Why first home buyers are not buying, and ways to solve it.

Why first home buyers are not buying, and ways to solve it.

The latest ABS data has indicated the percentage of first homebuyers active in the market has once again fallen, from 14.7% in July, to 13.7% in August.

Subsequently we’ve been bombarded with commentary asking why this should be so in a low interest rate atmosphere, where, there are ‘plenty’ of acquisitions available for sub $300,000?

Not withstanding, whilst 10 years ago $200,000-$300,000 would have secured a modest home in reasonably facilitated suburb, today – due to woeful supply side policy – you’d struggle to find family size accommodation on the fringes of our major cities for the same expense.

First home buyers will always wax and wane to some extent, based on their perception of value and ability to save over and above items of affordability alone.

And whilst a lower percentage entering the market can in part be attributed to lifestyle factors such as labour mobility, getting married later in life, numbers falling under the radar on loan applications, and the shadow effects of various grants and incentives being introduced and subsequently scaled back, thereby producing a demographic shift in the timing and age at which buyers enter the market, there are other factors at play which clearly point towards pressures of affordability.

For example just from the last census alone, we can see the percentage of 1 person households has decreased for the first time in over 100 years from 24.4%-24.3% – whilst at the same time group households have jumped from 3.9%-4.1% and crowded houses with 3 or more families have risen nationally by 64% to 48,499.

A closer look at exactly what it costs to rent a modest apartment within commutable proximity to our capital cities gives some indication why this should be so.

For example, in Melbourne – (which currently has one of the highest vacancy rates of any capital – 2.7% (SQM) for the month of September) – if you’re halfway fussy, requiring good proximity to transport, a modest balcony, or internal floor space over 40sqm, you’ll be hard pushed to get a 1 bedroom apartment in original condition under $320-$350 per week.

In Sydney, the equivalent will cost between $450 and $500 per week – therefore it makes sense to share expenses, and this is certainly the case with renters I’m in contact with.

An argument consistently put forward when discussing the first home buyer demographic, is the idea that many want to rent, rather than buy – and it’s certainly one I have sympathy with, whether that be for lifestyle, affordability, or work purposes.

However when two people meet, and plan a family, there is a natural desire to ‘settle.’ And in the absence of long-term lease and rent controls, most would preference purchasing over renting.

Therefore, a drop in ownership for this demographic, falling 79.5%-77.2%, coupled with increasing numbers becoming long-term renters, is concerning.

The Grattan report, released early last week, clearly demonstrated how tax policy is disproportionally weighted toward the owner/investor at the expense of the renter.

Indeed, so imbedded is it in the Australian culture that home ownership is the key to financial freedom, there is an un-witting air of sympathy when we refer to ‘generation rent.’

As for the first home buyer – assuming their initial property is not going to be their last, it would be more apt to term the demographic ‘first time investor’ with the need to purchase a ‘growth’ generating asset in an area with enough projected consistent buyer demand, to ensure equity to ‘tap’ into, when time comes to upgrade.

Notwithstanding, the investment potential of their purchase is always an initial question from homebuyers I assist.  And to get on what’s the commonly termed the ‘property ladder’ today, is markedly different from the post war environment baby boomers were born into.

Much of the newer accommodation being constructed is generally not attractive to consumers – being high-density, low-grade apartment blocks for which first homebuyers can have difficulty obtaining finance.

And whilst it’s not impossible for those who have saved a deposit to enter the established market – the stronger financial arm of the investment sector competing for a similar pool of dwellings around the suburban median price bracket, can present a significant challenge.

Urban boundaries and the propensity to towards land banking, hefty tax overlays and poor infrastructure development, has ensured land on the outskirts is already artificially inflated, rather than representing a cost that would assist purchasers to compensate for the expense of commuting greater distances to work related services.

The residents who purchased in Melbourne’s Point Cook for example, which was expanded in line with the 2030 plan and initially marketed as “A thriving neighbourhood … just 22km from Melbourne’s CBD” with “convenient access to established schools, shopping, recreational facilities and public transport” have seen their home values fall, battled with overcrowded roads, and a minimum 2 hour commute to the CBD in peak hour traffic.

