Westpac has a quite useful way of carving up monthly housing finance figures into buyer cohorts and states that offers a glimpse of who is actually buying property at any given moment. Here are the three operative charts:
Investors by state:
- We don’t know how Westpac achieves this split. The ABS does not provide state breakups for investors.
- Investor data is not seasonally adjusted but its growth is clearly focused (almost exclusively) in NSW.
Upgraders by state:
- Upgraders show more broad-based strength in eastern states.
- Bear in mind, however, that all three states have had first home buyer spikes in the past six months. These are normally followed by upgrader strength as homes sold to the new entrants are replaced.
- The upturn looks more than just an FHB follow-through but could be exaggerated.
First home buyers by state:
Well…ugly everywhere except WA.
- The pulling of the First Home Owner Grant in NSW and QLD has demolished new market entrants. Victorian incentives also changed but not in so sudden a way.
- In the past when FHB incentives have expired, it has taken roughly four down months to find a bottom before a plateau or rebuild.
- On this occasion, however, the grant has been moved to new homes and has the feel of a much more permanent shift. This is uncharted territory and may lead to greater weakness for longer in FHBs.
- I find it very hard to see how price rises can be sustained so long as FHB’s are out of the market.
Full report below.
er20130211BullAusHousingfinanceDec12 (1).pdf
I have been trying for about 3 weeks to find figures from FIRB about international buyers. Does anyone know how significant they are in terms of the size of the market?
Table 2.8 on the below page provides data for last year.
http://www.firb.gov.au/content/Publications/AnnualReports/2011-2012/05_Chapter_2.asp
I understand Chris Vedelago (and others) is dubious about their actual processes (like apparently there is a tick and flick box on their website and there are questions about whether anyone even looks at applications or follows up to see if relevant conditions are complied with)
I guess we’ll never know. There is bipartisan support for hiding this info, handing out permanent residency for $5 million (no questions asked .. good for money laundering) and demonising the asylum seekers instead as a distraction.
But there are signs the inflow is slowing down.
http://news.domain.com.au/domain/home-investor-centre/local-buyers-join-the-chinese-treasure-hunt-20130207-2dzep.html
Reading between the lines, it seems overseas demand is flagging. Last year, Mirvac wasn’t really trying hard to sell these OTP dog boxes next to/on top of a railway line to locals. Chris Ma, the “local buyer” cited in the article is an effing real estate agent, for crying out loud – SMH trying hard not to disclose this by, I kid you not, calling him someone “who makes a living from property transactions”.. LOL
Note that it is perfectly legal to sell OTP units to overseas investors.
lol nice spot secret REA
I had a look at this and was also puzzled. As I understand it, there is no law against a foreigner buying Australian residential RE per se. Rather, it is a notification system, where the intended purchase of “urban land” may be rejected if it is determined that the purchase is not in the national interest (ss 21A and 26A of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act); a prima facie restriction of foreign buyers to OTP etc is just “government policy” and “guidelines”, with no binding status.
I know that there was some government announcement in 2010 that they would tighten it up. But looking at the FIRB figures, I don’t think it has come to anything. According to the FIRB annual report, in 2011/12 there were 11,420 notifications for only 13 rejections (ie 99.9% approval), it seems a mere formality. You would expect that at least 0.1% would have filled the form out incorrectly! Maybe people are self regulating to match the guidelines, but even so, 99.9% is pretty high – does no one ever even ask the question?
And the annual report does not seem to make any mention of enforcement or checking, or revenue from consequent fines. Has anyone ever heard of an auction re-held, or property forcibly re-sold, because the bidder did not have FIRB approval. It is not as if the RE Agent will refuse your bid until he sees your passport, so it must happen sometimes, if only because the bidder was unaware of the law, or disorganised.
If in fact there is no enforcement of the notification provisions, then the FIRB system data will obviously have big holes in it. But in a way, given the approval rates, a failure to enforce would be completely understandable: if you are approving 99.9% anyway, why bother spending the resources to chase people, just to approve them. It would probably be a waste of time and taxpayers money.
I dont disagree with you or Mav, I dont think it is illegal for international buyers to buy off the plan.
What I am wondering though is
- if there has been any analysis of the impact of the current policy position with regard to international buyers and their net impact on the housing market.
- whether this is in Australia’s national interest
- what are the negative impacts involved and for which sections of society
- is there a case for reducing/delaying the housing acquisition volumes currently going to foreigners
- whether approval processes are effectively managed and reviewed
Dont get me wrong I am a strong supporter of a multicultural society, personally know a number of migrants who have made a very significant contribution to Australian society (indeed some of these have raised the issue and note the disparity between the lack of oversight about international housing purchases here as compared with many other jurisdictions) (and I am acutely aware than even posing some of the questions I have will have the race and migration banners unfurled) – But I am starting to very strongly suspect that the desire for international investors to buy Australian property is being used as a tool by the vested interests in Australia (connected with Australian real estate) to hold non house owning sections of Australian society to ransom (or a greater ransom than they may otherwise be)
I agree that the policy position in this area is very opaque. And the data is poor.
As to policy opacity, see for example, Nick Sherry’s announcement in April 2010 that they were tightening the rules, which does not seem to have been corrected or updated: http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2010/074.htm&pageID=003&min=njsa&Year=&DocType=0
Specifically he said that “Today’s announcement includes important amendments to each of the [Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act], the Regulations and the Policy…”
But I cannot find the amendments to the Act that he claimed to be “including” in his announcement. See the legislative history of the FATA on the Commonwealth legislation website: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A01402/Amendments – the 2010 amendments relate to a the acquisition of a substantial interest in shares.
Maybe they have a policy about how the Treasurer exercises his discretion under s 21A of the Act; maybe they don’t. But either way a discretion to prevent a purchase on a case by case basis is very different to a law which positively obliges them to enforce tighter rules in all cases.
And when they are approving 99.9% of notifications under s 26A, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether there has in fact been “a major tightening of the foreign investment rules as they relate to residential real estate” as claimed by Senator Sherry in 2010 (what was the old approval figure – 120%?)
Out of curiosity: Putting aside OTP, can anyone point to an actual law (not just a government announcement) that makes it illegal for a foreign person to purchase an established house? I am not aware of such a law, but I stopped looking after a cursory look at the Act, so it may be there somewhere.
Liu, that is exactly the kind of information that Chris Vedelago is trying to extract from the FIRB via multiple Freedom Of Information requests.
All that he got so far is a ~ $900 bill and several blank/redacted pages, with FIRB blandly declaring that it isn’t in the public interest to disclose any further information.
We need greater pressure on the FIRB to become more transparent. Anyone know an MP/Senator or two who can do that?
I will write more later guys, am a tad busy now.
The Ministers role and powers will be outlined in the Regulations (I will find it)
I think the only Polly who would touch the issue would be Bob Katter
Barnaby?
Windsor/Oakeshott, Wilkie, Ludlam/Bandt, Xenaphon?
I had a look at the Regulations (from the perspective of identifying the changes in 2010 rather than the Minister’s role and powers question referred to by Gunnamatta). The amendment in 2010 deleted the blanket exemption for temporary residents. The effect was that temporary residents thereafter fell under the notification requirements under s 26A of the Act (I don’t think that it changed anything for foreign residents, so it was a fairly discrete change). http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010L01314/Amends
Given what we know of the approval of notifications under s 26A, the net effect was that temporary residents went from being 100% certain of their position, to being only 99.9% certain (the current rate of approval).
Also, the treasurer can impose conditions on approval (s 21A), so I suppose he might use the change to impose a condition requiring subsequent resale on a case by case basis.
Brilliantly put. So we know the Sherry announcement was utter rubbish, presumably to placate someone else who had raised the issue (anyone know who this is/was? I was out of the country at the time)
It would be worth asking how many times (and what percentage of approvals) the s 21A conditions have been applied, and what (if any follow up there has been.
The other thing I would note is that if there is a reg stating that conditions are/may be applied there will be guidance (inside FIRB) on how those conditions should be applied. A copy of those would be of use.
Just looking at your charts your observation that an upgrader boost follows a FHB boost looks pretty spot on.
It would be interesting, short of the raw data to correlate, to see those two measures on the same graph with FHB lagged 4 or 5 months!
)
(If you had nothing to do!!
I would do it for you but these are Westpac charts and as I noted I don’t how they define these groups.
I don’t know either, but it’s possible that they are extrapolating from their own data, which is more than a useful sample if they combine all entities.
That appears likely as all the graphs have dual sources ABS and Westpac Economics but they do not spell how each contributes to the graph.
H&H
Westpac generate the investor figures from the ABS Lending Finance (5671.0). Since the December figures come out Wednesday, Westpac only report up to November in this report.
Investment finance by state is sourced from tables 19 to 26. It includes “Construction of dwellings for rent/resale”, “Dwellings for rent/resale (by Individuals)” and “Dwellings for rent/resale (by Other)”.
There are some breaks in the data, and as you said it is not seasonally adjusted, however, it does give a general indication of residential investment finance trends.
If there is an upgrades boost lagging the fab boost this second phase would presumably have far greater impact on the median price measurements due to higher value purchases.
In this context the dec/ jan increases in median prices look more like the final twitching of a corpse rather than a healthy patient preparing to get back up off the floor and go for a run…
(Here’s hoping)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB2SluAUWJA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I noticed from a few folks on the last housing topic that they had been pressured into buying buy their partners/wives. We can see from marketing that the “programing” to spend is focused on women. A five minute walk around any DFO or shopping centre shows this to be true.
“life style” wtf These are the same girls I see crying about the state of their marrage/relationship as the family cracks under the stress of the mega mortgage.
My advise gents is should you need to head for the exits, sign her precious McMansion over to her at the earliest opportunity.
I see an epidemic of single mums and depressed dads on its way. It would be interesting to see some data on the social impact of massive debt on young families. Relationships Australia would be a good place to start.
Don’t buy now and if she’s pushing hard to buy, man up and educate the well meaning and life style chasing nitwits
Cannot say for others here, but I found that if you explain with cool head and facts, women in general can understand. I’ve managed to keep my wife understanding this issue well and she even now a hard-liner campaigner against buying at our current overpriced level.
I told her and she understood that, if necessary, we would never own our own home in Australia and would rather boost our retirement fund than paying such expensive price. This market can be irrational longer than you expected and I have accepted the worst case scenario.
This is all starting to sound a little nineteenth century, chaps.
I don’t think so. Gender is neutral in terms of ability and performance in any aspect of life but we still can reasonably expect that, in general, that the husband in household is still considered as “head of the family”. I believe you can be equals but have different roles in a family.
+1
Hypergamy demands the husband is still the head of the household.
Gender, is not neutral in terms of ability, anyone who knows an inkling of biology, heading towards endocrinology will sdtate otherwise.
The male brain is hardwired differently by the second trimester, testosterone alters its quite a bit.
Physically, men are stronger, faster, they have thicker skin and testosterone keeps the skin more moist, thus aging slower.
The hardwiring in the brain, no even inate untrained ability, has men much more apt at spacial recognition, and the channels between the hemipshres of the brain are stunted in men, meaning they can repress their emotions from overwhelming them, hence more rational thought.
When adding in training, it is also observed men are much more pronounced at STEM fields.
Gender is not a social construct, the only party that espouses this are radical feminists, and they have a 100% failure rate.
@RustyPenny you can cherry pick from pseudoscience all you like, but your science is wrong.
They used to use these similar types of arguments to justify discrimination towards different races.
Neuroscience is all about neuroplasticity – the brain changes itself according to conditioning, environment, behaviour. I don’t believe the term “hard wired” is used by any scientist worth their salt. Men and women aren’t the same, but that doesn’t mean they fall into your rigid categories either.
I bet there are millions women in this world who would beat you in a sprint.
it isn’t psuedo science at all, and it is quite different to the arguments towards race.
There may be thousands of women who could beat me in a sprint, but if distributed amongst male dispresion in sprint times, I would be pretty confident in beating my female equivalent. The same at any feat of strength.
testosterone wires the male brain differently, and the science for that is indisputable.
@RP it is pseudoscience the way you attempt to simplify and extrapolate very complex and disparate biological and neuroscientific findings into a broad “women are irrational/ have poor impulse control etc” behavioural argument.
