House Price Growth for Next 10 Year

focus123 on 04/02/2025 - 17:26
Last edited 04/02/2025 - 21:32 by 1 other user

Given that housing prices grew so much in the past 4 years, I am just wondering what the outlook would be for the next 10 years.

Here in Adelaide, the 10 years between 2000 and 2010 were strong, and the annual growth was above 8%.
However, the 10 years between 2010 and 2020 had very slow growth, averaging about 2.5% per year. It seems the 4 years between 2020 and 2024 did some catching up of lost steam, and it was also fuelled by supply constraints.

Now that both federal and state-level governments are committed to increasing the housing supply, what would be the house price growth rate for the next 10 years?

Adelaide's quarterly median house prices from 1998 is available in this chart.

Poll Options

  • 38
    Negative price growth
  • 12
    0% - 2.5% annual growth
  • 16
    2.5% - 5% annual growth
  • 5
    5% - 7.5% annual growth
  • 30
    above 7.5% annual growth
Financial

Comments

  • Gdsamp on 04/02/2025 - 17:29
    +13

    neither major party will set the immigration tap to 'sustainable'…. house price growth go brrrr

    • Gdsamp on 04/02/2025 - 17:33
      +1

      Godspeed to standard of living for normal people BTW

      • brendanm on 04/02/2025 - 19:01

        It's already dropped quite a way, only down from here, how exciting!

        • ForkSnorter on 05/02/2025 - 08:28
          +1

          You're right. Look at house price growth and rent price growth over the last 5 years, and compare it to income growth. Most Australians can now afford less housing (smaller house, or crappier rental property) for the same work compared to 5 years ago.

          The value of our work has declined, because our purchasing power has declined.

          Meanwhile, the wealthiest 10-20% of Australians have increased their wealth massively, mostly through their investment properties massively increasing in value. The majority of them could stop working right now and just live on the continual wealth they gain from owning property.

  • shxhshzhz on 04/02/2025 - 17:32
    +4

    Crystal ball

    Ozbargain ✅️

    • El cheepo on 04/02/2025 - 17:52
      +5

      Where else can you get stupid tips on:

      Car crash liability predictions.
      Iphone sale prediction dates.
      Housing and car market predictions.
      Cryptocurrency predictions.
      Bikies.

      This is the modern day magic ball you shake 😂

      It truly is a magical site.

      • ForkSnorter on 05/02/2025 - 08:30

        You forgot: product lifespan predictions.

  • LVlahov on 04/02/2025 - 17:38
    +5

    Interest rate falls (a response to high property prices crushing the physical economy) + masses of new people imported to pay rent/purchase their own house vs the severely constrained ability of Australian people to get into a house (and continue to bid up prices) thanks to the extra demand boost immigration provides, and the downwards pressure it applies to wages.

    On balance that says rise IMO. The falls should have occurred over the last term of the Labor government due to the higher interest rates but were not able to thanks to the boatloads of migrants Labor brought in. Now with the economy crushed so interest rates can fall ordinarily house prices would rise.

    Interest rates up - house price falls/moderation, interest rates down, house prices up is the normal relationship between the two unless demand is being juiced.

    We're living through the most catastrophic period of economic mis-management the nation has ever experienced in terms of quality of life, cost of living and per capita disposable income changes (at least since the Great Depression). Note I reference 'per capita' i.e. on average for the average person in terms of their actual reality. Not in terms of nominal values, in aggregate across a larger number of people, that fail to take into account inflation. i.e. reality. (The figures Labor proponents prefer to use).

    • freefall101 on 04/02/2025 - 17:50
      +2

      You missed that we really don't build enough houses any more, a trend that started in 2019.

      Between covid and inflation due to the supply chain, we're about 250,000 dwellings short of where we should have been.

      On average, immigration didn't really increase very much. We had a huge dip after covid and a rise afterwards, in terms of actual numbers of people our population has been growing at about 350k a year for two decades now.

  • freefall101 on 04/02/2025 - 17:40
    +1

    I think you'll find that whole global pandemic thingy that drove zillions of dollars being poured into the economy along with mass disruption to employment, supply chains, savings (those went up), etc might have had something to do with it.

    All you need to do is ask around and find out what other pandemics, wars, environmental events, technological improvements, recession/depression causing events will happen and you should get a pretty good idea of what housing prices will do.

    • LVlahov on 04/02/2025 - 17:45

      The breakout in poor economic performance happened as a result of economic mismanagement post the pandemic and was actually well managed during it, as evidenced by the blow out to the negative side in per capita income happened post pandemic not during.

    • brendanm on 04/02/2025 - 19:03

      Certainly possible that the government giving money away for free to every man and his dog, thus reducing its value, also has something to do with it.

      • freefall101 on 04/02/2025 - 19:15
        -1

        That’s what I meant by

        drove zillions of dollars being poured into the economy

        I know I came out of the pandemic significantly financially better off, from not spending any money to silly tax breaks to side gigs that were pretty easy to make profitable because everyone else was cashed up and bored. The money flowed and I’m slightly ashamed to say I took it where it was offered. But so did everyone else.

        And no, my name isn’t “Gerry”

        • brendanm on 04/02/2025 - 20:15
          +1

          Sorry I should have figured that out. Everyone did take it, which just made it worth less. Government gave out so much money unnecessarily, your example of Gerry is just one of the many.

  • MMM on 04/02/2025 - 17:42
    +1

    Tell you powerball numbers for next week, but house price, nah don't have those.

  • focus123 on 04/02/2025 - 17:48
    -4

    Most boomer investors purchased their investment properties before their 55th birthday (i.e., 2015 or before), so they are selling at a profit even if they sell at 2020 prices.
    Given governments are committed to keeping prices going up, I think the growth will stay in the 0-2.5% range.

    • ForkSnorter on 05/02/2025 - 08:33

      Not sure why you are getting negged for this reasonable comment.

  • AustriaBargain on 04/02/2025 - 17:53

    Negative I think. ALP will run on a platform of bursting the bubble which will be a lot more popular than the Coalition plan of utter nonsense. If ALP wins the next election their increasing supply plan will snowball, cities will expand, towers will grow tall, a lot of jobs created in building these things non stop for years and years. Rupert Murdoch will (touch wood) die sometime soon and the media will start talking about this stuff with some sense.

    • ForkSnorter on 05/02/2025 - 08:37
      +1

      I disagree. Any kind of policy aimed at reducing property prices will result in that party losing the election. This happened in 2019, when Bill Shorten suggested making changes to negative gearing and removing a tax loophole for extremely wealthy retirees. When the country is fairly evenly split between conservatives and progressives, it is house owners that can sway the election. No property owner wants the value of their property or their investments to go down.

      • megaclix on 06/02/2025 - 09:16
        +1

        No property owner wants the value of their property …. to go down

        I do. What has this increase in property price given me? My property has gone up 250% of purchase price. Now, moving costs are stupid. Just to move house now will cost me $120k (most of this agent fees, legal fees and stamp duty). That is not something I want on my mortgage.

        We are at a stage where our kids look to be enslaved to a mortgage for a lifetime just for a shitbox.

        • ForkSnorter on 06/02/2025 - 09:38
          +1

          I agree, house prices are a massive drag on Australian society (unless you're in the top 30% wealth bracket). And I would love house prices (including my own) to be cheaper. But most people don't, and for most people this would be a disaster, for example if it turns out they've borrowed 150% of the value of their property.

          On the other hand, if your property has gone up 250% in value, you're doing very well, probably much better than most people, and if it costs $120k for you to move, your property is likely worth $1.5-$1.75 million, which is much more than the median property price. You could downsize to an average house and use the ~$750k left over to pay for your move, and then use the remaining ~$630k to invest in shares, or buy a little apartment, or sit in the bank earning 5% interest (increasing your annual pre-tax income by $30k per year).

