ADX lifts Austrian oil field stake to boost production and cash flow
The Perth-based energy player, through its wholly owned Austrian arm Kathari Energia, has finalised an agreement to acquire Xstate Resources' 20 per cent economic interest in the producing field.
In a textbook example of smart dealmaking, ADX offset the €547,075 (A$962,847) purchase price against unpaid cash calls owed by Xstate, leaving its bank balance untouched.
ADX's move increases the company's stake in the Anshof-3 production well from 50 to 70 per cent and lifts its share of output from the well to 72 barrels of oil per day (BOPD), up from 58 BOPD.
Across its Austrian operations, ADX's daily production now sits at a healthier 307 barrels of oil equivalent (BOEPD).
Xstate farmed into the Anshof-3 discovery in 2021. However, the company has now agreed to exit the project entirely to simplify its portfolio, thereby relinquishing all rights and obligations in exchange for giving up its 20 per cent share of the Anshof oil field.
Czech group MND Austria still holds the remaining 30 per cent interest in the Anshof field, including a 30 per cent cut of the Anshof-3 well and a beefier 40 per cent slice of production from Anshof-2A.
As ADX remains operator of the field, the company's uplift in ownership also includes control over the 3000 barrels-per-day-capable production facility on site. The plant is an automated hub that processes, stores and offloads oil, while using associated gas for power generation.
The Anshof field sits in the ADX-AT-II licence, which is already proving fertile ground for oil production and near-field exploration. The area also includes Anshof-2A, currently producing an average of 39 barrels of oil per day (BOPD), in which ADX retains a 60 per cent stake.
In its latest quarterly, ADX revealed the company had hauled in $2.5 million in sales for the three months to March, increasing its production by 13 per cent to 246 BOEPD. The latest ownership lift is likely to see the cash number rise again.
Turning to exploration, ADX is going all-in on its Upper Austrian grounds, where the company is teeing up a flurry of drill-ready gas targets across its recently extended ADX-AT-I and ADX-AT-II licences - now secured through to 2028.
Six shallow gas plays are locked and loaded for drilling, with another seven nearly good to go. All sit in a sweet spot rich in infrastructure and crisscrossed by gas pipelines.
All the new targets have been pinpointed using cutting-edge, AI-enhanced 3D seismic, giving ADX a modern edge in a region that's already coughed up 220 billion cubic feet of gas from nearby historical discoveries.
ADX has kicked off talks with potential farm-in partners keen to get a slice of the action, and says it expects to lock in funding for a high-impact drilling campaign slated for later this year.
The company is also casting its eye beyond Austria, staking a claim in the Sicily Channel off Italy. The newly acquired licence area is shaping up as a potential gas frontier, with permitting expected in the coming weeks. If approvals land as expected, ADX could soon be unlocking a new gas province rich in high-pressure, gas-charged reservoirs.
As oil markets remain tightly poised and production assets in stable jurisdictions such as Austria gain value, ADX's play at Anshof could prove a masterstroke - not just for today's barrels, but for tomorrow's discoveries.
Is your ASX-listed company doing something interesting? Contact:
matt.birney@wanews.com.au
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
When foreign 'contractors' are considered to be employees
The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable. But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply. The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal. The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore. As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained: "The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia." She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms. "Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor." In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit. That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee. Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said. That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now? Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers: "It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured." She also stressed that regular reviews are important: "We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes." Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise. Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit. Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year? Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments. Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us? Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac. The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable. But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply. The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal. The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore. As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained: "The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia." She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms. "Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor." In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit. That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee. Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said. That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now? Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers: "It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured." She also stressed that regular reviews are important: "We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes." Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise. Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit. Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year? Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments. Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us? Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac. The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable. But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply. The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal. The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore. As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained: "The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia." She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms. "Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor." In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit. That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee. Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said. That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now? Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers: "It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured." She also stressed that regular reviews are important: "We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes." Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise. Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit. Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year? Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments. Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us? Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac. The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable. But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply. The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal. The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore. As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained: "The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia." She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms. "Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor." In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit. That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee. Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said. That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now? Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers: "It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured." She also stressed that regular reviews are important: "We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes." Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise. Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit. Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year? Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments. Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us? Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac.
AU Financial Review
4 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
No CBA, no worries: How Firetrail beat the ASX by riding the IPO wave
As fund managers across the country cheered the unofficial reopening of Australia's market for initial public offerings, perhaps none were more excited than Blake Henricks. The ex-Macquarie stockpicker who co-founded Sydney-based boutique manager Firetrail Investments has pounced on the flurry of new listings this year by adding some of the more high-profile names to his $437 million Australian High Conviction Fund.
AU Financial Review
4 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
Australian space firm eyeing an IPO – but needs to reach orbit first
The chief executive of Gilmour Space Technologies has told potential investors he expects the company's Australian-made rocket to reach orbit on its third attempt, paving the way for a commercial launch service and an initial public offering within three years. Adam Gilmour is meeting investors in Australia and Singapore to raise more than $100 million in fresh funding for the Gold Coast-based space business after its first rocket launch last month failed.
