The Greenhouse

Surely that’s predicated on the market being able to accurately value the assets being invested in. So that the demand sees the investment driven to where it’s most needed and not distorted by the tax choices of the investor.

But in housing you already have two groups with different tax motivations in the occupier and the investor, and I reject the idea that the market demand does accurately reflect societal value. So I don’t see the need to maintain a balance on the investor tax implications across assets.

Mickey_Raider wrote:

gerg wrote: ↑April 1, 2024, 12:18 pm

Mickey_Raider wrote:It is just perplexing how some who are clearly not millennials or younger gens just outright refuse to accept the simple arithmetic staring them in the face, and prefer to drink their own delusional kool aid.

There is no greater measure of housing affordability than to simply look at the median income to median house price ratio.

Back in the halcyon days (where apparently everyone just worked hard and didn’t eat avocados), income to house price was 1:3-4.

Adjusting that ratio to 2024 means that houses would be something in the order of 250-300k.

That sort of amount is closer to the fkn deposit you need for a house in Sydney rather than the full price.

The ratio now is something more in the order of 1:10-12.

I dunno if it is an instinctive reaction to feeling “attacked” like that woman on qanda the other night.

But it is just so supremely out of touch to try and deny the arithmetic and trot out the usual tropes about iPhones and laziness etc to explain a full blown inter generational crisis.

If this is directed at me, can you just clarify whether 2011 (when I purchased an apartment) classifies as the 'halcyon days'?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Probably not.

Congratulations you appear to either own a home or have a mortgage.

So do I. I also negatively gear.

Does any of that in any way alter my point though? I don’t think it does.

Those income to house price ratios? Is that average income or average household income?

I've been deliberately flippant and provocative because I find the gross generalisations directed the other way - towards boomers to be equally insulting and out of touch. Oh they had it so much easier than us millennials

Those entitled boomers heading off on tropical holidays to the Vietnam jungle. Falling into affordable housing, while having to make half the sacrifices that the young do today.

My mother is a boomer. Went through a divorce in the 80s. Raised three teenagers on an APS 2 wage, scrambling for overtime whenever she could get it. Sending her kids out to part time work the day they turned 14 and 9 months so they could pay their own football/sports registration and kit. Supporting her kids on the cheapest cuts of meat, silverside/offal etc. Doing road trips in the Datsun 180b for our annual holiday up to Forster where her parents lived. Oh those fond holiday memories of the car breaking down in the middle of nowhere and waiting 4 hours for the NRMA to show up, after a good samaritan stopped and agreed to make a phone call for us at the next town.

Yeah **** we had it easy growing up, not like these poor kids today. And my story (which is just a small sample of life growing up in the gerg household) was the norm with my school mates and my football teammates.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Your story has not a lot to do with the differences housing market though.
Like saying the housing market is **** doesnt invalidate your story and mean you didnt work for what you have.

The numbers are pretty straight forward, there is not a lot of maths to be done here, it is objectively MUCH MUCH harder to break into the housing market now than it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago... and it continues to trend in the wrong way.

Pretending that all that holds back people from the housing market now is a bit of hard work and sacrifice is... to be frank, absolute Bull.

I dont know what the answer is or how it is best to address it but for me, my wife and i have made the decision not to invest in property beyond our own home in part due to ethical reasons. We invest our money in other things, and probably to our deteriment long term as property probably gives a better ROI. But that's the call we've made. No shade or judgement on those who do have more than 1 home, but it's not for us.

I genuinely dont know if my kids are going to afford to buy a home if things continue in the current trends.

Botman wrote:Your story has not a lot to do with the differences housing market though.
Like saying the housing market is **** doesnt invalidate your story and mean you didnt work for what you have.

The numbers are pretty straight forward, there is not a lot of maths to be done here, it is objectively MUCH MUCH harder to break into the housing market now than it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago... and it continues to trend in the wrong way.

Pretending that all that holds back people from the housing market now is a bit of hard work and sacrifice is... to be frank, absolute Bull.

I dont know what the answer is or how it is best to address it but for me, my wife and i have made the decision not to invest in property beyond our own home in part due to ethical reasons. We invest our money in other things, and probably to our deteriment long term as property probably gives a better ROI. But that's the call we've made. No shade or judgement on those who do have more than 1 home, but it's not for us.

I genuinely dont know if my kids are going to afford to buy a home if things continue in the current trends.

This is true. And why I'm interested for clarification on that comparison statistic that gets used all the time to emphasise the change. I suspect it's a comparison between individuals income and not household income, which in my opinion would be a fairer and better comparison. Particularly given the generational change from single income households to two. Regardless of the clarification it is harder these days no doubt but the use of the data is misleading if it is being used as I suspect it is.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY REPORT - https://news.anz.com/content/dam/news/a ... 22_web.pdf

Here’s one for you gerg for past 20 years citing household income.

gangrenous wrote:

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY REPORT - https://news.anz.com/content/dam/news/a ... 22_web.pdf

Here’s one for you gerg for past 20 years citing household income.

After that initial uplift, it seems reasonably stable until the pandemic when there was a sudden spike. I'm unaware of any new laws favouring investors around that time.

Canberra has the second highest property ptices after Sydney. It also has the second highest average income after Sydney. Canberra is the least favourable place to invest in property in Australia due to land tax and rental rules, but still, second highest property prices. That doesn't make a lot of sense if investors are driving the market.

And unlike Botman, I'd disagree and say it's not straightforward maths. It's not as simple as comparing income to property ratios. Households are much more commonly double income these days. Interest rates through the 80s and 90s were upward of 17%. Other costs of living are significantly less than they were 30 years ago. I'm not saying it's hard, it is. I'm saying that that simple comparison doesn't tell the full story.

There is a significant housing shortage, both for owner occupiers and renters. If this was all about greedy investors buying up all the stock (68% of investors have 1 property), there would be no issue getting rental accommodation. That's clearly not the case. There is a desperate need for for medium density housing in locations people want to live. Alas, the NIMBYs.

It smacks of populist politics. A complex problem boiled down into a simple solution which targets a bogeyman that unites the voters. Vote Greens, we'll get those evil property investors!

When i say the maths is pretty straight forward, i mean you can cut it up however you like, it'll look different pending how you do it, may be not look AS bad as it does with that simple comparison but there is no question that the end conclusion would be housing prices has dramatically outstripped income, and the nuance is in by how much when comparing today's circumstances with that of the 80-90s.

I guess what I'm saying is, I think it's undeniable housing was considerably more affordable 30 years ago than it is today and however you slice the numbers up, they'll give you that broad conclusion. And i think that debunks the boomer myth that young people today are just not willing to sacrifice and work hard like they did... boomers worked hard and sacrificed, and young people today are doing the same, it's just harder now because of the house prices sky rocketing.
I'm 36 years old, i've known half a dozen school friends who were forced to move back home with their parents in their 30's in order to try and save for a deposit on a home... they weren't galivanting around the world on holidays or buying fancy cars either... its just a case of it would take them nigh on a decade to save enough money for a deposit for a home if they're having to pay rent... so 1-2 years rent free at the parents house was seen as the only way to fast track it

I'd definitely agree with the last 2 paragraphs there. There is a lot more to it then just greedy investors buying up the stock, this is a complex issue that probably requires a very complex solution with a lot of touching points. The party who can adequately addresses the issue and provide some genuine solution is going to win a lot of votes in the coming years.

Z, I don’t think anyone apart from maybe Max Chandler Mathers from the Greens is suggesting that it isn’t a supply issue as well as a demand issue.

The real bone of contention IMO is the delusional “smashed avo” paradigm which must be called out because it simply isn’t grounded in reality.

Mickey_Raider wrote: ↑April 2, 2024, 9:13 am Z, I don’t think anyone apart from maybe Max Chandler Mathers from the Greens is suggesting that it isn’t a supply issue as well as a demand issue.

The real bone of contention IMO is the delusional “smashed avo” paradigm which must be called out because it simply isn’t grounded in reality.

Well Max Chandler Mathers and gangers that is. I think its undeniable that it is the focus of some politicians and elements of the media however, as demonstrated in the recent Guardian series "Who Screwed Millennials", which in their housing episode, it was the obvious focus.

The problem is, I suspect that it is not as big a driver as they claim, and petitioning to change the laws will only result in them winning votes, not making housing more affordable.

Just looking at that uptick from 2020, there are obviously significant other drivers effecting housing prices, given there have been no changes to investment consumer law in that time. Briefly spit balling I'd speculate more significant contributors are/were record low interest rates, very low unemployment, less discretionary spending due to border closures and lock downs, less people per household due to lockdowns (reduction in number of people in share houses etc), the boom in residents listed on Air BNB that previously had permanent tenants, and to a lesser extent people buying a regional property to escape lock downs.

As for comparing average income: housing cost then versus now, you need to factor in interest rates, number of people employed per household, cost of other essentials etc. It's not a simple equation.

The reality is that housing stock hasn't kept up with population demand. There is both a owner occupier and a rental crisis. If it was purely investors lapping up all of the housing, there would be no rental crisis. People need to turn their focus to local and state governments, and question what they are doing to address this. People need to tell the NIMBYs to STFU also.

Housing prices will keep increasing until the unemployment rate becomes a factor. It's how it has always been and always will be.


Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

Dr Zaius wrote:After that initial uplift, it seems reasonably stable until the pandemic when there was a sudden spike. I'm unaware of any new laws favouring investors around that time.

Canberra has the second highest property ptices after Sydney. It also has the second highest average income after Sydney. Canberra is the least favourable place to invest in property in Australia due to land tax and rental rules, but still, second highest property prices. That doesn't make a lot of sense if investors are driving the market.

Don’t believe anyone said it was the main driver? For me personally it’s a case of why pour petrol on a fire, when you could pour some water instead?

By the way - just because there’s no change in law doesn’t imply there isn’t a significant change in investment. The shutdowns and low interest rate fixed loans encouraged a spike in both investors and owner occupiers.

Dr Zaius wrote: And unlike Botman, I'd disagree and say it's not straightforward maths. It's not as simple as comparing income to property ratios. Households are much more commonly double income these days.

Precisely why a graph looking at *household* income was asked for and provided if you’d care to read what you’re quoting.

Dr Zaius wrote: Interest rates through the 80s and 90s were upward of 17%. Other costs of living are significantly less than they were 30 years ago. I'm not saying it's hard, it is. I'm saying that that simple comparison doesn't tell the full story.

“Through the 90s” is pushing it. It started there at the beginning and fell away sharply.

You’re right the rates play a factor. But if we’re going to that level you need to consider what CPI was and wage growth through that period too.

It also doesn’t address saving the deposit either, which I’d argue is a pretty key consideration in getting on the ladder.

Dr Zaius wrote: There is a significant housing shortage, both for owner occupiers and renters. If this was all about greedy investors buying up all the stock (68% of investors have 1 property), there would be no issue getting rental accommodation. That's clearly not the case. There is a desperate need for for medium density housing in locations people want to live. Alas, the NIMBYs.

That stat is meaningless. All you need is one guy who owns all the rest? Also 1 property per investor to potentially halve home ownership.

Dr Zaius wrote: It smacks of populist politics. A complex problem boiled down into a simple solution which targets a bogeyman that unites the voters. Vote Greens, we'll get those evil property investors!

I’m yet to hear this wonderful value investors bring to the party in a shortage and why we wouldn’t want to suppress it?

Can’t have been that populist since it lost at the election.

gangrenous wrote:

Dr Zaius wrote:After that initial uplift, it seems reasonably stable until the pandemic when there was a sudden spike. I'm unaware of any new laws favouring investors around that time.

Canberra has the second highest property ptices after Sydney. It also has the second highest average income after Sydney. Canberra is the least favourable place to invest in property in Australia due to land tax and rental rules, but still, second highest property prices. That doesn't make a lot of sense if investors are driving the market.

Don’t believe anyone said it was the main driver? For me personally it’s a case of why pour petrol on a fire, when you could pour some water instead?

By the way - just because there’s no change in law doesn’t imply there isn’t a significant change in investment. The shutdowns and low interest rate fixed loans encouraged a spike in both investors and owner occupiers.

Dr Zaius wrote: And unlike Botman, I'd disagree and say it's not straightforward maths. It's not as simple as comparing income to property ratios. Households are much more commonly double income these days.

