# Property vs. shares for a 20-Something



## ENP (1 February 2012)

Situation is I have roughly $30,000 in savings accounts/term deposits. Safe, secure, etc. 

I'm building up towards a first home deposit on a rental property either in Auckland (where I live) or elsewhere. If I was to go down this route, I'd be able to buy within 1-2 years based on 15% deposit (which mortgage broker has told me). However, with rental yields being quite poor in New Zealand and especially parts of Auckland, I'm wondering if going down the property route is the way to go. I'm thinking I could just build up a healthy share portfolio instead for anywhere from 5-7+ years until I settle down, buy a home with my partner, etc. 

I've always had the idea of building up a wealth base of property, leaveraging each property and then getting into shares later but I'm really struggling to see how property is a good investment at present.


----------



## tech/a (1 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs Shares for a 20 something*



ENP said:


> Situation is I have roughly $30,000 in savings accounts/term deposits. Safe, secure, etc.
> 
> I'm building up towards a first home deposit on a rental property either in Auckland (where I live) or elsewhere. If I was to go down this route, I'd be able to buy within 1-2 years based on 15% deposit (which mortgage broker has told me). However, with rental yields being quite poor in New Zealand and especially parts of Auckland, I'm wondering if going down the property route is the way to go. I'm thinking I could just build up a healthy share portfolio instead for anywhere from 5-7+ years until I settle down, buy a home with my partner, etc.
> 
> I've always had the idea of building up a wealth base of property, leaveraging each property and then getting into shares later but I'm really struggling to see how property is a good investment at present.




That's because it isn't.
But if your going to go the other route
You've around 10000 hrs of apprenticeship 
Before considering putting your $30k anywhere

Anyone can lose $ 30,000 but few can double it!


----------



## Bill M (1 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs Shares for a 20 something*



ENP said:


> Situation is I have roughly $30,000 in savings accounts/term deposits. Safe, secure, etc.
> 
> I've always had the idea of building up a wealth base of property, leaveraging each property and then getting into shares later but I'm really struggling to see how property is a good investment at present.




What a hard decision, at your age and after what we've seen in the last 4 years I would do nothing right now and just work hard and add to the savings, safe and secure. Then in 2 or 3 years revisit this question and re evaluate. As you know things are just so messed up in the world right now and anything can go wrong, good luck.


----------



## Julia (1 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs Shares for a 20 something*



Bill M said:


> What a hard decision, at your age and after what we've seen in the last 4 years I would do nothing right now and just work hard and add to the savings, safe and secure. Then in 2 or 3 years revisit this question and re evaluate. As you know things are just so messed up in the world right now and anything can go wrong, good luck.



Great advice.


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*

Why limit yourself to New Zealand with regard to real estate investment?



"Ninety percent of all millionaires become so through owning real estate."

Andrew Carnegie (1919)


----------



## ENP (2 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



Wysiwyg said:


> Why limit yourself to New Zealand with regard to real estate investment?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Because I live in New Zealand.


----------



## ENP (2 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*

The three options I really have are:

- Buy a rental in a main city (In NZ) for roughly 350-400k. This would take me another year or two to get the deposit, increase my salary to support the borrowings, etc.
- Buy a rental in a smaller NZ town other than Auckland, Wellington, Christchruch for 200-300k I could do this in 3-6 months
- Buy a portfolio of shares for a 5-7 year time frame to build as a first house deposit when I want to buy my own house to live in


----------



## Bill M (2 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



ENP said:


> - Buy a portfolio of shares for a 5-7 year time frame to build as a first house deposit when I want to buy my own house to live in




Yeah but what if something major happens overseas and the market drops 50% overnight? It could take you 7 years or longer to catch up again. Even if you put in a stop loss at say 5% you will lose $1500 worth of your capital. It will take you a year in interest payments to get that back. Sorry for being so negative, just highlighting this could happen. Of course the market could just fly from here but I wouldn't bet my hard earnt 30k on that.


----------



## odds-on (2 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



ENP said:


> The three options I really have are:
> 
> - Buy a rental in a main city (In NZ) for roughly 350-400k. This would take me another year or two to get the deposit, increase my salary to support the borrowings, etc.
> - Buy a rental in a smaller NZ town other than Auckland, Wellington, Christchruch for 200-300k I could do this in 3-6 months
> - Buy a portfolio of shares for a 5-7 year time frame to build as a first house deposit when I want to buy my own house to live in




IMO, the NZ property market is overpriced, plus every man and his dog in NZ is obsessed by property and property investment. Do you really think you will have a profitable edge? 

IMO, save half for a house deposit in the future and invest half. Search for a cheap asset class that you are interested in and put some money into it. Enjoy the ride and the lessons. Time is on your side.

Cheers

Oddson


----------



## tech/a (2 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*

I think Bills point hasnt been made clearly enough.
The eager investor wishes to accumulate riches NOW.

There are times to hold potfolio's and there are times to begin portfolios in each asset mentioned.
Now in my opinion is NOT the time for either.(Begining).
Keep accumulating and wait to see signs of growth OR exhaustion of supply in either.

The secret to wealth particularly when starting is *TIMING.*Opportunity is always there--TIMING is swift (Although opportunity in property lasted 5 yrs and the Bull market in stock 7 yrs).

In the meantime become an expert in the signs you will need to recognise in each to effect best timing.
A solid understanding of *ECONOMICS* will be handy
Perhaps more so the consequences of ECONOMICS--eg a war in Iraq--Gold Oil rise.
Also study RISK mitigation.


----------



## robz7777 (2 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*

Is there a great rush to invest the full amount in one asset/asset class in one hit?? 

Not a recommendation but: Managed funds are evil and you have to pay fees and you don't know EXACTLY what they are doing with your cash but it provides an option to slowly build a position (ie $100/week for the next 5 years), reducing the RISK of market timing (ie plowing your money in during 2007 when markets are going nuts). 

While you are doing this you can accumulte more cash and learn a bit about how you react to market movements while you have some skin in the game..

If you can see upside in the market and don't want to POTENTIALLY miss out on any sort of recovery (and are willing to take the risk) this may be a consideration. Otherwise nothing wrong with cash and having a smaller mortgage down the track (see the Investing vs Paying off debt thread).


----------



## Liar's Poker (2 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*

Hey ENP,

I'm in a similar situation to you (mid 20's, strong income, no debt and decent savings). I rent a house in Adelaide, have traded shares for many years and work in the commercial property and construction industry. I've also completed both Bachelor and Masters studies in construction, property, finance and investment - which means I know how to lose other people’s money as well as my own! 

*I currently hold zero shares and have no interest in entering the property market. *

After I completed paying off the remainder of my massive HECS/HELP debt, I started pouring all my left over savings and income into online savings accounts and term deposits. 

I used to love checking my shares and feeling satisfied that I was making money. I get that same sense of satisfaction checking the markets knowing I'm not losing money.

I'd just keep doing what you’re doing (being disciplined) and hold off investing until everything sorts itself out to a point where we can start understanding the risks associated with these assets again. God forbid, the next generation of millionaires listed in BRW may all get their by simply saving money... would be a pretty boring issue though.

-Liar-


----------



## TMC93 (2 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*

Im only 18 but took a year off last after school and worked in the mines (mackay) and put away 80% of my wage. I have 25% of my savings in shares and $24000 in term deposits earning the 5-6%. That 6% might seem pretty minute but compared to the -10% odd drop in shares last year its not bad at all IMO.


----------



## Kryzz (2 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*

Similar position also, forget both...concentrate on trading, 5-7 years (if this is your hypothetical timeframe) of doing so, you will be generating far greater returns (if successful), than what you would otherwise get on rental yields etc.

Strictly speaking, shares > property, it would be 'easier', for lack of a better word, to generate a better return on an equivalent some of money which would otherwise be sunk into a mortgage, for numerous reasons, regardless of the current state of market(s).


----------



## tech/a (2 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



Kryzz said:


> Similar position also, forget both...concentrate on trading, 5-7 years (if this is your hypothetical timeframe) of doing so, you will be generating far greater returns (if successful), than what you would otherwise get on rental yields etc.
> 
> Strictly speaking, shares > property, it would be 'easier', for lack of a better word, to generate a better return on an equivalent some of money which would otherwise be sunk into a mortgage, for numerous reasons, regardless of the current state of market(s).




So let me just get my head around this.

A 20 something can simply trade and return better than property or a share portfolio?
Infact all 20 something's can quite simply do this.
Failure is not a consideration?


----------



## Liar's Poker (2 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



tech/a said:


> So let me just get my head around this.
> 
> A 20 something can simply trade and return better than property or a share portfolio?
> Infact all 20 something's can quite simply do this.
> Failure is not a consideration?




Hopefully you are not stereotyping all of us because of one persons post tech. That would nearly be as silly as the original post you quoted...

Kryzz does not represent all 20 year olds. Just the invincible ones. 

-Liar-


----------



## Kryzz (2 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



tech/a said:


> So let me just get my head around this.
> 
> A 20 something can simply trade and return better than property or a share portfolio?
> Infact all 20 something's can quite simply do this.
> Failure is not a consideration?




Failure/loss is an inherent possibility with most investments, majority of people should know this (may not be obvious to some I suppose ).

I stated quite a lengthy time frame...never said anyone (regardless of age) or everyone could "quite simply do this".

Don't see why it's not possible with persistence and education.


----------



## Klogg (2 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*

The idea that 20 somethings can just trade and make money is a very simplistic view...

I'm 25, an IT contractor in the Automation/Performance testing space (which luckily pays me very well) and has enabled me to buy a home in Melbourne's inner city area (in March of 09, so I made a pretty penny - all unrealized so far of-course). 

In addition to this, I spent the last 2years mock investing in the share market (researching, making decisions as if that's what I'd bought and checking my progress). Finally, after many many hours, many books and finding my preferred style, I decided it was time to invest [Started in Oct of 2011]. I've now got a $30k share portfolio (using Value Investing techniques), which I am quite confident in.

Now that you know my story, I can only say this...

*ONLY invest what you can afford to lose!*

Following that, if you're still comfortable going ahead with it, I'd be doing this in your situation (it's hypothetical, not financial advice):

- If you choose houses - Buy a house for investment purposes and rent your Primary Place of Residence (Assuming NZ tax laws don't differ from AUS). This is so you can claim all expenses and depreciation (where applicable) in that financial year.
(There is the 6yr rule, but I won't go into that now)

- If you choose shares, make sure you have control of your funds, not someone who's only interested in taking fees from you.

- Whichever investment you choose, PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH.

I hope that wall of text was of some use to you...


----------



## Starcraftmazter (3 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



ENP said:


> The three options I really have are:
> 
> - Buy a rental in a main city (In NZ) for roughly 350-400k. This would take me another year or two to get the deposit, increase my salary to support the borrowings, etc.
> - Buy a rental in a smaller NZ town other than Auckland, Wellington, Christchruch for 200-300k I could do this in 3-6 months
> - Buy a portfolio of shares for a 5-7 year time frame to build as a first house deposit when I want to buy my own house to live in




I am a 20 something and I think you would be crazy to do any of these. Right now, at this particular point it time in the world, there does not exist a magic black hole you can throw your savings into and expect any sort of a return - including return of capital.

Sorry bud, you missed the credit bubble by 20 odd years.


----------



## ENP (14 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



Starcraftmazter said:


> I am a 20 something and I think you would be crazy to do any of these. Right now, at this particular point it time in the world, there does not exist a magic black hole you can throw your savings into and expect any sort of a return - including return of capital.
> 
> Sorry bud, you missed the credit bubble by 20 odd years.




So are you saying cash is the best investment to make?

I feel like I'm achieving nothing having my money in savings accounts.


----------



## tech/a (14 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



tech/a said:


> I think Bills point hasnt been made clearly enough.
> The eager investor wishes to accumulate riches NOW.
> 
> There are times to hold potfolio's and there are times to begin portfolios in each asset mentioned.
> ...






ENP said:


> So are you saying cash is the best investment to make?
> 
> I feel like I'm achieving nothing having my money in savings accounts.




You have read this?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (15 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



ENP said:


> So are you saying cash is the best investment to make?
> 
> I feel like I'm achieving nothing having my money in savings accounts.




I'm saying, if you are not willing to work for it - ie. actively trade with shares or on some other liquid market in the short-term (not property), then you should stick your money in a bank account, otherwise you are likely not to get it back in the same quantity - let alone generate a return on it.


----------



## suhm (15 February 2012)

I'm mid twenties and I don't really like the idea of having non tax deductible debt. I've been investing in shares for the last 8 years only had a decent amount for the last couple of years, previously my profits paid for my car and a year overseas given I was on youth allowance whilst in uni. 

Everybody's situation is different but I was only going to buy a house when I could do so outright I can't really some of my colleagues who borrow a million or more to buy property. It completely ruins their quality of life.

My thoughts are that money is only a means to an end it should be enjoyed and shared. When I talk with ppl at the end of their lives unless they are on the pension and struggling or if they are worried about how their family will cope financially.

My viewpoint may be different as I earn a decent wage have job security and guaranteed wage increases but in this market straight investment properties seem a poor strategy. The home you live is also not a pure investment decision


----------



## pavilion103 (21 February 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



ENP said:


> So are you saying cash is the best investment to make?
> 
> I feel like I'm achieving nothing having my money in savings accounts.




In my strong opinion I would remain in cash. 

I owned 3 investment properties and was fortunate (or intuitive) enough to dispose of them within the last 12 months once the writing was on the wall. If I had still held them I'd probably be down another 10-15% based on the suburbs.
I pursued the same strategy of putting a $25,000 deposit down originally and boughy my first invesment property at 20. Prices shot up straight away, I bought a second one at 21 and then a third at 23. Shortly after I realised that that monopoly money could not continue to pour in. I copped the selling costs and got out before calamity hits! (I'm now 26)

I've only started looking at trading in the last 15 months. I've spent around 1,000 hours educating myself and am starting to do ok now. 

I also mirror the advice that unless you are short term trading (which takes much time to learn), then the best investment avenue is cash right now.

Keep saving.... if you want to be a trader, then educate yourself now while you're waiting... and then look to get into the markets in 12 months time if you know what you are doing.   

People's beliefs that you can make money for nothing (property market of the past 10 years), has terrible implications for those who follow and get sucked in at the top of the market!


----------



## apgb8 (12 June 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



Kryzz said:


> Similar position also, forget both...concentrate on trading, 5-7 years (if this is your hypothetical timeframe) of doing so, you will be generating far greater returns (if successful), than what you would otherwise get on rental yields etc.
> 
> Strictly speaking, shares > property, it would be 'easier', for lack of a better word, to generate a better return on an equivalent some of money which would otherwise be sunk into a mortgage, for numerous reasons, regardless of the current state of market(s).




i'm sorry, but property doubles in price every 7-10 years...when you can borrow up to 90% of the cash for a property, if you bought a $1M house (with a $100k deposit), in ten years (less interst repayments of say $720K and other expenses of $80k) you've got a return of $200K! 
Might be able to achieve the same in shares, but i'd prefer to not have a heart attack everytime the market drops.


----------



## Trembling Hand (12 June 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



apgb8 said:


> i'm sorry, but property doubles in price every 7-10 years...when you can borrow up to 90% of the cash for a property, if you bought a $1M house (with a $100k deposit), in ten years (less interst repayments of say $720K and other expenses of $80k) you've got a return of $200K!
> Might be able to achieve the same in shares, but i'd prefer to not have a heart attack everytime the market drops.




L_______________O______________ L            !!


----------



## McLovin (12 June 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



Trembling Hand said:


> L_______________O______________ L            !!




He's wrong?


----------



## pavilion103 (12 June 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



apgb8 said:


> *i'm sorry, but property doubles in price every 7-10 years.*..when you can borrow up to 90% of the cash for a property, if you bought a $1M house (with a $100k deposit), in ten years (less interst repayments of say $720K and other expenses of $80k) you've got a return of $200K!
> Might be able to achieve the same in shares, but i'd prefer to not have a heart attack everytime the market drops.




Obvious troll is obvious?

Because I didn't think people still believed this cliche.


----------



## apgb8 (12 June 2012)

So you can prove that property prices haven't doubled (usually more than doubled) every ten years since the 60's?
Some said i'm wrong, but try prove me wrong...


----------



## Trembling Hand (12 June 2012)

apgb8 said:


> So you can prove that property prices haven't doubled (usually more than doubled) every ten years since the 60's?




Can you prove that at the end of the biggest credit bubble ever that they will double again?


----------



## young-gun (12 June 2012)

Trembling Hand said:


> Can you prove that at the end of the biggest credit bubble ever that they will double again?




+1

If you have 30k cash you don't have to leave it sit in the bank. chances are it will simply get eroded as interest rates fall. at risk of getting burnt, have you considered holding some of your cash in silver or gold?


----------



## young-gun (12 June 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



Trembling Hand said:


> L_______________O______________ L            !!




+1 again


----------



## young-gun (12 June 2012)

apgb8 said:


> So you can prove that property prices haven't doubled (usually more than doubled) every ten years since the 60's?
> Some said i'm wrong, but try prove me wrong...




do your self a favour and pull data on RE from the great depression. RE hit highs in 1929 before tumbling and staying there for the next 10 or so years. we are at the same point right now.

taking a snippet from 60's to now isn't giving you a full understanding of economic cycles.


----------



## johenmo (12 June 2012)

At this stage, it's not necessarily what you make, it's what you don't lose.  Yes, there will be some who will make a return in shares and/or property.  But most won't, for many of the reasons tech/a mentioned.  Credit issues will last a bit longer, the ASX will be range-bound for some time so for many it's better to stay out of these markets for the next, say, 2-3 years.  If property drops, imagine the bargains that will come (at someone else's expense).

If you want to make money, look where crime goes - sex/drugs/alcohol.  All 3 do well in bad times, too.  And if you get caught, you can get free lodging where you will get friends with benefits.   This is not a recommendation  - the remark was somewhat flippant!!


----------



## apgb8 (12 June 2012)

Trembling Hand said:


> Can you prove that at the end of the biggest credit bubble ever that they will double again?




well considering the prices haven't actually gone down since 2007, i doubt they'll keeping decreasing. yes maybe from 2007-2017 they won't double, but i think they will double in the next ten years.



young-gun said:


> do your self a favour and pull data on RE from the great depression. RE hit highs in 1929 before tumbling and staying there for the next 10 or so years. we are at the same point right now.
> 
> taking a snippet from 60's to now isn't giving you a full understanding of economic cycles.




I wouldn't call property prices increasing 2-3% "tumbling", and i wasn't aware Australia was amongst its biggest mining boom in the 1930's. economists rely a lot on cycles and theories, but don't take a lot of external factors into the equation. Australia's mining boom and population growth should push it through this stagnant time, highly doubt prices will go down.


----------



## HarryH (12 June 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



apgb8 said:


> i'm sorry, but property doubles in price every 7-10 years...when you can borrow up to 90% of the cash for a property, if you bought a $1M house (with a $100k deposit), in ten years (less interst repayments of say $720K and other expenses of $80k) you've got a return of $200K!
> Might be able to achieve the same in shares, but i'd prefer to not have a heart attack everytime the market drops.




That's a pretty damn good return (not) what's that yield on a yearly basis?

You're probably trolling though.


----------



## Trembling Hand (12 June 2012)

apgb8 said:


> Australia's mining boom and population growth should push it through this stagnant time, highly doubt prices will go down.




Population is not the main driver of prices. Since very few new purchases are paid with cash what sets prices is credit growth. No credit growth no increase of prices. You expecting credit growth?


----------



## Julia (12 June 2012)

apgb8 said:


> i'm sorry, but property doubles in price every 7-10 years...when you can borrow up to 90% of the cash for a property, if you bought a $1M house (with a $100k deposit), in ten years (less interst repayments of say $720K and other expenses of $80k) you've got a return of $200K!
> Might be able to achieve the same in shares, but i'd prefer to not have a heart attack everytime the market drops.



Some magnificent assumptions there.
Plenty of people acted on just that sort of heroic forecast and are in dire trouble now.

Today I made an offer for a house in this area that was pretty realistic on the present market to the owner who is operating sans agent.  She rejected it on the basis that:

1.  They borrowed 100% of the purchase price, quite a short time ago, so have almost no equity in the property.
2.  At the same time they bought a block of land on which they have outgoings but no income, also in negative equity.
3.  They are 'hoping' for a turn around in the market which will at least return them to break even.  Hope they're not holding their breath.

What is more than likely for them is house prices will fall further, ditto the land, and it's unlikely the bank will in future loan them 100% of the purchase price.  The present house is in a regional area where prices are lower than in Brisbane, so their difficulty is further compounded by higher prices in a capital city which is where they need to go.

So anyone buying on the naive 'doubling every 7 - 10 years' belief, is in for a pretty unpleasant reality check imo.



apgb8 said:


> I wouldn't call property prices increasing 2-3% "tumbling", and i wasn't aware Australia was amongst its biggest mining boom in the 1930's. economists rely a lot on cycles and theories, but don't take a lot of external factors into the equation. Australia's mining boom and population growth should push it through this stagnant time, highly doubt prices will go down.



This reminds me of the house seller's further imparted wisdom, viz "if you really want to make money buy a cheap house in a mining area where they're getting rentals of more than $1000 p.w.".  The notion that there are no cheap properties in such areas had not apparently occurred to her and she had no concept of ROE.

No wonder so many people end up in deep ****.


----------



## Tyler Durden (12 June 2012)

*Re: Property vs. shares for a 20 something*



pavilion103 said:


> Obvious troll is obvious?
> 
> Because I didn't think people still believed this cliche.


----------



## apgb8 (12 June 2012)

HarryH said:


> That's a pretty damn good return (not) what's that yield on a yearly basis?
> 
> You're probably trolling though.




no not trolling...
how is that not  good return? that's a yield of 11.6%pa...how's that not good?



Julia said:


> Some magnificent assumptions there.
> Plenty of people acted on just that sort of heroic forecast and are in dire trouble now.
> 
> Today I made an offer for a house in this area that was pretty realistic on the present market to the owner who is operating sans agent.  She rejected it on the basis that:
> ...




i'm not 100% on the markets over the east, but i'm in Perth and if you look at our growth, i'd love for you to tell me some reasons why it still won't grow considering our huge population and mining boom going on right now.


----------



## young-gun (13 June 2012)

apgb8 said:


> I wouldn't call property prices increasing 2-3% "tumbling"




are you just trolling or do you have a link to support this?

heres a link to a report on manhattan house prices in the 20's and 30's. you will most likely discredit it as it's from your states. do so if you wish.

http://people.hbs.edu/tnicholas/Anna_tom.pdf



> A typical property bought in 1920 would have
> retained only 56 percent of its initial value in nominal terms two decades later. An investment
> in the stock market index (including dividends) would have outperformed an investment in a
> typical property (including net rental income), by a factor of 5.2 over our time period.




external factors have little to do with the underlying principals that move markets.


----------



## apgb8 (13 June 2012)

young-gun said:


> are you just trolling or do you have a link to support this?
> 
> http://www.rs.realestate.com.au/cgi-bin/rsearch?a=sp&s=wa&u=perth
> 
> ...




well tell me what underlying principals will bring property prices down, because one simple yet large principle is supply>demand right now.


----------



## Trembling Hand (13 June 2012)

Trembling Hand said:


> Population is not the main driver of prices. Since very few new purchases are paid with cash what sets prices is credit growth. No credit growth no increase of prices. You expecting credit growth?






apgb8 said:


> well tell me what underlying principals will bring property prices down, because one simple yet large principle is supply>demand right now.




Did the population in the US fall in 2007 to start the crash there?




NO


----------



## McLovin (13 June 2012)

apgb8 said:
			
		

> i'm not 100% on the markets over the east, but i'm in Perth and if you look at our growth, i'd love for you to tell me some reasons why it still won't grow considering our huge population and mining boom going on right now.




WA has a huge population? The entire state's population is about half of Western Sydney's.

It may continue to grow until the music stops playing and the Chinese go home at which point, would you want to have been the sucker who paid $1.6m for this sh!thole?

http://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-wa-port+hedland-110066465


----------



## apgb8 (13 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> WA has a huge population? The entire state's population is about half of Western Sydney's.
> 
> It may continue to grow until the music stops playing and the Chinese go home at which point, would you want to have been the sucker who paid $1.6m for this sh!thole?
> 
> http://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-wa-port+hedland-110066465




Lol perth population growth. And the population is 1.8 million, considering sydney's is 4, I doubt it is half of western sydney...and with the population it currently has there will be plenty if mining to come considering the amount of land.


----------



## McLovin (13 June 2012)

apgb8 said:


> Lol perth population growth. And the population is 1.8 million, considering sydney's is 4, I doubt it is half of western sydney...and with the population it currently has there will be plenty if mining to come considering the amount of land.




Sydney is 4.6m, excluding the Central Coast and Wollongong which are almost like satellite suburbs now and would lift it to around 5-5.1m. Western Sydney is 2.2m. So not 1/2 but to claim Perth has a huge population is a bit far fetched. The reality is that Perth is a one trick pony stuck in an obscure part of the most remote continent on Earth. It'll be fine in a boom, just hope you're not holding the hot potato when the music stops or you will get burnt.

The worst investment decisions tend to be made at the best of times.


----------



## apgb8 (27 June 2012)

http://www.wabusinessnews.com.au/ar...A&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_click

what so you say to this?


----------



## againsthegrain (27 June 2012)

No chance


----------



## herzy (27 June 2012)

I just wanted to point out that apgb8 said huge population (and mining) boom. Not huge population. 

Again, the importance of grammar rears its ugly head. Anyway, interesting discussion.


----------



## mastatrada (5 July 2012)

McLovin said:


> Sydney is 4.6m, excluding the Central Coast and Wollongong which are almost like satellite suburbs now and would lift it to around 5-5.1m. Western Sydney is 2.2m. So not 1/2 but to claim Perth has a huge population is a bit far fetched. The reality is that *Perth is a one trick pony* stuck in an obscure part of the most remote continent on Earth. It'll be fine in a boom, just hope you're not holding the hot potato when the music stops or you will get burnt.
> 
> The worst investment decisions tend to be made at the best of times.




Have to disagree there, the economy may be strongly influenced by mining, and I recently (perhaps slightly prematurely) sold a house in Hedland because I don't want to be stuck with property in a dusty arid town nobody wants to live in when the Chinese have turned their attention to African countries who are grateful for investment and won't bite the hand that feeds them with stupid taxes.
 However agriculture could be the new mining in the next 10 years with world population levels rising and a finite supply of food, and WA has large and well developed agriculture. Moreover, Perth has a huge population vacuum for surrounding countries given its relative clean and low density nature; rich Asians and Indians are desperate to live here, the government only have to relax foreign investment laws a bit for a huge influx of wealth


----------

