Thommo said:
What does puzzle me though, is why leveraging shares is a no no while borrowing to the hilt for RE, even 100% if you can find a lender, is the generally approved tactic on this forum? Are you seriously suggesting that RE never goes down? [That was a general "you", not Dale specifically]
Any investor having LVRs of 70-80% and gross returns of 3% is seriously under water and needs over 5% annual cap gain to break even. The margin loan is far safer in my mind.
Thommo,
Comparing long-term and short-term assets is always a tricky business.
I believe that any argument attempting to compare margin loans over shares versus property investments with housing loans is really spurious and misleading.
Horses for courses.
The point you raised about not valuing the property daily is part of the key....
With real estate the bank doesn't automatically call in the loan if your property decreases in value.
In fact even if the property decreases to below the bank's lend amount on a valuation they're highly unlikely to call in the loan so long as you continue to pay the mortgage.
With property in Sydney & Melbourne, where 3% gross returns may apply, property have a 25 year average of achieving better than 9% returns - so that 5% figure is well below average. And there are no indications of a long-term decline in Sydney and Melbourne populations, hence expecting higher than 5% CG over the next twenty five years is entirely reasonable.
As to margin loans being safer...well that's a VERY big claim.
Land as an asset is a scarse resource, it doesn't increase or deplenish in human timeframes, rather in geological ones.
Housing as an asset is not quite as scarse a resource....denser housing (to a point) can be built. Moving housing further from centres is achievable with transport improvements....however for the most part this occurs in generational timeframes. There have been no innovations since the introduction of mass assembly of automobiles that have significantly changed housing patterns.
So with housing as an asset you have a degree of security. So long as populations continue to rise or even in stable situations & you carefully select the assets & insure them against damage you can rely on a property asset as a long-term investment to retain and increase in value, subject to price cycles.
With shares, you do not control the asset. No matter how good you are at selecting shares, the management team can easily change from an effective to an ineffective one. Businesses can change, new competitors enter, new technologies reshape the landscape.
New companies are constantly formed, old ones are dying......Very few shares can demonstrate a 25 year average of 9% annual growth or better plus regular 5% or better dividend payments per annum as can Sydney & Melbourne property on AVERAGE!
PLUS you have to use more of your own cash in the equation, so you never get the same level of growth.
If you have a property worth $500K at 90% lvr ($50K your money) growing at 7% over ten years (roughly doubling in that period to $984K), your real cash on cash gain in that period is (484+50) / 50 = 1,067%...or a compounding per year 25.5%.
If you have a share portfolio worth $500K at 50% margin loans ($250K your money) growing at 7% over ten years (roughly doubling in that period to $984K), your real cash on cash gain in that period is (484+250) / 50 = 293%...or a compounding per year 7%.
Note that the interest paid on the margin loan over that 10 year period is quite possibly more than you pay for the property (home loan & any maintenance costs) because of the interest rates!!!
Shares are useful in short term situations. Carefully select your share investments & you can make massive gains in short period.
However for medium to long-term capital growth carefully selected property has significant advantages, particularly leverage & security!
Cheers,
Aceyducey