How To Make Housing More Affordable

It never made sense to me how a country of Australia’s geographic size can have some of the highest property prices in the world. Australian cities are on par with population dense cities like Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo and high profile cities like NYC, Paris and London. This raises questions like why haven’t we developed inland Australia? Sure it’s a hot desert with arid land but that hasn’t stopped middle-eastern cities developing or even one of my favourite cities Las Vegas springing up.

There are actually a number of issues explain why property prices are unusually high in Australian and with most economic issues that sees costs rise consistently or quality deteriorate; government has some involvement in the issue.

The following notes have been sourced from the policy monograph released by the Centre for Independent Studies entitled: Price Drivers: Five Case Studies in HowGovernment is Making Australia Unaffordable by Oliver Marc Hartwich and Rebecca Gill (December 2011) ISBN: 978 1 86432 133 3.

Main reasons that make housing less affordable include:

•          Land supply
•          Tax incentives for property investors (negative gearing)
•          Subsidies for owner-occupiers (first home owner grants)
•          Stamp duties
•          Infrastructure levies

Land supply

The population is concentrated in the metropolitan capital cities.

Canberra has a lot of land, and yet its house prices are nearly as high as prices in Sydney and Melbourne.

Housing prices have risen far more than construction costs. One can then conclude that land scarcity has been the main driver of property price rises.

Negative gearing

Property investors whose capital costs exceed their rental income, can offset their net losses against their income tax liability. This incentivises investment in property using debt with the prospect of capital gains. Hence, highly leveraged property investors increase the demand for housing which results in higher prices.

First home owner grants

Unfortunately these grants increase demand since buyers in this segment of the market all have access to the grant and will bid up entry level property prices.

Stamp duties

There is no economic rationale for stamp duty and is set from state to state at an arbitrary level. An interesting fact is that taxes on financial and capital transactions in Australia, which includes stamp duties, are twice the average of OECD countries. The effect of stamp duties is just to make housing less affordable.

Infrastructure levies

Local councils have been increasingly resorting to using levies to pay for infrastructure investment. These levies are borne by property developers, who pass them on to their customers.

Housing is one of the most distorted markets in Australia. All these interventions have made housing unaffordable because the market supply is restrained. Governments respond by perversely boosting demand and making housing less affordable.

Key recommendations:

•          Increase supply by encouraging councils to take on more residents through local government finance reforms
•          Abolish both negative gearing and the first-time buyers grants
•          Abolish stamp duty
•          Abolish infrastructure levies and permit the private sector to own and operate infrastructure

Debt-fuelled buying and a slowing economy

The other issue that tends to appear in most inflated markets is debt fuelled buying. Australian banks have made billions over the years lending to property buyers and investors. In the period during the GFC, prices fell dramatically as the entire economy deleveraged. The Rudd government stimulated the economy and the RBA slashed interest rates to 50 year lows. This resulted in a property market recovery with prices rising from the bottom by 20%! Clearly, movements in interest rates affect property prices since higher rates increase the debt burden and vice-versa for lower interest rates. In the last few years, rates have been steady but have declined in 2012 and are expected to decline further as China appears to be slowing. However, the entire interest rate cut has not been passed on by banks because they claim that their cost of funding has increased. This is somewhat true but we have also seen profits rise at all the banks, which suggests the banks are price makers and not price takers. The market concentration among the big four banks is high and the slow shift from offshore funding to onshore funding over the years should give the banks the ability to pass on more of interest rate cuts than we have seen in the past.

Despite the interest rate cuts we have seen over the past year, property prices continue a slow grind lower. With the economy expected to slow further, the current trend of lower property prices should persist until the government or the RBA decides to stimulate the economy through increased borrowing or lower interest rates.

Going forward

The government imposed distortions are unlikely to be reduced at any time in the near future since there is no political debate whatsoever around the housing market. Should the economy continue to slow, it is even less likely that these barriers are removed since they generate taxation revenue and would be negative for the state budgets. However, a slowing economy will also see property prices decline until the politicians decide it’s time to be Keynesians and stimulate the economy.

Banks Feed Off Inflation

Firstly let’s define inflation. Today’s common usage refers to inflation as rising prices either caused by an increase in aggregate demand with aggregate supply remaining static (demand pull inflation) or a decrease in aggregate supply while aggregate demand remains constant (cost push inflation).

So if there are tax cuts and there is more demand for all goods, is this considered inflationary? Yes by modern definition there will be an increase in aggregate demand causing demand pull inflation.

But my own view of inflation/deflation is the same as the classical definition of inflation which is an expansion of the money supply. The symptom of inflation is rising prices, which is why over time the factoid equating inflation to rising prices exists.

When the central bank adjusts interest rates, this affects the money held in bank reserve accounts and in turn affects a bank’s ability to make loans and increase the money supply.

When banks originate loans the money supply expands since a 10% reserve requirement will lead to banks using a $100 deposit to create a $1000 loan. This means when borrowers repay loans, the money supply contracts and similarly if a borrow defaults, the money supply really contracts. However, banks will use buffers to protect themselves against a default by first making sure the borrower is credit worthy, then requiring a deposit to banks are not taking the full risk, finally collateral will be linked to the loan (e.g. the property will be collateral for the mortgage loan).

As the money supply expands (inflation), asset prices rise since there is now more money chasing the same amount of goods. This in turn increases the demand for loans since people see asset prices rising and believe the economy is growing and additionally collateral value increases allowing potential borrowers to increase the leverage on their loan. Loan serviceability is another important factor when banks assess a potential borrower. Since all prices are increasing, including wages, pretty much all the factors a bank will look at to originate a loan improve in favour of the borrower.

This is the inflationary cycle that causes borrowing to lead to higher asset prices and then more borrowing. The central bank then tries to control this by increasing interest rates which should decrease the demand for new loans. However, there is a time delay in the effect and because the bulk of loans are long-term in nature (longer than a year) the economy doesn’t feel the full effect of a string of interest rate rises until a few years into the future. Eventually the economy begins to contract after a string of interest rate rises result in a fall in borrowing and then it is up to the central bank to re-start the game by slashing interest rates to begin a new cycle of borrowing and rising asset prices. This is how the business cycle works and is why under the current system any deflation is considered bad because if the central banks leaves the economy to contract and allow deflation to take hold, it will continue unabated until prices are so low that demand for loans increases. This could lead to a substantial contraction in the money supply and prices falling more than 10% in a single year.

The problem with this system is that banks depend on inflation the resulting loan origination to increase and maintain their current profits. If there is deflation, people demand less loans and repay their loans faster to reduce debt burdens. This causes a huge contraction in bank profits and when the economy really contracts, collateral values plunge as a vicious cycle of loan defaults and collateral devaluation takes place. One only has to look at what happens when a country has a bubble economy to see this scenario play out. Japan in the early 1990s, the US in 2008 and soon Australia will have its day of debt deflation.

Australia has hitched its wagon to the Chinese growth engine and Asia in general, which is where I fear the economic shock is likely to manifest itself. In many financial and economic crises we see banks come under severe stress and in many cases collapse as their reserves vanish via asset impairment, exposing their leveraged business model. Governments then become involved via bailouts and hence taxpayers are now proud owners of zombie banks.

This is exactly why substantial deflation (>2% deflation) will never be allowed to occur and why eventually rates will go to zero. Banks will not survive unless they dramatically increase their reserves, which I do not foresee happening during extreme economic uncertainty. The government will nationalise banks claiming that the economy will implode if nothing is done.

These are dire predictions and I am sure the majority will disagree with this forecast but is there really another outcome when the current solution to any downturn is to spur spending and borrowing via lower interest rates?

We Want a Stronger Currency!

I wanted to write a timely article on the effects of a strong currency. We are currently seeing the Australian Dollar (AUD) rise to lifetime record highs against the Euro as problems in the Eurozone continue to fester and investors look for perceived safe haven economies to park their money. The Australian economy is a very attractive location for capital because of its stable developed economy, stable political system, relatively low government debt and is generally business friendly.

Safe haven status takes years to attain but can be lost in few months. The most recent currency to lose some of their safe haven credibility is Switzerland, which pegged its currency to the Euro and now has to print unlimited amounts of Swiss Francs (CHF) to maintain the currency peg. Since the Eurozone fears lead people to buy CHFs, the Swiss are forced to increase their money supply to meet demand, which will eventually cause prices to rise as those newly created CHFs leak into the wider economy.

The economic pundits will tell you that the high AUD or CHF is hurting domestic industries and jobs are being lost. This fails to recognise that the fundamental goal for an economy is not to have more jobs but to increase productivity. Maybe every Swiss person could have worked for 35hrs a week instead of 40hrs a week since their purchasing power is increasing in EUR terms. That’s obviously a good thing and helps them achieve a higher standard of living by making their lives easier and more enjoyable to live.

The Swiss government fell for the myth that a weak currency stimulates exports. But what they continually forget to mention is the reduced cost of imports that benefits EVERYONE in Switzerland. There will be changes that will occur in an economy with a strong currency including job losses since marginally productive exporters will face greater competition through cheaper imports. Some businesses will close down but others will become more productive. The business that closes down will result in job losses but does that mean the newly unemployed will never work again? OF COURSE NOT! There is always a productive use for labour in an economy and as long as wages and labour regulations are flexible, the unemployed will find work elsewhere within the economy. Maybe new employment opportunities will come from a growing business reliant on imports that have seen demand rise as their products are now cheaper. The net result is an increase in the overall productivity of the economy and is an example of Schumpeter’s creative destruction, where the resources from a non-productive business are reallocated to a more productive business.

The other point touched on before was that a stronger currency will benefit everyone since they can buy goods from the rest of the world cheaply. Exporters may see stiffer competition but they too will see costs decline if they import supplies or raw materials from foreign businesses.

The Australian economy is a great example of an economy that has thrived despite seeing a rising currency. This does not mean the economy is completely healthy because households continue to have high debt levels due to large mortgages and we are likely to see the property market continue its slow decline. Australia is also heavily exposed to Asia and if there is a slow down or financial crisis our economy could be slammed. But things continue to function and we have not seen our economy die as a result of the strong Australian dollar. Next time you see the Aussie dollar make a new high, don’t frown, fist pump the air and shout YOU BEAUTY!

Back to Surplus

So I'm back after my hiatus and will hopefully pick up where I left off...

Public debt has become a hot issue in the last few years as governments rack up enormous budget expenditure and finance it by borrowing from the private sector. Unfortunately for some governments this debt load has become unsustainable and will inevitably lead to a default unless harsh austerity is embraced. Since austerity is the least politically feasible option, governments will either print money or default/restructure their debts.

Thankfully Australia is not in this predicament with an electorate that has been conditioned to fear public sector debt, and rightly so, which has led politicians to pledge returns to surplus and debt reduction. However, there have been calls from pundits and economists to deprioritise repaying the debt and returning to surplus since it is "manageable" at these levels. So who is right? Are the politicians bowing to popular opinion or are the economists right? I am firmly in the camp of reducing the debt as fast as possible because of the following problems:

Firstly, there are limited funds available for entities to borrow and when the government borrows over $100 billion it crowds out private activity by preventing businesses from accessing that capital and therefore increases the cost of borrowing economy wide.

Secondly, it is generally accepted that the larger the size of government, the more inefficiencies in spending (diseconomies of scale if you like).

The benefits of returning to surplus and repaying the debt:

More funds are available to businesses which will lower borrowing costs and raise profits allowing the business to expand by hiring more people, for example.

Inefficiencies are reduced for the government leading to an improvment in the expenditure quality as the government is forced to trim expenses with the most wasteful spending likely to be cut first. A good example of this is when the flood levy was established and the cash for clunkers scheme was abandoned.

Future taxes are lower since interest on the debt decreases as the debt is repaid.

Puts the government balance in a good position to respond to future crises such as natural disasters (QLD floods) or economic crisis (GFC).

Although both sides of government have committed to achieving surplus and paying back the debt only one has said firmly that they will reduce the size of government. This week Tony Abbott outlined his view of Australia and vowed to “permanently [reduce] the size of government”. This is clearly a good policy for all supporters of freedom and will lead to greater prosperity. (Edit March 2013: Labour has abandoned its pledge to return to surplus).

I will say upfront that I usually vote Liberal because they are reducing the size of government and are committed to a greater level of freedom for everyone. Labor unfortunately believes in big government and spending, which will send Australia down the path towards Greece, Portugal and other fiscally irresponsible nations. If Australia wants to remain strong it will pay off the debt and run budget surpluses.