Property Bubble Alert | Louis Christopher

Treasurer Joe Hockey says Australia needs to make the super system more flexible, so flexible in fact that we should be able to spend a portion of our super in our youth as a deposit to buy a home.

Joe Hockey is now under fire for his proposal, whether from superannuation organisations, super architect Paul Keating, or other people perplexed by the idea that we should be spending some of our retirement savings now decades ahead of retirement.Louis-Christopher_avatar

Even Finance Minister Mathias Cormann isn’t keen, having said such a policy would push up house prices for first home buyers.

Yet Prime Minister Tony Abbott has cheered Hockey on, saying it’s a “perfectly good and respectable idea.”

But if you think about Hockey’s proposal in terms of what it would do for housing affordability, it doesn’t add up.

It is, indeed, a “thought bubble” that would promote a property bubble if ever adopted.

The problem is that tinkering with the property market in this way would only serve to artificially inflate demand for property and therefore push up house prices even higher than where they are now.

Such as policy would have a similar distortionary effect as the first home owner grant and exacerbate housing unaffordability.

The problem with the first home owner grant, when it was first brought in, and for subsequent boosts, is that house prices were almost instantly lifted beyond the value of the boosts.

While the grants were intended to improve affordability, they had the opposite effect.

The chart below highlights the impact of the grants on housing prices.

SQM1

Moreover, looking at Joe’s idea practically, the idea of using your super for a housing deposit wouldn’t work for most people in their 20s or even 30s. And certainly not for low income earners.

It would only work with those with enough super to raise a deposit.

With Sydney vendors now asking for over $1 million for a house, a 10% deposit on a Sydney home, if raised through super, would erode almost entirely the retirement savings of most people in that age group.

Is Hockey even familiar with house prices and average super balances?

We are of the belief that the less government intervention there is in the property market, the better.

Governments all round should be doing more to promote housing affordability, not unaffordability.nest egg superannuation super retirement

Reducing negative gearing, a highly distortionary policy, would have a far more beneficial effect on promoting housing affordability.

If negative gearing was repealed or altered, investors who are now gobbling up property would back off buying houses, which is what those who are demanding lower dwelling prices want to see.

We know Joe was at least looking at negative gearing last year and we strongly encourage him to reduce or eliminate negative gearing.

For starters, he would potentially  save over $5 billion a year on the budget!

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) first home buyers accounted for just 14.5% of total owner occupied housing finance commitments in December 2014.

The rest were investors.

That’s 85.5% of housing loans going to investors. It’s investors who are doing the heavy bidding at auctions, and with interest rates falling, that trend will continue through 2015.

So, if anything needs to be done, it is to eliminate existing distortions, and not introduce more.



Want more of this type of information?


Louis Christopher

About

Louis is recognised as one of Australia’s most respected and impartial research property analyst. He has extensive knowledge and experience of property and is regularly quoted in the media on his insights and is director of SQM Research.
Visit www.SQMResearch.com.au


'Property Bubble Alert | Louis Christopher' have 2 comments

  1. March 11, 2015 @ 12:46 pm Matt

    Regarding the last few paragraphs – if 14.5% of owner occupied housing finance commitments in Dec 2014 went to first home buyers, then the other 85% went to non-first home owner occupiers, not investors!!! Investors, by default, are not owner occupiers.

    Reply

  2. March 12, 2015 @ 1:15 pm Ivan

    Hi Louis,

    Good article, but I think you might have made a mistake saying 14.5% were 1st home buyers and the rest, 85.5% were investors in the Dec 2014 quarter. That would mean there were 0% upgraders.

    Reply


Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.
CAPTCHA Image

*

0
0

Michael's Daily Insights

Join Michael Yardney's inner circle of daily subscribers.

NOTE: this daily service is a different subscription to our weekly newsletter so...

REGISTER NOW

Subscribe!