Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

blue skies

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by blue skies

  1. Blueskies you are pretty easily pleased with my major backflip.

    I got the ten bob note bit wrong and I should have instead said nine bob note. So that’s a one bob backflip.

    Not even two bob, but one bob.

    So yes your idea of my perfect backlflip is the most that you will ever see and you should enjoy and savour it.

    This will test you

    With out Google

    What is the Australian name for a sixpence?

  2. Hey Uncle, Why would a highly sucessfull working family man like Bardon/ Aussieboy devote a huge part of his life here?

    Time that is spent in counter argument and generally disrespecting others?

    Well I choose to look for what is not there.

    Its not complicated,

    People who have nothing better to do end up in chat rooms.

    People who are hurting, hurt others.

    This will ring true for everyone of us , it is only when abnormal behavour becomes the greater part of your personality that becomes problem.

    It is a stigma. A traint so big that people no longer see the person, they only see the Stigma.

    At a gess Bardon is strugling with Identity (how he veiws himself and his veiw of how the world veiws him)

    In all probability his life is so mundane he chooses to live in a online world were he creates a fantisy of relationships, wealth ,work.

    The combatal stance he takes renforces the feelings of power and superiarity.

    What is at the root of all this misscontent?

    He was a ethnic kid growing up in England.

    The hard times he received has rendered him socialy disenfranchized.

    So a mellajusted Bardon/ Aussieboy lives out his days unloved and unwanted.

    Venting his anger on strangers in chat rooms.

  3. Well the stcok market has now spoken and said the same thing as the people. Its a done deal now.

    On a sector-by-sector basis, telecommunications was the worst off, down 5.25 per cent after Telstra stock plunged 18 cents, or 6.1 per cent, to $2.78 on expectations the planned national broadband network is in jeopardy after the election. The stock is at its lowest point ever.

    Shares in resources giant BHP Billiton were up 22 cents at $38.12. The company is in the throes of a campaign to convince investors its $44 billion move on Canada's Potash Corp is a good one. rival Rio Tinto was up 81 cents at $72.39.

    It's not just due to the weak lead from overseas, but clearly election uncertainty is acting like a lead weight around the neck of some of our major stocks.

    "Some of the major miners are down quite sharply this morning."

    BHP Billiton was 53 cents lower, or 1.4 per cent, to $37.58 and Rio Tinto was down 86 cents, or 1.2 per cent to $71.34, while Fortescue Metals Group fell 12 cents or 2.6 per cent to 4.52.

    ;) Telstra is in the green. Why is that?

  4. * Labor hopes to hold at least 73 seats

    * Two independents throw support behind PM

    * Bligh puts the blame on the Labor machine

    * Another election will cost $170m

    * Join us over on Facebook | Twitter

    JULIA Gillard's chances of forming government look more likely - with the support of at least two independents and the lone Greens member from Melbourne.

    Late yesterday, Labor was hopeful of holding 73 seats in the 150-seat Parliament, and as many as 74, with only a few hundred votes to decide the final outcome.

    Ms Gillard was forced to intervene to stem recriminations within Labor, issuing a gag order on ministers speaking publicly.

    A source confirmed she was so concerned about the perception of instability she ordered powerbroker Mark Arbib to cancel an appearance on the ABC program Q&A last night.

    The three independents will meet this morning in Canberra in an effort to reach consensus.

    Privately, the two New South Wales independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, were leaning toward Labor and would break from Queensland independent Bob Katter if needed.

    Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

    Related Coverage

    * PM's promise: No secret deals

    * Clever money's on late Labor run Daily Telegraph, 9 hours ago

    * Latest counting points to a dead heat The Australian, 9 hours ago

    * GG seeks advice on political role Courier Mail, 9 hours ago

    * Gillard's Green path forward The Australian, 9 hours ago

    * Late money goes on Labor Adelaide Now, 12 hours ago

    End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

    With their support and that of Greens MP Adam Bandt, Ms Gillard would be able to form government with the slimmest of margins and claim the critical 76 seats needed to govern.

