The recent and somewhat surprising surge in the Aussie dollar has brought currency hedging back into focus for many investors who have exposure to international investments. In this article, I take a look at various strategies that you can use to manage currency risk in your portfolio and examine how each of these strategies could potentially impact on returns. I also turn to several other industry experts for their views on whether or not currency hedging is a worthwhile venture.

James Gerrard - Rising Aussie Dollar Puts Hedging Back On Investors Agenda

Written For The Australian - Rising Aussie Dollar Puts Hedging Back On Investors Agenda

Written For The Australian - Prenuptial agreements spare couples from costly divorce proceedings

Written For The Australian - SMSF investors eye overseas property after budget lending ban

Ban property lending inside super? Fine, say Australia's most determined SMSF investors — we'll just buy a villa in Sicily instead.

The Albanese government's ban on residential property lending inside SMSFs was meant to cool the sector's appetite for bricks and mortar. Instead, from what I'm seeing, it's simply redirected the hunt. Trustees who can no longer gear into an Australian house are now looking at Aussie commercial property — and increasingly, at overseas markets where cash purchases are within reach.

The numbers tell the story. Around a quarter of SMSF assets sit in property, but less than 2 per cent is offshore. That figure hasn't budged in five years, but I think it's about to.

Why? Because $300,000 doesn't buy much in Sydney, but overseas it stretches remarkably far — a ski house in Japan, a colonial home in Mexico, sea-view flats in Georgia, or that Sicilian villa. Buyer's agent Kitty Parker recently picked up a New Zealand commercial property for under $67,000 with a 23 per cent gross yield. Try finding that in Parramatta.

But here's where I urge caution. Buying overseas in your SMSF is not a weekend hobby. Your trust deed and investment strategy must permit it. The sole purpose test still applies — meaning no family holidays in your Tuscan farmhouse. Related party rules mean your cousin can't rent your Greek unit. Break these and the ATO won't care how charming the olive trees are.

Then there's the practical mess: different time zones, currencies, languages, tenancy laws and tax regimes. Multiply every headache of a domestic investment property by ten.

My concern is that unfamiliarity breeds losses. Slick agents will push overpriced off-the-plan stock in overdeveloped areas dressed up as "opportunity." If you're serious about offshore SMSF property, engage an independent buyer's agent who works for you — not the developer.

James Gerrard - SMSF investors eye overseas property after budget lending ban

Canberra caved to the "death tax" backlash — but in doing so, they've left a rather curious side door wide open.

When the government backed down from applying its new 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trust distributions to testamentary trusts, most people breathed a sigh of relief. Testamentary trusts are, after all, one of the most useful estate planning tools we have — especially where minors are involved, since they can receive up to $22,500 per year tax-free from a testamentary trust, versus just $416 from a regular family trust before penal tax rates kick in.

But here's where it gets interesting. What if you didn't wait until your own death to use one? What if you used your parents'?

Consider this scenario: an adult child gifts a large sum to an elderly parent — say, to fund a $1m Refundable Accommodation Deposit for aged care (which conveniently sits outside Centrelink's assets test). The parent dies. The money flows back to the child's estate via the parent's will, which just happens to include a testamentary trust clause. The child then distributes up to $22,500 per year, tax-free, to each of their own children.

The result? A high-income earner who would otherwise pay 47 per cent on investment income — or 30 per cent minimum under the new family trust rules from July 2028 — pays nothing.

Is it legal? Technically, yes. Is it ethical? That's another question. And would the ATO wear it? Almost certainly not if it looks contrived. Part IVA anti-avoidance provisions would likely be wheeled out, particularly if money is transferred to a frail parent shortly before death alongside a conveniently updated will.

My view: it's a loophole that shouldn't exist. The risks — Family Provisions Act claims, pension impacts, ATO scrutiny — make it unsavoury and impractical for most. But the fact it exists at all suggests the government's testamentary trust carve-out needs another look.

