Posts Tagged ‘cost of living’

Is price inflation good for real estate in Australia?

Sunday, July 24th, 2011

One of the assumptions made by many people is that rising price inflation is good for property prices in nominal terms. In other words, many people see property as a hedge against price inflation. The experience of the past (especially 1970s) has a strong influence on this belief.

But today, in Australia, from our observations, we believe that the relationship between price inflation and property prices is breaking down. In fact, we would argue that price inflation probably has a negative effect on property prices.

To understand why, recall that we wrote in Does inflation (deflation) benefits the borrower (lender)?,

Debt servicing burden = (Debt payment rate ? Growth in wage) + Price inflation rate

Today, the problem is that in Australia, with the two-speed economy, wages are rising in one section of the economy but is relatively stagnant on the other. In relative terms, mining wages in Western Australia are sprinting ahead of wages at say, office workers in Sydney.

But unfortunately, since the GFC, cost of living has been rising faster than general rise in wages. For example, as Retail therapy impossible in this housing market reported,

Now look at your pay packet, take away the things you can’t avoid spending money on, remove what you’re paying in rent or paying off a loan, and look at what is left. You may find that’s smaller than ever, despite the fact we’re in a mining boom. But the trickle-down effect of that boom seems a long way away from Sydney. We’re part of the second tier of the economy here, the one that isn’t doing so well. Still, rent and housing prices continue to go up. And the bills come first before that new coat, that new stereo . . . even repairing those cracks on the walls or the dents on your car.

As you can see from our simple equation, with the cost of living rising faster than increase in wages, debt servicing burden will increase. Furthermore, the Reserve Bank did not help by raising interest rates. The increase in debt servicing burden puts a squeeze in discretionary spending- that explains why shoppers seems to be going on strike, putting the retail sector under pressure.

This increase in debt servicing burden is putting on the dampener on house prices. It dampens people’s appetite for borrowing more money and increases their propensity to save. Less borrowing means less capacity to bid up house prices. It also pushes more mortgage holders to be delinquent with their home loans, which increases the likelihood of forced sales. This is the first round of effect on house prices.

Rising cost of living pushes the retail sector deeper into trouble as shoppers shut up their wallets. Since consumer spending account for 60% of the Australian economy, a weak retail sector is hardly good news for employment in the country. As we wrote in RBA committing logical errors regarding Australian household finance,

Given Australia?s high household debt (see Aussie household debt not as bad as it seems?), prime debt can easily turn sub-prime when unemployment rises.

Rising unemployment will put further pressure on house prices. As we wrote in Does house price crash follow unemployment or is it the other way?,

[Rising unemployment] will feed into the second round of impact of lower house prices, which in turn lead to further rising unemployment. This will feed into the? third round of impact.

Now, cost of living is rising despite a rising Australian dollar. What if the dollar falls substantially? What will happen to the cost of living?

How the Consumer Price Index (CPI) could indicate false inflation?

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is one of the price indices used by the RBA to calculate the inflation figures felt by ordinary Australians. In fact, some of our pensions, wages and other payments are indexed to match the CPI.

However, sometimes the CPI really doesn?t seem to reflect the actual increase in the cost of living. According to this article, price inflation is close to 3.1%, however experts say that the increase in the cost of living feels closer to 5-6%:

There’s a disconnect between the high frequency items, which people regard as driving their cost of living and the broader measure of inflation, which includes less frequent purchases

We potentially have a scenario whereby cost of living is actually higher that is reflected in the CPI. However, the RBA will attempt to ‘manage’ inflation at the CPI rate (see Why central bankers are obsessed with inflation not breaching a certain band?), which means that they may mismanage their response to inflation.

The RBA?s response does not immediately hurt everyday Australians as much as it could. Increasing rates by small increments to fight 3% price inflation is not as bad as the increments required to fight 6% price inflation, especially if you?re heavily in debt. So let?s reverse that idea ? what about if cost of living increase is less than the CPI indicates? Suppose cost of living is increasing at a rate of 3% and the CPI was running at 6%. The RBA is vigorously increasing interest rates, whilst inflation is well ?under control?.

And this scenario could happen. The CPI is prone to overstatement of single items. The most recent CPI values for the year to June are heavily weighed down by a nearly 20% drop in Computers/Audio and a 6% drop in men?s clothes (single female technophobes must be doing it tough). A 50% rise in the cost of cigarettes could easily tip the CPI into high territory, whilst the non-smokers of Australia enjoy a lower level of inflation. Therefore, the RBA has to use other statistical hacks like “trimmed mean” and “weighted median” to smooth away the effects of once-off, seasonal or volatile price changes to arrive at an ‘underlying’ price index.

Yet, statistical hacks, regardless of how sophisticated the math is underneath them, are still not good enough. As we quoted Ludwig Von Mises in How much can we trust the price indices (e.g. CPI)?,

The pretentious solemnity which statisticians and statistical bureaus display in computing indexes of purchasing power and cost of living is out of place. These index numbers are at best rather crude and inaccurate illustrations of changes which have occurred. In periods of slow alterations in the relation between the supply of and the demand for money they do not convey any information at all. In periods of inflation and consequently of sharp price changes they provide a rough image of events which every individual experiences in his daily life. A judicious housewife knows much more about price changes as far as they affect her own household than the statistical averages can tell. She has little use for computations disregarding changes both in quality and in the amount of goods which she is able or permitted to buy at the prices entering into the computation. If she ?measures? the changes for her personal appreciation by taking the prices of only two or three commodities as a yardstick, she is no less ?scientific? and no more arbitrary than the sophisticated mathematicians in choosing their methods for the manipulation of the data of the market.

At the root of the problem with any price indices is that, as Mises said,

All methods suggested for a measurement of the changes in the monetary unit?s purchasing power are more or less unwittingly founded on the illusory image of an eternal and immutable being who determines by the application of an immutable standard the quantity of satisfaction which a unit of money conveys to him.

Basically, price indices, regardless of the level of sophistication, are not as ‘scientific’ as it seems. Central banks, however, have no choice but to rely on them to target price inflation with their monetary policy.

So, how much is the increase in your cost of living reflected by the CPI figures? Vote below!