A Message from RBA: “Whatever It Takes”

Wow, I did not see that coming so soon – it turns out that our Dr. Lowe speaks “Draghi”.

‘We’ll do what’s necessary’: RBA’s Lowe flags 7 per cent inflation, more rate hikes

For all cat-video fans, “Draghi” is a dialect spoken by absolutely desperate and “put-into-a-corner” central bankers who must protect their credibility at all costs (costs are usually paid by loyal subjects citizens) and who have their focus on one and one target only (usually a mitigation strategy for some very obvious risk that have totally missed).

I will skip through all analysis and give you my opinion as a Bottom-line:

  • Next two hikes will be 50 bps or more (65 or even 100 is very possible as RBA do not provide clear forward guidance as Fed and like to surprise markets)
  • Commercial banks will go into panic mode and will tighten their credit policies
  • Spreads will widen dramatically (put simply, we might see mortgages with 200-300 bps apart because of the credit scores)
  • Business and Consumer confidence will drop substantially (already in progress)
  • Unemployment will go up (will show in the 2022Q3 reading)
  • We will officially be in a recession in late 2022-early 2023

As all of this will not happen in vacuum, there will an interesting side-effect – liquidity will be quickly sucked out from capital markets and with TFF repayments scheduled for 2023-2024, banks will go to savers which will further tighten the amount of money shovelled around.

Don’t kid yourselves – our fearless doctor has already told you in “Draghi” that he is willing to break this economy to slow down the inflation and he will.

So here is a most important question of the year 2022:

Have you sold all your investment properties yet?

Before you throw that rotten tomato at me, remember that I have given you my opinion on Crypto and I hope you listened. Ah, whatever, keep them coming

Looks like the original title was not appropriate (was changed), RBA staff are reading the forums?

Poll Options

  • 42
    Yes, I have sold
  • 18
    Thinking about selling
  • 250
    Property prices always go up

Comments

          • @SlickMick: It's a date.
            Will you be here to apologize for making assumptions?

        • Tough crowd.
          Maybe also wanted to measure the reaction and annoy you a little bit more.
          You are welcome to post about rocket surgery - favorite topic of yours?

          • @ALesha77: It doesn't annoy me, just not sure why you think you are special enough to post like an expert on the subject. I'm far from an expert, yet have come to roughly the same conclusions as you.

            Yes, I love rocket surgery. A lot more technical than looking at how much money has been printed, how many stupid people there are, and figuring out that that's a bad combination, and will lead to an economic downturn

            • @brendanm:

              "why you think you are special enough to post like an expert on the subject"

              Where did this come from?
              Just because I posted on the forum? Do the same.
              But I know my subject hence I am posting. Fell free to do the same and say that you know.

              Relax, mate - everyone's an expert here. The difference is how they frame their thoughts.

              • @ALesha77: You are giving financial advice. You frame your statements as facts, rather than opinion.

                • @brendanm: This is financial advice.

                  .#BTFD or pay the price one deserves later.

  • +11

    "BuT PrOPeRTieS OnLY Go UP"
    lets not forget what is fuelling this though
    Negative gearing is effectively robbing the tax payer billions of dollars per year so people can gamble on investment properties with the premise that they'll cash out in the long run.

    Little do they know that only 40% of all investment properties are positively geared.

    You need to make something like a 10% capital gain on a property just to break even.

    • +1

      Negative cash-flow is a small inconvenience compare to negative equity and liquidity crunch.
      Again, this is not a "IP hater" post, these are my thoughts on what will happen next and a friendly advice to do your research as the data points have changed.

      We'll see.

    • They went up 30% last year.

      • +2

        We also printed $750 billion over the last 2 years ;)

        • +2

          How could Dan Andrews do this!!1!

    • +4

      You need to make something like a 10% capital gain on a property just to break even.

      ^ This.

      Let's say you pay roughly 5% in fees to buy, then another 5% in fees to sell. So Net, you need 10% (for easy numbers) gain on the property to break even.
      That's if you spend literally $0 for 30yr mortgage.
      If the property value goes up.
      If you can sell when you want.
      If you don't count for costs to hold.

      I've mentioned some holding costs before, but here they are again:
      *Strata fees. Council fees. Maintenance & damage repairs. Insurance. Devaluation due to X. Bad location. Bad timing. Bad tenants. Can't control builders. Can't control land erosion, wind, water, fire. Can't control structural and engineering issues. List goes on and onnnnn.

      Mind you the first 5-15yrs, you're just paying off the interest on the mortgage, not even the Principle.

      So considering all the variables above, you really probably need to make something stupid like ~30-50% gain on the property value to profit, just to cover for the "costs".

      So the question comes again - Is property really an "investment", and should it be still classified as an "asset"?

      • Of course it is an investment, I think you are asking if it is a good investment?

        Tax deductions + capital gains > holding costs.

        Until that changes property prices will continue to increase.

        Increasing interest rates reduces capital gains but increases tax deductions.

        Properly price growth will slow in areas where investors pull out in mass, areas with few home owners and majority investors - rural and regional towns, holiday suburbs, areas without the jobs to support a permanent population.

        The couple that bought a $2M home in suburban Sydney are going to be just fine, it's the couple who are renting Sydney and bought an affordable apartment as investors in some new development that will be trapped

    • Little do they know that only 40% of all investment properties are positively geared.

      I don't think your statement proves investors are being foolish

      If negative gearing is such a good deal for the investor, then by definition a good investor will seek to remain negatively geared.

      • +1

        It's more houses that aren't worth what they are are being held onto as it's easier to reduce your tax then sell. Because at the end of the day the taxpayer is subsidising your temporary losses whilst the investor gets to capitalise on the realised gains.

        And this is why there's so few houses in circulation because people would rather hold onto houses and reduce their losses than move on a loss making asset at it's real value.

  • +1

    Why would I sell my investment property? Pays off the mortgage and it's good for tax. I bought it so cheap that it'll be worth more money years to come.

    • +3

      You are the live example of "Entry point matters"! Well done!
      But so does prudent profit taking.

    • +16

      wait? this is all due to the results of an election a month ago?
      I'm amazed a government can move an economy so fast, I wonder why the ones in power before didnt move it in a huge positive direction before, considering they had about 100 times as many months to work with :/

      • +3

        No, it is a result of 10 years of easy monetary policy and huge fiscal cash splash from the previous government.
        Many years in the making.

    • It might very well be so.
      Labor have increased minimal wages and push for 5% increase across the board.

      • +4

        Which I'm totally fine with. Just need to tax the rich & companies a lot more

        • +1

          Those in the top tax bracket already pay over a third of the entire amount of taxation received.

          • +1

            @brendanm: Which is not enough

            • +4

              @Boogerman: Haha of course it's not. Need to penalise them to the point where they end up with the same take home pay as those on minimum wage.

          • +1

            @brendanm: That's more a display of income disparity than anything else.

            In 2018/19 the ATO released released a breakdown going by single percentiles for earnings

            the top 3% of earners being people earning $188,667 or more paid a total of 63.4 billion in tax and earned $142.1 Billion dollars
            the top 1% of earners being people earning more than $350,154 or more paid a total of $35.6 Billion in tax and earned $83.9 Billion

            The top 1% of earners pay 16.66% of the total income tax but also earn 9.5% of the total income earned in all of Australia
            the top 3% pay 29.65% of the total income tax and earn 16.21% of all income remove the top 1% and thats 12.99% of the tax and 6.71% of the income

            If we moved to a flat tax rate with no tax free threshold the top marginal tax payers would still be paying over 16% of all the tax earnings.

            • -1

              @Bjingo:

              If we moved to a flat tax rate with no tax free threshold the top marginal tax payers would still be paying over 16% of all the tax earnings.

              Which is under half what they are paying now, so really unsure what your point is there.

        • I have 30 years experience but took a while to find a job a few years ago. Accepted a contract at $30ph, which I considered fair considering it didn't need my qualifications.

