logo
ENع
#

Latest news with #AlanKohler

Alan Kohler on making housing a bad investment
Alan Kohler on making housing a bad investment

ABC News

time2 days ago

  • Business
  • ABC News

Alan Kohler on making housing a bad investment

Sam Hawley: Interest rates might be coming down, but house prices are, once again, heading in the other direction. Given there is a major problem with housing affordability, and there are so many people who can't even afford to enter the market, why on earth is that? Today, the ABC's finance expert, Alan Kohler, on how conditions are ripe for a housing price surge, just as they were back in the early 2000s. In other words, why history's repeating. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal Land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Sam Hawley: Alan, interest rates are coming down and they could drop even further this year. So that should mean houses are more affordable for borrowers. But it's not that simple and you're going to explain to us why. Now, to do that, let's go back to the turn of the century. In 2001, the Reserve Bank was cutting rates just like it is now, wasn't it? Alan Kohler: Correct. Sam Hawley: What was going on back then? Alan Kohler: In 2001, the Reserve Bank cut interest rates six times that year. News report: Nervous anticipation for one of the Reserve Bank's most expected interest rate cuts, the sixth and last this year. Alan Kohler: And that was in response to the dot-com crash in the United States, which happened on basically in March of 2000. It continued for a while. The Nasdaq halved, more than halved. And there was a recession in the United States. The Reserve Bank was concerned that the Australian dollar would rise too much because of that, because obviously the US Federal Reserve was cutting interest rates in response to the recession. So the Reserve Bank of Australia cut interest rates in precaution, even though there was no recession in Australia. The economy did slow a bit. There was a bit of a fall in the share market, but not anything like what happened in the US. Sam Hawley: And the other thing that was happening back then was there was some pretty major policy changes, including the introduction of the capital gains discount and the return of a first home buyers grant. So just remind me of those policies at that time. Alan Kohler: Yes. So in 1999, the Howard Government appointed a business tax review committee, a panel of three businessmen to report on the business tax system. And what they wanted to do, what Howard and Costello wanted to do then, was to reduce the company tax rate from 36 to 30%. So they asked some businessmen to tell them whether that was a good idea. And well, they told them it was a great idea. Go ahead. But in the course of doing that, they also recommended a change in the capital gains tax regime so that instead of the capital gains tax being adjusted for inflation, they recommended a simple 50% discount, which the Howard Government duly applied. Peter Costello, then-Treasurer: Under the reforms which we announced today, a 50% reduction in the taxable gain, that is 50% of the gain is not taxable. Alan Kohler: And although it's the case that that didn't really change the amount of capital gains tax at the time because inflation was quite high. So actually, the 50% discount was roughly the same as the inflation adjustment for the average time that people were holding assets. What I think happened was that it changed the psychology of investing in property because everyone understands a discount, whereas nobody really gets inflation and certainly can't do it in their heads. Sam Hawley: So even if you don't understand capital gains tax, just understand that if it's 50% discount, that's a good thing. Alan Kohler: Exactly. Sam Hawley: If you're a homeowner, right? Alan Kohler: Precisely. And that added to negative gearing, which had been in place for a long time, to make investing in housing an attractive thing to do. The businessmen who recommended it thought that it would lead to Australia becoming a nation of share owners and buy the shares of their companies and drive the prices higher and lower their cost of capital. But that, in fact, didn't happen because people just want to invest in housing. And that's what happened. And as you say, also the Howard government reintroduced first homebuyer grants in 2000, which had been out of action for a while. The first homebuyer grant was in the 1960s under Menzies, but the Hawke-Keating government didn't do them and Howard reintroduced them. Sam Hawley: Okay, so rates are going down. There's these two major policy changes. And at the time, there was a simply huge rise in immigration. Alan Kohler: Exactly. And what caused that in around about 2005 was a change to the way foreign students were assessed in 2001. On July 1st, 2001, the system was changed. Up to that point, foreign students' visas were issued on the basis of either gazetted countries or non-gazetted countries. China and India were included in the non-gazetted countries and it was very difficult for students from those places to get a visa. After July 1st, 2001, that changed and became the same for everybody, which is the way it ought to be, of course. But that led eventually to a huge increase in students from China and India from the mid-2000s. And that led to a doubling and then tripling of net overseas migration into Australia. At the time. Sam Hawley: Wow. All right. So we get a pot and then we put all these things into it and we stir it around. So there's the capital gains tax, there's the first homeowner's grant, the rates are dropping and there's this massive increase in immigration. And when you stir it all around, you come out, Alan, with house prices rising. Alan Kohler: Yes. Well, so all of those four things that we've discussed added to demand from investors and migrants and so on. So there was a big increase in demand, but there was no response in supply. The government did nothing about increasing supply at the time. And the result was that for 10 years, between 2005 and 2015, there was a dire, big shortage of housing, an undersupply of housing for a decade, which really set the scene for a big increase in house prices. And what happened was that the house price to income ratio rose from between three to four times incomes, this is average incomes in 2000, to eight or nine times incomes at the end of that time. And that was a huge change in the way that housing related to people's incomes and also GDP of the there was a stop to immigration during the pandemic. And then post the pandemic, population growth has gone back to more than 2% per annum, which is what it was in the period after 2005. Sam Hawley: All right. So, Alan, that's the history of the skyrocketing house prices and how we ended up here. Now, today, interesting that we have exactly the same conditions. Alan Kohler: That's right. The Reserve Bank is cutting interest rates, probably not by six times, but by probably four or five times this year, possibly into next year as well. We've got first time buyer grants back on. We've got a big increase in migration. I mean, the Treasury forecast in the budget for this financial year, net overseas migration is 335,000. But in the first nine months of the year, it's already 360,000 and looks like being 400,000 this year. There's no targets on immigration, but there's a Treasury forecast and net overseas migration is going to well exceed the Treasury forecast. And of course, there's been no change in the capital gains tax discount because the Labor Party failed to win in 2016 and 2019, where that is their policy to reduce it 25%. All the conditions are in place for another rise in house prices. Sam Hawley: Exactly. So what are we seeing already and what do we expect to see then when it comes to the cost of housing in Australia? Alan Kohler: Between November last year and January this year, house prices actually fell by close to 1%. This is the national median price, having increased 17% in the previous 12 months or so. And since January, they've risen again by more than the increase in average wages over that period. News report: House prices are continuing to rise across the country, with experts predicting property values to grow between 6 and 10% by the end of the year. All the capitals rose more than 0.4 of a percent in May. That brings the national index 1.7% higher over the first five months of the year. Alan Kohler: House prices are already starting to rise in excess of the rise in incomes. And the thing is, you know, everyone says houses are unaffordable, which is kind of true, which you would think would mean house prices don't rise very much now, because if they're unaffordable already, then people can't afford them. But in fact, falling interest rates makes them more affordable. The determinant of affordability is the amount you can afford in terms of interest repayments or mortgage repayments. Really, a better measure might be time to save a deposit, because the problem is that deposits are becoming unreachable for a lot of people. So housing is becoming inaccessible. It's OK if you've got a deposit, because your parents have given you one, given you the money, but those who don't have access to some sort of provision of a deposit can't get into housing. And that's the problem. Sam Hawley: Yeah. There's just a certain number of people that keep buying properties and pushing the amount or the cost of properties up. I mean, there's enough people that can afford the properties because the property price keeps going upwards and upwards. Alan Kohler: Correct. The truth is that if you don't have a parent who can give you the money for a deposit or some other way of getting ahold of a deposit, as opposed to saving it, you're a renter. You cannot buy a house. That is the reality of the situation, particularly in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne, but increasingly in Perth and Adelaide and Hobart as well, and also everywhere in Australia. I don't know what's to be done about it, really. Sam Hawley: All right. Oh, gosh. So, dare I ask you then, if you don't have the bank of mum and dad or any family members that can actually help you in this process of getting this massive deposit to buy a home, is there really no chance ever that you're going to land in the property market at this point? Alan Kohler: Well, there has to be a big shift in the value of housing versus incomes. Prices would need to go back to the sort of relationship to incomes that they were 25 years ago, which is three to four times instead of the current sort of nine or 10 times. And the only way that's going to happen is if house prices stay where they are for a while, like a long time, like 20 years. Now, that will only happen if there's an oversupply of housing for that period. Both the federal government and the state governments are all doing what they can. They're working hard. I know, you know, they're genuinely working hard to increase supply, but there's a problem. The trouble is that the construction industry doesn't have the capacity, partly because productivity is so low. In fact, the Committee for Economic Development in Australia, CEDA, released a report about construction productivity and why is it so low. And they do say in the report that we're building now half as many houses per worker as we did in the 70s. So that's fallen by half. But not only is productivity low, the number of workers is also in decline because the average age of builders tends to be quite high. They're all retiring and there's not enough apprentices coming through. The government is talking about increasing the number of tradies who they bring in as migrants, which is definitely what's needed. They're not talking about anywhere near enough of them coming in. And any way, the regulator of the industry is reluctant to recognise foreign qualifications in the construction industry. So, you know, there's a real kind of blockage of kind of productivity and number of people in the construction industry. I think it's going to be difficult to achieve the kind of oversupply of housing over the next sort of decade or two that is required. Sam Hawley: And Alan, while we're waiting for all these houses to be built, conditions are absolutely ripe for house prices just to keep surging. Alan Kohler: Yeah. And the governments, in addition to doing the work that they're doing on supply, which is good, they're also kind of doing short-term band-aid measures, including helping first homebuyers, either through help to buy schemes or grants and so on. And so that just tends to increase demand and increase prices, because a lot of those grants just end up on the price. So, yeah, look, I don't think it's particularly good news on the subject of housing. I'd like it to be different. And there's no big magic bullet. There's just going to be a lot of sort of small work, grinding work to be done. And, you know, the fact is we have to go through a period where housing is a really bad investment. Sam Hawley: Alan Kohler presents the Finance Report on the ABC's 7pm News. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Adair Sheppard. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.

Australia's best response to China's live-fire provocation? Don't be provoked
Australia's best response to China's live-fire provocation? Don't be provoked

The Guardian

time24-02-2025

  • Politics
  • The Guardian

Australia's best response to China's live-fire provocation? Don't be provoked

The PLA Navy's unprecedented live-fire exercise 640 kilometres off the south coast of New South Wales, quickly followed by a second such exercise closer to New Zealand, was provocative and deeply regrettable. But it does not call for an immediate aggressive Australian response, it does not show that the Australian government's diplomacy is failing, and it certainly does not indicate that Australia is helpless as China's military power grows. If this exercise somehow demonstrated that the government hasn't been tough enough on China, then what would that say about the frequent foreign naval activity in waters off China's coast? For example, it is pretty well agreed these days that Beijing's illegal artificial island-building campaign in the South China Sea has succeeded. China now exercises a high degree of control over that area, thanks to the overwhelming military and constabulary forces it has staged there, which can move around the area quickly. Australia, along with its allies and partners, routinely sails warships through South China Sea waters claimed by Beijing. But would anyone seriously claim that Beijing's policy in the South China Sea has therefore failed? Those transits are designed to make a political and legal point about the status of the waters. They don't materially change the fact that China is defacto in charge there, and that in a shooting match it would start with a major advantage. The lesson for Australia is to ensure that the same applies to China as its navy grows and, inevitably, it increases its activity near Australia. China needs to know that, while it is free to operate in those waters, it does so in the knowledge that, in the worst case, Australia can overcome whatever Beijing sends our way. That means building an Australian Defence Force focused tightly on the job of sinking ships and shooting down aircraft that threaten our landmass. Contra Alan Kohler, who wrote that 'Australia would have no hope against China, as Beijing reminded us last week with live warship drills off the NSW coast', that's a job Australia is quite capable of doing, even without a reliable American ally. Geography is Australia's biggest asset in this regard. It's over 7,000 kilometres from Sydney to Hainan Island, China's southern fleet headquarters. China is clearly capable of sending a flotilla that far, but it's an extremely taxing and expensive journey, and it is difficult for even the most capable navy to sustain forces at those distances. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Which makes it imperative for Australia to maintain its advantage by ensuring that China can never build military bases closer to Australia. In that regard, Australian policy has been rather successful lately, starting with the Pacific Step-Up under the previous government and continuing in more recent times with defence agreements with Nauru, Tuvalu and Papua New Guinea. I've written previously about the need for Australia to adopt a stoical position on China. It can be tempting, in moments like these, to demand an immediate and forceful response. But let's remember the lesson of China's economic coercion campaign against Australia, which ended just last year. Australian policy ultimately succeeded not because the government was aggressive or obstreperous, but because it was quietly implacable. Over decades, Australia had built a resilient, globalised economy that could absorb the shocks China meted out. This allowed the Morrison and Albanese governments to pursue essentially the same policy: they never escalated the dispute, and they never backed down. Provocations such as China's weapons drills are the moments when stoicism is tested, when the temptation is to lash out because it fulfils a psychological need to feel like you're doing something, and the political pressure to look like you're doing something. But the right response is to continue the quiet work of making Australia into an echidna: unthreatening to those who mean the nation no harm, but prickly and indigestible to those who do. Sam Roggeveen is director of the Lowy Institute's international security program. This article was originally published in The Interpreter

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store