<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>PropertyInvesting.com | raymondo | Activity</title>
	<link>https://www.propertyinvesting.com/members/raymondo/activity/</link>
	<atom:link href="https://www.propertyinvesting.com/members/raymondo/activity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Activity feed for raymondo.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2026 11:26:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>https://buddypress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<ttl>30</ttl>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>2</sy:updateFrequency>
	
						<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">cb73c65323aae9b54d7efd4ca6cd8694</guid>
				<title>raymondo replied to the topic NZ IP - how do u do it in the forum Help Needed!</title>
				<link>https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4372095-nz-ip-how-do-u-do-it/#post-4461337</link>
				<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:00:08 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just wanted to register my chuckle [laugh4] at Chan$&#8217;s undoubtedly deliberate reference to &#8220;wethers&#8221; in this NZ thread.</p>
<p>Ya killing me!!</p>
<p>Raymondo</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">5fc7f6535e23273b52a0dc4fc3d39f47</guid>
				<title>raymondo replied to the topic Positive Gearers vs Negative Gearers in the forum General Property</title>
				<link>https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4372135-positive-gearers-vs-negative-gearers/#post-4461661</link>
				<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2004 04:09:58 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Everyone,</p>
<p>What a wordsmith our Kay is!! Your Monopoly analogy said it all about the two sides of this debate.</p>
<p>I find myself in the Yack and Kay camp. More by good luck than good management (as well as the passage of time) I&#8217;ve found my 2 IP&#8217;s &#8211; which were poorly researched and backed up by little logic -have become CF+ve [tongue]. Jan Somers&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-187358"><a href="https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4372135-positive-gearers-vs-negative-gearers/#post-4461661" rel="nofollow">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">978337bf36a72ac8b6c482d248490002</guid>
				<title>raymondo replied to the topic Buying in NZ in the forum General Property</title>
				<link>https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4371899-buying-in-nz/#post-4459691</link>
				<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2004 01:38:59 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Westan and Rod,</p>
<p>You both suggest +ve CF props as the solution to the concern I raised about not being able to claim the losses on a NZ IP against my Aust income. But isn&#8217;t that exactly what you have to do to make an IP CF +ve??</p>
<p>I understand a +ve CF prop to be one in which the income exceeds the costs. That income is made up of the rent PLUS the&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-78538"><a href="https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4371899-buying-in-nz/#post-4459691" rel="nofollow">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">29525cedd85973dc43830020f39e0246</guid>
				<title>raymondo replied to the topic Buying in NZ in the forum General Property</title>
				<link>https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4371899-buying-in-nz/#post-4459684</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2004 04:58:00 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello All,</p>
<p>This is probably as good a thread to raise this matter on as any &#8211; and there have been a few similar threads! Most such discussions are filled with positive views about Aussies investing in NZ.</p>
<p>My interest in doing this was killed by a NZ accountant who pointed out to me that I would not be able to offset taxation losses on any NZ IP&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-78531"><a href="https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4371899-buying-in-nz/#post-4459684" rel="nofollow">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">76eec99736eb5879569454f22085c4ae</guid>
				<title>raymondo replied to the topic Strategy - $700k House (PPOR) in the forum General Property</title>
				<link>https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4370692-strategy-700k-house-ppor/#post-4450143</link>
				<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:20:10 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yack,</p>
<p>I like the fact that you have a plan[<img src="/wp-content/uploads/smileys/smile.gif?x75824" width="" height="" alt=":)" title=":)" class="bbcode_smiley" />], but I reckon there are some flaws in your logic[<img src="/wp-content/uploads/smileys/cool.gif?x75824" width="" height="" alt="B)" title="B)" class="bbcode_smiley" />]. They relate to the growth assumptions built into your figures.<br />
It seems your proposal is something like:</p>
<p>year 0 Buy PPOR at $300k<br />
year 1 Buy 1st IP at $300k<br />
year 3 Buy 2nd IP at $300k<br />
year 5 Sell all three for $1500k</p>
<p>If that&#8217;s right, then I make the&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-247630"><a href="https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4370692-strategy-700k-house-ppor/#post-4450143" rel="nofollow">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">fca26a41d8f80c8353cf709deab304a6</guid>
				<title>raymondo replied to the topic The Future? in the forum General Property</title>
				<link>https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4370324-the-future/page/2/#post-4446950</link>
				<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:20:34 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HousesOnly wrote:<br />
&#8220;8 years of 15-20% CG&#8217;s p.a. which are 10-15% above the long-term trend should mean a very large correction is required. The above translates into 160% increase in prices over this period or 120% higher than the long-term trend. In order to return to a normal CG situation, prices would need to at least halve. I dont expect price&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-65326"><a href="https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/4370324-the-future/page/2/#post-4446950" rel="nofollow">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced (Page is feed) 
Minified using apc
Database Caching 331/351 queries in 0.082 seconds using apc

Served from: www.propertyinvesting.com @ 2026-04-12 21:42:47 by W3 Total Cache
-->