Survey on Australian House Prices

flattr this!

I have been asked to post a sur­vey to gauge inter­est in a poten­tial finan­cial prod­uct related to Aus­tralian house prices. If you are inter­ested in such a prod­uct, please click here to take this survey.

About Steve Keen

I am a professional economist and a long time critic of conventional economic thought. As well as attacking mainstream thought in Debunking Economics, I am also developing an alternative dynamic approach to economic modelling. The key issue I am tackling here is the prospect for a debt-deflation on the back of the enormous debts accumulated in Australia, and our very low rate of inflation.
Bookmark the permalink.

175 Responses to Survey on Australian House Prices

  1. Jack Spax says:

    # Re Alan Green­spin * Lyonwiss

    Tend to agree, there is a line where two wrongs dont make a right, I get uncom­fort­able with the fact that some­one devel­ops a prod­uct sim­i­lar to what Gold­man Sachs did to bet agaisnt the banks, lever­ages it up, and then takes a pin to bub­ble or maybe a blow torch to the bubble.

    Make peo­ple aware of the bull­shit and spin and the likes of Joye, Swan, Howard and the bank­ing sys­tem etc re inflat­ing the bub­ble but care needs to be taken not to be pro­mot­ing a finan­cial prod­uct that that could actu­ally be desta­bil­is­ing in its own right.

    Apart from that I still enjoy the site, and it has helped develop and inter­est re economics.

    I could see a huge mar­ket for this sort of prod­uct, though within peo­ples super­an­nu­a­tion, par­tic­u­larly if it became a retail invest­ment and as a counter for all those peo­ple that have 3 or 4 homes in their SMSF.

    Its all a bit spec­u­la­tive though and does it really develop or pro­tect real wealth ?

  2. RickW says:

    I do not con­sider a finan­cial prod­uct that hedges bets on the hous­ing mar­ket to be con­sis­tent with the obvi­ous need for delever­ag­ing in that mar­ket. If any­thing it will encour­age more spec­u­la­tion. So to me it appears in con­flict with the objec­tive of the blog.

    The only cer­tain win­ner in this game is the bro­ker of the prod­uct. Peo­ple with lit­tle debt on hous­ing do not need it.

    These “prod­ucts” are the stuff that the likes of Gold­man Sachs and AIG dream up to suck the lifeblood out of economies and make them­selves rich:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/richard-adams-blog/2011/jan/19/goldman-sachs-bonuses-earnings-live
    No risk– gear up, buy a house. All we want is a small mar­gin on the inter­est for the money you bor­row and a small pre­mium for the pro­tec­tion against falling house prices.

    We will have eco­nomic sta­bil­ity when money is sta­ble and peo­ple live within their means. Stay out of the get-rich-quick casino, cut spend­ing and save more.

    The only way to pre­vent future blood suck­ers like Joseph Cas­sano from becom­ing wealthy is to NOT play their game — avoid highly geared debt on unpro­duc­tive assets like hous­ing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cassano

  3. peterjbolton says:

    Bald Archy Art Prize win­ner (again) by Artist Xavier Ghazi (French) — Model Australian

    It is good. ;-)

  4. AntiMoralHazard says:

    # RickyW

    I do not con­sider a finan­cial prod­uct that hedges bets on the hous­ing mar­ket to be con­sis­tent with the obvi­ous need for delever­ag­ing in that mar­ket. If any­thing it will encour­age more spec­u­la­tion. So to me it appears in con­flict with the objec­tive of the blog.”

    I dis­agree with that. If hedg­ing is evil, then we should all ban all finan­cial deriv­a­tives, includ­ing options, swaps, futures and forwards.

    The truth is, these deriv­a­tives have legit­i­mate use as hedges. With­out hedges, the finan­cial mar­ket will become more volatile. Just look at China’s volatile stock market.

    Fire is a good ser­vant but a bad mas­ter. The same goes for deriv­a­tives and other use­ful things in life. They can be abused to be used for spec­u­la­tion instead of hedg­ing. But these things them­selves do not encour­age speculation.

    So, a lot goes to the design of the finan­cial prod­ucts. It has to be well-designed so that it is extremely dif­fi­cult to be abused. With­out know­ing the details of how it works, how can we cat­e­gor­i­cally say that such a prod­uct is evil?

  5. Lyonwiss says:

    peter­jbolton April 19, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    On home lend­ing, here is a rare report by the regulator:

    http://www.apra.gov.au/Insight/upload/ADI-housing-lending.pdf

    APRA is funded by levies from the reg­u­lated insti­tu­tions and it is con­strained by a Secrecy Act. Hence APRA has to be very care­ful about what it publishes.

  6. sirius says:

    I dis­agree with that. If hedg­ing is evil, then we should all ban all finan­cial deriv­a­tives, includ­ing options, swaps, futures and forwards.”

    I believe that is what is referred to as a “strawman” ?

  7. sirius says:

    I dis­agree with that. If hedg­ing is evil, then we should all ban all finan­cial deriv­a­tives, includ­ing options, swaps, futures and forwards.”

    Are you talk­ing about these things in the con­text of a vir­tual world or the cur­rent phys­i­cal world we live in ?

    I leave you with some­thing another poster said .…

    “Some­times, folks won’t admit that **** stinks until they smell it. One can’t tell them and they believe it. So, one has to let them smell for them­selves.
    As Brookl­s­ley Born told Greenspan that CDS should be reg­u­lated and they will cause havoc. Not only did they not believe her, they ran her out of town. Now here we sit. I am sure Greenspan wants that episode buried and forgotten.””

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=184151#discuss

    The Fraud is longer than you can count and still we play this “game”

    And so it the never end­ing un-cussion goes on (Sigh).

  8. sirius says:

    Every tree has roots. With­out under­stand­ing and appre­ci­at­ing where those roots begin and how they form the result­ing tree we are “lost”. There is much to consider ?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5KQE

  9. peterjbolton says:

    @ Lyon­wisse April 19, 2011 at 7:48 pm | #

    APRA is funded by levies from the reg­u­lated insti­tu­tions and it is con­strained by a Secrecy Act. Hence APRA has to be very care­ful about what it publishes.”

    Oh aye, and thank you for tak­ing the trou­ble to d/l the link.

    One must won­der where recently that it has been reported by Kris Kayce in Money Morn­ing that more than a few of our strong and TBTF banks had secretly taken bailout monies from the FedRes and despite the reg­u­la­tions these hand­outs were not reported to the ASX or in fact — any­one else — for that mat­ter and even now, as far as I am aware, nei­ther APRA (con­strained by the Secrecy Act, cough, cough) not RBA, ASX not the MSM have even mur­mured a word about same, ever? (please cor­rect me if I have missed something).

    One won­ders how play­ers ie investors such as pen­sion funds, trusts, ser­vice unions, indi­vid­u­als, cor­po­ra­tions, bro­kers, banks etc., etc., are sup­posed to invest pro­fes­sion­ally or make seri­ous deci­sions if sub­stan­tial infor­ma­tion is not mak­ing it to the pub­lic notice due to … er, The Secrecy Act and or National Secu­rity… or what­ever… ? maybe just col­lab­o­ra­tive inconvenience?

    As I have said ear­lier, this isn’t eco­nom­ics, it is applied Moral Haz­ard cum pol­i­tics, ie gam­bling — where the Bank makes up the rules as it goes along as I remem­ber well my ear­lier days of youth­ful adven­tures in places like Macao and Rio, Vladi­vos­tok, and such like, when those like me who ques­tioned the Author­ity / bank, or won too much, where found float­ing along the Posada the next morning.

    Ref­er­ence mate­ri­als: Bureau­cracy by v. Mises

  10. AntiMoralHazard says:

    #sir­ius

    How is that con­sid­ered a straw­man? From my under­stand­ing of RickyW, he con­sid­ered all forms of hedges as evil because they are all abused by Gold­man Sachs and used for spec­u­la­tion and manip­u­la­tion. This is guilty by association.

    But for me, I think hedg­ing is a good idea. It becomes a bad idea when the instru­ments used for hedg­ing is badly designed and becomes a tool for spec­u­la­tors and that the deriv­a­tive itself influ­ences and dis­tort prices in the real econ­omy. The evil is spec­u­la­tion, not the hedge itself.

