Category Archives: Analysis

Australian households ‘world-beating borrowers’

When Atlassian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes reportedly paid close to $100 million for the Fairfax family home in Point Piper this past week, it helped confirm that housing in Sydney and Melbourne has become seriously expensive.

The world’s longest property upswing (55 years and counting according to the Bank for International Settlements[1]) and a surge of more than 60 per cent in the past five years (notwithstanding a modest downturn in the last 12 months) will do that.

housing-prices.gif

But just how expensive has Australian property become?

One way to look at it is how much buyers have to borrow to be able to afford a home in Australia, and on this front recently-released figures compiled by the International Monetary Fund[2] provide an intriguing insight.

They show that, when it comes to going all-in to buy a house, no-one comes close to Australian borrowers.

In the three months to June, almost two-thirds of all loans (by value) in Australia were mortgages, which is far higher than any other nation for which the IMF has published figures.

Of the 79 other countries, including 23 advanced economies, that provided financial data to the IMF for the June quarter, none had a home-to-total-loan ratio above 46.3 per cent – a figured dwarfed by Australia’s 63.7 per cent.

The huge share of loans that are for mortgages isn’t being driven by more people borrowing. In fact, the number of owner occupiers taking out loans has been remarkably stable over time. In July 2005, there were 55,123 such borrowers. Twelve years later, in July 2017, there were 54,881.

But over that same period, the proportion (by value) of all loans that were for housing jumped from 56.3 to 63.75 per cent. Some of this growth was surely down to more investors getting into the property market. But the biggest driver was likely to be the surge in house prices over that time.

The preparedness of homebuyers to borrow so heavily to buy housing indicates a number of things:

  • a belief that a mismatch between supply in demand in key city markets will persist;
  • that this mismatch will drive house values up in the longer term;
  • that a mixture of fear and greed is at play – fear of being permanently priced out of the property market, and strong desire to grab a share of housing capital growth; and
  • that residential property will deliver better returns than other asset classes (noting that many are exposed to the sharemarket through their superannuation accounts).

The heavy borrowing required to compete in the recent property market has, of course, made households heavily indebted.

Household debt as a proportion of gross domestic product was at 104.9 per cent in the middle of the year, according to the IMF (Trading Economics/Bank for International Settlements reported it was 122.2 per cent)

australia-households-debt-to-gdp.png

Current low interest rates have until now helped households carry this burden without too much distress, and less than 1 per cent of loans are ‘non-performing’. This is a world away from the situation in European countries hit hardest by the GFC, who are still climbing out from under their debt mountains. In Italy, for instance, more than 14 per cent of loans are still considered non-performing, and in Greece the ratio is a disastrous 45.6 per cent.

But the Reserve Bank of Australia, for one, sees, the level of household debt as a risk for the economy.

As a proportion of disposable income, the central bank warns it is high. The slowdown in wealth accumulation from the cooling property market, along with stagnant wages, has the RBA concerned that household consumption – a key driver of economic growth – could be weaker than it expects.

Moreover, others warn that a significant proportion of borrowers will struggle financially as interest only-loans transition into standard principle-and-interest mortgages in the coming year or so.

Against this, the jobs market is tightening, and there are nascent signs that wages are finally picking up.

The RBA’s core scenario is for above-trend growth driven by solid business investment and a gradual improvement in household consumption, which is underpinned by bigger pay packets, more jobs and low interest rates.

But the not-insignificant risks to this outlook posed by high household debt mean the current period of monetary policy stability – the RBA’s cash rate of 1.5 per cent hasn’t changed in more than two years – is set top continue for a while yet.

 

 

[1] https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/bis-says-australias-55year-house-price-upswing-the-longest-in-the-world-20171016-gz1kdc.html

[2] http://data.imf.org/regular.aspx?key=61404589

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, Uncategorized

Outlook for property prices: lower for longer?

By Adrian Rollins (this story was first posted by intheblack.com on 7 August 2018, at: https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2018/08/07/outlook-property-prices)

What is the outlook for Australian property prices now that the property market has passed its peak? Will house prices continue to deflate in key markets?

For a country used to ever-rising property prices – they have soared more than 370 per cent in the past 30 years – a new reality of shrinking property values and is taking shape.

Since the market peaked in September 2017, the home value index compiled by property market analyst CoreLogic has slid 1.3 per cent, including a 0.2 per cent decline in June 2018.

The searingly hot Sydney market has been hardest hit. House prices there have tumbled 4.6 per cent since the peak.

Nevertheless, so far the damage to balance sheets has been limited. Nationally, longer-term homeowners have held on to virtually all of their capital gains – prices are still 32.4 per cent higher than they were five years ago.

The property market is deflating, but with a gentle hiss rather than a cacophonous bang.

Nervous mortgage holders and aspiring homebuyers nonetheless wonder how long this decline will last, and how ugly it might get.

Applying the brakes to property prices

Part of the answer lies in understanding what pushed prices so high in the first place, and why they have since turned down.

CoreLogic research director Tim Lawless says easy credit and eager investors underpinned much of the increase in recent years. Buoyed by low interest rates and strong capital gains, investors piled into the property market.

By early 2015, the value of mortgages taken out by investors outstripped those to owner-occupiers, many of them riskier interest-only loans.

At one point, almost half of all loans being written were interest-only.

However, the downturn in house prices has not been driven by higher interest rates or borrowers getting into financial distress. Instead, it has been engineered by regulators, says property analyst Pete Wargent of WargentAdvisory.

Worried by the surge in investor borrowing, financial regulator the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in 2014 placed a 10 per cent speed limit on the growth of loans to investors. Three years later the regulator clamped down on interest-only lending, which had been growing rapidly, imposing a 30 per cent cap on the proportion of new mortgages that could be interest-only.

Listen to the podcast: CPA Changemakers: a discussion on housing affordability

Taken together these measures, says Wargent, were “pretty unique” – and effective.

Within a few months of the investor loan cap, borrowing slumped, dropping by almost a third through 2015, and it has continued to decline.

By April this year investors accounted for just 42 per cent of home loans, the lowest proportion since 2012, and growth in investor lending had dropped below 5 per cent, down from a high above 10 per cent.

Interest-only borrowing, too, has wilted. It accounted for more than 40 per cent of loans approved in 2015; by early this year the ratio was less than 20 per cent.

The regulation-driven credit squeeze has dampened housing markets. Auction clearance rates have slumped to less than 57 per cent nationwide, and are the lowest they have been since 2012, according to CoreLogic figures.

APRA released the brakes on investor lending in April but has no intention of relaxing the pressure on lenders, demanding they limit new lending at very high debt-to-income levels, and set debt-to-income levels for borrowers.

Australia: headed for a property crash?

However, the risks already built up in the system are not going away in a hurry.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has flagged household indebtedness as the economy’s biggest risk. The ratio of total household debt to income has jumped almost 30 percentage points in the past five years to reach 189 per cent in December 2018, and mortgage debt alone was 139 per cent of income.

Although wealth has grown even faster, some who have borrowed heavily may be vulnerable.

University of New South Wales Business School Professor of Economics Richard Holden puts the chances of a house price crash at 30 per cent, most probably triggered by widespread defaults on interest-only loans.

Although Holden says it is most likely that the property market will avoid a collapse, the risks created by more than A$100 billion of interest-only loans are “non-trivial” and cannot be ignored.

The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) estimates that each year until 2021, about A$120 billion of such mortgages will convert to traditional principal and interest loans, forcing up repayments by between 30 and 40 per cent.

The RBA thinks most households have enough of a financial buffer to absorb the increase. However, Holden warns that if even just 10 per cent struggle to make their repayments and are forced to sell, that could be sufficient to trigger a crash.

