Household Finances – Page 32 – Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog

RBA Charts Tell A Tale Of Household Woe

The latest RBA chart pack, a distillation of data to the end of the year, contains a few gems, which underscore some of the tensions in the consumer sector.

First, relative the the ultra-low cash rate, actual mortgage rates are rising – no surprise given the rise in mortgage stress we are registering.

Next, home loan approvals are on the slide – expect more of this as tighter underwriting standards bite, and many interest only borrowers are forced to switch to higher cost interest and principal loans.

Home price indices are trending lower (but still net positive growth overall at the moment). Expect more falls in the months ahead.

Household debt continues higher. Now double disposable income, and we have some of the most highly in debt households in the world. Lending growth is still three times income, so this is likely to continue higher.

All this is bearing down on household consumption as real income growth stalls. The savings ratio is falling, as households tap these to prop up their finances, OK in the short term, but unsustainable longer term.

More Evidence of Poor Mortgage Lending Practice

The Australian Financial Review is reporting that New ‘liar loans’ data reveal borrowers more stretched than some lenders suspect.

One in five property borrowers are exaggerating their income and nearly half understating their spending, triggering new concerns about underwriting standards and vulnerability to sharp economic corrections, according to new analysis of loan applications by online property lender Tic:Toc Home Loans.

The number of ‘liar loans’ exceeds original estimates by investment bank UBS that last year found about 30 per cent of home loans, or $500 billion worth of loans could be affected.

Tic:Toc Home Loans’ founder and chief executive, Anthony Baum, said loan applications are representative of larger lenders in terms of location, borrower and loan size, which range from about $60,000 to $1.3 million.

Mr Baum, a senior banker for nearly 30 years, said in many cases applicants did not have to over-state their income for the required loan.

“Our portfolio looks like other organisations,” he said.

Analysis of their applications reveals about 20 per cent overstate their income, typically by about 30 per cent, and 50 per cent state their expenses are lower than the Household Expenditure Measure, also by about 30 per cent.

Property market experts claim the latest analysis, although based on a smaller sample than UBS’s survey, are credible and consistent with independent analysis of the lending standards.

“They do not surprise me,” said Richard Holden, professor economics at University of NSW Business School, who argues the potential problems are compounded by more than one-in-three loans being interest only.

Martin North, principal of Digital Finance Analytics, an independent consultancy, also backed the latest ‘liar loan’ numbers.

Mr North said standards had slipped because of lenders’ readiness to “jump over backwards” to increase business and commission incentives for mortgage brokers rewarding bigger loans.

“Not all lenders are the same but these numbers do not surprise me at all,” he said.

Mr North said there was strong evidence that salaries are overstated by between 15 and 20 per cent by borrowers using a range of tactics, such as over-stating bonuses or, for variable income earners, using peak rather than average income.

Household Financial Confidence Trudges South In December

The latest edition of the Digital Finance Analytics Household Financial Security Confidence Index, to December 2017 shows another fall, down from 96.1 last month to 95.7 this time, and remains below the neutral measure of 100.

The trend continues to drift south as flat incomes, big debt and now falling home prices all impact.

Analysis of households by their property owning status reveals that property investors are in particular turning sour, as flat net rental incomes, and rising interest rates hit many, at a time when property capital growth is stalling. Owner occupied households are faring a little better, thanks to a range of ultra cheap mortgage rates on offer at the moment, but they are also concerned about price momentum. Those without property interests remain the least confident, as the costs of renting outstrip income growth, and more are slipping into rental stress.

Looking across the states, they all slipped a little, with NSW now well behind VIC (we think the Victorian market is about 6 months behind Sydney, so will drift lower ahead). WA has not improved this time, suggesting that those talking up the market in the west may be over optimistic.

Across the age groups, young households are most concerned about their financial position, but every age group shows a small fall this month – perhaps thanks to the Christmas binge (though we think credit card debt will not rise that much this year) and retail stats may be lower than expected.

Looking in detail at the scorecard, which shows the elements which drive the index; job security is pretty stable, but savings are being raided by many to support their finances, while rates on bank deposits continue to drift lower. Households are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the level of debt they hold (they should at a ratio of 2:1, debt to income). Income continues to fall in real terms and costs of living are rising (child care costs and rising fuel costs are concerning many). We also see a slide in net worth, as home prices, especially in the Sydney region decline. This despite high stock market prices at the moment.

We cannot see any circuit breakers in the mix ahead, so we expect the falling trend to continue into autumn.

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

We will update the results again next month.

The Shape of 2018 – The Property Imperative Weekly 30th Dec 2017

In the final edition of the Property Imperative Weekly for 2017, we look ahead to 2018 and discuss the future trajectory of the property market, the shape of the mortgage industry, the evolution of banking and the likely state of household finances.

Watch the video, or read the transcript.

We start with the state of household finances. The latest data from the RBA shows that the ratio of debt to income deteriorated again (no surprise given the 6%+ growth in mortgage debt, and the ~2% income growth). The ratio of total debt to income is now an astronomical 199.7, and housing debt 137.5. Both are at all-time records, and underscores the deep problem we have with high debt.

We think that households will remain under significant debt pressure next year, and the latest data shows that mortgage lending is still growing at 3 times income growth. We doubt that incomes will rise any time soon, and so 2018 will be a year of rising debt, and as a result, more households will get into difficulty and mortgage stress will continue to climb. We think Treasury forecasts of rising household incomes are overblown. On the other hand, the costs of living will rise fast.

As a result, two things will happen. The first is that mortgage default rates are likely to rise (at current rock bottom interest rates, defaults should be lower), and if rates rise then default rates will climb further. The second outcome is that households will spend less and hunker down. As the Fed showed this week, the US economy is highly dependent on continued household spending to sustain economic growth – and the same is true here. We think many households will hold back on consumption, spending less on discretionary items and luxuries, and so this will be a brake on economic activity. This will have a strong negative influence on future economic growth, which we already saw throughout the Christmas shopping season.

Mortgage interest rates are likely to rise as international markets follow the US higher, lifting bank funding costs. This is separate from any change to the cash rate. This year the RBA was able to sit on its hands as the banks did their rate rises for them. We hold the view that the cash rate will remain stuck it its current rut for the next few months, because the regulators are acutely aware of the impact on households if they were to lift. They have little left in the tank if economic indicators weaken, and the bias will be upward, later in the year.

Competition for new loans will be strong, as banks need mortgages to support their shareholder returns. The latest credit data from the RBA showed that total mortgages are now at a record $1.71 trillion, and investor lending has fallen to an annual rate of 6.5%, compared with owner occupied lending at 6.3%, so total housing lending grew at 6.4%. Business lending is lower, at 4.7% and personal lending down 1.2%.

But APRA’s data shows that banks are writing less new business, so total Owner Occupied Balances are $1.041 trillion, up 0.56% in the month (so still well above income growth), while Investment Loans reached $551 billion, up 0.1%. So overall portfolio growth is now at 0.4%, and continues to slow. In fact, comparing the RBA and APRA figures we see the non-bank sector is taking up the slack, and of course they do not have the current regulatory constraints. The portfolio movements of major lenders show significant variation, with ANZ growing share the most, whilst CBA shrunk their portfolio a little. Westpac and NAB grew their investment loans more than the others.

We think there will be desperate attempts to attract new borrowers, with deeply discounted rates, yet at the same time mortgage underwriting standards will continue to tighten. We already see the impact of this in our most recent surveys. The analysis of our December 2017 results shows some significant shifts in sentiment – in summary:

First, obtaining finance for a mortgage is getting harder – this is especially the case for some property investors, as well as those seeking to buy for the first time; and those seeking to trade up. Clearly the tightening of lending standards is having a dampening effect. As a result, demand for mortgage finance looks set to ease as we go into 2018 and mortgage growth rates therefore will slide below 6%.
Next, overall expectations of future price gains have moderated significantly, and property investors are now less expectant of future capital growth in particular. This is significant, as the main driver for investors now is simply access to tax breaks. As a result, we expect home prices to drift lower as demand weakens.
Mortgage rates have moved deferentially for different segments, with first time buyers and low LVR refinance households getting good deals, while investors are paying significantly more. This is causing the market to rotate away from property investors.
Net rental returns are narrowing, so more investors are underwater, pre-tax. So the question becomes, at what point will they decide to exit the market?

We see a falling expectation of home price rises in the next 12 months, across all the DFA household segments. Property Investors are clearly re-calibrating their views, and this could have a profound impact on the market. We see a significant slide in the proportion of property investors and portfolio investors who are looking to borrow more. First time buyers remain the most committed to saving for a deposit, helped by new first owner grants, while those who desire to buy, but cannot are saving less. Those seeking to Trade Up are most positive of future capital growth. Foreign buyers will be less active in 2018.

So our view is that demand for property will ease, and the volume of sales will slide through 2018. As a result, the recent price falls will likely continue, and indeed may accelerate. We will be watching for the second order impacts as investors decide to cut their losses and sell, creating more downward pressure. Remember the Bank of England suggested that in a down turn, Investment Property owners are four times more likely to exit compared with owner occupied borrowers.

So risks in the sector will grow, and bank losses may increase.

More broadly, banks will remain in the cross-hairs though 2018 as the Royal Commission picks over results from their notice requiring banks, insurance companies and superannuation funds to detail all cases of misconduct from 2008 onwards. We expect more issues will surface. The new banking code which was floated before Christmas is not bad, but is really still setting a low bar and contains elements which most customers would already expect to see. This is not some radical new plan to improve customer experience, rather more recognition of the gap between bank behaviour and customer expectation. And it does not HAVE to be implemented by the banks anyway.

There is much more work to do. For example, how about proactive suggestions to switch to lower rate loans and better rates on deposits? What about the preservation of branch and ATM access? What about the full disclosure of all fees relating to potential loans? And SME’s continue to get a raw deal thanks to lending policy and bank practice (despite the hype).

Then the biggie is mortgage lending policy, where banks current underwriting standards are set to protect the bank from potential loss, rather than customers from over-committing.

We will get to hear about the approach to Open Banking, the Productivity Commission on vertical integration and the ACCC on mortgage pricing, as well as the outcomes from a range of court cases involving poor banking behaviour. APRA will also discuss mortgage risk weights. So 2018 looks like adding more pressure on the banks.

So in summary, we think we will see more of the same, with pressure on households, pressure on banks, and a sliding housing market. Despite this, credit is growing at dangerous levels and regulators will need to tighten further. We are not sure they will, but then the current issues we face have been created by years of poor policy.

Households can help to manage their financials by building a budget to identify their commitments and cash flows. Prospective mortgage borrowers should run their own numbers at 3% above current rates, and not rely on the banks assessment of their ability to repay – remember banks are primarily concerned with their risk of loss, not household budgets or financial sustainability per se. Regulators have a lot more to do here in our view.

Many will choose to spruke property in 2018 (we are already seeing claims that the Perth market “is turning”), and the construction sector, real estate firms, and banks all have a vested interest in keeping the ball in the air for as long as possible. Governments also do not want to see prices fall on their watch, and many of the states are totally reliant on income from stamp duty. But we have to look beyond this. If we are very luck, then prices will just drift lower; but it could turn into a rout quite easily, and don’t think the authorities have the ability to calibrate or correct a fall if it goes, they do not.

The bottom line is this. Think of property as a place to live, not an investment play. Do that, and suddenly things can get a whole lot more sensible.

That’s the Property Imperative Weekly to 30^th December 2017. We will return in the new year with a fresh weekly set of objective news, analysis and opinion. If you found this useful, do leave a comment, or like the post, and subscribe to receive future updates. Best wishes for 2018, and many thanks for watching.

Household Spending Remains Key to U.S. Economic Growth

From The St. Louis Fed On The Economy Blog.

Household-related spending is driving the economy like never before, according to a recent Housing Market Perspectives analysis.

Since the U.S. economy began to recover in 2009, close to 83 percent of total growth has been fueled by household spending, said William R. Emmons, lead economist with the St. Louis Fed’s Center for Household Financial Stability.

“Hence, the continuation of the current expansion may depend largely on the strength of U.S. households,” noted Emmons.

An Examination of the Current Expansion

In July, the U.S. economic expansion entered its ninth year, and it should soon become the third-longest growth period since WWII, Emmons said. He noted that it would become the longest post-WWII recovery if it persists through the second quarter of 2020.

However, the current expansion has been weak and ranks ninth among the 10 post-WWII business cycles, as shown in the figure below.¹ “Only the previous cycle, ending in the second quarter of 2009, was weaker,” he said. “That cycle was dominated by the housing boom and bust and culminated in the Great Recession.”

The Changing Composition of Economic Growth

Emmons noted that the composition of economic growth also has changed in recent decades and has generally shifted in favor of housing and consumer spending,² as shown in the figure below.

“Only during the brief 1958-61 cycle did residential investment—which includes both the construction of new housing units and the renovation of existing units—contribute proportionally more to the economy’s growth than it has during the current cycle,” Emmons said.

He noted that, perhaps surprisingly, homebuilding subtracted significantly from economic growth during the previous cycle even though it included the housing bubble. “The crash in residential investment was so severe between the fourth quarter of 2005 and the second quarter of 2009 that it erased all of housing investment’s previous growth contributions,” he said.

He noted that residential investment typically subtracts from growth during recessions. Thus, its ultimate contribution to the current cycle likely will be less than currently shown because the next recession will be included as part of the current cycle.

At the same time, he said, personal consumption expenditures (i.e., consumer spending) also have been very important in recent cycles.

Emmons noted that consumer spending has contributed close to 75 percent of overall economic growth during the current cycle. The share was higher in only two other cycles. “Not surprisingly, strong residential investment and strong consumer spending tend to coincide when households are doing well,” he said.

Notes and References

¹ The current business cycle began in the third quarter of 2009 and has not yet ended. The provisional “end date” used is the second quarter of 2017, which was the most recent quarter ended at the time this analysis was done.

² The other components of gross domestic product (GDP) are business investment, exports and imports of goods and services, and government consumption expenditures and gross investment.

Are There More Risks In The Mortgage Book Than Surveys Suggest?

The Bank of England issued a staff working paper – “A tiger by the tail: estimating the UK mortgage market vulnerabilities from loan-level data“.

They have taken data from 14 million mortgages and run modelling across the cohorts to determine the LVR, LTI and DSR of mortgages. This is approach is an alternative to the survey led methods used by the Bank of England. Significantly, they conclude that risks in the system are understated using the survey methods (an analogy would be HILDA here); compared with the granular data. Policy makes are, they say, understating the risks. We agree!

Our estimate provides an alternative source to track the tail of vulnerable borrowers in the UK. It suggests a larger tail compared to the available household surveys. While the Bank of England/NMG survey points to a falling tail of high DSR loans in recent years, our estimations indicate that it remained almost flat. Similarly, our estimations suggest a consistently higher share of high LTI loans over time. These results should make policy makers less sanguine about the developments in the UK mortgage market in recent years, which are traditionally analysed using these surveys.

In the absence of loan-level stock of mortgages in the previous years, policy makers have been relying on survey data to monitor risks to financial stability and calibrate policies. As already discussed, surveys can be subject to biases and small sample issues, so our work provides an alternative estimate of the LTI, DSR and LTV distributions. Notably, we find that size of the tail of vulnerable borrowers might have been higher in recent years than surveys suggest.

Figure 6 shows LTI, DSR and LTV distributions from our estimation against data from the NMG and WAS surveys as of 2015. Our estimate suggests a larger vulnerable tail (LTI above 4.5 and DSR above 40) compared to surveys. This is consistent with the finding that individuals tend to underestimate outstanding loan amount in surveys or highly indebted borrowers are under-represented in surveys. There is greater discrepancy in LTV distributions, which could be attributed to further bias in how individuals report property values in surveys.

Figure 7 compares the evolution of the tail of high LTI and DSR from our estimate and surveys over time. While the NMG survey suggests that the share of loans with DSR above 40% has decreased in recent years, our estimations indicate that it remained almost flat. Similarly, our estimations for high LTI shares are steadily higher. Our stock estimation can also shed light on the characteristics of specific cohorts of borrowers and loans. To illustrate the type of analysis can be done by using the loan-level estimate, we present the age distribution of high DSR (40%+), high LTI (4.5+) and high LTV (85%+) loans.

Figure 8 shows the characteristics of current high LTV loans. We find that most of the LTV loans were originated pre-2009, before credit conditions tightened materially in the UK. We also see that a large proportion of outstanding loans with high LTVs (85%+) are interest-only. This suggests that if policy makers are concerned with the tail of high-LTV mortgages that are interest-only, analysing the flow of new loans is unlikely to provide much insight, as interest-only loans are currently very rare. The focus needs to be turned to the high-LTV cohort in the stock and the interest-only loans originated in pre-crisis period.

Our estimate provides an alternative source to track specific cohorts of borrowers in the UK mortgage market. We find that a larger tail of vulnerable borrowers than household surveys suggest. While survey data suggest that the share of high DSR loans has decreased in recent years, our estimations indicate that it remained almost flat. Similarly, our estimate of high LTI shares over time are steadily higher than surveys. All these results suggest that policy makers should be less sanguine about the developments in the UK mortgage market in recent years. As these analyses are based on very detailed granular regulatory data, we believe the results are more reliable than surveys.

Note: Staff Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate. Any views expressed are solely those of the author(s) and so cannot be taken to represent those of the Bank of England or to state Bank of England policy. This paper should therefore not be reported as representing the views of the Bank of England or members of the Monetary Policy Committee, Financial Policy Committee or Prudential Regulation Committee.

US Financial Stability In The Spotlight

The US Financial Stability Oversight Council has published their 2017 Annual Report. Their mandate under the Dodd-Frank Act is to identify risks to the financial stability of the US, promote market discipline and respond to emerging threats. At more than 150 pages, its is a long read, but well worth the effort. Also compare and contrast with the high household debt levels here!

A couple of things caught my attention. First, the rise in the 2-Year Treasury Bonds, as rate are normalized. Rates are in their way up.

Yields on 2-year Treasury notes fell in the first half of 2016, reaching a low of 0.56 percent in July before reversing course (Chart 4.1.3). The 2-year Treasury yield has since risen 104 basis points to 1.60 percent, as of October 2017. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) raised its target range for the federal funds rate 25 basis points four times since December 2016. Also, in October 2017, the Federal Reserve began normalizing its balance sheet.

Next, household debt to disposable income is around 100%, significantly lower than Australian households, and on a very different trajectory.

There has been significant growth in auto loans and student loans, compared with mortgage debt. But the household debt service ratio is lower than here, a low interest rates helped keep the debt service ratio—the ratio of debt service payments to disposable personal income—unchanged in 2016 and the first half of 2017, near a 30-year low (Chart 4.4.3). Although the ratio of debtservice payments to disposable personal income for consumer credit has edged steadily upward since 2012, this trend has been fully offset by a decrease in the service ratio of mortgage debt.

Finally loan delinquency is lower now than back in 2009.

Continued decreases in delinquency rates on home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) and mortgage debt pushed household debt delinquencies to less than 5 percent, the lowest year-end level since 2006 (Chart 4.4.5). Decreased overall delinquency among subprime borrowers, continued write-downs of mortgage debt accumulated during the pre-crisis housing bubble, and a shift from subprime to prime mortgage balances drove the decline. The delinquency rate on student loans remained unchanged at 11 percent over the past few years after nearly doubling between 2003 and 2013. Despite elevated delinquency rates on student loans, default risk is generally limited for private lenders, since the federal government owns or guarantees most student loan debt outstanding. Signs of stress have emerged in auto lending in recent years, driven by increased subprime borrower delinquency. In the second quarter of 2017, auto loan balances that were delinquent for at least 90 days reached 3.9 percent of total auto loan balances, up from 3.3 percent three years prior. In recent quarters, credit card delinquency rates have increased slightly, and the percent of credit card loans that were delinquent for at least 90 days increased to 4.4 percent, compared to 3.7 percent three years prior. Despite this trend, the balance of credit card debt that was delinquent for at least 90 days has remained relatively stable at 7.4 percent in the second quarter of 2017, compared to 7.8 percent three years prior.

They discussed some highly relevant issues:

Managing Vulnerabilities in an Environment of Low, but Rising, Interest Rates – In previous annual reports, the Council identified vulnerabilities that arise from a prolonged period of low interest rates. In particular, as investors search for higher yields, some may add assets with higher credit or market risks to their portfolios. They may also use more leverage or rely on shorter-term funding. These actions tend to raise the overall level of financial risk in the economy and may put upward pressure on prices in certain markets. If prices in those markets were to fall sharply, owners could face unexpectedly large declines in their overall portfolio value, potentially creating conditions of financial instability. Although both short-term and long-term interest rates have risen since the last annual report, the consequences of past risk-taking may persist for some time. While the rise in short-term rates has benefitted net interest margins (NIMs) and net interest income at depository institutions and broker-dealers, a flatter yield curve and expectations for higher funding costs going forward may increasingly lower the earnings benefits from higher interest rates. In addition, the transition to higher rates may expose vulnerabilities among some market participants through a reduction in the value of their assets or an uncertain rise in costs of funding for depository institutions. These vulnerabilities can be mitigated by supervisors, regulators, and financial
institutions closely monitoring increased risk-taking incentives and risks that might arise from rising rates.

Housing Finance Reform – The government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are now into their tenth year of conservatorship. While regulators and supervisors have taken great strides to work within the constraints of conservatorship to promote greater investment of private capital and improve operational efficiency with lower costs, federal and state regulators are approaching the limits of their ability to enact wholesale reforms that are likely to foster a vibrant, resilient housing finance system. Housing finance reform legislation is needed to create a more sustainable system that enhances financial stability.

They called out a number of areas for focus where technology intersects finance:

Cybersecurity – As the financial system relies more heavily on technology, the risk that significant cybersecurity incidents targeting this technology can prevent the financial sector from delivering services and impact U.S. financial stability increases. Through collaboration and partnership, substantial gains have been made by both government and industry in response to cybersecurity risks, in part by refining their shared understanding of potential vulnerabilities within the financial sector. It is important that this work continue and include greater emphasis on understanding and mitigating the risk that significant cybersecurity incidents have business and systemic implications.

Financial Innovation – New financial market participants and new financial products can offer substantial benefits to consumers and businesses by meeting emerging needs or reducing costs. But these new participants and products may also create unanticipated risks and vulnerabilities. Financial regulators should continue to monitor and analyze the effects of new financial products and services on consumers, regulated entities, and financial markets, and evaluate their potential effects on financial stability.

And finally, a range of other material structural issues:

Central Counterparties – Central counterparties (CCPs) have the potential to provide considerable benefits to financial stability by enhancing market functioning, reducing counterparty risk, and increasing transparency. These benefits require that CCPs be highly robust and resilient. Regulators should continue to coordinate in the supervision of all CCPs that are designated as systemically important financial market utilities (FMUs). Member agencies should continue to evaluate whether existing rules and standards for CCPs and their clearing members are sufficiently robust to mitigate potential threats to financial stability. Agencies should also continue working with international standard-setting bodies to identify and address areas of common concern as additional derivatives clearing requirements are implemented in other jurisdictions. Evaluation of the performance of CCPs under stress scenarios can be a very useful tool for assessing the robustness and resilience of such institutions and identifying potential operational areas for improvement. Supervisory agencies should continue to conduct these exercises. Regulators should also continue to monitor and assess interconnections among CCPs, their clearing members, and other financial institutions; consider additional improvements in
public disclosure; and develop resolution plans for systemically important CCPs.

Short-Term Wholesale Funding – While some progress has been made in the reduction of counterparty risk exposures in repurchase agreement (repo) markets in recent years, the potential for fire sales of collateral by creditors of a defaulted broker-dealer remains a vulnerability. The SEC should monitor and assess the effectiveness of the MMF rules implemented last year. Regulators should also monitor the potential migration of activity to other cash management vehicles and the impact of money market developments on other financial markets and institutions.

Reliance on Reference Rates – Over the past few years, regulators, benchmark administrators, and market participants have worked toward improving the resilience of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) by subjecting the rate and its administrator to more direct oversight, eliminating little-used currency and tenor pairings, and embargoing the submissions of individual banks to the panel for a three-month period. However, decreases in the volume of unsecured wholesale lending has made it more difficult to firmly ground LIBOR submissions in a sufficient number of observable transactions, creating the risk that publishing the benchmark may not be sustainable. Regulators and market participants have been collaborating to develop alternatives to LIBOR. They are encouraged to complete such work and to take appropriate steps to mitigate disruptions associated with the transition to a new reference rate.

Data Quality, Collection, and Sharing – The financial crisis revealed gaps in the data needed for effective oversight of the financial system and internal firm risk management and reporting capabilities. Although progress has been made in filling these gaps, much work remains. In addition, some market participants continue to use legacy processes that rely on data that are not aligned to definitions from relevant consensus-based standards and do not allow for adequate conformance and validation to structures needed for data sharing. Regulators and market participants should continue to work together to improve the coverage, quality, and accessibility of financial data, as well as data sharing between and among relevant agencies.

Changes in Financial Market Structure and Implications for Financial Stability – Changes in market structure, such as the increased use of automated trading systems, the ability to quote and execute transactions at higher speeds, the increased diversity in the types of liquidity providers in such markets, and the expansion in trading venues all have the potential to increase the efficiency and improve the functioning of financial markets. But such changes and complexities also have the potential to create unanticipated risks that may disrupt financial stability. It is therefore important that market participants and regulators continue to try to identify gaps in our understanding of market structure and fill those gaps through the collection of data and subsequent analysis. In addition, evaluation of the appropriate use or expansion of coordinated tools such as trading halts across interdependent markets, particularly in periods of market stress, will further the goal of enhancing financial stability, as will collaborative work by member agencies to analyze developments in market liquidity.

Saving Less, Income Flat, Home Ownership Dream Fading – MLC

The latest MLC Wealth Sentiment Survey contains further evidence of the pressure on households and their finances.

Being able to save has been a challenge for a number of Australians – almost 1 in 5 of us have been unable to save any of our income in recent years, and for more than 1 in 4 of us only 1-5%.

Expectations for future income growth are very conservative – nearly 1 in 3 Australians expect no change in income over the next few years and 15% expect it to fall.

So, not surprisingly, our savings expectations for the future are also very conservative – with more than 1 in 5 Australians believing their savings will fall.

The “great Australian dream” of home ownership is still a reality for many, but for some it’s just a dream – fewer than 1 in 10 Australians said they didn’t want to own their own home, but 1 in 4 said home ownership was something they aspired to but did not think it would happen. Young people still have broadly similar aspirations around home ownership as middle-aged Australians.

Most of us wait and save more before buying our first home and many are prepared to buy some way out of the city – almost 1 in 3 would/did wait longer to have a bigger deposit, and 1 in 4 would live in a suburb some way out of the city to purchase their first home. Around 16% would live in an apartment and 12% further away from work and family or a regional area.

Most Australians don’t plan to or are unwilling to use the family home to fund their retirement – only 18% would be willing to use the family home to fund their retirement either by selling it or using part of their home as equity. The average Australian home owner has around $547,000 of equity in the family home.

Is Record High Consumer Debt a Boon or Bane?

From The St.Louis Fed on The Economy Blog.

Amidst of lot of captivating headlines over the last few months, one may have missed the news that consumer debt has hit an all-time high of 26 percent of disposable income, as seen in the chart below.



In just the past five years, consumer debt (all household debts, excluding mortgages and home equity loans) has grown at about twice the pace of household income. This has largely been driven by strong growth in both auto and student lending.

But what does this say about the economy? Is it a sign of optimism or a cause for concern?

Increasing Debt Levels

Rising household debt levels could mean that:

More Americans are optimistic about the U.S. economy.

More people are making investments in assets that generally build wealth, like higher education and homes.

Consumers have paid off their loans to qualify for new ones.

At the same time, higher debt levels could reveal financial stress as families use debt to finance consumption of necessities. It could portend new waves of delinquencies and, eventually, defaults that displace these kinds of investments. And rising family debts could slow economic growth and, of course, even lead to a recession.

Three Key Themes

This dual nature of household debt is precisely why the Center for Household Financial Stability organized our second Tipping Points research symposium on household debts. We did so this past June in New York, in partnership with the Private Debt Project

We recently released the symposium papers, which were authored by my colleagues William R. Emmons and Lowell R. Ricketts and several leading economists, such as Karen Dynan and Atif Mian. They offer fascinating insights about how, when and the extent to which household debt impacts economic growth.

Looking at all the papers and symposium discussions together, a few key themes emerged.

No. 1: Short-Term vs. Long-Term Debt

Despite an incomplete understanding of the drivers and mechanism of household debt, we learned that increases in household debts can boost consumption and GDP growth in the shorter term (within a year or two) but suppress them beyond that.

Whether and how household debt affects economic growth over the longer term depends on three things:

Whether family debts improve labor productivity or boost local demand for goods and services

The extent of leverage concurrently in the banking sector, which is much less evident today than a decade ago

The stability of the assets, such as housing, being purchased with those debts

No. 2: Magnitude of Risk

Even with record-high levels of consumer debts, most symposium participants did not see household debts posing a systemic risk to the economy at the moment, though trends in student borrowing, auto loans and (perhaps) credit card debts are troubling to those borrowers and in those sectors.

Moreover, rising debt can be a drag on economic growth even if not a systemic risk, and longer-term reliance on debt to sustain consumption remains highly concerning as well.

No. 3: Public Policy

Public policy responses should also be considered. Factors that could further burden indebted families and impede economic growth include:

Low productivity growth

Higher interest rates

New banking and financial sector regulations

Rising higher-education costs

Indeed, levels of household debt have often served as a reflection of larger, structural, technological, demographic and policy forces that help or harm consumers. It only makes sense, then, that policy and institutional measures must be considered to ameliorate debt levels and their impact on families and the economy.

After all, what’s good for families is good for the economy, and vice versa.