There's varying degrees of opinion about this, but I thought it would make for an interesting discussion. There are many investors who advocate investing only in one's "backyard", or immediate local area, for the best gains and growth. The theory goes that, by having such intimate local knowledge, one is able to better spot and subsequently purchase a bargain. Being in touch with what is happening in the local community can also reap benefits, as knowing of new dvpts and infrastructure ahead of the pack can result in better outcomes when it comes to specific locations. Being a local expert can be advantageous, as there's a lot of research that you can effectively "skip", being in the central hub of what's going on. I certainly don't disagree with this theory, though price can often exclude only limiting yourself to your local area, as well as other state based costs that make the locale unattractive. Historically poor cg rates and rental yields can also dampen one's enthusiasm for a particular suburb, yet there are many investors who simply want the comfort of driving past their IP and knowing that it's safely within driving distance from where they live. They consequently ignore the statistics (if they even go to the bother of finding them in the first place) and dive right in, based on often little more than the comfort of their knowledge of a particular area. Investing interstate has never worried me, though tenants and PM hassles have put me off on more than one occasion. However, I am now beginning to see some terrific local bargains that are tempting Coupled with good cg and future predictions (though one has to view predictions cautiously), as well as expanding land dvpt and new business parks in the area, even I could soon be a purchaser of my own "backyard". Would be interested to hear what others think, and their approaches to investing locally.