property vs shares

  1. 846 Posts.
    I've been really enjoying the property discussion today although I had to leave for a few hours due to family duties.

    When I read what some people have posted since I've been gone I have to chuckle.

    You've got some like crackaton who'll say anything just to get a fight out of you, you've got others that are very against property investment per se.

    The fact of the matter is that there is nothing unique about today, it's just another period in our history and history is on the side of the property investor.

    As long as there are more and more people wanting to live in a finite area of land then that equates to a rise in demand. The land in the major metro areas (Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane etc) is not increasing, there is only so much. Melbourne is especially good because the govt has created an Urban Growth Boundary that will contain Melbourne.

    So when demand rises whilst supply stays the same what happens?

    Other social factors are addding to the demand, for example divorces are on the way up which means two places of residence are required where before only one was required. Immigration is increasing and the number of people wanting to live here will exceed the number we will let in for quite some time yet.

    The argument of property vs shares is stupid. There are only three places you can put your money property, shares or cash, if you exclude any one of them you are only cheating yourself.
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.