tip off

Why Australia’s house prices are anything but sensible

Beware those “experts” telling you there’s no housing bubble in Australia. There are similarities between the housing situation here and that of the US prior to the market’s collapse, argues researcher Philip Soos.

As mainstream opinion would have it, Australia’s housing prices are solidly based upon fundamental valuations or intrinsic value. This position was repeated by Terry Ryder, claiming “current prices are at sensible levels”. This is the view of the Australian government, central bank, Treasury, the FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate) sector, much of academia, and a legion of commentators, economists and analysts.

Ryder cites RBA governor Glenn Stevens who says the residential property market is not experiencing a bubble. For anyone who has followed the global property market over recent years, it is difficult not to notice that central bankers are possibly the least reliable and most incompetent of all economists when it comes to identifying asset bubbles. Their record is truly terrible, for not only completely missing trillion-dollar bubbles that formed in their own backyard; they have also continually put effort into denying these bubbles exist.

Although Ryder believes Australia is different from the US in regards to the relative economic conditions and property markets, in one aspect Australia is similar: central bankers at the RBA and Federal Reserve have gone on the record to deny that a housing bubble exists in their countries. In the US, concerns were continually raised before 2006 about the risk of a property bubble. Unfortunately, such concerns were dismissed as nonsense.

There will be more on the US housing situation later. But first a look at Australia — which has some parallels and some stark differences to the US.

There is no housing shortage here. High housing prices are not set by the forces of supply and demand but by banks’ willingness to lend, which leads to the next issue.

The leading cause of the US housing bubble was a privatised and deregulated financial system lending absurd amounts of credit to every Tom, Dick and Harry that would take it, regardless of their financial standing. This gave rise to the term “ninja” loan, borrowers with no income, no job and no assets.

Loose credit was used to speculate on the property market, generating easy profits until the bubble peaked and then collapsed the financial sector in 2008. As early as 2004, the FBI testified before Congress that there was a significant amount of fraud taking place around the banks’ lending to borrowers. These concerns were dismissed by the Bush administration.

Similar to the US, Australia has a deregulated and liberalised financial sector, having undergone numerous reforms during the 1980s and 1990s, ending the government’s heavy involvement in ownership and management during the social democratic period of the 1950s to 1970s. Unsurprisingly, the amount of credit the banking sector extended to all parts of the private sector has increased dramatically. Mortgage debt has more than quadrupled from 19% of GDP in 1990 to 84% in 2012 to a higher level than that of the US at its peak.

According to Denise Brailey, the president of the Banking and Finance Consumers Support Association (an organisation dedicated to protecting the public against predatory financiers), there is some evidence to suggest mortgage fraud is far more widespread than previously thought. Having worked in this field for the last 20 years, criminologist Brailey has seen first-hand the financial and social wreckage wrought by a multitude of scams and predatory lending.

Brailey provided testimony before the Senate Economics References Committee alleging wide-scale fraud from banks to brokers. While her testimony, which covers the period 2008 to the present, was largely about low and no-doc loans, her claims extend into the mainstream of full-doc mortgages.

Australia does share some uncanny similarities with the US in the period before its housing market collapsed.”

Certainly, the public would know more if the ATO, ASIC and APRA bothered to look into these cases of fraud, but just like the US, regulators have been captured by the finance industry, unwilling to upset bankers and their allies in political office. Only time will reveal the extent of fraud that has taken place.

Ryder quotes Stevens on the apparent stability of the house price to income ratio for around a decade. I took an interest in the statistics used to construct this ratio, but my data request was refused by the RBA on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. Eventually, I managed to extract the household income part of the equation (denominator) through a Freedom of Information Act, as this had been constructed using ABS data (the numerator was constructed using data from APM).

It was easy to see why Stevens believed the ratio had not changed for 10 years: the RBA measure of household income was severely inflated, to the point that the median household was “earning” $97,000 in early 2010 (the last year that data was provided). This unrealistically high level of household income deflated the ratio.

ABS survey data estimates household income to be no higher than $74,000, a significant difference. Economists Leith van Onselen and Cameron Murray carefully backtracked through the National Accounts data to reveal the extra artifacts that the RBA had inserted into the household income figure to inflate it.

In summary, Australia does share some uncanny similarities with the US in the period before its housing market collapsed. Central bankers denied there was a bubble, the economy was apparently strong, there were never-ending reports of a dwelling shortage, bank lending is at historical levels, housing prices were also historically high, regulators were asleep at the wheel and reports of lending fraud surfaced. A weak economy and high unemployment only occurs after the housing market sinks.

Probably the only aspect of Ryder’s article that is accurate is why a comparison between Australia is the US is considered legitimate. Ultimately, the most accurate assessment is based upon Australia’s current internal economic conditions. The second-best comparison is between Australia’s current and historical trends.

Turning to a more thorough look at the US situation, the delusions of high-profile figures reached truly ludicrous proportions in the US with its two leading economists and central bankers, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan. In October 2005, Bernanke, then chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, testified before the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, claiming “price increases largely reflect strong economic fundamentals, including robust growth in jobs and incomes, low mortgage rates, steady rates of household formation, and factors that limit the expansion of housing supply in some areas”.As with the dot-com bubble, the vast majority of economists missed and/or denied the existence of a bubble on the stock market, and did it again with the housing bubble. Just 12 out of 15,000 professional economists in the US publicly warned of this $8 trillion-dollar Ponzi scheme. This was noted by Dirk Bezemer, a Dutch economist at the University of Groningen, identifying 12 economists who picked both the collapse of the housing bubble and GFC.

Central bankers cannot identify these epic asset bubbles for two primary reasons: lousy economic theory and an unwillingness to take responsibility. The former revolves around a non-empirical form of economics that is taught in universities and practiced in government and industry. “Equilibrium economics” is associated with the neoclassical school of economic thought. It teaches, using many unrealistic assumptions, that markets operate in equilibrium — a state in which economic resources are put to their most efficient use.

Many of these assumptions are patently absurd: all firms are the size of lemonade stands, people can see into the infinite future, know all information about all markets, firms borrow at the same rate of interest, that money, credit and debt does not exist, and so on. It is similar to an astronomer who constructs a model of the solar system without a sun, moons and gravity. If NASA were to attempt another moon landing using such a deficient model, the space shuttle would never leave the planet.

This worldview assumes, because markets operate efficiently, assets are almost always priced correctly — so bubbles cannot occur. Neoclassical theories of equilibrium price statics, rational expectations, efficient markets hypothesis, capital assets pricing model, utility, and so on are doctrines with slim to non-existent empirical backing.

This economic theory does not reflect reality. If it did, why are so many countries generating the largest asset bubbles in their respective histories after undergoing reforms of privatisation and deregulation?

The latter reason is simple: if a central bank warned about a housing bubble as it was forming, the market would react by changing its attitude from greed to panic, typical of the pathology of boom bust mania. Economists in the central bank are considered the foremost authority on the economy, so when they speak, everyone listens. This institution’s most powerful influence upon the economy is not the ability to print money or adjust the interest rate, but its loudspeaker.

Economists in the central bank are not going to put their substantial six-figure salaries and secure job placements on the line, including being subject to an immense amount of flak from the FIRE sector, for correctly stating the perfectly obvious that anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the financial and real estate markets would realise.

The majority of economists, especially those prominently placed in institutions like the RBA, Treasury, universities, the banking, financial and real estate industries, reject the notion that a bubble exists in the residential property market. This is unsurprising, given the poor track record of establishment economists in identifying asset bubbles and crises.

Ryder goes on to claim the US housing market was sunk by “a recessed economy, high unemployment, a major oversupply of dwellings and an unregulated lending sector (pretty much the opposite of Australia on every count).” The first two reasons are back to front. The bursting of the $8 trillion-dollar bubble caused the “Great Recession” and subsequent high unemployment.

A collapse in demand from a formally strong private sector (including an external account deficit), and combined with the US government’s attempted austerity, pushed the US economy into recession. It is the bursting of asset bubbles that cause recessions and high rates of unemployment, not the other way round.

That the US had a major oversupply of dwellings was obvious to the mainstream only after the bubble had burst. Meanwhile vested interests constantly claimed there was a considerable shortage of dwellings. The shortage argument, however, is not new. Every country that has suffered through a housing boom and crash in recent years had so-called experts claiming prices were based upon fundamental valuations due to dwelling shortages.

Take the US. Leading institutions such as the Federal Reserve, National Association of Realtors, California Building Industry Association and Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies produced sophisticated studies to show that the housing boom was caused, in part, by dwelling shortages. These studies were authored by professors, PhDs, and businesspeople, all with extensive knowledge and experience but with conflicts of interest that could fill a small book.

*This story was first published at Property Observer. Philip Soos is a researcher at the School of International and Political Studies at Deakin University.

30
  • 1
    Andybob
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Australia, however, has historically had a much lower level of mortgage default than the USA. That is because in a lot of States in the USA (including California), a mortgagee does not have recourse against the borrower personally and can only obtain payment from sale of the house. People are much more likely to hand back the keys and abandon the property if they cannot be pursued for any shortfall on sale. In Australia the borrowers are on the hook personally and as a result, are much less likely to default even if there is no capital gain in sight.

  • 2
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    OK, it is time to abandon the usual pseudo-sophisticated cynicism which normally greets warning articles such as Philip Soos so knowledgably offers.
    In response to a request in 1986 I wrote a similar article,( which appeared in Tertangala Aug 1986 (copy held in The Mitchell Library Sydney) titled Housing and The Economy), which exposed the conditions which led to the GFC.
    It was an unimportant amateur effort but the arguments seem to have held up since many of them appear in Philip’s article.
    The point being that the evidence has been out there for a substantial time, accumulating to the point where it can be no longer ignored.
    The “Greed leading to Panic” scenario (should Central Bankers ignore “Negative Sentiment” and tell the truth about the housing bubble) seems to be a key point of the article.
    “Greed” informs the voting intentions of those supporting the Coalition, surmising a return to a golden era which ignores the effect of the GFC and Philip’s report of an Australian Mortgage market which is 85% of GDP.
    A Coalition victory will ensure that Greed turns into Panic, for the collapse in the housing bubble will begin with the austerity policies of the Coaltion,( already started at the State level), contracting the economy into an Abbott Recession, just the same mechanism which Philip points out in the US prior to the GFC and delivered by the same side of politics.
    The Abbott recession we otherewise do not have to have should the central bankers wake up to the threats (that an incompetent and other-worldly Coalition of fringe minority parties would bring to a federal government), and encourage “busines” to withdaw financial support for this effective self-immolation of their own interests for shallow polical motives.
    If, however, we are now “multi-national” then there will be no shortage of foreign capital ready to pick up Australian assets at fire-sale “Recession” prices.
    It happened in the Great depression when Sydney’s prestigious Eastern Suburbs changed hands altogether.
    Another reason for the warnings to be ignored?
    The aftermath of the coming “Panic” will be conveniently blamed on the “worst government in Australia’s history”.
    It seems that the Coalition have already concurred with Philip’s arguments and “Gamed” the “recession we have to have” post the housing bubble burst.
    After all they are just a bunch of hack salespeople and they will be heavily employed selling their nation off in the Recession we really do not need to have, if the present administraion is given another three years to carefully deflate the housing bubble as they have already been doing “patriotically” for the length of the GFC.
    The facts are there, have been for a long time and only The “Mob” (as Howard cynically described his “Battlers”) kept in the dark. Greed leading to a panicked vote for Abbott?

  • 3
    GF50
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    @ hamis Hill

    You have absolutely nailed it, I can only cheer from the side lines. Forensic! :)

  • 4
    Ginas new vajazzle
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    One in three mortgages in Australia at the moment (or 4Q12) are serviced on an interest only basis. That would be courtesy of a generations worth of real estate investment roadshows telling people to do precisely that for the capital appreciation.

    Now if we factor in that a significant volume of housing is owned by babyboomers using it in lieu of a pension, and that the capital appreciation largely ended about 2 years ago then we are presumably reaching that point where slowly but surely there will be a trickle of people trying to find something else to do to earn themselves a return to pay. That then becomes a lot like e Mexican standoff, because the first to sell will get better prices, more certainty of selling and less end stress than those coming later.

    And TestosterTony Abbott is leading a government committed to a little bit of the old austerity.

    Sit back and relax. this is going to be a hoot.

  • 5
    Stickey
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    Housing is too expensive for middle Australia and, in particular for families on less than $60,000 income. Builders continue to erect mansion style houses on expensive land thus “pricing out” thye artificial market. Younger people are backing off buying a home and literally staying home with parents thus living in separate social conditions. Also they are not breeding.

  • 6
    as
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    @Andybob
    There is no correlation with non-recourse loans and mortgage delinquencies. In the US the overwhelming majority of loans are recourse. Furthermore the two states with the highest amount of mortgage delinquencies, Nevada and Florida, are both recourse states.

    This whole non-recourse = greater mortgage delinquencies is a massive furphy.

  • 7
    Peter Hannigan
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    The Crikey approach to these housing articles is rather fun. Alternate a housing booster with a housing doomster - each using their cherry picked data to support their opinions. Still, it would be nice if we got an article occasionally that tried to take a neutral view of the data and the psychology behind the way Australians approach the housing market.

  • 8
    floorer
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    The three witches in Macbeth could knock out an article on housing in Oz and be as close as any economist.

  • 9
    Steve777
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    Time was a breadwinner on an average wage could afford to buy a modest home and support a home keeper partner and several children. Admittedly the homes were half the size of those built more recently and contained far less stuff. But I’ve often thought that much of the increase in prosperity over the last few decades has been illusory. High housing costs have simply absorbed so much of it. And housing prices are determined by those who can afford it treating housing as a speculative investment with tax advantages. It can’t last. And when it comes crashing down a lot of Australians will be badly hurt. It would be good if we could quarantine the impacts of the crash to the speculators.

  • 10
    floorer
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Time was a breadwinner”, indeed, now it takes two breadwinners and credit.

  • 11
    John Reidy
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    Good article Phillip - a nice summary, with the interesting point about central bankers.
    Brian Toohey (called i think Roll of the Dice)wrote a great book about the assumptions of economic models and since then I have had no respect for their forecasts.
    Maybe they need someone like Nate Silver to take a simple techinical view rather than the neo classical ideology - that is what it is.
    Also Hamish , great post, although don’t give the coalition to much credt for any forethough or planning as Keating said they are the chancers.

  • 12
    willgodman
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

    Floorer - don’t whinge. One bread winner supported a small house and food. Phone and one car if you were lucky. That is all. And is something broke you fixed it, not threw away. It would still support that. We “need” two bread winners because we “need” a house + 2 cars, 4 phones, two TV’s, private health, coffee/red bull, private school, computers, tablets, yearly holidays etc. Tell someone from the 30’s you buy coffee in take away cups instead of bring from home. Luxuries we take for granted, but yeah we got to work for it so stop your first world problem whining

  • 13
    floorer
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    willgodman, you’ve completely got the wrong end of the stick.

  • 14
    drsmithy
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

    And when it comes crashing down a lot of Australians will be badly hurt. It would be good if we could quarantine the impacts of the crash to the speculators.

    Trouble is the speculators make up 2/3 of mortgagees.

  • 15
    drsmithy
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

    Floorer - don’t whinge. One bread winner supported a small house and food. Phone and one car if you were lucky. That is all. And is something broke you fixed it, not threw away. It would still support that. We “need” two bread winners because we “need” a house + 2 cars, 4 phones, two TV’s, private health, coffee/red bull, private school, computers, tablets, yearly holidays etc.

    Wrong.

    The median wage is about $60k. That leaves about $900/wk after tax. Taking 1/3 of that - $300 - to spend on a mortgage, you can get a 25yr loan of a bit under $200k.

    How much “small house” do you think $200k will buy you in Australia today ? How do you think the average punter we’re talking about is going to fare when interest rates return to normal levels ?

    The reason people can’t afford housing today is not because they have a few more trinkets, most of which are massively cheaper in real terms than their equivalents were in the past, it’s because the real cost of housing has gone up by a factor of 2-3 over the last few decades.

    Everything you need to know about how catastrophically expensive real estate prices have become in this country is illustrated here: http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/02/the-history-of-australian-property-values/. You don’t even need to read the text, the graphs tell the whole story of just how much trouble we’re in.

  • 16
    johnson
    Posted Friday, 15 February 2013 at 11:58 pm | Permalink

    willgodman - I really wish that were the truth. But you simply can’t support a family, run a car and purchase a home on a single average wage in a city like Sydney these days. Remember that is a take home income of about $1000pwk.

    Just buying a cheap house in Blacktown is $500,000. Even with an old fasioned 20% deposit that’s a $400k mortgage or about $500pwk in repayments. If you run a car that’s another $150pwk. That leaves you with $350pwk to feed, cloth, insure and educate a family, while paying rates, power bills etc.

    I’ve done the sums and it just doesn’t work.

    So please don’t guilt trip young families and accuse them of poor impulse controle.

  • 17
    Mike Flanagan
    Posted Saturday, 16 February 2013 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    While Phillip Soos has some valid points in the above article, it is the blatant and irresponsible efforts by members of the press to inflate and cajole the public to boost the participants in the industry’s profits that have a major impact on the distortions in the market.
    How often to do we read in the MSM lead articles informing us that it is a ‘buyers’ or ‘sellers’ market depending on whether the real estate agents monthly sales and projected analysis are supporting their ambitions. It is the expanding turnover that drives their bottom lines, so volatility is their man servant.
    These, sometimes mendacious reports, are frequently supported by the banksters, once again purely to boost their mortgage books and with no real relationship to the realities of the market.
    I do agree there are distortions in both the market and the allocation of national capital in this sphere but it is driven by more than our Reserve Bank Board members. We have to look, not only at the industry’s distorted self promotion, but Local, State and Federal Government policy for remedies.
    My son wishes to build a small dwelling on my property, which will be completely independent of the usual services, but even with the resources at his disposal, (Timber, a small saw mill, and earthmoving equipment), an early quantity survey points to costs that are largely driven by Local and State Government charges.
    So it is not just the Reserve bank commentaries, the boosters, speculators and DIY superannuarants but also government policy that drives the speculative mall appropriation of capital that distorts this market.
    In bygone years governments, both federal and state, devoted moneys to the building of suburbs and houses for the benefit of the less privileged in our society, now, through taxation and other means they encourage the exploitation of the same group by forcing them into the mortgage market that Soos and others warns us could cause a financial shock to all house and property owners.

  • 18
    robo
    Posted Saturday, 16 February 2013 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    willgodman – who can we blame for the blowout in expectations?

  • 19
    Dogs breakfast
    Posted Saturday, 16 February 2013 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    Nothing more highlights the absurdity of modern economics than the idea of the ‘efficient market’. If markets were efficient, anywhere, than the speculators would have no reason for being.

    Much of the housing market is predicated upon a variety of unsustainable practices/ideas, including tax breaks of the negative gearing kind, of course underpinned by the second ridiculous idea that still holds in people’s minds, that house prices never go down. The last 40 years of house price inflation has been on the back of two events that either cannot be repeated (the emergence and dominance of dual income families) and the lax lending practices of the banks.

    I don’t have a mortgage, am paid much more than the average wage, have a much higher than average family income, send our kids to public schools, and we can’t afford the huge flat screen and ‘smart’ tv’s (bought by dumb people) and new cars that everyone seems to have.

    Ridiculously, we also live within our means, don’t have debts and can barely put money away. How do the highly mortgaged do it?

    I suspect the answer is that they can’t, that they are living on credit, and possibly hoping that the super. payout will cover it.

    It’s a house of cards.

  • 20
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Sunday, 17 February 2013 at 1:35 am | Permalink

    Anecdotally this DINKI9double income, no kids) phenomenon began in the early seventies in Sydney’s paddington where childless couples effectively bid up the price of workers cottages to exclude the single-income family.
    Arguably, since then, the phenomenon has spread across the nation, and the rise in housing prices has raised wage demands and exported manufacturing to countries which do not have large mortgages and these large living costs.
    Competition might deliver less expensive housing conforming to the consistent “performance” standards of The Australian Building Code, but this would have the effect of “leaving the (existing) market” behind in terms of price, with the banks consequently holding mortgages on “obselete”, overpriced housing.
    A cartel, forming to defend the status quo by artificially restricting price reducing innovations, call it “Asset-price maintenance?”, would not be a temptation to those involved?
    The present Federal government could do worse than setting up a Royal Commisssion into Affordable Housing.
    This would be an albatross around the neck of an incoming Abbott administration in reality representing the culprits likely to be exposed.
    One question: how is it the IPA and their ilk never talk about a free-market in housing?
    By way of a comment on willgodman’s post on the absence of small and affordable housing choices in this “Free-market”.
    Existing housing lenders are effectively “locked in”,( by their first duties to their shareholders), to financing only the equivalent of the present expensive and unaffordable housing.
    Philip mentions the abandonment by governments of their duty to intervene in this essentially corrupted, competition free market place.
    Collapsing housing bubbles must be their nightmare, unless they are the imbeciles of the conservative parties, oblivious to everything but their own political glory.
    They couldn’t give a damn about the economy, it is not in their DNA.

  • 21
    robo
    Posted Sunday, 17 February 2013 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    Hamis, it seems to me there’s some truth in your conspiracy theory, just as there’s some truth in willgodman’s assertions, despite him wrongly labelling floorer a whinger.

    But there’s another reason for housing unaffordability, and that’s the cost of land. Even if modest cottages were to be built, the cost of the land would price them out of the reach of many.

    For example, where I live – 40 Km as the crow flies from Brisbane CBD – land is cheap and a new 3 bedroom cottage can be bought for less than $200,000.

    There’s a reason for the cheap land, so don’t rush here to buy up all the cheap housing. But the point is made: cheaper land means cheaper housing. (unless you must have a macmansion)

  • 22
    chpowell
    Posted Sunday, 17 February 2013 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    Hamis,

    Anecdotally this DINKI9double income, no kids) phenomenon began in the early seventies in Sydney’s paddington where childless couples effectively bid up the price of workers cottages to exclude the single-income family.”

    What’s the biggest secret in Australia?

    A: Banks, NOT loan applicants, make the credit decision. Its the banks that have bid up the price of housing.

    Period.

  • 23
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Sunday, 17 February 2013 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    chpowell, you are perfectly correct that it is banks and not borrowers who have bid up the price of housing.
    So, sorry to put the blame on the borrowers, when it is just the richest people getting the best locations, locations, locations in the sought after, gentrified, inner cities. F-ck the poor!
    Banks do not have any real connection with housing in particular, other than to lend as much money as possible to as many people as possible for as long as possible at the highest interest possible for the direct and only benefit of bank shareholders,
    maximising the loan per household by disencouraging the single income household and using the combined income of a working, childless “DINKI” couple to do so.
    DEO OPTIMO MAXIMO seems to be the ancient god of said Banks whose Head Offices mimic Jovian temples in more ways than one.
    Borrowers seeking to minimise their borrowing do not have much choice, (although finance has freed up and there is more choice in owner built dwellings), but the price of “serviced” land has risen with an “artificial” shortage in the provision of services. Boo Hoo!! there is no money for services, what can we do, (accompanied by copious floods of crocodile tears).
    A tag-team effort by conservative state governments and councils ( please include right wing Labor as “conservatives”) combined with a benighted reluctance to recognise and encourage stand-alone technologies to provide services,( which would rapidly expand the availablity of housing land) and reduce costs.
    One case involved the total demolition of a newly built three bedroom brick house in the Lismore City Council area because it was built on a local farm, by a local farmer, for said local farmer’s son’s family, and as such was against the “RULES”.
    This documented “totalitarian” obscenity delivered by the “National” party, not the old Country party.
    But she’ll be right eh?
    COUNCILS, not BANKS, in that case deciding what housing is available? Period!
    So an unholy trinity of State Governments, Councils and Banks seem to be forcing buyers to bid up the price of housing to unsustainable and unaffordable levels by making sure that they will have no choice but to need sixty percent of their combined income to service a new housing loan.
    To the point where this mortgage market represents, according to the above article, 85% of the national GDP.
    So the point of making that distinction, chpowell is?
    What is the solution given the true source of the problem?
    A really “representative” governance instead of insidious mortgage slavery, (which incidentally induces fearful “conservative” voting behaviour)?
    Philip’s article shows that we are in real trouble, and yes, it is not really the fault of the consumer.
    But getting them to vote in their own interests?
    Getting them to demand the intervention of government in this corrupted market?
    Not going to happen? Period?

  • 24
    Harry1951
    Posted Monday, 18 February 2013 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    A crash? Doubt it, the pre-conditions are just not there for such an event. Over the last few years the growth in values just paused or reversed slightly. But a crash: dream on all you who want to see prices fall.

    Much more likely is a resumption of growth in values. The early signs of this is already apparent.

  • 25
    Mike Flanagan
    Posted Monday, 18 February 2013 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Considering the time I can only assume the dear Mother Suprior has found a quiet place in the pellian cloisters to slumber. Perhaps she has been beguiled by his circus attire.

  • 26
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Monday, 18 February 2013 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    Keating was forced to intervene to stop foreign purchasers of domestic housing pushing up prices, (particularly on Sydney’s North Shore), beyond the capacity of local residents to match.
    A relaxation of this restriction could be a policy of an incoming Abbott Administration.
    Howard’s “Mob” or “Battlers” will be just as f-cked by this foreign gentrification as were the working class poor of the inner cities in the 1970’s.
    But the “Mob” do not fund the conservative political parties do they, at least not directly, unlike Cory Bernardi’s overseas associates?
    Those sea change or tree change Baby Boomers will be cashing in, putting many more houses on the market.
    That increase Harry1951 mentions might tell them the time is right to become wealthy, grey nomads or cruise ship residents.
    Most of the Baby Boomers will be glad to cut all the various blood-sucking parasites, that have afflicted them during their working years, right out of their aging bodies.
    Rates, maintenance, interest payments.
    They’ve seen how their elders were stiched up by mortgage extensions to pay the rates and then find their wealth plundered by retirement village scams.
    Hit the road, or the waves, walk the beaches, shelter in the cool shade of the forest. Die with your boots on counter culture generation!
    And let the new “foreign” gentry buy up those former addresses; it sure as hell won’t be their children or grandchildren buying expensive and unaffordable housing taking 60% of their combined income to do so.
    Yes. we’re all multi-national now, foolish to talk about “National” sovereignity, but what a way to run an economy!
    No, with all that spare cash floating about the world looking for a safe home there won’t be a crash in real-estate in Australia, it just won’t really be Ausralian- “owned” real-estate will it?
    But the “wealthiest” people in the world have always needed foreign capital?
    Having none of their own?
    The Wealth of Nations is a bit obselete now that we are all multi-national?
    It is only foolish political parties like Labor who aim to govern for Australians; their opponents have always known where their bread is buttered; foreign capital.
    Local capital ? there isn’t any with the mortgage market 85% of GDP.
    But house prices are holding steady, right?
    Sad. Very sad. This foolish illusion of housing wealth.

  • 27
    drsmithy
    Posted Monday, 18 February 2013 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    For example, where I live – 40 Km as the crow flies from Brisbane CBD – land is cheap and a new 3 bedroom cottage can be bought for less than $200,000.

    Where is that ? Because if I look in, say, Springfield, it’s $180-200k just for a postage stamp of land.

  • 28
    drsmithy
    Posted Monday, 18 February 2013 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    A crash? Doubt it, the pre-conditions are just not there for such an event.

    What conditions do you feel are missing compared to Ireland, California, or any of the other places that had crashes ?

    Much more likely is a resumption of growth in values. The early signs of this is already apparent.

    Who’s going to pay for it ? And how ? House price growth has been outpacing inflation and wage growth for a couple of decades now.

  • 29
    robo
    Posted Monday, 18 February 2013 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    drsmithy - Southern Moreton Bay Islands.

  • 30
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Monday, 18 February 2013 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    robo, great place for houseboats in the sheltered waters, with a flyingboat to get around in.
    Expect to be swamped by retiring Babyb Boomers very soon.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...