My Indo article: It is time to integrate home ownership into our pension savings scheme

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
52,119
In today's paper based on my Pre-Budget submission




In July, the Economic and Social Research Institute published research on behalf of the Pensions Council which looked at the implications of declining home ownership levels for the adequacy of pensions in retirement. At present, 90% of retired people own their own homes. The ESRI projects that, on current trends, only 50% of people who are currently aged between 25 and 34, will own their own homes when they retire. That means that 50% of these people will be renting either from the state or from private landlords.

Home ownership in retirement is one of the best guarantors of a comfortable retirement. Not only does it dramatically reduce a person’s housing costs, but it also means that they have a valuable asset against which they can borrow if they need to supplement their income.

The ESRI paper considered the policy options facing the government. They concluded that people will have to either contribute more to their pensions to ensure that they have enough to pay ever rising rents or else, the government will have to subsidise rents.

But the paper did not look at the much more obvious solution which is the subject of my Pre-Budget submission this year. Saving the €30,000 or so for the deposit is the biggest barrier to getting on the housing ladder. I propose that the first-time buyer should be allowed to borrow this from their own pension fund.

It is important to note that they will repay this money to their pension fund, so they will not be reducing its overall size. They will pay it back either from their income or when they sell their home to trade up. And if they haven’t paid it back by the time they retire, the loan will be deducted from their tax-free lump-sum. It is odd that we allow 65-year-olds to access a big lump-sum on retirement when they probably don’t need it, yet we do not allow younger people to access the money when they do need it.

Typically, people in their twenties and thirties have little interest in pensions as they will see no benefit for at least 30 years. Their pressing concern is how to get on the housing ladder. If they see that contributing to a pension will help them get on the housing ladder, they will be much more enthusiastic about contributing.

Pensions and home ownership are two sides of the same coin. They work together to provide long-term financial security. A person will not have a comfortable old age without both.

But it’s not just about retirement. In general, mortgage repayments are lower than rent. The earlier a person gets on the housing ladder, the lower their housing costs will be during their working life. This will leave them with more disposable income to contribute to their pension fund. It’s very likely that someone who buys their home in their 20s will actually end up not only with a mortgage-free home in retirement, but also with a bigger pension fund than someone who has been spending money on rent all their working life.

The government suffers from compartmentalised thinking on this issue. The Department of Social Welfare deals with pensions. The Department of Housing deals with housing. They operate in isolation from each other. The Department of Social Welfare is introducing an auto-enrolment pension scheme which will effectively force employees to contribute 8% of their after-tax income to a pension fund. This might be great for achieving that Department’s strategic objective of improved pension coverage. But it will make it even more difficult for people to accumulate the deposit and will further reduce home ownership levels.

Allowing first-time buyers to borrow the deposit will not solve the housing problem on its own. It is only one part of the solution. The government must simultaneously focus on encouraging more homes to be built and on bringing down the cost of housing to first-time buyers.

This is not a short-term fix for the current problem. It is a long-term reform of the pensions and housing system. The supply of mortgage finance goes through booms and busts. At the moment, Irish banks have plenty of money to lend to house buyers. But this cycle will change, and from time to time, we will face shortages of mortgage finance. When this happens, house building slows down because of the lack of house buyers. Allowing people to borrow from their pension funds would smooth the total supply of finance so we would not see such pronounced booms and bust in housing finance and house building.

Singapore boosted home ownership from 30% to 90% of the population in just 20 years. In the same period, they doubled their housing stock. Integrating pensions and home ownership was a key component of that strategy.

We are going in the opposite direction to Singapore. The prospect of 50% of our retired citizens depending on the benevolence of the state or on the benevolence of private landlords for a comfortable retirement is frightening. We should fix this problem now.

Brendan Burgess is the founder of Askaboutmoney.com, The Irish Consumer Forum.
 
The Swiss system is not what I am proposing.

They allow the house buyer to cash their pension early but it is subject to taxation.
I am proposing that the first time buyer borrows the money from the pension fund.

Brendan
 
Hi Brendan,

Is there a halfway house, perhaps, where they can pledge it as collateral and get 1:1 additional borrowings at, say, 1% outside of the normal lending rules?

We don’t want them to have significantly reduced pensions either.

Gordon
 
The fundamental problem with the housing market is lack of supply and big increase in population, therefore all measures need to be addressed from those angles. By allowing people take money from their pension schemes as a deposit, all you are doing is adding fuel to the fire and increasing demand and prices by that amount. We already saw the effect on limited supply when many first time buyers got their deposits from "the bank of mom and dad", house prices just increased by all that extra liquidity.
 
The fundamental problem with the housing market is lack of supply and big increase in population,

I have dealt with that in the article.



Allowing first-time buyers to borrow the deposit will not solve the housing problem on its own. It is only one part of the solution. The government must simultaneously focus on encouraging more homes to be built and on bringing down the cost of housing to first-time buyers.

This is not a short-term fix for the current problem. It is a long-term reform of the pensions and housing system. The supply of mortgage finance goes through booms and busts. At the moment, Irish banks have plenty of money to lend to house buyers. But this cycle will change, and from time to time, we will face shortages of mortgage finance. When this happens, house building slows down because of the lack of house buyers. Allowing people to borrow from their pension funds would smooth the total supply of finance so we would not see such pronounced booms and bust in
housing finance and house building.
 
Is there a halfway house, perhaps, where they can pledge it as collateral and get 1:1 additional borrowings at, say, 1% outside of the normal lending rules?

Interesting variation Gordon.

Allow the lender to give a FTB a 100% mortgage with the pension fund acting as a guarantor.

I would go for that, but I would prefer my solution as the buyer effectively pays interest to themselves rather than to the mortgage lender.

Brendan
 
Interesting variation Gordon.

Allow the lender to give a FTB a 100% mortgage with the pension fund acting as a guarantor.

I would go for that, but I would prefer my solution as the buyer effectively pays interest to themselves rather than to the mortgage lender.

Brendan
My concern is that the monies are out of the pension so not working to provide for the person’s retirement. A back to back loan would keep costs minimum but keep the cash in the pension. Overall, it’s a great idea.

There are other variations where the fund could take a share in the house. Or other people’s funds could take shares in people’s houses and earn a modest but predictable return.
 
My concern is that the monies are out of the pension so not working to provide for the person’s retirement

Hi Gordon

The loan would attract market level interest. So it would be just as if the pension fund had invested in the bond.

I did have that in the original article but edited out for simplicity.

Brendan
 
Pensions and home ownership are two sides of the same coin. They work together to provide long-term financial security. A person will not have a comfortable old age without both
This is the critical point.. Anything that improves house ownership would be a great thing for society. The good thing about this suggestion is that it's not coming from one of the vested interested groups...
 
The Swiss system is not what I am proposing.

They allow the house buyer to cash their pension early but it is subject to taxation.
I am proposing that the first time buyer borrows the money from the pension fund.

Brendan

It also requires the loan is fully repaid before the borrower reaches 65 and there are further restrictions concerning future pension savings. There is also little tax relief for mortgage interest and an imputed rental income is add to the borrowers taxable income as a result of home ownership.

The Swiss system does not support the acquisition of a house as a pension saving.
 
In New Zealand they have something similar, whereby the savings can be accessed to pay a house deposit. I don't think the withdrawals have to be paid back though.
It makes sense to be able to use your savings when needed.
Having poured money into my pension, then received less than I paid in, I would rather have the asset of a house, which can bring in an income via a lodger, than put too much economic effort into a pension.
 
Its going to be difficult to get house prices under control when the rental market is so broken. You would expect to pay some premium for short term letting (corporate lets) but the difference between monthly costs of renting vs mortgage may well continue to push people towards purchasing, when they may have otherwise been satisfied to rent at least in the short to medium term.

One issue though with linking pensions to mortgage is that the higher paid are the bigger winners. Getting better tax break on money going in, so will have higher pension pot and then if they can use this as a deposit there's a risk prices will push up further, if supply is still low.
What are the figures around % of rentals vs owner occupied homes now vs 10/20/30 years ago? Its frightening to think so many will be privately renting in retirement and many of these will probably not have been able to build up their pension. Disastrous situation.
 
Having poured money into my pension, then received less than I paid in, I would rather have the asset of a house, which can bring in an income via a lodger, than put too much economic effort into a pension.


You obviously made poor investment decisions.

That’s your fault rather than your pension’s.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its going to be difficult to get house prices under control when the rental market is so broken. You would expect to pay some premium for short term letting (corporate lets) but the difference between monthly costs of renting vs mortgage may well continue to push people towards purchasing, when they may have otherwise been satisfied to rent at least in the short to medium term.
Things have gotten so bad that I've heard multiple people go into house buying with a whatever it takes mentality as they had gotten so tired of the lack of stability from the rental market and it affecting their kids.
 
Singapore boosted home ownership from 30% to 90% of the population in just 20 years. In the same period, they doubled their housing stock. Integrating pensions and home ownership was a key component of that strategy.
I’m not convinced that comparisons to Singapore are realistic in the Irish context.

Part of Singapore’s success was a strong Housing Development Board (HDB).

Almost 90% of Singapore’s residents live in public housing.

This is an interesting interview with the man who helped to create Singapore’s housing boom, Liu Thai Ker.

However, he is worried about current surging property prices.

“We didn’t want people who lived in public housing to feel that they were inferior. So, we wanted their housing value to increase.

One of my jobs at the HDB was to monitor the supply of public housing against demand to make sure that people don’t have to wait too long to get public housing. In fact, what we wanted was to have supply slightly higher than demand so that people will not spend huge prices.

I do worry that nowadays that public housing has become a kind of business venture rather than actually solving the housing needs. I feel that the implication may not be very good for the economic development of Singapore.”

“As long as the HDB is able to control their land price and consumption costs, hopefully they can control the selling price. But I’m totally out of touch with HDB, I don’t know whether they’re able to do that. If they cannot do that, then I think the key factor of having successful public housing may be compromised.”
 
What are the figures around % of rentals vs owner occupied homes now vs 10/20/30 years ago? I

Hi dubdub

Good data in this publication from the ESRI.

 
Back
Top