Nras

<html><body>
Two apartment blocks in Sydney's west benefiting from the now abandoned National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) have been snapped up by investors for $20 million.
The deals come amid a rise in renting due to the affordability crisis in Sydney.
The two new apartment blocks are a 20-unit property at 1 Santley Crescent, Kingswood (above), and the 25-unit block at 530-532 Woodville Road, Guildford, The Australian Financial Review reported.
The NRAS was introduced in 2008 to encourage builders and investors to provide more affordable rental homes. The scheme offers financial incentives for up to 10 years if rents are set at least 20% below market rates.
The scheme was withdrawn in 2014 after it failed to produce the target number of 50,000 rental homes and the target was reduced to about 38,000. 
According to the Department of Social Services, there are 137 housing providers, including property developers, not-for-profit organisations and community housing providers, participating in the scheme.
About 34,000 are still to be completed as at April 2017.
Online rental portal Rent.com.au recently noted the number of searching renters on its platform, increased to 125,000, or at a rate of 500 a day.
Now, with yields dropping and the rental market strong, investors are looking at projects with NRAS schemes.
The selling agents for both the projects were JLL's Dylan McEvoy and David Matthews.
"Investments like these, which still have seven to eight years of NRAS incentive payments, with a great exit strategy to sell as standard apartments at the completion of the NRAS are obviously highly sought after," Matthews told the AFR.
The trend of institutional provision of rental properties is also starting to pick up in the form of build-to-rent properties – high quality apartments built and serviced by one single corporate landlord.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Two NRAS apartment blocks bought by investors for $20 million

<html><body>
The Senate Affordable Housing committee report has noted the matter of the charitable status of community housing providers was needing resolution as a matter of concern.
In 2008, the Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquired into legislation providing for regulations to prescribe NRAS with witnesses representing the community housing sector saying that their biggest concern around their participation in NRAS was the possibility that such engagement would compromise their charitable or public benevolent institutions (PBI) status. 
At that time, a position taken by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) generated concern as the ATO indicated that any organisation with charitable status would seriously jeopardise that status if they participated in NRAS.
They further indicated that organisations such as consortiums that participate in NRAS will not be endorsed as charitable organisations.
Furthermore—one that sent chills down the spine of the sector—participation in NRAS may have caused the ATO to heavily scrutinise all of the activities of a participating not-for-profit organisation, not just those that pertain to participating in NRAS.
The ATO reasoned that NRAS was intended to assist not only low income earners, but people on moderate incomes. 
The then government took measures to provide assurances that participating in NRAS would not jeopardise the status of not-for-profit organisations as charities.
Even so, concerns persist that charitable organisations could risk their charitable status by participating in NRAS.
According to the Community Housing Federation of Australia, a charitable tax status allows providers access to a range of tax concessions, including exemption from income tax and GST, access to the Fringe Benefits Tax and often local government concessions on rates and utility bills.
It argued that the charitable tax status was an essential component of the community housing model because the concessions lowered their operating, construction and development costs. 
The Federation told the Senate committee that these concessions, however, were contingent on a community housing provider satisfying the ATO that its organisation's purpose met the criteria for charitable status.
Despite measures taken since 2008 to preserve the status of NFP community housing providers as charitable institutions, the Federation explained over the last several years the sector has operated under the threat and uncertainty that many of its activities, especially in the delivery of affordable housing, would not be considered to have met the criteria of the relief of poverty and could jeopardise the charitable status of community housing providers. 
The legislation that was purported to constrain housing activities through a narrow interpretation of permissible activities was withdrawn.
However, other legislation passed in June 2013 contained some tax conditions that may have a similar impact on providers' charitable status, resulting in limiting their participation in the affordable housing market for fear of putting their charitable tax status at risk. 
Other legislation, such as the new definition of charity that went into effect 1 January 2014 provided some clarity on the situation...[but it] has been mooted for repeal leaving the sector back in the position it was before with ambiguous interpretations of housing activities allowable as a charitable organisation.
The Community Housing Federation drew attention to 'the unsettling environment in the charities and tax arena' which would 'cause continuing uncertainty for the sector for forward planning in the affordable housing market'. 
The Senate committee was firmly of the view that the Australian Government must take steps to provide certainty for community housing providers engaged in NRAS or similar schemes designed to provide affordable housing that their charitable status is not in jeopardy by participating in such schemes.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Charities face NRAS uncertainty over tax status

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 409">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<div class="page" title="Page 375">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<div class="page" title="Page 375">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Despite design and administrative shortcomings that overshadowed the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS), they in no way warranted the scheme's discontinuation, according to the Senate Inquiry into Affordable Housing.
<div class="page" title="Page 375">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
NRAS is a partnership between the Australian Government and the states and territories to invest in affordable rental housing with property investors.
 It is a $6 billion initiative intended to stimulate the supply of affordable rental homes across Australia aimed to increase the supply of new affordable rental housing; reduce rental costs for low and moderate income households; and encourage large-scale investment and innovative delivery of affordable housing.
But while evidence to the Senate Standing Committees on Economics indicated clearly that a range of individuals and organisations strongly supported NRAS, the inquiry found some difficulties with its implementation: 
<div class="page" title="Page 393">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<ul>
<li>
teething troubles, including administrative practices associated with too much paperwork, delays in processing applications and slow response to emerging signs of problems; 
</li>
<li>
understaffing, inexperience and high turnover within the department administering the scheme; 
</li>
<li>
design inadequacies including a one size-fits-all approach which failed to take account of, or appreciate, the housing circumstances of particular areas with an identified need for affordable housing such as high value suburbs and regional, rural and remote areas; 
</li>
<li>
lack of clarity around the targeting of incentives and eligibility, which allowed significant allocation of incentives to overseas students; 
</li>
<li>
disclosure measures, which allowed the trading of incentives with excessive fees to persist and ultimately to damage the perceived integrity of the scheme; and 
</li>
<li>
external factors, notably the global financial crisis which created challenges in attracting private investment. 
</li>
</ul>
"These design and administrative shortcomings have overshadowed NRAS' success but, while they point to the need for refinement, they in no way warrant its discontinuation," the committee concluded. 
From its commencement in 2008, the annual incentives available to NRAS providers were to last for ten years, indexed annually for the rental component of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and comprise two parts.
The incentive values for 2014–2015 were:
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 376">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<ul>
<li>
a Commonwealth Government incentive of $7,996 per dwelling per year as a refundable tax offset or payment; and 
</li>
<li>
a state or territory contribution of $2,665.6 The total amount came to $10,661. 
</li>
</ul>
When announced, the original proposal was for an initial round of 50,000 incentives, though the scheme was introduced in the middle of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) at a time when the banks were very hesitant and valuers were very negative. 
The Community Housing Federation of Australia suggested that one of the benefits of NRAS had been the partnerships it had facilitated across the not-for-profit, for-profit, development, and financial sectors, building sustainable communities with some private sales, some NRAS and some social housing.
The committee noted NRAS brought direct private investment into the affordable housing arena and significantly increased the community housing providers' engagement with financial institutions.
The committee heard it created a mechanism which has enabled a combination of private equity, the private sector, community-housing providers and the government to work in collaboration. 
Despite the strong support for NRAS, a number of witnesses drew attention to weaknesses that have undermined its performance.
JELD-WEN indicated that some NRAS incentives had been allocated to tenderers that did not have sites for the commencement of rental housing, saying it was implausible that NRAS incentives could be approved without tenderers submitting proposed developments on actual sites.
JELD-WEN also criticised NRAS for poor accountability. It referred to 'a glaring need for a report card on the cost-effectiveness.
The Property Council of Australia made a number of observations about NRAS including that some participants had been concerned about repetitious and costly tendering processes in rounds 1–3. 
Grace Mutual Limited referred to delays in processing applications and unclear, complex and poorly drafted regulations and law that 'hurt the program'.
Some argued greater consideration should be given to the geographic location of the NRAS incentives granted to ensure those regions with the poorest housing affordability and suitability for disadvantaged groups receive more incentives. 
The Tenants Union of Victoria noted that NRAS had played an important role in bringing private finance to increase the amount of affordable housing in Australia. 
But it also referred to recent negative media coverage reporting allegations that NRAS had been 'rorted to provide accommodation for wealthy international students, and that foreign investors, brokers and small time investors' were exploiting NRAS tax breaks.
The Tenants Union of Victoria held the view that NRAS was one of the important supply side interventions that made a positive difference. 
The committee did believe the review of NRAS was warranted. 
It noted lessons needed to be learnt from NRAS such as the need for clear and tight eligibility criteria and better targeting to areas of need.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
But the cancellation of round 5, however, "was a very different matter."
"This cessation has set back the scheme just as it was gaining the trust and support of the private sector and beginning to make a material contribution to the supply of affordable housing. 
"Not only has it undermined investor confidence in this scheme, it has also fed into the general uncertainty that has engulfed the national policy on affordable housing. 
"The committee is firmly of the view that the government should start immediately to rekindle the confidence that institutional investors were starting to show in investing in affordable housing and to provide greater certainty in order to attract such investors."
The Senate committee recommends that:
<ul>
<li>
in the absence of any credible alternative scheme designed to increase the supply of new affordable housing and considering steps have already been taken to improve the administration and implementation of NRAS, that the Australian Government continue with NRAS round 5; 
</li>
<li>
the Federation White Paper process look at the Queensland NRAS model, which appeared to have much tighter controls over eligibility, as a means of determining where further improvements or fine-tuning could make the system more robust and effective; 
</li>
<li>
the Federation White Paper process look at how NRAS or a replacement scheme could be reframed to take account of the particular housing circumstances of regional Australia and ensure that NRAS housing was better targeted to areas in most need; and 
</li>
<li>
as part of the Federation White Paper process, a thorough cost benefit analysis of NRAS be undertaken, and that any such analysis include comparison of forgone revenue from demand subsidies such as the first home owners grant, and negative gearing and capital gains tax.
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

NRAS should be restored with improvements: Senate Affordable Housing Inquiry 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
My most read and commented on blog was <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/25963-sept-5-flicker-3-todd-hunter-&amp;sa=U&amp;ei=7FMrVdjsLILksAXor4DgBQ&amp;ved=0CAQQFjAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;usg=AFQjCNGqLbshlgPB4R7fTCAJq4VGF2NneA" target="_blank">my thoughts on the NRAS “scheme</a>”.
Well, I can say I was right and the story of this “scheme” only gets worse I’m afraid.
Earlier this year I had a client call me and let me know her NRAS property in Sydney that she purchased through another property company had been trashed. She only found this out after not receiving rent for two months. This sparked her to inspect the house to find they had fled the house and left it damaged along with rubbish everywhere.
When she investigated it further, she found that four bedroom house had eight people living in the house. The lease agreement was only approved as having four people living there. The consortium managing the property had not done any of the required property inspections, like they had said they would do.
And funny enough, they now don’t return her phone calls.
So after spending several thousands of dollars in repairing and cleaning the house, they thought they may want to sell it. The bad experience had put a foul taste in their mouth. I offered to refer her to a friend who is an agent, who works in the area and they have done an inspection. Now the fun begins…
The agent gave them what they believed to be fair market value price in a strong Sydney market and this dollar figure was still $80,000 less than what they paid for the house.
So, now they have a house that has been trashed, now vacant and worth far less than what they paid for it.
Could it get any worse?
Yes it can.
Now I don’t know the reasons why, but it would appear that the government department responsible for NRAS has amalgamated with another government department and as a consequence many (and quite probably all) of the tax refunds for NRAS were not paid for the last financial year, due to a software glitch that they couldn’t repair.
These payments amount to close to $10,000 per annum that the investor is supposed to receive back in compensation for letting out their property 20% below market value.
To make it even better, they have no ETA on when the problem will be fixed, if at all.
This was money these investors could have really done with to help pay for the trashed and damaged property they have been left with.
So I am sorry, but have I missed the positives of NRAS?
TODD HUNTER is a buyer’s agent, director and location researcher for Sydney-based <a href="https://www.wheregroup.com.au/" target="_blank">wHeregroup</a>.
He reached a personal investment portfolio of 50 properties in 2006 and has also started building an SMSF portfolio.
This article was originally posted on <a href="https://www.wheregroup.com.au/blog/todd-hunter/" target="_blank">Todd's blog</a>.
</body></html>

thunter-umjjMzoT8b

NRAS – you've got to be kidding me: Todd Hunter

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
No doubt this is one of the toughest federal government budgets we have seen in a long time. It would appear that the Liberal government have been true to their calling and were happy to make sacrifices across the economy in order to balance the books at some point in the future. 
But just how does this budget affect property investors?
Well it’s with relief that no changes have been made to capital gains tax, depreciation or negative gearing. Now, I'm not a fan of negative gearing all that often, the purpose of investing in anything is to achieve good growth and income for the future.
However, I do like the little incentive us property investors are given when it comes to the all to controversial depreciation. Absolutely I'm biased. I benefit from depreciation so I'm not going to argue it shouldn't be in place.
Ultimately, I think it is a great way for the everyday Australian without a business to take advantage of some form of taxation benefit that the big guys get all the time. Currently $6 billion dollars a year is lost in tax revenue due to negative gearing.
However there was one sector in the property industry that got dealt the wooden spoon, and that’s the NRAS scheme. <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/finance/30313-is-this-the-end-of-nras-frozen-fifth-round-of-applications%3Futm_source%3DProperty%2520Observer%2520List%26utm_campaign%3D79104ba176-17_April_2014%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_term%3D0_a523fbfccb-79104ba176-245297225&amp;sa=U&amp;ei=nI99U_qCEoWiugTn_oKQBQ&amp;ved=0CAYQFjAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;usg=AFQjCNFdwiVJxYoXifPZ1D5eigkLdHrmJw" target="_blank">Round 5 of the National Rental Affordability Scheme will be frozen</a> pending a review. In my opinion this is a good move as it was lining the pockets of savvy developers and good property marketers while the everyday investor lined up to buy overpriced property to simply get some money from the government. Now I know there’s a lot more to it than that, however the scheme has been flawed in many ways. 
The property industries push for ASIC regulation of the industry is seemingly unlikely in the near future as large budget cuts to the ASIC budget are handed down forcing large scale job cuts within the organisation. It doesn't look promising that the team at ASIC will want to take on more work with less staff and money. 
Home owners or investors are generally a pretty small deal when it comes to federal budgets. It’s often the state budgets that can make big differences including stamp duty concessions and rates plus the ever tinkering of first home buyers grants. 
Outside of investing, first home buyers taking advantage of the Labor government's First Home Savers Account (FHSA) <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/finance/31308-first-home-savers-accounts-scrapped-what-now&amp;sa=U&amp;ei=2Y99U6XGOYy9uASq6ICYCQ&amp;ved=0CAYQFjAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;usg=AFQjCNG_PqVeW7S8nl9lYGKuG4qUjQsiJw" target="_blank">will no longer be able to get tax breaks and co-contributions</a> as the scheme will be closed starting 1 July.
I think if anything, this budget should send a reminder to Australians of why investing in assets (not just property) is a necessity to gain financial freedom and retirement when you want it. With the pension age pushed out even further, serious holes in the future funding for pensioners, its clear we need to invest.
JOSH ATHERTON is managing director of <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=123928559&amp;locale=en_US&amp;trk=tyah" target="_blank">Portfolio Property Investments</a>.
You can connect with Josh on <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=123928559&amp;locale=en_US&amp;trk=tyah" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a>.
</body></html>

jatherton-AZUXX8vQA7

How does the budget affect property investors?

<html><body>
News that the Abbott government will abandon the fifth tranche of the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) has brought mixed reactions from the housing industry.
The scheme provides tax free incentives to developers and investors providing approved housing to the rental market at 20% below market value. According to the government, there are no current funds allocated for any future rounds of NRAS, with all money that was allocated to the fifth round returned to the budget and redistributed elsewhere. The <a href="/expert-insights/31232-national-rental-affordability-scheme-fifth-round-will-not-proceed" target="_blank">2014 budget papers suggest</a> scrapping the scheme will result in savings of $235 million over three years, and will reportedly could contribute $1 billion to revenue savings over the program's life.
Developers who have already received NRAS approval for their projects will continue to receive payments for up to ten years so long as their eligibility requirements are met and their constructions proceed according to the pre-arranged timelines. 
However, the Department of Social Services will be withdrawing financial support for projects where “insufficient progress” has been made in the dwellings’ construction. Investors are still able to invest in NRAS properties, as some 18,000 dwellings are still to be delivered. This yet to be completed apartment in Sydney’s Harris Park is currently advertised by Onyx (pictured below), a property investment advice company that markets NRAS approved dwellings.
<img src="/images/2014/05/14/NRAS%20ad.JPG" alt="">
Investors who own completed NRAS approved properties will this year receive $10,661 from the government. All applications for NRAS’s fifth round of approvals, which closed in August last year, have been abandoned and will not be approved.
The Housing Industry Association (HIA) has described the abandonment the final round of the National Rental Affordability Scheme as disappointing.
"The scheme has resulted in thousands of affordable homes for low and moderate income households, increased Australia’s housing stock and generated countless jobs the process,” said Graham Wolfe, the HIA chief executive. 
Prior to the budget announcements, HIA's chief economist Harley Dale told the Financial Review that the scheme had delivered affordable housing for thousands of Australians. “It’s been a good scheme that has helped boost low-cost rental accommodation, and we would like to see it continue,” he said.
The Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) described the move as a “major disappointment.” “Since its establishment in 2008, NRAS has delivered 14,575 new homes for low and moderate income households, and was on track to provide 23,884 more,” said UDIA’s national president Cameron Shephard.
However, the Real Estate Institute of Australia has welcomed the Abbott lead government’s decision, with president Peter Bushby calling the action “one REIA supports”. 
In February, SQM Research managing director Louis Christopher told Property Observer while the scheme needed to be adjusted to keep out "dodgy developers" and improve transparency, "the NRAS is a good idea, and we’re supporters of it."
The NRAS was launched by the Labor government in 2008 as a partnership between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments.
</body></html>

jrichardson-uRX5hFdKfN

No future for NRAS as fifth round is scrapped in 2014 budget

<html><body>
The fifth round of the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) will not proceed, following a 2014 budget announcement.
It was mooted in pre-budget leaks after the latest round of NRAS applications, round five, had been put on ice.
NRAS, which brings new rentals 20% below market into existence through incentives to developers and investors, has been under fire.
Property Observer has previously explored <a href="/expert-insights/29475-nras-should-it-be-scrapped" target="_blank">whether the scheme ought be scrapped</a>. <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/expert-insights/29475-nras-should-it-be-scrapped" target="_blank"> </a>
Sarah Toohey, the affordable housing advocate, tweeted the news of NRAS not proceeding to its fifth round, along with the Community Housing Federation of Australia.
<img src="/images/2014/05/14/tweet-may-14-one.jpg" alt="">
The budget papers suggest the saving by not proceeding with round five will be $235 million over three years.
</body></html>

National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) fifth round will not proceed: 2014 budget

<html><body>
The National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) has been debated heavily in recent weeks and the federal budget will be heavily scrutinised to see what changes, if any, will be made.
However, Property Asset Planning’s managing director Brian Chant said that he was in support of the Property Council of Australia’s executive director of the residential development council, Nick Proud, for the federal government to continue their support of the scheme.
Chant, it is noted, has sold hundreds of NRAS properties in South Australia under the name NRAS4SA.
“In South Australia we have seen little evidence of problems with NRAS which have been recently reported in The Australian newspaper and other national media,” said Chant.
YOU MIGHT ALSO WANT TO READ: <a href="/expert-insights/29475-nras-should-it-be-scrapped" target="_blank">Scrapping NRAS: Should the affordability scheme continue?</a>
Chant noted that the criticisms, which suggested that international students were benefiting from NRAS, was not an issue in South Australia.
“To suggest that the program should be wound up is short sighted and misguided. Australians consistently nominate housing affordability and supply as a top five issue and this is the one Federal Government program that aims to address Australia’s housing shortage,” he said.
“Given the success I have seen from the point of view of both investors and a tenant I see no reason to scrap NRAS now. Yes there are a few areas that need to be tightened up but lets not start from scratch with a new program to address an urgent problem.”
“Combining changes to negative gearing with a reinvigorated NRAS program will, based on our experience in South Australia, make a huge difference and very quickly,” Chant said.
Green Building Council of Australia chief operating officer <a href="%20http:/www.propertyobserver.com.au/forward-planning/investment-strategy/politics-and-policy/29381-despite-nras-criticism-government-should-commit-to-scheme-gbca" target="_blank">Robin Mellon also agreed with the Proud’s comments</a>.
He pointed to recent comments from Proud that claimed ditching NRAS would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
“Increasing housing affordability in Australia requires a range of complementary measures, together with commitment from industry and all levels of government. NRAS is a vital piece of the jigsaw – one that we can't afford to lose,” Mellon said.
An academic from a research hub has <a href="/expert-insights/investing/30340-nras-fears-are-misplaced-politics-policy" target="_blank">also said that NRAS fears are misplaced</a>.
</body></html>

jduke-EHk3XBmHkn

Property Asset Planning supports call for federal government to continue NRAS

<html><body>
So the talk is that NRAS might be stopped in the upcoming May Federal Budget.
For mine, this is one government scheme that really works for the building industry and low-income households.
We have worked on several NRAS-based new projects.
I support the media blast by Metro and the UDIA.
Read on to see what we wrote about NRAS back in 2011.
To my surprise, very few investors (and sadly fewer property gate-keepers) know about NRAS.  And if they know something about it, then they are dismissive of it.  And mostly – I feel – out of fear and/or ignorance.
Yes, like most government schemes, what NRAS is and its merits, have been poorly communicated.  And in some instances, its application further entrenches its incorrect “welfare housing” persona.  But overall, it is a great scheme and too few investors (and developers) are taking the $10,000 annual rental subsidy seriously.
<blockquote>
For mine, NRAS is one government scheme that really works for the building industry and low-income households.
</blockquote>
So what exactly is NRAS?
The National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) is a federal government initiative designed to tackle the issue of affordable housing.
NRAS is not a public or social housing programme, but rather a tax incentive to provide quality housing at below market rental rates.
Run in conjunction with state governments, NRAS aims to induce more investment in the lower price range of the residential construction and rental market by offering inducements to investors who participate in the scheme.
NRAS offers property investors a tax-free incentive for each property while participating in the scheme for a maximum of 10 years.
Currently, this incentive is $9,524 per year for every NRAS dwelling an investor owns, comprising a federal government contribution of $7,143 per dwelling, available as a refundable tax offset; plus a state or territory contribution of $2,381 per dwelling per year, as a cash payment or in-kind financial support.
In return, rents for NRAS dwellings must be charged at no more than 80% of the market rent valuation and there is to be a maximum of one rent increase for each dwelling each year.
In Queensland for example, the state government maintains a list of NRAS-approved tenants, who must meet strict eligibility requirements.
When a vacancy occurs, eligible rental applicants are referred to approved tenancy managers who manage NRAS properties on behalf of owners.
Standard residential tenancy laws apply to NRAS properties just as they do for any private residential investment.
In other words, the same rules regarding evictions, maintenance obligations and responsibilities of tenants apply to NRAS tenants as they do to other tenants in the private sector.
Rents are indexed annually in line with the percentage change in the rental CPI component, except in years four and seven when independent valuations are required.
And, importantly, investors may exit the scheme at any time with appropriate notice and without any financial penalties.
In general, NRAS projects are well-located in terms of jobs, amenities and public transport.  And in general, the design and quality of NRAS dwellings compares favourably with any private non-NRAS dwelling.
NRAS properties often co-exist within developments with other non-NRAS product.
Some of the points of difference that NRAS offers to property investors are:
<ul>
<li>All the benefits of a normal investment property with added annual tax-free government incentives</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Investors can apply property expenses, non-cash deductions and allowances against a lower assessable rental income, increasing the gearing benefit</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>More than 1.5 million Australian households are eligible to rent NRAS properties, hence vacancy risk is negligible</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Tenants are selected on their potential to be good tenants and their capacity to meet strict eligibility requirements</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In many markets, NRAS properties often deliver a cash flow positive investment</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Importantly, self-managed super funds can purchase</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>NRAS dwellings are private property – no government holds or caveats.</li>
</ul>
So here we have a scheme that shows many investment properties as cash-flow positive in the first year – and these are more often than not backed up by impressive (well by residential property standards) independent financial analysis.
What’s not to like here?  You are making money from day one; providing affordable rent for those that are finding it a bit hard; have a ten-year rental guarantee (assuming the government doesn’t water down or scrap the scheme); hassle free-management (on paper at least) and a box of chocolates from the government every year.
It appears to tick all the boxes.
Several of our developer clients inform us that their NRAS product is now the first to sell to investors.
Yet the banks are scared of it and will only finance 70% of the purchase price.  Some banks flatly refuse to be involved.  So, too, do too many solicitors, accountants, loan brokers and real estate agents.
True to form, valuers are discounting end prices by 20% – one assumes because the owner can only charge 80% of market rent and most valuers won’t include a subsidy when determining value, despite it coming from the government and being a 10-year programme.
Yes, NRAS is somewhat new; it hasn’t been that well communicated and it is a government-funded subsidy.  But welfare housing it isn’t and gone are the days where one’s residential investment strategy was as simple as “buy and forget”.
Our mindset is that property investors will need to look for every break they can get.
NRAS is a break worth considering.
Visit Michael's <a href="https://www.matusik.com.au/" target="_blank">website</a>, read <a href="https://www.matusikmissive.com.au/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">his blog</a>, follow him on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ThinkMatusik?fref=ts" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://www.twitter.com/michaelmatusik" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Twitter</a>, or connect via <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelmatusik" rel="nofollow">LinkedIn</a>.
</body></html>

