I don't disagree with the first paragraph, but the answer to the second is that in the grand scheme of things they're not going to loose that much. People in the target age group have negligible super by comparison the the rest of the pool.
First home buyers to be allowed to raid super to buy house.
- Thread starter moyjos
- Start date
I don't disagree with the first paragraph, but the answer to the second is that in the grand scheme of things they're not going to loose that much. People in the target age group have negligible super by comparison the the rest of the pool.
Pete, what I meant was how much interest they will lose due to the loans being paid out relatively quickly. For instance, a loan being paid out in say 10 years, as opposed to 25 or 30.
This is a very good example on how it could work with a threshold...
Fhbg's was a failure and only put the drivers in force and hindsight distress.
dunno as a percentage, but id guess it would be a largeish chunk because the Super fund managers are more and more looking for "safe" cash based investments that provide a decent rtn
ta
rlf
You'd be surprised that the answer is closer to 0%. Super fund managers chase cashflow returns (capital gains as a bonus) with quantifiable risk. Residential provides dismal cashflow (<5% gross returns), capital gains are speculative, cost of management is high, investment hurdles are low, players in the market are too numerous, risk is high. Most superfunds will hold between 9% and 20% in commercial property either direct (JV developments or sole) or indirect (Listed property trusts). Commercial property provides access to A grade 'educated' tenants (not people living from hand to mouth), the effect of political interference is minimal (except for retail leases), disputes can be handled by the adversarial system.
Why would it cause a loan to be paid out any faster
I take it you didn't read my first post.
*Unless* - and I'm just speculatin' here - Rolf meant exposure to the resi market via fixed interest investments.
I did a search recently and it looked to be around 12%
Will have to find the source
The Barefoot Investor, like Monique Sasson/Wakelin, is very good at targeting a particular market or mindset. That can help make their business or profile successful. Both are skilled at using a particular media channel to reach their constituency so are perceived as being leaders in their field.
Would following Pape's advice make you a millionaire by 40? Unlikely.
Would following Pape's advice reduce the chance of being ripped off? Almost certainly.
Would following Pape's advice make you worth at least $200 - 300k by 40? Very likely.
While those of us past that stage might scoff, there are a lot of 40 year olds worse off than that or with practically nothing. $200 - 300k isn't the stuff of financial independence anytime soon but it does keep the wolf a long way from the door.
Pape's shortcoming (when viewed from the vantage point of those who have built more wealth faster) is that he's too conservative. But especially if open to misinterpretation, that's not a major vice, especially when writing for a popular newspaper and given the population's low financial literacy. And there's much to be said to be building sound foundations.
Whereas Wakelin's offerings vary between sound and questionable, with the latter tailor made for the cultural prejudices of the affluent high-income ABC listening/Age-reading inner-city market (who look down their noses at the crass used car Joe Hockey lookalikes that dominate real estate sales). While typically glossed over, her heavily negative gearing strategies can also be quite high risk to certain investor types (a fact seldom if ever disclosed on media appearances), even though the asset itself is sold as being low risk.
My mortgage payments exceed my salary!
That's a very expensive PPOR.
Doubt the gov will allow first home buyers to use their super to buy a house. The RBA already indicated that it was better to rent than own. I feel the problem with first home buyers is not just the increased cost of housing in relation to wages. I work with four would be first home buyers. They want a newish house with a theatre room and pool on 400M2+, they want their plasma TV with foxtel, new cars and the wife wants to work part time. Then they complain they cant afford a house under these parameters.
Super will not be enough for these types. Cheers, nat
Super will not be enough for these types. Cheers, nat
Geez I feel old. As a fhb all I wanted was 2+ bedrooms with a 10 square house.
I did a search recently and it looked to be around 12%
Will have to find the source
I'd be interested to see it. AFAIK, only some of the retail & industry funds get involved by way of property development of large scale residential properties eg: CBUS & Rosecorp in a JV at Meadowbank, ISPT etc but they don't hang around as investors.
Quoting from the PDS for Sunsuper "property investments are diverse and can include office buildings, industrial sites and retail shopping centres." ie. No intention for investment in residential.
CBUS (being involved in the construction industry) invests heavily in development (highly risky) however if you look at its exposure (on the attached), even their biggest asset is barely 1% of funds.
Others like AMP etc invest via indirect property eg: listed trusts, unlisted trusts, diversified funds etc
Attachments
Last edited:
