Category: Banking Stats

Weakening UK Household Finances Pose Risks

The UK household sector’s worsening financial health reduces consumer resilience to income or interest rate shocks and presents risks for UK consumer loan portfolios, Fitch Ratings says in a new report. Consumer credit has been a key driver of rising household debt.

UK households’ swing into an aggregate net financial deficit position over the last year is almost unprecedented, having only previously occurred briefly during the late 1980s. Greater residential investment is a factor, but the household saving ratio has declined steadily since the mid-1990s to an historical low of 4.9% last year. This has been partly due to lower private pensions saving relative to income.

More recently, the UK household debt to income ratio has risen, retracing more than a third of its post-global financial crisis decline (in contrast with the US), and is likely to keep rising given the sector’s financial deficit. This has been largely driven by growing consumer credit, notably car loans.

Low interest rates mean the rise has yet to increase the debt service burden. We calculate that the effective interest rate on all UK household debt fell to 3.3% last year. The fall in the effective interest rate has saved household borrowers GBP20 billion-25 billion in interest payments since 2009.

But weaker household finances reduce the resilience of consumer spending – by far the largest demand component of UK GDP – to shocks. A major interest rate shock appears unlikely (we forecast the UK base rate to rise gradually, to 1.25% by end-2019), but a more immediate shock could come from tightening credit supply. The impact of the Brexit referendum on real wages may be fading, but Brexit uncertainty creates risks of a bigger shock to growth and employment.

Any performance deterioration in UK consumer loans would be from a very strong level. The charge-off rate on bank-financed consumer credit hit a record low of 1.7% in 4Q17. We forecast a modest rise in UK unemployment this year, to 4.7%, implying that charge-offs, which are closely correlated with changes in unemployment, will head back up to 2%-3%.

Fitch-rated consumer ABS deals have substantial headroom to absorb any performance deterioration. For example, the lowest long-term charge-off assumption we currently apply to any prime UK credit card trust is 5%, following the sharp increase in competition in credit card lending since 2013.

UK auto ABS deals have also performed strongly and benefit from structural credit protection, although if unemployment rose and consumer demand fell, both credit risk and residual value risk, which has become more prominent with the rise of the personal contract purchase (PCP) product, could increase.

UK banks are highly exposed to UK households, but mostly through mortgages, with consumer credit accounting for just 10% of banks’ lending to the sector. Recent stress testing by the Bank of England highlighted strong capital buffers against severe consumer credit losses. Nevertheless, high household debt is a constraint in our assessment of UK banks’ operating environment, and currently caps UK domestic banks’ Viability Ratings in the ‘a’ range, all else being equal.

Non-bank financial institutions are more exposed, although their specialist nature means any impact from deteriorating performance would vary across the industry.

Home Lending Slides In March

The ABS released their housing finance data today to March 2018. The trends are pretty clear, lending is slowing, and bearing in mind our thesis that lending and home prices are inextricably linked, this signals further home price falls ahead, which will be exacerbated by even tighter lending standards we think are coming. Debt is still rising faster than inflation or wages.

Starting with the original first time buyer data we see a rise in volumes, reflecting the incentives in NSW and VIC. On a rolling average basis, volumes are strongest in VIC.

Overall volumes were 17.4% of new loans written compared with 17.9% in February, which is a little higher than 2016, but is appears to be drifting lower now, suggesting that ahead volumes of new loans may fall a little.

Looking at the FTB month on month movements, we see a 5.9% uplift in flows which equates to an extra 515 loans last month. The average loan size rose by 2.3% to$335,400.

Looking at our overall first time buyer tracker, we see a fall in overall volumes, as the number of first time buyer investors falls away, as captured in our household surveys.

Turning to the 12 month rolling trend, we see that both owner occupied and investor loan flows are slowing, with investor lending shrinking faster.

The proportion of investor loan flows slid again (excluding refinance) to 43.6%.

Looking in more details at the moving parts, in trend terms, lending for owner occupied construction fell 1.1%, owner occupied purchase of new dwellings fell 0.2%, and purchase of other established dwellings rose 0.2%. So overall, owner occupied lending flows, excluding refinance, were flat at $14.8 billion.

Refinance of existing owner occupied loans rose by 0.5% to $6.4 billion, and on the investor side, construction of new property for investment purposes fell 3.8%, purchase of existing property for investment purposes fell 0.7% and purchase of existing property for investment by other entities (e.g. super funds) fell 0.2%. So overall investment flows fell 0.9% to $11.5 billion.

Finally, the total of all finance trend fell overall 0.2% to 32.7 billion.

And in original terms, the stock of all housing loans rose $6.7 billion, or 0.4% in the month, which equates to 4.9% annualised, still well above inflation or wages growth which is at 2%.

So, the overall growth of lending for housing is still sufficient to lift household debt even higher. So far from losing lending controls, regulators should be seeking to tighten further. There is no justification for growth above inflation or wages, because stronger momentum will only lift the burden on households even further, and inflate the banks’ balance sheets, which flatters their performance.

April Mortgage Stress Trends Higher … Again…

Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) has released the April 2018 mortgage stress and default analysis update.

Across Australia, more than 963,000 households are estimated to be now in mortgage stress (last month 956,000). This equates to 30.1% of owner occupied borrowing households. In addition, more than 21,600 of these are in severe stress, up 500 from last month. We estimate that more than 55,600 households risk 30-day default in the next 12 months. We expect bank portfolio losses to be around 2.8 basis points, though losses in WA are higher at 5 basis points.  We continue to see the impact of flat wages growth, rising living costs and higher real mortgage rates.

Martin North, Principal of Digital Finance Analytics says “overall, risks in the system continue to rise, and while recent strengthening of lending standards will help protect new borrowers, there are many households currently holding loans which would not now be approved. The recent Royal Commission laid bare some of the industry practices which help to explain why stress is so high. This is a significant sleeping problem and the risks in the system remain higher than many recognise”.

News On the Finance Sector Is Set to Get Worse.

Australia is horrified by what they are learning from the Royal Commission; yet this is only the beginning. News on the finance sector is set to get much worse.

Gill North, a Professor of law at Deakin University and Principal at DFA, suggests “the issues highlighted by the RC represent only the tip of the iceberg and Australia is in for a bumpy and uncomfortable ride”. The systemic risks across the financial sector and economy are now much higher than most participants realise, and these risks are exacerbated by the concentration of the finance sector and its many interconnections, the laxity of the lending standards over the last decade, the high levels of household debt (and the distribution of this debt), and the heavy reliance of the Australian economy on the health of the residential property market.

At some point down the road, the true resilience of the financial institutions, their consumers, and the broader economy will be tested and put under extreme pressure. And when this occurs, the high levels of household debt and financial stress, and the large disparities between the population segments that have considerable income, savings and wealth buffers, and those who have no such buffers, will become starker. “When the next housing or financial crisis hits (and the question is when and not if), the ensuing impact on the finance sector, many Australian households, and the broader economy will be severe. Yet most, if not all, of the financial institutions, the regulators, policy makers, and consumers still remain largely oblivious to what lies ahead.”

Martin North says: “We continue to see the number of households rising, and the quantum is now economically significant. Things will get more severe, especially as household debt continues to climb to new record levels. Mortgage lending is still growing at two to three times income. This is not sustainable and we are expecting lending growth to continue to moderate in the months ahead as underwriting standards are tightened and home prices fall further”. The latest household debt to income ratio is now at a record 188.6.[1]

Our analysis uses the DFA core market model which combines information from our 52,000 household surveys, public data from the RBA, ABS and APRA; and private data from lenders and aggregators. The data is current to end April 2018. We analyse household cash flow based on real incomes, outgoings and mortgage repayments, rather than using an arbitrary 30% of income.

Households are defined as “stressed” when net income (or cash flow) does not cover ongoing costs. They may or may not have access to other available assets, and some have paid ahead, but households in mild stress have little leeway in their cash flows, whereas those in severe stress are unable to meet repayments from current income. In both cases, households manage this deficit by cutting back on spending, putting more on credit cards and seeking to refinance, restructure or sell their home.  Those in severe stress are more likely to be seeking hardship assistance and are often forced to sell.

The forces which are lifting mortgage stress levels remain largely the same. In cash flow terms, we see households having to cope with rising living costs – notably child care, school fees and fuel – whilst real incomes continue to fall and underemployment remains high. Households have larger mortgages, thanks to the strong rise in home prices, especially in the main eastern state centres, and now prices are slipping. While mortgage interest rates remain quite low for owner occupied borrowers, those with interest only loans or investment loans have seen significant rises.  We expect some upward pressure on real mortgage rates in coming months as international funding pressures mount, a potential for local rate rises and margin pressure on the banks thanks to a higher Bank Bill Swap Rate (BBSW).

Probability of default extends our mortgage stress analysis by overlaying economic indicators such as employment, future wage growth and cpi changes.  Our Core Market Model also examines the potential of portfolio risk of loss in basis point and value terms. Losses are likely to be higher among more affluent households, contrary to the popular belief that affluent households are well protected.

Stress by The Numbers.

Regional analysis shows that NSW has 262,577 households in stress (261,159 last month), VIC 256,353 (258,303 last month), QLD 175,960 (176,154 last month) and WA has 128,600 (126,606 last month). The probability of default over the next 12 months rose, with around 10,513 in WA, around 10,316 in QLD, 13,830 in VIC and 14,798 in NSW.

The largest financial losses relating to bank write-offs reside in NSW ($1.4 billion) from Owner Occupied borrowers) and VIC ($936 million) from Owner Occupied Borrowers, which equates to 2.10 and 2.76 basis points respectively. Losses are likely to be highest in WA at 5 basis points, which equates to $696 million from Owner Occupied borrowers.  A fuller regional breakdown is set out below.

Here are the top post codes sorted by the highest number of households in mortgage stress.

[1] RBA E2 Household Finances – Selected Ratios December 2017 (Revised 3rd April 2018).

You can request our media release. Note this will NOT automatically send you our research updates, for that register here.

[contact-form to=’mnorth@digitalfinanceanalytics.com’ subject=’Request The April 2018 Stress Release’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email Me The April 2018 Media Release’ type=’radio’ required=’1′ options=’Yes Please’/][contact-field label=”Comment If You Like” type=”textarea”/][/contact-form]

Note that the detailed results from our surveys and analysis are made available to our paying clients.

Our Own Version Of Sub-Prime?

The RBA has released their Financial Stability Review today. It is worth reading the 70 odd pages as it give a comprehensive picture of the current state of play, though through the Central Bank’s rose-tinted spectacles!

They home in on the say $480 billion interest only mortgage loans due for reset over the over the next four years, which is around 30 per cent of outstanding loans. Resets to principal and interest will lift repayments by at least 30%. Some borrowers will be forced to sell.

This scenario mirrors the roll over of adjustable rate home loans in the United States which triggered the 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis. Perhaps this is our own version!

We have previously estimated more than $100 billion in these loans would now fail current tighter underwriting standards.

One area of potential concern is for borrowers at the end of their current IO period. Much of the large stock of IO loans are due to convert to P&I loans between 2018 and 2021, with loans with expiring IO periods estimated to average around $120 billion per year or, in total, around 30 per cent of the current stock of outstanding mortgage credit. The step-up in mortgage
payments when the IO period ends can be in the range of 30 to 40 per cent, even after factoring in the typically lower interest rates charged on P&I loans.

However, a number of factors suggest that any resulting increase in financial stress should not be widespread. Most borrowers should be able to afford the step-up in mortgage repayments because many have  accumulated substantial prepayments, and the serviceability assessments used to write IO loans incorporate a range of buffers, including those that factor in potential future interest rate increases and those that directly account for the step-up in payments at the end of the IO period.

Moreover, these buffers have increased in recent years. In addition to raising the interest rate buffer, APRA tightened its loan serviceability standards for IO loans in late 2014, requiring banks to conduct serviceability assessments for new loans based on the required repayments over the residual P&I period of the loan that follows the IO period.

Prior to this, some banks were conducting these assessments assuming P&I repayments were made over the entire life of the loan (including the IO period), which in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC’s) view was not consistent with responsible lending requirements. As a result, eight lenders have agreed to provide remediation to borrowers that face financial stress as a direct result of past poor IO lending practices.

However, to date, only a small number of borrowers have been identified as being eligible for such remediation action. Some borrowers have voluntarily switched to P&I repayments early to avoid the new higher interest rates on IO loans, and these borrowers appear well placed to handle the higher repayments.

Some IO borrowers may be able to delay or reduce the step-up in repayments. Depending on personal circumstances some may be eligible to extend the IO period on their existing loan or refinance into a new IO loan or a new P&I loan with a longer residual loan term. The share of borrowers who cannot afford higher P&I repayments and are not eligible to alleviate their situation by refinancing is thought to be small.

In addition, borrowers who are in this situation as a result of past poor lending practices may be eligible for remediation from lenders. Most would be expected to have positive equity given substantial housing price growth in many parts of the country over recent years and hence would at least have the option to sell the property if they experienced financial stress from the increase in repayments. The most vulnerable borrowers would likely be owner-occupiers that still have a high LVR and who might find it more difficult to refinance or resolve their situation by selling the property.

Looking more broadly  at household finances, they say that the ratio of total household debt to income has increased by almost 30 percentage points over the past five years to almost 190 per cent, after having been broadly unchanged for close to a decade.

Australia’s household debt-to-income ratio is high relative to many other advanced economies, including some that have also continued to see strong growth in household lending in the post-crisis period, such as Canada, New Zealand and Sweden.

Household debt in these economies is notably higher than in those that were more affected by the financial crisis and experienced deleveraging, including Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. While Australia’s high level of household indebtedness increases the risk that some households might experience financial stress in the event of a negative shock, most indicators of aggregate household financial stress currently remain fairly low (notwithstanding some areas of concern, particularly in mining regions). In addition, total household mortgage debt repayments as a share of income have been broadly steady for several years.

Note of course this is because interest rates have been cut to ultra-low levels, and should rates rise, payments would rise significantly.

The RBA says that default rates on mortgages (More than $1.7 trillion) is low, but concedes higher in the mining heavy states.

Then they defend the situation by saying that household wealth is rising (though thanks mainly to inflated property values, currently beginning to correct), and continue to cite out of date HILDA survey data from 3 years ago to demonstrate that the share of households experiencing financial stress has been the lowest since at least the early 2000s. But this is so old as to be laughable, remembering the interest rates and living costs have risen, and incomes are flat in real terms.

And they argue again that households are prepaying on their mortgages. We agree some are, but not those in the stressed category. Averaging data is a wonderful thing!

Finally, a word on the profitability outlook of the banks.

Despite the recent lift, analysts are cautious about the outlook for profit growth. The recent benefits to profit growth from a widening of the NIM and falling bad debt charges are expected to fade, especially if short-term wholesale spreads remain elevated. The financial impact of the multiple inquiries into the financial services sector remains a key uncertainty, including the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Competition in Australia‘s Financial System, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Residential Mortgage Products Price Inquiry. There is the potential that these will result in banks having to set aside provisions and/or face penalties for past misconduct or perhaps (more notably) being constrained in the operation of parts of their businesses.

This uncertainty around banks’ future earnings has weighed on their share prices, which have underperformed global peers (although Australian banks still have higher price-to-book ratios). The decline in share prices has also seen banks’ forward earnings yields (a proxy for their cost of equity capital) further diverge from that of the rest of the Australian market since mid 2017 (Graph 3.8). Banks’ current forward earnings yields remain a little above their pre-crisis average, despite a large decline in risk-free rates since then.

Satisfaction with banks down marginally in February – Roy Morgan

From Roy Morgan Research.

New results from Roy Morgan show that customer satisfaction with banks in the six months to February 2018 was 81.0%, down marginally from 81.2% in January. This level still represents a positive result when seen in the context of the long term monthly average of 73.8% calculated since 2001.

ING, St George and Westpac show improved satisfaction

Of the ten largest consumer banks, ING showed the biggest improvement in satisfaction over the last month, up 1.1% points to 86.3%, followed by St George up 0.6% points (to 83.9%) and Westpac up 0.2% points (to 78.1%). The remainder of the big four showed only marginal declines, with CBA down 0.1% points (to 80.0%), NAB down 0.2% points (to 78.9%) and ANZ down 0.2% points (to 78.4%). Each of the big four remain below the overall bank satisfaction level of 81.0%.

Consumer Banking Satisfaction – 10 Largest Consumer Banks1


Source: Roy Morgan Single Source (Australia). 6 months to January 2018. n= 23,945; 6 months to February 2018, n = 23,887. Base: Australians 14+. 1. Based on customer numbers. 2. Includes banks not shown. 

Bendigo Bank retained the highest satisfaction rating among the ten largest banks with 87.8%, followed by ING (86.3%), St George (83.9%), Bankwest (83.7%) and Bank of Queensland (83.6%).

Satisfaction with mobile banking is well ahead of branches

The rapid increase in the use of mobile banking, with its higher satisfaction levels compared to branches, appears to have the potential to positively impact overall bank satisfaction. All four of the major bank’s customers have higher satisfaction with their mobile banking compared to those using branches. Internet banking users also have higher satisfaction than those using branches but on average remain a little below that of mobile bankers. The fact that around two thirds (65.3%) of the population now use either mobile banking or internet banking in an average four week period (and showing an upward trend) is a positive for bank satisfaction as these channels have satisfaction ratings of up to 92% compared to around 86% for branches.

Satisfaction with Banking Channel Used in the Last 4 Weeks

Source: Roy Morgan Single Source (Australia). Six months ended February 2018, n = 23,887. Base: Australians 14+.1. Using an App on a mobile phone or tablet. 2. Using an institutions website. 3. Includes Banks not shown, Building Societies and Credit Unions

 The CBA has the highest satisfaction of the four majors for mobile banking with 92.9% and for internet banking (91.1%) and is a close second for branch banking with 86.0%. NAB with 90.8% and Westpac with 91.0% have their highest satisfaction ratings for mobile banking, while the ANZ scored their highest satisfaction with 89.2% for internet banking.

These latest results are from Roy Morgan’s Single Source survey of over 50,000 consumers per annum.

APRA’s Latest On IO and Investment Loans

Wayne Byres, APRA chairman appeared before the Senate Economics Legislation Committee today.

During the session he said that the 10% cap on banks lending to housing investors imposed in December 2014 was “probably reaching the end of its useful life” as lending standards have improved. Essentially it had become redundant.

But the other policy which is a limit of more than 30% of lending interest only will stay in place. This more recent additional intervention, dating from March 2017, will stay for now, despite it being a temporary measure. The 30% cap is based on the flow of new lending in a particular quarter, relative to the total flow of new lending in that quarter.

This all points to tighter mortgage lending standards ahead, but still does not address the risks in the back book.

But the tougher lending standards which are now in place will be part of the furniture, plus the new capital risk weightings recently announced. Its all now focussing on loan serviceability, something which should have been on the agenda 5 years ago!

The evidence before the Senate on mortgage fraud is worth watching.

He also included some interesting and relevant charts.

Around 10% of new loans are still Loan to income is still tracking above 6 times loan to income.

This despite a fall in high LVR new loans.

The volume of new interest only loans is down, 20% of loans from the major banks are interest only, higher than other ADI’s

Overall investor loan growth is lower, in fact small ADI’s have slightly higher growth rates than the majors.

As a result of the changes the share of new interest only loans has dropped below the target 30%, to about 20%.

And investor loans are growing at less than 5% overall, significantly lower than previously.

So you could say the APRA caps have worked, but more permanent and calibrated measures are the future.

More broadly, here are his remarks:

I’d like to start this morning by highlighting the importance of the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017 which – with the welcome endorsement of this Committee – was recently passed into law by the Parliament.

The Bill delivers a long-awaited and much needed strengthening of APRA’s crisis management powers, better equipping us to deal with a financial crisis and thereby to protect the financial well-being of the Australian community. Put simply, these powers give us enhanced tools to fulfil our key purpose in relation to banking and insurance: to protect bank depositors and insurance policyholders. That purpose is at the heart of all that we do, and the legislation is designed with that protection very much in mind.

With the Bill now passed, the task ahead for APRA is to invest in the necessary preparation and planning to make sure the tools within the new legislation can be effectively used when needed. We hope that is neither an imminent nor common occurrence, but we have much work to do in the period ahead to make sure we, along with the other agencies within the Council of Financial Regulators that will be part of any crisis response, have done the necessary homework to use these new powers effectively when the time comes.

So that is one key piece of work for us in the foreseeable future. But it is far from the only issue on our plate. With the goal of giving industry participants and other stakeholders more visibility and a better understanding of our work program, we released a new publication in January this year outlining our policy priorities for the year ahead across each of the industries we supervise.1 Initial feedback has welcomed this improved transparency of the future pipeline of regulatory initiatives, and the broad timeline for them.

That publication is one example of our ongoing effort to improve our processes of engagement and consultation with the financial sector and other stakeholders. Another prominent example is that we’ve just embarked on our most substantial program of industry engagement to date as we seek input into the design and implementation of our next generation data collection tool.2 Through this process, which we launched on Monday this week, all of our stakeholders will have an opportunity to tell us – at an early stage of its design – what they would like to see the new system deliver, as well as influence how we roll it out.

More generally, and recognising the increased expectations of all public institutions, I thought it would also be timely to briefly recap the ways APRA is accountable for the work we do supervising financial institutions for the benefit of the Australian community. At a time when Parliament has moved to strengthen APRA’s regulatory powers, we fully accept that these accountability measures take on added importance. They play a crucial role in reassuring all of our stakeholders that APRA is acting at all times according to our statutory mandate.

APRA’s accountability measures are many and varied. They start with the obvious measures such as our Annual Report, our Corporate Plan and Annual Performance Statement, and our assessment against the Government’s Regulator Performance Framework. We obviously also make regular appearances before Parliamentary committees such as this to answer questions about our activities, and now meet with the Financial Sector Advisory Council in their role reporting on the performance of regulators. Our annual budget, and the industry levies that fund us, are set by the Government, which also issues us a Statement of Expectations as to how we should approach our role. We comply with the requirements of the Office of Best Practice Regulation in our making of regulation, and our prudential standards for banking and insurance may be disallowed by Parliament, should it so wish.

To give greater visibility to these mechanisms, we have recently set out an overview of our accountability requirements – including some that we impose on ourselves – on our website so that they can be better understood by our stakeholders.3

I’d like to also note that we will be subject to additional scrutiny this year through two other means:

  • We expect that aspects of APRA’s activities will be of interest to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. We have already provided, at their request, documents and information to the Commission, and will continue to cooperate fully as it undertakes its important work.
  • We will be subject to extensive international scrutiny from the IMF over the year ahead as part of its 2018 Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP).4 The FSAP will look at financial sector vulnerabilities and regulatory oversight arrangements in Australia, providing a report card on Australia (and APRA in particular) against internationally-accepted principles of sound prudential regulation. As was the case previously, we expect the IMF to find things we could do better. APRA is ready, along with other members of the regulatory community, to give the IMF our full cooperation and look forward to their feedback.

Finally, time does not permit me to discuss our on-going work in relation to housing lending but, anticipating some questions on this issue, I have circulated some charts which might be helpful for any discussion (see attached).

With those opening remarks, we would now be happy to answer the Committee’s questions.

RBA Aggregate Lending Data Tweaked To Make Investor Loans Lower

The RBA has published their credit aggregates for January today. Owner occupied lending rose 0.6%, or 8% over the past year to $1.14 trillion. Investment lending rose 0.2% of 3% over the past year to $587 billion. It comprises 34% of all housing lending.  They changed the way they report the data this month. It changes the trend reporting significantly .

Business investment fell 0.1% in the month, or 3.4% over the past year to $908 billion. Personal credit rose 0.1%, but fell 0.9% over the past year to $151.5 billion.

The monthly movements show the clear slowing of the mortgage sector, a slide in business lending and a small rise in personal credit (much of the slack here is being picked up in the Alternative Lending sector which will be subject to a separate post later).

The smoothed annual trends show the slide in investment lending in January.

Compare this with last month’s equivalent data when the RBA was running adjustments between the investor and owner occupied series. They have now stopped, as we discussed recently.  Investment lending therefor dropped from ~5% to ~3% in the past year as a result of their changes. Talk about fluff in the numbers!!

Instead they report on net switching. After a spike in 2015, when the differential pricing started to appear, its been running at around $1 billion each month.

The RBA says:

All growth rates for the financial aggregates are seasonally adjusted, and adjusted for the effects of breaks in the series as recorded in the notes to the tables listed below. Data for the levels of financial aggregates are not adjusted for series breaks. Historical levels and growth rates for the financial aggregates have been revised owing to the resubmission of data by some financial intermediaries, the re-estimation of seasonal factors and the incorporation of securitisation data. The RBA credit aggregates measure credit provided by financial institutions operating domestically. They do not capture cross-border or non-intermediated lending.

Following the introduction of an interest rate differential between housing loans to investors and owner-occupiers in mid-2015, a number of borrowers changed the purpose of their existing loan. Adjustments for these switching flows have been applied to the growth figures over the period from mid to late 2015 when this switching was unusually large, but not thereafter, as the amount of switching each month subsequently decreased and remained relatively stable (and thus appears to reflect regular behaviour that occurs from month to month). All switching flows are reflected in the level of owner-occupier and investor credit outstanding. For more information, including on past treatment of switching flows, please see February 2018 SMP – Box D: Measures of Investor and Owner-Occupier Housing Credit.

Comparing the APRA and RBA data, it appears the non-bank lending sector is still enjoying significant growth.

Lending Trends In December 2017 – Still About Home Loans!

The RBA released their credit aggregate data to end December 2017 today.  $1.1 billion of loans were reclassified in the month (we guess AMP).

They report that lending for housing grew 6.3% for the 12 months to December 2017, the same as the previous year, and the monthly growth was 0.4%.  Business lending was just 0.2% in December and 3.2% for the year, down on the 5.6% the previous year.  Personal credit was flat in December, but down 1.1% over the past year, compared with a fall of 0.9% last year. This is in stark contrast to the Pay Day Loan sector, which is growing fast, as we discussed yesterday (and not in the RBA data).

Total credit grew 0.3% in the month, and 4.8% for the year, so mortgage lending is still supporting overall growth, lifting the record household debt even higher. We need still tighter regulatory controls – especially as the costs of living continue to outstrip wage growth.

The annual trends show that investor lending is slowing a little, but still stands at 6.1% seasonally adjusted. Owner occupied lending is running at 6.4% over the last year.  34.1% of loans are for investment purposes.

The monthly data is very noisy as usual.

The value of owner occupied loans was $1.13 trillion, up $6.3 billion or 0.6%, seasonally adjusted; investment loans were $587 billion up $2 billion or 0.3%, seasonally adjusted; other personal credit $151 billion, down 0.2% or 0.3 billion and business lending was $908 billion, up $0.8 billion or 0.1%.

The data contains various health warnings:

All growth rates for the financial aggregates are seasonally adjusted, and adjusted for the effects of breaks in the series as recorded in the notes to the tables listed below. Data for the levels of financial aggregates are not adjusted for series breaks. Historical levels and growth rates for the financial aggregates have been revised owing to the resubmission of data by some financial intermediaries, the re-estimation of seasonal factors and the incorporation of securitisation data. The RBA credit aggregates measure credit provided by financial institutions operating domestically. They do not capture cross-border or non-intermediated lending.

Following the introduction of an interest rate differential between housing loans to investors and owner-occupiers in mid-2015, a number of borrowers have changed the purpose of their existing loan; the net value of switching of loan purpose from investor to owner-occupier is estimated to have been $62 billion over the period of July 2015 to December 2017, of which $1.1 billion occurred in December 2017. These changes are reflected in the level of owner-occupier and investor credit outstanding. However, growth rates for these series have been adjusted to remove the effect of loan purpose changes.

Home Lending Accelerates In December

The latest data from APRA, the monthly banking stats for ADI’s shows a growth in total home loan balances to $1.6 trillion, up 0.5%. Within that, lending for owner occupation rose 0.59% from last month to $1.047 trillion while investment loans rose 0.32% to $553 billion. 34.56% of the portfolio are for investment purposes.

The monthly ADI trends show this clearly (the blip in August was CBA adjustments). Growth accelerated across all loans, and within each type.

The portfolio movements within institutions show that Westpac is taking the lions share of investment loans (we suggest this involves significant refinancing of existing loans), CBA investment balances fell, while most other players were chasing owner occupied loans. Note the AMP Bank, which looks like a reclassification exercise.

Overall market shares remain stable, with CBA holding the largest share of owner occupied loans and Westpac leading on investment loans.

The 10% speed limit for investment loans is less interesting, given the 12 month average grow of 2.4%, but most of the majors are well below the 10%. Westpac is the major growing its investment book fastest, while CBA is in reverse. Clearly different strategies are in play.

Standing back, the momentum in lending is surprisingly strong, and reinforces the need to continue to tighten lending standards. This does not gel with recent home price falls, so something is going to give. Either we will see home prices start to lift, or mortgage momentum will sag. Either way, we are clearly in uncertain territory. Given the CoreLogic mortgage leading indicator stats were down, we suspect lending momentum will slide, following lower home prices. We publish our Household Finance Confidence Index shortly where we get an updated read on household intentions.

The RBA data comes out shortly, and we will see what adjustments they report, and momentum in the non-bank sector.

Mortgage Lending On The Slide, Perhaps

The RBA data for November 2017 was released today.  The financial aggregates shows that mortgage lending momentum is easing a little, but more slowly than bank lending, suggesting that the non-bank sector is taking up much of the slack. In addition, more loans were reclassified in the month, taking the total to an amazing $61 billion. Total mortgages are now at $1.71 trillion, another record. Overall growth is still much higher than wage growth, so household debt levels will continue to climb.

The monthly trends are pretty clear, if noisy.

The 12 month view irons out the noise and shows that investor lending has fallen to an annual rate of 6.5%, compared with owner occupied lending at 6.3%.   Total housing lending grew at 6.4%. Business lending is lower, at 4.7% and personal lending down 1.2%.

Looking at the values involved, total mortgage lending rose to $1.71 trillion, and investor loans fell to 34.1% of balances, still too high.

Two interesting points to make. First, it is clear mortgage momentum is being support by the non-bank sector, as the RBA aggregate data is significantly higher than the ADI growth from APRA. We have plotted the gap between the two on a 12 month rolling basis.

Second, there is still more “tweakage” in the numbers as loans are re-classified.  Total to date now $61 billion, a large proportion of investor loans!

Following the introduction of an interest rate differential between housing loans to investors and owner-occupiers in mid-2015, a number of borrowers have changed the purpose of their existing loan; the net value of switching of loan purpose from investor to owner-occupier is estimated to have been $61 billion over the period of July 2015 to November 2017, of which $1.2 billion occurred in November 2017. These changes are reflected in the level of owner-occupier and investor credit outstanding. However, growth rates for these series have been adjusted to remove the effect of loan purpose changes.