Gee what great advice……lol Of course you could always look at putting your money into where ever you are going to maximise your return instead of blindly holding on to property just for the sake of it. Try reading some books on people who have actually MADE IT and you will see they very often sell and move there money around to maximise profit. Pretty narrow minded comment there LA….[/quote]

Guilty of being biased towards property Blogs.

That's all I've ever done investment wise, and it's been good to me. You could do worse.

What makes you think I haven't MADE IT?

Writing a book is not the only yardstick for that.

NETT WORTH is.

And I don't mean nett worth from PPoR's and doodads like cars and boats. I'm talking about Investment Nett Worth.

My first post was basic admittedly, but it is a wise saying. Time to elaborate.

Assuming that Tony13 has no other investment knowledge, and obviously already has some success with property, I'd encourage him to do what he is already knowledegable at, become expert at it and keep on going.

You talk about property as only ever getting 5% growth in the last post, and the Trumps and Packers sell and put the cash into other investments.

Yes, you can sell and move the money around, but you can also HOLD the property and use the equity towards other investments. Selling attracts lots of selling fees and cap gains tax, and is not always the best move financially. This is what I have found.

And, this can easily be more property. While one market is stagnant, there is always another one booming, so if you are constantly studying the market and looking for areas that are about to boom, or are booming, whilst still retaining your other property, your wealth will continue to grow at varying rates, and if selected wisely, will be easy to beat your 5% average.

To assume all property goes up at 5% is narrow minded.

With no income at all other than rent, you may find it harder to increase the loan limits at all unless you switch loans over to things like NoDocs and LoDocs.

I'm assuming the students are Uni students?

The fees you mention work out to approx $101 per week, not including the insurance and rates, maintenance and any vacancies.
 
Don't forget that between late Dec and early March you will have no students there if they all go home for the summer break.

Your total rent for the year is likely to be $15,400 ($296 p/week) gross. That's based on 44 weeks – 2 months over Jan and Feb vacant.

Then take out your expenses of say, $120 per week to include the other expenses and you have a nett rent of $176 p/week. Best case scenario is maybe $200 p/week nett.

Without knowing what the apartment costs, how much each of you are putting in in terms of loan and deposit, we can't work out the rest of the numbers.

Sounds more like an ad for the company.

You can claim without the diary; just hope you don't get audited.

Just give him the correct figures and tell him to do it.

He gets you to sign a bloody waiver anyway; what does he care?

Try seek.com.au

I've lived in SoCal for the last 2 years and never heard of this place. It certainly hasn't hit the news that I know of.

I think the situation is a lot more complex that the video shows.

Or, it could be simply a congregation in one area of homeless people; of which there are a huge number in this State.

Bottom line; the Country is great if you have a high paying job, if not; you'll be living a pretty empty existence and broke.

In 1993 I got offered a block of land by my Uncle at Kilcunda; a small, sleepy coastal village south of the Philip Island turn-off in Victoria. It was $5k, and I had the cash sitting there; I was saving for my own PPoR. I said no thanks.
Good houses with views are going for $500k plus.

Sticking the money in a high interest savings account is useless. Worst investment going.

Say you get 7% interest (ING pay that with their online Maximiser Account). You pay tax on the interest at your marginal rate, and there is also inflation eroding your capital at around 3% per year. Your nett return after tax and inflation is probably around 2%. WOOHOO!!

Even an average performing IP will easily eclipse that, and the capital is invested in a growth asset.

The repayments are only $453 a fortnight, if you rent it out, what would you get? $250 a week? More?

Allow for about 20% of the rent you get to be eaten up by the holding costs such as insurance, management, repairs, rates etc.

Meanwhile, you have all the tax deductions associated with the expenses on holding the house such as rates, insurance etc, and if the house was built after 1987 you have the depreciation as well. That will return you a few thousand in tax each year most likely.

As a tenant yourself, all you are responsible for is the contents insurance and utility bills such as phone, water, elec/gas.

There is a pretty good chance that, as long as you don't go too high in the rent you are paying for your place for you to live in, that you would end up with the rent from your home, plus the tax returns, wiping out your loan repayment and a chunk of the rent you would have to pay.

The other option is as Terry says; take the plunge in an IP. It looks as though you could do it comfortably.

Don't forget that you won't be able to access all that equity.

Unless you go for a very high LVR LOC on your PPoR – 95% (which I personally believe is very risky; your house is on the line), then in normal circumstances the Banks will only allow you to use 80% of your PPoR's value for re-borrowing, minus any existing loans.

So that means, say for example your new house cost you $350k, and now it is worth $470k (based on the new valuation),you can use $376k for investing.

But ,you still owe say $300k. You can only use $76k for your next deposit and closing costs.

I would never leverage your PPoR more than 80%. Life happens, and you wouldn't want to have to sell your house in a hurry, and take a loss. Better to be able to sell the IP and keep the PPoR.