Home Value

<html><body>
Housing investment in Australia has generally been a successful, largely one-way bet over many years. 
Although this has been the case, home values have fallen in the past, are currently falling in some capital cities and will almost certainly fall again in the future.
As can be evidenced in the accompanying charts, in most instances across combined capital cities, the Index has been rising, in fact from December 1995 to November 2015. Combined capital city home values have increased by a cumulative 330.5% and values fell in 2008 and again between 2011 and 2012. 
During 2008, combined capital city home values fell by -6.1% between March and December. Home values fell by -6.5% between March 2011 and May 2012. 
While the Index shows a certain set of trends, it’s important to remember that it is largely influenced by Sydney and Melbourne. In fact, combined capital city home values have increased by 8.7% over the 12 months to November 2015 however, only Sydney and Melbourne have recorded value growth stronger than that level. Values have also been declining over the past year in both Perth and Darwin.
<a href="/images/2015/12/11/Screen%20Shot%202015-12-11%20at%2010.31.04%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2015/12/11/Screen%20Shot%202015-12-11%20at%2010.31.04%20AM.png" alt="">
Over the period from December 1995 to November 1995, all capital cities have seen values increase while each city has seen periods where values fall. Across the cities, the cumulative value increases have been recorded at: 
• 330.1% in Sydney 
• 421.4% in Melbourne 
• 259.4% in Brisbane 
• 261.2% in Adelaide 
• 293.0% in Perth 
• 208.0% in Hobart (from Sep-97) 
• 180.1% in Darwin (from Apr-99) 
• 258.7% in Canberra.
Of all the cities, Melbourne has led by recording the strongest rate of growth over the period followed by Sydney. Growth in Perth has been stronger than in Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra where cumulative growth has been remarkably similar. While home values have risen significantly in each city, value falls have occurred.
There have been periods where values have fallen in a particular city but not others. As an example, from mid-2004 Sydney values started falling while in other cities, the rate of growth just slowed. Sydney home values fell by - 8.2% between March 2004 and December 2005. They then took until March 2009 to eclipse and remain above March 2004 levels.
Over the past few months we have seen early signs of value falls in the Sydney and Melbourne housing markets. Based on our data, we can see that falls have previously occurred, and will no doubt happen again, however, the question is how large; of course no one knows.
Given that investor activity has been at a record high, building approvals have also hit record highs and record high levels of household leverage there is a possibility that falls could be larger than what we have seen in the past. Note: Adjacent, the table looks at the two most recent periods of decline across the combined capital cities: the financial crisis in 2008 and as the RBA started to lift interest rates in 2011. The data shows the financial crisis saw a short, sharp fall in values and a fairly rapid recovery. The second period saw, in most instances, a much larger decline and a much longer period for recovery. 
<a href="/images/2015/12/11/Screen%20Shot%202015-12-11%20at%2010.26.15%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2015/12/11/Screen%20Shot%202015-12-11%20at%2010.26.15%20AM.png" alt="" width="871" height="520">
 
<a href="/images/2015/12/11/Screen%20Shot%202015-12-11%20at%2010.30.04%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2015/12/11/Screen%20Shot%202015-12-11%20at%2010.30.04%20AM.png" alt=""> 
Cameron Kusher is research analyst for CoreLogic RP Data. You can contact him <a href="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/author/cameron-kusher/" target="_blank">here</a>. 
</body></html>

