39. 问答：“房产与股票、债务循环利用以及养老金的弊端”

问题是，我的生活方式会因为额外的开销而改变吗？

The question about like would my lifestyle creep with extra stuff?

我不这么认为。

I don't think so.

我的意思是，我很久以前就告诉自己，我会让所有的财务决策基于我的净资产，而不是我的收入。

I mean, I'd say is I told myself this a long time ago, is that I would let all my financial decisions be based on my net wealth and not my income.

我一直坚持这一点。

And I've been pretty firm to that.

所以我不在乎我的收入是多少。

So I don't care what my income is.

我在乎的是我的净资产。

I care what my net wealth is.

所以，如果我明天的收入翻倍、甚至三倍，这也不会对我的生活方式产生任何影响，除了会让我的净资产更快增长，从而更早地影响我的生活方式。

So if my income tomorrow doubled, tripled, that would not have any impact on my lifestyle except that it would increase my net wealth sooner, and that would have an increase on an impact on my lifestyle sooner.

澳大利亚的FIRE播客是Strong Money Australia与Pearler的合作项目，后者是澳大利亚最受欢迎的枯燥型长期投资平台。

The Aussie FIRE podcast is a collaboration between Strong Money Australia and Pearler, Australia's favorite boring long term investing platform.

欢迎收听我们的主持人——来自Strong Money Australia的Dave和来自Pearler的Hayden，他们将探讨所有关于财务自由的话题。

Join our hosts, Dave from Strong Money Australia and Hayden from Pearler as they discuss all things financial independence.

在Aussie FIRE，我们非常推崇分享经验并谈论金钱。

At Aussie FIRE, we're big fans of sharing experiences and talking about money.

然而，请注意，任何建议均为一般性建议，并未考虑您的财务状况、需求或目标。

However, please note that any advice is general and does not consider your financial situation, needs or objectives.

请自行判断这些建议是否适合您，如有疑问，请咨询持牌财务顾问。

Consider whether it's appropriate for you and if in doubt, speak to a licensed financial adviser.

大家好。

Hey, everyone.

欢迎回到Aussie FIRE播客。

Welcome back to the Aussie FIRE podcast.

在本期节目中，我们将回答听众们发来的许多非常用心的问题。

So today in this episode, we're gonna be answering a bunch of really thoughtful questions that have been sent in by listeners.

我们非常期待收到你们的问题。

We love getting your questions.

这实际上是我最喜欢做的事情之一，海登。

It's actually probably one of the favorite things for me to do, Hayden.

我不知道你怎么样，伙计，但我很喜欢回答问题，因为这些问题往往是我自己不会想到在播客里提出来的。

I don't know about you, mate, but I love answering questions because it's often things that I wouldn't think to actually bring up on the podcast.

所以，如果我们收到一些具体且细致入微的问题，那会非常好，这样我们可以针对各种情况提供不同的见解。

So it's actually good if we get specific kind of intricately detailed questions so we can offer different thoughts on various situations.

我们确实收到一个关于债务循环和资本利得税的问题。

So we've actually got one about debt recycling and capital gains tax.

还有一个问题是，如果发生像与中国开战这样的情况，该如何应对风险并保护你的投资组合。

There's also one about how to deal with risks and maybe protecting your portfolio if there was something like a war with China, let's say.

我们还会讨论如何将房产作为短期杠杆策略，之后再转向股票投资。

We'll also be talking about using property as somewhat of a short term strategy for leverage before pivoting to shares later.

这是我经常被问到的一个问题。

That's a common question that I get.

我们还会聊聊伴侣之间如何从税务角度考虑资产所有权。

And we'll also talk about how to think about asset ownership between partners for taxes.

我们也会简要谈谈这一点。

So we'll touch briefly on that as well.

里面还有一个特别的问题，是专门为你准备的，关于生活方式膨胀和高薪科技工作。

There's also one in there, mate, a special one for you, specifically for you about lifestyle inflation and high paid tech jobs.

我们还会讨论，如果你的大部分资金都在养老金里，但你想在那之前实现财务自由，该如何退休。

And we'll also talk about how to retire if most of your money is inside super, but you're wanting to be financially independent before that.

在这段过渡期里，你该怎么应对呢？

How do you kinda handle that in between periods?

这些都是非常有趣的内容。

So super interesting stuff.

是的。

Yeah.

这些问题都很好。

These are all great questions.

期待今天能深入探讨这些，戴夫。

Looking forward to jumping into it today, Dave.

显然，如果你喜欢提问的想法，并且正在听这个播客，心想‘真希望Dave和Hayden能聊聊我的问题’，你可以通过电子邮件将问题发送给我们，邮箱是 hello@AussieFIREpod.com。

Obviously, if you like the idea of asking a question and and you're listening to this podcast thinking, oh, I'd love for Dave and Hayden to chat about my question, you can just send them through to us via email at hello@AussieFIREpod.com.

邮箱地址应该在节目笔记、链接，或者你所使用的平台上的其他地方。

It should be in the show notes or links or whatever the the podcast notes are, wherever they are on the platform you're listening.

我们有时会为了简化而编辑问题，但如果有人希望匿名，我们一定会保持匿名。

We do sometimes edit them for simplicity, but we'll always keep it anonymous if people would like it to be anonymous.

如果对方没有特别说明，我们就默认是匿名的。

And if they don't state otherwise, we just assume it to be anonymous.

但让我们先来看第一个问题。

But let's jump into the first question.

所以，第一个问题是关于债务循环的。

So the first question, Dave, is about debt recycling.

这个人显然目前并没有对自己的股票投资组合进行债务循环操作。

This person clearly has a share portfolio that isn't being debt recycled right now.

问题是，你对出售大部分股票来偿还房贷，从而实现债务循环有什么看法？

The question is, what are your thoughts on selling down a large portion of shares to pay down your mortgage in order to debt recycle?

为了进行债务循环，卖出这些股票所涉及的资本利得税是否值得支付？

Is it worth paying the tax, the CGT tax that comes with selling out those shares in order to debt recycle?

我想对听众们说明一下，显然，如果你要进行债务循环，就需要卖出部分资产以获得现金，用来偿还贷款，然后再重新借贷来购买ETF或股票，从而实现债务循环。

I think just just for the for the listeners, obviously, if you're debt recycling, you need to probably sell down the funds in order to get the cash to pay off the loan to redraw the loan to buy the ETFs or shares in order to debt recycle.

这有点繁琐，但你确实还是需要这么做。

So it's a little bit of a handling effort, but you do kinda still need to do that.

所以

So

是的。

It is.

对。

Yeah.

是否值得这是一个很难回答的问题。

So whether it's worth it is a tricky question to answer.

原因在于，这取决于具体情况，因为你需要卖出一大笔股票。

And the reason for that is it's gonna depend because obviously, you need to sell a big chunk of shares.

明白吗？

Okay?

没关系。

That's fine.

你出售这些股票时需要缴纳资本利得税。

You're going need to pay capital gains tax on those shares.

但你需要缴纳的资本利得税金额，完全取决于你打算出售的这批股票中所包含的资本增值部分。

But the amount of capital gains tax that you're going to be up for is going to depend entirely on how much capital gains are embedded in that big parcel of shares that you're going to sell.

所以，如果你在过去三四年里投入了大量储蓄，而恰好在当前价格不是特别高的时候出售——就像我们现在录制这段内容时的情况，因为市场刚刚经历了一点回调——那么实际税负可能并不高。

So it might actually be not much if you've put in a lot of savings over maybe the last three or four years and you happen to be maybe selling at a time when prices aren't super high, kind of like now as we record this because we've had a little bit of a pullback.

但如果你这批股票的大部分资金来源其实是你自己的储蓄，而不是这些投资长期积累的资本增值，那么资本利得税账单可能并不会太高。

But if a lot of your capital that makes up that large parcel of shares is actually your savings and not capital gains on those investments over time, then the capital gains tax bill might not actually be that high.

所以，这取决于你投资组合中所包含的未实现收益。

So it's going to depend on the embedded gains in your portfolio.

你只有在查看你当初购买这些股票的成本价和当前打算出售的价格时，才能算出确切的数额。

You'll only be able to figure that out when you look at essentially what you paid for those shares and what you're going to be selling them for.

而且你还得知道，你需要缴纳的税额将取决于你的个人税率以及这些股份由谁持有，因为如果你处于较低的税率档，可能需要缴纳的税很少，但如果处于最高税率档，税款就会很高。

And then you're also going to have to know how much tax you're going to be up for will be determined by your individual tax rate and who's owning those shares in the portfolio because you might be up for not much tax if you're on a lower tax rate or a lot of tax if you're in the highest tax rate.

这一点也会决定最终的税额。

That's going to determine it as well.

一旦你算出了这个数字，当然，要完成这一步，你可能需要使用像ShareSite或Nevexa这样的追踪工具，它们能帮你计算出投资组合中的收益金额以及你可能需要缴纳的税款。

And then once you've got that number And obviously, to do that, you might want to either If you use a tracking tool like ShareSite or Nevexa, they can help you figure out how much gains are in the portfolio and then how much tax you might be up for.

或者你也可以坐下来，找一位会计师，让他们为你模拟一些情景。

Or you can sit down with an accountant and someone who can run through some scenarios for you.

说实话，花点钱做这件事是值得的，因为涉及的金额巨大，潜在的税务后果或税务收益也相当可观。

And it's honestly probably worth paying for something like that because there's such a large amount of money involved and a big potential tax consequence or tax benefit on the other side.

所以，为了准确了解你个人情况下的税务影响，花一点钱咨询专业人士绝对是值得的。

So it's definitely worth paying a little bit of money to get the right idea for your situation there.

但一旦你算出了预计需要缴纳的税款或潜在税款，就必须将其与通过债务循环利用可能节省的金额，或债务循环利用带来的潜在税务收益进行比较。

But once you've got the tax bill or potential tax bill that you expect to have to pay, then you have to compare that with how much you might save by debt recycling or the potential tax benefit from debt recycling.

如果你有一笔30万美元的抵押贷款，想要进行债务循环利用，你每年可能需要支付大约1.8万美元的利息。

If you have, say, a $300,000 mortgage that you're wanting to debt recycle, you're probably paying something like $18,000 a year interest on that portion of the loan.

假设你的税率在30%到37%之间，通过债务循环利用，你每年可能节省大约6000美元的税款。

And let's say your tax bracket is 30 to 37%, you might save something like $6,000 per year in tax by debt recycling that large chunk of the loan.

那么，为了每年节省6000美元，你愿意支付多少资本利得税呢？

So to save $6,000 a year, how much capital gains tax would you be willing to pay?

有人可能会说，我愿意支付6万美元，来换取每年节省6000美元。

Somebody might say, I'd be happy to pay $60,000 to save $6,000 a year.

但另一个人可能连3万或4万美元都不愿意支付，因为从短期来看，这笔支出实在太过沉重，难以承受这种长期收益。

Someone else might not want to pay even 30,000 or $40,000 That might be just too hurtful in the short term to get that kind of longer term benefit.

因此，究竟愿意支付多少税款来换取债务循环可能带来的持续税务优惠，这完全取决于个人的判断。

So it's gonna be a personal choice on how much tax feels acceptable to pay to kinda get the ongoing tax benefit potentially of debt recycling.

这样解释清楚了吗？

So does that make sense?

我觉得很清楚。

Makes sense to me.

我的意思是，戴夫，关于这一点我没什么可补充的，因为这个概念本身相当直接。

I mean, I actually don't have a lot to add on that, Dave, because it's a pretty straightforward concept.

你需要支付一笔前期费用，以换取长期的持续收入或收益，不管你如何理解它。

There's an upfront cost that you'll have to pay that gives you a longer term ongoing income or benefit or whatever you wanna think about it.

这最终取决于你获得了多少收益、房贷金额有多大，以及你打算多久之后还清贷款。

And it's really just gonna come down to how much is it gained, how long how big is the mortgage, how long are you gonna keep it before you pay it off.

那里有太多变量了，但好在都只是数字而已。

There's so many variables there, but it is just numbers, thankfully.

你其实可以把它写下来。

You could actually write it down.

