I've just returned from lunch empty handed after checking out the stores for sales.

Clothing marked 40% off is not in my size and I already have plenty of towels and bed linen. TV sets are discounted but I already have 6 televisions, (because I bought them when they were on sale).

A bargain is only a bargain if we intended to pay the full price. It maybe 30%, 40% or even 60% off, but if you don't buy the items you don't need then you are saving 100%.

Has anyone really made a good buy these after Christmas sales?

Dear Steel Mann,

I've made a really good buy.

I was eyeing a handbag and purse set, prior to
Christmas that was around the $200+ range,
and I got it for $80 in the after Christmas
'sale.' It's a spectacular set, and I'm
absolutely delighted. Now all I need is to be
taken out to show it off... :)

Glad to hear you got what you wanted Foxy. That is a genuine saving because you wanted it anyway.

I usually wait until sales before buying items that I need such as clothing, bed linen and towels. These things are on sale at regular times through the year. I often find though that clothing on sale at reduced prices is never in my size. (I am a normal sized person).

I was looking around for and picked up a bargain at Harvey Norman in their refrigerator sale just before Christmas, $1350 for the same product being sold for $2200 at the Good Guys (who discounted to $1850 for cash).

Like most folk, I have enough TV and DVDs etc. I buy a new computer every two years, at the longest interval and always get best prices for those, the one thing I have not bought yet is another coffee maker... and think I will stay with the Instant,

Like Steel Mann observed, only so much bed linen and towels one can use...

It is only ever a "bargain" if you wanted it in the first place.

Personally, I am waiting for the Mortgagee auctions season of 2009, when the recession has biten... that will bring forth a few specials and me and my daughters are cashed up ready for that "bargain sale".

'Sales' are the biggest scam ever invented. Shops just roll out cheap stock they cant normally get people to buy (especially cheap, badly cut clothes and out-dated technology), say it's been discounted from a fictional price that is much highter and for some reason people suddenly want it.

True, a bargain is only a bargain when you need something and can wait for the sales.
All I bought in the sales is a Tshirt for my son for $25 which was 50% off the full price. I’m a little envious of Foxy’s handbag set though!

Col, I’m not trying to personally attack you but trying to find out where you’re coming from in case I miss something, but I find it quite upsetting when I read that someone intends to profit from someone else’s misery. It’s so vulture like to sit in a corner all cashed up waiting for someone to become the victim of a recession.

For a family to lose their house, perhaps at a loss, in a Mortgagee auction is a dreadful thing to happen.
I just wonder whether you find this ethical, just wondering about the reasoning behind this idea of making profit.

I don't want to sound like Pollyanna,
but I really am very happy with another
'sale' buy.

I was given some gift vouchers
as Christmas presents and I've almost
spent the lot. I do feel a bit guilty,
in enjoying myself so much, but also a bit
smug - because I am finding these bargains.

This one, I hadn't even dreamt about, yet
there it was. A Carla Zampati jacket (and in
my size), on sale. I tried it on. It fitted
perfectly and looked great, so I bought it.

Whether we go out on New Year's or not, I'm
going to wear this jacket that evening.

Steady on Celivia. Do you not buy anything from stores having a closing down sale? Do you never buy used cars? And what if everyone was like you and never bought of anyone selling through financial hardship. What would the sellers do to live? Their price plumeting even further as people think they have some moral obligation not to buy things from them.

I forgot to add ...

Happy New Year to You All!

Have a Safe, Healthy, and Happy One!

All The Best,

Celivia “when I read that someone intends to profit from someone else’s misery.”

Consider this, someone has lost their house before it gets to auction and I have opportunity to buy it, often at a discount.

I am profiting from an opportunity which anyone else could profit from by going “counter-cyclical” in terms of investment.

By investing in property I am reenergizing the economy and rebuilding confidence through the real estate sector sales and making housing available for those who wish to rent and would note, there is a chronic shortage of rental property at present.

Me, investing will produce better overall outcomes than just sitting on my resources.

Imho “Someone else’s misery” is simple sentimentalism and what I do would be absolutely ethical.

Houellebecq and Col,
I admit that I’m a bit emotional about people losing their home but not so emotional that I can’t accept that it is inevitable that some people will have to sell when they can’t keep up with the mortgage payments. Banks are not charities.

I don’t have a problem with people buying properties that need to be sold because of defaults and I can even accept that buyers take advantage of the situation.

