Australian Property Market and What to Do in This Scenario

Hi all, what is the general consensus on where the AU Property market is heading in the next couple of years and how sustainable it is? I will put a few pointers for discussion

  • Canberra and Hobart Markets both had a great start to the post-Covid boom and then suddently turned flat and even negative in some places. Both as a whole are currently sitting at negative 12 month returns.
  • Perth, Adelaide & Brisbane have all seen close to 90% price rises since covid. I dont know about Perth and Brissy but I just cant understand the Adelaide market (pointers below)
  • Sydney is already too expensive and yields are low for investors. Melbourne on the other hand, seems to be going up in some pockets but long terms forecast are still not good. A lot of investors are still not keen given the crappy tenancy laws there

Now why I don't understand the Adelaide market -

  • Adelaide is mostly a service industry with not a lot of manufacturing and not much tourism either. Job and wage growth has not been the same as the housing growth. There are currently no family homes that one can buy for less than $650k and those are in below average suburbs. To get into a mid-range suburb, one needs to spend $1m+ and in a good suburb with good schools, $1.4m+.
  • There is a massive pipeline of new builds but they take time due to lack of Government support and labour/material shortages. Those new builds are also further away from city in North and South. Whatever is being built in city fringe is mostly apartments and terrace homes.
  • Adelaide has the lowest population growth forecast when compared with eastern states and Perth so all these new houses when they hit the market, Adelaide risks being over supplied too. But since the government is trying really hard to keep the housing problem, it might be 4+ years before this supply hits the market.

There is lots of talk about Adelaide market continuing to grow as the interest rates are cut. The property investors, developers and sellers seem to all say the same thing - "The government can not let the property market crash and no one ever loses money". They say Perth of a decade ago is never to be repeated.

Question is - Are these developers correct? or is Adelaide about to turn into a Perth of 2010s?

Now here is a scenario to consider for a family and what you would do? To make it easier, lets say they are 40 years old and plan to retire at 60 -

  • Have a PPOR with mortgage and enough money in offset to pay off 75% of the loan.
  • Have Inv Properties worth $2m with $1m owing and paying themselvesoff. One of them is at the end of growth cycle and may not see further growth for 5 odd years.
  • Super balances are about $200k only and forecast at age of 60 is about $1 - $1.2m

What advice would you give to this couple so they can comfortably retire at 60? Should they pay off their house as quickly as they can and live debt free? Or would you think it is better they buy another investment property say for $650k whichin 20 years will likely be $1.5m.

They asked a financial planner and were suggested to increase super contribution and invest in managed funds. They didn't like it as they do not want to be in a situation where their money is stuck in super and they needed it. They also aren't comfortable with managed funds as have previous bad experiences in the share market.

Appreciate some genuine discussions on both points above.

Poll Options expired

  • 15
    Adelaide is the best market to invest
  • 17
    Perth is the best market to invest
  • 34
    Brisbane is the best market to invest
  • 46
    Melbourne is the best market to invest
  • 4
    Canberra is the best marekt to invest
  • 24
    Adelaide property market will crash like Perth did in 2010s

Comments

  • +10

    I dunno dood

    • -4

      "I dunno" is the correct answer!

      Everyone gets it wrong and we are no different.

      Take for example when interest rates started going up.
      The experts predicted doom and gloom.

      But instead the property boom continued.

      Now that interest rates are dropping, of course the experts predicted prices would increase.
      But no. Nothing spectacular happening at all

      So OP, with respect, nobody here has a crystal ball that can predict anything with certainty

      Do your research and make your choice.

      One thing is for certain..
      Expect interest rates to drop a little more. But how much more nobody knows.
      The only reason rates will drop more than expected is if the economy starts sinking into recesssion.
      In that senario many property buyers will get nervous and exit the market until confidence returns.

      Same can be said for share funds

      One tip is to watch and listen to Donald Trump.
      He told everyone when it was time to buy in the recent dip in the share market.
      Whilst many take him for a fool, if you took his advice your investments would be well ahead

  • +7

    They don't look they need any, or can't to pay for help.

  • +21

    Have a PPOR with mortgage and enough money in offset to pay off 75% of the loan.
    Have Inv Properties worth $2m with $1m owing and paying themselvesoff. One of them is at the end of growth cycle and may not see further growth for 5 odd years.
    Super balances are about $200k only and forecast at age of 60 is about $1 - $1.2m

    What advice would you give to this couple so they can comfortably retire at 60?

    I'd say they're sitting pretty already and have plenty of wealth to afford proper financial advice.

      • +6

        Not sure you'll get any better advise here

        • +3

          Listening to the masses is sometimes a great advise.. professionals dont always get it right either. If they could Megallan Funds would not be in the situation they are in losing so much of their investor's wealth… I was a share holder just before it crashed and an unsolicited, data backed research post in a forum saved my skinny ar**.

          • @Megatron:

            Listening to the masses is sometimes a great advise..

            I think Warren Buffett will strongly disagree with that statement…

          • +2

            @Megatron:

            data backed research post in a forum saved my skinny ar**.

            Might've just discovered a great way for you to generate a butt load of money…

            Capitalise on that skinny ar** and tell everybody how to get one and maintain it…

      • +4

        The financial planner advise didnt go down very well as putting more money in super is not going to help their lifestyle however, buying another investment property is easy as it can be fully funded by a bank and they will only need to pay a small amount monthly for couple of years + claim negative gearing. The financial planners are not always as good as we think as they work off of a set scenario based on age group and risk profile without considering other factors.

        A good financial planner will take into account your personal goals and any constraints you impose (e.g. I don't want to invest in unethical companies, e.g. I don't want to invest more into Super, e.g. I don't want more than 50% of my portfolio in high risk high growth assets, etc). You should confirm with a financial planner if they will take into account such restrictions before engaging them.

        putting more money in super is not going to help their lifestyle

        If they're actually investing for retirement purposes then it won't be much help to their lifestyle even outside super.

        assets can make you look well off

        They have $1M in equity outside super plus 75% equity in their PPoR, and then more than $400k combined (if I read the OP correctly) in super.

        They could sell the IPs and redeploy the capital into other investments, or borrow against them. But invest into waht? They've already excluded one of the larger, more diverse and most profitable asset classes, i.e. shares. So it sounds like this couple is just looking for confirmation bias and direction about which city has the best potential for returns over the next 20 years.

        They also aren't comfortable with managed funds as have previous bad experiences in the share market.

        That's irrational and letting emotions guide their financial decisions. Bad idea.
        I'm guessing either it was all the eggs in one or a few baskets kind of situation, and/or they got hurt selling up during a market panic (covid? GFC?) and ended up making a loss or forgoing buying opportunities. Treat it as spillt milk and a learning opportunity. What happens if Australia suffers from an American style GFC real estate bust and all their eggs are in the real estate basket? And what if that happened close to retirement?

        • Great post and very well articulated.

          So to add, theyhave a notion that Property cant lose money over a 10 year period.. they know the same applies to share markets too if invested in an index fund but they think their luck doesnt work in the share markets. The biggest other driving factor for them is, they dont need to put their money into buying another property and negative gearing benefits are lucrative to them.

          The super is $200k total balance for both not each.

          They do not want to sell the investments as it could potentially be used as a gift to their kids when they grow up.

          My opinon was for them to take a split loan and debt recycle their non-deductible loan and invest in Index and Managed funds.. but they are just too scared and will be going nuts watching the markets everyday lol.

          • @Megatron:

            My opinon was for them to take a split loan and debt recycle their non-deductible loan and invest in Index and Managed funds..

            That sounds sensible. But I would suggest ETFs with lower fees.

            but they are just too scared and will be going nuts watching the markets everyday lol

            Over their time horizon there's no need to do that. They should have some kind of plan to sell down some of the ETF funds and put into lower risk investments nearer to retirement.

            They sound a little nuts tbh. Do they follow every auction and property sale in the same suburb/s as their IPs?

            Are they your clients?

            • -1

              @tenpercent: They sound a little nuts tbh. Do they follow every auction and property sale in the same suburb/s as their IPs?

              They follow the data yes and their current rental yields are pretty good so they pay nothing out of thier pockets.

              Are they your clients?

              No, I am not into a consulting business haha.. Just friends who dont mind asking me as I have a better understanding of finances and taxes than them (only better than them, I am no expert/professional)

  • +8

    After you purchased your live in property, put as much as you can in Super and Invest in managed funds. Of course that depends on your retirement goals and etc.

    Property investment will make the houses unaffordable for the rest.

      • +11

        Yeah, everyone would be owners.

        • -1

          Not everybody wants to own property! I know several people who are happy to rent because they don't want the commitment or responsibility.

          • -3

            @Some Human: that is true.. I have had so many tenants over the years who like to live a nomadic lifestyle and do not want to have any kind of financial commitments.. it is not for everyone which is why Investors are so important to the cycle as they make money while providing roof for people who have different goals in their life.

        • Maybe if there was no deposit required. A lot of people couldn't save money to save their life.

          • -3

            @JIMB0: I would understand if we are talking about disabled people? Otherwise we all are given equal opportunities, some chose to save money to buy a house, others go travelling and some just have extravagant lifestyles.. I know someone who complains he has no money to buy a house while was one of the first people who bought a brand new Mustang taking a loan at 8%. So when people like him complain about not being able to save for a house, it just means they had different priorities in their life and it is perfectly fine as that is how we humans are.

          • @JIMB0: Prices would go down, and/or lending criteria would ease and/or investors would buy up.

        • +3

          Yeah, everyone would be owners.

          Or homeless.

        • So kids have to live with mum and dad until they Aquire the skills and money to purchase and maintain a home?

          Oh and probably need a bit of job stability in there as well, and tough luck if the uni you want to attend isn't somewhere near your parent's house, eh?

        • +4

          Some people just aren't capable of being home owners.

          Have you seen how feral some people keep their homes?

          At least when they rent there's regular house inspections to encourage them to clean up their crap occasionally so they're not living in filth for extended periods of time.

      • The would be renter would buy their property at a decent price. I think just like with anything exercise restraint. There is no need to be greedy and purchase 10 investment properties for example.

        As a personal view, who could be bothered dealing with all the renter issues and maintenance for all the properties, managed funds are so much simpler.

    • What if you don't think you'll live to retirement age? Is it still worth throwing money in super? I supposed it gets transferred to your family when you die before retirement age?

      • +1

        Upon death, your Super should go to whomever your nominated beneficiary is. This is within the contract between you and your super provider.

        Unless things have recently changed, your super does not make up part of your deceased estate that you can include in a testamentary document (whether intestate or testate) as it is a legally binding contract separate to your testamentary wishes.

        • +1

          Just adding a caveat to that post.

          From memory, you need to update/reconfirm your nominated beneficiary every three years.

          If it is not up to date at the time of your death, it is kind of up to the super fund to choose how it should be dispersed but they are generally required to follow intestate laws for that dispersion.

      • +1

        The benefits of putting extra money in super, is that it gets lower tax. Everyone's circumstance is different though, you might already be putting enough in super, you might prioritise other things in life.

        My priorities were: Paying off the house, fun, investments.

  • I’m assuming the financial planner looked at all their assets, income, risk profiles etc to come up with the recommendation.

    Ozbargainers can only speculate

    Which would you prefer?

    • +2

      Like every diligent Ozbargainer seeking financial advice, I’d take free speculative advice from strangers who have received selective information than from a professional who I’d have to pay

  • +16

    I'd say sell your investment properties to a first home buyer. Be less greedy and obsessed with numbers. Renovate your house until it's the perfect house for you, and you will really enjoy your life.

    The notion that people cannot retire comfortably when they already own their own home is a preposterous Australian myth.

    We don't all need multiple investment properties to retire comfortably. If we did, only a small portion of Australians could retire comfortably. Perpetuating this myth is making us over-compete for a scarce commodity. Pursuing this competition will make it impossible for average Australians to enjoy modest wealth.

    • -6

      your investment properties to a first home buyer.

      The problem is that the governments over the years have created such a financial environment that they want people to be obsessed with properties and debt. They are now also pushing the agenda of new homes for first home buyers so that thier developer friends can stay happy.. the properties in question here are all 1960s to 1990s built and will not appeal to first home buyers who are now more focused on government incentives and new houses appeal to them :)

      • +8

        So you're using your investor tax incentives for established properties.

        Your investments didn't even contribute to the development of new properties to help alleviate the housing shortage crisis and reduce the demand for established properties.

        In my opinion, tax breaks for investors (CGT discount, negative gearing) should be restricted to newly built properties only.

        A lot of first home buyers obviously do (or want to) buy established properties in desirable areas.

        • -5

          So you're using your investor tax incentives for established properties.

          Not sure what that means but yes they do pay massive amounts in interest which partially goes back to RBA and all their properties are positively geared and they arent claiming any negative gearing benefits while helping needy people have a roof over thier head.

          A lot of first home buyers obviously do (or want to) buy established properties in desirable areas.

          That isnt true, at least not in south australia where first home buyers pay no stamp dute and get $15k incentive.. on a $1m home, that is over $50k benfit to a first home buyer and that is what they look at as they only have one attempt at banking that money.

          • +6

            @Megatron:

            while helping needy people have a roof over thier head.

            If investors were purchasing houses out of compassion, instead out a desire to line their pockets, then rent prices wouldn't have increased at the rate that they have.

            • -4

              @ForkSnorter: In my opinion, it is completely illogical to blame investors for rent rises.. if the wages, expenses, interest rates, government rates, etc were all kept fixed, only then it would make sense for the rents to be fixed and not increase. The system is not designed like that.. the governments are requied to report GDP growth and the only way a GDP in a country like Australia can grow is through CPI increases across the board.

              We do not live in a socialist world and have to let demand and supply work its way.. Melbourne rentals have not gone up much in last 3 years as demand is low in many places.. at the same time, Perth rents have skyrocketed due to huge demand.

              We are all part of a system designed by the governments.

              • +4

                @Megatron: Nearly all Australians' wealth is tied up in housing. Rents rise with property prices. The cost of living rises with property prices.

                The number one cause of irrational increases in property prices is investor activity, as proven by the Victorian property market.

                The value of Australia's housing market doubled in the last 10 years, rising from $5 trillion to $10 trillion.

                Investors enjoyed most of that increase, because people who only own a single home don't make any money if they have to sell and buy into the same market. Investors, on the other hand, can keep their PPOR, sell one of their investments, and rake in $half a million without having to lift a finger.

                Since John Howard halved CGT for investment properties, investors have poured into the housing market.

                This over-inflates prices, as there are not enough houses for both first home buyers and investors.

                When investor activity is reduced by new taxes or restrictions, prices start to stabilize (rationalize), as proven by the Victorian property market.

                Investors enjoy 1. continually increasing property prices, pushing up the value of the properties and making them ever wealthier, 2. A steady stream of income from renters, 3. the ATO helping them pay their mortgage if the rent doesn't cover it, 4. the ability to claim costs such as repairs, improvements, agents, etc. 5. CGT discount.

                All in all, it is a Ponzi scheme for investors to get rich at the expense of ordinary working Australians who just want to own a single house. I've seen the value of my work (in term of property purchasing power) decline and decline over the past 15 years. It's an absolute sh*t show and the Australian people should not put up with it any longer.

                • @ForkSnorter: You could say the same for Business owners as they are into business so they can make money and get rich.. but the fact is, they provide employment just like property investors provide housing for needy..

                  The world is not single dimentional, so our views should not be single dimentional either.

                  Also the Victorian market is not stable due to taxes but more due to tenancy laws there currently.. but even then, the investors seem to be returning back to Melboure and it is now again seeing a steady rise.

                  The thing with investors is, they will invest where they can see value.

                  • +7

                    @Megatron: Buying up properties is not a business.

                    Furthermore, buying up existing properties is not productive, does not contribute to GDP, and does not provide employment.

                    Property investment is only productive if it involves new building and construction.

                    Property investing in Australia has gotten out of control. We have the most generous (least restrictive) tax breaks for property investment in the world. Other countries place greater restrictions on negative gearing and/or have higher CGT.

                    Property investing is just a lazy way to make money. On the other hand, due to the property policy environment in Australia, it's easier to make money simply by signing papers to buy investment properties than it is to make money from an actual small business.

                    Ask yourself how many cafe owners are able to make $500,000 profit (after costs and taxes) in 3-5 years.

                    It is no longer realistic to work and save up for a house. Prices are already too high and rising too fast. You only have to look at the median Australian income and the median property price in 2025, and then compare this to historical figures over the past 5 decades.

                    If I look at my grandparents and then my parents and their siblings, and then myself and my cousins, there is a steady loss of purchasing power generation by generation despite an increasing rate of education and successful employment.

                    My grandparents owned a 4-bedroom house in inner Sydney on a single income, no degree, 4 kids.

                    Obviously I, on an average income, will never afford anything comparable to that nowadays.

                    • -2

                      @ForkSnorter: Furthermore, buying up existing properties is not productive, does not contribute to GDP, and does not provide employment.

                      Yeah tell that to an investor who had to fork out $60k in government costs on their $1m purchase and are paying over $50k in interest to the banks that helps stimulate the economy.

                      Property investing is just a lazy way to make money. On the other hand, due to the property policy environment in Australia, it's easier to make money simply by signing papers to buy investment properties than it is to make money from an actual small business.

                      That is pretty easy to say for someone who doesnt own the risk.. it is a risk reward business, investors take a risk to earn a reward.. the people who oppose investors, only see the reward and forget the risks they took and things they had to sacrifice to buy their asset.

                      Ask yourself how many cafe owners are able to make $500,000 profit (after costs and taxes) in 3-5 years.

                      Cafe owners draw extravagant salaries, receive more tax beneifts in the form of "asset write offs" than property investor can ever imagine.. Just like property, business is also about location.. go ask a cafe owner in a prime location how much they make annualy and how can they afford those $200k cars that a property investor can only dream of until maturity of their asset.

                      If I look at my grandparents and then my parents and their siblings, and then myself and my cousins, there is a steady loss of purchasing power generation by generation despite an increasing rate of education and successful employment.

                      Those generations were not spending their deposit money on cofees, avocado toasts and alcohol, like the current generation does. There are also many government schemes that help people buy homes with 5% deposit and no stamp duty… so an average house at $750k, only needs a $37.5k deposit and it is not hard for someone to save that sort of money.

                      My grandparents owned a 4-bedroom house in inner Sydney on a single income, no degree, 4 kids.
                      Obviously I, on an average income, will never afford anything comparable to that nowadays.

                      So does my plumber who has no degree, wife doesnt work, has two kids and has a $2.5m house in a prime beach side suburb and multiple investment properties.. I with a degree and both of us working are arse off, cant even imagine that. But we also do not like to compare ourselves and are happy with what we have achieved with the sacrifices we have made.

                      • +3

                        @Megatron: Your examples are cherry picked anecdotes to justify your greedy take on life.

                        They are not representative of Australia as a whole.

                        The facts are:

                        1. Home ownership has dropped in most age brackets over the last 3 decades.

                        2. At the same time, the percentage of houses owned by investors has increased massively.

                        3. At the same time, the house price-to-income ratio has increased massively, favoring investors.

                        4. At the same time, the tax paid on capital gains has halved, favoring investors.

                        The reason there are more people renting today is because they have to, not because they want to. In previous decades, they would have been owners.

                        We are heading toward a society of landlords and peasants, just like 15th century England, and don't pretend you're a good guy by being part of that trend.

                        • @ForkSnorter: And this is what happens whenever someone asks logical questions.. I am yet to hear why an average first home buyer is unable to save $40 odd K and buy a house with all the government schemes floating around? The schemes that are funded from the CGT, Stamp duty and GST these investors pay?

                          I dont mean you but this is the problem with the younger generation that finds it easy to blame everything else but look at themselves and ask questions about what they are doing wrong?

                          Sure things have changed and change is part of everything.. Back in 70s and half of 80s, there was no medicare and superannuation so people probably had less disposable income due to necessities, they were not going around throwing money on flashy new cars, furnitue and expensive holidays.. the lifestyle costs were much lower back them.. but the current generation will just ignore those facts as they dont form part of their narrative and will shy away from explaining what stops them from saving $40k to buy a house and spin the narrative around.

                          I should also point out that there were times where other investment options were available and investors were spread across different asset classes.. Taxi number plates once were a better investment than realestate.. what does the current group investers has that is an actual asset other than realestate?

                          • @Megatron: Median house price in a capital city is $1 million. OK, let's assume they buy a house for $200k less than the median (i.e. either a horrible decaying asbestos house in a middling suburb, or an average house in an undesirable suburb).

                            Assuming they can get an $800k house with a $40k deposit, which sounds unlikely…

                            After paying Lenders Mortgage Insurance and Stamp Duty, their debt would be around $840k.

                            That leaves them with a pretty risky amount of debt with nothing to fall back on if something goes wrong, and repayments of around $5,000/month ($60k per year, of which around $50k is interest for the first few years).

                            In the 1980s, buying the same house would have been as easy as snagging a sausage at Bunnings, and it would be paid off in 3-5 years.

                            • +1

                              @ForkSnorter: In most states, including NSW, there is no stamp duty for first home buyers.

                              A person that is looking to get into the housing market, should focus on "living within their means"… What is stopping this low earner from buying a unit that would be in the $700-800k range in a good enough suburb? There is also no LMI under the first home guarantee scheme.. also plenty of properties in new built areas under the shared equity arrangement where a person pays next to nothing.

                              It is all about approach, someone who has a negative approach is likely to continue to rent and complain while a person who knows his means and capacity, will compromise for a few years and be able to buy a house now and their dream home in future when their means allowed.

                              I was on a base salary of $38k and in my mid 20s when I bought my first home.. a unit house in front a railway line in a okish suburb for $300k.. How did I afford it? I turned that $38k base salary to $60k with overtime and working weekends.. world population has doubled since 1980s and so has the Australian population.. you have double the people to complete with as soon as you are born as compared to someone who was born in 1980. Things have changed and comparison to someone 45 years ago is only a waste of time.. IMO

                              • +3

                                @Megatron: You seem to have difficulty visualizing what is going on.

                                1. The 5% scheme combined with competition from investors and lower interest rates is going to drive prices insane, especially in the most affordable bracket (if you can call it affordable).

                                2. Prices are already so ridiculous from investor activity and the increasing shrewdness of investors, as well as government stimulus that only serves to push prices higher. Anyone breaking into the market now is never going to catch up with investors who have been in the market for decades and who continue to increase their presence in the market.

                                Unless they are extremely lucky or shrewd, they are likely doomed to lower-tier, low-quality housing in less desirable areas for life, simply because the good properties will be snapped up by investors or wealthy homeowners who got into the market years/decades ago and can afford to pay more, which will drive prices out of reach.

                                It's just too late for ordinary people on ordinary wages to expect to be able to own a nice home outright.

                                Our parents and grandparents were able to buy proper houses in the centre of capital cities on ordinary wages in their 30s and 40s. We will be able to buy miserable houses in miserable suburbs or miserable towns despite having equivalent or better wages/jobs.

                                • -1

                                  @ForkSnorter: Your perception seems to be completely based on a single known scenario, that is, "my parents and grand parents bought nice houses in centre of capital cities on ordinary wages".. that perception ignores all other facts, including the demographic change that has taken place over the last 3-4 decades and the different kind of challenges the generations back then had to deal with.

                                  Leaving Sydney alone, most other captial cities still have nice suburbs where a couple earning a median $180k combined wage can buy a house at 6x their income and required to pay no stamp duty. If they cant, then they need to introspect as to what is stopping them.

                                  • @Megatron: Mate you're a bit divorced from reality. Median household wage in australia is around 90k. That means half the population earn less than that.

                                    Housing afforability is completely out of reach for a signifcant portion of the countries population.

                                    Try and save $ faster than house price rises on a median or less wage, whilst paying historical-high rent is a literal impossibility for many.

                                    • +1

                                      @boirganz: The median individual income is $90k currently, so a fulltime working couple is $180k.. if they are working less and earning less, that is either personal choice or circumstantial which is perfectly fine but then their choice defines the type of property they can afford.

                                      I worked a minmum wage when I bought my first property, $38k in my mid 20s.. but turned it into a $60k income through working overtime and weekends so I could get a loan and eventually I bought my first property that is now an investment. I made a choice and I am happy with it.

                                      Back then I only had a $5k grant from the government as first home buyer.. currently those grants are enormous and most people, if they want to buy a house, only need little deposit as stamp duty is free and low 5% deposit loans without LMI are available.. for some others, there are shared equity schemes where they need no money to own the house.

                                      Someone currently buying a $1m house, is receiving about $60-70k in grants while I only received $5k about a decade ago. And I am not complaining.

                                      There are many suburbs in Melbourne where you could buy for $600-700k a nice family home.. a fulltime working couple on minimum wage is ablw to buy a house on that range.

                                      Back in 80s, about 42% people had home ownership.. 58% did not.

                                      • @Megatron: Check your facts please. 90k is median HOUSEHOLD income. That's 2+ people.

                                        You seem to have a decent grasp of figures generally, but seem unable to grasp the simple maths that the numbers have changed since you bought in.

                                        To try and pretend otherwise is to embrace ignorance.

                                        • +1

                                          @boirganz: You are missing the point mate.. median wages in Australia currently is $90k so if both work full time, then the household income will be $180k

                                          https://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/grattan-in…

                                          If a household earns $90k, then that is a choice they have made as that is even below the minimum wage for 2x fulltime working people.

                                          You cant blame the investors for personal choices people are making. If they want a nice house in a nice suburb, they need to get out and work like most of us do. If they are only working partime and making less than a minimum wage, then they should be looking at properties that are in their budget.. plenty of units selling for less than $400k. This is what is called competition and the one's working hard to earn a batter wage, lead in that scenario.

                                          • @Megatron: The very article you linked shows median wage at 67k.

                                            Stop making a personal choice to ignore the facts. Maybe makd a personal choice to be thankful for your own luck in being born and employed before the housing crisis, and to have had the opportunity to become a home owner? This is not a choice for many.

                                            Or have I misjudged you ?

                                            It’s not a stretch of empathy to see this unless you willingly ignore the maths.

                                            Try googling again and look at median house price vs median wage over time. And loan serviceability and stress. And rental rates. Heck even general cost of living. Doesn’t matter if you read it from right wing media, left wing. Centre. Raw reports and data. It is undeniable.

                                            • +1

                                              @boirganz: Have I not clearly stated that I am talking about 2x full time working people in a household?

                                              Either you are failing to comprehend something very simple or trying skillfully to run with your part of the narrative.

                                              This is what the article says

                                              The typical full-time Australian worker actually earns $90,416,

                                              That is $180k typical wage for a household if both partners work full time.. at 6x their income, they can afford a house for $1.08m… in 5 years, they will be earning $200k+ and their mortgage would shrink, they are then repaying a house that is less that 5x their income.

                                              Simple math.. use it if you want to or otherwise you are free to believe in your narrative.. I have many couples in my circle and all earn above $160k.. the median truely will be above $180k for the couples I know so yes I believe the reported data.

                                              • @Megatron: You are the one with the narrative.

                                                180k household is in the top 10pc - earning more than 90pc of others. So your scenario is only for the richest 10pc in the country.

                                                Median is 50pc which is 90k

                                                Minimum wage is just shy of 50k which is your comparison to your min wage job back whenever.

                                                This is why all stats show that property affordability is at a significant all time low - this you know as a fact.

                                                Re-do your maths or logic or try a little empathy with that in mind?

                      • +1

                        @Megatron:

                        Furthermore, buying up existing properties is not productive, does not contribute to GDP, and does not provide employment.
                        Yeah tell that to an investor who had to fork out $60k in government costs on their $1m purchase and are paying over $50k in interest to the banks that helps stimulate the economy.

                        Home buyers would be paying that interest as well. The house already exists. An investor buying it adds nothing substantially extra to the economy like a real business does.

                        According to the data, most home buyers are not first home buyers. They might be upgrading to a better or bigger house, downgrading to a lower maintenance house as they age, or having to move to a different city for work/family commitments. So don't pretend it is just first home buyers vs investors. Most home buyers pay stamp duty just like investors, as most home buyers are not first home buyers

                        • +1

                          @ForkSnorter: Arent you the one pretending as if we are living in 1980s? If someone has a vision clouded by perception of people 30-40 years ago, then that is where the problem is.. if this person wants to be in 1980s, then they need to do it all as it was back then.. most people did not own cars, they lived within their means, houses were small and not at all flashy, they did lots of work around the house themselves.

                          So why pick and only chose what supports your narrative? Why wouldn't you live the same life your parents and grand parents lived and then you will actually be able to compare yourself with them. Or you can move on with times and do what most hard working Australians are doing.

                    • +1

                      @ForkSnorter:

                      Furthermore, buying up existing properties is not productive, does not contribute to GDP, and does not provide employment.

                      Tell that to all the accountants, property managers, REA agents and repair/maintenance people employed to service those investment properties.

                      • @Muppet Detector: The houses are already there. Buying them doesn’t add anything to the economy.

                        A real estate agent might spend a few hours a year on a rental. That’s it.

                        If a first home buyer owned it instead, the place would still need maintenance and repairs.

                        An investor buying an existing property doesn't add anything substantial the economy.

                        Honestly, you lot are struggling with basic visualization and reasoning.

                        • +1

                          @ForkSnorter: I have to say that either you are so out of touch with reality or you are choosing a narrative that goes with your perception.

                          There is a whole industry that investors support.. Property Managers are so loaded they struggle but chose it as they make upwards of $120k.. some I know, take over $200k and a free work car. They are hard working Aussies that have moved on with times and not stuck in a time machine.

                          • +1

                            @Megatron: So by giving a few thousand to a property manager each year to inspect your properties and fill out a lease renewal form, you think you're running a small business? Pretty sure you're claiming those costs on your tax.

                            You're completely deluded.

                        • @ForkSnorter: You're not thinking your rebuttals through.

                          Regardless, anybody, including a first home buyer is welcome to purchase a property from me.

            • +2

              @ForkSnorter: The whole purpose of investing in anything is to make money.

              People operate businesses because they want to make money.

              • @Muppet Detector: Yes, exactly my point.. people work to make money and that is how the system is designed. People forget that the investors and business owners also pay some of the highest taxes that then go into subsidising things.

                • +1

                  @Megatron:

                  People forget that the investors and business owners also pay some of the highest taxes that then go into subsidising things.

                  Taxpayers are literally subsidising 50% of housing investors via negative gearing and other joke deductions…
                  It's cheaper to buy a house and rent it out whilst renting yourself because of the enormity of the tax breaks.

                  at the moment the tax system is extremely regressive and increasing the wealth divide.

          • +3

            @Megatron: Investors are literally housing scalpers…

            Nothing altruistic whatsoever

    • What is your definition of "retire comfortably"?

  • +1

    Yes and no. Depends.

  • +10

    My condolences, it sounds like they are really doing it tough ☹️

  • +4

    If they keep doing what they are doing they will have plenty to retire at 60.
    The idea to put more in shares in super is sound for tax advantages and to avoid real estate concentration.
    If it was me I would probably enjoy myself more and worry about finances less, as they are doing fine - but lots of people can’t think beyond accumulating dollars. That makes me feel sad for them.

  • +1

    but lots of people can’t think beyond accumulating dollars. That makes me feel sad for them.

    I'm in support of accumulating a bit of money for retirement.

    My father is 103. Who would have thought you would need to provide for yourself fifty odd years after you retired.

    MIL died recently at 93.

    Other parents 96 & 97.

    I can tell you that being old costs a lot of money and if you ever need to go into a nursing home… man, those things cost a damn fortune.

    • Yep, people dont realise that the government is there to only provide basic and bare minimum lifestyle.. the pensions for someone who outright owns thier house might just be sufficient but definitely not helping them achieve their goals.

      9 odd years ago, I lived in a unit and the next door unit was owned by housing trust.. an old man in his early 70s lived thier completely off government money and he could only afford basic things other than his pack of cigrettes.. wanted to travel but had no money to go anywhere, no car as couldnt afford to keep one and was always using public transport.. so if you are not building enough wealth for yourself, no one is :)

      • The couple described in the OP are already doing orders of magnitude better than old mate next door.

        • +1

          Why does that even matter?

          A person shouldn't plan to be able to support themselves in retirement because old mate next door isn't able to?

  • It is both unknown what will happen and also certain that prices will increase

    • +1

      also certain that prices will increase

      Yep more than likely unless something catastrophic happened to the financial and property markets.

  • Why bother when you can scoop up 30% pa on a Mag 7 company, for decades? If that's a bit dangerous for you, do 10% pa return on SP500 index (redraw on the PPOR to get the leverage to soup up returns if you want. It's not margin, it's not marked to market - fantastic).

    It's just so easy and apparently a huge secret in Australia where they are obsessed with leveraged property plays for less returns (not to mention lots of labour, headaches, illiquidity, fees, taxes and middlemen).

    Totally bizarre. It's just in the culture I guess.

    • +1

      Yes both are totally different asset classes but for an average joey, the index funds just cant match the returns they see on property as an average joey is just no as finance savvy..

      Scenario - You have $130k to invest

      1. Buy a $500k property with 20% deposit and 5.5% costs.. Benefits available, negative gearing and ever increasing rents… in 10 years, property is likely to be worth $1m.. so you invested $100k and have a $450k profit before tax (after $30k buying and $20k selling costs). The rent earned and negative gearing benefits would mostly pay for bank payments, maintenance and holding costs etc. You are likely to pocked some money from the rent too but lets just ignore it.

      2. Invest $130k in an Index fund for 10 years.. average 5% dividend yield and 8% growth.. assume dividend reinvested back, you are likely to earn about $300k in 10 years from my rough calcs.. an average Joey is still $150k worse off.

      And this is where we consider a property will double over 10 years.. I have 2 properties that I have held of 10 years, both have appreciated about 140% in these 10 years while being positive cashflow for last 7 years. Sure, we shouldnt have all our egss in one basked, but the "Index fund are better than property" is just isnt true.

      • You're comparing a leveraged investment vs an unleveraged investment.
        Now do option 2 with the same deposit and leverage.

        • +1

          The point is, the average joey doesnt know how to use leverage in share markets and they are not as safe as on a property.. there are no margin calls if property market had a sudden crash and someone will not be foreced unless they also lose thier cashflow.. leveraged buying with share markets at a bad time and a margin call can kill the dream completely. using borrowed funds to buy shares has much greater risks than property and it is not for everyone.

          • @Megatron: There's no margin calls with orangecarpet-22's suggestion and your earlier suggestion, either.

            • +1

              @tenpercent: Yes but we are talking like for like to compare returns, not a scenario where property is being leveraged to buy shares.. in the scenario I presented, the subject used own funds and bank lending.. to compare similar, it would be own finds and margin lending to buy shares :)

              • @Megatron: I would hardly describe scenario 1 where $500k is invested in property as comparable to scenario 2 where only $130k is invested in shares. You're off by 3.8 times.

                • +1

                  @tenpercent: Think of it as what can you buy with your money vs what is the value of the asset.

                  If you are given $130k and has borrowing power for say $400k, what is a non finance savvy person buying? Would they be comfortable putting $530k into an index fund/etf? Lets say they did and markets crashed with 30% value erosion.. there comes the margin call, what are they going to do? Forced to sell at a loss and this is why a person even like me who knows his way around financials, would not use leverage in share markets.. Debt recyling yes, but only because it comes with a tax benefit.

                  I say this from exprience, all people I know who have couple of properties have zero to very minor exposure in share markets other than their super.. they see share as a punt and are generally going with $5-10k on low/mid-cap shares to test their luck.

              • +1

                @Megatron: I've watched the Stockmarket and various shares literally collapse within hours and minutes, there is no way I could ever feel comfortable borrowing money to invest in shares - I'd continually be a nervous wreck.

                I'm not even comfortable using my own money for buying shares - seems to me that it's no different to gambling or religion, and there's no way I'm going to sacrifice my financial position for those either.

                I'd never sleep again. Can you even insure your shares? At least I can insure a property which provides some protection against significant long term losses!

          • +1

            @Megatron: I'm with you matey,

            I am comfortable with property investing. It is something that I understand and I believe will provide me with security.

            There may be better ways to generate an income, but either I don't want to, I don't understand them, I don't feel as comfortable with them, I'm not prepared to take those kinds of risks or any other Miriad of reasons.

            Yes, I do have some shares, but only because I sort of accidentally acquired them. I don't understand them, nor want to know, they just sit there doing whatever it is the do until one day I either need to sell them or bequeath them.

            Quite frankly, if we had anything close to a decent interest rate, I'd stick my money in the bank and just leave it be.

            What people often fail to understand is that low interest rates may be good for those who want to borrow money, but they are absolutely terrible for those who are content to leave their savings in the bank.

            • +1

              @Muppet Detector: Yes and that is how most of us are.. Share markets are driven by big funds managers and large sized investors.. I know few people who have lost money in share markets but none who has made a fortune :)

  • +2

    The SA RE thread on WP is probably best for more precise advice.

    SA has gone backwards as a whole. Adelaide, whilst moght appear to have large gains, started from a lower base.

    Adelaide is suffering from regional migration preference in Visa categories and still movement from interstate buyers.

    However, the market is flatlining. For example, in some eastern suburbs, while houses may still be getting $1.1-1.7, there are just as many on subdividable blocks only pulling in $950-1.1. Why? Developers have a cap, stamp duty and lodging costs at $1m have hit $60k and SAW fees are about to triple in the next 3 years.

    Will prices go backwards? Not like Perth - that's more a boom/bust cycle. That doesn't exist here. We also dont have an APS cycle ike the ACT.

    You will start to see more movement in 3rd tier or outer suburbs.

    Rule of Adelaide investing. Inner ring, then second ring suburbs.

    • +1

      WP is pretty quiet for a while.. not many people engaging as far as I can see and definitely not any who are up for a discussion.

      SAW fees are about to triple in the next 3 years.

      What fees are these?

      We also dont have an APS cycle ike the ACT.

      ACT isnt suffering from an APS cycle, but rather an over supply due to lower immigration.

      Rule of Adelaide investing. Inner ring, then second ring suburbs.

      While the outer suburbs like Brahma lodge, Munno Para, Elizabeth East, Christies downs, Morphetvale, etc. are all pushing above $700k, there isnt much left in terms of growth I would think.. You could get a similar house for about $1.1-$1.2m in an inner suburb like Edwardstown, Plympton Park, Renown Park, Pockets of Campbelltown, so it would be hard to justify a $800k tag in not so nice outer suburbs.

      More than that, I think if interstate investors dried up, Adelaide could really struggle as wages are no where near eastern states in Adelaide. I am more worried about outer suburbs like Munno Para and Parafield gardens that is really hot right now but when the supply from new housing development starts, first home buyer competition in these subrbs will dry up and renters will probably also want to rent newer built houses.

      • SAW connections are changing to a new fee structure to recoup the infrastructure expenditure.

        See 2026 pricing - https://www.sawater.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/21782…

        https://www.sawater.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/21783…

        These will keep rising for 3? Years I believe

        ACT consistently has price fluctuations based on public service funding and election cycles. Covid was an anomaly based on stupid people. Who can afford a $3m house in Canberra on APS6?

        Your thoughts on the Adelaide suburbs are correct. Why are courtyard houses in Oakden selling tgis week for high $8s? Like cmon 🙄 People must be stupid. Or outsiders.

        Easy buy a courtyard south of the river for that. And really, that's the boundary. Darlington to Gepps Cross. Ideally south of the river for maximum return.

        • SAW connections are changing to a new fee structure to recoup the infrastructure expenditure.

          Ahh SA Water.. yeah I know about them. Cant remember if it was 3 years or 4.

          ACT consistently has price fluctuations based on public service funding and election cycles. Covid was an anomaly based on stupid people. Who can afford a $3m house in Canberra on APS6?

          To some extent yes but largely it is due to lower demand for rentals.. there are lot of contractors who earn 3 to 5x of APS6 but lately the rental demand is just not there.. Govt has pushed by canning the work from home policy but it hasnt really helped as I think people who moved out of ACT probably realised that it is a sh*thole and decided not to come back.

          Easy buy a courtyard south of the river for that. And really, that's the boundary. Darlington to Gepps Cross. Ideally south of the river for maximum return.

          My thoughts too but in last year, North has trumped the gains in south.. Parafiled Gardens is still pretty hot and properties are selling for about 10% above asking.. the narrative is now pushing towards the likes of Burton, Devoren Park and Paralowie.. all due to a narrative the BAs are shoving in people's brains.

          • @Megatron: I'm not gonna lie. I control f's for "trump", so I could make some… comments, and got the actual word.

          • +1

            @Megatron: Parafield Gardens is due to one community pushing into local school. Once that's dried up, itll plummet.

            Mawson Lakes has better long term returns, especially for apartment rentals to students.

            The only thing I would consider north is possible land banks around Evanston, Gawler River, Lewiston, Kalbeeba, Two Wells. Avoid Angle Vale and Virginia (infrastructure cant keep up). Freeling long term if you can wait for the government to release funds for water upgrades. Roseworthy another option only on large blocks

            • +1

              @Benoffie: Nice, you are now the second person in 2 weeks who has said to avoid Virginia and Angle Vale.. the other person said to avoid Munno Para too.

              Re Parafield, you are right but that cant be the only reason as that place has only picked up in last year.. I think it is also saturation of the market.

              The student numbers are set to go down too so not sure if Mawson in long term will still perform.. International student fees for 2 year courses are now touching $90k and 3 year $120k.. with reduced pathways to PR, I think the student numbers may drop in future too.

  • +1

    youre asking for information that not even seasoned experts can provide a definitive answer on

  • +1

    At end of day it's guessing.

    Absolutely everyone here is full of shit if they're saying otherwise and telling you one specific market will go up more than others.

    • +1

      Lets face it .This isn't somebody asking for advice, it's a "rubbing in the face of others" exercise.
      Boil it down. Battlers website advising a privileged cohort on how they can screw it down even harder.
      Guess who wins, and who doesn't.

      • +2

        How is this a battler's website?

        Does bargain hunting mean you're a battler?

        Sheesh, the owner of the site generates enough income that he gives tens of thousands of dollars away to charity! Just in the last few months I've witnessed him donating over $80,000 to charitable causes.

        Gonna try and tell me he's a battler?

        Don't want to read about things that other members find interesting? Scroll on by and don't read the threads.

        Pfft battler website? I saw a thread on here the other day about professional photographers for under $1000 FOR A BABY!

        So many people discussing purchasing expensive cars etc.

        Others paying INXS of $200 a week for a cleaner.

        Thousands on computers, international travel and other holidays and accomodation etc.

        Discussions about $1000 coffee machines and BBQs

        What financial crisis?

        • +1

          I didn't infer tight arsed rich ppl don't use it. That makes even more sense.(Just don't let the Jones's next door find out)
          I agree there are ppl here complaining about the CoL crisis, blaming it on govt, then churning TVs every second year.

          • @Protractor: Judging by the Whirlpool thread there are a lot of people here because they've been banned from there.

            Why is someone a tight arse because they engage in bargain hunting?

            Perhaps they are able to do things such as donate money to charity (like Scotty does) because they are able to save money in other areas.

Login or Join to leave a comment