Property vs. shares for a 20-Something

[young-gun]

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]

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

that is perth as a whole, if you have half a brain you'll easily find an area that has gone up 2-3%

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

again, manhattan had no mining boom

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

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

 

[Trembling Hand]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

what so you say to this?

 

[againsthegrain]

No chance

 

[herzy]

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]

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