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.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:09 am
TITINT #29,
Have you tried http://www.sqmresearch.com.au/graphs/terms_vacancy.php
Don’t ever trust your state REI data!
January 13th, 2010 at 9:23 am
bb,
Sorry about classifying you as a property bull, but you seem to be defending the current prices in this country and also seem to be putting in points that make it seem (to me anyway) that you expect property prices here to continue to rise.
I have to disagree with your thoughts that property is a lousy investment though, CGT applies to any investment other than the owner occupied house, so that tax burden applies to all investments competing with property so isn’t a defining characteristic that makes property more or less attractive as far as I can see.
Your points on contributing factors to living standard rises is interesting, and obviously technology advances have contributed to this, but the distinction I would make is between productive standard of living increases, of which you have mentioned many and non-productive living standard increases.
Longer life expectancy, improvements in medical science, higher yields in crops is all due to the retained knowledge, if Newton was standing on the shoulders of giants, just think of who today’s scientists are standing on!! Oil is another huge contributing factor for 20th century living standard adjustments, these are all productive factors though (although oil is disputable from an environmental perspective)
I think we can compare debt levels across centuries because debt is always a mathematical constant, in that if a loan of a certain size and at a certain interest rate is taken out then the income needed to repay it would be the same in the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries regardless of what that money can buy.
My thoughts anyway.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Speckie,
Thanks for your reply.
Now she wants to look at ICELAND (37.5%) of orignal value, in Aussie Dollars, Yeh!
January 13th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Standards of living also have resulted from the deflation of non-durable goods, thus those on lower income can afford those microwave ovens, custom kitchens, refrigerators, second colour tvs.
Health, Housing (and taxes) are the main costs that keep the household disposable income less than in the 1970s where only one income was required to maintain a middle class household.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:44 am
#47 Thanks Philip
I knew you had the data
So a not unreasonable long term possibility is that Australia transitions back to an AOR similar to the 1950 – 1960 period of ~4 per dwelling.
On that basis Australia presently has a housing oversupply of 56% and even with 2% population growth Australia will not need to build a single extra dwelling for the next 22 years.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Phillip & PETER_W,
In post #27 I posted a link to a government study on supply/demand. Table 4.7 from that paper also details the number of vacant/spare rooms per household.
It notes that 10.4% of households have 3 or more spare bedrooms.
Here is the link:
http://www.facs.gov.au/sa/housing/pubs/housing/national_housing_supply/Documents/chap4.htm
January 13th, 2010 at 11:12 am
debtjunkies @ 56.
Thanks for the link. It shows that Australia has more than enough room to house everyone comfortably. 32% of dwellings have 2 spare bedrooms!
PETER_W @ 55,
Theoretically, that could be the case. In the US, there has occurred a people ‘compression’. People have moved back in with parents, are staying longer with parents before moving out, and are moving into shared houses in order to cut costs. Will a AOR of 4 be reached? Doubtful, but possible depending on how large the disaster caused by the bubble bursting is.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:16 am
#56
Alot of this can be explained by demographics, the baby boomers > empty nesters
2010 is the leading edge of this demographic retiring which will be followed by down sizing then retirement village living then nursing home living.
Over the next 20 years there will be a continual supply of under-utilised dwellings from this demographic net selling and the AOR rising.
As a nation we need to be very careful that the vested interests HIA ~ Banking ~ spruking build build build don’t ‘over build’ as that would cause a catastrophic price collapse.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
There is a reason you get so much bang for your buck buying a house in a non tourist spot in the South (outside Atlanta). I wouldn’t think twice about living there, but investing is another story. Not all, but many people in a non tourist town in the South who can buy a place, will, and will not rent. 30 miles outside of Melbourne is not a comparable apple to 30 miles outside of Atlanta. I saw properties much cheaper than $150k…but who are you going to rent too? I used to collect rent as a job….and 100% of the time the tenants were weeks late and it was a massive headache. I can’t speak for all of the USA, but having an investment property to rent out in Sydney is a completely different ball game to having one in south USA. Keep in mind minimum wage in GA is about $5.15/ hour…..and that the cost to rent there is more comparable to owning. For the most part I don’t think property there is worth the headache unless you live there.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Hi SK @ 18,
thanks for your reply.
I guess using this street as an example perhaps clouds the data even more than I thought. there is also another aspect going on, which probably relates to the big re-distribution of wealth which occured during the 20th century. This could explain why real prices are up 2.6x while real average incomes are up 8.0x
The funny thing about stats – the longer you go back, the less meaninful the data. Using a cricket analogy, it is easy to compare Ricky Ponting to Matthew Hayden, but how do you compare him to Charles Bannerman (c1880)?
January 13th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
pb @ 20,
“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.”
A very good point. Once you get to the middle suburbs, englobo land no longer exists. There may be some brownfield sites, but they already benefit from all of the infrastructure and services of an established suburb.
So you will always pay for serviced land for the middle suburbs. It then comes down to relativities. Do I pay $400k to be 60min from the CBD, or $600k to be 20min? Clearly the premium is being applied to the serviced land (since all build costs are the same, save for site access).
There is no hard formula here. Just personal preference, and capacity to pay
But the marginal cost of production in the outer suburbs will always provide a starting point for the established suburbs. I guess one could argue some inflated prices for established areas – but for new stock & first home buyers, I think they are underwritten at replacement cost. This is a positive from a macro-economic sense, since that is where the most of the leverage (relative to assets) sits.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
MMitchel @ 26,
Thanks for your thoughts. Your points are well made.
I think out of all of the advances during the 20th century, Communication is the big game changer.
Most historians agree the invention of the printing press in the 15th Century by Guttenburg was the prelude the some of the greatest changes in human history (Renaisance,universal sufferage & democracy, science, religion, exploration, etc).
Perhaps I’m just a hopeless bull, but I see similarities with the internet. It has already forced closed societies like China into the real world, significanlty improving our global production capacity.
Further, it gived people like Steve K a forum to express ideas which wouldn’t be possible even 20 years ago. Imagine what this blog would be like if we all had to write letters to each other…..
January 13th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Thanks bb
Why do you also suggest that Australian prices should not be compared against global prices because of different factors at play here. In a global economy isnt it fair for such a comparison especially since this impacts a countries ability in attracting quality migration or its indirect impact on cost of production of goods and services.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
hi Ned @ 52
No offence taken…I was more offended when someone mistakenly took me as a fund manager in an earlier post….
I agree CGT applies to all investments, so I understand your point about housing not being too disadvantaged versus (say) equities.
The main issue is within the asset class.
An owner occupier (OO) needs a 7% after tax return to justify a purchase, since this cover the mortgage. This return comes in the form of rent savings (c3%), and require capital growth (say 4%).
Assuming 80% leverage and after tax, this scenario gives the investor a 1 year ROE of 4.3%. Clearly this is poor, and the investor needs to pay a lower price to generate a higher return.
Since the market always clears at the highest price, either the OO ends up buying the asset, or the investor gets stuck with a poor return.
I do accept market inefficiencies present some oppotunities for investors, but IMO they are hard to find.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Pb,
I think you may be refering to my ealier comment.
My initial observation of the chart indicated there was very little corelation between the counties, which supports a diversification argument.
I’m not sure I accept that view. It was an observation.
Clealy the Bears would argue mean-reversion will ensure a property collapse. However many many items never mean revert (Plasma TV’s, Atari game sets, Flared Jeans, Babcock & Brown shares etc).
I also would say it can be dangerous to assume what ever happens in one market must happen in another, especially when there is government / regulatory intervention (why are yen interest rates zero, Australia c5%, and Zimb +10000%, should they not all equate in a global economy?).
And when it comes to housing, governments are heavily involved. Especially with regard to planning, and allocation of shared services.
January 13th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Hi Steve
Saw you on Today Tonight and thought the Dr Doom label was unnecessary and a bit sad.
I am not an economist as my Economics mark in the HSC will affirm, but even I can understand that a) a house is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, and b) house prices can only increase by x% IF banks are prepared to lend the money to buy the houses.
If banks become less keen to lend (as the story on falling mortgage lending would seem to support), then there will be less money available to buy houses ergo houses will become less expensive, or, Heaven forbid, the bottom will drop out of the housing market. (My money is on the latter.)
If the bank will not lend you $500,000, then you cannot buy a home in that price bracket, no matter what the real estate agent or the housing analyst says.
