Division 296 signals rising policy risk, prompting advisers to diversify structures and reduce reliance on any single tax environment.

Looking beyond traditional forms of risk

Chat about risk with any adviser, and it’s likely to cover some predictable territory: Market risk. Concentration risk. Sequencing risk. Inflation. Longevity. These are, after all, the foundation of almost every client conversation, and minimising their impact is the basis of almost every financial plan.

But there’s another risk that is becoming harder to ignore, and it’s not coming from markets.

It’s coming from governments.

Over the past decade, superannuation alone has been subject to a near-constant cycle of reform: contribution caps, transfer balance caps, Division 293, and the recently confirmed Division 296 tax are just some of the examples. While each of these changes may have seemed incremental in isolation, collectively they have significantly reshaped the long-term outcomes from superannuation investments, and the effectiveness of strategies designed to optimise those outcomes.

There is a subtle but undeniable tension emerging. As highlighted in recent Generation Life research^[1]:

“Our retirement system is built for long-term horizons yet repeatedly shaped by policy measures introduced across successive election cycles”.

This year alone, in addition to the application of Division 296 to super balances over $3m, the Federal Government is also mulling changes to the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) discount^[2], impacting the effectiveness of various strategies, including property investing.

These are unlikely to be isolated events, regardless of who is in government.

In such an environment, mitigating risk therefore means looking beyond asset diversification. It means also diversifying structures and strategies to make portfolios resilient in the face of almost inevitable change. And the adviser’s role in this is increasingly to interpret, not just inform – translating shifting policy settings into clear strategic implications and helping clients make decisions with confidence, despite the uncertainty.

In this article, we explore how Division 296 and other emerging policy changes create risks for clients, why structural diversification is a crucial mitigant of such risks, and how investment bonds are one of the structures advisers are increasingly utilising to achieve this diversification.

Division 296: more than just a tax change

Few superannuation changes have seemed so convoluted as the Division 296 tax. First proposed in 2023^[3] – and eventually becoming law in 2026 – the original name of the reform (‘Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions’) provides a useful insight into both the possibility, and focus, of future changes. But whilst much of the associated narrative surrounded the specifics of the tax, the more powerful signal lies in what Division 296 might represent longer term.

While superannuation changes are nothing new, for much of its history these changes have been applied on a relatively consistent and uniform basis across all members, with the aim of encouraging the accumulation of retirement savings across the population, regardless of wealth or income. That began to change with Division 293, which introduced additional tax on concessional contributions for higher income earners^[4].

Division 296 extends that shift even further, meaning superannuation is no longer operating as a single concessional regime.

Under Division 296, an additional tax of 15% now applies to earnings on balances above $3 million, with a further 10% (making a total of 40%) applying to balances in excess of $10m^[5]. This change sees super increasingly structured as a tiered system, where investment outcomes vary depending on the balance size and income of members.

But this is about more than the actual rates of tax. The introduction of thresholds, differential rates and targeted settings reflects a system that is becoming more complex, more segmented, and more susceptible to ‘adjustment’ over time. The scope and limits of Division 296 might be set for today, but what we now have in place is a framework through which even more tiering of benefits can occur.

For advisers, this has two implications.

Firstly, outcomes for clients – especially HNW – are likely to be increasingly exposed to policy/regulatory risk. Changes to thresholds, rates or definitions can materially alter long-term outcomes from particular strategies and structures, especially for clients operating close to relevant limits.

Secondly and more fundamentally, Division 296 spotlights a different type of concentration risk: overexposure to a single tax environment – a risk exacerbated where that environment is subject to increasing flux.

Policy risk is expanding – beyond super

Australia’s shifting legislative environment is undoubtedly a major determinant of after-tax outcomes for investors. But whilst many of the headlines focus – understandably – on changes to super, in reality there are many areas of wealth that remain under a constant spectre of regulatory intervention and rule changes.

The recently proposed lowering of the capital gains tax (CGT) discount is a case in point. Whilst the quantum or form of this reduction was not known at the time of publishing this article, what is clear is that any reduction in the discount would directly alter the after-tax return profile of geared investment strategies, involving both property and equities. Strategies that rely on the interaction between leverage and concessional CGT treatment would therefore need to be reassessed as a matter of priority.

At the same time, property investors are increasingly exposed to state-based taxes and regulations. Land tax regimes, vacancy taxes, and short-stay accommodation levies are now in place across most of the country, usually with very little alignment between jurisdictions. For clients with concentrated exposure to a single state or asset class, these changes can materially affect holding costs and long-term returns.

Family trust structures are also coming under increased scrutiny. Recent ATO activity^[6] targeting what it describes as “excessive” income splitting highlights a growing focus on how trusts are being used in practice, particularly among higher-income individuals. While this does not yet represent a wholesale change to trust law, it reinforces a broader point: policy risk is not limited to legislative reform. It also arises through changes in interpretation, enforcement and administrative focus, which can materially alter how existing structures are treated over time.

Changes to franking credits were taken to the 2019 election – unsuccessfully – by Bill Shorten, and it’s reasonable to assume a more strongly positioned government might propose some sort of change again in the future.

And of course, superannuation itself is not immune to further adjustment. While the tax-free status of pension phase investment earnings remains intact, it has already been subject to one limitation, via the Transfer Balance Cap. Over a 30 to 40-year investment horizon, it would be naïve to assume that the current settings will remain unchanged, particularly as fiscal pressures and population demographics continue to evolve.

For advisers, this means the challenge is not just about optimising client portfolios within the current rules, it is about interpreting how those rules may evolve, interact, and compound over time, and the potential client impact. In effect it means acting as a ‘Chief Interpretation Officer’.

Structural diversification is an important risk mitigant

Discretionary trusts, private companies, self-managed super funds, and investment-bond structures each deliver different regulatory, tax, and succession characteristics. Diversifying across these vehicles becomes a critical tool in reducing reliance on any single policy regime, and in building strategies that are more resilient to future changes.

A strong body of evidence supports the importance of structural diversification.

FT Adviser^[7] described diversification across tax wrappers as “essential for managing liquidity and policy uncertainty”, while a 2025 study^[8] by Krieg & Li provides direct evidence that diverse tax-planning strategies materially reduce exposure to policy and compliance risk. Analysing more than 4,000 firms, they found that those with more diversified tax strategies experienced lower volatility in effective tax rates, indicating reduced exposure to tax-related risk. While corporate in scope, the findings translate directly to a high-net-worth client context.

Investment bonds – outsmarting the government

If structural diversification is the response to rising policy risk, investment bonds are a clear example of how that principle is being applied in practice.

Unlike superannuation, investment bonds sit outside the super system and are not subject to contribution caps, preservation rules or balance thresholds. This distinction has become increasingly relevant as Division 296 introduces higher and more targeted taxation within super.

The appeal of investment bonds lies not simply in the opportunity to pay lower tax on earnings, but exposure to a different tax regime altogether (one that has remained materially unchanged for decades).

While the headline tax rate within an investment bond is 30%, the effective rate can be materially lower depending on the underlying assets. Where portfolios generate franked dividend income, internal tax rates can fall into the low teens, and in some cases, closer to 10–11%^[9].

Compare this with the changing tax profile of superannuation. For balances above $3 million, earnings may now be taxed at up to 30%, and up to 40% for balances exceeding $10 million.

Over longer holding periods, these differences can become quite pronounced. Furthermore, subject to the 10-year rule, withdrawals from investment bonds can be received on a tax-paid basis, meaning that all capital growth and income within the structure can effectively become tax-free in the hands of the bond’s owner (or beneficiary).

As one adviser observed^[10], investment bonds are a structural loophole that can be used to “outsmart the government” on the new tax.

Importantly however, their role is not to replace superannuation, but to complement it.

Used alongside super, trusts and companies, investment bonds allow advisers to allocate capital across different tax environments, reducing reliance on any single set of rules, and introducing greater flexibility into long-term planning.

Structural diversification builds confidence and trust

In the same way that asset diversification gives investors more confidence in their ability to withstand market turbulence, so too is there an emotional dividend from structural diversification.

Evidence from the Oxford Business School and Centre for Business Taxation¹¹ suggests that investor behaviour is shaped not just by the level of tax, but by the predictability of the tax system itself. Where that predictability weakens, so too does the willingness to commit to long-term strategies. At an individual level, stability facilitates more commitment to a strategy.

In Australia, research¹² from Generation Life highlights that while overall confidence in the retirement system remains high, around two-thirds of investors believe the rules change too often and are difficult to follow. This uncertainty can manifest as a lack of confidence, and a lack of belief, which in turn can lead to reactive, emotionally charged decision making.

That same research found that confidence is now the #1 value HNW clients seek from their adviser^[13].

Policy risk is not just a structural challenge, but a behavioural one. It influences not only what strategies are optimal, but whether clients are willing to adopt and persist with them.

Practical implications for advisers

For advisers, the implications are both structural and behavioural.

At a structural level, this means identifying where portfolios are concentrated within a single tax regime and deliberately diversifying across multiple tax and ownership structures to mitigate the impact of policy risk.

At a behavioural level, it means recognising that client outcomes depend not just on strategy design, but on confidence in that strategy over time. This is where the adviser’s role as an interpreter becomes critical, translating complexity into clarity, explaining exposures to different regimes, and helping clients maintain confidence in strategies that are designed to operate through changing regulations.

Conclusion

The Division 296 superannuation tax has rightly attracted headlines, being at the centre of a debate around superannuation concessions for high income, high balance investors. In anticipation of its implementation in July 2026, advisers have already been working with impacted clients, allocating away from super into a variety of alternative structures and products, including investment bonds¹⁴.

But the real takeaway is less to do with specific tax rates, and more to do with the risks of being exposed to single tax regimes in an environment of regulatory and policy uncertainty.

In the face of such uncertainty, advisers are increasingly recognising the importance of structural diversification. By allocating client portfolios across multiple tax environments – including superannuation, trusts, companies and investment bonds – advisers are able to achieve a balance of efficiency, flexibility and resilience. In an environment where regulation and tax rates continue to evolve, this approach represents a powerful way to manage risk and support more consistent long-term outcomes for clients.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.25 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.25 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Tax (Financial) Advice (0.25 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Financial Planning (0.25 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———

References:
[1] 2024/26 Navigating Uncertainty Report, Generation Life.
[2] https://www.thesenior.com.au/story/9205607/jim-chalmers-warns-of-hard-decisions-on-negative-gearing-cgt/
[3] https://www.mercer.com/en-au/insights/mercer-financial-advice/div296-update/
[4] https://www.vanguard.com.au/super/learn/super-tax/division-293-tax
[5] https://www.superguide.com.au/super-booster/super-tax-accounts-3-million
[6] https://www.afr.com/wealth/tax/ato-targets-high-earners-over-excessive-income-splitting-20251126-p5ninw
[7] https://www.ftadviser.com/content/3d792b3c-f79b-5b07-aa05-296ad6c9ef51
[8] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1815566925000372?utm
[9] https://www.afr.com/wealth/superannuation/wealthy-australians-show-how-to-outsmart-new-3m-super-division-296-tax-20260302-p5o6kb
[10] Ibid.
[11] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X21001628?via%3Dihub
[12] 2024/26 Navigating Uncertainty Report, Generation Life.
[13] Ibid.
[14] https://www.afr.com/wealth/superannuation/wealthy-australians-show-how-to-outsmart-new-3m-super-division-296-tax-20260302-p5o6kb

The post CPD: Division 296 is just the start – why more advisers are diversifying away tax and policy risk for clients appeared first on AdviserVoice.

There are risks that commonly undermine estate planning and wealth transfer outcomes and understand how these risks are amplified by modern family structures.

Wealth transfer through a risk management lens

The multi-trillion-dollar transfer of wealth across Australian generations, from Baby Boomers down to Generations X, Y, Z and beyond, is already well underway.

The scale of this transfer was first highlighted by a Productivity Commission report published in 2021, which estimated that around $1.5 trillion had already been passed between generations over the previous 20 years, with a further $3.5 trillion expected to be transferred by 2050^[1]. Since then, rising asset values, particularly housing, have led some analysts to revise that figure significantly higher, with estimates suggesting the total could approach $5.4 trillion over coming decades^[2].

In an ideal world, such transfers would occur efficiently, tax effectively, and in line with the transferor’s wishes. In practice, however, wealth transfers are becoming increasingly complex and contested. Without careful financial and legal structuring, they are often subject to expensive disputes, delays, and tax outcomes that significantly erode the value ultimately received by beneficiaries.

Research by ANZ Private Bank, examining intergenerational wealth transfers over a 25-year period, found that around 70 per cent fail – not because of poor intentions or incorrect advice, but due to dissipating wealth, family conflict, misaligned values, delays and bungled execution^[3]. These outcomes are becoming more common as family structures evolve, blended families increase, and intergenerational relationships become more complex.

For advisers, this has shifted the nature of estate planning. No longer just a technical exercise focused on legal documents or optimising tax outcomes, strategic wealth transfer advice is a risk management task that requires anticipating where outcomes may be challenged, delayed or undermined, even when the original intentions are clear. In practice, these failures tend to arise around three recurring risks: uncertainty about who ultimately receives assets, misalignment between the timing of death and intended access to wealth, and loss of control once assets are transferred.

This article reframes estate planning as a risk management exercise, examining how beneficiary risk, timing risk and control risk can undermine even well-intentioned plans. Drawing on practical advice scenarios, it explores how advisers approach structural decisions in estate planning, with a particular focus on the role investment bonds can play – as non-estate assets – in improving certainty and aligning outcomes with client intent in complex family situations.

Why family complexity is now the primary driver of estate risk

The nature of modern estate planning is increasingly shaped by changes in family structure and dynamics that place pressure on even well-constructed plans.

Australian family structures are becoming more diverse. The Uniting Families Report^[4] 2025, prepared by the UNSW Social Policy Research Centre in partnership with Uniting NSW.ACT, shows that around 30 per cent of families raising children do not fit the traditional couple-parent model, encompassing sole-parent, step and blended, multigenerational, foster and kinship arrangements. These shifts reflect a broader reality for advisers: assumptions of simplicity in family relationships are increasingly out of date.

Within this broader change, step and blended families represent a particularly significant estate planning risk. The same research indicates that around 11.7 per cent of families raising children are step or blended families, typically involving children from multiple relationships, unequal financial dependencies and differing expectations across households. These structures are disproportionately associated with tension around fairness, entitlement and control, especially where outcomes are not symmetrical.

The report also highlights that sole-parent and step/blended families are more likely to experience lower levels of social participation and higher isolation, reducing the informal buffers that can otherwise help manage conflict when relationships are tested. In an estate context, this matters: weaker support networks and fractured family dynamics increase the likelihood that intentions will be challenged once the transferor is no longer present to clarify or mediate outcomes.

Research shows that disputes around estates are both common and consequential. Generation Life, for example, reported that 86% of estate claims are brought by immediate family, and roughly three quarters of contested estates end up distributed differently to the original will^[5].

Importantly, risks tend to emerge only after control has already been lost. During the advice process, intentions are often clear and relationships stable. Following death, however, delays, ambiguity and uncertainty can increase tensions, particularly in families where relationships span multiple households, generations or financial dependencies.

For advisers, the challenge is designing arrangements that can withstand family complexity and reduce ambiguity, limit the scope for reinterpretation and preserve intent in the face of future uncertainty. In short, the challenge is to design more certainty into estate plans.

The three risks advisers are now managing

When estate planning outcomes go awry, the causes are often described as complex or unpredictable. In practice, however, failure tends to occur in consistent and recognisable ways. Across a wide range of advice scenarios, risk concentrates around three recurring points:

• Beneficiary risk: uncertainty about who ultimately receives assets, how outcomes are interpreted, and whether distributions align with expectations once the transferor is no longer present to explain intent. This risk is amplified in blended families, where unequal outcomes are common and more likely to be contested.
• Timing risk: misalignment between death and access to wealth. Assets may pass too early, too late, or in a form that creates unintended pressure, particularly where beneficiaries differ in age, financial capability or dependency.
• Control risk: the loss of influence over how wealth is used once ownership transfers. Lump-sum distributions, rigid structures or poorly calibrated governance can undermine even well-considered intentions, and these problems multiply the larger the amounts involved.

Viewed through this lens, estate planning becomes less about selecting individual tools and more about diagnosing which risks matter most in each situation and designing structures that deliberately manage them. We will now explore each of these risks in turn, using practical advice scenarios to illustrate how structure can be used to preserve intent, even in challenging circumstances.

Beneficiary risk: when outcomes are reinterpreted after death

Beneficiary risk arises when there is uncertainty, disagreement or reinterpretation about who should receive assets and in what proportions. While this risk exists in all estate planning scenarios, it is materially amplified in families where relationships, expectations or financial dependencies are complex.

In many cases, unequal distributions are intentional and well-considered. They may reflect prior financial support, differing needs, or the realities of blended family arrangements. However, once the transferor is no longer present to explain intent, those decisions can be reframed as unfair or arbitrary. This is particularly common where beneficiaries span multiple households or generations, or where outcomes differ from what individuals expected, even if those expectations were never explicitly promised.

Traditional estate structures can struggle in these circumstances. Wills and discretionary arrangements may leave scope for interpretation, delay or challenge, especially where beneficiaries believe outcomes do not adequately reflect their relationship with the deceased. Even when documentation is technically sound, ambiguity around intent can become the catalyst for dispute.

From a risk management perspective, the issue is not whether unequal outcomes are justified, but whether they are sufficiently clear and defensible once control has been lost. Structures that codify beneficiary outcomes, reduce discretion and sit outside the estate can help limit the scope for reinterpretation and challenge. In this context, certainty of allocation becomes as important as the allocation itself.

Case study – investment bonds create certainty around uneven distributions

Angela (60) has a blended family, with children from a previous relationship and stepchildren from her current partner. She wishes to distribute $400,000 to selected beneficiaries on death, but she wants to do this unevenly, reflecting their differing financial needs and past support given to various family members. She also wants to minimise the risk of this distribution being disputed.

In this situation, relying solely on a will creates exposure. Even where unequal distributions are intentional, they can be challenged or reinterpreted once the client is no longer present to explain their reasoning, particularly in blended family arrangements, where expectations are rarely aligned.

To create more certainty that her wishes will be implemented, Angela establishes an investment bond and nominates beneficiaries with fixed proportions – 25 per cent ($100,000) to one beneficiary group and 75 per cent ($300,000) to the other. The allocations are clearly defined and sit outside the estate process.

By structuring the distribution in this way, Angela reduces ambiguity around her intent and limits the scope for reinterpretation or challenge. The outcome is not simply an unequal distribution, but a more defensible one, aligned with her wishes and better equipped to withstand family complexity after death. 

Timing risk: when the right beneficiary receives assets at the wrong time

Timing risk arises when there is a mismatch between when assets are transferred and when beneficiaries are ready to receive or use them.

This risk is particularly relevant where beneficiaries differ significantly in age, financial capability or dependency. Assets that pass too early may be dissipated or misused; assets that pass too late may fail to provide support when it is most needed. In both cases, the issue is not who receives the asset, but whether the timing of access aligns with the transferor’s intent.

Traditional estate planning structures often struggle to manage this distinction. Lump-sum transfers, whether via a will or superannuation death benefit, can prioritise administrative simplicity over appropriateness of timing. Once ownership passes, control is typically lost, and the opportunity to shape outcomes diminishes.

This risk is becoming increasingly relevant.

According to Generation Life, one in five (21%) Australians wants to skip adult children and pass their legacy to grandkids⁶. This could be to fund their education or help them gain a foothold in a prohibitively expensive property market.

“We are seeing growing interest among grandparents to give their grandchildren a healthy financial start in life, for example, by bequeathing the funds to buy a first home,” said Generation Life CEO Felipe Araujo⁷.

From a risk management perspective, the challenge for advisers therefore is designing arrangements that separate ownership transfer from access, allowing timing to be more tightly managed. Contemporary investment bonds are increasingly being used in this context to introduce that separation, giving clients greater control over when and how beneficiaries access wealth.

Case study: using an investment bond to control the timing of access

Sergio, aged 73, wants to set aside $200,000 for his grandson Noah, who is currently 11. His intention is to support Noah through education and early adulthood, but he is concerned that an outright transfer, particularly one triggered automatically on death, could result in Noah receiving a large lump sum at an age where he is ill-equipped to use it sensibly.

Rather than leaving the funds via a will, Sergio’s adviser helps him establish an investment bond, nominating Noah as the intended transfer recipient. Using a Future Event Transfer arrangement (such as that available with the Generation Life LifeBuilder product for example), Sergio nominates a future transfer date, allowing ownership of the investment to transfer at a time chosen in advance, rather than by default on Sergio’s death. (Importantly, in the context of the potentially harsh tax treatment of minors, such a transfer is tax-free for income and capital gains tax purposes.)

As a condition of that future transfer, Sergio also specifies how and when Noah will be able to access the funds. Rather than allowing unrestricted access on transfer, the arrangement provides for regular payments to be made to Noah once ownership transfers, for example, up to 10 per cent of the bond value each year over a defined period. This ensures the benefit is delivered progressively, rather than as a single lump sum.

Alternatively, access to funds could be delayed for a period after the transfer date, or a delayed regular income payment could commence from a nominated access date. These controls allow the investment to continue growing while aligning access to the funds with Sergio’s original intent.

By separating the date of ownership transfer from the conditions of access, Sergio can manage timing risk deliberately. The outcome is not simply delayed access, but a more controlled and defensible approach to transferring wealth that reduces the risk of premature/inappropriate use.

Control risk: when life events override intent

Control risk arises when wealth, once transferred, becomes exposed to changes in a beneficiary’s circumstances that the original estate plan did not anticipate. Unlike timing risk, which concerns when assets are accessed, control risk is about what happens to those assets over time, particularly as beneficiaries’ lives evolve.

This risk often emerges years after the transfer itself. Marriage or relationship breakdowns, new partners, business failure, creditor claims or bankruptcy can all alter who ultimately benefits from inherited wealth. Assets that were intended to support children or grandchildren may become intermingled with marital property, exposed to external claims, or redirected outside the intended family line.

As one adviser noted: “Today’s high rates of separation and divorce make more Australians concerned that their adult children may separate and divorce or become estranged at some point in the future. This brings real concerns that the wealth a person has worked hard to build up could be split across non-family members or even go to other current/ex-family members” ^[8].

Traditional estate planning structures can struggle under this pressure. Superannuation is a good example. Even where binding nominations exist, super death benefits can be delayed, contested or taxed (if paid to non-dependents), and once paid out, they offer little protection from subsequent life events affecting the recipient.

Trusts can provide a higher degree of governance, but they introduce their own risks. Trustee control, ongoing administration, costs and the potential for internal dispute can become burdensome over time, particularly across blended families or multiple generations. At higher balances, trusts may also lose tax efficiency as beneficiaries move into higher marginal tax brackets, while the use of child beneficiaries can trigger punitive tax rates on unearned income.

Bankruptcy risk further complicates matters. Assets transferred outright to beneficiaries may be vulnerable to creditor claims if circumstances deteriorate, undermining even carefully considered intentions. Once ownership has passed, there is often little capacity to unwind outcomes without dispute or loss.

From a risk management perspective, the challenge is not to exert control indefinitely, but to design transfer strategies that are robust to foreseeable life events.

Advisers are increasingly using investment bonds as a core component of such strategies, taking advantage of their ability to sit outside the estate, nominate beneficiaries, and provide a degree of creditor protection (subject to standard bankruptcy provisions).  Such strategies help ensure transfers stay true to the transferrer’s intent, even as beneficiaries’ circumstances change.

Case study: clarity amid a marriage breakdown

Elliot (68) would like to make provision for his two grandchildren, Max and Sophie, born to his only child Renata. Renata’s marriage has been unsettled, and Elliot is concerned that a future separation could complicate how any wealth transfer to the grandchildren is ultimately treated. In particular, he wants to avoid a scenario where funds intended for them become intermingled with broader family assets or subject to dispute.

Acting on the recommendation of his adviser, Elliot establishes investment bonds for Max and Sophie individually, subject to the access restrictions described earlier in this article. By structuring the transfer directly for the benefit of his grandchildren, and separating it from Renata’s personal assets, the arrangement provides greater clarity around intent and helps limit the likelihood that the funds become entangled in broader financial disputes if Renata’s marriage breaks down.

Structuring for certainty: using investment bonds to manage all 3 risks

Viewed individually, beneficiary risk, timing risk and control risk can each undermine estate planning and wealth transfer outcomes. In practice, however, they rarely appear in isolation. More often, advisers are managing all three at once, particularly in complex family situations where intentions are clear, but outcomes are vulnerable to uncertainty and loss of intent over time.

This is where the limitations of a purely technical approach become most apparent. Rather than relying on a single instrument or product to solve multiple problems, experienced advisers are recommending multi-faceted strategies, each component intended to mitigate different risks. The objective is not financial optimisation for its own sake, but certainty – ensuring that wealth transfer outcomes align with intent, even after transferrer control has been lost.

In this context, investment bonds are increasingly being positioned by advisers as a component of such a strategy, rather than as a standalone product solution.

Industry commentary and financial trade media have noted that adviser demand for investment bonds has grown as they are used to manage accessibility, intergenerational transfer and certainty alongside other vehicles, particularly as superannuation policy settings evolve (as seen with Div 296 for example), and as family arrangements become more complex. Money magazine went so far as to pose the question: “Are investment bonds the new will?”⁹. This framing reflects the shift to a risk-based approach to wealth transfer structuring, in response to the increasing prevalence of disputes.

Conclusion

As Australia’s intergenerational wealth transfer accelerates, the sources of failure in estate planning are becoming more visible and more consistent. Disputes rarely arise from poor intentions, but from structures that are unable to withstand increasing family complexity, misaligned timing and the loss of control after transfer.

Reframing estate planning in risk management terms allows advisers to diagnose these vulnerabilities more clearly. By identifying where beneficiary, timing and control risks are most acute, and by designing structures that deliberately manage those risks, advisers can move beyond technical compliance towards creating more certainty for both the transferrers and recipients of this wealth.

In this context, investment bonds are increasingly being used as part of a broader strategic response to growing real-world complexity. Where intent matters, and where outcomes must endure beyond the adviser’s and client’s involvement, investment bonds allow certainty to be designed in, rather than simply aspired to.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.5 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.5 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Technical Competence (0.5 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Estate Planning (0.5 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———

References:
[1]https://www.morningstar.com.au/personal-finance/why-54-trillion-wealth-transfer-is-generational-tragedy
[2] Ibid.
[3] https://www.afr.com/wealth/personal-finance/succession-warring-families-undermining-3-5-trillion-of-inheritances-20230526-p5dbjo
[4] https://www.uniting.org/families-report#:~:text=Uniting%20Families%20Report-,2025,-PDF
[5] https://www.moneymag.com.au/are-investment-bonds-the-new-will
[6] https://www.moneymag.com.au/relationships-new-partners-and-the-great-wealth-transfer
[7] Ibid.
[8] https://www.moneymag.com.au/are-investment-bonds-the-new-will
[9] Ibid.

The post CPD: Wealth transfers in practice – managing beneficiary, timing and control risks with investment bonds appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Investment bonds can be integrated into modern estate planning to achieve tax efficiency, control, and asset protection in wealth transfers.

Introduction

Contrary what we are regularly told, the ‘great intergenerational wealth transfer’ is not coming. It’s already well underway.

The enormity of this ‘handing down of wealth’ from older to younger generations was initially put in the spotlight by a Productivity Commission report, published in 2021. That report^[1] estimated around $1.5 trillion had already been transferred by Australians over the previous 20 years, and that over the coming 30 years – to 2050 – that figure was expected to top $3.5 trillion.

Since 2021, asset values, especially house prices, have continued to surge, so much so that estimates by stockbroker JB Were suggest the eventual amount transferred by that date will be closer to $5.4 trillion^[2], a truly astonishing amount.

In an ideal world, such transfers would occur efficiently, tax effectively, and in line with the transferrer’s wishes. Sadly however, without expert advice – financial and legal – wealth transfers are becoming increasingly complex and contested, subject to expensive legal disputes from family members who are often embittered and disenfranchised, and falling into tax traps that significantly erode the end value of the amounts inherited or gifted.

Indeed, research by ANZ Private Bank over a 25-year period found about 70 per cent of transfers of intergenerational wealth fail because of dissipating wealth, family conflicts, misaligned family values, delays and bungled execution^[3].

Fortunately, advisers can augment traditional estate planning strategies, which rely on superannuation, wills, and trusts, with innovative solutions which are tax-smart, and far more resistant to any legal contest, giving clients far more peace of mind and certainty that their transferred wealth will end up with the right person, and in the right amount.

Increasingly, advisers are turning to investment bonds as a core pillar of wealth transfer strategies, and in this article, we will explore their structure and operation in more detail. We will also look at how the evolving estate planning landscape is proving the catalyst for their growing popularity.

Estate planning – an increasingly fraught landscape

Readers can be forgiven for interpreting the term ‘estate planning’ in a narrow sense, pigeonholing it as an area that is mainly about wills and other legal instruments, and largely about the transfer of wealth upon death. But estate planning is actually a much broader field, underpinned by a variety of strategies and instruments to transfer wealth and responsibilities between generations, both on and before death.

As such, it is a field that is becoming increasingly complex, and fraught by challenges and conflicts. There are several factors shaping this rapidly changing landscape:

• family structures are evolving, with blended, single parent, and same sex parents becoming more common
• while life expectancies are increasing, so too is the rate of dementia, the need for expensive medical care, and the demand for aged care support
• unaffordable housing, soaring school fees, and general cost of living pressures are seeing increasing instances of family members agitate for early inheritances
• the frequently changing tax rules around superannuation and retirement incomes, for example the proposed Div 296, which require deep technical expertise to successfully navigate.

One big happy family. Not.

According to a UNSW 2024 study, around 30% of children live in families outside the traditional “nuclear” family model. That includes about 12 per cent of children who live in step or blended families^[4].

As families dissolve (due to separation, divorce or death of a partner) and new families are formed, it is not uncommon for wealth transfers to favour the children in the newer family, which in turn sees many aggrieved parties, including children from earlier marriages, and former spouses and de-facto partners.

Lawyers estimate disputes about wills and estates have grown 80% over the last decade^[5]. And, according to one expert, disputes involving blended families now account for about eight in 10 legal actions^[6], which is why strategies to avoid expensive and divisive legal battles need to be recalibrated to reflect changing and complex family relationships.

As court decisions continue to remind us, mechanisms previously thought to be robust and beyond dispute, such as wills, and even binding death benefit nominations in superannuation, are not immune to legal challenge.

And, depending on the state, and the amount being disputed, the success rate of such challenges can be alarmingly high.

In Queensland for example, it is estimated that 77% of challenges to wills are successful^[7]. The Solomon Hollett Lawyers report^[8], which focused on Western Australia, found that challenges pertaining to estates worth less than $600,000 have about a 60 per cent chance of success, climbing to 100 percent for estates over $3 million.

How traditional structures fall short

Traditional estate structures, such as superannuation, family trusts and direct asset holdings, each offer advantages, but they can also create unintended tax, timing and control issues at the point of wealth transfer.

Superannuation, for example, remains one of the most tax-effective vehicles for retirement accumulation, but less so for intergenerational transfer. When benefits are paid to non-tax dependants (such as adult children), the taxable component of the fund can attract up to 17% in death benefits tax, equating to tens, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of eroded value in larger balances.

Moreover, superannuation death benefits form part of the estate unless a valid binding nomination exists, exposing them to potential challenge or delay. Even binding nominations themselves are still open to challenge on the grounds of capacity, improper execution, ambiguous terms, or failure to comply with fund rules or procedural steps, leading to delays even if a challenge is unsuccessful.

Generation Life’s Not Tomorrow’s Problem research^[9] revealed that outside of super, advised clients are primarily using family trusts as the structure to transfer wealth. While trusts assist in effectively managing access to and the distribution of wealth, there will be times where the structure may not be as tax efficient as some alternatives.

At some point, the use of a discretionary or family trust may not be effective where the trust’s beneficiaries’ personal, taxable income levels are at higher marginal tax rates. The use of child beneficiaries (like grandchildren) may also not be effective, as minors may face penalty tax rates on unearned income.

Where a testamentary trust has been established under a will for estate planning, the practicalities of managing the trust on an ongoing basis may also prove expensive or burdensome for appointed trustees.

Property and direct investments, meanwhile, trigger capital gains tax (CGT) on disposal and will be subject to the granting of probate, which can often delay execution of a will for 6-12 months.

These limitations highlight the value of complementary strategies that enable wealth to be transferred outside the estate while preserving governance and tax efficiency.

Investment bonds can provide such a structure: assets can pass directly to nominated beneficiaries, tax-paid within the bond, and free from probate, CGT, or death benefits tax.

Investment bonds at a glance: the tax-smart wealth vehicle

In simple terms, investment bonds are a form of life insurance policy with an investment component, designed to provide long-term, tax-effective wealth accumulation and transfer.

All investment earnings within the bond are taxed at a maximum rate of 30%, although franking credits, capital gains discounts and underlying fund tax offsets often reduce this effective rate to around 10–15% per annum over time. Some bond issuers, using innovative tax optimisation strategies, can bring this rate down even further.

Once a bond has been held for 10 years, the proceeds, including investment earnings, can be withdrawn on a ‘tax-paid’ basis, meaning no further personal tax is payable by the investor or beneficiaries. After commencement, investors can make additional contributions of up to 125% of the previous year’s amount without resetting the ‘10-year rule’.

Death benefits are tax free at any time, in stark contrast to the tax on superannuation death benefits, which can be as high as 17% if paid to non-dependents.

Bypass and control: why investment bonds are a powerful estate planning tool

Because investment bonds are issued under life insurance law, bond holders can nominate beneficiaries who receive the proceeds directly upon death, bypassing the will/estate entirely. This means the payment is not subject to probate, contest, or public disclosure, and can be made confidentially.

Some providers (for example, Generation Life) also offer a transfer of ownership feature (without triggering any tax burden or resetting the 10-year period), allowing control over when and how beneficiaries can access the investment – for example, releasing funds at a set age or limiting annual withdrawals. These features give clients the ability to protect beneficiaries from poor financial decisions while ensuring their wishes are honoured.

Investment bonds are therefore a cost-effective, tax-efficient, and convenient way to pass on wealth to dependants or other beneficiaries, with minimal administrative complexity. Because they sit outside the estate, investment bonds can distribute proceeds quickly and privately on death, providing certainty and reducing the risk of disputes or delays associated with probate.

For advisers, these options make investment bonds a powerful addition to the estate planning toolkit. They can help address the complexities of blended families, manage gifts to charities or non-family beneficiaries, or balance the needs of multiple generations.

Investment bonds can also offer protection in bankruptcies

As a life insurance policy, investment bonds are generally beyond the reach of creditors (provided they weren’t contributed to while insolvent or set up for the purpose of creditor avoidance). This status offers an additional layer of protection and certainty in wealth transfer scenarios impacted by bankruptcy.

Strategy in action: Wealth transfer case studies

The following case studies demonstrate the flexibility and effectiveness of investment bonds in a variety of wealth transfer scenarios.

Summary

As Australia moves deeper into its largest intergenerational wealth transfer on record, advisers are being called upon to guide families through an increasingly complex and emotionally charged estate planning landscape. Traditional tools such as superannuation, wills and trusts continue to play a central role, but their limitations, including tax inefficiencies and exposure to legal challenge and probate delays, becoming more apparent as family structures evolve. Against this backdrop, clients are looking for solutions that provide both simplicity and certainty.

Investment bonds are now in the spotlight as one of the most versatile structures to meet this demand. Their unique combination of tax efficiency, flexibility, and control allows advisers to design strategies that preserve family harmony, protect capital, and ensure assets pass quickly and privately to intended beneficiaries. Whether used to supplement traditional estate planning, to offset superannuation death benefit tax, or as an alternative to a testamentary trust, they offer a means of transferring wealth that is technically robust and resistant to challenge.

By integrating investment bonds into a broader estate planning and wealth transfer strategy, advisers can help clients navigate the complexity of modern family life, manage tax and legal risks, and create enduring legacies that reflect both financial goals and deeply personal intentions.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.5 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.5 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Technical Competence (0.25 hrs) and Tax (Financial) Advice (0.25 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Estate Planning (0.25 hrs) and Taxation (0.25 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———–

References:
[1] https://www.morningstar.com.au/personal-finance/why-54-trillion-wealth-transfer-is-generational-tragedy
[2] Ibid.
[3] https://www.afr.com/wealth/personal-finance/succession-warring-families-undermining-3-5-trillion-of-inheritances-20230526-p5dbjo
[4] https://www.uniting.org/content/dam/uniting/documents/families-report/uniting-families-report-2024.pdf
[5] https://www.afr.com/wealth/personal-finance/how-blood-trusts-can-keep-step-kids-out-of-your-inheritance-20240206-p5f2q8
[6] https://www.afr.com/wealth/personal-finance/big-increase-in-inheritance-feuds-among-blended-families-20191212-p53jbs
[7] https://ballantynelaw.com/insights/contested-wills-statistics/
[8] https://www.afr.com/wealth/personal-finance/the-reason-so-many-adult-children-are-challenging-wills-20250122-p5l6i2
[9] https://coredatainsights.com/client-insights/not-tomorrows-problem-generation-life/
[10] https://generationlife-endpoint.azureedge.net/live/attachments/cl7qyf0ki0dld0pnpib4q0can-generation-life-estate-planning-guide-july-2022.pdf
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.

