Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
Young couple reinvent the Japanese Property Strategy; At 24.5 years of age they "own" 22 properties, 19 acquired this year!
Topic Started: 20 Sep 2015, 11:14 AM (15,174 Views)
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Ex BP Golly
22 Sep 2015, 03:59 PM
Show me the part of the NCCP Act that deals with negative equity.
I already explained to Chris that the NCCP Act does not define negative equity as a default.

This clause you're harping on about doesn't exist in NCCP regulated mortgage contracts. Multiple people with NCCP regulated contracts have explained this to you. You are unable to produce any NCCP regulated contract containing such a clause.

Even if the clause was in an NCCP regulated contract (which it isn't), the Courts are never going to permit an innocent family to be kicked out of their home.

It's all just a silly bear myth Golly. It has never happened, and never will.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Ex BP Golly
Member Avatar


Shadow
22 Sep 2015, 04:04 PM
I already explained to Chris that the NCCP Act does not define negative equity as a default.

This clause you're harping on about doesn't exist in NCCP regulated mortgage contracts. Multiple people with NCCP regulated contracts have explained this to you. You are unable to produce any NCCP regulated contract containing such a clause.

Even if the clause was in an NCCP regulated contract (which it isn't), the Courts are never blah blah blah

Yep, as the a treasury says, no other provisions exist.

You have nothing other than your vibe.

I decided to sit down with a glass of wine and transcribe the letter referred to previously, as so unfairly demanded by you, because you think we are all your lap dogs.

Swype is pretty cool.

Letter follows with introduction from the Parliamentary Services Unit.

Dear xxxx

Thank you for your email of xxx 2014 concerning protections governing negative equity arrangements associated with home loans.


Please find attached the reply to your email

Kind regards

Ministerial Correspondence Team
Parliamentary Services Unit
Department of Treasury


Attachment:

Dear Mr xXxX,

Thank you for your letter of xxxx concerning protections governing negative equity arrangement associated with home loans. I sincerely apologise for the delay in responding to you.

As you will be aware, reverse mortgages carry unique risks and complex financial and legal impacts for borrowers that are significantly different from those associated with other more traditional credit products such as home loans.

This can mean that borrowers may enter into a reverse mortgage without an adequate understanding of how the loan may impact the equity that have in their home over time, and how their future circumstances may be effected.

As you noted, changed have been made to the provisions governing reverse mortgages to address some of the risks including, from March 1 2013, the introduction of a statutory protection against negative equity, which means that borrowers cannot be required to pay more than the value of their home.

In addition, New targeted disclosure is to be provided before the consumer enters into a reverse mortgage, among other protections relevant to senior Australians.

In regard to your question about protections against negative equity for other mortgages there are no similar statutory provisions.

Under a home loan, banks will usually only take steps to repossess a property when the borrower is in arrears on their home loan after missing the scheduled repayments.

In addition, if the borrower is unable to meet repayments under a standard home loan due to reasonable cause, they can apply to the bank for a change to their contract under the hardship provisions of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009.

In contrast, once a reverse mortgage has commenced, no repayments are made by the borrower, which will likely result in a reduction in equity in the home. Instead the loan is repaid in full (including interest) when the borrower either dies, or permanently vacates the home.

I trust this information will be of assistance.......



Edited by Ex BP Golly, 22 Sep 2015, 05:28 PM.
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE!
Share a cot with Milton?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Ex BP Golly
22 Sep 2015, 04:45 PM
from March 1 2013, the introduction of a statutory protection against negative equity, which means that borrowers cannot be required to pay more than the value of their home.

In regard to your question about protections against negative equity for other mortgages there are no similar statutory provisions
??? :bl:

This has nothing to do with the issue we're discussing.

It's saying that for 'other' mortgages, borrowers can be 'required to pay more than the value of their home'.

So what? All borrowers pay more than the value of their home, under a normal mortgage. If you buy a home for $500K and pay it off over 25 years, you'll end up paying about a million dollars. This is normal. Everybody in Australia with a normal mortgage will end up paying more than the value of their home.

Nowhere does it say a bank can repossess a home just because it fell in value.

Is that seriously all you've got? :re:
Edited by Shadow, 22 Sep 2015, 06:00 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Ex BP Golly
Member Avatar


Shadow
22 Sep 2015, 05:58 PM
??? :bl:

This has nothing to do with the issue we're discussing.

It's saying that for 'other' mortgages, borrowers can be 'required to pay more than the value of their home'.

So what? All borrowers pay more than the value of their home, under a normal mortgage. If you buy a home for $500K and pay it off over 25 years, you'll end up paying about a million dollars. This is normal. Everybody in Australia with a normal mortgage will end up paying more than the value of their home.

Nowhere does it say a bank can repossess someone's home just because it fell in value.

Is that seriously all you've got? :re:
Rest easy dude. You have found the magic pudding, and your clever interest only loans are perfectly safe.

You have no risk, are guaranteed vast riches, and therefore are uber investment man.

Have a smiley face on me.
Shadow
22 Sep 2015, 05:58 PM
??? :bl:

This has nothing to do with the issue we're discussing.

It's saying that for 'other' mortgages, borrowers can be 'required to pay more than the value of their home'.

So what? All borrowers pay more than the value of their home, under a normal mortgage. If you buy a home for $500K and pay it off over 25 years, you'll end up paying about a million dollars. This is normal. Everybody in Australia with a normal mortgage will end up paying more than the value of their home.

Nowhere does it say a bank can repossess a home just because it fell in value.

Is that seriously all you've got? :re:
I forgot to add......

You are a Moron!
Edited by Ex BP Golly, 22 Sep 2015, 06:06 PM.
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE!
Share a cot with Milton?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Ex BP Golly
22 Sep 2015, 06:04 PM
You are a Moron!
You've got nothing.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Ex BP Golly
Member Avatar


Shadow
22 Sep 2015, 06:06 PM
You've got nothing.
I've got you propagating your 'gutless investor advice' over at least three sites on the internet ( where you have been resoundingly trashed) including this desperate :lol blog on this forum. http://australianpropertyforum.com/blog/entry/3174279/38440

Your desperate need to believe you have no exposure to risk is just Fucking hilarious!

Quote:
 
Some people (normally property bears) like to suggest that banks can 'call in' or 'margin call' or repossess the homes of borrowers who end up in negative equity simply because (through no fault of the borrower) house prices happen to fall/crash. They claim the banks can do this even if the borrower is keeping up with his repayments. One person has pointed to a statement in this CBA document to back up his claim. His document says...

Quote:

What we require from you for the loan to operate
3.5 Value of the Security
The value of and title to the Security Property must be to out reasonable satisfaction at all times during the term of the Contract. We may obtain a new valuation of any Security Property.

Default
9.1 When you could be in default
You are under default under the Contract if any of the following conditions apply:
(a) Overdue amount: You do not pay on time any amount payable under the contract
(b) Breach of contract: You do not keep to the other terms of the Contract or the terms of any Security
(c) Value or title unsatisfactory: We are not reasonably satisfied with the value of or the title to the Security Property or the Security over it will be inadequate security for the Loan in accordance with our usual prudent credit standards


It should be noted that the CBA document quoted above is not a contract - it is an information booklet about home loans, and therefore non-binding, and not a legal document. Clause (c) is there to cover circumstances where a revaluation is triggered for example due to the borrower knocking down the house. A general fall in house prices would not trigger a revaluation, and the CBA booklet doesn't claim that it would.

In fact, the NCCP Act 2009 actually makes it quite clear that banks can't 'margin call', or repossess, or force the sale of a residential property unless the borrower has defaulted on repayments and subsequently failed to comply with a request to remedy that default.

National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009

Quote:

Division 2—Enforcement of credit contracts, mortgages and guarantees

88 Requirements to be met before credit provider can enforce credit contract or mortgage against defaulting debtor or mortgagor

Enforcement of credit contract
(1) A credit provider must not begin enforcement proceedings against a debtor in relation to a credit contract unless the debtor is in default under the credit contract and:
(a) the credit provider has given the debtor, and any guarantor, a default notice, complying with this section, allowing the debtor a period of at least 30 days from the date of the notice to remedy the default; and
(b) the default has not been remedied within that period.
Criminal penalty: 50 penalty units.

Enforcement of mortgage

(2) A credit provider must not begin enforcement proceedings against a mortgagor to recover payment of money due or take possession of, sell, appoint a receiver for or foreclose in relation to property subject to a mortgage, unless the mortgagor is in default under the mortgage and:
(a) the credit provider has given the mortgagor a default notice, complying with this section, allowing the mortgagor a period of at least 30 days from the date of the notice to remedy the default; and
(b) the default has not been remedied within that period.


Furthermore, ASIC stipulates the following conditions...

Quote:

http://www.hofinet.org/upload_docs/What_happens_if_my_mortgage_is_enforced_0121.pdf

Posted Image


Note that these rulings applies to regulated loans. All PPOR (homeowner) mortgages are regulated. All IP (investment property) loans entered into since July 2010 are also regulated, with the exception of large property developer loans (loans for multiple properties values at greater than $5 million).

And regardless of the fact that banks have no legal right to take such action (repossession, forced sale etc) against homeowners who are not in default, it wouldn't be in the bank's interest to do so anyway. A loan is an asset to a bank. It would make no sense for a bank to repossess the home of a non-defaulting borrower and then force the sale of that home for less than the value of the loan. It wouldn't help the bank's balance sheet or financial position in any way.

Readers may also be interested in this discussion I had with Treasury on the matter...

Quote:

Hi,

I have a question about residential mortgages and the NCCP Act. I'm trying to determine exactly what protection a borrower has from a bank taking foreclosure action in an instance where the borrower continued to make all payments on time and adhered to all other provisions of the mortgage contract. My specific question is this...

Do lenders have the ability to foreclose, force the sale of, repossess, call in, demand a loan 'top up', 'margin call' or otherwise take action against a borrower simply because general house prices have fallen? If the mortgage contract includes a clause stating that a default occurs when the lender is not 'reasonably satisfied' with the value of the property, could the lender use this clause in the event of a general property crash to declare that the borrower has defaulted? Would the NCCP permit the lender to take action against the borrower in such a case?

For example, after taking out a mortgage, property values in the area fall to a point where the value of the property might be less than the originally agreed LVR, or fall to some other point where the lender is not 'satisfied' with the valuation. Does the lender have the right to then revalue the property, declare that the borrower has defaulted, and take action against the borrower?

In other words, the borrower is keeping up with their repayments, has not breached any other conditions of the contract, and the only issue is that the bank decides it is no longer 'satisfied' with the value of the property because house prices happen to have fallen. Is the borrower protected by the NCCP?

Thanks for your advice in this matter.

Regards.

xxxx xxxxxxxxx

Treasury response...

Quote:

Dear Mr xxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your inquiry.

We understand that some lenders will require the borrower to reduce their liability to a specified amount to reduce their risk exposure where property values fall. However, this is restricted to lines of credit or interest only loans where the principal is not required to be reduced until the end of the contract.

We are not aware of any normal ‘principal and interest’ home loans where the lender has the right to sell a property simply because property values fall. However, a provision of this type, if included, could infringe the unfair contracts terms legislation in the Australian Consumer Law.

We trust that this information is of assistance to you.

Consumer Credit Unit
Retail Investor Division
The Treasury, Langton Crescent, Parkes ACT 2600


Note that when Treasury refers to 'interest only loans where the principal is not required to be reduced until the end of the contract', they are talking about commercial or developer type loans there, where the principal must be repaid, usually in full, at the end of the term. Normal property investor IO loans just roll over to P&I, or get extended as IO at the end of the term.

Anyone who wishes to verify this response can contact Treasury themselves.

The email address I used was ConsumerCredit@TREASURY.GOV.AU

Further information and debate about this topic can be found here... NCCP Act 2009: Lenders not permitted to 'call in' loans unless borrower is in default

The NCCP Act does cover normal property investor loans...

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Does+the+new+credit+regime+apply%3F

Quote:

Investment lending for residential property

If the loan is to a natural person, and the credit is provided wholly or predominantly to
purchase, renovate or improve residential property for investment purposes, then the loan is
regulated under the National Credit Act, and the credit provider needs to be registered and
licensed. ‘Residential property’ is defined in the National Credit Act and includes land on
which a dwelling is or will be affixed predominantly for residential purposes.


However it should be noted that large property developer loans are exempt (loans for multiple properties valued at greater than $5 million)...

Quote:

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011C00035
65C Residential investment property loans — exemption from Code
The Code does not apply to the provision of credit if:
(a) the credit is provided for the purpose of investment in residential property; and
(b) the credit is not provided for the purpose of investment in a single residence; and
(c) the total amount if the credit provided, or to be provided, is more than $5 000 000.


(Note: the words 'and' above mean all three clauses (a), (b), and (c), must apply for the exemption to apply)

Quote:

http://www.finder.com.au/home-loans

Regulated Home Loans

The majority of types of home loans or applications as a general rule are regulated under the NCCP Act. The rules of these can be quite complicated but a loan will usually be regulated if it falls under certain conditions.