你可能并不需要这么做。

You probably don't need to be.

如果你对Excel有一定了解，或者有理工科背景，我想很多人可以把这些数据输入电子表格，很快就能算出来。

If you have some, you know, basic comforts with Excel or you come from any kind of stem background, I think a lot of people could dump it into a spreadsheet and figure that out pretty quickly.

有一点需要注意，我和戴夫之前也讨论过，澳大利亚税务局有一项关于所谓‘洗售’的规定，即你卖出资产后又以略有不同的方式买回。

One thing to kind of keep in mind is, and Dave and I have talked about this previously is like, the ATO has these rules around what they call a wash sale, which is basically where you sell your assets and and rebuy them slightly differently.

这种情况的经典例子是，有人可能在6月30日资产下跌时清仓，然后在7月1日重新买入，以此来申报一笔巨额亏损之类的。

The kind of the classic case of this is someone who, you know, might sell out their portfolio if it's down on June 30 and rebuy it on June 1, you know, and then claim a big loss on it or something like that.

如果你在进行债务循环时卖出ETF投资组合并重新买入，这一点你需要牢记。

This is something that you have to keep in mind if you're ever kind of selling an ETF portfolio and then rebuying it with the debt recycling.

最重要的是，你需要能够合理地证明这并非洗售行为，而这一点可以通过几种不同方式来证明。

The main thing to keep in mind is you just need to be able to reasonably show that it wasn't a wash sale, and that can come from a few different ways.

一个明显的例子是，如果你卖出某些股票，然后与伴侣共同重新买入，这在本质上是完全不同的情况。

One obvious one is like, if you have shares that you're selling out and then you're rebuying it, say, as a joint with a partner, you know, that's a that's a whole different thing in that sense.

如果你卖出后买入的是不同的资产，那就是另一种情况。

If you're selling them out and rebuying different things, then that's another thing.

我发现，大多数正在经历投资旅程的人，最初购买的ETF在几年后往往会发现他们其实并不想继续持有这些资产。

And often that's that's quite a common thing I find because most people who are going through their investing journey, you know, the ETFs they bought at the start, over a couple years, they might realize they don't actually want to hold those anymore.

因此，有时这种卖出行为正是改变投资标的的好机会，因为这样做更有利。

So sometimes that kind of sell out event is a great opportunity to to change what you're invested in because it's advantageous.

所以这显然不是洗售行为。

So it's obviously not a wash sale too.

是的。

Yeah.

这是个好观点。

That's a good point.

对。

Yeah.

澳大利亚税务局看待这个问题的唯一标准是，如果你的行为明显是为了一味获取税务优惠而刻意设计或重组投资组合，那么这就进入了一个灰色地带，他们可能会认为这种扣除并不合理。

The only the way the ATO looks at it is if it's blatantly obvious that you've structured or restructured actions in your portfolio for the sole purpose of claiming a tax benefit, then that becomes more of a a gray area and a questionable area where they're like, maybe we're not gonna allow this this sort of a deduction.

所以，如果存在一些差异，比如海登所说的，时间间隔较长、资产不同、持有人不同等等，这些情况就更容易被澳大利亚税务局接受。

So If there's some sort of differentiation there, like Hayden said, if some time has passed or they're different assets or different holders or things like that, that's way more palatable to the ATO and things like that.

在处理这类事情时，要小心谨慎。

Just be careful around how you're taking actions around things like that.

我们继续下一个话题吧，我来念一下这个。

Let's go on to the next one now and I'll read this one out.

我很喜欢你的播客和文章。

I'm enjoying your podcasts and articles.

我猜这是他们发给我的。

I'm guessing they sent this one to me.

我不知道你是否可以做一期关于FIRE投资者在澳大利亚被卷入与中国战争的情况下，是否应采取特定措施来保护资产的话题。

I wonder if you might do one on whether FIRE investors should take specific action to protect their assets in the event of a war with China that Australia got dragged into.

希望我是无谓地担心这个问题，但它确实一直萦绕在我心头。

Hopefully, I'm worrying needlessly about this, but it has been on my mind.

你觉得呢，海登？

What do you think, Hayden?

这是个很好的问题。

It's a great question.

说实话，我也想过这个问题。

Like, I won't lie, I've thought about this too.

我觉得我对这个问题的答案是：我不知道，而且我也不花时间去想，因为这太复杂、太微妙了。

I think the problem I have with I think the answer I have to this is that it's I don't know, and I don't spend time thinking about it because it's such a nuanced, complicated thing.

战争有时会带来繁荣。

Wars sometimes create booms.

有时则会带来萧条。

Sometimes they create busts.

有时候这取决于他们和谁打仗。

Sometimes this depends who they're at war with.

这是个完全无法预知的事情，我根本没法为此做计划，因为根本没人知道该为什么做准备。

It's such an unknowable thing that there's no way I could plan around it because there's no one really knows what you're planning for.

我对这些问题唯一的总体建议是，确保你的投资组合是多元化的。

The only broad answer I'd have to any of this is make sure you have a diversified portfolio.

对吧？

Right?

因为这是唯一能可靠地帮你应对这种情况的广泛性策略。

Because that's the only thing that you can reliably say broad based would protect you against it.

因为很明显，我目前的投资重心在美国，而最近所有的关税问题已经让我吃了亏。

Because obviously, like, I'm quite US heavy at the moment, which has hurt me at the moment with all this tariff stuff.

两年前根本没人想到我们会遇到这个问题。

No one really was thinking we'd have this problem two years ago.

这是我自己的选择。

That's a choice I made.

所以如果这让你担心，就保持投资多样化。

So if it worries you, just stay diversified.

否则，你无法预知未来会发生什么，也无法掌握其中的所有细节。

Otherwise, you don't know what the future is going to hold or all the nuance around it.

关于这一点，我今天想说的就这些了。

That would honestly be all I have to say on that one day.

但别太担心你无法控制的事情，因为在这些大规模的宏观情景下，每个人都会面临同样的处境。

But don't don't worry too much about what you can't control because everyone will be in the same boat for these kinds of, you know, broad scenarios.

你不会眼看着自己的生活被毁，而别人却蒸蒸日上。

You're not going to be there being like, oh, my life's ruined and everyone else is thriving.

在这些可怕的 scenario 中，我们都会身处同一条船上。

And it's like, we're all going be in the same boat in these horror scenarios.

这很棘手，因为正如你所说，这有点黑暗，因为战争，或者说类似那样的冲突，往往会带来不确定性。

It's tricky because it's also a little bit dark, like you said, because sometimes wars, I suppose wars and any sort of conflict like that creates uncertainty.

因此，由于不确定性，尤其是关税等因素，市场最初会出现价格下跌。

So there's initial price falls just based on the uncertainty, especially the tariffs and things like that.

但战争通常也会带来巨额政府支出，这些支出最终会传导至企业盈利，进而影响资产价格。

But then wars also create massive government spending typically, which ends up feeding its way back into company earnings and then eventually asset prices.

它们往往会随之跟进。

They tend to follow that.

这有点黑暗。

It's a little bit dark.

战争对人类生命造成的破坏，通常远大于对市场的影响。

Wars tend to be a lot worse for human life than they are for markets.

这并不是个令人愉快的想法，但如果你回顾历史，情况往往就是这样。

Not a nice thing to think about, but it tends to be that way if you look historically.

但这个问题本身很有意思，因为这里用了‘保护自己’这样的措辞。

But the question itself is interesting because the idea of protecting yourself, those are the words used.

所以我认为，他们并不想，或者试图避免短期亏损。

So I'm thinking they're not wanting to Or they're trying to avoid short term losses.

这就是我理解这个问题的角度。

That's how I'm viewing the question as it's being framed.

所以，真正保护自己、避免因潜在战争和冲突而遭受下跌的唯一方法，就是减少投资。

So the only way really to protect yourself in that way and trying to avoid a downturn over potential war and conflict is to just be less invested.

显然，我们知道从长期来看，这样做并不理想，因为投资越少、风险越低，未来的回报也就越少。

Obviously, we know that that's less than ideal over the long term because less invested, less risk, it's going to be less rewards down the track.

这很棘手。

It's tricky.

如果你被某件事深深困扰，挥之不去，你就会倾向于持有更少的现金。

If something that's really bothering you and you can't get it out of your mind, you're going to want to simply keep less cash.

就像海登说的，建立一个更多元化的投资组合，这样如果你担心澳大利亚，就不要只持有澳洲资产。

Like Hayden said, have a more diversified portfolio so that you don't want maybe an Aussie only portfolio if you're worried about Australia specifically.

从这个意义上说，你希望拥有一个全球化的投资组合。

You want to have a global portfolio in that sort of a sense.

如果你真的想要一个包含多种资产、债券等的广泛配置，还可以考虑其他资产，比如房产或黄金。

And then you can have other assets like property or gold or something like that if you really want to have this big mix of different assets and bonds and things.

但我注意到，任何构建了相当规模投资组合的人，都会开始出现这种类型的疑问：好吧，我实际上有资金面临风险。

But I noticed that this type of questioning starts to happen with anyone that builds a decent sort of portfolio, you start to think, Okay, I actually have some money at risk here.

你的思绪会开始飘远，想：如果发生这种情况怎么办？

Your mind starts to wonder like, Oh, well, what if this happens?

如果发生那种情况怎么办？

What if that happens?

但我通常不会花时间去想这些事。

But I tend to not spend time thinking about these things either.

所以，有点像你，海登。

So, a little bit like you, Hayden.

并不是因为这些事不重要，也不是因为它们不会带来巨大影响，而是因为我无法合理预测它们。

Not because they don't matter and not because they couldn't have massive consequences, but because I can't reasonably predict anything about them.

我不知道它们什么时候会发生。

I can't know when they're going happen.

我不知道它们的结果会是什么。

I can't know what their outcomes are going to be.

我不知道最好的应对策略会是什么。

I can't know what the best plan of attack is going to be.

我根本无法提前知道这些情况，试图为每一个可能的场景做计划，只会让我以恐惧的心态去投入，长期来看会导致非常不理想的结果。

I simply can't know any of that beforehand, and trying to plan for every conceivable scenario is going to lead to me investing in essentially a fearful manner, it's going to lead to a pretty suboptimal result over the long term.

所以我通常不去纠结这些，而是把注意力放在未来几十年，而不是未来五六年这样的短期时间上。

So I tend not to bother with it, and I try and focus on the next multiple, multiple decades rather than the next like five years or so.

这就是我看待这个问题的方式。

So that's how I kind of frame it.

那我们进入下一个问题吧。

So let's jump into our next question.

这个人问：借助低成本杠杆在房产上的力量，以及你对它的经验，你对短期使用杠杆（比如八到十年）来积累房产净值，然后套现投入股市有何看法？

This person says, with the power of cheaper leverage able to assist property and your experience with it, how do you feel about using it shorter term, say eight to ten years to build equity, then cash out and dump into shares?

如果能获得良好的资本增值，这将帮助你的初始资本与剩余现金流共同进入股票投资组合。

Providing that you got good capital growth, this would help your initial capital grow alongside the excess cash available still going into the shares portfolio.

我主要是想听听你的建议，因为据我了解，戴夫基本上就是走这条路并这样投资的。

Just seeking your advice on this as from what I gathered, Dave has essentially been on this journey and invested like this.

这是个非常好的问题。

It's a great question.

我觉得我们之前在播客里聊过这个话题，戴夫，你当时也说过，投资房产确实是早期实现高杠杆的好方法。

I do think do think we talked about this in a previous podcast, Dave, about even you said that, you know, investment properties can be a great way to get hyper leverage early on.

而且，是的，我很想听听你的看法。

And, yeah, I'd be interested in your your thoughts on it.

这确实可以。

It really can.

我觉得有些人只看到我现在谈论的内容，却没能全面地看待问题：一方面，股票有它的优势；另一方面，房产的实际运作方式，很多人并不理解。

I think some people tend to see what I talk about now and having a try and present a more balanced view of, Here's the pros of shares and here's how property works that people don't appreciate.

显然，我们看社会整体，对房产是非常推崇的。

Obviously, we look at society, it's a very, very pro pro property.

房产非常棒，而股票却像是一个神秘、可疑、波动性大的资产。

Property's incredible and shares are like this mysterious, questionable, volatile asset.

我试图平衡公众的看法，分享这两种资产被很多人忽视或未能充分理解的另一面。

I've tried to balance out the public opinion and share the alternate side of both of those assets that many people I see not appreciating or not quite understanding fully.

在这个过程中，我的观点有时被误解为‘你不能或不应该投资房产’，这绝对不是我的本意。

In doing so, I think my opinions have been misinterpreted sometimes to say that you can't or you shouldn't invest in property, which is absolutely not true.

你确实可以通过杠杆从房产中获得更高的回报。

You can definitely make higher returns from property because of the leverage.

这种策略是可行的，你可以在投资早期进行几次杠杆押注，理想情况下如此。

This strategy can work where you take a few leveraged bets essentially, probably ideally early on in your investing.

如果你有八到十年的时间框架，那么当你想在后期套现时——你很可能确实会想套现，以便将资金重新投资于一种收入更稳定、无相关成本、且更易灵活依赖的资产，比如股票。

And then if you have an eight to ten year timeframe, then if you want to cash out later, which you probably are going to want to cash out later so that you can reinvest into an asset that has frankly a better income stream with no costs associated and it's easier, more flexible to live off with shares.

所以，如果这是你的计划，它确实可以奏效。

So if that's the plan, it can definitely work.

但人们忘记的是，房产和杠杆并不仅仅是纯粹的上行收益，因为人们以为，如果我杠杆四倍，就能获得四倍的回报。

But the thing that people forget is it's not just pure upside with property and leverage because people think, Well, if I'm leveraged four to one, I'll just get four times the returns.

但实际上远非如此，因为有很多因素会稀释你的回报。

And it's absolutely not even close to that because you've got so many things that dilute that return.

你会遇到印花税，这显然是一个大头。

So, you're going to have stamp duty, obviously that's a big one.

买家代理费。

Buyer's agents fees.

你目前的现金流为负，而且由于当前利率水平，这个负现金流实际上比正常情况还要大。

You've ongoing negative cash flow, which right now is actually larger than normal because of where interest rates are.

然后你还要应对长期停滞不前、毫无方向的市场。

Then you have to deal with flat and meandering markets that don't really go anywhere for a while.

之后，你还要支付中介佣金，最后还要缴纳资本利得税。

And then later, you're going to have selling agents fees, then you have capital gains tax at the end.

所有这些因素都会大幅稀释你的回报，而且通常比人们想象的还要多。

So all of those dilute your return by quite a lot, and it's usually much more than people think.

是否能成功完全取决于你购买的房产以及你所处的市场周期。

Whether it's going to work depends entirely on the property you purchase and the cycle that you find yourself in.

八年时间可能够用，但也可能根本不够，因为房地产市场可能会在相当长的时间内上涨、下跌或停滞不前。

Eight years might work, but it also might not be enough time quite frankly because property markets can go up, down, flat, nowhere for relatively extended periods.

有时候，增长会一次性集中爆发。

Sometimes the growth comes all at once.

比如在过去三四年里，布里斯班和珀斯就发生过这种情况。

That's happened with Brisbane and Perth in the last three or four years, let's say.

所以这一点值得记住。

So that's worth keeping in mind.

当我分享我旅程中的经验时，我在那个关于房产的播客下收到了一条评论。

And I got a comment back on the property specific podcast that we did when I shared the lessons from my journey.

其中一条评论说：如果你只是购买具有良好资本增值潜力的房产，这种情况就不会发生。

One of the comments was like, Well, if you just buy good capital growth property, this doesn't happen.

这暗示着我本可以避开某种房产低迷，或者买到某种永远增长、无论市场如何都能获得高增长率的特定资产。

That was suggesting that I could have avoided some sort of a property downturn or got some specific asset that's just going to grow in perpetuity and get this great growth rate regardless of the market that you're in.

但现实并不是这样的。

But that doesn't work like that.

这种说法有点天真。

That's kind of a naive comment.

是的，你可以购买比平均水平更好的房产，但如果你身处一个长期低迷的市场，或者你刚买进市场就短暂上涨，然后又下跌，再进入一段盘整期，而你还要承担持有成本和购买成本，那么在这样的市场中，不可能奇迹般地获得优异的杠杆回报。

Yes, can buy better than average properties, If you're in a city that's experiencing a flat market for an extended period or you happen to buy and then the market goes up for a little bit and then down for a bit and then flat for a bit, and you've got these holding costs and these purchasing costs, there's no way to somehow magically create excellent leverage returns when you're sitting through a market like that.

理论上听起来没错，但在所有市场中长期来看并不可行。

Sounds right in theory, it's not feasible through all markets over time.

这将高度依赖于你所处的市场周期。

It's going to be highly specific to the cycle that you find yourself in.

这很有道理。

That makes a lot of sense.

我要先声明一下，我不是房产投资者，所以请明白我对这方面知之甚少，但我对那些动不动就说‘我靠投资房产发财了’的人非常怀疑，因为这些人很可能只是恰巧赶上了好时机。

And I say this disclaim that I'm not a property investor, so please be aware I'm somewhat of a moron with this, but I'm really dubious to people that talk a lot about, oh, I've gotten rich off, you know, investment properties and stuff because a lot of those people may have just invested at a very good time.

比如，你稍微想一想，就拿悉尼来说。

Like, if you think about this for a second, let's just take Sydney, for example.

我认为悉尼的房价在2014年到2024年之间翻了一倍。

Sydney's property prices doubled I think between about 2014 and 2024.

大概就是这种感觉。

Something of that general feel.

我没法给出确切的数据。

I I couldn't give you an exact stat.

所以，在那个时期买房的人会非常多，而这种情况主要集中在住宅市场。

So then you're gonna get a lot of people that bought property in that period, and this is houses that's skewed towards.

然后他们会说，哦，你从这上面赚不了多少钱。

And then they're gonna be like, oh, you don't make a lot of money off this.

我就住在悉尼的坎特伯雷-坎普西附近，那里正在出售售价300万澳元的四居室砖砌双拼住宅，你知道的。

And like, I'm I live I live like around Canterbury Campsie in Sydney, and it's like, they're they're selling $3,000,000 four bedroom duplex brick buildings, you know, in this area.

