InvestSMART

Unless you're rich or love risk, property's door is closed

Discussions about residential property often descend into a debate about values. Fans tell us that demand outstrips supply and prices will continue to rise. Detractors point to lofty valuations, a history of property crashes and experiences overseas.
By · 24 Jul 2013
By ·
24 Jul 2013
comments Comments
Discussions about residential property often descend into a debate about values. Fans tell us that demand outstrips supply and prices will continue to rise. Detractors point to lofty valuations, a history of property crashes and experiences overseas.

For the record, I think property is overvalued and it's all down to mortgage volumes as to whether we have a long, slow return to reality or a fast, painful, ugly one. But before you even get to valuation, the question you should ask yourself is: do I have enough money to invest in property?

I'm not talking about buying your own home. That's mostly a consumption decision, and one we make for emotional, not financial, reasons. But it's a critical question when considering an investment property.

Let's say you're not the gambling type. You want some diversification, with your savings allocated across a range of asset classes and individual investments so you're not overly exposed to any one of them.

If you had $200,000 in super, it might be invested in cash, bonds, Australian and foreign shares, property and infrastructure. You might even have a small allocation to private equity, absolute return funds and market-neutral strategies (check your next statement if you don't know what these are).

Say you've also got $50,000 outside super and are looking at apartments in Sydney. Unfortunately, Sydney properties trade in $500,000-plus parcels, not $5000 lots. So, rather than spreading your $50,000 across a portfolio of properties, you have to take out a big mortgage and swing from the rafters.

If you've got $250,000 of net wealth and buy a $500,000 apartment, that's too much exposure to property and way too much exposure to a single investment. You've put yourself in the position where it doesn't matter what your shares, bonds and managed funds do; your financial future will be determined by the outcome on the property.

You might make 8 per cent a year on your super, but it will be quickly chewed up by transaction costs, interest payments and expenses if your property value goes nowhere. If property prices fall, you'll go backwards. Of course, if your property value goes up, you'll be a winner.

However, most of us don't have the stomach for the risk involved in laying it all on the line in a single investment. For now, unless you're rolling in millions, or a risk seeker, you can't afford to invest in property.

This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 282288).
Google News
Follow us on Google News
Go to Google News, then click "Follow" button to add us.
Share this article and show your support
Free Membership
Free Membership
InvestSMART
InvestSMART
Keep on reading more articles from InvestSMART. See more articles
Join the conversation
Join the conversation...
There are comments posted so far. Join the conversation, please login or Sign up.

Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…

The article argues you need substantial funds to invest in property without taking extreme risk. Small savings like $50,000 outside super are hard to spread across multiple properties because Sydney apartments and similar assets typically trade in $500,000-plus parcels. If your net wealth is around $250,000 and you buy a $500,000 apartment, you become overexposed to a single investment and the property market.

The author believes property is overvalued and says the key factor determining whether prices fall slowly or crash quickly is mortgage volumes. High mortgage exposure increases risk of a fast, painful adjustment; lower mortgage activity may lead to a longer, slower return to more realistic values.

According to the article, buying your own home is mostly a consumption decision driven by emotion, not the same financial calculus as an investment. Investment property should be evaluated purely as a financial decision, considering diversification, mortgage exposure and potential returns or losses.

Buying a single, high-value property can concentrate your risk. The article warns that if a large share of your net wealth is tied to one apartment, your financial future will hinge on that property’s performance regardless of how your shares, bonds or other investments fare.

The article highlights that transaction costs, interest payments and ongoing expenses can quickly eat into property returns. If the property value stagnates, these costs can negate gains; if prices fall, you can lose capital.

The article suggests no. With $200,000 in super likely already diversified across assets and only $50,000 in savings, you can’t realistically spread that money across a property portfolio. Buying a $500,000 apartment would require a large mortgage and leave you overexposed to one asset.

The article’s view is that only people with very large amounts of wealth or those who are comfortable taking high risks should consider direct property investment. In short: unless you’re 'rolling in millions' or are a risk seeker, the piece suggests you probably can’t afford to invest directly in property.

The article mentions that a diversified portfolio (for example, someone with $200,000 in super) could include cash, bonds, Australian and foreign shares, property and infrastructure, plus small allocations to private equity, absolute return funds and market‑neutral strategies. It also notes this content is general investment advice (AFSL 282288).