Discussion in 'Property Market Economics' started by Gockie, 30th May, 2015.
In the eyes of foreigners:
Yes, that's the thing. the land was offered by www.Landcom.com.au in Airds, but now is no more avaialble, due to the people queueing like there is no tomorrow.
I'm now waiting (or betting ) on Marsden Park * Ropes Crossings to become another profitable suburbs like Schofileds, Kellyville and Baulkham Hills.
Fingers crossed and looking at the graph that you submitted above, it confirms that buying the house in newly openedarea will soon appreciates due to land scarcity.
I'm ready and open to be humbled by anyone here if there is anything that I say above is wrong.
I wouldn't recommend house and land package.. Just like OTP The prices is controlled by the developer. If market turned backward, or if developer cannot sell the new release land+house package, they can reduce the price and will effect the surrounding.
Also there are are still lots of land available waiting to be released in that area. If government decided to release in a very large scale, it might impact the price.
Always go for established suburb where there are no more available land to be release (scarcity factor).
To be clear, the reason why the sell-off occurred was due to other (lack of) income related factors in our life.
All explained briefly above.
We had 4 IP's, a block of land and a PPoR after the USA trip, and could have bought more.
Not fantastic, but better than many.
But, our lack of cashflow and lifestyle - despite the properties - was pizzing us off, so we attempted to buy an income through the workshop.
My philosophy was; rather than spend another $400k of equity on another IP with stuff-all cashflow, let's buy a business of the same dollar amount that is profitable and can provide what we don't have in terms of cashflow.
The plan was to then use the extra income to further the investing career...
Who would you rather listen to; someone who has done nothing and not gained the experience (good or bad), or someone who has had a crack and done ok, but also stuffed up a lot of things, and now can give you the benefit of that experience?
So, listen to me; I can tell ya's how NOT to do it!!
On the business of property investing, your experience is likely useful to learn from, on the topic of housing affordability your experience means very little (i.e. it is not relevant).
Providing some anecdotal experiences of your own does nothing to refute the facts on affordability laid out by myself and others over the years. But if you think that it does, then perhaps you can use personal experiences to debunk the earlier posted article from MB:
This chart tells the story really.
Of course some will explain it away by suggesting that young people are spending all their money on travel or doodads, but the reality is that it's more difficult to save a deposit in the current environment (higher prices relative to incomes, low wage growth and interest on deposits) and then once you have an exorbitant loan it is more difficult to repay.
Cue irrelevant and long winded rebuttal from Bayview...
Oh no it doesn't.....
....this chart tells the real story.... (sourced from ABS)
It shows the actual number of FHBers each month for a couple of decades. These are actual people buying real houses. Every month 7 or 8 thousand FHBers actually stop spending $$$ on 'stuff' and buy a house. Betcha not many of them read macrobusiness!!!
So just to re-iterate - EVERY MONTH 7000+ FHBers ARE ABLE TO AFFORD A HOUSE!!!!!
BTW your chart looks a bit fishy - the ALL line stays fairly constant, but most the other lines tend down & none tend up.
As we keep telling you; affordability is relative.
What are you looking to buy, and where? - as the FHB - is the question.
Beginning and end of argument.
Don't listen to me then. You need to listen to the other 6 or 10 old b@stards here who constantly say much the same.
I'm still waiting for you to provide an apples with apples example...a smallish older house, on the outskirts of civilization - one from say; 1965 and one from today...make it a 3x1 weatherboard, one bath, one living, one toilet, no garage....the sort of house a FHB used to buy back in the stone ages.
I haven't seen any media whip do it either...always quotin' a chart about mean, and average and so on..
It's a joke. We have houses down here in my little swamp worth say: $500k....6 months later, there are 5 townhouses on the block selling for $650k each.
What does that do to the average price of a house?
Don't talk to me about an average on a chart..
Grabbing a sale from say; Glen Iris today, and comparing it to what it was worth in 1965 is not apples with apples by the way. Obviously, they are not going to be anywhere near the same affordability for a FHB.
But the world has changed enormously since 1965. Glen Iris was on the outskirts, now it is virtually inner-city.
I'd wager you won't even find a 3x1 house like the one I mentioned in Glen Iris these days...all been rebuilt into either 24+sq townhouses, or even bigger McMansions.
And I'd wager you wont find the little old 3x1 on the outtskirts either. Well; actually, you will.
But I'll guarantee you that not many FHB's will be looking at it.
Some will though, and they will buy it.
Cue the graphs from HJ..
As usual your posts miss the point. People buy (i.e. afford) Ferrari's, but it doesn't mean they are an affordable car. Affordability is a scale and homes are much less affordable over the last 10-15 years than they were in the decades prior.
Do you deny that prices have risen well above that of a median income (or even household income)?
Do you deny that a higher price to income ratio increases the time & effort required to save a deposit?
Do you deny that periods with higher inflation and wage growth make it faster for the real value of a mortgage to fall (hence easier to repay over the life of a loan even if as difficult to begin with)?
Do you deny that in an example where prices are doubled, but interest rates halved, that the buyer ends up worse off (repaying more & taking a greater level of risk) assuming the same nominal repayments?
Deposit on what?
Be specific, HJ.
Get out those apples.
Last month 7000 families didn't care much about that.
The month before 8000 FHBers didn't care about that hypothetical point either.
Back in Jan there were another 8000 FHBers that overcame adversity & saved for a deposit.
8000 FHBers for every month of 2014 didn't think it was a biggie.....
Another 7000 anecdotal examples reared their ugly head every single month of 2013 too - they all decided that they were prepared to ignore macrobusiness & hobos charts & take the risk of buying a shelter
With every month your hypothetical models are out of step with an additional 7000 families..... do you think it might just be you who is out of step with the reality ?
The number of first home buyers does not disprove the fact that housing affordability is worse.
The ABS graph for the last 25 yrs clearly shows 7-8000 FHBers being able to afford a house every month.
That's about a sample size of over 1,000,000 families.
Surely that is sufficient to convince you that affordability is pretty much the same as 25 yrs ago.
Look at the population growth in that time though...when I say that I specifically mean in Sydney though! A place like Adelaide has actually got a lot more affordable within the past 25 years.
I guess the 6 million more people (circa 2 million more households) added to Australia since the beginning of that chart have no bearing whatsoever. LOL.
It's 2050, Australia's population has increased to 35 million, house pricses have doubled again relative to incomes (now 20x), but lookout here's keithj to tell us that there's still 7,000 first home buyers, so property affordability remains unchanged from 2015.
Every day another 400 families can afford to buy a 1st home. Housing remains affordable - when it stops being affordable, people will stop buying & price will stop rising. Based on the trend of the last 25 yrs do you think it will be any time soon ?
That's why we here. Your affordability discussions are clearly at odds with what many 1000's of families every month are actually doing.
Go back to the Ferrari is an affordable car argument, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
I saw some stats that first home buyers are up. The conclusion the press draws is that they are taking on risky levels of debt. Why isn't the conclusion that they are buying the affordable, far out and fiscally sensible properties and it's the investors that are the ones buying the desirable and expensive stuff...and the overall net position is a relatively safe one? I know I could be wrong but I don't like such quick, reckless "analysis" by the press. It just misinforms and scares people, perhaps unnecessarily.
Even before I read Jerrybee's post above, I wanted to suggest to Hobo-jo that FHBs do not buy median homes. They are poor, not like us investors with our hundreds of thousands of dollars of equity buying up above-median PPORs. I thought they tend to buy below median homes so maybe, just maybe, the stats about median prices vs incomes is not relevant.
What do we think about that?
Yes that's my point. But the press and politicians are quick to analyze the data when they have no idea what they're looking at. Reminds me of a time when my friend called me up about his broken modem. He said he opened it up and said he couldn't see anything wrong with the circuit board. I asked him - what on earth were you expecting to find, a big arrow pointing to a button you needed to press?
Prices have gone up everywhere, in the median suburbs, in the expensive suburbs, in rural towns and in "cheap" suburbs... take Elizabeth for example (in Adelaide), outer suburbs, daggy area, entry level, median price in 2000 was $60,000, last year it was $230,000. Do you think FHB wages have risen by 300% over the last 15 years?
Separate names with a comma.