Greetings from New Zealand!

[stacrafty]

hi

I only just found this forum from a link in the MSN Money forum where I post all the time.

I'm a 28 yo New Zealand resident whos currently living in London with a pretty clear plan to retire in 4-5 years.

Heres how its happening...

I graduated in 2001 with finance and maths degrees, got an ok job in NZ. I have always been pretty frugal, but it was only once I read rich dad poor dad in may 2001, that I realised yyeah I can probably retire mid 30's.

So immediately went nuts on paying of my student loan. I was putting 2/3 of my fornightly wages towards it. The 12k went surpsingly fast. In the mean time I read books, talked to people etc.

In about June 2002 after about 6 months of looking I brought my first investment property. It was in a good area, and cashflow positive (before tax benefits). so it was all good. I also held a valuation saying it was worth 20k more than what I paid for it.

I revalued about 5 months later and brought a studio apt. I immediatly increased the rent, and had so many prospective tennants that I put the rent up even more. THe yeild was 14%, and I only had 20% down, so the IRR was insane, like 40% +.

The reason all the REI was going so well is that NZ ws in a huge boom. I continued to save, was now getting tax breaks from the IRD, and used work bonuses and excess cashflow as a downpayment on another property, this time in july 2003, 50/50 with my brother.

It all kept going well, the market kind of reaching its peak in prices, and rental levels kind of dropping off a bit, so I had the to drop the rents a bit, but still cashflow positive. I also put about 10k into international stocks, but these have only moved slightly.

So my day job I had been there 3.5 yrs, was in the same salary band. I wanted a change and my brother had just moved to london, making good money. I with teh exchange rate, he was making huge NZD, but then london is expensive to live in which makes up for the wages, or so I thought.

I worked out that I cuold go and work in london, make about 3-4 times as much in NZD, with a NZD increase in living expenses of maybe 50%, by me being frugal and careful.

So now Nov 2004, I have been in London about 15 weeks, make net £600 a week, set aside £400 a week to send back to NZ (I want the exchange rate to move a bit) £600 is about $1400 NZ, I can send that home per week - in my old job I could save maybe $400 a week, so now I can pay off the mortgages SO much faster.

Property market in NZ is coming down, so I am holding off buying. Soon I'll have all 2.5 of my properties at what I call "forget about the mortgage" level. Ie about 50% equity, where I just let the rent pay of the rest, while it still pays me a good cashflow each month.

I can stay in the UK for maybe another 3 years, send money home to NZ, so that when the bottom of the RE market hits I can jump on the bargains. Alternatively I can just pay off the existing properties so they are all freehold, and enjoy the net about NZD $800 a week, which is easily enough to live a nice lifestyle in NZ on.

THen I can choose to work or not, and By then I'll have 7 years experience as a financial analyst, mainly in telecoms and transport, so I should be able to earn good money anyway.

All I want now is a wife an family to enjoy it with...

I highly recommend if you are young and plan to settle in a city with a low cost of living, to move to a city with a high cost of living (where the wage should be higher in accordance) and then work work work, and save save save. Live as scantly as you can handle, and then bring the money back to the city with the low cost of living, where you plan to settle.

I was pretty sure I would be able to RE with hard work, being frugal and real estate. But moving to london and sending the money back home has accelerated that plan. "chewie lets make the jump to lightspeed!"

 

[yakers]

Welcome, I'm one of the newer folks here, some folks post a lot and some seem to live on this board
Your financial accomplishments are really substantial for your age and initial resources and NZ is not known as generating financially aggressive people as the more Darwinian US
At you age I lived in London courtesy of the US Navy (1977-80), I don't think I saved a thing, lived pretty well and drank too much, what a great time. My income was high by UK standards and just OK by US urban standards of the time. But I did travel and learn a lot and really got a lot out of that life although you couldn't pay me enough to go back to that life now.
My saving grace was discovering saving about 20 years ago and ultimately a pension that is fairly decent. I am particularly impressed with your acquiring real estate. I do own my own house but I really do not like the idea of managing real estate, just seems like too much work. But financially it has been the best sector in a number of countries the last few years. Who manages your property when you are away?
I do hope to get to NZ one day; I keep heading there but don't get past Tahiti or Rarotonga. Maybe someday with cheap air fairs.
It is nice to get opinions from folks outside the US (we do have a few Canadians here, but they are a lot like us, not sure if that is a compliment). It is interesting for me to learn what financial approaches are universal and which are more local. Do keep posting and exchange your ideas and experiences with us.

 

[Zipper]

yackers, when my family and I lived in Australia in 1978 the Aussies considered all of us (Canada and the US) as Americans.

I would counter with "would you consider NZ as part of Australia"?

And of course the answer was an emphatic "NO".

 

[Cut-Throat]

Star,

Cool ! - A Kiwi on board 8).

What part of NZ do you live - North or South Island? I trout fished in the South Island.

My wife and I plan on spending a few of our winters in the South Island's Summer near Queenstown.

 

[Zipper]

One thing Canadians, Australians, Brits, and Europeans can't figure out, is, why are there are so many "religious nutjobs" running around in the US?

 

[unclemick]

Zipper

That's because God is on our side.

Why do think I quote De Gaul so much.

Heh,heh,heh,heh,heh heh.

Hang in there - Yogi's coming!

"I really didn't say everything I said".

 

[Cut-Throat]

One thing Canadians, Australians, Brits, and Europeans can't figure out, is, why are there are so many "religious nutjobs" running around in the US?

The U.S. was founded on a principle of Freedom of Religion. The Christian Right would like to put a stop to this!

 

[REWahoo]

why are there are so many "religious nutjobs" running around in the US?

We got them from Europe.

Freedom of religion was one of the primary reasons Europeans came to the new world and founded what was to evenually become the USA. A lot of people genetically wired towards religious extremism took advantage of the opportunitiy to express their own brand of religion and migrated here. Thus the "religious nutjobs" we have today are the decendents of the Pilgrims and other Europeans who founded the US.

Guess the Aussies got a better deal since they got the criminals, not the God nuts.

 

[stacrafty]

Thanks guys,

You have made me feel welcome pretty straight away.

I don't know how I picked up this drive to becom financially independent. For a while I did take it to the extreme. I was saving allmost 70% of my wage. Not spending anything other than the bare minimum and ploughing through 2-3 financial self help books per week.

I think i got the drive because my first job out of univeristy (the one I was at for 3.5 years with no raise) I kind of thought / knew I had more business skills than my bosses and wanted to prove it, but do it for myself.
Also deep down I am quite lazy, I want the cake but not to have to work for it. But I want it so much that I will work as hard as I can to get a passive income going so I not have to work and be told what to do, when to turn up to work etc.

A few of my friends have this drive, but not many.

I used to manage the properties myself, it was a hassle but I thought I could save the 7% management fee. I now have managers, they take 7%, save me the hassle, are better at the job (I need them cause I am in London now ).

Sorry this may sound a bit random but its 1:45 am and I'm about to go to bed...

 

[bruce1]

Welcome from Canada. Do not forget that you need to live a bit now as well as in retirement.

Speaking of religious nutjobs I live near one who thinks a political leader can't do anything wrong simply because the political leader is of the same religious faith as he is.

Bruce

 

[John Galt]

Hello Bruce! On "religious nutjobs", I am ambivalent.
A fallen Lutheran myself, I am basically an agnostic.
However, several in my family are quite religious and
we even have a few ordained ministers of various persuasions.
Anyway, I am quite supportive of organized religions generally, even though I find much of the dogma and ritual a bit wacko. I think maybe I just admire their
faith and zeal. Plus, a lot of this (extreme religious
thought) really does no harm and in fact can be a
positive force in the family and society. There are exceptions of course.

John Galt

 

[unclemick]

Hmmm - can dryer sheet recyling carried to the extreme be considered achieving 'cult status'?

Being cheap, ah er frugal, in a high cost of living area can be fun and challenging - as long as one doesn't get too smug or in your face about it.

Heh,heh,heh

 

[dex]

One thing Canadians, Australians, Brits, and Europeans can't figure out, is, why are there are so many "religious nutjobs" running around in the US?

Zipper,
Please don't confuse what is said in the news media with the real USA. Read "Bias in the Media" I think the author is Bernard Goldberg - he used to work for 60 Minutes.

The majority of the US news media believe they are centerist. But they are more left than the majority of the USA. So they see religious people as right of center nuts.

The vast majority of US citizens are caring giving people - you just don't hear about them very much.

You always hear about the religious right. Isn't there a religious left? The media talks about conservative Senator X; but not liberal Senator Y.

 

[John Galt]

HI dex. Good post! It is interesting that not being religious myself, I feel great affinity for what the media likes to call the "religious right". Politically I agree with them (and would vote with them if I voted) on almost
everything. They have some political punch too.
It's not too much of a stretch to say they put George Bush in office. BTW, re media, "fair and balanced journalism" in the major venues is pretty much an
oxymoron IMHO.

John Galt

 

[Hyperborea]

Zipper:

One thing Canadians, Australians, Brits, and Europeans can't figure out, is, why are there are so many "religious nutjobs" running around in the US?

The majority of the US news media believe they are centerist.  But they are more left than the majority of the USA.

Right, so the majority of the US is more even more religiously right than you would think from reading/viewing most of the US media.  In pretty much all of the world the US media would be centrist to slightly to the right.  It's only because many in the US are so far to the right that the centre looks like it's to the left.

To give an example of this, the primary Canadian business newspaper that is somewhat to the right of centre, the Globe and Mail, is portrayed by the extremely far right US "news" channel Fox as being "far left". Of course when you are about as far right as you can go without actually whipping out the brown shirts then everybody is "far left".

 

[John Galt]

And that's why I keep my brown shirts neatly packed away. If you listen closely though, you might hear Wagner
playing or perhaps goose-stepping in the background

John Galt

 

[bruce1]

Hi John Galt

They certainly can be zealous and have incredible faith which helps them. In fact at times I am downright jealous of their faith. I think in general a lot of good is done by the religious ( caring for poor or sick) but when you mix intolerance of others and politics with religion you are headed for disaster. (Ireland and others)

I am a fallen flat on my face United Church of Canada with an Anglican mixture and am basically a live and let live guy.

Tired... Christmas Shopping. Feet hurt...need another beer
Bruce

 

[Zipper]

Bruce, I recommend Laker Red at $1 bottle, deposit included, brewed just up the road from you.

Enjoy!

 

[dex]

Zipper:


Right, so the majority of the US is more even more religiously right than you would think from reading/viewing most of the US media.  In pretty much all of the world the US media would be centrist to slightly to the right.  It's only because many in the US are so far to the right that the centre looks like it's to the left.

Wow - I'm not sure what you're saying here - the wording is a bit tourtured for my understanding - no slam intended.

Let me restate my point. The majority of the US news media precives itself as neutral or neither liberal or conservative (let's not get into Fox Cable. There viewship is not that large to be an issue) but in the center politically. The way they cover stories, terms they use and stories they choose to cover they are more liberal/left in their presentation and decisions. Therefore, views that differ from theirs to the right side are conservative. However, if they were really neutral in the center they would not label people conservative and rightist etc.

Again, read the book and listen to the news with the above thought in mind.
Listen for the opposite terms of right of center, conservative, far right, religous right etc. Do you hear and equal number of opposite terms - religous left? How many times have you heard liberal or left wing Senator Ted Kennedy? Why don't you hear that one? Because the media preceives Ted's views like the media preceives its view of itself and centerist or appropriate positions.

I've worked in a network new and have seen this first hand. I currently, have relative sthat work for a cable network news company and a national news organizaion, and I work in another area of that same company.

Now the world view of the US media may be a different story. The world may view the US media a conservative. That may be because the US media in general does not cover new stories outside the US that do not have a direct impact on the USA. Also, the US news media - not CNN - does tend to wave the flag in unison when it comes to non US stories. Why, the same reason the presidential candidates said the same thing when the Osama tape came out at the end of the campaign - It is what the US public expects to hear, it is patriotic, and it would send the message that the USA isn't united.

Now with the freedom of the press unpopular stories are told by the US media. Take a look at the story about the US solider shooting an "aledged" unarmed prisioner. The US media does do a good job. But it is made up of human beings and as such news orgaizations are subject to all the foibles of any orgaization.

 

[Hyperborea]

Hyperborea:

Right, so the majority of the US is more even more religiously right than you would think from reading/viewing most of the US media.  In pretty much all of the world the US media would be centrist to slightly to the right.  It's only because many in the US are so far to the right that the centre looks like it's to the left.

Wow - I'm not sure what you're saying here - the wording is a bit tourtured for my understanding - no slam intended.

Dex, I'm sorry if I used too many difficult words and compound sentences.  I will try to simplify it but that may not be enough for you - I apologize in advance.  I sometimes forget that many on this board have been "educated" in the US and some appear to have not paid much attention to what little they got - no slam intended.

Right, so the majority of the US is more even more religiously right than you would think from reading/viewing most of the US media.

If one was to watch or read US media (tv news shows or newspapers - the printed things that some people buy from a box on the street) and use it as a gauge (measurement or a guide) to the attitudes of the majority (large number - most) of US people then one would be wrong.  The majority of US people are more conservative (for business ownership of government and for laws enforcing their religious beliefs) than the media.  Perhaps this is because some of the major media centres are in regions of the country that are moderate or centrist.  If you compare that centrist/moderate media to the attitudes of the majority of the US population then it looks "left" to them because they are to the right.

In pretty much all of the world the US media would be centrist to slightly to the right.  It's only because many in the US are so far to the right that the centre looks like it's to the left.

This was not a comment on how the US media looks to others outside the US but a comment on the left/right bias or lack thereof of the general US media in comparison to the media of other nations.  If you were to compare the US media against the media of other nations you would find that the US one was not biased very much to the right or to the left in general.  You can certainly find examples of bias each way but in general they were balanced.

However, that is beginning to change and there is tremendous growth of right biased news media (e.g. Fox).  Fox is a major component of the US news media.  It has a higher viewership than CNN or MSNBC (almost more than both combined).  I imagine that some of this demand is coming from those who want "faith-based news" much like they want "faith based science".  They only want "facts" that fit their preconceived notions of the world and all else can be swept under the rug.

P.S.  You need to close the [ /quote ] for it to be properly quoted.  Remove the spaces in my example - I had to leave them in or it would be interpreted by the board software as a command rather than text.

 

[johnblake]

The media talks about conservative Senator X; but not liberal Senator Y.

Did you miss the coverage of the last election?

Did you see the media coverage of GW1 GW2? Even the mainstream liberal media (npr, nytimes) spewed the government line with virtually no critical analysis.

I remember watching George Tenet testifying on cspan about the alleged WMD. Then Bush came out and exaggerated everything Tenet said that supported his cause (war), and dismissed everything which didn't support the war. The mainstream media was silent.

'Liberal' has been morphed into a derogatory term even know most people support many of the most liberal programs (social security, medicare, gun control, legal abortion).

 

[Cut-Throat]

'Liberal' has been morphed into a derogatory term even know most people support many of the most liberal programs (social security, medicare, gun control, legal abortion).

I noticed this also. When I read this post that claimed the media only talked about the conservative Senators, I almost lost my lunch!

 

[John Galt]

Liberals are the biggest threat to this country and our way of life. Terrorists, inflation, deflation, stagflation,
homosexuals, perverts and nonalcoholic beer don't
even come close. Liberals! May they all meet
an early demise.

John Galt

 

[Cut-Throat]

Liberals! May they all meet
an early demise.

John,

While you are waiting to collect your SS. - I'll have to remind you that it was the father of all liberals FDR, that paved the way to your survival and the country as well.

Another Hoover style depression and the 'red' states will all turn blue.

 

[John Galt]

Cut-Throat, you are always entertaining. We
fishermen have to stick together

I recognize what FDR accomplished and I am grateful
for SS. But, don't forget that is money that I and my
employer paid in over many years. So, it's not a freebee. As far as the "blue states", I expected
them to expand over time, although I was very pleasantly surprised that there was not more of a shift
in the last election. It gave me hope, or as much hope
as an unflinching cynic can have. Anyway, I feel a debt
to all those who never wavered in their faith that
the voters would "do the right thing". They did, and I am quite elated about that. Will they do it again?
I hope so, but will not bet the farm.

John Galt