[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

September 12, 2012 - 11:30 am

Was surprised as well that TerryW wasn't ranked as #1, especially seeing that he has made over 12,000 posts!

Anyways well done Dubsteps!

You're ranked #2, and not far behind JacM!

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

September 12, 2012 - 11:20 am

Haha…

Thought it had a deeper meaning behind it…

Couldn't help giggling a bit when I saw the picture

That's some mean birdie that you don't wanna mess with, especially if you don't want to end up like that fish on its back

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

September 12, 2012 - 11:15 am

Haha…

Yeah it's a really nice car close to perfect condition, but 'No' I keep my car in the garage like all other normal people do

Car only did 2,500km at the time of purchase so I believe it might have been a show room car

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

September 12, 2012 - 8:01 am

Eh, what the heck – might as well join the crowd

That's the car I purchased about 9 months ago:

I have always been a fan of Honda Civics not only because of their stylish appearance, but also because of their reliability and fuel efficiency.

If you've never driven one, I highly recommend you give it a test drive

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

September 11, 2012 - 12:59 pm

Eddywang55 wrote:

I am fairly new with property renovation strategy, after reading some property investment magazine, thinking to start  with a small and basic cosmetic uplift to a house, wondering if I add any additional bedrooms under existing structure, would it helps to increase the value of property? for example building additional two bedrooms at unused ground level (some old houses have lot's of unused space underneath.) what do you suggest? anyone have similar experience ? Thanks.

The formula Steve provided in past seminars is:

Property Price = Annual Rent / Yield

• The higher the rent the higher the property price
• The lower the yield the higher the property price

3 bedroom houses are more likely to be in higher demand than 2 bedroom homes, in addition to being rented out for more, so simple answer is 'yes, adding an extra bedroom  will increase the price of the house' – but the question to ask, is how much is this going to cost both in terms of time and money, and will it be worth it?

Converting a spare lounge room into a bedroom will be a lot faster and cheaper than building a bedroom from scratch.

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

September 11, 2012 - 12:46 pm

Hi Dubsteps,

It's the first time I've heard the saying:

"Walk Softly and carry a big fish"

If you don't mind me asking, what does that mean?

Cheers,

Kong

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

September 1, 2012 - 10:25 am

It depends on the vendor's needs

Which is probably one of the most crucial piece of information you want to gather before make an offer

I think it's Brendan Kelly that stated: "Be flexible on price or terms but not both"

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

August 31, 2012 - 12:10 pm

Great job Engelo!

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

August 28, 2012 - 2:11 pm

Just finished watching the US Passive Income Fund Webinar, and I was amazed at how much cheaper US commercial properties are compared to Australian Properties, and the return Uncle Zelly was able to generate simply by solving vacancy problems. The fact that this fund will be managed by experts such as Uncle Zelly and that Steve will invest $500,000 of his own money into the fund is quite reassuring. I totally agree with the statement about Steve being one of the best property investors in the world, and having 'integrity'.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm convinced about this being one of the greatest investment opportunities of a lifetime. I will personally commit all of the funds I currently have in my superannuation, and also salary sacrifice up to $25,000 p.a.over the next 2-5 years to invest into Steve's USA Property Fund. In terms of liquidity I don't really care, since I won't be able to withdraw money from the fund for another +40 years and believe Steve and his team will generate better returns than most other superannuation funds.

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

August 26, 2012 - 1:31 pm

Me neither M.Investigator

The first I heard of him was at one of the Mega Conferences

I think he is American or Canadian

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

August 26, 2012 - 11:28 am

A bit of a tough question to answer as it is 'subjective' to the individual investor

Everyone has different personalities, different goals and different levels of skills, knowledge, experience and risk tolerance

You probably don't want to jump into any investments too quickly and end up with a lemon, but on the other hand you also so much time that you end up with 'analysis paralysis'

Setting goals, and knowing exactly what you want can make the due diligence process a lot more efficient

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

August 26, 2012 - 10:56 am

Thanks for creating this thread

I'm interested in the Ron White memory courses

If you've completed the course, and would like some extra cash feel free to send me a PM for a quick sale

I'm based in Ballarat, so if its within driving distance I can come pick it up in person

Otherwise would prefer to do it via E-bay and paypal

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

August 24, 2012 - 1:31 am

Worked a night shift last night so didn't have the opportunity to watch the webminar

Hopefully they will email me a copy of the session

Just like you insanowayno, I'd love to have +$100,000 to invest in Steve's USA Property Fund, but I guess I'll just have to make do with what I have now

Right now, I'm thinking that Salary Sacrificing into super might be an effective means of lowering tax from 30% down to 15%, and investing more Capital into Steve's Fund.

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

August 23, 2012 - 1:34 am

Wikipedia defines 'Socialism' as:

• "a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. Many socialist ideas come from Marxism (more commonly, "communism"), which essentially calls for a reversal of what we know as the structure of society. In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx predicts that the proletariats will overthrow the bourgeoisie (which seems to be happening to some degree). The bourgeoisie are upper management and upper class, the white collar workers, while the proletariats are the working class, the blue collar workers. Since the proletariats "do all the work", Marx and other socialists suggest that they should get an equal share of the wealth. A Marxist society would have no private property rights and goods produced in it would be distributed among the citizens–"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Robert Kiyosaki in his conspiracy of the Rich Bulletin puts it in much simpler words:

• "Socialists have the Robin Hood theory of economics, which is 'take from the rich to give to the poor'. Socialists believe the government should solver our problems for us. Capitalists believe… that we should solver our own problems."

