Under Property’s Skin

We discuss the rent buy decision with Damian Klassen Head of Investments, Nucleus Wealth, and the broader issues of asset allocation in these uncertain times.

Note Nucleus Wealth DISCLAIMER: This presentation has been prepared by Nucleus Wealth and is for general information only. Every effort has been made to ensure that it is accurate, however it is not intended to be a complete description of the matters described. The presentation has been prepared without taking into account any personal objectives, financial situation or needs. It does not contain and is not to be taken as containing any securities advice or securities recommendation.

Furthermore, it is not intended that it be relied on by recipients for the purpose of making investment decisions and is not a replacement of the requirement for individual research or professional tax advice. Nucleus Wealth does not give any warranty as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of information which is contained in this presentation.

Except insofar as liability under any statute cannot be excluded, Nucleus Wealth and its directors, employees and consultants do not accept any liability for any error or omission in this presentation or for any resulting loss or damage suffered by the recipient or any other person. Unless otherwise noted, Nucleus Wealth is the source of all charts; and all performance figures are calculated using exit to exit prices and assume reinvestment of income, take into account all fees and charges but exclude the entry fee. It is important to note that past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. This document was accompanied by an oral presentation, and is not a complete record of the discussion held. No part of this presentation should be used elsewhere without prior consent from the author.

Wages rose 0.5% in the December quarter 2019

The seasonally adjusted Wage Price Index (WPI) rose 0.5 per cent in the December quarter 2019 and 2.2 per cent through the year, according to figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

ABS Chief Economist, Bruce Hockman stated “The seasonally adjusted quarterly rise of 0.5 per cent extended the period of moderate growth observed throughout 2019, and was influenced by the relative stability of the labour underutilisation rate. Annually, both private and public sector wages rose 2.2 per cent; this was the lowest public sector growth rate since the commencement of the index in December quarter 1997.”

For the first time since 2012, private sector wages grew at a faster rate than the public sector (0.5 compared to 0.4 per cent), in original terms.

Across industries, annual wage growth in 2019 ranged from 1.6 per cent for the information media and telecommunication services industry to 3.1 per cent for the health care and social assistance industry.

Victoria recorded the highest through the year growth of 2.7 per cent, while Western Australia recorded the lowest for the sixth consecutive quarter (1.7 per cent)

RBA Parallel Universe Is SO Dovish

The RBA released their minutes today, and its all upside. Just seems disconnected from reality! Rates will remain low, for years!!!

International Economic Conditions

Members commenced their discussion of the global economy by noting the International Monetary Fund’s forecast for global growth to pick up in 2020 and 2021. The easing in trade tensions between the United States and China, and ongoing stimulus delivered by central banks, had supported a modest improvement in the growth outlook for a number of economies. Global manufacturing and trade indicators, notably export orders, had continued to show signs of stabilising in late 2019. Inflation had remained low and below most central banks’ targets. Members also discussed the coronavirus outbreak, which was a new source of uncertainty regarding the global outlook.

In China, a range of activity indicators had picked up in the December quarter, which suggested that targeted fiscal and monetary easing had been working to stabilise economic conditions. In east Asia, the growth outlook had been supported by signs of a turnaround in the global electronics cycle and more stimulatory fiscal and monetary policies in some economies in the region. On the other hand, the outlook for output growth in India had been revised lower given the broad-based slowing in economic activity there.

In major advanced economies, indicators for manufacturing and services activity had ticked up slightly and tight labour markets had supported growth in consumption. In the United States, lower interest rates had supported a pick-up in residential investment. Business investment intentions had stabilised. Japanese economic activity had slowed as expected following the increase in the consumption tax in October 2019, but the fiscal stimulus that had been announced was expected to support growth. In the euro area, survey indicators of conditions in the manufacturing sector appeared to have bottomed out, but investment had remained weak.

The progress in addressing the US–China trade and technology disputes had alleviated an important downside risk to global growth. However, given the nature of the ‘phase one’ deal and the potential for tensions to re-escalate, this risk had not been eliminated.

Members discussed the coronavirus outbreak, noting that it was a new source of uncertainty for the global economy. With the situation still evolving, members observed that it was too early to determine the extent to which growth in China would be affected or the nature of the international spillovers. It was noted that previous outbreaks of new viruses had had significant but short-lived negative effects on economic growth in the economies at the centre of the outbreak. Members observed that it was difficult to know how representative these earlier episodes could be. China now accounted for a much larger share of the global economy and was more closely integrated, including with Australia, than in 2003 at the time of the SARS outbreak. The economic effects would depend crucially on the persistence of the outbreak and measures taken to contain its spread.

Some commodity prices, notably for industrial metals, iron ore and oil, had fallen on concerns that the coronavirus outbreak would disrupt production in China and reduce Chinese commodity demand in the near term. By contrast, rural prices had been little changed.

Domestic Economic Conditions

The Australian economy had grown modestly in the September quarter. While growth in public demand and exports had been relatively strong, growth in household spending and investment had remained weak. The output of the farm sector had also subtracted from growth over the preceding year, reflecting the effects of ongoing drought conditions. Members noted that the recent bushfires had devastated some regional communities and that this was expected to have reduced GDP growth over the December and March quarters. The effects of the coronavirus outbreak were also expected to subtract from growth in exports over the first half of 2020.

Overall, economic growth was expected to be weaker in the near term than had been forecast three months earlier, partly because of the effects of the bushfires and the coronavirus outbreak. However, GDP growth was still expected to pick up over the forecast period, supported by accommodative monetary policy, a pick-up in mining investment, and recoveries in dwelling investment and consumption. The recovery from the bushfires was expected to add to growth in the second half of 2020. The central forecast for growth remained unchanged since November, at 2¾ per cent over 2020 and around 3 per cent over 2021.

An increase in mining investment was expected in the near term and a turnaround in dwelling investment was likely to have occurred by the end of 2019. However, the recovery in consumption was less certain and more consequential for overall demand. There was also uncertainty around estimates of the effects of the bushfires and the coronavirus outbreak: it was difficult to assess potential indirect effects on activity from these events and relevant data were yet to be published.

Household consumption had been lower than expected in the September quarter despite strong growth in household disposable income, supported by the receipt of tax offset payments and lower interest payments following the recent reductions in the cash rate. Information from the ABS retail sales release and the Bank’s liaison program had suggested that retail sales volumes were likely to have grown only modestly in the December quarter; although nominal retail sales had increased strongly in the month of November, much of this increase was likely to have been purchases brought forward to take advantage of ‘Black Friday’ sales. Measures of consumer sentiment had declined over recent months, but consumers’ views on their personal financial situation, which historically have had a stronger link to consumption, had been little changed.

Members noted that a number of factors had contributed to the slowdown in consumption growth since mid 2018. The downturn in the housing market had reduced households’ wealth, and the extended period of weak growth in household income had probably lowered expectations of future income growth. Members observed that the prolonged period of slow growth in income was expected to continue to weigh on consumption over coming quarters. Furthermore, recent data had suggested that households were directing more income to saving and reducing their debt.

Looking ahead, the Bank’s forecast was for growth in consumption to increase gradually, sustained by moderate growth in household disposable income and the recovery in the housing market. Growth in housing prices had picked up in most capital cities and parts of regional Australia over recent months. Prices had increased very strongly in Sydney and Melbourne in recent months. Higher housing prices and the associated increase in housing turnover were expected to support consumption and dwelling investment.

Dwelling investment had continued to decline in the September quarter, however, and was expected to decline further in the near term. Nonetheless, leading indicators were consistent with the forecast of a trough in dwelling investment towards the end of 2020, followed by a recovery through 2021. Private residential building approvals had increased in the December quarter. Contacts in the Bank’s business liaison program had reported an increase in sales of new homes and greenfield land in recent months.

Business investment declined in the September quarter, with both mining and non-mining investment weaker than expected as at November. Mining investment had been considerably lower because work on new liquefied natural gas plants had continued to wind down. Information from business liaison contacts and the recent ABS capital expenditure survey continued to support the view that mining investment was passing through a trough. Non-mining investment was expected to be subdued in the near term, but then to increase modestly, consistent with the expected pick-up in domestic activity. Public investment had been stronger than expected in the September quarter and information from government budgets had suggested public spending would continue to support growth in the near term, including through funding of initiatives for bushfire recovery and drought relief.

The unemployment rate had declined slightly to 5.1 per cent in December. Employment growth had moderated in the December quarter, but had remained at 2.1 per cent over the year. All the growth in the quarter had been in part-time employment. The Bank’s forecast of employment growth had been revised downwards for the first half of 2020, reflecting the overall signal from leading indicators and the downward revision to forecast GDP growth in the near term. The unemployment rate was expected to remain in the 5–5¼ per cent range for some time before declining to around 4¾ per cent in 2021, as GDP and employment growth picked up.

Members noted that the inflation data for the December quarter had been in line with expectations. Headline CPI inflation had been 0.6 per cent in the quarter and 1.8 per cent over 2019. Trimmed mean inflation had been 0.4 per cent in the quarter and 1.6 per cent over 2019. Housing inflation had continued to be a significant drag on overall inflation, with little change in rents both in the quarter and over the year. New dwelling prices had risen in the December quarter following earlier declines because smaller discounts had been offered by developers.

Inflationary pressures were expected to remain subdued. Underlying and headline inflation were expected to increase a little to around 2 per cent over the following couple of years as spare capacity in the economy declined. Wages growth was expected to be largely unchanged over the following couple of years because mild upward pressure on growth in the wage price index would likely be offset by downward pressure from the increase in the superannuation guarantee from mid 2021.

Members noted that the risks around the wage and price inflation forecasts were evenly balanced. Wages growth could pick up faster than expected if labour market conditions tightened by more than expected. The increase in the superannuation guarantee in 2021 was forecast to constrain wages growth for some wage earners, although the timing and extent of this was uncertain and broader measures of earnings growth could be expected to be boosted a little. Domestic inflationary pressures would depend on a range of factors, including how fast the economy recovered from the soft patch over the preceding year, the persistence of the effect of the drought on food prices, and developments in the housing market.

Financial Markets

Members noted that developments in global financial markets had reflected evolving perceptions of key risks.

Up until mid January, concerns over global downside risks had eased following stabilisation in a range of forward-looking indicators of growth, the passage of the ‘phase one’ US–China trade deal and improved prospects for an orderly Brexit. In response, long-term government bond yields and equity prices had risen. The US dollar and Japanese yen had depreciated a little, while the Chinese renminbi had appreciated. There had also been renewed capital flows into emerging markets.

However, since then these moves in financial markets had been partly reversed as market participants became concerned about the potential effect of the coronavirus on the prospects for global economic growth. In particular, government bond yields had declined noticeably to be back at very low levels. In Australia, the 10-year government bond yield had declined in line with movements abroad, to below 1 per cent. Also, the US dollar and Japanese yen had appreciated, while the Chinese renminbi had depreciated. The Australian dollar had also depreciated to be around its lowest level since 2009.

Overall, global financial conditions remained accommodative, in part because of ongoing stimulus delivered by central banks. After some easing of monetary policies in 2019, central banks in the major advanced economies had indicated that their current policy settings were likely to remain appropriate for some time. Central banks in the United States, Europe and Japan had recently left policy settings unchanged, noting that some downside risks had receded for the time being. However, they had also signalled that they were prepared to ease policy further if necessary, and markets were expecting some further easing in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada in the year ahead. In China, the central bank had recently implemented targeted measures to support economic growth, including by providing additional liquidity to the financial system.

Corporate financing conditions had generally remained favourable, including in Australia. Credit spreads were at low levels and global equity prices had been higher over recent months, notwithstanding the volatility associated with the coronavirus outbreak. Members noted that equity market valuations were high relative to earnings in a number of economies, which could be explained partly by low long-term bond yields keeping overall discount rates low relative to history.

Domestically, the reductions in the cash rate in 2019 had seen bank funding costs and lending rates reach historic lows. The major banks were estimated to be paying interest of 25 basis points or less on a little over one-quarter of their deposit funding. Around 60 basis points of the 75 basis point reduction in the cash rate since mid 2019 had been passed through to standard variable mortgage rates. However, the actual rates that households were paying on their outstanding variable-rate loans had declined by more than this, with the average rate declining by almost 70 basis points over the same period. This additional decline reflected strong competition among lenders for high-quality borrowers and households continuing to switch from (more expensive) interest-only loans. If this were to continue, by around mid 2020 the average rate paid on outstanding variable-rate mortgages would have declined by around 75 basis points since May 2019.

Households’ total mortgage payments increased in the December quarter, with a rise in principal and excess payments more than offsetting the decline in interest payments. Members discussed whether this increase reflected a change in behaviour by households and the potential for it to persist. They noted that some households were likely to be repaying their debts faster in response to low growth of their incomes and the earlier fall in housing prices. The process of balance sheet adjustment had been facilitated in part by the reductions in the cash rate as well as by the higher tax refunds for low- and middle-income earners, both of which had boosted disposable incomes.

Consistent with stronger conditions in some established housing markets, housing loan commitments had continued to rise. That had been driven largely by owner-occupiers, and growth in credit extended to owner-occupiers had increased to 5½ per cent on a six-months-ended annualised basis in December. Despite accommodative funding conditions for large businesses, growth in business debt had slowed over the six months to December.

Financial market pricing at the time of the meeting suggested that market participants expected a further 25 basis point cut in the cash rate by mid 2020.

Before turning to the policy decision, members reviewed the policy and academic discussions taking place around the world regarding the operation of macroeconomic policy and monetary policy frameworks in an environment where interest rates are low because of structural factors. These discussions focused on a range of issues, including: the appropriate level and specification of inflation targets; the cases for and against more aggressive monetary policy easing when policy interest rates are near the effective lower bound; the role of forward guidance and strategies for lowering long-term interest rates and their potential side-effects; and the role of fiscal policy. Members also reviewed the international discussions regarding possible changes in the monetary transmission mechanism at low interest rates.

Considerations for Monetary Policy

In considering the policy decision, members observed that the outlook for the global economy remained reasonable, with signs that the slowdown in global growth was coming to an end. The progress in addressing the US–China trade and technology disputes had reduced but not eliminated an important downside risk to global growth. The coronavirus outbreak was a new source of uncertainty. While it was too early to tell what the overall effect would be, the outbreak presented a material near-term risk to the economic outlook for China and for international trade flows, and thereby the Australian economy.

Global financial conditions remained positive. This partly owed to ongoing stimulus delivered by central banks, and financial market participants expected some further monetary easing in some economies. Long-term government bond yields were back at very low levels, including in Australia. Borrowing rates for households and businesses were at historically low levels, and there was strong competition among lenders for borrowers of high credit quality. Conditions in some established housing markets had strengthened, and mortgage loan commitments had also picked up. The Australian dollar had depreciated to be around its lowest level since 2009.

The outlook for the Australian economy was for growth to improve, supported by a turnaround in mining investment and, further out, dwelling investment and consumption. In the short term, the effects of the bushfires were temporarily weighing on domestic growth, but the recovery was likely to reverse the negative effects on GDP by the end of the year. The forecast recovery in consumption growth remained a key uncertainty for the outlook. Consumption had been weak, as households had been gradually adjusting their spending to the protracted period of slow growth in incomes and to the fall in housing prices. Although housing prices had been rebounding nationally, it was too soon to see the response to this in household spending, and it was unclear for how long the period of balance sheet adjustment would continue.

The unemployment rate had declined a little to 5.1 per cent and was expected to remain around this level for some time before declining further to a little below 5 per cent as economic growth picked up. Wages growth was expected to be largely unchanged over the following couple of years. Members agreed that a further gradual lift in wages growth would be a welcome development and was needed for inflation to be sustainably within the 2–3 per cent target range.

In the December quarter, CPI inflation had been broadly as expected at 1.8 per cent over the year. Inflationary pressures had remained subdued, held down by flat housing-related costs. Inflation was expected to increase gradually to 2 per cent over the following couple of years, in response to some tightening in labour market conditions.

Given this outlook, members considered how best to respond.

Members reviewed the case for a further reduction in the cash rate at the present meeting. This case rested largely on the only gradual progress towards the Bank’s inflation and unemployment goals. Lower interest rates could speed progress towards the Bank’s goals and make it more assured in the face of the current uncertainties. In considering this case, the Board took into account that interest rates had already been reduced to a low level and that there are long and variable lags in the transmission of monetary policy. The Board also recognised that the incremental benefits of further interest rate reductions needed to be weighed against the risks associated with very low interest rates. Internationally, concerns had been raised about the effect of very low interest rates on resource allocation in the economy and their effect on the confidence of some people in the community, notably those reliant on savings to finance their consumption. A further reduction in interest rates could also encourage additional borrowing at a time when there was already a strong upswing in the housing market.

The Board concluded that the cash rate should be held steady at this meeting. Members agreed that it was reasonable to expect that an extended period of low interest rates would be required in Australia to reach full employment and achieve the inflation target. The Board would continue to monitor developments carefully, including in the labour market, and remained prepared to ease monetary policy further if needed to support sustainable growth in the economy, full employment and the achievement of the inflation target over time.

The Decision

The Board decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 0.75 per cent.

NZ Home Prices Roar Higher

REINZ has released their January 2020 residential report today, and they reported the busiest January in 4 years. The annual average rise across New Zealand was 7%, with Auckland at 4.4% and other areas up 9.1%. Auckland is actually now among the faster-rising regions. Prices in Canterbury are rising, although to date this has been slower than many other regions.

In January the median number of days to sell a property nationally decreased by 6 days from 48 to 42 when compared to January 2019 – the lowest days to sell for the month of January in 3 years.

Low interest rates and lighter regulation are driving the market. Over 2019, the RBNZ cut the OCR from 1.75 percent to 1 percent and they indicate that the OCR will remain at 1 percent for some time. In response, household debt continues to rise. Lower debt servicing costs enables higher household spending on consumption, although returns from savings will be lower as well.

Over the past year New Zealand construction activity has ramped up substantially while net migration has steadily declined. The cancellation of earlier plans to introduce a capital gains tax has also helped to drive the market.

For New Zealand excluding Auckland, the number of properties sold increased by 0.9% when compared to the same time last year (from 3,279 to 3,308) – also the highest for the month of January in 4 years.

In Auckland, the number of properties sold in January increased by 9.7% year-on-year (from 1,180 to 1,295) – the highest number of residential properties sold in the month of January since January 2016.

