This is funny. Another great advertisement for using a mortgage adviser / broker!!! ))
You should send the money to your solicitor. If you put the vendors name on it and the amount is too much, you will have a nightmare getting it back. The solicitor will hold the money in trust on your behalf and only disburse what the vendor is entitled to. If you don’t trust your solicitor, why are you using them?
Luci, this is a great advertisement for using mortgage brokers. Now imagine dealing with 30 or more lenders to source the best deals for clients and tell me how your blood pressure would feel.
Foundation, the ‘living off equity’ (without income other than rental) advocates also forget by spending on non-deductible personal items would soon see them paying tax on the rental income due to the reducing portion of deductible interest being exceeded by the rental income. They also neglect the impact of inflation which you demonstrated.
‘Never Sell’ is only advocated by The Investors Club so their ‘members’ (customers) do not realise the losses from the crappy and over-priced off-the-plan stuff they are flogging. Anyone can make a capital gain out of a property if they never sell. What is the point though?
There is also PAYG low doc and no doc loan options so ABNs are not always required.
As for rental income, if it is positive cashflow, declaring the income should not be a problem as you can also include the expected rental income. If you commence a job in the same field before applying, the lender will only want to see that no probation period exists before settlement. You would go very close to a full doc loan.
They do not have much leverage as the representative bodies of brokers also represent the lenders. As the lenders love throwing their money around, it seems they are represented in a far superior manner. This leaves brokers to operate independently and there is no strength without numbers.
Legislation is being heavily implemented directed at brokers while being relaxed against lenders. This increases the cost of operating to the broker while at the same time, lenders are reducing the commissions. The representatives do not prevent the reducing commissions or fight the cumbersome legislation.
It is interesting that the representatives are now fighting against UCCC requirements that pose a burden on lenders regarding comparison rates. This does not affect brokers and is typical of their direction.
Brokers have to wear it and be nice or face losing their accreditations or industry membership.
Jeff, please go and read the earlier posts about this topic in the various threads. This ‘living off equity’ discussion relates to someone who has no income from work and a negative portfolio (meaning they are geared substantially). Then, go and look at the ability to borrow based on no employment and a negative rental position and then get back to me.
Until then, as far as I am concerned, this ‘structure’ is only useable by those who don’t need it or those with a huge equity position with low gearing. If either of these people ‘needed’ it, they must be doing something wrong. Using it to further invest is not what I am discussing. I am an advocate of ‘investing off equity’.
No. Not a peep. I guess it is just rumour and inuendo on the part of those telling me. I find it remarkable that not a single representative of The Investors Club has responded to my comments though.
2,500 a week is a lot. You should be fine. Of course, you could purchase under low doc or no doc if you have the income but not the documents to support it.
If you only earned 15k and 20k ‘GROSS’ in the last two years, and you tell them that, they will probably not think very much and they may also ask where you got the 100k.
Whether you can borrow or not will be focused on what you want to buy… ie: how much are the property values and their location.
See, I did not dismiss your response about the lenders. I have already sent two emails and will call the lenders tomorrow to confirm that they do this. Your ‘distraction’ comment is just ridiculous and reaching. My response after your naming of the banks was addressing other issues and expressing my views again.
As for linking to Somersoft, I think that is rude in PI.com and there is no need to do it. In regards to continuing a ‘debate’, there isn’t one as far as I am concerned. Managed Funds invest in shares and people buy them as an easy way to buy shares. I know I do. I only mentioned the example so you would understand the point I was trying to make. It obviously didn’t work.
As you may know, I ignored you over at Somersoft and I am disappointed that I cannot do the same here (that I know of). I will just endeavour to ignore all future posts you make.
Have fun ‘debating’ whatever it is you think is being ‘debated’.
PS: When posting straight after the message you are responding to, there is absolutely no need to quote the whole message and repost it. It is just a waste of space.
See, just as you do not consider managed funds to be shares, I do not consider principal repayments to be income.
I would not submit a loan in this way.
It seems Rolf implied the lenders did not pick up on the principal repayments and were just looking at payments going into bank accounts or through another statement.
What happens when the payments stop and for some reason the borrower cannot re-establish a bond and cannot meet the repayments on the higher loan they obtained as a result of a bank oversight or the broker not informing them of the true nature of the so-called ‘income’?
Who will be smiling on the current affairs program when the borrowers who just lost everything say “the broker told me to do it!”?
Hey sceptical, I think you missed the bit where geo said his friend was scammed by them.
In any case, why would you go with a nobody who was previously linked with a criminal when you can go with established law firms who guarantee funds in their trust accounts and offer excellent returns? It has me stumped!