Sydney prices to plunge!!

Coastymike,

Whilst I keep a portfolio of IPs for long term capital growth, at the same time, I do small deals, ( one or two a year) whereby I buy, add value or develop and sell straight away. Thats where I get my income to " put bread on the table." These "deals" easily double my equity in less than 12 months. Dont forget that I said "equity" meaning that I would put "X" deposit on a property and borrow "Y" then spend "Z" adding value and then selling with a profit of "X" times 2 after paying back "Y"
 
Cloclo,

I understand but why in the other post are you concerned about your negative gearing shortfalls. In fact in that other post you indicate that in order to put "bread on the table" you occassionally sell some of your properties. Maybe this refers to the small developments you are doing. If the returns are doubled then surely you should have ample income to service any debt. Do the deals double your equity after paying tax on the development or are these before tax costs ?

Doubling your equity means that if you had an $8M portfolio it would double every year. Looking at the other post you said you have roughly 50% equity after debt so you should be increasing your portfolio by $4M per annum. That is doubling your net equity.
 
cloclo said:
Coastymike,

Whilst I keep a portfolio of IPs for long term capital growth, at the same time, I do small deals, ( one or two a year) whereby I buy, add value or develop and sell straight away. Thats where I get my income to " put bread on the table." These "deals" easily double my equity in less than 12 months. Dont forget that I said "equity" meaning that I would put "X" deposit on a property and borrow "Y" then spend "Z" adding value and then selling with a profit of "X" times 2 after paying back "Y"
This is a softening market.
Would it not be a better situation for your cash flow to put "bread and butter" on the table and your deals to put the "stawberrys and cream" on the table???
You said yourself that the deals are getting harder to sell and "Aussie John"confirms this.
Developers do go broke you know.
 
coastymike said:
If the returns are doubled then surely you should have ample income to service any debt. Do the deals double your equity after paying tax on the development or are these before tax costs ?

Doubling your equity means that if you had an $8M portfolio it would double every year. Looking at the other post you said you have roughly 50% equity after debt so you should be increasing your portfolio by $4M per annum. That is doubling your net equity.

Coastmike,

Sorry, I meant doubling my equity on a particular deal , not on my entire portfolio!. Apart from my shortfall, I need to pay land tax which is in excess of 100K (I think) and I have to "live". I dont know how much I spend but I think quite a lot.
 
Les said:
And, during that "tread" phase, settling back a little is quite normal - so what makes THIS current phase any different? John? You out there???

While I'm not John, I think he would answer by saying that this phase is different because the preceding "step" was greater than all the previous steps, and so the following phase is going to be a lot harsher than previous ones.

It was a good program on Sunday. Bare bones, tell it like it is without all the hype from those with vested interests trying to convince the market that the soft landing is over.

Aussie John hit the nail on the head. We wont be seeing the next up-phase until prices have come back to a level where they are between 3.5 and 5 times the average salary. Currently at about 6.5- 7.

His parting advice to investors was to sell even if that makes taking a loss.
I think he realises the risk to his own business by investors buying at current prices thinking they are getting a bargain with a 5% discount when in two years they'll be forced to sell for even less.

L Benham
 
Most long term investors know that good times don't last.And we have certainly had good times with low interest rates.When will it end? Well no one knows. Maybe Aussie John knows something we don't.???????
But one thing is certain and that is, that when interest rates start to rise there will be more opportunities to invest.
I like it!!!!
 
G'day LBernham,
While I'm not John, I think he would answer by saying that this phase is different because the preceding "step" was greater than all the previous steps, and so the following phase is going to be a lot harsher than previous ones.
Really???? Do you have figures to quote re this, LB? My figures say that prices doubled in Sydney in the 83 - 89 boom, and only slightly more than doubled in the latest boom ending in 2003 (104%). In 89, the repayments (according to Jan's book) reached 80% of AWOTE. In 03, I don't believe they reached 70%.

Aussie John hit the nail on the head. We wont be seeing the next up-phase until prices have come back to a level where they are between 3.5 and 5 times the average salary. Currently at about 6.5- 7.
Won't argue against this, LB - this makes sense to me. Things do need to "settle back" for a while before going again.

His parting advice to investors was to sell even if that makes taking a loss.
I really wonder about this comment - has John bought shares in the ASX?? Or opened a RE office?? Certainly if someone bought "too high" in the last 18 months or so, then this is one way......

But this almost sounds like John is advocating that ALL investors should be selling (gains and all - CGT and all...) - hmmmm - I didn't hear him say we should all buy Gold !!!! What IS his angle??? Is he holding a BUNCH of IP's and wanting the number of available rentals to diminish rapidly to force rents higher quicker ????

Thoughts, anyone?

Regards,
 
The prompt reply from the banking industry is a sign or nervousness I would say...

see article from today's herald.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/banks-say-house-prices-wont-fall/2005/11/05/1130823439628.html

Banks say house prices won't tumble


Major banks have rejected statements by home loan provider John Symond that the real-estate market will continue to fall.

With the Aussie Home Loans boss painting a bleak picture of the property market, predicting a further 10 per cent fall in prices in the coming year, Westpac, the Commonwealth Bank and ANZ countered by saying they did not anticipate any major change.

"I think it's a pretty flat market," the Commonwealth's general manager of retail products, Geoff Austin, said. "There's nothing we are seeing to suggest that it is going to change in the next six to 12 months."

In an interview published yesterday, Mr Symond warned consumers to get out of the real-estate market.

He said the market was yet to bottom, and people should sell now to avoid major losses.

Mr Austin said prices in Sydney fell five to 10 per cent after topping out in 2004, but the bank was now seeing a normal spring pick-up in lending activity and volume.

"What we have seen is a pretty flat market in terms of prices in Sydney," Mr Austin added.

"There's no huge pent-up demand, but you don't have a huge crush of sellers either."

ANZ spokesman Paul Edwards said it did not appear there was going to be a sudden change in prices. "The market is certainly softer than it was two years ago, but overall it seems to have steadied rather than ... falling in any sort of dramatic fashion," he said.

David Lording from Westpac added: "There's been an orderly correction in the housing market. We believe it will remain reasonably stable in most areas. Our bad debts are at record lows. That means people are able to meet their repayments."

Meanwhile, houses in Sydney's west and south-west are selling 10 times faster than those elsewhere in the city. In the past six months, homes in areas such as Cranebrook and Fairfield have spent on average less than a fortnight on the market before being snapped up.

Australian Property Monitors statistics show that property in these areas takes only about 11 days to sell, compared with Sydney's 89-day average. Also on APM's list of top five suburbs for the shortest time on the market were Chester Hill and Cambridge Gardens, both with an average of 14 days, and Waverton, on the lower North Shore, with 18 days.

APM's Louis Christopher said the results were good news for vendors but not a sign that people should start putting up their prices.

"Normally when you see a reduction of days on the market, vendors have been willing to meet the market and buyer activity is starting to pick up," Mr Christopher said. "West and south-west areas have experienced a downturn just like the rest of Sydney but the rate of decline hasn't been as bad."

The figures, from sales in the six months to September 30, included the average discount on the advertised price before a sale was made.

The least discounted suburbs for houses include Glenfield, Narraweena, Macquarie Park, Cranebrook and Waverton, which had experienced average discounts of between 2 and 4 per cent.
 
I tend to agree with John I don't think he has a hidden agenda he was appealing to mum and dad investors. He gave no clear indicators as to why more sophisticated investors should bail out of property.
Still if you are going to panic my advise is"BE FIRST"
 
Les said:
Really???? Do you have figures to quote re this, LB? My figures say that prices doubled in Sydney in the 83 - 89 boom, and only slightly more than doubled in the latest boom ending in 2003 (104%). In 89, the repayments (according to Jan's book) reached 80% of AWOTE. In 03, I don't believe they reached 70%.

Hi Les, have a look at the inflation rate between 83 -89 and you'll seee the real rate return in that period.

The high inflation rate of the period is often ignored by investors and always conveniently not mentioned by spruikers trying to prove their claim that property doubles every 7-9 years.
 
LBernham,

The high inflation rate of the period is often ignored by investors and always conveniently not mentioned by spruikers trying to prove their claim that property doubles every 7-9 years
You're obviously referring to the "real rate of growth of the asset" LB (i.e. because inflation was so high, REAL values didn't double - Yes??)

How about the fact that mortgages don't care about such things..... People WERE still paying 18% Interest, and 80% of AWOTE at the end of the boom. Then we had "the recession we had to have".......

You seem to make a big thing about this "real value" - but, in reality, I don't hear the sharemarket bringing things back to "real values" when quoting how many % they grow in a particular year. WHY?? Perhaps because it's just too damn hard.

I guess we ALL know that inflation is chewing away at values constantly - and that being a Millionaire today is NOT EVEN CLOSE to having been a Millionaire in 1980 (say). I believe we all accept this.


Now, you seem to be trying to say something here LB that could be important (about "real values"). I'm interested - care to put a few more words around it?

From my side, I'm seeing that many more people have got "into RE" over this last boom - so maybe that figure needs to "settle back" too. Perhaps John S will do us a service in helping to bring normality back to the market....

Regards,
 
see_change said:
He's predicting the market ( on the eastern seaboard ) to fall a further 10 % in the next year ,
If it's only a 10% fall then there's no point selling - it'll cost roughly 5% to sell & another 5% to buy again, so you'd save a lot of energy by doing nothing. This also assumes you time the next purchase perfectly.

NB I'm lazy and therefore biased towards this view.
 
keithj said:
If it's only a 10% fall then there's no point selling - it'll cost roughly 5% to sell & another 5% to buy again, so you'd save a lot of energy by doing nothing. This also assumes you time the next purchase perfectly.

NB I'm lazy and therefore biased towards this view.
Yep
There's nothing like passive investing.
 
Les said:
LBernham,


You're obviously referring to the "real rate of growth of the asset" LB (i.e. because inflation was so high, REAL values didn't double - Yes??)

I was basically making the point that this boom was essentially bigger than the last boom because the REAL rate of return was larger than the previous one which was more just house prices keeping up with the high inflation rate at the time.

You have countries where the inflation rate has been around 100% per year (ie Turkey, Argentina) and the value of assets has also gone up by this same rate. Does this mean that if inflation settles back down to 2% everyone should invest in property in these places because it averaged 100% growth per annum in the preceding 10 years?

This is why when measuring the real return of an investment you need to strip out the inflation rate or the cost of holding it. This goes the same for the sharemarket. If you make a 15% return in a year when the interest rate was 15% you're real return is zero.
 
G'Day

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you were to sell, to whom would you sell?

If everybody is selling, where are the buyers?

Real estate operates in a market. There is no buy-back provision, it is all market driven.

So if the 'advice' is to 'sell', I'm scratching my head to figure out who is 'buying'?





Some time ago (maybe twelve months?) there was a discussion regarding the hold through lean times v selling and buying again later conundrum. Bill.L (I think) posted a great analysis of a house bought for $x, sold for $x, sold for $x.5, sold for $2x etc, and whether the first purchaser would have been better off holding throughout the cycle, or selling when they did and buying the same property again later.

If I remember correctly, the end result was about the same no matter the course of action.

However, as it is now post 1985 we have the Capital Gains Tax impost to contend with, and this did not impact in the previous boom / post-boom period.

For the ordinary one-property-and-think-yourself-lucky investor, selling the post-1985 investment does not make any sense. If they actually bought in 1986 then they have held the property for 19 years so why sell from a financial reason, anyway?

I occasionally have enquiries from people who want to refinance or sell a property they have owned for some years because they say the property is too expensive to hold, the rent income does not meet the outgoings. How can this be? Then I find that they refinanced to buy a new car, or pay for a holiday, or some other consumer spending. However, in their minds it is the property at fault just because they have used the convenient security to obtain mortgage rate finance rather than personal loan finance, which would be at double the interest rate.

Nothing of any importance in life happens overnight. Buy a property in 2004, you can't reasonably expect to see growth above your purchase expense in 2005. Sell in 2005 and complain for evermore that property is a bad investment, look at the loss I made!

We live in an increasingly instant world. This, more than anything else, will continue to sift the wheat from the investment chaff. While everybody else wants to 'just add water, instant profit' it is those old-fashioned investors who buy and hold, set and forget, eat the eggs but not cook the goose which lays them, and occasionally feed one of the eggs back to the goose to keep it strong and healthy.

It was always thus. People buy wooden candy bars and blame the vendor.

Sell now? Sure, why not. Sell because John Symond or anyone else 'says' so? Sure, do that. Good grief. I'll be standing at the bottom of the cliff with the cooking pot ready - lemming curry is quite tasty, I'm told. No one is still quite sure why lemmings plunge over cliffs. Anyway, I'm too busy writing loans for investors and planning for my own townhouses to worry about it. The fewer rental properties, the greater the pressure on rents, the sooner we see a return to realistic rental yields.

In 1994 - post-boom, I bought for $105,000 with sitting tenants paying $150 - about 7.5% gross.

Same house today worth c$300,000, rents for $260 - about 4.5%.

House gross appreciation 285%, rent 173%. Shoo, shoo, let all the half-hearted investors sell up and buy a new car. I can't see when rents for that property will reach $432 per week, which would be back to the reasonable yield of 7.5% gross, but just for fun I think I'll keep it a bit longer and wait and see.

Cheers

Kristine
 
Aussie John did not tell everyone to sell at all imo.
He was merely stating what everyone has come around to realising, this turkey is cooked as far as making quick money is concerned but long term investment will just become more and more attractive over the next couple years, certainly with rents increasing and prices decreasing.
I think he sees a lot of average joes/first home buyers overcapitolised and who have been drawn in by unrealistic expectation, low interest rates and easy credit, the very things that will choke them in time.
He is simply warning those % to get out now, even if it means a bit of a loss, good advise too.
 
Kristine.. said:
G'Day

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you were to sell, to whom would you sell?

If everybody is selling, where are the buyers?

There will always be buyers, just not as many buyers as there are sellers.

Markets in general work like this - when there are more buyers than sellers prices go up because the sellers can hold for the best offer.
When there are more sellers then buyers, prices fall, because buyers know they have the upper hand and a greater choice available, so can offer less.

Aussie John is seeing this happening (ie more sellers than buyers) which is why he is able to advise people to sell because if they don't their properties will lose even more value.
 
G'Day L.Bernham

You know, it's funny, I was commenting yesterday that in our neck of the woods, the Spring Selling Season just hasn't happened this year.

Where are all the new listings? No: 2 Son just bought a property he put an offer in on back in May this year, and it was on the market for about six weeks prior to that. We keep a close eye on what is happening, and blowed if I know where the new listings are, the stock supplies are very low.

Maybe there simply aren't buyers right now, yet the local agents continue to tell us how many properties they sold last month and 'new listings wanted'.

Yes, I know there will always be buyers and I have an appreciation of how markets function, but I am very puzzled as to what is happening out there.

No: 2 Son put in an offer three weeks ago on a rather non-descript 30 year old place, the agent rang around and came back with an offer very close to the asking price. So maybe the buyers just need a bit of encouragement / competition, but they offered $173,500 with sitting tenants paying $145 per week - 4.35% gross return, go figure!

Anyway, a normal, quiet, rather flat market is good for a breather, prices consolidate, rents gradually rise, then away we go again.

Cheers

Kristine
 
keithj said:
If it's only a 10% fall then there's no point selling - it'll cost roughly 5% to sell & another 5% to buy again, so you'd save a lot of energy by doing nothing. This also assumes you time the next purchase perfectly.

NB I'm lazy and therefore biased towards this view.

The main reason to sell is that you think you can do better with your money elsewhere in the mean time.

We started selling IP's about a year ago and sold our last one about six months ago . Will keep the rest.

Reason to sell is that they were mainly in places that move at the end of the cycle. Next we will buy in places that will move at the beginning of the next cycle .

See Change
 
Back
Top