Investment - Trying to not be behind

OrangeCounty on 19/06/2025 - 15:04
Last edited 19/06/2025 - 15:06

Hi All,

My friends and family all have property, but I do not have any to my name. I don't want to be behind, I know I shouldn't compare. But recently, I think I'll need a place to fall back on if things go sour, I'll need a property down the line for a family or to live in my dream home (this could be a stepping stone, as property will grow, generally speaking). All these years I thought what goes up, must come down, but property hasn't shown that in Sydney since I was born.

I am 30 year old, I have a loan approval for 1m. But I looked around Sydney for a house 500m2 + on a quiet street as an investment with potential to build grannyflat in the rear and it is getting too difficult. Areas of which I found were close to Liverpool area, Blacktown and Campbeltown area for an old 3 bedder.

What I would like to ask from the Ozbargain fam is, should I invest my nest egg in Victoria?
You can still buy a decent house for that less than 1m, for example the 5 bed and 3 bath here for 700k, meaning the loan would be 560k. You can't get anything like that in NSW 1 to 1.5 hours from the CBD. While in Victoria you can get something 1 to 1.5 hours from the CBD.

13 Ribblesdale Avenue, Wyndham Vale, Vic 3024
https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-vic-wyndham+val…

I thought of Qld, Tas, but I feel like Vic can have room for growth down the track?

I'm from Sydney NSW.

Thanks All!

Financial Investment

Comments

Gunnar on 19/06/2025 - 15:07

What’s your plans for it? Long term investment? Flip in a few years?

Big differences in what/where to buy
- OrangeCounty on 19/06/2025 - 15:07
  
  +1
  
  Long term investment.
  - AustriaBargain on 19/06/2025 - 18:26
    
    +2
    
    Stocks and bonds are a better long term investment. Warren Buffet says he wishes he rented instead of buying a house and used the saved money to buy more stocks and bonds, says he would have had billions more today if he did.
    - star-ggg on 19/06/2025 - 22:07 Comment score below threshold.
      - AustriaBargain on 20/06/2025 - 00:29
        
        @star-ggg: But if you look at the returns on houses and the returns on stocks and bonds since Buffet bought his house, what he says it's true. It's not even close.
        
        star-ggg on 20/06/2025 - 01:03
        
        +1
        
        @AustriaBargain: There's a comment below that over 20 years the Asx200 and their property returned roughly the same. If the capital growth is roughly the same then the ROC on property has to be higher cause property is leveraged to 80% LVR.
        
        AustriaBargain on 20/06/2025 - 01:38
        
        +4
        
        @star-ggg: Over the long term, the S&P 500 has averaged around 9–10% annually, including dividends and growth. Real estate is less liquid and more work, whereas stocks represent businesses that generate actual profits, and who reinvest earnings, and grow over time. Most of the wealth in housing comes from leverage (e.g., mortgages), not the asset’s performance alone.
        
        Buffett hates leverage when it involves borrowing large amounts at scale with risk of capital calls or default. Australian property benefited from very favourable macro trends (population growth, tax policy, and a credit-fueled boom), which may not be repeatable.
        
        SlickMick on 20/06/2025 - 09:02
        
        +5
        
        @AustriaBargain: Buffett doesn't need to leverage. Most of us do.
        I will end up with more buying a $1M house than buying $200K worth of shares.
        
        AustriaBargain on 20/06/2025 - 09:15
        
        +1
        
        @SlickMick: Do you think over the next 30 years a 7% yearly growth in house values is feasible? That'd make that 1 million dollar house worth over 7 million. How is that sustainable, who will be paying that much for a house 30 years from now? If average increase in value was 3% you'd lose money (assuming you had a 200k deposit). If the loony Greens get in power in the next decade and remove house investment incentives, build tower blocks everywhere, and just generally do everything possible to increase supply and services/transport to the new supply…
        
        Rupert Murdoch is going to die in the next 10 years and the Coalition may never have majority government again, anything is possible.
        
        SlickMick on 20/06/2025 - 09:20
        
        @AustriaBargain: Yes. There is nothing more precious than real estate - it's a limited resource and every generation will compete to get some.
        
        Sure, the game could change. If we have an excess of homes in the future, I will change my mind.
        
        AustriaBargain on 20/06/2025 - 09:21
        
        +2
        
        @SlickMick: Japan had a housing bubble/crisis, Japan did something to tackle it, and now they have 10 million vacant homes.
        
