Who Is Buying All These Properties in Kellyville/Rouse Hill Area, Sydney?

[Deactivated] on 08/02/2017 - 10:01
Last edited 14/02/2017 - 16:45

Hey guys,
I'm looking at properties for the future when we make a family and need a bigger home. We currently live in the greater Fairfield/Liverpool area in Sydney.

My question is, who is buying these properties for $1.1-$1.5 million dollars in Kellyville and Rouse Hill area?? Are these overseas investors? Or old people? Because i know heaps of people and not 1 person i know could afford such a mortgage let alone get the borrowing capacity to even buy these houses, yet they are selling every week.

For example, lets say you earn $100k and your misses earns $90k. You have a single debt of $380k but you will sell your current home to try fund this new property (current home value is say $620k). So let's say you have $220k in profit on your house (after agent fees etc), $150k in the bank, put down 20% deposit ($250k) for your $1.25M property, that leaves a $1M mortage. Who can service such a loan and who has the income for the bank to lend you $1M?

Surely there aren't 1000's of people doing this, because i sure as hell don't see bentley's driving around that area.

Who are these people??

EDIT: The general consensus from fellow ozbargainers is the buyers of these properties have strong equity levels and are merely upgrading to a newer/larger home for their family AND young couples with very high dual incomes (circa $300k+ combined) who want to bring up their young families in a nice area with great schools in the area and are willing to fund their life with debt. Look out once interest rates rise….

Financial

Comments

    • FutureTech on 09/02/2017 - 20:28

      We probably paid for his 3x weekly business class Rex flights to Sydney/Canberra

  • Shame on 09/02/2017 - 19:03
    +8

    It's the Chinese buying them all- they became rich selling stuff to OzBargainers they don't need ;)

  • ChupaCabra on 09/02/2017 - 19:33
    +4

    I'd hate to point out the elephant in the room but immigration is a significant driver pushing up housing prices. Yet no one wants to accept this because for the major parties they need it to show some GDP growth, who cares about real wage growth? Since the 90's immigration has increased by a rediculous amount, dont take my word for it either look up the stats, and all these extra people have to live somewhere dont they. If you want to live anywhere near the CBD in Sydney then you have to face the fact that as long as population is increasing then the housing prices are going to become even more rediculous.

    • darkchoc on 09/02/2017 - 20:18
      +17

      Yeah and nah.

      I'll be generalising here a bit. Australia has really tight immigration rules compared to other countries in the world.

      The vast majority of immigrants have been hard working, skilled, tax paying residents, who have created jobs for others. Usually they are required to fund private healthcare, not entitled to free education initially and required to pay full taxes.

      So immigration has definitely increased population and demand for housing.

      But the immigrants have paid vast amount of taxes and used less benefits. They have contributed immensely to the finances of the state. But where had all that tax revenue gone?

      Successive state and federal governments have failed to invest in infrastructure, have an incoherent housing strategy and thereby puts pressure on the finite resource of housing on the area where jobs are. Housing supply, schools and transport should have increased where needed as the population grows.

      Together with the tax breaks on investment property, government policy has failed the regular Australian home buyer at the gain of the investor, which includes me. It's the system that is broken.

      So really immigration has been driving demand for housing. But government policy has failed to invest tax dollars to plan for the future.

      • virhlpool on 10/02/2017 - 15:00

        Australia has really tight immigration rules compared to other countries in the world.

        Really? As a migrant myself, I don't believe you. Australia is one of the easiest countries to migrate to (along with Canada). I have never seen any tourist or student visa for Australia getting rejected ever (very unlike respective US visas). Those are our income generating sectors, so income is more important than actual intention of the visa holder, fortunately or unfortunately. And a lot of them end up applying for Residency and staying here, in addition to direct migrants who come through skilled immigration or employer sponsored routes. Just my opinions.

        • darkchoc on 10/02/2017 - 17:47
          +1

          You might not agree about immigration being right from your experience.

          but If I'm reading your post correctly, you seem to agree with me that the majority immigrants here are positive contributors (e.g. income generating sectors) and your other point about other visa categories such as students and tourists are sectors that spend money and increase tax revenue for the government?

          I'd be interested in your view about my key point about tax dollars not being spent to build houses and infrastructure to support commuters driving up house prices rather than solely pointing to increased immigration.

        • virhlpool on 10/02/2017 - 21:43

          @Newplace:

          Yes, majority immigrants here are positive contributors though it doesn't mean that immigration system should be lenient allowing low quality or low skilled immigrants (i.e. easy immigration) or low quality students. I don't know on top of my head where each tax dollar is being used but if houses supply isn't keeping up with migration (hence higher demand and absurd prices), then there's something wrong with urban planning.

        • darkchoc on 10/02/2017 - 22:18

          @virhlpool: definitely something that we completely agree on.

          I don't know the statistics at all, but from what I can see from work is there are a lot of English and Irish immigrants. But they become invisible within the populace and people see more of the "others" - e.g. Indian, Chinese etc. No doubt there a lot of Indian and Chinese and other cultures, but I find it quirky that people picture immigrants to be low income, darker skinned folk.

          Even quirkier is that Australia is an nation of immigrants!

        • virhlpool on 11/02/2017 - 08:05

          @Newplace:

          No doubt there a lot of Indian and Chinese and other cultures, but I find it quirky that people picture immigrants to be low income, darker skinned folk.

          I don't think most Australians think that way. We all Australians have seen migration for ages and we know that Europeans migrate to Australia in large numbers every year, not just Asians.

      • tonyjzx on 09/02/2017 - 23:31
        +1

        Does Australia allow 'dirt poor' immigrants who make $5k in 2017 who arent refugees?

        • ripesashimi on 10/02/2017 - 10:07

          No we don't but we can't control the dodgy paperwork process overseas

        • tonyjzx on 10/02/2017 - 13:39
          -1

          @ripesashimi:

          The 'paperwork' is handled by the particular Australian embassy in that nation. I find it hard to believe that these embassies are handling dodgy paperwork.

          If you make outstanding claims, show the proof.

        • virhlpool on 10/02/2017 - 15:07
          +1

          @tonyjzx:

          The 'paperwork' is handled by the particular Australian embassy in that nation.

          Not for the immigration visas. It is handled directly by the dept of borders and immi here. Embassies in the respective countries don't play any role. Everything is done online. Embassies come into picture for student/ tourist/ business visas probably but not for immigration visas.

        • ZloyKrys on 10/02/2017 - 15:17
          +1

          @tonyjzx:

          This is not correct. The embassy could just stamp a paper sticker to the passport for $70. All processing and paperwork is done by DIBP onshore in Adelaide.

        • ripesashimi on 10/02/2017 - 20:50
          -2

          @tonyjzx: are you really asking want me to show you private immigration paperwork of other people?

        • ripesashimi on 10/02/2017 - 20:54
          -2

          @virhlpool: Either that's not true or the process varies between countries. Applications are handed to embassy in specific countries (sorry, dont want to attack any communities here). Let's say even if the paperwork are done online, the source of those documents cannot be verified since there were no record at the time.

      • ChupaCabra on 10/02/2017 - 08:11

        More than 1 in 4 people in Australia are immigrants. Look that up.There is no statistic on it but I seriously doubt that a majority of them are poor. Thats an additional 6 million people pushing up our population by more than %35. The point I want to make is that there is no denying that a population increase of that size has a huge affect on the demand of housing which significantly increases prices.

        Also agree witth Newplace as Government policy could be doing a much better job on this.\

        "Compared to you who were born here and probably inherit a thing or two from your parents, if it is already difficult for you to finance mortgage, how on earth can an average immigrant purchase a house?"

        FYI I inherited nothing and receive no financial help however I appeciate the fact that others who have worked hard can provide a home for their kids.

        • Speckled Jim on 11/02/2017 - 17:09

          The population of Australia is estimated to be 24,230,000 as of 1 October 2016. Source: Google/ABS

          Thats an additional 6 million people pushing up our population by more than %35.

          35% of population = 8,480,500
          25% of population = 6,057,500

          Please don't insult us with amateur trolling — at least get the maths right in your right-wing fantasy.

      • ZloyKrys on 10/02/2017 - 10:25
        +5

        Look mate, your argument does not seem to be consistent. If the most immigrants that arrive to Australia are dirt poor, how they manage to have that gross impact on weath-generation upon their arrival? This just does not match. You may also want to check stats, as majority of migrants that arrive to Australia are skilled migrants and they have sufficient experience not only to find a job here but also sustain themselves and their families for at least two years - the latter is a pre-requisite for the Skilled PR visa.

        Sure thing, there is a difference in pay for, say a software developer in Eastern Europe and in Australia, but considering that Eastern Europe has less tax and (considerably) less cost of living than Australia, the disposable income is very comparable. Also many countries have experienced appreciation of real estate prices, Australia is not alone here. It is not abnormal for new migrants to come with savings, perhaps coming from sale of real estate in their country, and buy something here using those funds as a deposit. I know heaps of newcomers who did that exactly in the past few years.

        • virhlpool on 10/02/2017 - 15:10
          +2

          Sure thing, there is a difference in pay for, say a software developer in Eastern Europe and in Australia, but considering that Eastern Europe has less tax and (considerably) less cost of living than Australia, the disposable income is very comparable. Also many countries have experienced appreciation of real estate prices, Australia is not alone here. It is not abnormal for new migrants to come with savings, perhaps coming from sale of real estate in their country, and buy something here using those funds as a deposit. I know heaps of newcomers who did that exactly in the past few years.

          Spot on!

        • ripesashimi on 10/02/2017 - 20:56
          -1

          Look mate, your argument does not seem to be consistent. If the most immigrants that arrive to Australia are dirt poor, how they manage to have that gross impact on weath-generation upon their arrival? This just does not match. You may also want to check stats, as majority of migrants that arrive to Australia are skilled migrants and they have sufficient experience not only to find a job here but also sustain themselves and their families for at least two years - the latter is a pre-requisite for the Skilled PR visa.

          I did not say this.

          Sure thing, there is a difference in pay for, say a software developer in Eastern Europe and in Australia, but considering that Eastern Europe has less tax and (considerably) less cost of living than Australia, the disposable income is very comparable. Also many countries have experienced appreciation of real estate prices, Australia is not alone here. It is not abnormal for new migrants to come with savings, perhaps coming from sale of real estate in their country, and buy something here using those funds as a deposit. I know heaps of newcomers who did that exactly in the past few years.

          This is entirely correct and goes well with what I have said.

      • darkchoc on 10/02/2017 - 17:54

        Ignoring your statement about how poor people are when they come here (irrelevant, incorrect and wtf?), You seem to be saying that immigrants are wealth generating and therefore tax payers - which i agree with!

        Unless I'm wrong, you're agreeing with me!!

      • enzioFirenze on 11/02/2017 - 11:27

        erm I don't know where the dirt poor part comes from, they might be dirt poor in terms of money by our standards, but certainly not their respective national standards. I know plenty of people who lived like royalty in their own countries living day-to-day after they migrated, you have to understand, most of the countries you are referring to have a very low cost of living and little to no tax which means disposable income in their standards is often more than what they would have here.

  • ChickenTalon on 09/02/2017 - 20:25
    +10

    Who Is Buying All These Properties in Kellyville/Rouse Hill Area

    Tempted to say: idiots

    But would probably politely say: people who have different ideas on life. I grew up out there and left when I was 18, the Hills District is a cultural wasteland of McMansions and shopping centres for entertainment. It is filled with like-minded people who aspire to those things and want to be comfortable above all.

    Might change when there are decent transport links, but right now it's just too far from anything interesting.

    Personally, I'd rather spend $1m on a small place (like apartment) near the city, inner west or on the beaches, or live in Melbourne.

    • zealmax on 10/02/2017 - 14:00
      +2

      +1 for Melbourne. Sydney summers are getting too warm for my liking.

    • SydStrand on 11/02/2017 - 02:28

      That's a nice idea, but realistically, you can't buy a shoebox for under $1 mil anywhere near those locations. I grew up in Stanmore and could probably never be able to afford the house I grew up in, if my folks decided to sell it off.

      That being said, I've visited the Hills, and it was fields of identical McMansions as far as the eye could see. Maybe it's a nice area to raise a family, but I'd honestly pack up and move up to Wollongong or Central Coast before splashing big money in the Hills district.

      • tonyjzx on 11/02/2017 - 23:15

        I agree with you in many ways but the reality is people do not want the lifestyle of lack of jobs in Wollongong and the Central Coast, further more I dont think the prices out there are that cheap as it is.

