Worked example 02

A family asset designed to earn while it compounds.

Two brothers were considering a $500,000 to $700,000 purchase. The property needed to work as a conventional house, support a credible co-living pathway and preserve a useful second option over a 10 to 15 year hold.

Adapted from anonymised Australian buyer-advisory work. It is included to show the depth of the analysis, not as a current property recommendation.

The central judgement

Co-living could improve the hold. It could not justify a weak location, compromised layout or unusable land.

The buying brief

Six requirements had to work together.

Budget$500,000–$700,000 target; consider up to $750,000 only where the property earned the stretch.

PropertyEstablished freestanding house; three to four bedrooms; two bathrooms preferred; practical parking and privacy.

IncomeAcceptable conventional rent plus conservatively evidenced room-rental upside.

LandUsable side or rear land, suitable access and a dwelling position that preserved an approval pathway.

GrowthA 10–15 year horizon, with owner-occupier depth, scarcity and diverse employment preferred to short-term momentum.

ExitThe property needed to remain attractive as an ordinary family home or investment.

The three-market shortlist

Each market carried a different part of the brief.

Golden Square, VIC

Property flexibility

$625,7253-bed typical value14.18%1-year growth4.14%Gross yield0.94%Vacancy

The lower entry price left more room for a fourth-bedroom pathway, useful land, compliance work and later value creation. The individual property and evidence of room demand still needed to carry the recommendation.

Norwood, TAS

Balanced market

$665,7223-bed typical value10.17%1-year growth4.46%Gross yield1.00%Vacancy

The suburb analytics were sound and the conventional holding case was resilient. Room demand and the depth of usable development sites remained open property-level questions.

Leanyer, NT

Growth and income overlap

$739,7203-bed typical value20.28%1-year growth4.90%Gross yield0.50%Vacancy

The numbers justified investigation, but not enthusiasm without restraint. The higher entry price, insurance, economic concentration and exit depth required a greater margin of safety.

HtAG screen observed 24 August 2026, with platform data current to 31 July 2026. One-year growth was cycle context, not a forecast.

How the markets were prioritised

The weighting reflected this brief, not a universal ranking.

35%Capital growth RCS30%Cashflow RCS25%Lower risk RCS10%Exit and liquidity

Yield, vacancy and inventory were used to explain and test the strategy-specific scores rather than counted twice. The screen prioritised markets for further investigation. It did not establish co-living legality, room demand or property-level feasibility.

Property selection

The suburb indicated where to look. The property decided whether the strategy worked.

Layout

Real bedrooms, privacy, bathrooms, communal space and a reversible configuration.

Land

Frontage, access, slope, services, easements and usable area.

Lawful use

Planning classification, building standards, tenancy rules and operator requirements.

Income

Conservative room rents, occupancy, utilities, management, furnishing and compliance.

Exit

Clear family-home appeal without relying on room-by-room operation.

Downside case

Softer rents, lower occupancy, higher insurance and no immediate development income.

Research scope

The nationwide screen was broader than the final three.

Golden Square VIC · Norwood TAS · Leanyer NT · Mount Tarcoola WA · Durack NT · The Range QLD · Traralgon VIC · Walkerston QLD · Clare SA · Eimeo QLD

Practical consequenceUnderwrite the conventional rental and downside cases first. Treat room income and development pathways as conditional upside until each is proven.

Back to all work examples