price inclusive
- Thread starter tj22
- Start date
the bank will "allow" it
the valuer will take the stamp duty off the val amount/contract usually if properly disclosed
nil benefit usually
ta
rolf
the valuer will take the stamp duty off the val amount/contract usually if properly disclosed
nil benefit usually
ta
rolf
The bank will reduce the value of the property by 6k, or they'll simply refuse the loan outright.
Best case is you'll still have to come up with the $6k, but now you're paying stamp duty on an increased value as well. This strategy actually puts you behind, not ahead.
You're trying to get away with not having to come up with the stamp duty yourself. The banks have seen this before. Trying to be create with finance rarely works.
Best case is you'll still have to come up with the $6k, but now you're paying stamp duty on an increased value as well. This strategy actually puts you behind, not ahead.
You're trying to get away with not having to come up with the stamp duty yourself. The banks have seen this before. Trying to be create with finance rarely works.
As Rolf has said, the valuer will look at the contract and deduct these costs covered by the vendor. This is common also in 'cash back' deals which developers use to pump up values.
I do know of some peops that have used it as a strategy and have made it work to supplement some transactions.
I personally cant support it though.
ta
rolf
What are they 'getting away with'.
What happens is the clients have signed their unconditional/OTP contract, then settlement time comes up later and they either need to come up with more funds, pay more LMI or a combination of the both.
You can certainly do it, but it doesn't achieve anything for you.
Ask them to sell it at the effective price without the stamps being covered and see what their reaction is.
Is this a developer?
This strategy wont work (but nice try!). Seen some real estate agents over commission splits/rebates - this may go through under the radar if its a post settlement transaction, but its in the 'gray' not to disclose it (and in some states, I believe it's illegal).
In my experience, its very hard to get anything 'unusual' in relation to the valuation of a security through the valuers, and in particular, LMI. Recently had a deal with a government rebate (investor) - LMI policy is to reduce the security value for 'developer rebates' (not gov't ones). Getting it through LMI was impossible, treated it as a development rebate and wanting proof that it was legislated (it was an ad-hoc local grant).
Cheers,
Redom
In my experience, its very hard to get anything 'unusual' in relation to the valuation of a security through the valuers, and in particular, LMI. Recently had a deal with a government rebate (investor) - LMI policy is to reduce the security value for 'developer rebates' (not gov't ones). Getting it through LMI was impossible, treated it as a development rebate and wanting proof that it was legislated (it was an ad-hoc local grant).
Cheers,
Redom
People have tried to throw in cars, boast and other incentives. The banks and valuers don't like them. Its an overinflated contract price that funds it...No lender wants to lend 80% on a car, boat etc Over 30 years.
So you may have to find 100% of the reduced valuation gap and you are back where you started.
So you may have to find 100% of the reduced valuation gap and you are back where you started.
The higher sales price achieved reflects in the stats and artificially inflates the market for their next project. There's more in it for them.
Having had a chat with one of our local council rangers. Said he was out pinging developers working outside of the approved hours @ $3000/pop.
Developers know that it's cheaper to pay for 100 fines and add it to the cost of the apartments than to fund an additional 3 months of the development at full holding costs.
"specifically" approved the "all inclusive" pricing of the contract including stamps rebate by vendor, or do you mean they didnt see it ?
If it was specifically approved you can use it on the next deal.
ta
rolf
Maybe, there are some really dumb valuers out there though.I am dealing with one now,timber frame house on stumps,valuer swears its a transportable with no value.Like i said....Dumb.
You're not cross collateralising against another property at all for this purchase? Otherwise besides the valuer not noticing, it could be a case of the lender just using more of your equity position from other tied properties.
Similar threads
