The Government’s Plans to Fix Housing Affordability

“Waaaah!” wailed my son.

Tragedy had struck: our golden retriever had used his favourite toy tractor as a makeshift bone.

“Dad … can you fix it?”

I looked at my distraught son.

I looked at the mangled remains of his little John Deere toy tractor, covered in bite marks, missing two wheels, and encased in a film of dog slobber.

“You can fix anything  … right Dad?”

“Oh … umm … sure”, I mumbled, avoiding eye contact with son number one.

Hello, Mr Fix It

A thousand kilometres away another Scott (Morrison, the Federal Treasurer) was having his own chewed-up screwed-up moment: right now millions of kids are asking the Treasurer  … “Please Mister Sco-Mo, can you fix the housing market for us?”

Like me, deep down Sco-Mo knows he can’t really fix anything.

Like me, he also knows no one wants to hear that ... so he’s just trying to keep everyone happy (and keep his job).

Still, he and Malcolm-in-the-Middle have only themselves to blame for the political pickle they’re in. After all, they were the ones who boldly declared that the centrepiece of next month’s Federal Budget would be policies to fix the mangled mess that is housing affordability. And, just like my son, first homebuyers are now staring at Sco-Mo expectantly. A good example of which was the front webpage headline in the Fairfax papers this week: “Government aiming to fix housing deposit problem so young buyers can purchase ‘as soon as possible’.” (No pressure, Sco-Mo!)

And so the pre-Budget tradition of leaking ideas to the media to see what sticks or stinks is in full swing. The big idea that has had more leaks than the Titanic is allowing first homebuyers to raid a few years of their super contributions to build up a deposit. This week the Treasurer again refused to rule the idea out. Though in this he at odds with his boss, who described it in 2015 as a “thoroughly bad idea”. And, as I go to print, the Prime Minister appears to have put his foot down (though with Malcolm that would be a gentle tap of his $800 brogues) and said it won’t happen.

In reality, their hands are tied. The Government doesn’t have the political ticker to touch negative gearing, despite the fact that the current rules favour investors over homebuyers and encourage loss-making property speculation.  (Research from Digital Finance Analytics this month shows that one in three Sydney landlords risks being under financial stress should rents fall or rates rise. History shows that, when a downturn occurs, property investors often rush to sell -- unlike owner-occupiers, many of whom would sell the dog to keep their family home.) And while the Government is making noises about trying to encourage oldies to downsize, they don’t have the kahunas to include the primary residence in the asset test for the age pension.

Canberra Can’t Solve a Damn Thing

Look, I’m no Rhodes scholar (like, say, Tony Abbott, who incidentally is a big fan of raiding super), but the only sustainable ‘fix’ for housing affordability is lower property prices.  And it’ll happen anyway at some stage. Fact is, Australia’s household debt is out of control. Our household debt-to-GDP sits at 123 per cent -- the third highest in the developed world, and much higher than the Poms (88 per cent) and the Yanks (79 per cent), and basically twice as much as the bloody Greeks (62 per cent)!

So, as I’ve said many times before, we’ve got debts at all-time record highs when interest rates are at all-time record lows. When interest rates rise -- and they will, eventually -- house prices will fall, and housing affordability will be fixed (YAY!). The only problem is, you may not have a job as we slide into recession (BOO!).

But don’t expect anyone in Canberra to talk about this.  Even though they’re chauffeured around in fancy cars with little flags on the bonnet, that doesn’t mean they know what’s going on … or that they’ll admit how worried they really are. Heck, even the people who set interest rates don’t have much of an idea. Case in point: at the height of the US housing boom, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was interviewed on television:

Interviewer: "We have so many economists saying this is a bubble, and it could even cause a recession at some point. What is the worst-case scenario, if we saw prices fall substantially around the country?

"Bernanke: “Well, I guess I don’t buy your premise. It’s a pretty unlikely possibility. We’ve never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So what I think is more likely is that house prices will slow ... maybe stabilise.”

The US housing bust triggered the deepest financial crisis in living memory. Yet here’s the interesting thing: the beginnings of the US housing bubble can be traced back to 1995, when then President Bill Clinton passed legislation to … tackle housing affordability. So the lesson here is simple: don’t look to anyone -- except yourself -- to fix your problems. After all, Scott has enough of his own. “

Waaaah!” 

Tread Your Own Path!

