Chris Joye comments in his release of the recent RP Data-Rismark index that the news of a 0.7% fall in one month will be “manna from heaven for the housing market bears”. Far be it from me to disappoint him, so thanks for the manna. But what adds spice to the manna is the way that Chris has attempted to rationalize the outcome:
It’s sobering to remember here that we have had 17 consecutive monthly increases in Australian capital city home values. If the sharemarket rose for 17 months straight and then tapered, people would not think twice about. It might be wise to apply the same logic to our housing market.
That comment evinced the following comment on Chris Zdatappone’s report in the Fairfax Press from the reader “Dave”:
If the share market had risen for 17 consecutive months, people would be screaming BUBBLE. Somehow this logic seems to defy Chris Joye … Oh dear.
Oh dear indeed. In a speculative market like the stock market, much of the buying is driven by the belief that prices will continue to rise; as soon as that belief evaporates, buyers become sellers and the price doesn’t “taper”, but plunge. A certain Irving Fisher once commented that “stock prices have reached a permanently high plateau”, only to see them (and his reputation and wealth) evaporate in the ensuing 3 years.
So the hope for Chris Joye is not that house prices will behave like stock market prices, but precisely the opposite. Bears like myself argue that the housing market has indeed become just like the stock market—a place where leveraged speculation in the belief that house prices always rise does far more to explain house price movements than any appeals to “fundamentals”—and this is the main reason that house prices have risen so much in the last two decades.
There is however one important way in which house prices do differ from shares: the first sign of trouble is not a sudden drop in prices, but a fall in the number of sales and an increase in the length of time it takes for properties to sell. That sign was evident in the data from the last year or so, which is why I argued that a fall in house prices was imminent in a previous article on Business Spectator. Now that the data are unequivocal, the following processes are likely.
Firstly, with an increased stock of unsold houses on the market, buyers are likely to take yet more time to make a decision—which will add further to the backlog. If prices are falling, why hurry? The urgency will leave the buy side.
Secondly, so-called investors—whom I prefer to call speculators, since 90% of them have bought existing properties rather than built new ones—will start to consider whether they should swap from the buy side to the sell side. After all, no-one in their right mind buys an investment property in Australia for the rental returns: it’s capital gains or nothing DownUnder. Do you capitalize on gains to date, or hang on hoping that the upward trend will re-assert itself once more?
Given the skewing of our market away from owner-occupiers and towards speculators in the last two decades, this second effect could cause a sudden increase in the number of properties on the market—at just the same time that buyers have become more relaxed about closing a sale. It’s this sort of process in an asset market that is why asset prices don’t “taper”—or “plateau”, to use a word from an earlier time.
I expect these two processes to lead to an accelerating rate of decline in house prices now, as they did in the USA when “Flip That House” ceased being a winning trade.






July 30th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
MY wife and I sold our Gold Coast home only 2 weeks ago and are mighty pleased we found a buyer. Talking to RE agents in or search for a new one, reveals that sales staff are leaving the industry and looking for other work, agents are quoting prices at the level of 3 years ago and ‘discounts’ of over 10% are common. Added to that the number of properties for sale in the 4 post codes which interest us is in excess of 1,300. Needless to say we are in no hurry to buy.
July 30th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
When I saw Zappone’s note today, I knew you would not miss it!
What surprised me was that so many comments were posted, given that this topic -until a couple of days ago- appeared to have faded from memory.
Anyway, things look serious. If share market investors’ mood is anything to go by, there could be some reason for concern:
“Investors see a glass almost completely empty”
July 29, 2010
http://www.smh.com.au/business/investors-see-a-glass-almost-completely-empty-20100728-10w52.html
And there are lots of money at play here:
“Vic building permits hit record high”
July 30, 2010 – 11:12AM
http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/vic-building-permits-hit-record-high-20100730-10yn5.html
“Victoria’s building industry posted a record high 113,670 building permits, worth a combined $23.9 billion, issued in the past financial year.”
I wonder how many of these projects are ready and how many are still incomplete.
However, let’s keep our cool and let things play out for themselves.
July 30th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Hold on, what’s happening, i thought we had a housing undersupply problem to meet the demands of the increasing population that’s why prices are rising, not a credit affordability problem.
Did i miss the building boom, we now must have an over supply of homes if prices are dropping, shouldn’t we?
Good grief, back to basic principles of affordable credit being the principle driver of demand.
Good report that Roving Cavaliers of Crediit.
Glad i’m renting at the moment for the first time in my life (only for a short period i hope)
Thank you Steve.
July 30th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Peter Martin and Lesley Parker, John Hacking. John Hacking said: Thanks for the Manna: Chris Joye comments in his release of the recent RP Data-Rismark index that the news of a 0…. http://bit.ly/dB7Q13 [...]
July 30th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
I know tennants are leaving the rental market in droves and moving back in with ‘mum and dad’
I wonder how many of those building permits are for extensions to accomodate them.
July 30th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
mfo
I don’t know about moving in with “mum and dad” in droves and I don’t dispute that they maybe doing just that. I do have evidence that it is happenning especially in the SME market Once one loses the business one loses the house and other investments. It seems to be the case amongst small business that the lender of last resort is usually the starting point-namely the family When the times are tough and the Banks won’t lend, the family are the ones to turn to. If the bank does not have a lean on the “family” input then when all fails the family accommodate. Also the young that leave home that find finances difficult through job loss or shared accommodation gone wrong or cost of living increases come back home to the “never empy fridge”
Yes, it is another indicator that all is not well and that all perserverance has been depleted or defeated. As for extensions -Is there any need for such? In the last depression a double bunk in a single room sufficed.I have lived in a 3 bedroom house with one occupant in each of the bedrooms and 7 people in the house.Which means 4 people – a family, sharing one room.
Tough times demand tough decisions. These are early days.
July 30th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
One interesting difference between the US bubble and Australia’s is that here they came up with all the idiotic buyer tax credits four years after the top. All they did was briefly reverse the fall for a few months.
In Australia, they used far-richer tax credits to inflate the bubble! What would happen to the stock market if you used tax money to rebate 10-15% of every share purchase?
Chris Joye apparently doesn’t realize that the mere fact he is comparing home prices to share prices undermines the entire basis of the housing bull case: that houses are fairly priced based on their utility.
July 31st, 2010 at 12:02 am
Steve,
You just need to look at Christopher’s company and the vested interest in housing to draw your own conclusions.
The current looming issue for housing is the difficulty getting foreign finance which funds a big part of the banks housing loan book. Westpac have just been successful in securing funding in the US, but will they or the other banks be successful next time; probably but at a higher rate?
Conditions in Australia can change overnight due to many issues in the global economy, and just as most of the economists didn’t predict the GFC (still going on BTW) there are few who will see the next set of events. The belief that housing will always go up with increasing pressure on rates and pressure on wages is not facing reality. Additionally, ten or fifteen years ago it was still possible for a single income family to afford a home, but I’ve never seen it mentioned in mainstream press that today you needs two incomes in most cases.
If we never have a crash that would be great, but it goes against everything I’ve seen in other countries having lived in the US and UK over the past decade. The mantra that we’re different is not facing reality. There are the same conditions here, but mainstream are not aware of them until it’s too late.
July 31st, 2010 at 2:29 am
Perhaps the victory dance is at hand?
Should wait to see if government provides additional stimulus or lowers interest rates.
July 31st, 2010 at 7:56 am
bb
Glen Stevens was very purposeful and very direct when he warned all Australians that leveraging up into property was no longer going to be the road to riches.
A quick check of the RBA financial aggregates for June 2010 shows seasonally adjusted credit growth for all housing (owner occupiers + investors) at ~$5 billion which is roughly $60 billion annual credit growth and just sufficient to purchase the 150,000 dwellings built per year.
Not one cent of additional credit to bid up the price of the $3.6 trillion of existing residential housing stock.
Glen Stevens and the RBA control the supply of credit and therefore the price of housing. The credit tap has been turned off until further notice and so has the growth in house prices.
Until Glen Stevens and the RBA turn the credit tap on again, the return on aggregate residential real estate investment will be the net rental yield with zero growth ~ 2.5%
July 31st, 2010 at 9:31 am
“Glen Stevens and the RBA control the supply of credit and therefore the price of housing. The credit tap has been turned off until further notice and so has the growth in house prices.”
sorry to quible peter w
but no they dont, control the supply of credit, the rba that is.
the rba sets the price of credit, the banks control the supply of credit, and that is determined by the level of credit worthy customers willing to demand credit.
now as house prices go up , credit aversion on both sides of the trsnsaction may be taking place perhaps
cheers mahaish
July 31st, 2010 at 11:30 am
The deleveraging mechanism between the stock market and housing market is made very different with daily margin calls in the stock market. In the stock market the margin loan induced bubbled and the subsequent crash deleveraging is a fairly simple, obvious and easy to understand mechanism.
Housing is at least a bit more complicated but it becomes quite complex when you start drilling down to very fine details of demographics. At the least level of complexity we have 3 groups of people roughly in equal proportions at the moment. We have investors and we have owner occupiers who can be divided into outright owners and mortgagees. Each of those groups contributes differently to the price dynamic and even at this level of still fairly simple complexity the analogy to the stock market begins to dilute. I won’t go into the details of what I think the dynamics are but my conclusion is that investors expectations are clearly of BOTH cashflow and capital gains, but in times of falling prices it is the cashflow and the associated tax break which stop most investors from forced sale deleveraging. The people most prone to deleveraging are the most recent home buyers, so it could be that investors and first home buyers and particularly the competition between them results in credit induced asset inflation, but it is mainly the first home buyers who get burned on the way down. Frankly calling first home buyers speculators does not sit well in my stomach.
When prices go down, they can do so for many reasons and combinations of reasons. A top down approach with theory as the starting point will naturally stop at the level of detail where the link between theory and reality gets hazy. Conclusions drawn from economic data are infinitely ambiguous and high level numbers should not be used to prove a theory. The applicability of economic theory to a particular economic phenomenon such as the housing market has to make sense at every level of detail not just the final outcome.
July 31st, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Adrian #8,
“The current looming issue for housing is the difficulty getting foreign finance which funds a big part of the banks housing loan book.”
Indeed. I also wonder what might be the significance in the growth of the Aussie banks’ Off-Balance Sheet business – primarily OTC derivatives – versus very modest growth in on-balance sheet assets:
http://barnabyisright.com/2010/07/30/aussie-banks-14-2t-time-bomb/
July 31st, 2010 at 1:45 pm
barnaby – that’s really sensationalist stuff, by the size of the number I would suggest that they are using gross face value, which does not indicate the real risk. The largest proportion of OTCs used in Australia are interest rate swaps, which have a face value but no exchange of principal. So the risk is associated with the size of the cashflows which is calculated as a coupon of the face value and has 2 netting sides so in fact the risk is between the spread of fixed and floating interest payments, which becomes a pretty small percentage of the actual accounting face value. On top of that banks as market makers for these things would hold offsetting positions so the net risk position gravitates around zero. Even in the worst possible case scenario, losses would be a tiny fraction of the sensationalist figure, it really doesn’t take much insight to understand that.
July 31st, 2010 at 1:47 pm
furthermore if it is off-balance sheet it has to be proven that it is hedged away, which ties in with my last point.
July 31st, 2010 at 2:02 pm
I was wrong on some points – here is a good document on the subject of OTCs in Australia. Conclusion is the same.
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/REP158_SurveyOfTheDerivatives.pdf/$file/REP158_SurveyOfTheDerivatives.pdf
July 31st, 2010 at 2:41 pm
I am sorry for hijacking but in my view the net effect of the housing bubble burst on the real economy may be horrific.
I disagree that certain political and economic processes are inevitable. We should tell all the morally corrupt Real Estate agents that they need to join the Election campaign as the bust of the Real Estate bubble will affect then the most.
There is a very simple political question:
Do we want the housing bubble to burst (as it happened in the US) when the private sector is forced to save or deleverage (if the government goes into surplus as the other components of the GDP most likely won’t change much)
or
do we want to moderate that process and go into house prices stagnation phase for 20 years (as it happened in Japan) by Keynesian policies implemented by the Labor (even if they don’t talk much about it).
I am not saying that the politicians from the Labor party are less dodgy or even smarter (think about Sen. Conroy). But what I am 100% sure about is that the Liberals will deliver the first “solution”.
I am just stunned how blindly the Chief Lemming Tony Abbot follows the trail of monetary “science” peddled by Niall Fergusson right to the edge of the cliff.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/niall-ferguson-debates-himself/
July 31st, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Thanks for the link TITINT. Much appreciated.
I can’t help but note the following from page 1 of that ASIC document:
“The scale of activity and magnitude of outstanding exposures in the Australian OTC derivatives market are relatively low by international standards and, with the exception of interest rate and foreign exchange products, are also quite low in absolute terms. Nevertheless, the market plays an important role in the overall functioning of the Australian financial system and ANY DISRUPTION TO ACTIVITY COULD HAVE WIDE-RANGING IMPLICATIONS.”
That’s my point. It continues:
“For instance, while the Australian OTC derivatives market generally remained robust to the turbulence that followed the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, there was widespread uncertainty among participants. This contributed to AN INCREASE IN PRICE VOLATILITY AND DETERIORATION IN LIQUIDITY CONDITIONS ACROSS PRODUCTS.”
And that was Adrian’s point #8:
“The current looming issue for housing is the difficulty getting foreign finance which funds a big part of the banks housing loan book… Conditions in Australia can change overnight due to many issues in the global economy, and just as most of the economists didn’t predict the GFC (still going on BTW) there are few who will see the next set of events.”
I note also that that document is dated May 2009, and states:
“There have been a number of important developments and enhancements in each of these areas in the Australian market in recent years. These reflect general industry-wide improvements in risk management over time, in part driven by international regulatory initiatives. Furthermore, in response to the turbulence in financial markets, senior executives have focused more attention on risk-management issues. Among the most notable developments in Australia revealed by the Survey are:
* a shift to ‘vanilla’ business in recent months, as demand for complex or structured products has declined; …”
The RBA stats I detailed in my blog article tend to decry ASIC’s assertion. The chart tells the story. The banks have ramped up their off-balance sheet derivatives business again. At $14.23T it is now slightly higher than it was at September 2008 … right when everything went pear-shaped.
By comparison, their on-balance sheet assets are actually LOWER than their peak … $2.62T vs $2.7T.
I also cannot help but notice that the ASIC report is really nothing more than a motherhood statement, with no real action taken to address the issue:
“Given these considerations, the Australian financial authorities ENCOURAGE industry participants to consolidate and build on recent enhancements to practices in this area and in particular to take the following steps…
Promote market transparency… Ensure continued progress in the timely negotiation of industry-standard legal documentation … Expand the use of collateral to manage counterparty credit risks … Promote Australian access to central counterparties for OTC derivatives products … Expand the use of automated facilities for confirmations processing … Expand the use of multilateral ‘portfolio compression’ and reconciliation tools … Increase Australian influence in international industry fora …
Australia’s financial authorities will INITIATE DISCUSSION with industry participants on each of these topics IN THE NEAR FUTURE, with a view to prioritising efforts, and developing arrangements to monitor progress over time.”
So, did they “initiate discussion”? Did they do anything more than “encourage” industry participants?
Call me a sceptic, but in consideration of their recent record and vested interests, one could be forgiven for seeing any statement of reassurance by our financial overlords as an excellent indicator to the contrary of whatever they are stating.
July 31st, 2010 at 7:16 pm
bb (Captain)
A residential real estate investor can get a higher return paying off debt at this point in time.
7.25% pretax ammortizing debt (interest cost reduction) vs -4.5% when leveraged 100% into Australian residential real estate where the capital gain is presently zero and the net rent 2.5%.
That’s a decent difference.
Whilst real estate asset prices are flat the return is the net rent ~ 2.5% net.
August 1st, 2010 at 12:02 am
barnaby, I understand your concerns are genuine and it is certainly an area which requires greater regulatory focues, which it gets by the way. I also understand that the way your argument is presented it does look bad to a person to whom the world of OTCs is a bit of a mystery. I posted the link thinking that by getting some detail you might understand that the basis of your concern is unwarranted.
My counter argument is very simple, the number you quote does not even closely resemble the actual risk to the banks or to the economy. So it might sound like a trillion dollars is a massive amount but if you understood the nature of the products and how they are handled you would realise quoting trillions and drawing sensationalist conclusions is unfounded. There is enough information in that report for you to get to that level of understanding but you have to change the way you scan for information. You took that document and found every quote which could be portrayed in a sensationalist way and you even reqouted it with emphasis which sensationalises on the context. Including in that are even some quite obvious misinterpretations and some not so obvious including:
“Nevertheless, the market plays an important role in the overall functioning of the Australian financial system and ANY DISRUPTION TO ACTIVITY COULD HAVE WIDE-RANGING IMPLICATIONS.””
