Property - Why CF is king going forward?

Hi All,

I have been doing some research in cashflow and how it will affect holding costs in the next 2-3 years (2009-2011).

My findings are as below:

1. The tax rates in Australia are heading down. Most people....now only pay 30% tax on their income instead of 45% over two years ago. This had added to people's holding costs because where you got back 40cents on the $1 you now get 30cents on the dollar back plus medicare. So if you were negatively geared to the tune of 10k your tax back is only $3000 instead of $4000.

2. The government has plans to further reduce tax of people on 80k-180k to 38% and for over 180k to 42%....this will further add to people's cashflow problems who are in this cashflow bucket.

3. The cost of Water and Council rates are now moving at a rate of over 6% per annum. This is going to encroach on expenses.

4. I cannot see over the longer term interest rates moving below the 8% mark over the next 2-3 years. This would represent a cut of amost 1.7%. I doubt the banks will hand back the extra margin they acquired as a result of the credit crunch.

Out of this I am seeing some real opportunity to get into the market. I feel that property which has solid yields (over 6%) over the next few years will be increasingly sought after by investors as they are easier to hold. My feeling is that old properties with good yileds will now be in more demand than ever. There will be less buildling till the prices of these older homes catch-up to be within a 30% premium of the new stuff....currently the premium is something like 70%-80%...this is why people are not buying new houses on the fringes....because they can get a older one in a better location for the same price closer into the city.

Your thoughts???:D
 
i kind of agree with you Sash.....

For IPs, i think those older houses in the outer suburbs are going to be quite popular in the next 6-12 months with house & land investors, as already they are yielding 6% and above in some cases because you can buy them at such a bargain price. I'm not so sure about units at the moment, because i feel they dont represent as good a bargain as the house-on-500sqm-or-more bargains you are getting out west.
I dont think those bargains will last much past xmas (my personal thoughts), as the bargains will keep flowing up until then, and more and more investors will learn of the bargains and snap them up, which will slowly bring prices back up as the supply of bargains dries up.

On the other side of the coin (the owner occupier's side) - it's interesting to note that some "family" and OO dominated suburbs such as Castle Hill, Baulkham Hills, Annandale, Beecroft (and most likely that whole middle class family belt) have all experienced at least 5% growth in the last year.
That kind of says to me that despite high interest rates, those who are smart and have money are spending it, because they know that it is a good time to buy at the moment.
(i just took a quick peek as some suburbs off the top of my head, so i dont know if that's true for all of these types of suburbs)


You are far more experienced than I am, so i guess you can read into these things much better than I can!

----------------------
So what am I going to do about it?
Well I am preparing to buy around Dec/Jan 1-2 IPs out west, and a 3rd if i can scrape up enough money for the deposit and get the finance through. I'll then buy for the next 12 months after that as equity growth allows it, and after that 12 months just ride the wave and be happy.

THe current environment out west makes affordability quite good! Your average $220,000 house ends up costing only about $4k-5K per year to hold!
 
I agree its a broad underlying trend to lower tax rates, however I dont agree the answer for property investors is necesarily cash flow positive property. The inner city areas I believe will see rents rise as petrol becomes more expensive, and yields catch up as the cost of debt increases , and similarly outer areas will see thier value eroded in comparison. The outer areas rental may not be effected as much, but having $10 per week in your pocket cannot compensate for higher capital gains in the long term.

That said due to my personal circumstance all of my properties were neutral or positively geared at purchase due to my low tax rate. Tax should only be a secondary consideration after weighing the risks of cashflow impact and likely capital appreciation.
 
Hi All,

I have been doing some research in cashflow and how it will affect holding costs in the next 2-3 years (2009-2011).

My findings are as below:

1. The tax rates in Australia are heading down. Most people....now only pay 30% tax on their income instead of 45% over two years ago. This had added to people's holding costs because where you got back 40cents on the $1 you now get 30cents on the dollar back plus medicare. So if you were negatively geared to the tune of 10k your tax back is only $3000 instead of $4000.

2. The government has plans to further reduce tax of people on 80k-180k to 38% and for over 180k to 42%....this will further add to people's cashflow problems who are in this cashflow bucket.

3. The cost of Water and Council rates are now moving at a rate of over 6% per annum. This is going to encroach on expenses.

4. I cannot see over the longer term interest rates moving below the 8% mark over the next 2-3 years. This would represent a cut of amost 1.7%. I doubt the banks will hand back the extra margin they acquired as a result of the credit crunch.

Out of this I am seeing some real opportunity to get into the market. I feel that property which has solid yields (over 6%) over the next few years will be increasingly sought after by investors as they are easier to hold. My feeling is that old properties with good yileds will now be in more demand than ever. There will be less buildling till the prices of these older homes catch-up to be within a 30% premium of the new stuff....currently the premium is something like 70%-80%...this is why people are not buying new houses on the fringes....because they can get a older one in a better location for the same price closer into the city.

