In the 1983 BIS Shrapnel did economic modelling for Keating on the effects of banning negative gearing, which Labor ignored and went on to stop negative gearing in 1985, which ended up being a debacle which Labor had to reverse in 1987.

In 2015 BIS modelled a scenario similar to Labor's policy announced earlier this year for a financial institution and gave labor, specifically Bowen's dept the findings.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/labor-ignored-property-negative-gearing-warnings/news-story/3fb63715d3f6ddd3e0798c22c65b6ab3?sv=d193d6f4a60debedfa862316fee56c78

"BIS Shrapnel’s report — which found limiting negative gearing to new houses could lead to lower house prices, rent rises of up to 10 per cent, cost the budget more than it saved and cause unemployment to rise — sparked a political furore when it was publicly released last month.

The identity of the firm that commissioned the report was not released at the time, prompting Mr Bowen to claim it was by “an anonymous vested interest”. In attacking the document, Labor did not reveal it had received the advice last year from Bongiorno & Partners while it was developing its negative gearing policy.

“You’ve got Chris Bowen saying that he doesn’t know who commissioned these reports and now he’s saying even this morning that he wasn’t briefed on it, but it turns out his office was briefed on it,” the Resources Minister told Sky News."

This is worse groundhog day, Labor gets a report from one of the best modelling agencies in the country, ignores it because the findings contradict its populist policy, then gets a half arsed modelling from a single academic that gives the answers it wants, then proposes a wild negative gearing policy that all economics and history shows will be a complete disaster.

Then when the BIS report is leaked to the media Chris Bowen in a fit of rank hypocrisy and dishonesty rubbishes the report and denies knowledge of it.

"An independent think tank has described as "manifestly ridiculous" a report containing predictions about dramatic drops in real estate values and economic activity if a policy like Labor's proposed negative gearing plan were adopted.

The report by BIS Shrapnel says rents would rise by as much as 10 per cent, the number of new homes being built would drop 4 per cent and gross domestic product (GDP) would shrink by $19 billion a year.


Labor's proposal is to abolish negative gearing for established dwellings, which would prevent investors claiming net rental losses against salary income. Any number of new homes could be negatively geared.

BIS Shrapnel would not say who commissioned the modelling and on Thursday clarified that the report was prepared before Labor's policy was announced.

Grattan Institute chief executive John Daley said the report and its underlying assumptions "did not pass the giggle test" and were "manifestly ridiculous"."

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/bis-shrapnels-negative-gearing-report-is-manifestly-ridiculous-20160302-gn8sv0#ixzz45fP06W83

"Also, unusually, I noticed there was no declaration on whether the research had been commissioned or conducted independently by BIS Shrapnel.

So I put the question to BIS Shrapnel and the answers raised a few suspicions about the spin of the study and how we should handle a hot report that missed a vital factor - who commissioned it and what outcome were they looking for?"

"Shortly after, the author of the report revealed it had actually been written in 2015 and was not related to Labor's negative gearing policy.

And still, a very big question remains over who commissioned the research."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-04/ryan-negative-gearing-report:-who-commissioned-it-and-why/7220228

Sorry, SM...I missed it - who commissioned the report?

I have stated many times that neither the Left or Right have the interests of the electorate at heart. So I read with amusement as a Right automaton accuses the Left of being dishonest liars. Then I read with further amusement as a Left automaton rebukes the claim with indignation while describing the emperor’s new clothes with vigour......lololololol.

The return from rental property is very poor and the risks are high.

Tenants are fortunate to be riding on the backs of the aspirational mums and dads investors who provide the lion's share of rentals. They are prepared to put their own unpaid hours into improvements and repairs, sacrificing their own quality of life and security.

The cynical class war of Shorten and Labor could easily provoke a run of investment money away from rental housing. The sector is already showing weaknesses.

Once started the run will quickly gather pace. Once confidence is lost in the sector (and the confidence is based on mythical returns spruiked by the white shoe brigade) the money will be spent on better things and will never return.

Crazy leftist ideologues believe that large institutions such as superannuation funds and insurance companies can be forced by a Labor government into taking up the slack and replace the thousands of small investors following their (small investors) departure from the scene.

For argument's sake, just say that such risk averse and return conscious institutions could be coerced by Labor to put shareholders' money into holding and managing rental property (history shows they wouldn't touch residential rental property with a very long stick), their very first demands of government would be rental regulations and subsidies that allow them to manage efficiently, effectively and profitably. There is no way in hell the corporate world would accept such high risks and management nightmares without having the risks reduced and without being properly recompensed, all upfront.

So, just forgetting the necessary legislative change to lower risk and improve the manageability of rentals, where does the money come from?

All politicians are liars, not just Labor politicians. No politician will stop lying. They will lie whenever it suits them, and they get away with it because the average voter has the memory and concentration span of a goldfish.

Let's not be stupid enough to think there will not be winners and losers in Labor's plan. This not to say that once a transition is made life will go on as in countries without NG, but the transition itself will be painful, especially for those holding investment property (including those not NG) seeing their asset value fall (owner-occupiers aren't as fussed, they buy/sell/move the same market).

From the critique of the BIS report comes "For every property that is no longer owned by an investor, there is one more property owned by an owner-occupier. Therefore there is one less renter and one less rental property. There is no change in the supply and demand for rental property, and therefore no change in rents."

What of renters who can't/don't wish to buy? Whatever, this concedes that the market is driven by supply and demand, not negative gearing, so why the attack on NG on non-new construction while quarantining other investment classes?

The land tax gravy train will derail and owner-occupiers will eventually be asked pick up the tab, along with the intro of death duties, or higher GST, perhaps. Residential construction will slow if rents don't rise sufficiently for the investor business case (including resale considerations), meaning un/underemployment and lower tax collections. There will grow higher occupy per existing dwelling.

Anyway, as long as all this is understood, let's pin back our ears and go boldly forward! Let envy rule.

P,

I assume your lack of comment on Bowen's mendacity means that you accept that Bowen was lying through his teeth in claiming complete ignorance on a report that was essentially handed to them by Bongiorno & Partners while developing their policy. PS Next time read the link I provide then you won't miss it.

Secondly, if banning negative gearing is such a wonderful idea, then why did Keating after introducing the ban in 1985 do a rapid and humiliating back flip less that 2 years later? Perhaps something to do with the spike in rents in Sydney and Perth?

The major difference between BIS's report and labor policy is that labor's policy went far further in banning all negative gearing which would cripple small businesses and investors.

When I was studying Economics 20 years ago there were two prime examples of where government meddling in the market produced consequences that largely negated any benefits, these were rent control and banning negative gearing.

This is bad policy pure and simple.

The solution to reducing the cost of housing is to reduce the cost of building by:
Stopping councils gouging up to $400 000 in fees per house,
Reduce building costs by stopping union extortion and thuggery,
Reduce the red tape that delays buildings by up to 2 years costing developers a fortune.

Owner-occupiers will be directly impacted by Labor's attack. For instance those who are figuring that their home is their nest egg for education of children and for retirement.

Some have outstanding mortgages and may have increased their original loan for necessary things such as elective surgery and aids for daily living, periods of lower income and higher outgoings. How do they get on when the lending institution revalues (devalues) their home as it must after Labor's ?

Labor's continued interest in meddling in superannuation funds and now insurance is very worrying, particularly to young workers who are experiencing all sorts of trouble because their super is already being gobbled up in fees and permanent, full-time work is a thing of the past.

SM,

"Secondly, if banning negative gearing is such a wonderful idea, then why did Keating after introducing the ban in 1985 do a rapid and humiliating back flip less that 2 years later? Perhaps something to do with the spike in rents in Sydney and Perth?"

Ahem....it's already been addressed in that the spikes were due to a shortage of rentals in those cities.

I speak from experience. In 1986 we were looking to rent in Perth and it was extremely difficult to find a rental. The vacancy rate was down to 0.7%.

We were lucky (because we are charming) and found a place in Como, south of the river. But that was after going to quite a few places, each with streams of people hoping to be selected for the rental in question.

You're really grasping at straws trying to denigrate Bowen...especially with the particularly vacant ScoMo currently as Treasurer.

He makes Hockey look like an economic genius!

P,

There is no doubt that the lying Chris Bowen makes Hockey look like a genius.

With all due respect saying that the rental spike was not due to the ban on NG but on a shortage of rentals is like saying that someone's injuries are not from falling off a roof, but only because he hit the ground.

The most immediate and direct consequence of a ban on NG is that the supply of rentals will decline. The markets that will feel it first will be the tightest, such as Sydney and Perth, but there is no doubt that other cities would have been affected in time.

This populist brain fart of a policy will have the effect of slamming on the brakes of all forms of investment from property development to shares to small business etc, and Aus will experience a real recession.

SM,

How about showing a bit of due diligence?

As Saul Eslake points out:

"If the abolition of negative gearing had led to a "landlords' strike", "then rents should have risen everywhere (since negative gearing had been available everywhere)...."

He puts the vacancy rate in Perth in 1986-87 at 1.4%, however, I seem to remember at one stage in '86 I did see a figure of 0.7%.

In any case, he's right as far as Perth was concerned:

"During the period when negative gearing was abolished, Sydney and Perth had the lowest vacancy levels of the capital cities.

Sydney's vacancy rate was 1 per cent and Perth's was 1.4 per cent.

The 1987 cabinet submission noted: "The market in Perth has been easing after tightness during the America's Cup period".

In contrast, rental markets in Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane were not at the same stage in the cycle.

Melbourne and Adelaide in particular experienced an extended period of low rental vacancies from 1982 to 1984.

ABS data for this period shows that in response to the tight rental conditions, real rental price growth in 1984 was over 6 per cent in both cities.

In response to rapidly increasing rental prices, vacancies started to increase in Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane, and there was a corresponding fall in rental price growth as market conditions became less tight.

But the data shows that vacancy rates were higher in Sydney and Perth in the early 1980s and fell rapidly in the mid 1980s."

"During the period that negative gearing was abolished real rents notably increased only in Sydney and Perth - where rental vacancies were at extremely low levels."

The America's Cup was huge in Perth at the time and that did impact the cycle.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-06/hockey-negative-gearing/6431100

So, SM, you tell me why there wasn't a uniform rental shortage across the country after negative gearing was abolished - and why was it only confined to Sydney and Perth?

When you can give a good reason for that, you'll have an argument - until then....

Re ABC FactCheck (P's link) I see rents adjusted for inflation used against the case that national rentals had risen.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing

"While Eslake's comment is correct for inflation-adjusted rents (when CPI inflation is subtracted from the nominal rent increases), nominal rents nationally rose by over 25% during the two years that negative gearing was quarantined. Nominal rents rose strongly in every Australian capital city, according to the official ABS CPI data. However, it has not been proved that the strong rise in rents was entirely a direct result of the quarantine.[7]" (......the quarantine being that of NG on housing).

While taking on board the last sentence in the above quote, when inflation is high, rents don't necessarily follow, and vice-verse. Inflation does not enter my mind as a landlord in setting rent, but market forces do. This makes the Eslake analysis a little spurious for mine as 25% nationally seems to big a number to explain away with inflation.

...and, investment in new rental housing will not happen until rents rise enough to mitigate capital gain reduction (loss?) from selling into a thinner market, i.e., when income return far outstrips that on other, non-quarantined, asset classes.

An investor paradigm shift will not reverse quickly, so I believe rent increases will overshoot before any correction.

P, & LF,

I already gave you the answer in the previous post, but given your complete lack of economic understanding I will go through it step by step. Note that the time period between banning NG in houses and the backflip was less than 2 years, a relatively short time.

1. NG is banned for housing. - This causes the return on investments in housing to drop, and the price of houses to drop. (over a year or so)
2. People avoid investing in housing for rental / capital gain purposes, and those with heavy NG houses to sell. (over a period of time ie a few years)
3. People avoid building houses as their value/investment is now less.
4. The stock of houses available for rent decreases, and the competition for rentals pushes the prices up.

However, the rate that rentals will increase will depend on the price elasticity of the market which by definition is the ability of renters to find alternatives.

Where the rental vacancies are high (ie 4%), a drop of 0.5% availability of rentals will make little difference, however, where the vacancies are 1% a drop of 0.5% availability has a far greater effect.

Which is in short why in Sydney and Perth the prices jumped far more than elsewhere, and why Keating was forced into a humiliating backflip.

W.R.T. the US, there are laws to protect mortgage holders such that a default on a mortgage would not allow banks/ creditors to pursue the debtors other assets, and as a result negative gearing on properties was not considered appropriate, but notably, when NG was removed, rents rose significantly.

Calm down Shal!

Don't know why your hackles are up against me, I'm agreeing with you.

Was it my "taking on board..." that annoyed you? I acknowledged that there is an argument that the NG quarantine had no effect, not that I am convinced by the argument, as my subsequent comment explains.

PS. Malcolm will get you over the line. Tony was, would have been, a completely dud ride into an election. In fact, he wouldn't have had the political capital to go into DD. Just sayin'

Luciferase, "This makes the Eslake analysis a little spurious for mine"

He is just another with an apparent mission, spinning for others.

General comment
While the focus puts the cart before the horse - on raising new and larger tax revenues for a Labor Opposition that cannot explain how it will fund its promises - instead on what should be the first concern, the sustainability of rental accommodation, it is all spurious.

Just to repeat what should be obvious to all, rental housing is high risk with the likelihood of catastrophic events (eg, home used as even a minor drug factory* or outlet), time intensive and complicated to manage. Any returns are very poor indeed. Why should the investor be forced to sell the farm (ie the business) to have any hope of realising a gain? Even then the 'return' is due to inflation and taxed again.

*drug factory - increasingly common and will bankrupt the owner. Because the house will be tied up for months for evidence purposes and the costs of stripping soft materials, professional toxic chemical cleaning and refurbishing. Then the risk and insurance problems of an ex-drug lab, or place where (say) meth was consumed.

It is not unusual at all to find plastered over holes in ceilings and sometimes walls from where tenants have installed ventilation shafts. Not just for drug production, but for other unknown toxic dusts and vapours. I saw one recently where it was established that the tenant had been sanding lead paint for restorations and drafting it into the ceiling space, which was white with toxic dust. What to do with the property now?

Many property managers are young women with limited life experience. The Real Estate Agent's first priority for them (and No1 selection criterion) is to present well as a receptionist for sales. Professional tenants eat them for breakfast.

LF,

Sorry, the post was aimed principally at Poirot, and while agreeing with you, I unintentionally gave the impression I wasn't.

I find the ABC fact checkers a bit of a joke. In this instance referring to the opinion of a single economist, especially one that openly opposes NG is like Newspoll based on the opinion of one bloke in the street. Economists are well known for widely varying political agendas.

While there are always a multiple of factors at play, and that the period between banning NG and backflipping was so short, the rise in rentals in Sydney and Perth probably wasn't entirely due to NG.

Given that Keating was not known to be skittish, and had a plethora of financial advisors, I find the assertion that he took the humiliating step of removing legislation that he had just passed on whim.

Perth and Sydney were the canaries in the coal-mine, once vacancy rates fell elsewhere the quarantine would take its course.

I'm interested in how high rents would have to have risen before investors weighed back in. My guess is a lot more than they had already.

Luciferase, "Perth and Sydney were the canaries in the coal-mine, once vacancy rates fell elsewhere the quarantine would take its course"

Yes.

What is conveniently forgotten - Labor and ors make a habit of disregarding inconvenient facts - is that there is no one property market in Australia but many.

Also, that direct and indirect government interference and other forces, (but particularly those new records that are continually being set by the feds in immigration and that has been the case for decades) can cause earlier spikes in smaller capitals (eg Perth). However, it is most usually true that Sydney and second Melbourne lead and are the bellwethers of far broader change.

Of course removing 'negative gearing' will have gathering negative effects and deep, across the board. That becomes easily apparent if and when the rental industry is studied as a whole.

Shorten and ors are playing with fire. It would be very easy to set in motion a run from investing long term in property. There is already far more churn in ownership of rental properties than ever before. There is plenty there to deter would-be investors if they did their due diligence, and many get burned or realise after slowing sinking for years that they are being treated as marks by State and federal governments.

The truth is that Federal and State governments are laughing all of the way to the bank with 'negative gearing'. Crumbs for large gains by government, think about it.

Only the very astute and disciplined who invest long-term in rental property know what they are doing, might with a little luck make some earnings annually out of their rental property. The management overheads alone are escalating all of the time.

However their skills would be put to better use elsewhere, where there is far less risk and superior, more reliable returns and they can sleep at night. Where they are not required to sell their asset to have some hope of getting their money back.

When will politicians stop lying?
You're joking right?

luc, while you say owner occupiers will be greatly effected as well.

The one area that appears to be taboo on this negative gearing proposal, is 'where is the land going to come from for the new homes'?

I live in a huge growth region for affordable housing, where small acreage lots (2-10ac) purchased and the existing house rented out until either the DA's are in place, or the demand is sufficient to warrant development.

Now if you take away NG you then limit the market to large cashed up developers, who will on the one hand pay much less for the land (due to reduced competition) and are likely to charge much more for the end product, due to less stock availability. It truly is a no brainer.

Of cause there are the older homes on large res lots, that are purchased, then developed into multiple dwellings, meaning one dwelling can be replaced by several if not dozens, many of which qualify for affordable housing. Negative gearing plays a huge roll in these.

So the question is who is going to buy the used lot, go through the DA and planning process, can be three years or more, then provide reduced cost housing in the end. No one!

This truly is a dumb policy.

As an investor myself I have just purchased another rental and have used equity in other assets which allowed me to borrow 105%, and it will still be positively geared.

My point is long term rental properties can be a strong investment, provided you buy in the right area. Having done so myself has allowed me to use this equity to build a portfolio, which in turn will mean we wont be a Burdon on the future tax payers. Abolishing NG will most likely see an end to this type of financial independence building.

Of cause there is also the commercial abolition of NG but that's a whole new topic but just as potentially damaging in my view.

I welcome anyone including Mr Eastlake to debate me on this topic.

I think that what this has exposed is Labor's modus operandi for policy making:

Step 1 Choose something populist that sounds good and formulate a policy,
Step 2 Ignore all studies and history that show that the policy won't work,
Step 3 Find some half arsed "independent study" that agrees with your policy, and refuse to release any details on your study.
Step 4 Rubbish all the other independent studies and lie through your teeth about not knowing about them.

This applies not only to Labor's moronic Negative gearing policy, but also to its moronic 50% carbon reduction by 2030 (for which they still have done no modelling), their taxing of multinationals, and their funding of Gonski.

It's the "G" in NG that allows the canny punter to back himself, with a small stake, into financial independence.

The punter may make a taxable capital gain and/or progress into positive gearing and pay income tax. Why should this be so for all asset classes other than older housing?

The answer, the cost of older housing will fall to the benefit of first home buyers. Meanwhile, pity renters and anyone already storing retirement acorns through home ownership/investment.

The assertion that home ownership is unaffordable is subjective, dependent upon the each market under consideration and each individual's aspiration. Opening up the land supply will widen possibilities for buyers, but nobbling housing investment by quarantining NG to achieve this is just too stupid for words, and based on envy.

luc, you say opening up land supply will make first home buying easier, but, where will the land come from?

Also, first home buyers are only a portion of the new housing market, as many new homes are purchased by upgraders. The problem is then going to be, who is going to buy the upgraders old home?

Hypothetically, if a used homes value falls say 20%, from $500K to $400K (a move that will plunge us into recession) rents will skyrocket as investors will want a 10% return, or $800 per week, otherwise they wont bother buying. Even if they settle for 8% that's still $615 per week, up from about $450 per week meaning renters will wear the brunt of this polices fallout.

To suggest this is a dumb policy is a gross understatement, its an absolute shocker and given Malcom is proving to be a real dud, we investors are becoming worried that labor will get back in by default.

More IR restrictions, more union thuggery and a massive downturn in business confidence.

Only if the Liberals stop lying first.

When will any political party stop lying. When are you people going to realise the purpose of the two party system is box us into making a choice they give us.

When are you going to realise the two makjor parties are just two wings of the same bird of prey.

I add this following quote in full for no other reason than to show what I mean by this. Note what this quote says in the 3rd paragraph.

Montagu Norman, Governor of The Bank Of England, addressing the United States Bankers' Association, NYC 1924. Said:

Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

“When, through process of law [he meant “legal”], the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of the government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers.

“These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance.

“It is thus, by discrete action, we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.“

NB: This quotation was reprinted in the Idaho Leader, USA, on 26th August 1924, and has been read into the Australian Federal Hansard twice: by John Evans MP, in 1926, and by MD Cowan MP, in the session of 1930-31.