sharetrader
Page 29 of 32 FirstFirst ... 192526272829303132 LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 474
  1. #421
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stoploss View Post
    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!

  2. #422
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,290

    Default Gimme Shelter?

    Does the content in Fong's Tutoring video distributed to members of the Auckland Property Investors' Association really come as a surprise? Does the current state of the (Auckland) residential property market cast owner occupiers (and especially first home buyers) in the role of prey in a jungle of hunters?

    ANZ pulls sponsorship of investor group that sent members offensive tutoring video
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11851578

  3. #423
    Legend JBmurc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central Otago
    Posts
    6,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    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 .....
    Sell the hype, buy the fear. Always second guess the sentiment but trust in the fundamentals

  4. #424
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBmurc View Post
    Queenstown southern lakes was past 11 recent but could even be higher now .....
    Wealthy foreign buyers and investors have been active in Queenstown too. Another tough area for locals without wealthy parents just looking to buy a home to live in.

    About 30% of NZ's population lives in Auckland; 30.8% in Auckland & Queenstown Southern Lakes combined. It is a big chunk of the country to have such grossly unaffordable housing.

    Remuera-Eastern Bays may have a similar population to Queestown Southern Lakes (about 37,000?). Its multiple would be at about 17 (or more.)

  5. #425
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    284

    Default

    https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/labour...aring-b-202935

    I reckon this is the most dreaded news for a property investor who is invariably leveraged and use tax concessions for investing in residential property. This will go a long way in cooling the market I think, especially in Auckland. What is National going to do to counter Labour on this issue?

    Good on you Labour party!

    Interesting times...

  6. #426
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    605

    Default

    What will National do to counter the ringfencing proposal?

    My prediction - nothing. Why?

    First, it will not happen in the next 3 years anyway. Labour will need NZ First to form a government absent a miracle, and I can't see Mr Peters agreeing to alienate a significant chunk of his current and potential supporters who are retired or planning their retirement.

    Even if Labour has enough support in the House, there is some sort of 5 year lead in to the policy. Every bit of which will be needed to sort out the policy and its fiscal and rental availability impacts, pass the legislation, allow time for IRD to change systems and procedures, educate the public and their advisers. A lot can happen in that time frame - eg the housing market in Christchurch is now very different to a couple of years ago - not least changes in government.

    Word on the street is that individual properties will be ringfenced, so if there are two properties, loss on one will not be able to offset profit on another. That is potentially quite complex changes to tax systems.

  7. #427
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    5,935

    Default

    Not Auckland, but London. The Guardian's Long Read is well worth a long read.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/...rdable-housing

  8. #428
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Palmy, NZ
    Posts
    40

    Default

    I am infuriated with the Auckland Housing Lottery. It is beyond a joke, and heart breaking absolute nonsense.

    I'm unimpressed with the hot capital cash flows from the tier one mainland Chinese banks that routinely flout the $50,000 USD only rule and have elevated prices on par with Monaco and London. $900k+ for some shack in Henderson? No way.

    I'm unimpressed with the housing stock - 80 year old villas with mold problems and expensive renovations, stupid McMansons with garish double garages out the front in Howick, leaking building issues that are still unresolved and ready to sting first home buyers.

    I'm unimpressed with traffic snarls where ever you go, and the grit of road grime on your teeth as a result.

    As accommodation becomes a fragmented and painful cluster boil of an investment... I turn to shares.
    I've got a bit in Kiwi Super, a bit in a Australian fund I can't touch for another 20 odd years, I have a good chunk in term deposits as sneery as people are going to get with me for that one.

    The truth is, financial advise in NZ is all around getting a rung on the property market, because property only goes "Up!" Banking managers, FMG insurance people seem to have their eyes on vacant, chanting "Property! Property! Property!" Like it was the answer to everything.

    Truth is I don't have any confidence in this. Building standards are lax, and garish apartments seem to glut out K road and other areas in Parnell, and they could be high rise slums in a decade's time. The asking prices are all over the place too, off the plan apartment purchasing and property developers fall over taking unsecured deposits left right and center. Valuations could vary so much that asking prices that have been traditionally jammed at the 1.4 million mark seems horribly out of control when suddenly a new listing price of $900,000 is floated.

    Free standing houses require trudging around open homes and dealing with realty.co.nz's f@#$cked web page.
    Dealing with 50 something women that are on some mind numbing personality medication and botoxed forheads. IT IS BEYOND frustrating.

    They get really greasy when you declare that you have a large deposit. But f#$ck me I can not get any traction on this issue.

    If some one else could explain the great housing disconnect to me that would be lovely.

  9. #429
    Guru peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Auckland, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    3,567

    Default

    my view is that NZ is still suffering from the massive hangover of the 1987 stock market crash where people got burned so badly that they will never go back. This reinforced and amplified the view that bricks and mortar is the only place to be etc etc....
    That along with all the other 'incentives' that are built into our system eg tax losses reducing income tax (not now but was this way for a long time) , availability of leverage, etc etc I guess most people know all these distortions. which include massive immigration of both people and capital.

    I am of the view that it will take a similar crash in property as what we saw to the stockmarket in 1987 before this view changes. It is just too entrenched in our psyche now.

    We will see (are seeing) a massive massive boom that will go way beyond any rational level and only when that crashes will there be the necessary destruction of hopes and dreams so as to force the pendulum to swing back the other way.
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  10. #430
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,290

    Default

    Residents seeking a house to live in should be prioritised and non-residents seeking an investment should pay stamp duty or be restricted to building new houses. Otherwise people who work in the city will be increasingly excluded from owning a house here. For example:
    Cost of Auckland living forces police officer to quit
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11877760

  11. #431
    Veteran novice
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    5,935

    Default

    I suppose that if we wait long enough, Auckland workers won't be able to afford to live in the city, services will degrade, other centres/cities will become more attractive to business/commerce, Auckland values will decline - and the cycle will start again. For those who live long enough!


  12. #432
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    Residents seeking a house to live in should be prioritised and non-residents seeking an investment should pay stamp duty or be restricted to building new houses. Otherwise people who work in the city will be increasingly excluded from owning a house here. For example:
    Cost of Auckland living forces police officer to quit
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11877760
    That police officer story is quite strange. Police are pretty well paid, but being a student not so much.

  13. #433
    An awesome cool cat
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    17,097
    "When investors are euphoric, they are incapable of recognizing euphoria itself"

  14. #434
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    That police officer story is quite strange. Police are pretty well paid, but being a student not so much.
    LOL. Auckland Police may be "well paid" or paid enough to be able to save a deposit and get a mortgage for a house 300+ Ks out of Auckland. He sees his only long term hope, to be able to buy even just a basic modest home in his home town of Auckland, is to go back to study to be a highly paid accountant or management consultant (b.com).

    Let's hope Accountants and real estate agents are good at keeping armed gangs under control....and good at nursing and teaching for that matter too.
    Last edited by Bjauck; 20-06-2017 at 09:24 AM.

  15. #435
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Palmy, NZ
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Thanks for letting me rant on here about the housing market. Cheers.

    In other news, the big 4 NZ banks, ANZ, Westpac, BNZ and ASB all got Moodies down gradings this week. I'm sure that will have no effect on the business as per usual of lending huge mortgages to buy over priced Auckland Housing stock.

    To quote a Tui Add - "Yeah right"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •