Talk:Australian property bubble

Final line of the "Timeline" section is extremely biased, not recorded as a quote

"This means the great Australian housing bubble has been expanding unsustainably for well over two decades, since the early-nineties, making it the largest, longest lasting and most dangerous bubble (of any type) that has ever existed anywhere in the world in known history"

The ABS data is irrelevant

I read on the "House prices to income ratio, 1965 to 2013." chart that the 2013 income was $74k. That is just not true. I retired 5 years ago as a professional with a degree and earned 74k in the last year. And I was well paid, most people earned around 50-60k.
The ABS site says "Estimates for average weekly ordinary time earnings for full-time adults (seasonally adjusted): Increased by 3.9% annually to $1,838.10 in May 2023." This would add up to $95,576 annually and I chose the lowest figure.
Forbes gets it right "According to comparison careers website SalaryExplorer, which draws on data from employers and surveys of workers, Australia’s average yearly salary is AU $90,800. Of course, averages can be skewed by very high and very low figures: whereas the median represents the exact midpoint. SalaryExplorer puts Australia’s median salary, therefore, is a more modest $79,800—more than $10,000 less than the average." (Published June 22 2023)
"There are white lies, everyday lies, vicious lies and statistics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Increase of two income families

I'd like to see the page deal with the residential property inflationery impact of the increased incidence of dual income families. E.g. mum goes to work to afford a good house thus pushing up price of houses. I believe that this is a genuine driver of the "bubble".

Ozhamada (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that largely happened long before the 2000s and also happened in other countries. Maybe it should be household income.

59.167.142.75 (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So people are working twice as hard to buy a house. That's what happens in a bubble. How is mum working to 'afford a good house' any different from dad taking on an additional two part-time jobs to afford a house? Sure, it's 'inflationary' to house prices but this is not the same as general inflation.

Article needs consolidation

This article needs some consolidation. As noted in the header, there are too many sections, and many of them are emotive and unencyclopaedic - e.g.: "Know a good mahout? There is an 'elephant in the room': Treasury".

As a rework I'd probably suggest:

• Ratios and indicators (e.g., price to per capita GDP, debt to income...)
• Supply and demand in the Australian housing market
  • Population and land releases
  • Tax (CGT, FHOG)
  • Interest rates
• Societal impact of rising prices
  • Declining affordability
  • Urban infill
• Possible impacts of a bubble burst

This seems like a more structured approach less susceptible to emotive language and independent research. What do people think? --124.191.116.161 (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely correct. The article is too long, unencyclopaedic and POV. It's going to be a struggle from the get-go because there is no certainty that there is a bubble. Unless/until there is a substantial drop in house prices, it's not really a bubble, so at the moment, the article is really about a forecast bubble.

That being the case, there needs to be alternative views. For example the RBA's commentary from late 2009 or more recently, Glenn Stevens' view that although house prices are high, they are not worryingly so. (see here or here)

I for one would encourage you to be bold and just go ahead and make your changes. The article is in very poor shape and I doubt it's possible to make it worse. Be careful about speculating and be careful that we stick to the topic. I've had a crack at the timeline. See how you go. :) Thepm (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for input and rationalisation of the page. To Thepm I think you have done a good job on tidying up the page and I can see that there is a lot yet to do. I think as a third party critic of the page you can do a better job than myself on making it more objective. At the moment I do not have too much free time but will be in a position to do something in not too distant future. Thanks for your efforts so far.

Re comment that housing in Aus is not a bubble I tend to think of it in terms of a say a soap bubble. It is only a bubble before it bursts. Has anyone ever seen a bubble that has burst? It no longer exists. Cheers.--27.33.44.233 (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. It's much appreciated. I'll keep moving through this over the next little while and see if we can't get it into good shape. There are a couple of places where I'm uncertain, so I'll likely post on this page and would appreciate comments if you have a minute or two.

I think the question of whether there has been a bubble is an important one. A bubble is defined as being when prices reach unsustainable levels and then fall substantially. At present we can't say that prices are unsustainable and we certainly can't say that there's been a substantial fall. We can make judgements and form opinions, but wiki has to be facts. My inclination is that this page should be merged with Australian property market. At the very least, it should be renamed "Australian property values" or something like that. If and when there is clear evidence of a bubble, then maybe we can have a separate page.

