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

  • +32

    What are your qualifications to be making all these financial posts?

    • +57

      Has a login on OzB… What else is required?

    • +10

      Critical thinking doesn't require a qualification.

      • +6

        it helps though

      • Critical thinking doesn't lead to broad wishy washy umbrella statements connecting to assumed conclusions with absolutely no sources or numbers to back them up.

    • +1

      It's an opinion piece - except newspapers aren't taking this submission.

      • Never submitted, but you obviously know that topic much better than anyone here.

    • +1

      What does it matter?
      What do you think of their theory?
      Fat lot of good having 'qualified' peole running the economy has done us.

      • +1

        What do you think of their theory?

        I've already given my thoughts on this, before op provided their doctoral thesis, though not in an "I'm a professional economist" way, is I am in no way a professional economist. I assume op is also not a professional economist, and likely just regurgitates things she's read on some sort of blogs, otherwise would be able to answer what her qualifications were.

        Fat lot of good having 'qualified' peole running the economy has done us.

        That's because they are politicians first and foremost, and throwing around money buys votes.

        • Fair enough. :)

          Though I thought the politicians were advised by the country's best economists? (Or are the economists just there to get the blame?)

          • +1

            @EightImmortals:

            Though I thought the politicians were advised by the country's best economists?

            They probably are, but they aren't asking the same questions that you or I would, nor are they after the same answers

        • Funny…. No, you will hardly find any of the above thoughts on the blogs.

      • -2

        Qualified in what?
        "No Idea" Albo doesn't even know the current RBA cash rate nor the unemployment rate
        Albo has demonstrated that he doesnt understand that to rein in our runaway inflation, both the RBA and the Govt need to be sucking excess money supply out of the economy as well as raising interest rates

        This means NOT going on a typical Labor spending spree right now and instead reducing our Govt debt as quickly as possible

        Buit as we said, what Qualifications does "No Idea" Albo have other then being brought up in a housing commission home?

        • +2

          Albo has demonstrated that he doesnt understand that to rein in our runaway inflation, both the RBA and the Govt need to be sucking excess money supply out of the economy as well as raising interest rates

          As opposed to the LNPs incredibly frugal budgeting?
          Neither party is reducing debt

    • Former prop-trader, now run my own money. What is the point in asking about credentials?

      • +2

        You speak with authority, rather than it being an opinion piece. Opinion piece, I wouldn't care, but as you want to appear to be some sort of expert, credentials would be great.

        As someone with such excellent knowledge of all this, you should be doing extremely well.

        • Gaslighting seems to be the standout credentials from OP comments.

    • +1

      Sounds like Gobbly-gook to me and I have an economics degree

      Very far fetched unrealistic predictions

    • +1

      A member of Wallstreetbets

    • Didn't get vaxxed.

      • What

        • What qualifications.

          Didn't get vaxxed because one of the conspiracy theories it is to make us easier to enslave for the one future world government blah blah blah

          • @netjock: What on earth are you on about. How do you know ops vaccination status? And what would that possibly have to do with ops creation of financial threads? Did you do too much acid as a teen?

            • @brendanm: How did you know my acid history?

              • @netjock: From your incoherent posting. I mean, I suppose it could also be ice, I'm really not sure at this point.

                • @brendanm:

                  I mean, I suppose it could also be ice, I'm really not sure at this point.

                  Not sure coming from such an expert. I would question your qualifications in make such a strong opinion.

                  • @netjock: Can I get that in English, doc?

                    • @brendanm: It is in formal business English. Not bugs bunny English you are after.

                      • @netjock: It's definitely not, there are words missing all over the place.

  • +4

    Are you SlavOz's sister with a finance/economic background?

  • +9

    Don't you have somewhere else to post this random crap?

    Oh btw, this is a dupe from this discussion on the policy:
    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/700278

    Or do you really want the internet points of having your own discussion?

  • +10

    I miss Pam even more now!

  • unless there are numbers to show the proportion of people that is eligible to this scheme, this conclusion is pretty pointless especially since housing in Australia is so cheap relative to income. The only people complaining about high housing price are those that want to buy in capital cities lol

    • +5

      What, where the majority of the population live?
      Regional Australia could not handle the capital city exodus your point assumes would fix everybodys’ housing woes

      • this is what everyone says, hence no one moves, hence regional housing still cheap af, get a job that work from home, easy money easy life

        • +2

          Grew up in a regional centre. So no thank you

  • +6

    im just waiting for rekttrading, hybroid, brokenenglish, Jimothy Wongingtons, inneedtopee, austriabargain, pharknell, ughh's comments sorry if i missed ur name

    • +11

      Thank u for the shout out, but I’ve already hit my quota for smart arse comments today.

      • +1

        nws, if you ever decide to delete your account or something, please make a post. I will seriously miss some of you and yours comment.

      • +1

        Would you like to borrow some of mine? I have plenty left.

      • Why quota so low?

        • Bad market, governments fault.

  • +6

    The housing scheme is Australia is a bubble market based on a Ponzi scheme.

    Governments are addicted the the votes they get from the "mum and dad" and the "boomer generation" and are too scared to change anything, even if it meant that more people could benefit from it, they are to worried that they might lose a few votes in the process.

    • Yup, they win from the current system. First home buyers build houses, because cheaper and bonuses for doing so. Boomers/investors buy multiple, using the capital they have from the boom. Government thanks everyone for stamp duty, etc etc

  • -3

    I've protection.

    • +3

      Ansell?

      • +2

        Where’s that sokkie’s rep when u need him

      • +1

        Lives in mum & dad's basement with all the canned food and toiletries

  • +1

    OP do you like KFC?

    • +4

      He/ she don’t care - they love it!

      • They better!

        • it betterish

      • -5

        Too much of an ASSumption for a smart-arse comment

    • -6

      Poop out your KFC somewhere else please

      • +1

        Oh wow

  • +3

    The metric that ultimately matters is the standard of living.

    Pumping up house prices and stuffing the country full of migrants is not going to help. We are going to fall further and further behind as a nation.

    • +4

      I agree with this
      The future generations will be poorer, own less, and have less kids because of the policies that have governed us for the last decade.

  • +1

    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).

    Next Next level thinking

    What does the seller do with the proceeds? Hard to spend it all on a holiday, etc. in one go. Maybe BUY assets, usually stocks and sometimes, bonds, …

    • The seller is the first home buyer selling the assets in their super and using the proceeds…. to buy a home!

      • Seller of the property that the first home buyer is buying.

        • Bad Incentives stimulate bad decisions.
          Will the seller buy stocks when the super-funds are selling? Really?

          • @ALesha77: Buying stocks, putting it in super… They take out far more equity than the first home owner puts in and this has to go somewhere..

          • @ALesha77: Millions in super are being withdrawn by retirees everyday.

            I rather the money be spent on jobs locally, developing local residential infrastructure, putting more dwellings on the market or paying Australians to buy their houses instead of buying foreign made jetskis, cars, tvs or campervans.

        • But very little changes for the property seller. Likely they were going to sell anyway, and spend it however they were going to

  • +10

    Getting a bit tired of all these wannabe economists distorting the facts to try and make their point.
    Their level of ignorance is really not worth the effort of countering.

    • +5

      But it's next level thinking…..
      Doesn't say whether the elevator of thought went up or down a level though….

      • Read below.
        "next level" means thinking about the next layer of actions, players.

    • -2

      Move on

  • +1

    Just buy Gamestop

    • Done that.
      Got out in time.
      Other hints?

  • +8

    Says "Next level thinking".
    Then in the same breath says "hOUsiNg".

    This is not next level my friend - this is same sub-average thinking from the 95% consensus that think property doesn't have cycles and will just infinitely go up. People are playing the broken record of The shattered Australian Dream on repeat.

    Anyone remember the 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis called The GFC that crashed to globe? We are in one right now with all these 1st home grants & 5% downs. AU will be the 1st domino in a GFC 2.0. It's not a matter of if it will happen, but a matter of when.

    Also give us a TLDR (you even put a poll on about it knowing that people would ask). No one is bothered to read that essay of yours, whether you're credible or not.

    • -5

      "next level" means thinking about the next layer of actions, players.

      You are obviously on the "top level" of you thinking pyramid.
      This thread in not for you my friend.

      • +6

        More of a reason to provide a TLDR, because nobody is reading your entire essay.

        Any thought to my above comment and how it will affect housing market or?

        FYI - This thread is for everyone to contribute their opinions, hence your post and hence my comment. Sorry that this doesn't fit your confirmation bias or your ego.

        • -1

          So far you have contributed TLDR and a comment in a disrespectful tone. I answered in kind.
          Re-phrase and we have a conversation.

          • +1

            @ALesha77:

            I answered in kind.

            I answered in kind, OP says.

            This thread in not for you my friend.

            Look at the disrespect coming from your initial reply, hence my tone. Worry about yourself mate.

            Also look at all your 2-liner replies on an epic essay post in this thread.

            You fail to give the people what they need, nor converse/engage with them. Therefore, your point hasn't gotten across effectively. So don't expect further conversation, from me or anyone else. Such wasted effort/potential.

            • -1

              @Brodo Faggins: No, you did not make it into a conversation.

              • @ALesha77: People either don't realise or just ignore the fact that there's a big difference between a conversation and being argumentative.

    • No one is bothered to read that essay of yours, whether you're credible or not.

      A bit of topic but … have you seen and (try to) read those "free" reports about horrible things to happen in the near future and after +23 pages of nothing they invite you to "purchase" another report that explains everything …?
      Somehow feeling the same with no selling at the end.

  • +8

    I’ll be honest, couldn’t be bothered reading the thread information by the op, but read every comment for the smart alec replies.

    Did not disappoint.

    • Sure, what you read forms what you are.
      You are on the right track my fried.

  • @Alesha77 why don't you understand that stonks literally just go up. They can't go down, ever. This stuff isn't complicated bro.

    • +3

      It’ll crack OP’s glass world by considering other non confirmation bias points of view.

      • -3

        No, but your judgment tells more about your personality than those who you are trying to judge without even knowing.
        Carry on

    • -1

      You really need to look at some yearly charts to educate yourself on this

      • Or I can just YOLO into TerraLuna like all the cool kids are doing. Charts are for nerds.

  • +15

    OP may I point out a few things?
    1. The super scheme is for First Home buyer only. How many first home buyer left after so many rounds of First home buyer grants is unknown.
    2. Rule is 40% or 50k, not everyone has 125k in their super. The scheme is effectively targetted towards 30 To 40 year old people who havent own a home yet.
    3. You missed out a crucial info, scale.

    Let’s go wild and assume 1 million people ( i really doubt so) actually withdraw 50k from their super, it’s just sum up to 50 billion dollars. ASX has total market cap of around 2.6 trillion. 50 billion is merely 2% of total market cap. ASX can gain more than 2% on a good day, and lose 2% on a bad day.

    So the effect on stock and bond market would be minimal. However, 50 billion flowing into housing market will drive up the prices for sure.

    That’s just my 2 cents

    • -1

      Well, you are missing a few really important points:
      1. prices are set at the margin. With all else equal, additional sellers will have a substantial impact
      2. As explained, there is a front-running thinking with some who will want to use this event to ear a few bucks
      3. Super-funds will have less capital to put a floor to the market + they will most certainly remove themselves from the most crowded funds

      But it is good to see that someone has actually read and understood the thesis.

  • +5

    There's new homes created every year and its above the average amount living in a home. It's amazing how prices are still going up when there's more supply than new families. Clearly there are investors buying homes and sitting on empty homes.

    We need vacancy tax.

  • +1

    SELL EVERYTHING NOW THAT YOU THINK WILL CRASH
    BUY EVERYTHING NOW THAT YOU THINK WILL RISE
    WAIT FOR THE CRASH
    WATCH THE RISE
    YOU WIN
    NEXT LEVEL THINKING

    • +2

      Then you die.
      Stressed and exhausted.

    • BUT ALL THE SMRT PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS.

  • +1

    Remember one thing and one thing only….Super is YOUR money. Not a collective for the government, fund managers, etc, etc. Created because there are numnuts who aren’t disciplined to save for a rainy day. Same basic principle, don’t spend more than what you earn.

Login or Join to leave a comment