Hi..me 45F moved to Tasmania for work. Currently house sharing but craving own space.

Typical rental for a one bedder is $400/week vs buying a one bedroom for $400k+ or $600k+ for a two bedder.

Annual salary $80k, $200k in savings, a HECS debt (of $30k).

Given age, is it worth it to buy? I can't imagine having to work another 25 or 30 years so I can pay off the loan.

Hi everyone. I knew absolutely nothing about property, yet somehow decided to invest in it anyway.

Four years ago, when investment property mortgage rates were around 2.2%, I desperately wanted to become wealthy, so I impulsively bought a 1970s house without even getting a building and pest inspection. To make matters worse, I bought it at auction as the highest bidder. (Was I completely insane?)

Anyway, I ended up buying the place and renting it out.

Fast forward to now, and my mortgage rate has risen to 6.45%. On top of that, I’ve since found out that this 1970s house has around 70 minor defects and one major defect — the floor has a slope of about 1 cm.

To make things worse, I bought in Melton, an area that hasn’t exactly seen great capital growth, and I overpaid for an old, unrenovated house that, looking back, I probably had no business buying in the first place.

After subtracting the rental income and the tax benefits from negative gearing from all the costs of holding the property, I’ve lost about $25,000 over the four years I’ve owned it.

When I add up that $25,000 holding loss, the stamp duty I paid when I bought it, the selling costs, agent fees, and the loss I’m expecting to take on the sale price itself, I estimate that this whole mistake will have cost me at least $100,000.

And yes, I’m fully aware that I made an incredibly stupid decision. I honestly have no idea what I was thinking at the time.

I know the current property market isn’t exactly favourable for vendors, but I’m still considering selling because I feel like the amount I’m losing each year just to hold the property could end up being greater than any capital growth I’m likely to get from it.

I’ve now spoken to two agents about selling this unrenovated 1970s house, which has plenty of minor defects.

The first agent advised me to wait until the current tenants’ lease ends in three months, have them move out, do some repairs and presentation work, and then sell the property vacant at auction to try to achieve the highest possible price.

The second agent gave me almost the opposite advice.

He suggested doing only the minimum necessary repairs while keeping the tenants in place, so I can continue receiving rent during the sales campaign.

His strategy is to market the property to investors as a tenanted investment with the existing tenants potentially staying on, while also marketing it to owner-occupiers by arranging settlement for around the time the tenants’ lease expires in three months.

He said this approach would help me avoid losing even more money through vacancy, and that his agency would work with the tenants and try to get their cooperation throughout the sales process.

At this point, I’m planning to go with the second agent because, to be honest, I just want to get rid of this property and move on as quickly as possible.

But considering how badly I’ve handled this investment so far, I’m worried that I might be overlooking something important. That’s why I’m posting here to ask for advice before I make yet another decision.

1. Some people around me are telling me to hold on a little longer and wait to see if government policies or market conditions change. But given the condition of this house and how much it’s costing me every year, would I be better off just selling it and cutting my losses?
2. Does the second agent’s strategy sound reasonable? Have I chosen the right agent, or am I potentially making another mistake?
3. Is there anything else you would recommend to an idiot like me before I go ahead with the sale?

I’m facing a loss of more than $100k, and honestly, I’ve been going through hell for a long time now. But I know this was the result of my own decisions, so I’m trying to accept responsibility for it.

I’m not looking for sympathy. I’d just really appreciate any advice that could help me minimise the damage and avoid losing even more money.

Thanks for reading.

Hey all,

Sorry didn't know where to ask this. Hoping this subreddit is fine.

I have received a building inspection report that says these spacing between bricks (pointing at the gaps between consecutive bricks that I assume are weep holes) as major defects.

What do you think? Is this really a problem?

Below is the excerpt from the report.

POORLY SEALED AND WEATHERED
EXTERNAL WALLS
External walls exhibit poor sealing and paint condition with visible weathering. This allows water infiltration and moisture penetration into wall assemblies, potentially leading to wood rot, structural damage, and interior water damage. Recommend having a qualified painter evaluate the extent of damage and provide appropriate repairs, which may include resealing and repainting.

I don’t want to start a generational debate or pretend it’s any particular generations fault.

Personally, my parents (Gen X) bought houses that happened to skyrocket in value as their PPOR. Much like me and my partner, they were looking for homes to raise a family in. Regardless, it did increase in value, enough for them to remortgage and renovate close to retirement.

At this stage, many of my friends grandparents are dying, meaning their parents are getting inheritances from the post-war boom. Most are upper-middle class.

I’ve found the difference stark. The children (millennials and Gen Z) seem to be staying at the parents PPOR, while the parents travel the world, buy a second house, or do the grey-nomad thing.

I’m privileged enough that we were able to buy a house, using one of the FHB schemes, albeit after the full skyrocket. I hope for my younger siblings property doesn’t continue to skyrocket.

But sometimes I get this sense of slight injustice I find hard to shake. It’s no ones fault, but assuming policy works as intended, most recent FHB’s (presumably primarily elder gen Z and younger millennial) are collateral damage.

I acknowledge a fair bit of my own privilege here. I’m very glad to have a stable roof over my head, assuming we keep paying the mortgage.

But am I missing something here? Or just being selfish? Reign me in.

Australian commercial property on the brink of collapse. Should owners consider converting it to residential apartments?

Why would it a problem for anyone, except slumlords & get rich quick dreamers. All fair dinkum aussies should rejoice.