AUD 0.38 A question for NR

Havent read over everything here. Have read a few articles on the G20 coordinated devaluing of multiple currencies (i.e. printing **** loads of $$$ at once). Very interesting stuff, makes a bit of sense in my mind.

Will try to find them and then re-post. Would be easier to submit stuff on this forum if I didnt have a job to do (one bonus the soft depression will deliver I guess):D
 
Shadow the discussion is over you believe in fairy tales and I'd suggest you go into the post in Economics entitled the soft depression we had to have. Your approach is little bear number one:D Have a nice one:p

Wow - nice way to avoid all the questions (again). You can't back up your views, but hey, we should all just trust you on this one, right? OK, run away then if you want... :D
 
Property prices Best case scenario a 40-50% drop, worse case scenario 70%:eek: but unlikely, as unlike the great depression our pollies will not be sitting on their hands. This time it is the old money that has taken a king hit in the America's and Europe.

While it is a remote possibility, it would mean my PPoR, which is currently worth around $650k, will drop to $195k based on your 70% worst case.

A 50% drop will see it go down to $325k. The replacement cost for the house alone currently is minimum $320k. Our block of land, which is right across the road from our PPoR, is worth $320k currently, based on recent land sales of similar size and position.

That's assuming I'll even be selling it during this climate.

It's never gunna happen NR.
 
Hind sight is 20/20. In one case the lady's bank shares are in super she is over 60 so pays no tax and she used the proceeds to extingish their mortgage. The husband is still working and it has made life simple.
Nonrecourse,Thats good to hear, but not even you can forecast on anything,you can look a t all the data you want ,did any of these professional forecasters know about all this mess 13 month ago??, and if they did they would have been called a fool or a liar,just keep yourself blindfolded because the ASX will turn more quickly then most think..imho..

willair..
 
Here's a little bit on the revalueing of currencies from
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/ "A subject writer, precious metals analyst, and Safe Money Report editor Larry Edelson also comments on. Most recently on November 13 in an article titled: "The G-20's Secret Debt Solution." He's quite dire in saying short-term fixes won't be discussed at its November 15 summit. A "far more fundamental fix is being (secretly) discussed - the possible revaluation of gold and the birth of an entirely new monetary system." It's a topic Edelson has spent much time on previously.

Given the speed and severity of the current crisis, he believes something big is planned and puts it this way: "If we can't print money fast enough to fend off another deflationary Great Depression, then let's change the value of the money." In other words, devalue it, but do it globally. "It would be a strategy designed to ease the burden of ALL debts - by simultaneously devaluing ALL currencies (or at least all that matter) and re-inflating ALL asset prices."
 
Hi Joe jo jo

Which will hurt those who are debt free and especially in cash and only help those in debt.

It is certainly a possibility I wouldn't discount given the degree of money printing going on.

Cheers

Shane
 
Wow - nice way to avoid all the questions (again). You can't back up your views, but hey, we should all just trust you on this one, right? OK, run away then if you want... :D

Shadow I have been very patient with you in answering your inane nonsense and you have used my genuine concern on what is unfolding to bait and ridicule. You have contributed nothing of value to the discussion and have demonstrated to all that your a wannabee.
 
Hi Joe jo jo

Which will hurt those who are debt free and especially in cash and only help those in debt.

It is certainly a possibility I wouldn't discount given the degree of money printing going on.

Cheers

Shane

My thoughts also. I have read quite a bit about the debt forgiveness concept, when I remember the source, I will post em up some time.

The hardest part is getting enough leaders to have consensus in this decision.

I think it could definately happen (anything could happen I guess).
 
Shadow I have been very patient with you in answering your inane nonsense and you have used my genuine concern on what is unfolding to bait and ridicule.

Hmmm, no... your quotes below are what I would call baiting and ridicule...

nonrecourse said:
you just can't get your head around the fact

you believe in fairy tales

Your approach is little bear number one

pareto's law is about to kick 80% of SS investors in the teeth

you will find yourself up a very nasty creek without a paddle

your inane nonsense

You have contributed nothing of value to the discussion

your [sic] a wannabee [sic]


Anyway, I get it - I can see your anger and frustration coming out in your last few posts so I will stop asking you these hard questions, I realise you can't answer them. I guess we'll all just have to trust you... :rolleyes:

(I'm a 'wannabe' what by the way?)

Cheers,

Shadow.
 
Last edited:
The cycle repeats itself only the severity is variable

The share market has dropped below 3500 as I correctly forecasted back in August/September. The last time the market crashed 1987 we were a young married couple on one wage with me studying full time with a large home mortgage and an investment unit. We sold the unit in early 1988 because we could see what was coming. We paid off some of our debt and allocated a reserve for the bad times. By 1991 many "property investors" lost their investment properties because they were unwilling to adjust.By 1993 we were back in the market when property investors were thin on the ground.

History has a habit of repeating itself. Those that are arrogant and refuse to recognise investment cycles are brought down by an inability to refinance when the perfect storm hits. This cycle is a super cycle. We have had 16 years of unprecedented growth. Since before the last great depression there has not been a period like it. Why would anyone doubt that an equal and opposite correction is not upon us. No asset class is immune to the vagaries of the irrational market when as now it occurs.
 
So you are suggesting that no new houses will be built - since, according to you, property value will drop 40-70%, forcing all new building & construction to grind to a halt as the cost of building a new home (without the land) will be far greater than buying an existing house with land.
What do you think that will do to the supply side of the equation?

Have we ever experienced a time in the past where (at the lower-middle end of the market) the cost of building ALONE exceeds the cost of buying existing house and land?

Will builders work for free?

I dun gettit?
 
So you are suggesting that no new houses will be built - since, according to you, property value will drop 40-70%, forcing all new building & construction to grind to a halt as the cost of building a new home (without the land) will be far greater than buying an existing house with land.
What do you think that will do to the supply side of the equation?

Have we ever experienced a time in the past where (at the lower-middle end of the market) the cost of building ALONE exceeds the cost of buying existing house and land?

Will builders work for free?

I dun gettit?

Actually I bumped into the data of price of new homes compare then existing ones and in the history new homes they've been quite a bit more expensive then existing one, obviously location wasn't a big deal like now and more like cars a new one is generally better and more expensive.
 
Have we ever experienced a time in the past where (at the lower-middle end of the market) the cost of building ALONE exceeds the cost of buying existing house and land?

Will builders work for free?

I dun gettit?

I think it was TC's illuminating distinction between land value that is the speculative part of a property's price and the building value, which is more or less stable. If so - houses that enjoy NEGATIVE LAND VALUE will cost less than the replacement.

What is "negative land value"? Any place that nobody wants to buy there, but is ready to do so if someone is willing to "pay" him for that.

In a recession many places can acquire the "negative land value", be it due to distance, crime, or just general social negligence.


Besides - in a deflationary environment the costs of materials and labour go down, thus also the "replacement value" can go nominally lower, with the negative land value phenomenon, or without it.
 
Compared with most here I am a "casual observer" of property prices but it has always been my impression that established properties sell at a discount.

In fact I tried to sell a "good" property way below it's replacement cost recently. No offers. There seems to be an attraction to the new 'burbs which I would never wish to live in.

To each his own. :)
 
So you are suggesting that no new houses will be built - since, according to you, property value will drop 40-70%, forcing all new building & construction to grind to a halt as the cost of building a new home (without the land) will be far greater than buying an existing house with land.
What do you think that will do to the supply side of the equation?

Have we ever experienced a time in the past where (at the lower-middle end of the market) the cost of building ALONE exceeds the cost of buying existing house and land?

Will builders work for free?

I dun gettit?

Obviously, this can't and will never happen. It's pure mathematics and is something that the Uber-bears don't factor in enough into the argument.

If the prices drop so low that the cost to build is more than the cost of an existing land and house, then no-one will be buying a new house unless they are totally stupid (don't under-estimate how stupid humans can be, however).

Supply of new homes will stop, forcing up a shortfall in supply to a demand which is still growing apparently.

People may stop buying for a while due to the much more strict lending criteria, so the rents will stay under pressure, and there will still be the small amount of people who can access credit and who need to buy, or want to buy.

The end result is a probable slowing down of activity, hence prices slowing, but not a massive 70% drop like has been predicted.

There will be some properties that will drop this much I must say, but these will be your more speculative projects.

Such things as OTP townhouses, commenced at the end of the boom. The developers will be stuck with some of them, they were over-priced to begin with, and they will have to clear them off their inventory to avoid going bankrupt, or to free up funds for the next whatever it is they plan to do with the money.

We are seeing this now with the new Marina in Safety beach; new ultra top-end townhouses on the canal with boat berth, selling for $1.3 mill.

They are really only worth about $750k in my view, but some bunnies paid the full whack. So by now there's a few on the market for the correct price, but factor in the slowing market for these types of properties and they are really worth around $600k or so in today's market. And, there are very few buyers for them. Many are still vacant; completed at the top of the boom.

A really desperate developer may offload one for around $550k. Voila! a drop in price of 68%.

The figures were never real from day one, but the media will pounce on this and illustrate where you can run to so as to avoid the sky about to fall on our shiny noggins.

Of course, if you buy the Mr and Mrs Average 3 x 2 with a double garage and dog in St. Boringsville, it will drop a poofteenth from $450k to maybe around $425k if someone is desperate to sell there, because it is affordable, nice, liveable and plenty of punters can afford to buy those places.
 
Bayview,

You head the head on the hammer. :p
All you have said is precisely what I was getting at - i was just hoping that one of the uber-bears would be able to explain how their maths and predictions came up with their conclusions, despite the facts that you and I have highlighted.


Of course, if you buy the Mr and Mrs Average 3 x 2 with a double garage and dog in St. Boringsville, it will drop a poofteenth from $450k to maybe around $425k if someone is desperate to sell there, because it is affordable, nice, liveable and plenty of punters can afford to buy those places.

Agree 100%.
I invest a level below this... where Mr and Mrs working-class average live in a 3x1 with a single garage in St Boganville.

Just bought a fibro one the other week for $226K in Colyton (sydney), rented for $270/wk, on a big flat 600sq.m block.
I fails to see how this could possibly drop down to $135,000 or $67800 (40% and 70% drops respectively).

... and I quote, "Please explain".
 
Obviously, this can't and will never happen. .


Well it has happened, although it was in rural areas. Probably irrelevant really to capital city property, but I will bring it up anyway.

Smaller towns near me before we had our property boom in 2003, would have been selling for say 80 to 100 k. The bricks and morter replacement value would have been say 160 k. The house was way below replacement value, and the land was valued as worthless.

The boom started in 2003 once Sydney topped out and commodities started moving, and in 2 or 3 years these houses had more than doubled.

See ya's.
 
Obviously, this can't and will never happen. It's pure mathematics and is something that the Uber-bears don't factor in enough into the argument.

If the prices drop so low that the cost to build is more than the cost of an existing land and house, then no-one will be buying a new house unless they are totally stupid (don't under-estimate how stupid humans can be, however).

Supply of new homes will stop, forcing up a shortfall in supply to a demand which is still growing apparently.

Why wouldn't people pay a premium for new over old?

Remember, it wasn't too long ago when median house prices were less than half they are today, and building costs were essentially what are they today. People still built, because a new built house sold for more than the old established house (in the same area). It was worth more beause it was new. So the argument that if prices come down 50%, no one will build makes no sense. If the median drops to $250,000, then the land component becomes worth less. Hence over time this new cost will become reflected in new land sales.

So it's not as though if established houses halve in value, new house costs will be exactly the same as today. They will decrease because the land cost would decrease. Sure, it will cost more than $250,000 to build, and so should, but in a SANE world, a new house should be worth more than an old house (in the same area).

Maybe I'm missing the point, but as far as I understand, that was the way it always was until the recent speculative boom.
 
Back
Top