Where does the money go?

RECENTLY I was offered an easy loan with just 5.8% interest rate after activation of my credit card.

There was no pre-qualified questions asked when the sales personnel approached me through the phone. As I had no intention to get funding, I did not take up the offer.

It is understood that the “attractive” rate was offered to attract potential customers. If there is a delay in repayment eventually, the rate would jump up according to the interest incurred on the credit card outstanding balance, which ranges from 15% to 18% per annum.

When I asked around, I found most of my family members had on at least one if not more occasions being offered an easy loan, credit card balance transfer, personal loan, or other credit facilities via phone calls every month.

This contrasts with what I had heard from friends and peers from the property industry regarding housing loan. There have been complaints about stringent requirements for housing loan application and low approval rate. They have this question in mind – where does the money go?

Their concerns are understandable when I see the home loan approval rates was only hovering around 50% for the past few years. In 2013, the approval rate was at 49.2%, it improved slightly to 52.9% in 2014 but went down to 50.2% in 2015.

According to the group president of the Real Estate and Housing Developers Association (Rehda), Datuk Seri FD Iskandar, rejection rate for affordable housing loan applications was more than 50%, and the strict housing/mortgage lending conditions were denying aspiring owners their first homes.

Based on Rehda’s survey in the second half of 2015, loan rejection was the number one reason for unsold units, and affordable homes top the list.

For example, an individual or family with a combined household income of between RM2,500 and RM10,000 are eligible to apply for PR1MA homes that cost between RM100,000 and RM400,000. However, with loan eligibility based on net income, many with their existing commitments such as car loan or credit card outstanding payment, are not able to secure a loan for an affordable home. This dampens the effort of helping qualified households in owning their first homes.

Looking at the situation, I am puzzled with different treatments given to loan application. At one end, there is an easy access for personal loan and credit card financing. On the other, stringent requirements are imposed on housing loan. It seems like the priority has been given to spending on liability instead of asset.

If we look at it from the business perspective, credit card, personal loan and easy loan offer higher profit margin to the banks with interest rates ranging from 12% to 18%, compared to housing loan interest which is about 4.5% to 5%. This may explain the shift of focus among the banks.

Central bank concerned

Reports show that our household debt stood at an alarming 87.9% of GDP as at end of 2014 – one of the highest in the region. It is comprehensible that Bank Negara is concerned with the situation, and would like to impose responsible lending with housing loan.

However, when we look at the details, residential housing loans accounted for 45.7% of total debt, hire purchase at 16.6%, personal financing stood at 15.7%, non-residential loan was 7.7%, securities at 6.5%, followed by credit cards and other items at 3.9% respectively.

A recent McKinsey Global Institute Report highlighted that in advanced countries, housing loans comprise 74% of total household debt on average. As a country that aspires to be a developed nation by 2020, our 45.7% housing loan component is considered low.

Looking at the above, it is ironic that our authorities and banks are strict on funding a house which is a basic necessity and asset for people, but lenient on car loan, personal loan, credit card and other easy financing with higher interest rate, that tend to encourage the rakyat to overspend on depreciating items.

It is common nowadays to see young adults paying half of their salary for car loan, and people go on extravagant holidays or purchase luxury items which rack up their credit card balance. As such it is not surprising that the number of counselling cases took on by Credit Counselling and Debt Management Agency has also shown a worrying upward trend, with the number of cases leaping by 20,000 from 2013 to 2014. There was an average of about 35,000 counselling cases annually from 2008 to 2014, but that figure rose to approximately 60,000 in 2014.

It is important for the authorities and banks to encourage prudent lending and spending, re-look into high housing loan rejection rate, and consider to tighten lending conditions of other loans, such as personal loan and credit card. These will encourage the rakyat to channel their money into assets instead of liabilities, and improve the financial position of the people and the nation in the future.

By Alan Tong

Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He is the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback, please email feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com.



Related posts:

 How to allocate your money wisely: lessons from my father

Jan 11, 2016 ... Datuk Alan Tong was the world president of FIABCI International for 2005/2006 and Property Man of the Year 2010 at FIABCI Malaysia

 If it's too good to be true, something's wrong

Apr 12, 2016 ... Datuk Alan Tong was the world president of FIABCI International for 2005/2006 and awarded the Property Man of the Year 2010 at FIABCI...

 Little by little, a little becomes a lot

Mar 12, 2016 ... Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He is the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback ...

 A challenging year ahead

Feb 16, 2016 ... Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He was the World President of FIABCI International for 2005/2006 .

• 

  Property prices will hold as ringgit falls to new low against USD and S$

  PETALING JAYA: The depreciation of the ringgit will not lead to real estate prices crashing. The Malaysian Institute of Estate Agents ...

Little by little, a little becomes a lot

NOW that Christmas, New Year and Chinese New Year are over, many of us have started to reconcile the amount spent for these celebrations.

Not surprisingly, many have underestimated the current cost of living and have therefore overspent.

Hence, it did not come as a surprise to me when I overheard one of my relatives saying that the price of an eight-course Chinese New Year package at the restaurant that she often frequents has increased by 15% from RM898++ to RM1,028++ within a year. Not only has the price increased, she also noticed the serving portions were smaller than the previous year.

The rising cost of living caused by the depreciating ringgit, hike in transportation costs, the goods and services tax implementation, etc, was the hottest topic of discussion during these festive gatherings. Among the various counter-measures, some young ones welcomed the option to reduce the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) contributions, citing that it would help relieve their burden.

The reduction in EPF contribution came about early this year when the Government announced that employees had the option to reduce their EPF contribution by 3% from March 2016 until December 2017 to spur economic growth and at the same time, put more money into the rakyat’s pockets. According to our Prime Minister who is also the Finance Minister, this move is expected to increase consumer spending by RM8bil a year.

It sounds good as we now have the option to have more disposable income. Yet, should we encourage spending or saving during this challenging time.

Before answering this question, let’s ask ourselves what we should do with the extra disposable income. Repay credit card instalments, go after items such as expensive household goods, electronic gadgets or gourmet food?

If we are not careful, we will end up spending based on our desire instead of necessity. Hence, having more money to spend is not necessarily good. It depends on how we plan our future finances, and whether we spend the money on “good debt” or “bad debt” as explained in my previous articles.

If we unnecessarily spend the additional income on luxury goods such as a new car which depreciates over time, we are practically paying for “bad debt”, as these items are liabilities instead of assets.

In contrast, if we convert the additional income into “good debt” such as investing in commodities/ shares or to fund our housing loan, we can enjoy the long-term benefits as the value of these assets will likely appreciate over time.

At a glance, 3% taken out from the EPF per month may not be seen as a lot. However, it will become a significant amount in the long term.

For an individual earning RM5,000 a month, 3% equals to RM150. As such, the total amount is RM3,300 for the duration of 22 months (March 2016 to December 2017). Assuming the average EPF interest rate at 6.5% per year (based on the dividend declared this year), the compounding rate for RM3,300 could potentially become RM23,190.64 after 30 years!

Therefore, unless there are really good reasons to use this additional disposable income, it is better to retain this seemingly small amount as retirement funds, giving its potential to grow significantly in the longer term. Besides, the savings in the EPF can also be withdrawn during rainy days to fund the payment for children’s education, purchase a new home and payment of medical expenses for treatment of critical illnesses.

At this testing time when many are faced with the burden of rising costs and economic slowdown, it is important to resist the temptation of instant gratification, be prudent in spending, and be able to differentiate between “good debt” and “bad debt” in making financial decisions.

For those who have yet to opt out from reducing the EPF contribution from 11% to 8%, it is important to use the additional money wisely so as to ensure that your retirement fund is not affected. Every ringgit saved or invested is essential in making a difference in our future financial position.

When I was a kid, my parents encouraged me and my siblings to save. Each of us would have our own piggy banks and they would continue to remind us about the beauty of saving. Until today, I still like this Malay proverb – ‘Sedikit, sedikit, lama-lama jadi bukit’ (little by little, a little becomes a lot).

Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He is the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback, please email feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com.

Related posts:
 

 A challenging year ahead

Feb 16, 2016 ... It is therefore crucial to invest to fight inflation especially monetary ... Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. 

How to allocate your money wisely: lessons from my father

Datuk Alan Tong was the world president of FIABCI International for ... Property investments: good Infrastructure a way to huge profits and

Penang is best for property investment in Malaysia

Penang has dislodged Kuala Lumpur's Golden Tringle as the top investment choice GEORGE TOWN: Penang has now overtaken the Klang V...

Cars are more expensive than houses? A house can buy how many cars?

IN about 3 weeks' time, we will be celebrating the New Year.

Each New Year comes with new resolutions and new goals. Some would plan to own big ticket items such as a house or a car as part of their resolution. If your plan is to own a new car, finish reading this article before nailing down that resolution.

Owning a car in Malaysia is expensive. In one of my previous articles, I highlighted that Malaysia was ranked second in the world where owning a car is expensive.

But what many do not know is by how much, relative to homes. Yes, homes in Malaysia are expensive too, but relative to Australian homes and cars, our cars are 10 times more expensive than those sold in Australia compared to homes. Let's do some simple math together.

Khazanah Research Institute (KRI) reported that the median house price in Malaysia is about RM250,000. This is the cost of two Honda Civics (priced at RM110,000 per car).

In Australia, the median house price is A$660,000, while a Honda Civic costs about A$30,000. This means, a median-priced Australian house of A$660,000 can buy 22 Honda Civics, versus a median-priced Malaysian house of RM250,000 which can only buy two cars of the same model. Yes, our homes may not be cheap but our cars are more expensive in comparison.

I further compared Malaysia against the United States and United Kingdom. A median-priced house in US and UK can buy 12 and 16 Honda Civics respectively, which is still more affordable compared to the two which can be bought with a median-priced Malaysian house.

The story does not end here. In addition to the cost of purchasing a car, there are many other financial commitments that comes along with owning a car. These include petrol, parking, toll charges, maintenance, and repair costs. Then, there is the cost of depreciation which ranges from 10 per cent to 20 per cent per year. It does not help that most of these supplementary expenses are frequently being increased. Our cars are indeed costing us a lot.

It is undeniable that a car is a necessity to those who have limited access to public transportation. Until our public transportation system is good enough, people will still need private vehicles to move from one place to another.

Unfortunately our cars are so expensive that the rakyat, especially the younger generation, are forced to put off buying a home until they can afford it. In the meantime, that "wait" causes house prices to appreciate, thus making it even more unaffordable for these people to own a home. This vicious cycle will continue until the government has a permanent solution to address both public transportation and affordable housing.

Perhaps, it is also timely to revisit the rationale behind our National Car Project which was introduced in 1982 to bring a higher level of industrialisation in Malaysia. Since its inception, the price of national and non-national cars have progressively increased through increase in car taxes and excise duties.

The price of non-national cars in Malaysia generally cost 50 per cent to 100 per cent more than the price of the similar make of car in other countries. On the other hand, one of my managers came back from his Aussie trip and shared that a Proton Preve in Australia is RM11,000 cheaper than one that is acquired in Malaysia.

Originally, the National Car Project was a form of protectionism for the national car industry. After more than 30 years since its inception, it has now become a burden to the rakyat, by eating more and more into our disposable income. The National Car Project has served its original purpose, and it is time that we review it.

So now, instead of jotting down my resolution, my wish list for 2016 is for the Government to rationalise and reduce the taxes imposed on cars. This will put more money back into the rakyat's pockets to start their home ownership journey much earlier. Concurrently, the Government can continue to channel and reinvest some of these funds to build a comprehensive and effective public transportation system in Malaysia which will greatly reduce the rakyat's dependency on private vehicles.

And for those who still wish to buy a car, think twice as owning a car is too expensive and unaffordable - it may also cost you your home.

By Datuk Alan Tong Food for Thought

Food for thought  By DATUK ALAN TONG

> FIABCI Asia Pacific chairman Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He was FIABCI World president in 2005/06 and was named Property Man of The Year 2010. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. (email atfeedback@bukitkiara.com) 


Related posts:

Rightways: Our cars are costing us our homes! Jul 14, 2012 ... Our cars are costing us our homes! WHEN I first started my job as an architect in the 1960s, I was on a three-year contract with a monthly salary ... right-waystan.blogspot.com

Rightways: Is having a car still a symbol of freedom? Jan 12, 2013 ... Imagine that the highways, car lanes and open car parks that once filled the landscapes are now ... Our cars are costing us our homes! right-waystan.blogspot.com

Rightways: Malaysian property market remains resilient: housing ... Sep 5, 2012 ... They can cut down on ownership of cars, and use public transport instead,” he said. Yam also ... Our cars are costing us our homes! Posted by ... right-waystan.blogspot.com

Rightways: Car or house buying cooling off measures? May 14, 2014 ... Cooling-off measures for the car industry that can be considered include shorter loan period, more ... Our cars are costing us our homes! right-waystan.blogspot.com

Rightways: Hang on to the roof over your head Aug 11, 2014 ... So, how does this increase in interest rate affect us, the public? Most people generally only ... Our cars are costing us our homes! Bankers and ... right-waystan.blogspot.com  Our cars are costing us our homes!  Is having a car still a symbol of freedom?  Make the right money moves: investing in a property is still best.. Malaysia needs to produce more houses to achieve 20/20 by 2020 Property investments: good Infrastructure a way to huge profits and success Increase transparency in property prices New kid on the block: Singapore's 'shoebox king' Oxley spices up Kuala Lumpur a record RM3,300 per ssq ft

Malaysian income: bread and butter, affordability of owing a house

JUST a few months back, a social media post on food price comparison between United Kingdom and Malaysia went viral and attracted plenty of attention.

This interesting post offered a peep into the average cost of living and purchasing power of Malaysians nowadays.

A Malaysian, Rysherz Rayn, posted on his Facebook that with about £5 (around RM33.50), he could purchase bananas, a box of grapes, 10 apples, an ice lettuce and five packets of his favourite chocolate in London. In Malaysia, the same items would add up to about RM44.

He went on to share that £5 is an hourly pay for a part-timer in UK. While in Malaysia, the average hourly pay for a part-timer is at about RM4. In other words, to afford the same items that a British buys with an hour pay, it may cost an average Malaysian 11 hours of work.

The post created a lot of discussions, some expressed shock and disappointment, others thought UK is too far away for comparison. To make it more relevant and familiar for Malaysians, I did a quick price check on Australian food.

Based on online information and personal experience, buying essential items such as a dozen eggs, 1kg of apples, a lettuce, and a loaf of sliced bread cost about A$9 (RM28) in Australia; on the other hand the same items come up to about RM20 in Malaysia.

In Australia, the minimum wage per hour is A$17.29 (RM53.50), while ours is only RM4.30 based on the minimum monthly wage of RM900.

Though this situation doesn’t paint the overall picture of the living standard in Malaysia, it does illustrate our average cost of living and purchasing power.

If we take a bigger picture, our issue of bread and butter relates closely to brick and mortar, which is the roof over our heads. When our wages are stretched in purchasing daily items compared to other countries, there is no surprise that our housing affordability level is also low.

According to the “Making Housing Affordable” report released by Khazanah Research Institute (KRI) in August, Malaysia’s median house prices were 4.4 times median annual household income in 2014. This signifies a “seriously unaffordable” housing market because an “affordable” market should have a “median multiple” (median house prices as a multiple of median annual household income) of 3.0 times based on global standards.

If we only take Kuala Lumpur into the computation, the median house prices is even higher at 5.4 times (based on annual median income of RM91,440, and the median for all house prices in Kuala Lumpur at RM490,000). Housing for Kuala Lumpur is categorised as “severely unaffordable”.

It is good that KRI reported the issue and highlighted that our country should gear towards improving the elasticity of housing supply and respond to the needs of all segments. However, other than supply, we should also look into the fundamental issue of our income level.

I remember when I first started working in 1961, my salary was RM628 and my first car was a Peugeot 404 which cost RM7,724. A single-storey house in Klang during that time was RM13,000. It cost me only one year of my salary to buy a car, and less than 2 years’ salary to afford a house.

Young graduate

However, a similar car today costs around RM100,000, and a landed house in Klang easily costs RM350,000. Looking at the salary of a young graduate which ranges from RM2,000 to RM3,000 nowadays, it takes 3 to 4 years of their salary to buy a similar Peugeot or equivalent car, and 10 to 15 years to purchase a house.

A recent news article pointed out that, only one out of two PR1MA housing loan applications are approved. It is ironic that even with affordable housing, the rakyat can’t afford a home.

The scenario and comparison above show the challenges of our young generation in securing a house today. It is unfortunate that when our car and house prices grow as a result of inflation and demand, our income doesn’t grow in tandem.

I also remembered in the 1970s, Malaysia and South Korea were started on the same level playing field in terms of gross domestic product (GDP).

According to data from International Monetary Fund (IMF), our estimated nominal GDP per capita in 1977 was US$1,084 (RM4,791), while South Korea was US$1,042 (RM4,605). During that time, when I travelled overseas with our strong currency, people in those countries looked up to me.

However, the IMF data shows the estimated GDP per capita in South Korea today is US$28,338 (RM125,256), while Malaysia is only US$10,654 (RM47,091). Other regional countries such as Taiwan and Singapore are also progressing at a fast pace, in which their estimated GDP per capita now are US$22,464 (RM99,293) and US$53,604 (RM236,935) respectively.

Back to the fundamental issue of our housing affordability, other than providing more affordable housing, the Government needs to move the rakyat up the value chain and increase the nation’s income level.

We know that the authority has been aspiring to do so under the 11th Economic Development Plan. One of them being to attain a per capita income of US$15,000 (RM66,000) by year 2020.

To expedite this, the Government and relevant authorities have to improve the competitiveness and productivity of the nation, so as to catch up with the other countries in the region.

When we talk about the affordability of our brick and mortar, the most fundamental way is to address the underlying problem of our bread and butter, i.e. our income. Until and unless our wages buy us more eggs and rice, it will be a challenge to afford a house.

- Viewpoint Food for Thought by Alan Tong The Star

Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He was the world president of FIABCI International for 2005/2006 and awarded the Property Man of the Year 2010 at FIABCI Malaysia Property Award. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback, please email feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com.

Related posts:

Malaysia’s residential housing market ‘severely unaffordable’, said Demographia

Malaysian homes more unaffordable than Singapore, Japan and the US; Budget 2015 brings little joy

Malaysian homes more unaffordable than Singapore

, Japan ...

Malaysian homes more unaffordable than Singapore, Japan and the US; Budget 2015 brings little joy. File picture shows houses under construction in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia has a 'severely unaffordable' residential homes ...

http://rightwaysrichard.blogspot.com/

Malaysian property market likely to regain momentum post GST

Malaysian property market likely to regain momentum post GST 

03 Jan 2015

CIMB Research head of research Terence Wong said in a report that this would be a “tricky” year given the pick up in sales momentum in 2014 on expectation of property prices rising post GST. He points out developers have ...

http://rightwaysrichard.blogspot.com/

What household debt means and how to manage it ?

The difference between ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ loans

I have received queries about what household debt means and the best ways to manage it.

Household debt is basically all forms of loans with interest rates taken from entities that provide financing. The loans can be secured with assets such as real estate loans (housing and commercial properties), or without any collateral such as personal and credit card loans.

Residential and commercial property loans have capital appreciation potential over the long term. According to statistics from National Property Information Centre, the annual appreciation rate for house prices has averaged 9% in the past five years.

Even if we assume the average house prices only appreciate 5% per annum, it is still an ideal asset which we can live in, and at the same time it grows in value.

If you refer to the chart above, the effective interest rate for housing loans is only 4.65%, which is lower than its annual appreciation rate.

On the other hand, the effective interest rates for car loans range from 5% to 7.5% depending on car model and loan term (effective interest rates are calculated from the advertised headline rates of 2.5% to 3% depending on the tenure of the car loan).

On top of higher effective interest rates, the value of private vehicles depreciate about 10% to 20% per year based on car insurance calculations and accounting practice.

In fact, everyone knows that the day you drive the car out of the showroom, its value drops by 15% to 25%!

The effective interest rate for personal loans is 9% to 10%, while credit card effective interest rates can go as high as 18% to 24% (again, like car loans, the effective interest rates per year are much higher than the advertised rates).

If these loans are spent on items that do not appreciate over time and on perishable items, then the depreciation rates are high and there are no returns to speak of.

The real estate loans (housing and commercial properties) that will appreciate in the longer term, can be deemed as “good debt”.

Car, personal and credit card loans, which have higher interest rates repayment and do not generate value in the future, and are considered as “unhealthy debt” or “bad debt”.

The chart above illustrates the effective interest rates on different household debt components. It also reminds me about the household debt I shared in my last article. What does our nation’s household debt really mean to us? How much of it impacts us if we include its interest rate, appreciation and depreciation values?

According to Bank Negara, our household debt was at RM940.4bil or 87.9% of gross domestic product (GDP) as of end-2014.

Large burden

Residential housing loans accounted for 45.7% (RM429.7bil) of total debts, hire purchase at 16.6%, personal financing stood at 15.7%, non-residential loan was 7.7%, securities at 6.5%, followed by credit cards and other items at 3.9%.

Our household burden is larger if we include the servicing of incurred interest rate for loans. Much of it comes from the higher interest rates to service hire purchase, personal financing and credit card loans.

It reinforces my belief that if we take a debt to invest or secure appreciating items such as housing and other valuable assets, they will eventually provide a higher return in the longer term which more than compensates for the interest rate paid on the loans.

My belief is substantiated by Bank Negara’s Financial Stability and Payment Systems Report 2014.

The report states that properties remain an important investment for many households to finance children’s education, provide a form of financial security for the next generation and preparation for retirement.

Our government can help us achieve higher investment on housing and other valuable assets by looking at ways to reduce our dependency on other types of loans.

Reducing dependency

Example, to provide a comprehensive public transportation system by aggressively expanding mass rapid transit, buses, mini buses, and taxi service to cover more areas.

This will reduce the dependency on private vehicles which in turn help us to divert our financial resources to more fruitful areas or secure a roof over our heads.

As shared in my previous article, housing loans in advanced countries comprise an average of 74% of total household debt compared with ours at 45.7%.

This tells me that we, as a nation, are spending too much of our already high household debt (87.9% to GDP) on high interest/high depreciation “bad debt” such as a car, credit card and personal loan.

Now is a good time to relook into our debt portfolio and the interest rates incurred, and check whether we are having a healthy or unhealthy debt burden.

FIABCI Asia-Pacific Regional secretariat chairman Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback, please email feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com.

Related posts:

Can Malaysia's household debt at 87.9% in 2014 be reduced to 54%?

Not all debts are bad

According to McKinsey's study, Malaysia's household debt to income ratio is highest at 146% in 2014, way above the level of the United States (99%) and Indonesia (32%). When we break down the household debt, 45.7% of ...

Unfair housing loan agreement 

 MOST if not all house buyers will require financing to buy their dream homes. While there appears to be stiff competition among banks for ...

8 million more houses needed in Malaysia

MY attention was captured by a news entitled “The only place where housing is easily affordable” when reading The Times, a UK paper recently.

While I had expected some light on affordable housing solutions, I was surprised to find out that Copeland is the only area in England where house prices are less than three times the average annual salary of its residents.

According to the same article that quoted a research by UK Trade Union Congress (TUC), the number of “easily affordable” local authority areas across England has fallen from 72 to just one over the last 16 years. In prime areas, house prices reach as high as 32 times the average earnings of their residents.

Frances O’ Grady, the General Secretary of TUC which represents 6.2 million working people in the UK, called for an “ambitious programme” to bring the prices of homebuilding under control.

This resonates with the earlier comments made by the governor of the Bank of England (BoE) Mark Carney who said in May that the only long-term way to effectively bring down home prices is to build more homes.

In the UK, 63.8 million people lived in 26.4 million homes in 2012. This works out to about 2.4 persons per house.

There were calls for more homes even with such healthy ratio. Australia, which has a population of 21.5 million in 2013, has 9.1 million occupied houses or 2.4 persons per house.

At the recent World Class Sustainable Cities 2014 Conference, Kerry Doss from Brisbane City Council showed a slide presentation of persons per household over the past century.

As far back as 1927, Australia was already four persons per household. These made me reflect on the situation of our home country, especially since we too aspire to be a developed nation.

According to National Property Information Centre (NAPIC), we have a total of 4.7 million homes in the fourth quarter of 2013. As NAPIC does not track rural homes, we assume that only urbanites were taken into account in the survey.

This accounts for 70% of our 30 million population or 21 million people. Therefore, on average, there are 4.4 to 6.4 persons per household in our country.

This is a poorer ratio compared with Australia in 1927. This means we need to build four million to 7.8 million more houses to match the same ratio as the UK or Australia.

While we are aware that the Government aims to build one million affordable homes over a five-year timeline since last year, we still have quite a fair bit to catch up.

This is because we have only managed to build about 73,000 residential units per year for the last three years.

Under Budget 2015, it is encouraging to note that the Government plans to build 80,000 units under PR1MA and 63,000 units under another housing programme. This will bring the total planned units to 143,000. This figure is still way too low and the Government should consider building at least 200,000 units a year to meet the vision of one million affordable homes.

There should be a constant effort to track the progress of home-building. It is important to realise the goal of housing the nation by ensuring yearly targets are met.

Some of the measures that the Government can consider were recommended in my earlier articles.

They included freeing up state land for housing, purchasing agriculture land for development, building houses in rural areas and connecting them to the cities via public transports, as well as expediting the approval process to supply more houses to the market.

In addition to supplying more affordable homes to bring down prices of homes, there are also other factors to ensure that the rakyat have a roof over their heads.

In the same-mentioned article in The Times, Frances O’ Grady commented that, “Housing affordability isn’t just about house prices; decent wages are just as important.” I think it makes good sense and generates more food for thought for our nation.

By DATUK ALAN TONG

FIABCI Asia-Pacific regional secretariat chairman Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback, please email feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com

Related posts:

Malaysia’s residential housing market ‘severely unaffordable’, said Demographia

Chang: 'For the past few years, HBA has sounded the alarm on the risk of a homeless generation.' WHEN middle income professionals...

 Property investments: good Infrastructure a way to huge profits and success

Buy property with good connectivity, investors advised - The road to huge profits   Packed room: Lee giving his talk on ‘Infrastructu...

Hang on to the roof over your head

Purchasing a property while the prices and mortgage rates are within reach becomes a secure way of protecting your finances against the battering of rising inflation - Both primary and secondary markets are worth considering

The ever changing economic condition and unpredictable spending behaviours make it even more challenging to find the real equilibrium in interest rate.

Bank Negara’s recent move to raise the benchmark overnight policy rate (OPR) from 3% to 3.25% was expected since the last OPR adjustment was three years ago in May 2011.

An OPR increase is always associated with an increase in interest rate.

Bank Negara has taken a bold step to address the economic challenge and became the first country in South-East Asia to increase the benchmark rate in an improved economic environment.

It is a prudent move by the authority in view of the upward pressure on inflation rate and the high household debt at 86.8% of gross domestic product in 2013.

So, how does this increase in interest rate affect us, the public?

Most people generally only relate an interest rate hike to financing cost which includes mortgage and personal loan rates.

In effect, it has a far more profound impact.

Changes in OPR directly affect the overall Base Lending Rate (BLR) which in turn, affects the spending behaviours of businesses and consumers as well as the dynamics of the overall economy.

On one hand, it is used to curb rising household debt and control spending.

On the other, higher interest rate would help to generate a neutral real rate of return for normal savings which is comparatively higher than fixed deposit rate.

However, what does this mean to us in the long run when interest rate is on the rising trend?

This is an interesting question in terms of personal spending and investment planning as it relates to interest rate movement.

Prof Dr Jeremy Siegel, of the Wharton School of Business and best selling author of Stocks for the Long Run, used to say when inflation kicked in, stock prices would go down in the short-term, due to concerns of reduced profits.

Eventually, however, stock prices would rise again in the medium and longer term, when investors realised that stocks could be used as a tool to hedge against inflation, as businesses would past higher costs through to their customers.

It is also interesting to see people sell and buy stocks for the same reason at different times with different considerations.

Similar movements may be observed in other types of investments when people take a longer term view of better ways to navigate through the challenges of inflation.

Prudent spending is always encouraged regardless of good and bad times.

With it, comes prudent planning and investment.

When inflation rate is on an upward trend and value of currencies continues to drop due to the massive quantitative easing (printing of money) measures around the world, using investments to hedge against inflation is one of the strategies to secure our financial future.

One of the investment assets that warrants deeper consideration and provides longer term investment protection is property.

Real estate works well as a hedging tool for a couple of reasons.

Investing early in real estate protects investors against rising land prices, and increasing construction costs during inflation.

Properties purchased before the onset of inflation will still have the protection of the continuous demand to meet the housing needs of a growing population in Malaysia.

An advice that I have continuously heard since my schools days till today is “Hang on to the roof over your head. It will help to keep you financially strong.”

This advice has remained valid over the years. It is not enough to just keep enough cash for rainy days.

Purchasing a property while the prices and mortgage rates are within reach becomes a secure way of protecting your finances against the battering of rising inflation.

This is especially true for those who have yet to own one.

Both primary and secondary markets are worth looking at, as there is surely be something out there that will meet your financial requirement.

“Hang on to the roof over your head” is a time-tested wisdom that will protect you in more ways than one for the future.

FIABCI Asia-Pacific regional secretariat chairman Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback, please email feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com.

Related posts:

Is having a car still a symbol of freedom?

Make the right money moves: investing in a property is still best 

Our cars are costing us our homes! 

Bankers and lawyers should know better 

Malaysia needs to produce more houses to ... 

Rightways: Healthy wealth management

Car or house buying cooling off measures?

Cooling off measures for car purchases also?

Key points: 

(1). Higher percentage of bankruptcies from inability to repay cars HPs than housing loans.
(2). The second largest household debt component, about RM145bil, is paid for an asset that is contracting in value every year.

WHAT are the considerations when you purchase a car?

Are the model and its functions important? Does the status symbol carry more weight? Or affordability is the main concern? Don’t get me wrong, I am not conducting a survey to change my profession. I am just curious to find out the major considerations of purchasing a car.

The topic interests me as car ownership among Malaysians, especially the young adults keep increasing. Many times, their choice of car is somewhat extravagant compared to the income they may be generating at this early stage of their careers.

This issue caught my attention when a news report last month stated that 122,169 Malaysians were declared bankrupt between 2007 and 2013, according to the Department of Insolvency. About 26% of the bankruptcies were due to the inability to settle the hire-purchase payment for vehicles, which involved 33,570 people since 2007.

When I searched further for other causes of bankruptcies, the available information for the period from 2005 to May 2010 indicated that car loans was also the chief reason for bankruptcy during that period. It was followed by 11.8% due to personal loans, 10.9% of bankruptcies due to non-repayment of business loans, and only 7.5% was caused by housing loans. Looking at the statistics, it is significant that for many years, more than one-fourth of bankruptcies in our country had been caused by car loans. It reflects on the household stress in repaying car loans, and this high default rate should trigger some thoughts among the authorities and the people.

According to Bank Negara statistics, as at April 2013, housing loans account for 57.5% of total household debts, while car loans, personal loans and credit cards account for 26.5%, 10% and 6% respectively. It means that the second-largest household debt component, about RM145bil, is paid for an asset that is contracting in value every year.

I wonder how many households are struggling to repay their car loans today, and how many of them, especially the younger generation, have deferred their financial wealth planning because of car loans? With the high percentage mentioned above and the rising household debt, there arises the question of whether cooling-off measures should also be extended to the car industry which is causing severe household stress.

Cooling-off measures for the car industry that can be considered include shorter loan period, more stringent loan-to-income ratio, and to impose certain charges if a car owner purchases additional cars in less than a certain number of years. These measures may help to reduce the number of cars on the road and discourage household spending on private vehicles. In the process, we will also be reducing traffic jams.

As shared in my previous articles titled “Reality Check on Debt Mountain” and “Good Debt, Bad Debt”, a car depreciates 10% to 20% per year based on car insurance calculation and accounting practice. In contrast, housing loans have underlying assets that are likely to appreciate over the long term.

Depreciative asset

Do we want to defer our financial planning instead and trade our opportunity of owning an appreciative asset for a depreciative asset? Perhaps, the authorities should encourage the people to borrow only for very good reasons, and to purchase assets only after thorough research.

This reminds me of an episode that I am personally aware of. It goes back to the early 1900s, when a 16-year-old migrant from China came to Malaya (now Malaysia) to seek a living, with no money in his pocket. Due to his diligence, hardwork and frugality, he was able to marry a young pretty girl ten years later and start a family and they eventually had 13 children.

What was astonishing is that he was able to send 7 of his 8 sons overseas for their tertiary education, all due to his frugality, hardwork and integrity. When he passed away, he was even able to leave behind a legacy of a bus company with over 30 buses and 4 small pieces of land in a small town.

Would this episode stimulate our young people to contemplate about what is best for their future?

Although the cooling-off measures for the car sector may be a new idea to ponder, however, with the Government’s plan to upgrade our public transport facilities and services, it is an area for consideration to increase public transport usage and encourage healthy financial planning in the long run.

After all, if senior executives in major cities like London and Tokyo are comfortable using public transportation to commute in their daily lives, can we not also do likewise (if our public transportation are improved)?

Coming back to the questions I asked in the beginning of this article... while I understand people put emphasis on different features of a car depending on their requirements and stage of life, it is always good to include the affordability aspect in a car purchase decision, so as not to be dragged down by the car which is bought to carry us forward.

P/S: The 16-year-old migrant happened to be my late father. He passed away at the age of 63 in 1962.

Contributed by Datuk Alan Tong

FIABCI Asia-Pacific regional secretariat chairman Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He is also the group chairman of Bukit Kiara Properties. For feedback, please email feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com. The views expressed are entirely the writer's own.

Related posts: 

•  Our cars are costing us our homes!

•  Is having a car still a symbol of freedom?

•  Make the right money moves: investing in a property is still best..

• Malaysia needs to produce more houses to achieve 20/20 by 2020

• Property investments: good Infrastructure a way to huge profits and success

• Increase transparency in property prices

• New kid on the block: Singapore's 'shoebox king' Oxley spices up Kuala Lumpur a record RM3,300 per ssq ft