        SlickMick on 20/06/2025 - 10:37
        
        @AustriaBargain: Do you see that happening here?
        
        Daabido on 21/06/2025 - 14:23
        
        @AustriaBargain: Did you forget about Lachlan?
        
        AustriaBargain on 21/06/2025 - 14:30
        
        @Daabido: I've seen the end of Succession. Lachlan doesn't get the votes because he was mean to the other siblings in the irrevocable trust and he killed a waiter. News Corp gets carved up and sold in little pieces.
        
        Hangryuman on 21/06/2025 - 19:22
        
        +2
        
        @SlickMick: yep - 3% growth on a $1M house geared with a 20% loan, becomes 15% growth on your investment or $30Kpa
        
        to get $30Kpa with $200K shares you'd need 15% growth
        
        easier to get 3% growth than 15% growth
        
        and did you know - that the ASX index is regularly changed to drop underperforming shares and replace them with good performing shares ?
        
        so to say you can easily match the ASX growth may be like saying you can easily become a billionare by gambling …
        
        SlickMick on 21/06/2025 - 21:02
        
        +1
        
        @Hangryuman: I thought @AustriaBargain's figures didn't sound right, but didn't bother doing the maths. Your figures sound much better :)
        
        re gambling on ASX, I setup a SMSF about the same time my brother started day trading. Just picking value stocks to hold seemed like gambling to me. What by brother was doing I totally consider gambling. (I think he lost too, coz he doesn't do it any more.)
        I only buy index-tracking ETFs now. So I reckon that's really close to a guaranteed 8% return in the long run, so long as I can avoid ever selling low.
        
        john_conner on 22/06/2025 - 11:52
        
        @Hangryuman: The performance of the index can be matched by purchasing an index tracking ETF. The determination of whether a stock is included is based on the market cap, not performance. But yes if the stock loses too much market cap because its price has dropped(price x number of shares = market cap), it will be removed from the index. At the same time ETFs will rebalance their portfolios. So yes it is incredibly easy to match the performance of the share market. Whether that said performance is up or down is another matter.
        
        It is also possible to leverage and purchase ETFs
        
        star-ggg on 20/06/2025 - 09:15
        
        +2
        
        @AustriaBargain: Buffett didn't become Buffett by buying the S&P500 returning 9-10% p.a. I don't understand why you keep bringing him up when advocating for passive index investment. He's an active fund manager with 383,000 employees that take big bets on select companies. Property investment is more management work than index investment but a lot less work than trying to replicate Buffett.
        
        As for using leverage, property has the lowest historical drawdown outside of bonds. Sure, "history is not an indicator of future performance" but that applies to any asset or investment strategy.
        
        AustriaBargain on 20/06/2025 - 09:20
        
        @star-ggg: Because stocks and bonds are actually passive investments you can take long term. The average humble house is not going to cost over seven million dollars 30 years from now, the bubble cannot grow infinitely big. At some point it stops growing or it pops.
        
        SlickMick on 20/06/2025 - 10:39
        
        +1
        
        @AustriaBargain: How many generations have been saying that now? The next generation is still going to want a house, but do you reckon maybe the one after that won't?
        
        AustriaBargain on 20/06/2025 - 11:12
        
        +2
        
        @SlickMick: The next generation needing to live in homes is precisely why you will never see shit holes go for over seven million dollars. In 60 years from now that million dollar shit hole will cost 45 million dollars. In 100 years from now it would be over 850 million dollars. 7% growth is not sustainable, it's not possible, we'd have to be paying $5,000 for our coffees and minimum wage would be $30,000 per hour just to pay for rent. The bubble is not going to keep growing at 7% for the next 30 years. It's going to slow or contract or pop.
        
        JIMB0 on 20/06/2025 - 11:23
        
        +2
        
        @AustriaBargain: They've been saying this for 20 years now. I waited over 10 years for the miracle crash to come, the best we got was when COVID hit, so I bought a house. If I ignored this nonsense from the start I'd be retired with 3 houses by now.
        
        AustriaBargain on 20/06/2025 - 11:40
        
        @JIMB0:
        
        retired with 3 houses by now
        
        Everyone in Australia believing that is exactly why I think the bubble will pop and millions of people will be over leveraged and have their wealth erased. And if the ALP won't do anything about it when current one million dollar shit holes reach two million dollars, the Greens maybe in a coalition with other alternative parties will before shit holes reach three million dollars. In hindsight, sure buying three investment properties with all your spare money 25 years ago is a no brainer. Looking a head though, it could be your financial ruin if your plan hinges on a sustained 7% growth rate or even a 5% growth rate.
        
        SlickMick on 20/06/2025 - 12:34
        
        +2
        
        @AustriaBargain: Maybe those trying to own 30 properties.But while naysayers have been waiting for generations for this "bubble" to burst, everyone else has paid off their loans and laughing at the debate.
        
        JIMB0 on 20/06/2025 - 21:18
        
        +2
        
        @AustriaBargain: I agree, but don't let life pass you by while waiting. I waited over a decade and gave in when I had the cash to buy something decent outright. It was a big relief to be able to get on with life and get out of that crumbling shithole I was renting.
        
        SlickMick on 20/06/2025 - 12:26
        
        @JIMB0: My parents missed fantastic opportunities for the same reason. I bet my grandparents did too.
        
        kiitos on 20/06/2025 - 15:19
        
        +2
        
        @JIMB0: I remember 30 years ago being incredulous that friends bought a house in Sydney's North Shore (4br, large land) for HALF A MILLION DOLLARS. It seemed an outrageous price at the time.
        
        SlickMick on 20/06/2025 - 12:31
        
        @AustriaBargain: Rare commodities just become more and more precious. Each generation will struggle more than the previous to afford something as precious as prime real estate. The future I see, eventually only the super wealthy will own inner city real estate. Average Joe will rent or live in the suburbs.
        
        We clearly have different views. I don't think we'll be around to see who's right.
        
        Goremans on 22/06/2025 - 22:22
        
        +1
        
        @SlickMick: Rare commodities….its planned scarcity. We have SOOOOO much land. And a tiny population. There is nothing "naturally" scarce about housing in Australia.
        
        SlickMick on 22/06/2025 - 22:32
        
        -1
        
        @Goremans: lol some councils have given land to try to attract people to live in their town. And yeah there is plenty of desert etc. That's not the scarce part.
        
        But yeah, something could be done to have more housing available in prime locations, and if there is ever an excess, then I'll change my mind.
        
        Goremans on 23/06/2025 - 21:55
        
        @SlickMick: Desert.. mate there is an insane amount of good land. He'll the gold coast is slowly linking up with the boarder of NSW. Bris to Byron will one day be a strip of urban sprawl. It just depends on how long they dribble out the development
        
        SlickMick on 23/06/2025 - 22:03
        
        @Goremans: Maybe one day if we get superfast trains.
        Meanwhile, a 2 hour commute to work is worse then living in some hick town.
        
        Goremans on 23/06/2025 - 23:34
        
        @SlickMick: I live in a regional town. 5mins drive to work. 5min drive every major big box store. 25mins drive and Im parked (no parking fee) at the ocean. Great cafes, restaurants, rivers and camping 30mins to the west, beautiful ocean 30 mins the east.
        
        No one could pay me enough to live in a city. Done that. Crappy people. No one knows one another.
        
        Hicksville all the way!
        
        SlickMick on 24/06/2025 - 08:29
        
        @Goremans: Me too, and house prices are a little better.
        (Though I did know my city neighbours better coz they're right in your face, whereas it's too far to walk to meet them with decent sized blocks.)
        
        Goremans on 24/06/2025 - 10:28
        
        @SlickMick: The prices are better but in my area its essentially 8-10 times my income. We have about 70k for a deposit earning decent interest. But we cant do that forever.
        
        We want to buy but cant afford a simple old 3 bedroom (theyre all $600,000). We've got a 3 yr old so my partner only works part time.
        
        We want another kid, but that means her stopping work.
        
        It seems the choice is between a family or a home…. thanks Australia
        
        releasethekr4cken on 23/06/2025 - 16:45
        
        @AustriaBargain: falling birthrates make these 40+ year projections even worse.
        
        HuzzahIndeed on 21/06/2025 - 05:48
        
        @SlickMick: Yes the next generation is still going to want a house, however they’re not going to go through and experience the shift that’s happened over the last 25-30 years that’s greatly contributed to the property market price growth. Governments around the world have purposely and strategically taken advantage of the feminist movement, they have changed countries from being a single income economy to a 2 income economy for home affordability.
        
        Hangryuman on 21/06/2025 - 19:29
        
        +2
        
        @AustriaBargain: 'The average humble house is not going to cost over seven million dollars 30 years from now'
        
        people didn't believe Sydney average house price would ever hit $1M … that seemed outrageous some years ago …
        
        now, if you mean the average Sydney house price of say $1M, 7x that in 30 years looks like 6.7%pa growth which has certainly happened in the past
        
        and if you geared that with an 80% loan, that could be like 5x 6.7% = 33.5%pa return on your investment
        
        gromit on 21/06/2025 - 11:45
        
        @AustriaBargain: Shares are definitely better long term returns and also leave your money far more accessible if your circumstances change. BUT, property has a leverage advantage, if it is purely for investment you can leverage a lot higher on property. I use a margin loan for shares and usually limited to 70-80% for bluechip and less for non bluechip, property you can go beyond that magnifying your investment dollar (and risk of course).
      - Bluto Mindpretzel on 23/06/2025 - 18:54
        
        @star-ggg: Every heard of dividends?
        
        star-ggg on 23/06/2025 - 20:13
        
        @Bluto Mindpretzel: Yes, but personally I prefer companies that reinvest profits into themselves for capital growth.
    - Nebargains on 21/06/2025 - 07:16
      
      +1
      
      The problem is leverage. Easy to get on a house.
    - bigbadboogieman on 21/06/2025 - 08:16
      
      +1
      
      The bank won't loan him $1m at 5.5% to invest in stocks and bonds.
      - AustriaBargain on 21/06/2025 - 08:45
        
        @bigbadboogieman: I assumed he would put a minimum deposit on the house or use that same money to buy stocks and bonds with my calculations and reinvesting any dividends along the way.
        
        bigbadboogieman on 21/06/2025 - 09:45
        
        +1
        
        @AustriaBargain: The returns of minimum deposit used to purchase stocks and bonds vs. returns from minimum deposit used to purchase a home using leverage are not apples to apples. The return on house even after taking account of interest will far outstrip returns on only using minimum deposit.
      - Hangryuman on 21/06/2025 - 19:31
        
        +2
        
        @bigbadboogieman: I saw a guy turn from rooster to feather duster when his shares bought with a margin loan went down and he got a margin call requiring him to top up thousands of dollars he didn't have, or lose his shares
        
        bankrupt overnight - I don't see much of those advertised anymore …
        
        bigbadboogieman on 21/06/2025 - 19:59
        
        +1
        
        @Hangryuman: Yeah I agree. Atleast if OP buys housing with leverage, atleast they can live in it.
    - samfisher5986 on 22/06/2025 - 14:46
      
      Stocks and bonds are a better long term investment.
      
      I mean… is it?
      
      Can stocks and bond return a 200k return in 1 year with a 200k investment? a 100% return?
      - V2L on 22/06/2025 - 14:49
        
        @samfisher5986: people find it difficult to get their head around leverage
        CGT benefits are also often overlooked
      - AustriaBargain on 22/06/2025 - 14:56
        
        @samfisher5986:
        
        return a 200k return in 1 year with a 200k investment? a 100% return?
        
        If it were that simple then the banks wouldn't let mere mortals borrow 200k for houses.
        
        samfisher5986 on 22/06/2025 - 14:56
        
        @AustriaBargain: If you stick to a house with land you can get in that range.. obviously there is risk depending on your ability to make good choices.
    - supersabroso on 23/06/2025 - 10:16
      
      No, Warren Buffet says that he doesn't regret buying his property and it's one of the best purchases he's ever made. Your principal place of residence offers more than just financial benefits, it offers peace of mind, belonging and safety. However, he says don't bother with investment properties as stocks are a lot easier and you make more money in the long run. Yes, you definitely need at least one property otherwise you're really rolling the dice. Trust me, nobody wants to be paying $100k/year in rent when they retire!
JimB on 19/06/2025 - 15:14

+10

Where you do want to live long term?

I'd focus on that first rather than an investment.
Porker on 19/06/2025 - 15:19

+1

Just be aware, what you might save on purchase price may be lost elsewhere. As example, Victoria has a temporary 10 year increase on Land Tax payments to recover other financial losses.
- p1 ama on 19/06/2025 - 21:30
  
  +7
  
  As example, Victoria has a temporary 10 year increase on Land Tax payments to recover other financial losses.
  
  The average house price in VIC is around $1m, even if you take ~60% unimproved value of $600k, land tax was previously $1,475 (see: https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/historical-rates-land-tax), now it is $2,250 (see: https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/rates-taxes-duties-and-levies/lan…).
  
  For the average property in VIC, the difference is literally around $800 p.a.
  
  Do you really think this actually has any bearing on property prices? Quit whinging.
  - Tleyx on 21/06/2025 - 17:31
    
    Shows how fragile the whole market is when this $800 has crashed prices
    - serpserpserp on 23/06/2025 - 14:00
      
      +1
      
      Prices are booming in Melbourne the last few weeks
      - Tleyx on 23/06/2025 - 14:23
        
        @serpserpserp: Lol
JIMB0 on 19/06/2025 - 15:40

+6

What a hodge podge of a house. The upstairs is a weatherboard extension and the second bedroom has to come downstairs through the living room just to use the bathroom. Then they've converted the garage to get the 5th bedroom with ensuite, yet there's a seperate building with just a kitchen and living area.

Looks like a DIY Uncle Ian special. Who knows what issues you'll have with it. I hope you drive a micro car if you want to park in the 3.2m long garage.

Despite all this it'll sell for way above the range. I see it all the time where old houses get bodged up. People like shiny new things and fail to notice how cheaply it was renovated for the flip.
- plmko on 19/06/2025 - 17:51
  
  -3
  
  Not sure how in touch you are in the market. But a Picasso special home sells high because people are slumming them out to offset the mortgage.
  
  For students/illegals it's impossible for them to rent through the system. So tenant for an all inclusive share room fetches ~$150/wk.
  
  5 rooms = ~$1000+/wk
  
  Alternatively the separate garage annex could be rented out whilst you live with your family in the main house. Lots of mixed lifestyles to survive these sky high prices.
cloudy on 19/06/2025 - 15:55

+3

I have a friend who has a house approx 7km from melb CBD, and after i think…8 years of investment, he hasn't made money on it (after costs etc). Location is important, and where you're looking is cheap for a good reason. In the last handful of decades of being in vic i've never visited Wyndhan vale, I had to google it lol.
- JimB on 19/06/2025 - 17:00
  
  House or unit? What suburb?
  - cloudy on 22/06/2025 - 22:56
    
    House Maidstone.
    
    On the surface, it would seem he might make some money, but he tells me after all expenses and the would be expense of selling he probably wouln't be making money if he sold right now.
    - JimB on 23/06/2025 - 11:12
      
      That's surprising.
      
      https://www.yourinvestmentpropertymag.com.au/top-suburbs/vic…
      
      2017 median house $667k. 2025 median house $845k. Not much growth but unless he overpaid, he should make some money. But every house is different.
      
      hmmm, $845k 8km from Melbourne CBD. I don't know the area well but seems like a bargain to me. I'd tell your friend to hold on to it.
      
      I'm going to research Maidstone now and why it's so cheap lol.
      - V2L on 23/06/2025 - 11:19
        
        @JimB: last 5 years hasn't been good for VIC properties due to regulatory and macroeconomic factors. it's tipped to catch up in the next 5. definitely don't sell now
      - serpserpserp on 23/06/2025 - 14:02
        
        @JimB: Maidstone is a bit of a hole over on the Sunshine end. But one day it'll get its glow up.
        
        JimB on 23/06/2025 - 15:10
        
        @serpserpserp: Thanks for the tip. I’m assuming the Maribyrnong end is the more expensive end?
        
        nutcase on 26/06/2025 - 20:59
        
        +1
        
        @JimB: The side closer to West Footscray is the better connected side with better demographics, the side north of Ballarat Road is more ethnic and closer to industrial areas with poor public transport.
        
        JimB on 26/06/2025 - 21:05
        
        @nutcase: North of Ballarat rd is 2/3rds of the suburb! Lol
        
        cloudy on 28/06/2025 - 16:10
        
        @JimB: Maribyrnong also suffered from flooding a few years back, it was on the news. And many properties there are still not fixed, or unlivable and uninsurable (look at any place near Anglers Tavern).
        
        Just FYI.
        
        JimB on 30/06/2025 - 14:47
        
        @cloudy: Ouch, I do remember the floods.
        
        Would be devastating if you poured your life savings to buy a home there and you can't get insurance for it. The value would plummet.
      - cloudy on 28/06/2025 - 16:08
        
        @JimB:
        
        2017 median house $667k. 2025 median house $845k.
        
        What i find with these stats is it doesn't show what proportion sold is a 50yr old dump or recently renovated. Obviously the nicer house sells for a fair proportion more, and I'm gonna guess a greater portion of renovated houses hit the market in 2025 compared to 2017 which lifted the price growth but doesn't consider the fact maybe 100k was invested in renovations or something which means there's little real price growth for an investor. Thats only my guess.
        
        I did research and see what my friend paid, and yes its more than what is estimated today, but taking into account thing that needed fixing or new fence or hot water system etc I think i can understand why he says he doesn't think he is making money.
        
        JimB on 30/06/2025 - 14:48
        
        @cloudy: That's a really good point.
        
        Plus, if it's not increasing by CPI you're loosing (real value of) money.
        
        Is your friend planning to hold on or sell?
- Craze on 19/06/2025 - 20:22
  
  Not entirely surprised as units in say Southbank/Docklands aren't great returns despite close proximity to Melb CBD. But curious as to where your friend bought if a house about 7km from CBD and not making money yet.
- Jared17 on 21/06/2025 - 04:55
  
  +1
  
  Houses are for living. Not speculation
  - cloudy on 22/06/2025 - 22:57
    
    I agree, and my friend has found out late.
jv on 19/06/2025 - 16:10

-1

Have you tried buying one in Orange county?
jv on 19/06/2025 - 16:11

-4

13 Ribblesdale Avenue,

13 is not a good investment…

Try, 88.
- payless69 on 19/06/2025 - 18:12
  
  -2
  
  Dan and thirteen
  try Adelaide?
urahara on 19/06/2025 - 16:14

-1

Construction will get cheaper , regardless of the costs of material (which I also think will get cheaper) majorly because of cheaper labour in future.
Considering these 2 major factors, the only thing holding house price is land value , which is also in abundance in Australia and is being driven by immigration. Over exposure might be bad, underexposure will surely not lead to anything.
So dont go investment, just buy one with which you can live and sustain. be picky about it and that is it.
- elgrande on 19/06/2025 - 16:20
  
  +2
  
  When will labour become cheaper?
  - mskeggs on 19/06/2025 - 17:11
    
    +4
    
    NVIDIA said AI will build houses cheaper.
    You can already see building costs dropping like a stone, surely! Otherwise it would mean the AI stuff is a bubble.
- tessel on 22/06/2025 - 07:40
  
  +1
  
  Construction won't get cheaper.
jv on 19/06/2025 - 16:14

+5

13 Ribblesdale Avenue, Wyndham Vale, Vic 3024
https://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-vic-wyndham+val…

Real Estate agent has removed the power lines from the photo. Isn't that now illegal ?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/xeykDEn1kGNcPHhG6
- miwahni on 19/06/2025 - 21:32
  
  Didn't that happen on an episode of Rosehaven once?
- borrisz0r on 21/06/2025 - 17:52
  
  This house is in Vic. I suspect that the culprits are dictator dan and the recently cashed up albo. Someone has the crush the Aussie battlers dreams…
  - jv on 22/06/2025 - 14:32
    
    I suspect that the culprits are dictator dan and the recently cashed up albo.
    
    Wouldn't surprise me… Any links?
    - borrisz0r on 22/06/2025 - 15:46
      
      Try your normal echo chamber, I'm sure you will get support.
      - jv on 22/06/2025 - 17:34
        
        @borrisz0r: 🔊
elgrande on 19/06/2025 - 16:20

Have you considered Melton in Vic?

You can still buy a house < $500k. The infrastructure and services continue to grow and with a hospital being built there is plenty of upside.
- jv on 19/06/2025 - 16:42
  
  +6
  
  Have you considered Melton in Vic?
  
  You can still buy a house < $500k.
  
  The extra cost of hiring security guards outweighs this saving though…
- OrangeCounty on 19/06/2025 - 17:27
  
  Hi, I've thought about Melton, Dandenong area and the surrounding Hampton Park, Cranbourne North area and surrounds
  - mrvaluepack on 19/06/2025 - 18:37
    
    +6
    
    There is a reason why house prices in those areas are "reasonable"….
- Bargain-er on 20/06/2025 - 08:50
  
  I was really considering Melton and Broadmeadows. Read tenants quality can be herrendous. Need the stigma to change for a good run.
JohnSy on 19/06/2025 - 16:48

+7

Here are my thoughts:

Beware of FOMO - try not to compare yourself to others, or keeping up with the Jones, or you will spend your life doing so.

