from the financial review, an analysis of the results of the SIV program in Canada, and what it will most likely be in Australia. In short : poor results, no benefits to the country, people living in Australia losing
(a bit long but interesting read)
Quote:
Angus Grigg Shanghai
In Vancouver, Canada, they have become known as “zombie suburbs” – inner city areas dominated by new apartment developments, which despite their wealth and population density have failed to thrive. They are not dead, but like the zombie, only half-living.
Canadian urban planner Andy Yan coined the phrase to try to explain the effect a large inflow of offshore money, mainly from China, was having on parts of Vancouver.
He studied the Coal Harbour area and found that 25 per cent of the apartments were unoccupied for much of the year.
“These places have the density of Manhattan, yet the retail shops and restaurants on the ground floor are struggling,” he told AFR Weekend.
Anecdotes such as this and the accompanying surge in property prices were part of the reason Canada scrapped its so-called “millionaire visa scheme” in February.
Just a few weeks later Canberra took the opposite approach and sought to speed up approvals for a similar scheme in Australia known as the Significant Investor Visa.
Figures released by the federal government on Tuesday showed that 343 visas have now been approved under the program and another 602 people are in the queue. If all these are approved, that will generate $4.7 billion in funds flowing into Australia, as each visa holder is required to invest $5 million into an approved investment scheme for four years, in return for permanent residency.
It’s an impressive number for capital-starved Australia and is likely to grow substantially, yet the Canadian experience should motivate politicians and urban planners to look behind the headline figures.
Canada, which began its experiment with economic migration in 1986, has a mixed story to tell.
From Yan’s point of view, constant evaluation of the program is critical. He said one consideration in stopping the Canadian scheme was that it had never been properly studied. “We never evaluated if economic migration made sense,” says Yan, who works for Bing Thorn Architects and sits on Vancouver’s City Planning Board.
That left many grasping at anecdotes to try to explain what was happening in Vancouver and if it was a positive or negative for the city.
Yan’s research suggests the economic migration program increased the city’s rental stock, along with allowing for better urban design and amenities like daycare centres and parks.
But it has also played a part in making Vancouver second only to Hong Kong on the list of the world’s least affordable cities to buy a house, according to Demographia, with Sydney fourth and Melbourne sixth.
In attaining this unwanted accolade, house prices in Vancouver have become completely disconnected from wages. Direct link with China
Robin Wiebe, a senior economist at the highly respected Conference Board of Canada, laid out the numbers and found a direct link with China.
“Despite a decent local economy and favourable demographics, Vancouver’s housing market was relatively sluggish during the 1990s,” he wrote in a research paper.
He said real estate prices grew at an annual rate of just 3 per cent over the decade to 2000. In the following decade, according to Weibe, prices doubled, including an annual rise of 20 per cent in 2006 alone.
“Casual observations and statistical tests both hint that China’s influence rivals that of three key domestic factors: Vancouver’s population growth, changes in employment and Canadian mortgage interest rates.”
In his research Weibe finds a link between China’s GDP growth and price rises in Vancouver, but others like Yan also see other factors at work.
Yan talks about the rise of Vancouver and more recently Sydney and Melbourne as “hedge cities”. That is, cities where wealthy Chinese and other nationalities buy property as an insurance policy against things going wrong at home.
Yan speculates this is one reason why “house prices in Vancouver have completely decoupled from wages”.
And there are now signs of this in Australia, where much of the Chinese buying has been concentrated around inner city suburbs close to universities.
Data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Wednesday showed wage growth at a record low of 2.6 per cent for the year to June 30.
Yet on the same day the ABS said house prices had risen 10 per cent across Australia, led by a 15.6 per cent rise in Sydney and 9.3 per cent in Melbourne.
No one is suggesting this decoupling of house price and wages in Australia is entirely driven by Chinese buying and certainly not due to the Significant Investor Visa Scheme, which is still in its early stages.
But even Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens, a man not known for sensational statements, has said the effect can’t be entirely discounted.
He said cashed up Asian buyers, mainly students, were “quite prominent” in inner city areas and had an effect on “asset prices and the exchange rate”.
Stevens said he had reached this conclusion partly by noticing ads for Australia property while passing through Singapore.
This suggests even the country’s most sober economist is relying somewhat on anecdotes rather than analysis, which is exactly what the Canadians have warned against.
One of the first points made in a report released earlier this month by stockbroking firm CSLA was the lack of “hard data” on Chinese investment in the Australian housing market.
Everyone is still coming up with their best guess.
One of the more credible is Credit Suisse, which estimates Chinese buyers are currently purchasing 12 per cent of all new homes in Australia, after overtaking the United States as the number one investors in local real estate.
This lack of hard data is a constant in the Canadian experience, but one person who has studied the field more than anyone is David Ley, a professor at the University of British Colombia, who holds the country’s research chair in geography.
His blunt message for Australia is: Don’t expect much beyond the upfront payment from the Significant Investor Visa.
“The wider economic benefits for Canada have been much smaller than expected,” he said. “There has not been a serious effort to develop economic projects.”
This is backed by a startling number that shows those who have entered Canada via its investor visa program pay less tax than any other immigrant group, including refugees.
The issue is that this new wave of economic migrants is vastly different from those who came before them. Seeking a passport and its protection
They are seeking a passport and the protection this provides, rather than a new place to live.
The experience in Canada is that those on the investor visa keep their economic interests in China and use cities like Vancouver and Toronto as a second home.
“It [the investor visa] was good for luxury car dealers, the real estate industry and those selling household items,” says Ley who authored the book Millionaire Migrants.
“But the broader benefits were much smaller than expected.”
Australia is likely to face many of these issues, as the Significant Investors Visa requires immigrants to only spend 40 days each year in the country.
“That sounds like a summer holiday to me,” Ley says.
It should be noted, however, that the upfront payment in Australia is far larger than what Canada demanded.
Under its program applicants were asked to provide the Canadian government with an interest free loan of $C800,000 ($787,000) over five years and have minimum assets of $C1.6 million.
In scrapping the scheme the government said; “We believe those who want to come to Canada should live here, pay taxes here and invest their money directly in the Canadian economy”.
“It has significantly undervalued Canadian permanent residency,” a government spokesperson said.
Such a conclusion will not be available to Australia for some years.
According to CLSA the economic benefits from surging Chinese interest in Australia is likely to be relatively narrow.
It identifies property groups such as Mirvac, Lend Lease and Goodman as the biggest winners, along with construction materials company Fletcher Building.
This comes back to the motivation behind the decision to seek Australian permanent residency.
According to CSLA more than 65 per cent of migrants cited their children’s education as the main factor, followed by Australia’s clean environment.
Just over 10 per cent of respondents cited “business investment” as a factor.
Put simply, we can expect to mirror the Canadian experience with a construction boom that, according to CSLA, will run for the next six years.
But the bigger question is whether will also see the rise of “zombie suburbs” and runaway house prices without benefits for the broader economy.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy