In one of my whatever happened to <insert name of person met years back> moments, I did some googling and found some history, dissolving business partnerships, records of court cases etc. As happens one gets sidetracked into unrelated websites. In this case some case studies from financial planners. Case Studies - Smith Wealth Partners Some advice is encapsulated in one sentence: “Rent where you can afford, buy where you want to live.” This is assuming 1. You are not investing in IPs first, 2. You need to save up for a deposit, and 3. You hope that house prices in the area you wish to buy don't rise faster than you can save the deposit for. This is justified on the basis of delayed gratification. Also it is assumed that you're not earning much on your savings as high returns (eg sharemarket) can crash and result in losing half a house deposit (or more). It occurred to me that this is completely contrary to an approach that many low-middle income property investors have used to good effect. That is "Buy IPs where you can afford, rent where you want to live" With this approach you are getting into the property market earlier (and possibly enjoy more of any capital gains). Because there's rental income to consider your serviceability is better than if you only had your PPOR. You are exploiting both generally higher yields in cheaper areas (as a landlord) and lower yields in dearer areas (as a tenant). $100k in higher purchase price will buy in a slightly better suburb while $100pw extra in rent will let you rent in a vastly better area due to declining yields. Your commuting costs may also be lower in the dearer area. There's still delayed gratification but in this case it's to do with your PPOR tenure (renting rather than buying) rather than location. The moral is to beware of one-liners from financial advisers as they aren't necessarily the best approach for everyone. Especially on property topics.