Our Approach: From Process to Fees

We analyse your complete financial picture to identify tax savings and wealth-building opportunities that most people and most generalist advisers miss.  For tech professionals this typically includes optimising concessional super contributions to reduce assessable income, timing RSU disposals to maximise the 50% CGT discount, structuring investments in tax-effective vehicles rather than your personal name.  The goal is simple: your money works harder for you, and less of it goes to the ATO unnecessarily.

We start by understanding your risk tolerance through a structured assessment  not a tick-box exercise. We factor in your income stability, your RSU exposure, your time horizon, and your goals.  From there we recommend a diversified portfolio that balances growth with your actual comfort level. We walk through specific examples of both higher-growth and more conservative investments, explaining their real projected returns and risks over both the short and long term. The aim is informed decisions, not deferred trust in a number on a risk scale.

Yes, with a specific scope. We assess the feasibility and financial case for property investment where it fits a client’s goals and overall plan. We will model the numbers, assess how it interacts with your tax position and cash flow, and recommend property investment if and when it makes strategic sense.  We do not provide mortgage broking services or specific property selection advice (which suburb, which property). For loan structuring and property sourcing, we work alongside specialist mortgage brokers and buyer’s agents where needed.  Property can play an important role in passive income construction – but only when it is integrated into a broader financial strategy, not bolted on as a standalone decision.

Possibly – and it is worth finding out. The ATO does not volunteer tax savings; they are only available to people who plan for them.  The most common areas where high-income tech professionals overpay: not using concessional contributions to reduce assessable income, holding investments in their personal name rather than a more tax-effective structure, missing the 47% vs 15% gap available through super, not timing RSU disposals to capture the CGT discount, and paying for insurance outside super when holding it inside would be more efficient.  The answer for your specific situation becomes clear quickly once we map your income, structure, and current approach against what is available. It is usually one of the first things we look at.

No and for most high-income earners, relying on negative gearing as your primary tax strategy is both incomplete and often misunderstood.  Here's the issue: negative gearing reduces your taxable income by the amount your property loses each year (interest, rates, depreciation, management fees exceed rental income). At a 45% marginal rate, a $20,000 annual loss saves you $9,000 in tax. But you're still losing $11,000. You're not making money to reduce tax – you're losing money and getting a partial rebate. The strategy only makes economic sense if the capital growth on the property over time exceeds the cumulative cash losses plus your opportunity cost.  What negative gearing doesn't touch: the tax on your salary, your RSU or ESS income, your investment income outside of that property, or your superannuation position. For a professional earning $200,000+ with RSUs vesting, an investment property generating a $20,000 rental loss is a relatively modest lever compared to what's available elsewhere.  The strategies that tend to do more heavy lifting for high-income earners: maximising concessional superannuation contributions (reducing assessable income at the source, taxed at 15% instead of 45%), salary sacrifice arrangements, the timing of CGT events to access the 50% discount, and – where appropriate – holding investments in a structure that doesn't attract the top marginal rate.  Negative gearing can absolutely be part of a well-structured plan, particularly when combined with strong depreciation schedules on newer properties and a clear long-term capital growth thesis. But as a standalone strategy, it's not sufficient – and we often see clients who've been doing it for years without any of the other pieces in place.