Tag Archives: retirement funds

June 29, 2013 · 20:10

About that house you wanted!

It seems the Dutch are ready to take on the advice the Wijfels commission is giving. Even though not direct, it will end up that you have to pay 20% cash up front for any house or apartment you desire. And indeed, there was the subtle ‘line’ that if you do not have that kind of cash, you should address your pension funds. Interesting on how they are willing to open up pension funds to fund that.

Am I against it? There are two sides to this. On the one hand investing into your own future is perfectly sane. If only there was some level of certainty. You see, the fact that banks leave its taxpayers with their risky investments is one thing, the issue on your house is another.

How does this differ? Actually, it should not. A good house is a good house. However, consider some of the housing. How these houses are currently so much over any normal affordable income. It is nice to see a newscast in comparison with Germany; however, when we look at the quality and square meter price, then these prices are far from average. Of course, when seeking apartments in places like Munich, then yes, the prices might seem comparable. Yet, where we see average Munich prices, that is pretty an average price for living anywhere in the Netherlands. I agree that it is not fair that those factors are accountable to the banks, yet, they were at the centre of events when the prices were artificially pushed upwards.

As they sold mortgages no one cared too much about prices as the interest was tax deductable. When that 7%-9% is no longer part of tax deductibility, then we have a situation where the consumer now pays for it all. Add to that coming up with 20% (in due time) and someone slyly mentions the need to access ones retirement funds, we see another political play to get pensions into the banking equation. There is supporting evidence from all kind of sources. An interesting read was how on average house prices went down in US/UK and other places by well over 20%, whilst in the Netherlands the prices lowered less than 8%. It is unfair to just name one factor, as several economic factors had been in place in other nations too. The US crash never hit the European sides that hard, Europe might still fighting the backwash from those days, but on average Europe never had too much of the hardship the US faced. Another reason is the fact that the Netherlands is pretty much ‘full’. Whilst many nations have plenty of housing space outside of the great cities, the Netherlands has become a connection of large cities, with next to nothing to separate them.

Still this play as such to push people towards their retirement finds is slightly less than acceptable. There is however the other side that must be highlighted too. According to Ernst & Young, between 1996 and 2012, the outstanding mortgage has gone from 138 to 650 billion Euros, That means that outstanding mortgages currently have risen half a trillion Euro’s in just 15 years. Some might think that this is not a lot, yet, consider that that the Dutch population is under 17 million, which seems like the banks remain dealing with 100% of unpaid mortgages. If these numbers are correct, then it bears reason that these numbers should be looked at. Is that actually true? You see, feeling it is wrong, and knowing it is wrong (even with supporting evidence) seems nice from the writers point of view, however what about the reader?

There we get the issue that gives us the crux. When comparing apartments in the Netherlands and comparing them To Sweden and Germany, I noticed something. I lived in two of these locations, so I know what to look for. I compared the Dutch http://www.huizenzoeker.nl, Swedish http://www.bovision.se and German http://en.immostreet.com/germany. When comparing an apartment in Rotterdam and Kista (outskirts of Stockholm) we see a comparable raise of prices, yet overall we get a lot more apartment in Stockholm then in Rotterdam, for comparable prices (30%-40% more living space). This comparison takes an astute dive when we look at Germany, especially Bavaria; where all over the place we can buy 5 bedroom villa’s for a lot less than a two bedroom crinkly monkey apartment in Rotterdam. As such we get a first inkling; if we need 40K to buy a 5-bedroom villa is one thing, needing the same for a 2-bedroom apartment becomes a whole other matter. Interesting how this was not mentioned.

So why so much issues about the mortgage changes? We see a political engine too eagerly bowing to the needs of banks, bowing to a group that has visibly forsaken a population, a group that have left many billions in debts and we still bow to their ‘needs’? Now with the additional need to open up retirement finances that had remained relatively safe until now.

Yet, with the massive outstanding mortgages, what is left?
In addition, knowing that level of outstanding debts, are their demands out of proportions? That question becomes a whole lot more interesting when we consider the following from Bloomberg (source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-23/dutch-mortgage-bond-market-threatened-by-capital-rules-dsa-says.html).

This part throws a whole new hole in these issues. Banks are pushed to outside influences, and even though the government pretend to be fighting the good fight to protect this market, it is interesting that this part was not that visible on the news. It might be that the Wijfels report shows this, but I have not read it, so I cannot tell.

My issue is now with this part of the Bloomberg article “Dutch banks are the second-largest issuers of RMBS in Europe, relying on sales of the securities to help fill a 452 billion-euro funding gap between deposits and loans, Dutch central bank data show.” Excuse me?

Looking at some quick 2011 population numbers:
Germany 81.8 million , France 65.43 million, United Kingdom 62.74 million, Netherlands 16.69 million.

EXCUSE ME?

How (or better why) exactly are the Dutch banks the second largest in Residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS)? Even if 100% of the Dutch population is now under mortgage (which is statistically impossible), those numbers are showing an enormous gap. What are we not told? Even if we consider the 25% difference in mortgage funding there are a few questions that should be asked out there. What have the banks been up to, and exactly what questions are not being asked, or better, what part are people and perhaps even politicians not getting information on? Half a trillion Euro funding gap reads like that there is a deficit of half a trillion Euro. That could never be covered by 6 billion in cut backs. Before you think that this has nothing to do with governments then think again, if that shortage is not addressed then that money will have to come from somewhere else. What are the odds that this needs to come from taxation in one way or another next? More important is the news that people saw over the last year. What buffers do banks have, and if so, how come the Bloomberg (a respectable bringer of news) information was not part of the newscast?

Is this an orchestrate play? It seems to me that a clear yes is in play, however, there are sides to this that do not make sense and they are outside of government controlled sources, sources that currently seemed to remain largely unmentioned. To me it seems that both banks and politicians might need to publicly answer some questions in regards to some of these issues and it would be nice that this is done before banks are given any more leeway or options to shift certain finance issues around.

Are banks now too much in control?

I mentioned some of this yesterday, some people are just too unwilling to learn and they are very willing to sell you a too pretty a picture. This is what is now starting to become clear and in a dangerous way. Again, not unlike previous events, this blog was inspired by the Dutch NOS (www.nos.nl).

Political parties are now starting to ‘panic’ and are quickly grabbing to solution wherever they can. The issue is that the Dutch economy is apparently even worse then was initially predicted by the Central Bureau of Statistics (www.CBS.nl). Their initial prediction of -0.1% is now -0.4%. Interesting fact is that I predicted something like this in my blog ‘A noun of non-profit‘ on May 15th, just over a month ago. So is this bad news management? To me it seems to be more and more the case.

Diederik Samson of the PVDA (Dutch labour party) is now trying to kick-start the economy by offering alternative sources to spend from. Well, Mr Samson, there are two issues with that idea. The first one, most people do not trust bankers and politicians, now they are seemingly joining hands many have reason to trust both of them even less. The second reason is that the unreliability of the current economy is stopping people to spend anything as long as they are in debt.

The basic issue is that there is too much uncertainty for the next two years. As such people pay their mortgage and essential bills as much as possible. The people are paying off their debts as banks cannot be trusted to play nice. This is the consequence of not containing the massive wave of simply put insane investment sprees. Perhaps some will remember how SNS Reaal needed to be nationalised?

So as the Dutch need to cut 6 billion in expenses, they now seek other way to find spending options to raise the economy and next on their list is the attempt to use pension funds to do this.

Basically, quoting Arjan Noorlander from yesterday’s NOS newscast “The people managing these funds are often investing abroad to get their dividends. This does not help the Dutch economy” He then further states “These funds should invest tens of billions by taking over mortgages from banks, so that they can offer new mortgage investments“.

How is this anywhere near a good idea? Banks, remember them? They are not to be trusted at present, or anywhere in the near future for that matter!

As we have all these bad bank mortgages out and floating, relieving banks from these burdens by losing upcoming retirement funds is more than just a bad idea. Arjan Noorlander did continue and did end with the fact that this is dangerous and retirement funds might get lost in this way, and that it might be an option if the government underwrites these loans so that they will pay the losses if those occur. To me it reads that in the end that another bill will be given to the taxpayers one way or another.

The issues of keeping the retirement funds safe was also mentioned by Alexander Pechtold (D66 = Democrats 1966), he continues by saying that first and foremost there should be clarity on how and if this should proceed.

You see, there are two sides to that part. In the first part the Dutch officials shot themselves in the foot for a long time by keeping housing too expensive for way too long a time. It was left to certain groups to keep the prices artificially too high. I myself viewed it as an artificial push to keep housing prices beyond acceptable as it increases the capital position of banks. Then there was the issue of preferential treatment for some places, as there were ways that the ‘right’ people got into those places. I myself experienced these events first-hand. Too many issues played and in a time when incomes were good, people got what they could and as such they are now stuck in a solid position, where moving away will cost any person a fortune. To illustrate this, my former, small, 2-bedroom apartment in Rotterdam would buy me an apartment almost twice that size in Stockholm, Sweden. So considering these facts, moving is not an option for many, which means that people are paying of their mortgage as much as possible.

The second part is that up to 2005, it was way too easy to get all kinds of credits and payment deferrals. These options all come at some percentage expense and as incomes were good, no one really cared too much. Now, to not end up in a situation where these people will have to eat their mortgage, or sell their house (making them destitute), they are now all paying off their debts as much and as fast as they can.

These two factors add to the fact that people will not spend money. Not unlike the government, too much money was taken in advance, and unlike the government, they are not getting to push it forward, so there is no spending. These factors had been known for a long time (at least 3-5 years), so when politicians are all so amazed that economic infusion plans are not working, then that amazement seems somewhat disingenuous to me. The fact that the Dutch are so about housing corporations, to be given the funds to grow is tying the cat to the bacon in more than one way.

This is not allowed to become an ‘opportunity knocks’ situation, especially when they are playing with retirement funds. If they really want to do something that adds up, then give people the option to use their retirement plan to pay of a mortgage of a new house. Those young enough will then have a building future. And it should be managed by a banking branch of those who keep those funds at present. Yet, I reckon that it will raise voices that this is not opening the economy enough. So is this about the banks, the people or the economy? I wonder how quick objections will loudly rise when banks are kept out of the equation. It would give rise to my suspicions that the banks are in more control then people realise.

Again, that risk is very real in the UK as well. Instead of keeping a decent flow of affordable housing, we see an economy in neutral whilst the hill it is up against seems to be rising more and more.

This was discussed in the Guardian, April 27th (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2013/apr/27/pensions-system-failed-what-answer) When we look at this in regards to a failing amount of retirement savings as the predicted cost of living has been incorrect for at least a decade, likely closer to 2 decades, we now see a dangerous development. This is a market where over 40% of those approaching their elderly need will have to sell their residence to afford future care.

Suddenly ‘The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel‘ doesn’t sound like the worst idea for people to consider.

This again brings me to the idea of solutions. It is always nice to kick a parliamentarian (a therapeutic form of soul food), but we should consider options and opportunities for solutions.

There was an idea in South Australia several years ago that was quite remarkable. To solve housing, the government gave away land on loan. So basically, you got to buy a plot for $1. The conditions were that you had to place a house on it, and the value of the land was payable when you sold the house. So basically you had a house on free land as long as you lived on it. This solved two parts. One, the housing issues fell away for some, second a house needed to be build, so that was good for jobs and economy. I always thought that was a good idea to get people into their first house. The second part is the retirement issue. Now many prefer to remain where they are. This is fair enough. Yet, consider that instead of eating your house, you are leasing it away or renting it out. Consider that live in places like Greece, Spain and even India could be more rewarding (and warmer) as you live in a place where the cost of living is a lot lower. Lower cost means a better quality of life. I am not stating that this is an option for all, but perhaps it could be an option for a decent amount, giving breathing space to create new ideas and options. Whatever people choose, I hope it is one people will be able to live with in a comfortable way.

Repeating lack of retirement insight

We have seen many plays in the past and present, where some are so short sighted on getting their own margins set, that they seem to be in short supply of common sense. Where is this coming from?

I remember issues evolving in 1997 that politicians did not heed the words of people in the know when it comes to the issues of retirement. It was stated within the corridors of those who work there that the retirement funds were not getting enough money to build the buffers needed for that generation to enter retirement. Those words were ignored by those who could do something about that.

It was not until the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics warned of the upcoming dangers of shortages in retirement funds a year later. (Source: http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/arbeid-sociale-zekerheid/publicaties/artikelen/archief/1998/1998-0129-wm1.htm ) This specific article warns the reader that the amount of people going into retirement up to 2015 will drastically increase as this will be the time frame where the baby boomers will go into retirement. Other documents gave the same warning. There was even additional warning that the group that follows was a lot smaller, as such the then current non-retiring population would not be growing the retirement funds to the degree it needs to grow. The consequence would be that the funds would grow dry really fast.

In addition, this was all before the crashes of 2004, so the reality was even grimmer then most thought it to be. That reality became truth as the retirement funds started to pay less in 2011. Whatever the reason that got voiced by those involved, in the end it was about an increasing lack of retirement buffers. Now, today (OK, yesterday), advertisements by groups like the FNV (Dutch Union of workers) is warning people about the dangers to retirements. Why?

Political parties are now in the mindset to lower retirement payments by people. They are hoping that fewer costs mean more income into the streets. Also, as retirement payments are not taxable, lowering the tax deductibility will result in more taxation entering the coffers of government. So, there is now a clear impression that certain people in government are really willing to betray those who need retirement later on and base that risk on the ‘I need to look good now’ option.

Am I exaggerating? Is it about their view, their look? That is a fair question, yet messing around with long term pension building, not just the basic fear that people might end up with no more than 55% of their retirement funds is a dangerous act. This is not even taking into consideration dangers of additional future bank and investment failings where the buffers are currently still way too small and too much danger is placed upon funds that needs to feed a generation is just short sighted and completely unwarranted and therefor unacceptable.

What is the opposite side? Well, if we pay a little too much now, then we do get into a field where pensions will be a true safety net, especially in ages where all costs keep on rising and rising. The AOW (Government paid pensions) will remain a true safety net and could be a future foundation of safety. All that should not now or ever be endangered by unproven and assumed options for revitalising the economy. This looks like an upcoming excuse where the statistics of a better economy in 2014 (a claim that is nowhere near any level of certainty) should not be fed with long term securities. I personally see that any politician signing of on this one is to be held liable. There is the crux; they will not care as it is all about the now! Can we allow politicians to remain in office as they overspend for such a long time, not being able to balance their accounts and now are willing to endanger the next generation?

This is not just about the Dutch system. We should investigate these issues as they are likely to emerge in the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Italy and other nations. These nations are all in a state of deficit and as such, politicians in those nations would also seek a way to look good. Playing poker with the retirement funds of a next generation is an unacceptable gamble which should publicly be stated as null and void.

It is very tempting for the young, restless and party generation to not care about those issues now, but those who are not in a field where they are assured of long above average paying employment will soon thereafter learn the hard way that they are looking towards working another 15 years just to make the bare minimum.

If a politician has one clear responsibility, then it is not about getting by now, but to create safety, stability and security for the future. We are used to the short-sightedness of ‘Excel managers’ managing the needs to their next commission with a lack of long term vision, we should not allow politicians to do the same to the future of so many.

Tag Archives: retirement funds

About that house you wanted!

Are banks now too much in control?

Repeating lack of retirement insight

Recent Posts

Archives