- Objective: Tracks the FTSE Australia High Dividend Yield Index before fees and taxes. [1]
- Distributions: Paid quarterly. [1, 2]
- Franking The franking percentage changes with each distribution depending on which companies pay dividends and the level of franking attached. Distributions historically range from roughly 70% to over 80% franked. [1, 2, 3]
- Holdings: Diversified across roughly 73 stocks, excluding A-REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts). It caps individual companies at 10% and industries at 40%. [1, 2]
- Top Holdings: Dominated by major Australian firms like Commonwealth Bank, BHP Group, National Australia Bank, Wesfarmers, and Westpac. [1]
If we define “Buffett-style income + value” as:
- durable businesses
- strong and preferably rising ROE
- reliable free cash flow/dividends
- conservative balance sheets
- reasonable valuation
- sustainable, preferably franked, income
- low fees
- and not sacrificing too much long-term capital growth for yield
then the five look quite different.
I’m using the latest available data around August–September 2026. Importantly, this is a framework comparison, not a recommendation or ranking.
1. The five side by side
| VHY | SYI | RDV | SWTZ | ARG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structure | ETF | ETF | ETF | Active ETF | LIC |
| Management style | Passive | Passive | Passive | Active | Active |
| Holdings | ~90+ | 57 | 90 | ~40 | ~80 |
| Fee | 0.25% | 0.20% | 0.34% | ~1.0% | 0.14% |
| Portfolio P/E | ~18–19x | 17.9x | ~18.4x | ~17–18x* | ~17–18x* |
| Portfolio ROE | ~15–16%* | 15.9% | ~15%* | ~15%* | ~14–15%* |
| Dividend yield | ~3.5–4% | ~4.0% | ~4.0% | ~5%+ | ~4%+ |
| Franking | High | High | High | Very high | 100% |
| Balance-sheet quality | Good | Good | Good | Good | Very good |
| 5-year total return p.a. | 11.7% | 10.5% | 7.9% | 3.85% | 8.7% NTA* |
| Capital growth | Strong | Moderate | Moderate | Weak recently | Moderate |
| Income emphasis | High | Very high | High | Very high | Very high |
*Some portfolio P/E/ROE figures for VHY, RDV, SWTZ and ARG aren't published using exactly the same methodology/date, so I wouldn't treat those estimates as directly comparable. SYI's figures are directly reported by State Street: 17.86x P/E and 15.93% ROE as at 10 September 2026.
VHY's current fee is 0.25%, and Vanguard explicitly describes it as seeking both long-term capital growth and regular income.
2. Buffett's first question: "What am I buying?"
This is where VHY and ARG are particularly interesting.
VHY
VHY owns a broad portfolio of high-dividend Australian companies. Vanguard deliberately limits individual stocks to 10% and individual industries to 40%, creating a reasonably diversified income portfolio.
The underlying businesses include companies such as:
- BHP
- CBA
- NAB
- Westpac
- ANZ
- Rio Tinto
- Telstra
- Macquarie
- Transurban
You're essentially buying a diversified collection of mature Australian cash-generating businesses.
SYI
SYI is somewhat different.
Its current largest positions include:
- CSL — 11.8%
- ANZ — 9.8%
- NAB — 9.7%
- Westpac — 8.8%
- Telstra — 7.7%
- QBE
- Coles
- Evolution Mining
- Santos
- Computershare
State Street reports 57 holdings, a 17.86x P/E and 15.93% weighted-average ROE.
That's actually a fairly interesting combination:
~16% ROE + ~18x P/E + ~4% underlying dividend yield.
3. Buffett's second question: "How good are the businesses?"
Here I'd focus less on the ETF's dividend yield and more on the quality of the underlying companies.
A useful proxy is:
ROE + balance-sheet strength + earnings durability
SYI's portfolio currently has approximately 16% ROE, which is respectable.
VHY's portfolio has a similar quality profile, but its methodology is specifically designed to capture companies with higher forecast dividends. Vanguard also limits individual-company and sector concentration.
ARG is different because it is an active value investor.
Argo says its investment process explicitly involves:
- quantitative screening
- industry/company analysis
- quality assessment
- valuation
- portfolio construction
and says it only buys companies when its assessment indicates they are trading below its valuation.
That is much closer to a traditional Buffett/Munger-style investment process than a mechanical high-dividend index.
4. Buffett's third question: "What price am I paying?"
This is where things get really interesting.
SYI
Current:
P/E ~17.9x
ROE ~15.9%
That's not an obviously cheap market multiple, but it isn't an extreme valuation either.
RDV
RDV is around 18.4x P/E, with a ~4% trailing yield and 0.34% fee. It holds about 90 securities.
VHY
VHY's valuation is broadly in the high-teens P/E range, while its historical total return has been exceptional relative to the other four.
Its 10-year return is 11.70% p.a. and five-year return is 14.78% p.a. according to Vanguard's latest data.
That's worth emphasizing: the earlier figure I gave you for VHY's 5-year return was incorrect. The latest Vanguard data says 14.78% p.a., not 11.70%. The 11.70% is its 10-year figure.
That changes the comparison considerably.
5. ARG is the unusual one
This is where I'd spend quite a bit of time if you're approaching this from a value-investor perspective.
Argo's latest NTA is approximately:
$10.73 per share
and the company says the shares were trading at approximately a:
15% discount to NTA
at 31 August 2026.
That means you're not merely buying the underlying portfolio.
You're buying:
~$1.00 of underlying assets for roughly ~$0.85.
That's the classic closed-end fund discount situation.
It doesn't guarantee anything—the discount can persist or widen—but it creates a value variable that none of the ETFs have.
6. And ARG's fee is remarkable
Argo's management expense ratio is:
0.14%
It is internally managed and has no external investment-management fee. Argo specifically highlights its low-cost structure.
Compare:
| Fee | |
|---|---|
| ARG | 0.14% |
| SYI | 0.20% |
| VHY | 0.25% |
| RDV | 0.34% |
| SWTZ | ~1.0% |
| Approx. ($500k investment) annual fee | |
|---|---|
| ARG | $700 |
| SYI | $1,000 |
| VHY | $1,250 |
| RDV | $1,700 |
| SWTZ | ~$5,000 |
7. Dividend sustainability
This is probably more important than headline yield.
ARG
This is where ARG has an exceptional history.
Argo has paid dividends every year since 1946, and every dividend has been fully franked since the introduction of Australia's imputation system.
For FY2026:
38.5¢ fully franked
And from January 2027, Argo intends to move to quarterly dividends of 10¢ per quarter, implying 40¢ annually if that intention is fulfilled.
That's an unusually strong income history.
VHY
VHY's income is generated from the dividends of the underlying companies, so sustainability ultimately depends on those companies.
Its 10-year total return of 11.7% indicates that the fund has historically managed to combine income with substantial capital appreciation.
SYI
SYI has an even stronger distribution emphasis.
Over the five years to August 2026:
Distribution return: 9.71% p.a.
Growth return: 0.79% p.a.
Total return: 10.50% p.a.
That's a fascinating result.
It says:
SYI has historically converted a very large proportion of its return into distributions.
That's attractive if you want income, but less attractive if you want maximum compounding inside the fund.
8. SWTZ is the odd one out
SWTZ's active approach is theoretically attractive for a value investor.
The manager can:
- avoid expensive stocks
- hold cash
- buy undervalued companies
- concentrate on dividend sustainability
- change the portfolio when valuations change
That's potentially very Buffett-like.
But the historical outcome hasn't been particularly strong.
The five-year annualised total return has been around 3.9%, while its capital component has been negative.
And you're paying approximately 1% for that active management.
That's the central question with SWTZ:
Has the active management added enough value to compensate for its fee and weaker capital performance?
The historical numbers don't provide strong evidence of that so far.
9. The five different "Buffett" propositions
I'd describe them this way:
VHY — "Buy great cash generators cheaply enough and let them compound."
High-quality, low-cost, diversified, substantial income and excellent historical capital growth.
SYI — "Give me the income now."
Very high distribution orientation, respectable ROE and low fee.
RDV — "Give me diversified high dividends with a different index methodology."
Solid middle ground, but its historical return has been below VHY and SYI.
SWTZ — "Let an active manager find value for me."
Conceptually attractive, but the historical results have been much weaker and the fee considerably higher.
ARG — "Buy a diversified Australian portfolio, managed for value and income, potentially at a discount."
This is the most interesting value-investor proposition because of:
quality portfolio + active valuation discipline + 100% franked dividends + 0.14% cost + 15% NTA discount.
Argo explicitly describes itself as a value-style investor using bottom-up analysis, rather than simply following a dividend index.
10. The capital-growth question
This is where I'd be careful about chasing yield.
Consider the five-year return profiles:
| Income emphasis | Growth emphasis | 5-year total return | |
|---|---|---|---|
| VHY | High | High | 14.8% |
| SYI | Very high | Moderate | 10.5% |
| RDV | High | Moderate | 7.9% |
| ARG | Very high | Moderate | ~8–9% NTA |
| SWTZ | High | Low recently | ~3.9% |
11. The "Buffett-style" test
Rather than giving them an overall ranking, I'd look at the individual characteristics:
| Buffett-style characteristic | VHY | SYI | RDV | SWTZ | ARG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High-quality businesses | ✓✓ | ✓✓ | ✓ | ✓✓ | ✓✓ |
| Strong ROE | ✓✓ | ✓✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Low fee | ✓✓ | ✓✓ | ✓ | — | ✓✓✓ |
| Dividend reliability | ✓✓ | ✓✓ | ✓✓ | ✓ | ✓✓✓ |
| Franking | ✓✓ | ✓✓ | ✓✓ | ✓✓✓ | ✓✓✓ |
| Capital compounding | ✓✓✓ | ✓✓ | ✓ | — | ✓✓ |
| Value discipline | Index-based | Index-based | Index-based | Active | Active/value |
| Diversification | ✓✓✓ | ✓✓ | ✓✓ | ✓ | ✓✓ |
| Special valuation opportunity | — | — | — | — | NTA discount |
12. What I find most interesting
For the particular combination you're looking for—income + value + quality + reasonable valuation—there are really two fundamentally different approaches here.
Approach A: VHY
You're effectively saying:
"I don't need a manager to find bargains. I'll own a diversified basket of high-dividend Australian businesses at a very low cost and let the market compound my capital."
The historical evidence is quite compelling in terms of the combination of income and capital growth. Vanguard reports 14.78% p.a. over five years and 11.70% p.a. over ten years to 31 August 2026.
Approach B: ARG
You're saying:
"I want an experienced active value manager, I want fully franked income, and I'm willing to exploit the fact that the LIC itself is trading below the value of its assets."
ARG's 15% discount to NTA makes this considerably more interesting from a value-investing perspective than simply comparing dividend yields.
And there's another nice feature: Argo itself has no debt, according to its current company information.
My key takeaway from the numbers
The distinction I'd make is:
VHY = income + compounding
SYI = income + some compounding
RDV = income + moderate compounding
SWTZ = active income/value strategy, but with disappointing historical compounding
ARG = income + active value + potential NTA discount
And ARG is the one I'd investigate much more deeply from a Buffett-style perspective, not because it is automatically superior, but because the combination of 0.14% cost + ~80 diversified holdings + fully franked dividends + active value discipline + 15% discount to NTA + no debt is unusual.
No comments:
Post a Comment