The Reserve Bank (RBNZ) is cracking down on bank lending to residential property investors, announcing it will reinstate tougher loan-to-value ratio (LVR) restrictions than were in place last year.
From May 1, at least 95% of new bank lending to residential property investors will have to go to borrowers with deposits of at least 40%.
As an interim measure, from March 1 to April 30, this deposit requirement will be set at 30%. This is the same level LVRs were at when they were removed in May 2020 due to COVID-19.
The RBNZ is taking a staged approach to enable banks to manage their pipelines of loan applications that have been approved but not yet settled.
But it expects lenders to respect the 40% rule "immediately with all new loan approvals".
As for owner-occupiers, from March 1, at least 80% of new bank lending will need to go to borrowers with deposits of at least 20%.
This is the same level LVRs were at before they were removed last year.
The owner-occupier level won’t be hiked in May like the investor one.
This RBNZ graph shows the jump in high-LVR lending to investors from the time the rules were removed (note deposits of less than 30% constitute high LVR lending to investors, while deposits of less than 20% constitute high LVR lending to owner-occupiers, including first-home buyers):
RBNZ Deputy Governor and General Manager of Financial Stability Geoff Bascand said LVR restrictions were removed last year "to ensure they didn’t interfere with COVID-19 policy responses aimed at promoting cash flow and confidence".
“Since then, in part due to the success of the health and economic policy responses, we have witnessed a rapid acceleration in the housing market, with new records being set for the national median price, and new mortgage lending continuing at a strong pace," Bascand said.
“We are now concerned about the risk a sharp correction in the housing market poses for financial stability. There is evidence of a speculative dynamic emerging with many buyers becoming highly leveraged.
“A growing number of highly indebted borrowers, especially investors, are now financially vulnerable to house price corrections and disruptions to their ability to service the debt. Highly leveraged property owners, in particular investors, are more prone to rapid ‘fire sales’ that potentially amplify any downturn.
“These financial stability risks exceed the situation at the time of the Bank’s December LVR consultation, resulting in more restrictive policy settings being decided on."
The RBNZ consulted, between December 8 and January 22, on reinstating the same LVRs that were in place in 2020.
ANZ on December 15 announced it would start requiring investors to have 40% deposits. ASB and BNZ last week announced they would follow suit.
The RBNZ said a summary of submissions would be released alongside a regulatory impact assessment in due course.
The new rules again:
From 1 March 2021:
- LVR restrictions for owner-occupiers will be reinstated to a maximum of 20% of new lending at LVRs above 80%.
- LVR restrictions for investors will be reinstated to a maximum of 5% of new lending at LVRs above 70%.
From 1 May 2021:
- LVR restrictions for owner-occupiers will remain at a maximum of 20% of new lending at LVRs above 80%.
- LVR restrictions for investors will be further raised to a maximum of 5% of new lending at LVRs above 60%.
Reinstating the LVR policy will also reinstate the existing exemptions applying to the LVR restrictions for both owner-occupier and investor mortgages, including:
- A new build exemption where the borrower commits to the purchase at an early stage of construction or buys the residence (within six months of completion) from the developer;
- Kāinga Ora’s First Home Loans scheme (formerly Welcome Home Loans), for low deposit borrowers to buy their first home; and,
- Loans for remediation required to bring a residence up to new building codes, or to comply with new rental property standards (for example, installing insulation).
164 Comments
You know why. Its not meant to be an effective step. Its just to take the heat off the damning report that came out last Friday.
They don't actually know what to do and are stuck.
Covid was the best opportunity they could have got to let some of the air out of the bubble but instead they threw the pumps into afterburner mode.
I've decided that I've had enough and will move to Aus once I've got my affairs in order.
This is correct for Adrian, he had 4 property titles in his name when I checked last year. He's also a director or shareholder in a bunch of companies, couldn't be bothered checking if any of them are just property investment vehicles.
Assume this is also true for Jacinda, it's the kind of thing the media would have written some vapid article about.
You lose value in money by flooding the world with it. Want to make property values flatten ? Flood markets with it..
The solution to property prices spiraling is simple: BUILD BUILD BUILD. (re-zone, govt funded infrastructure, if it meets building code and HH standards then council shouldnt be able to turn it down because the council worker just watched the block and saw Shana Blaze dis a certain tree/colour/look/feel...
Message has to be sent through central and all local governments.
No one cares if your development has the wrong type of pine trees or has a cladding that doesn't perfectly fit the look and feel of the existing area.
PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN SHEDS AND CARS AND DYING - And local councils still care about this minor shit.
Time to build - across parties, across central/local, just F'N make it happen and DO NOT deliver me another 'working group' to look into things.... this problem was solved in 2006 and the solution confirmed through every Demo-graphia report (HUGH PAVLETICH NZ input into this as were Sir English, and former RBNZ Gov's that lost popularity due to a stance that all NZ'er were created equal...)
Bill English would have had all this far better under control than our current chubby funster finance minister who thinks writing a letter to the rbnz asking to incl housing (along with already CPI, and employment) into their mix is a good move. No Robo, the move lies with YOU.
Yes, but claims on unrealised collateral equity requires security to be taken on that collateral and those assets will themselves then need to meet the LVR ratio. Let there be no doubt this is a powerful step taken by the RB, just as the removal of the LVRs last year was a powerful (and greatly flawed) move. It is just a pity that reversing last year's LVR removals has been so long in coming.
KeithW
J.C.
If you read my posts you will see that I have been very critical of the RB over the last nine months, and I remain very critical of them in relation to key aspects of monetary policy. However, I always try and go where the evidence leads me, and in this case my assessment is that the effects of the new LVRs will be powerful. What is less clear to me is how quickly it will show up in terms of moderating price increases, which currently are still rocketing along. It will first show up in bank approvals, then in real estate sales, and then in official statistics. It is a tragedy and an indictment of the RB that they did not realise their error back in the spring when those out in the 'field' could actually see what was happening, whereas the RB was only looking in the rear mirror.
KeithW
Linklater01,
A deposit requirement of 60 percent may well crash the house market. And that would become a huge crisis. But I would have been very happy with 50 percent. The key issue will now become what the RB does with its QE and inflation policies. We still have a lot of investors searching for a safe haven for the money they currently have in bank deposits.
KeithW
We still have a lot of investors searching for a safe haven for the money they currently have in bank deposits.
Well I think you just nailed a major issue right there. Arguably, banks should be the 'safe haven' for people's money. But no, they've (the banks) decided to double down on a property bubble instead.
Na, they'll lose the next election if they do that. Need to keep middle NZ on their side of the line. That's more important than actually fixing the problem.
If the non-homeowning portion of their base gets too frustrated they flee to the Greens/TOP before they flee to the Nats. Then they just have a coalition government. Big whoop. Still in power.
Retaining power is the end goal of any and all political actions in a democracy. Gotta stay cynical :)
Do they realise it's only February and the markets well out of control? What's with all the delays in implementing the LVR restrictions (30% LVR 1st March & followed up with 40% 1st May). RBNZ has clearly timed this with Robertsons announcement this morning and pending budget. Pathetic PR bullcrap.
A lot of work wasted in preparing an application only for the rules to be changed without notice before it is filed and considered. It is fairer to use a future date otherwise resources would have been wasted in cases where new criteria is unable to be met (may even result in claims for a refund of due diligence and application costs). No need to panic and act unreasonably.
Compared to the pain suffered by those locked out of the housing market, a few futile forms don't amount to much. The current approach seems fair - start doing it with new applicants now so you're in compliance in a month or two. Most of the banks saw it coming and started getting things in line already.
I'd like to think LVRs back at 40%, Robertson hopefully extended bright-lines indefinately not on a time year period, interest rates at their stone bottom (with potential to rise over the next couple years) and the new rental laws will see a good size pullback from investors. However, as per normal, as supply is so far behind this will at least put % growth back in single digits...
Simply extending the bright-line test in its current form won't be enough. The legislation is open to interpretation and highly-skilled tax specialists can run circles around IRD staff.
On could even suggest (assert) the Key government was reluctant to move against speculation and may have designed the legislation giving an upper hand to speculators who could afford costly tax planners.
Perhaps you are right. The government has banned rent bidding. So if it is good enough for rent bidding / auctions to be banned for rentals why not the same for selling. Oh silly me I forgot the politicians and their advisors seem to engage in that sort of stuff. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Auctions are not too bad compared to Wellington favourite sales method of Tenders- where bidders are encouraged to put their maximum bid in to avoid missing out. We were in a tender in Nov and missed out - we were the second highest bidder (as advised by the Real estate agent) - the successful bidder paid 46K more than our offer. Guess what the new benchmark for sales are in that suburb.
