Quantcast
Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
RSS












Welcome to Australian Property Forum. Please register here or log in below.

Username:   Password:
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 39
I called the Australian housing bubble in 2003 and watched a decade with no crash. 2013 - what now?
Topic Started: 7 Jan 2013, 09:32 AM (28,143 Views)
miw
Member Avatar


Miles McCarthy
7 Jan 2013, 07:36 PM
1) Top end properties often rent at 2% gross yield, giving you much better value for money. i.e. you get to live in a million dollar property for the cost of buying a 550K property.
Top end properties rent at low gross yield until they get sold out from under you. It's fine if you don't care about security of tenure. But the reality is that these properties are usually on the rental market fairly temporarily. And if you by some chance manage to rent it for 10 years, you will be paying twice the rent whereas your mortgage payments would have been the same.

Quote:
 
2) Renters don't hold illiquid assets and don't shit their pants and spruik on property forums when the market corrects or goes into lost-decade mode.


True enough about the illiquid assets. Most of the renters I know don't have many assets at all.

Quote:
 
3) Renters have higher disposable income and live a much better lifestyle through that while saving for retirement at a 15% tax rate.


Homeowners who have a job are also putting away superannuation. The ability to add to top-up super keeps getting curtailed as well, unfortunately.

Quote:
 
4) Renters don't have to deal with council or body corporates, pay rates or levies or top up the sinking fund, or be caught in a debt trap when prices fall or interest rates rise.


No. Renters deal with REAs and landlords. Bad as body corporates and councils can be, I'm no fan of dealing with REAs and landlords either.

Quote:
 
5) Renters don't need to take out home insurance, worry about plans to build an airport or a block of 40 units next door.


Agree on that one, although insurance is just a holding cost. A renter will still need to hold contents insurance.

Quote:
 
Are there downsides to renting? Absolutely! Are there risks involved in this kind of strategy? Yes there are. But purchasing carries it's own risks and a great many downsides too.


Agree completely. There are risks to both strategies. But if you f^ck up the buying side you will tend to do it earlier in your life when there is some chance of recovery. And if the value of your paid-off house tanks when you are 65 you have much more chance of still being able to smile than if your share portfolio or gold hoard suddenly decreases in value by 50%, as they are wont to do from time to time.

Quote:
 

In ten years the buyer may be earning a lot more than they are now, made possible through the higher disposable income and/or career mobility facilitated by renting. The financial strain and stress of purchasing a ridiculously overpriced house 1.5 hours commute from the office may permanently set back a career, whereas renting close to the office opens up career and lifestyle opportunities. There is a big difference between purchasing at 4x income and 9x income. GET IT?


Living beyond your means will cause you stress regardless. Buyers tend to take the stress early on in their lives while renters get it later on if they don't plan adequately.

BTW I rent and have done for the past 14 years when I could have bought a place for relatively nix in 2003 but didn't trust the BJ Real Estate market. Bad decision on my part? Maybe. Too early to tell, and I did other things with the money which also worked out. I certainly pay too much bloody rent. And it goes up every year, by more than my increase in income.

I also have a million-dollar apt (1.1 according to valuation) in BNE for which the rent nett of all costs, taxes etc. is almost exactly enough to pay off a $550k mortgage (or a 680k home at 80% LVR) so good call on that. But I only bought it because I thought I would live in it one day, which now seems increasingly unlikely. Of course I bought it for $500k 11 years ago and it is mostly paid off now, so it is just earning me money waiting for the time when I have something better to do with whatever amount it eventually fetches when the market becomes liquid again. At which time the tenant will probably have to move. Anything above-median is a poor IP in my view.

Also, if I had access to Australian super I'd certainly have used it. It has been damn near free money.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
--Gloria Steinem
AREPS™
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Miles McCarthy
Default APF Avatar


miw
7 Jan 2013, 08:30 PM
Top end properties rent at low gross yield until they get sold out from under you. It's fine if you don't care about security of tenure. But the reality is that these properties are usually on the rental market fairly temporarily. And if you by some chance manage to rent it for 10 years, you will be paying twice the rent whereas your mortgage payments would have been the same.
True enough, but if I wanted to live in the same place for 10 years I would buy out West and deal with the bogans and other assorted pr1cks to humanity.
Quote:
 
True enough about the illiquid assets. Most of the renters I know don't have many assets at all.

Touche.
Quote:
 
Homeowners who have a job are also putting away superannuation. The ability to add to top-up super keeps getting curtailed as well, unfortunately.

Yes, this is part of the sovereign risk with superannuation. As a renter I had more I could put into super at 15% tax, but they keep lowering the cap, so I need to rethink my strategy soon.
Quote:
 
No. Renters deal with REAs and landlords. Bad as body corporates and councils can be, I'm no fan of dealing with REAs and landlords either.

Granted, but you can change your REA and landlord and still live in the same electorate, but unfortunately councillors seem to be stuck to their seats with crazy glue. I've had good REAs and some absolute shockers. Previous REA tried to defraud me (literally) 3 times, current REA pleasant and responsive.
Quote:
 
Agree on that one, although insurance is just a holding cost. A renter will still need to hold contents insurance.

Why, we have no assets remember? ;)
Quote:
 
There are risks to both strategies. But if you f^ck up the buying side you will tend to do it earlier in your life when there is some chance of recovery.

Not if you buy at the very top of a once in a century boom, that can take a lifetime to recover from. There is no way I will be the last sucker to join the game, I'll wait for the house to take its winnings and pick up a bargain from one of the losers.
Quote:
 
Agree completely. And if the value of your paid-off house tanks when you are 65 you have much more chance of still being able to smile than if your share portfolio or gold hoard suddenly decreases in value by 50%, as they are wont to do from time to time.

The future is a long way away, nobody really knows what will happen in the intervening period, best just to evolve your strategy with circumstance and don't double down when your strategy turns against you.
Quote:
 
Also, if I had access to Australian super I'd certainly have used it. It has been damn near free money.

Up until now yes, but I willingly admit that there is a huge sovereign risk with super. The government could tax it punitively or simply steal ... er ... borrow it, and never pay back the loan (or do so in massively debased terms so it is worth nothing), so it is not without it's risks. Of course, 600+Billion of withdrawals by retiring BBs could cause some interesting effects as well.

The world is full of risk and opportunity and insisting that one strategy that worked in the past is the best strategy for now and all times is just simple minded nonsense. The alternative though is very scary and unpleasant as it involves THINKING!


The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Poontang
Member Avatar


Miles McCarthy
7 Jan 2013, 09:20 PM
True enough, but if I wanted to live in the same place for 10 years I would buy out West and deal with the bogans and other assorted pr1cks to humanity.


Touche.


Yes, this is part of the sovereign risk with superannuation. As a renter I had more I could put into super at 15% tax, but they keep lowering the cap, so I need to rethink my strategy soon.


Granted, but you can change your REA and landlord and still live in the same electorate, but unfortunately councillors seem to be stuck to their seats with crazy glue. I've had good REAs and some absolute shockers. Previous REA tried to defraud me (literally) 3 times, current REA pleasant and responsive.


Why, we have no assets remember? ;)


Not if you buy at the very top of a once in a century boom, that can take a lifetime to recover from. There is no way I will be the last sucker to join the game, I'll wait for the house to take its winnings and pick up a bargain from one of the losers.


The future is a long way away, nobody really knows what will happen in the intervening period, best just to evolve your strategy with circumstance and don't double down when your strategy turns against you.


Up until now yes, but I willingly admit that there is a huge sovereign risk with super. The government could tax it punitively or simply steal ... er ... borrow it, and never pay back the loan (or do so in massively debased terms so it is worth nothing), so it is not without it's risks. Of course, 600+Billion of withdrawals by retiring BBs could cause some interesting effects as well.

The world is full of risk and opportunity and insisting that one strategy that worked in the past is the best strategy for now and all times is just simple minded nonsense. The alternative though is very scary and unpleasant as it involves THINKING!
There is another alternative, continue renting (at a much cheaper cost than buying) and divert those additional funds into an investment property for the ten years.




The biggest risks to superannuation, and I should not really call them risks as they are way more likely than not to become reality, are reducing ability to draw lump sum payments from superannuation and having to set up an annuity/pension type payment plan from your fund.

Main instigator of this will be the compulsory infrastructure spending (through bond government bond purchases) of superannuation monies.
Governments are all too well aware of how much money is in superannuation accounts and they WILL legislate for its use in infrastructure spending.
There are some people who seem angry and continuously look for conflict.
Walk away, the battle they are fighting isn't with you, it's with themselves.

The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is not enough of anything to satisfy all who want it.
The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. ~ Thomas Sowell.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Pig Iron
Member Avatar
Bogan scum

Miles McCarthy
7 Jan 2013, 11:54 AM

And skipped paying 10 years of interest payments from his lifetime accommodation costs. What is your point?

This very clearly shows what a massive idiot you are. He has only defered 10 years of interest, he will only avoid it if he never buys.
I am the love child of Tony Abbott and Pauline Hanson
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
skamy
Member Avatar


sylvester
7 Jan 2013, 01:18 PM



Skamy, I agree with Stavros. Politicians are all for a housing bubble and have used their power to inflate prices. We have massive population growth and unrestricted foreign investment for the purpose of keeping prices high.




Nonsense no-one wants a housing bubble and Australia does not have a bubble. You sound like Pauline Hanson, what do you want a one child policy and no immigration?.
There are plenty of cheap places to live in Australia with few migrants and low population, why don't you go buy there.

I honestly see you guys getting seriously mocked in a couple of years for all this silly bubble rubbish. It is an over-simplistic model built on dodgy stats. It has been predicting crashes in just about every country in the world since 2008 and it has failed and failed and failed. It has served its purpose for news.com over the last few years but no-one seems to want to play that game anymore, I wonder why?.

If you use just a modicum of common sense you can see that Australia's houses are not overpriced, and that talk of crashing prices is a fallacy.

But don't mind me if you want to go ahead and believe in silly bubbles and ponzis and other crap put about by the demographia developer guys and others with their vested interests etc etc then go right ahead. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot force it to drink.
Miles McCarthy
7 Jan 2013, 03:19 PM

You took advantage of your age and career position to ride the boom, but please try to think before recommending the same course of action to someone in a completely different financial/investment position than you.
You have this opportunity today.
But you are too greedy - you cannot see a good thing because you want something better. You have told yourself this fantasy tale that the property market is suddenly going to stop behaving in the way it always has. You believe this fairy tale because you are greedy for low house prices.

Edited by skamy, 7 Jan 2013, 11:45 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. Their pessimism is bolstered by researchers who have noticed parallels between the Great Depression of the 1930s and the current period and others who like to compare the U.S. to debt-ridden Third World countries.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
mango66
Member Avatar


skamy
7 Jan 2013, 10:59 AM
Hi Maz

My first comment is that I really do not believe houses are overpriced in Perth, price relative to median wages has a ratio of 8.65 in Perth this is about the same as post downturn Luton (8.64) in the UK .


My second comment is that I put my money where my mouth is and bought twice last year in the 500-600K bracket (one was with my daughter to help her get a start) I found the market to be quite busy with anything decent going in the first week
LMFAO..... You are Irish right? That explains everything. You are for sure the biggest idiot on this forum.
Sunder
7 Jan 2013, 11:34 AM
Or it could be time to admit the indicators that he thought were going to cause a crash are inappropriate.

For example, just say you read a health article, saying that people with a BMI over 30 are at heightened risk of heart attack. You measure yourself, and realise you have a BMI of 35. You think you'd better do something, and start eating a low fat, high protein diet, and start working out.

Every year, you think you're going to have a heart attack, or get diabetes, or something. But it never happens. Your BMI keeps going up, and you keep thinking you're getting into a worse and worse risk. Finally, at BMI 40, you go see a doctor, who laughs at you. Why? Because you look like this:

Posted Image

BMI, while it may have some statistical relevance to heart attack, confuses cause with correlation.

Likewise, if the bears are focusing purely house price to income ratio, or affordability measures based on that, without looking at other indicators, are going to confuse indicators with causes.

In the past, high prices to income ratios may have indicated a market about to crash. But it only indicated, it didn't cause, and so with other buffers - government handouts, better monetary policy, a more efficient and risk friendly finance system, what we previously considered a good indicator of a coming crash, may well no longer work.
Thanks for posting the picture of Frank Castles.
skamy
7 Jan 2013, 10:59 AM




The FHG is $7000 how can that hold up prices? don't be silly.
The interest rates here are very high compared to Europe and the rest of the world.

You are living in an imaginary world if you seriously thing house prices are held up by the government or vested interests. They are held up by home purchasers, competing for the best properties.

Your bordering on insane. You are so brainwashed it's not funny.
I watched prices rise significantly in 2008-09. The example that comes to mind was a house we looked at for 300k when we first moved to Merimbula. At that the market was starting to stagnate, post GFC, and vendors were starting to panic. Enter KRudd ( the worst PM not including JG) with the 14/21K FHOB and within months we saw that same place sell for 80k more. The extra activity with FHO pushed the market up rapidly. It went from houses sitting there no bids to multiple bidding. All those young people are now trapped with higher mortgages than they would have anticipated .Going on the house we where watching the buyers would have been around 50K worse off. Rudd fucked a lot of people over that slimy bit of stimulus.
If you can't see that your blind to reality. I've read a lot of the tripe you post and there's no denying your a total housing defunct. Good luck in the future with you and your poor daughters negative equity. Great bit of advice you gave her. I'm sure shell be happy with you in years to come when the mining sector cools . Unemployment will be great in Perth then and your little o'l 8.8 times median income houses will be the investment of a lifetime. In the mean time I'll continue to get the comical enjoyment i have been from your posts. To be sure to be sure :lol
Edited by mango66, 8 Jan 2013, 06:54 AM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


mango66
8 Jan 2013, 06:15 AM
I watched prices rise significantly in 2008-09. The example that comes to mind was a house we looked at for 300k when we first moved to Merimbula. At that the market was starting to stagnate, post GFC, and vendors were starting to panic. Enter KRudd ( the worst PM not including JG) with the 14/21K FHOB and within months we saw that same place sell for 80k more.
May I ask what that house would sell for now?


Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Maz
Member Avatar

Thanks for the input everyone. My own thoughts:

1) I too believe stimulus had a lot to do with it. I do find it interesting that the stagnation here has lasted so long - around five years now with no price movement. My suspicion is that people are still earning well courtesy of all the mining dollars floating around but have moved more to deleveraging rather than bidding up prices. It's for this reason that I don't think we will see a significant crash. Almost no bubble ends with a plateau, especially not one that lasts a decade. I think that house prices were way overvalued and are still significantly overvalued, but not to the extent that I had originally believed. Whereas I once thought 40% nominal falls were possible I now am thinking of more like 15-20%.

2) Slow melt. But not a 20-year slow melt, I hope. Perhaps 3-5 years? I have started looking for a PPOR now so I hope for a 5% drop this year, but that's about as optimistic as I can get. The rental growth will help "investors" with their repayments, as will falls in rates. The wild card here is that a major drop in iron ore prices would, I suspect, cause a lot of the more recent arrivals (sometimes I feel like all of Ireland works in Perth pubs and restaurants) to head back home as unemployment rose. I don't know any more about the future of iron ore prices than anyone else, so that's a wild guess. We could equally see a major increase in these and then a house price rise may even happen.

3) Noting that I don't think there will be a crash, any number of things are lining up that may cause downward pressure. Then again, a large number of such things have already happened and with no significant fall in prices. As for Perth, it is a one horse mining town. Your fate and house prices there are tied to the fortunes of the Chinese kleptocracy. Get out while you still can.

4) I think the govt could do a lot to stimulate without having to fund anything. Examples may be allowing the family home to be paid off with super or opening the immigration floodgates. Spain has already tried this, bailing out their banks and then forcing pension funds to buy government bonds to bail themselves out. In any case, the Super fund mangers lobby group will cry poor as they can no longer charge hefty fees and leech off the super fund. Immigration will happen if there are jobs here. No jobs means rising emigration, not immigration. But austerity is the new black around the world. So governments end up having to pay a political price if they reach for the stimulus gun. I doubt Swanny will go for FHOB again. Besides, rate cuts did nothing for house prices in 2012.. It seems the law of diminishing returns holds true for any government stimulus.

5) Further to the above, and following some of the other comments, I'm curious about the effect of people who've moved here for work for the medium term. It could easily spark a large exodus if there was a mining downturn, which, interestingly, may keep a lid on local unemployment but make renting less competitive.

6) We're about to get a rental increase, they haven't finalised the number yet but the range is 2.4% to 4.8% increase. Not too bad given how tight things are at the moment.

7) Given I'm thinking of buying this year (certainly not definite, we plan to be both picky and opportunist and are about to re-sign our rental lease for 12 months) I might start a thread soon on how to hedge if you're capitulating.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
The Ponz
Member Avatar


sylvester
7 Jan 2013, 01:18 PM
Maz, I agree, it is very frustrating and I sympathise. Prices were too high in 2003 after a run-up from the mid 90s, and plenty of people back then were predicting a crash. Who knew then that the bubble hadn't even started yet? A 10% fall hardly makes housing affordable, but at least prices are falling finally.

Skamy, I agree with Stavros. Politicians are all for a housing bubble and have used their power to inflate prices. We have massive population growth and unrestricted foreign investment for the purpose of keeping prices high.

The housing market would not have been remotely as resilient without government interference. You are confusing the government's artificial propping up of the bubble with fundamentals.

The FHG of $7,000 did pump up prices way more than the amount of the grant. In any case, during the Rudd government, grants were way higher than $7,000 and brought buyers forward who could not have afforded to take on a mortgage without the deposit being handed to them on a platter. This, combined with negative gearing, had first home buyers competing with investors, pushing prices up even further.

There is no way prices would be as high were it not for the government's interference. Again, the FHOG, massive immigration, negative gearing, foreign investment along with the mainstream media, sub-prime-like lending by banks, and all the while being cheered on by the mainstream media and the real estate industry pumping out adverts disguised as articles telling everyone to "buy now or miss out" have all contributed speculative mania causing one of the biggest housing bubbles in the world.

But Maz, back to you. There is a saying, "the market can remain irrational longer than you or I can remain solvent," and I think it applies very well to this case. House prices have beome irrational, and we are all told that it is because Australia is different, when really, it's the government and other vested interests pulling the strings and propping it up. The bubble started with the Howard government, but as soon as Rudd and then Gillard came to power, they pissed away so much money on stupid causes that there isn't anything left in the kitty. That's not to say they can't and won't go into far more debt to prop up the bubble and may well do so. Gillard and Swan's foolishness and lust for waste is endless. But eventually it has to come to an end. The only problem is that a Liberal government won't be any more in favour of bursting the bubble than the Labor govt is. But a bubble, by definition, can't stay inflated forever. I think it will be something that happens elsewhere; maybe Europe, the US, Middle-East or China that starts the unravelling.

Australia is always being promoted as being very prosperous with all our mineral wealth. So why, during our most prosperous period, do we have to have the bubble propped up?


"Thufferin' Thucotash!... Thats a good post

And can I just say it's enjoyable to read a lengthy thread on this forum that hasn't resorted to naming calling and other insults within the first page.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Stavros
Default APF Avatar


skamy
7 Jan 2013, 11:30 PM
Nonsense no-one wants a housing bubble and Australia does not have a bubble. You sound like Pauline Hanson, what do you want a one child policy and no immigration?.
There are plenty of cheap places to live in Australia with few migrants and low population, why don't you go buy there.

I honestly see you guys getting seriously mocked in a couple of years for all this silly bubble rubbish. It is an over-simplistic model built on dodgy stats. It has been predicting crashes in just about every country in the world since 2008 and it has failed and failed and failed. It has served its purpose for news.com over the last few years but no-one seems to want to play that game anymore, I wonder why?.

If you use just a modicum of common sense you can see that Australia's houses are not overpriced, and that talk of crashing prices is a fallacy.

But don't mind me if you want to go ahead and believe in silly bubbles and ponzis and other crap put about by the demographia developer guys and others with their vested interests etc etc then go right ahead. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot force it to drink.

You have this opportunity today.
But you are too greedy - you cannot see a good thing because you want something better. You have told yourself this fantasy tale that the property market is suddenly going to stop behaving in the way it always has. You believe this fairy tale because you are greedy for low house prices.

Skamy, you called me silly for pointing out that the 14K FHOG inflated property prices.

Do you now understand, that using a LVR of 95%, this can really boost prices?

Its not really good form to call someone silly, when it is in fact you that have made an embarrasing oversight.

And for the Original Poster, also note that uninformed and finacial illiterate people like Skammy are keeping the ponzi alive by 'setting up their kids in houses'. This is a massive reason why house prices havent fallen as rapidly as us bears predicted. The only people I know that are my age (30) and are buying houses right now, are those that have been gifted their deposits from their parents. This aspect of the ponzi is also running dry, as more and more kids knock back the offer - knowing it to be fools gold!

So Skamy, you are "Setting up your kids" alright, setting them up for a financial nightmare.

It seems Skamy has everything to lose if this bubble does crash, so no wonder she denies a bubble at every opportunity
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 39




Find us on Google+

Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter


Australian Property Forum Housing Market Snapshot


Australian Property Forum focuses on Australian and global real estate markets, economics, and finance, including house prices, housing affordability, macroeconomics, and the likelihood of an Australian property crash. Does Australia have a housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is it a good time to buy property using a home loan, or better to rent and save the difference? Is rent money dead money? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can property values rise keep rising forever? These are the types of question we address on Australia's premier real estate chat site for property bears, bulls, investors and speculators. Whether you're a property investor, first home buyer (FHB) or a happily renting tenant, this site has content for everyone. Additional topics debated on APF include politics, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, precious metals, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental, human rights and social justice issues, whether or not Australia has a critical housing shortage, versus a glut (oversupply) of dwellings, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax, macro prudential regulation, reverse mortgages, debt consolidation, debt management, home insurance, landlord insurance, auction results, auction clearance rates, and all the latest house price news. Forum members also regularly review and and analyse the latest blogs and trending topics from sites like Business Spectator, Property Observer, Macrobusiness, Somersoft, Demographia, Steve Keen's Debtwatch, as well as MSM (mainstream media) articles from well known economists, reporters and commentators such as Ross Gittins, Neil Jenman, Michael Pascoe, Alan Kohler, Shane Oliver, Catherine Cashmore, Philip Soos, Louis Christopher (SQM Research), Mike (Mish) Shedlock, Leith van Onselen, Chris Becker, David Llewellyn-Smith, Chris Vedelago and more. APF is the first forum to report and debate the latest auction results and house price data releases from APM (Australian Property Monitors), Residex, RP Data Rismark, REIV (Real Estate Institute of Victoria), REINSW (Real Estate Institute of NSW), REIA (Real Estate Institute of Australia), HIA (Housing Industry Association), RBA (Reserve Bank of Australia), API (Australian Property Institute), and the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics).

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. Posts on Australian Property Forum may contain links to other websites operated by third parties. These websites are not under the control of Australian Property Forum and APF management is not responsible for their content.

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. Australian Property Forum members are solely responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of their posts, including any alterations made to posts. 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 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 without profit 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