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 (13,336 Views)
Guest
Unregistered

skamy
21 Oct 2014, 05:33 PM
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.


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.
If median wage is 42k but you can get decent houses for $150k it still makes it a lot cheaper than here so much more affordable especially with two people making it 84k or did you mean household income? I.e

My point is in these cities you can be on a single median wage and still aford a decent house, unlike OZ cities. Look at the rent costs in Houston nice apartments for $700 per month not per week. The people have more disposible income left to keep economy pumping.

It is not the same market we all grew up into. The cost of a house used to be roughly two thirds house and one third land it is opposite of that now, how is that the same? Land has inflated much faster than buildings, how is that the same?

How come 20 years ago all these services and land was a fraction of the cost of now? Someones making alot of money somewhere.

Home ownership is misleading depends on demographics and the adult childen living at home are counted as home owners I think in ABS definition.

Yeah we are still buying and selling but we are also being forced to buy less desirable properties, further away, with more of out income ofter having no choice but for two people to work. No it was not always like that. We are getting less bang for our buck than ever before (allowing for chages in tech and living standards of course), that is not the same as it has always been.
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Jimbo
Member 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.
The right call?

Like the Iron Ore price call?

Toss a coin, get it wrong 50% of the time and keep it quiet.

Toss a coin and shout to the heavens when you get it right 50% of the time.

Any fucktard could do that.

You are the proof.

Heads or tails anybody?

(and if you want to be right 100% of the time, call heads as Mike and tails as BP).





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
 
skamy
Member Avatar


Guest
21 Oct 2014, 06:57 PM
If median wage is 42k but you can get decent houses for $150k it still makes it a lot cheaper than here so much more affordable especially with two people making it 84k or did you mean household income? I.e

My point is in these cities you can be on a single median wage and still aford a decent house, unlike OZ cities. Look at the rent costs in Houston nice apartments for $700 per month not per week. The people have more disposible income left to keep economy pumping.

It is not the same market we all grew up into. The cost of a house used to be roughly two thirds house and one third land it is opposite of that now, how is that the same? Land has inflated much faster than buildings, how is that the same?

How come 20 years ago all these services and land was a fraction of the cost of now? Someones making alot of money somewhere.

Home ownership is misleading depends on demographics and the adult childen living at home are counted as home owners I think in ABS definition.

Yeah we are still buying and selling but we are also being forced to buy less desirable properties, further away, with more of out income ofter having no choice but for two people to work. No it was not always like that. We are getting less bang for our buck than ever before (allowing for chages in tech and living standards of course), that is not the same as it has always been.
Clearly they cannot afford the houses they have extremely low home ownership rates. The costs of owning are much higher in the US you cannot just look at house prices. Australians house prices absorb taxes that are paid as you go forever in US house costs.

I do not believe what you say about buying a decent house on the median wage, if it were true more people would be doing it. Both your chosen US cities are much poorer by any measure than any Australian city. People over there would give an arm and a leg to live in our economy, it is crazy to try to argue that they have done anything better than us. Australia does a great job at providing affordable homes as is witnessed by the home ownership rates - and is much more egalitarian than the US.


When we grew up land had also inflated in price, much more so in fact than young people face today. Land prices have stagnated for a long time. My first purchase was when we worked in London and even 30 odd years ago we were forced to buy in a small village an hr on the train from the city. It was a one bed terrace with no street access and we had two graduate salaries with big companies. Two graduates today can do much better than that in Sydney, I really do not understand why some Aussies whinge so much.

If people don't like the price of land in a large population city then they can move to a city of lower population and buy what your parents bought (ie a house nearer to the city in a smaller city). You can probably even buy better eg 4 beds rather than 3 and 2 baths rather than 1. What you cannot expect to do is buy a the same house as your parents on the same income in what is now a much larger city with much more people competing for the stock.

Don't waste your time throwing a pity party for youngsters today, they will do amazing out of property probably far better than their parents did. They are growing up in a much more prosperous country, they are buying at a time when there has been little house price inflation for years and we know that never lasts. They are also able to borrow at ridiculously low interest rates.

In every city in every country house prices rise with growing population and growing wealth and this has been happening for thousands of years. We were sold all this shit about house prices never gonna rise again in the 90s, we believed it and missed out on a Tamarama beachfront house for $400K - goodness knows what that would sell for now but last time I checked it was over $6m.

