Myths on the Australian housing/rental crisis & its implications

November 15th, 2007

Share |

When reading the mainstream press in Australia, one would get the impression that the housing/rental crisis in Australia can be ‘solved’ simply by building more housing. The logic of this mainstream belief is simple: there is a housing/rental crisis because there is a shortage of housing in the face of rising demand; therefore, the only way to ‘solve’ this problem is to increase the supply of housing. As a result of such beliefs, ‘solutions’ such as (1) increasing the government release of land for home building and (2) encouraging investments in home building are proposed.

This is where we differ from mainstream opinion. While it may be true that there is a rental/housing crisis in high demand areas, we doubt it is true for Australia as a whole. Hence, in this article, we will question some of the beliefs in mainstream thinking (we need to thank the people discussing at Steve Keen’s Debt Deflation blog site for shedding light on these issues):

  1. Is there really a shortage of housing? Let us turn our attention to the census data at the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS):
      2001 2006 Growth
    Number of Total Private Dwellings 7,790,079 8,426,559 8.17%
    Number of Unoccupied Dwellings 717,877 830,376 15.67%
    Number of Households 6,744,795 7,144,097 5.92%
    Population 18,769,249 19,855,288 5.78%
    Number of Dwelling/Household 1.15 1.18 2.60%

    As we can see, from 2001 to 2006, the growth in the number of dwellings far exceeded the growth in the number of households. In addition, the growth in the number of dwellings also far exceeded th population growth. As the average number of persons per household in both the 2001 and 2006 census is 2.78 (i.e. remained the same) this could not be explained by the decrease in the size of households. This hardly looks to be a shortage situation!

  2. Is there hoarding of housing? According to the census data, the proportion of dwelling that was unoccupied during the census night in 2001 and 2006 was 9.22% and 9.85% respectively. Looking at it another way, the number of dwellings exceeded the number of households by 15% in 2001 and 18% in 2006! Furthermore, the rate of increase of unoccupied dwellings increased almost 3 times the increase in population. Some of these unoccupied dwelling could be due to temporary factors, but it would be fair to say that a significant proportion of unoccupied dwellings are surplus vacant dwellings (i.e. hoarding).
  3. Are rental price sensitive to interest rates? Whenever the RBA decides to raise interest rates, those with vested self-interests will scream that this will result in another surge of rents, thereby ‘exacerbating’ the rental ‘crisis.’ We believe this is a myth. The real cost of rents is impervious to real interest rates, as shown by these graphs:

    Graph to real rental cost versus real interest rates

    Source: Discussion forum at Global House Price Crash (RBA, APM June newsletter, Abelson 2004, ABS)

So, given these findings, here are our theories on what may happen when interest rates rise:

Given that there are expectations of further interest rates rise in the near future, there will be declining hopes for favourable and economical capital appreciation of residential properties for investment purposes (see Australian property good investment? Part 3—prospects of capital appreciation). This is especially true in Sydney where property prices are expected to remain flat. For western Sydney, property prices can even fall.

Since a significant number of dwellings are vacant, interest rates rise will increase the real costs of holding those dwellings as investment properties (i.e. non-productive assets). Since investors cannot count on capital appreciation to make such investments worthwhile, they have two choices:

  1. Liquidate those properties.
  2. Put up those properties for rent.

Such outcome will put further downward pressure on property prices and rental yields.

For properties that are currently being rented, are landlords able to increase rents easily to cover higher interest costs? Perhaps so in high demand areas, but we doubt they can easily do so everywhere else. As the above-mentioned graph has shown, the majority of landlords will probably find it difficult to raise their rents. Even if they could do so, would that be enough to cover higher interest costs? Since they have to face competition from investors who are hoarding vacant properties, it is even harder for them to jack up the price of rents.

Thus, with flat property prices, increasing interest costs and flat real rental returns, investors will find themselves squeezed. This will further encourage the liquidation of investment properties, resulting in further downward pressure on property prices. When property prices deflate, what will happen to the rental market? As we said before in Australian property good investment? Part 2—Rental & affordability crisis,

Because housing is largely unaffordable to a large segment of society, it serves as an impediment for them to leave the rental market through the acquirement of their own property. If they cannot leave the rental pool, it can only lead the pool getting larger as more and more people enters the pool.

That means that when property prices deflate sufficiently, renters who previously could not afford to buy their own homes can now do so. This in turn will shrink the rental pool and thus, reduce overall rental demand. This will put further downward pressure on rent prices, which will further put pressure on property prices, resulting in a vicious feedback cycle.

In short, these are our findings:

  1. There is no overall housing shortage. The increase in the number of dwellings far exceeded the population growth and household formation. Furthermore, the increase in unoccupied dwellings is almost triple the increase in population growth.
  2. Hoarding could be the reason for housing ‘shortage’
  3. Overall, real rental costs are resistant to changes in real interest cost.

As a result, many of the conventional solutions to the housing/rental crisis will not work. Therefore, the only sustainable solution is to introduce/change policies that will encourage a sustained decline in property prices (e.g. remove Capital Gains Tax exemption, close negative gearing loophole)- we recognize that such solutions are politically costly (nobody wants to see the value of their property fall). If the government will not make such a move, then sustained interest/mortgage rates rise will have to step in to do the job. Given that this is a highly probable outcome (see Interest rate rise in Australia- be prepared for more to come), we believe that Australian residential properties are bad investments at this stage of the economic cycle. For first-time home buyers, this will be good news.

  • ckb
    Pete says:

    "I think we can blame the Baby Boomers for a lot.
    ....................................
    I’m a gen Y’er (and hate to admit it, born 1980, so not as bad as some of the newies). The problem for us Gen Y’ers is that parents, and general authorities that are Baby Boomers, they give us our advice.
    And what advice is that? Buy a house. Get a mortgage. Tax writeoffs. House = most important thing in your life.

    The way i see it, what works for one generation, does not necessarily work for another generation."

    Hmmmm, Pete, I am not so sure. One could just as easily take the view that the main problem for Gen Y is that they have been rather reluctant to take to heart their parents' advice to save and get into property early. I personally know exceptions to this in my circle of friends, and those who did this, are, if anything, doing even better than their parents. On the whole, however, Gen Y grew up without much care in the world, so instead of heeding the good advice of their hard working parents to knuckle down to it, all too many of them continued to take it easy and spent their early money on the good life, as symbolised by so many cafe lattes.

    I personally have known many exceptions to this, of course, and those who were not complacent but got on with it right away, often with initial help from their parents, are by now doing just as well as their parents. Those who have been complacent and left it for another 5 or 10 years than they could and should have, will be most likely to feel the pinch.

    Having said that, if and when the current bubble pops, they should get their chance to catch up -- but it will still probably require that they cut back on those cafe lattes. I said that kind of tongue in cheek, but there is a point here as well, me thinks. The current bubble is an obstacle for first home buyers, but that may only be half of the story. Complacency, and a lack of discipline to forego short term pleasure in favour of delayed gratification may be just as significant.
  • Terence
    Colin said,

    "This leads to a vicious cycle of over-valuation based on the greater fool theory. The problem of applying the greater fool theory to property prices, is people just simply live in their property, paying a higher mortgage, but overall, staying solvent."

    Property prices goes up because:
    (1) People wants it.
    (2) Able to borrow enough money to pay for the highly inflated price.

    Greater fools exist because there is a bank willing to lend them more money. That is, property price goes up because there's another person out there who is willing to to go deeper into debt and a bank who is willing to give more credit.

    But once the credit cycle turns (e.g. what is happening right now in the US), when banks are no longer willing or able to give credit and people are no longer able or willing to go into debt, property prices can fall.

    You said that

    "Australian lending practices they can stay solvent for a long time, thanks to a strong economy."

    You think this is going to remain so forever and ever?
  • I think the key is that housing is not a commodity like say, a stock, or gold. A stock is always a stock, and fluctuates based on simple supply/demand. More sellers = a drop in price. With housing, however, there's many other variables to consider, not the least important being location.

    Location is the most sought after attribute of a property, because its the one which is finite. You can put down a good looking house anywhere. In-fashion houses can be built, renovations can be made, and floor plans redesigned. All of this can be refactored in using a simple quote. Location, however, is finite, and depending on where others want to live will ultimately determine the price. The idea that location is finite causes people to pay a premium on this property, with the expectation that getting in early will offset this premium. This leads to a vicious cycle of over-valuation based on the greater fool theory. The problem of applying the greater fool theory to property prices, is people just simply live in their property, paying a higher mortgage, but overall, staying solvent.

    So long as people stay solvent, prices will stay the same. Property investors, as a whole, I think demonstrate in Australian lending practices they can stay solvent for a long time, thanks to a strong economy.

    But whats really wrong with this? Property prices will remain stable, barring a change in fashionable locations (I hear Chatswood is the new Newtown!) which will act like a seesaw. This will encourage people to consider renting, and using the extra money to invest in stocks, small business, or re-invest in themselves (extra education, for example). And whats wrong with this shift? It leads to a for diversified economy, after all. Thats the nature cycle of business, let nature take its course. A fundamental shift in the psyche of young potential investors will occur, and they should be able to profit, just as people did 10 years ago with housing.

    Perhaps it won't be as easy as housing was to make a buck, but hey, we're all for a smarter society, right?
  • Pete
    Cheers Ed!
  • Pete
    Wow that is a great article.

    I hope those facts are accurate (i dont even trust the RBA)

    I think we can blame the Baby Boomers for a lot.

    Okay, so when the BB's were making a life for themselves, houses weren't as much when compared to the proportion of their wages (and other costs, EG Petrol).

    But now our earnings to house price ratio is much worse, i think its generally about 6:1 (hope thats right).

    I'm a gen Y'er (and hate to admit it, born 1980, so not as bad as some of the newies). The problem for us Gen Y'ers is that parents, and general authorities that are Baby Boomers, they give us our advice.
    And what advice is that? Buy a house. Get a mortgage. Tax writeoffs. House = most important thing in your life.

    The way i see it, what works for one generation, does not necessarily work for another generation.

    Thanks again for submitting this article Ed. I know you don't get a lot of comments on your articles in general, but I am sure you know that doesn't imply readership. I visit your page daily and really appreciate your articles! Keep it up! :-)
  • lorrie
    Perhaps baby boomers are the cause of hoarding of houses. As baby boomers start to look at their retirment portfolio they find that they cannot retire based on the amount they have saved and their superannuation and so they frantically bought properties to make up the difference. After all, many are brainwashed that property prices always goes up. (All the lemmings please move to one side of the fence)

    This hoarding could also be combined with other factors such as older people not selling their houses so that they can reap the medical advantages of their pension. A friend, who is a home carer for old people, said that the people she cared for never sold their house when they entered hospital or a nursing home. If they sold, they would have too much cash and not be able to get the full benefits of the pension, especially medical benefits.

    Anyway, just some theories about the housing shortage/hoarding. If it is the baby boomers, we may see more people trying to sell property as more retire. If it is the aged, then as more people depart this planet we may see more houses on the market. Say another 5-10 years?
  • Good article. If anything, the government should release inner-city Crown land, Defence land, State land, etc and build affordable housing on it with price covenants going forward forever, or a leasehold arrangement at low rents. This would help bring down prices everywhere due to lowered demand. Of course, Property Councils and REIs would then scream blue murder to politicians and rant about anti-capitalism and anti-investment, etc. The Real Estate Industrial Complex, including developers and their political donations, would have their day.

    > remove Capital Gains Tax exemption, close negative gearing loophole

    Just some points: there's a CGT exemption on the PPOR, and a reduced CGT on selling investment property, being half your top marginal rate. 'Negative gearing' is not so much a loophole as a clear allowance of the deductibility of losses in any business investment against personal income -- be it shares, property, or Uncle Louie's emu farm. In other countries, you can only subtract losses from income earned on the property, not against personal income.
blog comments powered by Disqus