Surviving the soft depression

Specifically, what would happen to our investment / survivability should they agree on Mark To Market accounting?

Resi. property investors could be screwed!

But...how would they implement this?

Automatic property valuations often seem wildly inaccurate.

Will banks pay for property valuations to be done on individual resi. properties to check that LVR's are OK?

Could they put the onus on mortgage holders to pay for annual certified property valuations using one of their panel valuers?

Might have to resort to bribing property valuers :eek:!
 
If the banks were stupid enough to try a mass margin call on the general population (which they aren't) the government would intervene. And the banks know that.
 
Margin Calls

whether it would be done or not is up to much debate. What is not up to debate is the undeniable fact that a margin call will cut the banks own throat, leading to more negative equity (another self fulfilling action). It has been proven in the commercial sector.
 
Lets put it another way:

If banks called suddenly their loans on say, Woolworths, what proportion of their funds do you think they would recover?

10 cents on the dollar I reckon. But the loans are perfectly serviceable so long as the banks dont do anything rash because Woolies is prospering in the downturn.
 
Good Point.

And what would the banks do with all the cash from calling in loans? Reloan to shell shocked aussie homeowners, gun shy after being fleeced? Or lan Overseas and see if seep away?

The Banks are in the Business of Banking.

Provided they dont fall over (and lets face it, the Fed Gov Gurantee means every Aussie Bank is gov assured) they want us to have loans and pay %. How much would CBA worth if we all had no loans and no accounts to provide them income. Zilch!

Peter
 
Could someone who knows please explain why is it ok for bank to do a margin call when share prices falls, but not ok when same happens to house prices?

I understand that shares are liquid and all, but if bank somehow can foresee that property values are going down and some poor PI is sitting on negative equity, don't you think it will be in banks best interest to minimise losses and sell troubled asset?

As someone mentioned earlier - 'Your first loss is the best lost' or something along the line..
 
Could someone who knows please explain why is it ok for bank to do a margin call when share prices falls, but not ok when same happens to house prices?

I understand that shares are liquid and all, but if bank somehow can foresee that property values are going down and some poor PI is sitting on negative equity, don't you think it will be in banks best interest to minimise losses and sell troubled asset?

As someone mentioned earlier - 'Your first loss is the best lost' or something along the line..

Because no one in the general population could meet a margin call. And if the Big 4 did that they would induce a negative feedback vortex of falling property prices and margin calls that would wipe out at least a third of all Australian households and destroy every bank in Australia.

Its the equivalent of putting a loaded shotgun to their own head and pulling the trigger.

Is that clear enough for you?
 
Whilst I'm happy for people out there to believe that the banks will start calling in loans after they dip into negative equity I don't agree.

I think this whole debate has missed the political side of this argument. Now without derailing the thread I've seen 1st hand what happens when people are slide into negative equity here in the UK.
The government and the media have been putting pressure on banks to ease the pressure on those in mortgage stress.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/pbr/article5226489.ece

I can see it now, a couple of Today Tonight/ACA segments, a handful of "aussie battlers" losing their "dream homes" and the media will be all over it. This will force KRudd to do something, along comes a knee jerk government reaction and the banks will ease off.

Whilst looking for the above article I also stumbled across a little gem from the states where citibank was actually helping homeowners keep their mortgages.
http://www.newhomessection.com/blog...ers-–-freezes-foreclosures-adjusts-mortgages/

Can someone please show or explain to me why the banks would want to crystalise their losses and shoot themselves in the foot by foreclosing at the 1st sign of negative equity?


alexgsz
 
Not nominally.

Who said nominally?

prices are 15% lower in real terms
house prices approx. 15% lower in real terms from the 2003 peak
Shadow said:
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showpost.php?p=472360&postcount=160
prices in Sydney have fallen 15% in real terms over 5 years

In real terms. I have been saying this for ages. Go back and read my old posts. I never said anything about 15% nominal. :rolleyes:

Why do you continually peddle lies?

