Why buy Negatively Geared Properties? I think the calculations are wrong

[alexlee]

One question:
its so strongly harped that if you buy negative gearing properties outside super, and it will still be negative gear after 10 years?

Why? Rent would increase while loan will be same or lesser?

Everyone is limited by their own experiences. If negative geared, negative cashflow property is all manoj has seen, then he thinks that applies to all IPs. If your property experiences have been terrible, then obviously you'll look for something else.

My first IP was negatively geared but positive cashflow from the first year. Left on its own, it would have beeen cashflow positive all throughout the last 10 years. As rent has increased, the appreciation has been refinanced for deposits and the positive income and cashflow has been used to cover the (initial) shortfall for new properties. etc etc etc
Alex

 

[manoj]

Originally Posted by manoj View Post
That is not exactly what I said – after selling the first 5 – there was no problem with the debt and interest was under control due to high income – but after selling a few – I realised the Profit & loss from each of them – mind you I sold them in 2002 – 2004 – the best time to sell – and some of them will sell even lower if sold today – so had I not sold them back then …. I would have got less today –

Why would they be worth less today than in 2002 and 2004?

Because they have not gone up since i sold them in 2002 - 2004 - i guess because i sold them at peak time


further I would have to pay 6 years of loss each year!

What do you mean by this?

If you hold NG property - it costs you grossed up income to hold the property - so i had held my properties since 2004 till date - if the loss was $10K each year - I would have further lost $60K on each property - if i had 10 NG properties and if none of them went up in value - i would be down by about $600K

I actually feel sorry for those who purchased them for NG purposes – I came out in front in each deal – but not after taking in to consideration of all costs such as Stamp duty on purchase / holding costs (grossed up) / agents commission / imputation income for my equity / CGT to ATO believe me all deals were at a loss which led me to believe that the structure which I was using of 50% is wrong – the ATO is hanging this carrot – but the profits just not add up ….

For those who can prove to me that they have made a profit – after considering all costs – they do have to sell the property – assume it is sold at market price – and if they can prove that they have beaten inflation – I am happy to pay for their dinner for two for $100!

House we paid $156K for in 1998 (rented immediately $190 per week), spent $30K over twelve years adding deck, kitchen, re-roofing, air-con etc. Value now probably $700K renting for $495 per week. Where have we lost money on this house? I don't understand?

I am currently doing a spreadsheet where you have borrowed $156K (please advise if this including stamp duty? could be $165 + improvements - say $200K cost) in 1998 with additional costs and rented for $190 per week with related costs etc
and working out the CGT for $700K ( say $500K capital gain - please supply your marginal tax rate) and working out the CPI and the imputed costs to tell you how much you have actually gained over the 12 years of ownership.

$700K looks a bit high to get only $495 rent per week - have you got a recent valuation done?


If I was wrong – why in your “Mecca of NG” – not even one taker has come to claim the price

So all those of you, thinking of retiring with NG’ed properties – please wake up now - as that retirement is an illusion and will NEVER happen.

My parents retired on NG properties, quite wealthy, it CAN happen and plenty here on SS can say the same.
I don't know how we would have fared had we gone down a different path and invested within super. I don't think it was available to us when we started down the IP path anyway.

I do know that investing OUTSIDE super has proven to be a great strategy for us. I don't think you should make blanket statements for either strategy. Perhaps they can BOTH work.

I think my closing remark for the thread agrees with your view.

__________________
Wylie
Reply With Quote

 

[manoj]

Alex

In your last post - you talk about +ve cash flow properties over a period of time - that is natural - because rent will increase over time... that is all baby stuff... But what i hate is comparing past with future...

This is where the problem is :

I am saying to people

1) Not to buy properties outside of super any more from now on - I am not saying that your purchases outside super till today are always bad (for some they are) decisions

2) In the past - all was well and most who purchased pre-boom like Wylie would have done well

3) In the future properties outside of super is NOT a good idea - due to NG / Tax / CGT / Grossed up Loss issues

4) Those who purchase property NG properties outside super - do not look into structure more closely and ignore costs such as grossed up cost + imputated return on equity + inflation on their equity etc whilst calculating their gains

5) When you purchase IP which are NG - ATO is your partner as you have to share income from property and growth from property with ATO in the form of CGT whilst with Super - this can be avoided


