Perth’s new apartment market recorded its strongest quarter of sales since Q4 2021, with 412 apartments sold in Q1 2026 and a record quarterly sold value of $537 million, according to Urbis’ latest Apartment Essentials results.

Urbis said the March quarter result reflects strong, highly product‑specific demand across both ends of the market, from more attainable projects delivering at scale, through to premium stock being absorbed by equity‑rich downsizers.&nbsp;

David Cresp, Partner at Urbis, said the key story in Perth is not demand, it is the market’s ability to convert demand into delivered housing.&nbsp;

“This is the strongest sales quarter since Q4 2021, and it reinforces that demand in Perth is real and it’s local,” David Cresp said. “But the task now is delivery, turning that demand into projects that can actually be built and completed.”&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=110291 project_image_fid=302785]

<h2>Affordable product leads, premium demand remains resilient</h2>

Sales in Q1 were led by more affordable projects, with The Boulevard (SKS Group) recording 115 sales in the quarter, the presentation noting this is only the second time a single project has surpassed 100 quarterly sales. The project was able to offer more affordable housing product right next to a train station.&nbsp;

Palmyra West (Finbar) also delivered strong results with 28 sales in Q1, following 84 sales in Q4, with an average price of under $800,000, underscoring depth of demand for well‑located, attainable new stock.&nbsp;

At the premium end, Urbis said downsizer demand is continuing, with the results highlighting Romeo (Applecross, Finbar) recording 75 sales and reaching almost 50% sold in one quarter.

Jual (Shenton Park, Celsius Property) also posted a strong quarter with 28 sales, reaching 39% sold in one quarter.

Urbis noted that Perth apartment demand is not speculative, not investor‑led, and not uniform, describing it as localised, often equity‑driven and highly product‑specific, a pattern reflected in the polarisation between strong “attainable” performers and premium downsizer product.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=148957 project_image_fid=364102]

<h2>Prices underpinned by costs, and the delivery risk is growing</h2>

Urbis said pricing pressure is cost not demand‑driven: construction costs and delivery risk are now a central constraint, with the results noting build costs remain elevated and volatile, and that energy, fuel and labour uncertainty weigh on feasibility.

David Cresp said a growing challenge for private Build‑to‑Sell developers is simply securing a builder in the current environment.

“Developers are really feeling the pressure from a building market that was operating at capacity and securing a builder is challenging,” David Cresp said, adding that even where a builder can be secured, “trying to get to the price that makes the development financially viable is incredibly challenging in the current market.”&nbsp;

Urbis’ broader WA commentary also notes that industry remains at or above capacity with lot and housing creation, and that many builders are limiting new sales to manage stretched workforces and fixed‑price contract pressures, conditions that flow directly into apartment feasibility and delivery timing.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108869 project_image_fid=317905]

<h2>Supply: improving later, but still constrained, and Perth lags eastern benchmarks</h2>

While near‑term supply remains constrained, Urbis’ forecast shows completions lifting “Supply is forecast to be back above 1,500 apartments per annum for the first time since 2019”, with 1,775 completions forecast for 2026, and volumes remaining above that level over the following years.&nbsp;

Looking further ahead, completions are forecast to reach 2,500 in 2028, with the report noting 32% of that total is social/affordable, reflecting the role of government‑supported delivery in rebuilding the pipeline.&nbsp;

However, Urbis said Perth remains behind comparable markets on pipeline scale. In a national comparison of projects under construction, the report shows under construction Perth Build‑to‑Sell (BTS) at 3,446 apartments versus the Gold Coast at 7,922. Mr Cresp said “The challenge for Perth is how to we grow the delivery pipeline”.

Urbis’ conclusion is that Perth’s market is increasingly defined by product discipline and delivery certainty, with the research identifying “delivery certainty is key” and calling out builder risk and procurement models as core success factors, alongside “timing and staging”.&nbsp;

Joel Robinson

Perth apartment sales hit strongest pace since late 2021 as builder capacity tightens

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sammut-developments">Sammut Group</a> has secured development approval for its latest Brisbane apartment project, marking the Sydney developer’s next step in expanding its Queensland pipeline following the success of its debut Gold Coast development, Coast.

The approved project at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/44-glen-road-toowong-qld-4066">44 Glen Road, </a><a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/toowong-qld-4066">Toowong</a> will deliver a 15-storey riverfront apartment building with 42 residences, significantly increasing the scale of the site’s previous approval for a smaller luxury scheme. Designed by Bureau^proberts, the development will comprise a mix of predominantly four-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments positioned to maximise Brisbane River and city views.

Sammut Director Julian Sammut said the group had been actively searching Brisbane for several years before identifying Toowong as the right fit.

“Brisbane was the right step for Sammut,” Sammut said.

“With the success of Coast we thought we should definitely look to do more in Queensland alone. We then pushed up to look at Brisbane. We've been looking for I'd say two to three years actually and it was hard to find the right location.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/f_auto,c_limit,w_1440,q_75/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/field/image/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.14%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=dYAVIL7qdcGA8ojvkslSrLjczXFejSSx" />

Sammut said suburbs including New Farm and Teneriffe were considered before the group ultimately focused on Toowong due to its strong downsizer demographic and limited supply of developable riverfront land.

The site was acquired off-market after what Sammut described as a lengthy negotiation and planning process, with the developer pursuing an uplift to the original approval.

“We are DA approved now which is very exciting,” Sammut said.

“We've had our change approval come through and we've obviously doubled the height, 15 storeys plus rooftop. We've got 42 amazing apartments that are going to be coming to market soon.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,dpr_2.0,q_auto:good/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.26%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=ohkRkY0dIZlqdfME2EZePsCQavRiBadE" />

Bureau^proberts said the design responds to Toowong’s evolving urban character, balancing contemporary apartment living with the area’s established residential identity.

“A place where traditional Queensland living has taken place for centuries; Toowong is seeing a shift of contemporary influence, commercial and retail hubs mixed with well-considered residential offerings – all the while maintaining its character and charm,” the architect noted in planning documents submitted to Brisbane City Council.

The architecture practice said the project’s form was shaped by its riverfront setting, flood considerations, neighbouring building scales, and view corridors.

“They said the mix of four and two-bedroom apartments capture the ‘fundamental qualities of Queenslander living,’ translated into the context of a contemporary subtropical building.”

The development sits just off Coronation Drive within walking distance of Toowong’s retail precinct and the upgraded Regatta ferry terminal, while also benefiting from proximity to the incoming green bridge connection to West End. Sammut said the accessibility and amenity offering were central to the site’s appeal.

The approval adds to growing residential activity along the Toowong riverfront, joining nearby projects including Consolidated Properties’ Monarch Residences and Spyre Group’s ARC Residences.

Sammut secures approval for debut Brisbane apartment development in Toowong

Developer Lanevick is heading back into Sydney’s apartment market after focusing more heavily on the luxury townhouse and terrace sector in recent years.

Lanevick, founded and directed by Steve Maroun, is expecting to receive approval in the coming months for a new apartment development in Gladesville, with the aim to launch it to the market later this year.

The 51-apartment project, designed by Studio Johnston, will comprise a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments positioned toward the Hunters Hill downsizer market.

“Traditionally it’s been difficult for people in that market to downsize because there just hasn’t been the right product available,” Maroun said.

“We’re targeting buyers who might have 30 to 40 per cent of their house value sitting in the bank after downsizing.

“They still want good spacious entertaining areas, they still want quality design, but they also want flexibility and the ability to enjoy life a bit more after working hard for a long time.”

The project sits near Boronia Park and within close proximity to the Parramatta River foreshore, an area Maroun says offers more of a Hunters Hill lifestyle than a traditional apartment precinct.

“From a lifestyle perspective, it’s really more Hunters Hill than Gladesville,” Maroun said. “You’re close to the foreshore, close to parklands, and still connected back into the village precinct.”

From level four and above, apartments will capture water views&nbsp;toward Sydney Harbour. Communal amenity will include rooftop entertaining areas, wellness spaces, and a gym tailored toward owner-occupier buyers.

“We’ve really designed these apartments around that buyer coming from the Hunters Hill LGA and what they’re actually looking for in their next chapter.”

The proposed development has also been designed to respond to the changing character of the broader Gladesville town centre, where a growing number of mixed-use and residential proposals are expected to emerge over the coming years.

