May 14, 2025 • 29 mins
Hosts Ciaran O'Brien and Peter O'Malley unpack renewed activity in Sydney's property market as the first "clean weekend" since mid-April brings more buyers through open homes—yet clearance rates linger at just 46%.
We look ahead to the anticipated 0.25% RBA rate cut on May 20 and explore ongoing rental market strength, signs of stagflation, and political pressures influencing housing policy. Plus, we discuss growing concerns around personal banking privacy after a controversial move by the Commonwealth Bank.
As always if there is a specific topic you would like for us to cover, please reach out and let us know!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All down, all silent, going, going, going, go on son.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Congratulations.
Welcome to the Current MarketInsights podcast brought to you
by Harris Partners Real Estate.
Each episode, we chat with realestate author and industry
leader, peter O'Malley, todiscuss the current property
market conditions and provideinsights to assist you on your
property journey.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Hello and welcome to another edition of Current
Market Insights with you, yourhost, kieran O'Brien, and, as
always, my good friend Mr PeterO'Malley.
Peter, hello, hi, kieran, greatto see you.
Great to see you again, myfriend.
Let's jump in this week andreally just hit the ground
running with a bit of a chatabout what has been happening,
now that we're pretty well intoMay.
We talked about in a recentepisode just how challenging
(00:51):
April was in terms of all of thelong weekends and the school
holidays and the combination ofthings that made it challenging
from a retail perspective ingeneral, but also very much from
a property and disruptionperspective.
Very much from a property anddisruption perspective.
But now that we've had a coupleof weeks into May and you've
had a chance and buyers andsellers have had a chance really
to get their feet back on theground, I'd love to get your
(01:12):
view and your insights intowhat's actually happening and
how, if at all, the market hasshifted in that two-week period.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
G'day Kieran.
Yeah, look, activity levels didrise on the weekend.
So Saturday May 10 was thefirst sort of clean weekend the
market had experienced,remarkably, since Saturday April
12.
So it was definitely a periodof disruption and there were
reasons aplenty why the marketwasn't operating on all
(01:41):
cylinders.
So we did see increased openhouse inspections from buyers.
The rental market issystemically strong.
As previously discussed, theauction clearance rate didn't
really do much better.
That still pulled up at 46% forthe last week on SQM
researchers' numbers.
(02:01):
So there's more transactionshappening and I think there will
be more transactions happening.
But there's no doubt about itthat the market is going to wait
for the actual rate cut ratherthan assume it's coming.
And there was some data today.
The wage price index wasprobably not as good a number as
everyone would have liked it tobe.
(02:22):
So there is a sense that a 0.5%rate cut is probably off the
table now and that the RBAprobably has more of a case for
sitting on their hands nextTuesday than what they did.
But all in all, every arrow ispointing toward a 0.25% rate cut
next Tuesday on May 20.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
Okay, so yeah for our listeners.
Obviously, the RBA Next meets injust under a week's time from
when we're recording and we saidlast time, obviously, that 0.5
wasn't outside the realms ofpossibility.
But now, as you're saying, thereare some other numbers and some
data coming in that suggeststhat may not be the case, given
that the auction clearance ratedidn't shift too much I think it
(03:04):
might have been 44% or so 46odd percent in the week just
gone I'd love to get some senseof.
Firstly, one of the interestingthings from last time we talked
about the auction clearancerate was the disruptive series
of weekends in the election.
How much of things had shifteda lot of the auction activity
from weekends to midweek, whichwas unusual.
(03:26):
And I wonder has that correcteditself?
And, if not, is thatpotentially still a contributing
factor to what's happening withthe low rate or are there still
other concerns?
Obviously, you mentioned peopleare waiting for a rate cut,
whatever that may be, but do youthink that's the primary
motivator for why there's stillnot as much decisive activity in
buyers when they're looking atproperty on the week?
Speaker 1 (03:48):
So look, when we look at the breakdown of the
auctions, there were 688auctions last Saturday and 202
midweek last week here and for atotal of 890 auctions.
So the number of auctions wasup, there's no doubt about that.
But there was a reversion, ifyou like, back to Saturday
auctions, where the previousthree weeks, as we highlighted
(04:10):
last week, we'd seen moremidweek auctions and an increase
in midweek auctions than wenormally saw.
So the clearance rate for theSaturday auctions was 45.2%.
The midweek auctions was 49%,interestingly giving us an
overall clearance rate of 46.1%.
Sold prior 197.
(04:32):
Sold under the hammer 213.
125 rescheduled and 26 soldafterwards.
How is the market behaving?
I still think agents areputting too much stock to
auction.
That's not, um, you know, whichis not appropriate.
It's not the sort of productthat's going to draw multiple
bidders in.
Um, there's the odd auctionthat outperforms, but it is very
(04:55):
much a uh case of the exceptionrather than the rule.
And, um, you know, we had somestaff out there looking at some
auctions on the weekend and theywere sort of one buyer, one
vendor auctions, where the buyerwould make a bid, the vendor
would exercise their vendor bid,then they'd have a little
negotiation on the side, thenthe auctioneer would turn around
(05:16):
and call the property closed.
So certainly hardly dynamic,but people are out there buying
and vendors are clearly outthere meeting the market to get
a sale.
I actually don't think there'sanything wrong with prices.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
I just think that agents on the whole are probably
using an aggressive salesstrategy, being a public auction
, um, when they should be tryingto thread the eye of the needle
a little bit more by doing anegotiated transaction which
tracks with a lot of what you'vereally said on the podcast and
in your own kind of material fora very long time, which is you
(05:50):
choose your sale type for yourmarket, for your property, for
your conditions, et cetera.
Given that we're expecting arate cut next week it's priced
in already Do you expect thatthat will be enough?
If it's a 0.25, do you expectthat that will be enough of a
motiv's a 0.25,?
Do you expect that that will beenough ofa motivator or an
impetus on the selling side tobring a range of people to
market that have not yet done so?
(06:12):
And do you think that?
You know, I expect that itwould increase some buyer
activity because people arefeeling more confident, but do
you think it's likely toactually encourage anyone to
come and sell, knowing that, hey, we might actually see a surge
in buyer activity at the moment?
Or do you think that the peopleselling at the moment really
are just the kind of the numbersthat you would expect to see
heading into winter selling inSydney?
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Stock levels might be slightly up on their seasonal
norm just because April wasessentially a wipe, given all of
those holidays.
April was essentially a wipe,given all of those holidays.
I don't think vendors will rushtheir property to market after
the back of this rate cut,because it takes six to eight
weeks for the impact of a ratecut to hit the economy.
(06:55):
That's probably the first point.
The second point interest ratesare still well above the
historical lows of COVID.
Interest rates are still wellabove their historical lows of
COVID.
So even if and when the RBA doreduce interest rates next week,
they've still got the economyon a restrictive setting.
So there's no.
(07:15):
Someone said the other daythey'll cut interest rates to
stimulate the economy in themarket and it's like there's
nothing stimulatory about onerate cut next week economy and
the market.
There's nothing stimulatoryabout one rate cut next week.
It's more supporting theeconomy at large and maybe the
property market a little bit interms of giving some relief to
people that are struggling.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Yeah, look, which makes sense, and again, we have
talked about that that keepingrates on hold for as long as
they have was certainlycounterproductive and very
punishing to a lot of people.
I know, you know, in mycircumstance, in a period where
rates have been effectively onhold at a high level, we have
seen a massive increase instrata levies, which we have
talked about on the podcastbefore an increase in strata
(07:59):
insurance.
You know, in our place inparticular, it seems like we're
in a period where everything'sgetting more expensive.
We've got tariff wars going onall over the globe.
We have, you know, trade warsthat are just we've got real
wars.
I mean, it's a really kind ofturbulent time.
A rate cut really is just tohelp people not sink at this
point, and you know we certainlyall welcome it.
(08:21):
Speaking about or raising thetopic of tariffs and what's been
happening overseas, we talked afew weeks ago about just what
that was kind of doing to moneymarkets and what it might do.
The biggest battle, the kind ofUS-China battle, seems to have
paused somewhat for athree-month period.
Do you think that that's likelyto do anything to instill a
little bit of local confidencein money markets here?
(08:42):
And you know, therefore justkind of provide a little bit of
economic certainty, or do youthink it's really not a bit of a
flash in the pan and it's stillnot going to have a great
impact?
Speaker 1 (08:50):
Oh, I don't think it's going to have a great
impact.
It's obvious that Trump isusing these extreme positions as
a negotiating tool.
The Chinese publicly anywaydidn't respond very much, but
they've got together over theweekend, just gone and claimed
to have nutted out a 90 day dealfor the time being and looking
to get on the same page.
And you know, from America'sperspective, I saw some of the
(09:13):
things that the Trumpadministration were looking for
were quite good.
You know they wanted China toshut their fake Apple and Nike
stores, for example, andclamping down on counterfeit of
American labels if they wantedto maintain American brands
(09:33):
manufacturing from China.
So that's all good stuff andthat's all fair.
And China, understandably, arelooking for their own
concessions in the tech sector.
So I think that is somethingthat's playing out in the media
and it might damage consumersentiment, but I don't think
it's fundamentally the cause ofthe damage to the economy.
(09:55):
From the RBA's perspective,we've spoken in the past about
stagflation stagflation.
For those that are notcompletely attuned to it, it's
essentially around basic termswhere the economy is weakening,
unemployment is fragile, butinflation is still so high that
the Reserve Bank of the daycan't cut rates to rescue the
(10:17):
faltering economy, and I won'tsay that there's stagflation in
Australia, but it is somethingthat you can sort of see out
there, where you get thesenumbers that suggest maybe rate
cuts are not going to be as easyas we first thought.
Mark Burris during the week,for example, said that he
believes the RBA will cut oncenext Tuesday by 0.25%, but
(10:43):
that'll be it for the rest ofthe year.
I hope he's wrong, we all hopehe's wrong.
He probably hopes he's wrongtoo, but that's his view on it.
So he sees a scenario where theRBA just can't go on a rate
cutting expedition because theycould set inflation running
again.
So they need to keep interestrates at a level that suppresses
(11:05):
or restricts the economy, asthe RBA says that it's
consciously doing.
So the reason that stagflationis so dangerous is that the
solution for stagflation is muchharder to identify than rampant
inflation or deflation.
If you've got too muchdeflation, just cut interest
rates to get people spendingagain, and if you've got too
(11:26):
much inflation, dollar rates upto slow things down, which is
what the RBA did.
But we're at this point, thisinflection point, now, where the
economy is under pressure andthere are some numbers coming
through, like the wage priceindex that we just discussed.
That you wouldn't callemployment environment overly
(11:46):
strong, but it's still going upat an uncomfortable rate
relative to where everyone wouldlike it to be.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
I know we promised not to bring politics into this
episode and we will just verybriefly touch on it, but given
we talked about the Albanesegovernment kind of win and what
that may mean from a mandateperspective, and given that he's
made a lot of promises aroundspending housing supply you know
, free money for students andtax cuts and all those kinds of
things is there any risk in youropinion that Labor getting that
(12:18):
mandate and potentially justacting with haste to bring all
this to fruition may actuallydrive inflation at a kind of
base level, given thatinfrastructure spending does
contribute some components toall of it?
Tax cuts in theory couldcontribute to some extra money
theoretically to boost houseprices.
(12:38):
There's a range of factors thatcould be considered.
I mean taking 20% off studentHECS, for example, increases
borrowing power.
There's a whole range of thingsthat may flow on from this.
Do you think that there is arisk that that re-election with
such kind of force could bepro-inflationary for us and in
fact a bit of a negative?
Speaker 1 (12:57):
thing.
That'll be up to Treasury andJim Chalmers to manage all of
that.
But the answer to your questionis yes, it could be.
So.
The one that hasn't beendiscussed is rental inflation.
Yeah, rental inflation is therental market's rising at a time
where it's normally slowingcoming into winter.
Yeah, so we had a propertyduring the week where it was a
(13:18):
new rental listing to the market.
A lot of agents told the ownerto expect somewhere around $950
to $1,000, and it went for$1,300 a week.
Wow, yeah, so rental inflationis real and that is a fairly
significant component of the CPIbasket.
So that could feed intoinflation in time.
(13:38):
And the reason I talk about therental market not because we're
real estate agents, but becauseyou've asked the question on
inflation and the government donot have anywhere near enough
dwellings to come into marketthat are being built.
They've introduced at a stategovernment level legislation
that's driving existinginvestors out of the market and
(14:00):
their immigration policy is fartoo loose.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
Yeah, well, it seems like, particularly in a
potentially stagflationaryperiod, that the great risk we
have, as you say, is that wagesare increasing and it's
challenging to manage,especially in small business at
a time when interest rates arehigh.
So the cost to borrow and growthe business is challenging.
You've got, you know, potentialgovernment overall rapid
(14:24):
spending.
It feels like we're at a bit ofa, as you say, an inflection
point where this could all govery wrong very quickly.
And I know, firstly, I can't bealone in thinking that we don't
want a period where inflationthen runs away again and we end
up having to go incrediblyaggressive to catch it back,
because I think that would doincredible damage to people just
recovering after such a longperiod of high rates and cash
(14:47):
kind of restrictions.
And I literally feel likeyou're clawing through it
sometimes.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
If inflation were to rise, which would force the RBA
to increase rates again, that isthe sort of event that would
savagely turn on the Albanesegovernment and make what is
essentially already an unlosableelection in 2028, a knife edge
decision.
So, as we discussed last week,if the Albanese government are
(15:15):
sensible from here, they'll winthe next election and should be
able to hold on the one after,at the very least, or
potentially.
But if they say we've got amandate to do what we want to do
and start pushing throughinflationary measures and keep
immigration where it's at andcan't get these new dwellings to
(15:35):
market that they've promised,you could find a scenario down
the track where the rba don'thave any choice but but to deal
with the numbers that they'regiven.
And that's probably why they'llbe cautious until they you know
they get a little bit furtherdown the track and see that, yes
, they've got inflation back inthe target band, yes, they can
cut interest rates next week, um, but they will want to see that
(15:58):
what they're looking for, um inthe economy is being supported
by the government through policy.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Yeah, it makes sense.
It certainly.
I know we're both politicallyinterested.
So it will be for me, anyways,certainly a period to look and,
I guess, enjoy a repeatgovernment at an age where I can
truly appreciate it, becausethe last time, you know, some
years ago, with Howard, I wasmaybe a little bit young or
naive to truly understand.
So it is for me an interestingperiod ahead.
What the mandate that theLabor- yeah, it's just such an
(16:27):
overwhelming kind of opportunityreally to create.
I've always said that the onething that annoys me about
federal politics in Australia isthree-year terms.
I feel like three years ishardly enough time to, you know,
bludgeon ministers into aportfolio, let alone make
meaningful, well-reasoneddecisions.
And I, you know, I always thinkit would be great if you could
(16:49):
have government of either sideat least have an opportunity to
build momentum on social changeright, three-year terms are too
short.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
I agree, it's tough.
Speaker 3 (16:58):
So this, you know, this is the first one I can
truly appreciate really, wherethey have an opportunity to
potentially keep the same leaderand keep the same platform and
drive forward, you know, in theilk of Howard and those before
him, uh, to to actually makesome sustainable change for for,
whether you approve the changeor not, Reform?
Speaker 1 (17:15):
yeah Look, uh it's.
It's an interesting one andwe'll only see what they do as
time unfolds.
Howard controlled both housesin his last term and he was
looking to be a reformist withthat mandate that he had and he
overstepped the mark on workchoices and paid the price for
(17:37):
it.
And that's the key now for theexisting government is to be
reformists that benefit at least50.1% of the country and allow
them to be re-elected, but notbe so reformist that they
suddenly alienate a largesection of the country and the
(18:00):
electorate to the degree thatthey get voted out.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
Yeah, look, great recap, pete.
Before we end up today, I justwant to pivot briefly to.
We often reference SQM researchas what we believe is the best
source of truth on real estatestatistics.
It's a, you know, unbiased,impartial kind of house, and the
man in charge of that, louisChristopher, is a well-respected
(18:23):
analyst published just recently.
That involved Louis, where hewas talking about how, as a
consumer of the CommonwealthBank, they sent him a form
requesting some informationabout his financial status.
Where did you get your moneyfrom?
How did you earn it?
What do you plan to spend it onAll that kind of thing.
(18:45):
And then you made me aware ofanother possible incident
involving someone trying to gettheir money and having questions
asked of them and thenultimately being denied their
own cash from a bank becausethey couldn't give adequate
answers.
Now, I know this is not realestate related, but given that
you know Louis is a friend ofyours and a friend of the show,
I would love to get yourthoughts on this To me.
(19:06):
It's such a shocking and reallyintrusive and I don't know.
I feel like unexpected thing tohappen, and I guess my first
question is do we all just takefor granted that banks are
looking after our assets and,you know, will allow us to do
what we need in, you know, inthe long run.
Or, you know, is that a naiveview I have from when I, you
(19:27):
know, got a Dolomites account inprimary?
Speaker 1 (19:28):
school.
Yeah, no, it's definitely anaive perspective, with respect,
yeah, so I like the Americanfinance writer, jim Rickards.
He says that if you think yourmoney in the bank is your money,
you're sadly mistaken.
I don't like that, and it's thebank's money and they'll decide
whether they give it back toyou or not.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
And if you think that that is an extreme position,
take $50,000 into your localbank in cash on Monday and
deposit it, and they'll be allsmiles.
Go back on Friday and say I'dlike to withdraw $50,000 in cash
(20:12):
from my bank account and you'llbe subjected to the third
degree.
So there is just but oneexample of your money going into
the bank becomes the bank'smoney and they'll decide if and
when they give it back to you.
So all banks will hide behindAUSTRAC, the government agency.
So I've just got the letterhere.
It reads Dear Louis, we wroteto you on April 4, 2025
requesting updated personalinformation.
However, we have not receivedthis information and or
(20:34):
documentation.
If you have recently respondedto our earlier request, then
please ignore this message.
Why update my details?
All banks and financialinstitutions operating in
Australia are required by law toadhere to the same know your
customer requirements, kyc,which includes ensuring that
(20:55):
customers personal details areup to date that's fine and
understanding their source offunds and source of wealth and
other required information.
Further information you willneed to provide information and
or documentation including, butnot limited to, the following
details relating to your sourceof funds, details relating to
(21:18):
your source of wealth,confirmation of your birthday,
confirmation of your currentoccupation and or employment,
and recollection of youridentification documents.
Specifically, we may they go onto say in the letter
(21:39):
specifically, we may remove yourability to use and access your
account and or accounts youoperate.
Remove your ability to use anylinked cards, including ATMs.
Remove your ability to view andaccess your account and
accounts you operate on NetBank,combiz and the ComBank app, and
stop any scheduled transactions, direct debits, direct credits
(22:00):
and or regular payments if youdon't cooperate.
That is Australian banking in2025.
Banking in 2025?
Speaker 3 (22:10):
There's a part of me that says, okay, that's in some
ways a little bit reasonable.
Right, austrac, they have anobligation or their directive is
to stop money laundering andcriminal activity and all that
kind of thing.
And there would be certainlypart of me that says, good, okay
, that's a great thing to do.
We've talked before about howone of the concerns with foreign
(22:32):
investment, for example, isthat there might be money
laundering and there's issuesover some purchases in Sydney in
the past, et cetera, and wherethose funds have come from.
And I certainly get in thatperspective.
But I wonder, just thinkingabout when I was younger, there
was talk that bikey gangs usedto launder money through poker
machines, for example.
Right, they'd go in and they'dget the money out.
What's the scenario?
(22:54):
Let's say you and I decideafter work we're going to go
down to the club and we're goingto have a bit of tea and we're
going to play the machines andwe win $50,000, just like your
example.
Now, if we put that in the bank, we can theoretically get asked
these questions, but there's noway for us to prove how we got
that money right.
I mean, it just seems like forthe average person, this is a
(23:15):
completely unnecessary intrusioninto not only information that
is completely irrelevant.
The bank should just be holdingit to keep the money safe,
because that's the kind ofstandard we live in as a social
construct.
But it seems ridiculous to methat they can, without seemingly
any cause, send a letter and ifyou don't comply, just say well
, that's it, you can't get anyaccess to your funds anymore.
(23:37):
Too bad.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Uh, debanking them, but also controlling consumers'
behaviors and using the banks asas a overlord on, on, uh, you
know, as a conduit to controlmembers of the public.
If you want to catch morecriminals, hire more police.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
I get that there's a part of me that thinks too do
you reckon there's any influencefrom organizations like the ATO
that are trying to catch peoplethat are dodging tax or trying
to do other things, as opposedto using Austrac as the blanket,
and then, in fact, they're justtrying to revenue raise and
catch some people who areperhaps doing cash jobs on the
side, or you know?
Speaker 1 (24:15):
is this, uh, it's just big brother and it's just
classic overreach.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
It feels exactly what I was about to use.
It feels like a massiveoverreach, completely, and I
guess the other question, andLouis won't be the only one.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
He's just put it on social media.
If you reckon it's not an issue.
I think I saw it this morningbecause I showed it to a client.
He put his original post upexplaining what had happened to
him, and on social media, on X.
I don't know how many peoplelooked at it on Facebook, but on
Twitter, when I was with aclient three hours ago, 467,000
(24:48):
people had viewed it.
467,000 people had viewed it.
Now it's up as we speak, 3-4hours later.
528,000 people have read thispost.
Wow, this won't wash with thepublic.
This is BS.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Look, we've had a Banking Royal Commission For
unrelated things, and this justfeels like Another.
You know why privateOrganisations can hold our
things hostage, gain access toinformation that they don't need
or have any real kind of uh, Iguess justification to know my.
My other concern, then, is youknow if I give this to the bank
let's say, a bank withCommonwealth or whatever whoever
(25:25):
it is is not relevant in thiscase, but if I give them all
this information, am I you knowwho's to know what subsidiaries
they own that then get access tosome of that?
Does it go out to other?
You know third parties to sellme different products based on
the income band I'm in or thelike I?
I personally worry about my own.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
We live in a democracy.
This is the sort of stuff youread about in China.
At what point um do you have totell an organization how you
built up your wealth and how yougot the money that you've got
in your bank account?
yeah if a crime has beencommitted by anyone who's got
too much money in their bankaccount, it's up to law
enforcement to do so.
(26:03):
This capture all um, bigbrother, uh, overreach that.
The you know, if, this, if, if,if, if Louie's getting it,
clearly others have got it andhaven't sort of made a big point
of it, but we're all likely to,to, to, to, to be a victim of
this sort of behavior and thenand then followed up not just
asking for the information, but,you know, real, genuine threats
(26:27):
against the man.
Remove your ability to use andaccess your accounts and or
accounts you operate.
Remove your ability to use anylinked credit card.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Yeah, and you would know for sure that if something
were to happen and Louiscouldn't conduct business or do
whatever and incurred losses,the bank would be completely
invulnerable to any kind ofrecourse.
Right, they'd be protected.
There's nothing he could do.
Yeah, yeah, unbelievable.
Look, let's just hope that inthose they'd be protected.
There's nothing he could do.
Yeah, yeah, unbelievable, Ilook, let's just hope that in
those 500 and something oddthousand that have looked at
that, that the treasurer and theminister for finance have seen
(26:57):
that and maybe might think aboutwhat.
You know.
We've had so many issues withthe banks in this country over
the years.
Let's hope that we you know wedon't continue to perpetuate
those.
Speaker 1 (27:05):
That you look at what's going on in China, for
example, facial recognitionwalking down the street and you
know social credits and all ofthese sorts of things.
This is a version of socialcredits.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
Yeah, yeah.
When did the banks become thearbiters?
Speaker 1 (27:21):
It's a soft version.
If the public just roll over onthis, well, they're just going
to keep going.
Do you know what I mean?
The public were complicit andcomplied during COVID to their
own detriment.
And then now we're moving tothis here where the bank is
saying tell us all about how yougot this money in your account
(27:42):
and we basically willeffectively shut you down and
say you're inoperable.
And if you want any example ofwhy we must continue using cash
to some degree in the realeconomy to keep it going, this
is it, because once they'veherded us all into digital money
, we're all at the mercy of thissort of behavior oh, look we
(28:04):
are.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
it's a very slippery slope from 2025 straight into
1984, that's for sure.
I I know I love my local bankbranch and if anyone you know, I
live in Homebush.
The Homebush Community Bank isa branch with cash and people
and that's one of the reasons,you know, I love the fact that I
can go and talk to them and dothings.
That's not a real plug for them, but you know, you get the idea
.
Especially aging population.
(28:25):
You know our parents, our, likeolder family members they don't
want to try and, you know,rapidly enter the digital age.
You, at the same time, this ishappening.
You read in the, you know inthe paper, online scams are
through the roof online becausewe've got a vulnerable
population that don't understandthe digital and the tech space
particularly well, and that's,as you say, all the more reason
(28:46):
why we need to be really firm onthis and I certainly hope that.
You know, if nothing else, thisraises a bit of I hadn't really
even heard of this happening,so I certainly hope it gets a
bit more traction and you knowthe government does something
about this and steps in, or we,the people, do.
Speaker 1 (29:01):
Well, the government are not going to do something
about this, because they're theones who implemented it.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
What they need to know is that they have hit a raw
nerve with overreach here andthe public knows what they're up
to and they won't cop it.
Yeah yeah, it's 2025's feeling,that kind of year, peter, we
all need to mobilize.
Really, look really interestingchat today.
I'm glad we sounded off on someof these topics.
As always, it's great to haveyou in talking through and
learning from your experience.
Good on you, kieran, thank you,thanks, peter, and thanks to
everyone for listening toCurrent Market Insights.
(29:33):
We look forward to speakingwith you next time.
Speaker 2 (29:36):
Thanks for joining us on the Current Market Insights
podcast brought to you by HarrisPartners Real Estate, the
podcast providing real estateinsights you won't find anywhere
else.
All down, all silent, going, going, going, go on son.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Congratulations.
Welcome to the Current MarketInsights podcast brought to you
by Harris Partners Real Estate.
Each episode, we chat with realestate author and industry
leader, peter O'Malley, todiscuss the current property
market conditions and provideinsights to assist you on your
property journey.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Hello and welcome to another edition of Current
Market Insights with you, yourhost, kieran O'Brien, and, as
always, my good friend Mr PeterO'Malley.
Peter, hello, hi, kieran, greatto see you.
Great to see you again, myfriend.
Let's jump in this week andreally just hit the ground
running with a bit of a chatabout what has been happening,
now that we're pretty well intoMay.
We talked about in a recentepisode just how challenging
(00:51):
April was in terms of all of thelong weekends and the school
holidays and the combination ofthings that made it challenging
from a retail perspective ingeneral, but also very much from
a property and disruptionperspective.
Very much from a property anddisruption perspective.
But now that we've had a coupleof weeks into May and you've
had a chance and buyers andsellers have had a chance really
to get their feet back on theground, I'd love to get your
(01:12):
view and your insights intowhat's actually happening and
how, if at all, the market hasshifted in that two-week period.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
G'day Kieran.
Yeah, look, activity levels didrise on the weekend.
So Saturday May 10 was thefirst sort of clean weekend the
market had experienced,remarkably, since Saturday April
12.
So it was definitely a periodof disruption and there were
reasons aplenty why the marketwasn't operating on all
(01:41):
cylinders.
So we did see increased openhouse inspections from buyers.
The rental market issystemically strong.
As previously discussed, theauction clearance rate didn't
really do much better.
That still pulled up at 46% forthe last week on SQM
researchers' numbers.
(02:01):
So there's more transactionshappening and I think there will
be more transactions happening.
But there's no doubt about itthat the market is going to wait
for the actual rate cut ratherthan assume it's coming.
And there was some data today.
The wage price index wasprobably not as good a number as
everyone would have liked it tobe.
(02:22):
So there is a sense that a 0.5%rate cut is probably off the
table now and that the RBAprobably has more of a case for
sitting on their hands nextTuesday than what they did.
But all in all, every arrow ispointing toward a 0.25% rate cut
next Tuesday on May 20.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
Okay, so yeah for our listeners.
Obviously, the RBA Next meets injust under a week's time from
when we're recording and we saidlast time, obviously, that 0.5
wasn't outside the realms ofpossibility.
But now, as you're saying, thereare some other numbers and some
data coming in that suggeststhat may not be the case, given
that the auction clearance ratedidn't shift too much I think it
(03:04):
might have been 44% or so 46odd percent in the week just
gone I'd love to get some senseof.
Firstly, one of the interestingthings from last time we talked
about the auction clearancerate was the disruptive series
of weekends in the election.
How much of things had shifteda lot of the auction activity
from weekends to midweek, whichwas unusual.
(03:26):
And I wonder has that correcteditself?
And, if not, is thatpotentially still a contributing
factor to what's happening withthe low rate or are there still
other concerns?
Obviously, you mentioned peopleare waiting for a rate cut,
whatever that may be, but do youthink that's the primary
motivator for why there's stillnot as much decisive activity in
buyers when they're looking atproperty on the week?
Speaker 1 (03:48):
So look, when we look at the breakdown of the
auctions, there were 688auctions last Saturday and 202
midweek last week here and for atotal of 890 auctions.
So the number of auctions wasup, there's no doubt about that.
But there was a reversion, ifyou like, back to Saturday
auctions, where the previousthree weeks, as we highlighted
(04:10):
last week, we'd seen moremidweek auctions and an increase
in midweek auctions than wenormally saw.
So the clearance rate for theSaturday auctions was 45.2%.
The midweek auctions was 49%,interestingly giving us an
overall clearance rate of 46.1%.
Sold prior 197.
(04:32):
Sold under the hammer 213.
125 rescheduled and 26 soldafterwards.
How is the market behaving?
I still think agents areputting too much stock to
auction.
That's not, um, you know, whichis not appropriate.
It's not the sort of productthat's going to draw multiple
bidders in.
Um, there's the odd auctionthat outperforms, but it is very
(04:55):
much a uh case of the exceptionrather than the rule.
And, um, you know, we had somestaff out there looking at some
auctions on the weekend and theywere sort of one buyer, one
vendor auctions, where the buyerwould make a bid, the vendor
would exercise their vendor bid,then they'd have a little
negotiation on the side, thenthe auctioneer would turn around
(05:16):
and call the property closed.
So certainly hardly dynamic,but people are out there buying
and vendors are clearly outthere meeting the market to get
a sale.
I actually don't think there'sanything wrong with prices.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
I just think that agents on the whole are probably
using an aggressive salesstrategy, being a public auction
, um, when they should be tryingto thread the eye of the needle
a little bit more by doing anegotiated transaction which
tracks with a lot of what you'vereally said on the podcast and
in your own kind of material fora very long time, which is you
(05:50):
choose your sale type for yourmarket, for your property, for
your conditions, et cetera.
Given that we're expecting arate cut next week it's priced
in already Do you expect thatthat will be enough?
If it's a 0.25, do you expectthat that will be enough of a
motiv's a 0.25,?
Do you expect that that will beenough ofa motivator or an
impetus on the selling side tobring a range of people to
market that have not yet done so?
(06:12):
And do you think that?
You know, I expect that itwould increase some buyer
activity because people arefeeling more confident, but do
you think it's likely toactually encourage anyone to
come and sell, knowing that, hey, we might actually see a surge
in buyer activity at the moment?
Or do you think that the peopleselling at the moment really
are just the kind of the numbersthat you would expect to see
heading into winter selling inSydney?
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Stock levels might be slightly up on their seasonal
norm just because April wasessentially a wipe, given all of
those holidays.
April was essentially a wipe,given all of those holidays.
I don't think vendors will rushtheir property to market after
the back of this rate cut,because it takes six to eight
weeks for the impact of a ratecut to hit the economy.
(06:55):
That's probably the first point.
The second point interest ratesare still well above the
historical lows of COVID.
Interest rates are still wellabove their historical lows of
COVID.
So even if and when the RBA doreduce interest rates next week,
they've still got the economyon a restrictive setting.
So there's no.
(07:15):
Someone said the other daythey'll cut interest rates to
stimulate the economy in themarket and it's like there's
nothing stimulatory about onerate cut next week economy and
the market.
There's nothing stimulatoryabout one rate cut next week.
It's more supporting theeconomy at large and maybe the
property market a little bit interms of giving some relief to
people that are struggling.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Yeah, look, which makes sense, and again, we have
talked about that that keepingrates on hold for as long as
they have was certainlycounterproductive and very
punishing to a lot of people.
I know, you know, in mycircumstance, in a period where
rates have been effectively onhold at a high level, we have
seen a massive increase instrata levies, which we have
talked about on the podcastbefore an increase in strata
(07:59):
insurance.
You know, in our place inparticular, it seems like we're
in a period where everything'sgetting more expensive.
We've got tariff wars going onall over the globe.
We have, you know, trade warsthat are just we've got real
wars.
I mean, it's a really kind ofturbulent time.
A rate cut really is just tohelp people not sink at this
point, and you know we certainlyall welcome it.
(08:21):
Speaking about or raising thetopic of tariffs and what's been
happening overseas, we talked afew weeks ago about just what
that was kind of doing to moneymarkets and what it might do.
The biggest battle, the kind ofUS-China battle, seems to have
paused somewhat for athree-month period.
Do you think that that's likelyto do anything to instill a
little bit of local confidencein money markets here?
(08:42):
And you know, therefore justkind of provide a little bit of
economic certainty, or do youthink it's really not a bit of a
flash in the pan and it's stillnot going to have a great
impact?
Speaker 1 (08:50):
Oh, I don't think it's going to have a great
impact.
It's obvious that Trump isusing these extreme positions as
a negotiating tool.
The Chinese publicly anywaydidn't respond very much, but
they've got together over theweekend, just gone and claimed
to have nutted out a 90 day dealfor the time being and looking
to get on the same page.
And you know, from America'sperspective, I saw some of the
(09:13):
things that the Trumpadministration were looking for
were quite good.
You know they wanted China toshut their fake Apple and Nike
stores, for example, andclamping down on counterfeit of
American labels if they wantedto maintain American brands
(09:33):
manufacturing from China.
So that's all good stuff andthat's all fair.
And China, understandably, arelooking for their own
concessions in the tech sector.
So I think that is somethingthat's playing out in the media
and it might damage consumersentiment, but I don't think
it's fundamentally the cause ofthe damage to the economy.
(09:55):
From the RBA's perspective,we've spoken in the past about
stagflation stagflation.
For those that are notcompletely attuned to it, it's
essentially around basic termswhere the economy is weakening,
unemployment is fragile, butinflation is still so high that
the Reserve Bank of the daycan't cut rates to rescue the
(10:17):
faltering economy, and I won'tsay that there's stagflation in
Australia, but it is somethingthat you can sort of see out
there, where you get thesenumbers that suggest maybe rate
cuts are not going to be as easyas we first thought.
Mark Burris during the week,for example, said that he
believes the RBA will cut oncenext Tuesday by 0.25%, but
(10:43):
that'll be it for the rest ofthe year.
I hope he's wrong, we all hopehe's wrong.
He probably hopes he's wrongtoo, but that's his view on it.
So he sees a scenario where theRBA just can't go on a rate
cutting expedition because theycould set inflation running
again.
So they need to keep interestrates at a level that suppresses
(11:05):
or restricts the economy, asthe RBA says that it's
consciously doing.
So the reason that stagflationis so dangerous is that the
solution for stagflation is muchharder to identify than rampant
inflation or deflation.
If you've got too muchdeflation, just cut interest
rates to get people spendingagain, and if you've got too
(11:26):
much inflation, dollar rates upto slow things down, which is
what the RBA did.
But we're at this point, thisinflection point, now, where the
economy is under pressure andthere are some numbers coming
through, like the wage priceindex that we just discussed.
That you wouldn't callemployment environment overly
(11:46):
strong, but it's still going upat an uncomfortable rate
relative to where everyone wouldlike it to be.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
I know we promised not to bring politics into this
episode and we will just verybriefly touch on it, but given
we talked about the Albanesegovernment kind of win and what
that may mean from a mandateperspective, and given that he's
made a lot of promises aroundspending housing supply you know
, free money for students andtax cuts and all those kinds of
things is there any risk in youropinion that Labor getting that
(12:18):
mandate and potentially justacting with haste to bring all
this to fruition may actuallydrive inflation at a kind of
base level, given thatinfrastructure spending does
contribute some components toall of it?
Tax cuts in theory couldcontribute to some extra money
theoretically to boost houseprices.
(12:38):
There's a range of factors thatcould be considered.
I mean taking 20% off studentHECS, for example, increases
borrowing power.
There's a whole range of thingsthat may flow on from this.
Do you think that there is arisk that that re-election with
such kind of force could bepro-inflationary for us and in
fact a bit of a negative?
Speaker 1 (12:57):
thing.
That'll be up to Treasury andJim Chalmers to manage all of
that.
But the answer to your questionis yes, it could be.
So.
The one that hasn't beendiscussed is rental inflation.
Yeah, rental inflation is therental market's rising at a time
where it's normally slowingcoming into winter.
Yeah, so we had a propertyduring the week where it was a
(13:18):
new rental listing to the market.
A lot of agents told the ownerto expect somewhere around $950
to $1,000, and it went for$1,300 a week.
Wow, yeah, so rental inflationis real and that is a fairly
significant component of the CPIbasket.
So that could feed intoinflation in time.
(13:38):
And the reason I talk about therental market not because we're
real estate agents, but becauseyou've asked the question on
inflation and the government donot have anywhere near enough
dwellings to come into marketthat are being built.
They've introduced at a stategovernment level legislation
that's driving existinginvestors out of the market and
(14:00):
their immigration policy is fartoo loose.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
Yeah, well, it seems like, particularly in a
potentially stagflationaryperiod, that the great risk we
have, as you say, is that wagesare increasing and it's
challenging to manage,especially in small business at
a time when interest rates arehigh.
So the cost to borrow and growthe business is challenging.
You've got, you know, potentialgovernment overall rapid
(14:24):
spending.
It feels like we're at a bit ofa, as you say, an inflection
point where this could all govery wrong very quickly.
And I know, firstly, I can't bealone in thinking that we don't
want a period where inflationthen runs away again and we end
up having to go incrediblyaggressive to catch it back,
because I think that would doincredible damage to people just
recovering after such a longperiod of high rates and cash
(14:47):
kind of restrictions.
And I literally feel likeyou're clawing through it
sometimes.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
If inflation were to rise, which would force the RBA
to increase rates again, that isthe sort of event that would
savagely turn on the Albanesegovernment and make what is
essentially already an unlosableelection in 2028, a knife edge
decision.
So, as we discussed last week,if the Albanese government are
(15:15):
sensible from here, they'll winthe next election and should be
able to hold on the one after,at the very least, or
potentially.
But if they say we've got amandate to do what we want to do
and start pushing throughinflationary measures and keep
immigration where it's at andcan't get these new dwellings to
(15:35):
market that they've promised,you could find a scenario down
the track where the rba don'thave any choice but but to deal
with the numbers that they'regiven.
And that's probably why they'llbe cautious until they you know
they get a little bit furtherdown the track and see that, yes
, they've got inflation back inthe target band, yes, they can
cut interest rates next week, um, but they will want to see that
(15:58):
what they're looking for, um inthe economy is being supported
by the government through policy.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Yeah, it makes sense.
It certainly.
I know we're both politicallyinterested.
So it will be for me, anyways,certainly a period to look and,
I guess, enjoy a repeatgovernment at an age where I can
truly appreciate it, becausethe last time, you know, some
years ago, with Howard, I wasmaybe a little bit young or
naive to truly understand.
So it is for me an interestingperiod ahead.
What the mandate that theLabor- yeah, it's just such an
(16:27):
overwhelming kind of opportunityreally to create.
I've always said that the onething that annoys me about
federal politics in Australia isthree-year terms.
I feel like three years ishardly enough time to, you know,
bludgeon ministers into aportfolio, let alone make
meaningful, well-reasoneddecisions.
And I, you know, I always thinkit would be great if you could
(16:49):
have government of either sideat least have an opportunity to
build momentum on social changeright, three-year terms are too
short.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
I agree, it's tough.
Speaker 3 (16:58):
So this, you know, this is the first one I can
truly appreciate really, wherethey have an opportunity to
potentially keep the same leaderand keep the same platform and
drive forward, you know, in theilk of Howard and those before
him, uh, to to actually makesome sustainable change for for,
whether you approve the changeor not, Reform?
Speaker 1 (17:15):
yeah Look, uh it's.
It's an interesting one andwe'll only see what they do as
time unfolds.
Howard controlled both housesin his last term and he was
looking to be a reformist withthat mandate that he had and he
overstepped the mark on workchoices and paid the price for
(17:37):
it.
And that's the key now for theexisting government is to be
reformists that benefit at least50.1% of the country and allow
them to be re-elected, but notbe so reformist that they
suddenly alienate a largesection of the country and the
(18:00):
electorate to the degree thatthey get voted out.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
Yeah, look, great recap, pete.
Before we end up today, I justwant to pivot briefly to.
We often reference SQM researchas what we believe is the best
source of truth on real estatestatistics.
It's a, you know, unbiased,impartial kind of house, and the
man in charge of that, louisChristopher, is a well-respected
(18:23):
analyst published just recently.
That involved Louis, where hewas talking about how, as a
consumer of the CommonwealthBank, they sent him a form
requesting some informationabout his financial status.
Where did you get your moneyfrom?
How did you earn it?
What do you plan to spend it onAll that kind of thing.
(18:45):
And then you made me aware ofanother possible incident
involving someone trying to gettheir money and having questions
asked of them and thenultimately being denied their
own cash from a bank becausethey couldn't give adequate
answers.
Now, I know this is not realestate related, but given that
you know Louis is a friend ofyours and a friend of the show,
I would love to get yourthoughts on this To me.
(19:06):
It's such a shocking and reallyintrusive and I don't know.
I feel like unexpected thing tohappen, and I guess my first
question is do we all just takefor granted that banks are
looking after our assets and,you know, will allow us to do
what we need in, you know, inthe long run.
Or, you know, is that a naiveview I have from when I, you
(19:27):
know, got a Dolomites account inprimary?
Speaker 1 (19:28):
school.
Yeah, no, it's definitely anaive perspective, with respect,
yeah, so I like the Americanfinance writer, jim Rickards.
He says that if you think yourmoney in the bank is your money,
you're sadly mistaken.
I don't like that, and it's thebank's money and they'll decide
whether they give it back toyou or not.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
And if you think that that is an extreme position,
take $50,000 into your localbank in cash on Monday and
deposit it, and they'll be allsmiles.
Go back on Friday and say I'dlike to withdraw $50,000 in cash
(20:12):
from my bank account and you'llbe subjected to the third
degree.
So there is just but oneexample of your money going into
the bank becomes the bank'smoney and they'll decide if and
when they give it back to you.
So all banks will hide behindAUSTRAC, the government agency.
So I've just got the letterhere.
It reads Dear Louis, we wroteto you on April 4, 2025
requesting updated personalinformation.
However, we have not receivedthis information and or
(20:34):
documentation.
If you have recently respondedto our earlier request, then
please ignore this message.
Why update my details?
All banks and financialinstitutions operating in
Australia are required by law toadhere to the same know your
customer requirements, kyc,which includes ensuring that
(20:55):
customers personal details areup to date that's fine and
understanding their source offunds and source of wealth and
other required information.
Further information you willneed to provide information and
or documentation including, butnot limited to, the following
details relating to your sourceof funds, details relating to
(21:18):
your source of wealth,confirmation of your birthday,
confirmation of your currentoccupation and or employment,
and recollection of youridentification documents.
Specifically, we may they go onto say in the letter
(21:39):
specifically, we may remove yourability to use and access your
account and or accounts youoperate.
Remove your ability to use anylinked cards, including ATMs.
Remove your ability to view andaccess your account and
accounts you operate on NetBank,combiz and the ComBank app, and
stop any scheduled transactions, direct debits, direct credits
(22:00):
and or regular payments if youdon't cooperate.
That is Australian banking in2025.
Banking in 2025?
Speaker 3 (22:10):
There's a part of me that says, okay, that's in some
ways a little bit reasonable.
Right, austrac, they have anobligation or their directive is
to stop money laundering andcriminal activity and all that
kind of thing.
And there would be certainlypart of me that says, good, okay
, that's a great thing to do.
We've talked before about howone of the concerns with foreign
(22:32):
investment, for example, isthat there might be money
laundering and there's issuesover some purchases in Sydney in
the past, et cetera, and wherethose funds have come from.
And I certainly get in thatperspective.
But I wonder, just thinkingabout when I was younger, there
was talk that bikey gangs usedto launder money through poker
machines, for example.
Right, they'd go in and they'dget the money out.
