Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,822
- Reactions
- 6,804
Show me the stats.
While that may be the case the stats say that less than 1% of them will be self funded in retirement. On the whole they will need to deleverage and sell assets to maintain income.
Most people are happy with the income stream. Especially once they hit retirement. There's a reason retirees buy bonds. It's not because they hope that the price of the bond will appreciate it's because they want a steady earnings stream.
No it doesn't, unless rents have spiked which they haven't (iirc they have risen ~30% in real terms since the 70s). Infact, one of the main bear arguments against the property market is the fact that real rents have remained relatively flat while property prices have surged. Even in the US, despite the massive surge in home prices and subsequent collapse, rents have remained flat in real terms. Quite simply, in a bubble, people trade off income for capital growth. As a someone who spent most of my investing life in the stock market, I see it as a scenario of property being an ex-growth stock on a high PE. Over time the PE will compress because the P will fall.
According to my research both in general fall. Housing downturns bring on recessions, which destroys demand for housing in general - be it buying or renting, as people co-habit more.
Show me the stats.
Just ease off on the categorical, dogmatic statements. There are plenty of choices. The world does not run according to your rules, thank god.First of all, baby boomers hold a disproportionately large amount of investment properties. Even if they choose not to sell their main property (where they live), they will have to sell these to fund their retirement - there is simply no choice.
Others have already addressed this point. It's very arrogant of you, especially at your minimal age, to imagine that what you think is best will in fact be even remotely in line with what baby boomers and retirees generally want and/or intend to do.Why collect the rents on a property through a property crash when you can sell now and lock in better term deposit rates? These are important matters, if you're a person too old to work, but will probably live for a few more decades, then would you really be able to take such a big risk, would you really be able to sleep through the stress? Seems much better to me just to sell.
Well, just consider for a millisecond that your view just may not be 100% right. I know it doesn't come naturally to you to even consider any such thing, but just try.My view of baby boomers is that largely they do not have much wealth and very little super. The only thing they have is "perceived wealth" through properties - which they will have to sell in order to fund their retirement.
Do you indeed? Trouble is, there's no earthly reason why any pensioner should take the slightest notice of what you think they should do, so maybe just stop being so tediously dictatorial.I would highly encourage pensioners to sell property and buy bonds (say our federal government bonds for instance) - I think that's a fine investment.
Cite.
Well, just consider for a millisecond that your view just may not be 100% right. I know it doesn't come naturally to you to even consider any such thing, but just try.
I dunno where that number came from, I have had it quoted by quite a few in the investment business... what they are saying is that less than 1% make it through retirement without government assistance at some point. It takes more to retiree than most think! In that process they typically divest themselves of major assets.
There are around 125,000 currently self funded retirees out of a retirement population of around 2 million --> ~ 6-7%. It is optimistic to think that they will all make it through to the end fully self funded so logically they divest at some point BUT even if they don't there will be many more sellers than buyers and as price is set at the margin, you only really need a small imbalance to drive price one way or the other.
Rents said:2007.3 $9,925.86
2007.4 $10,030.68
2008.1 $10,118.79
2008.2 $10,198.55
2008.3 $10,297.66
2008.4 $10,389.11
2009.1 $10,452.92
2009.2 $10,493.87
2009.3 $10,501.96
2009.4 $10,488.72
2010.1 $10,485.26
2010.2 $10,490.87
2010.3 $10,509.25
2010.4 $10,548.33
2011.1 $10,601.41
2011.2 $10,635.14
2011.3 $10,708.87
2000.3 $7,785.46
2000.4 $7,868.33
2001.1 $7,952.61
2001.2 $8,049.52
2001.3 $8,142.22
2001.4 $8,234.92
2002.1 $8,320.60
2002.2 $8,383.81
2002.3 $8,442.80
2002.4 $8,506.00
2003.1 $8,577.64
2003.2 $8,635.22
2003.3 $8,690.00
2003.4 $8,736.35
2004.1 $8,789.72
2004.2 $8,861.36
2004.3 $8,931.58
2004.4 $8,983.55
2005.1 $9,053.78
2005.2 $9,122.60
2005.3 $9,192.83
2005.4 $9,263.06
2006.1 $9,333.29
2006.2 $9,427.39
2006.3 $9,535.54
2006.4 $9,643.69
2007.1 $9,755.06
2007.2 $9,844.11
2007.3 $9,925.86
http://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/land-values/rent-price-ratio.asp
Average annual rent across the US...
No it's the rent to house price ratio - please don't change the subject.
That is incredibly flat McLovin.
I suspect that Australian data will be much steeper asthe middle class has had a rise in pay unlike the USA middle class over the same time frame.
Between 1994–95 and 2009–10, private renters experienced a $95 (or 45%) increase in
average weekly housing costs, after adjustment for inflation.
No, it's not. There are three sheets in that workbook. "rent-price data" is the one you want.
Pretty sure I just said that's the one I don't want?
You didn't want the ratio, so I gave you the data. Until you have something a bit stronger than a Time magazine article I guess it will have to do.
Bill M You are saying if you propertie/s drop by say 70% and stay flat for along time you are happy with that.
How about throwing up some credible evidence of this.House prices have risen about only about 3% a year for the last 40 yrs.
Research read up on depression you will find we have one about every 75 yrs and find out what caused them.
1930 tanking was cause by feds tampering and housing and in a day when you had to put down 20+ % deposit not -10%.
Isn't that a bit like saying we have a bad earthquake every 75 years, it's 75 years since we had one, so we're due to have one now.:
Bill M You are saying if you propertie/s drop by say 70% and stay flat for along time you are happy with that.
House prices have risen about only about 3% a year for the last 40 yrs.
There's one thing we have learnt from history, it's that we don't learn from history.
Nothing I say is a recommendation or advise, do your own research.
Research read up on depression you will find we have one about every 75 yrs and find out what caused them.
1930 tanking was cause by feds tampering and housing and in a day when you had to put down 20+ % deposit not -10%.
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?