Hello,
Has anyone out there know of/been involved with a “Matrix Property” solution?
It’s rather similar to wrapping.
You have the “Investor” who purchases the property. Then you have the “Buyer/Tenant” who pays an inflated “rent” to a third party. The Third party have a guarantee with the Investor to pay the rent plus part of the capital which makes the property cashflow positive.
The Third party pays all rates etc.
The Third party finds the Buyer/Tenant.
The Third party guarantees to pay the Investor even if the house becomes vacant.The Third party, on behalf of the Buyer/Tenant then can buy the property from the investor at a preagreed amount.
Any suggestions?
Thanks!!!!!
Hi BongoBongo!
Was the the ad that was on the front page of Domain in The Age on Saturday. I wondered how it worked – the explanation was a bit jumbled.
Are you thinking of being a tenant or investor? What info/suggestions are you after?
I am familiar with the concept but not by this name.
Greg
Hello Greg,
I saw the Domain but it was not that.
I am looking at being an Investor (The one who puts up the money and holds the title).
The information I am after is to see if anyone else has heard of this and is anyone actually doing it.
It “appears” to be a rather novel way to have a PCF property with an agreed sale price.
Later, I will post some more info about it so as to add better clarification.
Cheers
If it looks like a rose and smells like a rose – it is a rose.
If it’s the crowd I’m thinking of, they have a long winded attack on “wrappers” and declare that’s not what they do.
Believe it or not.
You can achieve similar results with more control doing a JV with a wrapper.Keep smiling
Felicity
My first reaction to this, was, “what’s the point”
sounds like a very complex way of doing something that could be more simple…. it’s still wrapping in a way….
My one concern about this would be the ATO’s view on this…. I’d want to see how this is taxed…… and if there is any advantage or disadvantage to this idea…..
Final word on this : DO YOUR HOMEWORK…..
Cheers
Scott
Pelican Investments
http://www.pelican-invest.comIf it is done the way I think it is very handy because the owner keeps the tax deductions, shares in the capital growth and collects positive cashflow as well.
It is very different to wraps and may even give you more control over the entire process.
I look forward to the new info you have to post.
I think in the end though you have to be very certain the the company you intend to sign up with operates with integrity and can be trusted.
Thank you to all your replies.
From what I understand….
A contract to buy and sell a property at fixed price for a certain period…say 7 years. And an agreed “guaranteed” fixed income for the investor for the seven year period.
The Investor purchases the property from the market with a 10% deposit and then uses the property to get a 90% loan.
The Third party find a Buyer/Tenant to live in the property and pay rent and pay rent/deposit (using both Rent and Rent deposit make it CFP)
If the Buyer/Tenant vacate the property, for whatever reason the Third party ‘guarantee” to pay the Rent and Rent/Deposit to the Investor.
At the end of an agreed term, say 7 years, the Third party (on behalf of the Buyer/Tenant)buy the property from the Investor at the price that was struck 7 years prior….the final sale price is fixed but the capital growth figure is rather low.
It appears to be a way to lock in rent payments, loan repayments, capital growth and have a CFP property for a specified period.
Anyway, thats how I understand it to be.
Me…well I have two properties…one fully owned and the other is traditional negatively geared through a family trust. I’m rather new to this site and really appreciate any assistance[biggrin]
A contract to buy and sell a property at fixed price for a certain period…say 7 years. And an agreed “guaranteed” fixed income for the investor for the seven year period.
The Investor purchases the property from the market with a 10% deposit and then uses the property to get a 90% loan.
The Third party find a Buyer/Tenant to live in the property and pay rent and pay rent/deposit (using both Rent and Rent deposit make it CFP)
If the Buyer/Tenant vacate the property, for whatever reason the Third party ‘guarantee” to pay the Rent and Rent/Deposit to the Investor.
I am not sure, but a question for the people who are more familiar with this strategy, do you think it is similar to the strategy of Victor Ollis?
If it is, then I’d like to say….
J’ai déjà vu la matrice
Celivia
Any gauranteed return to investors should be carefully evaluated
I’m not sure if this is relative but sounds similarAnother tricky little media release from ASIC – and they paint themselves as being or protectors/saviours from the rogues!
It barely mentions why the liquidators were appointed. Looks like they did not cough up $150,000 to have a prospectus registered with ASIC and therefore did not comply with the Managed Investments Fund legislation.
Some people might read that and think it is illegal to invest in offshore funds, especially in Vanuatu. I would love to see what reurns were actually reurned by the “offshore schemes promising improbably high returns”.
Is 10% with a capital guaratee improbable? You could keep you money here and get 4% instead or maybe -4%? And think of all the fees you could be paying too…
It doesnt mention whether there was any issue with them selling the properties which they built. Although that should ring alarm bells for anyone.
Maybe Jenman could produce media releases for ASIC in future [biggrin]
Well, I don’t know why you don’t think it sounds like a wrap Greg – it sounds exactly like a lease option with a few conditions. They usually get lumped under the wrap umbrella.
Celivia – the name of Victor Ollis rings a bell, care to elaborate?Keep smiling
FelicityUmmmm,
whats the point of the third party, and what do they get out of it ???KP
Hi Felicity, try a search on Victor Ollis, there was a lot of conversation about him on here a few months back.
Celivia
Oops!
I must have spelled the name wrong last time, I didn’t get any results. [blush2]
This time I did, thanks!Keep smiling
FelicityHey BongoBongo
I hope your not holding out on us here…
Have you got any more info to post about this?
Sounds like an interesting idea…
Greg
No Im not “holding out”, rather I am still acquiring information from different sources about this “Matrix” system.
In response to KP “What is the point of the third party”…I believe that the 3rd Party acts as a go between, between the Investor and Buyer Tenant. The third party “guarantees” the rental payments and rent deposit even if the Buyer Tenant relinquishes the property…..so the risk to the Investor is minimised.
The problem with this is the “POOLED FUNDS” being invested. Also 99% if not all of HYIP’s or High Yeild Investment Programs are fraudulent.
The ASIC investigation found that QN operated an illegal investment scheme by pooling and investing some of the funds received from investors in high yield schemes in Vanuatu and other offshore schemes promising improbably high returns.
David J
Licenced Agent/Sales ManagerHi all,
If I was to sign a contract to buy and sell at a fixed price (minimum capital gain) in 7 yrs time. Is positive cash flow guaranty? (hence, rent increase as interest rise?) I guess that is my concern.
Originally posted by David e-noosa:The problem with this is the “POOLED FUNDS” being invested. Also 99% if not all of HYIP’s or High Yeild Investment Programs are fraudulent.
The ASIC investigation found that QN operated an illegal investment scheme by pooling and investing some of the funds received from investors in high yield schemes in Vanuatu and other offshore schemes promising improbably high returns.
David J
Licenced Agent/Sales ManagerOk. Ok. Let me get this straight. Under no circumstances can money be pooled and invested in Vanuatu, or anywhere offshore for that matter?!
I hope not – as that would mean every fund that invests in overseas commodities is operating illegally. I don’t think that is going to be the case though.
So was it the pooling of funds that made it illegal?
Or was it the offshore investing that made it illegal?
Or was becuase they invested in funds promising (unspecified) improbably high returns that made it illegal?
Maybe it was because they used the wrong colour paper for their accounting that made it illegal![smiling]
I still maintain this is an empty and useless statement… If ASIC want really want to help us poor people who keep getting taken advantage of in the big bad world, maybe they could give us just a teeny weeny bit of information so we can look out for ourselves in future.
My point is this: If you make a press release and then exclude any useful information then you have kind of defeated your intitial purpose wouldn’t you say?
It’s the improbably high returns…..and was the company appropriately licensed?
Of course the definition of ‘improbably’ may be problematic.
Cheers,
Aceyducey
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
