The advance of the FHBs has become a march.
New Reserve Bank figures for lending by borrower type show that last month the first home buyers borrowed the most they have in a month, the most by share of the total advanced, and they borrowed more in dollar terms than investors for the first time.
The breakdown of the lending figures has been published by the RBNZ since August 2014. The history of the series is that in early months the mortgage borrowing was dominated by investors, but since the RBNZ introduced strict deposit limits for investors in 2016 the FHBs have increasingly come into their own.
At the same time the lending to investors has slowed markedly.
The figures show that in May the total amount advanced in mortgages was $6.471 billion.
Within this the FHB grouping borrowed $1.15 billion, a new high since the series started.
The FHBs' share of the total amount advanced - at 17.8% was a new high also.
In contrast the investors for the first time since the series started borrowed less than the FHBs, with $1.14 billion.
That made up just 17.6% of the total advanced and was a sharp contrast to the kind of 35% share of mortgage monies this grouping was taking prior to the changes to the deposit rules announced in mid-2016.
Casting eyes back four years through the figures shows how much things have changed.
In May 2015 the total amount of mortgage money advanced was $6.162 billion. The FHB grouping took just $591 million of this, while the investors took $1.98 billion.
The change around and move toward more FHBs has come at a time when the house market is flattening and even falling in some parts, which could inevitably lead to some concern about young people gearing themselves up in an uncertain environment.
The Reserve Bank will be watching the figures with interest. In more recent times it has moved to relax the loan to value ratio (LVR) restrictions that have been in place in one form or another since 2013.
The RBNZ has itself conceded that the first iteration of the LVR rules "disproportionately restricted" first home buyers.
This was clearly rebalanced more by the move to clamp deposit limits on investors in 2016.
The most recent change to the LVR rules was in January and the next logical time to relax the rules further would be in November when the RBNZ releases its next Financial Stability Report.
However, the RBNZ would want to be convinced that borrowing levels are not getting too risky before doing that.
The IMF indicated this week that the RBNZ would have "limited scope" to further relax the LVR rules and that "mitigating supply constraints" is critical for improving housing affordability.
88 Comments
Which suggests that the loan stats to first home buyers are being mis-presented.
Mr Yvil. I understand that you are a man of property. How many loans would each of your investments carry? I presume that you split the interest rate risk by having more than one loan per property?
I have posted a comment below which I hope provides a bit of background to why I ask the question.
Thanks Yvil
I just wanted to highlight to people that ‘loans’ as reported to the RBNZ are not ‘total mortgage exposure against a property and that we have probably been under-estimating the true size of first home buyer exposure for many years. It has previously been reported here that the average mortgages taken on for the First home buyer set is in the early 400k’s.. and numbers from this series suggest that FTB average loan is $416,666. But that is the loan, not necessarily the whole package of loans that many will be using to make up a mortgage. It is likely that of the 2700 loans written last month to FTb’s that some (not all) will be 2 loans against the same house.
Therefore the concentration of debt and risks to stability are likely to be far higher than many anticipate and perhaps the banks have been pulling a wooly balaclava over the heads of the regulators. They are clever buggers after all and often far more nimble than those that like the comfortable blanket of working for a not for fright institution.
Thanks for sharing, it fits with my anecdotal investigations where over 50% of the mortgage carrying households that I have questioned have more than one loan against each property they own.
Think there may be trouble brewing in the banking sector, or we continue as we are and build up for a bigger crisis later.
Yes N46 it is a very large amount of money. But there is bad debt, for anything that goes down in value (cars, credit card, consumables, holidays etc...) and good debt for assets that increase in value over time (houses). Buying a house is a long term (huge) gain. It matters little if next year your house is worth 10% more or 10% less, what is certain is that in 25 years a) your house will be worth much more than today (25 years ago avg houses were about $80k and b) you will have repaid your mortgage. In short you will have a net $1 Million in your name. You may be young (I don't know) but please listen to my advice, if you can buy a then buy and buy now. Sincerely
Yvil
The 'buy now, always' mantra misses a very important bit of math;
While yes, prices do go up in the long term, they can (and do) drop in the short/medium term (has happened 6 times in NZ over the last 50 years).
