So is a PPOR an asset a liability or something else again?

Kenster, the issue I have with this argument is that it seems to ignore the fact that we do need a roof over our heads. In the case of say RumpledElf you would be hard pressed to convince me that her PPOR is a liability as the cashflow required is less than a rental. So her PPOR in fact IMPROVES her cashflow (and equity position).


GoAnna,

I totally agree with you about the need to have a roof over our heads and the need for certainty (ie. The comfort of home).

The issue arrives when one over-extends their affordability, to bite more than they can chew, to own a big, flash property to match the Joneses while the negative cashflow chews them up alive. This is no longer a home, it is a terminal cancer.

When people talks about moving PPOR, we have been brought up with the thinking that if the new PPOR is bigger, better, it is alright. If the new PPOR is not as good, then thing is going wrong ("The Joneses thinking").

What the Joneses don't see is, there is life outside of their comfort zone. By opening up to the world outside their blinkered view, they would be able to see new things: People lives everywhere. Many areas are shrinking, yet many others are thriving and growing.

It is possible to have a comfortable life, a comfortable home with less, allowing more cashflow for other purpose. :)
 
Hi GoAnna,

I learnt a long time ago now to stop listening to the gurus and just watch/listen to my mentors and people whom I admire and try and emulate what they do. No point in trying to re-invent the wheel. Gurus say what they say in order to sell books and seminars.

Mark
 
My PPOR was my asset. It is now my liability!:cool: Regards JO

Just on a slightly different take, in my view is the equity that is the asset - and that equity can vary month to month and year to year.

I'm with Dazz on his view of RK's definition - pure non-sense from an accounting perspective but good for beginners to get their head straightened out.

You cannot have the house:
1. Paid off & costing nothing to own as being an asset
2. Not fully paid off and requiring you to tip in monthly cash as being a liability
3. Or then being rented as an IP as +CF as an asset again..... IMHO. Its the same house in each scenario!
 
Again I guess it comes down to everyone's own definition. I wouldn't call a property costing me $2kpa to hold but going up an average of 10x that each year a liability. It's increasing my net worth, so I call it an asset.

But then from memory, RK is heavily in favour of CF+ etc. isn't he?
 
Nonsense - RK's definition is a load of book selling toss.

I drive past vacant blocks in the city every day.

Some were bought 5 years ago for 3M, costing the Owners 350K p.a. to hold. That's 4.8M all up over the past 5 years.

They have just sold to developers for 14M.

Most people would agree making 10M in 5 years out of a "liability" is doing OK.

Buying something for 3M + costing 350k pa to hold for 5 years sounds like a great example for the Greater Fool theory to me, not a sound investment strategy where cashflow is the cornerstone.

This approach works in a fast rising market. Let's see if they can replicate it now :D
 
Kenster,

What makes you think these guys - who are obviously successful enough to have done these deals in the first place - aren't already holding onto other investments now?

If I had to choose between listening to them and listening to RK, I know who I'd choose.

Mark
 
Buying something for 3M + costing 350k pa to hold for 5 years sounds like a great example for the Greater Fool theory to me, not a sound investment strategy where cashflow is the cornerstone.

Personally, I'd consider someone who wouldn't hold onto a property costing 350K a year to make 11 million before costs in five years the Greater Fool, but that's just me. Personally I'd be pretty happy with a 300% return over 5 years on a 3 mill investment.

Mark
 
What if the cashflow is flowing both in and out? Does that make it an assebility?

The cashflow in this instant means Net Cashflow, the total of all cash inflows and cash outflows.

If there is more cash inflow than outflow, then it is an Asset.

Otherwise, it is a Liability.

:)
 
Well, let me tell ya, I sure am pretty happy that I purchased my liability, seeing as how that liability is allowing me to achieve financial independence in a few years. If that makes my PPOR a liability, then give me plenty more liabilities!

Mark
 
Buying something for 3M + costing 350k pa to hold for 5 years sounds like a great example for the Greater Fool theory to me, not a sound investment strategy where cashflow is the cornerstone.

This approach works in a fast rising market. Let's see if they can replicate it now :D

Kenster - let's see indeed....considering these chaps have done 15 identical or larger deals in the past, I'd say yes - quite possible indeed.

Buy the dirt for 14. Spend 40 all up building something nice. Install a large blue chip or Govt in as tenant for 10+10 years, paying 5 p.a in rent.

At 7% cap rate, that 5 tranlates to 71. They've made 71 - (14+40) = 17.

It's happening on a monthly basis over here....replicating success after success.

It may sound like a greater fool theory to you Ken, but suspect you don't know what you don't know.
 
Kenster - let's see indeed....considering these chaps have done 15 identical or larger deals in the past, I'd say yes - quite possible indeed.

Buy the dirt for 14. Spend 40 all up building something nice. Install a large blue chip or Govt in as tenant for 10+10 years, paying 5 p.a in rent.

At 7% cap rate, that 5 tranlates to 71. They've made 71 - (14+40) = 17.

It's happening on a monthly basis over here....replicating success after success.

It may sound like a greater fool theory to you Ken, but suspect you don't know what you don't know.

Heyo! BLAM!

Mark
 
Hi GoAnna,

I learnt a long time ago now to stop listening to the gurus and just watch/listen to my mentors and people whom I admire and try and emulate what they do. No point in trying to re-invent the wheel. Gurus say what they say in order to sell books and seminars.

Mark

I am not big on what gurus have to say either :) But I do find that I learn a lot when I stop and question any assumptions I come up against. Now that I think on it I have a very simplistic way of looking at it. I just ask myself two questions - is it helping my plan along? Is it helping me build the life I want to live?

For me an asset assists me in creating the life I want. A liability does the opposite.
I presume those that see a PPOR as a liability or discretionary income obviously do not share the same life plan as me. (which is fine!)

My PPOR was our second purchase (I did live in my first property but this was due to bank requirements attached to a bank loan) at the age of 26. It was an unrenovated run down version of my dream home. . I don't mean the waterfront mansion with the yacht moored out the front. I mean a big old rambling house with large mature garden, two separate buildings, easy location to the city, and access to parklands based in a community that shares my values.

I did however select and purchase it with an investor’s head. We found a sleeper suburb, at a time when property values had dropped (not unlike current times) and purchased well under market at a mortgagee auction. Within a year the bank valuation showed a 38% increase. Had we any knowledge on using equity for investments our investment journey would have begun then, as it was it took a further 6 years before I obtained the information. Even so I would guestimate that the PPOR has contributed at least 2 million net to our portfolio as it was the basis for most of our further investments.

I know others here feel that the cash flow going to the PPOR is holding back the investment plan. We focused on cash flow positive ips so the investments were self supporting. At the same time equity was essential for purchases. This combination allowed us to quite aggressively accumulate properties and only recent interest rate increases has slowed us down.

In pure economic terms our home has provided us with:

Certainty in terms of decisions based on work, investment and family;

Equity of around a million dollars which has provided us with the basis for our investment portfolio;

Currently cheaper and more flexible housing. If we had borrowed 80% of the purchase price and did not pay a cent off the interest bill would be about $260 per week. Renting an equivalent property would be I estimate $800 per week. We currently have some-one sharing our home for $275 per week which more than covers the estimated interest bill.

Josko’s situation made me reflect on the fact that had we delayed purchasing our PPOR until now have to fork out $8,500 per month assuming an interest only loan and an 80% loan. This would be not be possible unless I sold off a number of ips and put my retirement plan back around 5 years.
 
Again I guess it comes down to everyone's own definition. I wouldn't call a property costing me $2kpa to hold but going up an average of 10x that each year a liability. It's increasing my net worth, so I call it an asset.

Yes, I would agree. I also think that it depends on each person's situation as to whether a PPOR would be regarded to be an asset or a liability. There are a mix of investors here who are at various stages in the investment journey.
Some are:

1) Accumulating IP's before a PPOR. (Works well).
2) Already own their PPOR and have since gone on to build a property portfolio or business portfolio.
3) Currently paying off a PPOR and haven't launched into IP's just yet. This is the group who needs to decide whether it is to their advantage to gear into IP's or other investments before paying off their PPOR, or pay their PPOR off first.
 
Interesting Dazz....are they still doing this in the current credit environment?

The reason I ask this is because the amount of "hurt" (your deposit) money is quite large....the gap used to be provided by Mezzanine funders...but they have seem to have gone quiet!

Would love to hear how people are still doing this in the current environment. ;)

Kenster - let's see indeed....considering these chaps have done 15 identical or larger deals in the past, I'd say yes - quite possible indeed.

Buy the dirt for 14. Spend 40 all up building something nice. Install a large blue chip or Govt in as tenant for 10+10 years, paying 5 p.a in rent.

At 7% cap rate, that 5 tranlates to 71. They've made 71 - (14+40) = 17.

It's happening on a monthly basis over here....replicating success after success.

It may sound like a greater fool theory to you Ken, but suspect you don't know what you don't know.
 
Back
Top