quote:

---

Hi,

Agreed that the LVR is 90% and as such mortgage insurance should be included. I will arrange for the example to reflect an 80% LVR. Check it back tomorrow and it should have changed.

Re: comment about FHOG, again, correct. However it is up to the investor to find / use / qualify a client who can qualify for the grant.

If no grant can be claimed then a larger deposit should be sought.

If there is no grant and no deposit then I’d be using the lease-option technique.

It’s all about applying the right strategy to the right investing problem.

However, this example is common for the many wraps that I have done.

Good pick up.

Regards,

Steve McKnight

**********
Remember that success comes from doing things differently.
**********

---

Hi Steve,

The example reflects 80% LVR but unless I am missing something it still is incorrect:

quote:

---

Considering that Alister’s nett cash in the deal is his deposit + closing costs ($10,500) less the deposit he receives ($18,500), his annual cash on cash return is 38.06%!

---

$18,500 is the deposit that the wraper (Alister) has to pay not the wrapee (Judy). So isn’t he still $18,500 – $10,500 = $8,000 short?

Jerry
Advertise your property for FREE at YourEstate.com.au