This is often treated as a “how long is a piece of string?” question, but The Economist has performed a great public service by allowing an easy comparison of the length of this piece of string across many countries and over time.
Check it out yourself. For Australian readers, house prices today are almost 2.5 times what they were in real terms in 1986; and our price bubble (in CPI-deflated terms) turns out to be smaller than some countries (notably Belgium’s) but larger than the USA’s and UK’s.
Like all such exercises, it is limited by the time series from which the data is taken: the earliest data shown here is for 1975, which is after the second major financial crisis of the post-WWII era (the first was in 1966) but at the end of what was, for its time, a very large property bubble. So the reference point of 1975 could itself represent a “highish” point for house prices, rather than “fair value”.
The data is also short for some countries, and with a difference reference date (say 1987 rather than 1976) the relative ranking of countries changes substantially. A quick look at the Herengracht Index–which shows the CPI-deflated value of housing along a wealthy canal in Amsterdam between 1628 and 1972–shows how important the starting date can be in working out whether housing is “expensive” or “cheap” at any point in time:
The important macroeconomic issue which this data alone doesn’t address is the level of debt that house price inflation has led to. It is probable that a higher real house price reflects a bigger ratio of mortgage and other private debt to GDP, but this isn’t necessarily the case. That ratio is the key indicator of whether a country is going to experience a debt-induced recession.






January 12th, 2010 at 10:04 am
I was speaking with my Father last night who lives in Poland. One of the usual questions he asks is when I will be buying a house (well apartment actually).
So something urged me to try and explain in my limited Polish some of my reservations about home ownership.
Since he lived most of hist life in communism I started my explanation with ‘I think the mechanism of home ownership through large mortgage is one of the worst aspects of capitalism’.
The recent history of Poland makes for an interesting anecdote about the housing market. During communism all housing was government owned and people were allocated units based on family size, there were also waiting lists but I’m not sure of all the details I was pretty small. (as an aside there were waiting list for cars as well, you would wait 2 years pay the factory price and sell the car immediately in the secondary market for twice what you just paid for it!)
So getting to the point, during communism the government owned all housing, after communism it is now the banks which own a significant portion of the housing market. So from this perspective you can start to see what is happening here. Basically 30 year home loans are a claim by a bank to a proportion of your income for most of your working lives. It is a very clear wealth transfer from the working class to the economic elite who own bank shares, in the case of Poland it is probably the global economic elite. It is what makes the worker go to work and what makes the investor make money from their investments.
At the same time in Sydney the economics of owning a home and renting as far as my personal calculations are concerned are 50:50 at the moment and regardless of the equitability of the situation population will grow and cities will become more and more crowded.
January 12th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Here’s a link to the Herengracht-index updated to include the years 1973-2008.
http://www.huizenmarkt-zeepbel.nl/images/huizenprijzen_300jaar.jpg
And yes, the index is at a 380-year high.
January 12th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Excellent! Thanks wp200. Any idea where the data itself is?
January 12th, 2010 at 11:29 am
To save googling time here is the original Herengracht-index paper.
http://web.mit.edu/cre/research/papers/wp86eichholtz.pdf
I found the upper limit approach interesting.
It is interesting to think of real estate prices in terms of upper limits. I think the points to consider in this approach would be
- average home loan size of market entrants
- average investment loan size for investors
- ??accumulated capital??
The first two at least would have upper limits which could be easily postulated. For example average income, interest rates and leverage would form a limit for the first point. The second point would need also to include rent, which would have it’s own limits.
The last point is a bit harder to think about and is more relevant to really the top end of the market, which in a city like Sydney is significantly large. For this section of the market there are not only transportation proximity considerations but also life style factors. It’s sort of related to people upgrading as they accumulate wealth.
I do feel for Sydney in terms of price to income ratio we must be getting close to a limit, but clearly this is only one of the many dimensions to this market.
January 12th, 2010 at 11:31 am
having said that!
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/5609.0?OpenDocument
January 12th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Housing finance approvals fall 5.6pc in November: AB
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/housing-finance-approvals-fall-56pc-in-november-abs/story-e6frg9gx-1225818370885
Yet again the forecast was way off.
January 12th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Steve,
As always, facinating post.
Probably keep both housing bulls and housing bears happy.
The bears will probably argue the mean reversion will lead to a housing collapse.
The bulls arguing the data supports the notion that comparing housing across different geographies is meaningless.
