All Topics / General Property / Why a House Price Crash is GOOD for your Wealth!
Before you groan, and say here’s another doom and gloom article from dmichie, the author does make some interesting points…
http://www.mortgagedown.com/mortgage-tips/Why-a-House-Price-Crash-is-GOOD-for-your-Wealth-20050523.htmlWhy a House Price Crash is GOOD for your Wealth!Peter Parsons
Hard as you may find it to believe, there are actually very good reasons why the current world-wide collapse in house prices is probably beneficial to your own personal financial health. First, let’s take a look at some history, so we are all singing from the same songbook. The current house price boom has been happening for some time now, and over the last 6 years or so, in most parts of the world the cost of houses has skyrocketed. Some countries, such as the UK, have seen a trebling in the asking prices of houses, leading to a situation where first time buyers have effectively been priced out of the market in almost all areas. The reasons for this are many and varied, and the subject of intense debate, although the smart money is on a general loosening of credit partly caused by the Japanese printing money. They did this to the tune of almost 1% of the global GDP in an attempt to try and escape from chronic deflation. The short term effect of this was to prop up the ailing US Dollar. The longer term effect was to massively increase the availability of cheap credit worldwide as the de facto ‘fiat’ global monetary system leveraged those Yen into enough cash to stop the entire world economy sliding into a post-millenium recession.
This economic growth, of course, comes at a price. The previous 5 or 6 years of boom have been financed by the compliant home-owning consumer happily re-mortgaging regularly, and using the cash so released from their rapidly appreciating homes to purchase goods and services that would otherwise have been regarded as expensive luxuries. At some point, that cash would need to be repaid, and the gamble was that the boom would continue long enough so that rising salaries and general inflation would reduce the cost of this borrowing to manageable levels.
The tipping point appears to have been reached towards the end of summer 2004, however, far sooner than hoped for by world governments basking in the reflected glow of easy prosperity. Analysts at http://www.mortgagedown.com point out that in most countries, the house price boom has run out of steam and has begun the downward swing towards normality, and the consumer spending boom that accompanied it has necessarily come to a dead stop too. Across the world, realtors and estate agents bemoan the fact that sales volumes have dropped by 60% or more, and that ‘something must be done’ or there will be ‘dire consequences’. For estate agents and a very small minority, true. But not for the majority!
What do I mean by this? Simple. For the majority of the population, a house price crash is either irrelevant, or just what the doctor ordered. Lets look at the various groups to see exactly why this is true.
The first group are the ‘first time buyers’. These are a relatively small group of people who do not currently own – they rent, or live with friends and family. This group also include people who DID own, but have sold up and exited the market, converting their paper gains into hard cash. As first time buyers are priced out of the market almost everywhere, and the ‘STR’ group are effectively priced out by their beliefs, they have everything to gain from a substantial house price fall. It will allow them to purchase property, where they currently can not.
The second group are the long term owners. These are people who regard a house as somewhere to live – not a leveraged investment opportunity. If they bought more than 10 years or so ago, they will be sitting on massive gains that not even a huge house price crash can erode. it is likely that most of them won’t even be interested – they will continue to live in their homes, and have no plans to move anytime soon. If they are planning to move, statistically they are moving UP, to a bigger, more expensive house. As the percentage falls affect all properties, a crash actually brings the ‘rungs’ of the housing ladder closer together, meaning that it becomes easier to trade up. If you don’t believe this, ask yourself a simple question – if the price of all property magically fell by 99.9% would you be happy? Of course – your own home may now only be worth a few bucks, but for 100 dollars you can now buy Neverland! Or Buckingham palace for a grand! So a house price crash will not affect this group.
The third group are the ‘professional landlords’ These ‘buy to let’ specialists make a living from purchasing property and renting it out to cover the mortgage. The difference between the mortgage costs and the rent is their profit. As an extra sweetener, if judged correctly, a pro landlord can sell a property and make a large capital gain, usually with good tax breaks. Anecdotal evidence collected by http://www.mortgagedown.com suggests a lot of selling activity from pro landlords around about 2002 to 2003, as they used good business sense to determine that property prices had climbed vertically to a point where only a crazy gambler would still hang on and ‘let it ride’. The ones that exited are already in cash, and so looking forward to a crash, as it provides an opportunity to pick up new property at ‘yields’ that will make them instant monthly profits AND the chance for rapid capital growth sometime over the next 10 years. The ones that didn’t exit are in the business for yield, and so the actual nominal price of their properties is of no real consequence to them (unless they are forced to sell up for health reasons etc). As you can plainly see, the pro landlord group WANT a crash – it’s a new buying opportunity, unlike the current situation where flat or even negative yields prohibit the prudent landlord from expanding their portfolios.
Who is left? Two more groups. The fourth group is the amateur landlord, the ‘BTL newbie’. Sniffing the scent of easy money, this crowd jumped onto the buy-to-let gravy train far too late in the boom, or thru inexperience or downright lack of aptitude for the game bought at ludicrous overvaluations, meaning their ‘investments’ had to be subsidized, and HAD to appreciate in value in order to justify the cost. Allegedly, the pro landlords sold to this group, often utilizing the service of ‘Become a Property Millionaire’ type seminar companies to suck in the gullible and get them to sign on the dotted line as well as contribute a few thousand for the privilege!. Anyone who bought a ‘spare’ property within the last 2 or 3 years falls into this group, and will be hurting badly by now. A crash will most likely wipe them out as they face decades of subsidizing tenants just for the chance to get their money back, plus all the hassle that goes with being a landlord (leaky roofs, service charges etc etc etc).
The fifth and last group are the recent first time buyers who panicked and bought within the last 2 or 3 years despite the obvious housing bubble that had already formed. Whether thru fear or greed, they jumped on board the housing train just before it derailed, and they will also get badly hurt in the crash.
This means, of course, that 3 out of 5 groups either don’t care about a crash, or actively want one. As they comprise over 80% of the population, it is therefore brutally apparent that the present ‘perfect storm’ house price crash currently building up is, in fact, in the interests of the majority of the population! Only a small number of recent buyers with no common sense, a small pack of greedy ‘wannabe landlords’ and those who released insane amounts of equity from their homes to buy plasma TVs and fancy holidays will actually get hurt. Me? I’ll be buying a house or 2 probably around 2006, when the yield indicates it’s no longer a silly purchase. Markets always find a way to punish the most inept, and the housing market is, after all is said and done, a market.
WHO CARES!!!
The Mortgage Adviser
http://www.themortgageadviser.com.au
[email protected]
Essential LinksI do.
WHO CARES!!!Someone does [biggrin]
I thought the article made a good point that rather than a house price crash being a disaster, most people in the community (even professional property investors) would benefit. I’m sure many here would see a crash as a great opportunity to pick up some cheap properties.
3 out of 5 groups either don’t care about a crash, or actively want one … they comprise over 80% of the populationI care..
Perhaps I am naiive, but I have always thought that a low cost of living was a good thing. I thought a low cost of living meant high wealth. Good for individuals and good for communites as a whole. I thought this was all fairly self evident.
So I was surpised to learn a few years ago, that not only there were people who thought rising house prices were a good thing, but that this was a very common, perhaps even a majority view. I learned that that the situation was often refrrred with terms such as “a heathly housing market”.
This has never made sense to me, because as far I could see, a high cost of housing benefitted very few people.
And the people for whom there is a benefit surely have friends, family, loved ones.. and children.. that clearly (to me anyway) are disadvantaged by this.
Housing, i.e. shelter, is an essential human need. I wonder if water, food or air became expensive, would people people also think that this is a good thing?
This article is another example of one-eyed propaganda. It is so off the rails that it I did not consider it worthy of a response until ‘baloo’s’ comment that he cared.
3 out of 5 groups either don’t care or actively want one. This comment skews this article so it borders on the ridiculous. Also, throwing insults at those that made mistakes or bought at the wrong time does not support his comments.
Where are the actual percentages of each group?
Out of the 80% of the population quoted and the writer’s admissions that first home buyers are a “relatively small group”, what percentage comprises group 3 (the professional landlords)?
All my information suggests that this is less than 5% of the population as this is the number of investors with more than one investment property. It follows that first home buyers, being a “relatively small group” to the other groups, would be less than this. I will allow 5% to show you why this article is rubbish and the MAJORITY would be adversely impacted by a crash…
Add group 1 and group 3 together and that gives you 10% (being VERY generous). If 3 out of 5 groups total 80% and group 2 don’t care either way, that means 70% of the populations does not care.
From this, that leaves 20% in group 4 and group 5 who are adversely affected by a crash. As 20% is twice as much as the generous 10% figure used above, I would suggest that the MAJORITY would be ‘adversely’ affected.
The media is very one-eyed and you need to look behind the writer’s comments to see the truth. This guy is very much like you dmichie. He is selfishly looking to buy bargain basement property at the expense of the ‘majority’ by writing such articles to scare people into further staying out of the market and keeping prices low so he can buy in 2006 and he suggested.
This is why I said “WHO CARES!!!” in my earlier post. I considered this article to be useless propaganda and still do.
The Mortgage Adviser
http://www.themortgageadviser.com.au
[email protected]
Essential Linksdiasgree… if a property crash were to occur the ramifications would be far greater than this simplistic analysis. negative equity, people walking away from mortgages, tightened lending policies, employment (as a result of falling expenditure) etc.
take the group that wants to trade up – I am sure you would be full of confidence trading up as prices came down?! And to try to pick the bottom is near on impossible, which is what makes this sort of short term approach to property the incorrect strategy. If you are so good that you could pick the bottom, you would also be able to pick the top and hence wouldn’t be in the market when the slide started to happen.
The author has evidently missed the boom and I certainly encourage them to stop watching from the side lines and get in there. willing the market to move in your favour is a fruitless effort though. (I tried it with shares – can promise it doesn’t work!)
http://www.megainvestments.com.auExtensive list of ‘Off The Plan’ property available for sale in Perth.
John – 0419 198 856
In addition to my last post, Mortgage Down is just an internet marketing site that derives income from website traffic click throughs. Try calling one of their ‘analysts’ or requesting some the ‘anecdotal’ evidence they suggest supports their information. This article has no weight, the company has no actual address, telephone number or offers no evidence of accurate statistical data. This is like posting an article from any old chat forum to support a view and trying to suggest it is accurate.
The Mortgage Adviser
http://www.themortgageadviser.com.au
[email protected]
Essential Linkshehe baloo [lmao]
dmichie, that’s a pretty good article, I think- sums up the different groups pretty well. I think a lot of people got in over their head in the last couple of years- 105% loans, LMI, deposit vouchers, multiple properties, henry kaye seminars worth 10’s of thousands of $, no money down, etc etc- I wonder how much negative equity exists on PI.com. This place has been so bullish, and anyone who has mentioned caution has been called a naysayer.
Thanks for the article, dmichie.
kay henry
my regret of late is that I didn’t buy more properties over the last couple of years.
I have just thought of a person that would benefit from a house price crash – DMICHIE ! oh and another – my mate that sold 2 years ago when someone told him prices would crash (he sold his house for $240k, now worth $360k, spent 2 years on rent and the equity he had on a new car: “cmon crash, cmon crash… I know it will crash…)
http://www.megainvestments.com.auExtensive list of ‘Off The Plan’ property available for sale in Perth.
John – 0419 198 856
Who is Peter Parsons? Dmichie, you seem overly respectful of any and all articles published (even on the net by an unknown) that support your negative outlook.
Even when they are as wish washy as this is.
The article starts by talking about the world wide trend in property – I presume in a poor attempt to make his further claims appear more legitimate. He then makes generalisations that blur the line about whether he is talking about Australia or the world in general, while being inaccurate about both.
Some countries, such as the UK, have seen a trebling in the asking prices of houses, leading to a situation where first time buyers have effectively been priced out of the market in almost all areas.Australia is one of the few countries in which we believe it is our right to own our own home. This is because white people only settled this country a couple hundred years ago, and they gave land to anyone and everyone (but the indigenous inhabitants). The average person in the UK (and many other countries) does not expect to ‘own’ their own home. In fact, more often than not, if you do ‘buy’ in London, you are not buying the land (which is all owned by the queen, lords or other titles) but a lease on the land, much like Canberra’s situation. The notion of property ownership is very different in England, where for thousands of years land was ‘owned’ only by a handful (think of where the title ‘landlord’ comes from).
Australia’s idea that each individual has a right to own their own home is rather unique. We might find it a concern that first time buyers are priced out of the market, but other countries do not share this concern to the same level we do.
And why is this? Because overseas the rental market is far better developed. It is not unusual to longterm lease a house – and some people may even live the majority of their life in the one rented house. Long term tenants treat the house as if it were their own, and may paint the walls etc as they see fit. They don’t have a huge mortgage living over their head, but they do have a roof over it.
The second group are the long term owners. These are people who regard a house as somewhere to live – not a leveraged investment opportunity.Except that many people who are planning for their retirement are banking on the value of their home. We know that superannuation is a joke, and noone wants to live off the pension – if it’ll still be around in future years – and people often downsize as they get older to use the extra money. If these people have spent years paying off their home mortgage, and then come to retiring to find that their house is only worth $100 – where have all those years of repayments gone? They have poured every spare cent into buying and maintaining their home to end up broke. They have may have a roof over their head, but no money to pay the rates or maintenance. They can downsize, but they won’t get a bulk payment to help see them through retirement. I don’t see how this group is better off.
The third group are the ‘professional landlords’ These ‘buy to let’ specialists make a living from purchasing property and renting it out to cover the mortgage.Finally – we get to that word ‘mortgage’. Can you really tell me how this group of people benefit when they owe the bank hundreds of thousands of dollars on a useless piece of property? If property is suddenly only worth $100, then how many people are going to continue renting for $300 per week? Of course they’ll opt to buy instead, which means pro landlords will have empty worthless properties and huge debt.
With no income they can’t make mortgage repayments, the bank claims the property – but can’t recoop mortgage as the property is worthless. This happens to property all round the country – which suddenly means the banks are billions of dollars out of pocket. Which means the whole economy crashes.
Yeah, I can see people benefiting out of this scenario.
The banks go down, that means so does everyone’s savings – including the “pro landowners” who cashed up by selling their property prior to the downturn.
Your employer also has no money, as we all use banks. If your employer can’t pay you, you are completely broke and can’t put food on the table.
Everyone is in the same situation… unless you live in a self sufficient agricultural area that at least has crops growing nearby.
So maybe we should all run out and buy agricultural?
The Mortgage Adviser wrote:
that means 70% of the populations does not careAgreed, the vast majority (existing home owners who bought >5 years ago) don’t care. This group might feel less wealthy, but they also have the opportunity to trade up a better property at a much lower cost.
So is this your percentage breakdown?
Group 1 (renters looking to buy) 5%
Group 2 (existing home owners) 70%
Group 3 (professional investors) 5%
Group 4 (recent purchasers) 10%
Group 5 (amateur investors) 10%So 80% either don’t care if there’s a crash or actually benefit. How then do you come to the conclusion that a MAJORITY adversely affected?
AUSPROP wrote:
if a property crash were to occur the ramifications would be far greater than this simplistic analysis. negative equity, people walking away from mortgages, tightened lending policies, employment (as a result of falling expenditure) etc.This is a valid point. The risk with a house price crash is that so much of the Australian economy revolves around real estate that there would be a recession … but that’s really a structural problem with the economy that has to be corrected one way or another.
Interesting to see the polarisation of the comments; a crash will either be 100% bad or 100% good. My own view (not Peter Parsons) is that it will be somewhere in between. Good for housing affordability but it will probably result in an economic downturn.
Luci, no idea who Peter Parsons is or what credibility he has (if any). I thought he made some interesting points that’s all, whether you agree with them or not. I always post links to articles as Robert knows.
Luci wrote:
If property is suddenly only worth $100, then how many people are going to continue renting for $300 per week? Of course they’ll opt to buy insteadObviously the market isn’t going to fall 99.9%, if it did, rents would probably fall 99.9% as well. So no-one is going to walk out of their rented house and buy three houses.
Sure some people will be left with negative equity, but those will be in groups 4 and 5 as discussed. The vast majority of home owners who bought 10, 20, 30 years ago will still have considerable equity in their homes, even if the market fell 30%
comes back to ying and yang – we need balance!
http://www.megainvestments.com.auExtensive list of ‘Off The Plan’ property available for sale in Perth.
John – 0419 198 856
I have just thought of a person that would benefit from a house price crash – DMICHIEGuilty as charged. It would be nice if a few people here admitted that they would benefit from contiunued growth in house prices.
As for your mate, you don’t sell to rent while prices are still rising. No-one can pick a top or bottom, you can only make a judgement many months down the track that there has been a top or a bottom. I reckon the top was sometime in the second half of 2003 and I don’t see any sign of a bottom.
Anyway, I sold for practical reasons of needing more space for a growing family. Once I started looking however I realised that vendors are asking 10-20% more than houses are actually selling for, so its a standoff ATM.
Dmichie, I am normally pretty negative on the market. But I found you are addicted to this. It make me feel sick of you. Why can not you use the negative to bring up some good points such as how to make money in a down market rather than just bring up the articule you saw – some maybe rubbish. We need use the reality to our benefit – people want to find a clue in the market. Some are very experienced some are not. We wish to listen to good experience and lessons. Of course not those seminar advertisers’ marketing points. I could not remember the Michael XX name. He said he made a lot more money each year from his property development than his 100 @ 3500 seminarl – which he would make at least $250 000 (as Mortage Adviser said). I browsed his website. I believe he was exaguating. I do not know whether he could make $250 000 from his property. This is a standard kind of person I wish them to go away from this website.
Why can not you use the negative to bring up some good points such as how to make money in a down marketActually I thought I’d put forward several reasons why a down market is a positive thing; improved housing affordability for first home owners, buying opportunities for investors, reduced cost of trading up for existing home owners … that was in fact the whole point of the article.
Amused,
I could say I have bought ten properties this week and am living off equity at the grand old age of 25… but any person can say anything on a forum. Sometimes people talk things up so that we will use their strategy. Just like people say they are the “best known wealth coach in Australia” or how they made “millions using a secret strategy”. Thing is, who knows? I always find it amazing how people talk themselves up and then one day you read their name in the bankrupt notices in the newspaper.
Just make decisions on what people say- not on how much money they say they have.
kay henry
dmichie, I wish you would actually read things before trying to make a point.
If 70% don’t care and 10% want the crash you dream of, that leaves 20% who don’t want it. Take away the 70% who would not be counted in those who care either way and that leaves a poll of 30% of the population. As 20% is more than 10%, that makes it a majority. I can’t make it any clearer to you and it does not matter anyway as the person who wrote the article is a nobody who writes great fiction stories.
By the way, you really seem to get excited by going over the same thing over and over again. What is the story?
The Mortgage Adviser
http://www.themortgageadviser.com.au
[email protected]
Essential LinksAs 20% is more than 10%, that makes it a majorityI don’t want to be too pedantic, but a majority is generally defined to mean a number more than half the total, and 20% is less than half.
Anyway, I would argue that the percentage of people who are renting (or living with family) because they can’t afford anything is much larger than you suggest … and is growing.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.