QLD mortgage lodgements surged in July

By Leith van Onselen

Late last week, the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) released data on housing transfers and mortgage lodgements for the months of July and August.

According to DERM, the number of mortgage transfers and mortgage lodgements surged by 32% and 35% respectively in July, before retracing -21% and -25% respectively in August (see below chart).

One explanation for July’s surge is that the Queensland Government reintroduced stamp duty concessions for owner-occupiers from 1 July, which could have stimulated buyer demand. The return of the concession, which was axed by the former Government in August 2011, meant that home buyers, who are not first-timers or investors, would save up to $7,000 via lower stamp duties.

June’s figures were also the worst June results on record, suggesting that buyers went on strike in the month leading-up to the start of the concession.

The below chart shows the same transfers and mortgage lodgements data on a rolling annual basis, which removes the month-to-month volatility:

You can see that Queensland transfers and mortgage lodgements have been in an up-trend since late-2011. However, they remain highly depressed – tracking around -30% below the 12-year average.

Twitter: Leith van Onselen. Leith is the Chief Economist of Macro Investor, Australia’s independent investment newsletter covering trades, stocks, property and yield. Click for a free 21 day trial.

Leith van Onselen

Comments

  1. So every property in Queensland and NSW will attract a FHB grant, only once – when it’s built, rather than unlimited number of times; as could have been the case as each new FHBer bought the same property. Cool!

    • So it has become a first home builder‘s grant rather than a first nome buyer‘s grant. Good that you ge to keep the FHB acronym though.

  2. I looked for the long term numbers from DERM but I couldn’t find them. If you could supply a link it would be much appreciated.
    Compared to the years between 2003 and 2008 – yes the current numbers look weak. However we may be comparing the numbers with a 50 year peak. I would like to see a much larger time frame adjusted for population growth to be sure, but it is just possible that we are simply seeing a return to a more normal market. House are selling, the market is moving but not booming – it feels ok to me in a “bottom of the normal range” kind of way.

    That isn’t to say that you are wrong, just saying that I’m not convinced either way. Has anyone run those calculations?

    • G’day Peter,

      This is reposted from today’s Links article, your input would be appreciated
      —————————–
      The Patrician says: Last nights ABC 7.30 story on Macquarie Bank Mortgage Fraud – Stephen Long
      http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3588975.htm

      DrBob127 says: I wonder if Peter Fraser could comment on this report?
      It is his neck of the woods and his industry too.
      It would be a useful insight

      • It’s hard to write an answer in a few short lines DrBob, and I don’t have the time or the strength to do it justice just now, but may I say this;

        1. Did the loan lose the money or the investment? I suspect it was the investment – right? Had the investment made money this borrower wouldn’t be at all concerned – who made the investment decision?

        2. BDM’s don’t approve loans. They can be helpful when there is a deal that doesn’t quite fit a box and needs detailed explanation. I’ve never had them banging on my door looking for shonky deals.

        3. Frankly I think that we need low doc loans including 1 day ABN low doc loans for startup business’s up to 60% LVR. I realise that will be controversial, and difficult to understand for those who have worked only for wages, but self employed posters will probably understand. I continually see posts here bemoaning the lack of lending to small business, and yet the same posters want this plank for self employed borrowers removed. Why is that? Strictly speaking there is no strict oversight for non code loans, but there is strict oversight for code (regulated) lending – you have to remember that there are two distinct channels, not one.

        4. I don’t support Denise Brailey or her political group in WA – I oppose her because her objectives make no sense. Her support of the Mortgage Broker at the centre of this, and her anti bank stance is just a variation of an employee saying “I was an honest man until my boss trusted me with a key to the till, so it’s his fault I have turned into a thief”

        But I’m sure that all of the 7:30 reports will be full of this stuff ad nauseum.

        Cheers.

        • PF, why are you defending the indefensible, even discounting the fact you are a mortgage broker?

          It is clear that a Royal Commission into banking is required into banking practices in this country based on the following evidence which has emerged in recent months:

          – Banks are actively encouraging fraud with mortgage brokers who are motivated to cross the line in order to get their commission
          – Income, assets, property valuations, liability statements and other relevant variables to get loans approved are regularly fudged
          – Banks are trying to legally distance themselves by getting mortgage brokers and others to do the dirty work
          – Banks are not actually undertaking proper checks to ensure that their lending is ‘prudent’
          – Surveys of victims of banks and the mortgage brokers themselves are suggesting that wide-scale fraud has occurred (that 85% number identified in the survey of mortgage brokers is not small)
          -Denise Brailey has identified in her sample of loans that 11% of prime loans (non low-doc or no-doc) may have been tampered with
          – ASIC and APRA have shown they are incapable to properly regulating or investigating the banking sector

          Perhaps if mortgage brokers and politicians think if they ignore the problem it will just go away?

          • bobby and the patrician – I was asked a question and as always I answered it honestly on the basis of what I have seen – you on the other hand have accepted every single accusation and innuendo without having any insight whatsoever in the industry.

            For me to believe that something happened on any large scale I have to actually see it and I didn’t. If you had claimed that it happened on a limited scale, then I will accept that, every industry has their renegades, especially where money is involved.

            To fully understand the implications of the both the situation raised in the ABC report and the WA Broker affair, you need to know how the money was lost – and lending isn’t a transaction that loses money, it’s a transaction that provides money. So what happened to the money after that moment in time – did the bank steal it, or was it lost through poor investments?

            A little clear and unemotional thought would provide more answers than armwaving and shouting loudly.

        • 1. It’s the borrower’s fault

          2. It’s the regulator’s fault

          3. It’s Denise Brailey’s fault

          4. It’s the ABC’s fault

          Breathtaking.