Banks still worthy of a place in most portfolios

Clarke McEwan Accountants

Australian banks still worthy of a place in most portfolios… despite what some commentators say

Barring disasters, the banks should produce returns of the order of 10% per annum over the next decade. With a yield of 8% including franking credits, we need just 2% per annum growth to get us to a 10% per annum total return. Even if we get no growth in earnings, an 8% per annum return means that banks will be worth a place in most portfolios - barring disasters.

Disasters? What could possibly go wrong?

Anyone who follows the mainstream investment media will have no problem making some suggestions here. Ever increasing capital requirements, curbs on lending growth, new taxes, fines, Royal Commissions and other government interventions have been widely discussed. In addition, some outright disasters have been suggested, with a collapse in the residential property market the most common. And, of course, there is the possibility of an old fashioned, severe recession which inevitably would bring more pain for the banks.

Some of these scenarios are likely and should be factored into any forecast. Others may be unlikely but still are risks that we need to consider. Here, we want to put those risks in perspective particularly those that have been widely covered in the mainstream investment media and where we believe the impacts have been vastly overstated.

Increased regulatory and capital requirements

These are real and are happening right now and, accordingly, are in our base forecast. Most banks have around 10% of capital for each dollar of risk weighted assets – that should head towards 11% over time. This makes the banks safer but slightly less profitable. In addition, we have the bank levy which should slice around 2.5% off bank profits. Furthermore, we have threats of Royal Commissions, fines for bad behaviour, and so on. Collectively, we think these will reduce Earnings Per Share by about 10% over time. This slices just 1% per annum off returns over the next ten years. We include this impact in our forecast.

A slowdown in the growth of residential lending

We think this is highly likely and it is why we forecast future earnings growth at around 2% per annum. This is much lower than historical earnings growth and, in fact, this forecast is much lower than most other analysts' forecasts. And still it gets us to a 10% per annum return.

A recession is likely in the next decade and will hurt the banks

Our forecasts assume that Australia will experience a recession in the next decade. We also predict that, when the recession comes, the market will know about it before we do – and so the chances of getting out early will be small. Hence, the key question is how bad a recession might be, both in terms of depth and also in terms of how well prepared the banks are for that recession.

The depth of a recession is often depends upon the health of the banks to that recession. The more extended the banks, the more they cut lending, the more they harass existing borrowers, and the more they drive the economy into the ground. When banks enter a recession in better shape, the recession is generally milder. We saw that during the GFC where the Australian downturn was much milder than in other parts of the world because, at least in part, the Australian banks entered the recession in reasonable shape.

A 2015 RBA study found that the key drivers of bank lending losses during recessions were: rapid credit growth; high levels of building construction activity; falling bank lending standards; and, rising interest rates.

Today, we have modest levels of lending growth, normal levels of commercial building construction, tightening lending standards and no sign of a central bank with any interest in raising interest rates. Of those four loss drivers, the only one flashing a warning light right now is the high level of residential construction activity. Even there, the banks are scaling back their involvement and watching their risks very closely. In short, the banks are in good shape generally and in much better shape than prior to the GFC. This suggests that any recession in the next decade should be relatively mild so long as these indicators remain strong. If they turn south, caution will be required.

Our forecast assumes that a mild recession will occur and will result in a one-off reduction in profits of around a third and take around 0.5% per annum off 10-year returns.

Even mild recessions will cause short-term volatility

But before we get too comfortable, we should not forget that during a recession, bank share prices will probably fall by 50% or more. But the fall is unlikely to be permanent.

While this may seem dramatic, we would say the same thing about every other sector of the share market. All equities are volatile. All can fall dramatically during recessions. The banks are no different. As long-term investors, we should worry predominantly about a permanent loss of capital.

And that is a possibility if the recession is severe. Accordingly, no matter how attractive the prospects of Australian banks, all the normal rules of diversification still apply.

Impact of a collapse in the housing market

Now, this is where things hot up. The market is divided on this issue. There are those who consider that a collapse in housing prices and as a result, the banks, is almost certain; there are those who aren't sure; and, there are those who are extremely sceptical that we will see a housing induced collapse in the banks at all.

Farrelly's considers a collapse in housing prices as possible but unlikely:

We still seem to have a shortage of housing that not even the residential building boom is meeting;
Bank lending practices are being tightened but not sufficiently to cause an out-and-out collapse.

