nukz
888
- Joined
- 27 July 2008
- Posts
- 253
- Reactions
- 0
As a matter of interest moXJO, do you know whether the purchasers are from around the area (locals) or are they overseas' buyers ?
Some people just don't think of the risks involved in property. When it goes up its all fine and dandy, but when it falls the losses are horrendous.
All at sea as couple loses $2 million on Bondi sale
More generally, Oz property prices will always be determined most by the cost and availability of credit, because most people cannot pay cash and a steady stream of cash poor first home buyers will always need to enter the market to replace those exiting.
Population dynamics are influential, but much less so than rates. It is possible to see flat and falling property values in the face of population growth. In fact, that has been the case in many regional towns in the last few years, Perth since april 2008, Brisbane since feb 2010, Sydney jan 2004 to 06.
New housing supply/demand is also important, but within the limits of affordability.
I don't think most property investors understand yet the tenuous direction Australia is moving in. Lenders are becoming evermore dependent on foreign capital to sustain property values which carries risks not understood well by most. The risks are born out in Aussie banks' tighter lending criteria to developers despite apparent housing undersupply.
Pre 1990s, housing credit supply was at least 85% sourced from Australian savings. Today some say it is 50% foreign sourced and climbing.
I think the RBA's drive with rates at the moment is to encourage more domestic capital into attractive interest rate deposit accounts, and slow the growth of foreign credit dependent debt. This will help buffer Australia against future global credit tightening, which seems to be a growing possibility.
Based on all of the above, I think the future of passive property investing is unattractive. I expect growth to average less than 3-5%pa over the next 5-10 years in all capitals. I attribute this primarily to the fact that debt growth will be more tightly aligned with wage growth and rates are unlikely to decrease unless there's another serious global credit freeze.
So what does this mean for rent levels? There will be upwards pressure, but that will be capped by wages. I also think the govt will revisit negative gearing, and reduce the incentive for investors to accumulate property, such as negative gearing benefits be limited to new construction.
Finally, I don't see a drop in nominal values >15-20% like some bears. However, in real terms over the next 10 years, that may very well be what happens.
More generally, Oz property prices will always be determined most by the cost and availability of credit, because most people cannot pay cash and a steady stream of cash poor first home buyers will always need to enter the market to replace those exiting.
Population dynamics are influential, but much less so than rates. It is possible to see flat and falling property values in the face of population growth. In fact, that has been the case in many regional towns in the last few years, Perth since april 2008, Brisbane since feb 2010, Sydney jan 2004 to 06.
New housing supply/demand is also important, but within the limits of affordability.
I don't think most property investors understand yet the tenuous direction Australia is moving in. Lenders are becoming evermore dependent on foreign capital to sustain property values which carries risks not understood well by most. The risks are born out in Aussie banks' tighter lending criteria to developers despite apparent housing undersupply.
Pre 1990s, housing credit supply was at least 85% sourced from Australian savings. Today some say it is 50% foreign sourced and climbing.
I think the RBA's drive with rates at the moment is to encourage more domestic capital into attractive interest rate deposit accounts, and slow the growth of foreign credit dependent debt. This will help buffer Australia against future global credit tightening, which seems to be a growing possibility.
Based on all of the above, I think the future of passive property investing is unattractive. I expect growth to average less than 3-5%pa over the next 5-10 years in all capitals. I attribute this primarily to the fact that debt growth will be more tightly aligned with wage growth and rates are unlikely to decrease unless there's another serious global credit freeze.
So what does this mean for rent levels? There will be upwards pressure, but that will be capped by wages. I also think the govt will revisit negative gearing, and reduce the incentive for investors to accumulate property, such as negative gearing benefits be limited to new construction.
Finally, I don't see a drop in nominal values >15-20% like some bears. However, in real terms over the next 10 years, that may very well be what happens.
What is your view on the standard of living in this country over that timeframe? Do you expect that emerging markets will align their standard of living with ours (due to say, a large uptick in Chinese domestic demand or similar)? Or will we be forced to align our standard with theirs?
A tough call Sinner. I think EMs have decoupled more than I expected 5 years ago. But I think they are still considerably dependent on the European and US consumer. China will remain reliant on foreign income (trade surplus) for internal growth for at least another decade in my view. If they are wise, the Chinese will use that surplus to buffer their economy against the ongoing inescapable deleveraging in Europe and USA.
I think Australia's std of living is already falling. Many think we don't have a two speed economy here, but that is bunk in my view. The casualization of our workforce, youth unemployment, longer f/t working week, and the cost of housing in average wage multiples bear that out. Our inability to grow and maintain infrastructure with population growth is a red flag (consider public transport, water supply, law and order) . Things like local governments front loading headworks costs on new sub divisions is indicative we are unable to afford the same level of public service we are accustomed.
I also think the govt will revisit negative gearing, and reduce the incentive for investors to accumulate property, such as negative gearing benefits be limited to new construction.
Just put NG on new houses only and be done with it.
You’d have to wonder if just a change to Negative Gearing on existing houses (similar to July 1985) would help the speculation of ever higher house prices and not enough new dwellings!
SusanW, you are spinning gold here, please keep it up.
oh come on, why this thread got to have all the trash lobbed in it
The question of whether Australian house prices are overvalued has been an extremely polarising issue for some time. Many observers believe property values in Australia are severely overpriced relative to other countries, relative to historic trends, relative to incomes, and relative to rental yields. Such observations have led some people to believe that a speculative housing bubble may be growing in Australia.
Normally in an unregulated economy, housing values should meet an equilibrium based on availability versus demand. When values increase, this suggests that availability has reduced or demand has increased (or both). In fact in Australia, both events have occurred......
..... continues here: http://ezinearticles.com/?Australian-Housing-Bubble
what about plain old vanilla style real estate?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?