Thanks again for your input! --Thepm (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree the article definitely needs to be improved. I'm pretty sure that somewhere there is a policy that Wikipedia there is not required to be perfect, but rather our aim should be to improve the article bit by bit. So perhaps this should be our aim: to make small improvements. What can you do to make this article slightly better?60.242.102.248 (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Found it WP:WORKINPROGRESS"Unfortunately, much of [Wikipedia] could be a lot better. Many people have eagerly pointed this out... ...they frequently miss out one crucial detail: Wikipedia is not finished. Not even close. In fact, we're barely getting started." Moreover: "[People get]themselves in a panic because the quality of Wikipedia is not as high as they'd like it to be. Now this is a problem... but to someone who wishes to write a free encyclopedia, it's not a problem. It's an opportunity, and that's what we're here for. Remember, there is no deadline."60.242.102.248 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

GDP - flow - vs. liabilities - stock

"The growth in property debt shows up in GDP " - is that so? Debts, liabilities, assets, do not show up in GDP. --Alex1011 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a bubble?

A property bubble usually includes a reduction in price levels. That hasn't happened in the Australian market. It's possible that it will, but that would be speculation and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. That being the case, shouldn't the article either be renamed to reflect the fact that it's about speculation of a future Australian property bubble, or deleted altogether? Thepm (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Bubbles can only be identified in hindsight. As correctly pointed out above, the claim that house prices are overvalued is an opinion, not a verifiable fact. (Investors should consult their financial advisors.) This claim may or may not be correct. There may be other, long term factors at play which create real and sustainable value. For example, the lack of available land in Sydney (the northern beaches are 50% open space, mostly national park). It may be that Australian house prices have been historically undervalued, and the exposure to foreign investment has released that value. If government actions (land releases, public transport, negative gearing, foreign investment) create and destroy value, then there is no property bubble - the values are valid given the government policy at the time.

I support this section being merged with Australian property market.

(Until the bubble bursts....)

Badja (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Chart 5

The text under chart 5 says "source The Economist" but there is no indication of this at the file description. Can we get a more detailed citation for this chart? Thepm (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

I've amended the timeline to be more encyclopedic. Phrases like "Thousands pledge their support" or "Australian home buyers are deserting the housing market" are POV and should be expressed in more neutral terms.

I have doubts that the "buyer's strike" warrants a mention. It appears to have only garnered publicity at the time it was announced. There is no indication whether it has been successful or not. I'd prefer to take it out altogether until an RS mentions it again. --Thepm (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a previous First Home Owners Grant - of $5,000 in the early 80s - it helped me buy my house. 60.242.247.177 (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Bubble began when?

The other aticles on property bubbles such as Spain, Ireland (2000-2007), Tokyo (1986-1991) say when the bubble began and burst. What year did the Aussie property bubble begin? Tri400 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have quite a few problems with this article. It's written in the form of an essay rather than an encyclopaedic article, it seems to be written from a particular PoV and it seems to be promoting the so called First Home Buyers Strike. In addition to all that, I'm not entirely convinced that there has even been a property bubble. There has certainly been no sudden and substantial drop in values.

There is good evidence that the Australian property market is overvalued, but that's a lot different to there being a bubble. --Thepm (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Its the most overpriced in the Developed World. And Melbourne prices jumped 20% in just 1 year recently. Moreover, the ones that say there is a bubble here in AUS do specify the dates when the bubble started (1997 or 1999) and peaked in 2010. Tri400 (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a general sense that the bubble (if it is a "bubble") began in the mid 1990s. The trouble is the decline. There seems to be a general easing in prices recently, but for a "bubble" we'd really need to see a fall of at least 20% I'd say. That hasn't happened yet. If it does fall that much, then you're probably right that the decline would have begun in 2010. Steve Keen, the UWS academic, is the main proponent of the bubble label. We should try to get a reliable source for his observation that the peak was 2010. His blog is not a reliable source. There's also the Prosper group, but they seem a bit fringe to me.

I'd also be interested in any comment you might have on the idea of merging this article with others (see my comments further down the page. --Thepm (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Stevens Speech of 9th June 2010

Anon IP has reinstated a section that I deleted. The section was highly PoV and included some very selective quotations. For example, the following quote was included;

The Governor noted that “potential vulnerabilities need to be addressed in good times. . . Australia does not have a problem with public debt . . Nor . . a problem with corporate debt” but rather that “ the big rise in debt in the past couple of decades has been in the household sector.”

This quote was characterised as being a "note of caution" to "moderating the on-going infatuation with debt as related to housing."

In fact, the passage that quote was taken from said;

The big rise in debt in the past couple of decades has been in the household sector. There have been many reasons for that and, overwhelmingly, households have serviced the higher debt levels very well. The arrears rates on mortgages, for example, remain very low by global standards. As a result the asset quality of financial institutions has remained very good. So, to be clear, my message is not that this has been a terrible thing.

emphasis in original --Thepm (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Rbachartpack.gif

I have deleted the file Rbachartpack.gif. This file is noted as "own work" by Minimumtrade on the file description page. It has actually been copied directly from the RBA website. --Thepm (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In light of the above, I have deleted Landgdp2010.PNG as well. This image is also noted as "own work" but includes a url of the fringe group Prosper. I suspect that the image has been copied from documents produced by that group. I request that confirmation of the copyright status be made before the image is restored. --Thepm (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted images

I have deleted a number of images that appear to be copyright. See discussion at Media copyright questions. --Thepm (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

I plan to propose merging this article and Home ownership in Australia both into the article Australian property market.

