[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

July 12, 2009 - 10:22 am

If residential property is truly in shortage as they want you to believe then one would expect to see a spike in the number of homeless family waiting for available housing. But my observation tell me otherwise.

I personally have not seen a homeless family.

Maybe there is a shortage of property …. by all those wanting to own 10+ properties, the buyer agent and the RE agents.

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

July 11, 2009 - 4:10 am

Good advice, Michael.

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 12, 2009 - 4:38 am

propertunity wrote:

Rhys_Roberts wrote:

… he must be an expert Australia wide…

Well kinda. I buy in Melbourne for myself and a couple of close friends. I have a couple of relos there and visit quite often. I keep my finger in the pie, so to speak.

well just because one is a car salesman and own a few cars doesn't make one an expert in car

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 12, 2009 - 4:24 am

one should be wary and take the story from the link above – "http://www.jenman.com.au/news_story.php?id=89" – very serious. this is just 1 of the many nightmare when dealing with a wrong Buyer Agent – no offense to anybody here.

jenman is also critical of Buyer Agent's fee structure, they want you to pay a premium fee based on the value of your purchase price. this is ridiculous, since you pay the mega fee once you agreed to buy the property how can you be certain that they are doing it in your interest but not their? they want to get paid asap too.

i think it only fair IF they can show and proof how much they saved you with their bargain skill and earn a % from that saving;

Quote:

As for paying a Buyers' Agent, it makes no sense to pay a fee based on the purchase price if it means that the higher the purchase price, the more you pay.

You should pay the agent a percentage of what they save you. For example, if you are prepared to pay $800,000 and the agent negotiates a price of $700,000, then you could pay 25 per cent of the amount saved. In this case (assuming the agent had been responsible for the $100,000 saving) you would have paid $25,000. And everyone would have been happy.

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 6, 2009 - 10:14 am

propertunity wrote:

That's just silly. Nobody (or very few) get rich by buying one house. The ones that I know of that did – lucked out. The town grew up and out to be around them and their little 5 acre farm became prime residential land suitable for sub-division. So they became 'overnight' millionaires in 10 years. Very few people engage in this type of speculation (as I'd call it) rather than investing.

sound great!

very impressive what a wonderful idea, can you show me how to get rich?

should i click on your signature, visit your website now and inquire directly?

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 6, 2009 - 6:08 am

thats a pretty good spruiking mentality.

maybe you should direct your answer at the OP by giving "realistic" and explain the real pitfall  by following your 'idea' and maybe we could all be benefited. don't worry about the + we already know, price double every 7 years-you're mega rich.

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 5, 2009 - 2:59 pm

SNM,

that explains why major banks has increased their LVR to 80% to protect their own ass from the coming down turn. i think they also see it coming.

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 5, 2009 - 2:47 pm

don't worry, propertnity, i don' think any1 here would take you seriously enough to hold accountable for your advice or recommendation since you aren't qualified for it anyway. beside you admitted you're bias

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 5, 2009 - 10:10 am

GOM,

i don't debate how anybody makes their living and its none of my business but as a licensed BA i'd expect a level of diligent -not just about commission-and that was why i questioned propertunitys recommendations and his reasoning, as i found it too unrealistic, and hopefully Kris will be benefitted from this info and can decide for he/herself. hey after all this is a help blog

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 5, 2009 - 9:11 am

well any observer can see  you're gaining by posting in here. its a cheap advertising method; spruiking just about  every post , each post has your website link presuming it's the same as the name of your company and your position. a great place for spruik and fishing beginner investors.

unlike you i got nothing to sell or advertise or financially benefit from posting here, my view is truly un-bias, give input where i see fit.

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 5, 2009 - 7:48 am

propertunity wrote:

sweeper2009 wrote:

with due respect, you sound exactly like a spruiker!

and with all due respect you sound like someone who does not own any property and is hoping that the market will crash so you can buy some – but the market won't play ball.

and what's worse, you are happy to try to convince others not to buy to help you feel better about it.

i gain nothing from what i said here and if you believe what i contributed here just to satisfy my poor wealth status  than i've overestimated you. i never said market will "crash" and i never professed to be a RE expert but i am very critic and  i disagree with your unrealistic bullish view and interpretation.

i want Kris to see the other side of the camp by commenting and questioning the points you made earlier.

i think Kris asked a question if it would be better to hold off buying until the FHBG is over and i believe a sensible recommendation would be to hold off because then will be less competition and have better options.

i never said Kris should not invest. i genuinely envy you lot for having investments and big debts. i don't like debt and don't have debt.

i truly believe you when you said "help others achieve some measure of success at the same time" but i am sorry this sounded too much like a typical spruiker,  i am sure they want to 'help' others to get rich too.

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 5, 2009 - 7:01 am

with due respect, you sound exactly like a spruiker!

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 5, 2009 - 6:33 am

according to propertunity:

you BUY even there are 30% of FHB in the market competing against the 70% "normal investors" although it is best to wait a little longer for the demand to fall. btw statistic are coming from an anonymous source.

you BUY because spruikers said that property price double every 7 years

you BUY because the above are relevant and everything other economic factors are irrelevant such as wage growth, economic contraction, market uncertainty, unemployment, recession, and interest rate etc. which happens to have direct impact on the house price.

you're 1 hell of a Buyer Agent, i bet your your business is booming? no?

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 5, 2009 - 5:18 am

please do not hold it personal. there is nothing better than a honest opinion

propertunity wrote:

No. What I said was the frenzy had "died down a bit". If you are of the view that the ONLY thing holding up prices in the lower end is the FHBG/B then Yes – hold off. But FHBs only represent up to 27% of the buyers in the market (in a frenzy) and only 22% in a normal market. That still leaves over 70% of purchases being made by non-FHB. My suspicions are that when the Boost is removed there will be enough normal buyers and a good number of investors (who I know have stood off on the sidelines waiting for the Boost to go away) buying and supporting prices. The holding costs for many of these properties are virtually zero which is why I see investors back in now.

i'd like to know where you get the data from. assuming you're right with the numbers, do you or do not agree, even with 27% of FHB in the market can significant push the price higher? again is it Kris best interest to hold off?

propertunity wrote:

Who would have thought? Well lots of people, like me, who have seen a number of cycles I suppose. Prices always overshoot in a boom, then come off, then flatten out, then rise again – pretty normal for the cycle as far as I can see.

this is interesting. what commodity are you referring to? assuming you're referring to property, do you have anything to backup your argument on the 2 recent cycles and it relevant to property value fall? as fair as i know all spruikers continue selling their glory statistic-property price double every 7 years!

you talk about cycle but the market has just starting to fall from the top end and the bottom of the cycle is no where in sight, you're advising people to buy? that was my critic to your original post.

fact; dooms and glooms are not over, we are not officially out of the recession(unless you believe  the govt's feel good medicine-we're not in recession 'technically' ), unemployment will continue to rise, markets uncertainty, bank lending tighten, world hunger for money and will eventually drive the interest rate up etc.

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 5, 2009 - 2:46 am

propertunity,

i respect your opinion but i have to disagree with you.

Kris asked if this is a good time to buy or wait until the FHBG boost over, since you acknowledged the frenzy is still there, considering she isn't gona get the FHBG, wouldn't it be wiser to buy after the FHBG  expired and demand down?

your point "I don't see the price of a $350K property coming down" well not long ago who would have thought property price would fall at all?

while the interest rate is low and cheap for now, ultimately like the stock market it's the money market controls the interest rate, not govt nor RBA. so be prepared and invest wisely.

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 5, 2009 - 2:00 am

maybe they see something big is coming and don't want to over expose on property.

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 4, 2009 - 8:09 am

Qlds007 wrote:

I hope you mean Invest rather than Incest.

i freak out when i saw that 1. lol

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 4, 2009 - 6:40 am

propertunity wrote:

We are in a GFC – yes agreed. I don't know what a "CREDIT recession" is – but we are likely heading into a recession – yes. Even though we are not "technically" in a recession yet. BTW, banks are not running out of money, they are just getting fussy about who they lend it out to. At the end of the day, the banks make profits from interest. If they don't lend it out then they cannot make a margin on it.