ckusher-ujnxiKuFQs

Home values will certainly fall again: Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The decade ending in June 2019 has seen the national median dwelling value rise from $382,650 to $516,710, an annual increase of 3.0%. At the same time, household incomes (according to estimates from the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods) have risen at the annual pace of 3.1%, up from $59,020 per annum in 2009 to $79,872 in 2019. Over the same period, average mortgage rates (according to RBA statistics) fell from 5.1% in 2009 to 4.1% in June this year.
The wash up from these movements is that housing affordability, based on the ratio of dwelling values to household incomes, is broadly unchanged across Australia and households are generally dedicating less of their income towards servicing a new mortgage.
Nationally, the ratio of dwelling values to household incomes has varied over the past decade, moving through a low of 6.1 in late 2012 to a recent high of 7.0 in early 2018. In June 2019 the ratio was recorded at 6.5 which is equivalent to where it was in 2009.
A ratio of 6.5 simply means the typical Australian household is spending 6.5 times their gross annual household income in order to purchase the typical dwelling. While the national reading is the same as it was ten years ago, five of the eight capital cities and four of the seven non-capital city regions have recorded an improvement in the ratio of dwelling values to household incomes. The lowest ratio can be found in Darwin where the typical household is spending only 3.4 times their gross annual household income to purchase a dwelling (down from 5.6 ten years ago).
While most areas have seen housing values become more affordable relative to incomes, some areas have seen affordability worsen. Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart have seen housing values rise at a faster rate than household incomes which has eroded affordability.
The typical Sydney household is now spending 8.2 times their gross annual household income in order to purchase the median value dwelling, up from 6.6 ten years ago. Melbourne households are spending 7.2 times their annual income (up from 6.4 in 2009) and Hobart households are spending 6.5 times (up from 5.9).
Across the regional areas of Australia, the only areas where the ratio of dwelling values to household incomes has worsened is Regional NSW (6.6 in 2009 / 7.0 in 2019) and Regional Victoria (4.9 in 2009 / 5.6 in 2019). It’s a similar story with mortgage serviceability.
\Despite mortgage rates falling to the lowest level since at least the 1950’s, households in Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart are generally dedicating a larger proportion of their incomes towards servicing a new mortgage than they were in 2009.
Based on the proportion of household income required to service a new 80% LVR mortgage, Sydney households are dedicating 43.7% of their gross annual household income on mortgage repayments compared with 37.7% ten years ago. When mortgage rates were around 9% in early 2008, Sydney households were dedicating a much larger 54.2% to service a mortgage.
Melbourne households are dedicating 38.4% on average to service a new 80% LVR mortgage (up from 36.2% in 2009) and Hobart households spend an average of 34.3% of their income on a new mortgage (33.8% ten years ago). The smallest portion of income dedicated to new loan repayments is in Darwin at just 17.9% of income.
Although housing affordability has worsened relative to ten years ago in Sydney and Melbourne, the decline in home values together with a subtle rise in household incomes and lower mortgage rates has seen affordability and serviceability record a temporary improvement in these areas.
Since June, dwelling values have surged higher while income growth has remained sluggish, implying that the improvement in housing affordability that has been delivered via a fall in home values is now being eroded.
Longer term strategies for improving housing affordability should include both supply and demand side considerations, as well as taxation reform. On the supply side, ensuring infrastructure programs, land release and town planning policies are keeping pace with population growth is important.
On the demand side, population growth drives housing demand, as do stimulus measures such as first home buyer grants and tax concessions.
Incentivising jobs growth and infrastructure improvements in more affordable areas would support a redirection of population growth into areas where housing prices are more achievable.
Removing stamp duty would also help to improve housing affordability and housing mobility by lowering the transactional costs associated with purchasing a home.
TIM LAWLESS is the CoreLogic Head of Research
</body></html>

tlawless-5VLUrbAk9s

Housing affordability has improved over the past decade across most of Australia: Tim Lawless

<html><body>
In the recent property market dip, St Albans, Victoria all but avoided the fate of the rest of the Victoria market.
Since 2009 to present day, the value of a house in St Albans has increased by 100%. This is despite a small drop in house values since mid-2018 (seen below).
Apartment prices have seen a similar trend although with smaller growth overall and a less stable median price, according to the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/10819-st-albans-vic" target="_blank">latest data</a>.
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2019/9/23/ST%20Albans%20data.JPG" alt="">
As of September 2019 the median house price in St Albans is $580,000, double the 2009 value of $290,000.
To learn all you need to know about St Albans, from median asking rents to household composition, <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/10819-st-albans-vic" target="_blank">click here</a>. 
As a landlord it is important to check the asking rent trend regularly to ensure you are getting the most value out of your investment.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

