While markets may not be perfectly efficient, they tend to deliver the correct result … eventually. This may take some time, especially when the market in question involves an asset indelibly linked to human emotions and shelter — like residential property. But as Benjamin Graham once noted (albeit, referring to a different market), in the short term the market is a voting machine, in the long term it is a weighing machine.
Most metrics indicate that residential property is overpriced. The most recent data suggests that the median price of an Australian property is $450,000 — in capital cities, the median is far higher than that (in the United States, the median property costs about $200,000). That means not only is Australian property double to price of that in the US, but Australians pay about 5-6 times their household disposable income for their median dream home — about double the historical ratio. Similarly, net yields tend to be less than 3% in many areas — with purchasers simply assuming that “property always goes up”.
As a result of such willingness to buy property, Australian’s household debt levels are world leading — as the Australian Bureau of Statistics last year noted in its Social Trends publication:
Over the last 18 years, the level of household debt grew twice as fast as the value of household assets, as the ratio of household debt to assets doubled from 9% to 19% …
Housing debt as a proportion of housing assets rose from 11% to 29%, which means overall, households have come to own a relatively smaller proportion of their houses. On the other hand, the total amount of equity households hold in their houses increased by 62%, from an average of $185,000 to $299,000 per household.
In other words, the more housing prices have appreciated, the more Australians have needed to borrow. The most commonly propagated justification for ever-increasing prices (and willingness to assume more debt) is that Australia is in the midst of a housing shortage. This is allegedly the result of increased birth rates and rampant levels of immigration. The theory (commonly sprouted by estate agents, a willing media and almost every Australian real estate pundit) appears to be that Australia because has a shortage of property, and ever-increasing demand (due to immigration), equilibrium prices will continue to outstrip inflation indefinitely.
The problem with this theory is that it assumes that the supply curve is fixed. In other words, the market is broken. However, if data released by the ABS is accurate, it appears that rumours of the flexibility of the housing market’s death has been greatly exaggerated.
The ABS stated that during December 2009, 14,869 dwellings were approved (on a seasonally adjusted basis). This is a substantial increase on the prior year (in the midst of the financial crisis) when less than 10,000 approvals were granted. On an annual basis (and annualising a single month’s result can be misleading, especially given the lumpiness of approval dwellings), if that rate of construction is sustained about 180,000 dwellings will be constructed next year. Why are more dwellings being approved? Most likely because higher property prices mean that developers have been able to expand their profit margins — especially apartment builders. The lure of greater profits encourages more development.
Given that each Australian dwelling houses 2.6 people on average, that means properties for more than 460,000 people will be built next year based on the December figures.
Now let us consider the “demand” side. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship stated on its website that 2009-10 immigration is expected to be 168,700. (Further, it is highly likely that temporary immigration, especially in the form of student visas may drop as the Australian dollar increases and violent attacks against Indian students garner widespread media coverage).
As for organic growth — the ABS found that for the year ending June 2009, there were 300,900 births in Australia and 143,100 deaths. The natural rate of population growth was therefore 157,800. Combining natural growth and immigration, that gives an approximate permanent population increase of 326,500. This figure is substantially less than the rate of dwelling approval based on December 2009 data. (The ABS noted that total population growth in 2009 was 443,800, with the ABS having a different net migration figure to the Department of Immigration, even using the higher figure — there does not appear to be any actual shortage).
Further, the increase in Australia’s population growth is unlikely to be sustainable. The rate of growth in 2009 was 2.1% — almost double the international average of 1.1%. The decrease in growth rates may come from reduced immigration, lower birth rates (as unemployment increases and the baby bonus is reduced) or even higher mortality rates as the population continues to age. On this point, Immigration Minister Chris Evans is expected to announce today that the list of jobs that receive immigration preferences will be slashed, making it far more difficult for overseas students to obtain residency after completing tertiary education. This will further reducing the demand for housing.
Last year, as construction slumped and migration boomed, it appeared that after decades of net dwelling growth, Australia may be encountering a shortfall. Not only does it appear that this has not eventuated, but the market is reacting to ensure that more dwellings are constructed while political and economic factors may lead to reduced population growth in future years.
What this means is that all those so-called experts who continually claim that Australia is suffering a housing shortage have never bothered to calculate the real shortage or simply turn a blind-eye to the reality because it suits their “property never falls” argument. No housing shortage exists — the market has reacted with great speed to changes in price by increasing supply. The reason for the increase in property prices is not due to any economic factors such as supply shortages (yields have dropped and income to price ratios increased) but rather Australians use more debt than anyone else to purchase their dream.
Property never falls in value? Don’t bet your house on it.

55 thoughts on “Property value never falls? Don’t put the house on it”
realist
February 9, 2010 at 2:01 pmI agree.
I have been active in the Sydney market and do not agree with the supposed 10% rise.
It is real estate agents talking it up.
The actual fact is the market is in a doldrum, sure in the 20% of properties that are cleared may be up 10% but what about the 80% that do not sell ?
Anyone for bubblegum ?
SBH
February 9, 2010 at 3:05 pmI wonder what effect limiting real estate agents to a flat fee based on the amount of actual work they did to sell the house and making sellers advertise a price would have on the spiralling cost of housing?
Christopher Armstrong
February 9, 2010 at 3:57 pmAdam, you compare median house prices in your analysis to the U.S. Would you be kind enough to give us a comparison to other OECD countries, like Canada, U.K., Sweden, etc, or point out your source for these metrics?
Alexander Berkman
February 9, 2010 at 5:19 pmHouse prices should be linked to the rate of inflation thus keeping prices affordable, allowing people to actually purchase a home and stop the greed & sleaze of property speculation. I would hate to be starting out to buy a house nowadays.
abarker
February 9, 2010 at 5:22 pmJeez. Sure lets limit earnings and investment prices. Also lets limit grocery prices and the price of clothing and essentials.
I’ve never seen such a bunch of whingers on any other topic other than this. It has never been easy to buy a house. Deal with it.
Alexander Berkman
February 9, 2010 at 5:26 pmwhinging? hmmm, housing is a right, one which eludes many australians and will continue to do so unless the property market is regulated. but hey, it’s a dog eat dog world out there and who gives a rats ar*se about the ‘other’s – money is god and i’m a worshippin it!
abarker
February 9, 2010 at 5:28 pmIve said it before and I’ll say it again – housing is a right. OWNING one is a privelige (sp?) One people need to work hard for, or go without.
Abused Citizen
February 9, 2010 at 5:31 pmI agree with your point that the market is being artifically held up by the real estate agents, the banks, and State Govts.
They are the true beneficiaries of an inflated market at the expense of consumers who are in a precarious ( by world standards) debt equity ratio and risk their largest asset being devalued if the market makes a downward correction.
Of more concern is why the buyers in the market seem to belive the snake oil talk and refuse to call agents on thier chicanery and misleading conduct by artificially talking up the market.
For ther agent’s part, they figure if Wall St and the managed funds industry can do it , why can’t they have their day in the sun and take more of the punters money.
What is so sad is that buyers are colluding with this nonsense believing the scarcity model and being fueled by the fear that if they don’t get on now proices will go up higher and paying phenominal amounts for properties that everyone knows are not worth it.
Until such time that people vote with their hands and refuse to bid at hyped up auctions, or refuse to be treated so badly then theyillcontinue to pay the price out their owm pockets.
David Sanderson
February 9, 2010 at 5:37 pmWhile it is possible to build a lot of dwellings it is not possible to build a lot of dwellings in the areas where people want to live. For example, the higher densities needed to put people into the desirable areas of Sydney are proving very difficult to achieve.
The task of aggregating house sites in order that they be knocked down for a high density development is very tough. Defeating the local resistance to that process is even tougher. Thus the demand for dwellings in desirable areas is likely to remain strong. Sure, big price increases are unsustainable, but the likelihood of a crash, barring a world depression, seems remote.
djgocher
February 9, 2010 at 7:32 pmAdam, agree with the majority of your article, but not it’s conclusions. I would like to think the property market, particularly Sydney, is a huge bubble waiting to burst, but I just don’t see it. Sure, people are leveraged up to their eyeballs, but demand is still fairly solid. You did omit a couple of other notable drivers of demand: the huge number of twenty and thirty-somethings stuck at home with Mum & Dad, who would have, in generations gone by, entered the housing market years earlier; also, the expat community, which would have returned home permanently in larger numbers in the last couple of years due to the GFC.