I have created what I think is a formula for working out if it makes economic sense to buy an electric vehicle. You can find it below:
Explanation of the formula
The way to think about whether an EV is worth it or not is to consider the EV premium, which is the difference between the higher cost of the EV and the cheaper internal combustion engine (ICE) car. So for example, as of December 2023, the MG ZS EV costs $42,990 whereas the petrol version MG ZS is $21,990, so there is an EV premium of p = $21,000. When you pay for this EV premium, you are effectively putting this $21k into an investment that has a return () which needs to be compared to the return of other investments. For example, suppose you buy an EV and spend and extra $21k and from the fuel savings etc you make 3% per annum returns (). If you believe that an alternative investment such as DHHF or VDHG has an after-tax return of over 3% then you would be better off buying the petrol MG ZS and putting the EV premium of $21k into DHHF or VDHG.
Another key consideration is battery depreciation. The EV premium is mostly a battery premium. The investment you are making is mostly in the battery. This battery has a return that you get from having access to energy in the form of electricity. Energy in the form of electricity is much cheaper than from petroleum. However, the EV tax and battery depreciation needs to be considered as well.
Looking at the MG ZS vs the MG ZS EV, the fuel economy of the MG ZS is 7.1 L per 100km and the petrol price is assumed to be $1.75 per litre. This means that every 100km you drive you are spending $12.43 in petrol.
However, for the MG ZS EV, the energy efficiency is 17.1 KWh per 100km and the cost of electricity under the Powershop EV Plan is $0.18 per KWh, which means that every 100km you only pay $3.11 in electricity costs. However, add in the EV tax of $2.50 per 100km (only applies in Victoria, Australia) and battery depreciation of $4.29 per 100km assuming battery life of 350,000 km and battery replacement cost of $15,000 and the EV cost is $9.89 per 100km, which is still cheaper than the $12.43 per 100km from the petrol car.
Because costs depend on the distance you drive, whether it makes sense economically to drive an EV strongly depends on how much you drive. The more you drive (especially over 25,000 km per year) the more it makes sense to get an EV whereas if you drive under 25,000 per year, it starts to make more sense to drive a petrol car.
Something else to consider is that when you pay for petrol, you pay for it using after-tax money whereas if you put the EV premium into getting an electric car, the lower cost per 100km you get is tax free. You need to compare the return from paying the EV premium against the after-tax returns from an alternative investment e.g. the after-tax returns of DHHF or VDHG.
If we assume that you drive 25,000 km per year then the MG ZS EV costs $2,473 per year whereas the MG ZS costs $3,106 per year. Given the EV premium of $21k this means the return on the EV premium .
A major uncertainty is the battery depreciation as it is difficult to know the battery life and battery replacement cost. In fact, most of the costs of driving an electric car seems to come from battery depreciation alone.
Reddit comments
I shared this formula on Reddit and received mixed reviews. Some people raised very good points that I have missed in the formula, but I think overall the formula above is useful to know whether it makes sense financially to purchase an EV or not. Below are some other considerations:
EVs have lower servicing costs.
EVs are heavier and so tire costs are higher.
Charging from solar energy is ignored as this would add extra complication due to the capital costs of installing solar panels and/or home batteries. Charging using solar energy is not necessarily free as some claim as there is opportunity cost associated with locking capital up and not earning returns elsewhere such as DHHF or VDHG.
The EV tax in Australia currently only applies to Victorians. Laws may change in the future amending the EV tax.
Battery depreciation is considered but the depreciation of the ICE vehicles is not considered because it is assumed that depreciation for the EV and ICE vehicles are the same except for the additional EV battery depreciation. The assumption here is that when you buy an EV, you are buying something similar to an ICE car with a battery, so basically it is assumed that EV = ICE + Battery. However, the EV may depreciate more or less than the ICE vehicle depending on e.g. if governments increase or decrease EV taxes or subsidies. Some suggest that EVs depreciate faster than ICE vehicles, but this may change e.g. if the government introduces an additional carbon tax that applies to petroleum. If government is very aggressive in providing tax benefits for EV use, there is a risk that an ICE vehicle could become a stranded asset.
The formula above ignores power or acceleration differences between cars. The MG ZS EV is supposedly more powerful than the MG ZS. It is claimed that EVs are very quick to accelerate. However, this is ignored in the formula as we only want to focus on cost minimisation.
The formula ignores the environmental benefits of owning an EV as well as national security considerations (e.g. energy supply and price not being at the mercy of Russian or Saudi leaders).
The decision to get an EV or an ICE vehicle is very similar to whether you buy or rent a home. When you buy a home, you lock up a considerable amount of capital into the home. The benefit you get from living in your own home is that you don’t need to pay rent. If you buy your own home and then rent goes up significantly, you are better off. Similarly, when you buy an EV, you lock up capital because of the added cost of the batteries. However, the benefit you get from EV ownership is that you pay significantly lower energy costs. If you buy an EV and petrol prices go up, you are better off.
We also need to think about the future. Currently the break-even point is about 25,000 km. If you drive more than 25,000 km per year, it is highly likely you should buy an EV. However, if battery technology improves, petrol prices go up, and electricity prices go down, the break-even point will go down. There is also huge risk that an ICE vehicle you own may become a stranded asset if government policy aggressively addresses climate change. In my opinion, it is more likely that electricity prices will go down and petrol prices go up rather than the other way around. Electricity comes from multiple sources e.g. solar, wind, nuclear, and even gas, oil and coal. However, petrol only comes from oil. As such the supply of energy sources that can create electricity is much higher than the supply of energy sources than can create petrol, so higher supply should result in lower prices for electricity as an energy source.
Based on these considerations, in my view, even if you only drive 15,000 km to 20,000 km per year, if you’re in the market for a new car, it is better to buy an EV. It is better to drive an ICE vehicle if that is what you currently own and if you don’t drive too much (less than 25,000 km per year).
It has been a few months since the COVID-19 crisis has hit, and as a result of this crisis, I have settled into working from home. I’d like to describe my experience working from home from my parents’ home for the last few months.
Disadvantages of remote work
First of all, I find I have been quite busy. I would often either wake up early or work into the night in order to get work done. It seems there is more work to do when working from home. There are definitely advantages of working from home, but there are definitely disadvantages, the main disadvantage being that it is more difficult to work with others. For example, when you’re in an office, you can walk to someone’s desk and talk to them about something, but in a remote environment, you need to e-mail or call them, and they may not respond to your e-mails or calls. Furthermore, when I am in the office, I can walk to someone’s desk. If they are on the phone, it is clear they are busy, so I can walk away and come back at another time. However, when working remotely, I am more reluctant to ring someone because I have no idea what they are doing. They might be in the toilet or they might be changing their baby’s nappies, so there is this fear that I may intrude on their private lives whereas at work the expectation is that you work at work so you have no private life at work. Working from home does not seem to work well for “fast-paced” work where quick communication is necessary, especially when there is a deadline looming.
Advantages of remote work
There are advantages of remote work. In my opinion, there are more advantages than disadvantages. If I had to choose between working at home or working at the office, I’d prefer working at home, but ideally I’d prefer to have both options. There are some tasks I’d prefer to ask colleagues to come into the office to do, and there is also better socialisation in the office. For those who do live by themselves or who do not have too many friends outside of work, the office becomes the source of friend and family.
For me, the key benefit of working from home is I save a considerable amount of time not commuting. You don’t need to drive or take a train to work, which benefits me greatly because it takes one hour for me to get to work, which means I get two extra hours per day to sleep, exercise, read or watch Netflix. Another benefit is that you don’t need to worry about what you wear. When you go into the office, you need to dress correctly. However, when you work from home, you can wear anything. You can just put on sweatpants and a hoodie or you can stay in your pajamas. Even if you are on a Zoom call, you can turn off the video or you can position the camera so your clothes are off the screen.
Another benefit of working from home is that you don’t need to concentrate in meetings. This might sounds bad, but there are many meetings where you can safely turn off video and audio and do your other work. You can dedicate half your attention listening to the meeting (in case you need to speak) and the other half doing your other work.
Something I have noticed ever since working from home is that I am signing up to many webinars. Back in the office there are plenty of optional training sessions that I do not sign up for because I simply don’t have time. If I needed to get off my desk to go to one hour of training, that is one hour I would not be working. I only go to those training sessions that are mandatory. However, since all these training sessions are now online, they are quick and easy to sign up for, you can listen to them while doing your other work, and if something urgent comes up at work, you can simply and easily leave the webinar without any embarrassment or shame. As a result, I have gone to many webinars and feel I have learned a considerable amount about many different topics, from HR all the way to finance, retirement planning, etc.
Another benefit of the COVID-19 crisis is the amount of money I have saved. I don’t drive much, but in the last three months I have not driven at all, so I have saved a lot of money on petrol. Even when I have the option to drive short distances, I prefer to walk instead because I spend so much time indoors that I want to walk more to be outdoors. (When you drive, you are indoors.) I also never eat out, go to cafes, etc. Any socialising needs to be online, so it is free. I watch Netflix rather than go to the cinemas. Basically everything is done at home or online, which is much cheaper than “going out.”
The impact of COVID-19 on the property market is very unclear. There is a considerable amount of stimulus being applied to prop up not just the property market but also the stock market. That being said, if remote working becomes the norm, there is no advantage of working near the city anymore. This means I can live in the outer suburbs without worrying. Even if it takes me two hours to commute into the city, if I do so rarely, it’s not a problem. This means the cost of putting a roof over your head goes down considerably. It costs about $1600 per month to rent a one-bedroom apartment in the city, but in the outskirts of the city it costs about $1000 per month, so automatically you save $600 per month. Using the 4% rule, this means you only need to save $300k to pay rent forever (rather than $480k).
The frugal non-consumerist post-COVID lifestyle
Based on quick calculations for a single childfree person living in an Australian city, COVID-19 has reduced the cost of living by about one-third, from $3500 per month to about $2111 per month. Once again, using the 4% rule, this means you only need about $633k to retire rather than $1 million.
How is this possible? Because you no longer need to live near work, you can minimise costs by moving to the outskirts of the city, which should halve your rent. I am assuming the cost of a one-bedroom apartment in Melbourne CBD vs a one-bedroom unit in the outskirts of Melbourne (e.g. Frankston). Because you are not going out at all but eating at home all the time, this should halve your food costs. You also don’t need a car because you can walk, bike or take public transport everywhere. Assuming all other expenses stay the same, this cuts costs by about one-third.
Expense Item
Monthly Post-COVID Cost
Monthly Pre-COVID Cost
Rent
$1000
$2000
Food
$311
$600
Car
–
$100
Other
$800
$800
Total
$2111
$3500
Estimated monthly cost of living pre-COVID and post-COVID. “Other” includes electricity, internet, streaming services, etc.
In my opinion, one of the benefits of the COVID crisis is that it has forced people to live a non-consumerist lifestyle, which may result in many people realising that they are able to retire early if they want to. You don’t necessarily need $1 million to retire because living in isolation has taught you that you only need about $650k to retire.
In my opinion, a post-COVID lifestyle presents an opportunity to live more environmentally sustainably. A lifestyle with less car use, less overseas travel, less “going out” and more bike riding, walking, having meetings online, etc are better for the environment. I also think that caring for the environment can help you save more money because it provides extra motivation. For example, I am driving less today not only because I save money driving less but also because I am starting to feel very guilty driving a car. This extra guilt helps to discourage me from driving or travelling or going out to restaurants.
What about the economy and personal finances?
There is a considerable amount of uncertainty about the future of the economy. Some believe there will be a V-shaped recovery whereas others are expecting a W-shape or even an L-shape. Regardless of what letter of the alphabet the stock market resembles, I am not too concerned because I have diversified my portfolio to include not just equities but also bonds, gold and even cryptocurrency.
Another benefit of the COVID crisis is that interest rates have fallen. The interest rates on my CommSec margin loan as well as NAB Equity Builder have both fallen (5.6% and 3.9% respectively). As I have explained in other posts, debt can be positive because you are able to deduct interest expenses. Many people invest with debt when buying a property, and they deduct interest expenses. It is possible to do the same with ETFs, but in my opinion the main benefit of holding debt to buy shares rather than property is that stocks or ETFs can quickly and cheaply be sold to extinguish the debt whereas a property is very expensive to sell. For example, if I borrowed money to buy ETFs and suddenly wanted to retire early, I can sell ETFs and with the proceeds I can pay off all my debt. However, if I borrowed to buy a property and suddenly wanted to retire, selling a property to extinguish the debt would cost me about $30k in real estate agent commission.
Another benefit of ETFs vs property is that you can avoid or minimise capital gains tax. If you own an investment property with debt on it and you suddenly retire, you need to sell it to pay off the debt. Selling it will trigger capital gains tax. For example, suppose you buy a property for $500k and it increases in price to $1 million. Then you sell it but need to pay CGT on the $500k price rise. However, the benefit of ETFs is that you don’t have to sell all ETFs at once. Suppose you purchase $500k in ETFs and it rises to $1 million in price. Rather than sell all the ETFs, you only sell half thereby realising only $250k in capital gains. Then you sell the other half the next year thereby maximising the amount of capital gains subject to lower income tax rates. This works in Australia because capital gains tax is based on the progressive income tax rates. Under the Australian income tax system, income (including triggered capital gains) under $18200 in the financial year is exempt from any tax whereas any amount above that is subject to tax. So if you sell a property and realise $500k capital gains, then only $18.2k of that is exempt from tax with the rest being subject to tax. But if you sell half your ETFs in one year and the other half the next year, then $36.4k is exempt from tax. ETFs are highly divisible, which allows this, but property is not. You cannot sell half the house and then the other half the next year.
Because I have invested in a range of different ETFs, if I needed to retire quickly and needed to extinguish the debt, I would simply sell an ETF that has made large gains and then offset these gains by selling off a different ETF that has made losses. The losses and the gains would roughly cancel each other out, which means there is little capital gains tax to pay. Any existing capital gains can be left untriggered. ETFs allow you to control your capital gains and therefore your capital gains tax.
Some people say that an easy way to avoid CGT is to put your money into your principal property of residence (PPOR), which is exempt from CGT. However, this does not work. When people buy an property, there is a reason why investors prefer to put a tenant into it even if doing so removes CGT exemption. It is because putting a tenant into a property provides the landlord with rental income as well as the ability to deduct expenses. The gains from the rental income and interest deductions is greater than the loss of CGT exemption. If this were not the case, there would be no investment properties because landlord would put any extra money into their main residence rather than invest it in a rental property. This means it would be impossible to rent because no landlord would put money into rental properties because the tax advantages would be greater for main residence. The government must provide rental property investors greater tax benefits for rental property compared to main residences otherwise the rental market would not exist. That rental income and tax deduction on expenses from owning investments is greater than CGT exemption on a PPOR is the key factor that justifies “rentvesting” but that is a topic for a separate future post.
Am I close to retirement?
There are two main reasons why I would feel uncomfortable retiring today. One is that I have quite a bit of debt. Of course, I can sell assets to pay off the debt, and some of my investment income can be used to meet the debt repayments. However, I feel reluctant to do this. Part of me feels that I should pay off more debt or at least generate more dividend income to meet all debt obligations.
Another reason why I am reluctant to retire is because a substantial amount of my personal wealth is in my superannuation fund, which I don’t have access to until I am 60. This means that if I retire now, I will need to implement the “two bucket system” and run down my non-super bucket that will tide me over until I have access to my super, which will help me pay off my debts. If I implement the “two bucket system” right now, I’d be living a very frugal lifestyle with a pre-super safe withdrawal rate of about 2 per cent rather than 4 per cent. I want to build up more wealth in my non-super bucket that will tide me over until 60.
New podcasts and website
While under lockdown, I have been listening to many podcasts. A recent podcast that I highly recommend is FIRE and Chill which discusses personal finance in Australia.
Another website that I find useful is the Nomadlist FIRE calculator, which helps you determine which countries you are able to retire in based on your net worth. The most expensive city to live in is New York, so if you have enough net worth to be able to retire in New York (about US$1.1 million), in my opinion you are effectively financially independent. However, what this site teaches you is that even if you have low net worth, there are many countries all around the world where the cost of living is low, which means you will be able to retire very quickly. Many people assume that they need to live in expensive cities e.g. Sydney, Melbourne, New York, London, etc. However, the world is enormous and there are so many places where it is cheap to live. For example, in Liverpool, UK you can live off US$500k. In Davao, Phillipines you can live off US$250k. Looking at sites like this is a strong motivator because as my net worth grows, I am able to tick off cities around the world where I am able to live. The ultimate achievement is ticking off on New York because then you’d have the safety and security of knowing you can retire early in the world’s most expensive city.
I Live Off Dividends 