Nonetheless, it would be foolish to say that a collapse in housing prices couldn't happen. Accordingly, we consider the impact of an extreme example - a 35% fall in the prices of houses nationwide and an accompanying recession that sees soaring unemployment and a 10% default rate amongst mortgagees.

Helpfully, the major banks produce detailed reports showing the Loan to Valuation Ratios (LVRs) of their mortgage lending books. This is all we need to do our own stress test. Consider two loans, one has a LVR of 50% (in other words, $50 worth of loan for every $100 worth of house), while the other has an LVR of 90% ($90 worth of loan for every $100 worth of house.) Now assume that property prices fell by 35%.

Post the fall, the first loan now has $50 worth of loan for $65 worth of house, while the second has $90 of loan for every $65 worth of house. If the first borrower loses their job and can't repay the loan, the bank has the option of putting the property on the market, recouping their $50 loan and sending whatever is left back to the unfortunate borrower.

The second borrower would be a problem for the bank. Here, a default potentially costs the bank a loss of $25 for every $90 of loan.

Now let's assume that 10% of all mortgages default. The results for the major banks are shown in Figure 1 on the following page.

Figure 1: Bank stress test (35% downturn in property prices & 10% default rate)
	ANZ	CBA	NAB	WBC
Size of loan book ($ bill)	274	436	285	414
Loss as a % of loan book if 10% default	-0.5%	-0.6%	-0.6%	-0.4%
Loss In $mill	-1,479	-2,660	-1,807	-1,482
Loss as a % of 2017 pre-tax profits	-15%	-19%	-19%	-13%
Pre-tax profits 2017 ($mill)	9,704	14,114	9,306	11,050
Source: Bank reports, farrelly's analysis

That's right. A perfect storm of a 35% fall in residential property prices and a 10% default rate would result in the banks' profits falling by about 17% on average. While this is clearly not a great result, it falls a long way short of a disaster.

In a year or two, profits would rebound and normal business would resume. Farrelly's calculations suggest that the whole episode would reduce 10-year average returns by around just 0.5% per annum.

Now, a much more likely scenario is that if residential property prices do fall that it will be more like a fall of around 20% (rather than 35%). This causes a one-off reduction in profits of closer to 4%. It's a blip.

Residential property lending makes the banks safer, not riskier

The bottom line is this: residential property lending is actually an extremely profitable and safe activity for the banks. The fact that the Australian banks' lending books are highly concentrated in home loan lending should be a source of comfort rather than concern. It's the equivalent of having 70% of a portfolio invested in government bonds – the concentration, in this instance, makes the portfolio safer, not riskier.

Disclaimer: This article is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Any advice in this document is general advice only and does not take into account the objectives, financial situation or needs of any particular person. You should obtain financial advice relevant to your circumstances before making investment decisions. Where a particular financial product is mentioned you should consider the Product Disclosure Statement before making any decisions in relation to the product. Whilst every care has been taken in the preparation of this information, Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information. Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd does not guarantee any particular outcome or future performance. Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd is a registered tax (financial) adviser. Any views expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views of Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd. If you intend to rely on any tax advice in this document you should seek advice from a tax professional. Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd ABN 26 098 725 145, AFSL & Australian Credit Licence No. 234459, 114 Albert Road, South Melbourne, VIC 3205. This document produced in October 2017. © Copyright 2017

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Keeping Your Self-Managed Super Fund Compliant

