A new “complete” monthly consumer price index (CPI) will be released next week, and will become Australia’s primary measure of inflation.

This new release will finally bring Australia into line with the other advanced economies in the Group of 20, which all publish inflation data every month. It will make it easier to compare inflation trends with other nations.

For the Reserve Bank of Australia, headline inflation from the complete monthly CPI will become the new target for monetary policy.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has been publishing a monthly CPI “indicator” since 2022. But it only had a partial coverage.

The inflation report measures price changes in a fixed “basket” of goods and services each month.

In an updated explanation of the new data published on Tuesday, the bureau said prices of 87% of the CPI basket of goods and services will be updated each month. That’s up from 50% previously.

A quarterly series (an average of the three months) will continue to be published.

What does the new monthly measure mean for our understanding of inflation?

The monthly series will be more volatile

A monthly consumer price index can swing a lot reflecting temporary fluctuations in the volatile prices of goods such as petrol, fruit and vegetables. These get smoothed out somewhat – but not totally removed – in a quarterly index.

The inflation rate based on the new monthly series will therefore be more volatile than that based on the quarterly. We will need to build up some history before we know just how much more volatile. But the experience with the partial monthly measure (and experience in other countries) provides a guide.

The Reserve Bank has commented it “will take time to learn about the properties of the monthly CPI data”.

The Reserve Bank will “initially continue to focus on measures of underlying inflation from the quarterly CPI”. It will forecast the quarterly rather than the monthly CPI.

The monthly index will sometimes give earlier warning of a changing trend in inflation. For example, in mid-2025 the jump from 1.9% in June to 3.0% in August was a warning that inflation was no longer falling.

But it can also give misleading signals. In late 2022, the monthly index showed inflation jumping from 7.4% to 8.4%. But the quarterly index revealed inflation had peaked at 7.8% in the December quarter.

In mid-2023, the monthly index showed inflation picking up from 4.9% in July to 5.6% in September; yet the quarterly index showed inflation was continuing to decline.

In mid-2025 the monthly index showed inflation was down to 1.9%, below the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target band, leading some commentators to expect a run of further interest rate cuts. But we now know (underlying) inflation has been staying stubbornly near the top of the Reserve Bank’s band.

The Melbourne Institute has produced a monthly Australian inflation gauge since 2002. But it isn’t much quoted, perhaps because of the volatility.

Too much information?

Encouraging the media and the public to pay more attention to the monthly index might create the impression there’s more inflation than there is.

Behavioural economics says people are “loss averse”. They pay more attention to bad news (high inflation) than good news (low inflation). The monthly figures mean the media will be reporting inflation news 12 times a year, rather than four.

Media reporting each month might amplify things. When the monthly number is low, this may get less attention. Some commentators might even succumb to the temptation to “annualise” a month’s movement, multiplying by 12. This can present a misleading, or alarming, picture.

Over the longer term, the more volatile annual inflation rate based on the monthly data may be within the 2-3% target band less often than the rate calculated from the quarterly data.

The Reserve Bank’s task of restraining inflationary expectations may therefore become harder with the focus shifting to the new monthly measure.

John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra

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

Millennials and Gen Z are a lot of things, but one thing they almost definitely are is economically worse-off than their parents. But you can give them a leg-up with their eventual inheritance, right? Not if you take the words of David Koch to heart, who says that those damn kids just have to work it out for themselves, and that you don't owe them a damn thing.

You know Koch from his longtime stint as host of the Channel Seven breakfast program Sunrise. Dubbed "Kochie" to liven him up a bit, David James Koch AM had a storied financial journalism career before taking his spot on that comfy sofa for a 20+ year stint.

Koch has long styled himself as a straight shooter on money issues, but his latest advice to parents isn’t pulling any punches.

He argues that millennials and Gen Z (often caricatured as entitled or “soft”) need to stand on their own two feet. Forget about soft landings or family bailouts. According to Koch, parents have done their job by raising their kids and giving them a start. Beyond that, it’s up to the next generation to build their own wealth, no matter how much tougher the economic environment has become.

From his piece:

"Nobody wants to see their children struggle. But I’m a little concerned that guilt ridden Baby Boomer parents could end up putting their retirement lifestyles at risk, by digging a little too deep."

"It’s extremely generous, but personally I don't think you owe your kids any sort of inheritance."

Thanks, David! I don't know about you but I'd be shifting a little nervously in my seat if I were one of Koch's four kids. Especially considering their Dad's ascent into the upper tax brackets over recent years. Not only did he spend 21 years on the set of Sunrise (with a few other shows on Seven here and there), but he recently sold his own financial content house - Pinstripe Media - for what can only be assumed was a tidy yet undisclosed sum before taking up a job as head numbers man/spruiker-in-chief for comparison site Compare The Market, You've seen their ads, surely. All the money they save by animating irritating meerkats spruiking insurance seems to have gone to pay for their new, big-time economic director, David Koch.

