So much for immigration

I think the undersupply figures are not worth the paper they are written on. Even if they were true they don't bear any relation to property prices because of the fact that people can't afford to buy them or rent them anyway. Even if there is a so called undersupply

The easiest way to work out how many houses are in undersupply is to go and count up the number of mobile homes in mobile home parks. Say there are 250,000 mobile homes in Australia. If we build 250,000 houses will all the people in mobile homes move into them? I am convinced that in this current environment the main factor that will affect house prices is affordability. The more people that can afford them the more prices will rise.
 
Not if they cant afford it. I don't pay it any credibility but if it is true, there is probably a good reason households are at breaking point.
Why would houses be at breaking point if property was affordable?

I can think of a lot of reasons.......other bad debt - consumer spending, plasmas, rising cost of health insurance, rising cost of rates and water charges, other insurance premium increases, private schoold fee increases etc etc

If households are at breaking point why do you assume the cost of property did it? Traditionally property repayments were about 30% of the household budget. Recent IR decreases have probably seen that come down. That still leaves items that add to 70% of household budgets to examine.
 
Do you have a link to show persons per dwelling is climbing rapidly ?
ANZ/ABS figures imply that it's been growing since 1995 - demand has outstripped supply since then.
attachment.php

What happens if person/house rise from 2.2 t0 2.3?
(21 million / 2.2) - (21 million / 2.3) = 415k more houses/units to the supply side!
So these so-called "30k -40k houses" undersupply per annum is just nothing compared to any slight grouping of people which always happens in a recession.

As I said, California person/house can change from 1.8 to 2.2 in two years (from severe undersupply to server oversupply without population collapse). What will happen if Australia person/house changes just 0.1 or 0.2? How can 30-40k undersupply help in the face of 400-800k more houses/units on the supply side? (Also, Australia's person/house is at historical low -2.1/2.2 and much lower than the OECD average 2.6 - before housing crash number.)
 
What happens if person/house rise from 2.2 t0 2.3?
(21 million / 2.2) - (21 million / 2.3) = 415k more houses/units to the supply side!
So these so-called "30k -40k houses" undersupply per annum is just nothing compared to any slight grouping of people which always happens in a recession.

As I said, California person/house can change from 1.8 to 2.2 in two years (from severe undersupply to server oversupply without population collapse). What will happen if Australia person/house changes just 0.1 or 0.2? How can 30-40k undersupply help in the face of 400-800k more houses/units on the supply side? (Also, Australia's person/house is at historical low -2.1/2.2 and much lower than the OECD average 2.6 - before housing crash number.)

Do you think California's massive overbuilding had more to do with it?
A problem we dont seem to have here.

Could you also answer my earlier question to back up your comment?

Can you provide a link or any other evidence that shows that that methodology is used?

Originally Posted by sphinx
Here is indeed different because:
1. We do not count on-sale house as vacant .. but US do. That usually adds another 4-5%... more in a bad market.

Thanks

Dave
 
Do you think California's massive overbuilding had more to do with it?
A problem we dont seem to have here.
Dave

what over building? Under their assumption that person per house always go down (1.8 in 2006 and will stay the same or go down), there was no over building.... there was only sever undersupply! The so called over-building is a complete hindsight.. under the new 2.2 person per house.... sure, they have overbuilt...

So my question is that the 30-40k undersupply per annum here is based on WHAT person per house assumption? What if there is a 0.1 change in person per house here?
 
So my question is that the 30-40k undersupply per annum here is based on WHAT person per house assumption? What if there is a 0.1 change in person per house here?
As you say, a 0.1 change equates to 415,000 people moving out of their house & sharing with someone else.

Why would 415,000 people decide (or be forced) to do that ?
Are you expecting unemployment to skyrocket by an additional 415,000 people ?
Will ALL those newly unemployed have a mortgage and be forced out by the bank ?
Are the banks offering mortgage repayment holidays for the unemployed ?
Will none of those newly unemployed have a buffer to pay rent or their mortgage ?

I think that a few will choose to share, or move back in with parents etc, but I think that expecting over 400,000 to do so is a bit overly D&G :).

According to ABS the population increased by 389,000 last year.
 
As you say, a 0.1 change equates to 415,000 people moving out of their house & sharing with someone else.
Why would 415,000 people decide (or be forced) to do that ?
Are you expecting unemployment to skyrocket by an additional 415,000 people ?

don't forget person/house changed from 2.6 to 2.2 from 2006 to 2008. That is 0.4 change in just 2 years with good economic situation. It can change back in worsening economic condition as well. Do you think with 2.6 person per house in 2006 (2.6 is also the OECD average), people were in unbearable living conditions that nobody wants to go back?

You don't need 415k people unemployed to have a 0.1 change... just a little bit pay freeze, low confidence, under-employment (no full time job) and less profit ... will make people group a bit more. In the face of GFC and a definite local recession, to think the number is not going to change is delusional.

(btw, 415k more unemployed people will just put unemployment rate at 8.7% .. not a far fetched scenario at all. The number can be easily reached middle next year. 7% unemployment rate is now a sure thing for the end of this calendar year. With 8.7%, it is not going to be just 0.1 change in person/house.. It's going to be 0.5-0.7 according to data from other nations... that is a minimum (21 million / 2.2) - (21 million / 2.7) = 1768k new empty houses on the supply side. Even Australia stops building now and with the same amount population increase, we will still have a severe oversupply..... that is the reality of person per house figures and the pathetic talk of so-called undersupply based on false assumptions)
 
But its different in Australia:rolleyes: We have trade with china to protect us:( errr ok we have immigation to protect us...... Well its just different in Australia;)
 
Below is an employment vulnerability heat map of Brisbane.

Personally, I don't see migration and raw materials exports propping up red area property, especially when POO goes above $2/litre.

Brisbane.jpg
 
But its different in Australia:rolleyes: We have trade with china to protect us:( errr ok we have immigation to protect us...... Well its just different in Australia;)

Not to mention the expats returning in their thousands and didn't you know its cheaper to buy then rent. :rolleyes: Oh and apparently there is no new land being built :eek: and of course because Kochie and ACA says so.
We really are different here.
 
Below is an employment vulnerability heat map of Brisbane.

Personally, I don't see migration and raw materials exports propping up red area property, especially when POO goes above $2/litre.

[

Just because they live there doesnt mean they work there and how acurate are they?

Moreton Island? 99.9% has nothing there yet the whole area is doomed

Add: I have no property in those red areas, so I must be saved, yippee

Dave
 
what over building?

Your kidding right? What rock have you been hiding under? 10% plus vacancy rates since 1982, record houses for sale, still building and you think they havent built enough houses yet:eek:


Under their assumption that person per house always go down (1.8 in 2006 and will stay the same or go down), there was no over building.... there was only sever undersupply! The so called over-building is a complete hindsight.. under the new 2.2 person per house.... sure, they have overbuilt...

So my question is that the 30-40k undersupply per annum here is based on WHAT person per house assumption? What if there is a 0.1 change in person per house here?

So you cant answer my question?

Didnt think you had anything, just making stuff up:rolleyes:

Dave
 
don't forget person/house changed from 2.6 to 2.2 from 2006 to 2008. That is 0.4 change in just 2 years with good economic situation. It can change back in worsening economic condition as well. Do you think with 2.6 person per house in 2006 (2.6 is also the OECD average), people were in unbearable living conditions that nobody wants to go back?
Do you have a link to support your assertion that person/house has fallen from 2.6 to 2.2 over 2 years. That appears to contradict the ANZ chart.

You don't need 415k people unemployed to have a 0.1 change... just a little bit pay freeze, low confidence, under-employment (no full time job) and less profit ... will make people group a bit more. In the face of GFC and a definite local recession, to think the number is not going to change is delusional.
Under-employment - possibly, the others - nah. Given the choice of moving in with the MIL or foregoing a new car every couple of yrs - I know which most would choose.[/QUOTE]
 
But its different in Australia:rolleyes: We have trade with china to protect us:( errr ok we have immigation to protect us...... Well its just different in Australia;)


:D good laugh. Theres more then one broken record i agree. I hate those with economics 101 opinions. If they were trying to learn it would be ok but many people dig a trench and hold a position based on these only ideas. Annoying to say the least
 
RBA Address to the 4th Annual Housing Congress (Thanks to sparky)


Anthony Richards said:
Another factor that should support home-building over the medium term is that we are starting from a position of some undersupply in the housing market. Although there is some uncertainty as to how large the undersupply is, I suspect it may be less than some of the estimates in the public domain.

The largest estimates of the cumulative undersupply are based on comparisons of actual completions in recent years with estimates of ‘underlying demand’ for housing. This figuring is essentially asking the following the question: Given current population growth rates, if the decline in average household size and level of demand for second houses that has occurred over recent decades had been maintained in recent years, how many new homes would we need to build? Most calculations now put ‘underlying demand’ at something like 180,000 to 200,000 dwellings per year, which means we would have needed to build significantly more homes than has actually occurred.

However, such figuring is based on simply extrapolating earlier trends and ignores the likely impact of prices on the demand for housing. Over recent decades, the cost of housing (including land) has grown faster than incomes and the cost of many other goods and services. This reflects both demand-side factors and supply-side ones. But we might expect that, at some point, the demand for housing will be affected by the higher cost of housing. For example, with housing – both owner-occupied and renter – more expensive than in the past, we might expect to see some young adults choosing to live with their parents for longer. We might expect some households to look for an extra flatmate rather than leaving a bedroom vacant. Some owners of holiday homes or second homes might have become more inclined to sell them, with those houses then occupied full-time.

So perhaps the longer-term run-up in the cost of housing is one of the reasons that we have built fewer homes in recent years than might have been expected. Now I am not saying that there is no undersupply of housing. At the very least, one can look at estimates that the aggregate nationwide rental vacancy rate is currently around 1½ per cent versus more normal levels of around 3 per cent (Graph 12). Given a rental stock of around 2½ million dwellings, a simple calculation would imply the need for about 40,000 additional dwellings to get the rental market back closer to balance.
 
Australia's person/house is at historical low -2.1/2.2 and much lower than the OECD average 2.6 - before housing crash number.
According to ABS Sept 08 figures, Australia's person/house was 2.58 in 2002 and is now at 2.48 (see p38 of ABS Demographic Stats).

According to the ABS Household Projections released in 2006, households will get even smaller. By 2026 (that's only 17 years away) they are expecting it be be down to between 2.2 and 2.3 persons per house.

ABS said:
INCREASE IN NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
The number of households in Australia is projected to increase from 7.4 million in 2001 to between 10.2 and 10.8 million in 2026, an increase of between 39% and 47%. This growth is faster than Australia's projected population growth of 25% for the same period.

Lone person households are projected to show the greatest percentage increase of all household types over the 25-year projection period. This is related to the ageing of the population and the fact that older women, in particular, are more likely to live alone than others. The number of lone person households is projected to increase by between 57% and 105%, from 1.8 million households in 2001 to between 2.8 million and 3.7 million households in 2026.

AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE
The average household size in Australia is projected to decline from 2.6 people per household in 2001 to between 2.2 and 2.3 people per household in 2026. Australia's household size (2.5) in 2011 is projected to be smaller than New Zealand (2.6) and Japan (2.6), the same as the United States of America (2.5) and Canada (2.5), and larger than England (2.2).

I'd guess an increasing population coupled with a decreasing household size, can only mean that the number of houses required has to increase.
 
Hi, don't know about the macro situation but can certainly add to the micro one.

2.6 to 2.2 applies to me too. I was living in my sister's house with 4 of us to one household in 2000. Today, the 4 of us live in 3 separate households. My sister and her husband have an apartment in Adelaide, Melbourne & Sydney. Their daughter lived in her own townhouse and then thought it was a good idea to rent out the townhouse & live in the parents' oceanfront apartment.

Didn't last 6 months. She has since bought a house at Dulwich and all 3 households are in harmony and meet occasionally.

The 0.4% who may be forced to make other arrangements - are they happy living in their relis' garage or on a couch in someone's house?

Reason not what Nature needs.

As to the immigration stats. My cousin's family just migrated to SA from Singapore. Early 40s with 2 children in school. In 5 years, they will need 2 more houses. And they can afford it too. They bring with them 7 figure net worth. He studied here in the 80s. His sister is coming later this year, also bringing with her a net worth that makes me green.

In 06, everywhere I went in Clapham, Panorama and Torrens Park, I met English visitors who told me that they were sent to buy houses ahead of their children migrating to Adelaide.

Have we built enough houses yet? I don't know.

KY
 
Back
Top