If the government is willing to let the country go broke to save the housing market from going down, then ...

To mods: please do not merge with other topics, I will do my best to provide an insight into capital flow in this topic rather than emotional discussions.

If the government is willing to let the country go broke to save the housing market from going down, then you can be sure of one thing and one thing only… this country will go broke.

I would not bet much on housing market though.

As forecasted here – https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/694076 , the government(s) went ahead with Fiscal stimulus for housing market. I could not foresee the levels of stupidity though. It looks that the reported outlook is truly grim for the housing market.
I raised the issue that inflation will be even more money-tightening than the rate hikes, therefore we are in a “cash-splash” zone… again.

Following is a lengthy view for those who want to know more.

Let’s do the 2nd and 3rd level thinking about using super for home-buying. An appalling and ill-conceived idea even for a ScoMo’s government – this is the low of lows both economically and common-sense.

Next level thinking

When a person withdraws his super-fund money, this is not “just money”, this is a direct SELL order of assets – usually stocks and, sometimes, bonds (bonds had bad rap in the past two years, so most super-savers have moved into stocks).

So, by creating these economically insensitive sellers, the government have literally signed-off selling of AUS200 market. And this is considered to be “an event” in the money managed circles. Which means that all clear-thinking money manager will probably front-run this in the days of policy coming into life.

Therefore, we will see front-running selling, super-funds selling and momentum players selling a bit more after. If that idea catches fire, there will be hedge-funds just playing the idea of shorting aussie stocks especially if commodities boom is over. Suffice to say that returns on the ASX will suck for some long time.

Other players

Super-funs obviously will try to protect their returns and in response will invest more overseas, giving other countries so much needed liquidity and investment flows. They will try to reduce exposure to AUS market for new money coming in and re-think their hedging strategies, thus creating unnecessary complexity and increasing risks.
Most importantly, this will remove the floor from the stock market and any marginal selling will beget more selling with no-one standing the way of AUS market going down.

Companies might have troubles doing IPOs in AUS because they will be at risk of indiscriminate selling by FHB raiding their super. And not many dare-devils will want to list in the under-performing market. Which means that aussie companies will prefer to list overseas and this will remove the capital from AUS a bit more,

Secondary offerings (when a listed company tried to get more capital by selling additional shares) will also be in troubles due to the same reason.

All in all, raising capital in Australia’s public markets will become much more challenging and any new capital will prefer to go overseas.
How do you think this will impact the business climate?

How this affects you?

Well, you have money in your super, right? Your super is probably invested into Australian assets. You are screwed in terms of your super returns for years to come.

Also, you are probably working in some good place, right? Well, not so much anymore. One man’s spending is another man’s income. With supers raided to inflate house prices, there will be little appetite to put new money to work in Australia’s real economy. Good luck with that real GDP growth.

Start-ups, new initiatives, economic miracles, and next frontiers? Forget about that. Aussies proudly inflate housing market prices! I have already explained why in this topic – https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/696260

Want to know more? Vote

Did not read and scrolled to leave a TLDR comment? Vote

Poll Options

  • 213
    TLDR... again
  • 8
    Go ScoMo and Albo! Who needs that super anyway?
  • 17
    Want to know more about capital flows

Comments

    • Super is YOUR the fund's money

      The 💵 belongs to the fund until the customer can withdraw it.

      • +2

        Point being, it’s still your money. You should have every right what you want to do with it.

        • It's your money if you can take it out right now and buy a $5 coffee. If you can't, then it's not your money.

          It's an IOU.

          • @rektrading: so i assume you consider any crypto staked for a defined lock period is also "not your money"?
            if its locked to a staking contract for 6 months for example, then its not your money

            • @SBOB: I don't lock my digital assets.

              "Not your key, Not your Bitcoin"

              • +2

                @rektrading: Sadly, any monetary form of assets (including crypto) is NOT an asset, it is your claim on someone else's liability.
                Sorry mate.

                • @ALesha77: I have no idea what your post means.

                  • @rektrading: I think it means unless you can touch it, it is all just bulldust.

                    And, quite frankly, I pretty much agree with alesha77.

                    Eg
                    Cash can be printed, crypto can be superceded/replicated.

                    But then again, who REALLY owns your property, it can be taken away too.

                    • @mdavant:

                      Cash can be printed, crypto can be superceded/replicated.

                      Bitcoin can't be faked, copied, forked or double spend.

                      Many have tired and all have failed.

                      But then again, who REALLY owns your property, it can be taken away too.

                      .

                      https://www.cnbctv18.com/obituary/bitcoin-billionaire-mircea…
                      Bitcoin billionaire Mircea Popescu drowned in Costa Rica: Report
                      Profile image
                      By CNBCTV18.com | Jun 29, 2021, 03:34 PM IST (Updated)

                      He took them with him to the deep.

      • If its not my money then it doesn't matter if employers pay me less of it right?

        • Workers should get the full payment instead of 🔑 it away for 40Y.

          • @rektrading: But its not their money right?

            • @cadwalader: It's their 💵 when they can take it out and buy something with it.

              It's an IOU until that day comes.

  • +1

    Buy and HODL.

    That's it.

    • +1

      rekt, I told you my thesis on crypto a few times already.
      Consider reducing your position size at least.

      Crypto will not go up while central banks and inflation tightening monetary conditions.

      • All crypto will go to zero against Bitcoin.

    • I have lost more money selling and not hodling than most average punters have made in shares.

      I will hold this cycle too and buy on the way down and up again.

      The only thing that bothers me is if the company folds.

      • The company can always sell the 🪑 and desks to pay the bills.

  • Déjà vu again and again.

    How many times will the housing industry collapse?.

    The phoenix lives.

    • This is not about collapse.
      this is about what "avoiding collapse" cost to all of us.
      You would have understood that if you read through.

      • This is not about collapse.
        this is about what "avoiding collapse" cost to all of us. You would have understood that if you read through.

        LOL!!!

        "avoiding collapse" is needed when yet another collapse is forecast. Hence the déjà vu.

        Besides, do you really expect anyone to thoroughly read through someones vested opinion?

  • +2

    keep it simple when it comes too money, the more you think about it, the more data and graphs and prediction you have, the more time you going around in circle and going no where.

    1. Spend less than you earn
    2. Buy some productive asset, shares, properties, business that gives you a regular income
    3. Enjoy life, go holiday, go bush walk, walk the beach, repeat 1 & 2
  • +1

    Let it crash, we need it to for prices to line up with current salary rates.

    The people who bought houses to live in won't be affected. The people who dumped all their savings into one market will have lost it just like anyone else who risks investing everything one thing.

    • You know in a recession people get retrenched and either find a lower paying job or no job at all. Read the stories of people in the US during 2009/10. I remember stories of contractors in London UK getting offered half their day rate.

  • For every young person that might withdraw $30k to help buy their property, there will be a boomer who is topping up their super by $30k

  • +1

    I do hope there is a gigantic crash that wipes out everything.

    Perhaps then people will truly be financially equal, and want to contribute towards a fair and equitable future.

    There’s just too much wanton greed and selfishness in Australia.

    A harsh lesson learned is a good lesson learned.

    Let no man have caviar while another starves!

    • You are thinking of the great flood like in the Bible.

  • +3

    Handing out millions of tax payer money to big businesses that were not struggling (under job keeper payments) and then not clawing it back… and now letting first home buyers use 40% super to buy a home. All of this while our healthcare, aged care and disability care systems are deteriorating by the day.

    Basically this indicates that the current govt is okay to bankroll millionaires with tax payer money, but will shaft the same tax payer now and in the long run.

  • The government is almost always broke. When you have a budget deficit basically means you are insolvent. Lucky they can borrowing on the basis of future cash flows from tax payers whether tax payers like it or not.

    The current problem isn't the government sending us broke. Inflation is due to same demand but supply chain issues. If there is no constraints to production of a product and price can be the same whether 1 until or 1 trillion units then no inflation problem.

  • +1

    Following is a lengthy view for those who want to know more.

    Plot twist: no one wanted to know more. You just wanted to point out your random opinion that doesn't change anything.

  • You forgot to take it to next level. People drawing on super means that have less when they retire. Potentially quite a lot less as $50k could be worth a lot more in 20 to 30 years. Anyway, so they have less when they retire meaning their assets are less, meaning they'll get more age pension or be eligible for the pension. So govt has more people on agree pension, what do you think they'll do? Raise A pension age and I guess 70 is where it is headed. Also, principal home over a certain value will become an asset whereas now principal home regardless of value is exempt, unless it is greater than 5 acres which is currently assessed. Anyway, I totally agree we are doomed. No party can fix this. It will only be solved by a world war which will reset everything back to zero. I know some will think I'm nuts but it will happen. Not anytime soon, they'll keep moving the can down the road but it will happen.

  • +1

    Hard to predict the actual impact without all the data but while both parties are promising a version of super being used to purchase property, the actual eligibility and the number of people who would opt to use it are unlikely to be substantial enough to result in the country going broke. What it might do though, is push crap down the hill, those who use it will have less accumulated super later in life and will add more stress to the social service system. Tax payers of the future will shoulder yet another bad policy.

  • I love your threads! Great points and I can’t see flaws to your logic. I think it just depends how much funds move first vs. waiting to see how many people start asking to withdraw. The government could also put timing requirements into the legislation such that after a withdrawal request is made, the fund has up to 6 months tot pay out. This could smooth some of the market movements to a small degree. But generally to your points, it would seem to indeed increase the relative riskiness of our stock market as an asset class.

    I thought the policy was stupidity at its finest from the moment I heard it and it actually changed my vote and I’m in a marginal seat. I also see it as wealth transfer from the poor (the only people who will use the policy) to the baby boomers who own most of the property in this country - and its simply propping up those property portfolio princes while robbing the poor of their retirement savings so they end up even more of a burden on the state in the future. It’s terrible policy.

  • Some food for thought. Some codswallop.

    Letting younger buyers access super for first home won't have that big an impact on ASX 200. Maybe a small impact in the first year of the scheme of it goes ahead.

    The superannuation industry is huge. Lots of dollars. Largest balances are held by older investors. First home buyers tend to be younger with lower balances. So the outflows from superannuation will be there but not large enough to materially impact the asx200. This is because the largest accounts will remain invested. Plus a lot of super investors are already home owners. So there are even less outflows to be considered

    So therefore, access to Super for home ownership will only cause a blip of outflows for the asx200.

  • +1

    my 2 cents

    If the government is willing to let the country go broke to save the housing market from going down, then you can be sure of one thing and one thing only… this country will go broke.

    Would you rather see lot of people go homeless on the contrary? With every policy change or new, some will benefit, some will loose and some will abuse it.

    Same sh*t different day. Move on.

  • To me, this is pure bluff which Scomo has played and definitely has upper hand.

    Consider this:
    Someone taking max i.e. $50000 (40% of max super allowed) would equate to at least having $125000 in super. Which would mean the person would have earned at least (roughly) $1.25m in wages. (Or roughly $750000 if they have had contributed more in super… give or take).

    Now we know thay 5% or 2% deposit and blah blah has been for sometime. So someone earning that amount would already have availed the first home owners grant scheme and would fall out of this scheme anyway.

    If someone (FHB) who has struggled until now, wouldnt have accumulated $125000 super anyway. So realistically the total amount which can be withdrawn from all of eligible FHB would be a lot… lot less. Therefore the impact should be less than it gives on very first instance.
    There are some assumptions. And Happy to be corrected.

  • I’ll be fine. I have diversified my portfolio.

    Nothing is going to change with the approach to housing prices. It’s been the same from both major parties since I started paying attention to politics in the mid to late 90s.

    Remember kids, ownership isn’t a right. It’s a privilege. Always has been. There is no other western country that offers significantly better housing ownership policies. At best, we can improve tenancy laws to what they have like in Germany.

    Kindest regards,

    Gen Y

Login or Join to leave a comment