Thanks Jaffa, and I didn’t mean to pry So you have to have it on land sometimes? So I guess people on houseboats would either have to have their own land; “rent” to stay on someone else’s land; or receive permission from a friend to stay on their land.
It sounds like an exciting journey Jaffa- qwill you be working as a fisher dude on the boat? Or is it a lifestyle thing?
Jaffa, as a matter of interest, I remember you saying on the Forum that you found it difficult to get an IP loan, and you were going to test out Edenlea to see if you could possibly get a loan. How did you go with it? Were you successful? I am asking you this as a followup.
“The standard by-laws provide that animals may be kept in strata units only with the owners corporation’s consent, which may not be unreasonably withheld. However, since the owners corporation has the power to change the by-laws, you should check whether it has done so. The owners corporation cannot prohibit from you keeping a guide dog in a unit or on the common property.
“If you believe that the owners corporation has unreasonably refused you permission to keep a pet, or that someone is keeping a pet on the premises without permission, or that a pet is causing a nuisance, you should contact the Strata Tiles Commissioner.”
____________________________
Do you have to pay mooring fees etc, for your houseboat? If so, are they expensive? Are there any other expenses, oir just maintenance on the boat? I guess you’d have to keep it “registered” or something??
Leading home-loan providers limit the amount they will lend for inner-city apartments in certain areas to 70-80% oaf the value of the property, some as little as 60%. Only a handful of lenders had changed their policy toward inner-city apartments in the past 12 months.
National Australia Bank
A maximum loan to valuation ratio (LVR) of 70% for inner-city apartments in certain Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane postcodes.
Dropped its LVR from 80% 12 months ago.
No cap on the amount lent.
Will lend for apartments under 50 square metres.
Westpac
Maximum LVR 70% for inner-city apartments in certain Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane postcodes.
Dropped its LVR from 80% more than 12 months ago.
No cap on the amount lent.
Wary of inner-city apartments under 50 square metres.
ANZ
Up to 80% LVR for inner-city apartments.
Up to 60% for inner-city apartments under 50 square metres in specific Sydney, Melbourne and Gold Coast locations.
No cap on the amount it will lend.
Commonwealth Bank
Lends up to 80% LVR for inner-city apartments.
Has a no-size policy.
Cap on the amount lent is based on the LVR ratio.
AMP
Maximum LVR 60% for inner-city apartments in certain Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane postcodes.
LVR changed from 70% 12 months ago.
Will not lend for apartments under 45 square metres.
Citibank
Maximum 60% LVR for inner-city apartments in certain Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane postcodes.
Will not lend if the apartment is less 50 square metres.
Will lend any amount, but LVRs reduce with loan size: 80% up to $800,000, 70% to $1 million, 65% to $2 million.
St George
Maximum LVR 80% for inner-city apartments.
Studio apartments must be minimum 25 square metres and one-bedroom units minimum 45 square metres.
No cap on the amount they will lend.
Loan broker Mortgage Choice says interest-rate rises had subdued investors’ hunger for inner-city investment properties, but not in a dramatic way.
Mortgage Choice says lenders had not noticeably reduced their lending policies in recent months, but were seeking to restrict their degree of exposure to any one apartment block to 5-10%. Despite fears of loan defaults after the rate increases, lenders said their arrears rates were at historical lows.
_________________________
Oh yeah- I forgot the LVR thing! coops- I just bought a property in sydney’s eastern suburbs, and it has a 70% LVR on it too. As for me, I don’t mind 30% deposit- keeps my LVR down. Population isn’t the only thing that determines LVR- if you buy a bourgeoise house in Lorne, vic, or berry or Kangaroo Valley/Jamberoo, nsw, they are not going to want 30% deposit- because those places are hugely desirable- even though they have small populations.
Just depends on how much “risk” the banks perceive the place to be.
I wouldn’t put the postcode up here- but you may wish to do so in private to a Mortgage Broker. Most people on here, if they have found a CF+ town, like to be able to keep their counsel about it
coops- it depends on what you’re looking for. Really expensive propertires in cities generally have a large neg CF. Really cheap properties in the country might have a pozz CF. Neg growth or no growth means you are paying pre-boom prices- well, that’s not such a bad thing. Ihave looked for places that have not achieved huge growth too- I call them “under-valued”… You said the place has a reasonable population. Look up “population decline blahtown” in google.com.au, and see if the place is having significant decline.
These days, it is difficult to get cash pozz properties (10% or more). If you are seeking mere CF, then you could buy into the town. Personally, I don’t expect any growth on IP’s that I buy for the next few years. However, I am happy to receive 6% yield on a property/location that has “growth potential” rather than 10% yield on a property/location that possibly has none.
Cam, I know places like wellington were raked over thoroughly by investors about two years ago. It then achived considerable capital gain- good luck in finding CF+ properties there. I have to say though…. have you SEEN Wellington? I worked iun the outback for a while, and Wellington is not pretty- I thought it was depressing really, but you might want to check it out for yourself.
If you’re looking at Dubbo or Orange, you are looking at more regional centres- as opposed to country town of Wellington. Regionals are always fun ) I reckon you might be able to get 8% for a regional in Dubbo/Orange.
Marisa – heya :o) I apologise for not returning your PM- I did mean to. [blush2]
Marisa, I think if you feel that a property is worth 50k, then offer that. If people want a property, then it can be worthwhile paying for it. To me, it wouldn’t matter that some properties in the town have been on the market for a long time- that doesn’t mean anything to me ) If you have a stable tenant who wants to stay, then it could be a good investment. Buying it at 50k means that you already got almost 20% off the original price- that would not be a bad thing.