By Clarke McEwan • March 8, 2026

Keeping Your Self-Managed Super Fund Compliant

ATO Update on Inherited Homes: What it Means for Your Family’s Wealth

By Clarke McEwan • March 8, 2026

The ATO has issued a Draft Taxation Determination TD 2026/D1 which looks at how inherited family homes are treated for CGT purposes. Some industry commentators have dubbed it a “death tax by stealth”, but it is a bit more complex than this. The draft guidance focuses on a specific aspect of the rules around applying the main residence exemption to inherited properties, potentially exposing deceased estates and beneficiaries to significant tax if not planned correctly. Here’s what you need to know in practical terms. Why TD 2026/D1 Matters Under current law, deceased estates or beneficiaries can potentially sell a deceased individual’s former family home without paying CGT if certain conditions can be met. This exemption is particularly valuable for properties owned long-term, where unrealised gains could be substantial. In order to access a full exemption you normally need to ensure that the property is sold within 2 years of the date of death (but the ATO can potentially extend this deadline) or that the property has been the main residence of certain qualifying individuals from the date of death until the property is sold. These qualifying individuals can include the surviving spouse of the deceased individual, the beneficiary selling an interest in the property or someone who has a right to occupy the dwelling under the deceased’s will. The draft ATO guidance focuses on this last point. That is, what does it mean for someone to have “a right to occupy the dwelling under the deceased’s will.” In summary, the ATO’s view is that: The right to live in the home must be explicitly granted in the will to a named individual. Broad discretionary powers given to trustees, separate agreements, or even testamentary trusts (TTs) are not sufficient in the ATO’s view. For example: A will giving an executor discretion to allow a family member to occupy the home does not meet this requirement. A trustee of a TT who allows a beneficiary to live in the house is seen as separate from the will and may trigger CGT on sale. Some legal and real estate experts warn this could force families to sell homes within two years of death to avoid CGT, especially in high-value areas. Consider this: inheriting a $2 million home with a capital gain of $1.5 million could expose the beneficiaries to $300,000–$600,000 in tax, depending on discounts and tax brackets. However, it is important to remember that there are still other ways for the sale of the property to qualify for a full exemption. Practical Steps to Protect Your Estate While we are waiting for the ATO to finalise its guidance in this area, there are steps you can take to protect your family’s assets: Review and update your will, especially if you are planning to provide certain individuals with the right to occupy a property. Does the will currently provide this right to specifically named beneficiaries? Plan the timing of sales – The two-year exemption window remains, but if you inherit a property and intend to hold it longer than this, weigh any potential CGT exposure against future rental income or family needs. Partial CGT exemptions might still apply, but the rules and calculations can be complex. Seek professional advice, especially if your estate plan uses TTs. You will normally need to work closely with tax and legal advisors to structure the plan appropriately. Be market aware – Estate planning can intersect with market timing. Quick sales may preserve CGT exemptions, but this needs to be weighed up against non-tax factors. The key takeaway is clear: estate planning is a complex area and needs to be navigated carefully to preserve family wealth and avoid unintended tax implications.

Navigating CGT on Your Home: New ATO Clarity for Home-Based Businesses

By Clarke McEwan • March 8, 2026

Running a business from home—whether as a sole trader, freelancer, or small operator—has many perks. But when it comes to selling your home and potentially saving on tax, recent guidance from the ATO serves as a reality check. The ATO has provided its views on how home-based businesses interact with the small business capital gains tax (CGT) concessions, providing a warning on how the ATO approaches a long-standing area of confusion. See: Home-based business and CGT implications | Australian Taxation Office The Key Issue: Active Asset Test When an individual sells their main residence, they will often enjoy a full CGT exemption. However, if part of the home is used for business purposes, this can potentially impact on the scope of the exemption. If a full exemption isn’t available under the main residence rules then we typically look to other CGT concessions, including the CGT discount for assets that have been held for more than 12 months or the small business CGT concessions. The small business CGT concessions can potentially reduce or eliminate a capital gain made on sale of a property, but only if certain conditions are passed. One of the key conditions is that the property must pass an active asset test. In very broad terms, to pass the active asset test you need to show that the property has been actively used in a business activity for at least 7.5 years across the ownership period or for at least half of the ownership period. The ATO is clear: the active asset test applies to the entire property, not just the business portion. When you are applying the active asset test, an asset either passes this test or fails it. It is not really possible for an asset to partially pass the active asset test. The entire property is either an active asset or it is not. Simply having a home office, workshop, or even being able to claim home occupancy expenses as a deduction does not necessarily make your home an active asset. Where business use is incidental to the home’s primary residential purpose, the ATO’s view is that the small business CGT concessions generally do not apply. Rus v FCT The view that the entire property must qualify as an active asset—and that incidental or minor business use (such as a home office or storage in a largely residential setting) is insufficient—draws support from case law, particularly the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision in Rus and Commissioner of Taxation [2018] AATA 1854 (Rus v FCT). In that case, a taxpayer sought access to the small business CGT concessions on the sale of a 16-hectare largely vacant rural property, where only a small portion (less than 10% by area) was used for business purposes: a home office, shed for storing tools/equipment/vehicles, and related supplies tied to a plastering and construction business operated through a controlled company. The balance of the land remained vacant or used residentially. The AAT upheld the ATO's ruling that the property as a whole did not satisfy the active asset test, reasoning that the business activities were not sufficiently integral to the asset overall. Minor or incidental use did not make the entire property an active asset, especially where the business was primarily conducted off-site. This precedent reinforces the ATO's strict approach in home-based business scenarios: the property is assessed holistically. This means that limited business use typically fails to tip the scales toward qualifying for the concessions. Practical Examples Let’s take a look at how the ATO approaches some common scenarios. Minor home-based business: Harriet runs a hairdressing salon in a spare room, using 7% of the total floor space of the property and seeing clients eight hours a week. She claims deductions for occupancy expenses and gets a 93% main residence exemption. However, because her business use is minor, she cannot access small business CGT concessions. The 50% CGT discount can still apply. Significant business use: Sue and Rob own a two-storey building, with the ground floor operating as a takeaway store (50% of the total floor area of the property) and the top floor as their private residence. The business has been running for decades with employees. Here, the property qualifies as an active asset, potentially giving them access to the small business CGT concessions for the portion of the capital gain that isn’t covered by the main residence exemption. What This Means for You A partial main residence exemption doesn’t necessarily mean you have access to the small business CGT concessions. Many homeowners mistakenly assume that business deductions or a home office automatically open the door. The ATO clearly doesn’t share this view. Seek advice before changing the way your home will be used. Starting to operate a business from home can impact on deductions, CGT calculations and access to CGT concessions. We are here to help you make fully informed decisions. Keep thorough records. Floor plans, hours of business use, and detailed deductions can help strengthen your position and may help in any future planning or audits. Consult your accountant. If selling your home is on the horizon, professional advice is critical to assess any potential CGT exposure and explore concessions that might be available. The Bottom Line The ATO’s updated guidance suggests that many home-based business owners won’t have access to the small business CGT concessions on sale of their home, but this always depends on the facts. Business owners need to plan proactively, rather than assume that tax relief will be available. By understanding how your home’s business use is treated, you can make smarter decisions. For example, will the profits generated from a small business operated at home end up being wiped out by a higher CGT liability on sale of the property down the track? After all, when it comes to CGT, every dollar you keep counts toward your next venture or your retirement nest egg.

DPN Review: A Wake-Up Call for Business Owners on Personal Tax Risks

By Clarke McEwan • March 8, 2026

Running a successful business is hard work—and sometimes, despite best intentions, tax obligations slip. If the business is being operated through a company structure, then the ATO can potentially issue a Director Penalty Notice (DPN), holding company directors personally liable for unpaid taxes. In 2024–25, DPNs skyrocketed by 136%, reaching over 84,000 notices, affecting directors of around 64,000 companies. The stakes are high, and now the Tax Ombudsman is reviewing how the ATO issues and manages these notices—a development all directors should take seriously. So, what exactly is a DPN? Put simply, if your company fails to pay certain taxes—like PAYG withholding, GST, or Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC)—the ATO can target directors personally. There are two types: Non-lockdown DPNs: These apply if the company has lodged its activity statements or SGC statements but hasn’t made the relevant payments. In this case directors have 21 days to take appropriate action, such as arranging for payment of the debt, appointing an administrator, or entering liquidation. Acting promptly may allow the penalty to be remitted. Lockdown DPNs: These apply if reporting deadlines are missed as well. In this scenario directors can’t avoid personal liability by putting the company into administration or liquidation. The intent is to protect government revenue and employee entitlements—but for directors, the impact can be severe. Why the Ombudsman is Involved The review, announced in December 2025 by Tax Ombudsman Ruth Owen, responds to a surge in complaints, with DPNs topping the list. It will examine: How effectively the ATO uses DPNs to recover debts ($54.2 billion in collectable amounts by mid-2025) The fairness of selecting cases for enforcement How directors are notified and communicated with Treatment of vulnerable directors, including those coerced into roles or facing financial abuse The review also aligns with broader government initiatives, including support for gender-based violence survivors and more empathetic engagement with business owners. While timelines are flexible due to resources, the review is part of the 2025–26 work plan, alongside assessments of ATO services for agents, First Nations engagement, and interest charge remissions. Commercial Takeaways for Directors DPNs are more than a compliance issue—they’re a real commercial risk. Ignoring a notice can disrupt personal finances, damage credit ratings, and even trigger bankruptcy. At the same time, the Ombudsman review could improve transparency and fairness, giving directors a clearer understanding of options if financial stress arises. Practical steps to protect yourself now Stay on top of obligations: make sure the company lodges returns and pays liabilities on time. Lodge statements even if payment isn’t possible: Failing to lodge activity statements just makes things worse. Consider using ATO payment plans if cash flow is tight but remember that this won’t necessarily enable directors to escape personal liability if a DPN has been issued already. Monitor company cash flow and tax health closely, especially during economic dips. Act fast if you receive a DPN: Consult immediately your accountant or lawyer to explore options because strict deadlines might apply. Consider director insurance or business structuring to limit personal exposure—but compliance always comes first. The Ombudsman’s review is a timely reminder: tax is a key business risk, not just paperwork. Being informed, proactive, and prepared can protect both your business and your personal assets. If you’re concerned about DPN exposure, reach out for a tailored review—we can help you stay ahead of risk, so your business thrives rather than just survives.

Electric Car Discounts Under Review: What It Means for Your Business (and What You Should Do Now)

By Clarke McEwan • February 11, 2026

Electric vehicles (EVs) are no longer a niche choice. By late 2025, they account for more than 8% of new car sales in Australia, driven in no small part by generous tax incentives. One of the most significant is the Federal Government’s Electric Car Discount, introduced in mid-2022. For many businesses and employees, it has materially reduced the cost of owning or leasing an EV. That said, the rules are now under review. While no immediate changes are proposed, this is an important moment to understand the benefits, assess whether they suit your circumstances, and consider timing. How the Electric Car Discount Works (in Plain English) The discount is not a cash rebate. Instead, it operates through tax concessions that can significantly reduce the real cost of an EV: 1. Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) exemption Where an eligible EV is provided to an employee as a fringe benefit, private use is exempt from FBT. This is often the biggest saving. Without the exemption, FBT is effectively charged at up to 47%. For many employees, the exemption can reduce the annual after-tax cost of a vehicle by thousands of dollars. Important points: The exemption applies to battery electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Plug-in hybrid vehicles lost eligibility for new arrangements from 1 April 2025. The car must be first held and used after 1 July 2022 and be below the luxury car tax threshold at first purchase. 2. Higher luxury car tax (LCT) threshold Fuel-efficient vehicles, including EVs, benefit from a higher LCT threshold ($91,387 for 2025–26, compared to $76,950 for other cars). This can prevent the 33% luxury car tax applying to part of the purchase price. 3. Reduced import costs Certain EVs are also exempt from the 5% customs duty, reducing upfront acquisition costs. Commercially, these settings have made EVs very competitive. Lower running costs (electricity versus fuel, fewer servicing requirements) and solid resale values have strengthened the business case, particularly for salary packaging and small fleets. Why the Government Is Reviewing the Rules A statutory review of the Electric Car Discount has now commenced. The key reason is cost. Uptake has exceeded expectations, and the projected cost to the budget has increased significantly over the forward estimates. The review will examine: Whether the concession is still required to encourage EV adoption. Whether eligibility settings should be tightened (for example, limiting benefits to certain vehicle types or price points).How the discount interacts with other policies, such as the National Vehicle Emissions Standard commencing in 2025. Public consultation is underway, with a final report not due until mid-2027. Importantly, there is no suggestion of immediate changes, and any reforms are more likely to be prospective. Practical Takeaways for Business Owners and Employees While uncertainty always creates hesitation, the current rules are clear and legislated. From a practical perspective: Now is a good time to review fleet or salary packaging arrangements, particularly if you are considering replacing a vehicle in the next 12–24 months. Existing arrangements are expected to be grandfathered, reducing the risk of retrospective changes (although we can’t guarantee this). Ensure vehicles are clearly under the LCT threshold at first purchase and meet all eligibility criteria if you want to access the FBT exemption. Check the tax treatment of charging infrastructure provided in connection with an eligible EV, this won’t necessarily qualify for an FBT exemption. Final Thought The Electric Car Discount remains one of the most valuable concessions available for employee vehicles. While a review introduces longer-term uncertainty, the commercial reality today is that EVs can deliver genuine tax and cash-flow savings when structured correctly. If you are considering an EV—either personally or through your business—now is the right time to run the numbers. Please contact our team if you would like tailored advice on whether an electric vehicle strategy makes sense for you under the current rules.

AI Tax Tips: Helpful Shortcut or Costly Trap?

By Clarke McEwan • February 11, 2026

As a business owner or investor, time is always tight. So it’s no surprise many people now turn to AI tools like ChatGPT for quick answers on tax deductions, super contributions or structuring ideas. The responses sound confident, arrive instantly and cost nothing. What could go wrong? Plenty. The Australian tax and super system is complex, highly fact-specific and constantly changing. While AI can be a useful starting point, relying on it for decisions can expose you to audits, penalties and poor financial outcomes. We’re increasingly seeing the clean-up work when AI advice goes wrong. Where AI Can Help (and Where it Can’t) AI is quite good at explaining basic concepts in plain English. It can help you understand what “negative gearing” means, outline the difference between concessional and non-concessional super contributions, or prompt you to think about record-keeping. Used this way, it can save time and help you ask better questions. The problem starts when AI moves from explaining concepts to giving “advice”. Tax and super outcomes depend on your specific facts: your income levels, business structure, age, residency status, assets, timing and future plans. AI does not know these details unless you provide them—and you generally shouldn’t. Even then, it cannot exercise judgement or balance competing risks the way an experienced adviser can. The Accuracy Risk: Confident, but Wrong AI tools are known to “hallucinate” – that is, provide answers that sound authoritative but are incorrect or incomplete. In practice, this can mean: Claiming deductions that don’t apply to your circumstances Miscalculating capital gains tax or ignoring integrity rules Suggesting super strategies that breach contribution caps or eligibility rules Quoting legislation, cases and rulings or concessions that don’t exist or are out of date. These errors are rarely obvious to a non-expert, but they are normally obvious to the ATO, courts and experienced advisers. A recent decision handed down by the Administrative Review Tribunal highlights some of the key problems. In Smith and Commissioner of Taxation [2026] ARTA 25 the taxpayer appeared to rely on AI tools to identify cases which supported their argument, but this approach was shot down by the Tribunal. Some of the cases didn’t exist and others were simply not relevant to the matter being considered. If the person using the AI tool doesn’t verify the existence of the cases provided by the tool and read them to ensure their relevance then “the Tribunal’s resources are being wasted, as the Tribunal must look for cases that don’t exist and read cases that have no relevance at all”. ATO Scrutiny is Increasing, not Decreasing The ATO isn't anti-AI—they use it internally for fraud detection and analytics. But for you? The ATO’s misinformation guide makes it clear that AI tools can provide false, inaccurate, incomplete or outdated information. The ATO’s message is to verify everything, or face the music. Surveys reveal 64% of businesses seek AI accounting help first, only for pros to unscramble the mess—wasting time and money. ATO AI transparency statement | Australian Taxation Office Protect yourself from misinformation and disinformation | Australian Taxation Office When something is wrong, the ATO will generally amend the return, charge interest and may apply penalties—even if the mistake came from AI advice rather than intent. We are seeing this play out most clearly with work-from-home claims, property deductions and SMSF compliance. Superannuation: High Stakes, Little Margin for Error Super is an area where AI advice can be particularly dangerous. Self-managed super funds, in particular, operate under strict rules. AI often overlooks key issues such as eligibility, timing, purpose tests and investment restrictions. The result can be non-compliance, forced unwinding of transactions and penalties that run into thousands of dollars. Super mistakes can also permanently damage your retirement savings. Data Security and Privacy There is also a practical risk many people overlook: entering personal or financial information into AI platforms. Once data is entered, you lose control over how it is stored or used. This creates privacy and fraud risks that are simply not worth taking. A Smarter Approach: AI Plus Professional Advice AI is best used as a support tool, not a decision-maker. It can help you understand the landscape, but important tax and super decisions should always be reviewed in light of your full circumstances. At our firm, we encourage clients to bring questions early, test ideas and have conversations before acting. That approach almost always costs less than fixing problems after the fact. The bottom line: AI can be a helpful assistant, but it is not your accountant. When it comes to protecting your wealth and staying compliant, tailored professional advice remains essential.