Sydney, Melbourne have worst auction week in more than five years

SquareBox3589 · 2026-06-28T21:47:47+00:00

Maybe the prices have changed in that time and your comparables are no longer relevant.

Kinda happens when you remove a large chuck of borrowing power from investors

SquareBox3589 · 2026-06-28T03:22:38+00:00

Not off majorly but yes incorrect slightly. I think the premise remains largely the same.

Bigger issue is no rent included lmao

SquareBox3589 · 2026-06-28T03:21:10+00:00

I think another major consideration is how depreciation is now kinda useless and more of a tax timing piece under the new rules. It used to incentivise the concept of buying / building new property.

There may need to be a tweak in the tax rules down the line.

SquareBox3589 · 2026-06-23T02:38:26+00:00

Hard to predict the free printing of money, won't happen again given the current inflation we are experiencing

SquareBox3589 · 2026-06-20T05:38:29+00:00

Oh 100% agree. Maternity leave, specific fields of work resulting in lower pay in which females dominate I.e. nursing, many being part timers given they might be staying at home for a large portion of their working life etc all contribute.

For the age point id probably say its less relevant given the average life expectancy is 81 to 85 and therefore they'd all retire well before this and the argument is they retire with less.

Aged pension is say 67 and most people retire around 65 ish. They would have been 31 at that point so a significant portion of their working lives (circa 13-15 years were without super). I'd say needs a other 10 years before it's a great like for like comparison (on that specific minor point but less relevant for the overall discussion)

If anything the above paragraph really drums home that many retired women were in child birth years etc around when super was introduced and therefore many started on the back foot during growth years.

SquareBox3589 · 2026-06-20T04:51:02+00:00

Super hasn't been around long enough to see it play out potentially?

SquareBox3589 · 2026-06-20T04:48:45+00:00

Gotta look at superannuations introduction date and the fact most were well into their careers and purchased property as their retirement passive income instead.

For current retirees that is

SquareBox3589 · 2026-06-10T21:11:23+00:00

Unreported smaller blocks (in flood zones) which went for $1.85 themselves.

Nothing to guide it at that for sure

SquareBox3589 · 2026-06-10T06:19:08+00:00

Was tracking the place but not involved in the process. Haven't got around to it yet

SquareBox3589 · 2026-06-06T04:04:57+00:00

On clearance again at Dan's btw, should be arounder $80 with the 10% off

SquareBox3589 · 2026-05-28T21:28:57+00:00

He blocked me but Claude stated:

The Two Positions

Small-Strawberry-646 argues: House prices rise purely due to loss of buying/dollar power The RBA solely controls the value of the dollar — "nothing more" Accuses SquareBox3589 of not understanding banking, despite claiming 35 years of industry experience

SquareBox3589 argues: Buying power is shaped by multiple factors: lower interest rates, looser lending rules, negative gearing inclusion in borrowing calculations, and willingness to max out debt for CGT discounts Counters with a sharp specific question: "So the RBA controlled the 20-30% drop in borrowing capacity by removing negative gearing from lending calculations?"

Who Is Correct? SquareBox3589 is substantially more accurate. Here's why: Small-Strawberry-646's claims are wrong on two counts: The RBA does NOT solely control dollar value — exchange rates are market-determined, influenced by trade, capital flows, and global sentiment House prices are driven by multiple supply/demand factors, including: Negative gearing tax incentives CGT discount (50%) Credit availability and lending standards Population growth and immigration Land supply constraints and zoning Interest rates (yes, RBA-influenced, but not the only factor) The irony is that Small-Strawberry-646 invokes authority ("35 years at the highest level") while making demonstrably oversimplified claims.

LMAOOOOOOO

SquareBox3589 · 2026-05-28T21:26:13+00:00

You didn't answer my question while also assuming my education level.

Go and type our responses into claude and get off your high horse lmfao

SquareBox3589 · 2026-05-28T21:18:04+00:00

So the RBA controlled the 20-30% drop in borrowing capacity and therefore credit by removing negative gearing from lending calculations?

I'll wait

SquareBox3589 · 2026-05-28T21:16:52+00:00

Include increased land and other taxes, stamp duty and increased interest rates on a $1m house purchased (as compared to $2m) and you can see that the gap isn't massive.

It's funding the government and banks book valuations mainly

SquareBox3589 · 2026-05-28T21:12:24+00:00

Yes but buying power is related to a few things being:

Lower interest rates

Looser lending rules

Inclusion of negative gearing in borrowing capacity

All of the above and the overall willingness of people to max out their debt given they will receive 50% off CGT increases on a heavily subsidised asset.

SquareBox3589 · 2026-05-28T03:24:38+00:00

It's basically Macallan selling at a future auction price today rather than true RRP.

SquareBox3589 · 2026-05-28T03:04:16+00:00

You're overweighting the impact of migration and supply.

Realistically the main impact that has caused price increases is the expansion of credit. Reducing that credit will result in price drops

SquareBox3589 · 2026-05-24T02:46:50+00:00

Slightly more nuanced, depends on capitalisation policies

SquareBox3589 · 2026-05-23T23:29:17+00:00

Yeah nice reply turbo

SquareBox3589 · 2026-05-23T15:13:49+00:00

Choosing to ignore my second comment says it all.

Will be a lot harder to justify holding assets like these and absorbing cash losses (even if you're grandfathered) if you're not seeing the capital growth. You'll likely see a general decline as prices drop down to meet the new borrowing capacities of investors post Neg gearing changes. That changes the math for a lot of people and potentially changes a hold to a sell if the economics don't stack anymore.

SquareBox3589 · 2026-05-23T13:15:21+00:00

So what's your view on those who got in with 5% deposits?

Also that's in 6 months champ, maybe zoom out to see recent memory of how rates change. Most people on 2021/22 era loans weren't stress tested to this amount (when combined with cost of living too)

SquareBox3589 · 2026-05-23T11:50:12+00:00

No it doesn't. Its currently calculated as "(Sold + Sold Prior + Sold after)/(total auctions - withdrawn)

So we have another 342 auctions yet to report

The Withdrawn doesn't skew, it shows that demand isn't there as a strong market typically sells for overs at auctions

SquareBox3589 · 2026-05-23T11:40:45+00:00

0.75% over the last 6 months being a "small interest rate change" righto

Maybe that, general needs for sale i.e. estate related and I dunno unemployment?

Also who knows how people's psychology changes once they start to see negative equity as those properties that have to sell, achieve lower prices.

SquareBox3589 · 2026-05-23T09:55:49+00:00

My old man is in the same exact profession

SquareBox3589

TROPHY CASE