[返回悉尼房产首页]·[所有跟帖]·[ 回复本帖 ] ·[热门原创] ·[繁體閱讀]·[坛主管理]

宏观审慎政策对房地产市场的影响

送交者: Lk1970[♂☆★破虏大将军★☆♂] 于 2021-09-12 23:13 已读 35360 次  

Lk1970的个人频道

+关注
宏观审慎政策对房地产市场的影响

Tim Lawless


9 Sep 2021

信贷标准仍然审慎,但家庭债务水平上升或高债务收入比贷款进一步上升可能会触发信贷条件收紧。


随着房地产价值持续上涨和抵押贷款债务水平的增长速度超过其长期平均水平,对住房信贷政策的关注变得越来越强烈。


如今,澳大利亚央行很少发表声明,而不包括关于维持住房贷款贷款标准的重要性的短语。央行在 9 月董事会会议后的最新声明也不例外,其中包括:“鉴于房价上涨和低利率的环境,央行正在密切关注住房借贷趋势,保持贷款标准很重要。 ”


信贷政策的任何收紧都可能对房地产市场产生直接的抑制作用,其程度将取决于信贷紧缩的范围和严重程度。通过前几轮宏观审慎政策和皇家银行业委员会认为住房信贷难以获得,对住房活动和价值增长的影响是显而易见的。

第一轮宏观审慎政策干预(2014 年 12 月宣布),涉及对年度投资者信贷增长速度限制 10%,由于 APRA 采用的协商方法,直到 2015 年年中才产生影响。到 2015 年 5 月,房屋价值增长率开始下降,在 2015 年 11 月至 2016 年 4 月期间进入负值区域。


第二轮宏观审慎政策公告于 2017 年 3 月发布,其中涉及新发放的只付息住房贷款流量的 30% 基准。这一政策设置的影响更为直接,导致自实施之日起房屋价值升值速度明显放缓。因此,全国房屋价值在 2017 年底至 2018 年初之间下降。


皇家银行业委员会进一步收紧了信贷政策和住房贷款可偿还性评估,住房价值再次出现负面反应。


在每一个信贷紧缩时期,对住房趋势的影响在已经增加了规则风险的市场中更为明显。例如,悉尼是投资活动的中心,在 2015 年初,投资者占抵押贷款需求的近 56%。因此,在每个信贷政策调整期间,悉尼的房价下跌幅度均超过全国平均水平。

在当前环境下,信贷紧缩的风险可能更侧重于整个家庭部门的整体债务累积,而不是投资贷款或只付息贷款。


净投资信贷增长(即新增贷款减去偿还的债务)的速度有所加快,但仍低于平均水平,而且实际上在截至 7 月份的两个月内呈下降趋势,反映了整个投资部门对减债的意愿。另一方面,自住信贷增长自 2020 年 6 月以来一直呈上升趋势,自去年 11 月以来一直高于十年平均水平。

债务收入比高的贷款比例是另一个警告信号。 APRA 的最新数据显示,截至 6 月季度,债务收入比超过 6 倍的住房贷款占贷款的近 22%;与一年前相比大幅提升,当时只有 16.0% 的新贷款的债务收入比如此之高。

APRA 六月季度的其他指标则不那么谨慎。只付息贷款仅占房屋贷款的 17.2%,而贷款估值比率大于或等于 90%(即存款为 10% 或以下的购房者)自去年 12 月以来一直呈下降趋势,包括仅占 6 月季度新增贷款的 8.6%。


正如澳大利亚央行行长上个月在众议院经济常设委员会的证词中强调的那样,金融监管委员会(包括澳大利亚央行、澳大利亚审慎监管局、ASIC 和联邦财政部)的重点是高度关注趋势的可持续性在家庭借贷方面。家庭债务增长速度持续高于收入增长速度的持续时期意味着中期风险的积累可能引发信贷政策收紧。


家庭债务数据截至 2021 年 3 月,并将于本月晚些时候更新。这一趋势表明,自 2019 年中期达到近期峰值以来,家庭债务水平略有下降。然而,家庭债务与家庭年化可支配收入的比率在 3 月份确实小幅上升,并且可能进一步上升。同样,住房债务和家庭债务与收入的比率也有所下降,但最近小幅上升。

The impact of macro-prudential policies on the housing market

Tim Lawless


9 Sep 2021

Credit standards remain prudent, but higher household debt levels or a further rise in high-debt-to-income ratio lending could be a trigger for tighter credit conditions down the track.


The focus on housing credit policies is becoming more intense as property values continue to rise and mortgage debt levels increase faster than their long-term averages.


It’s rare for the RBA to make a statement these days without including a phrase about the importance of maintaining lending standards for housing loans. The central bank’s latest statement following its September board meeting was no different and included the line: “Given the environment of rising housing prices and low interest rates, the Bank is monitoring trends in housing borrowing carefully and it is important that lending standards are maintained.”


