‘Generation Rent’ and the ruinous rule of unfair and unjust laws

From The New Daily.

Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen gave a good speech on Tuesday, promising to super-size Labor’s planned banking royal commission.

Originally intended to flush out illegal and deceptive activity in the banks, a royal commission should, he says, spring clean their legal activities too because that’s where the real damage to the economy is occurring.

Actually, Labor doesn’t need a royal commission to address the problem Mr Bowen described – namely, the hodge-podge of regulations being used to deal with the housing-credit bubble. A bit of well-written legislation would do the job just fine.

He is right, however, that we have a problem.

The key regulators who influence bank behaviour – the Reserve Bank, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission – are discharging their duties admirably, but are still somehow allowing the banks to gobble up more and more of Australian life.

Australia’s growing private debt to GDP ratio, he points out, is second only to Switzerland’s, at 123 per cent.

Mr Bowen spoke about the need for banks to be “unquestionably strong”, complained about the “composition of the property market, investors versus owner-occupiers”, and repeated regulators’ concerns that household debt is making the economy less resilient.

Well that’s all true. But if he wants to sharpen his rhetoric, he’d should reframe those comments from the perspective of young Australians.

Intergenerational wipe-out

In the space of just 70 years Australians climbed a home ownership mountain, only to find themselves sliding down the other side.

After World War II, only half of private sector homes were owned, either with or without a mortgage, by their occupants.

That climbed rapidly to peak at 71.4 per cent in 1966 – a level that fluctuated a bit, but was essentially maintained until the turn of the millennium.

But as the housing-credit bubble inflated, and prices sky-rocketed, the home ownership rate started sliding – from 69.5 per cent in 2002, to 67 per cent at the 2011 census, and to 65.5 per cent last year.

This is a direct result of the debt bubble that Mr Bowen acknowledged in his speech, and which he rightly points out has been inflated by the property-investor tax breaks of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount.

But wait, it gets worse. It is the younger generations – new entrants to the housing market – where all the damage is being done.

Twenty- and thirty-somethings are either being locked out of the market forever or taking on budget-crushing mortgage repayments.

Some among those age groups may eventually receive large inheritances from their property-owning parents – assuming, that is, that today’s sky-high valuations do not tumble in the years ahead.

But for those that do not, one of two dismal economic futures awaits.

Firstly, the members of ‘Generation Rent’, on present settings, will face an under-funded retirement.

That’s because Australia’s superannuation system, and the complementary state pension, were calibrated in the early 1990s for a nation in which most people did not have to pay rent in retirement.

Secondly, the young Australians ‘lucky’ enough to secure huge mortgages will wave goodbye to a proportionally larger chunk of their household budget each month over the next 25 or 30 years, if they wish to actually pay off their homes.

Low interest rates, remember, only reduce the interest bill. The principal repayments not only stay the same in nominal terms, but in a low interest-rate environment they are ‘eroded’ more slowly by inflation.

Get to the root of the problem

So the problem, as Mr Bowen defines it, is the overlap and confusion of “ad hoc” attempts by regulators to head off disaster – particularly APRA’s attempts to slow mortgage lending.

But surely it’s better to remove the cause of those policy contortions than to unscramble the omelette.

As it happens, Labor last year pledged to reduce the wealth-redistributing and bubble-inflating tax incentives of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount.

That policy should go further, but at least it’s a good start.

So, yes, let’s have a royal commission into the illegal practices of the banks.

But as for ending the perfectly legal attack on the finances of young Australians, Labor only has to deliver what it’s already promised.

Understanding Banking from the Ground Up

From The St. Louis Fed On The Economy Blog.

Weak U.S. family balance sheets have driven more Americans to the “fringe” of the American banking system. But is this necessarily a bad thing?

The Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors recently released a shocking report showing that, if confronted with an unanticipated $400 expense, nearly half (44 percent) of Americans would have to sell something, borrow or simply not pay at all.1

Other surveys have been equally concerning:

This balance sheet fragility, especially illiquidity, is fueling the demand among Americans—and clearly, as the above data suggest, among middle-class Americans—for “alternative” financial services, including those from payday lenders, auto title lenders, check cashers and the like.

But should we be too critical of their financial choices? Is patronizing an alternative provider necessarily a poor or irrational choice? And do we ban payday lenders and the like because of annual percentage rates that are often in excess of 300 percent?

A Conversation with Lisa Servon on Unbanking

I wrestled with these questions following a recent St. Louis Fed event titled “The Banking and Unbanking of America”—featuring Lisa Servon, author of The Unbanking of America: How the New Middle Class Survives—and I think the answer to these questions is no.

Servon wondered: If these services are so bad, why have check-cashing transactions grown 30 percent between 1990 and 2010 while payday lending transactions tripled between 2000 and 2010?

According to Servon, it turns out that banks (with a growing number of encouraging exceptions) haven’t been serving these customers well, including charging more and higher fees for account opening, maintenance and overdrafts. Meanwhile, struggling consumers are turning to alternative providers (as well as to community development credit unions) because they value:

  • Greater transparency (with actual costs clearly displayed like signs in a fast-food restaurant)
  • Better service (including convenient hours, locations and friendly, multilingual staff)

What I really liked is that Servon—an East Coast, Ivy League academic—didn’t just arrive at these conclusions by only reading reports and talking to experts. She actually became a teller at both a payday lender in Oakland, Calif., and a check casher in the South Bronx, N.Y.

Mapping Financial Choices

I also like that several of my Community Development colleagues here at the St. Louis Fed have embraced this community-driven understanding of financial decision-making as well through a “system dynamics” research study, which maps the actual factors that influence the financial choices consumers make.

Like Servon’s work, the forthcoming version of this study will focus less on the narrow “banked/unbanked” framework and more on the broader, CFSI-inspired idea of “financial health.”

Other Areas to Address

Beyond adopting the financial health framework, Servon also suggests rethinking the government/banking relationship and supporting smart regulation so financial innovation or risk taking can thrive with some protections.

Most importantly, in my view, she recommends addressing the macro problems—for example, flat or declining real wages, less full-time and stable employment, and weaker unions—that underlie the demand for the immediate cash that alternative providers offer so well, albeit not so cheaply.

But it’s also true that weak balance sheets—the micro—contribute to the macro problem: Strapped consumers just don’t spend as much. So, we really must address both.

Notes and References

1 “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2016.” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 19, 2017.

2 Gutman, Aliza; Garon, Thea; Hogarth, Jeanne; and Schneider, Rachel. “Understanding and Improving Consumer Financial Health in America.” Center for Financial Services Innovation, March 24, 2015.

3 “The Precarious State of Family Balance Sheets.” The Pew Charitable Trusts, January 2015.

Author: By Ray Boshara, Senior Adviser and Director, Center for Household Financial Stability

MasterCard survives £14 billion class action but more could follow

From The Conversation.

Convenience often comes at a cost. As consumers, many of us are resigned to seeing a surcharge or “processing fee” on goods and services when we pay by credit or debit card. At present, it is lawful for businesses to charge consumers these fees although the amount should be limited to the actual cost to the retailer of the transaction.

Bank charges for processing card payments were capped in the UK in 2015, but many businesses have continued to charge consumers inflated fees to generate further profit. Even the government’s tax department routinely adds a surcharge of up to 2.4% to bills paid by card.

Now, the government has announced that charges for paying by debit or credit card will be outlawed completely from January 2018. This raises several questions, not least whether retailers will simply increase their prices to cover any shortfall. Many companies argue that fees are there to cover their transaction costs, which consist of an “interchange fee”, levied by the card issuer such as Visa or MasterCard (capped by law at 0.3%) and the “merchant fee”, charged by the bank for handling each payment. This is not capped but for large businesses it should not amount to more than about 0.3%.

It is also unclear how the ban will be policed. Local authority Trading Standards departments are tasked with dealing with complaints from buyers, but the widespread flouting of the current cap indicates that embattled officers are under-resourced to deal with the issue.

Class action rejected

Future charges are to be outlawed, but what about the millions in surplus fees paid by consumer buyers in the past? A recent attempt to secure £14 billion in compensation for UK consumers was recently rejected by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).

The new law covers all card companies. dean bertoncelj / Shutterstock.com

The trailblazing claim against MasterCard, initiated by Walter Merricks, who was head of the Financial Ombudsman Service from 1999-2009, was the first collective claim of its kind under new rules introduced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Previously, US-style class actions were not permitted under UK law and consumers affected by price fixing or anti-competitive behaviour had to either actively opt in as a named participant in a claim, or bring proceedings on their own behalf. In cases where the loss to the consumer was relatively small, the cost of bringing a claim meant that pursuing the trader was often not worthwhile.

Under collective proceedings rules, there is no need to register for a stake in the claim – anyone who fulfils the criteria is automatically joined in the action unless they expressly opt out. Under the new Consumer Rights Act, claims can be brought by a suitable representative of the group affected. In the Mastercard case it was Walter Merricks, on behalf of every consumer who purchased goods from a retailer in the UK between 1992 and 2008.

Had the claim succeeded, it would have given individual consumers the collective legal power to call a corporation to account. Ultimately, the claim faltered under the huge complexity of trying to quantify the total compensation payable, and then allocate it fairly among consumer claimants. Notwithstanding the CAT’s decision, the case has prompted fears from card companies that the UK will see a tsunami of similar claims, possibly resulting in vast payouts.

Onslaught of action

What happens next will be scrutinised closely by banks and other credit providers. The decision is the latest chapter in an onslaught of legal action against MasterCard dating back to 2007. The fees charged to retailers are determined in large part by interchange fees agreed between groups of banks and in 2007, MasterCard was subject to an investigation by the European Commission, which ruled that its interchange fees were anti-competitive and violated the EU Treaty.

MasterCard appealed the ruling but the European Court of Justice confirmed the decision in September 2014. Fees were subsequently capped at 0.3% of the transaction value for credit card payments and 0.2% for debit card payments.

In July 2016 MasterCard was ordered to pay substantial damages to the supermarket Sainsbury’s, after it successfully sued MasterCard over processing fees. While the court in this case acknowledged that electronic payment arrangements benefit both customers and retailers, it ultimately concluded that MasterCard’s charges were excessive and breached EU and UK competition law. This judgement potentially paves the way for a wave of further claims from retailers who were charged similar rates.

MasterCard is not the only lender affected. Visa was also investigated in 2007, but managed to avoid formal sanctions by agreeing voluntarily to reduce its fees and improve transparency around charging.

The British government’s move to scrap charges completely by January 2018 promises greater transparency over future prices paid by consumers. But, future class actions should not be ruled out. The recent rejection of Merricks’s case against MasterCard was down to the complexity of computing individual losses – if this issue is remedied then future claims could well succeed.

Author: Joanne Atkinson , Principal Lecturer, Law, University of Portsmouth

Cash Still In The Payment Mix

A research discussion paper from the RBA – “How Australians Pay: Evidence from the 2016 Consumer Payments Survey” –  provides further evidence of the migration to electronic and digital payment mechanisms, but also underscores that cash remains a critical payment mechanism for many, especially in the older age groups. Given the fast adoption of mobile payments, the 2016 data will already be out of date!

Using data recorded information on around 17 000 day-to-day payments made by over 1 500 participants during a week, the report shows that Australian consumers continued to switch from paper-based ways of making payments such as cash and cheques, towards digital payment methods (particularly debit and credit cards). Cards were the most frequently used means of payment in the 2016 survey, overtaking cash for the first time. Contactless ‘tap and go’ cards are an increasingly popular way of making payments, displacing cash for many lower-value transactions.

 

Despite these trends, cash still accounts for a material share of consumer payments and is intensively used by some segments of the population.

Payments using a mobile phone at a card terminal are a relatively new feature of the payments system and this technology was not widely used at the time of the survey. However, consumers are increasingly using their mobile phones to make online and person-to-person payments. Similarly, consumers are using automatic payments, such as direct debits, more frequently.

 

Open Banking May Catalyse Digital Disruption

Last week Treasurer Scott Morrison’s media release on the proposal to introduce an open banking regime in Australia was framed around the requirement for banks to be able and willing (with customer agreement) to share product and customer data with third parties.

The timing is interesting given the disruptive rise of FinTechs and the fact there are new entities emerging across the banking value chain. Until recently banks tended to regard their data as a strategic asset (for example not sharing default data) but with positive credit now in force, this is already changing. So this is a logical next step, and should be welcomed.

From our work whit a number of FinTechs we know that access to data is one of the barriers to success, alongside concerns about data security, and identity fraud. Opening the door to data sharing may be laudable, but there are significant technical issues to work through.

If open banking arrives, it would have the potential to increase competition, and perhaps put pressure on bank product pricing, as well as differentiated servicing; but we will see. It may open the door to more automated product switching, as well as better portfolio management and cross-selling. It certainly is another dimension in the wave of digital disruption already in play, which is ultimately being facilitated by the adoption of mobile technologies and devices.

The Turnbull Government has commissioned an independent review to recommend the best approach to implement an Open Banking regime in Australia, with the report due by the end of 2017.

Greater consumer access to their own banking data and data on banking products will allow consumers to seek out products that better suit their circumstances, saving them money and allowing them to better achieve their financial goals. It will also create further opportunities for innovative business models to drive greater competition in banking and contribute to productivity growth.

The review will be ably led by Mr Scott Farrell. Mr Farrell is a Partner at King & Wood Mallesons and has more than 20 years’ experience in financial markets and financial systems law. Mr Farrell has given many years of service to the public and private sector in advising on, and guiding, regulatory and legal change in the financial sector. He has intimate knowledge of the financial technology (FinTech) sector and is a member of the Government’s FinTech Advisory Group.

Mr Farrell will be supported by a secretariat located within Treasury and will draw upon technical expertise from the private sector as required. The review will consult broadly with the banking, consumer advocacy and FinTech sectors and other interested parties in developing the report and recommendations.

The Review terms of reference have been released and an Issues Paper will shortly be made available for interested parties to provide input to the review.

Purpose of the review

The Government will introduce an open banking regime in Australia under which customers will have greater access to and control over their banking data. Open banking will require banks to share product and customer data with customers and third parties with the consent of the customer.

Data sharing will increase price transparency and enable comparison services to accurately assess how much a product would cost a consumer based on their behaviour and recommend the most appropriate products for them.

Open banking will drive competition in financial services by changing the way Australians use, and benefit from, their data. This will deliver increased consumer choice and empower bank customers to seek out banking products that better suit their circumstances.

Terms of reference

  1. The review will make recommendations to the Treasurer on:1.1. The most appropriate model for the operation of open banking in the Australian context clearly setting out the advantages and disadvantages of different data-sharing models.1.2. A regulatory framework under which an open banking regime would operate and the necessary instruments (such as legislation) required to support and enforce a regime.1.3. An implementation framework (including roadmap and timeframe) and the ongoing role for the Government in implementing an open banking regime.
  2. The recommendations will include examination of:2.1. The scope of the banking data sets to be shared (and any existing or potential sector standards), the parties which will be required to share the data sets, and the parties to whom the data sets will be provided.2.2. Existing and potential technical data transfer mechanisms for sharing relevant data (and existing or potential sector standards) including customer consent mechanisms.2.3. The key issues and risks such as customer usability and trust, security of data, liability, privacy safeguard requirements arising from the adoption of potential data transfer mechanisms and the enforcement of customer rights in relation to data sharing.

    2.4. The costs of implementation of an open banking regime and the means by which costs may be imposed on industry including consideration of industry-funded models.

  3. The review will have regard to:3.1. The Productivity Commission’s final report on Data Availability and Use and any government response to that report.3.2. Best practice developments internationally and in other industry sectors.3.3. Competition, fairness, innovation, efficiency, regulatory compliance costs and consumer protection in the financial system.

Process

The review will consult broadly with representatives from the banking, consumer advocacy and financial technology (FinTech) sectors and other interested parties in developing the report and recommendations.

The review will report to the Treasurer by the end of 2017.

Bankwest Tweaks Mortgage Rates

From The Advisor.

In a note to brokers late on Friday, Bankwest announced that for customers with existing interest-only loans, the following changes will take effect in October 2017:

• 0.25 per cent p.a. increase for interest-only investor home loans; and
• 0.35 per cent p.a. increase for interest-only owner-occupier home loans.

Effective Tuesday, 25 July 2017, the following changes will apply to applications for new lending:

• 0.15 per cent p.a. reduction for new principal and interest investor lending on the Complete Variable and Premium Select Home Loans;
• 0.12 per cent p.a. reduction in the standard rate for principal and interest owner-occupier lending on the Premium Select Home Loan to match the existing acquisition special; and
• 0.05 per cent p.a. increase for new interest-only owner-occupier lending on the Complete Variable and Premium Select Home Loans.

Bankwest said that customers with existing interest-only lending will receive correspondence from the lender closer to the effective date, and that construction loans paying interest-only until fully drawn (IOUFD) will not be impacted by this change.

“Bankwest is mindful of its broader obligations as a responsible lender and aims to balance the needs of customers, shareholders and regulators when reviewing products and pricing,” the bank said.

“These changes are being made in line with regulatory guidance and customers can consider moving to our lower principal and interest rates so they pay less interest over the life of their home loan.”

Australian Banks’ Stricter Capital Requirements Are Credit Positive – Moody’s

From Moody’s

On 19 July, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced that it will raise the minimum common equity Tier 1 (CET1) ratio for banks. The stricter capital requirements will make the banking system more resilient to any weakening of credit conditions, a credit positive.

Australia’s four biggest banks, the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. (Aa3/Aa3 stable, a22), Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Aa3/Aa3 stable, a2), National Australia Bank Limited (Aa3/Aa3 stable, a2), and Westpac Banking Corporation (Aa3/Aa3 stable, a2), which use internal ratings based models for calculating risk-weighted assets, will be most affected. APRA increased the four banks’ minimum CET1 ratio 150 basis points to 9.5%, including a 1% charge for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs). Although the higher capital requirements will take effect in early 2021, APRA said that it expects banks to exceed the new requirement and have CET1 ratios of 10.5% by 1 January 2020 at the latest.

The minimum CET1 ratio for Macquarie Bank Limited (A2 stable, baa1), which also uses an internal ratings-based approach but is not a D-SIB, was similarly raised 150 basis points to 8.5%, effective 1 January 2020. For all the other banks, which use standardized models, the minimum CET1 ratio is 7.5%, a 50 basis point increase.

The new minimum CET1 ratio is an incremental increase from the banks’ current capital levels. The APRA has for some time indicated that it would tighten capital rules, and our Australian bank ratings fully reflect that possibility. To meet a CET1 target of 10.5%, the four big banks will need to raise their CET1 ratios between 40 and 90 basis points from their reported levels at March 2017 (see Exhibit 1). That translates into an aggregate capital shortfall of about AUD9.1 billion. However, the banks’ normalized annual internal capital generation is already around AUD6.5-AUD7.5 billion after dividend payments and dividend reinvestments. Also, in practice, they may need less additional capital because they have been actively reducing their risk-weighted assets by changing their business mixes.

Macquarie Bank’s CET1 ratio was 11.1% as of March 2017, well above its new 8.5% minimum. Smaller banks subject to a 7.5% minimum also mostly have CET1 ratios exceeding the requirement, so any capital shortage for them will be minimal.

The tighter capital requirement reflects the APRA’s concern about Australian banks’ reliance on foreign wholesale funding, which makes them vulnerable to sudden shifts in foreign investor sentiment. Australian banks issue around 70% of their long-term debt and 40% of their short-term debt to foreign investors (see Exhibit 2).
 The APRA has also flagged further increases in capital requirements in 2021. The regulator plans to increase the risk weights of certain assets, particularly for investor property loans and higher loan-to-value ratio loans. Although loss rates on mortgages remain low, housing loans make up 60% of Australian banks’ loan portfolios. Furthermore, a high and rising level of household debt has elevated risks within the household sector, making Australian banks’ credit quality more vulnerable to a shock. APRA also stated that its assessment of bank capital assumes that a framework for total loss-absorbing capacity will be introduced at a later date.

Global Growth IS Recovering – IMF

Latest estimates from the IMF suggest global growth is gaining momentum. But US growth estimates are down because of the slower growth agenda being prosecuted there thanks to the current political dynamics.

Overall, there is a more consistent pattern of upswing.

The recovery in global growth that we projected in April is on a firmer footing; there is now no question mark over the world economy’s gain in momentum.

As in our April forecast, the World Economic Outlook Update projects  3.5 percent growth in global output for this year and 3.6 percent for next.

The distribution of this growth around the world has changed, however: compared with last April’s projection, some economies are up but others are down, offsetting those improvements.

Notable compared with the not-too-distant past is the performance of the euro area, where we have raised our forecast. But we are also raising our projections for Japan, for China, and for emerging and developing Asia more generally. We also see notable improvements in emerging and developing Europe and Mexico.

Where are the offsets to this positive news on growth? From a global growth perspective, the most important downgrade is the United States. Over the next two years, U.S. growth should remain above its longer-run potential growth rate. But we have reduced our forecasts for both 2017 and 2018 to 2.1 percent because near-term U.S. fiscal policy looks less likely to be expansionary than we believed in April. This pace is still well above the lacklustre 2016 U.S. outcome of 1.6 percent growth. Our projection for the United Kingdom this year is also lowered, based on the economy’s tepid performance so far. The ultimate impact of Brexit on the United Kingdom remains unclear.

Overall, though, recent data point to the broadest synchronized upswing the world economy has experienced in the last decade. World trade growth has also picked up, with volumes projected to grow faster than global output in the next two years.

There do remain areas of weakness, however, among middle- and low-income countries, notably commodity exporters who continue to adjust to reduced terms of trade. Latin America still struggles with sub-par growth, and we have lowered projections for the region over the next two years. Growth this year in sub-Saharan Africa is projected to be higher than last year, but remains barely above the population growth rate, implying stagnating per capita incomes.

Risks

There are risks that the outcome could be better or worse than we now project. Near term, there is the possibility of even stronger growth in continental Europe, as political risks have diminished.

On the downside, however, many emerging and developing economies have been receiving capital inflows at favorable borrowing rates, possibly leading to risks of balance of payments reversals later. Strains could emerge if advanced economy central banks show an increasing preference for monetary tightening, as some have in recent months. Core inflation pressures remain low in advanced economies and measures of longer-term inflation expectations show no indications of upward drift beyond targets, so central banks should proceed cautiously based on incoming economic data, reducing the risk of a premature tightening in financial conditions.

Supportive policy has promoted China’s recent high growth rates, and we have upgraded our 2017 and 2018 forecasts for China, by 0.1 and 0.2 percentage point, respectively, to 6.7 and 6.4 percent. But higher growth is coming at the cost of continuing rapid credit expansion and the resulting financial stability risks. China’s recent moves to address nonperforming loans and to coordinate financial oversight therefore are welcome.

Finally, the threat of protectionist actions and responses remains salient in the near and medium terms, as do geopolitical risks.

The longer horizon

Despite the current improved outlook, longer-term growth forecasts remain subdued compared with historical levels, and tepid longer-term growth also carries risks.

In advanced economies, median real incomes have stagnated and inequality has risen over several decades. Even as unemployment is falling, wage growth still remains weak. Thus, continuing slow growth not only holds back the improvement of living standards, but also carries risks of exacerbating social tensions that have already pushed some electorates in the direction of more inward-looking economic policies. In emerging economies in contrast, despite generally higher inequality than in advanced economies, substantial income gains have accrued even to those low in the income distribution.

The current cyclical upswing offers policymakers an ideal opportunity to tackle some of the longer-term forces behind slower underlying growth. Suitable structural reforms can raise potential output in all countries, especially if supported by growth-friendly fiscal policies including productive infrastructure investment, provided there is room in the government budget. In addition, investment in people is critical—whether in basic education, job training, or reskilling programs. Such initiatives will both increase labor markets’ resilience to economic transformation and raise potential output. The same policy measures that can help economies adjust to globalization—as described in the recent report we co-authored with the World Bank and World Trade Organization—are more broadly necessary to meet the challenges of technology and automation.

Strengthening multilateral cooperation is another key to prosperity, in a range of areas including trade, financial stability policy, corporate taxation, climate, health, and famine relief. Where domestic developments have a strong international impact, policies based narrowly on national advantage are at best inefficient and at worst highly damaging to all.

Expect a Flurry of Mortgage Rate CUTS!

The round of mortgage rate repricing which we have been tracking for the past few weeks, with investor loan portfolios being strongly repriced, and owner occupied loans less impacted, has created a significant well of opportunity for banks to selectively offer attractor rates to principal and interest borrowers.

In addition, funding costs are now lower, and the yield curve is less strongly indicating future increases, thanks to changes in the US financial markets and news that the ECB will continue its bond buying programme.

So we expect to see a flurry of selective, targetted offers, aimed at acquiring new business and supporting loan portfolio growth.

ANZ for example is offering a 31 basis point drop for new two-year fixed residential investment loan for customers paying principal and interest (P&I), falling from 4.34 per cent per annum (p.a.) to 4.03 per cent p.a.

First time buyers may also benefit from keen rates, but only in some cases by asking for them.

Remember this will be for new loans. Existing borrowers will still be saddled with higher costs.

 

Auction Clearances Maintain Their Momentum – Again

From CoreLogic.

The combined capital city preliminary clearance rate increased to 74.8 per cent this week, up from a revised final clearance rate of 69.4 per cent last week, while auction volumes increased week-on-week. There were 1,712 properties taken to auction this week, up from 1,627 last week, and higher than this time last year, when 1,329 auctions were held and a clearance rate of 67.9 per cent was recorded.

Based on the preliminary collection, all but one of the capital cities saw the clearance rate increase week-on-week.  Melbourne’s auction market has continued to show some resilience to softer auction conditions, recording the highest preliminary clearance rate at 79.4 per cent, although this is likely to revise lower when the final auction results are released on the following Thursday.  While Melbourne’s clearance rate has remained comfortably above 70 per cent since July last year, final auction results show Sydney’s auction clearance rate has been tracking below 70 per cent over the past six weeks, so it will be interesting to see if the preliminary clearance of 74.9 per cent is again revised below the 70 per cent mark.