Australian ETF Components now updated for FY 2020-2021

Reporting & tax
1

We’ve now loaded distribution components data for financial year 2020-2021 for the following ETF providers:

  • BetaShares
  • ETF Securities Limited
  • iShares (excluding IOZ, IWLD, WDMF, and WVOL)
  • Russell
  • State Street SPDR (only DJRE, E200, and STW)
  • Van Eck
  • Vanguard

This means you don’t have to update your Pro Rata Tax Statement Values form manually (see the full list of ETFs below).

Make sure your Sharesight portfolio is up-to-date with the loaded ETF components data by following the steps outlined in this video:

Full list of updated ETF components: A200, AAA, ACDC, AGVT, ASIA, ATEC, AUDS, AUMF, AUST, BHYB, BILL, BNDS, BNKS, CETF, CLDD, CLNE, CNEW, CORE, CRED, CURE, DBBF, DGGF, DHHF, DRUG, DVDY, DZZF, E200, EBND, EINC, EMKT, EMMG, ERTH, ESGI, ESPO, ESTX, ETHI, EX20, F100, FAIR, FANG, FLOT, FOOD, FUEL, GBND, GDX, GEAR, GGOV, GGUS, GOAT, GRNV, HACK, HBRD, HETH, HEUR, HJPN, HLTH, HNDQ, HQLT, HVST, IAA, IAF, ICOR, IEM, IESG, IEU, IFRA, IGB, IHCB, IHD, IHEB, IHHY, IHOO, IHVV, IHWL, IIND, IJH, IJP, IJR, IKO, ILB, ILC, INCM, IOO, ISEC, ISO, IVE, IVV, IXI, IXJ, IYLD, IZZ, LNAS, MNRS, MOAT, MVA, MVB, MVE, MVOL, MVR, MVS, MVW, NDIA, NDQ, OOO, PLUS, QAU, QFN, QHAL, QLTY, QOZ, QPON, QRE, QSML, QUAL, QUS, RARI, RBTZ, RCB, RDV, REIT, RGB, RINC, ROBO, RSM, SELF, SMLL, SUBD, TECH, UMAX, VACF, VAE, VAF, VAP, VAS, VBLD, VBND, VCF, VDBA, VDCO, VDGR, VDHG, VEFI, VEQ, VESG, VETH, VGAD, VGB, VGE, VGMF, VGS, VHY, VIF, VISM, VLC, VLUE, VMIN, VSO, VVLU, WRLD, YMAX, ZYAU, ZYUS.

Summary

This text will be hidden

1 Like
3

Hi, in the video you’ve said to reset payouts if you’ve already confirmed them…Why should we do that if it’s already been manually updated? Is there an advantage to do that?

4

Hi @dbazd. Great question. If you have filled out your Pro Rata form and it matches your ETF Annual Tax Statement, then there is no benefit to resetting your payouts. Hope that helps!

1 Like
5

Hi, I have followed the steps in the video for my vaguard etfs: VGS and VAS. Both don’t match. VGS by 1 cent and VAS by 2 cents. For VGS its foreign source income thats out. For VAS unfranked amount + interest is out by 1 cent and Franking credits out by 1 cent. What to I do ? thank you.

6

Was there an ETA for the ETFs that were omitted for
iShares (i.e IOZ, IWLD, WDMF, and WVOL)? For curiosities sake why were these omitted?

7

Hi @emily just checking you saw my question. thanks. :slight_smile:

8

Hi @abhay, can you reach out to our support team directly & we’ll work with you to get these lined up :pray:

9

As in link below. It is counter productive and of no use at all.

10

When my AMMA EOFY statement arrives I create a new payment for 30 June and then add the details from the statement. It is a very simple exercise which only takes a couple of minutes, the entries are precise - there is no chasing the odd cent due to rounding errors and when the net dividend in the form matches the net cash distribution in the statement I know there are no entry errors.

The purpose of the Distribution Payment advice is to tell the investor the $$$ payment after withholding tax is taken out. It is not a tax statement because it does not record tax components - they are in the EOFY AMMA statement. As such it should not be recorded in Sharesight. If applicable the payment advice is also used to record the DRP shares.

But there seems to be a large cohort within Sharesight who believe the solution is to pro rata the EOFY AMMA components across payment advices. I am at a loss to understand why anyone would do that.

I have watched the above video not once, but several times to try and gain an understanding. It seems to change my two minute data entry into this horrendously complex process which from the above introduces small rounding errors.

I am old school having moved from paper to spreadsheet and now to Sharesight. But my recording processes have never changed despite the evolution from paper to electronic and I cannot see any reason for any change.

So here is the request. Would anyone be able to tell me why it is better to record the EOFY AMMA statement pro-rated across distribution payment advices rather than have a relatively simple single EOFY payment?

3 Likes
11

I am new to Sharesight, but following along with interest.

TLDR: The “Annual Tax Statement Components” form is altering the payment totals, and it should not. It should only be altering the components of those payments, prorated as advertised.

I observe the AMMA form to be altering the payment values, which makes no sense to me; the Recalculated Net Payment looks like it’s dependent on the order of fields being changed, and you can imagine when needing to modify several fields then the totals go up and down if recalculating from the sum of components, instead of distributing the totals downward.

Instead, the Recalculated Net Payment should never change, in fact that line item should not exist at all. The payment value should be immutable to this form (only changed by the user Editing the distribution record itself.)

As Fractal says, the whole thing is unnecessary and the only thing that matters for tax time is the AMMA form itself.

But it’s nice to see the payments in the ledger with their correct dates as it reconciles with the bank statement.

I expect instead that result of the form to be constructing passable values for the tax components of the distribution payments, and the total “Recalculated Net Payment” should match the original “Net Payment”.

(I am also looking at a rounding error in the final total that’s trying to sneak into the tax report, which is also confusing and looks to be a result of rounding in the intermediate components. This would be avoided if the result of the form was to only update tax components in the payment records and not the totals.)