Society/Culture Australian Property Prices to Crash?

these are pretty decent ideas. I still think investors need more limitation. Like what they are doing in New Zealand atm.

investors are not the issue. they are not buying the properties first home owners are after.

the issue is competition. when you rock up to an auction and it has 50+ bidders, they are not investors
 
investors are not the issue. they are not buying the properties first home owners are after.

the issue is competition. when you rock up to an auction and it has 50+ bidders, they are not investors

Yes. They are.

There have been numerous properties for Example in the Hills District in Sydney priced in the 1.1m to 1.4 million range (First Home Buyer Range) which have sold and then 1 month later they have for lease signs out the front.

There are plenty of Investors taking advantage of people wanting to move out from expensive inner city rentals to houses where they have more space to WFH.

Don't kid yourself that only first home buyers and upgraders are going to these auctions. investors certainly aren't the only problem, but they are very much part of it.

I know this because like I said before my Parents and my Wife's Parents are investors who are doing this exact thing. Targeting cheaper properties in the burbs that they cant rent out and NG.
 
Yes. They are.

There have been numerous properties for Example in the Hills District in Sydney priced in the 1.1m to 1.4 million range (First Home Buyer Range) which have sold and then 1 month later they have for lease signs out the front.

There are plenty of Investors taking advantage of people wanting to move out from expensive inner city rentals to houses where they have more space to WFH.

Don't kid yourself that only first home buyers and upgraders are going to these auctions. They certainly aren't the only problem, but they are very much part of it.

I know this because like I said before my Parents and my Wife's Parents are investors who are doing this exact thing.

so a handful is enough to move an entire market? no.

again, for the 15th time. Population in melbourne rose 50% over the last 20 years. And thats excluding those who live outside melbourne on the train corridors. thats 1.7m million people needing homes in a land area thats unchanged. Its demand from this population, not investors that is the issue.

you could ban all property investment tomorrow, and guess what, prices wouldnt fall. reason being the demand that remains still exceeds supply. its econ 101
 
Aug 18, 2006
38,708
48,563
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Yes. They are.

There have been numerous properties for Example in the Hills District in Sydney priced in the 1.1m to 1.4 million range (First Home Buyer Range) which have sold and then 1 month later they have for lease signs out the front.

There are plenty of Investors taking advantage of people wanting to move out from expensive inner city rentals to houses where they have more space to WFH.

Don't kid yourself that only first home buyers and upgraders are going to these auctions. investors certainly aren't the only problem, but they are very much part of it.

I know this because like I said before my Parents and my Wife's Parents are investors who are doing this exact thing. Targeting cheaper properties in the burbs that they cant rent out and NG.

I find it funny you say 1.1m-14m is the first home buyer range......i think i see the problem with people unable to get into the market....
 
so a handful is enough to move an entire market? no.

again, for the 15th time. Population in melbourne rose 50% over the last 20 years. And thats excluding those who live outside melbourne on the train corridors. thats 1.7m million people needing homes in a land area thats unchanged. Its demand from this population, not investors that is the issue.

you could ban all property investment tomorrow, and guess what, prices wouldnt fall. reason being the demand that remains still exceeds supply. its econ 101

you keep thinking i'm saying investors are the only problem, I have said ******* 10 times they are not the only problem, THEY ARE JUST PART OF IT. getting frustrating.

Yes there is over population occurring. This is why I'm suggesting investors are limited to the amount of properties they are allowed to own. This frees up stock, more stock means, less demand which means lower prices. Less competition means lower prices. NZ have just removed investor tax benefits, they get it.

If we roll this out in Melbourne/Sydney, is it going to fic the problem over night? No it wont. but it is a simple solution to help stem the crazy price increases, obviously yes, other macro and micro economic factors also need to be implemented.
 
I find it funny you say 1.1m-14m is the first home buyer range......i think i see the problem with people unable to get into the market....

I bought my first home with a 280k deposit? My wife and I started saving in 2012 and bought in 2016.

Literally all my friends have had similar deposit amounts when they bought their first home.

1.1 - 1.4 is certainly within reach for first home buyers with low interest rates. Especially considering the AVERAGE Sydney home is over 1.2m
 
Aug 18, 2006
38,708
48,563
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
I bought my first home with a 280k deposit? My wife and I started saving in 2012 and bought in 2016.

Literally all my friends have had similar deposit amounts when they bought their first home.

1.1 - 1.4 is certainly within reach for first home buyers with low interest rates. Especially considering the AVERAGE Sydney home is over 1.2m

Good on you, but people around here complain they cant get a deposit for $600k+ house and you help me prove that its easily achievable
 
you keep thinking i'm saying investors are the only problem, I have said ******* 10 times they are not the only problem, THEY ARE JUST PART OF IT. getting frustrating.

Yes there is over population occurring. This is why I'm suggesting investors are limited to the amount of properties they are allowed to own. This frees up stock, more stock means, less demand which means lower prices. Less competition means lower prices. NZ have just removed investor tax benefits, they get it.

If we roll this out in Melbourne/Sydney, is it going to fic the problem over night? No it wont. but it is a simple solution to help stem the crazy price increases, obviously yes, other macro and micro economic factors also need to be implemented.

It won't do that. Existing purchases will be grandfathered, and it will only eftect new stock

Also you just killed the developer market (who redevelop single lots into multiple units), which further restricts supply.

As an investor, here is what we want:

1) new builds, so we get the off the plan stamp duty saving
2) low maintenance

Above is why investors love apartments. Good tax breaks, easy to get tenants, low maitenance

3) property that you can redevelop to improve the capital value
4) property you can subdivide so you can sell one unit and rent out the rest

Buying a house in truganina is a pain in the arse. If something goes wrong it's expensive, and I have a cheap rental to pay for it


Your ban on investors will make you feel good, but it won't do s**t for housing affordability.
 
I bought my first home with a 280k deposit? My wife and I started saving in 2012 and bought in 2016.

Literally all my friends have had similar deposit amounts when they bought their first home.

1.1 - 1.4 is certainly within reach for first home buyers with low interest rates. Especially considering the AVERAGE Sydney home is over 1.2m

That's great but the average first home owner couple is not saving 70k per year.
 
That's great but the average first home owner couple is not saving 70k per year.

Then they are doing something wrong. We saved just over 50k a year between us for 5 years to get our deposit, if you average it out. We were 23 when we started saving. We obviously started out on less money after Graduating Uni but we steadily increased.

The Average Income in Australia is 88k. As a couple that's circa 180K.

Saving 50k of this is easily achievable. Yes you need need to make sacrifices along the way but really, its not that hard.
 
Last edited:
It won't do that. Existing purchases will be grandfathered, and it will only eftect new stock

Also you just killed the developer market (who redevelop single lots into multiple units), which further restricts supply.

As an investor, here is what we want:

1) new builds, so we get the off the plan stamp duty saving
2) low maintenance

Above is why investors love apartments. Good tax breaks, easy to get tenants, low maitenance

3) property that you can redevelop to improve the capital value
4) property you can subdivide so you can sell one unit and rent out the rest

Buying a house in truganina is a pain in the arse. If something goes wrong it's expensive, and I have a cheap rental to pay for it


Your ban on investors will make you feel good, but it won't do sh*t for housing affordability.

How does banning investors from buying free standing homes (NCC Class 1 Buildings) kill the developer market? If your saying that investors aren't even the people buying these houses? Very confusing.

I'm only talking about limiting investors from buying multiple Class 1 Buildings, AKA free Standing Homes.

I can kind of see now why your so opposed to my idea now......
 
How does banning investors from buying free standing homes (NCC Class 1 Buildings) kill the developer market? If your saying that investors aren't even the people buying these houses? Very confusing.

I'm only talking about limiting investors from buying multiple Class 1 Buildings, AKA free Standing Homes.

I can kind of see now why your so opposed to my idea now......

You get stamp duty savings on new builds, not existing. This is a big factor for most investors
 
Jun 19, 2011
17,840
30,088
MCG
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Say they remove the ability to buy more than 1 investment property and negative gearing as per some people's ideas on here, how much do you think a house you cant currently afford in say, Ivanhoe or Brunswick or wherever etc wil be available for in say 5 or 10 years time? more or less than now?
SQM researched ~10 percent drop in property values with ALP's grandfathering of negative gearing.
 
You get stamp duty savings on new builds, not existing. This is a big factor for most investors

That might be true, but there are still significant amount of investors buying existing dwellings both historically and continually, and using means like NG to get tax benefits, then leasing them out. This is where I see the issue specifically. Again not going to fix the whole problem but it will help stem the issue some what.

Thinking that investors are not competing for the same properties as first home buyers is just not correct. Especially in todays market.
 

Royal Flush

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 14, 2008
8,453
6,833
Brisbane
AFL Club
North Melbourne
That's hard to believe and a bit of pork barrelling.
It's kind of impossible really.
When 60% of australia's residential investment portfolio is neutral and or cash flow positive.

Do you kids deliberately oversight facts?
SQM researched ~10 percent drop in property values with ALP's grandfathering of negative gearing.

On Pixel 4a (5G) using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Jun 19, 2011
17,840
30,088
MCG
AFL Club
Hawthorn
That's hard to believe and a bit of pork barrelling.
It's kind of impossible really.
When 60% of australia's residential investment portfolio is neutral and or cash flow positive.

Do you kids deliberately oversight facts?

On Pixel 4a (5G) using BigFooty.com mobile app
You'll have to take it up with SQM. Although, this is kind of their bread and butter.
 

Frank Grimes

Premiership Player
May 8, 2007
4,984
9,910
between two bowling alley
AFL Club
Richmond
So what is the main factor for housing unaffordability then?

Negative gearing? No, in the previous election the Gratten Institute research said prices would only fall 2% with it's removal. (Probably should be removed because it's a waste of tax payer money than anything though).

Immigration? We just went through a Covid year where immigration was near non-existent and the house prices are still rising to ridiculous levels.

I personally think it's down to the banks lending criteria and low interest rates.

People can only pay for a house what they can afford, and what they can "afford" is based on what the banks can lend them.
A house can't be sold for a million dollars if nobody has a million dollars to spend.

The only thing that I've seen having an effect on house prices falling was when the banks got spooked by its royal commission a few years ago. The banks tightened their lending criteria and house prices actually started to fall. The government actually asked the banks to loosen their lending criteria. When the banks did, the house prices started to rise again.

Sure it may new it will require a bigger deposit (Just like The good old days in the 80's which those who can't afford house now brings up), but the declining house prices as a result will mean that the percentage of the deposit will be that bad.

For example, say a million dollar house increases from a 10% deposit to 20% (100k to 200k instead). However, due to falling house prices because of the tighter lending criteria, the million dollar house is now 800k instead. That would mean the deposit would be 160k and the buyer would have a much lower loan to pay off.
 
Last edited:
That might be true, but there are still significant amount of investors buying existing dwellings both historically and continually, and using means like NG to get tax benefits, then leasing them out. This is where I see the issue.

Okay, let's get one thing straight - you are still making a loss when you NG

Noone picks a property for the NG benefit. If they are not making a profit on the rental income, it's because they expect to make a capital gain when they sell - which means they plan to sell in the short term.

People are investing in property because of the capital gains. Rental is just about meeting most the debt repayments.

For an existing dwelling, this makes the margins even tougher, so you are even more reliant on achieving that capital gain.
 
Then they are doing something wrong. We saved just over 50k a year between us for 5 years to get our deposit, if you average it out. We were 23 when we started saving. We obviously started out on less money after Graduating Uni but we steadily increased.

The Average Income in Australia is 88k. As a couple that's circa 180K.

Saving 50k of this is easily achievable. Yes you need need to make sacrifices along the way but really, its not that hard.

Yes that is the average income but the MEDIAN average HOUSEHOLD income is only 95k - there is zero chance you are saving $280,000 of that over 5 years.
 
Okay, let's get one thing straight - you are still making a loss when you NG

Noone picks a property for the NG benefit. If they are not making a profit on the rental income, it's because they expect to make a capital gain when they sell - which means they plan to sell in the short term.

People are investing in property because of the capital gains. Rental is just about meeting most the debt repayments.

For an existing dwelling, this makes the margins even tougher, so you are even more reliant on achieving that capital gain.

of course you make a loss. No s**t you do.

But when properties are going year on year record growth it is worth taking the loss between repayments and rent when the property price is going up so drastically. You cover the loss on the basis that the property price continually goes up. which is forecasted to be 17% this year ALONE.

Investors can see huge % increases over 4-5 years spans of which they can make hundreds of thousands of dollars when they eventually sell, then use the equity to do it all over again.

This is why it is so unfair to compare a boomers work ethic against a Gen Y or Z. The boomer doesn't work harder, they just have the benefit of Equity on their side to be able to maximize their money.

1617759414578.png
 
Last edited:
Yes that is the average income but the MEDIAN average HOUSEHOLD income is only 95k - there is zero chance you are saving $280,000 of that over 5 years.

Ok, take the median house hold income and apply the same % of saving.

You should still be able to save 30-40k a year in which you would have a 250k Deposit in say 6 years.

it is doable.

People just don't want to sacrifice. a big reason why house hold income is so much less than the average individual income is because a lot of women choose to stay at home with their kids instead of going back to work and contributing salary. This is fine, but its also a choice they are willing to make.

if you aren't saving 50-60% of what you are making than you are living above your means.

Note that I obviously agree housing prices to income is beyond a joke, hence why i'm suggesting things need to be done to stem the housing price increases.
 
Back