The Last Great Property Boom ???

Since the early 90's House prices have grown on average by 9% year on year. Purchasing real estate has, no doubt, been historically a solid investment. My concern is that I constantly here people making investment decisions on the assumptions that this type of growth will endlessly extend into the future. The question is; is this 9% year on year growth sustainable or have we seen the back of the last great property boom?

By using greater proportions of our take home pay to service bigger mortgages we have been able fuel strong real estate markets. If wages and houses keep growing at their observed long term growth rates we will be paying, in less than 10 years, a multiple of 15 times our average annual wage. This is simply unrealistic. In terms of debt servicing, assuming today's average of Loan to valuation Ratio (LVR) of 60%, those taking out new loans will be using about 70% of their before tax income to service their loan. Simply, this means that there will be nothing left over to pay for anything else let alone food. That's what I call, really living beyond your means.

Personal debt in Australia has been growing at over 16% year on year since the 70's. This is a dramatically higher growth rate than wages obviously. Logic would have it that this type of debt growth will slow down at some stage. Growing debt has obviously funded Australia's rapidly growing real estate markets, albeit unsustainably, given that we will be fast approaching peak debt.

Without exponentially growing debt, home buyers will have to look elsewhere if we are to fund 9% year on year growth in housing prices. Perhaps innovative lending products like shared equity mortgages will step in to provide more buying power. In this case, home buyers will have to come to terms with never owning 100% of the Australian dream but rather sharing that with Macquarie Bank for instance.

If sharing our homes with our lenders doesn't gain widespread acceptance then, perhaps we should expect property growth in the future, to be more in line with wages growth. If so Australia's last great property boom has already been and gone!

[email protected]

Posted by Michael McNamara
May 24, 2007 3:47 PM

_________-------------____________----------------___________----------

Hey all,
Would love your opinions on the above blog by Micheal. If the above is the case then why would anyone invest in property. Why would things just change and has he even taken into account inflation and higher wage increases. I am not sure but none the less this reflect a worrying thought
 
I think as long as the population growth outpaces the supply of new housing, house price will keep rising. It just means the bar for the highest loser raised to higher levels
 
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Ask yourself, why is APM selling fear? What do they have to gain?
"Come join me, I will show you the way to salvation." Subtle marketing, isn't it?

Michael
 
Just to douse the first statistic thrown around by t'other Michael's beautific blog. Back in the 1980's when studying valuation, house prices had grown at 8% since federation. In that time there had been a depression, two world wars, the Vietnam war, the Korean war, the Cuban missile crisis, a phalanx of 'police actions', several repressions, an assortment of assignations, and many other minor footnotes of history.

I trust this puts Iraq, the mineral boom and the rest of the current situation in perspective. Not to mention that unless the 'average house' is adjusted for growth in size and technological inclusions, the stats are meaningless.

Michael
 
Interesting views, but let's see if the numbers make sense.
If we consider a 4% wage increase per year in 10 years we should see
our wages increase by about 50%. So someone who earns $100K today
he should be earning $150K in 10 years time.

Plugging these figures into a loan calculator gives us about 33% increase in borrowing power.
Therefore a house worth $600K today will only be affordable in 10 years
time if it's price has not exceeded $900K and assuming the interest rates are at today's levels.

If wages rise at a faster rate or interest rates in the same period are lower than today's rates
then the situation could be very different.

IMO affordability is important but it's not the determining factor.
Demand for housing in combination with wage increases, low unemployment
and low interest rates will determine when the next boom will come.
Cheers
 
Wages growth is OK to look at, but the variance is massive with each individual, and these individuals when purchasing individual houses, dictate "the market". The market could be two people for a particular house, one a teacher employed by Govt and has just received a 4% wage increase, the other a former cafe waitress who now does the laundry at a fly in fly out mine site and has just received a 270% jump in pay. Guess who just got the house and guess who just reset "the market".

I suppose the other thing about housing affordability that hasn't been raised as yet is the woefully inadequate gross rental rate being paid by the tenants that go absolutely nowhere near to paying for the asset. When half million dollar assets are leased out for $ 170 p.w. gross, with no outgoings and no maintenance requirements, there is something seriously wrong, IMO. At some point, and I believe we are getting to that point, where nochalant Landlord's will no longer say "Oh I don't really care about the rent coming in, I'm in it for the capital growth".

The key to continued growth, once again IMO, is to drag the extremely low paying residential tenants into the real world and force them to pay a decent rental rate that covers the costs involved with providing them for a home, along with decent escalation clauses in the Leasing contracts.

Trouble is, a $ 5 week increase in rent is enough to have the Govt's, social security circle, charity organisations, crisis groups and the renters themselves screaming blue murder. We've seen that over here in Perth. Some are getting decent rental increases of late, but they are simply going from woefully inadequate up to poor nett yields. We are nowhere near good or excellent levels.

I don't think things will change in a hurry, 'cos there is massive and continual resistance to any form of rental increase.

Anyway, that's what I reckon. :confused:
 
I suppose the other thing about housing affordability that hasn't been raised as yet is the woefully inadequate gross rental rate being paid by the tenants that go absolutely nowhere near to paying for the asset.....IMO. At some point, and I believe we are getting to that point, where nochalant Landlord's will no longer say "Oh I don't really care about the rent coming in, I'm in it for the capital growth".

The key to continued growth, once again IMO, is to drag the extremely low paying residential tenants into the real world and force them to pay a decent rental rate that covers the costs involved with providing them for a home, along with decent escalation clauses in the Leasing contracts.

IMHO we as investors need to stand firm when negotiating rental increases. I know that many PM's try to take the easy way out and discourage an increase, or at best a minimal increase. I spoke to the PM of one of my IP's this week. I have just purchased the IP with a tenant in place. He is playing well below current market levels. I am insisting that he pays current market levels or else I will not renew his lease and I will replace him with another tenant.

I wonder if all investors took the hard line and just refused to accept inferior rental amounts whether the problem of low yields could gradually be addressed. Even if it means having a property vacant for a couple of weeks. I believe that any money lost in re-letting the property would soon be recovered by receiving an extra $70 a week (the amount my IP will achieve at current market values) from a new tenant.

Dazzling, I also think that yield is important as it is the part of the investment that is guaranteed. Capital Growth is dependant on a number of factors and it may or may not come to fruition.

Regards Jason.
 
Jason,

I agree entirely.

The ethical problem that I have is when Lola the laundry lady buys something with a two percent yield and then expects George the government employee to foot her stupidity with 5 times his four percent raise. The problem is that George has to live somewhere. He doesn't own a flashy car or a plasma screen telly and is just putting his kids through school. Why should he pay for Lola who seems to think that this is how it should work?

Maybe I shouldn't be a property investor................:confused:

I'm still very new at this but when I purchase, I see the rental as very important..........it's paying the mortgage. Any increase in capital growth will never be realised until the property is sold or is used for equity. In my cases the properties have been purchased with the intention of never reselling.

Because of this I understand the need to keep that rent money coming and at the highest rate possible.The quicker the property can be pushed into positive territory, then the quicker it becomes self sustaining. Seems a lot easier to do this (even at my piddling tadpole stage of understanding) from a standing start of 6/7/8 percent, than 2 percent or lower..........or is my logic flawed.

ciao

Nor
 
Wages growth is OK to look at, but the variance is massive with each individual, and these individuals when purchasing individual houses, dictate "the market". :confused:

True, and I also forgot to mention the wage increases due to professional experience.
For example in a decade (approx 1 property cycle) young professionals will probably change 2, 3 or 4 jobs and every time they change job they get an increase due to their previous work experience. So perhaps my earlier calculations will be true for a shop assistant's wages but the wages of higher educated people will increase much faster.
Cheers
 
the biggest flaw in the original proposition is that the housing supplyis not static. So concentrated premium properties can escalate way way above average wage growth, whislt new alternative stock is CREATED - and thus it needs to be recognised that what constitutes a typical median house this year will not be the same house next year.
 
Jason,

I agree entirely.

