Median house prices across New Zealand increased by 14.3% in February to a new record median price of $640,000, up from $560,000 in February 2019. This was the largest percentage increase in 53 months according to the latest data from the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand (REINZ).
The number of properties sold in February across New Zealand increased by 9.2% from the same time last year (from 6,132 to 6,694) making it the highest number of properties sold in the month of February in 4 years.
For New Zealand excluding Auckland, the
number of properties sold decreased by a marginal -0.3% when compared to the
same time last year (from 4,742 to 4,726) – 16 fewer properties.
In Auckland, the number of properties sold in February increased by 41.6% year-on-year (from 1,390 to 1,968) – the highest number of residential properties sold in the month of February in 5 years.
The REINZ House Price Index for New
Zealand, which measures the changing value of property in the market, increased
8.7% year-on-year to 3,013 – a new record high.
The HPI for New Zealand excluding Auckland
increased 10.2% from February 2019 to 2,995 another new record high.
The Auckland HPI increased by 6.9%
year-on-year to 3,035 – the highest annual percentage increase in 35 months and
the first time the Auckland region crossed the 3,000 mark.
In February the median number of days to sell a property nationally decreased by 12 days from 47 to 35 when compared to February 2019 – the lowest days to sell for the month of February in 13 years.
The total number of properties available for sale nationally decreased by -22.3% in February to 20,875 down from 26,850 in February 2019 – a decrease of 5,975 properties compared to 12 months ago and the lowest level of inventory for the month of February ever. However, this was an uplift on January’s figure of 19,488.
The latest edition of our weekly finance and property news
digest with a distinctively Australian flavour.
Contents:
00:20 Introduction
00:54 US Markets
02:10 Federal Reserve Actions
03:40 Federal Reserve Tools
06:00 Negative Rates
09:00 China
09:40 Japan
10:40 UK
11:20 Global Debt crisis
14:05 Australian Section
14:10 RBA Cuts
15:00 Retail Sales
15:50 Economic Outlook – U shaped
17:00 Markets
18:00 Bank Profitability
19:45 Property Markets
Transcript (by popular demand).
Hello again, its Martin North from Digital Finance Analytics, welcome to our
latest post covering finance and property news with a distinctively Australian
flavour. In the review of this week’s news, we look at the market gyrations,
central bank responses and the limitations of monetary policy. As normal we
start with the global scene, but if you want to jump direct to the Australian
section, the time is shown below. And a
quick reminder, due to YouTube’s restrictions, I will only discuss the current
medical situation obliquely, to avoid demonetisation using the term “Panic Not
101”.
In the
US, Stocks closed in the red on Friday, but well-off lows thanks to some
late-day buying in what was another hectic final hour of trading. At the close
in NYSE, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 0.98% to 25,866, while the S&P 500 index
lost 1.71% to 2,971, and the NASDAQ Composite index fell 1.87% to 8,575. But then Stocks moved back
close to their lows of the day in late trading with investors likely nervous
about staying long into a weekend that will be packed with medical related
headlines. Losses in the Oil & Gas, Basic Materials and Financials sectors
led shares lower.
Volume on
U.S. exchanges was 14.2 billion shares, compared to the 10.54 billion average
for the full session over the last 20 trading days.
Data
showing a robust pace of hiring in February largely went ignored, given that
the data captured little of the impact from the “Panic Not 101”. A sharp
downturn in later economic and corporate earnings data would likely strike a
further blow to U.S. markets, analysts said.
The U.S.
Federal Reserve has begun quarantining physical dollars that it repatriates
from Asia before recirculating them in the U.S. financial system as a
precautionary measure against spreading the virus. Regional Fed banks that help
manage the money supply will set aside shipments of dollars from Asia for seven
to 10 days before processing and redistributing them to financial institutions.
The policy, first reported by Reuters, was implemented on Feb. 21. Is this another covert front in the war on
cash? On average, the Fed distributes $34 billion in paper notes every year,
according to the San Francisco Fed.
A bill
signed by President Donald Trump on Friday will provide US$8.3 billion to
bolster the country’s capacity to test for “Panic Not 101” . Trump signed the
legislation at the end of a week in which the virus began to disrupt daily life
for many Americans. As stocks plunge and U.S. companies grapple with the
economic fallout, his administration is also weighing tax relief for the
cruise, travel and airline industries.