If you believe prices are about to drop, you can save a boatload of money by waiting a bit. Heres how;
1. The money you save by paying less for a house (ie you are looking at a certain type of house. You pay $10 less for that type of house due to a fall in prices.
2. The interest savings over the lifetime of the loan on that $10; est $5
3. The additional money you have saved in the meantime. Say $10
4. The interests savings on that $10, again $5.
So if you were of the opinion that by waiting, you can get the same sort of house you are looking at now, for $10 cheaper, while saving an additional $10 in that time, you will effectively be paying $30 less for that house when you do come to buy it.
Assuming you make that $10 figure something slightly larger, we are not talking chump change.
How confident are you that housing in NZ will be worth a lot more 25 years from now?
I wouldn't be so confident and wouldn't use the past to predict the future. The world looks very different moving forward in so many respects.
I think the west including NZ will go the way of Japan, although not the whole way.
I am pretty confident prices will be higher in 25 years, but I would not be so confident they will do a repeat of history for a host of reasons.
I'm very confident houses will be worth a lot more in 25 years. You say "I wouldn't use the past to predict the future" well it's still the best we have to forecast the future and you're doing so yourself when you mention Japan, you are looking at what happened to Japan in the last 2 decades (= past) to say it could happen to NZ in the future.
Huge statement that is ignorant to the drivers of past increases.
Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns.
Ask someone from Japan who purchased a house 27 years ago if houses are worth much more today:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/03/19/business/economy-business/…
And 1990s Japan is the exact type of monetary policy model that everyone else, including us, is starting to emulate:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12…
Since you asked...
Owned my own properties, I've been a Landlord.
Sold out of my last one in December. Don't hold anything anymore and super happy to be in that position.
I also work for a business that buys and sells assets, including real estate (last parcel we purchased was $20m).
I have access to all the property information databases.
I'm watching the market every day and getting reports on what's selling where.
And I've previously worked in finance, including the Big 4 banks, and relied on property as security.
One of my hobbies is keeping up with international macro-economic news (Bloomberg, CNBC, WSJ, follow professors on Twitter etc).
This is far more important and has far more bearing on what will happen here than the tiny little microcosm of NZ Property.
My comment still stands about past NZ property cycles - they mean nothing without the international context they occurred in.
So, in short, a lot of experience.
Far more than any two-bit residential property investor.
Buying my own properties didn't really teach me a lot about the market per se - what are you trying to say about buying / selling, is it meant to give you some kind of magical knowledge on where the market is headed?
All it taught me is that the Bank is more than happy to lend me far more than I ever felt comfortable stretching to.
One: I'm not giving advice. I am however pointing out the flaws in advice given by others.
Two: What has experience in owning property got to do with it? For example, I may not be a builder, but that doesn't mean I can't clearly tell if a building is poorly constructed or not. Your question should be; 'what experience do you have reading economic indicators/charts, and analysing them". And the answer would be "plenty"
Three: Which parts of my analysis do you disagree with? I never said 'prices will fall', I merely pointed out that in the past they have, and that if people had predicted those falls, they could have saved a ton of money by waiting to buy. Is that incorrect?
I feel like this comment is the classic... "In my day I just did x y and z and it worked for me!". Your advice sounds very sound in an environment where saving a decent deposit (20% + ) is achievable. And that using that deposit you can afford to buy a property that will serve you well for 10+ years.
I’m sure that’s precisely what you did back in the day. When buying a house the bank would insist you had a reasonable buffer/deposit. The reality is that right now the vast majority of FHB have either <20% deposit, and/or require outside assistance to put together a deposit. All of this leverage increases volatility. Price rises can be more extreme (as we have seen), but likewise so can falls.
In addition the unaffordability means that FHB are often buying properties that won’t suit their needs over 10+ years. I spoke with a colleague who recently looked at a 2 bedroom place. It had been bought and sold 10 times in 14 years, likely due to people buying, hoping the equity would increase as prices rise, and use that to leapfrog to a property that would actually meet their needs.
What happens to this person if prices fall or stagnate?
I wouldn't try to discourage anyone from buying a property in an uncertain market provided they have 20%+ deposits and can actually afford a home that will suit their needs for the medium term. Those people are rare. Your blanket "just buy property now under any circumstances" is not only irresponsible its just dangerous.
Agreed Yvil.
FHB are in there for the long term. While there is some uncertainty in the market, and as long as FHB can continue to service their mortgage, a short term blip in the market is irrelevant. The short to medium term outlook for mortgage rates is downwards so that should not be an issue but I would be paying that mortgage down while the sunshine lasts for mortgage holders.
So FHB, enjoy the satisfaction that comes from the intrinsic value and security in owning your home.
To those potential FHB still saving, this should give you heart.
Unfortunately there is also a depressing side to all of this. Those potential FHB still renting on the assumption of a bubble burst despite the lack of signs over the past two plus years, well you just keeping paying the mortgage off for your landlord. And remember, it is likely that when and what colour the landlord paints the interior and exterior is his/her choice, and keep a wary eye out for when he/she decides to sell the house forcing a reluctant move. In the later, if the wife is eight months pregnant, or the children have just stated school; that is irrelevant.
"So FHB, enjoy the satisfaction that comes from the intrinsic value and security in owning your home"
Seriously? Is this what your guaranteeing will be the experience? This is not security at all. Once the buyers remorse kicks in, where's the satisfaction? It no longer has intrinsic value once the mortgage is more than the value and the bank has become the FHB's landlord from hell. Not only have FHB's bought at the top, they've raided their Kiwisavers and taken out 30-year mortgages too. The escaping investor is no longer the biggest fool in all of this. The destabilising factor in the housing market is quietly shifting to FHB's. This is one reason why current RBNZ restrictions should remain where they are. FHB's need protection, specuvestors are about to learn a lesson.
It seems Spruikers like yourselves yearn for just one more bull run so escape your own foolish decisions. Why else would you recommend FHB's buy now instead of waiting? If you think savings (TD's) don't provide security then your biased by your own poor savings record.
FHB's are wise to wait. It is suspicious that Spruikers like Printer8 say you should buy right on the cusp of a downturn. It's totally mischievous and selfish.
"The bank becomes the FHB's landlord"
Nonsense, that's the kind of really bad advice that FHB should not listen to. When you buy a house (with a mortgage of course) the house is yours and you can be proud to own it. The bank has no say, you can paint your house, renovate it, sell it etc... all you need to do is pay your mortgage and the bank will never bother you
Yvil, I was expecting this misinformed response. The house belongs to the bank. Its their security. The security can only be released once either the house is sold, or every last bit of interest (dead money) and principal is paid back to the bank. The so called owner is merely a caretaker of the banks asset. In the early 90s, I witnessed lenders turn toxic towards owners once the mortgage exceeded valuation (underwater). These owners were up to date with their mortgage payments too. They were sent letters to refinance to another institutions. In crisis times, other lenders are only inviting at much higher interest rates. Yvil, you clearly haven't got a clue.
Its devious to sugar coat the biggest financial decision FHB's will likely ever make. Tell it how it really is.
I see RP is still flogging the end is nigh ! 'a lot of fluffy nonsense'. This is the best buying opportunity for FHB for years. If they can get the deposit and satisfy the Bank good on them. Investors are quiet in Auckland at the moment having made good gains in the provinces but they will be back. Any FHB I recommend not listening to negative old people, speak to your Bank and if your lucky talk to someone that has proven worth in real estate investment. I never intend to sell my portfolio the cash flow and overall capital gains are just to good. Maybe when I'm old and blind I might have a few TD's !
For sometime RP predicted a bubble burst which hasn't happened so he then posted a slow decline (from memory) of 6 to 8 years.
His prediction is not only unsubstantiated;
- it is asking FHB to put their and their family's lives on hold for 6 to 8 years, and
- is not consistent with the view of Government (budget statement),Treasury, NZ Reserve Bank, recognized and respected property commentators, and banks.
Simply scaremongering.
A first home and mortgage has always been daunting and significant commitment. Even RP made that commitment in his youth.
Spruikers are certainly responding in numbers. Spruikers want FHB's to once again suffer from FOMO. Those were the good ol days, weren't they? Another party should about do it so they can escape the commitment of paying massive mortgages off the hard way, but of course, they are happy if FHB's do.
Capital gains are disappearing fast. This helps explain the underlying anxiety now oozing from Spruiker comments....
When starting out, amassing a savings buffer will provide a far superior security. Attempting home ownership at today's prices is foolhardy and riddled with risk. There is no hurry to buy. Patience is now key to a rewarding home ownership experience. .
RP
A lot of comment about risk of a mortgagee sale.
In the three years (June 2016 to May 2019) there were 866,365 mortgages by all borrowers of who 73,761 were FHB.
So 73,761 FHB disagree with you RP.
So what is the risk of a mortgagee sales? Mortgagee sales are currently at a historical low; 249 for all borrowers in the 12 months up to September 2018 - less than 1 in a 1,000 or 0.1% of mortgages taken out over the same period.
So RP, stop scaremongering about about the risk of mortgagee sales.
Yvil, NY 2019 forecasts are on the following link ;https://www.interest.co.nz/news/97512/will-current-prosperity-last-will…
It would seem neither yourself or REA-TTP had the balls to even make one. I think you have both just embarrassed yourselves.
Like most commentators here, I've already willingly volunteered my NY 2018 forecast missed the mark. As David Chaston pointed out "it seems to me many/most of us who had a crack at what will happen in 2018 got it materially wrong - and in major ways. There were also some flukes that came in but that "accuracy" didn't seem to extend to other wild guesses, even from the same commenters"
"Those potential FHB still renting on the assumption of a bubble burst despite the lack of signs over the past two plus years, well you just keeping paying the mortgage off for your landlord. "
This is not true when prices are declining! An example, the house I live in was bought for $820k in 2018 and sold for $790k in 2019 to its current owner. The house lost $30k + mortgage interest + costs, while I only spent $26k total on my rent in the same time period.
I actually made $4k+ in a year by waiting instead of buying.
Also, let's assume I bought the same house instead of renting, for $820k, with 20% deposit at 4% interest. The interest on its own would have been $26,240 for the year, so I actually saved even more money.
I also had that deposit money in a term deposit, at a 3.4% interest rate. This made me an additional $5576 for me, essentially risk-free.
So if I had listened to this advice a year ago, I would have lost more than $10,000 in a single year, plus all the costs associated with owning a house.
Please stop spreading LIES.
Courtjester, you are wasting you time with that lot, they won't consider other possibilities until they undergo an unpleasant "revision of belief" (https://www.businessinsider.com.au/nassim-talebs-black-swan-thanksgivin…?)
Really we need a breakout on the mortgage lending that removes refinancing from the stats. At the moment we really have no idea what new lending is genuinely new business. We also don't have stats on first vs second, third / top up lending. The stats need to he granular before they can be interpreted to provide any real insight.
I don't think its good either. I wonder how many of those Auckland buyer considered that following current trends their house might be worth less in a years time than what they paid for it and that they are relying on more FHB to help maintain their house's value.
to be fair, it depends on how much stock they put in the value of the property, which is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is the interest rate it is fixed on - there will be pressure on low equity interest rates with the reserve bank looking to massively increase capital needed on this segment. So they will want to make sure they can service the loan even if rates go up (which, in theory, the banks assess at)
If you purchased your FH where you could afford and, now 5 years later and with a young family, you're considering better school zones... then you'd put a lot of stock in the value of your property and how much [additional?] equity you have to play with.
I know a lot a people in their mid-30s that are now struggling with that equation.
They can't make that next move.
They bought in 2015-2017 and their house has had little / no / negative increase in value.
They simply are unable to move to the next rung.
When they purchased they stretched themselves into their FH, so the principal repayments in early years have been wafer thin on large mortgages.
Exactly. Very few of the FHB who are buying with <20% deposits are able to immediately buy the 3-4 bedroom home suitable for raising a family. They instead are forced to buy a substandard 2 bedroom place to “get on the property ladder”. But that ladder can go down as well as up.
And if it goes down people suddenly locked into a house that no longer meets their life goals. That’s the danger.
If a FHB can afford a house suitable for their needs for the next 10 years (and have a 25%+ deposit) then they are probably safe to buy in this market.
But very few people are in this situation. Otherwise people should be proceeding cautiously.
Nothing has change in the decision making process, it is just the there are 000 more zeros on the end of the borrowing
Lets face it wages across the board are not going to increase anytime soon to make traditional; lending criteria applicable.
A lot of people are going to experience a lot of pain financially in the coming years. But hey I am not saying anything that is not already known
Try and make sense of this if you can?
First home buyers borrowed $1.15 billion across 2760 ‘loans’ at an average loan size of $416,666 dollars representing 17.8% of the total share of new lending.
First home buyers 2760 ‘loans’ make the equivalent of 38% of the number of transactions recorded by the REINZ (7263) for May. One would presume that some of those sales were actually cash purchases (or at least i’d Hope they were) so FHB’s loans are meant correlate to a larger share than 38% of the purchases? With just 17.8. % of the new debt?
The answer is perplexing me, but I think the banks are fiddling this reporting of ‘loans’ to the RBNZ and we are all merrily under reporting the actual size of real first home buyer commitments.
Unless someone here can tell me that they can solve this riddle.
For reference my assertion is based on what happened in Oz with ‘loan’ reporting to APRA rather than the aggregate of loans that formed total household mortgage commitments.
Only a continuation of loan fraud can save the Aussie housing market and economy.
Here’s Robbie Barwick of the Citizens Electiral Council with Philip Soos to explain.
But do they against the volume of purchases? First home buyers, by definition must equate to a purchase, per loan? 38% of the transaction volume? What i’m Suggesting is that many first home buyers are actually taking on more than one loan to buy and are splitting the mortgage, possibly to spread interest rate risk, or possible to have part on interest only. Either way the aggregate household exposure is not being represented accurately in the reporting of loans.
The additional 22,000 loans written, many will be stock flows, refinancing etc but that cannot be the case for the First home Buyers where it must equate to a purchase.
Corelogic have been consistently talking of first home Buyers making up between 20-23% of all transactions. So I guess what i’m Saying here is that many are doing it with more than one loan.
JW, I don't buy the argument that FHBs are taking out multiple loans. It's a headache to getting one mortgage and folks simply aren't sophisticated enough to manage their IR risk by taking say 50% 1yr fixed and 50% 3 year fixed or such like.
I think your previous argument was sound ~ the banks are not reporting FHB mortgages vs existing customer business accurately or at least there must be leeway in the reporting rules how FHB are defined that allows banks to misclassify the buckets under which loans are reported.
I'm pretty convinced that the "new lending" is actually majority refinancing of existing debt and top up mortgages. How else ~ given the reduced volume of actual sales transactions, could lending be nearly flat ? As previously stated unless we get clearer reporting its very difficult to draw any conclusions nor trends from these figures.
Hi Glitzy
I’ve had a chat with a number of brokers over the last few months and it is one of the things they recommend. A couple even suggesting that that was how the majority of mortgages were written. Even conducting a small poll of 40 friends with mortgages on family homes - only one had an additional property but 30 had a mortgage made up of more than one loan. One friend had 5 small loans, same lender, against a new build home they’d bought as first home buyers with a 5% deposit 18 months ago.
IT’s worth talking to some brokers and friends, I think you may be surprised how prevalent this has become over the last 5 years... all sold as splitting interest rate risk so you don’t see the whole lump come up for renewal if interest rates were to have gone up (which they won’t be now for a considerable time).
Let me know how you get on when you’ve spoken to a few friends - i’d Be keen to hear if this is widespread beyond one region of lil ole NZ.
Just a quick note re answers to questions I asked of RBNZ.
Dear Sirs,
Re: New residential mortgage lending by borrower type ~ C31
With reference to the above published statistics I would be grateful if your statistics department could kindly answer a few questions in order to be able to analyse the data.
1. Could you kindly provide the definition of First Home Buyers which you use please.
Please see the ‘series description’ tab located on the C31 table, which can be found here: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c31
A first home buyer is a borrower entering the home ownership market in New Zealand for the first time. In the case of more than one borrowing parties to a loan, borrowers are classified as first home buyers only if none of the borrowing parties have previously drawn down on housing finance for owner occupation. If the borrower, or at least one borrowing party, has previously drawn down on housing finance for owner occupation they should be classified as “other owner occupier”. The borrower declares whether they are a first home buyer as part of the loan application.
Specifically could you clarify if this includes new trust and corporate purchases. Is any consideration given to the beneficial owners when such vehicles are used to purchase residential property.
The LVR statistics only cover what is referred to as the residential mortgage asset class. Banks have different internal rules for classifying loans into this asset class. As a general rule, purchases of a residential property by a corporate entity or trust with a large turnover, that is individually managed by their bank, or a high total debt amount is likely to be classified as a corporate loan.
Purchases by a small family trust will be covered in the statistics. Corporate lending represents only a small proportion of the total lending secured on residential property.
2. How is new lending resulting from existing fixed rate mortgages being refinanced at the end of their fixed terms included and delineated in your figures ?
Refinancing at the end of fixed terms will not be included in these new commitment figures. If however, borrowers refinance with a different bank, this will come through as a new commitment.
3. How does one understand where new lending on existing property (top up mortgages) has taken place ?
Top-ups are including in the lending statistics. We collect data for internal risk monitoring that includes the breakdown between top-ups and lending for purchase, but this is not currently published.
Joe, no problem with splitting loans , something I recall doing as a FHB. Perhaps the banks are not classifying FHB accurately and sneaking a few in but not their loans/mortgage data . When the hard numbers that you provided are crunched, the average FHB mortgage appears fairly close to what would be expected nationwide.However I have read that the average FHB mortgage in Auckland is in excess of 800000.
The first house I purchased when I was 26 had 3 tranches (bulk on 5 year, a portion on 3 year and then a floating offset account).
The last house I sold had 5 tranches.
It wasn't much, if any more effort - just one more doc to sign that is almost identical to the others.
I'm guessing there would have been a banking crisis at some point and the folks (unlike you) who were over stretched would have defaulted. Whether that would have lead to full scale banking bail outs similar to those in the Credit Crisis who knows. It was however due to 100%+ mortgages on poor quality credits that was the genesis of the historic problems in the US.
Always find these articles could use more graphs; here is the full data set in a simple line chart, split out by each investor type.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14VN1q7vNmISUM4C9wOotwvsvwWHujep…
Hi everyone just my own experience as a FHB; I just bought my first home in my home town of Hamilton. We were initially holding off since last year trying to time the market, watching Auckland/Aussie closely like may others on this site. Still, we kept a close eye on listings within our price bracket and up came the perfect place for us - big section right near town with a solid build 50s state home (thanks to advice on here). Just a few months after our purchase and the market has shifted markedly - only attached units in our price bracket now.. I'm glad we took the plunge when we did! :)
Hi "c'est la vie" beautiful moniker! Congrats on buying your first home, don't read too much into the negativity of some commenters, you did well and the more time goes by the happier you will be with your purchase. In 10 years time you will look back and think "buying my first home was the best thing I ever did", while the negative commenters here will still be renting and saying it's a bad time to buy
I agree. We bought 2 years ago, but didn't move into the place for a couple of months because despite being livable we wanted to renovate the bathroom. The house now certainly feels like "ours", especially in the hallway where an unfinished DIY project (1 sheet of GIB hasn't been put up from when we shifted a doorway) is now being used as a "wall cavity recessed shelving unit".
The "negativity" (or rather, realistic cautiousness) is pretty much all about the Auckland market. For now. The regions are still growing, as disillusioned Aucklanders are moving their money into those areas.
Once Auckland takes a plunge (I predict -7% from peak by the end of this year, -15% from peak by the end of 2020), the regions will follow too.
Expect home ownership to be under 50% in census for Auckland, when it finally arrives.
Take a look at RE NZ and see total houses and town houses on market and work out % of housing stock (owned)
It is tiny.
The Auckland 2012-17 market was an aberration built on asset build due to money printing and money laundering from abroad. The 35-40% artifice due to that has now been blown away and will not return pre 2025. In addition to these matters, demography is against Auckland. The number of 40-47 year olds with max income peaked in 2018 and will not rise again until 2023. Also, immigrants that commentators revert to like a default automaton, are TOO YOUNG to buy in most cases, except with foreign money which they now have to account for. So, I repeat, ad nauseam, more good quality rented houses , 3 bed are needed and wanted by FHB. Driving them to ever greater debt is totally irresponsible and neither government nor regulator seem bothered in the least as such consumer demand is dependent on their taking these risks.
So why couldn't the Nats ban foreign speculators again? ah yeah that's right they could have done.
But didn't want to end the fake growth it produced, and also they weren't really there for the benefit of Kiwis, but there for the benefit of other rich people, be they Kiwis or not.
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.