Sales in Auckland were the highest for the month of January in four years, with particularly strong uplifts in sales volumes in North Shore City (+29.0%), Waitakere City (+28.6%) and Rodney District (+21.1%).

Regions outside Auckland with the highest percentage increase in annual sales volumes during January were:
• Nelson: +42.6% (from 54 to 77 – 23 more houses)
• Manawatu/Wanganui: +15.3% (from 281 to 324 – 43 more houses) – the highest for the month of January in 3 years
• Bay of Plenty: +11.5% (from 340 to 379 – 39 more houses) – the highest for the month of January in 4 years
• Marlborough: +11.3% (from 62 to 69 – 7 more houses).
Regions with the largest decrease in annual sales volumes during January were:
• Tasman: -29.3% (from 58 to 41 – 17 fewer houses) – the lowest since January 2017
• Southland: -27.2% (from 151 to 110 – 41 fewer houses) – the lowest for the month of January in 6 years
• Otago: -17.1% (from 269 to 223 – 46 fewer houses) – the lowest for the month of January in 9 years.

In the recent Reserve Bank NZ Monetary Policy Statement, they indicated that over the medium term, annual house price inflation is expected to slow as net immigration moderates, residential construction activity remains high, and the effects of past lower mortgage rates fade.

However, they expect residential investment growth is expected to pick up over the next six months, in line with recent high levels of residential building consent issuance. That said, residential investment is forecast to decline very gradually as a share of GDP later in the projection period, reflecting ongoing capacity constraints in the construction sector.

In December 2019, the Government announced a substantial investment package of $12bn, equivalent to around 4 percent of annual nominal GDP. The Treasury forecasts that $8.1bn will be spent between June 2020 and June 2024, mainly on infrastructure projects

Which is probably just as well, given that business investment is forecast to fall ahead.

How To Jump-Start SME’s

We discuss our submission to the Senate Inquiry into funding for the SME sector. The proposed bill will provide incentives for the big banks, but do little to address the real issues. We offer an alternative approach, using data from our SME surveys.

Inquiry into the Australian Business Growth Fund Bill 2019 [Provisions] – Submission

Summary

We are pleased to offer our submission for consideration. The Bill as proposed will do little to address the underlying SME funding issues we have in Australia, despite benefitting the incumbent major investors through their equity shares. It might play well from a “we are doing something for SME’s” perspective, but in reality, it will do little.

To address the real problem of SME funding, we recommend a FinTech style structure, as already proven in the UK and elsewhere across Europe. This would enable the allocated funds to reach more businesses, but more importantly also facilitate a transformation of lending to the SME sector in Australia, including driving incumbents to lift their game.

This transformational play would demonstrate the Governments active support for the SME sector, but also lead to broader and deeper change, to the benefit of the local economy.

Introduction

Digital Finance Analytics is a boutique research and advisory firm which curates a rolling 52,000 firm survey each year, with ~4,000 new firms added each month. The survey is a telephone omnibus and is executed on our behalf by a reputable service bureau. It is statistically accurate across the country.

We design the questions, and analyse the results using our Core Market Model. The survey has seen running for more than 15 years. We have several clients who subscribe to our data services, as well as those to receive copies of the free summaries. Clients include several financial services companies, FinTechs and Government agencies, within Australia and beyond.

We hold information about their business structure, banking relationships and financial profile, as well as their digital behaviour. This provides a multi-factorial basis for our underlying segmentation[i], which has proved to be both stable, and insightful over time.

There is tremendous diversity in the SME sector, and as a result one size certainly does not fit all. We believe strong segmentation is essential to be able to translate strategy into effectively action. We focus on what we call “the voice of the customer”.

This enabled us to develop models and descriptors for each of the clusters. Businesses are placed within the model descriptions in a best-fit manner. We believe that the results should be judged largely on the interpretability and usefulness of results, not whether the clusters are “true” or “false”.

When these stable segments are cross-linked with our research, we can compare the different needs and opportunities across the groups, and we can prepare segment specific treatment plans for each.

The custom segmentation we use is well distributed by count across the business community. Growing business and Cash Strapped Sole Traders are the two largest groups. As expected, the count of Large Established Firms is the lowest.

In the light of our research, we have reviewed the provisions of the proposed legislation and wish to make three major points.

SME’s Are Indeed an Essential Part of Our Economy.

The small and medium business sector (SME) is a critical growth engine for the economy, with more than 3 million businesses offering employment for more than 7 million Australians. The characteristics of these businesses are varied from newly founded part-time entities, through to businesses employing up to 100 people and with a turnover of up to $10 million each year. More than 77% have a turnover of less than $500,000 each year. 91.3% have an annual turnover of less than $2 million each year. So, one size does not fit all.

The largest industry segment is Construction (17%), followed by Professional, Scientific and Technical (12.5%) and Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services (11.5%). Financial Services (9%) and Agribusiness (8.25%) are the next two. Note that Mining accounts for only 0.4% of all SME’s.

Nearly half of all businesses have been trading for less than 4 years. Cash Strapped Sole Traders are most likely to fail (55% in 5 years), followed by Cash Strapped Sole Traders and Stable Subcontractors. The highest failure rates are found in Transport, Financial Services, Real Estate and Construction.

Most SME’s are true small businesses and one quarter of SME’s have a sales turnover off less than $50,000 each year, and more than half have a turnover of less than $150,000 per annum. Most low turnover businesses are unincorporated. Those businesses with larger turnovers are more likely to be formed as a company.

Looking at the state distribution, 60% of businesses are in NSW and VIC.

Funding Is Indeed A Growing Problem for SME’s.

We have detected an increasing problem where more businesses are unable obtain suitable finance to enable them to grow and invest in their businesses.  Underlying this is the fact that demand from households and businesses for services from the SME sector is waning as the broader economy falters. SME’s are the canary in the economic coalmine!

For many segments, the need for working capital is the main issue, and the main cause of this need relates to delayed payments. This is particularly a concern among some smaller businesses. The average debtor days is still elevated, with 45% of firms reporting an average settlement time from invoicing of 50-60 days. There were minor variations across the states.  Debts from Large Corporates and Government entities are both taking longer to settle due to “enhanced” cash flow management techniques.

The average number of banking relationships varies across the segments. Larger and more complex businesses are likely to spread their relationships. Others, in need of funding, will also try to access facilities from many sources, and so have more complex relationships.

Satisfaction with banking services remains in the doldrums, with around half of all businesses dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with their bank, and only 17% very satisfied.

The satisfaction rating did vary by segment, with more established firms who do not need to borrow the more satisfied, while newer smaller firms, seeking to borrow, the least satisfied. For them access to credit was a significant issue.

Compliance and price were the two most significant causes of dissatisfaction, though only 5% said obtaining funding was the root cause of their concerns. When asked about their propensity to switch lenders, 61% said they would consider moving. However, when we examined their length of time with existing banking relationships, many are rusted on long term. The inertia, and the gap between intent to switch and switching is explained by a combination of time constraints, complexity of switching and lack of available alternatives. Again, this footprint varies by segment.

We continue to see the rise of FinTech lenders operating in Australia. Around 23% of SME’s have applied, and a further 10% say they will apply for funding. Overall awareness is rising, although there are some concerns about the true costs of borrowing from this source.

Many lenders are reluctant to lend to the sector, require security (mortgage over property for example) and funding is expensive. Banks prefer to lend to households as opposed to businesses, partly because of the relative capital ratio costs and lower risk profiles.

Some businesses are turning to the growing FinTech sector, where unsecured finance is available, at a price, but getting funding through these channels can be expensive because of lack of true competition and high demand.

Finally, we agree with the proposition that Australia currently lacks a patient capital market for small and medium enterprises.  But this is not the main issue blocking the growth of the sector. Access to straightforward credit is.

But the Proposed Bill Is Targeting the Wrong SME Segments

We understand the fund will invest between $5 million to $15 million in small and medium enterprises that have a turnover of between $2 million and $100 million, where they can demonstrate three years of revenue growth and a clear vision to expand.

Established Australian businesses will be eligible to apply for equity capital investments between $5 million and $15 million. Small-business owners will not have to give up control for this investment.

The Business Growth Fund’s investment stake will range from 10 to 40 per cent, setting a balance between business owners keeping control of their business and providing enough incentives for investors. Initially, the Business Growth Fund could support 10 investments per year, with the aim to increase to 30 per year as the fund develops. Banks and superannuation contributions could enable the fund to grow to $500 million.

Our research indicates that this particular segment is small, can already obtain funding for such expansion (many would fit within our “Business In Transition” segment), and as a result we do not believe many would be prepared to give up such a large stake in their growing businesses. It seems this is more orientated to offer investors and the financial sector a return, than being shaped best to provide support for those small businesses which need assistance the most. The small number of transactions envisaged will also not assist many businesses, and the target is clearly not the bulk of those with real funding needs.

Thus, we cannot support the current proposal (which we also note is imprecise in terms of the assessment processes, return hurdles and other matters). Our view is that the current proposal appears rushed, and too high-level. But our main point is, it is targeting the wrong SME’s.

We Think There Is A Better Option

We believe there is a better option to assist SME’s in their growth agenda. The truth is there is a dearth of financing available from existing major players. Their risk and capital ratios mean they prefer to lend to households for mortgage purposes, then to small business. As interest rates fall, this pressure is being exacerbated.