At least with Auctions you can see and hear the person bidding and only need to pay $1 more than the other guy - with tenders your completely blind.
Am I right that the lvr implemented at individual bank level is on individual loans where as the lvr restrictions from RBNZ are on the total loan book?
On the weekend I learnt from two different vendors locally that they'd both signed sales within 24hrs of listing. Only one is conditional and that only on finance, no reports at all.
...... Pop
Unfortunately that is the market right now. If you want to buy a house you almost have to make an unconditional offer and just hope for the best that there is nothing significantly wrong. Most properties get multiple offers and conditional offers are at a severe disadvantage.
Actual cash deposit (not equity on existing property) should be 15% and No interest loans should be abolished for future rental investments. Then something may happen. Otherwise it is just another cosmetic exercise of shifting numbers and using differnet shades on existing brushes.
40% deposit for speculators is way too low: it should be at least 60%, ideally 80%, and it should be cash (not equity from another property).
On the other hand, 20% deposit on owner-occupiers is a bit too high.
And in any case the RBNZ have again shown their incompetence and their ridiculous slowness in (not) managing the dangerously inflated NZ residential housing Ponzi.
I welcome this change but at least as big an issue as investors competing against first home buyers is Developers paying premium prices to secure sites for future development. Both Government and Council want higher density housing so there is unlikely to be any changes to this type of buyer. What it does mean in practice is that the top price in areas are being pushed up and in many cases these "brown field" sites sit vacant, demolished or have dubious short term rentals. Net result in the short term is less housing stock.
Yep. Second and third most expensive properties for sale in Lower Hutt at the moment;
https://www.realestate.co.nz/3932673/residential/sale/3-johnston-grove-…
https://www.realestate.co.nz/3920541/residential/sale/678-bertram-grove…
This will have little if any impact. The deposit is coming from equity release on existing portfolios. I know that..you all know that.. and the reserve bank knows that. Only people not playing in the property dont know that.. and that is the target market of this propaganda volley. They are not trying to fix anything... Remember the RB are all property investors... and turkeys don't vote for christmas
LVRs can only work if they come from a taxed income stream. Releasing equity enables property investors to reinvest property gains tax free. So in the current form LVRs are only a hand break on the first time buyers. LVRs must be in conjunction with deposits notcoming from equity release. Investors must stump up the 40%.
You can sell a residential investment property you have owned for 6 years tax free in NZ. Why should you pay tax if you are merely using the equity instead. Surely you would require a capital gains tax on a sale before looking to extend it to accessing equity without a sale.
As much as I dislike the idea of equity debt stacking, I don't deem it as "income". It is a loan, and does need to be paid back.
I think go for gold on equity releasing for investment purposes, but it is a business practice and should come with business lending rates.
Tail wagging the dog. Banks have already done it, this is just catchup stuff from RBNZ. When the corporate sharks have to restrict themselves in absence of legislation to ensure financial system stability, that's when you know the regulator is no longer doing their job.
Various regulatory capital minimums apply. For example, excluding additional capital buffers, the ratio of common equity to risk weighted exposures cannot be less than 4.5% (if the ratio is less than 7% restrictions apply to the distributions that can be paid to capital investors). Total Tier 1 must be at least 6% of risk weighted exposures (8.5% if distributions are to be unaffected) and total capital must be at least 8% of risk weighted exposures (10.5% if distributions are to be unaffected). section 101 page 25-26 of 57-PDF
The point is bank depositors are most exposed to the instability of a real estate bubble fostered by excessive bank lending to this sector.
I had this to say, earlier today, on another thread:
by Audaxes | 9th Feb 21, 8:57am
12
upBanks will always look to maximise return on capital on behalf of shareholders, hence lending priorities will be determined by the asset class that demands the least capital and provides the most liquid collateral - there is a reason why the risk weights for sovereign bonds are zero.
Residential property standard risk weights can be reduced by implementing 'the internal models based approach'. ANZ has reported a figure as low as 27%.
Banks have migrated away from lending to productive business enterprises because the risk weights can be as high as 150%. Thus around 60% of NZ bank lending is dedicated to residential property mortgages held by one third of already wealthy households.
The number of households eligible to participate will inevitably diminish as the value of bank lending to this sector ratchets upward.
Bank lending to housing rose from $50,788 million (48.36% of total lending) as of Jun 1998 to $292,645 million (59.71% of total lending) as of November 2020 - source.
