Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 116

House affordability, where are the institutions?

Housing affordability has become a topical issue with everyone from politicians to the man in the street having an opinion. Top of the discussion list is negative gearing. Those in favour of its abolition argue the favourable tax treatment has created a surge of investment from mum and dad investors and SMSFs into residential property which has pushed up prices.

What is missing in the debate is the acknowledgement that without these investors we would not have a deep stock of rental accommodation. Despite having one of the world’s largest pools of capital through the superannuation system, Australia’s super funds and institutional investors have, for a variety of reasons (low yield, tax, inability to get scale), not invested in the provision of private rental accommodation.

Experience with overseas institutions

IP Real Estate, one of the leading magazines for global institutional real estate, has just published a major feature on institutional investment into residential real estate in Europe, the US and Canada. Here’s a small selection of insights:

  • Bill Hughes, Head of Real Assets at Legal and General Investment Management in the UK pointed out that they have invested more than £2.5 billion (A$5.0 billion) in the past three years across social housing, student accommodation and care homes, and have a pipeline of 29,000 units and 17,600 student accommodation units. He noted that “the proportion of residential real estate in portfolios can vary between zero and 30% at the moment, but proportions are expected to increase as the sector becomes more mainstream.”
  • Syntrus Achmea Real Estate and Finance, a Dutch real estate investment manager, has invested approximately €4.5 billion ($7.0 billion) in the Dutch residential market with 30,000 units in the portfolio.
  • Ivanhoe Cambridge, the real estate arm of the Canadian pension fund Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec, plans to increase its residential exposure to 12%, up from 3% in 2011.

In the US, pension funds (the equivalent of our superannuation funds) and listed real estate investment trusts (REITs) are major investors into residential real estate.

According to the Pension Real Estate Association, which represents all the major US pension funds who invest in real estate, in 2013, 22.9% of their overall real estate allocation was invested in multi-family apartments and single family homes, a staggering $US49 billion (A$62 billion). In Australia, not one major super fund owns a portfolio of rental accommodation. Again, some do developments such as CBUS but just like Mirvac and Stockland, the developments are sold off upon completion.

Multi-family (the US version of apartments) represents around 13% of the total market capitalisation of all REITs listed on the NYSE. By way of comparison, we do not have one listed A-REIT on the ASX that provides residential rental accommodation (apartments or houses). We have a few listed developers like Stockland and Mirvac but they only develop and sell residential apartments and houses. We also have a few A-REITs focusing on seniors accommodation – AVEO for retirement villages, Ingenia, Lifestyle Communities and Gateway for manufacturing housing estates.

Who will provide the rental accommodation?

Before we go and change the rules around negative gearing, let’s stop and think who will step in to provide the much needed rental accommodation in Australia? Based on the evidence to date, it won’t be our institutions.

 

Adrian Harrington is Head of Funds Management at Folkestone Limited (ASX:FLK). This article is for general information only and does not take individual objectives into account.

 

8 Comments
Ramani
July 08, 2015

It is understandable that negative gearing opposition gets most vocal when applied to residential housing. In reality it applies, of course, to all income-producing assets and activities, including share trading (when unrealised losses can be set off against income, unlike the normal investment activity when only realised gains and losses are taken into account). Being the common man's pick for negative gearing, housing is most visible in the debate (housing can be seen and felt physically, unlike financially engineered products including dent and equity).

If a tax system (such as ours) wishes to tax income and allow legitimate deductions against it, equity and symmetry demand that where the answer is negative, it should be allowed. Not that tax is known for equity or symmetry in most regimes, but taken to the extreme this would mean taxing all income but allowing no deductions. Strange one might say, but stranger things have been attempted. The idea of a flat rate of tax on income comes close to this possibility, with that rate so fixed as to generate sufficient revenue for Government activities. Imagine, the hordes of ATO officers can do something more useful, like planting a tomato sapling.

In Australia, abolishing negative gearing will in housing trigger squeals and potential diversion to other assets. At its worst, it might mean deliberate avoidance: the only tool with which the commoner can express dismay at the inequity, not to mention disturbing the status quo.

A more practical issue will arise when an investment weaves in and out of positive territory into the negative and back: after abolishing negative gearing on an asset, will we tax it or not when the deductions are less than the income? If yes, the obvious injustice will destroy confidence. Or we would need a complex administration scheme (as in the super surcharge, or contribution caps). Net of collection and policing costs, the revenue raised may not justify the angst.

A practical solution may be to cap the benefit at a reasonable dollar figure per taxpayer per annum. Even here, the inequity of taxing all income when it turns positive looms large.

Looks as though we will be debating this for a while!

Ken Ellis
July 05, 2015

Are our memories so short that we have forgotten the Paul Keating removed negative gearing with a great fanfare of trumpets only to re-introduce it within 24 months because the number of rental properties dropped dramatically and as a result the rental charges increased accordingly and adversely effected many that supported the Labor Party.

Paul G
July 03, 2015

Perhaps annual negative gearing losses could be carried forward, and added to the cost base of the asset. This would reduce capital gains tax payable upon sale, rather than providing a tax saving each and every year.
For every tenant there is a landlord (property investor). If there were less landlords there would be less tenants. Many current tenants would become owners if prices weren't artificially inflated by investors looking for a tax benefit.

David Hyde
July 03, 2015

What is lacking in the debate is a broad discussion about the tax system and its role. The particular topic of negative gearing is filled with claims, some of them listed above. The Macro Business analysis of this area is worth reading. The latest is today, reporting on the Grattan Institute article in the Australian: http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/07/grattan-debunks-property-lobbys-negative-gearing-lies/

mark
July 03, 2015

The reason institutions shun residential real estate in Australia is quite simple: they won't invest in a sector which is so grossly overvalued. Yes, it has continued to climb in value but just because a bubble continues to get bigger doesn't mean it isn't a bubble.

Institutions elsewhere in the world like North America and Europe have huge residential portfolios. There's a reason for this.

Peter Knight
July 03, 2015

Negative gearing is continually demonised in this country despite the following facts. (a) Negative gearing generally becomes positive gearing after about ten years or less (real estate) depending on the LVR to begin with. (b) Negative gearing doesn’t only concern real estate investments. It concerns all investments where a cash-flow loss (not capital loss) is made. (c) Negative gearing exists to compensate the investor by reducing his/her tax burden for taking on the risk that the investments’ value may not keep pace with inflation. (d) When negatively geared, losses are compounded if the investment doesn’t increase in capital value in real terms. (e) Negative gearing is not a panacea for wealth creation. In fact, if an investor seeks to become rich by only focusing on tax minimisation, then he will surely fail in the endeavour of wealth creation. The focus should always be on wealth creation with tax considerations secondary. (f) If negative gearing were to be abolished, it would logically follow that capital gains tax (CGT) should also be abolished. If negative gearing were abolished and CGT kept, then most retail investors would not be adequately compensated for the investment risks being undertaken. This would mean that investor demand for rental properties would decline significantly, the supply of rental properties would then dramatically reduce, with the predictable result of increasing rents which would arguably adversely affect the low income groups the most. This is exactly what happened in 1985 when the Hawke Govt. abolished negative gearing.

Volpino
July 07, 2015

It's strange to think the Government should compensate investors for taking risk. One might argue that the return, if adequately measured, valued and realised, ought to do that.

The myopic property investor barrow is being pushed here again. What's at risk is the broader economy, however, please don't take my tax breaks away say the vested interests.

You can get bogged down in the semantics but the debate (if there is one) is best kept to the broader theory and implications.

Negative gearing is, in effect, a distortion of supply and demand and price discovery - the very forces you cite as taking effect should it be stripped away. Price manipulation is never a good idea. In this instance it is encouraging speculation on property prices - and if anything is certain is that asset prices do not rise forever and that when the debt fueled investment that typically inflates these prices (as is the case with Australian housing) is inevitably unwound, there will be a price to pay.

The banks' have been running up Australia's foreign debt to lend the money to home buyers.

Australia's banks have almost half their total assets concentrated in residential real estate. By international standards this is beyond excessive.

We need only look to Ireland and Spain to see what this does if foreign investment takes flight.

Negative gearing isn't the only problem here but it certainly hasn't helped moderate speculation. Removing it may be one way to cool the hot air flying into the inflating bubble.

This may hurt personal balance sheets but the alternative (a banking crisis) may do so with greater severity. That is why the Central Bank has recently been cracking down on lending.

Finally, maybe the former head of Australia's biggest home lender, David Murray's opinion will have greater credibility than my own anonymous blog comment post, he came out recently and said negative gearing is a potentially dangerous distortion.

Negative gearing is bad policy. That it has tenure doesn't make it good policy.

Graeme
July 03, 2015

Logically the removal of borrowed money would cause a decline in housing prices allowing more people to be able to afford homes which would reduce the demand for rental accommodation. Those at the bottom would benefit at the expense of those able to buy multiple houses.

Naturally the banking sector (smaller loans equals smaller profits) and the real estate sales industry (lower commissions) will ensure it never happens.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

'It’s your money' schemes transfer super from young to old

Budget cash splash will do more harm than good

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

How to enjoy your retirement

Amid thousands of comments, tips include developing interests to keep occupied, planning in advance to have enough money, staying connected with friends and communities ... should you defer retirement or just do it?

Results from our retirement experiences survey

Retirement is a good experience if you plan for it and manage your time, but freedom from money worries is key. Many retirees enjoy managing their money but SMSFs are not for everyone. Each retirement is different.

A tonic for turbulent times: my nine tips for investing

Investing is often portrayed as unapproachably complex. Can it be distilled into nine tips? An economist with 35 years of experience through numerous market cycles and events has given it a shot.

Rival standard for savings and incomes in retirement

A new standard argues the majority of Australians will never achieve the ASFA 'comfortable' level of retirement savings and it amounts to 'fearmongering' by vested interests. If comfortable is aspirational, so be it.

Dalio v Marks is common sense v uncommon sense

Billionaire fund manager standoff: Ray Dalio thinks investing is common sense and markets are simple, while Howard Marks says complex and convoluted 'second-level' thinking is needed for superior returns.

Fear is good if you are not part of the herd

If you feel fear when the market loses its head, you become part of the herd. Develop habits to embrace the fear. Identify the cause, decide if you need to take action and own the result without looking back. 

Latest Updates

Economy

The paradox of investment cycles

Now we're captivated by inflation and higher rates but only a year ago, investors were certain of the supremacy of US companies, the benign nature of inflation and the remoteness of tighter monetary policy.

Shares

Reporting Season will show cost control and pricing power

Companies have been slow to update guidance and we have yet to see the impact of inflation expectations in earnings and outlooks. Companies need to insulate costs from inflation while enjoying an uptick in revenue.

Shares

The early signals for August company earnings

Weaker share prices may have already discounted some bad news, but cost inflation is creating wide divergences inside and across sectors. Early results show some companies are strong enough to resist sector falls.

Property

The compelling 20-year flight of SYD into private hands

In 2002, the share price of the company that became Sydney Airport (SYD) hit 80 cents from the $2 IPO price. After 20 years of astute investment driving revenue increases, it sold to private hands for $8.75 in 2022.

Investment strategies

Ethical investing responding to some short-term challenges

There are significant differences in the sector weightings of an ethical fund versus an index, and while this has caused some short-term headwinds recently, the tailwinds are expected to blow over the long term.

Investment strategies

If you are new to investing, avoid these 10 common mistakes

Many new investors make common mistakes while learning about markets. Losses are inevitable. Newbies should read more and develop a long-term focus while avoiding big mistakes and not aiming to be brilliant.

Investment strategies

RMBS today: rising rate-linked income with capital preservation

Lenders use Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities to finance mortgages and RMBS are available to retail investors through fund structures. They come with many layers of protection beyond movements in house prices. 

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.