hello,
yeah right,
well you would know all the "worker's" cottages had exactly that in them,
people who worked at the manufacturing in the area, and they saved and saved and saved,
sure plenty of them get around with the apron on in the front yard watering the concrete but they are down
thankyou
robots
Excuse me, I worked in this area. Less than 1% of the pensioner population had anywhere near such assets. Stop believing your own propaganda.
The trend has been much less than 10% pa. Residential property price growth has historically been coupled to wage growth. Which makes sense, because wage earners (rather than professional speculators) have historically been the primary consumers of this good.
After accounting for rental returns, real estate has historically performed worse than the stock market, and marginally better than fixed interest (at the cost of greater volatility).
You are being totally incoherent. There is no logic to your language or your sentence structure. However, I'm relaxed with that as it seems to be your normal pattern. Sure you don't have OCD? You may wish to check it out just in case.
which is absurd for such a sparcely populated continent..
59pc of Queensland retirees rely on the Goverment Old age pension of some $200 odd a week, many will eventually get roped into reverse mortgages with skyrocketing inflation.
Only a fool would be buying a property in this current market.
Not unless I was living in a car or a tent would I even consider the plunge!
Well again your wrong here,....
Capital growth historically been very close to 10% and over 10% once rental return is calculated.
And secondly this thread is about whether property is stagnating which it clearly isn't in certain markets.
Let me give an example in Sydney, which has probably been the best performing market in recent Australian history. The average landed Sydney residential property cost $23,000 in 1970, and $523,000 in 2006.
That equates to a nominal return of about 9.5% pa.
But you need to consider that inflation averaged 10.4% pa in the 1970s, and 8.1% pa in the 1980s.
Accounting for inflation (which fell to 2.0% pa in the 1990s and 3.5% pa in 2000-2006), you get real capital gains of 2.85% pa, which is only slightly more than real wages growth.
Include rental returns, and it's clear that property has been a respectable earner. But it's not the free lunch that some people have made it out to be. It's underperformed the stock market, and requires a greater investment of time and effort.
hello,
care to give us a run down on the "genuine" return on investment,
or still skimming over that part
thankyou
robots
Let me give an example in Sydney, which has probably been the best performing market in recent Australian history. The average landed Sydney residential property cost $23,000 in 1970, and $523,000 in 2006.
That equates to a nominal return of about 9.5% pa.
But you need to consider that inflation averaged 10.4% pa in the 1970s, and 8.1% pa in the 1980s.
Accounting for inflation (which fell to 2.0% pa in the 1990s and 3.5% pa in 2000-2006), you get real capital gains of 2.85% pa, which is only slightly more than real wages growth.
Include rental returns, and it's clear that property has been a respectable earner. But it's not the free lunch that some people have made it out to be. It's underperformed the stock market, and requires a greater investment of time and effort.
What are you mumbling about? I just gave it: real returns of 2.85% pa in Sydney since 1970, plus whatever you can rent it for.
Whats this got to do with property being viable as an investment?
But currently as an owner occupier going forward it isnt a viable investment if prices dont increase by 10pc or more p/a.
People from Brisbane who listened to this post back in 2004 have turned out to be the fools,....
MELBOURNE'S house price boom is unsustainable, Premier John Brumby warned yesterday, as he counselled buyers against borrowing too much and counting on ever-rising prices.
The trend has been much less than 10% pa. Residential property price growth has historically been coupled to wage growth. Which makes sense, because wage earners (rather than professional speculators) have historically been the primary consumers of this good.
After accounting for rental returns, real estate has historically performed worse than the stock market, and marginally better than fixed interest (at the cost of greater volatility).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?