Type | Sample | Average | Min | Max | Change | |
2brh | 888 | 1,146,593.88 | 1,117,876.03 | 1,175,311.72 | 0.27% | |
3brh | 3351 | 1,248,655.33 | 1,231,814.91 | 1,265,495.75 | -0.03% | |
4brh | 2699 | 1,471,892.16 | 1,446,662.80 | 1,497,121.53 | 0.28% | |
Type | Average | Min | Max | |||
2 Bedroom Unit | 2246 | 837,133.84 | 824,506.86 | 849,760.81 | 0.15% | |
3 Bedroom Unit | 952 | 1,160,621.28 | 1,123,783.25 | 1,197,459.31 | 0.16% |
Monday, February 29, 2016
Sydney House Prices 27/02/2016: Average 3 bedroom House now sells for $1,248,655 (down 0.03%)
No sign of the impending "Big Short" as yet. Stats as below
Monday, February 22, 2016
Climate Change in Australia - The heat is still on, but are we coming off the boil?
Been looking into the Satellite Records produced by Roy Spencer at the UAH specifically around the Lower Troposphere
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
Been interested to see how the rates of warming have changed. I did some regressions, starting at 1979 (the first reference in the satellite record) and then tracked the trend rates for each decade, using 1979 as my starting point for each period (a way of removing any cherry picking accusations)
Wanted to see if the trend has changed, and see if it had increased or decreased.
Anyway, here are the temperature trends from the satellite records of the Lower Troposphere recorded over Australia.; The figures are all anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average
1978.12 - 1988.12: 0.02223 a decade (Not Statistically significant at 95% confidence interval)
1978.12 - 1998.12: 0.20949 a decade
1978.12 - 2008.12: 0.20455 a decade
1978.12 - 2016.1: 0.14897 a decade
So as you can see, we were cooking with gas from the 1990's to 2000 (that 10 year period was crazy), but we stabilised the growth over the 2000 and now the rate (while still increasing) has started to slow.
That trend is reflected through the global stats as well
1978.12 - 1988.12: 0.12363 a decade
1978.12 - 1998.12: 0.16348 a decade
1978.12 - 2008.12: 0.12667 a decade
1978.12 - 2016.1 : 0.11472 a decade
So we will still get the headlines of "Hottest year ever" each year as the trend is still positive, but we may have reached the peak acceleration already, and for each year we get less and less of an increase.
Good news. Means that we are doing the right thing already, the planet is adapting, or the rapid temperature rise was a short term thing.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
Been interested to see how the rates of warming have changed. I did some regressions, starting at 1979 (the first reference in the satellite record) and then tracked the trend rates for each decade, using 1979 as my starting point for each period (a way of removing any cherry picking accusations)
Wanted to see if the trend has changed, and see if it had increased or decreased.
Anyway, here are the temperature trends from the satellite records of the Lower Troposphere recorded over Australia.; The figures are all anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average
1978.12 - 1988.12: 0.02223 a decade (Not Statistically significant at 95% confidence interval)
1978.12 - 1998.12: 0.20949 a decade
1978.12 - 2008.12: 0.20455 a decade
1978.12 - 2016.1: 0.14897 a decade
So as you can see, we were cooking with gas from the 1990's to 2000 (that 10 year period was crazy), but we stabilised the growth over the 2000 and now the rate (while still increasing) has started to slow.
That trend is reflected through the global stats as well
1978.12 - 1988.12: 0.12363 a decade
1978.12 - 1998.12: 0.16348 a decade
1978.12 - 2008.12: 0.12667 a decade
1978.12 - 2016.1 : 0.11472 a decade
So we will still get the headlines of "Hottest year ever" each year as the trend is still positive, but we may have reached the peak acceleration already, and for each year we get less and less of an increase.
Good news. Means that we are doing the right thing already, the planet is adapting, or the rapid temperature rise was a short term thing.
Sydney House Prices 20/02/2016: Average 3 bedroom house now sells for $1,249,003 (up 0.2%)
House Prices up again. Stats as per usual
Type | Sample | Average | Min | Max | Change | |
2brh | 867 | 1,143,508.48 | 1,114,267.63 | 1,172,749.32 | 0.30% | |
3brh | 3261 | 1,249,003.65 | 1,231,908.98 | 1,266,098.32 | 0.20% | |
4brh | 2625 | 1,467,733.31 | 1,442,394.63 | 1,493,072.00 | 0.10% | |
Type | Average | Min | Max | |||
2 Bedroom Unit | 2190 | 835,863.49 | 823,129.78 | 848,597.20 | 0.15% | |
3 Bedroom Unit | 938 | 1,158,792.07 | 1,121,660.46 | 1,195,923.67 | 0.34% |
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Facts on Negative Gearing: Only affects 10% of tax payers, OK for middle incomes, Great for the rich.
Been looking at the debate going on about Negative Gearing of property in the media in response to Labors new policy to only apply negative gearing to new property (an idea that seems spookily familiar...see my posts from March last year :-)
A lot of stuff being thrown about, so wanted to get some facts out there. I downloaded the tax statistics from 2012-2013 and did some analysis. And here it is
People claiming negative gearing tax deductions: 1,260,000 (which is 9.8% of total tax payers)
Percentage of taxpayers with total income between $50,000 and $100,000 who Negative Gear Property : 12.2%
Percentage of taxpayers with total income $100,001 and over who Negative Gear Property :19.6%
Amount of tax forgone as a result of Negative Gearing of Property : $3.791 Billion
Percentage of tax forgone that goes to taxpayers with total income between $50,000 and $100,000 who Negative Gear Property : 38%
Percentage of tax forgone that goes to taxpayers with total income between $100,001 and over : 46%
Average tax forgone per taxpayer with total income between $50,000 and $100,000 who Negative Gear Property: $3002
Average tax forgone per taxpayer with total income between $100,001 who Negative Gear Property: $5607
Of course those averages hide a lot. If you look at the tax forgone for each income segment, you get big increases at the high end.
Now there will be some losers out of the policy. At the end of the day, returns include the sale price of the assets at the end of the negative gearing schedule. And there is no doubt that the sale price of existing stock will reduce as a result of these changes.
But there is no doubt, most of the heavy lifting will fall on the rich who can afford it.
A lot of stuff being thrown about, so wanted to get some facts out there. I downloaded the tax statistics from 2012-2013 and did some analysis. And here it is
People claiming negative gearing tax deductions: 1,260,000 (which is 9.8% of total tax payers)
Percentage of taxpayers with total income between $50,000 and $100,000 who Negative Gear Property : 12.2%
Percentage of taxpayers with total income $100,001 and over who Negative Gear Property :19.6%
Amount of tax forgone as a result of Negative Gearing of Property : $3.791 Billion
Percentage of tax forgone that goes to taxpayers with total income between $50,000 and $100,000 who Negative Gear Property : 38%
Percentage of tax forgone that goes to taxpayers with total income between $100,001 and over : 46%
Average tax forgone per taxpayer with total income between $50,000 and $100,000 who Negative Gear Property: $3002
Average tax forgone per taxpayer with total income between $100,001 who Negative Gear Property: $5607
Of course those averages hide a lot. If you look at the tax forgone for each income segment, you get big increases at the high end.
Now there will be some losers out of the policy. At the end of the day, returns include the sale price of the assets at the end of the negative gearing schedule. And there is no doubt that the sale price of existing stock will reduce as a result of these changes.
But there is no doubt, most of the heavy lifting will fall on the rich who can afford it.
Monday, February 15, 2016
Dead Pool Worldwide Box Office Prediction: $1.18 Billion! Going to be huge
Well who would have thought it. Ryan Reynolds is going to be huge!
This is a guy whose previous work has only exceeded $300 million twice (Wolverine, The Proposal), both of which he was hardly the drawcard.
Now he will helm a movie making over a billion. Could be the one that gives him the keys to the A-List? Or not.
This is a guy whose previous work has only exceeded $300 million twice (Wolverine, The Proposal), both of which he was hardly the drawcard.
Now he will helm a movie making over a billion. Could be the one that gives him the keys to the A-List? Or not.
Zoolander 2 : Predicted Box Office - $135 million
Everyone complaining about how badly Zoolander 2 did at the box office...I doin't think it did that badly to be honest.
Same open as Zoolander 1, around 15 million. It's just that compared to "DeadPool " it looks ordinary.
Should break even though...using my formula, I estimate around a $135,000,000 box office worldwide. At a budget of $50,000,000 that means that it is profitable, if not a smash.
Same open as Zoolander 1, around 15 million. It's just that compared to "DeadPool " it looks ordinary.
Should break even though...using my formula, I estimate around a $135,000,000 box office worldwide. At a budget of $50,000,000 that means that it is profitable, if not a smash.
Sydney House Prices 13/02/2016" Average 3 bedroom house now sells for $1,246,528.49 (down 0.05%)
First temperature check on the Housing market in the new year and the trend down continues. Stats as per normal
House | Type | Sample | Average | Min | Max | Change | |
Average | 2 Bedroom House | 840 | 1,140,063.31 | 1,110,746.83 | 1,169,379.79 | -0.30% | |
3 Bedroom House | 3191 |
1,246,528.49
|
1,229,284.57 | 1,263,772.41 | -0.05% | ||
4 Bedroom House | 2565 | 1,466,277.37 | 1,440,582.73 | 1,491,972.00 | -0.02% | ||
Unit | Type | Average | Min | Max | |||
2 Bedroom Unit | 2145 | 834,601.06 | 821,741.06 | 847,461.07 | -0.04% | ||
3 Bedroom Unit | 919 | 1,154,850.34 | 1,117,403.57 | 1,192,297.10 | 0.04% | ||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)