Rents tumble in inner Sydney

Are you serious? Do you think all the landlords of the expensive empty rentals will be happy to keep their properties empty? No, they'll drop their rents (as they are doing) to get tenants, increasing competition at the midrange level.

Are YOU ? Do you REALLY think that someone with a $1000/week rental property will drop rents just so they can rent it out even at the risk of renting to what you boys call bogans or worse - a family of dole bludging crack heads who will stop paying rent after the first month ? They may not be happy to keep expensive rentals empty but it beats having the tenants trash it out.
Still, dreaming of hard-up landlords who one day will rent you a penthouse for $300/week doesn't cost anything so no harm in doing it. :D
 
Are YOU ? Do you REALLY think that someone with a $1000/week rental property will drop rents just so they can rent it out even at the risk of renting to what you boys call bogans or worse - a family of dole bludging crack heads who will stop paying rent after the first month ? They may not be happy to keep expensive rentals empty but it beats having the tenants trash it out.
Still, dreaming of hard-up landlords who one day will rent you a penthouse for $300/week doesn't cost anything so no harm in doing it. :D

Umm mate, there's still the same number of the different types of potential tenants. How does the total number of would be tenants get reduced?

The, um "better quality" tenants are still there, they're just not renting the $800-$1k/week places - so the $500/week landlords get better tenants - they don't evaporate. Unless you're aware of some factor that means they either don't exist or are now classed by you as dole bludging crackheads. Ask Michael Whyte - he'll explain to you in bull-English.:p

So now there's a better class of tenant at the $500/week range the $800-1k landlords will cop the loss out of ignorance? Landlords can still get the same tenants, they just have to rent their places out at market rate as usual - which is now lower.

The market says you're wrong - that's why rents are falling in those suburbs. Some landlords can take the hit to cashflow of an empty IP, others can't.

But what's this about renting out a penthouse at $300/week? That's not something I'd joke about on a PI forum - especially considering what the OP article is saying. If PIs are cutting rents then that's not a good sign for their financial positions - you might want to consider some sensitivity for those PIs doing it a bit tougher than you. Honestly mate, have a think before you post.

Or are you suggesting the figures are wrong? Their NSW Dept of Housing figures - based on actual rental bond lodgements. Not asking rents. Raw data, unadjusted. It is what it is. Real landlords are dropping the real rents to get real tenants. That's got nothing to do with their class or drug usage, which for some reason you feel is relevant when discussing lower North Shore and eastern suburbs rentals. But hey, any excuse to post an irelevant rant eh? I hope you feel better now you've got that off your chest.;)
 
only cause today you're making lots of sweeping statements that don't ring true in many areas - but that you're insisting they're correct but not backing them up with any data when requested.

hi lizzie, would yorke's assertion that one can only rent to $1000/wk "quality tenants" or $300/week crackhead dole bludgers qualify as"sweeping statements that don't ring true in many areas"?

i understand that my assertion that, when people are unable to sell properties at prices they can accept and, as a result, turn them into rentals, that this might increase the rental pool and result in downward pressure on rents is far, far more outrageous and incendiary, but even so it seems that mebbe yorke is being a little sweeping too? naaaah, couldnt be.
 
Umm mate, there's still the same number of the different types of potential tenants. How does the total number of would be tenants get reduced?
The, um "better quality" tenants are still there, they're just not renting the $800-$1k/week places - so the $500/week landlords get better tenants - they don't evaporate.
No, it would increase the number of tenants looking to move into the $500/week properties which would cause prices to move UP not down. I'm sure the last couple of rate cuts did more for the bottom line then having the place rented would.

But what's this about renting out a penthouse at $300/week? That's not something I'd joke about on a PI forum - especially considering what the OP article is saying. If PIs are cutting rents then that's not a good sign for their financial positions - you might want to consider some sensitivity for those PIs doing it a bit tougher than you. Honestly mate, have a think before you post.
How considerate of you, its a shame you are not so nice on the other place or we could have become mates mate.:rolleyes:
Did you read the original article ? There is mention of median falls of 15.9% on Kirribilli and Milsons Point on 1 bedroom apartments which can rent for well into 4 digits and then at the end of it mention of North Shore properties listing for up to 3 weeks and some having to cut $20/week to attract renters. Prices there start around $300/week for a little dog box and go above $5000/week, not sure where do the $20/week cut in but even at the low end of the scale its hardly tumbling rental returns. But hey, if it gives you hope in your times of desperation....

Or are you suggesting the figures are wrong? Their NSW Dept of Housing figures - based on actual rental bond lodgements. Not asking rents. Raw data, unadjusted. It is what it is. Real landlords are dropping the real rents to get real tenants.
Obviously someone forgot to tell that to the fake landlords in Botany Bay. :D

http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/DBD001E0-4220-45ED-9145-2FF7C9B7B5B4/0/RSReport85.pdf
Within the Sydney SD, the largest annual increases in
median rent for one bedroom flats/units were recorded in
Botany Bay (42.9%) and Strathfield (26.0%).

Do you think that its possible that a lot of Milsons Point renters just packed up and moved to Botany Bay or could it be that the landlords in Botany Bay haven't heard the bad news ? Maybe if you and your mates spend more time posting scary dribbles on news blogs you can get them to panic and drop their rents. :D
 
i understand that my assertion that, when people are unable to sell properties at prices they can accept and, as a result, turn them into rentals, that this might increase the rental pool and result in downward pressure on rents is far, far more outrageous and incendiary,

Is that like your ASSertions that rates were going above 10% by the end of the year or is it more like the ASSertion about rates reseting from September at a rate of 30,000 a month and cause a massive property crash ? You must ASSume that said properties were vacant in the first place to ASSert that by turning them into rentals they would increase the rental pool, right ? Since building approvals have slowed down we must also ASSume that it will put upward pressure on the existing rentals.

Here is a story from AAP news to get you excited, NSW: Sydney rents falling by up to $100 a week

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-26894501.html

:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thought for the day​
If the writer of the original SMH article accurately predicted trends or financial fillips, they would be doing that, investing on their own predictions, for Trump amounts of money, not working for SMH for wages.​
Or, she aint stinking rich, her advice dont work
 
No, it would increase the number of tenants looking to move into the $500/week properties which would cause prices to move UP not down. I'm sure the last couple of rate cuts did more for the bottom line then having the place rented would.


How considerate of you, its a shame you are not so nice on the other place or we could have become mates mate.:rolleyes:
Did you read the original article ? There is mention of median falls of 15.9% on Kirribilli and Milsons Point on 1 bedroom apartments which can rent for well into 4 digits and then at the end of it mention of North Shore properties listing for up to 3 weeks and some having to cut $20/week to attract renters. Prices there start around $300/week for a little dog box and go above $5000/week, not sure where do the $20/week cut in but even at the low end of the scale its hardly tumbling rental returns. But hey, if it gives you hope in your times of desperation....


Obviously someone forgot to tell that to the fake landlords in Botany Bay. :D

http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/DBD001E0-4220-45ED-9145-2FF7C9B7B5B4/0/RSReport85.pdf
Within the Sydney SD, the largest annual increases in
median rent for one bedroom flats/units were recorded in
Botany Bay (42.9%) and Strathfield (26.0%).

Do you think that its possible that a lot of Milsons Point renters just packed up and moved to Botany Bay or could it be that the landlords in Botany Bay haven't heard the bad news ? Maybe if you and your mates spend more time posting scary dribbles on news blogs you can get them to panic and drop their rents. :D

Let's see, so some landlords aren't dropping their rents because some landlords in another suburb are raising their rents. I've got to hand it to you, that kind of "logic" is hard to argue against. :confused:

And an increase in renters preferring/able to pay $500/week rather than $800-$1k/week means rents are rising. Oh yeah, it's so clear to me now how that works. When you have more $500/week rentals (now what, $550/week? $600/week with the increased demand) and less $800-$1k/week rentals the median rises. The economics world has been turned on its head by your insight. :rolleyes:

You still haven't mentioned how the number of non-bogan renters decreased suddenly. Unless you're assuming the article is right in saying there's less demand not that the FHOG was boosted. Or are you just ignoring the part of the market with falling demand to focus on the part with increased demand to "prove" that somehow the number of potential tenants hadn't changed? Did you even notice that's what you did?

Might want to reread the OP article yourself mate - you can then answer your own question. Especially the "landlords forced to drop rents by at least $20 a week to attract tenants" which should (I won't hold my breath) help clear your confusion about where the $20/week cuts in.

Here's a tip, why not post an anedote that agrees with your perception - it doesn't even have to be in the market we're discussing, or even relevant. Add a few digs about some people you feel superior to, throw in a conclusion that's so implausible you don't even believe it, link to some stats that actually undermine your point (except for the snippet you use) and throw in a broad generalisation or two that you assume relates to me. You know, the usual?
 
Here's a tip, why not post an anedote that agrees with your perception - it doesn't even have to be in the market we're discussing, or even relevant. Add a few digs about some people you feel superior to, throw in a conclusion that's so implausible you don't even believe it, link to some stats that actually undermine your point (except for the snippet you use) and throw in a broad generalisation or two that you assume relates to me. You know, the usual?

