SmartGenY wrote:
Check out MattNZ, Unmester and to a lesser extent my on posts for reasons on not to buy. Check out ALF1 and basically the rest of the forum for reasons to buy. Have fun speculating

Well, that pretty much sums it up.

ummester wrote:
Well, I've said it many times on this forum and others, a crash is really only going to hurt those that bit of more than they can chew. Either by equity withdrawal for lifestyle spending, of IPs that are too highly leveraged. It won't hurt those that have borrowed or invested sensibly.

Haha, call it the culling of the weak, if…[Read more]

mattnz wrote:
I was going back through some of my older posts and found this gem… the average mortgage in NSW is $414k, Source: last line of this Jan 2010 article http://www.smh.com.au/business/westpac-rate-rise-pushes-customers-to-switch-banks-20100105-lsbd.html while the latest median household income is I could find was only $1036 in…[Read more]

ummester wrote:
fword,they type of employment (as in wether or not the bank considers the income secure) matters also. One of the reasons ACT house prices grew so much in recent time is that the banks viewed PS wages as a safe place to load up debt.Just because you are a sensible borrower, doesn't mean that others are or that the banks are…[Read more]

mattnz wrote:
In Surry Hills where they were enquiring, $500k is a 1 bed apartment.

Tough. Look to the outer suburbs my friends…decent 3 or 4 bedder for that price. On land. Cast your net wider than the 'trendy' inner suburbs where every man, woman and their dog wants to live. Furthermore, nowhere in that article (as far as my bespectacled…[Read more]

mattnz wrote:
A Sunday Telegraph journalist sought a home loan through major banks last week. Based on an income of $61,000, a deposit of $55,000, and a good savings record, NAB offered a loan of "at least $450,000".

That loan figure seems ludicrous. When I got a loan pre-approval back in the days from middle to late 2009, NAB was only willing…[Read more]

ALF1 wrote:
For the first time Generation Y’s are facing the fear of losing their jobs, dealing with high credit card debit and looking at the prospect of moving back in with their Baby Boomer parents.

Haha, moving back with Baby Boomer parents? I've never actually moved out, except to qualify for the FHOG on a house. People sometimes make f…[Read more]

From my understanding of it, Site Value indicates the value of the land only. Capital Improved Value indicates the value of the land plus the house or other improvements you've made to that land. Hence, the total value of your property is $311,000, based on council valuation. That said, those figures are put in place for the council to calculate…[Read more]

From my understanding of it, Site Value indicates the value of the land only. Capital Improved Value indicates the value of the land plus the house or other improvements you've made to that land. Hence, the total value of your property is $311,000, based on council valuation. That said, those figures are put in place for the council to calculate…[Read more]

ummester wrote:
Here are (longer) term IRs and prices. Still not as long as I promised fword but I will find them – just for you:http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/9/26/595019-128548078561902-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpghttp://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/9/26/595019-128548185597047-Leith-van-Onselen_origin.jpgI wont give you…[Read more]

Oh bother…

xdrew wrote:
And as someone said before .. Geelong and surrounds are too cheap for the value they offer. Once that happens and the transport to and from Geelong improves, expect industry and jobs to flow. One thing that will start that off is the downturn in the car industry. The Geelong council will be actively competing for new intake of…[Read more]

ALF1 wrote:
…semantics!

Haha, just the word I was thinking of. However I delight in the details.

ummester wrote:
if you tell me I suck, I ask what? What do I suck? You suck is incomplete

Once again, not directed at anybody. However if I had that comment directed my way, given an appropriate context, I'd know what it meant. I'd be…[Read more]

ummester wrote:
Investopedia is vested. It''s just the same as bublepedia. Let's use a dictionary, it has no interest in the debate at all.profit – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/profittaking – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/takingdemand – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demandThe presumumtion of profits to be taken lead t…[Read more]

ummester wrote:
…your arguments are valid when taking into account demand that is not based on physical availabilty and I do not dispute them in that sense – especially fwords description of 'profit taking' demand, which is essentially what I term credit fueled demand.

Definition of 'profit taking' from Investopedia:"The action of selling…[Read more]

ummester wrote:

ALF1 wrote:
Australia currently has a housing shortfall

Surely increasing stock levels in every state disprove this. If there truly is a shortfall, how can stock increase without a similar increase in homelessness?

Note that when houses are for sale and causing an increase in stock levels, the houses are simply 'on the…[Read more]

ummester wrote:
I never said Singapore had high wages? Quite the opposite. I said Monacco did and Singapore was unlike that.

My man. I didn't make that statement in response to your post. I made it in anticipation of anybody who might decide to argue that house prices in Singapore could be high because Singaporeans have a high salary.

ummester…[Read more]

ummester wrote:
History and maths, as I understand it. Long term averages and the like.

Well then, let's just hope for the sake of FHB that history in this case wouldn't be just that: history.

ummester wrote:
Singapore has a true land shortage.

If that's the case then, a comparison between Singapore and Australia is comparing a country that…[Read more]

Intrigue wrote:
Can you further clarify where these numbers come from? Is it the section of the market that is not under 18 etc or is it the whole population? The reason I ask is the numbers seem high.. If we then take out the kids it seems that the motgage holders are actually the minority. (whats the percentage?)If this is true why is it that…[Read more]

ummester wrote:
Because around 4x income is the local historical standard and the globally accepted standard. I have no other impartial standard to go on. New Australian standards are set by vested interests and therefore not impartial.

Question, if I may: Who set this as the 'globally accepted standard'? If this is the case, then property in…[Read more]