Why are you trying to start an argument?
 
Had you tried to understand my posts instead of taking the agro stance you always do, you would accept that I have been saying that it the quality of our housing that is non-essential. How could I possibly argue that shelter is not one of our essentials?

Because that is exactly the position that you were arguing against when you responded to David.

Kenster said: 'Essential things for basic living are expensive, like food, petrol, electricity, gas, telephone, council rates and water... Non essential things are dirt cheap, from houses...'

Then David asked: 'Housing (shelter) is non-essential?'

And then you responded to David and proceeded to argue that housing was non-essential. Yes, we were always talking about basic shelter. Note the words 'essential for basic living' in Kenster's post and 'shelter' in David's post.

You take things too literally.

Yes, I took the words 'shelter' and 'cave' literally. Or at least I assumed when you said 'cave' you were talking about non-housing (caves, tents, lean-tos etc.) How am I supposed to know that the word 'cave' for you can include a house that simply has no plumbing, or a house without a galvanised roof? I prefer not to speak in riddles. Say what you mean!

So I ask you again: Where would we find 'shelter' without the 'non-essential luxury' of the high quality houses that exist in Australia today? If you can't point to alternate shelter for the population, then I maintain that the existing houses are absolutely essential, regardless of their high quality. Agree?

Cheers,

Shadow.
 
Last edited:
Talk of a recession is premature, and of a depression downright ridiculous. Here’s why: Ruthven
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Phil Ruthven

As we near the end of the first decade of this new century, Australia has relatively few financial and economic issues of the sort that are tearing the US apart. This century promises to be Asia’s century, after North America’s 20th century and Europe’s 19th century. And Australia is part of Asia’s economy and society.

We have three weaknesses in 2008 – a chronic lack of savings that led yet again to massive off-shore borrowings in F2007 (over $52 billion), overpriced housing (by around 30+ %), and some over-leveraged property trusts. These weaknesses, however, are not enough to panic about.


So talk of a recession let alone a depression is premature, if not almost ridiculous in the case of a depression.


Only four in a hundred Australians have experienced the nation’s last depression from 1929-1933 and they would have been very young then, aged between five and 15 years old. Those older have largely passed on.


For older Australians aged 40 or more at the onset of that depression, it was yet another terrible trauma. They would have already experienced a worse depression lasting nine years from 1890-1899 and with a deeper fall in the economy – a 23% fall in GDP compared with 20% in the 1930s.


So why the 1930s depression was called The Great Depression is odd; after all, it was the least hurtful of all the depressions preceding that one. Nevertheless that generation then experienced the horrific World War I from 1914-18.


So to face two terrible depressions and a world war that saw the death of over 61,000 soldiers – and many times that in injuries and disease – was to have pain etched in the psyche of over a million citizens. We return to the consequences of this pain in terms of life’s attitudes, priorities and lifestyles shortly. Most of this older generation, incidentally, went on to experience a second world war between 1939-45 that took the lives of almost 40,000 more people.


These days, as the saying goes, we don’t know we are alive.


These four traumas were experienced by many other nations, of course, and this helps explain why there was so much resolve by the post-World War II generation of adults to ensure we never had depressions or world wars again. And we haven’t.


Could we again? Possible but unlikely is the short answer in 2008, as we come to the close of one of the most tumultuous years for our economy, in living memory. There is, after all, a much better understanding of both recessions and depressions these days; and more importantly, there are mechanisms available to prevent, or at least ameliorate, recessions and even depressions.


Our nation has had some 26 recessions and four depressions (encompassing 22 years) over its 220 year history since European settlement in 1788, but only five recession years and no depression over the past seven decades. So the mechanisms, and some serendipity, are working for us.


It is important to understand the profound difference between recessions and depressions, and their respective causes.


Causes of recessions


Recessions are short periods of falling economic output involving at least two successive quarters of decline, but rarely extending beyond 15-18 months.


Most of them were caused by poor agricultural seasons before Word War II. Given that this primary industry accounted for between 15-50% of Australia’s GDP up to that time, it took only a 25% fall in farm output from droughts and/or floods to cut our overall GDP by 4% or more that year and trigger a recession. Nowadays, with agriculture being only 3% of the nation’s economy, a 20-25% fall in its output can only take less than 1% off our GDP and in no way lead to a recession.


So in the post-World War II years, recessions are caused by human failings not acts of god. It is now falling investment (capital expenditure) by up to 10% that triggers recessions. Given that each year new investment is around 25% of the economy, a 10% fall is enough to cause a recession by leading to a fall of, say, 2.5% in GDP. Governments seeing this coming can step in and bolster capital expenditure to stop an impending recession in its tracks. They did this in 1966-67 and 2001-02, meaning recessions were avoided.


The most recent parrying of a recession was by the Howard/Costello government in 2001. They stepped in with a $7000 first home buyer’s grant – doubling that to $14,000 a year later – and boosted capital expenditure on housing to such an extent that the overall fall in investment was minimised and a recession avoided.


Interestingly, both Australia and the US have long business cycles of around eight and a half years, and we are recession-prone via potential collapses in investment only at the end of each cycle.


The end of the current cycle is due around September 2009, so our Federal Government has a year to plan a boost of up to $20 billion in capital expenditure in the event that the private sector cuts its investment too much. It has heaps of money to do this as a result of years of surplus budgets by the Howard/Costello years, and continuing surpluses with the Rudd/Swann team.


What may not be known by most Australians is that consumption expenditure – mainly by households but supported by government spending on education, health and other consumer services – has never been negative in five decades, as the chart below shows.


It isn’t consumers that cause recessions; rather it is nervous boards of directors in the business world who savagely cut their capital expenditure plans. They are also not helped by difficulties in getting the money from spooked or under-capitalised banks, scared stockmarkets and other fearful lenders.


However, the avoidance of a recession for Australia in 2009-10 should not be that difficult. The Treasury in Canberra and our Reserve Bank are both skilled to act swiftly, and yet again avoid a recession. The Rudd Government has now acted quickly to bolster both capital and consumption expenditure in the middle of October this year so, another potential recession would not be due until 2018 at the earliest. Here’s hoping, but we can do so somewhat confidently.


Causes of depressions


Depressions are altogether different from recessions.


They involve at least two years of declining output and most have lasted for four years or more. We have had four of them: 1788-89 (Captain Arthur Philip’s colony), 1840-1846, 1890-1899 and 1929-33.


Their causes, apart from the First Colony setback, are greed and short-sightedness. The effect is a massive and sustained fall in GDP, unemployment rising to truly distressing levels with widespread hardship, and frightening collapses in asset prices – both property and financial assets. The falls in our GDP ranged from minus 20-31% over these four depressions. Unemployment levels rose to between 17.5-20% of the labour-force.


We certainly do not want to experience another one. And like recessions, they can be stopped in their tracks by appropriate actions by Treasuries and Reserve Banks; although even with such actions a nation usually experiences at least a recession and lingering pain in the society for several years.


This is the price of the greed and madness of crowds, including crazy asset prices, which led to the problem in the first place. After all, the causes of depressions are far more serious than the causes of recessions.


Interestingly, the 1990-1991 recession in Australia may one day be seen to have been a technical depression given that its biggest impact was crashing asset values (housing, other property, shares and our equivalent of America’s “junk bonds”), rather than crashing economic output, which fell by less than 2% of GDP. The greed of the so-called entrepreneurs in the eighties was palpable.

Our government agencies did act decisively on the “recession we had to have” as treasurer Paul Keating said at the time. But as said, we may one day regard this as a controlled depression.


This time, in the troubled late-noughties, we do have some inflated asset prices. In September 2007 our stockmarket was overvalued, by about 15%, but punished by an over-reactive 42% fall by mid October 2008. It will recover within a year or so, and is probably already a source of many bargains for the patient investor. Yes, some of our investment banks and property trusts are paying the price of excessive exuberance, but as a percentage of the nation’s financial assets, this accounts for less than 1% of the $4.7 trillion of such assets; so it is easily manageable.


Housing prices have been very inflated, by as much as 40%, as shown in the chart. This is worrying as the nation has $3.6 trillion in housing at present. The average dwelling for over 50 years after World War II had been around 2.6 times average household gross incomes, but rose rapidly in the new century to four and a quarter times.




However, this was not due to excessive greed, but the shortage of housing. Today we are building the same amount of new homes that we did in 1975 and this is despite record immigration levels of around 180,000 per annum. Simply, state governments have not done adequate planning, released enough land or made it easier for developers and builders to create new housing estates and dwellings.


So greed of the sort that has been the base cause of previous depressions is not evident in 2008. Yet overpriced housing will face some adjustment over the next five to 10 years.


That said, households (the main source of savings) have been poor savers in Australia for decades, despite the introduction of the superannuation levy in 1993, which is now 9% of our wages, as the chart shows.




The US scene: A depression or recession?


The US has a far more serious set of problems than Australia. It is grappling with the cost of two expensive incursions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with inadequate taxation of its citizens to do so. Indeed, its overall taxation is around 25% of its GDP compared with our 31%. It should be at our level.


Its capital expenditure – the source of growth and productivity in any economy – is a lowly 17% of its economy compared with our 27%, which means its infrastructure is decaying.


Its finance industry is in disarray, the result of sloppy if not criminal practices associated with mortgage lending (low-doc and especially sub-prime lending) and reckless investment bank lending and leveraging.


Lehman Brothers has gone to its grave, Merryl Lynch was snapped up by Bank of America, the Federal Reserve saved IAG by taking an 80% equity share, and saved both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the dominant mortgage institutions of the US). No one suggests this carnage is yet over.


The 2008 meltdown in the US has so far seen asset losses of over $US300 billion by failed institutions, and Treasury allocation of bad-debt absorption funding of $US700 billion.


Assuming a Treasury exposure by end 2008 of say, $US1 trillion, this would represent only 1.2% of the assets of all financial institutions in the US ($84 trillion). This is a small price to avoid a potential depression, and would still be if the ante rose to $2 trillion. So getting carried away with big numbers is irresponsible and fear-mongering.


A depression, if not a recession, is certainly avoidable in the US. They have worked hard for a recession, however, and may well experience one sometime over the next 18 months. Their recovery into a once-again vibrant economy could take some time.


But the ripples, indeed financial Richter Scale tremors, have made their way from the US around the developed world. A scarcity of capital for credit and capital expenditure purposes is a problem for Australia going into 2009, hence the necessity for the government to make up a shortfall in private sector capital expenditure—which they can do comfortably, and are doing.


How people react and societies change


Recessions do not have too many lasting impacts on society at large, although a small minority of households and individuals are affected, including some getting financially “wiped out” as they say. They are usually much more conservative in their attitude for many years, if not the rest of their life, as a result.


But depressions change the whole society, creating conservatism, a degree of regression in thinking and the evolution of furphies and some muddled thinking. They also lead to extraordinary energy, ambition and economic and productivity growth.


As Australia came out of the 1930s depression and World War II, our economic growth was breathtaking for more than two decades as people made up for lost opportunities from 1929 to 1945; more so than during our exit from the 1890s depression.


At the same time households developed some financial conservatism. It was not uncommon in the post-war years for parents to have empty cans and jars along a mantelpiece in which to divvy up a man’s pay-packet into moneys for rent, gas, telephone, school fees, and beer money, etc. The penchant for home ownership was such that the saying “rent is money down the drain” was born and lingers to the present day, even though for decades interest payments and other costs of home ownership have been twice the amount of rent for an equivalent home!


Hire purchase, introduced in Australia in the late 1920s was eschewed by The Depression generation, and only really adopted by the baby boomers in the late 1960s, who were not prepared to wait forever to have quality furniture, TV sets and cars like their patient parents.


Time also created some misconceptions about the good and the bad of the 1930s depression. As a young adult I once asked my grandfather, who was brave enough to start a small chemical company with two partners in The Depression, if other types of businesses also did well. He thought about it for a while and said yes. Bread (as a necessary staple), lollies (to cheer up the kids) and beer (to cheer up the breadwinner) were all good businesses he thought.


Many years later, as an analyst, I found they were all terribly tough businesses! Families had begun to make their own bread during The Depression, as it was cheaper. They made toffees with sugar and treacle in the oven, being cheaper than bought lollies. And beer? Well port was a cheaper source of alcohol, and “fourpenny darks” were a better proposition than beer to drown one’s sorrows.


The effluxion of time has muted the fears that older generations had. When only 4% of the population has any experience of a depression, it is no wonder.


Some 75 years later we are a less fearful society. We have advanced the means of preventing or ameliorating such potential catastrophes.


We may not be economically and financially bullet-proof here in Australia, but we are possibly the best placed in the OECD. Our government has virtually no debt and has money in the bank, and we have the serendipity of a mining prices boom. Our businesses have conservative and manageable debt/equity ratios, and less than 5% of our households are debt-servicing stressed (mortgages, more than credit card or personal loan debts).


It doesn’t get much safer than that.
 
Good RELIABLE public transport and infrastructure such as schools are a major consideration

My thoughts

Property is, and will probably always be, a good way to store wealth for the following reasons

Over time, as rent goes up, the cost of maintaining the asset decreases.

Over time, the income from the property can be enough to maintain a comfortable lifestyle.

Over time, the asset appreciates

Funds, for other investments, can be obtained, with a reduced risk of a "margin call" and the return from these investments can be used to purchase more property or reduce the debt on non deductable assets

If property is owned in multiple locations and one decides to move then the lack of rentals is not a problem.

Regardless of what the press says and does property will go through natural cycles.

BTW I would love to know what I would have been able to buy 1 Acre of manhattan Island for at the bottom of the 1930s depression.

This is a non emotional, logical, investment view of the situation.

Sensible investments in sensible assets have a high probability of growing OVER TIME.
 
Could someone who knows please explain why is it ok for bank to do a margin call when share prices falls, but not ok when same happens to house prices?
..

Because there are a few critical distinctions between shares and residential property regarding real value:
  • Shares can end up being worthless i.e. ABC learning, Allco etc..
  • Property always has a value, be it land and construction only
  • Shares can experience no inome for years i.e. no dividend
  • Property, even in poor market, always earns some income
  • Shares can simply disappear and become waste paper
  • Even burnt to the ground, the land remains for rebuilding
  • Share value is based on complex investment decisions which whilst taken in the best advice at the time, can be wrong and remove significant value i.e. Westfarmers takeover of Coles
  • Property Investment (residential) is relatively: simple, independant of market forces, stable, and immune to overseas developements like new technology, cheaper imports, etc.
I understand that shares are liquid and all, but if bank somehow can foresee that property values are going down and some poor PI is sitting on negative equity, don't you think it will be in banks best interest to minimise losses and sell troubled asset?
..
The Banks best interests are to make money. On book value most mortgagee are risky investments taken on the face value of two payslips. It is the fact the home can be resold that removes the high risk. Home Loans are an income stream investment. Selling up costs $$ and kills that investment. As most loans are 80% LVR at valuation, prices have to be 80% or less than the valuation to have the bank at risk.

Regards, Peter 14,7
 
Last edited:
All positive thinking on banks unwillingness to call in loans is based on one big fundamental assumption: None of the banks will have trouble and become bankrupt. Or the Rudd government will bailout.

Not sure if the smaller banks (apart from the big four) and other lending players (insurers included) can get this red carpet treatment.

Just learn the US is planning a big bailout for homeowners: They buy back loans from troubled home owners and refinance them all at market value.

Say if the loan is $100k and house value is $70k, the new loan will be $70k.

The US is raising massive fund via bonds and negotiating with banks on long term mortgage rate.

Current US bond rate varies between 0.01% (1 month) and 3.5% (30 years). New mortgage rate is approx 3.4%.
 
Last edited:
Whilst I'm happy for people out there to believe that the banks will start calling in loans after they dip into negative equity I don't agree.

I think this whole debate has missed the political side of this argument. Now without derailing the thread I've seen 1st hand what happens when people are slide into negative equity here in the UK.
The government and the media have been putting pressure on banks to ease the pressure on those in mortgage stress.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/pbr/article5226489.ece

I can see it now, a couple of Today Tonight/ACA segments, a handful of "aussie battlers" losing their "dream homes" and the media will be all over it. This will force KRudd to do something, along comes a knee jerk government reaction and the banks will ease off.
Alexgsz,maybe have a look back in Australian property history and study the facts,i can't understand why anyone would think that the "Banks" would start to go down that road,did not happen the last few times when property hit the skids and those buying at the top of cyclego into neg growth for several years,and as the law of bankruptcy is the same in every state,i don't think it will be any different this time round,when you break it down in numbers per city- per street the numbers are still very low for people that have their properties taken off them.

Plus i can't see how jet set Kev from Qld:rolleyes:,can help in any way he's is only ever in the country long enough to fill up the plane and he back in the air again and set himself up for his next job,Miss Gillard with the new haircut, and the unions will run the side-show from now on........imho willair......

imho willair..
 
willair - i think we are all in agreeance that the banks are highly unlikely to go down the road of calling in loans with negative equity that have good servicing.

I think Alex was just also adding weight to the discussion saying that even if they did, then the govt would be likely to step in and pull up the handbrake on it happening.
 
All positive thinking on banks unwillingness to call in loans is based on one big fundamental assumption: None of the banks will have trouble and become bankrupt. Or the Rudd government will bailout.

Not sure if the smaller banks (apart from the big four) and other lending players (insurers included) can get this red carpet treatment.

.

Hello Kenster

Anyone over 40 plus and in Aussie in 1990 will remember what you fear did happen and the Loans were not called in .

State Bank of Victoria, heard of them? No? well they essentially went Bankrupt and was bought out by another bank at bargain rates. Similar to the Bankwest deal. Anyone with loans did not get called upon.

It is the loans that make the business that provide the bank value. Not the offices, infrastructure or even the staff. It is the income stream.

If some banks do go belly up, and they may, then they will be bought for next to nothing and the result will/could be less competition.

AND We are already seeing that with Adelaide Bank bought by Bendigo, Bank West by CBA and the merger between St George and Westpac.

This is not the 1930's. Despite some getting airtime saying so I am yet to see any respected commentator say it is another Great Depression.

Peter 14.7
 
Who said nominally?

The Sydney market has gone backwards for half a decade, with prices now down on average 15% from the peak, and down much more that this in some areas. I have not heard of banks forcing anybody to sell because they are in negative equity.

How do you go into negative equity without nominal falls?

You are saying prices have fallen, and then implicitly state they are nominal. It seems you are misleading the members of this forum.
 
Is that clear enough for you?

Not really. So why banks are not afraid to do margin calls on shares? If that could destroy shares market would that not affect banks as well?

Because no one in the general population could meet a margin call.

Do you really think it is that bad in Australia at the moment? If bank would call you and ask for say 30k in 30 days you reckon no one in Australia can meet the call? Or I'm missing what you are meaning by 'no one'?
 
Not really. So why banks are not afraid to do margin calls on shares? If that could destroy shares market would that not affect banks as well?

The shares fall 25% whose money is lost? Yours and a very small amount of the banks. Foreclose on a house and who loses the most money? The bank usually as the homeowner will go into bankruptcy
 
Back
Top