Dead Cat Bounce

Do you think the current rise in Cheaper properties is a " Dead Cat Bounce "

  • No , this is start of the next trend :)

    Votes: 23 20.2%
  • Yes , can't see a sustained rise occuring at this point

    Votes: 52 45.6%
  • Buggered if I know ...

    Votes: 39 34.2%

  • Total voters
    114
  • Poll closed .
Token

I think your observation is well founded.

The old faithful of yields, cashflow, economics has some groups on this forum glaze eyed.....mention the word risk management???...and you have a party...LOL.

Property investing is pretty simple......but it is amazing how complicated it gets on this forum for some.;)

Understanding of the risk management in anything you do is the very thing that separates 10% owing 90% wealth and the rest with 10% wealth.

Take for example, most ppl starts their sharemarket journey on how to perfect their entry point technique and trying to find that holy grail that will give them 100% of win/loss ratio. The boring bit of "risk capital", "2% rule" etc is always ignored until in the later investment stage for A MINTORITY of prudent investors who learnt their lessons, while the majority remains defiant that they must have made the right decision and the market is wrong till they finally lose all of the investment capitals..
 
Understanding of the risk management in anything you do is the very thing that separates 10% owing 90% wealth and the rest with 10% wealth.

Take for example, most ppl starts their sharemarket journey on how to perfect their entry point technique and trying to find that holy grail that will give them 100% of win/loss ratio. The boring bit of "risk capital", "2% rule" etc is always ignored until in the later investment stage for A MINTORITY of prudent investors who learnt their lessons, while the majority remains defiant that they must have made the right decision and the market is wrong till they finally lose all of the investment capitals..

Actually I'd disagree with both points here. The 10% of the population who own 90 % of the wealth , own it because they have actually done something . The 90 % who own the rest didn't . They sit back talking about doing something , or complain about the people who have the 90 % .

Risk management . Interesting concept . I've studied risk management in the context of technical analysis and spent way too much time analysing share markets and doing all of the things you need to do ( according to the experts ) to make a system robust . These are the same concepts that are behind many of the financial instruments that have been the trigger at the heart of the ongoing financial collapse . These are the concepts that people used to justify the robustness of what they were doing . Problem was there was no way of working out the Risk of the overall system and if anyone comes up with a way of explaining this , well , unfortunately there's no way I'd trust it ....

So I'm vary wary about statistics when it comes to risk management.

The most important underlying concept behind risk management ( for me ) is undertanding that our results are determined by the behaviour of the crowd.

This is where the vocal outspoken minority ( essence , non recourse ) get this place wrong . Somersoft is not the Crowd . Where this place leads , the crowd follows . Not necessarily because they are following us , but because forumites are constantly looking for opportunities and we see where the action is about to start and the members of this forum will be there at the start , and we will be talking about it .

I'd personally define appropriate risk management as investing with the trend. Obviously the problem comes with defining when a trend is established and the reason for this post was to get peoples opinion . I've noted that you don't have to pick the bottom of the trend to make money . We only got into property investing well after the last cycle was established and still did very nicely.

Having said that , If I ever get around to share trading in a significant fashion , I would use a statistical model for position sizing , but my analysis worked out 1.4 % to be a more consistent figure when working out my initial stops . Less volotile , without much loss in profit. I use a trailing stop based on ATR.

Cliff
 
Cliff, why would you want to invest in an individual share portfolio when you can buy the ASX200, EURO, MSCI asia or various sub-indexes (resources, health, media) using an exchange traded ETF (either on ASX or US exchanges), with MER <0.9%pa ?? And if you want to pay more there are various boutique and hedge funds.

I estimate at least 90% of individual sharemarket investors underperform the index over 5 year periods.

With property, well it is great having firm specific risk when the returns are going your way, not so good when they are not and you have all your eggs in the wrong basket. Breaking it down, it is interesting to calculate how much overperformance is due to leverage.
 
You stated you own your PPOR and dont really care if it moves up or down 50%: its your place of abode, its your castle, modified to your style, to reflect your temperment, its a reflection of Token Funder.

My ambivalence is also a function of the fact that I don't owe anything on it:)
 
Well, the fact is, property investing in Australia since 1996 have pretty much made the concepts of yields, cashflow etc largely irrelavant. I think many of us on this forum have made lots of mullah on the strong capital growth of the past decade, even in the face of some significant negative gearing.

Yields and cashflow going out the window are characteristics of punters embracing an asset bubble in my opinion.
 
Actually TF, I think you would care if it went down 50%. Maybe even more if it went down 90%. Or perhaps you wouldn't care if it went down 99% ?

Anyway, if you own it, you probably care and it is a matter of degree. It's called "the wealth effect".
 
Actually TF, I think you would care if it went down 50%. Maybe even more if it went down 90%. Or perhaps you wouldn't care if it went down 99% ?

As I've always seen my PPOR as a cost rather than an asset and it now costs me bugger all, I really wouldn't care if it went down 99%. I intend to leave the place in a wooden box.

In fact, given the number of fees and charges linked to its value...I can see the upside ;)
 
Feihong...how true.

I have been investsting in property for over ten years and I have seen people who acquired significant assets lose it due to overleveraging....moving into somethin they did not understand drop in wealth quickly. It is one thing to build wealth...but another to keep it over the long term.

I am a true believer in the psychology of wealth....sometimes people's ego think they are invincible....this is when they are most at risk. Others I see dabble in other things they have no idea about and lose the lot.

The other thing I see in property and business for that matter is not realising the change in the market...this is a classic issue in both the share and property markets. ;)

Time is the best teacher...it it reveals all...both success and failures....

Understanding of the risk management in anything you do is the very thing that separates 10% owing 90% wealth and the rest with 10% wealth.
 
Cliff, why would you want to invest in an individual share portfolio when you can buy the ASX200, EURO, MSCI asia or various sub-indexes (resources, health, media) using an exchange traded ETF (either on ASX or US exchanges), with MER <0.9%pa ?? And if you want to pay more there are various boutique and hedge funds.

I estimate at least 90% of individual sharemarket investors underperform the index over 5 year periods.

With property, well it is great having firm specific risk when the returns are going your way, not so good when they are not and you have all your eggs in the wrong basket. Breaking it down, it is interesting to calculate how much overperformance is due to leverage.

If I'm trading what you mention I'm trading with the pro's who are watching the market all the time . I've done that in the past and it's booring .

If I'm investing in the market , I want to have control over when I get in and out . With funds , as many people discovered , you can't always get out when you want to ...

I've got variations on a theme which trade long in a trending market and basically double what the market is doing . I've done significant amounts of back testing over different time frames with monetcarlo simulations and they are relatively robust . When we sold our last development I was intending on putting all my research to use and trade with a decent capital , but when I looked at the market ( early 08 ) I realised the long term trend was down , and that doesn't suit my system. I'm happy to stay on the side line at the moment . At some stage in the next couple of years , I'll go from watching on the share side line to investing , but at the moment , the long term trend is still down and there's too much volitility for someone like me who wants to buy in medium to long term trends .

Leveraging , that's the big benifit of property and makes it so effective. What's wrong with using that . We've bought our entire property portfolio on borrowed money. Worked well for us .

You mention good returns going your way , and not so good when it goes against you. Well that comes down to doing your research , doesn't it .

Preservation of gains is a critical part of investing.

Cliff
 
Cliff there is a reason why its very difficult to diversify away the risk, based on historic inputs.
This is the development of a new paradigm by George Soros. Basically he states that the currently accepted paradigm that financial markets tend towards equilibrium is a falicy when applied to the real world as it assumes perfect knowledge.
Human beings are incapable of having perfect information as they process information through prisms reflecting their own circumstances and inherent biasness.
Human beings biased perceptions thus influence not just market prices, but also the fundamentals that those prices are supposed to refelct. This is because on one hand human beings try to understand their situation, but on the otherhand their try to change the situation (for personal advantage or to to achieve a better outcome). The two functions work in opposite directions and can interfere with each other.
This can lead to the self reinforcing (through market participants perceived understand of a situation and then perceived successful application in changing the situation) but eventually self defeating boom-bust processes (as their knowledge base in not perfect and they have structural deficiencies through the imperfect application of changes to the situation)

Thus instead of trying to completely diversify away risk, recognise the fact that we as human being cannot successfuly achieve this, and thus we should act accordingly.
 
In my opinion this is why dollar averaging such a successful strategy over the long term.
Most human beings are incapable of selecting perfect buy in and exit points. In some cases they follow a herd mentality (which is inbred into our physcological thinking, as safety lies with the herd), in others they successfully execute a correct buy in/exit point and then incorrectly attempt to extrapolate that decision making process over future transactions.

Dollar averaging removes the temptation to time the market and acts as a natural hedge against mistakes (as each dollar buys more assets during cheaper times and less during expensive times).

This applies equally to shares and to property.


For myself i use a modified version of dollar averaging. I avoid allocating new funds to a market that is in a bullish mode. I leave in play assets that are already in that bullish market until the point is reached that i am compensated for medium term future gains and tax consequences out of the disposal price. As an asset class becomes bearish i dont bother trying to time the bottom, i just start the dollar averaging process with new funds and recycled funds.
 

Attachments

  • buyinpoints.jpg
    buyinpoints.jpg
    4.7 KB · Views: 71
Hi all,

Just on the topic of this thread, "Dead Cat Bounce", can anyone give an example where we have previously had one in regard to Australian property??

My imperfect information, tends to suggest that we have growth after declines or long flat periods that eventually leads to a boom (sometimes a few years later). I don't know of any examples where res property starts to climb after a slump, only to turn around and fall again.

Are there any examples??

Chilliaa,

Your theory of dollar cost averaging is good for stocks that go up in the long run. However history shows us that in the long run all stocks eventually go to zero, yet an index can go up over the longer time frame. There is a constant churning of stocks that make up the indexes.

Looking just at 'good bluechip companies' does not cut it either, as those that exist today and used as examples of success from a decade or more ago, are nothing more than the result of survivorship bias.

bye
 
Just on the topic of this thread, "Dead Cat Bounce", can anyone give an example where we have previously had one in regard to Australian property??

My imperfect information, tends to suggest that we have growth after declines or long flat periods that eventually leads to a boom (sometimes a few years later). I don't know of any examples where res property starts to climb after a slump, only to turn around and fall again.

Are there any examples??

From the Westpac February Outlook....


attachment.php


There are a few quarters when there's been a fall, then a rise, then a fall. Late 80s, mid 90's seems to be a period of low growth, with a couple of false starts and quarterly falls interspersed.

However, Westpac seems to think an upturn is possible in the 2nd half.

From p22 of the above report...
Aus housing: recovery proves elusive

After coming under intense pressure in 2008, the response of Australian households to aggressive policy stimulus since late last year will be a key determinant of how well the economy holds up in 2009 in the face of a massive economic shock from abroad. How the interest-rate sensitive housing sector responds is particularly important for medium term growth prospects – generating a lasting upturn will be critical for domestic demand once the initial cash-flow boost to households from policy easing starts to dissipate.

So far the early indications are mixed at best. Mood-wise, the latest Westpac–Melbourne Institute Consumer Sentiment survey shows consumers less pessimistic than they were through most of 2008 and much less gloomy than households in the US, Europe, the UK and Japan (see chart one). Whereas sentiment abroad is tracking over two standard deviations below average, Australian sentiment is less than one standard deviation below average.

However local consumers are clearly entering 2009 with great trepidation. They are getting plenty of direct support from policy easing – the boost to disposable incomes from interest rate cuts, fiscal stimulus packages and tax cuts is now expected to be an extraordinary $30bn in 2008-09, over 4% of annual income. Retail figures show at least some of this is already finding its way into spending with sales jumping 3.8% in December. That said, the spending bounce has been small given the scale of the injection to date (about $10.7bn). The fear is that once this direct policy boost to spending starts to dissipate – by about mid-2009 – and labour market weakening really starts to bite, households will begin to cut back more sharply on spending.
This is why generating a sustained improvement in housing activity is so critical to the medium term outlook for domestic demand. Sentiment-wise, the biggest issue is job security.

Consumers’ unemployment expectations – measured in a companion survey to consumer sentiment – continued to deteriorate at a rapid rate in January with the index over 40% above its long term average. These concerns are inhibiting the normal response to policy easing.

Although its still early days for gauging the impact of policy easing, job fears also appear to be restraining housing markets. Consumer sentiment towards housing has improved sharply since late last year – the index tracking responses to the ‘is now a good time to buy a dwelling?’ question has surged strongly over the last year, more than doubling from a 19yr low in February 2008 to a 7yr high in January 2009. The turnaround reflects aggressive interest rate cuts that have drastically improved affordability.

Ordinarily this would be more than enough to put a rocket under housing, especially when there is already substantial ‘pent-up’ demand in most markets due to several years of strong population growth and subdued construction of new dwellings. However, our research shows that when it comes to actual demand for houses – proxied by finance approvals – there is another critical ingredient to the consumer response: namely job security. And right now, job fears are dominating.

Our modelling suggests that positive sentiment towards housing should start to win over job fears by the second half of 2009, assuming no further deterioration in job expectations (a reasonable assumption given just how pessimistic they are at the moment). This would likely see growth in housing finance approvals rise to about 10%yr, a reasonable though not spectacular recovery.

Of course, there are other factors at play. Households have had a big hit to their net worth over the last year from slumping equity markets and moderate slippage in house prices. At the same time consumers have also become leery of taking on new debt. The combination has seen a sharp increase in the savings rate – estimated to have jumped to over 8% of income. Continued house price softness over the immediate short term will also add more pressure to net worth and weaken market sentiment towards housing insofar that it weights on expectations for future capital gains.

A fearful, debt-averse consumer is a big challenge for policy-makers. It makes generating a sustained upturn in demand much more difficult. We believe the preconditions for an upturn in housing demand are in place but that it will be slow to come through, especially while job concerns linger. With downside risks to jobs and wealth, it may also prove hard to sustain.
 

Attachments

  • WBCHousePrices.jpg
    WBCHousePrices.jpg
    22.1 KB · Views: 285
Cliff there is a reason why its very difficult to diversify away the risk, based on historic inputs.
This is the development of a new paradigm by George Soros. Basically he states that the currently accepted paradigm that financial markets tend towards equilibrium is a falicy when applied to the real world as it assumes perfect knowledge.
Human beings are incapable of having perfect information as they process information through prisms reflecting their own circumstances and inherent biasness.
Human beings biased perceptions thus influence not just market prices, but also the fundamentals that those prices are supposed to refelct. This is because on one hand human beings try to understand their situation, but on the otherhand their try to change the situation (for personal advantage or to to achieve a better outcome). The two functions work in opposite directions and can interfere with each other.
This can lead to the self reinforcing (through market participants perceived understand of a situation and then perceived successful application in changing the situation) but eventually self defeating boom-bust processes (as their knowledge base in not perfect and they have structural deficiencies through the imperfect application of changes to the situation)

Thus instead of trying to completely diversify away risk, recognise the fact that we as human being cannot successfuly achieve this, and thus we should act accordingly.


Interesting Chilliaa.

My wife makes me aware of my biases ....

I'd always been sceptical about the concepts of risk management with regards to diversification , I'm more of a put " your eggs in one basket ( or 2-3 ) and watch very carefully " .

I think " The Black swan " by Nicholas Taleb , is essential reading for anyone interested in risk management . His basic concepts put a rocket straight though much of the current science of risk management.

Cliff
 
Hi all,

Just on the topic of this thread, "Dead Cat Bounce", can anyone give an example where we have previously had one in regard to Australian property??

My imperfect information, tends to suggest that we have growth after declines or long flat periods that eventually leads to a boom (sometimes a few years later). I don't know of any examples where res property starts to climb after a slump, only to turn around and fall again.

Are there any examples??

Chilliaa,

Your theory of dollar cost averaging is good for stocks that go up in the long run. However history shows us that in the long run all stocks eventually go to zero, yet an index can go up over the longer time frame. There is a constant churning of stocks that make up the indexes.

