You must know something I don't. Which other asset class has all the following:
Well that list looks a little different to the one you posted up earlier in this thread, which is what I was referring to! Nevertheless, to respond to this list, there are CIPs for sale out there, which offer, today:
1) 60% lend without insurance at generally higher IRs (the one negative)
2) Cash net yield around 10% (twice 5%)
3) Depreciation as per RIPs
4) Significant support from govt just in a different form
5) Capital growth at least as good as RIPs, often better due to the higher value of the land use in the first place.
6) FHOG gifts are not available for resi property investors - only first homebuyers... and can't be used more than once anyway for that purpose.
7) Discounted CGT applies just as well and if you live in an IP then it's not an IP - it's your home...
8) Better tenants (reputable, large companies etc)
9) Tenants pay all outgoings
10) Longer secure leases with ratcheted / market rent increases, some up to 10 years
11) No PM headaches - tenant has to fix stuff themselves
12) Bank guarantees for payment of rent around six months worth
13) No tribunal hearings and tenant sob stories
14) Lease conditions heavily in favour of the landlord, instead of the tenant
15) Lots of notice of vacating tenants to allow you time to find a new one
16) You get the idea...
My point is not that one is better than the other - you can come unstuck big time with both just as you can make a lot of money with both. I just dislike blanket statements like "nothing is better than RIP investing" when it has been demonstrated many times that people have made an awful lot more money with other investments than we ever will out of our little houses... and that is what counts!
At no point is any of these IPs at 100% lend.
Have to disagree with you there. If you want to buy a $400k house for IP#2 using your equity as security for the deposit then you have to borrow $400k + costs = circa $416k. To me that means I'm borrowing 104% of the price for each new acquisition after the first, regardless of the other security the bank has. So the yield on each new one has to pay for all of the interest bill on the total amount of the cost, including SD etc, not just 80%. Hope that clarifies things...