• Login:
Welcome, Register Here
follow PropertyTalk on facebook follow PropertyTalk on twitter Newsletter follow PropertyTalk on LinkedIn follow PropertyTalk on facebook
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick G View Post
    Actually you've invested $500,000 to return $23,500, on which you pay income tax.
    In year two, all things being equal you pay $23,850 in interest etc.
    I'm sure Ross knows that - but he's talking cash returns. So interestingly, in truth you're probably not just only getting $500 per year, but actually cashflow negative (and increasingly so year-on-year, if no rent increases) until the mortgage is paid.

    In accounting terms you're earning profit, but in terms of the cash in the bank, what you can actually see, you get nothing.
    AAT Accounting Services - Property Specialist Accounting - AATAccounting.co.nz
    Lower fees for investors, traders & real estate agents!
    [email protected] for more information.

  2. #12

    Default

    "The owner did not have IEP report. The BC management are not planning to get the report until it is pass into law. The building was built around 1980s, seems to be in good condition"

    The act around earthquake prone buildings needing to have minimum 34% NBS was passed ages ago. It is law. How this is implemented varies by council or territorial authority in their terms. There was also an amendment act, which I thought came in to force in July whose main purpose is to be more specific on how the process is enforced I think but haven't gotten around to researching it properly.

    Let's be clear - there needs to be an IEP unless the building is relatively new. I don't know whether 1980s is new enough to be up to scratch. You will be forced to bring the building at your cost up to standard at some point if it's not. This is a potential significant liability. You can ring the council about this and get their view as there can be exceptions. For a property I purchased in Hamilton the council told me it was new enough to match their earthquake standards, had been consented by them and they were happy with it.

    FYI in Auckland this is not a real risk rather a legislative risk IMO. NBS is aimed at earthquake prone areas and the government took a broad brush approach and did not vary by the seismological stability of different areas as they got caught by surprise with Christchurch. Auckland is seen as very low seismic risk by NZ standards. However, it cannot be ignored despite this. Banks don't like to loan if below minimum NBS, buyers don't like to buy and at some point if below the minimum you will be forced to bring it up to standard.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    7,999

    Default

    Well, I'm pretty sure an IEP is not a requirement, not in Auckland anyway.

    And if built in 1980 then should be fine. It's pre 1976 you have to worry about.

    Yes it's a legislative thing, not really a safety thing.

    Mine is at 53% in Auckland, never had any hassles with insurance or lending against it.
    Squadly dinky do!

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Davo36 View Post
    Well, I'm pretty sure an IEP is not a requirement, not in Auckland anyway.

    And if built in 1980 then should be fine. It's pre 1976 you have to worry about.

    Yes it's a legislative thing, not really a safety thing.

    Mine is at 53% in Auckland, never had any hassles with insurance or lending against it.
    Sorry I phrased that rather badly - I did not mean it's a regulatory requirement to have an IEP - that varies by council - I meant if there is doubt around NBS value you must have an IEP prior to deciding.

    Ditto for me on the NBS affecting lending or insurance and I'm down to 34% though in Hamilton. I've heard anecdotally of issues with minimum NBS in earthquake prone areas such as Wellington. Be interested to know of any real feedback.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthonyacat View Post
    Ross' figures are a little pessimistic, in that the $500 cashflow is only until the first rent review (then again, interest rates could rise, too...) and after 15 years you are no longer paying a mortgage so no principal or interest, cashflow suddenly increases up to near $50k - plus any rent increases.
    Looking at how the interest rate will probably move in future, it seems the yield is not worth the risk. As what Ross said, there are better deal out there for debt free purchase.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scouser View Post
    "The owner did not have IEP report. The BC management are not planning to get the report until it is pass into law. The building was built around 1980s, seems to be in good condition"

    The act around earthquake prone buildings needing to have minimum 34% NBS was passed ages ago. It is law. How this is implemented varies by council or territorial authority in their terms. There was also an amendment act, which I thought came in to force in July whose main purpose is to be more specific on how the process is enforced I think but haven't gotten around to researching it properly.

    Let's be clear - there needs to be an IEP unless the building is relatively new. I don't know whether 1980s is new enough to be up to scratch. You will be forced to bring the building at your cost up to standard at some point if it's not. This is a potential significant liability. You can ring the council about this and get their view as there can be exceptions. For a property I purchased in Hamilton the council told me it was new enough to match their earthquake standards, had been consented by them and they were happy with it.

    FYI in Auckland this is not a real risk rather a legislative risk IMO. NBS is aimed at earthquake prone areas and the government took a broad brush approach and did not vary by the seismological stability of different areas as they got caught by surprise with Christchurch. Auckland is seen as very low seismic risk by NZ standards. However, it cannot be ignored despite this. Banks don't like to loan if below minimum NBS, buyers don't like to buy and at some point if below the minimum you will be forced to bring it up to standard.
    Thanks for sharing Scouser. The legislative risk will impact investors sentiment and that should reflect on the yield. Better be safe than sorry unless we have high risk appetite and able to improve the %NBS without a fortune.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scouser View Post
    Ditto for me on the NBS affecting lending or insurance and I'm down to 34% though in Hamilton. I've heard anecdotally of issues with minimum NBS in earthquake prone areas such as Wellington. Be interested to know of any real feedback.
    I would avoid earthquake prone areas for commercial properties. Stability and peace of mind are what I seek for in commercial properties.

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Davo36 View Post
    Well, I'm pretty sure an IEP is not a requirement, not in Auckland anyway.

    And if built in 1980 then should be fine. It's pre 1976 you have to worry about.

    Yes it's a legislative thing, not really a safety thing.

    Mine is at 53% in Auckland, never had any hassles with insurance or lending against it.
    Right, I think Auckland and Hamilton should be fine for now until the legislative requirement kick in. Nevertheless, good to have >50% NBS.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    687

    Default

    Not in Auckland(rural deep south) but have signed up industry/retail mix building 10.55% net yeild, 25yr lease (10yr fixed term) tenant(Nationwide tenant) pays all outgoings and takes care of all cladding paint work etc ...


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Auckland CBD Commercial advice
    By absoluteproperty in forum Commercial Property (NZ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-04-2017, 11:53 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 28-10-2016, 10:49 PM
  3. what's an acceptable yield in Auckland ?
    By dan1 in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 16-01-2015, 02:39 PM
  4. Commercial Yield targets???
    By Shane D in forum Commercial Property (NZ)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 09:30 PM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-05-2008, 05:30 PM
  6. Average Auckland Rental Yield
    By David_W in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19-06-2006, 09:37 PM
  7. Rental yield (Auckland)
    By fudosan in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-08-2005, 08:04 PM
  8. My Gut Feel...
    By Marc in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 23-12-2003, 08:56 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •