|
|
此文章由 philgu 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 philgu 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
原帖由 parkv 于 2006-11-12 21:05 发表
Aparently, cash flow is not the key for considerations here. There is no case if your monthly income cannot cover your expenses. You can always do your calculations beforehand, and if you canno ...
Not quite getting what you are trying to deliver but my gut feel is that you are mixing up capital repayment with cost of capital. Here is my simplified scenario analysis if I am asked to do a common sense check. I assume there are three scenarios 1. renting 2. buy as home 3. buy as investment property. Assumptions are as follow (all assumptions take simplest form but the logics remain the same). Renting would be the base case and in this analysis only the incremental cashflow is relevant. Only one yr analysis is taken here and in reality multiple yr projection is needed and NPV applied.
1. all scenarios assume the same property (current value $300k)
2. rent yield (include exp) 4.5%
3. mortgage rate 7.0%
4. assume cash deposit as alternative asset (yield 6%)
5. cash on hand $60k (would be used as first deposit)
6. Marginal tax rate 41.5%
7. all analysis should be done on after tax basis.
8. no capital growth
9. loan period is of substantial length. Therefore the first yr principle repayment is minimal and starting loan is a good proxy for debt balance for the first yr.
Scenario A: Renting
Base case, therefore the incremental cashflow = 0
Scenario B: Buy as home
1. rent saving $300k x 4.5% = + $13.5k (after tax)
2. loss of interest (after tax) -$60k x 6% x (1-0.415) = -$2.1k
3. cost of debt $240k x 7% = -$16.8k
Total after tax incremental = -$5.4k
Scenario C: Buy as investment property
1. rent cost: the same as scenario A therefore NIL
2. loss of interest (after tax) -$60k x 6% x (1-0.415) = -$2.1k
3. cost of debt $240k x 7% x (1-0.415) = -$9.8k
4. Rent income $300k x 4.5% x (1-0.415) = + $7.9k (after tax)
Total after tax incremental = -$4.0k
Note this is only one yr analysis and multiple yr projection is required and NPV applied. But when you pay down your principle, that means that your loss of interest will increase and cost of debt will drop. In short, negative gearing will only work when there is capital growth. Common sense will tell your if you are entitle to claim loss, you are losing money (notwithstanding it is smaller one with the help of ATO). Only current or future capital growth can make it worthwhile. Mortgage payment amount is irrelevant here as it is mix of principle repayment and interest cost. Principle repayment is a building of saving in your house and not a cost - therefore irrelevant. Also if you would like to do a simple NPV calc, I would suggest using wacc (weighted average cost of capital) rather than simple mortgage rate. The reason is that your saving in the house is a form of equity (therefore subject to level of volatility in the market and higher risk). If I use return on property trust as a proxy for equity in the house (15%???), wacc would be 20% x 15% + 80% x 7% = 8.6%.
[ 本帖最后由 philgu 于 2006-11-12 23:57 编辑 ] |
评分
-
查看全部评分
|
浓香的记忆——雪·里·蕻（煮夫手记三十四） (2011-9-20) amon54 
理赔再更新11月18日, 电视和家庭影院：亲爱的JMXD，我家又被盗了 (2008-10-13) 518may 
楼主:parkv
发表于 2006-11-12 22:33
