You are funny....
And the best bit is that you dont get it.
Frankston increased more than Toorak in the last 5 and 10 years.
Harris mate, you have obviously lost the plot. Have a play around with the median property prices here
http://data1.reiv.com.au/trendchart/default.aspx
Now tell me how on Earth did you come up with the fact Frankston > Toorak.
Feel free to show/prove with some other method. I anticipate you will be thoroughly disappointed.
Frankston gets double the yield compared to majority of inner suburbs.
Can't disagree with you there but arguably the greatest wealth generated is from absolute capital growth. You don't see the super wealthy buying properties in Frankston do you? All buy a multitude of properties in premium suburbs and when they sell, it is often millions of dollars of capital growth. You also don't see rich Mainland Chinese people buying in Frankston as well. They simply buy in places like Toorak and Brighton, land bank (so 0% yield) because they know it will probably increase $1mil each and every year anyway.
2 x Frankston North properties I bought side by side for $144,000 each in 2006 on 800 sqm each have permit for 6 units with 6% + yield at the time of purchase. Even if sold without permits, I get over 80% growth in 3.5 years whilst the properties were cash flow neutral - almost. Which inner suburb property you can get that would cost you only a couple of hundred a month to hold and gives you 80% growth...?? I have addresses of all of my properties on Franskton threads. The permits and construction balloons the increase to well over 120%. Tell me a single example where an inner melbourne property can do that.
80% in 3.5 years? pfft, nothing special mate.
You ask for a single example, and I will give you 3 and these are recent as one.
1. 327 Montague St, Albert Park
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/m-property-boom-hits-home/story-e6frf7kx-1225804948615
This went for over 70% above reserve and don't forget the vendor's reserve would also enjoy substantial capital growth. In other words, this house went for 70% growth in 1 day. Not to mention it is a piece of crap inside as well so there is immense value-adding potential.
2. 13 Loch St, Camberwell
http://www.domain.com.au/Public/Art...ng start to 2010 as bidders come out in force
$890K reserve and sold for $1.34mil
That is like over 50% above reserve.
3. 135 Clark St, Port Melbourne
Vendor's bought it last year for $1.3mil and never touched it. Went on the market last month and sold for $1.9mil. $600K for doing nothing in a year.
I can go and talk about the numerous other properties that go for 20-50% above reserve but there are too many!
8 Frankston / Frankston central properties have given me an average of over 35% growth with 6.5% average yield at the time of purchase.
Please refer to the main Frankston thread.
Properties in Frankston South have gone up by over 35% in 3 years and I sold 2 there with 45% gain last year..
You are caught in a double whammy my friend. Firstly, I just showed you some inner city suburbs that have done better in both % and absolute terms and in a shorter time frame. Also, just by a rough guess, your 45% gain is what? $200K? Mate, every second house inner city has been going for $200K above reserve, which in other words, could also mean a capital growth of $200K in one day.
My properties in Kew , Mont Albert, Doncaster have grew the least compared to Frankston in the last 4 years -They are close though but yield is not remotely close.
This is absolute growth , before you throw another furfy in there about absolute vs percent.
You must have bought really crappy properties in those suburbs.
I understand the game much better than you - I have a very diversified inner, outer, middle, interstate metro and interstate regional and I have had a particular interest in analysing growth Australia wide - I was like you when I started and bought my first property in Kew, second in Mont Albert.. Then I realised the power of cash flow.
With your arguments, it is obvious you do not understand the game better than I do. I am not saying I know everything but I know more than you judging by the jargon you conjured up in your post. Also, diversified doesn't mean anything. For all I know, all your properties could be worth about $200K each just like our good friend Sash & Crash.
Some of the interstate regionals have given me over 260% growth like Rockhampton and Cairns whilst others that I bought off the back of RP Data reports that had Hervey Bay (Eli Waters) as the best performing suburb for 5 year growth in 2006 having failed to give me any growth in the last 4 years..!
260% growth is impressive in anyone's language but you are starting on a low base, so in absolute terms, it could mean only about $200K. Also, you didn't give a timeline and you may also have renovated and/or improved it in some shape or form of which you need to price into it as well. People often forget this, which is why the 3 examples I gave were unrenovated.
I dont have anything against inner suburbs, but the myth has been busted many times however some of the over excited ones just keep on keeping on paddling those myths.
Even if inner grew faster than outer, knowing what I know now, I would still buy outer because of the yield factor. Yield allows me to borrow more and keep buying.
That is such an immature statement. And capital growth and equity does not allow you to borrow more or keep buying?
You have a long way to go....
Take it easy and learn from others whilst you get there.
Harris
Yes, I do have a long way to go....