    As counting continued this morning, the focus was on the three key seats of Hasluck in West Australia, Denison in Tasmania and Dunkley in Victoria.

    With Labor claiming 72 seats, it appeared to be edging ahead of independent Andrew Wilkie in Denison and claimed it might still be in the race for Hasluck.

    However, Ms Gillard has warned it could still be days before either side was in a position to form government.

    It was possible that both the Coalition and Labor could be locked at 73 seats apiece, giving Ms Gillard, as the incumbent, the right to first seek to form government.

    Ms Gillard claimed to have the greater mandate with Labor slightly ahead of the Coalition on the national two-party preferred vote despite the Coalition commanding a greater primary vote.

    "It is clear that the Government has attracted a majority share of the two-party vote," she said.

    "I will be meeting with independent members of Parliament and Greens. They will be conducted diligently and with integrity."

    Labor's pitch to the rural independents was the promise of broadband and health reforms.

    Ms Gillard said she would not rule out changes to some Labor policy including the much derided Citizens Assembly on climate change.

    She promised no secret deals: "My priority is providing stable government . . . the majority of Australians have indicated they want a Labor government."

    Sources claimed the independents had already knocked back offers from both sides of the speaker's role in Parliament.

    However, the lure of a Labor ministry was still believed to be on offer to Mr Oakeshott.

    With divisions appearing within the Coalition's Liberal and National Party ranks, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott Abbott has remained silent while he, too, tried to negotiate a path to government.

    Ms Gillard refused to comment on calls by former NSW Labor Premier Morris Iemma to have Mr Arbib and the party's national secretary Karl Bitar dumped.

    "There is obviously going to be speculation . . . my view is the focus is on stable government," she said.

    Ms Gillard also wouldn't say whether another election could be called if agreement could not be reached with the independents.

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/julia-gillard-leads-the-race-to-the-lodge/story-e6frfllr-1225909135180#ixzz0xTdE3LdM

  5. why would it rocket? the markets already priced in a labour victory before the election hence the massive crash in resources stocks

    Telstra will get 11 billion from a labour government. Thats $1,000 from every house hold in Australia.

    The recent drop in resource stocks has had to do with the realization that the world is slipping back into depresssion.

    Australian is not the centre of the cosmoss.

  6. The following are comments on the Las Vegas real estate market that can help predicting the Australian market:

    April 23, 2004

    37 percent increase in median resale prices…land prices account for about one-third of the cost of a new home, and he doesn't see that coming down with the limited amount of available land in the valley…none of them have the job growth, business growth, entertainment or climate of Las Vegas

    October 22, 2004

    Las Vegas housing expert doesn’t believe the buyers’ market will last much longer. Stephen Bottfeld, executive vice president of consumer research firm Marketing Solutions, told a capacity crowd at his quarterly Market Perspective seminar that Las Vegas is "not on a bubble, but on the edge of a boom."

    September 29, 2007

    It's not that prices have plummeted, they're down about 5 percent so far. But if you bought near the top with no money down, you're underwater..Some of the owners who bought in the early years of the boom are stuck, even after seeing prices double in five years…Some people have seen their home values soar, but a lot of them refinanced to pull out that equity and spend it on cars or gambling

    Nov. 23, 2007

    Las Vegas is headed for a housing shortage by late 2009 that will intensify the affordability crisis for a growing work force…imbalance this year as the inventory of homes for sale grew…and sales dropped …(BUT) Simply stated, the fundamentals that made Southern Nevada’s economy the nation’s most prolific during the past two decades — investment, employment, population — remain sound

    Feb 15, 2008

    The state with the sharpest quarterly sales drop — a stunning 44% — was Nevada, which was one of the most overheated markets during the real estate boom. In Las Vegas, the median single-family home dropped about 13% in price… but the single-family home market is "definitely treading water," says Bruce Hiatt, owner of Luxury Realty Group, and he projects it will take up to 18 months to recover.

    Feb 26, 2009

    Las Vegas’s median home values are currently down 40% (this year)...53% from April 2006 (peak)

    August 21, 2010

    The employment department reported Friday that joblessness in Nevada hit a record 14.3 percent in July, up from 14.2 percent in June and 12.3 percent in July 2009. In Las Vegas, the rate jumped to 14.8 percent, compared with 14.6 percent in June and 13 percent in July 2009. Nearly 200,000 Nevadans lack jobs and are seeking work, including 144,500 Las Vegans…We expect unemployment to largely stay well above 14 percent, if not continue to rise somewhat…For the balance of 2010, I think the best we can really hope for is stability

  7. Well the stcok market has now spoken and said the same thing as the people. Its a done deal now.

    On a sector-by-sector basis, telecommunications was the worst off, down 5.25 per cent after Telstra stock plunged 18 cents, or 6.1 per cent, to $2.78 on expectations the planned national broadband network is in jeopardy after the election. The stock is at its lowest point ever.

    Shares in resources giant BHP Billiton were up 22 cents at $38.12. The company is in the throes of a campaign to convince investors its $44 billion move on Canada's Potash Corp is a good one. rival Rio Tinto was up 81 cents at $72.39.

    Once again I find myself having to correct you :angry:

    Telsta went exdividend to day 14c fully franked about 18 cents all up.

    I recon that is the main reason for the fall of 18 cents.

    Holding up well.

    Just watch it rocket if Labour holds power.

  8. So you think Gillard doesn't rub people the wrong way? wasn't the swing 8% against her in Queensland?

    My eyes hurt after reading your spelling.

    Julia is a very skilled manipulator. Tony is not.

    The swing against labour in Queensland had a lot to do with the early rud Leaks.

    I think the negitive campains have worked against both parties.

    If you have such a problem with my spelling , why attempt to read them?

  9. The Australian Liberal Party has a proud history of liars.

    Will the polished independant liars go for the empty promisses ?

    Tony does not want fiber optic cables to the bush. Gess who does?

    Tony reconds there is no shuch thing as Global warming. gess who does?

    Tony reconds the stimulas programs were a waist of money . gess who does?

    Tony rubs people up the wrong way. yep gess who does not?

    I think Labour will get the numbers to govern.

    But not for long give it a year or 2

    and we will be back at the poles and it will be the same if Liberal get in.

  10. Liberals will successfully negotiate with the three independents.

    If that happens then best to buy shares tomorrow morning in the minerals boys. BHP shares dropped last week on their big announcement to buy the big potash fertiliser group.

    Good punt on their shares Monday morning if you were that way inclined.

    <_< Hmmmmmmmm

    I would think that Labour has a greater chance of doing a deal.

    Last time the big boys were taking over other mobs was just before the crash.

    I recon Telstra would be the share to benifit from a Labour win

  11. Income tax is a relatively new scam......................

    but whatever you don’t dont challenge it

    :lol: How wrong can you be!

    For thousands of years Peasants payed part of the harvest to there over lords for "Protection"

    It is no different today,

    Try not paying and you will soon be in prison getting all the sex you can handle weather you want it or not.

  12. Hey Pondlife are you sure that you have actually been to Australia recently?

    Using a self managed super fund to invest in property

    Over the past decade self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) have experienced phenomenal growth. This year, with the fall out of global share markets and contrasting favourable property investment conditions, many Australian SMSF members are taking advantage of recent changes to superannuation borrowing laws.

    Prior to September 2007, SMSF trustees could only buy ‘real or direct’ property for their funds if they could afford to buy it outright. These borrowing restrictions now cease to exist. Trustees can borrow to invest directly in property, enabling them to take advantage of the array of benefits that both property investment and SMSFs offer.


    :unsure: Missleading

    Self managed super is such a small % of the super pool.

    Compulsuary super goes to the big management firms.

    I gess thay do not invest at all in domestic rental property.

    So pondy is correct untill you prove him wrong

  13. Today we'll have a little crack at the National Broadband Network (NBN). But before we do, let's have a quick follow up to Wednesday's Money Morning.

