Social Trends – Page 137 – Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog

Housing Affordability Eases for Some

The HIA says that despite the poor levels of housing affordability there are signs of improvement for home-buyers. Investors are not so lucky.

“The HIA Housing Affordability index for Australia improved by 0.5 per cent in the September 2017 quarter but still remains 4.4 per cent below the level recorded a year ago.

“Housing Affordability has been deteriorating in Australia for decades, particularly in capital cities, as demand for new housing greatly exceeded the supply.

“Recent interventions by the government, through APRA, to curb growth in investor activity may have improved affordability for owner-occupiers.

“As a consequence of this intervention it appears that the market has responded with higher mortgage rates for investors and eased rates for owner-occupiers.

“This has had the unintended consequence of improving housing affordability for owner-occupiers.

“Irrespective of intent, this is positive news for owner-occupier buyers in the affordability equation.

The HIA Affordability Index has been produced for more than 17 years using a range of recent data including wages, house prices and borrowing costs to provide an indication of the affordability of housing.

A higher index result signifies a more favourable affordability outcome.

“The Report’s regional analysis demonstrates the substantial differences in affordability conditions around the country,” added Mr Reardon.

“Sydney retains the mantle as the nation’s least affordable housing market despite the affordability index showing a modest improvement in affordability during the quarter. It still takes twice the average Sydney income to service a mortgage on a median priced home in Sydney while avoiding mortgage stress.

Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Darwin all recorded modest improvements in affordability in the September quarter. Melbourne, Hobart and Canberra each recorded a modest deterioration in affordability during the quarter.

ASIC committed to improving the financial capabilities of Australians

ASIC has released the National Financial Literacy Strategy for consultation.

The National Financial Literacy Strategy is a framework to guide policies, program and activities that aim to strengthen Australians’ financial literacy and capability.

The five priorities in the National Strategy are:

Educate the next generation, particularly through the formal education system;

Increase the use of free, impartial information, tools and resources;

Provide quality targeted guidance and support;

Strengthen co-ordination and effective partnerships;

Improve research, measurement and evaluation.

A key feature of the National Strategy is collaboration across different sectors, including government agencies, community organisations, the education sector and financial services firms. ASIC is leading a public consultation process to shape the National Strategy from 2018 and is seeking feedback on a number of issues including:

updating the language of the National Strategy from ‘financial literacy’ to ‘financial capability’ to reflect a growing focus on behaviours that support better financial outcomes;

expanding the priority audiences identified under the National Strategy, for example to include people with disability (and their families or carers) who are navigating choices and options under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, or people in newly arrived communities who are attempting to understand and access financial services;

broadening stakeholder reach and engagement with the National Strategy, including through the use of new technologies and;

improving research, measurement and evaluation.

‘Building financial capabilities requires a long-term commitment to lay the foundations for behavioural change over time. We all confront significant financial decisions at key points in our lives, such as leaving school, having children, or reaching retirement. To help people develop healthy financial habits and make better decisions about money we’re seeking feedback on the National Strategy’, said ASIC Deputy Chair Peter Kell.

‘I encourage people to share their views with us through this process. Your input will help us shape a National Strategy that supports positive outcomes for individuals and communities now and into the future’, Mr Kell said.

ASIC invites feedback on the consultation paper from all interested stakeholders. Submissions are due by Friday 17 November 2017.

ASIC Stops More Pay Day Lenders

ASIC annouced today enforcable undertaking with Payday lenders Web Moneyline and Good to Go Loans, to cease using a loan product, called OACC2, following concerns raised by ASIC that the product may not have complied with the small amount credit contract provisions under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (National Credit Act).

Both lenders are required to

write off all outstanding OACC2 loans including any outstanding debts which have arisen as a result of entering into these loans;
notify the relevant credit reporting body that these loans have been settled, in order to correct the affected consumers’ credit records; and
not enter into the OACC2 loan product with any new consumers.

Here are the ASIC releases:

Payday lender Web Moneyline has entered into an Enforceable Undertaking with ASIC to cease using a loan product following concerns raised by ASIC that the product may not have complied with the small amount credit contract provisions under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (National Credit Act).

ASIC’s investigation identified that the loan product, called OACC2, was provided to consumers on terms which fell outside the definition of a small amount credit contract. However, on the same day consumers entered into an OACC2 loan, almost all of the OACC2 agreements were modified to repay the loan at higher regular repayment amounts over a shorter period of time, which may have exposed consumers to a higher risk of default. Web Moneyline may have charged above the cap on fees and charges had the loans been construed as small amount credit contracts as defined under the National Credit Act.

Under the Enforceable Undertaking , Web Moneyline is required to:

write off all outstanding OACC2 loans including any outstanding debts which have arisen as a result of entering into these loans;

notify the relevant credit reporting body that these loans have been settled, in order to correct the affected consumers’ credit records; and

not enter into the OACC2 loan product with any new consumers.

ASIC Deputy Chairman Peter Kell said, ‘Financially vulnerable consumers can be at particular risk from this sort of activity, and in many cases will have little real understanding of the greater risks of default they are being exposed to. ASIC will take action to protect those consumers from falling victim to unsuitable payday loans.’

All consumers with outstanding debts from OACC2 loans taken out between 21 August 2014 and 26 May 2015 are not required to make any more payments and will shortly receive communication from Web Moneyline confirming that their loan is now finalised.

Consumers who believe they may have entered into a loan contract with Web Moneyline (either in-store or online) that was unsuitable, are encouraged to lodge a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) on 1800 367 287 or info@fos.org.au. If you need help lodging a complaint with FOS, you can talk to a free and independent financial counsellor by ringing the National Debt Helpline on1800 007 007 during business hours. ASIC’s MoneySmart website has useful guidance on how payday loans work and alternative credit options.

Payday lender Good to Go Loans has entered into an Enforceable Undertaking with ASIC to cease using a loan product following concerns raised by ASIC that the product may not have complied with the small amount credit contract provisions under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (National Credit Act).

ASIC’s investigation identified that the loan product, called OACC2, was provided to consumers on terms which fell outside the definition of a small amount credit contract. However, on the same day consumers entered into an OACC2 loan, almost all of the OACC2 agreements were modified to repay the loan at higher regular repayment amounts over a shorter period of time, which may have exposed consumers to a higher risk of default. Good to Go Loans may have charged above the cap on fees and charges had the loans been construed as small amount credit contracts as defined under the National Credit Act.

Under the Enforceable Undertaking, Good to Go Loans is required to:

write off all outstanding OACC2 loans including any outstanding debts which have arisen as a result of entering into these loans;

notify the relevant credit reporting body that these loans have been settled, in order to correct the affected consumers’ credit records; and

not enter into the OACC2 loan product with any new consumers.

ASIC Deputy Chairman Peter Kell said, ‘ASIC will continue to take action to protect financially vulnerable consumers, many of whom are recipients of welfare payments, from falling victim to unsuitable payday loans.’

All consumers with outstanding debts from OACC2 loans taken out between 18 May 2014 and 20 May 2015 are not required to make any more payments and will shortly receive communication from Good to Go Loans confirming that their loan is now finalised.

Consumers who believe they may have entered into a loan contract with Good to Go Loans (either in-store or online) that was unsuitable, are encouraged to lodge a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) on 1800 367 287 or info@fos.org.au. If you need help lodging a complaint with FOS, you can talk to a free and independent financial counsellor by ringing the National Debt Helpline on 1800 007 007 during business hours. ASIC’s MoneySmart website has useful guidance on how payday loans work and alternative credit options

The Growing Gap Between Employment And Financial Security

The September update of the Digital Finance Analytics Household Finance Security Index, released today, underscores the growing gap between employment, which remains relatively strong, and the Financial Security of households. We discussed this recently on ABC The Business. The Index fell from 98.6 in August to 97.5 in September.

This is below the 100 neutral setting, and continues the decline since December 2016. Watch the video, or read the transcript.

The state by state view highlights a fall in NSW, while VIC holds higher, and there was a rise in WA from February 2017 lows. This highlights the fact the households across the national are under different levels of pressure.

Tracking by age bands we find younger households are significantly less confident, compared with those aged 50-60 years. But across the board, the general trend is lower.

Property ownership remains a large factor, with those renting still below those owning property. We also see an ongoing decline in property investor confidence, thanks to tighter underwriting standards, higher mortgage rates, and the reduction in interest only loans availability.

Looking at the scorecard, there was a 4% fall in households comfortable with their savings, as they are forced to raid them to cover ongoing expenses (and the low returns on deposit balances as the banks seek to build margin). There was a rise of nearly 3% of households who were uncomfortable with the amount of debt they hold, reflecting higher mortgage rates, especially on investment loans and interest only loans, and concerns about future rate movements. Finally, more households reported their overall net worth has deteriorated as home prices came under pressure.

The disconnect is that while people can, in the main, get some work, their earned income is not rising as fast as costs. We also find more households relying of a larger mix of fragmented part-time jobs, which tend to be less predictable. As a result, we expect the current trends to continue, as momentum in the housing sector ebbs. There is no obvious circuit breaker available in the current low interest rate, low growth environment.

By way of background, these results are derived from our household surveys, averaged across Australia. We have 52,000 households in our sample at any one time. We include detailed questions covering various aspects of a household’s financial footprint. The index measures how households are feeling about their financial health. To calculate the index we ask questions which cover a number of different dimensions. We start by asking households how confident they are feeling about their job security, whether their real income has risen or fallen in the past year, their view on their costs of living over the same period, whether they have increased their loans and other outstanding debts including credit cards and whether they are saving more than last year. Finally we ask about their overall change in net worth over the past 12 months – by net worth we mean net assets less outstanding debts.

We will update the results again next month.

UK Government Plans to Increase Social Housing Grants

From Moody’s

Last Wednesday, UK Prime Minister Theresa May announced that housing associations and local authorities will receive an additional £2 billion in grants for social (i.e., public) housing, including social rented homes. She also announced that rent increases will be set at CPI plus 1% starting in fiscal 2021 (which starts 1 April 2020) for five years. These announcements are credit positive for English housing associations because they signal greater support for the social rented sector.

Increased grant funding will reduce external financing needs and provide incentives to focus on social renting activities, which provide more stable cash flow than markets sales. The rent-setting regime provides clarity about housing associations’ operating environment and signals a shift from the previous government policy, which had negative financial effects on the sector.

The amount of grant funding available under the Affordable Homes programme for housing associations and local authorities will increase by £2 billion to £9.1 billion over the length of the program. Housing associations historically have relied on government grants to finance the production of new social homes, but such grants have significantly dwindled since the financial crisis.

The new grant programme aims to fund the construction of an additional 25,000 homes, and we expect the average subsidy per home to more than double to £80,000 from £32,600 in the last allocation round of the programme in 2016 and from £23,500 in the 2014 round. Although the distribution of the grants will depend on yet-to-be-defined criteria that determines which areas are most in need, we expect the 39 English housing associations that we rate to receive £650-£900 million of new grant funding, which would contribute to financing 8,000-11,250 homes.

The additional grants will reduce housing associations’ external financing needs, and should reduce future borrowing, which we currently expect will reach nearly £4 billion during fiscal 2018-20. However, some housing associations may choose to use the freed-up financial capacity to further increase their production of homes for open market sale rather than to stabilise indebtedness.

The grant programme signals a rebalancing of the government’s position in favour of rented social housing. The social letting business provides more stable cash flows for housing authorities than low-cost home ownership programmes, which had been at the centre of the previous housing policy. The lack of grants for building social rented homes and political pressure had encouraged housing associations to subsidise social homes by building units for open market sale that expose housing associations to the cyclicality of the housing market. The share of such sales to turnover has steadily increased over the past five years, reaching 15% in fiscal 2016 for our rated issuers and more than 40% for a small number of housing associations. Hence, this shift in the availability of funding and the direction of policy is credit positive.

It’s ‘crunch time’ for Australian households

From Business Insider.

Australian households are in a vulnerable financial position, especially those who have taken out a mortgage. And in an era of weak incomes growth, soaring energy prices and high levels of indebtedness, with the prospect of higher interest rates on the way, many intend to cut discretionary spending in anticipation of even tighter household budgets.

That’s the finding of the latest AlphaWise survey conducted by Morgan Stanley, which paints an unsettling picture on the outlook for not only Australia’s retail sector, but also the broader economy.

Yes, the weakness in retail sales over the past two months may soon become entrenched. The “crunch time” for Australian households, as Morgan Stanley puts it, has begun.

“In early June, we expressed the view that the Australian consumer faces a domestic cash flow and credit crunch,” the bank wrote in a note released this week.

“Income growth has not recovered, ‘cost of living’ inflation is re-accelerating and ‘macro-prudential’-related tightening of credit conditions is extending from housing into consumer finance.”

In order to test how households may respond to higher interest rates, whether as a result of macroprudential measures to slow investor and interest-only housing credit growth or official moves from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), Morgan Stanley conducted a national survey of 1,836 mortgagors to identify household conditions during late July and early August.

Australia’s 2016 census found that 34.5% of households were currently paying off a mortgage.

Morgan Stanley says the survey was designed to provide insight into the health of the household balance sheet, including their spending intentions as a result of higher mortgage rates.

The news was not good.

“Findings from the AlphaWise survey confirm the stresses in the consumer sector we have been highlighting for some time now,” it says.

“Most households have minimal buffers against a shock to their income, and expect to respond to higher debt servicing costs by drawing down on savings and cutting back on expenditure.

“Other sectors of the economy may be able to offset some of the headline weakness, but the concentrated exposure of the household sector and economy to an extended housing market is posing an increasingly important structural and cyclical risk to consumer spending.”

Of those households surveyed, 54% said they intended to cut back on expenditure in response to higher interest rates, with a further 25% planning to draw down on their savings to cope with higher servicing costs, a pattern that has been seen in Australia’s savings ratio which fell to a post-GFC low in the June quarter.

Somewhat alarmingly, 40% of those surveyed indicated that they did not save at all over the past year, particularly among low-income households.

Source: Morgan Stanley

“Respondents to the survey had extremely small income buffers, with around 40% stating that they did not save over the past year,” Morgan Stanley says.

“This was the case across the income distribution, including 30% of those earning more than $100,000.

“The RBA has referred to such households as living ‘hand-to-mouth’, and they largely attributed the lack of savings to an absence of income growth and a general increase in expenses, with a skew towards necessary rather than discretionary items.”

The bank says that the survey’s findings marry up with its consumer “crunch time” thesis where discretionary spending gets squeezed due to flat wage growth, rising essentials costs and tightening credit conditions.

And, perhaps explaining why consumer sentiment remains at depressed levels, Morgan Stanley says the majority of households expect this trend to continue.

“Only around 13% of respondents expect to be able to save more in the next 12 months,” it says.

“With households increasingly eating into their savings to fund expenditure, any shock to disposable income via further rate rises or lower income would have a disproportionate hit to consumption.”

For those unable or unwilling to draw down further on their savings, the survey found that many planned to cut back discretionary spending levels, especially when it came to holidays and social occasions such as entertainment or eating out.

“The survey suggests Holidays/Vacations and Entertainment/Dining are the categories consumers are most likely to cut back on as interest rates rise,” the bank says.

Providing clout to that view, it also mirrors weakness in the Ai Group’s Performance of Services Index (PSI) for September which revealed that activity levels across Australia’s hospitality sector — measuring accommodation, cafes and restaurants — declined at the fastest pace on record in September.

“Respondents in retail and hospitality are reporting reduced spending by consumers due to a mix of increased household electricity costs, flat income growth, and relatively poor consumer confidence,” the Ai Group said following the release of the PSI report.

Separate data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) also found that spending at cafes, restaurants and takeaway food services fell by 1.3% in August, more than twice as fast as the decline in total retail sales over the same period.

Once is an anomaly, twice is a trend.

Throw in a third indicator, suggesting that households intend to cut back spending in these areas, and it’s understandable why many think this could be the start of a prolonged period of consumer weakness.

Morgan Stanley certainly thinks it is, forecasting that household consumption growth — the largest part of the Australian economy at a smidgen under 60% — will decelerate sharply over the next 18 months.

Source: Morgan Stanley

“We forecast the squeeze on overall disposable income will see discretionary consumption volumes slow to just 0.2% in 2018, dragging overall consumption growth down to 1.1% and well below consensus of 2.5%,” it says.

That growth in overall consumption next year would be only half the level Morgan Stanley is currently forecasting for 2017.

Given that pessimistic outlook, it says that official interest rates will remain unchanged at 1.5% throughout next year, making it somewhat of an outlier compared to current consensus.

“Combined with a broader slowdown in the housing cycle, we see the RBA staying on hold at 1.5% right through 2018, in contrast to the market pricing of a tightening cycle commencing [in the second quarter of next year]”.

And, given the risks, it says that government investment may need to ramp up even further in order to reduce recession risks.

“[Against] this backdrop, we see the gathering momentum behind a public investment program as necessary to mitigate recession risks, rather than sufficient to drive overall growth back to, or above, trend.”

The RBA’s latest forecasts have GDP growing at 3.25% by the end of next year before accelerating to 3.5% by the end of 2019. Both figures are well above the 2.75% level that many deem to be Australia’s trend growth level.

If Morgan Stanley is right about the largest and most important part of the Australian economy, those forecasts will be hard to achieve.

In such a scenario, it’s unlikely that wage or inflationary pressures would build to a sufficient level to justify a rate increase from the RBA. Indeed, it would likely spur on renewed talks of rate cuts, particularly should business and government investment start to weaken.

While there are plenty of good signals being generated by the Australian economy for the RBA to be optimistic about, especially when it comes to the labour market, should the household sector weaken further — and there’s more than a few signs that it is — it’s unlikely that the RBA would respond by making it even tougher for household budgets.

Morgan Stanley says the AlphaWise survey has a margin of error of +/-1.92% at a 90% confidence level.

Mortgage holders struggling under rate hikes

From Australian Broker.

A significant percentage of mortgage holders are struggling to cover their monthly repayments while a large proportion has already been slugged with higher interest rates despite the official cash rate remaining steady at 1.5%.

These results come from new research commissioned by mortgage brokers iSelect through Galaxy Research which polled over 1,000 Australian households. The study found that 25% were experiencing difficulty covering their mortgage repayments. In the same vein, the research suggests that 33% have had their interest rates increased in the past year.

“A third of home owners have had their rate increase during the past 12 months and if the RBA was to increase the official cash rate, no doubt most lenders would quickly follow suit. This would mean more and more Aussie homes will have to find ways to cut back in order to afford their increased home loan repayments,” said Laura Crowden, spokesperson for iSelect Home Loans.

She expressed her concern that a quarter of households were already in financial difficulties given that the official rate has been forecast to rise in the coming year.

“Despite having access to low interest rates, record house prices have forced many families to significantly extend themselves with almost 40% of households making their payments without having a surplus left over,” she said.

“As such it is not surprising that many Aussie home owners are already struggling to make their monthly repayments even while interest rates are low.”

The research found if interest rates were to rise by 1%, more than 780,000 mortgage holders would struggle to make repayments. This includes 632,000 households which would have to cut back costs to cover repayments and 150,000 which would be forced into further debt.

“We know from speaking to our customers that many Aussies are really feeling the pinch of rising cost of living pressures on their stretched household budget, especially as energy bills continue to skyrocket across much of the country,” Crowden said.

The research also found that a large percentage of mortgage holders were paying too much despite the low cash rate. In fact, 54% were paying an interest rate of 4% or more while 13% were paying over 5%.

Rising Household Debt: What It Means for Growth and Stability

From The IMFBlog.

Whilst increased household debt gives an economy a boost in the short term, the IMF has found it creates greater risk 3-5 years later, lifting the potential for a financial crisis, as household struggle to repay. Given the ultra-high debt levels in Australia, this is an important observation.

Debt greases the wheels of the economy. It allows individuals to make big investments today–like buying a house or going to college – by pledging some of their future earnings.

That’s all fine in theory. But as the global financial crisis showed, rapid growth in household debt – especially mortgages – can be dangerous.

A new IMF study takes a close look at the likely consequences of growth in household debt for different types of economies, as well as steps that policy makers can take to mitigate these consequences and to keep debt within reasonable limits. The overall message: there is a tradeoff between the short-term benefits and the medium-term costs of rising debt, but there is plenty that policymakers can do to ease this tradeoff, according to Chapter Two of the IMF’s October 2017 Global Financial Stability Report.

Given the widespread misery the crisis caused, you might think people have become skittish about borrowing more. Surprisingly, that’s not the case. Since 2008, household debt as a proportion of gross domestic product has grown significantly in a sample of 80 countries. Among advanced economies, the median debt ratio rose to 63 percent last year from 52 percent in 2008. Among emerging economies, it increased to 21 percent from 15 percent.

Reversal of fortune

In the short term, an increase in the ratio of household debt is likely to boost economic growth and employment, our study finds. But in three to five years, those effects are reversed; growth is slower than it would have been otherwise, and the odds of a financial crisis increase. These effects are stronger at the higher levels of debt typical of advanced economies, and weaker at lower levels prevailing in emerging markets.

What’s the reason for the tradeoff? At first, households take on more debt to buy things like new homes and cars. That gives the economy a short-term boost as automakers and home builders hire more workers. But later, highly indebted households may need to cut back on spending to repay their loans. That’s a drag on growth. And as the 2008 crisis demonstrated, a sudden economic shock – such as a decline in home prices–can trigger a spiral of credit defaults that shakes the foundations of the financial system.

More specifically, our study found that a 5 percentage-point increase in the ratio of household debt to GDP over a three-year period forecasts a 1.25 percentage-point decline in inflation-adjusted growth three years in the future. Higher debt is associated with significantly higher unemployment up to four years ahead. And a 1 percentage point increase in debt raises the odds of a future banking crisis by about 1 percentage point. That’s a significant increase, when you consider that the probability of a crisis is 3.5 percent, even without any increase in debt.

The good news is that policy makers have ways to reduce risks. Countries with less external debt and floating exchange rates, and which are financially more developed, are better placed to weather the consequences.

Mitigating risks

Better financial-sector regulations and lower income inequality also help. But this is not the end of the story. Countries can also mitigate the risks by taking measures that moderate the growth of household debt, such as modifying the down payment required to purchase a house or the fraction of a household income that can be devoted to debt repayments. So, good policies, institutions, and regulations make a difference – even in countries with high ratios of household debt to GDP. And countries with poor policies are more vulnerable – even if their initial levels of household debt are low.

Australian household electricity prices may be 25% higher than official reports

From The Conversation.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) may be underestimating Australian household energy bills by 25% because of a lack of accurate data from the federal government.

The Paris-based IEA produces official quarterly energy statistics for the 30 member nations of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), on which policymakers and researchers rely heavily. But to provide this service, the IEA relies on member countries to provide it with good-quality data.

Last month, the agency published its annual summary report, Key World Statistics, which reported that Australian households have the 11th most expensive electricity prices in the OECD.

But other studies – notably the Thwaites report into Victorian energy prices – have reported that households are typically paying significantly more than the official estimates. In fact, if South Australia were a country it would have the highest energy prices in the OECD, and typical households in New South Wales, Queensland or Victoria would be in the top five.

A spokesperson for the federal Department of Environment and Energy, the agency responsible for providing electricity price data to the IEA, told The Conversation:

Household electricity prices data for Australia are sourced from the Australian Energy Market Commission annual Residential electricity price trends report. The national average price is used, with GST added. It is a weighted average based on the number of household connections in each jurisdiction.

The Australian energy statistics are the basis for the Australia data reported by the IEA in their Key world energy statistics. The Department of the Environment and Energy submits the data to the IEA each September. Some adjustments are made to the AES data to conform with IEA reporting requirements.

But it is clear that the electricity price data for Australia published by the IEA is at least occasionally of poor quality.

The Australian household electricity series in the IEA’s authoritative Energy Prices and Taxes quarterly statistical report stopped in 2004, and only resumed again again in 2012.

Between 2012 and 2016, the IEA’s reported residential price series data for Australia showed no change in prices.

Yet the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ electricity price index, which is based on customer surveys, showed a roughly 20% increase in the All Australia electricity price index over this period.

Australia is also the only OECD nation not to report electricity prices paid by industry.

Current prices

This year’s reported household average electricity prices are almost certainly wrong too. The IEA reports that household electricity prices in Australia for the first quarter of 2017 were US20.2c per kWh.

At a market exchange rate of US79c to the Australian dollar, this puts Australian household electricity prices at AU28c per kWh. Adjusted for the purchasing power of each currency, the comparable price is AU29c per kWh.

By contrast, the independent review of the Victorian energy sector chaired by John Thwaites surveyed the real energy prices paid by customers, as evidenced by their bills. In a sample of 686 Victorian households, those with energy consumption close to the median value were paying an average of AU35c per kWh in the first quarter of 2017. This is 25% more than the IEA’s official estimate. At least part of this difference is explained by the AEMC’s assumption that all customers in a competitive retail market are supplied on their retailers’ cheapest offers. But this is not the case in reality.

Surveying real electricity and gas bills drastically reduces the range of assumptions that need to be made to estimate the price paid by a representative customer. Indeed, as long as the sample of bills is representative of the population, a survey based on actual bills produces a reliable estimate of representative prices in retail markets characterised by high levels of price dispersion, as Australia’s retail electricity markets are.

Pointing to a reliable estimate of Victoria’s representative residential price is, of course, not enough to prove that the IEA’s estimate is wrong. It could just as easily mean that Victorians are paying way more than the national average for their electricity.

But the idea that Victorians are paying more than average does not stack up when we look at the state-by-state data, which suggests that Victoria is actually somewhere in the middle. Judging by the prices charged by the three largest retailers in each state and territory, Victorian householders are paying about the same as those in New South Wales and Queensland, less than those in South Australia, and more than those in Tasmania, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.

Residential electricity prices. Author provided

The IEA can not reasonably be blamed for the inadequate residential data for Australia that they report, and the nonexistent data on electricity prices paid by Australia’s industrial customers. The IEA does not do its own calculation of prices in each country, but rather it relies on price estimates from official sources in those countries.

An obvious question that arises from this is where Australia really ranks internationally if we used prices that reflect what households are actually paying.

This is contentious, not least because prices in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia increased – typically around 15% or more – from July this year. We do not know how prices have changed in other OECD member countries since the IEA’s recent publication (which covered prices for the first quarter of 2017). But we do know that prices in Australia have been far more volatile than in any other OECD country.

Assuming that other countries’ prices are roughly the same as they were in the first quarter of 2017, our estimate using the IEA’s data is that the typical household in South Australia is paying more than the typical household in any other OECD country. The typical household in New South Wales, Queensland or Victoria is paying a price that ranks in the top five.

It should also be remembered that these prices are after excise and sale tax. Taxes on electricity supply in Australia are low by OECD standards – so if we use pre-tax prices, Australian households move even higher up the list.

There are serious question marks over Australia’s official electricity price reporting. Policy makers, consumers and the public have a right to expect better.

Author: Bruce Mountain, Director, Carbon and Energy Markets., Victoria University