Forum Replies Created
- Casper_1000 wrote:I'm looking at getting home insulation with the current $1600 government rebate. There are a few products available with certain companies installing their own products. The products I've found thus far are: Pink Batts ThermoSealed BATTS – http://www.thermosealedbatts.com.au Autex Greenstuff Blow-In Insulation Does anyone have any experience with one product being better than another? Thanks.
I'd stay away from the Blow-in and if it was for me I'd go with the Pink Batts, specially if I didn't have to install it myself.
gmh454 wrote:Sunday Fin review listed by % the top falls out of the mill dollar club by suburbs, and Perth lead off with the top 4.South freemantle 24.76%
Median prices are not telling the real story, if anything property prices in South Fremantle actually went up last year. Median prices got screwed up when the South Beach estate opened up and artificially inflated the median prices with dozens of new $1.5M+ beachside properties hitting the market in the previous 2-3 years. Taking them out of the equation would remove the spike and put the real growth/fall much closer to the neighboring suburbs of Fremantle, East Fremantle and White Gum Valley.
The same thing is now happening next door in North Beach aka North Coogee where the new beachside estate has pushed up the medians above $1.2M or up by 37%. (strange choice for a name because North Beach is actually just South of the South Beach
)A few other suburbs on that list got there after new estates with average 500sqm lots lowered the medians of mainly lifestyle acreage property suburbs. I'm not saying that all the medians were wrong but any median that fell more then the WA average is suspicious.
ummester wrote:Harb,The amount saved is extremely rlevant to someone who wants to keep their current standard of living. Quite simply, if I borrow more than 250k from the bank and interest rates are back at the long term average of 8%, my standard of living will be less than it currently is renting. I will enter the market when I can do so without decreasing my standard of living. FHB increased his standard of living by buying, though he admitted the property would probably de-value a little over the next couple of years, he now has more to spend than he did whilst renting..
I see you manged to not comment on this " They were either true bears and something changed their mind about the long awaited crash or they were only make believe bears until they found a place to buy." by bringing the standard of living into it. At least you admitted that the main problem is not housing affordability but rather the high standards that FHBs are now demanding.Quote:You are fun to argue with Harb, but I recon a couple of the less resiliant bulls are getting annoyed with my posts. I should leave it for a while and come back to continue some time in the future.No worries but you don't have to leave because of the bulls here. Unlike the bears forum over here you don't get suspended or abused for having opposing views.
happyjack72 wrote:Hi guys,
I was wondering if any of you great people could recommend a solicitor in Perth?
Someone who understands investing (property, share trading) and business, as well as able to give excellent accounting service.
And someone who is available at short notice for advice, meetings, etc.
(Oh, and doesn't charge exorbitantly!!!)Thanks.
Good luck in your quest, when you find one that does all that please post his details here. I'm also interested in someone like that. .
ummester wrote:I know of one GHPCer (FHB) who purchased. FHB had almost 400k saved and brought into the middle of the market – which had experienced some significant falls. Another GHPCer (HG) is considerring building on land be donated by parents subdivision. These cases represent good value for money and no change in the standard of living for the buyers. I would proabbly buy in similar situations.How is the amount saved relevant ? They were either true bears and something changed their mind about the long awaited crash or they were only make believe bears until they found a place to buy. And didn't know about HG.
Quote:Who became a PI? Are you refferring to RumpledElf who has a couple of hovels in the outback and can't believe how much REAs are telling him they are worth?That's 2 more hovels then most of the remaining "bears" have. And she probably calls them hovels so the more spiteful bears won't gang up and have her banned. I was surprised at how hateful of anyone with properties and in particular baby boomers some of your mates have become in the past year. I guess its all that pent up frustration.
Quote:Surely a 2 beddroom townhouse @ 370k is a distortion next to a 4 beddy freestanding @ 400k? The townhouse is selling for what it is because of the FHBG boost, nothing else.Now it may be but wait until the 4 beddy @ 400k is sold and next one is 500K+ on even smaller land. The townhouse would start to look like really good value then. .
ummester wrote:harb wrote:If you took the time to look into it properly instead of just dismise it off hand you'd find that its a positive step towards bringing affordable houses to FHBs.Not as big a step as a crash
That is a despicable thing to say. You ride around on your high horses preaching idealistic claptrap when in reality you're after a cheap home at the expense of some poor unfortunate family who is forced to sell, perhaps due to some tragic circumstances. You bears are going on about the evil property investors when in reality you are nothing but a pack of vultures preying on the corpses of weak and helpless FHBs. Shame on you.