Regarding the RE agent, well, I am not sure what kind of fellow he is. What I do know is that I was selling an IP, and some people really messed me around until they pulled out. This wasn’t great for my psychology, and a RE is working for the vendor, not for the buyer. But then again, sometimes people just have poor interpersonal skills- go figure, you get that everywhere. I think the RE was entitled to not want to paas an offer that he might view as “ridiculous” to a buyer. I have made an offer on a place, and the RE just said “look, the owner won’t accept it.” And I knew tey wouldn’t either- the RE agent is there to negotiate- and to protect the buyer. I respect the job they do.
I think 50k @ $110 rent a week might have been a decent buy- depending on other variables. But if it wasn’t right for you, then you are probably better off not having gone through with it At least you’re getting to know what’s available. Sometimes, negotiating RE – even if it doesn’t work out- is some of the best learning experiences we can have.
Well, I did watch that segment and found it pretty interesting. I must say, Auckland looked *hugely* oversupplied in the pictures they were showing. It would have to have a significantly increasing population to be able to sustain the amount of new high-rises they are building.
Does anyone know if Auckland’s population is rising? Internal/external migration?
I just bought an IP in sydney. The vendor didn;t put in a tenant because she wanted to be able to sell it to both an owner occupier or an investor. Obvoiusly, you can’t sell it to an owner occupier as easily if it has a tenant. Hence, you’ll be selling toan investor, who wants a tenant. It depends on what the rental is too- if the RE agent thinks it’s too low, they might be concerned that someone may not want to buy with that yield and be stuck with it for 10 months.
With my place, it was non-tenanted when I exchanged, but the old vendor wanted to put in tenants between exchange and settlement so she could have the income- fair enough! Means I have an auto-tenant anyway, but she wanted to see if it was an investor buying before she got the tenant.
You can *absolutely* sell with a tenant- just think about what the current yield is… and how to make that attractive to an investor.
It’s 100% tax deductible, until the govt imposes some retrospective tax changes- remember tea trees and emus? hehe )
If you get 100% tax deduction, it can reduce your taxable income by 10k… but if you are making a *profit* on any other income (such as pozz geared IP’s), it will merely be offset. You’d only get back 3k-5k anyhoo… if you are currently making a loss.
I’d chuck 10k into an IP. I’d also forget about prospective returns on the movie- projections on movies are like projected CG on an OTP [thumbsdownanim
Oops G7- I think I read your amount of posts as your age! (In which case, I would be as old as Methuseleh). And G7- now that I know you’re so young, you have many many options I hope you can one day afford your own home too
Bbruham… [blink] you need some sleep!! I may one day own a home, bbruham- thanks for your thoughts [hair2]
moneymaker did ask for opinions, so here’s mine: I wouldn’t touch either of them. I’d rather a property that yielded 8% without any of the problems you’ve mentioned than a property that yields >10% with those characteristics.
I’ll give it a shot answering you from my experience. I checked out your profile and you’re 42. I am 37- I am not sure of your situation, and it might be really different than mine.
I’ve never really been able to afford my own home. I probably thought that was a bad thing in the past, but now I see it as a reasonable part of “fate”, given that tax concessions are generous for IP owners but not PPOR owners. There was a post on another forum about people renting… and they all said they “chose” to rent… [baaa] Well, for some of us, it’s an economic imperative, rather than a real “choice”.
However, having rented all of my life, since I was 19 and moved out of home, I think that to develop a portfolio of IP’s is a good thing! [biggrin] I actually don’t know if I will *ever* own my own home… because I would have to sell up my IP’s and buy myself a home- forgo the income of them, to have that one major “asset”. If one can rent cheaply, and comfortably, and safely… and one loves one’s rental property… then I think it’s a worthy alternative.
Having said that though… as I said, it’s not a real “choice” for me to rent (at least I’m honest!) so I can’t be purely objective about renting Vs PPOR, because to do so I would have to be able to do both- in fact, I can only do one of them :o)
So even thought it hasn’t been a “decision” for me to rent- it’s a necessity, the outcome for me has still been quite good
I will add to the list of other changes that have occurred of recent (the last 7 years) that have changed the RE market significantly:
* The ease of gaining finance- it simply wasn’t possible for people to get finance in the past as it is now. Lo-docs, no-docs, 105% loans… these all mean that every man and his dog can get a loan. This would link with the advent of mortgage broking as an industry (a huge growth industry that only originated about ten years ago)
* the internet… investors are much more connected and savvy due to the huge resource of the internet. RE books are also huge sellers. Every man and his dog is an author of RE, and we are all their hungry readers. This has never been the case before, in Australia at least.
* globalisation- again, the interconnectedness of the world means that people are now able and confident to invest overseas. Some global RE markets are deregulated to the extent of free reign of outside private investors.
* more gender equality: this means that women are increasingly developing a market share of RE that did not occur in past booms. The market has “doubled” if you will, having more females enter the market.
I do not believe that this boom and other booms can be compared. RE was once monopolised by higher income earners, and was much less regulated. It’s also why I believe that RE will maintain (to some extent) its value… because so many aussies are relying on RE for their livelihood, retirement etc. This was not the case in the past, except for a very few minority “in the know” investors.
kay henry
Viewing 20 posts - 1,001 through 1,020 (of 2,632 total)