In response a growing chorus of analysts pointing out that Australian property seems to have both limited prospects for capital growth and low rental yields, many property market boosters respond that yields will increase (even the boosters have given up spruiking capital growth as a reason to buy property -- that boat has sailed).
Now, for once I am in agreement with the property markets boosters -- yields must increase. But there are two ways for yields on residential property to increase. Increasing rents is one (and clearly the one the boosters have in mind). But falling prices will do the job just nicely also. Just saying.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
newspapers snoozpapers
On a recent flight back from Perth, I found myself growing increasingly exasperated at the poor quality of the journalism in the two newspapers available -- the Fin Review and the Australian.
For some time I've been hoping, against all evidence to the contrary, that the Fin would not follow the Sydney Morning Herald's slide into mindless he-said she-said reporting. But reading the Fin during the last week has not been encouraging. Why read the Fin if not for some actual analysis? But what we get now on almost every issue are the verbatim opinions of pundits -- financial, political, social. Knowing what Bill Gross' views are on inflation and government indebtedness, while interesting, is complementary to, not a replacement for, detailed reporting.
The Saturday article on 'bond vigilantes' was especially unsatisfying -- with extensive quotes from 'senior bond traders' together with repetition of all the tired old news-bites about looming US inflation and sovereign debt concerns. Did the article contain any references to actual evidence or analysis enabling readers to evaluate such claims? US core inflation figures? Long term bond yields consistent with either rampant inflation or sovereign default? No, just appeals to financial market authority-figures.
This low-quality style of reporting has been prominent in real-estate journalism for a long time, where puff pieces quoting real estate agent and industry mouthpieces have forced those interested in any thoughtful analysis to other sources. (Leith van Onselin, for example, has posted manytimes on the issue -- such as here, here, and here).
As for the Australian, the problems there are quite different. Not being a regular reader, I was unprepared for the breadth and depth of the editorial lunacy, from Greg Sheridan's column railing against the economy wrecking carbon tax to Chris Merritt's nanny-state rant. In political and news sections, Peter van Onselin's column offered the only relief (Peter is Leith's brother -- there must be something in the genes). In Business, Glenda Korporaal's piece was also thoughtful and balanced enough to be out-of-place.
Not content with its plentiful home-grown lunacy, the Australian even found space to import some, with William McGurn's WSJ piece praising Paul Ryan's fairytale deficit reduction plan -- entirely neglecting to mention that the plan relies entirely on heroic assumptions (2.8% unemployment in 2021, anyone?).
I'm too young to become a grumpy old man about these things, but they're forcing my hand dammit!
For some time I've been hoping, against all evidence to the contrary, that the Fin would not follow the Sydney Morning Herald's slide into mindless he-said she-said reporting. But reading the Fin during the last week has not been encouraging. Why read the Fin if not for some actual analysis? But what we get now on almost every issue are the verbatim opinions of pundits -- financial, political, social. Knowing what Bill Gross' views are on inflation and government indebtedness, while interesting, is complementary to, not a replacement for, detailed reporting.
The Saturday article on 'bond vigilantes' was especially unsatisfying -- with extensive quotes from 'senior bond traders' together with repetition of all the tired old news-bites about looming US inflation and sovereign debt concerns. Did the article contain any references to actual evidence or analysis enabling readers to evaluate such claims? US core inflation figures? Long term bond yields consistent with either rampant inflation or sovereign default? No, just appeals to financial market authority-figures.
This low-quality style of reporting has been prominent in real-estate journalism for a long time, where puff pieces quoting real estate agent and industry mouthpieces have forced those interested in any thoughtful analysis to other sources. (Leith van Onselin, for example, has posted manytimes on the issue -- such as here, here, and here).
As for the Australian, the problems there are quite different. Not being a regular reader, I was unprepared for the breadth and depth of the editorial lunacy, from Greg Sheridan's column railing against the economy wrecking carbon tax to Chris Merritt's nanny-state rant. In political and news sections, Peter van Onselin's column offered the only relief (Peter is Leith's brother -- there must be something in the genes). In Business, Glenda Korporaal's piece was also thoughtful and balanced enough to be out-of-place.
Not content with its plentiful home-grown lunacy, the Australian even found space to import some, with William McGurn's WSJ piece praising Paul Ryan's fairytale deficit reduction plan -- entirely neglecting to mention that the plan relies entirely on heroic assumptions (2.8% unemployment in 2021, anyone?).
I'm too young to become a grumpy old man about these things, but they're forcing my hand dammit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)