Negative gearing

<html><body>
The Australian property debate has never been as interesting, given we are on the precipice of change – and the politicians don’t like it, either. 
Take the negative gearing debate, which has been quite fast and furious of late. The catalyst for the first time was that both major parties had to declare what their positions were, and was there a slight chance of reform? Previously, when any policy topics were discussed they were usually framed with the standard “no comment”. The major difference today is that the electorate demands a more exacting policy position from the major parties. This is good debate.
This week, myself and many other property commentators were left with egg on our respective faces when the 2012/13 Australian Taxation Office figures identified that tax breaks claimed for rental properties fell from $13.8 billion in 2011/12 to $12.0 billion.
 This reduction was attributed to the fall in interest rates, although I am not so sure that was a major contributing factor. On 1 July 2012, the cash rate was 3.50% and by 30 June 2013 it had fallen to 2.75%, although we do know that the property investor surge really started to accelerate after June 30, 2013. And since then the cash rate has now fallen 0.50%, so on that basis for 2013/14 we can expect a further reduction in negative gearing tax breaks? I’m not so sure, but it’s a very weak argument, citing low interest rates, given we currently find ourselves with an historically low cash rate.
The conversation that really needs stepping up is housing affordability and finding the right balance, which for starters means building significantly more residential properties. 
Cue the NSW Government's <a href="https://strategies.planning.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/Documents/1_Draft_Metro_Intro.pdf" target="_blank">Vision for Sydney 2031</a> which tackles how Sydney’s bulging population growth needs to be better managed, and that simply means re-zoning existing properties and replacing them with high-rise developments. 
The only problem is convincing the respective councils to adopt these policies, which is a major stumbling block given most councils within the Sydney CBD are against such developments – which explains why the NSW government wants to merge councils to break this deadlock.
For example, the plan is for Mosman council to approve approximately 6,000 new developments over the next 16 years, which works out at about 400 new properties each year. Depending on whether your local council has a strong transport infrastructure such as a train line, this could be much higher. Councils have been crying poor for years so it remains quite dumbfounding why they would resist an additional 400 new rate payers per annum in Mosman, for instance. It does not cost them anything as the developer is wearing the costs, however historically councillors are concerned about re-election, and being pro-development is not a good look in a community.
For those very reasons it makes sense why the councils should be amalgamated given Sydney’s population is well ahead of earlier predictions. It is a very hard debate to balance given the NSW government is the sole arbitrator on this decision and its Vision for Sydney 2031 clearly demonstrates how paramount new developments are, as well as the benefits courtesy of land tax and stamp duty.
If we use the Mosman example, all new developments these days are a mixture of retail on the ground floor then a few floors of commercial then residential above. The reason for this combination is that where possible there needs to be a formula that encourages a 24 hour activity to drive small businesses in the community. The commercial and retail keep the hive of activity going during the day and the residential occupants take over after work.
So if Mosman requires 400 new developments each year and each new development averages out at approximately 25 apartments then Mosman, to meet these guidelines, will need to be building approximately 16 such developments for the next 16 years.
Well you can already start seeing the Not In My Backyard protests gathering momentum, although there is very little that can be done, given this is the NSW Government mandate, and they just so happen to be the sole decision maker on this topic for conversation.
What makes this even more intriguing is whether or not the Federal government will amend the foreign ownership purchasing off-the-plan rules?
When the NSW government succeeds with this massive infrastructure drive the costs of apartments will start to decline given the markets will be faced with an over-supply which then delivers more affordable housing with lower rents for tenants.
A great plan in theory, but will it succeed?
</body></html>

robertsimeon-hRNTwJyXkQ

Lots of positives from discussing negative policies: Robert Simeon

<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>

catherinecashmore-6LXia3pPQj

Australia's empty homes

<html><body>
If one was looking for a single word that is missing from the ongoing property debate, look no further than 'perspective'.
Some are looking at the property market from a perspective that has lead them to a conclusion which is totally and completely wrong.
Investors have got it completely right given (in the case of Sydney) we are suffering from a chronic undersupply which explains why the vacancy rate in a 10 kilometre radius from the CBD has sat below 2% for the best part of a decade.
Never before have we seen a better time to convene an inquiry into the Australian real estate markets because nobody has an accurate perspective as to what is actually happening. Earlier this year I was one of the first to write that something was not right with the influx of overseas buyers.
This brought about an inquiry (that is still going) although it has exposed the Australian Foreign Investment Board (FIRB) to be in total disarray.
Last week, Federal MP Kelly O'Dwyer told ABC Lateline:
"What we've found out though, through the evidence that our committee has received, is that these rules have simply not been enforced through prosecution since 2006 by the FIRB. I think there has been a failure of leadership of the FIRB on this. I think they have dropped the ball. I think if we have rules in place, those rules need to be properly enforced. That is the only way we can give confidence to the Australian people that our foreign investment framework's working as it should. So we would be looking to tighten up exactly what occurs in terms of enforcement penalties that can be applied, but also to make sure that FIRB is doing its job."
Well it's very clear that FIRB have not been doing their job, so in the meantime Ms O'Dwyer should be introducing a temporary ban on all overseas purchases until such time that the government can fully determine how big this matter is.
In my opinion there is no better person qualified to chair the inquiry than Bill Moss who is a former Macquarie Group banker and head of property. Speaking to The Weekend Australian, he said:
"This is the first (property) cycle we've seen where there's a deregulated global market,where capital is free to flow from Asia to Australia. We have a free floating dollar, equity makers are global and now our residential markets are going the same way."
The major concern in Australia is that nobody knows just how many properties have been acquired given nobody has a perspective as to the exact number.
Although, negative gearing presents a much bigger problem in the Australian property markets than overseas investors.
Another person who must be appointed to an inquiry is Saul Eslake, who this week called on Canberra to put an end to negative gearing for new investors as the best way to dampen frothy property markets in Sydney and Melbourne.
It should be noted that he referred to them as 'frothy' not a 'bubble'. He accepts that it is not politically feasible to abolish negative gearing because around 15%of voters are currently taking advantage of negative gearing – which explains why no politician should participate in the inquiry given they have vested interests.
Australian investors are smart and can sense a change to the property tax landscape in Australia, which I pointed out <a href="robert-simeon/36284-a-broken-system-investors-are-laughing-all-the-way" target="_blank">last week</a>.
It is important to note the recommended measures are nothing more than temporary until such time that the government can get a correct perspective on the Australian property markets.
Bill Moss went on to say in his interview that our housing markets were better tackled at a state or local government level, with the federal government or the Reserve Bank of Australia's (RBA) macro prudential tools such as restricting how much banks can lend to investors. "Rather than react to what's happening, what the government needs to do is understand what is going to happen."
The interview keeps getting better, when he commented that "governments should look how to make money from a real estate bubble."
In my opinion, overseas buyers should be paying a much higher Stamp Duty and a Vacancy Tax for all properties where the owners decide to landbank by locking them up. All these taxes should be flowing into new infrastructure strategies.
The problem is that governments have neither perspective nor understanding about real estate machinations. So they need to establish an inquiry to better understand what exactly is going on as against merely flying from the seats of their pants.
 
</body></html>

The new 'P' in property is perspective

<html><body>
<div>It's quite commonly argued that if dwelling prices aren't rising then investors will rush to the exits in order to sell their properties, particularly those recording net rental losses. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>It was a popular but flawed argument in 2011 too, come to think of it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, while a significant number of new negatively geared investors in Sydney and Melbourne are making painful losses right now - some of them by design, even! - most investors are not, particularly in the prevailing low interest rate environment. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is partly because cash flows on investment property generally improve over time, with only a small share of the total number of investment property owners having bought their asset in the past year. It is also partly because the losses reported by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) include non-cash costs, which aren't incurred annually by the owner. Reported losses
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Superficially it would appear that a high proportion of investors are losing a good deal of cash, with more than 1.25 million taxpayers claiming net rental losses in FY2014, the most recent tax year for which detailed figures are available to date. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="/images/2016/05/25/NG4.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div class="separator"><img src="/images/2016/05/25/NG4.jpg" alt=""></div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, all is not quite as it first appears.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One of the reasons for this is that non-cash costs (specifically capital works and depreciation allowances) account for a goodly chunk of the reported losses. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Indeed through increased awareness capital works claimed have increased substantially by 42 per cent since FY2011 to $2.7 billion.</div>
<a href="/images/2016/05/25/NG2.jpg" target="_blank"> Click to enlarge</a>
<div class="separator"><img src="/images/2016/05/25/NG2.jpg" alt=""></div>
<div class="separator"> </div>
<div>This has been one of the contributing factors in reducing the average net rental loss by 64 percent since 2008, although of course the predominant influence has been falling interest rates. </div>
<a href="/images/2016/05/25/NG3.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<div class="separator"><img src="/images/2016/05/25/NG3.jpg" alt=""></div>
<div>
 Example As an example of why most informed investors for whom cash flow is a key consideration need not consider selling even if house prices are stagnant for a period of time - or even falling - refer to the below hypothetical example of a two year old house bought recently by an investor in Brisbane.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After the mortgage interest repayments and other cash holding costs the investor is making a small loss of a couple of hundred bucks in the first year. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yet because the house is relatively new the depreciation and capital allowances deductions are generous, allowing him or her to record a significant loss on their lodged tax return, thereby saving significant tax at their marginal rate. Note that since tax is saved at the marginal rate, this strategy is particularly beneficial to higher rate taxpayers. </div>
<a href="/images/2016/05/25/NG1.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/05/25/NG1.jpg" alt=""> The depreciation and capital allowances are clearly beneficial to the investor in this example.
<div>Although the land component does not qualify for a capital works or a decline in value deduction, the total capital works and plant and equipment deduction claimable over 40 years might be around half of the total purchase price of the property (in this case, ~$360,000). 
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The ATO provides a detailed list of depreciable items in its Rental Properties Guide document.</div>
<div>
Observations This is rarely well understood in market analysis, in all likelihood because much of the commentary railing against negative gearing is naturally enough undertaken by folk that have never owned a rental.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The above example highlights a few things to me. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Firstly, for investors wanting a strong cash flow or to reduce their tax liability, nearly new or newly renovated properties can be attractive for their depreciation benefits, particularly houses. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Secondly, even if house prices are flat or fall for a period of time the investor in the example above is unlikely to be motivated to sell, particularly having already paid a lump sum of stamp duty and when considering the other entry and exit transaction costs. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>And thirdly, it seems obvious to me that (although I'm not campaigning for them myself) if it were deemed necessary there are a raft of potential avenues to tweak tax legislation to make property investment less attractive without taking a sledgehammer to the market. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
PETE WARGENT is the co-founder of <a href="https://allenwargent.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">AllenWargent</a> property buyers (London, Sydney) and a best-selling author and <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">blogger</a>. 
His latest book is <a href="https://www.bigskypublishing.com.au/Books/General-Interest/Four-Green-Houses--and-a-Red-Hotel/1015/productview.aspx" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Four Green Houses and a Red Hotel</a>.
</div>
</body></html>

pwargent-M4siyDbqQY

Property investor average net loss reduced by 64 percent since 2008: Pete Wargent

<html><body>
When you start to see politicians debating tax changes you should be afraid – very afraid. We know with the negative gearing debate that neither party has completed any costings preferring to work from the economic theory of guesstimates.
This is a very dangerous path as Australia does not have a Housing Minister and any changes are fraught with danger.
Just this week, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) revealed that for the first time rental, hiring and real estate service companies made $14 billion before tax in the second half of 2015 while mining companies made $9.8 billion. This is not the time to start meddling with property taxes as an excuse for economic reform policy.
I have no doubt that any changes to negative gearing will distort the market, and should there be an “investor run” prices will inevitably fall.
Australia is currently recording wage growth at a record low of 2.2 per cent a year. This is the lowest annual growth since the ABS started recording annual growth back in 1998. On top of that statistic in the September quarter, the ratio of household debt to income hit a new high of 184.6 per cent which translates to households’ debt now being at 1.85 times their total income.
This record growth in debt is a by-product from record low interest rates. But before we hit the panic button we need to investigate further and try and identify what is causing this.
On many occasions I have said “if there was a gold medal for real estate portfolios Australia would win hands down.” I see no use comparing Australia’s debt ratios with other countries when the Australian model has no tax payable on the principal place of residence and the overseas models do have tax payable on the principal place of residence. Australians work their principal place of residence as their main superannuation platform, which works very well when you have the cash rate at record lows.
If you were a betting person you would definitely be betting that the next cash rate movement will be down. Of course these high debt ratios will be challenged when the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) starts increasing the cash rate, but nobody really knows when that will be or in what decade even.
Prior to the Global Financial Crisis the average cash rate over a 25 year term came in at around 7.25 per cent, where based on what we are seeing today mortgage holders are going hard at 2.00 per cent.
Another statistic that is flying well off the radar are reverse mortgages which very few people discuss within the Australian property debate. In its annual Reverse Mortgage Report, Delloitte estimates more than $500 billion of home equity is held by Australians aged over 65, with the total reverse mortgage loan book worth $3.66bn as at the end of 2014.
This figure is naturally added to the Australian household debt figure so this would go part of the way to explaining why we are starting to see record debt levels. Back at the end of 2014 there were almost 40,000 reverse mortgages on issue in Australia with the average size being $92,000, up from $86,000 in 2013. It would then be reasonable to suggest that the number of reverse mortgages would have increased in 2015 as too the average mortgages – this is clearly a growth market.
To put this into further perspective the reverse mortgage market loan book was $3.66bn in 2014 and the Commonwealth Bank home loan portfolio currently sits around $393 billion. With many retirees opting for reverse mortgages this is another reason why we are seeing fewer properties on the market. Although this would change significantly once the cash rate starts increasing or a federal Government starts tampering with negative gearing in an adverse way.
What it does tell us is that Australia needs property investors as they play an integral part in Australian property machinations. If you want to have a rational debate about housing affordability in Australia firstly examine the delays by respective governments who forever and a day burden and choke the supply side of the property industry. It’s obvious to most that they fail to understand the Supply V demand equation.
Furthermore the Labor negative gearing proposal states that this will only apply to new properties. Well somebody should advise them that in December 2008 they lifted the number of properties that can be sold from new developments by foreign buyers from 50 per cent to 100 per cent. Property developers are selling all their new developments directly overseas as that way they can achieve higher prices so the local markets are blocked from buying these developments.
Nor is there any requirement nor legislation stipulating that foreign buyers must rent the property out to the local market – we do know that currently in Australia there are thousands of properties that have been land banked. Politicians are hopeless when it comes to the Australian property market.
The last thing the Australian economy needs is a domino effect with property prices because they are not pretty and should be avoided at all costs. If you want to bring property prices down do it organically by increasing supply which just so happens to be the greatest failure of local, state and federal Governments in the modern economy.
<h4>MOSMAN – 2088</h4>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 83
• Number of houses on the market last week – 64
• Number of houses on the market this week – 63
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 53
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 52 • Number of apartments on the market this week – 53
<h4>CREMORNE – 2090</h4>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 10
• Number of houses on the market last week – 18
• Number of houses on the market this week – 11
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 23
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 23
• Number of apartments on the market this week – 25
<h4>NEUTRAL BAY – 2089</h4>
• Number of houses on the market this time last year – 4
• Number of houses on the market last week – 8
•Number of houses on the market this week – 10
• Number of apartments on the market this time last year– 36
• Number of apartments on the market last week – 26
*Number of apartments on the market this week – 25
 ROBERT SIMEON is a director of <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/" target="_blank" title="RWM" rel="nofollow">Richardson Wrench Mosman and Neutral Bay</a> and has been selling residential real estate in Sydney since 1985.  He has also been writing real estate blog <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/news/" target="_blank" title="Virtual Realty News" rel="nofollow">Virtual Realty News</a> since 2000. 
</body></html>

It’s time for the Australian property debate: Robert Simeon

<html><body>
At the moment, the issue of negative gearing is extremely topical due to the Federal opposition proposal to change the availability of negative gearing to new properties only. 
In data released last week, the Australian Tax Office (ATO) published their annual taxation statistics for the 2013-14 financial year. 
The latest data shows that over the year there was a substantial decline in net rental losses claimed.  In fact, net rental losses haven’t been this low in close to ten years.
<a href="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-1-3-580x210.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-1-3-580x210.jpg" alt="">
The first chart looks at net rent over time and what is immediately noticeable is that since the beginning of the 2000’s net rental losses have been consistent and grown to be much greater than they ever were before that time. In 1999 the capital gains tax indexation was scrapped and replaced with a 50 percent discount on the capital gain if the asset is held for more than a year.  Since that time we have seen an increase in net rental losses suggesting that this change has made rental income losses more attractive to investors.
Over the 2013-14 financial year the value of net rental losses was $3.719 billion which was down 34.2 percent from the previous year when there were net rental losses of $5.654 billion. Net rental losses peaked at $9.065 billion over the 2007-08 financial year which indicates that rental losses are now 59.0% lower than this peak. 
Lower mortgage rates clearly have an impact given that holding costs are lower and this has no doubt contributed to the value of rental losses having fallen.  We would expect a further reduction in rental losses over the 2014-15 financial year considering that standard variable mortgage rates fell by a further 50 basis points over the 2014/15 financial year.
<a href="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-2-2-580x203.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-2-2-580x203.jpg" alt="">
The net rental data is split into two components, those that make a profit and those that make a loss. Focusing on those making a profit, there were 776,672 individuals that recorded a net rental profit in 2013-14, with the number increasing by 6.1 percent over the year to its highest number on record.  These individuals made a total profit from their net rent of $7.248 billion which was an historic high and up 5.3 percent over the year. As a result, the average net profit by these individuals was $9,332 which was -1.0 percent lower over the year.
The reason for the decline in the average net profit is most likely due to the fact that some of those that have shifted from making a loss to making a profit are making far smaller profits than those that were already established as making a profit.
<a href="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-3-3-580x203.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-3-3-580x203.jpg" alt="">
Turning to those individuals claiming a net rental loss, there were 1,257,301 of them in 2013-14 and they claimed a total of $10.967 billion worth of rental losses over the year. The number of individuals claiming a rental loss was -3.7 percent lower over the year which was the fewest claiming a loss since 2009-10. In value terms, losses were -12.5 percent lower over the year and at their lowest total value since 2009-10 as well. The average loss claimed was $8,722 which was the lowest it has been since 2005-06.
<a href="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-4-3-580x210.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-4-3-580x210.jpg" alt="">
The taxation statistics also split out the proportion of individuals that were claiming a loss compared to those whose properties were neutral or returning a profit in each state and territory.  Individuals with an investment property in Queensland were the least likely to be neutral or positively geared (30.7 percent) while investors in New South Wales were the most likely to be neutral or positively geared (47.5 percent).
<a href="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-5-1-580x137.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/22/Chart-5-1-580x137.jpg" alt="">
The above table shows net rental statistics across income ranges which match to the national income tax bands.  Firstly the non-taxable individuals’ data shows that 3,251,992 individuals are non-taxable compared to 9,712,276 that are.  Of those non-taxable individuals, 11.3% have claimed net rent compared to a higher 17.1% of taxable individuals and non-taxable individuals average net rental loss is much lower than those taxable individuals.
Focussing only on taxable individuals, the data shows that those on the lowest income band, more than half of them claim net rent and it is the only income band shown where on average they are seeing a rental profit.  This is probably reflective of retirees or those close to retirement positively gearing investment properties to provide them with an income source. 
In terms of number of individuals, far more individuals on lower incomes claim net rent however, this is by virtue of far more individuals overall are on lower incomes.  If you look at the percentage of individuals claiming net rent across the income ranges you can see that the proportion is much higher for the higher incomes (except for less than $18,200). 
As the income range gets higher you can also see that the average net rental losses increase significantly.  This indicates that the benefit from negative gearing tends to be greater for those that have higher incomes, conversely, the lower income earners are more likely to have their investment properties either positively or neutrally geared.
The taxation statistics show that the lower mortgage rates are reducing the value of losses claimed on rental properties.  With mortgage rates currently lower than they were in June 2014, it is reasonable to expect that the value of rental losses will continue to decline. 
Interestingly, since June 2014 we have also seen the level of investor participation in the market has hit record high levels and has since sunk back to decade average levels.  Given this, we would expect that over the coming year the number of property investors to increase quite substantially at the same time as the value of losses to fall.
It is important to also note that there is a significant shortcoming to all of this data.  Because it is all based on net figures, the data is assessed once the deductions have been made.  Particularly in the case of the income brackets, we don’t have a clear indication of how many people have shifted into a lower taxation bracket due to the deductions they have been able to make.
Although there has been a lot of debate about the tax burden negative gearing creates and changes to negative gearing policies, this data shows that the actual value of these losses has fallen substantially and is likely to remain much lower as long as interest rates remain at low levels.  While any policy changes may be seen as making access to the housing market more equitable, the financial benefit to the Government from such changes is likely to be limited.
Cameron Kusher is research analyst for CoreLogic RP Data. You can contact him <a href="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/about/">here</a>.
</body></html>

ckusher-ujnxiKuFQs

Net rental property losses at near ten year lows: Cameron Kusher 

<html><body>
SPONSORED POST
Australia definitely is the place to be right now. Pretty much every state and territory in Australia appears to be enjoying steady property growth.
The apartment market is rising and developments are selling out before they’re even built. The low density residential markets in the middle and outer suburbs too are enjoying solid growth.
With property doing well in Australia, you’d think it’s the perfect time to buy, but it’s proving to be probably the hardest it has ever been for first time Aussie investors to enter the market. Banks are asking for bigger deposits, interest rates are on the down turn, and first home buyer grants are only for those first time buyers that want to live in their homes. The question many of us ask is; “Is the government doing anything to help first time investors in Australia?” 
The answer is yes, and they did it 3 decades ago. The introduction of negative gearing and the golden gem that is Property Tax Depreciation, gives investors the chance to reduce the after tax cost of their investment, increase their cash flow all while having a property asset appreciate.
Property Tax Depreciation can be an excellent way to make negative gearing work in your favour. Current interest rates, and a competitive rental market make it very easy for a negatively geared investment to become positive. Positive is good – except for the additional burden of a tax bill!
Understanding your property investment, and the cost of it before you buy is prudent, and knowing the available property tax depreciation can, if anything boost your potential buying power. That extra $10-15k of deductions can make a huge difference in the property game.
Knowing how property tax depreciation works is pivotal when making your first property investment, or any property investment for that matter. As property tax depreciation diminishes over time, the older the property, the less property tax depreciation there is going to be available. One might say it’s always wiser to purchase newer property – this ensures you’ll be able to claim the maximum available property tax deprecation, putting more in your pocket during the life of your investment.
So you’ve bought your investment? Then we come to the harder part – who do we trust? Who do we go to, to ensure we have a maximised property tax depreciation schedule?
In the eighties when residential property tax depreciation was introduced to the Australian taxation system, there was only one company that people turned to; Napier &amp; Blakeley.
Napier &amp; Blakeley were the first professional company to provide residential property tax depreciation advice, and over three decades on, they’re still the market leaders and still providing that same trustworthy advice through NBtax. NBtax is a division within Napier &amp; Blakeley that concentrates purely on the residential property depreciation market.   
With tax time so near, if you’ve purchased an investment property in the past year, make sure you’re prepared with a property tax depreciation schedule that’s best for you.
For more information, <a href="https://nbtax.com.au" target="_blank">click here</a>.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Making your first property investment possible

<html><body>
<div>The Labor Party's Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen had pledged to limit negative gearing to new properties only from 1 July 2017 in order to save the federal budget a highly questionable $32.1 billion over a decade. This always sounded suspect based upon my day-to-day experience in the market given that the overwhelming majority of property investors are only making at worst moderate net rental losses these days. Yes, investors have been considerably more active recently due to prevailing low interest rates, but remember the ratio of stock versus flow, while new investors have been generally able to borrow money at around just 4 percent, or somewhere close to it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Unfortunately as I expected it transpires that the ALP have botched their numbers, and Labor will accordingly cop a good deal of heat on this point from the Coalition. Net rental losses halved
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The latest Australian Taxation Office (ATO) Taxation Statistics to 2013-14 show that the potential budget impact of negative gearing to taxpayers has crumbled by well over 50 per cent in only two years (and by considerably more from the peak), and of course there will be more declines to come for at least the next two tax years as well. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is no shock to me to discover that net rental deductions have fallen by more than half in the two tax years to 2013-14, from $7.9 billion to just $3.7 billion. And recall that the cash rate has been cut several times further since 1 July 2013, from 2.75 per to only 2 percent, so there are yet further declines to net rental losses in the post. The latest statistics for financial year 2013-14 show that just under 1 million or exactly 60 percent of those claiming net rental losses have a taxable income of less than $80,000 (thereby paying tax at a highest marginal rate of only 32.5 percent or lower), while only 133,307 or 8 percent of those claiming are paying tax at the highest marginal rate. It is true to a point that middle aged and slightly older Aussies tend to negatively gear property around their peak earning years. This rings true from my experience and the experiences of my peers - none of us owned rental properties as students, or indeed for some time after that as we paid off student debts and saved initial deposits, but plenty do now we are in our late thirties. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Given that taxpayers across all taxable income brackets use negative gearing, after tax-effecting net rental losses of only $3.7 billion in financial year 2014 it is clear that as things stand such a move to limit negative gearing to new dwellings prospectively could only save a fraction of the amount claimed from the federal budget.</div>
<a href="/images/2016/03/21/NG.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/21/NG.jpg" alt="">
<div> </div>
<div>Remember that Labor is not proposing to scrap negative gearing, rather to grandfather existing arrangements and limit negative gearing to new dwellings. With a record 776,672 earning a profit for their rental properities, the total cost of negatively geared properties only fell by 12.5 percent to a four year low of $10.9 billion. And given that negative gearing losses are carried forward and taxes levied at a future date - or upon eventual sale in event of a capital gain - net rental losses are a timing difference only and the ALP projections are exposed as too optimistic. Further declines in the post  Realistically, then, the projected $32.1 billion of savings could only feasibly come from cranking up the rate of capital gains tax, itself a crappy tax - an inefficient tax insincerely marketed as a "discount", although in the case of property it is actually levied on top of fairly vicious stamp duties as well as rates/land taxes etc. Total capital gains reported by taxpayaers increased by 37 percent to $34.4 billion, largely thanks to fewer loss making transacions as the financial crisis fades into the rear-view mirror. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is worth noting in passing that moves to restrict property investor activity and therefore lending would also result in lost levies from stamp duties and reduced company taxes on bank earnings, as well as putting downward pressure on superannuation balances via lower share prices.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If this sounds harsh on Labor, recall that they were actually in government until 2013, so where were the sweeping policy changes then? Ironically, the ALP was in power for a six year stretch when scrapping negative gearing might actually have made a material difference to the budget, but alas that particular ship has now well and truly sailed. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Futures markets are pricing in a further 25 basis points cut to the cash rate by November 2016, suggesting that the ATO aggeregated statistics for net rental deductions could continue declining for at least another three tax years to come. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>A potent combination of the existing negative gearing rules and low interest rates have encouraged record dwelling investment - and in turn a surge residential construction jobs - and at the same time have done an an sterling job of keeping capital city rents down as new supply comes online apace, encouraged by strong aggregate demand for property and an uplift in prices. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>And all of this is before the potential distortions of encouraging investors to speculate on considerably riskier new properties are even touched upon, let alone the concerning impact of increased public housing costs on the budget.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the back of these slim pickings, and given that PM Turnbull has already batted changes to the capital gains tax to the fence, there is Buckley's chance of the Coalition proposing a similar move to the ALP in Opposition. Presumably this is for similar reasons that Labor took no such action when they weren't in Opposition - pollies actively deflating a housing market in the midst of a once-in-a-century terms of trade and resources investment bust? It seems like a remote possibility to me, but you can choose to believe whatever you want. The wrap All of this has been well known about for some time, of course: scrapping negative gearing was never going to be much of a boon for the budget. If negative gearing is going to be binned then it should be so on intergenerational grounds or because it represents iniquitous tax legislation, not based upon bogus claims of "billions" to be saved in the budget. Finally for today, spare a thought for the taxation figures above, the line items of which I have charted simply as the ATO present them, for they're doubtless set to once again be tortured mercilessly come Monday morning. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
PETE WARGENT is the co-founder of <a href="https://allenwargent.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">AllenWargent</a> property buyers (London, Sydney) and a best-selling author and <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">blogger</a>. 
His latest book is <a href="https://www.bigskypublishing.com.au/Books/General-Interest/Four-Green-Houses--and-a-Red-Hotel/1015/productview.aspx" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Four Green Houses and a Red Hotel</a>.
</div>
</body></html>

Negative gearing set to stay: Pete Wargent

<html><body>
Bill Shorten believes there’s an affordability crisis in Australia. He believes he knows how to fix it. But I’m sure he doesn’t believe the tax policy he announced is the solution. What he announced is the smokescreen.
The tragedy for Shorten, the dead man walking of Australian politics, and the Labor Party, is that he is telling Australian households that he is going to force down the value of their homes. And that, in reality, the most likely outcome is that the cost of new housing will rise.
Short-term Shorten and his advisors don’t appear to realise that the high cost of new housing is the key to the affordability situation in Australia. And his policy will probably make it worse.
Firstly, the issue of an affordability crisis. Shorten apparently believes we have one. I believe we don’t.
The Housing Affordability Index shows that national affordability today is considerably better than it was five years ago. Sydney, following three years of big price growth, is the only jurisdiction that doesn’t have a demonstrably better affordability situation that it did in 2010. Everywhere else in Australia does. Even Sydney is marginally better off than in 2010. 
There were improvements in 2015 in many parts of the nation, reinforcing yet again that most of Australia did not have a property boom any time recently.
Jurisdictions which have a better affordability position now than 12 months ago include Perth (11% better than a year ago), Darwin (13.5% better), Hobart (7% better), regional WA (13% better), regional NSW, regional South Australia, regional Tasmania (6% better) and regional NT (10% better).
Affordability is essentially unchanged in Brisbane, regional Queensland and regional Victoria, compared to a year ago.
Sydney’s position is 4.5% less favourable, Melbourne 7.6% less, Canberra’s 9% less and Adelaide 2.6% less. But in each of those locations, affordability remains better than five years ago, even in Sydney (just). 
What we have from Federal Labor is what we got from APRA: over-the-top policy impacting the whole nation to attempt to solve a Sydney problem.
There’s going to be a major backlash against Labor once people realise the essence of Shorten’s proposal on affordability. He’s going into the upcoming federal election telling the electorate that the value of their homes is going to fall.
The essence of the tax policy announced on 12 February is that his proposed changes to negative gearing will somehow make housing more affordable. He’s not proposing to force down interest rates nor to lift average incomes, therefore the only way homes can become more affordable is for home values to fall. This would be seriously unpalatable for voters in the 70% of households that own their homes. It’s the ultimate election loser.
But home-owners need not worry. Shorten’s announced policies won’t cause home values to fall. They won’t make a single home cheaper in Australia because they don’t address the real causes of poor affordability. They have targeted the wrong culprits. 
And I’m quite sure Shorten knows that. Like most politicians, he’s not interested in addressing the real issues. He simply wants to give the appearance that he is. And he has achieved that by taking cheap shots at an easy target.
There are many problems with the announced policy. The first is that it’s based on a false premise - that the 15% or so of property buyers who are negatively-geared investors have a greater influence on property prices than the other 85%. (That 85%, incidentally, includes the biggest and most influential chunk of the buying market – home-buyers other than first-home-buyers – the people who have the numbers, the financial capacity and the motivation to pay high prices for homes).
Shorten says typical houses cost about three times average annual income 30 years ago and now it’s six times. He’s claiming that the small number of buyers who are negatively-geared investors are responsible for that change. He doesn’t provide any evidence to support this outlandish and quite illogical claim. He doesn’t provide it because it doesn’t exist.
He further claims that eliminating the tax claims of 15% of buyers will make housing more affordable. He doesn’t explain how that would happen.
But he is claiming his policy will make prices lower. If he’s right, that would be alarming for most voters. It would be also alarming for the nation, because the family home is the core asset for most Australians and the basis of their ability to provide for their retirement. 
This latter point is crucial. It’s the most important issue in the whole debate about negative gearing but is never mentioned.
Successive governments have told Australians they have to provide for their own retirement, because the Government can’t afford to fund the increasing numbers of retirement age people through pensions. We know that superannuation doesn’t cut it, so Australians need to invest to be self-funded in retirement. Governments need to encourage that. 
Negative gearing is one way to encourage people to invest - keeping in mind that it applies to all forms of investment, not just real estate. 
Eliminating it will stop many from buying real estate. Long-term it will cost the Federal Budget more than it saves - especially as the claimed savings are not great. Shorten’s figures suggest it will save the Budget just $570 million in the first four years, although I doubt he has considered the overall impact through loss of revenue to state and federal budgets – given that people buying investment property pay stamp duty, land tax and capital gains tax.
Shorten thinks that keeping negative gearing on new homes will cause investors to switch to the new product. But many won’t - because new homes are too expensive. On average, they cost $100,000 more than the equivalent existing home. That’s why 90% of investors (and most first-home buyers) buy existing properties rather than new. The negative gearing tax deductions don’t come close to making up for the price differential.
But if he’s right – and investors do switch to buying new homes – it will make new dwellings more expensive. If he’s right that prices are forced up by negatively-geared investors competing with home buyers, then switching all investors to new housing will create massive competition for a finite product and force up prices. Keep in mind that state government grants for first-home buyers are available only to buyers of new homes – and current Federal policy forces foreign investors to buy new properties, not existing.
So, if Shorten succeeds, we will have first-home buyers competing with Australian investors and foreign investors for new properties. Everyone will be trying to buy a finite supply of new homes, given that Australia is in the midst of a period of record creation of new dwellings and doesn’t need more. Shorten’s policy won’t make housing cheaper, it will make it more expensive.
And that brings us to the real issue in the affordability debate - the one that politicians including Short-term Shorten don’t want to talk about: the reality that government taxes and charges are responsible for the high cost of new housing. Multiple research studies have confirmed that more than 40% of the cost of new house-and-land packages are taxes and other government charges. Eliminate those and suddenly new homes are affordable to most buyers. A $400,000 product can be sold for $240,000.
So the real problem is not tax benefits flowing from government to the real estate industry - it’s the money flowing in the opposite direction, the taxes that are ripped out of the real estate industry.
Politicians never discuss this factor. They’re addicted to the massive amount of revenue they rip out of the real estate industry - over $70 billion in a typical year. They would rather blame unpopular minorities - a standard political tactic - than address the real issue.
The Federal Government, after two very long and expensive parliamentary inquiries which achieved little, has decided to make foreign investors the scapegoats. But forcing a small number of foreigners to sell back their mansions won’t make housing cheaper for first-home buyers.
Now the Federal Opposition has decided to make negatively geared Australian investors the scapegoats. It’s dishonest, deceitful and, frankly, disgusting.
Terry Ryder is the founder of <a href="https://www.hotspotting.com.au/" target="_blank">hotspotting.com.au</a>. You can <a href="https://mailto:ryder@hotspotting.com.au" target="_blank">email him</a> or follow him on <a href="https://twitter.com/hotspotting" target="_blank">Twitter.</a>
</body></html>

terryryder-YECXbqmri2

Bill Shorten's Opposition makes negatively-geared investors the scapegoats: Terry Ryder

<html><body>
If you thought the election debate on negative gearing was interesting watch the new property debates get a whole lot hotter with the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO’s) latest bombshell announcement which guaranteed will send shockwaves through property markets. 
No doubt this is just the next step following the ATO being handed total ownership of the Australian property transaction register in mid – 2015, a role they had been champing at the bit to control for quite some time.
From Friday July 1 2016 (the day before the federal election) all sellers of residential and commercial property worth in excess of $2 million will be deemed as an overseas investor unless they can attain a special tax clearance. Failure to attain the special tax clearance certificate means the seller must deduct ten (10) percent from the purchase price which is immediately paid to the ATO.
No doubt lawyers, accountants and conveyancers would be rejoicing at these newly discovered revenue streams although what has not been announced is when a seller receives their compliant special tax clearance are the associated costs in receiving the compliance tax deductible?
This is all aimed at closing loopholes solely aimed at the leakage of tax revenues. Australian residents will get their tax clearance so long as they are up to date with tax returns, proving that they acquired the property within their declared earnings – which I see as a very good move.
When the ATO took over the property reins they quickly started extrapolating all property transactions back to 1985, so it will take a while to complete the register. This new legislation is simply closing the door on those who acquired property illegally either from proceeds of crime or as non – residents.
For the last five years foreign investors have been running amok buying Australian real estate. The federal governments have laid out the welcome mat when they raised off – the – plan purchase restrictions in 2008 from 50 percent to 100 percent.
This week Fitch Ratings warned that Australia clearly has a significant ‘hidden’ offshore property buyers risk. Andrea Jaehne, a director at Fitch Ratings, stated that she was shocked by the increase of foreign buyers since 2010, where the Foreign Investment Review Board experienced an eightfold increase in approvals up to 2015. She said that it was difficult to know the true number of properties being sold offshore because foreign investment rules did not require an approval for foreigners buying apartments off the plan.
The question that needs to now be asked is (with the recent property frenzy which conveniently replaced the mining boom) with all these new measures what will happen to property prices? Well foreign buyers will almost certainly now hold back and watch what happens to the Australian markets particularly Melbourne and Sydney – we can expect some big corrections in these investment markets.
With a further 250,000 apartments to hit the domestic markets within the next two years it is very difficult to see a happy outcome for these markets – more particularly as we have more evidence that these markets are significantly slowing. Then throw in the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics data which shows that Australian wages are growing at the slowest rate for at least 18 years.
Furthermore, we are now hearing that market analysts are now coming to the conclusion that low interest rates actually cause more damage to the economy. As one commentator said this week “very low interest rates around the world are inhibiting economic recovery rather than encouraging it.”
Australia is now just 44 days away from getting a clearer indication of what will happen to the markets more particularly with negative gearing. Now is not the time to start tinkering with investors clearly preferring existing properties. Agents will tell you that when an existing apartment comes onto the market the ratio of home buyers to investors inspecting is generally 50/50. Take away half the market and of course prices will come down – which in turn will drive rents up.
Of course the opposition treasurer could produce his modelling to show otherwise, however this has not been forthcoming so one can then conclude that no modelling is in existence.
With all that’s happening on the Australian property landscape the timing is a potential disaster. In the meantime, watch how many vendors try and offload their properties before the new ATO legislation comes into effect. No doubt the ATO will be watching too.
 
MOSMAN – 2088
Number of houses on the market this time last year – 65
Number of houses on the market last week – 55 
Number of houses on the market this week – 55 
Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 47
Number of apartments on the market last week – 50
Number of apartments on the market this week – 50
 
CREMORNE – 2090
Number of houses on the market this time last year – 5
Number of houses on the market last week – 7 
Number of houses on the market this week – 11 
Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 10
Number of apartments on the market last week – 23 
Number of apartments on the market this week – 22
 
NEUTRAL BAY – 2089 
Number of houses on the market this time last year – 6
Number of houses on the market last week – 8
Number of houses on the market this week – 8 
Number of apartments on the market this time last year – 29 
Number of apartments on the market last week – 21
Number of apartments on the market this week – 22
 
ROBERT SIMEON is a director of <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/" target="_blank" title="RWM" rel="nofollow">Richardson Wrench Mosman and Neutral Bay</a> and has been selling residential real estate in Sydney since 1985.  He has also been writing real estate blog <a href="https://www.rwm.com.au/news/" target="_blank" title="Virtual Realty News" rel="nofollow">Virtual Realty News</a> since 2000.
</body></html>

Negative gearing

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Negative gearing

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News