Search results

Many shares yield more than the current mortgage rate of 6% at the moment, including franking credits. I can borrow against an IP at 6%, buy, say, something yielding 8% including franking credits in a family trust, and distribute the net 2% to a non-working spouse. Of course, the franking...

All I can say is, since I disagree with manoj's basic premise that: 1) there won't be much capital gains on property in the future, and 2) it's practically impossible for people to live off investment income before 55 I won't be considering using the strategy he's outlined. Alex

In your opinion, anyway. My opinion is that there will be growth. What did you think grow prospects were like 10 years ago? I would expect around 450k, actually. I do my projections with 7.2% growth. No one would have entered into a contract with Wylie 12 years ago to buy her place for 700k...

Everyone is limited by their own experiences. If negative geared, negative cashflow property is all manoj has seen, then he thinks that applies to all IPs. If your property experiences have been terrible, then obviously you'll look for something else. My first IP was negatively geared but...

And for me, at a similar age as JIT, I plan on buying more resi IPs. I might buy commercial in the future. I see no point in contributing small deductible contributions into super: 25k a year isn't much especially if it has to be locked away until I'm 55. Instead I'll move spare equity into a...

The change in strategy to super may make sense as you get closer to 55. If you're still relatively young, you can always just shift assets into a family trust instead if you want flexibility. The problem is that your strategy changes. As we've seen with with some forum members, they start...

Then we disagree. Just because you think it's tough doesn't mean it can't be done. Plenty on this forum, in fact. To those newer investors who are reading this thread, ask yourself. Does the strategy meet your goals? My plan is to live off income well before I'm 55. 40 is a distinct...

Then it's just a variation on the 'combine super with your parents' strategy: you need an older person in the fund. It won't work for me, since the wife and I are the same age. All of this assumes I have money in super. What if I don't? My question is, if I don't have anything in super and...

I could put money into a family trust and get the same result. I can borrow from an IP, on lend to a family trust and let the family trust invest in non-risk stuff (non risk in the sense of no chance of getting sued, such as just buying shares and bonds). One side-effect is that I get to...

But with LOWER leverage and having the age limitation, which I'm personally not prepared to accept given my age and I'm still focused on increasing the asset base. I know which I would rather have. The age consideration is important, because if I don't plan on waiting until I'm 55...

That's fine if that's what you want to do. Not everyone can, or want to. this is something that has to be thought about BEFORE people put money into super. Yes. The operative word being 'first'. It's easier for me as I have nothing in super anyway. My question would be, depending on the...

Exactly. I'm not after a way to wrangle some money out of my super fund. I have a very low 5 figure balance in my super fund, and I intend to keep it that way. I want full access to all of my assets well before I'm 55. I'm not aiming to discuss the intricacies of super strategies. I want...

If that works as you say, that allows me to take my initial contribution out before 55. Which is fine, but obviously considering my age it's the gains I'm more interested in. My first IP (10 years ago) had a cash contribution of 25k and how has appreciation of 200k+. Being able to just get my...

Manoj, in your opinion, is there any situation where a superfund is NOT the best vehicle? Say due to age, when that person wants to retire and live off income, how much assets a person already has outside super, the desire to gear aggresively and buy more by refinancing, etc. If so, what...

It's already been raised to age 67 for those born after 1957, no? In my opinion, there's further risk that they'll raise it again for those born later. If the pre-1957 retirees start to run out of money and need more money from the government, there's a good chance the pension age will be...

It depends on how your employer calculates your package. Agreed that if the 'lost' super isn't paid to you as taxable income, you're losing out. However, if your employer calculates on a 'total package' basis, as mine does, then you do get the 'lost' super paid to you as ordinary earnings. In...

Depends on what the employer offers. The key to the employer is FBT and admin costs. If they offer it and you use it according to the rules they set out, any disputes will be between your employer and the tax office. Alex

Simple example. If you make 60k package, your super contribution would be about 5k. If you have 40k of expenses you can package into your salary (whatever your employer allows), then your salary component is only 20k. In which case your 9% super contribution is only about 2k, since the 40k is...

Not sure about that 'brick' thing, but since my loan doesn't go up, nominal increases in property values due to inflation helps me. Why take the risk if I plan on accessing it well before 67 anyway? Actually, yes. Yes, once I go into the pension phase. At age 67. Pure asset based...

After seeing your sums, manoj, I doubt your results. Since when do sellers pay stamp duty, anyway? And would your brother have been able to buy 14 IPs if he couldn't refinance. I would not have been able to buy what I have if I couldn't refinance. Alex