租投是指购房者在他们想住的地方租一套房子，然后在他们负担得起的地区买一套投资性的房子。
对于那些想在不牺牲生活方式的前提下打入房地产市场的人来说，租房子是一种可选的方式。
房地产咨询公司power Wealth的首席执行长本·金斯利(Ben Kingsley)说，在首府城市，尤其是悉尼和墨尔本，购房成本和租房成本之间存在显著的价格差异。
有了租投权，投资者可以两全得利，因为他们可以负担得起自己想住的地方的租金，并将“多余”资金用于购买其他地方的房产，并将其出租。
“比方说，你可以在墨尔本市中心买房，每月还款$3250，但如果你在同一地点租一套类似的房子，就要花$1750。你每月将有$1500的‘备用’投资，”他说。
“当然，诀窍在于，一定要把差价用来投资，让这种策略奏效。”
利与弊
对很多人来说，租是一种妥协，他们可以在买房或租房之间做出选择。但这一战略是简单的妥协，还是可能有更多的妥协?一个聪明的、长期的财富创造策略?
为了解决这个问题，金斯利分析了重租的利弊。
优点
生活方式
金斯利说，如果在他们想住的地方买房太贵的话，他们可以选择通过转租来租房。“你想住在某个特定地区的原因有很多;更好的学校，更安全的社区，更大的房子，或者更接近生活方式和家庭设施。”
累积财富
由于租金便宜而省钱，并把这些钱投资于一处或多处房产，他们积累了财富。
与拥有房产不同，租赁房产的任何问题最终都是房东的责任，维护费用由他们自己承担，而不是由租客承担。
随波逐流的能力
金斯利说，租房让人们可以灵活地生活在各种各样的地方和房产类型中，因此他们比拥有自己的房子更能“随大流”。考虑到出售和再购买房产的高成本，对传统投资者来说，总是买房卖房在财务上并不总是明智的。
税收优惠
对于投资性房地产，最初可以要求持有成本，加上每年的折旧成本。此外，一些初步费用，例如印花税、田土转易及房贷费用，亦可视乎情况而申请。
缺点
丧失全部增值税减免
租投会造成负税收。“如果你拥有你居住的房子，如果你出售它，你就可以免缴增值税(CGT)。然而，如果你出售你的投资性房地产，你就有责任为你赚取的利润纳税，”金斯利说。
放弃一个梦想
“澳大利亚梦”要求人们购买一套房子，并且有个人色彩。租投客仍在租房，所以没有同样的自由，需要房东的许可才能做出实质性的改变。
更少的控制
作为租客，房东有租约的控制权，这给租客带来了不确定性。
“人们会怎么想?“
在澳大利亚，租房子和住在“自己的”房子里是不一样的，所以租房子的人会面临来自家人和朋友的压力，他们不明白自己为什么要继续租房子。
租房子和买房子哪个更好?
为了研究哪种策略可能获得更好的回报，金斯利看了一个27岁的投资者马特(Matt)的例子。
他是一名工程师，年薪$7.5万，他一直住在家里，一边存钱一边工作。他勤俭持家，存了$7万。他的父母看到了他的努力工作，愿意出资$3万，这样他就能更快地进入房地产市场。这意味着他的存款总额为$10万。但即使有了这笔存款，他的预算也不足以在他想住的墨尔本市中心买一套房子。那么，他租房更好吗?
现实情况是，如果马特买房成家，根据他的收入和生活成本，他最多能借到$41.5万。所以，如果他把所有的存款都存起来(减去购买的前期成本)，他的最高购买价格将是$49.5万。
“但有趣的是;如果马特选择租投，他可以用他收到的租金，加上他自己的钱，来增加他的借款能力。在这种情况下，他能借到的最高金额将增加到52万澳元，这将使他的最高购买价格达到$57万，”金斯利解释说。
但是为什么要增加借贷能力呢?
金斯利说，虽然人们不应该过度透支，但如果他们能从银行借到更多的钱，他们通常就能买到更好的房子。他表示，更好的房地产当然是更好的增值，这意味着随着时间的推移，它应该会带来更好的回报。
但是那些花在房租上的钱呢?