January 12th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
“I think the mechanism of home ownership through large mortgage is one of the worst aspects of capitalism’”
Hi TITINT,
It seems to be that there is a misconceptions about housing and mortgages. That being, by renting one is avoiding a mountain of debt.
While a renter does avoid bank debt, they do not avoid the liability (add up 60+ years of rents!! – that is a large number too).
Instead of owing hundreds of thousands to a bank, a renter will owe hundreds of thousands to all future (un)known landlords. Whether you rent or buy, it is a bet on housing – either way.
The big difference being that so long as one meets their financial obligations , a bank will not remove you from your home. The same can not be said for a landlord.
If there was market to buy all one’s food and clothing up-front and funded by way of a loan, the same dilemma would exist. The reason it occurs with home ownership is because bricklayers, plumbers, carpenters, etc want to be paid when the house is built & not over 25/30 years.
January 12th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
If housing bulls argued that comparing national market data is meaningless they would face several intellectual problems, “pari passu”, to make their arguments possible, let alone valid in the logical sense.
January 12th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
bb,
Yes I see your point, you may not have the capital to be able to build your own house upfront BUT the value of real estate in the presence of highly leveraged home loans is way beyond the costs of building the property. So imagine they took the leverage to 50% or say for the sake of mental experiment no home loans – the value of real estate would plummet, I see it as very much a self feeding system. Home loans increase prices which in turn increase home loans until some limit is reached.
January 12th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Hi WP200,
Great chart.
I think it makes an interesting point – not about house prices, but about how sometimes too much data can be just as misleading as too little data.
I assume your chart shows real (after inflation) price for a particular Country or region. If not, my post may not make much sense.
I think it is unfair to compare the 20th Centry, to the prior period. The 20th century was like no other peiod in the evolution of human history for many reason. For real estate, there were two very important reasons.
A) A massive global population explosion – especially in the West.
http://ldolphin.org/popul.html
B) Roughly 8.0x increase in standard of living – unlike any improvement in recorded human history
http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar02p1.htm#13
Both points are a big positive for real estate. Higher population makes land more scarce, and higher real income allows for higher real prices.
Assuming I am reading your chart correctly, if I analysise the data from 1900 to today I see (roughly) 2.6x increase in real price for housing. This compared to 8.0x increase in per worker real incomes.
Prior to 1900, I see (roughly) a zero increase in real prices – compared to (roughly) relatively minor improvements in the standard of living.
January 12th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
TITINT,
I can’t talk about other markets, but In Australia, house prices in most sub-markets are supported by the cost of production.
In terms of capital, a 20 year old has as much capital as a 60 year old retiree. It comes down to the definition of capital.
A twenty year old has very little tangible capital, but extremely high intangible capital (un-earned income). The opposite is true for the 60 year old.
As you work (battle) through life, you convert your intangible asset into cash, investments and consumption items.
Clealy a bank does not like lending to the intangible too much – so you need a deposit.
But it is a balancing act.
A deposit which is too big leaves you will less working life to meet your obligations (and clearly benefits the bank). Too little, and there is the risk of bankruptcy (to the detriment to both the bank and the individual).
January 12th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
bb,
I understand you are a property bull and can see from your posts that you know allot about property investing. What I think you don’t have a good handle on is debt, which is what Steve is trying to point out.
This point stand out to me. “B) Roughly 8.0x increase in standard of living – unlike any improvement in recorded human history”
You obviously don’t understand the contribution that debt has this calculation. Standard of living is directly related to debt. The same wage + the availability of credit raises ones standard of living immediately without saving, as asset prices increase keep rolling this over and borrow more for a few decades and you have what we are seeing now. The problem is that no-one sees debt as a problem, but I can assure you they will, sooner or later.
January 12th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
bb,
That’s a good point and has broadened my perspective a bit. I do know some people who have built their own house, in particular one who has now done it 3 times and has profited from the recent boom so I have some idea of cost of production.
My focus was probably within 20km of Sydney CBD, but I have to agree with you that further out prices are not much higher than cost of production. However within the 20km range they are much higher. Interestingly areas where you could profit from developing a house are currently not profitable. Buying land + building a house > price, you need some economy of scale now to turn the equation around.
My initial comment about this being the worst aspect of capitalism was partly motivated by that I could think of 100 more productive ways of spending all that money. The only purpose I see in spending your life paying off an over valued house is simply to prop up the price and maintain status quo.
January 12th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
ned,
FWIW, I am not a property bull. I have never invested in property (although I am a home owner).
Personally, I think property is a lousy investment for many reasons – mainly because a tax paying investor must competed with a non-taxpaying owner occupier – so an investor is c15-25% behind at the starting gate.
However I do not expect a property crash in Australia – for the reasons I have pointed out over the past few months.
re: increase in standard of living, your point is well made. I have been attracted to this blog for many reason – but the main reason was to understand steve works better. Your comments assist me greatly in this regard.
However, leaving the debt driven numbers (like real wages) aside, I would still argue the 20th century has delivered an incredible improvement in the standard of living. Some (but not all) examples include
1. Longer life expectancy
2. Improvements in medicine (assists point 1)
3. better quality (and more widely available) food, plus higher yields
4. significantly greater ouput per worker (cars, computers, hammers, tiles, widgets etc)
5. vastly improved technology (in all forms)
6. wider access to education & improved literacy
7. massive improvements in communication
8. greater work diversity / choice
Noth withstanding your very good point, I can not be convinced the 17th / 18th / 19th century is even remotely comparable to the 20th century.
January 12th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
TITINT
“My initial comment about this being the worst aspect of capitalism was partly motivated by that I could think of 100 more productive ways of spending all that money.”
Fair enough.
January 12th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
bb
All of that “incredible improvement” delivered in the 20th century was delivered in an era which was not dominated by neoclassical economics. Also it was built on various technological developments which took place in earler centuries. Your item 5 “vastly improved technology (in all forms)” really describes all of your other points. Development of this kind is not valued by or supported by neoclassical economics.
Such development has now been curtailed and corrupted in various ways in western countries by neoclassical economics. Capitalism is not to blame, what is to blame is economic thinking which has not yet emerged from the 18th century, well behind the 20th century technology that we are using right now.
As of now the technological and economic initiative has been handed over to the Chinese Communists.
Cheers
January 12th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Hi bb,
One point about the Herengracht index as a long term comparison is that it’s the wealthiest street in Amsterdam (I ran its length in a recent trip there–must post the photos one of these days!). So though there are clearly truths that the 20th century has drastically improved living standards for the working and middle classes in Europe, it hasn’t necessarily made the wealthiest better on those same fronts compared to earlier times. I haven’t put that too well (and I’m in too much of a hurry to edit), but that was the reason the author used that canal for the long term comparison–base the index on the best street in what was then the best city on the planet, and the long term development issues you note are less important.
January 12th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Todays ABS 5609 figures and RBA credit aggregate figures for the past 6 months are very interesting.
I wonder what will happen next!
January 12th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
bb
I did a quick check on the prices on the fringes of melbourne for a 400 – 450 square meter 3 bedder and it is on the lower side of your cost of production around 320- 350K not the higher side of 450 – 480K. I am not sure what is the value of the englobo land is but say the house is 150 K , serviced land 150 K and englobo at 30 – 40K. What I can understand is predominantly all over middle suburbs of Melbourne englobo tend to be 10 to 15 times this amount, this I think has nothing to do with cost of production.
Appreciate your thoughts on this.
January 12th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
BB
200 years ago, a wealthy businessman driving down a wealthy Amsterdam street in the fanciest spring suspended carriage drawn by the fastest thoroughbred horse would have drawn the same attention from the crowd as a businessman of today driving down that same Amsterdam street in a Lamborghini.
January 12th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
PETER_W @19 A story related to your link?
Shock plunge in home loan approvals
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/12/2790462.htm
Oh – who would have thunk it?
January 12th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Hi all,
In todays AFR in the letters to the editor section, Robert Black, Exec. Director Land Release, NSW Dept. of Planning, has responded to a previous claim about low land releases as the problem in Sydney.
From his comments in the letter I gather that he believes that there is confusion about the shortfall in emergency accomodation for those in need and there being enough land for general release. He states:
“The writer confuses the provision of 6000 new public housing units essentially, rental accommodation for low-income households in established areas, with the supply of land in new release areas of Sydney for home buyers and owner/builders”.
“There is ample newly released land in the metropolitan area, well in excess of benchmarks. In fact, there is enough zoned and serviced land for private housing suppliers to build some 30,000 dwellings.
“The government also recently released land for a further 27,000 dwellings in Sydneys north-west and south-west growth centres”.
Therefore, based on ABS figures of approx. 2.2 persons per dwelling it would appear on the surface that Sydney has enough existing serviced and just released land to accommodate 125,400 people. That, with the stated provision of 6000 emergency rental dwellings would nearly clear the so called national housing shortfall.
And that is just in Sydney alone.
I apologise for not being able to post a link to the letter but I only get the hard copy of the paper.
January 12th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Thanks #22 & #23
I suspect that credit demand will continue to fall.
The RBA cash rate will be heading to 0% by the end of 2010.
Unemployment will continue to rise.
Population growth will begin to decline as a result of unemployment.
The low point of ~ 2.5 persons (ABS data) per dwelling will be in dramatic reversal heading toward 3.
Dwelling vacancy will be rising.
Rent will be falling.
The AUD will be falling.
I could be wrong!
January 12th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
debtjunkies – yes but they need to do that every year to keep up with the population growth. Released land is one thing, development is another.
A comment in general, if you click on all the countries in the chart it actually looks a little like simulation paths of geometric brownian motion.
Also none of the countries show a double peak very close together, if this happened in Australia it would be the first time in this data across all the countries. This indicates that the volatility of this price data is relativily low and probably has some autoregression. I bet it’s inversely correlated to interest rates as well.
One of the things you could conclude from the chart in general that there are so many possible outcomes.
On the housing approval figures, now we will see if there is a correlation between these figures and the housing index, since the turnaround in approvals is pretty sharp and so the effect on prices should be quite clear as well.
January 12th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
bb #15
I love your points, however, just to present a moderating perspective:
1. Longer life expectancy – for those in wealthy nations. Our longer life expectancy, due indirectly to our past wealth, is perhaps at the cost of lower expectancies of others such as those suffering pollution in oil contaminated Amazon areas for example. Probably many Chinese in the near future.
2. Improvements in medicine (assists point 1)
Again, for the wealthy few, possibly at the expense of others – I don’t really want to push this point too hard as I don’t know all the facts here.
3. better quality (and more widely available) food, plus higher yields
Higher yields yes, but probably at the cost of quality (much evidence for this, although most people choose not to accept it). Possibly detracts from 1) and makes 2) more necessary to compensate.
4. significantly greater output per worker (cars, computers, hammers, tiles, widgets etc)
At the cost of depleting non-renewable energy and other natural resources.
5. vastly improved technology (in all forms)
Such as face book. What a boon for man-kind. But admittedly, on the whole yes, if you ignore negative side effects.
6. wider access to education & improved literacy
Not necessarily true. Literacy was much higher in the US in the 1800′s – over 90% for the free population, over 80% for slaves, and at a higher level than the 70% (and falling) of literate US citizens today.
7. massive improvements in communication
Undebatable. Unfortunately much of it is still controlled by vested interests, including ever-present billboards which today are really fancy, basically large TV’s pushing private purposes in public spaces.
8. greater work diversity / choice
Bob Ellis argues in his book “The Capitalism Delusion: How Global Economics Wrecked Everything and What To Do About It” that work choice was much higher in the 70′s (he seems to agree with BrightSpark1 #17). This is likely to get worse in the future.
January 12th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
TITINT,
I understand the point and until recently thought the same, but I would dispute the estimated shortfall that keeps being noted.
The following report clearly states the problem.
http://www.facs.gov.au/sa/housing/pubs/housing/national_housing_supply/Documents/chap4.htm
About 2/3 down it notes that for 2009 there is a supply shortfall of 108,000 dwellings and that includes 85000 for the homeless or displaced.
The report also highlights the expected need for housing in the future.
Now if you read that report inconjunction with the estimated supply coming from the NSW Dept of Planning there is not really a supply problem at the moment. And even if you assume that 20% of the expected demand for dwellings into the future is in Sydney then NSW has enough supply coming on line for at least the next 3-4 years.
January 12th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
TITINT,
My comments about enough supply in Sydney for the next few years does not take into consideration emergency housing needs which is a different issue altogether and one that I think should not cloud the general supply discussion.
January 12th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/cf/apnhr/presentations/pdf/W2_Donald_Australia_enough_housing.pdf
2010 will be a telling year for real estate. Question is how do tell at the end of the year whether there is a housing shortage, what would be the indicator and what information would you need to filter out.
I think the factors are interest rates, FHOG, supply/demand and employment. So rates are going up, FHOG is decreased, employment let’s call it steady. So if prices don’t fall this year given two of the factors are -ve and one is neutral it supports the shortage theory. If prices fall it doesn’t prove or disprove the shortage.
So how can we really tell if there is a shortage or not – best way I think is to watch the vacancy rates and maybe rents. Can’t seem to find very good information on vacancy rates though.
January 12th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
TITINT,
Reading these reports and taking your comments above into consideration it would seem that the so called shortfall is one that is yet to really manifest itself as both the reports note that the shortfall is not expected to be an issue for at least a few years.
Like you said its something we do not yet know and will not know for a while.
I think what I am trying to say is that the spruikers have been selling the shortfall story for a while now and this along with FHVG would it seem have bought forward demand.
That is probably why we will continue to see falls in new construction as there really is no demand…yet!
January 12th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
TrainWreckEscapeArtist
I’m looking forward to new car sales figures for January February then March.
I bet there will be a few ‘surprised’ neo-classics on that one.
January 12th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Anyone and everyone, including FHO and “investors” wanting to take a loan to buy a property should be made to cough up 30% deposit before they can apply.
What would that do to the supply shortage or prices?
Anyone?
Buy Gold
January 12th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
I may not know what i am talking about but interest rates are not even a factor when it comes to housing.
Would you rather a 7% interest mortgage(death pledge)with $1000 down or 1% interest rate mortgage (death pledge)with a 30% deposit?
On an average property say $650,000 you have to come up with $195,000 of your own saved money !!!!
The deposit is what will control prices and speculation not interest rates or supply and demand shortage.
Remember Buy Gold.
January 12th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
I wonder if the price of Dutch housing belongs here:
(All) interest paid in Holland on a housing loan can be deducted from tax. A tax directive is issued which will provide the home owner with an immediate discount of between 30-50% on his/her monthly payments. This applies to ALL home owners, not only businesses.
When applying for a loan 30 years ago only the income for the man would apply, then the the financial institutions were allowed to included the income of the partner for 20%, then 30, then 50% and now 100%.
This makes money cheaper with one directive, and house prices went through the roof.
Finally, you own a plot, so not think you can build on it. The government decides on that, thereby in effect controlling the number of houses coming onto the market. Net effect is a total distortion of house prices: the government dictates, not the market.
There are no markets in Holland anymore, only subsidies, directives, laws, regulations, interventions, etc.
All under the political cover of “reasonable” and “looking after the weak”, the Dutch socialised every m2, throwing out the market forces with the bath water.
The government is now the main force, growing day by day.
January 12th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
The graph illustrates how obscenely overvalued our housing is. I am looking forward to the release of the 6th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (2009) which should be available from the following link
http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf
Last year’s edition contained rankings of real estate markets in all the Anglo Saxon countries including Australia. Sadly, ours was the worst and all of our major cities were ranked as ‘severely unaffordable’ being more than 5 times the median household income.
But nothing makes the case better than a look at what you can get in the USA. In Grayson, a suburb around 30 km to the north east of Altanta, we have 215 Rosewood Circle. What does this handsome home cost? A whopping US$244,900 (or A$ 263,333), that’s what! Actually I lie. I added US$100,000 to the price because it just sounds too frigging implausible. In fact it’s US$144,900 or A$155,800.
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/215-Rosewood-Circle_Covington_GA_30016_1112967363
Just so we are comparing apples with apples I thought I’d compare that fine timber home with a house for sale in Eltham (a similarly green suburb some 30 km to the north east of Melbourne). Or so I tried but it seems that our apples aren’t as cheap as theirs. The best I could find was a one bedroom retirement unit for $265,000.
http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bin/rsearch?a=o&id=106233447&f=0&p=10&t=res&ty=&fmt=&header=&cc=&c=72926244&s=vic&tm=1263297256
Anything comparable in Eltham costs around $700,000 – $800,000. And did I mention that 215 Rosewood Circle has a third of an acre block.
My sincere apologies to anyone reading this who has just bought a home in Eltham.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:08 am
Thanks Speckie,
Showed my wife the house, now she wants to get an investment property in America
January 13th, 2010 at 12:23 am
#34
I have looked at several houses within 20 – 30km of Atlanta and when I compare similar houses @ Melbourne or Sydney the observed physical reality is… Australia is in a massive housing bubble.
