So I’m walking to Kosciusko–now that the ABS Established House Price Index has cracked its September 2008 peak of 131 to reach an all-time high of 134.4 (as of September one year later). This renewed bubble reversed the trend of falling nominal house prices that had dropped the index to a low of 123.8 in March 2009.
This level of price volatility–down 5.5% in 6 months, only to rise 8.5% in the subsequent six months–almost matches the stock market’s manic-depressive performance.
Though you’d see no mention of it if it you only read Chris Joye (“Keen concedes defeat“), the main factor behind the revival of the bubble is what is formally known as the First Home Owners Boost (FHOB), but what is more accurately described as the First Home Vendors Boost. As at the end of September–the date of the latest ABS house price data–171,000 applicants had received this $7,000 bribe. Since many are couples, more than 1 percent of Australia’s population has leapt into the property market pool at the behest of a government stimulus.
So how has a mere $1.2 billion injection of government money driven the average house price up by 8% in six months? By the “magic” of leverage: the typical First Home Buyer (FHB) took that $7,000 to the bank and leveraged it up to another $40-50,000, which then was handed over to the First Home Vendor (FHV) as cold, hard cash.
The FHV then took that extra $40-50,000 and leveraged it to an additional $200,000-$250,000, which meant that that new place which had been just out of reach prior to the FHOB was now well within range. Competing with other lucky recipients of government and bank largesse, he drove up the price of that middle to upper tier house by an additional $100,000 or more.
The aggregate impact of this government enticement into private debt was that Australian households reversed the deleveraging process that had begun in late 2008, and as a result the mortgage debt to GDP ratio, which had been falling, began to rise once more. The FHOB has led to Australians taking on an additional $50 billion of mortgage debt. That “demand” factor, far more than any other, is why I’ve lost the second half of Rory’s bet with me.
Normally I regard the “ceteris paribus” assumption of conventional economic theory as a copout–in a market economy everything is connected to everything else, and you can’t assume that, for example, a firm’s output can change without affecting the market price. But I think I’m entitled to ask the “ceteris paribus” question here: what would have happened to house prices had the government not spiked the market with the FHVB? I somehow doubt that Rory would be crowing today had that irresponsible policy move not been made.
In fact, there’s a good argument that we wouldn’t be having a property bubble here at all, were it not for the First Home Buyers policy. I’m not one for making arguments solely on statistical correlations–I’m only too aware of the “correlation isn’t causation” argument–but I think I can also spot a smoking gun when I see one.
Prior to the FHB, though real house prices were rising, so was real household disposable income. Then add two dollups of the FHB–one its introduction as a “temporary” measure to get us over the shock of the GST in 2000, the other its doubling to boost the economy during the brief 2001 recession–and off go real house prices relative to real household disposable income.
Last year, as the market starts to head back towards parity between house prices and incomes again, Rudd throws in another temporary doubling (of this temporary measure that is now almost a decade old), and off goes the house price bubble once more.
In the main, I’ve been a critic of banking practices as the underlying cause of the Global Financial Crisis. But I also believe that the crisis would have occurred long ago (in 1987) and been far less severe if governments and Central Banks hadn’t attempted to rescue the system from its own follies. The First Home Owners is a classic government folly, and its doubling last year is the main reason I’ll be walking to Kosciusko some time in April 2010.






November 4th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Great post Steve, and as usual illuminating. I too agree with some of the posters here that your walk might be coinciding with a fall in house prices.
Apologies for going off topic so early, but there was an interesting discussion regarding bank failures in the US (where a link to raw numbers was given) in a recent post and if I remember correctly bb asked if they could be shown as a percentage of the total number of banks in the United States.
So I couldn’t resist and went ahead and looked at the data.
If I can be so bold you can see the results on the most recent post on my little blog.
http://www.deflationite.com/blog/
It is a rough and ready analysis, but is I think at least interesting, in particular for the learned readers of this blog
November 5th, 2009 at 12:19 am
If it’s any consolation this article is worth a read, particularly from the “Faulty Premises” section onwards. One feels it could be similar in Australia however it could take a while to play out. Certainly will be interesting to see how housing sentiment unfolds.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/12/things-that-cant-happen.html
November 5th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Its a pretty simple explanation – and wholly astonishing that its ignored by nearly all concerned.
Give someone an extra $7k and they have somewhere between $7k and $7k / (1 – Avg LTV) extra funding available to purchase a house. Rinse and repeat.
To extend this beyond the specifics of FHOG – it is a straight forward observation that the Australian economy has prima-facie benefited from restarting of the debt engine. But if 2007-09 crisis has taught us anything, its that debt growth in excess of GDP growth has a limit. The government has simply kicked the can down the street.
More importantly – with interest rates still at emergency levels, and increased debt, we are now more vulnerable to a financial banana skin than we were before the policy response of the government. We are achieving so called “mortgage stress” at 45 year low interest rates – and yet our government believes we can all borrow our way out of excessive debt!!
November 5th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Makes me think of that song by Harvey Danger, but instead of only stupid people breeding they’re borrowing. And its the breeding ones borrowing. And they are many and lo they do vote in great numbers. And the finer points of economics doth escape them. And to keep votes the govt will keep them affording until we are in ruin.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:35 am
Same in the US. Congress is poised to extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit of $8000, and there is movement to expand the program to other buyers. As long as the government can stay in the game, their objective is to reflate to 2007 asset-values to clear the toxic debt. (The Fed has already pumped up the equities market by 50% from its lows.) No reforms have been put in place, and the US is blithely rushing for another run over the cliff of debt-deflation.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:46 am
One would expect that the property bubble will eventually burst, but trying to time emotional, irrational markets, especially with a short sell, is a mug’s game. You’ve been caught up in the classic short seller nightmare…. prices defying gravity/reality. Maybe by the time your feet are acquiring blisters, you might be able to say “I told you so”, but you can never be sure. Whatever you do don’t chase your losses, don’t double your bet… especially in an election year!
November 5th, 2009 at 3:49 am
If we had restricted the first home buyers grant to new houses would there have been the same effect? It would have increased the demand for new houses which would have increased the total supply of houses. The demand for old houses would have dropped which may have decreased the prices? Perhaps the government can keep the stimulus going but with a lesser effect by ONLY allowing the grant to be used on brand new houses. I don’t think the doubling the amount for new houses had the same effect as it is not the absolute amount that matters – it is the fact you appear to be getting something for nothing that prompts the action.
We see this all the time. Give people a “reward” and they will spend it even it it costs them money.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:26 am
I am still awaiting moderation it seems, and from the censors on an anti mainstream site.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:14 am
Steve, I’m fascinated to know what the significance of 1987 in particular is. Why not 1991?
November 5th, 2009 at 5:41 am
I do apologise jono1, but there’s only one of us, and contrary to reports, I am human and therefore need to sleep. I am now awake, and your previous comment is approved. Now if you don’t mind, I think I might go and have some breakfast…
November 5th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Sleep and breakfast are important for humans. I guess that’s why Steve is tolerant to those who have been trying to put their cases in context of physical limits.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:27 am
cscoxk, it would have been a different outcome had the Govt resources backed Steve instead, eg, FHOT instead of FHOG.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:15 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by greychampion, John Hacking. John Hacking said: It’s the leverage, stupid: So I’m walking to Kosciusko–now that the ABS Established House Pri.. http://bit.ly/CNs3o [...]
November 5th, 2009 at 8:26 am
What a great read! How can any housing bear honestly boast about the resilience of the Australian Housing Market? Surely Joye and Robertson are fully aware of the frailties of the bubble. This is why they keep harping on about Steve, they are using your lost bet as another form of propaganda…they can point to Australia’s number one housing bear and say look how wrong he was….this allows them to claim victory and they think this will convince people once and for all that house prices never fall.
You really should focus a lot more on the FHBG….rather than just discrediting neo-liberal economic theory. Government meddling had a much bigger role to play in this than you sometimes seem to suggest. Right now – the banks lending practices are a direct result of an implicit guarantee from the Australian Government that bailouts will be there if needed.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:45 am
cscox
I think it is reasonably clear that the primary aim of the FHOG was to save the Banks who would have been (IMO) insolvent had price falls that Steve was predicting occurred. There has been some debate about that here but I’m still certain that with banks level of leverage and the cascading effects there is little doubt in my mind our Banks would have collapsed. Given the reports that are now surfacing as to how close they came anyway, I’m even more sure of my grounds.
Happily for everyone the process of rescuing the Banks also kept house prices elevated and allowed the Govt to go to the next election with confidence. Don’t stand in front of that particular train!
November 5th, 2009 at 8:47 am
I saw Joye’s partisan piece, but I would not expect anything different from him. After all, he started Rismark International “Advanced Real Estate Solutions”.
Rismark is a company that is founded on a shared equity business model which can only work in a property market that always rises, otherwise he would be unable to raise the debt for Rismark’s share of the “equity” and his company would fall in a heap.
I think if you read his article with this in mind you perhaps see that he does indeed understand what Steve is saying is correct and his shrill words “attacking the messenger” are written because he is becoming rather desperate that the property market does not turn because when it does he will be one of the first big victims.
All Chris Joye’s writings on the subject of Real Estate should have a disclaimer attached.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:21 am
The FHOG was astute politics but as Henry and Garnaut have recently said, the security of the banks, and the mood of uncertainty in the public, meant it was imperative to find a means to stop real and imagined panic. Smart short term politics but bad economics. Historical experience and Steve’s analysis indicate the price levitation trick cannot go on for too long.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Hi Steve,
I’m beginning to suspect that the government’s pumping of the economy by various means including the FHOB, even flooding it with immigrants, to rescue asset prices may have some advantages.
You see, I suspect that all any of the English speaking countries, especially the USA, have been doing is kicking the can down the road, in fact kicking a lot of cans, debt, climate change, offshoring, Peak Oil and a growing host of others. Eventually, the pile of cans will reach the point where it cannot be kicked further and we will have a whole host of simultaneous crises.
In the USA, once the folk in the street wrench themselves away from their favorite reality TV show (because their power has been turned off) they will encounter the widespread view in the blog sphere and alternative media that most of the USA government’s financial response to the GFC consisted of allowing the Wall Street insiders it had put in charge of the effort to transfer massive amounts of money into Wall Street bonuses.
This could lead to a lot of bitterness and disunity.
Here in Australia, however, the Rudd government has spread quite a lot of loot among the ordinary people. That some of it may have done more harm than good does not matter. What matters is that people can sit smugly among the ruins thinking “Well, I got mine while it was available”.
In short, if the future turns into “interesting history” I think the national unity engendered by allowing the common herd a turn at the feeding troughs may be worth it.
Stephen Heyer
November 5th, 2009 at 10:45 am
The Outback Oracle,
“I think it is reasonably clear that the primary aim of the FHOG was to save the Banks who would have been (IMO) insolvent had price falls that Steve was predicting occurred.”
I doubt this. It is likely that Rudd continued the FHOG for two reasons: (1) ensure that no potential property downturn occurs when the next election is on, and (2) the government knows that property is truly unaffordable for many people and thus wanted to help them by providing a subsidy.
The neoclassicals around Rudd would be saying that there is no property bubble and that the banks are quite safe. According to their thinking, no FHOG was needed to save the banks who apparently are in fine condition.
The eventual bust is inevitable, but the FHOG has only forestalled it.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Hi BTB,
I have posted this question before to others but did not get a response back. A lot of members here stated that they converted to super into cash before the markets crashed and did not have any losses. How is this possible?
I know a person at work who converted to cash after loosing around 11K. After converting to cash he lost further 9K because the unit price of his cash went down. So in total he lost 20K.
Others people who did not convert suffered a lesser loss losing around 7K after their portfolio recovered a bit.
I am thinking of crystallizing my losses now and converting to cash but what good is it if the unit price of cash can also decrease? It seems the only way to avoid any further loses is to start your own super and get it out of the system. Is there any super where cash is cash and not priced in units (where the unit price can vary)?
November 5th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Excellent post. It is absolutely leverage.
Government should deficit spend by fiscal policy, rather than enticing households to deficit spend. Of course both stimulate demand.
But there are great incentives to manage demand via “Monetary Policy” — really lowering the costs that banks incur for making loans and reducing bank oversight.
Unlike fiscal policy, monetary policy requires no messy democratic process. Moreover it is easy to avoid public scrutiny as banks are notoriously opaque, and this includes central banks. It is the path of least resistance for government. This is particularly true as bank control of the government grows.
As long as this “works”, the government will keep doing it, ultimately risking a Japanese-style debt revulsion. At that point, no amount of low rates or credits will stop the non-bank private sector from deleveraging. And it will be shown that the majority of those private sector liabilities are just off-balance sheets liabilities of the government, which will be put back on the government as it buys up bad debt and backs depositors in a time of crisis. Monetary policy must always be converted into fiscal policy when the crisis hits.
In order to avoid deflation, government will need to accept this shifting of liabilities *and* deficit-spend at least dollar for dollar as the private sector de-leverages.
People will characterize as “printing” and worry about inflation, without realizing that no net money is being transferred from the consolidated government + “private” banking sector to the non-bank private sector. It is merely am expansion of government balance sheets to counteract a shrinking of bank balance sheets. This will involve needless pain as borrowers are punished for defaulting while lenders are bailed out.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Is Temporarily Inflating House Prices a Good Idea? asks Dean Baker
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=11&year=2009&base_name=is_temporarily_inflating_house
November 5th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Sorry Steve, Thank you for posting.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Thanks Laurence,
And jono, sorry for having a bit of a poke at you, but mate it really is exhausting for me to maintain the schedule I keep. People often forget there’s a human behind a site like this, and there’s only so much that can be done.
And to all and sundry, as most of you know (a) I’m the only moderator on this site and ridiculously busy; (b) ALL new posts get held for approval, for obvious reasons; (c) Wordpress has an excellent spam filter plugin which occasionally mistakes a post with a lot of links for spam. All those issues get in the way of moderating promptly, but I promise I’m the last to censor posts. It would take something extreme for me to block anything: outright obscenities, a first-off flame, or postings from real nutcase groups. Apart from that, if what is posted is thoughtful, and/or amusing, and/or feeding the flow here, it will appear once I get round to any necessary approvals.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:14 am
In that case, why not select someone who is willing to be another moderator/administrator?
November 5th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Great post Steve.
Outback Oracle, yep, spot on on saving banks. Garnaut is very blunt about all of this, too. Says they set about protecting the balance sheet of our banks.
And yes, NC, he does seem to suggest it was necessary at the time. But he is abolutely explicit that it is a massive bubble here also. And it’s not very clear how he thinks it needs to be dealt with.
Stavros – Joye, Robertson, and I’d add Guy Debelle to your list having watched his unimpressive response to Steve, and also because he’s mates with Robertson, have hides as thick as Rhinos.
I think it just proves that when there is money and/or egos to be made, there will always be plenty of volunteers – including lots of intelligent ones – for the job, even if it’s less than ethical.
But I’d have to admit that Rory was right when he made the bet. His major argument was the RBA/Government put. NOT fundamentals, not supply and demand, bla, bla, bla.
But the old Greenspan put reframed for Australia – the Rudd/Stevens put!
The really interesting thing is whether these guys think these mind games (because they’re aiming to effect emotion, not rational decision-making) can continue to work for much longer since our bubble is so very mature.
Whilst I have to concede that I have come to be in no doubt that they are really going to throw a lot at it – while the political backdrop allows – my sense is that attempting to manipulate these extreme emotions is unpredictable and it is highly unlikely that they will be able to keep nominal prices relatively stable to allow disposable income to catch up over the long run.
The complexity of that task is well demonstrated at the moment – Stevens is talking up higher interest rates, while other RBA officials, most notably Tony Richards of late, are providing the ammunition for RE spruikers to talk up investor’s prospects in the market.
Whilst a long work out period is possible given that is what they are aiming for, on balance I think the balancing rope is just too high and conditions too uncertain for it to be the most probable outcome.
On IRs, I think Stevens is in a fairly tight spot. The best defusing of the bubble would be to adopt Steve’s recommendations on debt forgiveness combined with strict curbs on leverage going forward. But it’s not a viable option right now – too many will feel that their “hard won” financial advantage over others in society – ie. the lotto winners who by chance bought before the bubble – will evaporate overnight, and the banks would hardly like to see their (housing) ATMs curtailed. And I don’t think the Labor party donors would like this outcome much – as Garnaut says, growth in donations etc suggests donors are obtaining a satisfactory return on investments into the political process…… So it’s all eyes skyward to the balancing rope…. hope he’s wearing a parachute (not a golden one)
November 5th, 2009 at 11:28 am
RSJ said
“Government should deficit spend by fiscal policy, rather than enticing households to deficit spend. Of course both stimulate demand.”
Utter nonsense. The government is deficit spending in the form of FHOG which in fact is reducing demand for new housing as buyers scoff at inflated prices. How on earth are house prices going to correct other that the Japanese style 20 year decline. When are people going to realize that government is the problem and any suggestion that we need more of it (other than enforcing leverage limits etc…) is share lunacy. The whole idea of ‘stimulating demand’ reeks of consumerism gone mad. Many may want an increase in aggregate demand but many others don’t; I certainly don’t want to be forcibly fed cheap garbage imports nor want home grown services I don’t need. It’s all a bunch of big brother BS. Micromanage your own affairs and leave others alone.
“In order to avoid deflation, government will need to accept this shifting of liabilities *and* deficit-spend at least dollar for dollar as the private sector de-leverages.”
Why on earth should governments avoid deflation; give one good reason why house prices and other assets should not fall 30 to 40%. If leverage is too high then enforce limits and let business/banks default in the process.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Joshua,
You will usually find that cash is not strictly cash. Most fund managers mandate for investment will state that their allocation for a 100% cash portfolio is ‘cash and other short term securities’.
It is these ‘other short term securities’ where investors probably copped some losses over the past 12 months as spreads were volatile and would have had an impact on overall returns.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:53 am
“But I also believe that the crisis would have occurred long ago (in 1987) and been far less severe if governments and Central Banks hadn’t attempted to rescue the system from its own follies.”
How do we know the current “rescue” will not push the problems another 10 or 20 years down the track? An analysis of the 1987 rescue Vs now would be interesting and perhaps provide an insight into why this one will fail.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Steve,
Why not have several moderators on a roster basis?
November 5th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Hi SK. I’ve been a reader for a few years. I posted under C Joye’s article the other day, ‘Keen concedes defeat’ and quoted ‘Midnight Candles’ Nov 09 by PIMCO’s Bill Gross — see http://australia.pimco.com/ — who seems to broadly agree with your position on asset values being inflated by 50 years of credit expansion and also on the policy response to frantically stop values falling. A follow up post by ‘C B’ (pasted below) claimed Australia’s ‘net debt’ when including super and other savings, was actually zero. He supplied the links below to support his position. Just wondering what your response to ‘C B’ is? I’d certainly appreciate a post from you clarifying the issue when you have time next. Thanks
C B
Posted 4 Nov 2009 8:30 PM
John,
You do the maths…..
Private credit as per the RBA stats, This is the data steve keen uses for his debt / GDP charts
http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/B02hist.xls
Superannuation and other managed funds from the RBA(Steve Keen ignores this data)
http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/B18hist.xls
Next time I need a pencil, I will know where to look….
November 5th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I’m open to volunteers! Anyone willing to put his/her hand up?
2-3 would be good–especially if time zones are spanned.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Hi Steve and all,
I have an uncomfortable feeling about demonising the FHOG so much. I’m not saying it’s a good policy. On the contrary, I think it is a shocking distortion that has conned tens of thousands into unsustainable debt. Despite this I want to pose an alternate theory that may fit within yours and Minsky’s larger theories.
Here goes. The market is endogenously driven. Bubbles feed on themselves and bust on their own etc.
In 2007, the markets for everything (including houses) were rising and so risk was rising dramatically (hidden from the masses) as such market interest rates began to rise because all the money flowed into speculation. That’s where the returns were. Rates naturally rose in counterbalance. As such the RBA followed the herd by raising rates to keep up.
Fear bubbled to a peak and so markets for everything fell into a trough. Except interest rates. They crashed because of risk aversion. As demand for bonds/cash rises, the price rises but the yield falls. Of course the RBA followed the market and rates fell (not the other way around as is commonly held). Rates fell too far too fast as fear was running at record and unexpected extremes.
As the fear subsided, speculation snapped back and so did market interest rates. They turned off their lows in late 2008. It just took 8 months for the RBA to follow this time.
What does all this mean? It was the fear and rising rates that cooled the housing market and then the receding fear and lowering rates that fueled this rally in house prices. But not because of the RBA. Because of the market itself.
The demand to buy houses must have come back as fear subsided. When people ran their numbers, the amounts they could borrow were now much higher and so they wasted some of that short term benefit competing with others for higher priced houses.
Therefore pure Ponzi style market speculation is to blame. There are limits to this game though. This may be why Australia is different to the US and Europe. As rates fall in a stair step lower over many years, so to the speculative bubble reaches a crescendo and loan balances rise in lockstep. But when rates approach zero the jig is up. Because there is no more fuel to drive the speculation. That’s perhaps why the debt bubble has not re-ignited in the US and UK. Because the process has already peaked and is now on its down cycle.
Maybe we were so focused on the US, we missed that Australia had a bit more air left to blow into it’s own balloon. I don’t expect this final head fake to last long as global events will most likely overtake Australia next year.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Net debt is a furphy. Imagine the “net debt” level if everyone tried to realise their assets at once: house and share prices would collapse. For instance, the aggregate valuation of housing assets by the ABS is literally derived by asking a representative sample of people what they think their houses are worth and then multiplying up to the population level (it tends to be within 8% of the market estimate value as it happens). What would happen if everyone tried to realise them at once? Of course that’s impossible–there would be no buyers…
Gross debt on the other hand is real: if you owe $100K, you owe it and have to service it. It doesn’t depend on the price someone is willing to pay for it in current market circumstances, nor is it affected by leverage.
If you want to compare the two (debt vs financial assets) you have to compare the rates of flow in terms of servicing one and realising the other. A tiny increase in the rate of realisation of assets is enough to prick the aggregate valuation of them dramatically.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Thanks for that clarification. I do now recall you having explained this before. Much appreciated.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Guys, so what is the point in converting to Super to Cash options if the cash value can go down?
People who left their super as is, recovered a large part of their losses compared with ones who changed to Cash.
All I saw here were members talking up their best strategic move in converting to cash before the fall.
I reckon this is the worst move. The best option is to control your own Super. If what Steve says happens I dont think any Super will be left most of the losses will be passes on to the Super holders. So controlling your own super may be the best. Like converting to hard AU$ and offsetting your mortgage
Better to offset and loose a part of the debt if banks cant honor deposits? than to loose the super and have your debt remain the same. Is this possible?
November 5th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
“A follow up post by ‘C B’ (pasted below) claimed Australia’s ‘net debt’ when including super and other savings, was actually zero.”
If I understood the question correctly (RSJ please correct me – you understand this theory better, I admit I may be wrong) – the response from the Chartalist point of view could be:
“The accumulation of private wealth denominated in the currency of issue is the accounting record of the past deficits. All private transactions net to zero and create no new net financial assets.”
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=1838
Also have a look at the diagram there:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=332
As long as there is no net overseas borrowing and no accrued budget deficits the sum of private debt and the financial assets should be equal to zero.
Disclaimer:
I am not sure whether I understood all the terms correctly so what I wrote may be incorrect.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Hi Joshua,
I can only speak from personal experience. Each individual must make their own decisions.
I moved my super to cash and short bias in January 2008. After some losses from Nov ‘07 to Jan ‘08, I might add. Once I confirmed the trend change I moved. Hindsight is useless though. The question is where will my super go over the next year, 5 years, Etc?
My opinion is that the market has or is about to top and most likely before Christmas a resumption of the bear trend will be confirmed. The bulls will not believe the trend is down ’til well into next year (unless there is a crash).
The question for you is will the market fall, stay flat or rise over the next few years. How on earth can you answer this? Forget my technical mumbo jumbo and ask this. Do you believe the deflation theory is inevitable or do you believe the government will save us theory?
If you believe the deflation theory, move to cash and forget about the short term stock market moves. Don’t listen and wait for it to play out. If we are wrong about deflation you can always move back into the markets later. Therefore to move to cash would be a precaution.
If you believe the governments will save us story then switch to aggressive and close your eyes.
If you’re still unsure, you can always split 50 50 and wait ’til some nut like me says that he confirms a trend change. I’m sure the day that I say that it’s confirmed Jim Cramer or Craig James will scream buy buy buy. So who are you going to believe?
November 5th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Someone just told me it is illegal to convert super to cash and have it in an offset account. How is this illegal?
November 5th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Bullturnedbear said
“I have an uncomfortable feeling about demonising the FHOG so much.”
Agree, the money printers have infected so many areas that blaming one distortion is a distortion in itself, for example:
Small cars and gas guzzlers drive market rebound
http://www.smh.com.au/business/small-cars-and-gas-guzzlers-drive-market-rebound-20091105-hz4i.html
“Strong sales of small cars, sports cars and luxury four-wheel-drives drove the market higher in October and the industry is predicting a strong final quarter for 2009, with Government incentives for business buyers likely to provide a further boost to sales in November and December.”
Now how many of these cars are made in Australia; is it a good thing that brokers get to keep their job. How much worse off will Australia be if there were fewer car salesmen.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Thanks debtjunkies and BTB.
I think this is a second chance for those who did nothing with their super. They might have recovered some loses but I expect super to be wiped out totally if deflations wins.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Another entertaining newsletter from Jeremy Grantham (ww.gmo.com)
“…..Isn’t that the point these days: that rewards do not at all reflect our just deserts? Let’s review some of the more obvious examples…..
3. Misguided, Sometimes Idiotic Mortgage Borrowers
The more misguided or reckless the borrowers, the
more determined the efforts to help them out, it
appears, although it must be admitted these efforts
had limited effect. In comparison, those who showed
restraint and either underhoused themselves or rented
received not even a hint of help. Quite the reverse:
the money the more prudent potential buyers held
back from housing received an artifi cially low rate.
In effect, the prudent are subsidizing the very same
banks that insisted on dancing off the cliff into Uncle
Sam’s arms or, rather, the arms of the taxpayers –
many of whom rent.”
Sounds familiar!
November 5th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
ak said
“The accumulation of private wealth denominated in the currency of issue is the accounting record of the past deficits. All private transactions net to zero and create no new net financial assets.”
Private transaction netting to zero says nothing about the distribution wealth based on merit. Little details such as one generation corning the market at another’s expense is simply not being captured; no amount of money printing is going to change that situation – unless of course you believe in the tooth fairy.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
What is also ignored is the irrational international financial community, which has actually seen this as good and increased the value of the dollar. What should have happened with the stimulus is to have the dollar decline, inflow of foreign funds decline resulting in higher consumer prices and difficulty in getting a loan. Little desire to borrow if petrol price was 50% higher, especially in Sydney to build a house near Penrith with killer transport costs. So now we set ourselves up for a bigger crash.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Steve,
Notice how tricky rory, chris are?
They talk in terms of ‘It’s Over’ (The bet is over, You have conceded and lost). Also notice how lightly rory and chris put it as a concession of generosity or goodwill rory agreed to walk if in future if what you said does happen.
chris and rory have come out directly and stated their intent. The intent being to deliberately malign you so no one takes you seriously. This i had said a long time ago. So what if Journalist start paying you a deaf ear?
I think once the economy goes in a tail spin all they will remember you and invite you back again. As if we all care for the MSM bunch of certified idiots (except a very few).
November 5th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Aac,
So is it based on merit or is it an artificial Ponzi scheme introduced by the former PM to redistribute wealth to his electorate?
(“one generation corning the market at another’s expense”)
Of course it may be difficult to capture the latter in the form of differential equations.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Hi Dr Keen,
Interesting that some people see this ‘bet’ as a loose.
Kosciusko National Park is one of many areas of Australia that is truely beautiful and weather permitting a great place to walk. Walking to it (depending on the route you take) stikes me as something much more interesting than sitting at work in Sydney worring about the finacial state of the world. You might supprise your self at what this experience might give to you.
I truley believe that ‘loosing’ this bet is a secret win for fun and freedom (don’t worry, I am not saying it is going to be easy) that like all good adventures will take on a life of its own.
Moz
PS “Dr Keen” in my openning hello is to re-enforce the respect I have for the hard work that you have undertaken to this point for your title and use it with the respect that it deserves.
Thank you for your hard work.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Steve,
I totally agree, the government screwed with the market. But I have heard this called very effective policy because of the leverage effect, so we are stimulating the economy at the expense of probably the most naive investors, the first home buyers. There is a lot of perceived utility in owning your first home and the government has tapped right into it.
I hope they take it all away, but I think it’s a bit of a political hot potato.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
All good Steve, you were entirely justified. Thank you for giving us this site and the opportunity to share ideas and thanks most of all for giving the public your personal time, something sadly lacking in most politicians employed for the purpose.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Hey Moz,
I think you underestimate the task that Steve faces. A very nice drive I expect but to walk/run it? No thanks.
I think that at least it will nail the colours to the mast for the world to see (not just we blog rats). I look forward to the weasel words when the buck stops.