Share This

Showing posts with label Household debt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Household debt. Show all posts

Monday 12 February 2018

Restructuring our household debt


NEW Year always come with new resolutions. Finance is an important aspect of most people’s checklists when it comes to planning new goals.

While it is good to set new financial targets, it is also vital to re-look at our debt portfolio to ascertain if it is at a healthy state.

At a national level, our country also has its financial targets matched against its debt portfolio.

According to the latest Risk Developments and Assessment of Financial Stability 2016 Report by Bank Negara, the country’s household debt was at RM1.086 trillion or 88.4% of gross domestic product (GDP) as at end 2016.

Residential housing loan accounted for 50.3% (RM546.3bil) of total household debts, motor vehicles at 14.6%, personal financing at 14.9%, non-residential loan was 7.4%, securities at 5.7%, followed by credit cards at 3.5% and other items at 3.6%.

Evidently, residential housing loan is the highest among all types of household debt. However, a McKinsey Global Institute Report on “Debt and (Not Much) Deleveraging” in 2015 highlighted that in advanced countries, mortgage or housing loan comprises 74% of total household debt on average.

As a country that aspires to be a developed nation, a housing loan ratio of 50.3% to total household debt would be considered low, compared to 74% for the advanced countries. In other words, we are spending too much on items that depreciate in value immediately – such as car loans, credit card loans and personal loans – compared to assets that appreciate in value in the long run, such as houses.

Advanced economies, which are usually consumer nations, have only 26% debts on non-housing loan as compared to ours at 49.7%.

In order to adopt the household debt ratio of advanced economies, our housing loan of RM546.3bil should be at 74% of total household debt. This means that if we were to keep our housing loan of RM546.3bil constant, our total household debt should be reduced from the current RM1.086 trillion to a more manageable RM738bil. This would require other non-housing loans (car loans, credit card loans and personal loans etc) to reduce from 49.7% of total household debt to only 26%. To achieve this ratio, the non-housing loan debt must collapse from the current RM539.7bil to only RM192bil.

Reducing total household debt from the current RM1.086 trillion to a more manageable RM738bil would also have the added benefit of reducing our total household debt-to-GDP ratio from the high 88.4% to only 60%, making us one of the top countries globally for financial health.

Malaysia’s household debt at present ranked as one of the highest in Asia. Based on the same 2015 McKinsey Report, our household debt-to-income ratio was 146% in 2014 (the ratio of other developing countries was about 42%) compared to the average of 110% in advanced economies.

Adjusting the debt ratio by reducing car loans, personal loans and credit card loans will make our nation stay financially healthy.

Car values depreciate at about 10% to 20% per year based on insurance calculations, accounting standards and actual market prices. Assets financed by personal and credit card loans typically depreciate immediately and aggressively.

The easy access to credit cards and personal loan facilities tend to encourage people to spend excessively, especially when there is no maximum credit limit imposed on credit cards for those earning more than RM36,000 per year.

If we maximised the credit limit given without considering our financial ability, we will need a long time to repay due to the high interest rates, which ranged from 15% to 18% per annum.

Based on a report in The Star recently, Malaysia’s youth are seeing a worrying trend with those aged between 25 and 44 forming the biggest group classified as bankrupt.

The top four reasons for bankruptcy were car loans (26.63%), personal loans (25.48%), housing loans (16.87%) and business loans (10.24%).

It is time for the Government to introduce more drastic cooling-off measures for non-housing loans in order to curb debt that is not backed by assets. This will protect the rakyat from further impoverishment that they are voicing and feeling today.

As we kick start the new year, it is good to relook into our debt portfolio. When we are able to identify where we make up most of our debts, and start to reallocate our financial resources more effectively, we will be heading towards a sound and healthier financial status as a nation.
 

By Alan Tong - Food for thought

Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He was the world president of FIABCI International for 2005/2006 and awarded the Property Man of the Year 2010 at FIABCI Malaysia Property Award. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback, please e-mail feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com.


Related posts:

Saturday 11 February 2017

Leaving a legacy by buying a house first before a luxury car ...


DURING big festive celebrations such as Hari Raya Aidilfitri, Deepavali and the recently celebrated Chinese New Year, it is common to see families with a few generations gathered together.

Our grandparents, parents, uncles and aunties would talk about the legacies left by our ancestors, and the stories often attract a lot of attention whether from the young or old.

Perhaps, the topic of leaving a legacy is something worth sharing as we embark on a brand new year.

For years, I have been touched by the catchy tagline of a renowned Swiss watch advertisement, “You never actually own a (the watch brand), you merely look after it for the next generation”.

While most of us can relate to the thought, not all of us can indulge in such luxurious watches or be interested in buying one. However, at some point in time, we may be looking at buying a property to pass down to our younger generations.

Whenever the topic of leaving a legacy is brought up, I would recall the lesson that I learnt from my late father. My father embarked on a long journey from China to Malaysia at the age of 16. With years of hard work and frugality at his peak, he managed to own a bus company, the Kuala Selangor Omnibus Co.

Other than his bus transport business, he only invested in his children’s education and real estate. He financed seven of his eight sons to have an overseas university education, and when he passed away, he also left four small plots of land in Klang and a company which had 34 buses.

As I look back now, what my late father invested in unintentionally was very beneficial to me when I came back from my studies as an architect. With the land he handed down and the knowledge he equipped me with, I intuitionally got myself involved in small real estate development, and later founded my property development company, Sunrise, in 1968.

Many people have thought of leaving a legacy. The crucial questions often asked are, when should we start planning for it, and how should we go about it?

For financial planning and investment, I always believe that the earlier we start, the better off we are. The same goes to leaving a legacy.

If you plan to buy a property, it is advisable to start earlier as it is more affordable to buy it now as compared to 10 or 20 years down the line especially with rising costs and inflation in mind. You can start with what you can afford first and focus on long-term investment.

It is proven that property prices appreciate over a period of time, especially when we plan to hand over assets to the next generation that easily involves a 20- to 30-year timeline.

As a developing nation which enjoys high growth rate, Malaysia’s property values will also appreciate in tandem with the economic growth in the long run.

Nowadays, we often hear youngsters comment on the challenges of owning a house due to the rising cost of living. I believe that besides starting with what you can afford, it is also important to plan your financial position wisely and to differentiate between investment and spending.

Investing in properties, commodities, shares, etc. is also a form of savings which can help to grow your wealth and to leave a legacy. On the other hand, money spent on luxury items may depreciate over time from the day you buy them. If we can prioritise investment over expenditure, it is easier and faster to achieve our financial goals.

So, if you haven’t already started to plan, do consider leaving a legacy by buying a house first before a luxury car, branded bags or expensive gadgets, as the latter are considered ‘luxury’, not necessity.

Even if you may not have a spouse or children at this point in time, it’s better to start now than later, as our financial commitments tend to grow bigger as we progress into the next stages of our lives.

Most of us hope our lives matter in some way that can make an impact on our loved ones. The idea of leaving a legacy can take many forms, such as equipping the younger generations with knowledge and values, or leaving them fond memories.

Those are all important to work on and they leave a footprint to those lives you touch. If you are also planning to hand over physical gifts, always remember to start earlier with what you can afford, and focus on long term investment.


By Food for Thought Alan Tong

Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He was the world president of FIABCI International for 2005/2006 and awarded the Property Man of the Year 2010 at FIABCI Malaysia Property Award. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback, please email feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com.

Related posts:

If it's too good to be true, something's wrong 

 

Cars are more expensive than houses? A house can buy how many cars? 

 

Bankers and lawyers should know better 

 

8 million more houses needed in Malaysia 

 

Can Malaysia's household debt at 87.9% in 2014 be reduced to 54% ? 

 

Our cars are costing us our homes! 

 

A challenging year ahead

 

Rising tides of currencies globally cause inflation, money worthless!

 

Is having a car still a symbol of freedom?

 

Malaysian income: bread and butter, affordability of owing a house

Sunday 13 December 2015

Cars are more expensive than houses? A house can buy how many cars?


IN about 3 weeks' time, we will be celebrating the New Year.

Each New Year comes with new resolutions and new goals. Some would plan to own big ticket items such as a house or a car as part of their resolution. If your plan is to own a new car, finish reading this article before nailing down that resolution.

Owning a car in Malaysia is expensive. In one of my previous articles, I highlighted that Malaysia was ranked second in the world where owning a car is expensive.

But what many do not know is by how much, relative to homes. Yes, homes in Malaysia are expensive too, but relative to Australian homes and cars, our cars are 10 times more expensive than those sold in Australia compared to homes. Let's do some simple math together.

Khazanah Research Institute (KRI) reported that the median house price in Malaysia is about RM250,000. This is the cost of two Honda Civics (priced at RM110,000 per car).

In Australia, the median house price is A$660,000, while a Honda Civic costs about A$30,000. This means, a median-priced Australian house of A$660,000 can buy 22 Honda Civics, versus a median-priced Malaysian house of RM250,000 which can only buy two cars of the same model. Yes, our homes may not be cheap but our cars are more expensive in comparison.

I further compared Malaysia against the United States and United Kingdom. A median-priced house in US and UK can buy 12 and 16 Honda Civics respectively, which is still more affordable compared to the two which can be bought with a median-priced Malaysian house.

The story does not end here. In addition to the cost of purchasing a car, there are many other financial commitments that comes along with owning a car. These include petrol, parking, toll charges, maintenance, and repair costs. Then, there is the cost of depreciation which ranges from 10 per cent to 20 per cent per year. It does not help that most of these supplementary expenses are frequently being increased. Our cars are indeed costing us a lot.

It is undeniable that a car is a necessity to those who have limited access to public transportation. Until our public transportation system is good enough, people will still need private vehicles to move from one place to another.

Unfortunately our cars are so expensive that the rakyat, especially the younger generation, are forced to put off buying a home until they can afford it. In the meantime, that "wait" causes house prices to appreciate, thus making it even more unaffordable for these people to own a home. This vicious cycle will continue until the government has a permanent solution to address both public transportation and affordable housing.

Perhaps, it is also timely to revisit the rationale behind our National Car Project which was introduced in 1982 to bring a higher level of industrialisation in Malaysia. Since its inception, the price of national and non-national cars have progressively increased through increase in car taxes and excise duties.

The price of non-national cars in Malaysia generally cost 50 per cent to 100 per cent more than the price of the similar make of car in other countries. On the other hand, one of my managers came back from his Aussie trip and shared that a Proton Preve in Australia is RM11,000 cheaper than one that is acquired in Malaysia.

Originally, the National Car Project was a form of protectionism for the national car industry. After more than 30 years since its inception, it has now become a burden to the rakyat, by eating more and more into our disposable income. The National Car Project has served its original purpose, and it is time that we review it.

So now, instead of jotting down my resolution, my wish list for 2016 is for the Government to rationalise and reduce the taxes imposed on cars. This will put more money back into the rakyat's pockets to start their home ownership journey much earlier. Concurrently, the Government can continue to channel and reinvest some of these funds to build a comprehensive and effective public transportation system in Malaysia which will greatly reduce the rakyat's dependency on private vehicles.
And for those who still wish to buy a car, think twice as owning a car is too expensive and unaffordable - it may also cost you your home.

By Datuk Alan Tong Food for Thought

Food for thought  By DATUK ALAN TONG

> FIABCI Asia Pacific chairman Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He was FIABCI World president in 2005/06 and was named Property Man of The Year 2010. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. (email atfeedback@bukitkiara.com) 


Related posts:


Jul 14, 2012 ... Our cars are costing us our homes! WHEN I first started my job as an architect in the 1960s, I was on a three-year contract with a monthly salary ...
Jan 12, 2013 ... Imagine that the highways, car lanes and open car parks that once filled the landscapes are now ... Our cars are costing us our homes!
Sep 5, 2012 ... They can cut down on ownership of cars, and use public transport instead,” he said. Yam also ... Our cars are costing us our homes! Posted by ...
May 14, 2014 ... Cooling-off measures for the car industry that can be considered include shorter loan period, more ... Our cars are costing us our homes!

Aug 11, 2014 ... So, how does this increase in interest rate affect us, the public? Most people generally only ... Our cars are costing us our homes! Bankers and ...

Monday 11 May 2015

Can Malaysia's household debt at 87.9% in 2014 be reduced to 54% ?


BEING a teenager, my granddaughter started to pick up interest on how the economy works, what are the real assets and liabilities in one’s financial planning. As the topic itself can be slightly “dry”, I made an attempt to discuss it in a way that was easier for her to digest.

“Our national household debt to GDP ratio edged up to 87.9% last year. Is the number alarming?” she asked one day.

“It depends. We have good debts and bad debts in life. For example, 10 years later, our new cars may have depreciated more than 80% and our new clothes would have been worn out. Those are liabilities. On the other hand, houses are assets as they will appreciate in the long run. Debts which are backed by appreciating assets are considered good debts,” I said.

As she nodded in agreement with my simple explanation of good debts and bad debts, her question has piqued my curiosity to look into the details of our household debt.

Overall, is our nation having more good debts or bad debts?

Bank Negara report shows that our household debt was at RM940.4bil or 87.9% of GDP as at end of 2014. Residential housing loans accounted for 45.7% (RM429.7bil) of total debts, hire purchase at 16.6%, personal financing stood at 15.7%, non-residential loans were 7.7%, securities at 6.5%, followed by credit cards and other items at 3.9% respectively.

At first glance, our residential housing loans were the highest among all types of household debts. However, a recent McKinsey Global Institute Report highlighted that in advanced countries, mortgages or housing loans comprise 74% of total household debt on average. As a country that aspires to be a developed nation by 2020, our housing loans that stand at 45.7% is considered low. In other words, we are spending too much on other depreciating items instead of appreciating assets like houses.

If advanced economies, which are usually consumer nations, have only 26% debts on non-housing loans, we shouldn’t have as high as 54% loans on items such as hire-purchase (which are mostly cars), personal loans, credit cards and others.

If we were to follow the household debt ratio of advanced economies, our housing loans of RM429.7bil should be at 74% of total household debts, and other loans should be reduced from 54% to 26%, i.e. from RM510.7bil to RM150.9bil. With such reduction, total household debt would be slashed significantly from RM940.4bil to RM580.6bil (existing housing loans plus reduced non-housing loans), the amount would be at 54.2% of GDP instead of 87.9%.

I am wondering why we can’t have a household debt to GDP ratio of 54.2% as illustrated above. Are we spending too much on depreciating items?

Non-housing loans comprise mainly borrowings for cars, personal loans and credit cards. Car value depreciates about 10% to 20% per year based on insurance calculation and accounting practice. Borrowings for personal loans and credit card are also likely to depreciate over time which can be dubbed as “bad debt”.

Perhaps it is time for the Government to introduce massive cooling off measures for non-housing loans in order to curb bad debt in our household debt.

According to our Deputy Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Minister, our homeownership rate currently stands at 50% and the Government strives to increase the number with more affordable homes. As a comparison, almost 85% of Singaporeans are homeowners.

We can expedite the above vision if more stringent measures are imposed on non-housing loans, it will free up more resources for household financial planning. The rakyat should be encouraged to secure a roof over their heads with effective execution of affordable housing policy by the Government.

It is time to re-look our debt categories and reallocate our resources appropriately. If we are willing to cut back on cars, clothes, shoes and other depreciating items, reducing a household debt to GDP ratio of 54.2% is not only an aspiration, but an achievable reality.

By ALAN TONG Food for Thought

And the more beneficial effect is, more rakyat will have the financial resources to own a house, which is both a shelter and an appreciating asset.

■ FIABCI Asia-Pacific regional secretariat chairman Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback, please email feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com.

 
Related posts:

 MOST if not all house buyers will require financing to buy their dream homes. While there appears to be stiff competition among banks for ... 


Related:

 True Economics: 13/7/2014: Household Debt Mountains

I know, I know... it doesn't matter, really, that households are being tasked with funding Government debt first, their own debt later. All is sustainable.

Saturday 4 April 2015

Not all debts are bad

Rising household indebtedness could be a signal of robust consumption pattern that is the driver of domestic economic growth.

Construction workers at work in Kuala Lumpur. About 46 of household debt is for the purpose of financing purchase of residential properties.

Rising household indebtedness could be a signal of robust consumption pattern that is the driver of domestic economic growth.

FEDERAL government debt, external debt, household debt, non-financial corporate debt – these debts amount to billions of ringgit each and there should be proper context and understanding of the different classifications of debts to be fully informed of the economic issues at stake.

At face value, debt is money owed that has to be repaid in principal and interest. To look at debt from a more constructive point of view, debt is also future consumption brought forward. Furthermore, the benefit derived from consuming at the expense of expected future income should equal or even outweigh its associated costs of financing.

The point is, there are good debts and there are bad debts. Debts raking in billions or outstanding loans growing at an increasing rate could potentially be alarming. However, it would be misleading to label huge debts as unsustainable and destabilising before making sense of the origins and the purposes of the money borrowed.

Debts continue to pile up

A recent research on global debt and leverage by the McKinsey Global Institute in February highlighted that global debt continues to grow post-global financial crisis. These debts – the sum of money owed by governments, households, corporates and financial sectors in the 47 countries under the research – have grown to US$57 trillion since 2007 and a significant portion of the growth came from the public sector.

Overall, the research pointed out that only five developing economies showed signs of deleveraging while most of other countries saw increased debt to GDP ratio during the period.

With hindsight, global growth recovery post-global financial crisis has been rather slow and a handful of governments had pursued expansionary fiscal programmes funded through debts.

Unfortunately, as the global pace of growth is still relatively tentative, high level of government indebtedness would take longer time to deleverage.

Meanwhile, the increase in household and corporate sector debts could signal deeper financial system penetration and also recovery in household and corporate balance sheets for private sector expenditure to grow again.

As of end-2014, Malaysia’s federal government debt amounted to RM583bil (54.5% of GDP); external debt totalled RM744.7bil (69.6% of GDP); household debt increased to RM940.4bil (87.9 % of GDP).

In the past four years, the compounded annual growth rate for government debt was 9.4%; 14.4% for external debt and 12.2% for household debt.

While these numbers seem alarming, the major concern over debts arises when they are unsustainable.

While there are concerns over the sustainability of our fiscal deficit over the long term, the Government has embarked on a fiscal consolidation effort in recent years. Because of this, government debt should be under control in line with its commitment to achieve a balanced budget by 2020.

The Government operates on a few crucial self-imposed budgetary rules and it caps the maximum limit of government debt to GDP ratio at 55%.

On external debt, Bank Negara has adopted the new debt definition in early 2014, keeping in line with the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) new guidelines of widening its definition to better reflect the depth in financial markets and the real economy.

In essence, external debt refers to the debts owed by residents to non-residents, be it denominated in ringgit or foreign currencies.

Therefore, the public and private sector’s offshore borrowings, Malaysian Government Securities held by foreigners are included in the classification of the external debt.

Since the last quarter of 2013, the external debt growth has been on a downward trend, easing to 6.9% in the last quarter of 2014, down from the peak of 15.7% growth recorded in the last quarter of 2013.

Besides, the bulk of the growth in external debt since 2013 was primarily from offshore borrowings as it made up almost half of the total external debt.

Bank Negara, in its recent annual report, guided that private sector offshore borrowings are sound and sustainable, given that 70% of the corporate sector’s offshore loans were sourced from associated companies, parent companies and shareholders.

High household debts a concern

However, Malaysian household sector indebtedness undoubtedly tops the chart in the region.

According to McKinsey’s study, Malaysia’s household debt to income ratio is highest at 146% in 2014, way above the level of the United States (99%) and Indonesia (32%).

When we break down the household debt, 45.7% of it is for the purpose of financing purchase of residential properties. Hire purchase financing (16.6% of total household debt) and personal financing (15.7%) made up the remaining major components.

Even though Malaysia’s household financial asset to total household debt ratio is relatively high at 214% in 2014, the associated risks of high household indebtedness cannot be taken lightly.

The IMF, in its financial sector assessment on Malaysia in April 2014, cautioned that in the event of a sharp fall in housing property prices coupled with a recession in the economy, the burst of the housing asset bubble would have dire consequences on the real economy.

The Government and Bank Negara have in recent years attempted to rein in the growth in housing loans and also put a check on the property market through various macro-prudential tools.

For instance, the last Overnight Policy Rate hike in July 2014 by 25 basis points was primarily to mitigate the financial imbalances within the economy.

In January 2015, the growth of household outstanding loans from the banking institutions has slowed to 9.7%, down from the peak of 13.9% in November 2010.

Although it is a sign of improvement in domestic financial stability, a continued assessment of household loans would be a prudent measure.

Responsible use of leverage

Bad indebtedness is often described as how an overleveraged economy collapses on its own pile of toxic debts when triggered by an overlooked external event – the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States is a classic example.

On the other hand, good debts are those that are used to finance productive and sustainable purposes.

A government manoeuvering an economy out of recession could issue bonds to fund its fiscal stimulus programme while a company could maximise its true potential through the proper use of leverage.

In fact, given a youthful population and a stable work force in Malaysia, rising household indebtedness could be a signal of robust consumption pattern that is the driver of domestic economic growth.

Therefore, regulators and policy makers should not, in their fear of “indebtedness”, stifle the credit lines and the channels to expand present consumption for future capacity of growth.

Unfortunately, with a lack of hindsight, it can be difficult at times to ascertain if a debt is good or bad, A-tier quality or just a default waiting to happen.

In the end, it is not only the viability in repaying the loans but also the realised output and gains from entering a debt contract that should be examined to determine the sustainability in taking up debts.

In short, indebtedness is not necessarily bad. A responsible debtor should have a clear and comprehensive business or personal financial planning and ultimately transparency in dealing with all parties. After all, a good debt is a good customer for the other end.

My point By Mandkaran Mottain

Manokaran Mottain is the chief economist at Alliance Bank Malaysia Bhd.

Related post:

MOST if not all house buyers will require financing to buy their dream homes. While there appears to be stiff competition among banks for ...

Friday 19 December 2014

Is the weakening Malysian ringgit a similar to 1997/98 crisis?

Economic troubles ahead but most don’t think it will be as bad as back then

We don’t see a crisis brewing in emerging Asia. But that is not to say there aren’t risks. We believe those risks are going to be mitigated and managed. Despite some portfolio outflows, we believe there is still sufficient liquidity in the market for some trading ideas

The weakening ringgit has caused anxiety. But is the economy in a similar situation to Malaysia’s worst ever crisis 16 years ago?

MANY Malaysians will still remember the Asian financial crisis of 1997/98. Nearly 20 years ago, the then crisis was responsible for the greatest capital market crash in the country and forced many structural changes we see today in the financial markets.

It was a time of great turmoil, with people losing their investments on a scale never seen since. Companies for years bankrolled on easy credit were leveraged to the hilt and crumbled under the weight of their debts as business evaporated and the cost of credit soared.

Shares traded on the stock exchange mirrored the scale of the troubles. The benchmark stock market index plunged from a high of 1,271 points in February 1997 to 262 on Sept 1, 1998. Words such as tailspin and panic were common in the financial section of newspapers and the chatter among market players as people scrambled to take action.

“More people are talking about it with the fall in the ringgit,” says a fund manager who experienced the difficult times in the late 1990s.

Triggering the crisis back then was the fall in the regional currencies, starting with the Thai baht. Speculators then zeroed in on other countries in Asia and Russia as the waves of attack on the currencies back then saw many central banks spending vast amount of foreign exchange reserves to defend their currencies.

Exhausting their reserves, those central banks requested for credit help from the International Monetary Fund to replenish their coffers.

Attacks on the ringgit and many other currencies in Asia sent the ringgit into freefall as the currency capitulated from a previously overvalued zone against the US dollar.

The ringgit dived into uncharted territory to around RM4.20 to the dollar before capital controls were imposed and the ringgit was pegged at RM3.80 to the dollar. The ensuing troubles were seen from the capital market to the property sector. Corporate Malaysia was swimming in red ink and huge drops in profit.

The shock from that period was different than what the country had seen in previous recessions. The last economic recession prior to that was caused by a collapse in global commodity prices and during that pre-industrialisation period before factories mushroomed throughout the major centres of the country, unemployment soared. Unemployment was not a major issue in 1997/98 like it was in the prior recession but the crunch on company earnings meant wage cuts and employment freezes.

With the drop in crude oil and now with the resurgence of the US economy, the flight of money from the capital market has began.

Deja vu?

Most would argue that no two shocks or crisis are the same. There is always a trigger that is different from before. From the Asian financial crisis, the world has seen the collapse of the dotcom boom which crushed demand for IT products and services. Then there was the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) crisis and the global financial crisis in 2008/09. There were periods of intermittent volatility in between those periods but there was nothing in Malaysia to suggest trouble ahead.

Shades of 1998 though have emerged in this latest wave of turmoil but the situation now is not the same as it was back then.

“We don’t see a crisis brewing in emerging Asia. But that is not to say there aren’t risks. We believe those risks are going to be mitigated and managed,” says World Bank country director for South-East Asia, Ulrich Zachau.

The fall in crude oil prices, which has been the trigger for Malaysia, has sent the currencies of oil-producing countries lower, affecting their revenues and budgets. In South-East Asia, pressure has been telling on the ringgit and the Indonesian rupiah.

Reminiscent of the gloom and doom of 1997/98, the Indonesian rupiah tanked against the dollar to levels last seen during that period.

Intervention by the Indonesian central bank addressed the decline, but the situation is also different today then it was back nearly two decades ago.

“Bank Negara is still mopping up liquidity today,” says another fund manager who started work in Malaysia in the early 1990s.

Although liquidity is plentiful in Malaysia, money has been coming out of the stock market. Foreign selling has been pronounced this year and the wave of selling has seen more money flow out of the stock market this year than what was put in to buy stocks last year.

Equities is just an aspect of it as the bigger worry is in Government bonds where foreigners hold more than 40% of issued government debt.

“The fear is capital flight and people are looking to lock in their gains,” says the fund manager.

“The worry will start when people get irrational.”

Times are different

While the selling that is taking place in the capital markets is a concern, Malaysia of today is vastly different than it was during the 1997/98 period.

For one, corporates in Malaysia are not as leveraged as they were back then. Corporate debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio is below 100% but it was above 130% in 1998. Furthermore, corporate profits are still steady although general expectations have been missed in the last earnings season.

Secondly, fund managers point out that the banking system is in far better health today, better capitalised and seeing the average loan-to-deposit ratio below 100%. That loan-to-deposit ratio was much higher than 100% during the 1997/98 period and and as loans turned bad, the banks got into trouble.

“Fundamentally, we are much stronger now. That was not the case back then,” says a corporate lawyer.

“The worry though is on perception and denials that there is no trouble.”

The one big worry, though, is household debt. That ratio to GDP is crawling towards the 90% level while it was not even an issue back in 1997/98.

Sensitivity analysis by Bank Negara which looks at several adverse scenarios, such as a 40% decline in the stock market and bad loans from corporates and households shooting up, indicate that the banking system can withstand a major shock.

“The scenario-based solvency stress test for the period 2014 to 2016 incorporated simultaneous shocks on revenue, funding, credit, market and insurance risk exposures, taking into account a series of tail-risk events and downside risks to the global economic outlook.

“The simulated spillovers on the domestic economy were used to assess the compounding year-on-year impact on income and operating expenses, balance sheet growth and capitalisation of financial institutions, disregarding any loss mitigation responses by financial institutions or policy intervention by the authorities,” says Bank Negara in its Financial Stability and Payment Systems Report.

“Even under the adverse scenario, the post-shock aggregate TCR (total capital ratio) and CET1 (common equity tier 1) capital ratio of the banking system were sustained at 10% and 7% respectively, remaining above the minimum regulatory requirement under Basel III based on the phase-in arrangements which are consistent with the global timeline,” it says in the report.

Government finances and the current account

The line in the sand for Government finances seems to be at the US$60 per barrel level for crude oil prices. A number of economists feel the Government will miss its fiscal target of a 3% deficit next year should the price of crude oil drop below that level.

With oil and gas being such a big component of the economy than what it was in 1997/98, the drop in the price of crude oil could also spell trouble for the current account and cause a deficit in the trade account.

Those concerns have been highlighted by local economists and yesterday, Fitch Ratings echoed that worry.

“Cheaper oil is positive for the terms of trade of most major Asian economies. But for Malaysia, which is the only net oil exporter among Fitch-rated emerging Asian sovereigns, the fall increases the risk of missing fiscal targets.

“The risk of a twin fiscal and external deficit, which could spark greater volatility in capital flows, has increased. Malaysia’s deep local capital markets have a downside in that they leave the country exposed to shifts in investor risk appetite. Malaysia’s foreign reserves dropped 6.8% between end-2013 and end-November 2014, the biggest decline in Fitch-rated emerging Asia,” it says in a statement yesterday.

Despite the softness in the property market and corporates getting worried about their profits, the general feeling is that Malaysia will not see a repeat of 1997/98. The drop in the ringgit and revenue for crude oil will mean a period of adjustment but the cheaper ringgit will make exports more competitive.

The difference between then and now


The ringgit vs the dollar ...

The ringgit’s steep decline against the dollar has made it one of the worst performing currencies of late. That decline, although steep and having caught the attention of the central bank, is more down to the link with the decline in crude oil than structural issues to be worried about.
Capital ratios of banks ...

Banks today are far better capitalised then they were during the 1997/98 crisis, which forced the local banking industry to consolidate for their own good. Stress tests by the central bank suggests then even under adverse conditions, banks in Malaysia wil be able to withstand the shock associated with it.
Loans-to-deposit ratio ...

The ratio of loans against the deposit of banks have been rising but it is no where at the level before the Asian financial crisis in 1997/98. Banks too are aware of making sure it does not cross 100% and the development of the bond market means leverage risk has been diversified from the banking sector.

Businesses not as leveraged ...

One of the reasons corporate Malaysia was in trouble in 1997/98 was down to its leverage, or debt levels. Today. corporates are not as geared as they were back then and although that level is rising, their financial position and better cash balances and generation means they are able to better withstand a shock to the economy.

Household debt to GDP ...

This is the biggest worry. As households are leveraged despite the financial assets backing it, that means any economic weakness or shock will affect the ability to service loans taken to buy those assets. As consumer demand has been a big driver to the economy, any changes the affects the ability of consumers to continue spending will impact on economy growth and have an impact on non-performing loans in the banking sector.

Dropping current account surplus ...

The decline in the current account surplus means that the domestic economy has been growing strongly. There were concerns earlier and the prioritisation of projects was able to smoothen imports to ensure a positive balance of trade. The drop in crude oil prices could mean a deficit in the current account in the first quarter of next year but the weaker ringgit should translate to better exports and a better current account balance thereafter.

By JAGDEV SINGH SIDHU Starbizweek

Related stories:


Related posts:

Oil & Gas lead to wealth crunch, Malaysian Ringgit beaten and dropped!

Oil enters a new era of low prices: Opec vs US shale, impacts, perils as Petronas cuts capex
Oil Enters New Era as OPEC Faces Off Against Shale; Who Blinks as Price Slides Toward $70? How Oil's Price Plunge Impacts Wall S...

Malaysia's iconic Twin Towers are seen in the background of the Malaysian oil and gas company Petronas logo at a petrol station in Ku...

Malaysia's petrol price hike when global crude oil prices declined to 3 years low, a reflection of poor financial management!
Timing of latest fuel subsidy cut a surprise PETALING JAYA - The latest round of fuel subsidy rationalisation came as a surprise ...

Tuesday 13 May 2014

Car or house buying cooling off measures?

Cooling off measures for car purchases also?

Key points: 

(1). Higher percentage of bankruptcies from inability to repay cars HPs than housing loans.
(2). The second largest household debt component, about RM145bil, is paid for an asset that is contracting in value every year.

WHAT are the considerations when you purchase a car?

Are the model and its functions important? Does the status symbol carry more weight? Or affordability is the main concern? Don’t get me wrong, I am not conducting a survey to change my profession. I am just curious to find out the major considerations of purchasing a car.

The topic interests me as car ownership among Malaysians, especially the young adults keep increasing. Many times, their choice of car is somewhat extravagant compared to the income they may be generating at this early stage of their careers.

This issue caught my attention when a news report last month stated that 122,169 Malaysians were declared bankrupt between 2007 and 2013, according to the Department of Insolvency. About 26% of the bankruptcies were due to the inability to settle the hire-purchase payment for vehicles, which involved 33,570 people since 2007.

When I searched further for other causes of bankruptcies, the available information for the period from 2005 to May 2010 indicated that car loans was also the chief reason for bankruptcy during that period. It was followed by 11.8% due to personal loans, 10.9% of bankruptcies due to non-repayment of business loans, and only 7.5% was caused by housing loans. Looking at the statistics, it is significant that for many years, more than one-fourth of bankruptcies in our country had been caused by car loans. It reflects on the household stress in repaying car loans, and this high default rate should trigger some thoughts among the authorities and the people.

According to Bank Negara statistics, as at April 2013, housing loans account for 57.5% of total household debts, while car loans, personal loans and credit cards account for 26.5%, 10% and 6% respectively. It means that the second-largest household debt component, about RM145bil, is paid for an asset that is contracting in value every year.

I wonder how many households are struggling to repay their car loans today, and how many of them, especially the younger generation, have deferred their financial wealth planning because of car loans? With the high percentage mentioned above and the rising household debt, there arises the question of whether cooling-off measures should also be extended to the car industry which is causing severe household stress.

Cooling-off measures for the car industry that can be considered include shorter loan period, more stringent loan-to-income ratio, and to impose certain charges if a car owner purchases additional cars in less than a certain number of years. These measures may help to reduce the number of cars on the road and discourage household spending on private vehicles. In the process, we will also be reducing traffic jams.

As shared in my previous articles titled “Reality Check on Debt Mountain” and “Good Debt, Bad Debt”, a car depreciates 10% to 20% per year based on car insurance calculation and accounting practice. In contrast, housing loans have underlying assets that are likely to appreciate over the long term.

Depreciative asset

Do we want to defer our financial planning instead and trade our opportunity of owning an appreciative asset for a depreciative asset? Perhaps, the authorities should encourage the people to borrow only for very good reasons, and to purchase assets only after thorough research.

This reminds me of an episode that I am personally aware of. It goes back to the early 1900s, when a 16-year-old migrant from China came to Malaya (now Malaysia) to seek a living, with no money in his pocket. Due to his diligence, hardwork and frugality, he was able to marry a young pretty girl ten years later and start a family and they eventually had 13 children.

What was astonishing is that he was able to send 7 of his 8 sons overseas for their tertiary education, all due to his frugality, hardwork and integrity. When he passed away, he was even able to leave behind a legacy of a bus company with over 30 buses and 4 small pieces of land in a small town.

Would this episode stimulate our young people to contemplate about what is best for their future?

Although the cooling-off measures for the car sector may be a new idea to ponder, however, with the Government’s plan to upgrade our public transport facilities and services, it is an area for consideration to increase public transport usage and encourage healthy financial planning in the long run.

After all, if senior executives in major cities like London and Tokyo are comfortable using public transportation to commute in their daily lives, can we not also do likewise (if our public transportation are improved)?

Coming back to the questions I asked in the beginning of this article... while I understand people put emphasis on different features of a car depending on their requirements and stage of life, it is always good to include the affordability aspect in a car purchase decision, so as not to be dragged down by the car which is bought to carry us forward.

P/S: The 16-year-old migrant happened to be my late father. He passed away at the age of 63 in 1962.

Contributed by Datuk Alan Tong

FIABCI Asia-Pacific regional secretariat chairman Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback, please email feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com. The views expressed are entirely the writer's own.

Related posts: