Current Market Insights
The Current Market Insights Podcast is brought to you by Harris Partners Real Estate.
Understanding the property market can be a challenging thing, with highs and lows, twists and turns. The media and agents tend to spread the news they want you to hear, with the advice they want you to follow.
Current Market Insights is an unbiased look into what is happening, what tips you can use to buy, sell, or rent, and that you wont find anywhere else.
Current Market Insights
Episode 71: Silent Downturn - Sydney's Property Market Reality
Hosts Ciaran O'Brien and Peter O'Malley uncover the untold realities of Sydney’s property market, where luxury sales dominate headlines, but the middle and lower segments face growing challenges. With auction clearance rates dropping below 50% since August and buyer demand softening despite rising auction listings, we explore the financial impacts of failed campaigns and the silent market downturn. Peter delves into broader housing issues, from interest rate pressures to the debate over high-density developments versus traditional expansion, questioning if current policies truly reflect Australians' needs amid infrastructure strains and population growth.
As always if there is a specific topic you would like for us to cover, please reach out and let us know!
All down, all silent, going, going, going, go on son Congratulations.
Speaker 2:Welcome to the Current Market Insights podcast brought to you by Harris Partners Real Estate. Each episode we chat with real estate author and industry leader, peter O'Malley, to discuss the current property market conditions and provide insights to assist you on your property journey.
Speaker 3:Hello and welcome to another edition of Current Market Insights. I'm your host, kieran O'Brien, and with me, as always, is Mr Peter O'Malley. Peter, hello G'day, kieran, great to see you, great to see you, peter, and welcome back, everyone for another week on the podcast. I am going to mix it up a little bit tonight, peter, and start in reverse, if I may. I'd love to just kick off tonight with our market wrap and really get a sense of what's happening on the property market in Sydney at the moment, because I think it really is a pretty volatile time.
Speaker 1:So tell us, based on what's happened over the weekend and based on the data, what is it actually looking like out there at the moment in Sydney property, kieran, if we go to the auction clearance rates to begin with, the final clearance rate for the last week was 43.2% from 1,591 scheduled au year the clearance rate was 48.8%, so decisively better, but from fewer auctions 1,290 on the same weekend last year. Last week the auction clearance rate was 45.2% from 1,455 auctions. So what that's telling us is, week in, week out, there are a lot of properties that are failing to sell under auction conditions. Some go on to sell afterwards, some are withdrawn and will probably come back in 2025 for another attempt at selling. What I'd say about the current market is that there are a lot of properties achieving really good prices, and if you read the Sunday newspaper and you read about those strong prices, those numbers would actually shock most people to think that's where the Sydney property market is Now. I've seen a lot of downturns in my career and a lot of booms, but I've never seen a downturn that's so underreported as what this one is, and I think the reason this one is underreported is that so much of the city's finest real estate is selling and selling well still.
Speaker 1:But there's no doubt that the middle and the lower parts of the property market are getting hollowed out. Buyers are acutely paranoid about strata issues. Any apartment with a strata issue is heavily avoided by the buying public at the moment on the large, and vendors of such properties do find themselves having to price that in to their property in order to get someone to conclude the transaction. And then certain properties will have five, six bidders on them houses. That is because the demand pool for that sort of product is really really deep at the moment. So it's wrong to talk about the sydney property market as just one market, just as it's wrong to talk about the Sydney property market as just one market, just as it's wrong to talk about the Australian housing market as just one market. There are markets within markets and if you are transacting in Sydney at the moment, you need to know how the market is performing for what you're selling and you need to know how the market's performing for what you're buying, and they could be completely different.
Speaker 3:I find it interesting over the year mostly the year, but a lot of the time on the podcast we are reluctant, I think, to really talk about a boom or a bust period or a downturn or whatever it might be, and I think we've used pretty soft language traditionally, while still describing events that could be a downturn. You know, you say I wonder, do you think, much like we have avoided using such strong negative language when describing what's happening? Do you think that the the current, uh media climate is quite deliberate in avoiding the use of the language as opposed to, I guess, recognizing that it is actually happening? Do you think it's a deliberate move to just try and maybe soften the environment or the rhetoric or the feeling around interest rates and housing and the stresses that they cause at the moment? And, if so, where do you think that, I guess, impetus is coming from?
Speaker 1:No, I don't think it's deliberate. I think this is a downturn quite like any other, and that's why I mentioned that I've seen a lot of downturns in my real estate career, but this one is unique in the sense that nearly half the market is actually performing. But a big chunk of the market is performing really, really well and independent of the interest rate setting of the day, and it's it's that upper end, middle to upper end that the media love to report on, you know, in their sunday newspaper columns, so to speak. But everyone in the commentary seems to be missing. The middle and the lower parts of the market is getting absolutely hammered at the moment.
Speaker 1:So I think the other thing is is that a lot of people will base their commentary around the Saturday night clearance rate and, as we know, over the last 30 years the Saturday night auction clearance rate is always more optimistic than what the Tuesday auction clearance rate is, because agents have a propensity for reporting their successes on Saturday night and burying their failures. But clearly, on the numbers that we've just discussed, there's a lot of failures happening out there, and what we must keep in mind is, every time a property fails to sell at auction, it's a $10,000 advertising campaign per property that's gone up in smoke. So there's millions and millions of dollars across Sydney being torched every Saturday afternoon. At the moment, where people pay upfront for an advertising auction campaign, that's not delivering for them.
Speaker 3:And I think it's safe enough and fair enough to say too that for every you know, if the media were to report on, or the agencies report on, every single negative campaign, there's just so many potential losses as well down the line. It's such a bad story that you're also going to lose more as we move on the. You talk about the fact that there are still higher numbers this year, last month and this month, but especially compared with last year on, you know, going to auction, even with a lower clearance rate. Given the fact that you you mentioned that it's mostly the sort of middle and lower tier housing and we're seeing higher numbers with a lower rate, that to says we're fairly consistent. But do you think that that is all really framing up with this picture of just sustained interest rate pressure? You know, potentially mortgage stress Is it just a case of that? We got more properties out there at the moment in the brackets that just cannot afford to weather this any longer.
Speaker 1:I wouldn't go as far as to say they cannot afford to weather it any longer. But the equation between vendors coming into the market is increasing and clearly the number of active buyers in the market in this interest rate environment is diminishing. So forget the low auction clearance rate that we just discussed. Discussed if we go to the same weekend, which is the third saturday of november, um, last weekend, which was um, so we had the second of november, the ninth of november, and last saturday was the 16th of november, so the third november, third saturday in november. Last year there were 1290 auctions. On saturday just gone there were 15.
Speaker 1:So you can see quite right there that stock levels are up sharply. Now. Buyer demand has decreased over the same time because of interest rates. So at first it's subtle. Come back to Hemingway saying first it happens slowly, then it happens suddenly. And that's what's happening in the Sydney property market at the moment. There's no doubt that the wealthier people, the middle to upper brackets of the market, have more runway, they have more assets, they have more savings to insulate themselves. But ultimately they won't be immune and at some stage the RBA will pivot and will look to cut because it's getting to a point where the mortgage holder can't take it anymore. And I think you wanted to raise some points about Jim Chalmers throwing some relief out there via the banks et cetera, because there are people that are under duress at the moment and Melbourne is worse than Sydney.
Speaker 1:In many ways I think, peter, sorry, in many ways I think that's a big discussion. But yeah, the Melbourne property market is under far more duress than what Sydney is and is falling actively faster.
Speaker 3:I'd love to. We will one day tackle the Melbourne market because I would really love to get your thoughts on it. We won't tonight. But to me it's a really interesting case study in the types of housing and the people and the buying approach etc. And I I do want to point out you know that 300, roughly 300 extra properties on the market increase, you know still represents 25 percent from the year before. I mean that's a sizable. You say it's a slow increase. You know it's a gradual, gradual progression, but that's quite marked really.
Speaker 3:I mean I hear on here it is, but it's been creeping up all year of course and anyone who's listened to our podcast would know we are talking about this week and we're, you know, week in, week out, and we actually are highlighting just the variability throughout those, those values let's just highlight on this point as well, kieran, if you don't mind.
Speaker 1:The auction clearance rate in sydney has only cracked 50 once since since early August.
Speaker 3:Yeah yeah, and we've said multiple times that that's the sign of a downturn is when it stays below 50% consistently, right?
Speaker 3:Yeah, so it is. Look, all the picture is painted that we are in a let's call it a silent downturn, right, because no one's talking about it outside of us for the most part, I guess. Final question then, before we do, you know, briefly touch on Jim Chalmers. You probably don't know the answer to this, but I'd be really interested to get your thoughts. Given that the top part of the market is still performing so well and that we have, you know, lifestyle and prestige properties achieving great prices in what is a downturn, do you think that if you were to look at the numbers of, you know, the totals of transacted property in terms of price exchanged over the last year, do you think there would be a substantial difference? You know having a much higher rate of lower end properties not selling oh look, it's doing really well because you know we're seeing an increase in total transaction sort of value as opposed to what's really happening.
Speaker 1:I think sales volumes are up overall. I don't think there's any doubt about that and there's no doubt that people in the higher ends of the market who are achieving good prices. Because when we say the higher end of the market, look, I think you know you can say the median house price in Sydney is 1.4 the majority of people listening to this are from the inner west. So the inner west naturally fits is particularly for housing in in the middle to upper range of of the market because it's probably got an average price of $2 million in most suburbs. The median house price in Balmain East is $2.75, where Sydney's median house price is $1.45. So in those markets most people are happy with what they're getting and they're happy to transact if they've spent the $10,000 on the advertising, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 3:Oh, look, it makes sense, certainly does. Moving on then to Jim Chalmers, he spoke on Sunrise this morning, which is obviously going to date when we're recording this, but he was kind of speaking in response to some public feedback that the banks aren't appropriately responding to mortgage stress. Now I personally find it interesting that a treasurer would make comments on a show like this about what is a relatively complex policy platform or position. I wonder, without going too much into this story, he's basically said look, I'm going to put some pressure on the banks to give, or encourage them to give, relief to people who are under or experiencing mortgage stress, and do you think that, firstly, the government really has any intention or plan to do that as it currently stands? And, I guess, secondly, do you think that you know, realistically, this might be too little, too late for a lot of people that have already suffered through what is a pretty tough time?
Speaker 1:Look, the Treasurer is being seen and wanting to be seen to do the right thing, and no one can blame him for that because, at the end of the day, he's facing the electorate in the next six months, and this is global. Inflation has been kept higher in Australia by government spending by and large. As the Treasurer, jim Chalmers has probably worked all his life to get to the position he's in now and he's battling circumstances that weren't of his doing. So you've got to have some empathy for his position and, as the Treasurer of the country, if he leans on the RBA, who calls their independence into question. You've already seen Trump trying to lean on Jerome Powell and Jerome Powell snapped back because the moment an elected government official can lean on an independent central bank, that calls the whole integrity of it into question. So Jim Chalmers has had a bit of a go at the RBA and that didn't play well for him. So he's moved from the central bank, obviously, to a consumer bank, being primarily the big four, and the big four do need to be socially responsible here, because if you start throwing people out on the streets, you'll create social unrest.
Speaker 1:You know that the policies that the government introduced during COVID were all about avoiding social unrest, because social unrest can take hold very, very quickly. You know, we sit here in Australia in a very civil society and we watch, you know, things go on overseas with police cars and buses being torched and youths riding in the street and we think it could never happen here and hopefully it never does happen here. But social unrest can take hold very, very quickly. So the banks have got a massive role to play in helping people through this. But at the end of the day, they are commercial entities and unfortunately, the banks can't take bad mortgages on, you know, en masse for a sustained period of time as a social responsibility, because that will weaken their position.
Speaker 1:If there's one thing we don't need as a country, we don't need a weak banking sector, weak banking sector. So, um, it'd be great if a magic bullet arrived, you know, and and inflation dropped sharply and it allowed the rba to cut rates and and throw relief across the system. But that is not looking likely at the moment, which leads into the next thing we're going to discuss today, which is, you know, markets are fully aware now of how inflationary Trump's looking like he's going to be, and that will have impact right across the spectrum.
Speaker 3:Yeah, look, I think you are certainly right.
Speaker 3:I agree the banks are commercial entities and they certainly have to protect their own interests, but I do also think COVID showed us as a society that the banks can do better and they can also weather so much more than they allow themselves to weather in the interest of protecting the social kind of stability which is important, as you say, and it doesn't take much for unrest to take hold.
Speaker 3:I certainly hope that Jim Chalmers and the federal government at the moment put the right pressure on. I certainly don't want to see a scenario where they are, you know, exerting influence in a way that is detrimental or undermines the authority of that independent kind of board and body. And I also, like you know, I want them to protect the independence of these commercial entities because we are in a free market and that's, you know, the whole point is that we're not a communist nation, we're not driven by, you know, central government policy entirely, um, but let's, you know, let's certainly hope that Jim Chalmers can do something or have some impact that will make it a little bit easier. I'm certainly not alone in looking for that relief, and I'm sure many of our listeners are the same you mentioned, uh, our good friend Mr Donald Trump uh, and how about?
Speaker 3:good, well, you know he's our friend because we talk about him a lot at the moment.
Speaker 1:Well, he's the President-elect, so, whether you like him or you don't, you've got to talk about him because he's coming Exactly and look, you mentioned very much that we are going to talk about the inflationary pressures that likely come under him.
Speaker 3:We mentioned for our listeners a few weeks ago that if he was elected that was a possibility given his economic policy that he'd gone to the election with and we spoke around election time and you know what it was looking like or maybe he had been sort of preliminarily elected that that was definitely going to happen and the markets were starting to respond. I know you've got an article here from the AFR over the weekend. Tell me and tell our listeners a little bit more about what is sort of coming to light in terms of this, this inflationary outlook oh look, it was a Christopher Joy's article.
Speaker 1:It was a good one. Interest rates could soar under Trump. Joy goes on to say that the US Federal Reserve Chairman, jerome Powell, indicated he was opening the door to the possibility that the world's most important central bank may already be done with cutting rates for the time being. So Trump's agenda has already got the Federal Reserve, along with some employment numbers that have come through already. Has the Federal Reserve saying the rate cutting cycle may be as shallow as 0.75%?
Speaker 3:Did they not? Though did Jerome Powell not preemptively cut rates around the time of the election anyway? So they had actually taken a downward step prior to Trump being elected.
Speaker 1:He had inflation at a level that he felt that he could cut rates, but numbers that came subsequently showed that it could be one of the shortest rate-cutting cycles in recent times. Joy goes on to write that markets have gone from assuming a December cut was all but certain to now handicapping it at a near-limeball 62% probability. And that was on the weekend. Jerome Powell said and these are his comments that the Fed does not need to be in a hurry to lower rates and the current strength of the economy allows it to approach it, as our decisions need to be carefully made. So what you could be seeing.
Speaker 1:It'll be really interesting to see what Jerome Powell does in December, but he may well back off the rate cuts just to see what exactly Donald Trump does versus what Donald Trump campaigned on. And I guess everyone's looking at that now. In meetings that I'm having with consumers who are not economically illiterate but they're not economically enthusiasts or or or following it closely but sort of the man in the street, to use a, a cliche is saying to me that trump is going to be inflationary. He's going to, he's going to keep upward pressure on interest rates if he gets his agenda up. So people have worked out pretty quickly that trump's agenda, no matter what you think of it will will be inflationary if he executes the way he can on the platform he campaigned on.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I certainly know plenty of people will be keeping an eye on what he has said. Pre-election versus post. Do you think that the US could be entering a scenario that we've talked about, where and the RBA considered, where they may preemptively cut rates and then actually, you know, have to rise again to try and combat inflation? Do you think that the possibility is there that, instead of just stalling, they may actually have to go back up?
Speaker 1:History has told us that's happened before. Yeah, yeah, that happened in the 70s and the 80s. They thought they'd beaten it, they cut and then it came back with a vengeance.
Speaker 3:And I think we all know what happened in the 80s. You know, economically across the world, yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1:So Jerome Powell and Donald Trump would be, you know, literally butting heads if Jerome Powell was putting rates up on Trump's watch. Trump, you would suspect from the way he conducts himself, he would be doing everything he possibly could to fire Jerome Powell and to avoid that scenario. That's why I personally think that Jerome Powell might not cut rates before Christmas and he might sit on the fence, because if he cuts too deeply now relative to the market conditions, it increases the chances that he's got to increase rates in 2025 to offset Trump's policies. So he and his board may well take a view let's sit on the fence with fewer cuts now, and fewer cuts now decreases the chance of having to increase next year and draw the ire of the public and the Presidency.
Speaker 3:Based on what you've seen in the last week or so in terms of Trump's announcements and his speeches and his policy and the conversations he's had publicly, do you think that it's likely that he's going to drive forward with his pro-inflationary agenda or do you think that there is maybe some potential that he's going to temper that a little bit and a lot of it or not a lot of it, but some of it may have just been electioneering to to try and you know, keep a particular part of his base on site look, I personally I can't say I followed it as closely as I would like to, because, at the end of the day, we're not journalists or economists, we're real estate agents and I'm selling properties, um, so I can't say that I'm following it, uh, really, really closely.
