What is your net cashflow from investment properties?

[Deltaberry]

....not that there is any correlation between the two....

This myth continually perpetuated on the forum that demands high CG = low yield, and conversely low CG = high yield makes no sense to me.

I have experience with properties that exhibits all four combinations.

1. low CG and low yield......seriously - why would ya ??
2. low CG and high yield.....these are OK but I stopped buying these as well.
3. high CG and low yield.....we had quite a few of these early on, but we woke up.
4. high CG and high yield....this is what we have been purchasing for years now.


The myth that pervades this forum that category 4 doesn't exist is simply not true. Category 4 properties are what unleash you from your job.


I'd even go so far to say there is another set of criteria where you can add "lots of work - very active" or "no work - passive"


Believe it or not, there are plenty of properties that are "low CG, low yield and lots of work" that people buy for some reason - torment and self flagellation probably.

There are also properties out there that are high CG, high yield and no work.....these are the ones that make being a passive Landlord a true joy to own. They do exist, but not to the average mum and dad investor.

That's all very true. Normally though, when you find high cashflow, the capital growth is not so apparent and that's where an investor gets tested.

Let me post a hypothetical.

Would you rather buy, say, a short lease 8% net yield CBD (let's say Syd/Melb/Bris/Perth) small strata title shopfront, or a long lease 12% regional large freehold in a place like Dubbo or Townsville?

I'd consider both to be relatively acceptable cashflow. Which do you consider would generally have higher capital growth?

 

[handyandy]

How can you know this by the poll results?
It's highly possible that those with positive net cash flow are negatively geared.

You might want to explain this one to me? Seems like an oxymoron.

Cheers