The S&P 500 posted its 10th decline in 12 sessions as crippled
supply chains prompted a sharp cut to global economic growth forecasts for
2020. Since its record closing high on Feb. 19, the benchmark index has lost
more than 12%, wiping out $3.43 trillion from its market capitalization.
Even so,
for the week the S&P 500, along with the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq, posted a modest
gain as stocks on Friday pared losses late in the session. Comments from
Federal Reserve officials about the possibility of using other tools in addition
to interest rate cuts to blunt the economic impact of the “Panic Not 101”
helped stocks ease declines. The S&P 500 gained 0.6%, the Dow added 1.8%
and the Nasdaq rose 0.1%. But we still in correction territory, and the markets
have no means of assessing the emerging global uncertainties.
The
central bank has begun to grapple with what measures it would use if the
outbreak of the illness worsens in the United States and causes a severe economic
downturn.
Federal Reserve regional bank president Eric Rosengren, participated in the Shadow
Open Market Committee economics conference in New York.
“We
should allow the central bank to purchase a broader range of securities or
assets,” Rosengren said in prepared remark, noting it would require a
change to the Fed’s mandate as set by Congress.
The Fed of
course slashed its key overnight lending rate by half a percentage point on
Tuesday to a target range of between 1.00% and 1.25% in an emergency move to
mitigate the effects of the escalating global “Panic Not 101” outbreak on the
U.S. economy. Investors are predicting further U.S. rate cuts in the near
future.
Rosengren
said such an approach would be necessary because if the Fed was forced to slash
rates to effectively zero, the circumstances could have changed, which would
limit the effectiveness of purchasing only Treasury and mortgage-backed
securities, as the central bank did in the 2007-2009 recession. Those
large-scale asset purchases or quantitative easing (QE), aim to stimulating the
economy.
What
changed is the drop in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield. It fell to a record low
of 0.66% earlier on Friday, on pace for its largest daily fall since October
2011 during the depths of the euro zone sovereign debt crisis, amid concerns
the Panic Not 101 outbreak could cause a global recession. It ended at 0.773
down a massive 16.4%. The 3-month rate dropped even more, down 18.16% to 0.51 –
so the yield curve is not inverted, for now.
“There
would be little room for the Federal Reserve to lower rates through large
purchases of long-term Treasury securities – like it did to make conditions
more accommodative in and after the Great Recession – if a recession occurred
in this rate environment,” Rosengren said.
If the
Fed did change its policy, it should be accompanied by agreement from the U.S.
Treasury to indemnify the central bank against losses, Rosengren added. He did
not specify what types of other securities or assets the Fed would buy.
Rosengren
also said he remained skeptical about introducing negative interest rates to
the United States. Other central banks including in Europe in Japan, have
pushed rates below zero. “In my view, negative interest rates poorly
position an economy to recover from a downturn,” Rosengren said.
In perfect timing the IMF just released a paper “How
Can Interest Rates Be Negative?” in which they discuss the negative interest
rate experiment. Note this chilling comment in their penultimate paragraph “But
the concern remains about the limits to negative interest rate policies so long
as cash exists as an alternative”. So,
here clearly is the link between the ban of cash, and monetary policy – no
conspiracy theory, – plain fact.
The
European Central Bank introduced negative interest rates in 2014 and the Bank
of Japan followed in 2016. The German 10-year was up 1.92% to minus 0.7144. It is
within striking distance of its record low set last September near minus 74 bp. Now of course in Japan, the
Central Bank there has been buying up a range of securities, including stocks,
bonds, and frankly anything with value, as they take the rate negative. Two-year notes in Japan currently yield minus -0.28%.
If
longer-dated U.S. Treasury yields hover near zero, some see a risk that a new
wave of buying could turn shorter-dated ones negative, even without the Fed
adopting a negative policy. So monetary policy madness prevails.
The CBOE
Volatility Index, which measures the implied volatility of S&P 500
options, was up 5.86% to 41.94 a new 5-year high. This underscores the
uncertainty in the markets.
