Mortgage Debt

<html><body>
The latest Census data shows mortgage stress has eased, but of course even a small interest rate rise will send many households, and even the economy, back onto struggle street.
The national research by the Grattan Institute showed highly indebted households were clustered on the fringes of capital cities rather than in the wealthiest suburbs of the inner ring.
Sydney suburbs under mortgage stress included Preston, Hoxton Park, Carnes Hill, West Hoxton, Middleton Grange, Hinchinbrook and Chullora.
The suburbs deemed as not under mortgage stress included North Bondi, Tamarama, Bronte, Double Bay, Bellevue Hill, Sydney, Haymarket, The Rocks, Balmain, Newtown, Camperdown and Darlington.
Mortgage stress was defined as spending 30 per cent or more of household income on home loan repayments.
"In 2011, about 10 per cent of households had mortgage stress. Today it's only 7 per cent," Grattan Institute chief executive John Daley said.
"What the census data shows is that the areas of high stress are a little further out from the metropolitan areas in 2016 than in 2011 because new housing estates are further out," Mr Daley noted.
Although the outer ring house prices are cheaper, incomes are likely lower and loan-to-value ratios are higher because more people have actually only just purchased a property.
Our overall low interest rates have made it easier for most households to meet mortgage repayments.
"If interest rates went up 2 percentage points, which is possible, stress levels would be the highest on record apart from the squeeze in 1989, which scarred a generation of home-owners," John Daley said. 
The Reserve Bank of Australia's recent data on household debt show it stood at 190 per cent of annualised disposable incomes confirming Australia has one of the world's highest private debt burdens.
Treasurer Scott Morrison has acknowledged this private debt load.
It was a reason the government supported moves by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and Reserve Bank's to further crackdown on interest-only lending especially for home buyers. 
The regulatory response has helped slow price growth in Sydney which was rising at an annual pace of almost 20 per cent in late 2016. It is now down to 12 percent annual growth according to CoreLogic.
The systemic risk of people not being able to repay their home loans appears small. 
In fact the proportion of people who have very high exposure to a fall in house prices – with loan to valuation ratios above 90 percent – has been in decline. 
The basic picture is one of prudent households, rather than a community of people gambling on house price rises, Rodney Maddock, Adjunct Professor of Economics, Monash University said recently.
None of this is to deny that house prices can fall, and that interest rates will rise, but somehow most of us will find a way to endure any challenging landscape.
This article first appeared in the Daily Telegraph.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Mortgage stress eases in the city but future rate rises will impact the fringe households

<html><body>
Housing co-operatives should be seen as a priority for expansion to assist in addressing housing affordability, according to the Business Council of Co-operatives and Mutuals' (BCCM) submission into the inquiry into Home Ownership.
Housing co-operatives are key players in the range of responses needed to address Australia’s housing affordability crisis, affirmed BCCM. 
"A report by the Co-op has revealed that nearly eight in ten Australians aged between 19 and 29 are concerned about the level of mortgage debt they may face in their lifetime, and the prospect of ever being able to own a home.
"The current speculative model of housing ownership cannot deliver affordable housing for all. It is time to consider alternative ownership models and co- operative housing has proven to be a very significant opportunity for housing market reform. 
"Co-operative housing can either be provided as rental housing or based on a wide range of co- operative ownership models. In general, co-operative housing provides long term, secure and affordable housing for people on low to moderate incomes." 
Member participation directly reduces cooperative housing management costs, asserted BCCM in the submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. 
"Recent benchmarking demonstrates that co-operative housing is the most cost effective form of social housing program. Community Equity New South Wales (CENSW) has estimated that housing co- operatives produce savings over ten years per 1000 properties of $4.07 million in comparison with other social housing sectors.
"Seed funding needs to be provided to specialist housing co-operative centres that can function as a central resource agency for housing co-operative development. 
"The role of the resource agency would be to refine documentation for the various models, promote models to potential consumers and provide advice services to developing co-operatives. 
"Existing co-operative housing providers could be funded to expand their educative role. 
"Funding for this initiative could come from sources not limited to government but include stakeholders with an interest and commitment to the provision of affordable housing such as trade unions, customer owned banks, consumer-focused mutuals, consumer interest groups and member-owned super funds. 
"Rental co-operative programs could be further expanded by capital funds being made available to develop new stock or alternatively through the transfer of existing social housing stock. 
"A source for this funding could be through a combination of government seeding grants and commercial loans from financial institutions with an interest in developing new lending products in the housing loans market place. 
"Collaborative partnerships are also possible with co-operative and mutual capital investment partners ranging from financial mutuals (another form of Co-operative) or member-owned super funds to community development finance institutions. 
"Financial mutuals can also assist with affordable housing through the provision of affordable housing loans and a range of other consumer/member focused products. 
"The financial mutual sector is a significant player in the provision of affordable housing finance. It is driven by member needs and concern for the community and will continue to support affordable housing in all its forms. 
"Housing co-operatives are the quiet achievers in the housing sector. They have been highly successful in Australia and many other countries." 
</body></html>