“Gladesville presented a rare opportunity to deliver a genuinely design-led residential project within an evolving lifestyle precinct, just moments from the growing Gladesville town centre, and we’ve approached the project with a strong focus on architecture, liveability and long-term community value,” Maroun said.

Maroun said Lanevick saw a first-mover advantage within the precinct as planning controls continue to evolve to accommodate greater housing density.

“We think there’s a real opportunity there that hasn’t really been serviced properly yet,” he said.

“There’s going to be a broader evolution of the whole Gladesville village precinct over time, particularly with more activation and mixed-use outcomes.”

The Venus Street proposal will include a commercial and retail component at ground level designed to contribute to that evolving streetscape activation.

“A big part of the thinking was how do you activate that area properly and create more vibrancy and amenity, which is what Hunters Hill has been looking for,” Maroun said.

Lanevick’s focus since 2020 has largely been on smaller-scale luxury townhouse and terrace developments. The developer recently completed Royale Randwick, also designed by Studio Johnston, where prices reached $3.65 million. The project was featured in the UDIA NSW 2026 Professional Development Prospectus and was also named a finalist for Development of the Year.

&nbsp;

Lanevick to cater for Hunters Hill downsizers with new Gladesville apartment development

Property developer One Living, backed by former Macquarie banker turned investment manager Chris Green’s investment firm, has unveiled plans to bring more institutional capital into housing to help address the national supply crisis.

The New York-based investor has focused his firm, GreenPoint Partners, on addressing the supply shortage hitting middle market housing in Australia.

It is backing the new One Living business to develop more than 1000 units along the eastern seaboard. The new firm is starting with a development on Mona Vale Road, on the border of Mona Vale and Pymble, in Sydney’s Northern Beaches, with around 140 apartments planned. They are eyeing off more sites across the city.

With cost pressures rising in the industry, One Living’s model is to be a vertically integrated developer-builder, so it can respond directly to the housing gap by removing the cost inefficiencies embedded in traditional residential delivery.

“We are building a platform designed to operate at scale and starting in a market where there’s a clear need for quality, attainable housing,” One Living joint managing director Joseph Scuderi said.

“It’s that missing middle – it’s that attainable end of housing… that’s what most Australians invest into and what Australians can actually afford.”

<img alt="Mona Vale" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="798dfa93-4941-4db6-a696-31e9dc18e81c" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%202.31.50%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=mKBqi5C_DmeiXS.AtJkcR8LQIxqCqmFi" />

GreenPoint Partners brings years of experience assembling and scaling real estate operating businesses across major markets. And Green sees a big opportunity in Australia.

“For its size, sophistication and importance to the community, Australia’s living sector has remained largely under-institutionalised, which represents significant opportunity,” Green said. “GreenPoint identified that gap, assembled the right team, and is backing One Living to build a platform that is aligned to market needs.”

Green said being a builder-developer would give the company the capacity and flexibility it required to deliver reasonably-priced homes.

“We want it to be at that attainable level; not super high end luxury but at that attainable level,” he said.

<img alt="Mona Vale" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="74a5344a-4b26-4d4a-ada3-056b1220be77" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%202.32.15%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=vY8hXHO4reBMdO8ZXMWCNtGZJofUPQ3j" />

&nbsp;

One Living will undertake a component of affordable housing in its schemes, which it will own and operate, and it could also run build-to-rent on some sites.

Green praised local policy settings.

“The NSW government is being very supportive, strategic and pragmatic in terms of how do we generate more supply of housing,” he said. “We think it’s actually positive for development and the bit that’s been lacking at that attainable level is that it’s lots of relatively small private developers, whereas we want to create an institutional platform.”

One Living is also&nbsp;looking at high-density projects and could take on more institutional funding in the future.

“The way we will be able to achieve economies of scale is through size,” Green added.

One Living enters Sydney's new apartment market with Northern Beaches site acquisition

It's been several years since there's been an opportunity to buy a brand new townhome in Melbourne's coastal suburb of Mordialloc. Even apartment developments in recent times have been few and far between in the area.

Local developer LDS Property identified the gap in new housing, securing a site on White Street, directly opposite&nbsp;Woodlands Golf Club Mordialloc. They've recently launched&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-townhouses/wm-residences-mordialloc-102-white-street-mordialloc-vic-3195">WM Residences</a>, just 13 townhouses which they have already started building.

Projects by Buxton Director Heath Thompson, who is selling WM Residences, says the townhouses x that perfect middle ground be

"Mordialloc residents have had limited options to downsize within the suburb, often forcing them to look elsewhere despite long-standing ties to the area," Thompson says.

"With very little comparable new supply coming to market, projects like WM Residences are well placed, particularly as buyers look to capitalise on current conditions amid constrained supply."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6109]

The development, designed by regarded architecture firm&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/ewert-leaf">Ewert Leaf</a>,&nbsp;adopts a deliberately restrained architectural approach, focusing on simplicity, durability and liveability rather than overt design gestures.

The boutique scale is central to the offering. With only 13 three-bedroom residences, each home is configured to prioritise functional layouts and everyday use, supported by private terraces and secure two-car garages.

Ewert Leaf’s design response leans into a calm, neutral material palette. Interiors are defined by oak flooring, white walls and soft finishes, creating a consistent and understated backdrop. The approach avoids trend-driven detailing in favour of longevity, with an emphasis on natural light and spatial clarity.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6110]

Beyond aesthetics, the homes are designed to meet contemporary performance expectations. Each residence targets a minimum 6-star energy rating, incorporating double glazing, comprehensive insulation and all-electric Bosch appliances.

The project’s location supports a walkable coastal lifestyle, sitting within close proximity to Mordialloc’s foreshore, Main Street retail strip and the train station. Local cafés and dining venues, including Suburbia Deli and Hendriks Café, are within a short walk, reinforcing the area’s established neighbourhood character.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6116]

While <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/mordialloc-vic-3195">Mordialloc</a> is often defined by its beach and pier, the project taps into other areas of day to day living, offering easy access to local food, casual dining and transport, rather than positioning itself purely as a lifestyle retreat.

WM Residences reflects a continued trend across Melbourne’s coastal suburbs towards smaller-scale, design-led townhouse developments, particularly on infill sites where proximity to amenity is already established.

With construction commenced prior to its market entry, the project aligns with a growing preference among buyers for developments with visible progress and defined delivery timeframes.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=134646]

WM Residences fills gap in Mordialloc townhouse market

Housing Affordability

<html><body>
Last week I highlighted sales by price point across the capital cities. 
The data showed a shortening supply of homes selling at lower price points, in particular within some of our largest capital cities.  This week, I want to investigate what this means for those who don’t already own a home and in particular those that are on lower incomes.
The latest quarterly average weekly earnings data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to November 2013 shows that the average Australian earned $1,114.20 a week. Remember this is the average so plenty of people earn less than this figure which is the equivalent of almost $58,000 a year.
Compared to many other countries, Australia’s average wage is quite high however, so too is the cost of living in Australia and in particular the cost of housing as highlighted last week. With a combined capital city median house price of $580,000 and median unit price of $482,000 an average income is not going to go a long way.
But why is the capital city median price more relevant than the nationwide median which is $490,000 and $440,000 for houses and units respectively? Well it comes down to the fact that you generally need to be employed to secure a mortgage and work towards owning a home. 
The latest labour force data from the ABS shows that Australia had 11.578 million employed persons as at June 2014.  With a 6.0% unemployment rate the total size of the workforce, or to put it another way the number of people with employment or actively looking for employment, is 12.320 million.  
For myriad reasons a proportion of the population is not actively working or looking for work at any given time.  As at June 2014 the employment participation rate was 64.7% meaning that for whatever reason there are an estimated 4.349 million people over 15 years of age that are not actively working or looking for work.
The 2011 Census reported that at that time there were 21.504 million Australian’s living across the six states and NT and ACT. At that time, 65.6% of Australian’s (or 14.1 million) lived in a capital city.  A slightly higher 67.4% of persons reported as being in the workforce (working or actively looking for work) lived in a capital city.  In fact, 58.2% of people in the workforce lived in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth.
If we think how this impacts lower income earners and their prospects of entering into home ownership it’s not simply a case that they can move to another city where housing is more affordable. 
Unfortunately in Australia, jobs, particularly well-paying jobs, are largely located in a handful of major capital cities or on mining sites in the middle of nowhere.  The reality of moving to another capital city or to a regional area where housing is cheaper is not a realistic prospect for many low income earners.
There are still opportunities to purchase lower priced homes across the capital cities however, these opportunities are becoming fewer. If you look at where these lower priced sales are occurring, for houses they are typically located on the outskirts of the city.  Houses on the outskirts of cities, particularly the major capital cities, are inherently cheaper because they are often less desirable than those in well-established suburbs closer to the city centre (although not always). Although housing is cheaper in these areas the cost of doing day-to-day tasks is more expensive. 
If you work in the city, the cost of public transport is higher and if you choose to drive you lose hours in traffic, not to mention the additional cost of fuel and road tolls. Local amenities such as shops, schools and health care tend to not be as abundant in outer suburbs as they are closer to the city centre so it will take residents of these areas longer to access these amenities too. 
Although housing may be more affordable within the outer suburbs, it won’t necessarily make it easier for some lower income earners to afford a mortgage when they factor in all the additional costs of living in that location.
Lower priced housing stock is also available within the unit market however, this too has its shortcomings.  There are becoming fewer lower priced units available in areas closer to city centres.  Unit prices are still generally much lower than that of houses although, most of the newer stock comes with a relatively high price tag these days.  Of course units are also much smaller than a house and you tend to get less (in terms of area) for your money.  While a unit may be practical when your single, a couple or have young children, they become less practical if/when the situation changes and the size of the family grows.  Units also don’t offer the same level of freedom as a house with limitations generally in place with regard to what you can and can’t do both within and to your unit.  Although when you own a home you have to pay for upkeep, in a unit complex you have to contribute strata levies each quarter the cost of which can at times be exorbitant.
Article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
So what realistic option does the person on a lower income have? 
Of course housing should be cheaper on the outskirts of the city (and it is) but even still a lot of lower income earners are not in a position to purchase.  This is partly because although housing is cheaper a mortgage is still going to swallow up a sizeable chunk of their income not to mention the other costs associated with living on the outskirts of the city. 
The commonly recommended solution is to remove urban growth boundaries and cut fees and charges on new developments which would theoretically increase supply and therefore bring down the cost of housing.  But I wonder by how much would it really reduce the cost and would it be significant enough to allow lower income earners to purchase.
I think possibly not and here’s why.
It’s not simply a case that we can fix housing affordability by building more and more homes, if that was the case, lower income earners could just move to a more affordable city.  The issue is more to do with employment and specifically where the jobs are located. Even on the outskirts of the capital cities the cost of public transport and fuel will still eat up a sizeable chunk of lower income earners salaries.
If residents on the outskirts still have to travel to get to their jobs (which often they will) they will often encounter a number of hurdles.  Firstly public transport is often woefully insufficient in these areas.  Anyone who has travelled overseas will know that public transport in our larger capital cities is not of a particularly high standard. The other thing with public transport is that it caters much better to those people living closer to the city centre and transport upgrades often benefit inner city dwellers much more than it benefits those on the outskirts of the city, the ones that need it the most. 
Secondly, the road network also tends to be insufficient on the outskirts of the cities unable to cope with the growing population.  This is due to the fact that governments tend to put the onus of building the roads on the developers and will often not provide the major roads to a new housing area until such time as it is absolutely critical.  Developing the roads before the housing would make these areas much more attractive and accessible.
If we can’t provide sufficient public transport and roads to the housing areas on the outskirts of the city, the greatest assistance we can provide when developing these areas is to accompany this residential development with local jobs for these workers. Travelling to work does not become such an issue for low income earners on the outskirts of a capital city if they can find employment locally.  Not to mention it is imperative to bring amenities such as shops, schools and health care closer by. 
If this were to occur, public transport and investment in new major roads becomes not as vital as it is currently when there are so few employment opportunities locally.
If lower income earners aren’t lumped with the additional burdens of significant public transport, fuel and road toll costs to get to their employment then the burden of a mortgage whilst still difficult does not become a virtual impossibility.
So yes, affordable housing is becoming harder to find in our capital cities and yes, increasing supply of housing will help to improve the opportunities to purchase homes at a lower price.
However, local employment drivers and amenities I believe are just as important, especially seeing as time and time again we have seen insufficient investment in public transport and road infrastructure on the outskirts of the cities. Not to mention that the cost of utilising public transport is extremely restrictive. 
Alternatively we should forget pie in the sky proposals such as fast trains between Brisbane and Melbourne and improve the rail network locally.  Each of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane could use a more expansive rail networks which includes more stations, better linkages to suburbs on the outskirts and faster connections between nearby cities. 
Investing in improving links and train speeds to the Central Coast, Newcastle, Wollongong, the Blue Mountains and Bathurst from Sydney, to Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo from Melbourne and to the Gold and Sunshine Coasts and Toowoomba from Brisbane would no doubt be a much more worthwhile investment.
</body></html>

ckusher-ujnxiKuFQs

Lower income earners' hopes of owning a home have faded

<html><body>
A new Centre for Independent Studies report, Eight Housing Affordability Myths, has sought to debunk key claims relating to the major drivers in the long-term price growth.
<ol>
<li>Myth: Lower interest rates make housing more affordable </li>
<li>Myth: House prices are a speculative ‘bubble’ </li>
<li>Myth: The supply of land is fixed </li>
<li>Myth: Housing is an unproductive asset </li>
<li>Myth: Australians invest too much in housing </li>
<li>Myth: Foreign investors are responsible for rising house prices </li>
<li>Myth: Domestic investors/negative gearing/capital gains tax concessions are responsible for rising house prices </li>
<li>
Myth: House prices are fuelled by a credit ‘bubble’/excessive leverage 
</li>
</ol>
Source: Centre for Independent Studies report, 'Eight Housing Affordability Myths' 
The reported noted the debate over housing affordability was typically conducted in zero-sum terms.
"First home buyers are pitted against investors and incumbent property owners, baby boomers against younger age groups," it noted.
The implicit assumption is that there is fixed housing stock to be carved up among these competing interests. 
"In principle, the housing market should be able to accommodate increasing demand without upward pressure on prices," Dr Stephen Kirchner suggested.
But he concluded the supply side of the housing market had been taxed and regulated to the point that supply has not been able to keep pace with demand, leading to higher house prices. Rising real house prices have become a secular phenomenon, with the cyclical variation in house prices taking place around this rising trend. 
"Each of the housing affordability myths reviewed and debunked here serves to distract public policy from an increased focus on improving housing supply. He concludes many of the policies pursued by Australian governments in the name of housing affordability, such as first home buyer grants and concessions, increase demand for housing, while failing to tackle regulatory and cost barriers to housing supply."
The report noted new land supply had declined by an average 21% across Australia’s five largest capital cities in the past decade, pushing prices up by an average 148% to $504 per square metre.
"This report seeks to tackle these myths in an effort to improve the quality of public debate about housing affordability," Dr Stephen Kirchner said, adding housing affordability is a relative rather than an absolute concept. 
He also suggest it was also meaningless to assert that house prices are driven by ‘speculation’.
"Few people buy or invest in housing with the expectation of making a capital loss. 
"In that sense, every decision to buy (or not to buy) property is speculative. 
"As Ludwig von Mises observed, ‘Every action is a speculation, i.e., guided by a definite opinion concerning the uncertain conditions of the future.’
"The belief that housing markets are driven by ‘speculation’ misunderstands the role of speculation in an economy and encourages the pursuit of demand-suppression and diversion policies on the basis that prices are disconnected from fundamentals."  
<a href="https://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/issue-analysis/ia146.pdf?utm_source=140708+Media+Release+Housing&amp;utm_campaign=140709+MR+Housing&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">The report</a> by Dr Stephen Kirchner noted home ownership had eased from 71% of households in 1995 to 67% in 2012.
Dr Stephen Kirchner, a research fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies and senior fellow with the Fraser Institute, also posted a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VowSAoV0bw4" target="_blank">YouTube video</a>.
Bob Day, Saul Eslake, and Cameron Kusher helped guide his thinking.
{qtube vid:=VowSAoV0bw4}
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Eight housing affordability myths debunked: CIS

<html><body>
There are many measures of affordability in the marketplace, sadly I believe that many of these measures fail to accurately depict the affordability or otherwise of housing in Australia.  
The main reason being that housing affordability is an extremely complex issue and many factors drive the affordability of housing. In my future posts I am going to investigate some of these factors and tell you what you should really be asking yourself about affordability when purchasing a home.
Can I start by stating that simplistic means of comparing property prices between countries I believe are ineffective. 
Due to different tax regimes, standards of housing and attitudes to property and wealth accumulation there may be perfectly good reasons why a household is prepared to spend more on housing in Australia for example than they are in the United States.  I think common measures such as the median multiple (ratio of household income to property prices) are not necessarily a good way to measure affordability or otherwise, there are a lot more factors at play.
Interest rates
Interest rates are obviously an important component in determining housing affordability.  When interest rates are lower, interest repayments on home loans are lower and as a result ‘affording’ the repayments on a mortgage should be easier.  Of course, as we are seeing at the moment, lower mortgage rates often encourage higher property values. 
So while it’s true that lower interest rates make housing relatively more affordable, if values are rising and sales increase then it can somewhat off-set the affordability benefit of lower mortgage rates.
Furthermore, the typical home loan in Australia is 25 years and the vast majority of home loans are on a variable rate.  As a result, as the Reserve Bank adjusts monetary policy there is virtually an instant effect on household budgets and balance sheets.  For example, at the moment the standard variable mortgage rate sits at 5.95% however, over the past 10 years the variable mortgage rate has averaged 7.27%, over the last 20 years it has averaged 7.45% and over the past 25 years (the typical home loan length) it has averaged 8.47%. Over the past 25 years, standard variable mortgage rates have been as high as 17.0% and as low as 5.75%.
The point is that interest rates can vary greatly over 25 years and over the life of the loan the current interest rate is not a great means of measuring the cost of a mortgage over its lifetime.
Wages / Income
If you are going to take out a mortgage on a home (as most purchasers do) you are going to need an income and you are going to need some savings.  In Australia there are a number of measures of wages/income and it is difficult to know exactly which one is best to use to measure housing affordability.
The National Accounts measure the ‘Real net national disposable income – chain volume’.  This measure does have a number of shortcomings in that it is not an individual measure and that it includes items that one can’t really spend such as superannuation.  Additionally this data is only available from a national standpoint. 
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) publishes its wage price index each quarter however, it measures wages only and doesn’t measure income captured from other sources.  The Census is undertaken each five years and does report on the median weekly household income however, the shortcoming here is that it is only updated every five years. 
We also have the Household Income Survey from the ABS however it is only undertaken bi-annually and takes a fairly macro view of household incomes
Unfortunately all of these measures have significant shortcomings which need to be considered when looking at any housing affordability measure.
Article continues on next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Labour force / unemployment
Paying off a mortgage eats up a significant portion of a family’s wage.  Undoubtedly if home values weren’t so high and mortgages weren’t so large disposable incomes would be much greater.  Although labour force data or unemployment statistics need not necessarily be an input into any housing affordability measure they are a key consideration for someone looking to purchase. 
The threat of unemployment means that despite the fact housing may seem affordable it is less likely someone would purchase. Obviously if you are unemployed it is going to be difficult to purchase a home.
Another factor to consider is although measures of income show that over recent years wages and disposable income have increased, what they don’t take into account is how many more women are working nowadays.  Labour force data shows that in May 2014, 54.1% of the workforce was male and 45.9% was female, 30 years ago 62.3% was male and 37.6% was female.  Today, 35.5% of full-time workers are female compared to 28.9% 30 years ago. 
The point here is that although household incomes have increased, a big proportion of the increase is due to the structural change associated with a greater number of women in the workforce.  
The rising prevalence of dual income households means that whereas 20 to 30 years ago couples could afford mortgage repayments on a single wage, today they largely require dual incomes.
Home values / prices
Most measures of housing affordability look at median prices or median values. 
The important thing to remember here is that a median is just the middle value so there are just as many homes worth more and less than that figure.  In fact the median price looks only at the middle value of properties which have sold over a period.
This obviously has significant shortcomings because what is predominately selling could be at the affordable or expensive end of the market and this could bias the median one way or another.  Remember that typically only 5% to 7% of total housing stock transacts in a given year.
Another important consideration here is that a national median measure doesn’t really tell you very much at a localised level.  In Australia, 66% of residents live in a capital city with around 55% in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth. 
Quite simply many residents don’t have a choice but to live in a capital city so if you are trying to determine affordability in Melbourne, the cost of housing in Mildura is of no valuable comparison whatsoever.
Rental rates
If you don’t own a home or pay-off a mortgage you have to live elsewhere, for the most part non-homeowners rent.  The cost of renting is an important consideration when trying to determine housing affordability.  If rents are increasing but home values are flat or falling purchasing a home may start to look a more attractive prospect. 
Once again the challenge with a measure which compares rents to house price (or mortgage repayments) is that it is not a localised analysis.  For example for the cost of renting in Paddington in Sydney you may actually be able to pay off a mortgage in Guildford but to the renter is the opportunity cost of owning their own home and being further away from the city centre, harbour and the beaches worthwhile? 
Who knows but for anyone looking to purchase these are the sorts of questions they need to be asking themselves.
The other key consideration is that the ongoing costs associated with owning a home as opposed to renting are difficult to determine, but they are much more than renting.  As a renter, the ongoing costs generally include: the rent, the bond, electricity, gas (if applicable), cleaning (if you move rentals) and the cost of moving if/when you move. 
As an owner of a home the costs incurred include: the mortgage, electricity, gas, council rates, stamp duty when you purchase, ongoing maintenance of the property, strata fees (if you own a unit) and agent fees if/when you decide to move.  The ongoing costs associated with owning a home are much greater than the ongoing costs of renting.
Who does housing affordability affect most?
Housing affordability affects everyone.  The high cost of housing acts as a disincentive for people to move to more appropriate locations, discourages people from upsizing and downsizing and discourages movement intra or interstate for employment.  The group most affected by housing affordability however is those who don’t as yet own a home.
Again if we think about many of the measures of affordability used they look at typical or median prices values and compare to interest rates and typical wages.  The problem with this approach is that very few people are actually typical.  As a generalisation, most people that rent are younger, starting out their careers. 
There is a high likelihood that their wage is currently lower than the median (although there is a good chance it will increase as they are promoted or move jobs).  If their wage is below the typical wage then they should not be looking to buy the typical (or median house).
Of course there are plenty of renters that earn above average wages but choose not to purchase as well but when trying to tackle the affordability question I think many of the measures that we look at are far too simplistic, but hamstrung by the quality and granularity of income data. 
Housing affordability is an individual thing and none of the measures really tell the true story about how affordable or unaffordable housing in Australia is.  When determining whether you can afford to buy a home I think the most important things to consider are:
<ol>
<li>What are current mortgage rates and at what higher level would I not be able to repay my mortgage?</li>
<li>How secure is my job and what would happen if I was to lose my job for an extended period?</li>
<li>Over the next few years what is the realistic expectations for my wage, will it rise and by how much?</li>
<li>What impact would it have if I found a partner or lost a partner on my ability to repay the mortgage?</li>
<li>If I plan to have children, children cost a lot what impact would that have on my ability to repay the mortgage?</li>
<li>Compared to my current rent and associated costs, how much more is paying off a mortgage and the other day-to day costs of home ownership really going to be and can I afford this?</li>
<li>What am I willing to sacrifice in order to buy a home; lifestyle, location, overseas travel etc?  What is the opportunity cost of buying a home?</li>
</ol>
I am sure there are many more questions to ask when looking to purchase but I think as a start these questions are essential.  I say that the measures of affordability which are readily available should be taken with a grain of sale. 
It’s more important to ask yourself some tough questions about whether or not you can really afford to be a home owner.  If you have any doubt you really need to consider whether it is worth the risk or not.
For what it’s worth, I think that housing affordability is a significant issue for young Australians, particularly those within our capital city markets.  he major problem is that most Australian’s choose to build wealth through property and 23 years of unabated economic growth has on exacerbated this. 
The challenge now is how can you deliver affordable housing for younger Australians without bringing down the cost of existing housing which politically and economically would be detrimental to the overall health of the Australian economy.
</body></html>

Forget affordability measures and ask yourself some tough questions

<html><body>
Protests that continue to erupt across the country against the federal budget consist of two sectors:
Those who are disadvantaged through cuts to government expenditure - young people, job seekers, groups on low-incomes, the homeless - against political parties who want to exploit the situation to swing the popular vote in their favour.
It comes at a time when many young Australian’s are growing increasingly disillusioned with what politics in a neo-liberal capitalist culture is able to achieve.
The various groups opposing the current budget may not be aware of the full backdrop that sits behind the issues they dispute.
Separating the politics of envy from the basic principles of equity is not an easy task, not only in the items we consider ‘wealth,’ but also in judging whether income is a true representation of skill and effort, or granted disproportionately at the expense of others.
Most however recognise a process that favours the rich - one where politicians subject themselves to the interests of lobbyists and promise what they need to gain a seat in power.
We’ve seen this most recently with the ICAC investigations.  Tens of thousands of dollars pouring into the major party coffers from property developers all claiming to be ‘legitimate’ – yet, as we know, you don’t hand over cash without expecting special favours in return.
It would be nice to think that democracy alone could remedy this, but democracy unless underpinned by good policy, has a fatal flaw - that of short-termism.
While voters will champion the environmental crisis of climate change and affordable accommodation, they will recoil at the thought of living near a wind-farm or high-rise block.
Public housing and commission homes are fine in theory, but not in the local neighbourhood, or indeed, anywhere in view.
We’ll welcome the stranger and rally in defence of the asylum seeker, but only on the condition they don’t take away our jobs or price the locals out of housing. In other words, you can come in, but just don’t join in.
No one cheers at the thought of saddling our younger population with student debt – however, when it comes to the cost of shelter, a different attitude arises. ‘Generation Whine’ are instead told to shut up and save up. 
While we desire a country built on the pillars of community, equity, and economic justice, it’s simply not possible in country that is pinned to the foundation of rising land values, as a necessity to fund retirement and most other lifestyle and business needs. 
The social consequence that arises from this costs us millions in welfare payments throughout the year.  Yet it is still advertised and promoted as the road to riches, creating a “FIRE” economy (finance, insurance and real estate) - disproportionally inflating land costs without due acknowledgement of the consequence.   
Unfortunately, the web of confusion that surrounds the subject has put capitalist democracy, which has managed to free so many from the dominance of politically oppressive and controlling regimes, under attack. 
Yet, capitalism, which in its truest form is simply a free market system of competing goods and services, is not what we have presently.
Today, faulty economic thinking has allowed items that are not made, or earned and by nature cannot compete; to be traded and profited from as if they were created capital. This has corrupted what should be a very good and fair system.
It’s important therefore to understand what wealth and capital is exactly.
Article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Wealth is not the paper and numbers in our bank account. Money is simply a measurement of the resources we need, to produce the goods and services we consume (capital) for both business and pleasure.
In simplest terms - a person’s wealth is made through his/her own enterprise; whilst a country’s wealth consists of its land and natural resources.
When we earn money in exchange for our skills and labour it can’t be considered unjust or unfair. 
However, when it comes through a government legislated process, of allowing some to profit at the expense of others, by trading items that are not capital or derived from any physical effort, this yields a special kind of unearned income, which in classical economics is termed “rent.”
Rent seeking can take on many forms – such as patents and government licences for example, which cripple competition from smaller industries and produce an unfair advantage. 
The <a href="https://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-10/uber-protests-spread-across-europe-as-taxi-app-backlash-grows#p2" target="_blank">Uber and Lyft revolution</a> is one such example. 
It threatens to undermine the cartel of the Taxi industry’s licencing monopoly, which gleans an economic rent from purposely-limiting the number granted.
Uber and Lyft offer a cheap and reportedly safe match-making alternative for consumers; however their progress has been repeatedly stifled by government intervention, determined to protect a <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/no-tears-shed-for-backward-taxi-industry-20140424-37696" target="_blank">monopoly and a culture of regulation</a> evidently fearing a cut to revenue.
The most damaging of rent seeking behaviour however, and the one that yields the most gains, is trading the economic rent of land. 
An increase in the market price of land is an expected result when economies are improving along with capital investment in infrastructure. Therefore, of all rent seeking behaviour, owning a plot of land in path of this progress yields not only the greatest windfall of passive gains, but is also used as a significant source of territorial and political power. 
This is not surprising when you consider all the goods we consume come from it.  Our oil, natural gas, timber, coal, and water reserves are the product of it. 
We travel on it, work on it, party on it, sleep on it, and bury our dead in it.
Wi-fi, airplanes, all forms of technology need it. We evolved from it and progress on it.
Try and think of an activity, or item, that does not include land, and you will come up short. 
However, the flow of income that comes from owning land over and above the value of building on it, when capitalised into the price, leads to a monopolist culture that feeds speculation, attracting a cabal of banking and finance interests and concentrating the vast proportion of a country’s wealth in the hands of a few, above the very real needs of many.
Rupert Murdoch ironically coined it best when, in his 1994 John Bonython lecture <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.cis.org.au/events/event/53/RUPERT-MURDOCH---The-Century-of-Networking-/0" target="_blank">“The Century of Networking</a>” he said: 
"Because capitalists are always trying to stab each other in the back, free markets do not lead to monopolies.  Monopolies can only exist when governments protect them."
This is in essence what the Arab Spring was all about. 
Many mistook it as a grasp for democracy – however it wasn’t. It was a grasp for true capitalism – the freedom to prosper unimpeded by onerous regulation or rent seeking behaviour. At its essence was a desire for economic justice, equal access to opportunity – matters we look to government to provide.
Since politician and the driving force behind the early settlement of South Australia, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon_Wakefield" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">Edward Gibbon Wakefield</a> (1796-1862), devised his grand plan of “systematic colonisation” – making land just so 'sufficiently' unaffordable as to create a willing workforce of labourers. Economists and politicians have done everything possible to distract public attention from what is nothing more than a modern day game of feudalism. 
They do this by allowing people to play a dangerous game of leverage, gambling on land price inflation by borrowing as much debt as possible to maximise their ‘capital gains,’ without acknowledging what is given with one hand, is taken with the other – or more accurately, from another.
This is clearly highlighted in the response to the budget.
Whilst rich land-‘lords’ and mining magnets grow wealthy, collecting their unearned windfall in economic rent – they ironically tell the young tenant saddled with student debt “so you think the world owes you a living?” while government stretches out its hand to the low waged worker commanding they “pull their weight.”
<img src="/images/2014/06/16/cashmore-june-16-one.jpg" alt="">
Source: <a href="https://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/downloads/final_report_part_1/00_AFTS_final_report_consolidated.pdf" target="_blank">Ken Henry tax review</a>: “The current charging arrangements distort investment and production decisions….. they fail to collect a sufficient return for the community because they are unresponsive to changes in profits.”
It is no coincidence that whilst far from a perfect system of equitable land reform, the greatest equaliser in Australia and the one that had the most profound social and economic effect on reducing inequality, was the Mabo Judgement over land rights for the Aboriginal people.
The monopolists in the mining industry stringently and shamefully lobbied against it, as they did most recently with at mention of a resource tax, turning it into a national crisis.
This is essentially why Clive Palmer entered politics. 
Each year <a href="https://www.minesandmoney.com/london/report-ernst-young-business-risks-facing-mining-and-metals-2013-2014/">Ernst &amp; Young</a> produce a business report for the mining and metals industry, highlighting the top ten risks that can affect fat cat profits, along with tips on how to avoid them. 
<img src="/images/2014/06/16/cashmore-june-16-two.jpg" alt="">
SWource: Ernst &amp; Young
Featured prominently is “Resource nationalism” (sharing the gains) with the comment;
“Miners have had to become more politically savvy... the most successful are building strong relationships with government” to...”educate on tax reform”.
It is against this backdrop, that he loveable founder of PUP, which claims to “Unite All Australian’s” has bought himself a seat in power by promising peace, prosperity and goodwill to all men, alongside a raft of economic goodies.
When Clive comes to town, Christmas does too, ower income tax, free education, higher pensions, you name it, Clive will promise it.
His <a href="https://palmerunited.com/national-policy/" target="_blank">policies</a> are overwhelming wishy-washy with no detailed assessment as to how they’ll be funded – but that doesn’t matter. Economic analysis is not the PUP agenda.
Instead, it will act in the best interests of its leader ensuring the abolishment of any mining and carbon tax, whilst driving the cost of land higher with incentives for home buyers.
However, the corruption of politics to favour the vested interests of leaders is nothing new.
Article continues on next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
It is no coincidence that just about every housing policy designed to increase affordability results in quite the reverse.
This can be witnessed in any country that allows the economic rent of land to capitalise into the price, thereby becoming a tradable asset to gamble on.
All tax incentives such as negative gearing for example, simply inflate costs rather than reduce them.
Zoning policies create false scarcity by protecting affluent neighbourhoods from over development, restricting the use of fringe land with urban boundaries and onerous regulation, and advantaging existing owners by pushing up the price of marginal land – which buttresses the price of all land.
<a href="https://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/working-paper-is-inequality-exacerbating-our-housing-crisis" target="_blank">The evidence shows</a>, the richer vendors become, the more energetic they are to restrict development near their own land holdings – unless it acts to inflate values.
Many Melbournian’s will be familiar with the historical figure of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bent" target="_blank">Thomas Bent</a> for example, who became the 22nd premier of Victoria. 
His corrupt dealings are well documented, not least, using his political clout to extend the railway line from Caulfield to Cheltenham, thus enormously increasing the value of his own property developments, which just so happened to fall alongside the proposed route.
A more recent example is being alleged in New Zealand.
The country is undergoing a crisis of housing affordability and has been termed the world’s most over priced.
Policy makers are tying themselves in economic knots to uncover solutions, with the central bank employing strict lending regulations to prevent exuberant speculation, while 'up-zoning' to increase supply is underway.
However, these ‘up zonings’ <a href="https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/05/len-browns-zoning-hypocrisy-outed/" target="_blank">miss</a> Auckland mayor Len Brown’s spacious lifestyle block, which conveniently falls outside the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL). 
Mayor Brown, who has recently purchased an American V8 whilst sporting the public face of being very ‘pro public transport’, has uncharacteristically <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&amp;objectid=10788288" target="_blank">infuriated</a> his council’s transport leader, by rallying in defence of significant road projects which are reputed to have a beneficial and value enhancing effect on his own <a href="https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/len-browns-lifestyle-block-%E2%80%98outrageous-hypocrisy-nk-p-139628" target="_blank">estate</a>.
There are numerous academic studies world wide, which outline housing affordability problems, yet fail to identify the root cause and therefore effective solutions. 
Economist <a href="https://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Hudson_Lies" target="_blank">Michael Hudson</a> points out in USA studies, how the magnitude of land-price gains are brushed under the carpet to hide the massive unearned profits reaped by those who hoard it.
The same phenomenon is happening in Australia, not only with the ‘<a href="https://avo.govspace.gov.au/" target="_blank">soft closure’</a> of the Australian Valuation Office and ‘rubbing out’ of first home buyer statistics from the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/first-home-buyer-statistics-not-adding-up-20140609-39sam">RBA chart pack</a>, but through budgetary cuts to <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyCatalogue/745695D9AEBEFE64CA257CEE0004715C">ABS funding</a>, which threaten to end the official “House Price Index” (considered the most reliable market indicator) in favour of private <a href="https://www.rpdata.com/" target="_blank">unaudited data</a> providers, whose transparency and reliability are consistently questioned. 
When you appreciate how lucrative rent-seeking is to those in power, it is very easy to see how democracy fails us – working tirelessly to silence voices by politically reinforcing faulty economic theories, while strenuously working against efforts to liberalise them.
</body></html>

catherinecashmore-6LXia3pPQj

Housing affordability and democracy: Who is really benefiting from our land policies?

jduke-EHk3XBmHkn

Australia in global house price growth top 10, but affordability improves

<html><body>
A few days ago, I was asked to comment on <a href="https://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/big-buyers-put-melbourne-on-global-wanted-list-of-prime-cities/story-fni0dcne-1226937873180" target="_blank">The Candy GPS Report</a> which identifies 12 future cities for real estate investment – one of which is Melbourne.
The 12 cities are as follows (from most expensive to the least):
 <img src="/images/2014/06/02/cashmore-june-2-one.jpg" alt="">
Just in case anyone is still deluded that we build the accommodation for people to live in. It correctly outlines how real estate is progressively becoming a mainstream asset class for investors.
Ultra high net worth individuals from Germany, the United States, Japan and other parts of Asia are now looking at secondary markets and second tier cities as an alternative to the somewhat bubbly established safe havens of London and New York.
It comes on the back of what is already a fraught subject in Australia; the impression that “foreigners” are purchasing our residential real estate – bidding up prices and forcing out first home buyers who simply can’t compete.
The parliamentary inquiry last week was devised to put this matter to rest, to prove it isn’t so. Although, for those in the industry who work directly with buyers and sellers, it merely confirmed what we already know.
Australia has a largely unaudited system of ‘non-resident’ investment in its real estate market.
Whilst the official figures seem to demonstrate the larger proportion of demand is increasing supply rather than inflating values.  With only eight staff to audit the thousands of applications the FIRB receives, it admits it relies on "honesty and stern speech", whilst those who work on the ground within the industry, rightly attest that there are <a href="https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/05/firb-says-youre-not-racist-about-property-but/" target="_blank">loopholes</a> in the rules.
For example, corporations, friends, family members, relatives,  and solicitors are all able to purchase for those who do not quality - and from <a href="https://www.afr.com/p/business/property/the_year_of_the_chinese_developer_KtqoIDtcggT8KGAMXv8OgKhttp:/www.afr.com/p/business/property/the_year_of_the_chinese_developer_KtqoIDtcggT8KGAMXv8OgK" target="_blank">anecdotal evidence</a> alone, they seemingly do.
Importantly, it is not up to real estate agents to report their suspicions and inflame a debate which has bordered on racist against our Asian migrants.
The process must be correctly audited, and until it is, argument will continue. However, we should not let this mask the real issue surrounding our residential real estate market – that of government policy. 
As the RBA recently noted in their <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2014/sp-so-150514" target="_blank">“wouldn’t it be nice to have houses at affordable prices”</a> speech a few weeks ago, conditions are not only hard for first time buyers, with wages tracking below the rate of inflation whilst prices trend higher, many others are falling through the cracks altogether.
Previous reports have shown fewer younger and middle-aged people own their own home and across all age groups, fewer own outright. There has been an <a href="https://www.iut.nu/Literature/Australia/housing_supply_affordability_report_2012-13.pdf" target="_blank">increase</a> in both the number of people recorded as homeless as well as the number living in other marginal housing.
If Australians in 2011 had the housing consumption patterns they had in 2001, they would occupy an additional 284,000 dwellings. Instead, despite families having fewer children and an aging population, we’ve seen a reversal of the decade-long decline in household size, which outside of any cultural shift, clearly points towards pressures of affordability.
Now new buyers risk not only being locked out altogether, but also (as the RBA’s Lucy Ellis puts it) “where the jobs are and where the employed people live” – which remains around the central areas of our largest capital cities. As the speech demonstrates, we have not decentralised – in fact quite the reverse. 
 <img src="/images/2014/06/02/cashmore-june-2-two.jpg" alt="">
It comes down to the same old issue – housing policy.
This article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
We build for an investor market in a lopsided economy that has pinned itself to rising land values to support every other area of investment.
This is great for those who were lucky enough get in at the beginning of the lending boom, many of which now have an ample welfare pot for retirement.
Not so great for first home buyers today who are struggling to afford, well… anything at all.
The many vested interests from politicians to industrial lobbyists, to keep land prices inflated, can be evidenced in every area of real estate policy. 
From our failure to correctly audit the investment market (foreign or otherwise), to other matters such as first home buyer grants, tax breaks for investors, turning a blind eye to spruiking, a failure to enforce strong lending rules, and a continual inability to supply affordable housing in the fringe localities on what should be dirt cheap land (close to its agricultural value), enabling new buyers to purchase at no more than three times annual income.
Instead we unduly inflate prices in the outer suburbs through a process of ‘false scarcity’ produced by urban boundaries, zoning regulations, onerous development taxes and infrastructure overlays, all of which encourage speculation in vacant land, which is becoming a far more lucrative venture than building for current low yields.
This further inflates land values in the inner and middle ring localities because, as anyone familiar with classical economics knows, it’s the fringe cost of land that sets the base price for the suburbs closer in.
The report by The Candy GPS mentioned above, which promotes the potential for Australian real estate investment, mirrors other assessments with similar conclusions. 
For example, in a study by investment bank <a href="https://www.credit-suisse.com/au/" target="_blank">Credit Suisse</a> earlier this year, it correctly asserted:
“The marginal buyer of Sydney and Melbourne real estate has changed, as have the drivers of property prices.”
It points out a potential $44 billion investment into Australian residential real estate over the next seven years, mainly due to our geographical advantage in the wider Asia-Pacific region.
To put this into context, by 2025 the Asian region will account for almost half of the world’s output and also be the world’s largest consumer.
In Julia Gillard's ‘Asian Century’ speech, she asserted:
“We are now seeing the most profound rebalancing of global wealth and power in the period since the United States emerged as a major power in the world.”  
The number of Asian students studying here is at record highs.Trade flows, research and business development, education, tourism, and increased levels of migration have given us the potential to capitalise on the inflow. And as the capitals of the two states with largest recorded arrivals of Indian and Chinese migrants, Melbourne and Sydney are set to advantage.
The trouble of course, comes down to management.  The influx will push prices higher and not benefit us over the long-term (especially the next generation of priced out buyers) unless we change policy.  
If we were really smart, we would look at our system of taxation to ensure this investment in land is not only sustainable – but also advantageous to the broader economy.
To do this, we should work on a long-term sustainable plan to remove an array of bad taxes, including stamp duty which impedes housing turnover and labour mobility for owners seeking alternative employment opportunities, trapping residents in housing. As well as phasing out other policies, which focus investor demand on established real estate rather than the construction of new supply – such as negative gearing for example.  Instead we should replace them all with a broad based tax on the unimproved revenue from the locational value of land alone – not the buildings on top. 
Currently, we assess rates on the combined value of both – which means for every improvement to the capital (the man made asset on top) we place a penalty on building activities which impedes the productive capacity locked in our land market.
An effective land value charge, as well as shifting ‘bad’ taxes from productivity, would result in a number of changes.
It would encourage effective utilisation of land in both inner and outer suburban districts, stimulate construction, take some of the speculative element out of the land market, reduce prices and thereby assisting with decentralisation. And with less with ‘economic rent’ locked in the soil, over the longer term would act to increase – not decrease wages.
Combine this with an overhaul of supply policy and the accumulated wealth being brought into the country could be channelled into productive activities, rather than rampant real estate speculation.
It's unlikely that this will occur however. History attests that governments have a habit of allowing wealth to trickle up, not down – usually due to a combination of ignorance, lobbying and vested interests. Albeit, if policy fails to change through both taxation and supply, at some point prices will get too high for productivity to sustain and as recent international examples attest, the future consequences of this will be significant. 
</body></html>

Australian real estate: Once again ticking boxes for foreign investors

<html><body>
Ian Macfarlane, the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia from 1996 to 2006, doesn’t think there's an Australian housing bubble.
"We do have an affordability problem, it makes it tough for young people to acquire a house in a desirable area.
"This is characteristic of every major city in the world that has desirable job opportunities. London, Paris, Berlin, New York, Hong Kong, Singapore," he told the recent Morningstar Investment Conference where he was asked his views on a potential residential property bubble in Australia.
"I think we faced a risk in 2003, not 2014. In 2003, we had lending for housing and prices rising at 20%, half of it speculative lending, negatively geared. 
"There were seven prime time television programmes on how to get rich in property.  Since then, on average, house prices have risen at the same rate as household income.
"For that reason, I don’t think we have a bubble," he said as reported by the <a href="https://cuffelinks.com.au" target="_blank">cufflinks </a>website.    He said the affordability problem was partly due to negative gearing making it tough for young people to acquire a house in a desirable area.
"Some of our policies make that worse, such as the extreme leniency we show towards negative gearing, but I don't think there is a bubble." 
</body></html>

No Australian housing bubble, but negative gearing-induced affordability issues: Former RBA governor Ian Macfarlane

<html><body>
Lower interest rates and a slowing house price growth have prompted housing affordability to be at its most favourable level in 12 years, according to the latest Housing Industry Association-CBA Housing Affordability Index. 
The index for the March quarter shows housing is 10.8% more affordable than a year ago.
The HIA senior economist, Shane Garrett said the index improved by 2.1% during the first quarter of 2014.
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“The RBA has signalled that interest rates are set to remain low for some time,” added Shane Garrett. “As home price pressures ease off, we expect home owner affordability to remain reasonably favourable for the foreseeable future,” predicted Shane Garrett.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

Housing 10.8% more affordable than a year ago: HIA

<html><body>
Affordability
While on the face of it the level of housing affordability is what causes our housing markets to ebb and flow, it's as likely to be the unemployment rate and the availability or otherwise of credit in Australia which drives property market movements.
The unemployment rate currently sits at a historically low level at under 6%, but has been rising moderately through 2013.
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5KyrRjfn_4U/U3_NKChJnmI/AAAAAAAANYE/O2N0OR0t0Tk/s1600/1ue.jpg">
The issue of affordability is an ongoing one, and being an emotive issue, sometimes the dynamics of how housing markets actually work in practice are overlooked.
The great paradox of today's rising asset prices is that the prevailing low interest rate environment has improved affordability considerably for existing home owners, but made life correspondingly worse for first time buyers as entry prices to the market rise.
Older clients often come to me expressing surprise at the level of their surplus income, the driver of which has clearly been the structural shift to low inflation and lower interest rates over the past 25 years.
<img src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-a74WkKkfsuw/U3_LQuBMZFI/AAAAAAAANX4/gPOx71PU4u0/s1600/OCR.jpg">
Multiples of income
The way in which housing markets from different countries are compared to each other is most often by taking the median price of a house and dividing it by an average measure of household incomes to produce a multiple.
Looking at how long it would take to pay off an average house with an average income is a handy shortcut measure of housing affordability and a very easy means of comparison, but this isn't how housing markets work in reality since it flatly ignores the role of interest rates and the differing financial situations and stages of life that buyers of property are in.
This widely favoured methodology fails to consider mortgage repayments - a housing market where prices are a low multiple of incomes yet has mortgage rates approaching 20% may still not necessarily be an affordable market.In other words, the multiple of incomes method works on the presumption that everyone is a first home buyer with a 80-100% loan.
In the real world, our housing markets work very differently.
There are essentially four different types of buyer, and issues of affordability affect each of them differently.
<ol>
<li>
No finance The percentages fluctuate each year and by state, but between a quarter and a third of properties tend to be bought with no financing. How so? Well, there are some lucky so-and-sos whose parents buy their homes for them, but most often this happens due to the sale of an existing home. Empty-nesters and down-sizers form part of this phenomenon. Other older buyers who are mortgage free opt to move to a similarly-sized home and thus require no debt financing. By the end of 2013, the total of all Australian household debt reached a record $1.84 trillion as the population expands. Yet even the sum total of all forms of household debt is comfortably dwarfed by the value of housing assets as estimated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (click chart): <img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-on_IH1jsph4/U3_HkgaAYNI/AAAAAAAANXs/D-CJ95PWWuQ/s1600/1HD.jpg"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-on_IH1jsph4/U3_HkgaAYNI/AAAAAAAANXs/D-CJ95PWWuQ/s1600/1HD.jpg"> </a>Cash buyers are affected little by rising interest rates and often they remain unaffected by the base value of housing, since the asset which they are selling may rise in tandem with the asset they opt to buy. 
</li>
<li>
Investors As our capital city housing markets mature and the population expands largely by immigration, it is expected that the number of properties owned by investors will also increase. In cities such as Sydney around half of loans presently written are investment loans, but Australia-wide one of the gauges over time of how much property is bought by investors is the rate of home ownership, which also seems likely to slide in the decades ahead. Since some investors choose to own multiple properties, investors tend to comprise around a quarter of buyers. Affordability is not really an issue for most investors in the low interest rate environment, since rental income pays the bulk (if not all) of the mortgage and there are tax deductions available for on-paper losses. Investors instead elect to buy at times when rental yields are acceptable as compared to other available investments and in regions where they expect to see capital growth. Most property investors are looking for locations where the population is expected to grow over time and therefore they are very heavily focused on capital cities and larger regional cities. 
</li>
<li>
Existing mortgagors Again, the percentages fluctuate each year and by state, but around a third of the market of property buyers are existing mortgagors who have equity in their home. So the issue for these buyers of affordability is largely governed by interest rates and the price gap between the property they own and the one which they want to own. Note therefore, that housing affordability for these buyers is correspondingly unrelated to the base value of their existing property, and is instead much driven by their own aspirations. 
</li>
<li>
First home buyers The remaining 10% or so of property buyers are first homebuyers, which is the one sector of the market for whom repayments versus household income is a genuinely worthwhile measure. For this sector of the market the challenges to be overcome include the deposit gap and whether mortgage repayments can be well covered in the event of future interest rate hikes. The first homebuyer demographic which has access to a deposit and mortgage finance is driven by another equation: the cost of renting versus the expected mortgage repayments if a home is purchased.
</li>
</ol>
This article continues on the next page. Please click below. 
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Granularity
The above dynamics help to explain why US forecasters who predicted an Australian property crash have not to date seen their expected outcome.
A multiple of income measure is one measure of housing affordability, but in itself doesn't guarantee a price correction where a strongly rising demand is exceeding supply
This is particularly so where most of the population remains employed.
The above dynamics show that perhaps around 90% of buyers are not impacted by affordability in the manner which commentators frequently imply.
This is where the point on granularity comes in.
House prices in London have been able to run up to outrageous levels and by another 20% or so in the past year alone since there is a woefully low level of ongoing dwelling construction but demand is rising.
Yet in the north-east of England, more than 50% of first homebuyers who bought homes in 2007 remain in negative equity even seven years on.
The difference in outcomes is due to the respective supply/demand imbalances.
While it's certainly useful to compare price to income multiples to a point, it would be unwise to expect all markets to behave in the same manner in this regard.
In the case of parts of New South Wales, there exists a genuine challenge for the rising demand of the coming decades to met by quality supply.
Here is how things stand in Sydney's inner suburbs at the moment, which is to say, verging on crisis levels.
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DtNKs4qIo7M/U3_Qo-ArpKI/AAAAAAAANYQ/3IHTCOw7Ivk/s1600/1REINSW.jpg" style="line-height: 1.3em;"><img src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DtNKs4qIo7M/U3_Qo-ArpKI/AAAAAAAANYQ/3IHTCOw7Ivk/s1600/1REINSW.jpg"></a>
Clearly certain regional markets do not face anything like the same issues, especially as population growth in New South Wales is tracking below the national average in almost every regional town as I considered <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/the-sea-change-is-well-and-truly-buried" target="_blank">here</a>.
Since we don't face the same demographic challenges in Australia as some other European countries where dependency rates have increased alarmingly, far more important will be how our economy progresses and the extent to which credit markets remain liquid and mortgage financing remains so widely available.
Further, while most of the value in housing market is equity rather than debt, and while a third of property is owned debt free (and a growing percentage by investors) those who are hurt financially by softer periods in the housing markets are likely to be those who are forced sellers such as the longer-term unemployed, those who have to relocate for employment, divorcees and deceased estates.
Other potential vendors have the luxury to 'wait out' softer periods in the market and as such are less likely to experience an adverse outcome.
Warning - the popular media is late to the party and <a href="https://news.domain.com.au/domain/neighbourhoods/erskineville-becomes-a-hot-property-20140519-zrhqa" target="_blank">tipping Erskineville</a> as a hot suburb, which means that you've long missed the time to buy.
As we said here previously, the time to buy in Erskineville was 2007/8 when it was still seen to be a less attractive proposition - and as we anticipated, apartment prices in the suburb have risen by 56% in the last five years.
It's time to look elsewhere.
Sources: I've leaned heavily here on the ideas of John Lindemann and his work in the Mastering the Australian Housing Market (Wrightbooks, Queensland, 2011).
You can visit <a href="https://allenwargent.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">AllenWargent</a> property buyers (London, Sydney) or Pete's <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">blog</a>.
His new book '<a href="https://www.bigskypublishing.com.au/Books/General-Interest/Four-Green-Houses--and-a-Red-Hotel/1015/productview.aspx" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Four Green Houses and a Red Hotel</a>' is out now.
</body></html>

pwargent-M4siyDbqQY

The property market dynamics influencing affordability

<html><body>
By now it should be overwhelmingly clear - the government has no interest in housing affordability and they will not take any measure to lower land values. If the budget didn’t paint the picture, no doubt the forthcoming Senate inquiry into housing will.
‘The age of entitlement’ is not over – it has been protected at the expense of ‘the age of opportunity’.
The current administration has surgically set about reducing living standards of the poor, making cuts to heath, education, and employing harsh means testing measures which will fall most heavily on the old, young, unemployed  and a broad sector of low to middle income families with dependant children.  
They have done this to studiously protect the interests of the wealthy, refusing to lay a finger on the licensed resource monopolies, the mineral wealth of which increased more than $55 billion in 2012-13 alone.
Clawing back just a fraction of the tax exemptions granted on capital gains, or placing a levy per ton of exported minerals, would not only have gone a long way to covering the budget short fall, but would also have lifted the burden from the poorest onto the richest.  But in a political system where major parties sell themselves to the highest bidder (which as current ICAC investigations suggest happen to be property developers and large land holders), their failure to do so should come as no surprise.
It walks hand-in-hand with the diabolical decision by “Australia's premier real estate industry education and training provider”, AREC, to employ an <a href="/news/the-wolf-of-wall-street-jordan-belforts-upcoming-arec-2014-attendance-a-huge-backward-step">ex convict</a> who defrauded clients out of more than $200 million to educate real estate agents at the biggest industry training event of the year.  Despite <a href="/news/wolf-of-wall-streets-gold-coast-arec-2014-attendance-continues-to-provoke-debate">protests from various participants</a>, the event has <a href="https://www.rebonline.com.au/breaking-news/7652-arec-expected-to-sell-out" target="_blank">sold out</a> and clearly not prickled the conscience of the other speakers who are happy to stand alongside ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’, Jordan Belfort.
The above measures, along with Tony Abbott’s desire to be knighted the ‘infrastructure Prime Minister’ will drive investment into housing – albeit, of the speculative kind.
Infrastructure intensifies the use and demand for residential land as the population grows and no doubt, we need more of it. However, it also has the effect of rising land values, which taken alone, should be a ‘good’ thing for our country (or at least it would be, <a href="/expert-insights/investing/who-is-really-benefiting-from-the-property-cycle-and-at-what-cost">if those gains truly benefitted the community</a>).
Instead those gains will be pocketed, leaving the government to scrape future funding from elsewhere.
Land cannot be reproduced because it cannot be moved; it’s fixed in supply, dependent on the employment sectors and community facilities that surround it.
All of the above raises cost of accommodation yet does little to address the needs of future generations, who, if they’re not lucky enough to inherit the goods, must take on an ever greater proportion of private debt to join in.
This widens the wealth gap between the land owning rich and income poor as the government leans back and lectures welfare recipients that “the world doesn’t owe them a living”.
The government has it within their power to move toward an economy that rewards productivity, reduces unwanted speculation, increases wages, encourages timely construction and the effective utilisation of land, promotes decentralisation into regional areas, keeps the cost of shelter affordable for young buyers, lowers rents for tenants, and levels the playing field between non-owners and owners.
Yet they won’t because their agenda is to protect their own private interests and that of the wealthy, above that of the community.
This means land will only developed for profit, timed to capture the upward wave of a cycle, rather than developed to meet the immediate needs of the home buyer and does little to deter <a href="/expert-insights/building/residential-developers-landbanking-denial">the wasteful process of land banking</a>.
The government, however, is not interested in genuine reform. Instead, they favour laws that give certain classes of people artificial advantages over others whilst having the conceited arrogance to advise it’s all in the ‘national interest’.
What does this mean for the property investor?  Well for the time being, the system will fall in their favour.  Interest rates will remain low, they will not rise, and the government will not intervene.
Over the long-term however, we will not escape the consequences of the government’s actions. Wage growth only increased 2.6% in the past year, a rate below the consumer price index and the weakest since records began. We are in effect going backwards, not forwards – and the economy will suffer as a result.
</body></html>

Housing Affordability

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Housing Affordability

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News