Any capital growth from now is doubtful - ignore growth altogether - if you get it, you are lucky - concentrate on return - or in other words think of this possibility : Can i property purchase a property for say $200K today - can i find some one today to enter into a contract with me - 12 years from now to purchase that property for $600K - instead of $700K which Wylie has achieved = probably not - because the future is uncertain, capital gain is uncertain - it is possible that there could be a capital loss on property as US has seen on property - we after GFS live in a different world - But the every year loss (grossed up) is certain - which can be avoided in Super - for two reasons

1) we can borrow less in super - which is a good thing
2) all contributions (including salary sacrifice) = reduce income = we pay less tax = can be used to gear and reduce borrowing further - so the return (rental income) is tax free and CGT is tax free

Imagine if Wylie decides to retire with 5 properties similar to those he has - and no loan has been repaid (to continue NG strategy)

Our Data:
Asset base $3.5M ($700K value of each property times 5)
Loan $1M ($200K times 5) - say at 6%

Equity $2.5K

Rental Income Say $500 per week times 5 or $25K each property times 5 or say $125K

I am not counting other costs in my below calculations such as council rates + land tax + agents management commission as i think these costs will be absorbed by any future growth in rental income

Net rental income after interest of $60K = net rental income $65K

Problems which i want to highlight (forget depreciation since they are houses purchased in 1998)

Problem 1) Tax on Income
Net rental income $65K
now we have to pay tax on this income - if on joint name than tax is $8K - net income $57K
= Return on equity 2.3%

Problem 2) Tax on Income if one partner dies

One day one partner will die - the other partner will acquire all the assets and now pay tax on $65K (only one tax free threshold) = tax $18K - net income $47K
= Return on equity 1.9%

Problem 3) Increase in Interest rate to 8%
Rental income $125K
interest costs $80K
Net Rental return after interest $45K
tax on $45K for one person $8K
net return 37K
on Equity rental return is 1.4%

Problem 4) interest rate 8%, one person and One property needs major repairs - say $20K

Rental income $125K
interest costs $80K
Net rental income after interest $45K
major repairs $20K
net cash flow to fund retirement $25K
Return on Equity 1%

I am sure there will be many people who will argue with the above situation - the above is not about if my figures are right or wrong - it is about a fact that when property are sold - you will pay CGT - In super you don't
that everybody will agree - that is the point I am trying to make all along - because like Wylie parents - they can retire on IP's no problem - but on low return on equity and Wylie will tell you the $ figure of CGT if they sell - there is a huge amount of CGT and if the parents won't sell ever - Wylie will, later.

In retirement you can two problems - low disposal income and at the same time be asset rich - that is because you will be holding the wrong asset class - On retirement to change the asset class it will costs heaps to sell and if you remain in this asset class the returns will be low - further, in retirement, you have to control two costs
1) COST ON INCOME - INCOME TAX
2) COST ON SALE - CAPITAL GAIN TAX

This can happen only in Super and not outside and like JIT said - if $50K invested for 30 years gives you $4.5M cumulative - so why bother - you are not going to see the dentist after reading this post - because there is NO NEED - same way if at retirement, If that asset base gives you 10% return TAX FREE - when i retire with $450,000 every year - I would be writing postcards to all those who will be on 1% (taxable) returns.

The only problem remains - can i get my money out of super before my preservation age of 55? For that i have requested all to contact a SMSF specialist advisor on www.spaa.asn.au = there are situations when that is possible - explore them...

This was my ONLY purpose of starting this thread - to make people aware - not to purchase any NEW properties outside of Super and "think of Super Gearing and Forget Negative Gearing" .

Because super can borrow!

I now know some will "GET IT" and some won't!

And for many many of you, I may still be wrong .... I accept that ... I guess that is why we have these forums, where we compare our experiences and maybe, just maybe, learn some new tricks.... AND If any one, even ONE person, agrees with me - even partially, I guess, this thread will always remain the most read in years to come!

 

[wylie]

Because they have not gone up since i sold them in 2002 - 2004 - i guess because i sold them at peak time

OK. But our places have gone up considerably since 2004, so I suppose it comes down to position, position, position.


further I would have to pay 6 years of loss each year!

What do you mean by this?

