Housing Costs

<html><body>
In its submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics Inquiry into Home Ownership in Australia, the Department of the Treasury reminds that state and territory governments have the primarily responsibility in housing supply. Removing regulatory impediments, land use and housing infrastructure policies is what improving housing supply is about.
"Reform addressing states and territories’ planning and land supply policies is not a new area of work. The Productivity Commission Inquiry into First Home Ownership in 2004 noted the need for state and territory governments to have appropriate land release strategies in place and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of planning and development policies. 
"Reform in this area has also been attempted previously. In July 2012, the Council of Australian Governments committed to the recommendations of the Housing Supply and Affordability Report (HSAR), which included improving planning, development and rezoning processes, and the release of land."
The demand for housing has increased along with the population. On the other hand, dwellings completion have not followed the population growth and remained constant over the past 15 years. The insufficient housing supply appears to have driven the increase in the dwelling prices.
"Housing is the largest asset class owned by Australian households, and is therefore a key driver of saving decisions. 
"Home ownership rates are relatively uniform across Australia with the exception of the Northern Territory. South Australia recorded the highest home ownership rate in Australia at 72.3%, with Northern Territory recording the lowest rate at 53.2%. 
"Home ownership rates in Australia are higher than comparable countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and New Zealand and a little below Canada. Rates of home ownership in some countries, such as Germany, are considerably lower."
"Dwelling investment accounts for around 5.5% of GDP in Australia. However, it has been highly cyclical in the past and has had significant impacts on GDP growth. 
"Between 2002 and 2012 there were two periods of strong increases in dwelling prices with price growth peaking in late 2007 and early 2010, but the supply response was muted compared with past cycles. 
"The number of building approvals for dwellings rose 17.6 per cent through the year to May 2015, implying a large stock of work yet to be completed. Reflecting the pipeline of work pending, the 2015-16 Budget forecasts dwelling investment to grow by 6 1⁄2% in 2015-16 and 41⁄2% in 2016-17. Dwelling construction is expected to directly contribute 0.3 percentage points to growth in both 2014-15 and 2015-16. 
"While construction is growing more rapidly in New South Wales than Victoria, Victorian construction is starting from a higher level, so the supply of new dwellings has been higher in that state over the past decade 
"Data suggest that there is still significant scope to increase the total supply of housing. National rental vacancy rates have been rising slowly since 2007 but remain low at 2.7% in the March quarter of 2015, well below the previous peak of 4.7% in 2002 
"Despite this, rental yields are low by historical standards. Net rental yields for three bedroom homes have fluctuated between 3.2% and 3.5% since late 2009 and are currently 3.3%. Low rental yields are a consequence of house price growth, which has outstripped growth in rents for most of the past two decades. 
"Rental yield is the average across Australian capital cities and is calculated by dividing net annual rental income by the median price. It does not take capital growth into account.
"National dwelling prices rose by 9.8% over the year to June 2015, a little below the peak reached in the middle of 2014.
"Price growth has been concentrated in Sydney and to a lesser extent, Melbourne. Dwelling prices in Sydney grew 16.2% in the year to June 2015, and by 10.2% in Melbourne." 
"In Sydney, price growth in the year to May 2015 varies between 9.3% in the Eastern Suburbs and 20.7% in Outer South Western Sydney. Of the 14 subdivisions that cover Sydney, price growth is stable or moderating in 10. 
"Melbourne price growth in the year to May 2015 varies between -0.2 per cent in Melton-Wyndham and 17.7% in Eastern Middle Melbourne, but 11 of the 16 subdivisions are experiencing growth between 3.3% and 6.8%. The majority of subdivisions in Melbourne have had steady price growth at current levels for the past year." 
Distribution of Home Ownership 
"The home ownership rate among households headed by a person aged 25 to 34 has fallen from 52.2% in 1995-96 to 42.0% in 2011-12, while for households led by a person aged 35 to 44, the rate has fallen from 72.9% to 62.1% over the same period. Ownership rates have been steadier for older age cohorts.  
"The proportion of loans being approved to first home buyers' is currently around 15%.This is slightly below the average over the past five years of 17.0%, and below the average of 21.6% in the second half of the 1990s. 
"The number of Australians buying a home for the first time has averaged around 4 per 1,000 people over the past five years, compared with around 5 per 1,000 people in the second half of the 1990s. 
"The two key factors influencing the purchase of a first home are savings for a deposit and having sufficient income to service a mortgage. 
"Since 2000, investors have generally accounted for between 30 and 40% of all housing finance approvals. However, during periods of strong price growth, investors tend to represent a larger proportion of financing, particularly in New South Wales."
Long-term macroeconomic drivers 
"Over the past 20 years annual net overseas migration has contributed between 0.3% and 1.5% to annual population growth. Net overseas migration grew strongly between 2006 and 2008 with the contribution of net arrivals peaking at 1.5% in 2008. 
"Net migration contributed 0.8% to annual population growth in the year to the December quarter 2014. Annual population growth rose above 1.3% for the first time since 1991 in 2006 and has remained above this level. 
"During the 1980s and 1990s migration flowed out of New South Wales and Victoria and into Queensland. The outflow from Victoria reversed in the mid-1990s, while the outflow from New South Wales intensified around 2001. Net interstate migration to Queensland has fallen from around 37,000 in 2002 to 6,000 in the most recent year (up to the December quarter 2014). 
"Net interstate migration to South Australia has been negative for most of the past 30 years. Western Australia has generally experienced inward interstate migration, although this flow fell sharply over the past two years and has been negative over the 3 quarters to December 2014, reflecting developments in the resources sector. 
"Overall, the rate of interstate migration in Australia has typically had a smaller influence on state populations than either natural increase or overseas migration. 
"Since 2001 the average size of households has remained steady at 2.6 people indicating a slowdown in the rate of household formation. 
"The long-term supply of dwellings in Australia is determined by the availability of land and redevelopment opportunities and the underlying capacity of the construction sector. 
"Data on the availability of land suggest that residential land releases have been declining over the past 15 years. This is consistent with a greater focus on the redevelopment of land closer to city centres, but also highlights the lack of growth centres outside of capital cities, with land release declining faster in regional areas."
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Treasury's submission to Aussie home ownership