“I’m not really worried about what happens in Point Piper, Double Bay or Toorak,” he says. “I’m worried about what could happen in the western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne. If there are big forced sales there, then great damage is going to happen to people who can afford it least.”

Professional Development: CPA Q&A. Access a handpicked selection of resources each month and complete a short monthly assessment to earn CPD hours. Exclusively available to CPA Australia members.

Interest rates: the price of money

A sudden jump in interest rates is another risk.

Few expect the official cash rate to budge from its current record low of 1.5 per cent before late 2019 at the earliest.

However, this doesn’t mean borrowers won’t feel some financial pinch.

Wholesale funding costs on international markets are increasing, and already some smaller lenders are responding by pushing up interest rates on selected mortgages.

Lenders including Macquarie, the Bank of Queensland and Auswide Bank have increased rates on variable interest mortgages by an average of between 0.08 per cent and 0.27 per cent, and Lawless expects larger banks will eventually have to follow suit.

Still some life left in the market

Even if the country avoids a default-induced property crash, economists expect that tighter credit standards and the chilling effect of the banking Royal Commission on lenders will force house prices down for some time yet.

Fifteen economists polled by comparison website Finder.com.au tipped that prices in Sydney and Brisbane could drop by as much as 6 per cent by the end of the year, 4 per cent in Melbourne and Hobart, and 2 per cent in Perth, Adelaide and Darwin.

ANZ Banking Group is even more bearish. It predicts prices nationally could fall by 6 per cent from September 2017’s peak to a trough in 2019, including a plunge of up to 10 per cent in Sydney – a view shared by Macquarie Securities. AMP Capital warns they could drop by as much as 15 per cent by 2020.

However, Australia’s status as a destination of choice for migrants may limit the extent of any decline.

The country, particularly its biggest cities Sydney and Melbourne, has been a magnet for immigrants and Australia’s population is growing close to the fastest among developed countries.

Professor Holden says it is on track to expand by 1.6 per cent this year, and all these people have to live somewhere.

With the supply of dwellings set to tighten – building and home loan approvals nationally have both dipped recently – pressure on home prices could again build.

Australia’s seemingly tireless property market might have more life in it yet.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, Uncategorized

Australian politics is not broken, but the Liberal Party might be

The Liberal Party’s extraordinary leadership turmoil, and the likelihood that yet another  Prime Minister is cut down before serving out their full term, has many wondering if the political system is broken.

It isn’t.

There is no doubt that the slavish attention now paid to opinion polls, which have assumed oracular status, has made party politics highly volatile, and the position of leaders more precarious.
But what is playing out in gory detail before the eyes of the country at the moment isn’t the breakdown of political machinery, but a fight for the soul of the Liberal Party.
Abbott, Dutton and co. hold the delusion that they are representative of a mythical ‘silent majority’ that ascribes to their vision of a white-bred country. In their world, Turnbull has too much in common with the Left and is leading the country to Gomorrah and the Coalition to oblivion.
There is no doubt that many people, probably the majority, are not particularly thrilled about the current state of affairs. No period is without its challenges, but the sense of uncertainty and apprehension about the future appears heightened at the moment.
Yet relatively few, I suspect, think that the solution is just to shut the eyes and pretend none of it is happening, which is essentially the policy prescription of Abbott and Dutton.
Which brings us to today’s tussle over where the Liberal Party sits, and where it is going.
For years the Coalition has been slowly abandoning the political centre, something the wiser heads in Labor have spied and are trying to exploit.
The politics of migration to one side (bipartisanship on the treatment of refugees has largely neutralised the issue), the Coalition has sought to wind back action on carbon emissions, undermine Medicare, derail public education reforms, narrow Australia’s engagement with the world, drag the feet on child care and pander to the interests of older voters over those of the young.
Turnbull, who was chosen by his colleagues to replace Abbott and stem this rightward drift, has proved himself an inept politician. By pandering to the maddies like Abbott and Christensen rather than staring them down, he undercut his own authority and emboldened them. The dynamic this set in train was always going to end up in tears.
A Liberal split?
The compulsory voting system means that the weight of the national vote is in the centre – only on rare occasions, and in particular electorates, do the extremes gain much traction. Howard understood this. So did Keating, hence his success in beating Hewson by painting him as an economic ideologue and a risk.
If Abbott, Dutton and co. seize the leadership today and try to drag the Coalition even more to the right, they will increase the strain on a party whose unity is already under severe pressure from trying to span such a wide political spectrum.
An outcome of this episode is that the Liberal Party could splinter. In the early 70s, the success of Whitlam-led Labor revealed a shift in the nation’s political centre over the previous decade or so that had been disguised by the dominance of Menzies and the Liberal Party. As the Coalition recalibrated its position, Don Chipp spied a gap in the political centre and formed the Democrats.
If Abbott and co prevail today, some current Coalition MPs may take a leaf out of the same playbook and quit. The Liberal Party could become a rump based in regional Queensland and parts of WA and NSW.
If Bishop ends up succeeding Turnbull, as I suspect is more likely, it would signal that the bulk of Liberal MPs understand that their political future lies in a contest for the centre.
Abbott, Dutton, Christensen and their fellow travellers would then face the stark choice of sucking it up, or finally having the gumption to leave the supportive cocoon of the Coalition and putting the extent of the their electoral appeal to a real test by forming their own party.
My guess is some might follow Bernardi and do the crazy-brave thing, but most are too timid (and smart) and will stay put, because in their heart of hearts they know that their political relevance is likely to be much reduced once they step outside the shelter of the Liberal Party.
If anything, this episode will show the strength of our political system and, in particular, the virtue of compulsory voting.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, Uncategorized

Why we should be worried about what happens to Turnbull

By Adrian Rollins

Now that the Band-aid has been ripped off the Coalition’s torn leadership, what does this portend for the nation’s economy?

Among the many self-inflicted wounds of Malcolm Turnbull’s trouble-plagued prime ministership, his dogged pursuit of business tax cuts stands out.

Turnbull expended substantial political capital and effort on the measure, lambasting opponents like the Labor Party and badgering waverers like Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. Despite setback after setback, the Liberal leader did not waver from his support for the policy, which he said was essential to sustain the country’s economic competitiveness.

In the end, it was all for nought. Though tax cuts for businesses with a turnover of less than $50 million have been passed into law, a Bill to provide similar relief for larger firms has today been rejected by the Senate.

Turnbull’s signature economic reform of the past year is dead.

It caps a terrible record of under-achievement for a Prime Minister whose CV sparkled with private sector success as a lawyer, a banker and an investor.

After a string of career politicians leading the country, (Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Rudd (again), and Abbott), Turnbull was seen as a welcome break – holding out the promise of a practical and results-driven politician just keen to ‘get things done’.

Instead, it is Turnbull who got ‘done’. The rot set in in the earliest stages of his leadership when he caved to the demands of haters and extremists on the Right, rather than staring them down. Having just won the endorsement of his Liberal colleagues by a convincing majority, his political power was at its zenith and the likes of George Christensen, Corey Bernardi, Jim Molan and Craig Kelly could have been marginalised.

Instead, by pandering to their ever-more-strident demands, Turnbull fed the beast of dissent, and is now set to pay the ultimate price.

Having failed miserably to deliver the tax cuts he argues the country needs, and having failed to erase the fog of uncertainty shrouding the nation’s energy and climate change polices, Turnbull’s economic legacy is exceptional only in its mediocrity.

But if you think that’s bad, his potential replacement could well be even worse.

Peter Dutton, a man who rose without trace after being plucked from backbench obscurity by an increasingly embattled John Howard as a sort of electoral talisman, is not a deep thinker.

That by itself is not necessarily a deal-breaker when it comes to being PM, but its opposite should be.

Throughout his career, Dutton has shown himself to be a narrow and unimaginative politician. He has adhered like araldite to a constellation of received attitudes and prejudices that hark back to an Australia that has long since departed from most corners of the country.

Think this is harsh? Consider his response when asked on Sky TV, in the aftermath of his failed leadership bid, what he thinks of the Coalition’s prospects: “I believe strongly that we can win the election if we get the policies and the message right about lowering electricity prices, about … We need to invest record amounts into health and education, aged care and …”.

It’s a shopping list of platitudes, not a manifesto for leadership. Dutton might say he is merely reciting the priorities of the Government of which he remains a member.

But for someone who has long harboured ambitions to reach the top job, it seems like a very thin resume of ideas.

Aside from a determination to ignore the policy challenges of a rapidly changing climate, Dutton’s grab bag of priorities betrays sloppy economic and fiscal thinking.

First the fiscal. Just by virtue of holding its spending steady as a proportion of GDP, governments each year invest “record amounts” in areas like health, education and aged care.

Economic naivety could be much more serious and potentially damaging.

If, by “lowering electricity prices”, Dutton is simply using shorthand to refer to policies that might help contain the extent of price rises, that might not be so egregious. Governments already interfere in market pricing, such as by limiting annual residential rent increases. While this distorts the property market, the potential discouragement of investors is balanced against the financial certainty it provides to renters.

But if he is delving into the agrarian socialist playbook of his fellow-travellers in the National Party like Christensen and Barnaby Joyce to introduce price controls, that is much more concerning.

Because of the modest size of its economy, Australia relies heavily on foreign investment for development.

But every measure taken to prop up farmers and rural industries, to block offshore investors, and to control prices, comes with a cost.

In the aftermath of the GFC, Australia has been a popular destination for foreign investors. But as the US and other economies strengthen, that advantage is waning.

Markets hate uncertainty, so the latest bout of instability surrounding Australia’s highest political office is unhelpful.

Add to that the prospect of a change to a leader even more deeply beholden to vested interests and a Trumpian understanding of the economy and trade (ie. not much), and even the modest growth of recent times might seem like a golden time of prosperity and stability.

As Coalition MPs consider how they will vote in the next leadership ballot, let’s hope they consider what’s best for the country, rather than just what’s best for them.

1 Comment

Filed under Analysis, Uncategorized

The Europeans get a jump on the Poms

WHILE the Brits turn themselves inside-out trying to work out if they should go for a hard, soft or slightly runny Brexit, the EU is keeping its trade negotiation machine running at high gear.

In recent years the Europeans have been busy stitching together a web of regional and bilateral trade deals that span the globe. Of the 164 countries that are members of the World Trade Organisation, just six do not have preferential access to the EU.

Currently, Australia is one of them. But that could soon change after the European Parliament on 26 October authorised the EU to begin talks on a Europe-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

This authorisation comes at the end of a long process of sounding each other out and assessing whether such a deal is desirable and worth the effort, so it is a big deal.

It means that a Europe-Australia FTA of some kind is virtually inevitable.

Politically, this is soc in the eye for Theresa May’s Government.

One of the conceits of Brexiteers is that, freed from the shackles of the EU, Britain may once again rise to global eminence as a champion of free trade. Some even hope that the Commonwealth can be transformed into a sort of ‘Empire 2.0’. In their imaginings they hope/believe that former colonies like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India will fall over themselves at the opportunity to resume the trade links that were severed or downgraded when Britain joined the Common Market in the early 1970s.

Put aside the fact that the days of Empire are remembered far from fondly in much of the Commonwealth, the idea has little grounding in the economic reality of today.

In the days of Empire, Britain was a major manufacturer with a huge appetite for raw materials it was an obvious market for commodities produced by its colonies.

But after 40 years of integration with the EU, the British economy is vastly different. Most of its manufactures are intermediate goods that are part of supply chains that crisscross Europe like a web, and services like finance, education and tourism support much of its wealth.

Meanwhile, the former colonies have well and truly moved on.

Canada is closely dies in economically with its giant US neighbour, Australia and New Zealand look much more to China and Asia for their markets, India is developing into a major economic power in its own right and the former African colonies have more extensive trade arrangements with Europe than Britain.

Europe, the land of opportunity?

It is fair to ask whether Australia needs a trade deal with Europe, given that the EU is already our third largest trading partner (bilateral trade was worth A$68.7 billion in 2015), and a major source of foreign investment (worth A$220.3 billion in 2015).

But there are frictions in the trade relationship.

European agricultural markets such as beef, sugar, dairy and cereals remain heavily protected from Australian exports, contributing to a lopsided trade flow.

In 2015, the EU sold almost A$30 billion more of goods and services to us than we did to them.

The question is whether the Europeans will be able to offer better access to their markets for Australian farmers.

In its statement on the negotiating mandate, the EU has stressed that “the European agricultural sector and certain agricultural products, such as beef, lamb, dairy products, cereals and sugar…are particularly sensitive issues in these negotiations”.

Given that Australia is the world’s third largest beef and sugar producer, and is a major player on global cereal and dairy product markets, Europe’s notoriously bolshie farmers are unlikely to meekly accept increased market access for their Australian competitors without a fight.

The EU trading mandate also calls for meaningful commitments from both parties to protect fisheries against illegal and unregulated fishing, which is significant given concerns about the rapacious fishing practices of fishing fleets operating out of Spain, France and other EU countries.

It appears this might be a fight the EU does not have the stomach for in the current fractious political climate prevailing in Europe, where populist and nationalist movements command significant electoral support.

In careful language, the EU negotiating mandate stipulates that a “balanced and ambitious outcome” on agriculture and fisheries is only feasible if it “gives due consideration to the interests of all European producers and consumers”.

Tellingly, this “consideration” includes the possibility of tariff-rate quotas or unspecified “transition periods”, and even holds out the possibility of so-called safeguard clauses to allow preferences to be suspended temporarily, or even excluding the most sensitive sectors (beef, sugar, cereals, dairy) from negotiations altogether.

Australian negotiators might talk tough if the EU tried to block improved access for farm products altogether, but the Europeans would remember how Australia caved to the US when it refused to include sugar as part of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.

Whatever happens on agriculture, the EU wants the FTA with Australia to include “significant concessions on public procurement at all levels of government, including state-owned enterprises”, and is also looking for commitments on anti-dumping and countervailing measures that go beyond WTO rules.

Other provisions the EU is seeking include:

  • a “robust and ambitious” chapter on sustainable development;
  • a requirement to promote corporate social responsibility;
  • comprehensive provision to liberalise investment; and
  • strong and enforceable intellectual property protections.

Brexit dangles like an unanswered question over the Australia-EU trade talks.

The final terms of Britain’s exit from the EU will resound globally. But by pushing ahead with its trade negotiation agenda, the EU is staying faithful to its ambition as the world’s foremost transnational economic community.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, Uncategorized

Trump’s world

At least holidays to the US will be cheap for a while.

It is hard to know where to start with a Trump presidency.

Will he really rip up NAFTA, start building a wall on the Mexican border, toss out ‘illegals’ and block Muslim immigrants?

Or will wiser heads prevail once he grabs the reins of power and the full implications of his various outrageous and incoherent policy announcements become apparent?

The terrifying thing is that no-one knows.

Who knows how a bullying, narcissistic and misogynistic demagogue is going to behave in the White House.

But if he lives up to even a bit of his rhetoric, both the US and the world are in form some very ugly times.

Here’s just a sampling of the changes a Trump presidency may usher in, and how they would affect the world, and Australia.

In line with his much less internationalist view of America’s role, Trump is likely to oversee a reversal of Obama’s pivot to Asia.

Asia Pacific allies like Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand will be left to do more of the heavy lifting in regarding regional security. Some might be tempted to move closer to China.

China itself faces great uncertainty.

Trump has indicated he wants to throw up the tariff barriers to Chinese imports. It is a move that will not only impoverish many who voted for him in the first place, by denying them access to the cheap goods that have softened the impact of stagnant wage, but could be very destabilising for the Chinese Government.

Though China has been trying to engineer a change in the economy toward consumption-driven growth, it is still a work in progress, and much of its prosperity is still tied to exports. If Trump was to pull up the shutters on China’s biggest market, the consequences would be dire – not just for China, but also Australia, which depends on Chinese demand for much of its export sales.

If Trump sparks a trade war of the kind that preceded World War Two, when trade barriers went up around the world, the political and economic damage will be huge. The post-war world order that has driven unprecedented prosperity – billions propelled from poverty, disease and malnutrition abating – could be shattered. We would all be the much poorer for it.

The fissures within the US itself that have been exposed by the hate-filled campaign of the last 12 months may widen, instead of narrow, particularly as the fortunes of the have-nots deteriorate further.

Then there is the worry that comes with a nuclear arsenal capable of killing us all many times over being in the hands of one that seems so volatile and unstable.

It is a grim outlook.

But there are at least two threads of hope.

One is that this becomes the high water mark for the craziness that has gripped the world this year. The so-called anti-establishment crowd (who seem very disparate except, maybe to themselves) have had their Brexit, and they have populated the Australian Senate with fringe-dwelling nutters.

But under the pressure of actually trying to do something, and reconciling interests that are increasingly at odds, the coalitions of resentment and anger that have propelled such outcomes may evaporate, and the promises of better times that they sold will be seen as the flimsy soundbites they were.

The second hope is that Europe will cleave to its moderate sensible course and thrive as smart money exits the US and China sees it as an increasingly attractive place for investment.

It may become a salutary lesson for the naysayers in the US and Britain of what they gave up for their collective fit of pique.

In the meantime, can someone please keep Trump away from that button!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis

Want jobs and growth? Forget business tax cuts

On the face of it, the idea that you can increase employment and pump up economic activity by reducing corporate taxation sounds straight forward and uncontroversial. After all, the less company revenue that goes to the tax man, the more should be on hand for things like hiring more staff, buying new equipment and the like.

Ultimately, the thinking goes, the boost to employment and growth will make everyone a winner.

It is the deceptively simple idea that lies at the heart of the Coalition’s economic plan to boost jobs and growth by implementing $48 billion worth of business tax cuts over the next 10 years.

It also happens to be wrong.

Many have already pointed out that the benefits of stronger growth and increasingly profitable businesses don’t necessarily “trickle down” through more and better-paid jobs, as some naively believe.

The widening gulf between a small group of high-income “haves” and the rest of society is evidence of that. In Australia in 2013-14, 62 per cent of all household wealth was concentrated in the top 20 per cent, while the bottom 20 per cent held just 1 per cent of all wealth. Ten years earlier, the wealthiest 20 per cent owned 59 per cent of all wealth.

As The Economist reported this week, the proportion of working poor in the UK is increasing – 10 years ago about 40 per cent of those in absolute poverty (income less than 60 per cent of the national median, after housing costs) lived in households where people were in some sort of employment. Today, that proportion has risen to more than 50 per cent.

Try telling workers whose wages have yet to recover to pre-GFC levels even while house prices soar, and it is little wonder that an election pitch centred on business tax cuts is a hard political sell job.

But added to well-founded scepticism about who will actually benefit from business tax cuts is an even deeper problem that makes them a poor prescription for jobs and growth.

The searing experience of the GFC and its aftermath has provide a wealth of information to digest about what works and what doesn’t in trying to support economic activity and employment at times of low or stagnant growth.

Among those who have taken a close look at the effectiveness of government stimulus measures is Princeton University economist Alan Blinder.

Blinder, who is a former Vice Chairman of the US Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors and served on Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, has run the ruler over the various actions taken by the US Government in the wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse, from welfare handouts and the Cash for Clunkers program to infrastructure and defence spending and business tax cuts.

His findings (http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/fiscal_policy_reconsidered) will hearten Keynesians and should give those who spruik business tax relief as the first and best policy response to a downturn pause for thought.

What Blinder found was that the most effective action taken by the US Government was to target temporary handouts to low income households through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps).

In the first three months of 2009, for every $1 directed by the government through SNAP, $1.74 worth of economic activity was generated.

Extending unemployment insurance benefits had a 1.61 multiplier effect over the same period, while a temporary boost to work-share programs had a 1.69 multiplier effect.

Even increasing infrastructure spending was found to have a significant multiplier effect, though Blinder said the time lags involved in commissioning and undertaking capital projects meant that it was a stimulus measure more appropriate for prolonged downturns rather than shorter ones.

But, effective as some of these spending measures proved to be, there was great clamour from more conservative members of Congress for tax cuts as the tonic the ailing economy needed.

Here, Blinder found the evidence was mixed.

While temporary tax cuts and credits targeted at “liquidity constrained” (read, hand-to-mouth) households had appreciable multiplier effects (like Child Tax Credits, 1.38 times; Earned Income Tax Credits, 1.24 times), permanent tax cuts were much less impressive in their effectiveness.

The multiplier effect of permanent cuts to dividend and capital gains taxes was 0.39, and for a permanent cut in the corporate tax rate, it was just 0.32.

Not only were corporate tax cuts much less impressive as a stimulus measure, but they were prone to getting hijacked by the business lobby and turned into something whose prime purpose was to plump profits rather than fuel economic activity.

As evidence, Blinder cites the experience of an accelerated (“bonus”) depreciation measure included in a 2002 tax cut bill.

The change, which had the effect of putting investment goods “on sale” for a limited period of time, was originally due to expire after 18 months. This short duration was considered key to its effectiveness as a stimulus measure.

Instead, business lobbied hard to have the bonus depreciation extended…and extended… and extended…so much so that last year legislation was passed to keep it going until 2019.

“Ironically, we may have destroyed the usefulness of bonus depreciation as a countercyclical tool by making it permanent,” Blinder says, and advances what he calls a general theorem of political economy: “Business tax cuts artfully designed by economists for maximum bang for the buck will be altered by lobbyists to achieve maximum revenue loss instead”.

The reason is that “business lobbyists don’t care about ‘bang’, but care deeply about getting more ‘bucks’ for their clients, and lobbying almost always overpowers economic logic”.

 

The lesson, says Blinder, is to be wary of using investment incentives as a stimulus measure.

Many might object that American business and politics is a lot different to that in Australia and, anyway, we are a long way from the dire economic circumstances that confronted policymakers in late 2008 and early 2009, so Blinder’s analysis has little to tell us.

But the real question is, is a company tax rate of 30 per cent stifling activity, and would cutting it to 25 per cent over the next 10 years unleash a wave of investment and jobs growth?

The evidence suggests the answer to both questions is no.

As the Reserve Bank of Australia has observed, what has been holding growth down in Australia has been the plunge in global commodity prices and the fall in resources investment.

This has been partially offset by the effects of low interest rates and a weaker currency, which has encouraged growth in services exports and housing investment – both oif which have helped support an improvement in consumption to around its decade-long average of 3 per cent.

Arguably, what has been weighing on hiring and non-mining investment for the last few years has been soft demand and uncertainty about the outlook.

A $48 billion company tax cut might help firms capitalise on the improvement in consumption, but it is hard to see how it would drive it. Unless there is a compelling reason to hire and invest (read: an opportunity to make money), businesses are unlikely to make an outlay, regardless of whether the tax rate is 30 per cent or 25 per cent.

Instead, much of it could find its way into the bank accounts of lawyers and bankers devising M&A activities or pumping up shareholder dividends.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis