Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog – Page 622

Why investor-driven urban density is inevitably linked to disadvantage

The densification of Australian cities has been heralded as a boon for housing choice and diversity. The up-beat promotion of “the swing to urban living” by one of Australia’s leading developer lobby groups epitomises the rhetoric around this seismic shift in housing.

Glossy advertisements for luxury living in our city centres and suburbs adorn the property pages of our newspapers.

Brochures boast of breathtaking city views from uppers storeys and gush about amenity, lifestyle and “liveability” – often touting the benefits of adjacent public infrastructure investments (but please don’t mention “value sharing”).

Depictions of attractive younger people, occasionally clutching a smiling infant, are prominent as the image of all things new, urban and desirable.

Long gone are the days when the manifestations of property marketeers’ imaginations were restricted to images of low-density master-planned estates on the urban fringe. We hardly ever hear about these nowadays.

There’s truth in the claims that housing choice and diversity have indeed widened in the last few decades as a result. The statistics clearly show a much greater spread of dwelling options in our cities.

The rise and rise of the apartment block

Apartments now account for 28% of housing in Sydney and 15% in Melbourne. As the maps below show, most recent growth in apartment stock is clearly in and around the inner city. Yet even the more distant suburbs have had an increase in higher-density residential development.
Changes in the number of flats and apartments, 2011 to 2016, in Sydney (above) and Melbourne (below). Data: ABS Census 2011, 2016, Author provided
Data: ABS Census 2011, 2016, Author provided
For many, inner-city apartment living is clearly a preferred choice for the stage in their life when an upcoming, “vibrant” neighbourhood is attractive. High-density urban renewal has been a boon for hipsters and students alike.

But the issue of choice needs to be unpacked carefully. For many others, the “swing to urban living” is more of a necessity.

True, the surge in apartment building has put many properties onto the market to rent or buy that are clearly cheaper than houses in the same suburb. From that point of view, they have added to the affordability of these neighbourhoods.

However, affordable to whom is an open question. At A$850,000 and upwards for a standard two-bedder in Waterloo, South Sydney, and $500,000 or more in Melbourne’s Docklands for a similar property, these are not exactly a cheap option for anyone on a low income.

But other than in the prestige areas where higher-income downsizers and pied-à-terre owners can be enticed to buy in some comfort, much of what is being built is straightforward “investor grade product” – flats built to attract the burgeoning investment market.

It can be argued that the investor has always been a major target of apartment developers, even in the 1960s and 1970s when strata units became common, particularly in Sydney. But it is even more so today.

Despite the clamour to control overseas investors perceived to be flooding the market, the bulk of investors are home grown. We don’t need to rehearse the debates on the factors that have fuelled this splurge, but clearly the development industry has been savvy to the possibilities of this market.

In the last decade, backed by state planning authorities and politicians desperate to claim they have “solved” housing affordability by letting apartment building rip, developers have got involved on an unprecedented scale. The figures bear this out: in 2016, for the first time, Australia built more apartments than houses. The majority end up for rent.

Problematic products with too few protections

In the rush, we, the housing consumer, have been offered a motley range of new housing with a series of escalating problems. Leaving aside amateur management by owners’ bodies in charge of multi-million-dollar assets, problems of short-term holiday lettings and neighbour disputes, there are more serious concerns over build quality, defective materials and fire compliance.

The apartment market has been left wide open for poor-quality outcomes by building industry deregulation. This includes:

moves toward complying development approval for high-rise;

self-certification of building components;

complex design and non-traditional building methods;

relaxation of defect rectification requirements;

long chains of sub-contractors;

poor oversight by local planners and authorities; and

cheap or non-compliant fittings and finishes.

Plus there’s the rush to get buildings up and sold off. Not to mention fly-by-night “phoenix” developers who vanish as soon as the last flat is occupied, never to be found when the defects bills come in.

The lack of consumer protection in this market is astounding. The average toaster comes with more consumer protection – at least you can get your money back if the product fails.

‘Vertical slums’ in the making

These chickens will surely come home to roost in the lower end of the market, which will never attract the wealthy empty-nesters or cashed-up young professionals with the resources to ensure quality outcomes.

In Melbourne, space and design standards, including windowless bedrooms, have come under critical scrutiny, as has site cramming. Tall apartment blocks stand cheek-by-jowl in overdeveloped inner-city precincts.

At least New South Wales has State Environmental Planning Policy 65, which regulates space and amenity standards, and the BASIX environmental standard to prevent the more egregious practices.

But people are most likely to confront the problems of density in the many thousands of new units adorning precincts around suburban rail stations and town centres. These have been built under the uncertain logic of “transport-orientated development”, often replacing light industrial or secondary commercial development.

These developments attract a mixed community of lower-income renters. Many are recently arrived immigrants and marginal home buyers – often first-timers. Many have young children, as these units are the only option for young families to buy or rent in otherwise unaffordable markets. Overall, though, renters predominate.

What will be the trajectory of these blocks, once the gloss wears off and those who can move on do so? You only have to look at the previous generation of suburban walk-up blocks in these areas to find the answer.

Far from bastions of gentrification, the large multi-unit buildings in less prestigious locations will drift inexorably into the lower reaches of the private rental market.

Town centres like Liverpool, Fairfield, Auburn, Bankstown and Blacktown in Sydney point the way. The cracks in the density juggernaut are already showing in many of the more recently built blocks in these areas – literally, in many cases.

This inexorable logic of the market will create suburban concentrations of lower-income households on a scale hitherto experienced only in the legacy inner-city high-rise public housing estates.

With the latter being systematically cleared away, the formation of vertical slums of the future owned by the massed ranks of unaccountable, profit-driven investor landlords is a racing certainty. The consequences are all too easy to imagine.

The call for greater regulation of apartment, planning, design and construction is being heard in some quarters. The 2015 NSW Independent Review of the Building Professionals Act highlights these concerns.

But don’t hold your breath for rapid reform. No-one wants to kill the goose that’s laying so many golden eggs for the development industry and government alike – especially in inflated stamp-duty receipts.

The market has a habit of self-regulating on supply. Evidence of a marked downturn in apartment building is a clear sign of that. But don’t expect the market to self-regulate on quality, at least with the current highly fragmented, confusing (not least to builders and bureaucrats), under-resourced and largely unpoliced regulatory system.

The legacy of this entirely avoidable crisis is completely predictable, but will be for future generations to pick up

Author: Bill Randolph, Director, City Futures – Faculty Leadership, City Futures Research Centre, Urban Analytics and City Data, Infrastructure in the Built Environment, UNSW

SA to face High Court challenge over bank tax

From The ABA.

Australia’s major banks have resolved to mount a challenge to the SA bank tax if it is legislated, the Australian Bankers’ Association announced today.

“The South Australian Government will face a High Court challenge if it introduces its proposed bank tax,” ABA Chief Executive Anna Bligh said.

“South Australia is a state that needs to create more jobs and encourage businesses to invest, not introduce new taxes,” she said.

Recent polls of more than 2000 voters and 400 business owners in South Australia showed widespread opposition to the tax and concern about its impact on jobs.

“Banks are campaigning against the tax because it is not in the interests of South Australians, and they are prepared to fight it in court,” Ms Bligh said.

“Other states will also face a Constitutional challenge in the High Court if they propose to single out banks for new taxes.

“There is no justification for new taxes on Australia’s major banks. Banks are already the nation’s largest taxpayers, contributing $14 billion in taxes last year.

“On top of that, banks paid $26 billion in dividends to shareholders and superannuation funds in 2016.

“That’s a benefit to almost every working Australian and new taxes on banks will erode this benefit,” she said.

ABC Four Corners Does Mortgage Stress

In 2017 ABC Four Corners looked at the Australian housing market, and discussed the pressure on households, even at current low interest rates thanks to rising costs of living, flat wages and the risk of rising mortgage rates.

They used data from Digital Finance Analytics household surveys to create an interactive map looking at mortgage stress across the country.

You can read more about how we calculate stress in our definitive guide, or watch our video discussing the latest analysis.

The underlying mortgage data is available in our core market model.

A quick reminder, the core market model ingests data from our surveys, focus groups and other private data, as well as information from various public sources.

The core model, working off a rolling sample of 52,000 household records enables us to analyse many aspects of the market. We have clients who take a range of outputs from the model.

In this video we walk through some of the key dimensions in the model, including segmentation, mortgage profiles and locations.

Note the data is for demonstration purposes only.

Preliminary Clearance Rate Increases to 71.7%, While Auction Volumes Remain Steady

From CoreLogic.

This week across the combined capital cities, the preliminary auction clearance rate rose to 71.7 per cent, up from last week when the final clearance rate fell to 67.5 per cent. There were 2,041 capital city auctions this week, virtually unchanged from last week’s 2,040 auctions as well as being higher than the 1,795 auctions held one year ago.

Volumes continue to track higher than what was seen over the corresponding July-August period last year. Across the two largest markets, Melbourne’s preliminary clearance rate rose this week (77.7 per cent), after last week’s final results saw a weakening in the rate of clearance, falling below 70 per cent for the first time since July 16 (69.8 per cent), while Sydney’s clearance rate also improved up to 70.8 per cent this week, however volumes were lower week-on-week in Sydney, while Melbourne held more auctions this week than last.

Westpac Q3 Update – Capital Strong, But Mortgage Risks Higher

Westpac released their Q3 Capital update today. The CET1 ratio was 10% at 30 June 2017, and equivalent to 15.3% on a comparable international basis. This is higher than expected helped by strong dividend reinvestment. They said they would provide further guidance on their preferred CET1 range (8.75%-9.25%) once APRA finalises its capital adequacy framework review.

The Net table funding ratio was 108% and the liquidity coverage ratio was 128%. The bank is well placed on these key ratios.

Stressed exposures TCE decreased by 4 basis points to 1.10%. Most sectors, including commercial property, mining and New Zealand dairy improved.

Unsecured delinquencies rose in the quarter, up 12 basis points to 1.75% mostly due to APRA hardship reporting changes. Changes in the reporting of hardship have had an impact on the level of reported delinquencies, with mortgage 90+ day up 16 basis points and unsecured consumer lending the change lifted 90+ day by 49 basis points. Cyclone Debbie caused a further rise.

30+ day delinquencies were at 138 basis points, compared with 139 in March, and 130 in Sept 16. 90+ delinquencies were 69 basis points, compared with 67 in March. The number of properties in possession rose from 382 to 422, mainly due to a rise in WA and QLD. The WA trend is visible, thanks to weaker economic conditions. Actual losses for the 9 months was a low $57 million.

Westpac provided further details of the changes in their mortgage book, thanks to the regulatory intervention on IO loans. IO loans are at least 50 basis points higher than the equivalent P&I loan. Investment loans are at least 47 basis points higher than the equivalent OO loan.

They have imposed a maximum LVR of 80% for all new IO loans (including limit increases, term extensions and switches. They are no longer accepting external refinances from other financial institutions for OO IO. There are no fees to switch from IO to P&I.

The say the flow of IO lending was 44% in 3Q17, with applications 36% of flows (down from 52% and 47% in 2Q17). Despite seeing settlements above 30% IO, currently, they say they should be below 30% by 4Q17 – September 17.

The 30% IO cap incorporates all new IO loans, including bridging finance, construction loans, lines of credit as well as limit increases on existing loans. The IO cap excludes flows from switching between repayment types, such as IO to P&I or from P&I to IO and also excludes term extensions of IO terms within product maximums (5 years for IO OO and 10 years for investor loans).

They also described their mortgage warehouse, with Westpac providing funding for over 20 Australian mortgage originators (both ADI and non-ADI). The bank’s warehouse limits have been stable at around $10bn, but asset balances have been more variable.

Mortgages and debt: How lending culture is leaving Australians vulnerable

From ABC News.

A decade of housing price rises, low interest rates and relatively easy credit has left Australians carrying the second highest level of household debt in the world.

And despite efforts to tighten lending and to address problems in the lending culture, the ABC’s Four Corners program has learnt bank staff and mortgage brokers are still required to meet tough lending targets and some staff are threatened with dismissal if they do not meet the banks’ requirement to sign up more mortgages.

The problems in the lending culture were acknowledged by the banks themselves earlier this year in a review conducted by the former public service chief, Stephen Sedgwick.

Incentive payments and lending targets are still a primary motivator for bank staff.

Internal performance expectations for Westpac bank lenders, obtained by Four Corners, include targets of six-to-nine home-finance requests a week and between two and three home-loan drawdowns a week.

All the big banks have performance targets.

ANZ chief concedes need for further reform

Most bank CEOs, including Westpac, were unavailable for interview but ANZ chief Shayne Elliott did agree to talk to Four Corners.

Mr Elliott said changes had been made and not all the targets were simply sales targets.

“The targets are small in relation to their overall income,” he said.

Mr Elliott said, following the Sedgewick review, 70 per cent of ANZ’s targets were weighted towards good customer outcomes and customer satisfaction.

“[The targets are] not all about sales, not about the number of mortgages,” he said.

Banking regulators have also moved to tighten lending, forcing banks to make investor loans in particular harder to get — but bank staff told Four Corners they still had to meet tough performance targets.

Four Corners has obtained letters written to lenders by bank branch managers at NAB and Bankwest — owned by the Commonwealth Bank.

The letters warned lenders who had not met their targets that their positions were under review, and both canvassed the possibility of termination.

Mr Elliot conceded there was room for further reform in the industry.

“I think, in terms of our own staff, there will always be room for further improvement,” he said.

But he said there also needed to be a greater focus on the incentives driving the mortgage brokerage industry.

“We’re accountable for the lending, but [for] future reform we need to look at the way that the broking industry is also compensated,” he said.

Some brokers agree.

Philip Dempsey, a former mortgage broker, left the industry after growing increasingly uncomfortable with the commission-only payment system.

“Brokers are under extreme pressure — most of them don’t have a base salary,” he said.

Mr Dempsey said most brokers also had lending targets they had to meet — some as high as $3 million a month.

He said if the targets were not met, the brokers were forced out of the industry.

“There have been people in the industry who have been lending clients too much money, encouraging them to borrow more than what they can comfortably afford,” he said.

A ‘perfect storm’ of issues

Australian banks now hold at least 60 per cent of their loan assets directly to housing.

Concern is growing among some economists and former bankers about the impact of any housing downturn on the banks and on the wider Australian economy.

   Photo: Martin North said he had never before seen what he called a "perfect storm" of issues coming together. (ABC News)

Finance data analyst Martin North conducts a continuous survey of individual household debt and mortgage stress.

He said he had never before seen what he called a “perfect storm” of issues coming together.

“We’ve got very high household debt. We’ve got very high house prices. We’ve got households in some degree of difficulty already,” he said.

“You only need a small consequential change, a small increase in the cost of fuel and stuff, to be able to actually really create that pain point.

“There are a good number of households who are really up against it now.

“It’s a house of cards, I think. It doesn’t take much to see how it could actually go pretty bad.”

Another economist who has raised the alarm is former banker Satiyajit Das.

He said the 60 per cent exposure to mortgage debt in Australia’s banks was “extremely high”.

That figure “is at least 20 per cent higher than Norway, and also higher than Canada, which is a very comparable economy to Australia”, he said.

Australia’s feverish housing market has contributed but Mr Das said other countries that had experienced rapid house price rises did not have the same potentially dangerous exposure.

“One of the biggest housing bubbles in the world is Hong Kong, but the Hong Kong banks have only got exposure to the housing market of around 15 per cent,” he said.

Exposure to housing debt at Australian levels, Mr Das said, would leave banks more vulnerable in the case of any housing downturn.

“If there is a downturn then obviously the losses will build up quite quickly,” he said.

‘Massive affordability problem’ will exacerbate downturn

Gerard Minack, the former head of developed market strategy at Morgan Stanley, said Australia had been led down this path by current tax arrangements and lenders who had been increasingly willing to leverage up borrowers.

This, he said, had created “a massive affordability problem” that will exacerbate the pain associated with any downturn.

Australia now has a household-debt-to-income ratio of 190 per cent.

“For every $1 of household income, there’s [nearly] $2 of debt,” Mr Minack said.

“I can’t think of a single economy that’s had a downturn with that much debt where it’s not been a deep downturn.”

Mr Elliot said ANZ was comfortable with its current loan exposure.

“It is a healthy mix at about 60 per cent, ” he said.

“The reality is that housing loans are pretty good because they’re quite diverse in terms of lots of really small loans across the country.”

Mr Elliot said the impact of a downturn on the bank would depend on its nature.

“It’s something we look at incredibly seriously because it’s in our best interest to make sure that our risk is well managed,” he said.

This is why apartment living is different for the poor

From The Conversation.

There’s been a lot of talk about apartment living of late. Whether it’s millennials who can’t afford to buy a house, downsizers making a lifestyle change, owner-occupiers struggling to get defective buildings fixed, or foreign investors buying into new development, there’s no shortage of opinions and interest.

Except for one group: lower-income and vulnerable residents.

In Greater Sydney, the latest census data show that almost one in five households (17%) living in apartments and townhouses have weekly household incomes of less than A$649.

Among this group the largest sub-group (36%) live in private rental housing. That’s more than 72,000 households living on $649 or less per week in a housing market where average weekly rents for apartments are $550.

Our research for Shelter NSW identifies multiple challenges such households face.

Why does this matter?

It matters because some things about apartment and townhouse living are fundamentally different to living in a house. These differences have particular impacts on lower-income and vulnerable people living in higher-density housing.

The significant differences include:

You live closer to your neighbours, so it’s more likely you’ll see, hear or meet them.

You share services and spaces with neighbours, from gardens to laundries to lifts.

You have to co-operate with other residents and owners to manage and pay for building operation and upkeep.

If you live in a private apartment building then the fact that a large proportion of apartments are sold to investors and rented out will likely have three key impacts on you:

Developers often cater for investors when designing new apartment buildings, so you will likely find a limited variation in apartment designs and sizes available.

Resident turnover in your building may be high, as private renters move more frequently.

Tensions between owner-occupiers and investor-owners may result in disagreements and disputes over budgeting and maintenance.

While these unique aspects of higher-density living can be tricky for anyone, they present particular challenges for lower-income and vulnerable residents. They tend to have less choice about their living arrangements, so they can’t up and move to better-designed, constructed and managed properties if things aren’t working out.

Building flaws affects some residents in particular

Poor building quality is one of the major issues in high-density development in Australia. The problems relate to design, defects and maintenance.

The design issues include noise disturbances as a result of poor design, inadequate solar access and cross ventilation, the availability and flexibility of shared spaces, and safety and security considerations.

Another issue is design that fails to help meet the needs of particular groups (such as people with a disability, and families with children).

Beyond design, the construction quality of higher-density developments is a major issue in Australia. Key concerns include the quantity and severity of building defects, as well as the difficulties owners face having defects fixed.

Among the problems are quality of workmanship, management of construction, private certification, limited warranties and the often-prohibitive cost of legal action.

As with poor design, lower-income households are particularly susceptible to construction issues. This is because there are more incentives to cut corners when constructing more affordable housing. Examples include rushing jobs, hiring cheaper but less experienced tradespeople, or using substandard materials.

Once residents move in, negotiating to fix defects is particularly difficult for private renters, as they typically must go through the real estate agent or landlord. This means renters may be stuck with unsatisfactory living conditions.

Lower-income renters are also likely to be over-represented in poorly maintained buildings, as these are usually cheaper to rent. Compared to a detached house, maintenance in higher-density properties is complicated by the complexity of the buildings themselves and the governance structures.

As a result, required maintenance work is often not carried out, or is reactive rather than proactive. This is especially true in buildings occupied by lower-income renters with no direct recourse to the strata committee. They often cannot afford to move and may fear retaliatory rent increases if they report maintenance issues.

Social relations can be challenging

Neighbour disputes happen everywhere, but evidence suggests disputes are more common in areas with more lower-income and vulnerable residents and with more apartments.

Common causes of neighbour conflict in higher-density housing reflect different expectations about noise levels, parking practices, or spending on maintenance and improvements.

Neighbour disputes can have significant impacts on health. This potentially counteracts the health benefits associated with the walkable nature of many higher-density neighbourhoods.
When disputes arise, the number of stakeholders involved complicates efforts to find a resolution. They might include renters, resident owners, investor owners, building managers, strata managers and strata committee members.

Research with strata residents in New South Wales shows residents find formal dispute resolution mechanisms complex and slow. Most disputes are resolved informally.

Lower-income residents, and renters in particular, are likely to have less influence over the outcomes of such processes.

Fostering positive neighbour relations can be more difficult where resident turnover is high, such as in buildings dominated by private renters. It is also more difficult in poorly designed buildings without quality shared spaces.

New norm promotes inequity

Apartment living is the new norm in Australia. As the nursery rhyme says, when it’s good it’s very, very good, but when it’s bad it’s horrid. If these homes are poorly designed, poorly built, poorly maintained or poorly managed, they are poor places to live.

The market-led housing model that underpins Australia’s compact city policies has meant that people with less money get a poorer product. Few planners or politicians have adequately acknowledged these inequities.

Authors: Hazel Easthope, Senior Research Fellow, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW; Laura Crommelin, Research Associate, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW; Laurence Troy, Research Fellow, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW

ISA accuses banks of dodging FOFA

From InvestorDaily.

The industry super lobby has accused the major banks of attempting to evade the FOFA regulation within their superannuation products.

Industry Super Australia (ISA) recently posted a submission to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into the efficiency and competitiveness of Australia’s superannuation system.

ISA called for a crackdown on big banks and other for-profit entities who, it said, have been allowed to exploit superannuation fund members in the name of increasing sales.

The lobby group said the current superannuation system is like FOFA – where for-profit companies like the big four banks have been able to circumnavigate or “work around” legislation and exploit consumers for increased sales and insurance commissions.

“From inception, FOFA has been subject to substantial lobbying efforts that seek to weaken it, and for-profit entities have immediately sought to ‘work around’ and adapt to FOFA in a way that maintains as much of their lucrative businesses as possible,” ISA said in the submission.

“For so long as the superannuation system allows participation by entities that have a strong culture of prioritising themselves rather than serving others, this will happen. The inquiry’s proposed default [superannuation] models will certainly be subject to the same dynamic.”

ISA pointed to exemptions in FOFA which currently “allow bank staff to earn volume-related bonus for selling superannuation under general advice”.

FOFA also “allows the payment of commissions on individual life and income protection insurance on policies paid for out of choice superannuation products which provides strong financial incentives for advisers to switch members out of default superannuation products,” ISA said.

ISA pointed to research from the Roy Morgan Superannuation and Wealth Management in Australia 2011 and 2015 reports which showed the big banks shifting away from selling products via financial advisers and an increase in direct sales to consumers instead.

“This activity has almost doubled across the four major banking groups from 10 per cent in the 2011 Report, compared to 19 per cent for the three years to December 2015,” ISA said.

“[This takes] advantage of the lower levels of consumer protection outside personal advice to aggressively sell super directly.”

ISA said regulation and further competition are not the answers for cracking down on misconduct from for-profit entities in the superannuation sector.

“Regulation alone has never been enough to ensure good behaviour. Regulation is particularly unreliable in relation to the finance sector because that sector is especially vigorous in its efforts to influence policy makers,” ISA said.

There is a concern that “each of the inquiry’s proposals seeks to remove superannuation from the industrial system, and envisions private sector, for-profit financial institutions bidding for and winning pools of default superannuation members,” the submission said.

“Such an outcome will deliver to the for-profit part of the super system a ready-made, government-sanctioned, and generally disengaged customer base at a very low acquisition cost.”

Instead there needs to be a focus on culture and values within organisations ISA said.

“The reason why some funds tend to consistently perform well, and prioritise members, is an amalgam of culture, values, institutional objectives, and governance.”

Auction Results 19 Aug 2017

Domain has released the preliminary auction clearance results for today. Melbourne looks like it is leading the way at 78.3% clearance, ahead of Sydney. Still seems to be momentum in the main centres.

Brisbane achieved 50% clearance on 100 scheduled auctions, Adelaide 67% on 67 scheduled, and Canberra 74% of 37 scheduled auctions.