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

House prices: Karratha and Sydney - why the divergence

Wed, 22 Feb 2017

This article first appeared on the Yahoo 7 Finance website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/a-jump-in-demand-to-do-something-about-the-supply-of-houses-034305361.html

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

House prices:  Karratha and Sydney - why the divergence

The thousands of students heading off to university this month to start their economics degrees can do so knowing that the basic laws of the discipline still hold. “Yay” – they might say as they sit down to their first Economics 1001 lecture.

Supply and demand is king.

Shortages, gluts, price booms and crashes reflect the supply and demand dynamics. These are the most basic concepts in the study of economics and they apply to the real world.
These basic economic laws apply to the Australian housing market which is going through extraordinary turmoil with prices booming in some areas and crashing in others.

It is not just housing where economy theory turns into reality. In looking at the market for bananas, widgets, fine art or concert tickets, the interaction of supply and demand will always determine the price of those items. But let’s look at housing and think of the following issues and questions.

Based on detailed data from SQM Research, why is it that since 2012, house prices in Karratha Western Australia have fallen by around 65 per cent, while in the lower North Shore of Sydney, house prices have risen by around 120 per cent?

Balanced budget needs higher tax take, but which taxes should be hiked?

Mon, 20 Feb 2017

This article first appeared on the Guardian website sat this link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/16/balanced-budget-needs-higher-tax-take-but-which-taxes-should-be-hiked-stephen-koukoulas 

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

Balanced budget needs higher tax take, but which taxes should be hiked?

The treasurer, Scott Morrison, appears to be having something of a Gough Whitlam moment. Not in terms of far-reaching social and economic reform, but rather a realisation that the size of government needs to increase. The electorate is demanding a certain base level of healthcare, education, disability care, roads, defence, infrastructure and all manner of goods and services.

Morrison is talking about the need to raise taxes to ensure these government services are provided while simultaneously moving the budget towards surplus, which is an essential element to avoiding the credit rating downgrade that appears to be just around the corner.

He is explicitly acknowledging that, to keep voters happy with decent services, spending must remain above 25% of GDP and perhaps needs to rise further, towards record highs.

Prior to the Whitlam government in the early 1970s, government spending and revenue was generally at, or a little below, 20% of GDP. With the Whitlam reforms, this rose to about 25%, and apart from the swings in line with the business cycle and policy changes over the past 40 years, it has remained around 25%. It has not reverted to pre-Whitlam levels. Not gone close.