  • highdealer on 10/02/2017 - 00:18

    Asian who want their children to go the second best selective public school in all of NSW.

    • zealmax on 10/02/2017 - 12:09
      +1

      I think you need to be selected to go to a selective school. Got nothing to do with catchments.

      • highdealer on 10/02/2017 - 13:00
        -1

        It is not hard to be selected for selective school when you are Asian. Living 2km away from said school is not about catchments it is about convenience of transport for the children.

        • zealmax on 10/02/2017 - 13:55
          +7

          I didn't know the selection criteria was to be asian :-)

  • imcold on 10/02/2017 - 00:57

    It's all about speculative buying based on your available capital(existing properties) rather then your net income. The goal of these property buyers is not to pay off the mortgage. But to pay off the interest + a little principal till they resell after about a year. Hopefully, the rise in the property price + rental profit exceeds the amount interest they paid (negative gearing + CGT yadda). That way they can pocket the difference and use it to take a mortgage on a even moreover expensive property.

    They might spend several hundred hours fixing the place up before passing it on. This would add a few more $$$ to the property price.

    And the end of the day it's just the same property being sold around and around for more and more

    This of course will only work if someone is willing to buy a property at its inflated prices to resell for even more.

    The thing is will only work if someone is willing to buy the overpriced property to sell it even overpriced.

  • zealmax on 10/02/2017 - 10:30
    +7

    The Hills area has very good schools. Baulkham Hills High School, Matthew Pearce, Crestwood public, Jasper public, Excelsior public and I think there is a very good one in Kellyville too, just can't remember the name. Mates with children move there so that they can send them to these good schools. Regards to million dollar mortgages, none of them could afford a million dollar mortgage. However this isn't their first home. They started out west with smaller mortgages, paid that off. With mortgages paid off and capital gains they moved to the Hills with about the same mortgage as they started with their first home. Not fun, but doable.

  • Scandrew on 10/02/2017 - 12:09
    +1

    Equityyyyy mate (https://youtu.be/Z2dEM2AIwi4). Like others have mentioned, you're assuming everyone buying in to those areas are starting from scratch, if they were, yes it'd be insane, but most likely not.

    Lots of 2nd/3rd generation immigrant families blossoming in wealth now as well after many years of hard yakka. A combination of that, foreign demand and everyone wanting to be their own Richard Kiyosaki (minus the bankruptcy part =P).

    I've a few Chinese colleagues (single child) have their parents sell up overseas to bring their wealth over here to buy an inter-generational home (grand parents, parents, grandchildren). The places they've bought: Kellyville ;), Killara, etc. 1m+. I assume this isn't too uncommon?

  • Foma2 on 10/02/2017 - 13:50
    +1

    do not listen to me guys but the property buble will blow off. i do not know when but the later it happens the more devastating effect it will have.

    or they can let it go and the only ones who can afford buying homes in Australia will be overseas investors. Then at some stage will vote for "Australian Trump" who will bring jobs back to Australian soil and will protect our economy. or at least he will try it.

    • Euphemistic on 10/02/2017 - 14:20
      +6

      Yeah. I'm not going to listen to you.

      • Foma2 on 10/02/2017 - 16:57

        It is perfectly fine. Just stay within your comfort zone.

        • darkchoc on 10/02/2017 - 22:46
          +5

          you asked us to not listen to you!

    • MessyG on 10/02/2017 - 18:22

      People have been saying this for nearly ten years now.

      • Foma2 on 10/02/2017 - 20:59

        10 years is a blink of an eye in human history.
        but even now i can see how it started to slow down, e. g. in Adelaide.
        i know SA is a backwater state but similar trends will have effect all ovrr Australia but a bit later. Just watch.

        Another option is real estate will keep going up (thanks to overseas investors) but the side effect is that Australia will became one of Chinese provinces.

        • MessyG on 10/02/2017 - 21:19
          +1

          Supply and demand in issue in Sydney and Melbourne right now, not enough stock in either market (except overpriced new apartments). I suspect it will plateau and stagnate for 20 years circa 1990s.

    • chumlee on 12/02/2017 - 07:46

      The "when" is the important part of your argument though. There's a big difference between a bubble bursting in 6 months time compared to 6 years time.

    • neonlight on 12/02/2017 - 08:38
      +1

      The government won't let it burst. If so they will lose lots of stamp duties and the whole construction industry will be in shambles. Millions of job loss

      • Foma2 on 12/02/2017 - 10:13

        millions of jobs have already been lost. Government haven't done anything.

        • Euphemistic on 12/02/2017 - 16:48
          +2

          Millions of jobs lost? Come on. That would mean a jump in unemployment of about 10%. Isn't it about 5-6% unemployment at the moment? If millions of jobs had been lost already then it would have to be more like 15-20%.

          Dammit, I said I wasnt going to listen to you,

        • Foma2 on 12/02/2017 - 21:42

          the real unemployment rate is around 15…18%.

        • Euphemistic on 17/02/2017 - 14:02
          +1

          @Foma2: Real or otherwise, the rate hasn't jumped enough to justify a comment of 'millions of jobs lost'

        • Foma2 on 18/02/2017 - 11:20

          13,000,000 * 18% = 2,340,000.
          still not millions ?

  • dlakers3peat on 10/02/2017 - 14:25
    +1

    my in laws are currently selling their house in Baulkham Hills which the agent tells them they will get over 1.7 million for . they are taking that money and buying a 1 yearl old house in kellyville for 1.4 million. their mortgage was paid off a long time ago. so for them they get a new house and have some cash to spare. to answer your question they are pensioners.

  • chefdillu on 10/02/2017 - 14:31
    +1

    Let face the fact, The Richest are the Chinese, then comes the Indians they both bring in culture & values to this country

    • darkchoc on 10/02/2017 - 22:44

      I reckon there is also a very large Aussie contingent too… The wealth generation at one might call it.

      Definitely not everyone nor majority, but a very number of Australians aged around 60-70 who own their family home, own an investment property or two, have helped their children with a deposit on their home. Very well educated, living in the good suburbs of the capital cities. Very well cultured too. Probably driving a nice family car and almost invisible because we don't see them as different!

      Definitely not as rich as some of the new money. But make up for it in volumes but hidden in plain sight!

  • [Deactivated] on 10/02/2017 - 21:55
    +1

    lets say you earn $100k and your misses earns $90k. You have a single debt of $380k but you will sell your current home to try fund this new property (current home value is say $620k). So let's say you have $220k in profit on your house (after agent fees etc), $150k in the bank

    Anyone else having trouble with this example?

    380k debt on a house + 150k in the bank (presumably in an offset account?) = 530k. How is that house only worth 620k?

    I wont elaborate on my reasoning, but it really doesn't add up …

  • ef on 10/02/2017 - 23:02
    +1

    For your situation not sure what your current home is like. But it might be better to keep current house and turn it into investment. If you can rent out for $450+ / you might be positive income. Also if you think you can get more capital gain out of your current place, it can be a bit of a safety net cause if you have problems you can always sell it later. But that only works if you can get your deposit.
    With one investment place you shouldn't be up for land tax either.

    Also if you have 2 loans at the same bank they can look at both loan propertied to determine LVR.

    Generally the bank cares about you having a larger base income, than what you have for deposit.

  • Yamun121 on 11/02/2017 - 02:26

    People work hard, are satisfied with less luxuries, and save for a property and slowly move up, in order to provide more for their next generation. Some people are happy with the simple life and don't need to go on international holidays every year etc

  • [Deactivated] on 11/02/2017 - 09:17
    +2

    I'm a mortgage broker and just did a quick borrowing capacity. Your scenario allows you to borrow $1.35mil which is more than enough to buy in the suggested price range.

  • chefdillu on 11/02/2017 - 09:39

    Look at this fastest growing estate in Melbourne by Mirvac
    http://www.woodlea.com.au/

    75 % blocks have been bought by the Indian Community with their hard earned money (Please not Centrelink Free Doles)

    Average new house was sold for $690K

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 11/02/2017 - 10:34

    I have no idea who choses to live in those areas for that kind of money. I hear the "Hills District" is nice but I've never really stopped there for long so I just think of Blacktown with more hills. Apparently it's where more "conservative" people chose to live so that may be your answer.

    The general rule of Sydney's desirability is water > hills > inland flat spaces. Once you're paying > $1.5 million to live in a flat inland area of Sydney then you may as well move to a cheaper city while you can.

    • tonyjzx on 11/02/2017 - 14:43

      The ignores where the jobs are.

  • SilentBob on 11/02/2017 - 15:31

    I live in the area and it's turning to shit.

    Adding a train station to rouse hill is going to completely destroy the area, the shopping centre used to be great when the only people that could travel there was by car and the occasional bus service but now the T way and train lines are going up it's going to be flooded with bogans.

    It used to be nice and quiet out here but geez, I've been looking for places to move to get away from all these people, options are north or further out west to the quiet.

  • shangoz on 11/02/2017 - 17:36
    +1

    You should ask the Government, How come they sell the land less than 400 square meters need you to pay half millions further down the rouse hill, how come the brand new house need to pay a lot of this duty that duty, also, how come the Private Insurance every years double that inflation, the house in the old land much bigger, The house every year reduce value, only the land value increase dramatically, especially close to the water or beach.

  • thetownfool on 11/02/2017 - 18:32
    +1

    All these explanations of DINKS purchasing these big 4 and 5 bedroom houses doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would dual income no kid couples be buying houses this big? There can't be many couples who would buy a massive house in preparation for when they have kids - I imagine most start small and then upsize when requirements demand. What will they do when they start having kids?

    I've often pondered the same as the OP, as I and most of my friends are the type of people who everyone describes as buying these houses - professional couples with young kids. My wife and I both make a good wage (combined income actually more than the example given). Bank would have given us a loan for >$1 million, but with 3 kids the repayments were (or seemed to me) massive and that's at a rate under 4%! That's also with my wife being back at work full time, if we had another child and my wife went on leave it would be extremely difficult. My friends don't make as much but still are fully employed with good jobs - yet struggle to save the deposit as prices go up. I'm clueless as to who the bulk of these purchasers are.

    As a final point for those speaking specifically of Kellyville - extrapolate that to the west and south west where houses with land size >550sqm go for close a million. It's not just one area and I can't help that think that should rates ever go up, there'll be incredible consequences for the economy as a whole, not just the housing market.

  • kangaroo on 11/02/2017 - 20:08
    +4

    Good question.

    I think the banks are lending too much. For example if your income is 100k, and you have a 150k deposit the banks many lend you up to 650k.
    So your monthly payment will be around $3300 and while your monthly wage is around $6000.

    So the mortgage is over 50% of your income. Isn't this way to high ?
    This percentage should be ideally between 30% to 40% (not over 50%).

    What you guys think?

  • sillyguy on 11/02/2017 - 21:20

    Hi Op, real rich people don't really drive Bentley and properties in Kellyville/Rouse Hill are relatively cheaper compared to where I came from (Ho Chi Minh city).

    House next to my inlaws was just a small old terrace (3 storeys, circa 90m2) got sold for $600,000 AUD approx. That's $6,666 per m2.

    My grandparents' house, also an old 3 storey, ~90m2 terrace, got sold last year for $400,000 AUD approx ~= $4,444 per m2. The price difference was because of the latter house is 8km away from CBD while the first one is only 2km.

    A sample nice 3 beds 700m2 house in my area (25km from CBD) would cost 1.5M ~= $2,142 per m2. That's cheap when u got a nice backyard, beautiful lawns, good infrastructure, good environment for your kids…

    Having said that, I totally agree that Sydney house prices suck (who wants to be in debt for 30 years hey?). But I guess we all have to pay premium price for living in capital city of the lucky country.

    • tonyjzx on 11/02/2017 - 23:13
      +1

      If you want to see bentleys you need to go to vaucluse edgecliff whatever. If you can only afford a $1 mil. house you cant afford a $500k car.

  • niknah on 12/02/2017 - 06:31

    Looks like Kellyville is so popular that they want to split the suburb…
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/hills-shire-times…

    According to the domain website…
    11% Retail trade
    10% Health Care/Social
    9% Manufacturing

    https://www.domain.com.au/suburb-profile/kellyville-nsw-2155

    You make the presumption here that Kellyville is an hour away from work, many people who live there could be working in the west and live their lives out west, rarely visiting the city.

  • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 15:17
    +2

    It's always been like this out that way.
    It's people who want some space.
    Good schools, shops, bit quieter.
    Sure dad and mum have to commute further each day but it's fine when you have all those things.

    Bit cheaper (well used to be) than West Pennant Hills/ Cherrybrook and even more room.

    Also, as someone who grew up in this area and went to a private school out there, it's always been incredibly affluent.
    Delta Goodrem grew up out there in a 6 bedroom mansion with a pool/sauna/tennis court etc..

    so many houses like this, because there is so much room.

    It's like this in the USA, although not as expensive.
    eg: New York executives live out in connecticut and catch the train to the city.
    In Boston they live 45 mins out of the city in mansions with lots of room and the schools/communities are so much nicer out of the city smog with room for the kids to play and fresh air.

  • daft009 on 12/02/2017 - 15:46
    +1

    Maybe not everyone is commuting to the city?!?
    Perhaps lot work around Parra, seven hills, Wetherill Park, Norwest business Park etc.

    Kellyville would be sweet for them!

    Don't measure everything to Sydney CBD!

  • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2017 - 16:12
    -1

    People blaming Chinese are dumb af since they wouldn't buy bloody rouse hill even if it was cheaper. Come on, how far is that really lol

  • cupcake on 14/02/2017 - 14:51

    Well I have seen some McMansions in my area and always wonder how the families who live in them can afford to build or buy it. It seems not only tradies but small business owners and resturant owners too.

    Other possibilities are many families live together. Sometimes, I see 5 cars in the driveway.

    Or - all their children are professionals. Doctors, lawyers, optometrists, Accountants lol and choose to live together?!

  • robb6014 on 15/02/2017 - 20:26

    I think the complainers are just bad with money - it really ain't that hard on an average wage. Maybe stop the travel, cars and Booz and see how you go.

  • neostarsx on 16/02/2017 - 10:42
    -1

    Simple really. "INVESTORS" these are the people who are driving the prices out of control and making Millions.
    Crappy Government also have not done anything to stop this until recently, it is already too late.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/03/2017 - 18:19
    +1

    The banks have a stake in not letting the bubble pop.

    They will lose massive amounts of money if the bubble pops suddenly. That is why they're tightening up lending criteria to slow the demand. That is not to say that something external can't happen to push the entire thing over the edge.
    If only a handful of people lose the ability to keep up with mortgages, the bank can be a bit more lenient in preventing the house from being dumped on to the market at a much lower price.

    "Used properties" aren't allowed to be sold to overseas buyers without a valid visa.

    Only off-the-plan houses/apartments can be bought by overseas investors directly this is supposed to grow supply as the only way the investors can realize their capital gains is by selling it at the local market rate.

    Then there is the issue of "indirect" purchases, through children on student visas etc.

    I believe most of the demand is domestic and probably high income earners or people who have 4 or 5++ properties just moving up the ladder with equity that they have built up.
    I do think that many creditors are over extended and the market is just a few steps away from popping, but at this point I think the banks still have lots of room to move to slowly deflate the bubble.

    • [Deactivated] on 06/03/2017 - 13:53

      nail on the head right there @lolbbq

      There are quite a number of homeowners who purchased long before my generation ever could have. I was born in the mid 80s and only entered the property marked in 2014.

      The young family households who were born in the late 60s to late 70s, have substantial equity from a few properties purchased in the late 90s early 2000's are living off the capital growth.

      Too bad my generation missed the boat unless we purchased pre 2012 at the latest

      • [Deactivated] on 06/03/2017 - 14:16

        Yea thats the thing about the property ladder

        Unless you've got a few properties, bought really cheap or buying in a different area, its quite had to realize the capital gains immediately if one still wants to stay in the market. The property prices move up across the board. Chances are you'd end up with one that is only marginally better than the one that was sold.

        I am one of those fabled "international investors" that will be struggling to find a property within my means (<700K). Luckily, I don't live in Sydney
        I am betting that the bubble won't pop but slowly deflate because too many people in power have a stake in it. It would take a very big global catastrophe (like the 2008 financial crisis) for the prices to really drop and then it would only do so mainly because of the local economy. Guess it just depends on how badly the banks themselves are levered.

        My opinion is that housing prices in some areas have just become a gigantic circle-jerk where wealthy people just trade properties among themselves and a few people working their guts off to join the circle.

        USA indices have been going up slowly but Australia's have been on the slow-burn up and down the last couple of years (Ours seem to mirror china's and for good reason). No idea whats going to happen next.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join