<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77714/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Two new tools for measuring and visualising problems in our rental housing system are in the media this week.
They have similar names – the Rental Affordability Index (RAI) and the Rental Vulnerability Index (RVI) – but use different methods to offer distinct but complementary perspectives. Together they reveal that almost nowhere in our capital cities can low-income households – and those on average incomes in Sydney – afford the median rent. Mapping rental vulnerability reveals households in regional areas are struggling too.
The RAI is a project of National Shelter, the peak housing NGO, and SGS Economics and Planning. It gives us a bird’s-eye view of rental housing costs over most of Australia. It does this by showing how affordable the median rent (the midpoint of all rents) is – or isn’t – relative to incomes in each postcode.
An alternative approach considers where and in what proportion renters are actually in stress. We might also consider a range of other factors that indicate where and in what proportion renters are vulnerable to problems in accessing and keeping decent, secure housing. This is the approach we’ve taken with the RVI.
<h2>What does the RAI tell us?</h2>
Affordability is a relative concept – it is about costs relative to incomes. The RAI considers median rents higher than 30% of a household’s income to be unaffordable. The index shows other grades either side of this benchmark (very affordable, very unaffordable) too. 
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/18/file-20170515-3668-qveg8h.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><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/2017/05/18/file-20170515-3668-qveg8h.jpg" alt=""></h4>
<div class="enlarge_hint">The Rental Affordability Index web tool zoomed in on Queensland. SGS Economics and Planning</div>
This is consistent with a widely used benchmark in housing policy, often known as the “30/40 rule”: housing costs should not exceed 30% of income for households in the lowest 40% of incomes.
The rationale is that when low-income households have to spend more than that on housing, they start to go without other things – meals, health care, outings – that they reasonably ought to have. For this reason, low-income households in unaffordable housing are said to be in “housing stress” or “rental stress”. 
The RAI looks at median rents, not the rents individual households are paying. This means it doesn’t tell us where or how many households are actually in rental stress. But it does indicate where renters face different degrees of pressure, in terms of either rents or constraints on the size, quality or location of dwellings. 
So, looking at the affordability of median rents for a number of typical low-income households – single and couple pensioners, single people on benefits, single-parent part-time workers – the RAI shows that almost nowhere in Australia’s capital cities is the median rent affordable for them. 
The RAI also applies the 30% benchmark higher up the income scale. Even for average-income renters, all Sydney postcodes – except for Mt Druitt and in the Blue Mountains – have median rents that are unaffordable or worse. 
Of the capitals, Sydney’s affordability problems are deepest and spread furthest, but much of Melbourne and Brisbane is unaffordable to average renters too. Outside the capitals, most of the regions are affordable. 
The quick takeaway from this perspective would be support for policies to increase the supply of affordable rental housing, particularly in our capital cities. These measures would include:
<ul>
<li>
building more social housing
</li>
<li>
changing planning rules to allow more residential development
</li>
<li>
using inclusionary zoning to ensure a proportion of new development is kept as affordable rental
</li>
<li>
making greater use of land tax, including on owner-occupied housing, to ensure land owners don’t speculatively sit on development opportunities.
</li>
</ul>
<h2>What does the RVI tell us?</h2>
For a different perspective, the City Futures Research Centre producedthe Rental Vulnerability Index (RVI) for Tenants Queensland. This shows (only for Queensland, at this stage) a range of “housing system” and “personal” factors that we know, based on a wider body of research on housing and legal needs, indicate vulnerability to housing problems. 
The housing system indicators include: rental stress, availability of rental housing that is affordable on local incomes, social housing and marginal tenures such as boarding houses, as well as personal indicators including unemployment, low education, disability, single-parent households and both young and elderly renters. 
As well as mapping each of these indicators, the RVI uses principal component analysis. This enables us to look across the indicators to see where they cluster together as a generalised “rental vulnerability”.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/18/file-20170515-3649-1s65oqm.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><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/2017/05/18/file-20170515-3649-1s65oqm.jpg" alt=""></h4>
<h4>The Rental Vulnerability Index web tool. City Futures Research Centre</h4>
Mapping this out we see that rental vulnerability in Queensland is highest in the regions. In particular, it is high around Bundaberg, Fraser Coast and Gympie, with a band of vulnerability skirting the regions west and south of Brisbane. Cairns also has several highly vulnerable postcodes. 
These places have high rates of unemployment, disability, low education and older people in rental housing. They also have high incidence of rental stress – even though median rents are low compared to Brisbane. 
By contrast, Brisbane generally scores quite low on rental vulnerability. This isn’t because there aren’t any vulnerable households there – there are. But their presence is masked by renter households who are doing well in terms of income, employment, education and other indicators. 
There is a substantial body of research on the “suburbanisation of disadvantage”. This is the phenomenon of high housing costs pushing out, and shutting out, low-income and otherwise disadvantaged households from city centres. The RVI indicates that this process, at least in Queensland, is extending into a “regionalisation of disadvantage”.
<h2>So what can we do about this?</h2>
The takeaway from this? Housing problems are multidimensional and extend beyond the capital cities. 
Regional areas have a pressing need for services – such as tenants advice services – that give vulnerable households material assistance in dealing with housing problems. 
But more than that, we need to build up the economic and social capital of these places – so that they offer greater opportunities for the vulnerable households who are concentrated there – just as we need policies to increase affordable housing opportunities in our cities.
Chris Martin is research fellow, City Housing, UNSW and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/chris-martin-203935" target="_blank">here</a>.
Laurence Troy is research fellow - City Futures Research Centre, UNSW and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/laurence-troy-2403" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Two pictures of rental housing stress and vulnerability zero in on areas of need

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77867/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Australia’s capital cities are getting more and more units, that are largely concentrated and come with a hefty price tag, a new report shows. And while these areas also have lots of jobs, the high price for houses means many on low incomes won’t be able to access that employment.
Between 2006 and 2014, more than 50 percent of new units were built in the 20 percent of local government areas with the highest number of jobs. 
When compared internationally, it would seem that Australian housing supply has not been as weak as is widely believed. However, the report points to some stark differences in housing supply patterns, emerging across Australia’s capital cities. 
In Sydney, Perth and Brisbane, new housing supply has lagged slightly behind population growth. In the other capital cities, housing supply actually outpaced population growth between 2006 and 2014. 
<h2>Housing supply and house prices</h2>
The issue of housing affordability has traditionally been pitched in terms of supply failing to keep pace with growing demand, and house prices rising in response to the imbalance.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-18%20at%208.59.22%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-18%20at%208.59.22%20AM.png" alt="">
Yet, house price inflation has surged even in metropolitan areas where housing supply exceeds population growth. The evidence suggests a complex relationship between supply, population growth and price that is shaped by both supply and demand-side factors. 
As prices and rents rise, housing costs continue to eat up larger shares of household incomes, particularly in moderate and low-income groups. 
The study shows 80 percent of new unit approvals were located in the top 20 percent of local government areas with the highest unit prices. This is while 80 percent of new house approvals were in the top 40 percent of local government areas with the highest house prices. 
There is very little new supply in areas where house prices are lower, where households on low to moderate incomes can afford to live. 
<h2>Affordable housing, cities and productivity</h2>
The lack of affordable housing in the vicinity of employment centres can pose threats to the productivity of our cities. If suburban residents are forced into longer commutes to access employment in the CBD, it can reduce productivity.
A potential consequence is that low-paid workers are deterred from seeking jobs in CBDs. This would then cause certain skills to become unavailable, and businesses to be less efficient, because they cannot quickly fill vacancies with suitable applicants. 
Our data shows new units have grown by 30 percent in areas which have the most jobs, between 2005-06 and 2013-14. In contrast to this new units have only grown by 2.5 percent in areas with less jobs. 
It would appear that unit approvals are concentrated in areas with abundant job opportunities. So productivity could improve, as congestion eases, and commute times lowered, if (and it’s a big if) these dwellings were affordable to those wishing to take advantage of these job opportunities.
New housing supply has grown at a pace that matches population growth rates, at the national level. However, there is plenty of variation across the capital cities. 
The strongest growth in the number of units has been in the territories (though this is from a low base), followed by Melbourne and Brisbane. However, the strongest growth in the number of houses has been in Perth, at around 22 percent. 
Sydney has experienced much lower growth in its number of houses, at less than 10 percent. This reflects the very different patterns of development in the two cities. 
In Perth, Brisbane and Sydney, increases in the supply of housing didn’t keep pace with population growth during, between 2006 and 2014. However, the drivers of this shortfall are varied. 
Perth’s population grew very strongly over the period that we studied. The roughly one-quarter increase in population would stretch the capacity of most housing construction sectors. 
Click to enlarge
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/18/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-18%20at%209.00.19%20AM.png" alt="">
However, even though Sydney’s population growth (at 14 percent) is below the average across all capital cities, its housing supply failed to match this growth. These outcomes highlight the different demand and supply side factors operating across states. 
We currently have a national housing policy narrative that is dominated by a consensus view that higher levels of housing supply are the solution to housing affordability problems. While increased supply will always help take steam out of pressured markets, our study suggests a more nuanced approach is needed to the supply side, while not ignoring the demand side pressures. 
It’s important that we identify those barriers to expanding affordable housing supply that have been impeded in the majority of our cities, especially for low income households.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rachel-ong-113482" target="_blank">Rachel Ong</a> is deputy director, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/christopher-phelps-378137" target="_blank">Christopher Phelps</a> is research assistant, Curtin University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gavin-wood-113723" target="_blank">Gavin Wood</a> is professor of housing, RMIT University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/steven-rowley-201914" target="_blank">Steven Rowley</a> is director, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Curtin Research Centre, Curtin University.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Get used to your commute: data confirms houses near jobs are too expensive

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
As well as restricting supply to an already full rental market, the 50 percent foreign ownership restriction removes some of the competitive advantages overseas developers had over local developers.
Prior to this change coming into effect, overseas developers had a competitive advantage as they had no overseas sales limits whatsoever. Overseas developers using overseas banks could, if they so desired, have 100 percent foreign sales, with 100 pe cent en masse sales occurring overseas.
What Scott Morrison has done is even the playing field between local and overseas developers, with overseas developers now forced to generally work within the same FIRB sales metrics as local developers.
To commence a development, local banks require local developers to presell approximately 70 percent of the apartments in a development and impose a 25 percent Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) restriction on these presales. This means local developers require 52 percent local sales prior to construction commencing.
Once the developer has achieved financial close with a local bank, they are free to sell the rest overseas. Meaning, under a 25 per cent FIRB presales limit, local developers using local banks can develop buildings with circa 48 per cent foreign ownership.
Banks are always looking at the FIRB presales limit and whilst many current developments are at 25 percent, there is a more recent bank trend to constrict this further – more in the realm of 15 percent. If this is the case, then locally banked projects can end up with 40 percent foreign ownership.
It is also fair to say that overseas purchasers have settled better than local sales. Many pundits were nervous about large buildings settling this year, yet what we are seeing is that very few overseas purchasers are falling through when it comes to quality developments (just 1-2 percent in fact), even against Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s (APRA) headwinds of overseas purchaser mortgage finance.
With the 50 percent FIRB restriction placed across the whole market, coupled with APRA’s new powers across non-bank lenders, it means that the metrics by which local and overseas developers, local and overseas banks, and local and overseas non-bank lenders are becoming converged.
As a flow on effect of the overseas sales metrics now being similar, this policy change will result in overseas developers using local banks and non-bank lenders more readily to avoid foreign exchange risk, again levelling the playing field.
Perhaps this new measure may even narrow the gap between what an overseas and local developer can pay for a site, which sets the market and ultimately gets passed onto the (local) consumer.
As an unintended consequence however, this change will further constrict supply to rental markets, thus driving rental and housing prices further out of reach of local first home owners and owner occupiers. It is only state planning ministers that can affect real change by encouraging the supply side of the housing economic supply/demand pendulum.
Andrew Hogan is a managing director of Point Polaris. He can be contacted <a href="https://www.pointpolaris.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

How will the 50 percent foreign ownership limit affect developers? Andrew Hogan

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
SPONSORED POST
Submissions have opened for the Annual REA Excellence Awards (AREAs) - the unique awards program that honours the most innovative, community-minded and highest-achieving individuals and businesses across the property and media industries.
Submission will remain open until 30 June 2017.
Awards include Innovation, Community, Service and Marketing Excellence categories and encompass the entire property industry (residential, commercial, project developers) as well as those working in media.
This year a brand new award has been introduced – the Gold AREA – Agency of the Year. The Agency of the Year award will recognise agencies who work hard to set themselves apart from competitors and excel in all three award categories.
The second AREAs will be held in November this year and are submission-based and reviewed by an independent judging panel. There will also be a consumer voting component for selected awards.
Andrew Rechtman, REA Group Executive General Manager, Residential, commented said REA Group wants to celebrate the industry’s success and achievements, and that means highlighting customer success and achievements.
“Every day we work with people across the property and media industries who are doing amazing things," he said.
"This includes contributing to their local communities, delivering exceptional service to their market and clients, or how they are using technology in new and innovative ways.
“We’re also excited to take it up a notch this year, introducing the new Gold AREA – Agency of the Year Award that will recognise the agency who has set themselves apart from the rest of the field,” said Mr Rechtman. 
For more information on the AREAs, <a href="https://www.theareas.com.au/" target="_blank">click here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

The REA Group AREAs are back

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/76789/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
What do an engineer, a building surveyor and a mental health nurse have in common? The answer is a retrofitted rooftop garden. This was a project developed to evaluate the impact of horticultural therapy on the health and wellbeing of people recovering from mental illness. 
When engineer Rob Casilick contacted building surveyor and academic Sara Wilkinson with the news that he had funding to evaluate the GROW horticultural therapy program on the rooftop garden at St Canice’s, an inner-city church in Sydney’s Kings Cross, she knew this was a great opportunity. She also knew she couldn’t evaluate the health effects, so turned to UTS academic and mental health nurse Fiona Orr. 
They understood just how broad the potential benefits could be. Approximately one in every five Australians experiences a mental illness. Mental health may be affected by individual or societal factors, including economic disadvantage, poor housing, lack of social support and the level of access to, and use of, health services. 
Yet, in our increasingly urbanised, high-density, high-pressure and, some say, increasingly isolated world, there is growing evidence of a salve and a way of mitigating stress, pressure and mental illness. And it’s right above our heads. Based on the findings of the GROW study, other rooftop gardens are now being created.
Rooftops are usually unused and unloved spaces. Around 34% of all horizontal spaces in our cities are rooftops. Green roofs, retrofit or new build, can help control stormwater run-off, improve air quality, reduce the urban heat island effect, increase biodiversity, improve thermal performance, increase property value and, importantly here, provide amenity space. 
How does green space affect well-being?
Where and how we live affects our mental health and wellbeing. The benefits of green spaces include:
participation in activities that promote social interaction and increase physical exercise;
reductions in stress and improvements in mood and attention; and
positive effects on anxiety and mood disorders.
In 1984, Edward Wilson introduced the biophilia hypothesis. This is based on the idea that humans have an innate tendency to seek connection to nature for its calming effects. Literally, biophilia means “love of life or living systems”.
The question is: does it exist? And could it be incorporated in the lives of people recovering from mental illness?
Where we seeded
St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, agreed to trial two horticultural therapy programs for people recovering from mental illness. The rooftop space at St Canice’s was about 55m² with garden beds containing vegetables, small shrubs, flowering plants and herbs, as well as a small vertical garden for flowers and strawberries. The kitchen of the church used some of the vegetables and herbs grown here to prepare meals for local homeless people. 
The GROW horticultural therapy program comprised weekly, two-hour sessions for participants over eight consecutive weeks. A horticultural therapist, supported by a professional gardener, led these sessions. 
During two sessions, guest presenters with specialist skills in music and cookery led activities that complemented that week’s gardening program. 
What grew out of this?
Most of the participants did not have their own garden, so the program provided them with access to a relaxing and beautiful space that enhanced their health and wellbeing. Some of the many benefits they identified included regular connection with others and developing friendships, experiencing enjoyment, and restorative health.
It’s like a little haven, or a little sanctuary to come to every week. You would never imagine something like this up on a roof. It’s a beautiful garden … and there’s lots of different plants and they produce oxygen for us. It’s just a beautiful place.
Getting to know everyone a bit more each week, it’s been brilliant, developing relationships and friendships.
I’m coming here to enjoy myself … and I walk out with a smile every time I leave this place.
It’s central to my recovery and ongoing mental wellness and it should be seen as a fundamental part of the healing process for people with mental illness.
Sowing seeds for the future
The benefits to participants were positive and very apparent. Both researchers experienced positive benefits of participation in the weekly program, too. 
Possibly the best outcome is that, based on the evaluation of the two programs, the education liaison officer at St Vincent’s Hospital was able to make a case for retrofitting three unused rooftop spaces at the hospital. 
The case was supported and the hospital is having designs drawn up for two of the roofs. Before and after the retrofit, Fiona and Sara will be undertaking evaluations of staff, visitors and consumers’ experiences of the spaces, as well as the horticultural therapy programs. 
A final thought is that this approach is very transferable into other sectors where people experience periodic stress and/or isolation. That would include the corporate sector and high-density residential areas. So think about it, and see if you can go up on the roof too.
Sara Wilkinson is associate professor, School of the Built Environment, University of Technology Sydney and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sara-wilkinson-14186" target="_blank">here</a>.
Fiona Orr is director of International Activities, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/fiona-orr-367385" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Biophilic urbanism: how rooftop gardening soothes souls