Precisely why a graph looking at *household* income was asked for and provided if you’d care to read what you’re quoting.

Dr Zaius wrote: Interest rates through the 80s and 90s were upward of 17%. Other costs of living are significantly less than they were 30 years ago. I'm not saying it's hard, it is. I'm saying that that simple comparison doesn't tell the full story.

“Through the 90s” is pushing it. It started there at the beginning and fell away sharply.

You’re right the rates play a factor. But if we’re going to that level you need to consider what CPI was and wage growth through that period too.

It also doesn’t address saving the deposit either, which I’d argue is a pretty key consideration in getting on the ladder.

Dr Zaius wrote: There is a significant housing shortage, both for owner occupiers and renters. If this was all about greedy investors buying up all the stock (68% of investors have 1 property), there would be no issue getting rental accommodation. That's clearly not the case. There is a desperate need for for medium density housing in locations people want to live. Alas, the NIMBYs.

That stat is meaningless. All you need is one guy who owns all the rest? Also 1 property per investor to potentially halve home ownership.

Dr Zaius wrote: It smacks of populist politics. A complex problem boiled down into a simple solution which targets a bogeyman that unites the voters. Vote Greens, we'll get those evil property investors!

I’m yet to hear this wonderful value investors bring to the party in a shortage and why we wouldn’t want to suppress it?

Can’t have been that populist since it lost at the election.

There is, always has been and always will be a need for rental property. I have rented for long periods of my life when for various reasons it suited me better than purchasing property. I work in an industry where the majority of my colleagues have rented for 10 or more years while training and being moved around. We all rented for long periods in our twenties when we were uni students with minimal income. When I rented, I rented investment properties. There weren't really any other choices.

I own a town house in Canberra. I did not buy it with view of investing, I bought it to live in as an intern. I lived there for three yeas years and spent the next 10 years moving around. It doesn't make much money. Some years it has lost a little (reduced rent during covid as long term tenant could not afford it), some years it has made a little. The ACT land tax means that it will never be overly profitable. It currently houses a single mum of two who had a major life change and were looking for somewhere to rent rather than buy. She needed a rental, I provided it.

You can change negative gearing laws, I wouldn't care. My preference is for this property to be positively geared. I don't intend to lose money just to spite the government and reduce my tax. Even at the top tax bracket, every dollar I save in tax negative gearing, I'm still losing $1.20.

I'm not going to sell the property. I'll end up paying an extraordinary amount in tax. Under the current tax laws the only reason I'd sell is in a crisis where I needed money, or for whatever reason it was haemorrhaging cash. You can get rid of the tax discount, it won't change my behaviour. In fact it makes it even less likely for me to sell, as I'll end up paying twice as much tax.

This fixation on property investors will hardly shift the dial on the cost of the housing market. This idea that by scrapping negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount will flood the market with ex investment properties at some discount rate, without squeezing the renters, and everyone will live happily while riding flying unicorn seals is fantasy. Its not going to change what those who have already have invested to any great extent. And while this strategy may not have won votes at a national level, it is clearly a simplistic, devise policy designed to win votes for certain minor parties, and from that perspective it is populist.

Are you arguing that we can make the tax changes and it won’t change investor behaviour?

Don’t threaten me with a good time. We’ll have the wasted refunds back in that case?

gangrenous wrote:Are you arguing that we can make the tax changes and it won’t change investor behaviour?

Don’t threaten me with a good time. We’ll have the wasted refunds back in that case?

I'm arguing that it won't change my behaviour, and that it won't have a significant impact on the market. I was thinking more dinner and a movie, but whatever floats your boat Gangers, I promise that I won't judge you .

It’s interesting people get so upset about changing something that won’t have a big effect don’t you think?

gangrenous wrote:It’s interesting people get so upset about changing something that won’t have a big effect don’t you think?

Who is upset?

I don't like it because 1) it isn't going to make much of a difference 2) it distracts from policy that may make a difference, and 3) its devisive politics, a cynical vote grab.

I don't like it, but there are I lot of things that I don't like that don't get me upset. Rum and Raisen ice-cream for example.

