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”
ty_webb
February 9, 2010 at 8:02 pmas a 31 year old, all I know is that the cost of a ‘family home’ isn’t cheap but the demand for residential dwellings is clearly evident. Whilst a reasonable correction in property values WILL happen, just refer to history, I don’t think there will be a crash.
I wouldn’t automatically assume that developers have greatly increased their profit margins. Small to medium property developers are working as hard as ever to find parcels of land ‘that work for them’. High residential valuations also mean high englobo/vacant land valuations. If a developer can make +15%, it is a job well done.
There are still alot of developers, refer Mirvac / Stockland / Delfin, that hold large land banks in the outer suburban areas on Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney. The holding costs alone, in addition to a development cycle of up to 10 years, mean that it is hard to make large profit margins. Chuck in higher bank margins, approval fees, council rates etc etc.
bakerboy
February 9, 2010 at 8:15 pmAdam – you still don’t get it. It’s demand, demand, demand combined with an artificial shortage of suitable land. Short of a major recession and 10 percent unemployment, prices will remain stable or will be increasing. Get over it.
ty_webb
February 9, 2010 at 8:21 pmthats it Bakerboy.
It will also be interesting is to see where the growth of property trusts will come from over the next few years given all property trusts are already finding it difficult enough to acquire commercial property with cap rates at their current levels.
Andrew G
February 9, 2010 at 8:35 pmDAVID SANDERSON, you make a very good point about housing supply needed where people want to live.
Sure, there are large amounts of land on the outskirts on Melbourne that are not being released, although if they were released, it would likely only apply downward pressure to the house prices in the outskirts. Demand for inner city property and desirable established suburbs would still be very much in demand.
ty_webb
February 9, 2010 at 8:39 pmthats right Andrew and thats why you never really see house prices in Toorak, Mentone etc ever go backwards. Different market.
johncook77
February 9, 2010 at 8:44 pmRE: There are many different ratios of household income to property prices quoted. Obviously, they each feed into a particular interpretation of the issue – Rismark for instance suggests there is no particular affordability issue based on their own calculation of a ratio of 4.1.
Each of these calculations imply median household incomes are over $90kpa. As at 2006, Census indicates median household incomes are approx $53 kpa.
Where are the household income figures used to calculate these ratios drawn from please?
Gary Johnson
February 9, 2010 at 9:38 pm@Alexander Berkman
(((money is god and i’m a worshippin it!))))
yep…it’s that worshipping “things of wood & stone” again for those punters who pay rediculously inflated prices for ramshackle dwellings and the God of Money and Greed for rampant property speculation.
I am trying to think of that term straight out of Gallagher & Burkhart ( SP ) where govts were part pro regulation and part non regulation…it escapes me at the moment, but curbing murderous property speculation under regulation would be a step in the right direction.
@ABarker
((((( Also lets limit grocery prices and the price of clothing and essentials.))))
If Govts are elected to serve the interests of people who elected them, then of course. …better that than serving the interests of multi nationals. There should at least be a Minister for Scarcity.
@TY_We Are Not
An interesting national housing model is that adopted by the Libyan Govt back in the early eighties. Introducing property laws that limited ownership to one dwelling…..despite the decline of private finance , the housing sector constituted one of the most notable of Libya’s achievements.
brewesan
February 9, 2010 at 11:23 pmSurely the biggest demographic group of land owners is the baby boomers? Look around your own suburb – elderly couples or singles sitting on 800m2+ with land values over $1m.
At the risk of starting a generation war… Unfortunately this is the group that insists new homes be built to 6 star energy efficiency ratings (massively increasing costs for young families) whilst refusing to upgrade their own home’s efficiency. Also the same group that passionately fight against the conversion of any bushland to new home sites because of the desire to preserve the natural environment, save the spiders, the lovely cockatoos, etc. You’ll also find people in this group that lament Gen X for having both parents working and not investing time in raising their kids. Der, they are paying the mortgage!
Until this group is encouraged to move on to down-sized land, property values (especially within 10 km of the CBD) will be upheld. I’d like to see a Govt with the courage to re-direct the first-home buyers grant to to the baby boomers as incentive to sub-divide their land, move to retirement townhouses, etc. The alternative is to wait 10-15 yrs for the inevitable flood of supply as the kids try and sell Mum and Dad’s house. Watch the values fall then.
HughG
February 10, 2010 at 2:07 amRealist: I think real estate agents definitely should carry some blame in this too…
but in relation to Aussies having to pay the most in the world. I find that very hard to believe.
Did you know in the UK, most houses that people buy are “leaseholds” which means they own the house like we do in Australia, for 90 years or so, after which point they get an offer to rebuy it at the current market rate, or it returns to the previous deed owners. Freeholds (which is where you buy the property outright) are far more rare than in countries like Australia. So in a way, most people who are buying in the UK arent buying like they are in Australia, and yet they must pay as much as we do, for their awful squalorous sardine cans.
We arent that badly off.
abarker
February 10, 2010 at 9:10 am@GJohnson – A Minister for Scarcity – Classic. Reminds me of the Ministry of Plenty, in a book I read, once, or something. (Miniplenty for those who know what I’m talking about). Your economic ideas scare me and make me laugh at the same time. If you want a regulated planned economy you could always move to North Korea or China. And even China have realised markets are not such a bad thing.
@Brewesan – Yes I would agree the boomers are sitting pretty on big parcels of land. The thing is they fall off the perch or go into a nursing home and their kids end up developing the sites, or, selling off the blocks to developers who will. The problem is at the moment developers are finding it difficult to get financing, and, if they can, rates and timeframes make it near impossible to make any money. I don’t see prices falling in 10-15 years as by this time they will have at least doubled again and those who have them then will either rent the house or develop into two dwellings and sell them off then.
The environmental factor doesn’t factor into it so much. Older homes have eaves, insulation, proper shading and established gardens which cool homes in summer. New homes have a roof which is lucky to cover to the walls at all – a disgrace in this country. Northern aspects with no eaves – instead we have roller shutters and a RC AC running 24/7.