Sure, no problem! Irish house prices quadrupled in the same 10 years that prices in Australia only doubled (see below). They have since fallen about 10% from the peak. Not sure where you are getting your 40% figure from but it's way off the mark!
Some nice Supply Side numbers and charts
- Thread starter MichaelW
- Start date
Sure, no problem! Irish house prices quadrupled in the same 10 years that prices in Australia only doubled (see below). They have since fallen about 10% from the peak. Not sure where you are getting your 40% figure from but it's way off the mark!
Year ending is misleading. The December 07 quarter was a relative buying frenzy. What are the sales volumes since then? Or in the September quarter this year? That would be more accurate.
Sure, here you go...
Sep 2008 quarter: Sales (houses) ... 10527
Sep 2008 quarter: Sales (units) ...... 9983
All looking good!
Who said it was?
I think you'll find the 40% is a prediction of drop from the peak (early '07)over the short term.
Here's something more up-to-datey than Shadow's stuff but still 6 months old
Other crappy data?
the real data trader look at (like me
) is the housing finance from ABS. Last one was released a couple of weeks ago for september figure. The main and more important data is "Owner occupied housing" that come up in the news and at attention of investor and traders. It has been pretty bad in the last few months (-2.7% in sept, -2.1%, -0.9%%, -3.7%, -6.9% in the previous months). Anyway, looking at the ABS data can you see the undersupply or the oversupply?
Clarify one thing then. Have you now backed away from your earlier position, that supply was constrained? You seem to have moved on to 'tight credit has temporarily crimped demand'. Do you believe these two positions show a consistent state of mind, or have you dismissed the earlier position?
Other crappy data?
the real data trader look at (like me
Anyway, looking at the ABS data can you see the undersupply or the oversupply?
That's not Sydney. My stats are for Sydney - you know, the city that didn't boom for the past five years...
Sorry if I am not a real data trader like you. Oh so it's a prediction now, where before it was a fact. I see, more Steve Keen?
Just like I said - 10% down after a 4x rise. Terrible stuff, huge crash.
Last edited:
These data are for Sydney? If so, that's a 30% drop on the September quarter last year. If so, not looking good.
Straw man (in future and to save time, will simply type SM)
You are seriously overstating rainbow's observation....
I was attempting to put the number in context as I was curious, did a quick search and found it an Irish newspaper article.
Just like I said - 10% down after a 4x rise. Terrible stuff, huge crash.
Tell that to the Irish...who are still there.
*sigh*
Um... no... no its not. You are simply wrong (again).
Do you just like to make stuff up for fun?
You see, the difference between you and me is that I have data and statistics to back up my position. You have rumour, fabrication, wild accusations, and nonsense you heard on cphg.
Shadow.
Where is your data from? I am looking at official data.*sigh*
Um... no... no its not. You are simply wrong (again).
Do you just like to make stuff up for fun?
You see, the difference between you and me is that I have data and statistics to back up my position. You have rumour, fabrication, wild accusations, and nonsense you heard on cphg.
Shadow.
No, I haven't changed my position at all. Why would I? Everything I've said stands up to scrutiny and I'm not the only one saying it:Clarify one thing then. Have you now backed away from your earlier position, that supply was constrained? You seem to have moved on to 'tight credit has temporarily crimped demand'. Do you believe these two positions show a consistent state of mind, or have you dismissed the earlier position?
http://business.smh.com.au/business/housing-heads-for-a-soft-landing-20081125-6hf0.html
I love how you keep attacking the individual and not the argument. I pointed out this ploy, yet it doesn't stop you. I love how you're now perpetuating these attacks on your favourite forum that we're not allowed to mention here. But, for what its worth, I'm sure you're aware that attacking the individual in no way diminishes their argument.
Sorry, you're still wrong, but I guess your burgeoning awareness of this is what is driving the acidic attacks.
Go home!
Michael
The problem with Gittins article is he is restating the same reasons used at the peak of both the UK and US markets. It is a rubbish argument to use.
There was certainly no overbuilding in the UK.
There was certainly no overbuilding in the UK.
Not really. He mentions the difference between the full recourse and non recourse loans in Australia vs the USA for example. There are quite a few differences between the compared markets, not just the supply dynamics which was the focus of this thread.
Cheers,
Michael
There is the full recourse nature of NZ and UK markets as well. Meanwhile, many markets in the US are full recourse. New York state for one - while New York city has fallen around 7% over the year. There is no overbuilding there, full recourse mortgages, and similar to Sydney, heavily dependent on its financial and services sector.
Possibly off topic a bit but hows the US average wage in wage years compare to price of average New York CBD appartments?
How does that compare to Australia?
Dave
They talk about median house prices to median incomes in this interview but it doesn't mention New York, not sure if that helps.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2369074.htm
I think price to income is around 8. Saw this in NAR or OFHEO stats, but will have to check. The long term level is around 5-6 times income
Considering the size, wealth and population of the city, the ratio should be higher than in cities of Australia.
According to this site in 2006 it was $42,000 so about $45k now??
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/tables/fig102.asp
This site says
I take it Manhattan appartments would be CBD, so they would be 35 times average US wage.
Average NY home works out at 19 times average US wage
According to the information provided
Dave
Hi
Not baiting but why should a ratio be higher in one city or another (excepting perhaps for natural and man made amenities that may be valued by the community). Surely the whole argument of the D & G crowd has been, ad nauseum, that the average property price can't exceed the capacity of its average population to pay? This is why I find these ratios almost useless as it seems that it "depends" upon the population's willingness and capacity to pay rather than some arbitrary ratio.
I'd be interested why a ratio of 8 is acceptable in one country but 5 is unacceptable in another? Just seems contradictory to me.
Cheers
Shane
