Social Trends – Page 174 – Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog

Unemployment Better Thanks To Method Change?

The ABS published their August 2014 data today, and on the surface the data appears to rebound from last months seasonally adjusted 6.4% to 6.1%, whilst the seasonally adjusted participation rate rose from 64.9 to 65.2

However, we need to be careful because the ABS introduced a new questionnaire in July 2014, so we cannot be sure how much of the change is due to a data shift. You can read all about the changes here. According to the ABS, the number of unemployed persons decreased by 33,500 to 755,100 in August 2014 following an increase of 41,800 in July 2014 (seasonally adjusted). In trend terms the number of unemployed persons in August 2014 increased by 8,000 to 764,100 and the unemployment rate was 6.2%. Because of the unusually strong increase in employment estimates, the ABS has extensively checked the data.

The seasonally adjusted number of employed persons increased by 121,000 in August 2014 to 11,703,500 persons following a decrease of 4,100 persons in July 2014. The increase in August was driven by part-time employment. The employment to population ratio, which expresses the number of employed persons as a percentage of the civilian population aged 15 years and over, increased 0.6 percentage points to 61.3% (seasonally adjusted).

Unemployment amongst those aged 15-24 remains close to 15%

At a state level, the largest absolute decreases in seasonally adjusted unemployment were in South Australia (down 10,900 persons), New South Wales (down 5,400 persons) and Victoria (down 3,400 persons). The largest absolute increases in seasonally adjusted employment were in New South Wales (up 45,300 persons), Queensland (up 26,500 persons) and Victoria (up 26,100 persons). Tasmania had the largest increase in the seasonally adjusted participation rate (up 0.7 percentage points), followed by New South Wales (up 0.6 percentage points) and Queensland (up 0.5 percentage points). Seasonally adjusted estimates are not published for the territories.

Looking at the latest month, males in Tasmania are most likely to be out of work. Females in NT, least likely.

Finally, looking at underemployment by age ranges, younger people are seriously underutilised, and we see underutilisation in the over 55’s rising. The labour force underutilisation rate increased to 14.3% whilst seasonally adjusted estimated labour force undertuilisation rate increased 1.0 pts to 14.6%. The male labour force underutilisation rate increased 1.0 pts to 12.7%. The female labour force underutilisation rate increased 1.0 pts to 16.9%.

We will see if the data next month continues to reflect the revisions this time around.

Building Approvals To July 2014

The ABS published their Building Approvals Data to July 2014 today. Statistics of building work approved are compiled from, permits issued by local government authorities and other principal certifying authorities; contracts let or day labour work authorised by commonwealth, state, semi-government and local government authorities; and major building approvals in areas not subject to normal administrative approval e.g. building on remote mine sites. The scope of the collection comprises construction of new buildings; alterations and additions to existing buildings; approved non-structural renovation and refurbishment work; and approved installation of integral building fixtures.

The trend estimate for total dwellings approved fell 0.5% in July and has fallen for seven months. The seasonally adjusted estimate for total dwellings approved rose 2.5% in July following a fall of 3.8% in the previous month. The trend estimate for private sector houses approved fell 0.2% in July after being flat in the previous month. The seasonally adjusted estimate for private sector houses rose 1.4% in July following a fall of 1.0% in the previous month. NSW appears to be underrepresented given the relative population by states.

The trend estimate of the value of total building approved fell 0.2% in July and has fallen for seven months. The value of residential building rose 0.2% and has risen for two months. The value of non-residential building fell 0.8% and has fallen for eight months. The seasonally adjusted estimate of the value of total building approved fell 10.4% in July after rising for two months. The value of residential building rose 0.8% following a fall of 3.2% in the previous month. The value of non-residential building fell 26.5% after rising for two months.

The Chain Measures series, which reflect changes in the volume of building work approved after the direct effects of price changes have been eliminated. The ABS tell us that the chain volume measures are annually reweighted chain Laspeyres indexes referenced to current price values in a chosen reference year. We see a swing up in value for both houses and other residential buildings since July 2012, impacted by lower interest rates and higher demand. However, the absolute value, was relatively similar in March 2004, to July 2014 after correcting for inflation.

Depending of whether you go with the original data or seasonally adjusted data, you can argue that residential building approvals are either up, or down.

More Evidence That House Prices Are Too High

The Economist has just published its latest interactive house price comparison tool. It enables comparisons to be made across multiple countries, comparing absolute prices, real prices, rental ratios and prices against income. It is a powerful tool and highlights some interesting facts. One nice thing is you can select the range of dates also. Here are a few examples. First the trend in prices for selected countries. It shows Australia near the top of the list.

The trend since 2000 shows Australia clearly out in front amongst the countries I selected.

Turning to price relative to income, we see Australia again featuring near the top

Looking at the trends since 2000, we see how rentals are tracking. High, but not as high a house price movements suggesting perhaps linkages to interest rates and income growth?

But the most stunning chart in my view shows the change in values since 1975. We lead the way in Australia, leaving New Zealand, Canada and the UK in our wake. Also its worth noting the Japan story, no upward growth since 1975, that’s a different world.

Finally, in real terms, after correcting for inflation, Australia is way, way out in front looking at the long run from 1975. The trend since 2000 is not quite so stark.

We like the tool, and recommend it if you want further proof that Australian property on an international basis looks expensive, on nearly any measure you care to select. But there is a broader question to reflect on. What is driving sky high property prices in a number of countries, including New Zealand, Canada and UK? Could the ultra low interest rates and quantitative easing in Europe and US simply be the root cause, inflating stock prices and property prices? The mega-economic experiment we are in the midst of is a path never before trod. So the outcome is not certain.

Where Capital Growth In Property Lives

In the Opening Statement to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics today, Glenn Stevens made the following points:

not only are funding costs low, but banks want to lend and are competing to do so more actively than they have for some years;

net worth per household has risen by about $120,000 over the past two years;

the community’s monetary assets have risen by around 13 per cent – over $180 billion – over the same period;

It is worth reflecting on the fact the main reason for the increase in net worth is a bounce in the stock market, and lift in capital values of property, thanks to rising prices. After all real income is falling for many. In addition, the average hides the differences.

We have been looking at capital growth for the average household, across the states, and between the main urban centres and the rest of rest of the state. From our surveys we have been able to assess the relative growth in the value of property, over time, by marking property to market and comparing that with its purchase price. The chart below shows the relative growth in net capital value of property since 2004 (where our surveys start). It subtracts the original purchase price from the current value, to give a theoretical capital or wealth value. It shows that in the early 2000’s there was a similar level of growth in the cities and regional centres, but that more recently it has diverged. In the past 2 years, the average capital appreciation in the urban centres was $79,000, whereas in the regional centres, it was just $18,000.

However there are significant variations across the states. In Sydney, households in the past 2 years, have on average enjoyed a lift in net worth of more than $230,000 thanks to price hikes, whereas Brisbane, Adelaide, and regional areas in SA and TAS have not experienced much of an increase at all.

Looking at the longer term trends, across states, the situation gets even more interesting. Of course people have bought in at different times, but we can plot the overall capital growth trend. For example, In NSW, a household who bought in Sydney in 2004 and held the property would on average be nearly $300,000 better off now. If they had bought in early 2012, though they could have nearly earnt the same gain! All the action has been in the last couple of years, in Sydney itself. There have been a more gentle lift in regional NSW. Note that I have not corrected for inflation in any of the current calculations, if I did, the regional centres in NSW would have stood still.

In VIC, the situation is somewhat similar. It is worth noting that compared to NSW, the correction in 2009 was less severe.

Turning to QLD, there has been no capital growth in either Brisbane, or the regional centres since 2010. If you were to correct for inflation, it would be going backwards.

In WA, growth peaked in 2010 in Perth, with a further small peak recently, whilst in the regional centres, values are falling in real terms, before inflation. We compared Perth and Sydney recently, in more detail.

Looking at SA, growth in Adelaide is back to 2011 levels, but in the regional areas, growth is still lower than in 2010.

In TAS, since a peak in 2010, both Hobart and regional centres are flat, before inflation.

Finally, we look at the remaining states. Growth in Darwin has been sustained, whilst regional NT and Canberra are flatter since 2011.

So, my conclusion is simple, some households especially in Sydney and Melbourne, may be experiencing the wealth effect halo of smugness, but many households across other states and regional centres are not enjoying capital growth. Indeed, for many there has been a reduction in true value, before inflation since 2011. It is unlikely therefore that we will see a sudden surge of consumer spending activity in response to the housing boom (which is not uniform across the country as we have shown). It is really a Sydney and Melbourne boom. The RBA may be waiting for a long time if they are expecting households to start spending big.

A Tale Of Two Cities – Demand and Supply In Action

Last week we reported on the ABS house stock data, which valued property at more than 5.2 trillion in Australia. We have been looking in more detail at this data, and cross relating it to information from our own household surveys. Today we compare the markets in NSW and WA, because there are some interesting observations to note. First, NSW and WA have the highest mean dwelling prices in Australia. NSW stands at more than $650,000 and WA $595,000, ahead of VIC and ACT. TAS has the lowest mean at just over $300,000.

In addition, when we look at the decomposition of the $5.2 trillon by state, NSW has the largest share, WA has a smaller, but significant share, behind VIC and QLD.

But, there are some interesting differences between NSW and WA. Population growth, from all sources (migration, births, and interstate movements), shows that WA is growing faster than NSW. So, from the demand perspective, we would expect prices in WA to be responding to that demand.In fact, dwelling prices in WA have been growing at a significantly lower speed than in NSW. In fact, most recent data suggests prices in WA are going slightly backwards.

So, whats making this happen? We need to look at the supply side of the equation. WA have been building more properties, significantly more, than NSW. So demand and supply in WA are more in balance, even taking the faster population growth into account.

We also checked out the status of property purchase by SMSF’s and the like, and there are similar trends in the two states, so that element can be discounted from the analysis. We have previously highlighted the shrinking average plot size for new developments, and noted that WA has been allowing plot sub-division and new builds on sub-250 sqm plots. So it is interesting to note NSW’s recent announcement to release land in the west for smaller development plots. Supply and demand are clearly in action, and NSW house prices won’t adjust from their stratospheric levels until substantial supply side issues are addressed. The way to address Australia’s housing issues is to release more land, and build more houses.

NSW First Time Buyer Trends From 2002

As part of our household surveys we have been examining the state of play for NSW first time buyers since 2002. In our research we have identified the year in which they purchased, whether they subsequently refinanced, or moved on, and how many of these households are currently having difficulty in finding a lender to refinance with. To be clear, this is a snapshot, as at August 2014, across multiple cohorts.

The data shows, firstly the monthly volume of loans written for first time buyers, peaking in 2009, and now languishing at a 20 year low. Next we plot, by age of the purchase, what proportion of households have subsequently either refinanced an existing loan, or sold and bought elsewhere. Perhaps it is not surprising that loans which are older, are more likely to be churned. The yellow trend line shows the proportion of households, by year of origination who have tried, but have not so far been able to refinance their loan. We see a significant peak in loans written in the 2009 boom time (when first time buyer incentives were at their peak, both at a federal and state level in a response to the GFC). More recent loans are less likely to be churned, so we see the drop in recent month. This suggests that there are a number of households in the 2009 and 2010 cohort who are in some strife.

We also analysed data on their current levels of mortgage stress, and their loan to income (LTI) ratios. We found that the average LTI grew steadily through the 2007-2012 cohorts, and currently stands at close to 6 times current gross income. We also see a peak in mortgage stress, in those households who took a loan in the 2009-2012 period. The proportion in mortgage stress are lower in the cohorts before and after this period. Once again the data highlights potential issues in specific cohorts, who are highly sensitive to unemployment, falling income or rising rates.

This data also is a warning, that first time buyer incentives can pull households into the market, and lay potential long term problems for them.