sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

BNZ chief economist says continued strong house price rises in Auckland would likely see introduction of rules limiting mortgage sizes relative to earnings

Property
BNZ chief economist says continued strong house price rises in Auckland would likely see introduction of rules limiting mortgage sizes relative to earnings

By David Hargreaves

BNZ chief economist Tony Alexander sees a good chance of some kind of debt to income ratio (DTI) rules being introduced if house prices remain strong in Auckland.

The Treasury expressed enthusiasm for DTI rules in a paper prepared earlier this year but only recently released under the Official Information Act.

And in his Weekly Overview Alexander says that at the moment prudential regulators around the world are trying their best to prepare their economies for the next financial shock – "one of which seems to come along every 10 years or so".

This preparation takes the form of deepening regulation of financial institutions including higher capital requirements.

"Given the global liquidity bath does not look like ending for many years the risks are that the regulators move toward more measures aimed explicitly at stamping out the fires they see springing up as cashed up investors target assets – like housing for instance.

"Thus one should not lightly dismiss the NZ Treasury recommendation made in a paper sent to the Reserve Bank discussing the loan to value ratio rules where Treasury suggest debt to income rules," Alexander says.

"The RBNZ have made enough comments regarding problems they are encountering and working through in seeing if such rules could be introduced to make one conclude that their introduction is highly likely if strong house price rises in Auckland continue."

Alexander suggested that such measures might be along the lines of mortgage debt not being able to exceed "perhaps 4.5 times income for a household".

"The restriction may apply to a geographic area, perhaps exclude first home buyers. Though that latter exclusion may not achieve the improvement in financial stability the central bank would like as first home buyers generally purchase at quite high debt to income ratios."

Alexander says "the message" is that if interest rates can’t go up as economies grow because technology, excess capacity, and behavioural changes keep inflation well in check, "then other means need to be found" to keep liquidity growth under control and limit the risk of deep financial shocks which could cause depressions.

"The period of experimentation by central banks aimed at finding effective prudential tools suitable for the coming decades has only just started.

"Borrowing costs to you and I will stay low for decades. But credit availability is on the cusp of becoming far, far more difficult these next 10 years. How to cope with this as a borrower? Talk with your grandparents about how they got a mortgage before 1985," Alexander says. 

In the recently released paper Treasury says the rise in household debt in the 2000s was largely due to the rise in house prices and, to a lesser extent, changes in interest rates, "and the Treasury would agree with the RBNZ that this is a trend that requires further analysis".

"...The key aspect is that a rise in debt relative to income means an increase in the vulnerability of households in the event of a shock to income.

"There are a range of tools available for addressing this. LVR limits target one aspect of loan sustainability, that is, credit loss given default. Debt-to-income limits (DTIs) are an alternative macro-prudential tool that would offer an alternative or additional way of managing financial system vulnerability by targeting the likelihood of default.

"We appreciate that this is more difficult to implement in practice and that various technical issues meant that LVRs were chosen in 2013. We welcome the RBNZ’s work on DTI data since then, and look forward to the developments in this area," Treasury said.

Labour's Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford has put out a media release calling on the Government to "rule out" introducing DTIs.

“Such measures in England and Ireland have curbed skyrocketing house prices but they have come at a price – they’ve locked first home buyers further and further out of the market," he said.

“...With the median Auckland house price of $771,000 already nearly the equivalent of 10 times the median household income, few people will be able to buy into the market."

Twyford says the Government needs to embark on "a massive state-backed building programme to flood Auckland with affordable houses and crack down on foreign speculators".

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.

22 Comments

Common sense is not common...
I have moaned on about this for years on here.
It should be based on MAIN earners salary so one of the party can actually afford to be at home with the kids if they choose to.
Bring in staged over a number of years.
:)

Up
0

No need for complicated formulas that only encourage manipulation by banks and (local) borrowers.
It has been said here before, but no-one listens, - just have non recourse loans ( where the borrowers max liability is their equity), and banks would take an interest in the viability of the loan. This is what happens in the 'Greatest democracy in the world' haha - the USA.
This would restrain the housing casino significantly as would stopping non residents buying property of any sort here in NZ ( including Australians), but again no-one ever listens. Lets create a complicated formula or 2 instead.

Up
0

True , apart from complicated formula's there are also the implications how to police what the Banks are doing .

It becomes Bankers self-regulation with occasional reports to Treasury , and no one audits the process .

Up
0

The outcry from vested interests is going to be that first home buyers will be locked out and that LTI measures won't help. But of course LTI criteria can be introduced for investors also.

Political suicide for National though as it would smash house prices.

Up
0

Aren't labour the ones most opposed to LTI? Investors tend to have fairly large cash flows and can route property purchases through companies which can easily maintain phenomenal LTI ratios

Up
0

I'm trying to understand how your suggestion would work. So a company is setup, the company buys properties and raises debt from a bank? So you're saying the bank is going to lend money to a company at over 4.5x earnings for the purpose of property investment? (assuming this isn't already restricted as part of LTI rules).

Up
0

Yeah, I agree - makes zero sense.

Up
0

I understand him to be saying an investor may have a 9-5 job earning say $80k and 3 freehold rentals earning say $62,400 ($400/wk each house x 52 weeks).

That investor has income of $142,400.

Now a potential new home owner just has a job earning $80k. They cannot compete with the investor with LTI.

Off course, any existing loans relating to the 3 rentals will have to factor in also (maybe what is missing from the original posters comment or his assuming they are freehold?)

Up
0

does not work, the investors income would not be included in the company cashflow

Up
0

what is funny is the banks will not impose this on themselves as risk management but need to be forced to do it by the RB

Up
0

Why funny? They have no risk it's all on depositors, or I'll be by the time they fail.

Up
0

funny because you have a bank employee talking about how curbs are needed to slow down lending

Up
0

Ahh...yeah. They tread a fine line between profit maximisers and appointed wizards for peering into the future prosperity and security for the people,

Up
0

Likely not needed supply of properties listed for sale in Auckland on trademe is up 35% the last 10 weeks, and supply is up 5% the last 4 days. There is a massive amount of supply coming onto the market in conjunction with less demand. Also surge in supply in Christchurch. Tightest major centre in NZ on both homes for sale and rental stock available relative to population is Wellington, with Auckland at 2, and Auckland falling away. Also amount of stock in Waikato on the rise as well.

Up
0

Mate , don't kid yourself , the buyers are arriving daily by the planeload at Auckland airport , and when they migrate here we cannot have them living under bridges , they have to be housed

Up
0

Looks like most have missed the market peak

Up
0

Where do foreign investors fit into this. Are we just restricting ourselves and leaving the field open them. They can borrow money off shore?
A slightly related question just occurred to me. If a loan is raised off shore by a foreign person, can the loan be secured by a New Zealand property? Do we have any say in this?

Up
0

I think HSBC will let you borrow overseas with NZ property as security as long as you have income in the currency that you are borrowing in.

Up
0

Thanks. That throws up some interesting situations. Chinese banks lending to Chinese nationals, who then buy NZ houses and as a consequence the Chinese banks (Chinese Government) would hold mortgages over NZ property. In the event of the bubble bursting the Chinese banks (Chinese Government) would own a whole bunch of NZ property.

Up
0

This has now gone too far .

Here's the kicker ............ I am not a young man , and I would not qualify for an 80% mortgage to buy my mortgage free home in Greenhithe today if they limited my income to 30% of my after -tax earnings

If my home was worth say $1,5 m and I put down 20% the mortgage would be around $1,400 per week at 6%

I don't earn $4,200 a week either before or after tax , so I could not afford my home today

Government appears hell-bent on ensuring young Kiwis will never ever be able to live in Auckland and own their own home

The out-of-control Auckland market is not the fault of the first home buyer , the blame lies to a large extent on our immigration policies , cheap money , the Auckland council which has been faffing about with its plan for the past 3 years , the RC Act , and land-bankers who have no incentive to release land holdings

Up
0

Totally agree with you on the causes of the problem. However, should the banks, and the government allow the banks, to lend sums of money that are totally out of kilter with a persons capacity to repay the loan. You do not say exactly how old you are (fair enough), but for arguments sake, lets say you are within 10 years of retirement. I do not think that it is wise for the banks, or from the perspective of the risks to our economy, for you to borrow $1.2 million. The interest bill alone at our current very low rates would be in the order of $1,000 per week. When we go back to more normal rates this will be nearer $2,000 per week. If we work out your mortgage repayments on $1.2M at an historically modest interest rate of 7%, assuming a 10 year term ( as your are 10 years away from retirement), your weekly mortgage payments are $3,200 per week. Then you need to pay the, rates and all your other living costs. If you can do this for less than $1000 per week I would be surprised. You therefore need $4,200 per week after tax or $6,000 before tax. Then we have to consider the possibility of a significant market correction or the risk that your income may significantly reduce for some unforeseen reason. If you were lending your money, would you? Would you even want to take on this situation from the borrowers perspective. Consider the risks to our economy that a whole lot of people in similar situation to "theoretical you", would present in the event of a significant market correction.
As in all things the best and only long term action is to address the real causes that we all agree, but until this is done can we sit back and do nothing and risk the disastrous consequences. Having said that, which ever way it goes, the consequences are going to be disastrous. The only question is for who and when. They already are disastrous for a lot of people now.

Up
0

You're spot on Boatman but you've missed the kicker.

If LTI rules were put in place and applied strictly across all purchasers including investors (and offshore buying was reduced) then house prices would over time revert to a level where you could afford your home.

Your house would be worth more like $500-$600k rather than $1.5m. I'm not saying that will happen, but that's the implication.

Up
0