TenCap founder and stock picker extraordinaire, Jun Bei Liu, showed us her buy list this week. Here are the stocks that she's copping, and some others that she's dropping right now.

Here’s why she rates these stocks now. Or, why she doesn't!

Remember, this isn't advice, and you should do your own research before making any decisions to invest, and consult a licensed financial professional!

The Buy List

Goodman Group (GMG)
Liu isn’t shy about her conviction here, even with sentiment on expensive growth stocks under pressure. She points to Goodman’s strength in data centres as a differentiator:

“Goodman Group is a buy. It got caught out in all these expensive companys being sold off. If you want to actually make money from out of a data centre, this is the one that actually has real clients, real pipeline. It looks very cheap.”

For Liu, Goodman is a rare case of a quality business trading below its value, with a robust pipeline and real clients—not just AI hype.

Pro Medicus (PME)
This high-flyer has been volatile, but Liu remains bullish, emphasising contract wins and sector leadership.

“That’s a buy. The company is young. If you look at all the earnings that they just won another contract today. This is the highest quality company can find in this market. It’s expensive I know but it’s come off a lot. It’s just hard to find growth companies here in Australia!”

Despite its premium valuation, Liu sees Pro Medicus as one of the highest-quality names in a local market starved of true growth stories.

Life360 (360)
Despite a rocky response to its record results recently, Life360 is on Jun Bei's buy sheet. For her, it's a classic case of a stock delivering upgrades and ticking all the right boxes, yet still facing scepticism from some corners.

Liu doesn’t hesitate:

“Yeah, that’s a buy. This company has delivered earnings upgrades that ticked every box. And then people looking for a reason to sell a that’s a buy.”

JB Hi-Fi (JBH)
Jun Bei Liu has recently added more JB Hi-Fi to her fund, seeing it as a standout among retailers heading into the crucial sales period. She acknowledges the share price pullback but argues the outlook is resilient, with consumer electronics set to benefit from upcoming sales events:

“I think one of the latest ideas that I add more to it is, JB Hi-Fi. I think share price has come off a lot. And, you know, it was very expensive, but, I think [a lot of discretionary companies] are heading into their biggest sale period, which is November. You know, consumer electronics is a big component in that whole 'cyber weekend', which is the latter part of this month. I think we’ll track very well.”

Liu points to strong recent trading and healthy consumer demand as reasons JB Hi-Fi could outperform, even if interest rate cuts are less likely than hoped. For Liu, JB Hi-Fi is a beneficiary of both strong consumer appetite for bargains and disciplined management, making it a timely addition as the retail sector heads into its busiest stretch of the year.

The 'Maybe' List

Have you ever bought something just because it was the right price or would fit some future need? That's what's informing Jun Bei Liu's "maybe" list right now.

Pilbara Minerals (PLS)
Despite volatility in the lithium sector, Liu sees improving fundamentals and finds the current setup attractive:

“Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Is Abi so lithium prices really turn the corner now even though, look, we still have the some of the large lithium mine coming back online, so normally there could be a bit of disruption and people get a shock because so much supply. But the demand for the energy, storage solution, you know, the battery and the like around the world is picking up massively, off the low base. But that is seems to be soaking up some of the demand weaknesses, for this lithium. So I actually think that looks really, really interesting. Look, you know, same as Mineral Resources and others.”

She links the positive outlook here to accelerating global demand for energy storage and batteries, noting it’s enough to offset some of the supply shocks in lithium.

TPG Telecom (TPG)
Liu calls this a “speculative buy,” highlighting how its new pricing strategy could produce a strong earnings uplift in the second half:

“Yeah, that one’s actually quite hard. It looks quite cheap, looks very cheap. And I truly believe this business is incredible. The new pricing strategy, they just adopted a month ago, actually will generate significant earnings uplift, which we won’t see in the first half. It will be in the second half. I think it’s, I think the challenge is there, you know, would there be any more news headlines? But I will probably put it here as a speculative buy here. You know, it looks very, very, you know, it looks very cheap.”

Even with uncertainty around news headlines, she thinks the fundamentals and valuation justify a position for those comfortable with some risk.

Mineral Resources (MIN)
Another “speculative buy,” given the company’s leverage to strong commodity prices and rapid deleveraging, though Liu cautions about ongoing investigations:

“Yeah. Even though the share price has gone up a lot, it actually still look very cheap. And then how quickly it’s deleveraging. It’s quite incredible. Now again, this one’s got an ASIC investigation going on. So you know, you probably put on the speculative buy up of given both of its commodity are doing really well and it’s leveraged so in the price, you know, in the environment where both earnings are going higher. The that the you know, the commodity are going higher. This company’s earnings will be so leveraged, so sensitive, you know, and so the upgrade will be enormous in the next 12 months. You know, should this, trend continue? So I’ll put that that one on the spec but probably not a huge position because of the asset, investigation.”

Liu’s position here is clear: the upside is compelling, but any position should be sized carefully due to regulatory uncertainty.

The "Avoid" list

Not everything makes the cut for Jun Bei Liu. This week, she flagged three names she’s either actively avoiding or remains unconvinced by, citing everything from competitive pressures to red flags around recent news.

Keep in mind that word 'avoid'. She's not saying it's time to sell up, but she's not about to run and place a market order for these ones.

