With inflation on target - here's what I'm telling buyers and sellers to do right now
As Managing Director and Co-Founder of Flint Group, one of Australia's fastest-growing mortgage brokerages, and host of Australian Property Talk podcast, each week, I speak to thousands of Australians navigating the property market - from first-time buyers to seasoned investors - and right now, there's one message I'm sharing with all of them: the tide is turning, and it's time to get prepared.
Inflation is officially back on target
Inflation has cooled, and that's a milestone that could reshape the property market in the months ahead.
In the June quarter, consumer prices rose at an annual pace of just 2.1 per cent, down from 2.4 per cent in March. More importantly, the "trimmed mean" measure of inflation - the Reserve Bank's preferred gauge of underlying inflation - fell from 2.9 to 2.7 per cent.
This puts inflation firmly back inside the RBA's 2-3 per cent target band for the first time in years and broadly aligns with the Bank's own forecasts released in May.
This shift changes the conversation. We're no longer talking about the risk of future hikes. We're now asking how soon rate cuts will arrive.
Borrowing power is set to rise fast
With two rate cuts already delivered, one more almost certain for August, and another three expected by this time next year, borrowers are set to benefit from a significant uplift in their borrowing power. Most estimates suggest an increase of more than 15 per cent.
As interest rates fall, serviceability buffers ease, monthly repayments drop, and previously constrained borrowers are able to access credit again. This can be a game changer, especially for upgraders, investors, and those who've been sitting on the sidelines waiting for the right moment to act.
If you were limited just a few months ago, now is the time to reassess. Lending conditions are shifting quickly and many buyers will find themselves in a stronger position than they expected.
Confidence is returning to the market
Inflation doesn't just influence monetary policy. It plays a powerful role in buyer sentiment.
Over the last two years, interest rate hikes, rising living costs, and general uncertainty caused many Australians to delay their property plans. But now that inflation is falling and the threat of further hikes is behind us, confidence is starting to return.
I'm seeing investors re-enter the market. Pre-approvals are rising. Enquiry levels are lifting across major capital cities. We're not in a boom just yet, but these are exactly the kind of green shoots that often signal early-stage momentum.
Property prices tend to move ahead of rate cuts
There's a well-known pattern in the Australian housing market: property prices tend to rise before the Reserve Bank makes its move.
That's because markets are forward-looking. Buyers adjust their expectations based on where interest rates are going, not just where they are today.
Now that inflation is under control, many buyers are acting early - securing property while conditions remain favourable and before competition heats up.
What I'm telling clients to do now
With inflation back in range and monetary policy set to loosen, the property landscape is changing fast.
This is the time to revisit your borrowing power. Many people who felt stuck earlier this year may now find they can access significantly more finance than before. Speak to a broker who understands the current environment and can help you position yourself strategically.
And most importantly, don't wait for the RBA to officially cut again before making your move. Markets tend to move early, and it's often the early movers who benefit most.
