When is the next Sydney "boom" due?
- Thread starter enoughwealth
- Start date
Yeah, that's a good point Bill.
Looking at my Sydney house price chart though, I can see the 78/79 rise. The next one though, I reckon it started the day after the October 87 stockmarket bust, so I get 1987 start, 88/89 boom. The next one, really got going when the tech crash happened in April 2000, but it was starting to run up about 98/99.
This is one chart that I have,...
http://203.26.51.178/cracker/51242_1.jpg
You are dead right ya know.
Cheers.
Looking at my Sydney house price chart though, I can see the 78/79 rise. The next one though, I reckon it started the day after the October 87 stockmarket bust, so I get 1987 start, 88/89 boom. The next one, really got going when the tech crash happened in April 2000, but it was starting to run up about 98/99.
This is one chart that I have,...
http://203.26.51.178/cracker/51242_1.jpg
You are dead right ya know.
Cheers.
Hi all,
Topcropper, those types of cpi adjusted graphs do not accurately depict what is happening. They do not take into account of additions, renovations nor the change in what is the 'median house' (ie now is more likely to be 4x2 instead of 3x1 in the mid '70s)
Therefore I have taken a number (pick any) of 2% per annum as the 'fudge factor' to allow for this extra spent on existing housing. For Melb I came up with the following cpi and extras index. (note it is from 1970 -2006)
bye
Topcropper, those types of cpi adjusted graphs do not accurately depict what is happening. They do not take into account of additions, renovations nor the change in what is the 'median house' (ie now is more likely to be 4x2 instead of 3x1 in the mid '70s)
Therefore I have taken a number (pick any) of 2% per annum as the 'fudge factor' to allow for this extra spent on existing housing. For Melb I came up with the following cpi and extras index. (note it is from 1970 -2006)
bye
Attachments
Does anyone notice how Syndey was the lagging partner when compared to Melbourne/Brisbane?
Check your maths Alex.
80,000 x 52 gives me a different answer.
Sydney was doing 6% as far back as 1998.
M
Yes, you're right. That's only 4 million people. Which compared to the whole Chinese population is nothing. 0.3% of so. Imagine if Australia said we're going to move sixty thousand people into cities every year!!! Absolute numbers in China's case sound impressive, but relative to the population.....
Alex
Interesting who the charts come up. My Personal observation was that Brisbane was well behind . We missed out on the main part of the boom in Sydney , but had plenty of time to get into Brisbane
See Change
I know this thread is about Sydney, but does anyone have any historical median data for Adelaide, year by year? (or even other states for that matter)
Andrew.
Link to comparison of capital city house prices below
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/gallery/data/500/Capital_city_property_prices_1993-2006.JPG
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/gallery/data/500/Capital_city_property_prices_1993-2006.JPG
Does anyone actually have the dollar amounts, per year, that represents the state median going back 30+ years? That way even if I just have the data I can create my own charts using Excel or something similar.
Thanks,
Andrew.
Hi agleave,
I hope the following link is what you are looking for.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...in+australia+abelson&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=7
Then go to "Housing Prices in Australia: 1970 to 2003" page 8.
good luck
bye
I hope the following link is what you are looking for.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...in+australia+abelson&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=7
Then go to "Housing Prices in Australia: 1970 to 2003" page 8.
good luck
bye
Authors and talk show guests (same people really) go to great lengths to to explain the power of compounding and call it the eigth wonder. Clitheroe is the cheer leader.
But I have never seen them do a "what if" which includes a few years of -ve returns. It would destroy the charts which say you can get rich quietly stashing a little away each year with modest return.
No sane (retail) person buys an asset with the thought that "the first few years will be down, but in the long run I'll be dead". OOps, that should read "in the long run (period assumed 10 yrs) we are on a winner!"
I don't buy it.
But I have never seen them do a "what if" which includes a few years of -ve returns. It would destroy the charts which say you can get rich quietly stashing a little away each year with modest return.
No sane (retail) person buys an asset with the thought that "the first few years will be down, but in the long run I'll be dead". OOps, that should read "in the long run (period assumed 10 yrs) we are on a winner!"
I don't buy it.
Forget Clitheroe. Didn't ALBERT EINSTEIN call compounding the 8th wonder? A man whose mathematical credentials are rather better than Clitheroe's.
If everyone concentrates solely on the short term losses while ignoring the long term gains, NO ONE would build a business. Almost every business makes losses in the short term. If entrepreneurs only looked at the first couple of years of losses and gave up, very few of the major companies today would exist.
As for retail people, maybe no one buys investments on the assumption that it will be down the first couple of years, but they DO buy consumer goods that are GUARANTEED to go down and never come up again. They do so happily on credit. PROFESSIONALS, however, DO buy, often with the assumption that it might go down in the short term. Bill Miller, Richard Rainwater, even your beloved Jim Rogers (whose commodities index fell during the first year or two, according to his book, but subsequently came roaring back) all say that they are often too early.
Most retail customers buy goods that are guaranteed to depreciate and refuse to buy goods that might fall in the short term and go up in the long term. THAT's why most retail customers are POOR. On the other hand, successful professionals are often more than willing to admit they were too early into a wave. Who is insane, I wonder?
If you don't believe in it, RichardC, don't buy it. The rest of us will do what we do. I'm willing to bet my future (all 50, 60 years of it) that long term compounding works.
I only ask the same question Jan Somers asked in one of her books: "have you ever known anyone who bought and held median priced residential properties over the long term lose money?"
Alex
So what if it does? Buy an IP with 80% LVR. It goes up 5% a year. Harvest equity every 5 years to double your number of properties. In 20 years you have 8 properties, mostly paid off. I don't think that's a bad result. I don't NEED to find the best returns. IPs allow you to gear with a lower risk of getting your loan called than shares. With the level of gearing that I can achieve with IPs, I don't NEED exceptional growth.
Alex
I agree. And very few people will be experts at all of them. Instead they stick to their knitting. Do we say Warren Buffett is a crap investor because he didn't buy internet stocks? I note that Jim Rogers stated that investors have missed the boat on, amongst other things, Australian property. That book was written in 2004. Has he ever heard of Perth? Rogers may be a commodities guru but he suffers from the world-view of commodities: property, for example, is very local. Storms in one part of the world may affect commodities prices worldwide, but just because they build more houses in the US doesn't affect property prices in Sydney. The sort of macro analysis that is profitable in commodities is less useful for residential property, for example.
My view is that, given enough time (and here I realise we're all different) to smooth out the cycles, become good at one (you don't even have to be that good if you have enough time) and invest for the long term. Personally, I have enough time left to not have to worry so much about timing. If I buy now and the market crashes, I have enough time to wait until the next cycle. Even if you'd bought in the late 80's, you'd still be making money in Sydney property.
Alex
Last edited:
hi richard
in some ways I agree
there are alot of investments out there and real estate is but one and a balance is what is needed.
currently for me the sydney market is the best market to make money in
once that changes and I think it will
then you move to the next market that you think will move and that for me is the investment money market.
when people want to buy, they need money and they need it fast and that for me will come in 2008 to 2009.
real estate is a very good corner stone of investing and it does not have the 12%+ continual growth( even thou the perth people may think so) but for me the sydney market is one of the most expensive cities in the world to buy real estate
and historic growth in alot of the areas is very steady and if you want a corner stone thats one of the criteria for me to look for.
thats why people buy in koln or london.
we all have different ways of investing and different risk levels I am not one for all your eggs in one basket
but the sydney, mel and bris in places are still some very good buying places and what I look for is growth, hold, and milk equity and this you can't do in any other market and keep the assett.
in any type of investing if you did a pie chart you would see that when one market is down the others are up and people try to pick the climbing market.
for me its better to get in at the bottom and ride the rise and look for the adjusting market and get in at the bottom again in that market.
if people want cash ( because they want to buy)get in 3 or 4 months before and let it be know you have cash ( hence you will be getting emails from everyone for short term money before of christmas )
(same principal just different area).
my .002
in some ways I agree
there are alot of investments out there and real estate is but one and a balance is what is needed.
currently for me the sydney market is the best market to make money in
once that changes and I think it will
then you move to the next market that you think will move and that for me is the investment money market.
when people want to buy, they need money and they need it fast and that for me will come in 2008 to 2009.
real estate is a very good corner stone of investing and it does not have the 12%+ continual growth( even thou the perth people may think so) but for me the sydney market is one of the most expensive cities in the world to buy real estate
and historic growth in alot of the areas is very steady and if you want a corner stone thats one of the criteria for me to look for.
thats why people buy in koln or london.
we all have different ways of investing and different risk levels I am not one for all your eggs in one basket
but the sydney, mel and bris in places are still some very good buying places and what I look for is growth, hold, and milk equity and this you can't do in any other market and keep the assett.
in any type of investing if you did a pie chart you would see that when one market is down the others are up and people try to pick the climbing market.
for me its better to get in at the bottom and ride the rise and look for the adjusting market and get in at the bottom again in that market.
if people want cash ( because they want to buy)get in 3 or 4 months before and let it be know you have cash ( hence you will be getting emails from everyone for short term money before of christmas )
(same principal just different area).
my .002
Hi Bill,
Thanks for the link - unfortunately it looks like something has changed as the information is no longer there (well it came up as "not found" anyway). Anyone got any other links they know of?
Thanks,
Andrew.
Similar threads
