Housing Costs

<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>

Population growth continues to slow due to ongoing decline in net overseas migration: Cameron Kusher

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Even though house prices have risen substantially over recent decades, housing costs as a share of income have barely shifted in over 20 years. Costs relative to disposable income for housing are largely unchanged, at 17% since 1993, although there has been some increase since 2000.
There is no agreed measure for defining housing affordability, but just looking at house prices can be deceptive. Australian households are roughly equally split between purchasing, renting or owning their house outright.
There is no doubt that house prices increased substantially over recent decades. According to CoreLogic over the past 20 years the median house price in Australia increased from A$140,000 in December 1997 to A$540,000 by December 2017 – an annual increase of 7%. Relative to disposable income this represents a 68% increase over the 20-year period.
Australian households are roughly equally split between purchasing, renting or owning their house outright. Highly inflated house prices are more concerning to people wishing to move from renting to purchasing a house (mostly potential first home buyers).
Housing affordability looks very different when we look at actual housing costs relative to income, rather than just house prices. Housing costs increased substantially between 1984 and 1993.
This was a combination of weak income growth and strong increases in housing costs, particularly mortgages with interest rates increasing sharply over this period. Since peaking in 1993 costs remained relatively stable with rents increasing modestly over the past 10 years, while mortgage costs declined.
Overall, actual housing costs relative to income have remained stable since 1993 at around 16% of disposable income.
<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/2018/5/25/d40cd39a221f46f8bd18572aef904b89.jpg" alt="">
We split households into five equal groups from lowest 20% of disposable income up to highest 20%, after adjusting for type of family and household size. Clearly, low-income households spend a lot more on housing relative to their income than higher-income households. The share of housing costs for the lowest income quintile has increased in recent years but is not substantially different from longer term averages.
<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/2018/5/25/74e883b8bb6a491b9f31eb556c466b3b.jpg" alt="">
All other income groups have increased their share of spending relative to income since 1984. Since 1993 the changes have been mixed with the lowest income households and highest income households both spending less as a share of income, while the middle income categories have increased their spending, albeit modestly.
Housing was much more affordable in 1984 with average housing costs at just 11.3% of disposable income.
A number of important changes have occurred over the past 25 years. Interest rates are much lower, living standards have increased substantially for low, middle and high income families and savings rates have also increased – implying that housing costs are increasingly a larger share of expenditure.
Another common measure of housing affordability is housing stress. We use the “30/40” stress rule – a household paying more than 30% of their disposable income on housing costs and also in the bottom 40% of the income distribution.
Using this housing stress measure, we see a significant increase in renter stress, firstly between 1984 and 1993 and then from 2007. Mortgage stress is largely unchanged since 1988 following an increase between 1984 and 1988.
<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/2018/5/25/f71281532a57455387cf561a0a0bb615.jpg" alt="">
Housing stress rates are similar for major states. The highest rate is in Queensland with 13.5% of households in stress whereas the combined ACT and NT region has the lowest stress rate at 8.1%, thanks to relatively high incomes. The NSW rate is lower than both Victoria and Queensland.
Home ownership rates in Australia have slowly declined since 1984 from around 72% to around 68% by 2015-16. Ownership rates of households headed by people aged under 35 dropped from 50% in the 1980s to around 35% in 2015-16. Households headed by people aged 35 to 49 have experienced a similar percentage point decline but from a higher base.
The downward trend in ownership rates for younger households has been ongoing since 1988. Surprisingly, the house price boom between 1999 and 2005 in Australia does not appear to have made a significant difference to pre-existing trends.
However, home ownership trends are complex, and are likely driven by a range of factors such as interest rates, higher rents in the 1980s, broader societal changes such as people marrying and having children later in life and a higher divorce rates. Another possibility is a shift away from home ownership, with younger people preferring the flexibility that renting offers.
<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/2018/5/25/8aa1463a994645b2a1df862b1c8b6203.jpg" alt="">
Overall, housing costs in Australia have been relatively stable as a share of disposable income since the early 1990s. This average does mask problems for low-income renters who are paying an increasing share of their income on housing costs, and rent stress levels have also increased over the long term.
Changed economic circumstances provide risks for housing affordability. Were interest rates or unemployment to increase sharply there would be risks to households and flow on effects to the broader economy.
House prices have indeed increased sharply since the late 1990s, well above incomes or inflation. This poses a problem for those wishing to move from the rental market to owning a home as higher house prices imply larger deposits.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95286/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">While elevated house prices are a concern, the more pressing social problem for Australia remains the lack of affordable rental housing for lower-income families that is close to jobs and services in our capital cities. This has been an ongoing problem in Australia for a number of decades. An ageing population with potentially lower home ownership rates will add to this problem in future years.
Ben Phillips, Associate Professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/housing-costs-are-actually-the-same-as-in-1993-but-renters-still-struggle-95286" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Housing costs are actually the same as in 1993, but renters still struggle: Ben Phillips

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
State-owned power networks have spent up to A$20 billion more than was needed on the electricity grid, and households and businesses in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania are paying for it in sky-high power bills.
A new Grattan Institute report, Down to the Wire, shows that electricity customers in these states would be paying A$100-A$400 less each year if the overspend had not happened.
The problem is that state governments, worried about blackouts and growing demand for electricity, encouraged the networks to spend more in the mid-2000s. But the networks overdid it, and now consumers are paying for a grid that is underused, overvalued, or both.
Why we built too much
The grid includes high-voltage transmission lines that carry electricity over large distances, as well as low-voltage poles and wires that connect to homes and businesses. Networks are built to cope with those times of highest demand for electricity. Yet the growth in the value of network assets has far exceeded growth in customer numbers, total demand, or even peak demand.
Demand for electricity did grow rapidly in the early 2000s, but since then it has slowed substantially as more and more households have installed solar panels, and appliances have become more energy efficient. Networks may have overbuilt because they expected that demand would continue to grow.
<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/2018/3/31/98edb1e166db49868ef680f5ccf36d38.jpg" alt="">
Yet the overbuilding has occurred almost exclusively in the public networks. Why would government ownership lead to such high costs?
There are two main reasons. First, investment in electricity networks boosts state government revenues because public networks pay a fee to the state to neutralise their lower borrowing costs (as well as the dividend they pay to the state as the owner). Second, a government-owned business might come under political pressure to prioritise goals such as reliability or job creation over cost.
<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/2018/3/31/b9da7622811849d68bd8e5ef96b47b0e.jpg" alt="">
Of course governments worry about reliability – they cop the blame if anything goes wrong. In 2005, the NSW and Queensland governments required their network businesses to build excessive back-up infrastructure to protect against even the most unlikely events. Reliability did improve a bit in some networks, but at significant cost: on average, customers got an extra 45 minutes of electricity a year at a cost of A$270 each.
State governments should take responsibility
Successive state governments in NSW, Queensland and Tasmania are responsible for overinvesting in their networks and, in NSW and Queensland, for setting reliability standards too high.
State governments can’t turn back the clock but they can still fix the mistakes of the past. And they should, because if they don’t, consumers will be paying for decades to come.
Households and businesses that can afford to buy solar panels and batteries will reduce their reliance on the grid. Meanwhile, those left behind – including the most vulnerable Australians – will be stuck with the burden of paying for the grid.
In Down to the Wire we recommend that where network businesses are still in government hands, the government should write down the value of the assets. This would mean governments forgoing future revenue in favour of lower electricity bills. For recently privatised businesses in NSW, a write-down could create more issues than it solves, so in those cases the state government should refund consumers the difference through a rebate.
At a time when governments are concerned about energy affordability, NSW, Queensland and Tasmania have a real opportunity to do something about it. They should seize it.
How to prevent this happening again
There will always be pressure to spend more. At the moment, concerns about South Australia’s reliability could very well lead to further investment in network infrastructure.
Policymakers must also deal with the risk that, in future, parts of the network may no longer be needed. The grid may need to be reconfigured as new technologies emerge, some communities go off-grid, and new energy sources arise in new locations.
For now, consumers bear this risk: they are locked into paying for assets whether or not they are needed. In future, the risk should be shared between consumers and businesses; this would encourage businesses to avoid overbuilding in the first place and instead consider alternative solutions.
With the focus on reliability right now, governments are at risk of repeating mistakes of the past. The truth is that Australia already has a very reliable grid.
On average across the National Electricity Market, consumers experience less than two-and-a-half hours in unplanned outages per year. Reducing that by a few minutes of supply each year is very expensive. Politicians typically value reliability more than consumers, but ultimately it is consumers who foot the bill.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93654/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">State governments now have an opportunity to reset the clock – to pay off the mistakes of the past and let consumers guide choices about our future grid.
Kate Griffiths, Senior Associate, Grattan Institute
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/youre-paying-too-much-for-electricity-but-heres-what-the-states-can-do-about-it-93654" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

You're paying too much for electricity, but here's what the states can do about it: Kate Griffiths

<html><body>
Typically, when analyzing housing markets, the median (the middle value) is the most popular method.
By definition the median provides an idea of what a typical property is either selling for or valued at.
By looking at different valuation percentiles, it delivers a much better idea of the range of housing costs across a geography.
(Note: The 10th percentile value represents the lower end of a housing market while the 90th percentile indicates the most expensive 10% of properties).
<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/2017/11/23/Chart1.jpg" alt=""> 
Across Australia’s combined capital cities, the median dwelling value is $650,930 while the 10th percentile value is $350,723 and the 90th percentile value is $1,455,490.
The difference between the median and the 10th percentile value is -46.1% while the difference from the median to the 90th percentile is 123.6% which results in a range between the 10th and 90th percentile values of 315.0%.
(Note: that the broader this range the more diverse the cost of housing and the narrower the less diversity there is).
<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/2017/11/23/Chart2.jpg" alt="">
Let’s take a look across the capital cities.
Sydney – the 10th percentile value is $563,459 which is -37.8% lower than the median of $905,917. The 90th percentile value is 113.8% higher than the median and 243.7% higher than the 10th percentile value and is recorded at $1,936,633.
Melbourne – the 90th percentile dwelling value is $1,474,777 which is 107.6% greater than the median of $710,420. At $437,519 the 10th percentile value is -38.4% lower than the median while the 90the percentile value is 237.1% higher.
Brisbane – the median dwelling value is recorded at $490,525 while the 10th percentile value is $302,177 and the 90th percentile is $826,860. The 10th percentile value is -38.4% lower than the median while the 90th percentile is 68.6% higher than the median and 173.6% higher than the 10th percentile.
Adelaide – the 90th percentile dwelling value ($746,497) is 73.5% greater than the median ($430,303) and 180.9% greater than the 10th percentile value ($265,730). The 10th percentile value is - 38.2% lower than the median.
Perth – with a median of $462,624, the 90th percentile value at $852,021 is 84.2% higher than the median. The 90th percentile value is 184.7% higher than the 10th percentile value which at $299,293 is -35.3% lower than the median value.
Hobart – the 10th percentile value for the city is $234,337 which is -40.9% lower than the median ($396,393) and the 90th percentile value ($662,519) is 182.7% higher than the 10th percentile and 67.1% higher than the median. sizes and values across the capital cities. 
Darwin – at $640,087 the 90th percentile dwelling value is 46.2% higher than the median ($437,910) and 112.0% higher than the 10th percentile value ($301,889). The 10th percentile value is -31.1% lower than the median value.
Canberra – the median dwelling value currently sits at $582,882 while the 10th percentile value is $381,100 and the 90th percentile value is $919,436. The 90th percentile value is 57.7% higher than the median and 141.3% higher than the 10th percentile value while the 10th percentile value is -34.6% lower than the median.
<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/2017/11/23/Chart3.jpg" alt="">
 
Across the capital cities, the 90th percentile dwelling value in all capital cities except for Melbourne and Canberra is lower than Sydney’s median value highlighting that for the typical Sydney dwelling, purchasers could be buying premium property for a similar cost in most other capital cities.
Another trend to note is that in all capital cities the difference between the median and 10th percentile value is much smaller than the gap between the median and the 90th percentile value.
This indicates that lower value housing stock tends to be closer to the median than the expensive housing stock which tends to be much further away from the median value. It highlights that in most cities while there is extremely expensive housing, there is not necessarily the same supply of extremely affordable housing.
It is interesting to look at the range of housing costs across the city as it reiterates that despite the focus on medians there is a wide variety of housing in different shapes, sizes and values across the capital cities.
</body></html>

What is the spread in the cost of housing? Cameron Kusher

<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>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

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

<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>
The RBA typically seeks 2 percent to 3 percent as its ideal range, but the latest inflation figures sit well outside.
Headline inflation was up 0.5 percent in the December quarter and 1.5 percent over the year. 
Core CPI up 0.4 percent in the quarter and 1.6 percent over the year.
Blogger Pete Wargent noted Perth rents had plummeted in the rental housing component (lead image).
He noted Hobart had a strong rental market.
Commentator Callum Pickering, managing director &amp; chief economist at CP Economics also noted "that is some rental bust we are seeing in Perth and Darwin."
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/01/25/Screen%20Shot%202017-01-25%20at%2011.58.27%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/01/25/Screen%20Shot%202017-01-25%20at%2011.58.27%20AM.png" alt="">
 
Pickering suggested rents constrained by wage growth across the nation. 
Commbank's Craig James noted inflation has bottomed, "but it certainly doesn’t seem on a sharp acceleration path."
Annual inflation has lifted from 1.0 percent to 1.5 percent over the past six months, but it remains well below the Reserve Bank’s 2-3 percent target band, he advised. 
"But while inflation is not yet a concern for the Reserve Bank, interestingly consumers have other ideas.
"The latest weekly consumer sentiment survey by Roy Morgan and ANZ put inflationary expectations (out two years) at the highest level in 4½ years.
 "No doubt the lift in petrol prices has spooked consumers and caused them to take their eyes off other prices which are either falling or becalmed. 
"It is clear that interest rates will stay low for an extended period.
"The Reserve Bank doesn’t need to cut rates again with inflation trending higher, rather than lower.
"And there are doubts that rate cuts would actually do much in terms of driving the economy higher and lifting inflation," James said. 
He noted the main changes were tobacco prices rose by 7.4 percent, with petrol up 6.7 percent, domestic travel and accommodation up 5.5 percent and home purchase up 0.5 percent.
"The CPI was dragged lower by a 2.6 pe cent fall in international holiday travel and accommodation, 5.1 percent fall in clothing “accessories” and 3.2 percent fall in waters, soft drink and juices." 
 
</body></html>

Inflation remains subdued as housing rental markets go bust in Perth and Darwin

<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>
Rroblems buying a home is a major issue for almost every Australian under 30, according to Rick Cosier, a financial adviser and Principal of <a href="https://www.selectadviser.com.au/adviser/profile/richard+cosier_5204584" target="_blank">Healthy Finances Ltd</a>.
He noted on a CuffeLinks blog that a measurement of official house price data and mortgage costs by comparison website RateCity looked at the salary required for a single person to afford repayments on a 30-year loan. 
The main criterion was that the individual could not spend more than a third of their income on housing costs. Here are the results for Sydney:
Median House Price: $825,000
Loan Size: $660,000
Interest Rate: 4.74%
Monthly Repayment: $3,439
Annual Income Needed: $137,556
But Cosier suggests these figures are not an accurate reflection on what is happening.
"First, few single first home buyers earn $137,556. 
"Secondly, the median house price in Sydney is now a lot more than $825,000.
<a href="/images/2016/10/27/Median%20prices.jpeg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/27/Median%20prices.jpeg" alt="">
"Thirdly, people are clearly spending more than one third of their income on loan repayments."
He suggested property prices are more than seven times average income levels.
<a href="/images/2016/10/27/Price%20to%20income%20ratio.jpeg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/27/Price%20to%20income%20ratio.jpeg" alt="">
Whilst not many 30-year-olds earn $137,556, Cosier thought it’s quite possible that a 30-year-old couple can be jointly earning $120,000. 
"Given the lower tax rates that two incomes generate over the single person, a 30-year-old couple could generate sufficient income at today’s interest rates to make the necessary mortgage payments listed above."
However, he noted home ownership in Australia has fallen from 71% to 67% in the last 20 years, and more significantly, for Australians aged between 25 and 34, the proportion has fallen from 39% to 29%, and for ages 35 to 44, from 63% to 52%.
First home buyers now make up only 13% of new home loans.
He observed that overseas buyers and investors appear responsible for much of the post-2010 surge, and favourable tax concessions are pushing homes out of reach for a high percentage of younger Australians.
Anecdotal evidence from clients suggests that the desire to get a foothold in the property market is causing many people to adopt strategies that are increasingly risky.
He suggests if the debt repayment becomes difficult due to unemployment, interest rate rises, a property downturn, divorce or an unexpected pregnancy, both the parents and the children could suddenly have a major cash flow problem. 
"It wouldn’t take much for both to lose their homes."
</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