January 14th, 2010 at 2:41 am
@bb 15
“FWIW, I am not a property bull. I have never invested in property (although I am a home owner).”
“However I do not expect a property crash in Australia – for the reasons I have pointed out over the past few months.”
Since you are a home owner, then you may not be fully aware of the rental crisis. The cost of rents are going up. This forces more households of lower incomes into lower priced rentals. There is a finite supply of these rentals so the lower end of the rental market get tighter and tighter. The reverse is true at the higher end of the rental market with properties being harder to rent at true bubble rental value. This rental crisis will rear it’s ugly head when people on lower incomes succumb to overwhelming stress of survival.
Let really look at what is happening in America which has a higher level of stress due to poverty.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6962632/America-slides-deeper-into-depression-as-Wall-Street-revels.html
“The labour force contracted by 661,000. This did not show up in the headline jobless rate because so many Americans dropped out of the system. The broad U6 category of unemployment rose to 17.3pc. That is the one that matters.”
The contraction of 661,000 is just for December alone.
The economies of Japan, Britain, Ireland, Spain and Greece and elsewhere are contracting. China is facing inflation and a real estate bumble that is growing quicker than any other bumble the world has ever seen.
I predicted this crisis in the 1980s. I knew in 2004 that 2008 would be an eventful year in finance. I knew of the coming GFC in March 2008. I knew by July 2008 that the GFC would hit in September 2008. I knew that the collapse of Lehman Brothers would cause the share markets to drop around the world greatly in one day.
I was wrong about last year. I never predicted the madness of the false news of the recovery, the scale of government stimulus or the bonuses of the to big to fall.
January 14th, 2010 at 3:35 am
@PETER_W 55
“So a not unreasonable long term possibility is that Australia transitions back to an AOR similar to the 1950 – 1960 period of ~4 per dwelling.”
“On that basis Australia presently has a housing oversupply of 56% and even with 2% population growth Australia will not need to build a single extra dwelling for the next 22 years.”
One clear reason why households are smaller is due to the divorce rate.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3307.0.55.001
There has been over 900,000 divorces in Australia since 1988. This is reflected by the statistic given by Phillip (comment 47).
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm1/fm35facts.html
This chart goes back to 1980 and includes over 250,000 divorces before 1988.
I tried to look for the statistic of single mothers. There has been a rise over the last few decades.
So in fact, the supposed housing shortage is based on a figure of 85,000 people. These people can not afford to rent or they are competing against many people for lower priced rentals. I have been looking for over 3 years personally for a better rental.
So a crisis in society (divorce and single mothers) results in a rental crisis for lower priced rentals which is made out to be a housing shortage. This allows housing to continue to rise which results in more crisis in society and in turn causes a more severe rental crisis. Just like debt to GDP ratios, this is unsustainable.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/consumption-at-all-costs-20100112-m4ng.html
“Perhaps the time has come for public policy to signal that consumption for consumption’s sake isn’t always good. Take oversized housing. In leasing office space, it’s normal to calculate the average floor area needed to accommodate an employee. We could apply the principle to residential space and determine that each member of a household has a minimum personal entitlement of, say, 35 square metres (almost four squares in the old measurements) – making 175 square metres for a family of five, plus an allowance for communal spaces including kitchens, toilets and bathrooms. A courageous government could then impose a one-off, or even a recurrent rate-like surcharge, on the excess space when a new or existing house is purchased.”
This is by Terry Barnes who advised the Howard government’s health ministers and is now a social policy consultant. So according to him, I would have to pay a surcharge even though I am a historian, researcher or whatever that needs a whole room (or two) just to accommodate my collection of books. I hope to have a workshop one day where I can begin to experiment on sustainable energy sources. I could benefit society by creating real wealth or savings in the $100M if not $1B but to do this, I have to pay a surcharge for something I give freely (unlike the Fabian Socialist and their social engineers of the Brave New World).
I could have advised him in the 1980s about the madness of society and that bit by bit it would bring the whole of society crashing down. I was so naive 20 years ago. I thought it was just a case of mass hypnosis. I now understand that people like me are dangerous to those who are in power or who are very rich.
January 14th, 2010 at 3:52 am
Correction to comment 67.
“China is facing inflation and a real estate bumble that is growing quicker than any other bumble the world has ever seen.
Should read,
“China is facing inflation and a real estate bubble that is growing quicker than any other bubble the world has ever seen.”
January 14th, 2010 at 7:26 am
Don’t worry too much about that label Mizbear,
James Thomas, the journo who did the story, contacted me beforehand to ask if I was OK with it–he said he was having some fun with the item–and I said fine. He had previously done an absolutely superb piece on debt deflation after an interview with me early in 2009, and as I said to him in reply about using humour in the piece, “the day I lose my sense of humour, shoot me–and I don’t mean on film!”.
And you are right on the relationship between debt and house prices. As soon as banks become less willing to extend debt for housing (or borrowers become less willing to take it on), the house price bubble will burst. The simple slowing down in the rate of growth of debt can be enough to trigger both effects, when debt is at the levels it is now.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:05 am
#68
Granted the rising divorce rate would cause household composition dilution BUT the statistics do not show the divorcee re-partnering rate i.e. the net-net effect.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Bb #62
Thanks for your feedback. I don’t want to seem a negative nancy, but I am rally torn about our current society. I personally have everything I want in life, although that is not say that there have not been difficult times (which would have included a period of homelessness if not for the generousity of friends) however I am well aware of people – even people I know who are well educated and, until recently, were well off – who are suffering as a result of recent events. This suggests to me that all not quite as rosy as it seems and that personal situations can change quickly and dramatically. Furthermore, the unseemly elements appear to be glossed over or talked down as though they are just marginal, or worth all the so-called benefits the majority enjoy. Out of all this the thing I think is most valuable is our democracy (which appears to be quickly morphing from a system for common wealth into a system for supporting the wealthy) and our legal system that is probably inaccessible to most people, but at least allows wealthy people to challenge the state, which is probably impossible in China. I am starting to think that we are better of than many, but could be far better off. Also I suspect that many of our system’s touted benefits could quickly dissipate in the near future and the resulting discontent could rapidly disolve many of our current democractic and legal advantages. How could they dissapear? Well Iceland is facing poverty with calls on their debts, could this not happen to us as well? Particularly if we live beyond our means while selling off our natural assets and spending the proceeds in ways that do not lead to alternative future revenues, which is what we seem to be doing.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:14 am
bb #62
Sorry furthermore – You are quite right. The internet as a media is extremely empowering, and sites like this are invaluable. I think if we have any hope of maintaining truthful understanding of what is happening in the world, then sites like this one run by Steve are essential and I am very grateful to all the people who dedicate their time, usually with no-financial advantage to themselves, to provide such forums. This sort of behaviour gives me great hope for humanity and the fact that each individual’s effort is highly unlikely to improve their personal situation (although collectively they might create a better world) flies in the face of the neo-classical argument that people only act purely out of self-interest. It also makes me very worried when governments propose filtering laws which potentially place this media at risk.
January 14th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
# 67 Alan Gresley
Rentals have gone mad. I’m sure they must be reaching the upper limit of people’s affordability when you factor in all the other increases competing for our dollar – petrol, shopping, electricity, rego – all seem to be increasing.
In the capital cities the huge influx of international students also increases rental competition in the lower end.
I spent nearly four years working in SE Asia and I’m seriously considering packing my family up and heading back. I have been back here for 3 years, I have a reasonable job, my wife works p/t, we rent and in recently reviewing our financial situation we have gone backwards to the tune of $10,000 with no real lifestyle to show for it.
Give me SE Asia anyday, drinking and eating whatever we want, holidays to the islands and surrounding countries.
My fear is that if we go back we will be ‘priced out’ of returning to Australia.
January 14th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Now the FHOG has been wound back the next big Australian economic/housing bailout will be negative real interest rates (possibly lasting 6 – 10 years).
One of the benefits of a free floating fiat currency.
January 14th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Employment headline figures look ok except
Aggregate monthly hours worked decreased 1.0 million hours (-0.1%) to 1,535.6 million hours.
January 14th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Peter_W #75: “next big Australian economic/housing bailout will be negative real interest rates”
We have already had negative real interest rates for the last 10 years. If inflation was correctly calculated and included house prices then interest rates would have been above 18%!
Check out this blog entry from Market Ticker guy Denninger on why house prices should be included in the inflation figures:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1838-Feds-Bullard-Admits-To-Bubble-Blowing….html
January 14th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Dan Denning on debt/assets, bank credit and housing
A Funds Industry Built on Turning Debt into an Income Paying Asset
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/funds-industry-built-on-turning-debt-into-income-asset/2010/01/14/
January 14th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
How many of the other countries in the graphulator above have negative gearing on investment properties? The American and Aussie taxation systems are vastly different.
January 14th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Lets also compare land size (cross sectional area of the string).
For instance if i buy a house in Japan and a house in Australia outside of any of the major cities.
I could probably subdivide the land in Australia into 4 Japanese sized houses, lease 3 of them (with negative gearing) and live in the fourth.
January 15th, 2010 at 6:16 am
Here is the suburb of Belmont about 25km from San Francisco. Its still much more expensive than Sydney.
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/pg-5?cmid=1099461
Somehow I do not think house price will go down. Sydney is a major city of the world. We need to compare likewise to major cities of the world to see where prices will go.
January 15th, 2010 at 6:52 am
Look at the trend for Belmont CA.
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Belmont-California/market-trends/
January 15th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Belmont CA is still on the coast and is a high income White enclave area. 25k from Sydney is getting past Parramatta into Blacktown and the South Western areas, low wages, high unemployment and still high house prices!!! Belmont is probably the equalivant of an area like Lane Cove, and by comparison is quite cheap and more bang for your buck – Lane Cove median is more like $1M…
Also house prices in Belmont have actually been dropping.
January 15th, 2010 at 10:51 am
http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=999603
Unemployment drops to 5.5%.
Are we seeing leveraging begin again? (It barely blinked.)
Scary shit.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Yes
The median price has not dropped much though
January 15th, 2010 at 11:45 am
True they haven’t dropped much…I haven’t checked but I am sure there are other suburbs around San Fran within a 25KM ring that are extreamly cheap. I notice in Wellington NZ, Where I am from, houses haven’t really dropped much either, however nobody is really buying because they simply can’t. The owners haven’t been forced to sell as most of the housing is owned by baby boomers. It will be interesting to see what happens when they start dieing off and move into retirement homes…Sydney however is a different story. All these young families out West that have been suckered in by the gov’t grants could be in trouble this year…
Also Sydney compared to Wellington Sydney doesn’t seem to have a shortage of housing, which the media is constantly harping on about…Wellington by comparison does…I remember back in the 90s it was almost impossible to find a rental in Wellington…When I moved to Sydney in 2002 I found a nice one, cheaper and better in my first month of living here. Where I live now, in Parramatta, there are a row of half finished townhouses that have been sitting there doing nothing for well over a year on Victoria road and next to them there is, from what I can see, at least 3 empty ones and one that has been up for lease since before xmas…I don’t understand this housing shortage thing…You just don’t see empty houses in Wellington…
Something stinks in Sydney and it ain’t the air…
January 15th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
I feel there is a big difference between the way many people rent here and the way they do in the USA. In the USA, many people rent from apartment or townhome complexes that are not individually owned, but by firms or property groups who own the entire lot. It seems there are much less people in the USA that own investment homes they can rent out, bc these complexes take a large % of renters in your small towns and even larger cities. Once there was a surplus of homes in the USA, there were no reasons for people to buy them, bc a large portion of renters continue to rent from complexes and not houses. All of Australias apartments seem to be individually owned though, and regardless if you have an investment unit or home, to me it seems you can rent it out quite easily.
January 17th, 2010 at 9:09 am
Am grateful reader (old age pensioner trying to find affordable housing) of research on this site gregarding future of housing prices in Australia and would like to add the article found on the Daily Telegraph today for further comments :
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/wealthy-migrants-pricing-locals-out-of-sydney-property-market/story-e6frewt0-1225820390894
January 17th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Thanks GalaxyRide,
For another sign of the inanity of our economy, take a look at this report that was just brought to my attention by a correspondent (with the email header of “You couldn’t make this up: Australia the next Iceland?”:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/tax-breaks-to-woo-banks/story-e6frg6nf-1225820234610
“THE Rudd government is considering new tax breaks for banks and reducing financial regulation in an effort to build Australia as a regional financial centre, capitalising on Australia’s good performance during the global financial crisis.
The measures, contained in a report delivered to the government yesterday, go against the international trend of raising bank taxes and restricting the growth of the financial services industry.
Financial Services Minister Chris Bowen said the government believed the financial crisis had created an opportunity…
The study was prepared by a panel of senior finance industry executives, led by former Macquarie Bank chief executive Mark Johnson, but was supported by Treasury officials.”
Words fail me…
January 17th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
“The study was prepared by a panel of senior finance industry executives, led by former Macquarie Bank chief executive Mark Johnson, but was supported by Treasury officials.”
That says it all.
January 17th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
http://www.fsponline-recommends.co.uk/page.aspx?u=mwpropertyIIa&tc=EMYKL106&PromotionID=2147066703&u=8981806&g=0&r=&s=0&o=111006&l=176239
FWIW on the UK market
January 17th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Peter_W and Cryusp @ 75 & 77
Re negative interest rates. The extent of negative interest rates depends, to a large extent, on how you measure inflation as you correctly point out.
Then are we talking savers or borrowers? I know it is pretty well regarded these days, even on this blog, that savers are irrelevant and even worse are exploiters of the downtrodden borrowers. Why save when you can just print the stuff or QE or ‘create’ or whatever you want to call it?
However a realisitic assessment of the ‘real’ savings rate also needs to take into account the effect of taxation. A saver, after tax and ‘real’ inflation has been getting negative returns for as far back as I can recall pretty much. I don’t have the time to put together the numbers on this, however there is little doubt about it that for savers, the after tax return has been negative for as far back as I can remember which is getting to be far too long.
On the other hand for the borrower, with negative ‘real’ interest rates he/she receives a benefit on which he is not taxed…plus all the rest of the tax benefits as are well documented on these pages.
I know I keep coming back to it, but nooone seems to take account of this extra tax benefit when looking at how people behave in the market.
The result of this long-term negative interest rates can be seen in our level of private debt and in our external account and the waste of resources.
January 17th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
@pb Re: Belmont
Another unusual thing about Belmont is that the market isn’t being manipulated as much by the Banks (by keeping the foreclosures off of the market). I see about 44 foreclosures, out of a total of 125 houses for sale.
Take a look at the heart of Silicon Valley:1657 new/resale homes on the market, versus 4250 in all stages of the foreclosure process.
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/San_Jose-California/
For a city of about 1 Million people, 1657 is a very low number on the market. It is usually about 3 times that, for this time of year. From what I hear from some Realtors, the Banks are planning on releasing small numbers of foreclosures, in order to keep the property values up.
I’ve seen this same pattern in other SF Bay cities.
One has to wonder how long this is going to last, especially with the Alt-A loans now starting to blow up. It all depends now on how long the Banks’ cash flow will last. My bet is 3 years, max.
January 18th, 2010 at 12:41 am
Steve #89
One of the most insane and bizarre ideas ever.
The lunatics on both sides (bipartisan support) are running the asylum.
Why does a nation of 22 million people with the largest per capita mineral resources on the planet need a single cent of “petro dollar” finance to fund a further acceleration of its already spiraling exponential foreign debt/CAD.
Both sides of politics have totally lost the plot.
Fasten your seatbelts folks the entire mineral wealth of the Australian nation is about to be extracted into the pockets of foreign bankers aided and abeited by the total corruption of govenment via backroom lobying and party donations.
Australian government policy is becoming more and more like a fascist kleptocracy than free market democracy.
January 18th, 2010 at 1:18 am
I have a bank regulation idea.
Cap the NIM at 1% MAXIMUM fees at Zero and the tier 1 equity (leverage) at 7% MINUMUM
Beyond those limits 100% equity
There is no fundamental reason why a private bank should earn more than 10% after tax return on equity for being an economic utility.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:47 am
PETER_W @ 94,
I agree that it is insane. I wonder how the neoclassical economists at the Treasury and RBA support a never-ending spiral of CADs and further foreign indebtedness. They must think that because markets are in equilibrium that the current state of the CA is ‘rational’ or that it will soon self-adjust to become ‘rational’.
Since the 1980s, the Labor and Coalition party policies have become ever more narrow and similar. It appears that the unelected and unaccountable planners within the state-subsidized command and control institutions (corporations) have such tight control over state policy that the two major parties offer policies not overly differentiated.
As for the term ‘free market democracy’, Australia has never had anything remotely resembling free markets – certainly not for those who own and control Australia. What we have is something resembling state-subsidized corporate markets. And democracy? People turning up to the polling booth once every four years to elect political representatives who advocate policies, laws and regulations that originate in the corporate sector.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:13 am
#96 I agree Philip
“What we have is something resembling state-subsidized corporate markets”
That’s pretty close to the definition of Fascism.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:56 am
@93
I have read of this kind of trickle feeding foreclosures, they term it as shadow inventory or something. With belmont the prices have reverted to 2001 levels so cant argue there has been no drop.
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/foreclosure-box-the-most-comprehensive-shadow-inventory-housing-analysis-for-los-angeles-county-examining-269-zip-codes-and-finding-100000-shadow-properties-while-public-views-1900/
January 18th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Now the reasons for immigration are clearer–
“The nation has weathered the global financial meltdown remarkably well. So much so that most Australian workers received a payout worth almost A$1,000 (£550) from the government.
Can you see that happening here?”
From: http://money.uk.msn.com/msn-local/photos.aspx?cp-documentid=151758457&page=9
MSN UK doing Australia’s propaganda.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
PETER_W @ #97,
Before the word fascism became popularly associated with Nazism during and after WWII, fascism meant the control of government by the business class (corporations). This meaning was widespread and I think that FDR referred to this in a speech in 1938.
So by that definition we have fascism in Australia even though that is not it’s popular meaning now.
January 18th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
@pb 98.
Quite true. To be clear, I wasn’t saying that there hasn’t been a price drop in Belmont. Rather, that the Banks are more involved in propping up the less expensive markets.
Often, in the more expensive areas, people tend to buy with cash, or to put more skin in the game. In contrast, it’s those areas where the FHA loans were/are easily available that we see the problem loans, IMHO. Especially with zero down loans. The FHA limit on the super-jumbo conforming loans is about $720,000 now. I don’t believe you can do a zero down with that in Belmont!
January 20th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Just heard online (from a London station) that the recession is all but over?
How much are 1 bedroom rents these days in Sydney? I’m moving and my new rent will be almost $800 (vs. the current 660). Square footage is going from roughly 650 to 750.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Just read the following article about UK inflation, the CPI has had the biggest monthly jump ever recorded of 2.9% up from the previous 1.9%. While the RPI has jumped the most in over 30yrs to 2.4% from the previous 0.3%, this jump is blamed on house prices……??
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/record-inflation-jump-puts-boe-under-pressure-to-increase-rates-1873111.html
I believe this will be temporary then deflation will take hold in the longer term.
soho44
you can find cost of 1bedroom rents in Sydney at a couple of sites, eg. domain.com.au
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:27 am
[...] reached a debt wall (see this neat interactive), the consumer, and by extension Australia’s economy, is living on borrowed time. [...]
January 28th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Housing Bubble Fears, And Prices, Soar In China
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122990689
“Just over three years ago, songwriter Liu Shuqiu protested China’s high housing prices with a satirical song that urged “people who don’t want to be slaves to their mortgages” to rise up.
The song used the tune of the Internationale, the anthem of international socialism, and the lyrics exhorted:
We should fight for houses, shatter the developers to pieces. Don’t think we are obedient; the consequences will be serious if we get mad.
…the fate of a popular television soap opera, Dwelling Narrowness, which was pulled from the airwaves. The show charted two sisters’ struggles to buy an apartment, with one of them eventually becoming the mistress of a corrupt official.”
Listen to the story as is has remarkable similarities to Australia: government distortion of prices etc etc
January 29th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Just noticed that the “6th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey” is out.
The report has a major focus on Australia.
See here http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf
April 9th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
[...] You can research this yourself at http://web.mit.edu/cre/research/pape…6eichholtz.pdf and How expensive is housing? | Steve Keen's Debtwatch You will note that the index can stay above and below the mean for extended periods. In fact it is [...]