All Topics / Help Needed! / How to get the right advice part 2 Negative gearing with low growth properties

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Profile photo of Nigel KibelNigel Kibel
    Participant
    @nigel-kibel
    Join Date: 2005
    Post Count: 1,425

    How often have you been to a seminar or sat across the table from a Property Salesman and be told that negative gearing will save you tax?  On that basis alone people are led to buy properties that are often overpriced with  low or even negative growth and are losing money every week. However that’s supposed to be great because you have a tax deduction?

    Sounds Familiar?

    Don’t get me wrong there is nothing wrong with negative gearing because the government does not want to be in the housing business so negative gearing is an incentive for you to invest in property.

    However the deal must stand on its own.

    Negative gearing should be a benefit but not the reason that you do the deal.

    In my opinion buying a low growth property and losing money for tax reasons is a dud. Imagine running a business that was always losing money. How long would you keep doing that for?

    So getting back to seminars and salesman, they will often recommend House and land packages, because land always goes up faster than apartments or townhouses right and show you how you can buy 10 in 10 years?

    Supply and demand determines capital growth and the strongest growth is generally in inner city locations of our major cities. The problem with house and land packages is that in most cases they are in outer areas where the capital growth is the lowest. If we look at outer areas of cities like Melbourne and Brisbane values have gone backwards. I will talk about the reasons why this is occurring in another article, however consider this:

    You have two properties both at $400,000 and your only aim is to keep them for 20 years. So one is an inner city property growing at 10% and the other growths at 5% if we look at compounding growth, the difference works out at around $80,000 a year for each year that you own these properties over 20 years.

    So the obvious question is which property would you prefer to own?

    The answer should be clear and yet everyday people buy properties that lose money and are returning far less than 5% capital growth and they learn to late that low growth with low cash flow are not only a bad investment but will restrict your ability to further invest.

    If you are looking at investing you do so for one reason, to create and build wealth. It should not be about the number of properties you have but the level of wealth that you have created. So when deciding where to invest do your due diligence carefully. Just do an internet search on capital growth in the suburb you are looking at but make sure that you are looking over say 10 years, short term figures mean nothing, they are often just a reflection of a slow or boom market. Figures over a decade will give you a far more accurate view on how your location really performs.

    So remember if you are buying properties that are losing money and let’s face it many will, then make sure that your property will make high capital growth. Yes having a tax deduction is great but only for quality investments.

    Nigel Kibel | Property Know How
    http://propertyknowhow.com.au
    Email Me | Phone Me

    We have just launched a new website join our membership today

    Profile photo of Scott No MatesScott No Mates
    Participant
    @scott-no-mates
    Join Date: 2005
    Post Count: 3,856

    The only upside is that if you do make a capital loss by selling a non-performing asset, the loss can be carried forward indefinitely and offset against another capital gain when you come to sell a highly performing property or your share portfolio.

    Profile photo of CatalystCatalyst
    Participant
    @catalyst
    Join Date: 2008
    Post Count: 1,404
    Scott No Mates wrote:
    The only upside is that if you do make a capital loss by selling a non-performing asset, the loss can be carried forward indefinitely and offset against another capital gain when you come to sell a highly performing property or your share portfolio.

    Doesn't sound like an upside to me. I'd rather not buy a -geared property in the first place.

    And stop looking at me. I'm in my PJ's. LOL

    Profile photo of IP FreelyIP Freely
    Member
    @ip-freely
    Join Date: 2008
    Post Count: 353

    Better your PJs.than your birthday suit.

    Profile photo of TheFinanceShopTheFinanceShop
    Participant
    @thefinanceshop
    Join Date: 2012
    Post Count: 1,271

    Good article Nigel. A lot of people look at negative gearing as the main reason for property development. 

    TheFinanceShop | Elite Property Finance
    http://www.elitepropertyfinance.com
    Email Me | Phone Me

    Residential and Commercial Brokerage

    Profile photo of Scott No MatesScott No Mates
    Participant
    @scott-no-mates
    Join Date: 2005
    Post Count: 3,856

    You've lost me on that comment Shahin. NG is the reason many invest (ie to lose money, hopefully short term with capital gains benefit at the end of the day). Development is based on the premise that you buy a raw site (greenfield/brownfield), add value (DA/Construct/Subdivide/Extend/Refurb etc) and sell at a profit or change from -ve geared to +ve geared due to increased income from the site. Correct me if I have been wrong for the last 20+ years (or did they rewrite the fundamentals while I was at dinner?).

    Profile photo of TheFinanceShopTheFinanceShop
    Participant
    @thefinanceshop
    Join Date: 2012
    Post Count: 1,271

    There is a lot of investors attracted to 1 bedders and alike in areas such as Chatswood. They have solid tenants but as you can imagine strata is through the roof and the room for capital growth is terrible. So they convince themselves that they are negatively gearing by a huge amount which they are but their cashflow isn't growing and nether is their capital growth. A lot of investors are NG without an end goal and this is where the problem lies. 

    TheFinanceShop | Elite Property Finance
    http://www.elitepropertyfinance.com
    Email Me | Phone Me

    Residential and Commercial Brokerage

    Profile photo of jmsracheljmsrachel
    Participant
    @jmsrachel
    Join Date: 2012
    Post Count: 711

    i have to agree with shahin. A little bit of ng is good but at the end of the day you dont go to work to lose money.

    Profile photo of Nigel KibelNigel Kibel
    Participant
    @nigel-kibel
    Join Date: 2005
    Post Count: 1,425

    As I said in my view if you are going to invest and you are making a loss then the property must supply you with enough capital growth to justify the loss.  To do this don't listen to spruikers at seminars or salesman but do your due diligence carefully.

    Nigel Kibel | Property Know How
    http://propertyknowhow.com.au
    Email Me | Phone Me

    We have just launched a new website join our membership today

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.