Housing Shortage essay

Demand drastically increased and supply couldn't possibly keep up because it involves physically building houses. Thus prices exploded.
HG,

I think we're actually close to agreement. The only difference is the way we paint it. I argue its just part of the normal boom/bust cycle and nothing out of the ordinary. You paint it as a Ponzi Scheme and the end of the world as we know it. I think this is just another iteration of something we've all seen before, you think you've stumbled onto something revolutionary that we all must be made aware of or remain ignorant of to our imminent peril!

Time will tell which interpretation was the appropriate one. Lets just say, that I'm not losing too much sleep at night over sensationalist media reports of property market crashes. My yields are improving and my cash flow is already well under control. Prices go up and they go down, the trend is my friend.

My work here is done. ** Michael Whyte rests on his laurels and claims vindication (hang on, that seems like something petty a GHPC member would do, forget that. I'll just withdraw politely from the debate and not pander to my own ego) ** ;)

Cheers,
Michael.
 
US house prices are on their way to fall further than during the Great Depression. The recent credit bubble (debt/GDP grew exponentially from the 1960s) was by far the largest and most widespread in human history. House prices are further off trend and more expensive than they have ever been.

I believe the fallout will be proportional to the irrational exhuberence of the boom. Thus this will be the greatest real estate bust in history.

And, BTW, why are people who buy houses sometimes called investors, but when its a negative article, they're called 'speculators'.

The Intelligent Investor does a nice job of comparing the two.

Let us define the speculator as one who seeks to profit from market movements, without primary regard to intrinsic values; the prudent stock investor is one who (a) buys only at prices amply supported by underlying value and (b) determinedly reduces his stock holdings when the market enters the speculative phase of a sustained advance.”

Looking at yields, and noting that they are still in the market - overwhelmingly Australian landlords are speculators.
 
Ok, a few key points people seem to have missed:

-Demand is expressed as a price.

Demand also includes borrowing capacity and speculative demand

As I hope I have shown, house prices in Australia BOOMED even though we built houses far faster than population growth.

Thus borrowing capacity and speculative demand outweighed the overbuilding vs population/housing fundamentals during boom times. However - these are disappearing as credit tightens and people no longer believing "house prices always go up"

House prices rose because we got lots of easy credit.
Then people started buying houses because they were going up, not caring about rental yields or risks.
Then houses were revalued upwards and people could borrow against existing equity to buy more houses.
Thus house prices went up.

Demand drastically increased and supply couldn't possibly keep up because it involves physically building houses. Thus prices exploded.

The same thing happened in real estate markets ALL AROUND THE WORLD. Except Australia was one of the most spectacular.

A classic Ponzi scheme. Which always fails eventually.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Dear HG,

1. Assuming your basic "Classic Ponzi Scheme" argument is correct, when and how soon do you then actually expect the anticipated "bust" to officially occur in Australia, in the near future, please?

2. What's then, do you think, is actually responsible for holding up the various housing markets, in their present "equilibrium", then and at their present high median house prices across Australia-wide?

3. You have spoken about "speculative" demand. Have you considered and officially vector in the potential housing demand from those who are presently renting a house for their families to stay as well as existing long queue of the social homeless awaitng for their public housing as well as the real social homelessness who are presently living without a roof over their heads, at this point in time?

4. If your basic argument is factually "right" and "sound", we can/should then, first expect the commercial builders who are still building, to have increasing inventory of newly completed houses and corespondingly, their un-sold stock starting to accumulate, which they would start to eventually lower their sale prices to effectively compete against one another, entire as well as to subsequently, to consider stopping their new houses building programme totally, all things being equal.

5. Subsequently, we should witness the massive lay-off of construction workers, tradesmen in the building industry as well as a number of the existing commercial builders going bust subsequently in many housing markets across Australia-wide.

6. As the building industry officially starts to slow down in Australia, there would then be a "glut" of newly houses available for sale with decreasing advertised sale prices for their increasing stocks of newly completed houses in the various housing markets, as the commercial builders compete more intensely and fiercely against one other, in order to reduce their housing holding stock and inventory, isn;t it?

