Forum Replies Created
- shahabr wrote:…and costing the government $10m over the next 2 years
And guess who's going to bear the brunt of the $10 million cost. That's right. You and me.
What the gov't giveth to someone, they also taketh from somebody else.
WJ Hooker wrote:DWolfe & reddahaydn,
Note I said flats, not townhouses or appartments. I was just trying to say "not cheap ugly flats ". I take your points about all new appartments ( this is sort of what I meant to say about modern small living areas ).
I own my own home, its 20 years old, only an average property, but is full of kids, so is energy efficient ( north facing, insulated, etc ).
Agree, that most people want to buy Mc Mansions that are close to transport, beach, city, everything, it's unfortunately the Aussie Dream. This is what I hope will change over time, thus reducing the demand for wasteful use of a finite amount of raw materials. But, as I say it's what I think Australia needs to do, we waste all our money on housing, which leads to more stress and less money for the kids and our own enjoyment. Also puts pressure on marrages, makes us work longer hours, etc….all just to meet the monthly repayments. I think I'm raving on here.. sorry.
People will always be vain… well maybe we all need to change our ways, isn't vain one of the sins of men?? sorry, raving on again.
I think I have said a few times over this blog why houses will fall, interest rates, state of the world economy, etc…we will have to just wait and see if I am wrong.. if so then good I make money if houses go up in value, but as long as people can pay the rent then I don't care too much if they go down, I own most of the houses outright…so no interest to pay.bye
It's true that the 'perfect' house is the great Australian dream for many, and often never to be realised, but I think that doesn't stop people working for it. I think its not so much being vain as it is being ambitious. People will work very hard in an attempt to realise their dream. It's also fair enough to say that Australians should take a step back and spend less on their housing.
Trouble is they don't. Interest rates were taken a few steps up and people are spooked, and now retail is the pits. People will prefer to pay their mortgage to keep a spiffy house going rather than buy their kids a new toy, or get a new pair of shoes etc. This is called prioritizing. People always want a roof over their head they can call their own, and most young families still want a spacious, open-plan house opening to a good sized backyard for entertainment and letting their kids play.
Bottom line is, unless you give Australians a damn good reason why they shouldn't be paying their mortgage, then there's no reason why they wouldn't.
Two big ways house prices will come down: increase supply, or reduce demand. Since we can't 'make' anymore of these 'perfect' houses in the places where people want to buy them, then let's look at reducing demand. And that's simple. If you make property such a disgusting investment that it routinely loses money, people will stop buying and prices will fall.
Trouble again is, it's not. At least historically, prices appear to have grown at staggering amounts, more than what most people would earn from their job.
So yeah, let's put our heads together and discuss how we can convince property prices to fall, shall we?
See, no answers. Guess nobody's interested in doing that.
Hi Amanda. Good thoughts. I haven't researched suburbs out that way at the the moment. As you might know, in Melbourne things are all abuzz in the East while those who are knowledgeable enough will probably be picking up bargains in the West.
Looking at basic figures it sounds like a good deal, considering you'd also be able to claim depreciation costs on a new home and possibly have it positively geared (ie. making you money, generating an income) from day one. My guess is that newer estates would feature McMansions on tiny blocks of land, which is not what everyone is after. Some investors like to have more land obviously because land is the thing that appreciates in value. The other side of the coin however are speculations that in the future, the newer generations would rather have smaller, low maintenance and drought-tolerant backyards.
The other thing to consider is vacancy rates. At sqmresearch they offer free vacancy rates for suburbs and although I don't know how accurate or how up to date they are, it would be a good idea to look at this before deciding where your future investment property is going to be. If you buy in an area with a 4% vacancy rate compared to one where vacancy rates are just 1%, then you might have to tolerate a longer period without a tenant. The exception I believe however, is if you were wise enough to buy in a location that were close to amenities: schools, transport, shops, potential work places. Yet, this spot would need to be safe and have generally lower crime if you're hoping to attract a young family (which I believe would be the demographic in that area) for your 4 bedroom house.
Finally, another thing that concerns me regarding new estates is a little snippet I read about Craigieburn in the Herald Sun. The residents were worried that initially, promises were made to create more amenities, more shops etc but the plan was subsequently abandoned and never went ahead…this is what I remember reading. Again, authenticate this info in your research…what I was trying to say is, if there are 'plans' for infrastructure in Bacchus Marsh at the moment but very little 'existing' ones, then your purchase would be as good as a gamble. When these fools break their promises, you'll have a house sitting out there with no infrastructure to support it. Vacancy rates may then rise and you'll be forced to lower your fees. Vacancy rates can also rise as the place starts to get more built up and supply increases.
All this not withstanding, I've had friends and colleagues who've made good and easy money by buying in newer estates. One of them made a good fortune in areas like Berwick and Lyndhurst. Another did well just buying land in Cranbourne, holding, and selling a year later.
If you ask me, I'd rather buy an older house in a well-established suburb with great amenity and pay a higher price. That's because amenities in a well-established suburb are not likely to disappear. And if you buy into these suburbs where there is little or no vacant land left for sale, then its essentially built up. An influx of apartments would still be a threat to your investment, but I'm pretty sure that a good deal of people still want an old style, big Aussie backyard. Apartment living is not for everyone.
Have you thought about Melton or Kurunjang? Just some thoughts (even if it doesn't help).
Such talk about 'if the economy goes south, house prices will fall', 'if China's property bubble bursts, we're in trouble'…
Yeah, if the end of the world comes then everything will be worthless. Come to think about it, I thought that was going to be in 2012. Why don't people just dump properties on the market for $2 a piece so that the needy, or the greedy, can mop it up?
Of course, property (and any investment under the sun) would suffer under the 'right' circumstances.
Let's not waste time talking about the 'ifs'. We've heard it all before. People want to hear knowledgeable answers about 'when' it's going to happen, and honest, truthful answers from those who well and truly can read the market and practice what they preach.
god_of_money wrote:4.5% IR is still CHEAP… and it will stay there for long long time… (unless you have incompetence RBA and KRUDD)
GFC part II…. property is still a safer betWell, they better keep the IR there. Retail is the pits at the moment. I went to a friendly local fish shop a few days ago and was having a chat with the owner. He says things have been awfully quiet of late. Raise the IR a few times, spook people, and they'll shut their wallets like clams and refuse to spend on anything but their mortgage.
If Australia wants to trigger widespread failure of their retail segment, then by all means go ahead and raise those IR.
DWolfe wrote:FWord,Rich is defined as,
ample: affording an abundant supply, very productive, having an abundant supply of desirable qualities or substances, and lastly,
fat: marked by great fruitfulness.So if you are ample and productive and have an ample supply of desirable qualities and substances you can be fat.
I would think that with your definition even some of the worlds richest people would never be 'rich' as they will always be striving for the next goal.
I think that if you have plenty of time and plenty of money then you can be classed as rich. Plenty of time with no food (bought with money) and you will die, plenty of work with no time you die (burnout).
I will ring you FWord, when I get the either the jet or the money that can afford such things
I may not be at peace though.D
Those are good points. I'm just happy that getting fat is part of the deal. Ever since I started work, all I ever do is put on weight! LOL
wealth4life.com wrote:Hello DWOr a rich person owns 4 houses with no debts …
D
IMHO, 'rich' defines a state where a person is at peace and happy with what he/ she has. If that's the case, very few people are actually 'rich'.
ambosh wrote:If I was a gambler and had the time again – id wait until property prices in Sydney/Melbourne come down. Its not a question of if – its a question of when and by how much.True. That's as certain as death and taxes. But if you bought prime property, would you actually lose money over the long term?
Marshes wrote:Does anyone know what this dob in line is ? i did a google search and couldnt find it.Honestly I haven't tried looking for it. I'm so nauseatingly disgusted by the thought of such a scheme that I'm hoping the number will never be found by anyone.
god_of_money wrote:If I have millions of dollars… I will of course buy the properties in Syd/Melb/Bris (as they will never go to ZERO value)More to the point. If you buy substantial, well-located properties in these areas, you wouldn't lose money over the long term. Now that's my prediction in terms of where the property market is headed.
Importantly though, who doesn't already know that good property always appreciates in value?
In the past I said this before but I'm going to say it again: Yer pays yer money, and yer takes yer chances. Nobody has any clue which way the market is headed. If it were this easy to make money, financial advisers and stock market chartists wouldn't exist. They'd be living the high life in the Bahamas, not talking on the news about which way the market is headed. By the way, they're wrong like 50% of the time, but like fund managers, these folk still get paid for being fantastically incorrect in their predictions.
Speaking of investors from China however…I thought it was no longer possible for temporary residents to fly in, buy a million dollar house and fly out same day, leaving it vacant for months. Didn't they tighten the rules on foreign investment recently and even add in a witch-hunt style 'dob-in' line? IMHO this was a sensitive thing to do and just provides the means to provoke long-time residents.
I'm a busy permanent resident who moved into my house 6 months ago but spend 12 hours a day working and away from home. One day my observant neighbour actually asks if I'm moving in or gonna leave my house vacant. Fancy that! For a moment I was very insulted and angry at such an accusation, for the assumption that I'm some loaded foreigner who buys houses for the sake of doing so and then leaving it vacant.
I barely have the money to afford my mortgage and feed myself, let alone to leave it vacant. But before I blurted anything out I realised that my neighbour probably said this only because the media had put poison in his mind: that absolutely any foreigner you see on the street is guilty of such travesty.
blaze wrote:i was thinking like clayton, oakleigh, glen waverley, blackburn, and wonder if anything is closer and yet still within my range.My suggestion is, if you're looking in those areas for houses within your price range, then buy already and get your foot in the door. Because it won't be in your price range for very much longer. I regretted not playing all my cards early in the search for a house. The difference was just 1-2 months, but I was pretty much knocked right out of places like Vermont/ Vermont South, Mitcham and Nunawading in that short space of time. Ringwood was next but it didn't take long for that race to end either, so I ended up even further out.
Which brings me back to my point again: if you're looking to buy well-located property that's only just within your price range, don't hesitate, or all will be lost and you'll be pushed further out.
I'm sure there have been cases where people spend literally a year or so looking for that 'perfect' home. And by the time they find it, they're either $100K worse off, or have to buy something further out for exactly the same price.
wealth4life.com wrote:In 1980 a millionaire bought a waterfront in Hunters Hill Sydney for $400,000.00 today the same property is worth $6 million dollars so how much is a millionaire worth today to be called a millionaire?
'Millionaire' is so 'yesterday'. These days, 'billionaire' is all the buzz.
It is sad when we think about how 'cheap' things used to be. Very soon however, our children will be looking at our houses and thinking, 'What? You paid only $400K for that? These days I'm looking at a run-down townhouse on 250sqm of land 10km further out, and that's at least $500K!!'
In fact I have reason to believe that we are going to see a trend where houses simply get handed down through the generations as wealth dilutes. People no longer have to buy houses to live in. They inherit them.
blaze wrote:…but houses in east/ south east/ bayside zone 2 area still under 500K, definitely!Uh, yeah. But not anywhere 'close' to the city. When I think 'close', I think within 10kms of the CBD. There's plenty of cheap housing out there. For example, Tyabb…Hastings. Cranbourne? Tick. Narre Warren? Double tick that. But do you necessarily want to live there and commute to the CBD everyday? If however, you work somewhere closer like Frankston, then it's definitely doable.
karen. wrote:so if u take the whole process into consideration from beginning to end will walk away with $50k in the hand, plus whatever tax benefits we had last year and this year.
That's fantastic! Can't argue with an extra $50K…it'd take me more than a year to earn that from my job too.
Nice job there. It was a good time to buy back then, before it got super-duper crazy in the second half of '09. People who did buy in that second half and under competition probably overpaid but the market might have caught up already by now.
Just out of interest however, after costs of selling and capital gains tax, how much profit did you get?
Haha, I think this whole thing is a joke. Nevertheless, humour was one of the things requested, amongst other things like 'help' and 'advice'. I'm stuck in the shits myself and hence no advice shall be given, and neither am I well-endowed enough to help, so humour is the way to go.
By the way, while we're at it…my dream house is a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom shack by the sea costing under $550K. Anyone wanna donate to that? ROFL
god_of_money wrote:People will flock into safe haven invesment again…..This is precisely the reason cited for the AU$ hitting the pits of late, and no end in sight, it seems.
Hi there, EM,
I'm a large investor with significant holdings in both shares and property. My portfolio has been expanding over the last 12 years and the sole beneficiaries are people such as yourself who require a roof over your head and basic necessities for life. We do not judge by socioeconomic status, race or age.
Unfortunately, our company will only subsidise detached houses within 25km of the Melbourne CBD that are worth $210,000 or less as we believe a house costing over $2 million classifies as a luxurious castle, not the shack in a slum that we advocate people to live in.
Sorry buddy!
Call on me when you actually find a detached house in metro Victoria worth $210,000 or less, and we can discuss.
IF you can find one. LOL
IMHO there's no such thing as 'too late to invest'. It's only 'too late' when you're priced out, otherwise if you take a long term view I'm sure everything close to infrastructure is going to be worth its weight in diamonds eventually. Property works this way obviously because once you put your foot on a property and make it yours, nobody can take that location from you. And nobody can replicate that location completely either.
I may not be at peace though.
