Share
1,558 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 28
clock Created with Sketch.
09/10/18
13:55
Share
Originally posted by Barg
↑
Thanks Keffola
Yes, your right. My experience was between 10% to 40% falls in the worst case. I guess that's why I found the average of Corelogics charts questionable - for Melbourne, at least. Still do. Queensland was even worse (had an agency there too, during that period). You have to keep in mind that figures from that period (91-ish and before) were not collated on any computer database, and for Corlogic to have derived those averages it would have to of been downloaded from hard copy. A monumental task, which would have required a team of data-entry people years to accomplish at unimaginable cost. So I suggest that they may have taken limited examples to derive those averages. Working at the coal-face I saw high unemployment (11% from memory) and extreme hardship, with mortgagee sales in abundance. And it all happened very fast; no one saw it coming, and few had time to prepare. Could it happen again? - of coarse. But I don't see it yet. To repeat the same, or similar conditions, interest rates would have to increase by 2/3% and unemployment double. The one lesson I learnt from the late 70s crash was to always expect the unexpected and never put yourself in the position of overleverage. The economic world has always been a fragile place, and always will be.
Expand
It would be interesting to see where they derived their data from. Given Corelogic's business is all about collating data though, it doesn't seem THAT out of the ordinary for them to put in some legwork to obtain the numbers.
Concede though that there is the possibility of errors though without actually knowing their methodology.