Actually Mike, I said that FHB's were favouring new build over established due to recent policy changes. I didn't say more FHB's bought new than established. The article that this thread is based upon, states the following.
"The number of applications for first home owner grants to build new homes jumped from 673 in May to more than 1050 last month." and "Mr Gelavis attributed some of the heightened interest to changes to the grants scheme last September."
You tell so many lies you don't remember what you post. Lucky me memory is very sharp as I do not forget.
Quote:
Jimbo11 Aug 2014, 05:50 PM Just talking Perth here, but my definition of a bubble is when price increases are driven more by speculative demand than the demand for the utility offered by the product.
Cash input into property comes from FHB's and investors with some coming from people trading up and increasing their mortgages.
In Perth, FHB's are pretty much ignoring established property in favour of much cheaper new builds with all the incentives that new builds give to FHB's. They get smaller blocks in general, but your average FHB doesn't care about having 500m2 of cooch to mow every Sunday. They get the same utility for much less money.
So the bubble in Perth is in established property. It has been bid up by speculators looking for growth and rent and the FHB's have been driven out to new developments. We have plenty of land here (unlike Sydney and Melbourne).
So yes, Perth is a bubble (as is Newman and Karratha).
Here you state FHB are ignoring established properties in favour of building new homes.
Quote:
Jimbo12 Aug 2014, 06:41 AM
This has forced FHO's to look to house and land packages for their first buy and the developers have responded by selling smaller blocks to improve affordability and tempt buyers away from the rental market. "Cheaper than renting" is the new slogan being used by Perth developers. There is also a shift towards buying city apartments amongst young couples.
So now you have vacancy rates increasing, rents dropping and FHB's largely ignoring established property in favour of new build.
This is coming at the same time as many of the investor buyers are facing increased job insecurity and possible cuts in pay.
You state the same thing the next day. You must have such good data from your own sources to be completely wrong.
Quote:
Jimbo12 Aug 2014, 01:57 PM That is because that was then. I never said that historically, FHB's were buying new build over established. It is what is happening now.
Recent stamp duty changes mean FHB's pay stamp duty on established property over 430k. This kicked in July 1st this year.
It was a policy intentionally designed to favour the new build market to stimulate building activity and soften the impact of the end of the mining infrastructure boom.
And a 3rd time, even trying to tell us all about a policy we all discussed long prior to you being on these forums.
If you bothered to read the data, May had 1050 applications but only 692 were approved. In May there was no increased incentive for new builds it did not start till July. Now in July we had 772 applications for new builds and 707 were approved. Explain to us all how applications falling from 1050 in May with no incentive for building to 772 in July with the incentive, yet you claim this incentive and I quote
Quote:
FHB's are pretty much ignoring established property in favour of much cheaper new builds with all the incentives that new builds give to FHB's
. See what happens when you tell so many lies you cant keep track of them.
First it was Negative Equity Loans. Then a $1.2 million dollar house that did not exist at the price on multiple dates you provided. Now its FHB construction above established buyers.
This is what happens when you really don't know what you are talking about or invent stories and false claims that do not match reality or data.
Seems my network of friends, professionals actually know what they are talking about and relay accurate information. While you, well I think we can all see what you are doing.
Perhaps you should keep track of what you post. I don't forget.
Jimbo
26 Aug 2014, 09:42 AM
Also Mike, why are you quoting December 2013 figures to claim that population in WA is increasing at 3% pa now?
Applications for the 457 class visas to WA are down 41% this year. The 457 is the easiest and quickest way for a migrant to get to Australia and is a good real time indicator of migration patterns and employer demand. It is also the largest visa subclass that allows the applicant to take up full time permanent work. Therefore, it is likely that other visa subclass and interstate migration will also be down.
Meanwhile, you are using 9 months old ABS data which I find strange considering you have a network of people pulling in information for you?
Perth is building 30% more new homes than it was a couple of years ago. Tradies are rushed off their feet. Many of those new homes are being built for people who currently live in rentals and there are not enough new people arriving to fill the vacuum they are leaving when they quit their rental and move into their new homes.
My own data shows that southern suburbs rental vacancy rates are up by 15.2% since July 12th.
Well, France is sliding back into recession to start with.
You could argue that the UK is doing OK but I would argue that it is totally stuffed, in a corner and with no way out.
Why are you talking about 457 Visas? They are not part of Australia's permanent residents or citizens.
457 Visas are a temporary working Visa and once the contract is completed those people return home. They can apply for permanent residency but the conditions are very strict.
Last year WA had over 70,000 increase in population. The December 2012 figure was the highest on record at 83,000 new people. The figure for December 2013 is the second highest full year growth on record for WA.
So what you are really saying is WA populations is growing well above average but slowing from the highest population growth ever recorded in pure numbers of arrivals. That sounds accurate.
So you expect to see housing demand fall with our population growth still booming. Granted it is slowing and it needed too, WA needs time to build the infrastructure to catch up with the huge influx in population.
You tell so many lies you don't remember what you post. Lucky me memory is very sharp as I do not forget.
Here you state FHB are ignoring established properties in favour of building new homes.
You state the same thing the next day. You must have such good data from your own sources to be completely wrong.
And a 3rd time, even trying to tell us all about a policy we all discussed long prior to you being on these forums.
If you bothered to read the data, May had 1050 applications but only 692 were approved. In May there was no increased incentive for new builds it did not start till July. Now in July we had 772 applications for new builds and 707 were approved. Explain to us all how applications falling from 1050 in May with no incentive for building to 772 in July with the incentive, yet you claim this incentive and I quote . See what happens when you tell so many lies you cant keep track of them.
First it was Negative Equity Loans. Then a $1.2 million dollar house that did not exist at the price on multiple dates you provided. Now its FHB construction above established buyers.
This is what happens when you really don't know what you are talking about or invent stories and false claims that do not match reality or data.
Seems my network of friends, professionals actually know what they are talking about and relay accurate information. While you, well I think we can all see what you are doing.
Perhaps you should keep track of what you post. I don't forget.
Why are you talking about 457 Visas? They are not part of Australia's permanent residents or citizens.
457 Visas are a temporary working Visa and once the contract is completed those people return home. They can apply for permanent residency but the conditions are very strict.
Last year WA had over 70,000 increase in population. The December 2012 figure was the highest on record at 83,000 new people. The figure for December 2013 is the second highest full year growth on record for WA.
So what you are really saying is WA populations is growing well above average but slowing from the highest population growth ever recorded in pure numbers of arrivals. That sounds accurate.
So you expect to see housing demand fall with our population growth still booming. Granted it is slowing and it needed too, WA needs time to build the infrastructure to catch up with the huge influx in population.
Mike,
I'm not sure what the argument is here.
The fact is that FTBs are favouring new builds over established as the reorientation of the grants and stamp duty regime intended them to do.
As for the immigration data, its out of date. Look at the rental vacancy rate. Key bell weather. The 457 data. Plenty of anecdotal data. Talk to the taxi men. People are leaving this State.
Property acquisition as a topic was almost a national obsession. You couldn't even call it speculation as the buyers all presumed the price of property could only go up. That’s why we use the word obsession. Ordinary people were buying properties for their young children who had not even left school assuming they would not be able to afford property of their own when they left college- Klaus Regling on Ireland. Sound familiar?
The evidence of nearly 40 cycles in house prices for 17 OECD economies since 1970 shows that real house prices typically give up about 70 per cent of their rise in the subsequent fall, and that these falls occur slowly. Morgan Kelly:On the Likely Extent of Falls in Irish House Prices, 2007
West Australians face higher taxes and deep cuts in services after the State's credit rating was downgraded and the Barnett Government criticised for its "weak policy response" to its growing debt problem.
In a stinging appraisal of the State Government and its management of the Budget, Moody's cut its WA rating to Aa1 and warned it could be cut further if there was no strength-ening in the "Government's resolve".
The fact is that FTBs are favouring new builds over established as the reorientation of the grants and stamp duty regime intended them to do.
As for the immigration data, its out of date. Look at the rental vacancy rate. Key bell weather. The 457 data. Plenty of anecdotal data. Talk to the taxi men. People are leaving this State.
So are you saying that people are leaving the state or are you claiming they will hit the unemployment queues?
You cannot have it both ways.
What I see happening is lots of East Coasters and Irish are headed home while there are plenty of new more permanent jobs in the new mines and in residential construction and infrastructure spending.
That is why unemployment is so low and job creation is nice and steady with some skills shortages reappearing in the market already.
Definition of a doom and gloomer from 1993 The last camp is made up of the doom-and-gloomers. Their slogan is "it's the end of the world as we know it". Right now they are convinced that debt is the evil responsible for all our economic woes and must be eliminated at all cost. Many doom-and-gloomers believe that unprecedented debt levels mean that we are on the precipice of a worse crisis than the Great Depression. The doom-and-gloomers hang on the latest series of negative economic data.
Why are you talking about 457 Visas? They are not part of Australia's permanent residents or citizens.
457 Visas are a temporary working Visa and once the contract is completed those people return home. They can apply for permanent residency but the conditions are very strict.
The 457 system is a quick way for someone wishing to permanently move to Australia to obtain a visa and move here.
Skilled permanent residency applications from overseas are expensive to apply for and take around 18 months to complete.
457's can be obtained in a few months and are designed to allow employers to plug gaps in their labour force.
From IMMI
"Furthermore, the Australian Government has recognized that 457 visas deserve priority in review as they are highly responsive to the needs of the market"
The majority of 457's apply for and are awarded permanent residency.
So yes, 457's are highly indicative of current immigration trends so a drop of 41% over a year ago suggests a significant downturn in immigration.
As for FHB's and the established vs new build markets, stamp duty changes took effect on 1st July for all contracts to build signed after that date. You are quoting grant figures for June which is not after July 1st. I maintain that FHB's will shift to new build property as was the intent of the state government when they introduced the changes.
As for a house that I said was on the market for 1.2 million, it was on for 1.2 million , so get fucked.
Matthew, 30 Jan 2016, 09:21 AM Your simplistic view is so flawed it is not worth debating. The current oversupply will be swallowed in 12 months. By the time dumb shits like you realise this prices will already be rising.
The fact is that FTBs are favouring new builds over established as the reorientation of the grants and stamp duty regime intended them to do.
As for the immigration data, its out of date. Look at the rental vacancy rate. Key bell weather. The 457 data. Plenty of anecdotal data. Talk to the taxi men. People are leaving this State.
Are you blind or you cannot read?
In July 1,148 Established houses sold to FHB while only 707 new construction sold to FHB.
Could you please show me where as you state FTB are favouring new builds over established as no data supports this.
Jimbo
26 Aug 2014, 01:19 PM
As for FHB's and the established vs new build markets, stamp duty changes took effect on 1st July for all contracts to build signed after that date. You are quoting grant figures for June which is not after July 1st. I maintain that FHB's will shift to new build property as was the intent of the state government when they introduced the changes.
As for a house that I said was on the market for 1.2 million, it was on for 1.2 million , so get fucked.
As I posted in post #31 of this thread and copied your quotes.
You stated and I quote AGAIN for your fading memory.
In July 1,148 established houses sold to FHB. In July 707 new constructions sold to FHB.
As I was telling you, FHB do not favour new builds and all my data from my sources confirmed this. I told you this when you made the mistakes below in your own words.
Once again, I was 100% correct and you had no clue what you are really talking about.
Quote:
Jimbo11 Aug 2014, 05:50 PM
In Perth, FHB's are pretty much ignoring established property in favour of much cheaper new builds with all the incentives that new builds give to FHB's. They get smaller blocks in general, but your average FHB doesn't care about having 500m2 of cooch to mow every Sunday. They get the same utility for much less money.
Quote:
Jimbo12 Aug 2014, 06:41 AM
This has forced FHO's to look to house and land packages for their first buy and the developers have responded by selling smaller blocks to improve affordability and tempt buyers away from the rental market. "Cheaper than renting" is the new slogan being used by Perth developers. There is also a shift towards buying city apartments amongst young couples.
So now you have vacancy rates increasing, rents dropping and FHB's largely ignoring established property in favour of new build.
This is coming at the same time as many of the investor buyers are facing increased job insecurity and possible cuts in pay.
Quote:
Jimbo12 Aug 2014, 01:57 PM That is because that was then. I never said that historically, FHB's were buying new build over established. It is what is happening now.
Recent stamp duty changes mean FHB's pay stamp duty on established property over 430k. This kicked in July 1st this year.
It was a policy intentionally designed to favour the new build market to stimulate building activity and soften the impact of the end of the mining infrastructure boom.
This article might help.
So now you have changed your position yet again. You now state FHB will shift to new builds but only last week you claimed it was happening right now. You had builder friends who said work was busy. That FHB favoured building cheap houses on the fringe rather then buy established. You are WRONG and the data proves it. You are now trying to squirm and change position yet again.
As for the $1.2 million dollar house, well you utterly lost that one. It was never on the market for $1.2 million. You claimed it was on the market for $800,000 in 2011 when in fact it was advertised for $595,000. You lied twice to try and pump up a storey, are you a pathological liar. Perthite has told a few over the years but you now out do him by a big margin and have only been here for 5 minutes. Well done, that is an achievement.
I can read that in July 2014 FHO's buying new accounted for 38% of the total
I can compare that to July 2013 which was 28% of the total and July 2012 which was 25%.
So we have a considerable swing towards new build property by FHO's.
This has sat consistently above 35% since February this year, which ties in nicely with the grant changes.
I would expect to see a similar surge as a result of the stamp duty change as well.
Interestingly, the largest number of grants for new new builds is the latest number in the series at 707 which just happens to be July 2014.
Looks like the state governments stated intended policy of encouraging more new build activity is working.
As for the 1.2 million house, I resent the fact that you are calling me a liar. I happen to have a copy of the written offer that I made in 2007. I will not be scanning it and posting it on here, but if you would care to PM me, I will gladly meet up with you in person to show it to you.
Matthew, 30 Jan 2016, 09:21 AM Your simplistic view is so flawed it is not worth debating. The current oversupply will be swallowed in 12 months. By the time dumb shits like you realise this prices will already be rising.
In July 1,148 Established houses sold to FHB while only 707 new construction sold to FHB.
Could you please show me where as you state FTB are favouring new builds over established as no data supports this.
Jesus Mike. Im reading the same data as you.
The trend is clear.
State Govt policy to shift demand toward new builds is working.
Property acquisition as a topic was almost a national obsession. You couldn't even call it speculation as the buyers all presumed the price of property could only go up. That’s why we use the word obsession. Ordinary people were buying properties for their young children who had not even left school assuming they would not be able to afford property of their own when they left college- Klaus Regling on Ireland. Sound familiar?
The evidence of nearly 40 cycles in house prices for 17 OECD economies since 1970 shows that real house prices typically give up about 70 per cent of their rise in the subsequent fall, and that these falls occur slowly. Morgan Kelly:On the Likely Extent of Falls in Irish House Prices, 2007
I can read that in July 2014 FHO's buying new accounted for 38% of the total
I can compare that to July 2013 which was 28% of the total and July 2012 which was 25%.
So we have a considerable swing towards new build property by FHO's.
This has sat consistently above 35% since February this year, which ties in nicely with the grant changes.
I would expect to see a similar surge as a result of the stamp duty change as well.
Interestingly, the largest number of grants for new new builds is the latest number in the series at 707 which just happens to be July 2014.
Looks like the state governments stated intended policy of encouraging more new build activity is working.
As for the 1.2 million house, I resent the fact that you are calling me a liar. I happen to have a copy of the written offer that I made in 2007. I will not be scanning it and posting it on here, but if you would care to PM me, I will gladly meet up with you in person to show it to you.
No that is not what you said. You did not talk about historical date, read you're own quotes. When I talked about Historical data you objected and stated you are talking about NOW. Other backflip by you.
So you don't want to talk about NOW, you want to talk about Historical data.
Lets talk historical data right up to NOW. Show me one month in which new builds to FHB exceeded established houses in the past 14/15 years. Just one month will do.
So in July when the changes took effect established houses sold to FHB increased by 141, while sales of new construction only increased by 50?
So why did existing sales increase by almost 300% the rate or new construction sales when the incentive to buy established was reduced by the state Government.
Ask your mates in construction, why is this so.
Veritas
26 Aug 2014, 03:18 PM
Jesus Mike. Im reading the same data as you.
The trend is clear.
State Govt policy to shift demand toward new builds is working.
The trend to buy established houses increased by almost 3 times the rate of increase for new construction for FHB.
I have no doubt construction is increasing, it is very welcome. However the statements by Jimbo in recent about FHB buying more new constructions then established houses is plain false as the data shows. Despite his claims of mates in construction told him so.
The trend to buy established houses increased by almost 3 times the rate of increase for new construction for FHB.
I have no doubt construction is increasing, it is very welcome. However the statements by Jimbo in recent about FHB buying more new constructions then established houses is plain false as the data shows. Despite his claims of mates in construction told him so.
You are wrong as well Veritas
Yes, as it has always been FTBs buy more established than new.
My point is that there is a noticeable and sustained rise in the number of FTBS buying new in the last year or so.
That is new and a result, it seems to me, of government policy.
Note also that fact that total FTB numbers are now beginning to trend down.
Property acquisition as a topic was almost a national obsession. You couldn't even call it speculation as the buyers all presumed the price of property could only go up. That’s why we use the word obsession. Ordinary people were buying properties for their young children who had not even left school assuming they would not be able to afford property of their own when they left college- Klaus Regling on Ireland. Sound familiar?
The evidence of nearly 40 cycles in house prices for 17 OECD economies since 1970 shows that real house prices typically give up about 70 per cent of their rise in the subsequent fall, and that these falls occur slowly. Morgan Kelly:On the Likely Extent of Falls in Irish House Prices, 2007
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