Co-operatives a consideration for housing affordability issue

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/81619/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Home ownership among young people is declining, as mortgage debt almost doubles for the same age group, results from the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey show. It also shows young people are living with their parents longer. 
The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research undertakes the survey every year. It’s Australia’s only nationally representative household longitudinal study, and has followed the same individuals and households since 2001.
The survey shows the rate of home ownership among 18 to 39 year olds declined from 36% in 2002 to 25% in 2014. In the same age group, the decline in home ownership has been largest for families with dependent children, falling from 56% to 39%. 
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/08/02/Screen%20Shot%202017-08-02%20at%209.04.42%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/08/02/Screen%20Shot%202017-08-02%20at%209.04.42%20AM.png" alt="">
Even for those in this group who manage to buy a home, mortgage debt has risen dramatically. In 2002, 89% of home owners in this age range had mortgage debt. By 2014 this had risen to 94%. 
More significantly, the average home debt rose considerably. Expressed in December 2015 prices, average home debt grew from about A$169,000 in 2002 to about A$337,000 in 2014. Low interest rates since the global financial crisis have meant mortgage repayments for these home owners have remained manageable, but this group is very vulnerable to rate rises. 
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/08/02/Screen%20Shot%202017-08-02%20at%209.05.55%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/08/02/Screen%20Shot%202017-08-02%20at%209.05.55%20AM.png" alt="">
Detailed wealth data in the survey, collected every four years since 2002, show this increase in debt and decrease in ownership are part of a trend in the wider population. HILDA shows 65% of households were in owner-occupied dwellings in 2015, down from 69% in 2001.
In fact, the decline in home ownership has been greater than the decline in owner-occupied households. This is largely because adult children are living with their parents for longer.
For example, the HILDA data show that the proportion of women aged 22 to 25 living with their parents rose from 28% in 2001 to 48% in 2015. For men this proportion rose from 42% to 60%.
Among those who manage to access the housing market, the data shows that the growth in home debt is not simply because they are borrowing more to purchase their home. A surprisingly high proportion of young home owners (between 30% and 40%) actually increase their debt from one year to the next, despite most of them remaining in the same home. Even over a four-year period - for example, from 2010 to 2014 - at least 40% of young home owners with a mortgage increase their nominal home debt.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/08/02/Screen%20Shot%202017-08-02%20at%209.06.50%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/08/02/Screen%20Shot%202017-08-02%20at%209.06.50%20AM.png" alt="">
The proportion of people with home debt that exceeds the value of their home – that is, negative equity – has also risen. In 2002, 2.4% of people had negative equity in their home; in 2014, 3.9% had negative equity. This is a relatively small proportion, but this could change as even small decreases in house prices will result in substantial increases in the prevalence of negative equity.
<h2>How this changes with location, income and profession</h2>
In 2014, less than 20% of Sydneysiders aged 18 to 39 were home owners, compared with 36% or more in the ACT, urban Northern Territory and non-urban regions of Australia. To a significant extent this reflects differences across regions in house prices. 
Sydney and Melbourne have particularly high house prices, while non-urban areas generally have comparatively low house prices. Regional differences in the incomes of 18 to 39 year olds also play a role. 
Those with the highest home-ownership rates are professionals and, to a lesser extent, managers. They experienced relatively little decline in home ownership. 
For workers in other occupations, home ownership has declined substantially. In 2014 home ownership was especially rare among community and personal services workers, sales workers and labourers.
This decline represents profound social change among this age group, where renting is increasingly becoming the dominant form of housing. In 2002, 61% of people aged 35 to 39 were home owners – a clear majority of their age group. By 2014, this proportion had fallen to 48%.
The changing housing situation of young adults is part of a broader change in the distribution of wealth in Australia. The HILDA Survey shows that differences in average wealth by age have grown since 2002. For example, in 2002, median net wealth of those aged 65 and over was 2.8 times that of people aged 25 to 34. In 2014, this ratio had increased to 4.5. 
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/08/02/Screen%20Shot%202017-08-02%20at%209.07.55%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/08/02/Screen%20Shot%202017-08-02%20at%209.07.55%20AM.png" alt="">
The decline in home ownership among young adults and this broader trend in wealth have implications for their long-term economic wellbeing and indeed for the retirement income system. Even if house price growth moderates and many of those currently aged under 40 ultimately enter the housing market, it’s likely that a rising proportion will not have paid off the mortgage by the time they retire. It may be that many will resort to drawing on superannuation balances to repay home loans, in turn increasing demands on the Age Pension.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/roger-wilkins-95906" target="_blank">Roger Wilkins</a> is Professorial Research Fellow and Deputy Director (Research), HILDA Survey, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Home ownership falling, debts rising – it’s looking grim for the under 40

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Negative gearing is set for its biggest change in decades. Once considered the sacred cow of federal government policies, both major parties are proposing changes ahead of this year’s federal election.
The Labor party has already unveiled its policy, which involves only allowing negative gearing on new houses and cutting the generous 50% capital gains tax concession to 25%.
The Government has not confirmed its stance and has attacked Labor policy, but has crucially left its options open.
Less than 12 months ago, even considering changes to negative gearing was considered “unpopular” at best with then-Prime Minister Tony Abbott reassuring voters that there would be no changes to negative gearing.
Now, while neither the Liberal government or Labor opposition are keen to abolish negative gearing entirely as the Greens and some economists (most notably Saul Eslake) have proposed, both sides of politics are claiming they will “make the system fairer”.
<h2>So what has prompted this change?</h2>
First, a quick refresher on negative gearing. Gearing is the use of debt (such as a mortgage) to increase the amount of money that may be invested. Negative gearing occurs when the cost of this debt (for example, the interest charged) exceeds the income from the investment (like the rent).
Why would anyone want to incur a loss? The most widely promoted reason is because this net loss may be deducted against the investor’s taxable income, lowering their overall tax bill. This is clearly going to benefit those investors with higher incomes more than those with lower incomes. And, the statistics show that those with more to gain are more likely to take advantage of it:
 
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/111456/area14mp/image-20160215-22573-a6cfb3.png"><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/111456/width668/image-20160215-22573-a6cfb3.png" alt=""></a>Proportion of tax filers with negatively geared investment properties by income band 'Better Tax', Tax Discussion Paper, Australian Government, March 2015
<div class="enlarge_hint"> </div>
 
There is a second benefit from the property investor’s perspective - the treatment of capital gains. When a capital gain on the investment asset is realised (it is sold), the investor gets a 50% discount on the capital gains tax.
For many years now, investment properties have been the most popular investment asset after the owner-occupied home and superannuation. Like any other investment, including shares, borrowers may take on debt to facilitate the property purchase. The benefits from negative gearing, combined with the perception of housing as a “safe” asset class with steady capital appreciation has fuelled the flow of investor capital into the market.
But now, with growing public awareness of the operation of negative gearing, its cost through missed tax revenue, and increasing housing affordability concerns, even those benefiting from negative gearing are questioning whether it is appropriate.
<h2>Comparing the alternatives</h2>
The Coalition government has been reluctant to commit to any policy changes, instead hinting at “capping” the amount of negative gearing benefit that may be claimed. In a way, this is a reinvention of the 2011 Gillard government proposal to target just the “wealthiest” investors who own portfolios of investment properties. We might expect to hear more details from Treasurer Scott Morrison in his Wednesday Press Club address.
The Labor party, by contrast, has made the first solid move. In so doing they have made negative gearing a major election issue and will force the government into presenting a real policy proposal, likely as part of the 2016-17 Budget.
The Bill Shorten-Chris Bowen policy announced over the weekend has been in the works since April 2015. If implemented, negative gearing would apply as usual to properties purchased prior to July 2017. After this date, however, investors would only be able to claim negative gearing against newly constructed investment properties.
<h2>But will it work?</h2>
The Government’s suggested approach would effectively create a “progressive negative gearing”. The tax rate increases (because the discount decreases) as income increases. While still lacking details, tackling the problem this way more reasonably considers the broad range of individuals who own investment properties, from teachers and nurses to the country’s most wealthy.
Labor argues that the asymmetry of its gearing policy between new and existing properties will divert investment to housing construction and boost the housing supply.
However, critics of the Labor proposal argue that it will trigger a rush of investors to the existing housing market prior to the July 2017 change, in turn reigniting a house price bubble.
Neither the opposition nor their critics are right and this is why:
<ul>
<li>
To truly benefit from a negative gearing investment strategy, the property buyer would be hoping to win on the capital gains side. For that to occur, property prices need to keep rising, yet that is exactly what the policy is hoping to contain. Savvy investors will know this and take their savvy dollars elsewhere.
</li>
<li>
If you still believe there will be a boom in 12 months time, the better strategy would be buy now (well, technically, when or if Labor are successful at the election) in order to sell to some sucker then.
</li>
</ul>
An even more critical flaw in the Labor proposal is the absence of strategy addressing when and where we will see this new housing supply.
Fundamentally, either approach makes housing a less attractive investment. In the short term investors will look to move their capital into other asset classes, primarily the stock market, which has been volatile.
It could take decades to see the broader implications of removing the incentive to invest in housing over other assets if existing property owners continue to benefit from “grandfathering” the current rules. Therein lies the flaw with arguing this policy change will also help to repair the federal budget (remembering the owner-occupier still makes their capital gains completely tax free).
Ultimately, the tide has turned politically on negative gearing. Whichever party sells their proposal best (alongside changes to superannuation and the GST) will be the election winner.
Danika Wright is lecturer in finance, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/danika-wright-121868" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Sacred cow no more: what the proposed changes to negative gearing really mean

<html><body>
Mortgage deferrals prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic have continued to trend down, according to the latest figures from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).

Householders and small businesses who were struggling to make mortgage repayments at the onset of the pandemic are back paying down their home loans again.

Repayments are not being made on about 2 per cent of the value of total housing loans on issue, compared to the 10 per cent peak deferral tally, according to the Herald Sun.

According to the Australian Banking Association, home loan deferrals at Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, National Australia Bank, ANZ, BOQ, Suncorp and Bendigo banks dropped 80 per cent between June and December last year, from 493,000 to 101,000.

Business loan deferrals dropped almost 90 per cent from 228,070 to 25,497 at the seven banks during the same time period.
</body></html>

Repayments are not being made on about 2 per cent of the value of total housing loans on issue, compared to the 10 per cent peak deferral tally

jchancellor

COVID-19 based mortgage deferrals trending lower

<html><body>
One in four (25%) Australians are worried about how they will pay the rent or mortgage after Christmas, according to new research by Finder, Australia’s most visited comparison site. That’s the equivalent of 4.8 million Australians who may have difficulty coming up with the funds to pay their mortgage or rent.

The Finder survey of 1,004 respondents revealed 16% of Australians are somewhat worried about meeting payments, while a further 9% are extremely worried. The problem is more pronounced for men, with nearly one in three (31%) anxious about paying rent or mortgage after Christmas, compared with 19% of women.

Sarah Megginson, home loans expert at Finder, said in COVID times, Christmas could push people over the edge financially.

“Many households are still facing hardship and relying on stimulus money to get by as the pandemic goes on. For families whose income for December is less than it was last year, this can cause significant budget shortfalls and lead to financial trouble. Many will have to choose which bills to fall behind on,” Megginson said. 

The research shows that young people are the most vulnerable when it comes to missing their payments. One in three (33%) Gen X and Gen Y Aussies, respectively, are worried about paying their rent or mortgage over Christmas, compared to just 5% of Baby Boomers. Many young Aussies have found themselves jobless this year, as youth unemployment hit a 23-year high of 16.4% in June, leaving them the most vulnerable to missed rental or mortgage payments.

Victorian households are the most burdened by their living costs, with a whopping 37% of residents concerned about making rent or mortgage payments over the festive season. While Victoria bore the economic brunt of the pandemic, rental prices have not fallen in proportion with the recession. In Melbourne, the median asking rent in September was $425, down just 2% year-on-year, according to CoreLogic data.
</body></html>

That means roughly 4.8 million Australians who may have difficulty coming up with the funds to pay their mortgage or rent.

urban.com.au

25% of Australians are worried about housing costs post-Christmas

<html><body>
<img src="/images/2015/11/4/Holdencapital_banner.jpg" alt="" width="622" height="131">
 SPONSORED POST
Most banks have long memories and it’s those past experiences, which in all probability resulted in the writing off of a bad debt, that tend to have a strong influence on the executives responsible for writing the banks lending policy.
One such area of contention is the issuing of second mortgages and in most cases the approach by banks is consistent, driven by those past bad experiences.
So while there are sound arguments as to why it might actually be in the banks interest to allow a second mortgage, most credit/risk manager default to a position that will not impact on their security position and it takes some very careful negotiations to convince them to do otherwise. So lets look at the reasons why they have those concerns.
The bank does not think the developer has enough money – as the saying goes “If you want it they won’t give it to you and if you don’t want it they throw it at you”. It is true in most regards, that when considering a project a bank wants to be working with a sponsor who has the ability to invest the full equity requirement, also referred to as ‘skin in the game’, and a capacity write a cheque in the event of any unforseen cost overruns.
However, many smart sponsors choose to use Other People’s Money (OPM), usually so that they can get the best return on their funds by investing across multiple opportunities. So it is very important that the financial strength and experience of the sponsor can be demonstrated to the bank even if it is not all to be committed to the project in question.
Utilising second mortgage funding in order to expand the number of projects they can undertake is a smart way for a sponsor to leverage their return on equity provided they can show an ability to meet any unforseen financial pressures along the way. It is critical to give the bank a clear understanding of why the second mortgage funding is being used but also provide statements of position, group cash flows and approved standby arrangements to support the sponsor’s ability to meet their ongoing commitments to the project in question.
The Bank does not want any potential impediments to it realising on its security – In the event that things go wrong during a development, the bank will in most instances look to recover its exposure by disposing of the security via a quick sale rather than undertaking a lengthy workout. Even in the case of a development project, banks do not want to ‘take control’ of a project unless absolutely necessary and will usually appoint a receiver or administrator to undertake the exercise of completing the development and sale as soon as practicable with the minimum of additional expenditure.
Their concern is that where there is a second mortgage in place (and dependant on the terms of any priority agreement in place), the potential exists for that mortgagee to frustrate the actions of the bank by arguing that those actions prejudice their security position. Alternatively, while there may be no default or cause for action on the banks part, the second mortgagee may decide to take action under its securities which forces the banks hand to either take its own action in priority to the second mortgage or pay out the second mortgagee in order to gain full control. Both of these scenarios played out during the GFC and previous market corrections, continuing to make all banks hesitant about transactions involving second mortgages.
One way to address these issues is to have a reputable second mortgage provider who the banks are comfortable with and trust not to take any extreme actions during the life of the project. Additionally, the banks will require the second mortgagee to sign a priority agreement which in effect cedes all of its rights to the first mortgagee while its debt exists, effectively preventing the second mortgagee taking any action that the first mortgagee does not want to occur.
Developers skin in the game – As previously mentioned, all financiers, be they first or second mortgage providers want to see that the developer has an appropriate amount of their own “risk” money in the project – the view being that the developer will be more likely to act in the right way if they have an appropriate amount of their own cash at risk in the project. The current view is that the developer must be providing at least 10% of the required capital stack in a project.
In the eyes of the banks, this is a different risk to having a capacity to meet your obligations as detailed previously. This is about ensuring that the customer is motivated to act quickly to deal with a problem that requires either financial or physical action when it occurs and their concern is that if the equity at risk is sourced via a second mortgage provider then:
There is less motivation for the sponsor to take the required action and they have no power to require the second mortgagee to act or input further equity.
In fact it is often the case that the second mortgagee is a passive syndicate of investors with limited ability to raise additional funds or make quick decisive decisions which leaves the bank having to deal with the problems associated with the projects but also having to be conscious of not acting in a way which is prejudicial to the interest of those investors which is a complication they do not relish.
In summary, banks tend to view all second mortgages as complicating transactions rather than adding value as their interests are not always aligned with those of the borrower and it is therefore a negotiating exercise that requires a complete understanding of the interests of both sides. At HoldenCAPITAL we are often required to obtain a senior banks consent to a second mortgagee position in order to get the best outcome for our client. We do this by clearly demonstrating the positives that the structure brings to the transaction and how the risks will be dealt with.
 
This article was written by Dan Holden of HoldenCAPITAL, who are a bespoke construction finance firm, they arrange construction finance and invest in projects through their equity fund, Queen Street INVEST. To discuss your project finance requirement please call (07) 3171 4200 or visit HoldenCAPITAL <a href="https://www.holdencapital.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

firstname-zEygzUaHDN

Why the bank won't let you have a second mortgage

<html><body>
The latest ratios of household finances highlight that the ratio of debt to disposable income is at a record high however, the value of household assets is also at a record high level.
With record low interest rates, the ratio of interest payments to disposable income is the lowest it has been since early 2003.
The ratio of household and housing debt to disposable incomes are each at historic highs of 186.3 percent and 133.8 percent respectively with the ratios increasing by 3.4 percent and 4.3 percent over the past year; 
Over the period from 1988 to 2015 standard variable mortgage rates have fallen dramatically and that has surely contributed to household’s preparedness to take on more debt.
<a href="/images/2016/03/31/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-31%20at%201.11.34%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/31/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-31%20at%201.11.34%20PM.png" alt="">
 
Over recent years the ratio of interest payments to disposable income has been falling with the ratios for households and housing now sitting at their lowest levels since 2003. The higher ratio of interest payments currently compare to 1988 when interest rates were substantially higher.
This is reflective of the much higher cost for household assets, particularly the cost of residential housing.
The data shows that although households have significant debt, particularly for housing, the value of the assets they hold is substantial. The ratio of household debt to disposable income is currently 186.3 percent however, the ratio of household assets to disposable income 862.8 percent, the highest it has ever been.
Similarly, the ratio of housing debt to disposable income is 133.8 percent however; the ratio of housing assets to disposable income is 471.3 percent.
What is interesting is that the ratio of household assets to disposable income is still lower than its previous peak in December 2007 at 476.2% percent, however, it is nudging back up towards its previous record high.
The value of household assets is significantly greater than the value of the debt. Based on this data, the ratio of household debt to assets is 21.6 percent and the ratio of housing debt to housing assets is 28.4 percent.
<a href="/images/2016/03/31/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-31%20at%201.16.17%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/03/31/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-31%20at%201.16.17%20PM.png" alt="">
 
Australian households are heavily indebted due largely to residential housing and while high; the value of the assets held is much greater than the debt. It’s important to consider that this is a national view.
Across different regions the ratios are likely to be substantially different. Furthermore, lower interest rates and a fairly strong labour market over recent decades have contributed to a willingness to borrow. Should either of these factors to change it could lead to a dramatic deterioration in the value of these assets while of course the debt would remain.
Importantly, mortgage arrears remain low and the Reserve Bank has reported that the typical mortgage holder is currently more than two years ahead on their mortgage repayments. This coupled with higher rates of household savings provide a potential buffer if unemployment were to rise sharply or interest rates began to increase.
Cameron Kusher is research analyst for CoreLogic RP Data. You can contact him <a href="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/about/">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Mortgage Debt

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Mortgage Debt

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News