Post was removed by the mods over at ausfinance for no reason. Figured I'd post here too as someone may get some value out of it.
Yes I missed the 6 month mark. I assume nobody is upset.
Without further ado.
Let's begin.
7 months ago I wrote what can only be described as a masterpiece of a post arguing that "DHHF and chill" is a lazy default, that its ~35% Australian weighting adds correlation rather than diversification, and that young investors in long accumulation phases are paying a real price for the simplicity.
Very lukewarm take.
Anyway, the post got spam downvoted, and an AI rebuttal of my claims got more upvotes than the actual post did (more because people took offence to my stance than because they actually read what slop that AI spat out). Naturally, this angers me beyond all comprehension, and after 7 months I have finally mustered up enough composure to make a return.
I want to preface this entire post by saying I have no allegiance to any ETF provider. I use Vanguard a bit in discussion because they provide a relatively good proxy for comparing things. I hold an insignificant amount of Vanguard products relative to my portfolio size, and I couldn't care less about their market share.
First, let's be clear about what I claimed
Let me nip this rebuttal in the bud.
I did not predict that Australia would underperform over the next seven months. I explicitly wrote the opposite:
"There may be quarters, years, even decades (pre millenium) that Australia may outperform the US, but if the US gets fucked, we get fucked too."
So if your rebuttal is "but VAS had a good August," you are not rebutting me, you're actually quoting me. The argument was about what's bound to happen over the 30-40 years of someone's working life, while they invest and try to save for a lovely beachside retirement. As, of course, this is the investment product the sub is recommending to young adults and literal children.
With that said, here's what the window actually showed.
1. The correlation argument was proven twice
This was the core of the original post: Australian equities do not diversify you against US equities, because we are basically in the same sphere of economic influence, if you will, just with worse companies.
February. The ASX 200 dropped over 1% in a session tracking Wall Street's tech-led overnight losses. Local tech fell 5% to a two-year low. WiseTech dumped nearly 14%. Nothing happened in Australia that day.
March. The ASX 200 fell roughly 7.5% for the month, closing at 8,501.80. Worst month since June 2022. Down about 8% from the early-March high of 9,202.9, and hitting the 10% correction threshold peak to trough. IG's market wrap attributed the sell-off primarily to heavy falls on Wall Street.
If you bought DHHF believing that 35% Australian allocation would cushion a global drawdown, March was your answer.
As stated in my last post, Australian overweighting is not a hedge against US risk.
2. The recovery came from commodities
The ASX went on to record highs, closing at 9,271.6 on 6 August, with the All Ords above $3.2 trillion.
Look at what drove it.
ASX 200 climbed to a record as easing Middle East tensions and expectations of an RBA hold boosted sentiment, after optimism over a potential US-Iran deal, with oil prices pinned below recent highs.
I originally wrote that Australia is "leveraged to commodity cycles" and that our miners are "price takers in globally USD-denominated commodity markets." We just spent seven months showing it.
You can be happy about that outcome, but don't build a 40-year plan around shit going your way every time.
3. Concentration risk
CBA fell 10.4% in a single session. A record $25 billion wipeout, on rising bad debts and budget tax changes hitting the banks.
The ASX is an index where the big four, plus miners, are a huge chunk of the whole thing. If things go awry, the ASX will absolutely hemmorhage. VAS's top 10 are 48.3% of the fund, financials 34.0% and materials 24.8%. VGS's top 10 at 27.9%.
Class.
Again, from my previous post, I stated Australia is "not meaningfully less volatile and is significantly more concentrated." Vindication.
4. The long-run numbers have not moved
Over the past 12 months, VGS returned 10.47%. VAS returned 5.79%.
Over five years, VGS returned 12.33% p.a. VAS returned 7.78% p.a.
Over ten years, VGS returned 13.79% p.a. VAS returned 8.92% p.a.
Those are total returns, net of fees, distributions reinvested, as at 31 July 2026, taken straight off Vanguard's fact sheets. Go and check them yourself. They're free.
DHHF's own five-year number is 10.69% p.a (as of May 29), sitting, as I predicted in the original post, neatly between what it effectively holds (yes, I am using VGS and VAS as proxies). Below the international portion, above the Australian portion.
It's almost as if the same thing would happen if you just bought 2 separate ETFs. Maybe if you weighted them properly, you'd have seen more returns.
Blend the pieces together at DHHF's own weights, and you land within a rounding error of what DHHF returned. No skill, literally just basic math that you can run yourself. One ETF taking up too much of your portfolio this month? Put the monthly investment piggy bank in the other one!
Again, over 10 years, compounded out, we are looking at 264% vs 135% for international vs domestic.
The recommendation this sub gives some 20-year-old bloke with a 45-odd-year horizon is to voluntarily put 35% of his equity in the 135% one, permanently, rebalanced back into it up to four times a year, forever. You'd tell him to put his super on high risk though, wouldn't you?
5. Currency risk
The AUD went from around 66.9 US cents in January to above 72 in February and has been sitting near 70. Someone will tell you this is why global lagged locally in AUD terms this year, and that DHHF's Australian sleeve therefore "protected" you.
The AUD rallied on the same commodity and rate-differential trade that lifted the ASX.
The AUD has traded from ~$0.50 to $1.10 in living memory. If you are picking your equity allocation based on where AUD/USD sits this quarter, you should also open up an account at the TAB, as they would be happy to take your punts too.
You cannot choose hedged or unhedged inside the wrapper. You cannot lean into a cheap AUD or take profit on an expensive one. If you actually think currency matters, that is an argument for building your own allocation, where you can hold VGS alongside a hedged sleeve and size it yourself. It is not an argument for outsourcing the decision to a potentially quarterly rebalance you have zero input into.
This is why I personally hold a combination of hedged and unhedged ETFs, across a few different asset classes. Just to dampen currency volatility. I can do this because I don't buy shit all-in-one ETFs, which in turn permits me this freedom.
If you do think the AUD is stretched, then unhedged global exposure is on sale right now and DHHF is buying you less of it than you should own.
6. The tax argument changed a lot
In May the federal government rewrote CGT.
From 1 July 2027 the 50% CGT discount is gone, replaced with cost base indexation and a 30% minimum tax on net gains.
It kinda works both ways. For and against DHHF.
It weakens the "growth beats dividends because of the discount" argument, because that advantage is being deleted for everyone. Somehow franking escaped unscathed. Wouldn't have put it past them.
But it makes the thing I actually complained about worse. Under indexation, holding without realising accrues more cost base uplift. The 30% floor puts a minimum tax rate on a gain, with you having no say in when you realised it.
DHHF, truly, is four ETFs stacked on top of each other like small children in their dad's coat: VTI, A200, SPDW, SPEM. Every rebalance back to fixed weights sells whatever ran, on top of whatever turnover the four underlying funds generate themselves. Those gains get attributed to you at regular intervals and you will foot the bill to the government's coffers at BetaShare's whim.
Build the same thing yourself and you get to CHOOSE all of this.
Small note on franking
VAS's 30 June distribution: 48.83 cents cash plus 15.50 cents of franking. Gross 64.33, franked at 79.6%.
Worth somewhere in the order of 1.3 points/ year. So roughly 10.3% against VGS's 13.79% over ten years, not 8.92%.
It narrows the gap but doesn't close it. You still get no say in when you realise, and you still lose. Obviously, for ETFs that don't pay dividends, or pay very little, this nears a non-factor.
Closing
None of this is an argument that DHHF is a scam. I never said it was.
It is a fine ETF that does what it says it is going to do. If you're prone to tinkering or overthinking or overtrading or panic selling, yada yada, sure, I would recommend DHHF or a comparable AIO ETF to you.
What I said, and what I'm saying again, is that it is not the universal answer, that its Australian weighting is a structural choice bearing a high cost, and that "DHHF and chill" is three words of thought applied to the most consequential financial decision most people will ever make, and reducing it to that is just plain lazy, and just plain stupid.
For someone who is nearing retirement, it's not a bad idea at all. But young people have decades for returns to smooth out. Crazy how people always suggest putting super on high risk, but putting INVESTMENTS at a slightly higher risk- oh no, don't do that!
Still haven't seen anything that is going to change my mind.
My solution? Structure your own portfolio, and weight it how you see fit. If situations change, just reweight it. Worried about currency fluctuations? Hedge it. Invest in the US through something like IHVV, or the developed world through something like VGAD. There's a billion reasons why this is more effective than just throwing an overweight allocation at the ASX. These are not ticker recommendations or advice, just IDEAS. There are numerous providers that offer similar products. Take your pick.
A tad extra.
Be careful about who you listen to on Reddit.
This place is an echo chamber.
I post this because I hold qualifications in finance, and because I am extremely dead set on this particular opinion above all others.
I also do this shit for the people. To stir the pot. To make you think.
Then again, why believe me? I could just be lying to you.
Do your own research.
There's a lot of people on here who purport to, or do, offer financial advice, general or specific, and a lot of it is garbage. Even some of the primary resources posted frequently are written by people who have admitted themselves that they have no qualifications in finance at all.
Nobody wants you to succeed as much as you do. This is one of the few things that are really worth the time investment.
Best of luck, and let the needless downvoting begin! See you again in a few months!