    • JIMB0 on 05/02/2025 - 10:18

      Wishful thinking. Maybe you'll get a cheap dogbox in the sky. Certainly not a house in a desirable location, they'll only go up in value.

  • jv on 04/02/2025 - 18:37
    +1

    I am just wondering what the outlook would be for the next 10 years.

    3.82% annual growth compounding.

    • cashless on 04/02/2025 - 21:50

      Better stick your savings in Ubank then

      • JIMB0 on 05/02/2025 - 10:18
        +1

        You're forgetting the rental yield and tax advantages.

      • Drpepper666 on 05/02/2025 - 16:56

        No

  • GordonD on 04/02/2025 - 19:02
    +2

    I know how the OP could get an answer to this question.

    They could ask an economist.

    Economists have to have a long and rigorous university education. Governments decide how to run the country based on the advice they give. Media outlets publish what they say as authoritative. So they must know what they're talking about. They can't just be able to pick whatever explanation afterwards that matches what happened, they must be able to predict what will happen. Otherwise why would anyone pay them the big money they get, and rely on their advice.

    • Nugs on 05/02/2025 - 06:48
      +6

      "They could ask an economist."

      About as reliable as weather forecasters
      .

      • moar bargains on 05/02/2025 - 13:35

        About as reliable as weather forecasters

        Common misconception. In fact, economists were created to make weather forecasters look good.

    • focus123 on 05/02/2025 - 17:33
      +2

      Economists are highly unreliable.Their predictions come with their vested interest in the property market (except a very few who speak the truth). The majority of them were calling for multiple interest rate cuts in 2024, but that never happened as the inflation was still high and RBA wasnt afraid of the pressure from Banks , Media and politicians.

  • JimmyF on 04/02/2025 - 19:03

    House Price Growth for Next 10 Year

    tripled, buying as many as I can. Its easy money!

  • Ocker on 04/02/2025 - 19:05
    +4

    Negative growth over 10 years? Tell 'em their dreaming (or wishing)

    • boomramada on 05/02/2025 - 09:41
      +2

      People who think it be in negative growth in lala land lol

    • JIMB0 on 05/02/2025 - 10:20
      +2

      It seems to be a popular choice. Wishful thinking by the housing bears.

  • Benoffie on 04/02/2025 - 19:13
    +1

    Adelaide is a different market to the rest of the country and tends to have more stable growth with smaller ruts.

    The supply chain in Australia, let alone SA, is limited - housing supply hasnt, cant and wont rapidly change regardless of any land releases.

    In SA, further issues are with infrastructure. SA Water reports continuously flagging uprade requirements fall on deaf ears until pork barrelling is needed. For example, the main trunk line is being upgraded to Virginia and Angle Vale but nothing else. It still wont sufficiently connect the homes, Freeling still has insufficient supply for subdivision and the state officially dried up the reservoirs and turned up the desal to 100%.

    The only thing fuelling prices in SA is outside investment and that has been fairly consistent since the Covid boom. Whether it's interstate or OS. The fundamentals of employment, income etc didnt change in SA so significantly in 5 years that the average local could suddenly afford an average 800k home.

    Once that supply dries - and it has started, about 6 months ago - the losers will be all the former rubbish suburbs (and I use that term losely, having grown up in them, North of Gepps…). The stable ones will be 2nd ring and eastern and winners? Will be 1st ring and subdividable blocks with frontage greater than 20m (due to transportation, traffic, new garage DP requirements)

    • AussieDaddy on 05/02/2025 - 11:32

      If you have to buy a house in Adelaide today, which suburbs would you choose? And which ones would you avoid at all costs?

      • boomramada on 05/02/2025 - 12:12
        +1

        southern suburbs and northern suburbs

        • Benoffie on 05/02/2025 - 12:20
          +1

          Agree, avoid outer limits - over priced, over invested, poor infrastructure and just pumping in more people.

