Hi,

Personally, I’ll be supporting Unicef and their endeavour to help those children disadvantaged by this terrible disaster.

There are many worthy causes, hwoever, Unicef only take 7% of the donation for admin. This is a more than reasonable amount.

Not wanting to sound heartless, but I’m a little cautious of the Australian Red Cross after the Bali problem with funds going, well, astray from the intended donantion purpose. Hopefully they have learned.

On a different note – it’s good to be an Australian when you see the effort contributed to help a mate.

Also, welcome back Richmond… hope you had a peaceful time away.

Cheers,

Steve McKnight

**********
Remember that success comes from doing things differently.
**********

Hi,

I’m sure there are a lot of ideas, but, at the risk of being a nay-sayer, who’s going to fund the $100,000+ needed to set up and staff this enterprise?

Sadly, problems will persist because it will be the minority (as it is now) who, not being interested in membership, would continue to give the industry a bad name with some questionable investing.

There is a solution out there… somewhere… perhaps the government could pass a law that requires people who do more than XX vendor finance deals per annum to be members, and to be a member you must adhere to the code of conduct etc.

Having said that… the UCCC exists to protect the rights of the borrower, so VF deals that comply are already perhaps appropriately regulated.

Regards,

Steve McKnight

**********
Remember that success comes from doing things differently.
**********

Julia,

The words are based on a template, and as such, should you feel so strongly as to want to remove them for fear of then being incorrectly perceived as an endorsement, then that would be the best course of action.

I will also make it a point in the near furture to change the terms and conditions of the site to indicate that the ‘green dashed underlining’ of words is not an endorsement but merely a form of indirect advertising. I will also add the word ‘advertisment’ to the top line of mouse over box so there is no misunderstanding.

I hope this is satisfactory.

Regards,

Steve McKnight

**********
Remember that success comes from doing things differently.
**********

Hi,

I reject the idea put forward that someone who has paid 99% of a contract and misses a payment walks away with nothing. It is factually incorrect. If this was the case any magistrate in the country would nullify the contract in a second as being grossly unfair.

What needs to be stressed is the financial undertaking being assumed when entering into the (any) contract. This is stressed in the pre-signing documentation that must conform to UCCC regulations.

It’s time people started to include some of the media commentators started to include some of the facts rather than the hyped in their stories.

Regards,

Steve McKnight

**********
Remember that success comes from doing things differently.
**********

Hi,

The research behind this article seems second-rate at best, including:

1. The journalist did not contact me.
2. He spelt my name incorrectly.
3. John Burley is not my mentor. He quotes from a book where the current edition no longer includes that comment, in fact, that comment has not been publsihed for several years. Despite this, the comment is taken out of context.
4. The discount for the wrap kit has been available for some time now, not since Thursday as the article seems to indicate.
5. The finer details of how a wrap works, especially when someone is evicted from the property, are not fairly or accurately portrayed in the article.

BTW, Rob… wraps must comply with UCCC too.

Regards,

Steve McKnight

**********
Remember that success comes from doing things differently.
**********

Hi,

Okay… I’ve spent a few hours building a plausible yet conservative model to express the likely net cashflow that the Map group may have achieved based on:

* 80% finance at 7% (I/O for ease of calc)
* 7% of income in management fees
* 15% of income in other costs
(therefore total costs are 22% of income)

The net cashflow outcome based on these assumptions is $320,632 (pre tax).

All Mappers experienced net positive cashflow across their portfolio, with the annual cash-on-cash return (based on assuming 25% down and the assumptions above), coming in at an average across the group of an attractive 20.87%.

This CoCR does not allow for any of the realised / unrealised capital gains earned.

Regards,

Steve McKnight

**********
Remember that success comes from doing things differently.
**********

Hi Niki,

Thanks for your post!

Congrats on your success to date… 7 properties is a great effort, and hopefully you are now sitting on a large chunk of unrealsied capital gains.

I have a copuple of suggestions for you:

1. Make a plan

It seems to me that there may be an element of an ad hoc approach to your property investing. Has your portfolio grown as a result of a plan, or have you just bought based on an opportunity presenting itself?

In any event, it would be a good idea to make a plan outlining where you want to be in 5 years time and then go back and assess each property against that benchmark.

2. Profitability

A common problem I see with many investors is that they have not identified a minimum annual return on investment and as such just accept the result without a basis for comparison.

In your case, it will be difficult to know which property to sell (if any) if you haven’t tracked actual performance to budget expectations.

You don’t need to do anything difficult… just identify how much (in $) your property needs to make each year for you to be happy.

3. Consider selling

I would definitely consider selling as this does two things:

1. Recycles debt by repaying the current loan and allowing you to reborrow on another deal.

2. Releases unrealsied gains – lenders only usually lend up to 80% of unrealised profits, but selling allows you to access the full amount (after paying tax and sale costs)

3. The realised profit flows through to your tax return, increasing your servicability potential for other loans.

Naturally, I’d only sell if I could do better things with my money.

Hope this has helped. Thanks for being part of the community!

Merry Christmas,

Steve McKnight

**********
Remember that success comes from doing things differently.
**********

Hi,

You could certainly sue a person as a result of non-performance of a contract, but the damages you seek would result on your financial loss, which is unique to every situation.

You can’t make someone pay a debt who has no money, so it doesn’t matter what the judgement in your favour, you need to really weight up the cost vs. benefit.

On this point, I was reminded the other day about our legal process where a person received compensation (let’s say $500k) as a result of a negligence action. Immediately after the judgement was made the person losing made an offer to settle for $350k or else an appeal would be lodged.

On the basis that the appeal might be successful, and on the basis of additional legal costs, the lower offer was agreed.

From my experience, negotiating an outcome that everyone is happy with and avoiding the courts is often the best way to proceed.

Regards,

Steve McKnight

**********
Remember that success comes from doing things differently.
**********