Interesting Article

[Trogdor]

Interesting article. Don't usually see this topic covered much in the mainstream / general media:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ence-experts-say/story-e6frgac6-1226032280329

 

[Bird Dog]

Interesting read Trogdor.
Not sure if I agree with everything that was articulated EG: buying in the depressed outer markets.
I would suggest that this would be reserved for the speculative comm investor who is cashed up and can handle long vacancies, as opposed to the mum and dad $500,000 audience that article was written for.
cheers

B.D

 

[Compropmanager]

Interesting read indeed,

They are not far off from the mark but they mention nothing about 6 - 12 month vacancies the potenial need to offer an incentive,

"Business confidence" hell thats something. I haven't heard from a tenant yet in my area that is confident about their business right now. Most are just meeting their commitments, and that rate of enquiry on vacant properties isn't something special either. Finally if you buy be prepared to spend some money, most of the stock is old and run down from previous landlords not caring for it apart from if the tenant paid the rent/bills (knowing the agents they are part to blame too!)

Also if you are buying new you might want to check what the tenant/market is actually prepared to pay as most of these are well overpriced and this prices the older stock higher then it should.

Spoke to a mate of mine at another agency and same thing.

 

[Dazz]

he says like any investment it [direct commercial property] must provide diversification. "Regardless of the quality of the property, any single asset portfolio is a high-risk option."

I wonder why he says 'must' ?? I've never put in bucket loads of due diligence to ensure a "quality property" purchase - i.e. good location, good building, good tenant, good lease and then turn around and say - "regardless of all those things, it's still high risk" Doesn't make sense to me....

Wat does he recommend instead - some strip retail thing with 10 itzy bitzy little dodgy bros M&D operations, who are behind in their rent and haven't read the Lease and make it up as they go along. Excellent - nice and diversified.

For a high-growth investor, Rogers says, a direct commercial property should make up only between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of your growth assets in property.

Where did he get that 'rule' from ?? If he reckons stuff doesn't start 'til 600K, then as an absolute minimum you need a 6 mill portfolio to start. Who is this clown.....and what's he worth ?? Does he own any CP, or is this all his theory based on some Master's course taught by some fuzzy haired old associate professor who also doesn't own anything ??

 

[Trogdor]

Interesting read Trogdor.
Not sure if I agree with everything that was articulated EG: buying in the depressed outer markets.
I would suggest that this would be reserved for the speculative comm investor who is cashed up and can handle long vacancies, as opposed to the mum and dad $500,000 audience that article was written for.
cheers

B.D

Agree with this BD. It is the last place to start...!

 

[Trogdor]

I thought the same thing Dazz about his diversification rule. It didn't make sense in the context of the article.

 

[Bird Dog]

I believe the tittle has mertit.....but the ensuing article falls short by supposed expert commentation....

It sounds like the journo had the right intention but failed to ask the right questions of the right people....