A rate cut could be on the way. Why that could be a problem
This weakness is surprising. Economists had expected that, by now, lower inflation and lower mortgage repayments would have fired up spending. What has held back the spending rebound?
IFM Investors chief economist Alex Joiner points out that consumers measure the cost of living not through the inflation rate but how expensive doing the shopping feels. And on that front, he says prices are still 20 to 25 per cent higher than they were in 2019.
The recovery in wages and slowdown in inflation of recent years has not yet made up for the hit that households took from the post-COVID surge in inflation. 'Household incomes are starting to grow, but there's a long way for them to catch up,' Joiner says.
Loading
The Commonwealth Bank says there appears to have been 'scarring' from the cost-of-living crunch, so households now appear more focused on saving and paying down debt.
CBA senior economist Belinda Allen says this looks like the result of how households are feeling, as opposed to a change in their financial capacity to spend. 'They are just more wary to unleash that spending potential,' she says.
That wary attitude can cause problems for the economy because household consumption accounts for more than half of gross domestic product.
What can the Reserve Bank do about this cautious household mindset?
It really has only one weapon – moving interest rates – and the market is convinced that there are significant rate cuts coming. Financial markets are betting there will be three or four interest rate cuts over the next year in an attempt to convince households to open their purse strings.
The challenge is that cutting interest rates clearly has all sorts of other economic impacts aside from its effect on household cashflows. Most obviously, rates can have a big influence on house prices.
House prices have risen for five months in a row, and analysts say the February rate cut was a turning point for the market. Prices are rising at an annualised rate of almost 6 per cent a year, and it wouldn't be surprising if that growth rate accelerated in response to more central bank rate cuts. In short, rate cuts appear to be affecting the housing market much more quickly than they're affecting household spending.
The Reserve Bank has distanced itself from the issue. In May, Bullock said there was nothing the Reserve Bank could do about the affordability of housing, which is related to an 'imbalance' between housing supply and demand.
All the same, some economists believe the Reserve Bank faces a puzzle in balancing the effects of interest rates on housing and consumer spending.
UBS economist George Tharenou last month called it an 'RBA conundrum': that interest rate cuts are having only a muted impact on household cashflows while giving asset prices (mainly houses) more of a boost.
The Reserve Bank says it doesn't set interest rates based on house prices, and that's fair enough. But it can't entirely ignore them either. Indeed, Tharenou says the risk of putting upward pressure on house prices should limit how willing the Reserve Bank is to cut interest rates too aggressively.
In the past, the Reserve Bank has generally raised concerns about the housing market when prices are booming and when it's coupled with a sharp lift in credit growth or more risky borrowing. There are no signs of that happening now – the latest figures showed housing credit growth was 5.8 per cent, which is hardly a boom.
Loading
Even so, the central bank faces a tricky balancing act in how deeply it can cut interest rates to perk up gloomy consumers without also adding fuel to a housing market that is already showing firm signs of warming up.
It's a puzzle that reflects the nation's sky-high house prices, which have built up over decades – and it's one that the central bank board will continue to face whatever it decides on Tuesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Beware the hidden landmines in our credit card fees
Credit cards have been part of Australian life since the 1970s, offering convenience, though often at a cost. Over the decades, banks have profited handsomely from fees and interest charges that hit the most vulnerable the hardest. One infamous case involved a low-income customer who checked her balance at an ATM, saw $30, and withdrew it – only to be slugged a $2 inquiry fee that pushed her into the red. The result? A $30 penalty for overdrawing. It's a stark example of how small transactions can trigger outsized punishments in a system rigged against the poor. The mistreatment continues when penalty interest rates are often wildly out of step with the Reserve Bank's steadily falling cash rate. On overdue accounts, American Express charges 23.99 per cent, Latitude 27.99 per cent, and Virgin Money 20.74 per cent. These figures are not just high – they're psychologically engineered to appear more palatable. Pricing just under round numbers, a tactic long used in retail to mute the real cost, is now embedded in credit policy too. But whether it's $27.99 or 28 per cent, the pain to struggling cardholders is the same. Given the huge cost of being late with repayments, I've always made a habit of paying the balance the day the statement arrives, so there can be no arguments about when it was paid. This has worked well for many years. The credit card companies always send an email when the statement is available, and I've relied on those emails – never keeping a diary note – until now. Loading In June, I began receiving texts allegedly from Virgin, asking me to contact them about my credit card. I thought they were scams and ignored them – understandable, given the influx of bogus messages we receive these days. Then the June statement arrived with a big heading: 'Your account is overdue.' That came as a major shock – it's never happened before. There was also a narration: 'interest charged retail', $79.71. I considered calling Virgin to explain that I've always paid my card in full on time, and that I never received an email alerting me to the statement. But knowing how long the wait times can be, I decided it wasn't worth it. I paid the full balance that day. Then the next statement came – and that's when things really turned sour. Even though I'd paid the previous one immediately, I was hit with another debit: $19.05 for more interest. Assuming a mistake, I rang them to point out that I'd paid before the due date, so further interest made no sense. That's when the real kicker came. The woman on the phone said: 'Oh no, if you miss one payment, you then lose two interest-free periods.' In other words, even though I'd paid early, I was still going to be charged again.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
Beware the hidden landmines in our credit card fees
Credit cards have been part of Australian life since the 1970s, offering convenience, though often at a cost. Over the decades, banks have profited handsomely from fees and interest charges that hit the most vulnerable the hardest. One infamous case involved a low-income customer who checked her balance at an ATM, saw $30, and withdrew it – only to be slugged a $2 inquiry fee that pushed her into the red. The result? A $30 penalty for overdrawing. It's a stark example of how small transactions can trigger outsized punishments in a system rigged against the poor. The mistreatment continues when penalty interest rates are often wildly out of step with the Reserve Bank's steadily falling cash rate. On overdue accounts, American Express charges 23.99 per cent, Latitude 27.99 per cent, and Virgin Money 20.74 per cent. These figures are not just high – they're psychologically engineered to appear more palatable. Pricing just under round numbers, a tactic long used in retail to mute the real cost, is now embedded in credit policy too. But whether it's $27.99 or 28 per cent, the pain to struggling cardholders is the same. Given the huge cost of being late with repayments, I've always made a habit of paying the balance the day the statement arrives, so there can be no arguments about when it was paid. This has worked well for many years. The credit card companies always send an email when the statement is available, and I've relied on those emails – never keeping a diary note – until now. Loading In June, I began receiving texts allegedly from Virgin, asking me to contact them about my credit card. I thought they were scams and ignored them – understandable, given the influx of bogus messages we receive these days. Then the June statement arrived with a big heading: 'Your account is overdue.' That came as a major shock – it's never happened before. There was also a narration: 'interest charged retail', $79.71. I considered calling Virgin to explain that I've always paid my card in full on time, and that I never received an email alerting me to the statement. But knowing how long the wait times can be, I decided it wasn't worth it. I paid the full balance that day. Then the next statement came – and that's when things really turned sour. Even though I'd paid the previous one immediately, I was hit with another debit: $19.05 for more interest. Assuming a mistake, I rang them to point out that I'd paid before the due date, so further interest made no sense. That's when the real kicker came. The woman on the phone said: 'Oh no, if you miss one payment, you then lose two interest-free periods.' In other words, even though I'd paid early, I was still going to be charged again.
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
Did the RBA misfire with its decision to hold rates this month?
What do you get when inflation falls at the same time unemployment is rising? Rate cuts, that's what. In fact, the interest rate cut we should have seen a few weeks ago has now become a certainty for the next Reserve Bank of Australia meeting next month. At the shock post-meeting press conference, RBA governor Michele Bullock made it clear the board was awaiting confirmation that inflation was in decline, reiterating that it didn't want to act prematurely, only to discover that it had to resume the inflation fight later on. Those fears were allayed on Wednesday when the June quarter inflation data confirmed consumer price rises decelerated to 2.7 per cent during the three-month period, well down from the 2.9 per cent rise in the March quarter. That's for underlying inflation, the measure that strips out influences like government support measures such as rent assistance and power bill subsidies. On a headline basis, inflation has dropped to just 2.1 per cent, at the very bottom end of the RBA's comfort zone between 2 and 3 per cent. For most of this year, the newly introduced monthly inflation figures have been pointing towards a slowdown in the pace of consumer price rises. But the RBA remains anchored to the traditional quarterly numbers that, to be fair, have a far more comprehensive data set upon which to make interest rate decisions. There's a chorus of "I told you so" that would answer in the affirmative. But given there are only a few weeks between the July and August meetings, it shouldn't make that much difference, apart from the bruised egos of those who confidently, but wrongly, predicted a cut this month, your correspondent included. One of those was Luci Ellis, until recently a formidable part of the RBA brains trust, before last year joining Westpac as chief economist. "The five-week difference isn't really such a big deal. So, we wouldn't regard them as being particularly behind the eight ball with this decision, assuming they do actually go forward with a rate cut next month," she told Kirstin Aitken on The Business. Holding rates again, however, could create problems. "Because (monetary) policy operates on the economy with a lag, you actually kind of need to already be there, so there's not really a good argument for a continued hold." This month's decision to keep interest rates unchanged wrong-footed financial markets, which again are pricing in an almost certainty that rates will be cut next month. Markets and economists were convinced that the most recent GDP figures, delivered before this month's meeting and which highlighted a barely expanding economy, in conjunction with declining monthly inflation figures, were a compelling enough reason for a cut. The data since has only added weight to that argument. Unemployment has jumped from 4.1 per cent, where it has been steady for almost a year and a half, to 4.3 per cent as the labour market has softened. The number of people applying for jobs hit a new record last month, indicating a loosening in the job market. Even the handful who didn't believe there was a compelling reason for a rate cut this month were swayed by the latest inflation data, Betashares' David Bassanese said the broad-based easing in goods, services, and housing-related inflation set the scene for an August rate cut. But he defended the RBA's decision to hold fast this month, as the less reliable monthly figures indicated underlying inflation would fall at a much faster clip than occurred. "It turns out the governor was right to be cautious with annual trimmed mean inflation in the quarterly CPI report of 2.7 per cent, notably higher than what the May monthly report had suggested." The focus now is on how much further rates will be cut after this month. "My base case remains that the RBA will cut rates in August and then again in November and February," he said. Luci Ellis is also tipping an August and November cut. But she also thinks the RBA may be undershooting on where it believes interest rates will settle, given it believes inflation will fall further than the RBA currently is forecasting. "We think there are two more rate cuts after that, assuming our forecasts for inflation are what turns out to be the actual," she said. But she's confident about her forecasts. "Their favoured measure of underlying inflation is flat as a pancake at 2.6 per cent a year for, you know, the entire period they were forecasting. "And we just think it's going to land somewhere in the low twos through the next year." A few weeks back, the RBA governor assured the nation that rate cuts were a matter of when rather than if. That's rapidly shifting to a question of how many.
