Stats are not a particular strength of mine but the figures sound logical to me.
" 30% of all residential houses are rented,"
That is a figure that I have heard bandied about for years, about 70% own or are buying and 30% rent.
" Nsw has the highest figures for owner occupied mortgage with 47% having a mortgage "
This makes sense because traditionally property has been relatively more expensive in NSW's major city, ie, Sydney.
I would expect Melbourne to be similar these days.
I would assume that if 47% of owner occupiers have mortgages then landlords would be even more as an overall % so I would expect NSW to have a higher overall level of mortgages Vs fully owned.
" Nt and tas only around 12% have a mortgage ".
Is this 12% of population or 12% of owner occupiers?
Again, my feeling is that TAS would have lower level of mortgages due to historical level of relatively inexpensive property and lots of NSW / VIC / QLD people selling up and buying in TAS with no mortgage.
I understand that Darwin would be a city with a high transient population so the low figure would not be surprising if it was 12% of the population.
It would surprise me if 12% of owner occupiers had mortgages, that would be very low in my view.
I have a mortgage and I suppose I would be less 'stressed' without one, it would be very nice. Of course, there would be a lot of mortgage stress out there now but, in some cases it may also relate to other choices that have been made financially not just the mortgage.
Stats tell a story but not the whole story. The real estate market is made up of many stories that are separate and distinct with their own little twist.
