|
|
此文章由 che999 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 che999 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
EchoYa 发表于 2026-9-9 16:31
What if you have $1,000,000? Where would you put it? Are you prepared to move house all the time? ...
I won’t, but it really depends on each family’s individual circumstances.
I’ve already done the calculation in one of the previous posts.
If you invest $1 million at an interest rate of 5.5%, you get $55K per year, essentially risk-free.
If you invest $1 million in a property, assuming rental income of around $700/week:
$700 × 50 weeks = $35K rental income
(allowing for 2 weeks for lease renewal fees or vacancy)
Then deduct:
7% property management fee
$1,800 council rates
$1,500 insurance
$1,500 repairs and maintenance
$60K interest
That leaves you with an annual loss of around $32K from the property.
So purely from a cash-flow perspective, the $1 million cash investment earning 5.5% is significantly better.
Of course, different families have different circumstances, and factors like capital growth, tax and leverage also need to be considered.
For the tenant, if they put the $1 million in the bank at 5.5% interest, they would earn around $55K per year in interest. If their annual rent is around $36K, they are still left with $19K saving per year.
You could treat that $19K as compensation for the loss of capital growth. Over 10 years, the tenant would accumulate around $190K, assuming interest rates remain relatively stable.
In other words, the property would need to achieve at least around $190K in capital growth over 10 years just to offset that difference.
For the investor, based on the previous calculation, they are losing around $32K per year in cash flow. Over 10 years, that’s approximately $320K.
So, if the property’s capital growth over those 10 years is less than $320K, the investor would effectively be making a loss based on these assumptions.
Of course, this is a simplified comparison and doesn’t account for tax, transaction costs, leverage or other factors, but it shows the different financial positions of the tenant and the investor quite clearly.
This also shows that renting is not always a financial loss.
A house is a financial asset, and like any financial asset, it can appreciate or depreciate. It doesn’t always go up in value.
If the renter keeps the $1 million in the bank instead, they can earn interest while paying rent. In our example, they could still be ahead by around $19K per year, or $190K over 10 years.
So the renter is not automatically “throwing money away” by paying rent. The real question is whether the property’s capital growth is high enough to compensate the owner for the additional costs and negative cash flow of holding the property.
If the property only grows by $200K over 10 years, for example, the investor could still be worse off after accounting for the roughly $320K of accumulated cash-flow losses. Meanwhile, the renter has potentially accumulated around $190K from the difference between their bank interest and rent.
The important point is that property is an investment, not a guaranteed one-way bet. Assets can go up or down, and the outcome depends on the price paid, interest rates, rental yield, holding costs and capital growth.
So saying “renting is always a loss” is simply too simplistic. |
|
肉松海苔苏打小饼干 (2009-5-9) 习习 
还有愿意忆苦思甜的吗？---《回忆玛蒂尔德》 (2005-9-20) lilytop 
发表于 2026-9-9 07:28
发表于 2026-9-9 08:02
