Paul Wallbank – Brilliant Communications

Category: rants

Australia welcomes the multi generational mortgage
At the height of the Japanese property boom in the 1980s, the hundred year mortgage came into being.

Pushing payments onto children and grand-children was the only way home prices could continue to rise once they hit levels which the average Japanese worker could ever afford with a more traditional twenty or thirty year mortgage.

Twenty five years later Australia finds itself in a similar position as parents guarantee their childrens’ mortgages.

Repeating the Japanese mistake

While the Japanese looked to sticking their mortgages onto their kids and grandkids, Down Under the kids are fighting back and getting mum and dad to underwrite their unaffordable loans.

This weekend’s Sydney Morning Herald features in its property section the story of how Sharon and Graeme Bruce guaranteed their son’s and his fiance’s mortgage in Sydney’s inner suburbs.

While the story isn’t clear on the size of the deposit (which isn’t surprising given the SMH’s shoddy editing), it appears the Bruces’ have guaranteed around $300,000 so his son and future daughter-in-law can grab a five bedroom, 1.45 million dollar mansion.

One wonders what great businesses Matt and Hannah could build if mum and dad were prepared to stump up a similar amount to invest in a start up?

Australia’s property obsession

Sadly we’ll never know – in Australia, the smart money gets a job, pays off a mortgage and accumulates wealth through investment properties. What cows are to African tribesmen, negatively geared units are to the Australian middle class.

The hundred year strategy hasn’t worked too well for Japan, with a declining population those mortgages entered into a boom level 1980s values now don’t look so attractive and are one large reason for the nation’s lost decades.

In Australia, things aren’t likely to work so well either. The Baby Boomers and Lucky Generationals – those born from 1930 to 1945 – guaranteeing their kids’ and grandkids’ mortgages are relying on ever increasing property prices.

This is understandable given that few of them have any experience of long term stagnation, let alone decline, of property values but it leaves them incredibly exposed should the Aussie housing market slump.

Can an Aussie property decline happen?

Many Australians, particularly those with vested interests, maintain such a decline can’t happen but the prospects aren’t good as the SMH story shows;

The couple had attempted to buy a small terrace in Newtown but kept getting pipped at the post by other young professional couples. At a higher price point they had no competition.

Despite his parents’ generosity he said he would still need to rent out a few of the rooms to help pay for the mortgage.

So Matt can’t afford the mortgage. That’s not good starting point and one that could cost his parents dearly, which they don’t seem to care about much.

”Obviously my dad guaranteeing the loan was the only way we were going to purchase this,” Mr Bruce said. ”You need to have a 20 per cent deposit otherwise the banks want you to pay insurance … it’s a bit of a rort really.”

It’s fair to call mortgage insurance a rort – as it certainly is – but its purpose is to protect the banks should a mortgagee default and the financiers find themselves out of pocket.

With Matt’s parents getting him out of paying that insurance his bank has much better default protection, equity in his parents’ property.

Guaranteeing risk and misery

I’m not privy to the finances of Sharon and Bruce, but most of their contemporaries can ill afford to lose several hundred thousand dollars in home equity in their later years.

That is where Australia’s multi-generational mortgages could turn very nasty, very quickly as older Australians find themselves having to deliver on the guarantees they gave on behalf of their over committed offspring.

In Japan, it’s taken a long time for the population to realise their national wealth has been squandered on twenty years of propping up unsustainable property prices and economic policies.

One wonders how long it will takes Australians to realise the same has happened to them and what the political reaction will be.

Similar posts:
March 10, 2013
Now may not be a good time to buy Melbourne property
There’s plenty of indicators that can be used to predict the health of an economy

While my favourite is the mini-skirt index, the most reliable is when rich folk start building huge skyscrapers.

Whenever developers propose a hundred storey building it marks the top of the property cycle. Should they get to actually build the thing, you can be guaranteed a nasty economic downturn is about to hit.

