Always better to buy above the median

No not yet, but that will probably be the next state to move ?

 

That's the billion dollar question.
ACT was moving a bit too.

 

Hey mate, old post but I found it very interesting.

Just wanted to confirm. When we talk about buying at or below the median value, are we talking about the median value for a particular suburb, not the whole city?

Because to me it even makes sense to buy at or below the median for the city. The pool of buyers will be even greater.

 

I look at the median price of the surburb then look at the deal and try to put a value on the deal. If deem the value of the deal to be above the median price of the surburb then i go with the value of the deal. The median price doesn't take into account many factors so you could think the asking price for a deal is high but when you do your DD you might uncover why they are asking more.

 

Thanks mate, makes sense.

So the median price of the suburb should be looked at, not for the whole city.

 

Umm. Just about every one of those arguments argues for not buying above the median

Sounds like author has no idea or has an agenda

 

I think buying close to median definitely makes more sense, however every deal should be looked at in isolation.

 

Not many
Only one IP with more than $1m net income pa one between $500k to $1m pa one $400k to $500k pa all rest under $400k pa

 

Don't buy em, only sell em.

 

Yes,

All of the above comments about "it depends" and "its complicated" apply but in general yes, I meant below median for a particular suburb. There are reasons to deviate from this plan of course, but as a risk reduction method buying affordable homes in a given postcode is valid.

 

When it cost more to renovate a below median property to suit your needs, then it is better to buy a ready to live in property above the median