- fWord wrote:Definition of 'profit taking' from Investopedia:
"The action of selling stock to cash in on a sharp rise. This action pushes prices down temporarily. When traders are profit taking, the implication is that there is an upward trend in the security."
The word 'demand' does not appear even once in all the posts above, let alone my own response. To use 'profit taking' and 'demand' as consecutive terms in a single sentence is seriously twisted. 'Profit taking' is the act of cashing in by selling, not by buying. Hence, 'profit taking' is not based on 'demand', or the number of people wanting to buy. It's based on the number of people wanting to sell.Without sounding direct, I'd appreciate if you didn't misrepresent my statements to substantiate your own.
Investopedia is vested. It''s just the same as bublepedia. Let's use a dictionary, it has no interest in the debate at all.
profit – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/profit
taking – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/taking
demand – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demandThe presumumtion of profits to be taken lead to demand. It's a logical conclusion.
fWord wrote:Well, this highlights the crux of the problem: it's about 'wants' and not 'needs'. There's plenty of houses out there, but everybody 'wants' a perfect house in what they deem to be a perfect area. That's not physically possible, hence the shortfall of certain kinds of property, in certain kinds of areas/ suburbs. Imagine 60 people boarding a bus with 30 double seats. The bus can fit 60 people, so there's enough seats for everyone. Yet, everyone 'wants' a window seat, and there's only 30 of them.So there is a shortfall of 30 window seats. So after all the window seats are filled, the remaining 30 people can choose to either sit in a non window seat, or stand. Or they can leave the bus and take their chances at the next one that arrives. They 'want' a window seat of course, but not everybody can have one. Same with houses. I admit, people need a roof over their heads. Housing is considered by most to be a basic necessity and a form of security. But when people unrealistically 'want' and expect to all be able to squeeze into a small area around the CBD, that's when the problem starts.
I believe that in the context of the words 'oversupply' and 'undersupply', quite simply, there is an 'oversupply' of property in places where people do not want to live (or otherwise do not want that type of property) and an 'undersupply' of property in places where people want to live (or otherwise want a certain type) of property. And in this instance I agree with you. There is NOT a true shortfall, just a shortfall where people want to live. But for all intents and purposes, unless people change their mindset and buy what they can afford, they will continue to believe that affordable property in the areas they desire is in really short supply.
We agree here. I don't get why this is even being debated? I am saying there is (or was) a demand shortfall only.
fWord wrote:Same with property. Is property not in high demand? I believe so, considering the number of FHB out there trying to get themselves into a new home.It definately was – I don't think there are as many FHBs as there are homes trying to get themselves into one ATM. The boost brought them all forward.
fWord wrote:I know of at least two old colleagues who chose to blow their chance at a first home. One of them was saving well, and then blew the money on a new car and a two week holiday. The other colleague also had great plans in mind, and then promptly got a new phone plan to get a fancy phone, and bought a sports bike together with all the other gear to go with it.Do they want a house? They sure do, but they don't want it badly enough I suppose.
So why can food be in high demand and shelves still be stocked? Two possible reasons:
1. There is not enough food where it's really needed or wanted.
2. Food is expensive and not everyone can afford to buy them.
Replace the word 'food' with the word 'houses' in both those points and we'll see this is exactly what's happening in the world of housing.
Again, we agree. I really dont get what is going on with this debate?
Houses of a certain type may be too in demand, or houses may be too expensive, or both.
I was debating wether or not there was a shortfall only. I agree there was a shortfall based on demand and now that demand is dropping, there is no shortfall. I was saying there never was a physical shortfall – like the food example we both agree on.
fWord wrote:Not gonna repeat myself again.
Perhaps.ummester wrote:Investopedia is vested. It''s just the same as bublepedia. Let's use a dictionary, it has no interest in the debate at all.profit – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/profit
taking – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/taking
demand – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demandThe presumumtion of profits to be taken lead to demand. It's a logical conclusion.
Haha, this one made me chuckle. Not trying to host an English lesson here, but we'd do well to look up the meaning of the full phrase 'profit taking', rather than to look up just the meaning of each word and then assume it implies something else.
To use a blatant example, without directing this at anyone of course,
Let's consider the meaning of the phrase 'you suck'.
If you only search out the meaning of 'you' and then combine that with the meaning of 'suck', neither of the meanings point to the rather inflammatory nature of the actual phrase. We would be foolish to assume someone were giving us an 'instruction' on what to do, rather than recognising it for what it really is: an insult.
ummester wrote:We agree here. I don't get why this is even being debated? I am saying there is (or was) a demand shortfall only.We debate this for three reasons:
1. To refute the statement that "the use of the word shortfall is invalid". On the contrary, the use of that word is entirely valid. There IS a shortfall, 'physical'-related, 'demand'-related, 'credit fueled', 'profit based' or any other term we wish to attach it to. Whatever the reason is, there IS an undersupply.
2. To highlight the unrealistic opinions of homebuyers, that the house that they want, and in an area that they desire, should be affordable. There IS a shortfall of these sorts of properties, so be prepared to pay accordingly.
3. To state that the shortfall is not merely in the face of 'profit based', 'profit taking' or 'credit fueled' demand. Not all FHB are out to make a buck from property investing. They however, still desire property that is well located (eg. near beach, trendy cafes, transport, in tree-lined streets), within minutes of their workplace, close to friends, amongst the 'Joneses' etc. They desire such property not just (and maybe not at all) for the sake of 'profit taking'.
ummester wrote:It definately was – I don't think there are as many FHBs as there are homes trying to get themselves into one ATM. The boost brought them all forward.'Was'? I'd say 'is'! Just because people aren't on the streets lining up for an OFI doesn't mean they aren't saving up to buy a house. Of course, there's others busy preparing for a FHB strike, or voicing their opinion on a forum or a blog. But they want a house. That's why they do what they do. Just because they aren't buying now doesn't mean the demand is not there. The price, or maybe the time is just not right for them.
Think about this: a cheetah is out on the prowl. She sights a herd of prey animals but is in the process of singling out the weakest one to pursue. She continues to slink and move ever closer. She doesn't strike yet, but it doesn't mean she ain't hungry, or that she doesn't have cubs to feed. The time is just not right yet. Or perhaps the risk of injury is too great.
ummester wrote:…now that demand is dropping, there is no shortfall.Let's step back to your earlier statement:
ummester wrote:…if there was a shortage of food, yes, the shelves would be empty. But food can be in high demand and the shelves still be stocked.The purpose of my debate was to spell out how there can be a shortage of something and yet still see a good degree of that object floating around for sale. And so we need to refer back even earlier to another statement:
ummester wrote:Surely increasing stock levels in every state disprove this.Not in my opinion. There can be plenty of stock floating around but that doesn't mean there isn't a shortage of housing. So, spelling it out more clearly, the stock currently on the market is likely:
1. Not located in an area where its needed or wanted.
2. Expensive, and not everyone can buy it.
There is STILL a shortage of housing.
ummester wrote:fWord wrote:Not gonna repeat myself again.
Perhaps.Unfortunately I feel compelled to do so. The message ain't getting across. Just wish my personal values didn't make me feel guilty for wasting time here trying to set things straight. This is an excellent discussion, however.
Boys, semantics! Now you're getting into is it a singular, feminine, second person, indicative being used to qualify a verb acting as either an adverb or possibly an adjective…….let's call it a draw hey? You both put forward great arguments for your respective positions but in the end: you too-may-tow, i say toe-mar-toe.
lol……..
.. seconded………I agree with ALF1 here – it is going to end up in a debate of semantics.
if you tell me I suck, I ask what? What do I suck? You suck is incomplete:)
Obviously we have a totally different take on what a shortage is.
I would argue there is not a shortage of seats on your bus, just an excess of unreasonable people, But a big problem with people is that they seldom want to blame themselves for anything, so convincing the people on the bus that they are the problem and not the bus is an impossible task.
Just entertain the notion for an instant that house prices may correct by 25% or so. If they did, would there still be a shortage?
LOL!!!! Oh come on guys! Now it's going to be that battle of who gets in the last knife, I mean word. It has been great reading but you guys could end up writing another book like Dianetics and then what has the world got? 2 more loopy religions that can't agree on anything. But it has been a hoot!
ALF1 wrote:LOL!!!! Oh come on guys! Now it's going to be that battle of who gets in the last knife, I mean word. It has been great reading but you guys could end up writing another book like Dianetics and then what has the world got? 2 more loopy religions that can't agree on anything. But it has been a hoot!You started it with your shortage claim:)
Yeah (my head is down and I am now red faced), I am guilty as charged. I lit the match that started a crown bushfire the likes of which this forum may never see again. Sorry guys!
Hey, what your guys thoughts on the sweat glands of the hybrid South American Yak?lol…………First time i actually laughed in these forums
One Team one Dream
ALF1 wrote:…semantics!Haha, just the word I was thinking of. However I delight in the details.
ummester wrote:if you tell me I suck, I ask what? What do I suck? You suck is incompleteOnce again, not directed at anybody. However if I had that comment directed my way, given an appropriate context, I'd know what it meant. I'd be surprised if you didn't.
ummester wrote:I would argue there is not a shortage of seats on your bus, just an excess of unreasonable people, But a big problem with people is that they seldom want to blame themselves for anything, so convincing the people on the bus that they are the problem and not the bus is an impossible task.Precisely the problem we have in Australia. People cannot accept making a humble start with their first home. They cannot accept that $200K houses do exist, and it'd take them roughly the same time to travel from that house to the CBD compared to a house in an outer suburb that costs $400-500K.
I think people haven't quite gotten it into their heads that if it takes the same amount of time to travel from what would be called a 'regional centre' to the CBD, compared to traveling from an 'outer suburb' to the CBD, then the said 'regional centre' is really now an 'outer suburb' of a capital city. They have a truly affordable house with a family backyard well within their grasp.
But of course, I cannot convince people that their thinking can be widened beyond their current boundaries. They simply cannot get over the thought that the government (or worse, all investors) is the cause of all their problems. They want a 'window seat', and would rather stand around complaining than just take the seat that's available.
ALF1 wrote:Hey, what your guys thoughts on the sweat glands of the hybrid South American Yak?Oh, don't get me started on that. *pretends to know a lot*
ALF1 wrote:LOL!!!! Oh come on guys! Now it's going to be that battle of who gets in the last knife, I mean word. It has been great reading but you guys could end up writing another book like Dianetics and then what has the world got? 2 more loopy religions that can't agree on anything. But it has been a hoot!Fair enough. I shall sign off here. No more posts on this thread from me regarding anything to do with this debate. Speaking of religion, I know enough to say that the last word shall not come from me.
However, on the topic of sweat glands, count me in!
Fword I think times have changed mate. House r way more then they use to b because of the massive jump. I no ppl now that trying to buy crap houses as cheap as possible and as close as possible and still a lot of money unafffordable. Also factor in that ppl want to also live near family friends and I think that fair enough window seat. I now no that 6-10years ago piece of pis to buy and that what happened then the big jump in price is a once in a hundred year thing (figure of speach) someone tell me before that that it happened, exactly it never has. I’m on diff boat I earn good dosh now and I can understand and c for the others who earn less.
.. seconded………
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