如果马特选择和他的伙伴们在他梦想的地方租房，那么他每年将花费$12000而不是买自己的房子。但他也将从他的新投资物业中获得租金——将近$2.1万。
金斯利表示:“认识到这一点很重要，因为这意味着他可以持有价值更高的资产，而且即使持有投资性房地产的成本增加，马特的现金流状况也将比他刚刚购买自己的低价住宅时更为稳定。”
但是没有人想永远住在合租的房子里，对吧?
“马特不太可能和他的同伴们在一个合租的房子里住上20年，到那时可能已经发生了很多事情;他可能遇到了未来的生活伴侣，组建了一个家庭，或者他可能用这两种情况中的任何一种来购买另一套房产，或者他可能提高了房租，这样他就可以自己租一套公寓了。”金斯利说。
但重点是;在比较购买和租赁的决策时，考虑全面的财务影响是很重要的，这是通过长期预测来实现的。
如果马特打算在20年后还是在与朋友合租，他的财富状况看起来会相当稳定。金斯利说，他将获得每年46,650澳元的租金(这是一处预计将继续升值的房产)，而且他还可以免交房贷。
“最大的问题是，如果他逆潮流而行，选择做投租者，他在未来20年的财务状况会好38万。”
那么，租投是正确的选择吗?
当同一地区的租金与购买成本之间存在明显差异时，租出效果最好。
金斯利说，最终，它更适合那些收入较高的人，因为收入越高，借贷能力就越强。但是，如果年轻人买不起他们真正想住的地方，并且愿意选择一条不常走的路，这也是他们可以考虑的事情。
但是每个投资者都是不同的，人们应该得到独立的财务建议。
Population growth will support building activity - HIA
Rentvesting – which sees buyers rent aproperty where they want to live and buy an investment property in a suburbthey can afford – is a growing trend across Australia, challenging traditionalthinking about home ownership.
此文章出于
<Erin Delahunty, June 20 2019>
Rentvesting is a way forward for people whowant to break into the property market, without sacrificing their lifestyle.
Ben Kingsley, the CEO of specialistproperty advisory firm Empower Wealth and co-author of The Armchair Guide toProperty Investing, says in capital cities, particularly in Sydney andMelbourne, there’s a significant price difference between the cost to buy andthe cost to rent.
With rentvesting, investors can get thebest of both worlds because they can afford to rent where they want to live andput their “spare” funds to work by buying elsewhere and renting that propertyout.
“Let’s say you could afford to buy in innerMelbourne and the mortgage repayments to do so were $3250 a month, yet if youwere to rent a similar property in the same location, it would cost you $1750.You would have a ‘spare’ $1500 a month to invest,” he says.
“The trick of course, is that you mustinvest the difference (not just spend it) to build your wealth for thisstrategy to work.”
The pros and cons of rentvesting
For many, rentvesting is a compromise theycan live with when it comes time to make the call between buying or renting.But is the strategy simply a compromise or can it be even more; a smart,long-term wealth-creation strategy?
Kingsley breaks down the pros and cons ofrentvesting to work that out.
The pros
Lifestyle
Kingsley says if it’s too expensive forsomeone to buy where they want to live, they have the option of renting throughrentvesting. “There are many reasons why you may want to live in a particulararea; better schools, a safer neighbourhood, a bigger house, or proximity tolifestyle amenities and perhaps family.”
Wealth building
Because rentvestors save on mortgagerepayments and invest the savings into one or more investment properties, theybuild wealth.
It’s “all care, no responsibility”
Rentvesting delivers the perks of being atenant; the main one being the notion of “all care, no responsibility”,Kingsley says. Unlike owning, any issues with a rental property are ultimatelythe landlord’s responsibility and maintenance costs comes out of their pocket,not the rentvestors’.
Ability to go with the flow
Renting gives people the flexibility tolive in a variety of places and property types, so they’re able to “go with theflow” a lot more than if they owned their own home, Kingsley says. Given thehigh cost of selling and then re-buying property, this option is not alwaysfinancially sensible for traditional investors.