CSL (CSL)
Once a market darling, CSL has fallen out of Liu’s favour for now. She’s wary of repeated downgrades and the company’s apparent inability to regain its growth mojo:

“Neutral. I'm not sure what's going on with their mojo. They’ve they’ve been losing share to their competitors and they blaming everything else but themselves. I want to understand why that is for a growth company that’s losing share [and] not growing as it should be. I don’t know what’s going to make it become a quality company again. They used to be! [Perhaps] was one off issues. But they certainly did not communicate that [and] after so many downgrades, it has led me to believe maybe culturally, there’s something wrong with it.”

Until CSL proves it can address these deeper issues, Liu isn’t prepared to put it back on her buy list.

DroneShield (DRO)
Despite having invested in the past, Liu is now keeping her distance from DroneShield, concerned about governance and recent price action after senior directors recently dumped their positions:

“That one's hard. I remember I was invested in this one maybe a year and a half ago. And, you know, and then we sort of took profit, made money, and then we more recently had this massive rally. We just felt it was too hot. And now the with them, you know, they announced a [new] contract [then withdrew it]. And then everybody, the directors and company, CEO sold all [that there was to sell]. It just feels, there’s something there that might lead to a lot of investigation, which is normally not great for share price, especially for the speculative ones.”

With questions still to be answered, Liu’s message is clear: too risky, at least for now.

Xero (XRO)
Xero didn’t get an outright thumbs down, but Liu’s assessment was lukewarm at best. Concerns about recent acquisitions, complexity, and lack of a clear growth story keep her on the sidelines:

“Wait is [where] I think I am [on Xero]. I'm warming up to it now because the result I have to say, is little bit disappointing where they met expectations on capitalising more earnings. Most analysts put on the buy, maybe even more of a soft buy, if you like. But I don’t feel strongly about it. They acquired this new company, Melio that they just bought. Very expensive, and still loss-making. They spent $4 billion on it! There’s a lot of messy components going on. I need a bit more clarity. I’m more of a soft buy.”

Unless there’s more clarity and execution, Xero remains a “wait and see” in her book—not a buy.

In 2015, soon after he had rolled Tony Abbott to become prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull was heckled when, with a straight face, he told New South Wales Liberals, “We are not run by factions”.

Once, there had been a contrast, at least in degree, between the factionally-organised Labor party and the Liberals. But those days are long gone.

Today the difference is that factions in the federal Labor Party are externally well behaved – albeit sometimes internally brutal as Ed Husic and Mark Dreyfus can attest – while the Liberal factions are currently creating havoc for their party.

On Monday, Turnbull gave the ABC his latest take on the Liberals’ internals. Ley, he said, was in a fish tank whose occupants “want to eat each other. They have the memory of goldfish and the dining habits of piranhas”.

The conservatives have taken over the party. After being trounced on net zero, moderates are angry with Sussan Ley for mishandling the issue: if she had brought things to a head months or even weeks ago she might have achieved a compromise. On the other hand, if the moderates undermine her they just aid conservatives Angus Taylor or Andrew Hastie to become leader, probably bringing all sorts of other policies they don’t like.

Against this background, Monday’s Australian carried a front page lead claiming: “A growing number of moderate Liberal MPs are pulling their support for Sussan Ley and are backing Andrew Hastie to be the next leader, arguing she has caved to his agenda and he has a better chance of lifting the Coalition’s stocks electorally”.

The story went on to say two senior moderates had said a majority of moderate MPs would vote for Hastie against Ley.

It looked like some in the moderates were having a hissy fit, or declaring they were generally stuffed, or perhaps engaging in some unfathomable plot to stymie Hastie.

As a punchdrunk Ley hit yet another morning media round, other moderates then sought to get the faction back on a more even keel.

Senator Anne Ruston, as close to a leader as the faction has, and Senator Maria Kovacic in a joint statement rejected the media reporting.

“We, along with an overwhelming majority of our moderate colleagues, continue to strongly support Sussan’s leadership. This matter was resolved in the party room six months ago and Sussan will lead us strongly to the next election,” they said.

Ruston then went on Sky News to further defend Ley, days after trenchantly fighting to head off the ditching of net zero.

“I’ve spoken to a lot of my colleagues this morning, and I can confirm that every single one of the moderates I spoke to supports Sussan Ley as the leader of our party,” Ruston said.

Ley’s tactic when on the defensive is to go out and do more and more media, even if it looks like a losing battle.

On the ABC she was asked about her message to future generations, now net zero has been abandoned by the Coalition. “I want to reassure people listening who care about the climate, that I do too.”

On 2GB during her interview, presenter Ben Fordham played talkback calls from September, when people had been asked whether they would prefer Ley or Hastie as leader. Those played all said Hastie.

Fordham then asked Ley, “what’s that like to listen to?” When she fobbed him off, he persisted, “Does that hurt though?”

He went on, rather bizarrely: “Don’t get me wrong, we all have it in our jobs. I have the same thing here, not everyone wants me hosting the breakfast show, but they’re stuck with me, and the Liberal voters are stuck with you.”

Ley said she wasn’t “here for a sense of ego about me”.

Fordham, after inviting her back, presumably to be pummelled again, threw her a final question.

“You’re tough enough to withstand any pressures coming from the likes of Andrew Hastie or Jacinta Price or anyone else who’d like to see you as a former opposition leader, not the current one?”

