In today's fr (page 57, 16-Mar-11) is an article that talks about a study done (I believe in Melbourne's resi property), that shows that retail property investors (sorry, they wrote mom & dad investors) get 18% returns from IP's. It's mentioned that companies and Super funds get less due to the TAX system and blah, blah, blah. In summary, the -ve gearing regime as per the Henry's tax review needs to be changed in favor of the pour and disadvantaged Investment funds and investment companies and more blah, blah, blah.
Since this information is not a secret and neither new (at least for IP investors), What really amused me is that these same journalists had always talked down resi property investment in favor of more sophisticated investment vehicles. All of the sudden the journalist had a change of heart and here we are
It makes me wonder who is paying for this article and what is behind it?
I really wish they keep on talking down resi IP
Since this information is not a secret and neither new (at least for IP investors), What really amused me is that these same journalists had always talked down resi property investment in favor of more sophisticated investment vehicles. All of the sudden the journalist had a change of heart and here we are
It makes me wonder who is paying for this article and what is behind it? I really wish they keep on talking down resi IP
