Recession likely in Australia

I think we all agree that Sydney in particular represents excellent, excellent buying and it's only a matter of time before we have a very lovely boom that I have been waiting a while for - and if it takes slightly longer, who cares because rents are going up all the time and reducing my holding costs!

For that reason I have a very bullish sentiment compared to all the doom and gloom going on around SS at the moment (which is starting to annoy me), because this is the time that investors should be dreaming about - opportunity abounds!!! yayayaya!!

At 4.5% yields, it still is 50% cheaper to rent than to own (you need to consider council rates, building insurance, maintenance costs, ...). You need to be very motivated to buy. Who would want to buy when they think prices are heading down? The newspapers will soon be reporting that house prices are falling, that will affect buyers confidence.

Don't let your wishes for a boom blur your observations of what is currently happening.

Cheers,
 
At 4.5% yields, it still is 50% cheaper to rent than to own (you need to consider council rates, building insurance, maintenance costs, ...). You need to be very motivated to buy. Who would want to buy when they think prices are heading down? The newspapers will soon be reporting that house prices are falling, that will affect buyers confidence.

Don't let your wishes for a boom blur your observations of what is currently happening.

Cheers,


not only that but... if say your new homes costs $250,000 to build and is written off over say 20 years, that's $240 a week in real depreciation. The house I live in - it's deprecn on current replacement value is more than what it costs to rent a house aound here. none of this makes any sense.

having said that... my building component has appreciated 3 times since I constructed. does your head in
 
In Canberra it lasted almost 10 years during the 1990s. I don't think it wil last that long this time, but strongly suspect it will last at least 5 years, potentially 8. I plan to buy in at about 3 IPs per 4 years over the next 8-10 years anyway, so I'm not so concerned.
Don't forget that Sydney house prices have already been stagnant for 5 years. Another 10 would be pretty unprecedented. But another 5 is certainly on the cards if the macro-economic environment remains nasty. I think it is more likely to be 2-3, but so long as interest rates don't explode into the stratosphere, I'll just sit and wait for the tide to turn.

Cheers,
Michael
 
not only that but... if say your new homes costs $250,000 to build and is written off over say 20 years, that's $240 a week in real depreciation. The house I live in - it's deprecn on current replacement value is more than what it costs to rent a house aound here. none of this makes any sense.

having said that... my building component has appreciated 3 times since I constructed. does your head in

The reality is that a house lasts for much longer than 20 years without needing the full building cost to repair it at the end of 20 years, though.
Alex
 
Hi Guys,

Just a bit of a quick reality check. Here's an example of a commonly understood economic cycle using the property clock:

http://www.quartile.com.au/Market Data/propertyclock.htm

That one is from the Quartile group, but most are similar. OK, so is anyone in disagreement that the following is in evidence:

* Rising Yields
* Undersupply

Or that, at least for Sydney which is my market, that the following has already occurred:

* Rising Interest Rates
* Lower Sales Volumes/Prices
* Falling Construction
* Falling Real Prices

I guess the only one that is really unclear is the last one, i.e. falling real prices following rising interest rates. I'd argue that this has played out in Sydney, but that rates have hiked further which has probably pushed the market back from 8 o'clock to 6 o'clock again. i.e. it has stalled the imminent recovery. All that means is that we have to wait a little longer until we start to see:

* Falling Interest Rates
* Rising Sales Volume/Prices
* Rising Construction

That last one is me... ;) I'm sitting tight waiting for the falling interest rates to start and then it will create an environment where my increased yields mean that upon completion my multi-unit construction will be strongly cashflow positive. If I build it today I'm neutral, but I want more certainty before I turn the dirt.

We might see a recession, but we've already seen rising yields and undersupply. The recession should just tip us to 9 o'clock and deliver us those falling interest rates.

Sounds like a good outcome to me?...

Cheers,
Michael.
 

Attachments

  • Quartile Property Clock.JPG
    Quartile Property Clock.JPG
    25.6 KB · Views: 106
As you would know Sydney is a lot of different markets.

Properties in the northern & eastern suburbs have actually risen the last couple years. The inner western/southern suburbs have risen a small amount or stayed flat while the outer western/southern suburbs have and still are fallen substantially.

This is a broad brush view of the Sydney market. I guess its even more segmented than that.

How you can say 'the Sydney market have been stagnant for 5 years' i don't know as it is a gross generalisation and not correct.

Don't forget that Sydney house prices have already been stagnant for 5 years.

Cheers,
Michael
 
AFR article
David Uren | March 7, 2008

THE economy is headed for recession next year, with a 50 per cent plunge in share values and a double-digit drop in house prices.

Do I have your attention?

While the Reserve Bank takes a largely benign view of the unfolding credit crisis, believing China's growth will insulate us from its worst consequences, others are less sanguine.

Morgan Stanley's chief market strategist Gerard Minack introduced a brief to clients last week saying, "I'm bearish - really bearish."

He argues that Australia will be dragged into recession by a slowing world economy, the tightening grip of the credit crisis, and the effects of the Reserve Bank's succession of interest rate hikes.

Economists are often trapped by the inertia of the moment, failing to see the magnitude of both booms and busts and being forced into constant revisions of their forecasts. This makes Minack, who takes a long view, worth listening to.

He argues that the market is coming to the end of its fifth bull run since the beginning of the 20th century.

As the chart (which adjusts the all-ordinaries index for inflation) shows, the bear markets that followed, produced falls in the region of 50 per cent and lasted for two to three years.

The problem is not that the market is overvalued, relative to earnings, but rather that earnings are themselves inflated and headed for a fall.

Based on profit figures back to 1970, earnings are 44 per cent above their long-term trend.

In the three recessions since then, real earnings per share fell by between 36 and 65 per cent from peak to trough.

"You've got to argue that earnings do revert to their mean. On almost every measure we've got for earnings, be it profit share of GDP, return on assets or margins, it looks unsustainable," he says.

Earnings have been inflated by spendthrift households running down their savings. While the Reserve Bank has argued that fears about housing debt are without foundation because household balance sheets are strong, Minack says the picture looks a lot worse when you look instead at household cash flow.

The latest annual national accounts show the household sector remains cashflow negative, with the deficit of 3.75 per cent of GDP accounting for half the current- account deficit.

Besides, he says, household balance sheets also looked fantastic in Japan in 1990, before its lost a decade of economic growth.

Minack is not persuaded by the proposition that Australia's housing market is somehow immune from the excesses of the US.

Australians have more leverage, are as reliant upon equity extraction and base their household balance sheet on a housing stock that is far more expensive than their American equivalents.

The household sector vulnerable to any reversal in fortune. The moment unemployment starts to rise, people will start defaulting on their housing loans.

The view that Australia will be saved by China and the resources boom underestimates the magnitude of the forces ranged against us.

China's growth may continue to require large flows of commodities, but commodity markets at present are being driven by speculative money that can flee as quickly as it came.

Base metals prices could fall by 40 per cent and bulk commodities by 15 per cent without heralding the end of the Chinese driven "super-cycle".
Commodity markets are facing not only the prospect of a recession in the US, but also the possibility of recessions in Japan and Britain, with a slowdown in Europe.

The long-awaited rise in the volume of mining exports will not save us, with Minack calculating it will raise GDP by, at most, 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points. The terms of trade, by contrast, has lifted GDP by about 9 per cent, while the increase in business investment caused by the resources boom has added about 3.5 percentage points.

"People react as though there is some injustice. Here we are with the market down 20 per cent, when our economy looks strong and China keeps growing," he says. "People miss the point that we're hugely wrapped up in the global credit crunch because we are one of the world's largest issuers of capital, with the most over-priced finance sector in the developed world and a rickety housing sector.

"People think we're Teflon coated because of links to China. I don't think that's true."


Hmmm - food for thought. I thought he was being negative when I read this last month, especially as all of our major banks are saying that they have little exposure.

Then ANZ announced $1bn in provision for bad debt last night - by any standards, that is an enormous provision and a sign that things are not what they seem with our banks.

AND - it's only on their half year results!

Time to revisit the mattress?

Well done Greedy, I bet you can't wait to say "told you so" :D
 
How you can say 'the Sydney market have been stagnant for 5 years' i don't know as it is a gross generalisation and not correct.
True, but intentionally so as its just a rough guide as to where the city is at in its property cycle. I tend to follow the wave theory, whereby prime suburbs in a city lead the boom and the wave rides out to pick up the others in time. But they all follow the same cycle.

These guys seem to like generalising too:

http://www.quartile.com.au/Market Data/sydney.htm

quartile said:
The window is well and truly open in Sydney with buying conditions amongst the best they have been during the past decade. It is now 4 years since the market peaked with all indicators suggesting then stage is set for the next cyclical upturn.
They call it 4 years, I call it 5. I just figured it peaked in 2003 and we're now in 2008.

I agree though that suburbs have outperformed and others underperformed. Thankfully all my holdings are on the Northern Beaches which has been outperforming price wise, but the downside to that is that its a low yielding area. But those yields are increasing. I just put my IP rent up 20% last month. Did I mention where rising yields and cronic undersupply puts us on the property clock? ;)

Cheers,
Michael
 
Hi all,

Seeing that everyone is rubbing their collective crystal balls :p I thought that a little thinking outside the square might not go astray.

Remember that in battles generals are always fighting the LAST war with their methodologies, it is probably the same with property investing.

It would be rare for the same type of conditions to set themselves up again.

Perhaps there will be situations similar to the setups in the '80's rather than those of the '90's

bye
 
Some pretty bold predictions there mate, what model is your crystal ball? :) But good Luck with it all.

I remember reading in the paper in the late 90s that rental yields were at 10% in outer Sydney and still people didn't take notice. It wasn't for another 3-4 years the boom started in earnest.

I predict this current stagnation will last longer than 2-3 years. Probably double that or more.

I know properties on the central coast have dropped 20% - 25% in the last year.

Don't know where you got this figure from but we've had 7-10% growth over the past year. Even Gosford has seen 20% growth!

MichaelWhyte:
True, but intentionally so as its just a rough guide as to where the city is at in its property cycle. I tend to follow the wave theory, whereby prime suburbs in a city lead the boom and the wave rides out to pick up the others in time. But they all follow the same cycle.

I follow the wave theory too. We only have to look at Sydney Northern Suburbs to see it has started now.

. . . . . .the signs are there. . . :p
 
Michael - you and I are reading from the same page!

Sydney has been flat for about 4-5 years, I think another 2-3 years will see us flat (ok, generalising here, but I'm comfortable with that) for about 8 years, and I agree that a much longer flat period than that would be pretty much unprecedented. Sydney has already dropped a lot over the last few years and I think it's basically at the bottom now, give or take.

Therefore, as I (like Alex Lee) don't think I can pick the absolute bottom, am in buying mode, as much as possible.

All the fundamentals you listed are in place and I am quietly confident. Anyway, why not be confident, the bad times are when the wealthy make their money.

C'mon fellow forumites, isn't everyone else stoked at the buying opportuties and the fact that getting into a bit of recession is good for us? Anyway, the current climate has me in a great mood!
 
Michael - you and I are reading from the same page!

Sydney has been flat for about 4-5 years, I think another 2-3 years will see us flat (ok, generalising here, but I'm comfortable with that) for about 8 years, and I agree that a much longer flat period than that would be pretty much unprecedented. Sydney has already dropped a lot over the last few years and I think it's basically at the bottom now, give or take.

Therefore, as I (like Alex Lee) don't think I can pick the absolute bottom, am in buying mode, as much as possible.

All the fundamentals you listed are in place and I am quietly confident. Anyway, why not be confident, the bad times are when the wealthy make their money.
C'mon fellow forumites, isn't everyone else stoked at the buying opportuties and the fact that getting into a bit of recession is good for us? Anyway, the current climate has me in a great mood!

The bad times are the entry point for the wealthy to begin making their money.

I am stoked at the buying opportunities but do you mean to say you think we are heading for a recession? If that is the case then no I don't think it is good for us. Investors and foreign markets will pull their money out of Aus, the Australian Dollar will plunge and our housing prices will go South as well.:(
 
many here are now predicting a slowdown/recession in Australia.. but at the same time are expecting massive rental growth driven by demand.. this assumes current rate of migration (record level numbers), hence postulating high demand thus double digit yoy rent growth...

seems contradictory to me... wouldnt migration to australia slow down if economy suffers thus impacting the demand side of the equation.. if history repeats itself, what happened in the past recessions ?

is this one of the reasons people didnt invest in the 90s? Migration dropped substantially, suddenly lack of supply from late 80s turned into oversupply in early 90s, rents didnt rise much and prices were stagnant... Maybe the 90s resi property investors can enlighten us ...

doom and gloom for some, party time for others...
 
We must be talking about a different Central Coast. I have IPs there and monitor it constantly. Also know an agent or 2.

The signs of a long price stagnation are in Sydney.

Don't know where you got this figure from but we've had 7-10% growth over the past year. Even Gosford has seen 20% growth!

MichaelWhyte:

I follow the wave theory too. We only have to look at Sydney Northern Suburbs to see it has started now.

. . . . . .the signs are there. . . :p
 
is this one of the reasons people didnt invest in the 90s? Migration dropped substantially, suddenly lack of supply from late 80s turned into oversupply in early 90s, rents didnt rise much and prices were stagnant... Maybe the 90s resi property investors can enlighten us ...

doom and gloom for some, party time for others...

Perhaps this may be a clue? I bought at 12% in 1988 (Heritage Building Society)...hit 18% in quick time. Long periods of elevated interest rates hit the investor, business and the consumer. There was a recession "we had to have" in the early 1990's whose effects weren't diminished until the mid 1990's (thanks Paul).

Cheers

Shane
 

Attachments

  • historical_rates.gif
    historical_rates.gif
    6.9 KB · Views: 179
Hi plusnq,

Thanks for the info .. much appreciated..

Few questions..
After peaking in 90, the rates dropped substantially from ~17% in 90 to ~9% 93 .. so why were house prices dropping/stagnant during this period??

Infact property boomed from 85 to 89, period during which IR were going up..

So the question is why werent investors buying between 90 and 93, when rates were dropping? I;ll try find some info but I have a feeling migration has a part..

just realised, it may have been one statistic that i was ultimately looking for in US and in Australia to ... "unemployment"
 
Very good question! I would have imagined that if interests rates dropped by such a dramatic amount now that property prices would skyrocket! Ok, fair enough unemployment would reduce demand a little, but what percentage did unemployment get to - 10%? What about the other 90% who still had jobs - wouldn't they all be buying with the profound reduction in interest rates? Wouldn't yields have relatively become extremely attractive over a short period of time?

I might suggest that the finance sector is far more advanced now than when it was in the early 90's though, and credit has been far easier to obtain (until recently). When did de-regulation of the finance sector occur?
 
The bad times are the entry point for the wealthy to begin making their money.

I am stoked at the buying opportunities but do you mean to say you think we are heading for a recession? If that is the case then no I don't think it is good for us. Investors and foreign markets will pull their money out of Aus, the Australian Dollar will plunge and our housing prices will go South as well.

Do you think the mid 90s, just after a recession (though I'm sure people didn't think so at the time: they just thought the recession was still happening), was a good time to buy?

There really isn't anything wrong with the AUD plunging, you know. Our exports will earn more, especially our food and minerals. Just how much do you have to buy property? I know I can't buy a couple million in a few months. I'd much rather have a few years to slowly accumulate more property. If you're buying, you WANT the market to go down. A booming market makes it very hard to buy into.

If the AUD does plunge, go work overseas. I worked in London when the pound was almost $3, and laughed my head off every time I sent money home.
Alex
 
Last edited:
Infact property boomed from 85 to 89, period during which IR were going up..

So the question is why werent investors buying between 90 and 93, when rates were dropping? I;ll try find some info but I have a feeling migration has a part..

just realised, it may have been one statistic that i was ultimately looking for in US and in Australia to ... "unemployment"

My own guess (not having experienced it first hand) is that people were so shell-shocked by falling property values, which just a few years earlier they thought would never go down, simply lost faith. Just as they believed it would never go down when it was booming, they thought as it fell that it would never go up. It turned slowly, as yields stayed high, rates kept coming down and job prospects brightened. I remember friends who graduated around 92, 93 not being able to find jobs. How hard is it for someone to imagine that they could get fired and just be replaced with some cheaper grads who are clamouring for work?

Then, as the boom began in earnest, a new group of people (roughly people who graduated after 95 or so) who had only seen the good times started to be in a position to buy. Rates kept falling and credit became more plentiful.

Very good question! I would have imagined that if interests rates dropped by such a dramatic amount now that property prices would skyrocket! Ok, fair enough unemployment would reduce demand a little, but what percentage did unemployment get to - 10%? What about the other 90% who still had jobs - wouldn't they all be buying with the profound reduction in interest rates? Wouldn't yields have relatively become extremely attractive over a short period of time?

But the fact is that the majority of the herd didn't buy until the late 90s. Unemployment isn't simply just a %. The media would have been reporting horrible layoffs etc daily, and with 10% unemployment you would probably know people who are unemployed. You start to wonder 'if it can happen to them, maybe it can happen to me too'. Also, just because you have a job doesn't mean you think it's secure. If you live in fear of losing your job, you won't buy a house. That's what happens in a recession. People lose jobs, and the people who have jobs live in fear they'll lose them.

Yields WERE very attractive for a period of YEARS. I wouldn't call that a short period. While I plan to buy soon and keep buying, I also don't expect a sharp bounce back up. Once the herd latches onto an idea (fueled by the media), it's hard to break the momentum. We saw stupid yields at the peak, and it's likely we're going to see stupidly high yields soon because the herd will abandon property. Until they see a clear trend that it's picking up again, fueled by a group (teenagers now, probably) who haven't experienced a bust first hand.

I might suggest that the finance sector is far more advanced now than when it was in the early 90's though, and credit has been far easier to obtain (until recently). When did de-regulation of the finance sector occur?

Yes, we've been fueling our credit with overseas funding. That's why the US-orignated credit problems are hitting us as well. It also means we got very cheap credit during the boom, and we won't get that back until the credit problems in the US (and Europe) subsides. This 'advanced' finance sector meant that a bigger bubble could and was created, but it also means the 'recovery' may take longer because it's all linked.
Alex
 
Back
Top