I'm rarely moved to comment on the rainforests of recycled drivel written on Australia's real estate markets. There are, after all, only 24 hours in a day!
The irony here is that the author of the article, Roger Montgomery, is one of the clearest cut vested interests since the suturing of Gondwana.
As I said, I don't generally much respond to property opinion pieces - a diversity of opinion is ultimately what makes a market - but [arguably] defamatory comments shouldn't be printed uncritically, and as such this one won't be let through to the keeper.
In fact his property market advice has been as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike for his hapless readers that sold their properties.
To be clear, this isn't a comment on the future direction of housing markets.
Indeed, nobody has written more extensively about the travails of Brisbane's inner city apartment market than myself.
Simply, this is a spirited defence of three analysts that I personally rate as among the very best in Australia, alongside Greg Jericho of The Guardian and Chris Joye of the AFR.
It's obvious to any informed reader that Montgomery's property market 'analysis' has all the hallmarks of a classic bait-and-switch.
Montgomery recently ramped up his property bubble pieces from about thrice-monthly to several times per week in part to divert attention away from a series of [citation removed, DYOR] stock picks, which in several cases have seen their share prices [citation removed, DYOR].
Charlie Munger spoke wisely of the "20-slot rule" - imploring investors to consider each investment as though they had only 20 such decisions in a lifetime - yet comparatively speaking Montgomery's blog posts [citation removed, DYOR].
In any event, [in my opinion] Buffett wouldn't have held substantial positions in Australian companies with [removed] economic moats.
More fundamental analysis, and less of the muckraking property punditry.