HI all,

In my opinion it is worth getting the quantity surveying done.
I am about to get another property done and due to the distance away from the Q-surveyor I will send extensive digital photos and plans of the house, contract, council approved extensions etc for them to view and make the depreciation schedule from etc. It will cost me $495.00
So re: your “doesn’t seem many to be around” I would suggest it might be worth exploring and finding a firm that you feel comfortable with and see if they can do the work based on extensive photographs of your property etc.
Hope that this is some help.
Cheers Isagold[]

Hi
I have recently attended the 3hr seminar in Adelaide that the Hanna brothers were doing and I have just posted a message to see if anyone has attended their $4000+ seminar in Sydney (I think).
as I would like to know how beneficial it was.

To find their site go to http://www.morganpacific.com
as that is the business that they trade under.
They claim to have made 60 million dollars in the last 5 years between them.
They were interesting to listen to and the way they explained things seemed so easy – but of course it wouldnt be so simple unless you attend the big seminar and are given CD’s with their legal documents already drawn up.
Go to their $59 seminar – its worth the money with a money guarantee refund – listen and decide for yourself.

Goodluck!

Hi Peter.

Banks look at the area that a property is in, that is whether it is in a rural area or not. I think their way of thinking is that any down turn in the property market is going to affect the rural areas first because of their lack of population growth. I don’t see this as a deterrant, because if you are after poritive cash flow the real asset is the tennant not the property, so you shouldn’t really care if the property price drops slightly. Banks on the other hand care because if you can’t meet your repayments, they need to be able to recoup their money from selling the property. If the property is in a rural area and property prices go down, their way of thinking is that they won’t be able to get their money back on it.

As Steve has said many times on this forum, he doesn’t really care if the propoerty he buys is in a growth area or not, he is more concerned with being able to rent it out for long periods of time. Thats the strategy if you are after positive cash flow.

On the first property the bank charged me mortgage insurance. From then on, it never charged me mortgage insurance because i had the first property. Thats with the ANZ bank, other financial institutions might be different. I also never got charged a loan approval fee after the first property, the ANZ is very good in that regard.

Hello BorisS, hope this helps.

Expenditure to remedy wear or damage in existence at the date of acquisition (initial repairs)

(see explanations at paragraphs 68 to 78 and examples at paragraphs 115 to 119 of this Ruling)

27. Expenditure incurred on initial repairs of newly or recently acquired premises, plant, etc, where the expenditure is incurred in remedying defects in existence at the date of acquisition, is expenditure of a capital nature and is not, therefore, deductible under subsection 53(1). It is not deductible even though the repairs are carried out shortly after the premises, plant, etc are acquired. The costs of effecting initial repairs are still not deductible even if some income happens to be earned before the repair expenditure is incurred.

28. The main consideration here is the condition of the premises, plant, etc when it is acquired. Whether at the time of acquisition the taxpayer was aware of the condition of the property, including its need for repair, and whether the purchase price reflected the need for repairs, are immaterial. We consider that the English Court of Appeal decision in Odeon Associated Theatres v. Jones (Inspector of Taxes) (1972) 1 All ER 681 is not authority in Australia for a contrary view. An initial repair expense is capital in nature. It is not the type of repair expenditure ordinarily incurred as a working expense in producing assessable income or in carrying on a business. This is because it lacks a connection with the conduct or operations of the taxpayer that produce the taxpayer’s assessable income. It is essentially an additional cost of acquiring the property. It is not deductible under subsection 53(1).

29. An initial repair expense may not be dissected or apportioned to allow a deduction of some part of the expense that may be said to remedy defects arising from the use of the premises, plant, etc by the taxpayer after it was acquired. Subsection 53(3) does not provide for any such dissection or apportionment.

Hello again Hwd007. You’ll find that as soon as you settle you’ll accrue interest on the balance daily, it is at the end of the month however when they add it to your balance. Hope that makes sense.

Hello all.

Joanne, I don’t have a specific contact for Launceston or Burnie, but i have spoken to many agents down there. Sorry i can’t recommend anyone.

Del i sent you an email, i hope you got it.

BYE

Boy what a story makes mine sound pretty insignificant indeed , but here it goes ( I think I have mellowed to the circumstances now as it was 3 years ago)
Back ground I had just purchased my first investment house and the house was a structurally sound but needed modernizing. I renovated the house to a very nice living standard. New carpets, new paint work new kitchen, tiled bath & Kithen renovated bath, curtains etc. The rental agency found a company that had good credentials and rented it out to the company but the people that the company put in the house were the tennants from hell. ( don’t get caught with this)I lived next door to this rental house so I often saw commercial trucks in the residential yard being fixed, the house was never locked etc, Yard not watered, windows out, all those visual signs that send negative waves to the grey matter and make you think ” OH S*#T!” After some time I noticed that no one was there but the house was completely opened ( it was wet season) it was left like this for a couple of weeks when I rang the agents to ask if the tennants were still there or not. When the Agents gained entry etc , The house was filthy I don’t think it had ever been cleaned, there were many ciggerate burns in the new carpet where they had been stubbed out obviously while watching TV. Huge clothes iron burns in the new carpet, the new kitchen benches had been hacked with the cutting knife as no cutting boards were used. A greasy engine and parts were in one of the bedrooms. Hoses and timers were taken from the house. It goes on.
I had Landlords insurance at the time and called the insurance company in to make a claim> BUT they said sorry this is just poor living conditions! and unless you make a police complaint and take it to court nothing is covered > The catch was the company was the legal renters of the house and not the actual People who lived in the house. So I just had to wear another couple of thousand of dollars to bring the house back into shape so that I could rent it out again. From that day on I have never taken out landlords insurance, but make sure I know much more background about who is going into my houses.
To end on a happy note I am still investing in real estate and I have had wonderful tennants in that particular house now for nearly 3 years.
Cheers Isagold []

Hi there Wilandel.

I am of the opinion that an interest only loan is viable if you are looking to sell the property in the near future to get a capital gain. For instance i would get interest only if i were going to buy a property and do it up and sell it for a capital gain.

If my objective was for positive cash flow i would take out a principal and interest loan as the tennant is reducing my debt on the loan and building me equity. If this is my objective then i don’t really see the point of taking out an interest only loan as the principle borrowed is not reducing.

My 2 cents.