-
03-08-2017, 06:19 PM
#5411
Member
Originally Posted by BlackPeter
Probably the wrong question and admittedly not the right discussion for this thread either. However interesting to note that most wealthy countries have much lower rates of home ownership than most poor countries. Switzerland: 43.4%, Germany: 51.9%, New Zealand: 64.8%, India 86.6%, Romania: 96.4%;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ownership_rate
Only exception I can see in this list is Singapore - they are reasonably wealthy and have still a very high home ownership rate, but this is due to the state selling every Singaporean couple at their wedding day a heavily subsidized flat.
Just saying - we might be in a dead end if we want to improve our wealth by keeping our homeownership rates up ... home ownership reduces flexibility.
Occupied dwellings are interesting, they change a lot and slowly.
Australia's % have gone from
52.6% Owner in 1947
72.5% Owner in 1966
71.6% Owner in 1980
to circa 31% Currently (i think)
(note) Switzerland in the 1970 was circa 28.5%
-
03-08-2017, 08:15 PM
#5412
Originally Posted by Carpenterjoe
Occupied dwellings are interesting, they change a lot and slowly.
Australia's % have gone from
52.6% Owner in 1947
72.5% Owner in 1966
71.6% Owner in 1980
to circa 31% Currently (i think)
(note) Switzerland in the 1970 was circa 28.5%
67% were owner-occupiers in OZ in 2011 down from 68% in 2006
http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck...tralia/6442650
In the UK:
71% were owner occupiers in 2003
64% in 2016
Low interest rates and booming asset prices do seem to make home owning less affordable for more people in Oz and the UK too.
NZ's owner occupied homes as a percent of total
dwellings has dropped from 74% in 1991 to 64% in 2015 (and continuing to fall.)
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_...5.aspx#renting
However taking into account the population increase, the total number of owner-occupiers (potential market for SUM) is increasing.(as per the graph in the linked item)
It would be nice to hope that those people who are being priced out or choosing not to become home owners are building up investments elsewhere, which they could eventually use to buy an ORA, should they so desire.
-
04-08-2017, 08:00 AM
#5413
Originally Posted by Bjauck
It would be nice to hope that those people who are being priced out or choosing not to become home owners are building up investments elsewhere, which they could eventually use to buy an ORA, should they so desire.
What do you think the chances of that are?
Close to zero I'd suggest. We don't, as a country, have the financial literacy for that.
-
04-08-2017, 08:09 AM
#5414
Member
Originally Posted by Bjauck
67% were owner-occupiers in OZ in 2011
Whoops, the 30 odd percent i quoted is those whom own out right. Cheers for the correction.
-
04-08-2017, 08:15 AM
#5415
Will this finally cross $5 again. Been looking stronger of late.
-
04-08-2017, 10:02 AM
#5416
could be good for retirement stocks , more kiwi retirees coming home maybe
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opi...ing-a-raw-deal
one step ahead of the herd
-
04-08-2017, 10:25 AM
#5417
Originally Posted by bull....
I gather it's already happening to some extent - part of the 72,000 odd net migration number
Come home now ......inevitably a x% into retirement villages later
”When investors are euphoric, they are incapable of recognising euphoria itself “
-
04-08-2017, 01:33 PM
#5418
Originally Posted by bull....
Lets hope the health boards and system is funded adequately to cope too.
-
08-08-2017, 10:14 AM
#5419
I wonder who will get there first, Summerset, Ryman, Metlifecare or one of the others?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11899951
-
08-08-2017, 10:32 AM
#5420
Originally Posted by mondograss
Interesting:
The trust's accounts show that it loss $1,176,526 in the latest period. Revenue fell from $14,267,471 in the September 30, 2015 year to $11,521,333 last year. Expenses rose from $18.1m in 2015 to $18.7m last year. That resulted in a deficit climbing from $3.1m in 2015 to $6.1m last year.
One industry expert today described the accounts as "dire" and revealing an extremely sorry situation. Such losses could not be sustained, he said.
However, he also noticed how the trust owned 48 per cent of Smith & Caughey Holdings, valued in the latest accounts as being worth $40,473,613, up from $36,989,766 in 2015. That showed the elderly rest home's relationship to the Queen St department store, he said.
So - actually - they made (as the other retirement providers) another fat paper gain. Asset rich but cash poor - as many of their residents.
Obviously - this situation is not sustainable. Clearly - for the government to just increase the pay rates without properly increasing the funding is a no go and will only kill off our age care sector.
I think however that the financial situation of the big four is different - given that they can capitalise their valuation gains (using the DMF) and not just sit on them (as this fund apparently did).
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
Tags for this Thread
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