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
If you have been following my tweets and Facebook comments, you would have noticed that I have been very vocal about the new budgetary measures and, in particular, the new rules on plant and equipment depreciation. Up until yesterday, it was obvious that large sections of the media were not aware of the full ramifications of what had been announced in last week's Budget. Indeed, headlines last week claiming that “Negative gearing was left untouched” could not have been further from the truth. Ultimately, these headlines left me in a state of bemusement with sections of our media which is cause for a blog of its own.    That all changed yesterday, where through the hard work of Australian Financial Review reporter, Su-Lin Tan, the full ramifications of what had been announced came to the fore via this front page story: Negative Gearing - Scalpel will cool apartment demand - experts
The new depreciation measures are significant as they massively reduce the ability of property investors to make deductions on their investment property, thereby reducing their ability to negatively gear.  These were the very words used by the Treasurer:
“And from 1 July 2017, the Government will improve the integrity of negative gearing by disallowing deductions for travel expenses and, for properties bought after today, the Government will also limit plant and equipment depreciation deductions to only those expenses directly incurred by investors.
To give you an idea of the impact on investors, the mocked up depreciation schedules below clearly show what was normally claimed, with the columns circled in red showing what can no longer be claimed if these new measures are passed. Both schedules assume a circa $500,000 price tag on the properties. 
This first property assumes a newly built situation where a Division 43 allowance (depreciation on buildings) can still be claimed.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/17/v1.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<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/2017/05/17/v1.jpg" width="700" height="559">
The second example is of an older style property where a new renovation has been completed.  Both these depreciation schedules have been provided with thanks to Mike Mortlock from MCG Quantity Surveyors.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/17/v2.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<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/2017/05/17/v2.jpg" width="688" height="580">
In both instances, plant and equipment depreciation are a significant component of the total deductible depreciation on a residential property. Literally, many thousands of dollars can no longer be claimed. Just keep in mind as well that these new changes only apply on residential property. Commercial property depreciation is still fully deductible.
<div>
The effective result is that tens of thousands of properties that were cash flow positive properties after the depreciation benefit will no longer be cash flow positive, keeping in mind these affect property purchases after May 9, so there is grandfathering. In its simplest terms, also consider the following scenarios: Property A
I own a new unit that was just built. I can claim the significant plant and equipment depreciation that comes with newly built dwellings. However, if I sell to you that unit tomorrow, you can not claim the plant and equipment depreciation. 
At this stage, it is not clear regarding the plant and equipment depreciation  that If I own an off-the plan development that is not complete and I then flip it on to you (before completion) whether you can claim the depreciation or not. The Federal Government needs to clarify this situation. Property B
I just bought a newly constructed unit after May 9, 2017. Normally, I would be able to claim the plant and equipment depreciation, however, at this point it is unclear under the new Budget measures whether I can going forward. A strict reading of the new measures suggests I cannot as it was the developer who originally purchased the plant and equipment.
This has been the view of some quantity surveyors while others believe the Government doesn’t intend to be so punitive. Once again, we are waiting for clarification. Property C
I own an older style property on which I recently completed a renovation whereby I purchased $200,000 worth of plant and equipment. I then sell this property to you, today. You cannot depreciate any of the plant and equipment that I have spent money on during the renovation.  
No further clarification is required here. This is exactly how the Government wishes the new measures to apply. In my view, this new measure, combined with recent APRA initiatives, plus the potential for the banks to pass on the new bank levy, will very likely result in a drop in property investor demand. When that drop happens is uncertain. But it could start at any time given once these changes are passed by the Senate, there will be a retrospective impact back to the May 9, 2017. So those people who purchased an investment property last weekend will likely be impacted by these new measures.
As quantity surveyor Washington Brown stated in their blog earlier this week, these new measures might actually have some unintended negative consequences for affordability in that:
<ol>
<li>
Property investors may now feel the need to hang onto their existing properties to continue claiming depreciation because if they sell that property they won’t be able to get as many deductions on their next one.
</li>
<li>
Developers rely on high depreciation figures in the early years to show investors how affordable an investment property can be. If these depreciation allowances are taken away, they will struggle to get pre-sales which are required by banks to fund the deal.
</li>
</ol>
I am also concerned for investors in a new property as it is likely that any secondary buyer will demand a discount on a resale to take into account that lack of deductible depreciation, which is significantly large on new dwellings. It’s a similar issue we had with Labor’s policy on negative gearing during last year’s election. As it is, off-the-plan investors regularly experience price declines in new properties when selling in the first few years of the property's life. These new measures may aggravate this reality which could then have a negative impact upon the supply of new housing stock in the long term.  
What the Liberals have announced is a light version of this policy in a way this will be a good test to see what would happen to dwelling prices and home affordability and rents under a no-negative gearing scenario. Are these measures good for First Home Buyers?  In addressing the affordability question one must ask do these measures, plus others announced such as the additional superannuation contribution scheme, the additional CGT discount on ‘affordable’ properties, the tax break for senior empty-nesters to sell their homes, the additional land supply, create the incentive for first home buyers to come back into the market? Well maybe, maybe not. Regardless, developers will need more first home buyers to take up the slack that investors leave behind. Potentially, first home buyers could do just that, which is what we all want. But they kind of need to. And if they don’t, the rent rises that may well follow could just force them to. This brings us to the final unintended affect – the rental market. Note the recent trend in falling building approvals.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/17/v3.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<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/2017/05/17/v3.jpg" width="243" height="300">
We are nearing the peak in housing completions in this cycle which we believe will be early 2018. Yet vacancy rates in Sydney and Melbourne are still tight.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/17/v4.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<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/2017/05/17/v4.jpg" width="700" height="384">
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/17/v4.jpg" target="_blank"></a><a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/17/v5.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<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/2017/05/17/v5.jpg" width="700" height="377">
This is happening because our population growth rates have exploded in recent years. Melbourne is now expanding by 120,000 people each and every year. Sydney's population is rising by 90,000 people. The growth rates are above and beyond what was expected and is causing systemic strains on our two largest cities.  For more on this I strongly recommend you read the recent blog on population from Macro Business  
Remember, this time last year there was a real fear of a unit oversupply. Forget that now for Melbourne and Sydney. There is no oversupply. And, depending upon how first home buyers respond to the Budget, there could be significant under-supply later in 2018-2019 which may cause rents to skyrocket. 
After all, rents in Melbourne are already well above expectations this year.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/17/v6.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<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/2017/05/17/v6.jpg" width="700" height="389">
<div>Our 2017 Housing Boom and Bust Forecasts</div>
<div>
 It was reported yesterday that SQM Research may be revising down its 2017 forecasts as a result of the changes. After careful consideration, our base case forecasts stay un-revised for now.   
</div>
<div>
However, we believe that the probabilities have substantially increased that a peak in the price growth rates of the Sydney and Melbourne housing markets will happen this current June quarter and that the September and December quarters will record slower growth rates. The possibility of a modest price fall in either the September or December quarter has also increased. Subsequently, we now believe the lower end of our base case forecast range is likely to be reality. And, depending upon how and when the banks respond, we may revise our price forecasts down. For now, they remain on track with no current slowdown occurring in the housing market.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Louis Christopher is a managing director of SQM Research. He can be contacted <a href="https://www.sqmresearch.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
 
</div>
</body></html>

Budget depreciation change to slow the market: Louis Christopher

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
Australia’s household debt has been rising and is high by international standards.
The household debt-to-income ratio has risen from 167 percent in 2011 to 190 percent in Q4 2016. Assessing how much to worry about this is not straightforward.
On the one hand, high levels of debt make the economy more vulnerable to a negative economic shock. On the other hand, appropriately allocated debt is an engine of economic growth, as it better allocates resources between savers and investors.
Our long held view is that high household debt is not, in itself, a problem, as long as it is held by households that can continue to service it. The problem faced by many economies during the global financial crisis, such as the US and Spain, was that household debt was misallocated to households that could not service it. In Australia, the latest available statistics suggest that the distribution is fairly favourable.
As at 2014, most of the debt was held by high income earners and there were few low income households with large debt servicing burdens. In addition, Australia does not have sub-prime borrowers and all of the mortgages are full recourse.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-17%20at%208.14.17%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-17%20at%208.14.17%20AM.png" alt="">
However, household debt has risen since 2014 and there has been an investor-led house price boom in Sydney and Melbourne. As a result, it is hard to be certain about how much risk has built up recently. The longer it goes on, the more difficult it is to judge. It is for this reason that prudential settings have been tightened and that RBA Governor, Mr. Phil Lowe, has repeated that it would not be in the ‘public interest’ to cut interest rates further if it provided another boost to housing prices and debt.
In its recent financial stability review, the RBA deemed that, given lending standards have been tightening, the key risk from rising household debt is to the macroeconomic cycle rather than financial stability.
The central bank’s own granular assessment is that any build-up of risks that could see rising defaults in a downturn is not large enough to be a financial-system-wide risk. Rather, they suggest the key risk is that the higher household leverage could amplify the economic cycle. We expect that concerns about high and rising household debt will be a key factor that keeps the RBA from cutting its cash rate further. We expect prudential settings to remain tight. 
Household debt is high, but mostly for fundamental reasons
Australia has high household debt and it has been climbing further in recent years. Indeed, across the range of economies regularly tracked by the Bank of International Settlements, Australia has the second highest level of household debt, relative to nominal GDP (Chart 1). In contrast, corporate debt is about average and public debt is low by international standards.
At the outset, a key question is: why is household debt high? In Australia, high household debt reflects that: firstly, the bulk of the housing stock, including the rental properties, is owned directly by the household sector using leverage, which is not the case across many nations; and, secondly, that housing prices are fairly high when compared with household incomes.
On the first point, this is because the owner-occupation rate is high, at around 68%, and because the bulk of the rental properties are also owned by the household sector directly. In Australia, investment properties, which are then rented, are a tax-favoured investment. So, unlike most other economies, including the US, for example, the stock of rental properties involves debt on the household balance sheet, rather than the corporate balance sheet. As a result, around one-quarter of Australia’s household debt is held by investors, which is a key reason that household debt levels are higher in Australia than elsewhere (Chart 2).
On the second point, Australia’s housing prices are fairly high relative to household incomes, although they are not exceptionally so (Chart 3). Australia’s housing-price to income ratio is around 5 times, which is a similar level to the UK, Ireland, Denmark, Spain, and the Netherlands. 
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-17%20at%208.17.13%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-17%20at%208.17.13%20AM.png" alt="">
For Australia, housing prices are high for a range of reasons, including relative economic success in the form of continued growth, low interest rates, strong population growth, and high foreign demand, in the face of limited supply.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-17%20at%208.18.25%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-17%20at%208.18.25%20AM.png" alt="">
Some of these factor are cyclical, such as low interest rates, while others are structural. A key structural factor is limited housing supply. The supply of well-located housing has been limited by planning regulations and poor urban infrastructure. As a result, Australia has very low rates of urban density despite being a largely empty continent (Chart 4). Although there has been a ramp up in residential construction in recent years, in the largest city, Sydney, there is still not enough being built to meet demand (see Downunder Digest: Apartment building boom is nearing its end, 10 January 2017).
It’s the distribution of debt that matters the most
If the overall high level of household debt is driven by fundamentals, then what’s the worry? Part of the concern is that debt has been climbing recently, and that the rise has been driven by investors, rather than owner-occupiers (Chart 5). Again, even this is not worrisome, as long as the new borrowers are expected to be able to continue to service the debt. Thus it is the distribution of debt that matters the most, a point we have made before (see Downunder Digest: Australia’s rising household debt: should we worry?, 22 April 2016). The challenge is that there is considerable uncertainty about the distribution of debt and that this uncertainty rises when growth in debt is driven by new borrowers.
In Australia’s case, the key cross-sectional survey from 2014 shows quite favourable trends. 
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-17%20at%208.19.28%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-17%20at%208.19.28%20AM.png" alt="">
The survey shows that the bulk of the household debt is held by high-income earners, with 74% of the debt held by the top 40% of income earners. The survey also shows that most of Australia’s highly-indebted households (those with debt-to-income ratios in the top 10th percentile of debt holders) are also high-income earners (Chart 6).
Australia’s financial regulatory environment is also strong. All mortgages are full recourse and there is no sub-prime lending. Australians also have an incentive to pay down their mortgages ahead of schedule, as they cannot deduct the expenses associated with their owner-occupied housing, such as mortgage interest, against their other taxable income. As a result, the average mortgage holder is around 21⁄2 years ahead on their mortgage payments (when offset accounts and redraw facilities are included). This means that the average borrower has a significant buffer on which to draw in the event of job loss or some other negative income shock.
So what is the concern? First, the information on the distribution of debt is from 2014 and we know that household debt has risen since then. We do not know much about the distribution of the new debt, although we do know that the bulk of it has been for property investors. On the positive side, historically, investors have been less likely to default on mortgages than first home buyers as investors tend to have equity in an owner-occupied property, and tend to be older and higher-income households with a loan repayment history. On the negative side, we do not know much about the new investors in recent years, although we know that the prudential regulator has been tightening its settings since late 2014 to prevent an excessive build-up of risk.
Second, although the average mortgage holder has a significant buffer, it is not the average borrower that typically defaults. At the riskier end of the spectrum of borrowers there is evidence of mortgage holders with only slim buffers against a negative income shock. For example, in a recent speech (4 May 2017), the RBA Governor, Mr. Phil Lowe, referred to data on securitised loans which showed that about one-third of borrowers only have a one-month buffer.
However, in that same speech Governor Lowe relayed that the RBA’s own assessment, with full access to all of the granular lending numbers, was that the risk of rising household debt levels was not to financial stability but to the macroeconomic cycle. Given that lending standards have been tightened and that risky loans are still only a small share of financial system liabilities, a large enough rise in loan defaults to shake the overall financial system is unlikely.
What happens when housing price growth slows?
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-17%20at%208.20.23%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-17%20at%208.20.23%20AM.png" alt="">
The RBA’s concern is that, when housing price and household credit growth slow down, this could exacerbate the economic cycle. Sydney and Melbourne have had significant housing prices booms in recent years, although it has been quite concentrated to these cities (Chart 8). 
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/05/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-17%20at%208.21.27%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/05/16/Screen%20Shot%202017-05-17%20at%208.21.27%20AM.png" alt="">
Sydney and Melbourne housing prices have risen 77 percent and 58 percent over the past five years, while housing prices are only 14 percent higher in the rest of the nation.
The RBA’s argument is that the eventual slowdown, or fall, in housing prices and easing in the pace of household credit growth could weaken overall economic growth, particularly growth in household consumption.
While a slowdown in housing activity would, no doubt, have some effect, it may not be as large as in the past. Indeed, there is clear evidence that the recent ramp up in housing prices and household debt has had little impact on households’ willingness to borrow to consume goods and services. Unlike the early 2000s housing boom, households have not been withdrawing equity from their properties, but rather have been injecting it in recent years (Chart 9). If there has not been a significant positive wealth effect from rising housing prices and household debt, any slowdown in these factors may also have a more muted effect than in the past.
A key counter-argument is that the household saving rate has been falling in recent years, which provides some evidence of a positive wealth effect (Chart 10). That is, households may have been more willing to lower their saving out of income because their wealth has been rising.
However, the state-level numbers suggest that this story is a bit more nuanced. The biggest fall in the saving rate has occurred in Western Australia, following a sharp rise earlier. This reflects the impact of the mining boom, which boosted incomes significantly in that state prior to 2011/12 and where incomes have fallen since. Western Australian households saved when income growth was strong and have been saving less recently, in line with what a permanent income model might suggest.
However, the saving rate has not moved much in New South Wales and Victoria, where the housing markets have been booming recently. This suggests that the wealth effect has, in fact, been quite small in these states, consistent with the housing equity withdrawal numbers.
In our view, when the housing markets in Sydney and Melbourne cool, which we expect to be the case this year and next, we do not expect a large negative wealth effect.
For the RBA, the idea of the overall economic cycle being exacerbated by the housing cycle is clearly a concern. In our view this concern would suggest an earlier tightening, rather than a later one, though. If the concern is not allowing the housing boom to continue too long, because the end of the boom could cause problems, the risk-averse approach is likely to be higher rates, not lower ones. 
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<div class="page" title="Page 3">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<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. 
</div>
</div>
</div>
 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

How worrisome is Australia’s high household debt? Paul Bloxham

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77478/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s 2015 National Innovation and Science Agenda was a call to arms for Australia’s research and industry sectors to collaborate and drive our economy.
One and a half years on, you’d be excused for thinking a few pages of notes were missing from Budget 2017. Specifically no comment was made about the vision of where our great “ideas boom” was taking us - setting the scene to unite industry and researchers alike.
For manufacturing there was a glimmer of hope in the announcement of A$100 million to boost innovation, skills and employment in advanced manufacturing.
It addresses people, know-how, process and partnerships. If connected into a strategic plan there could be benefits for businesses as the manufacturing sector redeploys into new activity.
However, it does appear narrowly focused on the here and now for closed and closing automotive manufacturers.
In the absence of linkage with the National Innovation and Science Agenda, the pending 2030 Roadmap from Innovation and Science Australia, and comment on the research and development tax incentive review, the A$100 million may be an expensive band-aid.
Capital upgrades
The funding announcement refers to A$47.5 million for a new Advanced Manufacturing Growth Fund to support South Australian and Victorian manufacturers for capital upgrades to “make their businesses more competitive through innovative processes and equipment”.
My experience of project work with manufacturing companies is that capital cost of equipment (capital expenditure, or “CapEx”) has never been a roadblock to growth and success.
When the business case stacks up, CapEx is easily justified. The business case is built upon having the right people and know-how in the business.
In isolation the drive to purchase new equipment presents no value to business, and may even lead to stranded assets. But coupled with people and know-how, opportunities may come.
It’s important to recognise that right now, existing manufacturers are looking at how to utilise and/or redeploy their existing assets. In particular the automotive parts manufacturers are seeking new opportunities that match with existing equipment.
An example is a company that I am working with, Precision Components in South Australia. They are redeploying their large metal presses previously used in car component manufacturing to create components for capturing solar energy at HeliostatSA. It’s a project that has contributed to export capability for HeliostatSA.
Redeployment is the focus for many businesses today, not new equipment.
Small scale research projects
The funding announcement refers to A$4 million to support small scale and pilot research projects in advanced manufacturing, administered through the Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre.
This seems like a good move.
Boosting innovation requires broadening the base of businesses looking to grow, and collaboration with university research programs is one way to achieve this. Small grants build confidence in collaborative partnerships, and help to clarify what the innovation is and its future return on investment.
For example, the government’s Innovation Connections scheme has had success in seeding innovation and collaboration.
A recent recipient of an Innovation Connections grant, company Sentek Pty Ltd, is utilising this scheme to fund new product development, and to underpin justification for future and larger investment. I am collaborating with Sentek on this project.
Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) Projects
The funding announcement refers to A$20 million under the Cooperative Research Centre – Projects initiative for larger scale advanced manufacturing research projects.
This funding should be warmly received.
The CRC program links researchers and industry, with the aim of delivering economic value to the industry partner and the sector more broadly. This scheme funds the real costs of research, develops skills in people, and incentivises transitioning knowledge out of the university.
The newly formed CRC Projects scheme is in its infancy, with industry firmly in the driving seat for administering the projects.
From the first two rounds of funding under the CRC Projects, a total of 28 projects have been funded. Each project has seen a co-investment from industry, universities, other research institutes, and the federal government.
Crunching the numbers for the funded projects shows, on average, the government invested A$2.04 million per project. This indicates that the new A$20 million of funding could support around an additional ten projects. This will stimulate activity and add value to our advanced manufacturing sector.
Innovation Labs
The funding announcement refers to A$10 million to establish Innovation Labs in South Australia and Victoria to serve industry.
It’s difficult to know what this means in reality.
Perhaps the purpose is to provide facilities for early stage innovation to be tested at minimal expense, and reduce the risk of the business making significant investment in infrastructure.
Perhaps it will allow researchers or companies to shore up concepts before seeking investment and raising capital. Maybe existing facilities will seek financial support to expand their remit across a diverse advanced manufacturing sector.
A topical example relates to additive manufacturing – generally known as 3D printing. Businesses producing 3D-printed products need a testing ground to conduct certification and accreditation of products prior to sale. The Innovation Labs could fill this void, and complete the link between laboratory research and commercial product.
Engineering excellence
The funding announcement refers to A$5 million investment in engineering student research at universities, technology institutions and in industry to maintain the flow of highly trained engineers to the automotive design and engineering sector.
At the heart of innovation are people.
Engineers represent one discipline that contributes to the pipeline of innovation. An investment to see the continual training of excellent engineers may address the loss of traditional career pathways.
Perhaps the funds will aid in restructuring of engineering education towards emerging opportunities in the health and medical, agriculture, renewable energy and other sectors.
As more details come to light in the coming weeks and months, the Turnbull government’s vision for Australia’s manufacturing future may become clearer.
But the sense from the manufacturers themselves is that they will just get on and do it anyway.
Drew Evans is associate professor of Energy &amp; Advanced Manufacturing, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, University of South Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/drew-evans-22485" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

A glimmer of support for innovation and advanced manufacturing

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The property market is currently in a state of limbo, particularly those involved in the selling of new property.
Why?
Because the budget statement in relation to helping “reduce pressure on housing affordability” has potentially changed the game and announced dramatic changes to the way depreciation is claimed on property.
Let’s start with the good news:
1. Any existing investment properties purchased (contract exchange date) prior to 7.30pm Tuesday, May 9th 2017 are not affected.
2. Commercial, industrial and other non-residential properties are not affected.
3. Capital works deductions have not been affected. This means you will still be able to claim depreciation on the structure of the building provided it was built after the 16th of September 1987. You will still need a Quantity Surveyor’s depreciation schedule to do so.
Now that we know what isn’t affected, let’s look at what has changed…
According to the budget statement
“From 1 July 2017, the Government will limit plant and equipment depreciation deductions to outlays actually incurred by investors in residential real estate properties. Plant and equipment items are usually mechanical fixtures or those which can be ‘easily’ removed from a property such as dishwashers and ceiling fans.
Here’s the uncertainty….who actually acquired the plant of equipment?
Was it the builder/developer or was it the initial purchaser of the brand new residential property?
This is key.
Why is the government making these changes?
“This is an integrity measure to address concerns that some plant and equipment items are being depreciated by successive investors in excess of their actual value.
Acquisitions of existing plant and equipment items will be reflected in the cost base for capital gains tax purposes for subsequent investors.”
The industry needs urgent clarification on this matter as many agents are currently advising potential buyers on the cashflow advantages of new property. This figures may prove to be inflated and put the developer or marketer at risk further down the line.
You see investors rely on these figures in assessing the merits of the investment.
Here is why I think this is dumb policy.
The proposed changes are being made to “reduce pressure on housing affordability.” In my opinion, it will have the opposite effect for 3 reasons:
<ol>
<li>Property investors may now feel that they need to hang on to their existing properties in order to continue claiming depreciation. With these new changes, if they sell this property, they won’t be able to get anywhere near as many deductions on the next one.</li>
<li>Developers rely on high depreciation figures in the early years to show investors how affordable an investment property can be. If the allowances are taken away, they will struggle to get the pre-sales which are required by banks to fund the deal.</li>
<li>These budget measures are forecast to save $260 million over a 3 year period. I suspect far more will be lost if developers can no longer get new projects off the ground.</li>
</ol>
Whilst I believe housing affordability is a major issue, this truly appears to be an example of policy on the run…
Here’s the solution:
Plant and Equipment in residential property needs to run it’s natural course.
The ability to re-value and re-assess the item after it’s initial effective life has run it’s course should be squashed.
Put simply, if you a buy a property that is say, 11 years old, and it has a dishwasher installed that had an initial effective life of say 10 years you can't claim it, revalue or re-assess it.
That would alleviate the government's concern that:
“....that some plant and equipment items are being depreciated by successive investors in excess of their actual value. “
This would make a lot more sense in my opinion.
I am looking forward to providing a further update once the legislation is finalised and more details regarding the specifics of these changes come to light.
Tyron Hyde is a director of Washington Brown and can be contacted <a href="https://www.washingtonbrown.com.au/staff/tyron-hyde/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Budget approach to housing affordability changes the game: Tyron Hyde

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77098/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Renters are already the weak party at the negotiating table because they cannot ignore their need for a place to live.
But a new series of apps that pit renter against renter will only further tip the balance of power in favour of landlords, making it even harder to get a house.
The fierce competition in the rental market often results in renters paying more than is necessary. Over 150,000 tenants pay more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing. 
These apps may seem like they give renters more power – they are marketed using words like “fairness” and “transparency”, but they also note that landlords are missing out on “millions and millions”. 
Renting is a zero-sum game. Every dollar that a landlord gains is a dollar out of the tenant’s pocket. And in a market already tilted in favour of landlords, these apps could further push up rents.
To address the problem of renting affordability we need technologies that promote more cooperation between renters, rather than competition.
The apps
There are several different rent bidding apps, and they all work in different ways.
Live Offer asks prospective tenants to fill out forms and these are then ranked for the landlord to choose. The prospective tenants can see where they are in the rankings, in real time.
Rentberry is more of a real-time auction site. Prospective tenants submit bids, can see what the current highest bid is and how many bids there have been. 
With Rentwolf, prospective tenants set up extensive profiles, as they would with AirBnB, and then apply for properties through the marketplace.
What is the right price?
Real estate is worth what people are prepared to pay for it. But tenants will always be the weak party at the negotiating table. 
At least as far back as David Ricardo in 1817, economists have theorised that landlords take what is left over once other costs are deducted from the tenant’s income. In other words, rent is as much as tenants are able to pay.
Even before that, Adam Smith recognised that all real estate is a monopoly for landowners. This is because the supply of land is strictly limited, giving excessive negotiating power to whoever owns it. 
But these apps overwhelmingly rely on auctions, which can itself be a problem due to what is called the “winner’s curse”.
Studies have shown that so long as there are at least two motivated bidders, the winning bid tends to either equal the value, or be one bid above it. In other words, the winning bidder in an auction will often overpay and will “suffer” for having won. 
In the case of renters, this means paying excessive rents throughout the lease. Even worse, as more people bid similarly, the ruinous rents become accepted as normal. They become the market rent.
This same phenomenon has been shown in everything from jars of coins to oil-drilling rights and, yes, real estate.
Some research has further shown that in an auction the second-highest bid could be the “rational price”. 
My own controlled experiments have shown that people are easily encouraged by necessity to bid excessively in auctions. This is despite full knowledge of the ruinous consequences. 
This is because people have only a limited capacity to vary their needs. We all need to live somewhere, and our culture limits the options. If the option is sharing with relatives or accepting a lower standard of living due to high rents, then our sense of independence will often prompt our willingness to tighten our belts.
These rental apps will play into these stresses and uncertainties, making it more likely people will overbid in the auctions. This is why these rental apps are likely to result in higher rents.
How technology can reduce rents
Some time ago researchers suggested that renters might be able to reduce rents by banding together.
Working together, renters would be able to create the equivalent of there being only one buyer in the market – a monopsony. A monopsony works like a monopoly, but for buyers rather than sellers. For real estate rents, if land owners enjoy a natural monopoly-like advantage, then tenants have to behave like a monopsony to negate the power imbalance. 
The current crop of rental apps do not address this imbalance. They only inform bidders as to what other, similarly stressed people, are bidding. It stresses them to bid higher.
Already, we are seeing the power of Facebook to build communities around renting. There are groups that help people find flatmates, for example. If the internet is to tackle the problem of renting affordability, then we need to extend this community, for renters to act in unison on rent.
Without a service that seeks to unite renters, rather than have them compete, housing affordability will only get worse. Rent bidding apps will increase landlord revenues and do so at the expense of tenants.
Garrick Small is associate professor, CQUniversity Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/garrick-small-369026" target="_blank">here.</a>
</body></html>

Why rent bidding apps will make the rental market even more unaffordable

Sydney developer Hyecorp's roots on the Lower North Shore stretch back three generations, and that deep understanding of the market continues to shape where and how it develops today.

From high-rise towers to boutique apartment projects, the family-run developer has built its reputation by focusing on a part of Sydney it knows intimately. Founded by Michael Abolakian in the early 1990s, Hyecorp is now led by his sons Stephen, Troy and Patrick.

Stephen Abolakian, joint managing director alongside Troy, has spent more than two decades in the business, overseeing development, planning, finance, marketing and sales.

Abolakian says the developer's disciplined focus on where it chooses to operate has been, and continues to be, one of Hyecorp's greatest strengths.

“We know the buyer profile exceptionally well,” Abolakian says.

“The demographics between places like Willoughby, Chatswood, St Leonards and Roseville are very similar. There are nuances between suburbs and projects, but culturally and from a buyer perspective, there’s a strong overlap.”

That buyer has historically been overwhelmingly owner-occupier driven.

Unlike many Sydney apartment developers that have traditionally relied heavily on investor demand, Hyecorp’s projects have typically attracted downsizers, upsizers, rightsizers and family owner-occupiers seeking long-term homes rather than short-term investments.

“Historically, investors have been a much smaller portion of our demand profile,” Abolakian says.

“We design for owner-occupiers. We don’t design for yield, we design for comfort, amenity, family living and long-term usability.”

That philosophy extends well beyond apartment layouts.

From landscaping and communal gardens to shared amenities and circulation spaces, Hyecorp’s developments are designed around how people actually live, something Abolakian believes has become increasingly important in Sydney’s apartment market.

“There was probably a period where having an approved project in market was enough,” he says.

“There wasn’t as much competition and if you built it, buyers would come. That’s no longer the case.”

“There’s more supply in the pipeline now, particularly with TOD precincts and low and mid-rise reforms opening up opportunities across Sydney. Buyers have more choice, so if you get the product wrong, they’ll simply go elsewhere.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=110379 project_image_fid=311393]

The shift has forced developers to become more sophisticated in how they approach apartment design, particularly as owner-occupier expectations continue to rise.

For Hyecorp, that means thinking beyond who the buyer is today and designing for who they may become in five or 10 years' time.

“People buying now often aren’t moving in for several years,” Abolakian says.

“You might have a young couple buying today, but by the time they move in they may have children, older children, or changing lifestyle needs. You’ve got to think about how families evolve.”

That thinking also shapes Hyecorp’s approach to amenity, which positions wellness at the forefront.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=149594 project_image_fid=362634]

While resort-style facilities have become increasingly common marketing tools across Sydney apartment developments, Abolakian says the challenge is ensuring amenities are genuinely usable and appropriate for the scale of the project.

“If amenities are done right, they can materially improve the living experience,” he says, adding however that if you&nbsp;overdo it or get it wrong, you can end up with facilities nobody uses that simply create ongoing strata costs.”

That balance is something Hyecorp is aiming to strike with projects like Roseville Avenue, one of the group's upcoming Lower North Shore developments, which Abolakian describes as bringing a resort-style living experience into a metropolitan setting.

“It’s about creating something that feels special without being excessive,” he says.

“Good gardens, quality apartments, thoughtful amenity. Creating that resort feeling in a metro location.”

<img alt="Hyecorp" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="13c4c0f3-b1b7-44cf-9344-0b3d1d07797a" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-06-02%20at%2012.14.57%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=9OLWjyj2bYkDV35F78WJnyMSPfc2bJ2z" />

The focus on owner-occupier product comes as Sydney’s apartment market continues to navigate a difficult development environment.&nbsp;For Hyecorp, maintaining an in-house operating model across construction, sales, marketing and development management has become increasingly important in navigating that environment.

“We’ve always believed in keeping a lot of the process in-house,” Abolakian says.

“It creates efficiencies, but it also creates quality control. You can make faster decisions and ensure the end product stays aligned with the original vision.”

Despite the challenges, Abolakian believes demand for quality owner-occupier apartments across Sydney remains strong beneath the surface, particularly across established Lower North Shore suburbs where downsizers continue to seek new housing options close to existing communities.

“There are definitely people waiting,” he says.

“Once some of the broader uncertainty settles, whether that’s the global environment or some of the local economic noise, I think the right projects will perform very strongly.”

Hyecorp currently has three residential developments on the market across Sydney’s Lower North Shore.&nbsp;Audrey, St Leonards, positioned opposite Newlands Park, is nearing completion and preparing to welcome its first residents, with the project now almost sold out.

Hyecorp has also recently launched&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/celine-chatswood-37-archer-street-chatswood-nsw-2067">Celine Chatswood</a>, an architectural tower, while continuing to deliver&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/juliet-roseville-64-pacific-highway-roseville-nsw-2069">Juliet Roseville</a>, a more boutique scale of development with just 34 apartments.

Joel Robinson

Why Hyecorp continues to back Sydney's Lower North Shore apartment market

South East Queensland’s apartment market is entering a new phase defined by rising prices, constrained affordability, and mounting pressure on the construction pipeline, according to RPM Group’s latest SEQ Apartments &amp; Townhomes Market Report.

The May 2026 report highlights a widening divide between what buyers can afford and what developers can viably deliver, with detached house prices continuing to push more buyers toward apartments across Brisbane, the Gold Coast, and the Sunshine Coast.

RPM says Brisbane’s median house price has reached around $1.5 million, accelerating the shift toward higher-density housing as buyers are increasingly priced out of the detached market.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=135094 project_image_fid=356540]

Median unit prices rose across all three major SEQ markets in the March quarter. Brisbane City recorded the strongest annual growth, with median unit prices climbing 21 per cent to $862,000, while the Gold Coast reached the highest overall median at $950,000, up 17 per cent year-on-year. The Sunshine Coast followed at $870,000, representing annual growth of nine per cent.

RPM noted the affordability gap between houses and units remains significant, with detached homes commanding premiums of 67 per cent in Brisbane and 68 per cent on the Gold Coast relative to apartments.

The report suggests this price disparity is increasingly consolidating buyer demand within the apartment market, particularly among downsizers and owner-occupiers.

“Demand is real. Supply is moving. But they’re operating on different timelines and the gap between what’s being built and what buyers can afford is the defining tension in this market right now,” RPM Queensland and NSW Managing Directors Peter Neale and Clinton Trezise said in the report.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150787 project_image_fid=366230]

While approvals and commencements are strengthening, RPM argues the delivery pipeline remains constrained by construction costs, labour shortages, and extended build timelines.

Apartment approvals across Queensland increased 86 per cent over the year to February 2026, reaching 12,682 approvals, the highest level recorded since 2016. Brisbane overtook the Gold Coast as the state’s most active apartment approval market, with nearly 5,000 apartments approved over the past 12 months.

Unit commencements also strengthened considerably, rising 48 per cent year-on-year to 5,453 commencements in the December 2025 quarter, the highest level since 2018.

However, RPM’s research found apartment delivery timeframes have expanded sharply compared to the previous cycle. Projects are now averaging around 30 months from approval to completion, compared to roughly 20 months a decade ago.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=143932 project_image_fid=367515]

The number of units under construction has climbed to approximately 31,530 dwellings, nearing the previous 2016 peak, though projects are remaining in the pipeline for considerably longer.

Construction costs continue to weigh heavily on feasibility. RPM found the average apartment construction cost in Greater Brisbane reached $630,000 per dwelling in 2025, exceeding both Sydney and Melbourne. Coastal Queensland markets, including the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast, were even higher at an average of $817,418 per apartment due to the prevalence of larger premium product.

The report also points to increasing pressure from Olympic-related infrastructure spending ahead of Brisbane 2032, with labour competition expected to intensify over the next several years.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150017 project_image_fid=370960]

ANZ Associate Director of Property Daniel Gradwell said the underlying demand drivers across South East Queensland remain strong, supported by interstate migration, downsizers, and population growth.

“The challenge is bringing enough supply to market to meet that demand, and nothing on the horizon makes that straightforward,” Gradwell said.

RPM’s analysis found the affordability challenge is becoming more pronounced in the new apartment market itself, with only three per cent of surveyed new apartments priced below $1 million.

Instead, the market is increasingly concentrated in higher price brackets, with the most common new apartment price band across SEQ sitting between $1.5 million and $1.75 million. Around half of all new apartment stock surveyed is priced below $2 million.

The report suggests developers are not necessarily avoiding lower price points by choice, but because current construction economics make delivering affordable apartments increasingly difficult at scale.

Rental conditions also remain tight across the region. Median rents for one-bedroom apartments rose 12 per cent in Brisbane over the past year to $580 per week, while Gold Coast one-bedroom rents increased nine per cent to $630.

Despite rising rents, RPM noted bond lodgements have generally trended downward over the past five years, indicating more apartments are being absorbed by owner-occupiers rather than retained as investor-held rental stock.

Looking ahead, RPM expects projects targeting the mid-market owner-occupier segment between $1.25 million and $2 million to remain the most viable part of the market, while premium projects in highly constrained coastal or riverfront locations continue to attract demand.

“Construction costs are rewriting the feasibility rulebook across Greater Brisbane, and with little relief in sight, only projects in the right price band, right location, and with presales secured early will make it through,” the report concludes.

SEQ apartment demand outpacing affordable supply as construction timelines stretch: RPM

Camberwell Junction has long been the epicentre of amenity in Melbourne’s Boroondara region.

For nearly a century, it has drawn both locals and visitors, anchored by the Camberwell Sunday Market, which first operated in 1929 and quickly became a fixture of the suburb’s identity. Over time, the Junction evolved into one of Melbourne’s most established retail and lifestyle precincts, now comprising more than 400 stores and over 300 commercial businesses.

Despite that depth of amenity, one thing has remained notably limited: the supply of new apartments.

In a suburb defined by its heritage streetscapes and tightly held residential stock, new development opportunities have been scarce, particularly within the core of the Junction itself. That lack of supply has left a gap in the market for larger, design-led apartments suited to downsizers and owner-occupiers wanting to remain in the area.

Boutique developer Above Zero identified that gap when it secured a prime site on Burke Road, in the heart of Camberwell Junction.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=4896 project_image_fid=368543]

The site has a long planning history. Various proposals have been put forward over more than a decade, many of which were knocked back by the City of Boroondara, with initial applications dating back to 2015. Above Zero acquired the site in 2022 and returned with a revised scheme, refining both the building’s height and its ground-level interface to better align with Council expectations.

That process has culminated in approval for Camberwell House.

The Cera Stribley-designed development will deliver 57 residences on a 1,950 sqm site within the Camberwell Activity Centre, placing it directly within one of Melbourne’s most established retail and transport hubs.

It is expected to be one of the only new apartment developments to launch in the Junction in recent years, reinforcing the rarity of new supply in the precinct. Currently, there are just a handful of projects on the market in Camberwell, underscoring the significance of a development of this scale and positioning.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=4896 project_image_fid=368544]

Camberwell House has been conceived with a clear focus on larger-format apartments. The project will offer a mix of two-, three- and four-bedroom residences, alongside a limited number of penthouses, targeting owner-occupiers seeking scale rather than volume-driven product.

The building’s vertical presence will also set it apart.

Positioned on Burke Road, the development is set to become one of the taller buildings in its immediate context, allowing for elevated outlooks across Melbourne’s CBD skyline and toward the Dandenong Ranges. In a precinct characterised by lower-scale built form, that height provides a point of differentiation, particularly for buyers seeking outlook and natural light.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=4896 project_image_fid=368568]

Architecture has been led by Cera Stribley, with interiors by GOLDEN and landscape design by Florian Wild. The design approach centres on material consistency and restraint, with residences oriented to maximise light, ventilation and connection to outdoor spaces.

Full-height glazing and generous terraces form a key part of that strategy, allowing apartments to extend beyond their internal footprint and engage with the surrounding environment.

Beyond the private residences, a significant component of the project is its amenity offering.

Above Zero has positioned Camberwell House as a “complete living environment”, incorporating a full floor dedicated to resident facilities. At the centre of that is a wellness zone, including a 12.5-metre lap pool, spa, sauna and treatment spaces, alongside a gym and recovery-focused amenities.

This level of amenity is more commonly associated with inner-city developments, rather than established middle-ring suburbs like Camberwell.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=4896 project_image_fid=368588]

Additional shared spaces include a private library lounge, dining and entertaining areas, and an indoor golf simulator. A self-contained guest suite has also been incorporated, allowing residents to accommodate visiting family or friends without impacting their primary living space.

The inclusion of these facilities reflects a broader shift in buyer expectations.

As more downsizers look to transition from larger family homes into apartments, there is increasing demand for developments that offer not just a residence, but a lifestyle. That includes access to wellness, social and entertaining spaces within the building itself, reducing the reliance on external amenity while still maintaining proximity to established precincts.

Camberwell House is positioned to benefit from both.

Its location places it within immediate walking distance of Camberwell Junction’s retail and dining offering, as well as public transport connections, including tram and train services. That combination of internal amenity and external convenience is central to its appeal.

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-150" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:55d7c6ac-8e6d-4881-ad49-0ed9bf66d1cc-74" dir="auto">
Jellis Craig Projects Director Stephen Bowtell is handling sales for the project and says Camberwell House offers a rare entry point into one of Melbourne’s most tightly held markets.

“Buyers are recognising that Camberwell House offers something they simply haven’t seen before in Boroondara,”&nbsp;Bowtell&nbsp;says.

“It combines a level of resident amenity and service typically associated with Melbourne’s premium inner-city developments, while being positioned right in the heart of Camberwell Junction.

“The response to the concierge offering has been particularly strong. Buyers appreciate not only the convenience, but also the sense of security and peace of mind that comes from having a dedicated presence in the building every day.

“When you combine that with the wellness facilities, the exceptional arrival experience, and panoramic views across both the CBD skyline and the Dandenong Ranges, it creates a lifestyle proposition that is genuinely unique within the local market.”
</section>

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=4896]

Above Zero launches Camberwell House in undersupplied Camberwell Junction precinct

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/consolidated-properties">Consolidated Properties Group</a> (CPG) is approaching the launch of its latest Brisbane riverfront development, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/castile-47-skyring-terrace-newstead-qld-4006">Castile</a>, on the dress circle Skyring Terrace in Newstead.

VIP buyers are now being engaged, with a full public sales launch coming later this year.

Positioned as the final opportunity to secure a new absolute riverfront residence on the East bank of Newstead, Teneriffe or New Farm, Castile at 47 Skyring Terrace has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/woods-bagot">Woods Bagot</a> as a timeless addition to the Brisbane skyline.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150489 project_image_fid=371113]

The name Castile draws on themes of permanence, sophistication and legacy, reflecting a broader vision centred on enduring architecture and timelessness in the rarest of riverfront positions.&nbsp;

CPG Chairman and CEO Don O’Rorke said the project had been envisioned as a future Brisbane icon.&nbsp;

“With 47 metres of direct river frontage and never to be built out views, 47 Skyring Terrace is the definitive address on the Brisbane River,” O’Rorke said.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150489 project_image_fid=371114]

“Rather than following trend-based apartment design, Castile draws inspiration from Brisbane’s great heritage buildings, reinterpreting classical architecture into a contemporary riverfront landmark designed to stand proudly for the next 100 years,” he said.&nbsp;

The approved development will comprise 227 apartments across a 25-storey tower alongside a boutique six-storey riverfront building of just 12 residences.&nbsp;

Construction is scheduled to commence in September 2026.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=150489]

CPG unveils Castile Newstead ahead of upcoming sales launch

Australia’s online shopping habits have shifted dramatically over the last decade. As eCommerce volumes surged, so too did the frustrations that came with traditional parcel delivery: missed deliveries, long Post Office queues, parcel theft and the challenge of being home during business hours.

Australia Post’s Parcel Lockers emerged as one of the more practical responses to that changing consumer behaviour.

What started as a relatively niche delivery option has evolved into a nationwide network of more than 1,400 self-service Parcel Lockers positioned at train stations, shopping centres, supermarkets and Post Offices across the country. The system allows Australians to send, collect and return parcels 24 hours a day, fundamentally changing how many people interact with deliveries.

The appeal is relatively straightforward: flexibility.

Instead of waiting at home for a delivery driver or rushing to a Post Office before closing time, users can direct eligible parcels to a Parcel Locker location of their choice. Once the parcel arrives, Australia Post sends a notification with a collection code or QR access through the AusPost app, allowing customers to retrieve their package at any time within the collection window.

For apartment residents in particular, the system has become increasingly valuable.

Higher-density living has created logistical challenges around deliveries, especially in buildings without concierge services or secure parcel rooms. Missed deliveries are common, while parcel theft has become an increasing concern as online shopping volumes continue to rise.

Australia Post itself has repeatedly highlighted the growing issue of “porch pirates” during peak shopping periods, encouraging customers to use Parcel Lockers as a safer alternative to unattended home deliveries.

That security aspect is one of the key reasons the Australia Post Parcel Locker network has grown so rapidly.

Parcel Lockers are positioned as secure, monitored collection points that reduce the risk of theft while also improving delivery efficiency for Australia Post. Instead of multiple redelivery attempts, parcels can be consolidated into a single secure destination.

The Parcel Lockers themselves are free to use through a MyPost account and support a range of parcel sizes up to 16 kilograms and dimensions of approximately 35 x 44 x 61 centimetres.

Beyond receiving parcels, the system has increasingly become integrated into the broader eCommerce ecosystem.

Customers can now use Parcel Lockers to return online purchases, while retailers have embraced the model as a way to improve delivery success rates and reduce friction in the shopping process. Australia Post has actively expanded partnerships with major retailers and promoted Parcel Lockers as part of a broader out-of-home strategy.

The timing of that expansion aligns with broader changes in Australian shopping behaviour.

The acceleration of online retail during and after the pandemic placed enormous pressure on delivery infrastructure. Parcel volumes reached record highs, particularly during Black Friday and Christmas periods, with Australia Post delivering more than 100 million parcels during peak festive seasons.

That growth forced logistics providers to rethink the “last mile” of delivery, widely regarded as the most expensive and operationally difficult stage of the process.

Parcel Locker systems have increasingly been viewed as part of the long-term solution.

The concept itself is not unique to Australia. Parcel Locker networks have become common globally, particularly across Europe and Asia, where dense urban environments and apartment living create similar logistical challenges. But Australia’s geography and suburban sprawl made adoption slower initially.

Now, however, the convenience factor is driving mainstream usage.

For commuters, Parcel Lockers near train stations allow parcels to be collected on the way home from work. For apartment dwellers, they remove the uncertainty around access and missed deliveries.

The rise of the AusPost app has also streamlined the experience, centralising notifications, tracking and Parcel Locker access into a single platform. Australia Post has increasingly pushed customers toward app-based delivery management, partly as a way to combat phishing scams and fake delivery notifications, which have become more sophisticated in recent years.

The Parcel Locker model is also beginning to influence property development itself.

Parcel management has become a growing consideration in apartment building design, particularly as online shopping becomes embedded in everyday life. Many new residential developments are now incorporating dedicated parcel rooms or Parcel Locker systems into foyers and communal spaces.

For developers, parcel management is increasingly viewed as part of the broader resident amenity offering, alongside gyms, wellness spaces and communal work areas.

That reflects a wider evolution in how residential buildings are designed.

Apartment buyers are placing greater emphasis on convenience, security and operational functionality, particularly in higher-density urban environments. Parcel delivery, once considered a minor operational detail, has become an increasingly important part of that equation.

Australia Post’s Parcel Locker network sits at the centre of that behavioural shift.

What began as a simple alternative delivery option has evolved into a key piece of infrastructure supporting Australia’s growing eCommerce economy and changing urban lifestyles.

And as online shopping continues to expand, the role of Parcel Lockers is likely to become even more embedded in how Australians live, shop and receive goods.

Jonathan Chancellor

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News