Defense Housing potential????

DHA is a mixed bad indeed, with much of what they sell being overpriced.

Using patriotism to delude people into buying overpriced houses seems very unjust. But if you want to do your bit for 'Straya why not give it a go?

Personally I think I'd be helping the country more by not putting my money into the scam that is DHA. They should be out there marketing emu eggs and tree plantations.
 
Wow - alot of synics here ;)

I think like any investing you need to run your numbers and do your DD. There are good and bad deals with DHA. Everyone I know IRL who has invested with DHA have had good things to say. Online, I have heard both sides.
 
As with many investments, high yield can indicate danger to your capital.
If an apartment developer tried such a stunt, promising extraordinarily high yields etc and the investments, when sold, giving minimal capital gain, he'd be run out of town soon enough.

Government run bodies are not meant to be scamming ordinary chumps like us. If they want to house our servicemen, maybe the DHA should do what the rest of us do and borrow money from the bank rather than get into the shennanigans it does.

Show me just one or two of what the DHA has for sale on its website that you think can double in 5 years. Pretty hard huh. Yes, there is the occasional good deal. But these are few and far between. It's criminal to see a government owned body trying to scam ordinary investors.
 
To be fair, perhaps you could show everyone one or two non-DHA properties that you think can double in 5 years then.

The risk-free low hanging fruit in Australian property is mostly gone, taken by those who got in early. A good deal of what remains is potentially rotten and overpriced, relative to long term inflated-adjusted projections. Property that yields the most is often (but not always) overpriced. Beware inordinately high yields, just as you should be wary of ultra low yields.

I borrowed massively to invest in bayside Melbourne three years ago. Nothing has doubled, although a few have come close to doubling. Rising rents mean that some of these houses are close to paying for themselves. Still hanging in there.

Personally, I remain bullish on the cheaper seaside Melbourne suburbs like Seaford and Frankston & (non beachside) North Frankston. But on the very strict proviso that one should not over-pay and, furthermore, one should stick to dual occ sites -the sort of place, increasingly rare elsewhere in Australia, where one can retain the existing building and construct another at the back. There's no sense in listening to the self-interested promises of local agents who will harp on about these suburbs being the cheapest beachside suburbs in Australia (well, that much is true). Fly or drive there and do your own due diligence over a few weeks - meet the local bogans and ask them questions like "so when do you plan to move elsewhere, now that this suburb is being gentrified."

Other than the above (and don't forget the proviso), I have no risk-free offerings to share with you. A few country towns with growing populations have good prospects that are not entirely risk free. Keep away from one-horse mining towns (no matter how high the yield) - these are notoriously cyclical.

The problem with many country towns is that the banks are pretty tough when one wants to borrow to invest in the bush. I guess they've been burnt before. And if they do lend you money, they sometimes have a habit of asking for it back when there's a downturn in the bush. Happened to me, I didn't like it. So I've stuck to the cities ever since.

May the Universe be with you. Remember, if in doubt, keep your money under your bed or in your (big four) banks.
 
The risk-free low hanging fruit in Australian property is mostly gone, taken by those who got in early. A good deal of what remains is potentially rotten and overpriced, relative to long term inflated-adjusted projections.

Yep. The problem is that many new investors extrapolate past returns into the future and assume that that is how it will pan out.
 
Catastrophic issues with DHA

I am an ex DHA landlord who will be taking some of the DHA executives to court for indefensible conduct. DHA botched the handback of my property so badly that I am thousands of dollars out of pocket.

I have three letters from DHA stating that rent money will be with held unless I sign a release. Under FOI, this is not a contractual (or even legal) obligation. DHA are in multiple breach of contract and have made it abundantly clear that even if I sign the release, they will not pay me the money they owe. Otherwise they will have to admit to using indefensible conduct. Consequently I will never sign any release. As to be expected, DHA and the Minister's office now refuse to acknowledge these letters.

I am a member of the Australian Defence Force and a former contracts manager and I can assure everyone that this sort of conduct is highly inappropiate.

I originally bought the property for $150,00, probably $25,000 overpriced at the time. I did my research but the agent - Residential Investment Services provided me with a schedule speculating that after 10 years the same property would be in the region of $285,000. I had three independent valuations at the 10 year mark, the highest amount was in the range of $155,000. So much for $130,000 increase in value. However, I will concede that it was suppose to be a 'speculative figure'.

I would like to encourage investors to seek far better options than DHA. It is after all part of Defence and as a current member I would be hard pressed to recount anything Defence has done in the last 20 years as commendable. I have personally witnessed glowering reports from individuals who I have later learnt stand to make some financial benefit from doing so. Even I have been offered a commission in the past for every person I could get to sign up. I refused to take any part in such activity.

Finally, ask yourself if you can't contact the CEO directly to discuss any issues - do you really want to deal with that organisation? DHA is typical of any government department - they like to appear professional but can be extremely unprofessional when there's problems. Refer DHA v Hendersons 12 August 1997 FC 97/033.
 
Back
Top