The Skyscraper Index’s historical record

This track record was set with the very first megatower – the Empire State building was started just before the 1929 stock market crash and completed as the great depression tightened its hold on the United States.

Forty years later New York’s ill-fated World Trade Center opened just in time to welcome the 1973 oil shock and subsequent recession.

A more recent example is Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building which was topped out in time for the city’s property crash and economic rescue by neighbouring Abu Dhabi.

In Australia, the most notable downfall was 1980s entrepreneur Alan Bond who planned to build a 140 storey tower on the World Square site opposite Sydney’s Town Hall.

The site was excavated but Bond went broke before work started and the hole remained for over a decade until a more modest 40 storey tower was built on the site.

Australia 108

So the news that property developers want to build a 108 storey tower on Melbourne’s Southbank should worry the Victorian government and unsettle the state’s property owners.

What’s always notable about these super skyscrapers is the garishness of the project. While Australia 108 won’t match the Burj for sheer Las Vegas gaudiness, it will feature the ‘Star burst’, a star-shaped Sky Lobby and hotel at the top of the tower.

Why the Skyscraper index works

The reason why 100 storey buildings are such a reliable economic indicator is because they illustrate there’s too much dumb money in the economy. It rarely makes sense to build such tall buildings.

Designing and building high rise buildings is complex and expensive – the higher you go, the more construction challenges there are as this Popular Mechanics article describes.

Skyscrapers are subject to the law of diminishing returns as the taller the building is, the more space that’s needed for services like elevators, air conditioning, water supplies and fire protection which reduces the landlord’s rentable floorspace on the lower levels.

When a building reaches a hundred storeys, there’s little space available on the lower floors for paying tenants. So the economics don’t add up.

Builders, property developers and financiers know this so when they start proposing projects that don’t make commercial sense it’s a fair indication the locals are gripped with irrational exuberance and Adam Smith’s invisible hand is going to deliver a short, sharp slap to the back of the economy’s head.

Does it matter to Australia?

And so it is in Melbourne, which is going to be interesting to watch as South East Queensland is the only Australian metropolitan area to suffer a prolonged property downturn in the last twenty years.

Hopefully Melbourne’s woes won’t affect the rest of the Australian economy but given how much the nation has invested in property and the stratospheric debt levels to service that speculation, it may well be that the rest of the country will follow Victoria.

Winning the next election might not be a good thing for Tony Abbot and his followers who genuinely believe a Liberal government will deliver a magic pudding to the home of every dinky-di Working Australian.

Similar posts:
February 28, 2013
Going insane with government subsidies
Albert Einstein is said to have defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

When it comes to funding the film industry it’s hard not to think that governments, and those who want a strong local film making communities, have all gone insane.

As discussed previously, the global producer incentive industry is a scam perpetuated by the major movie studios on gormless governments desperate for the glitz and glamour of having a Hollywood star or two come to town.

In Australia, governments are scratching around to raise change to attract a high profile Hollywood production once again – unsurprisingly to subsidise another remake of a fifty year old hit.

This is dressed up in the guise of helping build or maintain the local skill base or infrastructure. The water tank that’s expected to be used should the Aussies win the bid was built by the Queensland government in 2007 to attract aquatic themed movies, as the minister at the time said;

“As a result of having the water tank facility, the Government’s Pacific Film and Television Commission and Warner Roadshow Studios are currently in negotiations with a number of major studios requiring water tank facilities for their next major films.

“These projects under negotiation have an estimated value of $US370 million.”

Little of that money made it down under and the Gold Coast water tank stands largely unused as the Queensland and Federal governments failed to interest subsidy hungry movie producers.

When governments win those subsidised productions the local industry has brief sugar rush as providers struggle to find caterers, crew and extras required to film Superman XVIII or the fourth remake of Herbie The Love Bug. After a few months, the big producer folds their tent and moves on to the next city that spent millions attracting the studios’ favours.

Those involved in the big Hollywood production sadly go back to their day jobs and dreams of building careers in a vibrant local industry which has no chance of developing under the boom and bust cycle of major production attraction.

And so the cycle goes. At least today’s Sydney accountants can tell their kids how they once stood next to Keanu Reeves as an extra on The Matrix.

While Hollywood is the best organised at milking gullible governments, it isn’t just the film industry that pulls this scam off on taxpayers. If anything, the automobile manufacturers are probably the biggest beneficiary of government largess and produce more unloved bombs than the movie industry.

What’s particularly notable when governments announce huge licks of money for multinational corporations is just how small support is for the local industry in comparison.

A good example of this are the New South Wales film industry subsidies. The state’s Emerging Filmmakers Fund dispensed a grand $90,000 to local producers in 2012. This compares to the $6.6 million dollars spent by the state on attracting foreign productions.

Even that $6.6 million number has to be treated with caution as major productions can be subsidised from the state’s Investment Attraction Scheme – a $77 million slush fund put aside for attracting ‘footloose’ multinational business operations.

Generally payments from the IAS are ‘Commercial in Confidence’, or ‘Crooks in Collusion’ as some more cynical might put it, so it’s almost impossible for taxpayers to know how much has been lavished on attracting foreign businesses.

What is clear though is the government subsidies for foreign operators, not just in the film industry, dwarf the support given to local businesses.

During my short period working for the NSW Department of Trade and Investment more than one businessman asked me “why is your minister giving a slab of money to my overseas competitors rather than encouraging local businesses?”

It’s difficult to find a diplomatic answer that doesn’t imply that political and public service leaders are blinding the glamour and prestige of being associated with rich multinational corporations.

The real support local industries need is steady work producing products that play to their advantages, the sugar rushes of major movie productions or subsidised manufacturing only distort the market and may even damage the smaller local production companies as the wrong skillsets and infrastructure is built.

Done strategically as part of a broader, long term plan targeted subsidies to global industry leaders can work, but unfortunately few of the movie industry incentives or investment attraction schemes have that sort of thinking underlying them.

As budgets tighten with the deleveraging global economy, it’s going to be interesting to see how long governments can continue this sort of corporate welfare.

Film clapper image courtesy of Chrisgr through SXC.hu

Similar posts:
February 16, 2013
Sharks patrol these waters
The announcement that the New York Times was attacked by Chinese hackers after exposing the financial details of the nation’s Premier doesn’t come as much of a surprise to anybody following either China or computer security issues.

One of the realities of modern computing is that systems are constantly being compromised, the complexity of IT networks is so great that even the best security experts can be caught off guard.

Securing our networks

In such an environment the normal business and home computer user has little chance against sophisticated criminal or government sponsored attacks, by the Chinese or any other spy agency.

One example of how badly wrong things can go for an organisation is the hacking of security advisory firm Stratfor in 2011, this illustrated how small business practices of having relatively open networks and poor password security can have serious consequences.

The issue is not how we fortify our systems against intruders, but how we manage the risk. A useful analogy is how supermarkets deal with shoplifters – they can’t eliminate the problem, but they can manage it in ways that control losses.

Businesses, governments and home users have a range of things they can do to make it harder for hackers to get into a system and limit what they can access if determined one gets in.

The limits of anti-virus

Another aspect in the story that doesn’t surprise is the poor performance of the New York Times’ anti-virus software. According to Forbes, Symantec only caught one malware program out of the 45 installed by the hackers.

I have an entirely rational hatred of Symantec. While running an IT support business, their products were the bane of our lives and we encouraged users to choose alternative security software because of the unreliability of many of Symantec products, particularly the once proud Norton brand that was aimed at home and small business users.

At the time of the great malware epidemic in the early 2000s, Norton Anti-Virus had a huge market share and it proved to be worse than useless against the various forms of drive by downloads and infected sites that were exploiting weaknesses in Microsoft Windows 98 and XP systems.

Windows weaknesses

The common culprit was Windows ActiveX scripting language that Microsoft had introduced to standardise its web features. While a good idea, Microsoft made ActiveX a fundamental part of Windows and gave the features full access into the inner workings of the system.

Sadly Symantec made the decision to run all their security software on ActiveX as well.

As ActiveX was the main target for malware writers it meant that Norton AntiVirus or their Security suite would crash in a heap once a computer became infected and the Symantec software would actively interfere with attempts to cleanup a compromised system.

Making matters worse was Symantec’s subscription policies which cut customers off from vital updates and their bizarre policy of not including important upgrades in their automated updating function.

The failures of tech journalism

All of these factors made Symantec a loathed product in our office. It wasn’t helped by a generation of tech journalists who wrote gushing stories about Symantec, gave their products favourable reviews despite the company’s lousy reputation and consulted their employees for expert comment.

It wasn’t tech journalism’s finest hour. What really grates is the number of these folk still peddling nonsense about IT security and anti-virus software.

That distrust of Symantec continues to this day and those of us who struggled with their products a decade ago are not surprised at their poor performance on the New York Times’ network.

State sponsored risks

In defense of Symantec, the Chinese hackers are very good and its unlikely any security software would stand up to a sustained and determined attack from them or their counterparts in the US and Israeli governments.

We should also note that government agencies trying to get into systems is not just something done by the Chinese, US and Israelis; every government in the world is engaging in these activities against foreign businesses and their own citizens.

So we have to accept that these breaches and attacks are a real threat to any computer and any organisation. It may well be should build our security strategies around the assumption the bad guys are already in the system rather than believe we can build a giant electronic fort to keep the bad guys out.

One thing is for sure, you can’t rely solely on anti-virus software to secure your IT systems.

Similar posts:
February 1, 2013
Heroes of Capitalism
The few times I watch television these days is either when the footy’s on or the rare occasions that I surface from my interweb connected man cave and stumble into a room where someone has a TV running.

And so it was tonight when I happened to wander out to witness a terrible airport “reality” show – this one being an unoriginal, third rate Australian effort where Tiger Airlines shows how it stuffs around and humiliates its passengers. In Australia, Channel Seven considers this to be prime-time TV “entertainment”.

What was striking about the show was how Tiger Airlines’ check in staff humiliated a pensioner and her young son who hadn’t printed out their boarding passes.

The “fee” for not carrying out a basic task which reasonable people would expect would be part of an airline’s service is $25 a head at Tiger Airlines – one could ask what the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s position is on excessive fees being used to pad airlines’, or banks’, profits but that would be asking too much of Canberra’s worlds best practice doughnut munchers.

As result the poor lady was expected to front up with another $50 – money she didn’t have. So Tiger Airlines’ check in staff wouldn’t let her board and Channel Seven’s camera crew gleefully filmed her desperate tears and shocked son.

Eventually a bystander took pity on her and gave her $60. At least someone in the terminal had some decency and compassion, qualities neither the Tiger Airlines staff or Channel Seven camera crew have in the tiniest way.

No doubt somewhere in an anonymous glass tower some arsehole has a job as a manager at Tiger Airlines and has a KPI that includes how many poor mothers they can reduce to tears.

When the arsehole Tiger Airlines manager gets its annual bonus for making the required number of ~~victims~~ passengers weep, it no doubt goes to lunch with the Channel Seven executives – another bunch of arseholes – to slap each others’ backs and tell themselves what great heroes of capitalism they are.

The question that bugs me is when did it become acceptable to humiliate your customers? No doubt Tiger Airlines think it’s good publicity and Channel Seven think it is good entertainment.

We live in interesting times when our business leaders think it isn’t good enough just to take customers’ money but that it’s also necessary to humiliate them as the managements of both Channel Seven and Tiger Airlines seem to be rewarded for doing.

Fortunately in these corporatist days we still can vote with our wallets and turn off the muck we find offensive – that’s why decent people shouldn’t choose to fly Tiger Airlines or watch Channel Seven.

Similar posts:
October 28, 2012