Given the projected benefits if I recall were many billions from the 2019 policies I find it hard to agree it’s a small thing. It’s only divisive if you identify as an investor, why not just see it as discouraging a certain type of investment? Why is that divisive?

At least we’re on solid ground with Rum and Raisin ice cream. There’s a waste of good sugar.

gangrenous wrote:Given the projected benefits if I recall were many billions from the 2019 policies I find it hard to agree it’s a small thing. It’s only divisive if you identify as an investor, why not just see it as discouraging a certain type of investment? Why is that divisive?

At least we’re on solid ground with Rum and Raisin ice cream. There’s a waste of good sugar.

OK I'll take that small victory. There will always be Rum and Raisen.

gangrenous wrote:

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY REPORT - https://news.anz.com/content/dam/news/a ... 22_web.pdf

Here’s one for you gerg for past 20 years citing household income.

Thanks gangers. The point I was trying to make is the generalisation that boomers bought into a cheaper market, comparatively... which is clear they did - as a comparison to modern day household income or individual income against house prices. I think the use of the comparison is misleading because of the dynamics of household income over time.

Just on the data provided, boomers in this generalisation were buying these cheap as chips homes was in the 1980s and 90s, on a single household income. I don't think data from the early 2000s proves or disproves the point I was trying to make.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Yeah, I struggled to find household income data that went back far enough. This was the best I could find on my phone this morning.

From what I’ve read previously I’d expect the 80s/90s to be down in the 3-4 range, but as I say couldn’t find a good source today.

Also I’ll just add that I think whilst the dual income household has become the norm, that in itself has quite a few detriments alongside the benefits. The loads on parents in families is immense, and how are single parents meant to make it work?

gangrenous wrote:Yeah, I struggled to find household income data that went back far enough. This was the best I could find on my phone this morning.

From what I’ve read previously I’d expect the 80s/90s to be down in the 3-4 range, but as I say couldn’t find a good source today.

Also I’ll just add that I think whilst the dual income household has become the norm, that in itself has quite a few detriments alongside the benefits. The loads on parents in families is immense, and how are single parents meant to make it work?

My mum just left us at home and hoped we didn't kill each other or burn down the house. These days taxpayers subsidies childcare.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I meant more in affording a home on one income.

It feels like a ninja edit has occurred here?

But anyway, the answer to your question is clearly less smashed avo.

It's not easy and my anecdotes weren't trying to downplay how difficult it is now to buy a home, they were trying to highlight that it has never been easy for different reasons for people in different demographics. I think Doc has nailed it when suggesting it's an easy political target being such an emotive issue.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Bruce Lehrmann case has been reopened by the Judge after new evidence emerges that Channel 7 covered $10,315 for his Sensai Thai Massages.

And none of you guys believed me when BJ Mole reported to you that “this case will have a happy ending”.

How about Israel killing Aussie citizens now.

Mickey_Raider wrote: ↑April 3, 2024, 4:51 pm How about Israel killing Aussie citizens now.

Israel have the right to defend itself, even against humanitarian workers who are delivering food to starving women and children.

gerg wrote:It feels like a ninja edit has occurred here?

But anyway, the answer to your question is clearly less smashed avo.

It's not easy and my anecdotes weren't trying to downplay how difficult it is now to buy a home, they were trying to highlight that it has never been easy for different reasons for people in different demographics. I think Doc has nailed it when suggesting it's an easy political target being such an emotive issue.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

No ninja edit.

My point is not that no one ever struggled. It’s that if it’s harder now, it means there are more of your anecdotes now. That’s a bad thing.

I don’t think we’ll agree on the political target. I’m not seeing anything people are presenting aside from ideology themselves or downplaying the impact it’d have. Neither of which count for me as good reasons not to do it.

gangrenous wrote:

gerg wrote:It feels like a ninja edit has occurred here?

But anyway, the answer to your question is clearly less smashed avo.

It's not easy and my anecdotes weren't trying to downplay how difficult it is now to buy a home, they were trying to highlight that it has never been easy for different reasons for people in different demographics. I think Doc has nailed it when suggesting it's an easy political target being such an emotive issue.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

No ninja edit.

