Why do so few people negative gear stocks?

Wed, 15 Feb 2017  |  

This article first appeared on The Constant Investor website at this link: It is behind a paywall for subscribers only https://theconstantinvestor.com/stephen-koukoulas-overview-170114/#Whydosofewpeoplenegativegearstocks 

----------------------------------------------------

Why do so few people negative gear stocks?

In recent times, a lot of the focus of public policy has been on negative gearing and how the associated tax rules encourage ‘excessive’ investment in the housing market. This in turn, it is argued, pushes up house prices and freezes first home buyers out of the market. There is something in that argument which will no doubt carry on in 2017 and probably beyond.

What is often overlooked in the debate is the fact that negative gearing investment strategies also apply for shares, in the form of margin lending and related products. So why is it that the overwhelming focus of investors when they negative gear is dwellings and not shares?

Over the past decade or so, as property investment borrowing has boomed, margin lending for stocks has slumped.

According to data from the RBA, outstanding credit for investor housing stood at $562 billion in November 2016. This was up a staggering 319% from the level in December 2007 when it stood at $134 billion.

Margin lending for stocks, on the other hand, has crashed. In December 2007, margin lending stood at $41.6 billion which was 30 per cent of the level of borrowing for investment dwellings at that time. Fast forward to the latest RBA data for September 2016 and the level of margin lending is a staggeringly low $11.6 billion, down 72% from the peak. Borrowing (negative gearing) for stock market investing is equivalent to just 2% of the outstanding borrowing for property.

If the ratio of stock-to-dwelling lending had remained at 30 per cent (the level in 2007), margin lending would be close to $170 billion today rather than $11.6 billion and no doubt the share market would be markedly higher.

There are a couple of points to note when looking at these trends. Investors have collectively made the right decision. Since December 2007, Australian house prices have risen 49% while the ASX200 remains around 9% below the end 2007 peak. These figures do not take account of rent or dividends.

In other words, an investor who put $100 into housing at the end of 2007 would now have underlying capital of $149, while the stock investor would have just $91. This no doubt helps to explain the divergence in investor appetite for borrowing for housing relative to stocks. It has proven to be prudent to gear up into housing and stay away from the stock market.

There’s on old saying that every investor knows but does not always follow – “buy low, sell high”. It is important to emphasise that what follows is NOT investment advice – see your financial adviser before making any investment decisions.

But a cold hard look at stocks versus dwellings suggests that the price of stocks is low at least relative to the price of residential property. Perhaps it will stay that way for a few more years – there are certainly plenty of people still upbeat on housing based on strong underlying demand from demographic changes. Stocks, at the same time, remain vulnerable to a US pull-back and risks of US/China economic tensions as Donald Trump implements some of his policy agenda.

But in a scenario when investor appetite for dwellings as an investment destination tapers off, as the likely cooling in housing unfolds and investors use their leverage to get into shares, the ASX could and probably will outperform residential property in the years ahead.

comments powered by Disqus

THE LATEST FROM THE KOUK

Inflation is low and remains low

Thu, 27 Apr 2017

This article first appeared on the Yahoo7 Finance website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/inflation-020818312.html 

---------------------------------------------------

Inflation is low and remains low

Inflation edged up a little in the March quarter – from an annual rate of 1.5 per cent at the end of 2016, the headline rate rose to 2.1 per cent. The underlying rate of inflation, which the RBA trends to place more weight on when it comes to assessments of interest rate policy, was even more muted, lifting from 1.5 per cent to 1.8 per cent.

And recall, the RBA target range for inflation is between 2 and 3 per cent.

Annual underlying inflation has been at or below 2 per cent since late 2015, and has been below 2.5 per cent, the midpoint of the inflation target, since the end of 2014. That is a long time.

The data today confirm that inflation is low and remains low and in isolation, continues to give the RBA plenty of scope to further reduce interest rates. When the recent data on unemployment, building approvals, private sector business investment and wages growth are added to the mix, the case for an interest rate cut is strong.

The Australian budget is likely to confirm this is a big-spending, big-taxing government

Thu, 20 Apr 2017

This article first appeared on The Guardian website at this link: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/19/the-australian-budget-is-likely-to-confirm-this-is-a-big-spending-big-taxing-government 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Australian budget is likely to confirm this is a big-spending, big-taxing government

While much of the focus of the upcoming federal budget will, quite rightly, be policy issues associated with housing affordability, areas of changes to spending and revenue, there will also be an opportunity to analyse the underlying values of the government.

This will be the fourth budget of the current Coalition government and will show us the ‘big picture’ of government policies and priorities. There will be data on aggregate government spending, taxation receipts, gross and net government debt and the budget deficit.

The most accurate way to analyse the trends in the key budget figures will be to assess them as a ratio of GDP. Government spending, for example, totalled $48.8bn in 1982-83 and this rose to $423.3bn in 2015-16, which is, at face value, an enormous increase. But spending actually fell from 25.8% of GDP in 1982-83 to 25.6% of GDP in 2015-16. It is a similar issue with government debt, the budget deficit and other benchmarks.

Based on the performance of the economy since the last fiscal update in December 2016, the budget is likely to confirm that this is a big-spending, big-taxing government with a strategy for continuing budget deficits and rising debt as it funds some of its pet projects.

It is all but certain that government debt will remain above 25% of GDP in 2017-18 and the forward estimates, meaning the government will be the first in the last 50 years to have spending at more than a quarter of GDP for eight straight years.