B. Taylor, 2006, Socialism vs Capitalism:

• "The idea of a Marxist society is very alluring. In today's world of freedom and fairness, the notion of everyone being completely equal, even if this means taking from the rich and giving to the poor, seems just; however, the defect in Marxism is obvious. It is dependent on a type of human nature that is hard to come by. For Marxism to work, very little greed and jealosy can exist and people must have a general feeling of charity and a willingness to work their hardest for the good of everyone. These are obviously not common traits. Marxism could also work if those who have the greatest abilities and those who work the hardest are satisfied with rewards equivalent to those with lesser abilities and those who don't work hard at all. This is also very unlikely. Marxism undoubtedly leads to free riding and slacking.
• On the other hand, capitalism utilizes the willpower of individuals, especially entrepreneurs, to foment economic activity. Capitalism is based on the assumption that individuals operate based on self interest; however, by doing so they not only help themselves, but also propel others towards economic success. As Adam Smith put it, "by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

Margaret Thatcher, longest serving Prime Minister of the United Kingdom summarizes Socialism quite well:

• "Socialism works until you run out of other people's money"

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

August 22, 2012 - 11:24 am

Usually any improvements done to a property will increase its value

The question to ask are:

• Who is your target market and would they want this improvement?
• Will the increase in perceived value of the property (if any) be greater than the cost of improvement (both in terms of time and cash outlay)

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

August 20, 2012 - 12:55 am

Xdrew, you have every right to be angry and annoyed, and I appreciate you voicing your opinions about this issue in such a straightforward manner. And yes, you are right, the garbage that I have spouted comes from what I have read, heard and watched. To address your request about naming a ‘period in history where currency wasn’t fiat’ we first need to be on the same page – what is your definition of ‘fiat’? To me, ‘fiat currency’ is currency that is not backed by anything of intrinsic value.

In the book ‘Guide to investing in Gold and Silver’ Mike Maloney summarizes the pattern of currency debasement quite well:

1. “A sovereign state starts out with good money i.e. money that is gold or silver, or backed fully by gold and silver
2. As it develops economically and socially, it begins to take on more and more economic burdens, adding layer upon layer of public works, and social programs
3. As its economic affluence grows so does its political affluence, and it increases expenditures to fund a massive military
4. Eventually it puts its military to use, and expenditures explode
5. To fund the war, the costliest of mankind’s endeavors, it steals the wealth of its people by replacing their money with currency that can be created in unlimited quantities. It does this either at the outbreak of the war (as in the case of World War I), during the war or wars (as in the cases of Athens and Rome), or as a perceived solution to the economic ravages of previous wars (as in the case of John Law’s France)….”

Just to clarify my position… I have nothing against Saving money, and believe the ability to ‘spend less than you earn’ is an essential habit to develop. All I simply wanted to highlight is that the monetary system we have today is designed to work against savers, and simply saving on its own may not be sufficient to fund a comfortable retirement.

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

August 19, 2012 - 9:43 am

The ability to spend less than you earn is paramount to building wealth.

In the past the the following advice worked quite well:

• Do good at school.
• Don’t get into debt.
• Work hard in your job.
• Pay of your home as soon as you can.
• Save, Save, Save

One could retire quite comfortably by simply saving 10% of their income.

However, over the past decades the landscape and rules of money has changed considerably.

Our system today is no longer based on sound money, but is based on fiat currencies and debt.

Fiat currencies that no longer place any restraints on government spending.

Fiat currencies designed to lose purchasing power over the longer term.

Simply following the advice of saving may not yield the best outcome.

In an inflationary environment one's focus should be towards making more money and getting into good debt.

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

August 15, 2012 - 10:28 am

Never really looked at it that way

The main reason I setup a SMSF with corporate trustee is that I would like to borrow money via SMSF to invest in properties later down the track, and it seems that banks prefer it if you set it up that way

Just a few questions:

• Are contributions made into super taxed at a flat rate of 15%, or do they increase as you salary sacrifice more income into it?
• Can funds in SMSF be accessed by a member that has reached preservation age but has not contributed anything into the fund i.e. your parents, grandparents?
• Is it compulsory to have insurance for members of the SMSF? If so, what companies are recommended?

Thanks,

Kong

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

August 9, 2012 - 12:50 pm

Thanks for the update, and congrats on getting the kitchen close to completed and majority of rooms painted

As Nathan mentioned having to keep changing windows might be an issue to address.

What are your thoughts about installing crimsafe security screens to the property?

[kong71286Participant@kong71286Join Date: 2009Post Count: 261]

August 7, 2012 - 2:09 am

Hi Richard,

Personally I have never used E super before, but experiences with them thus far has been relatively positive, and pretty straightforward.

Documents were only posted to them 5 days ago, so it seems unfair to expect them to have a SMSF setup by now, especially if there are many counter parties involved such as the ATO, Commonwealth Bank, and ANZ bank.

In terms of service they have made it quite clear that the annual fee of $699 is only to attend taxation and accounting obligations,  and that they do not provide any financial advice. Furthermore it appears that I have overlooked the documents they have sent me, and they have already provided me with a  'Certificate of Compliance' which meets all NAT13080 requirements.

If you don't mind me asking…

What 'extra and above scheduled fee' were your clients referring to?

Were these clients individual trustees of their SMSF?

Cheers,

Kong