------------------------------
Redom Syed is the Managing Director and Co-Founder of Flint Group, one of Australia's fastest-growing mortgage brokerages. A former economist at the Federal Treasury, Redom brings deep expertise in finance, lending strategy, and property markets. He is also the host of the Australian Property Talk podcast, where he helps everyday Australians make smarter investment decisions through data-driven insights and practical advice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
20 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Green hydrogen hype fades but future hopes are bright
Investors call it "the valley of death": the decade-long stretch in which a budding technology struggles to become profitable. For green hydrogen, the valley is looming large after two energy giants withdrew support for multibillion-dollar Australian projects within one month. Following the announcements, a $14 billion plant will no longer be built in Gladstone, Queensland and a $55 billion proposal for Western Australia's Pilbara region is in doubt. But while the global green hydrogen hype is starting to deflate, climate, energy and finance experts say there are still plenty of reasons to pursue production of the zero-emission fuel in Australia. The investment pause may also give the industry time to reconsider uses for carbon-free hydrogen, they say, letting firms ditch the dream of a hydrogen car market and energy exports in favour of more promising pursuits such as green iron. Green hydrogen, named for its zero-emission properties, has been pursued strongly in Australia since the release of the National Hydrogen Strategy in 2019. The fuel is created using an electrolyser, powered by renewable energy, that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. It has been called the "Swiss Army knife of decarbonisation" due to its potential to cut emissions in fields such as transport, metal production, fertilisers and electricity. But producing, transporting and selling green hydrogen is not proving as quick or as profitable as some pundits anticipated. In addition to the two recent green hydrogen project withdrawals, Climate Energy Finance director Tim Buckley says many plans have been redrawn and erased around the world. "Australia is not alone - this is a global trend and we have seen the global hydrogen hype dissipate dramatically," he says. "We've had a series of hydrogen proposals shut down, cancelled or withdrawn over the last six to 12 months." Even strong proponents of green hydrogen, such as Germany, have reduced support for the zero-emission fuel, he says, as it has proven expensive to produce without access to large-scale, cheap, renewable energy and an international carbon price. Green hydrogen is also proving challenging to transport, defying predictions it could be shipped internationally to decarbonise energy production in neighbouring countries. Investing in green hydrogen is like investing in internet companies during the 1990s, Mr Buckley says: risky even though it could pay off in 10 years. "We're going now across the valley of death and it's usually a decade-long journey before you come out the other side and realise there was a lot of substance in what was being said. "We were just deluded and over-hyped about how quickly it would happen," he says. Australia has several small green hydrogen plants in operation and the federal government has issued two grants to larger facilities through its Hydrogen Headstart program. The Murchison Green Hydrogen Project in Western Australia received an $814 million grant in March, followed by a $432 million grant for Orica's Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub this month. Despite withdrawing from its proposed hydrogen plant in Gladstone and another in the US, Fortescue chief executive Dino Otranto says the energy giant remains optimistic about the future of the fuel. Producing large amounts of green hydrogen for export "presents real challenges," he says, but Fortescue will use the fuel to produce green metals at its Pilbara plant. "Our belief in the long-term role of green hydrogen hasn't changed but we acknowledge the market for green hydrogen as an export energy has shifted," he tells AAP. "In the near term, our focus is on where hydrogen has a clear and immediate role - producing green iron." Green iron has the potential to cut 90 per cent of emissions produced in the steelmaking process by using hydrogen and energy from renewable sources rather than coal or gas. Australia could become a leading supplier of green iron as the world's biggest iron ore exporter, according to analysis from The Superpower Institute, and could generate as much as $386 billion a year from the metal by 2060. Changing the focus on green hydrogen from an export material to fuel for domestic use is vital, says Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis global steel lead analyst Simon Nicholas, and could secure its future. "The silver lining to a lot of these projects failing, I hope, is that there's going to be a refocusing on what we need to use green hydrogen for and we'll end up needing an awful lot less than we thought we did a few years ago," he says. "It should be used domestically in the place that it's produced and it should be focused on a much narrower range of uses." Hydrogen-powered cars have been outpaced by electric models, he says, and using the fuel to power long-haul trucks or heat homes seems unlikely. Using green hydrogen to produce cleaner iron and steel, ammonia, fertiliser, explosives and other chemicals could give it a greater chance of success, however, and give Australia more export opportunities. "It's going to be very important because competition overseas is there and growing," Mr Nicholas says.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
