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.

According to my colleague and friend, Branton Kenton-Dau , human beings are intentional devices. We are here for a purpose, a reason and our human form is a structure for expressing intention. I like that. Every time we act we are expressing something about ourselves even in the most nano way.

So when it comes to managing our money we are faced with the same questions: who am I and what is my intention?

It seems to me that we have 3 ways of using our money: Giving, Lending or Buying.

Giving is the simple act of directing one’s money to somone else with no expectation of financial return inclduing the original gift. But there is a clear intention that the gift should have some kind of impact. Simply this can be regarded as giving money to charity or a fundraising appeal. Your return is hopeful, that some positive outcome or impact will be achieved by way of your contribution. This is a powerful way of expressing your intention. Of course one can also give your time, goods and services for no financial return and this is a more hands on approach.

Lending, otherwise known as saving, is also a powerful tool. When you deposit your cash in the bank you are in effect lending to the bank. In legal terms you are an unsecured creditor of the bank. There is little intention here as we tend to see the process as the bank doing us a favour. But when it comes to peer to peer lending, microfinance or simply lending money directly to friends, the process takes on a deeper signifiance. There is a more direct energy involved and a desire to participate in an outcome. The personal connection to borrowers helps create this possibility. Another form of lending is to large business via corporate bonds. This is akin to saving in the bank except again there is a directness involved. A large business wants to raise $100m and I lend it $20,000. I’m a small piece of that but I’m essentialy helping to fund the business. But there is still some distance there as I’ve probably dealt through a boker or investment advisor. What I am keen to see is more peer to small business in developed countries. We’ve seen Kiva open up loans into the US now and soom we will see more acceptance in people lending larger sums to small businesses. Not so much microfinance as peer finance. What better way to create strong and trusted communities than people lending to businesses they buy from.

The third form of intentional money is the process of buying. This is two parts: buying for ownership in a business and buying for personal consumption. The latter is the world of ethical and values based purchasing. It’s a well developed market and I won’t got into that. But actually directing your money into businesses through ownership is another way to direct the flow of your financial intention. Whether it’s ethical investing at the macro level (buying into ethical funds) or at the micro level (investing in start ups that share your goals and values). The micro level is more interesting because the impact of your investment is greater. In the macro world of stock markets and large companies your investment is not so influential because of the way institutional investors control so much of the market.

We have many choices when it comes to dealing with our money. Each time we make a financial decision we have an opportunity to express our intention. Its a very powerful force. The more we align our choices with who we are, the more powerful our impact becomes. We become an efficient intentional system

As they say money talks.

People are always asking me where to put their money so I thought I would do a simple post about it. I should add this is simply my own opinion and you should really check with a financial advisor…………tongue firmly in cheek!

Let’s start with the obvious. There is no such thing as a risk free investment. Even sovereign bonds (those issued by governments) can turn into wallpaper….look at the US Treasury market now, the world’s safest place to park your cash. Ultimately it’s just an IOU, generally backed by commodities or in the case of the US by a fairly large military and lots of nuclear rockets.

Having got that out of the way the first question you need to ask yourself is why am I investing? Is it for regular income or the hope of generating a huge pile of cash for future income generation (retirement for example).

Let’s start with the income piece by looking at what is available:

- Cash deposits.

- Term deposits.

- Government bonds.

- Corporate bonds.

- Shares that pay dividends.

- Property.

Generally, as in all things, you pay for what you get. The main issue any investor should consider before making an investment is liquidity:

How quickly can I get my cash and what will I have to pay to get it?

As many investors found to their cost in recent years, liquidity is the single most important issue.

Which draws the question: is there a market for my investment?

In the case of cash that is not a problem (actually that’s not true but for the sake of this exercise we will pretend that cash is always available - see Northern Rock for further details).

Stocks can generally be sold on the spot and cash received quickly (of course stocks can be suspended at anytime which means you can’t trade it, well not on the exchange).

Bonds have a market you can trade on but liquidity can be an issue sometimes.

Property you can forget. That’s a highly illiquid asset.

Managed funds as we see all to often can be very hard to get out of and the fees can be severe. If the fund holds any kind of assets other than plain stocks then redemptions may force suspension of the fund (we’ve seen that).

Baring all that in mind cash seems like the best place to have your money if access is an issue and you are risk averse. Second up would be quoted shares with high liquidity (shares on the major index e.g. Telecom in NZ which pays a good dividend). Bonds would be next and then managed funds and property bringing up the rear.

Anything that offers these with a twist is to be avoided unless you’re a professional. Like guaranteed capital return plus 100% of the 5 year blah blah return on some index. Avoid. There are huge fees and margins built into what is a simple option structure.

I’m sorry but there’s no free lunch in the investment world. But it’s very easy to lose money or receive poor returns whilst paying out large fees and charges.

My advice is start with cash and spend some time learning about basic stocks and bonds. Believe me it is not difficult.

Armed with a little knowledge most people could construct a portfolio of cash, stocks and bonds in a few hours.

Also don’t be lulled into the idea that you are a long term investor and won’t be pulling down the cash for 20-30 years. Look at how fast the world is changing…….planning that far ahead may not actually make much sense.

As with most things in life, keeping it simple can pay off. Also spending a little time learning about investment can save you a lot of money as well as enabling yourself to take charge of your own financial destiny.

Soros has been banging on about his new theory on why markets tend towards bubbles. Well it’s not a new theory as he’s been going on about it for a long time. In fact he’s made plenty of dough out of this approach for many years. But so has Warren Buffett so what’s the difference?

Well his mani point is that markets do not tend towards equilibrium but can be quite extreme in their pricing. I completely agree with this. But do they alwats revert to an equilibrium point? I think so but unfortunately for many it’s like an elastic band. It either rebounds on you causing a sharp pain or actually complete explodes.

This leads us to the greatest maxim of trading and investing: buy low, sell high.

The best traders are those who are completely detached from the instruments they trade. The ego is removed and there is no emotional investment about being right. But markets move on emotion of crowds since that is what the market is. The market can also be seen as a system in which intentionality is the main driver. Yes the fundamentals (price, yield, forecasts) play an important part in determining a basic price but it is the intention of the market, whether to buy or sell, that really drives the price.

So stock markets happily trade a twice their preceived fair value earnings. Currencies happily trade at a huge premium or discount to perceived fair value. Why does this happen? It’s simply the collective outcome of countless intentions.

And many fortunes have been lost betting against the wisdom of the crowd.

Soros suggests regulators have a part to play here in smoothing or preventing bubbles. He says that the control of the money supply itself is not enough but that credit conditions need to be managed. In essence this is the same thing depending on how you view the money supply.

He thinks margin and capital requirements for banks should be used to make credit less or more available.

He’s right to a point. But he missed the real problem which is the creation of the money supply by the banks.

Banks control both the money supply and the supply of credit . How? Well nearly all money is credit.

Now there’s something for Geroge to get his teeth into.

The implosion of the US financial system gets worse by the day. Treasury bills printed negative yields whilst the Fed prints “enter your own number here” dollars. Now comes the largest financial scandal so far (discounting the banks which are a scandal all of their own).

A $50bln ponzi scheme. It’s so daft i can’t bring myself to write about it. As usual others cover this story better than I could. But it seems the US financial markets are receiving the greatest hosing out since Hercules cleaned up the Augean stables. There is no doubt more to come as rogue players just fess up and come clean. This may take some time as the initial reaction is to close ranks and pretend everything is fine.

The unveiling of dubious credit structures over the last 18 months is way overdue and may at least provide an opportunity for another look at how our money system works. Bubbles come and go, part of human nature, but never has a bubble so exposed the inner workings of the banking system.

The giant hubris of “tamed inflation”, “end of history” and “the end of boom and bust” has been exposed for the posturing it always was.

Time for a major serving of humble pie all round. But will those in power get down and start eating it?

Thanks to Jim for this post (his post in bold)

The BBC has provided a platform for Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, one of Britain’s most noted financiers, to express his views on the global financial situation:

All of us - countries, corporations and consumers - have neglected basic principles.

Ethics - we have lost sight of an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay.

Careful management - we have indulged our wants without the taxes or the prices or the cash to pay for them.

Oversight - public relations and spin have replaced disclosure and transparency; casual yet complex accounting and accommodating rating agencies left us blissfully unaware of the problems, and we revelled in our ignorance.

Hubris has replaced community responsibility as a requirement for executive positions.

American automobile executives and British bankers have been unable to form their lips into an apology.

Yet their institutions lie in ruins and the rest of us are left feeling embarrassed for them.

Their customers worry that their savings or their working capital will just vanish, their mortgage will be transferred to a new institution they have never heard of.

Their employees wonder which of their colleagues - or they themselves - will be unemployed in the coming week, with bleak prospects for working again anytime soon.

Where is the shame of those who only months earlier boasted of ever increasing profits, of ever more clever products, of ever easier loans?

Remaining credit

The US automakers may be the worst of the lot, so far.

Years of incompetence and now manoeuvring in the halls of Congress for a massive bailout.

Management prefers to hold onto private corporate jets rather than push for fuel efficiency standards to make their products more competitive.

Union members would rather hold onto their gold-plated pensions for life than to save their companies.

Why should taxpayers help those who have so frequently refused to accept responsibility themselves?

If the US government uses up its remaining credit to help the auto industry carry on as usual, who will lend the country the money to repair its bridges, build its power stations, clean its water, fuel its navy?

Slow revival

Thirty years ago, New York City found itself in a position similar to GM, Ford and Chrysler today.

They asked Washington for help. The government refused.

The Daily News summed it up in its front page headline - Ford to City: Drop Dead [ed. the president]

Instead New York balanced its budget, taxed itself, reduced hiring, negotiated better labour contracts and gradually worked itself back to fiscal health.

It took more than 10 years.

Take responsibility

This era of struggle may last as long.

Until we can be generous in accepting fault for our predicament, we will have difficulty dropping our suspicions about others so that we can get on with repairing the damage.

Unless action is taken soon, we can only see a long time of difficult and very onerous problems continuing.

Could be one or two years.

It is therefore essential that management must take a firm look at its problems and accept its faults and redeem them.

A lot of talk and a lot of words have been written.

But in the end action has to be taken and action must be taken very soon if we are not going to see this stretched out over many years.

What we have to remember is that the crisis we are in the midst of is a financial one. A crisis of the syntheticism of money.

Like a cancer this is slowly being removed from the system. What is left of the corpse remains to be seen. But the end of the derivatives trade, especially the highly structured piece, cannot come too soon.

The role of interest (unearned income) in our economy needs to be reviewed. We need to refocus on the productive economy and the ability to invest in it i.e. by purchasing shares in companies are receiving dividends or, in the case of new innovative companies, an opportunity for capital gain commensurate with risk.

My own investment philosophy is simple. Buy low and sell high.

When interest rates (here in NZ) were low in 2003 i bought commercial property which was then yielding 9% (against an interest rate of 6.5%). In 2007 when interest looked like they were going higher (over 9%) I sold the properties which were then yielding 7.25-7.5%).

The market kept going for another 9 -12 months and has now fallen heavily.

I didn’t buy shares as dividend yields were lower than interest rates and p/e ratios were too high.

I put the cash in the bank.

Now I have started buying shares. Why? Because dividend yields are sky high (although earnings will continue to fall), p/e ratios are in single digits and interest rates are falling. Shares could keep falling for sure.

But the point I’m making is investment is pretty simple. Ignore the hype and focus on the numbers.

The hardest skill to learn as an investor (and we are all investors to some extent) is knowing when to sell. When the market is flying high its so hard to sell because you worry you’ll miss out on more. When its falling you secretly hope it will somehow bounce back.

As Evelyn reinforces, its all about basics whether values, ethics or simple strategy.

We’ve been living in a fool’s paradise for a while now and its time to get back to reality.