Australian private wealth quiz
- Thread starter pieman
- Start date
Super
Ta
Rolf
Ta
Rolf
Had an asset and liability statemement for a potential tenant and noted that their furniture and jewellery were worth substantially more than their PPOR 
Last edited:
Would have to be super... surely
considering it was a private wealth seminar, yes it would be super as thats where they make their $$
Hmmm... shares?
and the winner is Wylie
Yes apparently people now have more in the bank as cash than super, and I'm one of those.
I think that needs some thinking about for your investments choices as sooner or later the doom and gloom will lift and this cash is going to be looking for a home. Shares, property or cash or combinations of the above?
Yes apparently people now have more in the bank as cash than super, and I'm one of those.
I think that needs some thinking about for your investments choices as sooner or later the doom and gloom will lift and this cash is going to be looking for a home. Shares, property or cash or combinations of the above?
Id like to see those figures : )
Always willing to learn, but I suspect that someone dropped a couple of zeros on the numbers : )
Total Cash held by indivduals larger than their individual super balance, on average numbers...................
I know super is far from super, but...........
ta
rolf
While there exist aggregate numbers for the total value of businesses, shares, property, super and savings, if you divide them by the number of adults to arrive at an average, I suspect that you'll find this average is very atypical.
I suspect that while not perfect it's more useful to divide people into a number of economic profiles based on the % assets in each class.
Eg, in descending order of:
1. Savings account (small), super (low or none), no home, no investments, no business assets, income largely govt benefits (the poorest - maybe 20% of population)
2. Equity in own home, super, savings account, few investments, no business assets (typical working people - maybe 50% of population)
3a. Significant equity in rental properties and / or shares, own home, super, savings account, no business assets. Own home must be half or less of total asset base. (upper middle class - passive investors - maybe 10% of pop)
3b. Significant assets in super or some other private pension. May have rental properties or other investments. Own home, savings, no business assets. Own home might be less than half total asset base. (upper middle class - self-funded retiree or ex-government or defence employee on generous defined benefit super - maybe 10% of pop)
4. Significant business assets, Significant real estate and share portfolio. Own home but value is less than 10% of total net worth (more like 1% for the super wealthy). May have super if employee but less than 10% of net worth.
So basically 4 are the very well off who have built up assets that far exceed their own home and any super. Predominently businesspeople.
3a and 3b may also be financial independent (or close to it) but don't have the absolute value of assets or non super/non PPOR proportion of 4. Most are or were employees who have saved and invested.
2. Is 'Joe Average'. May have reasonable assets on paper. Regard own home and super as security and these are his biggest assets. But this over-dependence on PPOR and super (over which he has less control) is not conducive to true financial independence as enjoyed by everyone in 4 and some of 3.
1. is the very bottom with no significant assets.
This I belive is the class and wealth structure of Australian society.
I suspect that while not perfect it's more useful to divide people into a number of economic profiles based on the % assets in each class.
Eg, in descending order of:
1. Savings account (small), super (low or none), no home, no investments, no business assets, income largely govt benefits (the poorest - maybe 20% of population)
2. Equity in own home, super, savings account, few investments, no business assets (typical working people - maybe 50% of population)
3a. Significant equity in rental properties and / or shares, own home, super, savings account, no business assets. Own home must be half or less of total asset base. (upper middle class - passive investors - maybe 10% of pop)
3b. Significant assets in super or some other private pension. May have rental properties or other investments. Own home, savings, no business assets. Own home might be less than half total asset base. (upper middle class - self-funded retiree or ex-government or defence employee on generous defined benefit super - maybe 10% of pop)
4. Significant business assets, Significant real estate and share portfolio. Own home but value is less than 10% of total net worth (more like 1% for the super wealthy). May have super if employee but less than 10% of net worth.
So basically 4 are the very well off who have built up assets that far exceed their own home and any super. Predominently businesspeople.
3a and 3b may also be financial independent (or close to it) but don't have the absolute value of assets or non super/non PPOR proportion of 4. Most are or were employees who have saved and invested.
2. Is 'Joe Average'. May have reasonable assets on paper. Regard own home and super as security and these are his biggest assets. But this over-dependence on PPOR and super (over which he has less control) is not conducive to true financial independence as enjoyed by everyone in 4 and some of 3.
1. is the very bottom with no significant assets.
This I belive is the class and wealth structure of Australian society.
bank runs senminar
numbers produced by bank shows bank running hot
speaker(spruiker) self interest ??
most super is completely outside personal control and held institutionally
cash at bank > privately held super accounts held at the bank, maybe
cash at bank > "super",, not very likely
numbers produced by bank shows bank running hot
speaker(spruiker) self interest ??
most super is completely outside personal control and held institutionally
cash at bank > privately held super accounts held at the bank, maybe
cash at bank > "super",, not very likely