          Now we will have kids serving fast food almost on that rate. Minimum wages are a joke and makes Australia a joke competitively.

          • @SlickMick: They also serve to increase prices on basic goods and services, as the business are not going to eat the loss in profits. This increases inflation even further. Hurray!

          • @SlickMick: Bring back slavery!!

            • +1

              @Boogerman: Australia's minimum wage is far from slavery, $21 an hour to put something in a box. As above, all it does is increase the price of basic goods and services, lowering the buying power those on minimum wage have. Yet again, inflation.

              • -1

                @brendanm: Bloody poor people & immigrants! Such a drain on the nation!!

                • +2

                  @Boogerman: Well yes, if you look at the net monetary contribution, the people on the bottom end have a net negative contribution, the people up top have a very large net positive.

                  Unsure what immigrants have to do with anything, some immigrants are poor, some are rich, some are in between. Nonsensical addition really.

        • Also increase capital gains taxes on houses, and abolish middle class welfare.

  • +1

    You have to remember that investment properties have a huge entry and exit cost associated with them. Unlike shares/super you can't just switch/sell with relatively small or no cost. This doesn't make HODL right but explains why HODL for property is a different ballgame to HODL shares/super allocation.

    • +1

      True.
      If you can HODL through 20% drawdown (or if you are allowed to) you can save a few thousand on transactional cost.

    • +1

      Investment properties also pay regular dividends through rent collected. Some shares go years without paying any dividends at all.

  • +9

    Check this comment in 5 years when the prices will be up 20~30 percent from today. The prices may dip in the short term (18 to 24 months) but medium to long term will increase.

    • Yep, and remind me - did we have Central bank governor saying that he will do what is necessary to stave off inflation, at that time?

      Again you are turning this into a "crash - no crash". I am talking liquidity and moving out of the asset class that will clearly suffer from what is coming. Will you stomach the volatility?

      • +3

        Time in the market is better than timing the market.

        Property market is not stock exchange. There are big costs associated with buying and selling, on top of eligibility requirements from the lenders.

      • That is the job of the RBA in regard to monetary policy - to keep inflation in control. Nothing has changed in the last 25 years.,

        The only difference is due to several factors - not least government money printing (basically globally) in the recent past, and wars seriously affecting global energy and food supplies - that inflation has jumped well above the target range.

        The fact that a reserve bank comes out and states this only helps get the economy under control before the rates actually rise; as people read this and go all chicken little - helping to dampen the economy/growth/inflation.

        • Doesn't look like chicken little is buying it this time, see poll for more info ^

          • @reactor-au: Don't you worry, they will cut the demand.
            "Whatever it takes and, trust me, that will be enough" - the guy who said that had to deal with much more serious threat than a few horny investors. And our doctor firmly stepped on the same path.

        • The job of RBA for the past 10 years has been to support political ideas of ruling party and the "extend and pretend" the over-extended business cycle that has been long overdue.
          The RBA have come out only because if they did not - the pitchforks would.
          Pathetic, impotent and politically-driven puppet.

      • Stock market is falling too. Obviously I should sell.

        Just tell me when to buy back in - that's the tricky part, and the reason HODL will always outperform timing the market except for isolated incidents of getting lucky.

        • Profound thoughts on Buy and Hold.
          You probably need to sell this idea to Jim Simons whose Medallion fund has averaged 66% annually from 1988 until 2018 when market barely done 7%.
          Poor bugger probably does not have a clue that he has been "just lucky" for 30 years straight, eh?

          • @ALesha77: Yes, do what he's doing. I'm sure you'll get equivalent results

            • @SlickMick: Instead of making yet a personal attack (as you do in other replies) just say that you understand nothing about markets and timing of markets but you still post meaningless assertions and assumptions.

  • +2

    Your poll options don't cover all possibilities. I'm currently positively geared, although the next rate rise will change that. However I've been paying well above the required PI repayment so it's not going to hurt for a while yet, and then I can look at increasing rent in February if I need to (hopefully not).

