Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
Perth sales surge; No of sales up 17% on the month and 7% y/y
Topic Started: 16 Oct 2014, 10:42 AM (13,337 Views)
Black Panther
Default APF Avatar


Mike
21 Oct 2014, 01:37 PM
If so blinded, why did I make the right call in predicting prices would rise now when all you bears kept saying it would fall and keep falling. How did you get it so wrong.

I know the answers as to why you got it so wrong, the question is do you and the other bears.
Well put.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
newjez
Member Avatar


Mike
21 Oct 2014, 11:41 AM
Because you cannot refute me.
I can't be arsed mate. Your so wrong its not funny. But you have to wait months to prove the fact, then you have to find the post in all the vague dribble you post. Its accepted that you're an idiot so why bother proving it over and over again. Perth prices haven't risen since 2007. Skamy says so. You are just wrong. Maybe another bear who has time on their hands could lay it out.
Whenever you have an argument with someone, there comes a moment where you must ask yourself, whatever your political persuasion, 'am I the Nazi?'
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Mike
Default APF Avatar


newjez
21 Oct 2014, 02:35 PM
I can't be arsed mate. Your so wrong its not funny. But you have to wait months to prove the fact, then you have to find the post in all the vague dribble you post. Its accepted that you're an idiot so why bother proving it over and over again. Perth prices haven't risen since 2007. Skamy says so. You are just wrong. Maybe another bear who has time on their hands could lay it out.
So if the price of gold falls back to levels of 7 years ago, does that mean no one bought and sold gold for a profit during those 7 years. Now add to gold a yield for all of those years.

Do you really want me to go through and list the number of house sold at the peak of the market and the number of sales who have made tens of thousands of dollars in recent years. I have already done this in the past to show how wrong you. You bears simply don't get, previous peaks only last for what a month or a matter of months, meaning very few people bought at these peaks. The majority of buyers bought for under these prices and along way under.

You are an complete fool.

I will do it later, don't have time now I'm off to the Hospital to visit a sick family member.

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


Black Panther
21 Oct 2014, 02:01 PM
Well put.
patting your dick I mean self on the back via socks now !
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Guest
Unregistered

Mustapha Mond
21 Oct 2014, 10:23 AM
Hi you should register, i think you could bring an element of reality to this motley crew.

Peter
I just post as guest. As long as the herd is learning, that's all the that really matters, does not bother me.

But here today is just another example of vested interests deceiving the sheep. Trying to portray the illusion that the market is improving, when in fact it is declining when we look at all the numbers they decided to leave out.

You have also bought a good element here , as much as you gave me the shits in the earlier days,and still do sometimes, Its good to see your current position and stance on the market after being in it for so long. Much longer than most of us. And that you, unlike many your age, are able to see the reality rather than be deluded by the past.

What I do like about you most, is your honesty, and whenever you mention anything regarding what you have owned or sold or seen regarding the market, I believe, 100%.

Where as many here fantasize about what they think they might have one day.

You must think how lucky you were to benefit all these years, and must laugh at what you see in front of you these days reguarding the extent this ponzi has got to and the little hope so called investors have from here on in.

One day they will understand, when its all too late ofcourse., in the meantime, we will just have to put up with it like we do all these vested interest articles portraying delusion.
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
skamy
Member Avatar


Guest
21 Oct 2014, 01:31 PM
How does this make it more affordable?
A new unit created for example will still be the same price as all the other units that previously existed it is no more affordable for anyone it is the same price for what you got previously. How are you getting something better for a lower price than previously?Please explain.
Of course they will be cheaper than the original home you are getting less land but that is not comparing like with like. The people that would by the original home would not by the units and vice versa.
The price to income only grows because the councils and govt stop opening up land and want to constrain the urban boundaries. In places like Dallas, Atlanta this does not happen and prices remain low. WHy cannot OZ do this?

Skamy, can you name one city that has constrained urban boundaries and had more housing infill that has created more affordable housing ie a lower house cost to income ratio?

No-one ever said anyone was getting anything better and cheaper. We were speaking about the need for Perth to increase density of housing in the city to prevent runaway rises in the house price to income ratio.

However if we look at your way of thinking, you would indeed be correct ie house prices do not drop very often, even with urban infill etc. All that happens is that more homes are made available at certain price brackets. Sometimes house building gets ahead of population growth and then we see corrections. Nonetheless most of the time you are correct and increasing density simply slows price rises it does not make existing or new property any cheaper than that which the market will pay at any given time.

The point we were discussing was that there would be significant rises in price if there were no increases in density as the city grows and more and more people had to compete for the big homes

Big developers are very keen to release tracts of farmland and bushland as this is much cheaper and more profitable for them, but I am not a fan of that as a long term plan. It incurs big costs for infrastructure etc that can weigh down taxpayers and have poor environmental outcomes. the end result is often cheap housing that no-one wants in the boondocks and very expensive housing in the desirable areas. It may make the house to income stats look good but it does not help provide people with the homes they actually want.

This solution is usually just developer type spruiking to get rezoning for land to profit by it.
Definition of a doom and gloomer from 1993
The last camp is made up of the doom-and-gloomers. Their slogan is "it's the end of the world as we know it". Right now they are convinced that debt is the evil responsible for all our economic woes and must be eliminated at all cost. Many doom-and-gloomers believe that unprecedented debt levels mean that we are on the precipice of a worse crisis than the Great Depression. The doom-and-gloomers hang on the latest series of negative economic data.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
newjez
Member Avatar


Mike
21 Oct 2014, 03:03 PM
So if the price of gold falls back to levels of 7 years ago, does that mean no one bought and sold gold for a profit during those 7 years. Now add to gold a yield for all of those years.

Do you really want me to go through and list the number of house sold at the peak of the market and the number of sales who have made tens of thousands of dollars in recent years. I have already done this in the past to show how wrong you. You bears simply don't get, previous peaks only last for what a month or a matter of months, meaning very few people bought at these peaks. The majority of buyers bought for under these prices and along way under.

You are an complete fool.

I will do it later, don't have time now I'm off to the Hospital to visit a sick family member.
Sorry to hear about you sick family member.

Yes Mike, we have heard about your ninja masterclass of house traders who make a fortune trading within the thin range of Perth's dead cat bounces. Noburosan.
Edited by newjez, 21 Oct 2014, 04:26 PM.
Whenever you have an argument with someone, there comes a moment where you must ask yourself, whatever your political persuasion, 'am I the Nazi?'
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Veritas
Default APF Avatar


skamy
21 Oct 2014, 04:10 PM

No-one ever said anyone was getting anything better and cheaper. We were speaking about the need for Perth to increase density of housing in the city to prevent runaway rises in the house price to income ratio.

However if we look at your way of thinking, you would indeed be correct ie house prices do not drop very often, even with urban infill etc. All that happens is that more homes are made available at certain price brackets. Sometimes house building gets ahead of population growth and then we see corrections. Nonetheless most of the time you are correct and increasing density simply slows price rises it does not make existing or new property any cheaper than that which the market will pay at any given time.

The point we were discussing was that there would be significant rises in price if there were no increases in density as the city grows and more and more people had to compete for the big homes

Big developers are very keen to release tracts of farmland and bushland as this is much cheaper and more profitable for them, but I am not a fan of that as a long term plan. It incurs big costs for infrastructure etc that can weigh down taxpayers and have poor environmental outcomes. the end result is often cheap housing that no-one wants in the boondocks and very expensive housing in the desirable areas. It may make the house to income stats look good but it does not help provide people with the homes they actually want.

This solution is usually just developer type spruiking to get rezoning for land to profit by it.
So, if building more houses (increasing supply) does not put downward pressure on price ( more nonsense from you obviously) then it must come from a drop in the demand side.

Well Skamy, old bean, you are in luck, because the demand for housing is weakening just as the bears predicted.

Unfortunately for you even record low interest rates have not been able to put a floor under prices in the face of a deteriorating economy.

The market has peaked and its a long way down.

Hell, even Kerry Stokes (just another Gloomer I presume Skamy) is at it.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/western-australias-doing-it-tough-says-kerry-stokes-20141020-118tdk.html#ixzz3Gl6K0YqN
Property acquisition as a topic was almost a national obsession. You couldn't even call it speculation as the buyers all presumed the price of property could only go up. That’s why we use the word obsession. Ordinary people were buying properties for their young children who had not even left school assuming they would not be able to afford property of their own when they left college- Klaus Regling on Ireland. Sound familiar?

The evidence of nearly 40 cycles in house prices for 17 OECD economies since 1970 shows that real house prices typically give up about 70 per cent of their rise in the subsequent fall, and that these falls occur slowly.
Morgan Kelly:On the Likely Extent of Falls in Irish House Prices, 2007
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Guest
Unregistered

skamy
21 Oct 2014, 04:10 PM

No-one ever said anyone was getting anything better and cheaper. We were speaking about the need for Perth to increase density of housing in the city to prevent runaway rises in the house price to income ratio.

However if we look at your way of thinking, you would indeed be correct ie house prices do not drop very often, even with urban infill etc. All that happens is that more homes are made available at certain price brackets. Sometimes house building gets ahead of population growth and then we see corrections. Nonetheless most of the time you are correct and increasing density simply slows price rises it does not make existing or new property any cheaper than that which the market will pay at any given time.

