[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

March 25, 2009 - 11:21 am

ummester wrote:

It's OK to think wrong of those that make money in non productive or speculative means. It is wrong to think wrong of those that make money out of useful invention or productivity.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

Suppose that you took a loan and bought a house then 20 years later you decide to sell it. Is it wrong to sell if for more then you paid for it, eg. cost + interest paid over the 20 years+ rates ? Would you have bought this house if you expected to sell it for less then you paid for it or did you speculate that you could sell it for above what you paid for it ?
Should we think wrong of you if you did any of the above  ?
And if I did the same but added a water tank and built a garden shed in the backyard then sold at a huge profit would it be wrong of you to think wrong of me ?

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

March 25, 2009 - 11:10 am

ummester wrote:

$150k for 1/8 of an acre 60km from the city is not budget.I know someone who just got a place in Mt Lawley for 500k on a 700m2 block and they still paid too much.

$150K not budget ? You have to remember that you don't pay $150K just for a piece of dirt of 1/8 of an acre size. You also payed for the  water pipes,  electricity , phone lines, gas pipes and other services to be brought to estate and your block as well as the mandatory green area/ park that developers have to include. You also paid for the bitumen road with a concrete curb going past your prperty and connecting to a major road and if you are lucky you even got a limestone retaining wall and fencing included in price.  If these block is the same size as your mate's $500k in Mt Lawley and lets say he overpaid by $100K why do you think this block is not cheap, what is so special about his patch of dirt ? 

Is it the fact that God doesn't make any more land in Mt Lawley ? 

Have a look at Mt Lawley, South Perth, Vic. Park and other suburbs near Perth that used to have houses on 700sqm+ blocks using Google Earth and see how many do they still have the traditional lawn in their backyard and how many have grown an extra house in their backyards.  Short of bulldozing a few of them and building 20 story apartment blocks there is not much left to develop near the city.  So you see, its not a case of a land price bubbles as you claimed but rather of land shortage in close proximity to the city. And if you want to be near the city but can't afford to buy then you'll just have to pay the asking rent because if you don't someone else will.

Quote:

With all the governement is spending trying to keep unemployment low, how much do you think they have to spare for increased rent assistance.

Enough to keep the roof over the head of the unemployed, and if they run out of it  they can print some more.

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

March 25, 2009 - 9:29 am

ummester wrote:

harb wrote:

How will the bottom fall out of a $400K market if you need $500K to replace it and because of increased population numbers there is an increase in demand ? 

Some ideas follow. Some could be prolonged but some are impossible to avoid in the short term. I will note those with an *

1 – FHOG boost gets taken away.

So FHB won't afford to buy it and will have to rent it, how is that going to to cause the bottom to fall out ?

Quote:

2 – Unemployment keeps increasing. *

Again, even the unemployed have to live somewhere.
Btw, single digit unemployment rates were considered low 20 years ago and even the most rabid bears only suggest that rates will only go up to around 7%-8% as worst case scenario. Only a few years ago the current unemployment rates were considered impossible to achieve.

Quote:

3 – Immigration keeps decreasing. *

From record highs, construction approvals are still below immigration intake.

Quote:

4 – Stock increases as BB leave work and sell both PPOR and investment property. *

And they going to leave on a park bench ? Come on, you can do better then this.

Quote:

5 – Negative gearing is reassessd.

Oh goody, I remember the time when they removed it completely. Two years later they were begging investors to come back after house prices and rents skyrocketed. Since most investors are now positively geared or near it they can lock in the low rates for 10-15 years  and keep putting rents up every 6 months.  

Quote:

6 – Bank lending criterior is tightened further. *

Last time they reassessed the NG all the major banks were requiring a 25% deposit minimum. Didn't stop prices going silly.

Quote:

As for the 500k replacement cost, that can easilly decrease.
1 – Land is in a bubble because state govt and developers have been maximizing revenue but soon they will realise that 10 sales @ 250K is worth more than 2 @ 500K.
2 – Commodoties have already dropped so building materials will end up costing less.
3 – Overpaid tradies will become increasingly desperate as construction decreases and work for less.
4 – REAs will start talking vendors down in bids to stay employed.

1 – $250K ? There is plenty land available at $150K if you are prepared to travel. The only developers near the city are the small developers carving up their own backyards or buying 2-3 older houses on larger blocks and turning them in 6-7 townhouse lots.
2-Steel may be slightly cheaper but bricks went up. Not sure about Canberra but here in WA electricity prices are going up so guess which way the material prices are heading when energy cost are going up. Add to that the mandatory anti-GW and water saving devices that are added to the materials costs so we can pretend to help stop the GW. – ops, I meant climate changing.
3 – Compared to what , the Indian tradies ? That's just a rumor started by grossly overpaid executive to justify why the company is not making enough profits. Nothing to do with the $millions paid to executives for doing absolutely FA for most of the year and them handing them even more $millions in golden handshakes to get rid of the useless ones. Then move the jobs overseas because the labour is cheaper there. And what is our government doing other then handing them more of the taxpayers money ? SFA.  
4 – In case you haven't noticed the under $500K market is flying out the door and the REA's are doing alright. Besides, how is that going to reduce the replacement cost ?

Quote:

It's all tightly connected Harb. Already, near me, 4 bedddys on reasonable blocks are getting close to what I would consider worth buying. And they are only 40K more than a tiny townhouse is worth??? Yeah right. The buyers that have been supporting the market these past few months have little to no deposits and have had finite amounts extended to them as a mortgage. Poor buggers have been sucked in by some pretty evil federal policy. That is the only real floor at the moment.

You sure its not you who have been conditioned to see the 4 beddys as reasonable priced ?How much for that 4 beddy 3-4 years ago ? 
As long as they can afford the repayments now they can always lock in the fix rates when rates start to move up and be set for life. In 5 years time they will very likely pay a lot less in monthly repayments then you will to rent it out.  You can ridicule the poor buggers now for buying a house with little to no deposit but if in 5 years or so they decide to buy another place as PPOR and rent this house to you then we'll see who is going to have the last laugh.
Rent it for 20 years and you've just paid off the poor buggers IP

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

March 25, 2009 - 8:15 am

gmh454 wrote:

Guess they did sell for 500k sometime ago.

So anyone buying then and sitting on them even vacant would be laughing all the way to the bank even if they sell "at a loss" for $2M. Still, I can see how giving an example of someone who is forced to sell at a big loss would make a much better story even if this is an exception to the rule. 

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

March 24, 2009 - 11:01 am

gmh454 wrote:

(how is Perth's top end Harb holding up ????   Cough, cough….)

Wouldn't know about the top end, in my area things are a bit slow and some sellers have taken their properties of the market. I suppose that if you don't need to sell may as well wait until the inflation threat is over.
A couple of owners decided to move on in the past 2 months and sold for about $200K less then they could have got at the top. Don't know if they were forced to sell or not but since it only cost them around $250K for the H&L back in '02  I doubt they'll be too upset about walking away with only a $600K & a $750K profit. 

Quote:

" Palm Beach, little weekender, don't really stay there much, maybe 4 days a month, yeah work is a bitch, picked it up for $5.5M, …yeah should do nicely in the future, Oh borrowed the lot, yep the house at Mosman is worth $10M now, ……interest ?   Bonus should cover that……can't go wrong really………

Just wondering, has the $5.5M always been the selling price in Palm Beach or did they ever sell for $500K or less sometime in the past ? 

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

March 24, 2009 - 10:30 am

ummester wrote:

wealth4life.com wrote:

Hello 888,
read read read and get educated … the market at the bottom hasn't bottomed but the market at the top and middle is coming down further.

Which means, quite literally, all that remains is for the bottom to fall out of the market.

And for that to happen all you need is a plague to wipe up half of the population. 
How will the bottom fall out of a $400K market if you need $500K to replace it and because of increased population numbers there is an increase in demand ? 

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

March 24, 2009 - 10:12 am

ummester wrote:

harb wrote:

So how many below $350K in Homebush Bay ? For the price of one unit there I could get almost 2 in Bankstown (or a house on 600sqm block) which is about the same distance from CBD. 
The shortage is of well priced apartments and of land. If price is no object man can always build upwards, the sky is the limit, but God doesn't make more land.

Never knew you were religious Harb?

I'm not but that's besides the point. Are you saying that someone IS making more land ?

