hi aafreen,
thanks!! hehe!
Yeah i totally did some courses.
the one-nighters are good (dolf de roos, rich dad poor dad, richmastery) and out of those three i probably got most content out of richmastery, But nothing compares to a two or three day seminar. It means the speakers can get into more detail. Also there are copious notes (like a fat ringerbinder worth, often in a lot more detail than the speakers have time for) which are well worth having to go over again as well as a tape recording of the event.

in fact I liked Steve’s property masters so much that i wanted to repeat it the next year and so i took my Dad, who i thought I had convinced of the numbers, but still i wanted him to be able to ‘get it ‘ in the flesh just like i had. besides it is also a brilliant networking opportunity. The less people who invest etc you know in your circle of friends, the more benefit networking – or just ‘hanging out’ – with people that are doing what you want to be doing – the better. As for me, yeah sure i know the odd person who owns their own home and one friend has an investment property, but all are struggling. CF+ve investing to me is THE way to do it without the struggle. meaning financial burden.

cheers-
mini

I just don’t think Shannon has enough vocal talent to really cut it. if he wins it will be about looks, not talent. I think he will have a lovely career hosting karaoke competitions, appearing on celebrity big brother et al, doing th frank sinatra tribute show and playing the Rooty hill RSL. kinda thing. maybe the odd bit of charity.

I don’t know if either of the girls have the charisma to win. That’s not a looks thing, it’s a ‘personal power’ thing. Paulini could if she turned it up a notch, I can totally see her doing concerts at the sydney opera house with a big band and orchestra, and maybe even a gospel choir!

cosima I fear will end up on the RSL circuit too

Guy, though he looks a little freaky, certainly has the charisma, and he reminds me of….kelly osbourne. in a weird way i can’t put my finger on! Actually i think he’s scrubbing up pretty cute.!

cheers-
mini

fields,

I found something I wrote a while back, it’s from the NZ thread in the treasure trove, and I’m copying it here.

The first bit is by KtKiwi (who is saying much the same as you) and the second bit is me.

“Be wary of small towns… I say this ONLY because I have seen several property cycles in NZ and I know what happens when we are in a property boom. It goes something like this… Big city investors get tempted to invest in small centres when good returns in big cities get harder to achieve due to increased values. This drives up prices in those small centres and drives down returns (as rental growth will not match value growth (i.e. just because more investors invest this doesn’t mean that there is more rental demand!)
I’m not saying don’t invest in small towns, I’m just saying be wary
When the boom is over (and in NZ it typically is short lived i.e. 2 years or so) then rents drop and values in small centres can be decimated!
After all who wants to own a property in a small centre with high vacancy rates.

And be wary of those promoting towns like Tokoroa as wise investments!!! Tokoroa was a ghost town in the slump of 1992! I know people who lived there that were buying properties for $5,000 (in 1992 i.e THE BOTTOM OF A PROPERTY SLUMP) and renting them out for $20 / week. Those properties are now apparently worth $50,000 + with rents of @$140/week (in 2003 i.e. NEAR THE TOP OF A PROPERTY BOOM)”

and now my reply –

“Hm,,,,,,,, when is a 20 percent return not a wise investment?
(at the time of purchase). Especially one which is indexed for inflation (hence the rise from 20 per week to 140 per week over time) and in 11 years becomes a 140 percent return? Tell me if I’ve done something wrong but let’s say they managed to pay off their $5000 house by 1999 and so they have a freehold house. Let’s also assume they got 140 per week this year, 130 the year before, and 100 the year before that.
That makes about 20 K cash over the last three years. Add to that 45K capital gain and you get 65 K for your initial 5 K investment. Oh no, it was less than that, because you only put in 20 percent of your 5000 way back in 1992, and you had a mortgage. So really you only put in 1000 and a bit more for closing costs back in 1992. And now you have 65 K, 65 times your money back. what kind of cash on cash return is that? How much better does it have to be make/risk before you would consider an investment ‘wise’???
Man, if I can make 65 times my initial investment in 11 years I’ll be laughing.”

to conclude, I am expecting that my humble 25K houses will show similar returns if you check back in 11 years… I see property as a long term investment and as such, i am not really worried about price slumps here and there. it’s only a worry if you have to cash out at the wrong time. And i’m not planning on that happening because I have a ginormous buffer built in to my investments due to their large returns (even at the time of purchase.)

cheers-
mini

Just watched it tonight – Guy and Paulini are the send chills up your spine vocal talents. I hope they win.

i agree with westan, for me 10.4 percent (11 sec) is a *minimum* and I have achieved 20 percent with all my properties and intend to continue (if buying for cashflow.) No, they might not give me that much capital gain, and if i was hoping for capital gain (and in the future I might add some of those kinds of properties) – know knows, I might settle for a neutrally geared 10.4 percent. but i wonder if now is the right time to be buying for capital gain anyway – things are booming.

then again if you can get CF+ve in today’s market, and you are intending to hold long term and you are unlikely to have to sell in a hurry, i believe you can’t really go wrong.

“i think all the time is the best time to buy”

stillinschool, that’s the best thing I have read here all day.
totally!!!

cheers-
Mini

hi lawrence –

http://www.wcc.govt.nz/publications/reports/archive/qoflife/page13.html

scroll down to the table with the most affordable areas for houses in NZ. then concentrate looking in the three most affordable areas. And at the bottom of the market. That’s where you will likely find the best yields. The properties could also be challenged. They may be in areas that are hard to rent. And they may need doing up in order to attract a tenant. Basically, buyer beware. Do your due diligence. i did. Lots of it. And asking me what I think doesn’t count as due diligence, OK!???!!! But still – last time i looked ( a few days ago) there were still quite a few houses for sale for under 30 and a few under 20.

Perhaps not enough for everyone on this forum to get 10 each, but they still exist.

I have noticed that in the last 6 months what you get for that money is not as good as when i bought. So capital gain is alive and well, for the moment – even in the regional towns. Make of that what you will…..

one other thing – open2view seems to be a more upmarket site, with more upmarket properties. One of the properties I ended up buying was listed simultaneously on realenz for 29 and on open2view complete with virtual tour for 44K. say no more…

cheers-
Mini

hi taylah,

firstly I wouldn’t call Cairns a rural town….

yes you are right about the lower end of the market, in my experience the better returns are found there.

It sounds like you are looking for +ve CF properties in the places where you find negative geared ones.

If you are ‘deciding on an area’ based on “growth, population and employment’ then stick to capital cities and forget about +ve CF.

Why not try ‘deciding on an area’ based on the numbers. It might not have a large population or much in the way of growth, but it might be a brilliant place to buy a +ve CF property.

I mean, if you can get it all in the one property, well and good, but I’m just trying to say, don’t buy (i.e.) beachfront and expect it to be +ve cashflow

welcome michael, thanks for your post, will take it on board.

cheers-
mini

melbear – yeh totally.