What We Can Learn From The UK

In our latest video show I caught up with Joseph Wilks who was on the front line of the UK property market in 2008 and beyond.

He describes what happened (and the parallels with Australia) and also explores some of the dynamics of the New Zealand property market which seems to have some of the same hallmarks.

Auction Results 10 Nov 2018

Domain has released their  preliminary auction results for today. The final results from last week came in at 38% nationally, and the early results from today also look weak. Significantly lower than this time last year, and they are likely to settle lower again.

Their graph cuts off at 40% so lower than that do not show.

Brisbane listed 111, reported 54 and sold 22 with 7 withdrawn, giving a Domain clearance rate of 36%.

Adelaide listed 72, reported 32 and sold 21 with 6 withdrawn, giving a Domain clearance rate of 55%.

Canberra listed 89, reported 72 and sold 32 with 7 withdrawn giving a Domain clearance of 41%.

The Elephant In The Room – The Property Imperative Weekly 10 Nov 2018

Welcome to the Property Imperative weekly to 10th November 2018, our digest of the latest finance and property news with a distinctively Australian flavour.

Loads more data this week, all pointing to the impact that tighter credit conditions are having on the economy – that is unless you are the RBA, which seems to see everything as just fine and missing the debt bomb elephant in the room.

Watch the video, listen to the podcast or read the transcript.


And by the way you value the content we produce please do consider joining our Patreon programme, where you can support our ability to continue to make great content.

We start with the latest lending stats from the ABS.  Further evidence of the lending slow down came through in spades in their housing finance statistics to September 2018. Looking at the trend flows first, new lending for owner occupation fell 1.7% compared with last month, to $13.78 billion.  Investment lending flows fell 0.8%, to $8.96 billion, and owner occupied refinanced loans were flat at $6.24 billion. Refinanced loans as a proportion of all flows rose to 20.8% and we continue to see this sector of the market the main battleground for lenders who are trying to attract lower risk existing borrowers with keen rates. Investment loans, were 39.4% of all new loans, up again from last month as owner occupied lending demand eases.

Looking at all the categories of loans month on month, we see lending for owner occupied construction down 1.2%, lending for the purchase of new dwellings down 2.2%, lending for the purchase of other existing dwellings down 1.7%, while investment lending for the construction of new property fell 2.5%, investment property for individuals fell 0.6% and investment lending for other entities, such as self-managed super funds, dropped 2.2%. As a result, total flows were down 1.1% compared with last month.

First time buyers were also down in number in September, falling by 8.8% to 8,693 new loans.  This was 18% of all loans, up from 17.8% last month. As we highlighted in our recent post “Mortgage Lending Enters the Danger Zone”, household debt is still rising, home prices are falling creating a negative wealth effect, and this will drive prices lower still.

Yet according to the RBA’s latest statement on Monetary policy, all is well, as they continue to paint a picture of underlying momentum in the economy based on jobs growth, low unemployment, and a prospect of wages growth, but still down the track.  “GDP growth is running above 3 per cent. The unemployment rate has declined noticeably, reaching 5 per cent in the month of September. GDP growth is now expected to be around 3½ per cent on average over 2018 and 2019, but to ease in the latter part of the forecast period as production of some resource commodities stabilises at high levels”.  They of course left the cash rate unchanged on Tuesday.

They are now forecasting an unemployment rate down to 4¾ per cent by the end of 2020. That would normally be a catalyst for wage rises, but we are not so sure that logic works any more given the international evidence, and the different employment structures (e.g. gig economy, part-time work, zero hours’ contracts etc.).

GDP was helped by strong terms of trade thanks to higher commodity prices.  “Global energy demand has supported oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and thermal coal prices, while ongoing strong demand for steel in China and, increasingly, India, has supported the prices of iron ore and coking coal; supply disruptions have also boosted coking coal prices in recent quarters.  But later they warn of a potential slow down.

They argue that the housing slowing down, which is apparent in most areas across the country is inconsequential, and the housing debt burden (high by any standards), is manageable.   But we note the debt ratio is as high as ever it’s been, the household savings ratio is falling, and household wealth is declining thanks to falling prices now. This could well crimp consumption down the track.  And that has supported GDP growth for years.

So overall, they say the positives outweigh the negatives, and the next few quarters are looking fine, but we believe there are a number of clouds on the horizon. These include further interest rate rises in the USA, flowing through to higher funding costs in Australia for many mortgage holders, the risks from China slowing, and possibility that wages growth will remain stuck in neutral.  High household debt remains a significant burden.  Yet they cannot see the elephant!

So whilst the RBA still suggest the cash rate may rise higher later, we think there is a significant chance they will have to cut further, to levels never seen before. Our read is there are significant risks in their outlook, and they are mostly on the downside.  But then the RBA does have a habit of wearing rose-tinted glasses.

In fact, there is panic in the air as tightening credit spills over into falling home prices and potentially impacts the broader economy.  Indeed, the AFR reported today that Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has urged banks to ease their lending clampdown for the public good as the government seeks to head off a royal commission-inspired credit crunch just as the housing market hits the skids. He expressed concern that lending across the board – for homebuyers, small business and borrowers –  could tighten further after Commissioner Kenneth Hayne releases his final report by February 1.

The early reappointment of Australian Prudential Regulation Authority chairman Wayne Byres sends a message that is both poorly timed and off-key, given the important questions that have been raised by the royal commission. See out post “Shock Announcement Collapses Confidence And Trust In Australia’s Financial System”. Commissioner Ken Hayne’s interim report was so incendiary that it’s easy to forget it only covered the first two-thirds of the commission’s hearings.

The Reserve Bank of Australia and Treasury have also privately cautioned the Morrison government that any regulatory response to the financial services Royal Commission must be careful to avoid putting the brakes on lending to home buyers and business.

This is remarkable given the high debt ratios and mortgage stress, and is one of the “un-natural acts” we have been warning about.  Let’s be clear, the Royal Commission has shone a light on poor practice, but APRA had already been applying belated pressure on the banks for loose lending, especially to investors and we have been in a long-term forced upswing thanks to poor Government policy, and weak supervision. This is now being pulled back, finally, but to BLAME the Royal Commission for this outcome is nonsense.  It’s the same category as the exaggerated claims that Labor’s negative gearing reforms would hit existing investment property holders. It is just not true.

I discussed the underlying trends in the housing sector and why this is not just a bubble, but a structural crisis, in an interview I did with Alex Saunders from Nugget’s News. We explored the question of whether housing is in a bubble, micro-markets, and the expectations for the future trajectory of home prices given tighter lending conditions.  And where might block chain fit in? You can watch the programme on YouTube.

I also discussed the latest results from our Mortgage Stress surveys. Having crossed the 1 million Rubicon last month, across Australia, more than 1,008,000 households are estimated to be now in mortgage stress (last month 1,003,000). This equates to 30.7% of owner occupied borrowing households. In addition, more than 22,000 of these are in severe stress. We estimate that more than 61,000 households risk 30-day default in the next 12 months. We continue to see the impact of flat wages growth, rising living costs and higher real mortgage rates.  Bank losses are likely to rise a little ahead. We discussed these results in our post “October Mortgage Stress Update”.

It’s also worth noting that the ABS data this week on costs of living showed that many households seeing their costs rise way faster than the official CPI data. Most households would not be at all surprised.

We now know that the Royal Commission will be interrogating the major banks and the regulators in the final series of hearings, and there are some hard questions to be asked, about poor culture, behaviour standards and practice.  Yet we noted that the 300 or so documents released this week from a range of players, are following “party lines”. The major banks are arguing in their submissions that no significant changes to structure or regulation are required, some of the smaller players argue they are at a competitive disadvantage thanks to the current industry structure and regulation and the mortgage broker sector argues that no significant changes are required to remuneration and conflict of interest rules. On the other hand, consumer groups stress the current issues of poor selling, advice and supervision.

And the submissions from the industry also lay bare more of the criminal activity, fraud, and worse, which has beset the sector.  We still believe significant change is required, and you can watch our segment on this “Our Royal Commission Submission”.  The regulators need a shake-up as well. So the question is, will the Royal Commissioner stand firm, or wilt under the pressure from so many stakeholders.  I hope he can see the elephant in the room!

And talking of regulators, APRA released a paper this week on Loss-Absorbing Capacity of ADI’s. It shows that currently major Australian banks are at the lower end of Total Capital compared with international peers. As a result of proposed changes, major banks (Domestic systemically important banks in Australia, D-SIBs) will see their funding costs rise – incrementally over four years – by up to five basis points based on current pricing.  This is intended to build in more financial resilience by lifting the capital requirements, centred on tier 2. Other banks may also be impacted to an extent.

If the D-SIBs were to maintain an additional four to five percentage points of Total Capital they would have ratios more in line with their international peers. But not in the top 25%, and the banks overseas are also lifting capital higher… so some tail chasing here! Is this “unquestionably strong”?  “The aim of these proposals and resolution planning more broadly is to ensure that the failure of a financial institutions can be resolved in an orderly fashion, which protects the interests of beneficiaries and minimises disruption to the financial system,” APRA Chairman Mr Byres said. Written submissions are open to 8 February 2019.

The Bank reporting season revealed weaker profits, pressure on net interest margins, a rise in 90+ mortgage delinquencies, and more provisions for customer remediation. Yet, the banks managed to tweak their provisions to maintain capital levels. The earnings of Australia’s four major banks are likely to fall further in the near term due to slowing credit growth, especially in the residential mortgage segment, and further remediation and compliance costs associated with inquiries into the financial sector, including the Royal Commission, says Fitch Ratings. They said “Slower growth puts pressure on the banks to increase lending margins to maintain profitability. However, intense regulatory and public scrutiny of the sector, as well as strong competition, may make it difficult for the banks to reprice loans and pass on the recent increase in wholesale funding costs, as evidenced from the latest financial results. Net interest margins are therefore unlikely to improve in the short term”.

Jonathon Mott from UBS, one analyst I rate very highly, said: (1) ‘Underlying’ revenue fell -1.3% (h/h); (2) NIM was down 7bp to 199bp; (3) Average Interest Earning assets grew just 1.4% as the banks further tightened underwriting and continued to run off low yielding institutional assets; (4) Fee income and markets revenue were weaker; (5) ‘Underlying’ costs rose 1.9% (h/h) given ongoing investment, compliance and regulatory spend, which more than offset productivity savings; (6) This left ‘Underlying’ Pre-Provision Profits down 3.6% (h/h); (7) Credit impairment charges fell to just 11bp – the lowest ever recorded.

Oh and NAB this week finally moved to protect their Net Interest Margin, saying it would be changing the special offer on its base variable rate, available for new owner occupier principal and interest customers, from 3.69 per cent to 3.87 per cent. The change, which comes into effect from this Friday, November 9, reduces the discount on the advertised rate from 48 basis points to 30 basis points. It will only affect new customers taking out the product. The announcement comes nearly two months after the fourth-largest lender said it would not join the rest of the Big Four in raising mortgage rates in a bid to “rebuild trust” with customers.

So to property. Home prices are still falling according to the CoreLogic index, with year to date declines on average of 6.12% in Sydney, 4.79% in Melbourne and 3.5% in Perth. Brisbane is up 0.04% and Adelaide up 1.7% making a 5 capital average fall of 5%. In fact, the rate of decline appears to be accelerating.

Macquarie has joined the bearish view of home prices, saying they now expect national dwelling prices to fall for at least another 12 months, with a peak-to-trough correction of around 10 per cent. They expect prices in Sydney and Melbourne to fall by 15-20 per cent. They suggest it is a housing correction rather than being the result of a macro correction, in that falls have so far been orderly, with little evidence of distressed selling, even among investors affected by changes in prudential policy and lending standards. A disorderly housing price correction is unlikely, absent a major global economic downturn. They see declines, even a 20 per cent peak-to-trough decline would merely take prices back to April/May 2015 levels. They see no evidence of a severe credit curtailment, which is interesting. We do not agree.

The number of properties coming on the market continues to skyrocket, as more are forced to sell, or are confronted with the fear of not getting out, as the Sydney listings shows from Domain. There are more than 27,000 listed which seems to be some sort of record, our property Insider Edwin Almeida is tracking the results.

CoreLogic says the weighted average clearance rate saw further softening last week, with only 42.7 per cent of homes successful at auction. There were 1,541 auctions held across the combined capital cities, having decreased from the 2,928 auctions held over the week prior when a higher 47 per cent cleared. Both volumes and clearance rates continue to track lower each week when compared to the same period last year (2,046 auctions, 61.5 per cent).

In Melbourne, final results saw the clearance rate fall last week, with 45.7 per cent of the 266 auctions successful, down from the 48.6 per cent across a significantly higher 1,709 auctions over the week prior.

Across Sydney, the final auction clearance rate came in at 42.6 per cent across a slightly higher volume of auctions week-on-week, with 813 held, up from 798 the previous week when 45.3 per cent cleared. Sydney’s final clearance rate last week was not only the lowest seen this year, but the lowest the city has seen since December 2008.

The only capital city to see more than 50 per cent of auctions successful last week was Adelaide (50.8 per cent), however this was lower than the prior week’s 57.6 per cent. Brisbane saw the lowest clearance rate, with only 30 per cent of homes selling.

Geelong recorded the highest clearance rate of all the non-capital city regions, with 57.1 per cent of auctions reporting as successful, while the Sunshine Coast region had the highest volume of auctions (55).

This week, the number of auctions scheduled to take place across the combined capital cities is expected to rise, with 2,276 currently being tracked by CoreLogic, increasing from the 1,541 auctions held last week, although lower than results from one year ago (2,907). Across Melbourne, auction activity is expected to rise considerably after the slowdown seen preceding the Melbourne Cup festivities last week, with the city set to host 1,074 auctions this week, up from the 266 auctions held last week. In Sydney, 817 homes are scheduled to go to auction this week, increasing slightly from the 813 auctions held last week.  Across the smaller auction markets, the number of homes scheduled for auction this week is lower than last week across all cities.

So to the markets, where the ASX 100 fell 0.09% on Friday to 4,874, whilst the ASX 200 Financials rose 0.23% to end at 5,911 and the local fear index rose 1.45% to 14.09.

AMP bumped along the bottom at 2.67, up 2.30 on Friday, ANZ moved up to 27.13, or 0.3%, the Bank of Queensland rose 0.61% to end at 9.92, while Bendigo and Adelaide Bank rose 0.57% to 10.55. CBA rose 0.47% on Friday to 70.95 while Mortgage Insurer Genworth was up 2.2% to 2.32. Macquarie recovered to 123.64 up 0.45%. National Australia Bank slid 0.12% to end the week at 24.90, Suncorp was up 0.64% to 14.08, and Westpac was up 0.07% to 27.70.

The Aussie, which reacted positively to the US mid-terms, ended the week at 72.25, but was down 0.44% on Friday. The Aussie Bitcoin rate was 8,566, down 0.54% and the Aussie Spot Gold fell 0.71% to 1,674.

Across to the US markets. U.S. stocks were lower after the close on Friday, as losses in the Technology, Basic Materials and Industrials sectors led shares lower. At the close in NYSE, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 0.77%, while the S&P 500 index fell 0.92% to 2,781, and the NASDAQ Composite index fell 1.65% to 7,407. The CBOE Volatility Index, which measures the implied volatility of S&P 500 options, was up 3.83% to 17.36. Gold Futures for December delivery was down 1.30% or 15.90 to $1210.30 a troy ounce. Elsewhere in commodities trading, Crude oil for delivery in December fell 1.37% or 0.83 to hit $59.84 a barrel. The US has just become the largest oil producer.  Generally, a 20% drop from high close to low close defines a bear market. We are entering that territory!

Banks were off, with the S&P500 Financials down 0.93% to 449.49.  On the whole, consumer discretionary stocks are slightly outpacing the S&P 500 since early October. The outlier might be Apple, which is actually a tech stock but obviously can have a huge impact on shopping season. The stock has made it back a bit after falling below $200 a share last week, but remains a long way from recent highs of around $230 as investors continue to debate what the company’s holiday quarter guidance and decision to stop reporting iPhone unit sales might mean moving forward. It ended at 204.5, though down 1.93 on the day.

A weakening Chinese economy helped affirm the bearish narrative of slower global growth. The FED kept the cash rate on hold, but the narrative confirms the view that further hikes are likely, with the 3-month bond rate flat at 2.36, and the 10-year rate back a little off its highs, down 1.44% to 3.19.  The Fed said it expects “further, gradual increases” in rates as the economy continues to thrive. It’s a bit hard to understand any panic about these words, because they didn’t tell investors anything that most didn’t already know.

The European Commission tangled with Italy over the Italian government’s budget forecasts, which the EC said looked too optimistic on deficits. Moving west, debate raged about whether a Brexit deal might be getting close, and the U.K. government is holding meetings on the issue this weekend, media reports said. A Brexit breakthrough, if it comes, might give European markets a boost. But it’s unclear how close it might be. Deutsche Bank was down 1.75% on Friday to 8.97, and we are watching this as a bellwether for more trouble ahead.

Bitcoin was down 1.45% to 6,415.

So to conclude, the big debt question still remains the elephant in the room, and many are choosing to look past it, though as interest rates continue to push higher in the US, this will be harder to do. Locally, we expect more unnatural acts to try and keep the credit balloon in the air, but we believe that tighter standards are set to lurk in the shadows, meaning that the stage is set for more home price falls ahead.

Finally, a quick reminder, our next live Q&A session is now scheduled for November 20th at 8 pm Sydney time. You can schedule a reminder by using the YouTube Link and join in the live discussion, or send in questions beforehand. If previous sessions are any guide, it should be a lively event!

Discussing Australian Housing

I discussed Australian Housing with Alex Saunders from Nugget’s News.

We explored the question of whether housing is in a bubble, micro-markets, and the expectations for the future trajectory of home prices given tighter lending conditions.  And where might blockchain fit in?

Nugget’s News began as a YouTube channel to educate newcomers to the blockchain and cryptocurrency space.

Australian Banks’ Earning Pressure to Continue in 2019

The earnings of Australia’s four major banks are likely to fall further in the near term due to slowing credit growth, especially in the residential mortgage segment, and further remediation and compliance costs associated with inquiries into the financial sector, including the Royal Commission, says Fitch Ratings. The banks reported an aggregate decline in profitability in their latest full-year results.

Slower growth puts pressure on the banks to increase lending margins to maintain profitability. However, intense regulatory and public scrutiny of the sector, as well as strong competition, may make it difficult for the banks to reprice loans and pass on the recent increase in wholesale funding costs, as evidenced from the latest financial results. Net interest margins are therefore unlikely to improve in the short term.

The major banks made provisions for client remediation costs during the last financial year in response to the initial findings from the Royal Commission. Fitch expects some remediation costs to flow into the 2019 financial year as the banks continue to investigate previous behaviour. Meanwhile, compliance and regulatory costs to address shortcomings are likely to rise, despite the banks simplifying their business and product offerings. The banks also remain susceptible to fines and class actions as a result of the banking system inquiries.

The four major banks – Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ, AA-/Stable/aa-), Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA, AA-/Negative/aa-), National Australia Bank (NAB, AA-/Stable/aa-) and Westpac Banking Corporation (Westpac, AA-/Stable/aa-) – reported aggregated statutory full-year profit of AUD29.4 billion, a decrease of 0.8% from a year earlier, while cash net profit was down by 6.5%. CBA’s financial year ended June 2018, while ANZ’s, NAB’s and Westpac’s ended September 2018. The drop in aggregate profit was driven by slower lending growth, customer remediation charges and higher funding costs, especially in the second half of the financial year, as expected by Fitch. These pressures were partly offset by a benign operating environment that limited impairment expenses across the board.

All four banks reported lower or steady loan impairment charges during the reporting period. However, 90-day-plus past-due loans increased slightly, reflective of pressure on household finances from sluggish wage growth. Impairments are likely to rise from current historical lows due to the cooling housing market and high household leverage, which make households more susceptible to shocks from higher interest rates and unemployment. The ongoing tightening of banks’ risk appetites and underwriting standards should, however, support asset quality in the long term.

Common equity Tier 1 (CET1) ratios are broadly in line with the 10.5% threshold that regulators define as “unquestionably strong”. Banks have to achieve this level by 1 January 2020. ANZ reported a CET1 ratio of 11.4%, the highest of the major banks. ANZ is undertaking a share buyback and is likely to announce further capital management plans once it has received proceeds from recent divestments and asset sales. Westpac recorded a CET1 ratio of 10.6% and therefore already meets the new minimum requirement ahead of the deadline.

CBA reported a CET1 ratio of 10.1% at June 2018, which incorporates the AUD1 billion additional operational risk charge put in place following an independent prudential inquiry published in May 2018. However, this will translate to a pro forma CET1 ratio of 10.7% after already-announced divestments. NAB’s CET1 ratio is 10.2%, but we expect it to meet the 2020 deadline, with its capital position likely to be supported by an announced discounted dividend reinvestment plan and the potential sale of its MLC wealth-management business.

RBA Launches Gold Information Page

Following our recent posts about where Australia’s gold may be, the RBA have responded with a dedicated questions and answers page.

Economist John Adams and I discuss the disclosures.

Gold Part 1:
Gold Part 2:
Gold Part 3:

The Petition:

The John Adams And Martin North DFA Page:

Please consider supporting our work via Patreon ;

Please share this post to help to spread the word about the state of things….

 

Westpac Gets Away With Light Penalty For BBSW

ASIC says the Federal Court of Australia today ordered Westpac Banking Corporation (Westpac) pay a pecuniary penalty of $3.3 million for contravening s12CC of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (ASIC Act) through its involvement in setting BBSW in 2010.

In reasons for making the pecuniary penalty order, Justice Beach noted the legislative constraint he had in imposing the order,

If I had been permitted to do so I would have imposed a penalty of at least one order of magnitude above $3.3 million in order to discharge [the objectives of specific and general deterrence]. But I am not free do so.

Justice Beach concluded in his reasons,

Westpac’s misconduct was serious and unacceptable…Westpac has not shown the contrition of the other banks. Moreover, imposing the maximum penalty is the only step available to me to achieve specific and general deterrence. The message that should be sent is that if you manipulate or attempt to manipulate key benchmark rates you are likely to have the maximum penalty imposed, whatever that is from time to time.

The Court also ordered that an independent expert agreed between ASIC and Westpac be appointed to review whether Westpac’s current systems, policies and procedures are appropriate, and to report back to ASIC within 9 months.

It was also ordered that Westpac pay ASIC’s costs of and incidental to the penalty hearing as agreed and assessed.

Today’s court orders follow Justice Beach’s judgment, delivered on 24 May 2018, which found that Westpac on 4 dates in 2010 traded with a dominant purpose of influencing yields of traded Prime Bank Bills and where BBSW set in a way that was favourable to its rate set exposure. His Honour held that this was unconscionable conduct in contravention of s12CC of the ASIC Act.

His Honour also found in his 24 May 2018 judgment that Westpac had inadequate procedures and training and contravened its financial services licensee obligations under s912A(1)(a), (c), (ca) and (f) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

ASIC Commissioner Cathie Armour welcomed today’s decision and noted that ‘ASIC brought this litigation to hold the major banks to account for their unacceptable conduct, and to test the scope of the law in combating benchmark manipulation. ASIC actions have led to these successful court outcomes, and also contributed to new benchmark manipulation offences being enacted by Parliament, and the calculation method and administration of the BBSW being radically overhauled.’

Read the full judgment

Background

On 5 April 2016 ASIC commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court against Westpac, alleging in the period between 6 April 2010 and 6 June 2012 (inclusive) it traded in a manner that was unconscionable and created an artificial price and a false appearance with respect to the market for certain financial products that were priced or valued off BBSW.

This mirrored proceedings brought in the Federal Court against the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ) on 4 March 2016 (refer: 16-060MR), against National Australia Bank (NAB) on 7 June 2016 (refer: 16-183MR) and Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) on 30 January 2018 (refer:18-024MR).

On 10 November 2017, the Federal Court made declarations that each of ANZ and NAB had attempted to engage in unconscionable conduct in attempting to seek to change where the BBSW set on certain dates and that each bank failed to do all things necessary to ensure that they provided financial services honestly and fairly. The Federal Court imposed pecuniary penalties of $10 million on each bank.

On 20 November 2017, ASIC accepted enforceable undertakings from ANZ and NAB which provides for both banks to take certain steps and to pay $20 million to be applied to the benefit of the community, and that each will pay $20 million towards ASIC’s investigation and other costs (refer: 17-393MR).

On 21 June 2018, the Federal Court in Melbourne imposed pecuniary penalties totalling $5 million on CBA for attempting to engage in unconscionable conduct in relation to BBSW. CBA admitted to attempting to seek to change where BBSW set on five occasions in the period 31 January 2012 to 15 June 2012.

On 11 July 2018 ASIC accepted a court enforceable undertaking to address its BBSW conduct which provides for CBA will pay $15 million to be applied to the benefit of the community and $5 million towards ASIC’s investigation and legal costs (refer: 18-210MR).

In July 2015, ASIC published Report 440, which addresses the potential manipulation of financial benchmarks and related conduct issues.

The Government has recently introduced legislation to implement financial benchmark regulatory reform and ASIC has consulted on proposed financial benchmark rules.

On 21 May 2018, the new BBSW methodology commenced (refer: 18-144MR). The new BBSW methodology calculates the benchmark directly from market transactions during a longer rate-set window and involves a larger number of participants. This means that the benchmark is anchored to real transactions at traded prices.

Housing Lending Flows Contract In September

Further evidence in the lending slow down came through in spades today with the ABS releasing their housing finance statistics to September 2018.

Looking at the trend flows first, new lending for owner occupation fell 1.7% compared with last month, down $235 million to $13.78 billion.  Investment lending flows fell 0.8%, down $69 million to $8.96 billion, and owner occupied refinanced loans were flat at $6.24 billion.

Refinanced loans as a proportion of all flows rose to 20.8% and we continue to see this sector of the market the main battleground for lenders who are trying to attract lower risk existing borrowers with keen rates. Investment loans, were 39.4% of all new loans, up again from last month as owner occupied lending demand eases.

Looking at all the categories of loans month on month, we see lending for owner occupied construction down 1.2%, lending for the purchase of new dwellings down 2.2%, lending for the purchase of other existing dwellings down 1.7%, while investment lending for the construction of new property fell 2.5%, investment property for individuals fell 0.6% and investment lending for other entities, such as self managed super funds, dropped 2.2%. As a result total flows were down 1.1% compared with last month.

First time buyers were also down in number in September, falling by 8.8% to 8,693 new loans.  This was 18% of all loans, up from 17.8% last month.

Looking at the individual elements, overall first time buyers were down, although overall more loans were written with a fixed rate, in response to the battery of cheap rate deals which were on offer.

Our first time buyer tracker shows the lower trends, especially as the number of new first time buyer property investors continue to slide.

Finally, the overall loan stock rose in the month, in original terms, with owner occupied loans up 0.3% or $3.4 billion, and investment loans were flat, giving a total of $1.68 trillion, up 0.2%, and continuing the slowing trends.

We think lending growth will continue to slow, as prices fall further, and lending standards continue to tighten. Whilst some slack is being taken up by the non-bank sector, reduced credit means lower home prices ahead. We are entering the danger zone.

Why The Consumer Price Index Is Flawed

From The Conversation.

Officially, Australia’s rate of inflation is 1.9%.

It’s the lowest it has been on a sustained basis since the 1950s and early 1960s.

But try to tell that to anyone and they will laugh at you, or worse.

The Bureau of Statistics is careful to say that the consumer price index isn’t a measure of living costs.

It creates that slightly differently, producing a collection of less-reported indexes that were updated this week.

On these measures, over the past year living costs have climbed 2% for households headed by an employee, 2.2% for households headed by Australians on most types of benefits, 2.3% for households headed by age pensioners, and also 2.3% for households headed by self-funded retirees.

The main difference between the consumer price index and the living cost indexes is that “living costs” include interest paid on mortgages whereas “consumer prices” do not.

Regardless, most of us would be pretty certain that even on these measures, what’s reported is too low.

We’re irrational

In part, this is because we are not rational. As Nobel Laureate Richard Thaler has pointed out, we often engage in “mental accounting”.

In general this means we notice losses more than gains. In this context, it means we focus more on the things that have gone up in price than on those that have gone down or remained unchanged.

Also, our mental basket of goods is generally not the same as the basket of goods the bureau measures, even though it should be.

It’s not our basket

Four times a year in multiple locations throughout each capital city the bureau attempts to collect information about the prices of the thousands of goods (and some services) that make the “basket” it thinks represent they typical household’s purchases.

The basket is divided into about 100 subgroups; things such as bread, milk, eggs, fruit, men’s footwear, women’s footwear, men’s clothes, women’s clothes, restaurant meals, electricity and so on.

Because it can’t price everything, it zeros in on a few representative items within each category.

For meat and fish the ABS includes beef sausages (1kg) and pink salmon (210g can). For processed fruit and vegetables it includes sliced pineapple (450g can) and frozen peas (500g pkt).

If you buy something different, the exact changes in the prices you pay won’t be fed into either the consumer price index or your living cost index, but the indexes are likely to move in line with your living costs in any case.

Things get left out

Many things are missing from the index, among them recreational drugs, gambling and prostitution.

Being bean counters, rather than priests, the bureau says it excludes these sorts of items on practical rather than moral grounds.

Gambling is excluded as it is difficult to establish the service or utility that households derive from gambling, and thus to determine an appropriate price measure. Recreational drugs and prostitution are both excluded as it is very difficult and indeed dangerous to obtain estimates of prices and expenditures, or to measure quality change.

Other things are excluded because their prices are deemed to be too volatile. The price of bank deposits and loans was removed from the main index a few years back.

And goods keep getting better

Where our views about prices are most likely to differ from the bureau’s is where goods get better.

The bureau factors quality improvements into the measures prices it reports. If, for instance, your next mobile phone costs as much as your last one but includes extra features such as more memory or an improved camera, the ABS will report that it has fallen in price.

This sort of adjustment for quality makes sense when adjusting down the price of a can of baked beans because it has been replaced by one slightly bigger, but is a grey area when it comes to improved features.

If the speed of the chip on your next laptop doubles, does that really mean the laptop is twice as good as the old one and should be said to have halved in price? Or should its price be recorded as having fallen by a lesser amount, or not at all seeing as the price hasn’t changed and it remains a standard laptop?

Often older models with lesser features are often no longer available. It’s impossible to buy a cheaper replacement.

The CPI is infrequent

The Reserve Bank is worried about the frequency of the index. It comes out only once a quarter, and up to a month after the quarter has finished.

Every developed country other than Australia and New Zealand releases its index monthly.

Given that the bank considers changing interest rates once every month, and given that the consumer price index is one of the two key measures it uses to guide its decisions (the other is the unemployment rate), a quarterly index leaves it somewhat in the dark and (when things are changing fast) potentially dangerously misled.

The bureau responds that it is prepared to release its index monthly, if it is paid to do it.

The ABS is persuaded there would be a significant benefit from more timely and responsive economic management if a CPI of equivalent quality to the current quarterly index were available monthly. Additional funding will be required to meet the costs involved in compiling a monthly index.

It’s just what we need – bureaucratic blackmail.

But it’s improving

On the positive side, new technologies have allowed more accurate price collection to make the index more precise. A key innovation is the rise of so-called “scanner data”, tracking expenditures at checkouts based on the prices people actually pay.

Scanner data has been used since 2014 and is now responsible for about one quarter of the prices reported. Field officers compile much of the rest using hand-held devices to type in prices they read off supermarket shelves.

The move to scanner data was spearheaded by the work of my UNSW School of Economics colleague Professor Kevin Fox.

There is a prospect of it becoming more widespread as more and more purchases are made with debit and credit cards and with point-of-sale software on devices such as tablets at coffee shops.

And important

Whether or not we like what it says, the consumer price index is important and lies behind much of what we do.

A whole range of government payments and duties are indexed to it – these change when the consumer price index changes. Benefits such as Newstart and family payments are indexed as are excise duties such as those on petrol and beer.

Even the private sector relies on the consumer price index to adjust payments under contracts such as rental agreements or construction charges.

Collecting it is an enormous and painstaking exercise.

Governments of both stripes would do well to remember that when next they think of cutting the bureau’s budget.

Author: Richard Holden Professor of Economics and PLuS Alliance Fellow, UNSW

Broker groups’ misconduct revealed

The latest batches of documents released by the Royal Commission into Financial Services Misconduct included a litany of poor or illegal behaviour across the broker groups.  This included detailed incidents of falsifying documents and fraud, plus sexual harassment, offensive behaviour and homophobia based on 215 newly released documents from 94 groups. We can conclude this is way more than “just a few bad apples”.

This via Australian Broker.

While most, if not all, broker groups detailed incidents of falsifying documents and fraud, it has been revealed some of the behaviour at Aussie Home Loans included sexual harassment, offensive behaviour and homophobia.

The group has said it will continue to support reporting of such unacceptable behaviour as it to enforces a zero-tolerance policy.

When the Royal Commission into banking misconduct was first established, Commissioner Kenneth Hayne asked financial entities to provide information on misconduct or conduct falling below community standards over the last ten years.

While the incidents listed in the reports were to be the basis for many of the hearings during the Royal Commission, these 215 newly released documents from 94 groups paint a much broader picture.

Looking exclusively at submissions from broker groups, misconduct was listed alongside any action taken and subsequent outcome.

AFG submitted 12 items detailing incidents, which included brokers providing false documents, making administrative errors, breaching the privacy of clients, failing to comply with NCCP obligations and creating false approval letters.

Loan Market also made a submission which detailed 33 incidents of misconduct. Incidents included creating false documents, tampering with documentation, inappropriate use of social media, overstated consumer income and copying and pasting signatures.

Mortgage Choice has listed ten incidents including more than one case of falsifying signatures, providing false loan approval letters, misstating customer financial positions and falsifying documents. The broker group also listed three cases of failing to produce a Statement of Advice to customers.

Smartline listed incidents of altered valuation reports, failure to make reasonable enquiries about a customer’s financial circumstances and inaccurate information on loan applications.

The mortgage group also included an incident where a borrower’s credit card was allegedly fraudulently obtained and used, which at the time of submission was subject to a NSW police investigation.

It also detailed an “isolated incident” relating to theft from a customer and ended with the broker’s licence being revoked and the sale of their franchise.

Yellow Brick Road’s submission also included details of fraud and false documents. In one case a Vow Financial broker was accused of fraudulently gaining access to customer bank accounts and transferring funds.

Commonwealth Bank’s submission included details of behaviour at Aussie Home Loans. It includes details of “offensive or otherwise unprofessional behaviour” directed at employees and/or brokers.

Out of 182 total incidents, there were 29 listed as misconduct relating to false documents and/or declarations and/or misleading information.

There were 19 incidents listed in relation to NCCP breaches, including lack of reasonable care, failing to make the right enquiries and encouraging customers not to disclose the purpose of the loan.

The remaining incidents included, but were not limited, to:

  • Sexual harassment at a work event, and sexual harassment outside of work
  • Using Aussie’s IT system to send “emails containing objection material which could cause offense to a reasonable adult”
  • Accessing customer’s personal details
  • Numerous counts of unprofessional language and tone
  • Pretending to be the customer
  • Mutiple examples of ex-brokers using confidential information to contact former customers
  • Disclosing customer details to other parties
  • “Unprofessional conduct by making veiled threats to customer’s solicitor and allegedly impersonated someone else”
  • Customers experiencing homophobia
  • Derogatory and discriminatory comments
  • Alleged abuse of female in car park by a retail store broker and issue disclosed on Facebook
  • Attending a licenced venue “on a regular basis” and returning to work visibly drunk
  • Gaining access to an Aussie office after a work event, theft and assault
  • Inappropriate sexual language with fellow employee
  • Bullying by senior executives

A spokesperson from Aussie Home Loans said, “Media reports of submissions to the Royal Commission cited isolated incidents of unacceptable conduct involving staff and contractors over a ten year period.

“Aussie provided the Royal Commission a detailed and exhaustive table of incidents as a result of building a culture of actively encouraging and facilitating staff, contractors and customers to speak up and report unacceptable conduct.

“In each and every case of unacceptable conduct, Aussie took appropriate and swift disciplinary action, which included termination of employment and contractor agreements.

“Aussie will continue to actively encourage reporting of unacceptable conduct, to enforce its zero-tolerance policy for such conduct and to enhance its systems and process to prevent, detect and deter such conduct.”