RP Data Equity Reportmedia01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/2011/09/Equity.pdf · Valuations data is...

RP Data Equity ReportJune Quarter, 2011

A quarterly assessment of equity accumulation across the Australian housing market

Released September 2011

RP Data’s Equity Report provides a ‘base level’ estimate of equity accumulation across the Australianhousing market by measuring the difference between the original purchase price of a home and thecurrent valuation for individual properties around the country.

We call this a ‘base level’ estimate of equity, as our analysis doesn’t factor home owner debt levelsinto the analysis. At a minimum, Australian mortgage holders would be covering interest paymentson their loan while the majority of mortgage holders are also paying down the loanprincipal. Additionally, home owners may have drawn upon their equity in the past which means theirdebt level may have increased relative to the property value.

Australia’s residential housing market is worth an estimated $4.56 trillion; more than three-and-a-halftimes the value of the Australian equities markets which has a market capitalisation of $1.3 trillion.With residential property being the most valuable asset class in the country, home equity is clearly animportant measure of wealth. The accumulation of value in one’s home is often a key factor that abank will assess when deciding whether or not to lend money. Australian’s have increasingly relied onvalue accumulation in their property holdings as a vehicle to leverage into other investments andpurchases.

The strong growth in Australian property values during recent years has been the major reason whymost regions enjoy quite a strong level of equity. Over the five years to June 2011 capital city homevalues have increased by about 30%, providing a significant wealth boost to most home ownersduring this period. More recently the Australian housing market has softened and home values aredown 2.7 percent between their October 2010 peak and June 2011. Recent buyers who purchased ahome during this time have potentially seen the value of their home move below their contract price.

The headline results from our equity analysis reveals that only 3.7 percent of Australian homes arecurrently valued at a lower amount than the price at which they were purchased. At the other end ofthe spectrum, about 45 percent of Australian homes are worth more than twice what their ownersoriginally purchased them for. There is some variation between regions, with areas that haverecorded a more severe downturn in home values in recent times now recording higher proportionsof homes in negative equity. Northern Queensland and South Eastern Western????? Australia areshowing more than ten percent of dwellings to be worth less now than the price at which the homewas originally purchased.

The findings also point to the fact that the length of tenure has a large impact on equityaccumulation. As would be expected, homes held for a longer time frame have accumulated moreequity than those held for a shorter amount of time. Similarly, those homes purchased after 2007have a higher propensity to show negative equity as many of these homes were purchased after thesignificant housing market gains recorded between 2000 to 2004 and during 2007.

Notes on methodologyFor each property around Australia we have compared the initial purchase price with the currentestimated value of the property to provide a base line measure of equity accumulation.

RP Data collects virtually 100 percent of all property transaction details across the country, includingpurchase price and date, from individual State Government departments and directly from real estateprofessionals who are active in the market place. Our databases hold more than 17 million salesrecords across than 11.7 million properties nationally.

Valuations data is based on RP Data’s automated valuations models whereby the company providesan estimate on home values for residential properties across Australia. RP Data values more than 8.6million dwellings each week via our automated valuation models.

Based on weekly tests where the sale records for any recently sold home are compared with theirautomated valuation result, approximately 84 percent of the RP Data automated valuations used inthe analysis are within plus or minus 15 percent of the actual sale price. The automated valuationsused for the weekly tests are run in a ‘blind’ environment where reference to the sale date or saleprice being tested is kept hidden from the valuation model.

Each automated valuation estimation provides a forecast standard deviation score that provides anindication of the accuracy of the automated valuation.

Automated valuations where the range of potential values was deemed to be too wide (ie theforecast standard deviation was greater the 25) were excluded from the analysis.

City < 0% 0 - 10% 10 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 100% > 100%

Sydney 2.9% 4.8% 15.5% 21.7% 15.4% 39.6%

Melbourne 1.4% 2.8% 8.2% 13.8% 18.7% 55.1%

Brisbane 4.1% 9.4% 15.3% 14.5% 13.7% 42.9%

Adelaide 2.4% 6.3% 16.2% 17.6% 18.4% 39.1%

Perth 3.9% 8.4% 17.2% 11.2% 12.0% 47.4%

Hobart 3.3% 6.3% 14.5% 16.0% 11.4% 48.5%

Darwin 4.8% 4.6% 12.0% 15.3% 18.4% 45.0%

Canberra 1.0% 2.8% 12.7% 20.3% 17.5% 45.7%

Combined caps 2.7% 5.4% 13.4% 16.7% 16.0% 45.9%

State < 0% 0 - 10% 10 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 100% > 100%

NSW 3.3% 5.3% 15.7% 19.9% 14.2% 41.6%

Vic 1.8% 3.2% 9.1% 14.5% 18.1% 53.3%

Qld 6.3% 10.3% 16.3% 14.0% 11.8% 41.3%

SA 3.0% 6.6% 16.5% 17.9% 17.6% 38.4%

WA 4.9% 8.3% 16.4% 11.2% 12.1% 47.1%

Tas 3.5% 5.7% 14.1% 15.7% 11.9% 49.1%

NT 4.4% 4.2% 11.8% 14.4% 19.4% 45.8%

ACT 1.0% 2.8% 12.7% 20.3% 17.5% 45.7%

National 3.7% 6.2% 14.1% 16.2% 14.7% 45.1%

Equity positions across each stateOn a state-by-state basis, Queensland has the greatestpercentage of properties in negative equity at 6.3percent followed by Western Australia with 4.9 per centof properties. On the other hand, the Australian CapitalTerritory (1.0 percent) and the state of Victoria (1.8percent) have relatively few negative equityhouseholds.

In each state, households with 100% percent equity ormore account for the largest proportion of homes ashighlighted in the table above. In stating this, almost athird of Queensland households have less than 25percent equity and almost 30 percent of WesternAustralian households are in the same position.

Overall, Victorian households enjoy the strongestequity position with 71.4 percent of households havingat least 50 percent equity in their property. Victoria,and for that matter, Melbourne, has recorded one ofthe highest rates of capital gain over the past five years(Melbourne dwelling values are up 51.5% over the fiveyears to June 2011); a factor that has likely had a majoraffect on the high equity level across the state.

3.7%6.2%

14.1%16.2%

14.7%

45.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Negative Equity 0 - 10% 10 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 100% 100% plus

p.4

Equity Overview

Typical equity positionDespite the strong growth in property values duringrecent years, 3.7 percent of home owners acrossthe nation are in a negative equity position wherethe current value of their home is less than whatthey originally paid for the property. This 3.7percent is partly reflective of home buyers whohave purchased in recent years within Queenslandand Western Australia where home values havegenerally been weaker than other states.Additionally, buyers who bought near the recentpeak of the market are also showing a higherproportion of homes with negative equity.

National equity positions

State equity positions

Equity positions across each capital cityThe equity positions of each capital city tends to reflectthe state-wide results. In all instances, the greatestproportion of households have recorded an equity levelof at least 100 percent or more. Also, in every instancenegative equity accounts for the smallest proportion ofproperties.

Darwin (4.8 percent) and Brisbane (4.1 percent) havethe greatest proportion of negative equity propertieswhile Canberra (1.0 percent) and Melbourne (1.4percent) have the lowest proportion.

Across the combined capital cities, there is a lowerproportion of negative equity properties than there isnationally and there is a greater proportion ofproperties with equity of 100 percent or more. Thistrend is likely due to a higher rate of capital gains thathas generally been recorded across the capital citymarkets compared with many regional locations. Overthe past five years to June 2011, the combined ‘Rest ofState’ markets, which include all regions outside thecapital cities, have seen house values increase by 18.1%compared with a 28.8% gain in capital city home values.

Capital city equity positions

The results also highlight that many households have a current property value of more than double the originalpurchase price, reflective of the strong growth in values up until recently. Just over 45 percent of homes acrossAustralia are worth more than twice what the owner originally paid.

Statistical Division% of properties

in neg equity

Hold period

(yrs)Statistical Division

% of properties

in neg equity

Hold period

(yrs)

Far North, QLD 13.5% 6.2 Canberra, ACT 1.0% 6.9

South Eastern, WA 11.2% 6.6 Melbourne, VIC 1.4% 9.0

Gold Coast, QLD 9.9% 6.5 Loddon, VIC 1.6% 7.8

South West, WA 9.8% 5.9 Barwon, VIC 2.2% 7.7

Lower Great Southern, WA 9.8% 6.0 Central Highlands, VIC 2.2% 7.2

Sunshine Coast, QLD 9.0% 6.7 Adelaide, SA 2.4% 5.4

Upper Great Southern, WA 8.0% 5.7 Gippsland, VIC 2.4% 7.8

Mallee, VIC 7.8% 7.6 South West, QLD 2.8% 6.6

Murray Lands, SA 7.4% 5.3 North West, QLD 2.8% 5.7

Kimberley, WA 7.2% 5.7 Northern, NSW 2.9% 7.3

Greatest proportion of homes with negative equity Lowest proportion of homes with negative equity

p.5

Equity Overview

Focus on negative equityAcross the country just 3.7 percent of home owners are in a position where the original purchase price oftheir home is lower than the current value of their home, however there are regions around Australian whereweak housing markets have created higher rates of negative equity.

Focusing on Statistical Divisions (SD) around the country, the analysis shows the regions which typically havethe greatest proportion of properties with a negative level of equity are located in Queensland and WesternAustralia. This should come as no real surprise considering both markets have been particularly weakperformers during recent times, most notably within coastal markets which had previously been supportedby tourism and the ‘sea change’ phenomenon. Five of the ten regions with the greatest proportion ofnegative equity properties are coastal.

The Far North region of Queensland which includes areas such as: Cairns, Palm Cove, Port Douglas, Innisfail,Weipa and Atherton has recorded the greatest proportion of properties in a negative equity position at 13.5percent of all homes. The housing market within the north of Queensland has been noticeably weak and hasfelt the full brunt of the economic downturn. House values in the region have increased by just 3.2 percentannually over the past six years and unit values have grown by 2.8 percent annually. Although values haverisen over the period, if we focus on just the last three years, house values are currently -7.3 percent lowerthan they were three years ago and unit values are -20.4 percent lower. The vast majority of home ownersthat have purchased since 2008 are likely to be in a negative equity position.

Western Australia’s ‘South Eastern’ Statistical Division, which includes the southern councils of Ravensthorpeand Esperance as well as the centrally located Kalgoorlie/Boulder council has shown the second highestproportion of homes in negative equity at 11.2 percent of all dwellings in the region. Median house valuesacross this vast region remain 3.5 percent lower than their peak recorded back in late 2008.

Looking at the regions with the lowest levels of negative equity, the top ten regions all have less than 3.0percent of all properties in a position where the current value is lower than the purchase price.

Canberra has the lowest proportion of properties in a negative equity position with just 1.0 percent ofproperties or one in every 100 properties in this position. Canberra has recorded consistent growth inproperty values during recent years and is yet to record any substantial decline which is resulting in a strongerequity position than all other areas across the country.

Outside of Melbourne and Adelaide which are both coastal capital cities, only Barwon with 2.2 percent of allproperties in negative equity and Gippsland with 2.4 percent are in coastal regions.

Note: hold period refers the median difference between the time of the most recent property purchase and June 2011.

p.6

Equity Overview

Focus on equity in excess of 100% of purchase priceAcross the nation, 45.1 percent of residential dwellings have a current value which is more thandouble the initial purchase price.

Looking once again at the Statistical Divisions across the country, those regions which have recordedthe lowest proportion of homes where values are at least double the purchase price are mainlylocated in Queensland and South Australia. Of the ten regions that have the lowest proportion ofthese high equity properties, only half coincide with regions that were on the list for the greatestproportion of negative equity properties. That would suggest that just because some home ownersare in a particularly poor equity position it doesn’t necessarily mean that the vast majority of homeowners in that region are in a similar position.

Many of the regions detailed as having a low proportion of households with equity in excess of 100percent of the purchase price have a relatively short hold period. Obviously, the longer a property isheld, over time it would be expected that the differential between the purchase price and the currentvalue will improve.

The Outer Adelaide region of South Australia has the lowest proportion of properties with equity of100 percent or more at just 29.3 percent. Out of all the Statistical Division’s analysed Outer Adelaideactually has the shortest length of tenure (4.5 years) which largely explains why relatively fewproperties have a current value more than double the purchase price.

Regional locations seem to have the greatest level of equity accumulation with all but one of theStatistical Divisions in the top ten being non-capital cities.

The Central West region of Queensland has the greatest proportion of properties which have acurrent value more than double the purchase price at 60.4 percent. The region is relatively sparselypopulated with the major townships in the region being Barcaldine, Blackall and Longreach. Themedian house price remains quite low and with an average hold period of 7.4 years many homeowners are in a very strong position.

Across the top ten regions listed, Melbourne is the only capital city market with 55.1 percent of allhomes having a value more than double the purchase price. All other areas are quite regional withmost in agricultural areas of the country where house prices are much more affordable than they arewithin capital cities and coastal markets.

Note: hold period refers the median difference between the time of the most recent property purchase and June 2011.

Statistical Division

% of properties

with >100%

equity

Hold period

(yrs)Statistical Division

% of properties

with >100%

equity

Hold period

(yrs)

Outer Adelaide, SA 29.3% 4.5 Central West, QLD 60.4% 7.4

South East, SA 30.5% 5.2 Midlands, WA 58.7% 6.2

Murray Lands, SA 32.7% 5.3 Far West, NSW 56.6% 6.8

South Eastern, WA 37.5% 5.1 South West, QLD 56.2% 6.6

Eyre, SA 36.4% 5.3 Upper Great Southern, WA 55.5% 5.7

Yorke and Lower North, SA 37.1% 4.8 Melbourne, VIC 55.1% 9.0

Gold Coast, QLD 35.2% 6.5 North West, QLD 52.5% 5.7

Far North, QLD 35.9% 6.2 Central, WA 52.5% 5.7

Mallee, Vic 37.3% 7.6 Northern, SA 51.3% 5.9

Sunshine Coast, Qld 38.7% 6.7 Western District, VIC 51.2% 8.3

Lowest proportion of homes with 100% + equity Greatest proportion of homes with 100% + equity

p.7

Equity Overview

StateMedian change in

equity (%)

Median change in

equity ($)

Median length of

ownership (yrs)

New South Wales 60.2% $168,448 8.7

Victoria 110.4% $215,560 8.7

Queensland 54.9% $139,419 6.6

South Australia 56.1% $119,889 5.3

Western Australia 80.7% $191,859 5.9

Tasmania 85.6% $124,653 7.0

Northern Territory 79.0% $200,799 4.8

Australian Capital Territory 75.2% $223,570 6.9

Equity by stateGiven the strong growth in property values acrossthe last 10 years, all states have recorded positivegrowth in median equity. The adjacent tablehighlights state-by-state equity levels in bothpercentage terms and dollar value terms as well asthe median length of ownership to June 2011.

Throughout the states, home owners in Victoriahave enjoyed the greatest increase in equity at110.4 percent. It is important to note that Victorianhome owners have owned their properties longer

State-wide equity measurement

(8.7 years) than those in most other states, which is likely to have an affect on equity positions.

At the other end of the spectrum, Queensland properties have typically recorded the lowest level ofgrowth in equity at just 54.9 percent.

Capital city equityMost capital city markets have recorded stronggrowth in property values over the last ten years.As a result, many home owners have built upsubstantial equity in their homes as these valueshave risen.

Across the capital cities, Sydney has recorded thelowest increase in equity, with a median change of

State Capital cityMedian change in

equity (%)

Median change in

equity ($)

Median length of

ownership (yrs)

NSW Sydney 57.2% $194,991 8.9

VIC Melbourne 119.9% $255,928 9.0

QLD Brisbane 63.4% $169,547 6.8

SA Adelaide 58.5% $136,386 5.4

WA Perth 81.9% $208,612 6.0

TAS Hobart 81.2% $141,374 7.2

NT Darwin 75.0% $208,845 4.8

ACT Canberra 75.2% $223,570 6.9

Capital city equity measurement

just 57.2 percent. Given that Sydney property values have recorded the lowest level of capital gains inrecent years it is no surprise that equity build-up in that city has been weaker than most others.

On the other hand, equity in Melbourne dwellings has increased by 119.9 percent. This is a functionof Melbourne home owners typically owning their homes longer than most other cities together withthe strong growth in property values over the last decade.

LGA StateMedian change in

equity (%)

Median change in

equity ($)

Median length of

ownership (yrs)

Tasman TAS 196.1% $141,827 8.2

Monash VIC 195.1% $387,004 11.0

Greater Dandenong VIC 194.6% $240,547 10.5

Whitehorse VIC 187.3% $382,209 10.7

Gingin WA 181.1% $271,327 8.0

Boroondara VIC 171.8% $550,981 10.2

Manningham VIC 167.7% $428,086 10.9

Darebin VIC 167.4% $314,093 10.0

Loddon VIC 165.7% $86,497 10.0

Glen Eira VIC 161.0% $386,368 10.3

Greatest equity growth by council areasAcross the country, the Local Government Areas(LGA) which have recorded the greatest increase inequity have been dominated by areas of Victoriaand notably parts of Melbourne. Melbourne regionsare quite prevalent thanks to a longer than averagelength of tenure as well as the fact that Melbournehome values have seen an above average rate ofcapital gains over the recent growth phases.

The Tasman council area in the Southern region ofTasmania has recorded the greatest percentage

Greatest equity growth by council areas

increase in equity. Values in the region have moved from a very low base and are typically 196.1percent higher than the original purchase price. This rapid improvement in equity has occurred overjust 8.2 years on average.

Statistical Division < 0% 0 - 10% 10 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 100% > 100%Median length of

ownership (yrs)

Central West 4.4% 5.5% 16.2% 16.9% 13.5% 43.6% 8.0

Far West 6.4% 4.4% 7.6% 10.8% 14.3% 56.6% 6.8

Hunter 3.7% 5.9% 15.7% 16.6% 10.6% 47.5% 8.9

Illawarra 3.4% 6.1% 17.4% 17.3% 10.4% 45.4% 9.0

Mid-North Coast 4.0% 6.8% 17.2% 15.2% 10.3% 46.5% 8.7

Murray 4.9% 8.0% 16.7% 14.9% 14.0% 41.4% 8.4

Murrumbidgee 4.6% 6.7% 15.2% 17.1% 15.1% 41.3% 7.6

North Western 4.1% 6.6% 17.4% 15.0% 15.2% 41.8% 7.5

Northern 2.9% 4.8% 15.5% 16.8% 15.1% 44.9% 7.3

Richmond-Tweed 5.0% 8.2% 14.9% 14.7% 10.7% 46.5% 8.0

South Eastern 4.7% 6.2% 14.2% 15.4% 12.5% 46.9% 8.1

Sydney 2.9% 4.8% 15.5% 21.7% 15.4% 39.6% 8.9

p.8

New South Wales

New South Wales equity by property typeThe typical New South Wales property owner has held their property for 8.7 years. The current valueof properties is 60.2 percent higher than the initial purchase price. In dollar value terms, the typicalhome owner has $168,448 worth of equity in their property.

In terms of equity build up, houses have outpaced units. Houses are typically owned for much longer(9.6 years) than units (6.9 years). As a result the equity growth for houses (81.2 percent, $198,462),has been significantly greater than it has been for units (60.2 percent, $168,448).


Equity by major NSW regionsThe Far West region of the state has the greatest proportion of properties in a negative equityposition (6.4 percent) followed by the Richmond-Tweed region which is a coastal market adjacent tothe Queensland and New South Wales border (5.0 percent). Sydney and the Northern region have thefewest properties in a negative equity position at just 2.9 percent each.

Across the state, the proportion of properties which have a current value more than double the initialpurchase price varies from 39.6 percent in Sydney to 56.6 percent in the Far West (despite the factthat the Far West also has the greatest proportion of negative equity properties).

Across all regions more than half of the homes have accumulated equity of 50 percent or more. TheFar West has the greatest proportion (70.8 percent), followed by: Northern (60.0 percent) and SouthEastern (59.5 percent).

If property values across the state fell by 10 percent from their current levels, the following regionswould have the greatest instances of negative equity: Richmond-Tweed (13.3 percent), Murray (12.9percent) and Murrumbidgee (11.3 percent).

Properties within the major population centres of Sydney (8.9 years), Hunter (8.9 years) and Illawarra(9.0 years) have tended to be owned for the longest period of time. On the other hand, propertieswithin the Far West (6.8 years) and Northern (7.3 years) regions had typically been owned by thecurrent owners for the shortest period of time.

Property typeMedian change in

equity (%)

Median change in

equity ($)

Median length of

ownership (yrs)

Houses 81.2% $198,462 9.6

Units 41.6% $125,114 6.9

Dwellings 60.2% $168,448 8.7

Equity levels by major regions


ownership (yrs)

Barwon 2.2% 3.7% 10.2% 17.7% 17.9% 48.2% 7.7

Central Highlands 2.2% 3.8% 12.0% 20.7% 16.8% 44.5% 7.2

East Gippsland 3.4% 4.8% 13.5% 15.8% 12.5% 50.1% 7.9

Gippsland 2.4% 4.1% 11.7% 18.3% 16.7% 46.8% 7.0

Goulburn 4.2% 5.8% 15.2% 16.9% 15.0% 42.9% 7.7

Loddon 1.6% 3.0% 10.8% 18.1% 17.1% 49.4% 7.8

Mallee 7.8% 8.5% 16.7% 15.1% 14.7% 37.3% 7.6

Melbourne 1.4% 2.8% 8.2% 13.8% 18.7% 55.1% 9.0

Ovens-Murray 4.6% 7.3% 18.4% 14.2% 11.7% 43.7% 7.7

Western District 3.2% 4.4% 12.1% 16.2% 12.9% 51.2% 8.3

Wimmera 4.6% 4.8% 13.7% 16.1% 16.2% 44.6% 7.5

p.9

Victoria

Victoria equity by property typeThe typical Victorian property owner has held their property for 8.7 years. The current value ofproperties is 110.4 percent higher than the initial purchase price. In dollar value terms, the typicalhome owner has a current value which is $215,560 higher than the initial purchase price.

In terms of equity accumulation, houses have outpaced units. Houses are typically owned for muchlonger (9.1 years) than units (7.5 years). As a result the typical value improvement for houses (126.2percent, $234,202), has been significantly greater than it has been for units (76.6 percent, $169,006).


Equity by major Vic regionsThe Mallee region of the state has the greatest proportion of properties in which the current value islower than the purchase price (7.8 percent) followed by Ovens-Murray and Wimmera (both 4.6percent). Melbourne has the fewest properties in a negative equity position (1.4 percent) followed byLoddon (1.6 percent).

Across the state, the proportion of properties which have a current value more than double the initialpurchase price varies from 37.3 percent in Mallee to 55.1 percent in Melbourne. Melbourne inparticular has a majority of homes with a current value more than double that of the purchase priceand this is mainly due to the fact that homes are typically held for a long period of time.

Based on current property values, all regions of Victoria have more than half of their properties worthin excess of 50 percent more than the initial purchase price. Melbourne (73.9 percent), Loddon (66.5percent) and Barwon (66.1 percent) have the greatest proportion of properties valued at greater than50 percent more than the purchase price.

If property values across the state fell by 10 percent from their current levels, the following regionswould have the greatest instances of negative equity: Mallee (16.2 percent), Ovens-Murray (12.0percent) and Goulburn (10.0 percent).

Properties within Melbourne (9.0 years) and Western District (8.3 years) have tended to be owned forthe longest period of time. On the other hand, properties within Gippsland (7.0 years) and theCentral Highlands (7.2 years) have typically been owned by the current owners for the shortest periodof time.



equity (%)

Median change in

equity ($)

Median length of

ownership (yrs)

Houses 126.2% $234,202 9.1

Units 76.6% $169,006 7.5

Dwellings 110.4% $215,560 8.7


ownership (yrs)

Brisbane 4.1% 9.4% 15.3% 14.5% 13.7% 42.9% 6.8

Central West 4.6% 5.0% 9.3% 8.8% 12.1% 60.4% 7.4

Darling Downs 3.0% 6.0% 18.7% 18.4% 11.3% 42.6% 6.4

Far North 13.5% 12.0% 15.7% 11.8% 11.3% 35.9% 6.2

Fitzroy 3.8% 7.1% 15.6% 14.1% 10.4% 48.9% 6.1

Gold Coast 9.9% 12.7% 17.0% 14.2% 11.0% 35.2% 6.5

Mackay 6.8% 8.7% 18.4% 11.4% 8.9% 45.8% 6.3

North West 2.8% 5.1% 18.2% 12.8% 8.8% 52.5% 5.7

Northern 5.9% 11.5% 15.7% 11.6% 11.2% 44.1% 6.2

South West 2.8% 4.5% 12.5% 13.5% 10.6% 56.2% 6.6

Sunshine Coast 9.0% 12.9% 17.7% 13.3% 8.4% 38.7% 6.7

West Moreton 4.1% 8.7% 15.8% 14.6% 11.0% 45.8% 6.2

Wide Bay-Burnett 6.8% 11.2% 18.3% 12.9% 9.3% 41.4% 6.2

p.10

Queensland

Queensland equity by property typeThe typical Queensland property owner has held their property for 6.6 years. The current value ofproperties is 54.9 percent higher than the initial purchase price. In dollar value terms, the typicalhome owner has a current value which is $139,419 higher than the initial purchase price.

In terms of value growth, houses have outpaced units. Houses are typically owned for much longer(6.9 years) than units (5.8 years). As a result the typical value improvement for houses (68.8 percent,$165,670), has been significantly greater than it has been for units (32.7 percent, $86,454).


Equity by major Qld regionsThe Far North region has the country’s (and subsequently Queensland’s) greatest proportion of totalproperties with a current property value lower than the purchase price (13.5 percent) followed by theGold Coast (9.9 percent). A number of Queensland regions have a relatively high instance of negativeequity compared to other states however, the North West and South West regions have a relativelylow instance of negative equity (both 2.8 percent).

The proportion of properties with a current value more than double the purchase price varies acrossthe state from as little as 35.2 percent of properties on the Gold Coast to as high as 60.4 percent inthe Central West region. What isn’t a surprise is the fact that the Central West’s large number ofproperties worth double their purchase price coincides with the fact that the region has the longestlength of ownership at 7.4 years.

The Central West region has the greatest proportion of homes with more than 50 percent equity (72.4percent) followed by: South West (66.8 percent) and North West (61.2 percent). On the other hand,only 47.1 percent of homes on the Sunshine Coast and within the Far North region have equity inexcess of 50 percent of the initial purchase price.

If property values across Queensland were to fall a further 10 percent from their June 2011 level, anumber of regions would have a substantial number of houses in negative equity including: Far North(25.4 percent), Gold Coast (22.6 percent) and Sunshine Coast (21.9 percent).

Property owners in the Central West region have Queensland’s longest length of tenure (7.4 years)with Brisbane the second longest at 6.8 years. Most regions have a length of ownership between sixand six and a half years however the shortest are: North West (5.7 years) and Fitzroy (6.1 years).



equity (%)

Median change in

equity ($)

Median length of

ownership (yrs)

Houses 68.8% $165,670 6.9

Units 32.7% $86,454 5.8

Dwellings 54.9% $139,419 6.6


ownership (yrs)

Adelaide 2.4% 6.3% 16.2% 17.6% 18.4% 39.1% 5.4

Eyre 4.1% 6.4% 17.4% 20.4% 15.1% 36.4% 5.3

Murray Lands 7.4% 9.4% 17.9% 17.6% 15.0% 32.7% 5.3

Northern 5.8% 6.5% 12.1% 12.3% 12.0% 51.3% 5.9

Outer Adelaide 4.1% 7.3% 19.6% 23.1% 16.7% 29.3% 4.5

South East 4.6% 8.0% 20.3% 21.5% 15.1% 30.5% 5.2

Yorke and Lower North 5.4% 8.2% 17.0% 17.2% 15.1% 37.1% 4.8

p.11

South Australia

South Australia equity by property typeSouth Australian home owners have typically been in their current property for just 5.3 years. Thecurrent value of these homes is 56.1 percent higher than the initial purchase price. In dollar valueterms, the typical home owner has a current value which is $119,889 higher than the initial purchaseprice.

In terms of value growth, houses have slightly outperformed units. Houses are typically owned for 5.4years compared to units which have been held for 5.0 years. As a result, the typical valueimprovement for houses (57.5 percent, $126,739), has been slightly superior than it has been forunits (51.5 percent, $100,742).


Equity by major SA regionsIn terms of properties in a negative equity position, Murray Lands has the greatest proportion ofproperties in which the current value is below the purchase price with 7.4 percent of all homes in thisposition followed by the Northern region (5.8 percent). The rate of negative equity in South Australiais typically higher than the national benchmark however, levels are comparatively low in Adelaide (2.4percent) and Eyre and South East (both 4.1 percent).

The Northern region is the only statistical division across the state which has recorded a majority ofhomes as having equity levels of more than 100 percent. Outer Adelaide has the nation’s (and SouthAustralia’s) lowest proportion of properties in a position where the current value is double thepurchase price at just 29.3 percent of properties.

Within the Northern region, 63.4 percent of homes have in excess of 50 percent equity. Adelaide(57.4 percent) and Yorke and Lower North (52.2 percent) have comparatively high instances of equitygreater than 50 percent. The instances of equity greater than 50 percent are low in: South East (45.7percent), Outer Adelaide (46.0 percent) and Murray Lands (47.7 percent).

If properties across South Australia fell by 10 percent from their current level, negative equity wouldbe greatest within: Murray Lands (16.8 percent), Yorke and Lower North (13.6 percent) and South East(12.6 percent).

Outer Adelaide home owners have held their properties for just 4.5 years which is the shortest lengthof ownership across all major South Australian regions while the Yorke and Lower North region alsohas quite a short length (4.8 years). The Northern region has South Australia’s longest typical lengthof ownership (5.9 years) however, in comparison to most other states it is a fairly short length ofownership.



equity (%)

Median change in

equity ($)

Median length of

ownership (yrs)

Houses 57.5% $126,739 5.4

Units 51.5% $100,742 5.0

Dwellings 56.1% $119,889 5.3

p.12

Western Australia

Western Australia equity by property typeWestern Australian home owners have typically been in possession of their current property for just 5.9 years. The current value of these homes is 80.7 percent higher than the initial purchase price. In dollar value terms, the typical home owner has a current value which is $191,859 higher than the initial purchase price.

In terms of value growth, houses have outperformed units. Houses are typically owned for 5.8 years compared to units which have been held for a longer 6.5 years. Despite the longer hold period for units, the typical value improvement for houses (81.9 percent, $199,507), has been superior than it has been for units (74.7 percent, $159,364).


Equity by major WA regionsWestern Australia has a comparatively high level of negative equity compared to other states due tothe property market downturn it has experienced since 2007. The South Eastern region of the statehas the greatest instances of negative equity with 11.2 percent of properties worth less than thepurchase price. Rates of negative equity are lowest in Perth at 3.9 percent.

The Midlands, Upper Great Southern and Central regions of the state all have greater than half theirproperties in a position where the current value is double the purchase price. Based on the typicalequity level, the South Eastern region of the state has the lowest equity position at just 59.2 percent.

In each region, more than half of all homes have equity in excess of 50 percent. The greatestproportion of homes with equity of more than 50 percent are found in: Midlands (70.3 percent),Upper Great Southern (67.3 percent) and Central (63.8 percent). The lowest levels of equity in excessof 50 percent more than the purchase price are found in: South Eastern (54.3 percent), South West(54.8 percent) and Perth (59.4 percent).

Under a scenario in which property values across Western Australia fell by 10 percent, the followingregions would have the greatest instance of negative equity: South Eastern (19.6 percent), South West(19.4 percent) and Lower Great Southern (17.7 percent).

Home owners in the South Eastern region have held their properties for just 5.1 years which is theshortest hold period of all regions across the state. Properties in the Pilbara have also been held for arelatively short 5.3 years. The Midlands region not only has the strongest equity position, it also hasthe longest typical length of ownership at 6.2 years.



ownership (yrs)

Central 5.6% 5.6% 13.5% 11.5% 11.3% 52.5% 5.7

Kimberley 7.2% 6.8% 15.0% 9.8% 14.4% 46.7% 5.7

Lower Great Southern 9.8% 8.0% 11.8% 8.7% 12.0% 49.7% 6.0

Midlands 6.4% 4.6% 8.7% 10.0% 11.6% 58.7% 6.2

Perth 3.9% 8.4% 17.2% 11.2% 12.0% 47.4% 6.0

Pilbara 5.7% 5.7% 13.2% 13.8% 11.9% 49.7% 5.3

South Eastern 11.2% 8.4% 12.8% 13.2% 16.8% 37.5% 5.1

South West 9.8% 9.6% 15.0% 10.9% 12.0% 42.8% 5.9

Upper Great Southern 8.0% 4.1% 9.5% 11.1% 11.8% 55.5% 5.7


equity (%)

Median change in

equity ($)

Median length of

ownership (yrs)

Houses 81.9% $199,507 5.8

Units 74.7% $159,364 6.5

Dwellings 80.7% $191,859 5.9

p.13

Tasmania

Tasmania equity by property typeHome owners across Tasmania have typically owned their properties for 7.0 years. The current value of these homes is 85.6 percent higher than the initial purchase price. In dollar value terms, the typical home owner has a current value which is $124,653 higher than the initial purchase price.

In terms of value growth, houses have outperformed units. Houses are typically owned for 7.3 years compared to units which have been held for a shorter 5.5 years. The typical value improvement for houses (98.2 percent, $133,032), has been far superior than it has been for units (45.7 percent, $81,647).


Equity by major Tas regionsNegative equity levels are close to average across most regions of Tasmania however, they are slightlyelevated in the Southern region. Across the Southern region, 5.0 percent of all homes are worth lessnow than they were when they were purchased. Hobart and the Northern regions have the lowestlevels of negative equity (3.3 percent).

Despite the fact that the Southern region had the greatest proportion of homes worth less than whenpurchased it also has the greatest proportion of properties worth more than double (51.0 percent)the initial purchase price. Mersey-Lyell recorded that half of all homes in the region have a currentproperty value more than double the initial purchase price.

Across the four major regions, each have in excess of 50 percent of properties with a current equitylevel greater than 50 percent of the purchase price. The Southern region has the greatest proportionof homes with more than 50 percent equity (63.0 percent) while Hobart has the lowest proportion(59.9 percent).

If home values throughout all regions in Tasmania were to fall by 10 percent from current levels, theSouthern region would have the greatest instances of negative equity (11.1 percent). Under the samecircumstances, negative equity would be lowest in the Northern region (8.3 percent).

Across the four Tasmanian regions the typical length of ownership of homes does not vary greatly.The Southern region has the shortest length of ownership at just 6.7 years and Hobart home ownershave held their properties for the longest typical length (7.2 years).



ownership (yrs)

Hobart 3.3% 6.3% 14.5% 16.0% 11.4% 48.5% 7.2

Mersey-Lyell 3.6% 5.4% 13.6% 15.4% 12.0% 50.0% 6.9

Northern 3.3% 5.0% 14.0% 16.1% 12.4% 49.2% 6.9

Southern 5.0% 6.1% 12.8% 13.1% 12.1% 51.0% 6.7


equity (%)

Median change in

equity ($)

Median length of

ownership (yrs)

Houses 98.2% $133,032 7.3

Units 45.7% $81,647 5.5

Dwellings 85.6% $124,653 7.0


ownership (yrs)

Darwin 4.8% 4.6% 12.0% 15.3% 18.4% 45.0% 4.8

Northern Territory - Bal 3.1% 2.8% 11.4% 11.1% 23.1% 48.5% 4.7

p.14

Northern Territory

Northern Territory equity by property typeHome owners across the Northern Territory have typically owned their current properties for just 4.8years, the shortest median hold period of any state or territory. The current value of these homes is79.0 percent higher than the initial purchase price. In dollar value terms, the typical home owner hasa current value which is $200,799 higher than the initial purchase price.

In terms of value growth, houses have outperformed units. Houses are typically owned for 5.1 yearscompared to units which have been held for a shorter 4.3 years. The typical value improvement forhouses (94.2 percent, $238,327), has been superior than it has been for units (60.0 percent,$152,016).


Equity by major NT regionsDarwin homes have a slightly elevated level of negative equity, whereas those regions outside ofDarwin typically enjoy a superior position. Across Darwin, 4.8 percent of homes are currently worthless than the price initially paid whereas in those areas outside of Darwin only 3.1 percent ofproperties have a current value less than the purchase price.

Outside of Darwin, 48.5 percent of homes have a current value which is more than double the initialpurchase price. On the other hand, 45.0 percent of home owners in Darwin have a current valuewhich is more than double the price paid for the home.

The vast majority of homes across the state have more than 50 percent equity. In Darwin, 63.4percent of homes have a current value which is more than 50 percent higher than the purchase priceand outside of Darwin the figure is 71.6 percent.

If home values fell by 10 percent from their current levels across the Northern Territory, 9.4 percent ofDarwin homes would be in a negative equity position compared to 5.9 percent of homes outside ofDarwin.

The typical length of home ownership across the Northern Territory is quite low. Home owners inDarwin have typically owned their current properties for just 4.8 years whereas those outside ofDarwin have owned their properties for a shorter 4.7 years.



equity (%)

Median change in

equity ($)

Median length of

ownership (yrs)

Houses 94.2% $238,327 5.1

Units 60.0% $152,016 4.3

Dwellings 79.0% $200,799 4.8

p.15

Australian Capital Territory regions

The proportion of homes showing negative equity across the regions of Canberra are relatively lowcompared to other regions. The region showing the highest proportion of homes currently valued atless than what they were purchased for is North Canberra at just 2.1%.

Woden Valley is showing the highest proportion of homes worth at least double what the ownersoriginally paid at 50.2%.

If home values across Canberra fell by 10 percent from their current level, the city would still have acomparatively low instance of negative equity, the following levels of negative equity would applyacross each region: Tuggeranong (2.5 percent), Gungahlin-Hall (2.8 percent), Belconnen and WestonCreek-Stromlo (both 3.9 percent), South Canberra (5.1 percent), Woden Valley (5.2 percent) andNorth Canberra (5.3 percent).

Australian Capital Territory equity by property typeHome owners across the ACT have typically owned their current properties for just 6.9 years. Thecurrent value of these homes is 75.2 percent higher than the initial purchase price. In dollar valueterms, the typical home owner has a current value which is $223,570 higher than the initial purchaseprice.

In terms of value growth, houses have outperformed units. Houses are typically owned for 7.3 yearscompared to units which have been held for a shorter 5.8 years. The typical value improvement forhouses (95.2 percent, $277,257), has been superior to units (56.3 percent, $155,738).



equity (%)

Median change in

equity ($)

Median length of

ownership (yrs)

Houses 95.2% $277,257 7.3

Units 56.3% $155,738 5.8

Dwellings 75.2% $223,570 6.9

Statistical Sub Division Region < 0% 0 - 10% 10 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 100% > 100%Median length of

ownership (yrs)

Belconnen Canberra 0.8% 3.1% 14.1% 22.4% 15.7% 43.9% 6.4

Gungahlin-Hall Canberra 0.6% 2.2% 14.7% 22.5% 16.4% 43.6% 5.2

North Canberra Canberra 2.1% 3.2% 12.7% 20.7% 24.1% 37.2% 6.1

South Canberra Canberra 2.0% 3.1% 10.5% 18.9% 21.5% 43.9% 7.1

Tuggeranong Canberra 0.4% 2.2% 12.2% 18.6% 15.1% 51.5% 8.1

Weston Creek-Stromlo Canberra 0.9% 3.0% 11.4% 18.6% 16.9% 49.2% 7.5

Woden Valley Canberra 1.9% 3.3% 9.5% 17.3% 17.7% 50.2% 7.7


State < 0% 0 - 10% 10 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 100% > 100% < 0% 0 - 10% 10 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 100% > 100%

Sydney 4.6% 5.9% 17.5% 36.0% 26.9% 9.1% 3.6% 13.7% 44.4% 30.8% 6.0% 1.5%

Melbourne 0.6% 1.1% 4.3% 18.0% 43.4% 32.5% 5.2% 13.8% 35.2% 33.3% 11.2% 1.4%

Brisbane 2.5% 3.3% 12.2% 25.7% 27.2% 29.1% 10.5% 34.8% 42.4% 9.1% 1.3% 2.0%

Adelaide 1.0% 1.5% 6.9% 25.1% 35.6% 29.8% 5.9% 21.3% 51.6% 17.1% 2.8% 1.4%

Perth 2.9% 5.5% 11.7% 12.6% 22.0% 45.3% 8.0% 22.8% 45.5% 17.1% 3.3% 3.2%

Hobart 1.6% 3.0% 10.9% 23.8% 22.0% 38.8% 9.5% 22.9% 41.8% 19.6% 4.5% 1.6%

Darwin 2.3% 1.1% 2.9% 11.3% 24.7% 57.7% 9.2% 12.2% 36.7% 23.0% 10.1% 8.8%

Canberra 0.6% 1.0% 5.2% 26.4% 36.5% 30.3% 2.3% 10.9% 46.3% 31.5% 4.3% 4.7%

Combined caps 2.5% 3.6% 11.0% 25.0% 31.5% 26.5% 6.0% 18.9% 42.4% 24.9% 5.9% 1.9%

Pre-GFC Post-GFC

State < 0% 0 - 10% 10 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 100% > 100% < 0% 0 - 10% 10 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 100% > 100%

NSW 5.0% 6.3% 17.7% 32.5% 24.7% 13.8% 4.6% 15.1% 44.8% 28.3% 5.7% 1.6%

VIC 1.2% 1.9% 6.0% 19.7% 40.4% 30.8% 5.5% 13.8% 35.9% 32.1% 11.1% 1.6%

QLD 5.1% 5.8% 14.7% 23.5% 22.0% 28.9% 13.3% 32.4% 40.7% 9.8% 1.7% 2.1%

SA 1.4% 2.1% 8.2% 25.1% 33.3% 29.8% 6.9% 20.7% 50.2% 17.5% 3.1% 1.5%

WA 4.2% 5.7% 11.2% 12.5% 21.4% 45.0% 9.6% 22.1% 43.8% 17.0% 3.9% 3.6%

TAS 1.9% 2.9% 10.2% 21.8% 21.3% 41.9% 9.5% 19.9% 41.2% 20.9% 6.2% 2.3%

NT 2.2% 1.0% 2.8% 10.1% 25.1% 58.8% 8.2% 11.3% 36.9% 22.1% 12.1% 9.5%

ACT 0.6% 1.0% 5.2% 26.4% 36.5% 30.3% 2.3% 10.9% 46.3% 31.5% 4.3% 4.7%

National 3.7% 4.6% 12.5% 24.2% 27.8% 27.2% 7.7% 20.0% 42.0% 22.7% 5.7% 2.0%

Pre-GFC Post-GFC

p.16

Equity after the GFC

The Global Financial Crisis began affecting housing markets in 2008. Australia’s capital city housevalues recorded peak to trough falls of -3.8 percent during 2008 as the world economy slowed.Following the slowdown, interest rates were slashed to their lowest levels in decades and the FederalGovernment introduced the First Home Owners Grant Boost which encouraged market activity andresulted in growth in home values once more. Since the Reserve Bank began lifting official interestrates back in October 2009 the residential property market has slowed. Across most Australianregions property values have fallen and are now below their peak.

The implications of these conditions are that growth in housing asset values has been much moresubdued since the GFC and those which have purchased recently have lower equity levels. Thefollowing tables highlight equity positions across each state based on properties which havetransacted between June 2001 and June 2011. Pre-GFC is considered to be any of those propertiestransacted between June 2001 and December 2007 and Post-GFC includes properties purchased after2007 and before June 2011.

State equity positions pre and post GFC

Capital City equity positions pre and post GFC

The tables above virtually much speak for themselves however, for the most part, those propertiespurchased following the GFC are more likely to be in a negative equity position and typically havemuch lower equity overall. Clearly the lower equity positions can be tied back to the comparativelyshort periods of tenure associated with recent purchases; there has been a vastly shorter amount oftime for equity to accumulate.

The negative equity positions are much more reflective of weak market conditions in particularregions such as Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania as well as some regional lifestylemarkets where conditions have been very soft.

Across the combined states, 8.3 percent of properties purchased over the Pre-GFC period have equityof less than 10 percent compared to 27.7 percent of those properties purchased in the Post-GFCperiod. It is a similar story across the combined capital cities with 6.1 percent of homes purchasedPre-GFC having equity of less than 10 percent compared to 24.9 percent of those homes purchase inthe Post-GFC period.

p.17

Conclusions

Despite soft housing market conditions recently, most home owners are in a strong equity position(assuming they haven’t leveraged up too much on additional investments). Almost 60 percent ofhomeowners nationwide have a current home value which is at least 50 percent higher than the priceat which they purchased the property.

In a scenario where values fell by 10 percent nationally from their current level, almost 10 percent ofhomes would be in a negative equity position. A fall in home values of this magnitude is highlyunlikely at a macro level. Additionally, these results are divergent and homes within Queensland andWestern Australia are more likely to be in a weaker equity position than those within other states.

The homeowners that are at the greatest risk of home values moving below their purchase price arethose that have purchased since 2008. Typically the instance of negative and low equity is muchgreater amongst those home owners who purchased over this period. In addition, thesehomeowners will typically have paid down less of their debt so falling asset values would be of greaterconcern. On the other hand, the lower level of equity for these buyers would indicate that they areless likely to have leveraged up on re-investments so as long as they are diligent in paying back theirmortgage (and extra where possible) they should be okay.

The results also highlight the long-term nature of home ownership. Short-term movements in marketconditions can result in higher rates of negative equity, however, the longer the tenure of ownershipthe greater the amount of equity accumulation.

p.18

APPENDIX 1Statistical Subdivision Tables for each state


ownership (yrs)

Albury Murray 5.1% 9.1% 17.0% 13.4% 12.0% 43.5% 9.4

Bathurst Central West 2.6% 4.5% 17.5% 23.2% 13.7% 38.5% 7.5

Blacktown Sydney 2.2% 4.5% 17.4% 22.4% 11.0% 42.5% 10.0

Canterbury-Bankstown Sydney 2.1% 3.6% 13.3% 23.3% 17.4% 40.3% 8.7

Central Macquarie (excl. Dubbo) North Western 3.7% 5.1% 16.2% 14.4% 15.2% 45.4% 7.6

Central Murray Murray 4.9% 6.6% 17.0% 17.6% 18.6% 35.3% 7.1

Central Murrumbidgee (excl. Wagga Wagga) Murrumbidgee 4.9% 6.1% 12.9% 14.4% 16.7% 45.0% 7.7

Central Northern Sydney Sydney 2.0% 4.3% 15.7% 23.1% 14.8% 40.2% 8.8

Central Tablelands (excl. Bathurst) Central West 3.7% 5.0% 14.9% 14.8% 14.1% 47.5% 8.4

Central Western Sydney Sydney 3.1% 5.1% 17.7% 24.5% 14.1% 35.5% 8.2

Clarence (excl. Coffs Harbour) Mid-North Coast 2.9% 5.5% 14.9% 16.3% 11.1% 49.4% 8.5

Coffs Harbour Mid-North Coast 3.3% 7.0% 17.3% 15.6% 9.1% 47.7% 8.9

Dubbo North Western 4.4% 8.3% 19.9% 15.7% 14.8% 36.8% 7.7

Eastern Suburbs Sydney 3.4% 4.8% 12.5% 20.0% 16.4% 42.9% 9.5

Fairfield-Liverpool Sydney 2.6% 2.8% 12.1% 20.0% 13.6% 48.9% 10.1

Far West Far West 6.4% 4.4% 7.6% 10.8% 14.3% 56.6% 6.8

Gosford-Wyong Sydney 7.4% 10.3% 21.5% 15.1% 12.9% 32.8% 8.2

Hastings (excl. Port Macquarie) Mid-North Coast 4.7% 6.9% 16.7% 13.5% 10.6% 47.7% 8.9

Hunter SD Bal Hunter 5.7% 7.5% 15.1% 14.0% 12.4% 45.3% 8.6

Illawarra SD Bal Illawarra 4.5% 7.0% 17.0% 16.2% 10.5% 44.8% 8.7

Inner Sydney Sydney 3.0% 3.7% 13.1% 24.6% 22.5% 33.0% 7.7

Inner Western Sydney Sydney 1.9% 3.9% 13.2% 22.1% 18.9% 40.0% 8.5

Lachlan Central West 9.1% 7.0% 13.3% 13.8% 16.4% 40.4% 7.8

Lismore Richmond-Tweed 2.0% 5.0% 15.6% 18.0% 12.9% 46.5% 7.4

Lower Murrumbidgee Murrumbidgee 12.0% 12.0% 15.3% 15.6% 17.1% 28.0% 7.4

Lower Northern Sydney Sydney 2.2% 3.6% 13.3% 23.0% 19.0% 38.9% 8.6

Lower South Coast South Eastern 6.0% 7.7% 15.5% 12.6% 9.2% 49.0% 9.1

Macquarie-Barwon North Western 3.5% 3.7% 10.7% 13.9% 18.0% 50.2% 6.9

Murray-Darling Murray 4.1% 8.0% 19.6% 21.2% 15.8% 31.3% 6.3

Newcastle Hunter 3.4% 5.7% 15.8% 16.9% 10.3% 47.8% 9.0

North Central Plain Northern 3.1% 4.5% 11.5% 16.7% 20.4% 43.9% 7.4

Northern Beaches Sydney 3.1% 4.9% 16.2% 21.8% 13.4% 40.5% 8.6

Northern Slopes (excl. Tamworth) Northern 2.2% 2.9% 12.3% 16.7% 15.7% 50.1% 6.7

Northern Tablelands Northern 3.3% 4.9% 13.8% 16.6% 15.4% 45.9% 7.0

Nowra-Bomaderry Illawarra 3.9% 8.7% 22.1% 17.3% 11.6% 36.4% 7.5

Orange Central West 2.6% 5.3% 18.3% 15.8% 10.7% 47.4% 8.4

Outer South Western Sydney Sydney 3.0% 7.7% 21.5% 16.0% 10.0% 41.7% 9.1

Outer Western Sydney Sydney 3.3% 6.0% 17.9% 18.0% 10.9% 43.9% 9.9

Port Macquarie Mid-North Coast 4.8% 8.2% 20.7% 16.0% 10.3% 40.0% 8.3

Queanbeyan South Eastern 1.3% 3.4% 12.1% 17.6% 14.7% 51.0% 7.7

Richmond-Tweed SD Bal Richmond-Tweed 3.8% 6.4% 15.0% 15.8% 11.7% 47.4% 8.0

Snowy South Eastern 6.3% 6.0% 12.1% 15.2% 14.5% 45.9% 8.0

Southern Tablelands (excl. Queanbeyan) South Eastern 4.8% 5.9% 14.5% 19.3% 16.5% 39.0% 6.7

St George-Sutherland Sydney 1.9% 3.6% 13.7% 24.9% 17.3% 38.6% 9.3

Tamworth Northern 2.6% 5.6% 19.8% 17.1% 12.8% 42.2% 7.9

Tweed Heads & Tweed Coast Richmond-Tweed 7.4% 11.4% 14.5% 12.3% 8.9% 45.6% 8.2

Upper Darling North Western 4.0% 5.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.1% 48.0% 6.8

Upper Murray (excl. Albury) Murray 4.5% 5.9% 14.7% 15.4% 15.2% 44.3% 7.7

Wagga Wagga Murrumbidgee 1.6% 4.8% 16.2% 18.9% 13.6% 44.9% 7.7

Wollongong Illawarra 2.9% 5.5% 17.1% 17.8% 10.3% 46.5% 9.3

p.19

NSW Regions

p.20

Victorian Regions


ownership (yrs)

Ballarat City Central Highlands 2.1% 4.0% 12.9% 21.7% 16.1% 43.2% 7.1

Boroondara City Melbourne 0.9% 1.9% 5.7% 11.1% 15.8% 64.6% 10.2

East Barwon Barwon 2.7% 4.0% 10.0% 16.3% 18.0% 49.0% 7.6

East Central Highlands Central Highlands 2.2% 3.0% 9.2% 19.3% 19.6% 46.8% 7.2

East Gippsland Shire East Gippsland 3.5% 4.6% 13.8% 16.2% 11.8% 50.1% 8.0

East Mallee Mallee 6.0% 7.0% 12.6% 12.8% 15.1% 46.5% 8.6

East Ovens-Murray Ovens-Murray 6.7% 5.7% 11.3% 11.0% 12.6% 52.8% 8.7

Eastern Middle Melbourne Melbourne 1.5% 2.3% 6.2% 10.2% 15.3% 64.6% 10.9

Eastern Outer Melbourne Melbourne 1.4% 2.7% 6.8% 12.5% 18.7% 58.0% 9.8

Frankston City Melbourne 1.1% 3.0% 9.4% 16.8% 20.3% 49.5% 8.0

Glenelg Western District 3.9% 4.7% 10.6% 15.3% 12.8% 52.6% 8.2

Greater Bendigo City Part A Loddon 1.9% 3.6% 12.6% 20.6% 15.5% 45.8% 7.8

Greater Dandenong City Melbourne 1.2% 2.1% 5.8% 10.2% 16.8% 63.9% 10.5

Greater Geelong City Part A Barwon 1.7% 3.4% 10.1% 18.8% 18.5% 47.5% 7.6

Greater Shepparton City Part A Goulburn 4.6% 7.5% 19.2% 16.5% 13.5% 38.8% 8.0

Hopkins Western District 2.3% 2.8% 10.2% 13.2% 14.8% 56.7% 8.8

Hume City Melbourne 1.2% 3.0% 9.5% 18.1% 22.8% 45.3% 7.6

Inner Melbourne Melbourne 2.5% 4.4% 11.4% 16.2% 20.1% 45.3% 8.5

La Trobe Valley Gippsland 1.8% 3.5% 12.3% 18.7% 15.7% 47.9% 7.3

Melton-Wyndham Melbourne 1.3% 3.5% 13.2% 22.4% 23.7% 35.8% 5.6

Mildura Rural City Part A Mallee 9.0% 9.8% 19.4% 16.6% 14.2% 31.0% 7.1

Moreland City Melbourne 1.3% 2.9% 6.7% 10.8% 16.7% 61.6% 10.1

Mornington Peninsula Shire Melbourne 1.2% 2.6% 7.9% 14.2% 20.4% 53.7% 8.1

North Goulburn Goulburn 4.7% 5.7% 14.6% 15.9% 15.6% 43.5% 7.9

North Loddon Loddon 1.7% 2.7% 8.9% 13.8% 17.0% 55.9% 8.2

North Wimmera Wimmera 3.0% 2.9% 9.4% 14.7% 17.3% 52.7% 8.4

Northern Middle Melbourne Melbourne 1.3% 2.0% 6.8% 11.2% 17.7% 61.0% 10.0

Northern Outer Melbourne Melbourne 1.5% 2.9% 9.2% 15.5% 18.5% 52.3% 9.2

South Eastern Outer Melbourne Melbourne 0.9% 3.1% 10.6% 19.5% 22.9% 42.9% 6.8

South Gippsland Gippsland 2.7% 4.0% 10.4% 16.9% 18.3% 47.8% 7.2

South Goulburn Goulburn 3.3% 5.1% 12.7% 15.9% 14.3% 48.7% 8.1

South Loddon Loddon 0.9% 1.8% 7.3% 15.0% 22.1% 52.9% 7.3

South West Goulburn Goulburn 3.6% 4.3% 12.8% 20.0% 16.5% 42.9% 6.9

South Wimmera Wimmera 5.1% 5.5% 15.2% 16.5% 15.9% 41.8% 7.3

Southern Melbourne Melbourne 1.6% 2.6% 7.2% 12.0% 16.3% 60.3% 10.0

Warrnambool City Western District 3.1% 4.9% 14.6% 18.7% 12.0% 46.7% 8.2

Wellington Shire East Gippsland 3.3% 4.9% 13.3% 15.3% 13.2% 50.0% 7.7

West Barwon Barwon 4.7% 5.3% 11.6% 14.6% 12.6% 51.1% 8.7

West Central Highlands Central Highlands 3.6% 4.2% 11.4% 15.0% 15.6% 50.3% 7.6

West Gippsland Gippsland 3.3% 6.1% 14.0% 21.5% 14.9% 40.1% 5.9

West Mallee Mallee 3.2% 2.4% 9.7% 11.0% 16.8% 56.8% 8.8

West Ovens-Murray Ovens-Murray 4.2% 7.0% 16.8% 14.4% 12.3% 45.3% 7.7

Western Melbourne Melbourne 1.2% 2.6% 8.1% 13.2% 19.9% 55.0% 8.6

Wodonga Ovens-Murray 4.3% 8.0% 21.4% 15.0% 11.2% 40.1% 7.3

Yarra Ranges Shire Part A Melbourne 1.5% 2.8% 7.9% 13.5% 18.6% 55.7% 9.3

p.21

Queensland Regions


ownership (yrs)

Beaudesert Shire Part A Brisbane 2.9% 9.6% 14.7% 15.4% 12.0% 45.4% 6.8

Bundaberg Wide Bay-Burnett 5.8% 12.2% 18.8% 12.6% 9.4% 41.3% 6.2

Caboolture Shire Brisbane 6.4% 14.1% 18.8% 16.7% 9.6% 34.4% 5.5

Cairns City Part A Far North 15.2% 13.7% 16.8% 12.0% 11.5% 30.8% 5.9

Central West Central West 4.6% 5.0% 9.3% 8.8% 12.1% 60.4% 7.4

Darling Downs SD Bal Darling Downs 3.6% 6.7% 14.6% 15.3% 11.8% 48.0% 6.5

Far North SD Bal Far North 9.1% 7.7% 12.8% 11.2% 10.8% 48.4% 6.9

Fitzroy SD Bal Fitzroy 4.9% 8.7% 18.9% 13.7% 9.2% 44.6% 5.8

Gladstone Fitzroy 1.3% 1.7% 10.7% 20.6% 13.7% 52.0% 5.8

Gold Coast East Gold Coast 13.0% 12.1% 15.9% 12.7% 10.5% 35.8% 7.1

Gold Coast North Gold Coast 7.8% 13.2% 15.2% 14.1% 11.2% 38.5% 5.9

Gold Coast SD Bal Gold Coast 6.0% 10.8% 15.4% 14.6% 11.3% 41.9% 6.6

Gold Coast West Gold Coast 6.7% 13.4% 18.8% 16.0% 11.6% 33.5% 6.1

Hervey Bay City Part A Wide Bay-Burnett 10.0% 14.2% 21.6% 11.7% 6.8% 35.6% 6.0

Inner Brisbane Brisbane 6.2% 8.7% 16.7% 16.2% 18.7% 33.5% 6.4

Ipswich City Brisbane 5.8% 12.6% 15.6% 14.1% 10.6% 41.3% 6.0

Logan City Brisbane 3.9% 9.8% 15.1% 12.2% 13.1% 46.0% 7.1

Lower West Moreton West Moreton 3.7% 8.6% 16.3% 14.9% 11.2% 45.2% 6.1

Mackay City Part A Mackay 3.8% 8.8% 21.8% 11.3% 7.4% 47.0% 6.4

Mackay SD Bal Mackay 11.3% 8.5% 13.4% 11.6% 11.1% 44.1% 6.1

North West North West 2.8% 5.1% 18.2% 12.8% 8.8% 52.5% 5.7

Northern SD Bal Northern 5.2% 5.3% 9.7% 10.6% 12.4% 56.7% 6.9

Northwest Inner Brisbane Brisbane 4.6% 6.8% 12.9% 13.3% 15.8% 46.7% 7.7

Northwest Outer Brisbane Brisbane 2.3% 7.6% 14.2% 14.3% 13.9% 47.6% 7.5

Pine Rivers Shire Brisbane 5.3% 14.1% 16.8% 17.4% 12.2% 34.2% 5.4

Redcliffe City Brisbane 6.2% 12.4% 18.6% 15.2% 11.6% 36.0% 5.8

Redland Shire Brisbane 4.2% 10.9% 16.3% 15.3% 11.1% 42.2% 7.0

Rockhampton Fitzroy 4.4% 9.4% 15.7% 9.8% 9.3% 51.4% 6.7

South West South West 2.8% 4.5% 12.5% 13.5% 10.6% 56.2% 6.6

Southeast Inner Brisbane Brisbane 3.5% 7.2% 14.2% 13.6% 15.1% 46.4% 7.5

Southeast Outer Brisbane Brisbane 2.4% 7.4% 15.1% 14.2% 14.7% 46.2% 7.4

Sunshine Coast Sunshine Coast 9.4% 13.2% 18.0% 13.2% 8.2% 38.0% 6.7

Sunshine Coast SD Bal Sunshine Coast 6.6% 11.0% 15.9% 14.1% 9.2% 43.1% 6.6

Thuringowa City Part A Northern 5.1% 14.8% 17.9% 11.2% 11.0% 40.1% 5.7

Toowoomba Darling Downs 2.7% 5.6% 20.8% 20.1% 11.1% 39.7% 6.3

Townsville City Part A Northern 6.5% 11.4% 16.3% 12.2% 10.9% 42.7% 6.3

Upper West Moreton West Moreton 5.2% 8.7% 14.3% 13.7% 10.5% 47.5% 6.3

Wide Bay-Burnett SD Bal Wide Bay-Burnett 5.9% 9.1% 16.4% 13.7% 10.5% 44.5% 6.3

p.22

South Australian Regions

SSD Region < 0% 0 - 10% 10 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 100% > 100%Median length of

ownership (yrs)

Barossa Outer Adelaide 3.9% 6.6% 18.3% 23.3% 16.2% 31.8% 4.6

Eastern Adelaide Adelaide 2.3% 4.6% 13.9% 18.0% 19.9% 41.4% 5.5

Far North Northern 3.4% 7.8% 18.7% 14.2% 11.1% 44.7% 4.9

Fleurieu Outer Adelaide 5.6% 7.8% 20.2% 22.9% 16.1% 27.4% 4.3

Flinders Ranges Northern 4.1% 5.1% 10.5% 12.7% 11.0% 56.6% 6.6

Kangaroo Island Outer Adelaide 3.8% 8.0% 24.9% 24.7% 14.4% 24.2% 4.0

Lincoln Eyre 4.2% 6.5% 18.0% 21.3% 14.9% 35.0% 5.3

Lower North Yorke and Lower North 5.0% 8.0% 19.9% 16.2% 14.8% 36.1% 4.8

Lower South East South East 4.5% 7.7% 20.8% 22.1% 15.2% 29.7% 5.3

Mt Lofty Ranges Outer Adelaide 2.0% 7.0% 19.2% 23.0% 18.0% 30.6% 4.6

Murray Mallee Murray Lands 8.9% 11.0% 16.5% 16.2% 13.2% 34.2% 5.2

Northern Adelaide Adelaide 2.3% 7.1% 17.7% 18.4% 17.4% 37.0% 5.2

Pirie Northern 10.4% 7.3% 11.9% 13.0% 14.9% 42.6% 5.7

Riverland Murray Lands 5.8% 7.7% 19.3% 19.1% 17.0% 31.1% 5.5

Southern Adelaide Adelaide 2.6% 7.0% 16.7% 17.2% 18.2% 38.2% 5.4

Upper South East South East 5.0% 8.8% 18.6% 19.6% 15.0% 33.1% 4.9

West Coast Eyre 3.9% 5.9% 13.7% 15.4% 16.5% 44.7% 5.4

Western Adelaide Adelaide 2.5% 5.6% 15.4% 16.7% 18.5% 41.4% 5.5

Whyalla Northern 3.4% 6.1% 10.8% 10.6% 10.3% 58.7% 6.4

Yorke Yorke and Lower North 5.6% 8.3% 15.6% 17.7% 15.3% 37.5% 4.9

Western Australian Regions


ownership (yrs)

Avon Midlands 7.0% 5.3% 9.8% 10.8% 12.1% 55.1% 5.8

Blackwood South West 8.0% 5.2% 10.1% 10.6% 12.3% 53.8% 6.1

Bunbury South West 8.2% 10.5% 17.8% 11.2% 10.5% 41.8% 5.7

Campion Midlands 6.2% 3.9% 5.9% 7.7% 14.3% 62.0% 5.7

Carnegie Central 10.0% 3.6% 7.2% 8.8% 19.7% 50.6% 4.9

Central Metropolitan Perth 4.3% 7.1% 14.2% 11.3% 12.5% 50.6% 6.4

De Grey Pilbara 7.4% 5.1% 10.1% 13.7% 14.6% 49.0% 5.2

East Metropolitan Perth 4.5% 9.2% 16.7% 9.8% 11.3% 48.5% 5.9

Fitzroy Kimberley 7.6% 6.9% 14.4% 9.6% 15.2% 46.3% 5.7

Fortescue Pilbara 4.0% 6.3% 16.4% 13.8% 9.2% 50.4% 5.3

Gascoyne Central 5.6% 3.9% 10.5% 9.8% 13.5% 56.8% 5.8

Geraldton Central 4.7% 6.5% 15.7% 12.3% 10.3% 50.4% 5.6

Greenough River Central 8.2% 4.1% 9.1% 10.4% 11.9% 56.3% 6.4

Hotham Upper Great Southern 8.3% 4.5% 10.5% 11.6% 11.6% 53.5% 5.6

Johnston South Eastern 9.1% 6.7% 10.2% 8.9% 12.0% 53.2% 6.4

Kalgoorlie/Boulder City Part A South Eastern 11.7% 9.4% 14.5% 15.4% 18.1% 30.9% 4.9

King Lower Great Southern 10.0% 8.7% 12.4% 8.6% 11.6% 48.7% 6.1

Lakes Upper Great Southern 6.6% 2.6% 4.9% 8.7% 12.8% 64.5% 6.4

Lefroy South Eastern 13.3% 6.3% 8.6% 9.8% 20.3% 41.8% 4.7

Mandurah South West 11.6% 9.8% 14.9% 10.6% 13.6% 39.5% 6.0

Moore Midlands 5.6% 3.7% 8.6% 9.9% 9.6% 62.6% 7.2

North Metropolitan Perth 3.2% 8.4% 18.0% 11.1% 12.4% 46.9% 6.0

Ord Kimberley 5.5% 6.4% 17.3% 10.7% 11.6% 48.5% 5.3

Pallinup Lower Great Southern 8.9% 4.2% 9.0% 9.0% 14.0% 54.9% 5.7

Preston South West 8.7% 6.9% 11.6% 9.4% 10.2% 53.2% 6.0

South East Metropolitan Perth 3.8% 7.9% 17.3% 11.9% 11.5% 47.7% 5.9

South West Metropolitan Perth 4.3% 8.9% 17.6% 11.5% 12.0% 45.7% 6.0

Vasse South West 9.6% 10.4% 13.9% 11.8% 12.0% 42.3% 5.8

p.23

Tasmanian regions


ownership (yrs)

Burnie-Devonport Mersey-Lyell 3.3% 5.4% 14.4% 16.0% 12.0% 49.0% 6.9

Central North Northern 4.3% 5.4% 12.1% 13.7% 12.9% 51.6% 6.3

Greater Hobart Hobart 3.3% 6.3% 14.5% 16.0% 11.4% 48.5% 7.2

Greater Launceston Northern 3.1% 5.0% 14.6% 16.9% 12.3% 48.1% 7.0

Lyell Mersey-Lyell 5.6% 5.5% 9.1% 12.9% 11.1% 55.8% 7.0

North Eastern Northern 4.1% 4.6% 11.6% 12.4% 12.9% 54.5% 7.2

North Western Rural Mersey-Lyell 4.7% 5.3% 11.4% 13.3% 12.4% 52.9% 6.8

Southern Southern 5.0% 6.1% 12.8% 13.1% 12.1% 51.0% 6.7

Northern Territory regionsStatistical Sub Division Region < 0% 0 - 10% 10 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 100% > 100%

Median length of

ownership (yrs)

Barkly Northern Territory - Bal 3.7% 0.6% 4.8% 5.6% 12.4% 72.9% 4.1

Central NT Northern Territory - Bal 2.7% 2.7% 12.1% 10.8% 25.7% 46.0% 4.7

Darwin City Darwin 5.7% 4.3% 11.7% 15.5% 19.7% 43.1% 4.9

East Arnhem Northern Territory - Bal 5.8% 3.3% 8.5% 10.7% 12.7% 59.0% 4.8

Litchfield Shire Darwin 4.5% 3.3% 9.7% 8.6% 13.4% 60.4% 5.2

Lower Top End NT Northern Territory - Bal 3.4% 3.3% 12.3% 15.1% 21.0% 44.9% 4.8

Palmerston-East Arm Darwin 2.8% 5.6% 13.0% 16.3% 16.3% 46.0% 4.5

p.24

About RP Data

Established in 1991, RP Data is the leading supplier of commercial and residential propertyinformation services throughout Australia and New Zealand. Subscription clients to RP Data’s propertyinformation service include over 10,000 real estate agents, valuers, property developers, financialinstitutions and government departments. RP Data is also the largest supplier of electronic valuationsand consumer property reports in Australia generating over 30 million electronic valuations everymonth.

Our recent acquisitions of the Valex Group (made up of Valuation Exchange and Megaw & HoggNational Valuers) and Sandstone’s VMS division has allowed us to expand this role further. Bycombining our leading databases and analytics with existing property valuation managementprocesses, platforms and a leading valuation firm, we’re able to develop more efficient valuationsolutions while reducing the risks associated with mortgage lending.

The name RP Data is synonymous with the property and commercial markets. We have forged astrong reputation as leaders in the provision of comprehensive ‘real-time’ data that has proven to cutcosts, increase productivity and deliver a real and rapid return on investment.

Used by thousands of corporations and consumers seeking property information, RP Data is proud toboast the Reserve Bank of Australia as one of our key customers along with many multi-nationalcorporations, financial institutions, real estate professionals, developers, investors and more recently,the broader consumer market through our user-friendly consumer brand – myrpdata.com

Through our five-star property information services, we are able to ensure that the quality of our dataand extended information services give our customers the confidence to make sound and wellresearched decisions about property.

As the pioneers of online property information, we are at the forefront of innovation throughcontinual investment in emerging state-of-the-art technologies which are user-friendly and cost-effective for customers at all levels.

Our key value to our clients lies in the delivery of vast and accurate property information andanalytics. Whether our clients need to increase listings to sell more, manage their risk portfolioeffectively, market to current and future clients who are transacting in property, or simply streamlinethe way they do business, RP Data has the solution.

It's not just data, it's RP Data.

http://www.myrpdata.com/



p.25

Disclaimers

Disclaimers

© 2011 Copyright RP Data Ltd, Local, State, and Commonwealth Governments. All rights reserved. No reproduction, distribution ortransmission of the copyrighted materials in this publication is permitted whether in whole or in part.

The information provided in this publication is current as at the publication date only. This publication is supplied on the basis that whilerpdata.com believes all the information in it is deemed reliable at the publication date, it does not warrant its accuracy or completeness andto the full extent allowed by law excludes liability in contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss or damage sustained by yourself, or by anyother person or body corporate arising from or in connection with the supply or use of the whole or any part of the information in thispublication through any cause whatsoever and limits any liability it may have to the amount paid to rpdata.com for the supply of suchinformation.

This publication provides general information only – it is not intended as advice and should not be relied upon as such. The material has notbeen prepared by taking into account your investment objectives, financial situation or personal needs. You should make your own inquiriesand if necessary take independent financial advice tailored to your specific circumstances before making any investment decisions.

Queensland DataIn compiling this publication, RP Data has relied upon information supplied by a number of external sources. The publication is supplied onthe basis that while the RP Data believes all the information in it is deemed reliable at the time of publication, it does not warrant itsaccuracy or completeness and to the full extent allowed by law excludes liability in contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss or damagesustained by subscribers, or by any other person or body corporate arising from or in connection with the supply or use of the whole or anypart of the information in this publication through any cause whatsoever and limits any liability it may have to the amount paid to RP Datafor the supply of such information.

The State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) 2011. Based on data provided with the permission of theDepartment of Natural Resources and Mines: [QVAS - (May/2011)]. The Department of Natural Resources and Mines makes norepresentations or warranties about accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability of the data for any particular purpose and disclaims allresponsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses and damages (including indirect orconsequential damage) and costs which might be incurred as a result of the data being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for anyreason.

South Australian DataIn compiling this publication, RP Data has relied upon information supplied by a number of external sources. The publication is supplied onthe basis that while the RP Data believes all the information in it is deemed reliable at the time of publication, it does not warrant itsaccuracy or completeness and to the full extent allowed by law excludes liability in contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss or damagesustained by subscribers, or by any other person or body corporate arising from or in connection with the supply or use of the whole or anypart of the information in this publication through any cause whatsoever and limits any liability it may have to the amount paid to RP Datafor the supply of such information.

2011 Copyright in this information belongs to the South Australian Government and the South Australian Government does not accept anyresponsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information.

New South Wales DataIn compiling this publication, RP Data has relied upon information supplied by a number of external sources. The publication is supplied onthe basis that while the RP Data believes all the information in it is deemed reliable at the time of publication, it does not warrant itsaccuracy or completeness and to the full extent allowed by law excludes liability in contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss or damagesustained by subscribers, or by any other person or body corporate arising from or in connection with the supply or use of the whole or anypart of the information in this publication through any cause whatsoever and limits any liability it may have to the amount paid to RP Datafor the supply of such information.

Contains property sales information provided under licence from the Department of Lands NSW.

Victorian DataIn compiling this publication, RP Data has relied upon information supplied by a number of external sources. The publication is supplied onthe basis that while the RP Data believes all the information in it is deemed reliable at the time of publication, it does not warrant itsaccuracy or completeness and to the full extent allowed by law excludes liability in contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss or damagesustained by subscribers, or by any other person or body corporate arising from or in connection with the supply or use of the whole or anypart of the information in this publication through any cause whatsoever and limits any liability it may have to the amount paid to RP Datafor the supply of such information.

The State of Victoria owns the copyright in the Property Sales Data and reproduction of the data in any way without the consent of the Stateof Victoria will constitute a breach of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). The State of Victoria does not warrant the accuracy or completeness ofthe information contained in this report and any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that the State ofVictoria accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information supplied.

p.26

Disclaimers

Disclaimers

Western Australian DataIn compiling this publication, RP Data has relied upon information supplied by a number of external sources. The publication is supplied onthe basis that while the RP Data believes all the information in it is deemed reliable at the time of publication, it does not warrant itsaccuracy or completeness and to the full extent allowed by law excludes liability in contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss or damagesustained by subscribers, or by any other person or body corporate arising from or in connection with the supply or use of the whole or anypart of the information in this publication through any cause whatsoever and limits any liability it may have to the amount paid to RP Datafor the supply of such information.

Based on information provided by and with the permission of the Western Australian Land Information Authority (2011) trading asLandgate.

Australian Capital Territory DataIn compiling this publication, RP Data has relied upon information supplied by a number of external sources. The publication is supplied onthe basis that while the RP Data believes all the information in it is deemed reliable at the time of publication, it does not warrant itsaccuracy or completeness and to the full extent allowed by law excludes liability in contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss or damagesustained by subscribers, or by any other person or body corporate arising from or in connection with the supply or use of the whole or anypart of the information in this publication through any cause whatsoever and limits any liability it may have to the amount paid to RP Datafor the supply of such information.

The Territory Data is the property of the Australian Capital Territory. No part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior writtenpermission. Enquiries should be directed to: Director, Customer Services ACT Planning and Land Authority GPO Box 1908 Canberra ACT2601.

Tasmanian DataIn compiling this publication, RP Data has relied upon information supplied by a number of external sources. The publication is supplied onthe basis that while the RP Data believes all the information in it is deemed reliable at the time of publication, it does not warrant itsaccuracy or completeness and to the full extent allowed by law excludes liability in contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss or damagesustained by subscribers, or by any other person or body corporate arising from or in connection with the supply or use of the whole or anypart of the information in this publication through any cause whatsoever and limits any liability it may have to the amount paid to RP Datafor the supply of such information.

This product incorporates data that is copyright owned by the Crown in Right of Tasmania. The data has been used in the product with thepermission of the Crown in Right of Tasmania. The Crown in Right of Tasmania and its employees and agents:

a) give no warranty regarding the data's accuracy, completeness, currency or suitability for any particular purpose; andb) do not accept liability howsoever arising, including but not limited to negligence for any loss resulting from the use of or reliance

upon the data.

Base data from the LIST © State of Tasmania http://www.thelist.tas.gov.au

Date post:	21-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

RP Data Equity Reportmedia01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/2011/09/Equity.pdf · Valuations data is...

Documents