 |
 |
 |
 |
CBA raises variable rate
| |
Commonwealth Bank raises variable rate - What does it mean?
MyGreenway.com.au
June 15, 2009
The decision by the CBA to raise it's standard variable interest rate by 0.10% will add approximately $6 a week to the average mortgage holders repayments or $300 a year. That's like having to buy an extra greenslip and donate it to the CBA each year. On that note it is a little bit rude don't you think?
But where is that money going?
Some will say it will go the CBA's bottom line. Some if it will that's true. But some if it will be going to overseas lenders where the CBA is sourcing its funds from. That in turn will be making it into the bank account holders of those holding the cash in faraway lands. Places such as the Middle East and Asia.
Why does our bank have to source its funds from overseas? Simply because there is not enough money in Australia to lend.
However, there would have been if the Howard government had the foresight to follow Paul Keating's lead. Something I woul dlike to hear Peter Costello's response to. Costello trumps his financial credentials and paints himself as the economic messiah, but sadly Costello really missed the boat here and ought to carry some of the pain that he has indirectly inflicted on home buyers.
Had Costello followed on with Keating's plan to rasie the super annuation guarantee to 15%, largely funded by tax cuts, Australian banks would have had access to the necessary funds locally and would not be held to ransom by overseas banks.
In fact, Australia would have been totally insulated against the global financial crisis. Just by having the necessary savings plan in place.
Furthermore, the increased savings plan would have also matched our increased foreign debt further protecting Australia from the debt crisis. Completely. The opposition cries of budget deficits would indeed be just grandstanding and irrelevant to the whole political argument.
For more information read MyGreenway's Superannuation page here for more information or go to our Unfinished Business Televised Book Review here for more information direct from the horse's mouth.
David Love's book tells the story behind the story and Paul Keating gets to discuss in great detail how and why he did what he did and the meaning of the plan.
It can still be fixed, but we need to plan for an increase in Super to 15%. It need not affect business, so don't panic.
What's needed is leadership and vision.
|
Relief at last
| |
RBA moves on home loans. Consult a finance broker in the lead up to Christmas?
Finally the RBA has reduced interest rates for home buyers albeit by a paltry 0.25%. But it should be a sign of things to come. The banks owe borrowers 0.55% that they 'borrowed' from them since rates rose from January this year. This should be refunded immediately. Borrowing costs have come down and banks, who have not made a loss in this declining market, rather, they hit those hurting the most, just to MAINTAIN their profits to the shareholders...seems we should all go around to the shareholder for dinner a few nights a week then!
The RBA needs to reduce rates by 0.5% in October and then 0.25% in November. The banks by then should have returned the 0.55% they took as well effectively reducing the retail lending price of 9.65% last month to a more reasonable 8.1% P.A.
Combine this with large mortgage, say, 300k or more and most lenders will offer a 0.7% discount as well. So by early 2009, it would seem fair that many homebuyers could actually be paying less than 7.5% for their mortgage. How does that sound?
For those who are not getting the best deal, it would have to be worth thinking about getting a broker to show you some options. Just when you do this is something to consider in the lead up to Christmas as rate are sure to fall. It may be a good time to talk to financiers in this traditionally quiet period too, when you may be able to get more expert advice.
It's your money and you have worked damn hard for it over the past 7 years. It would seem that home buyer may be getting their time in the sun.
I wonder though as to what might happen to property prices. Most experts are predciting slower growth than the past. This makes sense. Property prices are linked to affordability obviously, and with the economy still struggling wages have not being growing much at all.
So the only thing affecting house prices this time around is the cost of money, so logically house prices wont move so fast.
It may also be a timely warning for some who may wish to borrow against the home for other purposes. Extensions, a business, a much needed new car or holiday - temptations sure, but fiscal discipline at home may have been the great lesson learnt from the current stresses and mortgage belting many have and still suffer.
|
Rate Rise!
| |
Could a rate rise be the PM's last hurrah?
SMH, 30/07/07
IF, AS is likely, the Reserve Bank board decides to raise the official interest rate another notch at its meeting next Tuesday, it will be a history-making occurrence. It would be the first time interest rates had been increased so close to an election. Rates have never been raised during an election year in the time since the Reserve was granted its independence.