To which she replied: “Ben, I’ve been underestimated a lot of my life. I remember when a lot of blokes told me I couldn’t fly an aeroplane and did a lot to keep me out of the front seat. I flew an aeroplane, I flew a mustering plane in very small circles, very close to the ground, and that was pretty tough at the time.”

Ley is once again flying very close to the ground. She knows she may not be able to keep herself aloft, but she appears determined to make Taylor and Hastie’s chase for the leadership as difficult as she can.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australia's property prices are back on a runaway train. October delivered the fastest home value rise since mid-2023. But according to Cotality, it's the cheaper end of the market that continues to see the strongest gain.

By the numbers

Australia’s cheapest homes are still rising faster than the rest of the market, and the gap widened again in October.

Cotality’s Home Value Index shows dwellings sitting under the new 5 percent deposit price caps rose 1.2 percent for the month. Properties above the caps rose 1 percent. Just so we're all on the same page: the "cap" here is the maximum property price under the five per cent deposit scheme in that particular region. Those caps vary depending on where you're looking to buy. See the below from Cotality to help make sense of it.

Moving on!

In October, houses showed the clearest distinction between cheaper, sub-cap properties surging in price compared to those above the cap. Sub-cap houses lifted 1.3 percent. Houses above the cap lagged by 32 basis points. Units showed a smaller but still clear difference, with sub cap stock up 1 percent and a 19 basis point premium over higher priced units.

One would think that the more prestigious the property, the more you'd see values increase, right? Not so fast, because in this instance, the price premium on so-called 'cheaper property' is being driven entirely by more competition. Investors are going up against families pushed down the ladder by unaffordable housing and young couples looking for their first home.

Cotality observes that these conditions have been in place for almost two years, which is why cheaper homes have been outpacing the broader market for so long. And now that the Home Deposit Guarantee Scheme is nationwide, it's only going to add more contenders come auction day.

Of course, this means that owners on the lower rungs are the winners. The capital gains are landing fastest in markets once seen as entry level.

You can dive deeper into the report (even go suburb by suburb!) on Cotality's website.

Is this just a market wobble—or the start of something more serious? In this episode, Peter Switzer sits down with Jun Bei Liu (TenCap) and Raymond Chan (Morgans) to break down what’s really driving the recent volatility.

The panel debates whether we’re seeing a healthy pullback, a full-blown correction, or the signs of a bigger crisis—maybe even an AI bubble burst.

Plus: which stocks the pros are backing, which to avoid, and why the macro outlook for 2026 could defy the usual rules.

 

This week, everyone’s asking the same question: will the market keep falling, or is there a turning point ahead?

 

 

There’s no doubt artificial intelligence is at the centre of the anxiety that’s been rattling both Wall Street and our local market. Last week, the Dow finished down 309 points, and the S&P 500 slipped as well. The Nasdaq managed a small rise, which is interesting, maybe a sign some investors think the sell-off in tech has gone too far.

But AI stocks are still a hot topic. There’s no denying valuations look stretched, and that has people nervous. It doesn’t help that expectations for a US rate cut in December have dropped sharply. Where the odds were once sitting at 65%, now they’ve fallen right down to about 20%. That’s a real shift in the outlook, and it’s weighing on sentiment.

On the bright side, the US government shutdown is behind us. But all that means is markets will be watching the next round of data even more closely. If the numbers suggest the US economy is running faster or slower than expected, that could play havoc with inflation expectations and keep investors guessing.

There are still a lot of curve balls out there, and this week could really set the tone for what comes next. Check out our investor calendar for a look at everything coming up. Nvidia, for example, is reporting later this week. That’s the poster child for AI stocks, and if it comes in with a strong result, we might see a bounce. If not, the selling could pick up speed again.

It’s not just the US. We’re feeling it here too on the ASX. Tech stocks have been sold off locally, and even Bitcoin has slipped below $95,000 US dollars for the first time in a while. There’s no shortage of nerves.

Looking ahead, we’ve got the RBA minutes out on Tuesday and the wage price index on Wednesday. Both will be critical for understanding where inflation is heading, and when or if we might see another rate cut here in Australia.

There's plenty to watch (maybe more than usual), plenty of risks, but also plenty of opportunities if you know where to look.

Let's see what the week brings.

As I called out a little while ago,

the NRL has turned to artificial intelligence for the first time to craft its 2026 season draw, promising a fairer and more balanced competition. Here's how it did.

The league has partnered with Fastbreak AI to deliver a fixture list that cuts down on the scheduling headaches that have plagued clubs and fans in the past.

The 2026 schedule will see a sharp drop in the number of dreaded five-day turnarounds, with the total falling from 21 in 2025 to just 12 next year. No team will face more than one five-day turnaround, a significant shift aimed at protecting player welfare and giving teams a fairer shot each week.

Repeat match-ups, often a sore point for coaches and fans, have also been spaced out. In 2026, there will be no return matches within four weeks (down from seven last season) and none within five weeks (down from eight). The aim: to keep the competition fresh and avoid the repetition that can sap interest and create lopsided contests.

All clubs will have at least one bye either during a stand-down period (such as before State of Origin) or a reduced round (after Origin), levelling the playing field and reducing the impact on player availability. And to help clubs off the field, no team will be handed three home games during stand-down rounds, a move designed to soften the commercial blow that comes with weakened squads.

