What are you even talking about? I try to debate and you either...

  1. 1,995 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 27
    What are you even talking about?
    I try to debate and you either ignore what I say or change the topic.

    We are talking hypothetically about whether risk is higher before property crashes or after.
    I am merely saying that it is not correct to say across the board that it is lower after a 20% crash.
    I pointed out that risk now in Perth is lower than before the decline started. Therefore agreeing with you on 1 specific location.

    As I pointed out though, it depends on other variables. Impossible to say conclusively one way or the other.

    So for Sydney, if property tanks 20%.
    At the point it has reached a 20% fall.
    I would imagine the economy is up the creek and unemployment has increased dramatically
    So comparing lending $840k to someone in that scenario versus lending $1m to someone today, whilst the economy is strong and unemployment is very low. I would say the higher risk is on the $840k.

    And again, you can't judge the risk on a loan in hindsight. Only at the time of making the loan.
    Of course if you look back in time you can say the risk may have been higher before prices dropped, but that is not very helpful for judging risk on that particular loan now is it....???
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.