7. Consequently, we have yet to see this anticipated "glut" of newly-completed houses available for sale with decreasing prices as well as the suspension of new house building by the various commerical builders in Australia, at this point in time.

8. Neither are we officially witnessing a collapse of in a number of commercial builders in Australia going bust or/and the general laying of workers and tradesmen en masse in the building industry yet, at this point in time.

9. Do you not agree with me regarding these expected market observations in the building industry?

10. For your further comments and discussion, please.

11. Thank you.

Cheers,
Kenneth KOH
 
1. The downturn has already begun. The key driver is in total mortgage lending. It is down (it needs to grow to support current prices let alone growing ones) Unsold inventory is rising across the country, clearance rates are down and prices are dropping.

2. Prices are coming down. As credit and demand drops away we'll see falling prices. They are falling in most capitals - see linked news article above.

3. There has never been as many houses or bedrooms per person in Australia. Nor vacant houses. Our homeless rates are very low.

It doesn't matter how many people want 10 mansions each, what matters is how much money they can borrow for it. This is in decline, so house prices will follow.

4. I have read reports on Somersoft of people complaining that new build houses are selling for cheaper than existing houses. Hilariously, they wonder out loud how this can happen when there is an "underlying shortage"

5-8 Yes. Even though there is supposedly a shortage the market is not responding with more supply, developers are seeing rises in unsold inventory (as are all market participants) and the amount of building is in decline.

Seen builders share prices recently? AV Jennings has HALVED since the credit crunch began in July 2007.

http://markets.smh.com.au/apps/qt/q...&code=AVJ&time=2yr&freq=1wk#topOfChartsAnchor
 
US house prices are on their way to fall further than during the Great Depression. The recent credit bubble (debt/GDP grew exponentially from the 1960s) was by far the largest and most widespread in human history. House prices are further off trend and more expensive than they have ever been.

I believe the fallout will be proportional to the irrational exhuberence of the boom. Thus this will be the greatest real estate bust in history.



The Intelligent Investor does a nice job of comparing the two.



Looking at yields, and noting that they are still in the market - overwhelmingly Australian landlords are speculators.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Dear HG,

1. If the housing price have fallen only some 30% off their market peaks during the Great Depression, then we would have already witnessed such heavy house price fall in Singapore , Hong Kong, Malaysia, Thailand etc during the last 1997 Asian Financial Crises as well as in the Japanese housing market since the early 1990s.

2. Putting things in proper perspective, there is thus, no need for such public "alarm" regarding this impending housing market correction as being " greatest real estate bust in history.", as you would like all of us to believe here.

3. This is because a far more serious housing "bust", with a steeper cumulative housing price falls, have already occurred in the various Asian housing markets previously since 1997 and in the Japanese housing market since the early 1990s.

4. Today, officially speaking, many of these housing markets in Asia, have more or less fully recovered from their last housing bust and they have started to boom again once more, presently.

5. For your further comments and discussion, please.

6. Thank you.


Cheers,
Kenneth KOH
 
Last edited:
Hi, I believe The Economist magazine identified the current housing bubble in the western world as "The greatest bubble in history".

The reason this downturn will be horrific, as opposed to "just another cycle" is that our economy has become dependent on debt for economic growth. Without an increase in debt faster than GDP growth (which is unsustainable) we will go into debt deflation, which is extremely hard to get out of.

Bernanke keeps cutting rates and the US government keeps giving away free money but they just can't save asset prices. The forces of deflation are too strong.

We've been able to get out of previous downturns by spending and borrowing our way out or blowing up another bubble like the .com or housing bubble. But now the consumer is completely maxed out. There are no more bubbles left to inflate.

Here is a graph of Debt to GDP.

250907_dg_graph3_small.gif


The 1st bump was the 1890s land boom which you can read about here.

The 2nd was the roaring 20s and great depression. The current one is during the lifetime of almost everyone who says "house prices always go up".

Fact is they don't, they stick to wages except when debt growth pushes them up like the current credit bubble (the biggest in world history) has during most of their lives. When this turns around, houses will not behave like they have during the lifetimes of almost everyone still working.

ausrealhomeprices.gif


If you bought a house in 1890s it would have taken 70 years for it to regain it's real value. And that is only because another credit bubble began.

It is quite likely in my opinion that house prices will never again be worth their current real values during my lifetime. History shows this is a likely outcome.
 
It is quite likely in my opinion that house prices will never again be worth their current real values during my lifetime. History shows this is a likely outcome.
You forget China and India. In your lifetime global productivity is going to reach unparalleled levels. With that level of global GDP it stands to reason that assets around the world are going to explode in price across all categories. Soft and hard commodities are only one example of asset price explosion that's just begun. "Hold on" is a good suggestion. You ain't seen nothing yet!

Cheers,
Michael.
 
ok, I'll take the bait. Had an interesting conversation with one of mates the other day, he's working in energy trading sector at the moment. He concludes that the so called Ponzi scheme aka credit expansion is totally valid. It's the only way to keep people around the world happy and avoid a WWIII. Like it or not, the governments around the world (and the families who control the world) will continue to support this scheme. If you can't fight them, join them!
 
Bernanke is trying to keep the expansion going but is failing. Japan tried to fight by the government going into massive deficit spending and cutting interest rates to zero.

But you can't fight deflation by borrowing your way out of it - you're just putting it off and off making it worse and worse until it overwhelms you. There are no further bubbles to blow up anymore.

Like it or not, the governments around the world (and the families who control the world) will continue to support this scheme. If you can't fight them, join them!

Actually, the most perfect way to take control of the assets of the world would be to cause a massive credit bubble and then buy up at fire sale prices during a deflationary depression.

If you believe in these "rulers of the world" theory, check out the quote below:

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter 1802 to Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin

We've seen the inflation (in credit and hidden in asset prices). Now it's deflation time.
 
1. The downturn has already begun. The key driver is in total mortgage lending. It is down (it needs to grow to support current prices let alone growing ones)

Comments:

1. Seemingly, the downturn appears to have already begun selectively in a number of the Western Sydney suburbs since August 2003, when their median house price has fallen by some 30%-40% since then, to date.

2. However, realistically speaking and Australia-wide, the borrowings for new house purchases are still continuing unabated in Australia, though they are moving at a slower pace and with a lower growth rate in lending figures having been reported recently.

3. When the overall new borrowings and mortgage lending for new house purchases across the various Austraiian States, have been reduced significantly down to minimal level, then it would become a "rightful " concern.

4. If the present level of mortgage lending figures are steadily maintained, even with a slower growth rate in ledning figures being achieved, I would still not be unneccessarily "alarmed", at this point in time.



Unsold inventory is rising across the country, clearance rates are down and prices are dropping.

2. Prices are coming down. As credit and demand drops away we'll see falling prices. They are falling in most capitals - see linked news article above.


Comments:

1. What exactly is the present inventory of "un-sold" newly completed houses in Australia, at this point in time?

2. To me, the present housing prices seems to be "falling" at this point in time, but not truly at its basic fundamental levels, though.

3. This is because, the underlying land price/costs as well as the required construction costs of building a new home have still not fallen significantly, to well-below their real costs and true nett replacement values of building a new house to stay.

4. I personally believe that presently, the housing prices in the various housing markets are actually "pausing" in search for its true (fundamental) underlying market direction, to move next.

5. The housing prices in the various housing markets have seemingly " fall", after its recent market booms, as it has failed to grow continously at the same high rate as expected as well as due to the existing negative market sentiments and the general D+G atmosphere prevailing in Australia.

6. Consequently, some "panicky" house owners are seen, trying to put their established houses for sale for fear of a subsequent fall in the market price, thereby " temporarily" increasing the immediate short term supply of houses available for sale in the market, vis-a-vis its real time effective market demand, thereby leading to some price falls in today's "buyers' market" conditions amidst the present negative market sentiments and the general D+G atmosphere in Australia.



3. There has never been as many houses or bedrooms per person in Australia. Nor vacant houses. Our homeless rates are very low.

It doesn't matter how many people want 10 mansions each, what matters is how much money they can borrow for it. This is in decline, so house prices will follow.

Comments:

1. What exactly is the present number of "renting" families and "social homeless" familes who are truly in need of some housing, in Australia at this point in time? How do these figures fare, as compared to your reportedly "excess" housing investory stock in Australia, at this point in time.

2. About 70% of the present house owners are reportedly buying/"owning" their house to stay as their PPOR. They are likely to hold onto their present PPOR houses despite their present housing stress sufferings.

3. Consequently, I personally believe that these owner-occupiers, collectively, constituting to some 70% of the prevailing markets in Australia, are able and likely to provide the required "stablising" force to counter extreme negative market sentiments or/and to prevent a real market "panic-run" on the various housing markets in Australia.

4. What kind of house price falls, are you actually talking about, please?

5. If the expected house price falls are mere market correction as a result of the existing operation of the Property Cycle, they are unlikely to fall signifcantly much lower.

6. Consequently, I would expect their end price level to be still much higher than the lowest price last achieved at the bottom of the previous Property Cycle.



4. I have read reports on Somersoft of people complaining that new build houses are selling for cheaper than existing houses. Hilariously, they wonder out loud how this can happen when there is an "underlying shortage"

Comments:

1. "New houses are selling "cheaper" than existing houses"? Yes, but objectively speaking, they are actually still selling above their real/actual costs incurred and well above their respective nett replacement value for the new house to be constructed.

2. This is despite the profit margin for house development has been much reduced to a certain extent so much so that it is no longer be feasible to " buy and build" again under the present prevailing "negative" market conditions.

3. The smaller profit margin for house development have actually come about recently, as a result of the present negative market sentiments and negative market conditions, reportedly due to a "shortage" of buyers vis-a-vis the number of house available for sale in the market presently, as many of the potential house buyers are waiting at the sidelines, for the house price to fall further before buying into the market again.

4. The present market situation can easily change again, over time, in the near future.



5-8 Yes. Even though there is supposedly a shortage the market is not responding with more supply, developers are seeing rises in unsold inventory (as are all market participants) and the amount of building is in decline.

Comments:

1. Statistics can lie and they often do lie, if we are not careful in using or/and interpreting them.

2. Objectively speaking, is there truly a "housing shortage" in Australia , at this point in time?

3. As far as the HIA and ABS projections and figures are concerned, it seems there are, as far as many people including those economists/market commentators at the ANZ Bank, would want to believe and think so.

4. Personally, I have a different opinion on this matter.

5. Realistically speaking, I have continued to observe that many new houses are still being built continually to help satisfy the present housing market demand, at this point in time.

6. Do you not agree?




Seen builders share prices recently? AV Jennings has HALVED since the credit crunch began in July 2007.

Comments:

1. So?

2. What are your own conclusions, in this case?

3. ...This simply tells me that the building companies shares are not as "attractive" as before, as far as the share investors are concerned, reportedly due to a change in the investors' beliefs regarding the building companies' likely market performance over next 6-12 months or/and short term market sentiments concerning the true market value and continued market attraction for these shares, as issued out by the various building companies.

4. Does the recent ASX price fall neccessarily leads to an impending housing price fall and housing correction/ "slump" in Australia in the near future? Is there truly a real direct casual relationship between the housing prices and the market value for shares issued by the major building companies, in the first place?

5. I've thought that you have argued and "premised" that the "tighter" credit access and negative market sentiments are being largely responsible for the recent "fall" in the house prices

6....or/and rather, do the impending housing price fall and housing correction/"slump" in Australia, likely to lead to more ASX price falls, eventually, as in the American contect of its recent housing slump and its corresponding stock market movement subsequently?

7. For your further comments and discussion, please.

8. Thank you.


Cheers,
Kenneth KOH
 
Last edited:
Vacant vs. missing

Hiredgoon,

I must say this website has been much more pleasant the last few months without you.

You keep on harping on about all the vacant houses on census night but have you considered the reasons. For instance my house was vacant, why? because being a night shift worker I was at work. What about people on holidays, girlfriends/boyfriends sleeping over their partners house, etc. and those houses that where actually empty would mostly be in a transition phase ie being sold, between tenancies, being renovated or built etc. the actual number of vacant houses would be very small.

Pablo.

Hi Pablo,

just to clear things up. The ABS census defines vacant or "unoccupied" dwellings as:"Unoccupied dwelling (in Census): A structure built specifically for living purposes which is habitable but the Census Collector was certain was unoccupied on Census night.

What you're thinking of is "Non-Contact Sector" defined as: "The Census non-contact sector comprises late-return and imputed dwellings." and "The non-contact sector also contains dwellings which were non-responding in the Census – that is, dwellings where the Census never obtained a return, and which could not be established as having been unoccupied on Census night."

So you and others would be in the later category, which is a number of dwellings in addition to the unoccupied/vacant ones.

Hope that helps you to understand that the empty houses identified by the census don't include those that didn't fill in their census form, and had a car parked out front, mail in the letter box etc. ;)
 
The same thing happened in real estate markets ALL AROUND THE WORLD. Except Australia was one of the most spectacular.

A classic Ponzi scheme. Which always fails eventually.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Dear HG,

1. Can you please explain why the Western Sydney suburbs has fallen some 30%-40% in their median house price since August 2003 whereas many other housing markets in Australia, have still still not officially "busted" yet, at this point in time, as you would have anticipated?

2. Why didn't the Australian housing markets last collapsed during the last Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 if it is indeed a classic Ponzi Scheme, as you are presently alleging?

3. So, why is Australia indeed having one of the "most of the spectaular" housing markets, as far as you are personally concerned?

4. You further seemed to be suggesting that the property cycle in Australia lags behind that in the USA and the UK. Is this indeed your views?

5. Is this view indeed accurate and true?

6. If so, what is the time lag which we are talking about different housing markets in Australia, UK and USA, please?


7. Looking forward to learning further from your views, please.

8. Thank you.

Cheers,
Kenneth KOH
 
1. I am not that familiar with Western Sydney, except I do know that there are high levels of housing stress there, and the area is less affluent that other areas of Sydney.

Once you get into a negative spiral it is very hard to get out. People in foreclosure bring down your property values which means that you can't refinance away your problems which mean you foreclose also. If an area is in decline, investors sometimes stay away from it.

Just a negative spiral, I'd say. The share market (up until 2008) may have helped those in the richer parts of Sydney, but wouldn't have helped those in W. Syd who own no shares.

2-8. Australia has better lending standards and a resources boom, which provides a plausible story for continued house price rises.

I will write more on the resources boom as a post-hoc justification for rises (why should a house 1000km away from a mine have a higher price to earnings ratio than the mining companies?)

The thing is, Australians are supporting more debt and higher house prices to wages even with higher interest rates than the Americans.

Sub prime and ARMs blew up in the USA, which caused their ponzi scheme to explode which actually stopped their boom before it reached our levels, and actually worked as a release valve.

Australia, having no such early release valve, pushed onward ever higher. It is still fundamentally unsustainable and will correct. In a lot of ways, we would have been better off topping early, as we'd have less far to fall.
 
HG,

In your deflationary scenario, do you allow for the fact that interest rates would crash??

Because we are at ~9.4%, there is a lot of lattitude to drop rates. If things started turning bad here, official rates down to the ~2% range would make many properties cashflow positive (especially mine, that are mostly anyway).

If I was paying say 4.5% for my loan interest, and the property was returning a net 8% (on purchase price without allowing for further rent increases), can you explain exactly how I am hurting???

bye
 
Hired Goon, Yieldmatters (shogun) and Dad of Sam all posting here. why don't we just move the whole forum over to the Global House Price Crash Forum.

To all the SS'ers. DO you remember those guys at school/slash work uni who lived so much in their own reality that they didn't even know it. 10 years ago living in the world of dungeons and dragons (or warcraft or whatever) now living in GHPC.

These guys are trolling, you could smack them fair between the eyes with reality and they would still believe reality. If the market drops 10% they will be vindicated, If the market drops 40% they will be vindicated and if the market stays flat and then heads up again in 5 years they will all be going on about the ponzi scheme and how stupid we are and they will still be vindicated (in their reality) I suggest we stop responding to them
 
2-8. Australia has better lending standards and a resources boom, which provides a plausible story for continued house price rises.

The thing is, Australians are supporting more debt and higher house prices to wages even with higher interest rates than the Americans.

Sub prime and ARMs blew up in the USA, which caused their ponzi scheme to explode which actually stopped their boom before it reached our levels, and actually worked as a release valve.

Australia, having no such early release valve, pushed onward ever higher. It is still fundamentally unsustainable and will correct. In a lot of ways, we would have been better off topping early, as we'd have less far to fall.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Dear HG,

1. By your own admission and for the same reasons, since Australians are actually paying a much higher interest rate and thus, a lot more higher interest costs for their existing housing loans, in Australia, as compared to the ARMs in the US, comparatively speaking, then, the various housing markets in Australia, consequently, seems to be better supported by their underlying housing fundamentals than those in the US and in the UK, at this point in time, all things being equal.

2. This is despite the present high household debt level carried by many Australian households,

3. Consequently, the existing median house price in Australia or/and any housing "bubble" if any, thus, appears to be much more realistically "supported" by its underlying housing fundamentals, in Australia than those in the US and in the UK housing markets, comparatively speaking.

4. Consequently, based on its past housing trends, a soft landing for the many housing markets in Australia are still possible and more likely to eventuate subsequently, if the RBA is able to safely steer the Australian Economy out of the present global financial turmoil, in the immediate near future.

5. Although, the existing high median house price is" un-affordable" by measure of the housing price vis-a-vis average household income or/and median house price vis-a-vis existing rental yields in Australia, as often has been alleged by Demographia and yourself, such that once certain specific threshold ratios have been exceeded, the prevailing housing price must neccessarily fall on a real time basis.

6. Consequently, RBA believes that the present housing stress in Australia has been largely exaggerated in the mass media.

http://www.rba.gov.au/PublicationsAn..._australia.pdf
http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,25479,23528633-5016113,00.html


7. By its own proper definition of "housing stress", RBA believes that there are presently only some 40,000 household of the working class or/and low income families with a combined annual income of less than A$60,000, who are known to be presently committing more than 30% of the monthly househhold incomes for housing loan servicings and that only some 15,000 households are in some loan arrears of 1-3 months behind their monthly interest payment. This amounts to only a loan default rate of 0.3% against all loans reported in the banks' balance sheet.


8. This has been separately discussed in another thread as follows:
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41495


9. For your further comments and discussion, please.

10. Thank you.

Cheers,
Kenneth KOH
 
Last edited:
I will write more on the resources boom as a post-hoc justification for rises (why should a house 1000km away from a mine have a higher price to earnings ratio than the mining companies?)

.

Real estate should always have a higher PE ratio than a mine. Once the mine is mined out, it is just a worthless hole in the ground. The real estate will still be there in a thousand years time.

A mine should always have a much higher yield than real estate, because that is compensation for when the mine is a worthless hole in the ground.

However it is possible for a mining company to have a high PE. If it is very long life. Potential for growth etc.

Gee, that one was easy.



Remember that the mine may be 1000 ks away from the real estate, but the miner who works there could own the real estate. The bloke who owns the mine could own the whole suburb that is 1000 ks from the mine, plus the pub, the skyskrapers, the marina, the supermarket, etc. This is Australia.

See ya's.
 
Last edited:
The point is expected future earnings from higher mineral demand - more money was capitalised into house prices than into mining companies - this is ridiculous

Most of the resources boom money would go to the mining companies, miners, local area, government and then a slight amount might trickle down towards other cities.

The idea that real estate in Perth should be worth significantly more because a small number of the workforce who are miners and employees of mines got a payrise is ridiculous.

It is just a story, which enables people to justify high prices. Ponzi schemes and bubbles end when greater fools run out and people say "this price is ridiculous". When people looked at Perth property prices some people surely would have said:

"Perth is one of the most remote cities in the world, why are outer suburbs worth extremely high prices compared to other international cities - it's ridiculous"

but then someone would have replied:

"Resources boom"

And thus they kept bidding up those properties....

As for the P/E - when working out NPV, most people have a discount rate that would put mine lives (eg Olympic damn will still be going in 100 years time) so far into the future it doesn't matter.... (we'd all be dead)

The point is, people have capitalised more into houses than mining companies, which is just silly.
 
Back
Top