Gold Futures for April delivery was up 0.38% to $1,674.35, so traders are
placing their faith in the yellow metal, Gold jumped almost 7% on the week, its
biggest weekly gain in 11 years. but elsewhere in commodities trading WTI crude
oil fell 9.35% to hit $41.61 a barrel, after OPEC and Russia failed to come up with
a deal expected to cut 1.5 million barrels per day off global supply
The US Dollar Index Futures was down 0.75% at 96.060 while the EUR/USD was
up 0.40% to 1.1284.
Bitcoin was up 0.55% to 9,140, as more investors seek out places to store
cash.
Investors lowered bearish bets on the Chinese yuan as a U.S.
rate cut gave Chinese bonds a yield advantage. Aided by a weakening dollar,
short positions on the Chinese yuan stood at their lowest since early January
2019. The yuan immediately jumped after the rate cut to its highest level since
Jan. 23 and erased all losses it had clocked since the Lunar New Year holiday.
It stood at 6.9373 at the close. The Shanghai index stood at 3,034.51, stronger
than recently.
Weakness in consumption in Japan to start the year lends credence to ideas that the world’s third-largest economy is contracting for the second consecutive quarter.Household spending fell 3.9% year-over-year, nearly matching economists’ projections, after a 4.8% decline in December. It is the fourth straight decline. Durable goods have been especially hard hit, led by a 10.7% decline in January auto sales after an 11.1% decline in December. Some daily data suggest that after the school closures were announced in late February, there may have been some a surge in necessity purchases. Labor cash earnings rose 1.5% year-over-year after a 0.2% fall in December. Yet, details may not be as favorable as the optics. Base pay did accelerate, but the real action came from the 10.2% jump in bonuses. Lastly, the January leading economic indicator fell from 91.0 to 90.3, its lowest level since 2009. The Japanese market dropped to a six-month low, with 97% of shares on the Tokyo exchange’s main board in the red.
In London, Europe’s financial capital, the Canary Wharf district was
unusually quiet. S&P Global’s large office stood empty after the company
sent its 1,200 staff home, while HSBC asked around 100 people to work from home
after a worker tested positive for the illness. The Footsie dropped a
further 3.62% on Friday to 6,462, while the financials index fell 3.84% to
699.80 and the pound US Dollar rose 0.74% to 1.3049.
As I see things, the global uncertainty will hit hard and debt will be the
centre of the storm. According to the Institute of International Finance, a
trade group, the ratio of global debt to gross domestic product hit an all-time
high of over 322 per cent in the third quarter of 2019, with total debt
reaching close to US$253 trillion. Much of the debt build-up since the global
financial crisis of 2007-08 has been in the non-bank corporate sector where the
current disruption to supply chains and reduced global growth imply lower
earnings and greater difficulty in servicing debt. In effect, the Panic Not 101
raises the extraordinary prospect of a credit crunch in a world of ultra-low
and negative interest rates.
As the OECD puts it “In a downturn, some of the disproportionately large
recent issuance of BBB bonds — the lowest investment grade category — could end
up being downgraded. That would lead to big increases in borrowing costs
because many investors are constrained by regulation or self-imposed
restrictions from investing in non-investment grade bonds. The deterioration in
bond quality is particularly striking in the $1.3tn global market for leveraged
loans, which are loans arranged by syndicates of banks to companies that are
heavily indebted or have weak credit ratings. Such loans are called leveraged
because the ratio of the borrower’s debt to assets or earnings is well above
industry norms. New issuance in this sector hit a record $788bn in 2017, higher
than the peak of $762bn before the crisis. The US accounted for $564bn of that
total. Much of this debt has financed mergers and acquisitions and stock
buybacks. Executives have a powerful incentive to engage in buybacks despite
very full valuations in the equity market because they boost earnings per share
by shrinking the company’s equity capital and thus inflate performance related
pay. Yet this financial engineering is a recipe for systematically weakening
corporate balance sheets. Exactly. And
more central bank liquidity actually will not help, indeed it expands debt even
more. Perhaps we are approaching that
Minsky moment. We will see.
So to the local market.
Of course, the RBA cut the cash rate this past week, in response to recent
events putting the cash rate at a record-low 50 bp. Because the Fed cut more,
in fact the Ozzie Doller is looking a little stronger, having dropped to record
recent lows. It ended at 66.50, up 0.56%. That is a problem, in that the RBA
needs to dollar to go lower, to help protect the local economy, and this may in
fact signal they should have cut harder. But then again, with only 0.25% in the
locker before practically speaking hitting zero bounds (because of the RBA’s
rate corridor) they are caught now. We
are now expecting a further “emergency” cut, and even QE in short order, to try
to support the economy.
And if you want to understand why that support is needed, you should watch my recent show “The State of the Economy in ~ 10 Slides” There we discuss Australia’s retail sales which unexpectedly fell in January by 0.3% after the 0.7% decline at the end of last year. It is the first back-to-back decline in retail sales since July-August 2017. Weak wages, the peak of the wildfires, and high household debt levels are the likely culprits.
The Australian reported that Australia faces an “unprecedented” fall in
international visitor arrivals from key countries as the Panic Not 101 outbreak
feeds a record number of holiday cancellations and a 36 per cent fall in
bookings since December. Tourism
Australia data revealed a wipe-out in international airline bookings from key
tourism markets, including China, Britain, Canada, the US, India, Japan and
Singapore. The travel ban on China, Australia’s biggest tourism market with
about 1.4 million international visitors each year, has triggered a paralysis
in bookings and a flood of forward cancellations from Chinese tourists.
Belatedly they are trying an advertising blitz in Europe and the USA, but too
little too late.
S&P cut their growth forecast for Asia pacific to 4%, assuming what they
call a U-shaped recovery, and they said that Australia is quite vulnerable, with
growth in 2020 expected to touch 1.2%, well below trend. “Australia’s
most-disrupted sectors employ a large share of workers which will weaken both
the labor market and consumer confidence,” S&P said. Services account for
almost 80% of employment with accommodation and catering, sensitive to tourism
and discretionary consumer spending, alone making up over 7%. We expect the
Reserve Bank of Australia to cut rates once more to 0.25%. Of course no-one can tell for how long the
disruption will run. Our modelling suggests the Australian economy is on the
verge of a six-month shut down. There won’t be much internal movement. The
borders will remain closed, at first by us and then by everyone else as they recover,
but we get sicker. The private sector will hunker down. And the public sector
will enter a valiant struggle with the threat.
The ASX 100 dropped 2.8% to 5157.90, while the ASX financials dropped 4.8% to 5,397.60. Bank stock prices were hit hard this week. ANZ was down 4.73% to 22.14, as it announced further job cuts. CBA slipped 3.67% to 73.93, NAB dropped 5.22% to 22.075 and Westpac was down 4.04% to 21.35, and confirmed that John McFarland will take the Chair at the bank from 1st April. Regionals were crunched, with Bank of Queensland down 4.02% to 6.93, Suncorp down just 2.18% to 11.20 and Bendigo Bank down 8.15% to 7.78. Bendigo did a capital raising, recently and remains under pressure. Elsewhere AFG, the aggregator slid 7.08% to 2.23 and Macquarie fell 4.07% to 131.93.
Lower rates of course crush margins, and most lenders passed on the full 25
basis point cut to mortgage borrowers. They are busily trimming deposit rates further
– savers once again a silent victim in all this. The RBA is of course are assuming
that the banks can lend more as rates fall (to drive more consumption) but
consumers and businesses are not confident at the moment, and household debt is
very high. In addition, many deposit returns are already so close to zero that
they cannot recover another 25 basis points. So net, net rate cuts are eating
into bank profits, dividends will be lower, and risks of default are rising
among consumers and businesses as the economy supply side shocks kick in. We
think there are limited tools to support the market from here, and in fact, QE
will not do much, when it comes. Welcome to a Japanisation of the economy.
Fitch reported little change in mortgage arrears in the last quarter of
2019, Australia’s 30+ days mortgage arrears were down 1bp to 1.06% in 4Q19 from
the previous quarter, and 1bp higher from the year earlier; 30+ days arrears
have now been below 1.2% for the past two and a half years. They make the point
that the bushfires occurred in remote or regional areas with low population
levels, while the mortgage portfolios typically securing RMBS notes are
concentrated in densely populated areas that were not directly affected by the
bushfires. The Panic Not 101 outbreak could indirectly affect arrears
performance due to lower incomes stemming from a fall in tourist numbers
following the implementation of travel restrictions.
Last Saturday we saw significant auction results, with 2,933 listed and 1,592
cleared according to Corelogic, giving a 77.1% weighted average clearance.
Sydney was at 81% and Melbourne at 77%.
A year ago there were 2,301 listed and 50.4% cleared.
Their home price index was up again, with weekly rises of 0.4% in Sydney,
0.3% in Melbourne and 0.12% in Adelaide. Perth managed a 0.08% rise and
Brisbane just 0.06%. As a result, there are average quarterly rises of 4.55% in
Sydney and 3.82% in Melbourne. From peak
though Perth is down 21.0% and Sydney is still also in negative territory
(before any inflation adjustments are applied). And again, these are averages,
prices on the ground vary considerably, with many areas still lower than a year
back. Rises are weighted towards more expensive property, which had dropped the
most earlier.
Corelogic also said that Darwin home prices have fallen for 68 months and is
32.7% below its May 2014 peak. In inflation-adjusted terms, Darwin’s dwelling
values have declined by around 36% from peak. Perth is the other housing market
that is yet to stage any meaningful recovery, even though it rebounded
marginally over the past quarter. Its dwelling values are still 21.0% below
their June 2014, or around 27.0% lower in real terms.
They also reported in their quarterly rental report that annual rental
growth nationally (1.3%) remains below inflation (1.8%), with national capital
city rental growth (0.8%) even weaker. Sydney’s rental growth (0.5% QoQ; -0.6%
YoY) remains especially weak, which pulled down rents nationally. While there
are some variations across locations and between houses and units, property
investors are in for a torrid time. Recent price growth in both Sydney and
Melbourne against soft/negative rental growth has driven gross rental yields
into the gutter, with both Sydney and Melbourne house yields well below 3% –
near the lowest level on record. Net returns are even worse.
And SQM research released its Stock on Market report for February, which
revealed that property listings rose by 0.2% over the month but were still down
13.8% year-on-year. But listings in Sydney and Melbourne bounced, jumping by
9.9% and 10.0% respectively in February.
We think home prices will react to the recent uncertainty, and rising
supply. It is just a timing issue.
The S&P/ASX 200 VIX, which measures
the implied volatility of S&P/ASX 200 options, was up 20.47% to 26.687 a
new 3-years high. Risk is on. The Euro
Aussie Dollar was at 1.6973, the Aussie Gold cross was down 0.41% to 2,519.20
and the Aussie Bitcoin cross was down 0.26% to 13,812.9
So, in summary, the uncertainty in the outlook is looking decidedly dark.
There are few places to hide, and the question now is how soon will property
prices slide back – we are expecting some fiscal stimulus and it will be
interesting to see if it is directed at the property sector – is should not be,
as there are more immediate needs among small businesses, but then again the
Government does appear to love property. We will see.
Last week we ran our latest live event, and discussed a range of potential scenarios relating to the virus. If the virus is localised and of short duration, there was still a path to higher prices, but as its severity and reach grows, prices would turn negative. This is a simple (actually complex) set of relationships between economics, human behavior and property.
Here is a summary of the various scenarios from our modelling. We weighted the greatest probability at 30-45% fall in the months ahead, assuming global disruption, financials market falls and reinfection. All of which is coming true.
Begs the question, how soon will prices turn south unequivocally?
Despite the recent influx of positive reporting on the trajectory of the housing market, there remains “a fundamental, structural problem” with the price of property in Australia, according to financial analyst Martin North. Via Australian Broker.
While the rising home values evidenced
from mid-2019 have been largely celebrated as an overtly positive trend,
North has his doubts.
“It’s not sensible to hope and assume
prices will continue to go ever higher. House prices are very high
relative to income. Actually, very high relative to any other measure
you can name, like GDP,” he said.
A recently-released Demographia survey
showed Australia has some of the most unaffordable property in the
world. While Hong King and Vancouver claimed the top two spots on the
list, Sydney and Melbourne came right after.
“Further, we’ve got too much debt in our
system, which is supported by debt that’s difficult to repay, even at
low interest rates,” said North.
“There is definitely a cap, in my view, on how much home price growth we should expect and will see.”
The affordability concerns which have
dominated Australia for years were again thrown into sharp relief by
recent figures around hopeful market entrants.
“The latest data shows the first home
buyer average loan is now $408,000 across Australia – the highest it’s
ever been,” said North.
