The comment stream

Recent comments

Join the Interest community to be a registered commenter so you can:
- Edit your comments
- Avoid the CAPTCHA
- Vote on comments
Register Here

Already registered? log back in here ..

Forgotten your password? No problem! Click here

Finance sector jobs

Manager Operational Effectiveness and Assurance IT
Reporting to the Senior Manager Operational Risk Effectiveness and Assurance, the key focu...more
New Zealand
Financial Controller
Reporting to the Head of Finance - Retail and Business Bank the key focus of this role is ...more
New Zealand
Manager Finance Corporate Core - 12 Month Contract role
This role in consultation with the Financial Controller provides financial, strategic and ...more
New Zealand
IT Audit Manager - Internal Audit - Auckland
If you are motivated by the prospect of seeing the big picture, developing your team and m...more
New Zealand
efinancialcareers.com

Reader poll

Should you fix your mortgage now or stay floating?

Choices

Opinion: NZ vs Australian housing policy; the need to focus on structural issues

Posted in News

Hugh Pavletich By Hugh Pavletich It would appear the Australian economist Christopher Joye of Rismark International (An analysis of the Australian Property Market - L P Shadow - Business Spectator) and the promoter of the failed housing shared equity schemes, has been much distracted this year, in his futile attempts to discredit the Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Surveys (www.demographia.com). Housing prices in Australia are a very touchy subject "“ particularly for those with a vested interest in ensuring the current housing bubbles are propped up "“ irrespective of the cost to taxpayers and the wider community. While housing shared equity schemes are a dumb idea in the first place "“ and are only saleable to gullible politicians when housing markets are grossly overcooked "“ they become a complete disaster as housing bubbles deflate "“ as they inevitably do. Indeed - Mr Joye states he assisted the last New Zealand Government in getting this in place (I am only aware of this from Mr Joye), which thankfully, the current Government is throwing out. Following the fanfare last year of the announcement of it and widespread scorn by commentators (including the writer of course) and the wider public "“ just seven people applied. There was much laughter in the New Zealand Parliament when the announcement was made recently by Hon Phil Heatley, Minister of Housing. The remnants of the last Government were conspicuous by their silence and obvious embarrassment. Another flop. One of many currently heading for the trash can.

In owning their houses "“ Kiwis at least  - were in no hurry whatsoever to jump in bed with the Government (it was a very hard sell for Ms Clark and her Housing Minister Ms Street). The "fishhooks" were obvious to the New Zealand public, but not the enthusiastic Mr Joye it would appear. These "housing shared equity schemes" had been thoroughly discredited internationally well prior to this. The funny thing was that Mr Joye on the Rismark website tells us that he "invented" them. To those of us in the property industry "“ we had always thought they had been around since the time of Adam and Eve, when they "helped" their kids in to houses. Recently Mr Joye had a swipe at the Demographia Survey, by plucking a table from a recent OECD Report. This table suggested that Australian housing was not particularly overcooked, based on the average affordability of housing over the past thirty something years for a numbers of countries. Housing has been overcooked in many urban markets for a long time "“ so the OECD Report and Mr Joye told us exactly nothing on this issue. And other issues too it would appear. Roger Kerr of the New Zealand Business Roundtable was extremely harsh in his criticism of many aspects of this report. But if there is one thing Mr Joye has in abundance "“ it is persistence. The Australian Business Spectator with its obvious and commendable policy of extreme tolerance in these matters, has allowed Mr Joye to bring on board his anonymous pal aptly named L P Shadow, to enlighten us all why Australian housing is ready to boom again and we should all feel a lot happier about life in general. In wading my way through this torturous Joye and his Shadows "sun rises in the west" litany of economic logic (?) "“ I had imagined that the Demographia Survey was to be spared this time. But alas - the long winded entry concluded with just another nitpicking exercise of the Demographia Survey. The Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey is not "perfect" of course "“ as I made clear to New Zealanders within a New Zealand Herald article I wrote soon after the release of the 5th Annual Survey January this year. Mr Joye needs to read the end notes. He obviously hasn't. But the Median Multiple (median house price divided by gross annual median household income) is "adequate". It happens to be recommended by the United Nations and World Bank and is employed by Harvard University with its Median Multiple Tables. Some of us consider these to be reputable organizations. The author of the Preface of last year's Demographia Survey was Dr Donald Brash, former Governor of the New Zealand Reserve Bank and of the National Party. This year - Shlomo Angel, Adjunct Professor Princeton and New York Universities, co architect of the World Bank and UN Urban Indicators Programmes and author of the book Housing Policy Matters. The Annual Demographia Surveys have widespread political support, and too, the support of the New Zealand Planning Institute. Readers are encouraged to refer to my website for further information with respect to these and other matters pertaining to housing and local government. For those of us who have been around the property industry for a while (and are aware of most of the tricks) "“ what we particularly like about the "median multiple" methodology, is that it is a "clean measure". "Clean" is not a word that creates a great deal of joy in the hearts of those in the property industry keen to sell things "“ irrespective of the costs. Indeed "“ it was the desperate need for a "clean measure" that motivated me to chose the Median Multiple back in late 2004 and thankfully gain the support of my colleague Wendell Cox of Demographia, Illinois, USA in getting these Annual Demographia Surveys underway. Many in the property industry were furious (a wonderful complement as I saw it). The last thing they wanted to see happen, was evidence clearly set out, illustrating how grossly overpriced housing is in Australia and New Zealand. Those old "mixed measure" Housing Affordability Indexes "“ with house prices to income and mortgage costs mixed and manipulated to suit market conditions, where all the long suffering public was fed "“ by a gullible media. The media "“ like the rest of us "“ never understood them. That was the idea of course. Victorian State economist Alun Breward on ABC Okhams Radio back in 2004 tore these apart. They should have been thrown in to the trash heap of history long ago. The hugely important median multiple measure is an excellent foundation for us to employ in dealing with the structural issues, in restoring housing affordability in Australia and New Zealand over a reasonable and realistic time frame. The New Zealand Government recognizes this (refer my website) "“ and is committed to dealing with these real structural issues. It is sad to see Australian Prime Minister Rudd still "up the creek" on housing issues "“ as he is pandering to his property industry pals in their vain and clearly ill advised endeavours (the unnecessary and hugely expensive First Home Owners Grant being just one example) to protect their political and commercial skins. Mr Rudd would be well advised to re read his Victory Speech at the last election (he intended to govern in the wider public interest - on that day at least) and the Sydney Morning Herald Fitch Rating Research soon after. Voters in Australia then came over to Labour in the expectation that the new Government would ensure housing became more affordable "“ and their mortgage loads would be lowered substantially. Australians it would appear, had tired of being "mortgage slaves" to the Howard Government (and the housing bubble denier Costello). The magic number is "3". To rate as affordable, housing should not exceed three times gross annual household earnings. And further to this "“ purchasers should not load themselves up with any more than 2.5 annual income of mortgage debt. Not the exorbitant 4 to 5 times annual income New Zealanders and 5 to 7 times annual incomes Australian new home buyers are conned in to mortgage loading themselves. To illustrate "“ through the recent era of "easy money" - Texas  housing stayed at around 2.5 times household earnings, while the strangled basket case of California blew itself out to in excess of 9 times annual household earnings with mortgages through to a stratospheric 11 times "“ triggering the global financial crisis. Last year I studied housing in the United States, with a good deal of the time spent in Houston. This year's Demographia Survey found Houston, with a population of 5.8 million and population growth in excess of 2% per year, had a Median Multiple of 2.9 (it is currently about 2.5) where the median household income was $US55,600 and median house price was $US160,200. New fringe starter homes of 235 square metres on 700 square metre lots are being put in place all up for $US140,000 ($US30,000 lot, $110,000 house construction). These comprise double garage, 4 bedrooms, master with ensuite, separate dining and ducted air conditioning. Manufactured housing of 160 square metres on 700 square metre lots for $US73,000 ($US20,000 for the lot, $US53,000 for the manufactured home). No wonder there were so many young families on the cruise ships heading for the Caribbean out of Galveston. Young Houstonians prefer to spend their incomes this way "“ rather than doing what their Australian and New Zealand counterparts are forced to do "“ making charitable donations to Banks. Some of us don't think these housing bubbles are a clever idea and are rather keen to explore ways to deal with them "“ something Mr Joye and his Shadow are clearly not keen to do. My suggestions are set out within the March 2008 paper "Getting performance urban planning in place". It would make a pleasant change to start seeing "performance" in the areas of housing and local government. But if there is one thing these housing bubbles and their consequences have taught us "“ is that in putting this as diplomatically as possible "“ there are "knowledge gaps" (or is it chasms?) in the fields of economics, planning and property appraisal / valuation. I cover these issues within an article "Housing Bubbles and Market Sense". Indeed - the economics profession should shoulder a good share of the blame for these housing bubbles. A little humility, at least, would be appreciated. Before these professionals can be of any use in assisting their communities to get solutions in place, so that housing affordability is restored "“ they will need to better understand property markets and structural urban economics. We gain knowledge by reading and wisdom by observing. Go check out Houston and other affordable North American urban markets Mr Joye (and stay away from Washington DC "“ it will only confuse you more). Then tell us what you have observed and learnt about properly performing housing markets. Meantime "“ since we are past the "nitpicking" stage here in New Zealand "“ we will focus on getting solutions in place. Then our pals the Australians can copy us, again, in due course, as happened with the Reserve Bank and Resource Management Acts "“ to name just two of many policy innovations. "”"”"”"”"”"“ Hugh Pavletich, FDIA Performance Urban Planning Christchurch, New Zealand

Related Topics

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment in the box on the right or click on the "'Register" link at the bottom of the comments. Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making these comments.

It seems that despite the

It seems that despite the best efforts of the Australian Central Bank and the Rudd government that the Australian housing market, like just about every other housing market, is falling over. Data out today has 'record falls' written all over it:

----An index measuring the weighted average of prices for established houses in the eight capital cities slumped 6.7 percent from a year earlier, after dropping a revised 3.9 percent in the fourth quarter, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said in Sydney today. The drop was the biggest decline since the series began in 1986 -----

'Biggest decline since series began' - there is an expression to toy with.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a13pp.d4Gsro&refer=home

so Andy Hamilton, should the

so Andy Hamilton, should the so called "optimist" still call us pessimist or call us "realist"??

Hugh : one must remember

Hugh : one must remember that politicians focus on populist issues, not logical ones. Hence the last Labour Gumnut here was trumpeting shared equity schemes, and compulsory enforcement of property developers to provide "affordable housing" in their future developments. This is a daft as giving bicycles to gold-fish, of course, but politicians grasp for votes, not the truth. Our property market was, and still is, grossly over-priced. Time will allow the equilibrium to be found once again, as it always does. Gumnuts cannot understand that, as they have memories of only 3 years. Better than a gold-fish on that count, but not as skilled on a bicycle, and with much less charisma, too.

Hugh - could you please

Hugh - could you please explain why you think shared equity schemes are a bad idea.
I can understand why they may not have been a particularly good idea 18 months ago just before house prices dropped away, however if prices don't drop much further then surely people don't stand to lose much equity in such a scheme from hereon in.
Even if prices drop another 5% then so long as someone in the scheme stays in for a reasonable period, even assuming 3% growth in prices per year then they will be on the right side of the ledger?
I would appreciate your learned explanation and perhaps you can provide references for your claims that such schemes have been discredited overseas.
Surely its better for governments to throw money at such schemes than more and more state housing?
The NZ housing foundation, a charitable trust, seems to be doing good things with shared equity out in west auckland

You could probably buy a

You could probably buy a $30,000 section in Winton or some other obscure place. Don't know what else you would do. Oh you could put a $100000 house on it provided that it never blew, never rained and never had an earthquake the temperature was a nice 20 degrees and the Govt. subsidised you and the local council didn't supply you with any services.
The arguments over cheap housing are childish. The problem in NZ is that we don't earn enough money and them we have too much of what we do earn taken from us.

Hugh - In this article

Hugh -
In this article last year Phil Heatley gave the Labour govt an "F" grade on housing affordability:

http://heatley.co.nz/index.php?/archives/13-Labour-scores-F-for-housing-...

What would you grade Heatley and his crew so far? Maybe a C+?
At least they are dealing to the RMA

But we haven't heard much recently from Heatley about freeing up residential land supply...why has he gone so quiet...is it the calm before the storm???

Robert, you're missing the point.

Robert, you're missing the point.

The only supply side shortage of land is through Government and Local Body land planning. There is plenty of land all around Auckland that could easily be developed into $30,000 lots at a profit for the developer if resource consent wasn't such an issue.

Also, your description of $100,000 windy, leaky buildings describes almost all of the housing in Ponsonby - why do people value it at $650,000.

Sure you don't have enough money to purchase a house and even if your salary doubled would you want to pay 7* the salary value just on a property. There must be more to your future life than paying of debt.

Something is bugging me. In

Something is bugging me. In previous posts we have noted that stats show residential housing stock in the hands of investors climbing through 52%, add to this the residences of the investors and we must be looking at 60%. Someone recently commented that only 35% of residential property in NZ had leins/mortgages against them. Can anyone show me the evidence for this?
It seems a little hard to believe, but if it is, it would support a line of inquiry I went down a while ago. I requested from the then Labour Government under the OIA just how much of our residential housing stock was owned by listed property trusts. The answer received was that such stats were not kept thus could not be given.
I would put it to you that if the 35% figure is correct that quite a whack of our residential housing stock has already been brought up by listed property funds/trusts who have paid in full up front for the mortgage and structure their debt within the corporate entity.
This is made possible by the rediculously weak criteria set by the Overseas Investment Office surrounding the buying of residential property or any NZ land for that matter;
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/listed-property-returns-attractive-how-long...

I will respond to comments

I will respond to comments Thursday. Keep em rolling..........

In the US, trailer parks

In the US, trailer parks have had 50 years of successful operation. Has this concept ever been trialled here, in NZ ? Manufactured homes cost only 30-40 % of permanent residential dwellings. Park owners can charge a modest monthly rental, as each manufactured home takes up so little space. Many have developed into tightly knit little communities. And isn't that a sweet bonus to have, to boot.

Matt - you asked for

Matt - you asked for my "learned opinion" regarding these shared equity schemes - but the best I can provide you with is an "opinion"! (we developers are by nature humble - which is a lot more than can be said for Australian economists, who shall remain nameless!").

My major concern regarding them - is that they are a costly and unnecessary distraction from the REAL structural issues that need to be dealt with. There are always hucksters out there keen to throw ideas to politicans why its a good idea to throw money at problems, instead of actually solving them.

The protectionists in the property / real estate / construction sectors love this sort of stuff - because it essentially goes straight in to their poclets of course. Welfare schemes for the politically well connected essentially.

Indeed a massive part of the housing problems globally are "exacabated" by the "government schemes" to promote home ownership - such as Fannie and Freddie and the FHA - which have deliberately degraded financing of homeownership in the United States.

Shared equity is simply another silly idea.

The Australians have their idiotic First Home Owner Grants as well.

As I recall - back in the late 89's early 90's house purchasers who entered in to these shared equity arrangements in the UK got badly mauled by them as house prices slumped at the time. As did those providing the financing of these shared equity schemes.

These schemes can vary massively in how they are structured - and - particularly in the case of a private sector shared equity financieing - you can be assurred that the financing requirements would be well and truly bolted down - so that the house purchaser is wearing all or most of the risk. It is extremely unlikely - even in the best of circunstances that the purchaser would be able to share in any of the capital gain on the property.

If a government financed scheme - the terms would likely be considerably less onerous - for the simple reason, its not the politicians money - so who cares.

Far better as I see it - that the structural issues are focused on.............

Hugh Pavletich

Hugh - I thought my

Hugh - I thought my queries were worthy of debate and put in an amicable manner, you dont have any info that can assist or am I the elephant in the room?

Iain Parker - my apologies

Iain Parker - my apologies for not responding. An oversight on my part.

Just off the top of my head - the residential stock is about 1.6 million units - of that about 150,000 units second / other stock - leaving about 1.45 million usually occupied - and of that about 63% (913,500 approx) owner occupied - the balance 37% (536,500 approx) rental stock.

Housing Corporation has I think around 66,000 units of this rental stock - the bulk of the balance would be owned by mom and pop investors. I dont believe overseas owners have a significant portion of the rental stock. Most I assume would be more interested in commercial, because of its often better and more secure income flows and ease of management.

Hugh - If one simply

Hugh - If one simply Googles - home ownership survey - one comes up with a lot of very contradicting statistics by groups of many vested interests, for example;

Home ownership among New Zealanders aged 25 to 39 had dropped from 42 per cent to 32 per cent. the percentage of homeowners increased in line with annual income figures, but the largest income group home-ownership drop was in the $50,000-$60,000 income bracket - from 72 per cent to 55 per cent.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10393779

http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dpmc/publications/hpr-report/hpr-10.html

It would be very interesting to get updated figures 3 yrs on from last census with events that have unfolded since, figures on how many residential dwellings property trusts own, how many owned by foreign absentee landlords etc. None of these are currently kept because the criteria in regard to sizes and values of housing and land sales that would attract investigation of such things are a joke.

Hugh - thats not to

Hugh - thats not to mention that despite the banks having been tapped into the taxpayers vein they have the lending tap wound back on business and housing by lifting lending criteria, areas that will see assets hit the market cheaply due to foreclosures, assets that will be snapped up by majority stakeholder banker subsidiaries. While at the same time they are still lending liberal amounts of created credit to consumers via hire purchase, credit card, interest free enticements etc at usurious interest rates. A trend that will no doubt lead to desperate people turning to more readily available dearer consumer credit to get by, until they cant of course, then their assets will go the same way and they will be far more vulnerable to selling their labour more cheaply, making Roger Kerr and the Business Roundtable very happy.