Another profit warning for housing

This time GAP:

Shade cloths for housing.

Rule number one of any profit warning is blame the weather. Of course it could never be this:


  1. RBA will cut in Feb not March. I think Dec and Jan monthly house price falls will warrant that. Especially is rest of the banks fallow BOQ.

    • CaptainFeatherSwordsGhostOnRoids

      certainly hope so…….sportsbet will be paying me handsomely if it happens 🙂

      • Sportsbet does have shorter odds on a cut than hike, seems like the real money people are banking on cuts

      • Peach I was thinking about this too but apparently the bookies won’t accept more than very small bets on exotics like this. Not much profit or much use for hedging etc purposes either.

  2. Who needs shade cloth in today’s world to shelter your home from the sun. The 12 storey apartment just built next door does that.

    • ““Something needs to be done. Groups like the Salvos need to work alongside homeless people who are intoxicated,” the worker said”.

      Yep exactly, the undesirables need to be out of sight, and someone else ought to pay for it.

      • Or the big liquor stores could stop serving drunk people – Like the law says!

        The police should pull a few liquor licenses for a few days/weeks and most of this problem would stop.

      • pretty sure intoxicated homeless people are buying alcohol in bulk, not $10 craft beer schooners, so probably are sober when they buy it, then blotto for ages from the bottle.

    • My daughter had never seen a homeless person in her life before spending a week in Sydney recently. She won’t be going back in a hurry.

  3. Merhis buildings in Western Sydney incomplete, full of defects: owners
    [By Larry Schlesinger
    Merhis Group, the Western Sydney developer and builder that is the subject of two wind-up actions by the Australian Taxation Office over unpaid taxes, has been accused of delivering incomplete and defective buildings by residents in at least two of its apartment developments.

    “Electrical wiring was not tagged and holes were evident in the ceilings of every electrical cupboard on each floor. The necessary fire caps were not installed on the plumbing pipes from the basement upwards. The two fire doors in the basement did not work,” said the former owner who asked not to be named.

    Other issues in the building, he claimed, included “totally inadequate waterproofing” resulting in mould on most floors, the skin on exterior walls lifting, an elevator out of action for two weeks due to water leakage and a front picket fence that is “rotting away”.]

    • My heart bleeds. People shelling out hundreds of thousands / millions of dollars and not doing a single ounce of due diligence, because, ya know:

      “The gubbermint has my back!”

      Two words: natural selection.

      • We as a society are doggedly determined to prevent natural selection, so no I don’t think it will work like that.
        See OHS, warning labels on everything, ridiculously high safety standards, untold billions spent on road safety initiatives that can at best save a few hundred people a year that could be much better spent on developing treatments for diseases that kill tens of thousands a year, and on and on.

      • – No, it’s pure and unadulterated corporate greed. “Due diligence” ?? How does the average buyer know whether or not a building is “under-engineered” (Edwin Almeida) ??
        – This is a very good example of how the greed of the corporate sector is killing its own credibiltiy.
        – The followers of the Austrian School like to talk about “Mal-Investment”. Well, by constructing such “under-engineered” buildings they are guilty of massive “Mal-Investment” as well.

      • @Willy2
        Your arguments are hollow and incoherent. The last time I bought an ‘existing’ home I paid $400 to have a pre-purchase inspection — ya know, to check if there are any ‘nasties’ that I should know about. Why should ‘new’ home buyers be exempt from doing the same?
        The very fact that regulation exists makes new home buyers complacent and they are implicitly accepting that Govt regulation is ‘infallible’. Can you believe that? What a stupid assumption. Given that the average intelligence (and competence) of a public sector employee is vastly lower than those in the private sector, this makes that assumption even more mind-boggling.

        Greed (drive for profits – call it what you like) drives the economy and drives progress. But it means that corners will be cut. Regulation is not the answer as it simply ends up in a dangerous game between regulator and regulated (the Opal Tower being the evidence). Absent any regulation whatsoever, buyers of new property would be extremely wary i.e. the developer from the get-go would be ‘guilty’ until proven ‘innocent’. In other words, the onus would fall on the developer to prove the credentials of the building. They would need to make public the engineering plans, a comprehensive schedule of materials, a list of contractors and any other relevant nuts and bolts — all of which would be perused by independent ‘new building’ experts, hired by prospective buyers of units.

        This is a far neater, far more satisfying way of achieving a good result for buyers of new buildings as it leads to natural competition among developers to be better and more transparent than the ‘other guy’. It would also drive constant quality improvements. Sorry, but contrary to received wisdom, regulation actually serves the interests of the developers as it creates an implicit guarantee of quality where it may not actually exist. It means that the only selling point becomes how well the developer has dressed up the show home. What a joke.

        Never mind, you and the rest of the herd can scream for more regulation i.e. more of what hasn’t worked in the past. What did Einstein say about insanity?

      • A standard building inspector I would imagine won’t find much/know much about an apartment. A house is simply a simpler structure, easier to assess and much more standard. The things that tend to go wrong on a house are well known typically as well. Not everyone can be a civil engineer before buying an apartment which is why I would never buy one personally.

      • @AK
        Nobody suggested that a ‘standard building inspector’ would be involved. It would be someone qualified to assess a new building, including the engineering. Such people exist – plenty of them. In fact, it would represent a new job opportunity for many builders who want a gentle slide into retirement, rather than simply downing tools and sitting on the sofa.

  4. Dominic, I totally agree. Developers would then have to be on their toes from day one to convince prospective buyers that their building is sound or no one would touch it with a barge pole.