<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
	<title>Money magazine Comments - The worst performing suburbs in Australia</title>
	<description>CoreLogic has found the best performing suburbs in Australia. Does your investment property make the cut?</description>
	<link>https://www.moneymag.com.au/feed/latest?story=141385684</link>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:22:20 +1000</lastBuildDate>
	<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:22:20 +1000</pubDate>
	<language>en-AU</language>
	<copyright>Copyright 2026 Money magazine</copyright>
	<ttl>5</ttl>
	
	<item>
		<title>Comment by ken  ()</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p><p>Hi Cameron,<br>
The worst performing suburbs seem to be primarily mining and resource type areas which have been over rated for a number of years and due for a correction, I was wondering what would be the worst performing suburbs if we stripped out mining and resource towns to try and get a better representation of worst performing suburbs.<br>
Also in the best performing towns, these may possibly be more yield driven and not a balance between growth/yield, leading to a similar situation going forward as the worst performing towns.<br>
What would it look like if you stripped out the best 10% and worst % and then looked at the rest.</p></p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>ken  ()</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:22:20 +1000</pubDate>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>