What if you bought in St Albans 10 years ago? 100% gain

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
What Australians can learn from rising home insurance premiums in New Zealand?
Australia and New Zealand have experienced significant natural disasters in recent years.
The floods in Queensland, earthquakes in Christchurch and Kaikoura as well as bushfires in South Australia highlight just how vulnerable residents can be to these massive unforeseen events and how much they reply on insurance to protect themselves, their properties and their belongings.
When you’re at the whim of Mother Nature, having an appropriate level of home and contents insurance is an absolute necessity.
Nevertheless, living in a hazard capital means insurance comes at an ever-increasing price. We only have to look to Wellington as an example to see how recent regulatory change (following amends to the Earthquake Commission Act) and a more granular approach to risk management have seen insurers re-evaluate the risks they are taking on.
As a consequence, premiums have been steadily rising and this presents a raft of challenges for homeowners across the region. The following synopsis of the changing face of insurance in Wellington could be of interest to you as a fellow Tasman resident, and give an insight into what happens when a market moves from generalised to granular risk based pricing.
As well as being a participant in the sector in my role as insurance commentator for Australian and New Zealand, and leading the NZ insurance business, I’m also a home owner and therefore insurance customer, so I’ve seen firsthand the steady rise in premiums in the past few years. Whilst insurance has always been risk based, the level of granularity of the risk assessment is rapidly changing.
Go back a few years, and risk was assessed using Cresta Zones - large areas made up of adjacent postcodes. But this meant that your risk was assessed the same regardless of whether you were on the side of a hill in Wadestown or on the flat in Tawa.
Tower got the ball rolling with its per property risk-based pricing in April 2018, and last month IAG followed suit.
Whilst the effects of these changes won’t be felt fully for some time yet, until higher renewals start hitting the letterboxes or people move and seek new policies, the media were certainly quick to pick up on disgruntled Tower customers and report the odd extremes where premiums had shot up by tens of thousands for particularly "risky" properties. Whilst examples of $ 12,000, or greater, increases were thrown around, Tower were quick to respond that only 1% of their premiums were rising by more than $ 2,000 per annum.
However, according to Stats NZ household spending on property related insurance has risen from an average of $ 15 a week in 2008 to $ 34 a week in 2018. With the rises in the EQC and Fire Service Levy this year pushing this up this year, but there is no doubt that this will rise again as more risk based premiums come into effect Across other insurers.
In March, IAG hit the headlines, announcing that it would take a "conservative approach to writing new business in Wellington due to the high earthquake risk in that part of the country". This so alarmed Wellington Mayor, Justin Lester that he called for more regulation and an Insurance Forum, saying that insurers have a social responsibility to provide insurance cover that is affordable for all. He also referred to the ACC model and implied we should look at a state run insurance model for property. Maybe we could call it "State Insurance".
Oh. . . wait. I understand the Mayor's concerns, but do insurers have a social responsibility? New Zealand is unique in that it has EQC – a government backed insurer of the first $ 150K of natural hazard damage for any property that holds a domestic policy with Fire Cover.
EQC holds a socially responsible position - for example they decided to run the Canterbury Earthquake response as a centrally managed repair as they believed the social outcome would be better than making cash payouts with the associated risk of price gouging and a free for all for builders.
EQC also charges the same levy for any dwelling anywhere in the country. Private insurers are in a different boat, however. They aren’t subject to a government guarantee and have a corporate responsibility to be financially prudent in their risk appetite and the financial return on that risk.
Whilst insurers do want to provide cover to Kiwis, it's entirely logical to take account of the likely risk at an individual property level. They also have to buy reinsurance on the global market which certainly doesn’t view insurance as a social responsibility – they exist to price and cover risk in return for premiums.
That means that Wellingtonians will begin to pay higher premiums commensurate to the actual level of risk they face. A compounding effect is that insurers also have to hold additional capital reserves or reinsurance to cover the costs of a 1 in 1,000 year event for property within 50km of the Beehive.
Whilst not a new requirement, that's still very real cost of doing business in Wellington, especially with building costs rising by nearly 5% per annum according to the Cordell CHIP Report. It’s not just Wellington, though. It also means that other parts of the country that face risks such as regular flooding, with all indications that the severity and frequency are increasing with climate change, or are on the coast with the increased risk of erosion from storm surge, will also attract higher premiums. In order to retain cover, insurers may opt to provide higher excess for specific events, or exclude them altogether.
If your house has flooded three times in four years, why would any sane business continue to offer cover for future flood events? Even councils are stepping away from commitments to protect homes against the rising tide of climate change and coastal erosion.
Recently the Mayor of Kapiti indicated that they only had a limited responsibility to help over 1,800 coastal homeowners and ultimately they were on their own, commenting on the general costs of coastal protection: "How long can we mount a defence, how much will it cost and who pays? These are the challenging questions now and especially into the future."
 A similar story in the Taranaki where the council won't extend a seawall protecting several homes. Climate change is estimated to bring more severe storm surge events which will further cause issues over insurance cover for coastal properties and many coastal owners may find their stunning beachfront views uninsurable.
Whilst insurers try and operate with social responsibility, they also have financial responsibility as well. As I pointed out to a colleague – would you be happy if your bank was making poor lending decisions that might impact on the amount you pay for your mortgage and the stability of your lender should those loans go bad? Sure, insurers are in the business of covering risk, but like any business they have to ensure they have a sustainable balance between risk and reward.
Aucklanders, of course, may see the benefits of this southwards shift in risk pricing with improved premiums. A friend up there recently switched to a risk based insurer and saved over $ 1,500 in their annual premium for the same cover with the same excess.
So, what does this mean for Kiwis?
Firstly, premiums will continue to rise – that’s a certainty – especially in higher risk areas. Let’s stop trying to be King Canute against the rising tide of higher risk and climate change. Secondly, buyers should consider insurance early on in the home buying process. When you’ve been to an open home and have fallen in love with a house, check out how much insurance cover will be. Jump on an insurer’s website and use CoreLogic’s Cordell Sum Sure to estimate the rebuild cost and get a quote for cover.
Get two or three quotes for comparison. Look at the highest premium and assume that all premiums will rise to that level in the next few years, so factor that in to your budget, along with increasing interest rates. If a property is returning a high premium, but you still want to make it your home, maybe factor the future cost of insurance in to your offer? And definitely make that offer conditional on satisfactory insurance and don’t leave it to the last minute.
Another emerging effect of these changes is that lenders are beginning to consider how these changes might affect them and their risk. If they have a 25 year relationship with the home owner, but the insurer only has a 12 month commitment. Rising premiums and a possible retreat from cover in some areas could certainly affect lenders.
The other question is, how will these changes affect Australia?
Whilst there is certainly a level of risk based pricing here, climate change, which is likely to result in more storms further south, increased storm surge, resulting in more flooding will certainly affect how insurers price risk and what they are prepared to cover.
Added to that, many insurers and brokers operate trans-Tasman and so are clearly impacted by changes across the ditch. That aside, now is as good a time as any to review your cover whichever side of the Tasman you live on, and make sure you’re getting value for money across your home and contents insurance.  
RICHARD DEAKIN is the CoreLogic Head of Insurance
What Australians can learn from rising home insurance premiums in New Zealand? Richard Deakin, CoreLogic Head of Insurance comments: Australia and New Zealand have experienced significant natural disasters in recent years. The floods in Queensland, earthquakes in Christchurch and Kaikoura as well as bushfires in South Australia highlight just how vulnerable residents can be to these massive unforeseen events and how much they reply on insurance to protect themselves, their properties and their belongings. When you’re at the whim of Mother Nature, having an appropriate level of home and contents insurance is an absolute necessity. Nevertheless, living in a hazard capital means insurance comes at an ever-increasing price. We only have to look to Wellington as an example to see how recent regulatory change (following amends to the Earthquake Commission Act) and a more granular approach to risk management have seen insurers re-evaluate the risks they are taking on. As a consequence, premiums have been steadily rising and this presents a raft of challenges for homeowners across the region. The following synopsis of the changing face of insurance in Wellington could be of interest to you as a fellow Tasman resident, and give an insight into what happens when a market moves from generalised to granular risk based pricing. As well as being a participant in the sector in my role as insurance commentator for Australian and New Zealand, and leading the NZ insurance business, I’m also a home owner and therefore insurance customer, so I’ve seen firsthand the steady rise in premiums in the past few years. Whilst insurance has always been risk based, the level of granularity of the risk assessment is rapidly changing. Go back a few years, and risk was assessed using Cresta Zones - large areas made up of adjacent postcodes. But this meant that your risk was assessed the same regardless of whether you were on the side of a hill in Wadestown or on the flat in Tawa. Tower got the ball rolling with its per property risk-based pricing in April 2018, and last month IAG followed suit. Whilst the effects of these changes won’t be felt fully for some time yet, until higher renewals start hitting the letterboxes or people move and seek new policies, the media were certainly quick to pick up on disgruntled Tower customers and report the odd extremes where premiums had shot up by tens of thousands for particularly "risky" properties. Whilst examples of $ 12,000, or greater, increases were thrown around, Tower were quick to respond that only 1% of their premiums were rising by more than $ 2,000 per annum. However, according to Stats NZ household spending on property related insurance has risen from an average of $ 15 a week in 2008 to $ 34 a week in 2018. With the rises in the EQC and Fire Service Levy this year pushing this up this year, but there is no doubt that this will rise again as more risk based premiums come into effect Across other insurers. In March, IAG hit the headlines, announcing that it would take a "conservative approach to writing new business in Wellington due to the high earthquake risk in that part of the country". This so alarmed Wellington Mayor, Justin Lester that he called for more regulation and an Insurance Forum, saying that insurers have a social responsibility to provide insurance cover that is affordable for all. He also referred to the ACC model and implied we should look at a state run insurance model for property. Maybe we could call it "State Insurance". Oh. . . wait. I understand the Mayor's concerns, but do insurers have a social responsibility? New Zealand is unique in that it has EQC – a government backed insurer of the first $ 150K of natural hazard damage for any property that holds a domestic policy with Fire Cover. EQC holds a socially responsible position - for example they decided to run the Canterbury Earthquake response as a centrally managed repair as they believed the social outcome would be better than making cash payouts with the associated risk of price gouging and a free for all for builders. EQC also charges the same levy for any dwelling anywhere in the country. Private insurers are in a different boat, however. They aren’t subject to a government guarantee and have a corporate responsibility to be financially prudent in their risk appetite and the financial return on that risk. Whilst insurers do want to provide cover to Kiwis, it's entirely logical to take account of the likely risk at an individual property level. They also have to buy reinsurance on the global market which certainly doesn’t view insurance as a social responsibility – they exist to price and cover risk in return for premiums. That means that Wellingtonians will begin to pay higher premiums commensurate to the actual level of risk they face. A compounding effect is that insurers also have to hold additional capital reserves or reinsurance to cover the costs of a 1 in 1,000 year event for property within 50km of the Beehive. Whilst not a new requirement, that's still very real cost of doing business in Wellington, especially with building costs rising by nearly 5% per annum according to the Cordell CHIP Report. It’s not just Wellington, though. It also means that other parts of the country that face risks such as regular flooding, with all indications that the severity and frequency are increasing with climate change, or are on the coast with the increased risk of erosion from storm surge, will also attract higher premiums. In order to retain cover, insurers may opt to provide higher excess for specific events, or exclude them altogether. If your house has flooded three times in four years, why would any sane business continue to offer cover for future flood events? Even councils are stepping away from commitments to protect homes against the rising tide of climate change and coastal erosion. Recently the Mayor of Kapiti indicated that they only had a limited responsibility to help over 1,800 coastal homeowners and ultimately they were on their own, commenting on the general costs of coastal protection: "How long can we mount a defence, how much will it cost and who pays? These are the challenging questions now and especially into the future. " A similar story in the Taranaki where the council won't extend a seawall protecting several homes. Climate change is estimated to bring more severe storm surge events which will further cause issues over insurance cover for coastal properties and many coastal owners may find their stunning beachfront views uninsurable. Whilst insurers try and operate with social responsibility, they also have financial responsibility as well. As I pointed out to a colleague – would you be happy if your bank was making poor lending decisions that might impact on the amount you pay for your mortgage and the stability of your lender should those loans go bad? Sure, insurers are in the business of covering risk, but like any business they have to ensure they have a sustainable balance between risk and reward. Aucklanders, of course, may see the benefits of this southwards shift in risk pricing with improved premiums. A friend up there recently switched to a risk based insurer and saved over $ 1,500 in their annual premium for the same cover with the same excess. So, what does this mean for Kiwis? Firstly, premiums will continue to rise – that’s a certainty – especially in higher risk areas. Let’s stop trying to be King Canute against the rising tide of higher risk and climate change. Secondly, buyers should consider insurance early on in the home buying process. When you’ve been to an open home and have fallen in love with a house, check out how much insurance cover will be. Jump on an insurer’s website and use CoreLogic’s Cordell Sum Sure to estimate the rebuild cost and get a quote for cover. Get two or three quotes for comparison. Look at the highest premium and assume that all premiums will rise to that level in the next few years, so factor that in to your budget, along with increasing interest rates. If a property is returning a high premium, but you still want to make it your home, maybe factor the future cost of insurance in to your offer? And definitely make that offer conditional on satisfactory insurance and don’t leave it to the last minute. Another emerging effect of these changes is that lenders are beginning to consider how these changes might affect them and their risk. If they have a 25 year relationship with the home owner, but the insurer only has a 12 month commitment. Rising premiums and a possible retreat from cover in some areas could certainly affect lenders. The other question is, how will these changes affect Australia? Whilst there is certainly a level of risk based pricing here, climate change, which is likely to result in more storms further south, increased storm surge, resulting in more flooding will certainly affect how insurers price risk and what they are prepared to cover. Added to that, many insurers and brokers operate trans-Tasman and so are clearly impacted by changes across the ditch. That aside, now is as good a time as any to review your cover whichever side of the Tasman you live on, and make sure you’re getting value for money across your home and contents insurance.
</body></html>

What can Australians learn from rising home insurance premiums in New Zealand? Richard Deakin

<html><body>
Feedback is being sought on the proposed changes to the maximum prices that the Valuer General can charge NSW councils for land valuation services.
The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) last set the maximum prices for the Valuer General’s charges to councils in 2014, which expire on 30 June 2019.
The valuations are used by councils to help calculate rates.
The NSW Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, has asked IPART to set the prices for these services for the next six-year period, from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2025.
A draft IPART report, released this week, proposes a reduction in the overall revenue that the Valuer General can collect from councils.
The prices are around 5.6% lower than the prices proposed by the Valuer General. 
While some councils will see increases, most would see their bills fall over the next six years under the draft decisions when excluding the effects of inflation, said IPART Chair, Dr Paul Paterson.
“We are proposing to change the way Valuer General’s charges are levied,” Paterson said.
“This would involve moving from a uniform ‘property type’ residential and non-residential pricing approach across NSW to a zonal price structure across four zones – Country, Coastal, Metro and City of Sydney.”
Under the proposed changes, councils would pay $7.42, $6.32, $5.83 and $12.07 per property valuation depending on whether they fall within the Country, Coastal, Metro and City of Sydney zones respectively.
“We consider the zonal price structure better reflects the costs of providing valuations, which can be driven by various factors, including the number and mix of property types, travel distance to conduct valuations, and the number of complex and high risk properties in an area,” Dr Paterson said.
“We note that the Valuer General’s proposal incorporated 2.0% of operating cost savings, resulting from the recent mass valuation procurement process, which we took into account in setting our prices. We also assessed the Valuer General’s other efficient costs and the appropriate allocation of these costs to councils.”
Submissions to IPART’s DraftReport and Draft Determination are invited by 24 April 2019.
Further information is available at <a href="http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/" target="_blank">www.ipart.nsw.gov.au</a>.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

IPART looks for feedback on Valuer General service price changes

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
Over the past decade there has been a significant change in house and unit values throughout each of Australia’s largest sub-state regions (best known as SA4).
Our findings found that over the 10 years to June 2018, national dwelling values have increased by a cumulative 43.9% with the combined capital cities recording an increase of 52.6% and the combined regional markets recording growth of 16.6%.
Houses values increased by 46.9% nationally over the past decade with combined capital city values growing at a faster pace (56.2%) than the combined regional markets (20.0%). Of the 88 regions SA4 national regions, 73 areas recorded an increase in dwelling values over the past decade with the remaining 15 recording falls.  No SA4 regions of NSW, Vic, Tas, NT or ACT have recorded a decline in values over the past decade.  Meanwhile, a majority of the WA SA4 regions have recorded declines in values over the past decade.
The region to record the greatest increase in house values over the past decade was the South West region of Sydney where values increased 112.9% over the period.  An additional five SA4 regions have seen house values double over the past decade, they were: Parramatta in Sydney (107.4%), Inner South West of Sydney (106.6%), Outer South West of Sydney (103.3%), South East of Melbourne (102.7%) and the West region of Melbourne (102.3%).
The regions of the country in where house values recorded the largest decline over the past decade were: 
<ul>
<li>Outback (North) in WA (-38.3%)</li>
<li>Outback (South) in WA (-34.0%)</li>
<li>Mackay-Isaac-Whitsunday in Qld (-27.3%)</li>
<li>Central Queensland (-26.8%) </li>
<li>Townsville (-23.6%)</li>
</ul>
Only three capital city SA4 regions, all of which are in Perth, have recorded house value falls over the past decade. 
Value growth in NSW and Vic has been substantially stronger than growth elsewhere.  In fact, the regions of NSW (Riverina) and Vic (North West) that recorded the weakest conditions over the decade have seen value growth well in excess of the best performing WA region (Perth-North West).
Outside of NSW and Vic, the regions with the strongest value growth across the remaining states and territories over the decade were: Brisbane-South (30.2%), Adelaide-West (20.3%), Perth-North West (2.2%), South East in Tas (43.9%), Outback in NT (35.2%) and ACT (30.3%).  
Illawarra in NSW recorded the greatest increase in house values of all regional markets over the past decade with values increasing 86.8%. Illawarra recorded the 15th highest rate of house value growth over the past decade nationally. 
The remaining regional markets that recorded relatively large increases in house values were: 
<ul>
<li>Geelong (79.6%)</li>
<li>Southern Highlands </li>
<li>Shoalhaven in NSW (77.9%)</li>
<li>Newcastle and Lake Macquarie (68.6%) </li>
<li>Bendigo in Vic (63.3%)</li>
</ul>
Looking at unit values, nationally throughout the past decade, units increased by 34.2% which is lower than the 46.9% increase in house values.  Unit value growth in the combined capital cities (42.0%) and combined regional housing markets (0.4%) was similarly lower than that for houses (56.2% and 20.0% respectively).
Of the 88 SA4 regions across the country, 53 have recorded an increase in unit values over the past decade with the remaining 35 recording a fall.
The South West region of Sydney recorded the greatest increase in house values of all SA4 regions (112.9%) and it has also recorded the greatest increase in unit values (98.0%).  While seven regions of the country have recorded a doubling of house values over the past decade, not one region has seen unit values double over the same period.  Only the Outer South West region of Sydney (81.0%) and Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs (78.2%), along with Sydney’s South West have recorded decade unit value growth of more than 75%.  By comparison, over the past decade, 24 regions of the country have recorded house value growth in excess of 75%.
Unit values have recorded the largest declines over the past decade in: 
<ul>
<li>Outback (North) WA (-73.3%), Outback (South) WA (-65.7%)</li>
<li>Darling Downs-Maranoa in Qld (-52.9%)</li>
<li>Central Queensland (-45.8%) </li>
<li>Townsville (-45.6%) </li>
</ul>
For the regions where unit values dropped, 15 were capital city regions with the remaining 20 located in regional areas of the country.  The capital city unit markets that recorded the greatest unit value falls were: Darwin (-26.0%), Ipswich in Qld (-23.5%), Logan-Beaudesert in Qld (-22.1%), Moreton Bay-South (-20.5%) and Perth-Inner (-19.5%).
Outside of NSW, the regions of each state and territory to record the greatest increase in unit values over the past decade were: Melbourne-Outer East (63.1%), Outback region of Qld (28.7%), South East region of SA (41.0%), Wheat Belt region of WA (54.9%), South East region of Tas (63.3%), Outback region of NT (28.7%) and ACT (11.6%).
Outside of the capital cities, the regional markets that have recorded the greatest increase in unit values over the past decade were: South East in Tas (63.3%), Illawarra in NSW (60.2%), Far West and Orana in NSW (55.7%), Wheat Belt in WA (54.9%) and Bendigo in Vic (46.2%).
The growth in house and unit values over the past decade has been characterised as very much slanted to strong growth in Sydney and Melbourne and weaker conditions elsewhere.  
While the last 10 years is not predictive of the future, dwelling values are already falling in Sydney and Melbourne and regional markets are currently outperforming capital cities.  
With housing in a downturn in Sydney and Melbourne and affordability stretched, at this point it seems unlikely the returns of the past decade will be replicated over the next 10 years.
</body></html>

How have house and unit values changed over the past decade?