But the ‘ethics’ I’m struggling with is the fact that someone in financial distress is FORCED to hand over their home to a lender, who then auctions off their property rather than giving the mortgagee the opportunity to sell their property in a conventional sale at a fair market price. This forced auction system (as I see it) lets buyers take advantage of mortgagees rather than just of a situation.

An auction will not bring the best price for people who are already struggling financially.
Defaulting mortgagee’s situations should not be made worse than they have to be.

I personally would not participate in auctions either as a seller or buyer let alone mortgagee auctions.
As I said, my comment was not meant to be a personal attack on Col perse; it is more a question about whether it is generally appropriate to allow lenders to force people to auction off their property and I wonder if it’s ethical to participate in this system.

I’ll be off line from this afternoon for a couple of days, happy New Year!

Celivia “who then auctions off their property rather than giving the mortgagee the opportunity to sell their property in a conventional sale at a fair market price.”

The mortgagee had the opportunity to do that before they defaulted and “fair market price” is subject to the vagaries of the “market”, which might well place the “achievable” market price below the level of the mortgage especially if the buyer bought at the point of the market “high”.

I recall in 2005, someone I helped get a mortgage on an investment property he contracted to buy, off the plan in 2003. Because of some slide in the market in that particular suburb when the market was softening his agreed plan price was $250,000 but when valued for mortgage was worth only $225,000 and he had problems funding the gap,

prices do not always go up.

“Defaulting mortgagee’s situations should not be made worse than they have to be.”

When people “default”, it is too late. We need to act to maintain our financial responsibilities. That might mean selling at a loss but ending up better than defaulting.

“whether it is generally appropriate to allow lenders to force people to auction off their property “

That is the sort of thinking which caused the sub-prime crisis in the first place.

If a lender cannot foreclose and the borrower defaults, what should the lender be allowed to do?

From my experience the last thing a lender wants is to foreclose, it is bad publicity and non-profitable business.

It is the option of last resort but the US sub-prime crisis, which initiated the current financial crisis, was a product of previous US government encouraging lenders to lend and insuring (buying) the loans through government entities (Fannie Mae etc.) whilst allowing borrowers in USA to lock-up and walk away from their property and their liability (different laws in Australia).

Celivia, I understand the nature of your post and that you, unlike some, do not use ad hominines for simple effect. Hence, whilst we sometimes agree, we have often disagreed and assume no attack from you no

Thank you, Col.

I'll have to think about what you're saying for a while.

I feel I'm kind of dramatic (and maybe not all that rational) about this issue because I find a secure home very important especially for families with school-aged children, but I just wish there was an alternative solution for people who are unfortunate enough to fall ill or lose their job than having to sell their home or default on the payments.

I'm not sure how soon most lenders will take possession of a property after the mortgagee defaults- I have heard some will allow only 3 months, which is not a lot of time to get back on your feet.

I can't help finding it heart-breaking to know that families with good intentions will lose everything that provides them with security, probably to investors who already have their own home.
They can't always help their circumstances and their misfortune might be only temporary, yet they will lose all their potential equity.
Don't get me wrong- I have nothing against investing in property perse, I just don't like the though that some will profit from others' misfortunes.

Renting in Australia does not provide people with the same security as home ownership especially when they need such place when they have school-aged children.

Anyway, I will let this issue go for now and give it more thought.

Happy New Year to everyone.

Hi C... I was retrenched when I was 17 years of Age.

I have not been retrenched since but have left plenty of jobs because I either tired of them or did not like the setup/management. So you can maybe understand how contracting has suited me over the past 20 years more than a permanent role.

To be honest clinging to a job is not a healthy thing, it can become the source of serious resentments (golden handcuffs etc) and I have regularly met people who would have been better moving on than suffering in a role which they hated (many names coming to mind).

"I just don't like the though that some will profit from others' misfortunes."

Like I said, the misfortune hit well before the mortgagee auction options present.

"Renting in Australia does not provide people with the same security as home ownership especially when they need such place when they have school-aged children."

But if buying is not possible, due to any reason or desire, renting is less an option more a fact of life.

The other thing is many peoples plans are disrupted and they lose their house. I did when I divorced. I had to restart from scratch, I rented for 3 years before buying again in 1996. I see myself as nothing exceptional.

If you want anything hard enough, you can work out how to achieve it.