Future Returns: The Banking Crisis Didn’t Scare Off Alternative Investors
Kanebridge News
    HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $1,797,295 (-0.31%)       Melbourne $1,075,632 (-0.17%)       Brisbane $1,249,605 (-0.00%)       Adelaide $1,097,216 (-0.97%)       Perth $1,122,957 (-1.33%)       Hobart $865,909 (+0.08%)       Darwin $845,396 (-2.25%)       Canberra $1,062,919 (-0.56%)       National Capitals $1,207,421 (-0.51%)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $820,260 (+0.40%)       Melbourne $553,256 (+0.31%)       Brisbane $796,351 (-1.62%)       Adelaide $595,818 (+3.94%)       Perth $683,075 (-0.20%)       Hobart $581,624 (-0.60%)       Darwin $496,326 (+5.24%)       Canberra $499,963 (+0.25%)       National Capitals $650,385 (+0.27%)                HOUSES FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 13,543 (-93)       Melbourne 16,685 (+164)       Brisbane 7,546 (+68)       Adelaide 2,737 (+47)       Perth 5,954 (+96)       Hobart 847 (-33)       Darwin 130 (+7)       Canberra 1,219 (+19)       National Capitals 48,661 (+275)                UNITS FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,158 (-16)       Melbourne 6,926 (+89)       Brisbane 1,459 (-16)       Adelaide 413 (-7)       Perth 1,233 (+17)       Hobart 165 (+6)       Darwin 174 (-3)       Canberra 1,201 (+42)       National Capitals 20,729 (+112)                HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $850 (+$10)       Melbourne $600 (+$5)       Brisbane $700 ($0)       Adelaide $650 ($0)       Perth $750 ($0)       Hobart $643 (-$8)       Darwin $720 (-$30)       Canberra $740 (+$20)       National Capitals $714 (+$)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $820 (+$10)       Melbourne $585 (+$5)       Brisbane $650 ($0)       Adelaide $550 ($0)       Perth $700 ($0)       Hobart $520 ($0)       Darwin $640 (+$30)       Canberra $595 ($0)       National Capitals $645 (+$6)                HOUSES FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 5,384 (-35)       Melbourne 6,776 (-135)       Brisbane 3,626 (-33)       Adelaide 1,453 (+34)       Perth 2,269 (+4)       Hobart 224 (+8)       Darwin 43 (-12)       Canberra 426 (+6)       National Capitals 20,201 (-163)                UNITS FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 8,462 (+24)       Melbourne 4,615 (+49)       Brisbane 1,888 (+11)       Adelaide 430 (+6)       Perth 659 (+2)       Hobart 79 (+1)       Darwin 74 (+2)       Canberra 650 (+1)       National Capitals 16,857 (+96)                HOUSE ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND       Sydney 2.46% (↑)      Melbourne 2.90% (↑)      Brisbane 2.91% (↑)      Adelaide 3.08% (↑)      Perth 3.47% (↑)        Hobart 3.86% (↓)       Darwin 4.43% (↓)     Canberra 3.62% (↑)      National Capitals 3.08% (↑)             UNIT ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND       Sydney 5.20% (↑)      Melbourne 5.50% (↑)      Brisbane 4.24% (↑)        Adelaide 4.80% (↓)     Perth 5.33% (↑)      Hobart 4.65% (↑)        Darwin 6.71% (↓)       Canberra 6.19% (↓)     National Capitals 5.16% (↑)             HOUSE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 1.4% (↑)      Melbourne 1.5% (↑)      Brisbane 1.2% (↑)      Adelaide 1.2% (↑)      Perth 1.0% (↑)        Hobart 0.5% (↓)       Darwin 0.7% (↓)     Canberra 1.6% (↑)      National Capitals $1.1% (↑)             UNIT RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 1.4% (↑)      Melbourne 2.4% (↑)      Brisbane 1.5% (↑)      Adelaide 0.8% (↑)      Perth 0.9% (↑)      Hobart 1.2% (↑)        Darwin 1.4% (↓)     Canberra 2.7% (↑)      National Capitals $1.5% (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL HOUSES AND TREND       Sydney 32.8 (↑)      Melbourne 32.3 (↑)      Brisbane 30.6 (↑)      Adelaide 26.4 (↑)      Perth 36.7 (↑)      Hobart 29.8 (↑)        Darwin 26.1 (↓)     Canberra 32.5 (↑)      National Capitals 30.9 (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL UNITS AND TREND       Sydney 31.4 (↑)      Melbourne 30.6 (↑)      Brisbane 29.8 (↑)      Adelaide 24.1 (↑)      Perth 35.2 (↑)      Hobart 29.6 (↑)        Darwin 30.4 (↓)       Canberra 39.1 (↓)       National Capitals 31.3 (↓)           
Share Button

Future Returns: The Banking Crisis Didn’t Scare Off Alternative Investors

By BETH PINSKER
Wed, Apr 5, 2023 8:24amGrey Clock 3 min

Investing for high-net-worth clients can be a bit of a high-wire act because they can have significant amounts of money tied up in complex alternative investments. When the panic started with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in March, wealth manager Tom Ruggie was relieved that none of his clients were directly invested.

“We got lucky there,” says Ruggie, a certified financial planner and author who is based in central Florida. “But when it came to Credit Suisse, we had a little bit of a scare.”

Ruggie’s firms—a family office business called Destiny Wealth Partners and a financial planning firm called Ruggie Wealth Management—did some work with the troubled financial institution on debt obligations. It turned out that all of the contracts were completed, but if Credit Suisse had failed, Ruggie and his clients would have lost a lot of money because the notes would not have been paid back.

Investors who have money in private equity, hedge funds, and direct investments in start-ups are used to taking on a lot of risk and have the financial capacity to absorb it. Ruggie points to an EY study that a third of those with assets above US$250,000 hold some alternatives in their portfolios, including 81% of ultra-high net worth clients with more than US$30 million. Scares don’t happen often, but when they do, “it’s an eye-opening event,” Ruggie says.

Still, rather than run to safety when things turn sour, Ruggie’s clients are more likely to go back and do it again. “They are usually willing to take risks when everyone else is running for cover,” he says. “When you have something come up, like the current banking crisis or the situation in 2008, a lot of people psychologically don’t do well with uncertainty. But the savvy investors, they look at it as an opportunity.”

Here’s where Ruggie says high-net-worth investors want to put their money today.

How Much Risk?

Not all high-net-worth investing is deep in alternatives. Ruggie says he divides client money into three pools: short-term money in fixed income, mid-range money in traditional equity investments like mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, and then long-term money in private investments.

To decide the ratio, he says “it’s a statistical correlation of how much money you have to how much you need and for how long. There’s no cookie-cutter answer.”

Some clients don’t put more than 10% of their net worth into non-traditional alternatives. Ruggie’s personal portfolio is pushing 40% alternatives, he says. Much of that is tied up in sports memorabilia—mostly an extensive baseball card collection—and some collectible wines, along with direct investments in companies.

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are a bridge too far—“I personally can’t see the advantage of investing in something like that, and never recommend for a client to do so,” Ruggie says.

As for cryptocurrency, Ruggie has dabbled, but just for the experience. “I wanted to learn,” he says. “I did quite well, but when clients came to us for advice, our guidance was that it’s off our path. Our client base is more concerned about long-term performance than the gambling aspect of investing.”

How Much Capital is Required?

Ruggie says direct investments in companies can start as low as US$25,000. These are the opportunities that are the most interesting to his clients right now, especially technology-based start-ups.

Some clients also take a step back and put their money into private-equity that then pools investments and finds companies worth investing in. Those typically require putting in at least US$250,000 and the purchaser has to be qualified, with a net worth of US$5 million net. Ruggie’s clients also invest in hedge funds, real estate, and collectibles.

Of these investments, hedge funds are the most liquid. There’s usually a lock-in period of a year, but then money can typically be withdrawn with 30-days notice.

Private equity has much less flexibility. “I tell people to basically anticipate no liquidity at all,” Ruggie says. “My mindset on private equity is that this is long-term money.”

The same goes for most direct investments in companies, which aside from the potential to sell stakes on the secondary market, there’s no ability to get cash out unless the company goes public and the shares appreciate.

The Potential Gain?

The main reason for investing in alternatives is that the potential upside of these investments is unlimited.That’s what makes it worth the risk. The other reason is that many high-net-worth clients have money to put on the line.

“What is excess? It’s a correlation between what you have and what you need,” says Ruggie. “Everyone’s definition of rich is different.”

In a year like 2022, advisers like Ruggie have had to go to clients with bad news about losses for the year and say, they may have outperformed the market but still lost 10% or whatever the number. But for Ruggie, that’s a temporary situation with paper losses.

The rest of the speech goes something like this: “It’s my belief—backed up by my personal investments—that what we’re doing with alternatives is going to outperform the market with statistically less risk than the market over time. It will catch up.”



MOST POPULAR

Automobili Lamborghini and Babolat have expanded their collaboration with five new colourways for the ultra-exclusive BL.001 racket, limited to just 50 pieces worldwide.

As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.

Related Stories
Property
AUSTRALIA’S PROPERTY BOOM IS MASKING A DEEPER ECONOMIC PROBLEM
By Paul Miron, Opinion 01/05/2026
Money
What Is Artemis II? The NASA Mission to Fly Astronauts Around the Moon
By Micah Maidenberg 30/03/2026
Money
Saudi Arabia Sees a Spike to $180 Oil if Energy Shock Persists Past April
By SUMMER SAID, RYAN DEZEMBER AND DAVID UBERTI 20/03/2026
AUSTRALIA’S PROPERTY BOOM IS MASKING A DEEPER ECONOMIC PROBLEM

As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.

