This series aims to refute a lot of the rubbish that might ruin an investor's financial future. It re-assesses long-held beliefs with historical evidence.
Hosted by Jeremy & Damien
Every few years a familiar claim resurfaces. This cycle is different. You need to pivot to a better strategy. What worked before will not work now. It sounds like new insight. It is not. Australian property is diverse. There is almost always a market in a boom somewhere. The strategy was always to find it. A change in one market’s condition does not change the investment strategy.
Investors are told to focus on land. Buy houses, not units. Buy bigger blocks. More square metres equals better performance. The principle that land appreciates and buildings depreciate is correct. The mistake is what gets assumed next. Bigger does not usually mean better. Square metres are not the metric. Dollar allocation is.
Some professionals advise investors to buy at the bottom. Get in before the rise. Capture the full growth cycle. It sounds reasonable. Buy when prices are lowest. Ride the wave up. The historical data tells a different story. Bottoms are only obvious in hindsight. They can drag on for years longer than anticipated. The opportunity cost is massive. When reduced to a tested formula, buying at the bottom usually underperforms buying in a boom.
Selling agents repeat the line. This area has great features and therefore will always be in high demand. The implication is that features dictate demand, so affluent suburbs must be the best performers. The data shows that is not true. Affluent areas grow in cycles. They fall harder than cheaper markets in corrections. They are not outperformers over time.
Investors spend a lot of time looking into properties listed below the suburb median. They believe the median will drag their property's value up. Cheaper properties surrounded by more expensive ones should benefit. That is the claim. It is not how property valuation works.
Experts tell investors to avoid suburbs with a high percentage of public housing. The claim is that it suppresses growth. It sounds reasonable. Disadvantaged residents. Discounted rents. Government stock mixed with private. We researched historical data across four census years and every suburb in Australia. We found that public housing has no impact on growth.
Fake experts warn investors away from cheap markets. The claim is that when times get tough, cheap markets fall the hardest. Investors avoid affordable suburbs on this basis. They pay more for markets they believe are safer. Historical data was examined across 45 years of Australian property history. Five market corrections. One consistent result. Cheap markets do not fall the most. Expensive ones do.
For years, property professionals called 3% the vacancy rate of a balanced market. Nobody tested it. Nobody proved it. The number circulated and stuck. Research published in 2021 put the figure closer to 2%. Since then a rental crisis has reshaped the market entirely. The benchmark needs updating again. And the new number is lower than most expect.
Investors spend a lot of time looking into rail lines, hospital builds, and highway upgrades. The belief is that big projects drive big growth. Infrastructure amenities attract buyers. Construction brings jobs. Jobs bring people. People drive demand. When you test this against historical data, the relationship either disappears or runs in the wrong direction. Infrastructure research is one of the biggest time sinks in property investing. And it is largely unnecessary.