Mortgage Meltdown ABC 4 Corners Monday night

Moodys predict double-digit home price drops for the U.S.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/19/rea...drops_coming/index.htm?postversion=2007091915

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Over the next few years, more than three-quarters of the nation's housing markets will suffer some decline in home prices. Many will experience double-digit hits in a forecast that has worsened considerably in recent months.
According to an analysis conducted by Moody's Economy.com, declines will exceed 10 percent in 86 of the 379 largest housing markets. And 290 of the cities will experience price drops of 1 percent or more.
The survey attempted to identify the high and low points of housing prices in each of the markets, some of which started declining from their peak in the third quarter of 2005. All are median prices for single-family houses.
Nationally, Moody's is projecting an average price decline of 7.7 percent. That's a jump from the 6.6 percent total price drop that the company was forecasting in June and more than twice that of last October's forecast of a 3.6 percent price decrease.
Many of the worst hit cities are in Sun Belt areas that experienced outsized home-price growth during the real estate bubble, according to Arnold Slesers, an associate economist at Moody's. The home price correction in many of these cities will be severe as unsold new homes and leaps in foreclosures add to already big inventories.
The Stockton, Calif., metro area, where Moody's predicts a 25 percent price drop, will be the hardest hit among the 100 most populated cities surveyed."

It goes on and lists the top 100 cities in the U.S. and how long they predict it will take for the market to begin recovering. 20+% downfall in some areas, scoll down the page and check out the chart.
 
The credit crunch will slow economic activity, which generally decreases inflation. Except that's not the only component of inflation: food prices and oil prices are a concern. Theoretically you can have oil-induced inflation even if the economy is in recession. But that's about the only scenario I can think of where the RBA would increase rates in a credit crunch.

I think you could get both:

Deflation in things you borrow money to buy.
Inflation in things you buy with cash. (especially food & energy)

FYI: This is what I've planned for - I have gold, natural gas & energy stocks, grow my own fruit & veggies and ride a bike to work.

Hopefully credit tightens, because I plan on having 20+% cash for a ~300k house by early 2009 and I hope they only allow <80% loans so I have less competition. But I'm willing to wait a bit longer, it may take years for prices to get back to where they should be as they are sticky downwards.
 
The Stockton, Calif., metro area, where Moody's predicts a 25 percent price drop, will be the hardest hit among the 100 most populated cities surveyed."

It goes on and lists the top 100 cities in the U.S. and how long they predict it will take for the market to begin recovering. 20+% downfall in some areas, scoll down the page and check out the chart.

Well if they are only predicting a (1) place with a 25% drop and on average 7.7% drop in a land where you can walk away from debt with little to no repucussion, why is it that the D & Gers think Oz will have 40% drops,

Makes little sense to me

Dave
 
I find it interesting that all the doom and gloomers are mainly people who don't own property and have never bought it. If it was someone who had owned sizeable amounts of property and sold it in anticipation of the coming crash, it'd be more believable.

In practice, if the market went down 20% (that would be armageddon-level crash for property), I would be in exactly the same place net asset-wise as if I'd sold now, paid my taxes, and bought back at 20% less. It would cost me around 20% to sell, pay CGT and buy back. So why would I sell now? What people who don't own property do not understand is that sometimes a crash doesn't matter.

I'm not saying that you have to own property to have a believable opinion, but not owning property means you lack certain dimensions to your thinking.

You can level the same accusation against us, of course, but people who don't own property are more likely to be D&Mers because they need a crash.
Alex
 
It's only when you have a few hundred thousand dollars on a horse that you can be objective on whether it is going to win the race!

Only people who sell Amway can judge whether or not it's a pyramid scheme!

Just because an asset has below cash yields and relies on capital gains for any profit by selling to greater fools who will accept even lower yields doesn't mean it's a pyramid scheme.... you have to buy first, or your opinion is invalid!
 
Just because an asset has below cash yields and relies on capital gains for any profit by selling to greater fools who will accept even lower yields doesn't mean it's a pyramid scheme.... you have to buy first, or your opinion is invalid!

Now, most shares quoted on the stock exchange have a yield of less than the 7% that I can get on my ING account and I depend on being able to sell it for more than I bought it for.......... oh my [insert relevant deity]! :eek: The sharemarket is also a scam!

For that matter, if I buy gold it doesn't pay me any yield, and I depend on being able to sell it for a higher price (in what my opinion is rapidly depreciating currency)...... oh my [insert relevant deity]! :eek: Gold is also a scam!

If I start a business that makes losses for years and I just depend on being able to sell it for more than it cost me to build...... oh my [insert relevant deity]! :eek: Businesses are also scams!

Actually as rents increase (which they do) I'm quite happy for someone to simply buy at the same yield I bought at. My first property now yields 9% on my cost, which would be higher than cash, no? Someone who owns property for a few years at least would understand all this.

In any case, pyramid schemes are quite legal. Most companies are organised like a pyramid.
Alex
 
Now, most shares quoted on the stock exchange have a yield of less than the 7% that I can get on my ING account and I depend on being able to sell it for more than I bought it for.......... oh my [insert relevant deity]! :eek: The sharemarket is also a scam!

For that matter, if I buy gold it doesn't pay me any yield, and I depend on being able to sell it for a higher price (in what my opinion is rapidly depreciating currency)...... oh my [insert relevant deity]! :eek: Gold is also a scam!

If I start a business that makes losses for years and I just depend on being able to sell it for more than it cost me to build...... oh my [insert relevant deity]! :eek: Businesses are also scams!

Actually as rents increase (which they do) I'm quite happy for someone to simply buy at the same yield I bought at. My first property now yields 9% on my cost, which would be higher than cash, no? Someone who owns property for a few years at least would understand all this.

In any case, pyramid schemes are quite legal. Most companies are organised like a pyramid.
Alex
First up - yields are based on market value - not purchase price. The point of measuring yields is to see if you have invested your capital for an optimum return for risk.

Regarding the shares comparison - everybody heavily into property throws this at me and its not an appropriate comparison. I assume you are talking about dividend yield. The difference is a company doesn't pay out all it's earnings - it pays out some (dividend) and the reinvests the rest. So at the end of all of this the company is a BIGGER company. Hence the share price is BIGGER. Housing is nothing like this. Unless of course the person renting puts $100 into home improvement and then pays $200 to the owner - unlikely! A house is a house and will always be a bloody house.

Regarding your business example - see shares.

Regarding gold - does gold always go up in real terms? Not sure if it does. Maybe you could find out and let me know.
 
Regarding gold - does gold always go up in real terms? Not sure if it does. Maybe you could find out and let me know.

No, it fell in NOMINAL terms from 1980-2000. However, in the last year it has beaten Australian online savings rates.

Gold is a currency (XAU) that pays no interest, it's only use it to be pretty and to swap for other goods (use as a store of value)

I have a bit of it (and a few kilos of silver) for 2 reasons:

-It is savings in a currency that can't be devalued by massive credit expansion

-It is seen as a safe haven, and if the US dollar collapses and/or there is financial panic which I think there is a chance of then it will perform very, very well. (basically a bet that will pay off if there is armageddon)
 
I have a bit of it (and a few kilos of silver) for 2 reasons:

-It is savings in a currency that can't be devalued by massive credit expansion

-It is seen as a safe haven, and if the US dollar collapses and/or there is financial panic which I think there is a chance of then it will perform very, very well. (basically a bet that will pay off if there is armageddon)

Do you also have safe nuclear bunkers under your house just in case of armageddon - perhaps a meteorite hitting the earth, may be a third world war resulting in nukes exploding in every continent :)

Then we go back to stone age and you can use your stored gold and silver to tempt other neonderthals to give some food to you !

Reading your posts would almost make one believe that the end of the world is near !

Harris
 
That isn't how I understood it. What I believe he said is that growth is determined/driven by scarcity, and regional and mining towns experience capital growth due to the scarcity of 'high yield', rather than scarcity of the properties fundamentals (style/land/location/access to infrastructure).

"many cash flows positive properties have experienced capital gains due to reduced rental yields" - this doesn't make sense IMO.



This 'kinda' reminds me of Steve Navra's rental reality. Hired Goon, I reckon you should check that out. I think you'll like it and I'd be really interested to see what you think of it. http://www.invested.com.au/75/rental-reality-3104/

David i think we are actually saying the same thing about Bill Zheng's comments. Whether you call it the scarcity or competition due increased buyer interest, at the end of the day many buyers in the last few years have been attracted to the higher yield in rurual areas and thus obviously there yields have been contracting.
At the end of the day however its the underlying economic value of the land that will determine its LONG TERM price. And one of the fundamental drivers (although not the sole driver!!!) of economic value is owner occupier interest and herein lies what i perceive as the biggest risk. How many investors will be able to onsell their investment property in whoop whoop land to an owner occupier.

By all means buy cash flow positive real estate in rural areas, just make sure that the yield is high enough to justify the increased risk.
Everything deserves to be bought at the right price and conversely.
 
Regarding the shares comparison - everybody heavily into property throws this at me and its not an appropriate comparison. I assume you are talking about dividend yield. The difference is a company doesn't pay out all it's earnings - it pays out some (dividend) and the reinvests the rest. So at the end of all of this the company is a BIGGER company. Hence the share price is BIGGER. Housing is nothing like this. Unless of course the person renting puts $100 into home improvement and then pays $200 to the owner - unlikely! A house is a house and will always be a bloody house.


I had shares in Anaconda... cant say it worked out so rosy!
 
Sorry just a follow up to your comment:
"many cash flows positive properties have experienced capital gains due to reduced rental yields" - this doesn't make sense IMO.

What i am refering to is the same relationship between a bond price and its yield. As the bond price goes up its yield contracts and conversely. If buyers are prepared to except a lower yield (ie rent/purchase price) then obviously the property price will appreciate all other factors being equal.
 
No, it fell in NOMINAL terms from 1980-2000. However, in the last year it has beaten Australian online savings rates.

Gold is a currency (XAU) that pays no interest, it's only use it to be pretty and to swap for other goods (use as a store of value)

I have a bit of it (and a few kilos of silver) for 2 reasons:

-It is savings in a currency that can't be devalued by massive credit expansion

-It is seen as a safe haven, and if the US dollar collapses and/or there is financial panic which I think there is a chance of then it will perform very, very well. (basically a bet that will pay off if there is armageddon)

Way to many viewings of Mad Max :rolleyes:

I prefered Water World myself, so i'll stick to my lumps of dirt

Dave
 
Back
Top