Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

How on earth does it indicate that! It clearly shows that capital appreciation has added to the cost of the home. Its NOT increased their wealth one CENT.

Both the article and I simply stated that ~73% of the total wealth of those over 60 is in the PPOR. We have no interest in this instance about how it got to that level, but in context it adds to equity risk. Therefore, when those over 60 have only 27% of other assets outside the PPOR (and to add insult to injury, might have property trust holdings in their Super funds in that 27%), the average person’s total wealth is very clearly heavily weighted to one investment; property.

They still have to pay for a home of equal value if they moved or rent one at an appropriate rate if they liquidate their "Asset".

However, people will more often use that PPOR equity to scale down to a cheaper property and use the extra equity to live in retirement than move to equal value, or rent as another option. Or stay and use an equity drawdown facility to do the same, regardless of what we might think prudent. If you have not saved the capital or got the assets, your choices are limited.

There are basically NO tax incentives for PPOR. There people are "highly geared to one asset' by DEFAULT---not design.

On its sale, the PPOR provides one of the biggest tax incentives of all at 100% tax free and is likely why for example, most 60+ year olds have ~73% of their total wealth tied up here (but logic says it is just sheer luck to date, mainly because of capital appreciation). The PPOR is not an asset when you know the simple difference, but as most people don’t, the capital gains free environment obviously appears attractive. As the article did not indicate any detail, it is possible they will have to use some of that 27% to pay off the PPOR, therefore at some point worsening the ratio.

Those who have multiple IP's are indeed investors.
Those who flip IP's are speculators

I look at it this way, if you are heavily geared and have most/all of your assets in residential property, single or multiple IPs, you are a high risk speculator as your assets or wealth accumulation capacity are at high risk should the market tank or go sideways for years. If you have little or no gearing and are happy with ROI regardless of the capital value (why is beyond me), you are likely an investor as you should have weighed up the capital loss risks.

Similarly, if the average punter is using their PPOR to fund their retirement, and we know many do, they likewise are high risk speculators should the continued or existing capital appreciation level of their main ‘asset’ decrease or go sideways, if that is contrary to their successful retirement financing plan.
 
But DOING SOMETHING!! might not include resi prop for any number of reasons. There are other avenues for building wealth. It is noted that you have never had the balls to put a substantial section of your wealth into the stock market. Others do... would that be counted as DOING SOMETHING? :)

Hmmmmmmmm ...... macho talk happening. TIme to put on the game face. Or is it reverse psychology? Or just a simple double dog dare?

Renind me again why he has to put a substantial section of his wealth into the stockmarket again? I thought the best balanced portfolio was to have money in property/shares/cash and could be in disproportionate percentiles but liquid enough that you could move from one performing pool of money into another as required?

I'm confused. :confused:
 
Hmmmmmmmm ...... macho talk happening. TIme to put on the game face. Or is it reverse psychology? Or just a simple double dog dare?

Renind me again why he has to put a substantial section of his wealth into the stockmarket again? I thought the best balanced portfolio was to have money in property/shares/cash and could be in disproportionate percentiles but liquid enough that you could move from one performing pool of money into another as required?

I'm confused. :confused:

Clearly.

Nobody said he did, but was merely pointing out there are other avenues for wealth building. The individual chooses his or her way, but some sort of balance as you've outlined is probably a good idea.
 
Clearly.

Nobody said he did, but was merely pointing out there are other avenues for wealth building. The individual chooses his or her way, but some sort of balance as you've outlined is probably a good idea.

Gotcha. Over and out. And I'm taking my balls too. ;)
 
Both the article and I simply stated that ~73% of the total wealth of those over 60 is in the PPOR. We have no interest in this instance about how it got to that level, but in context it adds to equity risk. Therefore, when those over 60 have only 27% of other assets outside the PPOR (and to add insult to injury, might have property trust holdings in their Super funds in that 27%), the average person’s total wealth is very clearly heavily weighted to one investment; property.



However, people will more often use that PPOR equity to scale down to a cheaper property and use the extra equity to live in retirement than move to equal value, or rent as another option. Or stay and use an equity drawdown facility to do the same, regardless of what we might think prudent. If you have not saved the capital or got the assets, your choices are limited.



On its sale, the PPOR provides one of the biggest tax incentives of all at 100% tax free and is likely why for example, most 60+ year olds have ~73% of their total wealth tied up here (but logic says it is just sheer luck to date, mainly because of capital appreciation). The PPOR is not an asset when you know the simple difference, but as most people don’t, the capital gains free environment obviously appears attractive. As the article did not indicate any detail, it is possible they will have to use some of that 27% to pay off the PPOR, therefore at some point worsening the ratio.



I look at it this way, if you are heavily geared and have most/all of your assets in residential property, single or multiple IPs, you are a high risk speculator as your assets or wealth accumulation capacity are at high risk should the market tank or go sideways for years. If you have little or no gearing and are happy with ROI regardless of the capital value (why is beyond me), you are likely an investor as you should have weighed up the capital loss risks.

Similarly, if the average punter is using their PPOR to fund their retirement, and we know many do, they likewise are high risk speculators should the continued or existing capital appreciation level of their main ‘asset’ decrease or go sideways, if that is contrary to their successful retirement financing plan.


Nicely put.

Thats why I keep harping on to the 97% to become the 3%

Thanks Wayne

Kahuna's are fine.

Put them on the line many times and still have them.
Not at risk currently.
I no longer have to place them on the line.
As you point out even a small proportion of wealth in the stock market gives me a little play money.


I just can't comprehend why anyone would want to pay that much to live anywhere in SA, now or in 2016.

For a while there I thought you were one of us but clearly a 97% er.

Who said anything about LIVING HERE????
 
Thats why I keep harping on to the 97% to become the 3%

What is with this idea that if you are not "crippled by fear" you buy property and if you are you don't. From my perspective over the last 10 years boat loads of people have bought property because they are too afraid to do anything else, because so much public perception and media beatup had it as a no risk investment.

I am confident it will be many many more than 5 years before Moana and Seaford are worth that much therefore I choose not to buy - does that make me crippled by fear? Where is all this money going to come from anyway? During this price explosion are we going to see a complete replacement of the current residents with richer ones? Where are the old ones going to go?. Next you are going to tell me Hackham will have a median price of $800,000 in 5 years to.

This thread is converging to a debate between the have's and the have not's. I am willing to admit my views are probably biased because I am younger and don't own property, but I think some others are even more biased the other way. Has anyone read the "Property" liftout of the weekend Australian?, that is a great example of the bias I am talking about. According to them, "property is moving sideways and building a platform for future growth" weazel words much?.
 
What is with this idea that if you are not "crippled by fear" you buy property and if you are you don't. From my perspective over the last 10 years boat loads of people have bought property because they are too afraid to do anything else, because so much public perception and media beatup had it as a no risk investment.

They have to be able to afford to buy and they have a choice,Im certain people dont buy property because they are too afraid to do anything else---they would do nothing.

I am confident it will be many many more than 5 years before Moana and Seaford are worth that much therefore I choose not to buy - does that make me crippled by fear?

If you can afford to by and choose not to I would say YES. If you cant afford to then your not in the arguement.

Where is all this money going to come from anyway? During this price explosion are we going to see a complete replacement of the current residents with richer ones?
Yes that does happen demolitions happening all the time---but houses can and will increase in price from demand.
Where are the old ones going to go?.
Some will be demolished and others will simply increase in value.
Next you are going to tell me Hackham will have a median price of $800,000 in 5 years to.
Stupid statement.

This thread is converging to a debate between the have's and the have not's. I am willing to admit my views are probably biased because I am younger and don't own property, but I think some others are even more biased the other way.

Pity you see it that way---some of us here know how easy it is to be crippled by fear and those who are in the position to take advantage of property are being encouraged to do so in a sea of negativity in this thread.


Has anyone read the "Property" liftout of the weekend Australian?, that is a greate example of the bias I am talking about. According to them, "property is moving sideways and building a platform for future growth" weazel words much?.

Astute buyers would see this as great opportunity.
Ive pointed out greater opportunity looking at you and everyone out there---right NOW.
 
If you can afford to by and choose not to I would say YES. If you cant afford to then your not in the arguement.

I can afford it and choose not to, and I don't agree with you - that makes me crippled by fear, amazing. My investment decisions differ from yours so I am wrong, thats excellent.
 
I can afford it and choose not to, and I don't agree with you - that makes me crippled by fear, amazing.

Depends on what it is you "Choose" to do.

If its a choice to do nothing---its fear.
If its a choice to invest in other areas then its a choice and all power to you.

My investment decisions differ from yours so I am wrong, thats excellent

Excellent that they are wrong--or that they differ?
 
I think it comes down to this, if you can make your money work for you short term better then property long term then should not be investing in property especially at the moment.

I am definately getting better returns from my money and not in interest, interest on savings is just a bonus.

But if I was sitting there just accumulating forever I would probably buy property just as a offset to inflation. Since I would be doing nothing with my money then who cares where it is sitting for the next 10 years.

My personal strategy right now is to save, invest and accumulate then buy property when it finally stabilizes at good prices, I do not see it at nowhere near good/fair prices at the moment.

But each to their own, everybody see opportunity lurking in different corners.
 
I do not see it at nowhere near good/fair prices at the moment.

And your not alone.
I dont agree with you and nor does the market in the areas I have posted up.

Lets just take SEAFORD.

Lets do this exercise.

You can afford a purchase so in 2007 you pay 20% down
Median price is $265k at the time (see chart)
Thats 52K
Now your median price is $335k
So your equity has risen from $52K to $122k
So youve made 134% on your money.
All in just over 3 years

Less of course out goings. Which would be mitigated by rent and copious tax deductions.
Hell I maybe wong--but that looks awful good to me!
Rail line---Dual freeway---3 new sub divisions to cope with demand.
See you back here in a few years!!

Seaford.gif

Could you point me to where I could do better than 45% a year on investment.
Its just alluding me at the moment.
 
You can afford a purchase so in 2007 you pay 20% down
Median price is $265k at the time (see chart)
Thats 52K
Now your median price is $335k
So your equity has risen from $52K to $122k
So youve made 134% on your money.
All in just over 3 years

Less of course out goings. Which would be mitigated by rent and copious tax deductions.

Could you point me to where I could do better than 45% a year on investment.
Its just alluding me at the moment.

Aren't you quoting Return On Margin here? Same way all the FX/options advertisers say "make 1000% in a day".

My calcs show:
20% deposit on 265k = 52K
20% of new price = 67k

Which gives a return of 29%.

Still not bad, but i dont see how you can quote return on margin. I can take out a 100:1 leveraged CFD or FX trade and 1 tick = 100% if thats the way you are looking at it.
 
Yeh you could.
Just showing its not to be sneezed at.
I have bought houses on Zero down just using equity so the return has been massive relative to $ down.
 
You can afford a purchase so in 2007

2007 is 2007 now its 2011. I can look up a share that you could of bought back in 2007 and get a return on 1000%, could of would of didn't

And you are picking a suburb too, so using same example I will pick a specific share, I bought bkp shares (high spec, just as some say property is) just under a year ago at around .06c and sold them off recently at 2.1c that beats 45% and in under a year.

Apples to Oranges but both examples based on foresight
 
Ok Ok
I know this area I know the potential Im just sharing it.
I also own a great deal of property here and in adjacent suburbs.
All Im doing is attempting to help those who maybe interested.

Doesnt seem to be anyone so I'll bugger off.
Accept defeat.
Property is not for you so dont invest in it.
 
I can take out a 100:1 leveraged CFD or FX trade and 1 tick = 100%

Sounds good, how do I submit you my credit card details?

I think the behavior in this thread would simply not fly if this were a stock thread.

Where is the analysis, charts, thoughts, etc?
 
Im not all against propety, just speculating on property going down and sideways for the next few years and dreaming to think can make the same returns as were expected in the last 10 years.

Bigger better money to be made else where at the moment, then return to property when it is looking more healthy with more capital to invest.

I have set myself a plan to buy out my first property in cash only in the next 5 years and I believe it. My plan.

Right now this bear is hibernating for the next few seasons.
 
Top