Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
WA Credit Rating Downgraded Again - Moody's
Topic Started: 25 Aug 2014, 04:29 PM (5,441 Views)
Jimbo
Member Avatar


Mike
26 Aug 2014, 07:30 PM
What about 2011, you claimed it was on the market for $800,000. I can find many different sources that shows this property was on the market in 2008 for $595,000. How did you get that wrong as well.

Mike, I made a remark in relation to a tiny 3x1 being on at 389k when there was this much nicer and bigger house very close to the beach for just 200k more.

I recounted from memory that I had offered 850k when it was listed at 1.2mil in 2007. I have a copy of the offer in my possession.

I stated that it had reduced to 800k in 2011 as a means of showing that they should have accepted my offer of 850k (but I am glad they didn't). As it turns out is was listed at 595k in 2011.

Actual data shows that it was reduced to 975k in 2008 and then further to 859k. I got my years a bit mixed up, but nothing I said would have changed the outcome of my original comment.

Now I know you claim to be a genius and everything, so you should be able to deduce that if a property was listed at 975k in 2008, it was probably listed for a few bob more in 2007 (because the market turned down in 2007 and into 2008).

But let's assume anyway that I am a total liar trying to use scare stories to influence the property market (because posters on blogs can do that can't they?).

Original listing in 2008 (after a downturn) 975k. Listing in 2011 595k, listing now 599k and not sold after 5 weeks.

So my original point still stands.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing.


Now on the population thing.

It is not just the numbers of people that come, it is what they bring with them.

Poms arriving up until 2006 were selling houses in the UK that had doubled in value in a few short years and buying Dollars at 3 to the Pound. UK to Australia immigration went mental once people realised what they could get for their money. However, Poms arriving after 2007 were selling in a property bear market and getting less dollars. The lag between applying to immigrate and actually arriving in Australia averages 18 months.


I know what I am doing Mike. Behind every number there is a story and unless you understand that story, the numbers don't mean much.


Matthew, 30 Jan 2016, 09:21 AM Your simplistic view is so flawed it is not worth debating. The current oversupply will be swallowed in 12 months. By the time dumb shits like you realise this prices will already be :?: rising.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Mike
Default APF Avatar


Jimbo
26 Aug 2014, 08:08 PM




Now on the population thing.

It is not just the numbers of people that come, it is what they bring with them.

Poms arriving up until 2006 were selling houses in the UK that had doubled in value in a few short years and buying Dollars at 3 to the Pound. UK to Australia immigration went mental once people realised what they could get for their money. However, Poms arriving after 2007 were selling in a property bear market and getting less dollars. The lag between applying to immigrate and actually arriving in Australia averages 18 months.


I know what I am doing Mike. Behind every number there is a story and unless you understand that story, the numbers don't mean much.

Quote:
 
Mike, I made a remark in relation to a tiny 3x1 being on at 389k when there was this much nicer and bigger house very close to the beach for just 200k more.

I recounted from memory that I had offered 850k when it was listed at 1.2mil in 2007. I have a copy of the offer in my possession.

I stated that it had reduced to 800k in 2011 as a means of showing that they should have accepted my offer of 850k (but I am glad they didn't). As it turns out is was listed at 595k in 2011.


I dont believe you. No data exists for this listing for the prices you claim. I can find plenty of other listing prices for this property just not the one you claim to have made. End of storey.

Quote:
 
Actual data shows that it was reduced to 975k in 2008 and then further to 859k. I got my years a bit mixed up, but nothing I said would have changed the outcome of my original comment.


Years a bit mixed up, are you kidding. So you forgot that it was listed in 2008 for $859k and instead said it was 2011. Whats 3 years and over $200,000, I guess not much. When you combined it with your first claim of $1.2 million for that property with no data to support such a claim it becomes laughable.

Either you have a very poor memory or you did not tell truth. The latter seems the more likely outcome.

Quote:
 
Now I know you claim to be a genius and everything, so you should be able to deduce that if a property was listed at 975k in 2008, it was probably listed for a few bob more in 2007 (because the market turned down in 2007 and into 2008).


A few bob, $225,000 to be exact, but who cares. Whats a few hundred thousand dollars. You would think it is something you would remeber clearly, making an offer for $850k on a $1.2 million property. Once again it appear like some one is not being completely honest.

Quote:
 
But let's assume anyway that I am a total liar trying to use scare stories to influence the property market (because posters on blogs can do that can't they?).

Original listing in 2008 (after a downturn) 975k. Listing in 2011 595k, listing now 599k and not sold after 5 weeks.

So my original point still stands.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing.


I can find listings for the mentioned property for 2007, none of them even close to $1.2 million. It was orginally listed in 2007 not 2008. Another error by you, opps.

No I am pointing out errors in your storey which are not supported by data. You claim one thing but are proved to be inncorrect multiple times on the one property. One can only conclude that you are not being thruthful. You claim a poor memory as the excuse, seems a similar storey to those who do not want the thurth to be heard.

If you can post just one link to show the forum to support your claims I will believe you.

http://mike-globaleconomy.blogspot.com.au/
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Jimbo
Member Avatar


Mike
26 Aug 2014, 08:23 PM
Years a bit mixed up, are you kidding. So you forgot that it was listed in 2008 for $859k and instead said it was 2011. Whats 3 years and over $200,000, I guess not much. When you combined it with your first claim of $1.2 million for that property with no data to support such a claim it becomes laughable.

Mike, the only times I have had an actual interest in the property were in 2007 and just recently when it was re-listed at 599k.

The times in between I have not really taken much notice. I remember my missus telling me a while after we offered 850k in 2007, that it was back on at 800 or so but we had already bought somewhere else. From memory it was 2011 but turns out it was earlier than that.

Now, for my sake, please explain the significance of what it was listed at exactly on what date to my original point which I will now remind you of.

I looked at a tiny 3x1 on the market at 399k (now reduced to 389k) and remarked that it was overvalued because there was a bigger and better house (5x2) very close to the beach for only 200k more.

The fact is, you can see that the big house is on for 599k and the very small house was on at 399k and that is not in dispute.

So what advantage did I gain by stating that it was listed at x amount at some point in between making my original offer and now?

I am buggered if I can see what difference it makes?

Meanwhile, you claim that 75% is the same as 62% when referring to the distribution of FHOG between new build and established property and everyone is supposed to accept that as statistical rounding?

you are a prize fuckwiit.



Matthew, 30 Jan 2016, 09:21 AM Your simplistic view is so flawed it is not worth debating. The current oversupply will be swallowed in 12 months. By the time dumb shits like you realise this prices will already be :?: rising.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Mike
Default APF Avatar


Jimbo
26 Aug 2014, 08:47 PM
Mike, the only times I have had an actual interest in the property were in 2007 and just recently when it was re-listed at 599k.

The times in between I have not really taken much notice. I remember my missus telling me a while after we offered 850k in 2007, that it was back on at 800 or so but we had already bought somewhere else. From memory it was 2011 but turns out it was earlier than that.

Now, for my sake, please explain the significance of what it was listed at exactly on what date to my original point which I will now remind you of.

I looked at a tiny 3x1 on the market at 399k (now reduced to 389k) and remarked that it was overvalued because there was a bigger and better house (5x2) very close to the beach for only 200k more.

The fact is, you can see that the big house is on for 599k and the very small house was on at 399k and that is not in dispute.

So what advantage did I gain by stating that it was listed at x amount at some point in between making my original offer and now?

I am buggered if I can see what difference it makes?

Meanwhile, you claim that 75% is the same as 62% when referring to the distribution of FHOG between new build and established property and everyone is supposed to accept that as statistical rounding?

you are a prize fuckwiit.


The difference between my statement and your is this.

You made various statements to try and prove a point, which I showed you to be false. You can claim as much as you like, you made an offer, you did this, you did that. Provide a link or proof or it did not happen. We have data that we can see that says you are full of shit. Provide proof or admit you lied, one or the other. I have provided proof that says you lied, prove me wrong.

Now to my statement. I made that ahead of the released data, it was my best guess at what I could see happening. So I made a prediction on the future.

Your statements are about the past you claimed to have done, yet you cant even get that right. You don't even remember your own past when putting offers in on properties on the market for $1.2 million dollars. Your storey is just not believable.

All you need to do is provide some proof, just one link will do.


Jimbo
26 Aug 2014, 07:14 PM
No and No.

I never said it was an Australian bank. I was in the UK at the time and it really did happen.

You just keep spouting the lies don't you.

Here is a another quote with in your debate with Peter Fraser who utterly put you to shame on this one.

Quote:
 
Jimbo14 Aug 2014, 09:46 PM
Spare me the sob story. You don't need equity to trade up. You just have to be able to prove that you can make the repayments on the larger loan. I have been there and done it. Whether your equity position is positive or negative, the lender will allow you to transfer that position to a different property.

Negative equity is no big deal unless you are trying to get out of the market altogether.


So we don't need equity to trade up. If you are not talking about Australia in your statements why did you both to post when it was clear this thread was about Australia.

You simply changed your tune again to try and wiggle out of it.

Quote:
 
Jimbo14 Aug 2014, 10:08 PM
Very simple. You go to your lender who you owe (say) 400k to and tell them that you want to buy a 600k property. Your existing property is worth 350k so you need an additional 200k to buy the 600k property. They check your finances, see you are good for it and you buy and sell just like you normally would. They are not going to turn you down because they will be charging valuation fees and you will have a larger mortgage. Just like if you had traded up with positive equity.

The negative equity trap is a pile of bollocks (unless you are trying to leave the market altogether).


Even Newjez could see if was a load of crap.

On and on you go, talk about digging a big hole for yourself.

Quote:
 
Well, they were a risk anyway.

It wasn't that prices fell and left them in negative equity.

Apply a bit of logic here. If you are in negative equity and you want to move to a property of equal value, where is the risk for the lender?

People who cry "negative equity trap" are trapped because they are in the shit financially and the lender knows it. The only chance the lender has of getting their money back is to enforce the mortgage to its conclusion and take possession.

It is not a price drop that caused the problem. It will be a drop in wages or careless spending.



Again, you look like a real fool now.

Quote:
 
Explain why?

Don't just tell me it won't work. They will tell you that in the USA and the UK as well, but there is no law saying that you can't do it.

If you are 100k in neg equity on a 400k property, you remain 100k in neg equity if you trade up to a 600k property. No additional risk for the lender. They may even benefit because you might need to move for work reasons.

That is one of the Bull scare story myths. If prices go down, you are in negative equity. You can't move house. You are trapped.

utter complete total wanking bullshit.


Peter comes in for the slam dunk to make you look like a fool.

Quote:
 
I really do need the sleep but here goes.

I'm not wrong, I do know a little about this stuff. The mortgage insurer will beat you. All loans over 80% are insured and usually above 90% it's the insurers call not the banks. At the moment it's very hard to get decent 95% deals done and anything above 97% is just not going to happen. Nada.

In the UK and in the USA they had 120% LVR loans, so maybe you were lucky enough to get one of those when you needed it because your payment record was good, but it just wouldn't happen now.

A negative equity loan simply is outside the lending policy of all of the banks and all mortgage insurers. I'm not sure how to explain policy - it is what it is. You can download the Genworth policy from here - http://www.genworth.com.au/underwriting-policy

Check it for yourself. It should all be there. QBE is almost identical, it should be on the net somewhere - it's not a secret, it's all available for people to read.

sleeptime.

Cheers


In the short time you have been here you have developed one over riding feature.

You lie so often you cannot keep track of your lies. You make statements with lies in them, when asked you can never provide a link, data or any proof of your many claims.

Time and again others including myself shoot you down in flames, learn from it. Stop making BS claims all over the place, or have the links, evidence and proof to support your claims.
Edited by Mike, 27 Aug 2014, 12:54 AM.
http://mike-globaleconomy.blogspot.com.au/
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Jimbo
Member Avatar


Mike
27 Aug 2014, 12:38 AM
Now to my statement. I made that ahead of the released data, it was my best guess at what I could see happening. So I made a prediction on the future.

Mike,

You made a statement that 75% of all FHO's were buying established property and how this was going to feed into the trade up market etc. etc. You made this statement on 7th August when since February the number has been consistently below 65% and falling. The last time FHO's came close to buying 75% established was August 2012. That is a full two years ago Mike.

The puzzling thing about your statement is that you claim that you have a network of expert analysts at your beck and call, feeding you with data before anyone else can get it so that you can remain ahead of the curve. Now you change your tune "I made that ahead of the released data, it was my best guess at what I could see happening.". So your best guess was 75% when it hasn't been 75% for two years and has been trending down towards the current 62% for over six months. The previous months number was only 60% so you were predicting a massive swing against the trend. I thought you were supposed to be a financial guru Mike?

That's a pretty big mistake to make Mike. It's almost as if you were trying to give the impression that FHO's were back in force buying up established properties and providing support for the established market. But then that would make you a liar Mike and you have already told me you don't like liars so it can't be that.

Why such a big error Mike? Have you made other mistakes?






Matthew, 30 Jan 2016, 09:21 AM Your simplistic view is so flawed it is not worth debating. The current oversupply will be swallowed in 12 months. By the time dumb shits like you realise this prices will already be :?: rising.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Mike
Default APF Avatar


Jimbo
27 Aug 2014, 05:01 AM
Mike,

You made a statement that 75% of all FHO's were buying established property and how this was going to feed into the trade up market etc. etc. You made this statement on 7th August when since February the number has been consistently below 65% and falling. The last time FHO's came close to buying 75% established was August 2012. That is a full two years ago Mike.

The puzzling thing about your statement is that you claim that you have a network of expert analysts at your beck and call, feeding you with data before anyone else can get it so that you can remain ahead of the curve. Now you change your tune "I made that ahead of the released data, it was my best guess at what I could see happening.". So your best guess was 75% when it hasn't been 75% for two years and has been trending down towards the current 62% for over six months. The previous months number was only 60% so you were predicting a massive swing against the trend. I thought you were supposed to be a financial guru Mike?

That's a pretty big mistake to make Mike. It's almost as if you were trying to give the impression that FHO's were back in force buying up established properties and providing support for the established market. But then that would make you a liar Mike and you have already told me you don't like liars so it can't be that.

Why such a big error Mike? Have you made other mistakes?







I made a prediction on the future and I was a lot closer then you. As your quotes have now been posted many times for all to read. You stated that construction of new homes NOW to FHB was greater then sales to existing home owners. I told you this was false and no data supported it. You proceeded to tell me I was wrong, now the data settles the account. Below is your quote so we can all see how accurate you were.

Quote:
 
Jimbo11 Aug 2014, 05:50 PM
In Perth, FHB's are pretty much ignoring established property in favour of much cheaper new builds with all the incentives that new builds give to FHB's.


Now you have changed tune and want to talk about Historical data and the trend moving forward. Prior to me showing you July's data you did not want to do this despite me attempt to show you historical and trend data.

You wiggle and worm every time you get caught out making a statement that is supported by nothing other then you're limited knowledge of real estate.

I can freely admit I don't get everything spot on, but my statements time and time again to try and explain to a novice like yourself that FHB do not buy more new builds over established properties. You tried to convince us all it was happening right now, with no data only a comment from a friend.

If you want to talk trends, lets talk trends.

Firstly you make a claim that you can do Negative Equity Loans in Australia, which is utter crap you cant. Peter tried explaining this to you. You should listen to Peter he is very knowledgeable on the subject, he knows more then I do about loans and finance and I know a great deal. This is because Peter is a professional in the industry, while you are not which is plainly obvious.

Then you try and tell us a lot about a property you made an offer on, you forget multiple times what year you made offers and at what price the house was listed when you made the offers. When I posted data to show your storey was false, you still continued on with it, rather then admit you got caught out again.

Then we have this FHB situation, you tried hard to convince us all FHB are building more properties now then the buy established. Here is your quote again for reference.

Quote:
 
In Perth, FHB's are pretty much ignoring established property in favour of much cheaper new builds with all the incentives that new builds give to FHB's


This is why I and others here know you have no clue what you are talking about. Firstly FHB buy established housing as it is cheaper and they can move in almost straight away. Your comment about new builds be cheaper, is false and tells me you have never built a house in Australia. Building a house is time consuming and costly, the interest while it builds, paying for rent or a 2nd mortgage while it builds, the many finishing costs and time delays.

You also do not factor in that for the same price as some new builds in cheaper locations on the fringes you can buy land at twice the size with an established house on it. The house may need updating but the size of the land is not changing, land is where the real value is, not the house. New constructions charge a premium for living in a nice new house, rather then buy established, do it up and then you have a nice new home with twice the land of the person who built new.

This is why FHB favour established over new builds.

Your many comments show you have a large lack of understanding of many of the basics of the property market in Australia. Perhaps you know a lot about UK property, you certainly have a lot learn about Australia.

Edited by Mike, 27 Aug 2014, 02:31 PM.
http://mike-globaleconomy.blogspot.com.au/
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Jimbo
Member Avatar


Mike
27 Aug 2014, 02:30 PM
I made a prediction on the future and I was a lot closer then you.
But Mike, according to you, you have a network of professionals and analysts at your disposal providing you with information before it gets released to the main sources.

They act like a net, to drag the information in.

This is how you stay ahead of the curve.

So it just seems strange to me that a key number to be considered in determining the current and future state of the market, is not available to you 7 days in advance of publication, 7 days after the months end?

Not only that, the number that you quoted was a full two years out of date?

You made a prediction that was way off the trend and 17.5% off the mark?

You could have just used data from the previous month because the number doesn't change massively from one month to the next. However, 60/40 established/new build doesn't sound as good as 75/25 does it Mike. It wouldn't have supported your argument that the established market will be going great guns because of all the FHB's rushing around.

You decided instead, to make a prediction that was way out of whack.

You didn't state that it was a prediction or estimate at the time, you stated that FHB's bought 75% established property. You stated it as a fact. It was a fact in August 2012 but it is far from being a fact now. The real number is 62%. It is not close to 75%. It is 17.5% less.

So if you can get that number so wrong, with all the resources and expertise available to you, what else have you got wrong Mike?

Matthew, 30 Jan 2016, 09:21 AM Your simplistic view is so flawed it is not worth debating. The current oversupply will be swallowed in 12 months. By the time dumb shits like you realise this prices will already be :?: rising.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Mike
Default APF Avatar


Jimbo
27 Aug 2014, 02:57 PM
But Mike, according to you, you have a network of professionals and analysts at your disposal providing you with information before it gets released to the main sources.

They act like a net, to drag the information in.

This is how you stay ahead of the curve.

So it just seems strange to me that a key number to be considered in determining the current and future state of the market, is not available to you 7 days in advance of publication, 7 days after the months end?

Not only that, the number that you quoted was a full two years out of date?

You made a prediction that was way off the trend and 17.5% off the mark?

You could have just used data from the previous month because the number doesn't change massively from one month to the next. However, 60/40 established/new build doesn't sound as good as 75/25 does it Mike. It wouldn't have supported your argument that the established market will be going great guns because of all the FHB's rushing around.

You decided instead, to make a prediction that was way out of whack.

You didn't state that it was a prediction or estimate at the time, you stated that FHB's bought 75% established property. You stated it as a fact. It was a fact in August 2012 but it is far from being a fact now. The real number is 62%. It is not close to 75%. It is 17.5% less.

So if you can get that number so wrong, with all the resources and expertise available to you, what else have you got wrong Mike?
Oh dear, so 75% - 62% = 17.5% :wak:

I am happy to stand by my predictions, more established houses sold then new ones built as I said they would.

You said
Quote:
 
Jimbo11 Aug 2014, 05:50 PM
In Perth, FHB's are pretty much ignoring established property in favour of much cheaper new builds with all the incentives that new builds give to FHB's
.

Oh no 1,148 Established houses sold in July and only 707 new constructions sold in July.

You under estimated how many established houses were selling by at least 441 just to break even with new constructions. You were 62.5% off the mark. 441 is 62.5% of 707.

So you need new constructions to increase by 62.5% to reach the same level that established houses are selling for to FHB.

To correct you, I was 13% off the market. You were 62.5%. That only brings new constructions level with established sales. In your own words the FHB are ignoring established sales implies that you think new constructions are selling significantly more then established sales. So 62.5% error by you is well under what you have truly done.

It proves how little you understand basic mathematics for a start, let alone the property market and we certainly know you know little about finance.

Keep digging that hole deeper, you seem to be good at it.
http://mike-globaleconomy.blogspot.com.au/
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Jimbo
Member Avatar


Mike
27 Aug 2014, 03:56 PM
Oh dear, so 75% - 62% = 17.5% :wak:

To correct you, I was 13% off the market.
I that right Mike?

Good at maths are you?

I suppose you would need to be with all that statistical analysis and predicting that you do.

If interest rates go up to 3% from 2% and you pay interest only Mike, how much does your payment increase by? Is it 1% or 50%. Pretty basic shit really. The difference between 2 and 3 is 1. To get up to 3 from 2 you need to add 50%. To go down from 3 to 2, you need to deduct 33.33..%.

What is the difference between 75 and 62?

It is 13 (correct me if I am wrong).

As a percentage difference between your prediction (75) and the actual outcome (62) the difference between the two numbers (13) as a percentage is (taking it as a percentage of your incorrect answer which is the generous way to calculate it).

(13/75) x (100/1) which is in fact 17.33% (I did the original calc in my head and rounded to 17.5%).

You could say that you were actually 20.96% out if you take your error margin as being a percentage of the correct answer (62).

Neither answer is close to your answer of 13%. In fact, you are 33.30% off with that one.


Back to school for you Mike. :wak: :wak: :wak:

Edited by Jimbo, 27 Aug 2014, 04:20 PM.
Matthew, 30 Jan 2016, 09:21 AM Your simplistic view is so flawed it is not worth debating. The current oversupply will be swallowed in 12 months. By the time dumb shits like you realise this prices will already be :?: rising.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Mike
Default APF Avatar


Jimbo
27 Aug 2014, 04:18 PM
I that right Mike?

Good at maths are you?

I suppose you would need to be with all that statistical analysis and predicting that you do.

If interest rates go up to 3% from 2% and you pay interest only Mike, how much does your payment increase by? Is it 1% or 50%. Pretty basic shit really. The difference between 2 and 3 is 1. To get up to 3 from 2 you need to add 50%. To go down from 3 to 2, you need to deduct 33.33..%.

What is the difference between 75 and 62?

It is 13 (correct me if I am wrong).

As a percentage difference between your prediction (75) and the actual outcome (62) the difference between the two numbers (13) as a percentage is (taking it as a percentage of your incorrect answer which is the generous way to calculate it).

(13/75) x (100/1) which is in fact 17.33% (I did the original calc in my head and rounded to 17.5%).

You could say that you were actually 20.96% out if you take your error margin as being a percentage of the correct answer (62).

Neither answer is close to your answer of 13%. In fact, you are 33.30% off with that one.


Back to school for you Mike. :wak: :wak: :wak:
You really do need to go back to school.

So you want to give a percentage difference on a percentage. Why?

I gave you the percentage on acutal sales of FHB reported by treasury.

The % of FHB buying established houses was 62%, I did not give you an actualy predicted number of established houses sold, so I can not be wrong by % as you have no basis as to where to start the deductions. What I did say is 75%. The difference is 13% unless you can produce an acutal number of established houses I said would sell. Which you cannot as I never gave one.

So should we play, % on % on % as you want or stick to real mathamatics and analysis.

Lets talk about how you stated that :

Quote:
 
Jimbo11 Aug 2014, 05:50 PM
In Perth, FHB's are pretty much ignoring established property in favour of much cheaper new builds with all the incentives that new builds give to FHB's.


When the data shows us 1,148 Established properties sold to FHB while only 707 opted for a new build.

How did you get that so wrong, only off by 441 properties or wrong by 62.5%.

Care to answer that as a few weeks ago you were so confident. What happened?
http://mike-globaleconomy.blogspot.com.au/
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy