduce taxable income, potentially lowering tax liabilities.
Capital Gains Tax management
Capital gains tax (CGT) is crucial for tax planning as it taxes profits from asset sales. Strategic planning involves holding assets for over 12 months for lower rates, using exemptions, and offsetting losses to minimise tax. Understanding and managing CGT can significantly impact your overall tax liability and financial outcomes.
Strategic investments
Strategic investments play a crucial role in effective tax planning. By choosing tax-efficient investment vehicles, leveraging Capital Gains Tax exemptions, and planning exits wisely, individuals can optimise after-tax returns. These strategic manoeuvres within the realm of tax planning are not one-size-fits-all and require a tailored approach based on individual financial goals and circumstances.
Tax rates and thresholds
Tax rates and thresholds for the 2024/25 financial year is now available to download. There are so many factors that contribute to the amount of tax you pay and it is important to obtain comprehensive advice. For general tax advice, you should talk to your accountant. Morgans does not provide tax advice, however our investment advice and financial strategies may be structured in a way that can reduce tax and increase after tax returns on your portfolio.
News & Insights
For the last couple of months, I've been putting the view that I think the beginning of a new up move in commodity prices. There are two ways you can approach that.
One is the simple argument that we're at the beginning of an extended period of rate cuts by the Federal Reserve. That period of rate cuts has already started. We will have a further 25 basis point rate cut in November and another 25-basis point rate cut in December. Those rate cuts will continue as we go through next year. As a result of that, the U.S. dollar will fall. You'll see the DXY index of U.S. dollars continue to decline. Then after the lag, what you will see is that fall in the $US will really start to bite, and commodity prices will go up. That's the simple argument in terms of the world trade cycle.
But this morning what I want to look at, is the structure of demand and where I think the structure of demand will be coming from. For that, what I want to do is look at not just the Chinese steel industry. It is not the domestic economy that I'm interested in. What I'm interested in is the very rapid growth of Chinese steel exports and where those exports are going to.
For the discussion on Chinese domestic demand, which is like I say, I rely on paper that's published by BHP. But for the discussion on Chinese steel exports, I'm relying on the US International Trade Administration and their statistics that they've got on Chinese exports.
In 2023, China produced, over a billion tons of steel. I mean, you know, imagine how much that would hurt if you dropped it on your foot. Domestic demand was 911 million tons, and that's up 50% from the 609 million tonnes 13 years ago.
Now, what's interesting about that, and I'm referring to this BHP paper, is that the structure of domestic demand has changed. We think of all that steel going into buildings. Back in 2010, 42% of the steel was going into the buildings. That has fallen, pretty much reversing those numbers from 42% falling to 24%. So, building demand is a much smaller proportion of steel demand in China. What has changed dramatically is there's a lot more building of machines and machinery in China, and that has generated a change of demand from 20% of total production, 13 years ago to 30% now. Steel demand for infrastructure has changed from 13 % then to 17% now.
It is true that the Chinese economy is slowing down this year. The Chinese government said that we're going to grow at 5%. But the International Monetary Fund in April said that that wasn't going to happen, that we're going to grow by 4.6%. The International Monetary Fund was the closest to it. Then that number that the International Monetary Fund is forecasting drops a year by year through to the end of the decade to about 3%.
But what's interesting, as that's happening, there's still a growth in demand for Chinese steel. That's because there's been a quite remarkable increase in exports of steel. Where I want to look at now. I want, to look at is the top ten markets for Chinese steel exports. Now, these are not countries you would think of. You would think of, you know, big demand with going to places like The United States or maybe, Germany or, you know, France or someplace like that.
That's not where the growth in the world economy is. The growth the world economy is, is in a place north of us called the Indo-Pacific. The Indo-Pacific name came from Shinzo Abe, who was the longest serving prime minister, Japanese prime minister since World War two. Sadly, he is no longer with us.
So, the fastest growth, in last year's was a country called Vietnam. Vietnam absorbed 9.2 million tonnes of Chinese steel, which is 10% of total exports. South Korea absorbed 8.4 million tonnes, which was 9% of exports. Thailand absorbed 4.9 million tonnes, which was 5.3% of exports. And the Philippines 4.8 million tonnes. That's not the United States. It's not Germany, it's not France. It's countries north of us which are using all that steel because the growth rate is so good, is so strong. The Philippines absorbed 4.9 million tonnes. Indonesia absorbed 4.2 million tonnes. Turkey, not north of us, but to the west absorbed 4 million tons, the UAE 3.7 million tonnes. And India, even though it has its own steel manufacturing industry, which is growing incredibly rapidly, absorbed 3 million tonnes.
What I want to do now is go out in some of those countries where we saw that rapid demand and look at GDP growth. I want to look at four of them and what the GDP growth is and what the size of those economies are.
