Rescuing the Economy or the Bubble?
Many elements of the recently announced package are justified. When the economy is about to go into a debt-induced recession, government spending both boosts demand, and provides the private sector with cash flow needed to meet its debt repayment commitments.
Equally vital was the guarantee of all bank deposits. A run on the banks would be disastrous, and this guarantee ensures that this will not happen.
But yet another increase to the First Home Buyers Grant???
Is this because, um, house prices are, like, maybe too low?
Oh please, some reality here: the root cause of this crisis is excessive debt that drove house and share prices to unsustainable levels. Times appeared rosy as the house (and stockmarket) bubble continued, but this was only because borrowed money was adding to demand.
No-one worried about this when it was easy to flog a house for a higher price. But unfortunately, this game had to come to an end, because debt servicing became prohibitive as house prices rapidly outstripped incomes. The bubble burst first in the USA, and the carnage it has wreaked there should warn us all that asset price bubbles are dangerous.
And how does the Australian government respond? By providing yet another stimulus on the demand side.
A collapsing housing bubble may be a scary prospect, but the more it is inflated, the scarier the final bust. And Australia’s, on any measure, is bigger than America’s.
A simple comparison of the ABS Established House Price Index (ABS 641601 and 641603) to the CPI shows just how large the Australian house price bubble is (see Figure One).
Figure One
House Prices vs the CPI
Since 1987–hardly a time when Australian house prices were low by historical standards–house prices have increased two and a half times as fast as consumer prices (see Figure Two). Median incomes have fared little better than the CPI, so that houses are 60 percent less affordable now than in 1987.
Figure Two
Ratio of House Prices to the CPI
That’s also true even when we take into account lower interest rates. Yes, rates are about half what they were in 1987 (see Figure Three); but debt is six times larger as a percentage of household disposable income than it was then (see Figure Four)–so that merely paying the interest on outstanding mortgage debt consumes 13 cents in the household dollar, versus a mere 3.5 cents back in 1987.
Figure Three
Mortgage rates and payments
Figure Four
Mortgage debt to disposable income
Increasing the amount of money that first home buyers can slap down on a home may help those who can’t afford to get into the market do so–great. It will also increase competition for houses, and potentially sustain the Great Australian Housing Price Bubble.
Not great. As the USA shows us, the pain of a bursting house price bubble can be pretty immense–especially since it’s fuelled by excessive levels of debt.
But that pain will only get worse if the bubble is driven any higher. The higher up you are when you fall off a mountain, the more it hurts when you hit the ground. The Australian house price mountain, on any measure, is substantially higher than the USA’s was when it began its long, painful descent (see Figure Five).
Boosting the First Home Buyers Grant is a mistake, just as it was when Howard did it. It will merely delay the day of reckoning.
Figure Five
Australian vs US Housing Bubble


Given Aus has a bigger housing bubble than the US, readers might find last weeks New York Times graphic interesting.
It shows the valuations of housing when a house was just a home (and not a vehicle for speculation).
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QxBGECHecpA/SPtzSfRAs2I/AAAAAAAAASw/KskKbBwwv_0/s1600-h/D.+House+Prices+100+years+NYT_edited-1.gif
Jonothoan Farrugia
It would be handy if you stated your sources.
As I stated in my research paper “Brisbane House Price Forecast” at http://www.geocities.com/homes4aussies/080708paper.pdf
“It is important to note, however, that these changes [characteristic of a softening housing market] may not become clear in the widely published data until late 2008 or early 2009 for a number of reasons. Firstly, the organisations that typically publish
these data benefit from turnover, and therefore strong markets, of established and new housing, and publishing data is meant to be a positive influence on that, as well as free promotion. And secondly, most of these data are based on moving averages over 6 to 12 months, which have the affect of smoothing out the data so that the early stages of booms and busts are not immediately evident. Most likely, the first data to confirm the burstingg of the bubble will be the quarterly ABS data house price data.”
Note that all of this has come to fruition (see my comment above on 21 Oct). I would add that I regularly see written the annual growth data, and it is now very rare to see monthly or quarterly data in media reports.
Perhaps, Jonothoan, you may be interested to take a more detailed look at the latest RP Data figures at http://www.rpdata.net.au/news/rp/RPData_Rismark_Hedonic_Index_September%2008_Release.pdf
Note that the RP Data-Rismark Hedonic Index Results (all houses) shows a decline in all Australian capital cities in the latest finalised quarter (ending July 08) with Brisbane’s rate of fall the fastest at 3.8% (roughly twice that of the next city). This translates to an annual fall of over 14%.
I expect house price falls to accelerate from current levels.
The analyses backing my views are stated here, on my website, in my research papers, and in my comments made on the “property 2009″ debate.
Auctions are where it starts. A combination of real-estate tactics & stupid purchasers contribute to this problem. You can over-intellectualize all you want. But the Legalisation of Vendor’s Bids at auctions, and lets just be reminded they can make as many as they want during an auction.
In Melbourne yesterday there were a high percentage of auctions where multiple Vendor’s Bids pushed the price higher…. way higher than the market thought was appropriate (some auctions I went to as many as 5 vendor’s bids were used, sometimes with bids of as much as $50,000) (that’s more than a years wages for some people!).
Bidders then bid above this inflated price, to either buy, or be the first to negotiate at the artificially inflated price…… = high over inflated prices = debt.
Thank you Mr.Real Estate Agent, Thank you Hungry Greedy Vendor, Thank you Stupid ‘Post Vendor Bid’ Bidder, Thank you Government for allowing this to be OK in law
Found the following article with useful links that supports Steve’s work here:
http://andrewbartlett.com/?p=7140
Keeping housing affordability debate on track
New Matilda has an article “Is there a recession brewing in our housing bubble?” which quotes Steve Keen here:
http://newmatilda.com/2008/10/21/there-recession-brewing-our-housing-bubble
I just posted a piece on the First Home Buyers Grant, and then realised that I have to edit it somewhat. I should have those changes done by Sunday. Please don’t quote or discuss it in the meantime.
Thanks All, Steve
Being inspired by the other GetUp! campaigns… I have started my own, to see if we can get rid of this ridiculous grant once and for all
http://suggest.getup.org.au/forums/60819-campaign-ideas/suggestions/1640085-stopping-the-first-home-buyers-grant?ref=title
Looked at Figure Four. It is labeled wrongly and is misleading. Disappointingly amateurish.
Figure 4? When I approved your comment on my Blackberry, I thought you’d be complaining about the S&P caption on Figure 2. What’s wrong or misleading about Figure 4?