Are Property Gurus Always Full of It?

bargain huntress on 18/11/2023 - 16:33

There are people who claim to own tens or hundreds of properties, and sell their system or advice.

What is the moral and ethical situation there? On the one hand they are providing needed rental properties. On the other hand they are preventing people who want to buy a home from being able to do so.

If they make so much so easily why would they want to share? I guess if they genuinely want to help others? Or is it how they really make their money?

If they have a domino of debt, how will they survive a big change?

Surely the Austfalian real estate bubble will burst eventually? If you are living in your forever home, then when it does, who gives a f***. But investors are screwed right?

Financial

Comments

      • HeWhoKnows on 23/11/2023 - 09:38

        These neg votes show how uninformed (if not jealous) some people are on this forum.

        You cannot change THE FACTS or get ahead in life with your neg voting.
        Such fools just make me laugh.
        LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

        Neg vote all you like.
        Ive made my money out of property (and still making it) and Im quite relaxed and comfortable in life.
        You havent. LOL

  • Sye on 18/11/2023 - 17:21
    +7

    This one simple trick real estate agents don't want you to know.

    • AustriaBargain on 18/11/2023 - 17:27
      +1

      They thing is people who own multiple investment properties DO want you to know because it helps inflate the bubble the more investors pump their money into it. It's like bitcoin, HODLers earn more money to more people they convince to buy the coins.

      • HeWhoKnows on 18/11/2023 - 22:37
        +2

        Not really
        Property is something everyone needs
        They cannot do without it.
        Rent or buy, everyone needs something over thier head.
        Its a HARD ASSET.
        And if there is not enough property to satisfay that demand then both rents and property prices go up.
        Bitcoin has artificial demand
        Nobody needs it.
        Its a speculative buy
        And its not even a hard asset like gold.

        So chalk and cheese mate

        • AustriaBargain on 18/11/2023 - 22:45
          +2

          Houses have their utility value but they also have investment value. Every child in the country knows this. Investors bid against each other because they all think values will go up. If there were no investors at all, just home owners and old fashioned landlords, prices would be down. Being a landlord used to be a lifelong profession. Not something that anyone dumps cash into. It used to be a get rich slowly scheme. And properties were still rented and maintained even if value and rents were low because why wouldn't you rent out a house for $300 just because houses aren't worth $1,000 a week anymore? That's over $15,000 a year. Maybe $5,000 in maintenance and other fees, that's still $10,000. Why wouldn't anyone rent it out just because the bubble burst? Renters don't need to fear the bubble bursting at all, despite what comments say…

          • SlickMick on 19/11/2023 - 11:35
            +1

            @AustriaBargain: If rent wasn't going to cover the costs, investors would dump the properties. Some might be able to afford to buy, some will be living in their cars. Would you roll the dice if you could control the price of houses?

            • AustriaBargain on 19/11/2023 - 11:37
              +4

              @SlickMick: Who cares about investors. They went into the Housing Casino and bet their money and that is the rest of our problem why? How is it any different to investing in anything else.

              • SlickMick on 19/11/2023 - 15:25

                @AustriaBargain: I understand that the people with the most control over influencing the property market are investors themselves, so I reckon there would be a lot of care.

  • 7ekn00 on 18/11/2023 - 17:22
    +2

    Or is it how they really make their money?

    Ding Ding Ding, why burden yourself with the headache of property when you can sell the dream and make far more ;)

    With Carbon Credits, etc getting more prevalent, your going to be better off owning "land" rather than "property" anyway !

    • kiitos on 18/11/2023 - 20:14
      +2

      With Carbon Credits, etc getting more prevalent, your going to be better off owning "land" rather than "property" anyway !

      What do you mean by this?

      • 7ekn00 on 19/11/2023 - 12:31
        -1

        With land, depending on country and scheme you are enrolled in, you can earn carbon credits/offsets that are valued at between $US2000 to $US20000 per ache per year from carbon sequester schemes …

        The biggest earners are places where old farms have been mono-cropped and damaged the soil, so by using live stock rotations and just growing greenery you can hit $US20,000 per ache per year (but you need to be enrolled in the scheme and that involves satellite mapping and soil testing to assess the degree of carbon sequestration and hence carbon credits/offsets you have earnt)!

        • JakeyJooJoo on 20/11/2023 - 03:45
          +3

          Your comments make carbon credit farming sound better than it is. At present it's almost exclusively viable to pursue with the type of land you mentioned, cleared bush into farmland.

          I've got 100 acres of richly biodiverse land which is a powerhouse per acre for carbon capturing. My land is far far better at carbon capturing right now compared to revegetated farm decades from now, yet I am unable to generate any carbon credits in any way due to the dumb scheme structure.

          To benefit, I need to log the land (and make good money from the timber), log it 2 times, plan to to log it a 3rd but instead sign some paper saying I won't log it any more to enter carbon credit bliss through Avoided-clearing-of-native-regrowth

          It's so silly, like… Let me earn money by agreeing to keep a super healthy ecosystem protected and managed NOW, why are you forcing people with native bush to rape the land first to benefit from carbon schemes?

          • 7ekn00 on 20/11/2023 - 10:45
            +2

            @JakeyJooJoo: Yep, it's dumb :/

            I have 250 acres in southern texas, and the schemes there are a little easier to deal with ;)

            Let me earn money by agreeing to keep a super healthy ecosystem protected and managed NOW, why are you forcing people with native bush to rape the land first to benefit from carbon schemes?

            Some of the US regulators are starting to accept this, but won't allow you to sign up without extensive quarterly testings!

            Your comments make carbon credit farming sound better than it is.

            You are right, I could not make anywhere near the above numbers from Australian schemes (which is why I purchased in the US - Bidens green new deal is giving money away hand over fist for any "Carbon" related scam, eerrr I mean scheme!)

          • bargain huntress on 20/11/2023 - 14:44
            +1

            @JakeyJooJoo: Thats terrible. Why?

            Also where is your land out of curiosity?

            • JakeyJooJoo on 20/11/2023 - 20:42

              @bargain huntress: It's just the way the government has set things up… They're valuing the wrong things, it's really silly. The government does not incentive retaining biodiversity despite screaming that they do from the rooftops.

              There's a government sector called the biodiversity conservation trust which you might think would fill this void but nope. They only give occasional grants that you don't actually get to pocket all money has to be spent on things like paying to have feral species removed from your property etc.

              My land is just north of Yamba, it's considered a teal carbon site for about half the land, and the other half is old growth, gum trees as big as they get, 50m+ tall. The critically endangered coastal emu live on the block, quite a few species of large forestt owls and different gliders, to name a few.

              Pretty annoying I can't ethically financially gain from it, just dead money atm. I bought it off my Dad when he was needing to sell it, to keep it out of the hands of tree loggers. I'm a bit of a tree hugger, but usually only make financially wise decisions… Hoping the government put their actions where their mouths are.

        • bargain huntress on 20/11/2023 - 14:45

          What is the best scheme for ex mono cropped land in australia?

  • coffeeinmyveins on 18/11/2023 - 17:36
    +5

    There are people who claim to own tens or hundreds of properties, and sell their system or advice.

    If they are making that much money off doing it, why would they teach others how to steal their market? Think about it

    On the one hand they are providing needed rental properties.

    No they aren't. Providing a rental for someone is just a necessary evil for these asshats. One person should not own that many properties.

  • treekangagaroo on 18/11/2023 - 18:49
    +1

    " I guess if they genuinely want to help others?"

    Yes by charging prospective buyers ten of thousands they helps others* !!

    *Others will be there spouse,kids,family

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 18/11/2023 - 19:12
    +3

    For a lot of them, making money off Property "classes" "seminars" "coaching" makes them more money than property. They're happy to bleed dry the masses in the hopes of landing a whale with a shit tonne of cash who needs property investing "guidance".

  • star-ggg on 18/11/2023 - 19:54
    +1

    Spending countless Saturdays looking for hundreds properties I want to buy would be my personal hell.

  • garetz on 18/11/2023 - 20:07
    +2

    Anyone who sells a system or book or 10 step program isn't making money from property, they are making money from suckers buying what they are selling.

    If someone was making enough money from property why would they need to sell their secrets at all.

  • markathome on 18/11/2023 - 20:12
    +1

    I'm a renter and I'd reckon I'd be okay with being kicked out because the owner wanted to sell. Landlords are not a service to the community - that may sound obvious but some of them seem to struggle with that. Nor do they get any credit for being partially self-funded retirees. I am a self-funded non-retiree and that doesn't make me a good person, like landlords, I'm just an a**hole who won't shut-up about my finances.

    • lilyesp on 18/11/2023 - 21:18

      agreed- like any enterprise it is a business…if i had a shop and was renting the place i would not expect the landlord to keep me if i stopped paying rent

    • alikazi on 20/11/2023 - 17:52
      +2

      The a**holery does not come from owning properties or being a landlord. It comes from the kind of ruthless lack of empathy that comes from being overly money minded that some landlords exhibit. The desire to milk every cent from your tenant conveniently ignoring repairs or manipulating the system, the landlord increasing rent because "eh, why not", the landlord kicking out a family because they lost jobs during Covid and couldn't pay full rent for 2 months etc. If a business treated their customers like this needless to say that business wouldn't do well. Renting is not a service to the community but its not entirely wrong that landlords get a bad rep.

  • djsweet on 18/11/2023 - 21:16
    +2

    For the realestate bubble to burst, owners will need to sell at a loss. Owners will likely only sell at a loss if they are forced to. Whilst this might happen to some, it probably won’t happen to most. Therefore, I doubt there will be a sudden decrease in property price. Potentially a slow decrease is on the cards, but maybe not even. In any case I wouldn’t get my hopes too high for a property bubble burst.

    • Drakesy on 20/11/2023 - 16:24

      Owners will likely only sell at a loss if they are forced to.

      30% of us are in mortgage stress with 20% at exterme risk of default. This was prior to the November rate rise. GFC peaked at 35%

      Not a great stat to have.

  • zoombie on 18/11/2023 - 21:44
    +3

    1) Why wouldn't they share their advice? By sharing, they are making money from their courses plus referral fees to mortgage brokers. AND they get more people into properties investment thus ensuring their own investment stay or goes up.
    BTW: There's nothing secret about what they are doing. No one has some "some secret sauce", they are just pretending to have it.

    2) You can always switch to interest only payment to survive the increase in interest rate. Plus jacking up rental price.
    3) Aussie Real estate won't burst. Depends on what you mean by bursting. But you won't see a major crash. Aus government is relying heavily on immigration to do the lifting on economic growth. They will never turn off this tap. And as long as that continue, any fall in prices will have a safety net due to strong demand for rentals.

    • netjock on 18/11/2023 - 23:44
      +1

      This is closest to the right answer.

      If they make so much so easily why would they want to share? I guess if they genuinely want to help others? Or is it how they really make their money?

      Because this so called negative gearing magic money tree. It actually isn't. You are making a loss and offsetting it against your income most likely at a lower marginal tax rate. When you sell you go straight into the highest tax rate (even after capital gains discount). Working it out on a spreadsheet there is high likelihood the ATO is making a lot more money than you save when offsetting against lower marginal tax rate all those years.

      You will also run out of free cash flow and when you do you are basically stuffed. Sell courses to increase your cashflow so you can buy more. You would make much more selling courses than investing in property because for 100 courses you sell you might have only 1 person who would be a serious competitor the rest would either be too lazy, have no capital amongst other issues.

  • Iwantthebestprice on 18/11/2023 - 23:00
    +1

    The number of articles I read each Saturday in the herald sun about some guy in his late 20”s who owns 10 million $ of property and rents them out, but is literally up to his nose in 10 million $ of debt too. Couldn’t a bigger loser than this

    • miwahni on 18/11/2023 - 23:46
      +3

      It's certainly not a position I'd like to be in, but then if he's making PI repayments and not IO then he's paying down debt, and if prices do continue to rise, even at a slower pace, then in ten years' time this loser could well have say $8m of debt and $15m worth of property, which is not such a losing proposition.

      • bargain huntress on 19/11/2023 - 12:07

        If they go down will they lose everything?

        • SlickMick on 19/11/2023 - 15:38
          +1

          How much is down? 20%?

          He would have $2M in equity plus whatever he's paid off. (We just went through a period of tiny interest, so these properties would have been paying themselves off.) If prices plummeted by 20% AND he wasn't able to make the interest payments at the higher current rates, even if he had to sell the lot he'd still be ahead.

          But maybe they're all in the same street and there is an earthquake and he isn't insured - that'd get him for sure.

    • SlickMick on 19/11/2023 - 15:32
      +1

      Great leverage when interest rates were <2%. If he was able to build up some equity to get through a time of higher interest, good on him. Otherwise he might have to sell some. Usually need at least 20% equity, so I don't see that he's the loser here.

  • Sinnerator on 19/11/2023 - 10:34
    +2

    They are NOT providing rental properties, those properties would still exist without them.

    • bargain huntress on 19/11/2023 - 12:07
      +1

      Thats a very good point. Unless they are actually building new houses - which i have yet to see any of them do - they arent increasing the supply.

    • SlickMick on 19/11/2023 - 15:27
      +1

      If houses were only available as PPOR, there would be a lot of empty houses and a lot of people sleeping in their cars.

      • bargain huntress on 19/11/2023 - 15:41

        Why?

        • SlickMick on 19/11/2023 - 21:25
          +3

          Because not everyone is in a position to buy a house. It isn't a popular thing to say here, but rental properties are a needed service in the community.

          • bargain huntress on 19/11/2023 - 22:30

            @SlickMick: But wouldnt the price of houses come down so more people would be in a position to buy a house?

            On top of that, if there wasnt the possibilty of rent income paying the mortgage, there would be far fewer investors, buying a house to just sit empty, so there wouldnt be a lot more empty houses?

            • SlickMick on 19/11/2023 - 23:10
              +1

              @bargain huntress: There are many people who cannot or don't want to buy a house.

              In this non-existent world we're discussing, I guess you could force everyone to buy a house, and perhaps the government could buy all surplus houses and give them to those who have a valid reason for not buying.

              This situation doesn't exist, and never would, so I'm not sure that this is a productive path to go down.

              • JimB on 20/11/2023 - 12:24

                @SlickMick: yup, there's always going to be a percentage of the population who couldn't afford to buy or maintain a property even if prices dropped by 75%.

                some people live pay cheque to pay cheque or Centrelink payment to Centrelink payment so can't afford to save up the deposit. Plus the banks will be deemed 'irresponsible' if they gave them a loan for the balance.

        • Kangal on 20/11/2023 - 07:38
          +1

          He's wrong.
          The market would adapt to those conditions. Most sought out locations and houses will hold a premium, we would have the same supply/demand issue, it is merely the prices would be more reflective of the value. So lower prices, because less investment properties, meaning more supply for would-be buyers. Look at the Singapore housing market for how this could play out like.

  • mlbrooke on 19/11/2023 - 16:44
    +1

    If you can “do” something then you do it, if you can talk about something but not “do” it, then you teach.

    Almost all paid courses by any sort of guru is nothing like listening to an expert in the topic, their money is made through those who pay stupid money to attend something “exclusive”.

    There is so much more free knowledge out there than these scammers could ever teach you in two lifetimes so don’t fall for it, having attended an event is not going to change your life - unless you were already on the path.

  • Cluster on 19/11/2023 - 18:19
    +3

    Beware of gurus flashing their cash and bragging how many they own, and trying to sell you the system.

    1. The expensive seminars they run are designed to get you to sign up for the next seminar.

    2. They often want to sell you the properties they own, at a very handy profit.

  • DemocracyManifest on 19/11/2023 - 20:36
    +1

    These schemes mostly rely on buying property within a SMSF - self managed super fund.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/AusFinance/comments/rmjhlu/property…
    Take Eddie Dileen for example
    Highly leveraged
    The government response to housing affordability should also include stamping this out

    • bargain huntress on 19/11/2023 - 20:42

      Yeah hes one who pops up periodically

      Is that a good way to do super?

      • DemocracyManifest on 19/11/2023 - 20:50
        +1

        Depends if you are a betting man lmao
        Property has gone up and up / will there be a correction, who knows
        Most super funds default options have some investment in property
        I would think the administration costs alone would be very significant to not make this look sustainable for the common person
        But this is a huge loophole that should not exist

      • miwahni on 20/11/2023 - 00:51

        If you are the sort of person who actively enjoys managing investments / staying abreast of legislation / understanding obligations and spending time on research and compliance, then yes "doing" super via real estate can be worthwhile. It does involve setting up a self managed super fund, entering an LRBA and having sufficient income stream via rent and super guarantee contributions to make repayments and cover all costs of the property. ASIC frowns on single asset SMSFS and there are frequent rumblings about further regulations being introduced so you do need to be on top of all of this.
        What bothers me is the poor old mum and dad investors who get sucked into these schemes, and end up buying properties - usually newly built townhouses in large complexes, in fringe areas - that have Buckleys' chance of any real appreciation in value, often at inflated prices. Work for years with all their SGC going into the upkeep / loan and ten years later their asset isn't worth much more than they paid for it.
        They have no idea whether their funds are compliant and spend a fortune on accountants and other advisors to manage their remaining super. Seriously if they're going to do that anyway, why not just leave it in their industry fund?

  • pmdg777 on 19/11/2023 - 20:39
    -3

    I’m Sanjay Parasher

    Yes I’m full of it

    FULL OF MONEYYYYY BAHAHHAHAHAHA

  • Hangryuman on 19/11/2023 - 20:48
    -2

    'Are Property Gurus Always Full of It?'

    no but with such an obvious clickbait title and post I'm guessing the OP is …

    a) looking for something to do
    b) seeking something other than answers to the teaser OP
    c) someone working for OzBargain seeking to attract new users

  • Maxi Pad on 19/11/2023 - 23:43
    -1

    I knew someone that wrote a well published book on property investing about 25 years ago. They never had an investment property, and didn't for another 15 years after writing the book.

    So I'd say generally yes there is a fair chance.

    • bargain huntress on 20/11/2023 - 14:35

      Woah!

      Want to spill the beans who it was?

  • samfisher5986 on 20/11/2023 - 09:26
    +4

    Yes they are.

    The typical investment strategy seems to be to overleverage yourself on multiple regional properties which has a huge amount of risk which makes it a lot closer to gambling unless you are an expert on the future of small towns.

    Right now property guru's are heavily relying on showing off their great prior history because of gains during covid as well as a lot of their current advice is based on gains during covid.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 20/11/2023 - 09:33
    +2

    Surely the Austfalian real estate bubble will burst eventually?

    actually as long as the population grows unsustainably and red tape from incompetent governments continue to make new builds slow and difficult - property will probably continue to rise

    Land is a finite asset - everyone needs a place to live and the fact is most people want to live around the CBDs of the major cities or on the coast.

    Thus basic common sense would dictate the more people for the same amount of land will only appreciate the land in the long term

    In the short term you can see down turns in property due to the current interest rate squeeze we're seeing as people who might be over-leveraged (like your gurus) are force to sell.

    Otherwise most people with common sense know land will appreciate over time esp when you got Albo-fraud and the ALP bring 4m people here over a few years. - You voted for this Australia

    • samfisher5986 on 20/11/2023 - 09:43

      The current immigration rate is responsible for higher rents, not high house costs.

      Our current permanent resident/citizen population growth is not unsustainable, its necessary for a healthy economy to make up for all the kids we aren't having.

      Land becoming more expensive over time is considered normal for a capital city until you can give enough incentive for people to want to be near another city.

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 20/11/2023 - 09:49
        +5

        Our current permanent resident/citizen population growth is not unsustainable

        we're in a per-capita recession, which means it is unsustainable

        you can only 'reduce' the amount of the pie everyone gets for so long -eventually you become a 3rd world country

        Rising rents are partly due to increased migraiton but most do to do with the increased squeeze on Land Lords due to higher taxes and interest rates - it is basic tickle down economics

        LL costs go up thus cost of doing business rise to make the business 'sustainable' - being a LL is a business despite what all the wackos on the ABC and reddit want you to believe that is all it is for investors

        • samfisher5986 on 20/11/2023 - 09:57

          Yes but you can build more houses/townhouses/apartments.

          The issue we have right now is that we've been caught unprepared and we have two choices, cut migration and the economy suffers but rents improve, or you can keep it going and hope we can catch up in houses before things get any worse.

          • Trying2SaveABuck on 20/11/2023 - 10:06
            +3

            @samfisher5986:

            Yes but you can build more houses/townhouses/apartments.

            All require land - land is finite

            The issue we have right now is that we've been caught unprepared and we have two choices, cut migration and the economy suffers but rents improve, or you can keep it going and hope we can catch up in houses before things get any worse.

            The government is avoiding a 'technical' recession for a per-capita one

            the ALP has taken the worst option by reducing every Australians standard of living to make them look good on 'paper' but have a long term reduction in standards opposed to have a recession allowing a short term 'painful numbers' but overall protecting the nations standard of living.

            You can only bring people here for so long till the camels back breaks as infrastructure cannot meet with increased demand

            there is no reason to have increase immigration right now other then to be ALP PR to make the numbers 'look better'

            • samfisher5986 on 20/11/2023 - 10:15

              @Trying2SaveABuck: We are a long long way from not having enough land, and a long long way from not enough enough existing buildings to be converted to townhouses/apartments etc. We also still have a lot of space within public transport/driving distance to the CBD, with some improvements needed however. You only have to look at almost every other country to see we have a lot more room for population

              The ALP does not set the standard of living, no idea where you go that idea we are not a communist country.

              People will always come to Australia because things are just so much worse overseas, we only have to continue being one of the best which we are.

              • Trying2SaveABuck on 20/11/2023 - 10:20
                +4

                @samfisher5986:

                People will always come to Australia because things are just so much worse overseas, we only have to continue being one of the best which we are.

                might want to check that fact….bar the UK most of our immigration is from China, India, Sir Lanka, Philippines, Vietnam, Nepal, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan….

                if you think becuz we have a 'standard of living' higher then a place like Afghanistan makes us great then you're standards are on the floor as it is (or other 3rd world countries)

                • homelessness increasing
                • suicides increasing esp in men
                • Drug/Alcoholism abuse increasing
                • bulk billing GPs decreasing
                • Hospital WL longest in history
                • education 38th out of 40 in the OECD

                as for we have lots of land i dont think you understand the sheer amount of effort and cost needed to develop land

                I guess if you have your head in the sand it makes things seem better….

                • samfisher5986 on 20/11/2023 - 10:24
                  +1

                  @Trying2SaveABuck: You are taking what I'm saying and twisting it for your own agenda.

                  Immigrants don't care about the things you mentioned as things are simply much better here for them

                  They don't care about your opinion, they just want to move here.

                  • Trying2SaveABuck on 20/11/2023 - 10:29
                    +3

                    @samfisher5986:

                    Immigrants don't care about the things you mentioned as things are simply much better here for them

                    exactly the issue bring people here who want to milk the system and not benefit it

                    im not twisting anything Australia should be doing whats best for Australia - we're not a charity

                    influxing immigration is bad for Australia - we shouldn't have more then 70-80k immigration per year to maintain our standard of living

                    • samfisher5986 on 20/11/2023 - 10:45

                      @Trying2SaveABuck: There is no evidence that 70-80k immigration is good for us, we've always had way more then that.

                      • Trying2SaveABuck on 20/11/2023 - 11:39
                        +2

                        @samfisher5986: Howard Costello Era had a soft cap around 75k - standard of living was at this highest

                        • housing was affordable
                        • wage growth kept up with inflation
                        • we still had manufacturing
                        • over 75 percent of GPs bulk bulled
                        • infrastructure mostly kept up with demand
                        • Australia was running a $ surplus
                        • hospital Waitlist where literally half what they are now….

                        i could go on but the 'no evidence' comment shows you really dont know what you're talking about

                        other nations with low immigration/ numbers like Scandinavian counties (hard left) Norway, Sweden and Hard right nations UAE, Monaco, Qatar etc all keep a very high standard of living for their citizens despite having different culture attitudes to social issues they maintain their culture and put citizens 1st

                        interesting how almost no one from those countries migrates to Australia - as i said Australia is not a charity but somehow our PM wants us to be to keep himself into power

              • bargain huntress on 20/11/2023 - 14:32
                +1

                @samfisher5986: I think trying2saveabuck is more correct than you on this.

                We have lots of 'available' land but it has 2 problems:

                1 we have very limited prime production or capable of any sort of production land for growing food, basically all around the edge of the continent. Guess where we also started the capital cities, and guess where the suburbs have grown. We will not be able to feed ourselves if we keep covering the relatively tiny amount of farmable land we have with houses.

                2 most of the available land we have is desert and doesnt have the water necessary to sustain suburbs or cities.
                Politicians would need a lot of spine and a lot of money to change that.

                • samfisher5986 on 20/11/2023 - 14:51
                  +1

                  @bargain huntress: Maybe 50 years down the track I would agree.

                  In terms of the next 15-20 years, we have so much availability opportunity without needing to worry about that.

                  • bargain huntress on 20/11/2023 - 14:53

                    @samfisher5986: Do you mean all the commercial realestate that is empty? Ive heard it has unsuitable plumbing for residential so needs to be majorly renovated or torn down to turn into residential

                    • samfisher5986 on 20/11/2023 - 14:57

                      @bargain huntress: I simply mean our current issue is not that we can't build houses/apartments, its that its going to take a long time to catch up to the demand.

                      Freeing up land, commercial real estate or similar does nothing to solve it in the short term, we are already sorted for the medium term.

                • bhubb18 on 20/11/2023 - 14:57
                  +1

                  @bargain huntress: There is SO much available land within 100km of the coast that is not used. Is it all perfectly suitable, of course not, but Australia is a massive place, and theres vast areas that are not deserts, thats for sure.

                  • bargain huntress on 20/11/2023 - 18:51

                    @bhubb18: And we need those for growing food, or for nature preservation

                    • bhubb18 on 20/11/2023 - 21:49

                      @bargain huntress: Have you driven though the vast areas of largely unused areas of Australia though? The scale is absolutely insane, and theres many areas that are not capitilised on.
                      But in saying that, the challenge isn't to have the land, its to get people there.

                      • bargain huntress on 20/11/2023 - 23:01
                        +1

                        @bhubb18: The "vast areas of largely unused areas of Australia" you have driven through - that are not desert - are either nature preserves or argricultural land.

                        There is not some huge amount of land that sits unused because no one has gotten around to using yet! That doesnt exist.

                        If you are driving past natural ecosystem and thinking 'look at all this unused land!' then think again, because for many ecosystems, we dont have much left and need to save as much as possible.

                        If you are driving past a paddock and not seeing a grazing animal or a crop growing and thinking 'look at all this unused land!' then you are misunderstanding how agriculture in Australia works.

                        Australia has ancient nutrient poor soil, even on most of our prime production land.

                        You need low stock rates for animals to have enough to eat. So most of the land will look 'unused' most of the time, but a sheep or a cow eats there when you werent driving past.

                        Grain cropping will often be done only once or twice a year so again for a lot of the year the land will look 'unused', but it is being prepared or rested or seeded etc.

      • Bluto Mindpretzel on 21/11/2023 - 13:23
        +2

        to make up for all the kids we aren't having.

        LOL. Ever wondered why people aren't having as many kids? Because they cannot afford to as a mortgage requires two people working every day rather than only requiring one during rosier times.

        There are ample examples of this phenomenon worldwide, look at Japan for example. Throwing extra bodies onto the bonfire will not fix this problem is just kicks the can down the road. There is a massive cost to accomodate so many new arrivals.

        The concept of forever growth is utter nonsense really.

        • bargain huntress on 22/11/2023 - 04:56

          Couldnt agree more.

          Why do you think so many people have it backwards?

          Is there anything we can do?

  • gromit on 20/11/2023 - 09:48
    +1

    there is no moral or ethical situation, it is just business. regardless the ONLY property gurus you want to listen to are the ones still around and profiting when things go bad, any idiot can make money on a rising market, the skilled ones make money on a stagnant or falling market as well.

    FYI, Property isn't some secret investment opportunity where you do better by others not knowing the secrets. They make more with others wanting to buy and invest in the areas they have bought, so they win twice by getting people to pay to listen to them. For the market to burst a significant change would have to happen on the demand side and with current immigration numbers being the way they are demand will outstrip supply at least for the foreseeable futre.

    • samfisher5986 on 20/11/2023 - 10:00

      Not exactly.

      Having a high amount of investment properties in a small town will shift the community due to the types of people who rent and how they treat their neighborhood etc vs people that own and potentially has an impact on your rental value and it can also create a bubble for your house value as investors are only interested in regional areas if the rental value is high enough compared to capital cities (they often aim for positively geared)

      Its also literally impossible to determine if a property guru is profiting when things go bad and even if you could, you wouldn't know if they just got lucky.

  • ihbh on 20/11/2023 - 11:23
    +2

    Some investors who bought real estate multiple decades ago have pretty much paid off the loans and retired and don't do any coaching sh*t, except maybe for exceptional/interesting cases. They might also have written a book or two. :)

    Some more recent investors might help fund their investments with their coaching fees and pretend they are a guru (product puffery).

    Don't focus on numbers as such, e.g. 10 units in a regional town might be cheaper than a run down house in Sydney.

    When the market bursts depends on how much debt you have and your ability to service it. You might be living in your forever home but overpaid for it and forced to sell at a loss so forever is how long you can hold on to the property.

  • whitepuma on 20/11/2023 - 11:25
    +2

    The ones selling their training material or course to get rich like them…..yeah their full of it.
    This applies to every one of those "gurus" that pop up on your social feeds talking about getting rich quick.

    Think about it. If they got & continue to get rich by property (or whatever other method their saying), why wouldn't they just continue to do that, rather than start a course for others to get rich.

    I have never heard of a person get rich from those courses, with the exception of the obvious sockpuppeting.

    Majority of the time their courses are just general knowledge you can learn online from free websites or doing basic research, or just trying to push the angle of always be selling and hustle hustle hustle.

    I do believe people are are getting rich via property, but these "gurus" that are often selling a course or book are definitely full of it.

    • Celorne on 20/11/2023 - 11:36
      +2

      Exactly!

      In a gold rush you want to be the one selling picks & shovels. Not the one chancing on striking gold.

      • whitepuma on 20/11/2023 - 14:14
        +1

        The likes of Andrew Tate, Tony robbins, Grant Cardone, Tai lopez, Dan Lok the list goes on (some more dodgy than others)

        To clarify, most of these "Guru's" i don't think they are scammers, after all, they are selling you a product (their course), and they are providing it.

        But what i challenge is that they pretend their course is like the secret recipe to getting rich….All that these Gurus are doing is selling you the basic business or investment skills that you can learn elsewhere free (such as a basic google search), and then they are getting rich themselves by selling it to you.

        I agree with your analogy, these "Guru's" are the ones selling picks & shovels at a gold rush, telling you you COULD get rich from buying their shovel.

  • Drakesy on 20/11/2023 - 12:24

    There's not really a science to investing. if you have to learn from some guy suckering you into their training course, property probably isn't for you.

    The only investors that got lucky are those that were born at the right time. I don't see any/many y/x gens buying investment properties, the leverageability just isn't there anymore.
    My experience (from my friends who bought back in 2010) is that they've only just come back to where they were when they bought, in the meantime their properties were heavily negatively geared, it's a gamble that the taxpayer gets to subsidise :)

  • Thaal Sinestro on 20/11/2023 - 13:46

    "Surely the Austalian real estate bubble will burst eventually?"

    The only way housing prices will decrease is if the Australian population declines. This happened in Japan: over the past 20 years housing prices there declined by ~23%. In Australia and Canada they grew by about 325%. Japan has virtually no no immigration. Stop all immigration to Australia. Australia is full. The parasites coming here by plane have no loyalty to our country; all they want is free stuff. Their only skills are spending 12 hours a day watching TV and voting 1 for the ALP.

    • bargain huntress on 20/11/2023 - 14:09

      How is japans economy going to keep going with a declining population?

      How have they set themselves up so they are not a ponzi scheme that requires ever more people like we have?

      • samfisher5986 on 20/11/2023 - 14:20
        +2

        Japan is not doing particularly great and the main reason they don't add immigration is because they are very racist to anyone who wants to live in Japan who are not Japanese.

        Japan still manages to do manufacturing and a ton of other things because they do insane work hours at lower rates of pay and work as well as home conditions, without that they would truly be doomed. (Or in other words, Japanese people work harder and have poorer conditions to keep Japan afloat without immigration)

    • Drakesy on 20/11/2023 - 14:42

      The only way housing prices will decrease is if the Australian population declines

      Agreed, but Perth still went backwards without a population decline.

      • bargain huntress on 20/11/2023 - 16:35

        What caused it in Perth?

        • Drakesy on 20/11/2023 - 16:53
          +1

          Supply outpacing demand. Oh and overpriced property that less people were inclined to pay for.

  • ajbee on 20/11/2023 - 14:17
    +1

    I see a lot of people vouching for the courses by these gurus. How do they build these proponents?

  • lonewolf on 20/11/2023 - 16:18

    This is something i am not a fan off, Frankly this destroys the idea of the australian dream of owning a family home. For every extra home one person owns, it means another person is unable to find / purchase a home for themselves / family. Sure people will jump up and down about "wont somebody think of the renters" and sure some people want to rent. But by and large if people could afford it , they would rather own a home than rent. There are also ways around this by making apartments etc available for rent . In general though I think there are so many alternatives for investments, that a house should be first and foremost someones home and not just another investment opportunity. Especially since in the current system, once you get one investment house, you will find it easier to get more and more.

    Someone who is looking to buy their first home is always going to struggle to compete against someone who is buying their 5th investment property.

    • bargain huntress on 20/11/2023 - 16:34
      +2

      I really agree with you.

      Humans need shelter.
      Humans need social connection.
      Humans need homes (which means different things to different people, but its still a need in whatever form)

      How did we make a situation where these 3 basic human needs are so intrinscally linked to money, wealth, investing, and politics?

    • drfuzzy on 20/11/2023 - 17:42
      -1

      What a load of rubbish.

      Someone earning income $X is going to be in a much better position to buy their first home than someone earning $X + rent and looking to buy their 5th investment property. The person with multiple investment properties will be crushed under the weight of the leverage and expenses.

      If you are saying it is unfair that someone who earns more can buy more, then you are basically taking issue with capitalism itself.

      • bargain huntress on 20/11/2023 - 18:16

        But isnt the value of the investors 4 houses used as collateral, or counted as asset, or rent counted as income?
        So doesnt that mean they can borrow more money in total more easily than someone who doesnt have one?
        Or do the banks not count the part of the 4 houses that is owned by the bank via mortgages?

        • lonewolf on 20/11/2023 - 22:58
          +1

          Yes it does, it gets easier and easier to get larger and larger loans. As well as you are renting them out to people who may have otherwise purchased it themselves. So they are helping you pay it off or invest in more. It becomes larger and larger. I know people who have so many properties now they buy them sight unseen. They also acknowledge it shouldn't be like that but since the government makes it beneficial to people to keep doing this, then of course people will keep going down that road.

  • jaimex2 on 20/11/2023 - 17:11
    +1

    No idea about the gurus but here's all you need to know.

    Houses are going to go continue to go up in value - were dumping 1000 wealthy immigrants into the country a day, a lot of construction companies went under, materials and labor are more expensive than ever.

    Investors don't feel the pains you think they do. Their investments are there to bring down their income so they pay less tax.
    High interest rates? More like high tax write offs!

    They write off expenses that don't exist. They exist on paper like a building depreciated $10k a year.

    Rents will continue to go up as well as the bottom end is where all the competition is.

    • bargain huntress on 20/11/2023 - 18:13

      They write off expenses that don't exist. They exist on paper like a building depreciated $10k a year.

      How can they justify that legally?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join