In case you missed it, NG stats all wrong

Without commenting on the merits of the Labor policy, I think you are the one misunderstanding statistics here.

It would not surprise me that only 4% of investors buy an OTP or new build - the ratio of new houses and apartments built in any given year as a proportion of total Australian housing stock is probably down around 2% in line with population growth.

However, and this is the important bit, my understanding is the "45%" number is referring to the proportion of those new builds that are purchased by investors, as opposed to owner occupiers.

The idea that half of all investors in the country are buying OTP and new builds is, quite frankly, absurd.

 

"Mr Kingsley highlighted figures he collected through his mortgage aggregation group AFG, which showed that around 43 per cent of their broker-written investor loans over the past 12 months were for new properties, while 57 per cent were for existing properties ."

ALP’s negative gearing modelling questioned - Mortgage Business

 

Their loan book is $143bn, out of a total market of .... $2.5-$3 trillion? Not insignificant, but hardly representative and his company cannot be extrapolated to the entire market, especially since they are sending a lot of their business to non-majors, who might be more willing to assist with settling OTP purchases that are coming in under value.

Mr Kingsley is hardly someone who doesn't have many millions of dollars of self-interest slapped all over his face, so of course he's going to spin facts to suit. I would not take his word as an unbiased source of numbers. You shouldn't either.

 

Bowen & labour's numbers have gone from 4% to 7% to 12% to 22% to unknown with their website wiped & without any consultation of industry about the assumptions that have gone into their modeling. Kingsley actually has experience in industry, been around a long time, and has consulted with those in the building & MB industry. I know who I'd trusting....not the career politician who can't get his numbers straight

 

E

While Anyone with investment property has skin in the game, they have much more ...they submitted to fact check, let's wait for an impartial peer reviewed result (gov figures would be better closer to this than any business)

 

And Labor has no self interest in spinning this the way they want and have only published unbiased numbers? Sure.

I would not take Labor's word as an unbiased source of numbers. You shouldn't either.

 

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2016/02/apo-nid63457-1239566.htm

 

Is that a Labor run site? The point is Labor has scrubbed the details of their policy, not that the details have been wiped from the Internet. Refer: Positive plan to help housing affordability

Actually, it's good you posted that link so people can make an informed assessment of the policy detail vs the current marketing. And make their own judgement on what Labor is hiding by re-writing their marketing material.

 

As the facts change, I change my mind...and lose about 8b in revenue but still ultimately fix the mess caused by Howard and significantly reduce growth of revenue leakage.

 

Cheeky. Like I said, wasn't commenting on the merits of the policy.

Truth is no one really knows what the numerical impact will be. Point to me any model built in the last 50 years on any policy implemented by any government or business that has spat out exactly what has occurred in reality.

 

Thats not my read on it and not how it was explained by Ben Kingsley: the 43% refers to the percentage of purchases (taken from Australian lending) likely to positively signal to the RE construction industry. This covers a number of categories not ‘established’ pre-existing (construction loans, new etc).

 

I wasn't commenting on the merits of the policy either. Just pointing out that you trust one set of biased data over another set of biased data is naive without evidence to back it up. Personally, without proof to back up thier claims, I am going to put it out there that all the data is wrong until proven otherwise. I don't trust any of it.

 

$2.5-$3M? Where are you getting those numbers from?

 

Trillion. You can basically figure it out from the market share of the Big 4 and the size of their loan books, plus the proportion of commercial loans that are for resi type construction.

 

One of the primary stated reasons for labour's proposed negative gearing changes are to increase the number of investors who buy new property. This is NOT just a matter of just stuffing up the modeling. This is stuffing up the most basic of stats that they are trying to change with their policies. They do not even know what the actual stats are on what it is they are trying to influence with their policies.

This is called economic incompetence.

Now if you want to talk modelling, because they can't get their stats straight that they put into their models, there is now a $10-15B blackhole in their budget before investors even start to change their behavior based on the policies. That's off by 50%. Now sure models are often off, but not by 50%. Again, economic incompetence.

 

Hyperbole. For the record 'they' is the public service NOT the ALP.

 

Labour fed them the input data. Garbage in, garbage out

 

No, the ABS got their stats the normal way. Why would you say that Labor fed housing industry and finance stats to the ABS?

 

Bowen said he got the stats from ABS, ABS disowned them. Then said they came from Grattan, Grattan disowned them. For the PBO modelling, Labour gave their stats to the PBO with policy and targets. PBO did their best they could but again garbage in = garbage out.

 

Link please.