    Deriv­a­tives have been with us for cen­turies. The Japan­ese were the first to invent the futures con­tract hun­dreds of years ago. They play legit­i­mate role in hedg­ing back then.

    If you believe that Australia’s econ­omy is going to hell because of the hous­ing bub­ble, then the abil­ity to hedge is a mercy outlet.

  11. Lyonwiss says:

    peter­jbolton April 19, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    Ah yes. “Bureau­cracy” is a clas­sic by von Mises, who said: “Gov­ern­ment jobs offer no oppor­tu­nity for the dis­play of per­sonal tal­ents and gifts”. This explains why gov­ern­ments stuffs things up all the time, because only the scum floats to the top.

    Reg­u­la­tion is a device to hide infor­ma­tion from mar­ket par­tic­i­pants, so that the mar­kets fail due to infor­ma­tion asym­me­try. Remem­ber the revolv­ing door of US (and Aus­tralian) reg­u­la­tors. You are most vul­ner­a­ble when you think you are protected.

  12. RickW says:

    The hedge will only be a mercy out­let for those who are overex­tended in the hous­ing mar­ket or heav­ily geared into “invest­ment” prop­er­ties. The best way is to aggres­sively pay down the debt, not hedge against a price collapse.

    Hedges do make sense in their native form as the basis for sta­bil­ity in phys­i­cal mar­kets but the con­vo­luted gam­ing and spec­u­la­tion with these so-called “finan­cial prod­ucts” just opens doors for the blood suck­ers that skim a mar­gin on every transaction.

    Gold­man Sachs are the mas­ter play­ers and have cre­ated so much per­sonal income that their influ­ence, through bribes, is per­va­sive:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13440
    They are the US gov­ern­ment. They con­trol the money sup­ply for their own ends and cause the insta­bil­ity in finan­cial mar­kets. The best way to avoid get­ting trapped into play­ing the game is to min­imise debt on non-productive assets like hous­ing — the basis for this blog.

  13. AntiMoralHazard says:

    #RickyW

    The hedge will only be a mercy out­let for those who are overex­tended in the hous­ing mar­ket or heav­ily geared into “invest­ment” properties.”

    Do you think a mas­sive hous­ing crash will only affect those who are over­in­vested in ‘invest­ment’ properties?

    If you think a mas­sive hous­ing crash will bring down the entire econ­omy and screw every Aus­tralian, wouldn’t ban­ning hedg­ing be cruel?

  14. AntiMoralHazard says:

    Hedges do make sense in their native form as the basis for sta­bil­ity in phys­i­cal mar­kets but the con­vo­luted gam­ing and spec­u­la­tion with these so-called “finan­cial prod­ucts” just opens doors for the blood suck­ers that skim a mar­gin on every transaction. ”

    With­out know­ing the details of that finan­cial prod­uct and how it works, isn’t it too early to put it in the same box as Gold­man Sachs?

  15. peterjbolton says:

    @ Lyon­wiss April 19, 2011 at 10:06 pm | #
    “This explains why gov­ern­ments stuffs things up all the time, because only the scum floats to the top.”

    As I have stated many time before: gov­ern­ment or bet­ter “lead­er­ship” sic, inhibits growth, a pri­ori, due to the fact that the polit­i­cal game of “democ­racy” in action, is , by strict def­i­n­i­tion, a “Recur­sive” ie, a ” Prof­i­teer­ing Play by Pol­icy” (RPPP)

    http://verbewarp.blogspot.com/2011/02/recursive-game-is-policy.html

    Pol­i­tics is all about cov­et­ing by stealth and deceit; like a wet-blanket empow­ered by duplic­ity and hypocrisy; guilt, fear and pro­jec­tion thereof.

    We who com­pre­hend, must lift the veils for all to see. But the, most do not wish to see but pre­fer to believe — in any­thing; hence the paradox.

    Below: Truth appar­ent but not obvious

  16. RickW says:

    This blog is based on the premise of explod­ing debt and the finan­cial insta­bil­ity it begets. The way to avoid that insta­bil­ity is to not get overex­tended and don’t get wound into a game where the scam­mers can get at you both ways. They cream a lit­tle on the inter­est pay­ments and then they cream a lit­tle from you by offer­ing pro­tec­tion after you were encour­aged to overex­tend. You are play­ing their rigged game. It does not mat­ter if they are Gold­man Sachs or a scam­mer of another name. Despite any good inten­tions they are always work­ing on new ways to get another margin.

    I have no inten­tion of sell­ing my house and have no inter­est in what some­one might pay for it. It pro­vides me value in the shel­ter and util­ity it offers but I have no illu­sion about it being an “invest­ment”. I own it so I have no need to hedge against its price falling.

    My issue here is that I was sur­prised to see a blog that makes great sense regard­ing the insta­bil­ity that debt causes, pro­mot­ing “prod­ucts” that give peo­ple some com­fort if they are overex­tended. The first phase of the GFC came about by peo­ple feel­ing com­fort­able with truck loads of debt. I am con­vinced the next phase is yet to come and Aus­tralia has been lucky so far. The safest way for­ward for indi­vid­u­als is to aggres­sively reduce debt. The sav­ings can be put to bet­ter use to develop pro­duc­tive assets that will help the coun­try improve its net for­eign invest­ment posi­tion rather than hav­ing prof­its and inter­est pay­ments going off­shore to smarter investors. One day China will stop buy­ing our dirt for pre­mium prices.

  17. DrBob127 says:

    RickW

    ” I was sur­prised to see [this] blog … pro­mot­ing “prod­ucts” that give peo­ple some com­fort if they are overextended”

    I think that you are over­re­act­ing a bit.

    The Prof wasn’t pro­mot­ing any­thing, this blog is read by many prop­erty bears and all that was being sought was the level of inter­est in mak­ing some real money based on what [the per­son who invests] thinks may hap­pen to the prop­erty market.

    A chance to per­haps put our money where our mouths are?

    That’s all.

    I was also inter­ested enough to start fill­ing out the sur­vey until I was asked for my info.

    As for the hedge, my under­stand­ing is that it is a valid way to reduce risk. By hedg­ing your invest­ment you reduce risk to reduce the size of poten­tial losses at the cost of reduc­ing poten­tial prof­its. I agree with Anti­Moral­Haz­ard “deriv­a­tives have legit­i­mate use as hedges. With­out hedges, the finan­cial mar­ket will become more volatile”

  18. AntiMoralHazard says:

    RickyW

    The way to avoid that insta­bil­ity is to not get overex­tended and don’t get wound into a game where the scam­mers can get at you both ways. ”

    Unfor­tu­nately, it is already too late. Aus­tralia is already in a posi­tion where it is going to be unsta­ble. No amount of aggres­sive debt repay­ment is going to avoid the sh*t that is going to hap­pen soon. If you say this 10 years ago, that might make sense.

    I know peo­ple who label ALL lawyers as crooks. But are you doing the same by labelling busi­nesses like BNN as crooks like Gold­man Sachs?

    My issue here is that I was sur­prised to see a blog that makes great sense regard­ing the insta­bil­ity that debt causes, pro­mot­ing “prod­ucts” that give peo­ple some com­fort if they are overextended.”

    This prod­uct is not for peo­ple who are overex­tended in debt. It is for every­one. Because if/when the sh*t hits the fan, even good guys like you are going to be screwed big time as well.

    Also you think those who are overex­tended have the incli­na­tion to use such a prod­uct? Imag­ine your­self hav­ing a gigan­tic debt, with neg­a­tive gear­ing and dozens of IP. Will you be in a state of mind of pay­ing even more money to get that finan­cial prod­uct to ‘hedge’? Hell no. Because if you’re think­ing of get­ting that prod­uct in the first place, that means you are scared sh*t that a crash will hap­pen. If you scared sh*t, you will be sell­ing your IP first before the thought of get­ting that prod­uct comes to your mind.

  19. peterjbolton says:

    @ RickW April 19, 2011 at 11:43 pm | #

    This blog is based on the premise of explod­ing debt and the finan­cial insta­bil­ity it begets. I have no inten­tion of sell­ing my house I own it… so I have no need to hedge against its price falling.”

    I have edited your prose…

    Think again please: 1. Home: is where you live and raise your fam­ily 2. House: is a bet, a gam­ble, an invest­ment, a spec­u­la­tion, etc., etc.

