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 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
TruthIsThereIsNoTruth,
From what I gather, the market would’ve resulted in asset bubbles anyway due to the intrinsic inefficiencies of capitalism. The role of the government was to make the property bubble even bigger, even though it did not create it in the first place.
According to the Stapledon index, the bubble began in 1996, whereas the Coalition introduced the FHOG in 2000/2001.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Sorry for going off topic, but thought the graph in this post on Financial Armageddon was almost as scary as the ones Steve has posted above. (Original is from University of Chicago economist Casey B. Mulligan)
http://www.financialarmageddon.com/2009/11/explaining-the-curious.html
“This chart suggests that, although aggregate work hours (labor) are plummeting relative to the trend, spending hasn’t followed over the past year. Since the fall of Lehman last year, Mulligan notes that spending has fallen by 2% on his chart, while labor has fallen by 10%.”
and
“A more plausible explanation is that unemployment benefits have bridged the gap. Frankly, I can’t think of any other possibility. If credit is down and saving is up, something must be keeping spending going.”
Unlike Australia, unemployment benefits in the US are time limited. When they run out this could result in a sharp fall in consumer spending (and cascade effects on the US and global economies).
November 5th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Steve Keen you are human mate we all forget that sometimes in our hurry to post , after walking 200 kilometres in the Snowy Mountains your be tied,muscles worn out and generally piss off with the whole situation.
Make a prediction that only the hard core bloggers will stay the course.
Comments will slowly decrease when you start your walk.
The herd only likes the winner story property always goes up.
If I have the opportunity to ask you one question after your walk it would be “Why the worst get on top”
I know you are not a big fan of Hayek and the The Road to Serfdom.
However your latest posting exactly what Hayek would say government central planning has massive effect on the free market.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Hi Muzz,
I am not sure if Steve sees it the same way (I speak for me) but I see the point of this walk as not the “getting there” but the trip and what can be gained/learned from it.
The walk would be foolish with out preperation but with training and the correct equipment could (and I suspect will be) fun. I know it is not for everbody but I suspect that if walking was not in Steves frame of mind he would have picked something else as a challenge (cycle to Melbourne, swim to Newcaslte etc).
Like I said before though I could think of worse things to be doing if I lost a bet (attending a realtors conference!)
Moz
PS. Every year oxfam run the trailwalker where people raise money by walking 100km in 48 hours (sorry Steve – now that is hard) and we are not talking about elite athletes, a lot of very active people looking for a challenge.
http://www2.oxfam.org.au/trailwalker/?gclid=CPydq5_88p0CFSWjagodWnbwIQ
November 5th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Lets not forget Keating’s FHOG. I claimed mine in 1985.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Hang on it was 1984. Cripes!
November 5th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I reckon the headlines will read like this when Steve walks next April
“It Was A Keen Bet But Steve Was Cheated”.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
The following document (from 2002) should also explain why our “free houisng market” was primed to blow a bubble.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DeakinLRev/2002/17.html
Indeed, the guy who re-introduced negative gearing was the greatest Australian liberal Treasurer:
http://www.webcity.com.au/keating/
November 5th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Good read.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/11/guest-post-wall-street-journal-admits-economists-were-wrong-but-fails-to-discuss-their-incentive-for-being-wrong.html
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
November 5th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Phillip,
From what I remember the olympics brought on a construction boom and the FHOG was put in place to prevent a post olympic slump.
Do you have a more efficient system than capitalism? My view is that it is a good system because it gives enough freedom for the system to evolve. This is not to say we are in a good state yet, but I think the system is evolving to be more efficient.
It is a very optimistic view, but in general hard to argue against because under this view I can slot ANY current deficiencies into the “it is still evolving” basket…
November 5th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Joshua (#45)
I think you hit the nail on the head. I have no doubt that the “establishment” believes that the bear case, especially as expressed through online channels, won out at the beginning of last year.
They know that we are heading into a very fragile period with the housing market with the winding up of the boost. And they have developed a detailed communication strategy to “combat” the bear case – a very important part of that is in developing the perception that the bear case and leading bears have been discredited.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
From my recollection, the FHOG was introduced just after the introduction of GST. There was a minor slump in housing construction so the Howard Government basically re-funded the GST new home owners then paid and called it a grant.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Check it out:
http://www.firsthome.gov.au/
November 5th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Stats,
Regarding US spending, let’s not forget also that there an increasing number of US households whose mortgage is well underwater and have subsequently stopped or reduced their mortgage payments. These mortgages are in various states of foreclosure, but many are simply “on hold” by the banks so they are not forced to disclose the failed debt. This in effect boosts the available household income which is used then to keep credit cards going.
The wonders of modern BS accounting!
November 5th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Hi ak
“Indeed, the guy who re-introduced negative gearing was the greatest Australian liberal Treasurer”
He abolished negative gearing just as I started renting out my first house. He reintroduced it just as I stopped renting it out (both in 1984). Spew.
I think that abolishing it must have caused a rental market crisis and it was easier just to give up.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I just find the whole idea that the great majority of money in circulation is tied to home loans really unhealthy and, frankly, it makes me feel depressed to be part of such a soulless treadmill.
Is this all there is to managing society? Have 90% of the population so focussed on paying down the mortgage that it not only gives value and meaning to the simple paper printed as dollars, but also keeps everyone utterly ignorant of basic mechanics like fractional reserve banking. For christ sakes, most people don’t even know where money really comes from. It’s like nations of rats chasing after tiddlywinks because someone taught them that if they don’t then they might lose their cage.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Apologies for the noise. It must have been 1985 that he reintroduced negative gearing.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Ok so take money away with the GST, give it back in a grant and low and behold we have stimulus. So is this an arbitrage for the government?
November 5th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I agree Frank,
The obsession with housing has been out of balance since the 80s IMO. The media is obsessed with housing speculation and equating this to recovery or success. The media is totally asleep to the fact that commercial property is dying a silent death. They are not writing about the difficulties businesses are having obtaining credit. They are not writing about the massive lending margin rise that business borrowers have had to swallow.
This “recovery” is all about Ponzi speculation and not about production. Nothing will change until the dream is forced away from people.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
AS usual a good one Steve. http://www.safehaven.com/archive-2.htm This link is your friend Doug Nolands archives. If you go back to the beginning of these posts, 2000, you will find Dougs continued protest of home equity being fed into a bubble.
Someone asked if the first time buyers had been limited to new homes would the bubble occur? Sure it would. There would be more homes than buyers and the whole thing would have imploded. Someone else said the US was trying to bail out the toxic assets. They might be, but all they are doing is making more of them. There aren’t enough buyers out there to soak up the houses and put the prices back where they were. I believe it only a matter of time before there is backlash against US debt if they continue wreckless financial activity and the rise in interest rates will take care of the programs. Trying to stop this mess is like trying to catch a falling mountain.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
TruthIsThereIsNoTruth,
I would point to the libertarian socialist societies in Spain 1936 and Russia 1917 before they were mercilessly destroyed by fascism with backing from the western capitalist states (Spain) and Bolsheviks (Russia). They had the makings of a really democratic and efficient economy.
The US has experienced neoliberal reforms since the 1980s, yet it has become far worse for many people. The bottom 80% of income earners last saw their wages peak in 1973 adjusted for inflation! Since 2000, the economy has resulted in: (1) $US10 trillion stock market bubble, (2) $US8 trillion property bubble, (3) ~$US60 trillion derivatives bubble, (4) a credit crunch and (5) the GFC.
Other economies have experienced similar outcomes, in relative terms. Neoliberal reforms are supposed to make an economy more efficient. One could call these outcomes part and parcel of the economy, but it greatly depends on perspective: who is holding the club and who is getting smashed in the face with it.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Thanks Philip,
That is interesting however like I said you can put everything into the still evolving basket:). Additionally I haven’t defined efficiency, from a callous perspective maybe inequality = efficieny?:(
Seriously though, I would like to see similar statistics for the entire world, not just western societies.
What is really happening to the system as a whole? What are the different ways of measuring that?
November 5th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Frank,
I agree. What value is money really when vast amounts can disappear virtually overnight? How many years of work have individuals lost in their super losses? (losses which are probably not yet fully realised) I certainly don’t have much confidence that the money I am forced to contribute to these funds will be redemeable when I retire. As for houses, where is the sense in the fact that I can make a %300 percent capital gain (which I would if I now sold my house) just through the accident of me buying when I did? This is not tied to any labour or effort on my behalf, I could have slaved working three jobs for years to gain this same amount. It makes no sense to me and I place little value in the stuff beyond what I need to pay my bills.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Steve
A few comments on this post.
Firstly, I built a VECM of Sydney residential proeperty prices some years back, it showed that price is driven not just by demand-side but by supply-side, exactly as you would expect. At least as important as FHOB is the fact that funding (bank lending) to developers has been severly cut. banks are avoiding property developers like the plague. I haven’t looked at the recent data for home starts but suspect this is as big a factor (or bigger, for reasons explained below).
Secondly, FHOB recipients cannot use the $7,000 as leverage. The banks only allow borrowers (especially first home borrowers) to count genuine savings towards their loan-to-value limit. That means showing bank account records etc. showing regular saving. Even Mum and dada paying over a couple of grand a month doesn’t count, it has to be savings from income only.
So the FHOB allows the borrower to pay $7,000 more for his home – not nearly enough to pay for the ramp up in prices. Any first home buyers in my office tell me that affordability has gone down while they have been lookign around the market – the FHOB did not do nearly enough to soften the blow.
So I would look at the supply-demand dynamics to explain why you have a new exercise regime
.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
TruthIsThereIsNoTruth,
It’s a difficult task. Gini coefficients are one mainstream measure of equality, and can be found on Wikipedia.
Neoclassical economic theory clearly defines what efficiency is, but the problem is that economic systems (markets) are simply assumed to be efficient, that is, in equilibrium and Pareto optima are reached.
Here in lies the problem: it is damned difficult to measure economic artifacts such as marginal costs, externalities (the big problem), competition, etc. in the real world. That is one of the reasons why I suspect economists tend to retreat into their fantasy world: measuring real world phenomena is very difficult and time consuming.
Take a look at income and wealth trends in the various countries around the world over the last 100 years, especially by deciles (10ths). They tell an interesting story in themselves. The UN/OECD/Wikipedia will have a boatload of interesting data to examine.
Economists trumpet the minority of gains (think profits, growth, dividends, etc.) but the majority of costs (externalities, monopoly pricing, crimes, stress, etc.) gets flushed down the memory hole. I suspect that Marxian economists in the communist countries did the same thing in their societies.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
I heard otherwise about the use of the FHVB from banks and borrowers fronting them Hacktuary–they needed some other money sure, but the grant was used as part of the leverage. I agree that supply factors matter, but they aren’t the complete story as Joye et al trumpet–and even I was surprised by that “trigger” link between the FHOB and the takeoff in real house prices relative to real disposable incomes in the final graph.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Go if you wish to this mountain, which I see is not so difficult to climb – only 2 thousand meters-. Besides, I think you are nearly beginning your summer,…
I am more convinced by your arguments; your opponent is going to swallow his comment. Well, all of us will have to swallow their mistakes!
Best wishes,
Barcelona, 5, november 2009
November 5th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Hi Hacktuary,
I think it’s uncontroversial to say that house prices in the first home buyer market increased by many multiples of the grant value. Surely this difference can only be funded from one of two things: leverage or savings. To dispute Steve’s assertion that it was leverage is to say that, on average, the first home buyers that took up the offer had many times more in savings than the value of the grant.
I’m having trouble swallowing that. Or is there some other source of money that these buyers have tapped into? I’m not an expert.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
BTB 69
I relate to your comments. I support your thinking in most matters and this one I am convinced we are on the same wave length in stating that houses consume wealth- business creates wealth honestly what don’t they understand?
I get it They don’t want to lose votes. Votes are numbers yet productivity is jobs. I have been involved in small business all my adult life (40 years) I have never seen such callous attitudes (behind the scenes ) than what is happenning now. Banks are sending out letters (in the droves) to small Biz demanding full repayment of debt or else legal action will take precendent. No negotiation-no receivership-just pay up. No wonder they say (the banks) that they don’t know what the damage of forfeited loans will be this/next year. They know what they are calling up and they are doing it now while there is “confidence out there”.
Production has to win in the end the question is how much will the lack of addressing it destroy the future of ALL PEOPLE -NOT JUST THE CONSUMERS?
November 5th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
I sold my waterfront unit 12 months ago. I did not own all of it however by standards. I was quite well “ratioed”. 70-30 equity to others.
Again that meant nothing to me – comparision is an excuse to either lift my expectations or lower someone elses.
The Govet decided to stimulate the economy by flash cash and to appease home ownership by lowerinfg interest rates.
The swirl of money has placed many people in MORE debt for it has extended there debt by clouding the reality with immediate ‘cash flow benefit’ meanwhile cash in – cash out the debt just grew. Relief -temporary of tax payment GST and otherwise is an example of ’spin” rather tha responsibility. It is almost criminal. Now it is “pay the price for extending(attending) the party”
If one looks at the pyramid base small business liabilities and household deby will far outweigh the corporate failures that the banks have have yet dealt with. The multiplying effect of looking after consumers in preference to production will tell on this economy for at least a decade-maybe two.
How self indulgent our community has become above the responsibilty we have for the following generation. We have not taken our medicine just passsed the disease on.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Hi Steve,
Long time reader, first time poster. Sorry to hear that you have lost your bet, but by my reckoning on bubble psychology, the bubble won’t pop until nearly all bearish views are silenced and we reach the ‘new paradigm’. From a symbolic point of view, you walking up the mountain is about as close to the new paradigm as we can get.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Steve Hacktuary is correct!
I have helped my sister to buy a home in North West Sydney. She has purchased land from Landcom and gone with a upcoming builder who provideas a better product from the outside as well as inside for 30K less. The banks were only concerned about the 20% deposit (including the grant). I helped her with the difference and will forfeit the difference in rent as I will stay with her for 2 years. The other option was to pay between 3K to 14K as mortgage insurance to the bank for not having a 20% deposit.
We have done it the hard way and I cant convince my family to differ. Unfortunately they are convinced by the MSM, RBA actions and the rosy reports about US GDP, home prices, interest rates rises, rising dollar, retail sales,recovery in super, car sales recovery that things are recovering and if you miss out now you will never be able to own a home and renting is too expensive .
They also believe in living now and taking actions now providing shelter for the family when it is necessary rather than differing till prices decline which they dont believe will ever happen given that landcom controls demand supply and will simply not sell if there is a downturn. I have placed a high profile bet with them because they have used the words NEVER. The last time someone said NEVER to me they lost miserably. Anyway they are my family and as my brother provided shelter for us for 5 years I was more than happy to help out. My sister initially took my advice but backed out last minute when you were about to loose your bet and the MSM laid the scenario take it now or you will never be able to own a house and time to avail the FHOG grant was ticking about to go off on September 31st. I dont even want to think too much how she will be able to live and survive considering what left over after the repayments I get depressed and and too shocked. Life should not be so hard and depressing yet we are accused of being depressing and full of doom and gloom.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
But you note that the 20% deposit included the grant–the opposite of what Hacktuary commented.
In any case, the lender can be elastic with the degree of leverage–even if they explicitly say they’re not taking the grant into account in the deposit. That was the experience of a Sunday Telegraph team that posed as a pair of First Home Buyers with a combined income of $60K and were offered a $450,000 loan by the NAB. They were even told to get their application in before the rate rise, since if they waited till after it the amount they could be lent would be lower…
November 5th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
And yes I do know how you feel about the situation she is now in! Even on a personal front, I breathe a lot easier each day knowing that I don’t have a mortgage interest and principal payment to meet–merely a rent that is about $300 lower per week (once Body Corporate fees are factored in as well).
November 5th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
On the same point Muzz, after the grant the average loan taken out by FHBs was about $20-30K higher than the average loan for repeat buyers.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Take It Quantitatively Easy!
“The Bank of England today faces the difficult decision of whether to pump more money into the struggling UK economy by expanding its unprecedented £175bn quantitative easing programme.
Many City economists expect the Bank’s monetary policy committee to increase the QE programme by between £25bn and £50bn when it finishes its two-day meeting at noon, in a renewed attempt to pull Britain out of recession. Others, though, argue that QE should be left as it stands.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/05/bank-of-england-quantitative-easing-decision
The debt now stands at GBP825 billion and is growing (despite the easing).
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/2690896/Britain-in-debt-to-tune-of-825bn.html
Let’s watch for any signs of Zimbabwe-like hyperinflation, meltdown of the currency or Loch Ness Monster.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
ak,
You forgot to mention to look out for higher taxes, slower economic growth, enormous ammounts of sovereign debt and no improvements in the employment situation.
Yes, QE is just THE panacea to TOO MUCH DEBT.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Steve, I observed an absolute frenzy in my office when the first hog grant enlargement was declared. I have personally talked away a co-worker from committing his own life to servicing debt. I think that it is difficult to measure the impact of the grant on borrowing capacities of people by just assuming that it enabled them to take larger loans.
There was a cohort of people contemplating buying a house for years and falling interest rates together with falling prices made them even more convinced that the time was about right. After all, owning a home, a kind of territory, is a rather obvious psychological need.
The grant was probably a fuse.
I think that the “scarcity” and then “consensus”, “authority” and “greed” methods were used to bait the hoggers.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Psychological-Tricks-in-Selling&id=1775
The common tricks (according to Cialdini) are:
1. Reciprocity
2. Scarcity
3. Commitment
4. Consensus
5. Authority
6. Greed
November 6th, 2009 at 1:21 am
Hi All
I’ve just read the comments on The Business Spectator site where Steve’s latest post is reproduced. I almost can’t believe the venom written by some of the bloggers. Makes me appreciate the civility and genuine discussion on this site, due in no small part to your efforts Steve. Thank you.
Interesting 3 part series ‘Addicted to Money’ started on ABC1 last night – Thursday, with the rest of the series on the next 2 Thursdays.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200911/programs/DO0838W001D2009-11-05T203500.htm
From the program summary of the first episode: ‘David McWilliams establishes that we have not just been living through a global recession, but what amounts to a coordinated economic crime. The banks were not only in control, but also out of control. The financial industry established what was effectively a drug syndicate, pushing the most dangerous addiction of all, easy credit.’
Worth a look at the whole episode on iview if you missed it and if you have high speed broadband.
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/
November 6th, 2009 at 4:28 am
Over the past couple of years I have been raising money to expand my business. I cannot get a loan against the business as the business has no assets except itself to mortgage and of course banks do not use that as loan backing except for people like ABC learning who buy assets. I am hence forced to go to the equity market to raise capital. Equity capital has to come from savings and because the big savers such as the super funds, are not organised to invest in small companies and have to do a large amount of due diligence before they will invest that avenue is not available.
The only avenue are the Venture Capitalists and the high net worth individuals. There are very few of these around and to get equity money from them they demand extremely high rates of return. I have received several offers. The worst was from a VC fund that gets 50% of its money from the government. This fund wanted an internal rate of return, equivalent to 300% over 3 years and if I did not meet the first years target of sales they wanted the whole company. Needless to say we are using the slower organic route to expansion – that is I use our businesses own savings or profits for expansion but in the early days this is low.
We know that in large companies when they are evaluating projects they do not consider investing in new production unless the IRR’s are 20% or more. It is rumoured that Telstra still expects a 50% IRR.
What this means is that if you want to build a new productive asset you have to compete against buying an existing asset and the finance to buy an existing asset is relatively easy to get and tends to be lower cost.
This leads inevitably towards low investment in new productive assets and high investment in buying existing assets.
One way to overcome this problem is to make it financially cheaper to build a new asset than it is to buy an existing asset. This can be done by giving zero interest loans to those who can demonstrate that they are investing in new productive assets and require them to pay the loan back from part of the profits generated from the assets.
This would introduce money into the system without inflating existing asset prices.
The trick is to ensure that the loan gets repaid and to ensure the money is spent productively. There is one area where we know how to do this and that is in the renewable energy and energy saving sectors. To see an outline of this idea take a look at the following presentation.
http://www.slideshare.net/cscoxk/zero-interest-loans-for-energy-sustainability
What is interesting about this approach is that it changes the way we calculate the return on investment. Instead of having to worry about time (because it is zero interest and we repay when we get profits) the critical variable becomes total value returned over the life of the investment.
This means that we build to get the greatest return from our resources NOT to get the highest consumption as rapidly as we can. This of course is what is needed for sustainability.
A side effect of this process would be to stimulate the economy without interest bearing debt and that has the potential to get rid of the mountain of interest bearing debt. The good thing about the approach is that it compounds – but in direction of new productive assets not in the direction of inflating asset prices.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Effit,
I also saw the start of ‘Addicted to Money’ and was agreeing with just about all of it (thanks to the education that I have received from following this blog) up until McWilliams said that it was the excess high savings rate of countries like China that resulted in an influx of cheap credit to western countries which lead to the financial alchemy of derivatives that resulted in the credit crunch.
From my neoclassical training (Economics 100) this makes sense as it makes sense that the money comes from somewhere. But then I recalled that some discussions on this site in which it has been stated that banks don’t need saving to creat loans; they just create it out of thin air.
So I am left a bit confused. Was it the imballance between high savings-rate countries and low savings-rate countries (which somewhat exonerates the banks, after all they should be profitable) or are the banks solely responsible as they push credit by creating money out of thin air?
I really do hope to catch parts 2 and 3, that’s for sure!
November 6th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Hi Steve, You said.
They were even told to get their application in before the rate rise, since if they waited till after it the amount they could be lent would be lower…
This is correct. St George told my to get her loan approved ASAP before any rate rise came into effect otherwise the loan would not be approved with her salary. Bank West just did not care but were very slow and with the way they were handling the loan she just pulled out.
Hactuary said,
Secondly, FHOB recipients cannot use the $7,000 as leverage. The banks only allow borrowers (especially first home borrowers) to count genuine savings towards their loan-to-value limit. That means showing bank account records etc. showing regular saving. Even Mum and dada paying over a couple of grand a month doesn’t count, it has to be savings from income only
Sorry I misunderstood the post the first time. What Steve says is correct and we have gone to all the major banks in Australia (not the non bank lenders) to only disprove Hactuary’s statement. Infact I did exactly what Hactuary said is not possible to avoid her paying the mortgage insurance fees I deposited the difference between her savings, the FHOG and they were more than happy to approve to loan. This is with all the banks. So his statement is not correct.
On the supply side argument I would agree because Landcom releases in small amounts to deliberately control price. Regarding existing homes, they dont seem to be any out there and the existing ones have shot up by 30K in the same area we are building. Whether they are investment properties is a secondary question (but i have found this to be the case). We just did not find it worth it to pay 30K extra(after the grant) in the same area as my Brothers for crap. This subub was around the 450K mark and now 500K+ so most migrants and new commers move here because it is an entry level market. We chose to build and we were fortunate to find a decent builder who charges a lot less than most branded builders. The other option is to build your own, not sure if this would be profitable givien the fact that they save on bulk orders. Anway in total we saved around 55K, that is equivalent to a 10% price decrease.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:28 am
I actually got a pre-approval recently. A couple of interesting points were.
1. They definately happy to count the FHOG + FHOB as deposit.
2. What was really interesting is that I was told that in the recent months bank valuations have been coming in at 5-10% below the sale price, especially for auctions. To clarify for people who don’t know what this means and I was one of those before I got this approval, it means that after you buy your home, the bank sends a valuer to the property and offers to borrow against the evaluation. So if you paid more than the valuation you come up with the shortfall in cash or lower your deposit margin if you are above the minimum 5%.
I also heard though that other smaller banks take advantage of this by offering higher valuations to pinch the home loans.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:31 am
I note this article in today’s SMH:
“Dollar’s strength can’t deter foreign property investors”
http://www.smh.com.au/business/dollars-strength-cant-deter-foreign-property-investors-20091105-hzx3.html
which anecdotally seems to posit that a contributing factor to our residential housing bubble is foreign non-resident investment in existing housing stock notwithstanding what the rules say on this subject (there are myriad ways around the rules, especially if the foreign investor has kids).
With all the talk of massive population increase, endemic supply problems in the Australian housing market and significant foreign interest in Australian property is it not conceivable that this leveraged bubble can be maintained for a LOT longer as spruikers like Joye and Robinson contend?
Given that politicians on both sides are loath to be seen to do anything that could be construed as deleterious to the perceived wealth of existing and aspiring property owners, indeed politicians who have taken active steps like the FHVB to maintain this illusion, it seems quite possible that Rory could be “right” for a lot longer.
Combine this with Joye’s neat idea on how solve the “affordability crisis” by separating ownership aspirants from what little wealth they may actually have (via “shared equity” mortgage schemes) and you have the ideal ingredients to establish property serfdom in Australia.
Ultimately the maths does not lie, geometric price appreciation is impossible to keep up with forever, but it seems the game could be far from over at this point. Many people DO make a lot of money from Ponzi schemes, it’s all a question of knowledge and timing.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Chiense and Indians buying 40% of properties over $1m price in Melborune Inner City. Interesting
http://www.smh.com.au/business/dollars-strength-cant-deter-foreign-property-investors-20091105-hzx3.html
Dollar’s strength can’t deter foreign property investorsCHRIS ZAPPONE
November 6, 2009 – 7:13AM Be the first to comment
The strong Australian dollar has done little to cool overseas demand for real estate as foreign cash seeks out a lucrative home in the nation’s residential property market.
Real estate agents say overseas-based bidders are increasingly common at auctions around the country, with the resulting additional demand stoking already rising clearance rates and prices.
John Bongiorno, director of Marshall White & Co, in Melbourne said international buyers had typically made up 5 to 10 per cent of sales, a figures that had recently risen to about 15 per cent. And the dollar’s rise had not yet dampened demand.
Mr Bongiorno said his overseas clientele was ‘‘predominately mainland Chinese”, some of which adopted a fly-in, fly-out approach to house hunting.
‘‘We have people who fly in on a Saturday morning for auctions and will fly out the same day,” he said. ‘‘They’ll just arrive in Melbourne specifically for the auction.”
Marshall White & Co has forged alliances with immigration services firms in China to promote local property.
Further north, the rising demand from Asia, especially China, is even more pronounced.
Tina Edwards, sales manager at Brisbane-based Yong Real Estate , which caters to local and international Asian buyers, said investment from China had ‘‘really soared recently”.
She said the surge may have peaked at as much of 90 per cent of the transactions handled by the firm, with the Aussie dollar’s recent jump above 90 US cents (about 6.2 yuan) deterring some buyers.
But Ms Edwards also said temporary lull may also reflect the shortage of suitable properties to sell after a period of sustained demand.
Real estate agents credit the overseas demand as contributing to rising home prices, which have increased nationally 8.1 per cent in the first nine months of the year, according to the RP Data-Rismark Index released today.
Changed rules
Australia’s run-up in house prices is far from unique, with markets as far-flung as London, Singapore and mainland China itself reporting rapid rises in recent months.
The local market, though, has also seen a jump because of a relaxation in the rules covering foreign investment in Australia’s property market since April, agents say.
A spokesperson for Assistant Treasurer Nick Sherry said despite the rule changes the FIRB rules were designed to spur the creation of additional housing supply rather than add to affordability problems.
“Foreign non-residents are still prohibited from owning existing dwellings in Australia,” he said. “They can only purchase a new dwelling or build one from scratch.”
Temporary residents are only allowed to purchase one existing dwelling, he said “and only if they will live in it.”
Nonetheless, the recent FIRB rule change redefined “new dwelling” to mean unsold property rented out for 12 months or less.
The changes also allow foreign companies to buy established dwellings for use of Australian-based staff.
Chinese investments on the rise
Keeping tabs on the size of inbound property investment is difficult. But looking at the most recent data from the Foreign Investment Review Board in Canberra, covering the 2003-04 to 2007-08 period, China-sourced investment approvals rose to a share of 3.3 per cent of the total foreign investment, up from just 0.4 per cent at the start.
While analysts say the proportion has risen further, the increase over that period “is illustrative of the increased role of Chinese and other Asians in the Australian property market,” said George Bougias senior economist strategic research at Charter Keck Cramer.
Under one of the rule changes, temporary residents became exempt from notifying the proposed acquisitions of established residential real estate for their own residence, or for new property or vacant residential land.
In practice, buyers’ advocates and real estate agents report wealthy Chinese buyers purchasing homes and units near schools where their children are enrolled.
Brett Draffen chief of development for property developer Mirvac said the property developer saw “improving” interest coming out of China in two areas of the Australian market.
Mr Draffen said the trends were so far not “massive” nor “across the board” but were dependent on the types of residences offered to foreign investors.
“In the $400,000 to $600,000 band we’ve seen a slight increase,” he said. At the other end of the range, wealthy Chinese were looking at “de-risking” their holdings of assets in their home country by moving money abroad, including into Australian property.
Scott McGeever, director of Brisbane-based buyers advocate Property Searchers, said some Chinese buyers have been attracted to Australian property as a way to ride both the gains in the surging dollar and the value of the property itself.
As long as the value of the dollar didn’t fall dramatically – or the yuan suddenly strengthen – “if they bought and sold it for the same price ostensibly, well, they’d make money off of it because of the currency,” he said, adding that his firm didn’t serve those investors.
Asia and beyond
Rich Harvey managing director of Sydney-based Property Buyer said he had a couple clients pursuing such strategies, although investment in Australian properties was also of interest to investors from other parts of the world.
“It’s about the timing of entry and exit for your currency play, which you can overlay with a property play and do very well out of it,” said the buyer advocate, who serves Australian and international clients.
These types of investors typically held the property for three years, as opposed to the minimum of five years most investors prefer, Mr Harvey.
The rise in investor interest from China reflects Asia’s emerging status as an engine of world growth. More wealth gives Asians more options for investment, which in turn translates into more interest in property, education and business relationships with Australia.
The number of settler arrivals from China, defined as the arrival of people entitled to permanent residence entering the country, rose 14.9 per cent – the third fastest growth of any source – to 14,035 people, in the 2007-08 year, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
New Zealand, United Kingdom, India all ranked ahead of China in the number of settler arrivals, the data shows.
Affordability worries
Nonetheless, the impact of the new investment has raised questions about housing affordability for would-be owner-occupiers.
One Melbourne real estate agent, who asked not to be identified, privately worried about what the Chinese demand would do for the chances of local buyers.
He said the topic was a constant subject within the real estate industry, although few agents wanted to question a trend that generated financial benefits for them.
In his view, “the rising Australia dollar has not impacted at all the demand from Chinese,” he said, estimating that currently in Melbourne about 40 per cent of properties over $1 million in the inner suburbs were being sold to Chinese and Indian investors.
czappone@fairfax.com.au
BusinessDay
November 6th, 2009 at 10:12 am
The bubble can be maintained only as long as people can afford to pay the interests and it is growing. The very existence of the bubble is based on the rising prices. When the prices stop growing for a whatever reason there is a class of heavily geared investors who will get off the train. This was already visible in 2004 / 2005 in Inner West – our former landlord lost a significant amount of money and sold. Then the second bubble came… but the interest rates were low.
The bubble is primed to burst no matter what because at some point of time there will be a group of people unable to pay rising interests even if the prices were still rising. This will stagnate the prices. When they stagnate and interests are high – it’s probably over – regardless how many wealthy foreign investors buy houses in Rose Bay.
This can be modeled I believe but I certainly have no time to do that as it would require spending a lot of time analysing de-aggregated historic data referring to different sub-segments of the market and regions.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
To clarify what i said “Anway in total we saved around 55K, that is equivalent to a 10% price decrease.”
This is not taking into account the 30K price increase for existing homes in the surrounding suburb because of the FHOG grant, lower interest rates. If that was the case the savings would be 85K but I dont count it because I believe it to be temporary vs the long trend.
Also I forgot to add the interest on construction for 3 months should be around 6K.
The builder is making his margin on the turn key project. Almost every builder increased their prices to build by over 15K for the some homes over a year back just before the grant. These are the homes that most public want and discounted the dingy ones.
Even if the margin is 40K the majority of the chunk is Landcom. You cant do anything about it. Had they to release a lot of land and could not sell it, may be you could bargain. But they develop and release in slow stages to avoid this.
My mate got is home in 1998 in the same suburb for 180K. 5 years back it was 400K and now it is 500K and this is a suburn 35K away from the city. The median income in 1998 justifies the price then and with wage inflation makes that amount a joke. Today there is a total disconnect between the median income and the price and forget inflation lets take about wage cuts.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:32 am
China China China. Bull bull bull!
People! Do not believe the hype. When the hype is at an extreme, it means the market is at a top. We just do not know when the extreme will be yet. What we do know for sure is that there is no hype (NO HYPE) at the start of a bull run. In fact at the beginning, no one wants to buy at all. So ask yourself, are we near the end of a bull run or the beginning? It’s all emotion. Fear of missing out, fear of failure by not acting, desire to partake in the positive feelings of success/profit.
Remember the late 80s and the fear Australians felt that the Japanese were taking over. The Japanese lost a fortune in Australia, America, Europe and everywhere for that matter. I don’t know if this is still the case, but as late as 2000 a Japanese Bank was still stuck owning Sanctury Cove in Qld. At that stage it owed them over $500M (true figure prob much higher), yet was worth under $100M
To buy out of your area of knowledge and expertise is risky. Buying out of your country is risky by a factor of 4 or more. That’s even before you start to think about currency fluctuations. Property is illiquid, so if the $A falls (and it will at some point), how do they cover their losses? If they are leveraged, which they are, they can be wiped out without the property even falling in price. All I can see for these “canny” Chinese is massive losses. I just wish I had some more property to sell. History does repeat and repeat, etc.
Unfortunately for the huge majority, they are pulled by the herd. So that what I say sounds downright stupid. All they see is that prices are rising, I’m doom and gloom and they have to be a part of it or they are the stupid ones.
It’s very hard being contrarian!
November 6th, 2009 at 10:33 am
“Construction activity grew in October”
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,26312589-31037,00.html
Not by much though, with increases in houses and apartments being mostly offset by declines in commercial and engineering construction.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:36 am
More on the housing bubble.
‘Super, housing and rates: a troubled trifecta’ Robert Gottliebsen http://www.eurekareport.com.au/iis/iis.nsf/lpages/RWIE-7N92AE?opendocument
Gottliebsen talks of conversations he had with ‘30 somethings’ about their investment strategies. They showed they’re not interested in superannuation as a vehicle for capital accumulation and basically have a great faith in property acquisition.
‘This group has a two-stage plan: to buy accommodation that meets their needs; then to negatively gear additional property. Like me they can see that the population is rising, which will underpin the value of residential investment and will force up rents over a period.’
There’s a belief that pressure will be applied to free up money in superannuation for housing investment.
‘The combination of housing as the preferred savings vehicles of people in their thirties, forties and fifties, and the possible addition of superannuation money to the pool, may lift housing values beyond the level of ordinary people and may turn Australia into a nation of renters.’
‘When it finally dawns on the generation of Superannuation Australia that they can fund most of their retirement off the back of the rent they receive on a monthly basis – much like the pay cheque they’ve been used to all their life – rather than annual or bi-annual dividends, they’ll be diving into property like a pig in mud on a hot day.’
‘Not only will they have a monthly ‘rental pay cheque’ with which to wholly or partly fund their retirement, they’ll also have their money tied up in an asset class which, BY GOVERNMENTAL DESIGN, IS ALMOST GUARANTEED TO APPRECIATE (and is doing so now by up to 11% pa. in Melbourne this past year).’