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

Negative gearing

<html><body>
Cameron Kusher of RP Data drew the ire of a few pundits recently as he highlighted a number of points as to <a href="/expert-insights/buying/slight-fall-in-number-of-negatively-geared-property-investors">why negative gearing won't be abolished</a>.
There are four main points which advocates put forward in favour of abolishing negative gearing:
<ol>
<li>
Rents wouldn't rise Nobody knows for certain whether this is actually true. But let's face it, the inevitable hand of self-interest means that if negative gearing rules were quarantined landlords would probably take the opportunity to at least try it on by jacking up their rental charges (cf. the colossal 57% increase in rents in Sydney last time the rules were tweaked, 1985-1987). Let's suppose for the sake of argument that rents stayed flat.... 
</li>
<li>
Government would save billions This was one of Kusher's main points:  "The government only owns and rents out 4.1% of the housing stock. Conversely dwelling approvals data shows that a very small proportion of new housing approvals are granted to the public sector." Common sense dictates that if the government scraps the prevailing negative gearing legislation it would have to step up its public housing expenditure. "If negative gearing was to be removed the government would likely have to play more of a role in constructing new homes and managing a portfolio of properties. On balance, they probably play see that foregoing almost $8 billion in taxation revenue is more cost effective than developing and managing a greater proportion of housing stock." <img src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HfOBu6rlp88/U24XeBqSg0I/AAAAAAAANGY/mV9lzdx4Ksg/s1600/camkusher.jpg"> So much for all the billions in tax savings: the biggest furphy of the lot. Indeed, according to contemporary commentary the principal reason that negative gearing rules were reintroduced in the first place in 1987 was the spiralling waiting list for public housing, particularly in New South Wales where numbers increased alarmingly by nearly 40% to 140,000. Again, let's suppose that the government recovered in full the foregone funds from its negative gearing subsidies and a grandfathering or quarantining of the prevailing rules proved to be fiscally neutral. 
</li>
<li>
Renters would buy up the properties sold Kusher again: <img src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_nBJi-3W908/U24KdlkeXuI/AAAAAAAANGI/Wmf9ohsWcg8/s1600/CKusss.jpg"> This is obviously true. If property investors sell their properties, are renters who have not been able to buy previously really going to be in a position to suddenly step in and buy them? That seems unlikely, unless renters already had pre-existing deposits and closing costs ready to roll. But again, let's suppose that investors sold their properties and renters somehow did find the deposits and the appropriate financing to buy up the surplus stock with no associated decline in lending standards (also unlikely).  This is where the housing affordability arguments become circular and contradictory... Higher home ownership rates? On the one hand, people say "we should be like Germany with its stable housing market where most people rent" and on the other they argue "renters should be able to buy into the property market". One or the other argument might make sense, but I can't see how they both can. Certain economists believe that artificially pumping up home ownership rates beyond their natural levels promotes boom/bust cycles.  Look at countries where home ownership rates are artificially high, such as Singapore, where dwelling prices are up by 60% since 2009. Hardly a model for affordable housing, and rents are preposterously high in the city too (at least, they have certainly seemed to me to be when I've visited friends in the city - I'm happy to stand corrected on this point if it's incorrect on a city-wide basis). Britain too experimented with making home ownership a part of the very fabric of society through Maggie Thatcher's selling off of council houses, pushing UK home ownership rates to exceptionally high levels of around 70% by the end of the century. This all seemed to be a tremendous success when house prices were booming in the 1980s (and again in the 1990s and first half of the 2000s) with the stakeholder economy benefiting from an unprecedented boom in credit and wildly exaggerated wealth effect. However, it's commonly acknowledged that the UK housing market has also been one of the most manic-depressive boom/bust markets in the world ever since ownership rates increased. Meanwhile, ownership rates until recently appeared to be in the process of heading all the way back down to from whence they came...until, that is, the government stepped in with its Help to Buy and Funding for Lending wheezes - the cycle repeats... 
</li>
<li>Negative gearing doesn't increase supply</li>
</ol>
This point is logical enough, since negatively geared properties are mostly comprised of existing housing stock.
<div>Let's disregard all of the above factors which are precluding the negative gearing rules from being quarantined.</div>
Suppose for a moment that:
(a) the negative gearing rules are quarantined or grandfathered out;
(b) a large number of property investors sell their properties;
(c) renters buy up the surplus stock increasing home ownership rates to 70%+;
(d) rents don't rise;
(e) a decline in lending standards doesn't lead to a mass of defaults when interest rates rise;
(f) no boom/bust market ensues; and
(g) dwelling prices fall by, say, 20% (which presumably is the main underlying point of this entire debate after all).
Ongoing supply? 
As I <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com.au/search?q=construction+costs" target="_blank">looked at here</a>, our major residential developers in Australia are not generating strong margins. Far from it in fact.
So if dwelling prices are to fall, who is going to build the new housing stock? 
If you think developers are going to do anything other than maximise shareholder returns, as indeed they are compelled to do, then you likely also believe in tooth fairies.
The Reserve Bank itself highlighted the reason why margins on multistorey apartment block residential developments are so slender: construction costs on infill sites are too high for it to be otherwise.
<img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-g-Oo-rk32eU/UyzA8AHYD4I/AAAAAAAAL_o/UftvW2FtvtA/s1600/CC.gif">
This chart shows why a long drawn out fall in apartment prices in Sydney was never feasible since it would have quickly taken the price per dwelling below its equivalent replacement cost.
Land developer Stockland's (SGP) underlying profit in FY13 was hampered by weak housing conditions, with that financial period encompassing the period from 1 July 2012 when sentiment was  still in the process of picking up.  Stockland's (SGP) residentiual division recorded an EBIT margin of 19.9% in FY2013.
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HLTcTuf2p2A/Uyz4daslyXI/AAAAAAAAMAM/OZEeDiagq_k/s1600/stockland+resi.jpg"> The Mirvac Group (MGR) managed to improve group gross margins on its residential developments to just 22% from a desperately poor 18% in the prior year.
 <img src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jAnKNC6uhSY/Uyz3uhTUatI/AAAAAAAAMAA/bqbqdKWpz8w/s400/Mirvac+margins.jpg">
<div>Lend Lease might yet prove to be the biggest basket case of the lot, the group reportedly struggling to turn a decent worthwhile ROI on some of its resi developments even at today's higher dwelling prices.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Lend Lease's (LLC) entire Australian geographical segment is recording EBITDA of only $500-$600 million and NPAT of around only $400-$500 million from colossal annual revenue streams of  $7.5 billion plus.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> <img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DE-MRz3KKWI/Uyz5EFxBebI/AAAAAAAAMAo/hRJtqfrVRQs/s400/LL.jpg">
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm sure that $7.734 billion top line figure is keeping a few execs living in the manner to which they have become accustomed, but those kind of net margins are hardly likely to see shareholders sending the champagne corks flying.</div>
Even back up at a PE of above 14, the share price is still at only at around half of its former glory.
<img src="https://chartbigchart.gtm.idmanagedsolutions.com/custom/etrade-australia/chart.asp?symb=LLC&amp;time=10yr&amp;freq=1dy&amp;type=1&amp;compidx=aaaa%3a0&amp;uf=0&amp;ma=2&amp;maval=25&amp;lf=268435456&amp;style=2061&amp;size=1&amp;comp=">
Lend Lease's FY14 H1 results for its Australian geographical segment have disappointed as development and construction profits have once again slipped back.
<div>
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TkgUgqpwV68/Uyz6QeInzXI/AAAAAAAAMA0/h1MHVaibJqE/s1600/LLAustralia.jpg"> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Implications</div>
If you're not familiar with accounting convention, what this means simply is that if dwelling prices fall, developers ain't barely going to be making a profit even before financing charges, and it will almost immediately be a case of 'see you later new dwelling supply'.
Say, for the sake of argument dwelling prices fall by 20%.
You can be more or less certain that absent new subsidies, major developers would instantly put any new planned projects on ice until upwards price pressure returned. In case it's still not clear why, this table explains the basic maths:
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="205">
<div> </div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="48">
<div align="center">FY13 </div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="47">
<div align="center">FY??</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="205">
<div>Turnover</div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="48">
<div align="center">100</div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="47">
<div align="center">80</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="205">
<div>COS</div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="48">
<div align="center">(80)</div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="47">
<div align="center">(80)</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="205">
<div>EBIT margin</div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="48">
<div align="center">20</div>
</td>
<td valign="top" width="47">
<div align="center">-</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
In our cities with booming population growth this would be disastrous for renters. 
<div>Even in the event of interest rates remaining at their lowest levels in a generation, developers would soon have zero incentive to build since if dwelling prices are sliding, since they'd only be breaking even before financing charges were booked. </div>
There would be no corp tax to pay since there wouldn't even be a net profit upon which to raise tax, so the government would be getting zinged on its own revenues there too...and zinged again would they be on stamp duty foregone as the supply of new dwellings evaporated.
So much for all the billions in tax savings. As for the capital gains tax take, which forms a part of the individual income tax assessment: when prices are falling...oops there goes another revenue stream
So <a href="https://www.stockland.com.au/assets/crs2013/financial-report-2013.pdf" target="_blank">when Stockland discussed in 2013</a> "the prolonged downturn in the Australian residential land market" as adversely impacting results, they aren't being facetious.
They are simply noting what is plainly the case for developers in their resi divisions - there ain't barely no money in it, which is why it has taken a significant upturn in Sydney's prices to see dwelling approvals at last begin to flow through, after a woeful lull across the past decade.
Conclusion
If dwelling prices fall over any meaningful period of time in a city such as Sydney, we would quickly see supply dry up and with a population growing at 80,000 plus per annum we'll be back into chronic undersupply territory in just a few short years.
This is why negative gearing rules probably won't be quarantined or grandfathered out.
And this also why, if affordable housing is considered to be a genuine target, the government would probably need to look at tackling supply through subsidies as I posted about <a href="/expert-insights/buying/how-to-fix-australias-affordable-housing-problem">here</a>, while at the same time easing demand through considering other property tax reform and not the NG rules.
As I've noted before though, I'm sceptical as to whether there is any real desire to make housing more affordable from those in power.
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

If negative gearing is quarantined cities like Sydney will be facing chronic undersupply

<html><body>
The property market is displaying all the typical signs of a slowdown, according to Propell National Valuers.
Citing increasing unemployment levels and federal budget expectations, national research manager Linda Phillips says that housing demand is likely to drop.
“Forget the past. It is now May and the market faces headwinds in the form of the traditionally slower winter months, the painful federal government budget and rising unemployment”, said Phillips.
“Any impetus from the declining interest rates of last year has now worked through the market. The federal budget is likely to impact badly on consumer confidence and strip demand from the market which may need a further lowering of interest rates to restore spending.”
This is contrary to the expectations of many high profile economists and commentators, many of <a href="/expert-insights/finance/interest-rate-stays-on-hold-did-our-experts-get-it-right">whom predict that interest rates</a> are <a href="/expert-insights/finance/rba-expected-to-keep-rates-on-hold-for-now-hsbc">likely to rise</a> before the end of the year. 
According to Propell, increasing property listings this month will be “trading in the face of negative headlines about what the federal budget might include,” and, after May 13, adjusting to the announced budget.
Propell National Valuers itself notes that it was “first to highlight the risk of the abolition of negative gearing in the budget”, but that it appears now that “the housing market itself will not be the subject of direct attacks in the budget.”
However, the company’s researchers do not rule out the possibility of other housing related adjustments in the federal budget. But the greatest budgetary impact on the housing sector will come from the expected reduction in government spending, tax increases and employment levels, according to Propell. The property research firm expects that tightening measures will increase unemployment through the reduction of the public sector and soften consumption, leading to a decrease in real estate demand. It predicts that some states will see median price reductions through the winter months. 
</body></html>

jrichardson-uRX5hFdKfN

Housing boom coming to an end: Propell

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Abolishing the sacred cow of negative gearing - where losses can be used as a deduction against other income - is considered by governments of all persuasions as electorally unpalatable.
But this part of the income tax system is one of the few areas left which confers this highly favourable treatment. In many other important areas of our public finance and income tax system, negative gearing is effectively abolished in favour of quarantining of losses.
Negative gearing is allowed on passive rental property and share investments and for “large” businesses. Both the pros and cons of negative gearing are well-known. Its most immediate advantage is allowing taxpayers to use a loss on one investment as a deduction against a profitable investment, or other source of income. But it is accepted that it undermines the progressive nature of the income tax, does little to increase housing supply stock and is a significant cost to government revenue.
In contrast to negative gearing, quarantining is where the loss on an investment cannot be used in the year it is made, but can be used in future years, against profits from the same investment from which the loss arose. Usually, but not always, if the investment is sold while there are quarantined losses, these can be used to reduce the taxable profit on exiting the investment.
In our tax system, quarantining is used when determining whether a taxpayer is liable to pay the Medicare levy surcharge; for loan repayments under the higher education loan program (HELP); and assessment of income under the child support regime, particularly Family Tax Benefit Part A and B.
Quarantining also applies when the tax office is assessing means-tested concessions such as the dependent (invalid and carer) tax offset, or senior and pensioner tax offsets.
Small businesses that make a tax loss in a non-corporate form are not permitted to use that loss against other profits (so-called non-commercial loss rules). While these measures are in part a response to the ridiculous hobby tax loss claims of the past, these rules apply quarantining to genuine small businesses, including those in the start-up phase. Quarantining also applies to certain boating activities.
In the social security system, quarantining applies where a particular benefit is means tested, such as Seniors Health Care Card, or the parental income test for dependant youth allowance. Like the income tax though, quarantining is not universally applied under this legislation (for example, it does not apply to the income test for aged pensioners). Also, the current paid parental leave scheme also uses quarantining in its relevant income measurement.
So one can see that quarantining applies in numerous areas of our public finance system. The starting point for debate should focus on economic capacity. By allowing negative gearing, the loss is being treated as a genuine signification of reduced economic capacity to either contribute income tax (or other contribution), or to receive welfare assistance. On the other hand, if quarantining applies, the loss is not regarded as signification of reduced economic capacity to either contribute tax or to receive welfare assistance.
Unfortunately, there are credible arguments both ways. And the fact that countries around the world do not take a uniform approach to the issue under their respective income tax systems supports this.
However, our public finance framework ought to be internally consistent so that similar things are treated in a similar manner, unless there is a sound explanation for differential treatment. This should be the case within the social security and income tax system, as well as across both, as the social security system is the mirror of the income tax system, or a negative income tax.
Both systems have economic capacity at their foundation. Those with sufficient economic capacity make an income tax contribution, and those who lack it receive payments (and other non-money benefits) for economic support. Given the shared foundation of the income tax and social security systems, or that they are really one system, it is hard to see why a different measure of economic capacity should be used within each system or across systems.
Another lesser dimension is that tolerating negative gearing in parts of the income tax and social security systems, but not tolerating it in others parts of those systems, adds complexity. Differential treatment of the same thing necessarily adds to administration and compliance costs.
In the end, there is a real argument that negative gearing should either be restored in the areas where it is currently prohibited, or should be scrapped across the board.
Given where the debate is now, I doubt anyone will seriously argue the former. That tends to leave movement towards the latter, because no one would seriously argue that the current differential treatment is a principled position with credibility.
Dale Boccabella is associate professor of taxation law at <a href="https://www.asb.unsw.edu.au/Pages/default.aspx" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">Australian School of Business</a>.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/24265/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="line-height: 1.3em;">
Dale does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

jake-cSmGT7VXVf

Why it’s time to quarantine negative gearing

<html><body>
The factor overlooked in the “debate” about tax benefits for property buyers is that the amount taken from real estate by government is considerably more than the amount given back.
Real estate is the cash cow of choice for all three levels of government – including through stamp duty, land tax, capital gains tax, rates and infrastructure charges.
The appeal for governments of taxing real estate transactions and ownership is so great that we’ve just seen a government with a multi-billion dollar budget surplus (thanks to revenue from a rising real estate market) introduce a new tax on real estate construction to help fund its attempt to buy the upcoming state election.
The Victoria state government is able to spend big in an election year thanks to real estate and the increased tax take via stamp duty on increased sales levels and land tax helped by rising property values.
<blockquote>
Abolishing negative gearing would ultimately cost government more than it saves, while resulting in a dramatic escalation in residential rents, especially in the major cities.
</blockquote>
The amount of stamp duty ripped out of each real estate transaction by state governments is so obscene ($27,000 on the average purchase in Sydney) that it’s a wonder citizens aren’t marching in the street – particularly as we were told the introduction of a GST would result in the elimination of stamp duty.
But governments never eliminate existing taxes. They only introduce new ones – even governments like that of Tony Abbott who promised repeatedly before the federal election he would never do so.
Land tax is an example of an impost that was introduced for a specific purpose and then became entrenched as a convenient revenue source. It was introduced in the nineteenth century specifically to break up large land holdings, which were considered a problem at the time, and remains a blight on the property landscape 130 years later.
So we can be sure that the new tax in Victoria – which has started life as a tax on the construction of buildings costing more than $1 million to fund a new bureaucracy, the Metropolitan Planning Authority – will still be around a century from now, but with much broader application that in 2014.
The Property Council of Australia’s executive director in Victoria, Jennifer Cunich, says: “A government projecting multi-billion dollar surpluses shouldn’t be introducing new property taxes.”
Well of course they shouldn’t, but they can’t help themselves. It’s like telling a rodent that’s been raiding your kitchen every night that it can’t eat the chocolate mud cake you left sitting on the bench.
The total tax take from real estate is around $33 billion per year. The cost to the federal budget from negative gearing is around $4 billion a year.
Abolishing negative gearing would ultimately cost government more than it saves, while resulting in a dramatic escalation in residential rents, especially in the major cities. There would only be losers from such a move.
You can contact Terry via  <a href="https://mailto:ryder@hotspotting.com.au" target="_blank">email</a> or on <a href="https://www.twitter.com/hotspotting" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.
</body></html>

terryryder-YECXbqmri2

Governments take out a lot more through property tax than is given back

<html><body>
Whenever there's a perceived crisis in real estate, those who enjoy blame games will demonise negative gearing.
Top of the list of crises that exist in the minds of the paranoid and the misinformed is the affordability crisis. Affordability for buyers and affordability for renters.
There's a vast pile of research data disproving the idea of an affordability crisis for buyers - an idea that's largely the result of Sydney-centricity in mainstream media.
Equally, there is no rental affordability issue, except for people living on welfare benefits or the minimum wage, as outlined by Kasy Chambers of Anglicare Australia in a interview on ABC News 24 earlier this week.
One of the most interesting of current real estate phenomena is the lack of rental growth in capital cities in the past 12 months and in the past three to four years. Only Darwin and Perth have had strong rental growth in recent years and even there it has dissipated in the past 12-18 months.
One of real estate' core issues is the low level of residential yields in the major cities. This is because residential rents are too low, relative to sale prices.
<blockquote>
Eliminating negative gearing may slow down investor buying, but it won't cause prices to fall.
</blockquote>
But perceptions of poor affordability persist.
The cure-all beloved by many with loud voices attached to soft brains is to eliminate negative gearing tax benefits.
In terms of my personal situation, I don't care whether negative gearing exists or not because I don't own negatively geared properties. I prefer assets that pay their way.
But removing negative gearing would solve nothing. Rather, it would make many matters worse.
The fuzzy logic that leads some to believe it would do good is that price rises are caused by investors - and that property investors are essentially driven by negative gearing benefits.
But price rises are not caused by investor activity, in most cases. Investors are a minority force in the market and are motivated to buy, without emotion, at the lowest possible price.
The biggest force in residential real estate, and the sector with the motivation and financial capacity to pay a high price, is the group known as 'next time buyers' - i.e. home buyers other than first time buyers. People upgrading to a better home, often driven by emotion. If anyone drives up prices it's them.
So eliminating negative gearing may slow down investor buying but it won't cause prices to fall.
What it will do is cause rents to rise - a lot. Without the tax offset, residential property as an investment will lose its appeal for some, especially those buying in the major cities. A shortage of rental properties will develop quite quickly, as happened last time negative gearing was eradicated (before being rushed back in). Sharp rises in city rents will follow.
I note that Kasy Chambers of Anglicare, in calling for government action to improve rental options for those on very low incomes, <a href="https://www.anglicare.asn.au/site/medrel_5.php" target="_blank">stopped short of advocating an end of negative gearing</a> because she recognised the problems it would cause.
The other factor never discussed in this increasingly wacky debate is the longer-term impact for the nation. Australia wants its citizens to invest to create retirement nest-eggs, thereby easing the growing budget burden from paying pensions to an aging population.
I’ve heard people argue that the federal budget could save billions each year if it wasn’t paying out on negative gearing tax breaks, but the long-term cost would be far greater if Australians stopped investing in residential property to provide for their retirement.
You can contact Terry via <a href="https://mailto:ryder@hotspotting.com.au" target="_blank">email</a> or on <a href="https://www.twitter.com/hotspotting" target="_blank">Twitter</a>. 
</body></html>

Removing negative gearing would only make matters worse

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
<ol>
<li>When it was introduced, mortgages were 15% while rental income was 5%. Back then it was needed to encourage investment. Now, mortgage rates are around 5% while gross rental income is around 5%. If you are ever going to remove negative gearing, the time to do it is when the mortgage rate is at its lowest. Put simply, it is not needed anymore. </li>
<li>House prices have been going up in the last year, rapidly in the case of Sydney and Melbourne. Removal of negative gearing may cause house prices to fall a few percent in the short term, but in the context of an average price increase of 10.7% in the past year, the market would be able to absorb such a short term loss. </li>
<li>If house prices fall as a result of the removal of negative gearing, then the Reserve Bank may feel that it can reduce interest rates further, which would offset some of the impact and have the added bonus of reducing the Australian dollar exchange rate, which would be seen as a win-win situation. </li>
<li>A reduction in house prices, combined with lower mortgage rates would be popular with first home buyers who have been increasingly squeezed out of the market by existing price levels. </li>
<li>The proportion of investors buying in the market has increased dramatically in the past year, and it would be of benefit to owner occupiers and first-time home buyers to reverse this trend and restore more normal proportions of buyers.</li>
</ol>
Source: Propell National Valuers
</body></html>

Five reasons the government might consider changing negative gearing this year

<html><body>
Slated negative gearing and property tax changes are discussed almost every year, but it is increasingly likely that the upcoming May budget is one of the most likely to include changes to this policy.
Property Observer reported a year ago that <a href="/expert-insights/finance/government-not-contemplating-changes-to-negative-gearing-wayne-swan">former treasurer Wayne Swan was not contemplating any changes at the time</a>, despite much discussion about negative gearing alterations. It appears that current treasurer Joe Hockey, however, may have different ideas.
But who is going to get stung by changes, if there are any? Propell National Valuers shares their thoughts about how residential real estate may see its owners becoming stung with the implications.
They point to the following:
1) WHAT: The exemption of the family home from asset calculations when achieving the pension may come under scrutiny.
WHY: It can encourage retirees to be asset rich and income poor, encouraging them to own and live in a property that's bigger and more expensive than they need. This will become even more pronounced if the <a href="/expert-insights/joe-hockey-flags-plans-to-raise-retirement-age">extra five years in the workforce, as suggested by Joe Hockey, is brought in</a>.
THE IMPACT: Retirees with properties above the median price may look to then sell these properties, cash out and downsize. This would be a one-off market impact that would soften prices in some sectors over the short-term, but would "likely be absorbed within a year," according to Propell.
2) WHAT: Taxation allowances of negative gearing could be abolished or curtailed.
WHY: The introduction in 1985 has seen tax revenue grow, from reducing personal income tax by $600 million originally to close to $4 billion, according to the Grattan Institute.
THE IMPACT: There would be enormous short-term political backlash. It would potentially result in the transfer of wealth from "one class of people to another and the losers have been first home buyers in particular", providing a benefit to our FHBs.
OTHER OPTIONS: Grandfathering negative gearing out, limiting it to new properties (both of which have been suggested on SBS), phasing it out or toughening the rules. The limitations of negative gearing to new properties has been suggested heavily in the media lately (citing off the record comments from different government departments). If you are an investor using negative gearing to offset your loss, then there is a chance here that you will find yourself facing a greater shortfall.
However, "If the system is not changed this year, then property investors can probably relax in the knowledge that it will become a permanent feature of the investment landscape," Propell suggests, noting that this year is the most likely in which it will happen.
We've previously taken it to the experts and <a href="/expert-insights/finance/should-negative-gearing-be-changed-the-experts-have-their-say">asked, 'Should negative gearing be changed?' Here are their opinions</a>.
</body></html>

Negative gearing

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Negative gearing

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News