Your thoughts???:D

Yields can improve on all houses, making them easier to hold - all it takes is for the price to go down.

However - if you take it as an axiom that house prices can never fall, your logic (while convoluted) seems to make sense.

It's like those religious scholars that build enormously complicated chains of reasoning starting out from certain points of scripture. Yes, internally it makes sense, starting from those points - but you end up writing very serious documents on the flight of winged horses, the size of giant turtles and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
 
I agree its a broad underlying trend to lower tax rates, however I dont agree the answer for property investors is necesarily cash flow positive property. The inner city areas I believe will see rents rise as petrol becomes more expensive, and yields catch up as the cost of debt increases , and similarly outer areas will see thier value eroded in comparison. The outer areas rental may not be effected as much, but having $10 per week in your pocket cannot compensate for higher capital gains in the long term.

That said due to my personal circumstance all of my properties were neutral or positively geared at purchase due to my low tax rate. Tax should only be a secondary consideration after weighing the risks of cashflow impact and likely capital appreciation.

You can get cap growth in all sorts of areas - not just inner city. We have always bought with cashflow in mind first, and cap growth second, thus we have never bought inner-city.

But we have enjoyed some very nice growth all the same, as we have tried to pick areas that showed good long term cap growth indicators, and there is still growth occuring in those areas currently.

Keep your view broad.
 
It's like those religious scholars that build enormously complicated chains of reasoning starting out from certain points of scripture. Yes, internally it makes sense, starting from those points - but you end up writing very serious documents on the flight of winged horses, the size of giant turtles and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

They probably had access to some of those good quality mushrooms eh HG? :cool:
 
My findings are as below:

1. The tax rates in Australia are heading down. Most people....now only pay 30% tax on their income instead of 45% over two years ago. This had added to people's holding costs because where you got back 40cents on the $1 you now get 30cents on the dollar back plus medicare. So if you were negatively geared to the tune of 10k your tax back is only $3000 instead of $4000.

2. The government has plans to further reduce tax of people on 80k-180k to 38% and for over 180k to 42%....this will further add to people's cashflow problems who are in this cashflow bucket.

I cannot disagree with you more strongly; the opposite is more likely to be true.

You are far better off paying $1000 less tax than getting $1000 in tax deductions.

Assume someone on $100k pa is paying 40% rate (for simplicity assume this is flat, not marginal rate, but this doesn't matter for really big earners). They pay $40k pa tax, so they get to keep $60k after tax.

Now they buy an IP that costs $20k to hold after tax. Their taxable income falls from $100k to $80k. 40% of $80k is $32k, so they're paying $8k less tax. But because of the property holding costs they now keep $48k after tax.

Suppose tax rates fell to 30%. Instead of keeping $60k they now keep $70k, so they're $10k better off assuming no IPs.

But what about if they have the property? Their taxable income is still $80k, but they're paying only 30% on it in tax ($24k), ie they keep $56k after tax.

That tax reduction has just put an extra $8k in the investor's pocket! Therefore if they have cashflow problems from such a large windfall then they're being stupid with their money and deserve to lose it.

To summarise, a tax reduction beats a tax deduction any day.

I think you're trying to argue that lower tax rates may make tax ineffective investments (eg term deposits or fixed interest) relatively better vis a vis leverged or tax-effective investments. While there may be truth in that, the smarter high income earners also realise that the extra dollars they don't have to pay the ATO would make a geared property or share portfolio easier to sustain or expand. But having made the choice to do so, lower tax shifts the type of property that becomes more attractive for investors, and this brings us to the next section.

Out of this I am seeing some real opportunity to get into the market. I feel that property which has solid yields (over 6%) over the next few years will be increasingly sought after by investors as they are easier to hold. My feeling is that old properties with good yileds will now be in more demand than ever. There will be less buildling till the prices of these older homes catch-up to be within a 30% premium of the new stuff....currently the premium is something like 70%-80%...this is why people are not buying new houses on the fringes....because they can get a older one in a better location for the same price closer into the city.

Fully agreed here :) . When marginal tax rates are low (or you're on a low-middle income), it's far better buying an old house with a 7% yield and no building depreciation than a newer depreciating place with 5% yield.

The interesting thing is that for all the 'conventional wisdom' you'll find here about property value being in the land (not the building), buyer behaviour in the outer suburbs that you and I like is completely the opposite.

For example, an old 10 square house on 700m2 costs $180k, while a new 20+ square house on 500m2 costs maybe $280k. New home buyers obviously still value the new, big house over the land size. Petrol prices notwithstanding, they prefer an outer location with new families settling in (which will become feral in 15 years) than the ex-commission suburb nearer the train that looks feral now.

Peter
 
The interesting thing is that for all the 'conventional wisdom' you'll find here about property value being in the land (not the building), buyer behaviour in the outer suburbs that you and I like is completely the opposite.

