[jezMember@jezJoin Date: 2003Post Count: 31]

October 1, 2003 - 11:28 am

Not sure how your calculated your percentages but this is what I do…
(200*52)/154000 * 100 = 6.75%
(220*52)/154000 * 100 = 7.43%

Both low yeilds that probably won’t cover your expenses. If a house qualifies for the 11 second rule then the yeild should be about 10.4%. E.g. a house that returns $200 should cost you no more than $100,000, so:
(200*52)/100000 * 100 = 10.4%

Cheers,

Jeremy Lunn
Melbourne

[jezMember@jezJoin Date: 2003Post Count: 31]

October 1, 2003 - 11:16 am

If you get overly friendly with tenants you’ll run into problems such as where they don’t think you’ll mind if they are late with paying their rent, etc. OTOH they may come running to you for reduced rent.

I think there’s something in Dolf de Roo’s topic along these lines. Of course it doesn’t mean that you want to be rude and abrupt to your tenants and treat them like crap.

[jezMember@jezJoin Date: 2003Post Count: 31]

September 29, 2003 - 8:07 am

Real Estate Riches by Dolf de Roos. Can’t say I’m the biggest fan of the RichDad series, though I did find Dolf to be quite insightful for at least someone starting out and it was an enjoyable read. Must say I liked Steve McKnights book as well.

As for Jan Somers’ book More Wealth Through Residential Property, it was a completely boring read and I didn’t like the way she so heavily based the whole book on negative gearing. Personally I don’t like negative gearing and I never have (well since I was introduced to the concept earlier this year). Having said that however, I do like the somersoft forums (http://www.somersoft.com/forums) and that is how I eventually found my way here! [8D]

[jezMember@jezJoin Date: 2003Post Count: 31]

September 29, 2003 - 7:51 am

Can’t say I can vote either way. I’m under the impression that cashflow positive properties can still be found, though with a lot more difficulty than 3.5 years ago! I’d say that Steve’s book is perfectly valid though, even if market conditions aren’t perfect at the moment.

[jezMember@jezJoin Date: 2003Post Count: 31]

September 29, 2003 - 5:30 am

The whole thing is, if there’s the option of positive gearing vs. negative gearing, which would you choose? Sure it might be hard to save deposits, but if you are negative gearing then you have to do that anyway! Add to that the fact that you’ll also have weekly repayments so saving for more deposits just becomes a whole lot harder.

I’ve never liked the idea of negative gearing. It just doesn’t make sense to me to ‘invest’ in a loss. So for me, all I can say is that I agree with Steve’s book. Even if it is hard to find these properties with positive cashflow.

[jezMember@jezJoin Date: 2003Post Count: 31]

September 28, 2003 - 10:08 am

quote:

---

Buy and hold + geared maybe + today but- tomorrow.

---

The only way it can be positive now and negative tomorrow is if either your rents go down and/or your interest rates go up.

[jezMember@jezJoin Date: 2003Post Count: 31]

September 28, 2003 - 8:14 am

There was a dark cloud over Collingwood today as I cycled through there.

[jezMember@jezJoin Date: 2003Post Count: 31]

September 27, 2003 - 4:27 pm

quote:

---

You never know who might sue McKnight for breach of privacy…

---

As long as it’s optional and people know that it’s going in their public profile then they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if they tried to sue. I really don’t see the harm in people seeing which major city you live in (e.g. Melbourne or Geelong) or region for those in the more rural areas.

[jezMember@jezJoin Date: 2003Post Count: 31]

September 4, 2003 - 12:12 pm

Ahh nice, looks like that worked then!