Should i just invest in brick house ips and not fibro

Yeah true land and location is king

 

Location is 1 important factor but imo it's not 'king'. There are many locations that are great but they won't help a number of people progress their portfolios for many reasons. You need to look at where you are in your portfolio and what type of property is needed next in order to keep moving forward. The overall deal is most important, rather than one specific attribute of a deal.

My 2 cents.

 

It's location dependant, where I live Fibro is considered dated and most houses are rendered block. In some cities the best located houses on the most valuable land are fibro.
I if I had to pick one of 2 houses on equivalent blocks of land at a similar price I would rather the brick or wooden frame house.
Brick places usually don't date but can also look really good when rendered.

 

Yeah true man , well this is going to be my first ip

 

I have some great fibros and some great brick. To me it all about purchase price, holding yield, and predicted future land value.

 

As @big max points out future potential....

Fibro homes in many areas were built in the 1940s-1970s, so could be up to 70 years old and primed for demolition. Often much cheaper than a similar brick house in the same area (& no available vacant land).

 

Or current land value, might find one where the land is worth $380k and you get a house for $80k.

 

I think location is most important, fibro homes in port Melbourne going for more than 1+ mil, same in chadstone, ashwood. The land component and location is important as well as what is happening in the surroundings.

Yeah a fibro home in next to no where in the country is best to avoid, but a fibro home which is 200m from the beach with access to CBD or 5-10km I would buy it.

 

And the same is true with brick as well.
Some houses are even timber

 

I try to avoid fibro places. Some fibro is ok e.g. a few walls covered over or a garage or something but a place completely built of fibro I would avoid.
From the future buyers pov its kind of tainted. I note that fibro is a bit of a turn off in buyers I have seen.

Of course this applies only if location and other factors being equal. A fibro house in a blue chip area or with development potential (consider increased demo costs) might be worth it.

 

But "fibro" isn't always "fibro", sometimes it's a different material.
Does it make a difference if it's clad with timber, but people just don't see brick?

 

Exactly.. a great way to get a nice bit of land at a cheap price. Unless the plan is to keep it forever, generally it would be knock down and develop in the next 10 years anyhow.

If it's hold for a short period and sell, then yes, I'd imagine they would be lower down the list. Again though, really depends on the area and the strategy. Nobody is going to care if it's fibro if its 1000sqm in a prime location (or even a lesser one), because even if were a brick or timber place, its going to end up as a pile of rubble anyhow.

 

X

Everyone should have more fibre in their diet

 

Can't be too bad if the photos of the house didn't put them off.

 

That would be an enthusiast - a fibre-o.
Surely.

 

I've heard comments and also seen turn out is lower. People know what it is