More bad news on sydney market

Another gloomy property story in the sydney morning herald.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mortgage-dreams-drift-off-the-plan/2005/11/25/1132703380778.html

THE number of properties seized and sold by lenders after mortgage defaults is on the rise after more than $60 billion has been slashed from the value of the Sydney property market since the city's house prices peaked two years ago.

As house prices continue to sag following the boom, there is evidence the number of mortgagee sales has increased. An agent at Laing+Simmons Double Bay, Rod Fox, said he had seen the number rise significantly in the past year.

"I believe we have had close to 30 mortgagee sales this year," he said. "I've got one coming up for auction in December and my colleagues have another one or two."

An agent with Richardson & Wrench in Rooty Hill, Shayne Douglas, said mortgagee sales had picked up by 10 to 20 per cent in the past six months.

"There has definitely been an increase, there's a lot more mortgagee sales now than there were two or three years ago."

The Herald used data on the number of residential properties and median house and unit prices to estimate the value of Sydney's 1.7 million dwellings. They reached about $850 billion early last year but had fallen to about $785 billion by the end of September - $60 billion-$65 billion less.

The median Sydney house price, calculated by Australian Property Monitors, has fallen by $50,000 to $520,000 since the market peak. And the median unit price is down $24,000 to $357,000. The figures were composition adjusted to balance different sectors of the market.

The most expensive 10 per cent of Sydney houses have registered a bigger proportional loss than the average. Their median price is down from $1.38 million to $1.18 million.

That fall, of $200,000 or 14.5 per cent, is much more than Australian Property Monitors' estimate for the city-wide average fall of 8.9 per cent.

"The [housing] price bracket from about $900,000 up to around $1.3 million is the bracket that has suffered the most," the monitors' research director, Louis Christopher, said.

Mr Fox said the number of mortgagee sales had risen because people had borrowed too much at the peak of the property boom and were having trouble meeting mortgage repayments.

"Look at what people paid two years ago, they paid top dollar for off-the-plan developments and now the market has come down considerably for that type of property," he said.

Most properties sold in mortgagee sales fetched much less than the owners originally paid for them, Mr Fox said. "With one of my past sales in Rose Bay, the owners paid $792,000 and it sold for $720,000."

The director of Richardson & Wrench in Bondi Junction, Andre Frack, said they had been selling a property for the owner, but halfway through "the owner wouldn't accept an offer and the bank ended up taking possession and accepting the same offer".

The number of mortgagee sales was up because people who had bought off-the-plan during the boom could not afford repayments, Mr Frack said.

The chairman of Wizard Home Loans, Mark Bouris, said the percentage of defaulted loans on its books had risen from 1.1 per cent to 1.3 per cent from mid last year to mid this year, which was not considered a "significant increase".
CITY SEIZURES

- Two bedroom terrace in Bondi Junction bought for about $850,000 two years ago sold recently for about $800,000.
- One bedroom unit in the city was bought two years ago for about $510,000. Similar properties in the same building now sell for $420,000.

Source: Rod Fox, Laing+Simmons Double Bay
 
There is something about this that puzzles me. Not to sure how to explain what i mean but, here goes...

If someone purchased a house 2 or 3 years ago in the peak of the boom and that same house is now worth less. How can they all of a sudden be struggling to make the repayments? Interest rates haven't moved that much at all really. So the repayments they are making shouldn't have changed, should they?

I can see it would be a problem if it was an IP and now they cant rent it. But is that what the article is refering to or not?

:confused:
 
If it's a PPOR, my guess they just bought far more property than they could really afford. i.e. they had to cut their expenses down to afford the repayments. Which is fine when your property is shooting up, but now that values are flat or negative, it's a different storey. Cutting the shopping, etc to repay a loan on a place that's losing value: that has to be a slap up side the head.

So people are struggling just because it's mentally tougher to make repayments when the property isn't going up. The numbers haven't changed but the results have.
Alex
 
I think this has more to do with (off the plan) property brought a few years ago coming online so the owner can sell..

Geoff
 
Changed perceptions

Perhaps investors/owners now also preceive their investment differently. Without capital gains, does the return justify the cost?
Not in Sydney!
 
Maybe they were relying of capital growth and planing on refinancing , and use the redraw to fund the payments . Probably not :rolleyes: , but who knows ...

Personally I think we need more bad news stories before the market thinks about bottoming.

See Change
 
Hmmm,

I thought the whole arguement about the issue of title with wraps was that this prevented people from being foreclosed. I thought the point was that with a title you had protection?

What's going on here?

Can people refresh my memory about all those justifications why title was so important that it offered protection against foreclosure?

What about the other point about negative equity? If these people used 10% deposits and these properties have now slid 15% then how have how they benefited from having a title?

When it comes time to sell, the banks will still be chasing them for the difference.