NRL CEO Andrew Abdo says the use of Fastbreak AI’s scheduling platform has allowed the league to juggle a record number of variables while keeping the focus on fans and player wellbeing.

“No draw is ever perfect, but with the use of new software and a record number of inputs and constraints, the 2026 schedule is finalised and fans have a great deal to get excited about,” Abdo said.

“We have focused on fans, player wellbeing and balancing competitive elements. The reduction of five-day turnarounds to no more than one per Club and the distribution of byes were important outcomes to achieve.”

He thanked broadcast partners Channel Nine, Fox Sports, Sky Sports New Zealand and Telstra for backing the new approach.

The league believes this new AI-powered system marks a shift towards greater fairness, fewer headaches for clubs, and a better experience for everyone watching the game.

In the 1990's, Japan's economy experienced what economists now refer to as "the Lost Decade", all driven by a property and stock market crash. Some are claiming this could happen to Australia, as housing continues to rise stratospherically and the stock market begins a pullback. So, is it possible?

I was spurred to take a look into this over the weekend by a tweet I saw last week.

 

The Australian housing market is now valued at $12 trillion AUD. Approx 450% of Australian GDP.

The Japanese housing bubble at its absolute height was about 460% of Japanese GDP.

Japan stagnated for 30 years after their bubble burst.

We are fucked. https://t.co/i0T3JZ9SwS pic.twitter.com/4MD22Dw7aa

— Drew Pavlou 🇦🇺🇺🇸🇺🇦🇹🇼 (@DrewPavlou) November 13, 2025

Pardon the French in the above, but it got me wondering: could we see a "Lost Decade" here?

The Lost Decade

Japan’s “Lost Decade” began with a property and stock market crash in the early 1990s.

The roots of the crisis go back to the late 1980s, when land and share prices in Tokyo shot into the stratosphere. Easy money and wild optimism led banks to lend freely against assets that seemed only to rise. When the Bank of Japan hiked interest rates to stop runaway speculation, the bubble burst.

Prices fell, bad debts spread, and banks spent years propping up failing borrowers instead of admitting their losses. The fallout toxic to Japan's economy.

Growth stalled, deflation set in, and it took more than a decade for confidence to return. Japan’s economy, once a global powerhouse, struggled to regain momentum.

Even today, the legacy of the Lost Decade shapes its economy and policy.

Australia now vs Japan then

Australia today shows a few striking parallels to Japan at the peak of its bubble. Property is a national obsession and prices keep rising. Data from Cotality, APRA, the RBA and the ATO show the scale of the dizzying numbers.

The total value of residential real estate in Australia is now around $12 trillion, spread over 11.4 million dwellings. Property now makes up about 55% of household wealth, far outstripping superannuation at $4.3 trillion, the share market at around $3.5 trillion, and commercial real estate at just over $1 trillion. The median house price in Australia’s capitals sits around $950,000, and in Sydney it is well above $1.2 million. And Government policy isn't helping to cool it down, either.

Measures like the First Home Guarantee, which lets buyers in with a 5% deposit, keep new demand coming. Negative gearing remains entrenched, fuelling investor appetite for more property. Tax breaks and incentives make housing attractive as an investment, even when prices are out of reach for many young families and first home buyers. All of this combines with persistent low unemployment, high-ish migration, and a housing shortage to create an environment where property prices appear bulletproof.

Japan in the late 1980s saw similar patterns. Lending standards were relaxed, speculation was rampant, and most of the country’s wealth was tied up in assets that only seemed to go up. The warning signs, in both cases, were ignored because the belief in the property market’s strength was absolute.

Could it happen here?

In short, probably not. But I'm no economist. I'm merely a student of economic history. Let me explain.

Japan's downturn was fuelled by cheap credit, government incentives, and a sense that property could never fall. Those are all things we see in Australia right now. If enough things go wrong at once, sure, a sharp downturn is possible. But there are key differences that would backstop the downturn so it doesn't decay the entire economy.

Our population is still growing quickly, fuelled by decent migration numbers, which keeps demand for housing strong. Japan’s population at the time was peaking and starting to decline as its bubble burst.

Australia’s banks are also more tightly regulated. They are regularly stress-tested and required to hold more capital than Japanese banks ever did. Some Japanese banks even concealed how bad the problem was, which is highly unlikely in our highly-regulated market.

Still, the sheer size of the property market means any downturn in property would have widespread fallout. When more than half of all household wealth is tied to property, even a moderate fall in prices would hit confidence, spending, and investment across the economy. Many recent buyers have taken on large mortgages at historically high prices, leaving them exposed if interest rates stay high or if unemployment rises.

A sharp rise in unemployment could force more people to sell, pushing prices down quickly. If global shocks or policy mistakes led to a spike in interest rates, mortgage repayments could become unmanageable for many households, especially those who bought recently. Another risk is a collapse in migration. Much of the current demand for housing depends on steady population growth. If migration policy changes, or if international events make Australia less attractive, demand could fall fast.

There’s also the chance that a change in investor sentiment, sparked by a policy shift or tax change, could turn the tide. If enough investors decide to exit the market at once, prices could drop in a hurry. The interconnectedness of Australia’s economy means that a big property correction would quickly affect jobs, consumer spending, and even the banking sector.

