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 ...

House buyers' traps: purchasers lose their homes because of defaulting developers

WHY does this keep happening to house buyers in Malaysia?

This incident happened two years ago in Taiping where a laid-back community of mainly retirees found the roof over their heads nearly, and in some cases, actually, blown away. The purchasers had paid the developer and had moved into their houses and lived there for 10 years. Problem was that the purchasers paid the developers in cash remittance without taking out end-financing loans.

Unknown to the purchasers, the developer did not pay the developer’s bank to settle the developer’s loan vide bridging loans. The developer’s charge remained and grew into bigger indebtedness to the bank.

Apparently, the developer’s bank had not been collecting payment of the loan from the developer, even as the developer was collecting the instalments of the purchase price from the purchasers, as provided in the sale & purchase agreement (S&P) schedule.

Having waited for 10 years for the developer to settle his loan, the bank realised that the developer was not going to pay; that foreclosure was unavoidable.

The bank had a problem. Apart from the developer’s loan having ballooned over the years because of the bank’s laxity in not insisting on the developer paying promptly, there was also political repercussion. There are a few issues here, namely, the destruction of a settled community in a pleasant location, the injustice of the S&P; the solicitousness for developers in preference to purchasers on the part of the powers that be; and the embarrassment resulting from the bank’s philanthropic ramifications.

Has the bank breached the fiduciary duty of care to the purchasers as the bridging loan financier to the defaulting developer?

The crux of the problem is that the Housing Ministry-prescribed S&P allows the developer to build the purchaser’s house with the instalments of the purchase price paid by the purchaser from the day the S&P is signed. On top of this, and even more seriously, the developer is allowed to borrow from the developer’s banks on the security of the purchaser’s property.

Where a purchaser has paid the purchase price in full to the developer, and the developer does not pay the developer’s loan secured by the purchaser’s property, the developer’s bank may foreclose, auction off the purchaser’s property to recover the developer’s loan.

The developer suffers nothing. It has received the purchase price and pocketed it. The developer borrowed from its bank and gave the purchaser’s property as security, and with foreclosure the developer’s bank recovers its loan, and so the developer owes no money to the bank. It takes no risk, suffers no loss.

Purchasers the victims

It is the purchaser who loses. He loses his house and he has to settle the loan he took to buy the house with increasing interest on it. He is blacklisted, which means he can never borrow again. He may never buy a house again! Is this fair to the buyer who never did anything wrong to the developer or to the developer’s bank? In the Taiping housing fiasco, some of the purchasers had to buy their houses again at prices bloated by 10 years’ arrears of interest (i.e. pay the developer’s debt) to stave off foreclosure.

Who is to blame for this sad state of affairs? We will consider each one in turn. The most obvious candidate is, of course, the developer. Not so. It is the Housing Ministry for providing a standard form S&P that allows this to happen. Firstly, the S&P allows the developer to borrow money from a bank with a charge on the whole housing development land before it is sub-divided and sold. This pre-sale loan is referred to in the recitals to the S&P. This is understandable as the developer needs money before sale. The result of this is that the purchaser buys an encumbered property but the purchaser is not told how much of the developer’s loan, if apportioned equally, is borne by each purchaser’s sub-divided land (the redemption sum). After sale, the developer collects money from the purchaser from the day the S&P is signed, and should be able to make use of it to meet all the expenses of the development. However, after the sub-divided land is sold, the developer keeps borrowing, and no effort is made to keep the purchaser informed about the increasing amount of the developer’s loan/ the redemption sum.

The purchaser’s consent to the additional, post-sale loans is taken for granted. In fact, the purchaser cannot withhold his consent as long as the purchaser receives some fig-leaf protection from the developer’s bank in the form of an undertaking not to foreclose.

What is the use to the purchaser of the developer’s bank’s undertaking not to foreclose? What the purchaser needs is the absolute undertaking by the developer and the developer’s bank that a purchaser who has paid the purchase price will not face foreclosure vis-à-vis the disclaimer(s). This would have helped the Taiping purchasers. It is, therefore, a matter between the developer’s bank and the developer, with the Housing Ministry playing the proper protective role required of it by law, to ensure that such an undertaking/ disclaimer is given by the developer’s bank to the purchaser. This and other issues arising from the S&P have been raised by HBA with the Housing Ministry which continues to procrastinate.

To the developer’s bank, the loans to the developer on the security of the purchaser’s land is regarded as if it is the developer’s property entirely; it is of no concern to the developer’s bank that some of the purchasers have paid the developer and the developer may or may not have forwarded some of these payments to the developer’s bank.

The developer’s bank’s concern is whether the whole loan has been settled by the developer-borrower. If not, the developer’s bank feels secure in the knowledge that the entire housing development land is available to the developer’s bank to recover its loan/s. In so far as the developer’s bank is concerned, payments made by each purchaser to the developer is of no consequence. The transaction between the bank and the developer is the one that matters.

Under the then S&P, there is also no control over how much the developer should be allowed to borrow, for what purpose and by when it should be settled. Each loan to the developer increases the risks to the purchaser.

In the recent past, developer’s borrowed only for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the housing development. The developer was allowed to borrow twice only – once before sale and once after sale. Although the developer was not required to disclose the redemption sum, there was a very important safeguard. And that is, the developer had to settle the redemption sum to the developer’s bank before completion of construction so that at the end of the 24- or 36-month construction period, as the case may be, the property was free from the developer’s encumbrances and safe from foreclosure, even if the property was not transferred to the purchaser just as promptly. It was at least safe from foreclosure.

Bank initiatives

Banks/financial institutions should take the initiative to recover progressively the loan it had given the developer. Banks should stipulate as a condition for giving loans to their customers (developers) that the latter open its Housing Development Account (HDA), a statutory requirement, with the same bank and require the instalments of the purchase price be paid into it, and authorise the bank to deduct the developer’s loan by instalments from the HDA so that when the purchaser completes payment, the developer’s loan is also settled.

There is no such statutory requirement in the S&P so that if it happens at all, it’s serendipity!

HBA had meetings with the Housing Ministry to propose changes to the law and S&P with the view of giving greater protection to purchasers within the framework of the sell-and-build (which Rehda defend so fervently) but some pertinent ones had been objected by Rehda.

As if that is not enough, the ministry too have rejected those proposals vis-a-vis pre-determination of redemption sums in the S&P transaction. And that notwithstanding the Housing Development Act 1966 stating that it is inter alia for “the protection of the interests of purchaser.”

The next continuing article will dwell on the new “protection” or whatever in lieu thereof approved by the Attorney-General’s Chambers vis-à-vis “redemptions and disclaimers”.

Buyers beware by Chang Kim Loong

Chang Kim Loong is secretary-general of the National House Buyers Association: www.hba.org.my, a non-profit, non-governmental organisation.

Related posts:
 

Who is responsible: developer, contractor, local council ... Nov 15, 2014 ... By CHANG KIM LOONG - Buyers Beware The Star Nov 15 2014. Chang Kim Loong is the honorary secretary-general of the National House ...

 

 Reponsible housing developers' traits and qualiies ...

Feb 1, 2015 ... By Chang Kim Loong AMN who is the secretary-general of the National House Buyers Association. Related posts: Who is responsible: ...

 Home, sweet home for young couples will lead to ...

Oct 12, 2014 ... HBA secretary-general Chang Kim Loong also said the housing scheme for young married couples was commendable. However Chang said ...

 Malaysian homes more unaffordable than Singapore ...

Oct 14, 2014 ... Its secretary-general, Chang Kim Loong, said speculators have taken advantage of the low entry cost of buying a property at the expense of ...

How property prices are determined?

Factors affecting prices - It is not easy to predict trend as the property market involves all kinds of players

THE year 2015 will always be considered one of the more challenging years for the property sector, with several factors coming into play and leaving potential buyers and investors cautious.

Looking back, Jordan Lee & Jaafar executive director Yap Kian Ann says there were many factors – be it microeconomic or macroeconomic, political, social, among others, that affected the property market performance and its pricing either directly, indirectly and/or jointly.

Click for actual size: http://clips.thestar.com.my.s3.amazonaws.com/clips/business/property-prices-chart-1912.pdf

“These factors are inter-related and influence each other. Individually, they give direct and indirect impact to the property market, property transaction volume and property prices at a different direction and degree.

“As the property market involves players (buyers and sellers) with all kinds of behaviour and is subject to a combination of factors that affect its performance at a given point in time, it is not an easy task to predict its trend and degree accurately.”

Looking ahead, property consultancy VPC Alliance (KL) Sdn Bhd managing director James Wong expects 2016 to be more subdued than this year.

Wong says most developers have launched their products aggressively in 2014.

"They knew the market this year would be soft and this softening would be carried forward to 2016. The full impact of the expiry of the developers’ interest bearing schemes (DIBS) will be felt next year.

Under DIBS, property buyers need not service the loan until the property is completed. Introduced in 2009 as an incentive, speculators purchased multiple units under DIBS because of the initial low outlay.