I think you missed the point and really need to look at this GFC at a global level. as i said earlier aust banks borrow internationally(oversea) to continue fund their lending in OZ and to investors and businesses to get the OZ economy going.  i believe this is where the govts guarantee play an important roll and how the OZ banks were able to borrow internationally, os loans is secured by the OZ taxpayer money.

propertunity wrote:

Sorry I can't agree. People with steady jobs, cash or equity for deposits are borrowing just the same as they always did. Developers are finding it harder to get funds – yes. If they stopped going broke they might have a better show of getting finance. (Yes – Catch 22 I know)

i was referring to oz banks and the tightening of the global credit. ie 'credit recession'. if you look back a few months ago, in the USA there were at least 1 bank declare bankrupt each week and this was because they're simply OUT OF MONEY and were unable to borrow(no govt guarantee protection) . this credit issue is also the main contributor to many construction company and larger business bankruptcy

propertunity wrote:

 Well No actually. As you say a little later in your posts, it is only the lower end that is really booming. Most of our clients are not FHBs. They do not want to pay us fees to find property for them out of their meagre savings – fair enough – I have no problem with that – especially if they have plenty of free-time to look for themselves.
We do have some FHBs though as clients and these are generally busy professionals who appreciate how to leverage their time. Overall though I would like the market as an investor to rise (increasing the value of my properties) but as a BA I'd like it to be flat – so I can cherry pick the best properties for my clients and get the best properties for the lowest possible price.

yah but Kris was asking the question here. buy or not?  the top and mid end of housing market is just beginning to fall and you recommended your client to lock in already? all doom, gloom, recession over? i am sorry we're after all not 'technically' in a recession

propertunity wrote:

sweeper2009 wrote:

the lower end of the market is strong because every FHB rush out  and buy before the FHB boost end and this ultimately ram the demand up.

Yes – I've seen rises of 5 -10%

Then surely you can't conclude and recommand Kris to buy at this time as you did earlier in your post  " we believe now to be possibly one of the best times to be buying."

propertunity wrote:

sweeper2009 wrote:

isn't there any other un-bias source you can use? 

I'm open to suggestions

how about ABS?

propertunity wrote:

Believe it or not, I have actually advised some of our investor clients to hold off buying while the FHB frenzy was on. You just can't compete with FHBs throwing the Feds money at vendors and pay over list price…..or don't want to compete, to be more accurate.

getting confuse here so should Kris buy or not?

propertunity wrote:

 I'm sorry I do not subscribe to the "it is all going to be different this time" theory. I'm too old – I've seen too many recessions come and go. They're all the same – I don't care to participate.

but have you seen a recession where govt have to resorted to use taxpayer money to guarantee a private interest companies as huge as BANKS-considered it as safe bluechip co.

propertunity wrote:

sweeper2009 wrote:

this is a GFC we are in and you really need to look this up.

I have looked it up. We get 7 -10 year economic cycles that go RE cycle, share market cycle, cash cycle (recession if you like), RE cycle etc etc. same old, same old. Learn to see it and profit from it. On top of this cycle you have an 80 year deep recession (depression) cycle. Last one was 1930's and surprise, surprise just about 80 years on – here we are again. Its more of the same – no surprises.

GFC = Global Finacial Crisis. i'd assumed you didn't experience the last depression?

propertunity wrote:

sweeper2009 wrote:

banks don't want  properties value to fall as this will damage their balance sheet and it is in their  interest

Which is why – as I started at the beginning of my posts, that I think it is a good time to buy RE. If the conservative old banks are happy to lend to good borrowers for RE (and they are). I'm happy to take their cheap money and invest. Simple as that.

bank has an interest of conflict and you need to be wary of their interpretation of their report. unfortunately banks can not enforce market outcome and they recently have write down massive loss due to their oversea property investment and the local market just starting to fall from the top end.

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 4, 2009 - 3:49 am

propertunity wrote:

That was only a 0.25% cut but if you re-call the previous cut, you will also remember the political pressure put on the banks by Wayne Swan and others at the time. That pressure led to the big 4 passing on all of that particular rate cut despite saying they did not want to / could not afford to.

does anybody remember what Swan said? "vote with your feet". banks can not afford to run a non-profitable business model and the gov can't force them to do so. the last time bank only drop a smaller margin thats because there was still some room to do so. currently we are in a GFC and CREDIT recession, and banks around the world runs out of money and its harder to borrow.

propertunity wrote:

Banks are not private organisations they have shareholders with their shares publicly traded on the ASX. I really do not understand the point you are trying to make here.

i was referring to any organisations other than those own by the Govt-truly pub own. our banks are public company but own by "private" investors ie shareholders

propertunity wrote:

I understand your views here, but it is not a view I subscribe to. Only time will tell who ends up being right.

i wouldn't expect you to, afterall you're "Buyer's Agents" and i can imagine you'd pray for the rosy RE market to continue as it put bread and butter on your table. the fact is the high end of the market has fallen 10%-20% fast and the median market slowly coming down(at least in Vic). the lower end of the market is strong because every FHB rush out  and buy before the FHB boost end and this ultimately ram the demand up.

propertunity wrote:

I think the HIA is a very credible source or you would not get it's opinion's sought out by various research organisations. But virtually every source of data could been seen, by people such as yourself, to have some bias.

isn't there any other un-bias source you can use? 

propertunity wrote:

I was not using a statistic! and with all due respect I am a credible source – I work in the industry on a daily basis and am fully licensed and qualified to do so as a Buyers Agent. I am simply reporting my experience in the marketplace.

yes i know but this would be like asking a RE agent for opinion;  to buy or not.

propertunity wrote:

Well perhaps you should READ it first before making comment. The piece I quoted was not a forecast it was a statement about what effect unemployment had on housing recovery after the last two recessions.

the last 2 recessions is not the same as this 1, this is a GFC we are in and you really need to look this up. banks don't want  properties value to fall as this will damage their balance sheet and it is in their  interest not to P against the wind

[sweeper2009Member@sweeper2009Join Date: 2009Post Count: 22]

June 3, 2009 - 1:57 pm

propertunity wrote:

The banks might be independant from the RBA but they are operating in an environment where the Govt guarantees their business. Banks also cop political pressure for not passing on rate cuts. So this particular current environment is a bit different from 'normal'.

Gov will guarantee banks to stabilize the economy, not to gain control over banks. Banks needs to borrow internationally to provide their usual services and if the borrowing come with higher fee/rate, then this will be passed to the retail borrowers. This is a fact as we've seen last time; RBA dropped the rate but some banks decided to hold the interest rate and gov did nothing.

The govt don't use taxpayer money to guarantee a private organisation(bank) unless it can trigger bigger effects on the economy and this is what matter to them.

propertunity wrote:

Tighter credit criteria means less mortgage defaults because no credit impaired or people pushing the envelope will get funds to buy housing. This will stop a sub-prime USA style scenario. This I think is a good thing.

Unfortunately the bad is done by the gov FHB boost. People bought over priced property/investment  at a ballooned price. It just a matter of time when the relevant factors kicks in; interest rate up, unemployment up, FHBG ends, recession etc

propertunity wrote:

Yes they might be biased or they might be right or both.

They might be biased? Maybe you should present your case with a more credible sources.

propertunity wrote:

Not ALL certainly but I see a lot of overseas parents buying property for their University attending, fee-paying kids. And why wouldn't they? It is cheaper to buy a 3 brm house for $300K near Newcastle Uni than to rent 3 rooms @ $150pw per room per kid in the private market. I see plenty of kiwis buying our stuff too – and we buy theirs – so its only fair.

It's unrealistic to use a single case, how about a proper statistic from a credible source plz.

 

propertunity wrote:

That is what the economist from Westpac bank said. I am merely defering to someone who should know – as I pointed out.

I don't know whats in the Westpac report said but all business's forecast based on a model and it not necessary reflecting the real world.