The post CPD: Estate planning – tax-smart strategies for bypass and control appeared first on AdviserVoice.

What is the role of investment bonds and their role in the investment landscape?

Introduction

Tax-smart investing is one of the central pillars of quality, effective, financial advice. The capacity for tax to drag on investment returns, stifle compounding, and eat away at gains is substantial – especially in a highly taxed country like Australia – and applying the right strategies and structures can significantly amplify the growth of an individual’s wealth.

In Australia, superannuation has long been regarded as the pre-eminent tax-effective investment structure, allowing tax deductible contributions and concessional rates on earnings and withdrawals in retirement. But, as a vehicle for retirement savings, access restrictions mean advisers must also have other tax-smart strategies in their toolkit, for non-retirement wealth goals – such as education savings, or intergenerational wealth transfers. Additionally, the re-election of a Federal Labor government has ensured the introduction of Div 296 superannuation tax changes, which effectively double the tax paid on investment earnings for super balances over $ 3 million.

This growing need for tax-effective investment strategies outside of superannuation has seen advisers increasingly turn to investment bonds, spurring significant growth in the sector. But tax-smart investing isn’t just about lowering tax on earnings, it’s about considering the tax impact more broadly, in areas such as switches and transfers, estate planning and death benefits, policy risk, timing, and reporting and administration. In these areas too, advisers are finding reasons to embrace investment bonds as a powerful tax-smart structure.

In this article, we will take an under-the-hood look at investment bonds, and their role in the investment landscape – through a lens of tax-effectiveness. We will examine their features, use cases, and the ways they can meet a broad range of tax challenges faced by investors in Australia today.

Tax-smart investing as a core advice value-add

To the extent that tax can have a much greater impact on wealth outcomes than either management expenses or investment performance, it should be unsurprising that the selection of tax-effective strategies and structures is central to the financial advice value proposition.

Indeed, studies by both Russell^[1] and Vanguard^[2] concluded that tax-smart investing and planning was one of the most valuable benefits advisers delivered to their clients. Indeed, in quantifying the annual ‘alpha’ tax-smart advice at 1.3%, Russell’s 2024 ‘Value of an Adviser’ research concluded that optimising the tax treatment of investments added more value each year than asset allocation (1.1% p.a.).

In Australia, the tax-smart element of advice takes on extra importance due to the complexities of our tax system, and our relatively high personal tax rates, which sees personal tax account for a much bigger proportion of total taxation receipts than many other countries. In 2022 for example, personal tax revenue accounted for 40% of all tax revenue collected in Australia^[3] – well above the OECD average of 24%. Furthermore, the spectre of bracket creep looms large, with some estimates suggesting one million Australians could face the top marginal tax rate by 2030^[4] (triple the number of 10 years ago).

Defining tax-smart investing and core strategies

Tax-smart investing refers to selecting and structuring investments to minimise or defer tax liabilities while aligning with the client’s objectives, time horizon, and risk profile.

The core levers advisers can use within tax-smart strategies include:

• Minimising tax on investment earnings
  • Selecting vehicles with capped or concessional tax rates.
• Minimising tax on withdrawals
  • Using structures with tax-free redemption conditions (e.g., 10-year rule in investment bonds, retirement phase in super).
• Minimising tax on switches and transfers
  • Avoiding CGT on internal rebalancing or ownership transfers.
• Minimising tax on death
  • Using vehicles that pay tax-free death benefits to non-dependents.
• Reducing reporting/admin burden
  • Selecting structures that remove annual personal reporting requirements.
• Optimise timing of taxable events
  • Deferring of tax burdens until lower tax rates apply
• Minimising ‘policy risk’
  • Diversifying the strategies used, to mitigate the impact of any government policy or legislative changes, as is seen frequently with superannuation.

While both super and investment bonds can be suitable to meet many of these challenges, the last challenge listed – to minimise exposure to legislative changes – has taken on increased importance recently with the proposed Division 296 changes to superannuation tax. It is within this context that adviser interest in – and usage of – investment bonds is experiencing rapid growth^[5].

Investment bonds – tax benefits at a glance

The underlying legal structure of an investment bond is a life insurance policy with an investment component, issued by a life company or friendly society, and for this reason investment bonds are sometimes referred to as insurance bonds. But today’s offerings are certainly ‘not your father’s insurance bond’!

The key tax-smart features of an investment bond include:

• Earnings within the investment bond are taxed at a maximum rate of 30% (the company tax rate), but the effective tax rate can be lower through the use of franking credits and other strategies used by the issuer.
• They are tax paid investments, with no personal tax assessable income while the client remains wholly invested, and no annual tax reporting burden for individuals.
• No personal income tax is payable on withdrawals made after 10 years if the 125% rule is adhered to (see below for more details).
• Withdrawals can also be made within 10 years, on a tax-free basis for certain defined events (such as the death of the nominated life insured), or on a reduced tax basis between years 8 and 10.
• No personal capital gains tax when switching between investment options or making a withdrawal.
• They can be used to invest for the benefit of a child without minor tax rates applying.
• No tax on death benefits, even when paid to non-dependents.
• Flexible succession and estate planning features to control the transfer of ownership or future benefit payments without creating a taxable event.

Investment bonds – a closer look at the tax treatment

Because of the way investment bonds are taxed internally, they are often described as combining features of both insurance policies and managed funds. Through a combination of legislated tax concessions, and savvy portfolio management by the investment bond issuer, tax drag can be minimised at many points, amplifying the power of investment bonds as a tax-smart wealth building vehicle.

Tax-capped earnings

A maximum internal tax rate of 30% provides obvious relief for clients on marginal rates of up to 47%. Effective tax rates can be significantly lower – as low as 10-15% due to portfolio-level tax strategies such as franking credits and the tax-aware acquisition and disposal of underlying assets.

Tax-free withdrawals after 10 years

If held for 10+ years and the 125% contribution rules observed, withdrawals are completely tax-free to the investor, with no CGT, and no assessable income.

Uncapped access to tax-advantaged investing

Unlike superannuation, there are no caps on the amount that can be initially invested into an insurance bond. Investing millions or even tens of millions is allowable under current legislation. For each year after inception, you can then add up to 125% of the amount added the year before, without resetting the 10-year period.

Tax reduced withdrawals between years 8 and 10

On withdrawals made between 8 and 9 years after the investment bond inception date, only two thirds of the investment growth need be included in the holder’s assessable income. Between years 9 and 10 that drops to one third.

Tax offset of 30% and low-income earners

Any growth component received from an investment bond that is included in a person’s assessable income receives a 30% tax offset, reflecting the tax paid by the investment bond issuer. This can be particularly valuable for low income clients, as any remaining tax offset after accounting for the investment bond earnings can be used to reduce tax payable on other income.

Tax-deferred compounding

Because earnings are retained pre-personal-tax, the compounding effect occurs on a larger base, enhancing long-term after-tax returns.

CGT-free switching and transfers

Internal switches between investment options incur no personal CGT. Ownership transfers (including to minors or testamentary trusts) where no consideration are also free of income tax and CGT implications for the parties involved, and do not reset the 10-year clock.

Wealth transfer and estate planning

Minimising the tax burden left to others in the event of wealth transfers, including in the event of death, is a critical part of financial planning. Investment bonds can help avoid creating unintentional tax events and therefore work to ensure as much wealth as possible is transferred to the intended beneficiary. Unlike super death benefits, which are taxable when paid to non-dependents, or the winding up of estates or distribution of discretionary trusts – where the tax status of beneficiaries comes into play – investment bonds allow tax-free death benefits to any nominated beneficiary, as well as the ability to facilitate tax-free transfers.

Tax paid investments: why the big deal?

The ‘tax paid natures’ of investment bonds offer several valuable benefits to investors, some obvious, and some not so. The table below provides a useful summary of the strengths and considerations applying of tax paid and non-tax paid structures.

Use cases and case studies for investment bonds

Use case 1 – avoiding the proposed Div 296 superannuation tax

Alex is a 64-year-old surgeon with $5m in her SMSF.

Under the proposed Div 296 changes, superannuation balances over $3m attract an additional tax on earnings of 15%, levied on the individual, and levied on capital gains even if they remain unrealised. Alex acts on the recommendation of her adviser to move $2 million into an investment bond.

Although the maximum tax payable on earnings within the investment bond is 30%, Alex chooses a provider and investment option with a historical rate closer to 10%, representing a significant saving on the 30% potentially payable under superannuation (15% + 15% Div 296 additional earnings tax).

An illustrative example of the outcomes can be seen in the table below:

Use case 2 – high-income earners reduce tax drag

A taxpayer on a marginal tax rate above 30% may achieve an overall higher investment value by using an investment bond and maintaining it for at least 10 years.

Max, a widower, is 81 years of age, a conservative investor and is ineligible to make non-concessional contributions to superannuation. He generates $140,000 investment income each year, including from a lifetime annuity which is indexed to inflation. The current level of income is above Max’s requirements. His financial adviser recommends investing a portion of his savings in an investment bond which will reduce his assessable income as investment bond earnings, while capped at 30%, can be closer to 10-15%, substantially lower than Max’s marginal tax rate (up to 39% including Medicare).

Use case 3 – low-income earners^[8]

An investment bond that is cashed in earlier than the 8th year has the full amount of the growth assessable with a 30% tax offset available.

If a person (for example, a non-working spouse) has a marginal tax rate below 30%, any remaining tax offset after accounting for the investment bond earnings can be used to reduce tax payable on other income.

Investors close to retirement can use investment bonds as a means of deferring assessable income to a time after retirement, when their marginal tax rate may reduce.

Conclusion

At a time when legislative shifts can quickly erode once-reliable tax advantages, investment bonds stand out as a flexible and resilient pillar within a diversified, tax-smart investment strategy. Their capped internal tax rate, potential for effective rates well below the maximum of 30%, and the ability to deliver tax-free withdrawals after 10 years provide tangible, long-term benefits for a wide range of client circumstances.

Unlike superannuation, investment bonds impose no contribution caps and allow unrestricted access to funds, making them adaptable to evolving needs and market conditions. Their estate planning advantages – including tax-free death benefits to non-dependants and the ability to bypass probate – add another dimension of strategic value, particularly for intergenerational wealth transfer.

For advisers, the growing popularity of investment bonds underscores the importance of looking beyond traditional structures to protect and grow client wealth in a tax-effective way. By integrating investment bonds alongside superannuation, trusts, and direct investments, advisers can create more robust, policy-resilient portfolios that deliver stronger after-tax outcomes, reduce legislative risk, and support a broader range of client goals.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.5 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.5 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Tax (Financial) Advice (0.5 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Managed Investments (0.5 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———–

References:
[1] https://priority1.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/04fe234d-e856-4726-a8e4-8983bb8db6b6_AP0391_-_Value_of_an_Adviser_AUS_V1F_WEB_2408.pdf
[2] https://www.ch.vanguard/content/dam/intl/europe/documents/en/putting-a-value-on-your-value-quantifying-vanguard-adviser-alpha-eu-en-pro.pdf
[3] oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-australia.pdf
[4] https://www.afr.com/politics/one-million-australians-face-top-tax-rate-by-2030-20221005-p5bnao
[5] https://www.afr.com/wealth/superannuation/the-little-known-asset-class-set-to-soar-thanks-to-labor-s-super-tax-20250507-p5lx7b
[6] https://generationlife-endpoint.azureedge.net/live/attachments/cm3cwp71e1kw00qdx4orxgorz-generation-life-booklet-series-tax-aware-investing.pdf
[7] Ibid.
[8] https://www.mlc.com.au/content/dam/mlcsecure/adviser/technical/pdf/insurance-bonds-a-super-alternative.pdf

The post CPD: A star is (re)born – Investment Bonds are the new headline act of tax-smart investing appeared first on AdviserVoice.