Canna Campbell

So, do you want me to show it?

Well, say, for example, I have this million-dollar investment property and say I have a $400,000 loan on that.

I'm earning $50,000 a year in rent from that million-dollar property, but I've only got a $400,000 loan.

So obviously the interest rate on that $400,000 loan is most likely going to be less than what I'm receiving in rent.

So therefore it's still cash flow positive.

And this is why the banks will look at it as they do.

Case by case.

What is the situation behind this?

And also what's backing that loan?

Is there a fleet of investment properties behind this particular person?

Or is there huge amounts of equity elsewhere?

You can't just put this aside.

generic blank one-size-fits-all rule.

It's very circumstantial and situational.

Also, on that note of going interest-only, yes, it still exists because for some people in certain situations where maybe they're going through financial hardship or they're having a family and then the bank approves this, they might say, well, okay, to help keep the loans in place, not to put you in a position where you're forced to sell.

The numbers stack up to be able to flick you to interest-only for, say, a 12-month period to get you through with the cash flow.

Absolutely.

Ideally, if that's your goal, to create that equity, to create that passive income, you want that loan coming down.

However...

This is the other thing.