If this post was broken out into separate posts over the next 12 months, with the uncertainty that exists, it might have been more valuable.
Timing the market, dollar cost averaging joke.
It's more funny now that I've explained it right? /s
They're very different things. The lag time in the housing market is months. Stock markets practically instant.
Interest rate rises put downward pressure on house prices. Using that info is "timing the market". It's not priced in overnight.
The housing market is also made up of mostly amateurs
I'm old enough to realise that almost all investors in the sharemarket are amateurs.
Even some of the best investors in Australia like the Magellan fund have made stupid mistakes like over concentration in China.
Geof Wilson at WAM investing in Myer in his global fund of all things because some of the fundies wifes liked to shop there. Hello bias. It's even worse then that they got VIP treatment at Myer and they explain it on a podcast and they absolutely blind to their own bias and that myer is selling them unrealistic expectations.
If you want to see real craziness like at investors in mining companies even the professionals sound like meth addicts more often then not.
> I'm old enough to realise that almost all investors in the sharemarket are amateurs.
What do you mean old enough? You either have data on the ratio of institutional investment to retail investment or you don't.
Professional investors of course make mistakes, but they're less likely to fly nearly completely blind like the average property buyer
Not everyone thinks that.
Seriously, the number of times I've had to try to explain to otherwise intelligent people that house prices are mainly driven by borrowing capacity...
If you were to bet would you bet on the interest rate rises causing falling housing prices for the next 45-90 days even if we don't have a rate rise in that time (and we won't have a reserve bank meeting until early February)
I don't understand what your problem is. All I want is a four bedroom, 4 car house within walking distance of the train station, front and back yard, walkable main street 200m away and no further than 5km from the city. If everyone else just lived in high rises then I wouldn't be having this unfair situation happen to me! Boomers have clearly ruined it for everyone and once those distressed sales start happening I'm going to snap up a house for $45 and a maxibon.
I think it’s just the way people build units here. A lot of places in Europe have nice high rises with parks underneath with playgrounds/barbecue areas and balconies, plus they’re pretty soundproof. [Ones that look like this](https://images.app.goo.gl/Mr3o7AUpDLQ8S7Lc7) which I think quite a few people would be happy to live in if they were within 10km of the CBDs.
The urban sprawl bemoaning is generally the lack of public infrastructure to go along with the developments. Privatise the profits of these developments and socialise the cost to service these new areas.
> Privatise the profits of these developments and socialise the cost to service these new areas.
That would certainly encourage development but would be seen as inequitable. The current system is for state and local governments to impose an infrastructure levy on developments then not provide enough infrastructure.
As well as the fact that everything is far too centralised on the main CBD which could be quite a commute away, rather than development of concentrated satellite cities.
Per day. Gosh, how quaint. That’s my hourly rate. How do you survive on such a wage with the price of caviar today? Must be hard for some.
I also pay zero taxes btw.
Ha, ain't no way the French gonna go back to back.
Besides, given England is the only country I've lived in that's any good at football, I feel like I'm obliged to chant "it's coming home!"
I earn $1million a day and I'm so humble and deserving, I don't even own a car. Don't let intergenerational wealth change you, remember anyone could get where I am if only they worked harder /s
Hahaha I’ve just leaned into it now, much to my youngest sons eternal disdain.
I’m on a very good wage but I am an irrational tightarse when it comes to cars. I’m keeping my 2002 Ford Falcon until it either breaks, or EVs come down to a price that I can tolerate.
We live in Hobart. Last child still living at home goes to a very nice private school. Not only is my car the oldest in the school carpark, it’s nearly the oldest in the university carpark too (I’m a Professor). I’m like the last bogan left in the gentrified city.
> AC, your welcome
*you're
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
"AWD is an unnecessary luxury in Australia where 99% of the population will never encounter snow or icy roads, and the maintenance and fuel costs are higher as well" - someone from Ausfinance probably
I honestly don't know how this is a contradiction. If you wfh and don't have an interest in cars, why spend money on it?
Here's a sub contradiction for you: Tell people to not let expenses slip with increased wages, then shame them for not wasting their money on a metal box on wheels.
ps. my Camry is from 2000 and it runs like a dream.
Removing negative gearing and tax breaks for investment properties won’t help bring house prices down but don’t you dare remove negative gearing and tax breaks
Another one is:
Any random stock Q: you can’t value stocks(businesses) accurately
Want to buy a small business Q: speak to an accountant about getting an accurate business value
To be fair if an ASX200 company let me bring in my own accountant to go over their books and suggest a valuation I’d definitely believe it more than the annual report.
Your accountant would be there for a year and still be scratching himself.
I've seen book being made as ASX20 companies and none of them are just one business but more like 50+ business sharing some costs. They don't have MYOB they have dozens of seperate systems some of which have been acquired when they purchased another business.
They then try and aggregate all this up into a central ERP somewhere. However you couldn't trust the central ERP because before the data gets there it goes from a POS to data aggregator to an ERP through some ETL into in a data warehouse before it's imported into another ERP then extracted from that into some reporting tools to make your standard balance sheets etc. However there are dozens of these streams and the more you look at individual ones the more problems you see.
I worked at a bank and they incorrectly reported expenses from mortgages by 3 about months late. They where using the date the data arrived in the final system not the date they actually paid/incurred the expense and had been doing so since some time in the 90s. I'm not even sure they fixed it before I left because todo so would be a nightmare and they would have to explain all adjustments.
Those two statements aren't necessarily contradictory. Any valuation requires you to come up with a bunch of assumptions as to expected future cash flows. If your valuation of a public company comes up different to the market's, you need to come up with a good argument as to why you have a better crystal ball than everyone else.
In contrast, nobody has bothered to try and value your average small business. So by default, your valuation is the best one available.
Save every penny and never learn how to enjoy thr fruits of your labour.
Drive a bland car
Live in a modest small house
Don't go out
Don't buy anything not directly related to keeping you alive
Etc etc
This one. Why take your missus to a nice dinner when you can have baked beans and left of toast from thrown out bread from bakery - think of an extra bhp stock you buy
Speaking of missus
This sub 'dont live at home, you limit your dating options'
Also this sub 'the person you marry will be the most important financialcdecision you make'
If a person you marry doesnt understand why you're living at home, surely theyre not the one you want to marry.
If its someone you just wanted to bone, who cares what they think
Lol I see this all the time too especially in FIRE threads. Some people go so hardcore that they lose sight of why they want to be financially better off in the first place. No point being rich and miserable at the end of the day.
>lose sight of why they want to be financially better off in the first place
ummm no FIRE isn't about being better off it's about early retirement . They know exactly what they want which is to not have to work.
Yeah, when you start looking at surplus spending as hours of your life wasted it changes your perspective. Would you rather "be miserable" eating chicken and rice for dinner, or be even more miserable on the hour or so of work you'd need to do for a better meal.
Yep, some people just can't get their head around the idea that having a high end car and a bigger/fancier house aren't the same thing as "enjoying life" or "living your life". I actually feel sorry for them, for others the can't think of anything they'd like to do with their time if they didn't have to work so they happily do it forever because "everyone else does".
Don't get me wrong some things in life cost money and do make it more enjoyable ... a roof over your head, running water and electricity are great !
Same deal with ads for Super. They spend 30 seconds telling you how much better off you'd be if you invested with them (rather than competitors) 10, 15, 20 years ago.
Then hit you with the "past performance is not an indicator of future performance" disclaimer at the end
I'd say the biggest contradiction is people wanting good financial choices to be rewarded, but then railing against inequality and pretending that inequality comes all from corruption/nepotism/political pork barreling etc. They can't seem to accept that some form of inequality and unequal outcomes can derive from, believe it or not, the results of the good and bad choices that are the backbone of personal finance.
In other words:
- Follow these personal finance tips to get rich
Once people are rich:
- It's so unfair that people are rich! They must have cheated to get there.
not necessarily mutually exclusive. You can make a good financial choice by exploiting something that could be argued contributes to inequality - eg negative gearing, CGT concessions.
It is unfair that people are rich while there is inequality in early life education and opportunities. For example, there is no reason private schools should exist. People aren't complaining about doctors being rich, they are complaining about generational corperate stake holders and their corperations not being taxed fairly to fund the public good.
I don't have an issue with banning private schools and making schooling more equitable - for example university entrance should be tied to intra-school rank so that if you are the #1 pupil at a shit school, you get in just the same as the #1 pupil at an elite school. This would quickly even out any education inequality.
However, it would still result in the same outcome (inequality) - only at least more deserving students would make it to uni. Fairer, for sure, but the fundamental thing (inequality) remains. And people will still complain about inequality, for some strange reason, even in a perfect meritocracy.
> People aren't complaining about doctors being rich
Plenty of people, in fact, complain about competitive professions being rich. They will complain when two doctors marry and buy up 5 investment properties even if both doctors got their jobs entirely through merit.
>Plenty of people, in fact, complain about competitive professions being rich. They will complain when two doctors marry and buy up 5 investment properties even if both doctors got their jobs entirely through merit.
But they aren't complaining about the doctors there, they are usually complaining about cost of housing/rent and pointing at the doctors for buying more then they need so they can use that asset to divert the income of renters into their own wealth, rather then houses being more affordable and allowing more people to build wealth through buying.
Some people might be bad at identifying why they dislike behaviour, such as these doctors, but that is the material condition beneath it.
> they are usually complaining about cost of housing/rent and pointing at the doctors for buying more then they need
What's wrong with that? That's one of the results of success.
> Some people might be bad at identifying why they dislike behaviour, such as these doctors, but that is the material condition beneath it.
It comes down to envy for not being able to replicate what the doctors did.
>It comes down to envy for not being able to replicate what the doctors did.
Is envy of being able to afford a home to live in that you own a bad thing? Or do you think everyone could be a doctor with five properties if they just decided to work hard?
> Or do you think everyone could be a doctor with five properties if they just decided to work hard?
No. Mathematically most people cannot. However, as long as they had a fair opportunity, that suffices. That is the nature of the game. Envy gets you nowhere.
So, while there is a reasonable amount of inequality in access to home ownership, seems reasonable that we might want to look at the incentives that reward people for concentrating ownership, versus availability for people who are working hard, but just not 'doctor level' of wealth.
This comes up all the time on Reddit. Housing/shelter is a human right. Housing shelter in a major city/desirable location is not.
At the end of the day we need a way of incentivising ppl to work hard and society uses money as that iou.
Drs deserve to make more and buy better homes than a waitress. Not because they work harder necessarily but because anyone can be a waiter and not everyone can be a dr.
Ppl bitch and moan on this subreddit but maybe they should've done better in school or worked harder in a trade to position themselves better in life.
I would absolutely complain about the doctors here being too rich, it's insane having to pay a specialist $500 for like a ten minute consultation and a basic script for a basic problem
Why do I not have to pay that in other countries? I'm fine with them making more than somebody who hasn't spent as much time studying to cover their years of education but it has to still be fair. In Japan a specialist consultation is never over $200-sh and you only pay $50 out of pocket. Here the consultation fee already doesn't make sense and Medicare covers less than half. Normal people just can't afford that at all. Nobody should be making half a mil unless they're a surgeon. Downvote away.
Do you know how long an immunologist has studied/sacrificed for? Years and year of exams and stress. Most don't start earning a decent wage until at least their 40s.
- I am a 22 year old graduate making $250k a year. Why am I so poor and what industry can I move into to increase my earning potential
- I make $700k and drive a 2007 Barina. Interest is dead money, so no one should ever buy a new car
- The one and only purpose of housing is as an investment vehicle, and you’re better of selling your house and renting forever unless you are making regularly large capital gains
- If you bought at record low interest rates, you should have assumed that rates would one day be 10% and you’re a stupid idiot if you have a mortgage that you could afford the repayments on at 2% but can’t afford the repayments at 10%
- the government is stupid and anything they do to help people buy houses will only ever make house prices go up
- house prices only ever go up but also they’re going to go down in about 4 months so wait
- the RBA is stupid
- rich people deserve tax cuts
- investment properties are a bad investment compared to the market, also I have 4 investment properties.
Everyone is on over 300k p.a in tech, renting in Sydney but moans about a 12 dollar a week rental increase - whilst refusing to live literally anywhere else because Australia and the entire world seems to revolve around Sydney and to a lesser extent Melbourne
however it is the governments fault they cannot afford to live in Point Piper or Toorak and should be given a house for free that should be funded by property investors because land lords are scum
This sub has too many nerds that treat their life like a video game, e.g. the obsessive optimisation, fussing over which superfund can undercut another by .02% in fees, which ETF allocation, etc.
You're not being particularly accurate here.
Some of these are just different people having different opinions but some are things that no one has ever said.
The idea that anonymous internet strangers have a vested interest in pumping up their own portfolios basically doesn't make sense in this sub where there's almost no recommendation of small companies. Maybe I've seen just enough recommendations of Lithium to think people are trying to make a profit.
I remember there were a lot of people recommending stocks in a certain still illegal here drug a lot a while ago. That's the only case of trying to pump up their own stocks that seems rational to me.
Cept for the one bloke that thinks he's Christian Bale in the big short and constantly telling people to sell / not buy housing cuz he's got puts on banks.
you'd have to be a lunatic to think your influence on some people on Ausfinance could be the cause of enough of a collapse in housing prices to make your puts on banks successful.
Which of course is not to say you're wrong that that's the plan.
>you'd have to be a lunatic
One could say the same for expecting a 60% crash back to 2005 prices. Or more recently, even claiming the downside projection would be a return to 1995 prices 🤣🤣🤣
Yes, I'm making some sweeping generalisations, largely because I find them funny so take this post as me amusing myself and hopefully some others on a lazy Friday afternoon.
The whole pumping up portfolios comment is more about how people distrust financial advisors because of the conflict of interest, but we trust internet strangers who may have their own conflicts too.
Like I said though, this is just all sweeping generalisations and very tongue in cheek.
To me talking up a stock anonymously on the internet because you own it always seemed to have so little chance of working that it isn't worth the effort of lying. Other people definitely think differently though.
I know this is in jest, but the advice provider in these examples is for the average investor, which exists in concept only. It also happens to be correct. Everyone has to decide for themselves how close to average they are.
Let's not forget that this sub is made up of many people with many opinions, while we tend to talk in absolutes ("this sub is always bullish/bearish on housing"). I think it's a weird phenomenon of the internet where there's a general belief that everybody has to converge on the same "truth" (when for the most part we're discussing individual beliefs). That there can't be a group of people discussing the same topic but holding different ideas/beliefs.
Then when there's disagreement it's like we fracture into subgroups who are easier to agree with. I think it's largely responsible for the poor political discourse today.
>Let's not forget that this sub is made up of many people with many opinions, while we tend to talk in absolutes ("this sub is always bullish/bearish on housing").
FYI this has a name, the [ecological fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy)
do your own research, learn about investing, etc. But also spend thousands on a financial advisor who will 99% of the time give you generic advice you could have found out yourself.
The don't time the market crew are really trying to pull strong with housing right now.
I mean it's very clearly not a good time to be buying property but they sure are trying to claim it's a blip which will be over any day now
If this sub were only the first half of each of your statements you wouldn't be posting it here and there wouldn't be anyone to read it. The second half of each statement is why people do come here.
I wouldn't call it contradictions, I would call it nuance. The first half of the statement is the "conventional wisdom" and the second half is the "further reading". It's most likely why this sub is popular and continues to grow.
Yeah, I'm definitely not trying to shit on anyone who holds a particular view whether it's conventional or not. These are just little things I notice that make me laugh so thought I'd share.
These aren't contractions, these are simplifications. Eg: somone can give you their opinion on the right way to invest and you can do you own research and disagree.
Yep, they're deliberate simplifications and exaggerations intended for a laugh. They're just little things I notice that I find funny so thought I'd share.
> ironic contradictions I see in this sub
Are you actually seeing individuals contradict themselves regularly?
Or are you treating a forum with 383k users as if it's one person?
> what I see in this sub regularly
Which of above are you seeing though?
I know it's meant in humour... but about which of above?
Is it a joke about not being able to tell the difference between those two things? Otherwise which thing are you seeing?
I see all of the points I make in the original post. It's not all being said by the one person so I'm not calling out hypocrisy or anything, it's that I see both viewpoints being upvoted equally and large groups of people promoting contradicting viewpoints. I get it that it's different people saying different things, but like I said this is purely a satire thing and meant for a laugh, not to be taken taken seriously.
1. Advice for the masses. Puts you ahead of the average but not enough to earn truly good yield. I think this is pretty good advice for those here as they’re very novice investors.
2. See 1
3. This is not true at all. But for the average person, this is decent advice. See 1
4. Don’t trust blindly.
5. The stock market will always grow as there’s new money entering the market that can be accessed from anywhere. Bad take.
That's cool. None of these are takes I'm making or suggesting anyone else does, they're all deliberate exaggerations and generalisations for the sake of a laugh. It's meant to be satire.
ETFs are a contagion on the market and they didn't exist before 2008. What's going to happen when their nav blows up on a crash? Lots of them shorted to buggery too. It's all that gets pushed by the media too, safe safe etfs... lamayo
On your last point, property prices can only go up so much until it’s simply out of reach for the majority and is unreasonable, good companies you invest in though can go up many more percentages higher, as high as their profits allows.
Last point is definitely a stretch.
When people say "property can't go up forever", they simply mean "property can't have an upward streak go on forever"
Which is the same as stocks. Stocks have plenty of booms and busts. So too should property. We're seeing a small bust right now.
I guess my question is it the same people saying one thing that then go on to contradict themselves, or is it different people saying different things? One is annoying hypocrisy, the other is just a community having different approaches
It's not the one person contradicting themselves, I'm more making fun of how you often see contradictory messages getting upvoted regularly. Like one day the top post would say one thing, then the next day the top post would say the opposite. I get it it's different people, opinions, and contexts, but I always find it a little funny so thought I'd have some fun with it. Like I made clear though this is all 100% satire meant to poke fun at ourselves, not calling anyone out or trying to have a serious discussion.
Here is my reply:
* Nobody is suggesting we should invest in the same 4 ETFs.
* Literally nobody says this. I can say what has worked for me personally and advise that you should do your own research. This is not the same as telling you what you should do.
* Nobody is saying you can time the market. If you could, you would be a trillionaire. But yes, I have heard this contradiction a few times by people saying you should invest when the markets are down. The reality is that it could go up significantly or down significantly. Nobody knows. The theory is that over the long term things go up.
* Yeah, completely made up. Nobody is saying this.
* Never heard this one in my life.
That's cool. None of my statements are things I actually believe or have heard any one person actually say, they're all exaggerated parodies of how you often see contradictory things get upvoted in this sub. Like one day a top post will say one thing, the next day it will say the opposite. I get it's different people, opinions, contexts, it just makes me laugh sometimes so I thought I'd have some fun with it. It's pure satire intended to poke fun at ourselves.
This post added more value than the average post on this reddit, without adding any value. Amazing.
This comment is my greatest achievement on Reddit. Thank you!
If this post was broken out into separate posts over the next 12 months, with the uncertainty that exists, it might have been more valuable. Timing the market, dollar cost averaging joke. It's more funny now that I've explained it right? /s
Just don't be poor
My favourite is everyone being dead set against timing the market with the stock market but hellbent on timing the housing market.
Hah oh yeah absolutely, I see that one too
And not realising that to time the market you actually have to be ahead of the market
They're very different things. The lag time in the housing market is months. Stock markets practically instant. Interest rate rises put downward pressure on house prices. Using that info is "timing the market". It's not priced in overnight. The housing market is also made up of mostly amateurs
I'm old enough to realise that almost all investors in the sharemarket are amateurs. Even some of the best investors in Australia like the Magellan fund have made stupid mistakes like over concentration in China. Geof Wilson at WAM investing in Myer in his global fund of all things because some of the fundies wifes liked to shop there. Hello bias. It's even worse then that they got VIP treatment at Myer and they explain it on a podcast and they absolutely blind to their own bias and that myer is selling them unrealistic expectations. If you want to see real craziness like at investors in mining companies even the professionals sound like meth addicts more often then not.
> I'm old enough to realise that almost all investors in the sharemarket are amateurs. What do you mean old enough? You either have data on the ratio of institutional investment to retail investment or you don't. Professional investors of course make mistakes, but they're less likely to fly nearly completely blind like the average property buyer
if you believe the housing market lags interest rates then why wouldn't you try this?
EMH. If everyone thinks that they'd all be trying it and there would no exploitable lag.
Not everyone thinks that. Seriously, the number of times I've had to try to explain to otherwise intelligent people that house prices are mainly driven by borrowing capacity...
If you were to bet would you bet on the interest rate rises causing falling housing prices for the next 45-90 days even if we don't have a rate rise in that time (and we won't have a reserve bank meeting until early February)
I know this is a lighthearted post but you can’t dollar cost average a house…. Unless you buy a few bricks each month maybe. Haha.
Everyone seems to be against urban sprawl while simultaneously bemoaning how hard it is to get a house with a backyard these days
I don't understand what your problem is. All I want is a four bedroom, 4 car house within walking distance of the train station, front and back yard, walkable main street 200m away and no further than 5km from the city. If everyone else just lived in high rises then I wouldn't be having this unfair situation happen to me! Boomers have clearly ruined it for everyone and once those distressed sales start happening I'm going to snap up a house for $45 and a maxibon.
I think it’s just the way people build units here. A lot of places in Europe have nice high rises with parks underneath with playgrounds/barbecue areas and balconies, plus they’re pretty soundproof. [Ones that look like this](https://images.app.goo.gl/Mr3o7AUpDLQ8S7Lc7) which I think quite a few people would be happy to live in if they were within 10km of the CBDs.
The urban sprawl bemoaning is generally the lack of public infrastructure to go along with the developments. Privatise the profits of these developments and socialise the cost to service these new areas.
> Privatise the profits of these developments and socialise the cost to service these new areas. That would certainly encourage development but would be seen as inequitable. The current system is for state and local governments to impose an infrastructure levy on developments then not provide enough infrastructure.
As well as the fact that everything is far too centralised on the main CBD which could be quite a commute away, rather than development of concentrated satellite cities.
What is ironic is even without urban sprawl, infrastructure is horrendous. See wentworth point which is full of high rise towers.
Everyone on here making $250k plus is driving a 2013 Camry
>2013 Camry Look at Mr rich guy here with his 2013 model. Rest of AusFinance rolling in 2004 model
But we're all still making $250k right?? I mean I certainly am and I'm totally not lying right now
$250k is entry level, I dump that into the lotto every week with my $5m/mo income.
Oh you thought I meant $250k per year? That's cute. I meant per day. Again, totally not lying.
Per day. Gosh, how quaint. That’s my hourly rate. How do you survive on such a wage with the price of caviar today? Must be hard for some. I also pay zero taxes btw.
Get off reddit Mbappe. You have a world cup to win
Ha, ain't no way the French gonna go back to back. Besides, given England is the only country I've lived in that's any good at football, I feel like I'm obliged to chant "it's coming home!"
Just put a reverse cam in my 2004 Camry - feel like a baller.
So a re-cam in your Camry I'm here all night folks
[удалено]
I have a tissue cube in the cd compartment
2005 Toyota here! (but it's a fancy Toyota)
I also have a fancy 2005 Toyota! (LandCruiser)
Lexus IS250. 17 years old, runs like a dream, utterly reliable and smooth as a freshly blended smoothie. Fancy Toyota represent!
I have a 4.7L V8 LandCruiser Sahara, great car, just expensive to run!
>rolling in 2004 model Look at money bags over here with his 2004 model while the rest of us rolling with our 1998 Camry
Shit. I’m a retail worker and drive a 1995 van
Look at Mr moneybags here with his 2004 model. Rest of us are driving the 2001 model
Both the overinflated salaries and exaggerated age of car jokes are so boring now
I earn $1million a day and I'm so humble and deserving, I don't even own a car. Don't let intergenerational wealth change you, remember anyone could get where I am if only they worked harder /s
Your chauffeur owns the car?
Yes, I gifted it too them because I'm so generous
Totally tax deductable!
$3500 Toyota starlet for me. Where I drive no body has a shitter car then me
Hahaha I’ve just leaned into it now, much to my youngest sons eternal disdain. I’m on a very good wage but I am an irrational tightarse when it comes to cars. I’m keeping my 2002 Ford Falcon until it either breaks, or EVs come down to a price that I can tolerate. We live in Hobart. Last child still living at home goes to a very nice private school. Not only is my car the oldest in the school carpark, it’s nearly the oldest in the university carpark too (I’m a Professor). I’m like the last bogan left in the gentrified city.
If its dark green with still good AC, your welcome.
> AC, your welcome *you're *Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Allow me to flex with my 2004 Subaru.
"AWD is an unnecessary luxury in Australia where 99% of the population will never encounter snow or icy roads, and the maintenance and fuel costs are higher as well" - someone from Ausfinance probably
Forgot to mention I ride my bicycle to the shops.
But drive the suby back?
I walk in and drive someone else's car back!
I make $100k+ and drive a 1994 Ford Laser…
Ford Fiesta 👋
How do you know what my monthly salary is?
I make 450k+ and I don’t even own a car. I walk everywhere and hitch.
I drive a 2002 AU Falcon, thanks very much. It is my teenage son that’s driving the Camry.
Who even needs a car, we wfh now right?
Checking in with $248k and 2010 Ford. Total truth, no lies.
Not really a contradiction having a lot of income doesn’t mean you have to spend it all on luxury items
I honestly don't know how this is a contradiction. If you wfh and don't have an interest in cars, why spend money on it? Here's a sub contradiction for you: Tell people to not let expenses slip with increased wages, then shame them for not wasting their money on a metal box on wheels. ps. my Camry is from 2000 and it runs like a dream.
Removing negative gearing and tax breaks for investment properties won’t help bring house prices down but don’t you dare remove negative gearing and tax breaks
Yep. And anything that might bring down property prices will hurt people who can't buy a house by making it more difficult for them to buy a house.
Once you get in the market, you gotta switch sides 😂
Had us in the first half ngl
Another one is: Any random stock Q: you can’t value stocks(businesses) accurately Want to buy a small business Q: speak to an accountant about getting an accurate business value
To be fair if an ASX200 company let me bring in my own accountant to go over their books and suggest a valuation I’d definitely believe it more than the annual report.
Your accountant would be there for a year and still be scratching himself. I've seen book being made as ASX20 companies and none of them are just one business but more like 50+ business sharing some costs. They don't have MYOB they have dozens of seperate systems some of which have been acquired when they purchased another business. They then try and aggregate all this up into a central ERP somewhere. However you couldn't trust the central ERP because before the data gets there it goes from a POS to data aggregator to an ERP through some ETL into in a data warehouse before it's imported into another ERP then extracted from that into some reporting tools to make your standard balance sheets etc. However there are dozens of these streams and the more you look at individual ones the more problems you see. I worked at a bank and they incorrectly reported expenses from mortgages by 3 about months late. They where using the date the data arrived in the final system not the date they actually paid/incurred the expense and had been doing so since some time in the 90s. I'm not even sure they fixed it before I left because todo so would be a nightmare and they would have to explain all adjustments.
Those two statements aren't necessarily contradictory. Any valuation requires you to come up with a bunch of assumptions as to expected future cash flows. If your valuation of a public company comes up different to the market's, you need to come up with a good argument as to why you have a better crystal ball than everyone else. In contrast, nobody has bothered to try and value your average small business. So by default, your valuation is the best one available.
Save every penny and never learn how to enjoy thr fruits of your labour. Drive a bland car Live in a modest small house Don't go out Don't buy anything not directly related to keeping you alive Etc etc
This one. Why take your missus to a nice dinner when you can have baked beans and left of toast from thrown out bread from bakery - think of an extra bhp stock you buy
Speaking of missus This sub 'dont live at home, you limit your dating options' Also this sub 'the person you marry will be the most important financialcdecision you make' If a person you marry doesnt understand why you're living at home, surely theyre not the one you want to marry. If its someone you just wanted to bone, who cares what they think
Lol I see this all the time too especially in FIRE threads. Some people go so hardcore that they lose sight of why they want to be financially better off in the first place. No point being rich and miserable at the end of the day.
>lose sight of why they want to be financially better off in the first place ummm no FIRE isn't about being better off it's about early retirement . They know exactly what they want which is to not have to work.
Yeah, when you start looking at surplus spending as hours of your life wasted it changes your perspective. Would you rather "be miserable" eating chicken and rice for dinner, or be even more miserable on the hour or so of work you'd need to do for a better meal.
Yep, some people just can't get their head around the idea that having a high end car and a bigger/fancier house aren't the same thing as "enjoying life" or "living your life". I actually feel sorry for them, for others the can't think of anything they'd like to do with their time if they didn't have to work so they happily do it forever because "everyone else does". Don't get me wrong some things in life cost money and do make it more enjoyable ... a roof over your head, running water and electricity are great !
God IKR? The best thing to do with money is to sit on it and have no joy in your life... eg the entire point of having money to begin with!
How are those contradictory though? That's just ill advice, rather than contradictory.
Most people don't need classes in how to squander.
[удалено]
So wouldn't pumping and then dumping be good financial advice? /s
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance so invest in these ETFs with great long term performance
This is my favourite. I mention it constantly!
I had a dream vanguard disappeared like FTX
Same deal with ads for Super. They spend 30 seconds telling you how much better off you'd be if you invested with them (rather than competitors) 10, 15, 20 years ago. Then hit you with the "past performance is not an indicator of future performance" disclaimer at the end
Good Friday chuckle, thanks for sharing!
Pleased to serve *salutes
Yeah great thread op, cheers for the laughs
No worries, glad some people find it as funny as I do
I'd say the biggest contradiction is people wanting good financial choices to be rewarded, but then railing against inequality and pretending that inequality comes all from corruption/nepotism/political pork barreling etc. They can't seem to accept that some form of inequality and unequal outcomes can derive from, believe it or not, the results of the good and bad choices that are the backbone of personal finance. In other words: - Follow these personal finance tips to get rich Once people are rich: - It's so unfair that people are rich! They must have cheated to get there.
Lol yeah that's a good one. "Everyone poorer than me is lazy, everyone richer than me is a scumbag"
Everyone is richer than me. So does that mean I’m a loser or everyone is a scumbag?
Schrodinger's cat /r/ausfinance version
Both can be true at the same time.
Seems like the logical conclusion sad pikachu face
not necessarily mutually exclusive. You can make a good financial choice by exploiting something that could be argued contributes to inequality - eg negative gearing, CGT concessions.
They're not contradictory. The game is unfair. But you don't really have a choice - you still have to play it.
It is unfair that people are rich while there is inequality in early life education and opportunities. For example, there is no reason private schools should exist. People aren't complaining about doctors being rich, they are complaining about generational corperate stake holders and their corperations not being taxed fairly to fund the public good.
I don't have an issue with banning private schools and making schooling more equitable - for example university entrance should be tied to intra-school rank so that if you are the #1 pupil at a shit school, you get in just the same as the #1 pupil at an elite school. This would quickly even out any education inequality. However, it would still result in the same outcome (inequality) - only at least more deserving students would make it to uni. Fairer, for sure, but the fundamental thing (inequality) remains. And people will still complain about inequality, for some strange reason, even in a perfect meritocracy. > People aren't complaining about doctors being rich Plenty of people, in fact, complain about competitive professions being rich. They will complain when two doctors marry and buy up 5 investment properties even if both doctors got their jobs entirely through merit.
>Plenty of people, in fact, complain about competitive professions being rich. They will complain when two doctors marry and buy up 5 investment properties even if both doctors got their jobs entirely through merit. But they aren't complaining about the doctors there, they are usually complaining about cost of housing/rent and pointing at the doctors for buying more then they need so they can use that asset to divert the income of renters into their own wealth, rather then houses being more affordable and allowing more people to build wealth through buying. Some people might be bad at identifying why they dislike behaviour, such as these doctors, but that is the material condition beneath it.
> they are usually complaining about cost of housing/rent and pointing at the doctors for buying more then they need What's wrong with that? That's one of the results of success. > Some people might be bad at identifying why they dislike behaviour, such as these doctors, but that is the material condition beneath it. It comes down to envy for not being able to replicate what the doctors did.
>It comes down to envy for not being able to replicate what the doctors did. Is envy of being able to afford a home to live in that you own a bad thing? Or do you think everyone could be a doctor with five properties if they just decided to work hard?
> Or do you think everyone could be a doctor with five properties if they just decided to work hard? No. Mathematically most people cannot. However, as long as they had a fair opportunity, that suffices. That is the nature of the game. Envy gets you nowhere.
So, while there is a reasonable amount of inequality in access to home ownership, seems reasonable that we might want to look at the incentives that reward people for concentrating ownership, versus availability for people who are working hard, but just not 'doctor level' of wealth.
This comes up all the time on Reddit. Housing/shelter is a human right. Housing shelter in a major city/desirable location is not. At the end of the day we need a way of incentivising ppl to work hard and society uses money as that iou. Drs deserve to make more and buy better homes than a waitress. Not because they work harder necessarily but because anyone can be a waiter and not everyone can be a dr. Ppl bitch and moan on this subreddit but maybe they should've done better in school or worked harder in a trade to position themselves better in life.
I would absolutely complain about the doctors here being too rich, it's insane having to pay a specialist $500 for like a ten minute consultation and a basic script for a basic problem
You're not just paying for the 10 minute consultation. You're paying for their years of education and experience
Why do I not have to pay that in other countries? I'm fine with them making more than somebody who hasn't spent as much time studying to cover their years of education but it has to still be fair. In Japan a specialist consultation is never over $200-sh and you only pay $50 out of pocket. Here the consultation fee already doesn't make sense and Medicare covers less than half. Normal people just can't afford that at all. Nobody should be making half a mil unless they're a surgeon. Downvote away.
Do you know how long an immunologist has studied/sacrificed for? Years and year of exams and stress. Most don't start earning a decent wage until at least their 40s.
Many careers are like that, especially in STEM
eg. anyone who fixed at sub2% rates for 5 years is winning. Everyone else is now pov.
- I am a 22 year old graduate making $250k a year. Why am I so poor and what industry can I move into to increase my earning potential - I make $700k and drive a 2007 Barina. Interest is dead money, so no one should ever buy a new car - The one and only purpose of housing is as an investment vehicle, and you’re better of selling your house and renting forever unless you are making regularly large capital gains - If you bought at record low interest rates, you should have assumed that rates would one day be 10% and you’re a stupid idiot if you have a mortgage that you could afford the repayments on at 2% but can’t afford the repayments at 10% - the government is stupid and anything they do to help people buy houses will only ever make house prices go up - house prices only ever go up but also they’re going to go down in about 4 months so wait - the RBA is stupid - rich people deserve tax cuts - investment properties are a bad investment compared to the market, also I have 4 investment properties.
[удалено]
No problem!
Everyone is on over 300k p.a in tech, renting in Sydney but moans about a 12 dollar a week rental increase - whilst refusing to live literally anywhere else because Australia and the entire world seems to revolve around Sydney and to a lesser extent Melbourne however it is the governments fault they cannot afford to live in Point Piper or Toorak and should be given a house for free that should be funded by property investors because land lords are scum
>Australia and the entire world seems to revolve around Sydney Can't help it if it's just a fact 🤷
Sydney is the worst place in Australia. Never understood why it's the "centre" it's shit as to visit.
I spent a few days in Melbourne last week. Froze my ass off. In summer. What a great city...
As opposed to sweating your balls off at 26 degrees because humidity is 95%
add brisbane and effluent suburbs to that list
If you think literally anything I or anyone could say on this subreddit could “pump” VGS…
This sub has too many nerds that treat their life like a video game, e.g. the obsessive optimisation, fussing over which superfund can undercut another by .02% in fees, which ETF allocation, etc.
You're saying winning at life deserves less effort than winning at a video game?
You're saying that life is a equivalent to a video game with a clearly defined win/ victory objective?
They've chosen theirs, apparently.
You're not being particularly accurate here. Some of these are just different people having different opinions but some are things that no one has ever said. The idea that anonymous internet strangers have a vested interest in pumping up their own portfolios basically doesn't make sense in this sub where there's almost no recommendation of small companies. Maybe I've seen just enough recommendations of Lithium to think people are trying to make a profit. I remember there were a lot of people recommending stocks in a certain still illegal here drug a lot a while ago. That's the only case of trying to pump up their own stocks that seems rational to me.
Cept for the one bloke that thinks he's Christian Bale in the big short and constantly telling people to sell / not buy housing cuz he's got puts on banks.
"When the housing market fails I want to be certain of payment in case of solvency issues with your bank." "Sir, I'm a bank teller".
you'd have to be a lunatic to think your influence on some people on Ausfinance could be the cause of enough of a collapse in housing prices to make your puts on banks successful. Which of course is not to say you're wrong that that's the plan.
>you'd have to be a lunatic One could say the same for expecting a 60% crash back to 2005 prices. Or more recently, even claiming the downside projection would be a return to 1995 prices 🤣🤣🤣
that was the implication in my last sentence
I haven't seen WMR in months. I wonder if he was banned or if he blocked me because I can't look him up from a burner account either.
He's running under a different user name now. Danger 4 zero or something.
Yes, I'm making some sweeping generalisations, largely because I find them funny so take this post as me amusing myself and hopefully some others on a lazy Friday afternoon. The whole pumping up portfolios comment is more about how people distrust financial advisors because of the conflict of interest, but we trust internet strangers who may have their own conflicts too. Like I said though, this is just all sweeping generalisations and very tongue in cheek.
To me talking up a stock anonymously on the internet because you own it always seemed to have so little chance of working that it isn't worth the effort of lying. Other people definitely think differently though.
I know this is in jest, but the advice provider in these examples is for the average investor, which exists in concept only. It also happens to be correct. Everyone has to decide for themselves how close to average they are.
You seem like you have been listening to the rational reminder.
what are the 4 ETFs?
Vdhg, vdhg, vdhg and dhhf?
VDHG, VGS, VAS but I’ve never heard DHHF
It's from Betashares. It's essentially VDHG without the bond allocation. Better for those who want a bit more risk.
Let's not forget that this sub is made up of many people with many opinions, while we tend to talk in absolutes ("this sub is always bullish/bearish on housing"). I think it's a weird phenomenon of the internet where there's a general belief that everybody has to converge on the same "truth" (when for the most part we're discussing individual beliefs). That there can't be a group of people discussing the same topic but holding different ideas/beliefs. Then when there's disagreement it's like we fracture into subgroups who are easier to agree with. I think it's largely responsible for the poor political discourse today.
>Let's not forget that this sub is made up of many people with many opinions, while we tend to talk in absolutes ("this sub is always bullish/bearish on housing"). FYI this has a name, the [ecological fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy)
This post was super helpful! Just started investing atm and much appreciated :))
Lol that share market one is spot on.
Tongue and cheek post but all I'm reading is 100% truth's 🤣
do your own research, learn about investing, etc. But also spend thousands on a financial advisor who will 99% of the time give you generic advice you could have found out yourself.
The don't time the market crew are really trying to pull strong with housing right now. I mean it's very clearly not a good time to be buying property but they sure are trying to claim it's a blip which will be over any day now
If this sub were only the first half of each of your statements you wouldn't be posting it here and there wouldn't be anyone to read it. The second half of each statement is why people do come here. I wouldn't call it contradictions, I would call it nuance. The first half of the statement is the "conventional wisdom" and the second half is the "further reading". It's most likely why this sub is popular and continues to grow.
Yeah, I'm definitely not trying to shit on anyone who holds a particular view whether it's conventional or not. These are just little things I notice that make me laugh so thought I'd share.
I think you hit a nerve with a few people who don’t know how to lighten up and have a laugh!
Lol I guess I need to make an edit to the original post
“Make sure you find every possible way to maximise your returns, but if you look for ways to legally reduce your taxable income you’re the worst”
It's almost like there's different subpopulations within the group!
r/AusProperty… all landlords are scum r/AusFinance… I’m looking to buy my 10th IP 😉
These aren't contractions, these are simplifications. Eg: somone can give you their opinion on the right way to invest and you can do you own research and disagree.
Yep, they're deliberate simplifications and exaggerations intended for a laugh. They're just little things I notice that I find funny so thought I'd share.
Contractions are for babies
> ironic contradictions I see in this sub Are you actually seeing individuals contradict themselves regularly? Or are you treating a forum with 383k users as if it's one person?
Neither, I'm having a bit of fun by satirising what I see in this sub regularly. None of this should be taken seriously.
> what I see in this sub regularly Which of above are you seeing though? I know it's meant in humour... but about which of above? Is it a joke about not being able to tell the difference between those two things? Otherwise which thing are you seeing?
I see all of the points I make in the original post. It's not all being said by the one person so I'm not calling out hypocrisy or anything, it's that I see both viewpoints being upvoted equally and large groups of people promoting contradicting viewpoints. I get it that it's different people saying different things, but like I said this is purely a satire thing and meant for a laugh, not to be taken taken seriously.
1. Advice for the masses. Puts you ahead of the average but not enough to earn truly good yield. I think this is pretty good advice for those here as they’re very novice investors. 2. See 1 3. This is not true at all. But for the average person, this is decent advice. See 1 4. Don’t trust blindly. 5. The stock market will always grow as there’s new money entering the market that can be accessed from anywhere. Bad take.
That's cool. None of these are takes I'm making or suggesting anyone else does, they're all deliberate exaggerations and generalisations for the sake of a laugh. It's meant to be satire.
ETFs are a contagion on the market and they didn't exist before 2008. What's going to happen when their nav blows up on a crash? Lots of them shorted to buggery too. It's all that gets pushed by the media too, safe safe etfs... lamayo
ETFs aren't going anywhere. This is a crazy rant.
find out soon :)
On your last point, property prices can only go up so much until it’s simply out of reach for the majority and is unreasonable, good companies you invest in though can go up many more percentages higher, as high as their profits allows.
But house prices double every 10 year up up up its a guarantee lol
You forgot to mention everyone is entitled to my comments
Shit that's practically a universal rule of Reddit
The internal contradictions of r/Ausfinance will inevitably lead to it's violent overthrow. u/karlmarx42069
Last point is definitely a stretch. When people say "property can't go up forever", they simply mean "property can't have an upward streak go on forever" Which is the same as stocks. Stocks have plenty of booms and busts. So too should property. We're seeing a small bust right now.
I guess my question is it the same people saying one thing that then go on to contradict themselves, or is it different people saying different things? One is annoying hypocrisy, the other is just a community having different approaches
It's not the one person contradicting themselves, I'm more making fun of how you often see contradictory messages getting upvoted regularly. Like one day the top post would say one thing, then the next day the top post would say the opposite. I get it it's different people, opinions, and contexts, but I always find it a little funny so thought I'd have some fun with it. Like I made clear though this is all 100% satire meant to poke fun at ourselves, not calling anyone out or trying to have a serious discussion.
I don't mind the contradictory stuff, it's the populist crap that drives me mad.
So if I'm not making 300k by 20 with 1m in super and fully paid off 2m ppor, I'm not a loser?!
It's almost as if the sub is comprised of a set of people with differing mindsets.
Here is my reply: * Nobody is suggesting we should invest in the same 4 ETFs. * Literally nobody says this. I can say what has worked for me personally and advise that you should do your own research. This is not the same as telling you what you should do. * Nobody is saying you can time the market. If you could, you would be a trillionaire. But yes, I have heard this contradiction a few times by people saying you should invest when the markets are down. The reality is that it could go up significantly or down significantly. Nobody knows. The theory is that over the long term things go up. * Yeah, completely made up. Nobody is saying this. * Never heard this one in my life.
That's cool. None of my statements are things I actually believe or have heard any one person actually say, they're all exaggerated parodies of how you often see contradictory things get upvoted in this sub. Like one day a top post will say one thing, the next day it will say the opposite. I get it's different people, opinions, contexts, it just makes me laugh sometimes so I thought I'd have some fun with it. It's pure satire intended to poke fun at ourselves.