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”
wildgoose
February 10, 2010 at 3:07 pmThe government introduced negative gearing to get private investment into rental stock and rightly so. Governments are not supposed to be investing in real estate. Sure they are there to use our money to invest in infrastructure but I don’t think a huge housing portfolio comes under that category.
As a good society we should always look after those that need shelter but it isn’t a “right” to own property where you desire to live. My parents have never owned a home and they couldn’t afford to send me off to university. I have had to work, save and borrow to own the properties I have. I consider it a privilege to live in a country that has made this possible for me.
It is my goal to be secure through my own resources, to be self funded in my retirement, to own outright my retirement home and have enough money to live a reasonable and comfortable lifestyle in retirement without expecting younger taxpayers to pay for me, or worse bleating that it’s my right to have a pension, a home, a vehicle because I’ve paid taxes etc etc. I have been willing to go without a lot of material possessions to do it. The mentality of greed and excess, the unwillingness to start at the bottom and grow, the need for everything now and pay for it later is the problem. The problem is not the affordability of real estate. If you can’t afford where you want to live, then rent there but buy in a regional area and rent it out to grow your capital for later is the sensible scenario. But, the lesson is buy real estate, a long term appreciating asset and not depreciating assets like cars and big screen TV’s.
Most of us, thanks to this fabulous and free country have the opportunities and safety nets to help us do this.
Gary Johnson
February 10, 2010 at 3:16 pm@ABarker
((((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))))
This is actually not always a problem…not sure about melbourne, but some some of the Sydney suburbs have embarked on this very successfully.
Also, I read where in Western Australia, mainly the port city of Fremantle, where you have some of the most expensive realestate in the country, if not the world…that HomesWest properties are situated right along side multi story condo’s and the like…and nobody bats an eyelid, so it can and does work.
I might add also, that Fremantle has a massive homeless problem for whatever reasons I don’t know.
wildgoose
February 10, 2010 at 3:24 pmProperty values never fall is the heading.
Just as a rule of thumb, if you think a property for sale is overvalued, just do a bit of basic maths.
How big is the house? go to a builder and see how much it will cost to build a house of that size in todays money = $?
Then, find out the price of dirt in the same area, the same size and preferably from a bank valuer not a real estate agent for the real price. How much is a block of land that size = $?
Once you have these two basics then the value will not fall over the “longer” term (10 years) because tradesman won’t work for less and they can only charge competitive rates to actually build a structure and a bank value for a piece of dirt, is the fire sale price. So even, if you have a few ups and downs over 10 years the value won’t fall.
While costs of living creep up every year and as our society requires governments to fund more and therefore taxes go up, it isn’t rocket science to see that the price of real estate follows that same curve upwards.
What will make real estate fall? The collapse of our society as we know it now. Do you really want that as the price of cheap real estate?
wildgoose
February 10, 2010 at 3:28 pm(@GJ – I might add also, that Fremantle has a massive homeless problem for whatever reasons I don’t know)
because homeless people also want to live where they can’t afford to………. just like a lot of renters and first home buyers…………….
Gary Johnson
February 10, 2010 at 3:32 pm@Sukio Somora
Dear Miss Somora…who told you Grey was n’t a colour?
wildgoose
February 10, 2010 at 3:37 pmOh and as far as the HomesWest properties next to the million dollar condos. Well, there’s 5 and those lucky bastards that got in first and have signed up until death and are not moving to let the other 15,000 in the queue behind them get in. If the tenant dies then HomesWest will sell the property for a million and a half and buy 20 cheap ones in an outer suburb for the next lot of renters. HomesWest owned that land before it skyrocketed and is the only reason that aberration happened. It is unrealistic for government to buy a million dollar piece of prime land and erect a few townhouses that rent for $100 a week to 5 lucky tenants. Is this how you want your taxes spent?
Gary Johnson
February 10, 2010 at 3:43 pm@wild goose
(((The collapse of our society as we know it now. Do you really want that as the price of cheap real estate?)))
You included this proviso….otherwise your whole argument is based on the premise that the good-times keep rolling. ..if you believe that then i gotta bridge that looks like a coat-hanger and you can get it real cheap.
wildgoose
February 10, 2010 at 4:08 pmNo, I didn’t say the good times keep rolling, don’t put words in my mouth. I said that if you consider that the costs of living keep rising each year, as they do, and our society keeps on demanding that our government supply a specific standard of living, then the curve is always on the upwards. Cost of living creep = wages creep = taxation creep = real estate creep. Inflation.
What will make it fall is a catastrophe, for example like, a major war on our soil, a disaster like Haiti in our country, both would devastate our ability to keep the cost of living stable or the government to provide us a standard of living. Therefore major deflation of our money and our real estate. It would have to be big and dramatic and affect the whole of this very big wide land, to affect us because our isolation is also our cushion as the latest economic crisis has shown quite dramatically.
My belief is that while this country and nature affords us the cushion of NOT feeling these type of disasters, and while we are essentially too far away for the rest of the world to impact on us, we will be on the upwards curve over a long period of time.
abarker
February 10, 2010 at 4:23 pm@Wildgoose – well said. And lets face it if there is a big disaster such as Haiti or a major war, the value of your house will be the least of your worries.
wildgoose
February 10, 2010 at 4:32 pmabso bloody lutely!