Dear all,

Do you have any recommendation for the budget above? I discussed with my friends and parents, parents prefer me to look around Kepong area. I'm open to any suggestions. My repayment target is around 5-10 years. I'm planning to take out around 50k from the EPF to pay for it.

It may be for living or renting out as I am staying with my parents. They are happy and do not mind me staying. So, this will either be investment or for self usage once I'm married. Nyway, have already decided that I will go for property investment to diversify my investment.

Any suggestion or feedback or critisim is very appreciated

Landed property for a long term investment is always better, because condos you need to bare the maintenance fee in the long run, and many who bought condos earlier finally decided to shift out to a landed property because if you calculate the maintenance fee in the long run, it is a large sum indeed.

There are a few new developments that is 100% completed in Kepong area, do browse around and see which one is to your taste and budget.

Bandar Sri Damansara current market value for a 2-storey terrace house is already appreciate till hitting around RM500K+ as compared to their previous launched price at RM300K+

Or you can try scouting around Bandar Sri Damansara 2 opposite the traffic light, there are a lot of single storey terrace house there, easier for your parents to move around the house too, cause normally a 2 storey terrace house is always a hassle for old folks, even for my family.

If you looking around Kepong area, try to see if there is any Jinjang house up for sale, cause i saw a couple of nicely renovated bungalows there done up nicely. price wise is not cheap though

Cheers
QS

This post has been edited by quiksilve: Oct 11 2007, 12:42 PM

Thanks bro, any comment on condos or housing on Metro Prima?

gtghost,

if you are buying one for investment and also posibbly for own stay after you are married, IMO you should go for :

1. A condo/apartment instead of landed

2. Properties located outside of Kepong. Kota D is a good altenative

I dont know too much about Kepong, but I think Kepong's apartment and condo' has been poor in terms of capital gains or rental yield. Im sure Kepong would be nice for own stayers, but invesment wise, peronally dont think its a good one.

too congested that area... bro... no good for investment as only condos n apartments build up over there...........

What about Mont Kiara?

the BIG question is whether u can get anything less 250k in MKiara?


But, if your have the means to buy a 300k property in MK, then rent it out anything more than 2k p/m, it should be a decent investment.

Mon't Kiara is way out of budget bro too expensive

refer to your budget, you can only buy condominium in KL but not landed property unless you want further area such as
shah alam, puchong, bangi, kajang....
even some of the new build condominium is cost more than 300K

depends on which part of Puchong and Shah Alam... a lot are above 300K...

there's seremban 2, putra heights, sungai long, klang... search around and you will know your budget is too little

@gtghost,
Is there a particular reason to picking Kepong as a location? Which areas are you really looking into? I don't think RM300k is gonna get u anything decent at Mont Kiara.

i'm from kepong mate. Metro Prima is booming anyway. but i would not invest there though..as they said it, they are places with much better return, e.g. KD

for that budget, you can get apart/condo. As for landed property, you need to scout further than city centre:)

gtghost,

How do you come up a budget of 200K to 250K?? And, if you have a budget of 200K to 250K, you cannot afford a house that is price at 200K to 250K. The reason is there are additional costs associated in buying and straying in a house.

For example, it costs on the average of 30K to move in a house. So, just by deducting 30K, you can only afford a house that is 170K to 220K. Plus, we have not factored in ALL other costs.

How much monthly loan payment can you pay per month?? For example, you should not pay MORE than 25% of your monthly gross income on house.

The point that I am trying to bring up is you have not done a proper calculation to find out how much house can you afford. And, the house that you lived in is NOT AN INVESTMENT. It is a LIABILITY.

Dreamer

@dreamer101,
The house we live in, if paid up and owned should be seen as an ASSET, and not a liability.

tinkerbel,

That is YOUR OPINION. And, it is not share by me and many others in our wealth building path. We judge an asset by cash flow.

An asset is something that give you money every month. The house that you live in does not give you money every month unless you rent it out. In fact, you have to pay money every month to maintain your house. It is an expense. And, it does not matter how much the house is appreciated. It means nothing until you sell it. And, when you sell the house that you live in, you have to buy or rent another to live in.

Dreamer

Sri Petaling / bukit Jalil...2nd hand house / condo.
quite a lot of renter because near by have 2 colleage...2 lrt station.... bus directly to mid valley...technology park malaysia...
Vista comanwel renting rate is around 300-400 per room to those medical student...

if want for stay also nice...2 taman near by (bukit taman jalil * 2, 1 is near golf park)
surrounded by 5 highways (kesas, seremban-kl, sg-besi highway, and 1 new highway to putrajaya, MRR2)
2 super market ( care4, the store )
fews primary school and 2*2ndary school nearby ( although is gangster school) .
got planning to open a chinese primary school so far i heard.

price is a bit higher from ur budget...300k for double storey 22* 75 or above
but some house is 16*6x is cheaper (2 storey)....
or u can keep an eye on bank lelong...

p.s so far away from kepong....is the another end of MRR2 ....still consider link with kepong....

This post has been edited by xlancer: Nov 29 2007, 12:20 PM

@dreamer101,
Yes, the earlier post is merely MY opinion. My definition of an asset is something we own hence the house we live in (assuming it's been paid up) is what i'll consider an asset. An investment on the other hand is something that has the possibility of earning one some money each month.

I don't think we can or should judge an asset by just cash flow. Perhaps u had meant 'Investment' instead, and not Asset? *shrugs*

@xlancer,
TS ask for houses around Kepong area but u go suggest one that's on the total opposite end of the direction You're right, it's just 1 road away - in that case, maybe should recommend TS to look at houses in Rawang or maybe even up North in Sg Petani? *grins* It is also just 1 toll away *grins*

This post has been edited by tinkerbel: Nov 29 2007, 02:00 PM

Easier explanation...is car an asset even after you've paid off all the car loan?

Anyway, back to the topic. I.e. IMO not much choice if one is scouting for landed properties around that budget. Unless of course look out of town. But I don't think there's anywhere in KL.

@b00n,
If it belongs to u, it's an Asset. Who said assets only appreciates. Car's an asset which depreciates in value.

tinkerbel,

1) That is YOUR OPINION and YOUR WAY of looking at things. And, you are what you believe. IMHO, anything that does not generate positive cash flow is NOT an asset.

2) In your system of belief, when you buy something and you own it aka even a TV, you think you have an asset and your net worth is increasing. In my system of belief, anything that does not make money for me is not an asset. So, between you and me, who is going to spend more money on things that does not make money?? You or me?? You are what you believe.


Dreamer

tinkerbell is actually correct in defining assets. Assets are what we owned, no matter it depreciate or appreciate.

she is right , asset may or may not generate $$/ appreciate

u r right.

something tht u own tht generate $$ / appreciate , when it depreciate or require ur $$ to maintain it, it become liability. put it this way, when u bring business to ur employer, u r an good asset ,but when u r not efficient anymore n company still pay u ur salary , u r liability...

car used as taxi = asset , car tht keep as weekend car n paying instalment = liability , 50yrs old car tht Tunku Abdul Rahman owned n passed down to my grand father n he pass to me is an invaluable asset , i pay $$ money to maintain n keep it shinny, liability.

yewkhuay,

1) Average people are not rich and rich people are not average. You have a choice. You can choose to be average or rich. You cannot be both.

2) Rich people do not look at things the same as average people. And, they are NOT limited or use the definition of normal people.

3) My definition of asset is based on cash flow basis. Anything that does not generate positive cash flow is NOT an asset.

4) In my book, appreciation is NOT REAL. It is not cash flow. Until you can sell that thing and get some money, it is ALL PAPER PROFIT.

So, do you want to be RIGHT or RICH. And, that is the question. Normal and average people use definition and way of looking at thing that cause them to waste money as opposed to using money to generate wealth.

I would rather be RICH than RIGHT.

Dreamer

This post has been edited by dreamer101: Nov 29 2007, 10:15 PM

We can always right and rich at the same time. Definition of asset is not important, if u know how to make money.

jasontoh,

You have contradicted yourself.

<<Definition of asset is not important, if u know how to make money.>>

If you believe this, then, being right is irrelevant to you. You only care about making money.

<<We can always right and rich at the same time.>

If you believe in this, then, you do not believe definition of asset is not important.

Which one do you choose?? What is more important to you??

Dreamer

No, for me the correct definition is not important, but at the same time is important because we need to know for education purposes. The more important thing for me is rich. If we get the correct definition and at the same time we are making money, we are both rich and right

This post has been edited by jasontoh: Nov 30 2007, 07:34 AM

totally agree with what you say, i'm few house owner while it was my liability while i still cannot generate the income from it and i need to maintain. gosh, it was heavy to maintain those.

TS : get a landed is more better unless you are investing in condo for short term to resell. if for living, dont get urself into the so called maintenance fees. dont increase your own debts/expenses in today malaysia living expenses. It would increase from time to time.

---

Added on November 30, 2007, 12:51 pmfor me, how we consider is rich ? 1 million is alot? yeah it was for some people, but not for some.

why asset is important?

comparing asset and money, good asset will help to bringing income someday, while money, i earn 20K per month while my expenses is 20K. where those 20K going? 15K i buying BMW ?

can the BMW help me generate incomes?

so the definition of asset issit important? i would say yes.

anyway, it was not important for who rights or something, if you can make money and you have asset, then you are right. who cares if you can make revenue like what uncle bills make, and you do not have any assets?

This post has been edited by cypher: Nov 30 2007, 12:55 PM

both tinkerbel and dreamer are correct at their respective POV...

by accounting definition, Assets are everything that you own, be it a property rented to public, a car, even desk and tables...

but in the real world, assets are subjective... depends on how that item is used...
a property you are living in is a liability as you have to pay to maintain
a property rented out but unable to fully service your bank installment is also a liability...
a car, if used and able to give you cash flow exceeding your maintenance is also an asset... but if you sell it off, it's a liability due to its depreciating value...

there's no right or wrong, just different opinions...

This post has been edited by kenji1903: Nov 30 2007, 05:05 PM

Dreamer,

read my post carefully , i was commenting tinkerbel is right at her point of view, i didn't agree with anyone on which is asset n which is liability, It can be both at the same time if one doesn't handle it properly. asset provide $$ , liability doesn't , regardless wat it is, can be the same thing.

not sure wat r u trying to tell me in 1) n 2) if u r replying to my post. i m not rich in my definition , neither average at most of my peer's definition. right or wrong to me it doesn't matter, it's all POV, but from the way i see it, u r the one who is always mentioning others are wrong.

yewkhuay,

<<read my post carefully , i was commenting tinkerbel is right at her point of view, >>

You do not get IT. My POV is that kind of POV will not help a person to get rich. And, it is HARMFUL in the path of gathering wealth. A person's POV shape what a person believe. And, that determines whether a person is average or
rich.

You are what you believe.

Dreamer

read my post at #23, tell me how i m wrong in defining asset n liability. tell me how harmful can it be to know how a thing can be both asset n liability if managed the right or the wrong way respectively.

a person who doesn't know to differentiate which POV is helpful for him doesn't deserve to be rich at all , in other words, anyone can voice their POV but it's up to the person to pick which to accept.

Asset is something generating cash inflow and liability is something that you have to pay for. This is the definition in accounting.

Asset such as cars, land, building, machine is cash generating equipment for a company. But for individual, it's different but not such differences.
A Land/Building is generating cash flow if it's use for plantation or business purpose or rental.

Liability is something for you to get your asset. A company finance their operation by both equity and debts. debts here refers to liability. At the end of the days, your Asset = Equity and Liability.

It'd be great if someone can have its assets from solely equity (which is their earnings/salary from individual perspective)

Sure Sure. And I'm rich, therefore ......

Definition of Asset:-

Wikipedia Asset Definition

but yet you think its the right POV to gain weallth? Care to explain more?

Pai,

1) Only cash flow positive investment are assets. Anything else are liabilities.

2) House that you lived in is liability unless you rent part of your house out and it is cash flow positive./

In USA as for many in Malaysia too, people think that the house that they live in is an asset. Because of that flawed thinking, they spent TOO MUCH on the house that they live in and tied up most ofl their money. So, the house is the only "ASSET" that they have. They are house rich and have nothing else.

Dreamer

This post has been edited by dreamer101: Dec 5 2007, 10:17 AM

If you are not looking for a big family, a condo would be a better place. It has security, facilities etc. House has much higher expense compared to a condo. Wait til you got a bigger capital then only buy a house la

Not exactly correct. Monthly management fees paid for condo and monthly rental of parking if only 1 parking lot are considered "fixed" expenses already. Sometimes changing of guards would cost moneys too.

@dreamer

can u pls take ur comments about asset vs liability somewhere else? or do it privately ?

People like me wanna concentrate on reading about other ppl's plans to spend 200 - 250k ... not really interested in how you define asset and liability.. thanks

For investment you need a good location. I'm thinking you probably can't get a house in a good location for 250K, so better a condo in a good location than a house in a bad one


This post has been edited by wodenus: Apr 29 2008, 03:26 PM

TS can buy a condo next to Mont Kiara/Hartamas with that kind of budget....a place called Dutamas!

i've got a DSL 20x75 in Puchong indah going for RM270k. if interested pls pm me.

since you mention for investment, bear in mind that for condo to retain its good value, the condo has to be well maintained by the management.
you can look at the old condos in KL, generally i would say the maintainence is quite poor therefore affecting its value.
value for landed house tend to appreciate in time. It may not be a good location today, but 10 years later it maybe, hard to say.

i dun think buying landed propery is as good as condos or apartment...reason: landed property surely need to renovate b4 moving in @ estimate of price (RM30k) for renovation...
if condos maintenance charges is RM300 per month, RM 30k can be reserved for 100 months (8 years)
in terms of renting, condo is easier to find tenant than landed property.

Just curious, will the maintenance fee of aprtment/condo ever go up?

Come to think of it, if one buy a house that is far away, it is cheap. but what about other indirect expenses eg petrol, toll for going to work.

some normal terrace house also need maintenance already ...maintenance fee include many things..f