# Mortgagee property sales happening already!!



## Realist (28 August 2006)

Sorry to start another property thread, but...

I know Wayne will enjoy this, he's a housing bear from way back, so am I.

Perth, Adelaide and Tassie residents - a mortgagee sale is coming to you in a few years, prepare now!!



Forced sales hit property market By Anthony Klan
August 28, 2006 12:00am

HOMEOWNERS coaxed into reinvesting the equity in their homes are facing bankruptcy as falling property values and rising interest rates stretch them beyond breaking point.

These duped mortgage-holders, many of them baby boomers preparing for retirement, are among an increasing number of people facing eviction across the country. 

The number of eviction notices served in New South Wales surged more than 50 per cent in the year to June, with the fallout most pronounced in Sydney, where some agents have as many as 18 mortgagee sales listed on their books. 

According to the NSW Attorney-General, there were 5316 eviction orders lodged last financial year, up a massive 52per cent on the 3495 the year before. Although many of those struggling owners bought at the peak of Sydney's property boom in 2003, agents are reporting distressed owners who have used surging property values to borrow against their homes. 

Patricia Maynard, 65, and husband Richard, 75, face losing their $1.2 million Coogee home in Sydney's east after they were talked into withdrawing $960,000 from the property they originally paid off in 1986. 

Ms Maynard said the couple were approached by a group in late 2002 who offered to help them unlock the equity in their home to reinvest and fund their retirement. 

"In February 2003, we went and got the bank cheques and we thought, 'Great, we don't need Centrelink payments any more, we can be self-funded retirees'," she said. 

"We were so naive, we'd paid off our house in 1986 and we were just retirees on a pension." 

The company has been placed into liquidation, the couple now owe $1.1 million on their house and Ms Maynard has been forced to return to work. 

"I thought there was no way something like this could happen in 2006 in Australia, that these people could get away with something like this," she said. 

Ethical real estate campaigner Neil Jenman said the number of people who had lost the equity in their homes and were seeking help had "at least doubled" in the past six months and the problem was expected to worsen. 

He said most of the people losing money were driven by a fear of being poor in retirement rather than greed. 

"It's not greed, it's fear driving people into these things," Mr Jenman said. "They are in their 50s and they say to themselves, 'I haven't got my finances in order so I'd better fast-track it'. 

"It should be against the law for unsophisticated investors -- that is, anyone with a net worth of under $5 million -- to mortgage their home and go into any scheme without first receiving independent legal advice." Although there are reports of increasing mortgagee sales across Sydney, outer-western suburbs such as Liverpool, Kellyville and Ingleburn have been hardest hit by the downturn. 

Many owners in these suburbs who have borrowed against their homes now have mortgages bigger then the value of their properties -- and the banks are moving in. 

Real estate agent Essam Eskaros, of PRDnationwide in Liverpool, said that of the 19 properties the group had listed for sale this month, 18 were mortgagee sales. 

Ian Carroll, of agents Century 21 Carroll Combined in Blacktown, said about one in five properties were forced sales instigated by banks. 

"We've had one unit that we sold in 2003 for $319,000 that just resold for $240,000," Mr Carroll said. 

"We've also had a development site that was bought for $670,000 and which just resold for $365,000." 

Auction clearance rates remain low in the eastern capitals, with less than half those properties auctioned in Sydney being sold. 

Over the weekend, the auction clearance rate was 49.8 per cent for Sydney and 56 per cent for Melbourne, according to Australian Property Monitors. 

Despite the weakness in the market, high house prices continue to lock families out of home ownership -- a problem the Howard Government blames on the states. 

"The stubborn refusal of state and territory governments to release enough land for new homes is forcing the price of house and land packages beyond the means of many hardworking Australians," John Howard said yesterday.


----------



## ctp6360 (28 August 2006)

I currently have offers on two properties that passed-in at auction (I was at the auctions too) and it looks like I will get both properties at a significant discount. On one of them the bank has dropped the price $55,000 already and to meet my offer they will need to drop another $15,000.

There are bargains abound EVERYWHERE!


----------



## Realist (28 August 2006)

ctp6360 said:
			
		

> There are bargains abound EVERYWHERE!




Well I am not arguing, but some people thought Telstra shares were a bargain a few years back. 

Are Telstra shares a bargain now?    

Are homes in Sydney a bargain now?    

No-one knows exactly, but the old adage - buyer beware! comes to mind.


----------



## swingstar (28 August 2006)

Pop.


----------



## Realist (28 August 2006)

Waaa ha haaa hoooeeeee......... crash. And a little puff of smoke comes up.


----------



## pepperoni (28 August 2006)

I wish .... but the places I wanted in Markham close Mosman went up 40% in the last 12 months!

They are still selling places here for $9m plus.

The last boom started in places like Mosman so who is to say we arent heading for another one.

I hope not though, Ive sold my house and invested in cash (short term strategy since June)!


----------



## silence (28 August 2006)

Good news for me. I'm 20 now, by the time I'm in the housing market I'll have people throwing their houses at me, so to speak


----------



## Realist (28 August 2006)

silence said:
			
		

> Good news for me. I'm 20 now, by the time I'm in the housing market I'll have people throwing their houses at me, so to speak





It is good news for you, and the majority of Australians.

As a 20 year old you need to make sure you are in the market before the next boom happens though. When that is nobody knows, I'm guessing between 4 and 9 years away in Sydney.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 August 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> It is good news for you, and the majority of Australians.



A point that more seem to be realising. I even had a real estate agent tell me last week how rising house prices were bad for most people "but not for me - I'm paid on commission".


----------



## wayneL (28 August 2006)

A small part of me wants to celebrate because it will be good sociologically and ultimately for the economy... the rest of me feels horrible for the people affected.

Cheers


----------



## doctorj (28 August 2006)

A small part of me feels horrible for the people affected... the rest of me wants to celebrate because it will be good sociologically and ultimately for the economy.

I've never been a fan of the general populace's use of property as a first choice investment vehicle.  It's non-productive capital and a terrible waste for the economy as a whole.

It is very sad for those that are leveraged to the hilt, but it is a reminder that good advice and research are essential components for any investment decision.


----------



## Jay-684 (28 August 2006)

silence said:
			
		

> Good news for me. I'm 20 now, by the time I'm in the housing market I'll have people throwing their houses at me, so to speak




Exactly. I'll be in the market for my first home in the next 6 months (although I'll only be living in it long enough to gain the first home owners grant, then I'll rent it out)

Mortgagee sales however dont reflect true market value as more often than not they do not receive sufficient marketing/advertising due to the bank taking possession. All they want is their own money back, they couldnt give a stuff about what its really worth.


----------



## tech/a (28 August 2006)

If you actually read the artical presented it appears that those mortgagee sales arent bought about by the decrease in housing prices but the use of the funds generated from releasing equity.
There are some genuine cases of dishonest dealings with genuine people.

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I have one rule---If I cannot control my investment---I dont want to be in it.

There can be many reasons why sales are forced.
The stress on home owners isnt as great as it appears as the majority would have had to take out Mortgage insurance when buying property particularly IPs banks protected and so is the mortgagee---with the insurance company taking up the difference between whats owed and what price the property is sold for.
Its those who released equity from freehold or close to it homes and invested poorly that will be hit hardest.
Not a fault of the housing market!


----------



## Milk Man (28 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> A small part of me wants to celebrate because it will be good sociologically and ultimately for the economy... the rest of me feels horrible for the people affected.
> 
> Cheers




Everyone should be on ASF so they are with the program. If I hadnt read yours and others posts here Wayne, i'd be just another lamb to the slaughter. Now I have capital in the forex market instead and have made $12k off $50k in two months! The only thing we could do more to stop the carnage is to drive around the streets with a megaphone, so dont feel so bad. At least those affected will learn something and tell others of their woes.


----------



## Judd (28 August 2006)

> "In February 2003, we went and got the bank cheques and we thought, 'Great, we don't need Centrelink payments any more, we can be self-funded retirees'," she said.
> 
> "We were so naive, we'd paid off our house in 1986 and we were just retirees on a pension."




Very very sad that these people have been ripped off but one obvious question.  From 1986 (when they were about 45 and 55 respectively) until 10-15 years later, what did they do with the funds previously directed to paying the mortgage?


----------



## doctorj (28 August 2006)

Judd said:
			
		

> what did they do with the funds previously directed to paying the mortgage?




Perhaps it went on the 4WD, the caravan and the plasma television...

I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 August 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Its those who released equity from freehold or close to it homes and invested poorly that will be hit hardest.
> Not a fault of the housing market!



Agreed that it's not the fault of the housing market, but mortgagee sales will influence the housing market if there's enough of them. An increase in mortgagee sales being one of the things those expecting a property slump (something that would be hard to deny has occurred at least in Sydney) have been on the lookout for.


----------



## robots (28 August 2006)

hello,

tech a/b is dead right

these people have got 990k by releasing equity, but how were they going to pay it back?

the demand for quality property (all price range's) across Aus is strong as and figures released recently have indicated this

buy now realist you will be kicking yourself

thankyou
robots


----------



## Realist (28 August 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> If you actually read the artical presented it appears that those mortgagee sales arent bought about by the decrease in housing prices but the use of the funds generated from releasing equity.




Well both actually.

If you own a $1M house and some shister gets you to remortgage $500,000 and invest it and you lose it then you lose the $500,000.

However if your house halved in that time and went down $500,000 you now have nothing. ZERO.

If your house doubled you have $1,500,000 left.

Huuuuuuuuge difference.


----------



## tech/a (28 August 2006)

Well thats not the case.

You could hypothesis endlessly.


----------



## Realist (28 August 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Well thats not the case.
> 
> You could hypothesis endlessly.




The fact their house went down in value makes a huuuuuge difference, hence why it is in a property related article, and not just a shister warning article.  Had it gone up alot they'd have been fine, or at least better off.


Obviously.


----------



## Julia (28 August 2006)

Judd said:
			
		

> Very very sad that these people have been ripped off but one obvious question.  From 1986 (when they were about 45 and 55 respectively) until 10-15 years later, what did they do with the funds previously directed to paying the mortgage?




Oh, for heaven's sake.  No one got ripped off.  I am so sick of people not taking responsibility for their own decisions.  No one forced them to release some of the equity in their home.  Why didn't they seek advice?

Tech - thank goodness for a realistic summary of what the article was actually about.

I can't believe how many people have such a capacity for reading into something whatever it is they want to believe.  Realist et al, don't kid yourself.  The next boom in property will be happening before you know it and you will be left out AGAIN!

Doctorj:  I think it was you who suggested property was a non-productive asset?  We simply can't think of everything in our lives as being productive or non-productive.  You are ignoring the pleasure and satisfaction of having one's own home to do with what we want (no asking the landlord) and the sense of security it provides.  Imo no gain in the share portfolio can equate to the sense of achievement I feel every time I come home.

Julia


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (28 August 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Oh, for heaven's sake.  No one got ripped off.  I am so sick of people not taking responsibility for their own decisions.  No one forced them to release some of the equity in their home.  Why didn't they seek advice?
> 
> Tech - thank goodness for a realistic summary of what the article was actually about.
> 
> ...





Nice post and thoughts Julia. 

Before the last thread on property prices, I wasn't aware of the extent of the drops in Sydney. Certainly I agree that if Fire sale auctions are at 40% below last years prices, then this seems like a good entry for the first home owner. Surely they are likely to rebound sooner, rather than later.

And definetly owning your own home and tinkering on it gives a bit of a buzz, its a basic/priority/goal in life.


----------



## TjamesX (28 August 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Doctorj:  I think it was you who suggested property was a non-productive asset?  We simply can't think of everything in our lives as being productive or non-productive.  You are ignoring the pleasure and satisfaction of having one's own home to do with what we want (no asking the landlord) and the sense of security it provides.  Imo no gain in the share portfolio can equate to the sense of achievement I feel every time I come home.




In fairness, I don't think doctorj was commenting on peoples use of funds to purchase property as a primary place of residence.

The property boom wasn't an obsession of people buying their own homes - it was an obsession of owning as much property as you could... built on releasing housing equity, easy finance, negative gearing and paying 15k to go to property cheerleading seminars! 

Thank god its over!!!!!

Unfortunately we still live in a situation where it is more economic to own an investment property and rent than it is to own your own home. hopefully the nails in the properties coffin will send everyone back to reality for a while....

And I agree that it was one of the biggest misallocation of free capital ever!!

TJ


----------



## Realist (28 August 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Realist et al, don't kid yourself.  The next boom in property will be happening before you know it and you will be left out AGAIN!





Yes Julia, it's only been a few months since property has doubled in value. If I don't get in now it could double again by christmas.


----------



## Realist (28 August 2006)

TjamesX said:
			
		

> Unfortunately we still live in a situation where it is more economic to own an investment property and rent than it is to own your own home.




True, but owning an investment property is not a good investment. SHARES ARE!!

We live in a situation where it is more economic to rent and invest.  That has usually been the case though, the ASX plus dividends have always and will always outdo property in the longterm.  If you can get in and out of housing booms as well you'll kill it, but shares are the best investment.

If you wanna own property buy WDC shares...


----------



## Realist (28 August 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> this seems like a good entry for the first home owner. Surely they are likely to rebound sooner, rather than later.




People said the same about TLS shares 3 years ago, where the bottom is no-one knows.  Fools jump in where Angels fear to tread.




> And definetly owning your own home and tinkering on it gives a bit of a buzz, its a basic/priority/goal in life




Agreed, owning a house to live in should always be everyones aim.

Owning a house as an investment on the other hand needs to be treated with utmost caution at the moment.


----------



## Realist (28 August 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> You are ignoring the pleasure and satisfaction of having one's own home to do with what we want (no asking the landlord) and the sense of security it provides.  Imo no gain in the share portfolio can equate to the sense of achievement I feel every time I come home.




And you are ignoring the great pleasure I get for living in a great apartment in a great area that I could not afford to buy, and do not have to pay for, maintain, repair, pay body corporate fees or insure. And the comfort that I can just move anywhere, anytime I want. I am free!!

And you are ignoring the great comfort I get not having a huge mortgage hanging over my head, the satisfaction of knowing interest rates are irrelevant to me, infact the higher the better, and the joy I get by seeing my bank balance and my share portfolio grow while house prices fall!!


----------



## swingstar (28 August 2006)

Some bearish talk on the US housing market:

http://www.europac.net/media/Schiff-Bloomberg-8-23-06.wmv (18.7mb, 6mins)


----------



## doctorj (29 August 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Doctorj:  I think it was you who suggested property was a non-productive asset?  We simply can't think of everything in our lives as being productive or non-productive.  You are ignoring the pleasure and satisfaction of having one's own home to do with what we want (no asking the landlord) and the sense of security it provides.  Imo no gain in the share portfolio can equate to the sense of achievement I feel every time I come home.
> Julia




I agree 100% with everything you said.

People make decisions for non-financial reasons all the time - they take holidays, they buy fancy cars etc etc.  I agree with that, afterall you only live once.  I was referring to people to people with additional investment properties.   A person's house is their castle, but our economy would be much better off if they didn't own more than one.


----------



## Judd (29 August 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Oh, for heaven's sake.  No one got ripped off.  I am so sick of people not taking responsibility for their own decisions.  No one forced them to release some of the equity in their home.  Why didn't they seek advice?




A valid view.  I assume that you would put that point of view to your relatives face to face if it happened to them.

Sadly there is a hugh gap in financial education in the unwashed masses - sorry "unwashed masses" but you are, in general, financially dumb.  They are attempting to make up for wasted years [see the comment by Neil Jenman in the article.]  In combination, these two elements create ANFO and all it needs is the detonator in the shape of spivs to rip people off and create havoc.  This couple, and others like them, have been ripped off even though in the final analysis they are responsible for their decisions and the resultant outcome.


----------



## money tree (29 August 2006)

Realist....

is your real name George W Bush?


----------



## RodC (29 August 2006)

TjamesX said:
			
		

> The property boom wasn't an obsession of people buying their own homes - it was an obsession of owning as much property as you could... built on releasing housing equity, easy finance, negative gearing and paying 15k to go to property cheerleading seminars!




It's not as simple as that. In reality there were many concurrent booms. 

There was certainly an investment driven boom in inner city apartments, driven aprtly by spruikers and slick marketing, this (in Melbourne at least) seems to have largely corrected itself, though there could be more pain to come.

There will be some who will have overused equity to get into trouble, but this is more of a poor investment issue than a property issue. Many of these would have got into strife even if they'd invested the funds into shares.

Much of the boom has been in the outer suburbs with the FHOG and 100+% finance allowing those who couldn't really afford it to pruchase "McMansions". Many of these have also used equity to purchase the latest goodies (PlasmaTV, 4WD etc). This is where the pain will come.

It's not about whether shares or property are the better investment it's about making appropriate choices, unfortunately many don't.

Rod.


----------



## Ageo (29 August 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> and the joy I get by seeing my bank balance and my share portfolio grow while house prices fall!!




id love to see your share portfolio's performance in the last 6 months


----------



## dubiousinfo (29 August 2006)

Interestingly all the focus on property investment seems to be only about residential property.

Sydney commercial property prices & yield began to pick up 6 months ago & is set to perform very strongly in the next 12 to 18 months.

I am currently involved in a number of developments with strong precommitments for both leasing & sales.

Residential property is not the only way to invest in the property market. Never hurts to broaden your scope of investments.


----------



## tech/a (29 August 2006)

> The property boom wasn't an obsession of people buying their own homes - it was an obsession of owning as much property as you could... built on releasing housing equity, easy finance, negative gearing and paying 15k to go to property cheerleading seminars!




I was one of those people.
I had a difference.
I never attended a property seminar.
I never purchased an IP unless it was positively geared.
Sure I geared to 87% at onetime,now 37% After the sale in Sept goes through.
Id do it again if conditions/criteria were right. Infact it is still possible to positively gear.
IE more down,Build 4/6 High density keep 1 or 2.

There is just as much opportunity in Property investment NOW as there is in ANY investment including Share trading.

Very True *Dudiousinfo* Commercial usually runs 3-5 yrs behind Residential.I only have one Commercial property from where my Company runs.It has doubled in 18 mths.

*Its not the investment class its the Class of investor!*


----------



## Realist (29 August 2006)

Ageo said:
			
		

> id love to see your share portfolio's performance in the last 6 months




Work it out for yourself. Add in dividends, no tax....

WDC, BHP, RIO, FGL, CBA, CQT, MTN, PRG, BSL, NEL, FUN, FDL,

More recently RIN, AMC, MRE.  got at close to the low's fortunately.

I'm up a bit.


----------



## Ageo (29 August 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> I'm up a bit.




good to hear


----------



## Realist (29 August 2006)

Ageo said:
			
		

> good to hear





Well, I have had a little luck recently. FGL up alot today on takeover rumours. And CQT currently in a trading halt.

WDC, MRE etc. have done very well for me in the past few weeks as well.

RIO, CBA, BSL, and FUN have done nothing for me though.


----------



## Realist (29 August 2006)

Actually BSL is up 20 cents today, and MTN up 3.5 cents....  miracles will never cease..


----------



## RichKid (29 August 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> Actually BSL is up 20 cents today, and MTN up 3.5 cents....  miracles will never cease..



A little friendly reminder to get back on topic folks- thanks!


