Margaret Lomas

<html><body>
Following an investor complaint about Brisbane City Council’s differential rating system, Property Observer looks at the other Queensland councils that charge higher rates for non-owner occupied properties.

Last week, television host and Destiny Financial Solutions director Margaret Lomas <a href="/news/qld/31650-margaret-lomas-heads-campaign-fight-against-higher-council-charges-for-investors" target="_blank">launched a public campaign against the practice</a> on social media, urging investors to “band together to force these money- grubbing councils to stop targeting property investors”.

<a href="https://twitter.com/MargaretLomasAU" target="_blank"><img alt="" src="/images/2014/05/27/lomas-tweet-may-27.jpg"></a>

In Brisbane City Council, single residential properties are largely categorised as either “Residential – Owner Occupied” or “Residential – Non-owner occupied or mixed use”.

Owner occupied residences are described as: “residential dwelling houses and dwelling units where the sole use is as the principal place of residence of the owner/s. In this instance, eligible ownership is limited to individuals only and does not include premises owned or partially owned by a company, trust, organisation or any entity other than an individual. This is regardless of whether the premises are occupied by a shareholder or even the sole shareholder of that company, trust, organisation or entity.”

That rules out rental properties, holiday homes and anything that’s owned under your company’s name. These properties attract a rate of 0.3064 cents in the dollar, with a minimum general rate of $503.40.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=90087]

Category 7 or “Residential – Non-owner occupied or mixed use” properties are defined as “predominantly residential premises" where:

"(a)      the premises is not the principal place of residence of at least one person who constitutes the owner of the property; and/or "(b)      the owner or occupier conducts non-residential activities upon the property not in excess of [certain limitations that would see it defined as a commercial property]." 
These properties attract a rate of 0.3904 cents in the dollar, with a minimum general rate of $628.72 in Brisbane.

While Lomas has been tagging her posts on the topic with <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/equalratesforpropertyinvestors?src=hash" target="_blank">#equalratesforpropertyinvestors</a>, it is not just investors who see higher rates than owner occupiers. If you own a house in Noosa that you visit four times a year, you will be paying a higher rate than an owner occupier, even though you don’t generate income from your holiday home.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=94758]

A pensioner now living in a retirement community, but still holding on to her old house – perhaps to allow relatives to stay in it, or because she’s waiting for the right time to sell – will pay higher rates in Brisbane than an owner occupier.

There is no evidence to suggest that non-owner occupied properties present a greater burden on the council than owner occupied homes. In fact, when investor Andrew Hancock enquired about the rates to the Brisbane City Council, they offered the following explanation:

“This is done to ensure that properties that are the principle place of residence of their owners do not pay as much as those which are income producing. Income producing properties also have the advantage of being able to offset such expenses against taxation. Council’s principal motivation is to ensure, through its differential rating system, that the owner-occupied, single unit dwelling sector of the community contribute to a level that is affordable and value for money.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=29167]

The following Queensland councils charge higher rates for non-owner occupied homes than owner occupied homes:

<ul>
<li>Brisbane City Council </li>
	<li>Central Highlands Council</li>
	<li>Fraser Coast Regional Council</li>
	<li>Gold Coast City Council</li>
	<li>Ipswich City Council</li>
	<li>Logan City Council</li>
	<li>Moreton Bay Regional Council</li>
	<li>Mackay City Council</li>
	<li>Mount Isa City Council</li>
	<li>Redland City Council</li>
	<li>Noosa Shire Council</li>
	<li>Rockhampton Regional Council</li>
	<li>Scenic Rim Regional Council</li>
	<li>Somerset Regional Council</li>
	<li>Sunshine Coast Regional Council</li>
	<li>Townsville City Council</li>
	<li>Whitsunday Regional Council </li>
</ul>
So far, Property Observer does not know of any councils outside of Queensland who charge different rates for owner occupiers and residential investors. 
Earlier this year, a judge in the Supreme Court <a href="/expert-insights/finance/30828-mackay-investors-win-as-supreme-court-judge-refuses-extra-council-rates-for-rental-owners" target="_blank">ruled against the Mackay City Council’s decision to charge higher rates</a> for non-owner occupied properties in a civil suit launched by investors Ayril Paton and Peter Crossan. Judge Duncan McMeekin said, “To justify the categorisation the Council impermissibly took into account characteristics personal to the owners of the land and failed to restrict itself to characteristics of the subject land itself. It is simply a misuse of language to claim that the owner’s decision to reside on land, or not, is in some way a characteristic of the land.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=27364]

Mackay City Council is reportedly appealing the decision.

Do you know any other councils that charge higher rates to non-owner occupied properties? Let us know in the comments below.

Update: As of yet, there is no sign that the councils will be required to refund rates to investors. This article mistakenly included South Burnett in the list of councils that charged different rates for investors. South Burnett does not currently charge a different rate for non-owner-occupied properties and owner-occupied properties. The article has been amended.

<h2>Properties you may be interested in:</h2>

[smartcode_project:default project_id=27638]

[smartcode_project:default project_id=29171]
</body></html>

jrichardson-uRX5hFdKfN

The Queensland councils charging higher rates for investors

<html><body>
Hi Margaret,
I'm currently looking to get an investment property in Broken Hill for $69000 which is currently tenanted and is rented out for $180 a week.
 I want your opinion on whether or not it's a good investment as the rent from it is more then double the repayments. 
And it got tenanted within about three weeks of being advertised for rent.
Thanks,
Marcus
 
Hi Marcus,
It can be very tempting to invest in a property whereby the rent more than covers the cost of the mortgage on it. Cash flow is a very important aspect of property investing, as when a property can cover its own expenses and loan interest, then you only have to worry about getting a tenant in.
However, I urge you to think about an investment such as this one over the long term, and understand that capital growth is equally important in every investor’s strategy.
Over the past 5 years, the median value of Broken Hill has decreased by an annual compounding rate of -0.7%. Over the past 10 years it has had an average annual growth of -2.6%
Let’s imagine the next 10 years brings the same result. Your $69,000, after 10 years, would be worth $56,000, having lost for you $13,000 in that time. Sure, you haven't had to put in any money along the way, but if you have borrowed to buy this property, you are in the red by $13,000.  Even if, during that time, you paid of a chunk off the mortgage, the overall outcome has been a negative one, and not the kind of result we would like to see in a sound strategy.
In addition to being able to find a property which has a good enough rental yield to be able to cover its own expenses, the area must have growth drivers. Towns like Broken Hill have a notoriously bad track record for growth, due to itinerant population, lack of infrastructure and lack of population growth.  
When you become a property investor, price should not be the driving factor. You must also understand that growth has no relationship to the price you pay for a property. You would be far better to pay, say, $350,000 in an area that has all of the growth drivers, and get only a 5% return, than you would spend less in an area with a 10% rental return but a negative growth figure. Over time growth compounds so that, by the time you get to retirement, the property is worth far more than the bank loan on it, and the difference belongs to you. Do this often enough and you build a great net worth.
The final point to make is that, when a property loses value, your ability to leverage is also lost. Buying properties which grow means that you can, in the future, borrow against that growth to add more properties to your portfolio. When a property loses value, it’s harder to do this unless you are paying significantly more than the loss off the mortgage. If you cannot leverage into more property, then you cannot build a larger portfolio, and it’s really only through building a portfolio, rather than owning one or two properties, that you really start to see the value in property investing.
Stick to properties in areas with significant infrastructure development, a growing population and lots of families, and you will do far better with your property investing.  
Kind regards,
Margaret
Have a property question? <a href="mailto:askmargaret@propertyobserver.com.au" target="_blank">Ask Margaret!</a>
</body></html>

mlomas-KC9MUPZ6Ca

Ask Margaret: Should I invest in a tenanted property?

<html><body>
It's Brisbane, but not its apartments, according to Margaret Lomas when asked which capital city should you invest in?
She suggested Brisbane rather than any other capital city when asked by <a href="http://www.switzer.com.au/the-experts/margaret-lomas/which-capital-city-is-the-best-to-invest-in-right-now/%20" target="_blank">Peter Switzer.</a>
First she ruled out the other capital cities, Melbourne and Sydney not because "the 'boom' had gone on too long" or "that the 'cycle' told us the end was nigh" but rather because the median price has reached a point where it is well above what the average income earner can afford. 
Demand fell away as prices reached this new peak, reducing the potential buyer pool and for these markets its now become a "waiting game" for wages to "catch up".
Margaret then nixed Hobart and Perth.
Hobart because although it has been performing well, its small population and low population growth usually means it has a year or two of growth then much longer stagnation periods.
Perth is a no because even though it is likely at the bottom of it's current cycle, that doesn't mean it's going to start rising any time soon, and if it does, it won't necessarily be quick.
She says that those living in these markets shouldn't necessarily avoid investing just because they don't know the area they are investing in.
She describes this as a fallacy, a mistaken belief.
"This is because what you know about your area relates to lifestyle, not economics."
Margaret correctly states economics is king when it comes to investing.
She says, "my money’s on Brisbane, and it’s all pure economics."
This is because Brisbane is hitting several key points.
Firstly, the average house in Brisbane is still well below what the average income earner can afford.
She claims, "even without wages growth, interest rates could go up, and property prices could increase, and the average wage earner could still afford to buy property there." 
Secondly, changes to the age profile of the population in Brisbane.
Over the next 10 years it is expected to see those aged 20 to 34 move on to the next stage in life and look at buying a home of their own, according to Angie Zigomanis from BIS.
He said the emerging trend would underpin demand for new housing on Brisbane’s suburban fringe and established housing in the inner-city region.
These people will mostly qualify for the first home owner grant of $15,000 (and stamp duty concessions) which is available on many of the houses on the market, due to the high $750,000 cut off for the grant.
Then Brisbane is also benefiting from infrastructure "tons of it". New University campuses, major medical developments in both north and south suburbs, and main roads, making the commute around all parts of Brisbane easier. There’s also the Queens Wharf Precinct, Brisbane Airport Redevelopment, Brisbane Live Entertainment Arena, Northshore Hamilton and a new International Cruise Terminal, plus quite a few others.
There has been strong jobs growth in Brisbane in both the education and medical sectors, as well as improving employment figures after a few years of poor outcomes.
Strong inward migration is also projected to continue, from not only overseas but interstate migration. 
In addition, over the next 15 years, the population of Brisbane is set to double, In 2015, Brisbane’s population was approximately 2.2 million, and is expected to grow to 4.6 million by 2031.
This means that the city will require 40% more homes than it had in 2006, according to government estimates.
Margaret Lomas concludes by stating "It’s an investor’s dream, just waiting to be grabbed. Just be careful what you buy."
She warns, "apartments in the city are not the best choice, nor are high-end properties where demand is subdued. Think families, millennials and migrants, and find the kind of property that they are most likely to demand."
</body></html>

Which capital city should you invest in? Margaret Lomas

<html><body>
Hi Margaret,
I am currently educating myself on property investing before buying my first investment property.
I am currently reading your book “Investing in the right property now!” in the third chapter you mention looking for an area which has low housing starts. My question is how to quantify “low”, I realise there is probably  no magic number but should I be looking for a region where housing start do not exceed population growth or should I simply assess the areas vacancy rates as an indicator of whether the new developments are creating an over supply.
As an example, one area which I am considering an investment has a population of ~50,000, an annual population growth of 1 percent and housing starts are as follows 2015-‘16=447; ‘14-‘15=340; ‘13-‘14=243; ‘12-‘13=227
Of course I am considering many other factors when analysing an area as mentioned in your books but this is just the one I am having troubles with at this point in time
Thank you kindly,
Sam
 
Hi Sam, 
Your question is a good one and it’s important to consider a range of factors when choosing an area where you would like to invest in property.
I would like to point out that, as mentioned in the book, you have to ensure that you don’t get caught up in just one statistic or factor, as that factor alone could be painting a different picture than the one you want to eventuate!
Let me explain.  There are many growth drivers, and they all work as only a small part of an overall puzzle, somewhat like a jigsaw puzzle. With too many pieces missing, the puzzle just does not work.  The more pieces you can fit into that puzzle, the better the picture becomes. 
Where property is concerned, the pieces are the growth drivers, but taken alone a single piece is not enough, or may not provide the right picture. Take the ‘housing starts’ you refer to. The idea behind ensuring that there is not too much development going on is to ensure that the area is not oversupplied with property.  Since the only thing which ultimately drives growth is demand, an oversupply of property will dilute that demand and lead to a sustained period of low, or no growth.
Now,  you may find an area with 50,000 population and low housing starts, but those low housing starts figures could be because no one is moving there, or there is little employment or anything else happening in the area.  And so the low housing start factor must be combined with a population growing faster than inflation, diversified employment, no new land for future development and a number of other factors for it to be a pointer to future property price growth.
There is no figure or calculation, but if the population is growing by, say, 1 percent per annum and housing starts are only growing by 0.5% per annum, and other drivers also exist, then it makes sense that a future increased demand for housing may ensue.
Always make sure that you examine all of the factors – it is the trend of those factors and their relationship to each other which becomes important, rather than the number itself.
Have a property question?  <a href="mailto:news@propertyobserver.com.au" target="_blank">Ask Margaret!</a>
</body></html>

Low housing start insights for investors: Ask Margaret

<html><body>
Hi Margaret,
I bought a unit in <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">Emerald</a>, Queensland and the tenants have done a runner.
Vacancy rates are now high, with minimal chance of getting someone to lease out our two bed unit.
Do you know of any mining or corporate contacts to help, the real estate agents are at a losss and have run out of ideas.
Do you know when some of the anticipated nine mines might start construction stage?
Regards,
Peter
Margaret's answer on the next page. Please click below. 
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Hi Peter,
The biggest issue when buying property in a mining town is, and has always been, getting the timing right.
When you invest in property anywhere, property price growth is always driven by a range of factors:
<ul>
<li>Demand</li>
<li>Availability of land</li>
<li>Growing population</li>
<li>Provision of the services to support that growing population so that people don’t move away</li>
<li>Suitable infrastructure planning and provision</li>
<li>The existence of diverse employment to ensure that, if any one industry suffers, residents can easily retrain and transfer to another without having to leave town.</li>
</ul>
All of these factors rely on one another to create the right kind of economic underlay.  Where any one of the above factors is absent,  it becomes like the missing link which then upsets the entire chain and makes it weak.
Where mining towns are concerned, virtually every one of the factors which drive growth are constantly at risk of being impacted in some way.  For example:
<ul>
<li>Mining towns with fly in, fly out workers tend to have weak underlying economies as the money earned by workers flies out with them – hence they usually have little in the way of significant infrastructure projects</li>
<li>The populations of mining towns tend to be extremely itinerant and this includes those not working in mining jobs – most other jobs, such as those in retail and hospitality, still require mining to be in existence. An itinerant population usually means rentals are good when the main industry is good and not so good when it isn’t. It also means there is big demand from renters but little demand from buyers.</li>
<li>Investor sentiment becomes the biggest driver in a mining town as investors rush in to take advantage of rising prices when mining is lucrative, and rush out when it has a downward trend.  In fact, investor sentiment is probably the most significant driver in any mining town and so it has a far bigger impact than it would on an area where other drivers are in abundance.</li>
</ul>
This all means that timing becomes critical. 
Either you invest in a mining town knowing that it is likely to be very good and very bad, in cycles, and you are prepared to hold through those cycles, or you invest there in an attempt to time the market – you buy in before it takes off, then you sell just prior to the peak to someone else who has been watching the growth and has decided, too late, to buy. 
The former strategy requires you to be able to support negative cash flow when rents are low, which you can probably do by stockpiling that positive cash flow when it’s high. The latter requires you to have either insider knowledge of which projects are coming up and when, or psychic abilities to be able to read the future.
As I possess neither, and I have no industry contacts who can say when those projects will come on line. All I can do is provide some strategies for managing the situation you are now in and a warning for future investments. 
For now:
<ol>
<li>Work out how low you can go in your rent to keep you in the market – how much negative cash flow can you support for now?  Then drop the rent to this level as soon as you can and hopefully attract a tenant from that dwindling pool.  Get an accountant help you to assess the deductions and take those into account. As with an income tax withholding variation, you can claim those deductions weekly and they may help your cash flows.</li>
<li>Seek out some alternative avenues for advertising – possibly find out where the majority of workers come from and look at advertising to them in publications they might read and,</li>
<li>Start offering incentives such as rent free periods, or 12 months for the price of 10 etc.  Incentives work, and although they may cost you a little, a small amount of lost rent is better than no rent.</li>
</ol>
As for the warning, no property investor, except for those with money to lose, should ever buy in a mining town. 
I am not suggesting for one moment that you cannot make money from a mining town as I know you can. 
I am suggesting though, that the risk is significantly higher than investing in an area which possesses all of the drivers. While a mining town has the capacity to make a lot of money for you, it has an equal capacity to lose a lot too. 
This experience is a perfect example of how it is not where the property is that should be your number one consideration, it is matching a property to your personal circumstances that matters most. 
Once you have a sound portfolio of properties which are performing pretty well and receiving a sound return, then it may be time to start looking at these higher risk ventures.
</body></html>

The tenant in my mining town investment has done a runner! Ask Margaret

<html><body>
It's no secret that I have a preference for obtaining a positive cash flow (or as close to it) from my property purchases.  I've written a lot about it over the years and have successfully added many such properties to my portfolio.
However, I can't help but notice that, somewhere along the line my message has been taken in a shortened form – leading investors to consider only cash flow when choosing their next property. This, in turn, results in the acquisition of property which might have good rent returns, but is in danger of not growing due to an absence of important growth drivers.
In choosing property for cash flow alone, many investors are inevitably led toward towns with a single industry.  Such towns tend to get a higher than usual rental yield for many reasons, including:
<ul>
<li>They are often well outside of major urban areas, and so the property values are low, creating a higher relative yield. 
</li>
<li>Where the industry in question is experiencing a robust period and demand for its product, extra workers are usually employed.  
</li>
<li>These workers often cannot be sourced from within town and so they are recruited from elsewhere, and move to the area, and as many of these workers are itinerant, at least until it can be confirmed that their continued employment is assured, they do not usually buy.  So, although the industry is doing well, the expanding population are not property buyers, and pressure is not brought to bear on values.  They are, however, renters and this is why rental yields often soar.</li>
</ul>
Property in such areas then becomes an attractive proposition, because, initially, the cash flows look fabulous.  This in turn attracts more investors and property prices do begin to move.  Pretty soon we see an artificial property boom, brought on purely by the existence of the single industry and the resulting hoards of hungry investors seeking, at first, good cash flows, and then the spin-off gain.
And while many experts may say that, where property in concerned 'time in market' is the key, in fact these towns require precise 'market timing' if the strategy is going to work.  You need to get in at the right time (before values move), and you need to exit the investment just before the fall that is often seen in such areas when the single industry falters, or the economy changes.  And if an investment requires precise market timing to pay off, then it also requires the investor to have a higher appetite for risk.
There is no question that, particularly while we are experiencing strong economic times and low interest rates, a property in a single industry town can provide a great return.  However, these properties must be considered to be a higher risk investment. 
As with any investment, the higher the potential return, the higher the risk, and property in single industry towns have more than their fair share of risks.
These include:
<ul>
<li>The lack of diversity of industry means the entire workforce's reliance on a single industry places the security of the whole town at risk, should something adverse happen to that one industry; 
</li>
<li>The prevalence of itinerant workers results in a weak underlying economy. Workers often take their earnings out of town and, if that industry's vibrancy is reduced, respond to economic changes, leave town altogether. This creates high vacancy rates, rapidly reversing the upward climb that property values were enjoying; 
</li>
<li>That same economic weakness means most councils lack the financial resources to provide infrastructure to the community, meaning that the towns are often severely under-resourced; 
</li>
<li>The entire town is highly exposed to 'hidden risk' – the risk that an unforeseen event, government decision or world economic turmoil impacts directly back on the only industry supporting the area.  This is a risk which cannot be mitigated as it most often cannot be foreseen, and in some cases has never actually happened before; 
</li>
<li>Even if that single industry continues on, the lack of diversity in industry usually means that the population grows very slowly – the town can only expand at the rate that the industry expands.  This can mean that, even though cash flow might be good, growth to the underlying asset (the property) is well below par. A sound property strategy requires both cash flow and growth.</li>
</ul>
If an your risk profile is such that you have plenty of capital and loss would not cripple you, or you have ample time available as an income earner within which you could replace lost capital, then the potential for good yields and possible capital gains may well make these risks worth taking.
However, if you are buying in order to create a retirement income, and each purchase must perform well, you may be gambling with what may become one of your only income sources, one which needs to last a significant length of time and will not be easily replaced if you are already close to retirement.  The surety of a house in an area with a growing population, diversity of industry and abundant infrastructure development is more likely to be the appropriate investment.  You may not have quite as much cash flow, but the chances of you having both the capital and a reasonable amount of yield and growth available to use for all of your retirement years are usually greater than these higher risk, single industry town investments.
</body></html>

Buying in a single-industry town - how to negotiate the risks: Margaret Lomas

<html><body>
The question always remains on how to find a property that will deliver yield and growth.
Often a property with a high rental yield for its purchase price has a reason and usually because of the area it’s in.
The area may experience periods of rapid value growth, but just as quickly can decline often too quickly to exit the market resulting in a poorly performing asset.
While it is important for investors to at least have enough yield to cover costs without growth in value there’s little point in continuing to hold onto it.
A low yielding property is just as bad since a situation can arise that results in holding costs become too high or when the investor cannot afford to improve the property.
Therefore it is clear that investors need to be have the skill to pick assets that have a suitable yield now and potential future growth. In addition they also need to know depreciation, understanding deductions and capital work allowances which can all substantially improve net cash flow.
To do that there are a few important points that needs to be pointed out:
Present hotspots are likely to have already achieved their peak period of growth
The common saying that the closer to the city a property is the better the growth is incorrect. Many outer areas have performed exceptionally well and often beat inner-city properties.
Key growth drivers includes a fast-growing population, plenty of infrastructure planning, employment opportunities and a median household income that grows faster than inflation.
Blue-chip areas may have been good investments in the past, but now they are not so good in the present.
Family demographics is also an important part of the driving force as they tend to anchor in one area and simply upgrade when need be This also results in less supply as properties become scarcer however this only happens in areas with highly affordable properties.
Areas to look for include Geebung, Bracken Ridge, Acacia Ridge and Forest Lake as well as Altona Meadows, Sunshine West and Coburg North.
Have a property question?  <a href="mailto:news@propertyobserver.com.au" target="_blank">Ask Margaret!</a>
</body></html>

Margaret Lomas

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Margaret Lomas

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News