Perhaps it’s just an agree to disagree situation but I find lots of things in your article to be factually misrepresented. I’ll give my opinion on just a few:

Old is better than new

The opening quote “It is mathematically impossible for new property to outperform old property” A bold and frankly incorrect statement. There are way too many markets, many markets within markets, way too many properties, and way too many scenarios in which you haven’t crunched the numbers to make such a statement like that. It’s just not true. It almost feels like you know this because you later have to elaborate by saying “im not saying that a new property in a hot market can’t outperform an old property in a cold market..” which is just one disproving example of your statement. Another one is that the old property could just be in a less liveable state than the new one and as a result would need either significant renovation or just needs to be turned into a new property in order to perform as well as a new property! Either way, for the sole fact that there are cases where a new property CAN outperform established property, it means that your statement is just wrong. It’s just better to tell people what to watch out for. Because like new properties, there are things to watch out for when buying established.

“The higher the depreciation, the worse an investment it is”

That sounds ridiculous. What happens when an old property gets too old? Either a knockdown/rebuild or a renovation right? What’s the next logical step after that if you know what you’re doing? To get a brand spanking new depreciation schedule! Did you just all of a sudden turn that great investment into a TERRIBLE investment because of all the new depreciation? Of course you didn’t! You ask, albeit rhetorically, “how on earth can depreciation be considered a benefit”? There’s an obvious answer! Depreciation can be considered a benefit because you can claim it on your tax! Why else would you believe that every investor “should claim depreciation if they can”. You probably believe that because it is more BENEFICIAL to have a depreciation schedule than it is to not right? Depreciation shouldn’t be a thing that’s looked at as you being “worse off” by being able to claim some money back. I get that you might be a glass half empty kinda guy but are you really worse off if you were thirsty and had half a glass of water available to drink? Better than just being thirsty with no water to drink at all! So yes, you are absolutely better off being able to claim some money back on an inevitable depreciating asset than it is to not being able to claim anything back at all. That’s a benefit!

“Supply is a kick in the groin for growth”

That couldn’t be further from the truth. Supply is absolutely necessary for growth! And it’s just a biased argument to say “new properties represent supply and supply is our enemy” That’s just a really narrow minded outlook on economics in general. You can’t have demand without supply. The balance is crucial, and it’s crucial enough to be considered irresponsible by saying “supply bad”. No! Supply is a necessary requirement. It’s all about the BALANCE. Of course we want scarcity, of course we don’t want OVERsupply. But that’s a debate about balance, not “supply bad, demand good”. There are huge nuances that you are just bulldozing over here. Is that just comfort bias or agenda?

I hope the tone doesn’t come off as too harsh. I’m known to be a little rough around the edges. I appreciate your contribution to the community, but I would suggest that if you are here to inform, maybe a better approach is to instil knowledge about a particular door and what may be behind it, and what could happen if someone choses to open it, rather than telling someone to not open the door altogether. Cheers!