Benny wrote:

Hi James,

This is assuming the property is your MPR (as is assumed in brackets at the end of my quote).

You are right! I missed it, as I was unaware of the acronym “MPR”. I know the term as PPOR – Principal Place of Residence? Was the change to MPR (Main Primary Residence) a recent change?
And isn’t “main primary” tautological? I wonder who thought up that darling?
*confused*
Benny

I have never seen MPR either. In commonwealth tax it is known as the main residence (since 1997) and NSW tax it is called the Principle place of residence.

Bic could be totally exempt.

There can be advantages in using a loc and not mortgaging the property being purchased. One is that when you subsequently do mortgage it and borrow against it the lender can lend based on value and not purchase price.
E. G. Find a house valued at $100k and buy it for $80k using a loc secured against another property. 1 day after settlement apply for finance and borrow $100k X 80% = $80k. This works out to be 100% LVR based on purchase price.
Good in theory but difficult in practice.

The down sides are this would be treated as cash out borrowing and be much more restrictive than borrowing to buy the place.

Borrow against the main residence as and use this 25% as deposit and costs and borrow 80% against the new property.

Even though you may live in the new property consider the tax consequences of if you were to move out so as to structure things in a way where all the interest would be deductible on the full purchase price plus costs.

What would happen if they went belly up is that the debt would be assigned to someone else. Someone would buy their loan books and you would contine to repay as per normal to the assignee.

Short answer is ‘no’.

LVR will be based on the figure the valuer gives.

I didn’t say it wasn’t a good idea, but you must consider things such as
. Are you over extending?
. Rates
. Fees
. Default
. Being stuck with same lender for years to come

Etc

seek legal advice as to ownership structure and don’t believe what you read – especially on trusts.

A agent should make sure they have authority to act as an agent by all owners. But this doesn’t always happen. Where one owner has suffered a loss due to negligance or fraud of an agent then they may have recourse against that agent – ‘may’.

No