It is silly to complain people complained about prices in Sydney in 2012, they even had a FHBG and they were still complaining. How daft do these people feel now?

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
 
Kulganis
Member Avatar


skamy
21 Oct 2014, 05:33 PM
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)
What an interesting way of looking at it.

I suppose it's only natural that you seem to expect everyone to aspire to own their own home, seeing as you do.

Maybe some people don't aspire to owning their own home, but prefer to use other means of providing for their retirement.

Here's an interesting set of statistics for you...



The USA has a population of about 318,946,000 people.

It is estimated that on any given night, there is up to 800,000 homeless people living on the streets.

About 0.25% of the population.



Australia has an estimated population of 23,636,400 people.

It is estimated that on any given night, there is about 105,237 homeless people living on the streets.

About 0.45% of the population.



There are more homeless people per capita in Australia than there are in the US. Nearly twice as many.

The US has a poverty rate of 14.5%, while Australia has a rate of 15%.

Clearly Australia has done a dreadful job at providing affordable homes for its population.
Edited by Kulganis, 21 Oct 2014, 07:51 PM.
"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear." - Gene Roddenberry

"Balloon animals are a great way to teach children that the things they love dearly, may spontaneously explode" -- Lee Camp
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
USianInPerth
Unregistered

skamy
21 Oct 2014, 07:45 PM
Clearly they cannot afford the houses they have extremely low home ownership rates. The costs of owning are much higher in the US you cannot just look at house prices. Australians house prices absorb taxes that are paid as you go forever in US house costs.

I do not believe what you say about buying a decent house on the median wage, if it were true more people would be doing it. Both your chosen US cities are much poorer by any measure than any Australian city. People over there would give an arm and a leg to live in our economy, it is crazy to try to argue that they have done anything better than us. Australia does a great job at providing affordable homes as is witnessed by the home ownership rates - and is much more egalitarian than the US.


When we grew up land had also inflated in price, much more so in fact than young people face today. Land prices have stagnated for a long time. My first purchase was when we worked in London and even 30 odd years ago we were forced to buy in a small village an hr on the train from the city. It was a one bed terrace with no street access and we had two graduate salaries with big companies. Two graduates today can do much better than that in Sydney, I really do not understand why some Aussies whinge so much.

If people don't like the price of land in a large population city then they can move to a city of lower population and buy what your parents bought (ie a house nearer to the city in a smaller city). You can probably even buy better eg 4 beds rather than 3 and 2 baths rather than 1. What you cannot expect to do is buy a the same house as your parents on the same income in what is now a much larger city with much more people competing for the stock.

Don't waste your time throwing a pity party for youngsters today, they will do amazing out of property probably far better than their parents did. They are growing up in a much more prosperous country, they are buying at a time when there has been little house price inflation for years and we know that never lasts. They are also able to borrow at ridiculously low interest rates.

In every city in every country house prices rise with growing population and growing wealth and this has been happening for thousands of years. We were sold all this shit about house prices never gonna rise again in the 90s, we believed it and missed out on a Tamarama beachfront house for $400K - goodness knows what that would sell for now but last time I checked it was over $6m.

It is silly to complain people complained about prices in Sydney in 2012, they even had a FHBG and they were still complaining. How daft do these people feel now?
The issue of low homeownership rates in Atlanta and Dallas says more about continued illegal bank redlining than it does about affordability. 3xMedianIncome is very affordable. It's that way throughout much of the south and midwest. Only in coastal cities is it expensive. But banks are hesitant in lending to minorities. And when they do, they do so at premium interest rates. You'll notice that those low homeownership rates are in areas with high minority populations. Blacks in Atlanta; Hispanics in Dallas. Completely illegal, but that's the way things remain in the States.
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
skamy
Member Avatar


Kulganis
21 Oct 2014, 07:47 PM
What an interesting way of looking at it.

I suppose it's only natural that you seem to expect everyone to aspire to own their own home, seeing as you do.

Maybe some people don't aspire to owning their own home, but prefer to use other means of providing for their retirement.

Here's an interesting set of statistics for you...



The USA has a population of about 318,946,000 people.

It is estimated that on any given night, there is up to 800,000 homeless people living on the streets.

About 0.25% of the population.



