I have been hearing self-appointed experts say for a couple of years now that there is a housing bubble, and that property values are going to fall from the sky. We are all doomed, and everybody should sell their property now, or risk facing massive losses.
If you say something for long enough, eventually, that fact will become true. However over a period of a year or more, then these “experts” should admit they got it wrong, and the media should pay scant attention to them.
Of course that won’t happen. Headlines like “Housing prices to remains stable” won’t sell newspapers now will they?
The fact is that housing prices (let’s take Melbourne for example), will not drop appreciably. And there is a simple, basic reason underwriting that. Supply and demand.
So instead of guessing, maybe let’s look at who and what controls supply, and who controls demand.
Supply variables are:
(a) Physical barriers such as water, cliffs, freeways, etc (which we can do little about)
(b) Labor and materials cost (which are set by the market)
(c) Financiers – by way of access to funding for developers and builders
(d) By far the biggest controller of supply are zoning and planning restrictions. Daylight second.
These of course are controlled through the local councils (through zoning ordinances) and the State Government, through their Melbourne 2020 vision and their masterplan.
The adage “they are not making any more land” is not applicable. Smaller lot sizes creates more lots, and higher densities creates more living accommodation, albeit airspace. And the sole controller of this is local and State governments.
As to supply, let’s not forget that the Victorian government (via VicUrban) are by far the largest holder of residential land around Melbourne.
So they almost completely control the supply of vacant land, and by extension control land prices through controlled land releases. They are understandably, increasing lot prices with each stage to maximise their asset sales.
The State government also encourage interstate and international migration (both of which are very strong), thereby increasing demand for housing in a market where rental vacancies are still quite low. So they are the largest controller of demand as well.
I can’t see VicUrban decreasing land prices. Nor can I see the State government discouraging new investment or migration to the State. So there will be no change to this balance.
And if land underpins property values, and land prices around the fringe remain stable (as a result of the majority of land being held by VicUrban and a couple of large scale developers), how can the value of a property that is a piece of land with a house on it drop? Especially if it is more centrally located that the fringe areas so tightly held? And if house and land prices are supported through land prices, then apartment prices will be supported through house and land prices.
There is so little thought gone into claims the market will drop. Either that, or people just do not understand the asset class.
We are not in an asset bubble. There will be no bursting, as there is no bubble to burst. Unless the State Government goes bankrupt and has to liquidate its assets at firesale prices, at best there will be a stagnation of pricing.
If you still don’t believe me, consider what will happen if prices drop:
- If prices do drop by the 20 per cent or more that doomsdayers are saying, people who are renting now will see that owning is now suddenly so affordable compared to the price of rent, that demand will spike and prices will rise again as a result of sellers who want to maximize their sale price.
- If prices do drop by 20 per cent, then the first home buyer in the suburbs who has just purchased their first house and land package for $400K (which cost $220K to purchase the land and $180K to build), will now own a property that is worth $320K. The land is still worth the same amount – the State government (nor privately owned developers for that matter), are not going to drop land prices.
The impact of this is that builders will need to build new houses now for $100K which was formerly being built for $180K. Let’s say the average builder margin is 18 per cent, the raw cost of materials and labor alone is about $152K. Builders will be out of business in a hurry, as they would be losing $52K on the contract for the above example. The result – no new housing built.
So when we see an ever increasing population, in a market where rental vacancies are already low, and no new stock being built, what will happen to demand? It will increase rapidly, and again support housing value.
The only other single controller of property prices are banks. They can control a false market by creating demand from buyers by way of how easy it is to obtain credit, and how cheap it is. Which is exactly what happened in the US.
Getting credit in Australia is not easy for a buyer. It really never has been. It is hard. And it is certainly not cheap. The brakes have been applied in full for nearly three years. So there has been no false market lifting property prices over this period. Yet, prices still increased. And strongly. Which suggests that the banks carry little weight in determining current housing prices.
Over the past six months, it has loosening slightly which should further increase demand slightly.
Forget about statistics. Statistics are just numbers. They explain nothing. Anyone that claims that prices must decrease just because the numbers are unsustainable is not thinking.
It is ridiculous to compare the “affordability” of housing (an inappropriately named measure in and of itself in its current format) from one country to another. Not all countries have the same lending policy, the same interest rates, the same deposit requirements, the same loan term, the same control measures, the same population changes in percentage terms, or the same taxation (impacting on after tax income which can be contributed towards debt servicing; as well as Australia’s negative gearing laws which in turn attract investors to housing).
Buyers rarely pay cash for their property. Most people need to borrow. Finance as a result is integral to housing prices, and always will be. But as a buyer, what would you rather buy?
- A house for $300K with 20 per cent deposit and 20 per cent interest rate? (where repayments are over $5,000.00 per month); or
- A house for $500K with zero per cent deposit and zero per cent interest rate? (where repayments are only $1390.00 per month)
The former naturally. Because the actual property price is not how much you pay to purchase the property – the actual price is how much is costs to get into the property (the deposit) and how much it costs you on a regular basis (your mortgage payments).
If interest rates were zero per cent, demand would skyrocket. But they are not. The standard variable rate is about 7.8 per cent amongst the majors. That is not a low rate. So access to easy finance is not the variable setting the market. Supply and demand is.
And when mortgage payments are comparable to rent, people will be attracted to ownership almost every time.
Article by: Troy McErvale