<html><body>
Q: Is there a housing bubble?
A: Nationally no, but if we are talking about Sydney, Melbourne and new inner Brisbane apartments, then yes.  That's a YES, in case you somehow missed it.
Sydney and Melbourne have been distorted by an influx of 'grey' money coming from China. Many don't like to hear this, but it is happening. No hard statistics, but our groundtruthing is looking worthy of a hefty bet.  And of late, some of this grey has shifted north, along with local superannuation funds looking for cheap property &amp; a longish timeframe to settle, in the hope of double digit price growth.
Brisbane always follows Sydney, right?  Property is so cheap in Brisbane, hey! You can buy two in Brisbane for the price of just one in Sydney. Bris Vegas here we come.
Sidebar
I have an internal debate several times each month – it's fun, like talking to an imaginary friend – about whether or not to write on a certain topic. 
Do I let blast about China? Publish my thoughts about smaller apartments?  Call out all those BS artists promising double digit price growth &amp; rental increases?  And this week, it's a yes.  Write something about the Reserve Bank (RBA), Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) and how we will all be rooned.
We'll all be rooned
Now, there is nothing wrong with a global property market, nor being in the recovery phase of the property cycle and having closer ties to China – or any of our major trading partners for that matter.
But a housing bubble is a different story.
Property values have almost trebled over the past two decades, while wages have not kept pace. House prices in both Sydney, Melbourne, some parts of Perth and now across inner Brisbane, are often over 10 times household earnings. In many cases, weekly rents also far exceed 30% of a renter's income.
And things can start getting out of hand when the proportion of investors buying accounts for around half of all residential sales – double the 25% of the housing market made up by private renters. This happens every cycle, but its current trajectory is unsustainable.
Got some doubts?
Well this year alone, housing credit and house prices have climbed at, respectively, more than two and three times the rate of household income growth. It isn't the actual rate of credit and price growth that is the problem, but their relationship with our ability to afford this inflation.
It's true that this is mostly a Sydney and Melbourne phenomenon, but we only have a few blunt tools in the back of our ute to temper the times. And besides, we have never been that good at small, fiddly renovations. Slash and burn is more our style.
The good and the bad
Yes, there are reasons for property demand to be improving – we have record low interest rates, relatively low vacancy rates, high population growth and a strong penchant for owning property.
But on the flip side, we have falling commodity prices, an employment baton change which, for the life of me, I cannot see happening smoothly nor correspondingly, little wage growth, ageing demographics, high debt, an increasingly economically wobbly China and a close to epileptic Europe. Not to mention what may or may not happen with the rest of the world.
For those who only hear good news, you might have missed that Australia's federal budget deficit last year (2013/14) was close to $50 billion &amp; yet the Palmer United Party wants to keep the red ink flowing until the early 2020s. 
If that happens, then our prized AAA sovereign credit rating could be at risk, especially if something goes wrong with our economy – or that of a major trading partner.
In short, we might see the vulnerable economic conditions of southern Europe down under.
This article continues on the next page. Please click below to continue.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
True blue
But in true ocker fashion – it's all "she'll be right mate", "nothing to see here". Those questioning our "property at all costs" mentality need to take a double dose &amp; retire to bed early. Keep on moving on. Bid higher at that auction. Buy something tiny and off-plan. Doesn't property double in value every seven years? You cannot lose.
Too far-fetched?
Well, our real wages are falling. Yes, falling, as average earnings rose just 2.3% over the last 12 months – that's 0.3% lower than inflation. Unemployment is over 6%, without counting the 700,000-plus on disability pensions.
True, the RBA does predict higher economic growth next year, real wage growth in some distant future and lower employment one day, maybe, but this is predicated on the assumption that nothing economic will go bang or that China's economy won't slow down further.
Excuse me for being a skeptic, but trying to predict an economic future, these days, is almost impossible.  I would just love to read or hear one of those talking eco heads say something like, "well, frankly we don't have a bloody clue".
If you ask me what's going to happen, your guess is as good as mine.
But I do like to guess, so here goes.
<ul>
<li>Government will not reign in spending; we (the senate) won't allow it.</li>
<li>No workplace reforms, for fear of a union campaign.</li>
<li>The RBA will continue jawboning and keep interest rates where they are (when looking at the whole of the Australian economy – not just housing in Sydney and Melbourne – they really need to fall).</li>
<li>Plenty of talks about macro-prudential action – like higher investment loan to value ratios; changes to property taxation or minimum product sizes – but nothing done. Maybe that is a good thing?</li>
<li>No enforcement by FIRB regarding illegal overseas buying – and it has almost all been illegal in recent years.</li>
</ul>
And it's the last point that is the most pertinent right now.  If you want to slow down the Sydney, Melbourne and inner Brisbane property markets without stopping the rest of the country, then you must enforce offshore buying laws.
Inert FIRB
An inert FIRB has done nothing to inhibit the grey economy that exists to get money out of China (ironically, helping them deflate their own housing bubble) &amp; into safer overseas havens like Australia.
It's true that the Chinese government imposes a $US50,000 a year limit that can be sent out of the country, but cashed-up Chinese bypass this system via personal relationships rather than transparent bank transfers. Heaps of property – just how much is unknown (but it shouldn't be) – is being bought this way in Sydney &amp; Melbourne, Perth, and now in Brisbane and starting to again on the Gold Coast.
Also, the Significant Investor Visa (SIV) is dominated by mainland Chinese who meet the $5 million requirement. They are paying stupid prices for potential development sites (with site values doubling in the past five years), but property economics do not apply here, as the SIV is really a fast-tracked qualification for a permanent visa. Dual nationality is the want, but sadly, too many Chinese just want an Aussie passport as an insurance policy, not a new way of life.
Lower down the chain – much lower, if you ask me – is another sheltered workshop – property spruikers flogging Chinese investors little high-rise boxes in Sydney, Melbourne and now Brisbane. Entire high-rise buildings are financed, built and sold for the Chinese market, with local buyers and developers rendered irrelevant. Small, one-bedroom dogboxes are the norm. The more the merrier. How divine, indeed!
And all of this should be illegal. If only FIRB would enforce the law!
All of this illicit activity is creating a demand that would not otherwise exist. Well at nowhere near the levels that it is increasing spruiked. Quarterly newspaper lift-outs about Australia's sudden urge to live on top of each other – I mean, come on.
And this, coupled with local superannuation investors – many of whom appear to have been sold a pup – has created valuations that are dangerously detached from average weekly earnings &amp; sustainable owner-resident demand.
But then again, it is Australia mate; stop all this fussing; she'll be right; tyranny of distance and all that stuff.
But seriously folks
But seriously, something has to be done.  We are now entering some serious hot water.
Here's another guess.  Nothing will happen until this gets political; economic sense doesn't seem to cut the mustard around here anymore.  The political wedge, for mine, come next federal election, is overseas buying.
But between now then, I will take Terry's advice – <a href="terry-ryder/36256-headline-obsessed-writers-need-a-reality-check" target="_blank">take a couple of aspirin &amp; have a good lie down</a>. 
Michael Matusik is the founder of Matusik Property Insights, which has helped over 550 new residential projects come to fruition.  Read Michael's <a href="https://matusik.com.au/missive/" target="_blank">Blog</a> or follow him on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ThinkMatusik?fref=ts" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelmatusik" target="_blank">Twitter</a> or connect via <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelmatusik" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a>.
</body></html>

michaelmatusik-49YzLvdmNv

Is there a housing bubble? Or should we all take a wee lie down?

<html><body>
Earlier this year, Brisbane's cost of living was reported among the world's highest at 13th, based on a survey by Expatistan – a group that analyses world-wide cost of living data.
In terms of our capitals, Brisbane came in second, behind Sydney (11th); while Melbourne placed 18th, Perth 24th, Adelaide 25th and Canberra 26th.
Yet if we break out housing – a major component of the variables measured in the survey – Brisbane's housing price points may surprise many.
The fact is that the majority of home sales taking place across Brisbane are for a price tag of less than $400,000.
And a similar trend exists across most other Australian capitals as well, including Sydney and Melbourne – also in our regional centres.
While the perception may be otherwise, the reality is that most dwellings sold Australia-wide are for less than $500,000. A third sell for prices under $350,000.
When it comes to buying property, knowledge of location price points can be helpful for investors in terms of making better property choices and maximising future investment returns.
That's because knowing how many sales take place in a particular area and price category, can provide an indication as to how long a property might take to resell; and how much future promotion and resources might be required to achieve that sale.
Price points – along with other key criteria such as value, design, site, supply and demand – are something that investors really should pay more attention to, rather than generic price growth alone.
Another way of looking at price points is to visualise the market as being shaped like a pyramid, where sales volumes are diminishing as prices rise.
The point being that in general, the more you pay for a property, the fewer buyers there are to resell to in the future.
That's not to say that the top end housing market has not seen growth across Australia.
Today, one in 10 of our homes achieves over $1 million on sale, up from 3% 10 years ago.
And one in fifty homes sells for over $2 million, up from 0.7% a decade ago.
In Brisbane, these are the latest dwelling price points:
<ul>
<li>Under $400,000 – 38%</li>
<li>$400,000 to $600,000 – 39%</li>
<li>$600,000 to $800,000 – 13%</li>
<li>$800,000 to $1 million – 6%</li>
<li>Over $1 million – 4%</li>
</ul>
Investors, especially those just starting out, would be wise to consider buying property in the larger price brackets. The old adage of safety in numbers does apply.
It's important to remember, too, that price movement is not necessarily uniform across a market. Some price points move more than others and will change, depending on the position of the market in the property cycle.
Currently, in Brisbane's recovery market, here's what we are seeing:
<ul>
<li>Properties priced below $350,000 have seen a 12% lift over the past three months</li>
<li>Those priced $500,000 to $1 million have increased more than 30%</li>
<li>And sales over $1 million are up an impressive 43%.</li>
</ul>
 Visit Michael's <a href="https://matusik.com.au/" target="_blank">website</a>, read his <a href="https://matusik.com.au/missive/" target="_blank">blog</a>, follow him on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ThinkMatusik?fref=ts" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelmatusik" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, or connect via <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelmatusik" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a>.
</body></html>

Forget generic price growth: it's time to take a closer look

<html><body>
Well, more real estate baloney.
This time it is about first home buyers – or the lack of them.
The ABS statistics released today show that first home buyer activity, measured as the proportion of all owner-resident lending, is the lowest in 23 years.
You would have heard all about it on the news tonight or will read about in tomorrow’s papers.
But something is wrong here.
<blockquote>
The fact is, we should all question a lot more of the real estate data that is being fed to us.
</blockquote>
And like many things these days in the real estate world, it’s the figures that are incorrect.  The ‘official’ statistics are measuring only part of the whole, yet very few question the results.
In short, there is a hell of a lot of first home buying taking place.
Most first home buyers buy an established property, and in most places across Australia, first home buyer grants do not apply to established property, only new stock.  And where it does apply, it amounts to very little, and to many it isn’t worth the paper work.
So, for mine, the ABS (along with others) is not correctly corralling first home buying activity.
It is interesting to watch the property intelligentsia trying to explain the reasons for the fall in first home buyer interest, as shown in the first two charts below.
"Generation X are choosing to rent rather than buy – they are buying investment housing instead of homes for themselves – housing is unaffordable so they cannot buy – we need more grant monies"; and it goes on.
<a href="https://matusikmissive.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FHB-1.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-7359" src="https://matusikmissive.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FHB-1.jpg" alt="FHB #1"></a>
<a href="https://matusikmissive.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FHB-2.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-7360" src="https://matusikmissive.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FHB-2.jpg" alt="FHB #2"></a>
I think the statistics are wrong.
Why wouldn’t first home buyers be buying?
<ul>
<li>Interest rates are extremely low</li>
<li>Banks are keen to lend</li>
<li>Mum and dad are practically paying for the deposit to get rid of their ‘boomerang’ adult children (at 30, one wonders if ‘children’ should really apply)</li>
<li>Yet according to the same talking heads who claim low first home buyer take-up – housing affordability is the best in over a decade</li>
<li>And to prove that point, there has been little change in the size of the average first home loan in recent years – see my third chart below</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://matusikmissive.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FHB-3.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-7361" src="https://matusikmissive.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FHB-3.jpg" alt="FHB #3"></a>
Late last year the ABS put out a great study – sadly it comes out only every five years or so – called Housing Occupancy and Costs (catalogue number 4130.0 for those who want to read the 92 page document).  This shows that first home buyer activity is much higher than the housing finance loan data suggests.
The HOC study shows that over the past three (3) years (and importantly, covering much of the recent first home buyer slump) just short of 1 million households (988,000) bought a property across Australia.
Of the 988,000 transactions over the last three years, 36% or 355,000 were first home buyers.  Eight out of ten first home buyers (289,000 or 81%) bought a second-hand or established home.  Just 19% bought a new property or something off-plan.
My conversations with real estate agents, including those selling new stock, indicate that first home buyer activity is much higher than the low levels officially reported.
I suspect that first home buying activity is close to the historic average – something around 35% of the total owner-resident market and around 20% of the total housing market, when including investors.  This is what I am seeing on the ground; and it explains the strong sales results across much of the country over the last 12 to 18 months.
First home buyers must be taking part; otherwise those upgrading or downsizing would not be able to sell as fast or as often as they currently are.  It is first home buyers that make up a significant part of the buying audience for their established homes.
It is good to see that others, too, are starting to question the results.
I note that the RBA, in their current chart pack (June quarter), have left off first home buyers in the graph outlining loan activity across the country.  See the last chart on page 6 of <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/chart-pack/index" target="_blank">this</a> document.  It has been included in previous RBA charts.
Michael Pascoe, too – thinking man that he is – has also questioned the results.  See <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/first-home-buyer-statistics-not-adding-up-20140609-39sam" target="_blank">here</a>.
You should too.
The fact is, we should all question a lot more of the real estate data that is being fed to us.
The media – for the most part – aren’t interested in checking the statistics before they regurgitate them.
Much of what you read these days about property is sadly bunkum.
Ohh…….. and don’t get me started on the need for or accuracy of a daily price index or suburban median house/unit prices!
Visit Michael's <a href="https://www.matusik.com.au/" target="_blank">website</a>, read <a href="https://www.matusikmissive.com.au/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">his blog</a>, follow him on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ThinkMatusik?fref=ts" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://www.twitter.com/michaelmatusik" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Twitter</a>, or connect via <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelmatusik" rel="nofollow">LinkedIn</a>.
</body></html>

Have first home buyers really gone missing?

