Don't you just feel sorry for real estate agents doing it tough because the banks have scared off the punters who no longer want to participate in this debt fueled property bubble :) LOL

Don't you just feel sorry that they are finding it hard to scalp their commissions from people who have to borrow the lot from a bank and no longer want to :) LOL

And the lying real estate agents kept telling us that there was a shortage of property !! Doesn't seem like it now ;) Where have all the buyers gone...far far away.... :) LOL

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/banks-gatecrash-spring-property-season-with-interest-rate-rises/story-e6frf7kx-1225953485557


Quote:

Banks gatecrash spring property season with interest rate rises IT'S not just the Christmas spirit that greedy bank bosses have ruined - Melbourne's property market is also suffering from super-sized interest rate rises. The weekend auction clearance rate limped to 61 per cent as rain and more home loan pain thinned crowds and cautious buyers refused to pay inflated prices. The sluggish results followed NAB and Westpac joining the Commonwealth and ANZ's giant rate hikes above the Reserve Bank's Melbourne Cup move. Real Estate Institute of Victoria spokesman Robert Larocca said the banks had gatecrashed the normally buoyant spring season. "Their action has reduced confidence with home buyers and created uncertainty at the busiest time of year," Mr Larocca said. The Commonwealth lifted standard variable rates by 0.45 percentage points, the NAB (0.43), ANZ (0.39), and Westpac (0.35) compared with the RBA's 0.25 per cent rise, adding $70-$90 a month to a typical $300,000 loan. Mr Larocca said confused buyers and vendors no longer knew when rates would rise and by how much, as banks increasingly moved out of step with Reserve Bank changes. The Greens will try to force the banks to limit rate hikes to official adjustments for two years under proposed legislation to be introduced into Parliament this week. Greens Leader Bob Brown said he hoped to get Opposition support from Joe Hockey. Mr Hockey said he was "not about any controls" on the banks themselves and would instead introduce legislation this week to stop banks telegraphing rate shifts to rivals through the media. Auction clearances were marginally up compared with 59 per cent the weekend earlier. Most of the 328 properties that passed in did so on vendor bids. The results follow four months of clearances around 68 per cent.

This situation is going to get worse. The majority of people with IQ’s about 60 are now starting to realise that a run-down 1970’s 3 bedroom 1 bathroom house is not worth $300,000 or more.  By the time you pay back the interest the total amount for the property would be around $750,000 over 30 years.  Plus on average $1500 per year for rates = $45,000 over 30 years,  and $700 per year = $22,500 over 30 years for home insurance. Grant total of $817,500.

Now compare renting a property for an average price of say $300 per week.

$300 x 52 weeks = $15,600 per year. $15,600 x 30 years = $468,000.

$817,500 - $468,000 = a savings of $349,500 over 30 years.

culldav wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 11:04am:

This situation is going to get worse. The majority of people with IQ’s about 60 are now starting to realise that a run-down 1970’s 3 bedroom 1 bathroom house is not worth $300,000 or more.  By the time you pay back the interest the total amount for the property would be around $750,000 over 30 years.  Plus on average $1500 per year for rates = $45,000 over 30 years,  and $700 per year = $22,500 over 30 years for home insurance. Grant total of $817,500. Now compare renting a property for an average price of say $300 per week. $300 x 52 weeks = $15,600 per year. $15,600 x 30 years = $468,000. $817,500 - $468,000 = a savings of $349,500 over 30 years.

I see what you are getting at, but: is your $300pw a realistic 'average' rental figure in the first instance - and surely you are erroneous in making no allowances for inflation in the cost of renting!?

For an indication of future rises in rental costs, what was the comparable going nominal rental rate 30 years ago?

More like super-sized asking prices. The poor real estate agents, I'm crying tears of joy   ;D

Karma's grand.

Stand by for the REI to announce that there's plenty of growth left yet because the boat people will all be wanting to get in on the market, or rising interest rates are good for the housing market.

Stand by for a stimulus bail out by the government too.

Equitist wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 11:07am:

culldav wrote on Nov 19th, 2010 at 11:04am: This situation is going to get worse. The majority of people with IQ’s about 60 are now starting to realise that a run-down 1970’s 3 bedroom 1 bathroom house is not worth $300,000 or more.  By the time you pay back the interest the total amount for the property would be around $750,000 over 30 years.  Plus on average $1500 per year for rates = $45,000 over 30 years,  and $700 per year = $22,500 over 30 years for home insurance. Grant total of $817,500. Now compare renting a property for an average price of say $300 per week. $300 x 52 weeks = $15,600 per year. $15,600 x 30 years = $468,000. $817,500 - $468,000 = a savings of $349,500 over 30 years. I see what you are getting at, but: is your $300pw a realistic 'average' rental figure in the first instance - and surely you are erroneous in making no allowances for inflation in the cost of renting!? For an indication of future rises in rental costs, what was the comparable going nominal rental rate 30 years ago?

$35.00    A WEEK

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 11:18am:

More like super-sized asking prices. The poor real estate agents, I'm crying tears of joy   ;D Karma's grand. Stand by for the REI to announce that there's plenty of growth left yet because the boat people will all be wanting to get in on the market, or rising interest rates are good for the housing market. Stand by for a stimulus bail out by the government too.

There is such a shortage of property that is why the auction clearance rate has dropped substantially ;) LOL Those desperate migrants prefer to live on the street ;) LOL


Quote:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels

bwood1946 wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 11:21am:

Equitist wrote on Nov 19th, 2010 at 11:07am: culldav wrote on Nov 19th, 2010 at 11:04am: This situation is going to get worse. The majority of people with IQ’s about 60 are now starting to realise that a run-down 1970’s 3 bedroom 1 bathroom house is not worth $300,000 or more.  By the time you pay back the interest the total amount for the property would be around $750,000 over 30 years.  Plus on average $1500 per year for rates = $45,000 over 30 years,  and $700 per year = $22,500 over 30 years for home insurance. Grant total of $817,500. Now compare renting a property for an average price of say $300 per week. $300 x 52 weeks = $15,600 per year. $15,600 x 30 years = $468,000. $817,500 - $468,000 = a savings of $349,500 over 30 years. I see what you are getting at, but: is your $300pw a realistic 'average' rental figure in the first instance - and surely you are erroneous in making no allowances for inflation in the cost of renting!? For an indication of future rises in rental costs, what was the comparable going nominal rental rate 30 years ago? $35.00    A WEEK ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

OK, for argument's sake, then...

If we assume that these two nominal figures are close to representative of past trends in rental costs and speculate that they are indicative of future changes, then we might need to factor in an increase in the vicinity of another 857% over the next 30 years...

So, weekly rental paid for a comparable 3 bedroom 1 bathroom home might be around $2,500 in 2040 - or $130,000 pa...

Even at a 500% increase on $300 pw, the comparable rental figures in 2040 would be $1,500 pw or $78,000 pa...

Now, I'm not suggesting that any of the above figures are remotely accurate - rather that some of the assumptions made earlier are inherently erroneous...

Your argument flawed!

culldav, if you put some graphite on your abacus it makes the beads slide more easily.

You're not factoring in the obvious that rental and property prices will rise markedly over a 30yr period.

My GFs sister and hubby refused to buy a place here on The Gold Coast in 2001, they could have bought a house and land package at varsity lakes for 220K 4 bed house dub garage pool landscaped etc.

They were renting at $180 a week, now they are still in the same property when they could have built a new house, but are renting a 1970s stock standard 3 bed single garage old everything carpets bathroom kitchen laundry etc.

The houses in varsity Lakes now sell for 500K+ if they had borrowed 200K back then the monthly repayments would have been about $1400ish a month at year for 25 years,in 20 years they would have still been paying $1400 a month if not all ready repaid.

Today they are paying $450 a week in rent on that same dump, every year its gone up 15-25 a week.

In 15 years time they'll still be renting but probably paying $800 a week.

In 15 years they'll be 40, they could have been home owners, however they'll be renting and continue to rent till they are dead, so from age 40 to 80 they could have paid NO mortgage, but will now have to pay atleast 40K a year (minimun) for those last 40 years of their life, thats 1.6 million dollars in rent when they could have paid nothing if they bought????


You do the maths, buying a house is far better than renting.

Yes renting over the inital loan term may see you slightly infront, but then factor in the rest of your life renting when you could be sitting at home paying nothing, that is when you become streets ahead.

culldav wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 11:04am:

This situation is going to get worse. The majority of people with IQ’s about 60 are now starting to realise that a run-down 1970’s 3 bedroom 1 bathroom house is not worth $300,000 or more.

Property is worth whatever a buyer is willing to pay.

In Victoria the population is increasing faster than they can build houses so property prices are going to keep going up. The last few weeks has seen a hiccup due to the media and political hand wringing over Bank interest rates. But with interest rates still at historically low levels and housing still in demand you can expect to see prices continue to rise.  

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 5:57pm:

culldav wrote on Nov 19th, 2010 at 11:04am: This situation is going to get worse. The majority of people with IQ’s about 60 are now starting to realise that a run-down 1970’s 3 bedroom 1 bathroom house is not worth $300,000 or more. Property is worth whatever a buyer is willing to pay. In Victoria the population is increasing faster than they can build houses so property prices are going to keep going up. The last few weeks has seen a hiccup due to the media and political hand wringing over Bank interest rates. But with interest rates still at historically low levels and housing still in demand you can expect to see prices continue to rise.

That would be due to the exponential growth fairy. One must wonder when the boom will bust, as they inevitably do.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 6:03pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 19th, 2010 at 5:57pm: culldav wrote on Nov 19th, 2010 at 11:04am: This situation is going to get worse. The majority of people with IQ’s about 60 are now starting to realise that a run-down 1970’s 3 bedroom 1 bathroom house is not worth $300,000 or more. Property is worth whatever a buyer is willing to pay. In Victoria the population is increasing faster than they can build houses so property prices are going to keep going up. The last few weeks has seen a hiccup due to the media and political hand wringing over Bank interest rates. But with interest rates still at historically low levels and housing still in demand you can expect to see prices continue to rise.   That would be due to the exponential growth fairy. One must wonder when the boom will bust, as they inevitably do.

Not much longer, I suspect!

See the post on The Great Australian Housing Bubble, posted at 12.38 today at -
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1277536490/195#195

I think used car salesmen have more integrity than most real estate agents. At least car salesmen are controlled to a certain extent by government regulation.

As I've said before - the housing industry (especially estate agents) should have been heavily regulated years ago. Then, we might not be in the situation today where people can not/will not pay the ridiculous prices being asked for just to have a roof over one's head. And, that also includes rentals.

Houses are supposed to be places to live in, a haven for families. Not a 'for profit' investment.

Any financial system which relies heavily on people paying absurd prices for a necessity of life (a place to live) deserves to come crashing down. And, the sooner the better.

I agree Carl D. But it's a fact of life that property will be used for profit, and they ain't making any more of it.

Sure the bubble will probably burst, or at least stagnate or deflate a little. But what's gonna happen when it does?

There will still be a demand for housing even if not many people can afford to buy.
Landlords will still be able to demand a premium 'relative' price, because people need somewhere to live.
If you don't play the game, you're eventually going to be held to ransom.

The argument between the financial aspects of renting or buying is a no brainer. You're always going to be better off buying than renting in the long term as long as the system holds up.
If that becomes no longer the case, then the money that you've saved by renting won't be much use to you because the entire system will have crumbled and you will be paying through the nose for everything and will still be without a place to live.

The system would need to collapse into an abyss of anarchy before you could say to somebody that your piece of land is worthless to me.

From Money Weekend

Well reader, I have to say it, today your editor read the most ridiculous article we've ever read on Australia's now-popped house price bubble.

And believe me, that takes some doing. There's been a heck of a lot of rubbish written over the years, but the article we read today trumps the lot.

What makes it worse is that it wasn't written by some half-baked real estate agent or a rabid property spruiker. No, it was written by someone who many believe is one of the most respected financial journalists in Australia - Robert Gottliebsen.

As his biography on the Business Spectator website points out:

"When it comes to Australian business media, one name is synonymous with trust, integrity and depth of knowledge that surpasses all others, that name is Robert Gottliebsen. Robert Gottliebsen is an Associate editor for Business Spectator and was the original AFR Chanticleer and founder of Business Review Weekly (BRW) Magazine."

He's a commentator that many in the mainstream respect. Although based on the article he wrote yesterday, he looks to be past his sell-by date.

In his article Mr. Gottliebsen expressed sympathy for a view put forward by Bendigo and Adelaide Bank chairman Rob Johanson. Mr. Johanson was commenting on proposals by the socialist Green Party to prevent Australia's banks from raising rates any higher than rate moves by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA).

Mr. Johanson said:

"None of us... who can remember trying to buy a house in the 1970s would want to have to go through or go back to that situation for funding.

"With my wife I bought my first house in 1967 and I remember vividly what it was like in the 1970s. Getting a housing loan from the bank was extremely difficult and as a result house prices were very low because you had to assemble deposits many times current requirements."

Mr. Gottliebsen then offers his opinion on what makes the current Australian housing market so special:

"It might not be intentional, but in Australia banks have developed a unique system to keep dwelling prices high. They are liberal in granting housing loans, so there is a strong consumer demand for houses."

We're dumbfounded, but we'll continue:

"By restricting the supply and boosting the demand, banks keep dwelling prices high. If the Greens' proposal were enacted and we had further increases in the cost of funds overseas - which many are predicting - then the current high house price arrangement would be blown apart...

"I am delighted that neither the government nor opposition are going down that path."

At least we should be grateful for one thing from Mr. Gottliebsen's truly mind-blowingly dumb article, and that's the admission from a mainstream insider that the current housing and banking relationship would be "blown apart" if it wasn't for house price manipulation by the banks and government.

But of course, it's too late to worry about that. As I wrote earlier this week, the house price bubble has already popped and it'll be blown apart regardless of whether the Greens' policy gets up or not.

But quite frankly we find it extraordinary that not only would a banking executive claim it was terrible that people had to "assemble deposits" to buy a house, but it's equally bizarre that a so-called respected journalist would cheer the fact that Aussie banks have "a unique system to keep dwelling prices high."

Clearly they prefer how the market is rigged right now. Where those - we'll assume - such as Mr. Johanson and Mr. Gottliebson who bought their homes in the 1960s and 1970s and who have benefited from two decades of loose bank lending and cheap credit feel weak at the knees at the thought of house prices returning back to their pre-boom levels.

Much better for house prices to remain high, for banks to be "liberal in granting housing loans", and for current homebuyers to be paying 60% or 70% of their income in interest to the banks... banks such as Bendigo and Adelaide Bank.

I mean think about it. Think about the difference. In the 1960s or 1970s buyers would have saved a deposit. They would have had money sitting in a bank account accumulating interest.

Importantly, they would have been debt free. And, they would have had savings set aside for a rainy day or to put down as a deposit for a house.

Today, buyers are bribed and suckered in to the market by banks such as Bendigo and Adelaide Bank thanks to artificially low interest rates and taxpayer funded giveaways such as the first home buyers bribe.

And rather than having a healthy bank balance of savings for a rainy day or for a deposit, well, they've already got a house so they don't need a deposit, and with 60% or 70% of their income going on mortgage repayments they don't have a bean left to put towards savings anyway.

They're living the life of a pauper, but at least they're doing it in style... if that's possible!

But don't worry guys, because apparently in Australia "banks have developed a unique system to keep dwelling prices high."

Don't you believe it. The market has cracked and the baby-boomers who thought they could profit at the expense of youngsters going deeply into debt will soon find the smile wiped off their faces.

Perhaps Gottliebsen's name used to be synonymous with trust, integrity and depth of knowledge, but not after that article. We thinks it's time for Gottliebsen to hang his head in shame and hang up his boots to let someone with a bit of common sense take over.

Did you hear the latest news ?

Prices are not inflated and there is no bubble according to the REIV. :)

The prices are what suckers are willing to bear and the bubble will stay inflated because of our migrant intake so ladies and gentlemen please go out and bid top dollar at the auctions because you can't loose if you participate in this ponzi scheme ;) LOL

http://www.news.com.au/money/property/treasury-sounds-the-alarm-on-property-bubble/story-e6frfmd0-1225956971546

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/11/19/1225956/851942-through-the-roof.jpg


Quote:

Treasury sounds the alarm on 'property bubble' A SENIOR Treasury official has sounded the alarm over Australia's property market. He has warned that the prospect of a sudden and dramatic drop in prices is "the elephant in the room" and should not be ignored by the Federal Government. While the Government and Reserve Bank insist Australia does not have a housing bubble, it remains such a worrying concept that Treasury has privately sought reassurance from its analysts that prices are not artificially high and that Australia does not face the kind of house price collapse that has hit Britain and the US. Documents obtained by The Australian under Freedom of Information laws show the Treasury officials preparing the so-called Red Book of briefs for the incoming government were as divided as private sector economists about the strength of the property market. Phil Garton, the manager of Treasury's Macro Financial Linkages Unit, sent colleagues a draft paper on the rise in household debt, prospects for further growth in the debt-to-income ratio and the potential implications of slower household debt growth. His email prompted an exchange with Steve Morling, currently the general manager of the Domestic Economy Division, who argued the paper should "make a bit more about the risks". "The elephant in the room is house prices or more specifically the risk of a precipitous drop in them, perhaps from an external shock or perhaps from their own internal dynamics when affordability constraints or capacity debt levels see prices and expectations of house prices start to move in the opposite direction," Mr Morling wrote on June 15. "(I) know there are very supportive fundamentals, but prices rose by 50-60 per cent in three to four years in the early part of this decade, with largely unchanged fundamentals, so they can have a life of their own. "And given what's happened elsewhere I'm far less sanguine about this - and the interplay with debt - than in the past." Mr Garton agreed that there would be risks if the fundamentals of low interest rates, unemployment, and financial deregulation "reversed significantly". But he maintained the price growth in the early 2000s was based on a "lagged response" to improvements in the fundamentals, and questioned how Australia could have maintained a bubble for more than six years. Mr Morling said other bubbles had lasted that long, and the fundamentals were often used to justify price rises - including in Britain where a debate over lack of supply drove property prices higher "before the British property bubble burst". "(I) think price expectations  can take over from the fundamental drivers that you have identified for extended periods, including generating house price falls," he wrote. With house prices static at best - the market is particularly soft in the capital cities - there are renewed doubts over the boom of the past decade and whether prices are sustainable. A spokesman for Wayne Swan said yesterday the Treasurer retained the view that Australia did not have a property bubble, citing recent reports and statements by Westpac and the RBA. "Of course, we expect our officials to test and debate policy within the department - it is an important and normal process of government," the spokesman said. "However, it is the considered position of the Treasurer and the Treasury that our housing market reflects the fundamentals of supply and demand and not a bubble - specifically that Australia is simply not building enough new houses."

The Federal politicians will work 10 times harder to protect themselves than they will to protect us, the people who pay their wages. They are heavily reliant on the property market staying inflated for their own sakes. I saw a list of pollies investments somewhere and they are pretty well all into property investment.

We could all be unemployed and out on the street, but they'll make sure that real estate doesn't go bust.

What gets me is real estate agents selling houses full of borer.
I think you'll see an example on Today Tonight on Monday.

They don't have to supply a Borer report or an Archi center report.
They just sell it & get their commission.
There should be a law stating that they must supply independent inspection reports -
it's a scandal & borders on criminality.
I am not sure but I think in other countries they must supply such reports.

This country is a haven for con men & rip-off merchants.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 11:49am:

What gets me is real estate agents selling houses full of borer. I think you'll see an example on Today Tonight on Monday. They don't have to supply a Borer report or an Archi center report. They just sell it & get their commission. There should be a law stating that they must supply independent inspection reports - it's a scandal & borders on criminality. I am not sure but I think in other countries they must supply such reports. This country is a haven for con men & rip-off merchants.

