Rents tumble in inner Sydney

yep, that pretty much covers it. though i have said here and there and elsewhere that there are many good, intelligent people on SS (and the other board) who I respect a great deal. there are a couple of others who i think have no real concern for reality and only care about proving the other guy wrong at any cost, usually using desperately flawed logic and heaping helpings of scorn and condescension.

i am a fool for posting to people i know will never, ever, ever listen to anything they don't already agree with. we all have our faults i suppose.

lizzie lambasted me for making sweeping statements without qualification or support. i, in fact, did qualify my statements and did provide support only people chose to simply ignore that part of my posts.

yorke on the other hand, makes sweeping statements and then backs them up by trying to undermine my position by quoting irrelevant remarks that, so far as i can recall, i have never made.

is it too much to ask him to provide evidence? is this incredibly unreasonable? if so, that's cool. just so i know the rules.
 
I had some top end 1 bedders (not in NSW) where the level of interest was not as I hoped. So I furnished them and the rent is now higher than the rent I get for identical 2 bedders. I have now tapped into a new market rather than dropping and competing with the lower market (which I am also in and as discussed this group is rising)

Bottom end - rising with better quality tenants

Middle - rising with excellent quality tenants.

Top end - less interest and rents have dropped slightly (not down to next level as these tenants want to pay less not get less!).
 
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.
I'm going to run with the Whatever defence...

Sounds like we're both vehemently espoucing the same argument and both figuring we're pretty unambiguous.

I'll just leave it at consent and move on...

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

ahhh - explains a lot. ah well, only time will tell whether the optimists or pessimists were on the correct side of the fence.

personally, life is more fun being an optimist.
 
Last edited:
I agree but with the caveat that not if ones optimism gets them burned financially. Which is pretty common in the current economic environment.

If it wasnt for the recent IR drops a lot of people would be in the line up at Vinnies. And most is that is caused by too much optimism.

personally, life is more fun being an optimist.
 
yep, that pretty much covers it. though i have said here and there and elsewhere that there are many good, intelligent people on SS (and the other board) who I respect a great deal. there are a couple of others who i think have no real concern for reality and only care about proving the other guy wrong at any cost, usually using desperately flawed logic and heaping helpings of scorn and condescension.

i am a fool for posting to people i know will never, ever, ever listen to anything they don't already agree with. we all have our faults i suppose.

lizzie lambasted me for making sweeping statements without qualification or support. i, in fact, did qualify my statements and did provide support only people chose to simply ignore that part of my posts.

yorke on the other hand, makes sweeping statements and then backs them up by trying to undermine my position by quoting irrelevant remarks that, so far as i can recall, i have never made.

is it too much to ask him to provide evidence? is this incredibly unreasonable? if so, that's cool. just so i know the rules.

Any chance you could let us know what suburb you live in mate? Just curious is all. Always on the hunt for more information...
 
Any chance you could let us know what suburb you live in mate? Just curious is all. Always on the hunt for more information...

i'm in o'connor. and my last rent hike was about 7%--just a little under the max figure allowed. i am seeing more rentals come up for significantly less than what we pay now in neighboring suburbs (dickson, lyneham, some in downer but that is a bit further away from Civic and i cycle to work) but we will probably end up staying here till we buy (unless they sell it out from under us, always a possibility). i cant recall where precisely i saw it but i read an article recently saying median rents in canberra had dropped something like 2%. may the trend continue...
 
i am a fool

You are being harsh on yourself but who am I to disagree;)

for posting to people i know will never, ever, ever listen to anything they don't already agree with. we all have our faults i suppose.

You would never ever be guilty of that now would you

lizzie lambasted me for making sweeping statements without qualification or support. i, in fact, did qualify my statements and did provide support only people chose to simply ignore that part of my posts.

Support? Missed that, nope, no PM from you either

is it too much to ask him to provide evidence? is this incredibly unreasonable? if so, that's cool. just so i know the rules.

I know, its bad isn't it, I ask the same from you and get nothing

Oh well

Dave
 
When did I make that assertion? Link please.
When did I make that assertion? Link please.

Stop it with that "Link please" You know that I can't post any links here even if I could find them, not to mention that you only began posting as urchin from 21Sept08.
urchin 21seot08 said:
you dont get something for nothing, and when you look at the graphs of housing prices, it looks like a lot of people have gotten a lot of something for nothing. unbridled greed will not go unpunished, this will not last. the day of reckoning is at hand--repent!
Maybe if you told us what other names you've used before I could be bother to search, then again probably not. I'd hate to go through your mate Scamp's posts again.:D
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.
We've learned from the other site, isn't that what you do ?
And btw, that is an excellent policy. Just ask anyone who listened to them a few months ago and locked in their rates at 8% or more.
still waiting for those links yorke.
You do that while waiting for the 50% price falls as well or as you put it " i am happy to sit back and let prices continue to drop 5% a month for the next... 10 months or so " Sorry, no links either.
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.
I'm sure he was and so am I, only wish I listened to the guy who sold me the first one in the 80s and bought the other 2 blocks he was selling as well. Large blocks with ocean glimpses for $16K and less then 5min from Freo, now how can you go wrong with that ? ;) How old is your bridge, if its in good nick and you have the titles for it I may be interested. You do own that bridge and not just rent it from someone, right ? :D
I couldn't seriously talk to you about supply and demand, seriously. I've seen your arguments about how the fall in building approvals because it was cheaper to buy was going to cause property prices to fall because of a pent up supply of houses and a lack of demand from buyers (or something to that effect) Nope, no link again but I'm sure you'll know where to look to find it.:D
i am a fool for posting to people i know will never, ever, ever listen to anything they don't already agree with. we all have our faults i suppose.
Sorry, don't know you well enough to comment so I'll just take your word for it. Regarding the other thing, its not that we don't listen but more like we don't agree with you. After all it would be very foolish to take financial advice online from a stranger who may not have any practical experience and very likely has ulterior motives, would it not?
but yeah, the message is coming through loud and clear. no worries. bye bye

bye bye , I'm sure you'll be back here as soon as you get your PPOR if not earlier. :D
 
Yorke, I hate to be a nitpicker, but that story is from March 2003.

Scott

Thanks Scott,
As BoatBoy said, its from 2000. I was trying to cheer up urchin & mates for Xmas but I guess the meaning got lost after the mods trimmed back some of my post. The OP story which got the bears excited was also a bit of recycled story from a month ago so I thought since they don't mind recycling I better spread some Christmas cheer amongst the bears. God knows that after the last 2 rate cuts they need it.:D
 
i learned the "link please" thing from boatboy. he has been very educational.

but somehow your inability to find a link is my fault? i must be pretending to be someone else? on both forums at the same time? why would i do that? i understand why some people who want to hide their views adopt aliases on one forum or the other, but why would i adopt an alias on both forums? I joined the other forum in sept, i found out about SS in that other place and joined here in oct.. i have learned a lot in both forums, i use the same name in both places because i have no reason to try to hide from my posts. i do make mistakes in my posts, i do make errors, and i do make posts in the heat of the moment that i later regret. but i do it all under the same name. you have been reading too many conspiracy theory books.

You know that I can't post any links here even if I could find them, not to mention that you only began posting as urchin from 21Sept08.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urchin 21seot08
you dont get something for nothing, and when you look at the graphs of housing prices, it looks like a lot of people have gotten a lot of something for nothing. unbridled greed will not go unpunished, this will not last. the day of reckoning is at hand--repent!

just because you can't link doesnt mean you can't quote (as you have demonstrated). btw, i started posting sept. 9th not the 21st. i also enjoyed the way you took my post out of context: it was part of a tongue-in-cheek thread i started entitled "the bubble is my fault" and was obviously a joke and intended to be over the top, as the :p smiley at the end (which you left out) helped to indicate. again, you are just making up what you can't prove.


The major obstacle to productive discussion with you is that you treat anyone and everyone who says anything mildly bearish about property as an extremo-polar bear ideologue. that isnt so. the whole reason i started with these forums is because, relative to where i was coming from, property seemed absurdly expensive in australia. so i started reading, then i found the various forums. my views that it is overpriced have been reinforced by what i have learned and by recent trends in the economy as a whole and in the housing market.

that's all. in general i don't wish people ill regardless of where they stand, though i do admit that i have encountered people on both forums that i am not particularly friendly with, and if they feel a little pain in the future, well, perhaps it will serve as a good learning experience and moderate their arrogance going forward.


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.

We've learned from the other site, isn't that what you do ?
And btw, that is an excellent policy. Just ask anyone who listened to them a few months ago and locked in their rates at 8% or more.
.

again, please show me where i am doing that. i am not the site, i am me, many people post on that site, i do not represent or agree with all of them. when i see articles that seem wholly biased and blatant spruiking that are not borne out by the facts, i post to that effect. if you want to argue the facts of the article, by all means please do so. but all you have been doing is attacking me with lies and misrepresentations. there is a difference you know.

You do that while waiting for the 50% price falls as well or as you put it " i am happy to sit back and let prices continue to drop 5% a month for the next... 10 months or so " Sorry, no links either.

yep. i was posting on a dramatic drop in ACT house prices month over month as indicated by the allhomes report and the first half of the sentence was "given the added risk as a result of house market crashes, banks folding, and a weakened economy, i reckon prospective buyers are going to sit things out for a while"

i don't think i have ever misrepresented my stance on the housing market and if you are incapable of comprehending a bit of exaggeration when you see it, well that's your problem mate--it was pretty clear in that forum, at least, that i was not claiming that prices would drop 50%+ in 10 months. but yes, as a general principal, i think that if prices are falling rapidly and there is no pressing need to buy, it is probably better to wait. perhaps you disagree?

and in any case... what is its relevance? how does this relate to the issues we had been discussing? oh yes, i forgot. this is your favorite strategy, isn't it? when someone calls you on something you made up you pull a red herring out of your hat and throw it at them as though it were an insult. how is this a rebuttal?

its not that we don't listen but more like we don't agree with you. After all it would be very foolish to take financial advice online from a stranger who may not have any practical experience and very likely has ulterior motives, would it not?

yes you would be an idiot to take financial advice from an anonymous internet poster. my "vested interests"? thats a bit of a joke. i want property to fall and have shouted it from the rooftops but i also am aware that my wants have nothing to do with how things will pan out. it is laughable that people might think i am trying to sway a trillion dollar market. please... nor am i trying to give financial advice in any way shape or form. i thought we were having a discussion on the housing market economy, as the forum title indicates. that is what i was talking about. in the whole "vested interest" debate there are heaps bigger fish to fry than me.

as far as "agreeing" versus "listening", it is (i know this will come as a surprise) entirely possible to have a civil, interesting and education discussion with someone you don't agree with. i have had many with people on this forum and i think i am the better for it. but when you resort to snide remarks, misrepresentation and simply making stuff up it is not a discussion. it is you simply trying squash the other side for the hell of it. when you are not reading in good faith but reading only in order to pick apart the other guy, you aren't listening. because you don't care what the other side has to say, you just want to make your and if that involves deliberately misrepresenting what people have to say, that seems to be fine with you.

I'm sure he was and so am I, only wish I listened to the guy who sold me the first one in the 80s and bought the other 2 blocks he was selling as well. Large blocks with ocean glimpses for $16K and less then 5min from Freo, now how can you go wrong with that

yes, that would be one of the posts written in the heat of the moment that i regret upon further reflection. good for you having the insight and wherewithal to make a good investment. i have no way of knowing your investment history, i simply extrapolated from your online persona and imagined how you would be as an investor if you had the same extremely narrow view of the world.

I couldn't seriously talk to you about supply and demand, seriously. I've seen your arguments about how the fall in building approvals because it was cheaper to buy was going to cause property prices to fall because of a pent up supply of houses and a lack of demand from buyers (or something to that effect)

that you cant seriously talk to me (or anyone with an opposing view) is eminently obvious. it would be interesting to see how you would translate a glut of properties on the market, a dearth of buyers and a lack of people interested in buying new properties into a near term positive for sellers... but i think i will spare myself that bit of tortured logic.

bye bye , I'm sure you'll be back here as soon as you get your PPOR if not earlier.

yes, on the one hand i should abandon the board if i insist on getting myself involved in fruitless conversations with people who are not arguing in good faith. absolutely no doubt about that. i will try much harder to avoid getting enmeshed in pointless arguments with people who have no intention of listening. i do apologize to other forum viewers if i have been throwing petrol on the fire. i will do my best to ignore ignorant posts in the future.
 
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.
simply, yes. advice should be accepted or rejected only on the skill of the advisor. This journalist is commenting on financial matters, to be given credence, their financial abilities are at issue.

however, journalists, write articles to which they were assigned, whether or not they have skills or knowlege of what they are writing, so make mistakes, get it wrong, as well as get it right.

real psychics - win the lottery every week.

Printed in the paper, with respect to the Sydney Morning Herald, I do not intend disparagement of SMH, but of the unqualified acceptance of information from any source, is not a guarantee of accuracy, or even of relevance.
Media, exists an enticement to exposure to the advertising that makes the money for the media company.
Healthy skepticism.
 
Last edited:
Sill waiting for the ones showing 1800+metre sea level rises that will drown Vanuatu as well;)

since the other thread has been closed i will post it here for the record (and because i promised boatboy i would)--after a few (relatively civil) back and forths via pm, he is right and i was utterly and miserably wrong on vanuatu. my apologies to him and everyone else for wasting bandwidth. i based my argument on a few articles that were narrowly focused and i extrapolated, mistakenly (though not deliberately), from those narrowly focused articles to make statements that were not supported by facts.

so, as far as the "vanuatu incident" goes--i admit it, totally braindead.

sorry.
 
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.
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

"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."

and

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

http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdo...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%). "

Aren't they linked? If so you're claiming rents (prices) will move up (i.e. not fall) because Botany Bay & Strathfield (i.e. another suburb) one bedroom units had big jumps in median rents. If they're not linked then why post the second part? My mistake if I assumed different parts of your post were somehow related - I'm just so used to that being the case with other posters here.

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."

It's pretty clear to me where the $20 drops are starting from reading the OP, and your selected text from it. Isn't it clear to you? I'm pretty sure you've answered your own question, or you can work it out for yourself. I even gave you a hint in my last post. I won't embarress you by spelling it out - don't misplace my faith in your ability to understand! ;)

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:
Sure, I could do that. But before we move onto another topic that's clearly more comfortable for you, why don't you answer my initial question - How did the number of would be tenants (especially the non-bogan ones) decrease in the example market where tenants who used to pay $800-1k/week rent now want to pay $500/week? Michael Whyte doesn't think the number of potential tenants drops, so is he wrong, or are you? I'm here to learn, and so is Michael, so please let us know. :)
 
yes, on the one hand i should abandon the board if i insist on getting myself involved in fruitless conversations with people who are not arguing in good faith. absolutely no doubt about that. i will try much harder to avoid getting enmeshed in pointless arguments with people who have no intention of listening. i do apologize to other forum viewers if i have been throwing petrol on the fire. i will do my best to ignore ignorant posts in the future.

Urchin, don't apologise to us. But if you're sitting there in the middle of the night bashing away at your keyboard making anonymous, lengthy, argumentative posts that nobody (apart from your several anonymous antagonists) would bother reading anymore, you might need some help. At the very least, you probably need some sleep.
Scott
 
Urchin, don't apologise to us. But if you're sitting there in the middle of the night bashing away at your keyboard making anonymous, lengthy, argumentative posts that nobody (apart from your several anonymous antagonists) would bother reading anymore, you might need some help. At the very least, you probably need some sleep.
Scott

Agreed.

Tis unfortunate the internet is now easily available to the masses (not specifically you urchin, referring to the many nonconstructive posters that have graced our great forum over the last two years).

If you want to take out some frustration, try boxing.
 
since the other thread has been closed i will post it here for the record (and because i promised boatboy i would)--after a few (relatively civil) back and forths via pm, he is right and i was utterly and miserably wrong on vanuatu. my apologies to him and everyone else for wasting bandwidth. i based my argument on a few articles that were narrowly focused and i extrapolated, mistakenly (though not deliberately), from those narrowly focused articles to make statements that were not supported by facts.

so, as far as the "vanuatu incident" goes--i admit it, totally braindead.

sorry.

Thanks

Dave
 
i do apologize to other forum viewers if i have been throwing petrol on the fire. i will do my best to ignore ignorant posts in the future.

And throws more petrol on the fire.:rolleyes:

You do realise that what may seem ignorant to you may not to others and vice versa.

Take our previous discussion for example?

But, lets move on shall we?

Dave
 
"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."

So just how do you equate tenants downgrading to $500/week properties and increasing demand for these properties with some landlords aren't dropping their rents because some landlords in another suburb are raising their rents. ?

and

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

http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdo...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%). "

Aren't they linked? If so you're claiming rents (prices) will move up (i.e. not fall) because Botany Bay & Strathfield (i.e. another suburb) one bedroom units had big jumps in median rents. If they're not linked then why post the second part?


No, they are not linked but you obviously missed the half a screen in between the 2 comments. Unless you suggest the possibility that tenants from North Shores downgraded to Botany Bay and caused a pent up demand and 42.9% rent rises ? I was replying to this " Raw data, unadjusted. It is what it is. Real landlords are dropping the real rents to get real tenants."




It's pretty clear to me where the $20 drops are starting from reading the OP, and your selected text from it. Isn't it clear to you?
If it is so clear why not highlight it and clear the confusion ? :D

Sure, I could do that. But before we move onto another topic that's clearly more comfortable for you, why don't you answer my initial question - How did the number of would be tenants (especially the non-bogan ones) decrease in the example market where tenants who used to pay $800-1k/week rent now want to pay $500/week? Michael Whyte doesn't think the number of potential tenants drops, so is he wrong, or are you? I'm here to learn, and so is Michael, so please let us know. :)

Ok I'm waiting with anticipation to hear your anecdotes. Not sure what are you referring in the original question so I've pasted it below, where did I say that the number of would be tenants would decrease ? You know the drill, please underline. :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.

Nobody said Michael was wrong , even you admited that overall the number of tenants remains the same.
If anything changes is the demand for the $500 and $1000 a week properties.
Just so you don't misunderstand lets put it in nice simple numbers so that even an economist would understand. Lets say there are 300 tenants overall and from that number 100 tenants are renting at $250/week 100 at $500/week and 100 at $1000/week. Forget about the $250/week ones since at best they can't downgrade, if anything they'd be hit with a rent increases. If 50 tenants from the $1000/week decide to downgrade there are now 150 tenants competing for only 100 places in the $500/week market and a vacancy of 50 places in the $1000/week market. Half of the investors with $1000/week empty rentals now decide to cut the rent to $500/week while the other half decide that since it makes little difference to their bottom line they will wait it out until they find tenants or keep the place empty. The number of $500 a week places have increased by 25 and there are now 150 tenants competing for 125 rentals, which still leave 25 tenants on the side of the road. There is no reason for the $500/week investor to cut rents to $250/week but there is an incentive for the $500/week tenant to pay up extra to secure a place. At the end of the day rents on some of the $1000/week are coming down but the $500/week places are going up and overall the median rental price is moving upwards. Did you follow all that ? :D
Tumbling rent prices ? More like wishful thinking.
 
but somehow your inability to find a link is my fault? i must be pretending to be someone else? on both forums at the same time? why would i do that? i understand why some people who want to hide their views adopt aliases on one forum or the other, but why would i adopt an alias on both forums? I joined the other forum in sept, i found out about SS in that other place and joined here in oct.. i have learned a lot in both forums, i use the same name in both places because i have no reason to try to hide from my posts. i do make mistakes in my posts, i do make errors, and i do make posts in the heat of the moment that i later regret. but i do it all under the same name. you have been reading too many conspiracy theory books.
I told you I don't have a link and even if you were discussing it with me before the posts may have been deleted or "moved". Nobody said you were pretending or using multiple aliases but sometimes there reasons for having to use a new alias. It wasn't the books but rather the conspiracies I've read on the other side. :D

i don't think i have ever misrepresented my stance on the housing market and if you are incapable of comprehending a bit of exaggeration when you see it, well that's your problem mate--it was pretty clear in that forum, at least, that i was not claiming that prices would drop 50%+ in 10 months. but yes, as a general principal, i think that if prices are falling rapidly and there is no pressing need to buy, it is probably better to wait. perhaps you disagree?
If you think its better to wait then do so, Why would you care if I agreed or not ? I can't help wondering if subconsciously you are having doubts about your position which could manifest as spending all your time online seeking confirmation, cause you loss of sleep and distressed online behavior. FWIW yes I disagree, I think the effects of the rate cuts and increased FHOG won't be obvious until around February, by then the RBA would have panicked and cut rates by another 1%. My guess regarding property prices is that at best (from your point of view) they are still flat and at worst they could be up something like 20%, all depends on how much the inflation picks up.



that you cant seriously talk to me (or anyone with an opposing view) is eminently obvious. it would be interesting to see how you would translate a glut of properties on the market, a dearth of buyers and a lack of people interested in buying new properties into a near term positive for sellers... but i think i will spare myself that bit of tortured logic.
You are right, the posts are getting a bit long and trying to explain how a reduction in building approvals now could put pressure on available stocks further down the track would be a bit pointless since it clashes with your ideology of people not buying because they are not interested in buying. If I do come up with ignorant posts I apologize but you know who is to blame. I was denied the privilege of continuing my education amongst some of the best investment minds on the planet, the formulaes, statistics charts and logic that they are famous for.

i will try much harder to avoid getting enmeshed in pointless arguments with people who have no intention of listening. i do apologize to other forum viewers if i have been throwing petrol on the fire. i will do my best to ignore ignorant posts in the future.

No,its me who has to apologize to you. If I caused you any upset I am deeply sorry and want to thank for continuing to share your logic and points of view with us. For that I salute you.
http://www.themessagegroup.com.au/l...le=20081208-Urchin-from Somersoft_create.html


cheers
 
Back
Top