I thought I'd throw this idea at you to test the waters.
Please tell me if this is a logical course of action, or if my thinking is stupid here.
Let's say you have a hundred grand in your super. It's currently being managed by someone else. They are giving you a return of 7.2 percent. The fund is good, nothing goes wrong, no stock market crashes happen, and in ten years, your hundred grand doubles. Happy days, right?
But what about this scenario. You take your original starting point of a hundred grand, set up a self managed fund, you then take your 100k to the bank and borrow against it. The bank loans you an extra 300'000. You then take your 400k and buy a property with it. It also gives you a return of 7.2 percent, and it also doubles. Now, your 100k start, finishes as 800k.
They both started with a hundred grand. The first one ends up with 200 The second one ends up with 800.
But hang on, lets just change the numbers a little… what if the fund managers are really good, they give you a great return of 9%. Let's also say you suck at property and have a bad stint. You only make 5% from your property.
Doesn't matter! Your 400k at 5% is still going to flog the 100k at 9% without even blinking.
My question is, especially to the financial planners out there, (Richard)… Why would you NOT do this?
One – set up costs are expensive, as are ongoing accountant / auditor fees. Two – can't use one property to leverage another. Three – current ambiguity in rules as to whether CGT is payable once loan is paid out, on transfer from bare trust to SMSF.
And the main reason for me. Sure, I might make a nice profit, but I can't get at it until I'm 60. That's 25 years away, and it's also assuming the government/s don't raise the age limits.
"One – set up costs are expensive, as are ongoing accountant / auditor fees. Two – can't use one property to leverage another. Three – current ambiguity in rules as to whether CGT is payable once loan is paid out, on transfer from bare trust to SMSF."
You might be pleasantly surprised by a solution to each problem.
One. Set up costs are the same or less than what most people pay in fees to a managed fund already. It costs approximately a grand to set up a SMSF, which is paid by the fund itself, and about a grand to pay for an accountant to look after it once a year., (depends on the accountant). 5 billion a year is paid by australians in superfund fees (That's a LOT.) The average cost you pay in managed funds is about 2 percent of whatever is in there. At 100k, thats 2 grand. So at worst, you're going to break even. SMSF's costs you no more than you're already wasting in fees. It's just a change in ownership, like opening a different bank account.
Two. Can't use one property to leverage another? So you're saying that because you can't triple your super's power TWICE, that it's not worth tripling it once? "If I turn my 100 grand into 250, but i'm not allowed to turn my 250 into 625, then I should just stay with the 100 to begin with." 150 grand more in super for a few measly phone calls? Come on, man!
Three. Even if you had to pay capital gains tax on it when you retire (when you don't) it's still better to start with 400 grand and double it, MINUS all those 'costs' that you're worried about being there, than starting with 100 grand and doubling it, and not having any costs.
Essentially, if you've got a hundred grand sitting there, there's no good reason to let it sit there doing nothing. It's just stagnant money that is being eaten away by fees and inflation, and if you were thinking it would make a healthy retirement, think again. Leverage it, invest it, and grow it. It doesn't cost anything more than you're already spending in fees, all it costs you is a bit of education and a few phone calls.
The only reason why one wouldn't use their super to invest in property is because they're already good at investing in stocks or shares, and they enjoy that more than property. But you wouldn't be here if that was you.
To clarify my point 2, I got off topic a bit and was comparing property in super against property outside of super. I realise that was not the point of your post, so it wasn't really relevant.
I'm not sure where you are getting your costs, but I'd like to know where you can get accounts done AND have the fund audited for $1000. Generally, it wouild be anywhere from $1500 to $2000, depending on the size of the fund and complexity of investments etc.
I'm splitting hairs, but it's important to let people know that fees are variable and can be a lot more than $1000. You would also add costs to vary deeds (if you have a deed pre-2009, you need to have it varied to allow the SMSF to use instalment warrants).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not for everyone.
But I take your points, and it's something I'll look at doing myself when I have enough super.
If you purchase a property for $400,000, after putting in $100,000 to cover deposits, in either super or out of super. Assuming property grows at a steady rate of 6% (I'm not saying it does, it just makes it easier for my rudimentary excel skills).
As you can access the equity when purchasing outside of super, you can buy again more quickly. So after 10 years, assuming straight line growth, your equity would be about double outside of super than in it. This is because after 10 years outside of super you would have three properties, and a portfolio at approximately 60% LVR. In super, you would have just one, unless you could increase your contributions so that you had enough cash to buy again sooner.
The ongoing costs of audits etc do fluctuate, depending on how complex your super fund becomes. If you're going to do stocks and shares, theres a lot more detail in there as you have to record every trade, and there can be hundreds of them in a year! If you're only going to do property, (and most people do do only property if they're doing property, because property requires a large chunk of money being tied up for some time) then the bookkeeping is a lot simpler, and therefore cheaper for an accountant to do it.
The bonus with doing it through people like the guys I work for is, they set people up with their super as cheaply as they can, and have the ongoings as cheaply as they can using in-house accountants that can look after things for people, because it's a drawcard for where they can really make the money, and that's through the purchasing of the property itself. If people get educated on how to use their super, suddenly you have a whole bunch of new investors that suddenly CAN afford to buy a property, and want to, and because they were so happy with how well they've been treated, and how cheaply they got things done for with their super, that the relationship is already there, and they're happy to look at the guys next doors property first, before they go somewhere else. Super Self managed are there specifically to create a market of investors that previously didnt exist. The customers love it, cuz it's all done cheap, and Coldwell Banker love it, because now people are in a position to buy something through them.
And yes, when it comes to buying through your super, you don't have to just buy through your super. Often people will come to us to buy a single property through their super, but then turn around and also buy another 2 or three properties from coldwell banker next door aswell.
Ben, Your whole theory revolves around borrowing cost being low, growth being high, legislation not changing, etc etc..
Do your figures with higher interest ( this is a certainty ), try growth of 2% over the next 20 years, housing costs like rents, insurance, maintenance, repairs, etc etc outpacing rental growth into the future and suddenly you are broke..
Anyone can come up with a theory of how to make a lot of money by using history as a fact of what will happen in the future… In that case why don't you go to the races and bet on no 1 winning race 1 because it did so in the past???
I know I sound like I am mad, thanks, but what I am trying to say is that if the past was the same as the future ( which unfortunately is what many property investors are assuming ) then everyone would be rich.
I'm sure you can guess that I think house prices are just a giant ponsi scheme that is going to gradually collapse over the next few months or years, its just a matter of watching it happen slowly and then faster… We will see.
But something just doesn't add up. If you're so sure that property investment is about to dissintegrate, what brings you to a property investing website?
Ben, Have been a property investor for over 20 years and yes have made good profits in the past. Still own properties but with my current outlook I own them, do not have large debts on properties and enjoy the rentals as profits. If I thought properties were going to go up at 7% a year I would buy another 10 of them and make millions. But that is not what I think is going to happen, its my fault if they go up and I miss my chance, but its not what I think will happen. Good on you for having a theory and good luck if you go for it and make lots of money, I wish you the best.
But I thought I'd put in an opinion for you so you may stop and think a bit more about what may happen in the current environment and probably future environment.
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.