Positive Cash Flow Report

[DavidMc]

Thanks for that example Spiderman.

Just did the figures on that $149k place, it's close to CF neutral, only around $20 negative cashflow based on my spreadsheet (takes into account tax, expenses, depreciation, the lot). As far as I can see that's about as best as cashflow can get in Metro Melb (say 40k-ish radius) right now.

Very interesting, my first property I bought in 2001 was $137k and rented for $200pw in Carrum Downs (similar socioeconomic area?). Pretty close to those days now...

 

[AdamP]

Thanks for all your great feedback everyone, its helped me improve this report a lot.

Firstly and already active, is it now shows +ve cash flow property based on different LVRs, 75, 85, 95, 100, 110.

Secondly I noticed that I miscalculated the council rates and they were far too high, this has been corrected.

Next I noticed I wasn't gathering enough rental information. If I can't find a rental income for the type of property I am trying to do a calculation on I can't do any calculations hence it doesn't count it as a +ve cash flow property, even though it might be.

So with those last two things, they have been corrected, and in the next few days once my server has finished processing the information, it should be updated with a lot more positive cash flow properties.

Here is the link again: http://www.thepropertydomain.com/Positive-Cash-Flow-Report.aspx

 

[Peter Parker]

Thanks for that example Spiderman.

Just did the figures on that $149k place, it's close to CF neutral, only around $20 negative cashflow based on my spreadsheet (takes into account tax, expenses, depreciation, the lot). As far as I can see that's about as best as cashflow can get in Metro Melb (say 40k-ish radius) right now.

And for those wanting a 3x1 house, this wouldn't be too far off http://www.domain.com.au/Public/PropertyDetails.aspx?adid=2007667787 (assuming $180k purchase and >$200pw rent). The absence of a body corp would be offset by the higher maintenance costs though.

This $160k 2x1 unit would probably get around $180pw rent, so would have similar figures, again with 6% yield. But for just $5k more, why wouldn't you get a house instead, eg http://www.domain.com.au/Public/PropertyDetails.aspx?adid=2007536499

If you were willing to count building depreciation, had a reasonable job income and were willing to put up with a lower land component, then something newer like this (200k+ ?) http://www.domain.com.au/Public/PropertyDetails.aspx?adid=2007684582 might almost even after tax, despite its lower gross yield (my guess is 5% only).

Slightly better (assuming it's post 1988, which it could be) is a whole house ($235k from Jenman agent/$240pw rent) http://www.domain.com.au/Public/PropertyDetails.aspx?adid=2007286160

Once the current first homebuyer frenzy calms then 6% yields on advertised prices might become a little more common than now, but even now it's possible, though usually on an older place without building depreciation.

 

[moneyfinder]

Positive Cash Flow

If a company is consistently generating more cash than it is using, the company will be able to increase its dividend, buy back some of its stock, reduce debt, or acquire another company. All of these are perceived to be good for stockholder value.