I went to the Dominique’s event on the 29th May. Very interesting, more informative than hype.

Kate – what did you get in the asset protection package and how much was it?

As for what she charges to help people get out of bad debt situations into a more comfortable position seems to be money well spent – a DIY package with her advice on what to do in your specific situation.

Terry – in reference to the above links in your post, briefly what is the plain English interpretation? We won’t hold you liable, just help us to understand it better

This thread relates to another thread (possibly SS) where you made a comment on buying distressed sales and the dangers of bankruptcy – which I guess comes down to critical dates. Other than asset protection, Dominique Grubisa also sells a package/course on buying from distressed sellers, where to get the details of potential targets and all the relevant documents and contract wording etc to take control of the property (various strategies) deeds of release etc. She is a barrister so it is assumed/hoped she knows what she is doing. She has also been drawn through the mud and nearly made bankrupt as a result of lending someone money who ended up going down the gurgler, but she managed to get the money back …..only to have administrators? want the money back and then tied up all her assets in the legal struggle. Once again I am guessing a critical date is the key.

Any key tips to watch out for if buying distressed sales? What protection if buying a mortgagee sale – or taking control prior and coming to arrangements with the bank. Can a bank trying to recover its money in a mortgagee sale get tangled up in bankruptcy – is there is a sequence of events which protects such complications.

Thanks

Hi Steve

I was at the seminar on Sunday and did not understand the new 11 second solution either, despite your attempts. With all respect, I wonder if you are making something much more technical and confusing than what it needs to be – getting a bit too analytical.

I am more than willing to try and understand, and have spent quite a bit of time looking at it from different angles. But I can’t help thinking that it is just playing with maths. It is like saying the tail wags the dog!

The three factors – rental income, yield and property value can all be swapped around to work out what any one of those figure are if given the other two. This is simple maths.

BUT, the way I look at it, yield is the end result of rental return income in relationship to property value. You can determine a figure for rental income, just as you can for property values – which will then give a yield value. But other than commercial, or where there are an extremely high percentage of investors, I have never seen or heard of residential property values determined by yield. Isn’t this determined by supply and demand?

If you have two houses side by side, exactly the same, one rents for $250 pw, the other for $300 pw, you are saying that the one that rents for $300 pw has a higher property value! Who would pay this? How many owner occupiers would care about the rental income or yield?

Yield can make properties more attractive to investors (high cash flow +ve), which then has the potential to drive up property values due to demand, but this is the result of the rental income in proportion to property value.

Where I think the confusion lies is the reason for the higher rental income is due to an improvement to the property – which has also increased the property value. It is the improvement which has added value, not merely increasing rental income. (Unless you had a particular deal with the tenant where a higher than normal rental was negotiated – and would be guaranteed to continue permanently with new owner. But if the yield was still the same as the property next door, what is the advantage of paying the higher price???)

Am I on the right track, just looking at it in a simpler way??

regards
Reno