Portfolio Dashboard
Track your barbell position
Portfolio Value
$2,245,000
Total Equity
$1,012,875
Portfolio LVR
54.9%
Monthly Cash Flow
$-1,586
Active Alerts
Barbell Balance
Safe End
33%
Middle
67%
Speculative
0%
Full Portfolio Lens
All assets — anonymisedThe load-bearing wall is Kieran's salary. P1 and P3 together demand $27,535/yr of external subsidy, both owner-funded, both with zero named optionality, both with break-even rates (4.32% and 3.76%) sitting uncomfortably close to current variable pricing. A single shock — job loss, or +1% sustained — converts P1 into a forced-seller path within months (equity buffer ~$82k against a ~$19.7k annual bleed at +1%), while P3 has more equity cushion and a converging real trajectory (LVR 61.3 → 38.3 by y10, subsidy decaying to ~$2,260 real by y10, self-funded by y13) that makes the long-horizon thesis defensible *if* employment persists and the ruin path doesn't trigger first. P1 does not have that dignity: it is fragile on the 12-month path AND its trajectory only crosses self-funded at y14 with no land component to repurpose — the Melbourne off-the-plan cemetery is the exact pattern. The shape across everything is not a barbell. P2 is the only genuinely self-funded asset (break-even 13.61%, real ruin path is geographic demand collapse, not rates), super is robust-but-opaque on a multi-decade horizon, and the offset cash (I2) is the only position with real optionality — five named options, dry powder, convex to disorder. The speculative end is the cash, not any property. The turkey pattern lives in P3: five years of held tenancy and employed-owner feeding, trajectory looks tidy on paper, and the day-1001 event is correlated employment-and-vacancy, not rates in isolation. Via negativa: P1 is the asset to remove or reduce — short ruin path, zero optionality, strata costs outside the owner's control, no land, and a trajectory that takes 14 years to stop bleeding. Removing it would cut total subsidy by 52%, free equity into the optionality bucket (I2), and leave a shape that is actually two-ended: P2 + super as the survivable end, cash as the convex end, P3 as the one owner-funded position whose trajectory math earns its keep provided the salary holds. The missing piece across the whole portfolio is named optionality inside the property sleeve — three properties, zero options between them; nothing can be subdivided, converted, or repurposed under stress.
Property Scan
5/18/2026The portfolio has no speculative end — I will not force the barbell frame onto it. The actual shape is: one robust self-funded asset (Newbridge, 18.5% LVR, surviving +200bps with room) carrying two owner-funded negatively-geared assets (Clayton and Beresford) that together require $27,535/yr of external salary subsidy to stay alive. Newbridge's 81.5% equity is the entire safety system for the portfolio; Clayton is past break-even with strata-controlled costs and zero land optionality; Beresford is past break-even but has a converging trajectory if salary and tenancy hold. Total named optionality across three properties: zero. The portfolio's survival is not a property question — it is a question about the continuity of Kieran's employment and the resilience of Newbridge's equity.