While the exact recipe for a new "Lost Decade" isn't present in Australia, that doesn't mean we're immune from a serious hit if property ever loses its biblical status in this country.

Pricing for the upcoming BYD ATTO 1 has landed. As expected, it's the newest title-holder of "Australia's cheapest electric car". Coming in at $23,990 it's a low sticker to be sure, but that's only part of the story. Here’s what you get for your money.

Range? Specs? Comfort?

I think these three questions are the most important when you're buying a new car in 2025. Especially if it's electric. How far can it travel before needing to be recharged? How does it achieve that, and how comfortably will you be able to do it all? Doesn't matter if a car can travel 1000km before it needs to be recharged if the interior is the same quality as an old chook shed. Similarly, if you're travelling in Rolls Royce-style comfort but can only go a handful of metres before needing to plug in.

So where does the ATTO 1 stack up? Well, it depends on which model you choose.

Two models: Essential and Premium

Before we get to what sets these two apart, first, here's what's the same.

Both are powered by a 35kWh lithium iron phosphate battery, offering a claimed driving range of 320km (NEDC). In real-world city driving, expect closer to 250km before a recharge. Nervous nellies will probably want to plug in even sooner. Its single front-mounted electric motor generates 70kW of power and 180Nm of torque. BYD lists 0-100km/h in just under 12 seconds, making it more for urban traffic rather than highway overtaking. Or drag races, but you get the point.

Charging is handled by a Type 2 AC port which puts electrons back into your battery at a maximum of 7kW (read: slowly). Or, there's a CCS2 DC fast-charging option for those on the go that will get you up to 40kW (read: fast-ish, but nothing compared to a Tesla or a Porsche). And of course that all depends on whether you can find 40kW charging speeds when you're on the road. If you can, an 80% top-up takes about 40 minutes on a fast charger. The slower 7kW option found in home wallboxes takes around six hours from 0-80% charged.

While both Essential and Premium versions of the BYD ATTO 1 share the same motor, battery and core technology, the differences are obvious as soon as you open the door or look at the feature list.

The Essential is all about keeping costs down. You get 16-inch alloy wheels, fabric seats and manual air conditioning. The steering wheel is finished in basic plastic, and you adjust the driver’s seat manually. Rear parking sensors are included, but there’s no front sensor or extra driver assistance tech beyond the basics.

Move up to the Premium and the experience changes. The wheels jump up to 17 inches and chrome trim replaces the Essential’s black exterior highlights. Inside, you swap fabric for synthetic leather and add features like heated front seats, a leather-wrapped wheel and automatic climate control. There’s a power-adjustable driver’s seat, a powered tailgate and ambient interior lighting—touches you’d expect in cars well above this price.

Infotainment gets a subtle boost, too. Both get a 10.1-inch touchscreen with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, but the Premium adds a better sound system with extra speakers. Rear seat passengers pick up their own air vents and a centre armrest, missing from the base car.

The biggest changes come in safety and driver assistance. The Premium brings blind-spot monitoring, rear cross-traffic alert, front parking sensors and a 360-degree camera. These aren’t available on the Essential, which sticks to AEB, lane keep assist, adaptive cruise and a reversing camera.

he ATTO 1 rides on 16-inch alloy wheels and is equipped with LED headlights, keyless entry, a 10.1-inch touchscreen with Apple CarPlay/Android Auto, air conditioning, reverse camera, digital radio and a basic suite of safety tech: AEB, lane keeping and adaptive cruise. Not bad for the money, really.

The ATTO 1 measures 4,050mm long, 1,760mm wide and 1,570mm tall, putting it squarely in the city car class. That makes it shorter than a Toyota Yaris but taller and roomier inside, closer to the likes of a Kia Stonic or Suzuki Ignis. Boot capacity is 270 litres, which matches other city cars but lags behind some slightly larger hatchbacks like the MG 3 or Mazda 2.

The interior fits four adults comfortably, though the rear row is best for two. The cabin is pared back but doesn’t feel spartan, with most expected tech features standard.

What you miss out on

Considering the price, the BYD ATTO 1 does give you a lot bundled in. The MG4 Excite 51 starts at $39,990, while the GWM Ora Standard is $30,000-plus. Even the cheapest petrol Yaris or Suzuki Swift now costs around $25,000 drive-away, so the BYD is not only the lowest-priced EV but among the most affordable new cars out there for 2025/26.

You do miss out on some features that are common in more expensive cars, though. It's to be expected for $23,990, right?

Heated seats, advanced driver aids (like blind-spot monitoring and rear cross-traffic alert), and a banging sound system are all absent. The battery is tiny by modern EV standards, and the DC fast-charging speed is much lower than what you’ll find in a Tesla or Kia EV6.

The warranty, however, is five years/unlimited km (battery eight years/160,000km), which is on par with the segment but not outstanding.

But for $23,990, the BYD ATTO 1 makes a compelling case for the budget buyer. It's sleek, it's teched-up, and it's a full EV and not a plug-in hybrid. Just remember: it's a city car, rather than a kilometre-killer on the nation's highways.

Get ready for a busy week as we all wait and see how markets react to Reserve Bank (RBA) and US Federal Reserve (FOMC) minutes, along with critical earnings updates from Nvidia and other major companies.

Markets continue to assess the outlook for interest rates as inflation lingers above target. Meanwhile, Australian wage data, global PMI figures and US housing activity round out a packed macro calendar.

As always, this information comes from the team at CommSec.

Monday 17 November

US: Empire State manufacturing index (November)
Tipped to dip to 5.8 from 10.7. A potential sign of slowing regional growth.

US: ADP weekly employment
A timely measure of private payrolls. Useful ahead of upcoming jobs data.

Australia: Elders and Australian Agriculture Co trading updates
Agribusiness results will give insight into food production and commodity trends.

Australia: FleetPartners Group earnings
Fleet leasing group reports trading performance.

Tuesday 18 November

Australia: RBA monetary policy meeting minutes (November)
The RBA left the cash rate on hold at 3.60%. Markets will comb the minutes for future policy guidance.

US: Export & import prices (October)
Import index excludes taxation on goods. Inflation signals will be closely watched.

US: Industrial production (October)
Output could be flat. Key for understanding US manufacturing momentum.

US: NAHB housing market index (November)
Tipped to lift from 37 to 38. Confidence in the housing market may be stabilising.

Australia: Technology One, Webjet, ALS earnings
Updates from software, travel and lab-testing firms will be assessed for growth and margin resilience.

Wednesday 19 November

Australia: Wage Price Index (WPI, September quarter)
Wages are tipped to grow 0.8%. Annual growth could ease to 3.3% from 3.4%, easing inflation pressures.

US: Housing starts & building permits (October)
Expected to remain at their lowest levels since May 2020. A weak print could dampen construction sentiment.

US: FOMC meeting minutes (October)
The Fed cut rates by 25 basis points. Minutes may provide clarity on how many more cuts are coming.

Australia: James Hardie, Web Travel, Plenti Group, Nufarm earnings
A heavy day of company reporting focused on construction, consumer finance and agri.

US: Nvidia earnings (September quarter)
The chip giant’s AI-fuelled rally has defined market optimism. Results post-closing bell will be pivotal.

Thursday 20 November

Australia: RBA Assistant Governor Sarah Hunter speaks
Remarks at the Australia Industry Group, Sydney. May provide insight on wages and productivity.

Australia: RBA Head of Payments Policy Ellis Connolly speaks
Speaking at the Women in Payments Symposium, Sydney. Potential comments on digital finance and regulation.

China: 1- and 5-year loan prime rates (LPRs)
No change is expected. A key policy reference rate for Chinese lending.

US: Philadelphia Fed manufacturing index (November)
Tipped to rebound to -1.5 from -12.8. A sign that weakness may be stabilising.

US: Conference Board leading index (October)
Expected to fall 0.3%. A broad gauge of US economic momentum.

US: Existing home sales (October)
Sales could lift 0.7%. Might support homebuilder sentiment if sustained.

US: Walmart earnings
Retail bellwether’s performance offers insight into household spending and discount trends.

Friday 21 November

Australia: S&P Global purchasing managers’ index (PMI, November)
Composite index could lift to 52.8 from 52.1. Signals modest economic expansion.

US: S&P Global PMIs (November)
Focus on services and hiring activity. Useful for gauging economic breadth.

Key themes to watch

• RBA & Wages: Meeting minutes and the WPI will help shape expectations on rate cuts in 2026.
• FOMC Minutes: The Fed’s tone will be crucial after its 25bp cut. Will they go again in December?
• Earnings: Nvidia headlines a week of results across tech, retail and agri-industrials.
• US Housing: Data and sentiment indicators show whether rate cuts are filtering through.

Check back next Monday for the latest investor calendar, only on Switzer.

Tech giants could soon have a new multimillion-dollar motivator to negotiate deals with Australian media companies to pay for news, after details of Labor’s proposed news bargaining incentive were finally revealed this week.

On Thursday, Treasury released a new consultation paper on the mechanism, which was first announced late last year.

It is designed to pressure large digital platforms, including Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram), Google and ByteDance (owner of TikTok) into paying Australian publishers for using their content.

Under the proposed model, any digital platform earning more than A$250 million in annual revenue from Australia from search or social media services would face a charge equivalent to 2.25% of this revenue.

But platforms could reduce this charge by negotiating or renewing commercial deals with Australian news outlets. Every dollar paid to publishers would reduce the amount payable by $1.50. That means it would always be cheaper to fund journalism directly than pay the charge.

However, its design looks a lot like a “digital services tax” on big US tech companies. US President Donald Trump has put such measures in his sights, making it a bold move for Australia.

Why big tech needed a nudge

The proposed new model sits on top of the existing news media bargaining code introduced by the Morrison government in 2021.

This code worked at first. Despite threats to remove search from Australia, Google eventually reached agreements with many publishers.

Meta eventually signed deals, too, albeit after briefly removing news from Facebook in Australia during a standoff. These payments became a crucial funding source for Australian media.

However, the code had a key structural weakness: it relied on platforms choosing to participate. Platforms can opt out, simply by not renewing commercial contracts with the news outlets and removing local news content.

In early 2024, Meta announced it would not renew its Australian news agreements.

The company argued news provided little commercial value. Without this revenue, many smaller Australian media would require large alternative sources of funding.

The government needed a mechanism that did not depend on voluntary cooperation. So, the news bargaining incentive was born, creating a financial consequence for refusing to pay.