My point is not that no one ever struggled. It’s that if it’s harder now, it means there are more of your anecdotes now. That’s a bad thing.

I don’t think we’ll agree on the political target. I’m not seeing anything people are presenting aside from ideology themselves or downplaying the impact it’d have. Neither of which count for me as good reasons not to do it.

Well I think that goes back to one of my earlier comments about the ALP perceiving negative gearing reforms as the reason they lost the 'Shorten" election.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

What changes are people arguing for here??

I found one post asking for a general comment about winding back property tax advantages and some arguments about the good and evils of property investment, but to avoid speaking at cross purposes what "actual" changes would people actually like to see to the housing market?? What do they think will happen from that?

There are a lot of changes I would have to pull the heat out of the housing market but realistically, housing to me seems like a hedge against inflation more then anything else.

Change the RBA charter to forget about economic growth and seek an average inflation of 0%. Using high interest rates to maintain and protect the value of the AUD.

IMO this would keep interest rates high, keep the relative value of the dollar strong and the need to hedge against inflation down. The only issues you are left with is interest being taxed at the highest marginal rate because savers are usually earners. Hopefully some tweaking could be done here.

Couple this with continued heavy stamp duty pushes to non AU citizens and you are away.

I think the any argument around removing the CGT discount is garbage. CG mostly occur from the devaluing of the dollar which is mostly done by the Reserve Bank. So people buy assets, there relative value against other assets (other houses / gold / whatever) doesnt move that much, but against a devaluing dollar it increases, then should you sell, you pay tax and cant afford to buy another similar quality asset.

It is an absolutely **** mental tax and you have the occasional numpties wanting to can the CGT discount making it worse instead of canning CGT itself.

The problem is a lack of houses. Isn't the solution to build more houses? Why isn't that happening? Is there a shortage of builders, what's the problem here?

And GE is 100% correct, as he always is in regards to matters of finance. It's ludicrous to suggest fundamentally changing the tax system to "punish" the haves so that the have nots can also have houses. Just a ridiculous way to go about what's essentially a supply problem.

Another thing that really grinds my gears is the villainisation of "landlords" over the last half a decade or so, like they're some greedy monsters. There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning an additional property and renting it out to somebody else, and the fact there's also a lack of rentals these days again suggests a lack of housing in general.

So long story short: build more houses. No idea why that's not happening or how to implement this strategy more effectively, but don't **** around with the tax system in an attempt to unbalance it and punish people who are probably just trying to set themselves up for retirement.

It's the same on the franking credits situation. Don't change the rules on people who are almost on retirement to take away from their investments, it's just plain nastiness and quite frankly, classic tall poppy syndrome.

BJ wrote:Bruce Lehrmann case has been reopened by the Judge after new evidence emerges that Channel 7 covered $10,315 for his Sensai Thai Massages.

And none of you guys believed me when BJ Mole reported to you that “this case will have a happy ending”.

Looks like the media (10) is just trying to drag this out forever to bankrupt Lehrmann.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

gerg wrote:

BJ wrote:Bruce Lehrmann case has been reopened by the Judge after new evidence emerges that Channel 7 covered $10,315 for his Sensai Thai Massages.

And none of you guys believed me when BJ Mole reported to you that “this case will have a happy ending”.

Looks like the media (10) is just trying to drag this out forever to bankrupt Lehrmann.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Lehrmann. Fiscally bankrupt and morally bankrupt.

In positive news for him. Maybe he can now qualify for legal aid for his other rape case.

David McWilliam’s (who should be president of planet earth) latest pod presents a pro Palestinian case for those trying to wade through the propaganda and discusses how this mess plays out. Great listen .

What even is a pro-Palestinian case.

Not shrugging your shoulders when aid workers are hunted down and slaughtered when trying to deliver food to starving children?

Mickey_Raider wrote: ↑April 4, 2024, 3:22 pm What even is a pro-Palestinian case.

Not shrugging your shoulders when aid workers are hunted down and slaughtered when trying to deliver food to starving children?

I ain’t touching that. You get labelled an anti-Semite or a terrorist sympathiser in these parts if you display any sympathy for either side of this argument.
Bassem Yousseff is a great listen to try and understand the Arab side of the conflict.