Prospect of a sudden & dramatic drop in prices should not be ignored

This is not a warning from an internet troll, but from a senior Treasury official.

Treasury warning on home price 'bubble'
A SENIOR Treasury official has sounded the alarm over Australia's property market.

He has warned that the prospect of a sudden and dramatic drop in prices is "the elephant in the room" and should not be ignored by the federal government.

While the government and Reserve Bank insist Australia does not have a housing bubble - as some economists and the International Monetary Fund suggest - it remains such a worrying concept that Treasury has privately sought reassurance from its analysts that prices are not artificially high and that Australia does not face the kind of house price collapse that has hit Britain and the US.

Another recent comment worth noting from the Treasury was in this document about First Home Savers.

The short term stimulus was designed to encourage people who had already been saving for a home to bring forward their purchase and prevent the collapse of the housing market.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35586562/First-Home-Saver-Accounts-FOI-Documents
 
so what if it does happen...nothing any of us can do about it...just ride the highs and lows....all im thinking if this actually happen is its an opportunity to setup my kids in investing long term...

the doom and gloom sayers will always be out there..its what investors do when it happens that is important.

personally the underlying factor will be interest rates in my opinion not the general economy.

if rates get back to 2008 levels then there are going to be some unhappy punters and better still some decent bargains.

those that up to their necks in debt i have zero sympathy for especially investors who "own" 3-4 properties just to keep up with the jones's, but actually really own about 20% of the value of those...they are the ones who are going to feel the pinch and will need to offload at discount prices!

im bearish myself, i feel there is more downside in most areas of oz but at present i cant see any major sudden fall happening unless money overseas tightens up further.

the aussie economy is sound but the rest of the world is still quite shakey....
 
I'm quite pessimistic about the prospects for Australian residential property for at least the next few years, but I doubt we'll see a "crash", ie prices coming off more than, say, 20%. (Individual properties or some niches might, but not across-the-board.)

My main reason is based not on economic theory, but my gut feel for the psychology of my fellow Australians. Australians are far more property-minded than in either the US or UK. Home ownership, and thus housing prices, are really an obsession with Aussies, relative to other countries, where it's not discussed by the "average Joe" to anywhere near the same extent. Property investing is also nowhere near as common for "Mum and Dad" investors in either of those countries; far more commonly, landlords are professional landlords with a whole portfolio of properties, or housing authorities. The Australian situation where one rents their home from another average family, is much less common in both those countries.

Consequently, we have a far greater proportion of the population who are property owners, and thus invested in keeping property prices high. Therefore, the political will to prevent a housing collapse is much greater in Australia.

And despite the general global pessimism on property, most Australians still believe that housing remains a solid investment long term, even if they have short- to medium-term pessimism. The market is the conglomerate of public opinion, and as most housing in Australia is owned by "ordinary Aussies" - either for their own use, or to rent to other regular families - and since most Aussies believe that property ownership remains desirable and a financially sound investment, I believe that will keep property prices relatively stable.

The property market in both the US and UK is far more subject to the fortunes of the business world and share market, because a higher proportion of the property market is controlled by large investment funds and governments, who read the financial news and understand all the economic theories why the bubble has to burst. ;) In Australia, most property owners don't think that we have a bubble which has to burst, and whether they're economically "correct" or not, they are the people who make up the market.

The fact that our housing is so expensive, relative to wages, compared to the USA or UK really isn't relevant, because the vast majority of Aussies don't want to or can't go and live in those countries. We're accustomed to our housing being expensive, and we don't view it as too big a problem.

The biggest potential "fly in the ointment" is the availability of finance. If the lenders tighten their criteria any further, we could see some real pain, because there won't be a large enough pool of people able to obtain finance. But, on the other hand, as there is such enormous pressure from the public to keep housing finance flowing, I believe that if finance tightened too much, the Government would intervene to get the money flowing again, eg by insuring mortgages, or some similar step.

The world will keep turning, housing prices will stay within 10% of their current levels for a few years, and within a decade we'll begin to experience growth again, and will forget how painful these few years have been.

Or not. :eek: I'll know in 10 years, like everybody else.
 
I like the use of the words "sudden" & "dramatic".
Is he talking about the share market?
Same terms can be used for any asset relative to the market you are talking about...for example a sudden and dramatic rise in prices could mean 10% in 6 months for housing or 150% for the price of a share...tell the UK, US, Spain, Ireland, etc that we can't see a sudden and dramatic drop in house prices.

so what if it does happen...nothing any of us can do about it...just ride the highs and lows....all im thinking if this actually happen is its an opportunity to setup my kids in investing long term...
Everyone is at a different stage on their investment journey. A lot of the regular forumites here comment that a downturn won't bother them, that's fine if they have significant equity, etc. Some talk of having invested in property for decades, a 20-30% drop probably wouldn't hurt them that badly if they are geared conservatively enough to ride it out. My concern is for the thousands of new housing investors that are getting caught up in this asset class far too late to make a dollar.

Have a look through some of the threads in the property management subforum here about users having just bought their first property and then tell me no one here is at risk if there was a serious downturn or even a 10 year stagnation of prices.

the aussie economy is sound but the rest of the world is still quite shakey....
Aussie economy is sound, but the rest of the world is shaky? What's driving the Australian economy?
 
This is all great news.

Bring on the doom/gloom and fear!!!

My LVR is nice and low now, so I am ready to dive in and swoop on a super bargain early next year. Sounds like a great time to make some stupidly low offers to desperate vendors.
 
I think the 2 key points about the 'worrier' quoted in thins article are:
1. A (singular) ......senior Treasury official.
2. ......questioned how Australia could have maintained a bubble for more than six years. (well der! :rolleyes:)

Meanwhile from the same article:
1. ....the government and Reserve Bank insist Australia does not have a housing bubble.
2. ....it is the considered position of the Treasurer and the Treasury that our housing market reflects the fundamentals of supply and demand and not a bubble.
3. The OECD report on the Australian economy released at the weekend did not identify a "bubble".

It is not uncommon for economists to hold divergent views from one another. This article makes for good headlines and that's about all you could say about it.
 
I am not sure about all of Australia, i mainly pay attention to Vic but there is no doubt there will be some downward pressure from higher interest rates. The question is will it be enough to offset the continued lack of stock in Vic?

I think there will be some stress in the mortgage belt as this is where people are most exposed to interest rate rises.
 
I expect we'll see a long period of little growth generally. However, I can't help but think the longer we go WITHOUT a crash, the less likely the crash becomes.
 
I'm still tipping a fairly extended period of overall no growth or < 1% annual falls , and more dramatic drops in overpriced areas.

I was looking at price charts for the past year in Adelaide a few weeks ago and most suburbs were dead flat, some with a small fall. Here we are about 2 years behind and still rising quite fast (mostly on the back of retirees and families cashing out of Adelaide and building new houses here), but then you can still get plenty of houses here for under $200k. Since we followed Adelaide up, I'm expecting a peak here within 2 years and then a fall, depending on how high the peak gets.

Some other regional markets I watch are so phenomenally overvalued I'm waiting for them to pop well before 2 years. They are declining population areas with dozens of expensive new houses being built on the fringes by enthusiastic interstate investors. It was less than 10 years ago you could buy TWO fully renovated houses (semidetatched) for $30k and noone wanted them, now in the same area you are pushing to get one of them for this side of $200k.
 
I'm still tipping a fairly extended period of overall no growth or < 1% annual falls , and more dramatic drops in overpriced areas.

fair enough,

im from melbourne but how would you determine what is overpriced or not?

is inner city or city such as city, south bank docklands simply overpriced because of pure $ per sqm or $ per bdrs

or what about the traditional posh suburbs such as sth yarra, brighton, toorak, or the newer posh areas such as camberwell, richmond etc. etc. etc or the fringe estate suburbs such as melton, caroline springs
 
I expect we'll see a long period of little growth generally.

I'm of the same opinion.

the longer we go WITHOUT a crash, the less likely the crash becomes.

Ofcourse time is our friend but don't forget that currently the conditions for a crash don't exist.

Interest rates are still very low and considerably lower than 2007 for example (when we didn't have a crash) and we have an undersupplied market.

I think oversupplied areas are the ones to watch as interest rates climb further
 
Compounding divergence - anyone who has at least a basic understanding of maths would appreciate that over time, a point of criticality will be reached from sustained divergence of two dependent variables.

I agree with previous comments regarding an inevitable 'slow down' in property value growth. The average longterm wage growth is <5% (re: ABS) so it is therefore unrealistic to assume house prices can continue to double every 7-10yrs indefinitely, as this represents >7.5% growth. Such continued divergence can be sustained for reasonable periods (10+ yrs) however, continued divergence will expose the dependency of wage vs property value growth.

I do not believe this will manifest into a "sudden & dramatic" drop in prices, but it will inevitably require a sustained period of house growth dormancy. For those that remember the 90's, you will know what I mean. It definitely won't be of too much concern for those that have a robust long term strategy (Ie. not merely CG dependent).

I don't subscribe to the "I have X number of IPs" or "I control $X worth of property" mindsets, because that is a load of self indulgent rubbish, IMO. This is because my goal is passive income streams, cashflow and financial independence. Unless of course, your ego requires subscription to the former..... :rolleyes:

$2M in managed property means 9/10ths of SFA, if it is highly geared, returning poor yield and dependent on a solid CG strategy. I prefer sustained average income which allows SANF and the ability to ignore the D&Gers.

Some call this diversification.... I call it common sense. ;)
 
we also need to remember that median properties today typically grow in value without the median price changing. That is, the median drifts outward as cities grow - todays median house looks nothing like the median house of 1990. Therefore investors can take comfort that theor properties will grown in value even if the stats show prices as flat.
 
The doom & gloom of this threads is reminiscent of the woe that the usual suspects put foward during the GFC.

What's driving the Australian economy?

The two things most Australians are uncomfortable with:

1. Immigration
2. Selling our resources to foreigners.

'Straya is doing well. Really. The world isn't about to end anytime soon. Plateau yes, crash no. The cheaper/cheapest end of the market will outperform the top end.
 
It's a futile excersize trying to predict which way the wind will blow. Honestly who here really knows whether Europe and the U.S. will get their stuff together, thus allowing the aussie economy to continue to flourish, or whether the rest of the world (on a knife edge as it is), will fail to come up with the necessary goods to save themselves, and proceed to take us down with them?

As investors rather than speculators I would've thought our job was on the one hand, to work out how to expose ourselves to the best investments. While on the other hand, protecting ourselves from the worst possible outcomes presented by those investments.

But how do we do that? I'd certainly be interested in peoples views. I have several half mast thoughts of my own. Probably the one that is clearest to me is small infill development. The reason is that it has the potential to solve a couple of the big issues. It allows more people to live closer to their jobs while lowering the cost of entry. And it has the potential to genuinely make the land worth the inflated prices that people seem to be paying for it.

Not only that but the competition from big developers doing 500 apartment blocks is lower now apparently, due to funding issues. Developers are apparently being told to tip more of their own money into deals. Also presales to certain people (such as foreigners) are not being counted towards the presale quota.
 
Last edited:
Such continued divergence can be sustained for reasonable periods (10+ yrs) however, continued divergence will expose the dependency of wage vs property value growth.
Except that this correlation is not really accurate. What will be more useful is comparing wages to repayments. IRs are a big threat here. The other major indicator is money supply. If the banks can't/won't lend so much then growth will be curtailed (as it was in the 'good old days'). The property market is multi-factorial, which explains why people can spend a long time plotting graphs to support their position, regardless of what their position might be (Anyone who's been around here long enough has seem this countless times;)).

Unless of course, your ego requires subscription to the former..... :rolleyes:
Yeah, it must be my inflated ego that decided trying to build an asset base would be a great p!$$!ng contest. I'd have thought buying a Ferrari and a trophy house would have had more effect.:rolleyes:
Perhaps some of us believe that more capital ultimately results in more income & that property is more suited to the former. We may be planning much better yields from other assets in the income-generating phase...
 
Consequently, we have a far greater proportion of the population who are property owners, and thus invested in keeping property prices high. Therefore, the political will to prevent a housing collapse is much greater in Australia.

Perp - Is this actually true?

UK house ownership rose greatly in the Thatcher years. US homeownership is also relatively high (outside the denser parts of the big cities). Other developed countries also have rates close to ours: http://www.lisproject.org/publications/lwswps/8.pdf (Page 8). The main exceptions appear to be some continental Euopean countries.

And this BBC item indicates that British obsession with housing is similar to ours: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11002344

If you have a faith that governments can create the economic conditions that support house prices, and that given the number of homeowners they have a vested interest in doing so, that pressure would be similar in high home ownership countries such as the UK and (to a lesser extent) the US.

If anything even more so - in countries with voluntary voting my guess is homeowners are more likely to vote than renters, so the proportion of voters who are homeowners in (say) the US may be higher than in Australia, despite our higher ownership rate.

So governments in UK/US would be no less willing to support the homeowner than here. Yet prices in those countries have plunged, indicating that they have failed. And as it turned out some of their sillier policies (even more stupid than our first homebuyer grants) encouraged reckless lending and contributed to their collapses.
 
;)
Yeah, it must be my inflated ego that decided trying to build an asset base would be a great p!$$!ng contest. I'd have thought buying a Ferrari and a trophy house would have had more effect.:rolleyes:
Perhaps some of us believe that more capital ultimately results in more income & that property is more suited to the former. We may be planning much better yields from other assets in the income-generating phase...

LOL... You have clearly missed my point entirely!

I was simply making a philosophical point about the choice of 'yardstick'... I was in no way knocking the accumulation of assets. Quite the contrary. You obviously can't see that the number of IPs or their paper-value, is not necessarily the most adequate 'yardstick' or measure of reward for your investment.

If I told you I only owned one IP bought for $240k, you might laugh as this surely is very humble beginnings (and I truly believe it is)... and probably is not adequate to provide a great deal of financial reward...

What if I said I had property providing >40K per annum passive income stream (after expenses). You might start thinking, how many, what total value etc.... What if I had 80+K passive income stream, or, or, or... My point? Well, it is not necessarily the number of IPs or their total value, so much as the passive income stream they can consistently produce. ;)

It doesn't hurt to open your mind to a different view, rather than taking everything as a personal insult....


P.s. I don't currently own any Resi IPs at all... nadda, none, zero zip... I must be a property investing failure, because I am 0 for 0.... (0 Resi IPs, $0 net value....) My CIP on the hand is doing just fine..... ;) who cares what it is worth or how many of them exist... If it doesn't = passive income, it doesn't put food on the table or pay the power bills or put clothes on my back or, or, or.....
 
Last edited:
Back
Top