-
12-02-2018, 04:13 PM
#411
Originally Posted by winner69
Phil’s got his Housing Report and jeez things are a disaster eh after 9 years of National denial and lack of action
Can Phil fix it?
Probably not in his term of Minister anyway. I’ve noticed over the years when a government (in many parts of the world including NZ) intervenes in the housing market to make houses more affordable, the intervention makes them less affordable, and ensures that the first-time buyer is more indebted. The whole point of the intervention is to make accommodation cheaper, yet this never seems to work.
So is Phil going to build his 100,000 homes or whatever the number is and rent them out at affordable rents (state as a landlord) or is going to build them and sell them to first home buyers who then become indebted (to somebody) with ‘cheaper’ accomodation still a dream
Good on Phil having a go anyway
Here is an idea .. given that we now have a socialist government which knows how to run things. Just listen to EZ, westerly and JT, and if you don't believe them, just check history. All socialists believe their governments are good in running business .
So - here is the proposal - why don't they just buy FBU, MPG and STU (all quite cheap these days) and show us how to run them with profit and build lots of cheap houses as well.
They say governments are a Paragon in running businesses ... into the dirt.
Discl: Looking forward to buy back FBU in 3 years for 50 cents ...
Last edited by BlackPeter; 12-02-2018 at 04:16 PM.
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
-
12-02-2018, 04:32 PM
#412
Originally Posted by BlackPeter
Here is an idea .. given that we now have a socialist government which knows how to run things. Just listen to EZ, westerly and JT, and if you don't believe them, just check history. All socialists believe their governments are good in running business .
So - here is the proposal - why don't they just buy FBU, MPG and STU (all quite cheap these days) and show us how to run them with profit and build lots of cheap houses as well.
Don't even joke about it. They might pounce on the idea. Allah forbid.
-
12-02-2018, 04:40 PM
#413
One of odd quirks of nature that those who want to be first homes wish for a property collapse but the moment they own a house all they want is prices to go up.
”When investors are euphoric, they are incapable of recognising euphoria itself “
-
12-02-2018, 11:43 PM
#414
FBU own Trade Link in aus , another dog that previous management bought. In the same space is REH a premium investment company imo , I hold.
-
13-02-2018, 07:16 AM
#415
Originally Posted by minimoke
I need to read [Phil's Housing Report] in full. But headline says we have 1.9m private dwellings. At 2.6 people per dwelling thats enough for 4.9m people. Current NZ population = approx 4.7m
Originally Posted by winner69
It doesn’t make much sense does it
Probably isn’t a housing crisis anyway
Most people who really want to own a home manage to do so come what may.
The ‘accomadation’ Problem seems to be the fault of these horrible landlords who want to make a buck or two out of property.
Having a tenant will blemish a Landlord's asset by a greater degree than not having a tenant.
When the rules set by the government (taxation, compliance, tenants 'rights', tenant indemnity) become too onerous, landlords increasingly opt in favour of leaving their asset(s) unblemished.
In other words it becomes more beneficial to leave the property empty than the hassle and cost of not.
According to Phil's Housing Report, there seems to be spare housing for 200,000 people. At 2.6 people per dwelling means a spare 77,000 apartments/houses/dwellings out there. Assuming ALL these dwellings are in an optimal geographical location to 'fix' the problem, the current and proposed rules by the government will ensure at least that many are left empty.
Last edited by Vaygor1; 13-02-2018 at 07:26 AM.
-
13-02-2018, 08:12 AM
#416
Originally Posted by Vaygor1
Having a tenant will blemish a Landlord's asset by a greater degree than not having a tenant.
When the rules set by the government (taxation, compliance, tenants 'rights', tenant indemnity) become too onerous, landlords increasingly opt in favour of leaving their asset(s) unblemished.
In other words it becomes more beneficial to leave the property empty than the hassle and cost of not.
According to Phil's Housing Report, there seems to be spare housing for 200,000 people. At 2.6 people per dwelling means a spare 77,000 apartments/houses/dwellings out there. Assuming ALL these dwellings are in an optimal geographical location to 'fix' the problem, the current and proposed rules by the government will ensure at least that many are left empty.
I think Twyford is in serious competition with Hipkins for the title of party clown.
-
13-02-2018, 08:31 AM
#417
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
I think Twyford is in serious competition with Hipkins for the title of party clown.
Phil seems to be in awe of this Eaqub guy
Loved Phil’s comment at the release of this report along the lines of for once I’m not the most gung-ho in the room
Pity he was laughing at the time ...both clowns
Just get on with it Phil .....build tens of thousands of rental homes and charge affordable rents .....don’t encourage them to buy as that just burdens them with debt, won’t be any unintended consequenses will there.
Last edited by winner69; 13-02-2018 at 08:39 AM.
”When investors are euphoric, they are incapable of recognising euphoria itself “
-
13-02-2018, 08:40 AM
#418
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
I think Twyford is in serious competition with Hipkins for the title of party clown.
Is Twyford still in Opposition ....talks and acts like he is
”When investors are euphoric, they are incapable of recognising euphoria itself “
-
13-02-2018, 10:03 AM
#419
Originally Posted by Vaygor1
Having a tenant will blemish a Landlord's asset by a greater degree than not having a tenant.
When the rules set by the government (taxation, compliance, tenants 'rights', tenant indemnity) become too onerous, landlords increasingly opt in favour of leaving their asset(s) unblemished.
In other words it becomes more beneficial to leave the property empty than the hassle and cost of not.
.
I think, rather than "blemish" the word you are looking for is "affordable".
The landlord has one focus and that is to get tenants in that provide a reasonable return on investment. When rules set by government (compliance, tenants "rights", indemnity - not tax because that is good) raise costs to a point that there is no economic return then the landlord is quite entitled to lessen his exposure to these costs. The aim after all is to by snared by "taxation" which kicks in when making a profit.
Got a letter from the lawyers the other day. Health and SAfety Act says a landlord cant do any work on his property if there is (or potential of) asbestos. So if you want to get a plumber in to change a washer you have to have an Asbestos management Plan. If you dont you could be up for a $50,000 fine. So how much do you think that will add to the cost of owning the property - which of course has to be passed on to the tenant,
-
13-02-2018, 11:47 AM
#420
Bill English resigns and to leave Parliament
Did great and honorable service over many years. Pity he got a few hospital passes along the way but that’s politics.
Hope future is good to you.
”When investors are euphoric, they are incapable of recognising euphoria itself “
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks