Why did you link to Brisbane for Melbourne? Here is the graph for Melbourne, and it is at al all-time high:
http://www.sqmresearch.com.au/graph_stock_on_market.php?region=vic::Melbourne&type=c&t=1
Furthermore, I fail to see why you cherry pick two cities. I look exclusively at the national picture always.
The Brisbane / Melbourne thing was a typo on my part - apologies. What I was trying to demonstrate is that there really is no such thing as a "national" market. The fact that Melbourne currently has a surge of property for sale due to over-building and a 30% run-up in prices over 2009/2010, doesn't really impact Sydney (20% of the national market anyway), where rents are growing, there really is a housing shortage and massive constraints on supply etc etc, and where listings are nowhere near all-time highs. Likewise Brisbane has been affected by it's own issues such as the floods etc.
In terms of talking sensationally about "all time highs" etc, please also remember that there has never been more properties in existence in Australia than right now, and there has never been more people living in Australia than right now, so as the property market goes through it's various "normal" cycles, we are going to see new heights periodically in terms of listings etc etc. But that itself does not prove any impending doom as you make it out to.
Yep, 20 year lows. I think you ought to look at your own graph.
I think you should look at it again. mid 90s saw lower sale volumes, so that was 15 years ago, not 20. Regardless, the number of property sales nationally moves in a cycle anyway - that is clear from that graph! It rises for a few years then falls. Last years numbers whilst low and representative of a weak market, are not especially unusual in the historical context - the fact that prices only fell a few % points proves this as well. For serious price falls, or to demonstrate that there really is something different going on now as compared to at other times in the past 20 years, you would need to show something far more unprecedented than what we are seeing at the moment.
Additionally, I predict 2012 will see more property changing hands than 2011 anyway - that trend is already evident in stats for the first quarter of the year so far.
Also, as I mentioned in my previous post, previous periods of low sales volumes were followed by boom times for prices and volumes, not wholesale market crashes.
I am only concerned with the national average, thanks. And I thank you for continuing to provide evidence of my claims.
I don't know why you look at it this way - all markets are local; if you live in Sydney it's no use celebrating a 7% fall in Brisbane house prices is it if they have not moved where you live, or worse still actually gone up, as units have on average across Sydney throughout 2011?
Not really, in the last 15 years the only thing that comes close is the GFC, and the government needed to borrow massive amounts of money and throw it at the housing bubble to prop it up back then. Since then, prices have now fallen further than during all of the GFC, and the government is in no position to throw money at the bubble again.
That's rubbish! The government spent very little money on housing stimulus relative to the broad stimulus program. In fact the net tax take from housing due to stamp duties is still far more than anything that is or was given back in the form of stimulus! So to ever be truly stimulatory the government would need to pump more in than it takes out.
In terms of current capacity, if they wanted they would happily stimulate again - don't kid yourself about this! Australia has a sovereign currency - the government can borrow / create as much of it as they like. The only constraints on fiscal stimulus are political, not economic.
There are lots of good places, massive developments around Zetland/Waterloo - and plenty more coming, you'll have absolutely no problem.
LOL! You think a couple of thousands flats in Zetland due for completion over several years is enough to deal outright with the population pressures facing Sydney? 1000 net new people settle here every week! There is nowhere near enough new dwelling construction going on in Sydney to satisfy underlying demand.
You do realise Australians pay their interest to foreign creditors who lend us the money, right?
The bulk of funding is sourced locally. Where do you think your bank account interest comes from? Even foreign creditors get paid in $AU - so either have to deposit that in an AU bank, spend it in Australia, or sell it to someone in exchange for foreign currency, who then invests it somewhere in Australia anyway. $AU are only good for buying stuff here. It amazes me how few people see the big picture when it comes to monetary issues!
Why do you think we've had a massive current account deficit since the housing bubble started?
Australia has run a current account deficit for 100 years! There are complex, but sound economic reasons why this is the case - but it essentially boils down to us always, historically being dependent on foreign investment to grow our economy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the housing market.
Well yes it really is that simple, there are more houses than people who want to buy them, and if artificial constaints are part of a decision to buy you should rethink that, there is plenty of room to build up, and out. What are governments just going to hold onto Land and not ever release it? Never build new homes?
I think you guys all mis-understand the concept of a shortage of housing relative to UNDERLYING demand. It's not about the micro-market and whether everything on the market for sale is being instantly snapped up or not. If people don't buy, or can't afford to buy, then they have to rent, or share, or live with family. The point is there are loads of people out there who are in these circumstances who might like to buy, or move out of their relatives home, or live in a bigger house than they currently due to a growing family or whatever - this is the underlying demand. We know it is there because of the pressure it is placing on both prices, which are high and being sustained - especially in the most afflicted areas like Sydney, and on rents, which have been rising above CPI for the last several years, nationally, but especially in the afore-mentioned most afflicted regions. See this Alan Kholer graph from the news the other night:
Got any other explanation for that???
PS: If you are in Melbourne, then your situation re housing supply is much better than many other parts. IN fact Melbourne is probably over-supplied right now. That's why it's rents and house prices are under-performing.