My Clients Average 15.7% Annual Growth. Ask Your Buyer's Agent for Their Number.

I am about to publish the most uncomfortable video in the Australian buyer's agent industry. And I know it is uncomfortable because every competitor I have ever met avoids doing exactly what I am about to do: sharing their actual client results.

Not hand-picked success stories. Not one standout property they trot out at every seminar. The aggregate performance data across their entire portfolio.

Here is ours. Across the 200-plus properties we have helped clients purchase in Melbourne, the current average weekly rent is $709. The average annual capital growth is 15.7 per cent. Every property address, every purchase price, every valuation — we are moving toward full public transparency on everything except the client's personal details.

Now I want to teach you two things that will make it impossible for anyone to mislead you about property investment again. These two tests are what separate genuine buyer's agents from the ones who are surviving on marketing rather than performance.

Test one: demand their track record data

The first thing you should do when evaluating a buyer's agent is ask them, directly and specifically: what is the average capital growth across all of your client acquisitions?

Not one property. Not their best performer. The average across their entire portfolio.

A genuine, high-performing buyer's agent can answer this question in 30 seconds. They have the data because they track it. They track it because their business model depends on repeat clients and referrals, which only happen when results are consistently strong.

A mediocre buyer's agent will do one of three things when asked this question.

First, they will deflect. They will say something like 'it depends on the property' or 'every client has different goals' or 'I cannot guarantee specific returns.' These are all true statements. They are also all ways of avoiding the question. You are not asking them to guarantee your return. You are asking what their historical performance has been.

Second, they will be afraid to quote a number. Why? Because if they say 15 per cent and a current client's property has only achieved 8 per cent, that client has grounds to question the service. The fact that they are afraid of their own data tells you everything about the quality of that data.

Third, they genuinely do not know. Many buyer's agents never track post-purchase performance. They collect their fee at settlement and move on to the next deal. They have no idea whether their past clients' properties went up 20 per cent or down 5 per cent. This is the equivalent of a surgeon who never checks whether their patients survived the operation.

If a buyer's agent cannot or will not share their aggregate track record, walk away. You are about to pay $15,000 to $30,000 in fees for a service that has no evidence of working.

Let me give you a real example of how this plays out in practice. I had a prospective client approach me who was already working with another buyer's agent. She had paid a $15,000 engagement fee six months earlier. The agent had helped her purchase a property in a growth corridor northwest of Melbourne for $580,000.

I asked her three questions. What has the property been valued at since purchase? She did not know — the agent never followed up. What is the current rental yield? She was getting $420 per week, which on $580,000 is a yield of 3.76 per cent — barely above the market average that she could have achieved without paying a $15,000 fee. What was the agent's rationale for that specific suburb? 'It is near the new train line extension.'

I pulled the data. The suburb had 1,200 lots approved for release over the next three years. Population growth was skewing to the under-25 demographic (renters, not buyers). And the train line extension was projected for completion in 2028 at the earliest, having already been pushed back twice.

She had paid $15,000 for a service that produced a below-market yield on a property with unlimited supply competition and infrastructure that may never materialise on schedule. This is not an isolated case. This is the industry standard for mediocre buyer's agents.

The gap between our 15.7 per cent growth and the market average of 7 to 10 per cent is not accidental. It is the result of a fundamentally different approach: data-driven suburb selection, micro-level property assessment, and post-purchase tracking that holds us accountable to actual outcomes.

Test two: challenge the logic behind their suburb picks

The second test is more subtle but equally revealing. Ask the buyer's agent to explain the data-driven rationale behind their recommended suburbs.

A genuine analyst will walk you through population growth data, infrastructure pipeline, supply-demand dynamics, land value trends, and comparable sales evidence. They can explain why a specific suburb at a specific price point with specific characteristics represents value. The reasoning is granular and evidence-based.

A mediocre agent relies on three stock phrases. I have heard all of these hundreds of times, and they are all red flags.

Red flag one: 'The suburb next door has already gone up 20 per cent, so this suburb is a price gap that must close.' This is the proximity fallacy. Suburbs next to expensive suburbs do not automatically become expensive. If that were true, every suburb in Melbourne would cost the same because they are all next to each other. Suburb pricing reflects specific local factors — school zones, transport access, demographic mix, housing stock quality — that are not transferable by geographic proximity.

Red flag two: 'The government has a $5 billion infrastructure plan here. A new hospital, a new shopping centre, a new train line.' Government infrastructure announcements are the most overused justification in Australian property marketing. Every growth corridor in the country has announced infrastructure. Most of it takes 10 to 15 years to materialise, if it materialises at all. By the time the train station opens, the price uplift has already been priced in by the market or the timeline has shifted another five years.

Red flag three: 'The rental yield is fantastic. Even if it does not grow, you are making money from rent alone.' A 5 per cent rental yield on a property that does not grow in value is not an investment. It is a bond. You could get a similar return from a term deposit without the maintenance costs, the vacancy risk, and the management headaches. If next year brings an interest rate increase, that 5 per cent yield on a flat asset is suddenly underwater.

The right answer to 'why this suburb?' involves specific data points. Population growth rate for the 30-to-40 age cohort. Number of new land lots released in the last five years versus zero. Vacancy rate below 1.5 per cent. Median days on market under 25. Land-to-improvement ratio above 80 per cent. If the buyer's agent cannot produce these numbers for their recommended suburbs, they are guessing.

Why rental yield alone is a dangerous metric

I want to address this directly because it is one of the most common traps in the industry.

Many buyer's agents focus their marketing almost exclusively on rental yield. 'We get our clients 5 per cent yield.' 'Our properties generate $800 per week from day one.' These sound impressive in isolation.

But rental yield without capital growth is a terrible investment. Here is why.

If your property generates 5 per cent yield but does not grow in value, and interest rates rise by 1 per cent next year, your net return drops to 4 per cent. A high-interest savings account pays 4 per cent with zero management responsibility, zero vacancy risk, and complete liquidity. Why would you tie up $650,000 in an illiquid, management-intensive asset for a return you could beat at the bank?

The answer is capital growth. A property that generates 5 per cent yield AND grows at 12 per cent per year delivers a total return of 17 per cent. No savings account, no term deposit, no managed fund consistently delivers 17 per cent per year.

But you have to verify the growth. Which brings us back to test one. If a buyer's agent cannot demonstrate historical capital growth across their portfolio, the yield numbers are meaningless. You are potentially buying a 5 per cent bond with $35,000 in stamp duty, annual management costs, and significant liquidity constraints.

Our average across 200-plus properties: $709 per week rent AND 15.7 per cent annual capital growth. Both numbers. Together. That is the benchmark. If your buyer's agent cannot match it, ask them why.

There is a deeper structural problem in the buyer's agent industry that consumers need to understand. The barrier to entry is remarkably low. In most Australian states, becoming a buyer's agent requires the same real estate licence as becoming a selling agent, with no additional qualification specific to investment analysis, portfolio construction, or financial modelling.

This means the industry contains a wide spectrum of capability. At one end, you have operators with deep data analytics, dedicated research teams, and verifiable track records. At the other end, you have former selling agents who rebranded as buyer's advocates because the commission model changed and they needed a new revenue stream.

Both charge similar fees. Both present professional websites. Both claim to be experts. The difference is only visible when you demand data.

A buyer's agent who has genuinely delivered 15 per cent growth across 200-plus properties will not hesitate to share that data. They know it is their strongest differentiator. A buyer's agent who has delivered 5 per cent growth — or who has no idea what they have delivered — will deflect to testimonials, case studies of their single best deal, and emotional language about 'finding your dream home.'

The two tests I outlined — demand aggregate track record data and challenge suburb logic with specific metrics — are not just nice-to-haves. They are the minimum due diligence you should perform before handing someone $15,000 to $30,000 and trusting them with the most significant financial decision of your life.

A challenge to every buyer's agent reading this

I am going to end with something direct.

If you are a buyer's agent and you believe your service delivers genuine results, post your aggregate track record in the comments. Not your best deal. Not a client testimonial. Your average capital growth across all acquisitions over the last 12 months.

If you can do it, I respect you enormously. You are one of the good ones. This industry needs more of you.

If you cannot do it — if you do not track the data, or if the data does not support the fees you charge — then your clients deserve to know that before they pay you.

I share our numbers because I believe transparency builds trust. And trust, in an industry rife with conflicts of interest and unverifiable claims, is the only currency that matters.

For anyone looking to evaluate their existing portfolio or understand how their property has performed relative to the market, reach out. I will personally review your situation and show you exactly where you stand. No pitch. No fee. Just data.

Because if the numbers are good, you do not need to hide them. And if they are not, you need to know.

I will leave you with one final thought. The buyer's agent industry in Australia is growing rapidly. As more people recognise the complexity of property investment and the value of professional guidance, more practitioners are entering the market. This is broadly positive — competition drives quality up and fees down over time.

But growth also attracts entrants whose primary skill is marketing rather than property selection. Glossy websites, professional photography, and articulate social media content do not correlate with investment returns. Data does.

Before you engage any buyer's agent, spend 30 minutes doing what I have outlined in this article. Ask for the aggregate data. Challenge the suburb logic. Verify whether the claims are supported by evidence or rhetoric. Those 30 minutes could save you $15,000 in wasted fees and hundreds of thousands in opportunity cost from a poorly selected property.

And if you want to start by benchmarking your existing portfolio against our numbers, the offer stands. No pitch. No fee. Just data. Because if the numbers are good, you do not need to hide them.