How do you manage to look inside the heads of the 'posters' to decide if they are right or wrong in their choices or thinking. If someone says they would rather live in Point Cook then their must be a reason for that. For you to then jump in and start questioning those posters or their motivation is juvenile.
whole time...?? as in two and a half minutes that you have been on the forum for..!
No, definitely not. You are a rather common breed. There have been a few like you in the past who have since left after a few posts or been banned due to their constant negative posts and very intense 'shove-down-your-throat' type approach to otherwise useful and constructive debates.
I dont know how long have you been investing and where you invest. I have invested in very blue chip suburbs, middle ring suburbs, outer metro, regional interstate and metro interstate. You sound new to the game. Dont know about Point Cook or Werribee but I have a very large chunk of properties in Frankston, Frankston North and Frankston South. This debate has been done to death in the forums over the last few years about blue chip suburbs vs outer suburbs. You should go and read some of those threads.
Can someone please find the link and paste here which included median values of the last 10 and 20 years of outer vs inner suburbs as well as the threads on inner vs outer ? I tried locating but couldnt find the threads.
Here are the facts:
On a % growth basis, from 2002 to 2010, my inner melbourne blue chip portfolio has come equal third along with my middle ring melbourne (east) portfolio whereas my interstate regional has appreciated by over twice the rate I got from suburbs in Kew and Mont Albert. Second in place is my portfolio in Frankston. On top of that, my yields have been the least in Kew and Mont Albert compared to any of my other purchases including regional or metro interstate, outer melbourne or middle ring melbourne.
I pity at your very simplistic approach to all things investing.. You dont have a remote understanding of the variables of investing over and above the simple 'asset competition'.
Here are some facts. On a % terms over the last 10 years, Frankston (thinking rich..???? I dont think so) has increased more in its median value than Toorak. Get the data and compare. Frankston North has increased more than Canterbury in % terms. Dandenong has achieved the same growth in % terms when compared with Brighton... On top of that the yields in all of those 'povvy' suburbs are almost twice you will get in inner. So in absolute terms, if you had X dollars to spend to fast-track property acqusition and equity growth, then owing to very high yield you would have more equity to play with if you invested in Franskton than if you did in Toorak. Infact, you can buy and hold 1.8 properties in Frankston/ Dandenong and Springvale than you can in Toorak or Kew (serviceability) and hence if the growth is same, you will be 1.8 times better off investing in those suburbs than investing in Toorak.
Toorak's median was $1m + in 1999. As of Jan 2010 it is $2.67m
http://data1.reiv.com.au/trendchart/default.aspx
Now if the Frankston's median has increased 2.5 times in the last 10 years, Frankston's median has improved 3 times... Check the medians and come back
Have a look at Werribee, Craigieburn, Sprigvale and Dandenong and they have appreciated very close in % terms to Toorak and Brighton median in the last 10 years. Your argument does not hold water.
Add on the yield factor and your argument sounds more like an empty myth and one of the most frequently busted myths in the world of property investing..
Now tell us about your investment journey - When you started, where you invested and what else you do besides paddling myths on property investing..
Harris