Economist article on the Real Estate bubble

An interesting quote in one of the articles in regard to the price of housing vs the rental returns (Sydney it appears in one of the lowest returns in the world) :

The p/e ratio helps to expose the fallacy that house prices are rising because of growing populations and fixed supply, because these factors should affect the rental as well as the owner-occupier markets.

What do you all think about that statement? Does the fact that we are seeing lower and lower rental returns vs the capital value of the property show that we are wrong to consider population presure as the main reason for price growth in Melbourne and Sydney and not on human speculative mania?
 
Last edited:
I would say that the main issue to consider when doing this analys is that there are cycles inside the cycle. Also, different parts of a city have different cycle stages within it.

This article was discussed this morning on the radio . Most of the australian commentators pointed out that property investment in Australia (in general), is not heading down.

I my opinion, -regradless of the different stages of the cycle-, all this is just talk!. We all will do very well If we have a long term investment strategy and providing we can hold the assets for long time (no matter what). There are not marginal calls (that I know of) in property investment.

In a short time, the problem would be for those who are over committed themselves or those owners that are over capitalised on their properties.

Just my opinion,

James.
 
Certain people talking about the property market will tell you what they want you to hear based on their own motives and people like to listen and believe in information and advice which sounds positive and bright , so certain 'advisors, agents etc' will tell us all that the market is looking great and there are more gains to be made. That may be true or it may be wrong but these 'agents' will continue to be positive because it is what they make a living from and when the real-estate market turns down so too will their businesses.

I am not a expert, but there are facts and there is history and if we put them both together i believe this article has a lot of this in it. Forget about all those opinions which people make a living from on commission.

Have a great day!

Novski
 
Maybe I should re-focus my point (this forum is after just talk, we all need to take action or decide upon no-action, because of what we discuss, share and learn here)

Long Term Let me open the discussion on what I believe generate and drives long term prices (say the 5~30 year range)
  • Population growth:, more people in a place, more people want to live there etc, supply and demand. Another possibility is that with a fixed population fewer people want to live together, i.e. lower numbers of occupants per dwelling. Demand is high. St Kilda in Victoria may be an example.
  • Inflation: Prices go up generally on average for everything.
  • Construction Costs: Related to above, but the increases (above inflation) in specific regard to cost of construction mean that building new dwellings is going to be higher. If you want to live in a new house then you have a choice to pay more or not build. Higher building costs for new dwellings I suggest, does have a flow on effect to existing dwellings. Why would I pay $500K to build a new house when I could buy a one year old near identical house next door for $400K.
  • Overall economic situation of the location. People leave a small mining town when the mine closes. Banking crisis and state government mismanagement in Victoria in the early 1990's.
  • (this was appended after comments by Acey) Legal and Technological environmental changes. Lets say someone nails the skycar and commuter behavior is changed, or as Acey's suggests new technology changes things such as new materials, communications etc. Also what about changes to legal laws in regard to land use (more high rises, higher land taxes) , what about if it was decided to relocate the Aussie capital to Perth
Anyone want to add to this list?

Short Term, Lets look at what I believe drives short term prices and which distorts the long term effects above.( 0~3 year range):
  • Progressively Lower Interest Rates and Increasing Liquid Credit Supply: Cheaper interest and credit availability (Japan has low interest, but you cannot get a loan). If you can borrow more you can pay more. Rates cannot keep going down forever, money supply must come to equilibrium.
  • Market Sentiment: If there is mass consensus that prices will go up...by magic they will! "If I donft buy now I will have to pay more next year", "Get in quick", "Do it now or miss out". Investors feel hvalidatedh that they are did it right, others want to follow because they feel a "quick and easy buck" can be made.
Anyone want to add to this list?


My discussion point is that we may have mis-concluded that long-term events are having a bigger impact on the current market(s) than the short-term distortions. Are we in a state of denile that the short term distortions are having a smaller impact on the market than we wish?

I raise this just as a point of discussion, not as some kind of gAlways Learning Universal Lawh
 
Last edited:
I think some of the radio discussion this morning was pointing to the fact that a large 'correction' in house prices could well lead to a recession.

If people hold and are paying for assets that are now worth much less this may well reduce their expenditure in other areas and the flow through affects of this could be the real killer.

Time will tell I guess. As always risk management...............


:)
 
By Alan H:If people hold and are paying for assets that are now worth much less this may well reduce their expenditure in other areas and the flow through affects of this could be the real killer.

Hows does holding an asset that's worth more reduce the cash in someone's pocket?

I don't see how this would reduce their expenditure in other areas - you pay doesn't get cut just because your house is worth less, it's simply your equity position that is damaged.


always_learning,

Don't forget Technology in the long-term list, though actual changes tend to have a large impact in a short period of time.

Technology is a broad word and in this I include everything from changes to the way building materials are treated (is: asbestos) to the development of new materials (how about a house covered in a paint that can have an electric charge sent through it to change & fix the colour to a new colour?) and the changes in availability of materials, as well as changes in transportation technology (flying cars - one now on sale in the US) and work technologies (home office with full wall TV screen showing the central office, so you can walk down to the coffee machine and chat with people virtually).

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
Excellent article PEA and good points AL.

I strongly believe that we are in a bubble.
We have all the features:
- rapidly rising prices
- Media mania driving the "Mum and Dad Punters" into the market (Ever seen so many reno shows on TV?)
- Household debt at all time highs.

The future is not clear of course but I think the BEST case scenario for the next 5 years is minimal to no growth (say0-2%p.a). Thus would allow yields to increase slowly. The worst scenario is a bust.

Clearly "credit" money has moved from equities to IP's and with household debt now peaking the day of reckoning is approaching.

However, I'm still actively looking for IP's atm Just haven't found one in the last few months that even comes close to "stacking up" on the figures. My figures have to let me hold the IP on yield alone through the next 5 years or so. (PS Well done to Hobgoblin who it seems recently got a +vely geared IP in Sydney!).

Value-adding is the only way left to make a quid over the next few years me thinks.

Hopefully, I stand to be corrected.

Bagg
 
Agreed Aceyducey. Initally this may only be an equity issue rather than a cashflow issue.

However, if people are still paying large mortgages on assets that have significantly reduced in value, it may well have a psychological impact on their discretionary spending too. ie. oh I'm pouring $500pw into this investment that I now know I could get for $350pw.........oh great.....I'm feeling so good I might also have an overseas holiday this year to celebrate??!! Don't think so.

Also some people may act a little 'herd like' and have firesales on some of these value reduced assets and realise losses in the fear that they may lose even more if they hold on. If they realise losses then this may also impact on discretionary spending.

I take your point Aceyducey but people react in strange ways at times.




:)
 
Have you guy know what happened to Hong Kong- The prime example of property market bust. Begin from 1999, around 60% of property value have gone and that leave with ten of thousand of home owners with such a big debt that they can only possible be pay off by the age of 70(If only they can stay employ). What even worst is the fact that they are stuck as no one would buy their property and the only way out would be declaring bankrupt. Indeed most people who used to hold 10 of millions AUD worth equity(hundred millions of property) found them drop death by year 2000 who were once the top investors of HK.

Due to my conservative nature, I withdrawn 80% of my investment by 1998 and that saved me a big time. However, the remaining 20%(my PPOR) that I held still costed me half of my profit from investment. That is a lesson that I shall never forget.

With Sydney, should we are considering only the OZ base purchasing capacity, the market should long be death. However, as an international city, we are still in a fairly favourable position as compare to the rest of the world, given our prime properties(800k+) are still fairly cheap.

I say there are at least 2 markets which basically divide between local based and the international market. Based on recent statistics, local based market is coming to a halt while the upper market segment would still have a fair bit to go until the doom day eventually come.
 
Originally posted by Greenhead
Have you guy know what happened to Hong Kong- The prime example of property market bust. Begin from 1999, around 60% of property value have gone and that leave with ten of thousand of home owners with such a big debt that they can only possible be pay off by the age of 70(If only they can stay employ). What even worst is the fact that they are stuck as no one would buy their property and the only way out would be declaring bankrupt.

OUCH!

Was that the China factor or due to local conditions & asian economic changes?

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
Alan,

I see where you are coming from but I do believe that investors nowdays are a bit more educated than they where 20 years ago.
Even though property values may go down they know that they will eventually go up. (People need places to live.) As long as they have the rent coming in they should be fine.

It is the people who HAVE to sell for whatever reason that will suffer the most. (Divorce etc...)

If the prices continue going up less people will be able to afford to buy properties so they will start to rent. Those that have the equity to last the distance will have no problems.

If the prices go down. Don't sell! (We KNOW that the prices WILL go up eventually and unlike shares whether the property value goes up or down you are still getting the same amount of RENT. (i.e. You are still getting something! And if well chosen will be better than leaving your money in the bank anyway.))

The investors (gamblers) that are stretching themselves to make QUICK returns may indeed suffer. (If you are in it only for the short term capital growth you are at risk, but I believe that if you buy reasonable yield and capital growth properties you will be fine.).

Those that can afford to negative gear are the ones with losts of money so even if the prices fall they are in it for the negative gear so they don't really care.

The only problem will come if the economy stops and people loose their jobs. Actually this will be the ONLY reason why the bubble will burst.

I do believe that prices will start slowing down considerably (and may even go down if the interest rates go up quickly, which many experts say is very unlikely; they predict that interest rates will probably go down) but they will NOT burst. (It just aint going to happen.)

Singapore and HK are completly different stories. These are islands, with very little land content and housing is more of a commodity than anything else. Completely different to Australia.

Nominees

P.S: Now that it is getting harder and harder for the average Mum and Dad to buy a reasonably priced property (and get a reasonable loan) guess what? They will start to rent, so the rental market is going to get better. The only problem I can forsee is that the rich will get richer and the average people will not be able to own their own home anymore (which IS the REAL problem), and the gamblers (that don't have the money) will loose.
 
Last edited:
I think most of the post here represent acurate and valid points. For me the most relevant point was agent 007 point that there are cycles within cycles.

But I have to disagree with much of what nominees states.
Normally I don't worry about disecting other posts , point by pint , but here goes.
Originally posted by Nominees [/i]
Alan,

I see where you are coming from but I do believe that investors nowdays are a bit more educated than they where 20 years ago.

Violently disagree with this. While there is a segment of investors who have insite , the large majority react emotionally like sheep. One only has to look at the tech reck to see this in action.

Even though property values may go down they know that they will eventually go up. (People need places to live.) As long as they have the rent coming in they should be fine.
[/B]

What happens when interest rates go up to ten % in a couple of years time and the rents stay the same ?

It is the people who HAVE to sell for whatever reason that will suffer the most. (Divorce etc...).
[/B]

Agree with this.

If the prices continue going up less people will be able to afford to buy properties so they will start to rent.
[/B]

Agree with this.

Those that have the equity to last the distance will have no problems.
[/B]

While equity is important, if they don't have the cash flow to pay for their repayments because rates have gone up or they've lost their job they will have to sell, and if the market is flat and the banks forclose they will have a problem. Paul Zag and Tibor can vouch for this.

If the prices go down. Don't sell! (We KNOW that the prices WILL go up eventually and unlike shares whether the property value goes up or down you are still getting the same amount of RENT. (i.e. You are still getting something! And if well chosen will be better than leaving your money in the bank anyway.))
[/B]

Great if you don't have to sell, But as I said , if you don't have the cash flow you're stuffed.

The investors (gamblers) that are stretching themselves to make QUICK returns may indeed suffer. (If you are in it only for the short term capital growth you are at risk,
[/B]

Why ??!! If you've bought well , made a good profit and are out of the market when it goes down, YOU WILL BE IN POSITION TO BUY OFF ALL THE OVERSTRETCHED NEGATIVE GEARERS when they can't afford to hold in a few years time. It is the people who are STILL buying in good capital growth areas ( which have been through their period of capital growth already ) who IMHO will be Stuffed.

but I believe that if you buy reasonable yield and capital growth properties you will be fine.
[/B]

Agree completely , but where are these areas?? Idon't think that they are in your typical good growth areas.


Those that can afford to negative gear are the ones with losts of money so even if the prices fall they are in it for the negative gear so they don't really care.
[/B]

Ask them in a couple of years time when we may be in recession , interest rates are up , and they're loosing their jobs. What happened to all those high flyers on high paid jobs in IT a couple of years ago. Ask Acey Ducey and Tibor. See what answer you get off them, they've been there .

The only problem will come if the economy stops and people loose their jobs. Actually this will be the ONLY reason why the bubble will burst.
[/B]

It will be a contributing factor, but rates will also be a factor, as will confidence.


I do believe that prices will start slowing down considerably (and may even go down if the interest rates go up quickly, which many experts say is very unlikely; they predict that interest rates will probably go down) but they will NOT burst. (It just aint going to happen.)
[/B]

I don't think rates will go up quickly either , but it's the gradual creep that will lull many into a false sense of security , and by the time they realise what's happened they will be stuck. Those who will be watching will be okay , because they will adjust before the market goes completely gaga. Geoffs comment in another post about there be warning signs is most relevant.

Prices will burst if you have to sell.

Singapore and HK are completly different stories. These are islands, with very little land content and housing is more of a commodity than anything else. Completely different to Australia.
[/B]


Don't know much about HK and singapore, so won't comment. Waverlye Bay , anything to say about this??



P.S: Now that it is getting harder and harder for the average Mum and Dad to buy a reasonably priced property (and get a reasonable loan) guess what? They will start to rent, so the rental market is going to get better. The only problem I can forsee is that the rich will get richer and the average people will not be able to own their own home anymore (which IS the REAL problem), and the gamblers (that don't have the money) will loose.
[/B]

Actually the average person,will still be able to own their own home as they are not negatively geared to the extent to the negatively geared investors .

The rich will get richer, as will people who are buying for short term capital gain , and some of the neatively geared investors who aren't over exposed

See change
 
A question for the bust theorists "what else would you do with your money right now?". OK so a four percent rental yield isn't brilliant but coupled with an average (long term) of 8% cap growth it's not too bad, 12% total.

The other question I have is that if an investor is using 20% of their money and the property is not cross collateralised; whose vast amount of money is at risk? Answer = the banks.

I would be off loading my bank shares the minute the property downturn arrives. And just who invests heavily in banks; the Ma and Pa investors and their superfunds; the same investors who have/are buying property at the peak "because if we don't do it now we will miss out" (heard this exact quote by first time property investors twice this week and alarm bells are ringing in my ears).

Anyway back to the thread; rental yields are only part of the equation and have very little to do with property prices. Rents are driven by affordability ie how much can a tenant afford to pay per week. In Oz this has historically been approx 30% of gross income, hence rents have usually grown at the same rate as wages which is closely linked to inflation.

Residential property prices are driven by servicability more than any other factor. So interest rates low means prices up and interest rates up = prices plateau and even fall if the rate goes too high. What is the thesehold of rate rises the mass of borrowers can sustain before they need to sell is the question. As long as interest rates remain stable with only minor fluctuations there will be no bust in property. Of course the conspiracy theorists will have some cartel engineering a rate hike for their personal gain - I wouldn't discount that either but is more likely to related to international trade (oil???).

Obviously there are a few more influences on the market but the above are the sledge hammers, most others such as herd instinct, market awareness and so forth flow from these.

regards, MC
 
Originally posted by Michael Croft
The other question I have is that if an investor is using 20% of their money and the property is not cross collateralised; whose vast amount of money is at risk? Answer = the banks.
I would be off loading my bank shares the minute the property downturn arrives.

This is true, however the bank can always repossess & sell the property, so until property values decline below the 80% bank ownership the bank doesn't lose - the investor does.

Thus house prices have to go down by 20% across the board for the bank to become exposed....and the bank still has the income stream from the mortgage anyway.

This type of drop in housing prices doesn't happen overnight in most cases, so i would expect less effect on bank share values due to this than some might expect before the 20% is hit.

This said, their prices will probably fall sharply after that 20% as the market will suddenly realise they are exposed & over-react accordingly.

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
During the last two busts I experienced a bonanza as mortgagee in possession sales were in full swing. Prices had dropped from their peak by as much as 30% overall then the banks were stepping in as interest rates were climbing (ask Paul Z).

Banks were require to go to auction to determine "fair market value" but auctioning is not something a wise person would do during a property market decline. Many were passed in and I managed to negotiate the payout figures in the post auction psychological depression/panic. I only managed to pick up properties for 50 - 60% of their peak value, but I have professional aquantainces that purchased prime property for as low as 35% of it's previous purchase price.

I know the above scenario all seems rather fancifull in the current market, however I know it can and does happen as I have been there done that - twice.

regards, MC
 
Originally posted by steve
Hi all,
What would people see as the banks response to a 20% or more drop in property prices.

thankyou steve.

I guess the banks would just have to "suck it up". A bigger problem for banks is "what if 20% of people defaulted"?.
 
Honestly I believe everything is setup for a 20% bust and simultaneously everything is setup for a 20% gain just as everything is setup for neutral gains.

When I purchased at the low point in Melbourne back in the mid 90fs, lots of people were forecasting lower prices as Victoria ggoes down the gurglerh

We can pretend that the future is known, but it is not. We must consider all possibilities within reason. I agree with see_change the boom and bust issue is particularly human, I am sure on Mr Spock home planet of Vulcan stock market bubbles donft happen!

How many intelligent people paid $150 a share for pets.com? These intelligent people must have heard that busts do happen, but they ignored this issue thinking that "Things are different now".
 
Hi All,
Always Learning thanks for your reply.For people with 80%LVR and a 30% drop in property value is there a point where the banks would call in a loan, regardless of someone"s ability to meet loan repayments.

thankyou Steve.
 
Back
Top