{"id":8279,"date":"2016-06-16T10:00:05","date_gmt":"2016-06-16T00:00:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/realestatetalk.com.au\/?p=8279"},"modified":"2016-06-16T10:00:05","modified_gmt":"2016-06-16T00:00:05","slug":"negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/","title":{"rendered":"Negative Gearing fact and fiction + Affordability vs serviceability"},"content":{"rendered":"

Because of the Negative Gearing myths most of us are hearing, we set about sorting the fact from the fiction with the help of Jamie Alcock, Associate Professor of Finance at the university of Sydney.
\nMichael Yardney<\/a> tells us about a little known fact that will deal another shock for Australian property markets.<\/b>
\n<\/b>Andrew Mirams<\/a> answers a question from Jie about affordability and serviceability and the gap that is emerging.
\nForget the hot spots.\u00a0 Today we tell you about Australia\u2019s favourite suburbs, the areas people are flocking to to find a place to live.
\nAre one of the people who has stopped doing things because we have an election on the way?\u00a0 Well think again.\u00a0 This is the time to zig when others zag.\u00a0 Rich Harvey will explain.
\nTranscripts:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jamie Alcock – Myths about Negative Gearing<\/h1>\n

Kevin:\u00a0 <\/b>There is so much misinformation about negative gearing \u2013 on both sides; it\u2019s become such a political issue \u2013 and just trying to find someone who can give us the facts is really difficult, but we\u2019ve done that. Jamie Alcock, who is Associate Professor of Finance at the University of Sydney joins me.
\nAssociate Professor, thank you very much for your time.<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>It\u2019s a pleasure, Kevin, thank you.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>In your article, you\u2019ve looked at five key myths surrounding negative gearing. I thought we might work through those, then at the end of that, I\u2019d just ask you for a bit of a summary and your points on the issue.
\nMyth number one: negative gearing is responsible for the recent house price surges in Sydney and Melbourne.<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes. Most people are aware that Sydney and Melbourne house prices have dramatically increased in the last three years or so, and that hasn\u2019t seemed to have abated. It seems to be slowing down a little bit, but it hasn\u2019t completely stopped.
\nPeople have to remember that negative gearing has been around for well over a quarter of a century. It\u2019s extremely unlikely that something that happened 25 years ago is now suddenly kicking in and affecting house prices in only Sydney and Melbourne.
\nIf negative gearing would truly be responsible for these sort of things, then you would have expected, firstly, for it to be nationwide \u2013 as the tax laws are nationwide \u2013 and secondly, for it to have occurred long ago.
\nThe real driver of these house price increases is, of course, it all comes down to supply and demand. There\u2019s an increased demand for housing in those cities and there\u2019s restricted supply, and at the same time, the cost of getting into housing \u2013 i.e. the interest rates \u2013 have also dramatically reduced.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes, and to believe that myth, you would have to let go of that well-founded theory that it is all based on supply and demand \u2013 prices.<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes, absolutely, and I think that we have to also keep in the back of our mind what is driving the demand. Of course, jobs and income are big sources for demand, and also interest rates. If interest rates are high, then there are fewer people that can afford to get into the market and repay the mortgage, whereas if interest rates are dropping, then that drives demand up.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Myth number two is that negative gearing makes property unduly attractive for investors.<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>This one I find particularly bizarre. Investors pay tax on this investment. The timing of the tax cash flows are that they get a deduction for the costs initially but when they sell the property, they pay a capital gains tax. In most states, they also pay a significant land tax that owner-occupiers don\u2019t have to pay.
\nTo my mind, if you have the same asset with the same returns, but you have two different investors competing for it, one pays a lot of tax and one pays no tax, who\u2019s going to be driving the market?<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes, but negative gearing is available for all investments, not just property, isn\u2019t it?<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes, absolutely. If you borrow money to invest in shares, then you can deduct the cost of the borrowing against the profit made in the shares, and it\u2019s exactly the same thing in property.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>I do think it\u2019s so highlighted because it is such an emotional issue \u2013 young people trying to get into property. Let\u2019s blame negative gearing for increasing prices.<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes, absolutely. All of us who have bought our first home remember how difficult it was. It\u2019s been difficult forever. It was difficult in 1960 and 1970, and it\u2019s difficult today. The question is, of course, is it any more difficult? I think there are a lot of side issues that have been taken out of the discussion \u2013 things like back in 1960, most families were one-income households. These days, it\u2019s two. The costs of other goods, in real terms, have dramatically reduced in that time.
\nIf you go back 60 years, the cost of a return airfare to London was about $2000 or $3000. It\u2019s the same price today, but of course, $2000 or $3000 back then was a significant sum of money. Even if you go back 15 or 20 years ago, the entry level for a new car was $20,000, and that remains the same price today, even though people\u2019s incomes and wages have increased. The costs of living have actually decreased, so we have more money to throw into our mortgage, at the same time as interest rates are dropping.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>That pretty well covers off on myth number three \u2013 doesn\u2019t it \u2013 negative gearing pushing aggregate prices out of the reach of average Australians.<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes, and there\u2019s just absolutely no evidence for it. Prices are going up, but that\u2019s not the key determinant of affordability. At the end of the day, you can imagine an extreme situation where interest rates were not just lower but in fact, negative. Let\u2019s say there are negative interest rates, which there are in some parts of the world. Well, if it\u2019s $10 million and you\u2019re actually being paid to borrow that money, then it\u2019s very affordable. It\u2019s not the actual sticker price that determines affordability.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>How does the current cost of servicing new loans today compare to, say, a decade ago?<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>That\u2019s a good question. The Reserve Bank in the submission to the Senate inquiry demonstrated that the cost of servicing new loans at the moment is significantly lower than it has been over the past decade. If you go back even further in time\u2026 Everybody brings this up, but young people trying to enter into the market do have to remember that their parents were entering a market where interest rates were 18%.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>That\u2019s right.<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>It was very difficult.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>It was. I lived through that. Myth number four: negative gearing benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor. I love this one.<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes, and this is something that always comes out, but the tax statistics are there and plain for everybody to look up on the Web. They\u2019re very easy, and they show that the vast majority of investors are actually on the lower end of the income scale. They\u2019re not all making millions of dollars a year. And I love the twist that they say somebody on more than $200,000 is three times more likely than somebody less than $80,000 to have an investment property, but there are a hundred times more people on $80,000 than there are on $200,000, so three times one is still much less than one times a hundred.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes, and we\u2019ll deal with the most emotional one, I guess. Myth number five is that negative gearing rules make it more difficult for first-home buyers to enter the housing market.<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>There are a number of dimensions to this one. The first one is, of course, the supply and demand of rental housing. With more investors, of course, there are more houses for rent, more properties for rent, which means the supply is greater and rental prices come down. This allows first-home buyers a greater opportunity to save for a deposit.
\nBut I think the other thing to remember in this whole discussion is that why are people trying to buy a house in the first place? It\u2019s not for the need of housing; they can get that through the rental market. What is it that people are actually seeking through purchasing a property?<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Wealth creation.<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>Wealth creation, and importantly, tax-free wealth creation.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes.<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>It\u2019s the only tax-free asset that we have in this country \u2013 owner-occupier housing \u2013 and that\u2019s what people are chasing. Negative-gearers pay tax. They\u2019re not tax-free, so they\u2019re not driving the market. They\u2019re trying to anticipate market movements, but they\u2019re not driving the market. It\u2019s owner-occupiers who are driving the market. 85 to 90% of properties are owner-occupier, so they\u2019re definitely driving the market.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Associate Professor, let\u2019s deal with another \u2013 not so much a myth, but some commentary surrounding negative gearing. Some commentators have suggested that rents did not increase during the 1985 negative gearing upheaval that we experienced. Could you address that for us?<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes. It\u2019s a complex issue, but the very first thing that you need to remember with property is that all property markets are slow to respond. If I make a change today, it\u2019s very unlikely that you\u2019re going to see a change in property tomorrow. These things occur over a medium to long term, so even over an 18-month period, you\u2019re very unlikely to see markets change, simply because, for example, most rents are locked in for extended periods of time. In addition, if demand goes up, then it takes many, many years for markets to respond, to get planning permission, to actually construct the properties, to sell them, etc.
\nIt takes years for the markets to respond, so just making one change and looking at what happens over the next 18 months is not a particularly good test, but even if you do believe that, even if you think that that is a good test \u2013 which I don\u2019t, but if you do believe that \u2013 then don\u2019t just look what happened to rents at that time; look what happened to prices. During that time, prices rose 20%, so if negative gearing was the cause of all this and you remove it, then prices should have gone down, not up.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes, we don\u2019t hear about that side of it. There\u2019s another side that we don\u2019t hear about, and that is the impact, if negative gearing were to be scraped, on those who actually relied on investing property to build their wealth. What would be the impact there, say, of a 10% reduction in the average house price?<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>Let\u2019s assume for a moment that all the doomsayers are correct and there is a reduction in house prices that did occur rather rapidly. Not only is this going to affect a lot of people who are currently owners of property and have established their wealth, but it\u2019s also likely to create a banking crisis, because 90% of retail banking business is mortgages. You\u2019re likely to have a real systemic crisis brought on by a sudden drop in house price. As we saw in the US, there was a sudden drop in house prices, worldwide crisis.
\nI think another issue that is worth discussing is to look at countries that have similar property titles to ours, and say what happens there and how does their housing affordability rank?<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Which countries would they be?<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>The ones that I usually look at are the US and the UK, because both of those countries have perpetual title, as we do. There is no mandatory leasehold, and they have secure titles, so there are very few challenges to ownership, which there are in a lot of countries.
\nIn the UK, they have tax-free status for owner-occupiers, as Australia does, and they have no negative gearing rules like Australia does. They have something similar to what the Labor Party is suggesting. And housing affordability in the UK is even worse than it is in Australia. It takes 10 to 12 years of income to crack into the entry-level housing as opposed to eight or nine.
\nThen you compare in the US, where they have taxes on their owner-occupiers \u2013 and they\u2019re significant taxes. Depending on the state, they are usually somewhere between 1% and 2% of the market value of the property each year, so if you have a $1 million property, that\u2019s a $20,000 tax check you have to pay out of your after-tax income. And their housing affordability is a lot lower.
\nWhen you compare the UK and Australia, and you have one has negative gearing and the other one doesn\u2019t, then they\u2019re both unaffordable. Then you compare Australia and the US, one has tax on owner-occupiers and one doesn\u2019t, and that does affect affordability. It becomes quite clear that the driver of housing unaffordability or high house prices is not negative gearing rules; it\u2019s the sweet tax deal that we give to owner-occupiers.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes, interesting. I just wonder if we could deal with one last issue, and that is maybe a solution here. If the government genuinely do want to make housing more affordable, how can they go about it? What options should they explore?<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>There are so many options available to them to make housing more affordable. Clearly, the planning system is incredibly complex. There\u2019s a lot of red and green tape, and most of that is unnecessary. That could be easily reduced, increasing supply. They could also simplify and relax the stamp duty system in its totality. It\u2019s an incredibly inefficient tax. It\u2019s a tax not on occupying or housing; it\u2019s a tax simply on moving, on improving your life. Also \u2013 and this is possibly a little bit controversial \u2013 is to reduce social housing.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>How would that work?<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>Social housing has two components to it. One is the construction of new housing, and then the second part is restricting access to that housing. I\u2019m all for building new houses \u2013 that will certainly increase supply and increase affordability \u2013 but the free market can do that; that\u2019s not the domain of social housing. The key part of social housing is restricting access to housing that exists, and that reduces supply and drives up prices, not the other way around.
\nThey could also start tightening up trade union legislation and increasing urban infrastructure coverage, and they could also think about possibly changing the tax from a stamp duty to an annual land tax for all<\/i> housing owners, not just investors.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Broaden it out a lot more.<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>Broaden it, absolutely.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Jamie, thank you so much for your time. My guest has been Associate Professor of Finance at the University of Sydney, Jamie Alcock.
\nJamie, thanks once again.<\/b>
\nJamie:\u00a0 <\/b>Thank you, Kevin. Cheers.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Andrew Mirams – A question of borrowing power<\/h1>\n

Kevin:\u00a0 <\/b>I want to answer a question. It\u2019s a rather long e-mail that came to me, and I won\u2019t read it because there\u2019s a lot of personal information inside it, but I want to thank \u2013 I hope I pronounce this correctly \u2013 Jie Zhao. Jie, thank you for your e-mail. It deals with \u201cLook, I believe I have enough servicing ability. I have a couple of loans, a principal place of residence and one investment property. I want to go and buy another one, but the banks are saying no.\u201d
\nLet\u2019s have a look into this as to why it is. I\u2019ve shared all of your information with Andrew Mirams<\/a>.
\nAndrew, I don\u2019t want to go into the details behind this because there\u2019s a lot of personal information in there, but why is Jie having so much trouble?
\nAndrew:\u00a0 <\/b>Hi, Kevin. It\u2019s a great question, it\u2019s one that\u2019s happening quite a lot at the moment. It really comes down to client\u2019s affordability versus the bank\u2019s serviceability, and the ratio is quite wide at the moment because we have all-time record low interest rates. So people, what their actual expense is and what it\u2019s costing them to hold and maintain their properties, a lot of them are paying for themselves or neutrally geared, versus what the banks are now being forced to do from the middle of 2015, when APRA enforced some changes upon them and they had to tight up a lot of their servicing rates and things like that.
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Just before we go any further, I might just qualify that with Jie \u2013 I\u2019ll paint the picture \u2013 he\u2019s on a good salary, he has a principal place of residence, has a fair bit of equity in that, and from what he\u2019s saying to us in the e-mail, a positively geared investment property, seems to have sufficient savings as well to go and buy another property. So it mystifies me.
\nWhen I look at these figures, I think \u201cGee, this guy certainly should qualify for a loan.\u201d
\nAndrew:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes, that\u2019s what we\u2019re saying. There are a couple of things with this. So there\u2019s a home loan, and there\u2019s a good portion of that offset. Clients say \u2013 let\u2019s say they have a $200,000 home loan and $100,000 in offset \u2013 \u201cOh, I\u2019ve only got a $100,000 home loan.\u201d
\nThe first thing you need to know is, that is cash. Cash can be taken out at any given stage, so the banks actually assess on the actual debt they have, irrespective of any offset balance. That\u2019s the first point.
\nThe second point is while an investment property is being maintained in the fours \u2013 I think everyone is pretty much paying 4%, whether it\u2019s a high or a low 4%, and depending on where the property is, you\u2019re probably getting a yield somewhere around that \u2013 certainly, from a tax perspective, it is probably, like I said, largely paying for itself. However, the banks are still servicing, and even though rates are coming down, their servicing rates are being held at where they are.
\nThe bank servicing rates are \u2013 I\u2019ll say \u2013 an average of about 7.5%. There are some at the higher range, near enough 8%, there are some slightly lower in the low sevens, but let\u2019s say an average of 7.5%.
\nSo if all of a sudden you added in all your debts and you service it at 7.5%… And then the other thing that people don\u2019t understand is that it needs to be repaid, so if they have it on interest-only, which is their affordability because it\u2019s not costing as much to hold, the banks are now looking at it principal and interest over the remaining term.
\nWhen you add all those things together, that\u2019s what\u2019s really hurting a lot of our clients in that same thing: the affordability versus the assessability or the serviceability.
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Serviceability. Knowing what you know about Jie\u2019s particular situation \u2013 I\u2019ve sent everything to you, all the facts and figures \u2013 if you were talking to him, would you be able to help him? In other words, would you be able to reconfigure his loans?
\nAndrew:\u00a0 <\/b>I think there are some things you could do that would certainly make him more attractive to a lender. I\u2019m always reluctant to say, yes, we can do something without knowing everything. I think that\u2019s a little bit na\u00efve, etc.
\nIs there something that can be done? Potentially. There\u2019s always something that can be done, and if the timing isn\u2019t right, sometimes doing nothing is actually the right thing to do. But yes, I\u2019d be more than happy to look at Jie\u2019s situation and see if there\u2019s a way. I do see some opportunities and some ways to restructuring here, but without all the information, I\u2019d be reluctant to say yes, we can definitely do something, because I don\u2019t want to let him down, either.
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>No. Well, I\u2019m going to communicate with Jie off-air, but Jie, publically I\u2019ll just put the call out to you. If you want to make contact with Andrew Mirams or anyone of his team from Intuitive Finance, you can do that by using the link on Real Estate Talk. Go and check out Andrew\u2019s and the Intuitive Finance featured channel on our site, as well. Lots of great information there for you.
\nJie, I\u2019ll leave that with you.
\nAndrew, thank you very much for your time, and thank you for helping Jie with that situation.
\nAndrew:\u00a0 <\/b>My pleasure, Kevin. Thank you.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Michael Yardney – Another shock for the Aussie property market<\/h1>\n

Kevin:<\/b>\u00a0 My next interview surprised me when I found out about it. I\u2019m sure it\u2019s going to surprise you, too. Not many people realize that at a time when Australian property markets have enough to contend with, with falling pre-election consumer confidence, foreign buyers pulling out of markets \u2013 and I read a staggering story today that Chinese buyers are now looking at taking money away from Australia and starting to invest in the USA \u2013 banks make it harder to get finance.
\nNow the Australian Taxation Office has delivered another blow for those dealing with properties valued at more than $2 million. You might think it\u2019s for foreign buyers only, but stand by because this is going to impact anyone who is buying and selling a property that\u2019s in excess of $2 million.
\nLet\u2019s have a look at what this really means and we\u2019ll explore it in a little more detail. Michael Yardney<\/a> from Metropole Property Strategists<\/a> joins us.
\nMichael, thanks for drawing this to my attention. I understand you\u2019ve only just been told about this by your solicitors, as well.
\nMichael:<\/b>\u00a0 That\u2019s right. It was actually first mentioned a number of years ago by former Treasurer Joe Hockey, and it came into our active parliament in February this year. But it\u2019s actually been kept quiet, and I bet there will be a bit more news about it because as of July 1st<\/sup>, everyone in Australia is going to be deemed a foreign resident when they sell their property unless they get a tax certificate saying they\u2019re not.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 This is every person who is selling a property over $2 million, or just everyone?
\nMichael:<\/b>\u00a0 The rules say as follows: that everybody who is selling a property \u2013 and property is not just real estate but it includes leaseholds and a number of other assets, not shares on the stock exchange \u2013 is deemed a foreign resident and withholding tax will have to be held back unless certain elements apply. One of them is, yes, the property has to be worth more than $2 million. So it will change the way large property transactions occur.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 What is the purpose behind this? Is it trying to capture overseas buyers?
\nMichael:<\/b>\u00a0 Clearly, the Australian Tax Office is concerned that foreign buyers were purchasing and then selling Australian property, including real estate, and then taking the proceeds overseas without paying the appropriate tax. Now it has transferred some of the responsibility for collecting a portion of that capital gains tax to buyers, to purchasers, of Australian real estate rather than purely leaving it up to the sellers to be open and declare it.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 Let\u2019s walk through this. Let\u2019s paint a scenario here where I had \u2013 I wish \u2013 a property over $2 million to sell and I was going to sell it to you. What does the transaction look like?
\nMichael:<\/b>\u00a0 You\u2019re classified as an overseas investor, which means that you have to then go to the tax office, go to their website, and you can get a special tax clearance. To be honest, most Australian residents won\u2019t have any difficulty getting that for one of two reasons.
\nFirst of all, it won\u2019t apply to most people because most transactions aren\u2019t $2 million. But anything over that, whether it\u2019s residential or commercial, you have to apply for a tax clearance. Most people will be able to get it and say, \u201cI am not a foreign resident.\u201d This means then that there won\u2019t be a tax withheld, but it may bring you to the attention of the tax department when may you don\u2019t want them to know about you.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 Let\u2019s go back to the scenario where I am a seller of, say, a $2.1 million property. I put it on the market. You come across and you\u2019re a Chinese buyer. You\u2019re a foreign investor and you\u2019re going to buy it. Does that mean that, as the seller, I\u2019ll actually have to either add 10% to my purchase price or have to cop a 10% loss?
\nMichael:<\/b>\u00a0 No. Kevin, whether you\u2019re a foreign purchaser or an Australian resident purchasing the property, you have to request from the seller a clearance certificate saying no tax is payable, no capital gains tax is payable. If it is your primary place of residence, and that\u2019s the most likely scenario \u2013 those nice, big homes in the good suburbs \u2013 then you don\u2019t have to pay tax because you are exempt of tax.
\nOn the other hand, if tax is payable because you\u2019re a property developer or you\u2019re in the business of property or it\u2019s an investment you bought a few years ago and there is capital gains tax, then you may not get a clearance certificate because it will be clear that an element of tax is payable, and either as the seller, you\u2019re going to have to pay it or the purchaser won\u2019t give you your $2.1 million; they\u2019ll actually give you $210,000 less because they\u2019re going to have to give $210,000, 10%, to the tax department just in case you don\u2019t pay your tax.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 This is really an exercise to capture foreign buyers who will then become sellers of that same property.
\nMichael:<\/b>\u00a0 In one regard, it is. It\u2019s also to capture Australians who maybe haven\u2019t filed tax returns for a while. There are lots of people who do buy, sell, develop their homes. Actually, I know people who build a nice, modern home every couple of years, on-sell it, upgrade, and do another one.
\nBecause they use their principal place of residence exclusion so that they don\u2019t have to pay capital gains tax, they often get away with that. That\u2019s fine. It\u2019s within the law. But if you do it too often, you could be deemed a developer. Those people could fall foul of this particular law, also. Also, it could be if you actually sell your $2 million house and maybe you don\u2019t have a tax return that shows you could afford it.
\nThe bottom line really is be aware, speak to your solicitor when you\u2019re about to buy or sell a house, just make sure you do everything that complies, and as long as you\u2019ve done everything correctly and legally tax-wise, there\u2019s nothing to worry about.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 This comes into effect on July 1 of this year.
\nMichael:<\/b>\u00a0 Yes, the day before the election, Kevin.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 That\u2019s interesting, isn\u2019t it? That couldn\u2019t have been planned that way.
\nMichael:<\/b>\u00a0 No, it wasn\u2019t because it was actually put in as an Act of Parliament in February of this year.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 The bottom line is make sure that all of your I\u2019s are dotted and your T\u2019s are crossed. Consult with your solicitor, I guess, is the message.
\nMichael:<\/b>\u00a0 Yes. Just to make things clear, I have no issue with the Australian Tax Office collecting taxes due to it, especially if it\u2019s money owed to the Australian system and it\u2019s being funneled offshore.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 Good talking to you, Michael Yardney<\/a> from Metropole Property Strategists<\/a>.
\nThanks, Michael.
\nMichael:<\/b>\u00a0 My pleasure, Kevin.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Nerida Conisbee – Australia’s ‘favourite’ suburbs<\/h1>\n

Kevin:<\/b>\u00a0 One of the things that most investors or property buyers want to know is what are the hot suburbs? We\u2019re going to give you a different flavor today because we\u2019re going to talk about the world\u2019s favorite Australian suburbs. How do they rate overseas?
\nNationalPortalRealEstate.com.au can get a great feel for this, and in fact, that\u2019s exactly what they\u2019ve done. Joining me to talk about the results, REA\u2019s Chief Economist, Nerida Conisbee.
\nNerida, thank you for your time.
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 My pleasure.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 Tell us about the new report. How did it work, and what did you find out?
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 What we did is we had a look at the most searched-for suburbs by people living overseas. We have around 5 million people viewing our site every month, and what we found was that a fair proportion of them are looking at Australian suburbs from countries all over the world.
\nWhat was really interesting is Melbourne came out on top of the list. Six of the top ten suburbs were in Melbourne. South Yarra, four kilometers southeast of Melbourne\u2019s CBD, came out on top. That was followed by Surfers Paradise and then Mosman. Those three suburbs were the most searched-for by people living offshore.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 We\u2019ll talk in a bit more detail about some of the countries they came from. But do you have a feel for what made a suburb popular?
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 There were a few things. The first one was that for many people searching, an existing residential base of residents from the same country was a key. If you have a look at St. Ives in Sydney, it has a really large South African population. Around 11% of residents are from South Africa. St. Ives came out as the number one suburb searched by people living in South Africa.
\nSimilarly, Tarneit, in Melbourne\u2019s west, has a really large Indian population. It has around 8% of the population born in India. That came up as number one for people living in India. There does seem to be a really strong existing residential base key to what countries people are searching.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 It\u2019s interesting. I guess they would want to be able to talk to people from their own country because of the cultural differences. Is that the main reason they were searching these areas, because they would know that there\u2019s a predominance of people from their country?
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 I think it\u2019s partly that, but also, I would imagine that people living in those suburbs from those countries are talking very highly of where they\u2019re living. If you\u2019re in St. Ives \u2013 it\u2019s a beautiful part of Sydney, very leafy, great schools \u2013 and you are talking to relatives or friends back in South Africa, it\u2019s probably sparking their interest. I think that\u2019s also a big factor, as well.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 When we think about our own lifestyle, we think it would be very attractive because of the sunshine, the beaches, and just our general lifestyle. I\u2019m wondering whether people are attracted to Australia because of the fact that we have kangaroos and beautiful beaches.
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 Beaches came up very highly, particularly for people living in North America and Europe but not so much from Asia. People living in Asia didn\u2019t look at the beach suburbs quite as much. But if you have a look at Surfers Paradise, Manly, Bondi, St. Kilda, they all came up frequently.
\nThere was also some interesting regional variation. People living in Ireland liked Bondi. People living in the UK liked Manly. That was also quite interesting that certain beachside suburbs had a different following from different countries, as well.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 Were they looking mainly at the suburbs in the cap cities, or were there any regional areas they looked at?
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 Gold Coast came up. I don\u2019t know if you\u2019d really classify that as a regional area. But Gold Coast came up a lot, particularly for the Japanese. The Japanese are still showing a very strong affinity to the Gold Coast. Southport came up number one for them. People living in Thailand were also very keen on Surfers Paradise. So that was a bit of a surprise. I could understand the Japanese link to Gold Coast, but the Thai link wasn\u2019t as clear to me.
\nKevin:<\/b> Yes, because that\u2019s obviously a holiday destination, Gold Coast, isn\u2019t it? You think of your holidays, you think of the Gold Coast right away.
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 Definitely.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 What about some of the suburbs: were there any outside of Sydney and Melbourne that came up? In other words, were there any in Brisbane, as an example?
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 Not in the top ten nationally, but certainly, when you have a look at different countries, Coorparoo came up as number one for people living in the Philippines. That was quite surprising. I didn\u2019t expect that.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 Did they say why they like Coorparoo?
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 We don\u2019t know because we\u2019re really just tracking where people are logging in from. We don\u2019t really know exactly why they\u2019re looking, but I think it might have something to do with the ex-pat community in the Philippines. I think there seems to be a bit of an ex-pat link to some of the countries.
\nIf you look at Singapore, South Yarra came up as the most searched-for suburb by people living there. I don\u2019t think Singaporeans have a particular affinity with South Yarra, but that country has a big ex-pat community. I think that was with people in the Philippines. I think that ex-pat community, potentially out of Brisbane, may be driving that interest in Coorparoo.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 Were there any other results that came out of the survey that surprised you?
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 The main one was really that Philippines one. I think everything else kind of made sense. The Japanese and the Gold Coast made sense. The strong beachside link also made sense. When you delved into it and you understood the demographics of the area, it did become quite clear.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 Outside of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, were there any other areas that came up \u2013 like Cairns, the Whitsundays, or any areas like that?
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 Certainly not in the top ten, no. They didn\u2019t feature. It did tend to be Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria, capital cities, and Gold Coast were the areas that were most commonly looked at.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 Are you able to tell me whether these were people who were genuinely interested in buying properties in these areas, or did they just want to know what the style of houses were like in these areas?
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 We don\u2019t know. We know that these people are searching for these suburbs. There is probably a mix of people who are looking just to see what they could potentially buy, what the houses look like, more from an interest perspective. But certainly, we have a look at people, say, from South Africa looking at St. Ives given we know there is a really strong link between that suburb and people living in that country, it could potentially be genuine buyers. We don\u2019t know, but I would imagine it would be a fair proportion.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 Anyone listening to this who is interested in tapping into an overseas market, they think they might have a property that might interest an overseas buyer, can you reach those buyers easily through a site like RealEstate.com.au, or should you go to that country and see what they have there?
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 My view is that we have extensive reach. I don\u2019t think there would be many websites that would provide the same sort of reach that we would overseas. I don\u2019t know the exact proportion of people viewing our site from overseas week to week, but we have 5 million viewers looking at our site every month; so even if 5% of those are looking from offshore, you are tapping into a massive audience.
\nI think if people were looking at property in Australia, we have most of the coverage. We certainly have a huge amount of consumers having a look on the site, so I think our site would be a pretty good start to gauge interest from people offshore.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 Absolutely. I know, too, that RealEstate.com.au has been gaining an interest in some overseas sites. Obviously, the Internet has allowed us to become like a worldwide store. Obviously, the overseas buyers are very important to us as Australian sellers.
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 Yes, definitely.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 Nerida, I want to thank you very much for your time and your insight. There are some very interesting results. Are we able to see that report somewhere? Is that available to us?
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 Yes, it will be available. It\u2019s on our website, RealEstate.com.au.
\nKevin:<\/b>\u00a0 Wonderful. Always good talking to you. Thank you very much for your time, Nerida. Nerida Conisbee is the Chief Economist with RealEstate.com.au, REA, the parent company. Thank you for your time.
\nNerida:<\/b>\u00a0 Thanks, Kevin.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Rich Harvey – Zig when others zag<\/h1>\n

Kevin:\u00a0 <\/b>It\u2019s a strange thing, but whenever an election comes around, people decide to do nothing. They stop doing a lot of what they do. They stop buying houses and they stop buying cars. You only have to talk to a car dealer to find out that that is in fact the case. It\u2019s very strange that they actually do also stop buying houses, but it could be a great opportunity, according to the Real Estate Buyer\u2019s Agents Association of Australia. Talking now to that Association\u2019s president, Rich Harvey.
\nRich, it is an unusual thing, isn\u2019t it, that people would just stop doing a lot of things when even a change of government is not going to make a huge difference.<\/b>
\nRich:\u00a0 <\/b>That\u2019s right, Kevin. Good to be on the show again. Yes, it\u2019s interesting to see the perspective of how people respond to change in political circumstances. It is an interesting phenomenon that a lot of people think that the world stops for a number of weeks \u2013 or in this case, a month \u2013 before we have an election, but in my view, it\u2019s actually a great opportunity for buyers to take advantage of a slowing market and have a bit less competition on their property purchase.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Let\u2019s talk about that for a moment. In this particular election campaign, this federal election, there\u2019s been a huge issue made out of negative gearing, which has probably spooked a lot of people.<\/b>
\nRich:\u00a0 <\/b>Absolutely. I think negative gearing has been one of the sacred cows of the tax system, and a lot of people from moms and dads up to very high-level, wealthy investors have all taken advantage of negative gearing benefits \u2013 not just in property but in other mechanisms too for investments. It\u2019s been a great way to increase the supply of housing and incentivize ordinary investors to get into the market who perhaps otherwise wouldn\u2019t have been incentivized to do it.
\nI think people are quite afraid of what might happen if either party gets in, because one party is saying \u201cWe\u2019re not going to touch it,\u201d and the other is saying \u201cWe\u2019ll just have negative gearing on new properties.\u201d
\nYes, I think a lot of spooking of the market goes on during election campaigns.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Putting that issue aside for a moment, putting aside the negative gearing issue and the debate around the current election, it is true though, isn\u2019t it \u2013 and Roy Morgan has proved this \u2013 that people will stop doing things like buying houses around things like budgets and elections. Why is that, you think?<\/b>
\nRich:\u00a0 <\/b>It\u2019s purely confidence. The property market is driven a lot by interest rates, but very much by confidence. If people are not feeling confident about the economy, then they\u2019re not willing to necessarily go and borrow large amounts of money. Even though interest rates now are at record historical lows \u2013 it\u2019s just incredible how the cost of money is very cheap \u2013 it\u2019s just that confidence factor. And when there is \u2013 like I say \u2013 a change in the wind, or something is going to be coming, then people just decide to sit on their hands and go \u201cYou know what, I\u2019ll just wait and see. I\u2019ll just sit it out and see what\u2019s going to happen.\u201d<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>And that leads us to your message, which is this therefore creates a great opportunity for smart investors maybe to get out there when there\u2019s less competition, Rich.<\/b>
\nRich:\u00a0 <\/b>It\u2019s incredible. We see the market week to week. We\u2019re out there every week with our clients looking at properties, bidding at auction or negotiating private treaties, and I can tell you, you just have to be some other <\/b>Johnny-on-the-Spot. You have to be out there every weekend. Buying property is not a part time occupation, it\u2019s not a part time thing that you can just hop in and hop out of. To understand a local market, you have to look at 50 to 100 properties, attend lots of inspections.
\nIf one weekend you might see ten bidders on a property, and then next weekend because there\u2019s an election campaign, there might only be four or five, gosh, there\u2019s a better chance there of securing that property at a better price \u2013 perhaps getting some more competitive bidding going and getting out with a good asset.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes, I think it\u2019s called the herd mentality, isn\u2019t it, where people tend to go in groups. It does actually take courage to swim against the tide sometimes, but there are great opportunities in doing that.<\/b>
\nRich:\u00a0 <\/b>Indeed, but it doesn\u2019t mean you just go out and buy any property just because there\u2019s a lull in competition. It means that you pick an area and pick a property that\u2019s a good quality property, well positioned in a suburb that has constantly high demand for both owner-occupiers and for tenants.
\nIf you go out and buy in a suburb where it has a very high vacancy \u2013 5% or 6% vacancy \u2013 and the owner-occupier market is very sporadic, then it\u2019s not necessarily going to be a good investment despite what\u2019s happening from the election perspective. My message to investors is choose carefully, choose wisely, and constantly research the market to understand where it\u2019s at at each stage of the cycle.<\/b>
\nKevin:\u00a0 <\/b>Yes, it makes a lot of sense. Some really good advice there from Rich Harvey, who is the president of Real Estate Buyer\u2019s Agents Association of Australia. I think I got that the right way around this time. I said it the wrong way around before, but it\u2019s REBAA.
\nThanks for your time, Rich.<\/b>
\nRich:\u00a0 <\/b>My pleasure. If anyone wants more information about how to access buyer\u2019s agents, you can just go to the REBAA website, rebaa.com.au, and there\u2019s lots of information about how to engage a buyer\u2019s agent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Because of the Negative Gearing myths most of us are hearing, we set about sorting the fact from the fiction with the help of Jamie Alcock, Associate Professor of Finance at the university of Sydney. Michael Yardney tells us about a little known fact that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":176692471,"featured_media":8280,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,11,13,24],"tags":[101],"class_list":["post-8279","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-kevin-turner-sponsored-channels","category-kevin-update","category-latest-story","category-shows","tag-podcast"],"yoast_head":"\nNegative Gearing fact and fiction + Affordability vs serviceability - Realty Talk<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Negative Gearing fact and fiction + Affordability vs serviceability - Realty Talk\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Because of the Negative Gearing myths most of us are hearing, we set about sorting the fact from the fiction with the help of Jamie Alcock, Associate Professor of Finance at the university of Sydney. Michael Yardney tells us about a little known fact that...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Realty Talk\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-06-16T00:00:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"rolanrush\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"rolanrush\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"rolanrush\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/384a57ac9e52cb9bf19896cb15eaa52d\"},\"headline\":\"Negative Gearing fact and fiction + Affordability vs serviceability\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-06-16T00:00:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":7256,\"commentCount\":2,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"\",\"keywords\":[\"podcast\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Kevin Turner\",\"Kevin's Update\",\"Latest Stories\",\"Shows\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\\\/\",\"name\":\"Negative Gearing fact and fiction + Affordability vs serviceability - Realty Talk\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-06-16T00:00:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/384a57ac9e52cb9bf19896cb15eaa52d\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"\",\"contentUrl\":\"\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Negative Gearing fact and fiction + Affordability vs serviceability\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/\",\"name\":\"Realty Talk\",\"description\":\"Your Trusted Voice For Property Investing. Anywhere, Anytime.\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/384a57ac9e52cb9bf19896cb15eaa52d\",\"name\":\"rolanrush\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/86544778804295a7fa45cbde097dc3a58a45ba6ed28859f17059ca74c38723d2?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/86544778804295a7fa45cbde097dc3a58a45ba6ed28859f17059ca74c38723d2?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/86544778804295a7fa45cbde097dc3a58a45ba6ed28859f17059ca74c38723d2?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"rolanrush\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/channels.realty.com.au\\\/realtytalk\\\/author\\\/rolanrush\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Negative Gearing fact and fiction + Affordability vs serviceability - Realty Talk","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Negative Gearing fact and fiction + Affordability vs serviceability - Realty Talk","og_description":"Because of the Negative Gearing myths most of us are hearing, we set about sorting the fact from the fiction with the help of Jamie Alcock, Associate Professor of Finance at the university of Sydney. Michael Yardney tells us about a little known fact that...","og_url":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/","og_site_name":"Realty Talk","article_published_time":"2016-06-16T00:00:05+00:00","author":"rolanrush","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"rolanrush","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/"},"author":{"name":"rolanrush","@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/#\/schema\/person\/384a57ac9e52cb9bf19896cb15eaa52d"},"headline":"Negative Gearing fact and fiction + Affordability vs serviceability","datePublished":"2016-06-16T00:00:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/"},"wordCount":7256,"commentCount":2,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"","keywords":["podcast"],"articleSection":["Kevin Turner","Kevin's Update","Latest Stories","Shows"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/","url":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/","name":"Negative Gearing fact and fiction + Affordability vs serviceability - Realty Talk","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"","datePublished":"2016-06-16T00:00:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/#\/schema\/person\/384a57ac9e52cb9bf19896cb15eaa52d"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/#primaryimage","url":"","contentUrl":""},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/negative-gearing-fact-and-fiction-affordability-vs-serviceability\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Negative Gearing fact and fiction + Affordability vs serviceability"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/","name":"Realty Talk","description":"Your Trusted Voice For Property Investing. Anywhere, Anytime.","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/#\/schema\/person\/384a57ac9e52cb9bf19896cb15eaa52d","name":"rolanrush","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/86544778804295a7fa45cbde097dc3a58a45ba6ed28859f17059ca74c38723d2?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/86544778804295a7fa45cbde097dc3a58a45ba6ed28859f17059ca74c38723d2?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/86544778804295a7fa45cbde097dc3a58a45ba6ed28859f17059ca74c38723d2?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"rolanrush"},"url":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/author\/rolanrush\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8279","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/176692471"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8279"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8279\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8279"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8279"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/channels.realty.com.au\/realtytalk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8279"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}