# I can afford a house



## krisbarry (24 February 2007)

Yipppeee...I have enough money in my superannuation to afford to buy a house! Anyone can buy a house is the "catchcry".... I am so excited: with my super account balance now sitting at $40,000 the opportunites are endless.  see I am already changing the way I think...before I had given up, but now I have seen the light!

Jerry Springer trailer trash here we come  

Look at what I can buy:

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...header=&c=33566885&s=sa&snf=rbs&tm=1172284428

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...header=&c=33566885&s=sa&snf=rbs&tm=1172284428

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...header=&c=33566885&s=sa&snf=rbs&tm=1172284428

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...header=&c=33566885&s=sa&snf=rbs&tm=1172284428

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...header=&c=33566885&s=sa&snf=rbs&tm=1172284428

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...header=&c=33566885&s=sa&snf=rbs&tm=1172284428

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...header=&c=33566885&s=sa&snf=rbs&tm=1172284428

...and so on and so forth...


----------



## Knobby22 (24 February 2007)

You can't anyway as all your money is in super!


----------



## nizar (24 February 2007)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> You can't anyway as all your money is in super!




SO true!


----------



## krisbarry (24 February 2007)

Not true at all, I can buy property with super funds, plenty of people do.  Just as long as I use it for investment purposes only, then it is legal.

So there :


----------



## tech/a (24 February 2007)

Actually now your thinkin'

You can buy and place in your Super fund any freehold property.
Dont know about those you have suggested as you dont own the land.

But your Superfund could collect the rent and all out goings are tax deductable.
Capital gains are also I believe not taxed at some point.

Its worth looking into as you could buy an industrial shed/warehouse and rent that out,same sort of thing.

I'll look into that Re not owning the land but owning the building.

Kris while I reckon you were being a bit sarcastic,youve actually hit on a possiblilty.


----------



## reece55 (24 February 2007)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Actually now your thinkin'
> 
> You can buy and place in your Super fund any freehold property.
> Dont know about those you have suggested as you dont own the land.
> ...




Tech is on the mark......

Super funds (SMSF's) are able to purchase any sort of property (by that I mean land or the building, lease right, etc) they want provided that: 

1. The funds deed allows the investment;
2. The asset is not secured against any debt.

Point 2 can be a bit of a pain, as if you want to go into the venture with another partner who's using their own cash outside of super, 9/10 they will want to obtain some gearing - even if your share is bought with 100% cash, if one party uses the asset as collateral, you will be in breach of the SIS rules.

Also, don't try and structure the thing (i.e the super fund holds a share or unit in a company/trust that owns the property) as most of the time the ATO will deem any income for these types of entities as special income and slap you with 46.50 tax instead of the 15% normally applied.

Capital gains for super funds obtain a 1/3 discount if held for 12 months or more - so you will get 33% off if you hold for more than a 12 month period.

Cheers


----------



## krisbarry (24 February 2007)

Yes there was a little hint of sarcasm in my post, that said I now see the glass as being half full instead of half empty and there are plenty of opportunities.  

It just means scaling life back to the bear essentials.  

Starting with the trailer trash first and moving my way up the ranks to a crusty cream brick 70's unit, and then onto an 80's red brick town-house and then onto a 90's AVJenning tripple fronted family home so on and so forth till one day I eventually own a family home outright.  It certainly is possible and I see it as a real possibility to home ownership.

Hell everyone has to crawl before they walk right.

Yes I think it would be possible to collect the rent and deposit that straight into a SMSF.


----------



## nomore4s (24 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> Yes there was a little hint of sarcasm in my post, that said I now see the glass as being half full instead of half empty and there are plenty of opportunities.
> 
> It just means scaling life back to the bear essentials.
> 
> ...




STP,

That's good to hear, I think that too many people are too worried about what they can't have instead of looking at what they can have and how they can improve their circumstances to get what they want.
Instead of worrying about what you can't have concentrate on what you want and how you can get it with what you have available to you (goal setting and planning to achieve those goals), and don't give up, no one achieves anything without mistakes and set backs.
Like Young Traders post in the "I never realized just how puny and insignificant I am" thread, he took chances and learnt from his mistakes, he was also willing to do alot of work and spend a bit of money on improving himself to open more doors.


----------



## clowboy (24 February 2007)

well the last one states "981 sqm of freehold land" so I would think that this one would be a go for super fund no matter what.

40k for almost a 1/4 acre block is bargain buying in my mind, having said that I don't know the area.

Funnily enough I could have bought a 5 acre block over here about 4 years ago for under 5k.  prob was it was 3 hours from perth and 1.45hrs from next major city.  Looking back, how could you go wrong?  Worth about 150k now.


----------



## krisbarry (24 February 2007)

clowboy said:
			
		

> well the last one states "981 sqm of freehold land" so I would think that this one would be a go for super fund no matter what.
> 
> 40k for almost a 1/4 acre block is bargain buying in my mind, having said that I don't know the area.




Its COOBER PEDY, Famous for its opal.  Most houses are underground due to the extreme heat.  Middle of summer gets to 50 degrees in the shade!


----------



## theasxgorilla (24 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> It just means scaling life back to the bear essentials.




...and a better life it probably is too (says he who has been without a television, by choice, for more than 2 years now).

I miss Ray Martin the least.


----------



## PennyHopeful (24 February 2007)

I know this is off topic but asx gorilla im keen to hear about this two year hiatus from televison. It is something i have thought about in the past. I would like to hear your experiences.


----------



## Julia (24 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> Yipppeee...I have enough money in my superannuation to afford to buy a house! Anyone can buy a house is the "catchcry".... I am so excited: with my super account balance now sitting at $40,000 the opportunites are endless.  see I am already changing the way I think...before I had given up, but now I have seen the light!
> 
> Jerry Springer trailer trash here we come
> 
> ...




Does this mean we have seen the end of the threads berating those of us who are hated property owners?  The selfish, greedy ones?

Julia


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 February 2007)

PennyHopeful said:
			
		

> I know this is off topic but asx gorilla im keen to hear about this two year hiatus from televison. It is something i have thought about in the past. I would like to hear your experiences.



I do have a TV but I haven't actually turned it on this year. I assume it still works. Last year I probably watched it for 2 hours in total. There's always something better to do for me.


----------



## theasxgorilla (25 February 2007)

PennyHopeful said:
			
		

> I know this is off topic but asx gorilla im keen to hear about this two year hiatus from televison. It is something i have thought about in the past. I would like to hear your experiences.




I moved house and didn't set the TV up for two weeks.  I noticed that I was getting a lot more done, particularly on Saturday mornings.  So after one especially productive Saturday I shot my sister (a single mum, not gainfully employed at the time) a quick SMS asking if she'd like a big screen TV, and if so, to hurry up and say yes before I changed my mind.  I chugged over the other side of town later that night and gave it away.  That was a little over two years ago.

Observations?  The world and Australia is a wonderful place, but you wouldn't know it from what the commercial media has to say.  I cringe when I hear MMM or see some of the ads going around on TV.  When you watch or listen to a lot of commercial media I think you become desensitised to how *pathetic* and *blatent* some of the endorsements and targetted advertising can be.  I'm ashamed at how Australia gets represented.

You will worry less about interest rates and the economy in general because you _elect_ when and where to get your news.  And since your information intake becomes lower you aren't too (sensory) overloaded to be able to recognise a slant or bias in the news that you _choose_ to receive.  With the extra time you recover you can go out in the world and actually participate in the economy and realise how it _really_ is, not how it's being reported to you by some gimp trying to sell a story.

If you do it you'll probably also find that you become quite disconnected (isolated??) from certain demographic groups.  You can't talk Big Brother, or Lost, or 24 etc. etc.  And people will think that you are doing it to be "alternative" or to make an extreme point about something political, like being vegan or something.

In the after dinner hours when many people worry about whats on at 7:30 or whats on at 8:30 etc. I go out walking with my girlfriend.  I go to the cinema a lot and have become a big movie buff.  Went to see "The Good Shepard" this evening BTW.  Loved it.  4 and a half stars for mine.


----------



## theasxgorilla (25 February 2007)

Back on topic though, and tied to my previous post, if you are at all inclined to pick up on negative messages as they float around the ether then one of the best things you can do is ditch the TV (or at least the news) and stop reading tabloid newspapers.  Then you can get on with answering your own questions about whether you can afford a house, the tried and proven way, with pen, paper and a calculator.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 February 2007)

theasxgorilla said:
			
		

> Back on topic though, and tied to my previous post, if you are at all inclined to pick up on negative messages as they float around the ether then one of the best things you can do is ditch the TV (or at least the news) and stop reading tabloid newspapers.  Then you can get on with answering your own questions about whether you can afford a house, the tried and proven way, with pen, paper and a calculator.



Exactly. Not even the biggest housing bear could imagine a house price crash on the scale that the standard of "news"paper journalism has already crashed. 

I base my observations of media reporting in terms of things where I know for certain what the facts are. And it's come to the point where I find close to 100% either outright wrong or missing fundamental facts that even a primary school kid could comprehend if properly reported (so no "we're using layman's terms" excuses please). 

Needless to say this doesn't give me much confidence in their reporting of issues where I don't have the ability to assess accuracy. Presumably it's equally worthless nonsense.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> Yipppeee...I have enough money in my superannuation to afford to buy a house! Anyone can buy a house is the "catchcry".... I am so excited: with my super account balance now sitting at $40,000 the opportunites are endless.  see I am already changing the way I think...before I had given up, but now I have seen the light!
> 
> Jerry Springer trailer trash here we come
> 
> ...




Dear STC

This is all pie in the sky, being realistic.

If you go to any lender with 40k from a super fund, they will put you through the third degree.

All good luck to you, though, should you pull it off.

However 40k is now like 15k was 10 years ago. It isn't enough capital to move the lenders.

In addition the problems that tech/a alluded to will remain. 

Is it an appropriate investment for a super fund.

Have you ever dealt with builders like Mr. O'Reilly from Fawlty Towers?. Can you handle the stress. Will property tank in 2007/8

Sorry to be negative but 40k may be better off in RIO or BHP than in some desolate overgrown block in Mentone, Newtown or Inala.

Garpal


----------



## krisbarry (25 February 2007)

I was simply giving an example of what could be achieved with my current finances, if I am prepared to down-scale.  I am more than happy to keep my money in a super fund for the time being as the returns would be far higher than that of collecting rent from a trailer trash tennant.

I am flipping my thoughts from what I thought was not achievable to what is achievable.

I have just switched my super funds into a new fund dealing in small companies.  Last year it returned 66%, so if and only if this fund returns similar returns, I will be sitting on over $65,000 by this time next year, far better than a rental return.


----------



## Julia (25 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> I am flipping my thoughts from what I thought was not achievable to what is achievable.




Wonderful!  Hope it's not a temporary conversion.  Precisely what many of us have been attempting to get through to you for a long time.

Julia


----------



## The Mint Man (26 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> Yipppeee...I have enough money in my superannuation to afford to buy a house!...



who cares!


----------



## krisbarry (26 February 2007)

Yes true, who cares, what do I have to prove...you are spot on with that thought.


----------



## Kimosabi (27 February 2007)

How about this one...







$8,000 Lightning Ridge, perfect for any Super Portfolio


http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...eader=&c=54404495&s=nsw&snf=rbs&tm=1172500759


----------



## wayneL (27 February 2007)

Well for 2-3k you can have this and travel wherever you want:






Sorry, getting silly now LOL


----------



## Realist (27 February 2007)

Why the hell would you want to buy a house STC?

Forget topping up your super and rent!!  Share accomodation sharing with 2 hot chicks near some good bars and restaurants and party on.

Worrying about super at your age is moronic.


----------



## tech/a (27 February 2007)

*NOT*


> Worrying about super at your age is moronic.


----------



## theasxgorilla (27 February 2007)

Realist said:
			
		

> Worrying about super at your age is moronic.




I profusely disagree...NOT worrying about it at this is age is overly near-sighted.  Take your 'hands off the wheel' of your retirement income fund at your own risk, IMO.


----------



## nioka (27 February 2007)

Realist said:
			
		

> Forget topping up your super and rent!!  Share accomodation sharing with 2 hot chicks near some good bars and restaurants and party on..



Now that's moronic. But you know that, you are just stirring.


----------



## tech/a (27 February 2007)

Actually I've come to the conclusion that Realist is a sham.

Know ones that consistently,reliably, and profoundly antagonistic.

To him its a sport and he sucks us all in time and again.
Yoo many idle hrs.
Quite clever.


----------



## theasxgorilla (27 February 2007)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Actually I've come to the conclusion that Realist is a sham.




You mean he's not renting with a couple of chicks in a hip part of town having a blast???


----------



## Realist (27 February 2007)

Isn't STC in his early 20's?

Why on earth would you worry about Super then?




			
				tech/a said:
			
		

> Actually I've come to the conclusion that Realist is a sham.




Really?

Have you checked our bet yet?  I'm looking forward to that case of beer!


----------



## Realist (27 February 2007)

theasxgorilla said:
			
		

> You mean he's not renting with a couple of chicks in a hip part of town having a blast???




Just one chick in a good part of town having a blast.

I did flat with 2 chicks in my 20's though.    :grinsking


----------



## chops_a_must (27 February 2007)

Realist said:
			
		

> Isn't STC in his early 20's?
> 
> Why on earth would you worry about Super then?



I agree with realist here.

You don't know that you aren't going to get cancer or another kind of illness that will keep you out of work for years when you are 30. And if you do, you are going to want to access the money you've worked your a*se off for. It's no good the money being in super if you aren't going to make it to 65.


----------



## finnsk (27 February 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> You don't know that you aren't going to get cancer or another kind of illness that will keep you out of work for years when you are 30. And if you do, you are going to want to access the money you've worked your a*se off for. It's no good the money being in super if you aren't going to make it to 65.



When is a good time to start to put money into super? when you are 40 or 50? what happens if you get sick then? what happens when you turn 65 with no super?


----------



## chops_a_must (27 February 2007)

finnsk said:
			
		

> When is a good time to start to put money into super? when you are 40 or 50? what happens if you get sick then? what happens when you turn 65 with no super?



Stay disciplined with your savings. And if you don't get sick etc. you will end up with more than what you would if you had put it in super. F*ck 7% pa.


----------



## nizar (27 February 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> I agree with realist here.
> 
> You don't know that you aren't going to get cancer or another kind of illness that will keep you out of work for years when you are 30. And if you do, you are going to want to access the money you've worked your a*se off for. It's no good the money being in super if you aren't going to make it to 65.




I agree as well.
Super is the last thing i worry about.


----------



## nat (27 February 2007)

Hi there ,actually im pretty sure there is a clause to get your super out early due to life threatening illness or money hardship ,i looked into the money hard ship to get my super out but they said id have to be on centrelink payments for minimum 6 months and basically be nearly bankrupt ,so i just left it in there .Nathan


----------



## theasxgorilla (27 February 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> I agree with realist here.
> 
> You don't know that you aren't going to get cancer or another kind of illness that will keep you out of work for years when you are 30. And if you do, you are going to want to access the money you've worked your a*se off for. It's no good the money being in super if you aren't going to make it to 65.




You presume that super is an all or nothing situation.  In STCs case, we've learned that it is.  Over the years of working I've amassed a decent super account size and whilst I don't trust the government (whoever they are) to keep the rules the same for 30 years, I also don't intend to just let the fund drift along like an untethered ship in the bay.

Re: getting sick, read the rules re: early access...this is covered.


----------



## tech/a (27 February 2007)

Should clarify here.

Putting ALL your spare cash into Super isnt really smart.
Putting NOTHING into Super isnt smart either.

But if you have people who arent Entrepeneurial weighing heavier towards Super (Compulsary saving) is better than blowing it in the Wind.

If however your 30/40/50 whatever and have 2 yrs to live---spend the lot!


----------



## chops_a_must (27 February 2007)

theasxgorilla said:
			
		

> Re: getting sick, read the rules re: early access...this is covered.



Referencing the post above, we know that it's a bunch of crap.

Seeing family members and clients having to try to acess it, it is quite clear that those rules are far from adequate or appropriate.


----------



## theasxgorilla (27 February 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Referencing the post above, we know that it's a bunch of crap.
> 
> Seeing family members and clients having to try to acess it, it is quite clear that those rules are far from adequate or appropriate.




You know this...I personally have no experience with it.  I only know what is says on the ATO website.

Regardless, any government sanctioned mechanism that allows you to put money in, grow it, and take money out, TAX-FREE warrants serious consideration.  Even if in most situations you must wait until 60 to access it.

I don't advokate all that Robert Kiyosaki says or represents, although I do like the part in his books about a plan to be secure, a plan to be comfortable and a plan to be rich.  Super is the plan to be secure for many (including me) and done well can become a plan to be very comfortable in the older years of ones life.

If any of us blow up magnificently with regards to our trading, property investments, or business endeavours, hopefully we won't end up living out our senior years in a delapidated caravan in a C-grade holiday park reliant on tax-payer funded pension money.


----------



## hilly1981 (27 February 2007)

Each to their own.

Your money your life. Etc... Etc...

I am 25 and I have mapped out a plan so when myself and my wife retire (also 25) we will have quite a substantial amount in super to live on very comfortably.

Obviously this plan will change as the years pass. Financial obstacles will appear, so we would have to reassess and adapt to the changes.

This would be the same if the government make another major legislative change for super (for better or worse). You just have to go with the flow.

What I am trying to say is, what STC is doing now by paying large amounts into his super, doesnt necessarily mean he will be doing this in 10 years time.

If he were to stop in 10 years time if his life circumstances changed (gets married, has kids for example), then he would still be ahead at the end since he would have built a good sized base for compound interest to work on.

In regards to early release of super and their conditions, what would be appropriate conditions of release? You have to draw the line somewhere, and if the government starting making it much easier to get at then this would defeat the purpose of have a retirement fund.


----------



## krisbarry (4 March 2007)

Well I am very, very happy that I missed last weeks correction!  Some would say luck, others would say good timing.

The reason I missed it was because I was changing over super funds and my money was out of the market for about a week, while the transfer took place.

If my money was still in Colonial First State, I would now have $38,600

Since the change-over to my new fund with Macquarie I have $40,150

So I am $1,550 better off!

I also dumped another lazy $300 into my account this week, so I now have $40,450, more money to buy that dream house.

Not bad going hey?


----------



## Fleeta (4 March 2007)

Still can't figure out why the hell you would put money into super at your age. You may never even see it you know....

$40k is still nowhere near enough for a house deposit anyway, particularly if you want a family home. I've just been doing a fair bit of research here in Melbourne and if you want what I would call a family home (i.e. 3 bed, 2 bathroom on a block size of at least 800 square meters) in a reasonably inner suburb you are paying over $800,000 - which means I need a deposit of $160k minimum, which is about the amount of equity I have in my house - but you never really know how much equity you have in your house until you sell it hey...

Is it just me, or has cost of living also gone up a fair bit in the past couple of years? I don't know how anyone could surivive on less than $50k per year these days.


----------



## The Red Baron (4 March 2007)

I'm feeling the same way Fleeta. The past 2-3 years in Perth anyway seems like its caught a few people off guard. 

I've had a few mates overseas travelling the past few years come back with some nice debt and to find the place they used to rent for $180 is now $350 a week. I honestly wouldn't take out an $10k loan to travel but hey each to their own.

I have managed to save a $60k deposit for my first house, but it isn't even enough to avoid paying mortgage insurance. I'm living with the olds for another year or two (hopefully out by my 26th!), working two jobs 60 hours a week and plugging away $300-400 a week. The funny thing is it seems like the $20K I had 3 years ago when I was 21 was worth more   

I can't complain but, there are people out there really struggling to buy milk and bread and were lucky enough just to have money and opportunities ahead of us.


----------



## Realist (4 March 2007)

My tip to any young people in Perth struggling financially.

Move...


----------



## wayneL (4 March 2007)

Realist said:
			
		

> My tip to any young people in Perth struggling financially.
> 
> Move...



...before you die of boredom  

(Just yanking your chain Perthites  )


----------



## YChromozome (4 March 2007)

Kimosabi said:
			
		

> $8,000 Lightning Ridge, perfect for any Super Portfolio




A bargain. Will be worth at least 16k next year . .


----------



## nioka (4 March 2007)

The Red Baron said:
			
		

> The funny thing is it seems like the $20K I had 3 years ago when I was 21 was worth more



It probably was.  Hang in there you will make it.


----------



## krisbarry (13 March 2007)

Damn...got caught in the last correction  

I thought I was safe as my account balance was not moving downwards, but alas it corrected.  Lost a couple of grand, but its moving up again now.

I realised that Macquarie update their accounts differently and lag behind by some 4 to 5 days compared to 1 day behind with Colonial First State.


----------



## krisbarry (15 March 2007)

In the last fortnight I have just dumped another lazy $800 into super...home ownership is looking promising.

Just need the stock market to zooom up for the next 26 years and the housing market to crash.


----------



## Mofra (15 March 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> Just need the stock market to zooom up for the next 26 years and the housing market to crash.



In theory, dollar for dollar the stockmarket has outperformed residential property since 1981 so history is on your side


----------



## Knobby22 (15 March 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> In the last fortnight I have just dumped another lazy $800 into super...home ownership is looking promising.
> 
> Just need the stock market to zooom up for the next 26 years and the housing market to crash.




Stop doing that!
You can only buy the house if there are no borrowings and you cannot live in it until you have retired. Refer attached.

http://www.propertyupdate.com.au/articles/118/1/Is-Self-Managed-Super-for-you?


----------



## aef (16 March 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> In the last fortnight I have just dumped another lazy $800 into super...home ownership is looking promising.




Are you structuring your contributions correctly?  Are you taking advantage of the Governments co-contribution to its limit then salary sacrificing from there?

Depending on your level of gross income and employment stauts (ie employed not self-employed) then you may be better off by salary sacrificing the amounts you mention.

Good luck
A


----------



## Julia (16 March 2007)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> Stop doing that!
> You can only buy the house if there are no borrowings and you cannot live in it until you have retired. Refer attached.
> 
> http://www.propertyupdate.com.au/articles/118/1/Is-Self-Managed-Super-for-you?



Good point.
STC:  have you had advice about using the Super money to buy a house at some stage?  The rules about withdrawing your Super money are very strict.
I've seen some people who are ill, unable to work, heavily in debt, and still have been unable to withdraw their super under the hardship provisions.

Julia


----------



## numbercruncher (16 March 2007)

Julia said:
			
		

> Good point.
> STC:  have you had advice about using the Super money to buy a house at some stage?  The rules about withdrawing your Super money are very strict.
> I've seen some people who are ill, unable to work, heavily in debt, and still have been unable to withdraw their super under the hardship provisions.
> 
> Julia





Are they really tough now with the hardship provisions ? I always thought those under threat of home forclosure and serious medical conditions had few obstacles ? ( providing they where provable and genuine)


----------



## Mousie (17 March 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> ...before you die of boredom
> 
> (Just yanking your chain Perthites  )




LOL I thought that applies more to Canberrans  :


----------



## krisbarry (30 March 2007)

Now I have over $41,000 and rising steadily, thanks for asking


----------



## Deadcat (31 March 2007)

Out of interest STC, do you only invest in shares through a SMSF or are you investing outside of super as well?


----------



## krisbarry (4 April 2007)

...Over $42,000 in super now, just keeps getting better and better.


----------



## insider (4 April 2007)

One day I'm going to recycle Shipping containers and use them for houses, units or apartments... they're pretty cool


----------



## insider (4 April 2007)

here's what I'm talking about... They're very cheap and look better than any metricon rubbish


----------



## Mousie (4 April 2007)

LOL was thinking metricon - but where're ya gonna get designers in Aust to design houses like this? Pretty impressive I must say!


----------



## insider (4 April 2007)

Mousie said:


> LOL was thinking metricon - but where're ya gonna get designers in Aust to design houses like this? Pretty impressive I must say!




Easy! me


----------



## Bluebeard (4 April 2007)

probably a good holiday house type concept- hopefully it comes with some decent air conditioning lol.


----------



## Mousie (6 April 2007)

insider said:


> Easy! me




That's a great idea insider, if you do some great ones you can design my house one day  



Bluebeard said:


> probably a good holiday house type concept- hopefully it comes with some decent air conditioning lol.




Definitely, bluebeard, definitely...ol' (? : ) insider here's da man...got a whole list of requirements for my future builder, if he fails any of them I'm gonna let it rip in a jiffy


----------



## krisbarry (11 April 2007)

Over $43,000 in super now, thanks for asking 

Home ownership is getting there


----------



## krisbarry (13 April 2007)

Now over $44,000....yipeee!


----------



## Julia (13 April 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Now over $44,000....yipeee!




Well done.  But if you are accumulating this money in super, how are you going to be able to use it to buy a house, if in fact we are considering the title of this thread?

I think I've asked you something along these lines before but haven't seen a reply.  Apologies if I've missed it.


----------



## Flying Fish (13 April 2007)

Julia said:


> Well done.  But if you are accumulating this money in super, how are you going to be able to use it to buy a house, if in fact we are considering the title of this thread?
> 
> I think I've asked you something along these lines before but haven't seen a reply.  Apologies if I've missed it.




i think some of the bigger supa funds let you borrow money with nothing using your super


----------



## BIG BWACULL (13 April 2007)

Julia said:


> Well done.  But if you are accumulating this money in super, how are you going to be able to use it to buy a house, if in fact we are considering the title of this thread?
> 
> I think I've asked you something along these lines before but haven't seen a reply.  Apologies if I've missed it.



Or claim Hardship and need funds asap, But lets stop the clock for a minute (no pun intended yeah right) $44,000 buys aroun 20 containers and with insiders specs thats 5 houses (well 20 containers) keep saving buy the land, got cheap houses but some houses to sell DONE. Game set match houses are affordable just depends on how you need to live ie Off the land or in the lap of LUXURY, For me just land and a motorhome would be suffucient (I have A truck licence so its a big F%$#kin Home) Sorry if i offended anyone or any moderators CHEERS i'll buy yas a beer at the ASF BAR and GRILL


----------



## krisbarry (14 April 2007)

Julia said:


> Well done.  But if you are accumulating this money in super, how are you going to be able to use it to buy a house, if in fact we are considering the title of this thread?
> 
> I think I've asked you something along these lines before but haven't seen a reply.  Apologies if I've missed it.





As stated numerous times before I am able to buy a home using money from a (SMSF), only as an investment property.

So I can afford a house if I really want one, but hell who would want to own a home right now, when the market is booming and the housing market for the most part is flat!


----------



## Julia (14 April 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> As stated numerous times before I am able to buy a home using money from a (SMSF), only as an investment property.
> 
> So I can afford a house if I really want one, but hell who would want to own a home right now, when the market is booming and the housing market for the most part is flat!




A SMSF is not allowed to borrow, so you can only own a house as an investment property within a SF if it's freehold.

Can't think where you'd be able to get a house for that amount.


----------



## Kimosabi (14 April 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> How about this one...
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Julia said:


> A SMSF is not allowed to borrow, so you can only own a house as an investment property within a SF if it's freehold.
> 
> Can't think where you'd be able to get a house for that amount.




We already found him a few...


----------



## Flying Fish (14 April 2007)

How about this for 20k. you could put on the lightning ridge block of land. Live in one and rent the other out.
 
http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bin/rsearch?a=o&id=103848207&f=10&p=10&t=res&ty=&fmt=&header=&c=70334021&s=qld&snf=rbs&tm=1176515528


----------



## Flying Fish (14 April 2007)

Because it gets hot out there you could get this one as well and put on land use it as a pub  

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...eader=&c=70334021&s=qld&snf=rbs&tm=1176515528


----------



## Julia (14 April 2007)

Hardly what would come to my mind when I was thinking "investment property".


----------



## Kimosabi (15 April 2007)

Julia said:


> Hardly what would come to my mind when I was thinking "investment property".




You've got to start somewhere...


----------



## krisbarry (15 April 2007)

Julia said:


> Hardly what would come to my mind when I was thinking "investment property".




Please do not be negative here, we are all trying to be positive and find ways to afford homeownership.

*Shift your mindset Julia, not all investment properties have to be palaces!*

We have miners living in the most filthiest run-down caravans paying $500 a week in rent, so anything is possible.

I can afford a house, and many members have already shown this by the wide range of properties on offer at prices lower than my current balance of $44,000, so there:


----------



## Flying Fish (15 April 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Please do not be negative here, we are all trying to be positive and find ways to afford homeownership.
> 
> *Shift your mindset Julia, not all investment properties have to be palaces!*
> 
> ...




Right on bro. I've seen families living in tents in caravan parks waiting for rental properties in some major cities and paying about 25 dollars a day.


----------



## tech/a (15 April 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Please do not be negative here, we are all trying to be positive and find ways to afford homeownership.




Finding something in a price range is one issue,making a buck out of it very much another.



> *Shift your mindset Julia, not all investment properties have to be palaces!*




True but they should be livable!!




> We have miners living in the most filthiest run-down caravans paying $500 a week in rent, so anything is possible.




Really,think I'll start selling caravans to miners.



> I can afford a house, and many members have already shown this by the wide range of properties on offer at prices lower than my current balance of $44,000, so there:




Due diligence comes to mind.

Question
Whats stopping you?
Perhaps your waiting for pricing to be more "Realistic?"


----------



## Julia (15 April 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Please do not be negative here, we are all trying to be positive and find ways to afford homeownership.
> 
> *Shift your mindset Julia, not all investment properties have to be palaces!*
> 
> ...




Tech/a has made the sort of points in his response that I would have.

At the same time, I do genuinely acknowledge how hard it is for young people to get into home ownership these days.  And I also acknowledge, Kris, that you are trying really hard and saving successfully.  Good for you.

What I have been attempting to do is (a) query the advisability of putting all your money into super at your young age, (b) cast doubt on the simplicity of getting these funds out via the so called hardship provisions, on the basis that I have known some people in really dire circumstances who have been refused access to their money, and (c) suggest that just because you can afford some rundown shack, that does not ipso facto make it a suitable investment property.  e.g. if you were to buy something in a an area which is currently experiencing huge demand due to mining, what do you think could happen if the mine closed down?  This is but one small example of the due diligence that Tech/a has mentioned

Not being negative at all, just trying to be realistic.


----------



## Flying Fish (15 April 2007)

Julia said:


> Tech/a has made the sort of points in his response that I would have.
> 
> At the same time, I do genuinely acknowledge how hard it is for young people to get into home ownership these days.  And I also acknowledge, Kris, that you are trying really hard and saving successfully.  Good for you.
> 
> ...



ye of little faith.


----------



## tech/a (15 April 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> ye of little faith.




With good reason.


----------



## krisbarry (16 April 2007)

Julia said:


> Tech/a has made the sort of points in his response that I would have.
> 
> At the same time, I do genuinely acknowledge how hard it is for young people to get into home ownership these days.  And I also acknowledge, Kris, that you are trying really hard and saving successfully.  Good for you.
> 
> ...




Sorry Julia...alls I read in the above post is negativity.

Putting much of my money into super is a really positive approach to saving. In the last 3 years alone I have increased my savings by 8 times, now that is a massive gain. Pity the rest didn't have the same appoach...no they would rather rack up huge debts, shoot up drugs in dark alleyways, piss up their savings at the uranials of clubs and pubs, bang it down the throats of pokies, or buy over priced cars etc.  *These are the people you should be focusing your negative energies on, not me!*

I have no need to use the hardship clause, as stated I can transfer the money into a SMSF and buy a house and land outright, for investment puposes only.

Stop being neagtive about my aproach to life.... its working and working damn well, thanks for asking and thanks for your concern.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 April 2007)

We are warning you. 
Not emitting negative waves as if you are Neal in "The Young Ones". 

By putting all your money in super you are ensuring you can't access it when you need it. 

No point saying to your girlfriend when you are thirty that you have $500,000 in your super but we can't afford kids because you have no house, no money etc. but hey when we are 65, look out!!!! She won't be impressed.

Another point, the government will not allow you to put all your money into one asset class.

Also, you have too much faith in the government. Learn to distrust them.
Tech, Julia and I are older and therefore we have learnt to be wary.


----------



## tech/a (16 April 2007)

> Tech, Julia and I are older and therefore we have learnt to be wary.




Thanks mate.
The grey matter is perhaps wiser the body a work in progress and the imagination/desire/intent still that of a 25 yr old.

Best advice I can give is.

Recognise opportunity
Find how to take advantage of the opportunity presented.
DO IT.

Your spot on re accessability of savings/profits.
There are definately times when you need to take advantage of leveraged situations,this will turbo charge your capacity to increase a financial base.Sure some in super is fine *all *in super is in efficient.

One day it may click for Kris.
But then again if he is so blind he cannot see perhaps not.


----------



## Kimosabi (16 April 2007)

Knobby22 said:


> Also, you have too much faith in the government. Learn to distrust them.
> Tech, Julia and I are older and therefore we have learnt to be wary.




This a very important point, the government loves to change the rules.

The super rules today will probably be very different in 10 - 40 years.


----------



## ROE (16 April 2007)

I'm in my earlies 30's .. I bought a house when I was 24 and now very close to own it now

What I did early on in life was determine not to rent and save and buy a house and pay off as quick as I can.......a long the way, I gave up holiday, expensive cars and various other stuff but still manage to go out and have a good time and loving every minute of it.

I now can travel all I want, spend all I like and still has plenty left over to invest and has no mortgage over my head. 

When you are young and don't have many bills, save more, spend less and get a roof over your head, when it's out of the way, you can catch up on lost time and you enjoy much much much more when you don't have debts.

Good luck and keep saving and working hard.


----------



## Kimosabi (16 April 2007)

ROE said:


> I'm in my earlies 30's .. I bought a house when I was 24 and now very close to own it now
> 
> What I did early on in life was determine not to rent and save and buy a house and pay off as quick as I can.......a long the way, I gave up holiday, expensive cars and various other stuff but still manage to go out and have a good time and loving every minute of it.
> 
> ...




Well done.

I don't think it is emphasised enough, that if you have to get into debt, pay off the debt ASAP.  That way you can get in the situation where the bank pays you interest instead of paying interest to the bank.

I think it also helps if Parents encourage their kids to buy a house ASAP(as long as house prices aren't over-inflated)


----------



## Mousie (16 April 2007)

CAUTION: This post's gonna rock the boat a bit, if you don't like what I'm saying please say so with constructive criticism.

Seems like there're plenty of people here in favour of house ownership. Maybe shouldn't be a surprise there coz it's the great Australian dream. Question is: with prices the way they're now, is it still a dream worth pursuing?

I'm not here to bash anyone up, ie politicians, landlords, speculators, bankers, let alone the regulars on this thread and elsewhere on this forum. But all I'm asking is: Is home ownership really that worthwhile anymore? 

This especially when you have to pay what you know to be a king's ransom for everything related to property ownership these days? 

So what if the banks tell ya you can afford a loan? Aren't shares/options/warrants/forex/futures etc. (the 1st of these being the main subject of this great forum) by far and away the best performing asset and the best compounder of interest? 

Why work and slave away so hard for something immovable (assuming you like to travel, I most definitely do) only to catch up on lost years?

*Why not just pay rent* until everything goes belly-up? The boom ain't gonna last forever, you know.

Maybe it's time to put money where it's working its muscles harder. Maybe it's time for some independent thinking instead of following the herd that says: If you want something, you can have it, and you better get it now, just coz everyone else's doing just that.

To renters, maybe it's time to be nicer to your landlords when they come for an inspection.


----------



## Kimosabi (16 April 2007)

Mousie said:


> CAUTION: This post's gonna rock the boat a bit, if you don't like what I'm saying please say so with constructive criticism.
> 
> Seems like there're plenty of people here in favour of house ownership. Maybe shouldn't be a surprise there coz it's the great Australian dream. Question is: with prices the way they're now, is it still a dream worth pursuing?
> 
> ...





Oh, this boat has been rocked nice and hard.  There are a few of us waiting for the 'BOOM' to bust, before entering the housing market.

In the mean time we are all getting nicely cashed up with all that available capital we have lying around, because we aren't paying huge amounts of 'interest', on over-inflated houses, funded by irresponsible lending institutions...


----------



## nomore4s (16 April 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> This a very important point, the government loves to change the rules.
> 
> The super rules today will probably be very different in 10 - 40 years.




I agree with this, you just have to look over the last 10+ years to see how many times they have changed the rules to super, so who knows what the rules will be in 20 or 30 years. 

STP,

I'm also a fairly young fella (30yo) and I can't think why you would want to lock all your money away for 25+ years (it's hard enough to come by without locking it up for that long). I need as much as possible now to set up my family & investments for the future ie build trading capital, pay off property I own, and just generally enjoy life (I wakeboard/ski and like to travel) - no point having money to buy a good ski boat when I'm 60(but hopefully I'm still ski-ing at 60  )! This doesn't mean I'm not saving money, I'm just saving it in areas where I can use it when I need it.
I don't put anymore into super than I have to atm, unless I get some major benefit ie - tax break or co-contribution from the Govt, but unfortunately (or fortunately depending on which way you look at it) I don't qualify for co-contribution atm. At my age I just don't see much benefit in plowing heaps of money into super.
But good luck STP, you obviously have a different view & plan to this so I hope it all works out for you and you achieve your goals. And you are saving money which is alot better than alot of other people out there atm. 

P.S - I don't think Tech/Julia/Knobby are being negative, they're just giving you thier opinions based on thier expirences and most probably past mistakes, I really think they're trying to offer you some help.


----------



## krisbarry (16 April 2007)

Many of your own experiences, are just that, your own experiences.

I question why you all need houses?

Who says you need to own a house to be happy, or to have security, or have a girlfriend, or wife or kids for that matter.

*God that mentatliy is so old sckool!*

I am satisfied with my life and the way I am living it.  

I am already happy, I have security, I have a loving partner, and no need for kids...I have all this without homeownership...so your point is?

*The external world out their matters less to me, the higher my account balance grows.*


----------



## Kimosabi (16 April 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Many of your own experiences, are just that, your own experiences.
> 
> I question why you all need houses?
> 
> ...




Didn't anyone tell you, you've got to buy a house so you can use it as security for all those low yield Investment Property's you have to buy...


----------



## krisbarry (16 April 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Didn't anyone tell you, you've got to buy a house so you can use it as security for all those low yield Investment Property's you have to buy...





LOL...no you actually have to live within your means first and start small, then move up the ranks.  That is what security is, not owning something you cannot afford, that is called in-security or (living up to the Jones')


----------



## Kimosabi (16 April 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> LOL...no you actually have to live within your means first and start small, then move up the ranks. That is what security is, not owning something you cannot afford, that is called in-security or (living up to the Jones')




Just which planet are you on?

Living within your means, who does that?

You've got to go get the huge mortgage for the house you'll never be able to pay off, because, well everyone else is doing it...


----------



## nomore4s (16 April 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Just which planet are you on?
> 
> Living within your means, who does that?
> 
> You've got to go get the huge mortgage for the house you'll never be able to pay off, because, well everyone else is doing it...




lol, don't forget the credit cards


----------



## krisbarry (16 April 2007)

...LOL, too true!

seems only the grey nomad on this board know how to live life correctly, or so they keep on telling me... 

gotta get the house, the morgagte, and the happiness, girlfriend/wife, and the kids will follow, to round out what will be a sucessfull life.

GOD I AM DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF MY PARENTS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO!


----------



## wayneL (16 April 2007)

Home ownership is nice under most circumstances...*at the right price*!

At the wrong price it's hell.

Value investing 101.


----------



## Mousie (16 April 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Just which planet are you on?
> 
> Living within your means, who does that?
> 
> You've got to go get the huge mortgage for the house you'll never be able to pay off, because, well everyone else is doing it...




LOL Kimosabi, you aren't serious are ya? Coz if you aren't better add a little smiley just so I know who's kidding who  

I'm gonna buy my house with 100% CASH. You read that right: CASH DOWN, else NO HOUSE. My investments will pay for that, so I ain't gonna live within my means by then.


----------



## tech/a (16 April 2007)

> Why not just pay rent until everything goes belly-up? The boom ain't gonna last forever, you know.




Well it just isnt going to happen (on a broad scale).
Housing has always been expensive at the time of purchase.

Why didnt you all buy houses from 96 to 2001? They were cheap then.

My first home as a kid was $30,000. In the same area they are now $300,000.

There is absolutely no point in offering advice on this board even if it comes from 30 yrs experience in the Property arena.
As usual the kids know everything---I was once a kid and I knew everything.
Kris reminds me a great deal of myself.
Rebellious towards my Family---nothing changed there in my camp.
But my old boy told me to buy 2 Pieces of Esplanade Land for $6k each back in 75. I told him he was a nutter.

Id have well and truely owned them by now and they are worth $400K for only half the size block available then. They were 24m x 40m now they are 12m x 40m

Thats $1.2 million. Took me another 20 yrs to realise he wasnt a nutter after all---Oh he bought one and later sold it for 24k 400% return was amazing in those days.

Question.
Why do people ask for advice (not that you did directly Kris) then shoot down those with experience who offer it up?

I'm suprised how often I see resentment toward anyone who even mentions wealth of any sort.
Its like they are the enemy--they shouldnt be allowed to "Exploit" opportunity.
Let alone talk about it.

Is it that you just want to moan and bitch? Cut down those who have taken advantage of opportunity.?
Rather than learn from these people you just want them to shut the hell up!.


For people who want to get on in life---you have a very weird way of gaining experience. There are some smart people who actually take the advice and APPLY IT.

I know of someone who spent a little time with someone not unlike some here and recieved a sizable gift from a member on one of these boards in appreciation for turning the "Switch on" and gaining $420,000 increase in his own managed fund over the year 2005/2006.

Each to their own---knock on!---Your life.
If your happy like Kris thats really all you can ask for.


----------



## ROE (17 April 2007)

Here is a test for non-believer..

ask all those financial advisers who said renting is better than buying and use that extra cash and invest and you get better return...

ask them if they own a home? or paying it off and you pretty close to get to 100% of them owning their own home or buying one..The one that don't probably cant afford one  

so if it is sooooooo good the way the sale pitch sound why they all end up owning their on home? hmmm...?
owning a home has other  benefits not just financially..
1. Force saving, good discipline
2. you live where you want to live and how long without worrying about landlord kick you out because they want to sell the place or worse dont like ya.
3. you free to upgrade, change do whatever you want to your place to make it more comfortable and increase value without asking for permission.

and on it goes with the list.

If I have to start again and doesn't matter how expensive the home may be I still want to save and buy my own place.

If there is a will, there is a way..don't be discourage by the high price and market force...Control what you can and thing you cant control go with the flow and work your way in.


----------



## ROE (17 April 2007)

wayneL said:


> Home ownership is nice under most circumstances...*at the right price*!
> 
> At the wrong price it's hell.
> 
> Value investing 101.




House price usually move with inflation, and the thing about house price is 
it's either gone through a huge boom and stay flat for a while or sometimes drop a few % here and there but never a sharp drop like 30-40% unless
of course a depression arrive or some other bigger force come into play, in this case the stock market inst safe either.

Many people been waiting since 2003 for a price drop? anything happen? 
house price still going up is most cities, only very far out suburb get price drop. Close to CBD properties are still selling like hot cakes, dont believe me check the ABS stats...Canberra house price up 9% last year, most other cities around 4%-7%


----------



## tech/a (17 April 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Home ownership is nice under most circumstances...at the right price!
> 
> At the wrong price it's hell.
> 
> Value investing 101.




*PRICE* has nothing to do with it.
Due diligence from the party purchasing from the point of veiw of affordability will ensure stress OR stress free ownership regardless of price and regardless of *TIME*.

Sensible investing 101


----------



## Mousie (17 April 2007)

tech/a said:


> *PRICE* has nothing to do with it.
> Due diligence from the party purchasing from the point of veiw of affordability will ensure stress OR stress free ownership regardless of price and regardless of *TIME*.
> 
> Sensible investing 101




tech/a,

I'm surprised to see this comment from you to say the least. How can you say that price and time's got nothing to do with due diligence? When doing DD you have to consider price and all other relevant info, which time of purchase/settlement and especially price are undoubtably two.


----------



## tech/a (17 April 2007)

Mousie said:


> tech/a,
> 
> I'm surprised to see this comment from you to say the least. How can you say that price and time's got nothing to do with due diligence? When doing DD you have to consider price and all other relevant info, which time of purchase/settlement and especially price are undoubtably two.




Well firstly take it in the context of Wayne's post.




> Home ownership is nice under most circumstances...at the right price!
> 
> At the wrong price it's hell.
> 
> Value investing 101.





Correct me if I'm wrong but this statement says that price will govern happiness.

*I dont agree.*

GEARING WILL.

A 1 Million $ property that was once a $1.4 million property is _possibly_ a real bargain.

To clarify as an example only.

Purchaser "A" earns $60K a year and has to borrow the lot and his wife has to work.He is 90% geared.

Purchaser "B" is the same as "A" but has sold 2 IP/s to free up $700K in equity to put towards the Million dollar bargain. He is geared 30%

*The same example can be used on any property value*---where Purchaser "A" is fully geared and Purchaser "B" is much lower in gearing.

How important is price?------101


----------



## Mousie (17 April 2007)

tech/a said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but this statement says that price will govern happiness.
> 
> *I dont agree.*
> 
> ...




Of course the price quoted has to fit the purchaser's situation. Even if a house is cheap compared to other houses, if you can't afford it (either with gearing or not) that's just too bad, wait till you get richer or wait for a handout.

Gearing level is something the purchaser chooses and if things go haywire they have to live with the consequences. And don't forget the amount of interest you pay is dependent upon the price you pay - differences in gearing between purchasers A and B is just the amount of debt each is accepting. 

I personally am not comfortable with any level of gearing at all - why pay interest and be at the mercy of the govt when I can have enough to invest and live debt-free? Note that I only make this statement if I think I can live "happily" with the leftovers to invest in whatever I wish to. If I'm not happy, no house for me (yes, even if it's cheap compared to other houses), plain and simple.


----------



## tech/a (17 April 2007)

Well that may suit you and fit well within your comfort zone.

*It will also restrict you.*
Any who have been or are in business will be glad to accept debt.
Those who are professionally involved in Property will also be very happy with debt.
Professional or serious traders also have no problem with debt from gearing sensibly at times.

There is proper use of other people's money and incorrect use of debt (good debt/bad debt).

Interest when correctly used can be massive help rather than a hinderance/cost.


----------



## Mousie (17 April 2007)

tech/a said:


> Well that may suit you and fit well within your comfort zone.
> 
> *It will also restrict you.*
> Any who have been or are in business will be glad to accept debt.
> ...




Agreed. I'll only adopt this stance when it is not restrictive to my investment capabilities. I'll only use debt when I need to move especially decisively to seize a sure-fire opportunity, and my house is not one of them; at least not atm.


----------



## tech/a (17 April 2007)

Excellent.


----------



## wayneL (17 April 2007)

tech/a said:


> Well firstly take it in the context of Wayne's post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tech,

There are a myriad of other factors implicit in my post. They are obvious by the bulk of my other postings on this topic and are obvious to all except those who refuse to see. This renders your reply to my post totally irrelevant to the context it was written in.

I won't bother explaining....again.

Cheers


----------



## robots (17 April 2007)

hello,

whats actually been happening to house prices, anybody know?

thankyou

robots


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 April 2007)

robots said:


> hello,
> 
> whats actually been happening to house prices, anybody know?
> 
> ...