          For outsiders, Adelaide has always worked in rings - 1, 2, 3 - the last being bound by the hills, ocean, Grand Junction Rd and Darlington.

          The current pricing seen is due to outsiders chasing school zones, particular communities and having no clue. It's how stock houses in Parafield are fetching $1m - bad investment.

          If you're on Whirlpool (yes, that other place), there's a dedicated thread to SA real estate where this stuff is tracked etc.

          Link only for mention of the rings

          https://www.urban.com.au/news/sa/adelaide-inner-and-middle-r…

          Also avoid Norwood, Glenelg, Unley KWS etc - we dont do main road apartments well. Again, too many, over priced and there's too many in the pipeline

          • boomramada on 05/02/2025 - 13:04

            @Benoffie:

            Norwood, Glenelg

            Unfortunately, that's where all the good government schools are.

            • Benoffie on 05/02/2025 - 15:02

              @boomramada: I disagree but then everyone chases the same ones.

              Most are beyond cap, have strong zoning and no significant outcome improvements.

              Save money, buy in a better investment area and put your child in a well priced Catholic school.

              Rule #1 of Adelaide - it's all about connections and no one makes connections or keeps them in the public system 😉

              • boomramada on 07/02/2025 - 12:14

                @Benoffie: You disagree with my point yet I agree with your point LOL

                And I found there is a big difference between public school vs (norwood/unley/adelaide high/priced Catholic school)

                • Benoffie on 07/02/2025 - 13:51
                  +2

                  @boomramada: Haha! No I dont disagree with the fact theyre doing it or the idea behind it, just being a teacher I think they dont produce the outcomes to justify the $1.5m+ house spend for the zone.

                  I think people can live more comfortably in slightly adjacent suburbs and then afford a solid Catholic or small Independent schooling.

                  Those schools tend to have further reaching and longer lasting alum communities too - far more beneficial in Adelaide.

                  And the schools mentioned have been plagued with behavioural and staffing issues plus run at 1800-2200 students. Vs larger Catholic or Independent which cap out at 600-800. Class size in secondary education is a big issue.

          • AussieDaddy on 05/02/2025 - 13:05

            @Benoffie: Thanks for the detailed comment and the link re the rings.

        • AussieDaddy on 05/02/2025 - 13:04

          Avoid those or buy?

  • try2bhelpful on 04/02/2025 - 23:59

    West Wing.
    LEO: That's fine, but the President's gonna look at the WBO revenue analysis and say that economists were put on this planet to make astrologers look good.

    FRED: Leo…

    LEO: Luther. Ballpark. One year from today. Where's the Dow?

    LUTHER: Tremendous. Up a thousand.

    LEO: Fred. One year from today.

    FRED: Not good. Down a thousand.

    LEO: A year from today at least one of you is gonna look pretty stupid.

  • ForkSnorter on 05/02/2025 - 08:31

    "Negative price growth" - that's the funniest thing I've read all day.

  • isthatallyougot on 05/02/2025 - 09:19
    +1

    There was an article somewhere about the Labour party saying that their aim is to reduce the rate of housing price growth but not to actually reduce house prices. I would imagine the Libs would pretty much have the same policy idea.

  • dust on 05/02/2025 - 10:49
    +1

    When you say house prices are you differentiating between apartments and stand-alone dwellings?

    • focus123 on 08/02/2025 - 09:09

      My reference is mainly towards standalone dwellings.
      As apartments and townhouses, the growth rate is low compared to standalone houses, we can assume the apartments and townhouses will lave 2-3% less of what standalone houses grow.

  • Drpepper666 on 05/02/2025 - 16:57

    House prices are going up forever. Negative growth lmfao

  • autolux on 06/02/2025 - 13:27
    +1

    Australian housing exuberance defies all logic & crystal balls, but wages are currently beyond broken and a recession actively being lied about as record immigration is pumped while the currency is turned to confeti… It's been ~17years since the GFC and i'd imagine if something of that scale happened again, it would be a very quick wake-up call slash reality check to such exuberance.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join