This message lands at a time when young people face a radically different set of financial headwinds than their parents did: ballooning property prices, flat wage growth, casualised work, and record student debt. For many families, the old path of study hard, get a job, buy a house is lying on the floor in pieces.

I'm fascinated he mentions boomer "guilt" in this piece as a reason that some older Australians might want to dig a little deeper for their kids. I think almost every boomer knows in their bones that they're leaving their kids and their kids' kids in a bit of a hole.

The numbers are hard to ignore. When boomers were entering adulthood in the late 1970's, wages were rising faster in real terms, home ownership was realistically achievable on a single income, and house‑price‑to‑income ratios were a fraction of what they are today. A young worker could expect strong wage indexation, a stable job market and a deposit hurdle that felt tough but possible.

Roll forward to 2025 and the story flips.

Wages crawl along at about one per cent above inflation, housing sits at nine or ten times the average income in major cities, and home ownership among thirty‑somethings has fallen from the mid‑sixties percent range in the seventies to about fifty percent now. Wealth is increasingly concentrated among older Australians, while younger Australians face higher rents, higher debts, slower wage growth and a far narrower path into the wealth‑building machinery of housing.

Boomers didn’t design all these settings, but they benefited enormously from them on the way up, and for decades Australian policy has continued to reward asset‑holders over asset‑seekers. That is the quiet source of the guilt Koch gestures toward. It’s the uneasy recognition that opportunities once taken for granted have been sealed off behind them, and that the next generation is being asked to climb a ladder their parents already pulled up.

Yet, despite the data (of which he's clearly familiar with) Koch’s feelings here are pretty clear: inheritance shouldn’t be seen as a safety net or a delayed down payment on adult life. If anything, he frames it as a bonus, not a right. His stance reflects a broader debate about generational responsibility and the limits of parental support, especially as cost-of-living pressures bite harder than ever.

Honestly? I don't disagree with him on his core point. You can't take it with you as they say, but you certainly don't have to give your kids a red cent on your way out. It's just a little hard to hear someone like Kochie say the quiet part so, so loud after receiving so much from a system that he trusts still exists for his kids.

Markets have seen billions splashed around on big AI deals over the last quarter. But when it comes to the investment habits of the world's biggest billionaires, they spent the last quarter going defensive. Here's what they bought and sold.

We're able to pour over what billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett bought and sold thanks to the power of transparency.

US securities law requires large investment managers to publicly disclose their equity holdings each quarter through SEC Form 13F filings. These regulatory filings provide a transparent record of what billionaire traders and major funds bought and sold in the most recent quarter, allowing investors and analysts to track their portfolio moves with a lag of just a few weeks. Without these disclosure rules, the trading activity and strategy of the world’s top investors would remain largely hidden from view. After the recent filing deadline, we're now able to take a look at Q3 2024-25 investments to see the patterns that are emerging. And it's one of uncertainty.

Here's how the money moved.

The trends

In the September quarter, the world’s most-watched billionaire investors dialled down risk, with portfolio activity across the Gates Foundation, Icahn Capital, Pershing Square, and Berkshire Hathaway (the cross-section we looked at) showing a clear tilt toward selling rather than buying.

All four funds trimmed key holdings rather than adding new names or doubling down on old ones. Most of the moves were reductions in position size among the biggest and most recognisable stocks in their portfolios, with no evidence of broad new bets or sector rotations.

There were no major fresh buys, no splashy new ideas, and no shifts into untested themes. Instead, the quarter was defined by defensive actions. That is, selling down portions of long-held winners, banking profits, and tightening the concentration around core ideas. The message from these billionaire investors is clear: keep exposure to proven winners, but don’t let risk get out of hand when valuations are high and uncertainty is rising.

Let's take a look at four of the biggest to see how these defensive moves shook out from portfolio-to-portfolio.

Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway kept its reputation for concentration and selective bets, but there were more signs of portfolio reshaping in the September quarter than casual observers might expect. Apple remained by far the dominant holding, accounting for nearly half the entire portfolio, but Buffett trimmed the stake by around 12 percent. That’s the largest cut to Apple he’s made in years and a major event for Berkshire’s famously sticky portfolio. Despite the trim, the position is still so large it would take years of selling to shift the balance meaningfully.

Elsewhere, Buffett took profits and reduced stakes in several of his blue-chip mainstays—Chevron and HP were both slashed by over 20 percent, while the Amazon holding was pared back by a modest 2.5 percent. The portfolio’s old-guard financials—Bank of America, American Express, Coca-Cola and Moody’s—were left largely untouched.

There were no blockbuster new buys. Instead, there’s evidence of Buffett’s caution and a hint that he sees valuations running ahead of fundamentals in key sectors, especially big tech. He’s willing to lighten up on the high-fliers when the numbers get stretched, but he isn’t rushing to redeploy cash into fresh themes.