James Gerrard - A potential trust tax loophole that’s survived Canberra’s ‘death tax’ U-turn

Written For The Australian - A potential trust tax loophole that’s survived Canberra’s ‘death tax’ U-turn

Could Canberra's backdown on the so-called "death tax" have handed wealthy families a quiet workaround? I think it might have.

When the government caved to public pressure and exempted testamentary trusts from the incoming 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trust distributions, it left a curious gap. Testamentary trusts – trusts activated only through a will after death – retain a very generous tax perk dating back to 1980: distributions to minors are taxed at adult marginal rates, meaning up to $22,500 per child per year can flow through tax-free once the Low Income Tax Offset is applied. Compare that to a standard family trust, where a minor pays up to 47 per cent on anything above $416.

Here's where it gets interesting. Picture Tom, mid-40s, high income, three young kids. His elderly mother Kate needs aged care. Tom gifts her $1m to cover the refundable accommodation deposit. Kate keeps her pension (the RAD is exempt from the assets test), and when she passes, the $1m returns to Tom's estate via her will – which conveniently contains a testamentary trust clause. Tom invests the money, generates $55,000 a year, splits it between his three kids, and pays zero tax. Had he kept the money in his own name, he'd have handed nearly half to the ATO. Had he used a family trust, the new 30 per cent rule from July 2028 would bite.

Could this become a widespread strategy? I have my doubts. Part IVA anti-avoidance provisions loom large, especially if the money moves shortly before death and the will is freshly amended. There are also real-world risks – the parent spending the funds, a Family Provisions Act challenge, or pension and aged-care fee consequences from the initial gift.

My honest view? It's unsavoury, the risks are high, and practical use will likely be limited. But the loophole exists – and Canberra should probably close it before someone tests it.

If you've been dreaming of buying an investment property inside your self-managed super fund with a bit of borrowed money, the clock is ticking — and it's ticking loudly.

Thanks to a last-minute deal between Labor and the Greens, one of the most powerful wealth-building strategies for retirement is being shut down. Buying residential property in an SMSF using leverage, then flicking the switch to tax-free rental income and capital gains after age 60, has been a go-to play for years. Not anymore.

The ban on SMSF property lending kicks in 45 days after the legislation gets royal assent, which puts the effective deadline somewhere around mid-August. And whether that deadline applies to contract date or settlement date? Still unclear.

If you don't already have an SMSF set up, I'd say you've probably missed the boat. Between establishing the fund, rolling over your super, getting loan pre-approval, finding a property, doing due diligence and exchanging contracts, six weeks is a serious stretch. If you already have an SMSF, you've got a fighting chance — but only if you move now.

That said, don't run around like a headless chicken. There are exemptions worth knowing about. Commercial property inside an SMSF with a loan is still on the table, and I expect this to be the next hot spot for investors, particularly small business owners who want to be their own landlord. After years of sluggish growth, commercial could finally have its moment.

Residential property in an SMSF is also fine if bought outright — expect a tilt toward cheaper regional markets as trustees adapt.

For everyone else, family investment companies are being touted by accountants, but tread carefully — the ATO's Part IVA rules are unforgiving. And with negative gearing disappearing and a 30 per cent minimum CGT looming, the property investing landscape has fundamentally shifted.

James Gerrard - SMSF property investors race deadline as ban kills key strategy

Written For The Australian - SMSF property investors race deadline as ban kills key strategy

Six weeks. That's roughly how long you have to lock in one of the most popular tax strategies of the past decade before it disappears forever.

In a last-minute deal between Labor and the Greens, SMSF borrowing to buy residential property is being scrapped. The ban kicks in 45 days after the legislation gets royal assent, which means the effective cut-off is around mid-August. Whether that deadline applies to contract date or settlement date is still anyone's guess, and that ambiguity alone should give buyers pause.

If you don't already have an SMSF set up, honestly, forget it. Between activating the fund, waiting on rollovers, getting loan pre-approval, finding a property, doing due diligence and exchanging contracts, six weeks isn't realistic. If you do have an SMSF, you've got a fighting chance, but you'll need financial advice, a mortgage broker, conveyancer and buyer's agent all moving in lockstep from day one.

That said, don't run around like a headless chicken just yet. There are some genuine exemptions worth knowing about. Commercial property in an SMSF with a loan is untouched, which I think makes it the sleeper winner from all of this. After years of sluggish price growth, I expect commercial to attract serious new attention, particularly from small business owners who want to be their own landlord. Residential in an SMSF is also still fine if you buy it outright, which will likely push SMSF trustees toward regional and lower-priced markets.

For those investing in personal names, the picture is grim. Negative gearing gone on established properties, a 30 per cent minimum CGT, and family trusts hit with a 30 per cent minimum tax from July 2028. Family investment companies are the new flavour with accountants, but tread carefully — the ATO's Part IVA anti-avoidance stance is not something to test.

The list of budget winners is shrinking fast. Commercial property owners are one of the few left standing.

Here's a contradiction worth chewing on: the federal government keeps telling us it's fighting the housing crisis, yet it runs a little-known scheme paying retirees to stay put in their family-sized homes. And no, this isn't a fringe policy — over 18,000 retirees are already using it to access up to $70,600 a year in tax-free, below-market loans.

It's called the Home Equity Access Scheme (HEAS), and to be clear, I think it's a genuinely good scheme. Older Australians shouldn't be forced out of their homes just because their income has dried up. But let's not pretend it aligns with the government's stated mission of "intergenerational fairness." It does the exact opposite. It gives retirees — including affluent ones, because the family home is exempt from the assets test — a financial incentive to hold onto four-bedroom homes that a young family would love to buy.

The eligibility fine print is the kicker. Even if you don't actually receive an age pension because your income or assets are too high, you can still access this cheap government money. That's essentially every Australian over 67 with a house.

Meanwhile, the government is squeezing property investors on the other end — through negative gearing debates, trust taxation, and Division 296 super changes. What's happening? Investors are pivoting to SMSFs to buy property inside super, where CGT is just 10% and drops to zero in pension phase. The Financial Advice Association Australia has flagged a surge in SMSF property spruiking. Whack-a-mole policymaking at its finest.

My view: you can't credibly claim to be freeing up housing supply while leaving the HEAS untouched and simultaneously pushing investors into new structures that keep total supply exactly the same. The government needs a coherent housing policy — not a patchwork of measures that punish some Australians while quietly subsidising others.

James Gerrard - Government scheme pays retirees to stay put, worsening housing crisis

Written For The Australian - Government scheme pays retirees to stay put, worsening housing crisis

Here's a contradiction worth chewing on: the federal government keeps telling us it wants to fix the housing crisis, yet it's quietly running a scheme that pays retirees to stay put in their oversized family homes.

It's called the Home Equity Access Scheme (HEAS), and right now more than 18,000 retirees are drawing tax-free loans of up to $70,600 a year at rates well below anything a bank would offer. And here's the kicker — you don't need to actually be on the age pension to access it. You just need to be *eligible*. That opens the door to almost anyone over 67 who owns a home, including some very comfortably-off retirees.

To be clear, I think the HEAS is a genuinely good scheme. It gives older Australians the option to fund their retirement without having to sell the family home. But you can't have it both ways. If the government is serious about intergenerational fairness — and hitting mum and dad property investors, family trusts and testamentary trusts in the recent budget in the name of that fairness — then why is HEAS sitting untouched, actively encouraging retirees to hold onto four-bedroom homes that young families would give their right arm for?

Meanwhile, the whack-a-mole continues. Squeeze investment property in personal names, and investors pivot to SMSFs, where capital gains tax is just 10 per cent and drops to zero in pension phase. The FAAA has already flagged a surge in property spruikers pushing SMSF property investment on social media. My prediction? Once Canberra clocks what's happening, super will be the next target.

The uncomfortable truth is that current housing policy isn't coherent. It penalises the middle while leaving one of the biggest levers — encouraging downsizing — completely unpulled.

Could the government's 5% Deposit Scheme end up being a poisoned chalice for 100,000 young Australians?

Here's the maths that keeps me up at night. Around 248,000 people have used the 5% Deposit Scheme to buy a home. With property forecasters tipping a 5 to 10 per cent fall in dwelling prices, and the average Australian home now around $1m, we could soon see up to 100,000 recent buyers sitting in negative equity — potentially owing $50,000 more than their home is worth. Multiply that out and we're staring down a combined shortfall that runs into the billions.

And here's the kicker: if those borrowers walk away, taxpayers foot the bill. It's a guarantee scheme. Even more curious, the 5% Deposit Scheme has no income cap (someone earning $500k qualifies), is open to permanent residents who could pack up and leave, and — remarkably — requires no financial literacy training before signing on to one of the biggest financial commitments of a person's life.

Lenders traditionally want a 20 per cent deposit for a reason. It's a buffer against default, and it's proof the borrower can actually save. Strip that away with government guarantees, and you're loading up first-home buyers just as three RBA rate rises this year bite into their cash flow.

My advice for those already in the scheme? Buckle in. Property runs in cycles and this too shall pass. In the meantime, look at ways to manufacture value — a granny flat for rental income (mind the CGT), or a renovation to lift the property's worth. And before you consider selling at a loss, run the numbers on renting it out to ride through the storm.

The bigger question remains: when the pain hits, will Canberra step in again with another taxpayer-funded lifeline?

James Gerrard - First-home buyers in negative equity squeeze as property markets soften

Written For The Australian - First-home buyers in negative equity squeeze as property markets soften

Could the government's helping hand actually be pushing first-home buyers off a cliff?

That's the uncomfortable question I've been wrestling with as I look at the numbers behind the 5% Deposit Scheme. Since its inception, 248,000 Australians have used it to get into the property market, with 61,281 jumping in during the 2024-25 financial year alone. The pitch is seductive: skip the painful years of saving a 20 per cent deposit and get into a home now. But here's what nobody seems to be talking about — lenders insist on that 20 per cent buffer for a reason.

With property values softening, three RBA rate hikes already this year, and forecasts pointing to a further 5 to 10 per cent decline in dwelling prices, we're staring down the barrel of a negative equity problem that could engulf up to 100,000 recent buyers. Do the maths on an average $1m home: a 10 per cent fall puts the typical 5% Deposit Scheme borrower $50,000 underwater. Multiply that out and we're talking billions in combined negative equity.

What concerns me most is the fine print most buyers never read. The scheme has no income cap (someone on $500,000 can use it), no mandatory financial literacy requirement, and it's open to permanent residents who can simply leave the country. If they walk, the taxpayer foots the bill to the banks. That's not a housing policy — that's a contingent liability dressed up as compassion.

For those already caught in the squeeze, my advice is to ride the cycle. Property has always moved through growth, peak, fall and trough. Consider a granny flat for extra income (mind the CGT consequences), renovate to manufacture equity, or look at renting the property out before selling at a loss.

The real question is whether the government will eventually bail out the very buyers it lured in with wafer-thin deposits. I suspect we'll find out sooner than anyone would like.

Up to 47 per cent of your business sale proceeds, gone. That's the reality many Australian founders are staring down with the proposed capital gains tax overhaul, and it's no wonder so many are muttering about packing up and leaving. But where would you actually go?

I've taken a look at the realistic options, and the answer depends a lot on how big a lifestyle shock you're willing to absorb.

The softest landing is New Zealand. No visa headaches for Aussies, similar income tax rates, and crucially, a full CGT exemption on investment property held beyond two years under the brightline test. It won't slash your tax bill dramatically, but it's the path of least resistance.

