It’s an area we’re seeing more and more clients looking towards. Deception Bay/Clontarf/Kippa-Ring in general, a bit of a swing in investor interest compared to Logan and surrounds which was the flavour of the month for the last three years.
Generally I find they’re not the best bunch for investment advice – very conservative and not very forward looking. Not their job to provide investment advice in any case, that’s the realm of financial advisers.
Instead of buying a dud investment in an area with ongoing supply issues which will plague any values – why not just rent there for the girls? It’ll work out cheaper and not require her to invest in a subpar area.
David Traeger on this forums is an active Adelaide investor and property manager – well worth having a chat with. You’ll find us Adelaide investors usually catch up once a month or so for a dinner at one of the pubs in the CBD, you should definitely come along to the next one.
You can still setup the PPOR purchase such as that, without requiring cross collateralisation at all. It’s a common mistake/misinformation provided by the lender that the security would need to be crossed.
For the same benefit, you could just secure 80% of the value to the PPOR and the residual solely to the investment property. Still no LMI, but not crossed from day 1.
Tax is determined by the name on the titles, not the loans so having your partner on there shouldn’t cause issues. As always though, speak to your accountant. :)
Cross collateralisation is always the work of the devil, so even though it may not seem like a problem – it never is until it is a problem. Well worth seeing about fixing that up when you have a chance.
There’s a product ruling for it and a new of brands offering the loan – we’ve had access to the product for a few months now. Dependent on the exact figures of the owner occupied and investment property loan, it can be quite beneficial.
Keep in mind there are a lot of requirements for this loan – which are for the clients benefit, ie the owner occupied loan must be principal and interest, accelerate home loan repayment etc.
In property you generally don’t want to stand out from the crowd – it’s better to buy the average type of property, than the unique one. The issue is that you will limit your buyer pool somewhat as some buyers + valuers will see it detracting from the value.
There’s millions of houses in Australia, of which there are many A grade properties. Stick with the A graders to limit any value issues for the long term.
Probably a good idea to narrow down which city/State you’re moving to, before specific areas. Where you rent and where you buy don’t have to be related at all – it’s best to rent where most convenient for cost, lifestyle and work, whereas for investment you purchase purely on the properties individual figures and areas macro fundamentals.
Haven’t noticed it before – but I don’t worry too much about those particular figures as they don’t change anything in terms of research, I wouldn’t rely on them at all.
It would be worth a casual question to ask the agent what the deal is with redacting it in any case.
It’s an idea which has been floated for a short while in SA – would lead to very interesting outcomes. Obviously the real estate industry is heavily for this proposal.
There’d no doubt be an initial surge in prices as affordability would rise significantly. Other things such as flipping would become extremely viable with the removal of stamps.
In terms of government revenue I can understand where the logic is – stamp duty is incredibly ‘lumpy’ as a major revenue source and doesn’t allow for effective expenditure control or maintenance, so having a broad base land tax would smooth this completely and allow for better spending patterns.
You can move them into a trust but this is generally a stamp duty event – so you’d have to pay stamp duty on the current value of each property which can be quite substantial in costs.
Just the usual joint ownership, be it in personal names or trust etc – it’s all much of muchness.
Bear in mind that if you purchase this next property jointly, should either of you want to continue to purchase any future properties separately then the banks for any future purchase will consider you to hold 100% of the debt but entitled to 50% of the rental income – which can have a significant impact on your borrowing potential.
If all purchases hereafter are joint there isn’t this issue, but it’s something to keep in mind.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at Pimobpi – it is nothing to do with the type of security type, but LVR requirements. You cannot exceed certain LVR’s on property, as there has to be a retained portion on each property, generally a minimum of 10% if you’ve paid LMI, else 80% LVR.
Generally you setup a separate split as this can make it simpler for accounting – but if both the original loan and future use of the equity release is both investment purpose, it won’t cause a mixed use loan (non deductible vs deductible) – but would require your accountant to apportion interest charges per property.
You do NOT want to use any saved funds in offset as a deposit for an investment if the borrower has personal debt elsewhere, as this could be cycled through their PPOR through a debt recycling strategy.
Yes – and in many cases is a prudent move. Just make sure the equity is ‘accessible equity’, theres a difference. For example:
A property worth 500k, with a 450k loan has 50k in equity, giving it an effective LVR of 90%. It however has $0 accessible equity, as the lenders will not allow you to exceed 90% LVR for a topup/equity release.