Will Aussie gas company Santos be sold to foreigners? What will happen to our power bills?

Whether this sale of Santos - announced yesterday - is approved by our Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) headed up by Treasurer Jim Chalmers is all speculation at this point. The bottom line is that this deal will only get the thumbs up if it becomes a plus for gas supply and gas bills here in Australia.

While the potential sale of Santos to a foreign-owned company is good news for long-suffering shareholders of the oil and gas business, it could be bad news for those Australians with big power bills, who could now face the problems of a poor gas supply! Think summer without air-conditioning or winter without heating. Or, if these threats are averted, think even bigger power bills!

For those not across the deal, here it is in a nutshell:

  1. Along with others, the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), a subsidiary of the energy investment company XRG and US private equity firm Carlyle, want to buy Santos.
  2. They’re offering $36 billion or $8.89 a share, which is 28% better than its current share price.
  3. They say they want to increase Australia’s supply of gas.
  4. The Santos board approves the deal.
  5. However, it has to be given the OK from the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB).
  6. The South Australian government (Santos was founded in South Australia) aren’t doing somersaults over the deal.

This offer comes as Santos has recently passed a hurdle for a $3.6 billion Narrabri Gas Project in northern NSW. However, this offer has raised doubts over whether this important new source of gas will be delayed or if it would actually happen, if Santos becomes foreign owned.

That hurdle was beaten when a Native Title Tribunal ruled in favour of granting land leases to Santos, despite opposition from traditional owners and environmental groups. Supporters of the deal say ADNOC will have the deep pockets to make the Narrabri project happen and experts say their huge supply of funding could be a winning play to get the OK from the FIRB.

Interestingly, this deal could actually help us gain mor control over our domestic supply of gas.

“XRG is interested in the major LNG oil assets, they’re not interested in the relatively smaller domestic assets – that includes Cooper Basin, Moomba, Narrabri and Dorado,” MST Financial energy analyst Saul Kavonic told the Daily Telegraph’s Giuseppi Tauriello. “From a FIRB approval perspective, it might be easier to get the approval for this deal if XRG agree that they will not own these domestic assets, so they’ll spin it out to a non-foreign government owned entity.”

This is all speculation. The bottom line is that the FIRB is chaired by the Treasurer Jim Chalmers, and this deal will only get the thumbs up if it becomes a plus for gas supply and gas bills here in Australia.

You see, the Australian Energy Market Operator has warned that the east coast has a potential supply problem and Tauriello reports that “Narrabri could meet up to half of NSW’s gas needs, according to Santos, which has committed to reserving all production from the field for the domestic market.”

Without doubt, if this potential Santos sale delivers better supplies of gas to the east coast and power bill rises are contained, then this would be a political win for the Albanese Government. And if it can’t wrangle a good deal from XRG and ADNOC, then the Treasurer will claim the sale was a terrible one for controlling our supply of gas.

The FIRB considerations on this deal constitute a really big deal and could drive Santos shareholders nuts waiting for the final decision.

Listen, do you want to know a Reserve Bank secret?

The Reserve Bank is the public institution that can make or break businesses, the wealth dreams of investors along with the hopes and bottom lines of mortgage holders. Our big bank is being dragged out of its century of secrecy, with its new interest rate setting board to reveal how the vote on what happens to what we pay for borrowing money was made.

The best-selling book The Secret (written by Aussie Rhonda Byrne) sold over 30 million copies. Based on the pseudoscientific belief of the law of attraction, which claims that thoughts can change a person's life directly, it was translated into 50 languages. This book does have some parallels with the RBA.

You see, economics isn’t a real science. It’s what academics call a ‘social’ science because society (i.e. people) isn’t predictable. Like many aspects of science, there’s always a degree of mystery about how collective decisions about money and demand, etc. by a population are made. It was no surprise that our central bank kept its cards close to its chest when it cut, raised or kept interest rates unchanged.

Unlike the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve in the USA, the RBA didn’t reveal much about its decisions. Economists, trained for ‘guessing’ the economy, were recruited by banks, the media and money websites to ‘guess’ what would happen at each meeting of the old Reserve Bank board.

When I was a younger participant in the media, I used to commit to economic surveys on what the RBA would do. Eventually I decided too many dumb decisions by previous boards meant I knew I wasn’t qualified to ‘guess’ what these often ‘weirdly selected’ people would decide. I excused myself from such surveys by arguing I was trained as an academic economist to say what the RBA should do, rather than speculating what they would do.

Now, because of reforms championed by Treasurer Jim Chalmers, there are three boards that run the many jobs the RBA does. And here are those three jobs:

  1. There’s an interest rate setting board that most Aussies care about for obvious reasons as it will impact the rates on their loans and savings deposits.
  2. A governance board for the organisational affairs and operations of the RBA, including delivery of banking services, note issuance and payments operations.
  3. The Payment Systems board.

What I like is that the new interest rate (or Monetary Policy) Board will do a ‘show-and-tell’ after every decision, so we’ll know how the board voted when rates either change or don’t change. Recently, we saw something new from the RBA after the May 0.25% cut in the official cash rate of interest: there actually was debate about whether the reduction should have been a quarter or half a percent!

That was helpful information, not only about what the board debated but why some members were in favour of a bigger cut. You see, the views of board members on the size of the cut would’ve been driven by their assessment of the state of the economy. While the half percenters didn’t get up, it gave economists the clue that if the economy looks sicker after the May cut, then a July cut was a good chance.