The point we were discussing was that there would be significant rises in price if there were no increases in density as the city grows and more and more people had to compete for the big homes

Big developers are very keen to release tracts of farmland and bushland as this is much cheaper and more profitable for them, but I am not a fan of that as a long term plan. It incurs big costs for infrastructure etc that can weigh down taxpayers and have poor environmental outcomes. the end result is often cheap housing that no-one wants in the boondocks and very expensive housing in the desirable areas. It may make the house to income stats look good but it does not help provide people with the homes they actually want.

This solution is usually just developer type spruiking to get rezoning for land to profit by it.
The cities I pointed out do not have significant price rises eventhough they are not really increasing density so it does not necessary follow. If the growing of the city keeps pace with demand prices will not need to rise.
If they city grows and the big old homes become more expensive it does not mean more people will be competing as the price of these homes will reflect any increased demand and therefore probably have as much competition as not.

Some people are advocating more people moving to apartments, do you think more families moving to apartments rather than houses in the burbs is because of what they actually want? Is more about now what people can get not what they want.

Why can't we return to a model from the 90s in the way infrastructure is funded. That seems to work why so more expensive now.

Why has land gone up 560% in last 20 years in capital cities? has your wage for the same job gone up as much?

Why have some cities not had this price rise eventhough they have massive growing populations? Shows it is not pop growth itself and bigger cities causing it?

The model is broken govt, councils, developers are profiting to much from land at the expense and detrement of average families.

"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
skamy
Member Avatar


Veritas
21 Oct 2014, 04:26 PM
So, if building more houses (increasing supply) does not put downward pressure on price ( more nonsense from you obviously) then it must come from a drop in the demand side.

Well Skamy, old bean, you are in luck, because the demand for housing is weakening just as the bears predicted.

Unfortunately for you even record low interest rates have not been able to put a floor under prices in the face of a deteriorating economy.

The market has peaked and its a long way down.

Hell, even Kerry Stokes (just another Gloomer I presume Skamy) is at it.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/western-australias-doing-it-tough-says-kerry-stokes-20141020-118tdk.html#ixzz3Gl6K0YqN
As it happens Veritas most of the time adding new supply for a growing population simply slows price increases. You are being naive to believe that we can or will build at a rate that will cause prices to drop. It is a very very long time since this has happened in Oz.

Demand for housing is not weakening there is no evidence of this, you need to stop believing the lies of the doomers.

Guest
21 Oct 2014, 05:07 PM
The cities I pointed out do not have significant price rises eventhough they are not really increasing density so it does not necessary follow. If the growing of the city keeps pace with demand prices will not need to rise.
If they city grows and the big old homes become more expensive it does not mean more people will be competing as the price of these homes will reflect any increased demand and therefore probably have as much competition as not.

Some people are advocating more people moving to apartments, do you think more families moving to apartments rather than houses in the burbs is because of what they actually want? Is more about now what people can get not what they want.

Why can't we return to a model from the 90s in the way infrastructure is funded. That seems to work why so more expensive now.

Why has land gone up 560% in last 20 years in capital cities? has your wage for the same job gone up as much?

Why have some cities not had this price rise eventhough they have massive growing populations? Shows it is not pop growth itself and bigger cities causing it?

The model is broken govt, councils, developers are profiting to much from land at the expense and detrement of average families.

It is not broken and people are still buying building and selling homes the way they have for hundreds of years. You may not like it but this is the same market that we all grew up into. We just live in cities at different stages of their growth.

Some of the cities you pointed out have large swathes of the population who will never afford home ownership, they have less than 50% home ownership rates. For Atlanta has 46% home ownership and the median income is low at about $46K and 23% of the population lives below poverty levels. It is a city of rich gated communities and dreadful poverty.
Dallas also has only 44.4% home ownership a median household income of $42K and almost 24% of the population living below poverty levels. (data from the US census)

Clearly both these cities have done a dreadful job at providing affordable homes for their populations.

Australian cities are much much better most of them, Sydney which is probably the least affordable City has 65% home ownership rates and a median income of A$66,820 (US$ 58790) and Sydney only has 15% of the population living below the poverty line. (data from ABS and ACOSS)


In Australia people are buying and affording homes in much larger numbers that your two cities.

We have no need to trash our environmental laws or planning regulations to benefit would be rural land developers.
Edited by skamy, 21 Oct 2014, 06:11 PM.
Definition of a doom and gloomer from 1993
The last camp is made up of the doom-and-gloomers. Their slogan is "it's the end of the world as we know it". Right now they are convinced that debt is the evil responsible for all our economic woes and must be eliminated at all cost. Many doom-and-gloomers believe that unprecedented debt levels mean that we are on the precipice of a worse crisis than the Great Depression. The doom-and-gloomers hang on the latest series of negative economic data.
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



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