Taxing digital profits

From a tax perspective, the proposed incentive resembles what’s called a digital services tax.

Digital services taxes are already used in the United Kingdom, France and several other jurisdictions to collect tax from large digital platforms.

These taxes generally apply only to very large multinational platforms, focusing on digital advertising and user-based platform services. They use revenue, rather than profit, as the tax base. Their rates typically fall between 3% and 5%.

Australia has considered a digital services tax before. In 2018, Treasury released a discussion paper exploring an interim digital turnover tax aimed at the biggest global platforms.

But successive governments paused the idea and instead backed international efforts to reallocate a portion of multinational tech companies’ profits to the countries where their users are located.

Called “Amount A”, this measure formed an important part of “pillar one” of an OECD-led global tax deal, which was supposed to be implemented globally in 2023.

A digital services tax in all but name

The proposed news bargaining incentive closely mirrors a digital services tax, applying a percentage charge to the Australian revenue of large digital platforms.

Most of that revenue comes from digital advertising, which is the central target of these taxes globally. The effective rate of 2.25% is also broadly in line with the typical digital services tax range.

The key political difference is where the money goes. A digital services tax sends revenue only to the government, while the Australian government’s proposal allows platforms to pay news publishers directly.

This gives Canberra a line of defence that this policy is about media competition, rather than taxation.

A bold move for Australia

The geopolitical context is now particularly important. In January, the Trump administration formally withdrew the United States’ support for the OECD’s global tax deal.

Trump has consistently described digital services taxes as “discriminatory” measures targeting American companies. He has also previously authorised trade investigations and tariff threats against countries that pursued them.

Australia is already on the radar. The US Trade Representative has placed elements of Australia’s digital regulation under review for potential unfair trade practices.

Even though Australia has not introduced a digital services tax, any measures that resemble one – or shift revenue away from US technology firms – are politically sensitive.

This means the news bargaining incentive must navigate a delicate political space. On paper, it is a competition and media funding mechanism. In substance, it functions very much like a tax to redirect tax revenue back to where users are located.

If Washington views the measure as a digital services tax in disguise, Australia could face diplomatic friction at a time when US trade policy has become significantly more unpredictable.

Fei Gao, Lecturer in Taxation, Discipline of Accounting, Governance & Regulation, The University of Sydney, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

In the same breath that AI's potential is mentioned brings forth a warning about how it can be misused. Now we know what that looks like: Anthropic has just detailed how a its Claude AI was used and misused to execute cyberattacks on behalf of Chinese-backed hackers.

What happened?

A China-backed hacking group has just made cybersecurity history. By using the popular consumer artificial intelligence product Claude to execute real cyberattacks on dozens of companies and government agencies around the world. Specifically, the tool at the centre of the attack was Claude Code, an AI model developed by Anthropic to help people write all kinds of code.

For the first time, hackers used AI not just as a helper or advisor in writing code or answering questions, but as an automated agent on the very frontline that did most of the hacking itself. According to Anthropic, the group managed to infiltrate a small number of major tech, financial, and government targets, in what experts are calling the first large-scale cyberattack carried out with minimal human involvement.

How the attacks worked

First, hackers chose their targets. At this advanced level, they're not looking to pull some fake foreign prince scam. They want state-based intelligence, proprietary secrets and technology and/or big piles of cash to help fund their future operations. The latter in particular is a favourite of sanctioned regimes like Iran or North Korea as a way to fund their state. 

In this instance, China-backed hackers focused on major tech companies, banks, chemical manufacturers, and government agencies. The group then built a system that used Claude Code to do most of the hacking without much human help.

It's easy to sit back and ask 'how did this happen?'. And in this instance, it's a good question. AI models have what are known as "weights" that act as guardrails to stop malicious use of the bot by the bad guys. And this stuff is rigorously tested - especially by Anthropic - to make sure it can't beaten. Claude in particular is designed to reject requests that seem harmful. But hackers got around this by “jailbreaking” Claude. 

They tricked the Claude AI into thinking it was doing routine cybersecurity work, not a real attack. They broke the attack into small steps. Each step looked harmless on its own, so Claude followed the instructions.

Once inside, Claude then scanned the target’s computer systems for valuable data. It found databases and user accounts faster than any human could. It wrote and tested code to find weak spots in security. When it found ways in, it collected usernames and passwords, sorted out the most important information, and even created backdoors for future access.

Once the hacking was done, Claude wrote up detailed notes. These files helped the hackers know exactly what was stolen and how. Most of this work happened without the need for a person to guide every move. The AI operated at high speed, making thousands of attempts per second, and only checked with its human operators a handful of times during each attack.

The attack was not perfect. Sometimes Claude made mistakes, like inventing fake passwords or misunderstanding what was sensitive. But the sheer speed and scale of the attack set a new benchmark for what AI can do in the wrong hands.

How the hackers were discovered

Anthropic’s cyber boffins noticed unusual activity all the way back in mid-September 2025. While that doesn't seem like long ago to you and me, it's a lifetime for an AI that moves as fast as Claude.

At the time, Anthropic security saw Claude Code being used in ways that didn’t match normal patterns. The attackers made thousands of rapid requests and showed signs of trying to hide what they were doing. 