Looking just at 'good bluechip companies' does not cut it either, as those that exist today and used as examples of success from a decade or more ago, are nothing more than the result of survivorship bias.

bye

Some companies go bankrupt, but others get bought out. Look at St George bank this year. Have the sharholders lost all their money even though St George has now 'dissapeared' from the ASX, no!!!
 
There is a notable and high profile group that just do the numbers, assess the risk and look at the cashflows, but most on this forum embrace faith rather than science IMHO.

I disagree. I've only been on this forum around a year but I haven't seen this thinking much at all. From reading people's posts it seems to me that the most are very focussed on the yield and this is the whole rationale behind buying predominantly lower end properties.

On the topic, to my way of thinking, at the moment it's quite easy to get a +ve CF (even +ve geared) property around this great country of ours, mainly courtesy of low interest rates (yes, I know - how long are they going to stay that way...) and rising rents. That means people are asking the "why rent when we can buy?" question and this will at the very least keep the FHB floor under the low end properties.

I don't think it's the start of the next boom because that would come from the top end first - the improved yields just make low end property a safe, long term investment, provided you fix your rates (which probably gets you back around neutral cash flows at the moment but you can't complain about that either). We are so accustomed to thinking in booms and busts that we probably can't see a slow and steady uptrend in low priced property coming... brought about by low IRs, lack of new construction and increased demand for cheaper housing.

Hmmmm, might have just talked myself into it - better go buy another house! :p
 
I disagree. I've only been on this forum around a year but I haven't seen this thinking much at all. From reading people's posts it seems to me that the most are very focussed on the yield and this is the whole rationale behind buying predominantly lower end properties.

From the responses as rates dropped, I'd suggest many if not most on this forum have negatively geared properties with sub-optimal yields.

Perhaps a poll is in order ;)

On the the "dead cat bounce" question, we have the FHOG and a historical low point in interest rates. The question that needs to be asked is "Would we be seeing any noticeable increase in lending/buying activity on recent trends but for those two variables?".

If the answer is, yes, you have evidence of an underlying recovery, at least pending any deterioration in the real economy.

If the answer is no and the FHOG/rates impact will not be permenant (which they won't be), then we have a dead cat bounce.
 
I disagree. I've only been on this forum around a year but I haven't seen this thinking much at all. From reading people's posts it seems to me that the most are very focussed on the yield and this is the whole rationale behind buying predominantly lower end properties.

I've only been on this forum around a year
From someone who has been around much longer than you: This new-found concept of "cash flow" is exactly that... "new found".

Take a week-end off and search the archives back about two years and you will find that "borrow to the max" with "other people's money" chasing "capital gain (property doubles every seven years)" was the only game in town. Had you gone down this path you would now be struggling with your repayments. True, rental returns have increased while interest rates have decreased, but these events are serendipitous: Neither were predicted so if there they are right (temporarily) they are right for the wrong reasons. I find that very sus!

If you were in Ingham, flood-bound for a week, you would have time to go back another couple of years to see that the advice of the "experienced" posters then was that "it is all happening in Sydney!". What you read (now) is that Sydney is about to have a mini-boom. That is absolutely not the same as saying Sydney has been in a boom.

All I'm saying is: There are no gurus, here or anywhere else. Most are right for a short time and then pack their tent and drift off into the sunset. If you have nothing better to do do for another wet weekend, spend some time checking up on the "members" over the years. There have been some very passionate posters who have left us. Why?

If you choose not to do this research (and who would blame you!) you will just have to believe me when I say that I have watched these trends and give a fair synopsis their evolution.
 
Hi all,

Thanks for that Keith. It seems that when interest rates rose suddenly, '94 ish, the effect of cheap rates was ameliorated. Now if that happened again, it would not be all bad. Something has to happen to lead to the rise in rates. It would probably be either inflation or increased growth, leading the RBA to be scared about inflation. I see both as positive in the longer term.

TF, I disagree with your thoughts on this. If prices are starting to rise at the lower end, and rates stay low then there is not likely to be much of a fall from the newer levels. If rates go up, well see above.

The only way I can see this being a DCB is if we go spiraling down into a real depression with a collapse in employment. This is not a very high probability in my opinion. (still rate it less than a 5% possibility)

bye
 
Back
Top