我完全不觉得这栋300万澳元的砖砌双拼住宅会在十年内涨到600万澳元。

And it's like, there is no part of me that thinks that that $3,000,000 duplex brick building is going to go to 6,000,000 in ten years.

这只是我的看法。

That's just my view.

这简直太离谱了。

That's just like wild.

部分原因是因为根本没人买得起，实在太贵了。

And it's like, part of that's because no one's gonna buy the damn thing because it's too expensive.

这又回到了利率问题。

And then this comes back to interest rates.

之所以太贵，就是因为利率太高了。

It's like it's too expensive because of interest rates.

房价疯狂上涨的原因是我们经历了长期的低利率时期，人们不断推高家庭债务，财富转移就这样发生了。

And the reason house prices went crazy is because we had a long period of cheap interest rates where people started ratcheting up their household debt higher and higher and higher, and that transfer of wealth happened.

所以，除非利率大幅下降，让人们能够极度加杠杆，但很多人其实已经接近极限了。

So it's like short of interest rates falling pretty dramatically and allowing people to over leverage the hell out of themselves because a lot of people are at their limits already.

我真的不认为过去十年可以作为任何指标，来证明我朋友做了十年，我就现在开始，也能再做十年。

I don't really see how you should look at the last ten years as any indicator that if my friends did it for ten years, I'm going to start it now and do it for ten years.

但我必须再次强调，我本人并不拥有投资性房产，也没有每周花三十个小时去研究这个。

But I do want to stress that, again, I don't own investment properties, don't read about this extensively thirty hours a week.

所以，请把我所说的当作是我目前对自己资金的个人看法。

So just take that as a my personal opinion of what I'm doing with my money at this point.

棘手的地方在于，人们看到这个例子后，就会认为这只是近期偏差的放大。

And the tricky part is people will look at that example, and then they'll just think, this is just recency bias at large.

人们看到过去十年的情况和自己居住的城市，就会想：好吧，如果我现在买下这套房产，十年后它就会值这么多钱。

People look at the last ten years and the city that they've lived and then be like, Okay, well if I just buy this property, then in ten years it's going to be worth this much.

而你的城市在未来十年可能表现平平。

Whereas your city might be fairly lackluster for the next ten years.

这种情况作为可能的结果是相当可行的。

That's fairly feasible as an outcome that might happen.

你不能简单地以此为依据。

You can't necessarily look at that.

我发现很多人，甚至包括房地产从业者，都会陷入这种行为，认为某个市场会基于某些因素永远表现优异。

I find that a lot of people, even property people, get sucked into that same kind of behavior thinking that this market or this market is going to just outperform forever based on X, Y, Z.

通常，恰好是最近表现最好的那个市场会变成这样。

Often, it happens to be miraculously the market that's had the best recent performance.

它总是倾向于这样运作。

It always tends to work like that.

我最近看到很多人说墨尔本永远不会复苏之类的话。

I've seen a lot of people recently saying that Melbourne will never recover and things like that.

我只是觉得这样想根本不可行。

I just think it's just not feasible at all to think like that.

没有任何市场会永远低迷，也没有任何市场会永远繁荣。

No market's going to be bad forever, no market's going to be good forever.

房地产是这样，股票是这样，所有事情都是这样。

It's like that with property, it's like that with shares, it's like that with everything.

事情根本不会真的这样发展。

It just doesn't really happen like that.

所以回到问题本身，是的，如果你有十年的时间，完全可以进行一两次短期杠杆投资。

So back to the question, yes, can absolutely make a couple of or one or two quick leveraged bets in your investing if you've got a time period of ten years.

它的确可能比股票表现更好，但也有可能不会。

And it definitely may work out better than shares, but there's a chance that it may not.

你无法预知。

You can't tell.

这取决于许多不同的因素，而这些因素在我们讨论时恰恰是无法得知的。

It's going to depend on a lot of different factors that are unfortunately unknowable right now as we speak about it.

但这无疑是一种可行的策略，我们就这么说吧。

But it's definitely a strategy that can work, let's just say that.

但我今年确实打算再多写一点关于这个话题的内容，因为我觉得有些人误解了我对房地产和股票的完整观点，我并不是完全偏向其中一方。

But I do plan to actually write a little bit more about this this year because I think some people misconstrue my full opinions on sort of property versus shares because I'm not all about one or all about the other.

不同的方式在不同时间、不同原因和不同环境下都可能奏效。

Different ones can work at different times for different reasons and in different environments.

因此，今年我会在文字中进一步展开这一点，我觉得。

And so I'll flesh that out a bit more in in writing this year, think.

所以，不妨耐心关注一下。

So maybe stay tuned for that.

好。

Cool.

我们继续下一个问题。

Let's move on to the next question.

让收入型资产登记在非工作方名下，以利用其较低的税率，这样更好，还是应该在高收入者名下进行债务循环？

Is it better to own income producing assets in the nonworking partner's name to utilize their tax bracket benefits, or is it better to instead do debt recycling in a high earner's name?

这就是问题所在。

That's the question.

现在让我们为听众简单拆解一下这个问题。

Now just to quickly unpack that for our listeners.

他们本质上是在问：我是否应该以不工作的伴侣名义持有ASX股息收益资产，因为他们边际税率基本为0%，所以这些收入几乎不用缴税？

They're basically asking, should I own, you know, say, ASX dividend producing assets with a partner who is not working because they're essentially on 0% marginal tax, so all of that coming in doesn't get taxed a lot?

还是应该在高收入者名下进行债务重组，因为显然只有当你有可抵扣项目时，债务重组才有效。

Or is it better to do debt recycling in the in the higher earner name, which obviously you do it in the higher earner's name because debt recycling only works if you have something to deduct.

对吧？

Right?

哦，抱歉。

Oh, sorry.

你获得抵扣，而你的收入越高，这个抵扣的实际效果就越大，就像任何抵扣一样。

It's like, you get a deduction, and it's like the higher your income is, the bigger the effect of that deduction, just like any deduction really.