Quote:I see nothing in Australia to make it any more special with regards to property than the rest of the world. I see no reason why this credit crunch/depression/GFC thing won't have the same effect here. Just like the American bank bailouts are failing over there, our governments housing bailouts will fail here.I'm not sure why you think that we are different, We did have property corrections in some suburbs just like they did in US and UK. Not every place in US and UK dropped 40%, in fact if I remember right the average prices correction in UK was about 10% which is close enough with what we had here. And if you believe the OECD ,
"The recession may be over in Britain by August, international experts said yesterday.
The influential Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development said output was still shrinking but there were clear signs of recovery.
Its predictions were backed up by a range of figures on the economy"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1180363/Recession-August-says-OECD-housing-market-perks-up.html
I had a peek at your site to see the reaction to the budget and since I haven't been there in a while I spent a bit of time looking for old faces. A few bought a house and moved on or mellowed, the bulls got banished for being bullish and the remainder of the "bears" seemed frustrated by the same thing you are – that Australia somehow defies the rest of the world. Well guess what, it didn't but you guys were so focused on your 40% crash that you missed the bottom. Its interesting that out of the 3 mods there a year ago 2 have bought a house and one has gone a step further and is now a property investor. Obviously they were the smarter ones amongst bears because they didn't need some economist to tell them that we've hit the bottom six months ago.Quote:Besides, if you can trust 'em (which I know is a big ask), it seems like the fed may realize that the future I see is inevitable and they are weening us of the boost as a result.Hehehe, you kept your eyes on the FHOG prize and missed Rudd's sleight of hand which will encourages people to invest in property. What effects do you think changing the retiring age and locking people out of super until 67 will have on property investments ? It was going downhill since Howard offered tax free incentives to baby boomers to transfer their wealth into super. The latest budget plus the poor super returns this financial year will reverse all that nonsense and make property investing to provide for your retirement (at whatever age you chose to do it) popular once again. Would YOU put any extra money in super if you can't access or control any of it until 67 or would you rather invest it in something more solid like houses and retire at 50 if you wish ?
I have to admit that I never liked Rudd before or ever voted ALP before but I will next time, which could be sooner then expected. To all the bears who voted for him Thank You..
ummester wrote:Harb,If the federal governement does put this into effect, I will start applying for an OS transfer. It will destroy the country down the track and the scary thing is, I wouldn't put it entirely passed them.
I've been hearing this from bears 3-4 years ago, if property doesn't crash in the next 12 months I'm leaving the country , blah blah, blah. Funny thing is not only that years later they're still here but some have even bought houses since then and are now bullish on property. The scheme will initially push up prices for the first few months but after that they will stabilize just like they did in WA and FHBs will be the winners. Lately I've been hearing similar comments about leaving WA from the daylight saving fruit loops. If WA doesn't introduce daylight saving I'm moving to the Eastern states, blah, blah, blah. They are going to lose the referendum so let's see how many of them actually do leave.
rayd wrote:Can i throw something into this debate? Not sure if you have done work on this but no one seems to mention anything about lower funds coming from securitisation markets. Ie NAB/WBC/ANZ fund c40-45% of their loan books (both residential and commercial) through "whole sale" markets, the rest coming from deposits. With the advent of the GFC, this has seen these markets come to a grinding halt (some signs of thawing are emerging).They managed to handle the rush of FHBs reasonable well even at the peak of the GFC and as you said "some signs of thawing are emerging" so it can't be much of a worry. We'll have to wait for the increased FHOG to finish and see what exactly they replace it with. A 40% shared equity scheme using the FF would be nice, even if ummester doesn't think so.
ummester wrote:Honestly, I don't think the world owes me a thing.You must be the rare exception on that forum or maybe after waiting for so many years for a crash most of the posters there grew up ?
Quote:Scares me out of buying and I have got more chance of finding another poster worth scaring here than GHPC, haven't I?I'm sure you are right, most of the old posters on GHPC who could afford to buy a property probably did so already over the past 9 months as they didn't want to miss out again.
Quote:Now, as to this WA FHBs scheme, are we still talking about the same one?http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,,24360071-2761,00.html
A black hole for all of Australia's finances doesn't sound too promising to me.
Why has the maximum government equity decreased?
So you done a bit of research on it .
The black hole had nothing to do with the scheme, it swas just an excuse to break election promises after the GFC reduced their revenues. The scheme itself was a victim of its popularity, they've ran out of budgeted funds in half the expected time. Because of that they had to pump ,ore money onto it but reduced the equity to make sure the funds lasted until June. After that the feds are probably taking it over as replacement for the FHOG and by using some of the Future Fund investments they can run the scheme forever and a day, diversify the fund and best of all they can look like the working class heroes without costing them a cent. Double dissolution here we come, the Libs will be licking their wounds for at least a decade.
Since WA went through 300M in 1.5 years at 40% a couple of billions a year would probably be more then enough to keep the scheme running nationwide at 25% so I'm surprised they didn't use some of money from the second Stimulus package for that.Here is was the WA ALP trying to score browny points with voters had to say recently,
http://www.wa.alp.org.au/news/0409/24-02.php
Btw, did you know that we had a FHOG in WA since at least mid 80's ? Bloody feds are pinching all our good ideas.
ummester wrote:So your basic reasoning for exponential property value increase is proximity to a city as the city expands. There is some logic in that, so long as everyone has to work in proximity to the city.
Of course there is, the city expands and with increased population comes increased demand and competition for limited and desirable space.
Quote:Catch is, the property will only make you rich if the majority of people working in the city are still relatively poor. As soon as the majority of people can no longer afford to stay or workplaces are de-centralised to accomodate employees being able to work from affordable locations, the illusion of that wealth will fade because demand will drop.
But the majority can afford to stay. You seem to ignore two facts,
– prices got so high near the city because buyers could afford to pay that much and people were prepared to pay more to live in their chosen location.
– a vast majority of owners has only payed a fraction of the current prices, its the Johnny-come-latelies who for whatever reason payed big bucks for the privilege of living in their desired area. You don't need to buy there and its a lifestyle choice but if you want to join them then you have to pay the price.
Quote:I've had this debate with someone from the ACT who believes ACT property will never crash as bad as the rest of Australia because employment in Canberra is so much stronger. At first glance the argument makes sense but it doesn't take the logical results into account. If Australia crashed and Canbera didn't then doing something as simple as food shopping would have to cost twice as much in Canberra to support it. People aren't stupid, they would go elsewhere to buy food. Then certain industrys would fall over in Canberra and a financial domino effect would start.Canberra is the only capital city that can expand in all 4 directions, has no real industry, produces nothing but hot air and it exists by sponging off the states. I believe that if we ever have a major and long lasting economic downturn then the pollies would have to cut down expenditure. They would cut down the number of public servants, advisers and contractors in Canberra and I'm guessing a lot of them would have bought their second home in Canberra to save on traveling and which would now be sold off. I can't see Australia crashing and Canberra not but I could see how in a crash Canberra would be the worst hit.
Not sure where you're going with your food argument, are you saying people will drive to Sydney for groceries to save $50 /week ? Perhaps if they drive a taxpayer funded vehicle and they enjoy driving otherwise they would be stupid.
Quote:No market is an island. It's all connected and has to take the lowest income required to keep a region functioning into account. If you prices waitresses out of the market, you have to carry your own coffee. If you price cops, fireys and nurses out of the market you get to arrest you own crims, put out your own fires and change your own bedpans in hospital.
[/quote]
I'm not sure how familiar you are with Perth suburbs so let's look at Sydney. Are you saying that currently the customers at Mosman Noodle bar have to carry their own coffes and wash their own plates because the waitress and dishwasher was priced out of the market ? There aren't too many young "cops, fireys and nurses" who can afford to buy a house there but I'm yet to hear of any residents there catching their own crims, putting out their own fires or performing surgery on themselves.
Your "cops, fireys and nurses" can go and buy a property in Campbelltown and look for work there or if there is none locally and they need the work they can commute to Mosman.You seem to use the same twisted logic that your mates do who think the world owes you a living and a home in your chosen area because you want it really bad. Well guess what, we don't always get what we want and if you want to live in your chosen location you will have to outbid the competition. Get off your arse and make it happen, and I don't mean pasting bearish news articles on a forum and waiting for a crash to happen.
If you really believe all that stuff then why don't you put your money where your mouth is, go and buy a place in a region where houses are much more affordable and take your skills there. Like Broken Hill for example, lots of affordable houses under $100k and all in walking distance to shops and town center.
Why do you insist on looking for a house in Canberra, where you have to compete against lots of buyers determined to outbid you and prepared to pay ridiculous prices just because of the location, when for a fraction of the cost you can buy a house in Broken Hill and walk to work ?
Quote:But thats ok, coz you have an acre of dirt that's worth a fortune:)
I wish I had parents who left me an acre of dirt in or near the city, or even a bit of dirt in a small country town for that matter..Anyway, its not the size that matters but what you do with it.
But not to worry, if the rumors are true and WA stops the scheme because Swan is taking the First Start nationwide then houses will become affordable to everyone once again. The scheme was so popular here that it ran out of its first 3 years budget in just 1.5 years, but that shouldn't be a problem if the scheme goes nationwide because there is plenty to go around in the Future Fund. Lets hope they copy the original 40% limit and make it available to everyone not just the FHBs.
ummester wrote:So, from 1900 to 1980 that is (80 years) prices trippled.Haven't looked at the 1900 figures but I'm sure that you did.
I'm guessing that you used the median prices to work out the growth ?
Prices were cheaper then now in the 80's but I seriously doubt you could find a house on a few acres block along the river in say Mosman Park for $30K. By 1980's your 1900's median Perth property would have been worth 7 figures and possibly 8 if in the CBD area. By 1980's it was probably subdivided a few times or had a multi-story residential apartments block or office building on top of it. But nice try.Quote:The growth over the first 80 years was stable and if you draw a line from it represents what the cost of houses in a stable industry would be today. Long term trend is for prices to double every 20 odd years, which means that they should be starteing at around 200k now.
They start a lot lower then that, here are a few examples that a quick search uncovered :
And there is plenty more where that came from.
Quote:Not true.
http://www.rba.gov.au/monetarypolicy/about_monetary_policy.html
I think it is probably the other way around – monetary policy now owns our government.
You may want to think that but who (employed) appointed Glenn Stevens to the board ?
And who is the RBA accountable to ?
You must have missed this page , http://www.rba.gov.au/AboutTheRBA/governance_and_accountability_of_the_rba.html#accountability_to_parliament
If I employ you and and demand that you report to me twice a year you are not independent, you work for me.
Quote:But it would be a false economy? The state government would be making revenue of debt it is creating. There is already too much debt, that is why the system is currently correcting.
Not for the government. You'd be the one in debt and they want you in debt so you can continue to go to work every day for the rest of your life and pay them taxes.
Of course if you weren't so precious about locations and just wanted your own home you could have used the 14K grant as a deposit on one of the beauties I gave you above as examples. Even if you had to take out a loan the repayments would be minuscule and you could live happily ever after on unemployment benefits or take a part time job if you got bored.ummester wrote:It was nothing like the last 10 years and you know it. If it was you would be living in Monaco yourself.
Here in Perth house prices jumped from around 30K in early 0s to 100k+ by the end of the 80s.m not sure about the rest of the country since I wasn't following that at the time. I hate crowds, why would I want to live in Monaco ?
Quote:Governement doesn't own the printing press, RBA does.And the government owns the RBA.
Quote:I'll have to read more about it but, at a quick glance, it looks a little similar to the ACTs land rent deal, where the governement rents the land to the mortgage holder who just has a loan on the house.No renting involved, you buy the house in partnership with the government. They come in with their 25% share of the valuation (used to be 40% in the beginning) and take 25% of the selling price. You only need to borrow 75% from the bank and even less after the FHOG. To buy them out you have a valuation and pay them their 25% share. Just like getting into property investing with your cashed up Big Brother.
I forgot all about the scheme until I saw one of your fury mates bring it up recently and the more I thought about it the more it looked like a good idea and a real alternative to the FHOG. The government can stop handing out free money without upsetting the crowd and can gradually balance the Future Fund portfolio with property investments. The extra property sales and increasing prices would also increase fed and state revenue which they desperately need.Quote:What happens if the homeowner can't pay the mortgage? What happens if the owner wants to sell but the minimum price can't be achieved?Same thing that would happen now, only your repayments are 75% of what they would otherwise be, Why would the owner want to sell at a loss when the repayments would be lower then renting the place ?
Quote:Besides the what ifs, have you ever in your life time thought the the governement would have to lend normal working people 25% of the price of a house just so that they can afford it? Doesn't this ring any kind of alarm bells with you?Sure does, just different kind of bells to yours. To WA it wouldn't make much difference but Sydney and Melbourne could benefit from it. Could push Sydney median prices back to the old 2x Perth median prices .
ummester wrote:I am saying that for home prices to be back in line with long term wage growth that they will either have to devalue 30% across the board or stagnate for a decade.But why would they remain in line with wage growth ? Here is something to toy with , what if population growth keept a lid on the wage growth and fuelled the growth in property prices ?
Quote:Even you must realize that the capital growth in housing over the last 10 years is an abberation Harb?
Why is that? We had a flat period in the 90s and simply made up for it. How about the 80's , was that an aberration as well ?
Quote:You've been in the PI game long enough to know what sustainable growth looks like. There are only 2 ways prices can go from here, down or flat for a long time.Yeah, been around for a while now. Which is why I know that prices can also go up, usually when they are the least suspected to do so.
Quote:Yes, I agree with you that our governement, through vested interest and fear of ending up where America is today or Japan has been for the last 10 years, are fighting as hard as they can to prevent either massive price deflation or stagnation. No, they won't be able to avert it. They are probably making things worse.You can bet against the government but just remember who's got the printing press before you put your money on deflation or stagnation.
Quote:Our banks don't want to loan to FHBs using the boost any more. What does that tell you about the financial stability of Australia's housing market?Which is why the government is probably not going to extend it and I don't believe they will lose revenue by giving the buyers a tax break.
Its possible they will take the tried and tested First Start Shared Equity scheme used in WA by Keystart and modify it to suit the results they want to obtain. Instead of a 95% loan the FHB would only need to borrow 60%-80% of the valuation and the government would be in control of prices by simply adjusting the amount of equity available to them. As a bonus of using some of the Future Fund money to invest in the scheme they are also guaranteed some stability in case of another stock market crash.
Now that is something to give the bears recurrent nightmares and cause them to wake up in cold sweats.SydneySider2000 wrote:By the time she saved her 50% deposit it was late 1984. In early 1985, she approached the same agent to offer to buy the same flat the we had rented
and was shocked that the owner now want $25k more. My mother could have bought the flat then in 1983 for around $50k and in early 1985 the same flat
was priced at $75k.Welcome to the board SydneySider2000,
Your mum was lucky to be able to save 50% so quick. These days most FHBs want to jump straight into a nice 4br house in the $4-500K range and trying to save a 50% deposit in 2-3 years while paying at least 1/3 of your take home pay in rent its hard even for the above average wage earners. But then they'd probably be looking to buy in the above average price range. ummester wrote:You don't deny the top is coming down and that the mediun has decreased. I don't deny that the FHB boost has spiked the bottom. .How is the $15M house now selling for $10M going to make housing affordable for you if you are looking in the $500K market which is actually going up ? Besides, not all the upper market properties are going down.
[/quote]
You know, though, that I would preffer to give up the dream of home ownership than pay more than what I think is fair price.
.[/quote]
Be careful not to cut off your nose just to spite your face.[/quote]
As a renter, I am currently saving 25%+ of my gross income. That's a decade of saving to buy at the bottom of the market. If prices double again in the next 10 years, I agree that I get priced out (without getting a loan).
[/quote]
Are you saying that prices will stay this low for a decade ?
In percentage terms you may look like you are saving but look at it in dollar terms. Look at the amount of $$$ you really saved in the past 12 months and then look at how much houses in your price range would increase if population growth didn't play a part and prices only kept up with inflation.Quote:Things are accelerating now, our debate is going to come to a close before 2010 is out. I am sure that if it wasn't for Rudd bankrupting the country, our debate would be over already.How original.
I've been reading the same thing for a long time now, only back then the years began with 199X and it was Howard bankrupting the country.
)
