Don’t miss out, CLICK HEREto get up to date video education from Konrad Bobilak.
Here is what you will learn by watching this video:
You have probably heard the old saying “land appreciates, and buildings depreciate”, and I must say that if I had a dollar every time I heard this phrase at a seminar, workshop, radio or read in a book I would probably have a deposit for a good investment property in one of Australia’s top suburbs.
Finite all-encompassing statements like these have been thrown around in property investing for decades.
It’s a combination of folklore, vested interests, or just plain old ignorance.
Here are a few more that you may have come across;
- You always make money on property in the way in,
- Always buy cash flow positive property, and never fall into the negatively geared trap,
- Location, location, location is the most important criteria when selecting properties,
And the list goes on, and on…
The objective of this video is to dispel these myths, and arm you with the ability to conduct unbiased due-diligence and become a more informed and intelligent investor, rather than listening to the herd. Once you gain a clear understanding of the real key drivers behind property appreciation, which as you will find out in the video run far beyond the intrinsic value of the land and the building of a property, then you will be able to objectively identify and zoom in on the very best suburbs, streets in those suburbs, and specific properties with laser like precision, and achieve capital growth beyond the market average.
If you look at this statement from a strictly literal perspective, it would imply that the only investment properties that can appreciate in capital growth are those with a significant land component in them, or more specifically, that the value of a property is determined more on the size of the land content than on the building component.
Now I don’t know what the exact land content is require in order for a property to fulfil its minimum prerequisite to be deemed a property that has land, but given that this phrase has been excessively propagated by house and land developers, or agents selling house and land estates, I will assume that a good 500 square meters or even 1000 square meters plus, would tick the box.
The premise being made in the “land appreciates, and buildings depreciate” statement is an overly simplistic one that unless property has an intrinsic land component it cannot appreciate value, or it would outperform the capital growth potential of those properties with a low or from a practical perspective non-existent land component, such as apartments, or to a lesser extent townhouses.
I can tell you that making such finite oversimplified statements is a sure way to lose all your money in real estate, fast!