Sally Periwinkle

VIP Member
  • Content count

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-7 Poor

About Sally Periwinkle

  • Rank
    Aspirant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. I doubt there is a "gag order". The more likely reason it is not raised in the press might be because the level of household debt to household income is boringly at the same level it was over 7 years ago in 2005. RBA table B21 column D. That's hardly something to stir the readers' interest.
  2. That was revised up on Sunday to 66% with the clearance rate for houses at 70% and at 59% for units.
  3. I'm surprised that you are a money lender to people who borrow to buy houses. What do you think about MB releasing details of their new business model on APF before releasing it on MB? Do you think its a spoof and not true? Will you be subscribing to the new newsletter (if it is true)?
  4. Then you must support the preservation of negative gearing. Its abolition would put more money into government hands. Even more so if rents were to rise.
  5. APM reporting a clearance rate of 70%. http://www.homepriceguide.com.au/saturday_auction_results/Melbourne.pdf REIV reporting 66% on a decent volume.
  6. No. The figure for NSW is not shown as $838. It is shown as $1028.00. Table 12A.
  7. Some interesting income data being used by Demographia. Gross median household income: $105,100 Canberra $71,500 Brisbane $70,500 Townsville $69,400 Sydney $67,400 Cairns Incomes higher in Brisbane and Townsville than Sydney? Also, the median house price for Sydney is given as $637,600. That must be just for detached houses. The median house price for London is given as 290,000 pounds. That looks to be for all dwellings. Is the Hong Kong house price they used just for detached houses like for all the Australian cities? Doesn’t look like a like for like comparison.
  8. You might still get hammered - effectively at a 25% rate - by the loss of part or all the dependant spouse tax offset.
  9. How do you arrive at the conclusion of "strong correlation" between turnover declines and recessions? If you look at Leith's chart you'll see that none of the last 3 big declines in turnover resulted in a recession. That is, the declines of 1994/5, 2003/4 and 2007/8. Positive correlation since 1992 doesn't exist for those two variables. The current decline in turnover may or may not be followed by a recession. If you believe a causal correlation exists between turnover declines and recessions you would conclude that the correlation is negative and that the current turnover decline will not be followed by a recession.
  10. Up until this tax year, tax was not avoided by putting your savings into a non-earning spouse's name. Last year, and in prior years the "non-earning" spouse's interest earnings were effectively taxed at 25%. This is because of the dependant spouse tax offset of ~$2.25k. 25cents is deducted from the tax offset for each dollar earned by the dependant spouse until the tax offset becomes zero when the spouses earnings reach over $9k. Some people may never have realised this because the tax offset is not something which has had to be claimed. The ATO do the calculation for you. But it meant that dependant spouses were taxed at 25%. However, from the current tax year, things have changed. The dependant spouse tax off-set has been scrapped for spouses who were born after 1971. This means that for younger spouses there will be no tax offset and therefore no further tax for the main earner if the dependant spouse has some earnings. For spouses born before 1971 the tax offset still applies and the dependant spouse's earnings up to $9k will continue to be effectively taxed at 25% by the reduction or removal of the main earners tax offset.
  11. Another issue with your mythical equity machine is that you count immediate deposits by new entrants as new money going into the system but you totally disregard the borrowed money which immediately goes to the seller. As we know, money doesn't go into property, it just gets exchanged between players. But both the deposit and the full loan go to the seller. You might argue that the new money to the seller is neutralised by debt of the borrower. Fair enough but in that case you must at least count all principle payments as inputs to the machine in exactly the same way as deposit payments because the loan money received by the seller is no longer fully neutralised by the borrowers reduced debt. Net money is added to the machine by principle payments.
  12. I have no intention of confirming statements that you have made up. I will confirm what I wrote in my last post. Your statement: ..is false. It implies there has been no increase in deposits in the time that house prices have doubled and it implies that LVRs have been on a constant upward trajectory. It is false.
  13. But we know that to be false. If that were true, what was a 50% LVR with prices at $200k would become a 75% LVR with prices at $400k. It implies that LVRs have been ever increasing with rising house prices whilst deposits remained constant. The evidence indicates that loan sizes have increased roughly in line with house prices as a proportion and that LVRs have changed little. Deposits must also have therefore increased in line with house prices. http://australianpro...opic/8262989/1/
  14. Your picture is incomplete and grossly over simplified. New money can also be introduced by existing players. This can and does increase values even if some of the new money is taken out. This can happen even with zero new entrants. People earn income. It can be used towards purchase. Even dead peoples' receipts can be injected back in. The bottom line is that current price values are affordable, being paid, and there is no unusual level of defaults. Increasing incomes can enable even higher prices to be payed, all other things (like interest rates) being equal. No fancy formula can dispute that.
  15. No it doesn't. If a bunch of Chinese come in and buy houses for cash and drive up prices it doesn't change the average mortgage size as calculated by the ABS. Their calculated average loan size only applies to transactions involving credit.. Aussie downsizers will be paying cash for their properties. Those transactions will be excluded from the housing finance data and thus from the average mortgage calculation. Yet those downsizer purchases can still drive higher prices even though no credit is involved.