If you want a serious tax reduction without giving up city living, Singapore is the standout. A top marginal rate of 24 per cent that only kicks in above $1.09m, generally no CGT, and a lifestyle Australians tend to settle into easily. The catch? Permanent residency is hard to get and the cost of living is brutal.

For the genuinely tax-allergic, Vanuatu and Dubai offer near-zero tax environments — but you're trading Bondi for cyclone season or 50C summers. Panama's territorial tax system is interesting if your income is generated offshore, and Bulgaria's flat 10 per cent appeals if you want a European base on a budget. Fiji sits in the middle with a 10 per cent flat CGT.

Here's the part most people gloss over though: leaving Australia for tax purposes isn't as simple as boarding a plane. The 183-day rule is just the start. The ATO can deem you to have disposed of shares, ETFs and managed funds on departure, triggering CGT. Property gets treated differently again.

My honest view? Plenty of entrepreneurs talk about leaving. Very few actually do.

Written
For
The
Australian
-
Rising
Aussie
Dollar
Puts
Hedging
Back
On
Investors
Agenda

Related Content

Written For The Australian - SMSF investors eye overseas property after budget lending ban

Written For The Australian - A potential trust tax loophole that’s survived Canberra’s ‘death tax’ U-turn

Written For The Australian - A potential trust tax loophole that’s survived Canberra’s ‘death tax’ U-turn

Written For The Australian - SMSF property investors race deadline as ban kills key strategy

Written For The Australian - SMSF property investors race deadline as ban kills key strategy

Other
items
in
the
media
—

Written For The Australian - SMSF investors eye overseas property after budget lending ban

Written For The Australian - A potential trust tax loophole that’s survived Canberra’s ‘death tax’ U-turn

Written For The Australian - A potential trust tax loophole that’s survived Canberra’s ‘death tax’ U-turn

Written For The Australian - SMSF property investors race deadline as ban kills key strategy

Written For The Australian - SMSF property investors race deadline as ban kills key strategy

Written For The Australian - Government scheme pays retirees to stay put, worsening housing crisis

Written For The Australian - Government scheme pays retirees to stay put, worsening housing crisis

Written For The Australian - First-home buyers in negative equity squeeze as property markets soften

Written For The Australian - First-home buyers in negative equity squeeze as property markets soften

Written For The Australian - Fleeing the CGT shake-up? Best low-tax havens for entrepreneurs

Written For The Australian - Rising Aussie Dollar Puts Hedging Back On Investors Agenda

Related Content

Written For The Australian - SMSF investors eye overseas property after budget lending ban

Written For The Australian - A potential trust tax loophole that’s survived Canberra’s ‘death tax’ U-turn

Written For The Australian - A potential trust tax loophole that’s survived Canberra’s ‘death tax’ U-turn

Written For The Australian - SMSF property investors race deadline as ban kills key strategy

Written For The Australian - SMSF property investors race deadline as ban kills key strategy

Other items in the media —

Written For The Australian - SMSF investors eye overseas property after budget lending ban

Written For The Australian - A potential trust tax loophole that’s survived Canberra’s ‘death tax’ U-turn

Written For The Australian - A potential trust tax loophole that’s survived Canberra’s ‘death tax’ U-turn

Written For The Australian - SMSF property investors race deadline as ban kills key strategy

Written For The Australian - SMSF property investors race deadline as ban kills key strategy

Written For The Australian - Government scheme pays retirees to stay put, worsening housing crisis

Written For The Australian - Government scheme pays retirees to stay put, worsening housing crisis

Written For The Australian - First-home buyers in negative equity squeeze as property markets soften

Written For The Australian - First-home buyers in negative equity squeeze as property markets soften

Written For The Australian - Fleeing the CGT shake-up? Best low-tax havens for entrepreneurs

Written
For
The
Australian
-
Rising
Aussie
Dollar
Puts
Hedging
Back
On
Investors
Agenda

Other
items
in
the
media
—