If you hold NG property - it costs you grossed up income to hold the property - so i had held my properties since 2004 till date - if the loss was $10K each year - I would have further lost $60K on each property - if i had 10 NG properties and if none of them went up in value - i would be down by about $600K

OK. But $10K negative for each property is high, and if they have not risen by more than they are negative each year, that COULD be a problem. In our case this is not so. Prices have risen by more than our properties were negative in those years.

House we paid $156K for in 1998 (rented immediately $190 per week), spent $30K over twelve years adding deck, kitchen, re-roofing, air-con etc. Value now probably $700K renting for $495 per week. Where have we lost money on this house? I don't understand?

I am currently doing a spreadsheet where you have borrowed $156K (please advise if this including stamp duty? could be $165 + improvements - say $200K cost) in 1998 with additional costs and rented for $190 per week with related costs etc

INITIALLY rented at $190. Paid $156K plus stamp duty and over twelve years, we spent about $30K, not at the beginning. So cost base is about $200K but not initially. That may not matter, but we were not getting $190 rent on a cost base of $200K. Had we spent the money doing up this particular house at the start the rent would have been probably $300 per week from day one.

and working out the CGT for $700K ( say $500K capital gain - please supply your marginal tax rate) and working out the CPI and the imputed costs to tell you how much you have actually gained over the 12 years of ownership.

We don't plan on selling this house, but if we were forced to for some reason, we would arrange it that the tax rate for the year of sale would be zero or close to zero.

$700K looks a bit high to get only $495 rent per week - have you got a recent valuation done?

Last valuation estimate a couple of years ago was $700K so I was being conservative. Houses in this area are rising nicely so I am quite confident we would easily get $700K. Rent at $495 is possibly a little light on, but we rented this house only last week and didn't increase the rent for quite personal reasons.

If I was wrong – why in your “Mecca of NG” – not even one taker has come to claim the price

So all those of you, thinking of retiring with NG’ed properties – please wake up now - as that retirement is an illusion and will NEVER happen.

My parents retired on NG properties, quite wealthy, it CAN happen and plenty here on SS can say the same.
I don't know how we would have fared had we gone down a different path and invested within super. I don't think it was available to us when we started down the IP path anyway.

I do know that investing OUTSIDE super has proven to be a great strategy for us. I don't think you should make blanket statements for either strategy. Perhaps they can BOTH work.

I think my closing remark for the thread agrees with your view.

I still don't understand how you can say we have lost on this house purchase. It has put money in our pocket from day one. We will pay very little tax if we choose to sell it, which we don't plan on doing. In the meantime, it just keeps putting money in our pockets.

Do I win a dinner .

 

[alexlee]

Any capital growth from now is doubtful - ignore growth altogether - if you get it, you are lucky

In your opinion, anyway. My opinion is that there will be growth. What did you think grow prospects were like 10 years ago?

: Can i property purchase a property for say $200K today - can i find some one today to enter into a contract with me - 12 years from now to purchase that property for $600K - instead of $700K which Wylie has achieved = probably not - because the future is uncertain, capital gain is uncertain - it is possible that there could be a capital loss on property as US has seen on property - we after GFS live in a different world - But the every year loss (grossed up) is certain - which can be avoided in Super - for two reasons

I would expect around 450k, actually. I do my projections with 7.2% growth. No one would have entered into a contract with Wylie 12 years ago to buy her place for 700k now either. But they will today. Is it possible there could be a capital loss? Sure. Is it possible there could be a capital gain? Yeah. Your crystal ball isn't any better than mine. Why the heck would you even buy resi property if you expected a loss? Resi property is generally low yield but makes up for it in capital gains. Amplified by gearing.

1) we can borrow less in super - which is a good thing

Uh, ok. All experience of investors on this forum to the contrary.

2) all contributions (including salary sacrifice) = reduce income = we pay less tax = can be used to gear and reduce borrowing further - so the return (rental income) is tax free and CGT is tax free

If I want to wait until I’m 55, sure. If I don't?

I am sure there will be many people who will argue with the above situation - the above is not about if my figures are right or wrong - it is about a fact that when property are sold - you will pay CGT - In super you don't
that everybody will agree - that is the point I am trying to make all along - because like Wylie parents - they can retire on IP's no problem - but on low return on equity and Wylie will tell you the $ figure of CGT if they sell - there is a huge amount of CGT and if the parents won't sell ever - Wylie will, later.

Why? A combination of income, refinancing to buy high yield shares over time and LOE can mean I never have to sell. By being able to buy more and letting it appreciate for a few decades, that gain would more than pay for all the CGT.

In retirement you can two problems - low disposal income and at the same time be asset rich - that is because you will be holding the wrong asset class

Again, in your opinion. Plenty of people on the forum will tell you otherwise.

This was my ONLY purpose of starting this thread - to make people aware - not to purchase any NEW properties outside of Super and "think of Super Gearing and Forget Negative Gearing" .

And my purpose in posting to this thread is to make people aware that no vehicle is best for everyone.

I now know some will "GET IT" and some won't!

Funny, I was going to say the same about you.

And for many many of you, I may still be wrong .... I accept that ...

Yes, because some of us have already gone way past what you said is ‘impossible’.

I guess that is why we have these forums, where we compare our experiences and maybe, just maybe, learn some new tricks.... AND If any one, even ONE person, agrees with me - even partially, I guess, this thread will always remain the most read in years to come!

I have no issue with people who want to use super as a vehicle. Certainly, switching to super when you’re older makes a lot of sense. What doesn’t make sense is your statement that super is the best vehicle for anyone of any age in any circumstances.

However, if your opinion is that future capital gains is unlikely, then your strategy makes sense. Since my opinion is that nominal capital gains will continue into the future, my strategy (and the vehicle I use) will be different.
Alex

 

[alexlee]

All I can say is, since I disagree with manoj's basic premise that:
1) there won't be much capital gains on property in the future, and
2) it's practically impossible for people to live off investment income before 55

I won't be considering using the strategy he's outlined.
Alex

 

[wylie]

2) In the past - all was well and most who purchased pre-boom like Wylie would have done well

This particular house was "expensive". People said "You paid HOW MUCH for that house?"

First house I bought (with my dad) was $18K. People said "You paid HOW MUCH for that house?" back then too, because they paid $2K for their house. Then I bought my first house for $46K. Nobody could believe we paid THAT MUCH for that tiny house.

Next one was $96K. Again, older people who bought their house for $18K or even a few years earlier for $46K could not believe we would pay $96K for a house.

So your talk of pre-boom is funny to me. I have seen many "booms". We are in the pre-boom now, but we don't know when it will be.

We bought the house directly behind the $156K house. Smaller house, ugliest in the street but eight years after paying $156K for the first one, we paid $460K for the next one. If I listened to the little voice in MY OWN head saying "you are paying HOW MUCH for that house?" we would not be sitting on probably $650K (perhaps more) for the same place.

So if I thought (back when I bought my first house at $18K) that prices could not possibly go any higher because we have just had a "boom" (which is EXACTLY what the older people were saying at the time) how frustrated would I be now?

 

[The Fence]

So if I thought (back when I bought my first house at $18K) that prices could not possibly go any higher because we have just had a "boom" (which is EXACTLY what the older people were saying at the time) how frustrated would I be now?

Probably about as frustrated as manoj is right now....!

 

[manoj]

Alex

Can you explain to me (and to the forum) how the below strategy works - since that is your plan.... Please use an example with some $ values and also please explain how you (or your family) will acheive not paying CGT when you "will never sell"...

If you want you can use my example:
Property value $3.5M and loan of $1M
and tell me how you will use equity to refinance high yield shares to increase income and cash flow (and the same time reduce income tax) - you have on many times mentioned this - but I would like to know - how you will make this work. The below is what you have said - since you basing your argument on your plan - it must work?


Why? A combination of income, refinancing to buy high yield shares over time and LOE can mean I never have to sell.

Manoj

 

[alexlee]

If you want you can use my example:
Property value $3.5M and loan of $1M
and tell me how you will use equity to refinance high yield shares to increase income and cash flow (and the same time reduce income tax) - you have on many times mentioned this - but I would like to know - how you will make this work. The below is what you have said - since you basing your argument on your plan - it must work?

Many shares yield more than the current mortgage rate of 6% at the moment, including franking credits. I can borrow against an IP at 6%, buy, say, something yielding 8% including franking credits in a family trust, and distribute the net 2% to a non-working spouse. Of course, the franking credits will be refunded to my spouse. Over time, dividend increases and DRPs (or just buying more shares with the dividends) increases the share portfolio and the dividends. Say 200k shares, 12k interest, 16k share income. In 5 years, assuming full reinvestment, the portfolio might well be 400k shares, still 12k interest (since the loan doesn't change), 32k income. Obviously you can keep refinancing the IPs and put the money into the trust. Combine that with a little LOE.