“That’s massive for a first-time buyer
trying to get into the market. Think about the income multiples that
figure represents; that’s maybe eight, nine, 10 times what many people
make.
“It’s an unsustainable position to be in.
We can’t allow home prices to continue to run away. It will create a
bigger problem for us later.”
It’s important to focus on the hard data amidst the sea of vested parties doubling down on their own rhetoric, North said.
“The banks want property prices to go
higher because if they go lower, they have much more risk in their
system and on their books than they want to admit,” he explained.
“The Reserve Bank and Treasury both want
prices to rise to create the wealth effect. If people feel more wealthy,
which they generally do as prices rise, they go and spend more. Trying
to bring prices higher is really the only lever they’ve got.”
However, according to North, it’s “failed
policy” to bank the future of the economy on “ever-inflated house
prices” with nothing else to support it.
“I come back to the fundamental reality of the ratio between debt and income, the ratio between debt and GDP,” he said.
“We’re in an unsustainable position. We’re
betting the farm on the property sector and, in my view, it’s going to
fall over at some point; it’s just a question of how soon.”
Here is the edited version of our live stream event for January. In the show we update our property and finance scenarios, and answer a range of questions from viewers. We ran out of time, so I plan to make a future show covering those I missed. Here are our current scenarios:
The original live recording, with the embedded live chat is also available. You will need to watch on YouTube to follow the interactions:
Our next live show will be at 20:00 Tuesday 18th February.
Their methodology is quite specific and allows comparisons to be made across multiple centres, and over time. Any centre scoring above 5 is judged as severely unaffordable.
I have to say I get pretty tired of some who dismiss their approach as distorting the true picture on the basis that averages mask. True I am cautious of averages generally, but it is consistently applied in my book and so makes an important contribution to understanding the relative affordability across many countries, including Australia and New Zealand. And the news is not good at all….
They also run two sets of results, the first is more major centres, and the other is the full set of the results. Across the major housing markets they conclude that all five in Australia are severely affordably (again), as is Auckland in New Zealand.
The least affordable areas include Hong Kong at 20.8, Vancouver at 11.9, Sydney at 11.0, Melbourne at 9.5, Bay of Plenty (NZ) at 9.3, LA at 9, Toronto Canada 8.6 and Auckland also at 8.6
On the other hand, in all markets, 22 out of 23 markets are unaffordable in Australia, and ALL of New Zealand’s Markets are unaffordable.
They also show the deterioration in affordability is significant is every market, but with New Zealand and Australia leading the way, with price to income ratios becoming adverse, thanks to issues of land supply (their particular thematic) and over generous lending (DFA’s thesis) of the underlying reason.
Looking at Australia, the least affordable regions are Sydney, Melbourne, Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, Geelong, Hobart, Adelaide, Fraser Coast in QLD and Canberra, followed by Brisbane, Perth, Ballarat, and Cairns. They are all above the 5.0 affordability benchmark. Frankly this is the bulk of the populated areas in the country – this screams to me “poor policy”.
And the trends are only improving a little thanks to price fall last year. The recent reversals in some areas will just make things worse again.
Demographia said of Australia:
Australia’s generally unfavorable housing affordability is in significant contrast to the broad affordability that existed before implementation of urban containment (called “urban consolidation” in Australia). The price-to-income ratio in Australia was below 3.0 three decades ago
Again, as in each of the previous 15 Demographia International Housing Affordability Surveys, all of Australia’s five major housing markets are severely unaffordable. Even so, housing remains severely unaffordable in all of the major markets, and by a substantial margin in Sydney and Melbourne. Despite what has been called the largest Sydney price reduction in 35 years, house prices relative to incomes are more than double the rate of the early 1980s. In Sydney and Melbourne, median income households need at least three years’ more income to pay for the median priced house than in 2004, when the first Demographia Survey was published.
OECD expressed the following assessment of the Australian housing market (December 2018): “Australia’s housing market is a source of vulnerability. Prices have more than doubled in real terms since the early 2000s and household debt has surged. The market has started to cool over the last year, with prices falling most notably in Melbourne and Sydney. So far, data point to a soft landing without substantial consequence for the overall economy. Nevertheless, risk of a hard landing remains.”
