Property investment remains one of Australia's most favoured wealth building strategies, yet the mathematics underpinning its viability are more nuanced than many investors appreciate. Central to this is the relationship between gross rental yield and the cost of borrowed capital.
As of Q1 2026, the national average gross rental yield sits at approximately 4.69%, though this figure varies considerably by location and property type. Capital cities such as Brisbane record dwelling yields of around 3.6%, while outer corridors including Logan and Caboolture maintain closer to 4.5%. Darwin and regional Western Australia lead the nation, exceeding 6% in some markets.
Critically, gross yield is not what an investor receives. After accounting for property management fees, typically 8 to 10%, maintenance, landlord insurance, council rates, and vacancy allowances, net yield typically falls 1 to 1.5 percentage points below the gross figure, placing most metropolitan investors in the 2.5% to 3.5% net yield range.
This is where interest rates become decisive. Investment property loan rates in Australia currently range from 6.09% to 7.50% on variable products.
The maths is straightforward: when the interest rate on borrowed funds exceeds the net rental yield, the property is negatively geared. At current rates, virtually every leveraged metropolitan investment property falls into this category. Negative gearing is not inherently unviable, Australian tax law permits the deduction of net rental losses against other income. However, when borrowing costs exceed gross yield, approximately 4.5 to 5%, even the tax benefit struggles to compensate for the cash flow burden without meaningful capital growth.
As a working rule, an investment property funded by debt begins to represent a structurally poor income decision when the prevailing investment loan rate surpasses the gross yield by more than one percentage point, particularly in markets where long term capital growth assumptions are speculative rather than supported by population and infrastructure data.
The negative gearing wild card: the maths deteriorates sharply if the anticipated abolition of negative gearing proceeds in the 2026 Federal Budget. Media commentary and CBA analysis suggest the Government is now considering full abolition for new investments. For investors currently on a 37% marginal tax rate absorbing a $15,000 annual rental loss, the tax shield presently returns roughly $5,550 per year. Remove that concession, and the same property becomes $5,550 more expensive to hold annually, overnight. Combined with elevated borrowing costs, this would render negatively geared metropolitan property a genuinely poor financial decision for most new entrants, absent exceptional capital growth prospects. Grandfathering provisions are expected, however existing investors should not treat these as guaranteed.
Personally, I don't like the idea of negative gearing, but not for the reasons the mainstream media trot out. I don't think investors should be rewarded for loss-making property investments. I would like to see the same value of investment and tax benefits applied to small and medium sized businesses instead, since nearly half the Australian population is employed by them and they form the backbone of our economy.
Financial Disclaimer. This content is general in nature and has been prepared without taking into account your personal objectives, financial situation, or needs. It does not constitute financial product advice under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Before acting on any information contained in this post, you should consider whether it is appropriate for your circumstances and, if necessary, seek independent financial advice. References to specific companies, markets, prediction tools, or investment strategies are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute a recommendation to buy, hold, or sell any financial product. Past events and probabilistic frameworks discussed are not reliable indicators of future performance.