- Joined
- 21 June 2009
- Posts
- 5,880
- Reactions
- 14
Some of the members on here won't be happy Tspot, they seemed to want to have you completely blown off the financial map
Let the cutting of the poppies begin.
Wrong again Macquack. The subcontractors and suppliers were all paid up. It was the creditors that got a touch up for a lousy 175k. It was the directors loans to the company to keep it afloat that was the cause of insolvency as they tried to claw back their initial investment in the original business BEFORE the name change to Voyager Homes. I personally got stung for 50k and am on the list of creditors.
If you want EXACT details and not dragged across the boards I am more than happy to tell you ALL about it if you PM me.
+1
Glad all will work out OK
+1. What a disappointment for the knockers.ASF LAW #1 :- The tallest blade of grass gets cut down first.:
.
ASF LAW #1 :- The tallest blade of grass gets cut down first.:
LOL ...... one investment that does not go EXACTLY according to plan would hardly rattle my tin.
I suppose 50K is better than nothing.
I moved recently. Offered 15% below the asking rent and they accepted without even flinching. In Sydney also.
Perhaps you should be saying this to TSThis thread has gone off the rails again and I'd like to see it back on track.
So, I will ask everyone to please dispense with the personal attacks, deliberate provocation and off-topic chatter and confine your remarks to the topic of the thread: The Australian property market and its future.
Thank you.
When I moved into my rental property I asked for 5% off and it was accepted without fuss. I should have asked for 10% off.
I have been considering moving somewhere nicer and noticed what Miss Hale described, the average rental price seems to have come down in the last year but there is a heap of overpriced dumps which will sit on the market for weeks.
Thats a good question StumpyPhantom, why would rents fall?
Either people are buying to live in or investments, more rentals on the market, or they are moving back home.
Because aggregate demand for housing in general would fall (due to unemployment).
Also, why housing is not an investment, and what sorts of things have brought about this flawed way of looking at property.
http://pragcap.com/robert-shiller-housing-is-not-an-investment
Jeeeezuz!
I am generally a RE bear and even I reckon that article is bullshyte. Interesting discussions in the comments.
It's true when you think about it. Property never ever ever goes up in real values, central banks merely inflate the artificial nominal price. And to make matters worse, governments tax this artificial inflation.
Housing is no investment, just a way to speculate.
If this is true then Buffet style value investing in stocks is also a non investment.
There was some analysis done that the real value of stocks only increases via the retention of earnings, so same thing.
In addition, this is one of the hopes of long term investment, as a hedge against inflation. Ergo, if it keeps keeps pace with inflation, especially with regards to yield, then the investment is worthwhile as it outperforms cash.
Returns in excess of inflation are cream.
Both stock and RE 'investment', if well selected will outpace inflation. Gearing enhances this.
The great advantage of RE is that even when leveraged is that it is not marked to market. As long as repayments are covered (by whatever means), one can hold for the long term and allow inflation to diminish real debt.
I agree that RE investment has been rather more speculative of late, but this does not detract from the intrinsic good sense of RE as an investment class as at least part of one's total portfolio.
Leverage is speculation. I bet nobody would ever use leverage if property rose in step with broader CPI.
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?