Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What's up his nose????
I agree the 100 unit NRAS devs are problematic, but all NRAS are not 100 units devs.
Picking the right one you'll be miles in front.
Two identical properties, one NRAS and the other not, you'll be making $5K pa with one and paying $3K pa with the other. Both with similar CG.
I know which one I'd chose.
A GOVERNMENT scheme that started with good intentions is now being used by the unscrupulous to line their pockets at the expense of unsophisticated investors.
I think its all in the opening line?
Hi All
The only people who are ever going to buy them are investors, so if you wish to resell, you limit potential buyers. Also, the tax benefits last for 10 years only. Think 10 years forward when the properties, and probably the tenants, have deteriorated and there are no more tax benefits to offer the unsuspecting buyer. Who in their right mind is going to buy one of them?
MTR
If that is the case, all owner occupiers in the same areas and developments are even more foolish. if NRAS is there to remove the upward pressures of rent increase... what is driving that? Only one thing. The supply demand ratio is unbalanced and demand is growing quicker than availability. The tax benefits are equally applicable to non NRAS investment stock. Reporter presumably meant the NRAS contribution stopping in 10 years. By which time depending on the debt in 10 years, rental increases should comfortably be making the property profitable without NRAS
So in 10 years time if you want to sell a NRAS home, presumably the property value has also increased, perhaps doubled who knows, I would also assume the rental income would not cover the sale price, so why would an investor buy NRAS home if there were no benefits left unless you can purchase substantially cheaper? Perhaps I am missing something, but this is how I interpret what NW is saying???
Author isn't attacking the NRAS at all. He is only attacking the marketers. Even the title 'National Rental Affordability Scheme tainted by ruse' clearly says that. He is warning about the dangers and this isn't different to any other investment.
I'm not sure why few people are up in arms
when I read it in today's paper I thought it was such a load of BS I was tempted to email him directly. the first error is the assumption that the buyer has paid too much... what a stupid assumption?! You can pay too much for a toyota but it doesn't mean all toyotas are rubbish
Seems to be the unscrupulous calling the kettle black
"ferret around until you find an undervalued property in a prime location that you can buy at a bargain price because the vendor has a reason to sell in a hurry"
By all means rip some unsuspecting person off, just don't do that using NRAS.
true, but if you pay 50k for a 30k car, with the intention of selling it in 10years for a market % of the actual value, then its a bad deal
then buy one for $30k
My thoughts exactly.
Can you though? I thought all NRAS had to be through a company, and these companies won't be doing them for free...
not sure I follow your question Marisa.... in 10 years time the house will be exactly the same as any other house, except in the past 10 years the owner has collected about $100,000 of tax free subsidy.
there is so much misinformation regarding NRAS when really it is quite simple. this misleading article does nothing to help.