While the Australian property market article is the smallest of the three, I think that it is the major topic, with the other two being subsets of that topic. I believe that this article (Australian property bubble) suffers from recentism and has become overblown. In addition, the article title is not really appropriate. There is no clear evidence that there is a property bubble in Australia because there has not been a substantial drop in prices. That may yet happen, but wikipedia should not be a crystal ball. In addition, assuming that the present increase in house prices does constitute a bubble, there is at least one other property bubble in Australian history (1880's, especially in Melbourne, see A History of Housing Prices in Australia 1880-2010 for example] and potentially the price changes in the early 1920s nationally and the late 1950s through to the 1960s, especially in Sydney, would constitute a bubble.

I think that by merging the three articles and then building up a balanced section on the current rise in prices, we will have a better article overall.

The article Home ownership in Australia is basically a stub at present but takes a more social viewpoint. Once again, I think that it will benefit by being part of a broader article initially and perhaps expanding in to a separate article in the future.

I'll formally request a merger in a few days but initially wanted to give any page watchers (are there any???) a chance to comment. --Thepm (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How goes the merger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.166.62 (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Leave It

I think the article should remain, as either a warning to bubble fanatics, or to me if the market collapses tomorrow :) Dewatf (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation 76

I read the bit about the Australian housing bubble being the worst in the world, etc. I clicked the link that's supposed to offer authority on that statement. I couldn't find the authority for that statement in the link provided. Someone with a little more experience on this subject might want to review before getting rid of that statement. 129.78.56.198 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Australian property bubble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110511171751/http://www.aph.gov.au:80/SEnate/committee/hsaf_ctte/report/c04.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/hsaf_ctte/report/c04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090318080333/http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/56302/housing.pdf to http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/56302/housing.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110316050056/http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/56302/housing.pdf to http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/56302/housing.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Australian property bubble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110315065837/http://www.aph.gov.au:80/senate/committee/hsaf_ctte/report/c04.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/hsaf_ctte/report/c04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110603013605/http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/56302/housing.pdf to http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/56302/housing.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091026104800/http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?pageID=&doc=publications/firsthome.htm&min=phc to http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?pageID=&doc=publications/firsthome.htm&min=phc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110313095900/http://www.aph.gov.au:80/senate/committee/hsaf_ctte/index.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/hsaf_ctte/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110603013605/http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/56302/housing.pdf to http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/56302/housing.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219214336/http://aph.gov.au:80/SEnate/committee/hsaf_ctte/report/b02.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/hsaf_ctte/report/b02.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140204023755/http://www.apra.gov.au/adi/Publications/Documents/Quarterly%20ADI%20Property%20Exposures%20-%20September%202013.pdf to http://www.apra.gov.au/adi/Publications/Documents/Quarterly%20ADI%20Property%20Exposures%20-%20September%202013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Australian property bubble/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Could someone please delete this page, or at least rewrite it so that it's not just a rant by someone with a chip on their shoulder? My rating 7/10. This is a timely article but shows obvious bias. It needs to take into account a more neutral viewpoint. Very good figures and research to support the arguments but reads more like an essay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.86.71.20 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC) My rating: 1 out of 10. I agree. The whole page should be deleted. It is written emotively and it is not factual. For example it claims that investors have tax advantages over owner occupiers in Australia. This is entirely false. Investors are subject to paying Capital Gains Tax - owner occupiers are not. Investors are subject to tax assessment on the derived rental receipts. Owner occupiers pay no tax on the imputed rent (unlike some other countries). The article claims that investors are encouraged by the tax system to "not build". This is entirely false. Losses cannot be claimed unless a property is rented or available at a market cost to rent. It isn't a question of editing or clean up. The article is simply full of errors and a personal viewpoint of the author. It fails to fulfill the basic wiki requirement of being encyclopedic. My rating: 0 out of 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batters1 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC) There is a lot of good information on the page, but it does not take a neutral point of view. Clearly this is an emotive issue (people being unable to buy a house due to affordability) so some sensitivity is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewescott (talk • contribs) 11:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I couldn't read past "In a free market, all prices are ...". Whoever wrote this needs to understand exactly what a "free market" is (hint: click on the link). The Australian property market is not a free market for a wide range of reasons. First Home Owners Grant (FHOG), and negative gearing incentives are two that come to mind without thinking too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.19.78 (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 6/10. It's not perfect but there are plenty of well sourced facts in it. It is a genuine subject of public debate. In itself it may be perceived as biased but not in the context of wider commentary about the property boom more generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.227.147 (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 08:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)