So whilst it’s easy to accuse first home buyers of being picky, one could just as easily ask why they should they forgo a hard earned deposit to accept what’s currently on offer, or exceed the budget to outbid competition for a limited number of established dwellings?

First homebuyers are not a ‘buy anything as long as it’s cheap’ consumer – although some mistakenly assume they should be if they want to get into the housing market.  

And whilst commentators use low interest rates to support the argument that housing affordability has improved, it is important to understand that housing affordability and the cost of servicing a mortgage are two separate entities.

Mortgage rates are set up with different structures dependant on circumstance, and subject to interest rate changes influenced by the macro environment.

To take out a 25 year mortgage requires the expectation of secure employment in a terrain where frequent job changes or part time work are becoming a norm.

They may influence house prices through a cycle, but they do not take away the fact that home prices now – even with lower lending rates – require longer terms to pay down, with the interest over the duration of that period adding considerably to the capital cost.

So what can be done?

As recorded by APM, Sydney’s median house price has increased by +4.2% over the September quarter to $722,718 – ‘the first capital to reach this milestone,’ whilst, the unit median has pushed past the half million landmark to $510,000.

The current rental yield for a unit would be around 4%, therefore most new investors would be negatively geared and speculating on capital growth accrued during the period of ownership plus another like minded investor paying more at the end of that duration, to make the strategy productive.

Yet, despite this robust activity from the investment sector making up around 50% of the buying market, Sydney’s vacancy rate recorded the largest monthly decline in September of any capital – now at 1.8% (SQM).

This is because, the concentration of investment is focused overwhelmingly on the established sector through policies such as negative gearing coupled with 1999 decision to tax capital gains at half the rate applicable to other income. Since implementation, supply has not increased; rather investor activity around a limited pool of second-hand dwellings has multiplied. (see next graph)

Image

Needless to say, common sense dictates that maximisation of policy initiatives to increase supply cannot occur if we don’t address this mindset.

As I touched on last week, prior to negative gearing being quarantined in 1986 – rents were already rapidly rising in Sydney and Perth, with vacancy rates below 1%.

Therefore, it is not clear whether subsequent rises were wholly due to the tax changes.  It is also not clear that a continual sharp increase in rents would have been worst had the policy backflip not occurred.

However, without effective supply side initiatives to offset the inflationary elements investment in established property has produced, the market is simply a game of musical chairs – replacing a property for sale with a property for let.

Solution

I’ve said on many occasions that the challenge of creating a balanced, affordable, attractive market for homebuyer, investor and renter alike cannot be tackled on one front.

There are many distortions that need to be slowly unpicked, whilst robust activity to lower land values and increase supply implemented.

As it stands, considering the number of investors who rely on negative gearing as a tax/investment strategy, we’ve arguably painted ourselves into a corner.

I am a full agreement that negative gearing is a failed policy however; I would hesitate in abolishing it in one foul swoop for the following reasons.

Whilst here is little evidence to suggest there’d be an investor exodus, there’s also scant evidence that first homebuyers would be in a position to immediately soak up any additional stock at current prices – bearing in mind negatively geared investments are most suited to this demographic (being smallish 1/2 bedroom apartments.)

The average first homebuyer borrows around $280,000-$300,000 – therefore we’d need to see more than a light correction in values to provide a competitive entry point – not to mention the difficulties most have saving a deposit

Furthermore, even if established supply were to increase with projected lower demand from investors, to see substantial drops in values assumes vendor’s being forced to sell at a loss.

As evidenced in some of our previous downward cycles (most recently during 2011 to 2012) markets can stagnate rather than truly ‘correct’ with many buyers taking a back seat expecting further falls.

However, a gradual deployment of speculation away from established dwellings, with incentives to investors to purchase new over old, coupled with assistance to potential home buyers to either save, or enter into shared equity schemes, would be a start to meeting any increased supply with new home buyer demand.

The policy could be gradually phased out by limiting it to a fixed number of investments  – 2 for example – or taking the suggestion made by the Henry Tax review of tightening current arrangements with a lesser 40% of interest allowed as a deduction, and capital gains taxed at the slightly higher rate of 60%

This at least would be a starting point toward a fairer market

Additionally, dramatically increasing supply of new ‘quality’ accommodation with some reserved for low-income workers must take priority, as well as a structured plan to increase infrastructure through the consideration of bond financing for example

Over the 17 years to 2012 negative gearing cost Australian tax payers around $33.5 billion (inflation adjusted for the period estimated.)  Considering we have an ageing population requiring increased spending on healthcare and other related services, coupled with a widely spruiked shortage of housing and, as Tim Toohey pointed out in a recent Goldman Sachs publication, forecast income growth of 3.5% in 2013-14 compared to an average of 15.5% over the last 15 years, it’s hard not to see better ways to manage the budget.

Indeed – any politician with more than a short-term mindset – would be blinkered to imagine we can continue with the current status quo for ever.

Additionally, an overhaul of policy surrounding tenancies is also necessary. However, that’s for another column.

Catherine Cashmore

A few thoughts on Negative Gearing – the contradictory policy which benefits investors whilst negatively impacting renters.

A few thoughts on Negative Gearing – the contradictory policy which benefits investors whilst negatively impacting renters.

It’s hard to believe we need to consistently go over the impact a concentration of investment into established housing has on affordability to the detriment of low-income workers and renters.

I’ve written extensively on it in the past, and many papers have been produced to outline the consequences in detail. However, over the past week, I received a string of emails from interested readers and journalists asking for my comments on negative gearing, therefore, I hope you will forgive me for reiterating a few basic points.

To be against negative gearing as a policy incentive is not a stance against investment into the housing market.

Indeed we need a steady provision of rental accommodation because there will always be a proportion of the population unable or unwilling to purchase, or in need of a transitional period of tenancy due to job changes.

Albeit, a drop in ownership rates from families with children falling from 79.5%-77.2% over the last census interim – our biggest demographic of homebuyer, – coupled yields outpacing both wage growth and inflation over the corresponding period and beyond, highlights a growing and somewhat concerning trend.

Leading up to the peak of 2010, Australia had an unparalleled property boom which not only heralded us top of the “Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey” for subsequent years, but placed household debt to income ratios at around 150% which can hardly be called healthy.

I’m sure many have grown tired of being ‘lectured’ on the many ‘viable’ reasons why we’ve seen prices and subsequently household debt increase (ease of lending, lower borrowing rates, and wage growth to name but a few) however, whilst you can argue over the details contained in housing affordability reports as many have done in the past – or fall back on previous statements made by the RBA which conclude’

“Australia is now broadly in line with other comparable countries, having risen relative to other countries since 1980 when it was at the lower end..”

..it’s rather embarrassing that these ‘comparable countries’ include the UK, New Zealand, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Canada – all International terrains which having been through somewhat harder lessons than our own, also battle to induce first home buyers out from underneath their ‘rental’ blankets as high prices and shortages of stock herald arguments similar to those voiced here.

Yes – Australia has a shortage of accommodation in areas most want to live, work, play and importantly purchase. As I argued last week, this pattern of behaviour has predominantly been driven by years of poor planning for population growth, leading many to conclude, they have little option but to situate close to centralised job districts rather than incur the inflated cost and time of commuting on already over-crowded arterials.

However, all of he above has also been exacerbated by our tax policy of negative gearing.

As the Henry Tax review pointed out, Australia has a system that taxes income from work and savings at a higher rate than other forms of investment (including borrowing and speculating,) which are taxed at a lower rate.

In other countries such as the USA, investors of geared properties can only claim tax deductions for interest on borrowings against the income generated by the property until sold.  However, the Australian system allows heavily geared investors to deduct against wages thereby reducing their overall tax bill, which, when combined with various other incentives such as depreciation, makes it a very attractive policy for high income earners to the disadvantage of lower wage individuals, unable to bridge the gap between the income the property generates and the outgoing expenses.

The success of negative gearing relies solely on the growth of the asset.  Without good capital appreciation, negative gearing doesn’t work.  Therefore, investors taking advantage of the incentives are for want of a better word ‘speculators’ who have concentrated their attention on the established market principally in the inner and middle ring suburbs – areas that attract the highest levels of concentrated buyer activity.

Consequently, 92 per cent of residential investors borrow to purchase second hand dwellings, leaving the ‘new housing market’ without enough investment to induce an adequate provision of supply or infrastructure. This inflates the cost of established stock, leaving a widening gap between price and yield – leading investors even more reliant on the band-aid of negative gearing to fund their activities.

