My Clients Average 15.7 Per Cent Annual Growth. Most Buyer's Agents Cannot Even Tell You Their Number.

The last video I posted reached nearly twenty thousand views. Today I am going to share something even more provocative — something that will make every competitor in the buyer's agent space deeply uncomfortable.

I am going to publish our actual portfolio numbers. Not a single cherry-picked success story. Not a vague claim about "strong performance." The real, aggregated data across every purchase we have executed for clients in Melbourne.

Here it is: over 200 properties purchased, averaging $709 per week in rent, with average annual capital appreciation of 15.7 per cent 1.

We are in the process of making every data point — except property addresses — publicly accessible. Purchase price, current valuation, weekly rent, renovation cost. All of it. Because I believe that if you are going to trust someone with the largest financial decision of your life, you deserve to see their track record before you sign anything.

And that belief leads me to the most important thing I can teach you today.

I want to add some context to these numbers. The 15.7 per cent figure is calculated using bank desktop valuations for properties that have been held for more than twelve months, and comparable sales analysis for more recent acquisitions. We exclude properties settled in the last six months because insufficient market time has elapsed for a meaningful growth measurement.

The $709 per week average rent includes both pre-renovation and post-renovation figures. Our post-renovation average is significantly higher — approximately $850 per week — but I am choosing to present the blended figure because honesty requires including properties that are still in the renovation pipeline or leased at pre-renovation rates.

The 200-plus transaction count spans approximately four years of active purchasing. In the last twelve months alone, we settled 131 properties. The growth figures are weighted toward more recent purchases because earlier purchases have had more time to appreciate, which could bias the average upward. To counteract this, we also calculate a time-weighted return that adjusts for holding period. That figure is approximately 14.2 per cent — still roughly double the market average.

The one question that reveals everything

If you are considering engaging a buyer's agent — any buyer's agent, including me — the first words out of your mouth should be: "What is your portfolio-wide track record?"

Not "Can you show me your best deal?" Anyone can find one property that performed well. Not "What suburbs do you recommend?" Suburb recommendations without performance data are just opinions.

Ask for the aggregate. The average growth across all purchases. The average yield. The number of transactions. The time period. The methodology.

A genuine, competent buyer's agent will answer this question immediately, with specific numbers, supported by data they can share. They may qualify it — "this is bank-valuation-based" or "this excludes properties settled in the last six months" — but they will give you a number 2.

A second-rate agent will dodge the question. They will say things like "It depends on the market" or "We can't guarantee returns" or "Every client's situation is different." These are all technically true statements that function as smokescreens. The reason they deflect is one of two things:

Either they genuinely do not know their own numbers — which means they lack the analytical capability to manage your investment — or they do know their numbers and the numbers are not impressive enough to share.

Both are disqualifying.

Let me give you a practical script. This is exactly what I recommend you say, word for word, when you first speak with any buyer's agent:

"Before we go any further, I'd like to understand your track record. Across all the properties you have purchased for clients, what is the average annual capital growth, and how many transactions is that calculation based on?"

Then wait. Do not fill the silence. Let them respond.

If they give you a specific number — "Our portfolio average is 11 per cent across 85 transactions" — that is a legitimate answer. You can then ask follow-up questions: how is growth measured (bank valuations vs estimates), what is the time period, what is the geographic spread.

If they give you a range — "Typically our clients see 8 to 15 per cent" — that is a partial answer. It suggests they track performance but are hedging. Press for the specific average.

If they redirect — "Every client's situation is different, so it's hard to give a single number" — that is a non-answer. It means either they do not track performance or the performance is not impressive. Both are disqualifying.

I have tested this on behalf of clients with seven different buyer's agents in Melbourne. Five of them could not provide a specific portfolio-wide growth figure. Two provided figures that could not be independently verified. We are, to my knowledge, the only buyer's agent in Melbourne that publishes portfolio-wide data with a sample size above 200 transactions.

Why most agents avoid publishing results (and why their excuses don't hold up)

I have heard every justification for not publishing portfolio-wide performance data. Let me address the three most common.

"If we promise 15 per cent growth and only deliver 10 per cent, the client will hold us accountable."

Good. That is how accountability works. If you cannot deliver consistently enough to be comfortable publishing your track record, you should not be charging five-figure fees for your advice. We publish our numbers knowing that some years will be above 15.7 per cent and some will be below. The point is the long-run average, not any single transaction.

"Our existing clients would not want their data shared."

We share aggregated data only — no property addresses, no client names. Privacy is preserved completely. This excuse is a red herring 3.

"Market conditions change, so historical performance is not indicative."

Historical performance across 200-plus transactions over multiple years is the single best predictor of future performance. Not because markets are constant, but because the methodology — the suburb selection criteria, the negotiation discipline, the renovation strategy — is consistent. If your methodology is sound, it performs across market conditions. If it only works in bull markets, it is not a methodology. It is luck.

I will go further. Any buyer's agent who only talks about rental yield and never mentions capital growth is hiding something. A property that returns 5 per cent rent but does not appreciate is worse than a savings account when interest rates are at 5 per cent. Growth matters. And growth is measurable. And agents who refuse to measure it are telling you everything you need to know about their confidence in their own abilities 4.

There is a deeper issue here that goes beyond individual agent competence. The buyer's agent industry in Australia has no standardised performance reporting framework.

Fund managers must report returns using standardised methodologies (money-weighted returns, time-weighted returns). Financial planners must disclose their advice methodology and demonstrate that recommendations are in the client's best interest. Even real estate agents must provide comparable sales evidence when quoting property values.

Buyer's agents have none of these obligations. A buyer's agent can charge $20,000 for a service that produces a property with below-market returns, and the client has no recourse beyond a vague "professional negligence" claim that is practically impossible to litigate.

I would support industry-wide regulation requiring buyer's agents to publish standardised performance data — average growth, average yield, number of transactions, time period, calculation methodology — on their websites and in their engagement contracts. This would allow consumers to compare agents on objective criteria rather than subjective marketing.

Until that regulation arrives, the burden is on you, the consumer, to demand the data. And if you cannot get it, keep walking.

The three sales pitches that should make you walk away

In over a thousand conversations with prospective clients, I have heard recurring stories about what other agents told them before they came to me. Three phrases appear so consistently that I now consider them red flags.

"The suburb next door has already boomed — this one is the next cab off the rank."

This is the property equivalent of "my cousin's friend made a fortune in crypto." Proximity to a high-growth suburb is not a growth driver. A suburb's fundamentals — employment access, transport infrastructure, land supply constraints, demographic profile — determine its growth trajectory. Some suburbs sit next to high-growth areas and go nowhere for decades 5.

"The government has a $3 billion infrastructure plan here — it's going to be the next major centre."

Government infrastructure announcements are priced into property values within months, not years. By the time you hear about it, the smart money has already moved. And infrastructure plans change, get delayed, or get cancelled with depressing regularity. Building an investment thesis on a government announcement is building on sand 6.

"The rental yield is amazing — you can't lose."

Yield without growth is a trap. A 7 per cent yield on a property that does not appreciate is a 7 per cent return. A term deposit at 5 per cent with zero risk is a 5 per cent return. The extra 2 per cent for the hassle of being a landlord, the illiquidity, and the maintenance is a terrible trade unless the property is also growing.

Our portfolio averages 15.7 per cent growth AND 5 per cent-plus yield. Growth and yield. Not one or the other. If someone tells you they are mutually exclusive, they are either lying or incompetent 78.

Let me expand on the three red-flag phrases because each one exploits a specific cognitive bias that investors are susceptible to.

"The suburb next door has already boomed, this one is the next cab off the rank." This exploits the proximity bias — the assumption that geographic closeness implies economic similarity. In reality, suburbs separated by a single road can have fundamentally different planning overlays, flood risk zones, school catchments, and demographic profiles. A suburb's growth is driven by its own supply-demand dynamics, not by its postcode neighbour's performance.

I can show you dozens of suburb pairs in Melbourne where one appreciated 15 per cent while the adjacent suburb was flat. Same road infrastructure. Same train line. Same shopping centre. Different planning zones, different land sizes, different buyer demographics. Geography is not destiny in property investment.

"The government has a $3 billion infrastructure plan here." This exploits the authority bias — the assumption that government spending equals value creation. Infrastructure announcements create price pops within weeks, not years. By the time a buyer reads about it in the Herald Sun, the price adjustment has already occurred. Moreover, infrastructure spending has a mixed track record of actually increasing property values. The West Gate Tunnel, for example, has disrupted multiple suburbs without delivering the value uplift that was promised.

"The rental yield is amazing — you can't lose." This exploits anchoring — the tendency to focus on a single impressive number while ignoring the broader picture. A 7 per cent yield on a property in a stagnant market is a 7 per cent total return. A term deposit at 5 per cent with zero management hassle, zero maintenance cost, and complete liquidity is objectively a better risk-adjusted return. Yield without growth is a trap, not a strategy.

A challenge to every buyer's agent reading this

I mean this genuinely and without arrogance. I challenge every buyer's agent in Australia to publish their portfolio-wide performance data.

Not one deal. Not a testimonial. The aggregate. Average growth. Average yield. Number of transactions. Time period. Methodology for calculating growth (bank valuation, comparable sales, or automated estimate).

Publish it on your website. Let prospective clients compare. Let the data speak.

Because right now, the buyer's agent industry operates largely on trust. Clients pay $15,000 to $30,000 in fees based on a conversation, a few testimonials, and a gut feeling. In what other industry would you hand over that kind of money without seeing a verifiable track record 9?

Fund managers publish their returns. Financial planners publish their model portfolio performance. Property developers publish their project histories. Buyer's agents should be no different.

If you are reading this as a potential client, bookmark this article. The next time you speak with a buyer's agent — any buyer's agent — ask them: "What is your portfolio-wide average annual growth, and how many transactions is that based on?"

If they answer with data, keep talking. If they answer with excuses, keep walking 101112.

I want to conclude with something I feel strongly about.

The buyer's agent industry is at a crossroads. On one path, it remains an unregulated, trust-based market where clients pay large fees based on glossy marketing and unverifiable claims. On the other path, it becomes a data-driven, transparent profession where performance is measured, published, and compared — just like fund management, just like financial planning.

I have chosen the second path for my business, not because regulation requires it, but because I believe transparency creates trust, and trust creates sustainable business growth.

Every quarter, I will publish our updated portfolio statistics. Every year, I will release an annual performance review with full methodology disclosure. And I will continue challenging every buyer's agent in Australia to do the same.

The industry will be better for it. Clients will be better for it. And the agents who genuinely deliver results will benefit most of all, because their numbers will speak for themselves.

If your agent cannot show you their numbers, find one who can. Your financial future is too important for trust without evidence.