<html><body>
It is quite sad to see what gets promoted as 'investment' advice in the property space these days.
This was again brought to my attention a few weeks' back when a new inner Brisbane apartment project, under the 'investment' tab on their shiny new website, wrote that apartment values in the area in question had risen by over 10% per annum since 2000 and weekly rents had lifted by over 150% over the same time frame.
It also claimed that the local population is projected to increase almost fourfold over the next 25 years.
The price and rent values used were medians and any increase in population will involve much more new housing supply.
Medians are muddied by new developments, which artificially lift values, especially when used on a small- scale, suburban basis. And there have been a lot of new developments in this area over the past 15 years.
When you look at actual apartment resales, you find a 4.5% annual gross capital average gain over the last ten years in the area (we survey 25 select apartment projects in each major Queensland suburb in order to understand what's going on) and over the past four years there has been little to no resale apartment price growth in the suburb in question.
In addition, the vacancy rate has more than doubled – up from 2% to 4% over the past two years &amp; one-bedroom rents are even starting to fall.
Back in 2000, renters in this area were paying, on average, less than 20% of their income on rent. Local tenants, based on the rents promoted by this new project, would have to give up between 35% &amp; 40% of their income to live there.
In addition, local home values are now close to ten times earnings compared to 3 to 4 times in 2000. Keep in mind that interest rates have fallen from close to double figures to record lows since 2000, and up until the last couple of years, wages were growing by over 4% per annum.
Today, most local jobs are part-time. And a record number of new apartments are proposed in the area; the subject site is surrounded by other development opportunities &amp; population growth/migration are lower than historical averages.
In short, the next 10 to 15 years are very likely to be different from the past decade or two. No doubt there is a movement towards inner city living – heck, I was one of the first (in 1988) to outline why such a trend was imminent – but the cranes on the skyline suggest a potential apartment oversupply. Hopefully, it won't last that long.
But this isn't what gets my goat; it's that too few in the development/selling space really seem to give a hoot about the information used to spruik a new property.
I think buyers should challenge the information supplied. "<a href="/expert-insights/29805-what-is-caveat-emptor-and-how-it-affects-you" target="_blank">Caveat emptor,</a>" many will say; while others will suggest that buyers do their own research and due diligence. I agree with both statements, but where to start?
Here are seven things that a property buyer should do or know when looking to purchase an investment property.
<ol>
<li>Question the time period being used.  Best to look at the last cycle – i.e. seven years, and the last year too.  Try to understand where the local market is in the property cycle.</li>
<li>Ask for resale evidence – the same property, without major improvements, selling over time. Not median prices. Median or middle values work as broad indicators and only when used across big areas, like a city or municipality.</li>
<li>Ask who is buying, the proportion of investors versus owner residents, and where the buyers are coming from.</li>
<li>Request rental evidence, and from at least two independent sources. Ring the sources up and ask them about what they wrote. Ask who will manage the property and the intentions regarding tenant tenure – long or short-term stays.</li>
<li>Quiz the developer, selling agency &amp; local council about the immediate development plans around the subject development. Will the view be blocked out? Overshadowing? Little space between buildings? More competition?</li>
<li>Ask for a 'current market assessment' or 'spot' valuation. Valuers often lowball; they can get things wrong, but to their defence, they carry a lot of professional risk and don't get paid enough. That being said, don't pay more than 5% above the valuation price, unless you believe the area has some real upside (for example, a new hospital being build nearby or major university about to open in the area).</li>
<li>Make sure your property has the potential to be bought or rented by three out of six key housing demographic segments.</li>
</ol>
Better still, I think what is needed is a standard set of rules – a formula that is used to measure all passive residential property performance, regardless of location or property type.
This would need to include the same time frame; same resale equation; same base of measurement – i.e. rate per square metre; same calculation of gross rental yields based on the local vacancy factor and a regular and independent audit of the figures.
Now that would make property investment much easier.
 
Visit Michael's <a href="https://matusik.com.au/" target="_blank">website</a>, read his <a href="https://matusik.com.au/missive/" target="_blank">blog</a>, follow him on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ThinkMatusik?fref=ts" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelmatusik" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, or connect via <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelmatusik" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a>.
 
 
</body></html>

Seven ways to improve your investment analysis

<html><body>
Property investors need to pay more attention to price points, rather than just generic price growth.
If I was to tell you that there were more home sales under $400,000 across Brisbane than, say, between $600,000 and $800,000, many of you might not believe me. A similar trend exists across most other Australian capitals, including Sydney and Melbourne; and this is definitely the case in our regional towns.
This information is very important for a range of reasons.
Market size is important. More so, for me, than the general direction or position of the market. Size does matter. Buyers should know how many sales take place in their particular price category.
This helps work out how long it might take to resell. It also gives a clue as to how much one might need to promote their property in the future in order to achieve a sale.
Most property sells for less than the property intelligentsia would have us believe. We largely read about the ‘good news’ in all those property investment mags, and not the bad - or even plain average.
Again, most dwellings sold across Australia sell for under $500,000. A third sell for prices under $350,000.
The market is shaped like a pyramid. Sales volumes diminish as prices rise.
In general, the more you pay for a property, the fewer buyers there are to resell to in the future. That isn’t to say there hasn’t been growth in the size of the top end housing market across Australia. Today, one in 10 of our homes achieves over $1 million on sale, up from 3% 10 years ago. One in 50 sells for over $2 million, up from 0.7% a decade earlier.
Another important point is that price movement isn’t uniform across a market.
Certain price points move more than others, and this changes, depending on the market’s position in the property cycle.
For example, Brisbane is in a recovery phase, so the more expensive properties are starting to sell. While there has been some movement in the number of house sales priced in the more affordable sub $350,000 price range (a 12% lift) over the past three months, this is mild compared to the increase in sales priced between $500,000 and $1 million, which has increased by over 30%.
Sales over $1 million are up a whopping 43%.
In contrast, during a downturn for example, it is the cheaper properties that see more growth in sales volumes.
Keep the latest Brisbane dwelling price points in mind:
<ul>
<li>38%: Under $400,000 
</li>
<li>39%: $400,000 to $600,000 
</li>
<li>6%: $800,000 to $1,000,000 
</li>
<li>4%: Over $1,000,000</li>
</ul>
In summary, I believe investors – especially those starting out – should buy a property in the larger price brackets. There is safety in numbers. Properties in these price groups are generally more affordable, making them more ‘downturn’ proof.
When you read about generic price growth, keep in mind that not all of the market is moving at the same pace. Some market segments may even be moving in a different direction. There are many housing markets, even in the same city and local area.
 
</body></html>

Keep your eye on price points, not price growth

<html><body>
Q: Where have all the first home buyers gone?
A: Nowhere - and they are not coming back.
For those interested in property matters, you've probably been bombarded by tales of woe about all those poor first timers who cannot get into the market.
Nasty investors.  Rich baby boomers.  Property bubble.  The need for more grants.  Chinese buyers.  Overseas migrants.  Poor town planning.  Capital gains tax.  The blame game will go on and on…
According to the latest official figures released recently – well for August – first home buyers (FHBs) accounted for 13.7% (always best to get the decimal point in) of all loans – a nine year low.  The long term average is about 20%.
Why?
For mine, reasons for this low level of interest include:
<ul>
<li>
They were brought forward.  The machinations with regards to the first home owners grant (FHOG) have interfered with the property cycle.  The FHOG is great politics, poor policy.  It is also inflationary and has resulted in fewer FHBs than would otherwise have been the case.  It needs to go away.
</li>
</ul>
If it wasn’t for the FHOG, this trend – the decline in FHB numbers – would have started more than a decade ago and the decline would have been far more gradual.  Demographics shape everything.
<ul>
<li>
Generation Y – the largest rental group – is more interested in travel and other lifestyle things than being saddled with a home loan.  They are partnering later, if at all, and history shows that unless one is getting serious about a relationship (and having children is being discussed or on the way), then the momentum to buy your first home is limited.  Renters have better things to spend their money on.  Also, they have more investment options – including their own portfolio of work – than their parents did.
</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
Potential FHBs are happy to share accommodation, especially higher priced rental (and better quality/located) properties and experience the lifestyles that are outside their ability to obtain through home purchase.
</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
HECS debt is also strangling FHB interest.  Under-employment is also having an impact.  Our employment situation is still somewhat shaky.
</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
Expectations are out of whack.  Many FHBs want their first home to be like the one they currently live in.  Many still live at home – without paying rent or doing too much around the house.  There are plenty of options for FHBs to buy a property – for example, a third of all house sales in South East Queensland are still priced under $300,000 – but these properties aren’t good enough for many of today’s FHBs.
</li>
</ul>
We aren’t likely to see FHBs come back into the market at volumes as seen over the past two decades or so.  A new norm is being set.  If this comes true, then we are likely to see three market impacts:
<ul>
<li>
More renting.  But maybe not rental increases.  
</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
Fewer sales made by existing property owners – especially those holding more affordable houses.  Investors might, for a period, replace FHB interest and buy some of these second-hand properties, but investor interest will not be as stable as FHB interest.
</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
Less heat in the overall property cycle – quite ironic given the conversation of late.  A Sydney-centric recovery (boom?) only (so far).  It takes all three market segments – investors, second and subsequent buyers and FHBs – to move together to drive a strong market recovery.
</li>
</ul>
Those trying to sell second hand property – many of them looking to downsize and in more suburban locations – are the real losers here, not first home buyers.  Frankly, they have never had it so good.
Save your tears for something or someone else.
 
<hr>
Michael Matusik is the founder of <a style="font-size: 14px;" href="https://www.matusik.com.au/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Matusik Property Insights</a>, which has helped over 550 new residential projects come to fruition.
Read <a href="https://www.matusikmissive.com.au/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Michael’s Blog</a> or follow him on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ThinkMatusik?fref=ts" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://www.twitter.com/michaelmatusik" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Twitter</a> or connect via <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelmatusik" rel="nofollow">LinkedIn</a>.
 
</body></html>

Michael Matusik

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News