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.

Yesterday the ANZ reported another huge profit even with very large write downs and provisions for bad debts. A mere $510m for the six months to date is not too shabby though we can expect 2008 to be much harder going as loan demand (and supply) falls and consumers pare back on expenditure. We are already seeing signs of that with credit card spending falling along with credit card balances increasing.

But what really stands out is the $3.2bln the banks made in New Zealand in 2007. That is a lot of dough, the majority of which comes from the ability to create money into existence via interest bearing loans.

In the last 10 years loans have risen from $127bln to $323bln an increase of 154%….in 10 years!!!

In that time house prices (from QV data) have risen 178%.

It’s good to see Kiwibank taking a bigger part of this market because at least the profits stay with the taxpayer. And of course the right to create money is a sovereign one so why not have a “national” bank. That’s something worth thinking about.

I’m trying hard not to overuse the word “tsunami” but it just fits so perfectly. It’s powerful but can’t be seen until its almost upon you but it can be felt. Witness the animals who headed for the hills before the Tsunami of Christmas 2004. Animals have a different vibration, a different level of energy and resonance which enable them to to be more fine tuned to natural disturbances. Humans have lost that ability, well most of us.

So it’s hard to realise what may be coming our way. Listen to the Westpac economists predicting more rate rises on the back on a very tight employment situation, burgeoning inflation and booming commodity prices. The Kiwi (NZ$) continues to surge forward to record highs against the US$ on the back of very high interest rates. So what is the problem.

Household debt is the major concern here, the fault line as it were. Stories today and from the past week lead me to believe serious problems are now emerging: The Joneses going under because of a slowing real estate market; a serious downturn in house prices where sales below the Registered Valuation (RV) are happening; people being kicked out of their homes; water shortages for farmers; a very strong currency; interest rates really starting to bite; banks having to go to the market to raise money to shore up balance sheets; layoffs on the increase and business confidence sinking.

Yet commodity prices continue to rise: oil, food and metals.

It’s not a pretty sight. What’s a central banker to do? Raise interest rates to squash inflation? Of course they will but maybe if they take their heads out of their discredited forecasting models they may realise that actually people are being squeezed left, right and centre. They don’t have any more money even to pay higher bills never mind higher interest rate charges.

We can’t change the fact that we have experienced a money supply induced asset bubble but we can change the way in which we deal with it.

Bollard be brave: if you need to do anything to interest rates just cut them. If you can’t see what’s coming then close your eyes and feel it.

Recent data shows the downturn in property prices is well underway. Whilst the big picture is clouded we are seeing some major shifts. In Auckland the median price was down 6% from December with Auckand city down a whopping 15%. Now sales volumes are at seven year record lows which impacts on the numbers but the reality is quite clear: the market has had a vicious turn and no amount of talking it up is going to help.

What is off major concern is the knock on effects. These will be felt over the next 6 months especially with interest rates continuing to bite. Yet some economists are looking for further rate rises.  The recent drought is expected to eat into farmers’ recent windfall gains from commodity prices rises.

So the Reserve Bank needs to look through this inflation blip and focus on the impacts of the credit crunch and falling house and land prices.  And banks have a responsibility not to pull the plug too quickly but work with people and businesses if they get into trouble.

It’s a tough time to be exposed in property.

Well Christmas brought some quiet stability to the markets but the New Year has seen an immediate stampede for the exit. What is so interesting about the current economic malaise is that it’s very hard to analyze with any clarity. No one really knows what is going to happen because we’ve never had a crisis of this magnitude before.

We know the credit bubble has well and truly burst. We’ve seen it before with Japan but that was really a closed market and the response was non existent thus causing a 15 year depression. We have Central Banks who are very keen and swift to act but will their actions just make things worse. Henry Paulson today said a correction was inevitable given the price increases of the last 5 years.

Nice to know the guys running the country are on top of things….crickey! Can anyone explain what a stable economic system looks like. Clearly the current bunch of economic leaders haven’t got a clue.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard argues that we are experiencing a 1929 type situation. I think he is spot on. The bailouts we’ve seen recently could well become more widespread. If that happens then quite clearly the stock markets will fall another 10%. The impact on BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) will decide whether the global financial system collapses or not.

Immediate rate cuts will be forthcoming from the Fed, BOE and maybe even the ECB. All this nonsense about watching inflation needs to be ignored. Inflation will keep being a problem but its a diversion. 2 years out and land prices could be off by 30% or more.

Investing now is for the brave hearted, foolish and very wealthy following the maxim “The way to make a small fortune is to start with a large one”.

So the Fed joins the Bank of England in changing the rules. The word is that certain sub prime mortgages will have their rates frozen for 5 years. This will ease the pain of borrowers who in some cases face rises of up to 30% on their mortgage bill.

Did i mention that mortgage means “deathgrip”?

Anyway this just shows that for all the hi’ fallutin’ nonsense about free markets we actually live in a system that is far from free. Bush doesn’t really want to hand the next election to the Democrats though he’s done his best to do so in recent years.

But what we are seeing now, as we saw post 1930, is that the financial system can be changed if required and that the fundamental right to create money resides with the people via their representatives. If i owned shares in a bank i would be worried.

Come to think of it if i had money in a bank i’d be worred but humping around gold coins is so 13th century.

I can’t quite work out if this is the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning. I fear its the latter.