Its a fact that the other property experts will confirm for you. Easy money as we call it.
House prices to keep falling for years
- Thread starter Pommiegranite
- Start date
- Status
Its a fact that the other property experts will confirm for you. Easy money as we call it.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Gee really ? I know of dozens that went to the wall in the early 90's, must have been their imagination.
hello,
Mr Burns where are you?
couldnt agree more mantronic, biggest investment in your life just the humble home
sent note
thankyou
robots
On the "slim"(read probable) chance that we go into recession, what is your assesment of the impact this will have on the property market?
Thanks for the question. Property prices will remain steady in the worst areas. Good property will continue to average 10% per annum and double every 7 years as me and my colleagues have been trying to tell you all for years. Get in soon, sign a mortgage, sign a contract, make your payments, wake up rich. Simple really. Just ignore the "experts".
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
mantronic is obviously a sub agent with no experience, your own house over the long term is a great investment, buying before a crash is not, wait till the bottom has been reached roughly then go in not now.
Developers are already out of it so take the hint.
Robots I agree that property is great in the long term , I prefer it but timing is important and gearing is important, the less the better except in a full boom which has finished here.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Please specify who you're talking to.
- Joined
- 12 September 2004
- Posts
- 1,714
- Reactions
- 1
No one ever went broke by underestimating the public
Remember, RAMS amassed a $15b loan book by borrowing short & lending long (the cardinal banking sin). I wouldn't bet on the intellect of the general populace to keep the market in check, when "the smartest guys in the room" struggled to do so.
professor_frink
Moderator
- Joined
- 16 February 2006
- Posts
- 3,252
- Reactions
- 5
Hi chops,
we've never really felt the need to try and moderate ramping/downramping on the property threads. Firstly it's a general chat discussion, and secondly, as far as I'm aware there isn't a regulatory authority that's interested in what is said by us punters on the general property market.
Wouldn't a ramp or downramp of the property market be the equivalent of trying to ramp the XJO? Rather pointless IMO.
I know what you are getting at here robots, but you've fired a blank on that one.
I agree but the downrampers ruin the discussion and make the site a bit of a rabble. Why not have a price fall thread and a price rise thread.It will stop them attacking us and their thread can die a quiet death.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Posts
- 200
- Reactions
- 0
Both sides are right.
What you have to understand in real-estate is there are cultural differences between countries.
Here in Australia we have a very high home ownership ratio relative to the US (I can't remember the exact ratio but it is something like we have double the ownership rate of the US per capita and even more so than in England where it is very low).
Because of that cultural difference the demand for houses here in Australia (particularly major capital cities) will always be high (Australian's are basically coastal fringe dwellers). With a net immigration (also into those cities) you have a constant demand for housing.
robots and most property people understand is that in the long term (> 10 years) houses will appreciate in *intrinsic* value due to those demands. Hence why the double in 7 year rule.
The doom sayers on the other hand are right but for different reasons - it is the credit bubble added on top of the *intrinsic* value of housing that causes negative equity. What goes on here is that people (often highly leveraged due to low credit ratings or just starting out - hence outer suburbs where housing is cheaper) buy into the market late in the game at the point of highest rate of credit creation then the credit gets withdrawn. At this point the non-intrinsic value disappears as no new buyers come into play at the inflated figures (remember banks are not lending as much) and we hear cases of "negative equity maaaaate".
Those successful in real-estate have either learnt this or got lucky and entered the cycle early in the game - they have either positive or neutral equity. Either that or their gearing ratio is low enough that the outgoings are not killing their investment.
If you can hold on until either the intrinsic value of property goes up and/or the bubble value comes back again (as it will eventually) you will make money.
In the US there is an excessive supply problem in a lot of cities (caused by credit creation allowing developers to build more than demand really wanted). With a different cultural and legislative environment their housing problem - loss of equity is different to ours.
Question here is - is real-estate money easy money? I personally (my opinion) don't think so - but I am more a business and stock market focussed investor. For me having to look after tennants, spend weekends running around looking at run down properties then fixing them up is not my idea of fun. My fun is going to Sydney staying at the Intercon, dressing up to go to the Opera and spending quality time with my wife and family. Easy money is having companies and other people work for me rather than me subsidising someone to live in a house. But that is a personal preference. Some do enjoy being covered in plaster and paint on their weekends
However I will say to be in the stockmarket you do need to be a bit smarter about the economy than owning houses here in Australia. It is relatively easier to own investment property and make money than it is to do the same with shares particularly in times like these if you don't understand the game.
What you have to understand in real-estate is there are cultural differences between countries.
Here in Australia we have a very high home ownership ratio relative to the US (I can't remember the exact ratio but it is something like we have double the ownership rate of the US per capita and even more so than in England where it is very low).
Because of that cultural difference the demand for houses here in Australia (particularly major capital cities) will always be high (Australian's are basically coastal fringe dwellers). With a net immigration (also into those cities) you have a constant demand for housing.
robots and most property people understand is that in the long term (> 10 years) houses will appreciate in *intrinsic* value due to those demands. Hence why the double in 7 year rule.
The doom sayers on the other hand are right but for different reasons - it is the credit bubble added on top of the *intrinsic* value of housing that causes negative equity. What goes on here is that people (often highly leveraged due to low credit ratings or just starting out - hence outer suburbs where housing is cheaper) buy into the market late in the game at the point of highest rate of credit creation then the credit gets withdrawn. At this point the non-intrinsic value disappears as no new buyers come into play at the inflated figures (remember banks are not lending as much) and we hear cases of "negative equity maaaaate".
Those successful in real-estate have either learnt this or got lucky and entered the cycle early in the game - they have either positive or neutral equity. Either that or their gearing ratio is low enough that the outgoings are not killing their investment.
If you can hold on until either the intrinsic value of property goes up and/or the bubble value comes back again (as it will eventually) you will make money.
In the US there is an excessive supply problem in a lot of cities (caused by credit creation allowing developers to build more than demand really wanted). With a different cultural and legislative environment their housing problem - loss of equity is different to ours.
Question here is - is real-estate money easy money? I personally (my opinion) don't think so - but I am more a business and stock market focussed investor. For me having to look after tennants, spend weekends running around looking at run down properties then fixing them up is not my idea of fun. My fun is going to Sydney staying at the Intercon, dressing up to go to the Opera and spending quality time with my wife and family. Easy money is having companies and other people work for me rather than me subsidising someone to live in a house. But that is a personal preference. Some do enjoy being covered in plaster and paint on their weekends
However I will say to be in the stockmarket you do need to be a bit smarter about the economy than owning houses here in Australia. It is relatively easier to own investment property and make money than it is to do the same with shares particularly in times like these if you don't understand the game.
chops_a_must
Printing My Own Money
- Joined
- 1 November 2006
- Posts
- 4,636
- Reactions
- 3
Mmm... 24, no debt, and enough savings for a deposit.
That I wouldn't use for a house even if I could service the debt, because I'd rather not assign myself to 30 years with a ball and chain mortgage.
Not my idea of fun if I want to take lengthy time off work, for travel or study. No thanks, I'd rather not assign myself to a lack of flexibility like that.
chops_a_must
Printing My Own Money
- Joined
- 1 November 2006
- Posts
- 4,636
- Reactions
- 3
Well, I think you should.
Makes it look like a bit of a joke compared to the moderating in other parts on here.
I would have thought you would need the same accreditation regardless of recommendation of financial product.
Basically you are giving the ok for anyone here to ramp on the XAO thread as far as I'm concerned.
professor_frink
Moderator
- Joined
- 16 February 2006
- Posts
- 3,252
- Reactions
- 5
We do have both! Both sides just seem to go to whichever thread is getting posts at the time. Personally I think the discussion would be pretty bland if there weren't a debate going on
As for downrampers ruining the discussion, that's your opinion, I'm sure many people think just the opposite.
Yes your absolutely right robots, there are ways around these things, I'm sure some have done it. Generally they will slip up eventually though so if you're right, I'm sure we'll find out later. In the meantime it would be great if the thread wouldn't be sidetracked by people accusing others of having multiple usernames. That goes for a few other people posting on here too
Or as a middle ground make 2 separate threads and keep them separate.
chops_a_must
Printing My Own Money
- Joined
- 1 November 2006
- Posts
- 4,636
- Reactions
- 3
And you've undoubtedly quashed any assertions authoritatively with that post professor.
- Status
