I have no strong opinions on property, sorry Jaygill. I would guess that if property prices are falling, it will scare some people away from property just as falling share prices scares some people out of the share market. If property prices fell (or "corrected") by 20% to 30%, that would likely mean higher unemployment and a lot of other things, but I think once the falls seemed to have finished and the prices levelled out, I'm sure you would see some buying. You'd see buying on the way down too of course, but you'd see even MORE buying when people thought the falls were likely done. I don't have strong opinions on how property price falls would affect ASX valuations either, but all other things being equal, we would probably still be in a recession, there would be high unemployment, sluggish economic activity, and sentiment would be low, so the stockmarket would unlikely to be flying. I don't think I can sensibly outline a correlation between the two markets however, because there are so many variables that could possibly be in play at the time and affect the outcome. One last thing, I would not be at all surprised to see ultra low interest rates stay with us for 5 or 10 years from here. Beware of rising US interest rates in particular. I believe US interest rates are going to stay lower for longer, as they should here also, but when they DO rise, seriously start to rise over there, we could easily see a 20% to 30% fall in the US stockmarket just on the basis of rising interest rates. Remember that interest rates affect stock valuations, and people will be driven into stocks when they can't make any money on TDs (that is the current situation) but they will start taking money out of stocks when other options become available again. In very general terms, higher interest rates means lower stock valuations. That is also Hamish Douglass' view - he views rising interest rates in the US as being the biggest risk to valuations there. Hamish runs the very successful Magellan Funds here in Australia. His management company is MFG, and they currently have $97 billion in FUM (funds under management). He's very connected with what's going on around the world and the biggest risks. He is worth listening too. But I think we've got years of low interest rates before we have to worry about that. I hope!

The volatility will continue, and we're probably due for another "down" day soon-ish, but that would be a positive IMO. I have some cash set aside for one or two companies who have got away from me recently before I could get set in them, and I'm not chasing them when there are opportunities that look even better at current levels. However, not all my bullets have been fired, yet... So, I'd prefer another pullback before we go off to the races again. The negatives are everywhere, D Trump, China-US tension, US-WHO tension, Victoria-US tension (Pompeo threatening to "disconnect" from countries who side with China regarding China's belt and road initiative where China assist with loans and infrastructure funding in countries all over the world in exchange for...?), global recession, the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic being FAR from over in many parts of the World, China underwhelming with their domestic stimulus measures so far, the USA losing its credibility on so many levels, China bullying Australia and losing what little credibility they might have had with the Australian people, valuations in some sectors in some markets looking pretty high compared to the risks to future earnings that these sectors clearly face, the list is pretty long, and goes well beyond that little sample. However, all of that has to be viewed through the lens of ultra-low interest rates, which is herding people into shares and property, and shares look better than property (generally speaking) to most of us right now. People who have a LONG way to go before retirement can afford to go to cash and not be involved. However, those who are already self-funded retirees, or trying to build up enough to retire on via their SMSF, will, for the most part, keep coming back to shares. And we know that those who are lucky enough to miss the biggest falls, also usually miss the best days that our market has each year, which tend to be the biggest bounces after those falls. I long ago gave up trying to time the market. The market can turn on a dime, sometimes more than once in a single day. So, what to do. Everybody has to make decisions based on their own expectations and risk tolerance. For me, I'll stay mostly invested most of the time. It worked during the GFC for me, and I think it will work again. It doesn't mean I am unable to redeploy money into wonderful new opportunities. It just means I often have to sell something to buy something else. And that's OK. But yes, the confidence in our market today seems a little OTT. Considering the US market was closed Monday and we had no lead from Wall Street, I imagine that sentiment turning pear-shaped again overnight (during their Tuesday) is likely to see us sharply down tomorrow.

@JoshGraham18 and @Hackenbacker - I just watched today's "The Call" and it was pretty incredible that the three of them discussed how you should not expect FLT to get back up to $40 because they now have twice the shares on issue that they had then, and that you would probably want to be taking money off the table at $20 now with FLT, but they didn't click (no pun intended) that WEB (who they'd talked about 2 minutes earlier) was exactly the same situation. They look cheap because they're still 50% below their highs. No, they look expensive, because with double the share count, they're already back to near their pre-COVID-19 highs (in market cap terms) and they're not the company now that they were then, and the outlook for them is very different now than it was then. It's funny. I was well aware that the share count of WEB had doubled, as you both are, but I had not realised that FLT had issued that many shares. I wouldn't have thought they needed to, but there you go. The comments on ISX were also interesting. Both sets of comments seemed based purely on the 28 pages that the ASX put out last night and the unpublished response from ISX to the ASX's "Statement of Reasons" (...why ISX had broken the listing rules). That response has not been published by the ASX but it's available via the iSignthis website and I provided a link to it in a straw last night. Scott suggested that ISX might have good reason to feel unfairly targeted over AML (anti-money laundering) law breaches, when the ASX have not gone after the big banks over their breaches, but ISX is a whole different ballgame. Unlike the 4 big banks, ISX is rotten to the core. The CEO even lies about his own CV, claiming to be a patent attorney when he's not and claiming to have a law degree that he doesn't have. They have been dealing with criminals and with companies who various regulators have either shut down or warned people against doing business with. They cooked their own books to give management half a billion dollars worth of free shares for nothing (they're not worth that much now of course, but they were back in 2018 when they were gifted those shares). And now the major card schemes such as Visa have caught up with what's been going on and no longer want to do business with them. All this from a company who claims to be providing AML services to other companies. It's like locking Dracula in the blood bank overnight and expecting him to behave himself. What the ASX have shared in their correspondence is the tip of the iceberg. It's just the stuff they know that they can share without being successfully sued - because it's proven fact and they have the evidence to back up their claims. The stuff about ISX in the AFR is far worse than anything the ASX has said. But I digress... https://www.ausbiz.com.au/media/the-call-tuesday-26th-may?videoId=1413