Join our investing community

Terry Ryder 2009 property report

Discussion in 'Real Estate' started by Jacque, 24th Feb, 2009.

  1. Jacque

    Jacque Team InvestEd

    Joined:
    16th Jun, 2005
    Posts:
    1,885
    Location:
    Sydney
    I haven't read it myself yet but for those of you who perhaps have more time than me at the moment.... happy reading :)
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Chris C

    Chris C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    2nd Apr, 2008
    Posts:
    1,327
    Location:
    Brisbane, QLD
    I read the first 4 pages then skimmed the rest. Too much fluff for my liking, not enough facts and information. He is playing way too much on people's emotions and dodging facts and useful information, but that's just my two cents.

    Main point of the article (I wouldn't call it a report), high end of town is going to struggle a lot, low end should hold value. It's not the worst RE opinion I have seen out there.

    Of course I agree on the breakdown of class, being that the high end of town will continue to struggle in the short term, but the low end of town will also probably struggle in the longer term as we start moving into harder times. Though I expect Ruddy will continue the FHOG which should marginally help the low end market.

    That said I found the report for the most part as written by someone, who means well, but at the end of the day is very narrow in his assessment (sounds like a real estate agent) and is interpreting the real estate world through very tinted glasses, which bias his opinion too much. He made remarks such as this:

    Oversupply is about the only thing the US has that we don't, it's a big factor no doubt, but the rest of his points are rubbish or erroneous, and don't help his case.

    Once again he only highlights his ignorance of history, banking, governments and economics to anyone with decent grip of reality.

    Low unemployment and the housing shortage are great features of the Australian economy, no argument here. However the US also had low unemployment two years ago and still has good population growth so this definitely doesn't differentiate Australian property for the US.

    Then he goes on make comments about our banks and government. Let's be honest, governments don't solve these crisises, markets do, and even if they affected them I think Ruddy's 42 billion barely rates a mentioned compared to the trillions the US has pumped into their system! Then there is the issue of banks... the US banks are boned because of property declines, Australian property has yet to decline significantly, but that is not to say it won't, but if it does the nit is my opinion that Australian banks will be a lot more exposed than US banks.

    Well mainstream journalism is bad at the best of times, I'll give him that, but I can appreciate the reason behind not letting individuals in the RE industry give projections, it's the same reason why we don't let the tobacco companies do the health tests on cigarettes - because they have a vested interest to lie.
     
  3. Billv

    Billv Getting there

    Joined:
    15th Jul, 2007
    Posts:
    1,796
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW
    Jacque

    Thanks, IMO it's a well balanced article and worth reading.

    It didn't tell me much I didn't know but it did give me an idea of what other regions are doing in the current climate.

    cheers
     
  4. Saskatoon

    Saskatoon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th Oct, 2005
    Posts:
    67
    Location:
    Aldgate, SA
    Last edited by a moderator: 26th Feb, 2009
  5. Chris C

    Chris C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    2nd Apr, 2008
    Posts:
    1,327
    Location:
    Brisbane, QLD
    I never implied he was, just that he was writing with too much emotion, not enough facts, and from a narrow perspective.

    That said, I presently hold the position that it's has been quite easy to claim to be a guru by making money in property, shares, commodities, etc over the past 2 or 3 decades as the rising tide of credit has been lifting all portfolios, but the real gurus will shine over the next 5 - 10 years as the entire dynamic of the investment markets change (at least that is what I see happening). The real gurus will be the ones that have made money over the past 2 or 3 decades and will continue to make money over the next 5 - 10 years.

    Of course this isn't a widely held position. I just get the impression that Terry, like many "successful" gurus of old, is attempting to apply old models to new investment environments, and it won't work. Of course the true gurus who have true understanding of the markets will adapt their method for the changing environments, while the pretenders who has just been using recent trends, events and rising credit levels as their guidance will be weeded out.

    No I haven't, but unfortunately my reading list doesn't have any scope to expand until at least 2010, I just have way too many books to read and not enough time at this stage. Though that said, if he writes his books like he wrote that report (please let me know if he doesn't) then I wouldn't really be that interested in reading them. I'm not looking to be emotionally convinced of anything, I only look to be informed and gain deeper understanding on topics.


    Which is exactly why they are unreliable - they never let the news get in the way of a good story.

    :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 26th Feb, 2009
  6. bubblebobble

    bubblebobble Member

    Joined:
    30th Nov, 2008
    Posts:
    9
    Location:
    Perth
    I agree with Chris. I thought it was a fairly shallow article that didn't add anything that isn't already common knowledge. He seems miffed that journalists don't go to supposed RE gurus but I have found that they do go predominantly to vested interests, mainly bank economists and people involved in RE such as agents and developers. These people always talk up the market. He has also quoted bank economists in past reports when it suited him.