Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) has released the May 2018 mortgage stress and default analysis update. Across Australia, more than 966,000 households are estimated to be now in mortgage stress (last month 963,000). This equates to 30.2% of owner occupied borrowing households. In addition, more than 22,600 of these are in severe stress, up 1,000 from last month. We estimate that more than 56,700 households risk 30-day default in the next 12 months. We expect bank portfolio losses to be around 2.7 basis points, though losses in WA are higher at 5 basis points. We continue to see the impact of flat wages growth, rising living costs and higher real mortgage rates.
Martin North, Principal of Digital Finance Analytics says “the pressure on households in a low income growth, high cost, highly leveraged environment means that overall, risks in the system continue to rise, and while recent strengthening of lending standards will help protect new borrowers, there are many households currently holding loans which would not now be approved. The recent Royal Commission laid bare some of the industry practices which help to explain why stress is so high. This is a significant sleeping problem and the risks in the system remain higher than many recognise”.
“We continue to see the number of households rising, and the quantum is now economically significant. Even now, household debt continues to climb to new record levels. Mortgage lending is still growing at two to three times income. This is not sustainable and we are expecting lending growth to continue to moderate in the months ahead as underwriting standards are tightened and home prices fall further”. The latest household debt to income ratio is now at a record 188.6.[1]
The forces which are lifting mortgage stress levels remain largely the same. In cash flow terms, we see households having to cope with rising living costs – notably child care, school fees and fuel – whilst real incomes continue to fall and underemployment remains high. Households have larger mortgages, thanks to the strong rise in home prices, especially in the main eastern state centres, and now prices are slipping. While mortgage interest rates remain quite low for owner occupied borrowers, those with interest only loans or investment loans have seen significant rises. We expect some upward pressure on real mortgage rates in coming months as international funding pressures mount, a potential for local rate rises and margin pressure on the banks thanks to a higher Bank Bill Swap Rate (BBSW). The potential for a 20-25 basis point hike by the banks is increasing, and this would lift the number of households in mortgage stress higher again.
Our analysis uses the DFA core market model which combines information from our 52,000 household surveys, public data from the RBA, ABS and APRA; and private data from lenders and aggregators. The data is current to end May 2018. We analyse household cash flow based on real incomes, outgoings and mortgage repayments, rather than using an arbitrary 30% of income.
Households are defined as “stressed” when net income (or cash flow) does not cover ongoing costs. They may or may not have access to other available assets, and some have paid ahead, but households in mild stress have little leeway in their cash flows, whereas those in severe stress are unable to meet repayments from current income. In both cases, households manage this deficit by cutting back on spending, putting more on credit cards and seeking to refinance, restructure or sell their home. Those in severe stress are more likely to be seeking hardship assistance and are often forced to sell.
Probability of default extends our mortgage stress analysis by overlaying economic indicators such as employment, future wage growth and cpi changes. Our Core Market Model also examines the potential of portfolio risk of loss in basis point and value terms. Losses are likely to be higher among more affluent households, contrary to the popular belief that affluent households are well protected.
Stress by The Numbers.
Regional analysis shows that NSW has 264,344 households in stress (262,577 last month), VIC 271,744 (256,353 last month), QLD 164,795 (175,960 last month) and WA has 129,064. The probability of default over the next 12 months rose, with around 10,656 in WA, around 10,468 in QLD, 14,268 in VIC and 15,049 in NSW.
The largest financial losses relating to bank write-offs reside in NSW ($1.3 billion) from Owner Occupied borrowers) and VIC ($951 million) from Owner Occupied Borrowers, which equates to 2.10 and 2.73 basis points respectively. Losses are likely to be highest in WA at 5 basis points, which equates to $718 million from Owner Occupied borrowers.
A fuller regional breakdown is set out below.
Here are the top 20 postcodes sorted by number of households in mortgage stress.
[1] RBA E2 Household Finances – Selected Ratios December 2017 (Revised 3rd April 2018).
You can request our media release. Note this will NOT automatically send you our research updates, for that register here.
[contact-form to=’mnorth@digitalfinanceanalytics.com’ subject=’Request The May 2018 Stress Release’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email Me The May 2018 Media Release’ type=’radio’ required=’1′ options=’Yes Please’/][contact-field label=”Comment If You Like” type=”textarea”/][/contact-form]
Note that the detailed results from our surveys and analysis are made available to our paying clients.
Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) has released the April 2018 mortgage stress and default analysis update.
Across Australia, more than 963,000 households are estimated to be now in mortgage stress (last month 956,000). This equates to 30.1% of owner occupied borrowing households. In addition, more than 21,600 of these are in severe stress, up 500 from last month. We estimate that more than 55,600 households risk 30-day default in the next 12 months. We expect bank portfolio losses to be around 2.8 basis points, though losses in WA are higher at 5 basis points. We continue to see the impact of flat wages growth, rising living costs and higher real mortgage rates.
Martin North, Principal of Digital Finance Analytics says “overall, risks in the system continue to rise, and while recent strengthening of lending standards will help protect new borrowers, there are many households currently holding loans which would not now be approved. The recent Royal Commission laid bare some of the industry practices which help to explain why stress is so high. This is a significant sleeping problem and the risks in the system remain higher than many recognise”.
News On the Finance Sector Is Set to Get Worse.
Australia is horrified by what they are learning from the Royal Commission; yet this is only the beginning. News on the finance sector is set to get much worse.
Gill North, a Professor of law at Deakin University and Principal at DFA, suggests “the issues highlighted by the RC represent only the tip of the iceberg and Australia is in for a bumpy and uncomfortable ride”. The systemic risks across the financial sector and economy are now much higher than most participants realise, and these risks are exacerbated by the concentration of the finance sector and its many interconnections, the laxity of the lending standards over the last decade, the high levels of household debt (and the distribution of this debt), and the heavy reliance of the Australian economy on the health of the residential property market.
At some point down the road, the true resilience of the financial institutions, their consumers, and the broader economy will be tested and put under extreme pressure. And when this occurs, the high levels of household debt and financial stress, and the large disparities between the population segments that have considerable income, savings and wealth buffers, and those who have no such buffers, will become starker. “When the next housing or financial crisis hits (and the question is when and not if), the ensuing impact on the finance sector, many Australian households, and the broader economy will be severe. Yet most, if not all, of the financial institutions, the regulators, policy makers, and consumers still remain largely oblivious to what lies ahead.”
Martin North says: “We continue to see the number of households rising, and the quantum is now economically significant. Things will get more severe, especially as household debt continues to climb to new record levels. Mortgage lending is still growing at two to three times income. This is not sustainable and we are expecting lending growth to continue to moderate in the months ahead as underwriting standards are tightened and home prices fall further”. The latest household debt to income ratio is now at a record 188.6.[1]
Our analysis uses the DFA core market model which combines information from our 52,000 household surveys, public data from the RBA, ABS and APRA; and private data from lenders and aggregators. The data is current to end April 2018. We analyse household cash flow based on real incomes, outgoings and mortgage repayments, rather than using an arbitrary 30% of income.
Households are defined as “stressed” when net income (or cash flow) does not cover ongoing costs. They may or may not have access to other available assets, and some have paid ahead, but households in mild stress have little leeway in their cash flows, whereas those in severe stress are unable to meet repayments from current income. In both cases, households manage this deficit by cutting back on spending, putting more on credit cards and seeking to refinance, restructure or sell their home. Those in severe stress are more likely to be seeking hardship assistance and are often forced to sell.
The forces which are lifting mortgage stress levels remain largely the same. In cash flow terms, we see households having to cope with rising living costs – notably child care, school fees and fuel – whilst real incomes continue to fall and underemployment remains high. Households have larger mortgages, thanks to the strong rise in home prices, especially in the main eastern state centres, and now prices are slipping. While mortgage interest rates remain quite low for owner occupied borrowers, those with interest only loans or investment loans have seen significant rises. We expect some upward pressure on real mortgage rates in coming months as international funding pressures mount, a potential for local rate rises and margin pressure on the banks thanks to a higher Bank Bill Swap Rate (BBSW).
Probability of default extends our mortgage stress analysis by overlaying economic indicators such as employment, future wage growth and cpi changes. Our Core Market Model also examines the potential of portfolio risk of loss in basis point and value terms. Losses are likely to be higher among more affluent households, contrary to the popular belief that affluent households are well protected.
Stress by The Numbers.
Regional analysis shows that NSW has 262,577 households in stress (261,159 last month), VIC 256,353 (258,303 last month), QLD 175,960 (176,154 last month) and WA has 128,600 (126,606 last month). The probability of default over the next 12 months rose, with around 10,513 in WA, around 10,316 in QLD, 13,830 in VIC and 14,798 in NSW.
The largest financial losses relating to bank write-offs reside in NSW ($1.4 billion) from Owner Occupied borrowers) and VIC ($936 million) from Owner Occupied Borrowers, which equates to 2.10 and 2.76 basis points respectively. Losses are likely to be highest in WA at 5 basis points, which equates to $696 million from Owner Occupied borrowers. A fuller regional breakdown is set out below.
Here are the top post codes sorted by the highest number of households in mortgage stress.
[1] RBA E2 Household Finances – Selected Ratios December 2017 (Revised 3rd April 2018).
You can request our media release. Note this will NOT automatically send you our research updates, for that register here.
[contact-form to=’mnorth@digitalfinanceanalytics.com’ subject=’Request The April 2018 Stress Release’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email Me The April 2018 Media Release’ type=’radio’ required=’1′ options=’Yes Please’/][contact-field label=”Comment If You Like” type=”textarea”/][/contact-form]
Note that the detailed results from our surveys and analysis are made available to our paying clients.
Good segment from the ABC, in which UBS chief economist George Tharenou says house prices are going to fall because the royal commission will make banks lift their lending standards, making it much harder for people to get credit and be able to bid up prices. As we have already said, its all about credit!
Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) has released the March 2018 mortgage stress and default analysis update.
Across Australia, more than 956,000 households are estimated to be now in mortgage stress (last month 924,500). This equates to 30.0% of households. In addition, more than 21,000 of these are in severe stress, no change from last month. We estimate that more than 55,000 households risk 30-day default in the next 12 months. We expect bank portfolio losses to be around 2.8 basis points, though with losses in WA are higher at 4.9 basis points. Flat wages growth, rising living costs and higher real mortgage rates are all adding to the burden.
Martin North, Principal of Digital Finance Analytics said “we continue to see the number of households rising, and the quantum is now economically significant. Things will get more severe, especially as household debt continues to climb to new record levels. Mortgage lending is still growing at two to three times income. This is not sustainable and we are expecting lending growth to continue to moderate in the months ahead as underwriting standards are tightened and home prices fall further”. The latest household debt to income ratio is now at a record 188.6.[1]
Overall, risks in the system continue to rise, and while recent strengthening of lending standards will help protect new borrowers, there are many households currently holding loans which would not now be approved. The recent Royal Commission laid bare some of the industry practices which help to explain why stress is so high. This is a significant sleeping problem and the risks in the system remain higher than many recognise.
Our analysis uses the DFA core market model which combines information from our 52,000 household surveys, public data from the RBA, ABS and APRA; and private data from lenders and aggregators. The data is current to end March 2018. We analyse household cash flow based on real incomes, outgoings and mortgage repayments, rather than using an arbitrary 30% of income.
Households are defined as “stressed” when net income (or cash flow) does not cover ongoing costs. They may or may not have access to other available assets, and some have paid ahead, but households in mild stress have little leeway in their cash flows, whereas those in severe stress are unable to meet repayments from current income. In both cases, households manage this deficit by cutting back on spending, putting more on credit cards and seeking to refinance, restructure or sell their home. Those in severe stress are more likely to be seeking hardship assistance and are often forced to sell.
The forces which are lifting mortgage stress levels remain largely the same. In cash flow terms, we see households having to cope with rising living costs – notably child care, school fees and fuel – whilst real incomes continue to fall and underemployment remains high. Households have larger mortgages, thanks to the strong rise in home prices, especially in the main eastern state centres, and now prices are slipping. While mortgage interest rates remain quite low for owner occupied borrowers, those with interest only loans or investment loans have seen significant rises. We expect some upward pressure on real mortgage rates in coming months as international funding pressures mount, a potential for local rate rises and margin pressure on the banks thanks to a higher Bank Bill Swap Rate (BBSW).
Probability of default extends our mortgage stress analysis by overlaying economic indicators such as employment, future wage growth and cpi changes. Our Core Market Model also examines the potential of portfolio risk of loss in basis point and value terms. Losses are likely to be higher among more affluent households, contrary to the popular belief that affluent households are well protected.
Stress by The Numbers.
Regional analysis shows that NSW has 261,159 households in stress (260,830 last month), VIC 258,303 (249,192 last month), QLD 176,154 (165,344 last month) and WA has 126,606 (130,068 last month). The probability of default over the next 12 months rose, with around 10,474 in WA, around 10,299 in QLD, 13,827 in VIC and 14,807 in NSW.
The largest financial losses relating to bank write-offs reside in NSW ($1.3 billion) from Owner Occupied borrowers) and VIC ($960 million) from Owner Occupied Borrowers, which equates to 2.09 and 2.76 basis points respectively. Losses are likely to be highest in WA at 4.9 basis points, which equates to $726 million from Owner Occupied borrowers.
[1] RBA E2 Household Finances – Selected Ratios December 2017 (Revised 3rd April 2018).
You can request our media release. Note this will NOT automatically send you our research updates, for that register here.
[contact-form to=’mnorth@digitalfinanceanalytics.com’ subject=’Request The March 2018 Stress Release’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email Me The March 2018 Media Release’ type=’radio’ required=’1′ options=’Yes Please’/][contact-field label=”Comment If You Like” type=”textarea”/][/contact-form]
Note that the detailed results from our surveys and analysis are made available to our paying clients.
Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) has released the February 2018 mortgage stress and default analysis update. We analyse household cash flow based on real incomes, outgoings and mortgage repayments, rather than using an arbitrary 30% of income.
Across Australia, more than 924,500 households are estimated to be now in mortgage stress (last month 924,000). This equates to 29.8% of households. In addition, more than 21,000 of these are in severe stress, up 1,000 from last month. We estimate that more than 55,000 households risk 30-day default in the next 12 months, up 5,000 from last month.
We expect bank portfolio losses to be around 2.8 basis points, though with losses in WA are higher at 4.9 basis points. Some households continue to benefit from refinancing to cheaper owner occupied loans, giving them a little more wriggle room in terms of cash flow. The typical transaction has saved up to 45 basis points or $187 each month on a $500,000 repayment mortgage. Enough to make a real difference.
Martin North, Principal of Digital Finance Analytics said “the number of households impacted are economically significant, especially as household debt continues to climb to new record levels. Mortgage lending is still growing at two to three times income. This is not sustainable and we are expecting lending growth to continue to moderate in the months ahead”. The latest household debt to income ratio is now at a record, if revised 188.4.[1]
In our report last month, Gill North, a professor of law at Deakin University and a DFA Principal, indicated that “when external conditions in Australia deteriorate and or levels of financial stress and loan defaults rise acutely, a wave of responsible lending actions seems inevitable.”
Last week, the findings of an important case imitated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) against the ANZ banking group were published: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2018] FCA 155. ANZ was found to have breached its responsible lending obligations when providing car loans through its former car finance business, Esanda, and was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $5 million. The legal principles established in this case are broadly relevant, as all credit assistance providers (including brokers) and credit providers are subject to responsible lending obligations.
The Court found that in respect of 12 car loan applications from three brokers, ANZ failed to take reasonable steps to verify the income of the consumer because it relied solely on consumer payslips provided by the loan broker in circumstances where ANZ:
knew that payslips were a type of document that was easily falsified;
received the document from a broker who sent the loan application to Esanda; and
had reason to doubt the reliability of information received from that broker;
income is one of the most important parts of information about the consumer’s financial situation in the assessment of unsuitability, as it will govern the consumer’s ability to repay the loan;
while ANZ did not completely fail to take steps to verify the consumers’ financial situation, it inappropriately relied entirely on payslips received from these brokers; and
ANZ management did not ensure that relevant policies were complied with and, in the case of the contraventions involving one broker, no action was taken despite management personnel having become aware of the issues about the broker.
ANZ will be remediating approximately 320 car loan customers for loans taken out through the three broker businesses from 2013 to 2015 which are likely to have been affected by fraud. ASIC has separately taken action against the broker businesses that were involved in submitting false documents to ANZ.
Gill and a co-author (Associate Professor Therese Wilson from the law school at Griffiths University) have just had a paper entitled “Supervision of the Responsible Lending Regimes: Theory, Evidence, Analysis & Reforms” accepted for publication by the prestigious and highly ranked journal of the ANU University, the Federal Law Review. This co-authored paper includes an empirical study and analysis on the responsible lending actions taken by ASIC between 2014 and mid-2017.
Finally, Gill commends the Financial Services Royal Commission for its initial focus on consumer credit related misconduct and “predicts that consumer credit will be at the heart of the next significant banking scandal or financial crisis in Australia.”
Standing back, risks in the system continue to rise, and while recent strengthening of lending standards will help protect new borrowers, there are many households currently holding loans which would not now be approved. This is a significant sleeping problem and the risks in the system are higher than many recognise.
Our analysis uses the DFA core market model which combines information from our 52,000 household surveys, public data from the RBA, ABS and APRA; and private data from lenders and aggregators. The data is current to end February 2018. We analyse household cash flow based on real incomes, outgoings and mortgage repayments, rather than using an arbitrary 30% of income.
Households are defined as “stressed” when net income (or cash flow) does not cover ongoing costs. They may or may not have access to other available assets, and some have paid ahead, but households in mild stress have little leeway in their cash flows, whereas those in severe stress are unable to meet repayments from current income. In both cases, households manage this deficit by cutting back on spending, putting more on credit cards and seeking to refinance, restructure or sell their home. Those in severe stress are more likely to be seeking hardship assistance and are often forced to sell.
The forces which are lifting mortgage stress levels remain largely the same. In cash flow terms, we see households having to cope with rising living costs – notably child care, school fees and fuel – whilst real incomes continue to fall and underemployment remains high. Households have larger mortgages, thanks to the strong rise in home prices, especially in the main eastern state centres, but now prices are slipping. While mortgage rates remain quite low for owner occupied borrowers, those with interest only loans or investment loans have seen significant rises. We expect some upward pressure on real mortgage rates in the next year as international funding pressures mount, a potential for local rate rises and margin pressure on the banks.
Probability of default extends our mortgage stress analysis by overlaying economic indicators such as employment, future wage growth and cpi changes. Our Core Market Model also examines the potential of portfolio risk of loss in basis point and value terms. Losses are likely to be higher among more affluent households, contrary to the popular belief that affluent households are well protected.
Stress by The Numbers.
Regional analysis shows that NSW has 260,830 households in stress (254,343 last month), VIC 249,192 (254,028 last month), QLD 165,344 (158,534 last month) and WA has 130,068 (125,994 last month). The probability of default over the next 12 months rose, with around 10,373 in WA, around 10,200 in QLD, 13,929 in VIC and 14,764 in NSW.
The largest financial losses relating to bank write-offs reside in NSW ($1.3 billion) from Owner Occupied borrowers) and VIC ($978 million) from Owner Occupied Borrowers, which equates to 2.16 and 2.76 basis points respectively. Losses are likely to be highest in WA at 4.9 basis points, which equates to $669 million from Owner Occupied borrowers.
Here are the top post codes sorted by the highest number of households in mortgage stress.
[1] RBA E2 Household Finances – Selected Ratios September 2017 (Revised 2nd Feb 2018). The Bank has recently restated these ratios, taking them on average 10 points lower.
You can request our media release. Note this will NOT automatically send you our research updates, for that register here.
[contact-form to=’mnorth@digitalfinanceanalytics.com’ subject=’Request The February 2018 Stress Release’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email Me The February 2018 Media Release’ type=’radio’ required=’1′ options=’Yes Please’/][contact-field label=”Comment If You Like” type=”textarea”/][/contact-form]
Note that the detailed results from our surveys and analysis are made available to our paying clients.
Several industry participants have voiced concern over mortgage stress and the rising risk of defaults, as wage growth fails to keep pace with the costs of living.
Approximately 51,500 borrowers could be at risk of defaulting on their mortgages in the coming year, with over 30 per cent of Australians experiencing mortgage stress, finder.com.au has suggested, after analysing research from Digital Finance Analytics’ (DFA) Household Survey.
Speaking to Mortgage Business, the principal of DFA, Martin North, noted that “at risk” borrowers were most prevalent in mining-centred regions across Queensland and Western Australia. He added that “severe” mortgage stress could be on the rise in other parts of the country.
“There are more people currently at risk in Western Australia and in Queensland, which is an outfall from the mining downturn, but we’re also seeing a significant rise in severe stress in Western Sydney, on the outskirts of Melbourne and around Brisbane,” Mr North said.
“Defaults over the next two years are not necessarily going to be centred in the West or in Queensland, but we’re going to see some more significant risks in and around the main urban centres in Brisbane and Melbourne.”
Mr North attributed the increased risk of mortgage defaults to slow wage growth, cost of living pressures and high mortgage repayment costs for borrowers that were issued with home loans prior to regulatory tightening.
The principal said: “There are a few drivers. The first is that incomes are not growing in real terms, particularly if you’re in the private sector. The income growth is on average 1.9 per cent. A lot of people haven’t had a pay rise in a long time, so income is compressed.
“Secondly, cost of living is rising and that includes everything from electricity bills, child-care costs, cost of fuel, [etc]. So, it’s the impact of incomes versus costs not going in the right direction.
“The third thing is that the costs of the mortgage, particularly in the major urban areas around Sydney and Melbourne, are a lot bigger because home prices have gone up a lot, so people are leveraged. They’ve got very large mortgages and very little wiggle room as a result.”
The market analyst also noted that a lack of financial awareness and household budgeting is to blame for rising levels of mortgage stress. Indeed, according to Mortgage Choice’s Financial Savviness Whitepaper, 54.9 per cent of Australians fail to review their finances at least once a week.
“The finding that more than one in two Australians are not checking their bank accounts on a weekly basis at minimum is quite alarming and it suggests that many people are keeping themselves in the dark when it comes to their finances,” CEO of Mortgage Choice John Flavell said.
The Mortgage Choice CEO added that “keeping a close eye” on finances could allow households to identify savings opportunities.
He said: “Keeping a close eye on your finances is essential in helping you better manage and understand where your money is going, where you can cut back on spending and improve your savings.
“When you know how much money you have available in your account, you will avoid overspending or withdrawing beyond your balance and being hit with an overdraft fee. Moreover, when you’re actively tracking your finances, you will benefit from having greater control and confidence to make decisions, whether they be small discretional expenses or a significant purchase such as a car or property.”
Mr Flavell continued: “[Being] aware of your spending patterns helps you catch any unusual expenses, fees or declined transactions you may not have otherwise been aware of.”
The topic of mortgage stress has been in the spotlight recently, after the Reserve Bank of Australia said that it was keeping a watchful eye on interest-only mortgagors whose terms are due to expire between this year and 2022, as it fears some may find the “step-up” to P&I repayments “difficult to manage”.
In her address to the Responsible Lending and Borrowing Summit this year, the assistant governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), Michele Bullock, spoke about household indebtedness and mortgage stress.
Ms Bullock said that while mortgage stress has declined since 2011 (largely as a reflection of the fall in interest rates since that time) and that the number of those classed as being in some financial stress is “not growing rapidly”, around 12 per cent of owner-occupiers with mortgage debt indicated that they would expect difficulty raising funds in an emergency.
Noting that “the increasing popularity of interest-only loans over recent years meant that, by early 2017, 40 per cent of the debt did not require principal repayments”, the assistant governor said that “this presents a potential source of financial stress if a household’s circumstances were to take a negative turn”.
Ms Bullock noted that as a “large portion” of principal-free periods begin to expire, some borrowers may therefore struggle to service their mortgages.
She said: “[A] large proportion of interest-only loans are due to expire between 2018 and 2022. Some borrowers in this situation will simply move to principal and interest repayments as originally contracted.
“Others may choose to extend the interest-free period, provided that they meet the current lending standards. There may, however, be some borrowers that do not meet current lending standards for extending their interest-only repayments but would find the step-up to principal and interest repayments difficult to manage.
“This third group might find themselves in some financial stress. While we think this is a relatively small proportion of borrowers, it will be an area to watch.”
Michele Bullock, Assistant Governor (Financial System), spoke at the Responsible Lending and Borrowing Summit. She downplayed the financial stress in the system and concluded “while there are some pockets of financial stress, the overall level of stress among mortgaged households remains relatively low”. Of course, our own mortgage stress surveys tells a different story, but it does depend on definitions.
Four quick points to note. First, the RBA continues to rely on HILDA data from 2016, despite the changes in living costs, mortgage rates and flat incomes since then. They refer to more timely private datasets, but do not use them, because of “different methodologies.”
Next, she acknowledge that high household debt will be a consideration in terms of interest rate policy, as highly in debt households will be an economic drag on consumption. If debt is considered low, this leaves the door open to rate rises, sooner rather than later.
Third, she perpetuates the view that financial stress is highest among lower income households, but sees little evidence of difficulty among more affluent groups, and argues that many are well ahead with their mortgage repayments. We agree some are, but many more affluent households are also feeling the pinch!
Finally, she is of the view that of households with interest only loans coming up for review, those at risk of not being able to afford a P&I reset, and fall outside current lending standards is quite small (though need watching). That said she highlights risks in the investor portfolios. ” Indeed, the macro-financial risks are potentially heightened with investor lending”. We agree, this is 36% of the portfolio!
So, her conclusion is, move along, nothing to see here! We think the financial stress story is more significant, but there is no authoritative official data covering this topic. Surely a gap the RBA needs to close! Especially if home prices momentum continues to sag.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. The title of the summit, ‘Responsible Lending and Borrowing – Risk, Responsibility and Reputation’, really struck a chord with me because there has been much discussion over the past few years about housing prices and the increasing debt being taken on by the household sector.
The Reserve Bank’s interest in this area springs from both its responsibility for monetary policy and its mandate for financial stability. From the perspective of monetary policy, high debt levels will influence the calibration of interest rate changes. The more debt households have, the more sensitive their cash flow, and hence consumption, is likely to be to a rise in interest rates. Households with higher debt levels may also sharply curtail their consumption in response to an adverse shock such as rising unemployment or large falls in house prices, amplifying any economic downturn. My focus today, however, is on the potential risks to financial stability from this build up in debt. One of the key issues we have been focusing on is the extent to which rising household debt might presage stress in household budgets, with flow on effects to financial stability and ultimately to the economy. There has been a lot said and written about this issue in recent times, using a multitude of data sources and anecdotes. What I hope to do today is to put this information into some context to provide a balanced view on the current and prospective levels of household financial stress, and hence the implications for financial stability.
I want to make a couple of points at the outset. The first is that there are clearly households in Australia at the moment that are experiencing financial stress. By focusing on whether financial stress has implications for financial stability, I am not in any way playing down the difficulties some households are experiencing. There is a very real human cost of financial stress.
Second, some of the most financially stressed households are those with lower incomes which typically rent rather than borrow to buy a home. Access to suitable affordable housing for this group is clearly an important social issue. But given the topic of this summit and the potential link to financial stability, I am going to focus in this talk on household mortgage debt and the potential for financial stress resulting from this.
What is Financial Stress?
Definitions of financial stress are many and varied. One definition could be where a household fails to pay its bills or scheduled debt repayments on time because of a shortage of money. This is quite narrow – it captures only those households for which stress has already manifested in missed payments. A much broader definition of financial stress might be a situation where financial pressures are causing an individual to worry about their finances, or where an individual cannot afford ‘necessities’. These definitions might be good leading indicators of failures to meet debt repayments or defaults. So there is a role for a variety of indicators of stress.
One way of thinking about financial stress is in terms of a spectrum or a pyramid, running from mild stress to severe stress (Graph 1). At the mild end, the base of the pyramid, people may perceive that they are financially stressed when they have to cut back on some discretionary expenditure, such as a holiday or a regular meal out. Slightly further up the pyramid, they may not be able to pay bills on time, or might have to seek emergency funding from family. At the top of the pyramid – severe financial stress – a household might be unable to meet mortgage repayments or ultimately be facing foreclosure or bankruptcy.
Graph 1
The pyramid is wider at the bottom than the top reflecting the fact that there will always be more households in milder stress than in severe stress. For some households experiencing milder stress their circumstances might deteriorate and they will move to a more severe form of financial stress. But some others might continue to restrain spending on discretionary items so as to meet essential payments. Others might experience a change in circumstances that improves their financial position.
Triggers and Protections from Financial Stress
Most people don’t consciously set out to put themselves in a position of financial stress. Sometimes people might choose to stretch themselves initially in taking out a loan, perhaps even putting themselves into mild, temporary financial stress. But they would typically be doing so on the expectation that it will become more manageable over time as their income rises. More serious financial stress often only comes about by a combination of what turns out to be excessive debt and changed circumstances. A level of mortgage debt that looked manageable when it was taken out might become unmanageable if, for example, the primary income earner of a household becomes unemployed. Or if life circumstances change, such as through ill health, the birth of a child or breakdown of a relationship.
So what do conditions in the housing sector over the past few years suggest about the potential for financial stress? You are all familiar with the broad story. House prices have been rising rapidly, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne. At the same time, household mortgage debt has been rising while incomes have been growing relatively slowly. As a result, the average household mortgage debt-to-income ratio has risen from around 120 per cent in 2012 to around 140 per cent at the end of 2017 (Graph 2, left panel). Furthermore, the increasing popularity of interest-only loans over recent years meant that by early 2017, 40 per cent of the debt did not require principal repayments (Graph 3). A particularly large share of property investors has chosen interest-only loans because of the tax incentives, although some owner-occupiers have also not been paying down principal. This presents a potential source of financial stress if a household’s circumstances were to take a negative turn.
Graph 2
Graph 3
This is where lending standards come in. There is always a balance to be struck with lending standards. If they are too tight, access to credit will be unreasonably constrained, potentially impacting economic activity and restricting some households from making large purchases that they can afford. If they are too loose, however, borrowers and lenders could find risks building on their balance sheets which, if large enough, might have implications for financial stability. Over the past few years in Australia, regulators have been concerned that lending standards have erred on the more relaxed side. An exuberant housing market in some parts of the country and strong competition among lenders raised the question of whether financial institutions had been appropriately prudent in assessing a household’s ability to meet repayments.
In response, a number of measures were implemented by APRA and ASIC to strengthen mortgage lending standards. These measures have helped improve the quality of lending over the past couple of years. But there is still a large stock of housing debt out there, some of which probably would not meet the more conservative lending standards currently being imposed. How large a risk does this pose to financial stability? It depends on a number of things, including how lax the previous lending standards were, how much of the stock was lent under less prudent standards and the repayment patterns of borrowers. One way of assessing the risk though is to look at the level and trajectory of mortgage stress.
Measures of Financial Stress
There is no single measure that captures the level of financial stress. There are comprehensive surveys, such as the survey of Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) and the Survey of Income and Housing (SIH), that are methodologically robust, but are only available with a lag. A number of private sector surveys are more timely but it can be harder to assess whether their methodologies are well focused on financial stress. There is also information on non-performing loans, insolvencies and property repossessions that is fairly timely and reliable, but is only an indicator of pretty severe stress. I am going to talk through a few measures and see what they imply about the current level of mortgage stress among Australian households.
Let’s start with some high-level data on debt and debt servicing. As I noted above, the average household mortgage debt-to-income ratio has been rising over recent years. In a sense, this is not really surprising. With historically low interest rates, households have been able to service higher levels of debt. Indeed, the debt-servicing ratio (defined as the scheduled principal and interest mortgage repayments to income ratio) has remained fairly steady at around 10 per cent despite the rise in debt (Graph 2, right panel). But these are averages. It is important to look at the distribution of this debt – are the people holding it likely to be able to service it?
Graph 4
The HILDA survey provides information on the distribution of household indebtedness and debt servicing as a share of disposable income. Looking only at owner-occupier households that have mortgage debt, the survey suggests that the median housing debt-to-income ratio has risen steadily over the past decade to around 250 per cent in 2016 (Graph 4, left panel).[1] However, the median ratio of mortgage servicing payments to income has been fairly stable through time, remaining around 20 per cent in 2016 (Graph 4, right panel). In fact 75 per cent of households with owner-occupier debt had mortgage payments of 30 per cent or less of income, which is often used as a rough indicator of the limit for a sustainable level of mortgage repayments.[2] This suggests that, as recently as 2016, mortgage repayments were not at levels that would indicate an unusual or high level of financial stress for most owner-occupiers. But there is a significant minority for whom mortgage stress might be an issue.
Other data sources suggest that the number of households experiencing mortgage stress has fallen over the past decade. The Census data show that the share of indebted owner-occupier households for which actual mortgage payments (that is, required and voluntary payments) were at or above 30 per cent of their gross income declined from 28 per cent in 2011 to around 20 per cent in 2016. And the 2015/16 Household Expenditure Survey indicates that the number of households experiencing financial stress has steadily fallen since the mid 2000s.
Furthermore, a large proportion of indebted owner-occupier households are ahead on their mortgage repayments. We have highlighted this point in recent Financial Stability Reviews. Total household mortgage buffers – including balances in offset accounts and redraw facilities – have been rising over the past few years as households have taken advantage of falling interest rates to pay down debt faster than required. In 2017, total owner-occupier buffers were around 19 per cent of outstanding loan balances or around 2 ½ years of scheduled repayments at current interest rates (Graph 5, left panel)). There is some variation in buffers. While one-third of outstanding owner-occupier mortgages had at least two years’ buffer, around one-quarter had less than one month (Graph 5, right panel). Not all of these loans, however, are necessarily vulnerable to financial stress. If households are building up other assets instead of building up mortgage buffers, they may still be well positioned to weather any change in circumstances.
Graph 5
All of this suggests that a large proportion of households have some protection against financial stress. There are, however, some households that are more vulnerable, probably those with lower income who cannot afford prepayments or those with relatively new mortgages who have yet to make many inroads.
Another way of measuring financial stress is by asking survey respondents to self-assess. For example, a survey might ask about the respondent’s ability to meet payments, the type of financial stress they have experienced, or whether they have had difficulty raising money in an emergency.
The HILDA survey also provides some information on this. In general, measures such as these indicate that financial stress for owner-occupiers with mortgage debt has not changed much over the past decade, and is actually lower than in the early 2000s. Around 12 per cent of such households indicated that they would expect difficulty raising funds in an emergency in 2016 (Graph 6). The survey also asks people what sort of financial difficulties they had experienced over the past twelve months. For example, did they have difficulty paying a mortgage or bills on time? Were they unable to heat their home or did they have to go without meals? Did they have to ask for financial assistance from family or a welfare agency? A bit less than 20 percent of owner-occupier households said they had experienced at least one difficulty in the past 12 months, but only 5 per cent reported experiencing three or more of these difficulties. Most of these indicators also suggest that, in line with some of the earlier data I noted, stress has declined since 2011, which probably largely reflects the fall in interest rates since that time.
Graph 6
Unfortunately, while the HILDA and SIH data are rich in terms of the information provided, they are not very timely. We have, for example, only just received the 2016 data. So much of the discussion on household stress relies on more timely private surveys. These surveys measure stress in different ways. Some focus specifically on mortgage stress. Others look at housing affordability, including for renters. And still others attempt to measure financial ‘comfort’ more broadly than just housing. Many of these suggest that housing stress has been increasing over the past year or so.
Looking at the history for which we have data for both the private and comprehensive surveys, it is a little difficult to reconcile their findings. But there do seem to be some methodological differences that mean some surveys might overstate financial stress somewhat. For example, in some of these surveys, self-assessed living expenses are used. If households include discretionary expenditure that could be cut back in an emergency, the amount of income available to meet scheduled repayments might be understated. Furthermore, if actual mortgage repayments are used, those households that are routinely ahead of their payments schedule might be assessed as having little spare income for emergencies when in reality they have been building up buffers and have surplus cash flow.
Most of the measures I have discussed so far are more in the nature of potential financial stress. For some households this will likely turn out to be temporary until their circumstances change. But others may find themselves in a prolonged period of belt tightening or, in the extreme, having to sell their property or default on their payments. In this latter case, financial stress will show up in non-performing loans on banks’ balance sheets and perhaps even in property repossessions or bankruptcies. What do these data tell us?
Banks’ non-performing housing loans have been trending upwards over the past few years, although they remain very low in absolute terms at around 0.8 per cent of banks’ domestic housing loan books (Graph 7). Much of this rise is attributable to a rise in non-performing loans in the mining-exposed states of Western Australia and Queensland – not unexpected given the large falls in employment and housing prices in some of these regions.
Graph 7
Personal insolvencies as a share of the population have remained fairly stable over the past few years. Applications for property possession as a share of the total dwelling stock have generally declined since 2010, with the exception being Western Australia (Graph 8). This indicates that financial stress has a high cyclical component, and there are likely to be some regions of the country that are in more difficult times than others. But the focus for financial stability considerations is largely a national rather than a regional perspective.
Graph 8
So my overall interpretation of these myriad pieces of information is that, while debt levels are relatively high, and there are owner-occupier households that are experiencing some financial stress, this group is not currently growing rapidly. This suggests that the risks to financial institutions and financial stability more broadly from household mortgage stress are not particularly acute at the moment.
Housing Investors
Most of my focus so far has been on owner-occupiers who account for around two-thirds of housing debt outstanding. But investment in housing has been growing strongly in recent years. So it is worth briefly considering the risk of financial stress emanating from this group of borrowers.
The risks to financial stability associated with investor mortgage debt are probably a bit different from those associated with owner-occupier debt. Investors tend to have larger deposits, and hence lower starting loan-to-valuation-ratios (LVRs) (Graph 9). They often have other assets, such as an owner-occupied home, and also earn rental income. Higher-income taxpayers are more likely to own investment properties than those on lower incomes, so may be better able to absorb income or interest rate shocks.
Graph 9
But investors have less incentive than owner-occupiers to pay down their debt. As noted above, many take out interest-only loans so that their debt does not decline over time. If housing prices were to fall substantially, therefore, such borrowers might find themselves in a position of negative equity more quickly than borrowers with an equivalent starting LVR that had paid down some principal. Indeed, the macro-financial risks are potentially heightened with investor lending. For example, since it is not their home, investors might be more inclined to sell investment properties in an environment of falling house prices in order to minimise capital losses. This might exacerbate the fall in prices, impacting the housing wealth of all home owners. As investors purchase more new dwellings than owner-occupiers, they might also exacerbate the housing construction cycle, making it prone to periods of oversupply and having a knock on effect to developers.
Data from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) provide some information on housing investors. While not particularly timely, these data show that the share of taxpayers who are property investors has increased steadily over the past few years. In 2014/15, around 11 per cent of the adult population, or just over 2 million people, had at least one investment property and around 80 per cent of those were geared (Graph 10). Most of those investors own just one investment property but an increasing number own multiple properties. There has also been a marked increase in the share of geared housing investors who are over 60. These factors do not necessarily increase the risk of financial stress but they bear watching.
Graph 10
The recent increases in interest rates on investor loans, in response to APRA’s measures to reduce the growth in investor lending, has probably affected the cash flows of investors. Interest rates on outstanding variable-rate interest-only loans to investors have increased by 60 basis points since late 2016. However, over the past few years, lenders have been assessing borrowers’ ability to service the loan at a minimum interest rate of at least 7 per cent. So while interest rates and required repayments have likely risen, many borrowers should be relatively resilient to the recent changes.
Furthermore, a large proportion of interest-only loans are due to expire between 2018 and 2022. Some borrowers in this situation will simply move to principal and interest repayments as originally contracted. Others may choose to extend the interest-free period, provided that they meet the current lending standards. There may, however, be some borrowers that do not meet current lending standards for extending their interest-only repayments but would find the step-up to principal and interest repayments difficult to manage. This third group might find themselves in some financial stress. While we think this is a relatively small proportion of borrowers, it will be an area to watch.
Conclusion
The historically high levels of mortgage debt in Australia raises questions about the resilience of household balance sheets to a change in circumstances and the ability of the financial system to absorb a widespread increase in household financial stress. The information we have suggests that, while there are some pockets of financial stress, the overall level of stress among mortgaged households remains relatively low. Furthermore, the banking system is strong and well capitalised, and is supported by prudent lending standards. The risks to financial stability from this source therefore remain low although we will need to keep an eye on developments. Appropriately prudent lending standards will continue to play an important role in ensuring that the financial system remains stable and households borrow responsibly.
Adelaide Bank is introducing an alert system that will monitor property borrowers that are struggling with their repayments.
The bank and its subsidiaries and affiliates will compare monthly mortgage repayments with borrowers’ income ratios.
“As part of our ongoing commitment to responsible lending, we are introducing the visibility of metrics relating to loan to income and monthly mortgage repayment to income ratios into our serviceability calculator for new loan applications – at the application stage only,” said Darren Kasehagen, Adelaide Bank’s head of business development and strategy.
Kasehagen told Australian Broker that additional commentary from the broker will be required when these internal guides are exceeded.
He stressed that this only applies to new loans.
“There is currently no change to our monitoring of existing loans,” he said.
The Australian Financial Review reported yesterday (8 February) that loans that exceed the bank’s guidelines will prompt a “diary note commentary” to alert the bank of possible mortgage stress.
The report said that this will automatically happen where the loan-to-income ratio exceeds five times or monthly mortgage repayments exceed 35% of a borrower’s income.
“The bank is telling third parties the data ‘is only required for internal purposes’,” said the AFR.
It attributed the bank’s move to an effort by lenders to prevent problem loans amid concern over rising household debt.
Digital Finance Analytics has released the January 2018 mortgage stress and default analysis update. Across Australia, more than 924,000 households are estimated to be now in mortgage stress (last month 921,000). This equates to 29.8% of households. In addition, more than 20,000 of these are in severe stress, down 4,000 from last month.
In this video we discuss the results, and count down the top 10 most stressed post codes this month.
We estimate that more than 51,500 households risk 30-day default in the next 12 months, down 500 from last month. We expect bank portfolio losses to be around 2.7 basis points, though with losses in WA are likely to rise to 4.9 basis points. Some households have benefited from refinancing to cheaper owner occupied loans, giving them a little more wriggle room in terms of cash flow. The typical transaction has saved up to 45 basis points or $187 each month on a $500,000 repayment mortgage.
Martin North, Principal of Digital Finance Analytics said “the number of households impacted are economically significant, especially as household debt continues to climb to new record levels. Mortgage lending is still growing at three times income. This is not sustainable and we are expecting lending growth to moderate in the months ahead”. The latest household debt to income ratio is now at a record 199.7.[1]
Risks in the system continue to rise, and while recent strengthening of lending standards will help protect new borrowers, there are many households currently holding loans which would not now be approved. This is a significant sleeping problem and the risks in the system are higher than many recognise.
As a result, many Australian households are heavily indebted and large segments of the community and the nation are highly susceptible to future harm. With these settings, Gill North (a professor of law at Deakin University and joint principal of Digital Finance Analytics) “expects a significant escalation of legal actions against lenders during the next decade.”
National responsible lending regimes have operated in Australia since 2009, with the stated aims to encourage prudent lending, curtail undesirable market practices, and impose sanctions for irresponsible lending and leasing. These regimes require credit providers to ensure a loan is suitable for the borrower (or more precisely, that it is not unsuitable). When doing so, lenders must consider the ability of the consumer to repay the loan and must verify their financial capacity to meet the relevant commitments. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is required to supervise and enforce these provisions and has various powers under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth). ASIC has already challenged some lenders regarding their lending practices. However, when external conditions in Australia deteriorate and or levels of financial stress and loan defaults rise acutely, a wave of responsible lending actions seems inevitable.
Our analysis uses the DFA core market model which combines information from our 52,000 household surveys, public data from the RBA, ABS and APRA; and private data from lenders and aggregators. The data is current to end January 2017. We analyse household cash flow based on real incomes, outgoings and mortgage repayments, rather than using an arbitrary 30% of income.
Households are defined as “stressed” when net income (or cash flow) does not cover ongoing costs. Households in mild stress have little leeway in their cash flows, whereas those in severe stress are unable to meet repayments from current income. In both cases, households manage this deficit by cutting back on spending, putting more on credit cards and seeking to refinance, restructure or sell their home. Those in severe stress are more likely to be seeking hardship assistance and are often forced to sell.
The forces which are lifting mortgage stress levels remain largely the same. In cash flow terms, we see households having to cope with rising living costs – notably child care, school fees and fuel – whilst real incomes continue to fall and underemployment remains high. Households have larger mortgages, thanks to the strong rise in home prices, especially in the main eastern state centres, but now prices are slipping. While mortgage rates remain quite low for owner occupied borrowers, those with interest only loans or investment loans have seen significant rises. We expect some upward pressure on real mortgage rates in the next year as international funding pressures mount, a potential for local rate rises and margin pressure on the banks.
Probability of default extends our mortgage stress analysis by overlaying economic indicators such as employment, future wage growth and cpi changes. Our Core Market Model also examines the potential of portfolio risk of loss in basis point and value terms. Losses are likely to be higher among more affluent households, contrary to the popular belief that affluent households are well protected.
Regional analysis shows that NSW has 254,343 households in stress (258,572 last month), VIC 254,028 (254,485 last month), QLD 158,534 (156,097 last month) and WA 125,994 (121,934 last month). The probability of default rose, with around 9,800 in WA, around 9,500 in QLD, 13,000 in VIC and 14,000 in NSW.
The largest financial losses relating to bank write-offs reside in NSW ($1.3 billion) from Owner Occupied borrowers) and VIC ($910 million) from Owner Occupied Borrowers, which equates to 2.07 and 2.74 basis points respectively. Losses are likely to be highest in WA at 4.9 basis points, which equates to $753 million from Owner Occupied borrowers.
You can request our media release. Note this will NOT automatically send you our research updates, for that register here.
[contact-form to=’mnorth@digitalfinanceanalytics.com’ subject=’Request The January 2018 Stress Release’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email Me The January 2018 Media Release’ type=’radio’ required=’1′ options=’Yes Please’/][contact-field label=”Comment If You Like” type=”textarea”/][/contact-form]
Note that the detailed results from our surveys and analysis are made available to our paying clients.
[1] RBA E2 Household Finances – Selected Ratios September 2017
Martin North, Principal of Digital Finance Analytics says “the pressure on households in a low income growth, high cost, highly leveraged environment means that overall, risks in the system continue to rise, and while recent strengthening of lending standards will help protect new borrowers, there are many households currently holding loans which would not now be approved. The recent Royal Commission laid bare some of the industry practices which help to explain why stress is so high. This is a significant sleeping problem and the risks in the system remain higher than many recognise”.
Our analysis uses the DFA core market model which combines information from our 52,000 household surveys, public data from the RBA, ABS and APRA; and private data from lenders and aggregators. The data is current to end May 2018. We analyse household cash flow based on real incomes, outgoings and mortgage repayments, rather than using an arbitrary 30% of income.
Stress by The Numbers.
The largest financial losses relating to bank write-offs reside in NSW ($1.3 billion) from Owner Occupied borrowers) and VIC ($951 million) from Owner Occupied Borrowers, which equates to 2.10 and 2.73 basis points respectively. Losses are likely to be highest in WA at 5 basis points, which equates to $718 million from Owner Occupied borrowers.
Here are the top 20 postcodes sorted by number of households in mortgage stress.
[1] RBA E2 Household Finances – Selected Ratios December 2017 (Revised 3rd April 2018).