Australia has an estimated population of 23,636,400 people.

It is estimated that on any given night, there is about 105,237 homeless people living on the streets.

About 0.45% of the population.



There are more homeless people per capita in Australia than there are in the US. Nearly twice as many.

The US has a poverty rate of 14.5%, while Australia has a rate of 15%.

Clearly Australia has done a dreadful job at providing affordable homes for its population.
Kulganis this is sloppy for you - the Australian poverty rate is 13.9% (from ACOSS). They use below 50% of the median income.

The US use a measure based on affording certain costs for example, the poverty level for 2014 was set at below US$23,850 (total yearly income) for a family of four.[3]

Australia use a measure of below AU$43881 (US$38610).


As to homelessness you would have to have rocks in your head to believe Australia has a bigger problem than the US, we probably just count it better because more people care here. Have you ever been to the States? You picked one of the lowest estimates for your sums.

Quote:
 
USA

Estimated homeless figures in the United States range from 600,000 to 2.5 million
Source: http://www.fas.org, 2009



Some people manage to rent and do OK, the majority of renters however are significantly poorer by every measure, but hey if folk want to rent it is their call. Where I get irritated is with doom spruikers who lie and tell young people not to purchase homes as it is better to rent. Renters either have to move further out of the city or pay more rent if they want to remain in the same location as a city grows and that, Kulganis, impacts hugely on their ability to save or invest in other things as they age.

If someone prefers not to buy fair play to them, people do what they want anyway. However, to sit around complaining that it is harder today to buy than it was for previous generations is just stuff and nonsense.

Every generation has its own problems. In the late forties they tried price controls and no-one could buy a house as no one would sell and no-one would build. There are tales of a house hitting the market getting 13 or 14 offers in the first hour sight unseen. So real house prices may have been cheaper but home ownership was much less achievable. Our generation had to deal with huge hikes in interest rates and kids today have to find bigger deposits.


USianInPerth
21 Oct 2014, 08:24 PM
The issue of low homeownership rates in Atlanta and Dallas says more about continued illegal bank redlining than it does about affordability. 3xMedianIncome is very affordable. It's that way throughout much of the south and midwest. Only in coastal cities is it expensive. But banks are hesitant in lending to minorities. And when they do, they do so at premium interest rates. You'll notice that those low homeownership rates are in areas with high minority populations. Blacks in Atlanta; Hispanics in Dallas. Completely illegal, but that's the way things remain in the States.
It is only more or less affordable when all the costs are considered. Having an aggregate figure of 3 times median income does not tell you about affordability. If interest rates are prohibitive or large deposits required or huge back tax bills need to be paid this will impact affordability and clearly this happens.

The affordability is the ability of real life individuals to purchase and pay for their own homes. The poof of the pudding is in the eating. People are affording homes in Sydney and they are not in Dallas and Atlanta.

The people who would tell you a nice fairy tale about how Atlanta "does so well at home affordability" (not) want to build in our National Parks and rural land and they want to shit on our planning and environmental regulations. They say we should be like Atlanta and build away to outer bumfuck and hey presto young people will get a Sydney home at 3 times income. The fact is that Atlanta may have more lenient land release but that has led to less people in home ownership NOT more.

The sad thing is that sometimes good people believe this crap and they go around selling a developer agenda that would serve themselves very poorly.
Edited by skamy, 21 Oct 2014, 09:03 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
 
USianInPerth
Unregistered

skamy
21 Oct 2014, 08:28 PM

It is only more or less affordable when all the costs are considered. Having an aggregate figure of 3 times median income does not tell you about affordability. If interest rates are prohibitive or large deposits required or huge back tax bills need to be paid this will impact affordability and clearly this happens.
That's an absurd argument. Current interest rate of a fixed 30yr mortgage at prime is about 3.5% last I checked. I own a two-fam in Boston with a 4.25% fixed at 30 years. Interest rates are rock bottom.

Unless you don't warrant prime. Then they're crazy high. And, as I pointed out in the previous post, minorities often are only approved for sub-prime rates. And not because of poor repayment history or income potential. Which - I suppose - does impact "affordability". In that it is unaffordable to buy a house at 3xIncome when the bank won't led to you at prime due to racism, or lend to you at all in a redlined 'whites only' neighborhood.

Go to Atlanta sometime. Drive through the deep south. I have. The racism is that blatant.

Now, regarding the question of affordability and capital gains potential here in Perth, I think the market is tapped out. In particular, I think Subi is in for a hell of a residential crash, given all the construction ongoing. Add the stadium shutdown in 2017 and continued unlet storefronts along Rokeby Rd, and it looks like a disaster in the making. With nice opportunities to buy within the next five to seven years. But my are those folks buying into units along Brigid Rd going to get soaked. $667K for a single unit? LOL.

Australia is in for one hell of a reckoning. Happened in America. It's going to happen here and in the UK too. Fundamentals are way out of whack.
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Guest
Unregistered

USianInPerth
21 Oct 2014, 09:41 PM
That's an absurd argument. Current interest rate of a fixed 30yr mortgage at prime is about 3.5% last I checked. I own a two-fam in Boston with a 4.25% fixed at 30 years. Interest rates are rock bottom.

Unless you don't warrant prime. Then they're crazy high. And, as I pointed out in the previous post, minorities often are only approved for sub-prime rates. And not because of poor repayment history or income potential. Which - I suppose - does impact "affordability". In that it is unaffordable to buy a house at 3xIncome when the bank won't led to you at prime due to racism, or lend to you at all in a redlined 'whites only' neighborhood.

Go to Atlanta sometime. Drive through the deep south. I have. The racism is that blatant.

Now, regarding the question of affordability and capital gains potential here in Perth, I think the market is tapped out. In particular, I think Subi is in for a hell of a residential crash, given all the construction ongoing. Add the stadium shutdown in 2017 and continued unlet storefronts along Rokeby Rd, and it looks like a disaster in the making. With nice opportunities to buy within the next five to seven years. But my are those folks buying into units along Brigid Rd going to get soaked. $667K for a single unit? LOL.

Australia is in for one hell of a reckoning. Happened in America. It's going to happen here and in the UK too. Fundamentals are way out of whack.
No need to waste your time here, and logical reasoning or real life examples have no effect, bulls are immune to reality and will simply dismiss ANYTHING that does not suit their adenda as doom and gloom speak,no matter even the facts are placed in front of their face.

Can I ask you, did you here the same sort of delusional comments that you hear here, right before property in the US crashed.

Was it virtually, exactly the same ?
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
USianInPerth
Unregistered

Guest
21 Oct 2014, 10:02 PM
Can I ask you, did you here the same sort of delusional comments that you hear here, right before property in the US crashed.

Was it virtually, exactly the same ?
I think so.

On television you had Jim Cramer pumping up the market right before the crash, claiming it could never go anywhere but up. The shilling was so blatant, Jon Stewart over at The Daily Show skewered him repeatedly. Until Cramer came on his show and got skewered again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpLfOF4zZW0

What I remember in Boston was that just about everyone - all the little guys - were buying to flip properties. You'd see a property sold, there'd be a bit of construction to upscale, then it was on the market again in a matter of a few weeks or months. Banks were lending to just about anyone - like here! - extremely low rate variable interest loans with nothing down. But the catch is: if you hold and don't refinance, you're gonna get soaked when that loan resets.

Nobody believed it would ever end. Except for a few naysayers like Krugman (Nobel Prize winner), Shiff, Baker, and a few others. Rarely did they get time on television. You had to look them up. And there were always comment forums filled to the brim with people refuting them.

"It's a 'different' market now. There have been 'structural' changes. REITs and derivative credit default swaps have changed risk assessment which allows for safe high leveraging far beyond prior norms. This is the 'new normal'."

That's the BS we heard by pundits from even the best business papers, Wall Street Journal, Barons, The Economist, etc. With only an occasional naysayer quoted here and there in contrast to a deluge of optimists.

It became impossible to express a negative opinion. Even around a water cooler at work or at social gatherings. Because everyone had a vested interest in their property valuations. To even suggest the possibility of a general downside to property holdings might cause insult. No one wanted to think about it.

I think because underneath the blindsight, everyone knew the whole thing was crazy and couldn't last. But to admit this would pop the delusion. So you had to prop up the 'confidence fairy' on that valuations pedestal or risk threatening the whole shebang. Even Ben Bernanke - Fed Chairman - was in on it. Claiming right before the crash that market fundamentals were 'sound.'

They were anything but.

The situation in Australia is very similar. Recently my wife and I took a cab to the airport. The driver - a Middle Eastern bloke - tried to convince us that flipping properties was the way to get rich. He was in the process of renovating several units for resale. What's a cab driver doing investing in property? Our landlord is the same. He has several properties and is a FIFO worker. I'm sure the FIFO work pays well and I don't doubt he's worked hard for that money. But when *everyone* is invested in the same asset class, you know that's exactly the asset you don't want to buy.

It's just like the 90's tech stock crash. Everyone was buying tech stocks up until the market crashed. It's high volume and penetration into general awareness as valuable is the indicator that whatever the asset, it's already overvalued. Ya'll are buy'n tulips with four walls and a ceiling here. And many of these flowers are poorly constructed.
"REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Kulganis
Member Avatar


skamy
21 Oct 2014, 08:28 PM
Kulganis this is sloppy for you - the Australian poverty rate is 13.9% (from ACOSS). They use below 50% of the median income.
Yes, I apologise, I was reading from your post rather than researching the figure myself, I misread your post as saying Australia had a poverty rate of 15%.

Quote:
 
The US use a measure based on affording certain costs for example, the poverty level for 2014 was set at below US$23,850 (total yearly income) for a family of four.

Australia use a measure of below AU$43881 (US$38610).
Interesting, didn't know that.

So lets use the same measure...

Posted Image

The US has been hovering around 1 percentage point of 17% for the last 16 years. Whereas since the year 2000, Australia has seen an increase of almost 2 percentage points.

It is interesting that Ireland saw a massive reduction in their poverty levels after the GFC.

I can't get the image to size properly, no matter what size I put in, the forum squishes it.

Quote:
 
As to homelessness you would have to have rocks in your head to believe Australia has a bigger problem than the US, we probably just count it better because more people care here. Have you ever been to the States? You picked one of the lowest estimates for your sums.
Australia has almost twice as many homeless people per capita than the US, yes we do have a bigger problem, especially when you consider we have a much more expansive welfare system.

I actually picked one of the higher stats for my sums, I do remember saying 'on any given night', your 2.5 million number counts up all the people who experienced homelessness in a year. Such an obvious obfuscation.

Quote:
 
Some people manage to rent and do OK, the majority of renters however are significantly poorer by every measure, but hey if folk want to rent it is their call. Where I get irritated is with doom spruikers who lie and tell young people not to purchase homes as it is better to rent. Renters either have to move further out of the city or pay more rent if they want to remain in the same location as a city grows and that, Kulganis, impacts hugely on their ability to save or invest in other things as they age.
The problem I had, was you linking home ownership rates with affordability. It would be like saying (for instance) iPhone market share is about 28%, therefore iPhones are unaffordable and if iPhones were less costly, everyone would use them, despite some people liking Windows phones or Android or Blackberries for their features rather than just the price.

Quote:
 
If someone prefers not to buy fair play to them, people do what they want anyway. However, to sit around complaining that it is harder today to buy than it was for previous generations is just stuff and nonsense.
That isn't what you were saying, what you were saying is that housing in the US is less affordable than in Australia, because Australia has a higher ownership rate. Which is a ridiculous leap.

Quote:
 
Every generation has its own problems. In the late forties they tried price controls and no-one could buy a house as no one would sell and no-one would build. There are tales of a house hitting the market getting 13 or 14 offers in the first hour sight unseen. So real house prices may have been cheaper but home ownership was much less achievable. Our generation had to deal with huge hikes in interest rates and kids today have to find bigger deposits.
I like how you describe one of the most tumultuous periods in modern history as a 'problem'. And I wonder, would World War 2 and the fact we sent most of our young men overseas have anything to do with a lack of building new homes? I suppose the shortage of materials had nothing to do with it either? And anyway, the government regulated rents, not prices. Which reduced private investment into rental properties. The government built houses for people to rent instead. Which stopped in the 70s, due to NIMBYs
Attached to this post:
Attachments: oecdpoverty.jpg (165.62 KB)
Edited by Kulganis, 21 Oct 2014, 11:38 PM.
"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear." - Gene Roddenberry

"Balloon animals are a great way to teach children that the things they love dearly, may spontaneously explode" -- Lee Camp
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register for Free
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