Property market is levelling off
- as it should
By Bruce Cameron
Estate agents are known for their use of excessive language. An
example is an estate agent describing a wreck of a place as "a
rustic cottage that will be a handyman's dream".
So, it is hardly surprising that many of the spokespeople for the
property industry are once again resorting to using excessive language
to describe the current state of the property market.
Firstly, let's get one thing straight: there is no property market
crash. The market is simply levelling off after three years of significant
increases in value.
The property market is not in a slump. The statement that the property
market is collapsing is in almost the same league as describing
the recent stock market volatility as a bloodbath.
The reasons given in recent newspaper reports, which have quoted
people who should know better, concerning the slowdown in property
sales have included:
- The National Credit Act (NCA). This law, which took full effect
on June 1, requires responsible lending practices from financial
institutions. In other words, people who cannot afford the repayments
on a mortgage bond cannot borrow money. All the new Act requires
is that lending institutions apply careful checks on potential
borrowers before lending them money.
Prior to the promulgation of the Act, banks too often did not really
consider whether an applicant could afford the home loan repayments.
What the lenders did consider was whether they would be at risk
of losing the money they lent to prospective homeowners.
There is a world of difference between a bank protecting its money
and ensuring that you will be able to repay the loan.
Thousands of people default on home loans when interest rates go
up. When there is repeated non-payment, the bank simply takes possession
of the property and puts it up for auction, with the reserve selling
price being what the bank is still owed. Very seldom do banks take
any serious knocks.
One of the results of a spate of repossessions is that there is
downward pressure on property prices.
So, while in the short term the Act may slow down sales, in the
long term the new law should contribute to a reduction in the number
of repossessions and to less volatile property prices in the future.
This is a good thing. Those people in the property industry who
are maligning the Act should think again.
- Rising interest rates. Interest rates mainly go up because
people borrow too much money to buy things they want but do not
necessarily need. The consequence is that we have too much money
chasing too few goods, stimulating inflation.
The government does not like inflation because it affects things
such as the value of the rand, which, in turn, makes imports more
expensive. The South African Reserve Bank, which has an influential
say about interest rates, is charged by government with the task
of protecting the value of the rand, namely by keeping down the
inflation rate.
The Reserve Bank's main weapon in taking on inflation is its ability
to increase interest rates to discourage borrowing.
A large part in the rising price of property can be attributed
to low interest rates. Easy money means greater demand for housing
and, therefore, higher prices.
- No personal tax and transfer duty relief this year after a
windfall reduction last year. This one is precious. Do the property
people who have used this one think that Finance Minister Trevor
Manuel should structure his budgets around the property market?
These factors are all what lawyers would call accessories after
the fact. They are not the main cause of the slowdown in property
sales. The main reason is simply that properties have become too
expensive. Individuals cannot afford to pay the asking prices.
High prices
According to the Absa House Price survey, house prices rose by 20
percent a year between 2000 and 2006. I doubt there are many people
whose income increased by more than 10 percent a year in this period.
So, it stands to reason that property prices had to reach a point
where they became unaffordable. Things such as the NCA simply advanced
the date at which this would happen.
The additional problems with costly properties are:
Municipal rates are high; and
It is costly to sell and buy another property. You have to pay for
new bond-registration costs, transfer duties, legal costs, all sorts
of administrative charges that lenders now levy and capital gains
tax (on gains over R1.5 million) on the sale of a property. Then there
are estate agents' commissions, which are based on a percentage of
the sale price. It is cheaper to upgrade an existing property.
The point of all this is: the NCA may not be good for banks and
estate agents, but it is good for consumers. It protects us against
ourselves.
There is also a lesson for property speculators, particularly those
who ignore the warning signs and join the fray when markets are
peaking. This particularly worries me as the number of so-called
property investments, such as high-risk property syndications, continue
to be mis-sold on the basis of the recent historical house price
growth, when prices have clearly run out of steam.
Investors will be well advised to steer clear of property syndications,
particularly those where the structures do not give you actual part-ownership
of the property. Advisers flogging these so-called investments are
motivated by incentives of between six and 12 percent of the investment,
often bringing total costs to more than 20 percent. You will be
better off somewhere else.
You can negotiate your fees with banks
It is interesting that as soon as a law is passed limiting the maximum
that may be charged, the top figure becomes the norm.
Recently, a senior official at the National Treasury objected to
an increased administration fee on his Standard Bank home loan.
This fee was almost five times more than the one charged in 2005
for another home loan with the bank and three times more than the
fee charged on his other, bigger Absa home loan.
When the official objected, the bank provided the "inspired"
answer that "this fee is a valid cost and these costs are provided
for in the National Credit Act of 2005, section 100, point 1(C)".
But the bank was "motivated" enough to say it would repay
the fee for the past six months and pleaded with the official to
stay "involved" by offering him a new banking package
that would include a zero administration fee.
The issue is you can and should negotiate fees, particularly when
they are maximums provided for in law.
(Persfin,
October 20, 2007)
Back to top
|