This spurred them to take a closer look, tracking the activity over the subsequent 10 days or so. The company eventually uncovered the larger hacking plan using its AI, tracing the work to a group backed by the Chinese government. Anthropic locked them out, and called the cops soon after realising their AI had breached other organisations.

It's worth pointing out that while the hackers were "discovered", nobody has been caught as yet. It also should be highlighted that while this is being reported as AI's first use in an attack, that doesn't mean it's  the very first. Just the first we're hearing about.

You can read the full report here.

With much talk this week about the end of the Whitlam government, Liberal conservatives might do well to read Gough Whitlam’s 1967 speech to the Victorian Labor Party, at the start of his climb to power.

Like the Liberals now, federal Labor had been trounced at the 1966 election. Whitlam was the new leader, and he took on Victorian hardliners who put ideology ahead of electability.

“Certainly, the impotent are pure,” Whitlam told the delegates at the conference, in a line that echoed down the years.

The Liberal conservatives’ success in forcing their party to dump its commitment to the net zero emissions reduction target has been a triumph of ideology over pragmatism, worthy of those 1960s Labor zealots.

Walking away from the commitment is ill-judged and politically dangerous. It’s also unnecessary.

Many political players, including in Labor, don’t think net zero by 2050 is attainable. But the timeframe is a generation away. Given that, why is it so urgent to reject the target?

Especially when, as Liberal federal director Andrew Hirst told the party room on Wednesday, among voters net zero has become a “proxy” for action on climate. Hirst did talk about possible arguments that could be mobilised if net zero was dumped. For those listening, however, his message, based on research, was clear: ditching net zero was high-risk politics. The conservatives didn’t care.

But the party, with its moderates, had to be held together. On Thursday, when the Liberal shadow ministers met, the leadership stuck a tiny plaster on the gaping wound. Bottom line: commitment to the target is out, but if net zero happened to be achieved, that would be “a welcome outcome”.

The Liberals are in a dreadful state and a climate and energy policy that’s all over the shop can only worsen things. No one thinks they can return to power in under two elections. Even for that they’d have to pick up a significant number of seats in 2028.

At present, the Coalition is on 24% primary vote (in Newspoll). The Liberals will never do well with young voters, but to be competitive overall they have to at least make inroads with them. That’s to say nothing of the women’s vote, on which Labor has a stranglehold.

The Liberals have hardly any urban seats and, apart from Goldstein, the formerly Liberal teal seats stayed solidly independent at the last election.

Net zero resonates with young voters, women, urban dwellers and those in teal electorates, whether or not it is pie in the sky. By dropping it, the Liberals have delivered a slap in the face to these voters. They are saying, in effect, “you might have rejected us at two elections, but we still know better than you do”.

A commonsense voice came ahead of Wednesday’s meeting from Gisele Kapterian, who failed by a handful of votes in the traditional Liberal Sydney seat of Bradfield. It went to a teal. In an email to Liberals on Tuesday, Kapterian described herself as “a concerned Liberal, a technology executive, a former international trade lawyer, a millennial, and […] the former Liberal candidate in the most marginal seat in the country”.

She wrote, “In my experience, echoed throughout the most marginal, winnable, metropolitan seats, our party must remain firmly committed to the language of a ‘net zero’ emissions target as part of an energy policy that is differentiated from the ALP. Retreat is an electoral liability.

"My experience on the ground is that a credible, technology-focused climate policy is essential to securing the many discerning voters in key urban and suburban seats.”

What will all these constituencies take out of the new policy? That the Liberals don’t believe in net zero, that’s what. Not that they have found some great ways to bring down power bills.

And who is going to sell persuasively the messy new policy? Not Sussan Ley, who struggled with its contradictions at her news conference on Thursday. Far from being a conviction politician, Ley didn’t even give a personal view to Wednesday’s party meeting. Nor is the affable energy spokesman, Dan Tehan, likely to convince many people. He looks out of his depth.

The divisions in the party will remain obvious. Even if the moderates stay in line, their views are on the record because they have previously been talking their heads off – as have the conservatives.

The loud voices in the Nationals, who’ve had a massive win, leading the Coalition by the nose, will come across as clear and unconflicted. Can anyone miss the irony that Barnaby Joyce, thought to be on his way to One Nation, has had a triumphant hurrah?

To return to Whitlam: he led from the front and imposed himself on his party, even willing to risk expulsion. Ley is at the opposite end of the leadership spectrum.

Despite once having extolled net zero, Ley decided a while ago to go with the flow in the interests of preserving her job. Was there an alternative? A brave (maybe crazy brave) leader might have stepped out and argued for a position.

Yes, given the dominance of the conservatives (including in the party branches), she might have been rolled on the issue and, sooner rather than later, as leader. But at least she would have stood for something, and gone down fighting.

As for losing the leadership, most Liberals see that as inevitable – it’s only a matter of timing.

Some point out it would look bad to bring down the party’s first woman leader. Let it be recorded, however, that a couple of high-profile Liberal women are among those with political knives out for Ley. The front row of the conservative phalanx who marched into the party meeting comprised three women: Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Sarah Henderson and Jessica Collins.

The conservatives are in charge of the Liberal Party and, when it suits them, they will install a conservative leader. The problem for him (and it will be a him) is he will be operating in an Australian electorate that is progressive, both now and for the foreseeable future.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.