The Switzer Dividend Growth Fund – Active ETF (SWTZ or the Fund) is an income-focused exchange-traded managed fund with a mix of yield and quality companies.
The Fund aims to provide investors with an income return that exceeds the S&P/ASX 100 Accumulation Index (Index) (after fees) over rolling 12-month periods, while also maintaining a lower level of volatility relative to the Index over rolling 12-month periods.
The Fund is managed by Vertium Asset Management, Sydney-based Australian equity fund manager. Vertium was created to fill a perceived void in the market for retirement portfolios: a strategy that can provide income (and capital growth potential) from investing in Australian shares, with a genuine focus on capital preservation and lower sensitivity to volatile market movements.
- Fund Type: Active Exchange-Traded Managed Fund (Active ETF) [1]
- Inception Date: 23 February 2017 [1]
- Investment Manager: Vertium Asset Management [1]
- Responsible Entity: AGP Investment Management Limited [1]
- Benchmark: S&P/ASX 100 Accumulation Index [1]
- Income Focus: The fund targets an income return (yield) that exceeds the S&P/ASX 100 Accumulation Index over rolling 12-month periods.
- Franking Credits: It places a strong emphasis on maximizing franking credits for investors, making it popular among retirees and income-focused portfolios.
- Capital Preservation: The strategy focuses on lower volatility and downside protection compared to the broader market index.
ASX:SWTZ (not SWITZ) is directly associated with Peter Switzer and the Switzer financial business.
The fund was originally launched as the Switzer Dividend Growth Fund in February 2017, with Peter Switzer as Chairman. The original PDS was actually signed by Peter Switzer in his capacity as Chairman of Switzer Asset Management.
A few useful details:
- Ticker: SWTZ
- Original name: Switzer Dividend Growth Fund
- Current name: Switzer Dividend Growth Fund – Active ETF
- Inception: 23 February 2017
- Peter Switzer: Chairman at launch and subsequently a director/non-executive chairman
- Investment style: Australian equities, targeting long-term capital growth plus income
- Portfolio: generally around 20–50 Australian companies
- Current investment manager: Vertium Asset Management
- Responsible entity: Associate Global Partners
- The name change to “Active ETF” occurred in March 2025, while the investment objective and strategy remained unchanged.
So yes, “Switzer” in SWTZ is the Switzer family/business name associated with Peter Switzer, rather than an unrelated ticker abbreviation.
Interestingly, Peter Switzer isn't the portfolio manager today. The fund has evolved considerably since its launch, with different investment-management arrangements.
Yes. I looked at the longer history, and there is an important wrinkle: SWTZ hasn't actually been around for 10 years. It commenced on 23 February 2017, so we have about 9½ years of history today.
SWTZ performance at a glance
As at 31 August 2026, the published figures are:
| Period | SWTZ total return p.a. | ASX 200 total return p.a. | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 year | 3.38% | 4.40% | -1.02% |
| 2 years | 3.51% | 9.45% | -5.94% |
| 3 years | 5.57% | 11.24% | -5.67% |
| 5 years | 3.85% | 7.81% | -3.96% |
| Since inception* | ~5.7% | — | — |
*The last figure is derived from the fund's published "A$10,000 invested" chart, which shows about $16,302 at December 2025, with distributions reinvested and after fees.
SWTZThe really interesting part: income vs capital growth
This is where SWTZ becomes quite different from a normal broad-market ETF.
Over the 5 years to August 2026:
- Total return: 3.85% p.a.
- Growth/capital return: -1.75% p.a.
- Income return: 5.60% p.a.
So virtually all of the return has come from income rather than capital appreciation.
That's an important characteristic of SWTZ.
In fact, over the last three years the pattern is even more striking:
- Capital growth: -0.52% p.a.
- Income: 6.09% p.a.
- Total: 5.57% p.a.
In other words, you have been receiving substantial distributions while the underlying unit price/NAV has been relatively stagnant.
And the distributions are heavily franked
This is potentially attractive for an Australian investor.
For example, the current distributions include:
- September 2026: 0.9¢, 100% franked
- August 2026: 0.9¢, 100% franked
- July 2026: 3.32¢, 49% franked
The distribution history goes back to 2017 and shows substantial franking through most of the fund's history.
The July 2025 fund update reported:
- 5.85% net distribution yield
- 6.84% gross yield including franking
- Management fee: 0.89% p.a.
- Monthly distributions
- No performance fee.
But here's the problem
If your objective is long-term wealth accumulation, the historical numbers raise a significant question.
The ASX 200 produced approximately:
7.81% p.a. over the last 5 years
versus SWTZ:
3.85% p.a.
That's a difference of almost 4 percentage points every year.
And the gap isn't just a recent one. The fund's original strategy has tended to sacrifice some capital growth in exchange for a relatively high income stream.
There is also a fairly high 0.89% management fee, which is considerably above a plain-vanilla Australian index ETF.
One thing SWTZ has done reasonably well
Its income objective has been considerably stronger than its capital-growth performance.
For the year to 30 June 2026, SWTZ generated:
- 5.96% income return
- 1.19% additional return from franking
- 7.15% grossed-up income return
versus 4.52% for the S&P/ASX 100 benchmark.
Since inception, its annualised grossed-up income return was 5.96%, versus 5.55% for that benchmark.
So the fund's proposition is really:
High Australian equity income + franking + some capital growth
rather than:
Maximum long-term capital growth.
My overall reading of the numbers
I'd break its history into three components:
| Characteristic | SWTZ history |
|---|---|
| Capital growth | Weak/modest |
| Cash income | Strong |
| Franking | Very significant |
| Total return | Modest |
| Volatility | Lower than some growth-oriented portfolios |
| Fees | Relatively high at 0.89% |
| Portfolio | Concentrated Australian equities |
| Debt | Essentially none at fund level |
| Main attraction | Income + franking |
| Main drawback | Poorer capital growth |
One particularly important point for you, given your previous interest in fully franked ASX dividends and income investing, is that SWTZ may look much better when evaluated on after-tax income rather than headline total return.
I’ve pulled the latest comparable figures, using 31 August 2026 as the common measurement date. The comparison is quite revealing.
1. Total-return comparison
All figures below are annualised total returns, after fund fees, with distributions reinvested.
| ETF | 1 year | 3 years p.a. | 5 years p.a. | 10 years p.a. | Fee |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VHY | 11.61% | 14.76% | 11.70% | 10.48% | 0.25% |
| SYI | 10.50% | 13.85% | 10.50% | 9.04% | 0.20% |
| RDV | 0.58% | 11.76% | 7.91% | 7.50% | ~0.34% |
| SWTZ | 3.38% | 5.57% | 3.85% | — | ~1.00% |
SWTZ only began in 2017, so there isn't a 10-year figure.
That's a very substantial difference.
If you put $100,000 into each five years ago and achieved those annualised returns:
| ETF | Approx. value today |
|---|---|
| VHY | $173,800 |
| SYI | $164,700 |
| RDV | $146,100 |
| SWTZ | $120,800 |
These are mathematical illustrations based on the published annualised returns, not actual historical dollar-account calculations.
2. Where the return came from
This is probably the most interesting part for you.
VHY
Over 10 years:
- Total return: 10.48% p.a.
- Growth: 4.29% p.a.
- Income: 6.19% p.a.
Over 5 years:
- Total: 11.70%
- Growth: 5.66%
- Income: 6.04%
So VHY has managed to deliver both substantial income AND meaningful capital appreciation.
SYI
Over 10 years:
- Total: 9.04%
- Growth: 1.45%
- Income: 7.60%
Over 5 years:
- Total: 10.50%
- Growth: 0.79%
- Income: 9.71%
SYI is therefore much more income-oriented than VHY.
RDV
Over 10 years:
- Total: 7.50%
- Growth: 2.25%
- Income: 5.25%
Over 5 years:
- Total: 7.91%
- Growth: 3.10%
- Income: 4.81%.
SWTZ
Over 5 years:
- Total: 3.85%
- Growth: -1.75%
- Income: 5.60%
Over 3 years:
- Total: 5.57%
- Growth: -0.52%
- Income: 6.09%.
This is the critical difference.
SWTZ has actually lost capital value on an annualised basis over the last five years while paying a substantial income.
3. Why VHY has done so much better
VHY is a very different beast from SWTZ.
VHY is essentially a rules-based high-dividend portfolio containing around 94 stocks. Its largest holdings currently include BHP, CBA, NAB, Westpac, ANZ, Rio Tinto and Woodside.
SWTZ, by contrast, is an actively managed portfolio of only about 38 stocks, with the manager able to hold cash and make significant stock-selection decisions. It currently has about 15% cash.
That active management has not translated into superior total returns over the periods we've examined.
4. Fees matter more than they look
This is another big difference:
| ETF | Approx. fee |
|---|---|
| SYI | 0.20% |
| VHY | 0.25% |
| RDV | ~0.34% |
| SWTZ | ~1.00% |
VHY's current management cost is 0.25%, while SYI is 0.20%. SWTZ's current MER is about 1%.
That means SWTZ costs roughly four to five times as much as the passive alternatives.
On $100,000:
- VHY: ~$250/year
- SYI: ~$200/year
- SWTZ: ~$1,000/year
And those fees compound over decades.
5. What about franking?
This is where SWTZ becomes more interesting.
SWTZ has historically produced a very high level of franked income. Its July 2025 fund update showed:
- Net distribution yield: 5.85%
- Gross yield including franking: 6.84%
and the fund's investment objective is explicitly focused on both capital and income.
SYI also has a substantial franking component. Its June 2026 distribution, for example, contained 5.88¢ of franking credits for $1.3173 of cash distribution.
VHY likewise has historically produced substantial franked dividends.
So franking doesn't explain SWTZ's much lower total return. All four funds provide significant exposure to Australian franked dividends.
6. The portfolio differences are important
VHY
Broad high-dividend Australian equity exposure
About 94 holdings.
Largest positions include:
- BHP
- CBA
- NAB
- Westpac
- ANZ
- Rio Tinto
- Woodside
- Macquarie
- Telstra
- Transurban.
SYI
High dividend + quality screening
About 44% financials currently, with large positions in CSL, ANZ, NAB, Westpac and Telstra.
RDV
High dividend, but a somewhat different methodology
About 90 holdings. Current large holdings include CBA, BHP, Suncorp, ANZ, Westpac, NAB and Steadfast.
SWTZ
Concentrated active/value approach
Only ~38 holdings, currently including BHP, CBA, Westpac, Bluescope, Charter Hall, Transurban, Woolworths, Aristocrat and Goodman.
It also currently holds around 15% cash, which is quite unusual compared with the passive ETFs.
7. There's a particularly interesting VHY vs SWTZ comparison
This is probably the one I'd pay the most attention to.
Over five years:
VHY
5.66% capital growth
- 6.04% income
= 11.70% total
SWTZ
-1.75% capital growth
- 5.60% income
= 3.85% total
So SWTZ has generated almost the same amount of income as VHY, but VHY has also generated substantial capital growth.
That's why the difference in ending wealth becomes so large.
8. What the numbers say about the four funds
I wouldn't call one universally "best", because they serve slightly different purposes. But the historical characteristics are quite clear:
| SWTZ | VHY | SYI | RDV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Passive/active | Active | Passive | Passive | Passive |
| Income focus | Very high | High | Very high | High |
| Capital growth history | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Moderate |
| 5y total return | 3.85% | 11.70% | 10.50% | 7.91% |
| 10y total return | — | 10.48% | 9.04% | 7.50% |
| Fee | ~1.0% | 0.25% | 0.20% | ~0.34% |
| Diversification | ~38 | ~94 | ~large | ~90 |
| Monthly income | Yes | No/quarterly | Quarterly | Quarterly |
| Franking | High | High | High | High |
| Cash held | ~15% | ~0% | Low | Low |
The really striking result
If your objective is income + long-term wealth, the historical evidence makes SWTZ quite unusual.
It has succeeded at producing income, but it hasn't converted that income into comparable total returns.
The passive funds have generally done a better job of allowing the capital base to grow while still distributing substantial income.
And VHY stands out particularly strongly because its 5-year 11.7% return consists of roughly 6% income plus 5.7% capital growth.
One caveat about the current numbers
The period ending August 2026 includes a particularly strong recent run for Australian equities, so I wouldn't extrapolate these returns forward. Vanguard itself reports Australian shares returning 7.4% p.a. over five years and 9.5% p.a. over ten years to June 2026, illustrating how market conditions affect these comparisons.
Absolutely. Adding ASX:ARG (Argo Investments) makes the comparison more interesting because ARG is a listed investment company (LIC), not an ETF, and it has a very long record of fully franked dividends.
I’ve used $500,000 as the starting investment and the latest available data around 31 August–25 September 2026. For historical returns, distributions are assumed reinvested. For the tax section, I use the most recent completed financial year's cash distributions and franking credits as an income illustration.
| VHY | SYI | RDV | SWTZ | ARG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structure | ETF | ETF | ETF | Active ETF | LIC |
| Inception | 2011 | 2010 | 2010 | 2017 | 1946 |
| 5-year total return p.a. | 11.70% | 10.46% | 7.91% | 3.85% | 3.6%* |
| 10-year total return p.a. | 10.48% | 9.03% | 7.50% | — | 8.7%* |
| Management cost | 0.25% | 0.20% | ~0.34% | ~1.0% | 0.14% |
| Current cash yield | ~3.55% | ~7.3%** | ~4.0% | ~5.7% | ~4.2% |
| Current gross yield | ~4.82% | ~8.5%** | ~5.2% | ~7.8% | ~6.0% |
| Franking | High | High | Moderate/high | High | 100% |
| 5-year capital/growth component | 5.66% | 1.84% | 3.10% | -1.75% | — |
| 5-year distribution component | 6.04% | 8.62% | 4.81% | 5.60% | — |
....................
* ARG is measured using share-price total shareholder return, rather than NTA. Its NTA return was 7.9% p.a. over 5 years and 6.4% p.a. over 10 years. Argo's share price was trading at a 15% discount to NTA at 31 August 2026, which explains much of the difference.
** SYI's recent distribution yield is unusually high because distributions include realised capital gains as well as dividends. It should not be treated as a sustainable 8.5% recurring dividend yield. State Street explicitly shows the fund's 5-year distribution return at 9.71% and total return at 10.50%.
The historical figures for VHY, SYI, RDV and SWTZ come from the funds' reported performance to 31 August 2026
2. What happens to $500,000?
This is where the differences become much clearer.
| $500,000 invested | 5 years | 10 years |
|---|---|---|
| VHY | $869,400 | $1,354,600 |
| SYI | $823,700 | $1,186,900 |
| RDV | $731,600 | $1,030,500 |
| SWTZ | $604,000 | — |
| ARG | $596,700 | $1,151,500 |
These are mathematical calculations from the published annualised total returns, rather than a reconstruction of every individual distribution and reinvestment date.
This reveals something particularly interesting about ARG
ARG's 10-year shareholder return of 8.7% is substantially better than its 5-year 3.6%.
That's because the share price/NTA discount has become a significant drag in the more recent period.
Argo's own data shows:
- 5-year share-price TSR: 3.6%
- 5-year NTA return: 7.9%
- 10-year share-price TSR: 8.7%
- 10-year NTA return: 6.4%
- ASX 200: 7.8% over 5 years and 9.4% over 10 years.
So ARG is a fascinating case where the underlying portfolio has done considerably better than the share price over the last five years.
3. Now let's look at the income from $500,000
I've used the most recent full-year distribution data, rather than simply taking a quoted headline yield.
Annual cash income
| $500,000 investment | Cash distributions | Franking credits | Gross taxable income |
|---|---|---|---|
| VHY | $17,767 | $6,358 | $24,125 |
| SYI | $36,251 | $6,493 | $42,745 |
| RDV | $20,107 | $6,009 | $26,116 |
| SWTZ | $31,245 | $10,923 | $42,167 |
| ARG | $20,901 | $8,958 | $29,859 |
These are based on FY2026 distributions and the relevant franking credits, not forecasts.
For example, ARG paid 38.5¢ per share fully franked in FY2026, while SWTZ's FY2026 distribution stream included its regular monthly distributions plus the July 2025 final distribution.
VHY's FY2026 distributions totalled approximately $2.97 per unit with about $1.06 of associated franking credits.
4. The tax effect is really interesting
Australian franking changes the calculation substantially.
I've assumed:
- $500,000 investment
- distributions remain as cash
- no capital gains tax
- no other deductions
- 0%, 30% and 47% marginal tax rates
- franking credits are fully usable/refundable
- the calculation concerns dividend/distribution income only
This is therefore an illustration, not a tax-return calculation.
After-tax annual income
| $500k investment | 0% tax | 30% tax | 47% tax |
|---|---|---|---|
| VHY | $24,125 | $16,888 | $12,786 |
| SYI | $42,745 | $29,921 | $22,655 |
| RDV | $26,116 | $18,281 | $13,841 |
| SWTZ | $42,167 | $29,517 | $22,349 |
| ARG | $29,859 | $20,901 | $15,825 |
The particularly neat result is ARG at a 30% tax rate.
Because its dividends are 100% franked, the franking credits almost exactly offset the 30% tax on the grossed-up dividend.
So:
$20,901 cash dividend + $8,958 franking credit = $29,859 taxable income
30% tax on $29,859 = $8,958.
Therefore the investor is left with approximately:
$20,901 cash after tax
This is the classic Australian dividend-imputation effect.
Argo has maintained fully franked dividends for decades; its latest FY2026 dividend was 38.5¢ fully franked, and the company says every dividend has been fully franked since 1995.
5. ARG is particularly interesting at 0% tax
At a 0% marginal rate, such as an investor able to fully utilise refundable franking credits, the numbers look different.
For ARG:
Cash dividend: ~$20,900
Franking credit: ~$8,960
So the effective income is:
~$29,900 per year
on a $500,000 investment.
That's approximately:
5.97% grossed-up yield
Argo itself reported a grossed-up dividend yield of about 6.1% in February 2026 and subsequently increased the FY2026 dividend to 38.5¢.
6. But look at SYI
SYI produces an extraordinary amount of distribution income.
The latest 5-year figures show:
8.62% p.a. distribution return
versus:
1.84% p.a. growth return
for a:
10.50% total return.
That's very different from VHY.
VHY
6.04% income
5.66% growth
=
11.70% total
SYI
8.62% income
1.84% growth
=
10.46% total
So SYI has historically produced much more income, but VHY has produced considerably more capital growth.
This is exactly the income-vs-growth trade-off you're interested in.
7. SWTZ looks surprisingly similar to SYI on income
SWTZ's five-year figures:
- Income: 5.60%
- Growth: -1.75%
- Total: 3.85%
That's quite remarkable.
You're getting an income stream not wildly different from the other dividend funds, but the capital component has been negative over the five-year period.
And SWTZ charges roughly 1%, versus:
- VHY: 0.25%
- SYI: 0.20%
- ARG: 0.14%
That fee difference compounds.
8. ARG has another major advantage: the discount to NTA
This is probably the most interesting part of the ARG story.
At 31 August 2026:
ARG share price: trading at approximately 15% below NTA.
So you're effectively buying a portfolio of Australian shares for less than the value of the underlying assets.
That's not available with an ETF in the same way.
But there's an important catch:
The discount can remain for years.
Indeed, that's exactly what happened over the recent five-year period: ARG's NTA returned approximately 7.9% p.a., while shareholders received only 3.6% p.a. total shareholder return because the market price/NTA relationship deteriorated.
So ARG introduces a unique additional variable:
underlying portfolio return + dividend + change in LIC discount/premium
9. My long-term comparison
Looking specifically at the characteristics rather than trying to declare a single "winner":
| Characteristic | VHY | SYI | RDV | SWTZ | ARG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capital growth | Strong | Moderate | Moderate | Weak recently | Moderate/strong historically |
| Income | High | Very high | Moderate | High | High |
| Franking | High | High | High | Very high | 100% |
| Fee | Low | Very low | Low | High | Very low |
| Diversification | 94 stocks | 61 | 90 | ~38 | ~70+ |
| Active management | No | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Monthly income | No | No | No | Yes | Quarterly from 2027 |
| LIC discount risk | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| Long-term history | 15 years | 16 years | 16 years | 9½ years | 80 years |
| Recent 5y total return | 11.7% | 10.5% | 7.9% | 3.9% | 3.6% |
| 10y total return | 10.5% | 9.0% | 7.5% | — | 8.7% |
10. One very important distinction
If your objective is maximum total wealth, the historical numbers point toward the funds that have combined income with capital growth.
VHY is the clearest example:
~6% income + ~5.7% growth = ~11.7% total return
If your objective is maximum current taxable income, SYI and SWTZ have produced much larger distributions.
If your objective is high, predictable, fully franked Australian income, ARG becomes very interesting because of its long dividend history and exceptionally low 0.14% management expense ratio. Argo says it has paid dividends every year since 1946 and has fully franked them since 1995.
No comments:
Post a Comment