So you want to give a percentage difference on a percentage. Why?
The thing is Mike, if you predict that something which costs $10 today will cost $15 next week but the item stays at $10, your prediction is 50% wide of the mark.
If you predict that a number that is 62% today will be 75% next month and it stays at 62%, you are 20.96% wide of the mark (where the spread is taken as a percentage of the outcome rather the prediction).
You get all mouthy with me for claiming a house was listed at 1.2 million when you can only find a listing for 975k, and that is a percentage difference of 18.75% (not as bad as 20.96%). I still maintain that the property was listed at 1.2 million and I can prove it as discussed before.
Meanwhile, you make claims that are wide of the mark by 20.96% and state them as fact when they plainly were not fact. You admit now though that you were making a prediction but claim that the difference is no big deal.
Meanwhile, you continually hound me for making a statement that you decree to be untrue and had no bearing on the outcome of the point that I was trying to make.
You have brought this up at every opportunity, and like a dog with a fvcking bone, you won't let go.
So why is it that you are allowed to tell untruths that could alter market perceptions, but I am not allowed to tell a truth without irrefutable evidence to support that truth (although, again, I have offered to provide you with that evidence).
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.
The thing is Mike, if you predict that something which costs $10 today will cost $15 next week but the item stays at $10, your prediction is 50% wide of the mark.
If you predict that a number that is 62% today will be 75% next month and it stays at 62%, you are 20.96% wide of the mark (where the spread is taken as a percentage of the outcome rather the prediction).
You get all mouthy with me for claiming a house was listed at 1.2 million when you can only find a listing for 975k, and that is a percentage difference of 18.75% (not as bad as 20.96%). I still maintain that the property was listed at 1.2 million and I can prove it as discussed before.
Meanwhile, you make claims that are wide of the mark by 20.96% and state them as fact when they plainly were not fact. You admit now though that you were making a prediction but claim that the difference is no big deal.
Meanwhile, you continually hound me for making a statement that you decree to be untrue and had no bearing on the outcome of the point that I was trying to make.
You have brought this up at every opportunity, and like a dog with a fvcking bone, you won't let go.
So why is it that you are allowed to tell untruths that could alter market perceptions, but I am not allowed to tell a truth without irrefutable evidence to support that truth (although, again, I have offered to provide you with that evidence).
You are a penny short of a shilling Mike.
Care to express that as a percentage for me?
Not to bright are you.
62% is the amount of established houses that sold to FHB in July out of 1,855, which 1,148. The remaining 38% sold as new constructions, 707. I was exactly 243.25 properties off the mark. This is the difference between 1,148 established properties selling (62%) and my prediction of (75%) which is 1391.25.
243.25 properties is exactly 13.12% points of the total of 1,855 properties sold to FHB in July. This is the difference in my prediction.
Your prediction that FHB ignored established houses in favor of new builds is plain wrong as 62% of all FHB bought established houses. You were wrong by exactly 441 properties. This would bring new constructions and established sales to level each other. As you said FHB favor new builds which they did not, we can only assume you meant more FHB bought new properties rather then established. By this logic, you are off by a far greater number and %, what ever floats your boat.
I suggest you go and dome some basic mathamatics 101 courses.
As I said if you have proof you made an offer on the said property, prove it. I have proved otherwise. You can type anything you like, proof is required.
A percentage for you, You are 100% thick as a brick.
62% is the amount of established houses that sold to FHB in July out of 1,855, which 1,148. The remaining 38% sold as new constructions, 707. I was exactly 243.25 properties off the mark. This is the difference between 1,148 established properties selling (62%) and my prediction of (75%) which is 1391.25.
243.25 properties is exactly 13.12% points of the total of 1,855 properties sold to FHB in July. This is the difference in my prediction.
Mike, clutching at straws there.
You were not predicting the number of first buyers that would buy established/new build.
You were stating the percentage. You didn't mention that it was a prediction either, you told it as though it were fact.
Again, if the base rate was 2% and you stated that it was 3%, you would be 50% out, not 1%. I don't know how you can dress it up any other way. You were wide of the mark and knowingly so. The last time 75% of FHB's bought established was August 2012.
As a statistical guru who rants on about his network of sources and his ability to interpret numbers, you are not going to get such an important number wrong unless it was your intention to get it wrong to prove a point.
Mike, face it, you lied to make it look like the percentage of FHB's purchasing was the same as it was two years ago even though there has been a marked change in the trend towards new builds by FHB's.
You can't have it both ways Mike. You can't take the high ground and accuse other people of making shit up when that is exactly what you did when you stated that 75% of FHB's were buying established when in fact the percentage was 62%.
You are a liar Mike.
Liar Liar pants on fire.
Edit: "Not to bright are you."
Well Mike, I know the difference between to too and two, so I suppose if I am 100% thick, you must be a good deal thicker.
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.
Who is wrong & who is right? Better get a neutral mod to resolve I think.
Both jumbo & mike have their noses out of joint.
Whenever a situation involves a property market to heat up, FHB & investors will clash to be with each other to buy. Investors generally have the equity in their homes & usually dominate the cash poor FHB. That's the way it goes.
back to the topic.. Well, The govt is guilty of wasting $, so it's a negative blow for us West Aussies, there's been infrastructure that's been worthwhile, but there's stuff that's been wasteful.
This is the second time the credit rating had been downgraded.
Newjerk? can you try harder than dig up another person's blog. My first promo was with Billabong and my name in English is modified with a T, am Perth born but also lived in Sydney to make my $$ It's Absolutely Fabulous if it includes brilliant locations, & high calibre tenants..what more does one want? Understand the power of the two "P"" or be financially challenged Even better when there is family who are property mad and one is born in some entitlements.....Understand that beautiful women are the exhibitionists we crave attention, whilst hot blooded men are the voyeurs ... A stunning woman can command and takes pleasure in being noticed. Seems not too many understand what it means to hold and own props and get threatened by those who do. Banks are considered to be law abiding and & rather boring places yeah not true . A bank balance sheet will show capital is dwarfed by their liabilities this means when a portions of loans is falling its problems for the bank.
Who is wrong & who is right? Better get a neutral mod to resolve I think.
Both jumbo & mike have their noses out of joint.
Whenever a situation involves a property market to heat up, FHB & investors will clash to be with each other to buy. Investors generally have the equity in their homes & usually dominate the cash poor FHB. That's the way it goes.
back to the topic.. Well, The govt is guilty of wasting $, so it's a negative blow for us West Aussies, there's been infrastructure that's been worthwhile, but there's stuff that's been wasteful.
This is the second time the credit rating had been downgraded.
Best not to get involved in these arguments Blondie
I think the Govt here has gotten quite complacent with the amount of dominance they have at the polls.
I bet Colin would build a solid gold statue of himself if he thought he could get away with it.
Well Mike, I know the difference between to too and two, so I suppose if I am 100% thick, you must be a good deal thicker.
The difference between you and me is I don't need to invent stories, tell lies to support the invested stories. I make honest predictions to the best my knowledge and then I support it with data, wether I am right or wrong.
You simply tell lies to achieve your aim, you are the worst kind of bear.
Lets look at some of your lies.
Quote:
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.
Negative equity loans in Australia, really
Quote:
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).
You persist, trying to convince Peter a professional who does loans for a living otherwise. You just don't learn. You keep trying to spin the lie, trying to wiggle your way out of it when caught out again.
Quote:
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.
Still squirming.
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.
You do not understand the basics of finance then get abusive towards Peter due to your own lack of knowledge and experience, it is not Peters fault you lack knowledge in this area.
Quote:
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
Peters response. Polite and to the point, shoots you down in flames. No abuse from Peter as none is needed.
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.
Some more lies. You tried hard to convince us all that FHB are building more new homes now then established. I told you otherwise. You were wrong, I was right.
Quote:
Jimbo12 Aug 2014, 06:41 AM
This has forced FHO's to look to house and land packages for their first buy and the developers have responded by selling smaller blocks to improve affordability and tempt buyers away from the rental market. "Cheaper than renting" is the new slogan being used by Perth developers. There is also a shift towards buying city apartments amongst young couples.
So now you have vacancy rates increasing, rents dropping and FHB's largely ignoring established property in favour of new build.
This is coming at the same time as many of the investor buyers are facing increased job insecurity and possible cuts in pay.
And again, just proves you have a lack of understanding of the basics.
Quote:
Jimbo12 Aug 2014, 01:57 PM That is because that was then. I never said that historically, FHB's were buying new build over established. It is what is happening now.
Recent stamp duty changes mean FHB's pay stamp duty on established property over 430k. This kicked in July 1st this year.
It was a policy intentionally designed to favour the new build market to stimulate building activity and soften the impact of the end of the mining infrastructure boom.
Well, it is happening right now apparently, but it was not. You were so convinced. The only thing happening right now is established sales increased more then new constructions did.
I also note you have still not produced any proof of your claim you made an offer of $850,000 on a $1,200,000 property that was never on the market for $1,200,000. Data only shows it was ever for sale at its highest prices of $975,000. You claim to have proof, provide it.
We are all waiting.
Quote:
Jimbo26 Aug 2014, 04:14 PM
As for the 1.2 million house. I have provided a link to the listings history for the (now 599k) house. It doesn't go back as far as 2007. That doesn't make me a liar. However, I can show you my copy of the offer made on the 1.2 million house as explained before.
The difference between you and me is I don't need to invent stories, tell lies to support the invested stories. I make honest predictions to the best my knowledge and then I support it with data, wether I am right or wrong.
Honest predictions hey Mike? Apart from the story about 75% of FHB's now buying established property when that hasn't been the case since August 2012.
You are being a twat Mike. You knowingly told a blatant untruth to try and spruik the market up. You must have known you were wrong because you claim that you carefully analyze statistics and the number you stated was nowhere near close to the actual number and hadn't been close for a long time.
But you get all argy bargy with me because you don't happen to believe things that I say which according to you, makes me a liar. Yet you lied Mike. You lied about the percentage of FHB's buying established property.
Meanwhile, I will post a scan of the offer I made on the 1.2 million dollar house, when you provide proof that you own properties all over Australia and that you are worth millions.
I happen to believe that you are not the magnate you make yourself out to be. I reckon you are a heavily leveraged "investor" who is shitting his pants in case the market wipes him out. You live in a fantasy world of power and wealth that exists in your imagination only.
You make bloated claims about having networks of analysts and industry insiders feeding you with information even before it gets to the big statistics providers. They act like a net to drag in information. Funny then that you can't get a key number like FHB distribution right. Not even close to right. You could have quoted the number from four weeks prior and said "latest figures show" but instead you chose to "predict" a number that was way off the mark and then state it as a fact.
Send me proof of your empire Mike. Prove me wrong Mike. Otherwise you will always be a liar.
Footnote: In the UK during the mid 90's a large number of properties were in negative equity. This greatly reduced business for mortgage providers so they started to be more flexible in their approach. They would treat each case on its merits. The following text is from an article on what to do if you need to move with negative equity. (link below text).
5.Speak to your lender
...Some banks and building societies offer specialised mortgage products for people who are trapped in negative equity whereby you transfer the outstanding debt to the mortgage on the new property. This means you would be increasing the size of your existing mortgage in order to make up the shortfall....
I also note you have still not produced any proof of your claim you made an offer of $850,000 on a $1,200,000 property that was never on the market for $1,200,000. Data only shows it was ever for sale at its highest prices of $975,000. You claim to have proof, provide it.
We are all waiting.
No Mike, it was on the market for 1.2 million. You just choose not to believe that fact unless I can provide some sort of evidence. Not that it makes the foggiest bit of difference to the point I was trying to make anyway.
I have offered to meet up with you and show you a copy of my offer. Just PM me.
Meanwhile when you say "we are all waiting", is that the little group of experts and analysts that live inside your head? I can't imagine anyone else who reads this forum gives a rats arse what the house was on for in 2007. The fact that it was re-listed at 975k in 2008 after a downturn would indicate that it was on for more in 2007 and most intelligent people would understand that.
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.
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.
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