The Finance/ Business/ Money Thread

[LFC]

I'm not referring to the ownership of where you live, certainly an investment in your principal place of residence is a very good thing (and capital gains tax free! But unfortunately no negative gearing). The investment in real estate v shares is a debate which will go on for a long time.

yes thats a classic debate, one that works very well for some and others not re the share market.
I have 1 bro inlaw having done well in accounting for large corps that after investing in 2 properties did one knock down rebuilt a duplex some 10+yrs ago.
Sold the other property followed by the other duplex and lives in the other to this day paid off ofcourse.
The monies made set up a share portfolio.
He understands that market obviously, hasn't looked back since or worked a full time job.
Bought some high end shares blue collar as his stable mates and kept dabbling buying low or under $ shares.
Had some good wins and some loss's but he's been living the dream - taking the fam on regular hols here and abroad, not exy but holidays nonetheless all thanks to understanding the share market.
It scares me I don't dabble I see it as too much of a gamble.
He has copped some hits the last week or 2 but he'll survive it.

 

[Muz]

Your post has LOTS of merit mate... Walking back on negative gearing and increasing capital gains tax is the wish of those wanting hard working Australians to park their hard earned dollarydoos in to the russian roulette of stocks and bonds and other people's control...

Fine but then you have to accept that housing will be increasingly out of reach for young people if the status quo remains.

Do you think housing is a 'right' or a 'privilege'?

Do you think any one person should own 12 homes?

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

Fine but then you have to accept that housing will be increasingly out of reach for young people if the status quo remains. - wages remaining stagnant over the past 3 decades is a totally different kettle of fish.

Do you think housing is a 'right' or a 'privilege'? - I believe housing is a fundamental human right .. if there were no property owners there would be no properties for low income earners to live in. Yes when I was 16 I too believed in government funded communal housing .... sadly we dont live in an utopia.

Do you think any one person should own 12 homes? - I think any one person should own as many things as he or she wants to own provided her or she can fund them.

 

[Keeper66]

yes thats a classic debate, one that works very well for some and others not re the share market.
I have 1 bro inlaw having done well in accounting for large corps that after investing in 2 properties did one knock down rebuilt a duplex some 10+yrs ago.
Sold the other property followed by the other duplex and lives in the other to this day paid off ofcourse.
The monies made set up a share portfolio.
He understands that market obviously, hasn't looked back since or worked a full time job.
Bought some high end shares blue collar as his stable mates and kept dabbling buying low or under $ shares.
Had some good wins and some loss's but he's been living the dream - taking the fam on regular hols here and abroad, not exy but holidays nonetheless all thanks to understanding the share market.
It scares me I don't dabble I see it as too much of a gamble.
He has copped some hits the last week or 2 but he'll survive it.

You don't need to dabble in shares of individual companies and be exposed to company- or business-specific risks if you want to invest in the share market. In fact, unless you want to take the time to learn and monitor the markets so that your share investments are informed, then the best way to invest in the share market (any markets, not just Australia) is via index funds or other broad-based managed funds, either exchange-traded or unlisted. You are never going to lose all, or even more than half of your investment this way. You will only "lose" whatever the market (or particular segment of the market if a more specialised fund) loses. And you will really only lose your money if you actually sell, rather than sit on the investment and wait for the market to recover.

Also, if you invest in a share fund holding Australian shares, you will also receive dividends and also the imputation credits attached to those dividends.

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

I'm not referring to the ownership of where you live, certainly an investment in your principal place of residence is a very good thing (and capital gains tax free! But unfortunately no negative gearing). The investment in real estate v shares is a debate which will go on for a long time.

of course... I wouldn't EVER presume to persuade or dissuade anyone with investing in whatever they want... Just giving my reasoning I suppose.

 

[Muz]

@Monoethnic Social Club

Mate I understand getting into investment properties. It made sense back then but it's gotten way out of control.

Back in the day you and I could rent a property and then, because you were paying less than a mortgage, you could save for a deposit for a house which got you into the market. Fast forward 20 years and at every house sale there are 10 investors for every first home owner. Why? Because you can get shit tons of rent for that property, negative gear it and get a capital gains tax discount. And guess what? Because rents are so high renters can't save for a deposit which puts them into the 'never will be able to own a home' camp. And because there's so many renters that makes investment properties even more attractive which pushes prices up again.

It's complete and utter bullshit.

I want my kids, and by extension, everyone's kids to be able to afford a home without a working wife, yourself working 2 jobs, spending 3 hours commuting every day and putting your kids in child care to hardly ever see them. IE they should be able to buy a home for 3 to 5 times their wages not 8 - 12 as it is now.

Good for you if you can help your kids out but that's no way to build a country where the only way you can get into the market is through the bank of mum and dad. That's just a huge intergenerational wealth transfer going on that's just furthering inequality between have and have-nots.

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

@Monoethnic Social Club

Mate I understand getting into investment properties. It made sense back then but it's gotten way out of control.

Back in the day you and I could rent a property and then, because you were paying less than a mortgage, you could save for a deposit for a house which got you into the market. Fast forward 20 years and at every house sale there are 10 investors for every first home owner. Why? Because you can get shit tons of rent for that property, negative gear it and get a capital gains tax discount. And guess what? Because rents are so high renters can't save for a deposit which puts them into the 'never will be able to own a home' camp. And because there's so many renters that makes investment properties even more attractive which pushes prices up again.

It's complete and utter bullshit.

I want my kids, and by extension, everyone's kids to be able to afford a home without a working wife, yourself working 2 jobs, spending 3 hours commuting every day and putting your kids in child care to hardly ever see them. IE they should be able to buy a home for 3 to 5 times their wages not 8 - 12 as it is now.

Good for you if you can help your kids out but that's no way to build a country where the only way you can get into the market is trough the bank of mum and dad. That's just a huge intergenerational wealth transfer going on that's just furthering inequality between have and have-nots.

Mate we are attacking both side of the same issue here... Please dont paint me as some sort of slum-barron multi billionaire property tycoon, very very far and from much more modest than that...

Its the reasoning behind housing affordability we seem to disagree on... I dont believe it is solely reliant on investment and the ability to negative gear but, as Keeper mentions above more a function of disparity in disposable income AND the rule of supply and demand... Pump 40,000 homes on the market and see what happens to house prices tomorrow....

 

[Muz]

@Monoethnic Social Club For some reason I can't quote your post.

We disagree on someone owning 12 houses. IMO that's 10 more than they should have. (Assuming one for themselves and one investment property.)

That's 10 people they're keeping out of home ownership. Extend that 12 to 100 houses or 1000 houses and you're getting into a situation were very few people could own most of the houses.

If you think that's not possible google up the Canadian company Tricom.

Canada Invests $444m With Company That Says Millennials Don’t Want A Home - Better Dwelling

Canada keeps repeating it’s spending billions on new housing, but with who, and how does it help? Earlier this week, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland announced $1.2 billion worth of investments to build rentals in Toronto. It turns out over a third of those funds are going into one...

betterdwelling.com

With regards to stagnant wages that may not be the problem it was IF housing wasn't turbocharged by John Howard allowing it to become an investment vehicle.

Instead of homes slowly increasing from 3 times your wages to 4 times due to stagnant wages they jumped to 5, 6, or 7 times. It wasn't just stagnant wages.

 

[Muz]

Mate we are attacking both side of the same issue here... Please dont paint me as some sort of slum-barron multi billionaire property tycoon, very very far and from much more modest than that...

Its the reasoning behind housing affordability we seem to disagree on... I dont believe it is solely reliant on investment and the ability to negative gear but, as Keeper mentions above more a function of disparity in disposable income AND the rule of supply and demand... Pump 40,000 homes on the market and see what happens to house prices tomorrow....

I agree. We're on the same side but serious question here. What if 38 000 of those were bought by property investors?

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

@Monoethnic Social Club For some reason I can't quote your post.

We disagree on someone owning 12 houses. IMO that's 10 more than they should have. (Assuming one for themselves and one investment property.)

That's 10 people they're keeping out of home ownership. Extend that 12 to 100 houses or 1000 houses and you're getting into a situation were very few people could own most of the houses.

If you think that's not possible google up the Canadian company Tricom.

Canada Invests $444m With Company That Says Millennials Don’t Want A Home - Better Dwelling

Canada keeps repeating it’s spending billions on new housing, but with who, and how does it help? Earlier this week, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland announced $1.2 billion worth of investments to build rentals in Toronto. It turns out over a third of those funds are going into one...

betterdwelling.com

With regards to stagnant wages that may not be the problem it was IF housing wasn't turbocharged by John Howard allowing it to become an investment vehicle.

Instead of homes slowly increasing from 3 times your wages to 4 times due to stagnant wages they jumped to 5, 6, or 7 times. It wasn't just stagnant wages.

And Menzies turbocharged (I think it was Menzies) Taxi licensing making the value rise over the decades until Uber came along, unlicensed, unregulated, un tax paying and destroyed peoples lives.... I agree its not JUST stagnant wages but it certainly is a factor..

as for limiting the amount of houses someone can own.. does that apply to how many shares they can own, or treasury bonds? How about cars, or pieces of art or shirts and pants? To tins of sardines and loaves of bread????

Will you limit the amount of agricultural land or mining land some of these, to use LFC's term Ogerlords own?

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

I agree. We're on the same side but serious question here. What if 38 000 of those were bought by property investors?

Then rental prices would be very very very cheap and renters could save for their own?

 

[Keeper66]

I agree. We're on the same side but serious question here. What if 38 000 of those were bought by property investors?

In general, and depending on locations, etc, if those investors are renting out those houses then 38,000 more families/households will have a place to live, there will be less rental demand and so rents should fall.

 

[Muz]

In general, and depending on locations, etc, if those investors are renting out those houses then 38,000 more families/households will have a place to live, there will be less rental demand and so rents should fall.

But those 38000 homes were supposed to go to first home owners and people getting into the market but they've gone to investors. Can't you see they've incentivised housing as an investment opportunity? A cohort that actively competes against people trying to get into their own first home.

Dropping those homes onto the market has achieved nothing regards ownership for first home buyers if they're sold to investors.

Wouldn't those 38000 people be better having the opportunity to buy those homes, if that's what they want, without having to compete with investors?

And if investors are competing with other investors prices will be pushed up. If prices are pushed up then you'll want a better return on your investment, ergo rents will be set higher.

The only way this works is it the market is flooded with new homes. I'm not sure they can achieve this in the short term and given that fact investors should be scaled back.

 

[Muz]

Then rental prices would be very very very cheap and renters could save for their own?

In theory yes but what's stopping them AirBNBing them or short term letting them or just keeping rents high or not even renting them out and leave them to appreciate which is what some investors do now?.

I have a mate who's a valuer where I live. He constantly tells me there's no rental crisis. There's plenty of rental properties where I live. What he says there is, is an 'affordable' rental crisis. IE rents are jacked up and kept up almost as if there's a tacit understanding between the owners.

Yes I agree, if the market was flooded then rents would come down, but I get back to my main point, first home owners shouldn't be competing with investors for somewhere to live IF we agree housing is a right.

That's fundamental. Do we want a country of renters or owners? Is housing a right or a privilege?

If it's a right then limits have to be put on investors.

 

[Muz]

And Menzies turbocharged (I think it was Menzies) Taxi licensing making the value rise over the decades until Uber came along, unlicensed, unregulated, un tax paying and destroyed peoples lives.... I agree its not JUST stagnant wages but it certainly is a factor..

as for limiting the amount of houses someone can own.. does that apply to how many shares they can own, or treasury bonds? How about cars, or pieces of art or shirts and pants? To tins of sardines and loaves of bread????

Will you limit the amount of agricultural land or mining land some of these, to use LFC's term Ogerlords own?

Can you live in any of those?

Again, is housing a 'right' or a 'privilege'?

 

[Muz]

Bewdy!

So interest rates going down will prove a huge opportunity for property investors. Winner!

https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/im-buying-as-much-as-i-can-property-experts-brace-for-boom/news-story/b8f1d798d442c1417ad55dd9d1cddefd

Daniel Walsh, 34, the director of buying agency Your Property Your Wealth, told news.com.au that Aussies need to brace themselves for rising property prices.

Mr Walsh owns 25 properties, and his property portfolio is valued at a staggering $35 million. He recently went on a property purchasing spree because he believes prises are going to boom.

“I bought $10 million worth of property in January, and I’m buying as much as I can because I know if interest rates go down, there’s going to be more people jumping into the market,” he said.

And this bloke.
Mr Gordon is following his own advice. He previously owned 108 properties and has already purchased 14 more in 2025.

“If we see a bigger cut, it is going to inject confidence into the market. I’ve had a very active three to six months and I’ve been buying commercial and residential properties,” he said.

The property investor now has 122 properties in his portfolio and he said he keeps buying because he is in the game and gets more opportunities.

“I’ve got no intention of stopping,” he said.

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

Can you live in any of those?

Again, is housing a 'right' or a 'privilege'?

Housing is a right but then again so is access to clean water, medical attention, food, clothing etc etc.... why is it OK restrict access to one but not the others?

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

Bewdy!

So interest rates going down will prove a huge opportunity for property investors. Winner!

https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/im-buying-as-much-as-i-can-property-experts-brace-for-boom/news-story/b8f1d798d442c1417ad55dd9d1cddefd

Daniel Walsh, 34, the director of buying agency Your Property Your Wealth, told news.com.au that Aussies need to brace themselves for rising property prices.

Mr Walsh owns 25 properties, and his property portfolio is valued at a staggering $35 million. He recently went on a property purchasing spree because he believes prises are going to boom.

“I bought $10 million worth of property in January, and I’m buying as much as I can because I know if interest rates go down, there’s going to be more people jumping into the market,” he said.

And this bloke.
Mr Gordon is following his own advice. He previously owned 108 properties and has already purchased 14 more in 2025.

“If we see a bigger cut, it is going to inject confidence into the market. I’ve had a very active three to six months and I’ve been buying commercial and residential properties,” he said.

The property investor now has 122 properties in his portfolio and he said he keeps buying because he is in the game and gets more opportunities.

“I’ve got no intention of stopping,” he said.

Sorry mate I am an absolute nuffy when it comes to stocks and bonds but Im trying to understand the difference between individual's with a real estate portfolio and one of the many REITs I can park my money in on the ASX?

 

[Monoethnic Social Club]

In theory yes but what's stopping them AirBNBing them or short term letting them or just keeping rents high or not even renting them out and leave them to appreciate which is what some investors do now?.

I have a mate who's a valuer where I live. He constantly tells me there's no rental crisis. There's plenty of rental properties where I live. What he says there is, is an 'affordable' rental crisis. IE rents are jacked up and kept up almost as if there's a tacit understanding between the owners.

Yes I agree, if the market was flooded then rents would come down, but I get back to my main point, first home owners shouldn't be competing with investors for somewhere to live IF we agree housing is a right.

That's fundamental. Do we want a country of renters or owners? Is housing a right or a privilege?

If it's a right then limits have to be put on investors.

Access to housing is a right, not ownership.... in my opinion anyway. "affordable" rental crisis is a factor of many things not exclusively ownership of property.

 

[Muz]

Housing is a right but then again so is access to clean water, medical attention, food, clothing etc etc.... why is it OK restrict access to one but not the others?

It's not.