By Bernard Hickey
Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler has virtually ruled out an Official Cash Rate hike to slow down Auckland's housing market in the short term, but has stopped short of saying it would prevent him from cutting the Official Cash Rate again on December 10, as most economists currently expect.
Wheeler was commenting on the Auckland housing market in an appearance before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee in Parliament. He had initially said he would not comment on monetary policy, given the hearing was about the Reserve Bank's Financial Stability Report released earlier in the day. He will appear again on December 10 to comment on the Reserve Bank's December quarter Monetary Policy Statement.
But National MP Andrew Bayley asked Wheeler about comments by the IMF yesterday about the Reserve Bank using monetary policy to 'lean against the wind' of financial stability risks from housing if prudential policy was not working.
"We can do things in terms of macro-prudential policy that can help out a bit, but in the end supply will fix that problem," Wheeler said.
"The possibility of us raising interest rates at this point to lean against house price pressures in Auckland is probably pretty negligible," Wheeler said.
"The last thing we'd want to do is drive the exchange rate up, for example, and with the economy going through a dairy price adjustment and growth probably slowing in the first half of this year, the prospect of raising interest rates in the short term is not something we would consider feasible," he said.
He did not address the issue of whether the Reserve Bank would hold back from cutting interest rates for a fourth time on December 10. Wheeler said in a speech on October 14 that "housing market considerations do influence our thinking on the OCR," which was cited by some as one reason why the Reserve Bank might not cut interest rates on December 10, as it forecast it was likely to in its September Monetary Policy Statement.
Elsewhere in the hearing, Wheeler said it was too early to say if the Reserve Bank's new restrictions on high LVR lending to Auckland landlords and the Government's moves to introduce a two year 'bright line' test to deter speculators was having an impact. He said the bank would have a better idea of the impact after it received Real Estate Institute sales data from the month of February.
'Not enough houses being built'
Governor Wheeler also said insufficient houses were currently being built in Auckland to house the record number of migrants.
"We're not building enough houses to match the net migration inflows, let alone the shortfall or the natural increase," Wheeler said.
Wheeler said about half of the current annual net migration inflows of 54,000 were going to Auckland, which meant around 9,000 to 10,000 new houses were needed each year to house the migrants, given an occupancy rate of about three per house. However, only around 8,600 houses were consented in Auckland in the last year.
Wheeler not so keen on CGT
Green MP and Finance spokeswoman Anne-Marie Genter asked the Reserve Bank whether the Government needed to introduce further taxation reform to discourage speculative investment by landlords.
Governor Wheeler said most other OECD countries had capital gains taxes.
"When you look at the impact of those capital gains taxes, you often find they don't generate much revenue for the Governments in OECD countries, and that's partly because the systems are usually very complex, there's a lot of exemptions -- the family home is usually exempted -- so there's a lot of issues around Capital Gains Taxes," Wheeler said.
"Our perspective at this point is we're pleased with what the Government has done and we'll be very keen to see its impact."
'Stress tests not the only measure'
Meanwhile, National MP Chris Bishop asked about the results of stress tests on banks that showed they had sufficient capital to deal with a significant housing market correction. Opponents of the Reserve Bank's macro-prudential measures have often pointed to the stress test results from 2014 as a reason why the measures aimed at reinforcing financial stability were not needed.
Deputy Governor Grant Spencer told the committee that the stress tests conducted on banks in 2014 were an indicator the bank looked at, but the simple effects on capital levels were not the only measure for the Reserve Bank to look at when assessing the risks to financial stability from the housing market.
"You have to keep in mind that a bank may pass a stress test, but there may significant disruption to the economy still from relatively low levels of capital. When you look at the stress test and ask a bank how did you survive that, they say, 'we stopped lending to everyone,'," Spencer said.
"They survived it by battening down the hatches, which tends to happens with banks in recessions," he said.
"We have to be careful. Banks may pass the stress test, but a housing shock could still be problematic for the financial system and the New Zealand economy, hence our desire to make the banks even more resilient to a housing shock through macro-prudential measures."
Governor Wheeler then said the stress tests "were always going to be an indicative framework."
"Since we did those stress tests in 2014, Auckland house prices have risen 30%, so they're very helpful for giving us an indication of how the banks might respond," Wheeler said, pointing the potential pro-cyclicality of a bank stopping lending in response to a recession and house price shock.
"On the framework for LVRs -- when we first introduced them, banks were competing very aggressively to lend to people on low deposits. Almost a third of their lending was going to people with deposits of less than 20%. Now that's down to about 7-8%. If you look at the riskiness of a bank portfolio, it's got a significantly lower percentage of high LVR loans at this point, so that's been a positive for financial stability," he said.
29 Comments
The Chinese adjust the reserve ratio as well as the interest rate, but the RBNZ don't seem to do this. Is it right that the Aussie banks only need $2800 in actual equity in order to lend $100,000 on a residential mortgage? It seems a bit more light on the risk weighted asset smoke and mirrors would be good.
Residential mortgage lending has become a Ponzi scheme and it would be nice to find a way to gently unwind it. It would be nice for the RBNZ to honestly admit it for a start, they still seem to be pretending to themselves that all is well.
There are parallels with DieselGate in that the authorities knew the regulations were not working because smog levels in Paris were not changing, but they chose to ignore it. In the same way we know house prices are a Ponzi scheme because the price to income ratio is too high for people to pay off the principal and because household debt to GDP is still in the danger zone.
Is it right that the Aussie banks only need $2800 in actual equity in order to lend $100,000 on a residential mortgage? It seems a bit more light on the risk weighted asset smoke and mirrors would be good.
I guess your calculation assumes an 8.0% tier 1 capital ratio risk weighted by the standard RBNZ 35% factor.
Inevitably, as the governor disclosed today, that rate may not be applied to the majority of national mortgage lending transactions.
The bank also reiterated that it was reviewing capital requirements for banks over the next year.
"That is motivated, in part, by potential changes to the Basel capital adequacy framework and a likely increase in bank capital requirements in Australia as part of the Financial System Inquiry," it said.
The first stage of the review would deal with issues around the big four banks' internal models approach to risk weighting. Read more
Self regulatory indiscretions that directly impact systemically important risk levels always favour banks' shareholders to the detriment of the OBR exposed unsecured creditors.
We know from experience the risk weightings for the large domestic banks in Australia have currently congregated around 16%. This translates into a comparable regulatory capital demand of $1280 for a each $100,000 residential mortgage credit extension.
For the big four banks, only 16 per cent, on average, of a real estate mortgage is counted when measuring the bank’s capital ratio. This is rising to 25 per cent next year.
But every dollar of an unsecured personal and business loans counts against capital and in some cases the risk weighting is 150 per cent.
Capital — that is, the bank owners’ money — has to be 8 per cent of assets, although mostly it’s around 10 per cent. That is, the ratio of owners money to other peoples’ money has to be no greater than 12.5 to 1 and is usually 10 to 1. The result is that for every dollar of capital, the big four banks can choose to lend $62.50 secured against real estate or $10 unsecured. Read more
Thanks Stephen for the clarification. I guess my only comment is that I think the bank management are heavily incentivised to push the boundaries, and it's not entirely clear if anyone is ultimately in charge. The function of the board of directors is two-fold; firstly, to give the appearance that there are some grown ups in charge and to function as scapegoats when things go wrong; and secondly, to appoint the managing director.
So you think its fair that those "exposed unsecured creditors" who profit by lending via the bank get bailed by the tax payer? like yourself?
To me you sound like self interested financial type knowing full well he cant hide his money with the OBR easily and cheaply, so with a bit of luck just like the rest of us you will have no where to hide.
In a way the term is better as it then also covers mom and pop investors (and pension funds who are meant to pay them) who hold bank shares IMHO.
They are your savings, if you dont like the risk, why do you hold them in a bank? No where else to run with your money? but why should that be someone elses problem? ie say the tax payer?
Gullible or shameless, it matters not.
New Zealand central bank Governor Graeme Wheeler needs to get inflation back to target and some observers think he has “plenty of room” to cut interest rates, Finance Minister Bill English said.
“He’s been out of the zone for years now, below the midpoint for quite a long time,” English said in an interview late Thursday, referring to Wheeler’s 2 percent inflation goal. “He’s meant to be following the Policy Targets Agreement, that’s the bit I look at, and one day somebody will start asking the minister of finance questions about whether he’s actually following the agreement or not.”
“People think he’s got plenty of room” to lower rates, said English. “His vocabulary is ‘data-dependent’ now isn’t it? So he’s got his first significant piece of data.” Read more
It's beyond time to call a halt to this egregious, meddling, wealth redistribution mandate based upon a narrow and dubious redefined measure of inflation.
oh so you want to get back to the decades of financial rape and pillage of main street using the so called free market by wall street?
um, no thanks.
You repeatedly miss one critical point, with no SME's, manufacturers, employers, employees etc there is no one left in the economy you can be parasitic on. You complain the return is negligible for the risk of a sizable impact? Well getting the return that you think you deserve will guarantees a kill of the hosts you feed off and see the impact you worry about.
What really worries me now is just how bad things could become for us and our children due to the greed of a few such as yourself.
Who do billionaires turn to when they want to buy apartment complexes? The U.S. taxpayer.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-05/wall-street-leans-on-…
then we have a problem as buyers than need to borrow the MAX amount disappear
You have to keep in mind that a bank may pass a stress test, but there may significant disruption to the economy still from relatively low levels of capital. When you look at the stress test and ask a bank how did you survive that, they say, 'we stopped lending to everyone,'," Spencer said
We actually have heaps of houses, even in Orcs, it's just hype to justify the speculation. We could increase population by 50% without building a single house, and still be within a bulls roar of the OECD average.
In New Zealand, the average home contains 2.4 rooms per person, more than the OECD average of 1.8 rooms per person and one of the highest rates in the OECD.
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/new-zealand/
Nice one Skudiv. Funny how something so fundamental gets left out of the thought process.
I was looking at the AUD/NZD which seems to track net migration pretty closely. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/mei/archive/pdfs/nzecp-charts-oct15…
I would suggest the average voter and taxpayer does benefit from immigration. I think we often forget we have the demographic time-bomb of the baby boomers coming up to retirement age with the on-going costs of health and care that this will bring. The tax burden is going to be enormous if we do not accept migrants (who are usually young) to help pay for this in the future.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.