Sensex 4,20,000: Coming in 15 years at a stock market near you

rakesh jhunjhunwalaVivek Kaul

It is that time of the year when stock brokerages forecast their Sensex/Nifty targets for the next year. A few such reports have landed up in my mailbox and the highest forecast that I have come across until now is that of the Sensex touching 37,000 points by December 2015.
I was thinking of writing a piece around these forecasts, until I happened to read an interview in which big bull Rakesh Jhunjhunwala said that
he would disappointed if the Nifty doesn’t hit 1,25,000 by 2030.
Nifty currently quotes at a level of around 8,500 points. The logic offered by Jhunjhunwla is very straightforward. He said that the earnings of stocks that constitute the Nifty index will grow by fifteen times over the next fifteen years. And that would take the Nifty to a level which is fifteen times its current level ( actually 15 times 8500 is 1,27,500, but given that Jhunjhunwala was talking in very broad terms let’s not nitpick). Hence, Nifty will be at 1,25,000 by 2030.
How reliable is this forecast? Not very, is a straightforward answer. A period of 15 years is too long a time to make such a specific forecast on the stock market or anything else for that matter. There are many things that can go wrong during the period (or go right for that matter). Hence, such forecasts need to be taken with a pinch of salt and seen as something that has an entertainment value more than anything else.
In matters of forecasts like these it is important to remember the first few lines of Ruchir Sharma’s
Breakout Nations – In Pursuit of the Next Economic Miracles: “The old rule of forecasting was to make as many forecasts as possible and publicise the ones you got right. The new rule is to forecast so far into the future that no one will know you got it wrong.” Jhunjhunwala has done precisely that.
If earnings have to grow by 15 times in 15 years, the Indian economy also needs to grow at a breakneck speed. Over a very long period of time, the companies cannot keep growing their profits unless the economy grows as well. For 15% earnings growth to happen, the economy needs to grow at a real rate of 8-10% per year (the remaining earnings growth will come from inflation).
The trouble is that this kind of rapid long term economic growth in countries is an extremely rare phenomenon.
As Sharma points out in
Breakout Nations:“Very few nations achieve long-term rapid growth. My own research shows that over the course of any given decade since 1950, only one-third of emerging markets have been able to grow at an annual rate of 5% or more. Less than one-fourth have kept that pace up for two decades, and one tenth for three decades. Just six countries (Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Hong Kong) have maintained the rate of growth for four decades, and two (South Korea and Taiwan) have done so for five decades.”
In fact, India and China which have been among the fastest growing countries over the last ten years, were laggards when it come to economic growth. “During the 1950s and the 1960s the biggest emerging markets – China and India – were struggling to grow at all. Nations like Iran, Iraq, and Yemen put together long strings of strong growth, but those strings came to a halt with the outbreak of war…In the 1960s, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Burma were billed as the next East Asian tigers, only to see their growth falter badly,” writes Sharma.
Long story short: Rapid economic growth cannot be taken for granted and given this forecasts like Nifty touching 1,25,000 at best need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Indeed,
Jhunjhunwala had predicted in October 2007 that the Sensex will touch 50,000 points in the next six or seven years.
Its been more than seven years since then and the Sensex is nowhere near the 50,000 level.
In October 2007, India was growing at a rapid rate. At that point of time it was almost a given that the country would continue to grow at a very fast rate. In fact, this feeling lasted almost until 2011, when the high inflation finally caught up with economic growth and the first set of low economic growth numbers started to come.
Also, Jhunjhunwala and most other stock market experts did not know in October 2007 that more or less a year later, the investment bank Lehman Brothers would go bust, and the world would see a financial crisis of the kind it had never seen since the Great Depression.
The stock market fell rapidly in the aftermath of the crisis. Once this happened the central banks of the world led by the Federal Reserve of the United States, printed and pumped money into their respective financial systems.
The idea was to flood the financial system with money so as to maintain low interest rates and hope that people borrow and spend, and in the process get economic growth going again. That happened to a limited extent. What happened instead was that big financial institutions borrowed money at low interest rates and invested it in financial markets all over the world.
In the Indian case the foreign institutional investors have made a net purchase of Rs 3,19,366.35 crore in the Indian stock market between January 2009 and November 2014. During the same period the domestic institutional investors sold stocks worth Rs 1,27,280.1 crore. The massive financial flows from abroad have ensured that the BSE Sensex has jumped from around a level of 10,000 points to around 28,450 points, during the same period, giving an absolute return of around 185%.
The point being that despite this massive inflow of money from abroad, the BSE Sensex is nowhere near the 50,000 level that Jhunjhunwala had predicted in October 2007. Over the long term a lot of things can go wrong and which is what happened after 2007.
To conclude, let me ride on Jhunjhunwala’s forecast and make my own forecast. Jhunjhunwala has predicted that the Nifty index will touch 1,25,000 points in 2030. This means the Sensex will cross 4,16, 420 points in 2030.
How do I say that? The Sensex currently quotes at around 28,450 points. In comparison, the Nifty is at around 8,500 points. This means a Sensex to Nifty ratio of around 3.33.
Hence, when Nifty touches 1,25,000 points, the Sensex will touch 4,16,420 points (1,25,000 x 3.33). For the sake of convenience let’s just round this off to 4,20,000 points. I know, the world is not so linear. If forecasts were just about dragging a few MS Excel cells, everybody would be getting them right.
But then it is the forecast season and everyone seems to be making one, and given that even I should be making one. And if in 2030 I am proven right, I will search this column and tell the world at large that I said it first way back in late 2014 on
The Daily Reckoning.
To conclude, dear reader, remember you read it here first. That’s the trick and I know how it works.

The article originally appeared on www.equitymaster.com as a part of The Daily Reckoning, on Dec 4, 2014 

Warren Buffett’s favourite business book tells us what is wrong with India’s tax system

Warren_Buffett_KU-crop,flip

Vivek Kaul

Business books are soporific. They put me to sleep.
Nonetheless, now and then, one does come across an excellent business book as well. These days I am reading John Brooks’
Business Adventures. The book is a collection of 12 long articles that Brooks wrote for the New Yorker magazine.
In July 2014, Bill Gates wrote a blog titled
The Best Business Book I’ve Ever Read. As he put it : “Not long after I first met Warren Buffett back in 1991, I asked him to recommend his favorite book about business. He didn’t miss a beat: “It’s Business Adventures, by John Brooks,” he said. “I’ll send you my copy.” I was intrigued: I had never heard of Business Adventures or John Brooks. Today, more than two decades after Warren lent it to me—and more than four decades after it was first published—Business Adventures remains the best business book I’ve ever read.” This blog by Gates sent the book to the top of the best-sellers lists almost everywhere.
The third chapter of the book is called
The Federal Income Tax. Brooks makes several points in the chapter about the income tax system in the United States as it had prevailed in the fifties and sixties. Some of the points I feel are as applicable to the general tax environment in India today as they were in the United States back then.
As Brooks writes in the context of the federal income tax in the United States: “A good deal of the attention given to the income tax is based on the proposition that the tax is neither logical nor equitable. Probably, the broadest and most serious charge is that the law has close to its heart something very much like a lie; that is, it provides for taxing incomes at steeply progressive rates, and then goes on to supply an array of escape hatches so convenient that hardly anyone, no matter how rich, need pay the top rates or anything like them.”
Long story short: The rich were “supposed” to be taxed at a high rate, but at the same time enough loopholes were built into the income tax laws ensuring that they did not pay the highest tax rates in reality.
A similar sort of scenario prevails in India when it comes to the Income Tax Act in particular and taxes in general. Along with the budget every year, the government of India
puts out a statement of revenue foregone under the central tax system.
What is the purpose of this system? “The estimates and projections are intended to indicate the potential revenue gain that would be realised by removing exemptions, deductions, weighted deductions and similar measures,” the latest statement of revenue foregone points out.
The deductions, exemptions and other measures lead to a loss of revenue for the government. As can be seen from the accompanying table the revenue foregone for the government during the year 2013-2014 has been estimated to be at Rs 5,72,923.3 crore.

Statement of Revenue Foregone

TaxYear(in Rs crore)
2012-20132013-2014
Corporate Income Tax68,720.076,116.3
Personal Income Tax33,535.740,414.0
Excise Duty209,940.0195,679.0
Customs Duty254,039.0260,714.0
566,234.7572,923.3


A simplistic way of looking at it is that the revenue foregone number is greater than the fiscal
deficit of the government for 2013-2014, which stood at Rs 5,42,499 crore.
Nevertheless it needs to be pointed out that the statement of revenue foregone is based on certain assumptions. As the statement points out “ The estimates are based on a short-term impact analysis. They are developed assuming that the underlying tax base would not be affected by removal of such measures….The cost of each tax concession is determined separately, assuming that all other tax provisions remain unchanged. Many of the tax concessions do, however, interact with each other. Therefore, the interactive impact of tax incentives could turn out to be different from the revenue foregone calculated by adding up the estimates and projections for each provision.”
So the revenue foregone figure needs to be looked at with these limitations in mind. Having said that, the government of India is losing out on revenue because of the exemptions and deductions. There is no denying that. As can be seen from the above table corporate India is a major beneficiary of the same, like the rich were in the United States, around the time Brooks wrote about the federal income tax.
Getting back to Brooks, he also points out that laws and the regulations were so vast that the critics thought it was an “undemocratic state of affairs, for only the rich can afford the expensive professional advice necessary to minimize their taxes legally”.
This is what is happening in India as well. Companies have an army of chartered accountants and lawyers, working towards legally minimizing taxes, whereas most individual tax payers find it difficult to afford the services of a good chartered accountant who can help them.
Brooks also talks about the favoured treatment of capital gains. This is something that really helps the rich because they are the ones primarily investing in stocks and bonds. In India short term capital gains on equity gets taxed at 15%. There is no long term capital gains tax on equity i.e. if you buy and then sell a share after one year, you don’t have to pay a tax on the capital gains you make when you sell the shares. Equity mutual funds are treated in a similar way.
In case of debt mutual funds, long term capital gains come into the picture if the investment is held for a period of more than three years. Long term capital gains are taxed at either 10% or 20% with indexation, whichever is lower. Indexation allows inflation to be taken into account while calculating the cost of purchase. This brings down the tax significantly.
Now compare this to the common man’s investment—the humble fixed deposit. In this case the interest earned is taxed at the marginal rate of tax. Why is there a favourable treatment for investing in equity? I have often been told that this is because the investor investing in stocks is taking on more risk than the fixed deposit investor, and hence needs to be encouraged through a favourable tax treatment.
This I guess is “bullshit” (pardon my French!) of the highest order perpetuated by those who invest in equity and do not want to pay any tax on it. The amount of risk that an individual wants to take on with investments, is his or her personal preference and should have nothing to do with the prevailing income tax system. Nevertheless that’s the way things stand. Equity gets preferential tax treatment all over the world.
Other than this, the Indian Income Tax Act has a very interesting provision for those taking on a home loan to buy a home. In fact, the Act encourages people to speculate in real estate. T
here is no restriction on the number of homes against which you can claim a tax deduction on the interest paid on the home loan to fund the property. Only one of these properties needs to categorized as a self-occupied property. On this self-occupied property, an interest of up to Rs 1.5 lakh can be claimed as a tax deduction.
But this limit does not apply to the remaining homes that an individual may choose to buy. Any amount of interest paid on home loans can be claimed as a deduction as long as a “notional rent” is added to the income.
We all know that these days “rents” are relatively low in comparison to the EMIs that need to be paid in order to repay the home loan. Hence, the interest component tends to be massive during the initial years and helps people with two or more homes, claim huge tax deductions.
In a country where a large number cannot afford to buy a home what is the logic in having a regulation like this one?
The Direct Taxes Code, which is supposed to be replace the Income Tax Act, in its original form simplified the income tax system. In fact, I remember reading a large part of it when it first came out and was very impressed by its simplicity.
But a simple tax code doesn’t benefit those who currently make money out of the Income Tax Act being as complicated as it is. These include chartered accountants, tax lawyers, corporates and the income tax officers. Over the years, the Direct Taxes Code has been revised and from what I am told by those in the know of such things, it has become more or less as complicated as the Income Tax Act currently is.
To conclude, the tax system in India currently favours those who need to pay more taxes. This is something that needs to be addressed in the days to come.

The article originally appeared on www.equitymaster.com on Dec 2, 2014

Sensex @28,500 : Stock Market as a beauty contest

bullfightingVivek Kaul

We never know what we are talking about – Karl Popper

The Sensex closed at 28,499.54 points yesterday (i.e. November 24, 2014). The fund managers are confident that this bull run will last for a while. Or so they said in a round table organised by The Economic Times.
Prashant Jain of HDFC Mutual Fund explained that during the last three bull markets that India had seen, the market had never peaked before reaching a price to earnings ratio of 25 times. The price to earnings ratio currently is 16 times, and hence, we are still at a “reasonable distance” from the peak.
This seems like a fair point. But how many people invest in the stock market on the basis of where the price to earnings ratio is at any point of time? If that were the case most people would have invested in 2008-2009, when the price to earnings ratio of the Sensex
through the year stood at 12.68.
By buying stocks at a lower price to earnings ratio, they would have made more money once the stock market started to recover. But stock markets and rationality don’t always go together. Every investor is does not look at fundamentals before investing. “In investing, fundamentals are the underlying realities of business, in terms of sales, costs and profits,” explains John Lanchester in How to Speak Money.
A big bunch of stock market investors like to move with the herd. Let’s call such investors non fundamentals investors.
So when do these investors actually invest in the stock market? In order to understand this we will have to go back to John Maynard Keynes. Keynes equated the stock market to a “beauty contest” which was fairly common during his day.
As Lanchester writes “Keynes gave a famous description of what this kind of non-fundamentals investor does: he is looking at a photo of six girls and trying to pick, not which girl he thinks is the prettiest, and not which he thinks most people will think is the prettiest, but which most people will think most people will think is the prettiest…In other words the non-fundamentals investor isn’t trying to work out what companies he should invest in, or what company most investors will think they should invest in, but which company most investors will think most investors will want to invest in.”
Or as Keynes put it in his magnum opus
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money“It is not a case of choosing those [faces] that, to the best of one’s judgement, are really the prettiest, nor even those that average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be.”
Hence, a large bunch of investors invest on the basis of whether others round them have been investing. That is the beauty contest of today.
Nilesh Shah, MD and CEO of Axis Capital pointed out in
The Economic Times round table that nearly Rs 25,000-Rs 30,000 crore of money will come into the stock market through systematic investment plans (SIPs).
Anyone who understands the basics of how SIPs work knows that they are designed to exploit the volatility of the stock market—buy more mutual fund units when the stock market is falling and buy fewer units while it is going up. This helps in averaging the cost of purchase over a period of time, and ensures reasonable returns.
Investors who are getting into SIPs now are not best placed to exploit the SIP design. Nevertheless, they are still investing simply because others around them have been investing. This also explains why the net inflow into equity mutual funds for the first seven months of the this financial year (between April and October 2014) has been at Rs 39,217 crore. This is when the stock market is regularly touching new highs.
And if things go on as they currently are, the year might see the
highest inflow into equity mutual funds ever. The year 2007-2008 had seen Rs 40,782 crore being invested into equity mutual funds. This was the year when the stock market was on fire. In early January 2008, the Sensex almost touched 21,000 points. It had started the financial year at around 12,500 points.
So, now its all about the flow or what Keynes said “what average opinion expects the average opinion to be.” And till people see others around them investing in the stock market they will continue to do so. This will happen till the stock market continues to rise. And stock market will continue to rise till foreign investors
keep bringing money into India.
No self respecting fund manager can admit to the fact that these are the reasons behind the stock market rallying continuously all through this year. This is simply because all fund managers charge a certain percentage of the money they manage as a management fee.
And how will they justify that management fee, if the stock market is going up simply because it is going up. Nobel prize winning economist Robert Shiller calls such a situation a naturally occurring Ponzi scheme.
As he writes in the first edition of
Irrational Exuberance: “Ponzi schemes do arise from time to time without the contrivance of a fraudulent manager. Even if there is no manipulator fabricating false stories and deliberately deceiving investors in the aggregate stock market, tales about the market are everywhere. When prices go up a number of times, investors are rewarded sequentially by price movements in these markets just as they are in Ponzi schemes. There are still many people (indeed, the stock brokerage and mutual fund industries as a whole) who benefit from telling stories that suggest that the markets will go up further. There is no reason for these stories to be fraudulent; they need to only emphasize the positive news and give less emphasis to the negative.”
And that is precisely what fund managers will do in the time to come. In fact, they have already started to do that.
They will tell us stories. One favourite story that they like to offer is that India’s economy is much better placed than a lot of other emerging markets. This is true, but then what does that really tell us? (For a
real picture of the Indian economy check out this piece by Swaminathan Aiyar).
Another favourite line you will hear over and over again is that “markets are never wrong”. This phrase can justify anything.
The trick here is to say things with confidence. And that is something some of these fund managers excel at. Nevertheless it is worth remembering what Nassim Nicholas Taleb writes in
The Black Swan: “Humans will believe anything you say provided you do not exhibit the smallest shadow of diffidence; like animals, they can detect the smallest crack in your confidence before you express it. The trick is to be smooth as possible in personal manners…It is not what you are telling people, it how you are saying it.”
And this is something worth thinking about.

The article originally appeared on www.equitymaster.com on Nov 25, 2014

Why the Rs 7,00,000 crore EPFO needs to look beyond just public sector stocks

EPFOLogoVivek Kaul

A news report in The Times of India today (i.e. October 17,2014) points out that the Employee Provident Funds Organization (EPFO) wants to invest a portion of its corpus in stocks. As the report points out “At an informal meeting with labour minister Narendra Singh Tomar on Monday, representatives from Congress-backed INTUC and Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, which is affiliated to the ruling BJP, offered their support to a diversification of the EPFO’s investment mix into public sector stocks. At the same time both recommended that such investment should only be undertaken on expert advice.”
The Rs 7,00,000 crore EPFO currently invests only in government securities. Hence, from the point of view of diversification of investment, this proposal, if it goes through, makes immense sense. Nevertheless, there are several problems with the proposal in its current form.
First and foremost the EPFO wants to currently invest money only in
‘navratna’ public sector stocks. There are a couple of problems with this. If the idea is to give investors in EPFO a certain exposure to equity, then why limit it to only the best public sector companies?
The second problem is that the free float of the public sector companies is a lot lower in comparison to the overall market. Free float is essentially the number of shares that are deemed to be freely available in the market. In case of public sector companies the shares held by the government are not considered to be available for sale.
The free float of the companies that constitute the BSE Sensex works out to 53.3% currently. In comparison the free float of the public sector companies that constitute the BSE PSU Index, it works out to 29.2%.
Even if only 5% of the employees provident fund (EPF) corpus were to be invested in the stock market, this would mean Rs 35,000 crore of new money suddenly finding its way into public sector stocks. With a low free float, so much new money is likely going to drive up the value of public sector stocks. Hence, EPFO will end up buying stocks at a higher price. And this in turn will impact the return that the EPFO investor earns.
This is why it is important that the EPF invests in the best companies and not the best public sector companies. A simple way to do this would be to run an index fund which simply invests in stocks that constitute the BSE Sensex or the NSE Nifty. An index fund simply invests in stocks that constitute a market index.
Further, the EPFO wants experts to manage their equity investment. Experts repeatedly get the direction of the stock market wrong and this is something that EPFO can ill-afford at the beginning of what is basically an experiment. A better bet is to simply run an index fund and keep experts out of the equation totally. It is important that investors in the EPF, at least earn the market rate of return, first.
As far as experts are concerned, it is worth remembering what Nassim Nicholas Taleb writes in
The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improbable, “Simply, things that move, and therefore require knowledge, do not usually have experts, while things that don’t move seem to have some experts. In other words, professionals that deal with the future and base their studies on the non repeatable past have an expert problem. I am not saying that no one who deals with the future provides any valuable information, but rather that those who provide no tangible added value are dealing with the future.”
Stock market experts have to deal with future and base their decisions on a non repeatable past. The EPFO needs to remember this while deciding how to manage its investments into stocks.

This article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on Oct 17, 2014

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

As bank loans to real estate companies grow, an average Mumbaikar needs 34 years income to buy a home

India-Real-Estate-Market

Vivek Kaul
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) releases the sectoral deployment of credit data towards the end of every month. Data released on September 29, 2014, throws up some really interesting numbers.
Between August 23, 2013 and August 22, 2014, the overall lending by banks grew by 10.2% to Rs 5,729,300 crore.
Between August 24, 2012 and August 23, 2013, the overall bank lending had grown by 16.8% to Rs 5,199,100 crore. Hence, the growth in overall bank lending has slowed down considerably over the last one year.
What are the reasons for the same? A reason offered by banks is that the borrowing has slowed down because of the high interest rates that prevail. But interest rates had been high even around the time same time last year. Nevertheless, the overall lending by banks had still grown by 16.8%. So high interest rates cannot be a reason be the only reason for bank lending slowing down considerably.
A more feasible reason is the increase in non-performing loans of banks. As on March 31, 2013, the gross non-performing loans of public sector banks had stood at 3.61% of total loans. In a recent report ICRA points out that the gross non performing loans of public sector banks is expected to rise to the region of 4.4-4.7% of total loans as on March 31, 2015.
This rise in non-performing loans could be a reason behind banks going slow on giving out loans. They don’t want to see more loans go bad, and hence, have decided to go slow on lending. Nevertheless, the slowdown doesn’t seem to have impacted one particular sector and that is, commercial real estate.
Between August 23, 2013 and August 22, 2014, the lending to the sector grew by 17.6%. to Rs 1,59,900 crore. Between August 24, 2012 and August 23, 2013, the lending to the sector had grown at a similar rate of 17.4% to Rs 1,36,000 crore.
So, the question to ask here is why has the lending to commercial real estate continued to grow at the same rate whereas the growth in overall lending has fallen dramatically? This, under a scenario where real estate companies have a huge inventory of unsold homes all over the country. (To read about this in detail click here and here).
There is no straight forward answer to this question. To make a definitive statement on this, one would need the break up of the amount of lending to commercial real estate by public sector banks and private sector banks. It would be interesting to see the growth in lending to this sector by public sector banks.
As I have mentioned in the past most Indian real estate companies are fronts for the ill-gotten wealth of politicians. And a possible explanation for the lending to commercial real estate continuing to grow at the same rate as it had last year can be that politicians have been forcing public sector banks to continue to lend to real estate companies.
This continued lending has helped real estate companies to continue repaying their old loans to banks. This has allowed real estate companies to not cut prices on their unsold homes. If bank loans had not been so forthcoming, the real estate companies would have to sell off their existing inventory to repay their bank loans. And in order to do that they would have to cut prices.
In fact, there is nothing new about this modus operandi. Ajit Dayal, an investment manager and the founder of Quantum Asset Management Company had made a similar point in a column in October 2009: “Banks have used your money[i.e. depositors’ money] to give it as a loan to real estate developers. Their act of giving the loan to real estate developers gives them badly needed cash. The real estate developers no longer need to sell their real estate to get “cash flow” to stay alive. They got the money from the banks.”
These loans have allowed enough leeway to real estate companies to launch more new projects. As an article in The Financial Express points out “With more than a hundred launches, across the top real estate markets in Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore and Pune, and attractively-priced offerings, it could turn out to be a cracker of a Diwali for developers.”
As mentioned earlier, the fresh loans from banks has allowed real estate companies to not cut prices. This, despite the fact that they have a huge inventory of unsold homes. In fact, a July 2014 report in The Times of India quotes Pankaj Kapoor of property research firm Liases Foras as saying “In Mumbai, the average cost of a flat is Rs 1.2 crore.”
An estimate made by Forbes put the average income of a Mumbaikar at $5900 or around Rs 3.54 lakh (assuming $1 = Rs 60) per year. This means it would need nearly 34 years of annual income (Rs 1.2 crore divided Rs 3.54 lakh) for an average Mumbaikar to buy a home in this city currently. What this tells us very broadly that homes in Mumbai are very expensive. Similar calculations done for other parts of the country are most likely to show similar results, though probably the situation might be a little better in other cities.
Nevertheless, the real estate companies never get tired of giving us other reasons. One favourite reason often offered is that people are not buying homes because interest rates are very high. This reason was offered yesterday as well, after the RBI decided to keep the repo rate at 8%. Repo rate is the rate at which RBI lends to banks.
The Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India, a real estate lobby, said in a statement yesterday that it was “disappointed with the status quo on the RBI policy rates and demands a reduction in interest rates to facilitate lowering of entry barrier and spur demand for the real estate sector.”
Well, even if the RBI were to cut interest rates by 50-100 basis points (one basis point is one hundredth of a percentage) how would it help in home sales, is beyond my understanding.
So what is a reasonable home price to annual income ratio? An April 2013 article in Forbes points out that “The price-to-income ratio looks at the total cost/price of a home relative to median annual incomes. Historically, the typical, median home in the U.S. cost 2.6 times as much as the median annual income (so if the median income in an area was $100,000, the median price of a home would typically be about $260,000: $100,000 * 2.6).”
A similar scenario emerges in Great Britain as well. A January 2014 article on www.economicshelp.org points out that “First time buyers in London are seeing house prices at a record 7.5 times average earnings. For the UK as a whole, the ratio of 4.3 is still above long term trends.” In comparison, if it takes 34 years of annual income to buy a home, what it clearly means is that the real estate companies have clearly priced themselves out of the market.
But this is something they really won’t want to believe because now they are used to the high prices that have commanded over the last few years.
The article appeared originally on www.FirstBiz.com on Oct 1, 2014

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)