I can only speak for my local area but for a 3 bed brick house prices have gone down for the same or a very similar property.


----------



## tech/a (17 April 2007)

> This renders your reply to my post totally irrelevant to the context it was written in.




Well my apologies then --- as I dont read every post on the board then I guess Ive lost the point your making.

Anyway Ive made my point with relevance to price.

Below a snap shot to dec 2006.
Hardly plummeting and still great gains over 2006.


----------



## wayneL (17 April 2007)

Glancing through this thread again....lol some doosies.

"Property is always expensive at the time"

While rarely can people just break open the piggy bank and go and buy a house, there are times when property is damned cheap. In '2000 we were looking at a flat in Basingstoke UK for 35k renting out at 350 per month, the average dustmans wages (the demographic who would live in such a place) at the time were about 13k.

Same flat today is 130k, dustman wages now about 14k.

The dustman could easily afford the flat in 2000 with a normal deposit and a mortgage. The dustman now has no hope in hell of buying that dingy crappy flat.

So.... was the property expensive in 2000? No, it was easily affordable for the intended demographic. Is it expensive now? Ludicrously so. Out of reach for the intended demographic.

Why???

The answer is dotted throughout this forum, as are the consequences, both current and possible future ones.

Motivation for my line of argument - Social and eventual economic impact. Listen, I've got every reason for wanting the boom to continue, but I care about the world and society we live in and the current circumstances will have consequences unforeseen by the permabulls... some are showing up now. Links on my other computer.

More when I get time.


----------



## wayneL (18 April 2007)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1256664,00.html



> BoE Takes Property Blame
> 
> The group that decides the interest rate deliberately fuelled a consumer boom to boost house prices and personal debt so that "UK Plc" could avoid recession.
> 
> ...


----------



## tech/a (18 April 2007)

Ummm.

Is this a discussion based around UK housing?
I've seriously missed something in this thread.

Ive completely missed where Stop the Clock was now able to purchase a home in the UK.

Interesting that UK housing material is being used to support an arguement for the Australian Housing scene.


----------



## wayneL (18 April 2007)

tech/a said:


> Ummm.
> 
> Is this a discussion based around UK housing?
> I've seriously missed something in this thread.
> ...



There is correlation in the Anglo markets. i.e. US, UK, Oz, Ire, NZ. The same conditions afflict all.

I just happen to have more UK material at hand.


----------



## Bronte (18 April 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> I can only speak for my local area but for a 3 bed brick house prices have gone down for the same or a very similar property.



According to recent bank valuations land / property in our area is still going up.


----------



## tech/a (18 April 2007)

Bronte said:


> According to recent bank valuations land / property in our area is still going up.





Bronte.
Interesting.
We hold property in 3 suburbs in Adelaide.
Last Quarter and 1st quarter 2007.

(1) Moana + 19.3%
(2) Seaford Rise + 19.8%
(3) Lonsdale Industrial + 47.1%

Of the 30 suburbs surveyed in the reports 5 fell in price maximum being 5.4%

Wayne.
In general terms possibly but Australia has specifics which sets it apart from others.Population being 1 important factor.
Lack of Suburban land allocation and Infrastructure another.
Lack of Rental property another.
Lifestyle another.
Wealth distribution another.


----------



## ROE (18 April 2007)

This topic can go on forever  
Those who want to rent, rent away
Those who want to buy, buy
Those who think the house market is
going to collapse let them sit on it and wait.

I just continue to evaluate and buying Shares/Properties   when the number and price stack up.

end of story...


----------



## wayneL (18 April 2007)

ROE said:


> This topic can go on forever
> Those who want to rent, rent away
> Those who want to buy, buy
> Those who think the house market is
> ...



Yeah, but it's fun jousting over this topic. That's what forums are for.


----------



## tech/a (19 April 2007)

Interesting though isnt it.

I would say those that support Property Investment are supporting their position --- which is likley to be one of either un realised capital growth or realised and re appropriated capital profit.

I would say that those who dont support Property Investment are supporting their position---which is likley to be one of Not being in the position to take advantage of property investment,or not in the position to get in the position to take advantage---or simply fully capitalised in an alternate investment strategy which doesnt involve property.


----------



## ROE (19 April 2007)

tech/a
what sort of sick person get up 7am (J/K) in the morning for a forum post


----------



## wayneL (19 April 2007)

tech/a said:


> Interesting though isnt it.
> 
> I would say those that support Property Investment are supporting their position --- which is likley to be one of either un realised capital growth or realised and re appropriated capital profit.
> 
> I would say that those who dont support Property Investment are supporting their position---which is likley to be one of Not being in the position to take advantage of property investment,or not in the position to get in the position to take advantage---or simply fully capitalised in an alternate investment strategy which doesnt involve property.



Not necessarily in all cases, but in general terms yes.

The endowment effect.

But I notice lots of fence jumping lately. Lot's of bears have given up waiting for a correction and bought (and through the miracle of endowment effect have become bull), lots of bulls have become bearish too.

Could it be a sign of the top? Lots of other signs at the moment too.

From Ireland bejayzuz


----------



## spooly74 (19 April 2007)

wayneL said:


> Could it be a sign of the top? Lots of other signs at the moment too.
> 
> From Ireland bejayzuz




Oh my God Wayne !

How on earth did you come across this?

I`m Oirish and it`s cheered me up no end.

Love the quote 
"You can pick the size of the bust from the size of the boom, just like the Road Runner film"......Gold

However, I have friends who have bought property last year and they are very worried at the moment.

I would expect property in Ireland to be hit hard sooner rarther that later ....crazy money over there now.


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2007)

The truth about how our parents started off in the housing market.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (20 April 2007)

wayneL said:


> But I notice lots of fence jumping lately. Lot's of bears have given up waiting for a correction and bought




Ive got a beauty for ya Wayne, sounds like youre in the market  .

_15 Silver place, Carine_
_4 bed/2 Bath, 3 Split Levels, Pool, Inland Views, 2 mins from Trigg Beach_

First time on the market this weekend, Home open 1-2pm, Have a squizz in this weekends rag and if youre keen I'll knock a bit off for you! .

So hop in your VW and hit the Brand Hwy from Wandina, it will only take a mere 4 hours and its a real bargain


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2007)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:


> Ive got a beauty for ya Wayne, sounds like youre in the market  .
> 
> _15 Silver place, Carine_
> _4 bed/2 Bath, 3 Split Levels, Pool, Inland Views, 2 mins from Trigg Beach_
> ...



3 hours in *my* VW!  

But my stash stays under the bed for a while longer ... Unless you have a bargain in Gloucestershire/Somerset for me


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (20 April 2007)

Yep somehow I thought it would stay under youre bed, like you said its probably not suitable for those with *my *cars, Probably only suitable to the other persuasion  ..... Im a *my* one also .


----------



## krisbarry (25 April 2007)

I am switching to the *cash option *in my superannuation account for the months of May and June to preserve capital.

I reckon the usual 10% correction is on its way!


----------



## bvbfan (27 April 2007)

Yeah I've switched my super also to the cash option and taking money of the table on shares as well.

Just too many bulls for me at the moment


----------



## krisbarry (30 April 2007)

My account balance has just hit over $45,000...again thanks for asking and I do appreciate all those who have a true concern for me


----------



## krisbarry (8 May 2007)

Just checked my account balance and its now over $46,000.  Thanks again for all of your concern.  

Housing has just become that little more affordable for me


----------



## nizar (8 May 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Just checked my account balance and its now over $46,000.  Thanks again for all of your concern.
> 
> Housing has just become that little more affordable for me




Remind me again how old you have to be to touch that money? 
You silly boy


----------



## krisbarry (8 May 2007)

nizar said:


> Remind me again how old you have to be to touch that money?
> You silly boy




Come July 1st!

...Anytime (25% tax taken out) up to $10,000 per year

...Between the age of 55 and 60 years (15% tax taken out)

...60 Years and over (No Tax)

I am 32 years of age so you work out the maths

Its not all that bad...it would have to be the best bank account around, it is compulsory, it pays the best interest rates, low tax and is very hard to break into, so its perfect for the purpose of saving


----------



## Lucky (8 May 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Come July 1st!
> 
> ...Anytime (25% tax taken out) up to $10,000 per year
> 
> ...




saving for what?


----------



## krisbarry (9 May 2007)

Posted in the budget thread...but thought it was also relevant for this thread.

I am very happy...I get another $1,500 super co-contribution on-top of the already paid $1,500, for the 2005/06 tax year

a 300% return on a $1,000 investment 

Just more money to buy that house


----------



## nomore4s (9 May 2007)

Lucky said:


> saving for what?




lol, he has got plenty of time to work it out.


----------



## Kimosabi (9 May 2007)

nomore4s said:


> lol, he has got plenty of time to work it out.




He should be able to afford a very nice house by the time he's 60....


----------



## Lucky (9 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> The truth about how our parents started off in the housing market.





Classic.  I remember many years ago flying long haul with my dad and we were both listening to this Python skit and being in fits of laughter.  We got a few funny looks from fellow passengers, probably thinking have we got another 12 hours of this from these two loons?


----------



## mrWoodo (9 May 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Come July 1st!
> 
> ...Anytime (25% tax taken out) up to $10,000 per year
> 
> ...




 Is this correct? Couldn't find anything about this in the ATO website. I thought you only get access to it before 55, either thru claiming financial hardship or compassionate grounds.


----------



## AJ_ (9 May 2007)

hi.. i was wondering if anyone nows, is now a good time to buy a house (for living, not investing) ?


----------



## Ferret (9 May 2007)

Stop the Clock, 

You switched your super to the cash option on 25 April, but between 30 April and 8 May your balance went up from 45k to 46k.

Something's not right there.


----------



## krisbarry (10 May 2007)

Ferret said:


> Stop the Clock,
> 
> You switched your super to the cash option on 25 April, but between 30 April and 8 May your balance went up from 45k to 46k.
> 
> Something's not right there.




I switched on the 25th of April manually, via snail-mail, but by the time the paperwork hit the office (interstate) and 1 public Holiday later (Anzac Day) + the weekend, the changes were not made till the 2nd of May when the switch occured.  Hence the difference in account balance.  So from the 3rd of May onwards I have been recieving cash deposit rate of around 4.2% annually.  I haven't missed much action just yet.  There have been some up and down days on the market since that time.


----------



## Kauri (10 May 2007)

From the W.A State budjet just out, may help the local market a tad.... I think it applies to first home buyers up to $500,000... phasing out at $600,000....




> First home buyers will now benefit from the most generous concessions in the nation, Mr Ripper said.
> Moving to the most generous first home buyer concessions in Australia will result in savings of up to *$20,700* for home buyers. The estimated cost of the changes is $80 million in 2007-08, and $350 million over the next four years.


----------



## krisbarry (11 May 2007)

Was about to switch back into small caps and sent the letter off 2 days ago, woke up this morning and saw the mess on the DOW Jones and rang Macquarie this morning to cancel my switch.  Glad I did that.  So again my postion is 100% in cash, and reckon this in the real start of the correction.

Preserving my wealth till this nasty mess is over.

I do note however there will be an additional $1.1 billion dollars flowing into super funds over the next 1.5 months due to the budget changes with super co-contributions.

But my long-term goal is to preserve my wealth for that future house, and May is a nasty month


----------



## Flying Fish (15 May 2007)

Anyone tried this? Salary sacrifice into supa so you have an income of say 28K. You then put in 1000$ of your own to get the co-contribution of 2500K Is it worth doing?


----------



## Julia (15 May 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> Anyone tried this? Salary sacrifice into supa so you have an income of say 28K. You then put in 1000$ of your own to get the co-contribution of 2500K Is it worth doing?




Is the co-contribution $2500?  I thought it was $1500, plus an additional $1500 this year for those who took up that option last year?


----------



## Flying Fish (15 May 2007)

Julia said:


> Is the co-contribution $2500?  I thought it was $1500, plus an additional $1500 this year for those who took up that option last year?




Yes sorry thats what I meant. But my main point is, if you are on say 70k and you salary sacrifice 42K to supa would you be eligible to still receive the co contribution if you added 1k to your supa voluntarily?


----------



## Julia (15 May 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> Yes sorry thats what I meant. But my main point is, if you are on say 70k and you salary sacrifice 42K to supa would you be eligible to still receive the co contribution if you added 1k to your supa voluntarily?




Interesting idea.  Don't know.  How about phoning the ATO to find out and then post the answer.  Somehow, I'd doubt it.


----------



## krisbarry (15 May 2007)

Just in the process of switching into Australian geared shares, should move hard now, very risky, but the only way to really get ahead fast!


----------



## krisbarry (29 May 2007)

$47,000 in my super account now, yep I am loving this bull run.


----------



## krisbarry (13 June 2007)

Woooosh down the tube we go...massive losses down a few thousand..oops!

Home ownership just got a little further away this week.  Thats OK, I might just go buy a new ipod or 2 or three and drown my sorrows


----------



## krisbarry (23 June 2007)

Now I have $48,000 in my super account, running hard yet again and nice to see


----------



## clowboy (23 June 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> Anyone tried this? Salary sacrifice into supa so you have an income of say 28K. You then put in 1000$ of your own to get the co-contribution of 2500K Is it worth doing?




Don't act on what im saying, seek advice but yes I believe you can do this.

Not only would it have the benifiet of gaining you the co con, but you would reduce your tax for that year.

I thinbk there is a limit though on how much you can sal sac in a year, which i believe is dependant on age.

As for it being worthwhile, depends on your age, if you are aproaching 60 and can live on 28k a year then in a word YES.  otherwise the it's no good only thinking about the future, there is a today as well as a tommorow.

I was very disapointed there wasnt more in this years budget for the younger super savers.


----------



## krisbarry (10 July 2007)

My current super account balance now sits at over $49,000...Nice move upwards and even makes me think that housing in now affordable


----------



## Junior (10 July 2007)

If you're young and work full time, I would think that the 9% SG contributions should be more than sufficient in order to build up a big enough super balance.  Especially if you have your super in an aggressive investment option.


----------



## Broadside (10 July 2007)

what does your super balance have to do with the price of fish krisbarry?  have you earmarked a nice little place upon your retirement?


----------



## krisbarry (10 July 2007)

I am simply living like the rest now, taking as much as I can get, building up a nice bank account balance, and then the whole world opens up and things become more and more affordable.

Who said housing was unafordable...?

Why are all the politicians saying housing is unafordable?

God I can afford a house...so what is the problem?

I am loving this world now, the more my bank account balance grows the less I forget about poverty and unafordabilty...and the less I care about the people that cannot afford a house

Its a dog eat dog world out there and you cannot count on anyone else but yourself:


----------



## Julia (10 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> I am simply living like the rest now, taking as much as I can get, building up a nice bank account balance, and then the whole world opens up and things become more and more affordable.
> 
> Who said housing was unafordable...?
> 
> ...



I seem to recall some bitter posts in the past berating others for their selfishness.  How the tide doth turn, huh!


----------



## krisbarry (10 July 2007)

Julia said:


> I seem to recall some bitter posts in the past berating others for their selfishness.  How the tide doth turn, huh!




Yep I am learning from the masters...being selfish and greedy is a good thing

No point being broke and bitter now is there


----------



## krisbarry (11 July 2007)

Just got the extra co-contibution payment of $1,500, announced in the May budget...so my account balance now sits at over $50,000:


----------



## Kathmandu (12 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Come July 1st!
> 
> *...Anytime (25% tax taken out) up to $10,000 per year
> 
> ...




Firstly good on you for doing something, even if I don't feel it is a overly good way to go,

And secondly can you provide a link that backs up your statement above.

Thanks

Dave


----------



## krisbarry (18 July 2007)

New super rules state:


Below preservation age (55 years of age or under) - Whole amount is taxed at 20% (plus 1.5%medicare levy)

Preservation age to (59 years of age) First $140,000 is tax free

60 years and over - whole amount is tax free

Source - Page 5 right hand column


----------



## theasxgorilla (18 July 2007)

It does also say, "If you choose and will be eligible to make a partial or full lump sum withdrawal"...so how do you become eligible??


----------



## krisbarry (18 July 2007)

eligibilty means that you reach the age to cash in, or you become ill, or you retire from work permanently and so on and so forth.

I guess everyone is different...all super fund must follow the same release rules and taxation rules, but within super funds different rules apply.

Check with your own super fund and read the rules on the tax office website.


----------



## Kathmandu (18 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> eligibilty means that you reach the age to cash in, or you become ill, or you retire from work permanently and so on and so forth.
> 
> I guess everyone is different...all super fund must follow the same release rules and taxation rules, but within super funds different rules apply.
> 
> Check with your own super fund and read the rules on the tax office website.




STC


I am sorry to hear about your total and permanent dissability and incapacity to ever work again.

Dave.


----------



## krisbarry (18 July 2007)

Kathmandu said:


> STC
> 
> 
> I am sorry to hear about your total and permanent dissability and incapacity to ever work again.
> ...





lol, yep I am in a wheel chair...lost 3 legs and have 5 mental illness'

who said I was disabled, now you are confusing me


----------



## krisbarry (18 July 2007)

I found some ripper homes in the $50,000 bracket in which I can now afford...here they are:

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...header=&c=17199045&s=sa&snf=rbs&tm=1184709403

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...header=&c=17199045&s=sa&snf=rbs&tm=1184709403

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...header=&c=17199045&s=sa&snf=rbs&tm=1184709403

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...header=&c=17199045&s=sa&snf=rbs&tm=1184709403


----------



## Kathmandu (18 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> lol, yep I am in a wheel chair...lost 3 legs and have 5 mental illness'
> 
> who said I was disabled, now you are confusing me




Say's quite plainly in the PDF supplied that that is the only way you'll get the $$$ at your age.

You have read the PDF havent you????


http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...header=&c=17199045&s=sa&snf=rbs&tm=1184709403

Actually, there is evidence that Roxby Down's may go off soon.

Dave


----------



## krisbarry (18 July 2007)

As stated numerous times over in this thread if you bothered to read it...that setting up a self managed super fund can allow me to buy a house, not to live in, but to rent out and collect the rent.  The rent will then be deposited back into the self managed super fund.

*So I stress again it is possible to buy a house with funds from a super fund.  Alls I need to do is roll it over to a SMSF, find the right house, buy it and rent it out*


----------



## Kathmandu (18 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> As stated numerous times over in this thread if you bothered to read it...that setting up a self managed super fund can allow me to buy a house, not to live in, but to rent out and collect the rent.  The rent will then be deposited back into the self managed super fund.
> 
> *So I stress again it is possible to buy a house with funds from a super fund.  Alls I need to do is roll it over to a SMSF, find the right house, buy it and rent it out*





And all you need to do is access the $$$ from the super fund first to buy the house.

The ATO states


"Three weeks ago, the Tax Office and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) jointly warned the Australian Community to be wary of promoters offering to arrange access to their superannuation. 

The promoters’ sales pitch is that this money could be used either to pay-off or manage debt or for a range of discretionary spending purposes *such as buying a house*, a car, a boat or to fund further education or even a holiday.

As you would all be aware, access to preserved superannuation prior to retirement is prohibited, except in exceptional cases of financial hardship or on compassionate grounds.

Broadly speaking, these schemes involve the promoter assisting their clients to establish a Self Managed Superannuation Fund (SMSF) into which some or all of the clients’ super is rolled."


http://www.ato.gov.au/superprofessi...&pc=001/007/111&mnu=6833&mfp=001/006&st=&cy=1

Dave


----------



## OK2 (18 July 2007)

a couple of those properties are almost waterfront, if you added a second level you could almost watch the export shipping carry our commodity boom back to China. you might want to check out the neighbours to make sure they are hospitable to big city people!


----------



## Kathmandu (20 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> *So I stress again it is possible to buy a house with funds from a super fund.  Alls I need to do is roll it over to a SMSF, find the right house, buy it and rent it out*




So how did you go  STC ???

Did you get the money for the deposit from the super fund???

Interested to know, I have some i'd like to use for doing something with as well.

Dave


----------



## krisbarry (20 July 2007)

In actual fact you can buy anything you want with your super money.  People have money (cash) in super, art, wine, shares, property, antiques, jewlery, cars etc etc.

I am not buying property at the moment, just giving readers an example of how it is possible to buy a house.

I am a young person struggling to get into the housing market and was finding ways to break into the market using a less conventional method, and it is very much possible.


----------



## Kathmandu (20 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> In actual fact you can buy anything you want with your super money.  People have money (cash) in super, art, wine, shares, property, antiques, jewlery, cars etc etc.
> 
> I am not buying property at the moment, just giving readers an example of how it is possible to buy a house.
> 
> I am a young person struggling to get into the housing market and was finding ways to break into the market using a less conventional method, and it is very much possible.





Again i'll ask, *where is your proof that you can access super fund's before retirement age.*

I'll agree that you can  put money (cash) in super, shares, property, into a SMSF, but *you can't use super fund's[cash] to buy them *until retirement age.

I will gladly appologize *if you prove me and others who have posted here wrong,* but until then i'll believe what the ATO has to say on the matter.


Dave


----------



## Kathmandu (20 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> I am not buying property at the moment, just giving readers an example of how it is possible to buy a house.




That's a shame, you'll be missing the boat again, 

Seem's SA is playing catch up with the rest of OZ.

Nice 40% plus gain's in some areas.

Better get that money out of your super fund

http://wic003lc.server-web.com/~admin417/uploads/Documents/Property Stats Jun07.pdf

Dave


----------



## krisbarry (20 July 2007)

Kathmandu said:


> Again i'll ask, *where is your proof that you can access super fund's before retirement age.*
> 
> I'll agree that you can  put money (cash) in super, , shares, property, into a SMSF, but *you can't use super fund's[cash] to buy them *until retirement age.
> 
> ...





Again I stress that I am not accessing super, I am intending to show that I can buy a house, for investment purposes only, not to live in, or gain any personal financial wealth out of it.  All rent collected would go straight back into the fund.  I think you are getting yourself confuded....I never said I would gain persoanlly from it.


----------



## krisbarry (20 July 2007)

Kathmandu said:


> That's a shame, you'll be missing the boat again,
> 
> Seem's SA is playing catch up with the rest of OZ.
> 
> ...




Its all hype, many suburbs are dead flat, or going down!


----------



## Kathmandu (20 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Its all hype, many suburbs are dead flat, or going down!




But just like shares, many are going up.

The smart money is already in on those areas, while others say "Its all hype, many suburbs are dead flat, or going down" and miss out alltogether.

Sound familiar?

Dave


----------



## Kathmandu (20 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> As stated numerous times over in this thread if you bothered to read it...that setting up a self managed super fund can allow me to buy a house, not to live in, but to rent out and collect the rent.  The rent will then be deposited back into the self managed super fund.
> 
> *So I stress again it is possible to buy a house with funds from a super fund.  Alls I need to do is roll it over to a SMSF, find the right house, buy it and rent it out*




Seem's to me that you are saying here that you can "buy a house with fund's from a super fund".

That would be accessing fund's would'nt it?

Buying a house would mean it was for personal gain would'nt it ??

Do you invest in a super fund to lose money??

Dave


----------



## Flying Fish (20 July 2007)

Get a full time job. Salary sacrifice 50%. Add 1000K of your own and you get 1500$. If you can't live on 28K a year then supplement with part time work. Easy money. Do it for a year or two and boost your super. Once the super is at say 100K you can do the smsf thing.


----------



## Kathmandu (20 July 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> Get a full time job. Salary sacrifice 50%. Add 1000K of your own and you get 1500$. If you can't live on 28K a year then supplement with part time work. Easy money. Do it for a year or two and boost your super. *Once the super is at say 100K you can do the smsf thing*.





But the question is, can you access the $100k of super fund's to purchase a house to put into a SMSF.?


*DIY super - It's your money ... but not yet!*

http://www.ato.gov.au/super/content.asp?doc=/content/47067.htm&page=15&H15

and more

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...om+super&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr=countryAU

Dave


----------



## Flying Fish (20 July 2007)

I don't see why not. If you buy the thing out right, it becomes another form of investment, same as shares etc.


----------



## Kathmandu (20 July 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> I don't see why not. If you buy the thing out right, it becomes another form of investment, same as shares etc.




Fair enough, but STC states that all his cash is in the super fund, so no cash on hand to buy a property outright.

I realize that if I owned  a property  I could roll the owned property into the super fund, but that is not what my understanding of this thread is about.

Dave


----------



## Julia (20 July 2007)

Kathmandu said:


> Fair enough, but STC states that all his cash is in the super fund, so no cash on hand to buy a property outright.
> 
> I realize that if I owned  a property  I could roll the owned property into the super fund, but that is not what my understanding of this thread is about.
> 
> Dave




Dave,

I think perhaps the point of confusion here is whether the money is in a public super fund or a SMSF.  If funds presently in a public super fund were eventually rolled over into a SMSF, then as far as I know it's possible to buy an investment property, with any profits being returned to the SMSF.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that the principal trustee of the SMSF still can't access either that house or funds liberated from sale of said house until reaching 55 or proving financial hardship or permanent disability.

So it's hard to see why you'd do it, really.
Given the sort of returns from real estate currently, I'd prefer my money in the stock market.

Another point regarding the "houses" for which photographs have been posted recently:  I imagine the dollars required to bring these up to some livable (rentable) standard would exceed that of the asking price!
Even acknowledging that "you have to start somewhere" I simply can't see that starting with something like these would bring anything other than problems.

But good for you STC on so regularly increasing your super balance.  At least you have an aspiration.


----------



## Flying Fish (20 July 2007)

Julia said:


> Dave,
> 
> I think perhaps the point of confusion here is whether the money is in a public super fund or a SMSF.  If funds presently in a public super fund were eventually rolled over into a SMSF, then as far as I know it's possible to buy an investment property, with any profits being returned to the SMSF.
> 
> ...




I agree as an investment these types of places would be useless. If you live in one and are fortunate enought to have work in the area then yes it would be great, better than renting, but can't see that happening in these places. Then again I guess you could buy the place use first home onwers grant and go on the dole to pay it off. Wonder if you could get a low paid job, salary scarifice 50% and get the dole at the same time? grow some vegies in the backyard, visit the salvos or just go shoot some rabbits for food.  You could also offer cheap  board for other dole bludgers, something like 26$ a week cash.


----------



## mime (20 July 2007)

Good for you. I was thinking of buying property but realized that my capital could be used else where to make more money.


----------



## krisbarry (25 July 2007)

Switching into a new fund this week.  Taking my entire account balance of $50,450 from Macquarie and heading back to Colonial First State.  Have found a fund that has just started back in April 2007 called Australian Boutique Share fund and is managed by 5 fund managers, its geared as well and the share price is certainly cheap, about $1.06

I read in a book recently that is always good to switch to cheaper share price funds as the growth is much better.  The more expensive a funds share price, the less movment and the less shares that you can buy with your funds.

So I am switching from a fund with a share price of $3.30 to $1.06

My aim is to have a share price of $2.12 within 2 to 3 years, which would mean that my account balalnce will double.

Ahhh yes home ownership is now very much possible.

Here are the details of the fund:

http://www.investsmart.com.au/funds/profile.asp?FundID=15044


----------



## wayneL (25 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Switching into a new fund this week.  Taking my entire account balance of $50,450 from Macquarie and heading back to Colonial First State.  Have found a fund that has just started back in April 2007 called Australian Boutique Share fund and is managed by 5 fund managers, its geared as well and the share price is certainly cheap, about $1.06
> 
> I read in a book recently that is always good to switch to cheaper share price funds as the growth is much better.  The more expensive a funds share price, the less movment and the less shares that you can buy with your funds.
> 
> ...



I am storing this post, because I want to show it to you in 2 years time.


----------



## krisbarry (25 July 2007)

wayneL said:


> I am storing this post, because I want to show it to you in 2 years time.




Would you like to discuss it now so I can get an understanding for your reason for storing it?


----------



## tech/a (25 July 2007)

I'll take a guess.
You (Kris) are presuming that the fund will out perform as such will double in price.
Have you ever thought that it could infact halve or even worse?

I'm sure you wont be silly enough to sit by and watch it crash if in fact it does.
After all unlike a house you can sell it in a phone call---ehh Kris!.


----------



## krisbarry (25 July 2007)

I timed the market just beautifully.  I am in the process of changing over funds today, so while the rest are watching their funds crash today after the spectacular fall on Wall Street, I will be scooping up and even bigger parcel of units at a cheaper price.

...and yes in the long term there are always other options like switching to cash in a crash


----------



## tech/a (25 July 2007)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## wayneL (25 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> ...the spectacular fall on Wall Street...



You ain't seen nuttin'


----------



## krisbarry (27 July 2007)

wayneL said:


> You ain't seen nuttin'




Yep I see the light now

I am so glad that I timed the market for this down-turn.  I am just hoping my new fund does not receive or process the cheque today, and waits till Monday at least.

My exit date on my last fund was 19th of July, so I am way ahead already.  I guess this makes up for all the time I spent on the paperwork and I need to account for an entry unit price, which of course is a little higher than the exit price.

The housing down-turn in the US  and a slight drop in base metals is making me wealthy, how ironic.  More money for my house that is becoming more and more affordable.


----------



## tech/a (27 July 2007)

Kris.

Thought you maybe interested.

Ive made the following assumptions.

Retirement in 35 yrs.
Super Fund currently $50,000
Expected return each year say a conservative 20%
Tax rate 30%
Monthy contribution $400
Inflation 3.1%

If you can sustain that then the $5 million that is surplus in 35 yrs time should get you your house.
The BIG but is that these figures remain stat
An increase in inflation and a decrease in return and Snaffoo

Go here for a play with the calculator
http://www.invest.com.au/retirement...C=standard&OVADID=627851042&OVKWID=1981349542

The second chart presumes a 15% annual return and 4.1% inflation rate 
All of a sudden you run out of money and have NO house (no funds to buy it!)


----------



## krisbarry (27 July 2007)

tech/a said:


> Kris.
> 
> Thought you maybe interested.
> 
> ...




Thankyou for all your calculations but again you have made some big mistakes on assumptions only.  Future forcasting with so many viariables is bloody dangerous if you ask me.

Anything can/could/will happen...play your life smart, then you will never run out of money, but you will die with money


----------



## tech/a (27 July 2007)

> Thankyou for all your calculations but again you have made some big mistakes on assumptions only.




Strange Kris.
This is what you are doing by aligning yourself solely with Super.



> play your life smart,




Define smart.

Frankly
Health and Happiness rate way higher than money in my book.
but hey lifes easier with money than without it.
You can make a big difference in many peoples lives from employees to friends to faceless causes.


----------



## nomore4s (27 July 2007)

tech/a said:


> Strange Kris.
> This is what you are doing by alighning yourself solely with Super.
> 
> 
> ...




Hey Tech, hope your holiday was enjoyable.

I agree money's not the be all and end all, makes life easier but not fulfilling and meaningful. Just look at those rich cows like Britney, Paris and Lindsay. You can't tell me people like that are truly happy, all the money they could ever want and they don't know what to do with it.


----------



## krisbarry (27 July 2007)

tech/a said:


> Strange Kris.
> This is what you are doing by aligning yourself solely with Super..




Soley with super? hmmmm...I have a few other assest I just don't wish to disclose them...

I think I have about 2 million hectares of land to grow tomato plants if you know what i mean  oh yes we all have a sense of humour...and speaking of humour...yes you are right health and happiness are far more important...that we agree on!


----------



## krisbarry (27 July 2007)

What an awseome day..and I missed the whole lot, geez I am good.

Rang the super fund today and they are buying in on Monday.

Gotta love these corrections


----------



## tech/a (28 July 2007)

Kris.

Which fund is it?
Looks like you still will get in on this "Correction" even buying Monday.


----------



## krisbarry (28 July 2007)

Colonial First State - Australian Boutique Geared Fund.  

The fund started back in late April at a unit price of $1.00, so by the time i enter it, i will be paying less than 99 cents per unit.

As yet my money has just reached the account but has not struck an entry unit price and will do so on Monday, so offically my entry price comes from Friday end of day action.  (how is that for timing - missing the biggest 1 day fall since Sept 11th...I am very proud if I do say so myself) 

I have already calculated a drop of over 320 points since being out of the market, which is awesome.  It will cost me just over $400 to enter the fund (the difference between the entry and exit unit price), but I have already saved over $4000 or more from being out of the market in that time period.  So its been well worth it.

I am aware that most mananged funds pull out of the market at some point (less than 10%), and they sit out for a while till the market settles so maybe they have already taken all their money out of the market.


----------



## Pommiegranite (28 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Colonial First State - Australian Boutique Geared Fund.
> 
> The fund started back in late April at a unit price of $1.00, so by the time i enter it, i will be paying less than 99 cents per unit.
> 
> ...




I think the fact that you only ever post about your 'wins' and in a gloating/smug manner, means that nobody really gives a monkeys about your onesided posts.

Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## nomore4s (28 July 2007)

Pommiegranite said:


> I think the fact that you only ever post about your 'wins' and in a gloating/smug manner, means that nobody really gives a monkeys about your onesided posts.
> 
> Just my 2 cents worth.




lol, Pommie, its alright mate, we don't want to see him in tears like the last correction in May last year. STP may enjoy seeing other people losing money but I don't, even people that carry on like STP.

I wouldn't get to carried away with your "good timing" just yet STP, it could very well just be the beginning of a more major correction.


----------



## Julia (28 July 2007)

nomore4s said:


> lol, Pommie, its alright mate, we don't want to see him in tears like the last correction in May last year. STP may enjoy seeing other people losing money but I don't, even people that carry on like STP.
> 
> I wouldn't get to carried away with your "good timing" just yet STP, it could very well just be the beginning of a more major correction.




Agreed on both counts.

I'll be surprised if the bull run resumes on Monday or even soon after that.
There has been no change in the factors which precipitated this correction.

STC, you really are being somewhat precious in boasting about your genius.  You have, as far as I can tell, nowhere indicated that you made this move because you anticipated this correction.  Seems more like luck than genius to me, but I hope you do well with the new fund.


----------



## krisbarry (28 July 2007)

Um excuse me peoples... if you read post #50 on this thread dated  13th-March-2007, 02:52 AM, I think you will find that I got caught in the last correction...yes I can be honest too, so its not all one-sided...and yes this time around its nothing more than luck...completely agreed.

But again its alright to gloat when things work in your favour!


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 July 2007)

Julia said:


> Agreed on both counts.
> 
> I'll be surprised if the bull run resumes on Monday or even soon after that.
> There has been no change in the factors which precipitated this correction.



Agreed there although I'm personally not expecting anything too drastic overall. Could be wrong of course, but in my opinion this will be a trigger for another round of (worldwide) inflation.

I could be completely wrong of course.


----------



## krisbarry (28 July 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed there although I'm personally not expecting anything too drastic overall. Could be wrong of course, but in my opinion this will be a trigger for another round of (worldwide) inflation.
> 
> I could be completely wrong of course.




I am expecting at least another 100 points down On Monday and then the US market will rally Monday night, signalling the end of this correction.  Well thats the plan anyway...but I expect that 9/10 ASF members will disagree with me of course


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> But again its alright to gloat when things work in your favour!



I think you meant to say "it's alright to gloat when _you invest in property_".

Remember the near constant gloating of property investors on TV etc a few years ago? I wonder how many would be willing to do that now with all the publicity over the negative effects of the boom?

Public sentiment has most certainly turned.


----------



## krisbarry (28 July 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> I think you meant to say "it's alright to gloat when _you invest in property_".
> 
> Remember the near constant gloating of property investors on TV etc a few years ago? I wonder how many would be willing to do that now with all the publicity over the negative effects of the boom?
> 
> Public sentiment has most certainly turned.




LOL, too true

...*Gloat street* ...where every Tom, Dick and Harry was buying squillions of properties and advertising it to the world...has now turned into *Tear Street*, or is that *Reposession Road* or *Broken Dreams Boulevard*


----------



## tech/a (28 July 2007)

Kris.
You really under estimate serious investors and over estimate your ability.

For you too Smurf.
Those of us who bought copious amounts of investment housing in the mid to late 90s are anything but in tears.
I have 4 bedroom homes which we paid $90k for in 96 now worth over $360,000 with a mortgage of $90,000.The rent roll leaves me positively geared well into double figure interest.

Tears---nah---enjoy life---you bet.

It appears that your efforts to trade the market have ended in tatters so you have decided to invest in super and let someone else do it.
I agree with nomore4s.
Your timing in riding a prelonged downturn may well be impecable.
Atleast you have time on your side to gain experience.
Mind you thats if you can recognise the experience that you should be gaining.

Oh and its OK to have plenty of $$s behind you,and to enjoy life,and to make a difference in others lives,and to smile at those like you who think its repugnant.


----------



## krisbarry (28 July 2007)

Well done Tech/a, I am happy for your success in the housing market


----------



## krisbarry (30 July 2007)

Well I am in...Colonial First State purchased over 52,000 units @ 9682 cents for me, nice day to enter my super fund, and making money already.

I also like Labor's plan announced today to make new homes $20,000 more affordable


----------



## Flying Fish (30 July 2007)

tech/a said:


> Kris.
> You really under estimate serious investors and over estimate your ability.
> 
> For you too Smurf.
> ...




Ok we will just call you god. Pity you are too old to enjoy your ill begotten gains.


----------



## Flying Fish (30 July 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Well I am in...Colonial First State purchased over 52,000 units @ 9682 cents for me, nice day to enter my super fund, and making money already.
> 
> I also like Labor's plan announced today to make new homes $20,000 more affordable




Oh what agood idea. More fuel to the pyre


----------



## tech/a (30 July 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> Ok we will just call you god.




No really there is no need.



> Pity you are too old to enjoy your ill begotten gains.




Yessss--pity that!

Carry on.


----------



## theasxgorilla (30 July 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> Pity you are too old to enjoy your ill begotten gains.




I'm sure that was probably a baited hook, but just in case it wasnt and you actually believe this...I'll paraphrase Oprah, "Luck is opportunity met with preparation".  What idiot wanted to buy property back in '96 anyhow??  Probably the same kind of idiot who was buying in 2004.  I don't get all the news from Aust over here (thankfully, Aussie media feels like Third Reich propaganda bombardment at times)...but am I getting the correct story that property is going up again?  Anecdotally I have friends who are discovering this first hand ie. looking for houses and can't find one in their price range anymore, or other friends who bought less than two years ago and now you couldn't buy a s%#t house in their area for what they paid.


----------



## krisbarry (9 August 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> LOL, too true
> 
> ...*Gloat street* ...where every Tom, Dick and Harry was buying squillions of properties and advertising it to the world...has now turned into *Tear Street*, or is that *Reposession Road* or *Broken Dreams Boulevard*




After yesterdays interest rate rise Home owners face new street names.  The owners of the UBD street directory just added the new street names to the list:

Stress Street
Blown Budget Boulevard
Affordable Avenue
Crisis Cresent
Rate Rise
Heart-Break Highway 
Penny-less Promenade
Collapse Close 
Graveyard Gardens
Desperate Drive 
Housing Heights
Rental Rise

Tent Terrace  (This is where I live) 

and my friends live here...Park Bench Boulevard 

and my children will be living here... Cardboard Box Crescent


----------



## tech/a (9 August 2007)

8% high interest?
I remember 18%.

Kr is IF you actually had a house which youd bought in 1996 ish in Adelaide which you bought for say $95K (Thats what I paid for a 4 bedroom in Seaford) today that would be worth $290K Thats what I have just had it bank valued at) so youd have around $150K equity which you could take on a line of credit.
At a measly 8%
Then place it in your 23%P/A return Managed fund Returning you 15%P/A which you could compound.

Could even put an annex on your tent and have a few friends around for a beer.


----------



## krisbarry (9 August 2007)

Propety prices will start crashing from here on with the highest interest rates in over 10 years so I will be moving from Tent Terrace to Affordable Avenue sooner than I expected


----------



## theasxgorilla (9 August 2007)

tech/a said:


> 8% high interest?




Well it is isn't it....relative to debt ratios its really high...its like some kind of miracle that our fragile little economy of greedy lazy sloths can manage to hold it together this long


----------



## Kathmandu (9 August 2007)

tech/a said:


> 8% high interest?
> I remember 18%.
> 
> Kr is IF you actually had a house which youd bought in 1996 ish in Adelaide which you bought for say $95K (Thats what I paid for a 4 bedroom in Seaford) today that would be worth $290K Thats what I have just had it bank valued at) *so youd have around $150K equity which you could take on a line of credit.*
> ...




Tax free fund's here as well I might add.



Dave


----------



## Kathmandu (9 August 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> *Propety prices will start crashing from here on* with the highest interest rates in over 10 years so I will be moving from Tent Terrace to Affordable Avenue sooner than I expected





And your proof of that is................................


Dave


----------



## tech/a (9 August 2007)

Kathmandu said:


> Tax free fund's here as well I might add.
> 
> 
> 
> Dave




Damned good point.
Been using Lines of credit for years and never seen the obvious.
Puts a whole new slant on it for me!
(Rather than sell and lose use of 25% of capital)---

Thanks Dave.


----------



## krisbarry (24 August 2007)

My account balance now sits at over $51,000.  So much for the correction...gotta love this bull market


----------



## Pommiegranite (24 August 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> My account balance now sits at over $51,000. So much for the correction...gotta love this bull market


----------



## Flying Fish (24 August 2007)

Pommiegranite said:


>




Crikcey stop_the_crock, how do you do it?


----------



## numbercruncher (24 August 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> My account balance now sits at over $51,000.  So much for the correction...gotta love this bull market




In 2000 that would get 1/3rd of a house, in 2007 that doesnt even get 1/6th of a house, are people getting richer or just getting more digits in their accounts?


----------



## krisbarry (30 August 2007)

Just checked my account balance and it now sits at over $52,000...who said housing was unafordable

Its quite amazing how housing affordability is the single biggest election issue this year, very closely followe by IR laws.  Geezz even the baby boomers have had enough of paying the outrageous prices for houses as they move, up-size or down-size.

Its a national disgrace and something we she all be ashamed of...pricing a whole generation of young people out of the housing market, along with millions of families, and now many baby boomers!


----------



## krisbarry (3 September 2007)

My account balance just cracked over $53,000.  Thanks again for all your concerns about the housing crisis.  Gotta love this bull market!


----------



## BIG BWACULL (3 September 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> My account balance just cracked over $53,000.  Thanks again for all your concerns about the housing crisis.  Gotta love this bull market!



I was fishing and caught a fish Heh heh 
This is a thread i started for you and your being ungreatful
Heres the link 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8099


----------



## Judd (3 September 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:


> I was fishing and caught a fish Heh heh
> This is a thread i started for you and your being ungreatful
> Heres the link
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8099




I see where you are coming from BIG BWACULL.  I know people who salary sacrifice on an annual basis more than STC's total super balance - and those people are not on six figure salaries.  Just very careful and prudent.  Poor bugger hasn't got a hope.


----------



## So_Cynical (3 September 2007)

I really hate  all the first home owner crap that
both partys go on with...ive owned 2 houses (little country town)
and have no hope in hell of buying a house in Sydney..note i said 
Sydney not North St Marys.


----------



## krisbarry (5 September 2007)

I know, I know, I Know how terriable this is hearing it, but just checked my account balance and WOOOOSHKA...now sitting at over $54,000

Thumbs down to the housing crisis and say hello to the bullish stock market.


----------



## Kathmandu (5 September 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> I know, I know, I Know how terriable this is hearing it, but just checked my account balance and WOOOOSHKA...now sitting at over $54,000
> 
> Thumbs down to the housing crisis and say hello to the bullish stock market.




Better hurry up STC, house prices down there are going up faster than your super

Dave


----------



## krisbarry (5 September 2007)

Kathmandu said:


> Better hurry up STC, house prices down there are going up faster than your super
> 
> Dave




LOL, not going to buy into that argument 

lets just say I have made more in my super in the last few weeks than I would have made by buying a house and renting it out in the same period!

each to their own...I gather you are a "bricks and mortar queen"...there are plenty of them on this discussion board.

I am of the new breed....don't need a house right now and are happy to invest instead!

better run off now and sell your house...as prices are going to go south!


----------



## Kathmandu (5 September 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> LOL, not going to buy into that argument
> 
> lets just say I have made more in my super in the last few weeks than I would have made by buying a house and renting it out in the same period!
> 
> ...




Prices are going South??? where abouts, step out of the cave and have a look around.

Surely even you have heard about whats going on in SA

Normal part of the cycle for them to wash off a bit now and then, before going back up again to even greater heights, which they are now and have been for a while thanks.

Sell ???, doubt it, pay to much CGT out and stamps getting back in when I realize what a mistake selling for no reason was.

Anyway, someone has to supply cheap Accomodation for you.

Dave


----------



## krisbarry (17 September 2007)

Quick Update of my account balance and it now is over $55,000

Looking forward to purchasing my first house at the age of 60


----------



## nomore4s (17 September 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Quick Update of my account balance and it now is over $55,000
> 
> Looking forward to purchasing my first house at the age of 60




I'd hate to think about what a house will cost when you're 60.


----------



## numbercruncher (17 September 2007)

nomore4s said:


> I'd hate to think about what a house will cost when you're 60.




Dont worry the Generation delivered at a birthrate four times higher than at any other time known in history aka the Baby Boomers will be dumping there houses on the market over the next 2 decades, many of them financially ill prepared to pay for retirement , nursing care, travel etc.

It starts soon with probably atleast 300k of them a year retiring.

Your SMSF will snap these up as bargains as oversupply crashes demand


----------



## Kathmandu (17 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Dont worry the Generation delivered at a birthrate four times higher than at any other time known in history aka the Baby Boomers will be dumping there houses on the market over the next 2 decades, many of them financially ill prepared to pay for retirement , nursing care, travel etc.
> 
> It starts soon with probably atleast 300k of them a year retiring.
> 
> Your SMSF will snap these up as bargains as oversupply crashes demand




And do you really think they will be comeing on the market all at once, or will it be over many many years, so no oversupply.

How stupid do you think they are, they know how the market works and what flooding it all at once will do.

Dave


----------



## Julia (17 September 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Quick Update of my account balance and it now is over $55,000
> 
> Looking forward to purchasing my first house at the age of 60




Seems a long time to wait, STC.  However, no one can say you don't have a goal.  Good luck.


----------



## krisbarry (21 September 2007)

...and how about that, just checked my account today and it stands at over $56,000...too easy  Now just have to find a house


----------



## Judd (21 September 2007)

I haven't checked my account today but last time I did add at least an "0", STC.  So what does that prove?  Absolutely stuff all.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (21 September 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> ...and how about that, just checked my account today and it stands at over $56,000...too easy  Now just have to find a house



Woopee doo, I started a thread especially for you "My super balance is" and no thanks but a comment of "This is a stupid thread" , so 56,000 is a stupid amount :dunno: There were even, now i have found a house for you, Close to transport, shopping and other conveniences hope you like it CHEERS 
With the money left over you may be able to do some renovations and really spruce the place up  
I'll try and keep an eye out for some other bargains for you 
cya l8er


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 September 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:


> Woopee doo, I started a thread especially for you "My super balance is" and no thanks but a comment of "This is a stupid thread" , so 56,000 is a stupid amount :dunno: There were even, now i have found a house for you, Close to transport, shopping and other conveniences hope you like it CHEERS
> With the money left over you may be able to do some renovations and really spruce the place up
> I'll try and keep an eye out for some other bargains for you
> cya l8er



Reminds me of the house I had a look at last weekend. "Convenient location" says the ad. Yep, it's convenient alright. Right on the highway. Nice house otherwise though.

