Priced to Grow!

Hi guys,

Just interested to see peoples thoughts on purchase prices (forgetting the specifics). Does anyone only buy on a general principle on what they think is price range that gets the most growth.

For example
-Only buy at or around median city price as it's the price half the population can afford and half will be aspiring too.
-Buy at the bottom end (say 50% of median price) because has the most room to growth (i.e small price movement $20K are large in percentage terms)
-Buy top end property (2 x median price) because these are desireable properties that all people would aspire to live in.

Not concerned about the specifics, i.e yields, deprectiation, location, what you can afford, etc.
 
Last edited:
Unless there are other mitigating factors, I tend to aim for the lower end of a given area.

1. if the economy tanks, people tend to downgrade, not upgrade.
2. widest section of population targeted (many can afford)

Cheers,

The Y-man
 
Not concerned about the specifics, i.e yields, deprectiation, location, what you can afford, etc.

That's almost me Pete.

I'm not concerned about most specifics, yet location is the biggest factor for me.

eg. In some ways it'd be better to buy 3 median priced houses, but if there was a single house worth that much in an awesome spot I'd probably go for that instead of median houses on boring streets with boring neighbours.

Top suburb, noisy street vs mediocre suburb, quiet leafy street ?? The latter wins for me every time.
 
i prefer cheaper homes purely because more people can afford to

a) rent it (at a bit better yield too) and
b) buy it should i need to sell.

i like to buy under the median and renovate a little (carpet, paint, blinds, plants) and bring the value up to or near median. worked wonders in my last 3 properties.
 
Top