For example, an old 10 square house on 700m2 costs $180k, while a new 20+ square house on 500m2 costs maybe $280k. New home buyers obviously still value the new, big house over the land size.
Peter

Peter,

Don't follow your logic.

If that new house was also 10 sq then wouldn't it be 100k less making it comparable to the old one and vice versa. ie: cost being around 10k per sq to build. Then the older one is holding its value in comparison to the new one because its on a larger block? Just thinking out loud here. :)
 
If that new house was also 10 sq then wouldn't it be 100k less making it comparable to the old one and vice versa. ie: cost being around 10k per sq to build. Then the older one is holding its value in comparison to the new one because its on a larger block? Just thinking out loud here. :)

That's one way of looking at it, though I started with the land then added the building.

Eg blocks in new estate - say $130k.
Land component of old house $150k (assume same $/m2).

20sq 4x2 project home for new block: $150k
10sq 3x1 old house: $30k (difference between purchase price and land value)

Looking at it another way, that old $180k house is selling below replacement value, whereas the $280k new house and land package is selling at replacement value (otherwise the builder/developer wouldn't be making a profit). The difference is such that the whole property only costs a few $10ks more than either the house or land on its own.
 
Which with the rise in building material costs Im sure there are a hell of a lot of properties out there at the moment that you can buy below replacement cost.
 
Wow, you guys are pretty easily entertained - he's not a psychic - you can see what someone is up to and what thread they are viewing/posting to.

The references are:

Winged horse - Mohammad ascended into heaven
Turtles - Hinduism
Angles head of a pin - "silly" Medieval Christianity theological arguments.

Basically the point was, starting with a silly premise people construct all kinds of elaborate chains of logic and justifications. But it is still silly.

"House prices always go up" was believed with religious zeal by the middle class of the Western world. Australia is the last hold out, the other countries have had their God's fail them - but Australia still believes. For now.

Doom and gloomers are apostates that should be burnt at the stake!

They probably had access to some of those good quality mushrooms eh HG?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_sc/sci_psychedelic_study;_ylt=Ajh4iLqdIu5ImV2Y8zo2WrdH2ocA

Good luck on your hunt. It's the right time of year.
 
Last edited:
"House prices always go up" was believed with religious zeal by the middle class of the Western world

The only people I ever see repeating that phrase are the gloomers from GHPC.

I think you'll find that most people on Somersoft recognize that prices can fall, and have done in the past. Of course, prices do always rise again to a higher level following a subsequent market cycle... perhaps this is where you're getting confused HG...
 
Hi Guys

Its great to hear some positive (yet heated) discussions on the current market situation. It's not all doom and gloom, we still have our health and if you barrack for Geelong then football is great too :)

But seriously, I agree that there will definitely be some good opportunities. Like always you just need to know where to look (and a little foresight helps as well:)).

Cheers

Banjo Smyth


www.BanjoSmyth.com

www.SharesPropertyMoney.com
 
That's one way of looking at it, though I started with the land then added the building.

Eg blocks in new estate - say $130k.
Land component of old house $150k (assume same $/m2).

20sq 4x2 project home for new block: $150k
10sq 3x1 old house: $30k (difference between purchase price and land value)

Looking at it another way, that old $180k house is selling below replacement value, whereas the $280k new house and land package is selling at replacement value (otherwise the builder/developer wouldn't be making a profit). The difference is such that the whole property only costs a few $10ks more than either the house or land on its own.

out in sydneys west... those prices dont stack up.
In the new estate (ropes crossing) - 350sqm = $200K
Land component in nearby suburbs - 500sqm = $180K

Cost of building 4x2 home - Try $200K plus.
$150K is hardly going to get you a slab and some bricks these days, even for a cheapie masterton home.
Cost of old home - $30K (same as you suggested).


So the old homes are representing FAR better value than the new estates, and with almost double the land in some cases (600sqm is not uncommon)
 
Cost of building 4x2 home - Try $200K plus.
$150K is hardly going to get you a slab and some bricks these days, even for a cheapie masterton home.

That's Sydney for you ;)

4x2s in Melbourne start from $139k eg: http://www.mypackage.com.au/jadehttp.dll?Www_MyPackage&Product=869&H05=2&HSrch_Type=Home

Double that for the land as well, eg: http://www.domain.com.au/Public/PropertyDetails.aspx?adid=2007153357 $264k

But I agree with your point in favour of cheaper established homes, and if anything it seems to be even stronger in Sydney than Melbourne.
 
Spiderman.... my girlfriend used to work for a builder as a display home host (on weekends) and also worked for HIA, and knows how that little market works.
From what she tells me, those prices that "start from $139K" have absolutely no inclusions. That means for that price you basically get a slab, frame, some bricks, and if you are lucky... roof tiles.
All your "inclusions" - walls, floors, tiles, fittings, fixtures, etc are not included in that price... that stuff adds up bloody fast!

It's a deceptive practice IMO, but apparently it's rife in the display home industry.
 
Back
Top