    Acknowledge that property doesn't always "go up" however over time it does, just need to ride this out over the next 5 - 7 years.

    • Why wouldn't you consider that we might not see these levels of crazy price exuberance for a long time?
      Getting into a 20-40% drawdown for a few years is not a joke.

      The asset prices have enjoyed a number of tail-winds in the past 2 years that almost NEVER come together.
      Such convergence is unlikely to repeat EVER again.

      So, I am puzzled with those who say "I know that prices might fall but I do not want to sell" - what is the bloody point to be long an asset that you have low confidence in?

      • I don't expect to see these levels of "crazy price exuberance" again for many many years. On the other hand the property is not costing me anything to hold and there are few asset classes that are doing well at the moment. The anticipated drop in value only affects me if I have to sell. I'm curious to know your alternative strategy for your funds?

  • "rEnt mOneY iS DeAd MoNEy". LMAO fools.
    BRRR and flipping is dead. Cap gains is dead.
    Enslavement and indebtedness to the rat race & keeping up with the Jonses is here to stay.

    Property is an illiquid "investment" "asset" - (both in quotations as they are neither).

    By basic Accounting101 definition: Property = Liability. (A liability (generally speaking) is something that is owed to somebody else.)
    You owe the bank P + I. And you owe them 30+ yrs to ∞ yrs of your life lmao.

    This is the only "investment" that costs to buy, costs to sell, and costs to hold. Strata fees. Council fees. Maintenance & damage repairs. Insurance. Devaluation due to X. Bad location. Bad timing. Bad tenants. Can't control builders. Can't control land erosion, wind, water, fire. Can't control structural and engineering issues. List goes on and onnnnn.

    Stop calling property an "asset class". By definition, the only way it is an asset is if you own it outright and are generating rental income.
    Or you sell it at a profit (from your buy price + all sunk expenses). IF you can actually sell that is. Oh wait you've been listed on market for 45+ days? Illiquid cold stock.

    If cost of everything continues rising at this exponential rate, rent will be in arrears. Mortgages will default. Homes repossessed.
    And then guess what? The entire middle class will be obliterated.

    Very possible then, that AU will be the 1st domino to fall in property driven economic collapse aka GFC 2.0.
    Think about it. We have 5% downs. 2008 subprime mortgages anyone?
    Implosion in 3, 2……

    • +3

      wake up sheeple energy and basic misinformation (duh, mortgage loans mean property is no longer an asset, this is aCcoUnTinG 101 pEoPlE)

      stick to tiktok, 2/10

      "yo yo in the mickey d's food court here getting the la kid laroi meal deal he's my boy gonna get them NUGGGGGS and talk a bit about the property market like i'm warren buffet yeah warren buffet with the nugs and the rick and morty mulan dipping sauce 'member that? like comment and subscriiiiiiiiiiiiiii"

    • +3

      Of course it's an asset. What sort of lunacy is this.

      • Of course it's an asset.

        Only after the mortgage debts has been paid in full and the lender frees the "asset".

        Also an exotic painting is an asset … but it might be "difficult to sell" (needs a buyer).
        So is gold, wonderful but still needs a buyer to sell.

        Cash is King as it doesn't need a buyer to buy it.

        • Cash is King as it doesn't need a buyer to buy it.

          Not at all, inflation hits, your money is worth less, if hyperinflation, makes it worth nothing. Property always has an intrinsic value.

          • @brendanm:

            Property always has an intrinsic value.

            An intrinsic value referred to "cash", to money.

            Cash is King does NOT mean put the bank notes under the bed and rest … that will be utter stupid.

            With "cash" buy and sell constantly, pick best bargains, best opportunities as you, the King, has all the immediate cash (no begging to lenders) others desperate need.

            Then sell.
            Then profit.
            Rinse repeat.

            Never getting stuck with an "asset" that doesn't produce an immediate and constant profit.

      • If you are an OO, you are not producing any income from said "asset".
        Yes, there can be capital appreciation. But in the same token, there can also be devaluation and/or loss too.

        With IP, yes you get rental income.
        But does (rental income) > (expenses + mortgage value)? Not always. And if it does, it takes 30, 40, 50+ yrs (sometimes ∞ yrs since some don't ever fully pay it off before they die).

        So until that point in time, where you own the property outright, or sell it - it is arguably a liability.

        • It's not a liability. As I said above, house/land has intrinsic value. It is something people need. You can't simply make more of it.

          • -2

            @brendanm: I don't think just because it has intrinsic value and has scare supply, make it an asset.

            Asset by definition, must produce income or appreciation, must be owned/controlled entirely by the entity.
            Liability = Future obligation to pay.

            • +4

              @Brodo Faggins:

              Asset by definition, must produce income or appreciation

              That's not the definition of an asset.

              • @brendanm:

                That's not the definition of an asset.

                It is, good sir.

                From Investopedia:
                "An asset is a resource with economic value that an individual, corporation, or country owns or controls with the expectation that it will provide a future benefit."

                From AASB:

                Assets
                Definitions
                14 "Assets" are future economic benefits, controlled by the entity as a result of past transactions or other past events

                • +1

                  @Brodo Faggins: Investopedia is not a dictionary.

                  • +1

                    @brendanm: wtf…

                    What about the same definition from the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, published from AASB (Australian Accounting Standards Board)?

                    • -2

                      @Brodo Faggins: Again, not a dictionary.

                      Even if we assume it is, housing has met the definition of an asset, time and time again.

                      • @brendanm: wtf stop talking

                        • -2

                          @Brodo Faggins: What are you on about. Look at a graph of house/land prices over time. It goes up to the right. Therefore it has "future economic benefits".

                          • -1

                            @brendanm:

                            Look at a graph of house/land prices over time. It goes up to the right. Therefore it has "future economic benefits".

                            That's not in the accounting definition I have been referencing all this time.

                            Stop using your head as a dictionary.

                            • +2

                              @Brodo Faggins: Not sure how it's not. I can sell my house tomorrow and get back double what I paid for it. Is it an asset now?

                              Stop using your head as a dictionary

                              I'm using an actual dictionary as a dictionary.

                              asset
                              /ˈasɛt/

                              noun
                              a useful or valuable thing or person.
                              "quick reflexes were his chief assets"
                              an item of property owned by a person or company, regarded as having value and available to meet debts, commitments, or legacies.
                              "growth in net assets"

                              From investopedia:

                              Most properties hold current or potential monetary value and are therefore considered to be assets.

                              • @brendanm:

                                I can sell my house tomorrow and get back double what I paid for it. Is it an asset now?

                                So sounds like you own the house, congrats. But then you've missed my entire post. My post refers to mortgage on the property making it a liability, whereby one cannot "sell it tomorrow".

                                I'm using an actual dictionary as a dictionary.

                                Again you've missed my 1st post where I said "By basic Accounting101 definition". For which, later on, I've used the definition from Conceptual Framework by AASB that AU Accountants rely upon, as standard. "Future economic benefits" is an accounting term, defined in the CF by AASB.

                                From investopedia:
                                Most properties hold current or potential monetary value and are therefore considered to be assets.

                                Also from Investopedia:
                                "A monthly mortgage is a common example of a liability that a consumer pays for from current cash inflows. Each month, the mortgagor must have sufficient assets to pay their mortgage."

                                • @Brodo Faggins:

                                  So sounds like you own the house. Then you've missed my entire post. My post refers to mortgage on the property making it a liability, whereby one cannot "sell it tomorrow".

                                  I have a mortgage, it is far lower than the value of the property. I can sell it tomorrow. The bank gets the money i owe them, I get the rest, which is far more than I've paid.

                                  Every single definition of asset is incorrectly except the one that you want to interpret?

                                  • @brendanm:

                                    I have a mortgage, it is far lower than the value of the property. I can sell it tomorrow.

                                    So currently, it is a liability until that moment you sell, which then becomes an asset (whether it's a loss or gain).

                                    Every single definition of asset is incorrectly except the one that you want to interpret?

                                    I'm using the Conceptual Framework. So by your logic, Accountants don't need to abide by any Australian Standards or Frameworks? LMAO

                                    • @Brodo Faggins:

                                      So currently, it is a liability until that moment you sell, which then becomes an asset (whether it's a loss or gain).

                                      No, as it is worth more than I owe.

                                      I'm using the Conceptual Framework(aasb.gov.au). So by your logic, Accountants don't need to abide by any Australian Standards or Frameworks? LMAO

                                      Congrats. You're using a definition that allows people to class a property as a "liability" to take advantage of tax breaks. Truly amazing.

                                      • @brendanm:

                                        No, as it is worth more than I owe.

                                        You currently have a mortgage = liability. Once you sell, you will pay off your mortgage (liability). Free from liability, your property is now considered an asset, where you make (gain) on asset.

                                        Congrats. You're using a definition that allows people to class a property as a "liability" to take advantage of tax breaks. Truly amazing.

                                        LMAO stop talking. It's a Framework that all AU accountants must rely upon. They can't simply pick and choose what they want to use.

                                        • @Brodo Faggins:

                                          LMAO stop talking

                                          See the response from the accountant below, seems it is you who should "lmao stop talking".

                                          • @brendanm: LMAO says the bloke who said "use a dictionary" when I sourced the Conceptual Framework from AASB.

                                            • @Brodo Faggins: Yet you were still incorrect 😂

                                              • @brendanm: And I've acknowledge it below? I respect you totally through the forums, but what's your problem here? A man can't have a conversation and be wrong sometimes? You pick 1 word from an entire post and go on a tangent, and 0 contribution to any other messages on the post. You failed to provide any sources and logical reasoning after many numerous back and forths, other than things like:

                                                Again, not a dictionary.

                                                and

                                                Look at a graph of house/land prices over time. It goes up to the right.

                                                🤣

                                                Pretty funny you keep replying trying to prove something(?), and dragging this out to oblivion. If you want some recognition, here's some cash for winning the internet today 💵💵 Spend it wisely.

                                      • +3

                                        @brendanm: He’s wrong. The accounting definition doesn’t allow people to classify property as a liability to take advantage of tax breaks. That would be insane. Yes you can treat your mortgage as a liability, but at the same time you’d also have to declare your house as the asset.

                                    • +7

                                      @Brodo Faggins: I’m an Accountant who is well across the Accounting Standards and the conceptual framework and you’re wrong. A house is 100% treated as an asset. If you have a mortgage, the mortgage would be treated as a liability (or bank loan) which would partly offset the asset.

                                      Just because the house value can vary (go up or down), it doesn’t stop it from being an asset. An asset does not need to be sold before it is considered as an asset, just as long as there is “expectation of future economic benefit”. So assuming that it will be sold at some point is enough to meet the “expectation of future economic benefit” criteria. Also not paying rent because you live in the house (or receiving rent income in an investment property) is considered to be an economic benefit. Hence, it is an asset.

                                      The definition of an asset is a lot more extensive than you realise. Google up intangible assets.

                                      • -3

                                        @Laurana: Rightio understood and thank you for confirming. Happy to be wrong when info is provided like this.

                                        So to clarify where I got confused - the expectation of future economic benefit makes X an asset? Regardless of whether X is actually producing income or not; or sale of X has been made or not? That means for OO, by "saving" money from paying rent (even though there's a mortgage on it & very high upkeep costs), that is technically classified as "expectation of future economic benefit”, is that right?

                                        As another extreme example, say you own a run down 2001 lemon BMW with finance (liability) on it. Is it considered an asset, even though money (expense) is being poured into it to keep it alive (regardless of whether both the expense & liability outweigh the "asset" value)? And is it only considered an "asset" because you plan to eventually sell/scrap the car (regardless of selling at a loss)? What happens if you decide to run it to the ground and not sell it, this lemon is still an "asset"?

                                        When then, does an asset become a liability; and vice versa, a liability become an asset? My understanding was that an asset = future economic benefit (net cash inflow); and liability = present obligation to pay. So if X is taking money away from you (net cash outflow), is that not a liability? Thanks

                                        • +2

                                          @Brodo Faggins: No worries, happy to help. To answer your questions in order:

                                          • Expectation may not be the exact word, but essentially yes. Regardless of whether the asset is currently producing income or not, it is still considered an asset if it meets the criteria (such as you having control of the asset, etc). The accounting standards note “An economic resource is a right that has the potential to produce economic benefits. For that potential to exist, it does not need to be certain, or even likely, that the right will produce economic benefits. It is only necessary
                                            that the right already exists and that, in at least one circumstance, it would produce for the entity economic benefits beyond those available to all other parties.”

                                          Yes, regardless of the high upkeep it’s still considered an asset. As it is still providing you a benefit and has the likelihood that you can sell it later on which will bring you more cash.

                                          • You have to think of it as… let’s say I own a house that’s worth $500k and my loan is $400k. In accounting terms I have a $500k asset and $400k liability. Therefore, my equity is $100k. Let’s say housing prices go down and my home is only worth $300k at the moment. This doesn’t suddenly mean that I don’t have an asset. It can still lead to me receiving cash or it’s value can increase later on. It remains an asset until it is sold or I get rid of it. It can have a very low value (like the lemon on your example) and essentially be negligible in your books (like a laptop that you have depreciated to $0) but until you sell it or dispose of it, it’s still an asset. I get your points, but just because you’re deciding to spend $10k on a $5k car doesn’t mean that the car isn’t worth $5k.

                                          An asset doesn’t really “become” a liability. If the value of the loan is greater than the house, then your equity (assets less liability) would be lower. If your liabilities are greater than your assets then that’s a huge red flag to change things or you may be insolvent. Perhaps another accountant can chime in an explain the concept in better or simpler terms, but I hope that was somewhat helpful.

                                          • @Laurana: Thanks so much for your efforts to confirm this further! :)

                                            potential to produce economic benefits. For that potential to exist, it does not need to be certain, or even likely, that the right will produce economic benefits. It is only necessary that the right already exists

                                            I see… wow another caveat lol
                                            So does that mean, the garbage in my backyard bin is technically an asset? Since I have control of it & I have the expectation to make trash sculpture to profit from?

                                            I get your points, but just because you’re deciding to spend $10k on a $5k car doesn’t mean that the car isn’t worth $5k.

                                            Makes sense now that you put it that way, thanks again!

                • +2

                  @Brodo Faggins:

                  provide a future benefit.

                  do you not think 'housing' to be a benefit? An OO property is clearly an 'asset' and it provides both current and future benefits.

                  • -1

                    @SBOB:

                    … 'housing' to be a benefit? … current and future benefits.

                    Again not the accounting definition I'm referring to. You can find the accounting definition of "future economic benefits" here.

                    Any other contributions to my 1st post or?

                  • @SBOB: Sorry, you've made the terrible mistake of using the normally accepted version of an asset, and not the extremely narrow definition only used by accountants to take advantage of tax loopholes.

                    • -1

                      @brendanm: My initial post was about the accounting definition of asset and liability anyway. Sorry you both missed that part and decided to go down this path.

                      • @Brodo Faggins: You must be some sort of lunatic. Your initial post was some illogical rant about how renting is good and owning is bad. My mortgage is half what rent would be. On top of that have made a shitload of capital gains.

                        So we have:
                        Making money every week by being cheaper than rent
                        Increase in value over time

                        If that's not an asset, I don't know what is.

                        • @brendanm:

                          how renting is good and owning is bad.

                          Never said "renting is good vs owning". This is like the 3rd time in this post alone you've misinterpreted or used your own assumptions. Do what you want but don't call me looney for your inability to read word for word what I wrote.

                          What I said in initial post is that BRRR and flipping is dead. There's so many variables one can't control to comfortably consider this an "investment" asset anymore. Investing in property, right now, in this climate, is skating on thin ice. Maybe, yes it was a good investment vehicle in your generation, when the investment was made many years/decades ago, but definitely not now. Now, mortgages are rorting everyday Aussies, on top of everything else happening.

                          Here's 90- 120- 150-days mortgage arrears at 2019 from RBA. That's 3-5 months not paying mortgage repayment. Do you think 3yrs on this has gone back down? I don't think so.

                          • @Brodo Faggins:

                            "rEnt mOneY iS DeAd MoNEy". LMAO fools.

                            And

                            Enslavement and indebtedness to the rat race & keeping up with the Jonses is here to stay.

                            And

                            Property = Liability

                            And

                            Stop calling property an "asset class". By definition, the only way it is an asset is if you own it outright and are generating rental income.

                            Simply wrong on so many levels.

                            Here's 90- 120- 150-days mortgage arrears(rba.gov.au) at 2019 from RBA.

                            1.5% of people making poor choices or having a change in circumstance, does not mean that property is not an asset, and does not mean that buying is a bad thing for the other 98.5% of people.

                            • @brendanm: There you go again avoiding the meat from the post.

                              What I said in initial post is that BRRR and flipping is dead. There's so many variables one can't control to comfortably consider this an "investment" asset anymore. Investing in property, right now, in this climate, is skating on thin ice. Maybe, yes it was a good investment vehicle in your generation, when the investment was made many years/decades ago, but definitely not now. Now, mortgages are rorting everyday Aussies, on top of everything else happening.

                              Do you agree or? What your thoughts?? Anything to add???
                              No. Hence the "stop talking" from me.

                              • @Brodo Faggins: You were just flat out wrong, proven by an accountant, it is you who should stop talking.

                          • +1

                            @Brodo Faggins: If mortgage rates are less than the real rate of inflation- and they still are - it's the real estate investors making bank at the moment, while the self educated economists who invest in bitcoin are being hosed.

                            With experience you will learn the truth of "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent".

                            • @greatlamp:

                              mortgage rates are less than the real rate of inflation- and they still are

                              I definitely agree with this.

                              real estate investors making bank at the moment

                              But with this, pick any market and they do look like pre-GFC type cliff dive. People lose more than jobs in a global recssion. All it takes is 1 large company anywhere in the world to go under.

                              market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent

                              Wise words 🙏

                      • +1

                        @Brodo Faggins: This message thread is becoming embarrassing for you, take a breath and you might learn something.

      • If you are buying on leverage you have an asset and a liability and you better not to mix both in one term.
        Your liability is fixed and you are on hook for that fixed amount.
        Your asset fluctuates in value and is never fixed.

        So, what is defined with certainty in this scenario - liability or asset?

    • +1

      I appreciate the positive “she’ll be right” Aussie attitude but a lot of people don’t realise the severity of the situation.

      I’m still a skeptic of this rate rising and quantitative tightening. I think the rhetoric and action is just enough to affect change without really changing the original strategy. It will weed out the weakest links. I wouldn’t be surprised if we are negative rates in 3-5 years.

      Personally, I’ve studied the market extensively and (like many) I’m not interested in playing the property game.

      • Spot on. I've been consumed these days, looking at markets, charts and stats all around the globe, and it's just screaming at me.

        The "she'll be right" / turn a blind eye / denial behaviour that is going around is phenomenal. Nobody wants to take responsibility, or take leadership.

        I wasn't old enough to thoroughly understand/experience & be in the markets during the 2000 subprime mortgage in full throttle, but this feels much much worse. A full blown AU recession was saved when China bailed us out as allies. Now it's a different story. And we're way overdue. Decades of kicking the can down the road, has only led to a mountain of cans down the road.

        • The rules of the game will change, just need to be in a position to act on opportunity. Fortunes can be made in times like these.

Login or Join to leave a comment