He expects to see softening demand in the high-rise high-end residential sector in the central region of the Klang Valley in 2016. Landed residential property demand is still resilient, especially with the gated and guarded community concept. House prices are expected to “self-correct”, he says.

Wong says foreign investors are actively monitoring residential properties in Kuala Lumpur due to weak ringgit but they remain cautious.

The increase in interest rates by the Federal Reserve after nearly a decade is also keenly watched. Already, reports are filtering out that Federal Reserve’s sway on global interest rates is causing a sharp jump in Singapore’s benchmark borrowing cost, squeezing growth in the small Asian city-state.

On a state by state basis, MIDF Research said earlier this month that Johor’s house price index showed the slowest growth year-on-year at 3%, Penang (3.5%) while Selangor fared better at 6.2%, followed by Kuala Lumpur’s 5.3%.

“We believe that the outlook for property price is better in Greater KL (Selangor and KL) due to support from the urbanisation factor.”

Citing Bank Negara statistics, the research house also noted that demand for property loans declined 13% year-on-year in October 2015 to RM25.19bil.

“This was weaker than September 2015, which declined 9% year-on-year. On a monthly sequential basis, the data was 1% lower. We are negative on the data as the number was showing nine consecutive year-on-year declines since February 2015.

“Year-to-date October 2015, loans were lower by 7% year-on-year to RM253.88bil. In our view, consumer appetite for big ticket items such as property remains low due to the rising cost of living and the weakening ringgit.”

By Eugene Mahalingam The Star/Asia News Network

Related posts:

To fellow US interest rate hike or to cut rates?

Emerging economies in a dilemma on whether to follow suit or cut rates “Specifically, we expect rate cuts in India, Indonesia, South...
 

The global impact of the US interest rate rise

Fear factor: Traders working in the S&P options pit at the Chicago Board of Options Exchange in Chicago, illinois. The prospect of th...

Real estate crowdfunding in Malaysia

CROWDFUNDING – the practice of funding a project or venture by raising small amounts of money from a large number of people typically using an online platform – has gained popularity due to the massive demand and supply in today’s competitive market.

In one way, it benefits start-ups and entities that require funds to either commence or expand their business portfolio.

Investors have the opportunity to participate in any potential investment that they are comfortable with and which corresponds to their personal investment portfolio via a simple click online. It is a chance to participate early in something potentially very big.

The Securities Commission has approved six equity crowdfunding platforms for issuers to offer share subscriptions to interested investors. This comes with strict compliance and regulations imposed on the platforms providing such equity crowdfunding services. The good news for investors is that these platforms, which represent another type of investment option, are expected to be launched very soon.

Rising property prices have increased the investment cost for real estate investors. Consequently, real estate investment trusts, which offer liquid stakes in real estate complemented by constant dividend yields, have become fashionable. Alternatively, real estate investors may also leverage on the informal real estate investors club that attracts a lower acquisition cost with bulk purchasing arrangements with developers.

We can draw one conclusion from these real estate investment options – that property investment is no longer an individual game but a team sport that thrives on leverage and collective bargaining.

There are even suggestions that political parties raise funds via crowdfunding in a bid to promote transparency and efficiency. This makes it easier to comprehend the call for crowdfunding in a sector like property. So, how does real estate crowdfunding work?

Online platform

The basic concept of crowdfunding is an online platform operated by an approved operator and regulated by a certain ministry that provides services to matchmake the issuer and the investor. The obligation of the operator is to conduct sufficient due diligence on the issuer and its product prior to allowing the issuer to campaign for fund-raising on its online platform.

To promote independence, there should not be any relationship between the operator and the issuer, and the operator should not personally join the fund-raising campaign by the issuer. Besides this, the operator has to approach private financial institutions or trust companies to set up trust accounts for the investment funds to capture, as trustee, those investors who are willing to invest in the issuer.

Similarly, to remain independent, the operator should not be related to the private trustees or financial institutions.

In this investment option, the utmost requirement for the issuer is that they shall be either a developer, a real estate agency or a land owner who owns the property slated for development and who is seeking to raise funds for that purpose. The operator may perform due diligence on the land background and require the issuer to show proof of ownership of the said land and also the proposed development plan. These are to be advertised on its platform as convincing tools to attract investors.

Nonetheless, contrary to conventional real estate investment where you would get the key to the property and may use it as a tangible asset for further financing in the future, any investment into the real estate crowdfunding platform does not give you ownership of an immovable property, unless it is agreed upon and offered by the issuer based on its fund-raising campaign.

The upper hand here is that the expected term for your return on investment (ROI) may be fixed and shorter. Investors may receive the expected ROI upon completion of the development. The investment amount is also within an affordable limit, and information is easily accessible via the Internet. Crowdfunding also promotes transparency in one’s investment and with collective investors, the bargaining power with the issuer is also greater as compared to individual investors.

Real estate crowdfunding might still be a new concept and some might have never heard of it until now, but with real estate investment running the risk of remaining merely a dream for the mid-range salary earner, it might be a good alternative to maximise returns on your hard-earned money without a hefty price tag.

However, as with all forms of investment, there are risks involved here despite the due diligence performed by the operators. Smart investors, nonetheless, always walk the extra mile to conduct their personal due diligence on the accuracy of the information made available on the crowdfunding platform.

The current regulatory framework only permits equity crowdfunding for the real estate business and is not yet a direct crowdfunding avenue into the acquisition of real estate.

By Chris Tan Real legal viewpoint

Chris Tan is the founder and managing partner of Chur Associates.

Related posts:

High cost under new law may affect property investors' profit marg...

 Startups vying for the attention of Venture Capitalists ...

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 ...

Financial planning is all about investing

LOTS of people shy away from financial planning because they think they may be pressured into investing. And when you think investing, what comes to mind are horror stories of people who lost their life savings during the Asian financial crisis and Dot Com Bubble.

We hear tales of greed and chasing the hottest sexiest investment themes that has led them down the path of poverty and for some great debt due to leverage.

Admittedly, in the wealth management business, investments do form a large part of conversations that happen between ourselves and our clients.

For the most part, people speak to financial planners or wealth managers about how to make their money grow faster so they can meet their goals.

How much return can I get? What can I get if I invest in equities? How about properties? How can I start investing in currencies?

When people engage in a conversation about investments, inevitably, we get seduced by the quest to find the highest yielding asset. We steer into instruments we are not familiar with, drawn by the allure of high headline returns.

Think dotcoms. Think gold investments. Think land investments. Think bitcoin. Not necessarily bad investments but the basic concept of risk and diversification fall by the wayside as we chase returns.

But, step back for a moment.

Are you asking the right question? Is financial planning only about finding the next best investment?

While investing will likely play a key role in your financial plan, there are a lot more questions that need to be answered before you can choose the right investment, or if you even need to invest aggressively.

First question, how much do you need? Second question, when will you need it? Third question, how much have you set aside or are prepared to set aside? Last question, what returns are you going to get?

So say, I would like to buy a property in five years, of which I plan to make a downpayment of RM50,000. I have currently set aside RM10,000. I can currently save RM500 monthly.

Let’s assume I have no experience investing and decide to place it in fixed deposit at 3% per annum. Doing my maths, after five years, with interest compounded, all this adds up to only RM43,000. You are RM7,000 short.

In such an example, most people approach an adviser to find out what could yield them higher returns. In the above example, any misadventures in your investments could possibly set you back in your acquisition of your next property.

What if this was your children’s education? You may not want to risk your child entering university two years late. These are things your adviser needs to know as there other alternatives.

Financial management is very much about balancing between these four requirements. While getting higher returns so you can meet your goal is one way, it’s not the only way! You have other options. So, let’s go back to the four questions.

Firstly, you could buy a cheaper property with RM43,000. Alternatively, you could wait another year to purchase that property, giving you more time to save up. Or, you could increase your monthly savings to RM600 at 3% per annum. Lastly, consider investing in something that yields you 7% per annum. So, really, out of four options, only one is about investing.

For the most part, investing plays quite an essential role in most people’s portfolio. However, before you even have that discussion, think about the goals you want to achieve and whether investing is required and what kind of investment performance is needed.

By Ong Shi Jie

For the most part, investing plays quite an essential role in most people’s portfolio. However, before you even have that discussion, think about the goals you want to achieve and whether investing is required and what kind of investment performance is needed, says Ong.

Ong Shi Jie (CJ) is head of wealth management, OCBC Bank (M) Bhd.

Related

Videos including Shi Jie Ong

• How to take Malaysian wealth management to the next level
• Malaysia's road to building a credible wealth management offering
• The future of wealth management in Malaysia

Articles including Shi Jie Ong

• How to take Malaysian wealth management to the next level
• Malaysia's road to building a credible wealth management offering
• The future of wealth management in Malaysia

Invest in oil, Saddam's lost oil, others gain - Crisis and opportunity 危机与机遇:
The entire story is covered right here...

Big boost for Asia with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) launch, a positive step!

Financing required as Asia remains with looming infrastructure needs

Chinese President Xi Jinping's (C-R) meeting with the members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China 24 October 2014. 21 Asian countries are the founding members of the AIIB, an initiative by China. - EPA

THE launch of the US$50bil Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is a positive step for the development of Asia where large areas remain with looming infrastructure needs.

There has been good work done by other international bodies, but due to the vast financing needs of the region, there is always place for another major bank to put in the good work.

The AIIB was launched in Beijing last Friday at a ceremony attended by Chinese finance minister Lou Jiwei and delegates from 21 countries including India, Thailand and Malaysia, said Reuters.

It aims to give project loans to developing nations with China set to be its largest shareholder with a stake of up to 50%.

In a speech to delegates after the inauguration, Chinese President Xi Jinping said the new bank would use the best practices of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, said Reuters.

The authorised capital of the bank would be US$100bil; the AIIB would be formally established by the end of 2015 with its headquarters in Beijing.

There was a huge demand for infrastructure investment in Asia; the Asian Development Bank (AIIB) put that at around US$8 trillion of investment during the current decade, said the Singapore Business Times (SBT) in a report earlier.

A principal motive in proposing the AIIB was to invest part of China’s US$4 trillion foreign reserves in higher-yielding assets than US Treasury bills, said SBT, also quoting diplomatic sources.

In addressing the potential rivalry between the AIIB and other international aid bodies, one has to look at the big picture in what will benefit Asia in the long run.

If carried out successfully, infrastructure development across Asia will help narrow the gap between the more and less developed areas.

China is already in partnership with India to develop infrastructure and industrial parks in India.

Spreading its infrastructure investments over the rest of Asia would be a natural step towards that development.

After warning on excessive speculation in currency and debt markets, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is looking at the low hedging levels by companies and the currency risks they face.

If indirect pressure on companies via their bankers failed, the RBI may consider forcing companies to submit detailed financial information through their lenders, said Reuters, quoting bankers who met with RBI officials earlier this month.

The RBI’s warnings signalled its concern that unhedged firms could be a vulnerable link should global markets buckle, said Reuters.

The central bank had worked hard to build up its defences after India last year weathered its worst rupee crisis in two decades, said Reuters.

Hedging, meanwhile, is expensive because India’s elevated interest rates mean forward premiums are high, said Reuters.

The RBI is keeping tabs on every aspect of companies’ exposure to currency risks.

After working hard to build up its defences on the rupee, the RBI would not want some other segment of the capital market to fail to keep pace.

The bosses at Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), which is still under government ownership, were dealt an embarassing blow when their proposal to pay high bonuses was shot down.

The Treasury stopped RBS from paying some staff bonuses worth twice their salaries, said Reuters, quoting James Leigh-Pemberton, chairman of UK Financial Investments (UKFI) which controls the taxpayer-owned 79% of RBS.

UKFI had recommended that RBS be allowed to pay that level of bonus to retain staff and attract talent, said Reuters.

Retention of staff is a dicey issue when it involves banks that are still in the throes of reform.

It is a Catch 22 situation where these banks are still experiencing falling revenues and low share prices.

The situation will probably improve when these banks can reap the fruits of their revamp and get off the hook with government owning the stake.


By YAP LENG KUEN... PLAIN SPEAKING  The Star/Asia News Network
Columnist Yap Leng Kuen looks forward to a more balanced infrastructure development in Asia.

Related:

More Malaysians are being declared bankrupt!

JOHOR BARU: Young Malaysians are being declared bankrupt because they spend more than they earn, says Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri (pic).

This trend was worrying because most of them had just started working but already had debt problems, she added.

“This younger generation are supposed to be the next leaders. Instead, we have those who are already facing financial difficulties at a very young age,’’ she told a press conference after opening an information programme for young people at the Home Ministry complex at Setia Tropika here yesterday.

Quoting figures from the Insolvency Department, she said there was an increase in the number of young Malaysians being declared bankrupts in the past five years.

She said there were nearly 22,000 cases last year, an increase from about 13,200 in 2007.

Within the first six months of this year, more than 12,300 young Malaysians had been declared bankrupt. They include 3,680 women.

“On the average, 70.22% of the cases are men,” said Nancy, adding that most of them have outstanding debts of RM30,000 or more and could not afford to settle their dues.

She said the high bankruptcy rate among Malaysians at a young age mainly resulted from defaulting on instalment payments on car, housing and personal loans.

Nancy said there had been celebrities who were also declared bankrupt but most of them declined to seek assistance from the Insolvency Department.

She added that aside from the department, those who have problems managing their finances could seek advice from the Credit Counselling and Debt Management Agency.

The Star/Asia News Network

Related posts:

Money, money, money ... Love of money is the root of all evil !

Lets not use Money as an all-powerful weapon to buy people ONE can safely assume that the subject of money would be of interest to almo...

 
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 market, according t...

 

Ma'sian immigration blacklists: PTPTN loan defaulters among 1.14 mil barred from travels

PUTRAJAYA: A wide net has been cast on those barred from leaving the country by the Immigration Department. And it is not just tax of...

• Many young adults seeking advice on debt management

• No let-up in war against graft

• Car or house buying cooling off measures?

Malaysian banks raise Base Lending Rate (BLR) or Base Financing Rate (BFR) to 6.85% pa

In tandem: Public Bank, Hong Leong Bank and Maybank are among banks which have confirmed that they have either adjusted or will be adjusting to the new rates.

A number of banks raise their base lending rates (BLR) and base financing rates (BFR) in tandem with Bank Negara’s announcement to raise the overnight policy rate (OPR) by 25 basis points (bps) from 3% to 3.25% effective yesterday, today and tomorrow.

As a result, the BLR and BFR has adjusted to 6.85% from 6.6% per annum previously.

The banks that have confirmed that the new rates effective from 16 July 2014 include Malayan Banking Bhd (Maybank), Hong Leong Bank Bhd (HLBB), CIMB Group Holdings Bhd, Public Bank Bhd, Alliance Financial Group Bhd and OCBC Malaysia, HSBC Bank Malaysia; effective 17 July 2014 include Citibank, Standard Chartered Bank;  effective 18 July 2014: UOB

It is understood that some banks may announce the interest rate revision on a different date, as they are still considering the quantum of the deposit rates, which will impact their earnings eventually.

Bank Simpanan Nasional senior vice-president and head of distribution Akhsan Zaini told StarBiz: “ We are still studying the impact of the rate hike on our bank before we announce the adjustment next week, tentatively.”

He also said the bank had yet to decide on how much it would adjust for its deposit rates

CIMB Research expects the rate hike to enhance banks’ earnings by 1% to 2%, as their net interest margins (NIM) widen.

Maybank Investment Bank Research, on the other hand, anticipates NIM growth to be short-lived due to price competition.

The research unit had said in an earlier report: “Our forecasts already assume a 50-bps rate hike in 2014, and as a result, we are looking at a marginal four-bps aggregate NIM improvement in 2015 versus a seven-bps contraction in 2014.”

Some banks have also announced the revision of their deposit rates, but the quantum varies from one lender to another as well as the deposit tenure.

Among others, Maybank’s deposit rates will be revised upwards by up to 15 bps.

HLBB and Hong Leong Islamic Bank Bhd (HLISB) will increase their fixed-deposit and Term Deposit-I rates by up to 25 bps.

Following the revision, HLBB and HLISB’s new deposit rates for one, six and 12 months would be 3.05%, 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively.

Hong Leong Banking Group’s managing director Tan Kong Khoon said the group would continue to work closely with its customers to address their financing and savings needs. Meanwhile, OCBC Bank (M) Bhd and OCBC Al-Amin Bank Bhd will be increasing their fixed-deposit and General Investment Account-i rates respectively by up to 20 bps, depending on tenures effective July 21.

In a statement, Maybank said: “The last revision in Maybank’s BLR and Maybank Islamic’s BFR was on May 11, 2011 when they were revised from 6.3% to 6.6% per annum.”

OCBC Bank’s mortgage lending rate, the alternative to using BLR for home loans, will also increase, to 5.7% compared with 5.45% previously.

JP Morgan Research noted that it was cautious on banks, as the combination of rate hikes and subsidy rationalisation would test the credit risk management of Malaysia’s consumer-led loan growth in the past five years.

It preferred liquid banks and upgraded HLBB and Maybank to “overweight” from “neutral”.

- By Ng Bei Shan/The Star/Asia News Network

Related post: 

Is timing right for Bank Negara Malaysia interest rate increased now!?

Bank Negara says going forward, the over all growth momentum is expected to be sustained. We are actually quite surprised that Bank...

Is timing right for Bank Negara Malaysia interest rate increased now!?

Bank Negara says going forward, the over all growth momentum is expected to be sustained.

We are actually quite surprised that Bank Negara chose to make this measure this month!

AFTER keeping interest rates low for the past three years to support economic growth, Bank Negara has finally decided that it is the time to “normalise” interest rates.

In response to firm growth prospects and expecting inflationary pressure to continue, the benchmark overnight policy rate (OPR) was raised by 25 basis points (bps) to 3.25% on Thursday.

