<html><body>
I was fortunate enough to attend the SQM seminar last week as Louis Christopher – one of the most well respected voices in the real estate industry for his balanced assessment of market data – presented a state by state rundown of projected activity over 2014.
<a target="_blank" href="#https://www.sqmresearch.com.au/capitalcitiesreports.php">Louis predicts</a> Sydney’s established housing market will see a 15-20% ‘rapid rise’ over the course of 2014, highlighting the middle suburbs in particular to capture the overflow of demand, as inner city development constraints force consumers outwards.  
There’s been plenty of talk regarding housing affordability and the very real risk associated with an unsustainable boom in values, with some claiming – based in part on our low interest rate environment – that any mention of a concern is a mere myth.  
When asked from an audience member at the seminar if first home buyers were being crowded out of Sydney, Louis concluded they were – and indeed it would be hard to deny.  
Investor activity has dominated the Australian property market over the last 12 months or so.  Banks are bidding for buyers in a highly competitive environment, and the lion’s share of mortgage demand is being eaten up between investors and upgraders.  
A third of all new loans are with loan to value ratios of more than 80%, and 40% are on interest only terms.  Clearly investors are speculating on a continued pattern of price gains from an already high plateau – an ambitious projection.  
Under the existing financial system, inevitably, it’s none other than rising debt that fuels accelerated growth.  However, <a target="_blank" href="#https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/09/charting-the-australian-first-home-buyer-retreat/">since March 2009</a>, whilst the average first homebuyer mortgage has increased by only 1.4%, the mortgage for the market as a whole has grown by 7.9%.  
Meanwhile, first home buyers have seen their savings eroded, and as the latest ABS housing finance data outlines, wishful thinking that rising yields are pushing greater numbers into the market, has had scant effect.  
According to research by <a target="_blank" href="https://www.ratecity.com.au/">Rate City</a>, “first home buyers now account for just 11% of home loan commitments. This is below the 20 year average of 15% and has not been this low since 2004.” And whilst interest rates on their own can have little impact on price rises or falls in the near term – a long period of low rates and the dependency it invokes, can be dangerous in inelastic areas of limited supply.  
Current competition coupled with pent up demand, has done little more than push values further out of reach of a genuine entry buyer demographic.  And as complex as it may be to slowly unpick the current distortions that tie up the established market and hamper construction, the implications of not doing so, are potentially worst over the longer term.  
No one should be fooled by the rhetoric from various industry commentators concluding current inflationary gains are of no concern. Hence why we are seeing a conundrum in central banks across the globe employing "precautionary policy activism” in an attempt to cool asset inflation without hampering the broader economy by raising rates.  
<a target="_blank" href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/news/new-zealand-rba-announces-restrictions-on-mortgage-lending-for-borrowers-with-less-than-a-20-deposit/2013082064388">In New Zealand in particular it’s a point of concern</a> and not just a localised issue. House prices currently sit at record highs, with the government property valuer ‘QV’ residential index showing gains of 8.5% in the 12-month period ending August 30.  
As reporter for real estate news on Sky Business 602, Iggy Damiani pointed out to me last week that Australian banks' ownership of New Zealand’s 'big four', place them in a precarious position - currently having the highest exposure to residential mortgages in the world. Therefore asset gains, which outpace both wage growth and inflation, must be addressed.  
Even assuming low rates are assisting first home buyers, saving a deposit and sourcing a suitably affordable property is no easy task for a demographic who are often burdened with a hangover of student debt, and, in many cases, can’t conceivably buy in until they partner with a second income earner.  
With this in mind, it must be pondered what the effect will be when rates do inevitably rise, considering our household debt to income ratio remains stubbornly high, at around 148%.  
Property to some extent connects together like a flowchart. Supply is fed in from the bottom to allow those upgrading (and then downsizing) a ready market to sell into in order to make the move.  
However, when investors predominantly negatively gear into the asset class most favoured by first home buyers – inevitably resulting in inflated established property values – and the state government fails to come to the party with feasible affordable alternatives, our property wheel of upgrading and downsizing risks stagnation.  
In the near term, heated investor activity may keep everyone dancing, however over the longer term we’re losing a valuable demographic of property buyer, which will no doubt have a flow-on effect across the property chain as a whole.  
As these changes push through the generation gap, it’s fair to assess, increasing numbers will retire whist still factoring as short-term renters.  
Investors tend to hold property for extended periods of time in order to build equity – many choose to invest as part of their self-managed super funds and subsequently do not sell until retirement. Therefore the ready supply, which usually comes from initial homebuyers selling and upgrading, will start to slow.  
 
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Additionally, we have the first world problem of an aging population creating future headwinds across the economy, with <a target="_blank" href="https://archive.treasury.gov.au/igr/igr2010/report/pdf/IGR_2010.pdf">government intergenerational reports</a> forecasting the already reducing workforce participation rate, to drop to around 60% by 2050.  
Considering the predominant home buying activity takes place within the ages of 22-44, it seems reasonable to assume that there’ll eventually be proportionally greater demand from those downsizing as we progress through these buyer type changes.  
However, if the flow-on home buyer effect doesn’t follow through, the mismatch of household size comparable to property type will continue to stagnate our property buying and selling terrain, further tying down supply in the areas most want and need to reside – areas within easy commutable distance to city suburbs, jobs and essential amenities such as schools, hospitals, doctors, public transport systems and so forth.  
Therefore, the last thing we should be doing, is advocating the spruik that rising property prices are somehow good for the economy having a supposed flow on effect into retail spending, which in itself is currently not producing the desired result.  First home buyers may head out to purchase white goods and furniture for their new abode, but our investment sector certainly won’t.  
Additionally, choices are limited in a market that has been turned into a speculative terrain.  
If we were building homes that were viable for first home buyers to gain a foothold which would not only maintain consistent market demand in order to upgrade, but also provide feasible accommodation for this demographic to settle for an adequate period of time, then having an investor-dominated inner-city terrain could perhaps be balanced somewhat so as not to affect the stagnated flow of the home buyer chain.  
However, the new home options are either limited to outer-suburban estates lacking in infrastructure, which is an essential component needed at the start of each project if we’re to lure home buyers outwards, or alternatively, inner-city high-density low grade developments.  
Our census data already demonstrates that most lone person households are tottering around in accommodation that’s far too big for their requirements. Building an abundance of one-bedroom apartments therefore won’t suffice; only 14% of the total single person households of all ages opt for one-bedroom units.  We instead need a wider diversity of options, in particular, accommodation suited to families - with the decrease of ownership for this demographic showing a fall from 79.5% in 2006 to 77.2% in 2011.  
<a target="_blank" href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/residential/why-investor-activity-is-causing-our-property-markets-to-stagnate-catherine-cashmore/2013021759370">As I’ve mentioned previously</a>, the percentage of investor-owned apartments in both Darwin and Brisbane falls close to 70% – and in the other capitals, it comes in between 60 and 70%.  
And whilst this generation of existing investors may continue to enjoy short-term speculative gains of the oft quoted property cycle, since when did the future of the first home buyer market become ours to erode?  
I’ve assisted numerous first home buyers and renters over the past few years, and it’s no exaggeration many perceive the capital price of property and the risks associated with taking on a greater proportion of debt a potential liability. For those who argue based on textbook analysis that property is not over priced, I suggest they change their frame of reference. There may be historical logic behind the long-term growth in values, but this doesn’t change the consequence; it is both over priced and under supplied.  
Therefore, pressure on the rental market is unlikely to ease in the near to far future, with ABS data showing almost two-thirds of new residents from overseas are long-term property renters along with half new residents from within Australia who also class themselves within the same bracket.  
Furthermore, economic conditions such as wage growth, unemployment, consumer confidence and frequent changes of work placements all reduce the likelihood of a strengthening owner-occupier market over the next decade.  
Current policy is built around the general assumption that renting is a step on the road to ownership. However, unless the trend takes an about turn, tomorrow’s generation will hold a growing percentage of residents for which renting is for life, and as such, we also need to consider their welfare.  
Policy should be steered towards the creation of a fairer partnership between owner and renter.  This would include longer terms of tenancy, protection from exorbitant rent rises coupled with enforcement of basic standards of accommodation in both the private and public sector.  
As it stands, in the rental market, and the property buying/selling market short termism dominates.  No surprise, as we’re governed by those who derive personal and political benefit from the existing system, polling for the popular vote from home owners and investors; pinned to our flawed debt based financial system that relies on an ever inflating future to under-pin existing gains.  
 
<hr>
 Catherine Cashmore is a market analyst with extensive experience in all aspects relating to property acquisition.
 
     
</body></html>

catherinecashmore-6LXia3pPQj

The future of the first home buyer should not be ours to erode: Catherine Cashmore

<html><body>
"The home, built in 1857, had been unoccupied for years," said the report of a dilapidated Victorian-era mansion in Sydney's Balmain East.
Situated in an exclusive residential pocket next door to the Balmain East ferry wharf, and sporting bayside views of Sydney's Harbour Bridge, the 457 square metre block of land attracted 200 people to the auction, 18 registrations to bid, and sold $830,000 above the reserve to a local home buyer <a href="https://www.rebonline.com.au/breaking-news/8169-decrepit-house-fetches-millions-at-auction" target="_blank">for $2.68 million</a>.
According to <a href="/expert-insights/buying/35928-uninhabitable-crumbling-1857-balmain-east-cottage-secures-2-68-million-sale" target="_blank">Property Observer,</a> the site had been acquired in 1973 for $33,500 by the notable gay rights activist and historian, Alexander 'Lex' Watson. Watson was the president of The Pride History Group and a lecturer in Australian Politics at Sydney University who sadly passed away earlier this year after a long battle with cancer.
$33,500 in 1973 dollars would be $289,724 in real terms today – just over 10% of today's $2.68 million selling price.
The location was the key of course, with planned upgrades to the Balmain East ferry wharf, which will now receive services from the Parramatta River along with extra ferries to McMahons and Milsons Point, further enhancing its value.
Had the home been only a few kilometres away, a few hundred thousand could have been wiped off the price tag and the media sensation may not have been so great. Even so, it is not the only dilapidated property to make the press of late.
Opportunistic buyers caught up in Sydney and Melbourne's property boom have snapped up a string of empty homes, selling under stiff competition while exceeding all expectations of price.
An empty hat factory on Wilson Street, Newtown, also vacant for years, sold earlier this month for $1.725 million.
A dilapidated home on 360 square metres of land in Thornley St, Leichhardt, vacant for more than 30 years, sold a few weeks ago for $1.4 million at auction.
A home in total disrepair at 19 Durham St, Stanmore, situated on 172 square metres of land, vacant for years and sold for $923,000.
And not to leave Melbourne out, an unliveable Richmond property on 726 square metres of land, also vacant for years, <a href="/expert-insights/buying/35608-derelict-richmond-cottage-development-site-sold-at-2-544-million" target="_blank">sold for $2.544 million</a> – $900,000 above the price it achieved only two years ago (pictured above).
The <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/leichhardt-property-pulls-in-14-million-at-auction-and-tops-big-money-dump-list/story-fnd91nhy-1227006222322" target="_blank">list goes on</a>.
Barring the last example, that came with plans and permits for two town houses, these properties transacted for nothing more than their land value. However, while the buyers purchased a location, they did not pay for the services that rendered that location valuable or, in the case of the first example, compensate the local residents for suppressing access to some of the best views in town.
Instead, reinforced by inelastic zoning constraints, generous tax treatment, and unrestrained speculative growth in dwelling finance commitments, they unwittingly rewarded the sellers with a substantial unearned gain for withholding valuable land from use and depleting the nation's housing supply.
This means of 'creating wealth' common in most western nations sits at the root of many of our economic and social problems today. It has both a debilitating and destabilising effect on the economy, evidenced clearly in a painful and rising trend income and housing inequality that burdens the capacity of the 'welfare state' to compensate.
This article continues on the next page. Please click below.
 
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Interestingly, Lex Watson, the prior owner of the Balmain East property cited above, was purportedly greatly influenced by the writings of John Stewart Mill whose work was said to be "the touchstone of his life and later activism".
Born in London in 1806, John Stewart Mill is remembered as "the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century".
Inspired by his father James Mill, who tutored his nine children with daily lessons in Latin, Greek, French, history, philosophy, and politics, John Stewart Mill was a leading economist. He was a prolific logician, who dedicated his life to championing the causes of liberty and equality, while advocating 'radical' ideas, such as the abolishment of slavery and equal rights for women.
In 1848 he published the most prominent textbook on economics in the 19th century, Principles of Political Economy, critiquing systems such as communism and socialism and cementing Mill's reputation as a leading public intellectual.
Extending on the ideas set out by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, Mill employed concepts that that have been written out of today's economic narrative, that conflate land and capital – virtual opposites – while failing to distinguish between income that is 'earned' and the economic surplus that disproportionately flows to those that "love to reap where they never sowed" (a process best set out in Mason Gaffney's book The Corruption of Economics).
Writing on the moralities of taxation in Book V, Chapter II of Principles of a Political Economy Mill commented:
"The ordinary progress of a society, which increases in wealth, is at all times tending to augment the incomes of landlords; to give them both a greater amount and a greater proportion of the wealth of the community, independently of any trouble or outlay incurred by themselves. They grow richer, as it were in their sleep, without working, risking, or economizing."
From this Mill concluded that the government should collect society's economic rents in lieu of taxes that impede productive labour and industry, including taxes on the improvement and the transfer of property, (stamp duty) which he said, should rather be: "distributed over the land generally, in the form of a land-tax."
He was not the first or last to do so.
He followed a long line of influential activists, from Thomas Paine, who in his 1797 publication Agrarian Justice stressed:
"Men did not make the earth... It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land, which he holds."
Most recently, Dr Ken Henry, who chaired Australia's Future Tax System Review, noted: "... economic growth would be higher if governments raised more revenue from land and less revenue from other tax bases."
The classical economists recognised that unless profits from the 'enclosure of the commons' – land, water rights, minerals, and so forth - were effectively collected and shared for the benefit of the community, all productive gains, every improvement in society and the economy, would be capitalised into rising locational land values, enriching those that owned the assets but more so, those who created the credit and traded on the debt.
This is equally applicable to reductions in the cost of construction.
For example, news that high-density apartment towers close to public transport in Sydney, will no longer require parking facilities, delivering an estimated saving of $50,000 - $70,000 in development costs, will do little to ease affordability.
Rather, it will simply leave more funds available to bid up the price of land. This is precisely what we are seeing in Australia – sky rocketing land prices requiring 'super tall' structures to provide a viable return on investment.
This article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
While the small one and two bedroom units may be spruiked as affordable, when calculated by cost or rental value per square metre of floor space, they are remarkably expensive.
Mason Gaffney expanded on the theory, coining the acronym ATCOR – "All Taxes Come Out of Rent." Showing that whether renting or buying, total tax liabilities from whatever area carried by the consumer, deduct from the cost of a site to the extent they limit the amount a buyer is both prepared and able to pay.
It follows that the removal of all taxes would naturally wash up into higher prices for real estate, which in theory leaves the resulting rise in the economic rent of land 'just' enough to replace the forgone revenue. (For more, see Fitzgerald's Resource Rents Of Australia).
When that liability falls on productive industry, deadweight losses occur. For example, 90% of our taxes are distortionary, adding 23% to prices of goods and services.
However, when the burden falls on land and monopoly rents – minerals, fuels, the broadcasting and communications spectrum, patents et cetera, the reverse is the case.
In respect of land, a higher tax rate levied on the unimproved value would discourage leaving dilapidated homes vacant for years while we struggle with an assumed housing shortage - suppressing the speculative element that adds to the volatility of the market cycle.
Furthermore, when the gain is collected and used to fund the expansion of infrastructure in order to service a growing population, the tax base is expanded without a subsequent lift in rates.
In the 19th century, nature's 'free lunch' was largely limited to the aristocracy of the great landed estates. Today, monopoly profits are absorbed by the financial sector, which wields significant political leverage from lending 'endogenously' created credit against real estate collateral, with the compounding interest disproportionately increasing levels of household debt.
As I pointed out previously - Australia will increasingly feel the effect of this as we move into 2019.
Our current tax system is crooked. It allows large companies to jump through loop holes in legislation and 'cook the books,' shipping profits offshore, leading to an estimated $1.6 billion in tax revenue forgone, while land on the other hand, is used by investors as an effective tax haven.
This article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
In a recent post by Dr Gavin R. Putland of the Land Values Research Group, he notes:
"No matter how high your gross income may be, you can make your taxable income as low as you like, simply by buying enough negatively-geared properties. Such artificially reduced taxable incomes are used in ATO statistics on negative gearing, which are then trotted out by the property lobby as "proof" that most negative gearers aren't rich — as exposed, for example, in Michael Janda's article <a href="The%20myth%20of%20'mum%20and%20dad'%20property%20investors" target="_blank">The myth of 'mum and dad' property investors</a> (The Drum, 24 September 2014)."
Australia's economic narrative is more concerned with suppressing wages than high land values.
Joe Hockey has unashamedly stated that any rise to the minimum wage "will cost jobs" and "reduce competition," while remaining notably silent on the average CEO pay, which sits at an estimated 63 times average earnings (as at 2013), and showing scant regard for rising land values which increase the associated costs of running a business, while discouraging growth in productive industry.
It uncovers a damaging neo-liberal agenda, which will do nothing to raise the living standards for Australians struggling to make ends meet.
Meanwhile, in Germany, the house price-to-income ratio has fallen by almost a third nationally since the early 1990s, yet residents enjoy low unemployment and some of the highest wages per capita in the world – including the highest minimum wage in the world. Germany weathered the 2008 depression better than any other country in Europe by maintaining its focus on value adding growth.
The public needs to recapture the debate and push for a better set of democratic tools, that let the people decide directly on the benefits that can aid their communities, rather than the current state of affairs which is coloured with vested interest, polarising voters with false promises and flawed economic thinking.
The rise of citizen's juries, where a diverse and representative group of people are randomly selected and given the information and training needed to deliberate together on matters of policy – for the benefit of all, not just a few - limiting the power of corrupt government officials, may take us one step closer to achieving this.
Top of the agenda should be every citizen's right to affordable access to land and shelter.
 
 
</body></html>

Australia's empty homes

<html><body>
The latest affordability index by the Adelaide Bank and Real Estate Institute of Australia has once again flooded the real estate headlines with the jolly news that housing is growing ever more affordable.  
This pre Christmas gift of optimism from the newly updated affordability studies commissioned by the financial and real estate sectors, comes with a host of commentary – usually from those with a vested interest – who happily advise aspiring home owners that ‘they’ve never had it so good’ – in other words, to paraphrase Terry Ryder’s thoughts, first home buyers should <a href="/property-observer" target="_blank">‘put up, or shut up.’</a>  
Of course, it wouldn’t be half as palatable if it didn’t come accompanied with the seeming contradiction that not only is it more affordable than it’s been in the last decade (according to the HIA-Commonwealth Bank affordability index), it’s also substantially more expensive than its ever been. Yes, housing is only item than can be both affordable and unaffordable at the same time.  Work that one out Einstein.  
In fact, according to <a href="#more-3603" target="_blank">Residex</a>, median prices in both Sydney and Melbourne have already exceeded their historical highs, ‘nudging’ $750,000 in Sydney and $600,000 in Melbourne - additionally, Perth has also reached its previous peak of 2008, with a median price of $521,000.  
<a href="https://www.rpdata.com/" target="_blank">RP Data’s</a> dwelling price index shows a year to date increase of 14.3% in Sydney, 6.4% in Melbourne and 9.7% in Perth.  For home buyers, the benefit derived from lower lending rates has been all but offset by the inflationary pressure placed on prices.  
Rarely is it mentioned that housing affordability and the cost of servicing a mortgage are two separate entities.  
Mortgage rates are set up with different structures dependant on circumstance, and subject to interest rate changes influenced by the macro environment.  
To take out a 25 year mortgage requires the expectation of secure employment in a terrain where frequent job changes or part time work are becoming a norm.  
They may influence house prices through a cycle, but they do not take away the fact that home prices now – even with lower lending rates – require longer terms to pay down, with the interest over the duration of that period adding considerably to the capital cost.  
In fact I couldn’t put it any better than current governor of the Bank of England - <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/29/mark-carney-bank-of-england-home-buyer-warning" target="_blank">Mark Carney</a>, when he warns;  
“Think about the mortgage you are taking on, the debts you are taking on…You are taking at least a 25-year mortgage, maybe a 30-year mortgage.  Are you going to be able to service that mortgage five years from now, 10 years from now, if interest rates are higher? Or are you counting, even subconsciously, on the price of your house keeping going up and if something happens an ability to sell it quickly and not facing the consequences of not being able to pay?"
Carney’s cautionary words pre-empt the Bank of England’s decision to scale back its inflationary Funding for Lending Scheme amidst fears of a rapid escalation of house prices in the south-eastern regions of the country.  
From next year funding for lending will only be available for business loans -not mortgages – and if the banking sector’s concerned about signs of frothiness in an industry in which it’s heavily invested, so should we also be.  
The Bank of England governor is not alone. Central banks in Sweden, Hong Kong, Norway, New Zealand, Canada and Switzerland (to name but a few) have all adopted macro prudential measures to buffer against the associated risks of a boom/bust investor lead recovery in a post GFC environment - highlighting the importance of keeping lending standards robust – all, that is,  except Australia.  
Having weathered the impact of the GFC a little more effectively than others – the RBA seem to think we live in some magic faraway tree, effectively doing little more than wagging a cautionary finger to a sector which for the duration of the year, have outstripped owner-occupier lending with well over a third of all new loans on interest only terms and roughly the same proportion with LVRs of over 8%.  
In other words, there are still over a third of all loans in which the principle is not being reduced – with 37.3% lent on these terms for the September quarter alone.  
In NSW, investment lending is at record highs, making up over 50% of the market and although many use the well worn argument that the unwanted boom is predominant ‘only in Sydney’ – let’s not forget, Sydney is not some nether land off the coast of Tasmania. What happens in our biggest capital, with the largest and most diverse economy in Australia, inevitably impacts us all.  
Historically, this sector is more sensitive to interest rate changes with a tendency to wax and wain pro cyclically with market movements, exaggerating both gains and falls.  A housing recovery built on the back of small mum and dad investors pouring their money predominantly into negatively geared established dwellings – especially considering our current levels of private debt to income ratios - is not ideal for the long term the stability of our housing market, or house prices.  
The common Aussie term ‘spruiking’ - which APRA warns against in the self-managed super sector, is not only a contributing aspect of what inspires our culture to see property as the undiversified road map for building wealth for retirement – it is also part and parcel of what has kept our property prices high by both local and international standards.  Yet the risks associated with spruiking in SMSFs is simply the tip of a much larger iceberg.  
Having worked in many aspects of the housing industry, I have seen first hand the type of material that’s presented at seminars not just from those who receive under the table commissions from developers, but also from advocates working as independent advisors for either the seller or buyer.  
It really isn’t unusual to see slides presented at seminars with straight lines charting the difference between investing in properties that supposedly “grow” at steady 5% per annum, compared to those that grow at 10%, using historical median data as ‘evidence’ that future returns can replicate those achieved in the past, without any distinction of how such data is correlated or the difference between individual “house prices” and “median values.”  
This information borders on financial advice and comes with no mention of risk or the type of rigorous analysis, which you would reasonably expect when choosing to invest in a single asset.  
Another widely used industry favourite is the statement;  
“FACT: fewer than 5% of properties are investment grade”  
A myth if ever there was one.  Perhaps the well-known companies that use this as an advertising tool, would like to point to the person who researched every property in Australia to correlate such a statistic? Maybe we could also ask for a comprehensive definition of what ‘investment grade’ really is – because I guarantee there would be no shortage of differing opinions from industry ‘experts.’  
This endless promotion of residential property, with rows of investment magazines lining newsagency shelves, promoting subjective ‘hotspots,’ or as I <a href="https://catherinecashmore.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/do-we-have-a-changing-landscape-concerning-australian-real-estate-and-property-prices/" target="_blank">pointed out</a> a few weeks ago, agencies cold calling households, and sending ‘advisors’ round to ‘educate’ and encourage inexperienced investors to negatively gear against their principle place of residence, is toxic.  
Article continues on next page. Please click below.
 
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Meanwhile, the RBA continue to sit on their hands, not wanting to pull a regulatory lever, instead <a href="https://www.afr.com/rw/2009-2014/AFR/2013/09/25/Photos/160229d4-2585-11e3-bbca-a7ec88bfff7c_FSR.pdf" target="_blank">warning</a> investors to employ caution, hoping they will fall into line like a bunch of good school kids. However, whilst macro prudential tools may assist in ensuring banking lending standards remain robust – can they have any long-term sustainable or lasting impact on property prices?  
In a recent research paper by BIS (Bank for International Settlements), entitled <a href="https://www.bis.org/publ/work433.pdf" target="_blank">“Can non-interest rate policies stabilise housing markets?”</a>, evidence was gathered from 57 countries spanning more than three decades, investigating the effectiveness of nine non-interest rate policy and macro prudential tools on restraining credit growth and house prices.  
The analysis used a new dataset going as far back as 1980, making it the most comprehensive study to date in terms of both scope and time span.  
The paper concluded that whilst reductions in the maximum LTV (loan to value) ratio can restrain demand, its effects can be partially or wholly offset by a rising market enabling the investor to borrow more, therefore, changes in the maximum DSTI (debt service to income) ratio were assessed to be more substantial.  
But importantly;  
“Only tax changes affecting the cost of buying a house, which bear directly on the user cost, have any measurable effect on prices” and,  
“None of the policies designed to affect either the supply of or the demand for credit has a discernible impact on house prices.”
The study puts this down to the ‘can buys’ still outnumbering the growing pool of credit constrained ‘can’t buys’ – stressing that the importance of housing supply was not explicitly considered. Therefore if we want to lower house prices or put in place policies to aid affordability, we need to look outside the limited powers of the RBA alone.  
As has been proven <a href="https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/1/21/national-affairs/built-backs-first-home-buyers" target="_blank">time and time again</a>, intermittently stoking at the bottom end of the market with FHB grants and incentives does little more than provide a short term happy pill for vendors, as the price multiplier effect ripples across the rest of the housing terrain, stimulating both an inflationary and volatile environment.  
Instead, we need to focus on the real problem in Australia – and it’s not property prices, it’s land prices - as economist <a href="https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/11/residential-land-values-reflate-across-australia/" target="_blank">Leith Van Onselen effectively points out</a> when he analyses the difference between commercial and rural land compared to residential land values, and building costs.  
“Whilst commercial and rural prices have remained relatively stable over the last 24 years relative to GDP, residential prices have skyrocketed.”  
In other words, the cost of residential fringe land, which without constraint, should be close to its ‘raw’ value, is not cheap at all – and it’s all down to ineffective urban planning policy.  
As I (<a href="https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/12/englobo-the-shady-world-of-land-banking/" target="_blank">and others</a>) have pointed out previously, even within a wide expansive boundary as mooted in Melbourne’s new urban growth strategy, the government limits land use until they have gone through a lengthy process of mapping out areas for infrastructure known as a ‘<a href="https://www.gaa.vic.gov.au/precinct-structure-plans/" target="_blank">Precinct Structure Plan’</a> (PSP) – it is a slow laborious process and as soon as you restrict the supply of anything, scarcity inevitably inflates values.  
Larger developers are not slow to purchase swathes of acreage prior to rezoning, and then once PSPs have been finalised, drip feed it onto the market. Not only do government bodies have little understanding of how released plots respond to consumer demand, they have no policy in place to deter the practice. It’s therefore a failure.  
Furthermore, facilitation of infrastructure is currently financed via hefty development overlays, which are passed onto the buyer rather than initiatives such as bond financing, where residents pay back proportionally over a lengthy period of time, as was the case historically.  
We must remove these barriers with effective policy and let land prices revert back to normal levels to reflect a real price closer to commercial values.  
Without doing so, we can’t gain a true indicator of the trade-off buyers are prepared to make between price and distance. Currently, the average price of a newly built house and land package is around $400,000, this is not serviceable on the single median wage, and therefore can hardly be deemed affordable.  
Get the land supply, price, and infrastructure equation right and I suspect there would be no lack of demand from genuine aspiring home buyers.  Only when this is done, can we have a truly transparent debate on first home buyers’ willingness to spread over the land.  
 
<hr>
 Catherine Cashmore is a market analyst with extensive experience in all aspects relating to property acquisition.
 
 
 
 
</body></html>

Can housing really be affordable and unaffordable at the same time?

<html><body>
If you’re waiting for someone to fly a flag when we hit the bottom of the market, think again: life doesn’t afford such luxuries. By the time people realise the market has bottomed out, it’s because it’s started on the upward curve and opportunity has passed! A bit like the gold rush; as soon as word gets out, the herd mentality kicks in, and it’s a difficult force of nature to resist.
So what is happening with our market? Some would suggest this is a typical market cycle. However, look a little deeper and a rather different picture is painted.  Market downturns are usually accompanied by various factors such as interest starting to flatten out, job insecurity, high unemployment, poor wage growth, population decline, large supplies of stock, and all manner of other triggers in different areas of the property market.
However, Australia isn’t suffering any of these. In fact, on the face of it, the picture looks enviably rosy.
 
<ul>
<li>Turnover in Melbourne is not markedly down. It’s trailing a little from this time last year, however, compared to 2008 and 2009 we’re ahead, indicating a steady stream of buyers and sellers. </li>
<li>Unemployment has been below 5% since last year, and although some areas are suffering more than others, the general outlook is excellent. </li>
<li>Our interest rates, although not low, are not high either – and no one would argue our population is falling.</li>
<li>The RBA has happily announced we’re saving more, and paying down our debts, and despite continuous complaints against the cost of metropolitan real estate, the debt servicing ratio is just 21%. Indeed, more than half of us are apparently paying down our loans faster than we need to.</li>
<li>Furthermore, wage growth is relatively firm, and household income was growth strong in the March quarter, according to the RBA</li>
</ul>
 
Nevertheless, the face is often very good at contradicting what’s emotionally within, and if truth be known, confidence is anything but robust.  We don’t need an interest rate hike – the RBA is doing a good job of making us err on the conservative side with a mere hint at it.
We all know bills are going to increase, but by how much is annoyingly uncertain.  And furthermore, anyone with investments in the stock market will be looking closely at the current international tremors and not liking the aftershocks.
We’ve all heard the news surrounding the Greek economy and its effect on Europe; America on the point of further demise; and possible warnings of a ‘hard landing’ in major players our side of the Pacific which could, some suggest, contribute to a ‘commodity crash’. However, if you think we’ve started on a downward-sloping curve, be warned: you may miss the boat.
We have a largely discretionary market. The evidence above suggests most vendors don’t ‘need’ to sell – especially if they don’t get their price.  They’re happy to sit it out and wait for better times.
Mortgage brokers have reported a large increase in the number of pre-approvals, hinting that there are plenty of buyers hovering in the starting blocks. The supply-demand argument continues to be a testy debate, but however many houses are built in the outer suburbs of our best performing cities, in far off lands away from the convenience of public transport and amenities, or high-rise, small one and two bedroom apartment blocks which are hardly an attraction for home buyers (nor fit into the typical first home buyer price range, or meet lending requirements). Stock located in areas where people want to live is certainly not in abundance.
Therefore, it’s unreasonable to suggest that real estate will keep dropping in price in the top third of suburbs of those areas driven fundamentally by supply/demand. However, outer-suburban locations, and poor high-rise accommodation heading into oversupply, may sing a different tune altogether and continue to suffer low demand.
With this in mind it’s important to note how dangerous it is to paint the whole real estate market with sweeping statements of downturns – or upturns. Every area must be assessed on its merit – hence many suburbs have shown a rise in median value over the first quarter, while other areas have dropped back to 2008 levels.
In short, the only thing we’re waiting for before the market swings upwards once again is the spark that’s going to inject confidence and an element of security into buyer psychology. However, waiting for that spark is not a wise thing for any investor to do if they want to purchase at the bottom! Have we hit the bottom yet? No one can make that call quite so soon – but if we haven’t, it’s not far away.
 
Catherine Cashmore is senior buyer advocate for JPP Buyer Advocates – the largest dedicated buyer advocacy service in Victoria. With extensive experience in all matters regarding real estate, JPP successfully purchases and negotiates more than $100 million worth of property each year. <a href="https://www.jpp.com.au/">www.jpp.com.au</a>
</body></html>

Waiting for 6 o’clock on the property watch? You may be too late

<html><body>
It seems we’re in for a “spring of discontent”. The release of the long-awaited carbon tax details were intended to produce an element of certainty. It’s been spruiked as a simple effective plan ensuring pollution is reduced “at the lowest cost to the economy”, with a large spoon of sugar for us “ordinary folk” designed to sweeten the pain and lessen any complaints. The question is simply one of trust. As any good sales rep understands, you don’t sell the product, you sell trust. And let’s be honest – with questions and retaliations flying from the right and left, we’re doing little more than swimming against a tide of economic uncertainty.
There’s a good degree of wisdom behind the saying “seeing is believing”, because until the model has been tested, tax cuts granted, bank accounts debited and credited, no one is going to fully grasp the implications of this policy or believe the spruiked outcome. The economic model produced by Treasury already has a large question mark because there has been little, if any, consultation with companies in control of dictating price rises, and now we find the results were modelled on a $20 per ton estimate, not the $23 per ton reality. The truth is, no one really knows how much prices will rise – and more importantly, it seems the majority have little trust in those who sit at the controls.
It’s inevitable that the cost of building will increase, and as a consequence, be passed onto the purchaser.   HIA has estimated an increase of roughly $6,000 to the average house-and-land package – and this doesn’t begin to factor in providing internal facilities such as fridges, furnishings and other such essentials. Even with the tax benefits, first-home buyers will be hit hard. It’s been suggested that prices may increase in Canberra’s market as staff recruited to administer the new “tax” place extra demand on the inner city ring supply. Across the rest of the market affordability and consumer sentiment will continue moderate price rises, and as a consequence the rental sector will likely continue to fall under high demand. Gross yields across Australia have already risen to 5% (according to RP Data), and predictions point to a further increase.
However, whether fear and uncertainty will keep us in the atmosphere of what has widely been spruiked as a “buyer’s market” is questionable. Lending to home buyers rose 4.4% in May after a 4.6% rise in April, agents are starting to report dwindling stock supplies, and the seasonal change from winter to spring will likely result in a greater optimism as the traditional buying season commences. It could be the first light on the horizon for vendors, many of whom have been forced to moderate expectation if they wanted to sell during the first half of 2011.
The arguments surrounding the carbon dioxide tax, should not focus on the scientific evidence, but rather the policy changes we’re facing. Although everyone has a desire to reduce harmful emissions and create a better world for future generations, we have a natural adherence to authoritative dictation on how we should conduct our lives. It’s fair to suggest that any reduction in carbon emissions will result in some element of short-term pain and therefore not be popular – but the question mark should be over how much pain our largest employer (small business) can take.
The RBA has already indicated that interest rates will most likely remain flat, indicating we’re suffering tighter economic conditions than previously expected as we lead into the second half of the year, however none of this is likely to provide much assistance to home buyers.
Our worm’s-eye view is hardly going to present us with the answers we require, however we’ve had flat interest rates since December 2010, continued low rates of unemployment, strong growth in the wage sector, and the effects of the commodities boom will soon be felt. Although we’re not looking at sharp price rises any time soon, and caution will prevail, rising rents and population increases in the inner- and middle-ring suburbs of our most populous cities will keep the property wheel turning – and over the long term, prices rising.
We’re already starting to see small upswings in the property market as the shift between supply and demand gradually moves in favour of the seller. With education and guidance it’s possible to purchase well in any market, however it’s always preferable to enter in while negotiation is taking place behind closed doors, rather than in the public arena of “deepest pockets wins”.
There will be some interesting times ahead.
Catherine Cashmore is a senior property adviser and buyer advocate for <a href="https://www.jpp.com.au" title="JPP" target="_blank" style="outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; outline-color: initial; text-decoration: underline; color: #6888b1;">JPP Buyer Advocates</a> – the largest dedicated buyer advocacy in Melbourne. With extensive experience in all matters regarding real estate, JPP successfully purchases and negotiate more than $100 million worth of property each year for clients.
</body></html>

Now is the spring of our discontent

<html><body>
Surprised by The Block result at the weekend? Well, don’t be. This is the new face of Melbourne’s auction market, and it’s not expected to change in the short term. Auctions don’t just need bidders – they need “confident” bidders, and confidence – as we’re all aware – is not in abundance at present.
But then Channel 9 never intended this to be a program focusing on the state of our current real estate market. The houses weren’t picked to make a profit on initial investment. After all, the homes are opposite a car park, in the shadow of the commission flats, with no off-street parking, average floor plans, and aside from the standard of renovation, they didn’t present any real competition to other better-located period properties in and around the surrounding area. The original intention for 37-43 Cameron Street, Richmond was a block of flats, and although this would have produced better returns on the land, Channel 9 had an idea that would ensure a much better profit if they kept the original homes.
This was a huge success for Watercress productions. The advertising attracted thousands to the open homes and the ratings were tremendous. No doubt they would have made a healthy profit from their sponsors, and overall it was a big hit. However, for those interested in property investing it highlighted a few important lessons we can all take on board.  Firstly, anyone thinking it’s easy to get rich quick from “flipping” will now I hope understand that this is not the case. Building wealth from property only safely works when incorporated into a long-term plan. Secondly, contrary to popular belief, most homes listed for auction sell via negotiation either before or after the auction.
This is particularly prevalent in a flat market – and very much the trend in our current Melbourne market.  Melbourne’s clearance rate this weekend came in slightly higher than previous weeks at 60%, however this percentage includes all properties that were sold before and on the day via pass in negotiation – and from my own experience this is the majority not minority.
So it was therefore no surprise to see only two of The Block homes sell on Sunday night (one under the hammer and another via negotiation) and – as is typically the case with passed in properties – I expect the remainder will sell over the next couple of weeks. However, with low confidence, and stock levels not producing an abundance of quality property to really inspire purchasers to part with their cash, the key to securing a good deal is firmly focused on a buyer’s ability to assess a home’s true value and successfully negotiate the purchase. It’s impossible to teach negotiation without employing practical experience. However, if you want to place yourself in the box seat, arm yourself with as much information as possible.  Here are a few tips to help along the way.
<ul>
<li>There are three numbers involved in real estate negotiation, and it’s important to get a rough idea of each before you formulate your negotiation strategy. What’s the property worth to you (market value + intention of use – is it an investment or your home for the next 20 years)?  What’s it worth to the vendor – (where’s the vendor’s expectation? Are they expecting a premium due to a costly renovation)?  What’s it worth to other buyers – (how fierce is the competition)? The first question is easy; however the other two will take more assessment. Start to gather information early, because the answers will help you assess the timing of your offer.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Try to establish why the vendor is selling. The agent may not be forthcoming if you ask directly, however questions such as “What settlement suits your vendor?” can give clues.  A longer settlement may signify they have not yet bought, while a shorter settlement may indicate they’re under time constraints to secure a deal. Vendors will sometimes accept a lower price if settlement terms are favourable – especially if they’ve purchased elsewhere.  Use the information wisely. </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Note the property’s appearance. If the home is vacant (previously tenanted), you can assume it’s owned by an investor and they’ll probably preference a quick deal.  Going in with a lower price sweetened by a short settlement may be the way to proceed. However, if the house has been professionally furnished with show home written all over it, vendor expectation is likely to be high and they’re unlikely negotiate at the bottom end of the price range, especially at the beginning of the sale process.  In this circumstance, should you want to make a pre-auction offer, wait until the last week of the campaign, during which the selling agent will have hopefully tapered vendor expectation to meet the market.  There are many options and shades of grey, but above all, timing is crucial, so think before you act. </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The longer a house has been on the market, the greater the pressure to lower price.  Look for those properties that have been hanging around for a while. Some houses don’t sell because they’re poorly located and don’t represent quality; however others may not have been marketed well or presented in an attractive manner. The latter can often present the best opportunity for a savvy buyer to pick up a bargain. </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>There’s always potential for multiple offers, especially if a house stands out from the crowd. Talk to the agent and ask him to keep you informed if he gets an offer in writing.  Nothing can be done until the vendor statement is available so request a copy to be e-mailed as soon it arrives. Find out how the sales agency handles multiple offers.  Some agencies only take a “best foot forward – one shot” approach. Others will favour the buyer who makes the first move by giving them a chance to increase their bid if someone offers more.  Don’t be afraid to ask questions. </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>If you love the home the priority is to secure the property within budget, rather than risk being gazumped with lengthy negotiation. In this circumstance preparation is the key – get the documentation checked, building inspection done, and your finance in place before you make a move.  An unconditional offer strengthens the chance of acceptance over a higher offer with conditions attached. </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Consider employing a professional to negotiate on your behalf. One of the first lessons in negotiation is to place a “buffer” between you and the other party.  This takes emotion out of the equation and provides you with valuable thinking time while your advocate deals with the usual tricks selling agents employ. Don’t be afraid to pay for experience in order to potentially save thousands on price. </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Finally don’t worry if you miss out because someone paid more.  Use the knowledge you gathered to help assess other homes on the market, and feel assured you’ll be better prepared next time.</li>
</ul>
Catherine Cashmore is senior buyer advocate for JPP Buyer Advocates – the largest dedicated buyer advocacy service in Victoria. With extensive experience in all matters regarding real estate, JPP successfully purchases and negotiates more than $100 million worth of property each year. <a href="https://www.jpp.com.au/">www.jpp.com.au</a>
</body></html>

Eight lessons to learn from The Block's lacklustre auction

<html><body>
As we look to what's ahead for 2012, Property Observer is republishing some of our most noteworthy stories of 2011.
 
The stream of extreme bullish and bearish views regarding the real estate market adopts the guise of a political contest.
Those of us working in the industry are constantly accused of talking up the market for our own ‘greedy’ ends. On the other end of the spectrum are the ‘bubble’ doomsday pundits, who are so determined to see our market suffer an American style crash and shoot down the drain, they hang onto any bit of negative data they can lay their hands on.
The real truth is neither bearish nor bullish, but in many respects overwhelmingly predictable.
Most Australians recognise the beauty and quality of lifestyle we’re privileged to experience in comparison to many other countries. It’s the reason our major cities top the list of the world’s most liveable destinations.
However, debate is rife concerning our rapidly increasing population, simply because our infrastructure in major metropolitan areas is woefully over-capacity. We don’t have enough accommodation in the areas where people want to live, so is it any wonder we continue to see inner-city property cycles of unsustainable booms, followed by flat periods of pain and grief, for potential buyers who can’t afford a foot in the door?
Real estate has always seemed unaffordable and overpriced to first-home buyers – a simple search through newspaper archives will teach you this.
However, as the metropolitan belt tightens, it’s fast becoming a split between ‘those who can’ and ‘those who can’t’. In short, any single person on an average wage fighting to save a deposit will find they’re limited to regional locations with sparse amenities, or high-rise inner-city rabbit hutches which banks are not all that keen to lend on.
Is it any wonder fewer first home buyers are entering the market? The incentive to scrimp and save for a deposit is only there when the reward is achievable.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and Sustainable Population Minister Tony Burke, recently commented that Australia's most densely populated cities, Sydney and Melbourne, have reached their ''carrying capacity''.
This could have been a political ploy to gain kudos in the polls – after all, there’s huge consensus to cap Australia’s population, but it would be interesting to debate how we intend to achieve this.
Australia is one of the least densely populated countries in the world. It’s not good enough to protest that much of the land isn’t arable when we’ve already proved our ability to adapt to different terrains and climates. Although we may be able to slow our growth, we can’t single-handily stop it any more than we can single-handily stop climate change! People are going to keep coming, and a consistent fertility rate alone will see a population of 29 million by 2050.
Therefore, unless we look outside the square and find real, feasible options for an increasing number of buyers who can no longer afford to purchase, we’ll see tremendous pressure on rental accommodation and our market will become an investor’s domain.
Increasing stock supply is not the ‘simple’ answer to this equation, if it is to be located where commuting time will outweigh any savings made.   Increasing inner-city density is well and good, however, as any first home buyer knows, banks place strict criteria on the type and size of property they’ll lend against.
Many of the Manhattan-style high-rise developments (supposedly built to ease home buyer pain) don’t come close to filling the necessary criteria.
At about $290,000 – the average loan for a first home buyer – it’s all but impossible to purchase something in a metro location that will provide a decent stepping stone for future advancement.
Anyone experienced in property investing knows the number one consideration for home buyers is proximity to public transport. Schools are also high on the list.
We have to face the stark reality that our population cannot be ‘capped’, but neither should we feel like factory-farmed chickens squashed into metropolitan areas where housing is reserved for ‘those who can’.
By 2013 Australia will be the only continent without any high speed rail! A high-speed network linking regional locations would see commuting times to the nearest CBD from as little as 20 minutes and open a wide range of affordable options for homebuyers.
Unless we start understanding extra roof space is not the answer to sustainable population without serious commitment to improving transport systems, we can expect the house hunting-pain of ‘those who can’t’ to get progressively worse.
Catherine Cashmore is senior buyer advocate for <a target="_blank" href="https://www.elitebuyeradvocates.com.au/">Elite Buyer Advocates</a>. With extensive experience in all matters regarding real estate, Elite Buyer Advocates purchases and negotiates more than $100 million worth of property each year for its clients.
 
 
</body></html>

Catherine Cashmore

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News