REVEALED: WHAT DEFINES LUXURY & QUALITY OF LIFE AROUND THE WORLD

A life of luxury in Australia costs more than it used to in Australia. Inflationary pressures have pushed everything from the price of real estate, extravagant dining experiences and lavish weekends away up higher than they’ve ever been before.

The price tag for luxury homes across Australia now starts at $2.52 million, up an eye watering 72 per cent from a decade ago.

But what counts as luxury varies significantly depending on location. Sydney remains Australia’s most expensive market, where luxury begins at $4 million. The Gold Coast has now taken second place at $2.6 million, pushing ahead of Melbourne’s $2.49 million entry point.

That’s according to Luxury Report, produced by real estate firm Ray White, analysed what defines luxury today.

Global comparison

Housing affordability continues to hover at crisis levels in Australia, but how does a luxury lifestyle in Australia compare with the rest of the world?

A look at real estate markets abroad quickly reveals that where you choose to live can have a huge impact on what it costs to put a roof over your head.

For example, in Monaco, a small apartment can set you back more than $38,800 per square metre. Here, more than 40 per cent of the nation’s residents are millionaires: the highest proportion of any city in the world.

According to the ninth edition of a report that offers a snapshot of how global cities compare on cost of living, quality of life and income and affordability, Sydney and Melbourne isn’t anywhere near as expensive as other cities around the world.

Which puts it perspective for the wealthy trying to grapple with whether or not they can afford to keep the holiday house, or whether to list it for sale.

The Mapping the World’s Prices 2025 report ranked the cheapest and most expensive cities around the world, with the Deutsche Bank Research Institute assessing global cost and quality of life indicators.

The report tracks what it costs to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle. This includes the prices of everything from groceries, wine, buying a city apartment, salaries and general measures of the quality of life. Other factors measured include the cost of a summer dress, a carton of cigarettes, internet data and what it costs to dine out in some of the best restaurants.

Produced by the Deutsche Bank Research Institute, the report points out that inflation making a roaring comeback over the last five years, currency swings are influencing purchasing power and the world’s cost of living leaderboard is therefore shifting quickly.

Researchers focused on the 69 cities that matter most to global financial markets, and therefore your investment portfolio.

Here’s a breakdown of the most expensive places to live around the world:

Quality of life

If you’re seeking a good quality life, the top five cities for a quality lifestyle listed in the report are Luxembourg, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Vienna and Helsinki.

Meanwhile, Zurich and Geneva have slipped out of the top five because cost of living pressures have continued to skyrocket, making these cities now the most expensive in the world to live in.

Buying an apartment

Prices for an apartment have fallen by 20 per cent in Hong Kong over the last five years, but still top the list, followed by Zurich, Singapore, Seoul and Geneve.

London and New York are just outside the top five, while Beijing comes in at ninth place, highlighting the elevated property prices in China. If you’re looking to buy an apartment, unit or townhouse in Australia, the median price in July 2025 was $686,399.

Utility bills

Electricity bills cost around $350 to $420 per quarter in most states of Australia, which is much cheaper than what Germans are forking out. Munich, Frankfurt and Berlin have the highest energy bills in the world, while Warsaw, Vienna and Prague also make the top 10, highlighting that Eastern European cities are counting the costs of the lack of cheap Russian gas.

iPhone

If you want to pick up a smartphone to keep in touch with loved ones while travelling, you’re going to pay a lot more for one in Turkey, Brazil, Egypt, India and Sweden. Seoul is the cheapest as competition with Samsung makes it even cheaper than in US cities.

Groceries

Geneva, San Francisco, Zurich, New York and Boston are the top five costly places to stock up on groceries. Even by Swiss standards, groceries in Geneva are generally expensive, while groceries in Sydney are 39.41 per cent lower than in Geneva.

Wine

Picking up a bottle of wine will set you back if you’re in Singapore, where you’ll pay more than anywhere else in the 69 countries surveyed. Jakarta, Seoul, New York and Oslo are also expensive. It’s much cheaper to purchase wine in some other lovely cities, including Rome, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Budapest and Lisbon.

Cigarettes

Incredible, Australia tops the list anywhere in the world for the price of cigarettes. Government taxes and duties applied to cigarettes aim to dissuade consumption mean that Melbourne and Sydney have been ranked as the most expensive place for cigarettes, along with New Zealand.

Restaurants

Eating out in a swanky restaurant in Australia can set you back up to $300 per person. That might sound expensive if you’re trying to feed a family of four, it’s going to be more in Zurich, Geneva, New York, San Francisco and Boston.

Buying a car

Singapore and Copenhagen actively discourage the purchase of cars and are the most expensive cities to purchase a set of wheels. In fact, the cheapest possible car will set you back around $150,000 in Singapore Dollars. That’s for a basic car like a Honda Jazz, which is the same price as a Porche in any other part of the world.

The reason cars are so expensive in Singapore is the huge population in a limited space meaning the government prioritises a clean environment and less traffic. The next most expensive places to purchase a car are Tel Aviv, Istanbul and Abu Dhabi.

Reporting season has once again reminded investors that a strong profit does not guarantee a rising share price, and a large loss does not always trigger a sell-off. What matters most is how each result compares with expectations and, increasingly, what management says about the year ahead. During the August 2026 season, companies offering credible turnarounds or unexpectedly strong guidance were rewarded handsomely, while those flagging weaker margins, slowing demand or greater uncertainty were punished.

The following ranking draws on Morningstar’s review of 164 ASX-listed companies and measures each company’s share-price movement on the day it reported. This captures the market’s immediate response to the earnings announcement, before subsequent economic developments, dividends and company-specific news cloud the picture. Here are the five biggest winners, and the five hardest-hit losers, of the season so far.

The five winners

1. Bapcor (ASX:BAP): +41.0%

Bapcor delivered reporting season’s largest relief rally after presenting early evidence that its troubled automotive-parts business was stabilising. Although underlying revenue fell 1.8% to $1.92 billion and underlying NPAT collapsed 85% to $10.8 million, underlying EBITDA of $152.5 million exceeded guidance.

More importantly, working-capital initiatives released $68.5 million in the second half, lifting cash conversion to 109.4% and reducing net debt by 63% to $135 million. The statutory loss was $431.6 million, largely because of non-cash impairments. Investors focused on improving operational momentum, stronger liquidity and management’s expectation of modest FY27 revenue growth.

2. Zip Co (ASX:ZIP): +18.2%

Zip comfortably surpassed its FY26 targets, sending the buy-now-pay-later provider’s shares sharply higher. Transaction volume rose 23% to $16.7 billion, while cash earnings before tax, depreciation and amortisation jumped 58% to a record $268.9 million. Statutory profit climbed 46% to $116.4 million, and the cash operating margin expanded by 4.2 percentage points to 20%.

The strongest signal was guidance for FY27 cash earnings of $340 million—around 26% growth and above analysts’ forecasts. US transaction volume increased 42.5% and now represents three-quarters of group volume, offsetting weaker customer activity in Australia.

3. CSL (ASX:CSL): +17.3%

CSL’s result was hardly spectacular in isolation, but it cleared a market bar that had fallen dramatically following earlier downgrades and restructuring announcements. Underlying NPATA was US$3.1 billion, down 2% in constant-currency terms, while operating cash flow reached US$3.51 billion.

CSL maintained its full-year dividend at US$2.92 per share and completed a A$1 billion buyback. The real catalyst was FY27 guidance for approximately 5% underlying profit growth, compared with market expectations closer to 2%. After an extended period of earnings disappointments, investors interpreted the outlook as evidence that CSL’s core plasma business was approaching a sustainable recovery.

4. Judo Capital (ASX:JDO): +16.9%

Judo Capital demonstrated strong operating leverage as its specialist business-lending franchise expanded. Full-year profit before tax rose 34% to $168.1 million, while pre-provision profit increased 42%. Gross loans and advances grew 18% to $14.7 billion, reaching the top of the bank’s guidance range and comfortably exceeding broader system growth.

Deposits increased 24% to $12.2 billion, return on equity improved by 1.1 percentage points to 6.4%, and earnings per share rose 29% to 9.9 cents. Reaffirmation of the FY27 outlook gave investors confidence that loan growth could continue without sacrificing margins or credit quality.

5. Super Retail Group (ASX:SUL): +15.8%

The owner of Supercheap Auto, rebel, BCF and Macpac reported record sales of $4.2 billion, up 3.2%, despite cautious discretionary spending. Profitability went backwards: normalised profit before tax fell 7% to $306 million and normalised NPAT declined 2.8% to $226 million as transformation spending weighed on margins. Nevertheless, the result exceeded subdued expectations, online sales grew 5.3% and membership across the group’s loyalty programs reached 13.1 million. Investors were also encouraged by positive early FY27 trading, stable gross margins and continued market-share gains. A fully franked 33-cent final dividend added to the appeal.

The five losers

1. Hansen Technologies (ASX:HSN): –21.2%

Hansen’s historic result met expectations, but investors recoiled from its outlook. The utility and communications software provider achieved an underlying EBITDA margin of 31%, exceeding its 30% target, while generating strong cash flow. However, management designated FY27 an “investment and transition year”, signalling a roughly five-percentage-point margin contraction as spending on products, sales capabilities and organisational changes increased.

Revenue had already been broadly flat, leaving investors concerned that the investment program would depress earnings before new growth appeared. Leadership changes, including the chief executive’s departure, added uncertainty. Management expects revenue growth and margins above 30% to return in FY28, but the market was unwilling to wait.

2. Life360 (ASX:360): –19.4%

Life360’s headline growth was impressive: quarterly revenue rose 38% to US$159 million, subscription revenue increased 31%, and adjusted EBITDA climbed 53% to US$31.1 million. Monthly active users reached 102.4 million and paying circles grew 27% to 3.2 million. The sell-off reflected expectations rather than a collapsing business.

Net income fell 18%, the net margin contracted from 6% to 3%, hardware shipments dropped 18%, and full-year EBITDA guidance was merely maintained. After a strong valuation run, investors wanted a larger upgrade and clearer evidence that heavy investment in advertising, international expansion and artificial intelligence would generate additional earnings.

3. PEXA Group (ASX:PXA): –17.0%

PEXA reported a 7% increase in continuing-operations revenue and 12% EBITDA growth to $152 million, accompanied by a two-percentage-point margin expansion. Free cash flow increased 39%, suggesting the core Australian electronic-conveyancing platform remained highly profitable. Investors instead concentrated on management’s warning that property-transfer volumes could decline, alongside regulatory uncertainty surrounding the fees PEXA can charge.

The company is also continuing to invest heavily in its loss-making international expansion. Morningstar considered the market reaction excessive, arguing that structural transfer-volume assumptions had not materially changed, but the combination of softer near-term activity and regulatory risk overwhelmed the respectable headline numbers.

4. SEEK (ASX:SEK): –14.3%

SEEK produced solid FY26 figures, including 10% revenue growth to $1.20 billion, a 15% rise in EBITDA and 28% growth in adjusted earnings per share. It also lifted its fully franked annual dividend by 13% to a record 52 cents. Those achievements were overshadowed by falling paid job-ad volumes and cautious FY27 assumptions.

The statutory accounts included a $201 million loss from the SEEK Growth Fund and $377 million of significant items, making the headline result considerably less attractive. Investors were particularly concerned that economic weakness could limit volumes while the company continued investing in platform integration and artificial-intelligence products.

5. JB Hi-Fi (ASX:JBH): –12.3%

JB Hi-Fi’s full-year result was broadly respectable, with group sales rising 5% to $11.1 billion and underlying earnings per share increasing 6% to $4.48. The damage came from its current-trading update. Australian sales were almost flat during the June quarter and deteriorated further in July, while earnings in the core Australian electronics business fell 3.6%.

Housing-related categories were particularly weak as higher living costs and interest rates constrained household budgets. With JB Hi-Fi entering the season on a demanding valuation, an in-line historic result was not sufficient: the loss of sales momentum prompted investors to rapidly reduce their expectations for FY27.

Overall, the season showed that share prices react less to whether profits rose or fell than to the gap between results and expectations. Bapcor was rewarded for being less troubled than feared, while several fundamentally profitable companies were punished because their outlooks failed to justify elevated valuations.