What's the scenario?
(22:54):
Let's say you and I decideafter work we're going to go
down to the club and we're goingto have a bit of tea and we're
going to play the machines andwe win $50,000, just like your
example.
Now, if we put that in the bank, we can theoretically get asked
these questions, but there's noway for us to prove how we got
that money right.
I mean, it just seems like forthe average person, this is a
(23:15):
completely unnecessary intrusioninto not only information that
is completely irrelevant.
The bank should just be holdingit to keep the money safe,
because that's the kind ofstandard we live in as a social
construct.
But it seems ridiculous to methat they can, without seemingly
any cause, send a letter and ifyou don't comply, just say well
, that's it, you can't get anyaccess to your funds anymore.
(23:37):
Too bad.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Uh, debanking them, but also controlling consumers'
behaviors and using the banks asas a overlord on, on, uh, you
know, as a conduit to controlmembers of the public.
If you want to catch morecriminals, hire more police.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
I get that there's a part of me that thinks too do
you reckon there's any influencefrom organizations like the ATO
that are trying to catch peoplethat are dodging tax or trying
to do other things, as opposedto using Austrac as the blanket,
and then, in fact, they're justtrying to revenue raise and
catch some people who areperhaps doing cash jobs on the
side, or you know?
Speaker 1 (24:15):
is this, uh, it's just big brother and it's just
classic overreach.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
It feels exactly what I was about to use.
It feels like a massiveoverreach, completely, and I
guess the other question, andLouis won't be the only one.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
He's just put it on social media.
If you reckon it's not an issue.
I think I saw it this morningbecause I showed it to a client.
He put his original post upexplaining what had happened to
him, and on social media, on X.
I don't know how many peoplelooked at it on Facebook, but on
Twitter, when I was with aclient three hours ago, 467,000
(24:48):
people had viewed it.
467,000 people had viewed it.
Now it's up as we speak, 3-4hours later.
528,000 people have read thispost.
Wow, this won't wash with thepublic.
This is BS.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Look, we've had a Banking Royal Commission For
unrelated things, and this justfeels like Another.
You know why privateOrganisations can hold our
things hostage, gain access toinformation that they don't need
or have any real kind of uh, Iguess justification to know my.
My other concern, then, is youknow if I give this to the bank
let's say, a bank withCommonwealth or whatever whoever
(25:25):
it is is not relevant in thiscase, but if I give them all
this information, am I you knowwho's to know what subsidiaries
they own that then get access tosome of that?
Does it go out to other?
You know third parties to sellme different products based on
the income band I'm in or thelike I?
I personally worry about my own.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
We live in a democracy.
This is the sort of stuff youread about in China.
At what point um do you have totell an organization how you
built up your wealth and how yougot the money that you've got
in your bank account?
yeah if a crime has beencommitted by anyone who's got
too much money in their bankaccount, it's up to law
enforcement to do so.
(26:03):
This capture all um, bigbrother, uh, overreach that.
The you know, if, this, if, if,if, if Louie's getting it,
clearly others have got it andhaven't sort of made a big point
of it, but we're all likely to,to, to, to, to be a victim of
this sort of behavior and thenand then followed up not just
asking for the information, but,you know, real, genuine threats
(26:27):
against the man.
Remove your ability to use andaccess your accounts and or
accounts you operate.
Remove your ability to use anylinked credit card.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Yeah, and you would know for sure that if something
were to happen and Louiscouldn't conduct business or do
whatever and incurred losses,the bank would be completely
invulnerable to any kind ofrecourse.
Right, they'd be protected.
There's nothing he could do.
Yeah, yeah, unbelievable.
Look, let's just hope that inthose they'd be protected.
There's nothing he could do.
Yeah, yeah, unbelievable, Ilook, let's just hope that in
those 500 and something oddthousand that have looked at
that, that the treasurer and theminister for finance have seen
(26:57):
that and maybe might think aboutwhat.
You know.
We've had so many issues withthe banks in this country over
the years.
Let's hope that we you know wedon't continue to perpetuate
those.
Speaker 1 (27:05):
That you look at what's going on in China, for
example, facial recognitionwalking down the street and you
know social credits and all ofthese sorts of things.
This is a version of socialcredits.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
Yeah, yeah.
When did the banks become thearbiters?
Speaker 1 (27:21):
It's a soft version.
If the public just roll over onthis, well, they're just going
to keep going.
Do you know what I mean?
The public were complicit andcomplied during COVID to their
own detriment.
And then now we're moving tothis here where the bank is
saying tell us all about how yougot this money in your account
(27:42):
and we basically willeffectively shut you down and
say you're inoperable.
And if you want any example ofwhy we must continue using cash
to some degree in the realeconomy to keep it going, this
is it, because once they'veherded us all into digital money
, we're all at the mercy of thissort of behavior oh, look we
(28:04):
are.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
it's a very slippery slope from 2025 straight into
1984, that's for sure.
I I know I love my local bankbranch and if anyone you know, I
live in Homebush.
The Homebush Community Bank isa branch with cash and people
and that's one of the reasons,you know, I love the fact that I
can go and talk to them and dothings.
That's not a real plug for them, but you know, you get the idea
.
Especially aging population.
(28:25):
You know our parents, our, likeolder family members they don't
want to try and, you know,rapidly enter the digital age.
You, at the same time, this ishappening.
You read in the, you know inthe paper, online scams are
through the roof online becausewe've got a vulnerable
population that don't understandthe digital and the tech space
particularly well, and that's,as you say, all the more reason
(28:46):
why we need to be really firm onthis and I certainly hope that.
You know, if nothing else, thisraises a bit of I hadn't really
even heard of this happening,so I certainly hope it gets a
bit more traction and you knowthe government does something
about this and steps in, or we,the people, do.
Speaker 1 (29:01):
Well, the government are not going to do something
about this, because they're theones who implemented it.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
What they need to know is that they have hit a raw
nerve with overreach here andthe public knows what they're up
to and they won't cop it.
Yeah yeah, it's 2025's feeling,that kind of year, peter, we
all need to mobilize.
Really, look really interestingchat today.
I'm glad we sounded off on someof these topics.
As always, it's great to haveyou in talking through and
learning from your experience.
Good on you, kieran, thank you,thanks, peter, and thanks to
everyone for listening toCurrent Market Insights.
(29:33):
We look forward to speakingwith you next time.
Speaker 2 (29:36):
Thanks for joining us on the Current Market Insights
podcast brought to you by HarrisPartners Real Estate, the
podcast providing real estateinsights you won't find anywhere
else.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.