    It never ceases to amaze us the wonderful job the property spruikers have done to convince investors that making a loss on an investment is a gain.

    As we mentioned yesterday, as a fully qualified adviser we're dumbfounded that such backwardness could make seemingly sane people believe that consistently losing money is a great way to become rich.

    The mistake that every single property investor makes is to believe that the massive capital growth in house prices will continue.

    You see, we agree wholeheartedly that while house prices go up, taking a loss on the income side is fine. But when house prices stay flat and then fall, we'd like to hear how making an income loss on top of the capital loss can possibly lead to greater wealth.

    It can't.

    But diehard property investors and spruikers just can't see it. A property investor can use tax deductions as much as they like, but they're still forking out more money than they've got coming in.

    To be honest, we're convinced that most people don't actually understand how tax deductions work. Not just in property investing but in general. We've lost count the number of times people say, "I spent $100 on this but I'll get it back in my tax return."

    No they won't. They just don't pay tax on the $100 spent. But they've still spent $100. Sure they're getting the item at a discount, but it's not the free ride that many taxpayers believe they're getting. And likewise we're convinced many property investors are under the same delusion.

    The chart we showed yesterday from Gerard Minack and which I've copied again below shows you the extent of the losses:

    A Bad Investment

    Source: Gerard Minack, Morgan Stanley Research

    While property prices were rising, investors would have been happy to breakeven on the rental side. We've no argument there. But look again at the net rental deficit.

    If you're losing on the income and the property price isn't increasing then it's a fact that they're losing money.

    So, why would you continue to hold on to an asset that was a net cost to you? Buy and hold share investors used to do that. And some foolishly still do.

    But as for housing, don't forget, we're not talking about the minority of property investors taking a loss, we're talking 70% of them:

    Property Investors: More of Them Losing Money

    Source: Gerard Minack, Morgan Stanley Research

    As usual we unashamedly and proudly rely on our pals at Wikipedia for an excellent definition of negative gearing:

    "A negative gearing strategy can only make a profit if the asset rises in value (capital gains) by enough to cover the shortfall between the income and interest which the investor suffers. The investor must also be able to fund that shortfall until the asset is sold."

    So again, we're really keen to hear from property spruikers and investors about how they plan becoming wealthy when the income is less than the expense, and the capital growth is non-existent.

  14. Housing bubble trouble for the middle class

    August 17, 2010

    Morgan Stanley's Gerard Minack has diversified from being bearish about US equities into calling Australian housing a dud investment, a bubble, albeit one that just might steadily deflate rather than dramatically pop.

    It's two months since Reserve Bank deputy governor Ric Battellino delivered a myth-busting speech that included an effective defence of the Australian housing market and the sustainability of the present level of household debt. Minack's latest newsletter to clients seems to take direct aim at that Battellino speech, but doesn't go as far as

    Sydney academic Steve Keen's Doomsday forecasting.

    Minack produces plenty of evidence that Australian housing is expensive on any number of counts - and there's no news in that for anyone looking for a home in the capital cities. That process of becoming expensive made housing a rewarding investment over the past decade, but Minack thinks being expensive will make it a poor performer in the years ahead - if we're fortunate.

    The Morgan Stanley economist says there are two potential pins that might pop the bubble. The first is Keen's dire prediction of large-scale job losses, but Minack doesn't think that's likely in the foreseeable future. The second though is that the nation's landlord class might realise en mass that they're losing money and bail out.

    Minack notes that bubbles more often pop than subside, but sometimes the less dramatic path is followed.

    ''Sydney, for example, has seen two periods - from late 1980s and from 2004 - where inflation-adjusted house prices were flat or declined,'' he writes. And we've had a previous look at just that phenomenon of how an Aussie housing bubble deflates.

    ''This is a best-case outcome. Even so, it would make for a very unusual domestic cycle. Homeowners and investors are banking on steady increase in house prices. Flat or moderately declining nominal prices would presumably affect confidence and spending. Banks have relied on mortgage lending as their bread-and-butter. Growth will be structurally lower.

    ''Moreover, this underscores an obvious point: while we can debate the macro risks surrounding housing, it is likely to be a very poor investment given current valuations. House prices can - indeed, often do - show no growth in real terms for a very long period. To take an extreme example, real house prices in Melbourne did not surpass their 1891 peak until 2001. Buying a bubble is an extremely bad investment. I expect that the real returns on residential investment will be negative over the next decade.''

    RBA's early move

    Minack reckons the RBA appreciates the risk of our housing bubble and that capping house prices was a key aim of RBA policy tightening earlier this year.

    ''Better to slowly deflate a bubble than to see it pop. If Australia could achieve a cycle where house prices are steady or see moderate nominal declines, while growing incomes at a trend 6 per cent growth rate, it could reduce the over-valuation and financial risks associated with excess debt,'' Minack writes.

    While appearing to welcome that policy aim, Minack says it was a major error by policy makers to let this bubble inflate in the first place.

    ''There is no value to society from rising house prices. It is simply a wealth transfer to existing owners from potential buyers. Pumping up house prices creates no more wealth than the RBA printing an extra six zeros on every piece of currency.

    '''Worse, by increasing the leverage in the household sector and financial system, it increases the financial risks in the economy, as the last two years have demonstrated elsewhere. In short, there seems a strong case for policy-makers to aim to cap house prices.''

    What Minack isn't sure about is whether the large number of negative-carry property investors could create selling pressure if nominal house prices are flat for an extended period.

    Hanging on

    I'd argue that the Australian experience is that residential real estate owners, both owner occupiers and the landlord class, tend to hang on grimly as long as they can service the debt (i.e. unemployment remains relatively low) rather than facing up to the on-going financial drain. What Minack does, though, is debunk the real estate spruikers' claim that ``you can't go wrong with bricks'n'mortar

    ''Australian Tax Office data confirm that residential investment is a poor investment: total rent has not covered total costs since FY2000 (the date the bubble started to inflate). In short, this is an investment that depends on capital gain for its payback.

    ''With net income not even covering interest charges, this is a classic Hyman Minsky Ponzi scheme. Ponzi owns the house, and he's betting that house prices keep rising.

    ''Not only is the aggregate private rental market a loss-making affair, but a rising share of landlords are making rental losses. The percentage of landlords claiming a rental loss (that is, rent not covering interest and other costs) has increased from 50 per cent to 70 per cent over the past decade. It's not just that there are more landlords, there are more loss-making landlords.

    ''This matters a lot. Much of the discussion on the residential market concentrates on owner-occupiers. But arguably property investors represent a significantly larger risk if they became widespread sellers of their loss-making investments.''

    Middle-class exposure

    A key part of the Battellino defence of household debt sustainability was simply that it tends to be the wealthy who have borrowed the most and therefore they can afford it, but that's not the case when it comes to residential landlords, claims Minack.

    ''Certainly property investment is more prevalent at higher income scales. But it is simply wrong to assert that rental properties are largely owned by high-income households: losing on residential property investment is largely a middle-class affair.

    ''Only 3 per cent of all loss-making properties are owned by taxpayers with a taxable income of over $200,000. Taxpayers who earn $80,000 or less own 80 per cent of all loss-making properties.''

    And there are a lot of residential property investors.

    ''Australia has become a nation of landlords: in 1988-89, 608,000 taxpayers reported rental income, by 2007-08 1,765,00 taxpayers did - 13.5% of the total. This clearly reflects the widespread belief that property is an excellent medium-term investment.

    ''Over the past decade property has been an excellent investment. But it is, in my view, extremely unwise to expect such gains to continue given current valuations. The investment fundamentals of housing have sharply deteriorated.''

    Michael Pascoe is a BusinessDay contributing editor.

    :D this is his first negitive property artical

    Nice to see a pera bull turn Bearish

    The tide has turned finaly

  • 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.