I'm constantly amazed by people who have no knowledge of history, but who quote it inaccurately to make an inaccurate point.
I'm quite amazed by the same thing, please provide hard data supporting your assertion that banks were relegated to minority lenders in the mortgage market to be surpassed by non bank lenders during the 1990's.
I'm quite amazed by the same thing, please provide hard data supporting your assertion that banks were relegated to minority lenders in the mortgage market to be surpassed by non bank lenders during the 1990's.
DEREGULATION OF AUSTRALIAN BANKS Australian banks have gone through a period of rapid deregulation in the last decade. Deregulation was a process which started in the 1960s and by 1985 the Australian banking system was "virtually fully-deregulated" (Grenville, 1991, p. 3). The Campbell Report which strongly argued for deregulation in 1981 accelerated the pace of deregulation, which by then was inevitable and irreversible (Grenville, 1991, p. 3; Valentine, 1991, pp. 42--43). Australians emerged from the Second World War with a faith in regulated markets (Singh, 1991a, p. 53).
However, regulation of banks whereby the central bank controlled interest rates, the volume and direction of lending, became less effective as banks lost market share in the 1960s and 1970s to the building societies, finance companies and merchant banks.
Banks' market share went from 88 per cent of the assets of financial intermediaries in 1953 to 58 per cent in 1980 (Martin, 1991, p. 25). As in other OECD countries, this was the result of the strong growth of household wealth,
You can download the whole speech if you are happy to pay.
Now is there anything else you would like clarified Chris. Perhaps your apology to everyone who participated in this thread would be appropriate at this point.
Take risks - if you win you will become wealthy, if you lose you will become wise
So you are COMPLETELY and TOTALLY wrong. Hoisted on your own petard..... I'll await your apology once again for falsely calling me a liar.
*crickets*..... still waiting Chris? Are you a man or a mouse? At least admit when you have been caught out FALSELY accusing others of lying, when they were right and you were in the fact the one who was WRONG.
PS and Rufus clearly has you strung up as well over your lack of understanding of how the lending market looked in the 80s and early 90s. As an FYI, my first loan in 1992 was in fact through a building society (St George)! Which was where my savings were at the time as well. The banks wouldn't even talk to me re a housing loan back then. It was a different world Chris - but you will never understand. Your bitterness and incompetence stop you from gaining any understanding of these matters.
Newjerk? can you try harder than dig up another person's blog. My first promo was with Billabong and my name in English is modified with a T, am Perth born but also lived in Sydney to make my $$ It's Absolutely Fabulous if it includes brilliant locations, & high calibre tenants..what more does one want? Understand the power of the two "P"" or be financially challenged Even better when there is family who are property mad and one is born in some entitlements.....Understand that beautiful women are the exhibitionists we crave attention, whilst hot blooded men are the voyeurs ... A stunning woman can command and takes pleasure in being noticed. Seems not too many understand what it means to hold and own props and get threatened by those who do. Banks are considered to be law abiding and & rather boring places yeah not true . A bank balance sheet will show capital is dwarfed by their liabilities this means when a portions of loans is falling its problems for the bank.
It appears I got a little arse about on years and IR's, it happens.
The best part is watching a bunch of geriatrics salivate over one fark up and hail it as a major victory in a bid to avoid the underlying truth. My mistake does not erode the fact that Sydneyite purchased his home under very easy circumstances comparatively. He can suggest that homes were 8 times income in 1999 but that has zero baring on his second purchase given he had purchased his first home in 1992 when the ratio was 5.5 times the median wage. Sire IR's were at 10-12% but this was for a very short period of time and in less than two years the rates were averaging 9% and by 1999 had fallen to 6.5%.
His start was demonstrably easier compared to FHBs today, there is nothing he could do to deny this. I acknowledge that in 1999 FHB's would have been subject to roughly 7-8 times earnings IR's but this is irrelevant for any subsequent purchase he made given he already had a home, if he chose to upgrade and place himself in circumstances of 8 times in one or more then that was his choice and not something he would have been religated to by circumstance. He would of had equity in the first home and the upgrade should have technically kept him in the same income to price ratio unless he chose to jump two rings instead of one.
The fact remains the ratio was 50% more expensive today than in 1999 and almost 2/3 more expensive than when he purchased in 1992.
IRs are a factor but they dropped quickly over the years and he was on a good wicket there so nothing he has achieved in housing when comparatively being gifted his first home is to fi with anything other than being born a gen x.
It's also interesting to note that as IRs fell in the late 90's early 2000's that's when ratios went over 10 times earnings effectively rendering housing as severely unaffordable, this is why the rate of ownership under 45yr has declined ever since. This is why home ownership between the 24-35 age group is about to fall below 30% and is on track to be the lowest rate of ownership our country has seen since the 1950's.
It appears I got a little arse about on years and IR's, it happens.
The best part is watching a bunch of geriatrics salivate over one fark up and hail it as a major victory in a bid to avoid the underlying truth. My mistake does not erode the fact that Sydneyite purchased his home under very easy circumstances comparatively. He can suggest that homes were 8 times income in 1999 but that has zero baring on his second purchase given he had purchased his first home in 1992 when the ratio was 5.5 times the median wage. Sire IR's were at 10-12% but this was for a very short period of time and in less than two years the rates were averaging 9% and by 1999 had fallen to 6.5%.
His start was demonstrably easier compared to FHBs today, there is nothing he could do to deny this. I acknowledge that in 1999 FHB's would have been subject to roughly 7-8 times earnings IR's but this is irrelevant for any subsequent purchase he made given he already had a home, if he chose to upgrade and place himself in circumstances of 8 times in one or more then that was his choice and not something he would have been religated to by circumstance. He would of had equity in the first home and the upgrade should have technically kept him in the same income to price ratio unless he chose to jump two rings instead of one.
The fact remains the ratio was 50% more expensive today than in 1999 and almost 2/3 more expensive than when he purchased in 1992.
IRs are a factor but they dropped quickly over the years and he was on a good wicket there so nothing he has achieved in housing when comparatively being gifted his first home is to fi with anything other than being born a gen x.
It's also interesting to note that as IRs fell in the late 90's early 2000's that's when ratios went over 10 times earnings effectively rendering housing as severely unaffordable, this is why the rate of ownership under 45yr has declined ever since. This is why home ownership between the 24-35 age group is about to fall below 30% and is on track to be the lowest rate of ownership our country has seen since the 1950's.
How's that for progress.
Interesting that when you say something wrong, it should be passed off as a 'mistake' but when anyone else does, they apparently are now compulsive liars in which all they say is now based on lies.
Didn't Golly have a graph showing rents have become more affordable over the years? If so, there's your balance right there Chris. You said the scenarios offered of missed opportunities don't relate to basic human shelter. Well, if I recall that graph correctly, rents are more affordable. You've got the option of renting, you can use the opportunities of this generation to get ahead to buy, if you don't then that's your fault not the fault of others. Even though regardless of all that, you can get a very affordable house in Australia, you just need to leave the city of Sydney which is something your incapable of doing. Why is it your right to live where ever you want and have affordable housing in any location you desire?
I'd like to own a big house close to the city too, but I don't complain about it since I know not everyone can have that, it's just not feasible. Therefore I'll have to work a little harder than the next guy if I want to afford a little bit more than the next guy, and/or make a few sacrifices that he isn't making.
Unless I'm mistook (or he's recently moved), Chris calls Melvegas home 'n wants ta buy there - Not Sydvegas.
Dr Kinetoscope
5 Jul 2017, 07:19 PM
There is, however, every right to be angry.
Am I 'entitled' ta be angry that as a landlord, rental growth is tha lowest in a coupla decades?
Am I 'entitled' ta be angry that as a saver 'n self funded retiree wot likes me bank deposit income (a lot!) that interest rates are tha lowest in a coupla decades (if not longer)?
Am I entitled ta be angry that while I'm told inflation is low, tha price of pretty much everything I seems ta buy (except food) seems ta keep going up a lot?
Well ta answer me rhetorical questions me bloody self, I reckons not - But I IS entitled ta DO pretty much wotever I can dream up ta DO about it me bloody self for me bloody self. (Which is a very nice thing about livin' in a comparatively quite free country - Sheesh, I's even 'entitled' ta eff off 'n live somewhere else if I really hates everything in Oz ALL that bad).
Unless I'm mistook (or he's recently moved), Chris calls Melvegas home 'n wants ta buy there - Not Sydvegas.
Fair enough, just most his posts have been geared towards Sydney so I just assumed he lived there.
Melbourne is getting up there but it's not crazy like Sydney yet. If Chris had been saving his money for the past few years rather than squandering it then he should be fine to buy a decent house there.
Granted it's not affordable to buy a first home 5km's from the city like it is in Brisbane, but that's Melbourne for you. You pay a premium when you're in a bigger city.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy