8.3 Million in debt?

[Hawkk]

On field perhaps but he will be judged as a success or failure on the basis of the Dingley move. Probably the most important move in our history...

 

[Bikefreak]

On field perhaps but he will be judged as a success or failure on the basis of the Dingley move. Probably the most important move in our history...

But that would be extremely unfair. The decision to go the Dingley way happened before his tenure even started.
He may however be measured on how he manages the Dingley transition.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[Gralin]

But that would be extremely unfair. The decision to go the Dingley way happened before his tenure even started.
He may however be measured on how he manages the Dingley transition.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Part of the board that made the decision to investigate Dingley, VP in fact.
If the deal goes ahead it will be this year under his watch before the AGM, I'd say it's fair to link him to it.
It's best to remember that there is more to the admin of the club than just the president though

 

[Pessimistic]

Depends on the type of membership you want
$18 per month for 10 months
Not that hard

But that would lock you out of all those empty seats on level 1 many will just opt for foxtel on retirement

Gws or gc membership is good too. Standard 11 game vic membership allows any games with those clubs at MCG plus the balance in any non all ticket mcg games..in the afl members reserve

 

[Pessimistic]

We could in a heartbeat clear that debt if we wanted to, the club would be negligent in doing so as generally speaking you would prefer to use that capital to re-invest in maturing assets.

If you drive around a place like Ivanhoe you'll see a lot of 1/4 acre blocks with big houses on them, the likelyhood is those families are half a mill in debt on those blocks but have the means to service that debt all the while sitting on maturing asset. The HFC is a maturing asset and cash cow, if there was no debt to service there would be no business progression.

Many people in that position. Even if they are redrawing a bit and not lowering the debt but not raising it either they may be paying $15k to retain an asset which may be growing over $150k annually

 

[Pessimistic]

That is not true. This is not utopia.

Some entities are "audited", and some other entities are audited.

If they were all audited the same, there would be fewer corporate collapses.

I was an auditor in another life for a Top 4 firm, and some of the "sampling" that was suggested was ridiculous.....just saying

I was at one too in IT, and one of the younger tax accountants announced he was resigning to join the ATO.

Theres exit procedures and theres 'exit procedures' if you get my drift. While people moved on all the time, a move to the ATO was rare

 

[tige19]

Many people in that position. Even if they are redrawing a bit and not lowering the debt but not raising it either they may be paying $15k to retain an asset which may be growing over $150k annually

Spot on mate, i'm currently looking at investing in property and looking at apartments/townhouses in Northcote/Footscray/Maidstone with the thought of paying the interest only on sitting on it for the next decade. Rinse and Repeat! I'll be millions of dollars in debt yet my annual net gain will/should comfortably surpass the lack of progression in paying off the debt.

This is sometimes harder for people to understand, you could be 5mill in personal debt and be on 120k wage and be able to completely service the repayments all the while that debt is actually a significant net gain. HFC works in this vein.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

But that would lock you out of all those empty seats on level 1 many will just opt for foxtel on retirement

Gws or gc membership is good too. Standard 11 game vic membership allows any games with those clubs at MCG plus the balance in any non all ticket mcg games..in the afl members reserve

Do I read that correctly? I get a GWS or GC membership, don't go to any GWS or GC games, and can go AFL members reserve for every Hawthorn MCG game?

 

[Pessimistic]

Do I read that correctly? I get a GWS or GC membership, don't go to any GWS or GC games, and can go AFL members reserve for every Hawthorn MCG game?

Thats how I read it. I dont think gc have any mcg games

 

[ChinaTim]

Spot on mate, i'm currently looking at investing in property and looking at apartments/townhouses in Northcote/Footscray/Maidstone with the thought of paying the interest only on sitting on it for the next decade. Rinse and Repeat! I'll be millions of dollars in debt yet my annual net gain will/should comfortably surpass the lack of progression in paying off the debt.

This is sometimes harder for people to understand, you could be 5mill in personal debt and be on 120k wage and be able to completely service the repayments all the while that debt is actually a significant net gain. HFC works in this vein.

This only works if you assume house prices always increase - lots of people in the USA in 2006-07 did the same which lead to the GFC !
Too much debt can be very dangerous

 

[Hawkk]

This only works if you assume house prices always increase - lots of people in the USA in 2006-07 did the same which lead to the GFC !
Too much debt can be very dangerous

So much this.

If you believe that house prices will double inside 20 years (when the housing market is 8-9 times the average wage and 20 years ago it was 4-5 times average wage) you are setting yourself up for some fall. Specifically with Chinese investment currently being the primary cause of the current spike in capital growth.

Better off having a 50% deposit and positively gearing your property so that it performs irrespective of exhorbiannt capital growth. Plus it allows you to be liquid (in relative terms) so you can pounce on lucrative opportunities in the financial markets.

Fortunately it seems like the club number crunchers have a similat viewpoint given its extremely healthy balance sheet and cash flow

 

[Gralin]

So much this.

If you believe that house prices will double inside 20 years (when the housing market is 8-9 times the average wage and 20 years ago it was 4-5 times average wage) you are setting yourself up for some fall. Specifically with Chinese investment currently being the primary cause of the current spike in capital growth.

Better off having a 50% deposit and positively gearing your property so that it performs irrespective of exhorbiannt capital growth. Plus it allows you to be liquid (in relative terms) so you can pounce on lucrative opportunities in the financial markets.

Fortunately it seems like the club number crunchers have a similat viewpoint given its extremely healthy balance sheet and cash flow

Positive gearing beats negative any day of the week but people get caught up by the idea of paying less tax vs having more money in their pockets/ multiple income streams.

 

[Long Live HFC]

This only works if you assume house prices always increase - lots of people in the USA in 2006-07 did the same which lead to the GFC.

property investment is (generally) a long-term proposition. the GFC represents shorter term volatility. in australia, if you look at the long-term trend, house prices have always increased. there are many factors at play here of course, but ultimately it's a result of a finite amount of space where people want to live.

Better off having a 50% deposit and positively gearing your property so that it performs irrespective of exhorbiannt capital growth.

this is undoubtedly true, but how many of us can save a few hundred thousand dollars for an investment?

Positive gearing beats negative any day of the week but people get caught up by the idea of paying less tax vs having more money in their pockets/ multiple income streams.

i am not sure to which people you refer; anyone i know prefers to have a positively-geared investment, and this is what ultimately happens in property as the principle is paid off and rental income (theoretically) increases. negative gearing is a useful tax break, and can make any purchase more affordable in the short-medium term, but it isn't (or at least shouldn't be) why you borrow to invest.

 

[Gralin]

property investment is (generally) a long-term proposition. the GFC represents shorter term volatility. in australia, if you look at the long-term trend, house prices have always increased. there are many factors at play here of course, but ultimately it's a result of a finite amount of space where people want to live.

this is undoubtedly true, but how many of us can save a few hundred thousand dollars for an investment?



i am not sure to which people you refer; anyone i know prefers to have a positively-geared investment, and this is what ultimately happens in property as the principle is paid off and rental income (theoretically) increases. negative gearing is a useful tax break, and can make any purchase more affordable in the short-medium term, but it isn't (or at least shouldn't be) why you borrow to invest.

And yet any mention of abolishing or changing negative gearing is met with outrage....

 

[tige19]

And yet any mention of abolishing or changing negative gearing is met with outrage....

Negative gearing is simply an alternative to people, it allows a nice tax break and gives those that may not enter the market from an investment perspective a chance.

 

[tige19]

This only works if you assume house prices always increase - lots of people in the USA in 2006-07 did the same which lead to the GFC !
Too much debt can be very dangerous

Understand this but you need to take into account the amount of space our country has so close to all of our main cities, there is open and free land all through out metropolitan areas of Australia. As long as we have population increase then we will have a growing housing market, if building and development stops in this country that's when a recession will hit.

 

[tige19]

So much this.

If you believe that house prices will double inside 20 years (when the housing market is 8-9 times the average wage and 20 years ago it was 4-5 times average wage) you are setting yourself up for some fall. Specifically with Chinese investment currently being the primary cause of the current spike in capital growth.

Better off having a 50% deposit and positively gearing your property so that it performs irrespective of exhorbiannt capital growth. Plus it allows you to be liquid (in relative terms) so you can pounce on lucrative opportunities in the financial markets.

Fortunately it seems like the club number crunchers have a similat viewpoint given its extremely healthy balance sheet and cash flow

Chinese investment has slowed and with the said tax placed upon foreign investment it will only help open doors for home investors and first home purchasers.

 

[Gralin]

Negative gearing is simply an alternative to people, it allows a nice tax break and gives those that may not enter the market from an investment perspective a chance.

Nice theory but it is used by people that could get in anyway, it also helps push property prices up which pushes some out of the market and into rentals.
It costs this country billions in lost tax dollars as it is applied without means testing or any other limitations.

 

[tige19]

Nice theory but it is used by people that could get in anyway, it also helps push property prices up which pushes some out of the market and into rentals.
It costs this country billions in lost tax dollars as it is applied without means testing or any other limitations.

What costs more? The free ride Chinese investors have had for decades or australian citizens negative gearing?

 

[Gralin]

What costs more? The free ride Chinese investors have had for decades or australian citizens negative gearing?

Both are bad

 

[tige19]

Both are bad

I think the government has taken the right approach by winning back some of that money foreign investors have pocketed for a lifetime.. I agree in an ideal world positive gearing is the most logical way to go, however for the standard australian it's nigh on impossible unless you're a 6 figure earner living in Mirboo.

 

[Gralin]

I think the government has taken the right approach by winning back some of that money foreign investors have pocketed for a lifetime.. I agree in an ideal world positive gearing is the most logical way to go, however for the standard australian it's nigh on impossible unless you're a 6 figure earner living in Mirboo.

I don't really care if its possible I think it's the wrong policy and we are talking about investment here, not a concession to allow home ownership. And you get people living in their investment properties getting the tax breaks.
At the very least there should be limitations on property prices, how much tax can be saved etc
Someone getting a tax break on a mil+ investment property is not the best use of tax dollars

 

[Long Live HFC]

And yet any mention of abolishing or changing negative gearing is met with outrage....

well im not sure if "outrage" is the correct word, but yes there's definitely some opposition to the idea. that says to me that plenty of ordinary folk have borrowed to invest (and remember, negative gearing is not solely the domain of housing).

i don't necessarily oppose a change to negative gearing per se, but the government can't have it both ways. if investment income is considered part of my taxable income, then i should absolutely be able to claim deductions associated with holding the relevant asset which produces that income. it doesn't matter whether we're talking share dividends, a small business or residential property.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Nice theory but it is used by people that could get in anyway,

there seems to be this misconception that negative gearing is the domain of wealthy property magnates. this just isn't the case. residential investment is one of the few investment vehicles available to those of modest means. two-thirds of property investors are on an income less than $80K, and they account for 80% of negatively geared properties.

it also helps push property prices up which pushes some out of the market and into rentals.

this isn't quite true. investment (ie higher demand) may push up prices (assuming everything else is equal). that isn't the same thing as negative gearing pushing up prices. lending standards and interest rates have far more impact.

 

[Gralin]

there seems to be this misconception that negative gearing is the domain of wealthy property magnates. this just isn't the case. residential investment is one of the few investment vehicles available to those of modest means. two-thirds of property investors are on an income less than $80K, and they account for 80% of negatively geared properties.



this isn't quite true. investment (ie higher demand) may push up prices (assuming everything else is equal). that isn't the same thing as negative gearing pushing up prices. lending standards and interest rates have far more impact.

If 2 out of 3 investors are only there with the help of negative gearing then yes it does inflate prices.
It also creates the issues with property crashes when the market turns as people lose their ability to service debt.

The government doesn't care though they keep helping the prices go up, take their cut on every sale and tell people unaffordable housing becoming more unaffordable is a good thing.