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Income inequality is undoubtedly one of the most controversial economic issues of modern societies, with many countries facing incredible differences between those who make more and those who make less. But what is happening across Australian regions?
Although researchers such as Peter Whiteford and Nicholas Biddle have investigated the issue in Australia, there are no official records on income inequality measured consistently across regions of the country – even at national level income inequality measures are rarely available in international comparisons (see for instance, World Bank and OECD data.
This lack of evidence is a clear reflection that income inequality is less conflicted in Australia compared to other countries, as Australia is characterised as having very low rates of poverty and economic segregation, compared to other societies, and a culture of “a fair go”.
However, regardless of the apparent “economic equality” in our society, income inequality is still an important issue to track and analyse. In order to fill the gap on income inequality measures across the country, we have developed a method to approximate Gini coefficients for different Australian regions, including states and local councils.
What we found
At state level, based on our estimates in 2011, the most unequal jurisdiction was NSW (0.42), followed by the Northern Territory (0.40), while the least unequal was Tasmania (0.38), meaning that the gap between the rich and the poor was bigger in NSW than in Tasmania.
However, income distribution varies over time, with the ACT showing the biggest change in income inequality, where the Gini coefficient increased from 0.35 in 2001 to 0.39 in 2011.
<a href="/images/2015/09/28/image-20150925-17697-1y399g4.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
 <img src="/images/2015/09/28/image-20150925-17697-1y399g4.png" alt="">
At sub-state level, within metropolitan areas, we found that the local councils of Burwood, Strathfield, Kogarah and Sydney (all from the Sydney Metropolitan area) had the highest income inequality in the country in 2011, while the local councils of Melton (in Melbourne), Light (in Brisbane), Mallala (in Perth) and Palmerstone (in Darwin) had the lowest income inequality.
In terms of trends in cities, interestingly Perth captured both extremes: while the suburbs of Cottesloe and Subiaco is where income inequality has increased the most, the local council of Perth had the lowest increase in inequality across Australian cities.
<h2>Using the Gini co-efficient</h2>
The Gini is one of the most used indicators for income inequality across the world for its simplicity: a Gini of 0 means that the total income of the region is distributed evenly across all persons of the region, while a Gini of 1 means all income captured by just one person. According to the OECD, in 2012 Australia had a Gini of 0.326, while the US had a Gini of 0.390.
Thus, in order to provide more insights about the effects of the mining boom of the recent decade across Australian regions, we have constructed Gini coefficients for family income reported in the national censuses of 2001 and 2011, across all regions of the country.
Although our measures are not perfect and are subject to some assumptions, including the assumption that 30% of families in the richest income bracket capture 70% of the income in that segment, they do provide a good sign of how income inequality varies across the country and how it has been changing over time.
All Gini coefficients across regions are available here.
<h2>Policy implications</h2>
These income inequality data raise several questions. Are the reasons for income inequality different around the country? Does income inequality affect other factors such as health, as evidenced in the US?
What levels of income inequality are acceptable across Australian regions? And what actions are required to address this? These are the questions policy makers should now tackle.
 
David A. Fleming is researcher, CSIRO and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-a-fleming-110682" target="_blank">here</a>.
Tom Measham is senior research scientist, CSIRO and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/rich-and-poor-which-areas-of-australia-are-most-unequal-42409?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+September+28+2015+-+3499&amp;utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+September+28+2015+-+3499+CID_dbd79abf7855b7f7ffb01ac423d4b749&amp;utm_source=campaign_monitor&amp;utm_term=Rich%20and%20poor%20which%20areas%20of%20Australia%20are%20most%20unequal" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Rich and poor: which areas of Australia are most unequal?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/69202/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The number of Australians who are 30 days behind in their mortgage payments is at the highest level in three years, according to ratings agency Moody’s. It projects this will keep rising. 
The question is, how worried should we be? 
The increase in mortgage delinquencies is a warning sign for lenders. Moody’s analysed mortgages in residential mortgage-backed securities, which may differ from the loans on the books of the major banks. So it’s hard to say exactly how problematic this is right now. 
But there are a number of factors that could make this situation worse, regardless of the current risk. My colleagues and I recently published research exploring the causes of loan losses. We found a lack of ready funds and declining housing prices to be key contributors. Future interest rate rises, then, are a concern.
Further, a key driver behind the rise of delinquencies is that wage increases have not kept up with recent house price increases, and this trend, too, is looking rather dire. 
<h2>How banks report bad loans</h2>
Bank risk reports reflect a number of different metrics of how their loan books are doing. Let’s focus on loan delinquencies, impaired assets and provisioning. 
In Australia, housing loans are defined as delinquent if the borrower does not meet scheduled payments. For example, they could be 30 days or more than 90 days late. A loan is considered impaired if it is likely to result in a loss to the bank - generally because there is not sufficient collateral backing the loan.
Provisioning is the money that banks allocate to cover the losses on bad loans, whether delinquent or impaired.
This chart, based on recent Commonwealth Bank reports, shows that none of these numbers are particularly high right now - representing less than half a percent of all the loans on the bank’s books.
<a href="/images/2016/11/29/image-20161124-15325-tl83nr.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h2><img src="/images/2016/11/29/image-20161124-15325-tl83nr.jpg" alt=""></h2>
Commonwealth Bank of Australia Basel III Pillar 3 reports. Commonwealth Bank
<h2>How bad loans affect banks</h2>
That chart isn’t the end of the story. 
Generally speaking, delinquencies are forward looking. A 30-day delinquency has a strong potential to become a 90-day delinquency, eventually forcing the bank to start setting aside more and more money, and prepare for an impairment. 
Bank provisioning follows guidelines set by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA). The longer the loan is in arrears, the more money banks have to set aside.
For example, for a mortgage loan with an outstanding amount of 80-100% of the property value, the bank does not have to set aside any additional money for the first 90 days it is in arrears. But they must set aside 5% of the loan after 90 days, and 20% after a year. Larger provisions apply for commercial loans, especially if they are not secured against other assets.
This is why the Moody’s warning has to be taken seriously - 30 days can quickly become 90 days, putting more pressure on banks.
<h2>The state of the economy is also a factor</h2>
Not every delinquent loan results in a loss, however. Banks and borrowers often come to agreement on more lenient payment schedules which ‘cure’ delinquent loans and borrowers are able to make scheduled payments again. 
The rate at which delinquent loans are cured often reflects the state of the economy. The following charts are based on <a href="https://www.creditriskanalytics.net/datasets">US data</a> and show us how the economy can factor into whether a loan is cured or goes bad. In a boom, cure rates are high and foreclosure rates low.
Another thing to note in these charts is that cure rates decrease significantly as the number of days in arrears increases. 
<a href="/images/2016/11/29/image-20161124-15325-1ozowoo.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/11/29/image-20161124-15325-1ozowoo.jpg" alt="">
Delinquencies that are ‘cured’ during a boom. author's analysis 
In an economic bust, however, cure rates are low and foreclosure rates are high. There are many reasons for this – during a bust it is much harder for the unemployed to find jobs, for delinquent borrowers to sell other assets, and lenders are less willing to refinance.
<a href="/images/2016/11/29/image-20161124-15362-1quhi9k.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/11/29/image-20161124-15362-1quhi9k.jpg" alt="">
 
Delinquencies that are ‘cured’ during a bust. author's analysis
Are Aussie banks in trouble?
In Australia the delinquency rates are currently well below those seen in the US during the global financial crisis (GFC). The delinquency rates there and then exceeded 5%.
But the conditions are there for bank losses to be realised. First, borrowers need to become delinquent (often as a result of job losses or interest rate increases). Second, house prices need to drop below outstanding loan amounts as banks only have losses if the houses do not repay the impaired loans.
Such a bust scenario may be unlikely but within reach. The job market is under pressure, interest rates are low and hence likely to rise in the longer term, and the outlook for house prices is mixed - with Melbourne and Sydney on the rise but cities associated with the mining sector heading down. 
It is important to keep a close watch on these all factors, especially if they start to combine.
Harry Scheule is associate professor, Finance, UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/harry-scheule-3573" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

More Australians are behind on their housing loans, how worried should we be?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Whenever you buy a property for the purpose of taking advantage of capital growth, it's going to be a process that comes with an assortment of expenses.
You'll want to be prepared for the various costs you're going to have to cover and know how to get the most out of your investment.
First of all are the costs directly related to the purchase of the property. That means paying stamp duty on top of the property value, which depends on both the price of the home and on which state you're in. Note that you can reduce stamp duty on house and land packages - depending on if the land falls within your particular state's guidelines, you could end up paying it on the land and not the house. You may also have to pay for the services of a solicitor or conveyor, who will oversee the settlement process and ensure it goes smoothly.
If you require investment finance, which you almost certainly will, you'll also need to pay for the various costs involved in a loan application and have a deposit of at least 10 per cent of the value, whether through savings or home equity. Depending on how much of the value you're borrowing, you may also need to pay for lenders mortgage insurance.
<div class="columns small-10 large-5 vgrid-small-offset-bottom-1 vgrid-small-offset-top-0 large-push-1 right">You yourself will have to take out cover for the property, too. You might choose to take out landlords insurance if you're planning to rent the property out, which can protect your property from any damage, whether wilful or accidental. If you're constructing a new home, you'll need building insurance, too. </div>
Finally, don't forget the cost of building inspections and, for existing properties, pest inspections, which will give you peace of mind but can run into hundreds of dollars each. You'll also need to factor in any moving costs for furniture, plus council rates. 
With so many expenses, to take care of, it's a wise idea to do all you can to maximise your profit. This can involve a number of tax-reducing strategies:
<ul>
<li>Claim as many tax deductions as you can on the costs involved in running the property, from advertising for tenants to driving over to inspect the home.</li>
<li>Have a professional quantity surveyor carry out a depreciation schedule, so you can claim the depreciation of your investment property and its contents come tax time.</li>
<li>Consider structural factors like whose name the property is under. If your partner is not earning money, for example, they can't reduce their tax - so it's worth putting it mostly in your name.</li>
<li>Complete a tax variation form so you can receive tax off-sets with every pay cheque</li>
</ul>
Remember to speak to professional property experts like DPN to make sure you've got your bases covered. In some cases, we can access occupation specific benefits which may avoid the need for mortgage insurance.
SAM KHALIL is founder and director of <a href="https://www.dpn.com.au/" target="_blank">Direct Property Network</a>.
</body></html>

Get the most out of your investment: DPN's Sam Khalil

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
 
At this low level of the cash rate it seems that the hurdle for cutting further is very high.
One aspect of this is that the exuberant housing market remains a concern.
Another aspect is that despite the recent surprising fall in Q3 GDP, the RBA still expect GDP growth to pick up to an above trend pace of ‘around 3 percent over the next couple of years’ and for inflation to pick up to above 2 percent in 2017.
We agree with these forecasts and see the RBA on hold through 2017 before lifting the cash rate in 2018.
The RBA kept its cash rate steady today at 1.50 percent, as expected by 27 of 28 economists in the Bloomberg survey.
Just prior to the decision the market was pricing a 4 percent chance of a 25bp cut and a 15 percent chance of a 25bp cut by May.
The RBA seemingly has very little appetite to even consider cutting the cash rate further, with today’s statement not even describing it as an option.
Part of the reasoning is that the current low cash rate is already delivering a housing price boom in Sydney and Melbourne and there are increasing concerns about the exuberance of these housing markets.
It is also worth keeping in mind that Governor Lowe had already told us in a speech in November 2016 that cutting rates further may not be in the ‘public interest’ if it further boosted household debt even if it got inflation back to target more quickly.
The hurdle for a rate cut at this point in the cycle is clearly very high.
While we see the financial stability concerns as a key factor that kept the RBA on hold today, we also note that the central bank’s own take on the global and local economies remains quite positive.
On the global economy, the statement noted that growth in China had been stronger over the second half of 2016, that global business and consumer confidence had generally picked up and that inflation rates had generally moved higher.
It also stated that the recent lift in commodity prices was boosting Australia’s national income.
On the local economy, the statement (which was the first public comment from the RBA on the Q3 GDP numbers) suggested that the fall in GDP in Q3 was due to ‘temporary factors’ and that ‘reasonable growth’ was expected in Q4.
More importantly, the central bank re-affirmed that the RBA is still forecasting growth to pick up to an above trend pace of ‘around 3 percent over the next couple years’.
At the same time, it still sees inflation lifting back to the target band.
Focus will now shift to a speech the Governor is scheduled to deliver on 9 February and the official statement, due to be published on 10 February.
<a href="https://www.about.hsbc.com.au/hsbc-in-australia/management-team" target="_blank">PAUL BLOXHAM</a> IS CHIEF ECONOMIST (AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND) FOR HSBC. 
</body></html>

RBA's increasing concerns about housing price boom exuberance: Paul Bloxham

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Housing affordability is more than just house prices. It also includes ready access to public transport, schools, good road networks, and of course access to all the basic utilities. However, local governments don’t have the money to build all the infrastructure new housing estates need.
So developer charges were introduced as a “user pays” method of funding new urban infrastructure. These charges are levied on property developers by local authorities at the time of planning approval. Some think these costs are passed back to the original land owner by way of lower land prices.
But property developers claim these charges are instead added on to new house prices, with a negative impact to housing affordability. When new house prices increase, existing house prices are also dragged up, extending the housing affordability issue throughout the community.
However, new research by QUT has uncovered evidence that these costs are not merely passed on to homebuyers, but are passed on at significantly over-inflated rates.
In an Australian first, the study empirically examines the impact of developer charges on housing affordability, providing evidence that developer charges are passed on to all homebuyers in the community. So while policy makers think they are charging developers for the provision of infrastructure in new communities, the cost is really being borne by all homebuyers.
<h2>The research</h2>
This research applied a hedonic house price model to 4,699 new and 25,053 existing house sales in Brisbane from 2005 to 2011. Using diverse data sets on both housing supply and demand items, it tested the impact developer charges had on both new and existing house prices over this time.
This study has provided the first Australian evidence that developer charges are passed onto home buyers. But these charges aren’t passed on in a dollar-for-dollar fashion. Consistent with international evidence, there is evidence that suggests these charges are inflated on both new and existing homes by around 400%.
What does that mean? It means that $10,000 of developer charge adds about $40,000 to the price of both new and existing houses.
In Queensland, where developer charges are around $28,000 per new house, this one fee alone could be responsible for over $110,000 of the house price. Over the term of a 30 year mortgage, this could be costing homebuyers in excess of $338,000 or almost $1,000 per month extra mortgage payments.
This is not to say developers are profiteering. The competitive nature of the development industry ensures developer margins are kept within a range reflective of the risky nature of property development. Developer fees are a supply side cost that often aren’t locked in until many years after the land is first bought for subdivision.
Demand factors, such as low interest rates and limited supply force up prices and land owners quickly adjust their expectations, asking more for the undeveloped land that will help with supply. Holding costs, time delays, limited supply of serviced land and imperfect data and models are all thought to contribute to this problem.
<h2>All buyers pay</h2>
This price inflation affects new home buyers and also buyers of existing homes, resulting in increased mortgage repayments of close to $1,000 per month in Australia.
Thus this inefficient developer “tax” isn’t being paid by developers at all. It is being paid by all home buyers across the community, even though the actual infrastructure built only services the new developments.
These findings suggest that developer charges are not only an inefficient tax, but are a significant contributor to increasing house prices and reduced housing affordability.
It is inefficient and inequitable to expect the community to pay four times the cost of infrastructure that services only new housing estates.
In the current environment of resource constraints and declining housing affordability, it’s now time other infrastructure funding models were considered by policy makers.
 
Lyndall Bryant is lecturer in Property Economics at Queensland University of Technology and author for The Conversation. You can contact her <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lyndall-bryant-178983" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Inefficient tax slugs all homebuyers

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/75201/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The concentration of disadvantaged people in certain parts of cities is almost always seen as undesirable by urban researchers and policymakers. But is this always the case?
Our research demonstrates that it isn’t. Concentrations of people who are often classified as “disadvantaged” – namely newly arrived humanitarian refugees and their families – can have significant positive outcomes. This is because such “gateway suburbs”, while housing large numbers of disadvantaged people, are not disadvantaged places.
As part of a broader research project, we chose two suburbs that were identified as disadvantaged and characterised by high numbers of immigrants. We spoke with residents and local service providers about their experiences, place changes over time and current settlement opportunities for newly arriving migrants. The suburbs we chose were Auburn in Sydney and Springvale in Melbourne.
Auburn and Springvale may have high concentrations of disadvantaged people, as defined by Australian Bureau of Statistics data (in terms of income, employment and language proficiency in particular). But they are not disadvantaged places.
These suburbs are well serviced by public transport and are within reasonable commuting distance of their cities’ CBDs. They have a plethora of social and community services, along with a good selection of shops and services catering to the local community.
Historically, these suburbs have been major hubs for providing resources and support to new and established migrant communities.
A bottom-up community structure
In both suburbs, the presence of “first-wave” migrant groups during years of intensive manufacturing after the second world war, and the immigration encouraged to support this, promoted the development of migrant support services. Government subsidised some of these. Many grew more organically through community relationships and support needs.
With the decline of manufacturing from the late 1970s and changing immigration policies, government support has retracted in these areas. This has been accompanied by a winding back of government support for housing and a rapidly changing housing market.
The legacy of these areas has meant that both Auburn and Springvale continue to have high degrees of amenity and social and economic infrastructure. This includes a high concentration of grassroots community groups. These provide support to recent immigrants in general and refugees in particular.
These are good places to live. But there are signs this is changing.
Broader changes in urban housing markets and migration policies, and economic and labour market restructuring, are beginning to undermine the benefits for immigrants settling in these areas. Increasingly unaffordable housing, reduced employment opportunities in low-skilled jobs and the erosion of government support for newly arrived immigrants mean migrants are at risk of greater disadvantage than in the past.
In particular, housing costs are increasing rapidly in Auburn and Springvale. While private market housing has successfully housed new migrants in the past, this is no longer the case. Many migrants can no longer afford to live in these areas, except in overcrowded or otherwise unsatisfactory living conditions.
Rental stock is in bad disrepair. Refugees and recent arrivals go into these houses and real estate agents are slow to act on people living in substandard conditions and are reluctant to do anything about it. – Springvale interviewee
Today, the choice new migrants face is whether to live in unsatisfactory conditions in these areas, or to move to more affordable areas with fewer facilities and support services.
If similar processes are at play in other migrant gateway suburbs, and we suspect they are, this has important implications for Australia’s ability to continue its role as an immigrant destination country.
In the context of recent shifts in Australian immigration policy away from humanitarian and family migrants and towards skilled and student migrants, this is perhaps not a government priority. But it should be.
Left to fend for yourself
Far from being something to celebrate, that new “disadvantaged” migrants are finding it increasingly difficult to live together in places like Auburn and Springvale is something we should be worried about.
As they are pushed out into more dispersed areas with more insecure housing, recent arrivals are also pushed away from areas with the services and amenities that might help them leave the ranks of the “disadvantaged” and become the “new Australians” who have, until recently at least, been much celebrated.
We have been replacing housing, employment and migrant settlement policy supports with a fend-for-yourself “good luck!” approach in an unaffordable housing market.
In a market dominated by more than 95 percent private ownership or rental, this poses new risks for those choosing Australia as their home. It introduces further complexity for organisations trying to support successful integration as they work across dispersed locations.
Ultimately, these developments create the risk that Australian society will miss out on the enduring cultural, social and economic contributions made by migrants who choose to call Australia home.
Hazel Easthope is<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hazel-easthope-175163"> </a>senior research fellow, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hazel-easthope-175163" target="_blank">here</a>.
Wendy Stone is associate professor; Director, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Swinburne University of Technology and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wendy-stone-9804" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

New to Australia? Good luck! Migrants can no longer afford ‘gateway’ suburbs

<html><body>
Last week the Reserve Bank’s (RBA) Head of Financial Stability Luci Ellis gave an interesting speech entitled ‘Property Markets and Financial Stability: What We Know So Far.' 
In my opinion one of the more interesting pieces of analysis in the speech was the analysis of inner city housing prices relative to those in the outer ring.  The chart below was the analysis showed in the speech.
<a href="/images/2015/09/16/Chart-12.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2015/09/16/Chart-12.jpg" alt="">
<div class="entry">
Regarding this chart, the speech noted the following key points:
<ul>
<li>Land is two things: it is both space and place. Many have observed that Australia has plenty of the former. But I think the lesson of past booms as well as recent times is that it’s place – location – that really matters. If we think back to boom–bust episodes of the past, whether in land for new development, railways or prime office buildings, in every case you can see people trying to get their hands on the best locations, to take advantage of whatever future economic outcomes they expect. </li>
<li>Location explains far more of the variation in individual property prices than block size (Hansen 2006). Yes, some people like a bigger garden, for privacy or to enjoy in other ways. But being in the ‘right’ kind of neighbourhood with the best amenities, close to commercial centres and other services, is more important to most people, if their willingness to pay for it is any guide.</li>
<li>The physical reality is that the supply of good locations is more or less fixed in the short term. So any sizeable boost to demand cannot be fully absorbed by more supply. The newly built property is simply not the same as the existing stock, because it’s somewhere else. We should therefore not be surprised that strong demand for property does not just change the general price level for that asset, but also its distribution. We can see this in the increase in prices of inner-ring properties relative to those further out, especially in Sydney</li>
</ul>
I agree with this analysis; housing closer to the city centres and closer to major working nodes is more desirable. Also in many capital cities, as we see houses in inner city areas knocked down to make way for higher density development, the underlying land component becomes intrinsically more valuable. Subsequently, the availability of houses in many inner city areas are actually reducing. After I read this section of the speech I decided to go digging in the data to see just how much difference there was in terms of inner city house values and growth in these values over the past year relative to values and growth across the rest of the capital cities.  For the purposes of this analysis we have determined that the inner-city region is within 10 kilometres of each capital city.
<a href="/images/2015/09/16/Chart-22.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2015/09/16/Chart-22.jpg" alt="">
The above chart shows that in terms of median house values, the proportion of homes above the city-wide median is substantially higher in inner city areas. Even in a city such as Sydney where housing is less affordable, once you shift more than 10 kilometres from the city centre, only 29.3% of suburbs have a median house value above the city-wide median. In all cities, more than half of all inner city suburbs have a median higher than the city-wide median and all non-inner city areas have less than 50% of suburbs with a median greater than the city-wide median.
While the fact that the cost of housing is higher as you move closer to the city-centre the magnitude of the difference is significant. The other factor to consider is the growth in values in the inner-city versus the rest of the city.  This is where the results change somewhat.
<a href="/images/2015/09/16/Chart-31.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2015/09/16/Chart-31.jpg" alt="">
Sydney is probably the most interesting result here. Although it has seen the sharpest rises in home values over the past year, suburbs outside of the 10 kilometre inner ring have generally experienced stronger value growth. Of course it is important to recall that Sydney values have been rising for more than three years, and growth, while continuing, has shifted from inner city areas to more affordable outer housing markets. 
Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra were the only capital cities in which more than half of the inner city suburbs have recorded value growth in excess of that recorded across the cities. Notably each of Perth, Hobart and Darwin are seeing more outer suburbs outperforming than inner suburbs. Of course it should be remembered that home values are now falling in Perth and Darwin and clearly this is impacting the inner city performance. 
The lesson here of course is just because inner city housing is generally more desirable, it doesn’t mean it is immune from falls in the event of a housing market downturn.
Inner city housing markets will likely remain more desirable than those suburbs further afield, due in large to the abundant amenity typically available in these areas.  Although the desire to live in these inner city areas is strong, the reality is that the cost of housing in these locations is restrictive and the supply is relatively short, so many can’t access the housing they want in these areas. 
As some of the examples show, although housing in inner city areas is more expensive, it doesn’t necessarily mean that value growth will consistently outperform growth across the rest of the city. 
Furthermore, as the Perth and Darwin highlights, inner city housing isn’t bullet-proof and in the event of a housing market downturn it has in the past and will potentially in the future also see value declines.
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>.
</div>
</body></html>

ckusher-ujnxiKuFQs

Inner city housing more expensive but growth not strongest: Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has released demographic data for the September 2015 quarter recently.
The data showed a continuation of the trend towards a slower rate of population growth at a national level. At the end of the quarter, it was estimated that there were 23,860,133 residents of Australia, an increase of just 0.3 percent over the quarter and 1.3 percent over the past year.
<a href="/images/2016/03/30/Chart-1-4-580x206.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge </a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/30/Chart-1-4-580x206.jpg" alt="">
The 12 months to September 2015 saw an additional 313,237 residents of Australia which is 7.3 percent lower than over the same quarter in 2014.  In fact, the annual increase in population for the country is the lowest it has been since the June 2011 quarter.
<a href="/images/2016/03/30/Chart-2-3-580x205.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/30/Chart-2-3-580x205.jpg" alt="">
At a national level, there are two components of population growth, natural increase (births minus deaths) and net overseas migration.  Over the past year, there was a natural increase of 145,585 persons and net overseas migration of 167,652 persons.  As the above chart shows, the two measures are converging due to a sharp decline in net overseas migration.  Annual net overseas migration is now at its lowest level since September 2006, is -7.0 percent lower over the year and -46.9 percent lower than its peak in December 2008.
<a href="/images/2016/03/30/Chart-3-4-580x206.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/30/Chart-3-4-580x206.jpg" alt="">
Looking at population growth across the states and territories, the rate of growth has been strongest over the past year in Victoria at 1.7 percent and lowest in the Northern Territory at 0.3 percent.
The annual rate of population growth is above 1 percent in all states and territories except the Northern Territory, Tasmania and South Australia. In terms of raw number population increase over the year, New South Wales and Victoria are way out in front of all other areas with increases of 102,243 persons and 102,311 persons respectively. 
Queensland (55,232) and Western Australia (32,542) were the only other two regions to record annual population growth of more than 15,000 persons.  Across the remaining states and territories the annual population increase was recorded at: 12,396 persons in South Australia, 5,491 persons in the Australian Capital Territory, 2,159 persons in Tasmania and 826 persons.
The four most populous states accounted for 93.3 percent of total population growth over the year with New South Wales and Victoria accounting for 65.3 percent.
The mining states and territories in particular have felt the full brunt of the slowdown in population. At its peak in December 2008, Queensland recorded a population increase of 115,561 with annual growth now less than half this figure.  In Western Australia, annual population increases peaked at 88,156 persons in September 2012 and in Northern Territory the annual population increase peaked at 7,073 persons in March 2013.
It is also worthwhile at the state and territory level to have a look at the interstate migration trends.  As well as net overseas migration there is net interstate migration across the states and territories which affects population growth.
<a href="/images/2016/03/30/Chart-4-4-580x206.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/30/Chart-4-4-580x206.jpg" alt="">
Firstly if we look at annual net overseas migration, New South Wales (66,540) and Victoria (55,447) account for an overwhelming majority of the population increase.  In fact, 72.8 percent of all net overseas migration was into these two states which is the highest proportion since December 1984.
Elsewhere the number of net overseas migrants has been recorded at: 16,725 persons in Queensland, 10,255 persons in South Australia, 14,249 persons in Western Australia, 1,119 persons in Tasmania, 975 persons in the Northern Territory and 2,333 persons in the Australian Capital Territory. Annual net overseas migration into Queensland is at its lowest level since December 2000 and South Australian net overseas migration is at its lowest level since December 2011.
<a href="/images/2016/04/5/Chart-5-2-580x205.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/04/5/Chart-5-2-580x205.jpg" alt="">
Turning to net interstate migration, movement between the states and territories is slowly starting to rise again; the above chart shows the annual movements between states and territories.  The chart shows that since 2003 there has been a fairly consistent decline in the proportion of the population moving interstate.  I have to admit this is a little surprising given that it coincides with the end of Sydney’s and Melbourne’s housing boom and is pretty much the beginning of the mining boom.  Although, the sudden slowing of interstate migration coincides with the substantial ramping-up of net overseas migration and with net overseas migration we are now seeing a pick-up in interstate migration.
<a href="/images/2016/04/5/Chart-6-1-580x210.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/04/5/Chart-6-1-580x210.jpg" alt="">
Over the past 12 months, Victoria and Queensland are the only two states or territories to have recorded a positive net inflow of population form other states.  Net interstate migration to Victoria was a record high 11,187 persons over the past year compared to 6,890 persons to Queensland. 
Net interstate migration into Queensland seems to be turning a corner after hitting a trough of 5,598 persons over the year to December 2014. 
Across the remaining states and territories there have been losses from net interstate migration of: -7,451 persons in New South Wales, -4,125 persons in South Australia, -2,721 persons in Western Australia, -180 persons in Tasmania, -3,019 persons in the Northern Territory and -581 persons in the Australian Capital Territory.  The net loss of persons from interstate migration is at its highest level since March 2014 in New South Wales, its highest since June 2009 in South Australia and its greatest since March 2003 in Western Australia. In Tasmania the loss of residents to interstate migration is at its lowest level since June 2011 and it is at its lowest level since December 2013 in the Australian Capital Territory.
The more up-to-date overseas arrivals and departures data indicates that net overseas migration is likely to trend even lower next quarter which will dampen the national rate of population growth further.  At the same time, the data shows that Victoria (which would seem to be a proxy for Melbourne) is the migration epicentre of the country attracting large numbers of both overseas and interstate migrants. 
Meanwhile the outflow of residents leaving New South Wales is picking up pace while interstate migration to Queensland is starting to build.
Perhaps we are seeing the impact of high housing costs in Sydney and fairly strong jobs growth in Victoria and Queensland starting to attract Sydneysiders to other parts of the Eastern Seaboard.  Weaker economic conditions in Western Australia are seeing residents leave with Victoria and Queensland the benefactors.  Meanwhile, Tasmania’s outflow of residents is slowing on the back of the booming tourism sector and a recent improvement in economic conditions.
Finally with population growth slowing we are seeing a better relationship between housing supply and housing demand.  After recently hitting record high levels, it is reasonable to expect that the slowing population growth will see property developers respond by seeking fewer approvals for new residential properties.
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>

Housing Costs

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Housing Costs

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News