LJ Gilland Real Estate is a prestigious boutique agency specializing in Property Investment Management Services and the Sales of Investment Properties with tenants in place. Comprised of a top performing group of handpicked specialists, our Agents proudly serve Property Investors in Queensland.
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
Monday, April 29, 2019
The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against a property company, alleging that it has been involved in unconscionable and false, misleading or deceptive conduct.
The ACCC has instituted proceedings against Quantum Housing Group relating to matters associated with the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS).
The ACCC alleges that Quantum’s director, Cheryl Howe, was involved in the conduct.
Quantum is an approved participant of the NRAS, meaning that it is entitled to receive incentives under the NRAS and is responsible for ensuring NRAS dwellings are compliant with the scheme.
The ACCC alleges that from February 2017 to July 2018, Quantum pressured property investors participating in the NRAS to terminate the arrangements with their existing property managers and to retain property managers recommended or approved by Quantum and which had commercial links to Quantum.
It is also alleged that Quantum made false or misleading representations to investors and property managers about its own rights, as well as the potential losses investors would face if they did not use Quantum’s approved property managers.
Quantum also issued guidelines to investors and their existing property managers setting out how property managers could become approved by Quantum. The guidelines required property managers to pay a $10,000 deposit to Quantum for each NRAS property they managed.
The ACCC alleges that Quantum did not receive a security deposit from the property managers it recommended.
“Payment of the $10,000 per property would mean that managing any NRAS property would have been completely unviable for many property managers,” ACCC chair Rod Sims said.
“Quantum’s alleged conduct meant that investors could not select a property manager who best suited their needs, and many property managers suffered a significant loss of business as a result.”
The ACCC is seeking financial penalties, injunctions, declarations and banning orders against Ms Howe.
Best Regards
Linda 姬琳达珍 and Carlos Debello (LREA)
LJ Gilland Real Estate Pty Ltd
Request FREE Rental Appraisal here!
"Your Local Property Management & Sales Specialists"
PO BOX 19
ZILLMERE 4034
Ph: 07 3263 6085
In the news recently re bargain buys 24/3/2019 https://youtu.be/Y7RnjdlxRXU
http://ljgrealestate.com.au/competitive-commission/ http://ljgrealestate.com.au/property-management/
http://www.facebook.com/ljgrealestate
The information in this message is intended for the recipient named on this email. If you are not that recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute or act upon the message as the information it contains may be privileged and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your co-operation
Please consider the environment before printing this email
Brisbane dwelling values are $7,796 or -1.6% lower than they were at their peak. In regional Qld, values are -4.9% lower than their peak of -$18,773 lower.
National dwelling values have fallen by -7.4% from their October 2017 peak through to the end of March 2019. While this figure is often quoted, Mr Kusher said it is also important to understand the context in terms of how much that actually equates to in dollar terms.
Looking at falls across the combined capital cities, the decline has been larger than national falls with values -9.2% lower than their September 2017 peak. This translates to an approximate $59,478 reduction in dwelling values. Throughout the combined regional markets, values have fallen by -2.5% or $9,464 from their May 2018 peak.
Let us take a look across the states.
NSW
Sydney values are -13.9% lower than their peak or down $124,739. In regional NSW, values have declined by -4.1% or -$18,674.
VIC
Melbourne dwelling values have fallen by -10.3% or $71,404 from their peak. Regional Vic values are $2,749 lower than their peak having fallen by -0.8%.
QLDBrisbane dwelling values are $7,796 or -1.6% lower than they were at their peak. In regional Qld, values are -4.9% lower than their peak of -$18,773 lower.
Canberra Values are -0.2% lower than their peak or -$1,071.
Mr Kusher said, “While a values percentage fall indicates how the market is fairing, seeing the actual value of the declines is a stark reminder of the actual losses. While the recent declines in markets like Sydney and Melbourne can be put in context of the significant increases over recent years, this is little comfort for home owners that purchased at or near the peak of the market.”
Over the coming months, Mr Kusher expects declines to continue, leading to further falls in asset values. Importantly, he said, “While values are falling, the debt held against these properties is unlikely to be reducing at the same pace resulting in wealth declines for holders of residential property.”
From another perspective, Mr Kusher singles out lower housing values, which are becoming more attractive to first homebuyers and prospective buyers who were previously and mortgage rates tracking around the lowest level since the 1960’s (and potentially moving even lower later this year), active buyers are back in
SA
Adelaide dwelling values are -0.5% or -$2,307 lower than their peak. Regional SA values are -3.4% or -$8,623 lower than their peak.
WA
Perth dwelling values peaked in mid-2014 and are currently -18.1% or -$97,797 lower. Regional WA values have fallen -31.6% from their peak taking them $118,734 lower.
TAS
Hobart and regional Tas are the only two major regions of the country in which values are yet to have fallen from their peak.
NT
Darwin dwelling values are -27.5% or -$145,980 lower than their peak. In regional NT the falls have been much more moderate at -7.9% or -$31,761
Best Regards
Linda 姬琳达珍 and Carlos Debello (LREA)
LJ Gilland Real Estate Pty Ltd
"Your Local Property Management & Sales Specialists"
PO BOX 19
ZILLMERE 4034
Ph: 07 3263 6085
0409 995 578 (L)
https://www.ratemyagent.com.au/real-estate-agent/lj-gilland-real-estate/reviews/23-amity-drive-rothwell-aage8u
https://www.ratemyagent.com.au/real-estate-agent/lj-gilland-real-estate/reviews/19-eaton-cl-north-lakes-aaf6zz
https://www.ratemyagent.com.au/real-estate-agent/lj-gilland-real-estate/reviews/20-eloise-ave-springwood-aaiev6
https://www.ratemyagent.com.au/real-estate-agency/lj-gilland-real-estate/property-listings/10-karawatha-st-springwood-abpzj5
https://www.ratemyagent.com.au/real-estate-agent/lj-gilland-real-estate/reviews/10-karawatha-st-springwood-aaibt1
https://www.ratemyagent.com.au/real-estate-agent/lj-gilland-real-estate/reviews/41-belmore-street-northgate-aafqu2
https://www.ratemyagent.com.au/real-estate-agent/lj-gilland-real-estate/reviews/5-raymont-street-north-lakes-aagq0c
https://www.ratemyagent.com.au/real-estate-agent/lj-gilland-real-estate/reviews/12-may-st-mango-hill-aafxwk
https://www.ratemyagent.com.au/real-estate-agent/lj-gilland-real-estate/reviews/12-may-st-mango-hill-aag2go
http://www.facebook.com/ljgrealestate
http://ljgrealestate.com.au/competitive-commission/
https://gillandrealestate.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/recommendation-and-testimonial-with-sincere-thanks/
http://ljgrealestate.com.au/property-management/
https://gillandrealestate.wordpress.com/2019/04/26/superannuation-is-one-of-the-key-battlegrounds-in-the-upcoming-federal-election-here-we-run-through-the-key-policy-pushes-from-both-of-the-major-parties/
In the news recently re bargain buys
In the news recently re bargain buys 24/3/2019 https://youtu.be/Y7RnjdlxRXU
Friday, April 26, 2019
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Australia’s ‘watergate’: here’s what taxpayers need to know about water buybacks
Australia’s ‘watergate’: here’s what taxpayers need to know about water buybacks
In 2017, the then agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, signed off on an A$80 million purchase of a water entitlement from a company called Eastern Australia Agriculture.
The problem is that Energy Minister Angus Taylor used to be a director of Eastern Australia Agriculture – though he didn’t have a financial interest – and the company is a liberal party donor. What’s more, the value of the water purchased for A$80 million is under question.
Now, as the election looms, this issue has resurfaced. But why should taxpayers be concerned?
Water buybacks using an open tender were halted by the current government in 2015, even though this is the most cost-effective way to set aside water for the environment. Instead, the government pronounced that subsidies for irrigators were a better deal.
Until 2015, the government bought back most water using an open tender process, before it was replaced by a subsidy scheme for irrigation and occasional closed tenders.
The problem with the closed tender process is that it tends to lack transparency, which raises questions about how effectively the government is spending public money. And it’s hard to prove closed tenders deliver the most cost effective outcome.
The Murray-Darling Basin is a very productive agricultural zone and its rivers have been used to boost agricultural outputs through irrigation.
State governments spent much of the 20th century allocating this water to agricultural users. By the 1990s it was clear too much water was being extracted. This resulted in both harm to the river environment and potential reduced reliability for those with existing water rights.
Various attempts to rein in extractions were made around this time, but ultimately the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was adopted to deal with the problem.
In agreeing on the plan, the federal government committed to spending A$13 billion to reduce the amount of water being extracted from the Murray-Darling Basin. To accomplish this the government has two basic strategies.
One involves buying up existing rights for water use. The other hinges on using subsidies so farmers use less water when irrigating.
Reducing water extraction from the basin
The second approach of using subsidies is generally more politically appealing. This is because few farmers ever object to receiving a subsidy and the public has an affinity with the idea of “saving” water.
The problem, however, is that subsidies are a more costly way of returning water to the river system than simply buying back existing water rights. And so-called water savings are hard to measure how much water savings are a result of subsidies or some other factor.
This is why some analysts even claim subsidies are reducing the level of water available for the environment.
Buying back water rights is generally more cost-effective than providing subsidies. But a clear and transparant process still matters because water rights are not the same for everyone and it’s a complex process to determine their overall value.
Allocations and entitlements
First, most water users hold a legal right, known as an entitlement. Water entitlements represent the long-term amount of water that can be taken and used – subject to rain, of course.
Second, water allocations represent the amount of water currently available against a given entitlement – this is the water that is available now.
If a farmer owns an entitlement in the River Murray, chances are the annual allocation will be determined by how much water has flowed into upstream storages like Hume Dam, Dartmouth Dam or Lake Eildon.
Even then the allocation will vary, depending on which state issued the original entitlement. For instance, New South Wales water is generally allocated more aggressively. This means NSW entitlements tend to be less reliable in dry years than Victorian or South Australian entitlements.
If a farmer owns an entitlement where there are no upstream storages, as is the case with much of the Darling River system, then the allocation will vary depending on how much water is flowing in the river.
So what?
All of this means the amount of water that can actually be used for the environment when an entitlement passes to the government will depend heavily on the underlying characteristics of the water right.
Partly for this reason, water buybacks were historically conducted using an open tender process.
This meant the government would announce its willingness to buy water entitlements. Farmers would then notify the government about what entitlements they held and the price they were prepared to take.
Running an open tender allowed the government to assess the value for money of the different entitlements on offer at the time.
Water buybacks through open tender began seriously in about 2007 to 2008. This meant the price owners were prepared to sell for would be registered, and then the government would determine which offer provided the best value. Around 60% of all water now held for the environment by the Commonwealth was secured through open tenders.
As a general rule, a relatively high-reliability water entitlement was bought for about $2,000 per megalitre and this has become the metric for many in the market. But the current government halted this process in 2015.
Now, the government buys water through direct negotiation with water-entitlement holders.
The government justified ending open-tender buybacks on the basis that the water being secured was causing undue harm to rural and regional communities. And, instead, much more expensive subsidies would supposedly generate a better overall return.
This view is not universally shared. The receipts from openly tendered water entitlements were being used by many farmers to adjust their business, while still staying in the region.
Many rural communities continue to thrive, regardless of the strategy chosen to secure water for the environment. Subsidies also tend to favour particular irrigators rather than the community in general.
Having set aside the cheapest option of open-tender buybacks and declaring support for irrigation subsidies, the problem the government now faces is that it must explain why closed tenders persisted (albeit in isolated cases) and were signed off by Ministers as good value for money.
Closed tenders need not deliver a poor outcome for taxpayers. But it does mean the likelihood of establishing the best value for money is reduced, simply because there are fewer reference points.
And if it’s legitimate to overspend public money on irrigation infrastructure subsidies, the credibility of a supposedly cost-effective closed tender is also brought into question.
Professor of Economics and Head of School, University of South Australia
Disclosure statement
Professor Lin Crase is the South Australian branch president of the Australasian Agriculture and Resource Economics Society.
Partners
University of South Australia provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.
For more articles written by researchers and academics, visit The Conversation
Monday, April 22, 2019
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Bargain Buys SEQld 23-3-19
http://www.facebook.com/pages/LJ-Gilland-Real-Estate-Pty-Ltd/169194919788253
http://www.ljgrealestate.com.au
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Brisbane Housing Market Update | April 2019
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
Monday, April 8, 2019
Key Credit Changes partly motivated by the slowdown in housing market conditions.
- Increases to the minimum serviceability assessment ratio on the estimated end debt where there is no unconditional contract on the property to be sold. The minimum serviceability ratio will be 1.15 for purchases of existing dwellings and 1.25 for construction.
- Maximum LVR on peak debt will be reduced to 80 per cent LVR including capitalised interest.
- Additional verifications will be required as part of the application, including where there is an unconditional contract on the property to be sold, which must be confirmed in writing by the applicant’s conveyancer/solicitor.
- Confirmation that the property to be sold is on the market within 10 per cent of the full valuation value must also be provided prior to settlement for the purchase of an established home, or at the time of final progress payment where construction is involved.
- 47 per cent working overtime – nearly twice as much as members of the general population
- 23 per cent moving in with family or friends to save a deposit
- 29 per cent delaying starting a family
- NSW and Victorian government could offset stamp duty costs associated with securing a 10 per cent deposit with lenders mortgage insurance (LMI) and costs associated with buying a home (conveyancing costs, valuation costs, title searches)
- The federal government could allow borrowing expenses/home buying costs to be tax deductible against a key worker’s salary
Sunday, April 7, 2019
Friday, April 5, 2019
Monday, April 1, 2019
DAISY HILL $340 per week available now
INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE THIS NEAR NEW AIR CONDITIONED 2 BEDROOM DUPLEX WITH VIEWS, LOCATED IN A QUIET NEW SUB-DIVISION OFF DAISY HILL ROAD.
DAISY HILL QLD 4127 - LJ Gilland Real EstateLJ Gilland Real Estate
http://mvnt.us/m903902
2/89A Daisy Rd, Daisy Hill QLD 4127
#property-manager #ljgrealestate #tenants #brisbane #daisyhill