Vietnam, which had the strongest growth. The point about Vietnam is that Vietnam is where a lot of what's happened. In China is wages have gone up so much that they've been priced themselves out of the manufacturing business. A lot of that manufacturing is now going to Vietnam. So, it's now moving to Vietnam. So, what you're having is the roll out of factory building in Vietnam as manufacturing moves there from China now.
What's interesting is that if Vietnam has 100 million people, the size of its economy is $US 0.5 trillion, and that economy grew by 6.9% this year. That's the kind of growth rate that China used to have. The IMF thinks it's going to grow by 6.9% next year as well. Another country is the Philippines. The Philippines has 117 million people in it. It also has an economy of just over $US 0.5 trillion dollars. It's growing at 5.7% this year. The IMF thinks it's going to grow by 5.9% next year.
Indonesia is an enormous country. 280 million people, almost as many, as many people as the United States. It's income of $US1.5 trillion U.S. dollars and it grew at 5% this year, a touch faster than China annual growth, 5.1% next year and keep growing at that because its populations continue to grow, unlike China.
India, of course, the which is the big guy in the Indo-Pacific, it grew by 6.9% this year. It'll grow by 6.7% next year, according to the IMF. It of course, has a population of 1.4 trillion people bigger than China. And its economy this year was $US3.9 trillion. I compare that to a little country in the South Pacific, a small open economy, as economists say, which has only 27 million people in it. You're right. Australia. And we have an economy of $US1.8 trillion.
What you've got here are two stories for recovery in commodities. First, you have a financial story, which is obvious. The Fed is going to cut rates. The U.S. dollar will fall, after a lag commodity prices will go up. But what's really important is that this commodity market has strong structural demand, and that strong structural demand is coming not from strong growth in China anymore, but from very strong growth in the Indo-Pacific, particularly strong growth in Vietnam, particularly strong growth in the Philippines, strong growth in Indonesia. And of course, the big guy in the block, strong growth in India.
In this sector wrap, we highlight our key takeaways from the recent Insurance and Diversified Financials reporting season. Overall, it proved to be a strong reporting season across the board, with most company results meeting or beating expectations. While there were some disappointments—most notably NHF’s challenging results and slightly softer guidance from QBE and PXA—our focus remains on several standout picks: QBE, SUN, and CGF.
QBE Insurance Group (QBE)
QBE’s 1H24 result was broadly in-line at both Gross Written Premium (GWP) and NPAT, with the company delivering a solid 16.9% ROE (10.1% in the pcp). Overall we saw this result as largely as expected, with the negative being slightly lowered FY24 top-line guidance, and the positive being an improved overall North America business performance. We lower our QBE FY24F/FY25 EPS by 9%/5% reflecting; restructuring charges, reduced top-line growth expectations, higher tax rate forecasts and a change in QBE’s definition of adjusted NPAT. We continue see QBE as too cheap, trading on 10x FY24F PE.
Outlook commentary:
FY24 guidance is now for constant currency GWP growth of 3% (previously mid-single-digit), and a combined operating ratio of 93.5% (which is unchanged).
Suncorp Group (SUN)
SUN’s FY24 cash NPAT (A$1,372m) was ~-5% below consensus (A$1,425m), mainly due to a softer General Insurance result than expected. FY25 guidance points to solid earnings momentum continuing into this year, and we see SUN’s unveiled FY25-FY27 business strategy as uncomplicated and focused on driving the insurance business harder (which should be well received). We lift our SUN FY25F/FY26F EPS by 5-6% on an increase in insurance margin forecasts and lower “other items” forecasts.
Outlook commentary:
- GWP growth expected to be in the mid to high single digits, primarily driven by increases in AWP albeit with moderating premium rates as the reinsurance market stabilises and inflationary pressures ease slightly in some portfolios.
- Investment yields are expected to reduce as market expectations for interest rates decline in anticipation of a stabilisation in inflation. For FY25, prior year reserve releases in CTP are expected to be around 0.4% of Group net insurance revenue, with releases in other portfolios expected to be neutral over the year. An UITR towards the top of the 10% to 12% range is target.
Challenger Financial Svcs (CGF)
CGF’s FY24 normalised NPAT (A$417m) was in-line with consensus and +14% on the pcp. Overall, we saw this as a positive FY24 result highlighted by a strong improvement in Life business margins/returns, good group cost control and an upward step change in CGF’s capital position. We lift our CGF FY25F/FY26F EPS by 4%-6% on higher Life business margin expectations, and a reduction in our cost-to-income ratio forecasts. With CGF having good earnings momentum, and trading on an undemanding 12x FY25F PE multiple, we see further upside.
Outlook commentary:
- In FY25, Challenger is targeting a normalised net profit after tax guidance between $440 million and $480 million, with the mid-point of the range representing a 10% increase on FY24.
- Based on Challenger’s assumed FY25 effective tax rate of 31.3% this equates to a normalised NPBT guidance range of between $640 million and $700 million.
- Challenger has also lowered its cost to income ratio target range to 32% to 34% from FY25 (previously 35%-37%). Challenger is on track to achieve its ROE target in FY25, which represents the mid-point for the FY25 earnings guidance range.
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.
Two weeks ago I said that I thought that a slowdown in employment growth in the US gave the Federal Reserve room to cut rates. And what we've seen last week is a Fed meeting and the Fed has cut rates.
But what I also learned from last week's meeting by the Fed is something that echoed what Andrew Hauser was telling us when he was here doing a presentation for us. That was that there really is no general theory of the action of central banks. What central banks actually do is they look at the data as it is presented to them at each meeting and then make the decisions.
And I said that we'd see what the impact of that data was from looking at the Summary of Economic Projections, which was released after the Fed meeting. The Summary of Economic Projections shows the combination of the views of all of the people who are on the Federal Reserve Board sitting on Constitution Ave in DC, plus all the independent Presidents of the Federal Reserve, whether or not they were also part of the committee at the time.
What we see is that the actions of the Fed last week were very much how the data had changed since the middle of the year. We can see how the data changes and how it affects their views by looking at the difference between the outlook that was in the June Summary of Economic Projections compared to those for September.
In the September economic projections last week, the first thing was that the expectation of GDP growth for the year fell from 2.1% to 2%. More importantly than that, the outlook for unemployment at the end of the year rose from 4% to 4.4%. I have explained before how when unemployment goes up in our model for the Fed funds rate or for the Australian cash rate, that puts downward pressure on where you think rates should be in the future.
What also happened was that the expectation for inflation in this year fell. So the PCE deflator, which runs about 50 basis points lower than the CPI, instead of an expectation of 2.3% for the year, their expectation fell to 2.1%. That's equal to a CPI of about 2.6% for the full year.
Interestingly, the RBA doesn't expect to get into that range until 2026. At least that's what Michelle Bullock was talking about on Tuesday. For core PCE, the Fed expectation fell from 2.8% to 2.6%, which is similar to 3.1% on the CPI. As a result of that, because of the increase in unemployment which they expected at the end of the year and the fall in inflation that they expected at the end of the year, their expectation of where the Fed funds rate would be at the end of the year changed dramatically as a result of the meeting.
Prior to this meeting, they expected in the June summary of economic projections that the Fed funds rate at the end of the year was 5.1%, which means by the end of the year you're going to get a rate cut of 25 basis points. Now in what they released last week because of that increase in unemployment and fall in expected inflation, they thought that the Fed funds rate at the end of the year would end at 4.4%. That's a 100 basis point rate cut including what they've just done.
Now we had 50 basis points last week. So what we would expect would be another 25 basis points at the November meeting and another 25 basis points at the December meeting to take the total rate cut to 100 basis points.
So in answer to the question, what is the Fed going to do now?
The Fed is going to give us two more rate cuts, one next month and one the year after. And those rate cuts will continue next year. But exactly how big and when? We don't know, but it's important to understand that those cuts in the Fed funds rate are only possible because at the same time, the Fed is continuing Quantitative Tightening. This means they're selling off the bond holdings that they acquired.
They acquired up to $9 billion worth of bonds and other assets to reflight the US economy during the pandemic. And they've been running those assets down at around a trillion dollars a year. Now those assets have fallen to about $7 trillion. We expect they'll continue to run off those assets at least down to $4 trillion. They could go even lower.
That means it's a trillion dollars a year of Quantitative Tightening that offsets the cuts in rates. It generates a basis for the reduced reduction in the money base, which lets the Federal Reserve cut rates.
So it's that combination of things. But it's important if you want to compare the situation that the Federal Reserve is now in to where the RBA is now in, we go back and look at those. That's where the trimmed mean is, and where they expect inflation to be. The trimmed mean in the most recent level of the trimmed mean in the US is for a trimmed mean of 3.2%.
That gives us a model for our equilibrium level including the other components including unemployment, including inflation and inflationary expectations.
This gives us a model estimate for the Federal Funds rate right now of 3.1%.
So there's plenty of room further for the Fed funds rate to fall over the next year.
The problem is with when we do the RBA model, inflation is higher.
Australian core inflation is 60 basis points higher now than it is in the US. That means that the equilibrium level of our cash rate model in Australia is 3.9%. That is only slightly below the 4.35% where the cash rate currently is.
Falling inflation in the US gives it a low equilibrium level for the Fed funds rate model and allows the Fed to cut.
But inflation isn't falling in Australia. That means that our cash rate model estimate is significantly higher.
So therefore it's far more difficult for the RBA to cut than it is for the Fed to cut.
Again, quite dramatic changes in US unemployment expectations.
Unemployment expectations rose from 4% to 4.4%.
But the end of the year the PCE deflator fell with core PCE now expected to be 2.6%, equivalent to 3.1% in the CPI.
And the expected Fed Funds rate at the end of the year fell from 5.1% to 4.4%.
All of this means that the cuts that we've got from the Fed will be followed up by further cuts this year and next year.
Unfortunately inflation in Australia is still too high for the RBA to follow.