Sydney is again Australia’s least affordable market, with a Median Multiple of 11.0, and ranks third least affordable overall, trailing Hong Kong and Vancouver. Melbourne has a Median Multiple of 9.5 and is the fourth least affordable major housing market internationally. Only Hong Kong, Vancouver, and Sydney are less affordable than Melbourne. Adelaide has a severely unaffordable 6.9 Median Multiple and is the 14th least affordable of the 92. Brisbane has a Median Multiple is 6.3 and is ranked 17th least affordable, while Perth, with a Median Multiple of 6.0 is the 19th least affordable major housing market in this year’s Demographia Survey.
Overall, Australia’s housing markets have a severely unaffordable Median Multiple of 5.9. There is only one affordable market, Gladstone, Queensland, with a Median Multiple of 2.8. Overall 14 markets in Australia are rated severely unaffordable. The least affordable are the Sunshine Coast, Queensland (8.4) and the Gold Coast, Queensland (8.0).
Australia’s high house prices have increased the cost and demand for subsidized housing. The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute estimated that “current housing need in Australia to be 1.3 million households,” and expected the need to worsen. A Parliamentary briefing book found that “ …the stock of social housing is not increasing at a rate sufficient to keep up with demand, and waiting lists for social housing remain long. ”
In New Zealand, all markets, including Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington are unaffordable.
The trends are also showing affordability remains a strategic issue.
Demographia says
In New Zealand, as in Australia, housing had been affordable until approximately a quarter century ago. However, urban containment policies were adopted across the country, and consistent with the international experience, housing became severely unaffordable in all three of New Zealand’s largest housing markets, Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington (Figure 10). New Zealand’s price-to-income ratio was below 3.0 in the early 1990s.
Recent New Zealand Median Multiple trends have been influenced by government restatement of median income data. Auckland, New Zealand’s only major housing market has a severely unaffordable 8.6 Median Multiple. This is an improvement from 9.0 in 2018.
Even so, Auckland’s housing affordability has deteriorated from a Median Multiple of 5.9 in the first Demographia Survey (2004), thus adding nearly three years in pre-tax median household income to the house prices.
Auckland is the sixth least affordable among the 92 major housing markets, and has been severely unaffordable in all 16 Demographia International Housing Affordability Surveys. New Zealand’s’ second and third largest markets have experienced significantly different housing affordability trends over the last decade. Second largest Christchurch has a Median Multiple of 5.4, an improvement of 0.7 points from the 6th annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey.
Third largest Wellington has a Median Multiple of 6.8, a deterioration of 1.2 points over the past decade (Figure 10).
New Zealand’s middle-income housing crisis has strained government low-income housing budgets. Emergency aid has been increased to accommodate some low-income households in motels and waiting lists have been growing.
Housing affordability remains an issue of considerable public concern in New Zealand. The latest IPSOS New Zealand Issues Monitor (November 2019), with 62 percent respondents believing that they cannot afford to purchase a house in their own market. Housing affordability has been a principal issue from the time of the lead – up to the 2008 election and Parliaments 2007-8 Commerce Committee Housing Affordability Inquiry, chaired by the National Party’s Hon. Gerry Brownlee. National’s then Housing Spokesman and later Minister Hon. Phil Heatley toured the United States and United Kingdom prior to the election to study housing.
The Labour Party led coalition government’s Urban Growth agenda calls for intensified residential development, both greenfield and infill. This includes the abolishment of the Auckland urban containment boundary.
The government is also proceeding with plans to reform infrastructure finance to rely on debt to be serviced by residents of new developments, rather than public expenditures. During the December 1st Reading of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill , Urban Development Minister Twyford acknowledged the broad political support for the Bill. Just prior to this, the Urban Development Bill was introduced in Parliament.
Twyford addressed the Government Economics Network Conference in December, reiterating the government’s commitment to improving housing affordability. “The argument I want to make to you is that generations of urban land use policy have lacked a decent grounding in economics. The consequences of that have been disastrous. And if we want to turn it around it is going to take bold reform and policies informed by an understanding of urban spatial economics”.
The final point they make is that price is directly linked to control of land supply. Markets, like Australia and New Zealand, where land releases are controlled and rationed help to explain the rising prices and falling affordability. And this of course despite falling interest rates.
This is one right royal mess, and the social and economic consequences will resonate down the years. housing affordability sucks.