ANZ New Zealand CEO Antonia Watson says this week's government housing announcements mean the bank's affordability equations for property investor-borrowers need reviewing.
ANZ is New Zealand's biggest home lender with almost $90 billion of loans as of September 30 last year.
"Our affordability equations will need to be reviewed. We already have various buffers built in to our assessments but given many investors will be required to pay more tax in the future we may need to tweak them further to account for this," she says.
"We’re looking into what this will mean for our current mortgage book which at the moment is flowing to about 70% owner-occupiers and 30% investors."
Since ANZ introduced a requirement for investors to have a 40% deposit late last year, Watson says the number of investor applications has declined.
"Our growth [in] home lending volumes is still very strong, which means the country still has a demand and supply issue," Watson says.
"No government has managed to solve the housing problem because it’s fundamentally a long-term supply and demand issue. The only place in New Zealand where house prices are anywhere near normal is Christchurch, and that’s because of the massive house building programme after the earthquakes."
"The Government’s announcements won’t in themselves solve the housing crisis but they will change the playing field because they will impact investors looking to buy houses. Often first home buyers and investors are competing for the same housing stock," says Watson.
The changes impact the investment equation, she says, with the bright line test being doubled to 10 years.
"This means people’s investment horizons will change. Mum and dad investors in their 50s with spare cash might choose not to lock their money up for 10 years," says Watson.
"Phasing in tax deductibility on mortgage interest will impact some investors, but most invest for the tax-free capital gain over the long term. It could impact the affordability equation for some investors. Some investors might be forced to put up rents to cover this affordability or sell their houses. We think investors will stop and take stock."
"Encouraging more building apprentices is a great thing and the vocational training changes the government initiated a few years ago is to be supported. The infrastructure fund for greenfields construction will hopefully make it easier for more houses to be built," says Watson.
117 Comments
"Often first home buyers and investors are competing for the same housing stock,"
Often? How about 'always' Antonia.
"Some investors might be forced to put up rents "
What kind of fools do we think the current crop of landlords are? Their job is, and always has been, to charge the absolute most that any tenant can bear at any given time. What's going to change to give current tenants more rent payable at their disposable fingertips? (**)
Something about 'blood out of a stone' comes to mind.
(** NB: This is exactly the same thinking that applied in Sydney in the mid 80s, when Negative Gearing was scrapped. What happened in reality? Landlords were desperate to keep their tenants at even less than their current rents - just to keep the majority of their income in place. Nothing screams "I'm in trouble!" more than a landlord with fixed expenditure and NO tenant income)
Government issued pricing signals are a game changer. If an investor prices their current tenants out of their property in response to government pricing signals, they can reliably expect that tenants from the properties in the tier above them have also been priced out of those and be ready to occupy their property (tenants often have an objection to being homeless).
The tenants don’t magically have more money, they move to lower quality accomodation that is now all they can afford.
Precisely.
And eventually the properties 'at the top' are left empty - those with the most to lose from being empty. So what do they do? DROP THE RENT! ,and so compress all the other layers below them.
Investors 'putting up rent'; is in effect, cutting their own throats.
Much better to 'let it be' and let the new regulations quietly settle in.
Not 100% of every tier will move down. In each tier there will be a % who are able to come up with the extra money. (80% of the bottom tier might move but only 60% of the tier above that). At some point you get to where practical dwellings cross over to luxury dwellings and the market dynamic at that point changes again. On top of this, your logic only works if there is no shortage of dwellings. If there is a shortage of dwellings we can price a bunch of tenants out of the market and still have enough demand to go around.
I'll suggest the dwelling are there alright. They're just called Airbnb's at the moment.
And, yes, any pyramid gets smaller towards the top (the luxury end) but as one who experienced the NG changes in Sydney with a mere 2 properties at that time (caught in the change; bought before I sold, between homes), being without rental income won't be part of many (most?) landlords' plans.
Property should form only a portion of any well balanced portfolio and vacancy is budgeted for. Not every component of your portfolio will perform to the same level at the same time. Time in the market beats timing the market. Over the long run the capital appreciation on real estate tends to make the dividend (rent) look like peanuts.
Near as I can tell the legislation as it stands incentivises a conversion to Air-bnb (commercial). Do you have some reason to believe Air-bnb conversions will cease? What about multi unit dwellings that could be reclassified as motels (commercial)?
So how do you get a balanced portfolio of shares, bonds, cash and property when you need to borrow $800,000 to buy the average $1,000,000 house in Auckland, or $625,000 mortgage for the rest of the country? All of your money that you could use to have a balanced portfolio is gone in your deposit for a house. So your now highly leveraged against one asset class, that by all measures, its exceptionally overvalued, and needs to fall by 50% to return to any sense of normality.
NZ housing market is screwed. And so is the concept of having a balanced portfolio if you are young and need to buy a house.
Wow - so 20 odd rentals and you're 30 or less. You must be a national hero. Have you featured in the Herald or Oneroof yet?
And I'm not sure how that relates to my post about having a balanced portfolio when NZ'ers generally speaking don't have balanced portfolios. They have all of their money, and all of the banks 'funny money' (the mortgage) leveraged against a property ponzi. They don't own shares, or bonds and according to Vittoria Shortt, one third of ASB customers have less than a $1,000 in savings.
Get a 2nd job. Save more. Kiwis are lazy. No one can face the truth. The work ethic of many Indians and Asians outstrips the locals. May not be right, but it's the new world. Swim or sink, your call but dont whine. Disclaimer, I have been too lazy to work and collected a benefit, I've also lived like a pauper on a well above average wage in order to get ahead.
I've never understood the just work hard like the immigrants argument. Who in their right mind would advocate turning NZ into a pacific equivalent to an over-populated Asian country? How about we just maintain the current population instead of turning NZ into a 3rd world nightmare.
Until international travel resumes 1-2 years and likely at much lower levels there will be no demand for AirBnB and some such units are part of an owner occupied house, so that Air BnB will not be a viable option. More likely as the recession (we are now in one) gathers pace and possibly turns to depression those still in the market will see prices fall as the asset bubble bursts, but the effect on Banks at some point having to mark to market that class as its value becomes sufficiently impaired will potentially collapse Banks ability to lend as the bad debt write offs mount.
$100 extra a week to stay in school zone for the kids, friends, jobs, areas....and avoid the hassle of moving. Most are willing and will try their best to come up with the extra money.
Feel sorry for those who cant and there are plenty out there who are willing to pay and wanting to move in to those desirable areas.
Just cut back on the cafe visits and dinner out and there is your extra $100 rent, but those businesses will lose business....chain reaction everybody suffers. Thanks to this policy
That only works if all landlords put up their rents. Many with high equity and good cashflow won’t actually need to. So, in markets with plenty of properties available to rent, tenants will just move to properties that are the same price, leaving highly leveraged landlords with overpriced rentals that remain empty for longer periods. I think Auckland has plenty of rentals available at the moment. Just look at the number that are ‘ available now’ on Trademe. Especially in the inner city. The recent frenzy of buying rentals, the border closures have had an impact on supply of rental property as one would expect.
I see myself as a small time investor (less than a couple dozen rentals). I was at an auction this week where I quit bidding at about $750k only to watch a middle aged couple (in their 30s ?) and a young girl (in her 20s I think) carry on. The young girl would only begrudgingly raise her bid by the lowest possible amount after a lot of deliberation each time whilst the middle aged couple would keep adding $10k at a time with nary a pause. The place eventually sold for circa $900k. The ones preventing young first home buyers from buying appear to be middle aged couples upgrading from their first home to their next one. Investors generally have a fair idea of value / yield and don’t move much past that, it is those buying to live in themselves who look to be pushing each other up due to emotional attachments to specific properties.
Good call! Very bias comments about this whole change. Surely if people put their thinking cap on (and understand the changes) they can see that: infrastructure spend great! Brightline extension yea ok all good if owning for 8 years is considered speculating. Interest deductions...insane. Doesn’t help anyone, incorrectly targeted, screws over renters and possibly the economy therefore low wage earners the most impacted if every investor (what 300,000 people?) tighten their spending in response.
Lol, doesn't matter anyway as sadr001 is not the problem here with his small property empire, it is a different class of person who is the problem. All his tenants love the opportunity to rent from him, and are not of the right caste to aspire to own their own houses.
You still believe that? I wonder how many investors still believe everything is stacked in their favour after Tuesday. GR has said there will be more, he was rolling out a range of measures over time
Wait till interest rates go up and no more interest-only, some landlords will be crying into their baked beans
I think you give "investors" too much credit. Lot of people buying investment properties with no idea about the business side of things. A work mate has recently bought one or two properties to rent out and had no idea what yield was when I asked. They just want a rental as it's seen as free easy money. I know a few like that.
The stats don't really back up what you're saying sadr001, last I heard recently 40% of all sales were to investors (obviously before these changes), that is a serious chunk of the market, remembering these people don't actually need to buy a house, they are buying just because they want to.
Yeah lol you not small time. 1-3 is small time. Couple dozen is "IM RICH BIT**H"
Not that I'm knocking you. I wish I had a couple dozen lol.
I agree with your post. I'm currently looking for an upgrade on our current abode. I'm actually a small time investor though due to my low gearing contentedness to live in an avg area, I'm pretty sure I'll out bid most people once I find something I like and want to stay in long term. But that's just the dynamics of markets.
These rules will have any effect & things where already slowing. Patience and research is key. Also not reading the herald =)
Only soo much debt that working couple can afford to take on, or also how low investors will drop yields. We reached that wall a few years ago so unless rates drop further prices are not going anywhere.
Investors will now redeploy capital into new builds to rent so FHBs will find even more competition in that space.
The second hand stock rentals will see a big increase in rents and some will be sold to other investors or the few FHBs that can buy.
It’s an awful policy that will only benefit a limited number of FHBs buying second hand stock who were realistic buyers.
Everyone else will be detrimentally affected including the wider economy. This is a shocking socialist government that shoe horns in policy’s without consultation that they have no experience in.
I voted labour but never again.
You do realise that not everyone is a property investor right? And that if landlords decide to keep pushing up rents that the resentment towards them is going only to become greater right? And with more and more people being forced to rent every year the more people there are who will vote for a political party that will support the concept of things like rent controls...
I wouldn't be so sure on the 'watch the polls now'. If Labour move to put rent controls in place, they might just secure nearly half of the populations support.
This country was founded as a place where people could have a place of their own. Then the Europeans showed up for the same reasons - they were sick of being slaves to someone else. Only took 150 years for everything to go pear shaped for the European rentier-escapists. The Māori had a much better run. Now we're all in the same boat -too many landlords.
I looked into that, my background was in construction which meant it would have been my preferred option, but the cost of residential zoned land makes building uneconomic. That's kind of the root cause of New Zealands housing affordability issue really. If government ever makes zoning/development laws more reasonable for green field sites building will boom and houses prices will drop like a stone. So far there is no sign of having a Right to Build.
ld... don't you get it. The Govt will never allow the costs to be passed on to renters. It would defeat the whole purpose of the changes. Surely it is only a matter of time before they move to peg rent increases to wage increases. Problem solved. They will not let investors weasel out of this that easy.
I remember an article recently about a $155 per week rent increase on a $370 per week home. The question is who really loses in these scenarios...
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/housing-affordability/12445610…
That’s the point, if there is increased demand for new builds then developers have more confidence to build more. Are you saying a brand new 3 beddy on a 400sqm section in hobsonville is going to be less expensive than the equivalent sized existing house? No chance, FHBs will have less competiton for the existing stock.
Deducting interest on mortgage payments was a free lunch for property investors - something that owner occupiers didn't benefit from who didn't own investment property. So there is such a thing as a free lunch, but it depends upon whether it benefits you personally or as to whether you perceive it to be 'free'.
My impression is that most investors will be able to retain their target returns because rental demand vastly exceeds supply. The thing that will supercharge the next step up is border reopening because it has acted to constrain demand temporarily which has meant that, while rents are up, they are not at the record setting increases we expect next year.
It's at that point you need to consider whether a country needs a business like people farming. Do they need to be farmed, or should they simply live their own lives? Remove the farmers (and more and more people want to become people farmers...) and people can get on with their own lives.
"We think investors will stop and take stock,' ANZ's Antonia Watson says"
Antonia Watson is absolutely correct that speculators will stop and take stock but will soon realise that 20% to 50% gain in a year overshadows all fear or even 9% per year ($100000) in future as promised by Jacinda Arden is much better even if we loose $5000 or $1000in tax.
Greed will win.
No silver bullet but unless easy and cheap access to fund the speculation is stop, it is more of a performance by all. To stop future rise on house prices as have been witnessed in last few months, government or RBNZ has to stop the flow of easy and cheap fund - cannot increase interest rate but can definitely control the flow to speculators by stopping Interest Only Loan.
Question to be asked, why has government or RBNZ have not acted on it till now and why the delay ?
Have seen quite a few comments who have raised this issue but none from the so called experts, economist, politicians, media...... Why ?
May be all knows that stopping Interest Only Loan, may not be a silver bullet but most near to it being a silver bullet, hence....
If there's enough push back from property investors and the like do you think Labour will get cold feet and back out on I/O deductions come October? Propery investors are certaintly throwing their toys out of the cot "we're just going to raise rents""you're going to make people homeless Jacinda" etc. It must be a bad feeling for Jacinda seeing her popularity dwindle over the smallest change to housing policy.
I see people here talking about Labour introducing DTI and I/O exclusion in May... I really can't see that happening with the uproar over this weeks minimal changes.
Nifty..I think their response to investors childish threats will be sensible and swift. They will move to peg rents to wage increases. The callous threats being made by investors have left the Govt little choice. If a bully punches you in the face you have no choice but to fight back and fight hard.
Yes I agree - I think the more property investors threaten or actually push to increase rents, the more power the government has to step in an impliment rent controls per Kate's posts. If they kept quiet and just did it without the whinging they might have a better chance of getting away with it. But openly making threats, and having National tell the whole country that this is what is going to happen, just gives the government the mandate to step in and doing something about it.
ACT is leading the investor whinging charge with a petition. It is all going to backfire. Labour have made it clear they're not playing around anymore. I suspect the interest only mortgages will be the next step, possibly that is being held off on until May to see what OCR does and also to give time to gauge effects of 23rd March announcemnt
If polling suggests she's losing popularity & voters in droves I suspect she'll stick to status quo and play it safe. It seems awfully convenient that interest deduction exclusion will only be implemented in October after 'consultation'. This seems to give Labour a good period of time to do polling and guage public opinion...
As many/most investors are those seeking income in retirement to supplement state super, even selling now presents the issue of less income so short term I suspect many such Landlords will stay put and suck it up. However human reaction will likely be negative for Labour/Greens and next elections votes will in the short term be determined and implemented later and Labour/greens may be surprised by the wholly predictable outcome in 2022.
"I see people here talking about Labour introducing DTI and I/O exclusion in May... I really can't see that happening with the uproar over this weeks minimal changes."
THAT IS THE VERY PURPOSE OF THIS OVER REACTION.
Now has to be seen, if Jacinda Arden has true leadership quality to stand up or.....
We'll just gave to keep an eye on rent rises over the next couple of years (with borders closed it's hard to know just how fast rents will climb next year when demand returns to normal) to know if government policy has been effective. If they get rent increases under the general rate of inflation government have won, if they don't then investors have successfully passed-through costs.
Yes, bring it on. The NZ economy needs to re-balance away from parasitic house speculation, regardless of the increasingly higher-pitch whining of the minority of specuvestors. Actually, the higher the whining, the clearer the signal that the intervention is going to work.
House prices in NZ need a managed but significant and sustained fall - for the longer term benefit of the real NZ economy and society.
I would say it is almost an investor’s civic duty to pass the full cost increase (including the tax on the increased income to cover the cost increase) of the regulation change on to tenants along with clear indications that this is a direct result of government policy. With sufficient solidarity it should cause tenants to grumble to the government about the policy change and if both tenants and investors are grumbling about it the government will be highly motivated to repeal the legislation.
The market is going to be reigned in, one way or another. BOTH major political parties here have expressed similar intent over the last decades or so, and anyone caught out now hasn't been preparing.
Past Governments haven't had the courage to give it a go.
Against all of my expectations, this one has.
If it doesn't look like it's working, what have they now go to lose by 'going early and going hard' with the next lot of possibilities?
sadr...sorry mate. Pegging rents to wage increases is in the best interests of NZ and that is why it will happen. The only people who will be adversely affected and grumbling will be the landlords and that will just be viewed by most as an added bonus. Time to move back into the real world of fairness and running a real, productive business that benefits NZ my friend. If you are smart enough to accumulate about 20 rentals you are smart enough to change tacks and start to use your talent in a far more productive and less destructive manner. You will sleep better.
Rent controls have been tried in many jurisdictions. The devil will be in the detail. It generally just means that periodic tenancies become obsolete. I am mostly ambivalent to them ( they are what I would describe as primarily a small increase in the administrative burden, but that happens all the time in every industry)
"I would say it is almost an investor’s civic duty to pass the full cost increase (including the tax on the increased income to cover the cost increase) of the regulation change on to tenants"
^And here we have the problem. You may not believe that you're a greedy person, but you are.
This might be true, but there is a good counterargument to this.
Govt. set budgets/targets that they think their policies will achieve, and it doesn't matter how they get there, it will be deemed a success if they do, ie the end justifies the means (any means).
What you have is most peoples reaction to the policy is as expected, BUT there is a group at either end that extend the tail of the curve, but not the average eg in the case of rents, most landlords charge the norm, but x% charge generously less and x% charge unfairly more. This 'tail' has already been policied in, so as long as this distribution is kept, the policy is a success in their eyes.
What needs to happen if you want the policy changed is a move more to the unfair end, which in fairness to the landlords doing this is still legal.
That is, the best thing to happen would be for all landlords to raise prices by whatever amount they are losing in interest deduction, and then we would see a rection.
But if only some do it, then only their tenants are hurt.
Not every investor is highly leveraged, some have properties freehold. I'm looking forward to seeing the highly leveraged (thus inevitably desperate) pitted against property investors who have been much more sensible with their debt. Some compared this to the GST increase, but the GST increase was universal - the impact of this change is not.
Whatever happens, prices will likely be coming down. And rents would inevitably follow.
Yep I agree, prices will be coming down and rents likely to dip but not as much as house prices.
I am not sure cashed-up investors will take on the ex-investor stock as I actually think the investor model is broken, even at these extreme interest lows. Prices need to come down I think for the investor model to work.
Let's look at Ian the investor as he looks to buy a standard 3 bed in New Lynn; the median listing price for houses is $825,000 and the median rent in New Lynn for houses is $570 per week. (https://www.realestateinvestar.co.nz/invest/new+lynn)
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%.
(https://www.interest.co.nz/banking/108940/rbnz-targets-residential-prop…)
So a mortgage of $495,000 (60% of $825k) at 2.49% is $1,953 per month or ~$23,436 per year. (https://www.interest.co.nz/calculators/mortgage-calculator)
Rent will be $2,280 per month with 48 weeks occupation (i.e. 1 tenancy swap in the year) or ~$27,360 per year.
Very approximate annual costs might be:
Advertising 150
Amortisation and depreciation 3,000
Bank Charges 150
Accounting fees 1,500
Property Management Fees 2,500 - (https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/property-managers)
Repairs and Maintenance 1,000
Rates $2,300
Total non-interest expenses ~$10,600 per year.
Gross profit is revenue $27,360 less non-interest expenses $10,600 = $16,760. Tax payable at 28% is $4,692.80 leaving a net profit of $12,067.20
Ian then uses the net profit to pay the interest of $23,436 which leaves him $11,368.80 to pay from his own PAYE-paid income.
I might have the math here wrong (probably) but unless he is Ian the Idiot I don't think he will be looking at any investments for the privilege of paying just under a thousand dollars a month out his tax-paid income to house someone else on a depreciating asset.
Your interest calc is way off and also auckland investors have also been getting 51/52 weeks occupancy for almost a decade now. interest should be around 12k making this example breakeven/slightly cash flow positive. Great example of why banning interest deductions is such a good idea, this investor is borrowing large sums for potential capital gain, not a miserly yield.
Oops yes, I used the calculator without a sense check.
Not sure making no profit as opposed to a loss makes it a better investment in light of historic low interest rates and potential price fall but each to there own.
I have a few investment apartments in Auckland and over 10 years I’d have loved to have 50 weeks average but no joy.
The kind landlords are planning their counter to the new rules, primarily because they are philanthropists and care about the views of their customers (like any good business provider should when providing goods or services).
This is it:
"Problem solving.....if every landlord in NZ....grouped together as one voice....and told the government that....(an example) we are all going to ask our tentants (yes tentants...) to vacate on....say the 20th of july 2022 (probably the coldest day of the year)...as we all want our properties empty to "renovate"...where would the government house near on half the population in one day....thats where investors coming together as one can show the government what we do is good, needed and helps solve housing for so many people that need it".
So kind, caring and good, that you threaten to put your customers on the streets for the coldest nights of the year. What other business would/could do that? Landlords in NZ (not all, but many) are acting like some kind of narcissistic, out of control, cartel.
Your comments says you cannot beat numbers not even Govts with police enforcement and you have seen this in Germany were stumbenfueher merkel has been forced to backtrack on locking Germany down over Easter same is happening all over Europe/UK/USA , you aint seen nothing yet, this is turning ugly fast.
"The only place in New Zealand where house prices are anywhere near normal is Christchurch, and that’s because of the massive house building programme after the earthquakes."
And thanks to the much-derided and lampooned Gerry Brownlee for bulldozing through the LURP which basically trashed the stupid land restrictions and suspended the RMA.
I hadn't thought that banks would have to adjust their debt-servicing calculations for property investors, but that makes this even more interesting. Lower net yield, means less considered for a credit application. Add in the now-returned 40% minimum equity, this means investor demand could drop more than I thought - can't charge higher rent on a property that you can't get funding to buy
The main issue is, in letting the housing crisis get to where it is by not addressing the fundamental first principle issues, they are basically rewriting the basis of a legitimate business model.
This latest one of not being able to deduct legitimate business expenses, ie interest opens up the possibility of all expenses in all businesses now up for the same treatment.
But even prior to this the biggest undermine was the removal of depreciation and the redefinition of 'Chattel.'
Machinery depreciates, so do buildings, so if depreciation is a legitimate expense for other businesses so it should still be for buildings.
However, the main issue was that Govt. policy negated the effect of depreciation by restricting supply.
EG in a truly free market, there is a big difference in stale (depreciated) bread and fresh (new) bread. The value of the stale bread is almost $0, and you can claim a 100% depreciation on it, ie is a 100% cost because you received $0 revenue But if bread was in short supply and was the only food available, then there is very little difference in price between the two, and therefore if you could still sell at the fresh price but claim the stale depreciation, then this obviously is an imbalance.
This is what happened with depreciation on housing, people were claiming depreciation and spending most of the money on other things, but we're still getting near full capital appreciation as though the property was new.
The Govt.s reaction to this was to do away with the depreciation rather than restore a true free supply market. And there was no effect on making housing more affordable.
Removing the interest rate deductibility is the same response, and you would have the same effect, ie no effect on price reduction, BUT with an exemption on new builds, they are trying to artificially recreate the price differential between new properties and older ones.
The best the might happen is we go from super unaffordable new housing to unaffordable older housing.
But if they just allowed the true free market to operate by removing supply restriction, and allow depreciation and interest deductibility then we would have to afford new housing and even more affordable older housing.
Wishful thinking, when the past 20-30years the only safe guarded investment category by authorities. Then the recent nudge, is merely just that.. minor. No investors with average multiple housing and has been in the game for such long time will suddenly develop a thin skin. Their skin as thick as a skull, remember folks 'when there's a will there's a way' - Be savvy now on managing the Tulips, you held there.. until the border opens for OB.
The article about what ANZ said tells it all but everyone including Jacinda is choosing to ignore it. 30% of loans go to investors and 70% got to owner occupiers. If 50% of investors pull out you still have 85% paying top $ because with low interest rates they can afford to do so. What is the government going to do next if the prices keep going up?
I would agree that historically low and falling interest rates over the past 20 years are the main driver of prices, not excessive immigration or tax advantages (but they are certainly material components). And if Adrian stops printing money tomorrow and interest rates rise on the back of higher growth or inflation or whatever is happening in the world, then prices will fall big time.
I am very clueless about property to be fair, but does anyone think there could one day be a shift in how rent is charged? For example 10yr lease with tenant paying for all expenses plus an agreed amount that makes it worth while for the investor? Could be a fair way to keep all sides happy?
It would just be fair right as landlords wouldn't be able to put price up based on costs. However, i think some renters would be in for the shock of their lives seeing what rates, insurance and maintenance cost these days. Its $250 a week i worked out for our place.
Not a single bankers are correct last year in their predictions.. so what makes them right this time?
If Tulip ponzi move into housing ponzi, then so be it when being scare off to move into BTC? the BTC price will shoot up by 5000% in a single day, world will knew how Kiwi govt, basically will back/bail them out.
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.