Quote:

God has nothing to do with it and Australia doesn't actually have a shortage of land. Australia has a shortage of released land that has good infrastructure in place. We have a land price bubble due to development proceedures centred around developer and state governement revenue rather than sound expansion of our urban areas.

Maybe in Canberra where there are still vast spaces between the suburbs. For other capital cities there is no land to develop near the CBD, even the older properties on 700sqm+ blocks have already been subdivided.
Of course Australia has no shortage of land, take Perth for eg.  Plenty of land around $150K and some even have fencing and limestone retaining walls included. Add a $150K for the house, add another $50K for landscape and finishing and you have your own house for the bargain price of around $350K.  Yes, it may be 60 Km from the CBD and if you work in the city it may take you 2hrs to go to work and 3 hrs to come back but if you are after budget land there is plenty of that around.
But I suppose you'd like something in walking distance from CBD for that price, right ? 

Quote:

As unemployment rises, the rental situation in this country is going to get very interesting.

 And what exactly do you expect to happen then, people moving out of properties and into cardboard boxes ?  I've heard some rumors that there are some unemployed people living in rentals right now, if these are true then I expect not much will change when the unemployment rate goes up 2-3%. Unless the rents go up too much because of a decrease in FHBs and increase in renters in which case the government has to increase the rental assistance to the unemployed living in private rentals.  

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

March 21, 2009 - 8:58 am

So how many below $350K in Homebush Bay ? For the price of one unit there I could get almost 2 in Bankstown (or a house on 600sqm block) which is about the same distance from CBD. 
The shortage is of well priced apartments and of land. If price is no object man can always build upwards, the sky is the limit, but God doesn't make more land. 

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

February 23, 2009 - 3:07 pm

Scamp wrote:

Hi Harb,

I just posted what I thought about the OP's dilemma. If he is going to buy anywhere, in *my personal opinion* he's best off in Sydney.

I don't disagree with your opinion that Sydney is the best place to buy IPs at the moment, just the reasons for it. 

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

February 23, 2009 - 3:21 am

Scamp wrote:

So yes, if you have to buy somewhere, Sydney might actually be the safest bet. But keep in mind that houseprices will still fall a lot, so offer at least 20% less than asking price.

That offer of 20% less only works for the upper end of the market.  At the low end of the market where most of the FHBs are you put in an offer at least 20% below the asking price and chances are you'll be treated with contempt and told to go and get f***ed. The time for cheeky offers in Sydney was last Sept- Oct, now if you get a 5% off a sub $500K property you are doing well.

Quote:

In recession times, business goes away from Perth / Adelaide and Brisbane and comes back to Sydney / Melbourne.

And how did you figure that one out ? Someone running a factory in Brisbane would not spend money to move to Sydney in a recession.  Also during out last few recessions Sydney and Melbourne were more affected then Perth/Adelaide. If business is cutting costs in a recession it will start with the unproductive dead wood in the office, so Sydney cops it most since most of the large businesses have their office there. 

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

February 22, 2009 - 4:00 pm

foundation wrote:

You clearly haven't been keeping your eye on the inflation figures that are coming through.

How are them inflation figures coming along, still keeping your eye on them ?

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

February 17, 2009 - 3:05 pm

crashy wrote:

ooh yes how selfish I am, wanting future generations to not live on a planet deprived of hundreds of species, filled with polution, suffering from a climate thats unbearable. My bad.

I thought that you may enjoy reading this article,

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25070960-5018727,00.html

Quote:

Greenies' global warming fire claims just despicable

By ANDREW BOLT

February 18, 2009 12:30am

GLOBAL warming preachers have been crowing over the bushfires in ways not just despicable but dangerous.

Just hours after the first bodies were being recovered, Greens leader Bob Brown was already on television, lecturing us on our sins against the planet.

Rather than confess that green activists had been desperately wrong to oppose fuel reduction burns, Senator Brown was eager to boast that this catastrophe had instead proved them right. About global warming, you know.

"(The fires) are a sobering reminder of the need for this nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority the need to tackle climate change."

Well, actually, Bob, the fires were a sobering reminder of the need to help the victims first, and to fireproof our houses and towns after that. But Senator Brown was soon to be trumped by far louder crows.

Freya Matthews, a La Trobe University "ecological philosopher", wrote in The Age that there was no doubt these fires were caused by our gases: "This is climate change."

ABC presenters religiously took up this lesson of the day on radio and television and declared – falsely – that never had it been this hot. Never had fires burned so fiercely. Global warming was here.

And, sure enough, former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery, another preacher with no formal training in climate science, outdid all his previous exaggerations by directly blaming our gases for these 200 deaths.

"Let's hope that Australians ponder the deeper causes of this horrible tragedy, and change our polluting ways before it's too late," he thundered.

Or as historian Jonathan King put it hysterically, again in The Age: "We humans started this war and now the environment is fighting back."

Really? If so, I wonder whose side of this war these preachers are on?

Preaching green sermons over the dead is vile enough, of course, especially when forest experts insist that green policies on forest management helped to kill so many in the first place.

After all, not even the scientists who believe most fiercely in the theory that man is heating the world to hell are blaming the recent heatwave or the fires that followed on global warming.

Hear that even from Melbourne University's Professor David Karoly, the State Government's chief global warming adviser, who conceded: "It is not possible to attribute any single event to climate change."

But there are two more reasons to reject this crowing of the warmists.

First, the planet actually hasn't warmed for a decade, and we've faced even worse conditions than these before – so we should have prepared for these latest bushfires much better. Shouting "global warming" is just a distraction, or even a ruse.

Second, blaming global warming doesn't only excuse the governments that should have learned from our past, but could mislead us into spending countless billions on a "solution" that will not spare us another such tragedy.

To explain . . .

What the preachers have seized on to blame the fires on man-made warming is that Melbourne suffered its hottest day on record – 46.4C – a week before the flames roared over our towns.

Global warming, right?

Wrong.

First, Melbourne did in fact have a hotter day before, four years before the Bureau of Meteorology started officially recording temperatures.

As the Argus newspaper reported at the time, the temperature on February 6, 1851, soared to 47.2C, helping to superheat the fires that then roared across 10 times more land than was burned last week.

Meanwhile the U.S. state of Maine has just recorded its coldest ever temperature, and Britain is suffering a winter so unusually severe that its National Pensioners Conference has fears one in 12 pensioners could die.

What counts is not some local freak of weather but the global trend – and what NASA's Aqua satellites have detected is that the world has not warmed for a decade.

Don't just take my word for it. Ask the high priests of warming at The Age,  which on Monday ran this attempt to disguise the fact that global warming theory is in trouble: "Last year was the coldest year around the world since 2000 – yet it was still the 10th hottest since records began in 1850 . . ."

Booga booga.

But then there was this other news report last week, under the doom-mongering headline: "Climate change `worse than expected' ": "Fresh data has shown that greenhouse gas emissions have grown by an average of 3.5 per cent a year from 2000 to 2007 . . . more than three times the 0.9 growth rate in the 1960s . . ."

Sorry for all these figures, but think about those two stories for a second. We're told we're now pumping out triple the greenhouse gases that cause global warming . . . yet the world has stopped warming.

Sure, it may start warming again soon. Or not. But global warming theory for now isn't quite working out as we were told.

But I don't just write all this to go nyah-nyah. Normally that's fun, I admit, but too many people are dead for such crowing of my own.

Far more important is that the global warming prophets who now claim that the fires of Armageddon are here, thanks to our polluting ways, are also trying to make you spend more money than we have on a "solution" that won't actually save us from the next big fire.

Bob Brown, for instance, thinks we should protect ourselves by slashing almost all our emissions – a near-impossible task that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, yet still not change world temperatures by a flicker, not least because our emissions are minuscule compared to, say, China's.

And Flannery insists we should "cease burning coal conventionally by around 2030" – something our coal-fired generators say is impossible without driving them out of business and our cities out of power.

All this, so Australia sets an example to shame the big emitters into cutting their greater gases.

Gases which might not actually cause the warming that might already have stopped anyway. And which didn't cause these fires. Wow.

Do you think those colossal green plans would leave you any safer the next time a fire screams out from the bush?

Think we'll then be safer from the fires that have regularly ravaged this land since Aboriginal settlement?

Let me see if I can sell you a far smaller plan that would cost no more than, say, $4 billion.

For that money I'd build a fire-proof sanctuary in every school in Australia's fire-prone areas, not just to protect the children but to give each community a place of refuge.

 I'd find the $20 million we need for a warning system to reach every land line and mobile phone in an area threatened by disaster.

I'd subsidise a bunker for every bush home. And I'd finally spend what it takes to make bush roads safer in fires, and to do the fuel reduction burns that every inquiry into every big fire has warned we needed to protect our towns.

Which plan would leave you safer, do you think: my $4 billion one or the greens' $100 billion and more to "stop " global warming?

cheers

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

February 11, 2009 - 3:44 am

crashy wrote:

all you NWO believers should ask yourselves:

1. how does my belief help me to live a longer, happier life?
2. how does my belief help me to make money?
3. do all my rantings about NWO enrich or detract from others lives?

While we waiting for a reply from the NWO believers I'm putting the same questions to the GW worriers,

Does worrying about something that may happen in 100 years, something that even the "experts" can't agree on and  something that despite our fat big egos its very likely beyond our control help you sleep better at night ? 
Will the constant scaremongering and  moving goalposts cause you to "live a longer, happier life" , help you "make money", "enrich or detract from others lives"  or  will it cause you to live in constant fear, cost you money and make you reach for the antidepressants every time you hear the words GW ?

And how does GW theory  fit in with the fact that it took 100 years to break the 1908 heatwave record ? Since humans didn't start mass polluting for a few more years was there an outbreak of bovine Viral Gastroenteritis causing excessive flatulence that could be blamed for the 1908 heatwaves ?

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

February 11, 2009 - 2:48 am

young investor01 wrote:

i must visit bunning again soon and accidentally trip with my hands outstretched key in hand.

A bit tricky to do that in our Bunnings, they have the display on the shelves at eye level. If you go down there on a Saturday afternoon or Sunday the kids working there will either ignore you or  give you a hand to do your "test".   If your keys are worn out then something like my keyring ornament  will also come in handy.     http://olfablades.stores.yahoo.net/9537.html

crashy wrote:

I found Ikea floors to be a lot harder wearing than bunnings. It is what they use on their own floor which gets a LOT of traffic. so you can see just how well it lasts.

Are they using the $14sqm or the  $47sqm ?

cheers

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

February 10, 2009 - 11:33 am

young investor01 wrote:

i was in bunnings this afternoon checking out a laminate floor 7mm thick german egineered 20 years warranty and described as heavy duty residential for $14.95 per sqm- is that reasonable? And the only flooring allowed in the unit apart from carpet is floating floor boards. So basically my dad and I will do it to save abit of money, but I still want a laminate floor that is durable with a warranty and wont blow the wallet to much.

Sorry young investor01, can't recommend any .I had a look at a few different types about  1.5-2 years ago and decided to stick to solid timber, but it was for myself not the IPs. Price is reasonable and so is the warranty, if you are not sure maybe you can get 1 pack and give it a good test.  Maybe someone else here can reccomend a brand.
The worst one I saw looked like MDF covered with some vinyl (ish) looking coating not unlike contact paper. I did a quick "car keys test" on the sample on display  and was easy to scratch and the top coating came apart quite easily . Probably alright  if you walked on it bare footed and cover the traffic area with rugs.

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

February 10, 2009 - 5:12 am

young investor01 wrote:

. Is it more inexpensive and durable in the long run. Finally does anyone know any good suppliers in Sydney both purchase cost and installation costs included. Basically my dad is quite handy and i heard laminate floors are easy DIY -will we save more money initially but should we hire a professional so things go smoothly. I'm really stuck im looking at renovating a 2bed 1bath unit in Sydney and thought maybe the DIY laminate where the way to go instead of paying a pro heaps more for something we could do ourselves. Thanks for all the feedback please tell me on how your DIY experience went with laminate floors and if there still in good nick.

Cheers

The inexpensive ones are inexpensive for a good reason, they are less durable.  And yes if your dad is handy its easy to install and save a few bucks BUT if its for a unit I'd check to see if they allow you to do it , specially if its not on the ground floor.

cheers, 

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

February 9, 2009 - 4:04 am

ummester wrote:

properties in this countries  – I never knew you had a literacy problem Harb.

You must be bored like me today and come to argue the point we have been for the past year or so.

Yes to both.
 

Quote:

40% falls in some US states is also history.

Thanks, I'll remember that next time I'm thinking of buying property in US.  If you follow the ghpc textbook  you'll probably mention  Japan next. 

Quote:

A year or more ago I predict that the economy of the western world is in for doom and gloom because we are all living beyond our means. You dismiss it and preach that property is the ultimate investment that can never fail. Who seems closer to the truth now?

It still is, instead of the 40%+ predicted I've only seen 3% falls across the nation and rental returns going up by 10%.  The best your buddies can come up with is point to a few US cities were  the declining population has caused massive prices over decades and then use that to extrapolate 40%+ price falls in here.  That may work on some outback mining town when the only mine in town shuts down but  to infer that it will happen across the board in our capital cities just goes to show how delusional they are.
Of course property can occasionally fail, specially if you don't do your homework, but overall its still the best long term investment and the past 12 months proved it. 

Quote:

None of us should be sold a dream that requires parents not to have time for their children.

Sorry but I don't see any law forcing someone to buy dreams, not even the affordable ones.  What I do see hundreds of people with just enough money to dream a Hyunday Getz camping in front of the Mercedes showroom and salivating over the shiny A170 in the window.  Their dream  is that nobody will buy it and the dealer will have to drop the price 60% making it affordable to them.  It is possible that one of them may end up driving away in his dream A170 but  the rest of them will have to return to dreaming Hyundai.  Only by now the Hyundai dealer has sold all his existing stock to more realistic dreamers and because of the falling AUD has had to put up prices by 30%.  So instead of a nice dream they end up having a self-induced nightmare.
So the moral of this dream is that while there is nothing wrong with salivating over the A170 keep a close eye on the number of Getz still available or you could end up with a nightmare.

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

February 8, 2009 - 9:31 am

ummester wrote:

I feel sorry for you in this situation but property in this country has been and is still incredibly overvalued.

If this is how you really feel about property in this country then I feel sorry for you because you will forever be renting while waiting for prices to fall to what you perceive as good.  The only problem with that is the seller also has to consider your offer good value and accept it or else its NO DEAL.
 
Anyway, I think you are wrong and properties in this countries are undervalued. I'm not sure what type of property you are looking for,  in what city or what price range but I can assure you that you are wrong, prices are very affordable and at the bottom of the cycle. Now its the best time to buy and you will never buy it this cheap again.  Yes it was a spruike but not less accurate then your comment and at least just as helpful.   

Quote:

Exactly the kind of stress that you went through here is what is being corrected and why I stress that jumping into property now will just bring you more heartache.

In 3-4 years, however, you should be fine. Though I still belive that the idea of investing in residential property by average Joes is to the detriment of society and will always lead to more situations like yours.

And you know that how ? Did the guys at ghpc let you look into their crystal ball ?  A third of the bears there probably reside OS and are only s*it stirring, a third are students who live with mum & dad and the remainder have bought properties recently. Now why would you think they've done so if properties are incredibly overvalued and have further to drop ? 

In 3-4 years you could be looking at lower prices but you could also be looking at double the current prices, who knows ? I do remember experts predicting price falls of 10%-15% and recommending people not to buy for 2-3 years until prices corrected , that was in late 2000 and what followed is history.   

Quote:

The great Australian dream ain't all it's cracked up to be – think outside that box.

That's a funny thing to say seeing how you are waiting for a price crash to buy into that dream.

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

February 8, 2009 - 8:11 am

frosty1 wrote:

Is now the time to buy??

Interest rates are low,

Rents are up,

Rental vacancy rates are low,

Property prices have flattened or levelled.

It seems a good time to buy if you are in a position to.

Depends of where are you buying, the price range  you are looking to buy, are buying to rent it out or live in it yourself, is your job reasonably secure, etc. 

Quote:

But when can we expect interest rates to rise though?

You could ask the experts but after the last time ….

Quote:

If property prices fall further, will that include lower end of the market properties?

With many job losses predicted and happening, people will still need a roof over their heads.

You've answered your own question, people still need a roof over their heads and buying a low end property is getting cheaper then renting.

[harbMember@harbJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 324]

February 8, 2009 - 7:47 am

ummester wrote:

I am and have always been with Harb and Devo here (unlike property).

Not to worry, you'll come around with that too sooner or later.