DTI's, appropriately set, would severely restrict investor demand relative to owner-occupiers since net rental income is typically sparse and would be discounted more heavily than salaries/wages. Net result, leveraged investors leave the market, house prices fall considerably to affordable levels and allow the have-nots to purchase. So yes, this requires a housing bust...but tax could certainly assist the process.
Given that a sizable portion of rental "investments" are negatively geared, this would be an excellent idea. It would increase stability (negatively geared properties would be the "first to go" in a downturn. It would also help redress the imbalance between owner occupiers (no existing equity) vs investors.
So all up a great idea, that will almost certainly be ignored.
DTIs are the answer.
It sets the basic human need of housing to wages.
start at 6.5 or 7 and reduce it by .1 or .2 per year till you hit the level that gives the most of society equal opportunity to live a rewarding life.
speculation is the cancer of the world right now and you see it not only in housing but stocks and cryptos. Sooner or later the time comes when it all falls down.
DTIs give you stability and equality
In a stable market, a 20% deposit is all that is required, mainly to make sure that the buyer has some skin in the game because the property price is not going to rise (or fall) by much more than the rate of inflation. This stops the purchaser from 'walking' away from any settlement, plus gives the bank a safety margin to know that after legal and sales costs in the event of a default, they are covered.
And of course, because median multiple is approx. 3x income, a NZ size deposit equates to a 40 to 60% deposit in these jurisdictions.
In an unstable market like NZ, low deposit requirements reflect that everyone (especially the banks) are expecting rapid continuing price inflation, and conversely high deposit requirements, the possibility of a price correction that would leave the banks exposed, especially if it means the value of the property goes into negative equity.
This is more than just about slowing demand because it only takes away the means for some, but the thought process of wanting to do it is still there.
The fundamentals of an unstable market are still there.
Because the equity has to come from somewhere if it is not already available in cash. And that will require security to be taken on another asset which will then have to itself meet the new LVR requirements. The new requirements will effectively prevent most investors who currently have less than 40% equity across their portfolio from taking on new purchases. The RB will be very conscious that having created the current mess they don't want to suddenly burst the bubble. That would be a bigger disaster than what we currently have.
KeithW
If you've made 20% value increase on your family home this year, you are probably already pretty close to achieving a 40% deposit on a smaller cheaper rental property. 40%LVRs may curb already highly leveraged property investors but for many this won't cause much of a problem. Because of such sharp recent increases I'm not so sure we will see significant change. - I suppose that is by design and the point you make. Perhaps the main impact, if any will be that it temporarily reduces fomo as people expect to see a cooling of the market.
So, eliminate the ability to use capital appreciation from existing property(s) then.
If you want to buy a 'cheaper' renter for $500k, then you have to come up with $200,000 of your own cash, not some mythical value of your existing holdings.
Part of the RBNZ Financial Stability worry is just that - the whole property market is dependent on past revaluation 'gains', and if those slip, the lot could fail.
Much better to start to de-risk the market by getting outside equity (personal cash) into the market than just ramping it up with 'profits' from within.
(Yes, you can take out a second mortgage etc. but the cost of that will likely be a turn-off for many)
You own a home you live in with a market value of $1m and a mortgage of $500k. As the LVR for owner occupied are 20% there is $300k extra equity that can be used to buy a rental up to 40% LVR (i.e. $750k max).
Your proposal wouldn't let the person access their equity but you appear to have no problem with the person selling their home, receiving $500k cash, using $200k on a deposit on a new $1m home and $300k on a deposit on a $750k rental.
Same outcome except it is a pain in the butt and leakage to lawyers and real estate agents for transaction costs. Such an approach favours cashed up buyers and provides zero financial stability.
All this talk about LVRs is really about slowing house price growth rather than concerns over financial stability.
"you appear to have no problem with the person selling their home, receiving $500k cash, using $200k on a deposit on a new $1m home and $300k on a deposit on a $750k rental."
That's right. No problem at all. Because (1) It releases the original home back onto the secondary market. It's part of the market movement that's needed for price discovery (plus - what's the friction cost? RE Fees, Lawyers, Moving Company etc. $50K?) and (2) it 'levels the playing field' for FHBers. They HAVE to come up with cash. They don't have equity to use or leverage.
The whole problem is - debt, and access to it.
(You'll have read my past opinion. LVR for anything but the 'family home' should be 0%. So 40% is not high enough, as your example well shows)
One way or another that has to change.
bw, I agree with you that more needs to be done and there is no doubt that the NZ housing market is a ponzi scheme, although I'm not sure your suggestion is a particularly efficient one. It would be better to find a way to hold house prices constant in real terms so that the accumulation of multiple properties is less easy or desirable. Obviously there are many levers you could pull in order to effect this.
My comments were more in relation to why the reserve bank are doing what they're doing and what to expect as a consequence than what I'd like to see in an ideal world. I would like to see a big drop in house prices too but I can't see it being made to happen deliberately.
Holding any market constant, no matter what it is, is virtually impossible. There are whole industries dedicated to finding a way around the regulations, no matter what they are. I know. That's what I did for a living! So 'holding real prices constant' is a non-starter.
The one abiding factor that knits all of us with concern, who post on this site, is 'Access to Debt'. It's not The Cost (the interest rate) that really matters (the market was similarly exuberant at 12% mortgage rates 15 years ago) but the fact that housing is by far and away the most attractive commodity our lenders have to use as collateral for loans. Take that away and the market will adjust (and so will the lenders! They make their money out of lending, and if it isn't against housing it will be against something else. Dare I say it, productive business enterprises?)
Until that is addressed we will continue down the road to even more national hardship.
Germany held house prices constant for some time. The only thing missing in NZ is intent.
The word you are looking for is 'stable.' There are plenty of products that have stable prices, cars for one.
And there are plenty of stable housing markets, with the prerequisite being, supply can equal demand in developer real-time due to the fact there are few restrictions to supply.
As far as direct regulation goes DTI's are the only thing that really makes sense but it seems too late now - the RBNZ wasn't initially interested in them when the initial LVR restrictions were proposed and then only later pushed for it (and the government of the day said no). Alternatively the RBNZ could impose a higher capital charge on residential/investor lending. The unease I have with all this is that the banks themselves should be looking after their credit risk, not blindly following central bank diktats. Clearly the management of banks are so short term focussed (market share for bonuses) they're happy to let the central bank tell them collectively what to do.
LVR for owner-occupier reinstated. I told you so again!
FHBs who are holding on to pliable deposits should absolutely BUY NOW or be extirpated from the market comes March. The government now gives you exactly 19 days to do so before the LVR close the door on you. Kāinga Ora’s First Home Loans won't open the door for you either- the average FHB will either fail the income test, the house price cap or both, so that shouldn't even be considered as a viable path.
For investors who had benefited from the crisis and intend to continue expanding their portfolios, a shift in the paradigm within existing strategies are required.
Investors should now focus on acquiring dilapidated properties for renovation, remediation and rebuilds. This includes properties that require upgrading to rental legislation. As loan raised to do so are LVR exempt, you need reliable contractors that would work with you to successfully implement this strategy.
For investors with restricted fund raising capacity, one viable route is to approach tier 2 lenders. The mortgage interest may be slightly higher but they are not encumbered by RBNZ's LVR requirements. To further enhance your buying power in the market, some lenders allows you to collateralise the future cash flow from your current rental income as part of the overall fund disburse calculation.
Be creative- it pays not to be dull.
How many investors will be shut out now? How many fhbs will need to save a bit longer to get to 20%? When will the effects of lower immigration take hold? When will supply catch up? When will all the new tradies finish their training? I think prices will have to fall and it could be 20% over the next year!
The housing mess in NZ will not be addressed in any meaningful way by any of the current political parties capable of forming a Govt in the short to medium term. The problem is now so extreme the political cost of implementing the radical reforms necessary is simply now too high, they will tinker. The most likely scenario is an external financial shock i.e., a major sustained global equity correction on such scale the markets lose confidence in the central bank’s ability to reverse the downturn. Widespread serious money loses in both the NZ housing market and equity markets need to occur before there is going to be any sustained behavioural and the required policy changes
Yip, everyone knows where money comes from...and now the genie is out of the bottle, they'll have a hell of a time putting it back. That's why folks a cashing up on real assets. It's either crash and burn or inflate away the debt. Again, we all know where to point the finger. "End the Fed".
This rings very true. Both major parties have shown an aversion to actually addressing the causes, or impacts, of our housing ponzi scheme, simply because they want the economy to keep "growing", which is easy to do when private debt keeps boosting asset prices.
