Commonwealth Bank chief Ralph Norris says Australia's debt-laden household sector had reached its capacity for debt and a slowdown in borrowing is expected for personal finance, including credit cards, persoanl loans and mortgage home loans.
Mr Norris said hopes his business banking division will counter an expected slowdown in personal lending over the next year.
Speaking at a business lunch in Melbourne yesterday, Mr Norris said Australia's debt-laden household sector had reached its capacity for personal loans.
"If you look at the capacity for people to borrow, it's obviously getting to very high levels of capacity and I think there will be a tempering of demand in regard to personal lending," he said. "We have reached capacity for people to borrow which would see them start to reduce their appetite for additional borrowing.
"So we'll see a slowing in growth for personal lending and an increase in growth for business lending."
Since Mr Norris took over the reins of the bank in September 2005, one of his priorities has been to improve CBA's share of the business-lending market.
Rival major banks and niche lenders have eroded CBA's business customer market share from 22 per cent to 13 per cent in the last decade.
One of the big changes Mr Norris has made has put business bankers back into branches.
Despite the bearish outlook , the Australian Bureau of Statistics yesterday released data showing that personal finance commitments rose by 2.2 per cent in May.
On a seasonally adjusted basis, the value of personal lending reached $6.7 billion -- slightly above the trend figure of $6.6 billion.
The ABS said the rise was driven by a 5.6 per cent increase in revolving credit, which included credit cards and overdrafts, offsetting a 1.4 per cent decline in fixed-term loans.
CommSec equities economist Martin Arnold said the rise in personal finance indicated that consumers still had confidence in their financial position.
He noted monthly changes in lending finance figures were often volatile and best viewed over a longer period.
He said the rise in personal finance in May consolidated falls in the previous months.
Personal finance commitments dropped by about 0.5 per cent in April and 0.6 per cent in March.
Mr Arnold said commercial finance picked up during May as the robust business environment encouraged companies to invest in construction projects and the property market.
"Business lending makes up over 60 per cent of total lending, so it is an encouraging sign for future growth that businesses continue to expand their working capacity," he said.
Source: AAP
Monday, July 16, 2007
Becton Property Group to buy real estate assets of failed real estate investment group Fincorp
BectonProperty Group will acquire the property portfolio of collapsed funds manager and property investment firm Fincorp, after its offer was accepted by administrators KordaMentha.
Becton will acquire nine of the 10 Fincorp properties and invest up to $170 million to acquire a 10-year development pipeline, valued at more than $470 million.
The portfolio includes residential, retirement and commercial development sites and assets.
It includes the high profile Mernda town centre development site, 18 kilometres north of Melbourne.
The Sydney-based Fincorp went into administration in March owing its investors $201 million and its bank lenders a further $95 million.
The investment firm has more than 8,000 investors, whose average age is around 60.
As part of Becton deal, Fincorp investors will have the right to a cash out price of approximately 50 cents for each $1.00 originally invested in Fincorp.
They will also have the right to reinvest those proceeds in Becton's Office Fund at an effective price of approximately 55 cents for each $1.00.
The fund is a passive fund holding completed office properties.
In March, the administrators told aggrieved investors they could only expect to claw back 30 cents in the dollar.
Becton chief executive Hamish Macdonald said he hoped Fincorp investors would remain with the managed office fund.
"We believe that our offer provides significantly more value to Fincorp investors than would have been otherwise available from a straight liquidation,'' Mr Macdonald said.
"In this case, we were able to offer a significant 10 per cent premium to Fincorp first ranking/secured noteholders and have also provided a three-year capital guarantee if they choose to reinvest in the Becton Office Fund.''
The Fincorp portfolio includes two retirement village sites under development with a total of 379 dwellings in Hervey Bay and Mackay, Queensland.
As well, in Victoria, the portfolio holds a shopping centre site, the mixed-use site in Mernda and a completed bulky-goods property in Warrnambool.
Mr Macdonald said the acquisition will be earnings accretive for Becton from year one.
"The earnings accretion will be generated by the incremental increase in recurring earnings,'' he said.
"The development profits from the acquisition will strongly support our stated objective of producing $25 million of earnings before interest and tax per annum from our development and construction business.''
AAP
Becton will acquire nine of the 10 Fincorp properties and invest up to $170 million to acquire a 10-year development pipeline, valued at more than $470 million.
The portfolio includes residential, retirement and commercial development sites and assets.
It includes the high profile Mernda town centre development site, 18 kilometres north of Melbourne.
The Sydney-based Fincorp went into administration in March owing its investors $201 million and its bank lenders a further $95 million.
The investment firm has more than 8,000 investors, whose average age is around 60.
As part of Becton deal, Fincorp investors will have the right to a cash out price of approximately 50 cents for each $1.00 originally invested in Fincorp.
They will also have the right to reinvest those proceeds in Becton's Office Fund at an effective price of approximately 55 cents for each $1.00.
The fund is a passive fund holding completed office properties.
In March, the administrators told aggrieved investors they could only expect to claw back 30 cents in the dollar.
Becton chief executive Hamish Macdonald said he hoped Fincorp investors would remain with the managed office fund.
"We believe that our offer provides significantly more value to Fincorp investors than would have been otherwise available from a straight liquidation,'' Mr Macdonald said.
"In this case, we were able to offer a significant 10 per cent premium to Fincorp first ranking/secured noteholders and have also provided a three-year capital guarantee if they choose to reinvest in the Becton Office Fund.''
The Fincorp portfolio includes two retirement village sites under development with a total of 379 dwellings in Hervey Bay and Mackay, Queensland.
As well, in Victoria, the portfolio holds a shopping centre site, the mixed-use site in Mernda and a completed bulky-goods property in Warrnambool.
Mr Macdonald said the acquisition will be earnings accretive for Becton from year one.
"The earnings accretion will be generated by the incremental increase in recurring earnings,'' he said.
"The development profits from the acquisition will strongly support our stated objective of producing $25 million of earnings before interest and tax per annum from our development and construction business.''
AAP
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Platinum credit cards are top of the line
Perks such as celebrity golf outings, free travel insurance, priority reservations at top restaurants and emergency access to a doctor in a remote area can be yours with a platinum credit card.
Introduced by credit card innovators American Express as a charge card and now offered by most financial institutions, platinum has taken over from gold in the premium credit card stakes to become the essential wallet accessory for the well-to-do and upwardly mobile.
And it's never been easier to go platinum as many financial institutions no longer apply annual income limits, to the point where the average Joe is likely to qualify if his credit rating is up to scratch.
But with annual fees ranging from $89 to $395 a year (or $900 a year in the case of Amex's platinum charge - as opposed to credit - card), are these credit cards good value for money or simply a piece of plastic with which to stroke one's ego?
VALUE FOR BIG SPENDERS WHO USE CREDIT CARDS
The best way to assess whether it is worth upgrading to platinum is to weigh up the value of the perks on offer against the annual fee being charged. Interest rates vary, but it's the "extras" that make platinum credit cards different.
But comparing perks isn't that easy. How much you spend on your card each year and the lifestyle you lead have a huge bearing on whether you can take full advantage of the rewards or benefits on offer.
The latest credit card survey by financial researcher Cannex shows the best value-for-money platinum cards for big spenders (categorised as those who spend up to $60,000 a year on their credit card but are able to pay off their balance each month) are offered by StGeorge, Citibank, Commonwealth Bank, HSBC and Westpac.
LOW FEES SUIT LOW SPENDERS
If your annual expenditure is unlikely to exceed more than about $12,000 a year or $1000 a month, then it may be better to choose a low-fee, service-oriented card where you don't have the pressure of having to rack up points to take advantage of a reward program.
While it also rates well for high spenders, the low-fee platinum card offered by St George offers a concierge service (see breakout), free international travel insurance and other benefits, but little in the way of a rewards program. Consumers weighing up the benefits of this card have to ask themselves if they are prepared to pay $89 a year to access a concierge service and the other benefits.
For many the answer is yes, says Sabina Zeljko, senior manager, credit cards, for StGeorge, who says its platinum concierge service is the same as most concierge services because MasterCard and Visa mandate a level of service that all card issuers have to meet.
Zeljko says while only a small percentage of St George platinum cardholders have taken advantage of the concierge service (the card was only launched in December), she expects numbers to grow.
Madeline O'Connor, head of cards marketing for Citibank, says those that have used the Citibank's concierge service once tend to become regular users.
WITH PLATINUM CREDIR CARDS
Compared with weighing up the merit of a concierge service, it's a much more tricky exercise to work out the true value of the rewards-based programs. "You need to know yourself and know the product," says Cannex financial analyst Harry Senlitonga.
He agrees that this is more easily said than done. For a start, the amount you need to spend to gain frequent flyer points varies, as does the value of frequent flyer points with different airlines.
Moreover, Reserve Bank reforms allowing merchants to apply surcharges to credit-card transactions have diluted the value of some programs, and some point systems have expiry dates.
But, importantly for those considering upgrading to platinum from gold, some platinum programs are more generous than the gold and the extra points you earn may compensate for paying a higher annual fee.
Cannex figures show American Express offers the most generous platinum reward program for free air travel. Not only do holders of an Amex platinum credit card qualify for a free domestic flight each year, but they (and holders of the Westpac Altitude Platinum Amex card) also need spend only $10,667 to qualify for a Sydney or Melbourne return trip to London on Qantas.
This compares with an annual expenditure of about $16,000 required by most gold cards, as well as most of the other platinum cards for free domestic Qantas flights.
Meanwhile, Amex platinum cardholders wanting to qualify for a free overseas trip need only rack up an annual expenditure of $85,333, compared with more than $120,000 for most of the other cards.
INSTANT GRATIFICATION WITH PLATINUM CREDIT CARDS
When it comes to "instant" benefits, such as free travel insurance, going platinum starts to look like a smart move for those who travel overseas at least once a year.
A recent study by Cannex found that cardholders could save hundreds of dollars a year by using the travel insurance packages on offer. "Most people used to assume that the travel insurance offered by credit card companies was inferior to the stand-alone product, but we found that the platinum cards were very competitive in this area," Senlitonga says.
That said, there are significant differences between the travel insurance offered by the various platinum cards. Senlitonga says to carefully read the fine print.
So what card does Senlitonga carry? "For me, gold is good enough until I spend more than my current expenditure of about $1000 a month."
You can see the cannex web site for a more detailed comparison of credit cards.
$900 a year gets jacket from Paris.
Despite forking out about $4500 in fees since he became an American Express platinum charge card holder in 2002, Giang Nguyen (pictured) is convinced the card offers excellent value for money.
An IT executive who frequently travels overseas, he uses the card's complimentary concierge service at least once a week.
The 34-year-old single Melburnian has called on the service to arrange tickets for a Cirque de Soleil performance in Las Vegas, ringside seats at the Australian Tennis Open, entry to London nightclubs and flower deliveries to overseas hotel rooms.
"There doesn't seem to be anything the concierges can't do," says Nguyen, who has come to rely on the service in the same way many executives rely on their personal assistants.
Nguyen uses the concierge team for personal shopping - they recently organised for a Hermes jacket to be sent from Paris when his size was unavailable in Australia. Nguyen says these services coupled with the Amex rewards program means he can justify paying the card's annual fee of $900.
He carries other credit cards to overcome the problem of the Amex card being less widely accepted than MasterCard and Visa.
And he isn't fazed when some merchants charge him an additional transaction fee (which on occasions is as high as three per cent).
"This is a small inconvenience," he says.
Source: The AGE
Introduced by credit card innovators American Express as a charge card and now offered by most financial institutions, platinum has taken over from gold in the premium credit card stakes to become the essential wallet accessory for the well-to-do and upwardly mobile.
And it's never been easier to go platinum as many financial institutions no longer apply annual income limits, to the point where the average Joe is likely to qualify if his credit rating is up to scratch.
But with annual fees ranging from $89 to $395 a year (or $900 a year in the case of Amex's platinum charge - as opposed to credit - card), are these credit cards good value for money or simply a piece of plastic with which to stroke one's ego?
VALUE FOR BIG SPENDERS WHO USE CREDIT CARDS
The best way to assess whether it is worth upgrading to platinum is to weigh up the value of the perks on offer against the annual fee being charged. Interest rates vary, but it's the "extras" that make platinum credit cards different.
But comparing perks isn't that easy. How much you spend on your card each year and the lifestyle you lead have a huge bearing on whether you can take full advantage of the rewards or benefits on offer.
The latest credit card survey by financial researcher Cannex shows the best value-for-money platinum cards for big spenders (categorised as those who spend up to $60,000 a year on their credit card but are able to pay off their balance each month) are offered by StGeorge, Citibank, Commonwealth Bank, HSBC and Westpac.
LOW FEES SUIT LOW SPENDERS
If your annual expenditure is unlikely to exceed more than about $12,000 a year or $1000 a month, then it may be better to choose a low-fee, service-oriented card where you don't have the pressure of having to rack up points to take advantage of a reward program.
While it also rates well for high spenders, the low-fee platinum card offered by St George offers a concierge service (see breakout), free international travel insurance and other benefits, but little in the way of a rewards program. Consumers weighing up the benefits of this card have to ask themselves if they are prepared to pay $89 a year to access a concierge service and the other benefits.
For many the answer is yes, says Sabina Zeljko, senior manager, credit cards, for StGeorge, who says its platinum concierge service is the same as most concierge services because MasterCard and Visa mandate a level of service that all card issuers have to meet.
Zeljko says while only a small percentage of St George platinum cardholders have taken advantage of the concierge service (the card was only launched in December), she expects numbers to grow.
Madeline O'Connor, head of cards marketing for Citibank, says those that have used the Citibank's concierge service once tend to become regular users.
WITH PLATINUM CREDIR CARDS
Compared with weighing up the merit of a concierge service, it's a much more tricky exercise to work out the true value of the rewards-based programs. "You need to know yourself and know the product," says Cannex financial analyst Harry Senlitonga.
He agrees that this is more easily said than done. For a start, the amount you need to spend to gain frequent flyer points varies, as does the value of frequent flyer points with different airlines.
Moreover, Reserve Bank reforms allowing merchants to apply surcharges to credit-card transactions have diluted the value of some programs, and some point systems have expiry dates.
But, importantly for those considering upgrading to platinum from gold, some platinum programs are more generous than the gold and the extra points you earn may compensate for paying a higher annual fee.
Cannex figures show American Express offers the most generous platinum reward program for free air travel. Not only do holders of an Amex platinum credit card qualify for a free domestic flight each year, but they (and holders of the Westpac Altitude Platinum Amex card) also need spend only $10,667 to qualify for a Sydney or Melbourne return trip to London on Qantas.
This compares with an annual expenditure of about $16,000 required by most gold cards, as well as most of the other platinum cards for free domestic Qantas flights.
Meanwhile, Amex platinum cardholders wanting to qualify for a free overseas trip need only rack up an annual expenditure of $85,333, compared with more than $120,000 for most of the other cards.
INSTANT GRATIFICATION WITH PLATINUM CREDIT CARDS
When it comes to "instant" benefits, such as free travel insurance, going platinum starts to look like a smart move for those who travel overseas at least once a year.
A recent study by Cannex found that cardholders could save hundreds of dollars a year by using the travel insurance packages on offer. "Most people used to assume that the travel insurance offered by credit card companies was inferior to the stand-alone product, but we found that the platinum cards were very competitive in this area," Senlitonga says.
That said, there are significant differences between the travel insurance offered by the various platinum cards. Senlitonga says to carefully read the fine print.
So what card does Senlitonga carry? "For me, gold is good enough until I spend more than my current expenditure of about $1000 a month."
You can see the cannex web site for a more detailed comparison of credit cards.
$900 a year gets jacket from Paris.
Despite forking out about $4500 in fees since he became an American Express platinum charge card holder in 2002, Giang Nguyen (pictured) is convinced the card offers excellent value for money.
An IT executive who frequently travels overseas, he uses the card's complimentary concierge service at least once a week.
The 34-year-old single Melburnian has called on the service to arrange tickets for a Cirque de Soleil performance in Las Vegas, ringside seats at the Australian Tennis Open, entry to London nightclubs and flower deliveries to overseas hotel rooms.
"There doesn't seem to be anything the concierges can't do," says Nguyen, who has come to rely on the service in the same way many executives rely on their personal assistants.
Nguyen uses the concierge team for personal shopping - they recently organised for a Hermes jacket to be sent from Paris when his size was unavailable in Australia. Nguyen says these services coupled with the Amex rewards program means he can justify paying the card's annual fee of $900.
He carries other credit cards to overcome the problem of the Amex card being less widely accepted than MasterCard and Visa.
And he isn't fazed when some merchants charge him an additional transaction fee (which on occasions is as high as three per cent).
"This is a small inconvenience," he says.
Source: The AGE
Mortgage Funds top $22 billion
Is there such a thing as too much money? Most of us would think not, but when large chunks of money are competing for a home, investors are often forced to take on more risk.
One area where this has happened in recent years is the mortgage fund market.
While mortgage funds don't have the sex appeal of share and property funds, they have captured a fair slice of the investment pool.
Australians are estimated to have more than $22 billion invested in mortgage funds, with the largest retail funds having assets of close to $2 billion.
The appeal of mortgage funds is simple. They provide a steady, regular income and should deliver a better long-term return than cash investments.
But traditional mortgage funds have been lagging the cash rate and the better returns are being generated by funds that pack more punch but also carry greater risks.
Morningstar performance figures for the past financial year show returns ranging from 5.19 per cent (Colonial First State's Bricks and Mortar Fund) to 9.46 per cent (Mirvac's AQUA High Income Fund).
The median return is 6.58 per cent. But comparing funds at the top and bottom of the ladder is more like comparing chop suey with mangos than apples with apples.
If a fund is showing returns of 9 per cent or more, says Morningstar's Anthony Serhan, it is almost certainly lending against construction and development. Borrowers don't pay higher interest rates because they want to; they do it because lenders charge them a higher rate to reflect the loan's higher risk.
It's a point that was lost on many investors who bought debentures and unsecured notes with groups like Fincorp, Australian Capital Reserve and Bridgecorp, and inevitably some mortgage fund investors will miss it too.
This isn't to say that mortgage funds fall into the same basket as these collapsed property lenders. Investors in these schemes often put their money into unsecured or secondary securities that rank behind secured lenders.
Most mortgage funds insist on first mortgage security, and while they may be creditors of the collapsed groups, Standard and Poor's fund analyst, Peter Ward, says they should get out relatively unscathed without causing losses to their investors.
The fact that mortgage funds are generally well diversified and don't put big slabs of their money with one borrower, also helps.
But you still need to understand just how much risk your mortgage fund is taking on and what protections it has in place.
Standard and Poor's has just completed a report on 52 mortgage funds and found big differences in what's on offer.
The report says conventional mortgage funds have been suffering from "milking the same cow" as the banks. Competing for loans has led to lower margins and, in some cases, lower credit standards.
Morningstar's Serhan says smaller mortgage players, especially, can't compete on price when the banks decide to buy market share.
They may be able to compete by establishing better relationships with borrowers, but some have chosen to move up the chain - to look at loans less fiercely contested by the banks.
At the same time, traditional mortgage funds have been showing less than spectacular returns.
S&P's report found they have increasingly underperformed bank bills, and Serhan says they have lost ground to newer listed debt investments (many of which are also a step or more up the risk scale).
Traditional funds still make up the bulk of the market, but the number of higher yield or higher risk products is growing to adapt to these market forces.
So is it a case of once bitten, twice shy? Take a lesson from Fincorp et al and avoid the higher yield mortgage funds like the plague?
Not necessarily. S&P gave four-star ratings to four high yield mortgage funds and said they should generate better short- to medium-term performance than the traditional funds. But you need to do your homework.
Ward says some of the more dubious practices in the industry (and these can occur in both higher yield and traditional funds) include lending against the "on completion" value of development projects (which includes the developers' profit) rather than the cost of the project, plus related party loans, insufficient liquidity within the fund, and high gearing levels. He says funds should be well diversified (geographically, across sectors and across borrowers), have a stable management team, and effectively manage arrears and defaults.
You also need to understand what the fund invests in. Ward says some mortgage funds have become hybrids and invest in fixed interest securities as well as mortgages, and there has been a rise in the number of residual product loans where mortgage funds lend against unsold units when a development is completed, in anticipation of the units being sold. As with development loans, interest on these loans is usually capitalised and represents higher risk.
S&P found widespread use of mezzanine finance (where higher geared loans are split, with the senior lender taking a first mortgage and other lenders providing additional finance) and some funds specialised in areas such as low-or no-doc lending.
If understanding all that sounds like hard work, you're right. Mortgage funds have become more complex and investors are further hampered by poor or inconsistent disclosure.
While he believes mortgage funds have a role in investors' portfolios, Serhan says they should provide standardised disclosure so that investors can compare risks between funds and understand measures such as the level of a fund's arrears. They may still not be comparing applies with apples, but at least it would look a bit less like chop suey.
One area where this has happened in recent years is the mortgage fund market.
While mortgage funds don't have the sex appeal of share and property funds, they have captured a fair slice of the investment pool.
Australians are estimated to have more than $22 billion invested in mortgage funds, with the largest retail funds having assets of close to $2 billion.
The appeal of mortgage funds is simple. They provide a steady, regular income and should deliver a better long-term return than cash investments.
But traditional mortgage funds have been lagging the cash rate and the better returns are being generated by funds that pack more punch but also carry greater risks.
Morningstar performance figures for the past financial year show returns ranging from 5.19 per cent (Colonial First State's Bricks and Mortar Fund) to 9.46 per cent (Mirvac's AQUA High Income Fund).
The median return is 6.58 per cent. But comparing funds at the top and bottom of the ladder is more like comparing chop suey with mangos than apples with apples.
If a fund is showing returns of 9 per cent or more, says Morningstar's Anthony Serhan, it is almost certainly lending against construction and development. Borrowers don't pay higher interest rates because they want to; they do it because lenders charge them a higher rate to reflect the loan's higher risk.
It's a point that was lost on many investors who bought debentures and unsecured notes with groups like Fincorp, Australian Capital Reserve and Bridgecorp, and inevitably some mortgage fund investors will miss it too.
This isn't to say that mortgage funds fall into the same basket as these collapsed property lenders. Investors in these schemes often put their money into unsecured or secondary securities that rank behind secured lenders.
Most mortgage funds insist on first mortgage security, and while they may be creditors of the collapsed groups, Standard and Poor's fund analyst, Peter Ward, says they should get out relatively unscathed without causing losses to their investors.
The fact that mortgage funds are generally well diversified and don't put big slabs of their money with one borrower, also helps.
But you still need to understand just how much risk your mortgage fund is taking on and what protections it has in place.
Standard and Poor's has just completed a report on 52 mortgage funds and found big differences in what's on offer.
The report says conventional mortgage funds have been suffering from "milking the same cow" as the banks. Competing for loans has led to lower margins and, in some cases, lower credit standards.
Morningstar's Serhan says smaller mortgage players, especially, can't compete on price when the banks decide to buy market share.
They may be able to compete by establishing better relationships with borrowers, but some have chosen to move up the chain - to look at loans less fiercely contested by the banks.
At the same time, traditional mortgage funds have been showing less than spectacular returns.
S&P's report found they have increasingly underperformed bank bills, and Serhan says they have lost ground to newer listed debt investments (many of which are also a step or more up the risk scale).
Traditional funds still make up the bulk of the market, but the number of higher yield or higher risk products is growing to adapt to these market forces.
So is it a case of once bitten, twice shy? Take a lesson from Fincorp et al and avoid the higher yield mortgage funds like the plague?
Not necessarily. S&P gave four-star ratings to four high yield mortgage funds and said they should generate better short- to medium-term performance than the traditional funds. But you need to do your homework.
Ward says some of the more dubious practices in the industry (and these can occur in both higher yield and traditional funds) include lending against the "on completion" value of development projects (which includes the developers' profit) rather than the cost of the project, plus related party loans, insufficient liquidity within the fund, and high gearing levels. He says funds should be well diversified (geographically, across sectors and across borrowers), have a stable management team, and effectively manage arrears and defaults.
You also need to understand what the fund invests in. Ward says some mortgage funds have become hybrids and invest in fixed interest securities as well as mortgages, and there has been a rise in the number of residual product loans where mortgage funds lend against unsold units when a development is completed, in anticipation of the units being sold. As with development loans, interest on these loans is usually capitalised and represents higher risk.
S&P found widespread use of mezzanine finance (where higher geared loans are split, with the senior lender taking a first mortgage and other lenders providing additional finance) and some funds specialised in areas such as low-or no-doc lending.
If understanding all that sounds like hard work, you're right. Mortgage funds have become more complex and investors are further hampered by poor or inconsistent disclosure.
While he believes mortgage funds have a role in investors' portfolios, Serhan says they should provide standardised disclosure so that investors can compare risks between funds and understand measures such as the level of a fund's arrears. They may still not be comparing applies with apples, but at least it would look a bit less like chop suey.
Are property prices, demand and mortgages to be driven by DIY superannuation?
Far from depressing the property market, the changes to super might just spur it along.
Already real estate is picking up in Brisbane, Melbourne and even in the inner city and top end parts of Sydney, a victim of past excesses, and also a growth in mortgage loans.
As far as I can gather, DIY super funds were being topped up as much by flicking share portfolios as flogging investment properties. In any case, if the super changes really were a problem for property, they won't be after Saturday.
The question is no longer when property prices will recover but how high they'll go. That alos applies for mortgages.
Is this the start of a new boom? Not if you believe economists. But I'm not so sure. Perhaps they need to look at the recent speech by the governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens. You would have heard all about his hint of an interest rate rise in a few months, but it was his comment about the property market that was the real eye-opener.
He said: "The number of dwellings being built looks to be below what is normally thought to be underlying demand arising from population growth and household formation."
In Reservespeak, they're fighting words. He's saying there's a shortage of housing and developers should get on with it.
Demand is outstripping supply because of soaring wages, job growth and a pick-up in immigration.
Stevens went on to explain how difficult this shortage of housing will be to fix because the economy is running at full capacity: labour and materials to build houses will have to come from mining or infrastructure.
The point is for that to happen, construction costs would soar, which can only boost the value of existing properties.
Meanwhile, rents are rising because vacancy rates are the lowest in a lifetime, and the sharemarket is distinctly pricey, so all those cashed-up DIY super funds would have to be running the ruler over real estate.
Source: Sydney Morning Herald
Already real estate is picking up in Brisbane, Melbourne and even in the inner city and top end parts of Sydney, a victim of past excesses, and also a growth in mortgage loans.
As far as I can gather, DIY super funds were being topped up as much by flicking share portfolios as flogging investment properties. In any case, if the super changes really were a problem for property, they won't be after Saturday.
The question is no longer when property prices will recover but how high they'll go. That alos applies for mortgages.
Is this the start of a new boom? Not if you believe economists. But I'm not so sure. Perhaps they need to look at the recent speech by the governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens. You would have heard all about his hint of an interest rate rise in a few months, but it was his comment about the property market that was the real eye-opener.
He said: "The number of dwellings being built looks to be below what is normally thought to be underlying demand arising from population growth and household formation."
In Reservespeak, they're fighting words. He's saying there's a shortage of housing and developers should get on with it.
Demand is outstripping supply because of soaring wages, job growth and a pick-up in immigration.
Stevens went on to explain how difficult this shortage of housing will be to fix because the economy is running at full capacity: labour and materials to build houses will have to come from mining or infrastructure.
The point is for that to happen, construction costs would soar, which can only boost the value of existing properties.
Meanwhile, rents are rising because vacancy rates are the lowest in a lifetime, and the sharemarket is distinctly pricey, so all those cashed-up DIY super funds would have to be running the ruler over real estate.
Source: Sydney Morning Herald
Easy credit card and cash loans ands easy mortgages are driving more to insolvency
Taking advantage of fast easy credit cards and cash loans are increasing debt and insolvency.
Despite low unemployment figures, economic growth and high consumer confidence, personal bankruptcies went up by 17 per cent in the 2006-07 financial year.
David Tennant, chairman of the Australian Financial Counselling and Credit Reform Association, said more ordinary Australians were finding it difficult to make ends meet.
Over the last six months his Care Financial Counselling Service has recorded a ten per cent rise in people needing assistance.
"The debt explosion is not because people are necessarily leading an extravagant lifestyle it is because it has become much harder for ordinary households to make ends meet, so they use credit cards and payday loans to bridge the gap.
"The deeply disturbing trend ... is a subtle shift from low-income to now medium-low income households simply not having enough money to have the basic lifestyle."
Mr Tennant said it was a relief that housing affordability was now a national issue because his group had been trying to draw attention to it for years.
A spokeswoman from consumer advocacy group CHOICE said a drop in house prices also had inadvertently put borrowers in the red.
"It's very disturbing when people sell their house and still can't reach payments for the outstanding mortgage," she said.
"There is a huge amount of individual responsibility required but it is also very hard when people are presented with all these finance opportunities. People don't think something bad is going to happen and then someone falls ill or a car repair is required.
"Australian consumers are under a lot of pressure to buy homes, to have a family home. They are told they can have a dream home. It is good to have confidence but you can't extend yourself."
The spokeswoman said there were grave concerns with fast loans when there was only limited testing of borrowers' ability to pay.
Bob Cruickshanks, deputy officer receiver for the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia, said financial institutions were relaxing their means tests because of greater competition.
"Super funds are awash with cash and when you look around in Sydney there aren't really big projects absorbing it, so there is more money available and greater competition for the smaller finance companies to compete for borrowers.
"But the Department of Fair Trading has been like a hawk stamping out dodgy credit companies," he said.
Source: AAP
Despite low unemployment figures, economic growth and high consumer confidence, personal bankruptcies went up by 17 per cent in the 2006-07 financial year.
David Tennant, chairman of the Australian Financial Counselling and Credit Reform Association, said more ordinary Australians were finding it difficult to make ends meet.
Over the last six months his Care Financial Counselling Service has recorded a ten per cent rise in people needing assistance.
"The debt explosion is not because people are necessarily leading an extravagant lifestyle it is because it has become much harder for ordinary households to make ends meet, so they use credit cards and payday loans to bridge the gap.
"The deeply disturbing trend ... is a subtle shift from low-income to now medium-low income households simply not having enough money to have the basic lifestyle."
Mr Tennant said it was a relief that housing affordability was now a national issue because his group had been trying to draw attention to it for years.
A spokeswoman from consumer advocacy group CHOICE said a drop in house prices also had inadvertently put borrowers in the red.
"It's very disturbing when people sell their house and still can't reach payments for the outstanding mortgage," she said.
"There is a huge amount of individual responsibility required but it is also very hard when people are presented with all these finance opportunities. People don't think something bad is going to happen and then someone falls ill or a car repair is required.
"Australian consumers are under a lot of pressure to buy homes, to have a family home. They are told they can have a dream home. It is good to have confidence but you can't extend yourself."
The spokeswoman said there were grave concerns with fast loans when there was only limited testing of borrowers' ability to pay.
Bob Cruickshanks, deputy officer receiver for the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia, said financial institutions were relaxing their means tests because of greater competition.
"Super funds are awash with cash and when you look around in Sydney there aren't really big projects absorbing it, so there is more money available and greater competition for the smaller finance companies to compete for borrowers.
"But the Department of Fair Trading has been like a hawk stamping out dodgy credit companies," he said.
Source: AAP
Labor promises housing relief for home buyers in its election platform
Australia's Labor Party has promised to work with state and local government to cut red tape for home buyers, reducing delays in the real estate development application process, if it wins the upcoming federal election.
Australia's hopeful "Government in waiting" says industry bodies like the NSW Urban Taskforce has found that delays cost up to $4 billion a year alone in the state, and in some local council areas development applications are taking at least 12 months.
Holding costs and delays can add up to 15 per cent to a project's overall cost, it says.
“These delays add unnecessary cost burdens to the home buyers and this is significant to first time home buyers on limited budgets,” Labor leader Kevin Rudd said in a joint statement with treasury spokesman Wayne Swan and housing spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek.
Labor's national housing affordability summit on July 26 will consider how to roll out a national online real estate land development application tracking website that would be uniform across all states, territories and local government planning departments.
“This would allow all home buyers, including first time home buyers to check the status of their approval at any time of the day,” Mr Rudd said.
“It would also save local councils time and money. A similar scheme known as the Application Tracking Online Service is already operating in northern Sydney at Pittwater Council.”
Labor says the process of complying minor housing projects – such as extensions – also needs streamlining in local government councils.
Source: AAP
Australia's hopeful "Government in waiting" says industry bodies like the NSW Urban Taskforce has found that delays cost up to $4 billion a year alone in the state, and in some local council areas development applications are taking at least 12 months.
Holding costs and delays can add up to 15 per cent to a project's overall cost, it says.
“These delays add unnecessary cost burdens to the home buyers and this is significant to first time home buyers on limited budgets,” Labor leader Kevin Rudd said in a joint statement with treasury spokesman Wayne Swan and housing spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek.
Labor's national housing affordability summit on July 26 will consider how to roll out a national online real estate land development application tracking website that would be uniform across all states, territories and local government planning departments.
“This would allow all home buyers, including first time home buyers to check the status of their approval at any time of the day,” Mr Rudd said.
“It would also save local councils time and money. A similar scheme known as the Application Tracking Online Service is already operating in northern Sydney at Pittwater Council.”
Labor says the process of complying minor housing projects – such as extensions – also needs streamlining in local government councils.
Source: AAP
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Rising home costs means changes to Australian dream in an election year
home prices and location and convenience are forcing Australians to redefine the dream.
One of the hardiest perennials in the political garden is the "home affordability crisis". As is often the case in an election year, a lot of fertiliser is being spread about at the moment on the issue. While some of the policy ideas have merit, our politicians are too often focusing on the wrong parts of the problem and thus coming up with wrong, or at least inadequate, "solutions".
A big crop of new housing proposals has sprung up recently.
Australia's housing ministers are talking about a national shared-equity scheme where government becomes an equity partner in purchasing a home aimed at low and moderate-income households, as well as a revamped first home owners grant.
Federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd is proposing low-tax home deposit savings accounts, an overhaul of local government funding to rein in rising infrastructure charges on developers and home buyers, a shared-equity scheme and tax credits that can be offset against tax liability for investors who agree to charge below-market rents as a way of encouraging the supply of low-income rental housing. All will be considered at a national housing summit in Canberra later this month.
Federal Treasurer Peter Costello wants an audit of government land that could be released for development, while resisting Coalition backbench calls for that most hardy of all perennials in this debate - a doubling of the first home owners grant from $7000 to $14,000.
And Prime Minister John Howard has taken the opportunity to get stuck into the states for what he says is the key source of the problem - their failure to release enough land for residential development on the periphery of our cities.
Some of these approaches attack the problem of falling home affordability from the demand side and some from the supply side.
Demand-side solutions tend to be self-defeating. For example, government first-home buyer grants intended to make buying a house more affordable can, perversely, push up prices as sellers simply absorb the handout into their asking price especially in an overheated market. With no increase in supply, bumping the grant from $7000 to $14,000 would simply mean the going price would rise, more or less, by $7000. Likewise for the suggestion to scrap stamp duty.
And while Rudd's idea for tax-preferred savings vehicles would make it easier for people to gather a deposit (albeit with a cost to the budget), it would do nothing to restrain house prices and may actually add to them for similar reasons.
More broadly, what is happening here is simply a case of constrained supply meeting increasing demand, as incomes rise and housing finance has become relatively cheaper and more accessible .
If there is more money available (higher incomes providing the capacity to service bigger loans on offer) at a relatively low price (low interest rates) chasing a limited amount of housing (because there are only so many places people can, or want, to live), prices can only go one way - up.
Prices have also been pushed higher by cashed-up property investors chasing a limited stock of existing housing, assisted by easier finance and the tax system through negative gearing, depreciation allowances and the halving of the capital gains tax in 1999.
A supply-side policy approach is more likely to succeed, although many of the solutions offered have tended to be simplistic and inadequate.
As both the Productivity Commission and Macquarie Bank analyst Rory Robertson have pointed out (and the federal Treasury seems to agree), it is simply not enough to say that homes are now unaffordable for many first-time buyers because state governments have not released enough new land on the edges of the big cities.
The heart of the problem is that prices are being pushed up by competition for housing in the places in which people actually want to live - big homes close to the centre of cities and to the coast, with short commuting times to work and access to the entertainment, educational and cultural amenities that these places offer.
"The issue of location, location, location dominates the housing-affordability problem," Robertson notes. "Would-be home buyers on average incomes (or less) have been pushed towards the periphery of our cities and beyond, 'priced out' of the market for well-located family homes. Indeed, the extremely high price of land 'close to the action' leaves most of us struggling with that never-satisfying compromise between proximity maximising work, educational and leisure opportunities, while minimising travel time and the size of our houses and yards.
"In Australia . . . average home prices generally are much lower inland, or near the coast but well away from 'the action'.
"Unfortunately, all six of Australia's state capitals where most of us tend to live are high-demand coastal centres, and so are prone to be relatively expensive."
This demands a different sort of supply-side policy solution effectively shrinking distances in our cities through better transport and decentralisation and increasing housing supply closer to the city centres through more medium and high-density development.
The most promising approaches involve improving transport infrastructure, to reduce commuting times and effectively increase the quantity of "well located homes". It also involves creating jobs closer to plentiful lower-cost housing land by promoting suburban and regional economic development and encouraging decentralisation of major employers in both the public and private sectors.
And there needs to be new approaches to planning regulation and a change in expectations among some home buyers themselves especially accepting the new reality of apartment living instead of a house on a quarter-acre block.
As Robertson concludes: "The harsh reality for most of our younger generation (and others left behind) is that the housing-affordability horse has bolted and it ain't coming back.
"For those would-be home buyers priced out of the market for well-located family homes, the best practical advice remains to look further afield or to start thinking about apartments. These days, that never-satisfying trade-off between proximity and house and yard sizes simply is a fact of life.
"The Great Australian Dream has been downsized."
Source: The Age
One of the hardiest perennials in the political garden is the "home affordability crisis". As is often the case in an election year, a lot of fertiliser is being spread about at the moment on the issue. While some of the policy ideas have merit, our politicians are too often focusing on the wrong parts of the problem and thus coming up with wrong, or at least inadequate, "solutions".
A big crop of new housing proposals has sprung up recently.
Australia's housing ministers are talking about a national shared-equity scheme where government becomes an equity partner in purchasing a home aimed at low and moderate-income households, as well as a revamped first home owners grant.
Federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd is proposing low-tax home deposit savings accounts, an overhaul of local government funding to rein in rising infrastructure charges on developers and home buyers, a shared-equity scheme and tax credits that can be offset against tax liability for investors who agree to charge below-market rents as a way of encouraging the supply of low-income rental housing. All will be considered at a national housing summit in Canberra later this month.
Federal Treasurer Peter Costello wants an audit of government land that could be released for development, while resisting Coalition backbench calls for that most hardy of all perennials in this debate - a doubling of the first home owners grant from $7000 to $14,000.
And Prime Minister John Howard has taken the opportunity to get stuck into the states for what he says is the key source of the problem - their failure to release enough land for residential development on the periphery of our cities.
Some of these approaches attack the problem of falling home affordability from the demand side and some from the supply side.
Demand-side solutions tend to be self-defeating. For example, government first-home buyer grants intended to make buying a house more affordable can, perversely, push up prices as sellers simply absorb the handout into their asking price especially in an overheated market. With no increase in supply, bumping the grant from $7000 to $14,000 would simply mean the going price would rise, more or less, by $7000. Likewise for the suggestion to scrap stamp duty.
And while Rudd's idea for tax-preferred savings vehicles would make it easier for people to gather a deposit (albeit with a cost to the budget), it would do nothing to restrain house prices and may actually add to them for similar reasons.
More broadly, what is happening here is simply a case of constrained supply meeting increasing demand, as incomes rise and housing finance has become relatively cheaper and more accessible .
If there is more money available (higher incomes providing the capacity to service bigger loans on offer) at a relatively low price (low interest rates) chasing a limited amount of housing (because there are only so many places people can, or want, to live), prices can only go one way - up.
Prices have also been pushed higher by cashed-up property investors chasing a limited stock of existing housing, assisted by easier finance and the tax system through negative gearing, depreciation allowances and the halving of the capital gains tax in 1999.
A supply-side policy approach is more likely to succeed, although many of the solutions offered have tended to be simplistic and inadequate.
As both the Productivity Commission and Macquarie Bank analyst Rory Robertson have pointed out (and the federal Treasury seems to agree), it is simply not enough to say that homes are now unaffordable for many first-time buyers because state governments have not released enough new land on the edges of the big cities.
The heart of the problem is that prices are being pushed up by competition for housing in the places in which people actually want to live - big homes close to the centre of cities and to the coast, with short commuting times to work and access to the entertainment, educational and cultural amenities that these places offer.
"The issue of location, location, location dominates the housing-affordability problem," Robertson notes. "Would-be home buyers on average incomes (or less) have been pushed towards the periphery of our cities and beyond, 'priced out' of the market for well-located family homes. Indeed, the extremely high price of land 'close to the action' leaves most of us struggling with that never-satisfying compromise between proximity maximising work, educational and leisure opportunities, while minimising travel time and the size of our houses and yards.
"In Australia . . . average home prices generally are much lower inland, or near the coast but well away from 'the action'.
"Unfortunately, all six of Australia's state capitals where most of us tend to live are high-demand coastal centres, and so are prone to be relatively expensive."
This demands a different sort of supply-side policy solution effectively shrinking distances in our cities through better transport and decentralisation and increasing housing supply closer to the city centres through more medium and high-density development.
The most promising approaches involve improving transport infrastructure, to reduce commuting times and effectively increase the quantity of "well located homes". It also involves creating jobs closer to plentiful lower-cost housing land by promoting suburban and regional economic development and encouraging decentralisation of major employers in both the public and private sectors.
And there needs to be new approaches to planning regulation and a change in expectations among some home buyers themselves especially accepting the new reality of apartment living instead of a house on a quarter-acre block.
As Robertson concludes: "The harsh reality for most of our younger generation (and others left behind) is that the housing-affordability horse has bolted and it ain't coming back.
"For those would-be home buyers priced out of the market for well-located family homes, the best practical advice remains to look further afield or to start thinking about apartments. These days, that never-satisfying trade-off between proximity and house and yard sizes simply is a fact of life.
"The Great Australian Dream has been downsized."
Source: The Age
Credit card debt reduction always a good idea
With the average credit card balance at its highest ever and households handing over a record proportion of their income in interest payments, people are starting to talk about turning back the clock on debt.
Some researchers are seeing a change in attitude to indebtedness among the under-25s in particular - a harking back to the financial caution exercised by their grandparents and great-grandparents.
Members of the internet generation may be more inclined to take a back-to-basics approach to consumption, says social and economic commentator Phil Ruthven, saving for the goods they want, rather than racking up credit card debt and personal loans.
"I think we will begin to see some more financial sanity emerging," Ruthven says of emerging consumers.
"The [net generation isn't] terrified of debt to the extent our parents and grandparents might have been, saving up for everything," he says.
"We're not going to move back that far - but I think the net generation are likely to be much more prudent and savvy with their finances."
This will be in reaction to witnessing debt cause stress among family and friends, but also part of the personality of this particular generation.
"The net generation is a 'civics' generation, which comes around every four generations," Ruthven says. "You could describe it as a little less materialistic - they see material things as a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves."
Social researcher Mark McCrindle, of McCrindle Research, says generation Y - teenagers to those aged in their mid-20s - has grown up with credit cards and never known a recession, so this age group tends to have high consumer expectations.
"But there's light at the end of the tunnel," he says. "They are the most materially endowed generation ever but they've found that doesn't satisfy them - that there's got to be something more. So there's a 'live slow' movement, a 'buy slow' movement - there's some little glimpse of what might change."
For now, financial advisers say that even clients on good incomes are experiencing stress over the level of their borrowing. It may not be enough to tip them over the edge financially but they are nevertheless feeling less than comfortable.
In lower-income communities, debt counsellors are seriously concerned about the prospect of an interest rate rise in coming months and outright dismayed by speculation there could two to three rate rises in the next 12 months.
Trading on the bond market indicates that an official rate rise of a quarter of a percentage point is an even bet for August and a certainty by November, with another rise priced into bonds for the first half of next year.
Rory Robertson, an interest rate analyst at Macquarie Bank, says the Australian Bureau of Statistics's inflation report, due out on July 25, will "make or break" the case for a rate rise as early as August.
By his reckoning, if the consumer price index trend figure is above 0.5 per cent, the Reserve Bank will act.
Advisers say such circumstances make it more important than ever to go back to the basics: budgeting, saving, and being disciplined about repaying any debts.
"The two words I use are planning and discipline," says Laura Menschik, the managing director of WLM Financial Services.
"People have to understand the difference between buying something right now and doing it a bit later, when they've been disciplined and saved for it - or even going without because they may not need it."
Menschik rolls off some examples: if you use the redraw facility on your mortgage to buy things, be disciplined about repaying that money over a couple of years rather than 25 years; leave a buffer for unexpected events such as the car breaking down or your roof blowing off; pay more than the bare minimum on your cards and loans.
And think about cutting up your cards. Menschik isn't alone in seeing people set about getting their finances in order - often by consolidating their debts in their mortgage or a personal loan at a lower rate - only to fall off the wagon and run their credit cards up again.
Karen Cox, the co-ordinator of the NSW Consumer Credit Legal Centre, says people don't always address the underlying problem that got them into debt in the first place, "which is that they're just living beyond their means".
"I don't say that in a judgemental way - I know a lot of people are struggling just to meet everyday expenses," Cox says. "But having debt doesn't help. It just makes it worse."
Financial planner Suzanne Baldry, of Baldry Financial Group, says a budget should be the foundation of any financial strategy.
Budgets might be considered boring and old-hat, but they work, she says - as long as they're the right way round.
"You've got to work out what your commitments are before you work out what you're going to spend - not the other way around," she says.
"It's not a case of 'what have I got left over for my debt repayments'."
Lisa Armstrong, the head of consumer advocacy for mortgage broker Resi, says people tend to fall back into old patterns if they don't change something about their spending behaviour.
She suggests reducing the limits on your credit cards - and resisting offers to move them higher. You should be able to pay off your card debt every month, she says.
Even better, switch to a debit card that has the convenience of a credit card but uses your own money.
Heaven forbid, you might even consider using cash again.
"It's just not an emotional transaction when you hand over a card - it has no meaning to us," Armstrong says. "But when you hand over your hard-earned cash, out of your wallet, you can see what [that purchase] has just cost you."
Money asked the experts to tell us what works and what doesn't when it comes to modern-day debt.
Mortgage redraw
Rather than running up credit card debt at interest rates of 16 or 17 per cent, many people now use their mortgages to fund consumption - a practice that financial planner Suzanne Baldry says is turning mortgages into "residential ATMs".
People draw on the equity in their home, or redraw extra payments they've already made, for spending such as renovations, holidays, clothes, cars and flat-screen TVs.
Alternatively, they consolidate more expensive debts by rolling them into their mortgage.
Baldry says this is fine so long as you're disciplined about repaying that money quickly, rather than spreading it over 25 or so years.
"Not increasing payments to cover this is bad news," she says.
Denis Orrock, of researcher InfoChoice, agrees. He says that doing so spreads a debt that would normally be paid off in three or five years across two decades, adding thousands of dollars in interest charges despite the lower rate (see table, above right).
"Putting debt into the mortgage is a great idea, but you have to pay more," says Lisa Montgomery of Resi.
"You have to pay a lot like you were paying before [when the debt was on your credit cards]."
Personal loans
Orrock says personal loans may be more costly than home loans but they have the advantage of instilling discipline in borrowers.
"Some people do need the discipline of a certain payment every month for a set period to pay things off," he says. "There's a lot to be said for that."
St George Bank's head of consumer lending, Ed Box, says personal loans are much more flexible these days - they can be fixed or variable rate, and some now allow early repayments. He advises tailoring your personal loan to suit your circumstances - for instance, by having the repayment periods set weekly, fortnightly or monthly, in line with when you receive your pay.
Credit cards
A lower rate may not mean you're better off when it comes to credit cards. The consumer group Choice says whether you're better off will depend on the way the interest on overdue amounts is calculated.
You could be worse off if the card charges daily interest on the full, original purchase amount even if some of the balance was repaid on time, or if interest is charged right back to the original purchase date rather than from due date or statement date. Also, you might lose your interest-free period for new purchases if any debt is carried over from the previous month.
Interest-free deals
It's tempting to take advantage of "buy now, pay later" deals but Karen Cox says the Consumer Credit Legal Centre sees a lot of people struggling with very-high-interest debt that started out as interest-free debt. Sometimes no repayments are required at all for the interest-free period, and people take the optimistic view that they'll be able to pay for the goods after the one-, two-or even four-year period.
But that may not happen, or their circumstances may even be worse, Cox says, and the debt ticks over onto a very high rate of interest.
"Others require regular repayments but the repayment you're told to make is based on the standard minimum credit card payment and has nothing to do with paying it off in the interest-free period," she says. "People think they're paying it off but they're actually not. You make a fairly small hole in it on some of them."
Retailer David Jones provides two figures for interest-free options when it sends out its monthly store card statement: the minimum payment due and the amount "payable to minimise further interest charges".
The minimum payment is lower than the amount that would "minimise" interest charges.
Cox says some lenders don't even provide this level of information.
For all those reasons, consumers should think twice before flashing their plastic.
Source: Sydney Morning Herald
Some researchers are seeing a change in attitude to indebtedness among the under-25s in particular - a harking back to the financial caution exercised by their grandparents and great-grandparents.
Members of the internet generation may be more inclined to take a back-to-basics approach to consumption, says social and economic commentator Phil Ruthven, saving for the goods they want, rather than racking up credit card debt and personal loans.
"I think we will begin to see some more financial sanity emerging," Ruthven says of emerging consumers.
"The [net generation isn't] terrified of debt to the extent our parents and grandparents might have been, saving up for everything," he says.
"We're not going to move back that far - but I think the net generation are likely to be much more prudent and savvy with their finances."
This will be in reaction to witnessing debt cause stress among family and friends, but also part of the personality of this particular generation.
"The net generation is a 'civics' generation, which comes around every four generations," Ruthven says. "You could describe it as a little less materialistic - they see material things as a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves."
Social researcher Mark McCrindle, of McCrindle Research, says generation Y - teenagers to those aged in their mid-20s - has grown up with credit cards and never known a recession, so this age group tends to have high consumer expectations.
"But there's light at the end of the tunnel," he says. "They are the most materially endowed generation ever but they've found that doesn't satisfy them - that there's got to be something more. So there's a 'live slow' movement, a 'buy slow' movement - there's some little glimpse of what might change."
For now, financial advisers say that even clients on good incomes are experiencing stress over the level of their borrowing. It may not be enough to tip them over the edge financially but they are nevertheless feeling less than comfortable.
In lower-income communities, debt counsellors are seriously concerned about the prospect of an interest rate rise in coming months and outright dismayed by speculation there could two to three rate rises in the next 12 months.
Trading on the bond market indicates that an official rate rise of a quarter of a percentage point is an even bet for August and a certainty by November, with another rise priced into bonds for the first half of next year.
Rory Robertson, an interest rate analyst at Macquarie Bank, says the Australian Bureau of Statistics's inflation report, due out on July 25, will "make or break" the case for a rate rise as early as August.
By his reckoning, if the consumer price index trend figure is above 0.5 per cent, the Reserve Bank will act.
Advisers say such circumstances make it more important than ever to go back to the basics: budgeting, saving, and being disciplined about repaying any debts.
"The two words I use are planning and discipline," says Laura Menschik, the managing director of WLM Financial Services.
"People have to understand the difference between buying something right now and doing it a bit later, when they've been disciplined and saved for it - or even going without because they may not need it."
Menschik rolls off some examples: if you use the redraw facility on your mortgage to buy things, be disciplined about repaying that money over a couple of years rather than 25 years; leave a buffer for unexpected events such as the car breaking down or your roof blowing off; pay more than the bare minimum on your cards and loans.
And think about cutting up your cards. Menschik isn't alone in seeing people set about getting their finances in order - often by consolidating their debts in their mortgage or a personal loan at a lower rate - only to fall off the wagon and run their credit cards up again.
Karen Cox, the co-ordinator of the NSW Consumer Credit Legal Centre, says people don't always address the underlying problem that got them into debt in the first place, "which is that they're just living beyond their means".
"I don't say that in a judgemental way - I know a lot of people are struggling just to meet everyday expenses," Cox says. "But having debt doesn't help. It just makes it worse."
Financial planner Suzanne Baldry, of Baldry Financial Group, says a budget should be the foundation of any financial strategy.
Budgets might be considered boring and old-hat, but they work, she says - as long as they're the right way round.
"You've got to work out what your commitments are before you work out what you're going to spend - not the other way around," she says.
"It's not a case of 'what have I got left over for my debt repayments'."
Lisa Armstrong, the head of consumer advocacy for mortgage broker Resi, says people tend to fall back into old patterns if they don't change something about their spending behaviour.
She suggests reducing the limits on your credit cards - and resisting offers to move them higher. You should be able to pay off your card debt every month, she says.
Even better, switch to a debit card that has the convenience of a credit card but uses your own money.
Heaven forbid, you might even consider using cash again.
"It's just not an emotional transaction when you hand over a card - it has no meaning to us," Armstrong says. "But when you hand over your hard-earned cash, out of your wallet, you can see what [that purchase] has just cost you."
Money asked the experts to tell us what works and what doesn't when it comes to modern-day debt.
Mortgage redraw
Rather than running up credit card debt at interest rates of 16 or 17 per cent, many people now use their mortgages to fund consumption - a practice that financial planner Suzanne Baldry says is turning mortgages into "residential ATMs".
People draw on the equity in their home, or redraw extra payments they've already made, for spending such as renovations, holidays, clothes, cars and flat-screen TVs.
Alternatively, they consolidate more expensive debts by rolling them into their mortgage.
Baldry says this is fine so long as you're disciplined about repaying that money quickly, rather than spreading it over 25 or so years.
"Not increasing payments to cover this is bad news," she says.
Denis Orrock, of researcher InfoChoice, agrees. He says that doing so spreads a debt that would normally be paid off in three or five years across two decades, adding thousands of dollars in interest charges despite the lower rate (see table, above right).
"Putting debt into the mortgage is a great idea, but you have to pay more," says Lisa Montgomery of Resi.
"You have to pay a lot like you were paying before [when the debt was on your credit cards]."
Personal loans
Orrock says personal loans may be more costly than home loans but they have the advantage of instilling discipline in borrowers.
"Some people do need the discipline of a certain payment every month for a set period to pay things off," he says. "There's a lot to be said for that."
St George Bank's head of consumer lending, Ed Box, says personal loans are much more flexible these days - they can be fixed or variable rate, and some now allow early repayments. He advises tailoring your personal loan to suit your circumstances - for instance, by having the repayment periods set weekly, fortnightly or monthly, in line with when you receive your pay.
Credit cards
A lower rate may not mean you're better off when it comes to credit cards. The consumer group Choice says whether you're better off will depend on the way the interest on overdue amounts is calculated.
You could be worse off if the card charges daily interest on the full, original purchase amount even if some of the balance was repaid on time, or if interest is charged right back to the original purchase date rather than from due date or statement date. Also, you might lose your interest-free period for new purchases if any debt is carried over from the previous month.
Interest-free deals
It's tempting to take advantage of "buy now, pay later" deals but Karen Cox says the Consumer Credit Legal Centre sees a lot of people struggling with very-high-interest debt that started out as interest-free debt. Sometimes no repayments are required at all for the interest-free period, and people take the optimistic view that they'll be able to pay for the goods after the one-, two-or even four-year period.
But that may not happen, or their circumstances may even be worse, Cox says, and the debt ticks over onto a very high rate of interest.
"Others require regular repayments but the repayment you're told to make is based on the standard minimum credit card payment and has nothing to do with paying it off in the interest-free period," she says. "People think they're paying it off but they're actually not. You make a fairly small hole in it on some of them."
Retailer David Jones provides two figures for interest-free options when it sends out its monthly store card statement: the minimum payment due and the amount "payable to minimise further interest charges".
The minimum payment is lower than the amount that would "minimise" interest charges.
Cox says some lenders don't even provide this level of information.
For all those reasons, consumers should think twice before flashing their plastic.
Source: Sydney Morning Herald
Lowering credit statndards may create difficulties for some new home buyers
It is easier for homebuyers looking for a loan, but if things go wrong it can go hard on new home buyers struggling wit home repayments.
Australians taking advantage of fast easy cash loans are also risking increasing debt and insolvency.
Despite low unemployment figures, economic growth and high consumer confidence, personal bankruptcies went up by 17 per cent in the 2006-07 financial year.
David Tennant, chairman of the Australian Financial Counselling and Credit Reform Association, said more ordinary Australians were finding it difficult to make ends meet.
Over the last six months his Care Financial Counselling Service has recorded a ten per cent rise in people needing assistance.
"The debt explosion is not because people are necessarily leading an extravagant lifestyle it is because it has become much harder for ordinary households to make ends meet.
"The deeply disturbing trend ... is a subtle shift from low-income to now medium-low income households simply not having enough money to have the basic lifestyle."
Mr Tennant said it was a relief that housing affordability was now a national issue because his group had been trying to draw attention to it for years.
A spokeswoman from consumer advocacy group CHOICE said a drop in house prices also had inadvertently put borrowers in the red.
"It's very disturbing when people sell their house and still can't reach payments for the outstanding mortgage," she said.
"There is a huge amount of individual responsibility required but it is also very hard when people are presented with all these finance opportunities. People don't think something bad is going to happen and then someone falls ill or a car repair is required.
"Australian consumers are under a lot of pressure to buy homes, to have a family home. They are told they can have a dream home. It is good to have confidence but you can't extend yourself."
The spokeswoman said there were grave concerns with fast loans when there was only limited testing of borrowers' ability to pay.
Bob Cruickshanks, deputy officer receiver for the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia, said financial institutions were relaxing their means tests because of greater competition.
"Super funds are awash with cash and when you look around in Sydney there aren't really big projects absorbing it, so there is more money available and greater competition for the smaller finance companies to compete for borrowers.
"But the Department of Fair Trading has been like a hawk stamping out dodgy credit companies," he said.
Source: AAP
Australians taking advantage of fast easy cash loans are also risking increasing debt and insolvency.
Despite low unemployment figures, economic growth and high consumer confidence, personal bankruptcies went up by 17 per cent in the 2006-07 financial year.
David Tennant, chairman of the Australian Financial Counselling and Credit Reform Association, said more ordinary Australians were finding it difficult to make ends meet.
Over the last six months his Care Financial Counselling Service has recorded a ten per cent rise in people needing assistance.
"The debt explosion is not because people are necessarily leading an extravagant lifestyle it is because it has become much harder for ordinary households to make ends meet.
"The deeply disturbing trend ... is a subtle shift from low-income to now medium-low income households simply not having enough money to have the basic lifestyle."
Mr Tennant said it was a relief that housing affordability was now a national issue because his group had been trying to draw attention to it for years.
A spokeswoman from consumer advocacy group CHOICE said a drop in house prices also had inadvertently put borrowers in the red.
"It's very disturbing when people sell their house and still can't reach payments for the outstanding mortgage," she said.
"There is a huge amount of individual responsibility required but it is also very hard when people are presented with all these finance opportunities. People don't think something bad is going to happen and then someone falls ill or a car repair is required.
"Australian consumers are under a lot of pressure to buy homes, to have a family home. They are told they can have a dream home. It is good to have confidence but you can't extend yourself."
The spokeswoman said there were grave concerns with fast loans when there was only limited testing of borrowers' ability to pay.
Bob Cruickshanks, deputy officer receiver for the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia, said financial institutions were relaxing their means tests because of greater competition.
"Super funds are awash with cash and when you look around in Sydney there aren't really big projects absorbing it, so there is more money available and greater competition for the smaller finance companies to compete for borrowers.
"But the Department of Fair Trading has been like a hawk stamping out dodgy credit companies," he said.
Source: AAP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)