A $25,000 Gift to First Home Buyers?

Should first home buyers be allowed to raid their super to fund a house deposit?

“No”, declared Malcolm Turnbull boldly in 2015, before adding that it was “a thoroughly bad idea”.

Then again, in 2015 the Minister for Networth also said that he thought Tony was doing a dinky-di job …

And that’s the perfect frame for what’s going on with the current housing debate: it’s got nothing to do with creating effective policy — and everything to do with politics.

Right now housing affordability is the ultimate “bbq stopper” issue, and the Government wants to be seen to be doing something about it on Budget night.

My worry is that if first home buyers aren’t careful they may find themselves with apples in their mouths and a banker sharpening up a pointy metal rod in the years to come.

Let me explain.

What do you think would happen if I walked around at an auction and handed first home buyers an extra $25,000 from their super funds?

They’d just throw in a few higher bids.

Then after the house sold they’d say … “By jingo, look at how much prices are jumping! Thank god I was able to access my super!”

A Lesson from the Canadians

Thankfully we don’t have to rely on make-believe scenarios where I walk around doling out dough like some housing super Santa. That’s because our resource-rich cousins, Canada, already have a similar super-housing scheme that’s been running since the 1992.

It’s called the Home Buyers’ Plan, and it allows first home buyers to borrow $25,000 from their retirement account to fund a deposit. The catch is that you have to make tax-free repayments each year — otherwise you’re hit with penalty tax.

So how’s it worked out for the Canucks?

Not well.

Data from the Canadian Revenue Agency in 2013 suggested that almost half the borrowers had yet to pay anything back.

Why?

Well, I’ll take a stab in the dark and suggest it’s probably because they can’t afford to make the repayments. They’re what I call ‘postcode povvos’. All the 25 grand did was help stretch themselves into a tight spot that they now can’t get out of.

D’oh!

A Massive Mistake

Okay, but has the Home Buyers’ Plan at least helped make housing more affordable over the last 25 years?

Well, no.

Canada is recognised as having some of the most unaffordable property in the world. In fact, the Bank of Canada (our version of the Reserve Bank) has gone so far as to produce a Youtube video that warns the public how their record high household debt and inflated house prices could combine to devastate the economy.

Scary stuff.

And guess what? Australia actually has higher household debt, and more unaffordable homes, than Canada.

Double d’oh!

One of the original Canadian MPs who signed off on the Home Buyers’ Plan, Garth Turner, now calls the program a “massive mistake”, and has warned our government not to go down the same path.

Turner calculates that young Canadians have taken $30 billion from their long-term retirement accounts that may never be repaid — money that should be compounding away and providing for their retirement.

So will it happen here?

Well, we’re still seven weeks away from Budget night. And the fact that the Government refused to rule out the idea this week suggests that — in the time-honoured political tradition that is Budget night — they’re contemplating putting common sense aside.

Whatever happens, just remember that 2015-Malcolm was right: this is a thoroughly bad idea.

Tread Your Own Path!

Update: Pay The Screamers First

Just over a year ago, I wrote about a company called Nant Whisky.

Nant had come up with a neat little investing scheme that involved investors buying Nant whisky barrels via their Self Managed Super Funds (SMSFs). Nant guaranteed to buy the barrels back in four years for a 9.55 per cent per annum compound return. Smooth stuff.

The problem for the investors was that the person behind the ‘guaranteed buyback’ was a bankrupt Gold Coast businessman by the name of Keith Batt.

In the process of writing the piece, I interviewed Batt and said to him point blank: “Keith, I think you’re selling whisky barrels that don’t exist … so what I want to know is this: when are you going to run off with people’s money?”

Batt didn’t bat an eyelid: “We will buy back the investors’ barrels in four years’ time.”

After my piece was published I was flooded with emails from Nant investors.

They nearly all said the same thing: “Well, I guess I’ve lost my money (sad emoji).”

Yet there was one investor, a bloke by the name of Fraser, who played it very, very well.

I actually spoke to him on the phone and gave him this advice:

“Look, this thing is going down quicker than a scrawny teenager who’s drunk way too much of his dad’s whisky. But these guys almost always have some money set aside to pay off the screamers. So be the screamer.”

At that stage Keith Batt was still publicly assuring his investors that things were hunky dory … but wasn’t giving them back their dough.

Fraser started screaming. He must have emailed Nant 30 times demanding payment.

That’s not an exaggeration.

I know, because he cc’d me on every one of them.

It was like I was in inter-office corporate hell: “Why I am getting all these freaking emails?!”

Well, turns out I wasn’t the only one with email fatigue: Fraser got all his money back from Nant.

Last week the ABC reported investors were “terrified” of losing their money, after the Herald Sun revealed an audit had found that over 700 barrels (sold to investors for $12,500 a pop) never had a drop of whisky in them.

And now the receivers have been called in.

And what about Mr Batt?

Well, he told the media that he’s no longer a director of Nant, and that he has “no legal connection to Nant Distillery or any Nant company”.

I spoke to Fraser last night and got his approval to tell you this yarn.

It sounded like he was in a pub … hopefully enjoying a smooth whisky.

Cheers, Fraser.

You played a screamer, mate.

Here’s a Shout Out to All the Renters

I froze.

Live on television.

The sweat welled up my back, and in my ears, making the voice coming from my plastic earpiece crackle.

“Scott … What do you have to say to the caller?”

Thankfully this moment happened at the start of my career. And thankfully it happened on Sky News (audience: seven Young Liberals) on a low-budget talkback show that consisted of the audience calling up and asking an expert money questions.

(I was the expert.)

Unfortunately for me, the first caller happened to be a bitter former colleague, who decided he was suitably sloshed to call up the show and take me down a peg or two, live on TV:

“And why should anyone lisssen to yoo? You don’t even own ya own home. You’re a … RENTER!”

For a good 20 seconds I sat in front of the camera saying nothing, swimming in my own insecurities.

Maybe he was right. I mean, what sort of financial expert was I if I didn’t even own my own home?

At the time my lack of homeownership gave me an inferiority complex. I felt like I was locked out of the grown-ups club. Like I didn’t belong at the big people’s table at Christmas lunch: “Put on your silly paper hat and go and sit at the card table with the other kids.”

“But I’m 28!”

“But you’re still a renter!”

If you, dear reader, are a renter, you know the feeling.

And you probably wish it didn’t matter to you as much as it does.

That’s why I’m doing a shout-out to all the renters.

Don’t Become a Postcode Povvo

There’s a lot of pressure on young people to become postcode povvos. That’s the name I give to people who hock themselves to the hilt so they can live in a fancy suburb … and end up living lives of quiet desperation.

In January, an extensive study of 26,000 Australian households by Digital Finance Analytics found that around 20 per cent of homeowners — one in five — are so stretched that they could lose their homes if interest rates rose by even 0.5 per cent.

O.M.G.

So let’s put down the crack pipe for a moment. What the hell are these people thinking?

I’ll tell you what they’re thinking, because I have conversations with them all the time:

“My mother is so proud of me” (plus, she also gets to brag to her friends that you’re ‘sorted’).

“The bank lent me the money, and they wouldn’t have done it if I couldn’t pay it back … right?”

“House prices are going through the roof, so while things are tight now, it’ll surely pay off.”

Like a cranky old high school maths teacher, I’m continually amazed that most people make the biggest financial decision of their lives without actually doing the sums. Don’t get me wrong — plenty of people spend hours working out ‘how much can I borrow, and what will that get me?’

Yet very few people calculate the total cost of homeownership (rates, maintenance, insurance, higher interest rates in the future) or think realistically about how long they plan to live in the home they buy. Upgrading in less than 10 years is almost always a wealth-reducing exercise when you factor in stamp duty and agents’ fees.

You’re Not a Loser if You Rent

Despite what everyone around you might say, there are many intelligent reasons why you would choose to continue to rent and save, rather than borrow and buy:

Like that you haven’t found your prince (or princess) yet. Or that you’re not sure where your career will take you. Or that you can’t afford it right now — that’s a bloody good reason.

Fifteen years of being the Barefoot Investor, together with the 19,000 questions I have sitting on my email database right now, has taught me this: very often it’s the case of the rich renter and the poor homeowner. So chin up, renters. Pull those shoulders back. Delaying gratification is a sign of maturity — a sign of strength.

If I could teleport myself back to that TV show, I would stare down the barrel of the camera and say:

“While I think everyone should eventually own their own home, I don’t think you should rush into it. I don’t own a home because I’m still saving up my deposit. It’s not easy. In fact, it’s a bloody hard slog. But it’s a much better than being a broke homeowner or — worse — a postcode povvo.”

Tread Your Own Path!

Real Estate Mistakes

A couple of years ago I hosted a 13-week prime time television show.

Don’t remember it?

There’s a reason for that … it was axed after the second episode.

I found out about its premature death via a text message (!) from the network. It started out promising — “We LOVE the show” — but went quickly downhill — “And we’ll play out the rest of the series on one of the digital channels … sometime.”

Television is a brutal game.

Then again, so is the property market, which is what the show was about.

If we’d made it to the later episodes, you would have seen a young couple making a life-changing mistake.

Spurred on by her father, the couple were half-heartedly bidding at an auction on an absolute dump of a joint. You could tell they didn’t want it, and you could also tell that they really couldn’t afford it.

And then the unthinkable happened … the bloke they were bidding against suddenly put his hands in his pockets and shook his head, and the auctioneer turned around and shouted “SOLD!” to the shellshocked couple.

Real Estate Mistakes

So let’s talk about the two biggest mistakes that first home buyers make.

The first mistake they make is they buy a home they can’t afford. They’re often spurred on by the ‘advice’ of family, friends, real estate agents and bank managers — none of whom have the responsibility of repaying the debt for the next 30 years.

That explains why I’m a stickler for saving up a 20 per cent deposit. Yes, a good deposit means that you don’t have to pay Lenders Mortgage Insurance (LMI), which can cost homeowners upwards of $13,000 simply to insure their bank. And yes, it also means you’ll be able to negotiate a cheaper rate with the bank. But the main payoff from saving a 20 per cent deposit is that you will have proven to yourself that you can handle a huge mortgage.

How long does it take to save up a 20 per cent deposit? Well, the average full-time pre-tax wage in Australia is $78,832 or $5,000 a month in the hand (excluding super). So a couple both earning average wages could live off one income (very frugally) and save a $100,000 deposit in 21 months.

The second mistake first home buyers make is … buying the wrong home.

It happens every weekend. Property prices in our capital cities are so insanely high that many young couples get worn down by being continually outbid on places. Some get so desperate they wind up behaving like a boozed-up bloke at a nightclub when last drinks are called … “You’re here; you’ll do”.

I get emails from people most weeks saying things like, “We know it’s tiny, a little dumpy, and totally not in the area we want to end up … but it’s only temporary.”

Haemorrhoids are temporary … a $650,000 home is anything but.

Trust me on this. The biggest purchase of your life shouldn’t be a chew-your-arm-off-in-the-morning moment. You should only buy a home that you can happily live in for at least 10 years.

Reason being, the costs of buying and selling (hello stamp duty and agent’s fees) mean that you will likely be out of pocket if you plan on selling within a few years. Also, the idea of turning your home into an investment property and upgrading is generally a bad idea from a tax (and investment) point of view.

The bottom line is that if you can’t commit to a 10-year timeframe then you’d be better off renting.

Yet that doesn’t mean you should hold off buying until you can afford to live in a trophy suburb. Far from it. When my wife and I went looking for our place in the country, we decided to rent there for a year. “You should rent in the country for a while… make sure she doesn’t miss her soy lattes”, my father wisely advised. It was good advice, given my wife, Liz, was brought up in North Fitzroy where even the ducks have their own bike lanes.

In that year of renting we got a feel for the joint. Not only did we become part of the community, we also got to study the market. I made friends with local real estate agents and even did a letterbox drop of places I wanted to buy.

In the end, the day we bought our home was one of the best days of my life. Not only could we afford it, but we knew it was the home we’d never leave (well, until it burnt to the ground). I actually sealed the deal by proposing to Liz on the verandah.

Okay, so you may not go that far, but I guarantee you that every first home buyer feels a sense of freedom from finally being able to delete the Real Estate app from their phone. Not only did Liz and I get our weekends back, but we now had a place to call home.

As my mum says, “Life doesn’t always turn out like it does on TV”. And thank God for that.

Tread Your Own Path!

Meet the pizza boy with 14 properties

“Former Domino’s pizza delivery boy who earned $10 an hour owns 14 renovated properties and is now semi-retired at the age of 28 (and he says you can do it too)” read the headline this week.

And all the renters groaned.

Okay, so paint me purple and call me Dorothy but after more than a decade of doing this, my bulldust detector starts beeping whenever a young buck appears in the press crowing about owning 14 properties and retiring before he's 30 ... especially when his version of ‘retirement’ is running a property investment advisory business. Or maybe I’m just a dinosaur?

Either way, this type of ‘property porn’ always sucks in the eyeballs -- and with good reason.

House prices are our Vietnam ... man.

The war between landlords and renters has been a bitter and bloody two-decade-long battle. Over that time home-ownership rates of people aged 25 to 45 years have been in free-fall. The result being that young people are now increasingly middle aged before they get the keys to their first home.

40 is the new 30

According to research last year from ING, the average age of a first home owner in Australia is 38.A generation ago you’d hope to own your own home outright by 40. Today you’re just getting started -- so you are basically the housing equivalent of Janet Jackson (who announced this week she’s pregnant ... at 50).

And of course the banks can, and do, discriminate against older first-time borrowers. It’s simple maths: if you’re 40 and you take out a 30-year loan, you’ll still be working at 70 … or the same age that Janet will be on her kid’s 21st birthday.

So is there a way to fast-track it into your first home?You betcha.Enter the bank of Mum and Dad.

The Quickest Way into Your First Home

Research released this week from Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) estimates that the number of first time home-buyers getting a leg-up from their parents has increased from just 3 per cent six years ago to more than half today.

In fact, DFA found that over two-thirds of older homeowners who refinanced homes worth more than $750,000 did so for reasons that included helping their kids.

And how much are they giving?

DFA states that at the start of 2010 parents were handing over $23,000 -- today it’s more than $80,000.

There are three ways parents give that gift.

They can guarantor their kids’ loan by taking out a second mortgage on their family home (and you’d be totally bonkers to do this).

They can offer a limited guarantee -- say for a 20 per cent deposit. This has a couple of advantages: the kids won’t have to pay expensive Lenders Mortgage Insurance (LMI), and the parents know exactly what they’re on the hook for. Yet in the words of Pauline, “I don’t like it.”

Or retired parents can take a lump sum out of their super and hand it over to their kids to use as a deposit. That’s the cleanest option, though I won’t be doing it for my children.

Why?

A couple of reasons:

First, if a bank that earns $10 billion a year in profits deems your kid a risk -- why should you stump up?

Second, mixing money with family is never a good idea.

For the parents -- many of who are trying to fund their own retirement -- it sets a dangerous and expensive precedent for other children.

And for the kids, having your parents as your financial backstop could invite ‘boundary issues’...

“You know your mother and I didn’t lay down carpet until 1982? We sat on a cement slab for the first four years of our marriage. It gave your mother piles yet she’s still around, isn’t she? But you kids have to have it all now, doncha, with your fancy carpet and curtains.”

And …

“Why are you going on an overseas holiday / buying that car / talking to me like that ... when we helped you out with your home? Is that all the thanks we get?”

Planning for the Worst, Hoping for the Best

I’ve been called everything under the sun for my steadfast advice to save up a 20 per cent deposit. People have accused me of being out of touch. Mortgage brokers disagree and say ‘just borrow 90% … or get an interest only loan’. Real estate agents say ‘house prices are going up faster than you can save’.

None of these arguments change my advice.

The fact is we live in a country with the highest household debt in the world -- at a time when interest rates are the lowest point in history. All I’m concerned with is keeping first home buyers safe. And the best way to prepare yourself for taking on a massive 30-year commitment is to cut the apron strings and spend three or four years saving like mad.And what about our property-mogul pizza delivery boy?

Well I called him up and had a chat with him this week -- and I’ve got to admit that I was impressed.

When he started out, he lived with his parents and saved up a 20 per cent deposit with a low-paid job (and they don’t come much more low paid than delivering plastic pizzas), and he bought a little unit in the boonies. In other words, he scrapped, saved, and made things happen.

And then … it seems the Capricciosa went to his head. He just kept on leveraging up. Now, owning 14 properties on a low income at a time when interest rates are at all time lows (and have to come up some time) is not something I’d do. Then again, what’s the worst that could happen? He could go bust and … end up delivering pizzas for a living.

Still, hats off to the kid -- he’s got more guts than a freshly delivered Domino’s MeatLovers.

Tread Your Own Path!

Scott

The Real Estate Mistakes Most First Home Buyers Are Making

“Aussie Dream is Dying” read a newspaper headline earlier in the week.

I happened to be reading the article as I was waiting for a coffee. So I turned to my hipster barista -- who was all beardy and tattooed and David Beckham-like -- and read him the following sentence:

“The Australian dream of homeownership will reach a tipping point, possibly as soon as next year, when fewer than half of all adults are expected to own a property.”

Barista: “Bang on, brother! Why would I bother spending my twenties saving for a deposit … it’s hopeless prices just keep going up. And what do you have to show for it -- nothing!”

Barefoot: “Well, nothing but … EIGHTY THOUSAND BUCKS.”

By my reckoning he’d put precisely as much thought into getting his neck tattoo as he had his long-term financial security. He’s not unique. After being Barefoot for 15-odd years, I’ve spoken to literally thousands of young people about making the biggest purchase of their lives -- here are the five biggest mistakes they make.

Mistake #1: They’ve given up

Ever wondered why news websites publish so many stories about an impending housing crash?

Because it’s clickbait to a generation that’s priced out of the market and have given up -- thinking their only hope for buying is a crash.

That’s a cop-out.You can’t plan your life around something you have no control over -- the only thing you can control is yourself, and your savings situation. The time to start preparing to seize opportunity is right now.

Brass tacks?The average full-time pre-tax wage in Australia is $75,000, or $4,800 a month in the hand. So, a couple both earning full-time wages could live off one income (very frugally) and save a $100,000 deposit in 21 months.

Still, your mind should be set on owning your home outright, rather than just limping over the line with a deposit. Think of it this way: saving a deposit is like the Socceroos beating Togo to qualify for the World Cup. It’s the beginning of the campaign, not the end.

Which leads me to the second mistake first homebuyers make.

Mistake #2: They buy a home when they can’t afford it

They mortgage themselves to the hilt.

There’s a reason Australia has the highest household debts on the planet: we borrow too much.

One rule that I’ve lived by, is to borrow less than the bank is willing to lend.

What comes after a bird makes its nest?

Babies … and Baby Bunting bills. And sleep deprivation. And, later, school fees.Professor Bob Cummins from Deakin University has found that financial stress has similar effects on the body as physical torture.

Is it any wonder that the median duration from wedding bells to divorce bills is 12 years?

The truth is that buying a home creates financial stress and insecurity -- until you manage to get ahead of your mortgage. As all homeowners know, running a home is expensive, costing up to 5 per cent of the purchase price each year.

And this is compounded if you take on more debt that you can afford.

Mistake #3: They buy an investment property first

Here’s the pitch that young couples give me: “We’ll buy an investment property to start off with, just to get our foot in the game, and then we’ll use the equity to buy our family home in five years.”

I’m yet to see this plan work (the only exception being couples who buy an investment property to eventually move into). Reason being, the upfront costs of owning a home, and the ongoing costs, take years to recoup.Bottom line: If you want a family home, save up and buy one.

Mistake #4: They don’t consider other options

My hipster mate had written off the entire housing market, because he wouldn’t live in a suburb whose cafes didn’t serve organic tofu and coconut water.

However, there are options if you really want to buy your own place. You can move to the city. Currently my prediction (made 12 months ago) of an apartment bloodbath in capital city CBDs by 2018 is going swimmingly, especially in Melbourne, with press reports of apartments being re-sold at discounts of up to 30 per cent from their original off-the-plan purchase price.

Some desperate developers are offering holidays to Fiji and Bali worth $5,000, for buying a $350,000 one bedroom apartment. (Is anyone that stupid? It reminds me of Homer Simpson buying a pirate pregnancy test just because it came with a free whistle.) Don’t trip to Bali or Fiji just yet. Prices are likely to go lower as the oversupply really kicks in.

Or you can move to a country area and have less of a mortgage, less stress, and more time to spend with their kids. That’s what I did.

Mistake #5: They don’t back themselves

Yes, we’re living through the greatest housing boom in history (according to The Economist).

However, there’s no reason you can’t get yourself a home if you want to -- even if you’re single.

When I met my wife, she’d bought a little apartment on her own (with an oven she found on the side of a road, no less!). No help from anyone -- just savings and a determination that a man didn’t need to be her financial plan. And the Barefoot community has heaps of single people on average incomes who’ve bought their (capital city) homes.

They’re everyday people, just like my hipster mate.

Tread Your Own Path!