JOHN HOWARD: "There is a social gain and there is a social good in
property owner, in private property ownership and that is, I say, as a
central Liberal faith and if we can give fresh meaning to it in 2002
well all the better".
(http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s873559.htm)
"Taxes send home prices soaring
...
Spiralling local, state and federal government taxes are destroying home
ownership aspirations, adding about $130,000 to the price of the average
new home in Sydney, according to a report".
(http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/07/1057430139774.html)
B J Foster <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in news:3F09EE4F.7040502@no-spam
<snip>
> "Taxes send home prices soaring
> ...
> Spiralling local, state and federal government taxes are destroying home
> ownership aspirations, adding about $130,000 to the price of the average
> new home in Sydney, according to a report".
> (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/07/1057430139774.html)
Stop ya bitching :) they gave you $5 a week in tax relief because the has
so much extra from the increased tax receipts.... costs alot of money to
get into trade negioations AKA know as "Iraq Invasion" with the USA :)
Trevor S
B J Foster <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in
message news:3F0A1790.3050700@no-spam
> The funny thing part about all of this is that the
> government plays the market better than anyone,
Like hell the federal govt does.
> fuelling the bubble
Not deliberately.
> and then taking a toll off the volatility.
They dont with that either, particularly with the sort of normal
owner occupied housing Howard was talking about, stupid.
> At the end of the day inner city units will implode (after Egan has
> raked off his share), the Packer boys will eat the banks' lunch
We'll see. They've never managed to do that yet.
> (why would the banks *reduce* their
> ROE by taking a share of property),
Why would banks be stupid enough to bother
with equity in that end of the property market ?
> Johnnie will get people out of housing commission houses,
Utterly mindlessly silly conspiracy theory.
> Malcolm will join the "Rich 50" list, Costello gets to keep his surplus
Fine by me. No reason why we should be paying for deficits with our taxes.
> and the rest of us get further in debt.
More utterly mindless silly stuff. Those of us that had the sense
to own normal owner occupied housing, or even the more
sensible rental property, will have MUCH LESS DEBT, fool
> Long live capitalism, Liberal-style.
Wota pathetic little pig ignorant wanker.
> B J Foster wrote:
> > JOHN HOWARD: "There is a social gain and there is a social good in
> > property owner, in private property ownership and that is, I say, as a
> > central Liberal faith and if we can give fresh meaning to it in 2002
> > well all the better".
> > (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s873559.htm)
> >
> >
> > "Taxes send home prices soaring
> > ...
> > Spiralling local, state and federal government taxes are destroying home
> > ownership aspirations, adding about $130,000 to the price of the average
> > new home in Sydney, according to a report".
> > (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/07/1057430139774.html)
> >
>
What do you mean the Packer boys will eat the banks' lunch?
PBL owns e-corp which owns part of Wizard, central proponent of the housing
equity scheme.
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F0A1790.3050700@no-spam
> The funny thing part about all of this is that the government plays the
> market better than anyone, fuelling the bubble and then taking a toll
> off the volatility. At the end of the day inner city units will implode
> (after Egan has raked off his share), the Packer boys will eat the
> banks' lunch (why would the banks *reduce* their ROE by taking a share
> of property), Johnnie will get people out of housing commission houses,
> Malcolm will join the "Rich 50" list, Costello gets to keep his surplus
> and the rest of us get further in debt. Long live capitalism,
Liberal-style.
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:13:25 +1000
Tom N wrote:
> What do you mean the Packer boys will eat the banks' lunch?
> PBL owns e-corp which owns part of Wizard, central proponent of the housing
> equity scheme.
We're at the end of a 40-year cycle - the smart money exchanges paper
for the physical and tangible.
>
> "B J Foster" <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F0A1790.3050700@no-spam
>
>>The funny thing part about all of this is that the government plays the
>>market better than anyone, fuelling the bubble and then taking a toll
>>off the volatility. At the end of the day inner city units will implode
>>(after Egan has raked off his share), the Packer boys will eat the
>>banks' lunch (why would the banks *reduce* their ROE by taking a share
>>of property), Johnnie will get people out of housing commission houses,
>>Malcolm will join the "Rich 50" list, Costello gets to keep his surplus
>>and the rest of us get further in debt. Long live capitalism,
>
> Liberal-style.
>
>
I assume you're saying that the banks will lose a lot of money by investing
in equity in residential housing and the Packers will come in an buy the
bank(s) when real cheap (as done before).
My point is that Packer owns much of PBL owns e-corp owns much of Wizard
which will own equity in residential housing....
Hence Packer will lose money if this crazy residential equity scheme gets
up...
An interesting tidbit I saw in MPG magazine (no not a car magazine, but
Melbourne Property Guide - a free paper from The Age full of real-estate).
Zinta Jurhans Heard (that's someones name) writes a column about some
fabulously stylish home owners who happen to be selling their dishy dream
palace. This week its about Stephen Nossal (son of Sir Gus) and his wife.
Steve is MD of a "new funds management company specialising in residential
property". And he's selling his house.
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F0AD185.2070005@no-spam
>
>
> Tom N wrote:
> > What do you mean the Packer boys will eat the banks' lunch?
> > PBL owns e-corp which owns part of Wizard, central proponent of the
housing
> > equity scheme.
>
> We're at the end of a 40-year cycle - the smart money exchanges paper
> for the physical and tangible.
>
> >
> > "B J Foster" <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3F0A1790.3050700@no-spam
> >
> >>The funny thing part about all of this is that the government plays the
> >>market better than anyone, fuelling the bubble and then taking a toll
> >>off the volatility. At the end of the day inner city units will implode
> >>(after Egan has raked off his share), the Packer boys will eat the
> >>banks' lunch (why would the banks *reduce* their ROE by taking a share
> >>of property), Johnnie will get people out of housing commission houses,
> >>Malcolm will join the "Rich 50" list, Costello gets to keep his surplus
> >>and the rest of us get further in debt. Long live capitalism,
> >
> > Liberal-style.
> >
> >
>
B J Foster <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in
message news:3F0AD185.2070005@no-spam
> Tom N wrote:
>> What do you mean the Packer boys will eat the banks' lunch?
>> PBL owns e-corp which owns part of Wizard, central
>> proponent of the housing equity scheme.
>
> We're at the end of a 40-year cycle
Nope.
> - the smart money exchanges paper for the physical and tangible.
Just another of your silly little fantasys.
> > "B J Foster" <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3F0A1790.3050700@no-spam
> >
> >>The funny thing part about all of this is that the government plays the
> >>market better than anyone, fuelling the bubble and then taking a toll
> >>off the volatility. At the end of the day inner city units will implode
> >>(after Egan has raked off his share), the Packer boys will eat the
> >>banks' lunch (why would the banks *reduce* their ROE by taking a share
> >>of property), Johnnie will get people out of housing commission houses,
> >>Malcolm will join the "Rich 50" list, Costello gets to keep his surplus
> >>and the rest of us get further in debt. Long live capitalism,
> >
> > Liberal-style.
> >
> >
>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:22:03 +1000
Tom N wrote:
> I assume you're saying that the banks will lose a lot of money by investing
> in equity in residential housing and the Packers will come in an buy the
> bank(s) when real cheap (as done before).
>
> My point is that Packer owns much of PBL owns e-corp owns much of Wizard
> which will own equity in residential housing....
> Hence Packer will lose money if this crazy residential equity scheme gets
> up...
>
> An interesting tidbit I saw in MPG magazine (no not a car magazine, but
> Melbourne Property Guide - a free paper from The Age full of real-estate).
> Zinta Jurhans Heard (that's someones name) writes a column about some
> fabulously stylish home owners who happen to be selling their dishy dream
> palace. This week its about Stephen Nossal (son of Sir Gus) and his wife.
> Steve is MD of a "new funds management company specialising in residential
> property". And he's selling his house.
Yes, your point was a good one.
I don't think that the 1990-Westpac scenario will necessarily be repeated.
How will the banks justify taking on equity in the form of residential
property when they've spent the last 10 years reducing it (e.g. branch
sale-and-leaseback, securitised mortgages, etc)?
Wizard will offer reduced repayments and we'll see a wave of refinancings.
>
> "B J Foster" <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F0AD185.2070005@no-spam
>
>>
>>Tom N wrote:
>>
>>>What do you mean the Packer boys will eat the banks' lunch?
>>>PBL owns e-corp which owns part of Wizard, central proponent of the
>>
> housing
>
>>>equity scheme.
>>
>>We're at the end of a 40-year cycle - the smart money exchanges paper
>>for the physical and tangible.
>>
>>
>>>"B J Foster" <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>news:3F0A1790.3050700@no-spam
>>>
>>>
>>>>The funny thing part about all of this is that the government plays the
>>>>market better than anyone, fuelling the bubble and then taking a toll
>>>>off the volatility. At the end of the day inner city units will implode
>>>>(after Egan has raked off his share), the Packer boys will eat the
>>>>banks' lunch (why would the banks *reduce* their ROE by taking a share
>>>>of property), Johnnie will get people out of housing commission houses,
>>>>Malcolm will join the "Rich 50" list, Costello gets to keep his surplus
>>>>and the rest of us get further in debt. Long live capitalism,
>>>
>>>Liberal-style.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:00:47 +1000
B J Foster wrote:
>
>
> Tom N wrote:
>
>> I assume you're saying that the banks will lose a lot of money by
>> investing
>> in equity in residential housing and the Packers will come in an buy the
>> bank(s) when real cheap (as done before).
>>
>> My point is that Packer owns much of PBL owns e-corp owns much of Wizard
>> which will own equity in residential housing....
>> Hence Packer will lose money if this crazy residential equity scheme gets
>> up...
>>
>> An interesting tidbit I saw in MPG magazine (no not a car magazine, but
>> Melbourne Property Guide - a free paper from The Age full of
>> real-estate).
>> Zinta Jurhans Heard (that's someones name) writes a column about some
>> fabulously stylish home owners who happen to be selling their dishy dream
>> palace. This week its about Stephen Nossal (son of Sir Gus) and his
>> wife.
>> Steve is MD of a "new funds management company specialising in
>> residential
>> property". And he's selling his house.
>
>
> Yes, your point was a good one.
> I don't think that the 1990-Westpac scenario will necessarily be repeated.
>
> How will the banks justify taking on equity in the form of residential
> property when they've spent the last 10 years reducing it (e.g. branch
> sale-and-leaseback, securitised mortgages, etc)?
>
> Wizard will offer reduced repayments and we'll see a wave of refinancings.
>
"Suncorp cuts home loan fees
Suncorp home loan customers are set to benefit as the financial
conglomerate today announced it would welcome in the new financial year
by slashing its loan establishment and security administration fees for
new home loans to zero.
...
'We really want to be leaders in home lending. We are making some big
changes to our business and this fee offer is just the start'.
Other initiatives to be introduced include simplifying the product set
to reduce complexity for staff and customers, introducing a specialised
home lending force to improve service for borrowers and streamlining
approval and settlement procedures to eliminate unnecessary delays.
'New home buyers could save up to $550 by taking advantage of the Zip,
Zero, Zilch offer and when you're buying a new house every cent counts.
That's money that could easily be spent on other things such as
furniture or removal costs', said Mr Lilley".
(http://corporate.suncorp.com.au/news/news0210.asp)
Looks like Suncorp has jumped the gun in the price war. The reasons for
not switching are apathy and fees. Suncorp just eliminated the latter -
let's see what inducements the big 4 will offer to keep customers.
>>
>> "B J Foster" <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:3F0AD185.2070005@no-spam
>>
>>>
>>> Tom N wrote:
>>>
>>>> What do you mean the Packer boys will eat the banks' lunch?
>>>> PBL owns e-corp which owns part of Wizard, central proponent of the
>>>
>>>
>> housing
>>
>>>> equity scheme.
>>>
>>>
>>> We're at the end of a 40-year cycle - the smart money exchanges paper
>>> for the physical and tangible.
>>>
>>>
>>>> "B J Foster" <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>> news:3F0A1790.3050700@no-spam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The funny thing part about all of this is that the government plays
>>>>> the
>>>>> market better than anyone, fuelling the bubble and then taking a toll
>>>>> off the volatility. At the end of the day inner city units will
>>>>> implode
>>>>> (after Egan has raked off his share), the Packer boys will eat the
>>>>> banks' lunch (why would the banks *reduce* their ROE by taking a share
>>>>> of property), Johnnie will get people out of housing commission
>>>>> houses,
>>>>> Malcolm will join the "Rich 50" list, Costello gets to keep his
>>>>> surplus
>>>>> and the rest of us get further in debt. Long live capitalism,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Liberal-style.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
B J Foster <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in
message news:3F0B4D1F.7000504@no-spam
> "Suncorp cuts home loan fees
> Suncorp home loan customers are set to benefit as the
> financial conglomerate today announced it would welcome
> in the new financial year by slashing its loan establishment
> and security administration fees for new home loans to zero.
Thats mostly a result of the fact that few have bothered
with them for normal residential home loans recently.
Basically just one way of attempting to get borrowers to
consider them for their home loan again. It remains to be
seen if Suncorp can offer a total package that is interesting
enough to enough borrowers to make much difference.
Its a VERY competitive market out there now and those
that just attempt to bumble along miss out on the business.
> 'We really want to be leaders in home lending.
And thats the crux of the matter.
> We are making some big changes to our
> business and this fee offer is just the start'.
> Other initiatives to be introduced include simplifying the product set
> to reduce complexity for staff and customers, introducing a specialised
> home lending force to improve service for borrowers and streamlining
> approval and settlement procedures to eliminate unnecessary delays.
> 'New home buyers could save up to $550 by taking
> advantage of the Zip, Zero, Zilch offer and when
> you're buying a new house every cent counts.
Mindless silly spruik shit.
> That's money that could easily be spent on other
> things such as furniture or removal costs', said Mr Lilley".
Pathetic, really.
> (http://corporate.suncorp.com.au/news/news0210.asp)
> Looks like Suncorp has jumped the gun in the price war.
Best get your eyes tested then. You were warned about
what that desperate wanking could do to your eyesight.
> The reasons for not switching are apathy and fees.
It aint about 'switching', stupid.
> Suncorp just eliminated the latter
And it remains to be seen if that will make much difference
on the number of borrowers bothering with their loans.
> let's see what inducements the big 4 will offer to keep customers.
Taint gunna happen, you watch. Suncorp is a fart in the bath to them.
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:29:36 +1000
Rod Speed wrote:
> B J Foster <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in
> message news:3F0B440B.4030405@no-spam
>
>
>>I don't think that the 1990-Westpac
>>scenario will necessarily be repeated.
>
>
> Yep, you dont usually see much repetition of the
> worst stupiditys, that one, the NAB/HomeSide,
> AMP/pom adventure, AMP/GIO, HIH/FAI etc.
>
> Even the stupidest grossly overpaid
> stuffed shirt like Wallis usually notices.
>
>
>>How will the banks justify taking on equity in the form of residential
>>property when they've spent the last 10 years reducing it (e.g.
>>branch sale-and-leaseback, securitised mortgages, etc)?
>
>
> Some have been doing that, some havent. And what makes
> sense with their own branches at a time of physical branch
> closures has no relevance what so ever to equity in normal
> owner occupied residential housing anyway.
FIRST was the wave of branch sales. The branch closures came later. Get
a clue.
The relevance of sale-and-leaseback is that business schools have been
pushing ROE for years with the result that some companies have been
completely stripped of shareholder equity. I could also mention CEO
options but that's probably too complex for you and may invite a
response along the lines of <F3><F6><ALT-F8>
>
>
>>Wizard will offer reduced repayments
>>and we'll see a wave of refinancings.
>
>
> And if they end up in deep shit, thats their problem, stupid.
>
>
B J Foster <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F0B53E0.2040404@no-spam
> Rod Speed wrote
>> B J Foster <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote
>>> I don't think that the 1990-Westpac
>>> scenario will necessarily be repeated.
>> Yep, you dont usually see much repetition of the
>> worst stupiditys, that one, the NAB/HomeSide,
>> AMP/pom adventure, AMP/GIO, HIH/FAI etc.
>> Even the stupidest grossly overpaid
>> stuffed shirt like Wallis usually notices.
>>> How will the banks justify taking on equity in the form of residential
>>> property when they've spent the last 10 years reducing it (e.g.
>>> branch sale-and-leaseback, securitised mortgages, etc)?
>> Some have been doing that, some havent. And what makes
>> sense with their own branches at a time of physical branch
>> closures has no relevance what so ever to equity in normal
>> owner occupied residential housing anyway.
> FIRST was the wave of branch sales.
> The branch closures came later.
Wrong. As always.
> Get a clue.
Let go of your dick before you end up even blinder.
> The relevance of sale-and-leaseback is that business
> schools have been pushing ROE for years
Duh. Got SFA to do with equity in normal
owner occupied residential housing, moron.
> with the result that some companies have
> been completely stripped of shareholder equity.
Not with those banks being discussed, moron.
> I could also mention CEO options but that's
> probably too complex for you and may invite a
> response along the lines of <F3><F6><ALT-F8>
Any 3 year old could do MUCH better than that pathetic effort, Foster.
Lift your game.
>>> Wizard will offer reduced repayments
>>> and we'll see a wave of refinancings.
>> And if they end up in deep shit, thats their problem, stupid.
B J Foster wrote:
> ... "
> Looks like Suncorp has jumped the gun in the price war. The reasons for
> not switching are apathy and fees. Suncorp just eliminated the latter -
> let's see what inducements the big 4 will offer to keep customers..."
Application fees are often negotiable. That is, the existence of them.
Tim Josling
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:14:14 +1000
Rod Speed wrote:
> B J Foster <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in
> message news:3F0B4D1F.7000504@no-spam
>
>
>>"Suncorp cuts home loan fees
>
>
>>Suncorp home loan customers are set to benefit as the
>>financial conglomerate today announced it would welcome
>>in the new financial year by slashing its loan establishment
>>and security administration fees for new home loans to zero.
>
>
> Thats mostly a result of the fact that few have bothered
> with them for normal residential home loans recently.
>
> Basically just one way of attempting to get borrowers to
> consider them for their home loan again. It remains to be
> seen if Suncorp can offer a total package that is interesting
> enough to enough borrowers to make much difference.
>
> Its a VERY competitive market out there now and those
> that just attempt to bumble along miss out on the business.
>
"27.5% of all finance approvals*** were for the refinancing of an
existing loan
14.4% of all loans were to first home buyers, this percentage is at its
lowest level since the series began in July 1991"
(http://www.abs.gov.au/)(*** seasonally adjusted)
Nice one, Mr Howard: Affordability for first home buyers is now at an
all-time low and investment (aka 'bubble') is now at an all-time high.
JOHN HOWARD: "There is a social gain and there is a social good in
property owner, in private property ownership and that is, I say, as a
central Liberal faith and if we can give fresh meaning to it in 2002
well all the better".
(http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s873559.htm)
>
>>'We really want to be leaders in home lending.
>
>
> And thats the crux of the matter.
>
>
>>We are making some big changes to our
>>business and this fee offer is just the start'.
>
>
>>Other initiatives to be introduced include simplifying the product set
>>to reduce complexity for staff and customers, introducing a specialised
>>home lending force to improve service for borrowers and streamlining
>>approval and settlement procedures to eliminate unnecessary delays.
>
>
>>'New home buyers could save up to $550 by taking
>>advantage of the Zip, Zero, Zilch offer and when
>>you're buying a new house every cent counts.
>
>
> Mindless silly spruik shit.
>
>
>>That's money that could easily be spent on other
>>things such as furniture or removal costs', said Mr Lilley".
>
>
> Pathetic, really.
>
>
>>(http://corporate.suncorp.com.au/news/news0210.asp)
>
>
>>Looks like Suncorp has jumped the gun in the price war.
>
>
> Best get your eyes tested then. You were warned about
> what that desperate wanking could do to your eyesight.
>
>
>>The reasons for not switching are apathy and fees.
>
>
> It aint about 'switching', stupid.
>
>
>>Suncorp just eliminated the latter
>
>
> And it remains to be seen if that will make much difference
> on the number of borrowers bothering with their loans.
>
>
>>let's see what inducements the big 4 will offer to keep customers.
>
>
> Taint gunna happen, you watch. Suncorp is a fart in the bath to them.
>
>
>
"B J Foster" <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F0AD185.2070005@no-spam
>
>
> Tom N wrote:
> > What do you mean the Packer boys will eat the banks' lunch?
> > PBL owns e-corp which owns part of Wizard, central proponent of the
housing
> > equity scheme.
>
> We're at the end of a 40-year cycle - the smart money exchanges paper
> for the physical and tangible.
Where and which among the physical and tangible is worth looking to
withstanding the crunch we most expect to come ?
===deleted===
B J Foster <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in
message news:3F11D9B6.9010405@no-spam
> Rod Speed wrote
>> B J Foster <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote
>>> "Suncorp cuts home loan fees
>>> Suncorp home loan customers are set to benefit as the
>>> financial conglomerate today announced it would welcome
>>> in the new financial year by slashing its loan establishment
>>> and security administration fees for new home loans to zero.
>> Thats mostly a result of the fact that few have bothered
>> with them for normal residential home loans recently.
>> Basically just one way of attempting to get borrowers to
>> consider them for their home loan again. It remains to be
>> seen if Suncorp can offer a total package that is interesting
>> enough to enough borrowers to make much difference.
>> Its a VERY competitive market out there now and those
>> that just attempt to bumble along miss out on the business.
> "27.5% of all finance approvals*** were
> for the refinancing of an existing loan
It'd be a HELL of a lot more surprising if that wasnt happening
with the lowest nominal interest rates in 40 years, stupid.
And has SFA to do with that particular change with SunCorp anyway.
> 14.4% of all loans were to first home buyers, this percentage
> is at its lowest level since the series began in July 1991"
> (http://www.abs.gov.au/)(*** seasonally adjusted)
Hardly surprising given the recent hikes
in property and land prices, stupid.
> Nice one, Mr Howard: Affordability for first home buyers is now at an
> all-time low and investment (aka 'bubble') is now at an all-time high.
Nothing to do with him, moronchild.
Its an inevitable result of the economy steaming along fine, stupid.
> JOHN HOWARD: "There is a social gain and there
> is a social good in property owner, in private property
> ownership and that is, I say, as a central Liberal faith and
> if we can give fresh meaning to it in 2002 well all the better".
> (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s873559.htm)
We STILL have one of the highest home
ownership rates in the entire world, moronchild.
>>> 'We really want to be leaders in home lending.
>> And thats the crux of the matter.
>>> We are making some big changes to our
>>> business and this fee offer is just the start'.
>>> Other initiatives to be introduced include simplifying the product set
>>> to reduce complexity for staff and customers, introducing a specialised
>>> home lending force to improve service for borrowers and streamlining
>>> approval and settlement procedures to eliminate unnecessary delays.
>>> 'New home buyers could save up to $550 by taking
>>> advantage of the Zip, Zero, Zilch offer and when
>>> you're buying a new house every cent counts.
>> Mindless silly spruik shit.
>>> That's money that could easily be spent on other
>>> things such as furniture or removal costs', said Mr Lilley".
>> Pathetic, really.
>>> (http://corporate.suncorp.com.au/news/news0210.asp)
>>> Looks like Suncorp has jumped the gun in the price war.
>> Best get your eyes tested then. You were warned about
>> what that desperate wanking could do to your eyesight.
>>> The reasons for not switching are apathy and fees.
>> It aint about 'switching', stupid.
>>> Suncorp just eliminated the latter
>> And it remains to be seen if that will make much difference
>> on the number of borrowers bothering with their loans.
>>> let's see what inducements the big 4 will offer to keep customers.
>> Taint gunna happen, you watch. Suncorp is a fart in the bath to them.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:09:11 +1000, "pol" <pol_pak@no-spam> wrote:
>Perhaps the banks laying groundwork with "partnership" scheme to avoid fire
>sales and residential property evictions with all the political problems
>that may cause in the crash many of us seem to expect....
That makes more sense than all the publicity I have seen surrounding
this issue.
>
>Rather than sell punters houses they just take on a "partnership" equity in
>overcommitted residentials keeping 50% mug-owners thinking they are owners
>whilst interest earnings on loans grows higher, eventually banks would need
>exercise their ability to realize their investment in the property when it
>suits them... by then mug owner equity close to zero % of any sale value.
Now just for all the enabling legislation and the banks and all the
oilers in between will score bigtime. And such home ownners will be
stiffed.
regards Xylord
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:02:41 +1000
B J Foster wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> "27.5% of all finance approvals*** were for the refinancing of an
> existing loan
>
> 14.4% of all loans were to first home buyers, this percentage is at its
> lowest level since the series began in July 1991"
> (http://www.abs.gov.au/)(*** seasonally adjusted)
>
>
> Nice one, Mr Howard: Affordability for first home buyers is now at an
> all-time low and investment (aka 'bubble') is now at an all-time high.
>
"Now it's the land of the landlord"
(http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/14/1058034944580.html)
>
> JOHN HOWARD: "There is a social gain and there is a social good in
> property owner, in private property ownership and that is, I say, as a
> central Liberal faith and if we can give fresh meaning to it in 2002
> well all the better".
> (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s873559.htm)
>
francispoon <fyfpoon@no-spam> wrote in message
news:936eaee8.0307142132.4943f5d5@no-spam
> B J Foster <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote
>> The funny thing part about all of this is that the government plays the
>> market better than anyone, fuelling the bubble and then taking a toll
>> off the volatility. At the end of the day inner city units will implode
>> (after Egan has raked off his share), the Packer boys will eat the
>> banks' lunch (why would the banks *reduce* their ROE by taking a share
>> of property), Johnnie will get people out of housing commission houses,
>> Malcolm will join the "Rich 50" list, Costello gets to keep his surplus
>> and the rest of us get further in debt. Long live capitalism, Liberal-style.
> It is interesting that you brought up this 'bubble' topic the
> experience of which Hong Kong has been going through.
> An economic bubble is created by excessive money supply,
> leading to too much money chasing too few goods or inflation.
> The British administraton in Hong Kong had created a gigantic bubble
> in the properties market of HK through excessive money printing
Mindlessly superficial.
> and afterwards handed it over to the Chinese in Peking,
> and the 'bubble' later on burst right in the face of the receiver.
> THAT IS CAPITALISM BEING MANIPULATED whether or not
> it is in the hands of the liberals or conservative.
More utterly mindlessly silly superficial conspiracy theory shit.
> It is this mutated or manipulated CAPITALISM that gives
> capitalism a bad name. Thus the science of economics cannot
> be objectively studied in the absence of political considerations.
Pathetic, really.
And doesnt have a damned thing to do with the cause
of the property boom we are currently seeing anyway.
> =======================================================>
>
> > B J Foster wrote:
> > > JOHN HOWARD: "There is a social gain and there is a social good in
> > > property owner, in private property ownership and that is, I say, as a
> > > central Liberal faith and if we can give fresh meaning to it in 2002
> > > well all the better".
> > > (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s873559.htm)
> > >
> > >
> > > "Taxes send home prices soaring
> > > ...
> > > Spiralling local, state and federal government taxes are destroying home
> > > ownership aspirations, adding about $130,000 to the price of the average
> > > new home in Sydney, according to a report".
> > > (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/07/1057430139774.html)
> > >
Rod Speed wrote:
> And doesnt have a damned thing to do with the cause
> of the property boom we are currently seeing anyway.
I gather Rod's thoery of the housing boom is that it is due to lower
nominal interest rates. With lower rates, people can borrow more, and
thereby push up housing prices.
To which I would add, disappointing returns in unit trusts and the share
market lately i.e. in the 3 year window that to the average investor
constitutes 'history'.
It is worth noting however that the increased borrowing power is a one
off. It cannot drive prices up for more than a limited time. A similar
thing happened in the 1990s with stock prices. Much of the 1990s returns
was due to increased PE ratios. This seems to have been tied in with a
money illusion concerning low interest rates (the so-called "Fed Model").
A similar though opposite thing often happens when interest rates and
inflation rise - the stock market tanks because people discount future
earnings by the higher interest rates, without also increasing future
earnings to tane into account higher CPI prices over time.
Also, there is a money illusion at work here. In the past, inflation has
paid off your home loan. This is now unlikely. So the real level of debt
will stay high for a long time.
In turn this increases the level of risk, the exposure to the two things
that could cause a bad fall in the property market.
- A rise in unemployment
- A rise in interest rates
The level of risk is higher because you are exposed to the risk for a
longer period of time.
Because so many people have signed on to long term high levels of debt
there will be a long term impact on future demand and consumption.
Tim Josling
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:01:50 +1000, Tim Josling
<tej_at_melbpc.org.au_rubbish@no-spam> wrote:
>It is worth noting however that the increased borrowing power is a one
>off. It cannot drive prices up for more than a limited time. A similar
>thing happened in the 1990s with stock prices.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=anTbOS_T362w&refer=news_index
Greenspan spoke at length about the housing boom, citing it as
source of consumer wealth in a slow economy. Household net
worth rose 4.5 percent in the first half of the year, he said,
faster than incomes. Much of those gains came from home price
appreciation and from financial investments, he said.
Don't those words sound familiar?
Coming from the man who used very similar wording during the
stockmarket bubble. A bubble he said afterwards one
could not see till it was over. ;-)
regards Xylord
Tim Josling <tej_at_melbpc.org.au_rubbish@no-spam>
wrote in message news:3F1495EE.6050601@no-spam
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> And doesnt have a damned thing to do with the cause
>> of the property boom we are currently seeing anyway.
> I gather Rod's thoery of the housing boom is
> that it is due to lower nominal interest rates.
Thats certainly an important factor. The other one
thats just as important is that the economy is really
steaming along now and we have see a return to
unemployment rates that we last seen decades
ago, so most feel confident when borrowing for
normal owner occupied residential housing.
Another FACT is that many have seen pretty dismal returns
on their investments, even if they are in super funds, and
many have decided that normal owner occupied residential
housing doesnt usually see anything like that result, and has
a real bonus in the FACT that you get to live in the asset while
it increases in value as it will inevitably do as long as you avoid
the worst situations like one industry one horse towns etc.
> With lower rates, people can borrow
> more, and thereby push up housing prices.
Nope, again thats mostly an effect on the
average and median house transaction
prices as more can afford flasher housing.
We have seen for decades now people living
in MUCH better housing than their parent lived
in, with plenty being able to afford the sort of
quality of housing in their first house that very
few of their parent could have managed.
With some obvious exceptions, particularly those who
choose to live in units rather than standalone houses.
> To which I would add, disappointing returns in unit trusts
> and the share market lately i.e. in the 3 year window
> that to the average investor constitutes 'history'.
Yes, but most of the owners of normal owner occupied
residential housing dont do much of that sort of investing.
Thats changing to some extent now with compulsory
super, with some being pretty disappointed at the
returns seen there lately. So they dont consider
that it makes much sense to have more super than
they have to and prefer to get into owner occupied
residential housing instead. Most dont do that for
carefully analysed investment decisions, most just
do it because they choose to, particularly once they
have kids and can afford to buy a house somehow.
> It is worth noting however that the increased
> borrowing power is a one off. It cannot drive
> prices up for more than a limited time.
Sure, but we saw a big surge in the price of normal
owner occupied housing thru the 80s and 90s even
when there wasnt that nominal interest rate effect.
> A similar thing happened in the 1990s with stock prices.
> Much of the 1990s returns was due to increased PE ratios.
> This seems to have been tied in with a money illusion
> concerning low interest rates (the so-called "Fed Model").
Stock prices are driven quite differently in this country when
most do at least aspire to normal owner occupied residential
housing and consider the stockmarket to be 'gambling'
Many of those relatively naive 'investors' had
their gut feelings reinforced by whats happened
with Telstra, the AMP and the NRMA too.
They havent with normal owner occupied
residential housing, even in the 1990 slump.
The most that did was send quite a few operations
involved in the spec end of property developement
go bust very spectacularly indeed.
> A similar though opposite thing often happens when
> interest rates and inflation rise - the stock market tanks
> because people discount future earnings by the higher
> interest rates, without also increasing future earnings
> to tane into account higher CPI prices over time.
Yes, but normal owner occupied residential housing
doesnt work at that level at all, careful financial analyses.
Its primarily driven by an inate desire to own your own
house in this country and when its even analysed at all,
they mostly look at what has happened to the price of
their parent's owner occupied residential housing and
decide that they wouldnt mind a result like that themselves.
And they'll most likely get it too.
> Also, there is a money illusion at work here. In the past,
> inflation has paid off your home loan. This is now unlikely.
> So the real level of debt will stay high for a long time.
We'll see. Plenty predicted the same thing in the 80s too.
> In turn this increases the level of risk, the exposure to the
> two things that could cause a bad fall in the property market.
> - A rise in unemployment
> - A rise in interest rates
We never saw 'a bad fall in the property market'
with normal owner occupied residential housing
in 1990 when we had both of those.
> The level of risk is higher because you are
> exposed to the risk for a longer period of time.
We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
> Because so many people have signed on to long
> term high levels of debt there will be a long term
> impact on future demand and consumption.
We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
> Greenspan spoke at length about the housing boom, citing it as
> source of consumer wealth in a slow economy. Household net
> worth rose 4.5 percent in the first half of the year, he said,
> faster than incomes. Much of those gains came from home price
> appreciation and from financial investments, he said.
>
this makes me think the real losers will be the owner occupiers. i mean
price houses should be a component of inflation CPI etc.
if you own 1 house and it appreciates 100% over 5 years so what? you will
need to buy another house to live in if you sell and
that would also appreciate, meaning you return is actually equal to
inflation .
so there is no real gain , actually by borrowing to buy you are doing worse
than maintaining inflation value, you are acctually losing money.
borrowing over 20 years and paying interest to keep your savings at
inflation.
am i making some blunder here ?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/03
"mac" <savgoose@no-spam> wrote in message news:3f15128c@no-spam
> > Greenspan spoke at length about the housing boom, citing it as
> > source of consumer wealth in a slow economy. Household net
> > worth rose 4.5 percent in the first half of the year, he said,
> > faster than incomes. Much of those gains came from home price
> > appreciation and from financial investments, he said.
> >
>
>
> this makes me think the real losers will be the owner occupiers. i mean
> price houses should be a component of inflation CPI etc.
> if you own 1 house and it appreciates 100% over 5 years so what? you will
> need to buy another house to live in if you sell and
> that would also appreciate, meaning you return is actually equal to
> inflation .
>
>
> so there is no real gain ,
Mindlessly superficial.
Many have found that they end up at the end of their
working life with one hell of an asset that allows them
to move into something more appropriate at that time
and to live very comfortably indeed on the difference.
There is a real sense in which that sort of home ownership
is just a form of forced saving without the continual leeching
on the cashflow that happens with super.
> actually by borrowing to buy you are doing worse than
> maintaining inflation value, you are acctually losing money.
Wrong.
> borrowing over 20 years and paying
> interest to keep your savings at inflation.
Mindlessly superficial.
> am i making some blunder here ?
Yep.
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:25:41 -0700
Xylord wrote:
> Greenspan spoke at length about the housing boom, citing it as
> source of consumer wealth in a slow economy. Household net
> worth rose 4.5 percent in the first half of the year, he said,
> faster than incomes. Much of those gains came from home price
> appreciation and from financial investments, he said.
> Don't those words sound familiar?
It reminds me of Miss Piggy (I seem to remember "Joan Kirner" was
her real name) about a "gambling-led recovery".
If property bubbles are good, what's wrong with tulip-bulb bubbles?
Consider: minimal agent fees, no stamp duty, minimal maintenance.
And... you can even eat them! (They taste like onions). If your
property investment goes bad, can you eat the floors? The window
panes?
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:40:26 +1000
Rod Speed wrote:
> Tim Josling <tej_at_melbpc.org.au_rubbish@no-spam>
> wrote in message news:3F14C8CD.8000302@no-spam
>
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
>>>>The level of risk is higher because you are
>>>>exposed to the risk for a longer period of time.
>>>
>
>>>We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
>>>90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
>>
>
>>>>Because so many people have signed on to long
>>>>term high levels of debt there will be a long term
>>>>impact on future demand and consumption.
>>>
>
>>>We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
>>>90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
>>
>
>>Yes inflation may well take off again and solve
>>the problem for them as long as interest rates lag.
>
>
>>Debt is at record levels
>
>
> It would be a hell of a lot more surprising if it wasnt with
> nominal interest rates the lowest they have been for 40 years.
>
>
>>so this scenario has a good chance of happening IMHO.
>
>
> We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
> 90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
>
>
>
John Templeton on the market and housing bubbles:
"Sir John also had a few words about debt -- a four-letter word that
folks seem not to care about: 'Emphasize in your magazine how big the
debt is. . . . The total debt of America is now $31 trillion. That is
three times the GNP of the U.S. That is unprecedented in a major nation.
No nation has ever had such a big debt as America has, and it's bigger
than it was at the peak of the stock market boom. Think of the dangers
involved. Almost everyone has a home mortgage, and some are 89% of the
value of the home (and yes, some are more)".
(http://www.damonvickers.com/news.asp?id=465)
From ASIC:
"Consumers must be confident that when they are shopping for a home
loan, the advertising they encounter accurately sets out the features of
the product, and that any scenarios used to justify claims are realistic
and clearly disclosed"
"ASIC today announced that it has concluded its enquiry into allegations
of inappropriate sales practices within ------- bank's Personal
Financial Services division....ASIC had been concerned about aspects of
------- bank's compliance systems, particularly whether or not consumers
had suffered loss".
"ASIC was concerned that ------- bank's credit card offer document and
conditions of use did not contain a guarantee that the interest rate
applicable to the ------- card would stay low, and instead, contained a
term allowing ------ bank to unilaterally raise the interest rate at any
time".
ASIC was not referring to fly-by-night gold coast marketers in the above.
B J Foster <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in
message news:3F15D45A.7000103@no-spam
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Tim Josling <tej_at_melbpc.org.au_rubbish@no-spam> wrote
>>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> The level of risk is higher because you are
>>>>> exposed to the risk for a longer period of time.
>>>> We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
>>>> 90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
>>>>> Because so many people have signed on to long
>>>>> term high levels of debt there will be a long term
>>>>> impact on future demand and consumption.
>>>> We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
>>>> 90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
>>> Yes inflation may well take off again and solve
>>> the problem for them as long as interest rates lag.
>>> Debt is at record levels
>> It would be a hell of a lot more surprising if it wasnt with
>> nominal interest rates the lowest they have been for 40 years.
>>> so this scenario has a good chance of happening IMHO.
>> We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
>> 90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
> John Templeton on the market and housing bubbles:
Doesnt have the remotest relevance to what was being
discussed, our normal owner occupied residential housing market.
> "Sir John also had a few words about debt -- a four-letter word
That mindlessly silly hype is a dead giveaway.
> that folks seem not to care about: 'Emphasize in your
> magazine how big the debt is. . . . The total debt of America
> is now $31 trillion. That is three times the GNP of the U.S.
And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
that that didnt stop the longest boom run seen last century,
and that that was one hell of a contrast to what the Jap
economy managed to deliver in that same period.
> That is unprecedented in a major nation. No nation
> has ever had such a big debt as America has,
We saw precisely the same utterly mindless hyperventilation
in the Reagan years too. Boy did those fools who so mindlessly
hyperventilated at that time along the same lines look silly now.
They were mostly the same fools that proclaimed that the
sun shined out of Japan's arse too. Boy do they look silly now.
> and it's bigger than it was at the peak of the stock market boom.
It would be a hell of a lot more surprising if it
wasnt with nominal interest rates so low, fool.
> Think of the dangers involved. Almost everyone has a home mortgage,
Another lie.
> and some are 89% of the value of the home (and yes, some are more)".
yawn...
> (http://www.damonvickers.com/news.asp?id=465)
Pathetic, really.
And there's just the tiny matter of
'During previous interviews in 1999 and 2000, Sir John
said investors should expect a 1929-style crash in stocks'
whoops.
Sir John, who is now 90
obviously just mindlessly raving on his dotage. Completely senile now.
Well, that's a pretty extreme view, even for me.
But I guess it shows you how bearish Sir John is.
or how pathetically senile he is...
> From ASIC:
> "Consumers must be confident that when they are
> shopping for a home loan, the advertising they encounter
> accurately sets out the features of the product,
Must be one of those rocket scientist shinybums.
> and that any scenarios used to justify
> claims are realistic and clearly disclosed"
Pathetic, really.
> "ASIC today announced that it has concluded its enquiry
> into allegations of inappropriate sales practices within -------
> bank's Personal Financial Services division....ASIC had been
> concerned about aspects of ------- bank's compliance systems,
> particularly whether or not consumers had suffered loss".
yawn
> "ASIC was concerned that ------- bank's credit card
> offer document and conditions of use did not contain
> a guarantee that the interest rate applicable to the -------
> card would stay low, and instead, contained a term allowing
> ------ bank to unilaterally raise the interest rate at any time".
yawn.
> ASIC was not referring to fly-by-night
> gold coast marketers in the above.
Duh.
"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@no-spam> wrote in message news:<bf2gnu$afrsd$1@no-spam>...
> Tim Josling <tej_at_melbpc.org.au_rubbish@no-spam>
> wrote in message news:3F1495EE.6050601@no-spam
> > Rod Speed wrote:
>
> >> And doesnt have a damned thing to do with the cause
> >> of the property boom we are currently seeing anyway.
>
> > I gather Rod's thoery of the housing boom is
> > that it is due to lower nominal interest rates.
>
> Thats certainly an important factor. The other one
> thats just as important is that the economy is really
> steaming along now and we have see a return to
> unemployment rates that we last seen decades
> ago, so most feel confident when borrowing for
> normal owner occupied residential housing.
>
> Another FACT is that many have seen pretty dismal returns
> on their investments, even if they are in super funds, and
> many have decided that normal owner occupied residential
> housing doesnt usually see anything like that result, and has
> a real bonus in the FACT that you get to live in the asset while
> it increases in value as it will inevitably do as long as you avoid
> the worst situations like one industry one horse towns etc.
>
> > With lower rates, people can borrow
> > more, and thereby push up housing prices.
>
> Nope, again thats mostly an effect on the
> average and median house transaction
> prices as more can afford flasher housing.
>
> We have seen for decades now people living
> in MUCH better housing than their parent lived
> in, with plenty being able to afford the sort of
> quality of housing in their first house that very
> few of their parent could have managed.
>
> With some obvious exceptions, particularly those who
> choose to live in units rather than standalone houses.
I don't believe that increases in housing prices are completely (or
even mostly) explained by increasing quality. My own data suggests
that rises have been large at the bottom end of the market, which is
in accordance with theory. The $7,000 subsidy has the largest impact
on marginal buyers who are going to be looking at the bottom end of
the market.
cheers,
-mt.
"Market Theory" <markettheory@no-spam> wrote in message news:4b1df56d.0307161756.78112fd2@no-spam
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@no-spam> wrote in message news:<bf2gnu$afrsd$1@no-spam>...
> > Tim Josling <tej_at_melbpc.org.au_rubbish@no-spam>
> > wrote in message news:3F1495EE.6050601@no-spam
> > > Rod Speed wrote:
> >
> > >> And doesnt have a damned thing to do with the cause
> > >> of the property boom we are currently seeing anyway.
> >
> > > I gather Rod's thoery of the housing boom is
> > > that it is due to lower nominal interest rates.
> >
> > Thats certainly an important factor. The other one
> > thats just as important is that the economy is really
> > steaming along now and we have see a return to
> > unemployment rates that we last seen decades
> > ago, so most feel confident when borrowing for
> > normal owner occupied residential housing.
> >
> > Another FACT is that many have seen pretty dismal returns
> > on their investments, even if they are in super funds, and
> > many have decided that normal owner occupied residential
> > housing doesnt usually see anything like that result, and has
> > a real bonus in the FACT that you get to live in the asset while
> > it increases in value as it will inevitably do as long as you avoid
> > the worst situations like one industry one horse towns etc.
> >
> > > With lower rates, people can borrow
> > > more, and thereby push up housing prices.
> >
> > Nope, again thats mostly an effect on the
> > average and median house transaction
> > prices as more can afford flasher housing.
> >
> > We have seen for decades now people living
> > in MUCH better housing than their parent lived
> > in, with plenty being able to afford the sort of
> > quality of housing in their first house that very
> > few of their parent could have managed.
> >
> > With some obvious exceptions, particularly those who
> > choose to live in units rather than standalone houses.
> I don't believe that increases in housing prices are completely
> (or even mostly) explained by increasing quality.
Corse they arent, and I never said that with either of those.
> My own data suggests that rises have been
> large at the bottom end of the market,
> which is in accordance with theory.
Thats distinctly arguable, particularly
with say Sydney waterfront property.
And at the bottom end of the market you will inevitably
have quite a few close to uninhabitable dumps that go at
the low end of prices, which are very substantially upgraded
before being sold. Quite a few are completely gutted.
> The $7,000 subsidy has the largest impact
> on marginal buyers who are going to be
> looking at the bottom end of the market.
Sure.
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:20:42 +1000
Rod Speed wrote:
> Tim Josling <tej_at_melbpc.org.au_rubbish@no-spam>
> wrote in message news:3F14C8CD.8000302@no-spam
>
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
>>>>The level of risk is higher because you are
>>>>exposed to the risk for a longer period of time.
>>>
>
>>>We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
>>>90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
>>
>
>>>>Because so many people have signed on to long
>>>>term high levels of debt there will be a long term
>>>>impact on future demand and consumption.
>>>
>
>>>We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
>>>90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
>>
>
>>Yes inflation may well take off again and solve
>>the problem for them as long as interest rates lag.
>
>
>>Debt is at record levels
>
>
> It would be a hell of a lot more surprising if it wasnt with
> nominal interest rates the lowest they have been for 40 years.
>
>
>>so this scenario has a good chance of happening IMHO.
>
>
> We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
> 90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
>
>
>
"WESTPAC chief David Morgan claims that the Sydney and Melbourne
inner-city housing markets are overheated and, as a result, the bank has
started cutting back its lending in this area.
...
Dr Morgan said he thought that generally there would be a soft landing
for the housing industry from its current heights, but some sectors
would be hard hit. 'There'll be some pockets where the adjustment will
be pretty severe and the adjustment will be in those pockets of
inner-city apartments in Melbourne and Sydney', he said".
(http://finance.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6770116%255E462,00.html)
i.e. Mortgage insurance where LVR>80%. Do your research.
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:27:20 +1000
B J Foster wrote:
>
>
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Tim Josling <tej_at_melbpc.org.au_rubbish@no-spam>
>> wrote in message news:3F14C8CD.8000302@no-spam
>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> The level of risk is higher because you are
>>>>> exposed to the risk for a longer period of time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
>>>> 90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> Because so many people have signed on to long
>>>>> term high levels of debt there will be a long term
>>>>> impact on future demand and consumption.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
>>>> 90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> Yes inflation may well take off again and solve
>>> the problem for them as long as interest rates lag.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Debt is at record levels
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be a hell of a lot more surprising if it wasnt with
>> nominal interest rates the lowest they have been for 40 years.
>>
>>
>>> so this scenario has a good chance of happening IMHO.
>>
>>
>>
>> We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
>> 90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
>>
>>
>>
>
> "WESTPAC chief David Morgan claims that the Sydney and Melbourne
> inner-city housing markets are overheated and, as a result, the bank has
> started cutting back its lending in this area.
> ...
> Dr Morgan said he thought that generally there would be a soft landing
> for the housing industry from its current heights, but some sectors
> would be hard hit. 'There'll be some pockets where the adjustment will
> be pretty severe and the adjustment will be in those pockets of
> inner-city apartments in Melbourne and Sydney', he said".
> (http://finance.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6770116%255E462,00.html)
>
>
> i.e. Mortgage insurance where LVR>80%. Do your research.
>
RBA stats:
Housing +1.8% <-- Bubble trouble
Business +0.3% <-- Uh oh
Government +12.9% <-- Pump priming?
http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/index.html#table_d
Do your research, Rod/Oscar/whatever-your-name-is.
Have you made an appointment with Dr Greenspan yet?
B J Foster <bjfoster@no-spam> wrote in
message news:3F173D5A.4010402@no-spam
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Tim Josling <tej_at_melbpc.org.au_rubbish@no-spam> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>The level of risk is higher because you are
>>>>>exposed to the risk for a longer period of time.
>>>> We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
>>>> 90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
>>>>> Because so many people have signed on to long
>>>>> term high levels of debt there will be a long term
>>>>> impact on future demand and consumption.
>>>> We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
>>>> 90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
>>> Yes inflation may well take off again and solve
>>> the problem for them as long as interest rates lag.
>>> Debt is at record levels
>> It would be a hell of a lot more surprising if it wasnt with
>> nominal interest rates the lowest they have been for 40 years.
>>> so this scenario has a good chance of happening IMHO.
>> We'll see. Plenty made the same claims in the 80s and
>> 90s and they ALL ended up with egg all over their faces.
> "WESTPAC chief David Morgan claims that the Sydney
> and Melbourne inner-city housing markets are overheated
Completely and utterly irrelevant to the normal owner
occupied residential housing being discussed, stupid.
> and, as a result, the bank has started
> cutting back its lending in this area.
And it remains to be seen if they have got that prediction right
with even just that subset of the residential property market.
> Dr Morgan said he thought that generally there would
> be a soft landing for the housing industry from its
> current heights, but some sectors would be hard hit.
Duh.
> 'There'll be some pockets where the adjustment will be
> pretty severe and the adjustment will be in those pockets
> of inner-city apartments in Melbourne and Sydney', he said".
It'd be a damned sight more surprising if it wasnt, stupid.
> (http://finance.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6770116%255E462,00.html)
> i.e. Mortgage insurance where LVR>80%. Do your research.
Stop your desperate wanking before you end up completely blind.