This blog post contains Survivor spoilers.
Hidden Immunity Idols
When everyone in the Villains tribe realized that there was a hidden immunity idol on their camp somewhere, they reached a consensus that whoever went looking for it would be voted off next. Russel from Survivor Samoa went off and tried to find the idol, which I thought was a bad move because now he will be, as Boston Rob said, a "marked man." Even though there is an agreement to get rid of whoever looks for the idol, in practice this may be difficult as there will be a temptation among contestants to align themselves with whoever has the idol. Furthermore, the Heroes tribe has an oversupply of physically strong men whereas the Villains tribe has an undersupply, so getting rid of a strong man like Russel won't be a good idea for the Villains. I believe the Villains made a good choice to get rid of Randy the previous time they were at tribal council because Randy was clearly the oldest and weakest male. Voting off weak females would be a good idea as well, but because the Villains have a numbers advantage, they have the luxury of sitting out females in challenges.
When the players at the Heroes camp realized that there was a hidden immunity idol somewhere on their camp, there was no attempt to reach a gentlemen's agreement not to go looking for it. (Such behavior does not seem heroic to me.) Rather, everyone scrambled into the bushes to try find the idol, and Tom found it, although Amanda saw him finding it and then told everyone. Currently in the Heroes tribe there are eight members. Five players--Candice, Amanda, James, Rupert, and JT--are aligned, meaning Colby and Tom, the remaining Heroes, are on the chopping block. This makes absolutely no sense from a tribal strength perspective because Colby and Tom are physically strong players, but the history of communism shows that when great power is up for grabs, weak people acting together can overthrow strong people. That is exactly what is happening on the Heroes tribe.
Tribal Council
The Villains won both the reward challenge and the immunity challenge, although both challenges were very close and arguably the Villains were just lucky. Nevertheless, the Heroes were going to tribal council where they would vote one player off. The initial plan was for Candice, Cerie, Amanda, James, Rupert, and JT to address the hidden immunity idol issue by giving three votes to Colby and three votes to Tom. That way they flush out the immunity idol and get rid of someone outside the alliance. However, JT and Amanda then thought it would be a good idea to defect and vote with Colby and Tom to vote out Candice, a weak female (arguably Cerie is the weakest one). This would potentially be a good idea for JT and Amanda because it would strengthen the tribe and allow both JT and Amanda to be on the side with the hidden immunity idol. However, when Amanda went to Cerie and urged her to vote for Candice, Cerie argued that this was crazy because if Amanda voted against Candice then the girls would be up against the strongest males, and these girls would be able to win against these strong males. Weak players united are less likely to be defeated. I have seen Cerie Survivor play twice before and she has always used this tactic very well. I do not deny that Cerie is a a good Survivor player. Survivor Micronesia was absolutely horrific to watch because Cerie (and maybe Parvati) organized the weak females to vote off all the males one-by-one after the merge. Colby and Tom initially wanted to get rid of Candice but when JT informed them that Cerie was out to get Colby, they devised a plan that involved Colby, JT, and Tom voting for Cerie. Three votes would go to Tom. JT, who was originally voting for Colby, would defect and vote for Cerie instead, meaning Colby gets two votes. Because Tom plays the immunity idol, Cerie would go. The plan went off like clockwork at tribal council and Cerie was voted off.
When I think about it initially, JT made a bad decision to side with Colby and Tom rather than Candice, Cerie, Amanda, James, and Rupert. It's a bad idea because now everyone knows that JT is on Colby and Tom's side and now it is four versus three in the Heroes tribe with JT being on the side with fewer numbers. However, JT is on the side with the immunity idol, so there may be pressure from Candice, Amanda, James, or Rupert to switch sides and align with JT, Colby, and Tom.
Secret Scenes and Further Analysis
In a secret scene on the CBS website, Cerie complains about Rupert, someone she is aligned to. The impression I get is that one of the most difficult aspects of a game like Survivor is being forced to spend time with people you may hate. This may happen in real life as well. However, if you have a friend you don't like, you can just stop being friends with that person and avoid him. But in Survivor, you may have to continue to deal with that person if you want to win the million dollars. Sometimes you have to tolerate annoying people if you want to benefit. If someone is annoying at work but you need to work to put food on the table, you have no choice but to put up with it. Similarly, if someone in your family is annoying you and you need your family to feed you, you have to put up with it. This is why I think it's important for an individual to try to have an exit plan. If you own a small house in the outskirts and have enough money in the bank to afford food for the rest of your life, then if your family annoys you or if an employee or boss annoys you, you don't have to put up with it in order to live. You can just quit and live by yourself.
In another secret scene, JT weighs his options before tribal council. He reveals something that I didn't think about, namely that even though he is aligned to Candice, Cerie, Amanda, James, and Rupert, of that group, Candice and Cerie are at the bottom. Hence after this episode perhaps there is a four versus three split in the Heroes tribe with JT, Rupert, James, and Amanda on one side and Candice, Colby, and Tom on the other side. JT is the swing vote and holds the balance of power.
The secret scenes also show that on the Villains tribe, Coach is very much on the outside because of his eccentricity. Everyone mocks him and makes fun of him.
Cerie's final words revealed that the plan was for the girls (Cerie, Candice, and Amanda) to vote for Tom and for the guys (James, Rupert, and JT) to vote off Colby. Given that Colby only received two votes, Cerie believes on the guys cheated on her, and she thinks it is either James or JT. This means that JT may be able to hide the fact that he voted against the alliance. James and Rupert can declare that they voted for Colby, but JT can lie and say that he voted for Colby and point the finger at James or Rupert. Tom or Colby could tell everyone that JT was the rat, but I see no reason why they would do that.
06 March 2010
04 March 2010
Survivor Pearl Islands
This post contains Survivor spoilers.
Survivor Pearl Islands was played during 2003. Right now it is 2010. Back in 2003, I was in university, so I didn't have time to watch TV because I was busy studying. Now that I work and have free time outside of work, I can indulge in leisure activities, my favorite of which is watching Survivor. I am currently watching the old seasons of Survivor, and I am up to Survivor Pearl Islands.
Iin this season of Survivor there were three cute girls: Michelle Tesauro, Christa Hastie, and Darrah Johnson. It was disappointing that neither of these three girls won. Whenever a pretty girl gets voted out in Survivor, I fell an immense pain in me. Michelle was a very sweet and cute girl but was voted out before the merge. Christa has a deep voice, which I think is sexy, and I really like her hair. Christa made it far in the game but was probably the victim of the infamous Jonny Fairplay. Darrah was thin and beautiful, and I loved her pigtails. I also loved her Southern accent. I could barely understand what she was saying though. Darrah was the victim of Lillian Morris, who arranged to have her voted out. Many players thought that Lillian would be a threat because the jury would vote for her at the end, but this turned out to be wrong. The final two were Sandra and Lil, and the jury voted overwhelmingly for Sandra. Lil was one of the most annoying players I have ever seen. I really hate it how she showed up to the game wearing a full-on scout uniform and then proceeds to go on and on about how she is a girl scout. It annoys me when people make a big show over some stereotype because it shows that they have no individuality that they have to conform to some stereotype in order to make an impression on others. It signals insecurity. It reminds me of another Survivor contestant I didn't like, namely Billy Garcia from Survivor Cook Island. Billy came to the game wearing a full-on heavy metal outfit. He didn't fit in--didn't even make an effort to fit in--and then went on and on about how he is interested in heavy metal music and therefore he cannot fit in with other people in his tribe because no one else shared his interests.
In the final immunity challenge, Lil won and surprisingly decided to vote out Jonny Fairplay, which was a really bad move that may have sealed her loss. She may have wanted the money to go to someone she thought deserved the money more. Sandra is a mother with children whereas Jonny Fairplay--although he has a child now--is manipulative and sexist.
Survivor Pearl Islands was played during 2003. Right now it is 2010. Back in 2003, I was in university, so I didn't have time to watch TV because I was busy studying. Now that I work and have free time outside of work, I can indulge in leisure activities, my favorite of which is watching Survivor. I am currently watching the old seasons of Survivor, and I am up to Survivor Pearl Islands.
Iin this season of Survivor there were three cute girls: Michelle Tesauro, Christa Hastie, and Darrah Johnson. It was disappointing that neither of these three girls won. Whenever a pretty girl gets voted out in Survivor, I fell an immense pain in me. Michelle was a very sweet and cute girl but was voted out before the merge. Christa has a deep voice, which I think is sexy, and I really like her hair. Christa made it far in the game but was probably the victim of the infamous Jonny Fairplay. Darrah was thin and beautiful, and I loved her pigtails. I also loved her Southern accent. I could barely understand what she was saying though. Darrah was the victim of Lillian Morris, who arranged to have her voted out. Many players thought that Lillian would be a threat because the jury would vote for her at the end, but this turned out to be wrong. The final two were Sandra and Lil, and the jury voted overwhelmingly for Sandra. Lil was one of the most annoying players I have ever seen. I really hate it how she showed up to the game wearing a full-on scout uniform and then proceeds to go on and on about how she is a girl scout. It annoys me when people make a big show over some stereotype because it shows that they have no individuality that they have to conform to some stereotype in order to make an impression on others. It signals insecurity. It reminds me of another Survivor contestant I didn't like, namely Billy Garcia from Survivor Cook Island. Billy came to the game wearing a full-on heavy metal outfit. He didn't fit in--didn't even make an effort to fit in--and then went on and on about how he is interested in heavy metal music and therefore he cannot fit in with other people in his tribe because no one else shared his interests.
In the final immunity challenge, Lil won and surprisingly decided to vote out Jonny Fairplay, which was a really bad move that may have sealed her loss. She may have wanted the money to go to someone she thought deserved the money more. Sandra is a mother with children whereas Jonny Fairplay--although he has a child now--is manipulative and sexist.
28 February 2010
Weakness Is Not Hypocrisy
"Desires give birth to sin. When sin is allowed to grow, it gives birth to death." James 1:15One temptation that I have trouble controlling is sugar. I love chocolate and Coke. When I was a little boy I admit I was addicted to processed sugar. However, as a young adult I believe I have controlled my desires well. I still have refined sugar every now and then but much less than before.
I was having light refreshments after a seminar a few days ago and someone offered me a can of Coke. I refused it, saying I didn't want to have any refined sugar. The person then accused me of being a hypocrite because he saw me drinking Ribena--which has refined sugar in it--weeks earlier.
He said, "How can you say you don't drink sugar when you drank Ribena three weeks ago? You are a hypocrite."
I admit that I have temptations and I don't always succeed in suppressing my desires. However, this does not make me a hypocrite. To be a hypocrite is to pretend you have an opinion that you don't have. My opinion or policy is that I want to try reduce how much refined sugar I have. Just because there is a moment of weakness and I have some sugar it does not mean that I didn't try to not have it.
The same applies with savings. I try to avoid spending on things that are not necessities but that does not mean I do it all the time. I try to do it.
A good analogy I like to use is to compare myself to an athelete who tries to run one kilometer as fast as possible. Quick and dirty Googling reveals that the world record for running one kilometer is 2 minutes and 23 seconds. An athelete may train hard and try to beat that record. Just because a particular athelete tries to beat the world record and insteads runs a kilometer in 3 minutes, does that make him a hypocrite? Instead of disrespecting him for his failure, why not respect him for his effort?
In a similar way, when I try to reduce spending on luxury items or reduce consumption of refined sugars, I am like an athelete trying to achieve a personal goal. Just because I have 5 grams of refined sugar in one particular day instead of the goal of zero grams, it doesn't mean that I shouldn't keep trying to reduce my refined sugar intake.
When my friend at the seminar claimed that I was a hypocrite, he tried to argue that I should drink Coke, that I should give in to my desire to have sugar. Just because you fail in an attempt to reach a goal, does it mean that you should give up and just give in to failure? You could, but then you miss out on the benefits of the goal you are trying to achieve. The athlete could give up on his attempt to run faster, but then he would miss out on the gold medal. I could give up on my goal to reduce my refined sugar intake, but if I do that there is a risk I may become fat and suffer from cardiovascular diseases in the long term like stroke or heart attacks.
27 February 2010
Blind Optimism
A 17-year-old has gone to the Invested forum and posted his goal of being a millionaire by 20:
However, what surprised me was the number of people who lept to the kid's defense, saying that his ambition was admirable and that he should forget about those who warn him of the dangers and go to the goal regardless of the risks.
This is like a drug lord asking you to transport heroin from one country to another. The drug lord claims he will pay you $250,000 if you transport the drugs, but if you get caught by police you may spend decades in prison or, in some countries, be executed. The drug lord will use all the same arguments: forget about the risks, aim high, you can do it, etc.
My point is that it is important to not be blindly optimistic and ignore the risks that other people may point out to you. Suppose you have a desire to commit a crime that may profit you immensely, but the risks may put you in prison. Some people who know about your criminal plans (e.g. your parents) may try to warn you not to proceed with the crime. The idea that you must believe in yourself, ignore everyone who says you cannot do it, and just do it regardless of the risks, is very dangerous.
If a friend of yours decides to transport heroin from one country to another (i.e. be a drug mule) and you try to discourage him because of the risks, and it actually turns out that your friend is successful and scores $250,000, it doesn't mean that your trying to discourage him was somehow wrong. You notified him of the risks. It also doesn't mean that you suffer from tall poppy syndrome because your motive for notifying the friend of the risks may be because you are concerned about him. The risk-return tradeoff is a fundamental concept in finance theory. It pretty much states that in order to make a lot of money you will have to take on much more risk. Just because a person can cite a story of a successful drug mule who is a millionaire from all the drug trafficking he has done, it doesn't mean the risk-return tradeoff is disproven. If a potentially lucrative activity is risky, for all the success stories you can find you will be able to find hundreds of stories of failure. If you hear of a story of a millionaire who won the lottery and you think that buying a lottery ticket is a worthwhile path to riches, you should balance this idea with the stories of the millions of lottery ticket holders who do not win and spend their lives buying lottery ticket after lottery ticket hoping they could win.
My main point is to have a goal but to be mindful of the risks. An appropriate risk management framework is essential for most businesses, so why shouldn't an individual think about risk?
I'm 17 years old and I have a goal of making one million dollars before I turn 20. That gives me just under 3 years.
...at the moment I am interested in learning about the share market and trading silver and gold.Quite a few people told him being a millionaire by 20 is extremely difficult and he would likely have to do risky things, e.g. borrow money from the bank to trade gold.
However, what surprised me was the number of people who lept to the kid's defense, saying that his ambition was admirable and that he should forget about those who warn him of the dangers and go to the goal regardless of the risks.
This is like a drug lord asking you to transport heroin from one country to another. The drug lord claims he will pay you $250,000 if you transport the drugs, but if you get caught by police you may spend decades in prison or, in some countries, be executed. The drug lord will use all the same arguments: forget about the risks, aim high, you can do it, etc.
My point is that it is important to not be blindly optimistic and ignore the risks that other people may point out to you. Suppose you have a desire to commit a crime that may profit you immensely, but the risks may put you in prison. Some people who know about your criminal plans (e.g. your parents) may try to warn you not to proceed with the crime. The idea that you must believe in yourself, ignore everyone who says you cannot do it, and just do it regardless of the risks, is very dangerous.
If a friend of yours decides to transport heroin from one country to another (i.e. be a drug mule) and you try to discourage him because of the risks, and it actually turns out that your friend is successful and scores $250,000, it doesn't mean that your trying to discourage him was somehow wrong. You notified him of the risks. It also doesn't mean that you suffer from tall poppy syndrome because your motive for notifying the friend of the risks may be because you are concerned about him. The risk-return tradeoff is a fundamental concept in finance theory. It pretty much states that in order to make a lot of money you will have to take on much more risk. Just because a person can cite a story of a successful drug mule who is a millionaire from all the drug trafficking he has done, it doesn't mean the risk-return tradeoff is disproven. If a potentially lucrative activity is risky, for all the success stories you can find you will be able to find hundreds of stories of failure. If you hear of a story of a millionaire who won the lottery and you think that buying a lottery ticket is a worthwhile path to riches, you should balance this idea with the stories of the millions of lottery ticket holders who do not win and spend their lives buying lottery ticket after lottery ticket hoping they could win.
My main point is to have a goal but to be mindful of the risks. An appropriate risk management framework is essential for most businesses, so why shouldn't an individual think about risk?
21 February 2010
Heroes vs Villains Ep 2 - The Importance of Leadership
This blog post contains Survivor spoilers.
CBS has started putting HD versions of Survivor Heroes vs Villains on Youtube, which I think is good because it allows me to watch the season from Australia. Watching the season on CBS does not work because, for some reason, CBS does not allow non-US citizens to watch their shows, which to me makes no sense because CBS is reducing the exposure of their shows and thereby are reducing potential advertising revenue.
The contestants in this season of Survivor come from previous seasons. They are divided into two tribes: Heroes and Villains. The Heroes tribe are players who are thought to play the game with integrity and honor while the Villains are amoral, deceptive, backstabbing, and so forth. Clearly everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a hero and a villain. In my opinion, Cerie Fields, in the Heroes tribe, is a villain. In terms of physical strength she is very weak but has shown through her history of playing Survivor that she is good at staying in the game for a long time by making alliances with other weak players and voting off stronger players. I also think that another Heroes tribe member, Amanda Kimmel, is a villain. I also thought it was surprising that Coach (real name is Benjamin Wade and also known as the Dragon Slayer) was put on the Villains tribe since he makes a big deal about playing the game with honor and integrity. Nevertheless, the name of a tribe or team makes little difference. There is no doubt that members of the Heroes tribe will have to resort to villain behavior.
Episode 2 of Survivor Heroes vs Villains showed that leadership is important. The Villains tribe yet again won the immunity challenge because their leader Rob barked out orders and everyone followed. In the Heroes tribe, J.T. the leader in charge of the challenge, barked out orders but his subordinates dissented and argued back. Based on my experience at work and in life in general that strong leadership (or even dictatorship) is efficient. Last year at work I was put in a team of four people to do a project. The team decided that we didn't need a leader. What ended up happening was that nobody did much work because nobody knew who was responsible for what. Without a leader telling them what to do, they resorted to doing nothing. Hours was spent in meetings just talking and debating what needed to be done. Eventually the work was completed but the quality of the work was quite bad. Luckily for us the project was not that important for the organisation. Next time I am in a similar situation, at the very beginning I will step up and say, "Guys, we need to elect a team leader. Does anyone want to volunteer?" If there are multiple candidates, then I suggest a vote. If there is only one person who wants to be leader, that person is leader. This even works for non-work situations. For example, during a Friday night when my friends and I are walking around in the city trying to figure out where we should eat, some people prefer one place and other people prefer another place. The arguments and debating can go on forever and nothing can be done. At times I have said, "Let's elect a leader who will decide where we will go."
Anyway, back to Survivor. After the Heroes tribe lost the immunity challenge, they decided to vote off Stephenie, the person who dissented. Even though she dissented I believe that they should have voted off Cerie instead since she is clearly the weakest in terms of physical strength. Stephanie's mistake with dissenting can be fixed quickly but Cerie's physical weakness cannot be quickly fixed.
Update 21 March 2010: Based on a secret scene I watched, even though JT was leading the Heroes in the immunity challenge, Tom claimed that he didn't know what he was doing and asked for help, after which Stephanie decided to step up and help.
CBS has started putting HD versions of Survivor Heroes vs Villains on Youtube, which I think is good because it allows me to watch the season from Australia. Watching the season on CBS does not work because, for some reason, CBS does not allow non-US citizens to watch their shows, which to me makes no sense because CBS is reducing the exposure of their shows and thereby are reducing potential advertising revenue.
The contestants in this season of Survivor come from previous seasons. They are divided into two tribes: Heroes and Villains. The Heroes tribe are players who are thought to play the game with integrity and honor while the Villains are amoral, deceptive, backstabbing, and so forth. Clearly everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes a hero and a villain. In my opinion, Cerie Fields, in the Heroes tribe, is a villain. In terms of physical strength she is very weak but has shown through her history of playing Survivor that she is good at staying in the game for a long time by making alliances with other weak players and voting off stronger players. I also think that another Heroes tribe member, Amanda Kimmel, is a villain. I also thought it was surprising that Coach (real name is Benjamin Wade and also known as the Dragon Slayer) was put on the Villains tribe since he makes a big deal about playing the game with honor and integrity. Nevertheless, the name of a tribe or team makes little difference. There is no doubt that members of the Heroes tribe will have to resort to villain behavior.
Episode 2 of Survivor Heroes vs Villains showed that leadership is important. The Villains tribe yet again won the immunity challenge because their leader Rob barked out orders and everyone followed. In the Heroes tribe, J.T. the leader in charge of the challenge, barked out orders but his subordinates dissented and argued back. Based on my experience at work and in life in general that strong leadership (or even dictatorship) is efficient. Last year at work I was put in a team of four people to do a project. The team decided that we didn't need a leader. What ended up happening was that nobody did much work because nobody knew who was responsible for what. Without a leader telling them what to do, they resorted to doing nothing. Hours was spent in meetings just talking and debating what needed to be done. Eventually the work was completed but the quality of the work was quite bad. Luckily for us the project was not that important for the organisation. Next time I am in a similar situation, at the very beginning I will step up and say, "Guys, we need to elect a team leader. Does anyone want to volunteer?" If there are multiple candidates, then I suggest a vote. If there is only one person who wants to be leader, that person is leader. This even works for non-work situations. For example, during a Friday night when my friends and I are walking around in the city trying to figure out where we should eat, some people prefer one place and other people prefer another place. The arguments and debating can go on forever and nothing can be done. At times I have said, "Let's elect a leader who will decide where we will go."
Anyway, back to Survivor. After the Heroes tribe lost the immunity challenge, they decided to vote off Stephenie, the person who dissented. Even though she dissented I believe that they should have voted off Cerie instead since she is clearly the weakest in terms of physical strength. Stephanie's mistake with dissenting can be fixed quickly but Cerie's physical weakness cannot be quickly fixed.
Update 21 March 2010: Based on a secret scene I watched, even though JT was leading the Heroes in the immunity challenge, Tom claimed that he didn't know what he was doing and asked for help, after which Stephanie decided to step up and help.
13 February 2010
Living the Simple Life - Reducing Food Costs
This family is excellent at keeping costs down. They grow their own food, use solar power, buy second-hand clothes, and use biodiesel. They don't need to worry if energy prices go up.
I don't take detailed notes of what I spend my money on (I plan to start actually taking note of what I spend) but I have made the following estimates:
By far my biggest costs are the cash I pay to may parents as informal payment so that they in return let me live in their house and food. Food is really an area where I can cut a lot of fat because this food cost is actually due to me eating out at work at restaurants. I could get my parents to make me food from home but the food they make does not taste good. I don't blame my parents for making bad food for me because it is not their responsibility nor do they necessarily have much incentive to do so. I am trying to cut costs and as such I should expect poorer quality goods. It is also difficult for me to decline an invitation by co-workers to eat out because I have packed my own food from home. The type of people I am friends with at work like to eat out.
One strategy I have adopted to reduce food costs is to never buy any drinks and to drink water instead. I really hate it when restaurants serve disgusting water in disgusting cups. In order to be hydrated I keep a water bottle on my desk and refill it with free water at work.
Nevertheless, I estimate my monthly cost of living currently to be around $555, which is pretty reasonable. I could probably do better. Passive income produces around $260 per month, so the shortfall is made up for with my income from work.
I don't take detailed notes of what I spend my money on (I plan to start actually taking note of what I spend) but I have made the following estimates:
By far my biggest costs are the cash I pay to may parents as informal payment so that they in return let me live in their house and food. Food is really an area where I can cut a lot of fat because this food cost is actually due to me eating out at work at restaurants. I could get my parents to make me food from home but the food they make does not taste good. I don't blame my parents for making bad food for me because it is not their responsibility nor do they necessarily have much incentive to do so. I am trying to cut costs and as such I should expect poorer quality goods. It is also difficult for me to decline an invitation by co-workers to eat out because I have packed my own food from home. The type of people I am friends with at work like to eat out.
One strategy I have adopted to reduce food costs is to never buy any drinks and to drink water instead. I really hate it when restaurants serve disgusting water in disgusting cups. In order to be hydrated I keep a water bottle on my desk and refill it with free water at work.
Nevertheless, I estimate my monthly cost of living currently to be around $555, which is pretty reasonable. I could probably do better. Passive income produces around $260 per month, so the shortfall is made up for with my income from work.
31 January 2010
Australia's Subprime Borrowers
I am not sure what the definition of "mortgage stress" or "severe mortgage stress" is, but 45% of first-home buyers are now going through mortgage stress, according to Aussies Struggle to Foot Mortgage Bill.
We know that the residential real estate crash in America was triggered by subprime borrowers, that is, home buyers who purchased houses they could not afford. The article above seems to suggest that many Australian borrowers are also in the same boat. They purchased too much house and, as interest rates rise, they will struggle more and more.
One hope is that incomes rises enough so that these borrowers can continue to afford their mortgages.
We know that the residential real estate crash in America was triggered by subprime borrowers, that is, home buyers who purchased houses they could not afford. The article above seems to suggest that many Australian borrowers are also in the same boat. They purchased too much house and, as interest rates rise, they will struggle more and more.
One hope is that incomes rises enough so that these borrowers can continue to afford their mortgages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)