Oh I get it. The 6.7 drop isn't the year to today but from March 08 to Mar 09.

Unfortunately after March 09 another large upward swing commenced and quickly wiped out those drops.

Does this sound correct?

From Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released on 2nd November 2009

Annual Changes (September Quarter 2008 TO September Quarter 2009)

Over the year to September 2009, preliminary estimates show that the price index for established houses for the weighted average of the eight capital cities increased 6.2%

Annually, house prices rose in:
+12.3% Darwin
+ 8.4% Melbourne
+ 7.8% Canberra
+ 5.9% Sydney
+ 5.6% Brisbane
+ 5.4% Hobart
+ 4.4% Perth
+ 3.7% Adelaide

It would appear that the 8.13% who said "rise 0-10%" actually got it right.

Unless of course they lived in Darwin...

Mate! I'm sure if you hadn't got here as early (in the cycle) as you did you wouldn't be so blase..

Easy for me too - I'm sitting on a >250 buck a week mortgage and a 100k+ plus income, with 250k of equity. Not bad for a young fella.

Hell Badge my post was ages ago!

Well done mate. I have no mortgage (paid off) on a circa $900k property and am on a pretty high income - so I'm not complaining!

I love living in Australia.

6.7% drop from March 2008 to March 2009.
6.2% increase from Sept 2008 to Sept 2009.

If my maths are correct, that is a fall of 0.5%

The 6.2% increase has so far only brought prices NEARLY back up to what they were before.
So, where will they go from here with the stimulus ended and interest rates rising?

A fall of 0.5 % between Sept/Oct 2008 and Sept/Oct 2009 ?
How do you work that out ?

It sure looks closer to a 6.2% increase to me...

Australian Bureau of Statistics data released today show Australian house prices fell 6.7% for the year March 2008 to March 2009.

ABCDiamond
From Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released on 2nd November 2009

Annual Changes (September Quarter 2008 TO September Quarter 2009)

Over the year to September 2009, preliminary estimates show that the price index for established houses for the weighted average of the eight capital cities increased 6.2%

What I said was that as prices had initially dropped by 6.7% in the March 2008 - March 2009 period and has consequently only risen by 6.2% in the Sept 2008- Sept 2009 period, then the overall effect was a price drop of 0.5% since -6.7 + 6.2 = -0.5.
If I had bought a house in March 2008 for $500,000. In March 2009 according to stats it would be worth $466500
Subsequent rise of 6.2% since would now mean my house would be worth $495423 in Sept 2009.

Yes, but this original poll was about how much prices would change from the date it began, which was in October 2008.

Which I understand.

But up until March 2009 they had fallen 6.7%. Coincidentally when the stimulus and interest rates were starting to take effect which is why I made the comparison. If there had been no stimulus and interest rates had been left, do you believe that prices would have regained some of their earlier losses?

It's all a bit of a moot point now but those figures released back then were interim figures. They were adjusted to:

Apr-Jun 08 -0.2
Jul-Sep 08 -2.4
Oct-Dec 08 -1.2
Jan-Mar 09 -1.5
Apr-Jun 09 4.2
Jul-Sep 09 4.2

So I guess using your example a house bought for $500,000 in Mar 2008 would be $514,610 in Sep 2009 as it now stands.

That comment posted May 4th 2009 under the graph at http://www.whocrashedtheeconomy.com/blog/?p=415 sure got the prediction wrong:

"and with the grant likely to be terminated on June 30, falls are likely to accelerate in the 2nd half of this year"


Even with grant being extended a few months that prediction was terribly off with the prices actually already in the process of rising 8.4%.

I guess its shows it's hard to predict with 100% certainty what will happen in the future.

Where do you get those figures from? Certainly nothing like I've seen.

I accept that house prices rose after March 2009. The blog predicted that these falls would continue when the grant ended when it was originally supposed to. From March 2008, when interest rates were 7.25, we then saw a fall to 7% in Sept 2008. From this point they fell to 3% by Apr 2009.

If you compare these interest rates with average house prices you can see a pattern

Using figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. From Mar 08 to Mar 09 house prices in the 8 capital cities had fallen an average of 6.7%.

I believe the combined effect of the stimulus and it's extension and interest rates at 3% from this time were what caused the increase in demand and subsequent price rises to near previous levels

I'm confused.

(Nothing new there, then)

Do people regard rising house prices as good or bad?

The same confusion arises with governments: they will trumpet an increase in prices as good news (makes owners feel they are richer, therefore vote their way) and in the next breath bemoan the unaffordability of homes!

Substitute the word "food" for "houses" and see how facile most pronouncements are.

a bit like some of the spinmeisters on here then

High price rises are good one day and affordability is good on another depending on their agenda for the day

May make owners feel they're richer - but what about the owner's children and their children? How can they happy about high prices? I regard it as bad...

And another thing I can't understand is how can living in an expensive house whose value has increased exponentially make anyone feel richer when most appear to hardly have any disposable income left at the end of the month - what with taxes, mortgage, food etc etc eating a good chunk of your income. Unless of course owners cash in, downsize and live off the "profit"? I still don't get it.

The simple answer is it doesn't.
It's a house, end of the story.
Everytime council raise the valuations (2 years ago I got slammed an 18% rise) you end up paying more in council rater, water rates etc.