How deep is the financial hardship well?

financial-hardship-savings
How many weeks your savings will last without income – graph provided by The Grattan Institute

It is probably no comfort to anyone to reflect on the year when investors could get 14.95% on a bank term deposit. It was January 1991, the recession Paul Keating said we had to have. People with personal loans and credit card debt watched horrified as repayment rates went to 20% and beyond. The average variable mortgage rate rose to 17.5% at the same time. The gap between the haves and have-nots in that era was painfully obvious.

In the early 1990s, financial hardship forced many younger Australians, unable to service their mortgage repayments, to walk out of their mortgaged houses, leaving the house keys on the bank’s counter. Meanwhile, the lucky worker/investor with a lazy $100k to invest could earn $14, 950 in interest (the price of a new car), over 12 months with no risk whatsoever. Except, of course, if the deposit was with one of the eight financial institutions that went broke in that era.

In 2020, the COVCID-19 pandemic has certainly made it clear how many Australians are suffering financial hardship. At one end of the scale, you have self-funded retirees, on the pig’s back, really, but struggling with the collapse in the value of shares and difficulties finding safe places to store their cash for a return of more than 1.75%.

At the other end of the generational spectrum, while the official unemployment figure is an improbably low 6.2%, it does not reflect the one million casuals who not only lost their jobs, but did not qualify for the Federal Government’s safety net, Jobkeeper.

COVID-19 struck at a time when the Australian household savings rate had dropped to 3.6% (20% is the ideal), and is forecast to drop to 2% or lower in 2021-22. The rate is calculated as a percentage of the amount saved from disposable income.

Meanwhile household debt – most of it linked to mortgages –  is at a high of 119.60% of GDP. Economist Gerard Minack told the 7.30 Report in November that household debt at 200% of household income was a “massive macro risk”.

Then came COVID-19 and an economic shutdown the likes of which the country has not seen since the 1930s.

I’m running these confronting numbers past you because there is a lot of nonsense written about Poor Pensioners vs Irresponsible Millenials.  Also, some commentators, particularly in the housing sector, are ‘talking it up’ at a time when worst-case scenarios predict a 30% drop in prices.

Conversely, stock market analysts are talking the market down, even as it keeps (slowly) recovering. You have to wonder why.

In mid-April the share market was officially proclaimed a “bull market’’ by the Australian Financial Review (AFR), because share prices had jumped 20% since mid-March.

What’s amazing is that the market has rallied at the same time that Australian superannuation funds paid $9.4 billion in financial hardship paymentsto approximately 1.17 million fund members. Australian super funds have a large exposure to equities, so they have managed the payments so far by selling investments, including shares and holdings in managed funds.

They also asked for help. As the AFR’s exceptionally well-informed Chanticleer observed, The Australian Superannuation Fund Association (ASFA) put a proposal to Treasurer Josh Frydenberg to allow the Australian Taxation Office to cover the hardship withdrawal payments. The plan was super funds would repay the payments over a period of time. The industry also called on the Reserve bank of Australia to provide a liquidity buffer. None of this happened, but Australian funds are expecting a continuation of the rush to withdraw hardship payments.

Under the COVID-19 measures, individuals whose income has been affected can withdraw up to $10,000 of their superannuation balances prior to June 30. They can, if necessary, apply for a further $10,000 after June 30.

There are ordinarily a few hoops to jump through to apply for an early-release hardship payment. As we know, superannuation is meant to be locked away until you retire or reach an age when you can officially tap the fund for money. But in these dire times, super funds worked with the Australian Tax office and other government departments to expedite hardship payments.

By close of business on May 7, ASFA made around 1,175,000 individual payments, totalling around $9.4 billion in temporary financial support. ASFA estimated that 98% of applications were paid within five working days.

Applying for a super hardship payment is a risky business if you are under 35. According to AMP, the average super balance for people aged 25-29 is $23,371 for men and $19,107 for women. In the age group 30-34, the average balance for men is $43,583 and for women $33,748. So it does not take too many trips to the hardship well to run out of cash. I used those age groups deliberately, as most pollsters agree that so-called Millennials are people now aged between 22 and38.

But it is not just the young that have little in the way of savings. According to the Grattan Institute, 50% of working households have less than $7,000 in savings. This probably explains the rush of super fund hardship applications. The Institute admits the data is a few years old, but says the scenario is unlikely to have changed much.

“As you might expect, working households on lower incomes tend to have less in the bank. Among working households in the bottom fifth of household income, the median total bank account balance is just $1,350. 

“The meagre savings of many low-income workers are a big worry because they are most likely to be employed as casuals and therefore not have paid sick leave or annual leave.” 

The Grattan Institute makes the point that as the lockdown drags on, more people will start to run out of ready cash.

“Our analysis shows that half of working households have five to six weeks’ income or less in the bank. The bottom 40% of working households has about three weeks’ income or less in the bank. A quarter of all working households have less than one week’s income in the bank.”

This last figure may bring your head up, if you remember news stories from New York, which we found shocking, of people with less than $400 in the bank.

Sometimes I think about these matters when doing the weekly grocery shopping, where retail prices are clearly outpacing inflation. (Ed: We did score a large pumpkin from a roadside stall for $3, so you can get lucky).

Those with a job who have not had a pay increase in years can justifiably feel cheated. Admittedly, the Federal Government came to the National Cabinet table with an extraordinary rescue package. But while one of these measures temporarily doubled the unemployment payment overnight, it now seems to be flawed piece of legislation.

People may rightly point out that employers are obliged to pass on the Jobkeeper payment of $1,500 a fortnight, regardless of what the employee was being paid previously. At some stage, these payments will stop and we will revert to the status quo. Will recipients who were technically overpaid have to repay some of this money, or does it just go to the deficit?

Robodebt II, coming soon to a cinema near you.

FOMM backpages:

No interest at all

piggy-bank-1239661
Johanna Ljungblom/FreeImages.com

Though the headline might put you off, we must ask: why are interest rates dropping, who does it affect and where will it all end?

Few people would be unaware that the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) dropped the official cash rate to 1.50% on August 2, the lowest rate since records have been kept.

The supposed reason is to stimulate the economy (that is, to encourage spending and borrowing). It is theoretically OK to do this when inflation is low or falling as it is now. Conversely, as inflation rises, so do interest rates (RBA considers that this will restrain borrowing and spending).

An official cash rate of 1.50% is a huge problem for self-funded retirees such as yours truly and She Who Supports Ethical Investment. Four years ago we invested in a bank term deposit paying 5%, with interest paid annually. The annual payment dropped into our bank account this week. But where do we turn when this tiny golden goose gets killed off next year?

On current speculation, cash rates could drop to 1.25% by the second quarter of 2017. Given that inflation is currently 1%, that is a pretty skinny return.

The theory is we (self-funded retirees and younger people trying to save), will turn to the share market, where one can not only get better yields, but also the prospect of capital gains (and a tax break via dividend imputation). That means the company paying the dividend has already paid tax on it, so the franking credits (tax component) is refunded to the investor. But as we all know, the share market is volatile; you can lose money, companies can reduce or suspend dividends; gadzooks, companies can go broke and your modest $12,000 investment drifts away like steam from a kettle.

We’re told inflation has dropped from 1.7% in January to 1% in June, yet each week we seem to spend more at the supermarket and the petrol pump. House insurance premiums are rising, ditto rego, electricity and water rates. What’s really going on?

The low interest scenario, not by any means restricted to Australia, is set to continue for the foreseeable future.

Pre the GFC (2008), self-managed retirees could obtain interest rates of 6% to 7% on term deposits so their SMSFs were earning a fair, tax-protected return, sufficient to pay pensions and preserve capital (thus avoiding the inevitable dip into the public purse).

In this low interest rate environment, the biggest risk is that naïve investors will be lured into higher-rate schemes which are either unsecured and risky or just outright scams. The best known of scams is the Ponzi scheme, where a promoter offers you 12% on your investment, making interest payments with new deposits and eventually fleeing to some country with no extradition treaty.

Caveat emptor, mate.

Nevertheless, an official interest rate of 1.5% looks generous compared to the UK, US and Japan, the latter entering negative interest* territory in February. In post-Brexit UK, the Bank of England cut the cash rate this month to 0.25%, its first rate cut in seven years. The rationale for doing so was to support growth and return inflation to a sustainable target of 2%. UK inflation was 0.3% in May, so we can see what they mean.

Steve Worthington, adjunct Professor at Swinburne University of Technology revealed an odd cultural reaction to negative interest rates in an article written for The Conversation.

One month after the Bank of Japan’s decision to unleash negative interest rates, applications to join the loyalty programmes of Japanese department stores such as Mitsukoshi, Daimaru and Takashimaya (which offer discounts on goods of 5% to 8%), were 100-200% higher than in the same month of 2015.

Such consumer behaviour undermines the intentions of the central banks. Prof.Worthington proffers that if the weapon of negative interest rates does not work as expected on currency values or domestic consumption and investment, what else is there left to deploy to prevent deflation and a further slowdown in economic activity?

Prof. Worthington says negative interest rates are intended to boost domestic demand by forcing banks to lend money out and encourage consumers to both borrow and spend.

But they cannot bank on the unpredictable behaviour of individuals and organisations. Prof Worthington referred to the unexpected result this week after New Zealand’s central bank cuts its cash rate to a new low of 2%.

“Rather than that lowering the value of the NZ dollar, it has actually sent their dollar higher – economics theory meets reality and is found wanting!”

Many Euro Zone countries are already in negative interest mode, Japan has just joined the club and the US (0.5%) and UK (0.25%) is as close to zero as you can get. There are even a few economists in Australia who believe we could be at zero interest within a couple of years.

A collaborative essay in the Wall Street Journal examined the trend to negative rates, uncovering some evidence the policy was backfiring. The authors wrote:  “some economists now believe negative rates can have an unintended psychological effect by communicating fear over the growth outlook and the central bank’s ability to manage it.”

If the primary motive of low or zero interest rates is to encourage citizens to borrow or spend, it appears to be a lost cause. The OECD index of household savings shows savings are high and likely to go higher in countries such as Germany, where the percentage of disposable income which is being devoted to saving rose to 9.7%, and is forecast to rise to 10.4% this year.  The OECD also forecasts the rate to rise in Japan.

While Australians now are saving just under 10% of their disposable income, in the noughties we were saving virtually nothing and gearing ourselves into unsustainable debt.

A Federal Treasury paper, The rise in household saving and its implications for the Australian economy, theorises that had household savings remained at  2004-05 levels, consumption would have been 11% higher than its current level – about 6% of GDP.

“The primary effect of the turnaround in household saving has therefore been to reduce the extent to which interest rates and the exchange rate have needed to rise to maintain macroeconomic balance.”

The paper noted that subdued household spending will also present challenges to the retail and residential construction sectors.

So what does the average punter do – buy a safe (apparently ‘trending’ in Japan), stash the cash under the mattress, buy gold bullion, collectables or vintage wines?

You can still find a few banks with term deposit rates around 3%, though the rate does not vary much between six months and five years.

Self-funded retirees who need a certain level of return to maintain their lifestyles have only a few options: take riskier investment strategies (hybrids, debentures, unlisted property trusts), dig in to capital; apply to Centrelink for a part-pension or (shudder) start job-hunting. (Either that, or forget about that trip overseas…Ed).

*instead of receiving a return on deposits, depositors must pay regularly to keep their money with the bank.