Forum Replies Created
You need to consider leverage. You are investing 50k and the return is $13,000 is 26% return on your money p/a.
from capital growth you are using 250,000 say 4% growth a year in 5 years time is 304,000 so you have made another 20% on 250,000 but remember 200,000 was the banks borrowed money so the capital return on 50k is 108% return.Generally speaking, when evaluating different properties, what performance indicators would investors be looking for in these sorts of suburbs/units (I am not (yet) interested in buying interstate or in mining towns etc.).
What the growth of neighboring suburbs is as the growth will come to this suburb if the growth suburb is too expensive.You need to be in it for the long term as when your property grows you will be able to borrow against the equity.
You may be eligible for the first home owners grant
if you live in the house you buy.Depends on the product features you are looking for.
These web pages might help you get an idea of NAB products available.see
http://www.nab.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/nab/nab/home/personal_finance/2/1
see
http://ols.nab.com.au/crs-web/products.do?id=2256
see
http://www.nab.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/nab/nab/home/personal_finance/6/1see this one for total comparison
http://www.canstar.com.au/interest-rate-comparison/compare-home-loan-rates.htmljazz77 wrote:i remember wondering how all those highly geared property gurus featured in magazines a few years back were coping when interest rates were pushing towards 10%. Any that survived would be doing ok now i guess.
They lock in interest rates at a lower interest rate. I remember paying 6.5% interest in 1995 honeymoon rate and having it jump to 10.5% in 1996 when the honeymoon was over.
What I would be looking at is cash flow.
If you own 5 million dollars worth of property you want to look at income. say 100,000 a year income would be at say 5% yield an equity of $2 million. So you could have 3 million debt and 6 million worth of property and earn $100,000 a year from it and have $200,000 p/a to help pay the interest charges of $210,000 a year based on 7% p/a.maree_bradross wrote:haha duckster I have done Bunnings stocktakes as well, good money and they feed and water you
very dusty thoughWasn't expecting them to feed me it came as a nice surprise.
I found it was a bit humid in the store when I did it.no !.
If you borrow against your first home to release equity to claim as an expense against earning rental income ,
you have to have the purpose of the loan being used for investment
rather than as a deposit for your private use main dwelling or primary place of residence.You may have to use the first house as security against the second loan – it is not the best way of doing it but if you do not have enough LVR for house number two you can combine the two houses as security over the two loans.
There is a risk of losing both houses if you get behind in the loan repayments.
Councils do their valuations every two years where as the sale price is the price the current market will pay for the property so it is a more current valuation.
I have done some research
Aisle 1 or Aisle 4 – gate stuff
http://www.bunnings.com.au/resources.ashx/Stores/54/StoreMap/6A3CD1DA98F8A7CCC67FD8ABB315EC51/Store_Directory_Final20061115134710968.pdfI have seen Bunnings having gates that can be purchased in parts and wielded or screwed together to make whatever size gate .
It was sort of in the last aisles near the timber section.
Yes! , I do spend a lot of time at Bunnings my kids like the playground plus I have worked for them doing stock takes.
It could be faulty plumbing in the sewerage under the floor.
It could be incontinence of the previous owner. I have heard lime is good for getting rid of odor in floor boards
Could be possums in the roof they poop and wee all over the ceilings and are active at night time.Its not Centre Link its the Federal ALP treasurer trying to rip money out of working Australians to cover the projected budget deficit..
What was happening was that well paid city workers would have a hobby farm in a rural location and claim a primary producer benefit and losses incurred. This new budget puts a stop on this which will kill a lot of rural towns.
Also company owners or directors who use company assets for private use are also a target.Will the bank loan out 100% is an important fact mine is only lending to 80% LVR on an equity loan.
If the tenant pays on time this is to be valued as it is extremely annoying when they don't
Worry if the front yard has two wrecked cars in it and the council is calling you to have them removed (don't laugh it happened to my parents)
Worry if there are broken windows.
While you do up a property it can take up to 3 months or more depending on trades people.
You will lose at least 3 months of rent by renovating the property I know as this was how long it took to get my renovations done in between tenants.eski wrote:Firstly I would like to thank anyone in advance for maybe helping shed some light on what I should do. Currently I own a property which I bought for 130k five years ago, I had it revalued (bank valuation) two years ago which came in at 200k. I'd assume it should be worth closer to 250k now comparing it to other properties on the market nearby.
Look at what you owe and work out the cash flow. Can you afford another property? Take the cashflow figures to the bank lender to see what you can borrow once off probation.
eski wrote:I recently spoke to an accountant who said we are at 6 oclock on the economic clockWatch steve's video click on his face shown on the right of the screen near the top
eski wrote:and the next five years would be a good time to buy some property. I have just returned from bumming around in europe and have finally got a job only paying 38k which will go up to 45k after probation period in 3mths. So the two options I see are:Option One:
Kick tennents out of my house move in an renovate, improving the value of the property then maybe buying another one in the near future. I believe if I borrow an extra 30k and renovated the value of the property could be closer to 300k. It is currently rented at 245pw, which I think could also increase to round 280ish…Can you afford the mortgage repayments as you will have no rent coming in
eski wrote:Option Two:
Leave my house as it is, borrow what I can afford from the bank and try find another house which I could renovate.Idealy I would like to go into buying property full time as I think it would be much more fun and fruitful then being an underpaid sys admin! I hope this wasnt too long winded but would really appreciate any advice from the experts out there!
if you quite working you will find it hard to borrow money from lenders !
you probably can borrow up to 80% LVR . loan now plus future loan amount / property value = 80%
future loan can be used for deposit on second property.
serviceability worked out on rental income house one plus rental income house two plus your job income.
WJ Hooker wrote:duckster,
I can understand your point of view. I too think it stinks that the government is always out to get the small time investor who tries to get ahead. They get you in land tax and now this, it sometimes makes you think that the best approach is to sell everything , spend your money, go on the dole and let the government chase all those suckers who try to get ahead to pay for your dole.
The government seems to come up with an idea but then implement it all wrong.
You forgot to mention rental assistance.
Strangely our federal parliament members can own a house in Canberra and still claim living away from home allowance of $215 a night which pays off their mortgages while staying in their houses they own in Canberra.
One in five claim a travel allowance while staying in their own investment home in Canberra.
see
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/815702/pollies-cashing-in-on-living-allowanceThey take from Mum and Dad investors while feathering their own investments !!
Sell property in QLD and buy in another or several states of Australia. Diversify as land tax is done on each State revenue office.
As it is an investment you do not live in it so it can be in any state of Australia.The Australian Labor Party / Rudd is discriminating against Mum and Dad investors.
.
I thought the ALP's aim was to look after working families but I can't see how they are doing this by
forcing landlords who are parents to avoid buying rental properties in major cities and thus adding to the lack of rental properties for working families to rent.
Or causing them to sell their negatively geared properties and kick out their tenants.)
I have avoided any new purchases in investment property that are negatively geared ( meaning nil new purchases)
because of the idiotic centrelink definition of income from what is actually
a loss in all accounting standards internationally and in tax law with the ATO.
You can't buy groceries, petrol or a car from negative loss so how can it be deemed income.
Try getting a bank loan stating negative loss as income on the loan application form!
If you are negatively geared and lose your job you will find your employment benefits and family benefits are also affected by this imaginary income dreamed up by Centrelink and the Family office.
It really angers me that Centrelink and the Family assistance Office can state that a capital loss cannot reduce your deemed income but
when you make a capital gain they are very quick to point out that this is deemed as income and that you now have to pay back your assistance payments due to the overpayment based on capital gain income.The most shocking thing to occur is when the mum and dad investors get to the end of 2009/2010 financial year and put in a tax return only to be asked later to pay back parenting payments to the Family Assistance office.
I must thank the Family office for actually sending a letter warning me of this idiotic definition of income as Centrelink in 2004 didn't send me a letter and I had to pay back money due to capital gain and only when I enquired about the Capital Gain did they ask me about the negative loss being deemed as income.I know if I write a letter to the ALP that they will somehow distort this into somehow being fair.but the real goal is to keep welfare reciprients on welfare dependancy rather than letting them improve their financial position to a point where they no longer need the welfare.
very dusty though