This is the first hike since May 2011 and the reasons, although not spelled out, were broadly hinted towards containing inflation and curbing rising household debt.

Most economists are unperturbed with the move, as the central bank has hinted of an imminent hike in OPR after the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting in May.

According to a Bloomberg survey, 15 out of 21 economists estimated a hike.

“Amid firm growth prospects and with inflation remaining above its long-run average, the MPC decided to adjust the degree of monetary accommodation,” Bank Negara says in a statement.

The economy grew by 6.2% year-on-year in the first quarter with private consumption up 7.1% and private investment expanding by 14.1%.

The prolonged period of low interest rates in Malaysia has been supportive on the domestic economy, hence the recent rate hike has sparked the question whether the time is right for a hike amid a recovery in the global economy.

“Despite higher costs of living, stable income growth and favourable labour-market conditions are expected to buoy private consumption growth,” said CIMB Research in a report.

It expects the country’s economic growth to increase to 5.5% this year and 5.2% in 2015.

Bank Negara remained positive on Malaysia’s growth outlook, riding on the back of recovery in exports, robust investment activity and anchored by private consumption.

Financial imbalances

“Going forward, the overall growth momentum is expected to be sustained.

“Exports will continue to benefit from the recovery in the advanced economies and from regional demand. Investment activity is projected to remain robust, led by the private sector,” says Bank Negara.

There are a lot of factors that could derail the recovery in the world’s economy, including a risk in China’s growth slowing and a slower recovery in Europe and the United States.

“We are actually quite surprised that Bank Negara chose to make this measure this month. The fact that the latest normalisation drive would push the ringgit higher and that puzzles us as export momentum may decelerate in the next few months due to waning competitiveness,” says M&A Securities.

Nonetheless, it believes the economy is capable of absorbing the adjustment.

Prior to the 2008-09 Global Financial Crisis, Malaysia’s OPR stood at 3.5%. The country’s OPR was subsequently cut down to as low as 2% to support the domestic economy during the height of the global downturn in early 2009 before being raised gradually to the present level.

Between November 2008 and February 2009, Bank Negara had cut the OPR by 175 basis points in response to the global economic crisis. “The rise in OPR will likely to improve Malaysia’s attractiveness amongst foreign investors, leading a stronger capital inflows, lower bond yields and appreciating ringgit,” says AllianceDBS Research chief economist Manokaran Mottain in a report.

He says that since the previous MPC meeting in May, the market has been influenced by this expectation.

Year-to-date, the ringgit had rallied to RM3.172 per US dollar on July 9, registering a 2.06% gain. However, at the close yesterday, the ringgit closed lower at RM3.21 against the greenback.

The central bank also highlights that the increase in the OPR is to ease the risk of financial imbalances, which may effect the economy’s growth prospect.

“At the new level of the OPR, the stance of the monetary policy remains supportive of the economy,” Bank Negara says.

The OPR is an overnight interest rate set by Bank Negara. It is the interest rate at which a bank lends to another bank.

A rate hike would have an impact on businesses and consumers, as changes in the OPR would be passed on through changes in the base lending rate (BLR).

Bank Negara governor Tan Sri Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz was reported as saying that signs of financial imbalances would also factor into policy decisions, because a prolonged period of accommodation could encourage investors to misprice risk and misallocate resources.

“Higher interest rates should help to ensure a positive real rate of return for deposit savings and deter households from turning to riskier investments,” says CIMB Research.

The low interest rate environment has resulted in rising household debt level, which reached a record of 86.8% of gross domestic product at the end of last year.

“Although the increase in the OPR will likely have some impact on consumer spending and business activities, it will help to moderate the increase in prices,” says RHB Research Institute.

It expects inflation to moderate but to remain high, hovering above 3%.

Most economists are expecting OPR to remain unchanged at 3.25% for the rest of the year, although price pressures are likely to remain.

They say Bank Negara may resume its interest rate normalisation only next year.

“The price pressure is likely to remain, in view of further subsidy rationalisation (another round of fuel-price hike this year),” CIMB Research says.

Muted impact

“Another 25bps hike will crimp domestic demand,” Manokaran opines, adding that there are other measures that may be taken if household debt continues to grow at a worrying pace.

Malaysia is the first country in the South-East Asia to increase its benchmark rate on the back of improve confidence in exports growth and robust investment activity.

According to CIMB Research, Malaysia’s equity market has already priced in an interest rate hike following the May MPC meeting.

The research house says while the is negative for equities, the impact on the stock market should be muted as the increase is minimal.

“Rate hikes are negative for cyclical sectors such as property and auto, as well as consumer stocks due to lower disposable income,” it says.

In the property sector, rising interest rates would increase mortgage payment and reduce affordability.

However, CIMB opines that the impact of a gradual rise in interest rates will be mitigated as the key drivers of property demand are the overall economy and the stock market.

“But the overall impact should be muted as net gearing for corporate Malaysia is less than 10%,” it adds.

CIMB notes that the banking sector will benefit from the rate hike due to a positive re-pricing gap between lending and deposit rates.

“We estimate that a 25bps rise in OPR could enhance banks’ earnings by 1% to 2%.

“This would outweigh any slowdown in loan growth in an environment of higher interest rates, while asset quality is expected to be unaffected,” it says.

Contributed by Intan Farhana Zainul/The Star/Asia News Network

No justification for interest rate hike: Kenanga

Investment bank research head cites expectations of softer economic growth in H2

 
Adib Rawi Yahya/theSun

KUALA LUMPUR: Kenanga Investment Bank Bhd has taken the contrarian view and believes that an interest rate hike is unlikely to materialise today, saying that it would be unjustified given jittery economic fundamentals that would not be able to take such a hike.

Most analysts opine that Bank Negara is likely to raise the overnight policy rate (OPR) for the first time since May 2011 today, even though they tend to differ on the quantum of increase, between 25 basis points (bps) and 50 bps. The OPR currently stands at 3%.

Bank Negara is scheduled to hold its latest monetary policy committee (MPC) meeting this evening.

Kenanga Investment Bank deputy head of research Wan Suhaimie Saidie (pix) opined that this is not the right time to raise interest rate as economic growth is expected to trend lower in the second half compared with the first half of the year.

"Due to softer external demand and slow down in other parts of the world, I don't think Bank Negara will raise interest rate, unless they revise the gross domestic product (GDP) higher," he told a media briefing here yesterday.

Wan Suhaimie said as Malaysia is an open economy, the interest rate outlook will be externally dependent, whereby it has been observed that Bank Negara would shift towards tightening mode when the global manufacturing PMI breaches 54.0.

"However, it may take at least another three to six months before the index breaches 54.0," he said, adding that there is little reason for Bank Negara to raise the OPR for the rest of the year.

Wan Suhaimie believes with the implementation of the goods and services tax (GST) next year, the local economy may even slow down for at least two quarters, making the case for an interest hike far from compelling.

Kenanga expects GDP in the first half to be close to 6%, while second half is projected to average by 5.2%, with a full year growth rate of 5.5%.

Wan Suhaimie said instead of raising the interest rate, Bank Negara could take additional macroprudential measures to address imbalances in the financial system, such as reducing the loan-to-value ratio and debt-to-income ratio.

According to data compiled by Kenanga, Bank Negara is one of the most conservative central banks in the world, with only 10 rate adjustments made over the past 10 years.

M&A Securities concurred with Kenanga on the unlikelihood of a hike in OPR today albeit for a different reason.

"Policy decisions would need to get the cabinet endorsement first. Being a caring government that would like to avoid political backlash, we think that the government would prefer Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) to defer that to the September MPC meeting," it said in an economic report yesterday.

It explained that on the back of rising cost of living and the upcoming stress of the goods and services tax, the last thing BNM and hence, the government would want to see is the adjustment be a burden the people.

"As 55% to 60% of Malaysian population, as in the Muslims would be observing the month of Ramadan of which their spending would increase, the government would risk its reputation if it proceeds with a policy hike. There is a small chance that the government would execute this in our opinion," said M&A analyst Rosnani Rasul.

It said impact to the ringgit would also be more conducive if policy rates get adjusted in September and that an adjustment of 25 bps would suffice.

With no hike in the OPR, volatility in the market will continue and is likely to see the ringgit fall back to 3.20 to 3.30, Wan Suhaimie opined.

The ringgit has been rising lately, surging to as high as 3.1860 early this month in anticipation of an interest rate hike.

Contributed by Lee Weng Khuen sunbiz@thesundaily.com 10 July 2014

Related articles:

• GST and OPR will affect house prices
• Research houses see higher OPR in H2
• Bank rate hike on the cards
• Economists see Malaysia's key interest rate rising by 25 basis points
• Homing in on the real house price

• How OPR hike will affect borrowers
• OPR up 25 basis points, after 3 years at 3%
• Bank Negara OPR action as early as March?
• Hike in OPR, imminent by Bank Negara: Analysts
• Analyst: OPR hike inevitable