By Paul Miron, Opinion
Fri, May 1, 2026 3 min

For decades, Australia has leaned into its reputation as the lucky country. But luck, as it turns out, is not an economic strategy. 

What once looked like resilience now appears increasingly fragile. Beneath the surface of rising property values and steady headline growth, the Australian economy is showing signs of strain that can no longer be ignored. 

Recent data paints a sobering picture. Australia has recorded one of the largest declines in real household disposable income per capita among advanced economies.  

Wages have failed to keep pace with inflation, meaning many Australians are working harder for less. On a per capita basis, income growth has stalled and, at times, reversed. 

And yet, on paper, things still look relatively solid. GDP is growing. Unemployment remains low. But that growth is increasingly being driven by population expansion rather than productivity.  

More people are contributing to output, but not necessarily improving living standards. 

That distinction matters. 

For years, Australia’s economic success rested on a powerful combination: a once-in-a-generation mining boom, a credit-fuelled housing market, strong migration and a property sector that rarely faltered. Between 1991 and 2020, the country avoided recession entirely, building enormous wealth in the process. 

But much of that wealth is tied to property. Around two-thirds of household wealth sits in real estate, inflated by leverage and sustained by demand. It has worked, until now. 

The problem is the supply side of the economy has not kept up. 

Housing supply is falling behind population growth. Rental vacancies are near record lows.  

Construction firms are collapsing at an elevated rate. At the same time, massive infrastructure pipelines are competing with residential projects for labour and materials, pushing costs higher and delaying delivery. 

The result is a system under pressure from all angles. 

Despite near full employment, productivity growth has stagnated for years. In simple terms, Australians are putting in more hours without generating more output per hour. The economy is running faster, butgoing nowhere. 

Meanwhile, government spending continues to expand. Public debt is approaching $1 trillion, with spending now accounting for a record share of GDP.  

The gap between spending and revenue has been filled by borrowing for decades, adding further pressure to an already stretched system. 

This is where the uncomfortable question emerges. 

Has Australia become too reliant on a model driven by rising property values, expanding credit and population growth? 

As asset prices rise, households feel wealthier and borrow more. Banks lend more. Governments collect more revenue. Migration fuels demand. The cycle reinforces itself. 

But when productivity stalls and debt outpaces real income, the system begins to depend on constant expansion just to stay stable. 

It is not a collapse scenario. But it is not particularly stable either. 

Nowhere is this more evident than in housing. 

The National Housing Accord targets 1.2 million new homes over five years, yet current completion rates are well below that pace. With approvals falling and construction costs rising, the gap between supply and demand is widening, not narrowing. 

Housing is also one of the largest contributors to inflation, with costs rising sharply across rents, construction and utilities. Yet the private sector, from small investors to major developers, is struggling to make projects stack up in the current environment. 

This brings the policy debate into sharper focus. 

Tax settings such as negative gearing and capital gains concessions have undoubtedly boosted demand over the past two decades. But they have also supported supply. Removing them may ease prices briefly, but risks deepening the supply shortage over time. 

That is the paradox. 

Policies designed to make housing more affordable can, in practice, make the shortage worse if they discourage development. The optics may appeal, but the economics are far less forgiving. 

It is also worth remembering that most property investors are not institutional players. The majority own just one investment property. They are, in many cases, ordinary Australians using real estate as their primary wealth-building tool. 

Undermining that system without replacing it with a viable alternative risks unintended consequences, from reduced supply to higher rents and increased inflation. 

So where does that leave Australia? 

At a crossroads. 

The country can continue to rely on population growth and rising asset prices to drive economic activity. Or it can shift towards a model built on productivity, innovation and sustainable growth. 

The latter is harder. It requires structural reform, long-term thinking and political discipline. 

But it is also the only path that leads to genuine, lasting prosperity. 

The question is no longer whether Australia has been lucky. 

It is whether it can evolve before that luck runs out. 

Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital. 

MOST POPULAR

When the Writers Festival was called off and the skies refused to clear, one weekend away turned into a rare lesson in slowing down, ice baths included.

Here’s how they are looking at artificial intelligence, interest rates and economic pressures.

Related Stories
Lifestyle
New Luxury Nile Riverboat Opens for 2026 as Grand Egyptian Museum Ignites Tourism Boom
By Jeni O'Dowd 09/12/2025
Money
The Hottest Business Strategy This Summer Is Buying Crypto
By GREGORY ZUCKERMAN & VICKY GE HUANG 11/08/2025
Money
The computing revolution investors cannot ignore 
By Jeni O'Dowd 09/03/2026
0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop