All that D&G

Here is a good read about where the D&G issues are in light of available statistics and economic fundamentals.

Warning to cphg fans that the paper may challenge your beliefs! :)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24742139-7583,00.html

Some extracts:

THE economics of Australia's $3.3 trillion housing market is widely misunderstood, with sensationalist claims that a housing bubble caused the global credit crisis and that Australian house prices will fall by 30 per cent to 50 per cent.

In fact, the latest RP Data-Rismark Index results show that Australian house prices declined by just 0.8 per cent in the 12 months to October this year, and increased during the most recent three months.



On affordability:

The doomsayers' claims are based on the assumption that housing affordability is at an all-time low.

They dismiss the fact house prices are determined by supply as well as demand (affordability is a demand-side factor) and conclude that prices must fall by some arbitrarily large margin. Keen likes to shock by quotingstatistics about the rise in household debt without acknowledging that debt-servicing ratios have remained unchanged thanks to vastly lower real interest rates, the emergence of two-income households and higher real incomes.

Recent analysis by the Reserve Bank of Australia has comprehensively demonstrated that housing affordability is not at an all-time low. According to one of the Reserve Bank's benchmarks, the representative household in June 2007 had more real disposable income left over after purchasing a home and servicing a 90per cent mortgage than at any other time since June 1982.

The bank also found that the representative household could afford to buy 33 per cent of all homes in June 2007, which, although less than the historical average of 45 per cent, was markedly better than the 13 per cent of homes available to it in June 1990.

Importantly, the Reserve Bank's present 4.25 per cent cash rate is considerably lower than the 6.25 per cent rate that existed in June 2007. Since mortgage rates peaked at 9.6 per cent in August, the Reserve Bank has pushed them down to about 6.7 per cent, with markets predicting that they will be less than 5 per cent by mid-2009. At the same time, house prices have not appreciated.
 
Isn't this just a another media beat up? Or is it different this time because the news is positive instead of negative?

Regardless, its just another persons opinion piece. No big deal.
 
Perspectives

Very interesting read Francesco.

Interesting that the market as a whole rose by 2% a year during the last recession. At the moment that would be enough for me.

A lot of knowledge about how the market will go can be gained by listening to "Joe Sixpack".

I heard a radio interiew yesterday on the ABC with a few homeowners re the interest rate cuts.

Q. How has the current round of interest rate cuts affected you?

A. Well we just bought a home so I think it is great. In fact we were able to go for a little bit more expensive home because of the cheaper rates.

My comment: Here's one person who feels ok about their future. The future of all our RE investments will be created by "Joe Sixpack". It is how he sees his future that will determine ours.

I hope Joe S is listening to music on the radio and watching Deal or No Deal on the TV. The Current Affairs programs are not exactly confidence inspiring.
:)
 
I could post dozens of opinions similar to this one:

"Citigroup Predicts 2,000 Gold in 2009"

but property investors will say that that is just a beat-up, so I don't post them.

It may just be me but I find the prospect of an asset doubling in a year more exciting than property going up or down a few percent.
 
Hello All

I fly regularly and watch the Sky entertainment on Virgin Blue. Wed night on Sky is “Money Matters” where they have 2 person debates on various topics. Last night, Rob Mellor from BIS Shrapnel in defense of property and Steve Keen, Prof UWS, who says property prices, will drop 40%.

Well…. being Pay TV I almost thought I watching boxing match between Iron Mike Tyson and the poor guy selected to be pummeled. :eek:

I expected Steve Keen being a Uni Professor to have more irrefutable facts not theory but he didn’t. He used graphs comparing this to that and BIS just cut him down each time with a simple statement. And I usually think BIS are BS!

An example of the discussion:

Steve Keen (KEEN): puts graph up, prices in Japan to Aus, see Japan has crashed so Aus will crash!

Rob Mellor (MELLOR) replied: no graph, but Japan has population growth of 0.3 or 0.03% (sorry it was late) Aussie has 1.9% the highest since 1982 and 1972 ( again figure approx. as it was late after 1 beer and a long day). W ehave an undersupply of housing?

KEEN reply: Blank look of nervousness.

Repeat this five times and you get the gist and I missed half the program trying unwisely to sleep for the first half of the flight.

Like a boxer, Steve had “nuthin”. Now I am not bagging the man personally but he is either so right we are all blind to it or simply plain wrong. I expected an engrossing duel but you felt at any moment a ref would come in and stop the debate on the grounds, "Ok KEEN has had enough."

KEENS body language told the story, learning to one side, looking over his shoulder to his adversary, not to the camera and very shielded.

MELLOR straight up to camera and 2 interviewers to his right and with expressive arms. No graphs, simple statements of fact. By the end of the night he even looked relaxed and jovial but not condescending.

MELLOR even conceded points of agreement like growth rates of 1 to 3% per annum for Aus for the next five years but Mellor said he cannot see how that brings about the 20%+ unemployment Keen states will be the cause of the crash? KEEN quoted dead economists and theory but no concrete facts. Or even trends. I was all "going to happen! Trust me" stuff….

Again, I am not bagging the man but I have seen a few of these debates and usually they are lie ball or a point’s decision. If I was betting on KEEN I would have been very nervous too.

So my point is: theory is one thing but reality is another. All the theory in the world told us in March 08 that inflation was about to skyrocket and rates to go well over 10%. Reality proved different.

Peter 14.7
 
I could post dozens of opinions similar to this one:

"Citigroup Predicts 2,000 Gold in 2009"

but property investors will say that that is just a beat-up, so I don't post them.

