I may be missing something here.

How do you avoid CC when you are using equity in property A to purchase property B and you don't actually have a cash deposit?  Maybe I CC just the two properties, and then when property C comes along, I again CC property C and A.  At some point I could have the CC between A and B removed when I have enough equity in B?

Cheers
S

But hbbehrendorff puts forward a strategy that is worth thinking about at some stage.  For us now, 100% equity in our PPOR, owing about $80K on an IP worth about $165K.  Looking to invest again.  We can jump in and debt up.  Or, we can sell a large portion of our herd of cattle (say $50K), to come close to paying out the other loan, possibly sink business profits into the same loan to reduce it, and reinvest once that house is paid off.  We will pay alot less interest.  It may delay our investment timeline by a year.  That mightn't be a bad thing anyway.  When we DO reinvest, we will have 100% equity in both our home and first IP, and there should be plenty of income to quickly pay off the loan, reducing the interest bill yet again.  I'd love to do some maths to compare the two different snowballing strategies and see which one delivers the outcome I most desire.  Of course, I can't save up front to buy a house but the idea that lots of debt is not necessarily the way to go. Paying off debt quickly and minimising the interest bill, allowing profit to compound rather than interest certainly deserves some exploration, particularly in a market where capital growth is likely to be reserved for some time. 

Plus, good chance, if I had an IO loan and offset account, I'd end up buying a nice boat.  Or a nice horse.  Or something nice.  There is something to be said for not being able to get that money.

This guy is a real expert – check out the list of his other videos.  Everything from Early Childhood, Diet, Health Care, Economics, even the TRUTH. He must be a real genius, huh?  Glad I never wasted any money on a how to get rich seminar – it's all there for free. 

Just tell him.  He'll probably try to talk you around, that's his job.  Sometimes brokers are good to have onside, even you think you may have found a better product.  A good broker can be like any other good professional – very very handy.  But of course, they're not all good, and some are a complete waste of time. 

You'll get better advise than what I can give you about wether you can get out, but I would have thought it wouldn't be a problem, though you may be up for application and possibly valuation fees.  Maybe.  In my experience, your two part process is correct. 

Your property contract should always be subject to finance approved by a financier of your choice(for private treaty sales).  I think QLD contracts are automatically like this, but we always put it in anyway.  There is no need to rush your finance application when you don't even have a property contract in place. (Unless you were going to purchase at auction – for which you DO need preapproval).  Don't panic.  She'll be right.  Be prepared to wear a cost of a few hundred dollars if it turns out that you did get it wrong – those are real small bikkies when it comes to RE mistakes. 
good luck

OK.  I love your posts.  So much of it I absolutely agree.  So often I get the impression that your ideal of the economy is the true free economy, with no government intervention.  Hence me calling your opinions right wing.  That's what I thought right wing meant.  I would have described my own feelings as moderately right wing.  Some of what you say here I don't quite understand and would like to question:

Can you share with us which nations you are talking about?  Is it your view that the current most prosperous nations simply haven't come to this point yet?  Do you not leave room for the idea that there is a healthy level of government involvement?  Would you rather have no government?

I've seen our local council's balance sheet.  This sort of thing is easily available.  They list their road network as an asset.  Tricky one.  Future economic benefits of the road network? – Definetley, but not for the Council, for everyone else and their businesses.  Control? To some extent.  They get to decide where it goes (sort of), and wether they should fix it.  Was the Council's considerable effort to build these roads commensurate with zero productivity?  Would you rather that they hadn't (if you lived here, and had a business here).  These roads service cattle stations which service largely the export market, and are the way the cattle get to market, and how the businesses running essentials get to the cattle station.

I don't really understand this.  Is this because it costs them say $40 to collect and distribute the $100 leaving them only $60 to spend, or less because the balance is eroded through inflation caused by their overspending?

  Did Kruddy really say that?  That's a pretty scary thing.  Capitalism didn't fail.  Like you have said, the creation of easy money allowed the thing to fail.  Not capitalism.  I agree.  We never had a free market, and they interfere way too much.  They should be a bit like a doctor and try to weigh up the pros and cons of interfereing with not interfering, and allow a stauch risks/ benefits analysis to lead them a bit.  Interfering in the economy is a bit like taking a drug.  It's going to have a side effect.  You need to decide wether it's worth it.  Often its not.

Agreed agreed agreed.

Sure, I'll accept that government borrowing is different from private borrowing, due to the lack of responsibility taken for failure.  I think the same thing happens with large corporations.  Too much distance between responsibility and power.  I don't agree that you can't increase productivity.  Government research into fertility genetics in the beef industry HAS increased productivity, as farmers have used the knowledge to select for more productive traits in their cattle.  Again, the building of roads and railways allows trading or physical produce to occur, within the country and overseas.  Productivity would be less if the farmer didn't have roads to get his cattle to the port.  Why?  because why would Australia's beef industry bother producing any beef if they couldn't sell it?  Perhaps the infrastucture doesn't increase PRODUCTIVITY so much as it enables TRADE.  Pretty important too, if you want a healthy trade balance.

Those are interesting facts.  I didn't know them.  Europe hundreds of years ago was not my idea of a perfect place to be, either though.  And I guess that is my point.  It's not just about the economy.  It's about life.  And a healthy economy is one of the best things to support good quality life for everyone in the long term.  But government will always have it's role in protecting the weakest, bringing the most ruthless to justice, and providing the infrastructure that allows physical trade to occur across the world.  Somewhere, there is a balance.  And of course, at the moment, Kruddy is not my idea of the right balance.  But I liked Howard, or alot of him, anyway.  No ones perfect though.

I'm sure you're in no danger of disintegrating into rant.  You're very capable of handling my conversation.
S

I believe that this is something investors do all the time.  Pretty sure I borrowed money when I bought my last IP.  And, yep, that was cause I didn't have enought to buy it on my own.  Pretty sure also, that when we built our hay shed a couple of years ago, we borrowed money for it.  The hay shed has since added over 100K to our turnover and 20K to our profit per year.  The shed cost $20K.  So I guess borrowing that money put us in better shape.

I loved the "temporary deficit" line.  Had to agree though, it will be temporary, as temporary as our labour government is going to be (and then a little more – It'll take some fixing).

Of course he's got it wrong.  He has to, he's labor, he's wrong by default.

Perhaps I'm just bitter because, being self employed, I won't get my handouts until after I lodge this years tax return.  Hand outs are stupid.  If they really have to spend money, they should do so improving infrastructure – particularly that which  makes the country globally competitive and economically strong. 

You know, there is still alot of jobs in the bush.  Don't know what your skills are, but for anyone looking for work, who is active enough to be useful on a cattle station, it's a great option.  Rent out your current PPOR, go bush and take a job on a minimum wage with accomodation and food included.  You are several hours from the shops, so you can't spend any money.  You will probably work 7 days a week so you can't spend any money.  You will have an adventure, and save some money.  I highly recommend it for anyone with school leaving age kids who feel a little lost, to go and have an adventure in the good clean outdoors, get some character building and save some money.  I loved it and met my husband.

Well, Good luck, Tony. Of course I'll help if I can, but unless you are looking at an area I know a bit about, I'm not sure how useful I could be.  I live 'way out bush', but every little town is different.  Greater availability of tradespeople may lead to slower growth in remote towns than what they have experienced in the recent past. 

My theory is that in order to out perform a market, you need to either be better informed, or luckier than the other players.  I'm not generally all that lucky  (Golden casket has been a poor performing investment for me), so I reckon I have to generate enough knowledge about my market in order to be better informed than the others.