<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
Prospective home buyers beware, Australian real estate prices are likely to escalate further now the New Zealand government has moved to tighten up on foreign ownership.
Australia needs urgently, to follow New Zealand’s example and crack down on foreign ownership or even more Australians will miss out on the chance to own their own home.
The pressure on Australian property prices is likely to increase substantially with New Zealand tightening its foreign investment rules and overseas buyers forced to look elsewhere to invest.
The New Zealand Government has the courage to tackle the issue of housing affordability head on but what about Australia?
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work out where these foreign buyers will divert their attention and buying power now that the New Zealand Government has passed new legislation to address this growing problem.
New laws were just passed in New Zealand Parliament this week banning foreigners from buying most types of property after a foreign spending spree has seen prices pushed up and local buyers pushed out.
According to the latest figures from the Australian Tax Office's Agricultural Land Register 13.6 per cent of all Australian agricultural land is foreign owned with the UK and China the largest owners.
Sadly they don’t know how much non-agricultural land is in foreign hands.
It’s important to remember that China alone has more decamillionaires than Australia has tax payers.
The New Zealand Government has clearly recognised the very real threat foreign ownership poses to housing affordability with rates of homelessness in the country among the highest in the developed world.
In contrast, the Australian Government seems to keep fiddling around at the edges rather than addressing the problem head on.
Much of the current generation have already been priced out of the market due to the high number of foreign buyers outbidding Australian citizens in particular over the past decade and this will only get worse unless significant policy changes are implemented.
Australia’s relatively strong economy and consistent capital growth in its major cities over many decades is part of the attraction to foreign buyers and will continue to drive foreign ownership of prime Australian land, both regionally and in the cities, pushing prices even higher.
It is obvious that non-residents eager to buy Australian real estate will do so if you make it easy for them because they see Australia as a stable economy and a safe place to store their money
Patrick Bright is the EPS Property Search director and author of The Insider’s Guide to Buying Real Estate
</body></html>

pbright-aNtgvRfvJN

Australia needs to follow New Zealand's lead and act now on foreign ownership: Patrick Bright

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Property buyers should be wary of the high-risk investment temptation created by record low interest rates and an influx of apartment and housing developments across Australia.
The combination of last week’s rate cut and an oversupply of off-the- plan developments in many capital city locations just increases the risk of this type of speculative investment.
On the eve of the 2016 Federal Budget, the Reserve Bank of Australia lowered interest rates to 1.75 percent – the lowest in Australia’s history.
With any off-the-plan property purchases, investors should understand that they were buying a speculative investment that carries with it associated risks.
Anything that you buy with a delayed settlement is a risk and the longer the settlement the greater that risk becomes.
You’re punting on the fact that the market will go up.
If it goes down and it’s worth less at completion than the price you paid, then, when you go to finance that property at settlement you’re in negative equity.
If you end up in this situation it’s much harder to get the finance and if you can’t secure it then you will lose your 10% deposit.
On top of this you need to be aware that if the developer then on-sells the property for less, they could also sue you for the difference for non-performance.
Off-the-plan contracts also heavily favour the developer and most include shrinkage clauses, sunset clauses, like for like clauses and many others that keep you tied to purchasing the property even though they can have a detrimental impact on the end value of the apartment.
Investors are better off buying established real estate as it offers a much lower overall risk.
Established real estate is usually in a better location and provides a more secure investment opportunity when compared to off-the-plan property.
You’re less likely to be competing with cashed up foreign buyers who don’t understand current market values and often overpay.
In addition, you can rent out established property immediately after purchase and receive a return on your money straight away rather than hoping to secure a return in a year or two.
Often off-the-plan properties, especially those built over the last decade, have been designed more as investment products for developers who want to sell quickly with a high margin rather than a quality product built to a high standard.
In comparison, I find apartments that were built in the 60s to 90s are generally in better locations and have more focus on space and outlook.
Patrick Bright is buyer's agent for EPS Property Search and can be contacted <a href="https://www.epspropertysearch.com.au" target="_blank">here.</a>
</body></html>

Investors warned against lure of buying off-the-plan: Patrick Bright

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
With the end of the financial year fast approaching it’s a good time to sit back and analyse your financial position.
Investors should be questioning their property portfolio to make sure it’s performing at its best.
Regardless of whether you own one, three, five or more properties you need to treat them all like a business and undertake regular reviews.
Ideally these reviews should be done six monthly but no less than annually.
Too often, I find investors are reluctant to question whether their property investments are getting the best return.
For some reason they seem to favour leaving them to tick over in the hands of a property manager.
As a stocktake, I recommend you should ask yourself the following questions:
1. AM I CONFIDENT THAT I AM MAKING MY PROPERTY ASSETS WORK AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL?
Insist that your property manager undertakes regular rent reviews to make certain your rental rate matches or exceeds current market values and if it’s consistently falling below the mark, then you’ll need to ask why.
As a starting point ask yourself “Have I selected an inefficient property manager or have I purchased a property that is performing poorly and will continue to do so?”
2. AM I TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ALL THE TAX DEDUCTIONS I AM LEGALLY ENTITLED TO?
Surprisingly many property investors claim significantly less back from the Tax Office than they are entitled to each year simply because they don’t claim every legitimate deduction. Tax rules and regulations change and you need to keep abreast of them. For this reason it pays to invest in a good financial advisor or accountant who can structure your properties tax-effectively and keep you up-to-date on all the latest rulings from the Tax Office.
3. AM I ON TRACK TO REACH MY RETIREMENT NEEDS?
Make sure your financial plan is on track to meet your retirement needs and includes the timings of when you want to buy more property to build up your asset base. Small adjustments over 10 or 20 years will make a significant financial difference when it comes to retirement
4. AM I PAYING THE LOWEST INTEREST RATE AVAILABLE TO ME?
A drop of even 0.25 per cent will save you tens of thousands of dollars over the life of the loan but be sure the conditions of the loan also tie in with your future plans. It is advisable to review your interest rate level every one to two years to make sure you’re getting the best deal. You may even find that your current lender is willing to match a competitors’ rate, saving you the hassle of moving, but you’ll never know unless you ask!
5. ARE THERE ANY FINANCIAL CHANGES THAT I NEED TO IMPLEMENT NOW TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR ME TO ACHIEVE MY PROPERTY PLAN FOR THE COMING FINANCIAL YEAR?
By writing down clear goals for the future growth of your portfolio you should be able to determine how much money you’ll need for the necessary deposits and incorporate this information into your overall financial plan. If you’re due to add to your portfolio in the next 12 months then start getting your finances in order now to determine the equity you have in your existing properties so that you know how much you have to draw on for a new purchase.
Patrick Bright is a Sydney-based buyer’s agent who has purchased more than $500 million worth of real estate for clients. The updated 3rd edition of his best-selling book “The Insider’s Guide to Buying Real Estate” reveals the latest trends on how to search for and negotiate the best possible deal for purchasing property. For more information on Patrick Bright or EPS Property Search click <a href="https://www.epspropertysearch.com.au" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">here</a>. 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

The top questions all property investors should ask themselves at tax time: Patrick Bright

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Prospective home owners and investors should be careful not to go overboard with the current low interest rate.
Last week the Reserve Bank cut interest rates to a historic low of 2.25% after weeks of speculation.
I encourage home owners to continue to pay off their mortgage with the same or higher repayments in order to build up a buffer to be used in tough times.
Prospective home buyers often get so excited about buying their own place that they forget about evaluating the future.
They base their home loan on their current financial circumstances and don’t take into account their future plans like starting a family or allowing for the fact that rates will rise at some time in the future.
While rates are at historic lows now, it’s important to keep in mind that they won’t stay at these levels for the long term.
There’s no downside to making repayments above your required level as it gives you a safety net in case of difficult financial times or allows you to pay off your mortgage sooner.
In contrast, borrowing to your maximum at this, or any, time is a recipe for disaster.
I recommend people follow my 20-25-20 rule if they want to avoid financial stress where you put down a 20% deposit, ensure no more than 25% of your income is required for repayments and have a term of no longer than 20 years.
Patrick Bright is the founder of Sydney-based buyer’s agency <a href="https://%20www.epspropertysearch.com.au/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">EPS Property Search</a>.
Patrick is the author of four best-selling real estate books known as “The Insider’s Guide to Buying Real Estate Series”.
</body></html>

Buyers beware the lure of low interest rates: Patrick Bright

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
On Saturday, I witnessed two auctions that were marketed in two different ways and which resulted in very different outcomes.
The first property was advertised with a fairly typical auction marketing campaign which included the usual underquoting. The price guide that was provided throughout the marketing campaign was $1,050,000. At auction the bidding ran out of steam short of the reserve. The agent came and told me he needed more money to get it on the market as the reserve was $1.25 million. I said, "best of luck as you won't be getting that out of me".  
Frustrated the agent went inside to talk to the vendor again before coming back outside to tell me that he had convinced the vendor to reduce the reserve to $1,225,000.  He then told the auctioneer and it was called on the market at $1,225,000. No further bids were made and it sold for $25,000 under the vendor’s reserve to us.  
Anyone who did detailed research and looked at the comparables would know that the property was worth $1,250,000 to $1,275,000 but the underquoting attracted people with a budget closer to the guide of $1.05 million rather than those with a budget of $1.25 million or more. More than likely many of those people with a budget around the $1.25 million mark were attending auctions that had price guides around that point but reserves and values that were maybe closer to the $1.45 million mark?   
The fact is my clients loved the property so much that they gave me a budget of $1,330,000 to spend if needed to secure the property. Yes we purchased the property $105,000 below what my clients were prepared to pay for it which they are very happy about. However they are even happier we purchased it for $50,000 below what the comparables indicated the property was worth up to. 
In comparison at the second property auction I attended the vendor had decided to be transparent with the market. Whether he decided to do this of his own accord or read about my petition to make it mandatory to publish reserves and decided to take the idea on board, I don’t know.  What I do know is that he was transparent with buyers and attracted bidders who could actually afford the price he wanted for the property. He set and published his reserve at $570,000 and <a href="/expert-insights/buying/33615-a-7-5-premium-above-disclosed-reserve-at-bexley-auction-experiment" target="_blank">the property sold for $613,000, some $43,000 over the reserve</a>.
The buyer was ushered into the house to sign the contract and so I spoke to the under bidder. I asked her if the publishing of the reserve price influenced her decision to bid on the property.  She said she would not have even attended the auction if the reserve price had not been disclosed as she was ‘fed up’ with attending auctions that had reserves set well over the price guide provided by agents.
The bottom line here is that transparency won the day.
Let’s hope it catches on for not only all the vendors’ sake but for all the buyers who keep wasting money and time attending auctions every week where the reserve is set in excess of the guide when in fact they should be one in the same.  
If you think my idea of publishing reserves prior to auction is a good move then simply <a href="https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-honourable-matthew-mason-cox-mlc-nsw-government-make-it-compulsory-to-advertise-auction-reserve-prices-to-stamp-out-underquoting-and-dummy-bidding" target="_blank">sign my petition</a> which is calling on the NSW state government to make it mandatory for all property auctions to have the reserve price advertised seven days ahead of a scheduled auction. 
Feel free to make your comments as to why you signed the petition in the comments box.
Patrick Bright is the founder of Sydney-based buyer’s agency <a href="https://%20www.epspropertysearch.com.au/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">EPS Property Search</a>.
Patrick is the author of four best-selling real estate books known as “The Insider’s Guide to Buying Real Estate Series”.
<a href="https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-honourable-matthew-mason-cox-mlc-nsw-government-make-it-compulsory-to-advertise-auction-reserve-prices-to-stamp-out-underquoting-and-dummy-bidding" target="_blank">Visit change.org to sign the petition</a> calling on the NSW state government to make it mandatory for all property auctions.
</body></html>

No more excuses: Publishing the reserve price prior to auction works

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
According to news reports it looks like the ban on price guides for properties up for auction in Queensland will go ahead when Parliament sits in May - with one minor amendment.
Vendors and selling agents will still be able to categorise the property in a price bracket for buyers searching on real estate websites. 
How will it affect the auction climate in Queensland?  Not much - auctions aren't as popular there and price guides have always been frowned upon.  But the debate has captured the attention of the major players in Sydney and Melbourne where auctions are the sales method of choice for many. A change such as this in these markets would dramatically alter the real estate landscape and make auctions less popular - a result many in the industry don't want despite the flaws in the current process. 
<blockquote>
Underquoting is a cruel, misleading and deceptive practice that needs to be stamped out for good.
</blockquote>
This is why I believe so many industry players have been so outspoken against the proposed changes. Their main claim has been that "buyers want pricing information". Yes, they are on the right track - buyers do want pricing information - however, they have left off the most important words in that statement which I believe to be "honest and transparent". 
The Queensland government's position can be summed up as "no price guides are better than phoney ones", and I have to agree.
Underquoting, or bait advertising as it’s also known, is a cruel, misleading and deceptive practice that needs to be stamped out for good.  
However, I believe the Queensland government is set to miss the mark here. They have the opportunity to make a real change for the better with the eyes of Australia's real estate industry watching.
Instead what is proposed is a half measure that doesn't really address the lack of transparency issue.
Naturally I much prefer my idea of making it mandatory to publish auction reserve prices seven days prior to auction as I've outlined in <a href="https://www.epspropertysearch.com.au/go/eps/blog/bringing-down-the-hammer-on-dodgy-auction-price-guides" target="_self">previous blogs</a>.  I believe my proposed changes would achieve a much better outcome for both the buyers and sellers.  Further my proposed changes would more than likely make auctions more popular with buyers due to this transparency.  If they are more popular with buyers they will be more popular with sellers, so everybody wins. 
In just a few weeks my <a href="https://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-honourable-stuart-ayres-mp-nsw-government-make-it-compulsory-to-advertise-auction-reserve-prices-to-stamp-out-underquoting-and-dummy-bidding" target="_blank">‘publish auction reserve prices’</a> petition has had hundreds of comments supporting the idea, but I believe it needs more support before the Minister is likely to look at the proposal - if you haven't already please take three minutes to read it and support it if you agree.   
Please let anyone you know who has recently purchased a property or who is currently searching for one know about it so they can also have their say! 
Patrick Bright is the founder of Sydney-based buyer’s agency <a href="https://%20www.epspropertysearch.com.au/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">EPS Property Search</a>.
Patrick is the author of four best-selling real estate books known as “The Insider’s Guide to Buying Real Estate Series.”
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.epspropertysearch.com.au/" rel="nofollow">www.epspropertysearch.com.au</a>.
</body></html>

Queensland's price guide bans don't go far enough, what we need is real transparency

<html><body>
Properties being sold by auction should be advertised with the reserve price to stamp out misleading price guides.
With auctions becoming the sales method of choice, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, the process must be improved to provide greater transparency for buyers.
Vendors who choose to sell via auction should be required to publish the auction reserve price seven days out from auction day to create a more transparent process.
Buyers can then pay the building and pest inspection costs and legal fees with confidence knowing that they have a real chance of owning the property rather than wasting money trying to buy a property that they could never afford if their budget is below the vendor’s reserve.
Despite it being a breach of the Act, many selling agents and vendors still under-quote the value of properties up for auction and something needs to change.
As expected, buyers accept the selling agent’s price guides on face value for properties listed for auction and why wouldn’t they?
Unfortunately though for the buyers, the vendor’s real expectations and subsequent reserve are often significantly above the price guide and often far more than they can afford.
For example an auction I attended for a client last Saturday had an advertised price guide of over $1.5 million up until the day of the auction.
The auction bidding stalled at $1.970 million, some 30% above the guide and the auctioneer then stopped the auction and asked the agent to seek the vendor’s instructions before eventually selling the property to that bidder.
I can assure you the mood at the auction turned to one of frustration and anger for many buyers holding bidding cards as surely the reserve should have been met that far above a price guide.
Unfortunately this happens every weekend leaving thousands of people unnecessarily out of pocket.
While the Queensland government’s proposed approach has some merit in removing bait advertising it doesn’t address the issue of buyers wasting time and money on inspections in situations where vendors set unrealistically high reserves.
Patrick Bright is the founder of Sydney-based buyer’s agency <a rel="nofollow" href="https://%20www.epspropertysearch.com.au/" target="_blank">EPS Property Search</a>.
                                          
</body></html>

Bringing down the hammer on dodgy price guides

<html><body>
I'm not against foreign investment and I'm not against the property market increasing in value.  What I don't agree with is the current 'Foreign Investment Policy Settings' in regards to property acquisition by non-residents or non-Australian citizens.
The two main concerns I have are that it's inflationary and that it will create a generation of renters which will result in other knock-on social issues down the track.
Under the current policy, 100% of a new apartment blocks or any new housing with FIRB (Foreign Investment Review Board) approval can be sold to non-residents. As a result of this there is no doubt that we are seeing prices (particularly in our capital cities) being pushed up higher and faster than they otherwise would be without foreign buyers thereby creating an inflationary effect.
As a nation we have prided ourselves on giving all Australians a fair go. In contrast this current situation prices many would be Australian home buyers and investors seeking to secure their future out of the market. It is forcing many to rent now who would otherwise like to purchase and could create a generation where more rent than own diminishing for many the great Australian dream of owning their own home.
The reality is that the property market is strong enough without adding more demand to what is widely reported by several housing bodies as a market that has an under-supply. Currently those stats show the under-supply to be in excess of 200,000 properties and this is increasing.  So there's no question that we have plenty of demand locally without "importing it".
The flow on effects of the current policy must also be examined. We are likely to see a generation that will be far more financially dependent on the government come retirement having not established the financial security of buying and paying-off their own home.
Financial modelling for self-funded retirees (which is the purpose of super) has the assumption that retirees have paid off their home. If they are still renting then it's likely they will require an additional million dollars in super or other investments (be that cash, shares or property) to fund their rental costs, for the rest of their lives.  If they don't then it’s highly likely they will be dependent on some form of government pension or financial support to pay their rent.
It's well understood that once people/families are dependent on welfare it often becomes generational. Clearly more people being dependant on government financial support is not in Australia's long-term interest.
I have written to the PM with my recommendations for adjustments to the policy which would essentially restrict the amount of properties that can be sold to non residents in any one particular development to a less inflationary level of less than 10% and to place a limit on how many properties any one individual non resident can purchase in Australia.
The federal government has the responsibility to create quality, sustainable policy and make adjustments to the current foreign investment rules so that we don't end up with social problems for future generations. I am optimistic that the new government will address this very important issue as it's become increasingly apparent that the current policy needs adjusting.
Patrick Bright is the founder of Sydney-based buyer’s agency <a target="_blank" href="https://%20www.epspropertysearch.com.au/" rel="nofollow">EPS Property Search</a>.
Patrick is the author of four best-selling real estate books known as “The Insider’s Guide to Buying Real Estate Series.”
This article first appeared on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.epspropertysearch.com.au/">www.epspropertysearch.com.au</a>.
 
 
</body></html>

Why the federal government must change its foreign investment policy

<html><body>
I was speaking with a finance broker last week and he was telling me a story about one of his clients who purchased a property for $661,000.
Ok, so there’s nothing unusual about that but here's where it gets interesting.The finance broker knew the area as he lived close by and thought that $661,000 was a lot for a two bedroom apartment in that location so it must be something special. As per standard practice the bank ordered a valuation which came in at $661,000 (the purchase price). This surprised him as he was sure the valuation was going to come in well below that figure. 
In sharing the story with a co-worker, they discovered that a different client had asked the co-worker to help them with a re-finance against a two bedroom apartment that they owned in the same street. As it turned out it was the same property and the valuation came in at $500,000. The co-worker added that the valuation figure wasn't enough for his clients to draw down enough cash to do what they wanted to and so they decided to sell the property.
The vendor appointed a sales agent and the property was listed as offers over $620,000 but they were hoping to sell for at least $600,000. We now know the sales agent managed to get $661,000 out of the buyer which was well over what even the sales agent thought the property would achieve (clearly the buyer didn't do much if any research as not many properties sell for more than what a sales agents tells you is achievable).
If that wasn't scary enough it gets worse as both the seller and the buyer were dealing with the same major bank! So the valuation was ordered by the same bank on both occasions and was quite possibly done by the same firm (one would assume if the same firm at least a different person within that firm).
So the question I would like an answer to is: How do two valuers come up with such a staggeringly different result only eight weeks apart on a two-bedroom apartment with no view or any other emotional features that could affect the value?
Well as a manager of national valuation firm said to me only a few weeks ago when I shared with him several other valuation "please explain" stories like this one: "When the banks only pay you around $250 dollars for each valuation and you need to do 6-8 a day to be profitable there is only so much effort you can put in... in fact it’s not often we physically have time to inspect the properties as given the time constraints most of the time we just drive by the property or use google earth to make sure it exists!”
Sure a valuation is a wise thing to obtain if you’re unsure on a property’s value particularly if you’re buying in an area you’re not highly familiar with however it’s only helpful if it’s done properly.
Here’s a hint - you are likely to get what you pay for. And here’s a tip - do some serious research or hire someone who will as it’s likely to save you tens of thousands of dollars.
 
<hr>
Patrick Bright is the founder of Sydney-based buyer’s agency <a rel="nofollow" href="https://%20www.epspropertysearch.com.au/" target="_blank">EPS Property Search</a>.
Patrick is the author of four best-selling real estate books known as “The Insider’s Guide to Buying Real Estate Series.”
This article first appeared on <a href="https://www.epspropertysearch.com.au">www.epspropertysearch.com.au</a>
 
</body></html>

Why do some valuers get it so wrong? Patrick Bright 

<html><body>
Put simply, the federal government’s policy on foreign investment is pushing properties out of the reach of Australians.  
Under existing laws, developers are able to sell 100% of their developments to non-residents.
The knock-on effect has seen some developers almost exclusively marketing properties to foreign buyers who have deeper pockets than Australia’s first home buyers.  If the rules didn’t dictate that they need to also locally market then they most likely wouldn’t bother, as very few locals will pay the prices they can command from foreigners who are keen to get their money out of their home country and into Australia.
Prior to 2009, developers were only allowed to sell up to 50% to non-residents. Personally I thought that 50% was more than double what it should have been as that sizable percentage is enough to skew the local market value of a development.  But in an attempt to stimulate the construction market, the then Rudd Government relaxed the laws allowing 100% of new developments to be sold to foreigners in what I regard as a knee-jerk reaction to the GFC.
There is little doubt from those with their finger on the pulse that the change of rules contributed to the real estate market rising as much as it did in 2009.  One of the changes that I believe was so impressionable on the market rising (which about 14 months later was reversed) didn’t even require foreign buyers to apply for purchasing approval.  Can you imagine a situation where a foreigner could just look at domain.com.au, decide they want to buy a property they see, email the selling agent with an offer, then proceed to exchange contracts?  It sounds crazy but essentially that was what was happening.
Australia’s relatively strong economy and history of fairly stable and constant capital growth for real estate in its major cities will continue to drive foreign investment in Australia and push prices much higher than they already are.
The proportion of new houses and apartments being purchased by foreign buyers has doubled in the space of two years. According to the latest NAB residential property index, foreign buyers now account for between 12% and 13% of all new residential property purchases. Harbourfront developments like <a href="https://news.domain.com.au/domain/real-estate-news/barangaroo-apartments-sell-out-20130831-2sxal">Sydney’s Barangaroo which sold out before lunch</a> on the launch day including one-bedders at $1 million, two-bedders at $2 million and three-bedders at $3 million are further evidence of a fuelled market. Total sales exceeded $300 million in the first release.
The current policy is forcing generation X and Y into becoming a generation of renters at a greater percentage than they otherwise should or would like to be.  This will have many other knock-on effects in years to come for example it’s likely to put extra pressure on the social security system as buying and paying off your own home is a form of forced saving. As, let’s face it, most people who rent don’t invest at the level they should to avoid renting forever.
If the new federal Abbott-led government doesn’t tighten up foreign investment laws, non-residents will continue to buy Australian real estate (both residential and farming) at an increasing rate as they want their money in Australia because they see it as a stable, strong economy especially compared to their own.
No doubt most Australians like me are more than happy for non-residents who are here on working visas to buy properties and enjoy them while they’re here if they don’t want to rent on the proviso that they sell them when they leave.  I fail to see how allowing non-residents to buy Australian real estate - in many cases not even renting them out - is helping Aussies fulfill the great Australian dream of buying their own home which should be the core mission of any government policy in regards to housing.
 
<hr>
 Patrick Bright is the founder of Sydney-based buyer’s agency <a rel="nofollow" href="https://%20www.epspropertysearch.com.au/" target="_blank">EPS Property Search</a>.
 
Patrick is the author of four best-selling real estate books known as “The Insider’s Guide to Buying Real Estate Series.”
 
</body></html>

Patrick Bright

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News