Speaker 1:But if you go to his appointments and they're not all economic, I try not to, yeah, but they're not all economic appointments but his appointments are aligned with what his campaign was. So he didn't have a message during the campaign to appeal and appease the masses and then come with a sensible game plan. His appointments line up with his agenda? Oh, they certainly do.
Speaker 3:Yeah, they certainly do, and there's some surprises in there that I'm sure we'll talk about at some point in the very near future.
Speaker 1:Well, they might be a surprise to someone who wouldn't pick them, but that's what I'm saying is that this is what shocked people about Trump. The first time is Trump in the campaign mode was who Trump wanted to be in office, but he, by his own admission, when hired, established players. He said that's not the way things are done here, and obviously he didn't get elected in 2020, but now, in 2024, he is putting people in place that will execute his agenda. Now I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just saying that's what's happening.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's unusual to see a politician that's, you know, trying to actively engage with what they've said. You know, usually they are trying to game the system. They try to walk it back right. Exactly, yeah, of course.
Speaker 1:You know, if Trump was going to walk it back, he would be trying to say I'm opening to meeting g and you know, um, all, all of that and we'll, we'll negotiate a better deal for america.
Speaker 3:But he hasn't thrown any olive branch out there other than a, a courtesy and I suspect if he had done that, we wouldn't be talking about the possibility of such massive inflation under his uh, the government he leads. Let's hope it's all a beat up. I certainly hope so. As we wrap up, then, peter, the final bit I wanted to talk about is another, just a small piece that was in the Finner Review over the weekend as well.
Speaker 3:This one was talking about the New South Wales government's plan to just bypass some local councils, and this all comes back to what we've talked about before, that we do have a supply and demand issue in New South Wales. We have a housing crisis. That's become quite evident, and there are a range of factors to that. Do you think, just talking about government plans and overreach and all that kind of thing, do you think that this is a potentially good move by the New South Wales Labor Government, or is this an example of where you know the wrong people think they have the right solutions and they're trying to, you know, just barge on forward?
Speaker 1:Look, given what Chris Minns announced as being his mandate as Premier for New South Wales. Again, regardless of what one thinks about local councils, the the reality is is that local councils are answerable to the state government of the day, and chris minns believes he's got a mandate for housing supply. So it's necessary because the state government want housing to go through, and every time a project of any note is muted, it's all too often it's it's blocked at the local council level and developers have said to to the men's government. We're here and ready to build, build on scale, but we're not coming in off the sidelines until you get control of the councils, because they're too problematic and the red tape that's going through council is adding to our costs. Now, I'm not saying all councils behave that way, but that's the reality of it. In March, chris Minns will be halfway through his term and, besides announcements, he's barely struck a blow on this housing supply issue.
Speaker 3:I've seen lots of social media posts but no houses to go and look at.
Speaker 1:That's right, they don't build houses right. He is at risk of being a target in the next campaign of all talk and no delivery. And I saw a speech by the New South Wales Shadow Housing Minister during the week and I it was very, very clear in watching that speech that the opposition are sharpening the attack around housing on Chris Minns at a state level and no doubt Dutton will do the same on Anthony Albanese at a federal level, because it's becoming a really, really big issue. And the reason it's becoming a big issue is because so many immigrants have come into the country over the last two years. We've had a immigrants have come into the country over the last two years. We've had a million people come into the country over the last two years and we have not built anywhere near enough housing to to house um that those sorts of numbers here in australia, and particularly in sydney and melbourne not to uh, I guess derail a serious topic by discussing an abc comedy.
Speaker 3:But as someone who's a massive fan of Utopia, I'm not sure if you've ever seen the show, but it is a satirical look at government planning actually, and infrastructure and it exposes some of the issues with the large government involving themselves in local issues. Do you think, mandate aside, do you think that this proposal if, if the government actually push ahead with bypassing the planning requirements and and the density laws and all that kind of thing and just driving through with faster approvals and better builds, is that going to be a good long-term solution for housing? Based on your experience of seeing housing over the last 20 odd years, do you think we're actually going to get good, sustainable supply or are we going to end up with a bunch of low quality? You know high ideal, you know ideological property that just really doesn't deliver a solution we need look, the shadow housing minister and I.
Speaker 1:I wanted to ask a question and I didn't, because I just didn't want to hear a political response, but he was talking about building more homes. You know, homes for families, yeah, but by and large those homes are apartments. I fit into the category of I don't buy into the build up, not out strategy.
Speaker 1:I personally believe we should be building out right the the troubles in the apartment sector whether it's insurance, water, ingress, conflict amongst the block congestion to think that sydney is going to build apartments on the scale that chris minns has suggested. The pressure on infrastructure, water pipes, traffic flow, all sorts of unintended consequences when you add several thousand people to to a small enclave. I'm personally I don't drive around Sydney in the inner city saying there's a yearning desire for more apartments here now. It'd be great to build more houses, but the land doesn't exist in the inner city. So I would be happy for larger blocks to be able to be carved up into more housing in the inner city, absolutely Industrial sites converted into high-quality residential. But I don't know in Australia. It does not sit well with me and I don't know where Chris Minns thought his mandate was to or the other mob for that matter, where they thought their mandate was to tell families their future was living in an apartment.
Speaker 3:This is Chris that lives in a house in Coggera, not an apartment in Coggera. I wonder, though you mentioned infrastructure, and to me that's really the most critical part here. I too, you know, grew up in Australia. I grew up, you know, with the house and land, all the things that we kind of, I guess, we idealise here in Australia. How, though, in terms of practicality, how do we deliver more housing in a wider area and actually supply the needs of the city and the people that live here? And I, you know, use an example I would love to move to a bigger house in my family further out of Sydney, but how do I get to work? How do I? You know the infrastructure doesn't exist to actually facilitate that, unless I work remotely. Do you think that, you know, ideologically, it makes sense to go out, but in terms of solving the crisis in a reasonable timeframe, do you think that Mins is trying to balance getting stuff done quick enough to actually have an impact versus actually meeting the need of what Australians want?
Speaker 1:You know, look, let's talk. I don't know if you call them satellite cities or sub-cities, whatever you want to call them, but let's talk. I don't know if you call them satellite cities or sub-cities, whatever you want to call them, but let's talk. Penrith, blacktown, parramatta, chatswood, cronulla, the Shire why is everyone?
Speaker 3:charging into the CBD at 8 o'clock every morning. Well, that's where the work is. Well, don't make the work there. Look, I don't disagree with that, right, but I think surely there are some industries that can't shift. I mean, I feel like we're getting into a broader philosophical discussion here, but there's. You know, I too have long said one of the things that my parents told me about migration when they were younger is there was this idea of moving further out and building cities to live in and kind of, you know, trying to create the community you want to be a part of, and I love that concept. But I wonder whether, yeah, whether you like it or not, I wonder whether Minns is just trying to solve a problem as quickly as possible without really thinking about what the impact is going to be in 10 to 15 years.
Speaker 1:I want to know when we decided, as a city, that we wanted to build up and not out. I want to know, as a city or a country, when we said, yeah, I tell you what the solution here is. Let's invite a million more people into the country over the next two years, but not create any more adequate housing for them to live in. So it pushes the rental value and the sale value of everything up over time. And what I do know is, if you go and build a heap of new dwellings in the sky in the city, then what's going to happen is the people that live in there are going to want to go to work in the city each morning and your congestion and all this magnificent infrastructure that's just been built will be maxed out.
Speaker 3:Oh look, 100%. I feel like it's a good opportunity for us to wrap up for tonight's episode. But you raise an interesting point that I love the idea of that. I agree we don't get to vote necessarily on policies like this unless they're very explicitly part of what a government will call a mandate. But maybe there is scope in the future for policy to form part of the election and you can vote on the ballot paper which ones you like and which ones you don't, and governments can move forward in that direction. Who knows, we might end up going that pathway in the future. Look, Peter, as always, really great episode today, Some good topics and a bit of a you know, maybe a feistier discussion than usual, but I certainly appreciate you coming in and taking the time to talk with us.
Speaker 1:Thanks, kieran, all the best.
Speaker 3:And thanks to everyone for listening to Current Market Insights. Everyone for listening to Current Market Insights. We look forward to speaking with you next time.
Speaker 2:Thanks for joining us on the Current Market Insights podcast brought to you by Harris Partners Real Estate, the podcast providing real estate insights you won't find anywhere else.