I know the Herald Sun and MSM likes to write up questionable behavioural experiments into articles with the cutesy “women like to multitask!” headlines, but that aint science darling.
As a simplified example, testosterone can affect the brain in say, predisposing more men to autistic tendencies. But women can also have these tendencies, for example. These links are not well understood and research into them is very new, and ongoing.
Relationships between the body, and hormones are incredibly complex, and are not predictive indicators of behaviour, as you have attempted to argue here.
Your argument is incredibly reductive. These ideas are hard to shake when formed so young, as you indicate, but if you really are interested in this stuff, I recommend this further reading:
http://www.normandoidge.com/normandoidge.com/MAIN.html
http://www.salon.com/2010/09/07/sexism_neuroscience_interview/
PS: I’m a lady, I don’t spend all my money on junk, my husband and I are sitting out this housing boom/bust thing. Just because a two or three people post about their problems with their wives does not mean all women are idiots.
it is pseudoscience the way you attempt to simplify and extrapolate very complex and disparate biological and neuroscientific findings into a broad “women are irrational/ have poor impulse control etc” behavioural argument. M
You’ve drawn a long bow there.
It is known that testosterone inhibits the channels betweent he hemisphres of the brains, just as estrogen inhibits bones growth, thus men are genrally bigger than women… and it is fallcacious to indicate you would know of some women who would be taller and heavier than me.
Just as the channels between the hemsiphres of the brain are condusive to emotion overwhelming to rational centres of the brain.
The same can be observed between men who have a low testosterone count compared to men who have a high testosterone count, and high/low women.
I readily agree there are more operant conditioners in our culture that can determine behaviour, as opposed to size and strength which have greater determination based on biology.
But that said, you can’t fight biology, and our hormonal systems do play a part on the way we behave.
It isn’t sexism, it isn’t something you need to get all worked up about to keep the scourge of mysogyny at bay.
Your links don’t even qualify for junk science.. they aren’t even of any scientific merit, they are emotional feeders along with eat,pray,love
don’t spend all my money on junk, my husband and I are sitting out this housing boom/bust thing. Just because a two or three people post about their problems with their wives does not mean all women are idiots.
I didn’t. You’re misinterpreting a genralisation of certain behaviours, and assign your own values.
I never described the tendencies of female behavour as idiotic, and I know of instances of greater than 2 or 3.
@RP take a deep breath, everything is going to be all right.
Of course it is, it will always be alright, I manage my life quite well.
Nice attempt at passive-aggressive shaming tactics however.
Women want to have their cake and eat it too. They love all the benefits of feminism, but when you try avoid giving them the benefits they had under traditionally assigned gender roles, you are a loser, a “tight wad” or “need to man up.”
The vast majority of women in western societies are trapped by consumerism. They only value status in a man, and in today’s society that is interchangeable with money.
They want to brag to their friends about the ring, the b’day gifts, valentines gifts, who their husbands rub shoulders with, where they dine and what champagne they shuck oysters with. It’s why clever men send the flowers to the office. So the rest of the girls see it. Giving her the flowers at home in private doesn’t even have 5% of the same effect. The girls that don’t get flowers that day go home secretly embittered about their beau never sends them flowers at work, just waiting on the first opportunity to “trade up.”
Some good points, RP. You would like Steven Goldberg’s “Why Men Rule” if you haven’t already read it.
I haven’t read it, but it’s pretty evident why men do, they had to.
150,000 years of evolution made hypergamy a survival mechanism and reproductive strategy.
Amongst mates, women chose amongst men who could do more. More in terms of protection and provision.
Eventually the means to provide and protect made them surpass women in terms of facilities of field of endeavour that provided more.
S.T.E.M….
and protected more… hence being bigger, stronger, with a explosive violence impulse.
If women demand that of their men, then of course they’ll evolve that way.
The socially constructed counter-measure is what… 80 years old? Not long enough for evolution to track new paths of adaptability, and it especially won’t happen when feminism tries to conflate it’s goals with the goals of all women, and also tries for women to have diminished responbility and accountability.
