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”
Gary Johnson
February 10, 2010 at 1:24 pm@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.
Hi honey…I am home!!!.
Gary Johnson
February 10, 2010 at 1:39 pm@wild goose & @David Sanderson
Another classic is when the same property is listed with two agents.
Two sets of completey different photos and bylines and a slightly different price…they both co-operate/collude?? in the sale…if it was any other industry they’d be before the courts.
Scott
February 10, 2010 at 2:03 pmI grow tired of Adam’s musings on house prices. He has certainly signed up to the Keen “The sky is falling” agenda.
I think Housing is the only asset class where people get upset when things are going well. When the sharemarket is going well, people don’t go, “Oh no, my superannuation balance is too high”. Or “Oh, those poor people, they won’t be able to buy into BHP with prices that high”?
Have we all become communists? If you can’t afford the house price, don’t buy one. Continue to rent. Live in a tent. Change jobs. Work harder. Improve your education. Move to NZ. Plenty of options.
I think it’s people’s sense of entitlement to an house that annoys me the most. In the US or Europe, people know that it’s not necessarily a given. I think it’s time Australians realised this as well.
Kaz
February 10, 2010 at 2:09 pmat mR joHsoN
<>/?Oh boy…why do you always go to extremes?…the concept is semi-planned or semi regulated, not totally planned or totally regulated.”;<
hurro hurro evrybody kunitchiwa its Sukio from Ja pans here
mR jOhnsoN sometime you left and sometime you right you never make up mind what is with you?
ok ok i know that yin and yang do come together and form cosmic harmony and balance but it YOOOUUU who go to extreme not aDam giggle giggle i rike you but you confusiousing
agggh i rerking verwy hard in pizza shop and boss make me do things not in job description and i so tired aggh back to work
sayonara by by from Sukio Somora from Ja Pans
abarker
February 10, 2010 at 2:14 pm@Scott – I’m glad someone else agrees. Yes it is difficult to buy a house. Yes, it is not easy, it never has been. I want to see more articles from Chris Joye or someone who can put the other side of the coin back in the debate.
I do have concerns about so much $$$ being tied up in repaying mortgages however. This could be used to grow the economy, that’s for certain, but, then again the strength of our banks has meant we can get through the GFC relatively unscathed. This has contributed, certainly.
As for Su-su-sukio… well… that was unexpected.
mook schanker
February 10, 2010 at 2:14 pmHughg,
Further to your comment, UK leaseholds are actually for the land, not the actual house.
Leaseholds are mostly actually extended by the resider if they fall below 80 years for a fee. The leasehold years remaining are priced (the fee) into the selling price of the house, so in reality, comparisons can be easily made to freeholder housing….just like a price adjustment if your house resides next to a bogger plant or something…..and that’s why it’s a furphy that house prices will somehow fall if leasehold was enforced here…..
SBH
February 10, 2010 at 2:21 pmNow, I really like this thread cause it’s so troll and abuse free so just remember I’m contributing not having a shot.
Scott, there is something in that. People do expect( I think I agree somewhat unreasonably) to be able to buy a house. But people have a basic right to shelter which is not the same thing and the problem at the moment is that self-funded housing is becoming less and less available. Retirees are a significant new category seeking housing from public and community sources. Most of the options you’ve suggested aren’t available to them.
Wildgoose re agents I agree. In fouteen years I’ve watched the cars at the end of my street driven by agents evolve from pulsars and falcons to maserattis. Is there any other industry (ok, maybe private health insurance) that gets so much for so little work?
Thanks Abarker, I hadn’t considered those elements at all.
Necessary, the other thing they could do is a) increase public housing stock which has been run down for years and b) give renters a set of rights that acknowledges some kind of basic right to housing.
Chris Owens
February 10, 2010 at 2:25 pmSBH,
I think that the idea of increasing public housing stock gets frequent mentions, but governments generally lack the will to make a real go of it. Often they have to deal with NIMBYs.
Your idea of renters rights makes sense, and I think in this country that renting is not seen as a long term housing option for many when there is no reason why it should not. Long term leases (say 5, 10 or 20 years) which include greater rights to alter the property would make renting more attractive to many.
abarker
February 10, 2010 at 2:48 pmAgreed SBH – public housing would be a good option but this costs the government a fortune, not to mention the stigma of having council houses in your street (ie NIMBY like Chris said).
The fact is negative gearing and tax deductions cost the government a lot less to do the same thing – house people. That’s why they let people invest in property, that way the risk of tenants smashing the place up or defaulting is passed to other owners.
If they stopped that that’s one surefire way they’d crash prices (it happened when Keating repealed it – he promptly put it straight back). Then the problems would be rent prices doubling instantly, or, huge amounts of homeless people.
Gary Johnson
February 10, 2010 at 2:52 pm@Scott
((((Move to NZ. Plenty of options.)))
That’s not an option!!!…LoL