2nd Q for Rixter
Can you give a quick post on your GCA investment strategy?
Would this strategy to buy units/townhouses with higher building to land ratio only be best if you are in the highest tax bracket or still be effective within a lower bracket? The reason I'm asking is because we are in the position where within about 3 years, my hubbie and maybe myself could possibly double our wage and both be well within the higest tax bracket, we arnt now, but its only a matter of time before he is.
Bespoke, this is a post that describes my chosen Investment Strategy that involves Villas & Townhouses. Like with any negative gearing benefits, the higher the tax bracket you are in the greater the monetary return. So if you are in the 30cent tax bracket you get 30cent for every dollar you are negatively geared...if you are in the 45cent bracket then you get 45cents back...
In relation to my strategy, the Capital Growth Averaging (CGA) strategy I employ utilises a regular purchasing cycle similar to what Dollar Cost Averaging is to the sharemarket. The major underlying principle to its success is it relies on your "time in" the market, NOT "timing" the market, and never never sell. So in other words it does not matter whether you buy at the top of a boom or at the bottom, just so long as you purchase good quality, well located property in high density areas ( metro area capital cities), at or below fair market value, on a regular basis.
I've basically been purchasing an IP per year. Currently we're into year 9 of this 10 year plan and to date we've built a multi $million property portfolio spread across Australia.
We've been purchasing new or near new property over older style property for several reasons, the main ones being (in no particular order) -
1/ To maximise my Non-Cash deductions
2/ To minimise my maintenance & repair costs
3/ More modern & Attractive to tenants - thereby minimising potential vacancy rates
4/ Ask a higher rent - thereby Maximising yields
Without getting into the "which is better debate, houses or Units??", I preferr to purchase Townhouses & Villas with a 30% or greater land component thereby eliminating multi story units or high rise apartments, for several reasons. The mains ones being (in no particular order) -
1/ lower maintenance & upkeep for the tenant
2/ lower purchase or entry level into a Higher capital growth suburb area
3/ rapidly growing marketplace (starting both now & into the future) wanting these type properties. This is due the largest group of people to ever be born (being the Babyboomers and Empty nesters) starting to come into their retirement years. They will be wanting to downsize for the following main reasons - lifestyle & economic.
4/ greater tax advantages & effectiveness thus maximises cashflow.
5/ able to hold more individual properties spread across your portfolio - thereby minimising area over exposure risks by not holding all your eggs in only a few baskets, so to speak
I look to buy in areas with a historic Cap growth of 7%pa and/or are under gentrification. I look to where the Govt, Commercial, Retail, private sectors are injecting money. This ultimately beautifies the area and people like the looks so move in creating demand.
I have found this works well if you are looking for short to medium term capital growth so as to leverage against and build your portfolio faster.
Getting back to CGA, as the name suggests it averages out the capital growth achieved on individual properties with your portfolio throughout an entire property cycle, taking into account that property doubles in value every 7 - 10 years. Thats 7%pa compounding.
The easiest way to explain what Im meaning by this is to provide a basic example taking into account that all your portfolio cashflow will be serviced via Wages in the acquisition stage, Rental income, the Tax man, an LOC and/or Cashbond structure, and any other forms of income you have available.
For ease of calculation lets say we buy a property for $250k, so in 10 years its now worth $500k. Now lets say we do that each year for the next 7-10 years. Now you can quit the rat race.
So in year 11 ( 10 years since your 1st Ip) you have 250K equity in IP1 you can draw out (up to 80%) Tax free to fund your lifestyle or invest with. In year 12 you do exactly the same but instead of drawing it from IP1 you draw it from IP2. In year 13 you do the same to IP3, in year 14 to IP4, etc etc etc. You systmatically go right through your portfolio year by year until you have redrawn from each property up to year 20.
So what do you do after you get year 20 I hear you say ?? hmmm..well thats where it all falls into a deep hole - You have to go get a JOB - nope only joking!
You simply go back to that first IP you purchased as its been 10 years since you drew upon it first time around and its now doubled in value ($1M) yet again - so you complete the entire cycle once again. Infact chances are you never drew each property up 80% lvr max , so not only have you got entire property cycle of growth to spend you still have what you left in it first time round that compounded big time. Now you wealth is compounding faster than you can spend it! What a problem to have
Getting back to what I said in my opening paragraph about it does not matter where you buy within a property cycle just so long as you do buy, This is because you will not be wanting to draw upon it until 10 years later after its achieved a complete cycle of growth.
Well that’s the Basic Big Picture of CGA. Once set up & structured correctly it’s a self perpetuating source of tax free income indexed for life!
If you require any clarifications just ask.
