Unrestricted negative gearing is allowed in Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Negative gearing laws allow income losses on investment properties to be deducted from a tax-payer's pre-tax personal income. Negatively geared investors benefit from this tax advantage. They also hope to benefit from capital gains which exceed the income losses.
For example, a property investor buys an apartment funded by an interest only mortgage loan. Interest expense is $2,000 per month. The rental payments received from the tenant living on the property are $1,500 per month. The investor can deduct this income loss of $500 per month from his pre-tax personal income. If his personal marginal tax rate is 46.5%, this saves $232.5 per month in personal income tax.
The advantage of negative gearing is an example of the benefits of:
Fundamentalists who analyse company financial reports and news announcements (but who don't have inside information) will make positive abnormal returns if:
Which one of the following is NOT usually considered an 'investable' asset for long-term wealth creation?
You're thinking of starting a new cafe business, but you're not sure if it will be profitable.
You have to decide what type of cups, mugs and glasses you wish to buy. You can pay to have your cafe's name printed on them, or just buy the plain un-marked ones. For marketing reasons it's better to have the cafe name printed. But the plain un-marked cups, mugs and glasses maximise your:
The boss of WorkingForTheManCorp has a wicked (and unethical) idea. He plans to pay his poor workers one week late so that he can get more interest on his cash in the bank.
Every week he is supposed to pay his 1,000 employees $1,000 each. So $1 million is paid to employees every week.
The boss was just about to pay his employees today, until he thought of this idea so he will actually pay them one week (7 days) later for the work they did last week and every week in the future, forever.
Bank interest rates are 10% pa, given as a real effective annual rate. So ##r_\text{eff annual, real} = 0.1## and the real effective weekly rate is therefore ##r_\text{eff weekly, real} = (1+0.1)^{1/52}-1 = 0.001834569##
All rates and cash flows are real, the inflation rate is 3% pa and there are 52 weeks per year. The boss will always pay wages one week late. The business will operate forever with constant real wages and the same number of employees.
What is the net present value (NPV) of the boss's decision to pay later?
An investor owns an empty block of land that has local government approval to be developed into a petrol station, car wash or car park. The council will only allow a single development so the projects are mutually exclusive.
All of the development projects have the same risk and the required return of each is 10% pa. Each project has an immediate cost and once construction is finished in one year the land and development will be sold. The table below shows the estimated costs payable now, expected sale prices in one year and the internal rates of returns (IRR's).
| Mutually Exclusive Projects | |||
| Project | Cost now ($) |
Sale price in one year ($) |
IRR (% pa) |
| Petrol station | 9,000,000 | 11,000,000 | 22.22 |
| Car wash | 800,000 | 1,100,000 | 37.50 |
| Car park | 70,000 | 110,000 | 57.14 |
Which project should the investor accept?
Question 604 inflation, real and nominal returns and cash flows
Apples and oranges currently cost $1 each. Inflation is 5% pa, and apples and oranges are equally affected by this inflation rate. Note that when payments are not specified as real, as in this question, they're conventionally assumed to be nominal.
Which of the following statements is NOT correct?
What derivative position are you exposed to if you have the obligation to sell the underlying asset at maturity, so you will definitely be forced to sell the underlying asset?
A stock is expected to pay its semi-annual dividend of $1 per share for the foreseeable future. The current stock price is $40 and the continuously compounded risk free rate is 3% pa for all maturities. An investor has just taken a long position in a 12-month futures contract on the stock. The last dividend payment was exactly 4 months ago. Therefore the next $1 dividend is in 2 months, and the $1 dividend after is 8 months from now. Which of the following statements about this scenario is NOT correct?