First, the cycle in the Australian housing market, rather than following the US market, is in fact at a more advanced stage; it is probably leading the US market by three years or so. The Australian housing market was at its hottest in 2003, whereas the US market peaked in 2006.
To understand how this came about, it is necessary to look back to the second half of the 1990s. The tremendous shift in the global savings/investment balance that followed the Asian crisis generated a surplus of funds in global markets. The financial sectors in the English-speaking countries, being more dynamic and responsive than in many other countries, were quick to take advantage of this. In the US, the early part of this period coincided with a surge in technological innovation, and the initial wave of money in that country went to the technology sector. This resulted in the 'tech' bubble, which eventually collapsed in 2000.
Australia did not have much of a technology producing sector so our financial institutions sought out other investment opportunities. What Australia did have was a conservative household sector with relatively low gearing. As such, the financial sector saw opportunities for financial innovation aimed at encouraging households to make greater use of their borrowing capacity. Most of this was focused on housing lending.
The result was that the boom in housing in Australia got underway well before that in the US the latter did not really get going until after the tech bubble collapsed.
A second difference relates to the dynamics of the housing markets in the two countries. In the US, the rise in house prices elicited a very strong supply response so that, by the end of 2007, there was almost one-year's supply of newly built unsold houses overhanging the market. US house prices stopped rising essentially because the supply of houses overtook demand.
Graph 5
Click to view larger
Here in Australia the rise in house prices did not elicit such a strong supply response. There were pockets of overdevelopment in apartments in 2003/04 but, by and large, there was never a serious oversupply of unsold new houses in Australia. In fact, the consensus is that there is currently a shortage of dwellings.
The Australian housing boom ended because prices rose to levels that severely strained the financial capacity of buyers to pay higher prices, not because too many houses were built, as in the US.
The overhang of unsold houses in the US has created downward pressure on house prices as builders and developers have been forced to sell. This is absent in Australia. Rather, the shortage of housing here means that there are buyers waiting for better circumstances - e.g. lower interest rates or rising incomes - to facilitate their entry to the market. This latent underlying demand for housing is a factor that will support the market.
A third important difference between Australia and the US is in the groups that the lenders targeted, and in the loan terms on offer. In Australia, the lending boom was concentrated on existing home owners who traded up to bigger and better houses and bought investment properties. Many of these were people in their 40s and 50s who previously had low levels of debt. At the end of the boom, the home ownership rate in Australia was no different to that at the start; in both cases about 70 per cent.
While one could argue that no socially productive purpose was served by this increased lending to middle aged existing home owners, it did mean that the loans largely went to those who had a strong capacity to service and repay them. As a result, whereas most other countries with housing booms have experienced a strong rise in arrears on housing loans once the boom ended, in Australia the arrears rate is today no higher than it was at the start of the boom in the mid 1990s. And, of course, it is low by international standards.
Graph 6
Click to view larger
In the US, in contrast, a lot of the lending found its way to more marginal borrowers who previously could not afford a loan, or it took the form of aggressively structured mortgages which allowed people to borrow much more than they previously could. The home ownership rate in the US continued to rise during the first years of the boom. One could argue that this was a good thing, but one consequence was that a significant proportion of this group ended up having trouble servicing their loans; hence, the sharp rise we have seen in US loan delinquencies.
In setting out these differences, I don't want to leave the impression that the Australian housing market is without its problems. There is no denying that there is a significant number of people who are facing difficulties with housing loan repayments, especially in western Sydney where arrears rates are significantly higher than in other parts of Australia.
While lending standards in Australia did not deteriorate to anywhere near the same extent as in the US, loans sourced from new, non traditional lenders have ended up with higher rates of arrears than those of traditional lenders. The arrears, even on prime, full doc loans made by this new group of lenders are three times higher than those on similar loans sourced from the major banks. In addition, a higher proportion of loans granted by these lenders were low-doc or non-conforming, the arrears rates on which are significantly higher than those on prime loans. One can only conclude that these lenders had lower credit standards than traditional lenders, and while this may have benefited some borrowers, it has ended up causing significant hardship for others.
Graph 7
Click to view larger
One of the issues that has been highlighted by events in the US is the importance of having adequate regulation of lending and loan brokers. In Australia, all lenders were covered by the Uniform Consumer Credit Code but loan brokers were much more lightly regulated, until very recently. The Council of Australian Governments earlier this year recognised that regulation needed to be strengthened and agreed to transfer responsibility for the regulation of all consumer credit to the Commonwealth. This is due to take effect by the middle of next year and should ensure that regulation of this very important financial activity is put on an even sounder footing.
2008