Any tightening of credit policies would likely have an immediate dampening effect on housing markets, the extent to which would depend on the scope and severity of the tighter credit conditions.  Through previous rounds of macro-prudential policies and the Banking Royal Commission, which saw housing credit harder to come by, the impact on housing activity and value growth was clear.


The first round of macro-prudential policy intervention (announced December 2014), which involved a 10% speed limit on annual investor credit growth, didn’t make an impact until mid-2015 due to the consultative approach adopted by APRA.  By May 2015 the rate of home value growth had started to reduce, moving into negative territory between November 2015 and April 2016.


The second round of macro-prudential policy announcements came in March 2017, which involved a 30% benchmark on the flow of newly originated interest-only home loans. The impact of this policy setting was more immediate, resulting in the pace of home value appreciations slowing markedly from the date of implementation. As a consequence, national home values declined between late 2017 and early 2018.


Credit policy and home loan serviceability assessments were tightened further through the Banking Royal Commission and housing values again responded negatively.


Through each of these periods of credit tightening, the impact on housing trends was more evident in markets that had heightened exposure to the rules. Sydney, for example, was the epicentre of investment activity, with investors comprising almost 56% of mortgage demand in early 2015.  Housing values in Sydney fell more sharply than the national average during each of these periods of credit policy adjustment as a result.


In the current environment, the risk for credit tightening is likely to be more focussed on overall debt accrual across the household sector rather than investment lending or interest-only lending.  


The speed of net investment credit growth (ie new lending less debt paid down) has increased, but remains below average, and has in fact trended lower over the two months to July, reflecting an appetite for debt reduction across the investment sector.  On the other hand, owner occupier credit growth has been trending higher since June 2020 and has remained above the decade average since November last year.


The proportion of loans being issued with high debt-to-income ratios is another warning sign.  The latest data from APRA shows housing loans originated with a debt-to-income ratio greater than six times comprised almost 22% of lending through the June quarter; a substantial lift from a year ago when only 16.0% of new loans had a debt-to-income ratio this high.  


Other metrics from APRA for the June quarter were less cautionary. Interest-only lending fell to just 17.2% of housing loans and mortgages with a loan-to-valuation ratio greater or equal to 90% (ie those purchasers who had a deposit of 10% or less) have been trending lower since December to comprise only 8.6% of new loans in the June quarter.


As the RBA governor highlighted in his testimony to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics last month, the focus from the Council of Financial Regulators, which includes the RBA along with APRA, ASIC and Federal Treasury, is heavily focussed on the sustainability of trends in household borrowing.  A sustained period where household debt grows at a faster rate than incomes implies a build-up of medium-term risks that could trigger a tightening of credit policy. 


Data on household debt is current to March 2021 and will be updated later this month. The trend shows a subtle reduction in household debt levels since the recent peaks in mid-2019.  However the ratio of household debt to annualised disposable household income did edge higher in March and has likely risen further.  Similary, the housing debt and household debt-to-income ratios also reduced, but have recenlty edged higher.  Considering the pace of growth in housing credit against a backdrop of soft income growth, in all likelihood, household debt, (of which housing debt is the primary component) will be at or close to record highs by the end of 2021. 


The likely response to these medium-term risks could be seen in higher serviceability assessments for borrowers – essentially raising the minimum interest rate used when assessing whether a borrower can service their loan, or portfolio level restrictions could be imposed on lenders, probably focussed on establishing firm benchmarks on the proportion of high debt-to-income ratio loans that can be issued.


Either of these options would have an impact on credit availability and limit the loan size relative to a borrower’s income or servicing ability. Ultimately, stricter credit conditions, should they be introduced, would flow through to less home purchasing activity and add to the headwinds of worsening housing affordability, higher levels of newly built supply and stalled overseas migration. 


Of course, the tailwind of persistently low mortgage rates and improving economic conditions once lockdowns are eased or lifted will help to keep a floor under housing demand.  The RBA reiterated in their latest statement following the September board meeting that they still expect the cash rate to remain on hold until 2024 at the earliest.

喜欢Lk1970朋友的这个贴子的话, 请点这里投票,“赞”助支持!

内容来自网友分享,若违规或者侵犯您的权益,请联系我们

所有跟帖:   ( 主贴楼主有权删除不文明回复,拉黑不受欢迎的用户 )


用户名: 密码: [--注册ID--]

标 题:

粗体 斜体 下划线 居中 插入图片插入图片 插入Flash插入Flash动画


     图片上传  Youtube代码器  预览辅助



[ 留园条例 ] [ 广告服务 ] [ 联系我们 ] [ 个人帐户 ] [ 创建您的定制新论坛频道 ] [ Contact us ]