It may just be me but I find the prospect of an asset doubling in a year more exciting than property going up or down a few percent.

Sunfish,

Please dont take this personally but perhaps you should have posted another opinion than Citigroup. A prediction from a company technically bankrupt and on critical life support because they could not organise the proverbial "chook raffle" financially is not a great endorsement.

As it turns out an ex-employee of Citbank was on ABC radio last night. He insight was it was once good and now had grown too big and was a free for all with internal competing interests that blind freddie could see was not going to work.

I dont think property is going to boom 20 % next year. It may well lose 5% but at the moment it is cost flow postive so why worry. It will come back and Iwill have locked at 5% for 10 years when it does. Citigroup, not so sure.

Peter 14.7
 
Sorry Peter, tried to Kudo your post #7 this thread but told I have to spread it around a bit.

Must mean there's a dirth of good posters here! :eek: ;)

Kidding folks!!

Cheers,
Michael
 
That's OK. I agree with you. I didn't read the article myself. But I take very little I read seriously, and nothing in isolation, including the article highlighted on this thread.

I agree with Evan where he pointed out the different way reporters are treated, depending on whether they support your biases or not. :)
 
i read a similar identical article last night by michael matusik - giving the same figures - and written prior to october so i'm not sure who copied who.

"... income left over after debts servicing paints a different picture to that obtained simply by calculating the proportion of income devoted to repayments ... rising incomes allowed housholds to meeting rising loan repayment while maintaining, and often increaseing, living standards. rising household incomes mean that the 30% traditional benchmark is now outdated ... another approach recognises the shortcomings of using mediam incomes of all households and instead considers the incomes of household in the age racket of home buyers ... rba calculated the typical first home buyer could afford to buy one-third of the dwellings sold nationally over the last 12 months ... "

he also threw in the rental side of the arguement.

"renters across australia are paying 25% of ithe income on rent, up from 23% a year ago. If we apply the 30% rule to rental affordability, then weekly rents could rise a further 22% before renters, on average, start paying 30% of their income on rent."

... interesting ...
 
Thanks for trying Michael.

Thanks for replying Sunfish. I agree many people do read what they agree with. Ironic, that I am quoting BIS Shrapnel because I usually think they are nutters!

Peter
 
Ironic, that I am quoting BIS Shrapnel because I usually think they are nutters!

They're certainly nutters when they say stuff we don't want to hear.

i read a similar identical article last night by michael matusik - giving the same figures - and written prior to october so i'm not sure who copied who.

I reckon there are about a dozen and a half stats and 'facts' that all the journos and commentators select from. We could probably all list them. Sometimes they use only a couple of them. If it's a longer piece, they might use half a dozen. It's entirely understandable. An editor says to a journo: 'Hey we need need 500 words on housing prices'. So the journo goes looking for what everybody else has been saying and rehashes it. Or a commentator decides he needs to get his mug on telly or his name on radio, so he'll grab the stuff that supports his current skew and do a press release on it. I don't know how much original thought and analysis is happening out there.

Scott
 
A quick reply to Peter 14.7

I think what that debate was about in trading terms was a economist coming from a fundamental persepctive vs an economist coming from a technical perspective (keen). And the truth is that technical analysis cannot be debated in the same way. Analysts just look at the graphs and cut out the fundamental noise....hence there is nothing to debate. This is standard trading strategy. Keen should never have agreed to this debate IMO.

Im not saying one is better than the other but my point being a technical analysts has very little to say in the best of times.

IMO The best bet is taking a bit of both..
 
I'ts different topic but the same "conformation bias" applies.

Global Warming has been blamed for it's first extinction in Aus. Seems that a white possum which lived in the northern forests hasn't been seen for three years. Habitat loss, foxes or disease couldn't have anything to with it, could it?
 
Agree and kudos to Scott for an astute assessment on my position of BIS.

The belief is, you cannot predict the future from the past.

We like to think so because it makes us feel comfortable. Our greatest fear is the unknown!:eek:

So we say "it is just like 1987 again.." but the reality is the future will always resemble something from some point in the past because there is so much past and only so many occurances that can happen. The future has to look the same to something gone by.

We call it hindsight or experience but it is more like probability equation. Micheal Whyte comment invited, this stuff is his backyard.:)

What I do know is this. 6 months ago I would have said who is "Steve Keen?" Being extreme on any view is good publicity and as the saying goes "there is no such thing as bad publicity":D

Enjoying the thread, Peter
 
but property investors will say that that is just a beat-up, so I don't post them.

Remind me again please Sunfish ... are you a property investor ? The way you wrote that sentence makes me think that you do not include yourself in that category ?
 
Remind me again please Sunfish ... are you a property investor ? The way you wrote that sentence makes me think that you do not include yourself in that category ?


I noticed this one recently too...

But you guys with res property are 10ft tall and bullet proof. Enjoy it while you can. :)

Is Sunfish having an "out-of-asset-class" experience, perhaps? :rolleyes:

But, then, he's always been like that.
 
Remind me again please Sunfish ... are you a property investor ? The way you wrote that sentence makes me think that you do not include yourself in that category ?
Come on Sim,

Leave off Thommo. We all know he's a big old hairy bear, but we love him anyway.

With friction you get sparks! Life would be pretty dull over here if it became the self-congratulatory club of like-minded investors. :D

I'm sure Thommo owns a house or two?

Cheers,
Michael
 
Back
Top