In fact, the weak economic growth number for the March quarter of 0.2% has done exactly that. As a consequence, the majority of economists surveyed have switched from a July cut rather than the once-held August cut.

So, who are our interest rate deciders? Let me list them and their claim to fame:

  1. Governor/Chair of the RBA, Michele Bullock.
  2. Deputy Governor/Chair Andrew Hauser, a UK economist.
  3. Marnie Baker, ex-CEO of Bendigo Bank.
  4. Renee Fry-McKibbin, a smart ANU economist.
  5. Ian Harper, one of Australia’s brightest economists.
  6. Carolyn Hewson, former top investment banker.
  7. Steve Kennedy, the country’s Treasury Secretary.
  8. Ian Ross, former union leader and President of the Fair Work Commission.
  9. Alison Watkins, former CEO of Coca-Cola Amatil.

While this is a good collection of smart people, ultimately, they’ll be assessed on the quality of their decisions. So far, they’ve made the right decision to cut in May. July will be a crucial test.

You have to hope that this new team will do better than many of their predecessors who made some terrible decisions and didn’t have the guts to gang up on the Governor when bad judgements were forced on the board.

While I won’t name names, there have been plenty of mistakes made by RBA leaders who were too cautious, but I do like reminding people of what Paul Keating said of the Bank in the past: "When a real crisis is upon us, the RBA is invariably late to the party”.  Keating told us this on numerous occasions and I totally agree with him on this, which isn’t always the case

July rate cut banked but Trump vital to future cuts

Great news for interest rate worriers, with the July rate cut looking like it’s already banked! However, Trump’s actions going forward will be vital for future cuts.

A survey by the Daily Telegraph’s Giuseppe Tauriello found “most economists are predicting the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) will cut the official cash rate by 25 basis points to 3.6 per cent when it meets on July 7-8, with most

expecting at least one additional cut before the end of the year and potentially another at the beginning of 2026.”

This was the prevailing view until last week’s weak economic growth number showed real GDP grew by only 0.2% for the March quarter and 1.3% for the year. Actually, we went into a per capita recession, which happens when we divide the people in Australia into what has been made in terms of the value of goods and services produced.

Concerns that the next reading of GDP could be negative means a fourth cut is possible, which would take the cash rate down to 2.85%. Consequently, your mortgage rate should be down 1.5% from the highs we saw in 2024.

This is where the world’s new economics buddy called Donald Trump has a role to play in our material future. “The future of US President Donald Trump’s controversial tariffs policy looms as the single factor that could determine how deep the RBA cuts and, ultimately, how much borrowers can expect to save on their home loans,” Tauriello has concluded after talking to local economists. “AMP chief economist Shane Oliver had been expecting three more rate cuts by February but following the release of weak growth figures last week, suggested a fourth cut could plunge the cash rate down to 2.85 per cent by early next year.”

That means if your lender does the right thing and passes the cuts on, then falls in monthly repayments for the average borrower with a $650,000 mortgage will be around $400 a month, or more than $600 from the recent peak before the RBA made its first cut in February.

A borrower with a $1 million loan would save about $600 a month from current payments, while someone with a $400,000 loan would pocket an extra $250 a month.

These rate cuts would help the economy recover, grow more strongly, create more jobs and help stock prices cope with the impacts of Trump’s policies that could both lower global trade and growth, as well as raise inflation.

Saul Eslake, former chief economist at ANZ and now an independent commentator and consultant, told Tauriello that Trump will be the chief determinant of how many cuts you’ll get.

“It really depends on whether you think Trump will succeed in blowing up the world

economy,” Eslake said. “If he does succeed in blowing up the world economy through the combination of tariffs and ludicrous fiscal policy, and perhaps also by assaults on the independence of the Federal Reserve, then the cash rate could drop to two-point-something.”

However, if the TACO theory applies and the Trump Always Chickens Out insult proves again to be true, then Eslake would expect a better world economy and maybe only two rate cuts ahead for Aussie borrowers.

Remember this: if the worst-case scenario prevails and four rate cuts happen, then we could end up in a recession, lots of Australians would lose jobs and businesses would go broke or see a collapse of profits. And share prices would slump taking our super down with them.

Right now, four out of five economists surveyed think we’ll see a July 8 rate cut by 0.25% from the RBA. Most expect three in total, but if Trump wraps up reasonable trade deals with key players such as China, the European Union and the likes of Japan and South Korea sooner than has been expected, then the global economy could outperform current predictions.

I know many interest rate sufferers would prefer a mad Trump, with the bigger interest rate cut implications. Call me an economist, but I prefer a two- or three-rate cut future, with less unemployment and a stronger economy, higher share prices and bigger superannuation balances.

Since November 2024, when Donald J. Trump became leader of the free world, all our economic fortunes are tied to what this guy dreams up daily!

God bless America and God save our jobs, our businesses and our bank balances!

Unions have a list of demands for Albanese as their members brace for AI shock

There is a quiet battle going on that will have a big impact on our lives, our jobs and the country’s ability to employ people and pay them. But unions want their potential nemesis — bosses armed with Artificial Intelligence (AI) — restrained.

These union-insisted checks on what employers could do with AI, should be good for job preservation and better pay for those not taken out by robots and computer software alternatives to real workers, but it could mean Australia’s productivity improvement could fall behind the rest of the world.

Ultimately, it will depend on what other countries do, and while Europe might be like Australia and introduce checks on how AI can be applied in the workplace, you can bet the USA, China and many other Asian countries will be going long on this labour-saving technology with little regard for the social consequences.

This may well be the short-term experience but over a longer timem as the jobless rates rise worldwide, there could be worker riots of Los Angeles-proportions.

To avoid the consequences of AI added to businesses here in Australia, unions have come up with a list of demands and here they are in a nutshell:

  1. White-collar unions want the government to enforce a “digital just transition” for workers affected by AI;
  2. Unions want AI regulated;
  3. Unions want the benefits of higher AI-generated productivity to mean higher pay for workers doing it with this new technology;
  4. Blue collar unions want special processes that mean if AI raises productivity a factory (as an example), the workers share in the gains, and
  5. Workers whose skills are used to introduce (or train) AI need to be compensated.

The AFR’s David Marin-Guzman explained the union’s thinking on this subject.

“White-collar unions want the government to enforce a ‘digital just transition’ for workers affected by AI, raising comparisons with measures for coal and gas-fired power jobs hit by the shift to renewables, while adopting requirements to compensate workers when their data is used to train artificial intelligence,” he reported.

Australian Services Union national secretary Emeline Gaske, explained what her union will want to talk about and insist on getting from the Prime Minister’s roundtable on productivity, set down for August.

“AI will undoubtedly reshape the way we work, but we can’t lose sight of the people behind the progress,” she told the AFR. “Workers whose knowledge, experience and judgement are used to train and refine these systems deserve to be recognised and fairly compensated.”

Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock, written 55 years ago, foretold what a digital revolution, ultimately driven by AI would mean for the world and the people who live in it.

He foresaw that automation would displace traditional jobs and redefine human roles in the workforce, demanding new skills and adaptive learning. Toffler got so many things right about the future we now live in, and it’s right for unions to be worried about the threat of AI, but we can’t afford to be luddites who try to kill off this technology.

We need smart leaders to ensure the benefits of AI — productivity, lower inflation and higher pay — are not knocked out by old world thinking.

AI will definitely kill jobs but it will redirect workers into those jobs that a robot could never do in the face-to-face services sector, though it will mean that some workers will have to learn to leave home to be an employee!

Toffler said many wise things but these two seem to be the most appropriate:

“If we do not learn from history, we shall be compelled to relive it. True. But if we do not change the future, we shall be compelled to endure it. And it could be worse.”

and

Our moral responsibility is not to stop the future but to shape it…to channel our destiny in humane directions and to ease the trauma of transition.

My concern is that the likes of well-known US tech entrepreneurs will dictate what our future looks like and we have seen how some of their decisions have been great for their profits but not so great for society.

That’s why we need great leaders and not the political pygmies that prevail here and overseas nowadays.

That’s why the US ended up with its current president. Donald is no pygmy but he does have some shortcomings!

Hands off our super, Mr Trump

The falling US dollar and rising Aussie is a flag that top market expert investors need to be careful about. Believe it or not, those LA riots over immigration underline a brewing problem for the US and, potentially, stock markets!

In an interesting piece in Chanticleer in the AFR, we were introduced to experts who, in a nutshell, say President Trump’s crackdown on immigration will undermine what has been called American “exceptionalism”, which relied on “a mix of high employment growth and low wages that has powered the US economy in recent years now risks going into reverse,” the AFR reported.

While tariffs are a problem, there are those more worried about Trump’s immigration ‘method’, which is showing the largest back-to-back decline in the foreign-born labour force in America since the pandemic shut the borders in 2020. “While everyone is focused on the impact of tariffs, the real story for the US economy is the collapse in immigration: down more than 90 per cent compared to the run rate of previous years, equivalent to a slowing in labour force growth of more than 2 million people,” says Deutsche Bank’s global head of FX research, George Saravelos, talking to the AFR. “This represents a far more sustained negative supply shock for the economy than tariffs.”

In simple terms, if the immigration policy hits US economic growth (just like the tariff policy is expected to do) at least in the short term, this won’t be good for Wall Street and stock prices. And remember, big Aussie super funds are heavily invested in US stocks.

In the SMH in January this year, Alex Joiner informed us that “the total pool of Aussies’ retirement savings is $4.1 trillion, or around 149% of GDP – one of the largest pools of retirement capital in the world as a percentage of GDP.”

But Joiner added: “Institutional funds currently have around $1.2 trillion in offshore investments – or around 46 per cent of their invested assets.”

So, if Trump hurts US growth, this will send US stocks down and the value of super fund assets they own in the US and that will hit our super returns.

Historically, our stock market generally plays ‘follow the leader with Wall Street, so you have to be a little concerned about Trump, US immigration and what it does to economic growth in the world’s biggest economy.

Portfolio manager and co-head of global fixed income at the Boston-based Loomis, Sayles & Co, David Rolley, advises some of our big investment and super funds. He’s worried about the 10% fall in the greenback.

While Rolley concedes the US economy has “its charms”, he thinks the stock and bond markets might be too cocky about the future, while the foreign exchange market could be more on the money. He’s a dollar bear, so this expert thinks the US dollar will fall and that’s a sign the Oz dollar will rise.

He and the foreign exchange market could be too negative on US economic growth because lower interest rates, tax cuts and deregulation, plus Artificial Intelligence will be big pluses for Wall Street and the economy. But his warning suggests that a reduced exposure to the US might be a good idea.

By the way, we don’t always play follow the leader with US stock markets, but we need something exceptional to help us outperform, such as a mining boom. That’s why we have to hope China pulls a rabbit out of its economic hat sooner rather than later!

Right now, money is flowing out of the US looking for safe assets and it might partly explain why CBA’s share price has surged to nearly $180.

Meanwhile, more fund managers are looking to Europe and have been taking money out of the US because of Trump’s threat to American exceptionalism. A lower dollar is also good for emerging economies and these funds have started to show some promising returns.

Let’s hope our super funds are following the money out of the US.

Federal election 2025 passes into history

Every significant detail from the May 2025 federal election is now available to the general public so now is a good time for me to make a broad final commentary for Switzer Daily.

I begin by comparing my predictions with the results, and note that two parties have performed better than I expected and three have performed worse. The two performing better are Labor and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. The three performing worse are the Liberal Party, the Nationals and the Greens.

That Labor performed better and the Liberal Party worse places me in the company of every pundit of whom I am aware – except I made specific seat predictions and they did not. Labor gained 12 seats from the Liberal Party not predicted by me and retained one notionally Liberal seat (Bennelong) against my prediction. So, here is my excuse. Based upon opinion poll findings, I guessed that the aggregate two-party preferred vote would split 52.2% for Labor and 47.8% for Liberal-National. But the final distribution is 55.2 for Labor and 44.8 for Liberal-National. So, there has been an unexpected 3% swing to Labor.

Although my personal guess at the aggregate two-party preferred percentages has been wrong, my pendulum has enjoyed yet another triumph. It is clear from my pendulum that four seats change hands for every 1% swing in votes. Therefore, it is entirely consistent with pendulum theory that an error of 3% in one prediction would lead to an error of 12 in seats. That is exactly what has happended. The deviations from uniform swing have cancelled out exactly. As I have remarked several times before, quoting David Butler: “Electoral history is littered with unexpected landslides.” That’s the system of single-member electoral divisions for you. This system is very landslide-prone.

Pauline Hanson has every reason to be delighted with this result. She has seen off the latest rival pop-up party financed by that charlatan Clive Palmer. If she were to send me a scrubbing brush to get the egg off my face, I would accept it with grace. I did not predict that her party’s vote would rise so greatly. The extra Senate seat she won in New South Wales was a seat I predicted would be retained by the then Nationals deputy leader Perin Davey. The extra Senate seat she won in Western Australia was a seat I predicted would be won by the Liberal Party. She now has four senators of whom three have six years ahead of them. Her party’s overall Senate vote was 899,296 or 5.7%, up 1.4 from 2022.

The Nationals have performed worse than they want people to believe. While it is true that they held their overall percentage of the House of Representatives vote at 6.7%, they lost the NSW seat of Calare to a defecting ex-Nationals independent – as well as losing their deputy leader. See above. While their incumbent members on average held their vote, so did Liberal Party incumbents hold their vote in rural seats. The reason why the Nationals can claim success is that both Coalition parties held their vote in rural Australia, but the Liberals went badly backwards in the cities.

In my Switzer Daily predictions, I correctly forecast that Labor would gain Brisbane from the Greens. However, I expected them to hold their other three House of Representatives seats. My excuse for mis-reading Melbourne is that I did not fully understand the damaging effect to Adam Bandt of the boundary changes to his seat. There was no redistribution in Queensland so the three Queensland Greens did not suffer that damage. My excuse for mis-reading Griffith is that I was taken in by the publicity hunting of Max Chandler-Mather. I correctly predicted that the Greens would win six Senate seats, one in each state.

Both the Nationals and the Greens have been subjected to further humiliation post-election in the form of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price defecting from the Nationals to the Liberals and Dorinda Cox defecting from the Greens to Labor. I wish both parties luck in their determination to re-gain both seats. I think both will succeed in that endeavour.

The Senate electoral system was one of “winner takes all” from 1901 to 1949 and proportional representation from 1949 to the present day. Without doubt the most left-wing parliamentary term was when Ben Chifley was prime minister in the 18th Parliament (1946-49). Labor enjoyed large majorities in both houses. That’s “winner takes all” for you. So, what about the situation under PR?

I think historians will have trouble deciding whether the 43rd Parliament or the 48th Parliament was the second most left-wing. The 43rd was when Julia Gillard was prime minister. From 1 July 2011 there were 31 Labor senators, 34 Liberal-National, nine Greens and two independents. So, Labor plus Greens numbered 40. In the forthcoming 48th Parliament from 1 July 2025 there will be 29 Labor senators, 27 Liberal-National, ten Greens, four Hansonites and six others, Palmer’s man in Victoria, Ralph Babet, who goes under the name of “United Australia Party”,  plus Lambie, Payman, Pocock, Thorpe and Tyrell. So, Labor plus Greens will number 39.

Finally, a personal story. I was born in August 1939. In those pre-Whitlam days, one gained the right to vote at age 21, so my first federal votes were cast in the Division of Bradfield in December 1961. I voted for the Liberal Party’s Senate team and for my local Liberal member, Harry Turner. His Bradfield win was the biggest for the Liberal Party at every general election when he was the Liberal candidate, in 1954 (unopposed), 1955 (unopposed), 1958, 1961, 1963, 1966, 1969 and 1972.

When I married in October 1972, he sent Lindsay my wife and I a cheque for $25, a generous wedding gift in those pre-inflation days. (Adjusted for today's inflationary times, it's a little over $300). I remember him and his wife Mildred fondly.

In May 2025, the final vote in Bradfield was 56,144 for “teal” independent Nicolette Boele and 56,088 for the Liberal candidate Giselle Kapterian, a margin of 26 votes. The names of the two biggest parties have remained the same but the party system has changed. The boundaries of Bradfield now retain the whole of the then Bradfield to which the Willoughby local government area has been added. Artarmon then was in Bennelong and the rest of the now Willoughby council area was in North Sydney, now abolished. The number of Bradfield electors enrolled to vote was 54,173 in December 1961 and in May 2025 it was 126,914. In those days NSW had 46 members of the House of Representatives. Today it still has 46.

Thank you, Donald Trump, you’ll probably give us another rate cut!

Today’s data on Australian wages growth will be important information for inflation and how many rate cuts we should expect from the Reserve Bank. This news comes when Donald Trump’s latest antics on doubling the tariffs on steel has seen Friday’s money markets raise their expectations on rate cuts from two to three! Thank you, Donald!

Of course, higher inflation (from wages and tariff action that could slow down the global economy) is bad for growth and doesn’t create a great picture for stocks. What US courts decide about the President’s wildcat tariffs will be crucial for share prices over the next few months.

One of the strongest reasons for the ALP’s election ‘stunning’ victory on May 2 was its support for higher wages, which will be added to today with the annual minimum wage decision. And another reason for a big bloc of voters supporting the Albanese Government was its support for something that employers would like relief from, namely, the work-from-home movement.

There are over 14 million employees in the workforce. Given most of them can vote, that’s a powerful group who have to see Labor being in their court more than the Coalition. Peter Dutton’s only real hope was to blame the Government for high inflation and 13 interest rate rises (even if that wasn’t totally true) but he failed to prosecute that case and made the big mistake of railing against the WFH trend. In fact, he was against it for public servants, but it was taken as a general anti-stance, which couldn’t have helped his cause to become PM (let alone an MP, which he failed to do on both counts).

On this subject, the AFR’s David Marin-Guzman tells us that at a meeting with the Government, “employers will push the case for flexibility on hours and penalty rates for people who work from home as part of high-level talks with the Albanese government’s new industrial relations minister to lift productivity.”

Remember productivity not only delivers more product and services per worker and units of technology, but it also cuts costs and helps lower inflation.

In a perfect world, it’s the magic pudding, where both bosses and employees should gain via higher wages and lower inflation.

Today’s meeting with Workplace Relations Minister Amanda Rishworth will pit employer groups against the ACTU, with the Minister wanting to boost our pretty hopeless productivity — her position, not just mine. “Election commitments on reproductive leave, a ban on non-compete measures and laws to protect penalty rates will be on the agenda as well as training requirements for workplaces that bring in artificial intelligence,” Marin-Guzman explained.

Bosses want clarity and a ‘fair go’ on penalty rates and how those rates apply for someone working from home. Employers have three test cases before the Fair Work Commission seeking exemptions for workers in finance, administration and retail if they work from home, requiring them to record their hours if they think they qualify for penalty rates.

Basically, employers are wary that employees could ‘gild the lily’ on what constitutes working longer than a normal day. This will be a test of the Government’s resolve to support bosses who actually employ people, at a time when Artificial Intelligence is looming as a solution for employers who feel that workers are having a lend of them.

This is a big meeting. So is this Fair Work Commission decision today, with the ACTU pushing for a 4.5% pay rise for those on the minimum wage. This would boost that wage to $25.18 per hour, lifting the salary for an annual full-time worker by $2,143 to $49,770.

While what’s decided will operate as of July 1 and directly affect 2.6 million workers, it is more as the pay of some workers is linked to the minimum wage plus a loading. So, this will be inflationary if the 4.5% hike gets up.

While we know the Government has backed a rise bigger than 2.4%, which is around the inflation rate, it hasn’t told us what it wants. On the other side, the Australian Restaurant and Cafe Association supports a minimum wage rise of 2%, which the ACTU says would mean a real wage cut for workers on the minimum wage.

While this wage decision won’t have a big baring on wage rises, it will impact inflation, how many rate cuts we get and what happens to the stock market and our super.

In reality, I expect the new Albanese Government will continue to lean heavily to the wants of workers, which will boost employer interest in AI and labour substitution. That will lead to higher unemployment in the future. However, economists can’t see the jobless rate going sky high in the near future, which is good news for Labor and not so positive for a Coalition that will only win voter support when those voters start losing jobs!

(Check out my TV show where I look at stocks with potential upside and former St George chief economist, Besa Deda, now at accountants William Buck, who predicts how many rate cuts are ahead).

Rate cuts are important to our hip pockets but so is China

This is a big week for our stock market as we wait with bated breath for a rate cut today and the statements the Reserve Bank Governor, Michele Bullock, makes about the likelihood of more cuts in the year ahead.

Without the fear of a recession, rate cuts would be great for local stocks, so what the RBA board comes up with at 2.30 pm this afternoon is really important to our hip pockets and the strength of the economy going forward.

This comes at the same time as another key issue for stocks was released on Monday, which was also impactful on stock prices and your super, and that was the latest economic health report for China.

Love or hate the boys from Beijing, their economy is crucial to Australia’s GDP.

Interestingly, in recent times these hard heads of the Middle Kingdom have looked more likeable, with Donald Trump taking the global villain tag off Beijing, because of his tariff punishments for all and sundry globally, including us.

In this context, I was rooting for the Chinese to deliver some good economic readings today, not only to help our economy grow, but also to give power to our stock market.

If China grows, iron ore prices will spike and that will be good for the share prices of our big miners. This will pump up the S&P/ASX 200 and the overall value of super funds, that most of us are invested in.

Regrettably, the market reaction yesterday to the Chinese economic data locally meant BHP dropped 2.4% to $38.75, while Rio Tinto lost 1.31% to $119.46.

Last week, in anticipation of good Chinese numbers, both of our big miners were up over 5% up for the week, so yesterday’s falls are disappointing.

However, with BHP, the question is this: are we seeing a classic Warren Buffett scenario where he’d say it’s time “to be greedy while others are fearful”?

The AFR saw the data drops on Monday and reported: “A dramatic fall in China’s industrial output and retail sales also weighed…” on a market that gave up 0.58% today. The concern was about the Chinese consumption figures, which were interpreted as bad for iron ore and other commodity prices and for the related companies’ stock prices.

However, the Chinese news outlet GlobalTimes saw the statistics in a different light, using this more positive headline: “Chinese economy displays strong resilience in April, marked by 6.1% rise in industrial output, many new growth drivers.”

These numbers look pretty good considering that this was the month that the Trump tariffs were biting, and we saw a lot of big buying from US retailers earlier in the year to get in ahead of the tariffs. A slowdown in sales shouldn’t have surprised.

The market seemed spooked because retail sales rose 5.1% from a year earlier in April, but this missed estimates by analysts of 5.5% growth. Sales had grown by 5.9% in the previous month, but one month’s figures can be terribly unreliable.

I think the China story this year will be a plus for stocks, especially for BHP and I’m not alone.

This chart shows what the experts based at stock brokerages and investment banks think of this stock that’s a proxy for the health of the Chinese economy.

BHP

This shows six out of six analysts like the company and the average consensus rise is 10.6%. The gain would be stronger ahead if China can shoot the lights out growth-wise over the rest of 2025 and then into 2026.

When making speeches encouraging people to be more educated about money, I’ve often joked with my audiences by saying: “If anything is worth doing, it’s worth doing for money!”

If we can cop a couple more rate cuts this year as big banks think we will, and Donald Trump can pull off a fair and reasonable trade deal with China, we should see the second biggest global economy growing faster than expected, which will be good for stock prices, our super, the health of the economy, the Aussie dollar and even the budget deficit, as higher iron ore prices deliver more tax dollars to Dr Jim Chalmers Treasury coffers.

That’s why I’m rooting for China, and you should too.

In case you need proof about why we should be rooting for China, check out these numbers from Infochoice.com.au:

  1. In 2023, Australia sold roughly $219 billion worth of goods to China or about 8.2%of Australia's GDP.
  2. From the most recent mining boom, primarily driven by China, the RBA estimates that the boom boosted real per capita household incomes (adjusted for inflation) by 13%, reduced unemployment by 1.25%, and raised real wages by 6%!
  3. China also spent $15 billion on services like international student tuition fees and tourism. Agricultural products like meat, wool and wheat made up a further $11.5 billion, with about 80% of Australia's wool exports going to China.

Yep, the boys from Beijing and their consumers, as well as businesses, are very important to Australia and you. Go China!

Blame these job numbers for Labor's huge election win

If you’re still scratching your head wondering why Labor won the May 2 election so comfortably - aside from the Trump effect, the Dutton effect and the dumb Liberal election strategy effect, yesterday’s job numbers had a role to play all on their own (more…)

Inflation & Trump are helping a May rate cut and a Labor win

As we now know, Trump and tariffs are important to what happens to our stock market. Good news on a potential trade deal to be announced soon, has taken share prices up on Wall Street, so it’s more than likely that we’ll all get wealthier today via our super funds, as our market here rises. But don’t forget this: like it or not, China is our main economic game. And this $1 billion worth of wine sales to our biggest export customer underlines my point.

Ironically, this good news for our winemakers and exporters has followed China scrapping its tariff on our wine, but it’s not all good news because overall, the global consumption of ‘the nectar of the gods and the grape’ is on the slide!

The Daily Telegraph’s wine watcher, Giuseppi Tauriello, reports that “Australian wine exports increased by 41 per cent to $2.64bn in the 12 months to March, according to the latest figures from Wine Australia, fuelled by $1.03bn in sales to China, which has re-emerged as the dominant export market.”

He added: “Exports to China peaked at $1.2bn before tariffs of up to 218 per cent were slapped on Australian wine in March 2021.”

While the latest figures show a swift rebound for Australian wine producers, Wine Australia market insights manager, Peter Bailey, warned most of the demand out of China was focused on the premium end of the market.

While numbers look good on an historical basis, the Chinese are buying top end wine (such as Penfold’s Grange), which has pushed up the value of exports, volumes are down for total exports. The actual volume is 23% lower than the five year average.

