Links 11 January 2017

Global Macro / Markets / Investing:






    • Nice article full of the usual suspects having a self interested moan.


      1 they don’t borrow from local banks

      2. don’t buy in expectation of a golden ticket visa

      3. Build new housing

      4. Don’t leave it empty.

      5. Pay ongoing rates/taxes that cover local and regional services that support the value of their purchase.

      Foreign buying – resident offshore or temporarily on shore – is perfectly fine.

      A higher stamp duty slug is not even necessary.

      But as we know the above conditions are enforced foreign interest is reduced. The punt loses much, though not all of its appeal.

      In any event the bigger issue is that the government of a developing nation like China, where average income is about $7,000 US, not surprisingly thinks it is not in the Chinese nation interest to be pouring capital into residential housing in first World economies.

      So our useless rent seekers and their minions in the political parties and Scotty Morrison in particular really have to worry about the Chinese government.

    • As usual good overall information, you wouldn’t want to rely on the AFR for facts. What is the ‘FIRB applications for new builds’?? And the pure propaganda of ‘foreigners can only buy new build’ line. And how does increased supply for citizens living here result from foreign purchase given that it hasn’t. We get a whiff of the real reason, in about the sixteenth paragraph, that the Chinese can’t get money out. And they’re just quibbles, Pfh sums it up nicely.
      How did Harry know Australian’s wouldn’t buy his reselling apartments? That’s the gold in the article but the journo missed it. Presumably still too expensive.

  1. China making headlines today. China would take this position if they thought capital outflows would would threaten a devaluation of the currency.
    They are countering the rising usd debt servicing costs and funding gaps as debt matures, liquidity tightens
    Interesting battle going on.

    • I got excited until this.

      The foundation share would give the government the right to appoint independent non-executive directors whose role would be see that the public interest purposes of the PBC were being discharged as promised.


      • It looks like ‘pie in the sky’ as usual from The Guardian.
        I’m not saying that Private Equity hasn’t shafted us all round. However the problem isn’t solved by dreaming up a company that can still pay the dividends to shareholders while, at the same time, putting the public/user interest first AND magically suddenly having all the money in the world to upgrade the service.
        I’m guessing the decisions that need to be made are tough ones that are going to cost – big time.
        This stuff is kinda typical of The Guardian – total lack of realism and real analysis. I continue to be amazed that MB perists with using it as some sort of authoritative source.

    • I think you’ll find if you ask the people about publicly owned services – particularly essential and/or naturally monopolistic ones – they’re very much in favour. Just like they’re in favour of comprehensive public healthcare and education.

      The problem is only outsiders with little influence like SAP and the Greens actually have policies along those lines.