----------



## krisbarry (29 August 2006)

Yes I love the way these threads end up just plugging particular shares


----------



## Julia (29 August 2006)

Judd said:
			
		

> A valid view.  I assume that you would put that point of view to your relatives face to face if it happened to them.
> 
> Sadly there is a hugh gap in financial education in the unwashed masses - sorry "unwashed masses" but you are, in general, financially dumb.  They are attempting to make up for wasted years [see the comment by Neil Jenman in the article.]  In combination, these two elements create ANFO and all it needs is the detonator in the shape of spivs to rip people off and create havoc.  This couple, and others like them, have been ripped off even though in the final analysis they are responsible for their decisions and the resultant outcome.




Well, there wouldn't be a lot of point in getting upset with the rellies if they had taken the decision, but if I knew they were considering such a thing, I'd certainly be making an attempt to point out the potential problems.

Another potential problem might occur in years to come as a result of the rapidly increasing popularity of reverse mortgages.  

Julia


----------



## Judd (29 August 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Another potential problem might occur in years to come as a result of the rapidly increasing popularity of reverse mortgages.




This is one issue which scares the willies out of me.  At one level it has already caused the married couple in the article to lose [and that will surely happen] their home.  They will.  The extension of institutions offering 40 or 50 year mortgages, as has been mooted, is also a matter of concern to me.  It is quite possible that financial institutions will then offer intergenerational loans (at least one is available in the UK) similar to Japan under which the debt is passed on to the next generation - I understand it is to avoid inheratence tax in UK.

If I were to put the boot into anyone about I'd like to put into the superannuation/finance industry which over the last few years have been ramming down the throat of baby boomers (I am on the cusp of being one by the way) on how much they will need in their retirement.  My view only but it seems to be a case of talking up expectations instead of dampening down those asperations.

Always on the lookout for the statement that "If you haven't provided for your retirement, get used to it babe 'cause you're the one that put yourself in the situation."  Haven't seen that disclaimer yet.  *sigh*


----------



## Realist (29 August 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Another potential problem might occur in years to come as a result of the rapidly increasing popularity of reverse mortgages.




Reverse mortgages, yeeouch!!

Stupidity and greed combined!!


----------



## Realist (29 August 2006)

Game, set and match to the property bears!!!

From todays AGE, the leading story in fact...

"Renting out housing has become Australia's most unsuccessful business, and by a long way. Two-thirds of landlords now tell the taxman they are losing money, and while some may be lying, most probably aren't. "



> Safe as houses no more
> August 29, 2006
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Jay-684 (29 August 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> In the short term, he says, Australia is now facing a housing shortfall that will see rents rise and give a fresh wind to investor activity. And if so, that will also push up housing prices.




Thats the part I'm concentrating on... if I buy in the next 6-12 months I will only plan on holding it for 4-7 years, so the short term is more what I'm interested in


----------



## TjamesX (29 August 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> I was one of those people.
> I had a difference.
> I never attended a property seminar.
> I never purchased an IP unless it was positively geared.
> ...




Tech, I haven't got a problem with positive gearing, thats smart investing. Steve Macknight was one of the proponents of this method and would have done better than 99.9% out of the last boom - but he has sold down his aussie portfolio.

But lets get serious about what was happening with the public perception around 2003-04, it was cool to own more than 1 property, it was cool to negative gear because you were going to make bucketloads as property kept going up. The movement of prices from 1999-2004 was one of the biggest injections of wealth to household owners ever, some took advantage, some splurged it all..... but I think most got caught up in the hype. 

Property owners are still hyped up on the feeling to have your wealth increase a couple of hunderd thousand dollars in a few years, and they're trying to pick the bottom, hoping the next leg up is around the corner. How long does it take to save $30k let alone $200k on an average wage??? It's time to move back to reality....

i'm not saying that you can't make money out of property, the smart ones always do - but I am saying that the boom times are over for the average joe landlord.

As per the article in the Age 

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/08/28/1156617272592.html?from=top5

We would be better off with investor money going into other avenues than pushing up the price on the average house in a self fulfilling prophecy of capital gains. The fact is most recent landlords are cash flow negative and hope that prices can keep rising to justify their investment.

IMO

TJ


----------



## wayneL (29 August 2006)

TjamesX said:
			
		

> Tech, I haven't got a problem with positive gearing, thats smart investing. Steve Macknight was one of the proponents of this method and would have done better than 99.9% out of the last boom - but he has sold down his aussie portfolio.
> 
> But lets get serious about what was happening with the public perception around 2003-04, it was cool to own more than 1 property, it was cool to negative gear because you were going to make bucketloads as property kept going up. The movement of prices from 1999-2004 was one of the biggest injections of wealth to household owners ever, some took advantage, some splurged it all..... but I think most got caught up in the hype.
> 
> ...




Also the misapplication of capital we will pay for for a long time to come.

Our economy has become a Ponzi scheme whereby we flip ever more expensive property to each other. No real production whatsoever.

Why couldn't we have used all that capital in developing a value adding mechanism to all the dirt we dig up.

Instead, we have been hoodwinked into an causing an  overpriced property market and collectively (the west) handing world economic domination to China on a platter.

In the future we will give ourselves an uppercut.


----------



## finnsk (29 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Our economy has become a Ponzi scheme whereby we flip ever more expensive property to each other. No real production whatsoever.
> 
> Why couldn't we have used all that capital in developing a value adding mechanism to all the dirt we dig up.
> 
> ...




I agree and i think that we as a country is ind for some very difficult times in the next 5 to 10 years


----------



## tech/a (29 August 2006)

TjamesX.

Frankly its a case of Investor beware.
Un educated investors will be caught. Those who were smart enough to buy early enough and have reasonable gearing will survive.
We have had 3 yrs to correct over gearing and those that havent still have a small window to do so.

Wayne.
I dont agree.
Housing has risen in pretty well most parts of the world on a similar scale to Australia's.Most definately China.
In the whole scheme of things affordability is still way way better in Australia than in most western countries and even some eastern.
Un employment is at an all time low.
Demand for our resources are at an all time high.Inflation is under control.
Exports are on the increase.Demand for our expertise is also increasing.
This is and will remain the land of opportunity---we are in a unique position.
Most will watch it all pass by,moaning and groaning about doom and gloom.
Fine--more opportunity for those of us who "Just  go and Do IT" 


Personally as far as R/E goes my personal view is *opportunity lies in high density cheaper apartments for rental or purchase.*
In Adelaide the under $300k market is still alive and well.
Demand is high in mainly the Northern Suburbs but also the South.
Buying to flip has gone.Positive gearing is only available to those cashed.

The investment challenge is just a little more difficult than it was in the late 90s early 2000s.Most are looking in hindsite and concerntrating on either what could have been or what will happen to those greedy bastards who were in the position to "Have a go".
There wont be nearly as much blood in the gutters than there could have been had inflation been rampant and interest rates rose before those with a plan were able to gear down.

Rather than people being obsessed with doom they should be obsessed with creating their own opportunities.
Unfortunately even 6 yrs of opportunity is far to fast for some!


----------



## wayneL (29 August 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Wayne.
> I dont agree.
> Housing has risen in pretty well most parts of the world on a similar scale to Australia's.Most definately China.
> In the whole scheme of things affordability is still way way better in Australia than in most western countries and even some eastern.
> ...




Bugger!

I knew I should have saved that article that show afforability in terms of price/wages is LOWEST in Australia. Will try to find it.

Tech. Why do you cast aspersions on individuals who either chose not to, or were not in a position to, invest in real estate. People may choose to invest elsewhere.

And anyone who goes out "right now" and "just does it" would not be making a value judgement. Property in general is not good value at the moment... by any measure.

As the article shows, some people who went out to "just do it" in the last couple of years have found themselves in a great deal of trouble.

And I don't agree inflation is under control. There is a worldwide trend towards higher rates because they are "losing" control of inflation... actually, the inflation figures as reported are fraudulent. True inflation is much higher.

Unemployment? Watch this figure start rising  

Cheers


----------



## tech/a (29 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Bugger!
> 
> I knew I should have saved that article that show afforability in terms of price/wages is LOWEST in Australia. Will try to find it.




Hmm well in the UK average Unit apartment is (london within 25miles) around 300,000 pounds average wage is 20,000 pounds.



> Tech. Why do you cast aspersions on individuals who either chose not to, or were not in a position to, invest in real estate. People may choose to invest elsewhere.




Cant see where I have??



> And anyone who goes out "right now" and "just does it" would not be making a value judgement. Property in general is not good value at the moment... by any measure.




In general terms agree but there are specific opportunities.
The Just do it now was and is directed at Opportunities IN GENERAL which is how I read my contribution.



> As the article shows, some people who went out to "just do it" in the last couple of years have found themselves in a great deal of trouble.




More by poor judgement tha "The Market" this applies to most Markets of which property is A market.



> And I don't agree inflation is under control. There is a worldwide trend towards higher rates because they are "losing" control of inflation... actually, the inflation figures as reported are fraudulent. True inflation is much higher.
> 
> Unemployment? Watch this figure start rising
> 
> Cheers





You maybe correct in which case being able to liquidate your invesments quickly may well be of a great advantage.So a spread for me is wise and purely share trading for others.


----------



## wayneL (29 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Bugger!
> 
> I knew I should have saved that article that show afforability in terms of price/wages is LOWEST in Australia. Will try to find it.




Found it!!

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/25/1124562981839.html?from=top5



> Australian housing world's most expensive
> By Aileen Keenan
> Property Editor
> August 26, 2005
> ...


----------



## tech/a (29 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Found it!!
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/25/1124562981839.html?from=top5





Well its wrong!!


----------



## Jay-684 (29 August 2006)

Interesting on the housing affordability article. A contradicting study done by century 21 in 2000 were asked to provide examples of the best homes (largest home for the money) available for US$250,000. Other criteria included commuting distance, desirability of the area and proximity to schools, parks and transport.

The list went as follows (from best value to least value) Note: this list does not include all major cities, but a selection.

1 Mexico City
2 Jakarta
3 Antwerp
4 Costa Rica (Escazu County)
5 Sydney, Montreal, Shanghai
6 Atlanta
7 Aukland and Miami
8 Beijing
9 Vancouver
10 Waterloo

Los Angeles (the most expensive in WayneL's article) ranked 12th, New York 15th, London 20th, Tokyo 21st and Paris and Hong Kong equal 22nd.

Although it was only done on a limited sector of the residential property market (and property prices have jumped markedly since then) it seems to contradict the above article...


----------



## Jay-684 (29 August 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Well its wrong!!




It would seem that either that article is wrong or mine is, because they cant both be correct.

Another interesting fact is the space that the US$250,000 purchased. Mexico city - 10,333 sq ft, Sydney (Castle Hill in particular) - 3000 sq ft, HK - 753sq ft


----------



## wayneL (29 August 2006)

Jay

My article compares prices to income, rather than nominal pricing as yours does.

Obviously, english property is more expensive than Oz for eg. But when considered as multiples of income, a different story emerges.

Cheers


----------



## wayneL (29 August 2006)

http://www.demographia.com/dhi-pavrls.htm



> Housing affordability continues in crisis intensity in many markets. The most pervasive national crisis is in Australia, while the crisis is nearly as serious in Ireland, New Zealand and the UK....


----------



## Jay-684 (29 August 2006)

Housing Affordability Index for Australian States (slightly out of date)

A lower index means housing is less affordable


----------



## tech/a (29 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Jay
> 
> My article compares prices to income, rather than nominal pricing as yours does.
> 
> ...





How so the Average wage is around 20,000 pound or $50K AUD??


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 August 2006)

Let's see...

We borrow a fortune from overseas in order to pay more for the SAME houses. So we end up with basically the same physical assets we had before, but have borrowed far more money with which to buy them.

This is supposed to benefit the economy? Short term certainly, but I don't see how it helps in the long term.


----------



## TjamesX (29 August 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> How so the Average wage is around 20,000 pound or $50K AUD??




in the demographia report, the London average wage was listed as 34,100 pounds and the average house price as 235,000 pounds (multiple of 6.9)

The country averages for income multiples are;

Australia 6.2 (sydney 8.5)
Ireland 6.0
New Zealand 5.9
UK 5.5
US 4.6
Canada 3.6

The report was released in 2006 and based on data recorded in 3rd quarter of 2005, so is reasonably current.

(sacrasm on) Clearly UK, US and Canada are severly undervalued and we should all go and heavily gear into these markets (sarcasm off) 

TJ


----------



## robots (1 September 2006)

hello,

interesting short article for those who think owning residential property is crap

babcock & brown dont think so

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20324126-25658,00.html

thankyou
robots


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

robots said:
			
		

> hello,
> 
> interesting short article for those who think owning residential property is crap
> 
> ...




Robots,

I don't think anyone is saying that owning res property is crap. It has proven to be an excellent investment. However as with every investment there are prudent times to buy, and there are times when RE is not good value.

Most housing bears argue around the contention that RE is currently overvalued. By any reasonable relative measure, RE values are at historical highs and the suggestion is to wait till these vlues return to sanity bfore purchasing.

It may worth noting at what valuation properties in this area of the US are trading at, and what sort of yield they are returning for the price, and/or other circumstances before making a judgement on the purchase.

Cheers


----------



## Realist (1 September 2006)

robots said:
			
		

> hello,
> 
> interesting short article for those who think owning residential property is crap
> 
> ...




" wholly-owned subsidiary of Babcock & Brown Real Estate Investments will buy all the common stock of US-listed BNP Residential Properties which owns a portfolio of 8180 apartments located in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia."

That is like buying apartments in Dubbo, and Alice Springs instead of Sydney or Melbourne. Hardly an endorsement in US property is it?  Infact it shows to me they are not interested in the overpriced cities like LA and New York and will buy in the undervalued burbs of tiny towns where they may have a chance for some price growth...


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

Here's some USAcentric links, but the same factors apply here.

http://www.hometextilestoday.com/article/CA6367287.html

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/08/30/housing-bubble-debt-bubble-or-same-thing/

http://www.moneyweek.com/file/17452/the-us-housing-bubble-has-popped---what-now.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08302006.html


----------



## robots (1 September 2006)

hello,

why will those places go up and others you mentioned will not go up?

thankyou
robots


----------



## Realist (1 September 2006)

robots said:
			
		

> hello,
> 
> why will those places go up and others you mentioned will not go up?
> 
> ...





The same reason some shares go up and others go down!!

Obviously because some are undervalued and some are overvalued.

Sydney's property boom finished in 2003, had you bought in Sydney in late 2003 you'd be down 20% now, instead if you'd bought in Perth you'd be up 100%.

I'm sure there are always undervalued houses in the USA if you look hard enough, but in general like Australia the larger cities are currently overvalued.


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> The same reason some shares go up and others go down!!
> 
> Obviously because some are undervalued and some are overvalued.
> 
> ...




Thats true. Contrary to Australia, there are parts of the US that have not experienced any sort of boom in prices at all. I have rellies in that area and much of the housing is still remarkably cheap.


----------



## Realist (1 September 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Thats true. Contrary to Australia, there are parts of the US that have not experienced any sort of boom in prices at all. I have rellies in that area and much of the housing is still remarkably cheap.




Yep, and then you look at this : "Babcock & Brown Real Estate Investments will buy all the common stock of US-listed BNP Residential Properties which owns a portfolio of 8180 apartments located in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia.""

To me it says they realise the cities are overvalued so they go to the undervalued places like Carolina and Virginia to buy.


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

Here... check out what you ban get for 200k in the capital of SC

http://www.buyahomeincharleston.com...ctarmls.com/property.asp?gateway_la_code=5756


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 September 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> Yep, and then you look at this : "Babcock & Brown Real Estate Investments will buy all the common stock of US-listed BNP Residential Properties which owns a portfolio of 8180 apartments located in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia.""
> 
> To me it says they realise the cities are overvalued so they go to the undervalued places like Carolina and Virginia to buy.





Their you go Realist, this is your bargain buy in SC from Waynes link. I could see you living their with the misses,kids and the dirt yard. Wonder what rent they charge for you.

This lovely place only costs 225k USD.


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Here... check out what you ban get for 200k in the capital of SC
> 
> http://www.buyahomeincharleston.com...ctarmls.com/property.asp?gateway_la_code=5756




Holy Crap!

Keep scrolling through those pages and wee what you can get for even less!

These are the prices houses should be in OZ!


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

Compare that to the world class metroplois of Grealdton

http://www.royweston.com.au/content/propsearch/?espage=2

Those who have been here will know what Rangeway and Utakarra is like.

Check out this one for a ###ing leasehold shack!! (8 year lease)

http://www.royweston.com.au/content...=&fa_range=&min_farange=&max_farange=&oid=171

These were $40k 3 years ago


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 September 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Compare that to the world class metroplois of Grealdton
> 
> http://www.royweston.com.au/content/propsearch/?espage=2
> 
> ...





I own a place in Wandina (rented out), you living in Rangeway are ya Wayne

Wandinas 500k plus Wayne up 100% from three years ago, you seriously need to stop misleading your Facts!


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> I own a place in Wandina (rented out), you living in Rangeway are ya Wayne
> 
> Wandinas 500k plus Wayne up 100% from three years ago, you seriously need to stop misleading your Facts!




I live in Wandina mate.

How can i be misrepresenting facts with real links? What facts am I misrepresenting exactly?

What do you have your knickers in a knot about?


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

Elsewhere in the US

Check it out

http://www.jerryself.com/jerryslistings.html


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 September 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> I live in Wandina mate.
> 
> How can i be misrepresenting facts with real links? What facts am I misrepresenting exactly?
> 
> What do you have your knickers in a knot about?




Well if you are in Wandina you know that their are areas of Gero that don't look like Rangeway Utakarra etc,.Realist already thinks West Oz is a two head location, don't fuel his fire with posts of a humpy looking joint.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 September 2006)

Bloks such as these were 58k 2.5 years ago in Gero, West Oz. They are now 300k.

It is absolutely unrealistic to assume they will crash 300%. Realist?

Wayne one of my land investments is on Barret Drive, (The one with the Cement retaining blocks at the Road edge).

Sure Sydney may have Mortgagee sales, but you cannot deny that many West Oz property punters are way ahead on gains.

Buying sound real estate is much like buying a fundamentally sound stock at a basement SP. 

Bargain buy for 58k,considering the views just as ZFX was a bargain buy at $4, all the analysts were calling it overpriced then and how wrong were they.


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> Well if you are in Wandina you know that their are areas of Gero that don't look like Rangeway Utakarra etc,.Realist already thinks West Oz is a two head location, don't fuel his fire with posts of a humpy looking joint.




Of course not. That in not even remotely my point.

I was comparing the prices in a state capital in the US, to the worst part of a country WA town.

The value comparisons are obvious


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> Bloks such as these were 58k 2.5 years ago in Gero, West Oz. They are now 300k.
> 
> It is absolutely unrealistic to assume they will crash 300%. Realist?
> 
> ...




What say you with Crude @ $200 bbl and base metals at 60% of current prices?


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 September 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> What say you with Crude @ $200 bbl and base metals at 60% of current prices?




I would say that is a very bullish stance, are you really a bull Wayne?

I would certainly agree Nickle and Zinc could achieve 60% in the next year, oil at 200 bucks is a bit to bullish for me!


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 September 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> Bloks such as these were 58k 2.5 years ago in Gero, West Oz. They are now 300k.
> 
> It is absolutely unrealistic to assume they will crash 300%. Realist?



This aeroplane was flying at 5000 feet an hour ago. An hour before that it was on the ground. Now it's at 30,000 feet so there's no chance of it coming back down...

Unless the engine just dies without warning. When that happens, _any_ sort of controlled landing that doesn't end in a fireball suddenly becomes rather attractive. That it's the middle of nowhere and a bit inconvenient suddenly ceases to matter.

Now, if our economic / credit growth engine should sputter...


----------



## robots (1 September 2006)

hello,

what determines if it is undervalued or overvalued?

will those apartments appreciate to the prices of new york?

thankyou
robots


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 September 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> This aeroplane was flying at 5000 feet an hour ago. An hour before that it was on the ground. Now it's at 30,000 feet so there's no chance of it coming back down...
> 
> Unless the engine just dies without warning. When that happens, _any_ sort of controlled landing that doesn't end in a fireball suddenly becomes rather attractive. That it's the middle of nowhere and a bit inconvenient suddenly ceases to matter.
> 
> Now, if our economic / credit growth engine should sputter...




Whats your point?. 

Maybe your talking about a shares SP in a specky company, or are you really using this analogy on a fundamentally sound company such as ZFX,KZL,MRE in a resource boom, if thats the case then your missing out!. The proof is in the profit made on these Smurf.

Or are you talking about land with ocean views in a booming regional hub town with great weather, beaches and facilities with the state gov spending over 300 mil last year in!.

My anology is that if you treat property investment with the same entry stratagies of sound company stocks you are laughing.

As with life,relationships,business's,athletes,property,shares etc, Effort put in is Rewards gained.

Negativity and looking at worst case scenarious will get you nowhere, just another number with the masses.

You only get one swing at the stick, why not give it the biggest swing you have. The achievers in the world are the ones that give it a go, with sound understanding of risks but still go hard.


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

Freeball

Have you ever lived in Geraldton? How long have you been associated with Geraldton?


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 September 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Freeball
> 
> Have you ever lived in Geraldton? How long have you been associated with Geraldton?




I live in Sorrento in Perth. 
Invested in Gero cause it was undervalued and had potential, Beaches,Views, redevelopment of marina foreshore, good facilities etc. Used to pass through it on my way to Kalbarri ( you must agree Kalbarri is pristine Wayne).

I also have family there (Big Sis & Nieces Nephews), they own the 2 story joint adjacent to the Surf Club Park.


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> I live in Sorrento in Perth.
> Invested in Gero cause it was undervalued and had potential, Beaches,Views, redevelopment of marina foreshore, good facilities etc. Used to pass through it on my way to Kalbarri ( you must agree Kalbarri is pristine Wayne).
> 
> I also have family there (Big Sis & Nieces Nephews), they own the 2 story joint adjacent to the Surf Club Park.




Missus was raised here.

I've spent time here since the seventies

Geraldton goes through periods of extreme stagnation. In the late nineties this place was almost like a ghost town.

You've done well and bought at a very good time. But once oversupply and declining base metal prices take effect, plus extremely expensive petrol, rising unemployment etc, things will change here.

Consider the reason why you were able to pick up those blocks so cheap a few years ago. Heck, 5-6 years ago, you could pick up tarcoola beachfront for 35k.

Not saying it will get back to that, but it will change believe me. It's all part of the cycle. This has all happened before here.


----------



## juddy (1 September 2006)

wow, a blast from the past here. I worked real estate in Gero in the mid to late nineties.  Here's a few I remember: such as blocks in Utakarra and Karloo for sale at the 6-8k mark and having no chance in hell of turning them over. I sold the house I was renting for the owner in Bosley Street, Sunset for 98K (80m from the Caravan park and beach). Half an acre with a 2x1 in Beresford (potentially beautiful views of Champion Bay from a second storey) for 34k. A number of 5 acre blocks on the eastern side of Chapman road (just before Drummond's) for 22k each. Boy was the market dead then, especially after they canned Oakajee and Kingstream went under.

No offence Freeball, but you do sound like someone who has only experienced extremely bullish markets. Just take care when Wayne and his ilk come visiting and remember the good times don't last forever and what seem like bargains in a bull market are usually overpriced or unsaleable in a bear.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 September 2006)

Totally agree Wayne, Gero had stagnated for 6 years and I bought in just at the end, and big!. 

I will treat my investment exactly as I do with shares. Invest big in the sound fundamentals, ride it to a high and dump when it loses momentum. Re-evaluate and put my coin were the best returns are.

Obviously I will always own the house I live in regardless of what property prices are doing, but as for my property investments, I will watch my holdings closely.

The Gero block I will keep though ( the views are spectacular) and demand will all remain in property with said views.

Cheers,
Mark.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 September 2006)

juddy said:
			
		

> wow, a blast from the past here. I worked real estate in Gero in the mid to late nineties.  Here's a few I remember: such as blocks in Utakarra and Karloo for sale at the 6-8k mark and having no chance in hell of turning them over. I sold the house I was renting for the owner in Bosley Street, Sunset for 98K (80m from the Caravan park and beach). Half an acre with a 2x1 in Beresford (potentially beautiful views of Champion Bay from a second storey) for 34k. A number of 5 acre blocks on the eastern side of Chapman road (just before Drummond's) for 22k each. Boy was the market dead then, especially after they canned Oakajee and Kingstream went under.
> 
> No offence Freeball, but you do sound like someone who has only experienced extremely bullish markets. Just take care when Wayne and his ilk come visiting and remember the good times don't last forever and what seem like bargains in a bull market are usually overpriced or unsaleable in a bear.




Bummer Juddy, Think of the commissions you missed out on in the past 2 years.

Selling Gero in the Ninety's must have been like selling ice to the eskimo's.What did you live on, baked beans and water!


----------



## juddy (1 September 2006)

Yep, but I would have had to wait five or six years to get those commissions  

I was lucky having a wife with a steady job which supplied the food.


...and speaking of Utakarra. I always did the home-opens for the female reps out there.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 September 2006)

...and speaking of Utakarra. I always did the home-opens for the female reps out there.[/QUOTE]

Surely not for the security hey! Cmon Juddy youre a true Norwester and couldn't miss an opportunity LOL.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 September 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> Whats your point?.
> 
> Maybe your talking about a shares SP in a specky company, or are you really using this analogy on a fundamentally sound company such as ZFX,KZL,MRE in a resource boom, if thats the case then your missing out!. The proof is in the profit made on these Smurf.
> 
> ...



The point is quite simply that the recent past offers no useful indication of what happens next.

If you examine the recent past of an aeroplane that has been in the air for two hours then you'll likely conclude that it will keep increasing its altitude forever. At worst it will reach some stable altitude and remain there.

Study the same aeroplane over a longer period and you will find that it takes off, ascends, flies, descends and lands. A cycle that is repeated for every journey. A more thorough examination will reveal that the plane _can't_ remain off the ground permanently since it needs to refuel and also requires frequent maintenance during which it must, in practice, be on the ground.

What's this got to do with property? Quite simply, I suspect that those who argue that a crash "can't" happen are only looking at the time since the plane left the ground. They simply haven't looked at a long enough time span to see what really happens over the full cycle.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 September 2006)

[QUOTE=Smurf1976]The point is quite simply that the recent past offers no useful indication of what happens next.

If you examine the recent past of an aeroplane that has been in the air for two hours then you'll likely conclude that it will keep increasing its altitude forever. At worst it will reach some stable altitude and remain there.

Study the same aeroplane over a longer period and you will find that it takes off, ascends, flies, descends and lands. A cycle that is repeated for every journey. A more thorough examination will reveal that the plane _can't_ remain off the ground permanently since it needs to refuel and also requires frequent maintenance during which it must, in practice, be on the ground.

What's this got to do with property? Quite simply, I suspect that those who argue that a crash "can't" happen are only looking at the time since the plane left the ground. They simply haven't looked at a long enough time span to see what really happens over the full cycle. [/QUOTE]

Personally I would only invest in Qantus. They have good fundamentals as an airline.

Take off,fly and land, but never crash!, fundamentally a good stock. 

lol.


----------



## wayneL (2 September 2006)

juddy said:
			
		

> ...and speaking of Utakarra. I always did the home-opens for the female reps out there.




You must be able to look after yourself Juddy. I wouldn't be comfortable without being accompanied by a platoon SAS commandos. LOL


----------



## dubiousinfo (2 September 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> Personally I would only invest in Qantus. They have good fundamentals as an airline.
> 
> Take off,fly and land, but never crash!, fundamentally a good stock.
> 
> lol.






Qantas has in fact had a plane crash. The often quoted statistic that they have never had a crash is incorrect.

As for the share price, who knows, aviation is a very risky business to be in.


----------



## dubiousinfo (2 September 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> I would say that is a very bullish stance, are you really a bull Wayne?






Due to an identity crisis Wayne is not currently sure, but counseling is helping. We wish him well.   :


----------



## tech/a (2 September 2006)

dubiousinfo said:
			
		

> Qantas has in fact had a plane crash. The often quoted statistic that they have never had a crash is incorrect.
> 
> As for the share price, who knows, aviation is a very risky business to be in.




Think you'll find as an International Carrier that statistic remains intact.

Which of course is highly relevant to Housing!!!!


----------



## dubiousinfo (2 September 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Think you'll find as an International Carrier that statistic remains intact.
> 
> Which of course is highly relevant to Housing!!!!





Qantas had 7 fatal accidents between 1927 & 1953. At the time it flew routes to New Guinea & so was an international carrier.

What Qantas can claim is that it has never lost a jet aircraft to a crash (the fatal crashes were all non-jet). That is why they spent more than the cost of a replacement aircraft to fix up the 747 that overan the runway and crashed in Bangkok in 1999.

Sorry for the off topic.


----------



## Milk Man (2 September 2006)

dubiousinfo said:
			
		

> Qantas had 7 fatal accidents between 1927 & 1953. At the time it flew routes to New Guinea & so was an international carrier.
> 
> What Qantas can claim is that it has never lost a jet aircraft to a crash (the fatal crashes were all non-jet). That is why they spent more than the cost of a replacement aircraft to fix up the 747 that overan the runway and crashed in Bangkok in 1999.
> 
> Sorry for the off topic.




PNG was part of Australia wasnt it?


----------



## juddy (2 September 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> You must be able to look after yourself Juddy. I wouldn't be comfortable without being accompanied by a platoon SAS commandos. LOL




I was certainly able to get a lot of my paperwork done during those times. I worked with some good folks back then before moving back to Perth.


----------



## dubiousinfo (2 September 2006)

Milk Man said:
			
		

> PNG was part of Australia wasnt it?




What the hell, no one else is on topic.

You're right about New Guinea, it gained independance in 1975.

However, Qantas commenced regular flights to London in 1947, so it did have fatal accidents as an international carrier.

But in an effort to get back on topic.
It's worth noteing that any Sydney property investors who transferred from residential to Industrial around 3 years ago and from industrial to commercial around 6 months ago, would have made substantial profits, with more to come over the next 12 to 18 months.


----------



## Mofra (2 September 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> The stress on home owners isnt as great as it appears as the majority would have had to take out Mortgage insurance when buying property particularly IPs banks protected and so is the mortgagee---with the insurance company taking up the difference between whats owed and what price the property is sold for.
> Its those who released equity from freehold or close to it homes and invested poorly that will be hit hardest.
> Not a fault of the housing market!



Sorry to be a stickler, but Mortgage Insurance protects the lender, NOT the mortagor. If negative equity occured at the time of sale, MI covers the bank for losses, and the Insurer has the right to pursue the mortgagor for the difference in sale price to the principal + costs. 

If that is a scary thought, you don't want to know about some of the mortgage products that could hit the Australian market shortly - the 105% lend (borrowing for the deposit & to cover stamp duties) isn't too far off, whilst in the US there are "negative amortisation" loans, where you pay less than the interst charged for a set period of time, in the hope that equity & wage rises compensate for the growth in principal. Have already read a few articles about some unlucky souls who have been faced with the triple whammy of redundancy, falling house prices and the end of the introductory N/A period doubling or tripling their repayments overnight.


----------



## Judd (2 September 2006)

dubiousinfo said:
			
		

> What the hell, no one else is on topic.
> 
> You're right about New Guinea, it gained independance in 1975.




16th of September actually.  Sorry but another of those useless facts which sticks in my brain.

Getting back to the topic, I would not be surprised to see more sales if reverse mortages or any other form of access to equity in their house was allowed for those who are retired.  A lot have shown that they don't have any money skills whatsoever.  So when some of this group decide to access equity in their home, mainly because they have not saved/invested enough during their working years to fund the type of retirement of the want - rather than need - they will probably display the same level of poor financial management displayed in the past.

There goes Gen Xs' inheritances as well as Gen Y's (cause grandma and grandpa ain't got nuttin left to leave anything to you in testimonial or discretionary trusts.)


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 September 2006)

Mofra said:
			
		

> If that is a scary thought, you don't want to know about some of the mortgage products that could hit the Australian market shortly - the 105% lend (borrowing for the deposit & to cover stamp duties) isn't too far off



This might vary between states? 107% lend has been around in Tas for quite a while now. It hasn't stopped the boom from turning into what is politely referred to as a "buyers' market" however.

As for the "builder finance" now being offered, I can only wonder what valuation that is based on. I'm sure the emergence of this one has nothing whatosever to do with finding a way to prop up the builder's selling prices in a falling market...


----------



## smcinc (3 June 2008)

hi does anyone know of any websites with mortgagee repo properties ?


----------