And it's a safe bet it didn't happen during the long years in which the politicians were in control of rates, although it's hard to know because changes in rates weren't publicly announced in the bad old days. So a rate rise would prove conclusively that the Reserve truly is independent and not afraid to exercise that independence at a highly inconvenient time for the elected government.
The Reserve is, of course, mindful of the political sensitivities and anxious to avoid getting embroiled in party-political disputation if possible. That was proved by its public silence (but private action) when a Liberal Party pamphlet misused the bank's name during the 2004 campaign. But the Reserve should always put its duty to manage the economy wisely ahead of its desire to avoid political flak and it seems about to demonstrate its willingness to do just that.
Of course, should it decide for some reason not to raise rates next week, then, as Rory Robertson of Macquarie Bank has observed, that would invite many questions and much cynicism. With the market so convinced a rise is needed and coming, a loss of credibility would be inevitable.
To hear Peter Costello talk, you'd think we didn't have an inflationary care in the world. The annual inflation rate has fallen to a "very constrained" 2.1 per cent - the lowest it's been for three years. On underlying measures, inflation is within the 2 to 3 per cent band. "So I see this result today [last Wednesday] as very much consistent with our inflation target," the Treasurer said.
I doubt if many economists buy that happy analysis. Its main problem is that it's backward looking, whereas the Reserve bases its policy on its forecast for inflation. And it's a safe bet that the high 0.9 per cent rise in the two key measures of underlying inflation in the June quarter will prompt the Reserve to revise its forecast upward. That's an annualised rate of 3.6 per cent. More conservatively, we can say that the underlying quarterly rise has been 0.7 per cent or higher in four of the past six quarters.
Only the 0.5 per cent results in the previous two quarters are inconsistent with a pattern of worryingly high inflation rates. The underlying annual inflation rate has varied between 2.6 and 3.2 per cent for the past 18 months. And that's hardly surprising. The labour market is as tight as a drum. The participation rate is at an all-time high, the official unemployment rate is at a three-decade low of about 4.3 per cent and even Treasury's broader unemployment measure - the labour underutilisation rate - is the lowest it's been since at least the late 1970s.
It's clear the economy is very close to full capacity, so the non-farm economy (there's no capacity problem in the rural economy) should be growing no faster than its "potential" growth rate of 3 per cent to, at most, 3.5 per cent. Yet the national accounts show that non-farm product grew by 4.6 per cent over the year to March. Now do you see why so many economists agree that monetary policy (interest rates) needs to be tightened?
It's not as if policy is particularly tight already. It isn't. Nor is it surprising to see inflation pressure building and interest rates rising at a time when the economy's near the peak of a long boom. If the Reserve does decide to raise rates, it will be terribly bad luck for John Howard. He's got enough problems on his hands without that.
Should it happen, we can be sure he'll blame it all on the Reserve and loudly proclaim his belief that it was quite unnecessary. But that would be ironic considering all he said about interest rates in the 2004 election campaign. He claimed all the credit for the return to low rates (the Reserve's role didn't rate a mention) and recklessly claimed that he, and only he, could keep them low.
The weird thing about modern elections is the mind-bending that goes on. Media and punters who spend 34 months in every 36 hanging on the Reserve's every word to see what it may do to rates suddenly switch to believing interest rates are totally within the politicians' control. After all, it's the elected government that runs the economy, isn't it? Economic illiteracy runs rampant for five or six weeks.
So, although a rate rise would be terribly bad luck for Mr Howard, it would also be rough justice. Someone who's taken such liberties with the truth about the factors that influence interest rates was asking to come unstuck. Someone who's enjoyed such good luck on the economy was overdue for a bit of bad luck.
Think about it. He inherited the economy after Paul Keating had done all the heavy lifting of reform and suffered the partly reform-induced recession, after the worst of the recession had passed and just as the reform was about to start paying dividends.He came to power after Labor's Accord had got wages back in line with productivity so that real wages could start growing again and just as the economic upswing was about to whirr the budget back into continuous surplus.
He arrived in time to enjoy the benefit of his predecessors' efforts to get on top of inflation and get nominal interest rates falling.That led to a record property boom, in which house prices more than doubled. And just as that boom was about to bust and leave a lot of unhappy people, a once-in-a-lifetime resources boom came along.
Really, he doesn't have a lot to complain about.
|
Mortgage belted
| |
mygreenway.com.au, 04/04/07
Today’s decision by the Reserve Bank not to raise interest rates is some relief to home buyers. However, this leaves interest rates just one 0.25% increase less than in 1996 when John Howard first took office.
“Despite all the huffing and puffing about being better economic managers, The Howard government has all but given back its interest rate savings,” said Jason Olbourne of the community website mygreenway.com.au, a site originally set up for the residents of the Federal Electorate of Greenway in North Western Sydney but now gaining a wider audience.
“It’s an area of Sydney where many residents are already buckling under the highest interest rates in 6 years coupled with falling property values, many families now have negative equity meaning they cannot even sell their houses”.
Significantly, the greatest drop in the price of money occurred after the tragic events of September 11 sparking one of the greatest housing booms in Australia’s history.
“People I talk to everyday through the website or at the shops tell me how they are barely hanging on by their fingertips” said Olbourne
Ray White Kellyville was reported as saying their mortgagee sales have gone from 6 to 25 a year.
Olbourne suggests that either the government or opposition would be well served developing policy that helps out those battlers belted by these rate rises.
“Rather than increasing incentives for first home buyers to enter and attempt to stimulate the housing market, policy makers could issue tax relief in the form of true income splitting, or allow tax deductible interest on mortgage repayments or even partial access to superannuation funds before defaults occur. These practices would help families reduce debt and even establish better household management of finances crucial to surviving the shifting economy” he said.
|
How are you coping with your mortgage?
| |
Home buyers losing their homes as interest rate rises bite hard
By Jason Olbourne, mygreenway.com.au 28/03/07
People are hurting as their Australian dream crumbles before their eyes. Some are luckier and can call on the help of relatives to keep the wolves at bay.
But what this shows us is that whilst the Reserve bank persists in using the blunt instrument of monetary policy to manipulate the economy, the government or opposition may be best served not trying to stimulate the market by offering increased incentives to first home buyers in the hope they will prop it up - but rather by developing suitable policy to allow battlers to keep their homes. Such measures may be to allow 100% income splitting for families, partial access to superannuation or tax deductible mortgage repayments for mortgage debt reduction. These are all policies that can be measured and controlled but provide protection to people hanging on by their fingertips.
In fact in later speculation, journalist Ross Gittins even explores the notion of HECS type, income dependent loan may be another method to help out struggling home buyers.
If a mortgage holder defaults on their loan to the point where the bank takes it off them, the ultimate cost is exorbitant with agents fees, interest, legal fees and a much lower selling price (mortgagees sales attract bargain hunters), many families will be more than $100,000 behind often resulting in bankruptcy being the only option. Why should this be allowed when a $20,000 withdrawal from that person's superannuation fund may be enough to protect the family for a reasonable amount of time until they can get their lives back in order.
Imagine losing $100,000 and the family home only to have a superannuation fund sitting there with $40,000 in it. What good is that to anyone, particularly a family with parents aged in their late 20's or 30's?
If the government were to offer tax deductibility of home loan interest repayments for owner occupiers, even if wanted capital gains tax applied down the track it may have an overall effect of propping up the most needy, those buckling under the pressure of high rates. You see it would help cashflow those really struggling.
What really hurts is that those who are cashed up with savings or even people with no or little mortgages actually receive a boost to their spending power from any rate rate rise. In essence the very practice by the RBA to reduce spending and inflationary pressure actually adds fuel to the fire and causes more damage.
This was most relevant when the price of bananas and high fuel prices caused the last rate rise. People could not afford to buy the bananas and drove their cars less, yet the bean counters at the RBA decided that they must increase rates to reduce inflation.
But the government has an agenda to promote is economic credentials in the lead to the Federal election later in the year. They will no doubt sweep this under the carpet and maintain the argument that the economy is booming.
Well, ask any battler in Greenway with a mortgage the same value as their house and you might find that it's not that great.
We have chosen to follow the following stories
New home sales slump reflects rates struggle
smh.com.au 28/03/07
SYDNEY'S traditional new year boom in new home sales has been reduced to a whimper this year, as high prices and rising interest rates crimp affordability.
A survey by the Housing Industry Association of sales by Australia's 100 biggest residential builders suggests NSW buyers are struggling. While new home sales picked up in the three months ending in February, sales were 21.4 per cent lower than last year.
"Buyers are still acutely aware that they are not out of the woods yet following the most recent interest rate pressure," said the association's director of housing and economics, Simon Tennent.
A report from the Reserve Bank this week argued that Australians were coping with higher mortgage repayments, despite some stress in western Sydney. This has been interpreted as a sign the bank would be fairly relaxed about the impact on households if it decided to raise interest rates again to curb inflation.
As borrowers brace for the possibility of another rate rise as soon as next week - the fifth since the last federal election - a recently formed group called Australians for Affordable Housing visited federal politicians in Canberra yesterday to lobby for a co-ordinated federal and state government response to the "housing crisis".
David Imber, a spokesman for the group, said the lack of affordable housing for low-to-middle-income families was the biggest problem facing the Australian community. "People are genuinely concerned that their children won't be able to purchase their own home and will be stuck paying off someone else's mortgage forever,"
Of the $24 billion set aside in the Commonwealth budget for housing, 80 per cent was spent on tax breaks for "the big end of town" such as capital gains tax exemptions and negative gearing, the group estimates. Just $933 million would be spent on public and community housing, $1 billion on the first home buyers grant and $2 billion on rent assistance.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Nationals leader, Mark Vaile, cautioned his Coalition colleagues yesterday about the need to be "empathetic" to concerns about housing. However he said it was a state government responsibility to reduce property taxes.
The ALP is expected to campaign vigorously in this year's federal election on the assertion that the Coalition broke an election promise to the public to keep interest rates low.
Average mortgage repayments have risen by $500 a month since the Government took power a decade ago, Mr Imber said.
The Opposition's spokeswoman on housing, Tanya Plibersek, said that, if elected, Labor would appoint a minister for housing. "There should be someone in the federal government responsible for deciding on ways to make housing more affordable for low-income Australians," Ms Plibersek said.
Equity sharing
A separate survey of 1500 potential first home buyers by Fujitsu Consulting found 30 per cent said they could not afford to enter the market. Two years ago the figure was 10 per cent.
Half of the potential first home buyers surveyed said they would consider an equity share deal. These schemes involve a lender stumping up part of the cost of buying a home in return for a share of any capital gain on the property.
One in four first home buyers was considering moving to a different area to buy.
|
Have you cut your spending?
| |
Home owners forced to cut spending to pay mortgage
Almost a quarter of Australian home owners had to reduce their spending to meet mortgage payments after last year's interest rate rises, a survey showed.
About 23 per cent of respondents in the February survey of 2,500 consumers said they had to cut their spending. The survey was undertaken as part of the Fujitsu/JPMorgan Australian Mortgage Industry Report. That compares with only two per cent of respondents in the same period a year earlier.
As other living costs such as petrol are on the rise, and with economists expecting another interest rate rise by mid year, it would be lower to average income earners who would struggle the most to repay their mortgages, said Fujitsu Australia managing director Martin North.
"Home affordability is at a bit of tipping point," Mr North said. "If rates go up, there will be some pain," he said.
Mr North said his research found that six per cent of respondents had been more than 30 days late with a mortgage payment. That percentage may double if interest rates rise another one percentage point, Mr North said.
Of the 1,500 people who were contemplating buying a property for the first time, 30 per cent said they could not actually afford it. That's up from 17 per cent at the same time last year. About 24 per cent of respondents said they were willing to consider relocating to another city to afford their first home.
One way development to boost home affordability may be the launch of shared equity mortgages where lenders own a portion of the property. Adelaide Bank this month unveiled a mortgage that allows up to 20 per cent of the purchase value to be held by the bank in exchange for 40 per cent of any capital gain.
The lender would absorb 20 per cent of any loss. "There is a significant opportunity for lender to develop a shared equity product for first-time buyers," Mr North said.
According to a data from the Real Estate Institute of Australia last month, home affordability slumped 3.9 per cent during the fourth quarter of 2006 and by eight per cent for the calendar 2006 year.
The Reserve Bank of Australia raised interest rates three times last year to 6.25 per cent. "Last year's interest rate rises have had a significant impact on household spending," Mr North said.
|
Would you give away equity to keep your home?
| |
Banks offer partnership to ease mortgage belting
smh.com.au March 17, 2007
IF YOU'VE always thought your home was your best investment, take heart. Despite weak property prices, there are plenty of people prepared to agree with you. In fact, a growing number of financial institutions reckon your home is such a good investment they want to share it with you.
Fortunately we're not talking about the local bank manager packing his bags and moving into the spare room. We're talking about the trend to shared equity schemes. The West Australian, South Australian and Victorian governments have introduced some form of shared equity schemes as have some lenders.
Recently the federal Labor Party expressed an interest in shared equity arrangements and Industry Funds Management, the investment management behemoth that manages more than $10 billion on behalf of major super funds, has revealed it is looking at setting up a residential investment trust, involving shared equity arrangements.
This week we also saw the launch of Australia's first shared equity mortgage, developed by real estate fund manager Rismark and Adelaide Bank. Similar products with other lenders, including Wizard and ING, are in the pipeline.
So what's it all about?
The first point is that shared equity deals are not all the same. While all involve someone else sharing in your home's investment potential, different structures are involved.
The Rismark mortgage is a loan, not an equity product, and you retain full ownership of your home. But instead of paying interest on the loan, you give up some of your home's appreciation. The more traditional shared equity schemes involve shared ownership, with the lender taking a stake in your home.
Western Australia's First Start program is a good example of the latter. Targeted at low to middle income first home owners, the scheme allows the government to buy up to 40 per cent of eligible borrowers' new homes while the borrower pays for the remainder through a low deposit home loan. The home owners are able to repurchase the government's share of their property as their finances permit.
The program is squarely targeted at boosting home affordability for people who may not otherwise have been able to buy their own home. But private enterprise shared equity deals go further than that.
The Rismark/Adelaide Bank product is not just targeted at first home owners. It is also being promoted as allowing people to spend more on their homes or even as an alternative to reverse mortgages for people wanting to access their home equity in retirement. This Equity Finance Mortgage operates alongside a traditional Adelaide Bank home loan.
Let's say Jimmy wants to buy a $400,000 home. To use the EFM he is required to have a 5 per cent, or $20,000 deposit. The maximum he can borrow using the EFM is 20 per cent of the home's value, or $80,000. He borrows the remaining $300,000 through a standard Adelaide Bank home loan.
The first point to note is that, because he has only borrowed $300,000 using a standard home loan, Jimmy's monthly repayments will be lower than if he had borrowed the full $380,000. At an interest rate of 7.8 per cent on a 25 year loan, that will save him about $600 a month in repayments. So Jimmy can afford to borrow more.
Jimmy pays no interest on the $80,000 EFM but agrees to give up 40 per cent of any future rise in the home's value. So if he sells his home later for $600,000, he is required to give up $80,000 of the $200,000 increase as well as repaying the $80,000 EFM.
To give an example of how the two work together, Rismark and Adelaide Bank assumed Jimmy sold his home after six years for $634,750 - a gain of $234,750. After six years, Jimmy had paid off some of his standard home loan and so had only $270,204 still outstanding. He still owed $80,000 on his EFM and was also required to pay 40 per cent of his capital gain, or $93,900.
It cost Jimmy $444,104 to pay out his loans, leaving him with $190,646. While the $80,000 EFM cost him more than double the amount borrowed, his initial $20,000 deposit had grown from 5 per cent of the property's value to about 30 per cent. He had also saved about $35,750 in monthly loan repayments.
Rismark managing director, Chris Joye, says borrowers can choose between using the EFM to fund 10, 15, or 20 per cent of their home's value. In each case they give up twice that share of future appreciation.
But the lender takes a share of any price fall too. If the value of your home goes backwards, the lender wears 20 per cent of the depreciation if you borrow 20 per cent of your home's value, and 10 and 15 per cent of borrowers using the EFM for a smaller proportion of their funding.
To go back to Jimmy, let's assume that, instead of his home growing in value over those six years, it had fallen in value.
He sold it for $380,000 or a loss of $20,000. Jimmy would still have to repay $270,204 on his home loan, but would only be required to repay $76,000 of his EFM (the original $80,000 minus 20 per cent of the $20,000 loss on his investment). He'd still have $33,796 to start again. Note that the larger the depreciation, the more Jimmy's share of the loss would eat into the equity gained from making standard mortgage repayments.
Like reverse mortgages, equity finance mortgages can have wide-ranging consequences, not all of which are easily foreseen. Where appreciation is high, they can be expensive and they are more complex than standard home loan borrowings. Their terms and conditions can also be more restrictive.
Still, the affordability squeeze for first home buyers, coupled with the cash needs of retirees, will ensure shared equity of all types becomes increasingly prevalent. The important thing is to understand what you're getting into.
|
More rate hike speculation
| |
Analysts speculate on another interest rate rise
Daily Telegraph, 22/03/07
THE Reserve Bank of Australia's suspicion that wage pressure is accelerating is being confirmed by economic data, placing more pressure on interest rates.
The Australian bank bill futures market yesterday put the chance of a rate rise at the next Reserve Bank board meeting at 50 per cent, while a rate hike in the next 12 months is considered a certainty.
Early assessments by private sector economists suggest that March quarter inflation will push the annual rate higher, rather than lower as expected.
The RBA set interest rates to keep inflation between 2 and 3 per cent.
The Australian Industry Group's March quarter manufacturing survey, out next month, shows rising cost pressures on business.
AIG chief economist Tony Pensabene said yesterday that companies were also pushing up selling prices, although profit margins were still being eroded.
"Skill shortages and shortages of labour generally are putting pressure on companies to deliver wages either to reward or retain staff. There are also clear signs that the drought is having an impact on supply chains, and that has put some pressure on particular food sectors.
The AIG survey is consistent with the findings of the National Australia Bank and the ACCI business surveys.
The monthly NAB survey shows that both wages levels and spare capacity are at levels to raise concern at the Reserve Bank.
It shows the average wage rise increased from 4.5 to 4.75 per cent in the second half of last year, and moved to 5.25 per cent in both January and February.
NAB chief economist Jeff Oughton warns that the survey figures are typically about a percentage point higher than the official national wage price index, but they underscore the rising wage pressure.
Both the NAB and the AIG surveys show companies are running out of spare production capacity. These surveys are the only direct measure of how closely the economy is approaching the limits of its capacity and are closely followed by the Reserve Bank. The NAB survey shows business is operating at a record 83.9 per cent of its capacity.
The latest ACCI-St George survey shows that in the December quarter wage and other cost pressures were at their highest level since the survey began in 1994.
However, the business surveys show that cost pressures are not fully reflected in sales prices. The NAB survey shows retail prices are only rising at an annual rate of 1.9 per cent. Both AIG and ACCI surveys show a moderate lift in selling prices.
Westpac inflation expert Anthony Thompson said the headline rate of inflation for the quarter was likely to be 0.8 or 0.9 per cent, compared with the December quarter's 0.1 per cent fall in consumer prices.
"Petrol prices have ratcheted higher, whereas early in the quarter it had looked as though they might fall by an average of 4.5 per cent."
He said a very preliminary estimate suggested the core inflation rate for the quarter might rise from the December quarter's 0.5 to 0.7 per cent.
"Domestic demand, particularly from consumers, is proving extremely resilient to last year's rate hikes."
The monthly inflation index compiled by the Melbourne Institute and TD Securities shows that, excluding volatile items and housing rent, price pressure in February was the most intense in the past four years.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
© Copyright 1999-2009, Parallels. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|