Disconnect between magazine numbers/top suburbs and the reality?

I was just looking at some of the numbers and highest growth rates in suburbs.. and top 20 suburbs etc in those property magazines, and I was thinking to myself.. its not often I see any of the areas I bought in featured in those numbers or top growth suburbs etc - and yet they have done really well.

I'm sure others here would have noticed the same?

Thanks

 

I tend to find find list of the suburb to be alittle old. For example a particular area avg is 370k when u hop over to real estate com and the last month's sale history or current listing is above 400k.

I think as property investors we can make our own luck ie buy the worse house on the street and renovate. I have recently renovated a house which was unliveable but is now tenanted out for $380 per week.

 

If you watch the month-to-month of a suburbs median you will see some crazy results. Even year on year can have a massive swing and does not at all correlate to what the suburb is doing (in a lot of cases)

The best method is good old fashioned comparable sales.

 

A lot of what you see in the best and worst % change lists are only suburbs with low sales eg. 10-13 sales because a few property sales can skew median figures in a big way. Ignore that data.

 

Some of them seem to be a good deal of time after the fact, spruiking a suburb that is 'on the rise' when the growth has already happened.

 

Yeah I agree. I have seen that happen many a time mate.

btw 93 more posts till 1000!!

 

Really? Hmm, 93... that's an interesting number...

 

why is that?

 

Highest growth can be achieved on paper in say a regional area that has a handful of units, then old mate sells 2 of the nicer ones and boom the median that month looks massive compared to the lemons a few months back

 

They all do that, they mostly look at data and that points then to suburbs that have already left the station for boom town

Only some articles they'll look at infrastructure etc and potential growth areas