I especially like the area around Roswell Atlanta
Check out http://www.Coldwellbankeratlanta.com
January 13th, 2010 at 12:33 am
A typical example from a 60 second search
USD $149,900 = AUD $161,200 ~ AUD/USD $0.93
3 bed, double garage, 1/3 acre
http://www.coldwellbankeratlanta.com/Property/PropertyDetails.aspx?SearchID=1448746&PropertyID=572170&RowNum=107&StateID=15&RegionID=0&IsRegularPS=True
Not sure how Chris Joye would explain these prices!
January 13th, 2010 at 12:39 am
Hey TITINT and Debtjunkie
Following your interesting dialogue. The following post by Kris Sayce on the Daily Reckoning gives a good break-down of the housing shortage claimed by the National Housing Supply Council State of Supply Report. The supply shortage claim is complete 100% uncut bunk. It’s consistently raised by those representing the pecuniary interests of the property establishment and it is circulated from one vested interest to another with out challenge.
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/property-spruikers-claim-australia-suffers-from-a-chronic-housing-shortage/2009/08/24/
Also nothworthy is Dan Denning’s article, “Aussie Home Prices Bubble” in early December 2009
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/aussie-house-prices-bubble/2009/12/01/
The article cites data that suggests that the ratio of the number of households compared to dwellings has actually grown in Australia in the last twenty years from around 1.3% in 1986 to over 1.8% in 2006.
One look at graph 6 and any boy wonder his mask would have to say “Holy cow batman. Doesn’t this mean there is a housing surplus and NOT a housing shortage. We’ve gotta tell Commissioner Gordon!” Or Maybe it all went to hell from 2006 onwards…
January 13th, 2010 at 12:43 am
I forgot to mention the inground pool.
I guess you could hire a bobcat to back fill it in and still get change out of the AUD $300,000 price difference.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:52 am
Has any housing spruker checked the recent housing composition data from the ABS? (doubt it)
The person/dwelling ratio climbed from 2.52 to 2.56 in one year.
Trivial… Maybe… But that’s the equivalent of housing the full 1.6% population growth with NOT ONE NEW HOUSE BUILT.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:52 am
Speckie #34
It was 0.45Acre. This illustrares just how out of whack things are in both the USA and Australia as a result of the so called “globalisation”. There is no way that we can make sense out of this other than as the destruction of the relationship between the PRICE and VALUE of an assett in these countries. Firstly the AUD is overpriced against the USD but that does not explain it all. Secondly credit money with foreign credit money added and amplified has created a bubble which probably spawned a similar “investment” surge in the USA. The bubble has collapsed in the USA but has yet to do so in in Oz. Did you notice from the google earth pictures that this house in part of an extensive new development to the west of the town, a bubble development. There is a similar development with depressed prices to the north of Bristol in England called Bradley Stoke, but now renamed “Sadly Broke” by the locals. Estates like this are all over Ireland.
Unemployment is way too high in the USA and way too high in Australia but dishonest ABS figures hide this reality in Australia it is really in excess of 10% here. The USA figures are far more representative of the unemployment facts.
For the bubble to survive in Oz we need more badly informed boomer investors getting into negatively geared real estate to avoid tax. But the boomers are starting to retire and everyone else is so unsure of their employment that they are less and less willing to take the risk. Retiring boomers will now start to cash out, at the peril of the bubble. Also a downward slope in real estate prices will cause more cashing out activity (lagging feedback).
Meanwhile our current prosperity is dependent on a steady supply of manufactured goods from China with an endless line of credit from China because we buy more cargo than we can afford. When we run out of borrowers real estate prices must descend to the true real estate value and the investors and banks who service the foreign debt must go sadley broke.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:58 am
Swifty
Not so sure that’s a good idea yet as the way the US dollar is going, US homes will be much cheaper in future due to the weakening greenback.
In iceland the cost of a home has fallen by 25% in Kronor terms but the value of the icelandic kronor to the Aussie has fallen from 53 to one to 115 to one. So most of the asset ‘cheaping effect” is generated by the exchange rate.
January 13th, 2010 at 1:05 am
PETER_W
If it moved up to a realistic average 4.0 persons (three bedroom average house) per household this would represent an increase is housing capacity of 36% enough to house an additional 7.9 million people. Also with NOT ONE NEW HOUSE BUILT as you said.
January 13th, 2010 at 1:23 am
#43
I’m on the same page!
I vaguely remember at the end of the 1890 depression… i.e. in 1900 Australian household composition was ~ 5 people.
That would be a 50% vacancy rate
I could be wrong.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:33 am
PETER_W #44
Good point we really need to investigate occupancy rates from the cencus data, this should be available from 1891 at 10 year intervals reduced to 5 year intervals recently.
I do remember my own situation in the 1950′s, 8 people in a 3.5 bedroom house. End of the 1930 GFC (great depression).
The 2.56 seems ridiculous.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:48 am
PETER_W & BrightSpark1,
I’ve gathered data back to 1880 (when Stapledon’s index starts). What you’re both discussing is the average occupancy ratio (AOR). Unfortunately, the number of private dwellings doesn’t go back to 1880, it only starts in 1901.
Year/Population(mn)/Private Dwellings(mn)/AOR
1901 3.92 0.76 5.16
1910 4.51 0.95 5.01
1920 5.55 1.12 4.98
1930 6.68 1.51 4.42
1940 7.27 1.74 4.18
1950 8.44 2.04 4.14
1960 10.59 2.77 3.82
1970 12.82 3.68 3.48
1980 14.7 4.76 3.09
1990 17.07 5.91 2.89
2000 19.15 7.27 2.63
2008 21 8.28 2.53
Performing a simple linear extrapolation, there will occur a AOR of 1 by 2060! One private dwelling per person… Sounds insane.
From 1956 to 2005, the year-on-year growth of private dwellings was greater than that of YoY population growth. This particular trend ended in 2005 due to the number of private dwellings decreasing by 20,000 from 2004 to 2005. No idea why this occurred.
According to the idea that property prices are set by supply and demand, prices should’ve been steadily falling for the last half a century. However, we’ve seen boom, bust, and stagnation.
From 1989 to 1995, prices fell by 6.8% in real terms and then increased 136% from 1996-2009. The 1890s bubble by comparison is tiny and yet it caused more economic fallout than the Great Depression in the 1930s. I wonder what damage the bursting of our Great Australian Bubble will do to the economy.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:23 am
Dean Baker (one of the Gang of 12) has come out with another book on the current crisis.
Baker, Dean. 2010. False Profits: Recovering from the Bubble Economy (CA: Polipoint Press).
http://p3books.com/falseprofits/
Jamie Galbraith wrote an interesting and easy to understand article on economics.
Galbraith, James K. 2009. “Who Are These Economists, Anyway?”, Thought and Action, pp. 85-97
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/TA09EconomistGalbraith.pdf
“Economics was not riven by a feud between Pangloss and Cassandra. It was all a chummy conversation between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.” (p. 86)
“The Cambridge (UK) economist Wynne Godley and a team at the Levy Economics Institute have built a series of strategic analyses of the U.S. economy on this insight, warning repeatedly of unsustainable trends in the current account and (most of all) in the deterioration of the private financial balance.” (p. 90)
“Minsky’s analysis showed that capitalist financial instability is not only unavoidable, but intrinsic: instability arises from within, without requiring external disturbances or “shocks.” There is no such thing as an equilibrium growth path, indefinitely sustained. Short of changing the system, the public responsibility is to regulate financial behavior, limiting speculation and stretching out for as long as possible the expansionary phase of the cycle.” (p. 91)
January 13th, 2010 at 3:28 am
Another Dean Baker article:
The Case for Bernanke: A Really Bad Joke
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-case-for-bernanke-a-really-bad-joke/
“Bernanke bears much of the responsibility for the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. He sat alongside Alan Greenspan at the Fed since 2002 as the housing bubble expanded to ever more dangerous levels. While some of us were trying to raise the alarm, Greenspan and Bernanke dismissed these concerns and repeatedly assured the country that the housing market was being driven by fundamentals.”
“Greenspan and Bernanke’s insistence that everything was fine ensured that there would be no effective regulatory actions to stem the growth of the bubble and the proliferation of bad mortgages. Lesser regulators were not going to stick their necks out and insist that the Maestro and his sidekick were wrong.”
January 13th, 2010 at 8:59 am
EW #32 & #33,
I agree – although personally I would set deposit levels at 20%.
There was a time, up to the early 80′s I believe where if you did not have a 20% deposit you could not even get an application for a home loan let alone an approval.
I believe that they should also set a maximum debt servicing level that will contain a persons borrowing capacity to their ability to repay the debt.