Old property has better capital growth

If you have 2 properties side-by-side with identical blocks of land, but the dwelling on one property is new and the other is old, the old will have better capital growth. It's a mathematical certainty - all other things being equal.

Investors have been duped by developers and those pushing new. Historical data, maths & logic confirm that old properties outperform new ones. This is convincingly proven in topic #3 from the Expert Busting series.

Before you go claiming the "benefits" of depreciation. higher rent, lower maintenance or stamp duty savings, check out the full article in the on the Select Residential Property website. None of those things come anywhere close to making amends for the inferior growth.

An extract from the article...

 

Worst house on the best street, then?

Basic property investing isnt rocket science. In previous generations new migrants who barely spoke english became millionaires. Then the next generation moaned that all the opportunities are gone. Until the next boom comes.

some things investors understand empirically, from experience, without all the statistical proof.

 

Makes perfect sense. I'd love to see what the data looks like looking going beyond the first 15 years of a dwelling's life. I.e. mean difference in CG between a 15 year old and 30 year old property etc.

 

To me: Worst BUT "income-producing" property in the best street, hopefully the best suburb too, in the best states from business activities perspective. So greedy...

 

@datageek link to article please