The ethical problem that I have is when Lola the laundry lady buys something with a two percent yield and then expects George the government employee to foot her stupidity with 5 times his four percent raise. The problem is that George has to live somewhere. He doesn't own a flashy car or a plasma screen telly and is just putting his kids through school. Why should he pay for Lola who seems to think that this is how it should work?

Maybe I shouldn't be a property investor................:confused:

I'm still very new at this but when I purchase, I see the rental as very important..........it's paying the mortgage. Any increase in capital growth will never be realised until the property is sold or is used for equity. In my cases the properties have been purchased with the intention of never reselling.

Because of this I understand the need to keep that rent money coming and at the highest rate possible.The quicker the property can be pushed into positive territory, then the quicker it becomes self sustaining. Seems a lot easier to do this (even at my piddling tadpole stage of understanding) from a standing start of 6/7/8 percent, than 2 percent or lower..........or is my logic flawed.

ciao

Nor

Hi Nor,

Your logic isn't flawed, and it would be ideal to achieve a higher yield when first purchasing the property.

Your example of the laundry lady above is that most likely she would have purchased the property knowing what the current rental yield is for similar properties in the area, and thus have based the decision for her purchase on this. Although this is unfortunate for the tenant, it is the reality of renting - price increases are to be expected.

It is not uncommon in residential investing for a property to be under rented. There are many reasons for this. However, when a property is sold to a new owner, the rent needs to be re-negotiated to reflect the current purchase price of the property. ie. A higher purchase price should bring about a rent increase to keep the rental in line with the market value of the property and also market rent of similar properties in the area.

Regards Jason.
 
I suppose the other thing about housing affordability that hasn't been raised as yet is the woefully inadequate gross rental rate being paid by the tenants that go absolutely nowhere near to paying for the asset. When half million dollar assets are leased out for $ 170 p.w. gross, with no outgoings and no maintenance requirements, there is something seriously wrong, IMO. At some point, and I believe we are getting to that point, where nochalant Landlord's will no longer say "Oh I don't really care about the rent coming in, I'm in it for the capital growth".

The key to continued growth, once again IMO, is to drag the extremely low paying residential tenants into the real world and force them to pay a decent rental rate that covers the costs involved with providing them for a home, along with decent escalation clauses in the Leasing contracts.

Playing devil's advocate here.
Could we not argue that the asset is overpriced, rather than the tenant paying too little?
 
Could we not argue that the asset is overpriced, rather than the tenant paying too little?

Hmmm, no I don't think you could argue that.

The reality is that the gross yield on a place like that is about 1.7%.

Even if you halved the price, the gross yield only goes up to 3.4%, still woeful.

But then, if an asset is going for 500K capex, then if you reduced it somewhat in price, there are many players still out there who would be jumping all over it and buying the house if you reduced it down into the 400's.

there are simply too many buyers, both investors and owner occupiers, who are willing to purchase these houses at these inflated prices. Hence, the "market" is there for the high priced capex.

I think there is ample evidence to point to the low rent levels being the prime factor in the low yield.

Anyhoo....this ain't my area of investment, so I could be talking out of my ring piece.
 
I wonder if all investors took the hard line and just refused to accept inferior rental amounts whether the problem of low yields could gradually be addressed.


In many areas of Sydney rents have been going up considerably for the last 6months. This is due to the limited supply of good rentals in the area (no need for investors to get together and take the hard line). 5% yield is now not out of the question in quite afew suburbs of Sydney. Limited supply will always push up demand and eventually contributes to Investors coming back into the market and starting the next boom.

IMHO the Sydney market (in the right subrubs) is already starting to pick up. I am going to try get hold of another property before the next boom and then sit back and watch the equity grow :D
 
A higher purchase price should bring about a rent increase to keep the rental in line with the market value of the property and also market rent of similar properties in the area.

Nonsense! If a person pays too much for a property, it is not the tenant's responsibility to pay for the owner's stupidity.

If someone buys a property and the current rental is below market (as in your case) then the argument for increasing the rent is fair.

Mark
 
G'day guys

Guys I work for APM

You guys have some pretty smart views.
Why don't you post on blogs.domain.com.au and respond there.

Seems you are preaching to the converted here.
Why don't you go on the domain blog and set them straight!

Cheers
 
Back
Top