“Additionally, the average value of packaged wine shipped to mainland China was $23 per litre, much higher than any other major export market. The lower volume and high average value demonstrate that mainland China is a premium market for Australian wine and will therefore not solve oversupply issues in Australia.”

The big problem for our wine exporters is in the marketplace outside of China, where the value exports dropped by 13% to a 10-year low of $1.62 billion, while export volumes away from China were down 9% to 551 million litres – the lowest level in more than 20 years.

The numbers show:

  1. Exports to the UK were down 3% to $353 million.
  2. The US bought $323 million of our wine, down 9%.
  3. Hong Kong imported $154 million of our wine down 47%.

Some of this can be explained because the UK has been in a serious economic slowdown after successive interest rate rises and leaving the EU.

While Hong Kong’s lower consumption would have been linked to Beijing’s tariff, the US slide in wine consumption could reflect two issues. First, the Americans have been tightening their belts because of big interest rate rises and second, there is a wellness trend that’s not good for winemakers and other death-threatening joys of life!

Our exports to the US are at low levels not seen since the early 2000s and President Trump’s tariff and buy US first mantras aren’t likely to help, so winemakers should pray for lower interest rates, a global economic recovery and the Chinese population of 1.42 billion going long wine consumption at all prices!

Wine Australia worries about the timing of all this with a potential trade war ahead, which hopefully could be less intense than what has been thought since Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day”. Overnight, Trump’s Commerce Secretary, Howard Gutnick, hinted at a trade deal with a major trading partner and the stock market lapped it up.

The Dow finished up 300 points (or 0.75%), while the sensitive Nasdaq index, which goes up or down hard on what Trump’s tariff team say, was up 0.55%. This tech-heavy index is up over 14% since April 8, when the President started U-turning on tough tariff talk!

The Telegraph tells us that since “the return of the Chinese market has driven an increase in red wine exports, with shiraz and cabernet sauvignon the two most popular varieties. Shiraz exports were up 66 per cent to $595.3m, while exports of cabernet sauvignon were up 59 per cent $560.4m.”

I know Beijing has a lot of problems, making it hard to like what they’re up to with spying, Taiwan and influencing neighbouring countries, but let’s face it, the Yanks aren’t totally without flaws, and their new President plans to stick it to us economically for four years.

The facts are that in 2023 (as our own government report on trade reveals): “China accounted for 32.5% of Australia's total exports, making it the top destination for Australian goods and services. This strong trade relationship has significant implications for the Australian economy, impacting various sectors and contributing to the national income.”

And remember this: “Trade supports a substantial portion of Australia's total economic output, with 31% of GDP directly tied to trade activity.”

Like it or not, we’re stuck with China! And because of the Trump trade goals to “make America great again” (and more selfish!), we’re even more dependent on our Beijing buddies if we want Aussies in work and earning income.

One third of our gross domestic product (GDP) is powerful reason to put up with Beijing’s annoying ways. Here are out top trading partners. But where’s the UK?!

 Australia’s top trading partners

  1. Mainland China: US$104.1 billion (30.1% of total US exports)
  2. Japan: $31.3 billion (9.1%)
  3. South Korea: $19.9 billion (5.7%)
  4. India: $15.9 billion (4.6%)
  5. United States: $15.4 billion (4.5%)
  6. Taiwan: $8.5 billion (2.5%)
  7. New Zealand: $8.4 billion (2.4%)
  8. Indonesia: $8.1 billion (2.3%)

The UK is number 12 on this list, with Vietnam more important to us. And look at the numbers of China compared to Japan — they’re three times bigger!

RBA eyes off our first rate cut. Will it be February?

The Reserve Bank board met yesterday. While it didn’t change the cash rate of interest, it did change the ‘tone’ of its communication to the market about rate cuts and, importantly, rate rises that now we can confidently argue are off the table.

Right now, the cash rate is 4.35%. That’s a 13-year high after 13 rate hikes that started in early 2022.

In eco-speak, the RBA has gone from mildly hawkish, where rate rises were possible, to dovish hinting that a rate cut isn’t far off.

How was this message conveyed?

Consider the following evidence:

  1. It noted softer economic data. The 0.3% growth rate in the September quarter must have been an important point of concern.
  2. It no longer said it was “not ruling anything in or out”, implying don’t discount a rate rise.
  3. The November board minutes gave the impression that the RBA needed to see two good quarters of inflation drops. Now Governor Bullock had a new take saying she’s not just looking at “one number”, namely inflation.

The tone and message change has led to money market players who buy bonds (whose prices are driven by what’s happening to official interest rates), are betting 70% that the first cut comes in February!

“The groundwork seems like it is being laid by the RBA for a February rate cut next year,” Luke McMillan, head of research at Ophir Asset Management told the AFR’s Cecile Lefort. “Market pricing certainly looks like a February rate cut is more likely than not.”

Angus Coote, co-founder of Jamieson Coote Bonds, told the AFR that the RBA’s next board meeting in February as “alive and well”. He’s tipping a February rate cut but this will lift the spirits of interest rate worriers and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as he can see a total of four reductions in 2025!

Before the February 18 rates decision happens, we’ll see unemployment and inflation readings that will be crucial in determining when cuts start and how many we get. The December quarter CPI comes out on January 29. This will be a ‘must watch’ number for the RBA and rate-cut hopefuls.

In all the analysis and utterances on why a rate cut might be closer than the calls last week (which were all talking about the first cut being in May), was the fact that the weak 0.3% growth rate was for the September quarter, which started in July and finished in September. It’s now two and a half months on, and house prices are starting to fall, auction clearance rates are too, and the ANZ-Indeed Australian Job Ads has fallen 27.6% from its peak in June 2022.

It was only mid-year that just about all borrowers went over the so-called mortgage cliff and went on to higher variable interest rate loans. This means the 13 rate rises are having a ‘reality bites’ impact.

At least 880,000 fixed-rate mortgages expired in 2023 and then another 450,000 this year. A report out yesterday from the Actuaries Institute reported that 1.6 million homes around the country were experiencing “extreme home insurance affordability pressures”.

It was suggested that close to 200,000 borrowers have or will drop their mortgage insurance, which could be a breach of the home loan agreement with their lender.

A survey by Finder.com.au showed how rate rises were starting to hurt. It found:

When I taught economics at the University of New South Wales, I talked about the time lag that went with monetary or interest rate policy. That lag is never the same, meaning it can be shorter or longer than expected. However, given we expected a rate cut in 2024 and we missed that chance yesterday, if the CPI on January 29 shows a lower core inflation number, then that February rate cut will be a really good chance.

Start-up entrepreneurs face new ‘success’ hurting laws

Last year, leviathan property developer and builder Tim Gurner copped a media backlash when, according to Euan Black in the AFR he “claimed workers had taken their foot off the gas pedal since the pandemic”. And while manufacturing and mining bosses said he was on the money, the court of public opinion threw the book at Tim!
In support of Gurner’s view, the Minerals Council of Australia chairman Andrew Michelmore, who has more than 35 years’ experience in senior leadership roles in Australia, told The Australian Financial Review that office workers in certain parts of the economy were enjoying “a lifestyle that was not sustainable”.
However, the criticism from non-businessowners actually went global, with US politicians weighing into the argument over the expectations of new age workers.
With this in mind and at a time when old school business builders are worried that workers aren’t on the same page as their bosses, comes this story in today’s AFR with the headline: “Start-ups reject work-life balance ‘beast’.”

The newspaper’s Maxim Shanahan and Paul Smith at The AFR’s Entrepreneur Summit in Sydney yesterday tell us businessowners in start-ups argue that “workers must be prepared to ‘‘go to war’’, to help their companies succeed, rather than worrying about work-life balance.”
Anyone who has owned a business might understand this sentiment, but new laws are coming that will mean ‘warring’ entrepreneurs might have to go into battle with part-time fighters/employees!
Why? Well, the lawyers at claytonutz.com explain it this way: “The right to disconnect permits an employee to switch off and refuse to respond to contact or attempted contact from their employer (or a third party like a client, where the contact or attempted contact relates to work) outside their working hours, unless the refusal is ‘unreasonable’.
“It was pared back from an original proposal which would have seen employers banned from making contact with employees outside their usual working hours. Employees can exercise this right from 26 August 2024 (small business employers are exempt from the operation of the provisions for 12 months following their commencement, that is until 26 August 2025).”
This law change is certainly at odds with the sentiments of two successful entrepreneurs who spoke at the AFR Summit.
The reporters quoted Honey Insurance founder Richard Joffe and Goterra boss Olympia Yarger, who said tech workers needed to realise that “to succeed in a start-up, you’re not optimising for work-life balance”.

‘‘This idea that you can be in an exceptional environment and create wealth while sitting on the beach and finishing at five is just nonsense,’’ Joffe said. ‘‘I think the worst thing you can do is pretend to people that [working at] an early-stage company is a cakewalk, that it’s a ping pong table, and it’s a joke.’’
To use a quote I relied on yesterday (but is again appropriate), people who are risking their reputation, their money and their life in trying to build something important want committed employees.

On the other hand, employees, who don’t share the dreams and the profits of an entrepreneur, see life very differently.
History has shown that it is those entrepreneurs who can select the right people and who provide enlightened leadership, as well as equity options, are the ones who get the employees who make business success happen.

Great business leaders not only learn to deal with employees who aren’t the right fit, they also learn to deal with governments who don’t really understand the importance of job creators, worker trainers and big taxpayers.
One way an entrepreneur gets buy-in from their staff is to underline the importance of the business.
The AFR says the CEO of Goterra, Olympia Yarger, runs “a Canberra-based start-up that grows fly larvae and uses them to convert food waste into protein and fertiliser. It works with customers including Woolworths.”

She only keeps staff who she implies are effectively made of the right stuff. ‘‘The more traditional approach to work-life balance doesn’t exist at Goterra. We believe we’re in a climate crisis, and you don’t take work-life balance during a climate crisis,’’ Ms Yarger said.
‘‘That’s an upfront conversation we have with staff, so we’re attracting the sort of people who want that kind of work environment.”
We live in a new world with new age concerns for employees and their overall happiness, so it’s going to take a special group of entrepreneurs to create great businesses while not having a “we’re at war” mentality.

The likes of Steve Jobs and Elon Musk were “at war” leaders. Bill Gates was famous for 2am phone calls to his key staff, so the new age entrepreneurs will have to be outside-the-square thinkers to win at business and provide a winning life for their workers.