Bill Gates

The Gates Foundation Trust pared back almost every major holding during the third quarter of 2025. The largest single holding, the aforementioned Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B), was cut by nearly 10 percent, leaving it at just under 30 percent of the overall portfolio. Waste Management (WM), another anchor position, was trimmed by 10.2 percent, while Canadian National Railway (CNI), Microsoft (MSFT), and Caterpillar (CAT) all saw reductions in the range of 5 to almost 14 percent. These weren’t symbolic moves—the dollar value of these reductions ran into the hundreds of millions or more.

Deere, Ecolab, Madison Square Garden Sports, PK, and Danaher were left unchanged, suggesting no fresh buying or new bets among secondary holdings. Smaller holdings like Walmart, FedEx, Kraft Heinz, Hormel, and Waste Connections were all trimmed, but again, there was no outright liquidation or big rotation.

Not a single holding was added to or initiated. The only activity was a systematic reduction in position size, with no moves into new names or sectors. Over 80 percent of the portfolio remains concentrated in the top five holdings even after these cuts, so the fund’s risk profile and focus haven’t shifted much in substance.

Carl Ichann

Icahn Capital’s portfolio saw notable shifts in the September quarter, with investor legend Carl Icahn making both targeted reductions and increases in his tightly focused holdings. His dominant position, Icahn Enterprises (IEP), rose by 4.5 percent, reinforcing it as the overwhelming anchor of the portfolio at more than 48 percent of total assets.

CVR Energy (CVI), the next largest stake, was left unchanged. In contrast, Icahn made a decisive cut to his third-largest holding, Southwest Gas Holdings (SWX), reducing it by almost 19 percent. This marks a significant scale-back rather than a routine rebalance.

Other moves were smaller in dollar terms but clear in intent: FirstEnergy (FE) and Herc Holdings (HRI) were both trimmed by about 5 percent. Dana Incorporated (DAN) was reduced by nearly 7 percent. Meanwhile, the fund slightly increased its position in Bausch Health Companies (BHC) by 2.7 percent, but this remains a minor part of the overall portfolio.

Importantly, there were no new stocks added and no new themes introduced. Every action was either a reduction in existing holdings or a marginal increase in positions Icahn already owned. The fund remains extremely concentrated, with the top two holdings making up over 65 percent of assets.

Bill Ackman

Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square Holdings made modest, precise reductions to its portfolio in the September quarter of 2025, but kept its existing positions and strategy intact. No new stocks were added, and there were no dramatic reallocations or exits.

The top holding, Uber Technologies, was reduced by a fraction, just 0.1 percent, remaining above 20 percent of the total portfolio. Brookfield Asset Management, the next largest position, was trimmed by 0.5 percent, and Howard Hughes Holdings by 0.6 percent. All three are still substantial weightings and remain the fund’s top bets.

The only material cut was to Alphabet (GOOG), down by 9.6 percent. This was the largest move Ackman made all quarter, but even after the reduction, Alphabet is still a core holding. Restaurant Brands International was reduced by 0.4 percent, and Amazon by 0.2 percent—both so minor they look more like routine rebalancing than any change in view.

Ackman’s actions for the quarter reflect a steady, risk-managed approach. No positions were increased, no new names appeared, and no sectors were added or dropped. All the activity was in minor reductions, with the single exception of the more significant trim to Alphabet.

This week we've been talking about whether the sizeable downturn in global markets is just a wobble or a massive correction - maybe even a bubble on the verge. While stock volatility is one way to take the market's temperature, there's another way to help us check how traders are really feeling.

We've talked about it before, but it's our good friend: the global Volatility Index, also known as the VIX. 

It's basically the stress-index for global markets. It estimates the expected volatility of the S&P 500 (and locally, provided you look at the right one) over the next 30 days. Under normal conditions the index might hover in the teens. Average conditions - which we kind of haven't had for a while - put the VIX on a simmer at around 20. But in In times of major upheaval, the VIX can spike dramatically. 

During the early onset of COVID‑19 in March 2020 it closed at an all time high of just over 82. In early March 2022 when Putin and his forces started their ill-advised Ukrainian sojourn, the VIX rose from around 28 to 37.5 the next day. For the hostilities in Gaza following the October 6 attacks and onward into 2023, the VIX oscillated in the 30s.  

Each of these events are not only geopolitically sensitive, but also market-sensitive. One link in the global supply chain drops and it risks the whole global economy. Great system we have here, right! So what has the most recent downturn, sparked by sticky inflation, Powell's comments about interest rates and a growing concern that AI ain't what the market thinks it is, done to the index?

Over the last week, the S&P500's VIX (above) has jumped over 38% from a tepid 18 points at the start of last week through to a peak of over 25 yesterday.

Australia's VIX (below), which hovers around 10 points at its most calm yesterday spiked up to 14 points. To give you an idea of how that reflects on our local market's feelings, when Donald Trump first announced his tariff package on "Liberation Day" back in April, the local index spiked to 19.3.

So while the market isn't panicking like people are pointing weapons at each other, the numbers show that the culture of fear has definitely taken over global trading floors.

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.