read the fine print guys.. the values/yields for the last 3 properties are all estimates once the projects are completed. who knows what stage they were even at when the article was written. either way, using estimates on uncompleted projects based on a bunch of "if's" in order to brand him a millionaire seems a little dodgy at best.
Millionaire on Big Brother - Property Investor
- Thread starter Anon_
- Start date
Good API research stretching a good story.
So, he's only worth about $1.4M.
BUT, the rents are reasonable once the projects are completed assuming the current market remains.
if you work it out up to 2012 (not counting the projects that haven't been completed/started?) it works out to:
total value (given the rest of the figures/conclusions not sure how much these should be trusted but lets take their word for it anyway): $1,450,000
total outstanding loan: $901,000
total equity = $549,000
of course if he was to sell everything and even achieve those estimated values, he'd also have some CG to pay which would eat into his net worth.
so in 6 years of property investment he's accumulated about $550k of equity, and then in the first 6 months of this year alone that has been bumped up by another ~$3.2 million based on estimates of uncompleted projects. good enough for Big Brother to call him a multi-millionaire though and use that as one of their main draw-cards for the show!
edit: just to be clear, i'm not saying it's not impressive (it is) or that it's impossible for him to one day be in that position if everything works out perfectly, just that it seems like a huge stretch right now.
They are good at stretching the truth. One of my business partners was interviewed briefly by one of the property magazines and they posted 3 pages on her reno. They listed her profits as $80k, but was really only around $20k. Stamp duty and sales agency fees weren't listed in the article as costs, so magically, made $80k in a few weeks.
so today we learned that API and channel 9 like to stretch the truth. actually i don't think we learned anything today
It was also dissappointing to read that he claimed the FHOG on the purchase of his third property
Why was it disappointing? Completely within the rules
I don't believe it is, but I'm neither a lawyer nor a policeman.
I know I was deemed inelligable for the grant as I had owned IPs prior to purchasing my home.
I don't believe it is, but I'm neither a lawyer nor a policeman.
I know I was deemed inelligable for the grant as I had owned IPs prior to purchasing my home.
Did you buy your home with someone who had a PPOR in the past? I guarantee it is fine to have IPs and still claim FHOG as long as you never lived in the IPs as this is what I did
Info is readily available on the website
i think he was saving his FHOG for the third one because he wanted to use it on a larger purchase closer to the threshold to save more stamp duty?
I don't believe it is, but I'm neither a lawyer nor a policeman.
I know I was deemed inelligable for the grant as I had owned IPs prior to purchasing my home.
Not sure who or why you were deemed ineligible, because you are 100% eligible to claim FHOG if you haven't owned a property that you have lived in as your PPOR, owning IPs is fine. Could of been PPOR purchase price too high? Another party in the purchase of PPOR has already owned a PPOR...?
The rules did change a few years ago. I bought an IP in 98 (no FHOG then) and when we built our PPOR in 2002 we were ineligible as I had previously owned property.
Now it is wishy washy and you can have an IP and then get FHOG in WA when you do your PPOR
Each applicant and/or their spouse cannot have owned residential property anywhere in Australia
before 1 July 2000.
Each applicant and/or their spouse cannot have previously owned residential property anywhere in Australia on or after 1 July 2000 and occupied that property as a place of residence before 1 July 2004.
Each applicant and/or their spouse cannot have previously owned residential property anywhere in Australia on or after 1 July 2000 and occupied that property as a place of residence for a continuous period of at least six months that began on or after 1 July 2004.
Now it is wishy washy and you can have an IP and then get FHOG in WA when you do your PPOR
Each applicant and/or their spouse cannot have owned residential property anywhere in Australia
before 1 July 2000.
Each applicant and/or their spouse cannot have previously owned residential property anywhere in Australia on or after 1 July 2000 and occupied that property as a place of residence before 1 July 2004.
Each applicant and/or their spouse cannot have previously owned residential property anywhere in Australia on or after 1 July 2000 and occupied that property as a place of residence for a continuous period of at least six months that began on or after 1 July 2004.
Similar threads
