tech/a
No Ordinary Duck
- Joined
- 14 October 2004
- Posts
- 20,452
- Reactions
- 6,504
Sir John Templeton: Keep a cautious watch
"Prices of houses in all nations for centuries have fluctuated above and below cost of reproduction. In the United States now, in most major cities, homes can be sold for far higher prices than reproduction costs. Several times in my lifetime, house prices have been far below reproduction costs, and such cycles are likely to continue."
As they were in the late 90's early 2000's interest rates at all time lows.
Practically impossible to buy a home and negatively gear it!
And yes the cycles will continue.
So next time make sure you recognise it and do something about it!!!
The problem is though Tech, there are often a confluence of factors that lead to such circumstances, that make it not amenable to most people.
I remember the Mum was wanting to buy a new house in this period, and rent the old one out. The rent would far and away have covered all costs comfortably. Despite having personal contacts, good and secure income, no-one was interested in financing it.
Move on 3-4 years and she can borrow as much as she wants.When in actual fact, the returns are far lower and the risks far greater for the lenders down the track.
Things are not always as simple as they seem.
It came down to being on contract. Even though her employability was not a problem. Was the head of a prestigious private school at the time.I cant understand why your case was refused.
Its either collateral or serviceability seems on face value she had both.
Absolutely true, LMIs had tightened lending provisions last year in terms of max amounts insurable at high LVRs, after having relaxed provisions previously (including employment conditions). It is surprising how much economic circumstances reflect themselves in lending practices; nowhere near as much as the US though, where there were two main requirements to obtain a loan:Now it doesn't seem to matter, so long as you have a job, as basically everyone is on contract. And now she has 4 properties, but has acquired them when her circumstances haven't really changed much.I guess the point being, a lot of it comes down to the circumstances of the time, not necessarily people's intentions, plans, or potential solvency.
Have you got a link for that?ANZ has today come out with their official loan changes:
- 80% max LVR on properties $1M-2.5M
- 90% max LVR on properties under $1M
So: $240k deposit required for say $1.2Mand well, and back to the ol' real 10% deposit for the cheaper stuff.
LVR for lo-doc is now 70% and 60% respectively. No liar loans for the self-employed - minimum of 2 years paperwork required.
The credit restrictions are beginning folks.. enjoy!
Have you got a link for that?
ANZ has today come out with their official loan changes:
- 80% max LVR on properties $1M-2.5M
- 90% max LVR on properties under $1M
So: $240k deposit required for say $1.2Mand well, and back to the ol' real 10% deposit for the cheaper stuff.
LVR for lo-doc is now 70% and 60% respectively. No liar loans for the self-employed - minimum of 2 years paperwork required.
The credit restrictions are beginning folks.. enjoy!
Yes they'll put lower valuations on the properties than what was paid for them plus the income test will be brutal, they dont want to be caught in whats to come.
Whats this kiddies ??? Thats right its a credit squeeze !
ANZ has come out with their official loan changes:
- 80% max LVR on loans $1M-2.5M
- 90% max LVR on loans under $1M
So: $240k deposit required for say $1.2M loanand well, and back to the ol' real 10% deposit for the cheaper stuff.
LVR for lo-doc is now 60% and 70% respectively. No liar loans for the self-employed - minimum of 2 years paperwork required.
The credit restrictions are beginning folks.. enjoy!
All looks quite sensible to me. Even if valuations used by the banks are overly conservative, it's no bad thing. FHBs who want to borrow 95-100% (ie no savings) are the most effected by these so-called changes (or rather a return to normality as I see it). That actually should put a floor under potential increases in default rates over the next year or two, as those already up-to-the-hilt have relief due to lower interest rates, and those entering the market fresh won't be able to borrow to-the-hilt.
Eg a FHB buying a $400k house will need a deposit of $40k. In NSW they pay $0 stamp duty, plus get $14k from the FHB grant, so need to have saved $26k - let's call it $30k to cover legal and moving costs etc. Anyone who can't save a $30k deposit for a first house has no business buying one anyway, unless we really DO want to follow the US into a sub-prime style crisis over here. Repayments on the $360k loan would be ~$500/week, which would be not much more (maybe 25% higher) than the cost of renting the type of house or unit that money would buy, and about 30% of average household income of $80k/year. All quite doable and sensible really! Hardly a credit crunch.....Plus of course if $400k is too much, there are plenty of houses to be had in Sydney for $300k-ish, even better!
And of course the 80-90% of people buying property who are not FHBs shouldn't have any issue with these lending guidelines at all either? So where exactly is there a credit crunch again??
Cheers,
Beej
I dunno, if I was a new buyer, I would still be holding out.
prices falling right across Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, and Newcastle (my HT)
except some very isolated pockets
I agree there will be some good rental yields, very soon
but i reckon prices still to drop in most locations
I would be really surprised if St Kilda showed a rise NEXT quarter
no offence, robots!...hope Im wrong!
I agree there will be some good rental yields
It seems clear from this thread that buyers think its the best buyers market this decade. On the flip side, has anyone been selling at the moment that has had a good "fast sale at a good price" selling experience?????
Excellent point Spek. It highlights the fact that property bulls will always convince themselves that things are in their favour until......"I don't understand...what went wrong?" Then they will try to comfort themselves that 7 years after buying, their property will have double in value.
I met some clown yesterday who bought in Willoughby last year (North Shore NSW I believe), who told me that his property had increased 15% in value and that ALL properties on the North Shore have always had a 15% average annual increase. He also went on to tell me that you could take ANY 2 years, 7 years apart and property prices would show a doubling.
This is what we are dealing with. Pure stupidness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?