sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Peter Thompson: Why Government caution toward housing issues is right

Peter Thompson: Why Government caution toward housing issues is right

By Peter Thompson*

One of the more sensible published comments I’ve seen in recent months on Auckland house prices is that by the Minister of Finance, Bill English, when he said in effect that the Government should take a "hands off" approach to the issue.

He was applying common sense to a debate which at times has got out of hand.

No one is denying there is an issue, including the Minister, but what he is calling for is a measured response rather than a kneejerk one that potentially creates greater, or serious downstream effects.

Take the introduction of LVRs. This initiative’s major impact has been on first time and young buyers.

Already this group is starting to find ways around the barrier (families clubbing together) and in spite of its introduction it has had only a minor effect on the issue (Auckland house prices are still rising).

In seeking to solve one problem, LVRs have created resentment among a large group of first time and young home buyers, the majority of who do not live in Auckland.

In saying “the best thing we [the Government] can do for low to middle income families is to allow the place [Auckland] to grow … either up or out… There is not really anything left undone [that could be done]” the Minister is flagging that further change has the potential to radically change the status quo.

There is a great deal of truth in the saying “be careful of what you wish for”. Implying that we never really know what the outcome will be … and by then it may be too late.

As the Minister pointed out, two thirds of the country’s population does not live in Auckland, and are not impacted by rising housing values to the extent that is occurring in one region.

What the Minister did show in his statement was he is on top of the real issue that is fueling Auckland’s rising house prices.

This is there are simply not enough houses to accommodate Auckland’s growing population.

The recently released net immigration figures for the year ending March really drive home the point, with the country’s net population growing by 56,000. The majority of these people will make their home in Auckland.

As Westpac’s senior economist Felix Delbruck noted on the release of the immigration figures, “Auckland’s housing squeeze is likely to get worse before it gets better”.

Virtually all economists are forecasting that home mortgage rates will remain stable and low well into 2016, and that the economy is in good shape.

Combine an existing housing shortage, a rising population, low mortgage rates and a sound economy and you have all the ingredients that make people confident about the soundness of investing in residential housing in Auckland, in spite of price.

I believe there are a number of long-term trends also sitting behind the rise in house prices in Auckland that should be given greater prominence. They include:

♦ Changing attitudes to debt and finance that is taking place within Generations X (born 1960-1980) and Y (born after 1980). 

Many in these generations are less concerned about taking on high levels of long-term debt than the baby boomer generation. They place greater emphasis on being able to afford servicing their mortgage. Rather than seeing the need to pay off their mortgage in the shortest time possible, their aim is to grow their wealth over time through the natural growth in property values.

It leads to mortgage servicing becoming the key measure, and the price they have to pay to obtain the home they want is secondary.

♦ Banks have modified their approach to lending.

No longer do they see professional house valuations as a necessity to support mortgage applications, with loan limits being pegged to a percentage of the valuation. Backed by a series of prudential ratios, decision making around mortgages is more closely aligned to the borrower’s ability to service the debt being incurred.  

♦ By far the majority of Auckland homes are being sold at auction or by negotiation shortly after auction.

It means people are more prepared to be flexible as to the price they are prepared to pay. There is a growing understanding that over a 5 to 10 year period the price paid will be recouped.

♦ Those with the means are prepared to spend their disposal income on their lifestyle.

This includes regularly upgrading their living environment.

An unenvious position

Wisely, the Government is being cautious about  "doing something" when it knows full well that interfering has limited impact on the way people act, has the potential to deliver unintended and unwanted downstream effects, and could well irritate the two thirds majority unaffected by what is occurring in Auckland.

I don’t envy the decision makers on this one.

-----------------------------

*Peter Thompson is the managing director of Barfoot & Thompso, Auckland's largest real estate agency. This opinion piece was first published in Westpac's Red News. It is here with permission.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

19 Comments

Own a few Auckland houses then, eh? And I really hope you are not advocating that families need to club together to buy houses. Foreign non residents should not be in this market

Up
0

He is Peter Thompson of Barfoot and Thompson so he certainly has a vested interested in keeping the Auckland market hot.

Up
0

LVRs were a financial stability tool, to lessen the instances of negative equity when this turns. Their ability to stop the house price bubble was always going to be limited, because the bubble is being primary driven by Chinese money and an immigration ponzi.

It's a remarkably simple problem for the government to solve, they just have to tighten immigration and ban foreign buyers. Then "natural growth" in supply has a chance to catch up.

There are ethical actions your company could take to help out of course:

- Stop marketing to offshore Chinese buyers.
- Discourage auctions as a means of selling.
- Stop playing down risks involved in taking on very high levels of debt to speculate on house price futures.

Anyway, only another year or two now of "growth" until average Auckland prices exceed London. Hurrah. Full steam ahead! Maybe then people will wake up and realise how stupid this really is.

Up
0

The more the vested interest whine, the more I am convinced its (the LVR) is having a positive impact. I really dont understand why the Govn wont stop sales to non-residents, its trivial to do and I cant see how it costs any NET loss of votes.

Up
0

Bought and paid for politicians.

Up
0

then your analysis skills are pitiful.
The vested interests who are whining are the new entrants and the poorer people.

You can't hear whining of foreign owners and well capitalised existing investors over the popping of the champagne corks...

your call...

Up
0

No, FHBs are pumping up the market in desperation having been brain washed that tehy have to own property.

Also the LVR is but one tool of several needing to be deployed, stopping foreign ownership is for the top end of the market. Steve Keen explains how the leverage domino effect works through the market from bottom to top. So no actually it has been analysed.

On top of that its also a stability Q...foeign funds not borrowed from NZ banks isnt a direct impact on bank stability, its foreign loses tax payers dont have to cover.

Up
0

There is just no evidence that "FHBs are pumping up the market".

The RNBZ released March data yesterday (C31) showing FHBs are essentially sidelined.

Up
0

What qualifies a first home buyer? I mentioned a the home of someone close to me going up for auction in a outlying poorer area of Auckland a few weeks back. I will put more detail up soon as there was another sale at the auction that was of interest, but it was bought by two sisters in their 20's. However the parents stumped up the deposit. So rather than two young people saving the capital input required already existed.

Up
0

It is mostly die hard labour / green supporters who want change in this department. They aren't gonna vote for any sensible party no matter what.

Up
0

Oh right the old lets shut down the argument answer. "sensible" reads like 'common sense" or 'everybody knows" it shows a lack of a supporting argument for that side of the issue.

Im no die hard labour (especially not Labour) or green supporter. What I do vote for is policies that address the problems and LVR as a tool does this to an extent based on evidence.

Up
0

sensible should in this context be read to mean having rational economic policies that can help New Zealand weather events such as the GFC better than most of the rest of the world.
Rewarding hard work instead of transferring wealth to those who don't work is also sensible in my opinion, if only because it tends to promote innovation and an increase in productivity.

Up
0

So you think unearned income is a bad thing eh? And you are intelligent enough to analyse and reject all sources so that your voting decision is fully informed. So some sources of unearned income, rent, tax, interest.....

Up
0

sensible should in this context be read to mean having rational economic policies that can help New Zealand weather events such as the GFC better than most of the rest of the world.
Rewarding hard work instead of transferring wealth to those who don't work is also sensible in my opinion, if only because it tends to promote innovation and an increase in productivity.

Up
0

By rational policies, you mean policies you agree with? Some people agree with other policies and would suggest they are rational too.

Up
0

"To an extent" ... yes, the LVRs do work. Like plugging a hole in a leaking dam with your finger to slow the leakage works.... while ignoring the basketball-sized hole right alongside that's immigration and foreign ownership. Yes you've slowed the leak, but you could have been far more effective at lowering the overall leak if you'd at least partially blocked off the great sodding hole next door!

I have no problem with LVRs, I think they're needed and they should stay, but ONLY when used in conjunction with methods to stem overseas ownership and wholesale buy-ups from abroad and from people looking to buy their way into a NZ passport.... to do the LVRs without also doing these measures is just an exercise in cruelty as you're locking a massive amount of locals out of dead-cert capital gains that are bound to happen as you're not stemming the fuel flow onto the fire!

Up
0

Listen to the chatter .. watch at the other hand, the one that is not waving ,,

Last week Grant Spencer made a speech in Hamilton articulating the need for government to act where it hasn't acted but should have acted

Over the following week all the lobbyists, influencers, urgers, manicurists, cognoscenti came out decrying Spencer and mis-construing his speech

Bill English spoke several days later saying Government had done everything it could possibly do to ameliorate the Auckland problem

Today English comes out with another speech as if he hadn't made the previous utterance. He ate his words.

Now here is Peter Thompson adding to the demolition job

Really, Thompson, who if he knows his onions, knows exactly where his business is being done, who it is being done with, how much of his business is being done with investors, how much with FHB's, how much with overseas buyers, the source of funds, how much is cash business, how much is financed (I could go on) but he knows, he knows exactly where his business is coming from

These urgings above would have you believe he knows none of this, and at the same time he is NOT advising his "friends"

Barfoot & Thompson and thus Peter Thompson has to be the pre-eminent Auckland based touchstone for John Key, Bill English, and if he so chooses, Graeme Wheeler and any other aparatchik you care to think of

Up
0

In other news, the sky was reported to remain blue.............

Up
0

perhaps if house prices IN auckland were too high, then that would result in development away from auckland. unless the house prices in auckland arent actually too high....

Up
0