Tax benefits
With an investment property, it’s possibleto initially claim holding costs, plus depreciation costs each year. Inaddition, some of the initial costs, such as stamp duty, conveyancing andlending fees can also be claimed, depending on the situation.
The cons
Loss of full capital gains tax exemptions
There are negative tax consequences ofrentvesting. “If you own the house you live in, you are exempt from payingcapital gains tax (CGT) if you sell it. Whereas if you sell your investmentproperty, you are liable to pay tax on the profit you make,” Kingsley says.
Giving up on a dream
The “Australian dream” dictates that peoplebuy a house and make it their own by adding personal touches. Rentvestors arestill renting, so don’t have the same freedom and need the landlord’spermission to make substantial changes.
Less control
As a renter, the landlord has rights andcontrol over the property, which can create uncertainty for tenants.
The “what will people think?” worry
Rentvesting goes against the entrenchednorm in Australia of living in “your own” home, so rentvestors can expect peerpressure from family and friends who just don’t understand their decision to continueto rent.
Which is better – rentvesting orbuying-to-live?
To investigate which strategy canpotentially get a better return, Kingsley looks at an example of an investornamed Matt, who is 27.
He’s an engineer earning $75,000 per yearand has been living at home while he saves for a deposit. He’s been diligentwith his money and saved $70,000. His parents have seen his hard work and arewilling to chip in $30,000, so he can get on the property ladder sooner. Thismeans he has a total deposit of $100,000. But even with this deposit, hisbudget isn’t enough to buy a house in inner-city Melbourne, which is where hewants to live. So, is it better for him to rentvest?
The reality is, if Matt were tobuy-to-live, the maximum amount he could borrow would be $415,000, based on hisincome and living costs. So, if he put down all of his savings as a deposit(minus upfront costs to buy), his maximum purchase price would be $495,000.
“But here’s where it gets interesting; ifMatt were to rentvest instead, he could use the rent he receives, plus his ownmoney, to increase his borrowing power. In this case, the maximum amount hecould borrow would be increased to $520,000, which brings his maximum purchaseprice to $570,000,” Kingsley explains.
But why increase borrowing power?
Kingsley says while people shouldn’toverstretch themselves, if they can borrow more money from the bank, they cantypically purchase a better property. A better property is, of course, a betterinvestment asset, which means it should deliver a better return over time, hesays.
But what about all that money spent onrent?
If Matt chose to rent with his mates in hisdream location, then he would be forking out $12,000 per year instead of buyinghis own place. But that overlooks that he will also be receiving rent – almost$21,000 – from his new investment property.
“This is important to realise, because itmeans he can hold a higher-value asset and, even with the added costs to holdthe investment property, Matt will be in a more solid cashflow position than ifhe just bought his own, lower priced home,” Kingsley says.
Crunching the numbers
Kingsley ran the numbers for Matt’ssituation to compare the decision to buy-to-live versus rentvest, and not justfrom a cashflow position, but also a net worth position…
But no one wants to live in a share houseforever, right?
“It’s unlikely that Matt will stay livingin a share house with his mates for 20 years and so much could have happened bythen; he might’ve met his future life partner and started a family or hemight’ve used the equity in either scenarios to buy another property, or he mayhave increased his rent, so he could afford to rent an apartment on his own,”Kingsley says.
But the point is; when comparing the buyversus rentvest decision, it’s important to consider the full financial impactand this is done by forecasting over the long term.
If Matt was to rentvest, in 20 years, hiswealth position would be looking quite solid. He would be receiving $46,650pain rent (on a property that’s predicted to keep growing in value) and he wouldbe mortgage free, Kingsley says.
“The biggie is that he would be financiallybetter off to the tune of $380,000 over 20 years if he went against the grainand chose to rentvest.”
So, is rentvesting the way to go?
Rentvesting works best when there’s anoticeable difference between what it costs to buy versus rent in the samearea.
Kingsley says ultimately, it’s more suitedto those on higher incomes, because earning more generally results in a higherborrowing power. But it’s also something a younger person can consider if theycan’t afford to buy where they really want to live and are happy to take aroad-less-travelled.
But every investor is different and peopleshould always get independent financial advice.
联系客服