Hahaha! That made me laugh. Describes the majority of posts on the other forum to a tee! :D
 
Assuming there's an abundant supply of would be tenants.

* edit *

The caveat I included made a difference - please read what I post properly, before responding. That's twice today mate.;)

I did mate, that's why I said this:

There is actually no net change in the number of people renting versus the number of properties for rent. All that has changed is that a portion of the people renting the top end stuff now don't want to pay that much and this causes the top end rents to ease.

That, however, has absolutely no "flow on" effect...

I was just pointing out why your caveat around increased demand at the lower price point has to apply. i.e. Why would a drop in rents at the top end result in a net reduction in would be tennants? There is nothing to support a caveat around a net reduction in tennancies. Unless of course you're arguing that these formerly affluent mortgage banker types are now going to move back with Mum?

Can't see it... As such, an easing at the top end in rents has no flow on effect to the rest of the market as I asserted. All that happens is these guys negotiate a reduction in their rents. Good for them, but no net reduction in tennants and no impact to rentals at the more affordable price points.

Cheers,
Michael.
 
I did mate, that's why I said this:



You can't just caveat a scenario completely unrelated to the point about easing rents at the top end. i.e. Why would a drop in rents at the top end result in a net reduction in would be tennants? There is nothing to support a caveat around a net reduction in tennancies. Unless of course you're arguing that these formerly affluent mortgage banker types are now going to move back with Mum?

Can't see it... As such, an easing at the top end in rents has no flow on effect to the rest of the market as I asserted. All that happens is these guys negotiate a reduction in their rents. Good for them, but no net reduction in tennants and no impact to rentals at the more affordable price points.

Cheers,
Michael.
It wouldn't result in a net reduction in would be tenants. I never said it would. In fact I've been pointing out to yorke that the number of tenants remains the same. It's not even ambiguous - why would you think I wrote that?:confused: Frankly I can't believe you actually misread my posts so badly.

The caveat is entirely plausible - that there might not be an adundant supply of would be tenants. In some markets demand for rentals might not be enough to ensure some new listings are rented right away. In fact the OP article mentions properties "now staying on the market for an average of three weeks". So if the caveat is unrelated, how is it in the same article?

PLEASE read my posts properly before responding - that's 3 in a row now.

So now you're disagreeing with Yorke that the lower price level ($500/week in the example) is affected? In the example in the OP article (please read properly) it mentions that tenants that were looking in the $800-1,000/week price range are now looking in the $500/week price range. It specifically said that. So the only way an increase in the number of would be tenants at the $500/week price range does not equal an increase in demand (and therefore price pressure) at that price level is if landlords drop their rents from the higher range to the lower range - which is the opposite of what yorke posted. :confused: And not a decrease in the higher rents to a level above $500/week as you posted because the OP article specifically says that's not the case. So unless landlords are prepared to drop their asking rents from $800-1k to $500/week to meet demand within a few weeks then there will be an increase in demand at the lower level that is not met with a corresponding increase in supply at that price level.

So which is it guys? Are landlords desperate to get tenants at market price and will drop their asking rental rate quickly, or will they hold out for their desired rent even if they get no interest? The answer of course is somewhere in the middle. While the number of tenants remains the same some rental properties will remain with the higher price tag and empty, and the increase in demand at the lower price level will be met with a smaller increase in supply as some landlords drop their rents.

Which is what I posted to begin with.:rolleyes:
 
Is that like your ASSertions that rates were going above 10% by the end of the year

When did I make that assertion? Link please.

or is it more like the ASSertion about rates reseting from September at a rate of 30,000 a month and cause a massive property crash ?

When did I make that assertion? Link please.
 
Thought for the day​
If the writer of the original SMH article accurately predicted trends or financial fillips, they would be doing that, investing on their own predictions, for Trump amounts of money, not working for SMH for wages.​
Or, she aint stinking rich, her advice dont work

So every journalist should be ignored, every analyst should be ignored, every reporter should be ignored unless you have ok'd his/her financial portfolio? So we have gone from discussing the content of the article to dismissing the person who wrote it without knowing anything at all about him/her? That sounds like an enlightened approach.
 
Let's see, so some landlords aren't dropping their rents because some landlords in another suburb are raising their rents. I've got to hand it to you, that kind of "logic" is hard to argue against. :confused:

Care to reduce the quotation to the part where I said that ? If you do then maybe I can clear some of your confusion.:p

Might want to reread the OP article yourself mate - you can then answer your own question. Especially the "landlords forced to drop rents by at least $20 a week to attract tenants" which should (I won't hold my breath) help clear your confusion about where the $20/week cuts in.
I reread it again and unless we are reading a different copy of the story I must have missed it. I'm curious to know which properties are staing on the market for 3 weeks and if the $20 drops applied to 1br apartments or houses, $300/week rentals or $5000/week ? Feel free to highlight it below and clear the confusion.:D

An agent at Deborah Richardson Real Estate, Stacey Rohan, said properties on the lower North Shore which used to be rented in one weekend, were now staying on the market for an average of three weeks, with landlords forced to drop rents by at least $20 a week to attract tenants. "It's probably a lot cheaper than it has been."

Here's a tip, why not post an anedote that agrees with your perception - it doesn't even have to be in the market we're discussing, or even relevant. Add a few digs about some people you feel superior to, throw in a conclusion that's so implausible you don't even believe it, link to some stats that actually undermine your point (except for the snippet you use) and throw in a broad generalisation or two that you assume relates to me. You know, the usual?
Ok, since you guys like anecdotes so much ( or was that fiction and fairy tales ?)...While I'm looking for some useless stats and charts to link here why don't you tell us a few anecdotes yourself. Perhaps something about your latest IP acquisition, how many IPs are you currently holding, any current problems with your tenants, any of them demanding rent cuts, that kind of stuff. Or maybe share with us some of your actual experience in your part of the woods with developing properties, any problems with the local council, etc. :rolleyes:
 
Possibly the point is that they said they would fall in 2000, but did they?

yes they did, due to massive oversupply with several very large high rise developments coming on line all the the same time ... can recall the number of units suddenly dumped on the rental market, but it was in the 1000's.

that was the era of two weeks free rent etc to try and entice renters in. can't see it happening now - definately no oversupply happening for a loooooong while as the big builders ain't building.

p.s. man, all you guys are being real nitpicking spatty - every second thread! must be time for a break and holiday.
 
Is that like your ASSertions that rates were going above 10% by the end of the year or is it more like the ASSertion about rates reseting from September at a rate of 30,000 a month and cause a massive property crash ?

still waiting for those links yorke.
 
Are you still here? I thought you'd had a dummyspit and run away


still waiting for those links yorke.

Sill waiting for the ones showing 1800+metre sea level rises that will drown Vanuatu as well;)

Anything, anything at all, but PM me so as not to derail this thread

Dave
 
Originally Posted by urchin
still waiting for those links yorke.
Are you still here? I thought you'd had a dummyspit and run away

I thought so too, this is what urchin had to say on the other forum...

urchin said:
i've thrown in the towel on SS as people there are more concerned with winning an argument than learning about reality--i hope we maintain a little more critical distance than that. which is not to say we are prohibited from rejoicing over truly good news, but the reality is that things are still at the turning point for much of australia.

all i can say is that, whoever sold yorke his "IPs" must have been a very, very happy camper. i mean, seriously, supply and demand is not all that hard to comprehend. if he really believes the **** he writes i have a bridge to sell him.

of course what is most infuriating is that these people dont give a crap about what the reality is, they will point out a misplaced comma and try to undermine your argument from there b/c the facts are not on their side and they arent interested in anything that doesnt support their preconceived view of the world.

in the end, however, that just makes us the bigger fools for posting to a bunch of people who are determined to live in a bubble. got to resist the habit of trying to correct people who are determined to drive into brick walls at full speed. some times its better to just get out of the way of the careening car.
 
Ok, since you guys like anecdotes so much ( or was that fiction and fairy tales ?)...While I'm looking for some useless stats and charts to link here why don't you tell us a few anecdotes yourself. Perhaps something about your latest IP acquisition, how many IPs are you currently holding, any current problems with your tenants, any of them demanding rent cuts, that kind of stuff.

From earlier in this increasingly tangential thread:

Anyway, my tenant in Annandale (Sydney, inner west) is getting a $50 rent increase in January 09 (which he knows about) on top of the $50 rent increase in January 08 and he's happy.

Now, that's just one property. I wouldn't be silly enough in January to then extropolate this to a statement like: 'All inner west rents have just jumped 10%'. But I bet if I fed the fact (and bunged a few other bits in there) to a lazy journo it would become a story.

I'm sure that three month sample in Kirribilli was pretty small. And as for one bedder rents in Botany Bay jumping by 42.9%, that's just bizarre. Is Botany Bay even a suburb? I know Botany is a suburb. And there is certainly a bay down there. Maybe there is a new apartment building that has gone up and they have invented a suburb called Botany Bay that encompasses the immediate vicinity of that building - developers do that. There would be some one bedders in the building, and when they hit the rental pool vs the few older exisiting one bedder, hey presto, rents are up 42.9%. So the nonsense swings both ways.

Scott
 
Last edited:
Back
Top