- Joined
- 5 November 2008
- Posts
- 43
- Reactions
- 0
hello,
to Gordon gekko:
after the show I highlighted the discussion you had with Jenny earlier in this thread, and have just re-read the transcript,
in the transcript you admit to owning a couple of investment properties and also admit to applying for the FHBG for a new build,
care to elaborate on the details, we like to deal in the truth here at ASF
thankyou
robots
Take your "snake oil" and try to sell it on another forum.
"Sub-Prime" must be having a second coming.
It seems that you're pretty proud of your activities. It's a pity that governments when setting up the FHOG did not take into account the petty manipulations of greedy people.Now I am going to get to Robots question.
This is really simple, there no need to say that people have "holes" in their stories, yes I own investment properties, and have done for many years, and NO I HAVE NEVER OWNED AN OWNER OCCUPIED DWELLING. What I mean by owner occupied is, somewhere that I build or buy with the intention to live in as my primary residence and somewhere that I own in my name or in my wife's, partner's or de facto's name AFTER 1st July 2000 AD.
Please go to this website to make sure that I am not spinning, or, as you put it, not putting "holes" in my stories, and I will quote from this website for good measure.
http://www.osr.qld.gov.au/fhog/first-home-owner-grant/index.shtml
1. Click on "Frequently asked Questions"
2. Click "Eligibility"
3. Click - "I have owned an investment home previously. Can I still be eligible for the Grant?"
4. Read and enjoy.
It says;
A person is not eligible if they or their spouse (including de facto spouse) have held a relevant interest in any residential property in Australia prior to 1 July 2000.
However, a person may be eligible if they or their spouse (including de facto spouse) have held a relevant interest in residential property in Australia on or after 1 July 2000 and they have not resided in that property.
In other words, the property MUST be INVESTMENT.
Thank you.
Any more questions?
Now I am going to get to Robots question.
This is really simple, there no need to say that people have "holes" in their stories, yes I own investment properties, and have done for many years, and NO I HAVE NEVER OWNED AN OWNER OCCUPIED DWELLING. What I mean by owner occupied is, somewhere that I build or buy with the intention to live in as my primary residence and somewhere that I own in my name or in my wife's, partner's or de facto's name AFTER 1st July 2000 AD.
Please go to this website to make sure that I am not spinning, or, as you put it, not putting "holes" in my stories, and I will quote from this website for good measure.
http://www.osr.qld.gov.au/fhog/first-home-owner-grant/index.shtml
1. Click on "Frequently asked Questions"
2. Click "Eligibility"
3. Click - "I have owned an investment home previously. Can I still be eligible for the Grant?"
4. Read and enjoy.
It says;
A person is not eligible if they or their spouse (including de facto spouse) have held a relevant interest in any residential property in Australia prior to 1 July 2000.
However, a person may be eligible if they or their spouse (including de facto spouse) have held a relevant interest in residential property in Australia on or after 1 July 2000 and they have not resided in that property.
In other words, the property MUST be INVESTMENT.
Thank you.
Any more questions?
It seems that you're pretty proud of your activities. It's a pity that governments when setting up the FHOG did not take into account the petty manipulations of greedy people.
So, while you're congratulating yourself on your cleverness, I'd just suggest you consider not just the legality of your situation, but the morality of what you are doing.
We live in a society where many are living below the poverty line through no fault of their own. It's the abuse of the tax payer dollar such as you have described here - fully supported by government stupidity - that contributes to this.
We're presently experiencing quite possibly the worst ever financial meltdown, largely caused by unadulterated greed. Must be good to know that you're doing your bit towards perpetuating this.
hello,
what are you paying for hurt money Gordon?
thankyou
robots
hello,
mezzanine funding?
here in Melbourne many previous Mezz funders have pulled the dollars from many projects, talking mostly Super Funds (acting as joint venture partners typically)
and are now being very very selective and very much supporting "affordable" property developments
thankyou
robots
yes thankyou for the answer, amazing, well done Gordon Gekko
robots
Mezz funding I absolutely stay away from, it's very expensive and can be the breaker of a deal.
What is the more cost effective option is going to a vendor and excercising an 'option' or a put and call, or even better, getting an investor to put up the hurt money and then having them agree to a JV or pay them some kind of return on their investment, like 15% per deal or even in some cases 15% per annum on the money borrowed. This always beats the Mezz rate of around 2-4% per month.
GEKKO
Mezz funding I absolutely stay away from, it's very expensive and can be the breaker of a deal.
What is the more cost effective option is going to a vendor and excercising an 'option' or a put and call, or even better, getting an investor to put up the hurt money and then having them agree to a JV or pay them some kind of return on their investment, like 15% per deal or even in some cases 15% per annum on the money borrowed. This always beats the Mezz rate of around 2-4% per month.
GEKKO
Amen Julia, Amen and Amen.
You must forgive me, I'm not familiar to the local custom of this forum, but where I come from, you always Amen after you hear a prayer, because that's what you just posted, a prayer.
Where I come from, that particular prayer is what you call 'the prayer for the dead'. Your attitude and the reasons that you have posted are DEAD. I didn't kill them, don't blame me, they were dead before I was born.
As far as I am concerned Julia, it's too late for prayers.
GEKKO.
If you bothered to think about your argument, the central premise of it is that greed is good.If you bothered to do any research you would know that I dont deal in shares, only tangebilities, IE Property. The reason for this is our current situation. Why would someone buy shares in something that they have NO CONTROL over?
hmmm... sounds awfully familiar. Im sure I've heard that before.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?