The suburban US office that brokered lucrative military contracts with Australia
Tucked away in an unassuming suburban business park in Fairfax, Virginia, not far from Washington DC, is the single-storey office of Burdeshaw Associates, a company that has done millions of dollars worth of confidential business with the Australian Defence Department over the past 10 years. Located alongside neighbours that include an escape room and a karate studio, it's a surprisingly low-key location for a firm that describes itself as 'the premier aerospace and defense boutique consulting firm' offering the services of 'over 700+ [sic] retired generals, [and] admirals'. For years the company has acted as a conduit for highly paid advice to the Australian government from a raft of retired senior US navy and defence personnel who charge thousands of dollars a day. And there are likely to be further rich pickings ahead, as the AUKUS pact moves the Royal Australian Navy towards a nuclear-powered submarine fleet (albeit at a grindingly slow pace) and government dollars start to flow from upskilling a workforce, and building the infrastructure, to enter the nuclear domain. The depth and duration of Burdeshaw's relationship with Canberra's defence establishment is striking. Records on the federal government's Austender site reveal that the Australian Defence Department has struck contracts worth at least $11.7 million with Burdeshaw over the past decade for 'strategic planning consultation services'. A further $1.5 million deal was signed between the company and the Prime Minister's Department in 2021 for advice to then prime minister Scott Morrison. That's $13.2 million flowing through Burdeshaw's books courtesy of the Australian taxpayer over the past decade, including its most recent three-year contract with Defence, valued at $1.2 million, and dated February this year. However, a request to the Defence Department to provide a comprehensive list of the names and roles of personnel hired under the Burdeshaw contracts has been stymied, with Defence citing 'security and commercial-in-confidence reasons'. Burdeshaw and its principal, lawyer Alex Heidt, have also failed to respond to numerous attempts by this masthead to elicit further information. A visit revealed that Burdeshaw shares its premises with Heidt's law firm. A large painting of the late general William M. Hartzog, a former chief executive of the company, adorns the wall, and a stack of Heidt's awards from Lawyers of Distinction are assembled on a desk by the front door. An employee, Tyler Heidt (Alex Heidt's son), wanted to know if this masthead had security clearance, and when told no, said the dealings with Defence were confidential. Even on the limited information publicly available, Burdeshaw's record shows the deep involvement by senior retired US Navy personnel in confidential deliberations about the capabilities of the Royal Australian Navy, particularly as Australia pivoted towards the AUKUS submarine deal under Morrison. As investigative journalist Andrew Fowler noted in his book Nuked, by the time Morrison had junked the deal to buy conventional French submarines and replaced it in September 2021 with the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine pact with America and Britain, 'US senior military officials were liberally sprinkled across the highest levels of the administration'. By late 2022 – the last time Defence made figures readily available to a federal parliamentary committee – no less than eight retired senior US Navy officers were providing well-paid advice to the Australian Defence Department, among them, an admiral, a vice admiral, a rear admiral, a commander and four captains. All were either advising on 'naval shipbuilding' or on managing the transition of the RAN submarine fleet to a nuclear-powered future. It is unclear how many were on contracts negotiated through Burdeshaw. (At least two senior retired US Navy figures appear to have struck their own deals with the Australian Defence Department under separate consultancy companies they set up.) Defence also refused to provide updated figures on how many foreign nationals are working on AUKUS-related programs. In response to questions, a spokesperson said the department needed 'the support and expertise of the US and the UK to deliver AUKUS' and that 'all personnel regardless of nationality, are subject to appropriate security clearance requirements and operate under strict contractual obligations'. Burdeshaw first came to public notice in 2022, when The Washington Post published an investigation revealing more than half a dozen former US Navy and civilian navy leaders were playing advisory roles at senior levels of the Australian defence hierarchy in the lead-up to AUKUS. The Post named six former navy admirals and Dr Donald C. Winter, a onetime US Navy secretary to George W. Bush. Winter had been a key member of the Australian government's high-level Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board as far back as 2016, before being handpicked by Morrison to help drive AUKUS forward in September 2021. Documents unearthed by the Post show Winter's services were being provided via Burdeshaw in late 2021 for $US6000 ($9318) a day, plus expenses. In 2022, specialist industry publication Australian Defence Magazine highlighted the 'significant American influence in Australia's defence capability decision-making'. It noted the Defence Department's submarine advisory committee included two senior US shipbuilding industry figures: Jim Hughes and retired US admiral Kirkland Donald. Hughes was a former vice president of submarines at US shipbuilder Newport News Shipbuilding (which makes Virginia-class submarines of the type Australia is now seeking to acquire from the US before it gears up to make its own). Loading Donald sat on Australia's top-level submarine advisory committee from 2017, while he was also on the board of and subsequently chairing US nuclear submarine builder Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), which owns Newport News. He eventually stepped down from the Australian advisory committee in April 2022, citing a potential conflict of interest. This masthead is not suggesting there was a conflict of interest. Defence officials later insisted he'd declared his HII role and 'in his capacity as a member of the submarine advisory committee he did not provide advice on nuclear-powered submarines'. In 2018-19, former US Navy rear admiral Stephen E. Johnson was appointed a deputy secretary inside the Australian Department of Defence, one of the most senior positions in the nation's security hierarchy. Former US Navy vice admiral William 'Willy' Hilarides, a veteran of 35 years in the American service, was also deeply embedded in Australian defence advisory structures for years. A former head of the US Navy's ship and sustainment program, Hilarides sat as a key member of the Australian Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board for four years before becoming chair of its successor body, the Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel, in 2021. Figures provided by the Defence Department to a Senate committee in late 2022 put the value of Hilarides' contracts – negotiated through Burdeshaw – at $1.9 million. Subsequently, this masthead reported he received $2.4 million for his role on the two advisory panels. Head of the Defence Department Greg Moriarty told the Senate that Hilarides had played no role in the Morrison government's decision to scrap the French submarine contract in 2021. In 2023, the Albanese government handed Hilarides a new role, heading a review to advise on achieving 'complementarity' between Australia's surface navy fleet and the AUKUS submarines. Labor Defence Minister Richard Marles has defended the extensive use of advice from former top-ranking US Navy officers, telling this masthead in 2023, 'where we have sought advice from those former officials in the US Navy, that has been on issues of profound importance for our nation's future'. Others have questioned how genuinely objective such advice could have been, even with the best intentions. Gary Slater, a former American marine turned consultant for local lobbyist ADCG, says 'there's a good and a bad to it: the good is that you're getting access to global expertise. And the bad is a perception ... that you're paying consultant rates for retired officers to give you advice that is not necessarily in Australia's best interest'. Rex Patrick, former South Australian senator and submariner, speculates that it appeared the department had wanted only one perspective. 'If you only seek counsel from US admirals, you'll only get a US answer. The department had the ability to reach out to other very experienced submarine-operating nations to bring different perspectives 'inside the tent'. They didn't.' Defence's refusal to answer this masthead's questions about the Burdeshaw contracts stands in marked contrast to some of the detail it provided in past Senate estimates hearings. Loading In 2023, Defence Department secretary Moriarty confirmed that contracts for advice by another American, retired US Navy rear admiral Thomas Eccles, then stood at $1.2 million. In early 2023, in written advice to Greens senator Jordon Steele-John, the department confirmed that the maximum amount payable on contracts relating to just three of the US Navy's former top brass – Hilarides, Eccles and Kirkland Donald – totalled close to $5.3 million. The AUKUS pact faces a raft of challenges, not least the review now being undertaken by Pentagon Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Elbridge Colby. Finding the workforce to crew, build and maintain nuclear-powered submarines will pose a years-long challenge. However, one pool of labour that won't run dry any time soon is the pipeline of US and other consultants in waiting as the AUKUS project gathers momentum. Meanwhile, the federal government's Australian Submarine Agency is criss-crossing the globe at a seemingly frenetic pace. According to figures provided to the senate, between June last year and the end of January this year, its staff clocked up 218 international trips, at a total cost of around $3 million.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The suburban US office that brokered lucrative military contracts with Australia
Tucked away in an unassuming suburban business park in Fairfax, Virginia, not far from Washington DC, is the single-storey office of Burdeshaw Associates, a company that has done millions of dollars worth of confidential business with the Australian Defence Department over the past 10 years. Located alongside neighbours that include an escape room and a karate studio, it's a surprisingly low-key location for a firm that describes itself as 'the premier aerospace and defense boutique consulting firm' offering the services of 'over 700+ [sic] retired generals, [and] admirals'. For years the company has acted as a conduit for highly paid advice to the Australian government from a raft of retired senior US navy and defence personnel who charge thousands of dollars a day. And there are likely to be further rich pickings ahead, as the AUKUS pact moves the Royal Australian Navy towards a nuclear-powered submarine fleet (albeit at a grindingly slow pace) and government dollars start to flow from upskilling a workforce, and building the infrastructure, to enter the nuclear domain. The depth and duration of Burdeshaw's relationship with Canberra's defence establishment is striking. Records on the federal government's Austender site reveal that the Australian Defence Department has struck contracts worth at least $11.7 million with Burdeshaw over the past decade for 'strategic planning consultation services'. A further $1.5 million deal was signed between the company and the Prime Minister's Department in 2021 for advice to then prime minister Scott Morrison. That's $13.2 million flowing through Burdeshaw's books courtesy of the Australian taxpayer over the past decade, including its most recent three-year contract with Defence, valued at $1.2 million, and dated February this year. However, a request to the Defence Department to provide a comprehensive list of the names and roles of personnel hired under the Burdeshaw contracts has been stymied, with Defence citing 'security and commercial-in-confidence reasons'. Burdeshaw and its principal, lawyer Alex Heidt, have also failed to respond to numerous attempts by this masthead to elicit further information. A visit revealed that Burdeshaw shares its premises with Heidt's law firm. A large painting of the late general William M. Hartzog, a former chief executive of the company, adorns the wall, and a stack of Heidt's awards from Lawyers of Distinction are assembled on a desk by the front door. An employee, Tyler Heidt (Alex Heidt's son), wanted to know if this masthead had security clearance, and when told no, said the dealings with Defence were confidential. Even on the limited information publicly available, Burdeshaw's record shows the deep involvement by senior retired US Navy personnel in confidential deliberations about the capabilities of the Royal Australian Navy, particularly as Australia pivoted towards the AUKUS submarine deal under Morrison. As investigative journalist Andrew Fowler noted in his book Nuked, by the time Morrison had junked the deal to buy conventional French submarines and replaced it in September 2021 with the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine pact with America and Britain, 'US senior military officials were liberally sprinkled across the highest levels of the administration'. By late 2022 – the last time Defence made figures readily available to a federal parliamentary committee – no less than eight retired senior US Navy officers were providing well-paid advice to the Australian Defence Department, among them, an admiral, a vice admiral, a rear admiral, a commander and four captains. All were either advising on 'naval shipbuilding' or on managing the transition of the RAN submarine fleet to a nuclear-powered future. It is unclear how many were on contracts negotiated through Burdeshaw. (At least two senior retired US Navy figures appear to have struck their own deals with the Australian Defence Department under separate consultancy companies they set up.) Defence also refused to provide updated figures on how many foreign nationals are working on AUKUS-related programs. In response to questions, a spokesperson said the department needed 'the support and expertise of the US and the UK to deliver AUKUS' and that 'all personnel regardless of nationality, are subject to appropriate security clearance requirements and operate under strict contractual obligations'. Burdeshaw first came to public notice in 2022, when The Washington Post published an investigation revealing more than half a dozen former US Navy and civilian navy leaders were playing advisory roles at senior levels of the Australian defence hierarchy in the lead-up to AUKUS. The Post named six former navy admirals and Dr Donald C. Winter, a onetime US Navy secretary to George W. Bush. Winter had been a key member of the Australian government's high-level Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board as far back as 2016, before being handpicked by Morrison to help drive AUKUS forward in September 2021. Documents unearthed by the Post show Winter's services were being provided via Burdeshaw in late 2021 for $US6000 ($9318) a day, plus expenses. In 2022, specialist industry publication Australian Defence Magazine highlighted the 'significant American influence in Australia's defence capability decision-making'. It noted the Defence Department's submarine advisory committee included two senior US shipbuilding industry figures: Jim Hughes and retired US admiral Kirkland Donald. Hughes was a former vice president of submarines at US shipbuilder Newport News Shipbuilding (which makes Virginia-class submarines of the type Australia is now seeking to acquire from the US before it gears up to make its own). Loading Donald sat on Australia's top-level submarine advisory committee from 2017, while he was also on the board of and subsequently chairing US nuclear submarine builder Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), which owns Newport News. He eventually stepped down from the Australian advisory committee in April 2022, citing a potential conflict of interest. This masthead is not suggesting there was a conflict of interest. Defence officials later insisted he'd declared his HII role and 'in his capacity as a member of the submarine advisory committee he did not provide advice on nuclear-powered submarines'. In 2018-19, former US Navy rear admiral Stephen E. Johnson was appointed a deputy secretary inside the Australian Department of Defence, one of the most senior positions in the nation's security hierarchy. Former US Navy vice admiral William 'Willy' Hilarides, a veteran of 35 years in the American service, was also deeply embedded in Australian defence advisory structures for years. A former head of the US Navy's ship and sustainment program, Hilarides sat as a key member of the Australian Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board for four years before becoming chair of its successor body, the Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel, in 2021. Figures provided by the Defence Department to a Senate committee in late 2022 put the value of Hilarides' contracts – negotiated through Burdeshaw – at $1.9 million. Subsequently, this masthead reported he received $2.4 million for his role on the two advisory panels. Head of the Defence Department Greg Moriarty told the Senate that Hilarides had played no role in the Morrison government's decision to scrap the French submarine contract in 2021. In 2023, the Albanese government handed Hilarides a new role, heading a review to advise on achieving 'complementarity' between Australia's surface navy fleet and the AUKUS submarines. Labor Defence Minister Richard Marles has defended the extensive use of advice from former top-ranking US Navy officers, telling this masthead in 2023, 'where we have sought advice from those former officials in the US Navy, that has been on issues of profound importance for our nation's future'. Others have questioned how genuinely objective such advice could have been, even with the best intentions. Gary Slater, a former American marine turned consultant for local lobbyist ADCG, says 'there's a good and a bad to it: the good is that you're getting access to global expertise. And the bad is a perception ... that you're paying consultant rates for retired officers to give you advice that is not necessarily in Australia's best interest'. Rex Patrick, former South Australian senator and submariner, speculates that it appeared the department had wanted only one perspective. 'If you only seek counsel from US admirals, you'll only get a US answer. The department had the ability to reach out to other very experienced submarine-operating nations to bring different perspectives 'inside the tent'. They didn't.' Defence's refusal to answer this masthead's questions about the Burdeshaw contracts stands in marked contrast to some of the detail it provided in past Senate estimates hearings. Loading In 2023, Defence Department secretary Moriarty confirmed that contracts for advice by another American, retired US Navy rear admiral Thomas Eccles, then stood at $1.2 million. In early 2023, in written advice to Greens senator Jordon Steele-John, the department confirmed that the maximum amount payable on contracts relating to just three of the US Navy's former top brass – Hilarides, Eccles and Kirkland Donald – totalled close to $5.3 million. The AUKUS pact faces a raft of challenges, not least the review now being undertaken by Pentagon Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Elbridge Colby. Finding the workforce to crew, build and maintain nuclear-powered submarines will pose a years-long challenge. However, one pool of labour that won't run dry any time soon is the pipeline of US and other consultants in waiting as the AUKUS project gathers momentum. Meanwhile, the federal government's Australian Submarine Agency is criss-crossing the globe at a seemingly frenetic pace. According to figures provided to the senate, between June last year and the end of January this year, its staff clocked up 218 international trips, at a total cost of around $3 million.
