Tag: Mortgage Stress

Brokers have ‘important role to play’ for stressed households

From The Adviser.

Mortgage brokers have an important role to play for the increasing number of households experiencing mortgage stress, as they are a “very good source of advice” according to a market analyst.

Around 52,000 households are now at risk of default in the next 12 months, according to mortgage stress and default modelling from Digital Finance Analytics for the month of April.

The modelling revealed that across the nation, more than 767,000 households are now in mortgage stress (669,000 in March) with 32,000 of those in ‘severe’ stress. Overall, this equates to 23.4 per cent of households, up from 21.8 per cent on the prior month.

Speaking to Mortgage Business, Digital Finance Analytics principal Martin North remarked that mortgage brokers have a role to play for stressed households in terms of helping them “find their way through the maze”.

“Maybe that’s a restructure, maybe it’s a different type of loan… I think [brokers] are a very good source of advice for households and for people who come and seek guidance [for example] refinancing may help,” Mr North said.

In saying this, Mr North noted that when it comes to identifying an appropriate loan for customers, brokers should remain “conservative” in their estimation of what households can afford.

“Don’t encourage households to borrow as big as they can. That 2 to 3 per cent buffer is really important, and those spending and affordability calculations are really important.

“There’s an obligation both on brokers and on lenders to do due diligence on borrowers to make sure that they’re not buying unsuitably, and that includes detailed analysis of household expenditure.

“My observation is that some of those calculations don’t necessarily get to the real richness of where households are at, so I think that all those operating in the market need to be aware of the fact that how we look at spending becomes really important on mortgage assessments.”

Mr North added that brokers should operate on the assumption that rates and the cost of living will continue to rise, while incomes remain static.

“So, don’t try and flog that bigger mortgage,” he recommended. “I would say be conservative in your advice and the structure of the conversation you have.”

The latest results of Digital Finance Analytics’ mortgage stress and default modelling are “not all that surprising”, Mr North said, considering that incomes are static or falling, mortgage rates are rising, and the cost of living remains “very significant” for many households.

“All those things together mean that we’ve got a bit of a perfect storm in terms of creating a problem for many households,” he said, adding that for many households, any further rises in mortgage rates or the cost of living would be sufficient to move them from ‘mild’ to ‘severe’ stress.

“It doesn’t take much to tip people over the edge. It takes about 18 months to two years between people getting into financial difficulty and ultimately having to refinance or sell their property or do something to alleviate it dramatically, so I think we’re in that transition period at the moment as rates rise… over the next 12 to 18 months my expectation is that we would see mortgage stress and defaults both on the up.”

According to Mr North, Digital Finance Analytics’ data uses a core market model, which combines information from its 52,000 household surveys, public data from the RBA, ABS and APRA, and private data from lenders and aggregators. The data is current to the end of April 2017.

The market analyst examines household cash flow based on real incomes, outgoings and mortgage repayments. Households are “stressed” when income does not cover ongoing costs, rather than identifying a set proportion of income, (such as 30 per cent) directed to a mortgage.

What The Mortgage Stress Data Tells Us

Following the initial release yesterday, and the coverage in the AFR, today we drill down further into the latest mortgage stress results.

By way of background, we have been tracking stress for years, and in 2014 we set out the approach we use. Other than increasing the sample, and getting more granular on household finance, the method remains the same, and consistent. We can plot the movement of stress over time.

Remember that the recent RBA Financial Stability review revealed that 30% of households were under pressure with no mortgage buffer, and a recent Finder.com.au piece suggested more than 50% were unable to cope with a $100 a month rise. So we are not alone in suggesting households are under greater financial pressure.

For this analysis we plot the number of households in mild stress (making mortgage repayments on time but tightening their belts so to do); severe stress (insufficient cash flow to pay the mortgage), and also an estimation of the number of households who may hit a 30-day default within the next 12 months. This is calculated by adding in a range of economic overlays into the stress data. This is all done in our core market model, which contains data from our rolling surveys, private data from lenders and other sources, and public data from the RBA, APRA and ABS.  This model is unique in the Australian context because it runs at a post code and household segment level, allowing us to drill into the detail. This is important because averaging masks significant variations.

The analysis shows that there are more severely stressed households in NSW than other states, and that around 13,000 households risk default in the next year, a similar number to VIC. WA is third on this list, with the number of defaults lower elsewhere.

Another lens is by the locations of households, in the residential zones around our major cities. The highest risk of default resides in the our suburbs, where a higher proportion of households are in severe stress. Households in inner regional Australia are next, followed by the inner suburbs, where again more households are in severe stress.

Our core household segmentation shows that the highest count of defaults are likely among the suburban mainstream, then the disadvantaged fringe, followed by mature stable families and young growing families. It is also worth noting that the young affluent and exclusive professional, the two most affluent segments contain a number of severe stressed households. This have larger mortgages and lifestyles, but not necessarily more available cash.

Finally, for today, here is the mapping across the regions. No surprise that the largest number of stressed households are in the main urban centres of  Melbourne and Sydney.

Next time we will look at post codes across the country.

 

Mortgage Stress And Default Probability Rise Again In April

Digital Finance Analytics has released new mortgage stress and default modelling for Australian mortgage borrowers, to end April 2017.  Across the nation, more than 767,000 households are now in mortgage stress (last month 669,000) with 32,000 of these in severe stress. This equates to 23.4% of households, up from 21.8% last month. We also estimate that nearly 52,000 households risk default in the next 12 months.

This analysis uses our 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 2017.

We analyse household cash flow based on real incomes, outgoings and mortgage repayments. Households are “stressed” when income does not cover ongoing costs, rather than identifying a set proportion of income, (such as 30%) going on the mortgage.

Those 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.

Martin North, Principal of Digital Finance Analytics said “Mortgage stress continues to rise as households experience rising living costs, higher mortgage rates and flat incomes. Risk of default is rising in areas of the country where underemployment, and unemployment are also rising. Expected future mortgage rate rises will add further pressure on households”.

“Stressed households are less likely to spend at the shops, which acts as a drag anchor on future growth. The number of households impacted are economically significant, especially as household debt continues to climb to new record levels. The latest housing debt to income ratio is at a record 188.7* so households will remain under pressure.”

“Analysis across our household segments highlights that stress is touching more affluent groups as well as those in traditional mortgage belts”.

Regional analysis shows that NSW has 211,000 households in stress, VIC 209,000, QLD 139,000 and WA 109,000. The probability of default has also risen, with more than 10,000 in WA, 10,000 in QLD, 13,000 in VIC and 14,000 in NSW. Probability of default extends the mortgage stress analysis by overlaying economic indicators such as employment, future wage growth and cpi changes.

We will look at the data in more detail over the next few days and then drill down to some of the worst hit post codes.

*RBA E2 Household Finances – Selected Ratios Dec 2016.

Record numbers under mortgage stress

From The Australian Financial Review.

Record numbers of Australian households face mortgage stress as large loans and rising interest rates start to bite, according to detailed analysis of lending, repayments and household incomes.

Affluent suburban postcodes feature among an estimated 1000 households a week expected to face mortgage default over the next 12 months, the analysis reveals.

“Debt stress momentum is unprecedented,” according to Martin North, principal of research firm Digital Finance Analytics, who has been doing the survey for more than 15 years.

“This is not just about mortgage battlers. It is also hitting the households with bigger incomes and more leverage. It is worrisome,” Mr North said. Numbers of borrowers in severe distress has increased by about one-third to about 32,000 in the past 12 months, he said.

Concern that 767,000 households – or one-in-four across the nation – are facing financial distress follows last month’s warning by the Reserve Bank of Australia about increasing family “vulnerability” caused by soaring property prices, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney.

Reserve Bank assistant governor Michele Bullock said regulators may be forced to impose even heavier restraints on lenders to prevent the property market becoming the trigger for a disruptive financial crisis, said Reserve Bank assistant governor Michele Bullock.

Ms Bullock conceded that the effect of so-called macroprudential regulations imposed on the banks in 2015 to curb investor lending may be fading.

It also follows the Australian Securities and Investments Commission discovery that about 1.5 million recent loan applications matched minimum financial requirements, triggering concerns about lax lending standards.

Other prudential regulators are warning about the need to control interest-only lending because of concerns borrowers’ lack strategies for repaying principals, increasing vulnerability to financial stresses.

Digital Finance Analytics’ report is based on information from 52,000 household surveys and public data from the Reserve Bank of Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and information from lenders and aggregators, which are companies that act as intermediaries between mortgage brokers and lenders.

Households are “stressed” when income does not cover ongoing costs, rather than identifying a percentage of income committed to mortgage repayments, such as 30 per cent of after-tax income.

Those in “severe distress” are unable to meet repayments from current income, which means they have to cut back on spending or rely on credit, refinancing, loan restructuring or selling their house.

Mortgage holders under “severe distress” are more likely to seeking hardship assistance and are often forced to sell.

“Stressed households are less likely to spend, which acts as a drag anchor on future economic growth,” said Mr North. “The number of households impacted are economically significant, especially as household debt continues to climb to new record levels.”

However lenders would be expected able to ride out a spike in arrears because they can foreclose on properties whose value has been inflated by unprecedented price growth.

State government budgets in the nation’s most populous states and territories have been boosted significantly by stamp duty charged on property transactions.

About 32,000 households are in severe distress, the analysis reveals. An additional 10,500 households in the suburban mainstream are in risk of default.

Other vulnerable community segments at risk of default include young growing families, the highly leveraged young ‘affluent’.

Most lenders are increasing rates for investors and toughening lending terms and conditions by increasing deposits and demanding more evidence that loans can be comfortably serviced by borrowers.

Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Westpac, National Australia Bank and Australian and New Zealand Banking Group have all raised investor rates in recent weeks.

Lenders are describing their strategy of slugging interest-only investors and easing pressure on principal and interest borrowers as the “new normal” because it differentiates between classes of borrowers as directed by regulators.

Housing affordability is worsening, warns ratings agency

From Mortgage Professional Australia.

Moody’s report shows regulatory crackdowns and low-interest rates will not protect affordability, putting pressure on Government to take action in the Budget

Housing affordability is deteriorating in Australia despite the impact of regulatory crackdowns and low interest rates, a report by international ratings agency Moody investors Service has found.

Affordability worsened in the year to March 2017, with interest repayments requiring for 27.9% of household income on average, compared with 27.6% in March 2016. Affordability declined steeply in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, according to the report, although it improved in Brisbane and Perth, which is currently the most affordable city in Australia, with the proportion of income going to repayments at 19.9%.

Moody’s expect that housing affordability will continue to deteriorate, blaming “rising housing prices, which outstripped the positive effects of lower interest rates and moderate income growth”. Whilst APRA’s restrictions on interest-only mortgage lending could dampen demand for apartments they could also reduce affordability, Moody’s claims: “the new regulatory measures have prompted some lenders to raise interest rates on interest-only and housing investment loans, which will make such loans less affordable.”

Proportion of joint-income required to meet interest repayments, March 2016:

  • Sydney 37.5%
  • Melbourne 30.3%
  • Brisbane 23.9%
  • Adelaide 23%
  • Perth 19.9%
  • Australia: 27.9%

Coming just weeks ahead of the 2017-18 Federal Budget, Moody’s report indicates the Government cannot rely on regulators and the RBA if it wants to improve affordability. In March Treasurer Scott Morrison said repayment affordability would play a major part in the Budget and was a bigger issue then the difficulty of first home buyers, whilst ruling out any changes to negative gearing.

In a series of sensitivity tests, Moody’s demonstrated the risks faced by Australian homeowners. Looking at the effect of house prices continuing to rise, income decreasing and interest rates increasing, Moody’s found Sydney homeowners were particularly vulnerable. A 10% rise in property values – far from unknown in the harbour city – meant an extra 3.8% of income needed to meet mortgage repayments.

Moody’s report did find that affordability was unchanged for apartments. Apartment owners spent an average of 24.5% of their income on repayments, compared to 29.3% for house owners. This is a national average: affordability of apartments did decline in Sydney and Melbourne.

It’s Not Just Low Income Households In Mortgage Stress

So the banking analysts are lining up to talk about the risks in the housing market, and the potential impact on bank earnings. But the latest line being peddled is that the major risks are located among low income – small mortgage – urban fringe – households.

But this is just not true. Our household surveys, probably the most accurate and current view of households financial footprints, tell a different story. We have already explored this from a segmented perspective, and highlighted that affluent households are also exposed – they have the big incomes and life-styles, but also the mortgages to match.

Here is a different view, mapping income bands to loan to income (LTI) bands. LTI is relevant because traditionally a ratio of much above 3 times begins to look more risky, especially in a low income growth environment.

First we look at the relative distribution by count of loans. This visualisation shows that around 55% of loans are sitting in the 3 times or below LTI range, and 68% of the loans are sitting in the household income bands  below 100k. But this is deceptive.

An alternative and more concerning view is based on the value of loans outstanding. This next visualisation shows that by value the loans spread up the income bands, but also spread across the loan to income bands. In fact only 28% of loans by value sit at LTI’s below 3 times and 34% sit with household incomes of $100k or below.

So, once you take the relative size of loans into account, mortgage stress breaks the boundaries of “low income, small mortgage” households. The problem is much more deep seated, and more affluent households are some of the most leveraged, to the point where small rate rises will hurt, especially where they have both owner occupied and investment mortgages.  They are also less likely to know how to respond, whereas the battlers are use to sailing close to the wind in terms of managing a household budget.

$100 tipping point for 57% of mortgage holders

From Australian Broker.

A staggering 57% of mortgage holders could not handle a $100 increase in their loan repayments, according to new research by Finder.com.au.

This additional $100 is equivalent to an interest rate rise of just 0.45% based on the national average mortgage of $360,600. This means the average standard variable rate of 4.83% would only have to rise to 5.28% to put more than half of mortgage holders in stress.

With increasing interest rates, some borrowers have little breathing room, said Bessie Hassan, money expert at Finder.com.au.

“The typical mortgage holder will begin to struggle once interest rates reach around 5.28% – that’s a pretty small window before borrowing costs start to hurt,” she said.

“The reality is borrowers have over-extended themselves if it only takes a $100 leap in repayments for more than half of homeowners to reach their tipping point.”

Hassan expressed concern about mortgage holders and their exposure to mortgage stress, especially with rising rates forcing borrowers to use a greater percentage of income on their loans.

Looking at higher rate rises, the research found 18% of borrowers could handle a monthly repayment increase of $250 while just 14% could manage $1,000 or more.

There is a $209 monthly difference between the cheapest fixed interest rate (3.59%) and the most expensive (4.59%), Hassan said, meaning borrowers could be “throwing away thousands of dollars” per year.

With the research also showing that 39% of all mortgages are interest-only, this highlights why the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) have shown some concern, she added.

Comparing genders, 63% of women and 50% of men would struggle to repay their mortgages with an increase of less than $100 per month.

Across the states, South Australian borrowers were the worst placed with 70% saying they could not handle an increase of less than $100 per month. This figure was lower in New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia at 59% and further dropped to 51% in Victoria.