How bad does an investment property need to be to warrant selling it?

If you sell a dud investment property, you may have to pay capital gain tax (CGT), selling costs and then stamp duty again when you reinvest… it can be a very expensive exercise! Your House

And if you have owned the property for a while, it is probably putting money in your pocket each month (i.e. more than covering its expenses — no costing you anything) and the CGT could be significant — even more reason to not sell it, right?

This is what I would like to investigate in more detail.

In particular, how bad does the property’s performance need to be to warrant selling?

What is a dud property investment?

An investment grade property should have an average growth rate in the range of 7% and 10% (or more) per annum over the long run (based on a historic inflation rate of between 2% and 3% p.a.).

Of course, the property’s value might not appreciate by this amount evenly every year — but you can average out the growth rate over a long period. Property Growth

You need to have owned the property for 10 to 15 years for its past growth to be a reliable and meaningful indicator.

If you have owned the property for less than this, your “timing” potentially has a greater influence on its past growth as opposed to the actual fundamentals of the asset.

Therefore, if you have owned the property for less than 10 years you should compare its past growth to the ‘market’ i.e. how have similar properties performed over the same period.

Some sectors of the property market perform differently at different times as implied in this blog.

A dud property is one that has appreciated at less than 7% p.a. and/or not kept up with its peers.

What are the costs of making the change?

If you do decide to divest of a property you need to consider the costs of doing so.

These include:

  • Selling costs — including agent selling fees, marketing and advertising, any repairs that need to be made to get the property ready for sale and possible staging.
  • CGT —multiply your gain by 23.5% and that will give you an estimate of the CGT you will have to pay. That is, if you purchased a property for $400k and the purchasing costs were say $22k (stamp duty, legal fees, etc.) then the cost base is $422k. If you sell the property for $650k less $17k for selling costs, then your gross gain is $211k ($650k less $17k less $422k). If you held the asset for more than a year, you can discount the gain by 50% which brings it down to $105.5k and this amount is taxed at your marginal rate — lets use 47% to be conservative = $49,585 of tax payable (being 23.5% of the gross gain).
  • Purchasing costs — the stamp duty payable in respect to a replacement investment property plus any fee for asset selection advice (buyers’ agent fees).

My analysis

I have financially modelled the impact of selling a dud investment, paying the CGT and reinvesting in a higher quality property.

For this example, I assumed that the property was purchased in May 1991 for $141k and is now worth $650k which equates to a 5.8% p.a. growth rate.

The related loan balance is $145k. Property Profit

The property’s rental income is $22,000 gross p.a.

Whilst the property is producing a positive cash flow after all expenses of circa $10k p.a., its growth rate has underperformed.

The median growth rate for Melbourne over this same period was 7.1% p.a. which includes all properties i.e. a lot of non-investment grade property.

Realistically, with astute asset selection, you should be able to beat the median return.

If the investor sells this property, they will have to pay for CGT — I estimate $115k — which is a lot of tax to pay!

However, if they do sell this property and reinvest in a better asset, the advantages are:

  1. they can use the after-tax cash proceeds to reduce their non-tax-deductible debt (home loan); and
  2. in the long run, a superior capital growth rate will generate significant value.

I financially modelled this scenario which is illustrated in the chart below (click to enlarge). I explain this chart below.


What the above chart tell us

The chart projects the difference in overall wealth in today’s dollars (i.e. excluding inflation) after 5, 10, 15 and 20 years.

It measures the impact of a 1%, 2%, 3% and 4% annual growth rate differential.

That is, what if the replacement property appreciates at 1% + 5.8% = 6.8%, or 2% + 5.8% = 7.8% p.a. and so on.

For example, if this investor divests of their existing asset and invests in a replacement property that grows at 7.8% p.a., after 15 years the investor will be $319,000 better off (net of all costs) in today’s dollars.Invesment Profit

The financial model takes into account the impact on cash flow, the benefit of being able to reduce non-tax-deductible debt, the impact of various capital growth rates and the opportunity cost and time value of money.

Essentially, what I am trying to ascertain is how much better does the new (replacement) property have to be to more than offset the costs associated with divesting and reinvesting.

As you can see from the above, the answer is that a performance of close to (or more than) 2% p.a. higher than your existing “dud” asset produces a superior financial result in the long run.

With financial decisions like this you must think long term.

The things you need to consider

This is only one scenario and of course you should get personalised financial and property advice before making any decision to divest of an asset.

Some things you need to consider include:

  • The relative performance of your existing investment property and the length of time you have owned it. If the performance has been very poor over a long period of time, then the evidence is compelling. However, if the performance has just been “okay”, but not great and you haven’t owned the property for a long time then I’d probably advise you to hold onto it for a little while longer. diversify-stock-invest-goal-plan-money-wealth
  • The amount of your home loan and the amount of equity in the investment property to be disposed of. The advantage of selling an investment property with a lot of equity is that it allows you to reduce your home loan (which provides significant compounding savings). However, if your investment has little equity and/or your home loan is small, then it will have little impact.
  • The amount of CGT. Let’s face it, no one likes paying tax! It’s a bitter pill to swallow. If there is little CGT to pay, then the decision to divest of a dud asset is somewhat easier.
  • Your borrowing capacity and cash flow. You must consider your ability (and budget) to reinvest if you are to dispose of a dud asset. Therefore, you need to get advice on what your current borrowing capacity is having consideration of the bank’s parameters and your cash flow position.

This blog was originally published in July 2018 and has been republished for the benefit of our many new subscribers.


Subscribe & don’t miss a single episode of Michael Yardney’s podcast

Hear Michael & a select panel of guest experts discuss property investment, success & money related topics. Subscribe now, whether you're on an Apple or Android handset.

Need help listening to Michael Yardney’s podcast from your phone or tablet?

We have created easy to follow instructions for you whether you're on iPhone / iPad or an Android device.


Prefer to subscribe via email?

Join Michael Yardney's inner circle of daily subscribers and get into the head of Australia's best property investment advisor and a wide team of leading property researchers and commentators.

Stuart Wemyss


Stuart was a Chartered Accountant before establishing mortgage broking firm ProSolution Private Clients. He has authored two books and shares his experience with readers of Property Update. Visit

'How bad does an investment property need to be to warrant selling it?' have 5 comments


    July 2, 2020 Alex

    With all my respect I disagree. The major flaw of this logic is assumption that the negatively geared property can be effortlessly maintained at no cost while the positive cashflow disappears with no trace. If the property is cashflow negative then its capital growth must be underpinned by cash every year. So the cost base at the end must include all that cash inflationary adjusted plus the opportunity costs as the “lucky” investor can’t buy anything while that cash-thirsty property vacuums all spare dollars from their budget. The assumption that positive cashflow simply “disappears” is fundamentally flawed. One can buy several positively geared properties within a year and the capital base keeps growing with no single cent pumped into it. Over 5 years period an investor may only afford one negatively geared cash-thirsty property. Alternativelly they may acquire 10 positively geared properties over the same time. So the scenario 1 one “good” investment-grade property worth $700K is bought and in 7-10 years they may or may not get $1.4M depending on the market or virus or elections while pumping $15K cash every year into it guaranteed. Inflationary adjusted accumulated cash injections are worth $250K over this period and the cost base is close to $950K. The gross profit is $450K with no cent paid in principal of this negatively geared property. (The loan is still $700K and the rest $250 is your own cash inflationary adjusted. making $950 cost base). Take off the stamp duty and you’d be lucky to walk away with $400K profit before capital gains tax. Scenario 2: invest $300K in cash flow positive property 5 years ago and keep buying 2-3 of them every year by reinvesting over 5 years reaching 10 with no extra cent added to it. The result is $4.7M capital base over 10 properties at the end (as these properties still grow at 4-6% per annum). So in scenario 1 the investor hardly gets $400K given all risks. With the Scenario 2 the investor gets $4.7M capital less $2.7M residual loans as the positive cashflow may even pay some $300K principal over 5 years. $2M profit with less risks beats $400K every day. A correct approach is that the total return has to be considered both the capital growth and cashflow. The positive cashflow has many benefits. Importantly it allows expanding the capital base often at a much higher rate than even bravest capital growth predictions of any single property. Yours truly.



    May 31, 2018 Vigenix Pills

    I really wanted to write a note to express gratitude
    to you for all the fabulous instructions you are showing
    on this site. My time consuming internet search has finally been compensated
    with reputable concept to talk about with my friends and family.

    I would repeat that many of us site visitors actually
    are unequivocally endowed to dwell in a great place with very many lovely professionals with very beneficial guidelines.

    I feel pretty fortunate to have encountered your entire web
    page and look forward to plenty of more enjoyable times reading here.
    Thank you again for all the details.



    May 8, 2018 Finn

    How does it work out once you include the higher yield of the original property?


      Michael Yardney

      May 8, 2018 Michael Yardney

      Finn – it depends if you’re investing for yield or capital growth, but I assume you’d also like your yield to go up over time.
      Sure you need yield – cash flow- to keep you in the game, but it is taxed. On the other hand capital growth will get you out of the rat race


Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.


Copyright © Michael Yardney’s Property Investment Update Important Information
Content Marketing by GridConcepts