Was having a discussion and wanted a few other opinions,
when I look at a regional town with a fairly small population, lets say 2000-6000,
How do you analyse the rental trends? some areas have very little availalbe, while some have quite a lot avaialble,
Or do you simply refer to the SOM factor?
and in these cities, is capital growth linked into a higher proportion of the population being renters or occupiers,
they way I see it, if there is a lot of renters, it means that rentals are in demand=rent increase=investors flock=price rise,
however, you could interpret it the other way and say, very few renters means combined with very few rentals = tight vacancy, however, liquid/elastic prices,
when I see a regional suburb with very few rentals avaialble , I instantly assume that there is very little supply and demand for rentals, so your $300 per week property even though its worth $300 per week, may only rent for $200 per week if you get desperate
when I look at a regional town with a fairly small population, lets say 2000-6000,
How do you analyse the rental trends? some areas have very little availalbe, while some have quite a lot avaialble,
Or do you simply refer to the SOM factor?
and in these cities, is capital growth linked into a higher proportion of the population being renters or occupiers,
they way I see it, if there is a lot of renters, it means that rentals are in demand=rent increase=investors flock=price rise,
however, you could interpret it the other way and say, very few renters means combined with very few rentals = tight vacancy, however, liquid/elastic prices,
when I see a regional suburb with very few rentals avaialble , I instantly assume that there is very little supply and demand for rentals, so your $300 per week property even though its worth $300 per week, may only rent for $200 per week if you get desperate