So_Cynical
The Contrarian Averager
- Joined
- 31 August 2007
- Posts
- 7,467
- Reactions
- 1,469
We have a prime minister who will continue to bail out housing as his political future depends on it.
Okay, if the debt bubble popped, what will happen to the rental property market.
As there is net + migration to Melbourne, the rental market will still be quite demanding as these people have to live somewhere. Therefore the rental yields cold possibly be forced up?
Labor's future is in figuring out its own method of self destruction. Meanwhile, the Libs are "rebooting"Don't know about that....Labor's political future is fairly secure with the coalition in full self destruct mode.
Okay, if the debt bubble popped, what will happen to the rental property market.
As there is net + migration to Melbourne, the rental market will still be quite demanding as these people have to live somewhere. Therefore the rental yields cold possibly be forced up?
There is a complete difference to America. They had an oversupply of housing. Melbourne doesn't.
Also, when interest rates hit that 8.5% some 18 months ago, it only forced some people to sell, so if it hits again or go higher, it will get rid of the botom tier of people only.
Australians are very proud when it comes to keeping there property.
Australians are very proud when it comes to keeping there property.
You can, but some asset classes in Australia are at historically high levels eg housing, and your argument is exceptionally simplistic and does not take into effect a snowballing effect whereby people with high LVR are forced to sell, dropping prices and causing the next level of asset owner to sell etc.
Labor's future is in figuring out its own method of self destruction. Meanwhile, the Libs are "rebooting"
It is an impossibility for Labor's political future to be secure. Social Democratic tax and spend ALWAYS fails in the end.
I see warming denial is not the only issue your are in denial over.as long as Labor don't control the senate they cant self destruct....Labor's power base is the centre, the centre the libs rejected.
How is it "exceptionally simplistic" to consider several data points and the whole picture rather than focus on a single ratio (gross debt/GDP) and expect to find the explanation of past/present and future there?
Anyway my main point was to show how there are reasons why the "simple" debt/GDP ratio may have increased in the past 5-10 years, without it necessarily implying a corresponding change in actual household gearing or net debt levels. You have to look at the whole picture to get a read on that (household super, savings, finance structure/facilities used, distortions of the tax system that can promote the use of debt to reduce cost of items like cars and so on, plus of course assets owned as well as debt).
Cheers,
Beej
I have 10 million in cash, and no other assets. my 4 neighbours have no cash and each have no other assets and housing loans of 2.5 million on houses "worth" 2.5 million,
but all is ok because they have no gearing as I have 10 million in cash.
that is why it is overly simplistic, and not a reflection of what can happen when people are overgeared into overvalued asset classes.
If the housing market pops, rental prices wont increase. I'm sure investor will try to increase their rent but people wont pay it. People are only willing to pay what they can afford. If they couldn't pay their home and lose it, what makes you think they can afford high rental. Worst case scenario, the government will put price ceilings on rent and that will cause all sorts of chaos and corruption in the rental market.
Melbourne doesn't have an oversupply, but an over debt which can be just as bad.
If the government clamps down on immigrants then there will be an oversupply
I think it's more arrogance. They believe it's their RIGHT to own a home, rather then the result of hard work and saving. These first home buyers getting a property in a new estate, rather then starting out in a small unit/flat, and buying everything on interest free.
Where is the hard evidence that migrant inflow is contributing to the housing bubble, sure the REIV uses this line as an explanation to why house prices are spiraling out of control but where is the evidence ?
Perhaps rampant speculation coupled with easy credit is the major contributing factor.
Take care out there, sometimes we seek what we wanna hear.
How much more debt can Aussie households take on before it goes pop?
Don't know about that....Labor's political future is fairly secure with the coalition in full self destruct mode.
Some anecdotal opinion...i work with a few Indian guys who came here as students and payed big money for degrees in accounting
and engineering, these guys work as casual labourers in a warehouse because they cant get jobs as engineers and accountants.There all pretty pissed off about it and i get the felling that at some point they will give up and go home (there parents are all loaded) now if these guys and there situation is representative of the wider community, its not hard to see rental demand easing as they start to pack up and leave.
If the housing market pops, rental prices wont increase. I'm sure investor will try to increase their rent but people wont pay it. People are only willing to pay what they can afford. If they couldn't pay their home and lose it, what makes you think they can afford high rental. Worst case scenario, the government will put price ceilings on rent and that will cause all sorts of chaos and corruption in the rental market.
Melbourne doesn't have an oversupply, but an over debt which can be just as bad.
If the government clamps down on immigrants then there will be an oversupply
I think it's more arrogance. They believe it's their RIGHT to own a home, rather then the result of hard work and saving. These first home buyers getting a property in a new estate, rather then starting out in a small unit/flat, and buying everything on interest free.
I think it's more arrogance. They believe it's their RIGHT to own a home, rather then the result of hard work and saving. These first home buyers getting a property in a new estate, rather then starting out in a small unit/flat, and buying everything on interest free.
I'm not arrogant and I have every right in the world to spend my money and borrow as much as I want to.
I have saved very hard and have been working full time since I graduated Uni. You are just stereo typing these people in these areas
Further to the above post. I would like to get some opinions on what an acceptable level of debt is.
Do you see the irony in what you just said....
Yes I see it, but it doesn't change the fact that I still have the right to do it as a responsible member of society.
Yes i was stereotyping. If you saved alot and put 20% down then you can afford your home and hopefully afford the repayment and i wish you well but if you put anything less then 20% and buy everything on credit/interest free and live pay check to pay check and eat out all the time etc. then maybe you should look again at being a home owner
Yep, did 20%, plus the Gov gave me 32K, what a government
I believe in the saying It's not what you earn, it's what you save. So what is the acceptable level of savings, the question should be.
A 20% down payment with enough cash/liquid investment reserves to last 3-6months.
People always going on about acceptable level of debt, yet you get people who earn 6 figure salaries with not a cent to their name, living pay check to pay check
Further to the above post. I would like to get some opinions on what an acceptable level of debt is.
Lets use a debt to household income ratio.
Therefore a $300,000 debt, to a household net income of $80,000 is 3.75
My question is what do you think is acceptable and sustainable?
I'll post my say best 5 mates ratios after I get some answers
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?