With 1.2 Million negatively geared investors (speculators) relying on appreciation, predicting movements in the market place is a national past time.  You’ll hear it trotted out frequently that we’re at “such and such” stage of the “property clock” or “property cycle.”  Second-guessing rises or falls in the RBA rate has become a popular sport on Twitter and various other media outlets.

The RBA noted as early as 2003, when advocating a moderation of demand in the property market amongst investors, by way of tightening of the current negative gearing rules – the rises in Australia’s established market have been inflated principally from a growth in investor demand aimed overwhelmingly at the second hand dwellings.

The RBA described the demand as ‘unprecedented’ with the concentration overwhelmingly on properties around the median price point (currently circa $500,000) where overall demand from homebuyers is also at its highest.

On the surface it may seem somewhat contradictory that a policy benefitting investors could negatively impact renters.  Albeit, rather than having the ‘spruiked’ desired effect of aiding rental affordability and rental supply, the results speak for themselves.

Over the previous five years, Australia’s rental yields have risen 49.2 per cent, outpacing growth in housing loan repayments for the same period. Furthermore, long-term vacancy rates sitting firmly below 5 per cent and in established areas they hover closer to 2 per cent. Does this alone not ring bells that negative gearing as it stands, is doing little to solve rental shortages and consequently a growing affordability crisis?

Some put forward the debate that property investment should be viewed no differently from any other small business such as dog washing and so forth.  However, property is not only a wealth generating asset, but as essential requirement for all – on a par with good medical care and food. Governments have a responsibility to provide policies that balance the market for investor, renter and most importantly the homebuyer alike. Not an easy task – but certainly not impossible.

Then there are those who take you back to the Hawke/Keeting era during which negative gearing was to some extent “quarantined”.  The result was marginal at best, there was a dampening of investor enthusiasm and a small increase in rental yields in two states (Sydney and Perth) both of which were already experiencing vacancy rates below 1 per cent and therefore had other factors weighing into the statistic – however in other states there was no such rise, and in some – such as Melbourne, rental growth actually slowed.

Additionally, the change in policy didn’t stay around long enough to take us through this transitional period and enable effective assessment of the results. Stringent lobbying by the real estate fraternity and property investors ensured at first opportunity the policy was re-introduced.

This is because real estate industry professionals love investors.  The transaction process is generally smoother with less emotional content involved and the selling agency benefits from the rental management once the purchaser has settled.  This helps cement a lasting relationship with their client’ as well as an ongoing potential income stream.  Hence why the majority would rarely voice opposition.

I have no doubt if the policy were removed, or even scaled down, there would be less demand for established stock and a subsequent dampening in prices.  And whilst I agree that a sudden and complete retraction of negative gearing in its current form would be foolish – favouring a slow wind-down whilst other policies are implemented such as strategies to aid development and increase supply – the notion that touching the ‘golden egg’ of negatively geared property assets in a way which may dissuade buyers from ‘banking’ on the established market to fund their retirement would be disastrous – seems to be one that’s culturally ingrained in the real estate fraternity.

You only have to turn on the TV to be bombarded with programs from The Living Room to The Block, which make everyone feel like a rookie renovator able to ‘tap into’ the wealth of their property investments with a quick makeover, or fuel the perception that you can pick up a good property as some magically suggest –‘below its intrinsic value’ and ‘add value’ to create profit – to know obsession with property investment goes above and beyond negative gearing alone.

Indeed, if someone could prove to me that any of our current modes of investment have lead to

1)      An improvement in housing affordability and supply;

2)      An increase in vacancy rates;

3)      A substantial boost to new housing and consequently infrastructure in ‘growth’ suburbs; and

4)      Lower rents for the most venerable in our society

I would be the first campaigning on the streets in in favour of the plan.  However all of the above, negative gearing has failed to do.

I can’t help thinking back to a talk I attended at a previous REIV conference where a Victorian state minister was lecturing on the state of our economy (I won’t mention names).  During the course of his speech, he revealed he had ownership of nine investment properties – the majority of which are negatively geared. Therefore, you have to wonder who our leaders are protecting when opposing changes to the current status quo – it’s certainly not the low-income earner or renter.

In other words, negative gearing, as been more to do with promoting property inflation ‘growth at any cost’ rather than aiding society – however, for those who want more detail on the consequential impact, I suggest reading the latest research paper from the Grattan Institute which can be downloaded here.

Catherine Cashmore

 

 

 

 

Who are we building homes for? Private local and offshore investors, or low income workers? Melbourne’s growing pains..

Who are we building homes for? Private local and offshore investors, or low income workers? Melbourne’s growing pains..

I’ve written extensively regarding the various issues that adversely affect our home buying demographics.

Within the real estate industry itself, it’s not a popular subject– obviously time spent analysing concerns related to rising capital prices, which will eventually result an undesirable demographic shift in the makeup of our society, do little to promote a profit making business that reaps rewards from inflationary gains.

Any hint that the cost of accommodation may be unaffordable for a growing percentage of potential purchasers, usually results in an accusation that first time buyers are being ‘picky’ or just plain unrealistic in their expectations. And whilst low rates may assist existing owners, the short term frenzy of activity being felt in our largest capital cities is primarily being lead by little more than confidence and speculation, with 50% of Sydney and Melbourne’s current demand is coming from the investment sector alone.

Investors now prop up valuations in the lower price bracket and consequently first-time purchasers without some kind of family assistance to help with a deposit, or dual income, often find themselves forced into a rental trap.

Another reason housing affordability is an unpopular topic, is because it needs to be tackled on a number of fronts.  Hence, why it often seems like an insurmountable problem that successive governments find “too hard” to change within their short-term outlook, albeit, it’s not through lack of educated advice.

Reviews into tax policy, land constraints and development overlays, changes to existing models of funding and so on, have been analysed and researched extensively, however if the trade off risks lowering valuations for an asset class which is the retirement and income stream for a large proportion of Australians, it’s considered political suicide to do much outside of maintain the mantra to keep rates low and job security high.

Housing is evidently more about investment than ownership.  The vast majority of programs, publications, and commentary on the housing market, are focused firmly on the investment sector, coupled with plenty of free advice on the expanding array of mortgage products.

It’s a vehicle for making wealth – a valuable asset to ‘tap’ into when approaching retirement – potentially less volatile than the stock market considering its illiquid nature, and one that when purchased, is held for the long term, with a view to using the equity to leverage into future acquisitions.

Single first homebuyers (if they can be found) need to seek accommodation outside capital city markets to purchase within budget.  Therefore, when you witness half a dozen bidders battling it out for small un-renovated 70s style apartment in an inner area of Melbourne or Sydney, and paying in excess of $500,000 or $800,000 respectfully for the privilege of doing so, with a rental return yielding little more than 4%, you have to wonder at the sanity of it all.

A large proportion of unproductive debt being pumped into a limited area of density, with investors (the supposed ‘unemotional buyer’) playing a game of musical chairs with aging stock, hoping consistent market demand from future speculators, will keep valuations inflated, and provide the needed rise in capital to make the loss yielding investment worth the risk after maintenance costs, periods of vacancy, and inflation have all been accounted for.

Commentators often try and play down this influence in the Australian real estate market by stating that just one in seven households owns a single residential investment property.  However, it’s not so much the overall proportion of investment that matters although this is a factor – but where the concentration is focused.

The percentage of investor-owned apartments in both Darwin and Brisbane for example falls close to 70% – and in the other capitals, it comes in between 60 and 70%. In Australia, investment property contributes 32% of Australian mortgages, compared to 20% in NZ and 12% in the UK

Local buyers leverage this debt into established dwellings with the low grade’ high-density apartments being primarily sold off the plan to offshore purchasers which due to cultural tendencies, often results in a significant proportion sitting vacant.

Considering my statement that housing is more to do with investment than occupation, it could be argued that there’s nothing wrong with this – except of course, we all need somewhere to live, and putting aside a small proportion of Australian’s who make the long term lifestyle choice of renting whilst investing elsewhere, most desire a secure place of residence, debt free, upon retirement.

Hence why affordability and increasing the supply of quality stock to provide a feasible entry point for low-income workers into an area that is not devoid of infrastructure, is primary.

Over the next 40 years, Melbourne’s population is set to expand to a projected 8 million eventually putting the state in front of Sydney as ‘the most populated.’

Planning Minister Matthew Guy is currently responsible for shaping Melbourne and to be fair, he hasn’t got an easy job.

It’s going to be nigh on impossible to please everybody. Years of poor policy have already ensured we have sparse facilities to meet the demands of those who choose to live in “fringe” suburbs and consequently, the price of commuting frequently forgoes any benefit gained from paying a marginally lower price for the privilege of more space and accommodation further from the city.

The state government are taking a two pronged approach. Firstly, by deciding to enforce a permanent urban boundary to prevent further ‘sprawl,’ whilst encouraging expansion of regional towns such as Bacchus Marsh, Warragul, Kilmore and Wonthaggi. And secondly, increasing the proportion of high-density accommodation by way of recent changes to residential zones.

So far, the main consensus of opinion on talk radio, television, and social media, has been virulently against all of the above – urban sprawl, increased density, and regional development, with neighbourhood voices speaking strongly against any change to their local landscape.

However, whilst heated emotions are understandable, ease of effective supply is an essential component when combating issues of affordability, and therefore, if this is what the state government intends – as spruiked in the various press releases, it must achieve the following.

1.) Drive down land values

2.) Ensure infrastructure is adequately financed

3.) Keep speculative activity in check to make sure supply is suitably priced and attractive to lower income homebuyers and renters.

In light of the above, a few cautionary points should be highlighted in regard to Melbourne’s new plan.

When you place a band of restriction around any neighbourhood – with a ‘permanent urban growth boundary,’ you effectively make assumptions about future increases in population, and in doing so restrict the amount of developable land, resulting in a decrease not increase of supply over the longer term.

In addition, larger developers have a tendency to land bank the available plots reducing competition against smaller players who don’t have the financial capital to compete so far in advance of demand.

This inevitably leads to higher, not lower land prices for the predominant demographic this type of accommodation attracts – lower wage dual income buyers.

Families require houses (not apartments) gardens, green areas and local schools.  They need community facilities, a local doctor on hand, good public transport and nearby shopping centres – and they need it all at an affordable’ price.

Therefore, as much as idealists may not like ‘sprawl’ it’s not only important to make land readily available and free of restriction when population growth demands as such, it’s also important to implement a structured and timely plan to fund essential community infrastructure to attract consistent solid demand.

The specified areas closer to town set aside for intensive development of high-density apartment blocks will be immune from council or residential protest.

However, to date, the rush into apartment living has been anything but robust.  The elderly overwhelmingly downsize into medium density accommodation– and although younger generations in their 20s and 30s have a better propensity towards high density dwellings; figures still only peak at around 14% at the age of 27 (as of 2011.)

At the root of the problem lay a few issues. The relatively small one and two bedroom units featured as “affordable” tend to fall into the investment sector of the market not just because of tight lending restrictions banks impose on first-home buyers for this type of accommodation – but also due to high owners’ corporation fees set aside to service the lifts and other security features.

The standard of accommodation is typically low grade and developers are pressured to pay vastly inflated commissions to achieve the pre-sale targets set out by the banking system in order to acquire funding. Hence why such projects are often aggressively marketed to off shore purchasers.

In this regard, the avenue Melbourne is heading toward, is similar to the building initiatives employed in Ireland in the run up to the GFC.

In this region, when supply responded to demand, it was generally too late. Urban growth restrictions ensured new homes were built in locations far from existing amenities, and therefore not appealing to the home buying demographic whilst brownfill sites were filled with high-density poor quality unit stock more suited to investors than the needs of owner occupiers.

Subsequently, in the two years leading up to 2007, almost half of all new home purchases stemmed from the investment sector rather than a first home buyer demographic, and as a result, many of these homes are still sitting vacant whilst the lingering lack of ‘quality’ accommodation is once again starting to disproportionately inflate as the economy shows slow signs of recovery.

If nothing else, the example proves aptly how supply shortages can still occur, even when building initiatives have been implemented.

Therefore, as admirable as the state government’s plans may seem on the surface, there’s every risk they won’t fulfil the objective intended.

In an excellent piece in The Australian a few days ago, Toby Hall, chief executive of Mission Australia made comment;

“Housing is part of our critical infrastructure and we should treat it as such. We (should) consider debt financing for major projects – bridges, roads, rail – and we should consider a housing bond backed by the commonwealth.”

Because of our current tax system the best-established property in our inner suburban market suited to the first home buying sector is currently a hotbed of investor demand.  Therefore, as vital as it is to consider finance initiatives to stimulate new projects, it is equally important to make sure the supply constructed is diverse enough to appeal and fulfil the needs of low income owner occupiers -including an increased provision of social housing – and therefore suitably targeted toward those who need it most.

Catherine Cashmore

Regulation and Speculation

Regulation and Speculation in Australia’s Housing Market

Despite, the recent gains in dwelling values being fragmented across the States, it’s always interesting to chart the reaction when making the assertion that the rapid run up in values, occurring in areas such as Sydney and to some extent Melbourne, have been stimulated by little more than an investor lead rush to ‘get in quick’ as capital gains visibly overshoot the mark, and cheap money coupled with a honeymoon period of post-election confidence, forces buyers to seek out any area of opportunity that can provide a better return on their dollar.

However, for those who work in the commission driven residential sector and derive their living from Australia’s $600 billion property industry, any negative sentiment indicating potential instability it is strictly taboo.

Indeed, it’s easy times for agencies when the market is booming – investors come knocking buoyed on by recent gains, sales agents don’t have to chase buyers in order to achieve the needed competition to exceed their vendor’s reserve, and as we start to witness a period of accelerated growth, the self perpetuating circle of certainty that keeps the ball of optimism rolling, is proof enough for all imagining there can be no end to the festivities.

Those who work in the industry understand that it’s this type of confidence that underpins investor activity, and therefore if prices are dropping ‘opportunity knocks,’ and if they are rising it’s merely proof markets always recover and values trend ‘upwards.’

In other words, there’s never a bad time to buy property – to insinuate as such, would result in a personal conflict of interest

I received an auto-generated email this week from one commentator suggesting we have become a nation of ‘so-called experts’ – people with opinions, but very little expertise.

According to the theory set forth in the email, the criteria for expertise in our property market to enable impartial advice, is simply someone that walks the talk – ‘a successful property investor’ with a large portfolio of dwellings.

However, for those that entered the property market at the beginning of the lending boom, and benefitted from our golden decades of growth – becoming a ‘successful property investor,’ wasn’t incredibly hard.

Over the period, the rise of dual income households – intermittent buyer grants, tax incentives aimed at investors – stronger wage growth buoyed on by a robust economy riding the dizzy heights of a mining boom – poor planning for population growth with both the monopoly and restriction of land stagnating effective and affordable supply – a propensity toward high loan to value ratios in the lead up to the GFC – and a culture that veers disproportionately toward property investment as a vehicle for ‘wealth creation’ to name but a few – ensured the baby boomer generations who hold roughly 50% of Australia’s housing stock, didn’t need much more than a basic foundation of market knowledge, to reap the resulting capital gains.

Having never lived through a real estate crash, boomers matured in a market where the industry driven mantra dictated that nominal values double every 7-10 years or always goes up 7-10% per annum, as the wax and wane of a property cycle progresses.

Some of the various stimulators that lead to these gains are not to be repeated, and whilst there will always be periods of inflation and deflation in any modern market economy, it’s important to have a good understanding of the dynamics fuelling those gains and the longevity of such, or you risk falling into the trap of thinking the good times will ultimately always outweigh the bad.

Whilst the real estate profession differs little from any other sales industry in so much that it has to maintain a positive narrative.  It also promotes Australia’s largest domestic asset class with an aggregated value of over $4 trillion pinned to a banking sector, which has the highest exposure to residential mortgages in the world.

Therefore, pumping the line that it’s always a good time to buy, with inflated capital prices simply an indicator of a “healthy economy,” can potentially hold serious consequences – If housing is going to be used as an investment vehicle, the advice being given requires strict regulation.

As it stands, Sydney’s buying market is almost a 50/50 equal split between investors and upgraders, with first homebuyers holding less than a 5 per cent share.

Whether it is negative gearing, land banking or borrowing to purchase in a self-managed super fund, all such strategies are solely reliant on capital growth to compensate for the growing gap between price and yield. Therefore demand is overwhelmingly concentrated on a reducing pool of established property and the recent acceleration in prices represents this.

Notwithstanding, the so called ‘fundamental’s presented that are intended to calm any negative spirits into believing our economy faces no immediate danger, are startling similar to those projected in other countries immediately prior to the financial crisis.

Whilst there’s no doubt in Australia we have a shortage of affordable and effective supply, to assume this alone will always generate nominal price gains, or even place a firm floor under current valuations, concludes we can keep playing a game of musical chairs with second hand stock, against a backdrop of rising unemployment, weak wage growth, an aging population and stubbornly high levels of personal debt.

I’m referring in particular to arguments such as demand outstripping supply, population growth, a stable economy, and other indicators such as housing affordability measures, which maintain that capital increases aren’t negatively affecting first home buyers, because the proportion of income needed to service the loan, is balanced in a low interest rate environment. And whilst I’m not suggesting we face an imminent crash, one thing all crises have in comment, is the majority never see them coming.

Ireland is one such example. In the lead up to the GFC which wiped over 50 per cent of the value off properties in markets such as Dublin, all available economic indicators were firmly pointed toward the positive.

Since the middle of the 1990s, growth in real disposable income per head had been stronger than any other industrial country.  Residential demand was fuelled principally from robust net migration, coupled with trending fall in household size.

By 2007, 75% of the population owned outright or were renting, and the proportion of buy to let investors had increased to 27%.

The overwhelming mantra from the real estate sector fervently claimed a property crash was impossible. Strong GDP growth and low unemployment figures supported a feeling that the environment was protected, and average mortgage payments were estimated to be no more than 30 per cent of household income.

When supply did respond to demand, it was generally too late, and urban growth restrictions ensured new homes were built in locations far from existing amenities, and therefore not appealing to the home buying demographic.

Brownfill sites were filled with low-grade high-density unit stock, and subsequently, in the two years leading up to 2007, almost half of all new home purchases stemmed from the investment sector rather than a first homebuyer demographic.

Following the crash, large swaths of theses ‘new’ properties sit vacant, and the lingering lack of quality supply has started to once again to disproportionately inflate established values as the economy starts to show slow signs of recovery.

The rhetoric stemming from the media also played its part in underpinning the confidence; Various titles from the Irish Times prove the point aptly, ‘Bricks and Mortar Unlikely to Lose Their Value’ (11 December 2002), ‘Prices to Rise as Equilibrium is Miles Away’ (18 March 2004), ‘House Prices “Set for Soft Landing”‘ (22 November 2005), ‘Property Market Unlikely to Collapse, Says Danske Chief’ (2 February 2006) and ‘House Prices Rising at Triple Last Year’s Rate’ (29 June 2006).

Similarly the UK was also suffering a housing shortage; with data analysis given to parliament suggesting the UK needed “an overall total of 203,000 homes each year during the period 2001 to 2021 to keep pace with newly-arising household growth.”

Whilst it’s impossible to compare against every measure when drawing international comparisons, the spirit of certainty that keeps prices rocking along all too often masks underlying instabilities. Hence why so few see a crash looming.

This is why it is vital and long over due, for our politicians to work hard at establishing a political ‘road map,’ that will unpick the current distortions tying up the established market, such as tax incentives which encourage speculative activity and underutilisation of the existing stock, whilst at the same time, lowering land prices and increasing effective and quality supply for buyers and renters.

Without such action, potential rises in unemployment and future interest rate hikes will simply exacerbate the boom and bust cycles resulting in a slow and painful demographic shift, as an increasing wave of younger Australian’s find themselves in a position where they need to take on a greater and greater proportion of debt just to enter the market.

It’s easy to palm off the risks by citing that only Sydney and Melbourne are experiencing heated activity – but somewhat foolhardy to think that this won’t have a broader impact as the RBA fight with the conundrum of balancing rates in a multi speed economy,

Whilst we continue the ‘Are we? ‘Aren’t we?’ or ‘Might we be?’ bubble debate and both the RBA and Government sit on their hands and look sideways, assuring us there’s nothing to worry about ‘yet.’  A largely unregulated housing market, which in some areas is full of pent up demand from cheap money and speculation, has well and truly taken the bit.

Catherine Cashmore