因此，高收入者在实际金额上比低收入者更能感受到债务重组的好处。

So a high income earner feels the benefit of debt recycling in real dollar terms better than someone with a lower income, for instance.

是的。

Yeah.

这是一个非常有趣的问题。

It's a really interesting question.

我之前根本没想过这个问题，直到有人问我。

I'd actually never thought about it before I got this question.

所以这确实很有趣。

So It is quite intriguing.

一开始你可能会想，债务重组能让你拿回税款，

Initially you might think, Well, recycling, you're getting tax back.

这显然比完全不退税的情况要好。

Surely that's better than the scenario where you just don't lose tax.

能多拿回税款当然是更好的。

It's better to get extra because you're getting tax back.

但事实未必如此，因为理论上，如果你让高收入者进行债务重组，短期来看可能更有利——前提是利率高于你获得的股息收益率，因为只有这样才会产生现金流亏损，从而获得税务退税。

But that's not necessarily true because in theory, if you go for the debt recycling scenario in the high earner's name, that might be better in the short term assuming that the interest rate is higher than the dividend yield that you're getting because that's the only way there's going to be a cash flow loss to then get a tax refund on.

短期来看这可能更有利，但从长期来看就很难说了。

That might be better in the short term, but in the long term, it's a bit more difficult to say.

让我们往前推十年或十五年，你已经建立了庞大的投资组合，一切都很顺利，这时你和配偶打算提前退休。

Let's fast forward ten or fifteen years, you've built this big portfolio, everything's gone really well, and then you and your spouse are looking to retire early.

当你开始依靠投资组合生活或过渡到半退休状态时，如果所有资产都由一个人持有，这并不是一个理想的情况，因为你之前一直在最大化税务优惠。

When you then go to live on the portfolio or transition to a semi retired situation, it's not a great scenario if one person owns all the assets because you've tried to maximize tax benefits along the way.

因为这样一来，一个人在早期退休时几乎没有任何收入，而另一个人却拥有全部资产并获得全部收入，这比在退休时平均分配投资收益要低效得多。

Because then you're gonna have one person who's basically earning no income in early retirement and the other person's got all the assets earning all the income that's inefficient compared to having an even split, let's say, in retirement where you're both getting some of the investment income each.

除非你能合理预测十年或更久之后你的具体情况，否则很难说哪种长期结果是最好的，而我发现这种情况往往难以预测，因为很多人中，一方可能会暂时退出职场，另一方可能全职工作，之后再计划减少工作量，要么退休，要么兼职，而配偶则可能重新全职或兼职工作。

It's quite difficult to say what the best long term outcome is going to be unless you can reasonably forecast what your scenario or your situation's going to be ten years down the track or more, which I find is often not the case because a lot of people, one person might drop out of the workforce for a little bit, one person might be working full time and then later they plan to scale down more and either retire or just work part time, while the other spouse might go back to work full time or part time.

随着时间推移，双方的工作负担会相互转换。

And they swap over who's doing more work over time.

所以很难下定论。

So it's tricky to say.

你根本无法预知。

You're not going to know.

我发现，大多数人的状况随着时间的推移都会发生比他们预期更大的变化，而你对工作的感受也可能改变，尤其是当你和配偶积累财富并决定人生方向时。

I find that most people's situations change more than they think over time and how you feel about work itself may change, especially between you and your spouse as you build wealth and you decide what you want to do with your life.

因此，除非你了解所有这些变量，否则很难给出一个最优的长期建议，而这些变量你实际上根本无法预知，很遗憾。

So it's very difficult to give sort of an optimal long term answer unless you know all of those variables, which you can't really know, unfortunately.

我不确定你是怎么看的，老兄。

I don't know how you see it, mate.

你对这个问题有更简单的答案吗？

Do you have a simpler answer to that?

可能没有更简单的答案了。

Probably not a simpler one.

我的意思是，显然如果你们俩都不工作或收入很低，那么直接购买能产生收入的资产通常是合理的。

I mean, obviously if you're both not working or not earning much income, then yeah, it would generally make sense to buy income producing assets just outright.

如果你们俩都在工作且收入很高，那么通常更适合进行债务重组，特别是投资于那些不产生极高收入的资产。

If you're both working and earning high incomes, it would make sense generally to debt recycle, particularly into things that don't pay exceptionally high income.

你遇到了一种有趣的情况，两边都有，你有点纠结该把钱投到哪里。

You've got this interesting situation where you have both and you're kind of like, where should I put my money?

我的两个简短建议是：第一，也许五五开是解决这类困境的好办法，因为你不知道，正如戴夫所说，你可能某天会依赖这些产生收入的资产，或者如果你未来需要现金，你不想出售那些通过债务重组获得的资产，因为那样会产生很大的税务负担——因为你可能已经持有这些增长型资产，现在要缴税了。

My two short answers here would be one, maybe half half is a great solution to all these kinds of predicaments because you don't know, as Dave said, like, you might rely on those income producing assets at some time, or if you need cash in the future, you don't wanna sell out those debt recycled assets because it'll incur a big tax hit because you got a tax bill because they've probably been growth assets.

所以，说到底，未来到底会怎样，真的谁也说不准。

So, I mean, there's really it's such like a who the hell knows the future here.

我个人的看法是，如果你处于一种高收入者和非工作者并存的情况，我假设在这两种情形下，你都有一笔需要支付利息的房贷。

My just personal view here would be if you are in a situation where you have this high income earner and this this nonworking person, I'm assuming that in both of those like, that scenario, you have a home loan that you're paying interest on.

债务循环的一个好处是，这不仅是你进行投资，还能让你的房贷获得抵扣。

One of the benefits of debt recycling is that it is just you investing, but you'll actually get a deduction on your mortgage too.

所以，这实际上是实实在在的回款，否则你本需支付这些钱。

So it's actually real money back that you otherwise that you would otherwise have to pay.

这是实实在在的钱，你知道的，每年你都能拿回来。

That's that's real money, you know, that you get back every year.

所以，简而言之，我的建议是，戴夫，你要降低税负，因为这是你能拿回来的真金白银。

So like, that's kind of the really shallow, simple answer I'd have Dave is like, you know, reduce your tax because that's real money you get back.

但听者不能孤立地看待这一点，因为这完全取决于你和伴侣的计划、家庭的规划，你们将来会不会买房，是否需要变现这些资产？

But that can't be taken in a vacuum for someone listening because it totally depends on what you and your partner's plans are, what your family plans are, are you gonna go buy a house one day and you know, need to liquidate that?

这其中涉及许多细微的考量因素。

Like, there's all these little nuance factors at play.

但没错，这正是我在理想状态下给出的简单答案。

But yeah, that that would be my shallow answer in a vacuum.

是的，这看起来像是最好的短期方案。

Yeah, that that seems like the best short term answer.

但显然还需要考虑长期因素。

But then there's obviously long term factors to consider.

当然。

For sure.

好的。

Alright.

我现在有个问题想问你，伙计。

I've got this question for you now, mate.

所以这个人说，我只是想说，我非常享受关于海登财务状况的深度分析。

So this person says, I just wanted to say I really enjoyed the deep dive into Hayden's finances.

我们做过一期关于这个的节目，如果你感兴趣的话可以回去听一下。

So we did an episode on that and you can go back and listen to it if you're interested in that.

这让我想到，如果海登当初接受了他在美国提到的那年薪20万到30万美元的工作，会怎么样？

It made me wonder, what if Hayden had taken that 200 to 300 k per year job in The US that he spoke about?

他会继续精打细算省汽油钱，还是生活方式会随之改变？

Would he still be crunching numbers to save money on gas or would his lifestyle have adjusted?

希望Pearler能持续增长，有朝一日他能兑现自己的股权。

Fingers crossed, Pearler keeps growing and he can one day cash in on that ownership stake.

我也想补充一下这个问题，因为它太有趣了。

I'd like to add on to this question too because it's super interesting.

你觉得随着Pearler公司越来越成功，你的生活方式是否也有所膨胀？

Do you think that your lifestyle has inflated somewhat as Pearler as a company has become more successful?

还是你觉得你只是像往常一样行事，把自己当普通员工，继续储蓄和投资，保持半节俭的生活方式？

Or do you feel like you simply just operate the same as you normally would and you treat it like you're just working a normal job and so you just save and invest and keep your lifestyle semi frugal?

还是你觉得这在某种程度上影响了你？

Or do you think it is affecting you in some way?

所以我想这里其实包含两个问题。

So I suppose there's two questions there.

一个是假设你去了美国的情景，另一个是留在这里的这个情景？

Is the hypothetical US scenario that you went to The US and then the one here?

是的，我跟你说。

Yeah, I'll tell you.

让我告诉你什么最可怕：软件工程师的收入很高。

I'll you what's terrifying is software engineers get paid a lot.

我大多数朋友的收入肯定比我高。

Most of my friends earn more than me for sure.

偶尔我会和一些大学同学见面，你知道的，我们十年前毕业的，他们会告诉我他们在美国的薪水。

And occasionally, I'll catch up with some friends from uni, you know, that we graduated ten years ago, and they'll tell me what their US salary is.

我可以告诉你，20万到30万美元的说法都太保守了。

And I can tell you that 200 to 300 k is is undercooking it.

你确实会有一些时刻，想着其他的人生道路。

And it definitely, definitely you have those moments where you're like, you know, other life paths.

我该去拉小提琴吗？

Should I get the violin?

是的，你真该去拉小提琴。

Yeah, you should get the violin.

我很幸运。

I'm very lucky.

他们只是非常、非常幸运。

They're just very, very lucky.

但这是一个疯狂的行业。

But that's a crazy industry.

我改天再聊这个。

I'll talk about that another day.

但问题是，我的生活方式会不会因为额外的收入而膨胀？

But the question about like, would my lifestyle creep with extra stuff?

我不这么认为。

I don't think so.

我的意思是，我很久以前就告诉自己，我会让所有的财务决策基于我的净资产，而不是收入。

I mean, what I'd say is I told myself this a long time ago, which is that I would let all my financial decisions be based on my net wealth and not my income.

我一直坚持这一点。

And I've been pretty firm to that.

所以我不在乎我的收入是多少。

So I don't care what my income is.

我在乎的是我的净资产。

I care what my net wealth is.

如果我明天的收入翻倍、三倍，这也不会对我的生活方式产生任何影响，除了会让我的净资产更快增长，从而更早地影响我的生活方式——如果这说得通的话。

So if my income tomorrow doubled, tripled, that would not have any impact on my lifestyle except that it would increase my net wealth sooner and that would have an increase on an impact on my lifestyle sooner, if that makes sense.

但确实，过去五六年里，随着我赚钱和存钱，我的生活方式有轻微的提升。

But yeah, there's been some slight lifestyle creep for sure over the last five or six years as I've earned money and saved money.

我认为收入并不重要。

I don't think the income would matter.

它只是会让我更快达到目标。

It would just get me there quicker.

所以，如果我去美国，我的生活方式可能更快地提升，因为银行存款会更快增加，这就是简而言之的原因。

So yeah, if I went to The US, I probably would have had lifestyle creep happen a little quicker because the bank balance would go up quicker is the the really short story.

但话说回来，我的很多朋友经常责备我，说我做得不够，没有好好放松、享受生活，诸如此类。

But look, a lot of my friends will berate me regularly for not doing enough to relax and enjoy myself and all of this kind of thing.

而且你知道，我其实不在乎他们怎么想。

And you know, I don't really care what they think.

但确实有一些小事，比如我不会站在高处宣称一切都完美无缺。

But there's lots of little things like I'm not going to stand on a pedestal and claim that you know, everything's perfect.

比如，我最近一周买的食物明显多了很多，因为我实在太忙了。

Like, I've definitely just started buying more food during the week out like a lot more, because I'm just very, very busy.

工作很多，购物、做饭、打扫真的很难，所以我给自己设了18美元的预算。

Like, work a lot and shopping, cooking, cleaning is really hard and I set myself an $18 budget.

如果我能用18美元买到午餐或晚餐，我就会买。

If I can buy lunch or dinner for $18, I'll buy it.

这太具体了，老兄。

That's very specific, man.

这太具体了。

That's very specific.

得有个

Gotta have a