One of the greatest financial inventions is leverage: the ability to create an asset of value in excess of your original investment.

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.