    A hedge is an act of sen­tience that attempts to pro­tect your inter­ests, you hope — this hope being due to an uncer­tain World full of risk, “Caveat Emp­tor, crooks, swindlers and bureau­crats; not to men­tion “leadership”.

    Okay: You own your home– good start — but please do not go to sleep — because some­one wants it: Coun­cils will raise rates, change bi-laws, and basi­cally, if they or some­one really wants your home, they will fix the sys­tem until they get what they want, if you are not sentient.

    You must always hedge what is obvi­ous to human nature and let me tell you — human nature ain’t that nice! This is the prob­lem that eco­nom­ics has — but refuses to deal with, but is the norm in socio-economics.

    So, to say that you own it and don’t have to hedge, maybe okay for you, but I sug­gest that you stay alert and hedge that which you believe is “cer­tainty: — because it isn’t — and I say that you should be ready to hedge!.

    Keep your eyes on the bounc­ing ball and trust nobody.

    Go well… I wish you and your naivety, good luck.

  20. sirius says:

    Results of the USA ver­sion of FHOG

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=184512

  21. tonyferreira says:

    Hey Steve, I just thought that I would let you know, that this morn­ing, in the good U.S.A. we came out with our monthly hous­ing starts and per­mit data, and due to huge revi­sions upward to February’s data, it now appears that we are not head­ing back into reces­sion any­time soon. We are hav­ing a dou­ble dip in hous­ing prices, but not in con­struc­tion, which has just been going side­ways for months.

    Like you, I have learned my les­son. While you need a sec­ond cup of cof­fee before you respond to any blog or e-mail, I need to wait at least for the first revi­sion of data, before push­ing the panic button.

    Your weary Den­ver cam­era operator.

  22. sirius says:

    Jail ‘em

    Hotspots With Max Keiser (Direland)

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=184537

  23. TruthIsThereIsNoTruth says:

    there is prob­a­bly a fair amount of over reac­tion here, there is noth­ing wrong with hedg­ing. If you are loaded up with a prop­erty port­fo­lio and want to have pro­tec­tion on the down­side and are will­ing to front up some cap­i­tal the sug­gested prod­uct might be the thing for you.

    Purely as an aca­d­e­mic exer­cise I would be curi­ous about the assump­tions that go into hedg­ing a prop­erty portfolio.

  24. Steve Keen says:

    I have to agree with TININT here. Some of the com­ments here are rem­i­nis­cent of the attack in the USA on “shorts” for caus­ing the finan­cial crisis.

    They didn’t cause it: the cri­sis was caused by the debt-financed long posi­tions on assets that cre­ated the bub­bles in the first place. The shorts were sim­ply exploit­ing the debt-financed col­lec­tive mad­ness of the mass of the mar­ket. The mar­ket would have plunged any­way once debt lev­els stopped grow­ing, as I have argued here many a time.

    As it stands, many, many over­seas hedge funds have taken posi­tions on the expec­ta­tion that Aus­tralian house prices will fall, and that this will impact on Aus­tralian bank shares. This firm’s mooted prod­uct would allow Aus­tralian whole­sale investors (those with more than A$250K to spec­u­late with) to at least cap­i­tal guar­an­tee their expo­sure to bank shares, and pos­si­bly gain from a sub­stan­tial fall in bank share prices.

    The sums Aus­tralian spec­u­la­tors will put into such a prod­uct will pale in sig­nif­i­cance com­pared to the over­seas bets that have been placed, and the fall that I expect will occur in bank share prices won’t be caused by them or the o/s shorts, but by the over­ex­posed and overindebted posi­tion the banks have got them­selves into as they have funded this Ponzi Scheme.

    There is an irony in my deci­sion to assist this firm com­mu­ni­cate its prod­uct that I think is being missed by some posters here: a pro­por­tion (small, but still non-zero) of the funds raised by this spec­u­la­tion will help fund a research cen­tre ded­i­cated to get­ting rid of finan­cial speculation.

    I’d rather enjoy the irony in that posi­tion than stand aside and watch the spec­ta­cle unfold any­way, with no ben­e­fit to future attempts to rein in finan­cial spec­u­la­tion than mere schadenfreude.

Leave a Reply