We think a better model would be to provide funding via the emerging Fintech sector, by either providing funding to flow to existing FinTech’s, or by creating a new Government backed marketplace where FinTech’s and SME’s can transact.

There are good examples of such models[ii]. For example, in the UK, the main contenders are Tide (focused solely on SMEs, small or medium-sized companies) and Starling (which has retail accounts as well). In France, the big player is Qonto. In Germany, there’s Penta and Hufsy (which is based in Denmark). In Norway, Aprila. For “micro-businesses” of 1-10 people, there’s Holvi in Finland, Coconut, Anna and CountingUp in the UK, and Shine in France.

Tide now claims over 1.4% of the UK’s SMEs as clients (up from 1% in December 2018), and is gunning for 8% market share by 2023, aided by a £60m UK government grant.

Meanwhile, Starling has 46,000 SME members, up from 30,000 in March, with £100m from the same government grant to develop its business banking offering.

Qonto in France has grown from 15,000 small business customers to 40,000 in the past year, and is expanding into Germany, Spain and Italy this year. Finnish startup Holvi, which was bought by Spanish bank BBVA in 2016, claims 150,000 customers and is expanding into France, Italy, the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium.

There is a lot of space for growth because the European market — with 24.5m SMEs — is still extremely dominated by the big lenders. In the UK, for example, four big banks have a 90% share of SME banking.

This was an intentional strategy from the UK Government to disrupt the inadequate SME sector. And in response the incumbents have been forced to respond and are now upping their game and starting their own digital-focused business banks as well to compete. In November 2018, NatWest launched Mettle. Santander’s “start-up” small business bank, Asto, also launched in the UK late 2018 Meanwhile, HSBC is building its own small business bank start-up, known internally as Project Iceberg.

In addition, the cost of funding to SME’s has dropped and the Fintech sector has developed, supported by the core injection of UK Government funding.

These digital plays cover a wide range of services which SME’s need, as well as basic payments, transactions and lending. And they are tending to create a marketplace where businesses and service providers and lenders can interact. This is transformational.

The SME experience has been significant, with easier access to funding, faster decisions, and the resultant rebalancing of the industry has lifted mainstream lenders too. If a similar model was replicate here, the SME sector would win. Australia would win.

Conclusion

The point to make, is rather than a thin deal flow targeting larger SME’s which really do not need assistance, a revised strategy could facilitate transformation of finance to SME sector. Thus, the planned investment could be made by the Australian Government, but leading to more productive outcomes. If we were to replicate a UK model, we think it should be the current inflight Fintech-based approach, rather than one which favours incumbents, and which does not deal with the core issues Australian SMEs face.

Thus, we recommend that the current proposed Bill is withdrawn, and the strategy redeveloped to take account of the emerging Fintech scene

Martin North

Principal Digital Finance Analytics

9th February 2020


[i] Our partitional clustering approach means that the segments are defined using multi-factor cluster analysis and split into non-overlapping tribes, rather than in a hierarchical tree. To achieve this, we developed a proprietary scoring system based on Lloyd’s algorithm, (also known as Voronoi iteration) for grouping data points into a given number of categories. This is often referred to as k-means clustering. The modelling is iterated sufficiently to enable adequate separation between clusters, as determined by Lloyds’s algorithm.

[ii] https://sifted.eu/articles/sme-small-business-banking-startups-europe-compared/

More From The Property Market Front Line With Chris Bates

Financial Adviser and Mortgage Broker Chris Bates and I discuss the latest turns in the property market.

What’s good and what’s not?

Chris can be found at www.wealthful.com.au & www.theelephantintheroom.com.au plus via LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopherbates

If you have a questions for Chris and I, send it via the DFA Blog.

Ignorant Politicians Voted to Send You To Jail & They Didn’t Know

Economist John Adams and Analyst Martin North reflect on last week’s Canberra visit when John had 14 (yes 14) meetings about the Cash Restrictions Bill. But John also came away with some more disturbing conclusions about our politicians.

What If China Turns To Austerity Rather Than Stimulus?

The current popular view is that in response to the Covid-19 problem, the central bank will stimulate, and this will support the local, and therefore global economy. One reason why markets are sanguine.

There is just one problem with this. China’s Global Times (one external voice of the Government) headed a piece “China should get ready for belt-tightening following virus outbreak”. Maybe China will not stimulate the economy by rolling out another massive monetary stimulus. This is potentially a game changer.

With the Chinese economy taking a major hit from the outbreak of the novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19), the central government appears to pursue fiscal austerity as part of the efforts to pull through the difficult times.

While it is generally expected that fiscal stimulus and monetary easing will undoubtedly be the two main tools of central authorities for alleviating downward pressure on the economy and for maintaining macroeconomic stability, given the past experience and the financial risks currently facing China, a flood of spending programs seems no longer on the financial regulators’ list of choices for stimulating the economy.

“China will face decreased fiscal revenues and increased expenditures for some time to come, and the fiscal operation will maintain a state of ‘tight balance.’, Chinese Finance Minister Liu Kun wrote in an article published on Qiushi, a magazine affiliated with the Communist Party of China Central Committee. In this situation, it won’t be feasible to adopt a proactive fiscal policy by expanding the fiscal expenditure scale. I, and instead, policies and capital must be used in a more effective, precise and targeted way,”  Liu said. Chinese Finance Minister Liu Kun wrote in an article published on Qiushi, a magazine affiliated with the Communist Party of China Central Committee.

Liu’s article sent a clear signal that China would not stimulate the economy by rolling out another massive monetary stimulus.

Due to the major impact of the coronavirus outbreak on businesses across the country, the Ministry of Finance has already made it clear that it would continue to reduce the tax burden on enterprises, which will undoubtedly weigh down the already slowing fiscal income. And a potential decrease in fiscal revenues directly points to the limited room for splashing out on unnecessary programs. China’s fiscal revenues grew 3.8 percent in 2019, the slowest growth since 1987, while fiscal expenditures during the same year gained 8.1 percent compared with the previous year, outpacing economic growth.

Therefore, to maintain a “tight balance,” the Chinese economy will have to tighten its belt by curbing non-essential expenditures while expanding investment in a precise and targeted manner.

There has been a consensus call among economists and economic observers for the fiscal deficit ratio to break the 3 percent GDP mark temporarily so that more space could be given to fiscal expenditures to stabilize the economy amid the epidemic.

However, it should be noted that fiscal space constraint is not the key reason for belt-tightening. Past experience with massive stimulus already showed that a flood of investments could lead to many consequences like high levels of local government debts, and to the detriment of high-quality economic growth.

In 2019, China’s fiscal expenditures reached 23.9 trillion yuan ($3.4 trillion), of which only 3.5 trillion yuan was spent by the central government, and the rest by local governments.

In this sense, governments at all levels should be prepared for belt-tightening in the future to come.

This could have significant consequences for us all!

Trump’s ‘blue collar boom’ is more of a bust for US workers

If you thought workers’ hourly pay was finally rising, think again. Via the US Conversation.

At first glance, the latest data – which came out on Feb. 7 – look pretty good. They show nominal hourly earnings rose 3.1% in January from a year earlier.

But the operative word here is nominal, which means not adjusted for changes in the cost of living. Once you factor in inflation, the picture changes drastically. And far from representing a “blue collar boom” – as the president put it in his State of the Union address – the real, inflation-adjusted data show most U.S. workers have not benefited from the growing economy.

As an economist who studies wage data, I think it’s paramount that we take a step back and look at what the data really show.

The effect of inflation and fringes

The Bureau of Labor Statistics comes out with two sets of data on wages.

Business journalists and financial markets tend to focus on the monthly data. These figures are only reported in nominal or current terms because the inflation data doesn’t come out until later.

A more complete set of wage and pay data is reported quarterly. The latest release came out in December for the third quarter. These figures are not only adjusted for inflation but also include fringe benefits, which account for just under a third of total compensation.

At first blush, it makes sense to focus primarily on the first set. Newer data is, well, newer, and market participants and companies prefer the latest information when making decisions about investments, hiring and so on.

But the effect of inflation means that the same US$1 bill buys less stuff over time as prices increase.

From December 2016 to September 2019, nominal wages rose 6.79% from $22.83 to $24.38. But after factoring in inflation, average wages barely budged, climbing just 0.42% in the period.

Incorporating fringe benefits into the picture adds another wrinkle.

The inflation-adjusted or real value of fringe benefits, which include compensation that comes in the form of health insurance, retirement and bonuses, declined 1.7% in the three-year period.

Altogether, that means total real compensation slipped 0.22% from the end of 2016 to September 2019.

Of course, workers in different sectors have fared differently. The Trump administration has singled out manufacturing workers – who it says are the main beneficiaries of its trade war and other policies intended to support the sector – as having benefited from a “blue collar boom” in wages.

The nominal data for manufacturing workers hardly support a boom but they do show an increase of 2.22% since Donald Trump took office.

The adjusted data, however, make it look more like a bust, with wages plunging 3.88% in the period. And, again, the situation is worse when we add in fringe benefits, which brings the decline to 4.33%.

So next time you read a story about a rise in pay, try to see if it reports the wage data in nominal or real terms, and if it includes fringe benefits too. If it’s only nominal wages, the numbers may mean a lot less than they seem.

Author: David Salkever, Professor Emeritus of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County