expired $2 Brokerage for Trades up to $1,000 on 7 Selected ETFs @ Commsec Pocket

2392

When you trade through the Commsec Pocket app, you’ll pay $2 each time you invest or sell up to $1,000.

Trades over $1,000 are charged at 0.20% of the trade value. For example, a $1,100 trade will cost you $2.20 ($1,100 x 0.20%)

Seems to be CHESS sponsored from with I'm reading.

Cons: Limited ETFs selection.

ETFs Available On Commsec Pocket:

  • IOZ iShares Core S&P/ASX 200 ETF
  • IOO iShares Global 100 ETF
  • IEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
  • SYI SPDR MSCI Australia Select High Dividend Yield Fund
  • NDQ BetaShares NASDAQ 100 ETF
  • ETHI BetaShares Global Sustainability Leaders ETF
  • IXJ iShares Global Healthcare ETF

For me:

Use Commsec Pocket for trades < $4750
Use Selfwealth for trades > $4750

Related Stores

CommSec
CommSec

closed Comments

  •  

    Does it matter if you trade online and settle into a bank account vs a CDIA account? There are usually two different set of fees for trading with CDIA vs your bank account.

    • +1 vote

      There's nothing in the app that says a non-CDIA costs more, but it looks like you can only use a CBA account as your settlement account.

    • +1 vote

      No pricing difference but must be a CBA bank account.

  • +60 votes

    I think the post needs to be slightly clearer. You are limited to buying and selling the 7 eft's listed. You can't trade anything else.

    • +2 votes

      Next time, please use the Report function (underneath the Expiry Date) to alert Mods. Mods and Power Users do not routinely monitor comments to spot problems.

    • +27 votes

      Who uses stop losses for ETF's? That's not the point of them, at all.

      • -2 votes

        Lol just because, you have an ETF, doesn't mean a stop loss of 20% isn't required.

        Some accounts dropped 50%, so having a stop loss of 20, or 15% even, is the sweet spot.

        Doesn't matter if it's an ETF, or a long term stock etc.

        One of the biggest mistakes I've seen people make, is thinking they don't need a stop loss for etfs because it's not 'a stock'

        Also, the stop loss comment was very general, also aimed towards my suggestion of using interactive brokers and au stocks in general :)

        • +4 votes

          Dropped 50% or more, during the GFC sorry.

          I trailing stop loss gives you a peace of mind during a huge economic event or even glitch (look up Knight Capital or similar one off events)

          Anyone who doesn't use stop losses for ETF'S because they think the point is not to have one, is unfortunately mistaken or doesn't understand proper risk management.

          Nothing is guaranteed, and treat a 15 or 20% stop loss as a safety net, regardless of which security

          • +1 vote

            @mcfintech: I've never spoken to a broker or fund manager who has uttered the words 'stop loss' and 'ETF' in the same sentences.

            • +1 vote

              @pharcyde: I have.
              I am one.
              And i'm not a broker :)

              PS if you don't know, you don't know.

              There's a first time for everything, rather than try and say my advice is wrong, try and think of the practical applications of my suggestions.

              The difference between me, and a few mates who have lost as much as they have made, is stop losses

              Exit strategy
              Stop loss
              Etf

              Aka full time professionals, who trade and manage money :)

              Stop losses have saved not only mine, but a few asses. To say the least :)

              • -1 vote

                @mcfintech: No, you're not.

                1, A fund manager wouldn't waste their time arguing with a stranger on OzBargain. 2, You're a penny-stock trader - at best.

                • +17 votes

                  @pharcyde: I manage my own funds and it's well in excess of 7 figures, happy to verify and have managed funds for some partners of the big 4.

                  Happy to verify

                  I am on Ozbargain because I have the time, I understand the value of money, and signed up a few days ago to make a post /thread about teaching financial literacy to children, so I could get feedback from all you guys on topics, subjects, suggestions, problem areas and other various issues that I could tackle in conjunction with the council I'm working with (similar to healthy Harold but for financial literacy, however has been challenging).

                  One of the ways to get young adults and kids to understand money is to talk about SAVING and not necessarily reducing their quality of life, for which 2 examples I had were Ozbargain, frugal feeds and keeping Google alerts on 'wish list items'.

                  I'm technically retired, from 9-5 and I do not manage others funds anymore, but I do teach people full time, aspire to create a difference in the education system, and help people who really care or want to try and learn or make a difference to their savings, but the information overload (not to mention subscription snakes etc. Especially in stock trading) are real.

                  Very rude of you sorry, to assume I'm some penny stock trader which not only is just straight out assuming things, but just cold.

                  IN fact one of the biggest lessons I'm preparing is 'question your own assumptions' before taking on tasks or setting goals, since they may be false (think 'first mover advantage' that many young adults, children or just adults in general, think is the best way to win marketshare when it's not always the case. Read Zero to One if you want to learn more about that (can suggest 30+ books on the topic).

                  I'm not wasting my time, I am very very grateful to have nothing but time, and collect statistical data as well as anecdotal and first hand primary experiences via interaction with people online).

                  Which actually reinforces of my preconceived notions of some people and why it's not going to be that easy to get through to children or young adults.

                  Of course, the 'starting a business' topics wouldn't be for the very young kids (if it wasn't obvious) and more so for the older kids or adults.