This will have to be done over time. Since I'm only in my 30s, I have that time.

Your numbers are pretty anemic. That wouldn't be enough for me to retire by 40.

But then, you don't think that's possible, but that's because you expect property prices to fall, and I expect them to go up. Each to his own.

Enjoy your strategy. I'll enjoy mine. I think my point of 'consider whether a vehicle matches your strategy' has been made. Bye!

(Putting manoj on ignore)
Alex

 

[s050399b]

One more question:
Does anyone really plan to sell their IP (outside super) at all?

What I meant is, if you have bought 30 years ago, rent should be very well above the repayments + rates + maintenance + PM commission?

If that's the case, why sell it? holding on to this investment forever would be better? If you were to sell it, you will be stuck with cash, and you need to look for another deal for it to grow your money? It's like, if you are not in the game, you are out of the game?........

 

[steveadl]

2) In the past - all was well and most who purchased pre-boom like Wylie would have done well
Funny, my properties bought "post boom" seem to be doing quite nicely.
Any capital growth from now is doubtful - ignore growth altogether - if you get it, you are lucky - concentrate on return
You've got to be kidding right??!! So in 50yrs time when the average Australian's income is $200kpa, median prices around the country will still be $400-500k??

1) we can borrow less in super - which is a good thing
Have to strongly disagree with you there. If I was using leverage equivilant to super lending we might have 2 properties now, might.

2) all contributions (including salary sacrifice) = reduce income = we pay less tax = can be used to gear and reduce borrowing further - so the return (rental income) is tax free and CGT is tax free
I pay less tax buying outside super than my employees do, but ok.

Imagine if Wylie decides to retire with 5 properties similar to those he has - and no loan has been repaid (to continue NG strategy)

Our Data:
Asset base $3.5M ($700K value of each property times 5)
Loan $1M ($200K times 5) - say at 6%

Equity $2.5K

Rental Income Say $500 per week times 5 or $25K each property times 5 or say $125K

I am not counting other costs in my below calculations such as council rates + land tax + agents management commission as i think these costs will be absorbed by any future growth in rental income

Net rental income after interest of $60K = net rental income $65K

Problems which i want to highlight (forget depreciation since they are houses purchased in 1998)
Why exactly? One of my properties built in 1950 is giving me almost as much depreciation this year as another I have that was built in 2006. Sorry, but that's a very ignorant assumption to make showing a very big lack of understanding/knowledge in an asset class you're professing people should purchase through your suggested SMSF vehicle.


This was my ONLY purpose of starting this thread - to make people aware - not to purchase any NEW properties outside of Super and "think of Super Gearing and Forget Negative Gearing" .
A huge sweeping statement which is just blatantly wrong. I wouldn't say "no one purchase through a SMSF under any circumstances!"
Because super can borrow!
Not enough for my liking. My asset base would be about a quarter of what it is now with super type leveraging.

I guess, this thread will always remain the most read in years to come!
Ummmm yes, because a whole heap of people are disagreeing with you, not necessarily because they're being helped by some of the drivel you've come out with such as I've highlighted above. I guess a lack of ego is certainly not your problem.

Yikes! ...

 

[jingo]

Alex

Can you explain to me (and to the forum) how the below strategy works - since that is your plan.... Please use an example with some $ values and also please explain how you (or your family) will acheive not paying CGT when you "will never sell"...

Why? A combination of income, refinancing to buy high yield shares over time and LOE can mean I never have to sell.

Manoj

This thread demonstrates how an investor on this forum has achieved financial freedom by around age 40 using the method above. It is an excellent read and includes figures as well. He achieved all of this within 5 yrs.

http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32265

Regards Jason.

 

[manoj]

Many shares yield more than the current mortgage rate of 6% at the moment, including franking credits.

Which shares - can you name 3

I can borrow against an IP at 6%, buy, say, something yielding 8% including franking credits in a family trust, and distribute the net 2% to a non-working spouse.

Of course, the franking credits will be refunded to my spouse.

Over time, dividend increases and DRPs (or just buying more shares with the dividends) increases the share portfolio and the dividends. Say 200k shares, 12k interest, 16k share income.


That means you will use dividends (income) to buy more share and pay interest from where? from your active income and NG the shares as well? BTW you will lose spouse rebate worth $2000 and if you have kids will lose FTB worth $4500

In 5 years, assuming full reinvestment, the portfolio might well be 400k shares, still 12k interest (since the loan doesn't change), 32k income. Obviously you can keep refinancing the IPs and put the money into the trust. Combine that with a little LOE.

$400K worth of shares - i think you are assuming that price will be constant or go up? Also In 5 years the DRP will be $16K times 5 or $80K and you are out of pocket by $12K times 5 and some drp shares on dividend shares hence the growth is only $4K each year - assuming that dividends will always be more than the interest you will pay on IP's and not $200K correct?

In think now all of a sudden your wife will be taxable - yes with 30% imputation you will get a refund

Sorry, your figures do not add up..please have another look - my calculations could be wrong...

putting your strategy on ignore (I do not want to make personal remarks as we are discussing your strategy and not you) - reason: figures are wrong

 

[JIT]

imputated return on equity

How exactly do you calculate this??

5) When you purchase IP which are NG - ATO is your partner as you have to share income from property and growth from property with ATO in the form of CGT whilst with Super - this can be avoided

Does sound like a Joint Venture doesn't it?!

Any capital growth from now is doubtful - ignore growth altogether

Haha, you're just stirring now!

In retirement you can two problems - low disposal income and at the same time be asset rich - that is because you will be holding the wrong asset class - On retirement to change the asset class it will costs heaps to sell and if you remain in this asset class the returns will be low - further, in retirement, you have to control two costs
1) COST ON INCOME - INCOME TAX
2) COST ON SALE - CAPITAL GAIN TAX

Agree with you on that... residential IP is the wrong (/not the best) asset class for retirement ie. the net yield and your return on equity is crap.

And yes CGT sucks.

If I did purchase residential IP via SG, I would probably sell most of them by 55-60 y/o and move the proceeds into commercial IP or shares instead.

This can happen only in Super and not outside and like JIT said - if $50K invested for 30 years gives you $4.5M cumulative - so why bother - you are not going to see the dentist after reading this post - because there is NO NEED - same way if at retirement, If that asset base gives you 10% return TAX FREE - when i retire with $450,000 every year - I would be writing postcards to all those who will be on 1% (taxable) returns.-

That does make me think for a second why I even bother.

A question for you Manoj re. CGT...

How much CGT (as a %) did you pay on the properties you sold from 2002-2004?

Thanks.

 

[Bill.L]

More 'gold' from Manoj

My strategy is simple – purchase IP in super and change zoning and make it commercial

If property investment is really that simple, doing it either in or out of super wont matter...

There is no need to read books

Yes, we all get confused reading books, they should all be burnt.

I suggest readers to purchase a book on Trusts

but you don't want us to read books?? Will someone else read it out to us??

This is my last post...

Good luck guys, hope you all get there....

No it wasn't.....

when dad dies

Good strategy, that only makes funds available when someone dies, your father no less, mustn't have liked him very much anyway...

my calculations could be wrong...

The truth surfaces

Our role in the whole process is to sell to the trustees and to their advisors, the legal documents required to put the borrowing structure in place as required by SISA.

I am not here to find clients.... In fact I am not even in tax practice - i retired some years back....

Which is it again??

bye

 

[JIT]

btw The whole thing gets a lot easier if you don't need to retire before 55.

 

[steveadl]

Many shares yield more than the current mortgage rate of 6% at the moment, including franking credits.

Which shares - can you name 3

Surely you can't be serious??!! Do you have any idea about actual asset choices that are out there to buy, or is your only purpose here to drum up business for the SMSF vehicle your selling documents to create?

So residential property is not going to go up as an asset class, but you would suggest people buy it in a SMSF anyway?

And as for your ignorance above, off the top of my head: AMP, QBE, WDC, ANZ, TLS, WBC, NAB - and this is without even leaving the S&P20 and before taking into account the franking credits.

 

[HiEquity]

Surely you can't be serious??!!

Personally I find it amazing anyone takes this thread seriously...

 

[Gordon Farkus]

Personally I find it amazing anyone takes this thread seriously...

Perhaps a contribution illuminating this opinion sometime during the 180 posts and 5000+ views to this thread, rather than debuting at the death, may have carried a bit more weight.

Thanks anyway but no soup for you.