RBA, Interest Rates, Fiscal and Housing Prices

To Mods: please don't merge this with other topic as this deep dive will be updated.

UPDATE:
After CPI number was released earlier today, now we know how the Wildcard will play out. Remember that absolute number is almost meaningless, what means most are the first and second derivates - the change and speed of change, and those were spectacular!
A meaningful increase in consumer prices inflation (as expected) should force the rates go much higher and much faster!
Should, however does not mean that the rates will go up (RBA lives in a fantasy land).
If our fearless banker plays his patient card again - stagflation stops being a possibility and becomes a certainty.

The below thesis does not change, the adjustments are on the margin of an extreme demand collapse.

What will happen to house prices if RBA does this or that?

To honestly answer that question, one would need to understand what factors have been driving house prices until now? Commonly mentioned "fundamental" reasons like Immigration, Australia being the best country and Rising wealth are a tailwind but NOT the true reason for these ridiculous prices.

Easy monetary policy = Low interest rates, Quantitative easing with Yield Curve Control are the TRUE reasons. Simple financial math and TINA (There Is No Alternative) behind that – I will explain it below with QE as an example (other methods targeting similar triggers and basically all of them are about creating extra liquidity in the system).

What is QE

QE is not “money printing” despite a common belief. The “money printing” term was first used by Greenspan (who quickly corrected himself) to explain QE and that incorrect label stuck with it. In reality, QE is an “asset swap” when a central bank buys bonds from commercial banks in exchange giving them liabilities in terms of a currency. Central banks do this in a hope that this pile of liquidity will push banks to do productive loans BUT…. Skipping through the technical terms and making it easy to understand – banks CANNOT do much with that pile of money other than siphon it into financial assets.

Since we have only this many assets but RBA can always hit that extra “0” on the keyboard, we quickly found ourselves is BIG troubles with run-away prices on everything “asset” but little to no trickle-down effect to the REAL economy and little CPI inflation. Despite RBA working hard on that keyboard. Hence, there is a serious disconnect between consumer prices inflation and asset prices inflation.

Tend to disagree?

If, however, you are still of the opinion that “Immigration” and “Australian values” are the main drivers of aussie real estate prices, then think again about what happened in 2020. No immigration, soldier boots on “values” and people locked in their homes but the home prices are skyrocketing. What, why?

Reasons are as follows:
* TFF (Term Funding Facility) by RBA who literally printed 200 billion overnight from thin air (remember that keyboard with “0”)
* JobKeeper payment ~100 billion AUD over 2 years
* Business cash flow boost ~32 billion AUD over 2 years
* Coronavirus supplement ~18 billion AUD over 2 years
* Economic support payments ~11 billion AUD over 2 years
* Different kinds of tax benefits, cut-offs, extra claims and write-offs would give you another ~60-70 billion AUD over 2 years

See the proof of figures here (official resource)
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart…

Overall, through extremely loose monetary and fiscal policies, this government has injected close to 400 billion extra dollars into a red-hot economy while maintaining almost zero level interest rates.

As a result, Australia (as many other countries) have financialized the human shelter and will pay dearly for that as a society - one way or another.

Let’s continue, investors like it

Well, this time it might actually be different. In fact, very different because the governments have re-discovered fiscal and central banks have discovered (to their amusement) that QE and rates don’t do any trickle-down into real economy. Who would have thought that levered-up to their eyeballs investors will not only NOT spend but will actually use all of their disposable income to lever-up a bit more? Also that disposal income to debt ratio is not a boring book term but an actual measure of propensity to spend.

So, now we are in the brave new world where we have HIGH inflation and LOW propensity to spend from asset holders. SURPRISE!

Now it comes to options that RBA and governments have at hand to deal with this mess.

—- Part 2 —-

Inflation? So what?

Now, there are only a few of macroeconomic factors that would make money tight other than central banks' rate decision and these are truly "the dark side of the force".
Inflation and negative real wages growth are FAR more potent with much faster effect than any rates rise from a fully impotent RBA and both factors are a kicker for RBA and the woodoo magic that RBA think they have tools to deal with. Well, they have tools, all right. The real question is whether they have the guts to use the tools?

Both factors (Inflation and negative real wages growth) are already happening in full swing and will only accelerate if RBA will not act in a fast and furious manner (not than they are capable of anything like that). Which means that soon those families with 1Mil mortgages on 100K gross income will have to face a choice between paying for food and other necessities OR paying their mortgage. If you studied market events (like bubbles) this is not REALLY a choice and those mortgages will roll IF those families will really have to chose. This is the moment when a bubble pops.

A large and growing number of delinquencies and rushed selling to avoid one will very soon be a much larger destroyer of the proverbial wealth than anything that RBA could pull out of their mothballed hat.

The wealth of nations

Well, one nation, and accumulated from one particular asset class.

We know how that wealth was created don't we? Well, not by working hard, not really. Not by growing the real economy through innovation and smart ways of doing business. Nah, the only thing we do well as a nation is bidding up the dirt. No, I am not judging, just the fact.

"Show me the incentive and I will show you the results". RBA and Federal government tried really hard by pumping 600B into the overheating economy to fund new projects, new ideas, create new businesses… Well, I think they tried… Maybe… Most of those money, however, never reached real economy and being an asset swap or a bank balance transfer was destined to go into assets bubble to blow it out of any sustainable proportions.

There was an article by then acting governor deputy Debelle who basically said "it is up to you (people of Australia) how this economy will develop - as an innovations heaven or as raw materials and dirt supplier". Very nice and touching article from an RBA official saying that the choice is ours.
Well, nah, not really mate. Not after you give 50% GST discount, negative gearing, TFF 0% rate funding and 400B hot potato money. "Show me the incentive and I will show you the results".

Results of incentives: Australian GDP has it's major share in Mining, Construction and Finance sectors (almost 30%) with heavy focus on Consumer (70%).
Most of developed economies are Consumer-oriented but our stand-out dependency on Mining, Construction and Finance as pillars of GDP composition makes that consumer dependent on growth in those sectors because those are major employers in Australia. A vicious circle if you handle it badly and virtuous if do it in a smart way.

What does this have to do with your multi-million dollar hard-asset portfolio? Well, everything - put simply, you cannot build long-term capital gains on top of highly cyclical real economy. Your gains will remain unrealized when the cycle turns and when (not if) the commodities demand will soften, construction boom will fade away and consumer starts feeling the pinch (more like a punch) of inflation. And now we move on to the consumer side - the almighty God of every developed economy.

How the markets really work

In the long-run bull market that is still rising (and most participants are already in long positions), the prices are set by the next marginal buyer who still wants to bid for a higher price. As soon as those marginal buyers are out - the market falls until they appear.

In the bear market that is still falling the prices are set by next marginal seller who is eager to sell at the lower price.

This why our douche-bag genuinely caring government is trying so hard to drive the next marginal buyer in the market with 2% government guarantee deposits, different stimulus schemes like stamp-duty exemption and now NSW douches suggesting the government will "co-buy" (seriously?!) houses.

All this nonsense is to keep the next marginal buyer coming in the market but this is truly appalling and too low now because now they target those people who can least afford to be in financial troubles - single parents, teachers, nurses, low-paid workers who have to get into 30-50 years mortgage prison.

But all these crutches are not holding the top-heavy market anymore. With every housing market price tick higher, we need more and more levered new entrants who will be paying through most of their lives for piece of concrete to live in.
There is no REAL demand for hot property at these unsustainable prices, the next marginal buyer needs to be "stimulated" on one side and left with the sense of FOMO on the other side and to be in a complete state of Buridan's ass to actually take a plunge.

A bit of an off topic. Do you know where else you can trade with 2% deposit? This is 50x leverage and the only other place that will offer you this kind of leverage are forex bucket-shops where 90% of customers lose 90% of their money within the first 90 days (they lovingly call their customers “club 90”). Bucket-shops won’t even put their customers’ orders in the market as they know the customer will always lose. You know why the customer always lose? 50x LEVERAGE and even a small change in the price of an asset (over 2%) will wipe out customers' equity entirely.

Now let's do the 2nd and 3rd level thinking

We know that RBA will NOT be able to pump liquidity and do assets swaps forever. Moreover, they stopped QE already (Dr Lowe has been blessed with some common sense, thanks God) which means that money will become thigh soon.

Furthermore, US Fed has been very clear in their signals and USD will start to come out of the system and not just US, it is now global plumbing that ehy are servicing. With FED becoming tighter and even more tighter in the future and yields spiking, all duration paper has lost its luster.
Those pension funds and other asset managers will start shunning away from the bank bonds yielding too little and the music will stop pretty soon and pretty abrupt.

The liquidity crack party cannot last for too long and if it is not for the RBA's pathetic move or inflation hydra or next depression, then there would be something else that brings this bubble to burst - it is just ready. But is it? And who can stop it from bursting even if it is ready to pop?

——- The Last Part ——

The Grand Fianle

Ok, to the last bit - what is the end game?
I hope you managed to get through the above text and survive because you will need that basic knowledge to make your own judgement.

So, we have 1 wildcard and 3 different ways to respond (let's assume each is a binary option for simplicity).

The wildcard - Inflation
This is truly the unknown but in my view with a huge risk to upside rather than downside. In other words, while my secular view is based on disinflation, the heavy fiscal boot of governments around the world has given cyclical inflation a boost into this year and the next and it will stay unusually elevated for a longer period of time than in previous cycles.

This is bad and this thesis has been already been proven by fall-outs in the most cyclical sector - Construction. 3 major contractors (and who knows how many minors) have folded citing costs, debt and unsustainable business model. High growth on government-supplied steroids has its cost and more bankruptcies will follow. There will be a flow-on effect to connected sectors with more businesses folding and that will lead to higher unemployment and this is where the viscous circle starts. Higher unemployment - lower wages - lower consumer confidence - lower consumption - lower growth - lower earnings - less hiring - even higher unemployment (getting through related sectors). And repeat.

So, when you say "Inflation is not too bad, I will survive, my debts will deflate", all I can respond to that is "Think again". That is why all central banks fear a rising pace of inflation. All except for one - the fearless RBA.

Response #1 - Interest rates
A blunt instrument, takes time to actually start working can have unpredictable results.

UP, DOWN or UNCHANGED
Sounds simple but this is where the "cost of money" is defined, this is fundamental and gravely serious.

As all other "gravely serious" things in Australia, it has been treated in a light-minded and frivolous manner to serve the needs of the next political master. And what political master desires? Get (re-)elected of course! Hence "free money to everybody", "we are rich", "Australian wealth growth reaches orbital levels" and yada yada yada. What could possibly go wrong?
Now we can't even lift off ZERO levels without causing some kind of political trauma.

It is all not so simple of course but think of the interest rates as either targeting economic growth at a cost of higher inflation or taming inflation at a cost of higher unemployment. I won't be able to explain interest rates in one paragraph, there are university courses around this subject, however, if there is one takeaway that is applicable in our situation it is this one - Neutral (natural) rate of interest.
The NRI is a complex concept and has many readings by different economists, however if we agree that Australia is close to full employment with inflation rising fast and we are generous to say that NRI should be Neutral, then the minimum value of the nominal rates should be equal to inflation which is 3.5%. Tomorrow, before lunch if possible.

RBA have been hopelessly behind the curve, and UP is the only way to go.. but…(finish this sentence)

Impact of rising rates on housing
In my view (and contrary to the popular opinion), the impact will be very contained for the following reasons:
- The rates will rise in a slow and steady manner (unless the Ghost of Christmas Past will pay a visit to Dr Lowe and we see a full 350 basis points hike due suddenly increased levels of responsibility at RBA)
- This slow rise will help the struggling families to prepare in a steady fashion and cut on living expenses or sell the overvalued property
- Markets do not drop when the EXPECTED change kicks in, they drop at uncertainty or surprise
Yes, I would expect the property prices to steadily drop anywhere between 10% to 30% depending on location but that is NOT a crash. The other scenario will be much much worse.

Rates do not rise, or RBA drag their feet in rising rates
In this scenario, and if the wildcard inflation keeps rising, we are heading for a stagflationary type of recession - the worst recession of them all.

Watch out for the following events:
- AU PMI to keep posting lower numbers (we are already in a short-term down-trend, so that is kind of expected)
- An UNEXPECTED rise in unemployment
- A SURPRISE rate hike or a hike larger than expected (who would have thought?! )

This is when everything will go cactus, no place to hide and RBA have lost it
High inflation, rising unemployment and lower business activity means failed economy - higher prices drive uncertainty and unemployment -> unemployment means lower wages and lower disposal income -> less consumption in a consumer-oriented economy -> less business activity -> more friction and more product and services shortages -> more uncertainty and more unemployment -> repeat

Are you sure you don’t want that planned and steady rate hike to neutral that has been long overdue?

*Response #2 *- Fiscal

Free Money! A music to electorate ears, who doesn’t like being paid for nothing? Just look at the hype around next year budget – bloody hell, ScoMo’s ratings went up. Well, not in my books.

Fiscal is usually inflationary and must be balanced with either higher rates or higher taxes. It won’t be this time, and this is why I think that the wildcard inflation has a much higher risk to the UPSIDE.

Higher inflation, no rates rise, free money shoveled around – we are doomed!
Just give them a few months.

A housing-related deviation on the Fiscal route (a possibility)
“Buy a house and the government will cover your interest payments for the next 12 months!”, “Invest in 2 properties and get a 3 years tax-exemption for a 3rd one!” – you think this is NOT going to happen?
Well, depending on how desperate it will be. Remember that “next marginal buyer” from How the Markets really work section? This is when they desperately need one (or two).

Just think it through – why would you want to stimulate a sector that has already been growing strongly and “organically”? Usually, you would want to tax the hell out of this nice opportunity, you would not want to over-stimulate it.

I would take it as the last opportunity to sell at high prices, especially if there is an expiry date on that sugar-hit offer. And after cashing out will probably get out of this country for a while – somebody will have to pay for this “free money party” after all.

All other things equal, I would say that extra fiscal is moderately bad for housing as it will push RBA for more aggressive actions (or push inflation higher – pick your poison). Housing-targeted fiscal, in my view, will be a sugar-rush for zombie – the last rushed activity before the inevitable.

The Worst part of fiscal
Remember those “next marginal buyers” in the long-run rising market? Who buy at the top because they think they have nothing to lose, and government gives them a lollipop? Well, usually they will quickly flip and become the “next marginal sellers” in the falling market – willingly or unwillingly.

*Response #3 *- More asset purchases

My view is that we should not see any kind of QE for a longs time as “the wealth effect” has been completely discredited. There is no to very little “trickle down” effect.

The only exception could be the treasury bonds that no money manager would want to touch with a broomstick (speculation and safe-haven run is a different story). RBA will certainly have to jump on this life-time opportunity to buy useless paper with ZERO coupon – sure, it’s not their own money, after all.

If, for some strange (and hopeless) reason, they would need to stimulate asset purchases… Well, I hope that there will be some brave and smart reporter who will put a “promote wealth inequality” label next to “asset purchases” because that's exactly what it is.

Real estate, however, might not and probably will not be in vogue on the next round of QE
Fresh money usually go to a new place with less down-side risk and more upside potential.

Poll Options

  • 43
    TLDR has never been so justified
  • 5
    Aaah, boring
  • 3
    There is something in it, but can't see clearly through so many letters
  • 3
    This is Interesting, will make an effort
  • 50
    I want more, subscribed

Comments

  • +2

    will help to understand whether this is worth my time

    I stopped reading there.

    • +1

      Good job, have you voted?
      1st option

    • +5

      Mate, what ALesha77 is doing takes a lot of time! They have every right to poll us on whether it is actually worth their time. I’m grateful personally because I hope their ability to explain matters educates a few more people who seem to think wage increases will solve this mess (hint: it won’t).

    • I didn't make it that far

      • Nooice, put your ballot in the bin.

  • +1

    Finalist for the TLDR of the year.

    • +1

      Top comment, mate, don't forget to vote.

  • If you want an honest opinion OP, your post has the same energy as when you're at a cafe and the person at the next table is reading a newspaper and mutters something about an article they're reading. They say it loud enough that it seems like they wanted other people to hear it, but don't add any cues as to who they're directing their words to.

    So I don't know what they are talking about, and I don't know if they are talking to me, themselves, or a very possibly a voice in their head.

    • +2

      Who is there?

      Eeeh, mate, you literally described every forum on the internet.
      And yes, you have just muttered me the content of your newspaper.

      Have you voted? Move on, can always come back and read it next year.. maybe…

  • +3

    everytime someone calls for housing crash

    house prices go up further, next year … the year after next , over next decades

    • +2

      I've started saying prices will never crash, hoping to be proved wrong again.

    • +4

      There are decades when nothing happens and there are weeks when decades happen.
      Brace for the latter.

      • +2

        i have been bracing for housing crash since 2000

        100k in 2000 can buy a small house on a big land in inner city

        house prices has more than 20x since 20yrs ago

        what do you expect a house in inner city would cost on next housing crash that has been subdivided … further subdivided .. subdivided further … into 10m wide pad

        • Hows that crash going..

          what sold for 700k in 2002 is 3.1million now.. Wish parents hadnt sold it back then :(

  • +2

    I don't get why it is important for asset price inflation to be purely a result of lower rates and non-traditional measures.
    I accept rates dropping from 5% to 0.1% over the past decade has boosted asset prices mightily.
    I'd also argue that higher immigration than before 2005, and the increase in temporary resident students and skilled workers has also driven prices mightily higher.
    After all, first world countries with low immigration and declining populations have seen lower housing increases (though I agree the lower interest rates have pushed up prices almost everywhere in first world cities).

    So I guess I am "staying tuned" to see what you think will happen next.
    If it is a tired rant about sound money and Breton Woods I'll be incredibly disappointed.

    • +1

      Ok, thanks for your vote.
      The Bretton Woods was many many many bad decisions ago - there is no way of getting back to hard money even though I would not mind.
      Gold standard sadly is an utopian concept as socialism or pure capitalism as it prohibits growth and substantially slows money velocity.

      No, this will be about future choices we ought to be making

  • +3

    Lower housing prices can only be a good thing. Australia was just fine before the advent of buy-to-let, and it will be just fine after the housing bubble bursts too. The problem with buy-to-let is that it necessarily needs to push millions out of the housing market, because if everyone owned multiple properties then there would be no one to let them out to. Imagine if a big fraction of the country bought all the water supply in each city, and they all strategically voted for political parties who promised to keep water prices high, and the price per litre of water went up to 50 cents. Housing is just as much an essential resource as water. Lower house and land values means more people owning their own homes. Negative gearing meant fewer people owning their own homes, lesson learned.

  • +2

    Loving your work ALesha77!
    I hope there is more.
    Someone has to educate the masses better.

    • +1

      Appreciate your feedback, there will be an update soon

  • +2

    Great work! Thanks. Waiting for more.

  • Australia is +$600B in debt.
    https://usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

    The feds won't be able to pay this off and will continue to 🖨️ to pay the debt.

    • +3

      Another 200B, they were quick.

      And, NO they won't be able to get away with just printing - that's not how it works.
      Otherwise, Zimbabwe would have become #1 economy already.

      • The US is +$30T in debt.
        China +$10T
        Japan +$14T
        Germany +$3T
        The UK +$3T

        MMT is printing and they're all drunk on it.

  • Can you elaborate more on this, OP? Also, your reference to 'real economy'. Which indicators do you mean by that?

    Hence, there is a serious disconnect between consumer prices inflation and asset prices inflation.

  • +1

    What are your qualifications op?

    • +2

      Personal Assistant of Junior Cleaner Associate

      I don't really see any relevance in titles and would never brag about one.
      ~400 PhDs at US Fed called inflation transitory for a number of months until they retired… the word "transitory"…. not 400 PhDs.

      • +1

        You are making statements on the economy and house pricing as though you are an expert. Surely you have some sort of background, or perhaps you are a property investor, share market investor, day trader?

  • +1

    Thanks OP - appreciate your musings. But you’ve avoided any significant analysis into NG and it’s effect on house prices. It seems from what I’ve read that this has been a longstanding reason for the commodification of housing stocks. I wished it was gone (despite benefiting from it personally). Unfortunately, we had a referendum on this in 2019 and we chose to keep it with such force that Labor have abandoned the policy which overwhelmingly favours the same people (myself included) who don’t need it.

    • +1

      Negative gearing is just one in the long list of stimulus employed by government.
      Any stimulus gets people "set in their ways" and not seeing that truck that eventually rolls through them.

      I think that NG will be a gravestone for a government in future - in one way or another.
      Taxation, is a key tool in governments tool box and in my view should never be used to over-boil a red hot market and to the detriment of the system and most of the people.

      Nassim Taleb is actually very good at explaining how stimulus and external intervention (regardless of how well intentioned) makes system rigid and fragile.
      "Anti-fragile" is the name of the book - highly recommended if you want more.

    • +2

      Agree completely. I voted for the ALP in 2019 even though I would have suffered financially as a result but too many selfish people not realising commoditised housing is bad for everybody. I think a lot of people have changed their minds since then though now it’s too late.

  • All politicians and governments in the world are just good at kicking the can down the road..

    • Don't we all…
      The only difference is that they are being paid for it :)

  • What do you think of the role that severe rental shortage (and therefore higher rental yield) will play over the next two years? Will it give a cushion to the property price fall?

    • It will raise the prices of units which did not get their 'boom'. As yields will become very good and you can negative gear any interest rate rises to soften the blow.

      • Not if market has started falling by then.

    • This is where we find the "Australian paradox".
      Why the rent are rising - due to high immigration.
      Why we have high immigration - because it is a cheap, easy and dirty way of government to boost GDP and consumption.
      The impact of immigration - lower labor cost, lower wages.
      Higher rents, higher RE prices and lower wages - you need more leverage.
      More leverage - more systemic risks, more need to simulate.
      More stimulus - more inflation.

      Why on earth RBA governor expects "wages to rise" and "prudent lending standards to be maintained" in this environment is beyond my understanding.

      Australia keeps "warehousing bodies" with the current immigration policy. We could easily increase the productivity by 5-10% if only we allowed automation and invention policy instead of immigration policy.

      • Does it mean that upcoming immigration and rental shortage will stop the property prices from falling though?

        • +2

          In every scenario you need to think of players and their incentives vs capacity

          In macro view fresh migrants are NOT buyers - most do not arrive with disposable 100K for a deposit and employer at ready.
          So, they will NOT put an UPWARD pressure on property prices BUT they will pressure the wages DOWN meaning that more migrants will actually decrease the buying power of local workers

          Now let's look at renting side
          1. SYD and MEL already have a boom in high-rise high-density buildings and a lot of supply has hit the market and about to hit the market
          2. Recent Parliamentary inquiry while being a joke as usual, specifically focused on supply and targeted zoning and high-density restrictions which means that the trend of HIGHER SUPPLY in hgigh-rise high-density will continue
          https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Hou…
          3. Thanks to Negative Gearing and 50% GST discount, there will always be non-economic players in rental who supply "just because"

          Those 3 points above, I think, are the main reasons for apartments underperformance during the latest housing boom. Underperformance of an asset sub-class during crack-boom is always a bad sign and that means that this sub-class will likely drop down more in the down-turn.

          Another point to mention is the much quicker point of "demand destruction" in rental market - something that most landlords here fail to understand. Higher prices is the cure for higher prices. Renters and especially fresh migrants are much more mobile and will move to another suburb, city or back to their country if they don't see good value in what Australia has to offer.

          All this, I think make the rentals market very different to owner-occupier where people want to get into a particular suburb, particular neighborhood, particular house. Do not expect this level of commitment from renters.

          • @ALesha77: I agree with your comment broadly, except these two points.

            So, they will NOT put an UPWARD pressure on property prices BUT they will pressure the wages DOWN meaning that more migrants will actually decrease the buying power of local workers

            Theoretically, this is correct but the volume of immigrants to come in a year or two isn't significant enough (it's just a fraction) to tweak the situation of the country's job market which has a much larger base. Over time it will surely impact, but it looks unlikely to have any 'significant' impact on these lines within a year. Sure, IT and accounting wages may go down a bit but time will tell as to how fast and by how much.

            1. SYD and MEL already have a boom in high-rise high-density buildings and a lot of supply has hit the market and about to hit the market

            'about to hit the market' is a bit dicey though given the severe shortage of building material, shortage of workers and cost of construction increasing quickly, resulting in a few bankruptcies too. It doesn't look like a lot of big residential projects will be completed in the near future. This reasoning applies to #2 in your comment too. Whilst there may be a good pipeline, timely completion of the projects (or even individual homes on newly purchased plots for that matter) is highly questionable. In that case, 'rental shortage' situation may continue and become more severe. Unfortunately, there is no quick solution to these problems.

            • @virhlpool: For the 1st point - my comments were not in absolute terms but in the player's CAPACITY (as I explained at the start).
              Every new migrant is UNLIKELY to put an upward pressure on housing prices because they are not a buyer from Day 1 in their capacity but they are almost guaranteed to put downward pressure on wages from Day 1 by starting their job search and offering their skills for (usually) less money than locals. Absolute terms are relevant when you start dealing with the figures and building your set of cases, this step is about the roles of players on the field.

              2nd point - the contractors that failed were a loss to the business activity however all their in-the-pipeline projects will be delivered, albeit with a delay by the remaining companies. The jobs were lost but the projects will carry on. The unbuilt or planned activities might be scrapped for those companies but there are drivers (such as Parliament) to continue work in this field. There will be losses in the projects but again if you want to think macro - think about the players and their incentives vs capacity. Will the remaining business want to get the projects from bankrupts? Can they? Will they learn the lessons and be lean and spend less money? How this will impact employment, sub-contractors, etc. Will government want to avoid social tensions and build more high-rises as dirt and cheap way into housing? Can they? What can they offer as a carrot and as a stick to states and municipalities?

  • +1

    When everyone tries to become a property investor the end result is not that great. It just becomes a growth linked pyramid scheme where few months of no growth or a slight drop can start a panic sale and then there are too many sellers, and the result is disastrous. we have avoided this just because of govt incentives/ low rates.

    With the low population and available land there is no justification of current property prices. We are wasting our efforts and resources trying to maintain high property prices.

    We need money to be spend into other parts of economy especially in technology and innovation.

    • It just becomes a growth linked pyramid scheme where few months of no growth or a slight drop can start a panic sale and then there are too many sellers, and the result is disastrous.

      Panic damping is great for price discovery. It flushes out all the tourists and leaves the market with true hodlers.

    • I completely agree with your last point.

      The REALITY is that there are too many SMSFs and other "investment" vehicles that have piled into dirt speculation.
      This is why we see QE, marginal buyers incentives - all this to keep that pension money and investment afloat. Pension money that should have NEVER had access into this bubble asset-class, (I would not care much about "investors" - all investment is risky, you should know)
      And the more you stimulate, the more money get in and you cannot allow it to fall.

      It will fall, however, exactly for the reasons and the efforts that RBA and federal government put in to keep it afloat. It has become too top-heavy.

  • Immigration must play some part in property prices. Immigration is an important part of why we have not had a recession since "the recession we had to have" in Paul Keating days.
    My understanding is Australia granted 160,052 Permanent skilled and family visas in 2021, not that different to recent years? Thats despite the headline saying there was limited immigration due to covid.

    If the economy does start to slow over the next few years the Gov can increase immigration numbers to help the economy. It's like having a flexi teller in your house that disburses free cash, a money tree. Sell visas and import people to stimulate the economy.

    • +1

      Well, I explained it above - immigration is a tail-wind but not a REAL driver of 20+% increase in the past year alone.
      If you don't want to accept that - fine by me.

      The true side to immigration is that is a "labor arbitrage" - apart from many other good and bad things, you get more labor-force into economy which (with all other things being equal) LOWERS your cost labor.
      I would argue that this is exactly the REASON for Australia being and staying tech-dumb and tech-numb. High labor cost is the true driver of technology and new ways to do things in a smarter better and cheaper way. Australia will NEVER be a start-up heaven with cheap labor (well, not in tech or bio).

      Immi, however, is a cheap and easy way to boost GDP and local demand for goods services. in addition to crowding the cities, stress on medical care, transportation and other vital arteries of economy. Good Luck with that and your investment, by all means.

  • Every incoming Socialist is much better on chopping out the remaining middle class.
    Rates are set by not colored people but people that changed their names to be the same as colours, mountains or sweet stuff.
    The general public is fooled that the acronym QE means lizzy with randy Andy so it is all to hard to even question her surname.
    Gutenberg was only alowed to patent his press if he signed to limit it to publish the Bible. Did anybody ever break that rule?
    So a money printing machine is choosing its own avatar.
    Google chose their name to train us how to count money in the future if we insist on cash.
    Immigration is just the softest form of slavery, it needs to be kept going to work.
    Sports is good sounding name fostering faschism and eventually soft hidden racism but so well packed nobody will notice.
    Never trust a statistic unless you have made it yourself! Regardless of 5.4% or 4.1 it does not matter anyway!

    • +1

      Lol.

      No more coffee for you.

  • +1

    I truely enjoyed reading through this long post! Well done.

    My predictions based on limited understanding of the economy:

    1. cash rate will rise to about 2.5%-3.0% in the next two years and then slowly get back to 2%
    2. The will be Housing "correction" of 10%-20%, the price will get back to 2018-2019 level before going up again.
    3. In the long term, we will not see much increase in housing price for the next 3-5 years.
    4. Rent will increase by about 20% in the next 2-3 years.
    • Thank you for the feedback, and good job with getting through a bunch of letters - at least one person made it through :)

      My view is not so much about "correction" but more about de-rating / finding the true price floor through finding the real demand value in the asset class. The asset class that was heavily distorted by free money from monetary and fiscal policies.
      Central banks around the world have shoot us all in the foot but RBA has proved to be more damaging than others without any will to accept the truth about their doings.

    • I asked this question above but don't you think a sharp rise in rents (and shortage in general) will give a good buffer to falling prices? Do you reckon still price fall will be in the range of 15-20%?

      • In my experience, it does not depend on the maths, but on consumer sentiment. I expect the price to fall in that range. Does not really matter, unless you are forced to sell.

  • I'm sure this will hit a receptive audience, but the analysis is almost as bad as what you see in /r/AusFinance/ - riddled with errors and disingenuous statements like the "$200 billion sky is falling" TFF (which was actually 188b to underwrite confidence in business credit supply, and will be repaid within 3 years) point. As always, the problem with macroeconomics is that everyone has an opinion on it.

    • +1

      Wow, tough crowd person.
      Well, lay out your view of macroeconomics.

      Also I would like to hear more about "disingenuous" in the statement about boosting assets value through cheap credit money even with the rounding …
      Come on.

  • Updated the post with the latest CPI reading - updates on top

  • rektrading on 14/06/2021 - 09:24
    The retailers are pricing in the next inflation increase.

    Fiat is losing its value more and more every day. Don't be the last one to do something about it.
    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/10591370/redir

    The pain 🚂 is coming.

Login or Join to leave a comment