Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 21
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 (15,180 Views)
herbie
Member Avatar


ThePauk
21 Sep 2015, 02:12 PM
$150k is hardly a little token, but whatever you think.
I was offered $100 K for a bit of work a while back (with the indication being there'd be plenty more most likely) 'n went Eff it ... Can't be bothered. But whatever you think also.

It is all relative as well as dependant on personal circumstances I suppose.
Edited by herbie, 21 Sep 2015, 02:21 PM.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
A Lurker
Default APF Avatar


ThePauk
21 Sep 2015, 01:42 PM
lol...Herbs, I am sure Microsoft do not invest into 'incompetent' business ventures.

So, did you check under the bed or not?
Nokia (US$7.7B write-down), Zune, Kin, aQuantive (US$6.2B write-down), Windows Me, Windows 8, Vista...
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


A Lurker
21 Sep 2015, 02:53 PM
Nokia (US$7.7B write-down), Zune, Kin, aQuantive (US$6.2B write-down), Windows Me, Windows 8, Vista...
There's been plenty of software screw-ups made by some of 'our' supposedly best 'n finest over the years - Nestle dropped the best part of a bill on a failed SAP implementation as I recall?

'N that was a reasonable number of years back when a bill really WAS worth something - LOL!
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Mike
Default APF Avatar


Ex BP Golly
21 Sep 2015, 01:12 PM
That is true, unless there is a default.
In this context, (painting your house purple aside) a default is - if the value falls below a prescribed level as covered in the contract.

The only people protected from this are those who have taken out a reverse mortgage.
So you think a default is when the value of a property falls below the original value in the loan contract.

Who else things this statement is true :wak:
http://mike-globaleconomy.blogspot.com.au/
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Ex BP Golly
21 Sep 2015, 01:47 PM
Exactly. They can still do it if they need to, like in the event of a major downturn.

Once again, People should read their contracts very carefully.
Show us the clause in a contract that lets them do this.

Or an example of it ever having happened.
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
 
The Whole Truth
Member Avatar


This question was debated on a 200+ page thread wasn't it?
"Panics do not destroy capital; they merely reveal the extent to which it has been previously destroyed by its betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works." John Stuart Mill
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
stinkbug
Member Avatar


The Whole Truth
21 Sep 2015, 05:39 PM
This question was debated on a 200+ page thread wasn't it?
Yes. And I believe the consensus was that for loans written under the NCCP, default constituted failure to make the agreed repayments, regardless of the underlying asset value.

EDIT: This applies to PPORs.
Edited by stinkbug, 21 Sep 2015, 05:53 PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------

While it's true that those who win never quit, and those who quit never win, those who never win and never quit are idiots.

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Ex BP Golly
Member Avatar


Frank Castle
21 Sep 2015, 02:18 PM
So you have no evidence
Not you nor any of your retarded mates ever have ever had evidence and all you have done is made shit up............again.
I've posted my proof previously.
The Minister for Finance (Then Bill Shorten) announcing the legislative provisions protecting reverse mortgage participants from actions arising to property falling into negative equity.

Here it is again Frank:

"..."These measures deliver a new level of protection for seniors who take out reverse mortgages. Reverse mortgages are different from other credit products and it is important the law takes into account their unique characteristics. With these new measures, older Australians can have greater confidence when using these products, and will be able to make better choices."

Example: Peggy and Bob took out a reverse mortgage twenty years ago. Bob passes away and Peggy is now 85 and has health issues.

Peggy decides to sell the home and move into a residential care facility. However, fluctuations in the property market and the way that debt grows in a reverse mortgage mean that Peggy now owes $1.1 million when the house is only worth $633,000.

Previously, Peggy's lender could require payment of the debt in full to release the mortgage. Now, under the new negative equity protection, Peggy will only be required to pay back the value of her home when it is sold.

This reform gives borrowers certainty about what will happen at the end of the contract, to assist their planning. (taken from www.moneysmart.gov.au)

The changes will amend the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 to significantly reform the regulation of reverse mortgages.

Key measures in the draft legislation are:

Australia's first statutory protection against negative equity, restricting lenders from asking seniors to pay more than the value of their home...."
http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2011/120.htm&pageID=003&min=brs&Year=&DocType=


If the provisions applied, as Shady continually and incorrectly propounds, this provision protecting the elderly would not be required.

More here in the explanatory note
https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L02415/Explanatory%20Statement/Text


"Issued by authority of the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Select Legislative Instrument 2012 No. 313



National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009

National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 3)

Section 329 of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (the Act) provides that the Governor-General may make regulations prescribing matters required or permitted by the Act to be prescribed, or necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to the Act.

The Consumer Credit Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Act 2012 (Credit Enhancements Act) amended the Credit Act (including the National Credit Code) to introduce a number of reforms to the regulation of reverse mortgages and consumer leases. The Regulation amends the National Consumer Credit Protection Regulations 2010 (Principal Credit Regulations) to support the reforms introduced by the Credit Enhancements Act.

A reverse mortgage is a credit product offered to seniors allowing them to access the equity in their home. The debt does not usually need to be repaid until the home is sold (usually when the borrower dies or voluntarily vacates the home), with interest compounded until this time.

Section 86A of the Credit Enhancements Act amends the National Credit Code to provide a protection against negative equity for reverse mortgage borrowers. This protection provides that a borrower will not have to pay more than the market value of their home as repayment for a reverse mortgage (even if the amount of interest that has accrued would result in the balance of the debt exceeding that value).

The amendment to the Principal Regulations prescribes the method for calculating the market value of a reverse mortgaged property, when a property either has or has not been sold.

The amendment provides that if the property has been sold, the market value is its sale price. However, if the property has not been sold, or has been sold and circumstances exist which have reduced its market value (as specified in the regulation), the market value must be determined by an authorised valuer. The purpose of the amendment is to:

• provide certainty for borrowers regarding the maximum amount they will need to repay; and

• provide that lenders will not bear the risk of negative equity in situations in which the borrower’s conduct has reduced the value of the property.




Shadow
21 Sep 2015, 03:47 PM
Show us the clause in a contract that lets them do this.

Or an example of it ever having happened.
The clause has been shown to you many times, you need to consult a psychiatrist.
Mike
21 Sep 2015, 03:24 PM
So you think a default is when the value of a property falls below the original value in the loan contract.

Who else things this statement is true :wak:
It's not of importance what I think, it is what is in the contract.

This provision exists in most contracts.
Edited by Ex BP Golly, 21 Sep 2015, 06:11 PM.
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE!
Share a cot with Milton?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


herbie
21 Sep 2015, 01:06 PM
You said something pretty ridiculous (the tree thing) given where you are fundamentally coming from regarding desiring home ownership John, and I called you on it.

With you apparently not appreciating being called on it? - To the extent where you go looking for me re supposed frustration and hypocrisy on my part.

Well OK, to address same:

The supposed hypocrisy re Socialism - I see no fundamental conflict in recognising that while there are genuine cases out there who need a helping hand to get by (which I'm very happy to see given to them) that Socialists are just effing idiots to pay so little attention to the fact that it does seem to be a pretty inherent part of human nature to want to improve one's lot financially; And as such, for them to not realise that Socialism is fundamentally at odds with something that is an inherent part of human nature; And that we'd be effing idiots as well if we didn't recognise that to the extent Socialists just might be successful in implementing full on Socialism, what they really are being successful in is creating an ever increasing bunch of bludging free loaders. With that in itself inevitably sowing the seeds for the destruction of their beloved egalitarian Socialist system.

As to the supposed hypocrisy re Georgism (and that Aussie dill David Collyer who promotes it) the story is pretty much ditto as above for Socialism - In that Henry George possibly failed to understand the immense obstacles to implementing a system that was fundamental at odds with what would seem to have historically and currently still be, a pretty natural human desire to acquire land and resources and profit from the ownership thereof. Though in fairness to George, whilst being NO expert on it myself, I suspect he was probably much more after 'the land barons' of his day as opposed to 'the homesteaders' of his day? But silly bloody Collyer's even got the knife into the average basic Joe Six Pack 'homesteader' of our modern era. And wants to tax him to death TOO! So he's a VERY unrealistic dill. And gets what he deserves - For mine - With that being pretty much squat to date at least apparently!?!

Now my fundamental approach tends to be to say Yes, the desires to get ahead financially and acquire land and resources, are so ingrained in most people anyway (hopefully anyway!!! - with the alternative of them not being so, not sounding especially attractive to me at all) that we best just accept this is so and develop systems that recognise and support these desires, rather than fight them - If we want to have systems that just might have some sort of chance of being successful long term.

And in having said that, as you seem SO keen to nail me for some sort of fundamental 'HYPOCRISY', you VERY well could be in with a shot (or three) - Because while I incline to supporting systems that recognise the inherent desires of humans to get ahead financially/acquire land and resources for the benefit of them and theirs blah, blah, because these seem to be pretty natural things to want to do (from my observations anyway):

* Potential Shot A: I'm NOT inclined to support systems that actively encourage people to become bludging layabouts - Despite the fact it could be argued a desire to become a bludging layabout just could be pretty inherent part of human nature ALSO maybe? and

* Potential Shot B: It can pretty easily be turned around to say that in wanting to acquire land and resources from which one can profit, one is just displaying their natural tendency to want to become a bludging layabout anyway - Which is something I've previously said (or at least strongly implied?) I DON'T support perhaps? and

* Potential Shot C: If you can't dream up AT LEAST ONE of your own, I'll be quite disappointed in you John ...

So finally, to the "frustrated" 'accusation' - Well as it happens, I'm pretty content. In most ways anyway Ta. And in any ways I'm not, I very much doubt you have the ability or capacity to assist me in becoming more content - So don't see any point telling you all my supposed little 'issues and problems'. Though will admit, some pretty strange things DO seem to be being proposed by some pretty strange people in the world these days. But with me saying Oh well, it will be what it be and I'm pretty bloody confident I'll make the bloody best of it regardless - And if I bloody don't, then on my own bloody head be it! :)
Bump for Frummy - Given you did ask.

And I did take the time to reply. (Though I'm effed Y.)
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Frank Castle
Member Avatar
Business As Usual

Ex BP Golly
21 Sep 2015, 05:53 PM
I've posted my proof previously.
No you havent.
That all relates to reverse mortgage.
A mortgage designed for people who are retired and have no job income to meet repayments.
In effect, they are a NON conforming loan and in no way related to a conventional housing loan.

What else have you got?
Ignore posts by The Whole Truth · View Post · End Ignoring
The forum fuckwit goes RRRAAARRRGGHHhhh - But not a fuck was given..................by anyone.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 21



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