Now my point is wouldn't rents be rising, rising, rising (as in the 90s) if there was truly a housing shortage. If people cant buy they rent.
Why isnt this happening? Or is it not relevant?
Hi Evan, I will try to answer. Rents have been rising, and rising strongly. Sydney rents were rising at 10-15% per annum over the past few years. This has now paused, temporarily, because of the low interest rate environment (rent vs buy cost gap has narrowed). Also, at the height of the GFC when properties were difficult to sell, many vendors put them up for rent instead, increasing supply. Many property analysts do expect rents to start increasing again from here. Also bear in mind that rents are partly subsidised by the government through negative gearing, so investors can afford to keep rents lower than would otherwise be the case.
So there is no overall housing shortage. There is an obvious shortage in Balmain (and areas like it) but not in outer Sydney (and areas like it).
I think the shortage is isolated, not general.
I agree, there is no physical shortage of houses in Australia. But there is a shortage of
available houses in convenient locations.
A frequent bear claim is that the critical housing shortage recognised by the RBA, media, major banks, government, HIA, real estate industry, and all property analysts and commentators is actually an illusion. They claim that Australia has a massive number of empty houses that will somehow flood the market at some point in the future when interest rates or unemployment levels get too high. This is incorrect – the percentage of empty houses in Australia has barely changed in 30 years as shown below.
Year Occupied Empty %Empty
1976 4162064 431200 9.4%
1981 4691425 469742 9.1%
1986 5285571 543539 9.3%
1991 5765021 597582 9.4%
1996 6496072 679165 9.5%
2001 7072202 717877 9.2%
2006 7596183 830376 9.9%
Some bears even go so far as to suggest that many property ‘speculators’ are hoarding empty houses while claiming negative gearing deductions. This would of course be completely illegal, and in any case does not make sense from a business perspective, since the investor would be losing rental income while risking severe penalties if caught by the ATO.
Australia has always had empty houses, and an excess of bedrooms in occupied houses, however these empty houses are not necessarily available for sale or rent. And they are not necessarily located in places where people want to live. A house is marked empty if it is unoccupied on census night. Many people are on holiday, out with friends, travelling etc. on census night, so their houses are counted as ‘empty’. This does not mean that the house will shortly become available for rent or sale.
Remote coastal towns always have a large number of empty holiday homes and high vacancy rates, but that doesn't help all the people who work and need to live in Sydney or Brisbane. On census night, there may have been plenty of empty villas in Thredbo and empty houseboats on the Hawkesbury, but again, not much use to the majority of the population who live and work in our cities.
As for the empty bedrooms... well, Australians want empty bedrooms in their houses. We're used to them, and we're not going to start inviting people to share our houses and bedrooms unless forced to by extremely adverse conditions.
High prices and low rental vacancy rates are a symptom of shortage. We see these symptoms across Australia.
Some bears will then respond by claiming there are very few homeless people in Australia, so how can there be a shortage? Where is everybody living then?
The number of persons per dwelling in Australia dropped from 2.97 in 1991 to 2.76 in 2001 and to 2.74 in 2006. So after falling considerably over a decade, this metric has basically flat-lined from 2001. Australians are now bunching up in existing dwellings rather than continuing the trend of forming new households. Why? Because we don't have enough houses to allow people to continue spreading out at the rate they desire.
The Australian population is growing at 1.9 per cent per annum. We can't just keep bunching up into the existing housing stock forever. The government is beginning to recognise this, hence their plan to build 100,000 new 'affordable' houses. But that is a drop in the ocean - we need many more. They will leave that up to the private sector to build (i.e. property investors and private developers).
Unless we develop new stock, we cannot possibly hope to appropriately house the growing population. So where are all these people who contribute to the pent up underlying demand actually living right now? They are:
- Bunched up in existing houses.
- Sleeping on friends sofas.
- Living in caravan parks and campsites (caravan parks in Australia are overflowing).
- Staying with parents for longer then they desire.
- Hotels, motels, backpacker hostels, guest houses.
- Crisis shelter, homeless centres and public housing.
- A small number of people are living on the streets.
Cheers,
Shadow.