People claim its now "too big to fail" .... its "too big for the government to let it fail", but fail it will. Why? because the inescapable laws of mathematics. They may prop it up for another year, or 5 years, but it will fail and the longer it goes the worse the fallout will be.
At this rate it will almost certainly be an external event that forces the correction on us, so we will have zero control on how far or badly it spirals out of control and causes harm across the whole of society. We could be proactively managing this and gradually attempt to deflate the bubble, but instead its more politically expedient to put head in the sand and keep things going for your elected term, than it is to have the courage and conviction to really address the issue.
Its sad to watch the courage and foresight shown by the government in quickly and effectively tackling Covid (because the costs could be offset into the future, but the benefits could be reaped within their term in office). And then compare it to the weak and woefully ineffective response to the housing crisis (as the benefits would be long term, but the costs would be incurred during their time in office).
Come on Jacinda this is all you need to do, its so simple and it is so fair.
Property investor A
Owns one property with a value of 1 million and it is fully paid for.
HE wants to buy a second property for 1million and has 400k in savings
He is preparedto put in 400k(40%) and the bank will lend him 600k
No income tax to be paid because he has stumped up 40%
Property investor B has a property worth 1 million and it is fully paid for
He wants to by a property for 600k but has no cash savings. The bank loans him all 600k. And the 40%(240k) deposit that has been released from the existing property is added to existing income and taxed.
The property investor effectively pays tax on money he is loaning, just like the FHB pays tax on his income. The Property investor is also paying interest on the loan.
Now if anyone is serious about sorting out the mess that is nz property, this is one way to do it. The market will come down... but it has to,to solve the problem
I continue to be amazed at how inept this central bank is. The major retail banks are already implementing LVR restrictions at 40% ingoing equity, this announcement is completely redundant. All this tinkering on the periphery of the issue frustrates me
immensely, just start raising rates to pressure investor cashflow and watch the supply free up.
Does it really matter anymore?
House prices are so far beyond the average income earner, and have been for years. Even if the market crashed by 30% prices would still be unaffordable.
It's time to give up on the traditional notion of a 'kiwi home owning democracy'. Instead, focus on building much more social housing and enabling more private rental housing. Increasing LVRs could ironically backfire in terms of the latter.
Haa that is the first, RBNZ only following the OZ bank cartel.. so if RBNZ clearly already received vasectomy. Then most likely the negative OCR is off table, inflations up? interest up? - here's the second event, the cartel increasing the interest.. then the OCR will follow suit? - who's leading who now? - ans: 'vested interest of the market'
This LVR stuff is a total nonsense. It won’t stop investors buying unless they are stupid or naive.
There are a heap of non bank lenders in the market over which Robertson or the RB have no control. Some of the many that spring to mind are Midlands Mortgages, Squirrel Mortgages, Lornies, and one if the best in the business, First Mortgage Trust.
They have billions at their disposal and will happily lend on peanuts deposits. Their interest rates may be three times higher than the bank but who cares if property prices result in big capital gains. Besides, the tenants will pay in the end, through rent hikes one way or the other. All the mortgage brokers know who they are, and at last count there were scores of such lenders bursting with money and eager to lend.
I have used all of them all at one time or the other, so investors have no fear. If you can put a spoon in your mouth, or breathe a fog on a mirror, keep on speculating to your hearts content.
Last time for similar reason he put that 40% in 2013, then C19, for odd reasons he straight away remove it. When the train is run away, even the Banks 'suddenly becoming prudent', he's aim is correct though to push rocket to the apex momentum, but sadly he's under the pressure now to put it back, soon? Mr Orr & team, also will follow the OCR swing up movement, as per banks moves interest up in 2022. Let's hope that despite all this hawkish calls by banks to put it up, Mr Orr & team will still put it to negative zone. NZ should learn how to cope with pain, who knows? - the expected natural 'austerity steps' will door knock soon.
Lots of people want to rent for many different reasons. Now we have one more reason why renting will get so much harder and there will be less landlords who will be a lot harder on renting. With LVR’s and the medieval new rental rules why would you rent out a house at all. Should be supporting landlord investors not whipping them.
Prices have certainly gone crazy. If you are looking to buy a house in Wanganui I would highly recommend Whanganui Mansions www.whanganuimansions.co.nz which is a free online real estate magazine featuring houses for sale in Wanganui, Waverley, Marton & Bulls, New Zealand. All the local real estate agent & private listings. All price ranges. All in the one place for your convenience. All properties listed for free.
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.