Real Estate Affordability | Wages Not Keeping Up

House prices have grown more than twice as fast as wages over the past decade – making it harder to save a deposit and harder to pay off a loan. By Mark Armstrong and Fiona Marsden for the API Magazine February 2007 edition.

Housing affordability across Australia seems to worsen each year – yet real estate house prices in several Australian cities haven’t moved substantially since 2003. We crunched some numbers to find out why.

According to the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the national median house price in 1996 was $161,312. By 2001 it was $248,993 and by 2006, it had climbed to a whopping $407,538 – an average annual increase of almost 10 per cent.

A look at wage growth statistics tells a different story. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that average annual earnings were $35,251 in 1996. By 2001, they were $43,555 and in 2006 they had risen to $54,668.

That’s an average annual increase of around 4.5 per cent – less than half the growth in real estate prices for the same period. Small wonder affordability is getting worse, even in major cities like Sydney and Melbourne where the last property boom finished in 2003.

The real estate affordability squeeze is hitting first homebuyers on two fronts. First, they have to put aside a higher proportion of their earnings to save a deposit. In 1996, someone on average weekly earnings needed to put aside 9 per cent of their income to save a 10 per cent deposit for a median priced home over a five-year period. By 2006, they had to put aside 15 per cent. Second, even if they do manage to enter the real estate market, homebuyers have to put a higher percentage of their earnings into loan repayments. In 1996, someone buying a median priced home had to devote 34 per cent of average earnings towards their real estate mortgage. In 2006, this figure has jumped to 47 per cent.

Moreover, these figures refer to the official cash rate set by the Reserve Bank. The retail rate set by lenders is generally 1 to 2 per cent higher, so the actual percentage of earnings going towards loan repayments would be much greater.

In this context, the prevailing real estate interest rate also plays a role. In 1996 when homeowners spent 34 per cent of average earnings on a median priced home, the cash rate was 7.5 per cent. In 2001, when the cash rate had fallen to 5 per cent, the percentage figure dropped to 29 per cent. Interestingly in November 2006 when the cash rate was 6.35 per cent, real estate homeowners had to devote a higher percentage of their earnings towards loan repayments than they did in 1996 when the cash rate was higher. Clearly, the slow increases in wages relative to house prices is now the most significant factor in determining real estate affordability in Australia.

In this environment, real estate markets that are out of sync with the national norm will start to experience major corrections in 2007. Perth and Darwin, where house prices have increased far more quickly than other cities in the past few years, will be in for along period of adjustment if the mining sector starts to come off the boil as industry pundits predict.

At the other end of the scale, newly real estate developed outer suburban areas that rely mainly on young homebuyers for their chief source of demand will also suffer the fallout from plummeting affordability. If would-be first homebuyers can’t save a deposit quicly enough to keep pace with prices, they’ll stay away and values in real estate will fall. With eight increases since 2002, we believe the current interest rate cycle is nearing the end and the Reserve Bank will reduce rates in 2007. If it doesn’t, a growing number of young Australians will have to downscale their home ownership dreams – or face the prospect of permanent tenancy.

Mark Armstrong is a director of Property Planning Australia(www.propertyplanning.com.au) Fiona Marsden is an experienced property writer.