Positively or Negatively Geared

According to what you realistically have made. Forget what the accountant says, their job is to save you tax.

Have you made more money at the end of the financial year, than you have spent? End of story, it's that simple.

 

if you're talking statistics , you're incorrect as the bigger the sample size the more significant the results become , statistically talking

I'm also in the positive / negative category … and if you're talking neutral , how close are we talking . to the cent , to the dollar , to 1 K ?
We have several that cost small amounts to hold .

Can you change the poll so people can answer to more than one .

Statistically speaking , things are never as simple as they appear at least 72 % of the time ……

oooh . looks like you have opened a can of worms , but not the one you were expecting . Though worms are good bait when you go fishing .

Cliff

 

Let's say that give or take $1k is neutral. I'm not trying to get data on properties with such minute data.

By having people only answering one, it tells me their overall property situation versus their individual properties. I'll rephrase it to ask that.
Allowing more than one answer won't give me an accurate representation of their overall situation which is more of what I want to know.

 

Can't change it, it would seem...

 

Well since you put an opinion forward, I will too.


I am more than happy to put a deal in a negatively geared situation for a period of time in order to achieve an end.

The whole PG/NG debate needs to be put into proper context, and for each individual it will be different.

There are times when entering a negatively geared deal makes great business sense for the overall objectives of the deal. And there are other times when entering a NG deal makes no sense for the individual.

From everything I have seen over the years, I believe it is often viewed in a very simplistic way of 'making/losing' money which often doesn't encapsulate and appreciate the full range of posibilites/risks and uses.

Ultimately I belive the mix/use and ballace of NG, PG, Netral etc will vary greatly for the individual and their goals. Someone can have 5 NG properties and when you look at the overall strategy/picture/risk profile of that person, it could make perfect sense. While for another person, it makes perfect sense to have 4 PG props and one neutral.

I believe the whole NG/PG/Pcashflow etc arena is one that many, many people look at and often make a rash decision, one that doesn't fully take into account short, medium and long term ramifications.

Just my opinion.

 

I've already specified that short term strategies and development sites don't count for this. If you take developments into consideration, I'm a NG junkie.

 

Properties started out NG.
Over time, the portfolio became PG.
So, as at today, it is PG.
BUT, in 12 days time, when we settled on our latest property purchase, the portfolio will be NG again.

Wasn't too sure what to vote as today is PG but, in 12 days, NG!!!

So, I voted NG!!!

 

I think even putting development aside, its still not black and white imo.

 

It might sound a little long winded but it accurately describes the possible outcome.
There are 3, positively geared and positive cash flow aren't the same thing.

Depreciation is what it is, it helps with cashflow until rents rise over time.

I agree with you that if you are losing money it's not great, no matter what your resources there is a limit on how many of these can be held at any time.
I selected positively geared by the way.

 

Let me get this right.....you're not asking for the opinion of others, because you know so much already, but you don't have a problem pontificating at the same time ?

As you were.....

 

Positive, neutral or slightly negative makes pretty much zero difference to me. What's your purpose? We are all different.

ie, if anything is really holding me back, then it's equity. 30/week positive isn't going to change that any faster than I can save a deposit via other means, which is also too slow.

 

Actually - a lot of people and companies go broke - even when making a profit. In fact I would say that most companies which go broke are making a profit.
Mostly they go broke due to running out of cash in which to pay their bills.

You seem to be confusing Profit and Cashflow. They are not the same thing - though you seem to interchange them.
Depreciation is a non-cash expense. It won't impact the cash-flow of the investment. Though it will reduce the profitability of the investment.

One is cash-flow, one is profit. They are not the same thing.

Ok - Im being facetious. Ill admit it. But you said you were stirring the pot (as am I), and not looking for opinions, though were happy to let us know yours....

Blacky

 

Of course I'm pontificating, it's one of my favourite pass times and I'm here to hold court

In all seriousness, what I was originally trying to avoid was what is happening now: a conversation about which style of investing is better and people getting picky over basic semantics.
Reason being was I mainly wanted to see the results of the poll.

 

From my own perspective I do have one property that on my tax return is technically negatively geared. Although if special building write-offs (non-cash) are added back it would be neutral. This was a home I built to live in, but then left the district a fair while back. It is in a low-growth area that has since encountered an oversupply. I have chosen to keep renting it out despite many of my friends and advisors telling me to cut my losses and move on. For the past few years my tenant has been a single mother of 5 who takes great care of the property, and being a bit of a softie I have left the rent about $50pw less than what I probably could charge, by not increasing at the end of each lease.
That is my personal decision as I am keen for her to keep her low-paid job at the school and remain in the town two doors up from family members, and help give those kids a good shot at life. If and when she moves on I will re-rent at full market value. Therefore hopefully my NG will be less going forward.

 

Are you really asking about cash flow or just the gearing?

 

I'm surprised that such a high proportion is positive. Perhaps its that the PC lot are an intelligent lot. Also have been around longer to make this happen.

 

I'll admit I should have phrased it better. I'm talking about cashflow, which at the end of the day will include negatively geared properties with good rebates etc.

 

I would imagine that "all those evil high-income earning speculators" that the posters in the anti-negative gearing camp have been denigrating recently are deliberately negatively geared to compensate for the outrageously high incomes they made during the mining boom. Many of these same persons bought their properties through "investment advisors" with the set and forget strategy (we can call it impulse buying) and are as uneducated about business as is humanly possible. These same people would not likely have found their way onto such an open and educational forum as this. Hence I suspect we would find far more negatively geared respondents outside of here.

 

Or simply for most people here the strategy is to grow wealth and retire earlier not specifically minimising tax.