I have noticed less conversations on the forum about the Ryder Reports...some feedback we have received are that the 'hot spots' are outdated by the time they are published, its more important to purchase in predominantly owner occupier areas in capital cities than chase a hopeful 'hot spot' through to some individuals achieving good outcomes investing in areas recommended by the Ryder reports...viewpoints appear diverse ...please share more thoughts
The key to successful property investing is being able to identify key fundamental growth traits of a suburb or area prior to the crowd and therefore prior to any significant price growth. It requires careful analysis and sometimes buying against the grain of what others may be saying or thinking at the time. Regardless of where you obtain your research, there's an inherent flaw in relying solely on any type of 'hotspot' prediction from a magazine, report or word of mouth as generally if the suburb is already a 'hotspot', the investor will usually have missed out on the bulk of the growth in that cycle. That doesn't even include the time it takes to complete a purchase once you have made the decision to buy there. Although I personally don't generally follow 'hotspot' predictions, if you are interested in doing so then in my humble opinion, I would be looking at what has already driven growth in the 'hotspot' and then study the surrounding areas to see whether it is likely that those same growth drivers will also cause growth in the surrounding suburbs and look at those a little more closely. - Andrew
I second (third?) that sentiment. In fact maybe I am a walking case study? Two of my properties have definitely been 'buy against the grain' based on my own DD. In the initial 2-3 years of holding said properties, the CG growth performance has out-performed even my own 'above-average' benchmark I had hoped for, when initially buying (well, for three years down the track anyway...). So, I am employing this this strategy again now for an upcoming buy. I might play the SeeChange card here and not disclose where I'm buying until I've purchased. But I will say this; this particular postcode is an ugly duckling metaphorically (physically the suburb isnt too bad and is in fact seeing owner-occ's renovating and beautifying the lovely old character homes), since all surrounding suburbs have substantially higher values but equally comparable amenity, transport links etc. The real interesting thing about the area that is more pertinent to to this particular thread is this: I did a quick scouring of the Ryders, Lomas', Yardneys and a couple other peeps of note, and none of them have this postcode in their hotspot lists. It isnt even on their radar. As I said, Ive not yet purchased as I still have more DD to do, but folks do your own homework and be brave: all forms of business investment (including property investing) do have some degree of risk invovled. You need to set a comfortable risk profile for yourself. Understand not only the risks but the potential 'rewards' between suburb X and suburb Y during your DD. It really is true, for buy-and-hold investors you really do make your money in property when you buy.
In 2013 I told the guys at work that I bought in the Gold Coast and in Logan. They bought in Chinchilla becasue of......blah blah blah some reason about agriculture as well as mining. The Gold Coast wasn't a growth area and no body wants to live in Logan apparently. Soooo that worked out well for them.
its pretty easy to name areas that have already boomed,I think I could have got my 7 yr old nephew to do that!