Richard Taylor wrote:

Terry is correct and only Financial Planners can provide you with a plan to move forward with your wealth creation.

Cheers

Yours in Finance

Not really. Financial planners can provide a financial plan covering financial products, if they are licensed to give financial advice. If the advice relates to something which isn’t a financial product then it wouldn’t be financial advice – such as property. Anyone it seems can provide advice in relation to property – including property plans relating to wealth creation from property. Shares, super, margin loans etc would be financial advice and could only be advised on by planners with an AFSL or who are an authorised rep of an AFSL.

You may need advice from different people. Only lawyers can give advice on structures and only those with a credit licence can give advice on loans and credit. Only registered tax agents and lawyers can give advice on tax matters for example.

There is a benefit to cross col – to the bank not the borrower.
The bank will have more security than it needs and will make it more difficult for the client to leave – whether refinancing or selling. This will also allow them to reassess you at discharge time and to decide whether they think you are a risk or not.

No pros only cons

Major one is when you go to sell one of the properties the other ones will need to be valued. This can cause all sorts of dramas relating timing, re-assessment of loans and requirements to pay down remaining loans (maybe reducing non deductible loans). I have seen one person who sold a property yet could not settle because the remaining property had dropped in value and the proceeds were not enough to settle. He could not settle on the sale property because the bank refused to release. Sale fell thru and he ended up bankrupt.

Another client approached as he had quit work and was living the life retired early. He needed to sell one property to free up some living expenses and pay down debt. Lender required all funds to be paid into remaining loans – this naturally hindered his retirement and he needed to either work or sell more property to get those living expenses.

Fix it now while you still can.

Super Andrew, I disagree too regarding the PI loan on positive properties.

If anyone has non deductible debt they are basically throwing away money if they are paying PI on an investment. This is because the extra money paid is decreasing tax deductions and that money (and the tax saved) could have been used to pay down the PPOR loan sooner.Compounding this would be very costly.

Other reasons too – cashflow, save achieved with an offset, ability to buy more properties quciker etc

Well there may be various things he can claim to lessen the pain – stamp duty, rates etc

Yes it would be a CGT event. No exemption if it wasn’t his main residence. And if he is a non resident then no 50% CGT discount any any gains made after a certain date (last year I think). He should seek tax advice as you should too.

He may also have to pay tax in his home country.

You should consider land tax from the get go, not once the threshold has been reached. It is difficult and costly to change land ownership later so plan ahead and minimise the pain.

Why wouldn’t they be invalid. First one is grammatically incorrect and ambiguous – what does it mean – do you need an engineer just to confirm that the trees are removed?

Manley wrote:

Whereas if I have my current home in a Trust then that debt would only count against my lending for that one bank I have the mortgage through and not through other banks. So for example now i have a $300,000 dollar mortgage, and they will only let me borrow up to 560k then i only have 260k to play with no m

This is not correct.