<html><body>
Trends across the March quarter showed that capital city home values were 0.9% lower over the March quarter, while values across the regional markets tracked 1.1% higher.
Regional markets are now consistently outperforming the combined capitals, according to CoreLogic head of research Tim Lawless. 
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/4/3/CORELOGIC%20DWELLING%20VALUES%20.jpg" alt="">
“The stronger combined regional markets performance continues a trend that began to emerge in October last year where regional housing markets showed an overall improvement in the pace of capital gains while the combined capitals trend softened,” Lawless said.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/4/3/CORELOGIC%20COMBINED%20CAPITALS%20.jpg" alt="">
</body></html>

Regional markets are now consistently outperforming the combined capitals

<html><body>
Sydney houses had the highest property growth year-to-date for December 2016, according to CoreLogic's latest report.
The property data firm says that Sydney houses growth increased by 16.7%.
Melbourne houses came second with 15.1% while Hobart houses trailed behind with 11.7%
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Capital cities – Property type
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
2016 growth
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Sydney – Houses
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
16.7%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Melbourne – Houses
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
15.1%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Hobart – Houses
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
11.7%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Canberra - Houses
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
9.6%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Sydney – Units
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
9.6%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Hobart – Units
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
6.7%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Darwin – Units
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
5.7%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Canberra - Units
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
5.1%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Brisbane Gold Coast - Houses
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
4.6%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Adelaide – Houses
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
4.5%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Brisbane – Houses
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
4.0%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Brisbane Gold Coast Units
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
2.3%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Melbourne – Units
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
1.7%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Adelaide – Units
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
1.1%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Darwin – Houses
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
-0.2%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Brisbane – Units
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
-0.2%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Perth - Units
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
-3.2%
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="161">
Perth- Houses
</td>
<td valign="top" width="114">
-4.4%
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Perth sits at the bottom of the chart for both units and houses with a decline of growth by 3.2% and 4.4% respectively.
</body></html>

Australia's best to worst property markets in 2016: CoreLogic

<html><body>
There's big difference in prices between the big two capitals.
Sydney's $920,000 to Melbourne's $665,000 for houses.
Sydney's $690,000 to Melbourne's $495,000 for apartments.
Sydney's price growth was strong across both houses and apartments. 
Detached Sydney house prices were up 10.9 percent compared with units at 9.1 percent highlighting the lively supply/demand dynamic that exists across the Sydney region.
In Melbourne however there is a substantial difference in growth rates between houses and units, with house values up 9.6 percent compared with a 5.2 percent increase in unit values over the past year.
Brisbane’s housing market has shown a even larger spread, with house values up 4.7 percent compared with units which have had a 1.4 percent fall in unit values over the year. 
The capital growth for all capital cities have grown by 0.5 percent per month for all dwellings, according to CoreLogic’s latest report.
Quarterly the capital growth has grown by 2.7 percent with a total return year on year of 11.2 percent.
The biggest growth per month is at Brisbane – Gold Coast with a reported growth of 1.1 percent per month.
<a href="/images/2016/11/01/Table%201A.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/11/01/Table%201A.jpg" alt="">
<a href="/images/2016/11/01/Table%201B.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/11/01/Table%201B.jpg" alt="">
<a href="/images/2016/11/01/Table%201C.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/11/01/Table%201C.jpg" alt="">
<a href="/images/2016/11/01/Table%201D.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/11/01/Table%201D.jpg" alt="">
However both Adelaide and Hobart’s capital growth per month have declined with Adelaide experiencing a 2.4 percent fall in capital growth while Hobart experienced a 2.1 percent decline.
Sydney has experienced the highest capital growth in houses for year on year with a reported growth of 10.9% which is followed by Melbourne with a growth of 9.6 percent. Throughout all the capital cities capital growth for houses has increased by 7.7 percent throughout the year.
However for total return year on year Darwin experienced a decline by 1.6% as well as experiencing a fall of 2.4 percent for the year to date capital growth for houses.
The median price that can be expected for a unit in Canberra is $418,500 as although Canberra experienced a monthly decline of 0.7 percent in unit capital growth overall for the entire year they have seen a growth of 8.6 percent.
The cheapest unit can be found in Hobart where the average median price for a unit is $285,000. According to data Hobart has seen a quarterly decline of unit capital growth by 4.5 percent despite a healthy year on year capital growth increase of 8.3 percent.
Similarly in Hobart an investor can expect to have a rental yield of 5.6 percent if they invest in a unit there while for houses one could expect a rental yield of 5.3 percent.
Sydney has the lowest rental yield results with a house only receiving 2.8 percent of its rental yield while for units it is 3.8 percent.
</body></html>

Home Value

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Home Value

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News