                  Literally going to make the thread tonight as I have just come back from overseas, and spoken to a lot of people which is what I wanted to gather (is it just Australia which has issues? Etc. Problem areas blah)

                  I use automated trading systems to manage my own funds (majority of them), read about it at blueownpress. Com or similar, and I trade everything, and hedge using the VIX: volatility index, to gold, soybean futures, equities, etfs and when I'm trading manually I trade both intraday and trade breakouts.

                  I am always willing to help, as I've mentioned on my other post and now this one, any one can inbox me, but it isn't about me. Please, do not put off other people who read your comment and miss out on asking me questions since you say I'm a liar :)

                  I really don't mind you having doubts, so please, happy to share information or if you'd like some help with property, finance or equities and trading.

                  Thanks mate
                  Have a great weekend!

              •  

                @mcfintech: I never use stop losses. I buy stocks that I want, and the only reason I'd sell is if I no longer want, certainly not auto-sell based purely on price. Selling on a price drop is the opposite of investing, and trying to guess when to re-enter is a mugs game.

                As has been said, a stop loss on a passive ETF makes no sense. If the price drops, I'm more likely to buy more - selling on a price drop is the last thing I'd be doing.

                • +1 vote

                  @SlickMick: If the price drops and you buy more, you're gambling.

                  Sure it works out sometimes, but chances are if that worked so well and people always made money like that, many many more people would ild be rich.

                  Sure there's luck, some exclusions but in 99% of cases, as we say "you don't catch a falling knife".

                  If you've bought stuff in the last 10 years and made money, congratulations, you've made money in a roaring bull market (overall - 10 year cycle on average, think 1999-2000 dot com crash, 1987 crash, 2008 and now 2019-2020.

                  Maybe it'll happen soon, I don't know and I don't care. But thinking you'll get away with no stop loss, no risk management and do the worst thing possible which is averaging down, ASSUMING a stock will go back up, is ridiculous.

                  That is a huge huge huge assumption that 'it'll go back up'.

                  Just look at Tesla, almost 400, what you'll keep buying till it's, 300, 200, 180?

                  Remember it's all fun and good in theory, but you don't buy on the way down (as a golden rule) because what's the strategy?

                  Or do you have unlimited money to keep buying?

                  One or two big losses on a mess up like that where you try and catch a falling knife can really ruin lives, I've seen it before.

                  And remember, the markets can stay irrational, longer than you can stay liquid.

                  So if you think you buy on the way down thats all good you're entitled to your own opinion, but back it up before people read this gambling attitude that is apparently considered trading.

                  And people wonder why STOCK TRADING is so rare, or profiting from it anyway over a long period of time, and why most people consider it Gambling.

                  Sure, on to the few exceptions, say if you REALLY understand the company fundamentals, like earnings per share, expected profit growth blah blah, or really want to take a risk, by all means, keep buying on the way down.

                  But unless you do this full time, or since BEFORE 2007, please do not thinking buying more when something falls, is a good strategy.

                  GOOD strategies require planning for all scenarios, weighing the risks and rewards and making a calculated decision where one big mess up doesn't wipe someone out.

                  For example, GSW went from like $2 or $4, to some cents…or YOWIE
                  $2 to 7c

                  When would you buy them until?
                  Please tell me..

                  And OK fine theoretically you say you would but emotionally do you know how hard it is?

                  They never recovered either..

                  Stock trading is NOT like property, at all.

                  A house is tangible, and you own it.

                  A stock is literally good will or a ticket to a stocks' profit party, and if the profit runs out or losses show, so does the party.

                  Most do not do well.
                  Remember, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay liquid.

                  If figured and fundamentals were so powerful, and emotions didn't matter, lol I nor anyone one else couldn't make money from trading.

                  It would be emotionless, perfectly calculated and valuations would be objective.

                  But the market isn't like that
                  It's irrational, it's full of gambling, insider trading which you cannot rely on, and uncertainty INCLUDING your biggest enemy, yourself.

                  If you've done well for a few years, please do not think whatever you've done will always work - you will get burnt. Maybe only one, but it will suck and make you want to cry.

                  Selling on a price drop is the last thing everyone does, which is why the majority won't make money.

                  This isn't a joke. People tend to extrapolate the past thinking OH wow ive done so well for the last few years I'll do even better next!

                  They also tend to forget to study history, or remember the GFC when stuff like CBA went to $25, or less from like $70-80.

                  SAY let's say, you did buy when it went from $80 to $70 you buy 5k worth.

                  Then it goes 70 to 60, you buy more.

                  Etc.

                  You'll not only panic at 40 or so, but you cannot possibly have zero concern for resource allocation.

                  And mate, what do you mean you sell when you want? And not to base it on price??

                  YOU DON'T make money on feelings and emotions you make it because when you buy something, the price must increase and thus you make a profit.

                  When I trade now, I don't even read the stock code, nor country in most cases - if I do it does not affect my trading at all, I have my setups and patterns and indicators and check lists.

                  I have my buy entry conditions, and my exit conditions and stop losses.

                  And I've not only outperformed by 10 fold, but I've continue to protect my account during bad periods, and buy when it's time to go up.

