Forum Replies Created
Well, I think its actually an incredibly complex topic, but some of my thoughts:
– Prices on some things have definitely gone down. TVs being a prime example.
– Just because a retailer can buy something cheaper, doesn't mean they're going to sell it cheaper, this comes down to competition.
– Better exchange rates may be disguising inflation, in which case if things turn around we're in for a shock.
– A lot of the things turning Aussies into battlers these days are local. Utility bills, council rates and basic shopping produce produced locally have all increased significantly.
You don't need to cut tax. Tax just means you made money. Its not evil or anything.
If you negative gear, it should be because you think the property is worth it in some way and any tax refunds is just handy to have, not the reason for the deal.
I like the voices, its basically an internet meme by now. Its the info which is important.
Oh yes, one more questions:
7. Is there usually any issue removing (or moving) shedding/carports etc?
Thanks Jamie. Looks interesting, and they actually realise theres more to the country than the capital cities!!
Hmm, my neighbor is a civil engineer I believe, I'll run it past him and see if he has any thoughts. If nothing else, hopefully he knows how the local council has tended to go on these things.
I think you're confused. I can't think of any reason why you'd set up a SMSF and then invest that money in commercial super funds. If nothing else, you're layering in an extra set of fees and charges. One of the main reasons for setting up a SMSF is to get your money out of the hands of commercial super funds.
Do you just mean managed funds, or is there some reason you're going to set it up this way?
I've tried this a few times now, and so far have been unimpressed. First two or three properties came back "no valuations on this property" and then when I finally got one it liked it just gives a figure, then an estimated range that seems to be +/- 20% or so. No details on how/why it gets the valuation figure.
I dunno, maybe somewhat useful if you're looking at an area you know nothing about, or can find comparable properties on the search sites or something I guess.
Mine bark a lot, maybe that counts?
Not my area of expertise, but a couple of thoughts:
1. Yes, people have done this as a living and built successful businesses out of it.
2. It depends a lot on your location. It will only work in a market where there's profit. This sounds obvious, but some people seem to think all they need to do is renovate and they'll make money, but there are locations where basically the price of a renovated property equals the price of an unrenovated property plus renovation costs (and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that there are places where it doesn't even cover that). You need to either be doing it in an area where the margin exists between values of unrenovated and renovated properties, or you need to be able to buy properties for below market value to create that margin.
Long settlement gives you a chance to do it all in one go.
I.e., sell with 90 day settlement then find and buy a new one with settlement due on the same date. Also, even if that isn't your goal, it at least gives you more time before you need to be paying rent or whatnot while you're purchasing.
I agree totally for what its worth. In today's market I can't think of anything worse than buying something new and then trying to sell in a hurry to get at your equity.
I've done it the other way and it worked, but that was in a fairly hot market where I timed an auction of my current home such that settlement would be the same day, then the banks/solicitors just work the money side of it out.
From memory, he technically suggests setting up a new corporate trustee, on the basis that guarantees from the directorship of one corporation have no impact on the ability to borrow via another, however I'm going through a refinance atm and the lender definitely wants to know all about the liabilities of all the companies I'm a director of, and have said those liabilities will be taken into account when determining my serviceability, so it just doesn't seem to work the way he said (or how I interpreted what he said anyway).
To be blunt, you've had the property for 3 years, and you've only got $5,600ish in your offset account. That suggests a savings ability of less than $2,000 per year. Quite apart from what the banks/etc say, are you sure yourself that you can afford another IP?
No, I wouldn't have thought so. Rough figures from their online calculator shows we could borrow almost twice what I'm asking for the refinance (i.e., just off our personal incomes and debts). I guess this was just more wondering going forward whether I needed to take it into account when working things out.
What happens?
Would you loan money to someone with a history of defaulting? Whats the additional margin you might want on your interest rates?
I just find some amusement in the concept of a debt ceiling, where as soon as you approach it the automatic solution is to raise it some more.
I do have more thoughts, but coffee must come first.
Yeah, its two different things, not one.
1. Serviceability (ability to pay back the loan), this takes into account incomes of everyone on the loan when determining whether the lender thinks you'll be able to service the loan.
2. Liability. The whole "jointly and severably" liable thing basically means that if things do go bad, you can be fully liable for the whole loan. So say you borrow with a friend, but he goes bankrupt, the lender will hold you liable for the whole loan, not just your half.
Quote:If you borrow with another party ie friend or family member I am led to believe that both parties have to be able to afford the loan repayments on their own in the event of one of the parties supposedly taking off? Is this correct?So basically, no that isn't correct. Its not that both parties need to be able to afford the loan repayments on their own, its that they could end up becoming responsible for the full loan payments if circumstances go bad.
I think you'd be better served creating a new thread for your question ccpat, than responding to an unrelated topic with it.
naughtyj wrote:Assume that the market goes nowhere for the next 5 years. If that happens, then the house will still be worth $500,000 in 5 years. The question he had for the presenter was this: Has the house lost value?He then went on to say that most people would say no. They still have a house worth $500K and they've lost no money whatsoever.
I tend to think the main point is that really most investors who buy a $500k property would do so as negatively geared, which can quickly add up to a lot of money with no capital gains to offset in that 5 years.
I consider myself "in the market" at the moment, but I'm in no rush, and looking for something that can be either neutrally geared or close (I expect rents to grow at a fair rate the next few years, even if values don't). The last thing I'd want to do is commit to something pulling $5-10k p/a out of my pocket if its going to sit stagnant for a few years. I can think of better ways to use money.
Sorry, beneficiaries in the superannuation sense, so the trustees would be the trustees of the superannuation fund, not the executor of the will. So where you stated: " Also it includes a number of supperanuation/ and share investment accounts in which I am named the sole beneficiary in at least one I now but I will investigate the rest." The fact that you're nominated as the beneficiary in a super fund doesn't mean they MUST pay a death payout to you unless its a binding nomination.
Make sure they're binding nominations as beneficiary. You can also make non-binding nominations, which are more along the lines of wishes than directions, the trustee can choose to ignore them if they choose (and the difference could just be a tick-box on a form). Also even binding nominations expire on some regular basis. I think its 3 years off the top of my head, but it would be worth confirming.
