The Cause of Our Deepening Rental Crisis

While I’m a generally upbeat person, there are some aspects of the Australian residential investment market that are cause for concern. Worse still is that some of the struggles we see in the rental market can be remedied, but they’re founded in a common misconception about real estate investors.

I think we’re in the habit of penalising property investors in this country, but few realise the fallout will have a wider reach, particularly for those who can’t afford to purchase.

 

Vacancy plummets

A recent study by SQM Research revealed rental vacancy rates have plummeted to a 16-year low. Our own research via the MCG rental loss index is showing vacancies as tight as ever.

Most commentators say a ‘balanced rental market’ has a vacancy rate between two and three percent. This is the point at which demand and supply are evenly matched, so rents tend to remain stable.

But the SQM numbers show the vacancy rate across our combined capital cities is currently 1.3 per cent, which is a 0.3 per cent downturn from December 2021, and a 0.7 per cent fall across the year.

In fact, apart from Sydney (2.1 per cent), Melbourne (2.7 per cent) and Brisbane (1.1 per cent),  every other capital city has a rate below 1.0 per cent.

This screams of a lack of supply and runaway demand across these major centres.

So, why has supply dried up, particularly during this period of record capital growth?

 

Conspiring forces

The misconception I mentioned earlier is that investors are viewed as an easy target politically and socially. They’re often seen as wealthy real estate hoarders, whose vast millions are simply being used to lock out first homeowners.

But this is plainly untrue. A quick online search reveals that of Australia’s 2.2 million investors, most are average income earners. A large number (around a quarter by my calculations) are simply investors because they kept their first home as an asset rather than selling before moving. There’s also few (less than 10 per cent) who own more than two investment properties. Surveys likewise tell us most are simply seeking an easier retirement – not a private plane and house in the Bahamas.

Yet time and again they’re seen as cash cows or whipping boys, depending on which side of politics you sit.

But the numbers tell us we need to encourage more investment, not less. Despite this, here are some issues turning investors away from residential property.

 

Tax impacts

Legislation introduced in 2017 brought about changes to depreciation benefits for residential property investors.

For residential properties purchased after 7.30 pm on 9 May 2017, depreciation deductions can only be applied to Plant and Equipment (P&E) items deemed “not previously used”. So removeable items like blinds, carpets and air conditioners which aren’t new can no longer be depreciated for tax purposes.

This change has removed a huge advantageous chunk of tax deductions for residential investors. In response they’re turning toward other assets, such as commercial property.

Add to this that there’s a good chance Labor will win the next federal election, and they have previously shown interest in changing negative gearing and Capital Gains tax rules. I know of quite a few investors who are considering an exit from the market if those two incentives are amended.

 

Finance woes

Another concern for investors is borrowing money for property purchases.

The free flow of available credit has a direct effect on levels of property investment. For example, after the Royal Commission into Banking and Finance, rules were implemented that made it tougher to qualify for a loan. The end result was a softer property market.

Despite this, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) recently put a shot across borrower’s bows. They increased the loan tolerance buffer from 2.5 per cent to 3.0 per cent. This means unless your numbers show you’re able to service a loan at an interest rate three per cent higher than what you are actually applying for, you could well be knocked back.

This reduces funds available for investing, and hence lowers activity – particularly as investors are already charged a higher interest rate than homeowners (despite them being a comparably better risk).

The big worry is that APRA will implement further restrictive lending directives, particularly for investors. This could occur via such things as higher LVRs, for example. All this feeds into a reduced appetite for investing and falling supply of rental properties.

Then there’s rising interest rates. A ramp up in inflation both here and overseas is translating into a looming interest rate hike – perhaps even as soon as mid 2022. Higher rates mean a lower net return on your investment.

 

Legislation

There seems to be a national push toward reframing tenancy legislation, so it’s weighted more in favour of the tenant than the landlord.

2021 rule changes in both Victoria and New South Wales gave tenants more power in the relationship. Changes included elements such as an ‘as of right approval’ to make alterations to the leased property, limits around rent increases on periodic leases, and a reduction in break-free fees. There’re also rules making it easier for tenants to have pets.

Probably toughest of all is that landlords in Victoria need to provide a reason for ending a tenant’s lease after their first fixed term.

 

The problem, as I see it, is that penalising landlords simply makes residential property a less attractive asset class. Some might be cheering (i.e., first homeowners) and I’m all for people being able to buy a home, but few seem to have thought about the fallout for renters.

A huge swathe of the Aussie population rents – for whatever reason. It might be affordability, that they’re transient workers, or even as a lifestyle choice. These people need rental properties, and there are few social housing options that can successfully fill the void. Australian landlords provide most of the shelter for these renters.

So why do we keep punishing landlords? Instead, we should be encouraging investment to increase supply, improve availability and create further competition.

Mark my words, the rental crisis isn’t going away anytime soon, and could get even worse if we don’t start addressing investor inequities.

The NSW Stamp Duty fallout: my three big predicted outcomes

There’s been a cacophony of opinion this week filling column inches and taking over the airwaves of property centric media.

Refreshingly, the big news wasn’t pandemic related. Nor did it involve a concession speech of any description.

No, the chatter has been dominated by a NSW government discussion around the abolition of stamp duty which is a thorn in the side of property owners.

Given there was an expectation stamp duty would be substantially curtailed – if not abolished all together – in the wake of the GST’s implemented in 2000, this new proposal has been a long time coming.

There appears to be much dancing and rejoicing about the plan – well, awkward dad-dancing and restrained accountant-style rejoicing anyway – but as is often the case, we have precious little fine detail on the proposal at present. As such, trying to predict the exact fallout of this change is difficult.

But I’ve never been one to shy away from a challenge – particularly when it comes to tax matters. It’s my extraordinarily boring superpower.

Here’s a summary of the proposal and my three long-range predicted outcomes should the changes come to pass.

The proposal

The NSW proposal would essentially see buyers given the choice of paying stamp duty or opting for an annual land tax when acquiring a property.

This would mean purchasers could choose an ongoing yearly land tax payment rather than a lump sum stamp duty which, by the way, is just over $42,000 based on the median Sydney house price at present.

According to media reports, because there’s been far less market activity this year (due to some global pandemic or something) the revenue generated from stamp duty has fallen dramatically. As such, now is a prime time to implement the changes. Not only would a restructure be less painful right now, but government has grown more accustomed to lower stamp duty.

But it’s not all altruism on the state’s part. A 2019 Grattan Institute study on the abolition of stamp duty stated:

“…shifting from stamp duties to a broad-based property tax could leave NSW between $4.1 billion and $5.2 billion a year better off.”

In short, abolishing stamp duty should make it easier for many buyers to purchase a home, and the annual land tax means the government is receiving a more regular income stream.

Seems like a win for everyone at this stage

My three predictions

Let me say from the outset, details about the proposal are still a bit light on, but let’s assume the protocols will continue to be generally in line with the information we have to hand.

Prediction one. I suspect there will be increased buyer demand for property that’s been opted into land tax rather than stamp duty.

These assets will be more price accessible, especially for first homebuyers and investors. If buyers are choosing between a transaction with a big up-front cost, and one with more manageable ongoing cost, then the latter is going to come up trumps in most instances. The result of higher demand is (all things being equal) higher prices too, so expect to see land-tax properties fetch more than their stamp-duty contemporaries.

Prediction two. Be prepared for a potential two-tiered market divided along property value lines if they don’t change the way land tax is worked out at the moment.

Annual land tax is currently assessed on the basis a property owner’s holdings exceeding a threshold of $755,000 in taxable land value. While details are yet to emerge on what thresholds will be in place under a new system, if the status quo of land tax thresholds were maintained, those who sit below the figure are unlikely to adopt the ‘pay upfront stamp duty’ option.

I have one big caveat though. Governments have a history of finding ways to get their pound of flesh. I don’t really believe they’d introduce a scheme that provides a loophole for avoiding tax altogether, so expect a flat percentage or sliding scale of some description to ensure the money keeps flowing into consolidated revenue.

My third call is a bit more solid. I think 2022 could be ‘The year of the NSW flipper’ under the changes.

Buying a dodgy property, doing a quick fix up and on selling for a profit was extremely popular a decade or so ago. In the ensuing years – national economic challenges aside – it seemed every woman and her dog wanted to give flipping a go, so competition for renovatable property heated up.

But a big part of making a flipping profit is keeping costs down, and stamp duty has been a monstrous drag on the bottom line of renovation projects. The removal of stamp duty would help make flipping more profitable.

There are wider flow on benefits from this prediction as well. Beyond simply the property owner’s financial gain, there’s the broader economic upside with increased use of consultants, contractors and materials. Flipping is an excellent stimulus for the real estate sector, so let’s hope I’ve nailed that one like Nostradamus on a good day.

So, I say ‘hurrah!’ to the proposed changes but I look forward to seeing the nitty gritty instil more confidence into an industry that’s the economic foundation of this country.

Mike Mortlock is a Quantity Surveyor and Managing Director of MCG Quantity Surveyors. MCG Specialise in Tax Depreciation Schedules and Construction Cost Estimating. You can visit them at www.mcgqs.com.au/ Mike Mortlock is a Tax Depreciation expert, Quantity Surveyor and Managing Director of MCG Quantity Surveyors. He is a regular speaker and commentator having been featured in the Financial Review and Sky Business. MCG Specialise in Tax Depreciation Schedules and Construction Cost Estimating for investors. You can visit them at https://www.mcgqs.com.au/