                  IN conclusion:
                  If you've been investing based on what you WANT, NOT PRICE, then all fund managers are obviously stupid to think PRICE is king. Since that's what you make money on.

                  No matter how MUCH you want a stock and how RIGHT you are, say you figured out a company is Def Goin to go higher.. If you do not consider the price when buying, you may buy when it's $20, and then see it go to $6 (remember irrational market behavior is why behavioral finance is so so important) before others notice what you do, so you'd be getting punished essentially for what you thought, but discovered before everyone else did, and you paid $14 more!

                  Timing is everything.
                  Price is king.
                  RISK MANAGEMENT is the name of the game.

                  And don't forget the PARETO principle 80/20.
                  The important thing is this also applies to losses.

                  There's a saying.
                  There are OLD traders and there are BOLD traders.

                  But there are no OLD, BOLD TRADERS

                  VERY important.

                  Remember, if the stock price is going to go down by 50%, say $2 to $1.. It HAS to go from $2 to $1.50 first right?

                  So the biggest losers have to fall a little, before they fall a lot.

                  Obviously, it doesn't go from $20, straight from the top to down.

                  It goes in stages or increments, in most cases a drop, then a denial little boom, then a big crash.

                  So be alert, averaging down on loser stocks, some you buy while trying to catch this falling knife, you may nail.

                  Some, will ruin you and you'll beg for freedom.

                  I really hope it doesn't get to that but in so so many cases I know it does.

                  You can't trade risky and for long
                  And STILL make money or have it paid off everything.

                  You can, for a while but not for long.

                  There was a blitz crash in 2012, and in 2008 when so many stocks tanked, you'd rather have stop losses than complete distruction.

                  Look up Knight Capital who lost like 400m in 45 minutes due to no stop loss measures. M

                  But if you're set on the non stop-loss path, buying what you feel and sell when you feel, great but I really hope you aren't going to use that strategy or rule in all market conditions because if there is something that has worked for a few years thanks to the bull run, it doesn't mean that's how things will always go. 10 year cycles loosely everyone.

                  Thanks

                    • +1 vote

                      @idonotknowwhy: You could, and that would be what everyone does.

                      Does it let everyone retire? No

                      Buying and holding makes sense, given the right time frame and investment criteria, but for the average person who is actually wanting to make money in the stock market (and not by buying and holding in their superannuation account), this buy and hold strategy is actually why people lose in the stock market on average.

                      Tell me, if you bought and held during the peak of the ASX200, IT took 10 to 11 years to only just reach that again last year didn't it? Followed by another 20 to 30% correction September to December.

                      If people studied even just the basics and timed it right in general, aka just stayed on the right side of the market, it would be life changing.

                      I've been doing this awhile and made a killing, and I'm not old at all.

                      You need to either pick the right stocks, or time things well in general.

                      It doesn't take much to figure it out but the reason why I'm focusing my time on teaching and starting an educational course, is literally this.

                      There's no information out there that's actually easy to access for the average investor.

                      If you did want to buy and hold, that's great, but it better not be just stock ETFs in Australia.

                      Better have a mix of ETFs which cover commodities gold silver, as well as emerging markets and global stocks.

                      Otherwise the average person has waited 10 years, only to break even on the ASX200 or made very little gain.

                      Your one article doesn't explain much sorry.

                      Shooting blind and not killing anyone, doesn't make that person a genius, it makes them ignorant and lucky.

                      I know it's hard, I really do since I've been there, but I've so so so many people lose money during the past decade, who bought and hold and thought that was the way to go.

                      It works in general for anyone who bought in the last 10 years, but that doesn't mean it's the BEST USE of money or that there's no opportunity cost involved.

                      My automated systems achieve 30% and ive got multiple systems, I've had years of success with, and I outperform the market almost every year, without even blinking.

                      My manual systems outperform the market more than ten fold, what I do is not complicated, and I do not sell anything and am only here to raise awareness, help others for free and to gather feedback so I can focus on my main goal: to teach young adults to understand why typical financial models do not work in the stock market otherwise Economists would be billionaires, and how they shouldnt take 'OK ish' for an answer.

                      There's funds like AUSBIL MICRO CAP or PLATINUM ASSET which outperform the market with like 15 to 20% return annually, if I'm not mistaken, that's how they do it, not from buy and hold.

                      The biggest ASSUMPTION in buy and hold is that if you hold something it WILL come back up

                      What about TELSTRA or VOC which even 10 years later aren't even at their or close to their $7 highs!?

                      Buying and holding does work in some cases, but in most it does not.

                      Unfortunately the average person thinks the opposite, which is exactly why they make average or below average gain after fees etc.

                      •  

                        @mcfintech: (Note: I did read both your posts entirely, thanks for taking the time to reply in such great detail).

                        I know it's hard, I really do since I've been there

                        Exactly, it's very hard, and the average person, as well as the average professional institutional investor, the average managed fund, never consistently beats the market. If you're exceptional, good for you. I'm not though, if anything, I'd be below average. With this in mind, I'm sticking with the Jack Bogle strategy of buying low-fee index funds and holding.

                        To quote Warren Buffet:

                        "By periodically investing in an index fund, for example, the know-nothing investor can actually outperform most investment professionals. Paradoxically, when 'dumb' money acknowledges its limitations, it ceases to be dumb."

                        The average Ozbargainer here would be better off investing in a diverse index fund like VDHG than trying to play Wolf of Wallstreet.

                        P.S. My portfolio allocation is a little more diverse than just buying ASX200 indexes / companies. I've got 50% developed international shares, 30% Emerging Markets, 20% ASX300, with enough HISA to get me through 6 months of unemployment without selling anything.

                        Buying and holding does work in some cases, but in most it does not.

                        Buying and holding works, as long as you have enough low risk assets to keep you afloat when you're out of work (which is likely to happen during a recession, the exact time you don't want to be selling your stocks).

                        The people you've seen lose money, only lost money because they sold.

                        • +1 vote

                          @idonotknowwhy: Hey mate, appreciate the reply and thanks for taking the time to read.

                          You're right, and I think the assumption was 'buying and holding just reputable ASX shares or companies' which is something that I've seen a few too many people do.

                          Some of them after 8-10 years, are breaking even, and it all comes down to having a balanced portfolio.

                          If you've got a diverse range of holdings and investments such as EEM and ACWI (like you and I both mentioned for anyone reading this is the way you could be buying and not worrying too much).

                          If you're not wanting to worry about crappy holdings or watching something fall due to dodgy management or a defunct industry, think BUY AND HOLD Blockbuster shares LOL, then the good ol Vanguard founder (RIP) as you mentioned, nails it.

                          Low fee, index funds, never the biggest winners and never the biggest losers.

                          Stay on the same side as the market and do not over invest.

                          I do not think I'm exceptional, I really am not in terms of wit or knowledge (I remember in school doing the lowest level of math and struggling with numbers) so although I can see why you'd think thats why I'd be doing well, its more of a lack of education, available information and (doesn't seem to be a problem in your case) in many cases, people not sticking it out.

                          But I guess the people not sticking it out will lose either way, whether they're bailing early on learning about trading or bailing early on their holdings.

                          Buying and holding definitely does work, but most people I know from unaware, to mum and dad investors to young brilliant adults, all buy and hold stock NAMES they like or see. That's what I was focusing on, so apologies for the confusion.

                          Although I would not hold the index during a large decline of more than 10-15%, and am very very risk averse, that may also be of course, as you mentioned due to my experience with it and the fact I've traded for a living.

                          Your method is definitely one and don't get me wrong, low fee index funds such as Vanguard, or ACWI or, EEM or even (something I think is great to be involved in growth stocks without actually picking stocks is the IBD50, or similar)

                          Maybe even allocating some to a fund such as Ausbil Microcap etc.

                          Your strategy overall is sound, and tbh no ones taking this money to the grave so as long as you're getting return, and have enough cash to last you long periods of unemployment, you obviously do not need to worry :)

                          But I would strongly urge you to look into small things to tweak (if they are of any interest) such as the 200 day moving average of a stock, as a very very simple strategy to potentially exit a holding if it is looking to stay underneath it, and use the 244 day moving average as a sell signal, while using a 50 day moving average as a buy signal, this applies to any ETF commodity or share).

                          With a simple system or strategy like this you can really make large gains by staying out during huge declines, while getting in asap during times when mean reversion, markets turn around, or rally.

                          However, given what you've shared, I do not think you're below average, haha I don't think you understand how uninformed the average person is regarding stocks, COMPLETELY not their fault since no one bloody teaches it nor is there any subject really.

                          I know finance guys and girls, phds, majors and smart guys and girls who have no idea and just write it off completely (buying stocks).

                          Ah what can you do

                          And maybe your right, but maybe I'm too optimistic about being able to educate thousands but I won't give up haha - not yet :)

                  •  

                    @mcfintech: I won't pretend I read past your first line, but buying low isn't any more gambling than any other trade, but seems smart to me. (Ever heard of cost averaging?)

                    •  

                      @SlickMick: If you can't read past my first line and don't understand how stocks work, you're gambling and have no idea how trading works lol.

                      If you don't know, you don't know mate.

                      Buying low, is relative and your opinion. There is no objective low.
                      TELSTRA went from 7 to 5, then 5 to 4, what's low?

                      If it was that easy, I'm sure you've retired from trading mate.

                      It's not only not smart, it's outright gambling and a lot riskier than you think.

                      Please think of this post and me when you get burnt, and I'll be happy to help. I honestly do care about teaching the right thing, so please do not take this personally, but buying low is misinformation and eventually will get you smashed.

                      You buy the STRONGEST stocks, in the strongest sectors, breaking all time high prices, because that's how you make money. By buying leaders, in strong sectors, when they're reaching higher valuations you jump on the train, not trade against the market and try and catch a falling knife.

                      Sounds hard, isn't.
                      But that's ok most don't get it and I'd explain but you won't read it.

                      Cheers mate I wish you the best, and I'd be happy to explain even the basics to you in a PM, I got time.

                      But if you don't that's fine :)

                      •  

                        @mcfintech: edit. okay I will comment 1 last time.

                        All I'm saying is there is more than one way to decide when to sell a stock, and you might see a mathematical formula is best, but I don't.

                        If I felt $x was a fair price to pay for a stock and the price falls 20% and the fundamentals haven't changed, there is 0% chance I would sell, but it would be even more attractive than when I previous purchased.

                        It's a joke seeing a stock's price plummet when guy's like you hit stop losses, but I don't mind. If someone didn't sell low where would the buying opportunities be.

                        •  

                          @SlickMick: I do not think mathematical formula is best.

                          I'm basing it on visual patterns, understanding why others sell, when and why and to what extent people sell, and I would rather get out, and get back in if the stock turns around, than hold a loser which could potentially be a portfolio killer.

                          I agree there's more than one way to look at it, but it's not a joke and not all stocks recover. In fact something like 70 or 80% dont.

                          That's not 'mathematical formula' its just testing

                          'OK I see an observation, and I wonder if it's true'.

                          It's statistics and if anything, more so human behavior, and trying to see what people do again and again and again.

                          I sold in October and anyone willing to learn, I'm happy to teach or show you how using multiple confirmations and indicators, converted to USD, and waited, with December 24th being a buy signal.

                          Not only did I not deal with the decline, I made money, exited, made money through my currency swap, then got back in and rode the wave which I'm riding, while being cautious now.

                          It's history. I'm a historian if anything.

                          Buy on the way up, sell on the way down. Buy when it's early stages and sell when it's early stages.

                          If there's a 40 50 60 70% move, try and capture even half of an upwards move and NEVER let your losses get out of hand.

                          If risk management and having an exit strategy is math, then math it is.

                          Don't go against the market.

                          I would RATHER BE OUT, wishing I was in, than IN, wishing I was out.

                          I'm not what causes the stock price to plummet hahaha but if a stock is going down, I'm not killing my profits with it anymore than my defined risk says so to.

                          You don't make money on fundamentals and valuations, you make money or lose money, on price.

                          Fundamentals aren't always visible and can be lied, manipulated to look better than they are or covered up.

                          You will learn this the hard way I'm sure unfortunately, since insider trading is very very prevalent in trading.

                          So don't read and do what they say, like when Dominos' CEO early 2018 was saying DONT SELL but sold his shares millions worth.

                          DO what they do, not what they say they do.

                          Follow the money, follow the price action and the actual trading, not valuations or fundamentals.

                          Fundamentals should be secondary as a cross check or confirmation, price action is key.

                          And when in doubt, sit the f out.
                          Cash is king.

                          Remember, rather be out wishing I was in, than in wishing I was out.

                          Regardless, look up moving average cross over strategy (these are basic strategies that I don't really use anymore but are great learning points).

                          I don't sell when my 20% stop loss gets hit, I 95% of the time sell when my 5 or 8% stop loss gets hit.

                          I keep my losses small.
                          I let my winners RUN, and CUT my losers.

                          If you trade purely fundamentals and do not agree with risk management or timing, that's great.

                          BUT, next time the price action shows some trouble, like with AMP, and the smart money starts selling, don't wait for the news a week later of how they had fraudulent transactions being covered up since 2008 to change your stance.

                          Be concerned before that, when the price action is already telling you something is wrong.

                          The market is irrational, and can stay irrational longer than you can stay liquid.

                          I would rather not hold Telstra while it shows no sign of recovery from 7 to 3, and buy it at 3.20 or 3.30 where it was a decent proposition NOT because of valuation, but because of valuation and fundamentals BUT ALSO price action.

                          Tried to help, called what I do a joke, and people wonder why people don't share ideas or good strategies haha

        • +39 votes

          Having a 20% stop loss for a long term stock is absolutely dumb because then you'll sell when it's down and you turn a paper loss into a real one. Why would you sell during a short term loss if you expect to hold long term (such as 30 years) which will be across multiple financial cycles of up and down. Even the best stocks fluctuate and can drop 20% short term while rallying later on.

          Stop losses are important for day traders and the like but for long term investors with a 10-30 year time span (which the majority of ETF buyers in Australia are) is extremely dumb.

          • +9 votes

            @fishball: Everyone has risk management strategies, a 20% trailing stop loss protects you giving back gains if, say a stock runs up and then pulls back.

            You also have to assume you have limited resources to allocate, and taking that into account, I've studied the markets for years and I trade, full time for a living using an automated system as well as actively and manually trading also.

            Anything that drops 50%, must drop 20% first.
            Sure SOME may hit your stop loss and go back up, but some may drop 80 to 90%

            Just because it's a paper loss doesn't mean it's not a loss. Making it real doesn't make it any different really, especially if you can use it to show a loss against profits etc. (For tax benefits)

            If a stock drops 20%, something is up, and I would, at the very least, sell partial.

            Depends on your appetite for success.

            I've used Amibroker and other methods to backtest trading strategies for years and decades, a stop loss of 20% was the best for A BALANCE between holding winners, which say fall 15% then go on to double in value, but also protect you from huge losses which could ruin your morale, portfolio and literally grow into a huge loss vs a small one.

            Using a sample portfolio, 20% was the sweet spot for an automated investing strategy compounding annually, strategy kinddd of what the goal seems to be for.

            Confirmed this with multiple multiple strategies and backtests, and real time :)

            Using 'Monte Carlo' backtesting methods, which not only backtests an investment strategy or portfolio of stocks/ ETFs, based on what happened in history, but applying multiple hypothetical situations (Aka what if a, GFC occurred in 2005? AND 2018? Etc. Etc.) and testing your portfolio against that scenario too.

            20% is the best risk to reward ratio where risk is still overall OK, having worst case scenario simulations show portfolios going under 25-30%, for example in the GFC as well as the hypothetical scenarios mentioned above, where as WITHOUT a stop loss, the losses reached 54-60% in some scenarios.

            The person with 20% saves themselves from losing that extra 30~%..

            This, is great because not only is the loss smaller, but it gives the person who uses stop losses an exit strategy, which 90% of people do not have, unless the plan is taking money to the grave, the person who now has AUD since their dtop losses were hit, they could convert their AUD to gold or USD, the USD especially when it was low and a very good buy :)

            (But that's a diff topic)

            10% stop loss would mean a lower win rate, lower overall gains, but at any given time, the least risk (obviously).

            Again, this is all statistically speaking based on real life experiences, studies, other authors (reputable ones who actually trade, manage money and develop strategies), as well as decades of back testing :)

            • +4 votes

              @mcfintech: Also, all testing was done without survivorship bias, meaning all strategies were tested taking into account delisted stocks etc. not only testing it on surviving stocks (which obviously would skew results)

              • +5 votes

                @mcfintech: Imagine a scandal where an ETF had mismanagement and dodgy ownership (just a thought) and before the news came out, insiders started dumping.

                20% stop loss (or any, whichever you like) would save your ass before a huge drop or a 60% drop followed by a delisting.

                Rare yes, impossible no.

                One of many cases

          • +2 votes

            @fishball: It's arrogant to state that in absolute terms. Everyone has their own trading/investing strategies. So stop loss or not, it is as good or better than another strategy if it meets the investor's objectives and time frame.

            Also, it is indeed absolutely dumb, to borrow one's lexicon, to make conclusions without understanding the context of one's investing horizon, returns targets, risk appetite, income needs etc.

        • +1 vote

          Interactive Brokers platform is complicated and not suitable for non-pros and has minimum balance requirement.
          Theme here is for first time investors on a small scale. By limited etf choices risk is contained.
          Contrary to stop-loss I am worried about people having access to sell button on their phone allowing to panic sell. It should be like a delayed order where u go sell/buy order and it will not execute for at least 10 minutes allowing to think twice. In share market, one can be their own biggest risk.

          • +5 votes

            @cyberbalman: Interactive brokers' app is not too bad as some of my peers, who were new to stock trading, definitely got it quite quickly but you're right it's not CBA or Westpac etc.

            The only suggestion to a delayed order I would suggest for newer traders is to trade end of day which is why I recommend stop losses, so there's no panic selling with the sell button :)

            End of day trading is where you simply do not access your stocks during market hours, keep stop losses in check (or if you like, sell after a profit target is hit which could be a fixed percentage since most people need, at the very least, some sort of exit or partial exit strategy), and then analyze your stocks after the market closes.

            This way you put any buy orders in BEFORE the market opens so you're not watching the market at open, nor chasing a stock emotionally which is going up or selling a stock you own out of fear, just because it dropped 3% at the open etc.

            So leave buy and sell orders in after work, do not fear sell or quickly rush to buy in greed as the movements or in many cases, the daily whipsaw really throws people off.

            Instead of focusing on buying or selling during market hours, I would focus on seeing (if possible and one has time) what announcements a company/ stock/ ETF makes and see how the market reaxts to it.

            E. G. Especially during quarterlies (in fact where stocks are involved, if I'm extra cautious, I'd rather stay out during an earnings report until the companies direction is clear)

            This was the first observation of action and reaction that got me interested (we call this fundamental analysis as well as technical, the technical being the movement in the stock chart BASED on the fundamentals, fundamentals being information like the earnings, return on equity, profit growth etc,)

            Anyone reading this, start observing that relationship and do not panic buy or greed sell in the day, but like cyberbalman mentioned, use delayed buy order or sell orders (stop sell order = stop loss price or percentage and the stock will sell) as humans are 200% their own enemy on the stock market.

            PS if anyone has any questions, don't hesitate to ask :)
            Always willing to help anyone willing to learn!

            •  

              @mcfintech: mcfintech, when you set a stop-loss of 20%, how long is the trail?

              •  

                @tpup1: I will tighten up, personally the stop loss according the entire market (Aka is the XJO weak, is it on a decline?)

                If I was to have an automated strategy which had a 20% trailing stop, as soon as I am in profit of 20% my stop loss would change to 10% for half my position, and the other half would stay 20% -(which by now would be my entry price)

                I would obviously back test this.

                My personal strategy is to buy
                Market leaders in the LEADING and strongest sectors
                Aka right now it's:

                Gold speculative, gold producers
                Biotech
                Cannabis
                (to name a few)

                Focus on the strongest sectors, strongest names, wait for pullbacks of 5 to 10%, look for breakouts from there and I usually keep a maximum of 10% stop loss.

                IN most cases I prefer a 2 to 3% stop loss, sure you get less winning trades but risk management and capital preservation is the name of the game.

                Sounds stupid I know but think this way

                Instead of a 10% stop loss
                If you had a 2 to 3% stop loss

                Say bought a stock worth $5
                Buy entry was $5
                Stop loss was $4.90 or 4.85

                Even if it hit your stop loss, and you then saw it go back up to $5 and you bought it, and then again stop loss was hit, and bought it a, 3rd time and it ran to $6, 9,10 whatever

                Your risk was still only 6 to 9%
                It's not your win rate, it's how much you make when you win and how much you lose when you lose.

                Some years my win rate is 50% or less, but when I make money it's, on average, 15% per trade, and when I lose its on average 5%

                So you can see how it's not about winning more trades

                However I can understand with less capital, this strategy doesn't work

                But just an example of what I do

                •  

                  @mcfintech: Thanks for the info, I really appreciate it. Just to clarify, I mean when you set a stop loss of 20%, over what period is the loss calculated? I.e. 20% loss in one day / one week / one month?

                  •  

                    @tpup1: Oh sorry, haha

                    That's OK, you're more than welcome and I'm more than happy to answer any other questions :)

                    I meant a stop loss initially is automatically set, you just have to go on to the Commsec app

                    Usually the stop loss is referred to as a 'sell stop' too and, in our example, it is based on a 20% decline in price, or value, from the buy position price or entry price.

                    For example, if you buy a stock @ $10, the stop loss amount would be $2, and the price it executes of course then would be $8.

                    Another strategy here would be to have multiple stop losses, to make sure you never get the WORST scenario but you will also not get the Best.

                    This way you can off set some risk by saying, I'll sell half of my position at a drop of 5% or 10% (this would be a tighter stop loss) and that way I can potentially hold the other half, which I would still have at that point, until a 25% decline or stop loss.

                    Example
                    Buy at 1000 units at $10
                    If it drops to $9
                    500 units sold

                    2nd stop loss at this stage could be set to execute at $8 or $7

                    (you don't even have to do this in two steps, you can do it at the start)

                    The ONLY time I would be a little more specific is if the stock tends to move a lot, and is near my stop loss, you can set a secondary condition and that is 'Sell Stop @ $X price, IF above average daily volume traded'

                    This way, you aren't being kicked out by small daytraders who may be trying to hit your stop loss, especially if your stop loss is very tight Aka 5% or something.

                    So I would not worry about time frame, more just the percentage and potentially the volume traded, of that stock, on that day.

                    I can go into more detail about this is the price and volume condition example may not have made sense (it's late and I'm tired hah)

  • +7 votes

    This isn't a deal. This is the standard price.

    • +6 votes

      I for one is glad that the OP posted and probably the 300 or so that have clicked through.

      No idea this existed. Trade = Deal in the dictionary.

      Thanks OP.

      • -1 vote

        Still. Not a deal or reduced price. This is just advertising.

        Don't need the Commonwealth bank advertising team white knighting here.

  •  

    Are any of them considered high-yield ivestments for an $80k portfolio?

    • +5 votes

      Just buy a BMW

    • +2 votes

      For that large of an amount, I'd probably use selfwealth who has $10 flat fee.

      • +2 votes

        An expert from Westpac recommends a Mercedes A200 high yield investment vehicle.

      • +2 votes

        If you do end up using them…make sure you use referral code on ozbargain! I didn’t know the point of using them until after I signed up. Missed out on 5 free trades. :(

        Im happy with them tho, $9.5 brokerage flat rate regardless of how much you trade unlike most. Moved from commsec to them a month ago…so far so good.

    • +2 votes

      Depends, what do you consider high yield

      Otherwise try

      ACWI (all world index) , EEM (emerging markets)

      GLD, URA etf

      Look at sector rotation
      Both, technically aka what's been hit hard
      (VOC, TLS and TPM TPG performed well for me, last year as Telecom was hit hard)

      Similarly oil and resources etc. few years before

      And sentiment
      E.g when everyone's negative about something, and a sector which probably isn't leaving anytime soon, is a good bet

      Without knowing anything else, if you want decent gains try keep an eye on the ETFS dealing with AI, MJ (Marijuana fund), and buy the rumor (when Marijuana is GOING TO BE LEGALIZED SOON, BUY) AND SELL the news (the day it was legalized in Canada, all the smart money was selling into the euphoria).

      Just some basic general tips
      Probably about as vague as your question to many but just trying to get people interested and thinking, and definitely better than shooting blind :)

  • +5 votes

    Must have a Commonwealth bank transaction account.

  • +8 votes

    Wait I thought gamblimg ads weren't allowed
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    I'm jist kidding

    • +1 vote

      Investing in ETFs is one of the safest investments you can make on the stock market. Individual stocks go up and down, but a diverse portfolio of stocks (which is what an ETF is ideally) will always increase over a long enough time scale.

  • +8 votes

    "Sorry, right now we can only offer CommSec Pocket to customers with a CommBank transaction account"

    The CBA transaction account has a $4 monthly account keeping fee unless you deposit a minimum of 2K each month

    No thanks!

  •  

    Looked at my companies listed in my watch list and none have the $2 fee. All the standard $10

    •  

      You can only trade the 7 ETFs the OP outlined above. Nothing else (and definitely no individual companies)

  •  

    How does something like this compare to investing and in vanguard (VAS)?

    • +3 votes

      IOZ tracks the ASX200 for MER of 0.09%

      You can achieve the same with the A200 ETF for just 0.07%

      VAS tracks the ASX300 and costs more than any of these (0.1% MER)

      Basically, looks like this CommSec app is forcing you to use the more expensive ASX200 ETF

    • +10 votes

      The biggest benefit of this (Commsec Pocket) is for investors that like to do smaller regular investments similar to Raiz rather than the ETF itself. The performance of the ETFs listed here would be mostly similar with Vanguard's performances with minor differences in management fees (eg. A200/VAS differ by a few basis points).

      Basically by having a lower fee you don't get screwed so hard by brokerage fees if you're a person that wants to do maybe 1k every month of investing rather than 50k in 1 go once off.

      As to why it's limited to those ETFs, I've heard people say that they chose these ETFs because they have a low unit price which makes it more amenable for smaller & regular investors. No point investing in A200 or VAS if you can only chip in $50 a week since it wouldn't even buy you 1 unit of those. Makes sense to me.

      • +3 votes

        For these kind of people Spaceship may be a better option.

        0.05% MER on the Index portfolio or ZERO fees for balances of less than 5K. No brokerage fees or buy/sell spreads.

        Saying that, it's a proprietary managed fund and not a listed product so not sure what happens if the company folds or does the dodge.

  • -1 vote

    I pay $10 on the exact same app

  • +3 votes

    Can someone please simplify for layman like me
    - Best ETFs everyone is investing in?
    - are people one big investment or every month $1K?
    - best platform for trading these ETFs. Is it SelfWealth

    • +2 votes

      Vdhg, but I do it via their managed fund with $ every month into it.

      Long term (kids future $ when they are old enough) and current regular $ suits the managed fund option (despite the slightly higher fee)

      •  

        Hi SBOB, just out of curiosity, is there any particular reason why you are using their managed fund instead?

        I was looking at it…but ETF version seems way cheaper in terms of cost; 0.27% regardless of balance vs 0.9% for first 5k and etc…even the part above 100k is 0.29%. Some saving on brokerage initially, but fee seems to be more in the long run and only gets worse as one’s balance grow. That’s assuming one invests in it monthly, their balance is over $18,100…(Based on selfwealth’s $9.5 per trade flat rate. Didn’t bother taking into consideration of the buy/sell 0.09% spread of the managed fund, which would make it even less attractive in comparison to ETF.) Plus, with ETF one can save even more on fees by saving up a lump sum and buying in bulk to reduce the number of trades, but that depends on an individual’s investment strategies I guess.

        Did I miss anything? Is there any advantage of the managed fund version that I overlooked?

        •  

          The ability to set up small monthly $ amounts, meaning I don't think about it or forget it

          I might revisit it at some stage now their balance has grown a bit, but at the current buy $ that $10 per buy for the regular etf fee would be a pretty sizeable percentage.

          Would need to transition to something like quarterly buys

          Wonder if there's a decent spreadsheet somewhere to work out the cost/fee differences.

          •  

            @SBOB: Aha gotcha. Unfortunately I don’t have a spreadsheet but i can tell you how I got the number.

            $9.5 per trade x 12 = $114 in brokerage per year if monthly contribution via selfwealth

            Because your first $50,000 in the fund would always have a fee of 0.9%. Hence, the fund charges you 0.63% more than ETF in fees for the first $50,000. I only considered the first $50k since the fee gap is more than enough to cover the brokerage you pay if you buy the ETF.

            If you were to break even in fees you get charged per year (at a point where it doesn’t make a difference whether you go by selfwealth or fund): $114 / 0.63% = $18,095

            If you wanna take into consideration of the spread fee (0.09%) for buying as well…it would be $114 / 0.72% = $15,833.

            Essentially, for balance less than $15,833, if you do monthly contribution, the fund would save you $. Anything above that, ETF via selfwealth is better. However, I think if someone has got less than that to invest in sharemarkets, it would probably be a good idea to just go with something like spaceship (0% below $5k and only 0.1% for the part above $5k) until they build up to around $16,000 and then start putting it in an ETF like VDHG (which I hold myself, haha) rather than going with the fund.

            •  

              @jezza p: Essentially, this calculation should stand regardless of how much you contribute per month because it depends on your overall share value balance rather than the chunk you buy if that makes sense…because the fee difference between the fund and ETF is charged on the balance rather than purchase size.

            •  

              @jezza p:

              Essentially, for balance less than $15,833, if you do monthly contribution, the fund would save you $.

              yeah, definitely started less than that, but has grown to more than that now (and still has over 10-15 years of additions and growth to go before they'll see it)

              Only annoyance is if i move from fund to ETF i'll be paying some CGT to move it from one to another on the buy/sell event (which i'd have to pay eventually) :/

              •  

                @SBOB: probably worth looking into whether you will actually save enough money for the period you intend to hold it for to switch over.

                btw, unrelated to this…my understanding is that CGT is charged based on your personal income tax bracket (ie the same tax rate as your income tax, just that it can't be offset by deduction other than capital loss)? so…say when you retire, no income (i.e. 0% income tax) and sell some shares then, would the CGT just be 0 (if the capital gain amount is less than tax free threshold)?

    • +1 vote

      Yeah self wealth is better. Vdhg is the easiest but vts, vae, vgs depending on what you are after

      This is really for people with starting out.

  • Top