These conditions include the fact that the home loans are issued to actual individuals and not companies; that the loans are being made for domestic or household purposes or to purchase or renovate the home or even to refinance the home. A charge is to be made for the credit and this must be done in the course of a business. Most standard home loans due to these conditions are regulated with the exception of those that are made to companies and those that are used to invest in commercial property. These exceptions may provide for more loan options.
Quote:

http://www.homeloanexperts.com.au/home-loan-articles/nccp-act/

Which home loans are regulated?

As a general rule, almost all home loan types & applications are regulated under the Act. The rules for this are complicated, however a loan is likely to be regulated if it meets the following conditions:

The borrower is natural person; and
The credit is provided wholly or predominately;
For personal, domestic or household purposes; or
To purchase, renovate of improve residential property for investment purposes; or
To refinance credit that has been provided wholly or predominately to purchase, renovate or improve residential property for investment purposes; and
A charge is made for providing the credit; and
The credit provider provides the credit in the course of a business.

This means that most standard home loans are regulated under the Act. The main exceptions are:

Loans in the name of a company (i.e. not to a “natural person”).
Loans used predominantly to invest in commercial property, shares or a business.

There may be more flexible lending products available for these loan types, where no form of income verification is required. These are known as a no doc loan.
Posted 7 Feb 2012, 09:23 PM · 7 comments
Comment by Rastus2, 7 Feb 2012, 09:45 PM
What about the unregulated mortgages that exist ? are they vulnerable ?

I believe most (all ?) IP mortgages taken out prior to the 1 July 2010 NCCP Act 2009 were unregulated. That is a lot of 'exceptions' to your claim is it not ?
Comment by Shadow, 7 Feb 2012, 09:52 PM
The rules also existed prior to the 2009 NCCP Act.

Before the NCCP, the relevant legislation was the UCCC.

I have three IP loans, all taken out prior to 2010. None of them have a clause that would allow the bank to take any action just because house prices fall.

There may be a few unregulated residential loans out there, but the numbers would be tiny compared to regulated loans.
Comment by Rastus2, 9 Feb 2012, 06:03 PM
How many is a few Shadow ?

3 ? 10 ? 1,000 ? 10,000 ? 20,000 ? (wow a few might be a lot eh ?)

In truth any unregulated mortgage that still exists may fall into this category.

Thus, your blog (and forum thread's) original claim is incorrect...
Banks can, indeed, claim you are in default for some mortgages (by their definition of default) and demand your LVR be returned to a level *they* consider appropriate.

You can fix your blog's error by adding that regulated mortgages are safe, but un-regulated mortgages may be under threat of this bank action. (As bears have pointed out previously)
Comment by Shadow, 9 Feb 2012, 09:50 PM
The blog already says that.
Comment by Shadow, 15 Sep 2012, 07:05 PM
Readers may also be interested in this discussion I had with Treasury on the matter...

Quote:

Hi,

I have a question about residential mortgages and the NCCP Act. I'm trying to determine exactly what protection a borrower has from a bank taking foreclosure action in an instance where the borrower continued to make all payments on time and adhered to all other provisions of the mortgage contract. My specific question is this...

Do lenders have the ability to foreclose, force the sale of, repossess, call in, demand a loan 'top up', 'margin call' or otherwise take action against a borrower simply because general house prices have fallen? If the mortgage contract includes a clause stating that a default occurs when the lender is not 'reasonably satisfied' with the value of the property, could the lender use this clause in the event of a general property crash to declare that the borrower has defaulted? Would the NCCP permit the lender to take action against the borrower in such a case?

For example, after taking out a mortgage, property values in the area fall to a point where the value of the property might be less than the originally agreed LVR, or fall to some other point where the lender is not 'satisfied' with the valuation. Does the lender have the right to then revalue the property, declare that the borrower has defaulted, and take action against the borrower?

In other words, the borrower is keeping up with their repayments, has not breached any other conditions of the contract, and the only issue is that the bank decides it is no longer 'satisfied' with the value of the property because house prices happen to have fallen. Is the borrower protected by the NCCP?

Thanks for your advice in this matter.

Regards.

xxxx xxxxxxxxx

Treasury response...

Quote:

Dear Mr xxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your inquiry.

We understand that some lenders will require the borrower to reduce their liability to a specified amount to reduce their risk exposure where property values fall. However, this is restricted to lines of credit or interest only loans where the principal is not required to be reduced until the end of the contract.

We are not aware of any normal ‘principal and interest’ home loans where the lender has the right to sell a property simply because property values fall. However, a provision of this type, if included, could infringe the unfair contracts terms legislation in the Australian Consumer Law.

We trust that this information is of assistance to you.

Consumer Credit Unit
Retail Investor Division
The Treasury, Langton Crescent, Parkes ACT 2600
Anyone who wishes to verify this response can contact Treasury themselves.

The email address I used was ConsumerCredit@TREASURY.GOV.AU
Comment by Andrew Judd, 1 Feb 2013, 06:22 PM
If you have a loan in the name of a trust does that mean it is not loaned to a natural person?
Comment by Shadow, 20 Feb 2013, 08:05 AM
The NCCP Act does cover normal property investor loans...

http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Does+the+new+credit+regime+apply%3F

Quote:

Investment lending for residential property

With the new coverage of investment lending for residential property, are loans to property developers caught?

Most property development is done through companies. Loans to companies are not subject
to the new credit regime. Only loans to natural persons and strata corporations are caught.
If the loan is to a natural person, and the credit is provided wholly or predominantly to
purchase, renovate or improve residential property for investment purposes, then the loan is
regulated under the National Credit Act, and the credit provider needs to be registered and
licensed. ‘Residential property’ is defined in the National Credit Act and includes land on
which a dwelling is or will be affixed predominantly for residential purposes.
Therefore, a loan to a natural person to buy land and build residential dwellings on it will
generally be caught. This is true even if that person borrows on a number of occasions to
develop a number of properties.




Those into watching complete self degradation can watch Shadow engaged in his "hiding behind mummies skirts" attitude to life here:

http://somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77062

As you will see he has been resoundingly trashed on this issue since at least February 2012.

Some sort of warning is required.


Look out!
Edited by Ex BP Golly, 22 Sep 2015, 06:38 PM.
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE!
Share a cot with Milton?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Ex BP Golly
22 Sep 2015, 06:25 PM
gutless investor advice!
you have been resoundingly trashed!
desperate!
Your desperate need!
Fucking hilarious!
complete self degradation!
hiding behind mummies skirts!
resoundingly trashed!
Some sort of warning is required!
Look out!
You're sounding pretty rattled there. Your treasury letter was a big disappointment. Come back to us if you find something more compelling.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Ex BP Golly
Member Avatar


Shadow
22 Sep 2015, 07:22 PM
You're sounding pretty rattled there. Your treasury letter was a big disappointment. Come back to us if you find something more compelling.
I enjoy examining your psychopathology.

For example, this is you on 13.02.2012 on this issue:

"Exactly - thank you. I said that the CBA information booklet contains various T&Cs that may apply across a broad range of loans, and I asked to see an actual contract that included those T&Cs. I also asked TF to advise whether every single T&C in the booklet was present in every single loan contract, and that no other clauses (aside from those in the booklet) existed in every loan contract.

I did not, as TF falsely claims... 'argue the ING and CBA TsandCs are not contractual terms'..."
http://somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77062&page=12



I mean seriously, you are asking someone "whether every single T&C in the booklet was present in every single loan contract, and that no other clauses (aside from those in the booklet) existed in every loan contract."

That is totally psychotic Shady. You've clearly not stabilised since 2012.


Edited by Ex BP Golly, 22 Sep 2015, 08:17 PM.
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE!
Share a cot with Milton?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Ex BP Golly
22 Sep 2015, 08:06 PM
Some confused garble
Sorry, I can't make any sense of that. Are you saying you've finally discovered an NCCP regulated contract containing the clause? If so, can you post it up?
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Ex BP Golly
Member Avatar


Shadow
22 Sep 2015, 08:16 PM
I said that the CBA information booklet contains various T&Cs that may apply across a broad range of loans, and I asked to see an actual contract that included those T&Cs. I also asked TF to advise whether every single T&C in the booklet was present in every single loan contract, and that no other clauses (aside from those in the booklet) existed in every loan contract.

I did not, as TF falsely claims... 'argue the ING and CBA TsandCs are not contractual terms'..."
http://somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77062&page=12

Sorry, I can't make any sense of that.
Precisely. Your words are extremely confused.

Perhaps you are starting to stabilise.
Edited by Ex BP Golly, 22 Sep 2015, 08:23 PM.
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE!
Share a cot with Milton?
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.
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