michaelmatusik-49YzLvdmNv

NRAS is an investment break worth considering

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) looks set for a major shakeup by the government, following suggestions it has been <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/rudds-housing-gift-to-students/story-fn59niix-1226843122005" target="_blank">hijacked by universities</a> to develop subsidised studio apartments for wealthy international students, and that foreign investors, brokers and small time investors are <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/top-end-of-town-rorted-nras-scheme/story-e6frgcjx-1226855021305" target="_blank">exploiting</a> NRAS tax breaks.
It is true that about 20% of dwellings approved for NRAS subsidies are student accommodation. About 25% of these (5% of all the housing produced, or around 1000 dwellings) are apparently let to foreign students. Whether they are indeed wealthy is another question, though it’s clear some fine tuning of NRAS eligibility might be warranted.
At the same time, it could equally be argued that the increased supply of subsidised units in high rent areas around universities will create some downward pressure on rents to the benefit of all tenants in the area.
Indeed, even if some units are rented to people outside the initial target group, by far the more important concern should be the failure of the scheme to achieve anything like its supply target.
Failing to meet targets
To make a real difference for low income renters in major cities, NRAS needs to impact market rents by providing a genuine alternative at the local level. But against an initial target of 50,000 dwellings, more than six years in NRAS has stimulated construction of only about 20,000 new rental properties nationally. At this scale the supply effect of the scheme is minimal. So we are effectively left with another form of welfare housing – albeit for working households – which also means an emphasis on eligibility and targeting, and thus the worry about overseas students.
For more than 20 years governments in Australia have tried to attract private investors in ways that are sometimes creative, and sometimes crude. Examples include public-private toll roads, or the sell-off of once public assets like Qantas. Reducing public debt, increasing efficiency, improved choice for consumers and increased accountability are among the reasons given.
But there are two sides to this ledger, and recruiting market operators to deliver policy objectives carries inevitable costs. This might be in the form and distribution of services, the final cost to consumers, and the ethical behaviour of self-interested investors and providers.
Australia’s skewed housing market
NRAS was designed to induce private investors into providing affordable rental housing. The cost of housing is not just a problem for lower income households unable to afford decent and secure accommodation. Unavailability of affordable housing, especially in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, has much wider social, economic and environmental consequences.
Many lower paid workers are forced to choose between spending more than half their income on rent, or commuting long distances – if they are able to access work at all – and bearing the cost in time, money and family life. When unemployment or family breakdowns happen, the next step is often homelessness, which can so easily begin a cycle of social exclusion.
When the population is growing and there is undersupply of housing, rents rise to meet the repayment commitments of mortgage holders. These in turn are driven upwards by speculation. The same process adds to insecurity for tenants as landlords turn property over to realise their capital gains.
Of course negative gearing already allows investors to reduce the cost of housing investments. By offsetting interest payments, maintenance and other costs, investors reduce their taxable income. Despite plenty of opponents, governments have retained it for fear that investors will desert the rental property sector. But as its critics point out, negative gearing directs the biggest benefits to the most expensive properties and provides an incentive to upgrade property and charge more rent.
NRAS is also a tax benefit, but it provides a fixed rebate of around A$10,000 a year for ten years. Investors can claim the rebate so long as a property is rented through an approved non-profit housing manager at 20% below the market rate. Potential tenants are means tested. In this way NRAS sought to keep investors in the affordable sector for the longer term. If they sell early in order to realise capital gains then the benefit is lost. It also means that low income tenants are less exposed to unexpected rent rises and unscrupulous landlords.
Beware xenophobia
Concerns about international and small investors exploiting NRAS tax benefits appear to be misplaced if not simply mischievous. The main purpose of NRAS is to make affordable housing at least as attractive to investors as short term capital gains. It was intended to stimulate exactly the kind of activity that its critics describe. Indeed if it was really a “cash cow for canny investors” then a lot more new housing might have been built.
Pointing to international investors and students as somehow ripping off Australian taxpayers through NRAS plays directly into xenophobic fears about Asian interest in Australian property. The question must be asked: is a locally based speculator with an interest in short term capital gains preferable to an international investor committed to providing affordable rental housing in Australia for at least ten years?
In his review Housing Minister Kevin Andrews should carefully consider whether NRAS should be allowed to fulfil its aim of creating a viable long term investment option in affordable rental housing.
Should it be expanded so that it puts downward pressure on rents in our major cities, or should it be reduced to another welfare housing program?
If the government prefers closely targeted housing then a market/private sector driven scheme is surely not the way to go, while if private investment is to power the housing system then we have to accept that the property investment market is now a global one.
Michael Darcy is director of Urban Research Centre at University of Western Sydney.
Michael Darcy receives funding from Pacific Link Housing; and the Australian Research Council. He is a former Board member of NSW Shelter and has had a research partnership with the Tenants Union of NSW. He is a member of the ALP.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. 
</body></html>

Nras

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Nras

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News