Mortgage rates drop, but further relief unlikely as OCR stabilises
This level of labour market slack usually keeps a lid on domestic inflation pressures.
The RBNZ isn't done with cutting rates just yet, but an important insight borrowers should take from last week's decision is that we are nearing the end of the easing cycle.
Of the big four Australian banks and Kiwibank, forecasts for where the OCR troughs range from 2.50% to 3%.
The most recent RBNZ projections imply a floor of either 3% or 2.75%, with the odds slightly tilted towards the latter.
Whoever you choose to believe, it's clear the bottom is getting closer.
For most of us, this matters because of what it means for borrowing costs and the household budget.
Mortgage rates have already fallen a long way. The two-year rate is 5% right now, down from 7% at the end of 2023.
It's important to understand that your mortgage rate isn't driven solely by moves in the OCR.
Global economic conditions, wholesale interest rates, bank funding costs and competition among lenders can also have a big influence.
There's still a strong relationship though, especially for the shorter mortgage terms.
In the past six months the gap between the OCR and the two-year rate has been about 1.5%, well below the average since 2017 of 2.2%.
That tight spread could mean there's less room for mortgage rates to fall, even if we do see another OCR cut or three.
The outlook could change if we experienced a global economic shock, or if inflation proved more persistent than expected.
However, right now, the base case points to limited further relief.
As our biggest lender, ANZ likely has some useful insights about the mortgage market.
Its latest monthly property report suggests the two-year mortgage rate will bottom at 4.9% later this year, only marginally below current levels.
It has the one-year slightly lower at 4.7%, while the three- and five-year rates don't dip below 5% in its projections.
This conservative outlook is notable, given ANZ (with Kiwibank) sees the OCR falling to 2.50%.
The upshot here is that most of the downward move in mortgage rates is behind us.
I wouldn't say this is 'as good as it gets' for borrowers, but we're much closer to that point than many think.
The next OCR decision is due in late August and importantly, this one will also see the release of a new forecast set.
This is the natural opportunity for the next cut, but there are a few things to monitor between now and then.
Next week's June quarter consumer price index (CPI) report is one, while the labour force report on August 7 will also be crucial.
Assuming those are close to RBNZ projections, there's a decent chance we see a 0.25% cut at that time.
That would take the OCR to 3%, close to neutral and where it sat comfortably for six years from 2010 to 2015.
The focus will then shift to whether that's as low as it goes this cycle.
With mortgage spreads already compressed relative to recent years and the OCR within neutral territory, borrowers hoping for much lower rates will be left disappointed.
Mark Lister is Investment Director at Craigs Investment Partners. The information in this article is provided for information only, is intended to be general in nature, and does not take into account your financial situation, objectives, goals, or risk tolerance. Before making any investment decision Craigs Investment Partners recommends you contact an investment adviser.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
6 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
US 'will sell so much' beef to Australia after relaxed restrictions: Trump
The United States will sell "so much" beef to Australia, US President Donald Trump said today after Canberra relaxed import restrictions. He added that other countries that refused US beef products were on notice. Australia on Thursday said it would loosen biosecurity rules for US beef, something analysts predicted would not significantly increase US shipments because Australia is a major beef producer and exporter whose prices are much lower. "We are going to sell so much to Australia because this is undeniable and irrefutable Proof that US Beef is the Safest and Best in the entire World," Trump said in a post on Truth Social. "The other Countries that refuse our magnificent Beef are ON NOTICE," the post continued. Trump has attempted to renegotiate trade deals with numerous countries he says have taken advantage of the United States – a characterisation many economists dispute. "For decades, Australia imposed unjustified barriers on US beef," US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement, calling Australia's decision a "major milestone in lowering trade barriers and securing market access for US farmers and ranchers." Australia is not a significant importer of beef, but the United States is, and a production slump is forcing it to step up purchases. Last year, Australia shipped almost 400,000 metric tons of beef worth $US2.9 billion ($NZ4.8 billion) to the United States, with just 269 tons of US product moving the other way. Australian officials say the relaxation of restrictions was not part of any trade negotiations but the result of a years-long assessment of US biosecurity practices. Canberra has restricted US beef imports since 2003 due to concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease. Since 2019, it has allowed in meat from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the US but few suppliers were able to prove that their cattle had not been in Canada and Mexico. On Wednesday, Australia's agriculture ministry said US cattle traceability and control systems had improved enough that Australia could accept beef from cattle born in Canada or Mexico and slaughtered in the United States. The decision has caused some concern in Australia, where biosecurity is seen as essential to prevent diseases and pests from ravaging the farm sector. "We need to know if [the government] is sacrificing our high biosecurity standards just so Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can obtain a meeting with US President Donald Trump," shadow agriculture minister David Littleproud said in a statement. Australia, which imports more from the US than it exports, faces a 10% across-the-board US tariff, as well 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium. Trump has also threatened to impose a 200% tariff on pharmaceuticals. Asked whether the change would help achieve a trade deal, Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell said: "I'm not too sure." "We haven't done this in order to entice the Americans into a trade agreement," he said. "We think that they should do that anyway."
NZ Herald
7 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Infratil and Ebos help drive NZ stocks higher
Late in the New Zealand trading day, Australia's S&P/ASX 200 was down 43.10 points at 8,666.30. The index has lost 1.04% for the last five days, but sits just 1.25% below its 52-week high. The main influences on the local S&P/NZX50 index were infrastructure investor Infratil, up 26c or 2.3% at $11.45, and medical supplies distributor Ebos, up 41c at $41.17. On the downside, utilities software provider Gentrack dropped by 61c or 5.5% to $10.52 after announcing it had been informed by an Australian customer it was no longer in the frame for replacing the customer's current platform. 'Whilst the financial impact of this does not warrant disclosure, out of caution we are providing this update to our investors,' Gentrack said. Salt Funds managing director Matt Goodson said Gentrack had lost out to its main competitor, Kraken, which is part of Britain's Octopus Energy. 'It should not have come as a shock because it was suspected by some, but the actual confirmation of it has seen the stock fall,' Goodson said. Sky Network TV fell 8c to $3.06 after spiking higher earlier in the week on news it would buy the troubled Discovery NZ for $1. Among the minor issues, takeover target Metro Performance Glass, which has a market cap of $9m, gained 0.3 of a cent to 5c. Competitor Viridian NZ's 8c per share offer for Metro Glass is before the Commerce Commission, which today issued a 'Statement of Issues' relating to the application. 'The commission has identified potential adverse competitive effects arising from a loss of competition between Viridian and Metro in glass processing, supply and installation markets where they are close competitors,' it said. Goodson said the commission 'clearly has issues' with Viridian buying Metro Glass because they are the two major players in glass processing and installation. 'I guess the question then is if Viridian is not allowed, what becomes of Metro Glass, given their debt levels,' Goodson said. Looking ahead, annual meetings on Wednesday for Ryman Healthcare and Mainfreight should give investors some clues as to how the two leading stocks are tracking in the current financial year. Later in the week, second-quarter results from Apple, Amazon and Microsoft – part of America's so-called Magnificent Seven – are due out. In the big picture, the ongoing spat between US President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell continues to be a concern for the financial markets as investors worry about the US central bank's independence. Jamie Gray is an Auckland-based journalist, covering the financial markets, the primary sector and energy. He joined the Herald in 2011.
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
What You Need To Know About A 150,000-Customer Banking Class Action
ASB and ANZ have rejected an offer to settle a class action suit against them, for about $300 million. Instead, the legal drama continues - and now the country's lawmakers are involved, too. So what is the class action suit actually about, and what's happening now? What does the class action claim? The class action is for breaches of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA). Between 2015 and 2019, the law said that a lender that was in breach of its disclosure requirements had to repay borrowers all the interest and fees they were charged during the time when they were not compliant with the rules. The class action claims that between 30 May, 2015 and 28 May, 2016, a coding error in one of ANZ's systems failed to take into account interest that had been accrued and not yet charged. As a result, loan variation letters contained incorrect information. ANZ said it meant customers were undercharged. The class action also claims that between 6 June, 2015 and 18 June, 2019, ASB did not ensure customers received variation disclosure when they requested changes to repayment amounts, dates or frequency, over the phone or in branch. They also say ASB did not provide customers with compliant variation disclosure when requesting other kinds of changes. It has been estimated that, if banks were to lose in court, more than 150,000 customers could be reimbursed a combined total of hundreds of millions of dollars. Customers have been added to the class action on an "opt out basis". All ASB and ANZ customers the court determines to be affected will be represented unless they choose not to be. The action has been in progress for about four years and University of Auckland senior law lecturer Nikki Chamberlain said it was the biggest consumer class action she was aware of in New Zealand history. Haven't the banks already made amends? The banks have already compensated affected customers after reporting the breaches to the Commerce Commission. ANZ first paid customers about $6 million. The Commerce Commission investigated and the bank admitted a breach of its responsible lending obligations and agreed to pay customers another $29.4m. ASB agreed to pay just over $8m. What is the law change? The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment (CCCFA) Bill, which is before select committee, includes a retrospective fix that would mean instead of a blanket penalty applying for disclosure breaches between 2015 and 2019, a court would be allowed to decide what compensation was "just and equitable". In 2019, the law was amended to apply to breaches from that point, but this change would apply to breaches before that time, too, if they had not been dealt with by a court already. What's the criticism? "Changing the law creates a dangerous precedent for everyone and exposes the plaintiffs to more cost and delay, as well as introducing uncertainty to their established claim," said Scott Russell, the lawyer leading the banking class action. Chamberlain said many consumer protection laws were punitive rather than compensatory. "The reason we have punitive remedial provisions in these consumer-based legislations is to incentivise big players like the banks to invest in their compliance systems. Otherwise what would be the motivation for the bank to invest in their systems? Their money is better spent in growing their lending portfolio… so there's this idea that we want to incentivise banks to self-regulate to some extent. "We want them to be having good practises and disclosing what they need to be disclosing in their lending documents to customers and we need to have punishment that's severe enough they take notice." She said the change could make it uneconomical to pursue the case, and could put litigation funders off from taking action in future in other scenarios. "If you change the remedial provision retrospectively, you are going to increase the cost of evidence that is required and the legal fees required because you're going to have to go through every single breach for every single customer, and go through the factors and that's going to blow the cost out which might make the litigation uneconomical and unviable. "Litigation funders have been funding it. Litigation funders are a good thing. Yes, they do take a percentage on a no win, no fee basis. But what litigation funders do with class actions is they make claims which would ordinarily be uneconomic to pursue economically viable." She said the defendants could use the fact there was a power disparity between them and plaintiffs to their advantage, but litigation funders helped to offset that. "One of my bigger concerns is about the rule of law, retrospective legislation in general is something that is not well looked upon. "In fact, it should not be enacted unless there are extraordinary circumstances. Why is that? Because we need certainty in the law. If people can't rely on the rights and remedies provided by the law at the time of breach, then there's uncertainty in the law and it will absolutely impinge on the integrity of the legal system. And eventually, democracy itself, because it goes to us being able to rely on what our rights are… why would a funder enter the market if there's a concern that big powerful organisations who are defendants in active litigation can lobby the government and they just change the law midway through the proceeding, in their favour?" It would be possible to put a long stop limitation provision in the law to prohibit any future litigation under the old rules, she said, if the concern was about the future liability of other lenders. What do banks say? But Roger Beaumont, chief executive of the New Zealand Banking Association, said the change was needed. "Between 2015 and 2019 any lender who even made a small mistake in the information provided to borrowers, like getting their phone number wrong, could be subject to a draconian provision in the law that, on one interpretation, would make them repay all the interest and fees paid until the error was corrected. That consequence would be totally out of proportion with the technical legal breach, especially if there was no harm to the consumer who was happily enjoying their new home or car thanks to a bank loan. "Modelling from the Reserve Bank shows a potential risk to the financial system of $12.9 billion. The Reserve Bank considered more extreme variations that 'were much more severe' but didn't publish them as they were too 'speculative'. A financial system risk much worse than $13 billion should be concerning to everyone." He said the change would also benefit smaller lenders who could not absorb the cost of legal action. Banking expert Claire Matthews, from Massey University, said if the claim were successful, there was a risk that litigation funders might see it as a way to make money. "They could be exploring other opportunities to see if there is something else that somebody had done." She said the law as it stood "significantly advantaged customers" and "almost encourages them to find a mistake. If you can find that somebody's made a mistake, and let's face it, people do make mistakes from time to time, you could have a very small mistake which is what was the case here and suddenly you don't have to pay any interest for the whole time of the loan? That to me just seems a bit unusual". The Commerce Commission had the ability to apply punitive damages if it had considered it appropriate, she said. Retrospective legislation was not uncommon. "It's kind of two different arguments. Maybe it's bad, but it's happened often enough that suggests that in certain circumstances, it's not unreasonable to do in this case." What settlement offers have been made? Claimants in the class action last week offered to settle for more than $300 million. But both banks rejected it. The offer included a cap on liability that was the lesser of either 68 percent of what customers paid in borrowing costs during the breach period, or a small percentage of bank profits. For ANZ the percentage was 3.5 percent of profits from FY16 through FY19. While ASB's offer was 5 percent of profits during the same period. ANZ described the offer as a stunt. Matthews said if the law change went ahead it would have a big impact on the case. "I'm not sure that it would completely kill the case but it would have a substantial impact. I think there would be potential for the case to still progress but the associated penalties and the impact of a decision in favour of the applicants would have less benefits for them and therefore the litigation funders might decide it was no longer worth their while to purse it because the costs would be too great."
