Restructuring our household debt

NEW Year always come with new resolutions. Finance is an important aspect of most people’s checklists when it comes to planning new goals.

While it is good to set new financial targets, it is also vital to re-look at our debt portfolio to ascertain if it is at a healthy state.

At a national level, our country also has its financial targets matched against its debt portfolio.

According to the latest Risk Developments and Assessment of Financial Stability 2016 Report by Bank Negara, the country’s household debt was at RM1.086 trillion or 88.4% of gross domestic product (GDP) as at end 2016.

Residential housing loan accounted for 50.3% (RM546.3bil) of total household debts, motor vehicles at 14.6%, personal financing at 14.9%, non-residential loan was 7.4%, securities at 5.7%, followed by credit cards at 3.5% and other items at 3.6%.

Evidently, residential housing loan is the highest among all types of household debt. However, a McKinsey Global Institute Report on “Debt and (Not Much) Deleveraging” in 2015 highlighted that in advanced countries, mortgage or housing loan comprises 74% of total household debt on average.

As a country that aspires to be a developed nation, a housing loan ratio of 50.3% to total household debt would be considered low, compared to 74% for the advanced countries. In other words, we are spending too much on items that depreciate in value immediately – such as car loans, credit card loans and personal loans – compared to assets that appreciate in value in the long run, such as houses.

Advanced economies, which are usually consumer nations, have only 26% debts on non-housing loan as compared to ours at 49.7%.

In order to adopt the household debt ratio of advanced economies, our housing loan of RM546.3bil should be at 74% of total household debt. This means that if we were to keep our housing loan of RM546.3bil constant, our total household debt should be reduced from the current RM1.086 trillion to a more manageable RM738bil. This would require other non-housing loans (car loans, credit card loans and personal loans etc) to reduce from 49.7% of total household debt to only 26%. To achieve this ratio, the non-housing loan debt must collapse from the current RM539.7bil to only RM192bil.

Reducing total household debt from the current RM1.086 trillion to a more manageable RM738bil would also have the added benefit of reducing our total household debt-to-GDP ratio from the high 88.4% to only 60%, making us one of the top countries globally for financial health.

Malaysia’s household debt at present ranked as one of the highest in Asia. Based on the same 2015 McKinsey Report, our household debt-to-income ratio was 146% in 2014 (the ratio of other developing countries was about 42%) compared to the average of 110% in advanced economies.

Adjusting the debt ratio by reducing car loans, personal loans and credit card loans will make our nation stay financially healthy.

Car values depreciate at about 10% to 20% per year based on insurance calculations, accounting standards and actual market prices. Assets financed by personal and credit card loans typically depreciate immediately and aggressively.

The easy access to credit cards and personal loan facilities tend to encourage people to spend excessively, especially when there is no maximum credit limit imposed on credit cards for those earning more than RM36,000 per year.

If we maximised the credit limit given without considering our financial ability, we will need a long time to repay due to the high interest rates, which ranged from 15% to 18% per annum.

Based on a report in The Star recently, Malaysia’s youth are seeing a worrying trend with those aged between 25 and 44 forming the biggest group classified as bankrupt.

The top four reasons for bankruptcy were car loans (26.63%), personal loans (25.48%), housing loans (16.87%) and business loans (10.24%).

It is time for the Government to introduce more drastic cooling-off measures for non-housing loans in order to curb debt that is not backed by assets. This will protect the rakyat from further impoverishment that they are voicing and feeling today.

As we kick start the new year, it is good to relook into our debt portfolio. When we are able to identify where we make up most of our debts, and start to reallocate our financial resources more effectively, we will be heading towards a sound and healthier financial status as a nation.
 

By Alan Tong - Food for thought

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 e-mail feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com.


Related posts:

Moving forward with affordable housing

One way to solve housing shortage problem is to build more houses. "If we take a look at countries with commendable housing pol...

Leaving a legacy by buying a house first before a luxury car ... 

 

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

 

Invest in the future 

 

8 million more houses needed in Malaysia

Building more homes, the only long term-way to bring house prices down

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

 

Our cars are costing us our homes!

Is having a car still a symbol of freedom? 

 Little by little, a little becomes a lot 

Too good to be true? Think twice 

 

Rising tides of currencies globally cause inflation, money worthless! 

 

What is Blockchain Technology, its uses and applications?

https://youtu.be/E_kCCgsldjU According to Wikipedia, a blockchain , [1] [2] [3] originally block chain , [4] [5] is a continuously gr...

Bitcoin: Utter pipedream

No intrinsic value: Unlike enterprises, bitcoin has no business, no intrinsic value, no cash flows and no balance sheet. — AFP I JUST...

Too good to be true? Think twice

HAVE you ever grabbed an offer without any hesitation, simply because the price is too cheap to resist?

Many of us have this experience especially during sales or promotional campaigns. We tend to spend more at the end or buy things which we are uncertain of their quality when the deal seems too good to say no.

It may be harmless if the amount involved is insignificant. However, when we apply the same approach to big ticket items, it can cause vast implications.

Recently, I heard a case which reinforces this belief.

A friend shared that a property project which was selling for RM300,000 a few years ago is now stuck. Although the whole project was sold out, the developer has problem delivering the units on time.

The developer is calling all purchasers to renegotiate the liquidated and ascertained damages (LAD), a compensation for late delivery.

One of the homeowners said he is owed RM50,000 of LAD, which means the project is 1½ years late. When we chatted, we found that he purchased the unit solely due to its cheap pricing without doing much research in the first place.

The incident is a real-life example of paying too low for an item which can leave us as losers, especially when it involves huge sum of investment, such as property.

To many, buying a house maybe a once-in-a-lifetime experience, a decision made can make or break the happiness of a family.

A good decision ensures a roof over the head and a great living environment, while an imprudent move may incur long-term financial woes if the house is left uncompleted.

Nowadays, it is common to see people do research when they plan to buy a phone, household item, or other smaller ticket items.

Looking at the amount involved and implication of buying a house, we should apply the same discretion if not more.

It is always important for house buyers to study the background of a developer and project, consult experienced homeowners regarding the good and bad of a project before committing.

I have seen many people buy a house merely based on price consideration.

In fact, there are more to be deliberated when we commit for a roof over our heads. The location, project type, reputation of a developer, the workmanship, the future maintenance of the property etc, are all important factors for a good decision as they would affect the future value of a project.

Beware when a discount or a rebate sounds too good to be true, it may be just too good to be true and never materialised. If the collection or revenue of a housing project is not sufficient to fund the building cost, the developer may not be able to complete the project or deliver the house as per promised terms. At the end of the day, the “price” paid by homeowners would be far more expensive.

In general, the same principle applies elsewhere. It is a known fact that when we pay a premium for a quality product from a reliable producer, we have a peace of mind that the product could last longer and end up saving us money. Some lucky ones will end up gaining much more.

For instance, when we purchase a car, we should consider its resale value as some cars hold up well, while others collapse after a short period. Other determining factors include the specifications of the car, the after sales service, and the availability of spare parts.

Quality products always come with a higher price tag due to the research, effort, materials and services involved.

In addition to buying a house or big ticket items, other incidents that can tantamount to losing huge sums are like money games, get-rich-quick scheme, or the purchase of stolen cars or houses with caveats.

When an offer or a rebate sounds dodgy, the “good deal” can be a scam.

Years of experience tells me that when what is too good to be true, we should think twice. I always remind myself with a quote from John Ruskin (1819-1900) who was an art critic, an artist, an architect and a philosopher. “It’s unwise to pay too much, but it’s worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money – that’s all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do.

“The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot – it can’t be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

Food for thought by Alan Tong

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:

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

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

Our cars are costing us our homes!

Leaving a legacy by buying a house first before a luxury car ... 

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

A challenging year ahead 

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

Rising tides of currencies globally cause inflation, money worthless! 

Bankers and lawyers should know better

8 million more houses needed in Malaysia 

Is having a car still a symbol of freedom? 

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

Too good to be true? Think twice

HAVE you ever grabbed an offer without any hesitation, simply because the price is too cheap to resist?

Many of us have this experience especially during sales or promotional campaigns. We tend to spend more at the end or buy things which we are uncertain of their quality when the deal seems too good to say no.

It may be harmless if the amount involved is insignificant. However, when we apply the same approach to big ticket items, it can cause vast implications.

Recently, I heard a case which reinforces this belief.

A friend shared that a property project which was selling for RM300,000 a few years ago is now stuck. Although the whole project was sold out, the developer has problem delivering the units on time.

The developer is calling all purchasers to renegotiate the liquidated and ascertained damages (LAD), a compensation for late delivery.

One of the homeowners said he is owed RM50,000 of LAD, which means the project is 1½ years late. When we chatted, we found that he purchased the unit solely due to its cheap pricing without doing much research in the first place.

The incident is a real-life example of paying too low for an item which can leave us as losers, especially when it involves huge sum of investment, such as property.

To many, buying a house maybe a once-in-a-lifetime experience, a decision made can make or break the happiness of a family.

A good decision ensures a roof over the head and a great living environment, while an imprudent move may incur long-term financial woes if the house is left uncompleted.

Nowadays, it is common to see people do research when they plan to buy a phone, household item, or other smaller ticket items.

Looking at the amount involved and implication of buying a house, we should apply the same discretion if not more.

It is always important for house buyers to study the background of a developer and project, consult experienced homeowners regarding the good and bad of a project before committing.

I have seen many people buy a house merely based on price consideration.

In fact, there are more to be deliberated when we commit for a roof over our heads. The location, project type, reputation of a developer, the workmanship, the future maintenance of the property etc, are all important factors for a good decision as they would affect the future value of a project.

Beware when a discount or a rebate sounds too good to be true, it may be just too good to be true and never materialised. If the collection or revenue of a housing project is not sufficient to fund the building cost, the developer may not be able to complete the project or deliver the house as per promised terms. At the end of the day, the “price” paid by homeowners would be far more expensive.

In general, the same principle applies elsewhere. It is a known fact that when we pay a premium for a quality product from a reliable producer, we have a peace of mind that the product could last longer and end up saving us money. Some lucky ones will end up gaining much more.

For instance, when we purchase a car, we should consider its resale value as some cars hold up well, while others collapse after a short period. Other determining factors include the specifications of the car, the after sales service, and the availability of spare parts.

Quality products always come with a higher price tag due to the research, effort, materials and services involved.

In addition to buying a house or big ticket items, other incidents that can tantamount to losing huge sums are like money games, get-rich-quick scheme, or the purchase of stolen cars or houses with caveats.

When an offer or a rebate sounds dodgy, the “good deal” can be a scam.

Years of experience tells me that when what is too good to be true, we should think twice. I always remind myself with a quote from John Ruskin (1819-1900) who was an art critic, an artist, an architect and a philosopher. “It’s unwise to pay too much, but it’s worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money – that’s all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do.

“The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot – it can’t be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

Food for thought by Alan Tong

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:

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

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

Our cars are costing us our homes!

Leaving a legacy by buying a house first before a luxury car ... 

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

A challenging year ahead 

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

Rising tides of currencies globally cause inflation, money worthless! 

Bankers and lawyers should know better

8 million more houses needed in Malaysia 

Is having a car still a symbol of freedom? 

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

Money lost under the shadow banking: loan sharks Ah Long

IN my previous article, I shared the impact of high credit card interest rate that many have overlooked and hence, overspent. Interestingly, there are loans outside the confines of financial institutions that affect the mass. These loans are largely unregulated and therefore, more painful in terms of financial burden and emotional stress when the loan and interest cannot be repaid on time.

Every now and then, I will receive text messages from unknown contacts offering loans at “attractive” rates. A check with my close associates indicates that I am not alone in receiving such messages. These messages and those stickers offering loans on the streets share the same traits, i.e. easy loan with no pre-qualification required. Example – “Borrow RM1,000, and return RM200 monthly for six months”.

At first glance, it seems like the interest rate for the loan is 20%. However, as the repayment period is only six months, it is actually 40% per annum! This rate is 11 times higher compared with the average fixed deposit rate of 3.5% per annum in the market.

These loans are offered mostly by unlicensed moneylenders, otherwise commonly known as “loan sharks”. According to a news article published in The Star recently, the interest they charged are mostly counted based on monthly or even daily rest basis.

It is learnt from the article that people usually borrow between RM1,000 and RM10,000 at an interest rate of 0.5% to 1% per day. This works up to about 15% to 30% monthly. When the loan is defaulted, another 5% is added as a late repayment penalty.

It therefore becomes evident that the borrowers of such loans face immense problem repaying their loans. They will generally end up borrowing from other moneylender to cover their existing loan which will lead them to more debts. Imagine the emotional stress from harassment when they are unable to serve the interest.

Sadly, this loan with its easy application process and low requirement attracts people who are financially desperate, regardless of professional or income group.

Bank Negara has announced that Malaysia’s household debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio has increased from 86.8% to 89.1% as of 2015. We have one of the highest household debts in the region without including the unregulated loans from these “moneylenders”. I wonder how this “shadow banking” or “off balance sheet transaction” impact our people and economy.

To protect the rakyat, the government should look at strengthening the enforcement of eliminating illegal money lending.

As the saying goes “where there is demand, there is supply”. Hence the key is to first understand why people resort to borrowing from these “moneylenders”. It is important to strengthen financial education and awareness of public through various channels.

People, especially children, should be taught to borrow for the right things from young, and understand the difference between good debt and bad debt. More importantly, people should learn to ask themselves if there is a real need to borrow. Borrowing money to buy assets that depreciate over a short period of time, such as cars and luxury items is deemed as “bad debt”. This is in stark contrast to “good debt”, such as buying a home or asset that has the possibility of appreciating in the long term, and at the same time, paying a much lower interest rate compared with bad debts.

For people with a genuine need for financing, there are many other options such as borrowing from the banks and legal money lenders, or even to the explore “fintech”, a financial technology which offers more efficient and cheaper financial services through the use of technology. Again, it is important to ensure these channels are legal and well regulated.

Borrowing from unregulated moneylenders is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. It is important to have wise financial planning in the first place and always seek advice before doing anything financially. One may get advice from government agencies, such as Agensi Kaunseling dan Pengurusan Kredit, when faced with financial challenges.


By Datuk Alan Tong, who 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:  

Family photographs of debtor plastered near school

Losses from financial scandals mounting: Musa | theSundaily

Stop taking it out on the old and the young - Malaysian Chinese ...

Getting a grip of the loan shark problems

 

Related posts:

 Can Malaysia's household debt at 87.9% in 2014 be ...

May 11, 2015 ... Overall, is our nation having more good debts or bad debts? ... 7.7%, securities at 6.5%, followed by credit cards and other items at 3.9% respectively. ... FIABCI Asia-Pacific regional secretariat chairman Datuk Alan Tong has ...

 What household debt means and how to manage it ?

Jun 13, 2015 ... Car, personal and credit card loans, which have higher interest rates repayment ... value in the future, and are considered as “unhealthy debt” or “bad debt”. ... Now is a good time to relook into our debt portfolio and the interest rates ... FIABCI Asia-Pacific Regional secretariat chairman Datuk Alan Tong has ...

 Cars are more expensive than houses? A house can buy ...

Dec 12, 2015 ... Yes, our homes may not be cheap but our cars are more expensive in comparison. ... A median-priced house in US and UK can buy 12 and 16 Honda ... FIABCI Asia Pacific chairman Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of ...

 Where does the money go?

May 16, 2016 ... Datuk Alan Tong was the world president of FIABCI International for 2005/2006 and Property Man of the Year 2010 at FIABCI Malaysia.

 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

Building more homes, the only long term-way to bring ...

Jun 11, 2016 ... Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development. He was the World President of FIABCI International for 2005/2006 ...

 Give thanks with a grateful heart

Dec 30, 2015 ... Make the right money moves: investing in a property is still best. THE Christmas and New ... Is having a car still a symbol of freedom? Posted by ...

 

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

THE Christmas and New Year celebrations offer us good reasons to indulge in extra spending — shopping for presents, overseas trips, part...

 Fintech - disruptive technology

May 21, 2016 ... A BUZZWORD growing in popularity in the financial world today is “fintech”, short for financial technology, which in a nutshell refers to the use...

 One phone to rule all; Fintech, the healthy disruptors of ...

Apr 16, 2016 ... The reason why traditional bank shares are dropping like a stone is that mobile phone companies and financial technology (FinTech) platforms ...

Building more homes, the only long term-way to bring house prices down

Building more homes may be one of the most practical ways to bring prices down

WHILE flipping through a business magazine, I saw an interesting chart illustrating the average household size of various countries including Malaysia.

At one glance, our number of 4.4 people per household is among the highest in the world, even in the Asia Pacific region with many developing countries.

We are far behind compared to developed nations such as United Kingdom and Australia, which have 2.3 and 2.6 people per household respectively. Our number is also higher than two nations with high population in our region, China and Indonesia, which recorded 3 and 3.9 people for their average household size respectively.

What do these numbers tell us? Other than giving us information on our demographic structure, it also offers an important insight which could address the issue of home prices in our country.

The Governor of the Bank of England (BoE) Mark Carney once said, the only long-term way to effectively bring home prices down is to build more homes. This may be one of the most practical ways for us to address the issue too.

According to National Property Information Centre(NAPIC), we had 4.9 million homes in the fourth quarter of 2015. As NAPIC does not track rural homes, we assume that only urbanites were taken into account in the survey. This accounts for about 70% of our 31 million population or 21.7 million people. Therefore, on average, there is about4.4 people per household in the urban areas of our country.

The above figure is a poorer ratio than Australia in 1927. If we are to match the same ratio as Australia today, we need 8.3 million houses instead of 4.9 million houses. It means we need additional 3.4 million houses to meet the standard in Australia.

With our current rate of housing production, which is about 70,000 new units launched a year according to NAPIC, we need 48 years to build 3.4 million homes, and it would still be a long distance for us to catch up with UK and Australia, given the rapid growth of population and urbanisation in our country.

Our Statistics Department estimates that our population will reach 38.5 million by year 2040. If we maintain the ratio of 70% urban population by then, we would need another 5.5 million houses to reach the ratio of 2.6 people per household in 2040. This literally means we need to build 230,000 houses per year for the coming 24 years!

Basic economic principle says, when demand is higher than supply, prices will go up. And when supply exceeds demand, prices will go down. Equilibrium is met when demand equals supply.

This is well reflected in the world oil market. From 2010 until early 2014, oil prices had been fairly stable at around US$110 per barrel. However, since mid-2014, prices have dropped by more than half due to a surge in production and a drop in demand in many countries.

United States production has nearly doubled over the last few years. Saudi, Nigerian and Algerian oil that once was sold in the United States have to compete for Asian markets, and the producers are forced to drop prices. Canadian and Iraqi oil production and exports are rising every year. Russians also manage to keep pumping at record levels. All these contribute to the oil prices which are hovering around $50 per barrel today.

It works the same in the real estate market. Imagine if we are having 8.3 million houses today instead of 4.9 million, our house prices would be much more affordable due to sufficient supply.

The key factor here is, we need more houses, especially affordable homes. The relevant authorities need to streamline the delivery system to encourage the number of homes built every year. Government and various local authorities should also pool resources together in filling the gap by speeding up approval process, and building more affordable homes.

Rick Jacobus, an expert in affordable homeownership in United States shares his view in his article “Why we must build?”– the answer for hot-market metro areas is simply to build. Build more. Build now. Build anywhere. Even when we build high-end housing for the rich it adds to the overall supply and pushes rents down.

I particularly like a quote in his article, “We can’t build our way out of the housing crisis but we won’t get out without building.”

It is an interesting point for us to ponder when it comes to the challenge of housing the nation in our country, especially the need for affordable homes.

 By A;an Tong

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, email feedback@fiabci-asiapacific.com.

Related Posts

 A challenging year ahead

Feb 16, 2016 ... He turned a used shipping container into his home by taking a RM75,000 ... It is absolutely fine if you chose a house next to the last MRT station, ... Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development.
<

 Where does the money go?

May 16, 2016 ... Their concerns are understandable when I see the home loan ... was the number one reason for unsold units, and affordable homes top the list. ... Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development.

 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 .... House buyers' traps: purchasers lose their homes b.

 How to allocate your money wisely: lessons from my father

Jan 11, 2016 ... Commodities, properties, shares, trust funds and bonds are the main types of ... Datuk Alan Tong was the world president of FIABCI International for ... Yes, our homes may not be cheap but our cars are more expensive in

 Cars are more expensive than houses? A house can buy ...

Dec 12, 2015 ... Yes, homes in Malaysia are expensive too, but relative to Australian ... Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property development.

 Car or house buying cooling off measures?

May 14, 2014 ... FIABCI Asia-Pacific regional secretariat chairman Datuk Alan Tong has over 50 years of experience in property ... Our cars are costing us our homes! ... Malaysia needs to produce more houses to achieve 20/20 by 2020.

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...