Simply put this is how you can buy a house with no deposit or a small one. Consider the reality of leverage:

You buy a house for $500,000 and put down a 10% deposit of $50,000.

In a few years (certainly recent times) you sell it for $600,000. You have just made $100,000 from an investment of $50,000…a 200% return. Of course you have to subtract your interest but that is what you would have paid in rent anyway or so the theory goes.

In recent years this has been the name of the game. Between 2000 and 2008 New Zealand house prices rose 169%……..!! Yes that’s an incredible number………21% per annum on average. No wonder people thought this was an easy game. No wonder leveraged investments in property became the biggest game in town. But hold on: we are talking about houses not tulips. How could such an unusual bout of asset inflation happen right under the noses of the inflation focused RBNZ.

Well house prices are not included in the CPI calculation. Call me old fashioned but that’s ridiculous.

The major problem with any bubble is that it ends. In this case NZ has not had the same end as the USA with its sub-prime mortgage induced property collapse though the NZ finance company sector did its best to compete.

But the leverage has not been washed out of the system yet. House prices have recovered from the 2008-9 fall and now are back up close to their historic highs. Why is this? Why hasn’t the NZ housing market fallen back to more realistic levels?

There’s no clear answer but I’d like to suggest one: It’s not in the interest of the banks for prices to fall heavily. Why? Because they are the ultimate owners of the housing stock. If they lend 90% to a borrower and the price of that house falls 10% then the borrower has lost their equity and the bank owns the rest. That’s how leverage works on the downside. If the price falls further than 10% the borrower is into negative equity. So far so normal. The bank will just hoover up any savings or other assets held by the borrower. But at some point the bank is left holding the security. Banks don’t like that very much so they seek to sell the asset and recover as much cash as possible. If the borrower cannot cover the loss then the bank has to write that off.

But in a bubble situation the banks have to be very careful not to knock down the price of all property. Otherwise their entire lending portfolio will take a hit not just the one loan which went bad. So banks have a vested interest in keeping prices from falling too far.

Back in 2008 I called for land prices to fall 30%. They haven’t yet but it’s simply a matter of time. In fact they only fell 8.5%…not much of a fall considering the enormity of the rise. Wages are not rising at a rate which can cover the compounding interest on the debt pile (see upcoming post on debt) so the strains of maintaining the illusion will continue to show through. Therefore the banks have a big part to play in making sure house prices do not rise or fall too much whilst they reorganise their lending practices.

What needs to happen? Well a reversion to traditional lending practices will come back into vogue: where you can borrow 2-3 times your salary. Imagine that. Median wage in Christchurch is somewhere between $30-40,000 depending where you look and the average house price is $360,000. Scary……so the banks who are operating on the interest/cash flow model (see upcoming post on definancialisation) will find switching back to the traditional model simply isn’t possible as house prices would fall by rather a lot. You couldn’t find a house for under $200,000 these days so we would have to see a severe correction, probably in excess of 30% though very low borrowing costs would help ease that.

It’s clear that the same financial practices that we have seen employed in the global bond markets have also been applied to residential lending. The valuation model shifted from the established practice of ability to repay the mortgage to the ability to cover the interest. Why? Because the price of the house would always go up. Really? Isn’t delusion fun. The fact is that prices did go up….and up…and up. As they say the market can be wrong a lot longer than you can be right.

All this creates a major dilemma for banks (who are probably aware, one hopes, of their position) and regulators who clearly are not (always happy to be surprised): How to withdraw leverage (which was a ponzi scheme) from the residential mortgage market without causing a crash? How to realise that we have been deluding ourselves as to the  ”value” of our houses. How can we explain that 169% rise? Did we suddenly become more wealthy? Er no our trade balance for the period March 2000-2008 was minus $30.7bln!!!!

No we simply revalued our property again and again for no reason other than the banks were happy to go with the valuations (also pushed it has to be said by overseas immigrants paying cash prices) which just kept going up. If house A in one street sold for 20% more then all the other houses must be worth 20% more. Housing became a commodity and so was able to enjoy the commodity style price action……….of course housing isn’t a commodity as people actually live in them. And that is what is keeping the market afloat…..but don’t look too hard at the numbers. They might make you wonder exactly what it all means.

More on that in the upcoming posts on debt and definancialisation.

But what really stands out is the $3.2bln the banks made in New Zealand in 2007. That is a lot of dough, the majority of which comes from the ability to create money into existence via interest bearing loans.

In the last 10 years loans have risen from $127bln to $323bln an increase of 154%….in 10 years!!!

In that time house prices (from QV data) have risen 178%.

It’s good to see Kiwibank taking a bigger part of this market because at least the profits stay with the taxpayer. And of course the right to create money is a sovereign one so why not have a “national” bank. That’s something worth thinking about.

Or to be more accurate, the Bank of England will accept mortgage backed securities in return for government bonds. Nice trade if you cant get it. The amounts mentioned are 50 to 200bln pounds (where the hell is my pound key?) but basically it’s a free for all.

Now we can expect to see banks reaching for the refinancing button in order to take advantage of this. RBS has already put its hand up for 10 to 12bln of fresh capital plus a 6bln write down.

Ok so its just more mess. The markets may rally on this hoping it can help clear the looming crisis in the mortgage market but the numbers are really starting to mount up and this is just very bad news indeed.

The key issue here is the capital adequacy of the banking system. It’s proven to be the achilles heel which is why the authorities have had no option but to underwrite the system.

Given this exposure of the fragility of the banking system it is time to ask questions about capital adequacy and the way banks are regulated and allowed to operate.

With lending up 14.3% in the last year he’s not wrong.

And with Lombard the 17th NZ finance company to hit the wall some serious questions must be asked about the health of the NZ financial system.

Deborah Hill Cone , the Hermione Granger of NZ journalism, has been banging on about this for many years now focusing mainly on the Hanover Group which surprisingly hasn’t gone under….yet.

Back in March 2004 she wrote a big piece on it for the NBR which prompted me to write to various MPs and the Finance Minister to express concern about the finance company sector as a whole. The only MP who took interest in it was John Key, the then shadow finance minister, whilst Michael Cullen, the current one, gave the standard response that the system was well regulated.

We also hear that Tower has closed a mortgage fund after a run on funds on a day that centre left leaders met in London to discuss urgent reform of global financial markets. Helen Clark was there and no doubt expressed her concern.

Perhaps her focus should be a little closer to home?

Dear Friends of the American Monetary Institute

Please take a moment to concentrate on this message, and consider the very particular action it asks of you, to help our nation achieve meaningful change to assure that no “Wild West” banking system ever again despoils our people.

Place: Busboys and Poets Restaurant (Langston Room)
2021   14th St.   NW,    Washington DC  20009

 Date:  Thursday, April 10, 2008                  Time: 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM

Late arrivals OK                 Dress: Informal; all are welcome

 

Reservations not necessary but really appreciated 

Call 224-805-2200  or email  ami@taconic.net

RETURN TO AMI HOME PAGE

Watch it here

As many people are starting to learn, the 1913 Federal Reserve Act “effectively ceded the sovereign power to create money delegated to Congress by the Constitution to the private financial industry”. It was led by none other than JP Morgan himself. There is some interesting history of how the Act was actually passed during the small hours of the morning whilst no one was looking.

As Jim Rogers suggested yesterday, the Fed could be abolished or as Stephen proposes, be purely a bank of issue, supplying money as required by the government.

Now there are many ways to approach the issue of interest free money into an economy but for now I would just like people to read through the proposal and see what they think. Pass it to friends, schools and universities. People should be discussing this openly.

The AMI hold talks around the US all year round so get in touch and find out when they are coming your way.

Its your Congress and its your money.

Added to that is a citizens income, disestablishment of welfare, better infrastructure and importantly a compulsory health insurance.

It will be interesting to discuss these issues further. I may invite Owen to expand on them here. The name is a bit of a mouthful but that can be worked on.

It’s a very good start though.

One proposal is Ripple. It’s been around for a few years and there is some good information on the site including the initial paper from Ryan which I have posted up in the research section. There’s plenty of commentary around about it which is worth a look at. Essentially it proposes to replace bank created debt money with personally created credit through a fully distributed network based system. What is good about this proposal is that it takes the concept of local currency systems to its logical conclusion which is a globally based one with servers finding the right path to the appropriate relationship or network.

The most important part of this is identifying that most of what we think of as money is in fact simply an IOU. So why should banks create this? Well the main reason is trust. What Ripple proposes is the creation of that trust through networks, which as we know are already widely in use.

Jamesey proposes a further layer on top of this adding in microfinance structures and leveraging off the Paypal system.

We also have very well embedded and established credit card systems (Amex and Visa) who already have the distribution systems. So the trust system is going to be a key issue. Who is in your network? Who can you trust? I’d suggest and I hope that VortexDNA will play a role in helping this kind of global protocol to develop.

The main problem is the control of supply. One would like to think that a complex system, such as proposed, would regulate itself constantly adjusting to feedback. We know that the current system is close to imploding because of rampant money creation. So cculd it be any worse? Could governments participate also?

It’s open season and anything is possible.

It’s being held up in the courts but at some point the suit must be acknowledged and heard. Its a tough one for the judges as they are being asked to rule on one of the most accepted practices in society today, namely the equivalence of “digital money” and cash in the form of notes and coins.

With the relentless advance of Peer to Peer lending systems coming online and complimentary currencies in every country it is easy to see how a major change is underway. Sure the banks may not be too concerned now but we are seeing the beginnings of a major revolution in what we know as money.