I could have picked on a more obvious misinterpretation but I chose this one because it is the most demonstrative to try to give you some insight of what OTCs in Australia are about.
Notice how the majority of the OTC products are FX, which I forgot about in my initial post. It is no coincedence that we are a country which import/export and foreign investment plays the most significant role in our economy and that this is the biggest OTC market. The key to understanding the role of OTCs is to view them as insurance contracts. Thanks to those insurance contracts the real players in the economy can focus on what they are good and can transfer the associated market risk to the finance sector which has the economy of scale and expertise to deal with that market risk. People don’t realise how important that is to the functioning of our economy, and this is the essence of the quoted sentence.
In terms of the trillion dollar exposure, what you have to understand there is that from the finance sector perspective it is all netted out in some form. If it wasn’t it could not be off the balance sheet.
Yes there were problems with certain types of OTCs, but notably it was in the same country where you can get OTC bullets at your local supermarket.
August 1st, 2010 at 6:38 am
I know there are a few people interested in the situation in the USA.
I present a ticker by Denninger…
http://market-ticker.org/archives/2541-Housing-An-Exercise-In-Truth-Finding.html
That says the housing bubble is far from over.
That ticker links to a 2 page spreadsheet..
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AirpBiMjpGTLdEt5NllzWTRyOWxBbTdHRW0tWVBFRlE&hl=en&gid=0
From what I can see there is almost 2.4 trillion dollars of mortgages in negative equity.
The 2nd page appears to break down the situation on a state by state basis.
August 1st, 2010 at 8:07 am
USA housing in “pictures”
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/07.10/decline.html
August 1st, 2010 at 9:08 am
I’d be interested in views on the arguments put forward at:
http://www.shadowstats.com/
I’ve been aware of ths site for a while as one which argues that the official US govt inflation and unemployment rate statistics are way too low. But I only recently read the Hyperinflation Update 2010 (posted Dec 09; there’s a paywall for more recent updates). Some of the main points:
* During the Great Depression the US currency was at least partly based on the gold standard which limited the capacity to print money. That constraint lead to deflation but there is no such constraint now.
* Helicopter Ben appears to genuinely believe that the Fed can solve all problems with their “printing press” and has already begun the process of debasing the $US
* The US govt debt and unfunded liabilities are so large ($75 trillion, 5xGDP – a key point is that this estimate includes unfunded liabilities as well as actual debt) that the only possibility is to inflate away the debt using the printing press
* At some point foreign holders of US treasuries will take the view that however bad the alternatives appear, continuing to hold $US is worse [I'm not sure how they can get out of $US - some, eg Mosler posted here by ak, say it's impossible but I don't see that as reassuring, just globalising the US problem]
* Fed prints as many $US needed to buy dumped US treasuries, leading to hyperinflation
And so on (all the way to the suggestion that liqour and tinned fish will be good investments as you’ll have something to exchange in the barter economy that will follow).
Questions: Is it reasonable to include US govt unfunded liabilities (as GAAP requires for US companies) or can the govt limp along somehow as these fall due? How can China and Japan (etc) actually liquidate their $US positions. Is the Fed mad enough to keep printing $US all the way to hyperinflation? What are their alternatives? And what would this mean for $A?
August 1st, 2010 at 11:16 am
what I love seeing is the relentless ignorance of the existing housing bubble by property bulls such as Joyce. So many are so indebted to the housing market that the mere thought it could fall, and fall badly is simply out of the question.
A few observations from the UK housing market: housing credit growth slowed fairly early into the piece, which lead to declining stock sales, falling prices, which fed upon itself into further declining credit growth etc. Banks then all got conservative and demanded higher LvR’s. Well of course people had less equity & cash to throw around so this further slowed the housing market.
The big difference that Joyce forgets to metnion about the stock market include (a) the stock market is marked to market every day – the housing market simply is not. You don’t look up each day to see what the real value of your housing portfolio is nor does the bank make top up margin calls. Large shocks to values then result, and as we saw in the US, large jumps to default. (b) the stock market is still based on high levels of speculation, but also a degree of rational thought, i.e. pricing and valuation models, marking to fair value, intesne scrutinisation of balance sheets. The housing market? It relies on the ‘it went up yesterday, so it will go up tomorrow’ and ‘the golden law that property doubles every 10 years’. No more science than that. As Steve points out (supported by the IMF and the Economist), yields are so poor at the moment (2% gross), there is no income stream reason to own housing – it is all locked in expected price appreciation. If this appreciation goes away, what will investors do? So many have poured into the housing market to ‘get in now’ before prices rise further, what will happen when this motivation goes away, or in fact goes into reverse? (c) the stock market is, in general, liquid and fairly lowly leveraged. The housing market is both illiquid, highly leveraged and astonishingly correlated. When investors (who own 1/3 of Australia’s housing stock) start bailing out, they all start heading for the smallest door in the room.
My great concern is for our national sovereignty. Our 4 banks are heavily exposed to the mortgage market. A significant depreciation in house prices will have a material impact on capital positions. If large losses are reported, deposits will start to flee. Foreign investors will cease to roll funding. This has already occured in Ireland, with all large banks already nationalised because of over exposure to the property sector, with near 20% unemployment the result. Ireland however, is part of a big family in the EU. Who will rescue Australia? With the bank’s balance sheets so large relative to our national GDP, will Australia retain its AAA rating?
No doubt the government knows this – look what happened when our housing market last faltered – changes in FIRB rules, changes in FHOG and drastic cuts to interest rates.
What will the government do now, cut rates despite inflation (and result in stagflation), boost the FHOG again despite existing unaffordability? Allow foreign ownership again despite voter rejection? Have we backed ourselves into a corner?
August 1st, 2010 at 1:27 pm
hi djc
“* During the Great Depression the US currency was at least partly based on the gold standard which limited the capacity to print money. That constraint lead to deflation but there is no such constraint now”
correct me if im wrong it took rooservelt until 1934 to go off the gold standard and hence they were able to reflate the economy since there was no ristriction in terms of requiring gold assett backing for the currency. this was only a temporary phenomenon, since in 1938 if im not mistaken, they tightended fiscal policy again, and we had an economic contraction till the advent of ww2. im scurrying around in my rusty old memory bank re this, so forgive me if im off on my dates.
“Helicopter Ben appears to genuinely believe that the Fed can solve all problems with their “printing press” and has already begun the process of debasing the $US”
the problem is djc, helicopter ben hasnt been conducting helicopter drops of money into private sector balance sheets. he’s been until recently doing what every other banker does, and thats lend money to the private banking system. more recently the feds being buying up assets wholesale, but never the less, the end result has been a massive build up in bank reserves. the feds very good at providing infinite liquidity in this way, and that was probably the original purpose of its actions in the dark days of lehmans.
there was another purpose, and that was to prop up the effected counter parties of the lehmans collapse on the grounds of systemic stability. totally corrupt and contemptible behaviour in my view
so some of those dodgy assetts have ended up in the feds books, but the liabilities in the private sector still remain, allthough there have been some large write downs of late. whether these write downs even begin to cover the debt whole in the system is a good question. the answer is probably not a hope in hell, since we dont know exactly how the second tier creditors, the people who were counter parties to the counter parties of lehmans etc have been effected.
anyway the people who believe those bank reserves pose an inflationary or perhaps hyperinflationary threat i think
totally misunderstand the credit creation dynamic. they believe a tidal wave of lending will drive the economy into a hyperinflation and the debasement of the currency.
the problem is banks dont need reserves to lend money, they need credit worthy customers with healthy balance sheets who are happy to take on extra leverage because there balance sheet allows them to do so. while the debt or liabilities remain there isnt going to be a whole lot of borrowing going on.
furthermore, much of those reserves, have been built up through reversible transactions undertaken by the fed. that is they are reversible contracts, and hence the fed can unwind its liquidity and assett position if it wanted to.
helicopter ben is a misnomer in my view, i prefer the term bag man ben. the fed has spent a lot of time and money helping its banking buddies out of a liquidity and balance sheet hole, and done precious little else in terms alleviating the balance sheet problems of other americans other than the ones on wall street.
unfortunately the situation is a manifestation of one of the immutable laws of beauracracy, that is the regulator has become captive of the very people they are trying to regulate.
August 1st, 2010 at 5:00 pm
mahaish
You touch on a critical issue re Helicpter Ben and in onesense the property obssesion.
The change in acounting rules in the US with the market values of assets not being property valued or the stress tests with the European Banks treating their soveriegn Bond holding as being held to maturity.
Wouldn’t people with their accumulation super funds who have opted for conservative captial stable portfolio love to have the same rules applied.
The market value of banks listed on overseas share markets and companies such as GM. We have a quasi cpatilist system that is more more operating in a government distorted system that benefits the biggest and wealthiest lobby groups be it Unions, bankers, developers or miners.
In australia we have had better regulation than most but we are dealing in a globalised economy that in my view is becoming increasing glaZed as to what the market values should be reflected.
People tend not to have faith in the markets tend to purchase real estate. However the same issue applies.
People need to have faith in the financial system.
I would love the Australia authorities to insist that the AUd is used as the currency for our resources and not the USD.
The loss of confidence in paper issued by central banks is a real threat.
I would love the Australian authorities to restrict the activities of foreign banks that dont abide to our more stringent regulation ( not perfect but certainly less opaque than what has occured).
I would love the Australian Authorities to restrict the sale of water licences to other soveriegn nations
My son was interviewing my elderly mother and my aunt for a school assignment re diffences in generations. My aunt who is 88 recalls eating stinging nettle soup during the great depression. Eating your greens took on a new meaning. Hopefully we dont revisit this.
August 1st, 2010 at 9:27 pm
“* The US govt debt and unfunded liabilities are so large ($75 trillion, 5xGDP – a key point is that this estimate includes unfunded liabilities as well as actual debt) that the only possibility is to inflate away the debt using the printing press
* At some point foreign holders of US treasuries will take the view that however bad the alternatives appear, continuing to hold $US is worse [I'm not sure how they can get out of $US - some, eg Mosler posted here by ak, say it's impossible but I don't see that as reassuring, just globalising the US problem]
* Fed prints as many $US needed to buy dumped US treasuries, leading to hyperinflation”
hi djc
just like in oz, the US government debt is denominated in its own currency. if foreign holders of US treasury securities wanted there US dollars back, balances would be adjusted in the clients treasuries and bank accounts held at the fed. debts honoured in a blink of an eye.
now whats the inflationary impact of this process. would this phenomenon pose an inflationary or hyper inflationary threat.
well , may be no,
why,
if treasuries are swapped for dollars, all we have is a assett swap, with no nett improvement in the nett worth of the entitiy doing the swap. no nett increase in the entities balnce sheet position, and hence no increase in the entities propensity to spend or invest causing an inflationary threat.
now on e could argue that holding cash is potentially more inflationary than holding treasuries, but that may not be the case, since treasuries are basically time deposits at the fed and can easilly be liquidated, or more importantly can be leveraged due to there government backing. so holding treasuries may be more of an inflationary threat than holding cash once we factor the inflationary impact of extra leverage
so the government buying back treasuries is not inflationary, since all its doing is changing the composition of balance sheets without increasing nett worth.
what can be inflationary is the total level of the deficit, if the private sector hasnt the capacity to provide goods and services to meet the spending committments of the government , but in the US with 10% unemployment we are a long long way from any threat of inflation in my opinion
now US dollar holders can swap into another currency, but what, the euro, a basket case if there ever was one. the US runs a trade deficit with the rest of the world, which means conversley the rest of the world runs a trade surplus with the US. part of the price of this arrangemnt which originally had its genisis at bretton woods is dollar hegemony. and when we have large chunks of global gdp dedicated to generating that trade surplus in the surplus nations , no one is going to be walking away from this situation soon. i dont see anybody putting there hand up for trade deficits with the US. furthermore the US, as the pre emminent military power has the means of enforcing dollar hegemony . so as long as major treasury security holders want to run trade surpluses with the US, there will be demand for the dollar, since its the pre emminant means of transaction settlement
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:09 am
marcus,
The AAA rating is irrelevant
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=1731
and we have no need for foreign deposits in our banking system, they are just artefacts of the carry trade. The sooner they go, the better. If AUD slides they will be withdrawn anyway. But AUD will slide on the first signs of the housing bubble burst – which will be normal and good for us.
Ireland is a very bad example of a sovereign system because it is not (they have Euro).
We have to understand that governments do not borrow and repay the debt (except for these countries which spend in foreign currency like Ireland or Greece). The governments spend and tax.
The difference between money and short-term government debt is irrelevant. Who spilled the beans? The ECB
http://www.ecb.int/stats/money/aggregates/aggr/html/hist.en.html
They include short-term bonds in M3 category.
So what is the difference between “printing” AUD1bln and “borrowing” AUD1bln by selling short-term debt? Only marginal as nobody will allow for the yields to depart from the target interest rate (and the interbank rate is what RBA tries to control by open-market operations).
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:40 am
Mahaish
I believe if sufficent countries had no faith in the USD or system, there is precious little the Yanks could do, bigger battalions aside of enforcing a dollar hegemony.
I think the main issue is lack of better of option or alternative at the moment.
Anyways her is an
Interesting clip
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/18424744#38510073
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:51 am
mahaish,
Thanks for your comments. I agree with what you say, as far as you go. Firstly, the recent Fed printing being retained by the banks will only be until they have repaired their balance sheets. They will recognise their bad debts when they are in a position to declare positive balances after doing so. But then what? Presumably they will want the printing to continue so they can lend money to the “real” economy and earn some “real” money. So if there is inflation it seems to me that that is when it will start. Surely the current joke of the Fed lending to the banks at 0% then the banks lending the same money back to the Fed at 1% (or 3 to 4% according to some) is not a long term business model.
Seeminly sober and serious reports on the current process (eg http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/ppb_111.pdf)
mention inflation in passing but don’t deal with it in depth. Weimar and Zimbabwe get a mention but only as special cases that somehow show it can’t happen in the US. I accept that might be so with Weimar (forced reparations on gold standard) but as for Zim I can’t see why the argument for the US being able to print money at will doesn’t apply for Zim. The key point for the US is it’s sovereign currency, which is also the case for Zim. The fact that $US is a reserve currency means that the US can continue with a balance of payments deficit whereas Zim could not. But that doesn’t undermine that Zim could solve all its problems by printing more of its own currency, regardless of whether foreigners are interested in acquiring some. But that obviously has failed spectacularly.
Some say that the special case in Zim is bad management. But for the standard case as to why it’s OK to use the printer, good or bad management just doesn’t come into it.
If we consider it in terms of
PQ = vM
(which I have my doubts about, but here goes), then actual output Q is down to about 20% or times 0.2. So with vM within the same order of magnitude the expected change in P is of the order of 5x or 500%. That might explain what happened in the early stages but the last revaluation (number 4, before they suspended the currency) was in the ratio of 10^12:1 (a trillion to one). As you say, v is not a constant but to explain the actual change in P (order x10^12) v must increase such that transactions which previously occurred each minute or hour needed to occur many times per nanosecond. Since that’s not very likely, we are left with M as the explanation (which obviously did increase by the required order of magnitude). But the problem here is that if PQ = vM has some causal meaning then the solution to the hyperinflation is just to stop the printer and hold M constant. Even the Zim central bank could spot that, but they didn’t do it. Why not? The usual reason for favouring inflation, to eliminate debt, doesn’t work here because no-one could possibly have acquired debt of such a magnitude that it would require a factor more than 10^12 to eliminate it (eg the entire US debt could be repaid for about $10).
So exactly why is it that this can’t happen in the US?
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:38 am
djc,
“So exactly why is it that this can’t happen in the US?”
The key was the actual collapse of the state in Zimbabwe which was unable/unwilling to collect taxes. They simply kept paying thugs to terrorise the society. Would you impose a tax on the thugs you have hired?
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3773
The same pattern of printing money “no matter what” to appease certain social groups or to finance a war and not collecting taxes developed in all the countries which went through a period of hyperinflation.
In Poland (the country I am the most familiar with) the real productive capacities were severely breached by the aggregate demand during both hyperinflation episodes in 1923 and 1989.
In Poland the budget deficit was 155% of GDP in 1921 and 95% in 1922.
(source: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiperinflacja)
This was a direct consequence of the restoration of the independence in 1918 (the country was obviously ruined) and the war with the Bolshevik Russia in 1920.
In the US about 20-30% of the productive capacities are currently idle.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/G17/Current/default.htm
That’s why it can’t happen in the US now.
August 2nd, 2010 at 1:03 pm
ak: “That’s why it can’t happen in the US now.”
Yes, I’m sure it’s not a problem now. Nor do I doubt the merits of govt deficits in general. I’m fine with a deficit to match withdrawals due to savings, investments and balance of payments. But when there is a deficit higher than this, at what point does a govt lose control? In Zim the currency was suspended so their supporters (thugs) lost everything. Why can’t the govt stop printing new money at any time and thereby stop price rises? That seems to be implied by PQ=vM but it doesn’t seem to work.
As for not collecting taxes, Mosler says that this is not a financial necessity but a means to make people work. Since Zim had thugs to do that why the need for taxes?
August 2nd, 2010 at 4:16 pm
AK:
“Do we want the housing bubble to burst …
or
do we want to moderate that process and go into house prices stagnation phase for 20 years ”
If it going to take house 20 years to become more affordable then I’ll take the sooner crash thanks. I know that it will entail more pain for society, but I want a home to raise my family sooner rather than later.
August 2nd, 2010 at 5:59 pm
“Japan is the model that is held out as proving that it is possible to rack up huge quantities of sovereign debt and indulge in periodic bouts of quantitative easing without catastrophe ensuing. And twenty years on Japan is still there, without much growth it’s true, but with a reasonable standard of living for the majority of its population.
However Japan did and does have a number of advantages that are not universally shared. First and foremost it is an export driven economy. Looking at Japan as a corporation, it enjoys strong revenue and is therefore able to purchase from abroad the things it needs without incurring debt because its trade balance is positive.
Secondly, Japan has an homogenous population who were inclined to save. It was therefore possible for the government to sell the majority of its bonds to its own population. This avoided the less palatable alternative of being forced to borrow from abroad.
Thirdly, a large proportion of Japan’s twenty year stagnation has been during a period when the rest of the planet was enjoying strong economic growth.”
I am not sure Australians are as patient as the Japanese.
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:17 pm
#33 DrBob127
The cheapest house and land package around brisbane is $380k and you have to buy off the plan. Vacant serviced blocks just dont exist anymore. Taxation and infrastructure charges make the holding costs too high.
A decline in house prices will quickly be followed by a decline in the supply of new homes.
In any case I really cant see the price of a new home ($380k) dropping 40% to $230k. Its never going to happen.
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
If there are signs of a housing bust, how quickly and how far could the AUD fall? Also, will the upcoming election have any immediate significance on the AUD. cheers
August 2nd, 2010 at 10:49 pm
djc, excellent comments on Zimbabwe. I find it amazing that people will try to advance the idea that the hyperinflation in Zim was completely the result of the collapse in output and had nothing to do with the increase in the money supply.
Firstly, as you mentioned, the scale of each were totally out of proportion to each other. How could annual decreases in output of the range of 10% to 15% cause prices to rise by hundreds, then thousands and finally millions of percentage points annually?
OK even if we accept that the relationship is highly non-linear, and that small reductions in output can cause a huge level of price inflation, there is another big flaw in the argument.
If the inflation was caused entirely by supply-side problems and had nothing to do with the money that was printed, then the price of goods should have gone up when measured in other currencies as well. US dollars started to circulate well before the final collapse – and was there rampant inflation in the USD price of goods? No, certainly nowhere near the extent of the inflation in the ZIM price of goods.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:50 am
yes gamma home,
but i think the point is people who trot out zimbabwe and wiemar germany as a reason as to why governments as a matter of normality shouldnt run budget deficits, but instead pursue surpluses, clearly dont understand the historical circumstances that create these episodes of hyper inflation, and the commonality of supplyside issues that act as catalysts to these situations.
mugabe throwing highly productive white farmers off their land and the french and the belgians invading the ruhrer valley and confiscating vast tracts of german industrial production apparantly are side issues to these people
August 3rd, 2010 at 4:42 am
I live in a suburb in Texas that has a one of the highest average incomes in the USA it would be in Australia’s Top 10. With the low income taxes disposable incomes would exceed all Australian suburbs average incomes after tax. There are 135 holes of golf, waterways and parks. It has not been affected by the economic crisis, as wealthy international buyer are moving to suburb in droves.
“The Woodlands was named in Money magazine’s Best Places to Live as the 11th top-earning town in the U.S. among cities with populations of 50,000 to 300,000 people, boasting a median household income of $124,939. Making the master-planned community even more attractive is the fact that its median home price of $214,593 is the lowest of the 25 top-earning towns on the list.”
Image paying $200,000 for a nice home in one of the top average income suburbs in Australia. Maybe in a year or two.
Check out the link to the full article: http://www.hcnonline.com/articles/2010/07/15/woodlands_villager/news/wv-n_money_magazine_cc_0714.txt
August 3rd, 2010 at 7:53 am
ak … hmmmm so you don’t want foreign deposits or foreign bank funding huh? How do you propose australia funds its oversized CAD? Not to mention your oversized desire to purchase houses, investment properties etc??
You may get your wish anyway, since with the levels of debt that globally need to be rolled over in the next few years there might be little to give to the major australian banks whose loan books are all the same way – long illiquid assets at the highs!
Further, and not relating to ak’s comments … you guys need to be clear when you talk about “inflation” and whether or not QE is inflationary. One thing QE was in part implemented for was to stabilise asset prices. Even better than that its actually lifted them. So if you consider asset price inflation, then yes it is, even if the reserves are not leaving the banking system.
August 3rd, 2010 at 8:39 am
huggy_london,
Of course I know that an inflow of foreign deposits affects the exchange rate. This is all linked. What’s good in having an overvalued currency? Heaps of cheap cargo arriving and killing the local industry? Yes the consumption of imported goods will be reduced if 1AUD=0.5USD So what? Please be aware that Australia actually exports something physical so zero CAD won’t kill us – we’ll still have enough foreign currency to buy what we really need.
But banks can borrow AUD from RBA if there is a liquidity problem and they have other arrangements in place as well. And RBA can provide infinite liquidity. Banks in the modern era of reserve banking will never be insolvent just because people withdraw deposits. Of course there can be certain side-effects if such a scenario unfolds but so what?
What can make the banks insolvent are capital losses caused by the write-offs of bad debt. So this is what needs to be prevented and that’s why I am against allowing for a house price crash.
There was a government deposit guarantee in place during the acute phase of GFC so at least the current government knows what to do. I’m not so sure about the Liberals though as they may want to parrot the British conservatives with their suicidal fiscal tightening policies.
What would be really bad is the scenario when the unemployment sky-rockets as a result of the financial system instability or stupid government policies and we enter the actual deflationary death spiral.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:47 am
Perth dropped 2% in May and dropped 1.5% in June. Average that at 1.75% and that is 21% drop over a year. It has started, how long will it take for everyone to catch on.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:05 pm
#38 mahaish,
I agree about Weimar (special case) and also that in general deficits are needed. But I’m trying to find the point at which a stimulus turns into hyperinflation. The example of Zim shows that it can happen with a sovereign currency, whereas the general line of argument says it shouldn’t. Of course bad management can ruin any country but the general argument on using the printer as I understand it is that it would tend to compensate for bad management. Is that what they were trying to do?
It seems to me that with inflation and deflation there are winners and losers, and that individually we can try to position ourselves defensively. But with hyperinflation almost everyone is a loser, there is no defensive position (tins of fish?). And if this happened with the $US does it go global?
I don’t see this as being about to happen but I’d feel a lot better if I thought it was properly understood. The current understanding leads me to conclude that hyperinflation should be easily fixed – just switch off the printer. So the fact that that isn’t what happens makes me think that something important is being missed.
August 3rd, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Hi Steve,
It must feel good to see some weakening in the housing market.
I notice you posted this article on Business Spectator. Also, your article attracted comments from Chris Joye, who asked…
“Do you want to have a little wager as to whether we will see an “accelerating rate of decline in [Australian] house prices” with the loser hiking (a second time!) from Canberra to Mount Kosciuszko?”
Are you going to take him up (assuming no further goverment intervention)?
August 3rd, 2010 at 8:34 pm
accelerating rate of decline – so all you need is a 0.8% decline next month? My money would be on Steve for this one…
on that note accelerating rate of decline is potentially ambigous or at least I think the author could be bit confused with order. I’m sure he means a growing rate of decline, because if he actually means an accelerating rate of decline, (ie -0.7%,-0.8%,-1.0%) then he is talking about 3rd derivative of price which I suspect wasn’t the authors intention and if it was he might want to explain why this measurement is significant.
August 3rd, 2010 at 9:58 pm
No. I did one bet with that mob: that was enough. And I didn’t get to set the terms out clearly beforehand–on which basis, as Rob Burgess commented, the bet is still alive and well. I’m just content to watch the figures this time.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Truth @ 45
I think he was just trying to goad Steve into another bet. As the main index provider I suspect he aleady has a feeling what the numbers may show for July.
Probably very smart for SK to avoid this one. One negative month does not a crash make.
August 4th, 2010 at 8:04 am
I saw the Chris Joye comment. I assumed it was not him because that comment was just vile with no implied jest.
August 4th, 2010 at 8:32 am
ak … “that’s why I am against allowing for a house price crash.”
You want to underwrite (effectively socialise) the housing sector??? Interesting…. and a little radical. Not sure that is healthy, but anyway.
I don’t understand your point re the rba – no offense, but it sounds muddled to me. It’s not literal that banks cannot fund in australia – they can. It’s, like most things in finance, a question of price. Major banks borrowing at north of +200 simply means that they will shrink their balance sheet or start moving mortgage rates and other borrowing rates higher, irrespective of what the RBA do with ‘official’ policy. Either way, thats tighter credit. That, along with the communists to your north seeing their fake economy imploding, are the two biggest risks to australia currently. It’s clear that a funding squeeze in the banks could see a housing market starved of funds, and that would likely mean lower house prices.
Re the UK austerity – i wouldn’t be so quick to judge that. The UK is in relatively better shape than all of europe (ex germany), which is nothing short of being a total, utter basket-case.
As for the ccy, well there are some benefits to a strong currency, namely that since Australia is a large importer of “stuff” people want, but don’t necessarily need (!), then obviously you get pricing benefits. But generally there i agree with you – it’s way too high and crowded with speculators and carry junkies. And as an expat who will at some point want to return I can assure you that i’d like to see a lower aud – its been >10 years and at this rate I’ll never get back! gbpaud somewhere north of 2.25 would be nice! Come on the china crash!!
August 4th, 2010 at 10:10 am
huggy_london,
The fake economy will not implode. They are real – just visit the nearest supermarket.
They make goods we make illusions (claims on things – credit and money).
We assign magic meaning to the numbers in the database because somebody told us and then we humans are happy to be controlled by these numbers. We are robots. If the numbers do not match we are happy to allow for a collapse of our society. There was a guy who described this long time ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation
I will tell you the secret. The Standing Commitee knows all the passwords. They can fix their distributed database if there is a threat of a systemic collapse.
So yes I would socialise if there is no other option left but without hacking the database – just visit this site to see how this can be done:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=187
What is the issue if the government creates money? Is that money less real than created by the banking system?