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”
Eponymous
February 10, 2010 at 11:09 amWill be interesting to see what effect (if any) the BASIX laws have on new homes. I wonder if old, under-designed houses will lose some value?
EnergyPedant
February 10, 2010 at 11:12 amSeveral points to point out.
1. Migration from NZ is not usually counted as official migration. However there are tens of thousands of young educated kiwi’s moving to melbourne and sydney each year.
2. The reason why house prices rise faster than inflation is that the house you are comparing from the 70s isn’t the same as the house from the 00s. There is a massive difference in quality due to constant renovations in many properties.
3. By using the median value for a whole city today vs historically the comparison is misleading. The correct measure is to view the change for a suburb. What you then find is that in inner areas land values (and therefore house prices) have boomed.
4. Australians are much more comfortable with debt and leverage than previous generations. The conventional wisdom of paying your house of ASAP is no longer universally accepted. Two income families are the norm now rather than the exception. Lots of people chose to have housing debt because it has much lower interest rates than other forms (like business loans, car loans, etc…).
5. The property shortage is actually caused by the big property companies land banking. There is plenty of zoned land on the outskirts of Melbourne, but its basically all owned by half a dozen big name development companies. They then release it nice and slow to keep the prices up.
6. The reason why inner city property is expensive is because there is no more land in the inner city and the outer suburbs are a lot further out (in travel time) than they used to be even in the 90s. There has also been a massive growth in the uni-educated white collar jobs which are focused on the CBD and inner areas. People work long hours and the commutes to outer areas are much slower than they used to be, so you pay more for a house to increase your leisure time.
SBH
February 10, 2010 at 12:26 pmABarker isn’t the problem unrestrained markets? The housing market seems so unrestrained that it is causing significant problems for several sectors of the community and in modern democracies those are the kinds of things that lead markets to intervene. That doesn’t mean that anyone calling for intervention wants a ‘planned’ economy.
I know it’s not straight forward but even Adam Smith would agree that governments should rein in market excess. in reply please be gentle, I’m no economic expert but as one of many people spending a lot more on my housing than seems reasonable I’d love to see a solution.
Gary Johnson
February 10, 2010 at 12:27 pm@ABarker
((((If you want a regulated planned economy you could always move to North Korea or China.))))
Oh boy…why do you always go to extremes?…the concept is semi-planned or semi regulated, not totally planned or totally regulated.
Being married to you must be a nightmare.
abarker
February 10, 2010 at 12:48 pm@SBH – the property market is EXTREMELY regulated and restrained. Lending guidelines are very tight in Australia compared with the rest of the world, despite what everyone says. And that’s why our banks have fared so well.
Councils are very difficult to get approval through, land use zones are highly restricted, I think this is the problem in part – by restraining the supply we have seen house prices rise dramatically, and meanwhile we have some areas of land that are sitting vacant. Property also takes a long time to sell and transfer, it is not liquid, so this is a ‘natural’ restraint, unlike the share market which can dip or rise spectacularly in one day.
I think Energypedant made some good points. I think we do need more satellite cities, hell, the US has tons of towns/cities with up to 500,000 people which thrive on their own (think the college towns, defence bases etc). We have a few in NSW and QLD, and that’s it. I think our problem is climate however, the arable land is just not there.
Believe me I understand about the spending more than seems reasonable but these days the houses we get are a lot better than the ones our parents got to begin with. No floor coverings, no curtains, no driveway, no builtin wardrobes, no paint, no garage etc etc – that’s partly the reason houses have become so much more expensive, we get huge houses with everything included, no longer a simple 3×1.
And yeah markets which are completely unrestrained don’t work, especially if we have chimps running them (USA).
@GaryJ – Come on now Gary, that was just plain mean. My wife doesn’t complain. At least I never seem to hear it. It might be when I’m watching TV or something.
Necessary Illusions
February 10, 2010 at 12:55 pmBakerboy:
“Adam – 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.”
The key driver of demand in the housing market is ability to require debt in order to finance the purchase. So if Banks decided that they wouldn’t lend unless a person had a 15-20% deposit, it would stiffle demand by 1) Delaying peoples house purchases and 2) reducing the overall amount of finance available with which to make an offer. This prospect seems unlikely given the huge volume of interest banks reap with house prices being so high requiring more debt.
One thing the government could do to end the nonsense is to create two housing markets: one for genuine buyers in need of housing, the other for speculators, euphemistically known as ‘investors’. But if you’re intention is acquire a capital gain from the appreciation of property prices, that is speculation.
For the genuine market, the government could act as underwriter, using its purchasing power to buy property on behalf of buyers, then asking for it to be paid back across 20-30 years and indexed annually to the CPI. There is no law of nature that says we need to be beholden to banks, real estate speculators and the like. Some thinking outside the box could help millions of Australians with an elementary requirement for shelter, and who do not wish to have their income eroded away through interest and cripplingly high house prices.
Short of this kind of action, I agree with you Bakerboy. I think a major economic crisis brought on by debt deflation may be the only way to see house prices fall to levels that are more affordable.
Chris Owens
February 10, 2010 at 12:59 pmHughG
I don’t think that it is true that most land in the UK is leasehold. The figure is more likely 2 million and they are mostly flats or units (because they don’t have a system of strata title). There are some leaseholds over land but they are generally 999 year leases and date back to the mid 1800s. That is not to say that 2 million leaseholds wouldn’t have some impact on prices.
Gary Johnson
February 10, 2010 at 1:04 pm@ abused citizen
(((((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.))))
Agreed…the industry should be reined in and brought to heel…with massive fines for fraudulant conduct and deception.
The whole process of buying a property can be frought with deception from beginning to end.
Everything from stretching the camera lense to the withholding of information should be stamped out.
The classic was a couple of years ago in Sydney when an agent neglected to tell a prospective buyer that a family had been murdered in the house being offered for sale….the buyers won their case and got it over-turned, but only just.
One day someone will take them on.
wildgoose
February 10, 2010 at 1:09 pmOK you lot, settle down. You are all right to a certain degree, some more than others. I have done a couple of small and I mean ‘small’ subdivisions, a couple of cheapie renovations and I have 2 rental houses with 2 very good tenants. I am just worker, work a 40 hour week for an average wage. I live economically and have an old 1991 ute. I am not worth a million bucks! but I have worked hard to achieve being comfortable at the age of 50, but not comfortable enough to give up the day job. So, with my basic experience I can say that the cost of real estate is “what it costs!” to buy initially, to renovate or develop, then sell and hopefully make a reasonable return NOT a big fat profit. We all dream about THAT BIG FAT PROFIT, but in reality its the costs along the way that determine what has to be the price in the future. Sure, demand can take profits over the top but we all know that “high consistent demand” is only really in the “Tooraks” of this country and most of us aren’t in that league. It comes down to cost of labour to complete any development. Surveyors, tradesman, council fees, stamp duties etc etc and if we all want to earn a reasonable rate of pay, then these costs get transferred to the price of Real Estate. As soon as technology removes the reliance on the “real estate agent”, then we might see a leveling out. To my mind the “agent” is a thing of the past. Notice they still take the high commissions but most of them just advertise on their shop windows and the real estate “site” which is the only one that people use these days??? I don’t begrudge sales people earning a living but this industry has to evolve or go. Once upon a time an agent really had to work for their commission and pay loads to advertise in the paper media and on TV. Now, they sit back and wait for the emails and phone calls to come to them from the internet at a hugely reduced advertising cost, then show someone the house and do the paperwork. Done and hosed for 3%. Work out the 3%’s and see how much this adds to a property (are they really worth it/). Then cast your eyes to your State Governments and look at the windfall of stamp duty paid to them for doing bugger all in the process. Those two figures alone on the price of an average house are enough to make the growth figures expand each year and as the prices go up……. so do their earnings.
David Sanderson
February 10, 2010 at 1:12 pmThe fashion for photographing the house in the evening with a 100 lights blazing is the triumph of marketing over genuine information. In many of these photos, which are also heavily photoshopped, it is impossible to gain any real idea of what the house actually looks like.
McGrath seems to have started this fad and now all the dopey agents are hopping on board. The whole thing is so incredibly dumb and if it works, as it presumably does, then many buyers must be completely under the sway of fad and fashion and would be pretty easy to fleece.