Another nice house 3km away too that I also won't be buying. You could say it's got plenty of energy... A 110kV transmission line tower just metres from the front door and a substation not far away out the back. It'll have even more energy when the new 220kV line goes in soon. At least dim lights shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (24 September 2007)

Article in the australian today,
*Housing more affordable in some states*



> UNAFFORDABLE housing has prevented many Australians from buying their own home in recent years but the situation is set to improve in some states, an economic forecaster says.
> 
> A BIS Shrapnel report on the outlook for residential land from now until 2011 forecasts the capital cities in different stages of the housing cycle.
> 
> ...


----------



## Flying Fish (24 September 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:


> Woopee doo, I started a thread especially for you "My super balance is" and no thanks but a comment of "This is a stupid thread" , so 56,000 is a stupid amount :dunno: There were even, now i have found a house for you, Close to transport, shopping and other conveniences hope you like it CHEERS
> With the money left over you may be able to do some renovations and really spruce the place up
> I'll try and keep an eye out for some other bargains for you
> cya l8er




nice train set


----------



## BIG BWACULL (24 September 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> nice train set



Yeah Thomas the tank engine will pass soon and you can get a ride on a celebrity


----------



## krisbarry (24 September 2007)

Will the "Fat Controller" come past soon?


----------



## Dukey (24 September 2007)

Heard an example on ABC radio recently regarding housing affordability: purchase versus renting.

Can't remember all the details - but i think they were looking at a 350000k $ house. Dunno where their example was set - but the monthly cost of buying including rates and some maintenance costs was well over double the cost of renting the same house.  Something like $2800 to buy versus $1200 to rent.

Thats a big statement on affordability (lack of) I think. Obviously each situation will be quite different -  but those figures are a bit daunting - especially if we expect interest rates to rise further (do we????).   

Whats more likely - rental costs to rise?  or house prices to fall??
What do you guys reckon?


----------



## nioka (24 September 2007)

Dukey said:


> Heard an example on ABC radio recently regarding housing affordability: purchase versus renting.
> 
> Can't remember all the details - but i think they were looking at a 350000k $ house. Dunno where their example was set - but the monthly cost of buying including rates and some maintenance costs was well over double the cost of renting the same house.  Something like $2800 to buy versus $1200 to rent.
> 
> ...




Look at the situation in 20 years time. The renter owns no home ,the purchaser owns a home. Tax free saving. Security.


----------



## Dukey (24 September 2007)

nioka said:


> Look at the situation in 20 years time. The renter owns no home ,the purchaser owns a home. Tax free saving. Security.




I agree totally - anyone with a long term view would rather buy, but the big difference btw buy/rent really makes buying unaffordable for many workers. - I think.

- especially single income-ers


----------



## numbercruncher (24 September 2007)

I subscribe to the rent and invest doctrine.


A 300k home will cost about 700p/w to pay off (using all borrowed money and other costs incl.) to rent it will be about 300p/w.


If you invest the difference of 400p/w in Shares you will come out a clear cut winner in the long term, Instant liquidity too.


----------



## professor_frink (24 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> I subscribe to the rent and invest doctrine.
> 
> 
> A 300k home will cost about 700p/w to pay off (using all borrowed money and other costs incl.) to rent it will be about 300p/w.
> ...




morning numbercruncher,

It would be great to see a detailed example of how you've come to this conclusion. What assumptions are you making to say this?


----------



## nioka (24 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> I subscribe to the rent and invest doctrine.
> 
> 
> A 300k home will cost about 700p/w to pay off (using all borrowed money and other costs incl.) to rent it will be about 300p/w.
> ...




It is the instant liquidity that makes the difference. Too many people I know have used that instant liquidity to have a new car, an overseas trip or just a good time. The mortgage payment is forced savings.


----------



## numbercruncher (24 September 2007)

professor_frink said:


> morning numbercruncher,
> 
> It would be great to see a detailed example of how you've come to this conclusion. What assumptions are you making to say this?




Goodmorning Professor


300k mortgage paid over 20 years implys total repayments of $616,429(at current interest rates) , then whatever the property is worth at he end of it is your profit, so this bit of the equation is anyones guess.

The difference of 20k p/a (400p/w) with no starting bank and returning a conservative 8pc p/a over a 20 year period would total 988,458.43

616,429 + 988,458.43 = 1.6m is what the house needs to be worth to equal the investment in shares.

Well thats my humble opinion anyways 

And i agree with Nioka on the forced savings thing and some people wouldnt be disciplined enough to take the alternative route.


(I havnt taken into consideration rising rents but on the flipside this could be negated by rising wages and extra being put into the share option)


----------



## professor_frink (24 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Goodmorning Professor
> 
> 
> 300k mortgage paid over 20 years implys total repayments of $616,429(at current interest rates) , then whatever the property is worth at he end of it is your profit, so this bit of the equation is anyones guess.
> ...




I was hoping for a bit more detail numbercruncher- the last part of your post that I've put in bold is just one of many variables involved in trying to work  who would end up better off. IMO, those kinds of things probably should be considered before stating that one is better than the other. Or maybe I'm being too picky, and should go off and try and calculate it for myself


----------



## numbercruncher (24 September 2007)

Hi Professor,

Sorry its not quite up to scratch, but i find it a bit hard to speculate on the level of rent rises and Wage Inflation.

Also on the shares vrs property, property has ongoing costs such as maintenance, rates, Insurance and a large fee to sell - If these costs are factored into extra contributions to the share investment the numbers are lifted quite a bit for the Shares option.

Also one of my theorys on House prices is that within that 20 year time frame we will see some downward pressure on House prices basically because of a Aging population downsizing and the stagnating/shrinking size of the work force.

Whats your opinion ?


----------



## bigt (24 September 2007)

Did some sums, and not sure it stacks up that well in my favour. I need a 3 bed place in Sydney, close to the city centre. Not going to get much change out of $600/week there. 

Also, you have to keep in mind the "quality" of living if you own a house - you can live in a much better quality home if you own, due to renovations/added value etc, than in a standard rental apt. If you wanted to match your rental property standards to a PPOR over 30 years, I'm sure it would cost you a hell of a lot more than your example.

Just my penny...I'm tossing up my options too, so happy to hear of alternatives & opinions.


----------



## professor_frink (24 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Hi Professor,
> 
> Sorry its not quite up to scratch, but i find it a bit hard to speculate on the level of rent rises and Wage Inflation.
> 
> Also on the shares vrs property, property has ongoing costs such as maintenance, rates, Insurance and a large fee to sell - If these costs are factored into extra contributions to the share investment the numbers are lifted quite a bit for the Shares option.




And they are some of the other variables that IMO make it pretty hard to do an in depth comparison of the two. Any of these could make a large difference as to which is better. The risk of something going horribly wrong, and being in a position where I would have been better off renting is one I'm willing to take, but that's just a personal choice. Other's like yourself, have different opinions on the matter, and will structure your life accordingly.



numbercruncher said:


> Also one of my theorys on House prices is that within that 20 year time frame we will see some downward pressure on House prices basically because of a Aging population downsizing and the stagnating/shrinking size of the work force.
> 
> Whats your opinion ?




Whilst I think it's quite possible that it could happen, the possibility of it happening isn't enough to influence my decision to buy a PPOR(I'm currently looking for one now). From an investment perspective, I prefer shares to property, so will more than likely not need to worry about house prices as much as someone who is a big fan of IP's. However, once I've bought a house, I'll be focusing on paying off as much of it as I can as soon as I can, so investing in anything will be off the agenda for a year or two in that regard.

Whilst it would be unwise to dismiss the BB's retiring as a non event, I think(or possibly hope) the change will be a gradual process, not a sudden shock like some people seem to think. With things like reverse mortgages starting to become popular, we may see the BB's staying in their oversized Mcmansions whilst working part time a little longer than some think(obviously this is just one of quite a few different scenario's that could happen). If some of the BB's   stay in the workforce part time for whatever reason, then combined with increase immigration, we may not see any great economic 'armageddon', just a slow and gradual shift away from the world the BB's have created.

Hopefully


----------



## nioka (24 September 2007)

professor_frink said:


> Whilst it would be unwise to dismiss the BB's retiring as a non event, I think(or possibly hope) the change will be a gradual process, not a sudden shock like some people seem to think. With things like reverse mortgages starting to become popular, we may see the BB's staying in their oversized Mcmansions whilst working part time a little longer than some think(obviously this is just one of quite a few different scenario's that could happen). If some of the BB's   stay in the workforce part time for whatever reason, then combined with increase immigration, we may not see any great economic 'armageddon', just a slow and gradual shift away from the world the BB's have created.
> 
> Hopefully



It is not the baby boomers who have the "Mcmansions" . It seems to be the following generation that are that way inclined. The BBs. in my experience seem to be happy where they are or if having a sea or tree change often choose the type of home they are used to. Reverse mortgages will tie a lot to their existing home, the reason being that the mortgage has to be paid out on the sale of the property and you can't get a reverse mortgage to buy the next. Retired people have a problem to get a new mortgage unless they still have a good income. There will be no economic armageddon which will be in any way caused by the BBs in this regard.


----------



## Flying Fish (24 September 2007)

STC if you are single, just borrow up to the hilt and enjoy life. When you are dead, the debt goes nowhere!!


----------



## nioka (24 September 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> STC if you are single, just borrow up to the hilt and enjoy life. When you are dead, the debt goes nowhere!!




And if you don't die early the debt worries will probably cause you to wish you were.


----------



## Julia (24 September 2007)

Agree entirely with Nioka's last two points.

I know it's fashionable to blame baby boomers for pretty much everything, but really not always appropriate.

Most baby boomers I know are helping their aged parents as well as helping their kids through university.  Don't know any who are living in McMansions.


----------



## Flying Fish (24 September 2007)

So I guess if your olds were born before the end of WW2, they new a thing or two about tough times?


----------



## professor_frink (24 September 2007)

Alright then, I withdraw my comment about Baby Boomers living in Mcmansions, and will not mention anything of the sort again


----------



## numbercruncher (24 September 2007)

So whos living in all the Mcmansions then ? If its not the Boomers or there parents, Not gen Y they are too young, must be Gen X ?


----------



## Flying Fish (24 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> So whos living in all the Mcmansions then ? If its not the Boomers or there parents, Not gen Y they are too young, must be Gen X ?




Maybe no one lol


----------



## moXJO (24 September 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> Maybe no one lol




D.I.N.Ks


----------



## wayneL (24 September 2007)

moXJO said:


> D.I.N.Ks



Those that need them the least... LOL


----------



## Flying Fish (24 September 2007)

DINKUMS lol


----------



## nioka (24 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> So whos living in all the Mcmansions then ? If its not the Boomers or there parents, Not gen Y they are too young, must be Gen X ?




Migrants?


----------



## Flying Fish (24 September 2007)

Who cares they are welcome to leggo land


----------



## theasxgorilla (24 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Whats your opinion ?




Shares v. property, all calculations make the assumption that you do nothing but sit on the real estate and maintain it.  THE key advantage with real estate over shares is the control you have as the owner.  You can create something with your own ingenuity.  IMO, this is why there is no one vrs the other.  If/When the market isn't working for you, or even if it is, you can still do work to the house you live in to, as it says in the Richest Man in Babylon, "Make of thy dwelling a profitable investment".


----------



## Julia (24 September 2007)

Reverse mortgage market has grown to $1.8b.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/09/24/1190486168395.html?sssdmh=dm16.280496

As the article points out, rising interest rates and falling house prices could render this a very shaky proposition.  Let's hope the LVR's stay very conservative.


----------



## numbercruncher (25 September 2007)

Some amazing/surprising news, Sure answers one of the Questions with property in Vic/Melb regarding demand ! 




> Melbourne's population will hit five million by 2032, shattering government predictions and putting pressure on infrastructure, housing and the environment, new figures reveal.
> 
> The figures, released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and published in The Age, show Victoria's population rose by more than 74,000 people in the year to March - or 1,400 people a week, and is expected to rise.
> 
> ...




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=229799

Wow Imagine Melbournes population swelling 50p/c ? Can they handle it, got enough water ? nope Enough Houses ? nope , as mentioned the demands on Infrastructure will be huge at projected growth rate !


----------



## Kathmandu (25 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Some amazing/surprising news, Sure answers one of the Questions with property in Vic/Melb regarding demand !
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So, are you getting in on some of the action NC

Supply and demand on quality property will make prices go through the roof

Dave


----------



## theasxgorilla (25 September 2007)

Kathmandu said:


> Supply and demand on quality property will make prices go through the roof




As I have stated elsewhere...my concern with regards to re-entering the Melbourne/Vic property market over the next 5 years is not that I will buy something that tanks.  More so that property, wages and Euro-block currencies won't keep pace with the Melb property market (as priced in AUD) and stuff stops looking cheap (which many 'quality' parts still are to my perception at present levels).

Stockholm was recently voted the most liveable city by Readers Digest and Melbourne has tied with Vancouver in other '04 and '05 studies by The Economist.  Looks like I've got both my bases covered!


----------



## Flying Fish (25 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Some amazing/surprising news, Sure answers one of the Questions with property in Vic/Melb regarding demand !
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I do not understand. Melbourne and Victoria has nothing to support this country. They do not do anything down there anymore. Will it become a big retirement villgae?


----------



## theasxgorilla (25 September 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> I do not understand. Melbourne and Victoria has nothing to support this country. They do not do anything down there anymore. Will it become a big retirement villgae?




Do your homework Flying Fish.

Melbourne contributes to GDP via SPORT!  Melbourne GP, MotoGP, Australian Tennis Open, Boxing Day Test, Bells Beach Surf Classic, Melbourne Cup, Spring Racing Carnival, AFL home-and-away season (80,000 crowds to key games) plus the Grand Final (100,000 capacity crowd)...the list goes on.


----------



## nioka (26 September 2007)

theasxgorilla said:


> Do your homework Flying Fish.
> 
> Melbourne contributes to GDP via SPORT!  Melbourne GP, MotoGP, Australian Tennis Open, Boxing Day Test, Bells Beach Surf Classic, Melbourne Cup, Spring Racing Carnival, AFL home-and-away season (80,000 crowds to key games) plus the Grand Final (100,000 capacity crowd)...the list goes on.




All that and nothing PRODUCTIVE. (and nothing that couldn't be, or isn't, done elsewhere.)


----------



## krisbarry (26 September 2007)

New update...and again I checked my account balance today and it now sits at over $57,000.  Not bad going.  I love this bull market.

The stock market is running much harder than the housing market.


----------



## Nyden (26 September 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> New update...and again I checked my account balance today and it now sits at over $57,000.  Not bad going.  I love this bull market.
> 
> The stock market is running much harder than the housing market.





Stop the clock, may I ask how old you are? I'm just wondering, as you seem to place a lot of emphasis onto your super. Is there a reason for this? I guess I just don't understand why you don't focus more on your portfolio? (Or do you? Perhaps I'm making inaccurate assumptions!  )

Super is all about the *long term* afterall!


----------



## BIG BWACULL (26 September 2007)

Nyden said:


> Stop the clock, may I ask how old you are? I'm just wondering, as you seem to place a lot of emphasis onto your super. Is there a reason for this? I guess I just don't understand why you don't focus more on your portfolio? (Or do you? Perhaps I'm making inaccurate assumptions!  )
> 
> Super is all about the *long term* afterall!



Maybe he doesnt have a portfolio he'd prefer to have it managed and thus pump  
it into his super account, or his portfolio is not doing as well as he likes :dunno: 

Hey clocko what about an update on your personal portfolio and how well thats going or is it a shocker


----------



## Nyden (26 September 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:


> Maybe he doesnt have a portfolio he'd prefer to have it managed and thus pump
> it into his super account, or his portfolio is not doing as well as he likes :dunno:
> 
> Hey clocko what about an update on your personal portfolio and how well thats going or is it a shocker




Perhaps! 

I just don't understand is all, I mean - you can't even touch super until you're of that certain age. I'd prefer to manage my own little nest egg!

I'm not criticising him, I'm just a little intrigued! I wish to know why :


----------



## theasxgorilla (26 September 2007)

nioka said:


> All that and nothing PRODUCTIVE.




You don't think any of these events bring money into the country?  You may not have been to Melbourne in the last 10 years...you'll find it's a very rich city.  Something must be keeping it going.


----------



## Nyden (26 September 2007)

theasxgorilla said:


> You don't think any of these events bring money into the country?  You may not have been to Melbourne in the last 10 years...you'll find it's a very rich city.  Something must be keeping it going.




Certainly isn't our cuckoo weather 
Melbourne is a fantastic city - and Victoria is a wonderful state; within Victoria you can find much beauty in our landscapes - our wine isn't bad either!


----------



## krisbarry (28 September 2007)

The weekend rolls around, and its a long one at that.  Nice to see Port Adelaide in the Grand Final - Go The Power!

I just checked my super and it now sits at over $58,000

I like the idea of this new package that allows first home buyers to have first pick at homes.  They are being offered at cheap prices and are locked out to investors.  Finally the South Australian Governement have a great idea.

I say 100% of the housing crisis can be blamed on these factors...

20% Greedy Investors
20% Too generous tax system
20% High migration Levels
20% Low Interest rates for far too long
20% Lack of building new homes


----------



## wayneL (28 September 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> I say 100% of the housing crisis can be blamed on these factors...
> 
> 20% Greedy Investors
> 20% Too generous tax system
> ...



Kris,

Those are factors, but THE biggest factor is *loose credit*. Without this, none of the above matters much. Tight credit will take out the housing market, pure and simple.


----------



## Shane Baker (28 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Kris,
> 
> Those are factors, but THE biggest factor is *loose credit*. Without this, none of the above matters much. Tight credit will take out the housing market, pure and simple.




and the stock market and the car market and anything you borrow money for. Once the cost of interest becomes a fiscal drag whether it be on homes or other types of assets then we will see less money chasing assets and less price appreciation as a result.


----------



## wayneL (28 September 2007)

Shane Baker said:


> and the stock market and the car market and anything you borrow money for. Once the cost of interest becomes a fiscal drag whether it be on homes or other types of assets then we will see less money chasing assets and less price appreciation as a result.



It's not just the cost of credit (interest rates), it is more the availability of credit (lending criteria)... also the desirability of credit.

For e.g. Look at Japan, negligible rates, yet still a deflationary bust.


----------



## Shane Baker (28 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> It's not just the cost of credit (interest rates), it is more the availability of credit (lending criteria)... also the desirability of credit.
> 
> For e.g. Look at Japan, negligible rates, yet still a deflationary bust.




I think we are on the same hymn book Wayne. I was alluding to the desirability of credit and its effect on asset prices.The desirability of credit is reflected in its cost and availability. Low cost and easy availability leads to asset inflation. The cost may increase but if asset inflation is much higher then the credit is still desirable. It is when the tipping point is approached where sufficient asset inflation does not occur or that the interest debt cannot be serviced, that it then becomes undesirable. That explains Japan's experience IMHO in that asset price inflation didn't exceed the cost of business (interest rates) so the yen carry trade appeared with Mrs Watanabe entering the fx arena.

If interest rates are high enough to discourage the use of credit and encourage savings then money supply is reduced  ala the Paul Volcker solution in the 1980's. Of course they could just stop printing the stuff..but where would we get our next asset bubble from then?


----------



## wayneL (28 September 2007)

Shane Baker said:


> I think we are on the same hymn book Wayne. I was alluding to the desirability of credit and its effect on asset prices.The desirability of credit is reflected in its cost and availability. Low cost and easy availability leads to asset inflation. The cost may increase but if asset inflation is much higher then the credit is still desirable. It is when the tipping point is approached where sufficient asset inflation does not occur or that the interest debt cannot be serviced, that it then becomes undesirable.
> 
> If interest rates are high enough to discourage the use of credit and encourage savings then money supply is reduced  ala the Paul Volcker solution in the 1980's. Of course they could just stop printing the stuff..*but where would we get our next asset bubble from then?
> *




Well we'll have to start back on tulip bulbs I guess.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 September 2007)

Absolutely agreed it's the loose credit although the nominal interest rate is also highly significant.

Most people don't seem too concerned about debt right now. That's what's keeping house prices up IMO. The moment they get worried is when the trouble starts.

Looking at the markets, I think we're in for another 0.25% interest rate rise either October or November and quite likely another one early next year. Combine that with the Christmas credit card bills, effects of the drought on food prices and back to school expenses rolling in and it might get rather interesting.


----------



## krisbarry (3 October 2007)

Ohh and what do you know...I just checked my account balance and it now stands at over $59,000.  Love this bull run


----------



## robots (3 October 2007)

hello,

you're a legend STC, picked the leg up a mile away

let us know the next move

great stuff

thankyou

robots


----------



## Kathmandu (3 October 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Ohh and what do you know...I just checked my account balance and it now stands at over $59,000.  Love this bull run




Here you go mate, stop talking about it and shows us how you can do it.

After all, as you say, "I can buy a house", and here's a pile in your price range.

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...minbed=&maxbed=&parking=&minlandsize=&m=&p=10

Have fun getting the money out though

Dave


----------



## krisbarry (3 October 2007)

lol, thanks for the link...I have chosen the bus, it trashy, and its so Jerry Springer

Here is the link

http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bi...header=&c=38544687&s=sa&snf=rbs&tm=1191405356


----------



## Flying Fish (3 October 2007)

Gee that bus looks good, but where do I park?


----------



## krisbarry (3 October 2007)

robots said:


> hello,
> 
> you're a legend STC, picked the leg up a mile away
> 
> ...





My next move will be to switch to cash in late Jan, early Feb 08 and will await the next correction


----------



## Flying Fish (3 October 2007)

Rego an insurance must cost a bit........... Might just buy a bit of land and pitch a tent. Councils don't like buses sitting around on blocks :-(


----------



## Flying Fish (3 October 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> My next move will be to switch to cash in late Jan, early Feb 08 and will await the next correction




What next correction?


----------



## krisbarry (3 October 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> What next correction?





Just using the 6 month correction theory...seems there is always a good excuse for the market to correct every 6 months.

*China crisis Feb 07, Sub Prime Crisis July 07 are two examples*


----------



## krisbarry (4 October 2007)

For those interested, here is a graph of my current super fund performance.  Note the red circle, this I where I entered the fund (part way through the last correction).


----------



## krisbarry (4 October 2007)

I just cracked the big one, checked my account balance and it now sits at over $60,000


----------



## krisbarry (11 October 2007)

My account balance now sits at over $61,000...loving' this bull run.

I might just buy myself a McMansion one day


----------



## bean (17 October 2007)

The heading of an article I was reading to

FOR EVERY $100,000 YOUR HOUSE HAS APPRECIATED YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER IS NOW ANOTHER $100,000 IN DEBT


----------



## Kathmandu (17 October 2007)

bean said:


> The heading of an article I was reading to
> 
> FOR EVERY $100,000 YOUR HOUSE HAS APPRECIATED YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER IS NOW ANOTHER $100,000 IN DEBT




How does that work.?

I don't have any kid's (if I wanted a pet I'd buy a dog), so I suppose that for every $100k mine go up, that's $80k in my skyrocket (tax free)

Dave


----------



## wayneL (17 October 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> I just cracked the big one, checked my account balance and it now sits at over $60,000



We'd like to know your bank account balances and number too please. (only bother if there is a substantial balance, otherwise not interested.)


----------



## Kathmandu (17 October 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> For those interested, here is a graph of my current super fund performance.  Note the red circle, this I where I entered the fund (part way through the last correction).




What do ya reckon STC, ready for a drop yet?



Dave


----------



## bean (17 October 2007)

Kathmandu said:


> How does that work.?
> 
> I don't have any kid's (if I wanted a pet I'd buy a dog), so I suppose that for every $100k mine go up, that's $80k in my skyrocket (tax free)
> 
> Dave




You are going to stay single all your life
Your just going to have puppies


----------



## Kathmandu (17 October 2007)

bean said:


> You are going to stay single all your life
> Your just going to have puppies




Been with the same girl for 17 years, she doesnt want kid's, I dont want kid's, would rather collect houses instead and retire young (ish)

None of which I could do with kids,(or a dog)

But I have goldfish.

Dave


----------



## tech/a (17 October 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> My account balance now sits at over $61,000...loving' this bull run.
> 
> I might just buy myself a McMansion one day




Stop-----no boubt your doing better than the average Village Idiot.
Say $700/mth. Or $8400 a year.

During this Bull run housing is doing its capital appreciation thing.
Lets be conservative and say your targeting a modest Mc Mansion.
Hyde park say at $1.2,000,000.
Its just risen 15% last year or $180,000.

So back to the Elizabeth Downs Mc Mansion.
Its $230,000 and Just risen 8% or $18,400.

Hmm still looks like the Tin shed in Andamooka.


----------



## tech/a (17 October 2007)

bean said:


> The heading of an article I was reading to
> 
> FOR EVERY $100,000 YOUR HOUSE HAS APPRECIATED YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER IS NOW ANOTHER $100,000 IN DEBT




Oh God!
Another head in the sand Stuck in the shoe box un imaginative woe is me and my kids Ostrich.

Think/act like a loser and you'll remain a loser.


----------



## wayneL (17 October 2007)

tech/a said:


> Oh God!
> Another head in the sand Stuck in the shoe box un imaginative woe is me and my kids Ostrich.
> 
> Think/act like a loser and you'll remain a loser.



Thinking of future generations is being a loser?

Suppose it depends on your definition of a winner.... He who dies with the most toys wins? I have a name for this sort of person, and it ain't "winner".

If we examine why and how the $100,000 inflation happened, concern for the next generation is valid.


----------



## tech/a (17 October 2007)

Winner.
Balance-Passion-Opportunist-Entrepeneur-Optimist-Leader-Role Model-Philanthropist.

Money just comes along.
its a bi product of Balance.

Rather than wondering analysing and argueing why,Simply teach those who need it most to cope and even take advantage of what they have.
All the concern in the world wont alter the situation,its here to stay.

Ostrich or optimist?
Pessimist or opportunist?

98% of the world talk the other 2% DO!
We are fortunate enough to be in the position to take advantage of this wonderful world,in a wonderful country yet we continue with pettry rubbish about how hard it is.

Hop on a plane to the Sudan or Ethiopia and get a whole new perspective of how damned rich we already are.Living on the dole paying rent and talking the talk.
Every single one of us are Winners---yep plenty of losers in this country.


----------



## Julia (17 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> Thinking of future generations is being a loser?
> 
> Suppose it depends on your definition of a winner.... He who dies with the most toys wins? I have a name for this sort of person, and it ain't "winner".
> 
> If we examine why and how the $100,000 inflation happened, concern for the next generation is valid.



Wayne, I'm a bit puzzled about why Tech's apparently successful investing philosophy is depriving future generations.  Could you expand on this?
I've had the impression that Tech is more than prepared to share his experiences and help others who demonstrate some preparedness to show initiative, and surely that's a good thing?

Isn't he setting a better example to the following generation (particularly his own children) than someone who has spent most of their adult life on the dole because they can't be bothered to do anything else?

Nothing wrong with having a positive attitude and believing in yourself instead of constantly telling anyone who will listen about how tough things are.


----------



## wayneL (17 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Wayne, I'm a bit puzzled about why Tech's apparently successful investing philosophy is depriving future generations.  Could you expand on this?
> I've had the impression that Tech is more than prepared to share his experiences and help others who demonstrate some preparedness to show initiative, and surely that's a good thing?
> 
> Isn't he setting a better example to the following generation (particularly his own children) than someone who has spent most of their adult life on the dole because they can't be bothered to do anything else?
> ...



Julia,

If you look at Techs post that I responded to to:


> Oh God!
> Another head in the sand Stuck in the shoe box un imaginative woe is me and my kids Ostrich.
> 
> Think/act like a loser and you'll remain a loser.



It was not sharing experiences and helping others who demonstrate some preparedness to show initiative. (Which I agree is a great thing) It was designed to insult the previous poster. I strongly suggest that life is not as black and white as indicated in the subsequent sermon.

There is nothing wrong with money, building business, investing and attaining wealth; in fact I recommend it. But I am also a believer in social responsibility. The current house price boom is at a great sociological cost to the younger generations... and current generations who are non-entrepreneurial.

Not everyone has the educational and familial background, aptitude, skills or desire to be a hotshot businessperson

This is what bean (albeit clumsily and simplistically) was alluding to I believe. It didn't warrant the slur that Tech dished out to him. Concern for our youth is not "loser" thinking, it is commendable.

By all means support tech when he does good, but for heavens sake, don't reward bad behaviour.


----------



## tech/a (18 October 2007)

The "Other" poster,Baen is one of the most negative I've seen post here.

I dont pussy foot around in life,people know exactly where they and I stand on any issue.

Bean and a few others here need a wake up call.
If you wish to support whinging/whinning and negativity go right ahead.

I make no apologie to the Beans of the world.

You've one shot at life.
Understand that only YOU can stuff it up or make it the best it can be.

People forget how well they're off,they have no idea there place in life on the planet.I dont care how badly off they "THINK" they are there is ALWAYS someone worse off.

This sort of post 



> FOR EVERY $100,000 YOUR HOUSE HAS APPRECIATED YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER IS NOW ANOTHER $100,000 IN DEBT




Has no direction. Post it sure but give/suggest *SOLUTIONS*.
Like some of my employees,eager and ready to point out issues and problems and promptly leave them to someone else to solve.

There are those who add to society and those that subtract.


----------



## theasxgorilla (18 October 2007)

tech/a said:


> Money just comes along.
> its a bi product of Balance.




On this point, in an expanding economy money comes along because of imbalances.  Whether it be debt imbalances and asset price inflation like Bean is referring to or the supply/demand imbalance on the ASX pushing stocks to continuous new highs or the Aussie dollar being nearly double what it was just 6 years ago.

Collectively, as a nation, Australia's economy is exposed to the massive imbalance that is a natural resource hungry China.  We should remember this a little more before we go pronouncing how clever we are because we're rich now.

Wondering or analysing or arguing about whether ideas are good can't be reduced down to a lowest common denomination by just asking how much money they made.  *This is called "outcome bias".*.


----------



## bean (18 October 2007)

A little bit more of the article

You did not work for that money or the gain, it was not produced through real effort or production and please remember that for every $100,000 your house has appreciated over the last few years, is another $100,000 that your son or daughter is further in debt to be able to afford the same house. Most of my generation the boomers act like a bunch of freeloaders, we want quick and easy, risk free profits WITHOUT WORK.


----------



## krisbarry (18 October 2007)

Oh no, this thread just got active overnight...the haves and have nots are at it again!

I am with Tech/a on this one, stop whinging and do something about it. I am and its working well.  There is more than enough proof that even on a low income you can save and can afford a house!


----------



## tech/a (18 October 2007)

*ASX*.
I'm aluding to Personal life balance not economic or social balance or as you correctly state in balance.
If people are Balanced in their own lives they are more likely to take advantage of in balances in specific sectors.

*Bean*
I'm one of them.But realise to be in the position to take advantage of these opportunities that RARLEY present themselves you'll need to be one of the minority often for many years.Battling away making ends meet,doing it hard but with "Intent" of grabbing a hold of opportunity when it presents itself and bleeding it for all its worth.
Take a look at Kris (Stop) Same guy altered attitude.He's taken control.

*Stop*
Did you see the last Property investor mag.Check out the YOUNG entrepeneurs written up in there and their stories.
Frankly I think youve taken a giant leap psychologically,youve obviously made the decision to take control of your destiny.
The greatest investment you'll ever make! When your Kids come along you'll have much to offer and I dont mean $$.

*Kris just one observation.*
While what your doing is excellent it is very restrictive as you cant release your equity in the fund to access other peoples money (leverage and or inclusion in other assets). This could well change. Let me give you an analogy.

If you own 1 house capital appreciation at BEST keeps you in line with property values and is not readily accessable money.
Own 2 properties and you have much more freedom to take advantage of opportunity.
Own Multiple and your away.

Now take away the term Housing and replace it with Profitable Stock Portfolios and the very same applies.


----------



## krisbarry (18 October 2007)

tech/a said:


> *Kris just one observation.*
> While what your doing is excellent it is very restrictive as you cant release your equity in the fund to access other peoples money (leverage and or inclusion in other assets). This could well change. Let me give you an analogy.




Not true at all, sure restrictive in the sense that certain rules apply to the access of the money, but I am sure as hell using other peoples money.  Its a geared fund, hence the term using other peoples money applies in this case.

Gearing is growing my wealth immensely

Current gearing ratio on my fund is 56%


----------



## tech/a (18 October 2007)

Kris.

True as a geared fund you are then taking advantage of OP money.

But if you think about it a little deeper WHEN YOU ARE in the position to Better take advantage of your capital you can better utilise this powerful Tool (OP Money).

Have a read of that mag.


----------



## Julia (18 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> Julia,
> 
> If you look at Techs post that I responded to to:
> 
> It was not sharing experiences and helping others who demonstrate some preparedness to show initiative. (Which I agree is a great thing) It was designed to insult the previous poster. I strongly suggest that life is not as black and white as indicated in the subsequent sermon.



That's a fair comment.  I agree that the language used was unnecessarily perjorative.  What I was referring to was not that particular post of Tech's but rather the many posts on many subjects he has made over the years which have been a genuine attempt to share his knowledge and experience.




> Not everyone has the educational and familial background, aptitude, skills or desire to be a hotshot businessperson



Perhaps your own language (e.g. "hotshot") could have been more tactful if that's what we're on about.  And you are right, not everyone does have the background to be successful.  But still, a lot of people with no good role modelling at all do manage to do very well indeed.  Why?  My answer would be purely and simply their attitude.  I think this is what Tech was attempting to point out.

And yes, as he has pointed out, Kris is a great example of this.  For years he moaned and whined about how it was all too hard, but now - although in actual dollar amounts there are people on this forum who have poked fun at him - that's just not the point.  He has *changed his attitude, has a goal, and is intent on reaching it.*





> This is what bean (albeit clumsily and simplistically) was alluding to I believe. It didn't warrant the slur that Tech dished out to him. Concern for our youth is not "loser" thinking, it is commendable.



I'm not making any comment about what bean has or hasn't said, but I do think it's simplistic and less than accurate to say that because the baby boomer generation are all wealthy and socially irresponsible (both these propositions imo are silly generalisations and not correct for most of the people I know) they are to blame for young people having difficulty getting their first houses.  What most people are also failing to mention is the inherited wealth that will be passed on to the next generations when the baby boomers (those of them who actually are wealthy) are dead.




> By all means support tech when he does good, but for heavens sake, don't reward bad behaviour.




I have explained above what I was supporting.
I am exasperated with being labelled wealthy, socially irresponsible, and uncaring because I am a baby boomer.
I can understand Tech becoming exasperated with similar comments and the whining which does go on from people who don't take advantage of what opportunities there are.  (Not meaning bean or anyone else in particular here.)
So sometimes - possibly as you have jumped on me here, Wayne, because you have a sore back and in the middle of other stressful stuff at present - 
we do just jump back and in the process use language which we could have modified.

Here endeth any defence of Tech-A.
Here also endeth my rant about baby boomer generalisations.

Julia


----------



## wayneL (18 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Perhaps your own language (e.g. "hotshot") could have been more tactful if that's what we're on about.



Perhaps it's because of my hybridized cultural beginnings and vernacular thereof, but "hotshot" is a complimentary colloquialism where I come from. If that word is deemed to be pejorative in this country, then it is simply a misunderstanding. I consider myself a hotshot, so how's that?



Julia said:


> I'm not making any comment about what bean has or hasn't said, but I do think it's simplistic and less than accurate to say that because the baby boomer generation are all wealthy and socially irresponsible (both these propositions imo are silly generalisations and not correct for most of the people I know) they are to blame for young people having difficulty getting their first houses.  What most people are also failing to mention is the inherited wealth that will be passed on to the next generations when the baby boomers (those of them who actually are wealthy) are dead.







Julia said:


> I have explained above what I was supporting.
> I am exasperated with being labelled wealthy, socially irresponsible, and uncaring because I am a baby boomer.
> I can understand Tech becoming exasperated with similar comments and the whining which does go on from people who don't take advantage of what opportunities there are.  (Not meaning bean or anyone else in particular here.)
> So sometimes - possibly as you have jumped on me here, Wayne, because you have a sore back and in the middle of other stressful stuff at present -
> ...




Julia[/QUOTE]

OK, maybe there is something else I have missed here. (there is, just re-read) the thread) I did not pick up that the thrust of the criticisms were directed at Boomers.

I also reject this notion. Though the Boomers have been the main beneficiaries of the recent economic conditions, it is not their fault in the slightest. ANY generation will capitalize on the opportunities put before them, Boomers, Xers, Yers, Zers or whoever.

My great gripe is with the primary institution, and those individuals within,  who are responsible for the rolling bubble conditions culminating in an unsustainable and sociologically deleterious house price bubble built on massive debt, and that is the US Federal Reserve (with the complicity of other western CBs).

In this sense, current generations will be handing on debt to the next. (but I repeat it is not their fault, group-think and social proof overpowers the logic of individuals) It is not just the boomers, but also the greatest generation, who came before them, and the Xers after them. We're all in it together.

So the choice now, is what we say to all our children and grandchildren:

1/ **** you, we're rich, or;
2/ We really need to address the current imbalances... urgently!

It's the individuals choice, because The Fed/Governments will attempt to keep blowing bubbles until Armageddon.

Most people choose option 1/, not necessarily because they are greedy, but because of a lack of understanding of macro-economic vectors over long terms. 

That leaves future generations to contend with either a landscape of overinflated asset prices, or the consequences of a severe correction of the same, perhaps both. Either way, the result will be surplus debt (in real terms), over and above what was expected of previous generations.

In conclusion, it's the CB's, not the Boomers.

Now regarding inheritances. It is true that many will benefit from the demise of their parents. Two points on that.

* Do we want a society where the fortunes of an individual will depend on inherited wealth, as was the case in agrarian Europe, or do we want to continue on with the principles of a meritocracy? By playing the inheritance card, we will be defaulting to a previous, harsher era. I certainly do not want to see that, a society where people will be so happy when the olds kick the bucket, dreadful thought.

* With todays longer lifespans, folks are waiting a long time for it. Most would be well into their 50s at that point. Not a realistic opportunity IMO.

So I will always choose 2/, even if at present, I am a minority.


----------



## tech/a (18 October 2007)

And how then would you address the problem what practical and feasable solutions do you suggest be considered Wayne?

I think if you consider it enough you'll find that any solution will create another problem.
But happy to see what you suggest.


----------



## wayneL (18 October 2007)

tech/a said:


> And how then would you address the problem what practical and feasable solutions do you suggest be considered Wayne?
> 
> I think if you consider it enough you'll find that any solution will create another problem.
> But happy to see what you suggest.



There is no "easy" way out of it from here. Will discuss a bit later.


----------



## robots (18 October 2007)

hello,

nothing to get out of, seriously

plenty of houses everywhere at affordable prices, and those who *save hard* and *work hard* just like our parents and grandparents before will enjoy the fruits

the hand out crew will still be around claiming things arent right, this doesnt follow my economic readings

thankyou

robots


----------



## wayneL (18 October 2007)

robots said:


> hello,
> 
> nothing to get out of, seriously
> 
> ...



As we now know you are an industry VI, we can safely ignore you as being biased.


----------



## BentRod (19 October 2007)

Hello,

I agree Wayne.

Thankyou.

Bentrodz.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 October 2007)

As I would never buy property for appreciation alone, *I would like to see prices drop considerably to make it affordable for younger potential buyers.*


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> It's not just the cost of credit (interest rates), it is more the availability of credit (lending criteria)... also the desirability of credit.
> 
> For e.g. Look at Japan, negligible rates, yet still a deflationary bust.





Wayne,

According to that cool economic guy in Hungary, Japan has been in and is still in and may still be in for the future, a prolonged bust - 17 years now. The effects need to be fully felt yet haven't. 

Money in the bank here is *dead.*


----------



## tech/a (19 October 2007)

Well no solutions yet.

*No different *to when I bought my first house earning $26/week.
Same scenario different yet similar numbers.
Same warnings,same waiting for a drop in prices,more concern about interest rates and affordability (Thats yet to come).

If you want to own a property or 2 then do something about it.
If you dont----stop whinging about why everything in the world makes it impossible for you to do so.


----------



## wayneL (19 October 2007)

tech/a said:


> Well no solutions yet.
> 
> *No different *to when I bought my first house earning $26/week.
> Same scenario different yet similar numbers.
> ...



(sigh)

We've been through this so many times, yet you default to the same logical fallacies.

***Look to other anglo housing markets to see what is happening. 

This has been discussed ad naseum... enough for people to do their own research. If you want to buy now, do it.

As far as I'm concerned, things are starting to happen as I suspected (with Oz lagging), and I'll just be waiting to see how it plays out. No more exercises in futility for me.

Ciao


----------



## theasxgorilla (19 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> As far as I'm concerned, things are starting to happen as I suspected (with Oz lagging), and I'll just be waiting to see how it plays out. No more exercises in futility for me.




I agree that the worlds financial economy is screwed at some point off into the future.  But Aust doesn't lag IMO, it leads.  While other economies based on R&D and manufacture and information technology are having their profits eroded away due to increasing competition from abroad, the Australian economy has seen the value of it's product grow and grow and grow.  And the barriers to entry for a commodities based economy like ours are about as good as they get...you get my drift?

If China goes all Keynesian on us during some form of financial crisis and the government steps in and turns production inward then demand could remain and resource based economies like Aust and Canada and Norway will weather the difficulties better than places like the US and the UK and Germany.

Australia is about the best place to be looking forward...and the goverment is planning even more tax cuts.


----------



## robots (19 October 2007)

hello,

yeah great stuff wayne,

it keeps going around because many want to get it, but not an average RE , people WANT a penthouse in the sky or acreage 5km out of a capital city

no affordability issue, so a couple on say 90-100k/pa cant buy a house or unit?

of course they can, people are deluded

save hard, work hard the best solution, the handout crew wouldnt except that

people should be given incentives to save, similar to gov co-contribution if choose purchase RE    

couple of thoughts

thankyou

robots


----------



## Flying Fish (19 October 2007)

theasxgorilla said:


> I agree that the worlds financial economy is screwed at some point off into the future.  But Aust doesn't lag IMO, it leads.  While other economies based on R&D and manufacture and information technology are having their profits eroded away due to increasing competition from abroad, the Australian economy has seen the value of it's product grow and grow and grow.  And the barriers to entry for a commodities based economy like ours are about as good as they get...you get my drift?
> 
> If China goes all Keynesian on us during some form of financial crisis and the government steps in and turns production inward then demand could remain and resource based economies like Aust and Canada and Norway will weather the difficulties better than places like the US and the UK and Germany.
> 
> Australia is about the best place to be looking forward...and the goverment is planning even more tax cuts.




I think wayne was referring to the housing market lagging behind the rest of the world with frespect to a drop in houses.


----------



## theasxgorilla (19 October 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> I think wayne was referring to the housing market lagging behind the rest of the world with frespect to a drop in houses.




I'm sure he was...but its all connected.  Why should Aust house prices fall because other parts of the world fall when the fundamental product we sell here is going up and up and up and price?  Taxes continue to fall and the currency is strong...shouldn't residing in such a country command a premium???


----------



## tech/a (19 October 2007)

theasxgorilla said:


> I'm sure he was...but its all connected.  Why should Aust house prices fall because other parts of the world fall when the fundamental product we sell here is going up and up and up and price?  Taxes continue to fall and the currency is strong...shouldn't residing in such a country command a premium???




Exactly.
Your at the station waiting for the train which is on a one way track a couple of stations in front of you.

People have been waiting for pricing to be "More affordable" for Decades.

There is to me ONE RULE.
When its cheaper to buy established housing/Commercial/Industrial R/E than it is to buy a block and Build it---then buy your heart out.
If not then buy for lifestyle NOT INVESTMENT.

There you go a PRACTICAL input into a benign discussion.

*(Hey just used the ASF Spell check---Brilliant!)*


----------



## Knobby22 (19 October 2007)

tech/a said:


> The "Other" poster,Baen is one of the most negative I've seen post here.
> 
> I dont pussy foot around in life,people know exactly where they and I stand on any issue.
> 
> ...





The solutions to helping the younger generations by getting property supply rising and allowing families to buy a home which are increasingly owned by investors is obvious...unfortunately there are no votes in it.

Negative gearing and depreciation claims should only apply for new properties (built off the plan).

The government should be building more low cost accomodation near transport infrastructure and should be building this infrastructure to a much higher level.

This would get the housing built and ensure investors invest productively to help the country.

However these would temporarily lower property prices by maybe 5-10%, therefore no politician will have the guts to face up to the property people who will kick up a stink - e.g. spruikers (real estate agents) and heavily geared investors. 

Tech/a would probably approve as he is a builder but someone like Julie would probably not and vote liberal to stop it. (I can only see Labor doing it and then only with amazement).


----------



## Julia (19 October 2007)

Knobby22 said:


> The solutions to helping the younger generations by getting property supply rising and allowing families to buy a home which are increasingly owned by investors is obvious...unfortunately there are no votes in it.
> 
> Negative gearing and depreciation claims should only apply for new properties (built off the plan).
> 
> ...



Knobby, I don't think we have a "Julie", so I assume you mean me, Julia, with the above statement?
Perhaps you could explain why you think I would be against the provision of cheaper housing to accommodate people who are currently finding it difficult to get into their own homes.   
On the contrary, I would be completely in favour of this happening and find your assertion a bit insulting.  It so happens I spend many hours of unpaid time assisting people in the category you are talking about via several different community programmes and probably have a greater appreciation than most people of how difficult some of their lives are.  Just one example:  for years I have lobbied my local MP for subsidised accommodation for people with a mental illness, ditto women escaping domestic violence, so that these folk are not forced to seek accommodation in miserable caravan parks where they are subject to more abuse.

I've also clearly stated on more than one occasion that I don't like the idea of tax cuts and would much prefer this money be spent on infrastructure which would promote social cohesion rather than exacerbate the current "I'm all right, Jack, so I don't give a **** about you".

So, if you could let me know where I've indicated that I would be against providing low cost housing, then I'd welcome the opportunity to set the record straight.

Julia


----------



## nizar (19 October 2007)

tech/a said:


> People have been waiting for pricing to be "More affordable" for Decades.




Though generally I agree with you, I read an article some time ago, that, as a multiple of annual income, median house prices are more expensive in Sydney now than they have ever been.

I also read that Australia, using the above ratio, has the worst housing affordability in all of the developed world.

No source though. Maybe others have read or heard the same.


----------



## krisbarry (19 October 2007)

Yep it is true, since records started being kept in the mid 80's, all evidence points towards 2007 being the most unafordable time to buy a house in Australia. Both locally, nationally and on a global scale, Australia is the pits!

Comparing average levels of wealth, average jobs, average suburbs, average house prices etc.

One suburb in Adelaide (the city of Hindmarsh) you need 11 X the average hindmarsh salary to buy a house in that same suburb.  Believe you me, the city of Hindmarsh, although close to the city is the pits to live in.  Its a flat ugly suburb.


----------



## krisbarry (19 October 2007)

But hey I am not allowed to complain anymore, cause it goes against my psycholigical well-being. 

*I CAN AFFORD A HOUSE....I will keep telling myself that*


----------



## Flying Fish (19 October 2007)

tech/a said:


> Exactly.
> Your at the station waiting for the train which is on a one way track a couple of stations in front of you.
> 
> People have been waiting for pricing to be "More affordable" for Decades.
> ...




Decades? I don't really thing so, a few years maybe. Plenty of affordable housing around in the 90's and lots of people got into realestate. 
I undesratnd what you say about sitting around idly, but I reckon a window of opportunity is fast approaching for those that have been patient and prudent and not been sucked in by all the media hype and scare tactics. Time will tell though......


----------



## krisbarry (19 October 2007)

Complaining about something, solves nothing....the end result of complaining is that nothing gets solved anyway. Whinging and whining actually adds to the problem and causes internal and external grief.  Which in turn feeds more anxiety, more fear, and more problems, and solves nothing to getting the result at which you wanted to achieve in the first place.

I am with Tech/a all the way, get out there solve the problem yourself.  Find a way into the market. No matter how wierd or wacky it may be. 

I know that I am doing the right thing, as so many people are passing judgement on me for doing the wrong thing.  That means I am succeding!

Here is to wealth building, in whatever way, shape, or form!


----------



## Flying Fish (19 October 2007)

Actually come to think of it, a good yacht costs about 150K. Lots more fun and you can up anchor anytime you like lol


----------



## nizar (19 October 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> Actually come to think of it, a good yacht costs about 150K. Lots more fun and you can up anchor anytime you like lol




LOL i don't know about your standards but you don't get much in a boat even for 700k


----------



## nioka (19 October 2007)

nizar said:


> LOL i don't know about your standards but you don't get much in a boat even for 700k




It would depend on whether or not you are a "boatie" or a "yachtie". There are plenty of good yachts for less than $100,000. Then there are house boats.


----------



## theasxgorilla (19 October 2007)

tech/a said:


> There is to me ONE RULE.
> When its cheaper to buy established housing/Commercial/Industrial R/E than it is to buy a block and Build it---then buy your heart out.
> If not then buy for lifestyle NOT INVESTMENT.




I buy for both!   Such is the delight of renovating beach side property in well-to-do areas!


----------



## BIG BWACULL (19 October 2007)

nioka said:


> It would depend on whether or not you are a "boatie" or a "yachtie". There are plenty of good yachts for less than $100,000. Then there are house boats.



This in the trading post 
 Roberts Adventure 25 Fibreglass Sloop    Popular Roberts Adventure 25ft Sloop, full fibreglass construction. 10hp Vetus diesel motor, rollerfurl genoa and good mainsail. Sleeps 4 in forward vee berth and 2 quarter berths. Wheel steer, all controls lead to cockpit. 2 burner spirit stove, 12v fridge/freezer plus icebox. Autopilot, sounder and new GPS chartplotter. Beautifully equipped and is a great single family yacht that can be sailed easily single handed. Has cruised to Whitsundays and to Tasmania., VGC $28000
Beggers cant be choosers :


----------



## greenfs (19 October 2007)

Following is a MUST READ report issued by Plan Australia a wholly owned subsidiary of Challenger Group, prepared and presented by its MD Alex Moulieris...

Each month we aim to update you on new projects, important information and any current industry issues, which we feel will be of interest and relevance to you.

This month's article focuses on the current financial market melt down - how and why it has happened and what it means for the future. 

Turmoil in the Mortgage Markets. What Happened?It has certainly been an exciting time in broker land lately with the financial markets melt down and its knock-on effect of waking up the politicians to broker regulation. Of course, the meltdown was a direct result of unregulated broker activity, as is global warming!! Over the last couple of weeks I have had many questions on the above but today I would like to talk about the financial markets as its impact is upon us right now. Most of the questions I have received regarding the state of our financial markets ask "what exactly happened" and "how did this happen" and of course "what's going to happen". I thought it may be useful to pull together and summarise some of the recent commentary on the subject and try and form a view of how we may be affected. 

This problem certainly demonstrates how globally intertwined our financial systems are. A problem that originates in the US through unprecedented mortgage defaults creates the collapse of mortgage origination firms and hedge funds and sends global equity markets into free fall. The upshot is that nobody wants to buy debt securities today without bigger risk margins, causing an increase to funding costs for all lenders including ours in Australia. 

How did this happen? It seems that many different but related factors came together to create this disaster. A US property boom which made home ownership difficult was made easier by sub-prime lenders freely extending substantial levels of credit to people who in reality had no capability of repaying the loans. These people may or may not have had a poor credit history but regardless did not have capacity to repay the quantums that they borrowed. These people were offered loans on low start up interest rates of 1 or 2% pa reverting to a standard rate after a couple of years. All this was underwritten not at the rate to which the loan reverted; rather it was underwritten based on the reduced honeymoon period rate. Add to that, the loans were typically fixed rate don't feel the recent impacts of 16 US interest rate rises taking rates to about 7% pa. 

When the mortgage reaches the end of its low interest rate start-up period it "resets". Of course at reset date these people have no way of meeting the new and higher repayment amount. The resets started to occur earlier this year and are continuing still now, in fact they will keep occurring until next year. Apparently there were some 7 million of these loans written! To magnify this problem further property prices have started to fall and any equity in these homes are beginning to disappear and in many cases moving into negative equity. 

Why has it affected us in Australia when we don't have a default problem? Without going into the complexities of the capital markets, global lenders to Australian banks or non-banks have been spooked by the issues in the US and as a consequence are either demanding greater "risk" premiums in the form of higher interest or indeed not lending at all. Essentially in an environment of fear and loss it is easier and safer to park money in cash or government bonds and wait. 

This phenomenon is not unique to RAMS or other non-bank lenders as all Australian banks and lenders these days securitise mortgages or raise money as corporate debt from the capital markets. If we have a look at the ABS stat's (see following table) it tells us that today only about 20% of a banks funding comes from their retail deposits hence all lending institutions are impacted in some form.

RAMS is an example of a local good quality Australian mortgage business that is in great shape one day and literally the next day has a serious funding problem. RAMS was funding the majority of their loan book on a short term basis when the markets collapsed and all the investors ran for cover. RAMS now has to replace short term funding along with its new loans with a higher cost source of funds. Investors who have come out of hiding now want a higher margin for the higher perceived risk. 

To illustrate this higher cost of funding Macquarie Bank earlier this month finalised the sale of a $500 million mortgage backed debt issue of which $485 million of AAA rated paper achieved a margin of 40 basis points or 0.40% over the 30 day swap rate, (being the rate that banks lend and borrow between each other). Six months ago the same paper was achieving a margin of 16 to 17 basis points. This means that the cost of wholesale funding is up 20 to 25 basis points. Similarly Westpac issued 1 billion of medium term notes the other week at a spread at 51 bpts versus 11 bpts, the historical levels. Add to that, the 30 day swap rate has increases to 40 bpts above the RBA cash rate from 12 bpts which means that all mortgages, bank and non-bank are now another 28 bpts higher as well. If I was to explain that graphically it is as follows and clearly shows that the current borrower rates are unsustainable as lenders are losing money.

So why haven't all institutions moved their rates yet? This is an interesting question because if we look at when the Reserve Bank lifts or lowers rates the banks are quick to pass on the interest rate rise or reduction. It is almost like there is an unwritten rule amongst them that when the Reserve Bank moves they all move uniformly and at the same rate. 

Under today's situation the same law doesn't seem to apply. We have seen some banks and non-banks move but the ‘Big 5' seem to be holding, presumably because each bank is concerned if they are the first to move and the others don't follow they will be competitively disadvantaged and also will be left out there alone to bear the fire of the media and the customer. 

This is not a good situation; I can't imagine what it is costing the banks while they are trying to work through this latest of margin erosion albeit ANZ has estimated the cost at around $20 - $25 million per month. I am very supportive of the banks moving rates to reflect the increased cost of funding and would be happy for us, their business partner, to help explain this to the customer. 

In fact the sooner the rate move is made the better because the event that is causing the problem is fresh in the mind of the general public right now so the explanation for the rise is easy communicated and understood. Secondly, how will a new borrower feel about the bank that repeatedly tells them that everything is OK with rates and then puts them up anyway, do you think the borrower will feel cheated? 

At the end of the day I do not want to bear the brunt of margin erosion that we would be happy to assist alleviate by helping to explain the facts to borrowers and thereby making its passage easier. 

What is the lending environment going to look like after all of this? 

We will certainly see the end of heavily discounted sub-prime and low-doc lending. We have over the past couple of years been in an unusual period where higher risk lending has been priced at near prime rates. As such we should not view the repricing of credit that is happening or about to happen as unjust but rather back to where it should have been. Investors will slowly re-emerge, they need to invest, and mortgages are still good investments but in future they will price them more carefully for risk. 

For the standard full doc borrower I expect rates will be higher as well but not to the extent of the riskier end. Overall, the market will re-emerge with logical and sustainable risk/reward pricing albeit a number of smaller under capitalized players may well disappear through this period.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 October 2007)

Julia said:


> So, if you could let me know where I've indicated that I would be against providing low cost housing, then I'd welcome the opportunity to set the record straight.
> 
> Julia




I meant as a property investor who would lose money if this was implemented and I I used you as an example of a property investor which is why I said "like" as in someone who is a serious property investor who would definitely lose money.

I wrote this quickly. It was foolish in that I know you are a very feeling person and not a standard property investor and I shouldn't have used your name and I am ashamed I did.

Changing the tax laws would automatically lower rent costs and provide housing for the average family. It would also lower housing prices! For this reason it won't happen.


----------



## krisbarry (19 October 2007)

tech/a said:


> Exactly.
> Your at the station waiting for the train which is on a one way track a couple of stations in front of you.
> 
> People have been waiting for pricing to be "More affordable" for Decades.




I like the above quote, I guess it depends how often or if at all that the trains run don't you think?  

No point standing around at a station waiting for the trains to arrive when the tracks are warped and rusty. Build a new line, find a new path etc etc.


----------



## wayneL (19 October 2007)

tech/a said:


> Exactly.
> Your at the station waiting for the train which is on a one way track a couple of stations in front of you.
> 
> People have been waiting for pricing to be "More affordable" for Decades.



Absolute rubbish! Affordability is measured via a number of vectors. A mean level can be determined thereof, whereby relative value may be determined. At the mean level or below, we can safely say that these are the times when housing is most affordable. Value tends to, and has, oscillated around this relative mean value and has done so over the last decades referred to; housing was very affordable only a few short years ago.

To say people have been "waiting for decades" is demonstrably wrong and flies in the face of logic and observation. It's a throw away line that should... be thrown away.



Stop_the_clock said:


> *Complaining about something, solves nothing....the end result of complaining is that nothing gets solved anyway. Whinging and whining actually adds to the problem and causes internal and external grief.*  Which in turn feeds more anxiety, more fear, and more problems, and solves nothing to getting the result at which you wanted to achieve in the first place.
> 
> I am with Tech/a all the way, get out there solve the problem yourself.  Find a way into the market. No matter how wierd or wacky it may be.
> 
> ...




The other fallacious argument... an enormous non-sequitur in fact, is that people who have made an economic decision not to buy at current valuation, are losers and whingers.

I find this curious from and amateur psychologists perspective. I think it betrays some sort of psychological pathology which I am only prepared to speculate on in private. But nevertheless, it is offensive.

Buy housing now = winner.
Defer housing purchase = loser.

... is such simplistic argument to the point of being asinine, and ignores a range of other circumstances and strategies an individual  may be involved in.

e.g. I made purchases several years ago, sold one and concentrated on paying off the other two, all of these are in the UK where there were (at the time) far superior yields, and as it turns out, ludicrous capital gains. (These I have spoken of before here on the forum)

However, I prefer to NOT make any purchases in the current market and utilize my capital in other ways. Am I a loser or a whinger for stating my case?  Of course not.

I wish people would just debate on the economic merits of their argument, instead of indulging in this totally puerile and amateurish schoolboy mind game.

As there appears to be no prospect of that, I'm over and out, I have boxes to pack.


----------



## tech/a (19 October 2007)

> To say people have been "waiting for decades" is demonstrably wrong and flies in the face of logic and observation




Really!

So everyone has their house and or an IP or two.
There are many of those people who thought housing was expensive THEN thinking that housing is ridiculous NOW. They will be thinking exactly the same in 10 yrs time. Perhaps there is some psychology there that need be investigated for some

On Wayne's reply to Stop.

My point is look for opportunity if you haven't got one.
There aren't any there?
With your capital base and locked up capital gain I'd be suggesting exactly the same to you. Theres a severe rental shortage and sad lack of high density low cost living. (Just an inside tip

Yes your right you can invest in other things just as Stop has.
Again well done Kris. Your on your way.



> I wish people would just debate on the economic merits of their argument, instead of indulging in this totally puerile and amateurish schoolboy mind game.




And you seriously think I have an ego problem.
I'm a real person not some amateur pompous snob.(Speaking of course for myself).


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> There is no "easy" way out of it from here. Will discuss a bit later.




Actually Wayne I would love to hear your thoughts on this. 
I am being genuine by the way.


----------



## theasxgorilla (19 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> e.g. I made purchases several years ago, sold one and concentrated on paying off the other two, all of these are in the UK where there were (at the time) far superior yields, and as it turns out, ludicrous capital gains. (These I have spoken of before here on the forum)




And lets not forget the glorious purchasing power of the pound...you'll enjoy your eurotrips paying cents in the dollar, or should I say pence in the pound, for accomodation, dining, car hire etc. on the continent.


----------



## theasxgorilla (19 October 2007)

tech/a said:


> There are many of those people who thought housing was expensive THEN thinking that housing is ridiculous NOW. They will be thinking exactly the same in 10 yrs time.




What makes you say this tech?

Beyond the tag line, 'property always goes up'...is there some macro-eco insight you might have into why this is going to be the case in 2017??

ASX.G


----------



## Julia (19 October 2007)

Knobby22 said:


> I meant as a property investor who would lose money if this was implemented and I I used you as an example of a property investor which is why I said "like" as in someone who is a serious property investor who would definitely lose money.
> 
> I wrote this quickly. It was foolish in that I know you are a very feeling person and not a standard property investor and I shouldn't have used your name and I am ashamed I did.
> 
> Changing the tax laws would automatically lower rent costs and provide housing for the average family. It would also lower housing prices! For this reason it won't happen.



Oh, I see.  Thanks for explaining that, Knobby.  Now I understand what you were getting at and agree with what you say.

Btw, although I have had investment property that was some years ago.
I wouldn't have it at present with returns so low and so little capital gain in recent years.  I guess the number of people feeling the same way is part of the reason rental stock is so limited and consequently rents rising exponentially.  More and more people who will never have any chance of buying a home are now also being priced out of the rental market.


----------



## robots (19 October 2007)

hello,

i will give you part of it, Krudd 07 holding a laptop up saying everyone will have this tool,

labour shortage in the building industry is massive, material cost has increased greatly, raw materials

i believe replacement/new construction cost therefore impacts existing RE value

have friends who have left office/admin jobs, reasonable income, now working part time in building and earning double the money

property trusts/developers holding massive amounts of land, these guys have gone from paying tradies in 30-60 days to paying in 14 days 

cant see much changing for a long long time

thankyou

robots


----------



## Flying Fish (19 October 2007)

robots said:


> hello,
> 
> i will give you part of it, Krudd 07 holding a laptop up saying everyone will have this tool,
> 
> ...




So you are suggesting that no trade qualifications are needed to work in the building industry? Does this mean anyone can walk into one of these high paid jobs?.... A little disconcerting wouldn't you think?


----------



## Flying Fish (19 October 2007)

robots said:


> hello,
> 
> i will give you part of it, Krudd 07 holding a laptop up saying everyone will have this tool,
> 
> ...




I agree though. Lets dumb down this country, burn all our resource shaft every piece of land, borrow to the hilt.. basicially become a nation of non-thinking robotoids. lol


----------



## robots (19 October 2007)

hello,

if you turn up, are reliable, good worker, hard worker, would eliminate all the handout crew from ASF

go for it, isnt it cashed up bogans, it definitely is

thaankyou

robots


----------



## Flying Fish (19 October 2007)

What is a bogan?

BOGAN (pronunciation boe-gn) is a term used primarily in Australia to describe a particular section of the working class demographic.  This derogatory slang word is a gender-neutral noun; this being important as many bogans tend to gravitate towards one another forming relationships and extended families.  A bogan family is not an uncommon phenomena in certain regions.  A bogan typically resides in either a low-cost housing estate, government housing or in the outlying regional areas of continental Australia.  Generally bogans tend to congregate in areas with little or no features & amenities.

Generally the bogan fits a particular stereotypical image.  The perception of what actually constitutes a bogan has been shaped over the years primarily by the media; notable especially are television programs such as Channel 7's Today Tonight and Channel 9's A Current Affair .  These programs regularly feature stories of harrowing boganism- including communities under siege from bogan terrorism, and bogans "rorting the system" in relation to welfare benefits and questionable practices.  A number of comedy programs have also featured bogans in the past, prime examples being Kylie Mole of The Comedy Company, Poida (bogan pronunciation of the name "Peter") played by Eric Bana, and more recently Bloke Man of the Comedy Inc late shift.  Eric Bana's portrayal of the character Poida gained him accolades within the industry and effectively launched his professional acting career.  This is one of very few examples of extreme boganism leading to success & wealth.

So now we have a basic understanding of the bogan, we may delve further into the mysterious world of mullets and long-kneck beer bottles in brown paper bags. Traits of the bogan can be summarised by the following points:

• A pronounced lack of dress sense in social situations.  Typical bogan attire consists of a flannelette shirt, King Gee stubbie shorts (either blue/khaki), torn or soiled jeans from the 1980's or earlier, and of course double-plug standard issue white thong sandals with black rubber.  A bogan's dress sense is not influenced by intended destination/occasion hence the line between workwear and formal wear is often hazy at best.  On rare occasions bogans may be spotted wearing enclosed shoes when entering the local RSL to "have a slap on the pokies" or to "get pissed wif me mates on the veebs (VB)".  A female bogan will usually wear a matching ensemble usually consisting of second-hand fashions or products purchased from the discount retail chains Best and Less or Big W.

• A lack of personal hygiene.  A bogan will often allow his/her hair to grow into an attractive style named the "mullet" as popularised in the 1980's.  A hair cut is a rare event for the bogan, and most styling occurs when the razor is brought out to either a) produce a "skinhead" style cut or b) a "frullet" (front-mullet).  Similar styles apply for females, however the female bogan frequently colours her hair auburn.  The bogan bathroom usually contains a bar of multi-purpose soap used to both cleaning the family, washing the hair, styling the hair and manicures/pedicures.  Whilst most non-bogans will use Eau de Toilette spray as a perfume, the most common boganistic fragrance is "Odour of Toilet".  The bogan frequently rosters showers at irregular intervals such as once a week for males and twice for females.

• Distinct vocabulary.  The bogan language is somewhat foreign to most English-speaking people.  For example in boaglish, the word "shooting" would be pronounced as "shootun".  Similarly, the word "look out" is pronounced as "look eet".  The boaglish alphabet does not contain the letters "i" or "g", hence the pronunciation of words containing the suffix -ing are simply pronounced -un.  Examples include "rootun" (rooting), "fishun" (fishing) and the common phrase "where's me ****un beer woman" (what is the current location of my alcoholic beverage dearest female partner).  The boaglish vocabulary is mostly limited to frequent curse-words and miss-pronunciation of common English words.  A common bogan trait also includes shortening words.  Locations such as the Wyong Leagues Club become the "leaguesy", the Crown Casino becomes the "leaguesy" and females/males such as Sharon/Barry become "Shaz" and "Baz".

• A particular choice in motor vehicle.  The bogan usually drives one of two makes of vehicle.  Typically this is either a Holden or a Ford .  Common bogan variants manufactured by each of these companies include the Holden Commodore (VB-VP models), Holden Kingswood and the Ford Falcon (all models up to the recent EF).  Other well known bogan vehicles include early model Datsuns and Toyotas .  Bogan accessories include anything HSV/HRT for Holdens, and FPV/FTR for Fords.  These vehicles tend to be more prevalent on the roads whilst the V8 supercar races are being held.  Drivers often attempt to imitate in heavy traffic their heroes Skaifey (Mark Skaife) and Ambrose (Marcos Ambrose).  Bogan vehicles are rarely detailed, and are serviced even less frequently.  Most bogan drivers hold animosity towards imported vehicles "farken rice" and are still bitter that the Nissan Skyline beat the Holden and Ford racing teams at Bathurst in the early 90's.  Consequently, many bogans believe their VN Commodore has the ability to beat anything with the badge "Ferrari", "Nissan", "BMW M3" or "Pagani".  Click here for examples of bogan vehicles.

• Choice in music.  The bogan prefers either metal or pub rock.  A bogan would suggest that the song Khe Sanh by Cold Chisel would be a more appropriate national anthem than Advance Australia Fair.  AC/DC is also a popular choice.  Anything Barnesy. Midnight Oil is another classic example of the bogan genre.

• Employment status.  The common bogan is either a) not employed or b) a tradesman/labourer.  A bogan employee can be spotted kitted up in a fluorescent vest or polo shirt.  Unemployed bogans often frequent RSL's/clubs for discount lunches during the day, before continuing on to the local Centrelink office to receive the hard-earned cash of the tax-paying public.  This will be followed by a journey to the most convenient bottle shop ("bottlo") to purchase 2x24 cartons ("slabs") of Victoria Bitter ("Veebs") for $60.  Also included in this purchase is the all-important packet of Winfield Reds ("Smokes").  The rest of this pension money is budgeted towards the "pokies" at the local pub.

• A poorly-maintained house or unit.  As previously mentioned, the bogan often resides in regions of a lower socio-economic standing.  Basically, in most cases the bogan is located some way inland from a coastal fringe or major waterway.  In the case of Sydney, this has lead to the term "westie" being coined in order to distinguish the boganistic population of the inland western suburbs from the more affluent residents of the east.  In the case of NSW/QLD and Victoria, the majority of bogans are located on or west of the Great Dividing Range.  Whilst this is not always the case, it is important to note that the concentration of bogans per capita is somewhat higher in these areas.  The bogan house usually consists of a number of elements (see below):

   1. The bedroom (for rootun).
   2. The balcony (for smokun/shootun).
   3. The livun room (for watchun telly/smokun/gettun pissed).
   4. The kitchen (for storun beer).
   5. The combined bathroom/laundry (for washun ****) .
   6. The shed (for rootun/smokun/shootun/gettun pissed/storun beer/workun on the commo).

All-in-all the bogan is seen as a top bloke by his mates, but is a menace to the rest of society.  Our bogan awareness campaign aims to expose the secrets of the bogan by delving into previously uncharted territory.... n ****


----------



## tech/a (20 October 2007)

theasxgorilla said:


> What makes you say this tech?
> 
> Beyond the tag line, 'property always goes up'...is there some macro-eco insight you might have into why this is going to be the case in 2017??
> 
> ASX.G




Much in this thread to reply to.
*ASX*
I agree with others here that there is always a shortage of housing and always a shortage of trades.
Government regulates supply in release of land for developement.
No land no housing industry.Squeeze available land quell demand and increase house prices.Release land and the opposite.
Of course regulation of demand can also be gained through slowing growth (In all sectors) by increasing interest rates.

House prices dont come off just the affordability. Which is what Wayne and some others are alluding to. Current affordability isnt far off the Norm or median.




Note the greatest influence on affordability is the Interest rate bubble in the 80s.
Look at the opportunity for Perth and Adelaide back in 2005.

So in answer to ASX.
Government will regulate both availability and Interest rates.
The trade situation wont get any better.
Demand will NOT decrease,but there will be fluctuations from time to time.
Infact those fluctuations are likely to be to the up side.

Dont forget australia has such a small population and such an enormous potential to meet this massive demand for rescources. We arent going to answer this challenge solely from within.Population has to grow from outside and with it an increase of demand not seen.
The flow through effect on business throughout Australia will be enormous and the knock on effect will be felt in wages,inflation and affordability of most everything not just limited to housing.

In 10 yrs time in fact far less.
Now will be seen as the greatest time for opportunity.
As will 3 yrs time as was 3 yrs ago.

Affordability will ebb and flow but the asset it self will remain high in demand and as difficult to break into now as it was then and will be in the future.

Take a look at the graph above.
Take Sydney in 89 Affordability 80% of the wage.
What were house prices then and what are they now.
Had you found a way to afford property even at the worst time in that graph and held it today the % of wage NOW in that same property would be very very small.Yet the gain is enormous.(Worse case shown as the example).Pain then pleasure 10 yrs later and hardship deminished in a few years.
*We arent there now*



> So you are suggesting that no trade qualifications are needed to work in the building industry? Does this mean anyone can walk into one of these high paid jobs?.... A little disconcerting wouldn't you think?




Pretty well.
You only need the principal to hold the liciencing.Supervisory staff are the hardest to find.Labourers are on $20-$30/hr working in my company an average of 50 hrs a week. I still need more!
Training comes from within,I cant just advertise and have workers fully trained in civil construction answering ads!
Its not going to get any easier,has been the same for 25 yrs,I had the same complaints then as now. Disconcerning--you bet. Not just from a consumer view but for those involved in satisfying the demand---the employers.




> property trusts/developers holding massive amounts of land, these guys have gone from paying tradies in 30-60 days to paying in 14 days




Never a truer word spoken.
We *DEMAND* 14 days. If we dont get it you dont get us.
I wont quote figures for fear of being labelled an egotisit AGAIN.
But we price Massive amounts of work and are very selective on what we even price. If its *NOT* cream we wont even look at it.Our hit rate is terrible (29%) but we are at full capacity and increase our construction crews regularly to attempt to meet demand. We could be far more competitive as could our competition but none of us need to.


----------



## Kathmandu (21 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Oh, I see.  Thanks for explaining that, Knobby.  Now I understand what you were getting at and agree with what you say.
> 
> Btw, although I have had investment property that was some years ago.
> I wouldn't have it at present with returns so low and so little capital gain in recent years.  I guess the number of people feeling the same way is part of the reason rental stock is so limited and consequently rents rising exponentially.  More and more people who will never have any chance of buying a home are now also being priced out of the rental market.




I take it that that would be from a Sydney point of view (other parts of the nation have and still are experiencing spectacular cap growth )

If thats the case there is plenty of affordable accomadation in Western Sydney,($250-$300k) just people choose not to live there.

I'm not sure if there is an affordability crisis, more an *asspirational* crisis

Dave


----------



## Flying Fish (21 October 2007)

Btw, although I have had investment property that was some years ago.
I wouldn't have it at present with returns so low and so little capital gain in recent years. I guess the number of people feeling the same way is part of the reason rental stock is so limited and consequently rents rising exponentially. More and more people who will never have any chance of buying a home are now also being priced out of the rental market.

So if one cant afford to buy cant afford to rent, where are all these people living./ going. How many housing commision houses does the government have? Anyone got an idea? I also heard you could buy commisioin houses.


----------



## robots (24 October 2007)

hello,

seems to be the case kathmandu, penthouse in the sky first up

artilce today:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22624505-25658,00.html

just interesting that housing starts so low yet wages in construction and worker shortgage so great

steady as she goes for a long time

thankyou

robots


----------



## Flying Fish (24 October 2007)

CPI 3.1 ... Is this good?


----------



## robots (24 October 2007)

hello,

perfect

thankyou

robots


----------



## Julia (24 October 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> Btw, although I have had investment property that was some years ago.
> I wouldn't have it at present with returns so low and so little capital gain in recent years. I guess the number of people feeling the same way is part of the reason rental stock is so limited and consequently rents rising exponentially. More and more people who will never have any chance of buying a home are now also being priced out of the rental market.
> 
> So if one cant afford to buy cant afford to rent, where are all these people living./ going. How many housing commision houses does the government have? Anyone got an idea? I also heard you could buy commisioin houses.




Flying Fish,

The first paragraph of your post is a direct quote from one of my previous posts.  It's fine for you to reply to something I have said, but unless you click on "Quote" at the bottom right of the post  which will bring up my previous post in Italics and make it clear what I have said and what you have said, then please don't just copy it so that it appears to all be what you are saying.

You haven't even put quotation marks around my words, neither have you referred to it being a quote from anyone at all!!!

In answer to your question:  there are simply a growing number of homeless people, people living in grotty caravan parks instead of houses/apartments, living with relatives, or spending the money on rent but being unable to buy enough food/petrol/clothing/prescription charges etc.  An additional difficulty is the rising cost of utilities (electricity/gas etc).
If you are getting an unemployment benefit of about $200 p.w. and rent is almost that, there simply isn't enough to live on.


----------



## Flying Fish (25 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Flying Fish,
> 
> The first paragraph of your post is a direct quote from one of my previous posts.  It's fine for you to reply to something I have said, but unless you click on "Quote" at the bottom right of the post  which will bring up my previous post in Italics and make it clear what I have said and what you have said, then please don't just copy it so that it appears to all be what you are saying.
> 
> ...




Oh I am sorry. I forgot the quotes, but by reading the post one would have gleaned that I was quoting someone else, given that the two paragraphs did not string together.


----------



## krisbarry (2 November 2007)

Just to top off the working week, my super account balance now stands at over $62,000 

Looks like I can layby that McMansion after all


----------



## Julia (2 November 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Just to top off the working week, my super account balance now stands at over $62,000
> 
> Looks like I can layby that McMansion after all




After today, STC, you might need to order it with smaller rooms and maybe cut out the sauna and gym.


----------



## krisbarry (4 November 2007)

Four walls and a roof is all I need, the rest can wait.  

But I do drive past these Mcmansions on a daily basis and notice that many have up to 4 split system air-cons attached to them.  What a dopey design these dog boxes are!  


*WE LIVE IN AUSTRALIA PEOPLES...PLEASE DESIGN AND PURCHASE MORE APPROPRIATE HOUSING.*

...and we wonder why the globe is burning up and the polar ice caps are melting


----------



## Julia (4 November 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Four walls and a roof is all I need, the rest can wait.
> 
> But I do drive past these Mcmansions on a daily basis and notice that many have up to 4 split system air-cons attached to them.  What a dopey design these dog boxes are!
> 
> ...



You are quite right about this.  Here in Qld they continue to build houses without insulation and with shallow eaves.  Good insulation, correct design to catch prevailing breezes, plus deep verandahs would eliminate the need for air conditioning.


----------



## krisbarry (4 November 2007)

About bloody time!!!!!!!!!

*Home buyer tax breaks*

KEVIN Rudd has promised to set up special bank accounts to help first home buyers save a deposit, with $4bn in tax breaks if Labor wins the election.

Labor has identified housing affordability as one of the key economic issues of the campaign. He has said the plan would help young people get a foothold in the property market. 

Super plan 

Mr Rudd has said he would announce full details of Labor's plan to tackle housing affordability later today. But he has said the scheme would be similar to superannuation. 

"We are going to introduce first home buyer saver accounts that will provide taxation incentives for young people in particular to save the deposit on their first home," Mr Rudd said on the Nine Network today. 

"It will make a big difference in terms of the amount of money they can save over time so they can get out of the rent trap, save for a deposit and get into home ownership. 

"We believe that if you can provide tax incentives to help people to save early, similar to what we currently provide for people saving for superannuation, then if you do that for a fixed period of time you provide a real tax difference for people in the amount that they can save," he said. 

He said Labor's plan would give young people billions of dollars worth of savings. 

"If we put our money on the table in terms of tax revenue forgone for the commonwealth, our calculation is, over three or four years, we can accumulate something like three or four billion dollars worth of extra savings by young people." 

Earlier in the federal election campaign, Mr Rudd outlined a plan to force Commonwealth departments to account for public land that could otherwise be opened up for development to create housing supply.


----------



## numbercruncher (4 November 2007)

OMG a (potential) government that actually cares about the welfare of its younger voters/citizens.

scary.


----------



## robots (4 November 2007)

hello,

http://www.kevin07.com.au/news/cost...s-larger-deposits-and-higher-national-sa.html

dont think that will change too much, people dont save anyway, thats the major problem

thankyou

robots


----------



## tech/a (4 November 2007)

So lets see how generous it is.

Interest on anything saved is taxed at 15% WOW!

Lets say you save $10,000 interest over the year say $400
Tax instead of 38% only 15% a saving of around $100 + or minus a bit.

Just read the report there are a few more $$s in it but bugger all.

*Whoppie*



*How about getting serious *with Government loans for first home buyers FIXED for the term of the loan at 5%



Typical political garbage.


----------



## nioka (4 November 2007)

tech/a said:


> So lets see how generous it is.
> 
> Interest on anything saved is taxed at 15% WOW!
> 
> ...




As I see it the first $5000 deposited to a home savings account will be taxed at the rate of 15%. For a couple that could be $10,000. This could be worth quite a bit for some couples and it could be an incentive to save for a home.


----------



## theasxgorilla (4 November 2007)

Julia said:


> You are quite right about this.  Here in Qld they continue to build houses without insulation and with shallow eaves.  Good insulation, correct design to catch prevailing breezes, plus deep verandahs would eliminate the need for air conditioning.




What about basements....why don't we build basements in Australia?  Surely the best room in the house as far as keeping cool.


----------



## numbercruncher (4 November 2007)

theasxgorilla said:


> What about basements....why don't we build basements in Australia?  Surely the best room in the house as far as keeping cool.





Exactly! I reckon we should build entire houses underground, (all that left over dirt can be dumped into those holes in the ground that our entire economy is based on )


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Exactly! I reckon we should build entire houses underground, (all that left over dirt can be dumped into those holes in the ground that our entire economy is based on )




Don`t forget the bilge pump.


----------



## tech/a (4 November 2007)

nioka said:


> As I see it the first $5000 deposited to a home savings account will be taxed at the rate of 15%. For a couple that could be $10,000. This could be worth quite a bit for some couples and it could be an incentive to save for a home.





Add it up its peanuts.

5% over 30 yrs. Now THATS a saving.
That means less foreclosures.
That means people wont get in over their head.
That means they CAN afford their home.
That means less divorce
That means less problems with young adults.
That means they CAN see AND BUILD a future.

I don't care which party is in power they are all interested in power,money and control.
*Not* you and me!

Once in they pass what they like when they like and forget what they like when they like.

Garrett's not far off the mark,only difference is that he's dumb enough to joke about it! (Oh and people will vote the likes of him into a position of power. He actually thinks we are idiots and we will fall for his frankness as a silly GAFF).

Look after yourself people no one else will!!!


----------



## Julia (4 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Exactly! I reckon we should build entire houses underground, (all that left over dirt can be dumped into those holes in the ground that our entire economy is based on )




No need to go that far.  Have a basement by all means, but there's no way I'm going to live without daylight coming in.


----------



## nioka (4 November 2007)

tech/a said:


> Add it up its peanuts.
> 
> 5% over 30 yrs. Now THATS a saving.
> That means less foreclosures.
> ...



 Why not both . A savings scheme to force some savings with the reward of the fixed interest as a bonus. Use the futures fund to finance it and let the public service super be funded like the rest of us, out of their contributions.


----------



## numbercruncher (4 November 2007)

Julia said:


> No need to go that far.  Have a basement by all means, but there's no way I'm going to live without daylight coming in.




Just install a bunch of skylights or windows in the roof/ground level 

Id love to have an underground house, would still have to have an above ground gargage/shed though!


----------



## theasxgorilla (5 November 2007)

Julia said:


> No need to go that far.  Have a basement by all means, but there's no way I'm going to live without daylight coming in.




You can build 1/2 or 1/3 height windows which let in ample natural light so that you don't feel like you're living in a cave.    Even in Sweden during the summers it can be quite hot and my basement keeps its cool temperature even when its 30 deg outside.  I find it very wrong that we import the narrow or non-existent eaves from house designs in this part of the world but we don't import the one idea that makes the most sense.  Stick your TV room and/or a bedroom or two down in the basement and save on cooling costs.  Better than trying to cool the upper floors of a poorly designed and insulated McMansion.


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 November 2007)

There is also the option of transporting the human organism outside the dwelling to the shade of a coolabah tree or other open shaded space.


----------



## Whiskers (5 November 2007)

The way I see it the savings will be worth while.

Say a person is on a $40,000 salary, and they save $5,000 per year the tax saving would be about $750.

Tax on $40,000 = $7,350

Tax on $35,000 = $5850
$5,000 @ 15%  = $750
     Total ............ = $6,600     

Given that it says you can claim a $5,000 depoist each year that will soon add up to a reasonable saving. Better than a poke ion the eye.

But granted, the tax concession on the interest part is only about $10.00 after the first year.



> Savings with Labor’s First Home Saver Account will receive preferential tax treatment in two key ways compared to ordinary savings accounts:
> 
> *Savers will be eligible for a low tax rate of 15 per cent on the first $5000 of income they deposit in their account each year - rather than the ordinary tax rate they would pay.
> 
> *Interest earned will be taxed at 15 per cent or less.


----------



## tech/a (5 November 2007)

Whiskers said:


> The way I see it the savings will be worth while.
> 
> Say a person is on a $40,000 salary, and they save $5,000 per year the tax saving would be about $750.
> 
> ...




Loan $250,000
Average 3.5%/Yr Saving with a fixed 5%/Yr loan over 30 yrs.
$262,500.

$262,500, or $6,600---hmmm.

They wont do it as it would add to inflation--create massive demand for housing---youd have first home buyers using the equity in their 5% / Yr interest rate homes to secure IP's.----You'd have them buying a second home and renting the first for a profit.---it would get so tied up in beuracratic red tape and policing the smarties it would cost AUST far more than it would benifit.

see where I'm going here.
They *DONT WANT *everyone to afford a house!!


----------



## Knobby22 (5 November 2007)

If they want housing to be more affordable then remove the tax breaks from exisiting homes. It is a distortion to the market and free marketeers would say it shouldn't exisit.


----------



## tech/a (5 November 2007)

Knobby22 said:


> If they want housing to be more affordable then remove the tax breaks from existing homes. It is a distortion to the market and free marketeers would say it shouldn't exist.





Knobby.
Who would then build high density affordable Unit apartment rentals?
This would simply exacerbate the situation.

I'm interested in how you can justify that housing could or would be cheaper/more affordable by removing tax breaks?
Just cant see how this can be applied as a benefit to new home buyers.

By the way in the US all interest on your housing loan even your place of residence was and as far as I know is tax deductible.
So rather than scrap the deductions just widen them!


----------



## professor_frink (5 November 2007)

Knobby22 said:


> If they want housing to be more affordable then remove the tax breaks from exisiting homes. It is a distortion to the market and free marketeers would say it shouldn't exisit.




That's the second time recently that I've heard this mentioned as a possible solution to the affordability issue.

It would be great to hear exactly how this would work. Didn't it get attempted in the 80's and was a big failure


----------



## Shane Baker (5 November 2007)

One way to slow down the growth in housing might be to introduce  a sliding capital gains system on all housing including PPOR. It might take the line of tax free gains after ten years...thus making holding long term stock more attractive and possibly increasing the rental stock available. The capital gains tax would be at marginal rate until five years and then a sliding scale to nothing after ten or so years. This would reduce turnover and volume in the upgrading PPOR market (a major source of price increases rather than investors) and increase the long term availability of stock as investors would be more interested in improving their CGT situation by buying and holding rather than trading. 

Cheers

Shane


----------



## krisbarry (5 November 2007)

Instead of the government setting up new accounts, just like super, why not use peoples exsisting super accounts.  Payments made to super accounts that are *voluntary payments only* could be used to purchase houses.  None of the 9% compulsory super could be touched only additional payments.


----------



## tech/a (5 November 2007)

Shane Baker said:


> One way to slow down the growth in housing might be to introduce  a sliding capital gains system on all housing including PPOR. It might take the line of tax free gains after ten years...thus making holding long term stock more attractive and possibly increasing the rental stock available. The capital gains tax would be at marginal rate until five years and then a sliding scale to nothing after ten or so years. This would reduce turnover and volume in the upgrading PPOR market (a major source of price increases rather than investors) and increase the long term availability of stock as investors would be more interested in improving their CGT situation by buying and holding rather than trading.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Shane




Some workable ideas here Shane.
I can see an issue however with available stock being held meaning a constant shortage of established property.
However the ideas above dont generally and directly benifit the 1st home buyer.


----------



## nioka (5 November 2007)

Shane Baker said:


> One way to slow down the growth in housing might be to introduce  a sliding capital gains system on all housing including PPOR. It might take the line of tax free gains after ten years...thus making holding long term stock more attractive and possibly increasing the rental stock available. The capital gains tax would be at marginal rate until five years and then a sliding scale to nothing after ten or so years. This would reduce turnover and volume in the upgrading PPOR market (a major source of price increases rather than investors) and increase the long term availability of stock as investors would be more interested in improving their CGT situation by buying and holding rather than trading.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Shane




The big drawback would be for someone who has to move and wants to sell and buy again. They pay out plenty in stamp duties, convevancing, moving exes, new loan establishment fees etc as it is and to have to pay CGT on top could make it impossible to buy back in somewhere else.


----------



## nioka (5 November 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Instead of the government setting up new accounts, just like super, why not use peoples exsisting super accounts.  Payments made to super accounts that are *voluntary payments only* could be used to purchase houses.  None of the 9% compulsory super could be touched only additional payments.



Send that one off to Rudd and Howard. Good idea.


----------



## Happy (5 November 2007)

nioka said:


> Send that one off to Rudd and Howard. Good idea.




 With a safeguard for super-money including profit / loss, should the property be sold.

But 9% super is not enough in a first place, unless you just want to have some money for coffin and funeral arrangements.


----------



## Knobby22 (5 November 2007)

tech/a said:


> Knobby.
> Who would then build high density affordable Unit apartment rentals?
> This would simply exacerbate the situation.
> 
> ...




How it would work is very simple.

If you are building new buildings - such as high density apartments- then you would get the tax breaks. I wouldn't mind if they were enhanced!  However you don't get the tax breaks if you are not (1) buying /off the plan or (2) the first person to buy the house/apartment off the builder.

This would (1) discourage investors buying up the best inner city property lowering demand and (2) would cause much more activity in the building sector which would greatly increase supply. 

Simple. It would be good for builders. People who already have bought property under the existing arrangements could keep their negative gearing and other tax breaks.

Basic economics. We need new property, then the tax system should reflect this.


----------



## tech/a (5 November 2007)

Knobby22 said:


> How it would work is very simple.
> 
> If you are building new buildings - such as high density apartments- then you would get the tax breaks. I wouldn't mind if they were enhanced!  However you don't get the tax breaks if you are not (1) buying /off the plan or (2) the first person to buy the house/apartment off the builder.
> 
> ...




Ok I'm an entrepeur.
I wish to build apartments through a builder and on sell them to first home buyers.OR keep some for a while after I cover initial costs.
This is where most of these developements come from---3 rd party not directly from the builder.
Where then would I fit?
What is the incentive for me to do a developement if my tax incentives are gone?


----------



## Whiskers (5 November 2007)

tech/a said:


> ---youd have first home buyers using the equity in their 5% / Yr interest rate homes to secure IP's.----You'd have them buying a second home and renting the first for a profit.---




This had occured to me as I know people who do that now, because the requirement to live in the house for a certain period is fairly short.

In the case of a couple they both qualify for the scheme and first home owners grant, nominally live in own house for regulatory period, then as you say, move into one and rent the other. Set for life.


----------



## Flying Fish (5 November 2007)

What wage would you need to be on to make negative gearing worthwhile?


----------



## numbercruncher (5 November 2007)

Would depend of the value of the property being purchased, amount being borrowed as much as wage. just basically need to be paying enough tax to take advantage of the deductions.


----------



## nioka (5 November 2007)

Flying Fish said:


> What wage would you need to be on to make negative gearing worthwhile?



 Negative gearing means getting a tax advantage for making a loss. Therefore your wage must be large enough for you to trade at a loss for that investment in the hope rising property prices will turn the loss into a gain in the future and the gain, after paying CGT exceeds the loss.


----------



## Knobby22 (5 November 2007)

tech/a said:


> Ok I'm an entrepeur.
> I wish to build apartments through a builder and on sell them to first home buyers.OR keep some for a while after I cover initial costs.
> This is where most of these developements come from---3 rd party not directly from the builder.
> Where then would I fit?
> What is the incentive for me to do a developement if my tax incentives are gone?




The entrepreneur as he is funding the builder then will get the tax breaks. 
The investor who buys it off the entrepreneur is the first buyer. You both can have the tax breaks. The next buyer after that is buying an established home and so doesn't get the tax breaks.


----------



## robots (5 November 2007)

hello,

people have to save more, to tax the interest earned on after tax savings is ridiculous to start with,

co-contribution's like super could help, but people have to save.

most people I work with on reasonable income live week to week, and I am sure wouldnt have the funds to replace the fridge if it blew up,

20yrs ago people had an atari or comm64, now people have a WI, Xbox, playstation 20 and so-on

the bigger issue is how to get the "average" negative gearer back into the apartment market because they have clearly gone, only people on 150k+/pa are now in the negative gear market

thankyou

robots


----------



## tech/a (5 November 2007)

> the bigger issue is how to get the "average" negative gearer back into the apartment market because they have clearly gone, only people on 150k+/pa are now in the negative gear market




This is true.
I've never negatively geared (Other than my business) in my life.

Everything I do in R/E has to be positively geared or I wont be involved.
The use of proper negative gearing is indeed an art.

I had it explained to me by a CPA once who specialized in setting up these deals,I know him personally and as I listened I was gob smacked on how hard it was to actually negative gear given the tax breaks you could claim back.
What "Appeared" to be grossly negative once considered from a tax view was indeed damned inviting.
All you needed was the INITIAL capital to cash flow it till after tax.

Mr average can do it and do it well in some circumstances but you definitely need expert guidance to get the "Numbers" right----and the NUMBERS are all that matters!


----------



## Shane Baker (5 November 2007)

robots said:


> the bigger issue is how to get the "average" negative gearer back into the apartment market because they have clearly gone, only people on 150k+/pa are now in the negative gear market
> 
> thankyou
> 
> robots




This I always thought was the cleverest component of killing off the housing bubble that Costello devised. He removed the attractiveness of negative property from all except the most affluent...thus reducing participation in negative gearing, increasing tax revenues and deflating the bubble. 


Cheers

Shane


----------



## theasxgorilla (6 November 2007)

Shane Baker said:


> This I always thought was the cleverest component of killing off the housing bubble that Costello devised. He removed the attractiveness of negative property from all except the most affluent...thus reducing participation in negative gearing, increasing tax revenues and deflating the bubble.




I totally agree.

So many people missed this effect.  Investors drove up the market in the early days, back when top tax bracket came in at 50k, but as he kept rolling out more and more tax cuts the shift in ownership occured...investor to owner occupied.  Yet prices stayed put...crash averted.  Magic.


----------



## theasxgorilla (6 November 2007)

tech/a said:


> All you needed was the INITIAL capital to cash flow it till after tax.




Not if you use the magic tax form that allows you to reduce tax from your salary each month.


----------



## wildkactus (7 November 2007)

The governments could help by reducing or getting rid of stamp duties on all property tranactions.
Also they just need to open up more land.


----------



## numbercruncher (7 November 2007)

ok so standard variable rate that 90pc of mortgage holders have is now 8.57 and many economists predicting another in December and more next year.

Tax cuts from both major partys are inflationary and virtually guarantee rates rising further.

Average home loan is well over 300k and barelling down on 10pc interest rates in next 12 months. People paying well over 600 smackeroos a week in interest/holding costs for their homes before even repaying the principle.

I just read an article we have second consecutive quarter of declining residential construction approvals/starts.

Something will have to give .....


----------