This country is full of criminals wearing suits and ties :(

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 11:41am:

The Federal politicians will work 10 times harder to protect themselves than they will to protect us, the people who pay their wages. They are heavily reliant on the property market staying inflated for their own sakes. I saw a list of pollies investments somewhere and they are pretty well all into property investment. We could all be unemployed and out on the street, but they'll make sure that real estate doesn't go bust.

So much for Kevin Dudd's "Australian fair go" :(

I hope they get burnt the greedy pieces of shite :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 11:53am:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:49am: What gets me is real estate agents selling houses full of borer. I think you'll see an example on Today Tonight on Monday. They don't have to supply a Borer report or an Archi center report. They just sell it & get their commission. There should be a law stating that they must supply independent inspection reports - it's a scandal & borders on criminality. I am not sure but I think in other countries they must supply such reports. This country is a haven for con men & rip-off merchants. This country is full of criminals wearing suits and ties :(

Well Nail,
You have to supply a roadworthy for a car but not
a house worthy for the largest purchase, people ever make.
It's set up for con men & women to reap huge bucks out of suckers.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 11:57am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:53am: Bobby. wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:49am: What gets me is real estate agents selling houses full of borer. I think you'll see an example on Today Tonight on Monday. They don't have to supply a Borer report or an Archi center report. They just sell it & get their commission. There should be a law stating that they must supply independent inspection reports - it's a scandal & borders on criminality. I am not sure but I think in other countries they must supply such reports. This country is a haven for con men & rip-off merchants. This country is full of criminals wearing suits and ties :( Well Nail, You have to supply a roadworthy for a car but not a house worthy for the largest purchase, people ever make. It's set up for con men & women to reap huge bucks out of suckers.

Yes its hard to believe that the biggest purchase you will make in your life is not covered by any basic consumer protection as far as safety and being fit for its intended purpose.

How is that you can spend 500K on some old termite ridden dump and you have absolutely no comeback on the crooks who sold it to you ?? What sort of society are we living in that allows this to happen ?

Must be different rules in different states. I've always needed to supply a pest certificate when selling in NSW and Qld.

Although, I know someone who's pest inspector said there was a termite problem, cost thousands to have the place pulled apart and re-built , only to find out there was no termites in the building at all. The shonky tradies formed a rorting team.

The sooner houses are used for living in, and not investments the better. The stock market is for investors, leave houses out of it.

Since I'm new here I don't know if this has been discussed already?

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/scammers-con-real-estate-agent-into-selling-house/story-e6frg13u-1225918470678

I still don't know what the outcome of this was? Last I heard, it sounded like 'too bad, so sad'. How ridiculous is that? How can the sale be considered legal when it wasn't even Mr. Mildenhall's signature on the documents?

This is a case of real estate agents rushing in to make a sale without doing proper background checks. I hope Mr. Mildenhall succeeds with suing them in court and gets his money back.

See how the REIV maggots spin things around to favour their own greedy positions. "Buy today because it's the best time to buy !!"

Why not "housing market is way overpriced so don't buy until the market crashes and dives" would be a more genuine response ;)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/house-buyers-hold-all-the-cards/story-e6frf7kx-1225956791453


Quote:

House buyers hold all the cards A RECORD 4385 auctions will be held over the next four weeks, giving buyers the best opportunity to snap up a bargain in two years. The Real Estate Institute of Victoria said this was buyers' best opportunity since the global financial crisis to snap up property for less than it was worth. For the first time, there will be four consecutive weekends with more than 1000 auctions scheduled, which could force sellers to accept less than they hoped for. REIV spokesman Robert Larocca said the rise in the number of sellers without a corresponding increase in the number of buyers had set up sellers for disappointment. "Buyers have a lot more opportunity and less competition than they have seen for a while," he said. "There is little doubt the next four weeks will be the best conditions experienced by buyers for two years. "Buyers often ask whether they are better off waiting. Looking at the past few weeks and expected volumes over the next few, you would have to say now is not the time to wait." The auction clearance rate has been revised down to 59 per cent for the past two weekends after being artificially inflated by estate agents who are failing to report properties that are passed in.By hiding their failures, the agents have given buyers the impression that the market is stronger than it is. This month's interest rate rise and the threat of further rises of up to 1 percentage point has forced many buyers to lower their budgets. Buyers advocate Jason Wier, of Real Estate Angel, said the owners of the properties coming up for auction would have price expectations that were formed three months ago at the top of the market. "Sellers are going to the market expecting prices that buyers now won't support," he said. "Buyers should feel more relaxed about the buying process and expect less competition."

Bobby. wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 11:57am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:53am: Bobby. wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:49am: What gets me is real estate agents selling houses full of borer. I think you'll see an example on Today Tonight on Monday. They don't have to supply a Borer report or an Archi center report. They just sell it & get their commission. There should be a law stating that they must supply independent inspection reports - it's a scandal & borders on criminality. I am not sure but I think in other countries they must supply such reports. This country is a haven for con men & rip-off merchants. This country is full of criminals wearing suits and ties :( Well Nail, You have to supply a roadworthy for a car but not a house worthy for the largest purchase, people ever make. It's set up for con men & women to reap huge bucks out of suckers.

Only if the 'suckers' don't listen to their lenders...Most banks/mortgage companies have either a lit of home inspectors or even inspectors on retainer.....
Some real estate agents ( ok not many nowadays) will have a house inspected themselves, before they accept the listing..

Let's face it 'Caveat emptor' does apply..The buyer is the one spending $500k on the house....$1500 for an inspection makes sense...I don't buy a 2nd hand CAR without having it independently inspected by a mechanic I know, or a company ( like NRMA) that I trust...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 2:29pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:57am: Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:53am: Bobby. wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:49am: What gets me is real estate agents selling houses full of borer. I think you'll see an example on Today Tonight on Monday. They don't have to supply a Borer report or an Archi center report. They just sell it & get their commission. There should be a law stating that they must supply independent inspection reports - it's a scandal & borders on criminality. I am not sure but I think in other countries they must supply such reports. This country is a haven for con men & rip-off merchants. This country is full of criminals wearing suits and ties :( Well Nail, You have to supply a roadworthy for a car but not a house worthy for the largest purchase, people ever make. It's set up for con men & women to reap huge bucks out of suckers. Only if the 'suckers' don't listen to their lenders...Most banks/mortgage companies have either a lit of home inspectors or even inspectors on retainer..... Some real estate agents ( ok not many nowadays) will have a house inspected themselves, before they accept the listing.. Let's face it 'Caveat emptor' does apply..The buyer is the one spending $500k on the house....$1500 for an inspection makes sense...I don't buy a 2nd hand CAR without having it independently inspected by a mechanic I know, or a company ( like NRMA) that I trust...

GIZMO
Loosers always blame some on ELSE

>:( >:( >:( >:(

it's the government
. It's the banks
. It's the Yanks
. It says CIA
. It's the bOSS

 Never themselves

;D ;D ;D

bwood1946 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 2:40pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 2:29pm: Bobby. wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:57am: Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:53am: Bobby. wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 11:49am: What gets me is real estate agents selling houses full of borer. I think you'll see an example on Today Tonight on Monday. They don't have to supply a Borer report or an Archi center report. They just sell it & get their commission. There should be a law stating that they must supply independent inspection reports - it's a scandal & borders on criminality. I am not sure but I think in other countries they must supply such reports. This country is a haven for con men & rip-off merchants. This country is full of criminals wearing suits and ties :( Well Nail, You have to supply a roadworthy for a car but not a house worthy for the largest purchase, people ever make. It's set up for con men & women to reap huge bucks out of suckers. Only if the 'suckers' don't listen to their lenders...Most banks/mortgage companies have either a lit of home inspectors or even inspectors on retainer..... Some real estate agents ( ok not many nowadays) will have a house inspected themselves, before they accept the listing.. Let's face it 'Caveat emptor' does apply..The buyer is the one spending $500k on the house....$1500 for an inspection makes sense...I don't buy a 2nd hand CAR without having it independently inspected by a mechanic I know, or a company ( like NRMA) that I trust... GIZMO Loosers always blame some on ELSE >:( >:( >:( >:( it's the government . It's the banks . It's the Yanks . It says CIA . It's the bOSS  Never themselves ;D ;D ;D

Sadly true bwood

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 2:29pm:

Only if the 'suckers' don't listen to their lenders...Most banks/mortgage companies have either a lit of home inspectors or even inspectors on retainer..... Some real estate agents ( ok not many nowadays) will have a house inspected themselves, before they accept the listing.. Let's face it 'Caveat emptor' does apply..The buyer is the one spending $500k on the house....$1500 for an inspection makes sense...I don't buy a 2nd hand CAR without having it independently inspected by a mechanic I know, or a company ( like NRMA) that I trust...

How many of these auctions they are having today provide an architects report ?? :) LOL

You're a dreamer gizmo.

bwood1946 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 2:40pm:

>:( >:( >:( >:( it's the government . It's the banks . It's the Yanks . It says CIA . It's the bOSS  Never themselves ;D ;D ;D

So why is a road worthy report mandatory on an item such as a car that is worth considerably less than a house that could be infested with termites or poor wiring and could fall down or catch on fire and injure the occupants ?? Maybe they shouldn't have road worthies on cars because buyer should beware ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

bwood1946 wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 2:40pm: >:( >:( >:( >:( it's the government . It's the banks . It's the Yanks . It says CIA . It's the bOSS  Never themselves ;D ;D ;D So why is a road worthy report mandatory on an item such as a car that is worth considerably less than a house that could be infested with termites or poor wiring and could fall down or catch on fire and injure the occupants ?? Maybe they shouldn't have road worthies on cars because buyer should beware ;)

Because if the brakes fail on your house, it's not going to plough into a school yard or through a bunch of grannies waiting for a bus....

And anyone who CAN'T spot termite damage BEFORE it gets to the point of the house 'falling down' or ignores the problems with the wiring ( and the smoke detectors, which are now required in ALL houses) in time to get it fixed is probably too stupid to read an inspection report anyway..

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

bwood1946 wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 2:40pm: >:( >:( >:( >:( it's the government . It's the banks . It's the Yanks . It says CIA . It's the bOSS  Never themselves ;D ;D ;D So why is a road worthy report mandatory on an item such as a car that is worth considerably less than a house that could be infested with termites or poor wiring and could fall down or catch on fire and injure the occupants ?? Maybe they shouldn't have road worthies on cars because buyer should beware ;)

the reason. They have roadworthys on used cars
is because morons would buy them unroadworthy and drive them , without considering the fact that the unroadworthy car could harm someone else.

 >:( >:(>:(

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 3:12pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 3:03pm: bwood1946 wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 2:40pm: >:( >:( >:( >:( it's the government . It's the banks . It's the Yanks . It says CIA . It's the bOSS  Never themselves ;D ;D ;D So why is a road worthy report mandatory on an item such as a car that is worth considerably less than a house that could be infested with termites or poor wiring and could fall down or catch on fire and injure the occupants ?? Maybe they shouldn't have road worthies on cars because buyer should beware ;) Because if the brakes fail on your house, it's not going to plough into a school yard or through a bunch of grannies waiting for a bus.... And anyone who CAN'T spot termite damage BEFORE it gets to the point of the house 'falling down' or ignores the problems with the wiring ( and the smoke detectors, which are now required in ALL houses) in time to get it fixed is probably too stupid to read an inspection report anyway..

How do you know the house wiring is OK unless it is inspected by a qualified electrician ?? And how do you spot termite damage behind a brick or plaster wall ?

What a load of crap you are talking. In Europe house inspections are mandatory before you offload your rubbish onto somebody else. But of course the reason why they don't have mandatory inspections in Australia is because most old dumps wouldn't pass and that would be a real impediment to the poor old real estate maggots looking to make a quick buck and we can't have that can we ;)

bwood1946 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 3:14pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 3:03pm: bwood1946 wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 2:40pm: >:( >:( >:( >:( it's the government . It's the banks . It's the Yanks . It says CIA . It's the bOSS  Never themselves ;D ;D ;D So why is a road worthy report mandatory on an item such as a car that is worth considerably less than a house that could be infested with termites or poor wiring and could fall down or catch on fire and injure the occupants ?? Maybe they shouldn't have road worthies on cars because buyer should beware ;) the reason. They have roadworthys on used cars is because morons would buy them unroadworthy and drive them , without considering the fact that the unroadworthy car could harm someone else.  >:( >:(>:(

and they might buy termite infested homes and live in those until the roof caves in and injures someone. Somehow the normal duty of care goes out the window when it is property all because it is more important for some parasite to make his pound of flesh out of some gullible buyer :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 3:39pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 3:12pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 3:03pm: bwood1946 wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 2:40pm: >:( >:( >:( >:( it's the government . It's the banks . It's the Yanks . It says CIA . It's the bOSS  Never themselves ;D ;D ;D So why is a road worthy report mandatory on an item such as a car that is worth considerably less than a house that could be infested with termites or poor wiring and could fall down or catch on fire and injure the occupants ?? Maybe they shouldn't have road worthies on cars because buyer should beware ;) Because if the brakes fail on your house, it's not going to plough into a school yard or through a bunch of grannies waiting for a bus.... And anyone who CAN'T spot termite damage BEFORE it gets to the point of the house 'falling down' or ignores the problems with the wiring ( and the smoke detectors, which are now required in ALL houses) in time to get it fixed is probably too stupid to read an inspection report anyway.. How do you know the house wiring is OK unless it is inspected by a qualified electrician ?? And how do you spot termite damage behind a brick or plaster wall ? What a load of crap you are talking. In Europe house inspections are mandatory before you offload your rubbish onto somebody else. But of course the reason why they don't have mandatory inspections in Australia is because most old dumps wouldn't pass and that would be a real impediment to the poor old real estate maggots looking to make a quick buck and we can't have that can we ;)

this week. It's realestate agents
previously it was the banks, prior to that was Gerry Harvey

, poor old lastnails

;D ;D

Poor old lastnail`s got "everything envy".

Gizmo.

Quote:

anyone who CAN'T spot termite damage BEFORE it gets to the point of the house 'falling down' or ignores the problems with the wiring ( and the smoke detectors, which are now required in ALL houses) in time to get it fixed is probably too stupid to read an inspection report anyway..

Absolute rubbish.
I got an Archicentre report done for a house once and it says at the
bottom in fine print that a separate inspection needs to be done for termites.
Even a highly skilled architect is not qualified to prove that there is
no termite infestation.

Nail is right.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 4:27pm:

Gizmo. Quote: anyone who CAN'T spot termite damage BEFORE it gets to the point of the house 'falling down' or ignores the problems with the wiring ( and the smoke detectors, which are now required in ALL houses) in time to get it fixed is probably too stupid to read an inspection report anyway.. Absolute rubbish. I got an Archicentre report done for a house once and it says at the bottom in fine print that a separate inspection needs to be done for termites. Even a highly skilled architect is not qualified to prove that there is no termite infestation. Nail is right.

No, as usual, nails is WRONG...if YOU can't see that the floor is spongy or that the walls move when you shut or open the doors then you're too stupid too notice that you have termites or borers...

AND if you are prepare to spend $500k+ on a house, without getting it tested...then your REALLY are too dumb to tie your own shoes...

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 3:39pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 3:12pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 3:03pm: bwood1946 wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 2:40pm: >:( >:( >:( >:( it's the government . It's the banks . It's the Yanks . It says CIA . It's the bOSS  Never themselves ;D ;D ;D So why is a road worthy report mandatory on an item such as a car that is worth considerably less than a house that could be infested with termites or poor wiring and could fall down or catch on fire and injure the occupants ?? Maybe they shouldn't have road worthies on cars because buyer should beware ;) Because if the brakes fail on your house, it's not going to plough into a school yard or through a bunch of grannies waiting for a bus.... And anyone who CAN'T spot termite damage BEFORE it gets to the point of the house 'falling down' or ignores the problems with the wiring ( and the smoke detectors, which are now required in ALL houses) in time to get it fixed is probably too stupid to read an inspection report anyway.. How do you know the house wiring is OK unless it is inspected by a qualified electrician ?? And how do you spot termite damage behind a brick or plaster wall ? What a load of crap you are talking. In Europe house inspections are mandatory before you offload your rubbish onto somebody else. But of course the reason why they don't have mandatory inspections in Australia is because most old dumps wouldn't pass and that would be a real impediment to the poor old real estate maggots looking to make a quick buck and we can't have that can we ;)

AND if you're too dumb to spend the extra money getting your house tested before you spend the dollars on a house..then you're too stupid to help..

Gizmo.

Quote:

No, as usual, nails is WRONG...if YOU can't see that the floor is spongy or that the walls move when you shut or open the doors then you're too stupid too notice that you have termites or borers...

Nails wrong?
I don't think he's ever been wrong.
That's like saying that The Fonz is wrong.

You can't always tell so easily.
Watch Today Tonight - I think it's on Monday.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 5:06pm:

Gizmo. Quote: No, as usual, nails is WRONG...if YOU can't see that the floor is spongy or that the walls move when you shut or open the doors then you're too stupid too notice that you have termites or borers... Nails wrong? I don't think he's ever been wrong. That's like saying that The Fonz is wrong. You can't always tell so easily. Watch Today Tonight - I think it's on Monday.

You DO realise that the Fonz is a ficticous character from a TV show...and bears NO relationship to the actor..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 5:18pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 5:06pm: Gizmo. Quote: No, as usual, nails is WRONG...if YOU can't see that the floor is spongy or that the walls move when you shut or open the doors then you're too stupid too notice that you have termites or borers... Nails wrong? I don't think he's ever been wrong. That's like saying that The Fonz is wrong. You can't always tell so easily. Watch Today Tonight - I think it's on Monday. You DO realise that the Fonz is a ficticous character from a TV show...and bears NO relationship to the actor..

No - The Fonz was real for me.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 5:04pm:

AND if you're too dumb to spend the extra money getting your house tested before you spend the dollars on a house..then you're too stupid to help..

The real estate parasites don't give you that option because there is always some other impatient desperado waiting in line to buy the joint without an inspection. The inspection report should be mandatory by law. If the joint is OK then what do they have to lose by getting a report done ?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 4:54pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 4:27pm: Gizmo. Quote: anyone who CAN'T spot termite damage BEFORE it gets to the point of the house 'falling down' or ignores the problems with the wiring ( and the smoke detectors, which are now required in ALL houses) in time to get it fixed is probably too stupid to read an inspection report anyway.. Absolute rubbish. I got an Archicentre report done for a house once and it says at the bottom in fine print that a separate inspection needs to be done for termites. Even a highly skilled architect is not qualified to prove that there is no termite infestation. Nail is right. No, as usual, nails is WRONG...if YOU can't see that the floor is spongy or that the walls move when you shut or open the doors then you're too stupid too notice that you have termites or borers... AND if you are prepare to spend $500k+ on a house, without getting it tested...then your REALLY are too dumb to tie your own shoes...

You are a complete ignoramus gizmo. Termite infestations don't always display obvious symptoms. Pest controllers use special infrared detectors to detect termite nests buried deep within the wood structures. Your average tom dick and harry doesn't have access to this equipment.

Given that termite infestations have become more prevalent why shouldn't it be mandatory for the seller to provide fitness reports to the buyer ?

As you said Nail -
real estate agents are quite happy to sell you  some old termite ridden dump,
as long as they get their money.
The government couldn't care less if it ruins your life.
They still get their stamp duty & people still vote for them.

I hope the Greens will do something about it.
Labor & Liberal couldn't care less -
there's not a mention about it at our state election for next weekend.

I think we can blame it on ourselves to a large extent.
Anybody who has played monopoly would realise that you don't buy Mayfair first up.
Unfortunately, too many people think they deserve the right to not only buy Mayfair, they also deserve to fill it with luxurious furnishings.
These people must be allowed to fail and pay the price to those who work from the ground up.
The banks in particular need to be taught a lesson for their irresponsible lending. Nobody has any clout to keep them in order these days.

Amadd wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 11:26pm:

I think we can blame it on ourselves to a large extent. Anybody who has played monopoly would realise that you don't buy Mayfair first up. Unfortunately, too many people think they deserve the right to not only buy Mayfair, they also deserve to fill it with luxurious furnishings. These people must be allowed to fail and pay the price to those who work from the ground up. The banks in particular need to be taught a lesson for their irresponsible lending. Nobody has any clout to keep them in order these days.

Then they should have been allowed to fail 3 years ago before Dudd reinflated the property bubble by tripling the first home buyers scam :(  

Quote:

Then they should have been allowed to fail 3 years ago before Dudd reinflated the property bubble by tripling the first home buyers scam

I agree, first homebuyers is akin to quanttive easing in most respects.

The difference is that it is a leg up for those renting and finding it hard to accrue a deposit where quantative easing basically donates money to the banks where execs. will pilfer money from the taxpayers to feather their nest some more.
If the banks aren't allowed to go broke, then the system is stuffed.

Amadd.

Quote:

If the banks aren't allowed to go broke, then the system is stuffed.

We don't need banks going broke either.
I'd certainly like to see some real estate agents punished for selling
customers termite ridden old dumps.

Quote:

I'd certainly like to see some real estate agents punished for selling customers termite ridden old dumps.

The purchaser is supposed to check out all those sort of problems before settlement of the property. If there are termites - then the pest control company was negligent in its reporting.

I sold a property in a predominantly Italian area years ago and I know the agent ripped me off. It was at the start of the boom and the purchasers on the contract were Italian. About a year after the property was vacated - neighbours told me that the purchasers weren't Italian, but English with a name to match, which makes me believe that a member of the agent's family brought it and then resold it shortly after for a profit as well as their outrageous fees. This was a scam going around at the time - but very difficult to prove.

If I had to do it again - I wouldn't employ an agent.

The point is that Real Estate agents should be forced to
provide certificates that the place is free of termites.

[quote author=bobbythebat1 link=1290126855/45#51 date=1290291569]The point is that Real Estate agents should be forced to
provide certificates that the place is free of termites.

[/qu

that purchasers should get checks done before they purchase a property, only a fool would purchase something without having it checked

>:( >:( >:(

mantra wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 7:47am:

Quote: I'd certainly like to see some real estate agents punished for selling customers termite ridden old dumps. The purchaser is supposed to check out all those sort of problems before settlement of the property. If there are termites - then the pest control company was negligent in its reporting. I sold a property in a predominantly Italian area years ago and I know the agent ripped me off. It was at the start of the boom and the purchasers on the contract were Italian. About a year after the property was vacated - neighbours told me that the purchasers weren't Italian, but English with a name to match, which makes me believe that a member of the agent's family brought it and then resold it shortly after for a profit as well as their outrageous fees. This was a scam going around at the time - but very difficult to prove. If I had to do it again - I wouldn't employ an agent.

Did you check how much properties were selling for in the area.
Were you happy with the price the agent got.
Did you sign a contract when he sold it
. So, you were happy with the deal size stop whingeing you people give me the sheets

;D ;D , you're never happy unless you're being hand fed

;D ;D

It was the first house I had sold. There probably was ignorance on my part - but there was also a lot of pressure from the agent and extenuating circumstances. I wasn't happy with the price - but capital gains tax was looming. Buying or selling a home is very stressful and this is when estate agents hone in for the kill.


Quote:

stop whingeing you people give me the sheets

No-one is whinging - just telling the way it happened. This thread is about real estate agents isn't it? They charge a huge commission and it's their obligation to do the best deal they possibly can for their client. Sometimes we only find out they haven't - after the fact.

You give me the sheets also.  >:(

mantra wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 10:11am:

It was the first house I had sold. There probably was ignorance on my part - but there was also a lot of pressure from the agent and extenuating circumstances. I wasn't happy with the price - but capital gains tax was looming. Buying or selling a home is very stressful and this is when estate agents hone in for the kill. Quote: stop whingeing you people give me the sheets No-one is whinging - just telling the way it happened. This thread is about real estate agents isn't it? They charge a huge commission and it's their obligation to do the best deal they possibly can for their client. Sometimes we only find out they haven't - after the fact. You give me the sheets also.  >:(

'
commissions are negotiable it's up to you how much you pay

; ;DD  , and if you're not happy with that go to another agent


;D ;D ;D

bwood1946 wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 9:36am:

mantra wrote on Nov 21st, 2010 at 7:47am: Quote: I'd certainly like to see some real estate agents punished for selling customers termite ridden old dumps. The purchaser is supposed to check out all those sort of problems before settlement of the property. If there are termites - then the pest control company was negligent in its reporting. I sold a property in a predominantly Italian area years ago and I know the agent ripped me off. It was at the start of the boom and the purchasers on the contract were Italian. About a year after the property was vacated - neighbours told me that the purchasers weren't Italian, but English with a name to match, which makes me believe that a member of the agent's family brought it and then resold it shortly after for a profit as well as their outrageous fees. This was a scam going around at the time - but very difficult to prove. If I had to do it again - I wouldn't employ an agent. Did you check how much properties were selling for in the area. Were you happy with the price the agent got. Did you sign a contract when he sold it . So, you were happy with the deal size stop whingeing you people give me the sheets ;D ;D , you're never happy unless you're being hand fed ;D ;D

Listen dagwood, instead of being an apologist for real estate scammers  why don't you read Neil Jenams book "Don't sign anything" which will explain to you all of the tricks those thieving, lying pieces of shite get up to :(

http://www.jenman.com.au/images/DontSignAnything/DSA-BookSmall.gif

Real estate agents will tell you any lies just to get their commission out of you. It's all about their commission :( They are still lying today about how there is no bubble and you should sign on the dotted line and get ripped off RIGHT NOW !!

Hi Everyone,
Don't miss Today Tonight at 6.30pm -  TONIGHT - channel 7.

You'll see what some people have bought -
termite infested dumps.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 5:20pm:

Hi Everyone, Don't miss Today Tonight at 6.30pm -  TONIGHT - channel 7. You'll see what some people have bought - termite infested dumps.

After he as done his money nobody wants to know the dude. He only found out about the termites after removing the kitchen. Gizmo expects the average punter to be able to do this :(

But of course what is more important is that somebody made money out of him by selling him a lemon :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 10:34am:

Don't you just feel sorry for real estate agents doing it tough because the banks have scared off the punters who no longer want to participate in this debt fueled property bubble :) LOL Don't you just feel sorry that they are finding it hard to scalp their commissions from people who have to borrow the lot from a bank and no longer want to :) LOL And the lying real estate agents kept telling us that there was a shortage of property !! Doesn't seem like it now ;) Where have all the buyers gone...far far away.... :) LOL http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/banks-gatecrash-spring-property-season-with-interest-rate-rises/story-e6frf7kx-1225953485557 Quote: Banks gatecrash spring property season with interest rate rises IT'S not just the Christmas spirit that greedy bank bosses have ruined - Melbourne's property market is also suffering from super-sized interest rate rises. The weekend auction clearance rate limped to 61 per cent as rain and more home loan pain thinned crowds and cautious buyers refused to pay inflated prices. The sluggish results followed NAB and Westpac joining the Commonwealth and ANZ's giant rate hikes above the Reserve Bank's Melbourne Cup move. Real Estate Institute of Victoria spokesman Robert Larocca said the banks had gatecrashed the normally buoyant spring season. "Their action has reduced confidence with home buyers and created uncertainty at the busiest time of year," Mr Larocca said. The Commonwealth lifted standard variable rates by 0.45 percentage points, the NAB (0.43), ANZ (0.39), and Westpac (0.35) compared with the RBA's 0.25 per cent rise, adding $70-$90 a month to a typical $300,000 loan. Mr Larocca said confused buyers and vendors no longer knew when rates would rise and by how much, as banks increasingly moved out of step with Reserve Bank changes. The Greens will try to force the banks to limit rate hikes to official adjustments for two years under proposed legislation to be introduced into Parliament this week. Greens Leader Bob Brown said he hoped to get Opposition support from Joe Hockey. Mr Hockey said he was "not about any controls" on the banks themselves and would instead introduce legislation this week to stop banks telegraphing rate shifts to rivals through the media. Auction clearances were marginally up compared with 59 per cent the weekend earlier. Most of the 328 properties that passed in did so on vendor bids. The results follow four months of clearances around 68 per cent.

Mr Nail, had you purchased a house when you were banging on about property in this thread, you'd have doubled your money.   :D :D :D :D :D

Why would anyone 'buy anything' in Sydney or Melbourne, is beyond me. ::)

Jasin wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2018 at 8:51pm:

Why would anyone 'buy anything' in Sydney or Melbourne, is beyond me. ::)

Beyond your bank balance?   ;D ;D ;D

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 10:34am:

Don't you just feel sorry for real estate agents doing it tough because the banks have scared off the punters who no longer want to participate in this debt fueled property bubble :) LOL Don't you just feel sorry that they are finding it hard to scalp their commissions from people who have to borrow the lot from a bank and no longer want to :) LOL And the lying real estate agents kept telling us that there was a shortage of property !! Doesn't seem like it now ;) Where have all the buyers gone...far far away.... :) LOL

Don't worry Nail,
the Govt. will import a few million more trailer trash people -
that will keep the market going.

Sydney & Melbourne
...before 90's

BMW for $50,000

...after the 90's (to 2018)

Great Wall for $500,000

::)

I can afford much better than Sydney & Melbourne  ;)

Jasin wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2018 at 9:01pm:

Sydney & Melbourne ...before 90's BMW for $50,000 ...after the 90's (to 2018) Great Wall for $500,000 ::) I can afford much better than Sydney & Melbourne  ;)

I can't afford to leave Sydney because of work, family, kids schools etc.

In many ways, you living in a cardboard box in the bush back of Scotts Head makes you richer than me/

Gordon wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2018 at 9:17pm:

Jasin wrote on Dec 3rd, 2018 at 9:01pm: Sydney & Melbourne ...before 90's BMW for $50,000 ...after the 90's (to 2018) Great Wall for $500,000 ::) I can afford much better than Sydney & Melbourne  ;) I can't afford to leave Sydney because of work, family, kids schools etc. In many ways, you living in a cardboard box in the bush back of Scotts Head makes you richer than me/

I don't need a mansion to feel rich out here.
I get more for my money's worth living out of Sydney.
It's nothing but a POW camp run by Yellow people now.

Quality over Quantity.

So I might earn 50% less than you.
But I seem to be living 50% richer than you.
Do you enjoy the gridlock traffic, the smell of pollution, the time wasted moving around time, the expensive cost of everything, the Tolls, the lack of parking, the parking fines, the turds everywhere, the unhappy people everywhere, the only happy people are the ones locked away indoors, the violence, etc, etc, etc.

You know some Moslem is going to blow that city sky high with a nuke  ;)

Jasin wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2018 at 9:22pm:

Gordon wrote on Dec 3rd, 2018 at 9:17pm: Jasin wrote on Dec 3rd, 2018 at 9:01pm: Sydney & Melbourne ...before 90's BMW for $50,000 ...after the 90's (to 2018) Great Wall for $500,000 ::) I can afford much better than Sydney & Melbourne  ;) I can't afford to leave Sydney because of work, family, kids schools etc. In many ways, you living in a cardboard box in the bush back of Scotts Head makes you richer than me/ I don't need a mansion to feel rich out here. I get more for my money's worth living out of Sydney. It's nothing but a POW camp run by Yellow people now. Quality over Quantity. So I might earn 50% less than you. But I seem to be living 50% richer than you. Do you enjoy the gridlock traffic, the smell of pollution, the time wasted moving around time, the expensive cost of everything, the Tolls, the lack of parking, the parking fines, the turds everywhere, the unhappy people everywhere, the only happy people are the ones locked away indoors, the violence, etc, etc, etc. You know some Moslem is going to blow that city sky high with a nuke  ;)

30 years ago I moved to the NSW Central coast

It was lovely
No traffic
Quiet
Pleasant place to live.

But the urban sprawl is getting up here now
Faster cars, freeways, city people moving in all around me
Hell, we even had a road rage incident a while back.

I'm thinking I may need to get away from here to somewhere quieter.

At least there ain't no Somalis and very few muzzos
If they start to move in........I'm out

Valkie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 5:01am:

30 years ago I moved to the NSW Central coast It was lovely No traffic Quiet Pleasant place to live. But the urban sprawl is getting up here now Faster cars, freeways, city people moving in all around me Hell, we even had a road rage incident a while back. I'm thinking I may need to get away from here to somewhere quieter. At least there ain't no Somalis and very few muzzos If they start to move in........I'm out

Why does scum move in and reduce everyone's property prices?