Peter Spann returns to Perth
- Thread starter yadreamin
- Start date
To summarise:
Peter thinks residential property in Australia is going to experience little to no growth for the coming few years. He thinks rents have to increase dramatically to catch up with recent prices rises before he will start getting bullish on residential property. He is also preaching asset diversification as he feels too many investors are overweight oz residential property and may miss out on potential growth in other asset classes and regions.
He is bullish on the US and Australian sharemarkets and China in particular. He believes that the Perth resi boom has ended or its end is imminent with affordability way out of wack with the long term mean.
He is looking to take advantage of forthcoming global growth through:
infrastructure
hedge funds
australian and US shares
commercial property investment
and LPTs
He was promoting the Macquarie Fusion fund which is a fund of fund so to speak and has an innovative capital protection mechanism which I have not seen before . I understand how this mechanism could reduce volatility as I have experienced incredibly volatile returns through previous hedge fund investments.
From my understanding, the Macquarie Fusion fund diversifies its risk by investing in a series of funds which use differing strategies and investment vehicles. There is a mixture of hedge funds, property trusts, value funds and growth funds to choose from.
Macquarie were also offering a 100% lend if you require.
Peter also pointed out that he can't think of any mega-wealthy people who created their fortunes solely through residential property investment which is something I had not considered before and struck me as being rather profound.
While he sees pretty much strong global economic growth in the coming five years or so ex Europe with a particular emphasis on Russia, China, Brazil and India he feels that we are long overdue for a global recession which we will have to face in the middle of next decade. He had strategies for that which he called "the cash cycle."
He is not overly bullish resource stocks and feels that the BHP share price is going to come under a lot of pressure in the next few years.
I agreed with and understand alot of what he said. I felt he should've covered the implications of the cooling house market in the US as I feel that this could be a major boon for the US stockmarket. I believe this because of the way that the Aussie market bottomed just as the Eastern states property boom was topping. I felt that the smart money was rotating into the stockmarket which was cheap at the time and have enjoyed a three year roaring bull market while property in the eastern states waned barring the top end.
Peter thinks residential property in Australia is going to experience little to no growth for the coming few years. He thinks rents have to increase dramatically to catch up with recent prices rises before he will start getting bullish on residential property. He is also preaching asset diversification as he feels too many investors are overweight oz residential property and may miss out on potential growth in other asset classes and regions.
He is bullish on the US and Australian sharemarkets and China in particular. He believes that the Perth resi boom has ended or its end is imminent with affordability way out of wack with the long term mean.
He is looking to take advantage of forthcoming global growth through:
infrastructure
hedge funds
australian and US shares
commercial property investment
and LPTs
He was promoting the Macquarie Fusion fund which is a fund of fund so to speak and has an innovative capital protection mechanism which I have not seen before . I understand how this mechanism could reduce volatility as I have experienced incredibly volatile returns through previous hedge fund investments.
From my understanding, the Macquarie Fusion fund diversifies its risk by investing in a series of funds which use differing strategies and investment vehicles. There is a mixture of hedge funds, property trusts, value funds and growth funds to choose from.
Macquarie were also offering a 100% lend if you require.
Peter also pointed out that he can't think of any mega-wealthy people who created their fortunes solely through residential property investment which is something I had not considered before and struck me as being rather profound.
While he sees pretty much strong global economic growth in the coming five years or so ex Europe with a particular emphasis on Russia, China, Brazil and India he feels that we are long overdue for a global recession which we will have to face in the middle of next decade. He had strategies for that which he called "the cash cycle."
He is not overly bullish resource stocks and feels that the BHP share price is going to come under a lot of pressure in the next few years.
I agreed with and understand alot of what he said. I felt he should've covered the implications of the cooling house market in the US as I feel that this could be a major boon for the US stockmarket. I believe this because of the way that the Aussie market bottomed just as the Eastern states property boom was topping. I felt that the smart money was rotating into the stockmarket which was cheap at the time and have enjoyed a three year roaring bull market while property in the eastern states waned barring the top end.
Chart - Thanks for the report
Macquare fusion looks good. Usually the 100% loans with capital protection only apply to Macquarie products. (not that there is anything wrong with them)
Macquare fusion looks good. Usually the 100% loans with capital protection only apply to Macquarie products. (not that there is anything wrong with them)
nice summary
How many mega-wealthy people got there by investing in managed funds is a point that also could also be raised.
How many mega-wealthy people got there by investing in managed funds is a point that also could also be raised.
Not many I'd guess but at least Managed Funds invest in the same things people who ARE rich invest in, unlike residential property.
Charttv,
I also think that statement is, well not so much profound as I have previously thought this, but a very key distinction.
If you are on the resi property buy and hold treadmill, you are going to use time over about 10 minimum to 20 maximum years to get some serious equity. The point is that this all takes time, and would probably take 40 years or so to start to generate really serious wealth.
When you consider that very often DSR becomes an issue for buy and holders, unless you do small projects, renos, or release equity in the form of cashbonds or invest equity in shares, it is going to be slow. Even if you do these things it may not be that fast.
Seems to me that seriously wealthy people probably don't invest in resi property at all in fact, certainly not in the buy and hold strategy. So the investors that do buy and hold are NOT necessarily going to get very wealthy, and if they want to get serious wealth they need to look for alternatives.
Tim
I also think that statement is, well not so much profound as I have previously thought this, but a very key distinction.
If you are on the resi property buy and hold treadmill, you are going to use time over about 10 minimum to 20 maximum years to get some serious equity. The point is that this all takes time, and would probably take 40 years or so to start to generate really serious wealth.
When you consider that very often DSR becomes an issue for buy and holders, unless you do small projects, renos, or release equity in the form of cashbonds or invest equity in shares, it is going to be slow. Even if you do these things it may not be that fast.
Seems to me that seriously wealthy people probably don't invest in resi property at all in fact, certainly not in the buy and hold strategy. So the investors that do buy and hold are NOT necessarily going to get very wealthy, and if they want to get serious wealth they need to look for alternatives.
Tim
So charttv, now you have seen Peter in the flesh, do you think he cuts the mustard
Pretty much. He seems to not take himself too seriously which is refreshing. It's as if he's part entertainer, part motivational speaker/wealth guru.
IMHO I think building $10M-$20M is very achievable over a 10-20 year period purely using a buy & hold residential investment property strategy.
Where the majority fall in the hole is they dont have the foresight and actively commit to a strategy for the long term, & therefore dont get to see or realise the true power of time upon a portfolio's compounding capital growth!
Where the majority fall in the hole is they dont have the foresight and actively commit to a strategy for the long term, & therefore dont get to see or realise the true power of time upon a portfolio's compounding capital growth!
But didn't you GET rich by investing in resi property? At least that's what your books say
I thought you owned or had owned over 150+ individual titles, the majority of which are/were residential?
Would you have reached the net worth you have today if you hadn't invested in residential property in a major way 15 years ago?
Maybe it's a case of get rich(ish) using residential property, then stay rich/get richer moving into other asset classes?
Not being a smart@#$, just trying to understand your response.
Cheers
N.
But didn't you GET rich by investing in resi property? At least that's what your books say
I thought you owned or had owned over 150+ individual titles, the majority of which are/were residential?
Would you have reached the net worth you have today if you hadn't invested in residential property in a major way 15 years ago?
Maybe it's a case of get rich(ish) using residential property, then stay rich/get richer moving into other asset classes?
Not being a smart@#$, just trying to understand your response.
Cheers
N.
Peter was saying in his presentation (Melbourne one was Saturday just passed) that:
1. Making you first mill or two in residential property is ok
2. He would have got to where he is quicker (or got to a higher net worth in the same time) if he hadn't gone as far as he did with residential property back then.
Cheers,
The Y-man
p.s. hope my notes are right!
G'day Rix,
Profound stuff, mate - and a point often lost:-
It is very easy to get discouraged when your goal appears to be "way too far ahead". But, if your goal is $3mil goal in 12 years, you should not expect to have $1.5mil by 6 years. (I reckon if you have got to $750k, you're well on track).
It's an exponential curve, not a straight line - keep in mind, YOU are learning better and better ways to "make it happen" over these 12 years - THAT has to add more value in later years. And, because of the earlier growth, your Portfolio is starting from a much higher value after 6 years.
For those who might say (quite rightly) that IP's, shares, etc. DON'T grow regularly year after year - I quite agree. So any planning needs to allow for that fact.
The MAJOR point I wanted to make (and is what I believe Rixter was alluding to) is that the growth curve is exponential - so DON'T expect it to grow linearly.
The inverse of this is paying down a P&I loan (don't expect to have paid HALF of it off until 75% of the time has passed!!)
Regards,
Profound stuff, mate - and a point often lost:-
One of the things that tells me this, is where people who are aiming for (say) $3million over 12 years are expecting to do it linearly - i.e. $250k first year, $250k next year, etc. That is NOT the way it works (in my book).Rixter said:
It is very easy to get discouraged when your goal appears to be "way too far ahead". But, if your goal is $3mil goal in 12 years, you should not expect to have $1.5mil by 6 years. (I reckon if you have got to $750k, you're well on track).
It's an exponential curve, not a straight line - keep in mind, YOU are learning better and better ways to "make it happen" over these 12 years - THAT has to add more value in later years. And, because of the earlier growth, your Portfolio is starting from a much higher value after 6 years.
For those who might say (quite rightly) that IP's, shares, etc. DON'T grow regularly year after year - I quite agree. So any planning needs to allow for that fact.
The MAJOR point I wanted to make (and is what I believe Rixter was alluding to) is that the growth curve is exponential - so DON'T expect it to grow linearly.
The inverse of this is paying down a P&I loan (don't expect to have paid HALF of it off until 75% of the time has passed!!)
Regards,