You are still young, if you simply invested regularly in index ETFs, managed your expenses moving forward, and tried not to give in too much lifestyle creep you will likely financially overtake all those friends you are comparing yourself to currently.

Right now, you seem a little directionless since you mentioned considering purchasing in a multitude of states, based on price or other factors. (perhaps landtax). Property is a long term investment - what's going to happen to that property if the family you create want or need to live in a different state than your properties location? Property is good as a base, but as others have said, you will likely be better off buying your primary residence first rather than an investment property. Try and determine where you want to live long term and buy there if you can for your primary residence. If you want growth, don't buy a new build, or something without much land. Buy and older home on a full block. If you don't know where you want to live long term then perhaps don't buy a house until you know.

I've been down the road of property investment (admittedly, it was a number of commercial properties). The holding period was around 20 years. But after I sold out I also went back and historically compared those investments to a simple investment in an Australian ASX 200 index fund. Same staring investment amount, same time frame, and same date of purchase and sale. The results, the index fund was slightly ahead, and even more so when the transaction costs of selling were considered YRMV.
- dcep on 21/06/2025 - 22:48
  
  The holding period was around 20 years. But after I sold out I also went back and historically compared those investments to a simple investment in an Australian ASX 200 index fund. Same staring investment amount, same time frame, and same date of purchase and sale. The results, the index fund was slightly ahead, and even more so when the transaction costs of selling were considered YRMV.
  
  I'm gonna cherry pick a date range,
  
  01 November 2007 - ASX200 : 6,829 pts
  
  27 October 2023 - ASX200 : 6,827 pts
  
  Next financial crisis / commodity cycle downturn , will see ASX200 revisit this level again or even lower.
  
  Next housing crash or the next 10 after , no chance of seeing landed Aussie house prices dropping back to 2007 prices ever.
  - SlickMick on 22/06/2025 - 11:17
    
    Excellent cherry picking. Yes, if you are incredibly skilled in timing the market you can lose money on ASX indexed funds. But you'd have to be awfully good at buying high and selling low.
    chart
    
    All I can glean from your post is that property prices aren't volatile like stock markets. So I guess we agree.
    - dcep on 22/06/2025 - 15:59
      
      +1
      
      timing the market you can lose money on ASX indexed funds. But you'd have to be awfully good at buying high and selling low.
      All I can glean from your post is that property prices aren't volatile like stock markets.
      
      You get the wrong idea mate. These ain't the point that caused ASX200 under-performance.
      
      ASX200 is not your SP500. They're heavy on banks/mining giants that are cyclical and no innovation.
      
      If you buy and hold ASX200 now for 20 years , the chances of it revisit the low again on next crash is a distinct reality and you better hope it won't take over a decade again just to recover for breakeven before you getting too old.
      - SlickMick on 22/06/2025 - 22:11
        
        @dcep: The chances of it revisiting old lows over a 20 year window is a given. No one is saying it isn't volatile.
        What I'm saying in is it usually recovers quickly.
        
        Yes, if you cherry pick dates, you wouldn't want to have invested everything in 2007 and needed to retire in next 10 years. That would suck for sure.
        But if you were mainly invested by 2006, then by 2010 you were recovered. (Some pretty average years ahead though.)
        
        I presume that you're expecting another crash to make the GFC seem insignificant? That would suck for sure, but is it likely?
        I think 7 years is usually the minimum recommended investment time frame??
        
        My view is, if you're not retiring within 10 years, be all in. If you're about to retire, then you need to do some planning.
- tenpercent on 01/07/2025 - 11:00
  
  But after I sold out I also went back and historically compared those investments to a simple investment in an Australian ASX 200 index fund. Same staring investment amount, same time frame, and same date of purchase and sale. The results, the index fund was slightly ahead
  
  But were the property investments geared and would a bank have given you the same kind of leverage for an index fund investment?
  Are you comparing a geared property portfolio with an ungeared hypothetical index fund portfolio?

Investment - Trying to not be behind

Comments

New Forum Topics