Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

daniel stallion

New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by daniel stallion

  1. YES! You must be put on the sexual offenders register immediately. (It wouldn't surprise me on here)
  2. Yes. That I have the capacity to retain and recall information on threads that I read when they were active. Certainly my soul, and the very core of my character, has been cast, naked, in to public view now that it has been revealed that I have normal cognitive function.
  3. I did read a number of them. Your posts are littered with conflicting and confused philosophy and fundamental attribution errors. Edit: Errors :-)
  4. Certainly. Although I doubt anyone else wants to read this, but as you asked. I'd guess that you think I am trying to devalue your argument by introducing a distracting side argument which attempts to belittle you and question your credibility.
  5. I'm not sure what you think I am doing. Please enlighten me. Edit: hand-eye coordination failure.
  6. So stereotyping and sweeping generalisations, when used as retaliation or sarcasm, are no longer stereotypes or sweeping generalisations? Fine. I just found it interesting as you have been quite indignant about being ‘labelled’ based upon the year you were born but have frequently done the same to others yourself. I don’t need or intend to ‘wrong foot’ you. If you notice, I have neither agreed nor disagreed with your other posts. I don’t have an argument; I was making an observation and asking a question.
  7. Are you being entirely honest about that? You haven't just realised the hypocrisy of your post? I only ask, as reading some of your other posts on other threads, you are 'ironic' A LOT.
  8. I sold my place BTW ..... oh ...you ....don't... care! Oh well, I got a great price for it statistically (price I bought for plus BOS calculated average price rises for the type and location of property). About 2% off peak but I realise that is hardly scientific. I'm delighted! I think I am lucky to have managed to escape at the very tip of the tail end of the good times. One thing I can absolutely assure you of is the fact that, at least in S/E QLD, the general population perceive that the housing market and economy in general, is on the edge of a precipice. As Alan Greenspan (kind of, I can't find the quote) said 'if we could accurately predict sentiment we would all be billionaires', the point being that cycles and models and statistical analysis fail as often as they succeed. If enough people believe the housing market will drop, it will surely drop. Speaking as someone who, for the last five months, wanted to perverse the course of building negative sentiment to satisfy my own selfish needs, willing to suck in all the bullish news and spit it out to anyone that would listen, I can testify that I am yet to speak to anyone (potential buyers, estate agents, neighbors, friends, other sellers, people I chat to on the train, people I meet walking my dog, clients, colleagues ... you get the picture EVERYONE) that does not believe the economy and housing market is possibly going to collapse. Bardon, I'm pretty sure you don't believe that Australia isn't going to face a downturn economically with some serious job losses and maybe company failures (right?). If I'm right I just cannot reconcile how you could believe the market will not continue to slump in the next 12 months (save a new scheme every other month from Mr Rudd). The major difference between renting and buying is the length of commitment, if I believe that a house is even possibly going to dramatically fall in value, I don't really care that it is marginally cheaper this week to buy than rent, I can bail out (excuse the pun) of the rental very quickly, I have a much more significant risk with a mortgage.
  9. I couldn't be bothered to read right to the end of the thread (must be the British in me ;-) ) so I appologise if this has already been touched upon. Bogbrush, I understand your points and I think they are all fair in many respects, but, in my opinion, they are also somewhat short sighted. First of all, I think you allude to the international labor market being fair and a level playing field. Unfortunately, as many IT people have been discovering recently, some are more equal than others. In the UK, there has been specific changes to employment, tax and competition law that allows companies to use both offshore and onshore foreign IT labor under advantageous legislative conditions that does not equally apply to other professions in the UK. In addition, offshore IT service delivery companies are able to supply labor under advantageous conditions which are not offered to IT service delivery companies located in the UK. In other words, our own Government has, under pressure from profit maximising lobbyists, hamstrung it's own citizens at the behest of corporations. Secondly, you sound like a very successful business man. I'm assuming you have made many mistakes and learned from them and also had many successes and learned from those and the sum total of your daily activities have molded you in to a value adding asset to the UK labor force. In other words you have gained experience and grown. Well, most of the 'good' IT people (and those from every other profession) did the same thing, and they did this by starting at the 'bottom', fulfilling the trivial, repeatable tasks (like hooking up new laptops) learning along the way until they understood how to align a specific IT function with business goals to help drive the business towards its objectives. Unfortunately, the roles at the 'bottom' are generally also the most offshore-able roles and deleting them from the UK labor force will result in off shoring the future 'good' IT people. How will people learn? Personally, I think one of the greatest tragedies of the UK is the short term profit maximising, accountancy obsessed, myopic, self destructive nature of our largest corporations and the unthinking acquiescence of society lead by our Government. It seems anything it ok as long as it comes in the guise of increased profits.
  10. You are right, I concede. I was adjusting previous poster's own terms for context and meaning, I probably should have been more explicit to avoid being poisoned by my own dart. My point was - there is a meaningful and vast difference between 'value' and 'price' as there is between 'Japan' and 'Tokyo'.
  11. Really? You don't understand basic economic terms, nor semantics. Additionally, opinions, like economies, are not binary, if I don't agree that a 90% drop is possible, it doesn't preclude me from agreeing that any other figure is reasonable. Edit: Semantics :-)
  12. Before I comment, I'm inferring from a number of posts that some believe in the possibility of 70/80/90% of average prices dropping in real terms, I know most of you are not proposing the possibility, but some people are, and I can't help thinking they are gleefully willing it on......... this is addressed to you! Wow, a somewhat sensible post! Thank you! This board is becoming a bit of a joke. You aren't all serious, right? There is a difference between wanting average houses to fall 80-90% (because you cannot understand the consequences of it and think you'll be able to buy at that price) and there being the remotest chance of it happening. If it even got close, society would implode. People will not buy your house, they will take it by force along with anything else of value. If I have misunderstood everyone - apologies!
  13. I have an MBA and it has vastly improved me as a professional. I think it was extremely useful. I never expected that an MBA would immediately arm me with all the tools necessary to do everything in business. I expected that it would provide me with a framework to communicate more effectively with other areas of a business, speaking more of 'their language' and be able to contextualise my function within the scope of an organisation in order to think more broadly about what impact I could have on a business achieving its goals. It has. It has definitely helped me think more strategically rather than being entirely focused on tactics. I didn't expect (or get) a promotion on the back of it, but I think it gives me more options. It isn't for everyone, some people really don't need an MBA it will do nothing for them, others will just collect the certificate by learning how to pass exams, not acquiring the knowledge. This is no different to most post graduate and definitely under graduate study. It also exposed me to a certain amount of venom from various groups of people who believed that they were able to immediately characterize me simply because I had an MBA and felt it was their right to spew their venom. These people seemed to either be academic snobs, those bitter about society not recognising their innate superior abilities that transcend any so-called qualification, people with other qualifications which others didn't act impressed enough about to massage their ego or people that had considered themselves as 'real' business people that had worked their way through the trenches and had contempt for anyone who was trying to gain knowledge through anything but experience. The truth is that there are people with an MBA that are cocks and that ruin businesses, but guess what, there are medical doctors that kill people due to negligence. Why not dismiss all doctors as killers? Broadly categorising any group because of a qualification they hold is as stupid as a senior manager hiring an MBA to fulfil a function for which he or she is hopelessly under-experienced. I was a great employee and professional before my MBA, I remain the same person. However, I have a considerable amount of insight about other business functions which I did not have previously. For what it is worth I am also studying a Ph.D. and I can assure you that, in exactly the same way as any other qualification, it can produce anything from world changing academics to paper clutching time wasters. EDIT: For the academics out there ;-) I am using Google Chrome and the default spell check is US English. As a current student I am too lazy to change the settings or manually correct the mistakes it makes on my behalf.
  14. You have done nothing to suggest you truly understand IT. You have demonstrated your contempt for IT people, which should concern your company if you sit in a 'hole' between IT and the business. They should be equally concerned if your contempt is matched by your myopic view of IT as merely a 'support service line'. Isn't part of the function of sitting between IT and the business to ensure IT is focussed on driving the business towards corporate objectives? Perhaps you need support from someone whom IT can respect?
  15. Thank you for illustrating and proving my point exactly. You clearly do not understand the scope of what IT does and could do for an organisation. Don't worry you are amongst the majority. Fortunately for my organisation senior management are enlightened to the fact that IT is much more than a 'support service line'. It seems the pitiful management complained about on this thread are thriving.
  16. Remember that 'the business' knows best. IT folks are but their humble servants. The secretaries of the 21st century. IT are not colleagues they are service providers. The rest of the business are not IT's colleagues they are IT's customers. Seriously, a lot of people think that IT consists purely of the machine sitting on their desk, that they only need to speak to IT when their machine stops responding, stopping them from working their magic creating the unimaginable wealth. Look at the posts on here, most people, even some people that classify themselves as IT people, don't seem to understand what IT is. Outsourcing would soon stop if the finance teams, whose black and white, short term, cost obsessed policies have been the greatest cause for the demise of innovation in the UK (and elsewhere) for decades, realise that most of their function could also easily be off-shored, as could the legal department and frankly many others.
  17. Isn't this the point? There are good IT people and bad IT people. Internally and externally. There are good MCSE's who know what to do when an Exchange system has issues and those that get confused beyond creating mailboxes? I can't see how this is different to any other profession. Or are you suggesting that all IT people with certain levels of experience and qualifications are rubbish and that your company is simply awesome? Because let me tell you, I have seen many occasions when external consultancies are introduced to projects and have your condescending attitude to internal people and who go on to screw everything up at considerable cost to the company, which eventually turns to the internal guys to sort out. I'm not saying this is always the case, I think there are some fantastic consultancies, I try to find the right people for the right job and don't make assumptions and sweeping generalisations about internal staff or 3rd party vendors, or anyone else, but then I'm not as arrogant as you. Or as AWESOME!! Re: outsourcing to India. I think the point has been lost in this thread. The issue isn't if India has skilled IT people, they definitely do, it is the service ultimately delivered by the outsource company, they might not be hiring the very good people. A huge problem is that it is often extremely expensive and disruptive for 12-18 months for a company, especially large ones, to move to an outsource model for support or development. Therefore, in my experience, when things fail when assessed against the original business case, a lot of 'sweeping details under the carpet' takes place to hide the fact that the perceived cost benefit isn't necessarily achieved. As a very small example, I worked for a company that outsourced IT support to an Indian firm. One of the functions they performed was the refresh of a test ERP system with current data. Previously the process took internal DBA's about 2 days, the outsource firm took close to two weeks, however, because the cost of the time taken to perform the function had never been calculated, the significant increased cost of an 8 day increase in effort could not be compared. This reduction in performance was echoed across all functions. The entire IT department knew it was ridiculous, but it never showed up on an income statement so nobody outside IT cared. EDIT: toned down the rant a touch
  18. I'm not sure it has to be either a leading or lagging indicator for now. At he moment it appears that it could simply be an anomaly. Until, there is a clear trend I’d suggest it would be prudent to do nothing more than observe with interest a single month’s data for one specific area that is against the national mid-term trend. Perhaps the Governments recent intervention and interest rate cut have, temporarily, convinced some we are ‘at the bottom’ which may or may not (I obviously think not) be true. Perhaps, people are migrating to / back to Sydney as the countries capital and perceived employment rich City and are financially secure enough to buy property. Who knows? I, personally, think even if quite a few are thinking ‘we are at the bottom now is a good time to buy’ sentiment will soon change as it becomes obvious economic conditions will become more difficult.
  19. From the same data: "The volume of homes listed for sale at auction also fell significantly in Adelaide and Brisbane. In Adelaide, just 19 homes went under the hammer, compared with 67 for the corresponding weekend in 2008. In Brisbane, 31 properties were put on the market, compared with 50 last year, with a 31% success rate recorded" Just for balance and self indulgent focus back on Brisbane :-)
  20. Contempt it is then ;-) Oops! I obviously haven't been reading threads all the way through! My bad! The debunk is ridiculous though. Particularly the undercurrent of accusations of vested interest compromising the data. Show me a report that cannot be accused of attempting to back one point of view or another. In fact, the principle authors and founders of Business Spectator themselves have very close relationships with the smh, owned by Fairfax who also own one of Australia's largest property web sites and several 'personal investment' sites, a brief look at which exposes their obvious desire to talk up the housing market. Also, the Chairman of which has significant interest in a retirement property company. I don't know how journalists have got the nerve to try and blind side readers with a VI argument when they can so easily be accused of the same, to be honest. Also, the data outlining income vs property prices, if we assume is not pure fabrication, is still significant (I think) regarding peoples ability to pay for houses. Journalists can use all the economic double talk and deliberately confusing analysis they like, but even the most basic common sense would support the idea that if incomes are low and house prices are (relatively) high in a certain area, something will eventually have to give, either higher incomes, significant population migration, unmanageable debt or lower property prices. I do get your point though. Honest! Also, keep in mind my original response was purely about Brisbane and was largely anecdotal and I have tried to back it up with data (even if it was regurgitating data that had already been discussed - sorry about that). My view is that people (potential buyers) are expecting prices to come down and that the economy is going to get worse and more people are going to lose their jobs. I hear this every single day from potential buyers, even EA's are saying it. No stats would convince me that prices can go up in that situation. Oh, and whoever made the comment about the trees is a complete idiot. I have hundreds of trees in my garden. I'll go cut them down now. Oh wait, that's right, trees weigh a lot and tend to fall on things, like the people trying to cut them down or their houses. No worries I'll get the local tree surgeon to do it at a mere $500 - $5000 per tree.
  21. I have been looking for the data that I quoted earlier in the thread re: unaffordable housing. I was wrong / misleading about a couple of things: 1) The report is data ONLY about what they call 'the Western World' not the entire World as I claimed. 2) Now I have found it, (previously I had only listened to an economics debate on the radio which cited it) I'm somewhat dubious about both the producers of the data and the, perhaps overly simplistic, calculations used (average prices as multiples of average income). I apologise for being too quick to quote the data without first ensuring I was entirely accurate. However, I think the data still has some merit in outlining just how much the housing bubble has inflated property beyond peoples ability to service required debt. http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf - page 17 (numbered as 6) has the data to which I refer. Page 18 (numbered as 7) outlines the authors suggestion that Australia is the most unnafordable market included in the report. I DID find the OECD report that places (in 2008) Australia as the most over priced housing market within the OECD, but at the moment I can only locate it on source OECD access to which requires a user account. I'll endeavour to locate the data on a public site. Anyway, thought it was only fair to offer the data for your interrogation and possible contempt :-)! Edit: to add page number. Edit: to clarify page numbers.
  22. Hmm. Ok, well I understand your logic now. I respectfully remain very much in disagreement though. I think that now might not be the best time sell, but it is a walk in the park compared to what it will be like in 3-6 months. I might get within 2-3% of peak price if I am lucky on the house I am selling (this is based upon actual offers by the way, not statistics). I'd be willing to bet I'd be considerably more lucky to do that 3-6 months from now. In Australia at the moment, I think, there is still a sense of the country sitting, watching bad things unfold on the outside and that some ripples of economic unrest have made it to shore causing a little disruption and its just a case of waiting it out for a little while. 'She'll be right' if you will. I think people believe that as long as Aus keeps digging holes in the ground and pulling stuff out the world will snap it up and fund the entire economy. The truth is, mining is significant enough to cause the Aus economy to fail, but not significant enough to prop up everything else. I don't think a lot of people really believe Australia could be in much trouble and I think when people start having more and more friends and families losing jobs, it might start to become reality, then prices will plummet. I'd be more inclined to believe your predictions if the OECD et al didn't rate Australia's housing market, particularly QLD, as so immensely unfordable. I just do not believe, regardless of any cycle, that prices will rise as peoples ability to pay and confidence falls. I guess we will see!
  23. A quick question if I may Bardon. Just to clarify in my own mind what stance you are taking. You mention cycles, do you not believe that the current situation is extraordinary and would disrupt, reverse, skew the cycle or even spiral off in to a new cycle? I just do not believe that, regardless of where we are or have been in any cycle, the almost inevitable increase in unemployment, bankruptcies and relentless flood of news of continued economic slump could do anything other than depress confidence long in to the future. As I've stated I am selling a house at the moment and speaking to potential buyers, real estate agents (granted they are hopelessly unreliable with such a huge VI), other sellers, neighbours and so on its very clear that confidence is plummeting. Surely you aren't suggestion that the housing market is exempt from the impacts of confidence? I don’t mean to be facetious; perhaps I have something to learn?
  24. Actually this isn't the case (I wasn't using today's interest rates). I think it is important to distinguish between profession and industry. In my profession I have found that (US$ for US$) remuneration is not significantly different between the UK and Australia and often higher in Australia. This was at an Exchange rate of 2.4. It is true that I could earn a LOT more in the UK in certain industries (such as banking) but looking at job ads, and I realise that is hardly scientific, the general level of remuneration, excluding certain industries in both Australia and UK which skewed the data in either direction, was + - %5. Again I only cared about my profession. The particularly striking thing was that, if I compared London to Australia I could generally get more in London, but UK to Australia was very different. This is obvious, but I think it is an important point at least for me because I really do not want to work in London if I can avoid it. I guess the point is that the immediate assumption that salaries are higher in the UK and subsequent calculations about living standards may be inappropriate. EDIT: spelling / grammar.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.