JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Why investing in property doesn't add up

Date

Comment

Video settings

Please Log in to update your video settings

Video will begin in 5 seconds.

Video settings

Please Log in to update your video settings

Investor housing not adding up

Comment: While there are always exceptions, the average investor buying housing today is going to lose money over the next few years.

PT2M24S 620 349

 

Equities doing nothing now are winning hands down, thanks to the much richer franked dividend yields, no stamp duty and negligible transaction costs. 

Investors get carried away with optimism in every boom in an asset class but once the froth is blown off the top of the market, the herd generally understands the easy money has left the building and expectations become more realistic.

And the realistic residential real estate expectation now is that the average investor buying housing today is going to lose money over the next few years. That's not because of any Doomsday Brigade price crash. It's enough for prices to go flat for investors to lose money.

The residential real estate investment boom peaked last June and has been deflating steadily since then. The latest ABS housing finance figures record investor housing finance commitments as being flat in February on January and up 4.1 per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis. The graph tells the story.

graphic

The Reserve Bank and APRA might like to take the credit for initially calming investors' exuberance, blowing that froth off by forcing banks to wake up to themselves, but now investors should be working it out for themselves.

Exceptions aren't the rule

Of course there are always exceptions - the occasional bargain buy, the place with unrealised potential - and most of the alleged real estate experts think Brisbane will do better for the next year or so than the rest of the capital cities but, on average, housing prices are expected to gain very little over the vaguely foreseeable future.

A quick sampling of reasonably credible forecasts ranges from AMP's Shane Oliver appearing a relative optimist with a prediction of 3 per cent growth in housing prices this year, while ratings agency Fitch is saying 2 per cent and NAB 1 per cent.

BIS Shrapnel, when not caught up in dubious negative gearing modelling, thinks the key markets will gain this year but fall a bit in the next two, leaving house prices up just 2 per cent over three years and units negative.

For the sake of the exercise, let's be mildly optimistic and go with 2 per cent annual growth, a little better than the headline inflation rate.

With stamp duty of about 5 per cent and other transaction costs of, say, 2 per cent, the average property bought today and sold in three years wouldn't quite break even on a nominal basis and would be down maybe  6 per cent in real terms.

Then there's the reality of rent. The March CoreLogic rental review showed combined capital city rents had actually dipped a fraction over the past year. Would-be investors routinely underestimate costs, so that CoreLogic's national average gross rental yield of 3.5 per cent is likely to result in a net yield that may well start with a one rather than a two.

Let's again stray on the side of optimism and say there's a 2 per cent net rental yield. That certainly puts the negative into negative gearing even at the top marginal tax rate when investor interest rates are now in the upper fours, if not five. 

For Treasurer Scott Morrison's alleged army of housing investors on "average" incomes and, therefore, average income tax rates, the tax deduction still leaves plenty of red ink behind with little prospect of capital gain making up for it if the market goes flat to digest the boom's surge.

Housing returns have beaten the sharemarket very handsomely over the boom years while equities have done nothing - but equities doing nothing now are winning hands down thanks to the much richer franked dividend yields, no stamp duty and negligible transaction costs. But don't expect the ever-present housing spruikers to say that.

111 comments so far

  • Mentioned this very matter in the company of 3 devoted tangible theory enthusiasts of my acquaint only last year...Ever been bumrushed out the door Michael?

    Commenter
    Geronimo
    Location
    Yippee Yi Yo
    Date and time
    April 11, 2016, 3:03PM
    • Why does the media support so many people who repeatedly tell us we want to own four investment houses including at least one worth seven figures in Sydney's inner suburbs? It is a self perpetuating industry that sucks people in.

      I am with those who believe I can only live in one house at a time, am happy to make provisions for my retirement through super (unlikely to end up with lots but again how many trinkets do I really need) and believe life is for living rather than waiting for some future nirvana when all my sacrifices will somehow be worth something.

      Commenter
      Bernie
      Location
      HV
      Date and time
      April 11, 2016, 4:45PM
    • While I agree with your view regarding the likely stagnation in prices over the next 2-3 years, I'm not sure that this supports the conclusion that " the average investor buying housing today is going to lose money over the next few years". Why? A couple of reasons:
      1. The 'average' real estate investor buying now isn't likely to be on an average income -- with the likelihood of flat prices only investors with incomes in the top marginal tax rate will see any point.
      2. Investors in new units get to also claim a 'deduction' for depreciation on a large part of the purchase price -- which ends up reducing the tax they pay without them actually have a cash flow expense of that 'deduction' (unlike real deductions such as interest, rates etc. that require some actual payment to be made). This essentially 'converts' current income that would be taxed at the top marginal rate now, into deferred 'capital gains' (the depreciation reduces the 'cost base' of the investment unit, and hence increases the final 'capital gain' that is made) that is only taxed at half the marginal tax rate. This can be an even bigger tax saving if the purchase was made while earning a high income, then the unit is sold during retirement when income is much lower (so the capital gains tax rate applicable is half of a lower marginal tax rate).
      3. Who in their right mind would buy and sell property within 2-3 years? The sales tax cost makes this nearly always a losing proposition, except in boom years where 20% gains in one year cover the sales tax cost. Most property investors have a 20-30 year timeframe in mind. So looking at a 2-3 years holding period is simply unrealistic.

      Commenter
      Rob
      Location
      Sydney
      Date and time
      April 11, 2016, 4:57PM
    • @Bernie, that is why I have a couple of properties - I have very little super, and the properties may just increase enough in value, that I have something to live on when I retire.

      Commenter
      Carlowe
      Date and time
      April 11, 2016, 9:59PM
  • Not that you had anything to do with the boom spruiking aye Michael?

    Commenter
    The fat lady is stirring
    Date and time
    April 11, 2016, 3:11PM
    • I gather that Michael has never been a great fan of the artificial housing boom and tax treatment of investment housing. I may be wrong.

      Commenter
      Bernie
      Location
      HV
      Date and time
      April 11, 2016, 4:41PM
    • I'm just puzzled how the Age can run this guy telling us not to invest, above an article talking about how the Chinese are doubling their investment in our property market.

      Commenter
      Carlowe
      Date and time
      April 11, 2016, 9:47PM
  • Investing in property can only maintain your wealth and build additional wealth over time, and only if you have strong consistent cash flows to pay for the up-keep of your properties and of course, to finance the loan. Many investors eye for capital growth, given that scarcity of land will increase prices over time. Yet, the assumption is that household income needs to grow with this otherwise it becomes an unsustainable journey into the abyss. Further to that, some people will still swear by investing in property as they have made gazillions of dollars, however, for every successful property investors, there are 9 others who are not successful and mainly due to their life circumstances, from illness to divorces to moving overseas to losing their jobs to death of the major income earner and a myriad of unforeseen circumstances.
    I guess the question I want people to consider is this, how many beds can you sleep on each night and under how many roofs? Why do some people need 10 to 20 properties in their portfolio? Selfish reasons obviously or what people call 'financial freedom'. Well, I just hope that achieving financial freedom will also help you all get enlightened to the fact that more money and more property and more of everything, isn't going to give you more happiness. The more you take, the less you have, over time.

    Commenter
    Enlightened One
    Date and time
    April 11, 2016, 3:19PM
    • Oh Enlightened One

      The first para was fine; however, what one does with their asset mix is purely their own business. Are you saying the same applies with how many CBA shares you may have, fixed interest holdings, art investments or a wine cellar with a thousand or two bottles? None of which relates to how many beds one might need.

      Commenter
      $keptic
      Location
      Melbourne
      Date and time
      April 11, 2016, 4:56PM
    • Wow, what a mess of a comment, you're all over the shop! I think you'll find people want multiple beds not because they need 20 beds to sleep in but that the other 19 will generate money in the form of rent. That money can then be used to buy things. Pretty simple. And financial freedom has nothing whatsoever to do with happiness . . . it simply gives you the freedom to use your time as you wish. This idea that there is an inverse relationship between happiness and financial success is rubbish - and certainly not enlightened, bitter maybe. I'm not a property investor myself I might add, I've always understood the sharemarket much better than the property market.

      Commenter
      Cam
      Location
      Syd
      Date and time
      April 11, 2016, 5:48PM

More comments

Make a comment

You are logged in as [Logout]

All information entered below may be published.

Error: Please enter your screen name.

Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Please enter your comment.

Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

Post to

You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

Thank you

Your comment has been submitted for approval.

Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

Related Coverage

HuffPost Australia

Follow Us





Featured advertisers

Special offers

Credit card, savings and loan rates by Mozo

Executive Style

Loro Piana sweatpants cost around $1900.

Behold the $1900 'trackie dacks'

Stephen Lacey

These might be the world's fanciest tracksuit pants, with a price to match.