Try the ‘gender pay gap’ for a prima facie case of distorting statistics.
I think I’ll add my 2 cents worth on this as well. I don’t believe one bit that women are natural consumers. For starters my mum (1924) who grew up during the depression and WW2 was by no means a consumer as were none of my aunties. All were very conscious of cost.
My ex-wife I could describe as one of the best $2 shoppers of ALL time and also a great window shopper even though we had a bloody good income. Dressed well but never bought brand name clothes and didn’t buy seasonal stuff to throw it out after the season was over. My 3 daughters are like minded with 2 of them hating shopping with the 3rd more like the mum.
If you ask me it’s a learned behaviour.
As to “Head of Household,” I’m sorry, I just don’t get why anyone has to be the head. Engagement is by far preferable to one laying down the law.
There’s always something different here!
What HnH, you mean soup kitchens and workhouses the next big thing.
http://youtu.be/LS37SNYjg8w
I knew it was a waste of time buying moisturiser.
Yes HnH,
the other side of the tracks has a spouse who fully understands that the 4th investment property is a complete millstone worse than the other three millstones but says little for harmony sake, hoping against hope that the Donald Trump RE guru will wake up soon as baked beans out of a can is wearing thin.
Warnie eats baked beans. 700 test wickets and Liz Hurley can’t be wrong.
AAAhhhhh thats why he is wearing thin.
Glib response, HnH. Marketing and consumerism has been a war waged on the female mind. Spend any time studying marketing and it’s obvious.
Maybe not high brow discussion in this sense, but they’re hardly on the wrong path.
Getting back to it… even when all the emotional arguments are destroyed with logic, you still have to deal with the dreaded psychology of the MiL.
Well the proof in thepuddig is that 85% of discretionary spending is enacted by females.
Is that being measured by dollar amount or volume of transactions ?
Measured by dollar value, and for those judged as solitary items.
Men do consume ‘shared item’s such as automobiles, houses, holiday packages, etc.
But one owners items, textiles, footwear, cosmetics, etc, the 85% of monetary value applies to women.
I’d be interested to see a source, and a methodology.
http://www.she-conomy.com/facts-on-women
http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2013/01/22/10347482/Stats-On-Woman-Purchasers-jamiedunham.com.pdf
RP,
I wouldn’t normally consider crossing swords with you, except on this!
Women may spend more on cosmetics, hair, clothes etc, BUT, I’d say that men eclipse that with their spending on big ticket sports equipment like 2K golf clubs, bloody expensive boats with the added cost of running them and when it comes to cars it’s usually him who goes for the car even if it is a joint use. And on that I’ve found in most cases the man gets to use it most regardless of what may be more economical.
Anyone, whats MiL?
RP,
Just had a look at both those links and from my experience I’d not agree with car purchases or holidays.
What about behaviours in tribal society, if consuming is a female thing how does that translate to the tribal situation and what is the evolutionary crossover for the west?
JC,
A number of women may get their status based on hubby, just like a number of men go for the tits ‘n bum trophy wife for similar reasons
It may sound 19th century but I can assure you there are many males who comment here who are under significant pressure from their wives to buy into this charade and who have to spend considerable energy keeping them at bay. I’m not sure ho intense it is the otherway around but the truth of the matter is that women want their own home.
Did you mean to say ‘ho’ intense?
For so many of the women I know (fortunately not my wife though) its all a big competition – who has a house, 2 cars, overseas holidays, latest fashion clothes etc. The thought process around the financial soundness of buying all this stuff and the opportunity cost is totally absent!
I’m under intense pressure – have been for the past two years.
The old mythical statements keep getting dredged up “rent money is bad money” “paying off someone elses mortgage” “property always goes up” nag nag nag
We can afford to buy – BUT to me it just isn’t logical – and the financial leveraged risks too high.
One day I will give in – but my tipping point is either when property prices have retreated or we have an 80% down-payment.
In the meantime I’ll be weathering the storm!
you mean the century when you could speak the truth without censure from political correction. From my experience (having seen a constant stream of parcels arive from OZSales on my week off, including a 15th set of crystal glasses) modern women have NO financial sense. They seem to be unable to equate the difference between 1) essential purchase 2) discretionary purchase that adds value relative to the cost (happy to do a trip to fiji or upgrade from CRT to plasma although must be sensible) and 3) purchases that add NO value (eg 15th set of crystal glasses) or negligible value relative to the cost. All 3 are essential, other wise “why else earn money if not to spend it?” … hmm maybe cos you can get an early retirement?
Shopping for most women is a hobby, and a costly one. The sad thing is I know that I could personally retire on 800 per week and live comfortably (or 1000 per week for like minded couple). With my wife it will be more like 2000 per week at least based on existing expenditure.
Houses and Holes
February 12, 2013 at 8:23 am
This is all starting to sound a little nineteenth century, chaps.
Thankyou for your observation. Noted you said this.
Anywhoo, back to the topic.
I am a member of the FHB T & C Brigade, and I am not wishing to commit myself to debt to buy a roof over my head. I am renting in Western Sydney, and just so long as I have a train station, shops a walk away (heard of exercise & a shopping trolley & online shopping with items being delivered?) and an internet connection, I’m fine.
There is such a concept as Unencumbered Savings to buy shelter. One just needs to delay gratification aka WAIT.
And, no, I do not have one of you males to bash over the head to get into debt to buy a property. I am much too sensible to get myself involved with a male. (a Gentleman who treats me like a Goddess, yes) Not all of us fe-males are like you partners, thankyou very much. Yes, you are having a whinge here, as you can’t have a whinge anywhere else. But, this is the internet, boys…and we women read your comments. And, you want to be around us…
I think the more neutral way of expressing the point is to say there may be different attitudes to risk dependent on personality type.
It may also be the case that some personality types are more prevalent among men than women, others women more prevalent than men.
ok – to be more precise. Woman have a predisposition to stupid purchases, so in general they waste a hell of a lot more money than guys.
Yeah I tried the whole ‘show the facts’ thing and it worked for a few years but I’m in Perth and the facts are no longer in my favour so I get the following thrown back in my face…
Iron Ore is back up
Leith saying it is a reasonable time to buy (HOW COULD YOU LEITH! haha)
Strong FHBs etc
She doesn’t realise that it is a fight against evil lol
Sexist claptrap. My wife is intelligent enough to decide that now is a terrible time to buy and we are much better off renting.
I know plenty of men who are more keen to buy than their girlfriends/wives.
I think it’s safe to say your wife is the exception that proves the rule.
I could give another three exceptions
from my mob and their friends.
And working in financial advisory, particularly with HNW individuals and non-working wives, I can point to hundreds of instances where once again, it is the wife engaged in less prudent spending.
And i say this coming frmo a family where my father was a spend-thrift and my mother ensured what we did have, was because of her.
But I won’t allow my personal experience to bias what empirical evidence says.
Women are prone to spending based on the perceived status of the material item.
As I said above, 85% of discretionary spending is enacted by women. Their impulse control, -generally- is weaker.
Marketeers know this and they have taken advantage of it, they have gained this knowledge from the field of pyschology, and the differences in gender.
in fact, most marketing directed towards men, other than machismo, is also about the perceived provision they are offering for spouses and children.
if single, most men would work just enough to sustain themselves, which doesn’t require much production.
But i see the train of reality has been diverged away from empirical evidence and known differnces between gender.
For what? To preserve the pure moral light shown on women?
I don’t get it.
RP,
Consider the idea that your HNW men are the typical tits and bum trophy wife hunters and therefor end up with the female equivalent of bower birds.
You can point to this behaviour and I’ll point out the young man with wasted money on souped up cars and getting drunk etc. I’m sure you’ve heard of the saying men and their toys!
@RP
I think you’ve just been exposed to too many spoilt women that have never learnt to grow up
you shouldnt judge the world based on your snobby HNW clients. they’re in the minority. majority of people from the rest of the world (including WOMEN) struggle to save and do NOT spend frivolously on useless consumer items.
@Muzzer – that’s a nice broad sweeping statement about, oh, 3 billion people you just made there.
But then you’ve done such great research by… walking around a DFO! Charles Darwin would be so proud!
Rest assured, not all people with lady parts are irrational logic-less spend-bots.
I know lots of ladies who are neither buying overpriced houses nor pressuring anybody to do so, myself included.
As a counter-anecdote, I have one lady friend whose husband bought an investment property in outer Melb at the top of the market with a 100% loan – she was against it all the way, but he wouldn’t take no for an answer. Hubbie is convinced it is their path to riches, and plans to buy 5 more houses. She lies awake at night, knowing the numbers don’t add up but unable to convince of logic him against the great tide of BBQ philosophers, boomers and shackled media.
The ‘Strayan real estate madness infects all genders, I’m afraid.
PS: You spelt “advice” wrong.
Touched a nearve Hola?
Look sweety, my comment was brought about by no less than three gents stating that they were under pressure from thier ladies to buy in to the property spruke.
I don’t need a PHD to express my observations here. It was a fair comment simply pointing out that marketing focus is directed at women over men. You feel it has a balanced effect, I claim these poeple put a lot of time and money into advertising and from what I see they know where to push for a sale.
PS thanks for the spell check, I’m sure you felt great. My condolences to yr current partner.
Muzzer, same to your partner.
Weak DnE
Could do better I’m sure.
Lets put the claws away and get back on topic.
Point was “are women targeted over men in marketing” discuss
Straw men need not apply.
Geez, here was I worried about the prospect of allowing the door open for some racism or xenophobia
and the rest of the team is barking up the sexism and misogyny tree!
And when FHB’s return to the market if they are chasing the grants for newly constructed properties they will do nothing for the sellers of existing dwellings, units or houses.
And when they sell, the property they are selling won’t have the benefit of the grants unless they are changed back to all houses, so their dwellings may lose value on sale if the then grants are still only for newly constructed properties, so their upgrade equity might not be quite so much.
And if 50% of FHB’s are moved out of the market for existing dwellings and are only active in the market for newly constructed dwellings, what does that do to the demand for and price of existing entry level dwellings?
But it might keep employment up as we transition from the mining construction boom and I regard that as a good thing.
It’s definitely the right shift in policy. Labour governments have a lot to answer for on supply.
and labour party affiliated unions have a lot to answer for on their silence related to housing affordability. I remember the get up startup campaign votes being overloaded when negative gearing was rasied as an issue. They ignored that, something along the lines of “this does not align with the policies of our members “. From my perspective, the BIGGEST theft of wealth from the working man has been the massive rise in house prices – a return to norm would do far more to the real value of a prospective FHB’s pay packet than a slight up tick in wage rises.
Now that’s the comment of the thread! The Chardonnay socialists are far more interested in how their investments are tracking to give two sh8ts about the people left behind.
Here’s the Doctor’s take on the FHB exit from NSW…
http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/from-little-flats-big-profits-grow-20130209-2e53q.html
Link is blocked from this system but I’m a little concerned by the title – it suggests that the (possibly occurring) shift by FHB away from houses that they can no longer afford to the purchasing of units that they can afford will soon send a signal for investors to move to dominate that market (PF believes they already own about 60% of it) and begin pushing up prices there.
Were this to occur it might indicate that as I have always suspected, supply-side restrictions play a significant part in runaway prices but at the end of the day, credit availability is the biggie – you can’t pay what you can’t borrow.
A house in productive, once; when it’s built. Is there merit,then, in not restricting the assistance of building productivity and allowing any building to attract the subsidy, First Home Buyer or Fiftieth, and call the scheme what it really is – First Home Builders Scheme?
All forms of manufacturing are productive until the good is finished.
But we dont have a first car owners scheme, or a first boat owners scheme.
I can’t fathom why housing is special, particularl in light of their skillset being less demanding and less valuable than many of the high skilled automobile machinists.
Wow, I never realised there were so many supposedly educated men out there with such a low opinion of women!
I reckon men as much as women are sucked into the whole consumerism thing – big house, big 4WD, big boat, big ute, big BBQ, investment property, all the latest electronic gadgets – you get the picture. Obviously for many couples it’s a joint addiction and they just spur each other on. It’s not a problem that affects just one sex, it’s a problem that affects society, male and female.
And what was all that juvenile “head of the household” crap???
Great… now here is another generalisation… can a woman never construct an argument without building a strawman.
The proof is in our economi cfigures…. 85% of discretionary spending is enacted by women.
That’s a ratio of 6 to 1.
The major issue here is, you being raised your entire life in a fem-centric world, is that any raising of an issue that may even resemble putting women is a less than flattering light must be dismissed.
As far as head of the huosehold goes.. it is far from juvenile… hypergamy demands it, and power abhores a vacuum.
Women, to date, still have less accountability for their actions. If a man has a higher standard in life, as well as the relatinship strains of hypergamy within the dynamic, then he is best suited, and for the purpose of a happier marriage, strive to be the head of the household.
WTF?????
RP,
I wouldn’t put too much into your data. I don’t know how old you are, but back in my day as a kid most off the household budget was with the wife, dads were down at the pub.
I’d also say from my empirical evidence most wives run the budget still as the husband can’t be *****d, unless it’s for the decision as to which beemer or HSV to buy or jetski vs boat! So while your data states she makes x amount of buying decisions, why is that?
Annie, you are confused imo. In Western societies it’s the opposite. It’s women who don’t value men. This is why we have perfectly fit, healthy and good looking women always complaining about being able to find a man. Here’s a hint, it’s probably not the men at fault. It’s also why Western men are constantly searching for women from Eastern Europe or Asia.
That’s why when gender issues are discussed in the anonymity of an online forum you will find the same opinions from men that are clued in, and those who aren’t are the ones getting treated like a door mat by the women in their lives.
Men don’t publicly voice these opinions, say at work, because we all know the passive agressive shaming response it will elicit from women, or the inevitable cries of mysogyny, no matter how irrational and hypocritical the behaviour of women has become.
PS
I’m sure like me, most of the men on here worship women. We just can’t stand their vapid, shallow, materialistic, amoral and hypocritical behaviour, which unfortunately is more than often.
Post of the thread.
I can only really speak for myself but I am the financially literate person in our family, with the man of the house being somewhat free with the cash.
He has made a big effort to educate himself but its hard to overcome the genetic programming!!
Amongst friends, generally speaking, where spectacular financial flops have been revealed, it’s been driven by the male partner. I’ve always thought of it as less of a gender issue and more of a non-functioning partnership ie. one partner makes the decision in isolation.
“where spectacular financial flops have been revealed, it’s been driven by the male partner”
Excellent observation.
Dear All
It was not my intent to offend or upset anyone on MB but I am surprised at just how many members fired up. Open debate is good and encouraged here but can’t helpw but feel there are some people in this world who constantly search for reasons to be offended.
From some responses you would think I told you to go make my a Sammy whilst you’re in the kitchen. Lol
Thanks to RP for expanding my point much better than I had.
Hey Muzzer, how do you think is sounds calling a women you don’t know and haven’t met, SWEETIE? Do you think it may be a bit condescending?
In general comment to some of the dumbest sexist crap I’ve read, especially from some I hold in high regard is the following……I’m going to get my head shot off here, but I’ll say the same as I’ve said to those who whinge about Gen X,Y,Z or whatever, GO LOOK IN THE MIRROR, you chose your wife no one else, maybe you (or her more likely) just made a *****d choice!
Muzzer,
you DID spark a debate ! fantastic. My 21 yr old dau and I had a great discussion tonight about financial responsibility etc – we have always shared our financial situation with her, so the various different ways people manage their money and examples within our own family have been a wonderful education tonight. Worth more than any overpriced tertiary education module anywhere lol !!
So many male impersonators.
Yes the Sweetie was deliberate, as for condescending it was in direct response to the tone I was addressed. “@Muzzer” etc. I’m sure you would agree. Even so I have a sense of humor so don’t think I’m rattled
Thanks Hz I think that once young women are made aware that they are being manipulated they become naturally resistant to it, after all its very much like being told what to do.
In time I feel things will go full circle and younger generations will decry our pursi of material wealth in favour of more fulfilling endeavors.
Really – do you need to ask who is buying the property? Investors are. They compete at the same level as First Home Buyers – I’ve written extensively about this previously. Catherine C