Auckland housing market

[Mitch]

Who is they?

Government

[Mitch]

It is still a very narrow-minded view on the idea but still seems there has been no implementation of this strategy. anyone thoughts?

[artemis]

It is still a very narrow-minded view on the idea but still seems there has been no implementation of this strategy. anyone thoughts?

Businesses in a particular location that rely on staff and customers to turn up to that location, will make the obvious decision. Even if they get subsidies to move, why would they if another location doesn't work for them in terms of skills, staff and customers?

I see Xero is setting up a new location in Hawkes Bay - presumably a calculated business decision (though it will reduce Mr Drury's commute time).

And to add - I worked for a very large global tech company that cancelled all working from home. They had a very good reason, too.

[Mitch]

Businesses in a particular location that rely on staff and customers to turn up to that location, will make the obvious decision. Even if they get subsidies to move, why would they if another location doesn't work for them in terms of skills, staff and customers?

I see Xero is setting up a new location in Hawkes Bay - presumably a calculated business decision (though it will reduce Mr Drury's commute time).

And to add - I worked for a very large global tech company that cancelled all working from home. They had a very good reason, too.

Ah yes I agree, I believe this filtering idea is not directly aimed at business's already highly established in Auckland with staff, customers, etc. I guess if they slowly engaged a lot of costs everywhere it would make it harder for the business's already established in Auckland with higher costs of production but how it would help the market is by dampen the demand for new business's that are thinking about starting up in Auckland, this could slow the demand gradually and let the supply side catch up a bit. As I said before this is quite narrow minded and would not instantly fix the crisis but would certainly take pressure off the supply side which is been mainly focused on.

[Bjauck]

Another warning of the property price bubble that has been allowed to form: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11837842

[Bjauck]

Auckland lower quartile housing is now severely unaffordable for a couple earning median incomes - even if they can save enough to be able to afford a deposit. Auckland has about a third of NZ's population. As most young Aucklanders (and others around the country) can no longer bank on using owner-occupied housing as their pension plan, is it time for the government to enable other investments to have the same tax advantages as owner-occupied housing?

"The problems that have been created in Auckland's housing market are now long-term and structural,"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11845608

[JBmurc]

One in 4 Aussies in mortgage stress
Yahoo7 Finance 4 May 2017

Interest rates may be at all-time lows but the number of households in mortgage stress is rising sharply.

One in four (767,000) Australian households are currently experiencing mortgage stress with just over 30,000 in ‘severe’ stress, according to Digital Finance Analytics.

The mortgage stress figure for April marks a jump of almost 100,000 households compared to March..

Read more here; https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/on...051713070.html

[stoploss]

One in 4 Aussies in mortgage stress
Yahoo7 Finance 4 May 2017

Interest rates may be at all-time lows but the number of households in mortgage stress is rising sharply.

One in four (767,000) Australian households are currently experiencing mortgage stress with just over 30,000 in ‘severe’ stress, according to Digital Finance Analytics.

The mortgage stress figure for April marks a jump of almost 100,000 households compared to March..

Read more here; https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/on...051713070.html

I think that headline is a bit sensationalist , it is not 1 in 4 households, plenty of people rent, plenty mortgage free etc ...
Here are some more accurate figures.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck...tralia/6442650

[Bjauck]

I think that headline is a bit sensationalist , it is not 1 in 4 households, plenty of people rent, plenty mortgage free etc ...
Here are some more accurate figures.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck...tralia/6442650

A quarter is probably more sensationalist than it should have been as the writer should have qualified what she meant by a quarter.

From the Australian "Fact Check":

1. Home ownership rate have dropped from 70% in 1961 to 67% in 2011, which is six years ago. (I wonder what the ownership rate is in 2017.)
2. Australian prices were 3 times median household income in 1980. Now they are more than 6 times.
3. 67% of householders are owners.
4. There are 9,000,000 households in OZ. 33% of householders have home loan debt (3,000,000).
5. 75% of Australia's household debt is for housing; In 1990 47% was for housing.

The article refers to 767,000 households being under mortgage stress, which is about a quarter of the 3,000,000 households with mortgage debt. So the fact check does not contradict the article, provided the writer of the article was referring to a quarter of households with mortgage debt - although the reference to a quarter of households was not explicitly qualified.

In addition, the amount of mortgage debt and the high multiple of prices/income would make prices more susceptible, than in previous years, to either an increase in interest rates or pressure on incomes.

Interesting take-out from the Australian Fact Check is this quote about house price/income ratio: "Nationally that ratio has now passed six, or more than twice as much, and in places like Sydney it went above nine during the property boom of the early 2000s."

Auckland's ratio now surpasses ten!

[JBmurc]

A quarter is probably more sensationalist than it should have been as the writer should have qualified what she meant by a quarter.

From the Australian "Fact Check":

1. Home ownership rate have dropped from 70% in 1961 to 67% in 2011, which is six years ago. (I wonder what the ownership rate is in 2017.)
2. Australian prices were 3 times median household income in 1980. Now they are more than 6 times.
3. 67% of householders are owners.
4. There are 9,000,000 households in OZ. 33% of householders have home loan debt (3,000,000).
5. 75% of Australia's household debt is for housing; In 1990 47% was for housing.

The article refers to 767,000 households being under mortgage stress, which is about a quarter of the 3,000,000 households with mortgage debt. So the fact check does not contradict the article, provided the writer of the article was referring to a quarter of households with mortgage debt - although the reference to a quarter of households was not explicitly qualified.

In addition, the amount of mortgage debt and the high multiple of prices/income would make prices more susceptible, than in previous years, to either an increase in interest rates or pressure on incomes.

Interesting take-out from the Australian Fact Check is this quote about house price/income ratio: "Nationally that ratio has now passed six, or more than twice as much, and in places like Sydney it went above nine during the property boom of the early 2000s."

Auckland's ratio now surpasses ten!

Queenstown southern lakes was past 11 recent but could even be higher now .....