It may sound like I'm opening a can of worms here, possibly I am. But I think its worthy now to openly and constructively discuss this topic again now that we can see the other side of the coin.

Regards
Michael
 
Someone else will have to tackle Michael's can of worms.

In regards to people being forced to sell, it doesn't take much to tip some people over the edge. I've known people who have really stretched themselves to buy a flash PPOR in the 'right' suburb and then find themselves in strife because of a hiccup in their employment, an unexpected pregnancy, a surprise tax debt etc.

Alot of people sail pretty close to the wind. They're often people with good jobs who drive nice cars and live in up market suburbs. A few years ago, wasn't there was a book called The Millionaire Next Door or something like that? I'm sure it was about people who live modestly but have lots of wealth. I reckon there would be a book in those other people, the ones who live ostentatiously but have no equity and huge debt. It would be called The pauper Next Door.

Scott
 
Yes, Scott. "The Pauper Next Door". :(

The figures that really hit home for me are the ones about retired people. It seems that every now and again there is a report from a well credentialed authority along the lines that 75% to 85% of retired people are living basically on an income level of the pension. Imagine 20 years of that....

Back to the thread - mortgage defaults in Sydney, Australia's biggest city & biggest property market.

Being personally only familiar with / invested in the Perth market - which is still going at a very strong clip - it is a reminder that markets move in cycles.

regards,
 
I think people have trouble making their repayments because when they purchase their home, they are not brutally honest with themselves about their living costs. They get carried away with all the excitment of buying a home and inconsequential details like loan manageability go out the window. But I am interested to see that there are now articles appearing in the papers finally recognising that prices are still falling.

Here's an except out of an article in today's "The Australian":

"After a slow winter, the expected bounce in spring sales just hasn't happened," HIA chief economist Simon Tennent said. "Home buyers are willing to buy but they're just not able to because of the affordability hurdle."

APM research director Louis Christopher said sales of established homes had improved in the first two months of spring but the sector remained weaker than anticipated.

Auction clearance rates are weak, with only 44.1per cent of Sydney properties auctioned last weekend being sold. In Melbourne, the clearance rate was 48.6per cent.

Mr Tennent said the Melbourne market appeared to have bottomed out but Brisbane prices were expected to fall as much as 5per cent next year.

"We believe Sydney has also got another 5per cent to fall before it bottoms out late next year," he said.
"
 
well i was gazumped the other day on a property in sydney. its not completely dead :p

this dependance on auction clearance numbers seems to have the potential to be a bit misleading i think. more and more properties seem to be up for sale by treaty. i think you'd need to either be very confident about your property or be at an arms length to sell at auction right now. the lower rate just means buyers are less willing to step up to the plate on auction day. they might wander round the corner after the auction and put in an offer somewhere else.

anyway, i read in the paper (on the weekend i think, forget which one sorry) average mortgage repayments were 36% of weekly income. not too unreasonable, imo. though i wonder what that would be after a 1% rate rise.
 
Pete

I agree with you that clearance rates can be misleading. They actually have no bearing on my thoughts on the market at all and they don't form part of my decision on where we are in the market. However, the negative articles starting to appear have started me getting interested again in looking - and I mean looking - I might attend an auction before Christmas but will only buy if it is a rock bottom bargain - otherwise I will leave it alone. I suspect there might be a few more people out there like me who are reading the negative signals as a time to start looking again. Hope you don't get gazumped on your next property.
 
pete_w said:
anyway, i read in the paper (on the weekend i think, forget which one sorry) average mortgage repayments were 36% of weekly income. not too unreasonable, imo. though i wonder what that would be after a 1% rate rise.

Pete, I think that 36% of weekly income is way too much for mortgage repayments. This means that many single income families are paying more around 50% of after tax weekly income to the bank. In case of job loss, sickness, new family members, or hardship, this numbers are unsustainable.

Most developed countries have this figure around 20% of the family weekly income.

Thx
 
I've always wondered: those (%age of income) figures are quoted on BEFORE tax income? So the general theory that says you shouldn't spend more than 30% of income on rent, etc is based on 30% of GROSS (before tax) income?

I pay around 30% of my NET income for rent + utilities and I consider that quite a big slug!
Alex
 
Hi All
couple of things that I see.
1. A bank doesn't forclose unless you can't pay and have been in default for two month min.
2. In this market we have had increases but that is with rents.
If you could not hold a property in this market then you were never going to hold it.
Interest rate have not moved and if you could have held these properties prior to any down turn then a fixed interest lend for 3 years is still lower then prior to any correction.
3. sorry sea change but in you can't hold a property with living of equity then nothing was ever going to work as these structures are designed for the long term and I would be very surprised if any of the people living off equity would be selling in mortgagee sales.
4.The market is the middle of a movement I agree and when there is any movement the most vunerable get squeezed and if you have not setup your stucture correct you get hit, i'm in the middle of shaving 1 mil off a development site here in sydney from a developer that I just bought a property from and yes in this market it is not for the faint hearted but 1 thing that must be remember.
For all the sell because its getting bad??.
if you don't have to sell and your structure is setup to hold, why sell???
5. look at your structure.
Why (if you believe the paper sellers) would you sell and if you have to sell in this market??.
Do I have to sell if because i've run out of money well hello what if we had a rate increase or were you waiting for a rate fall( a little unlikely in this market)
no business is all candy floss and some times people get burnt, they go out on a limb, fall, get up and try again,
There are alot of people that when the market was climbing( not me) went out on that ledge and know wish they hadn't and people like me pick up what we wish to get involved in.
I like this market and unlike most think that its the best market to make money.
I think that the best time to make money is not in a falling market nor in a rising market but buy in a market that the vendor wants to get out of and you can see a upward direction this is the best place for any negotiator,
and in this market dealers deal (and there alot better then me) in a bull market the dealers wait until the product starts to drop and then starts to rise, its the same with any market.

so for anyone to have a bank sell in this market.
Start learning
 
chook said:
Pete

I agree with you that clearance rates can be misleading. They actually have no bearing on my thoughts on the market at all and they don't form part of my decision on where we are in the market. However, the negative articles starting to appear have started me getting interested again in looking - and I mean looking - I might attend an auction before Christmas but will only buy if it is a rock bottom bargain - otherwise I will leave it alone. I suspect there might be a few more people out there like me who are reading the negative signals as a time to start looking again. Hope you don't get gazumped on your next property.

yeah, one thing im beginning to realise is that in the short term at least, it doesnt matter what is actually happening, it matters what people think is happening.

Panic said:
Pete, I think that 36% of weekly income is way too much for mortgage repayments

i tend to disagree. it does depend if its gross or net. i am talking net though. i can pay my bills and maintain my lifestyle on just under 1/3 of my net weekly income. sydney is expensive to live in and accomodation (be it rental or mortgage payments) has always taken a fair chunk. if im spending 1/3 of my weekly after tax income on repayments, they can double and i wouldnt have to take a cut in my standard of living. i have no dependants, so admittedly things are a bit easier for me. i could probably cut back by downgrading my accomodation a bit, but i dont see the point if i still have 1/3 of my income free to invest or whatever.

hmm, just checking it turns out that 33% net is about 20% gross so maybe we're talking the same numbers here :D
 
pete_w said:
i tend to disagree. it does depend if its gross or net. i am talking net though. i can pay my bills and maintain my lifestyle on just under 1/3 of my net weekly income. sydney is expensive to live in and accomodation (be it rental or mortgage payments) has always taken a fair chunk. if im spending 1/3 of my weekly after tax income on repayments, they can double and i wouldnt have to take a cut in my standard of living. i have no dependants, so admittedly things are a bit easier for me. i could probably cut back by downgrading my accomodation a bit, but i dont see the point if i still have 1/3 of my income free to invest or whatever.

hmm, just checking it turns out that 33% net is about 20% gross so maybe we're talking the same numbers here :D

Pete, you need to compare mortrage repayments as percantage of net income by world standards. Why do we always think that Australia is so specific and that Sydney is one and only (although it is :)... If a family in US is paying about 20% or their net income on mortgate, and in Germany around 15%, what justifies us paying >30% in Sydney. Why?... Roof above your head is basic necessity, and basic necessities need to be always reasonable. Is the rest of the works crazy that they only pay around 20% of net income on mortgage, or do they have better things to do with the rest of the money?

Thx
V
 
More bad news...

Housing slump widens, deepens (AFR 02/12/05)

http://afr.com/articles/2005/12/02/1133422086398.html

afr said:
The downturn in the Australian housing market has widened and deepened, with house building approvals slumping for a fourth consecutive month to near four-year lows and established house prices going backwards in five of the eight state and territory capitals.
afr said:
Until now, the residential real estate downturn largely has been confined to the main population centres of Sydney and Melbourne, which led the country in the preceding boom. Annual house price growth has turned down markedly since the peak levels near 20 per cent at the end of 2003.
Bring it on I say. The deeper the better...

Cheers,
Michael.
 
Panic said:
If a family in US is paying about 20% or their net income on mortgate, and in Germany around 15%, what justifies us paying >30% in Sydney. Why?...

Because Australia's population density is too great! Hey - hang on a minute... ;)

In all seriousness, the fact that our repayments are higher as a percent of net income may be an indicator of a market that should drop, but it may mean another factor at play. I suspect both. The 'other factor at play' is Australia's negatively gearing rules, housing depreciation rules and it's inter-relation with Australia's fairly high income tax levels. What you then have are lots of people trying to reduce their tax bill through residential property speculation - "I know the yield is 3% but prices have doubled in the past 4 years so surely they will double again in the next 4 years!" :confused:
 
Back
Top