Annual inflation has fallen to 3.3% after consumer prices rose just 0.4% in the June quarter, according to data released by Statistics New Zealand on Wednesday.
This marks a major milestone in the Reserve Bank’s war on inflation, with the headline rate now the lowest it has been since inflation first left the target band in June 2021.
Economists predicted the June inflation rate would be 3.4% and the central bank, which set its forecast back in May, was expecting 3.6% — all down from 4% in the March quarter.
This result puts headline inflation tantalisingly close to the 1% to 3% target range and could pave the way for interest rate cuts before the end of the year.
In a note prior to the data release, ANZ’s chief economist Sharon Zollner said she wasn’t expecting it to be a “hallelujah moment”.
“But it [will] mark real progress and, importantly, the end of a run of upwards surprises versus RBNZ’s expectations,” she said last Thursday.
Domestic inflation printed well above forecasts in the March data and scared the central bank into discussing hiking interest rates during their May meeting.
This latest release will be more reassuring for the policymakers with both imported and local inflation easing. Tradable prices fell 0.5% during the June quarter while non-tradables rose 0.9%.
The annual increases were 0.3% and 5.4%, compared to RBNZ’s forecast for 1.1% and 5.3% and down from 1.6% and 5.8% in March.
Cheaper transport, costly insurance
During June, transport costs fell for a third quarter in a row with petrol prices and airfares both falling. Food prices rose at their slowest annual pace since 2018, just 0.2%, as fresh produce supplies recovered from the extreme weather events last year.
More moderate prices in restaurants, local holiday accommodation, and retail shops also contributed to an improved headline inflation rate.
On the other side of the ledger, housing-related costs continue to be the largest contributor to inflation with a 1.1% increase during the quarter.
Rents, which rose 1.2% in the past three months, tend to track income growth and are slow to respond to higher interest rates. They are expected to ease as unemployment rises.
Higher electricity prices also increased housing inflation and construction costs kept rising, albeit at a slower rate with activity in the sector having tanked.
Finally, insurance costs were up 3.1% with previous rounds of inflation and increased weather-related risks flowing through to premiums.
It is this kind of stubborn services inflation, which is driven by earlier cost increases, that has been difficult for monetary policy to tamp down in the domestic economy.
ASB has estimated that inflation in a basket of “cost-driven” items—such as local authority rates, insurance, and indexed taxes on tobacco and alcohol—may be running as high as 10%.
While the significant decline in headline inflation appears to set the scene for an easing in monetary policy, the RBNZ is unlikely to act unless it sees core inflation falling as well.
Stats NZ’s measures of core inflation ranged between 3.4% and 3.8% in June, and the RBNZ will release an updated version of its core inflation model at 3pm.
177 Comments
In other words, even though the situation is becoming increasingly dire, the unemployment % won't read as high as it has done in previous recessions (like 1991) as many can't/won't register for a jobseeker benefit based on their own unique circumstances such as residency or say a partners income. Todays percentage unemployed, it's a figure that's pretty misleading as most of us know, it's not apples with apples.
In revised reply to your hastily re-edited comment, unemployment peaked at just under 11% in the 1991 recession. Despite previously calling me out (claiming you were questioning me on behalf of a friend) for making a false statement regards the existence of an economic recession in 1991 that I worked through whilst employed with a major bank - Westpac, you again scarpered after I posted evidence that the recession really did happen ✅
edit
RP illate 80s early 90s NZ was in stagflation wages going back NZ was in a hell of a situation. The only ones doing well were the top tier management of govt dept who then got sold and privatized and were left in there to run them. Their wages went thru the roof literally
It is not uncommon for goal posts to be moved so I can't say whether the % unemployed in 1991 is calculated on the same basis as the last few years so we may very well have 11% unemployed now. Secondly I understand that if you work 1h a week you are employed.
Having such a low bar to being employed suits Labour and National and probably the other political parties as well.
I doubt if Stats NZ derived the way in which unemployment is measured. I think that it's a political thing ie In some govt regulation. All Stats NZ do is use the regulation and gather the data to calculate unemployment.
Yes - true as explained here; https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/explained/127623203/can-we-trust-the-o…
Or, for an accurate snapshot, anyone can search up the latest MSD statistics by previous week here; https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/s…
It's quite sobering.
Not at all. By supplying links with transparency, at least that's certainly not the intention here. I think the unemployment rate and methods used to collate it is ambiguous.
Since you're obviously triggered, I think this has more to do with something that burdens you.
Of course I don't like it - it's ambiguous. If you'd prefer hard, truthful and transparent stats as published by MSD;
https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/s…
If you want something that more than likely serves politicians narratives fill your boots Pragmatist :)
Yeah I think there is more unemployment out there than they know. We just advertised for Office staff, had 38 applicants in first day, I would say 70% would of been newly arrived immigrants to NZ, we stopped it after 60 applicants, but I keep thinking I wonder what promises or stories they heard for them to arrive in NZ in first place, I bet a number of them are really disappointed.
Not in our household. Rates + Watercare + Insurances (house/contents and vehicles) is over $8k a year, we aren't spending $160/week on petrol.
The rates increase that going to be recognized next quarter is going to add about 0.3% to CPI in the quarter, based on a guess that average rates increases are 10%, and rates make up about 3% of the CPI basket (they are the majority of the 3.23% of the Rates and related services group in the CPI basket)
I'd be concerned with any premature reduction in the OCR. A higher for [a bit] longer interest rate policy seems the most prudent approach to me. It's a case of shorter-term pain for longer-term gain.
The message must be driven home that over-indebtedness and surging house prices are not good for economic stability - and the longer-term welfare of our communities/households.
TTP
Agreed. The DTI's, as they currently sit, are too generous. I would rather see a max of 5x for owner occupier. And a max of 4x for any investor lending. Investors should never be given any chance to compete anywhere near equally with FHB.
I wouldn't mind seeing an actual restriction on investors purchasing any existing home below the median price for the given location.
If they did these things they could start cutting the OCR. But it is a tricky juggling act because once the cuts start the NZD could freefall.
Investors should definitely have a lower DTI. The fact they can borrow more shows how much we pander to vested interests. I'd like to see limits on using equity in existing properties to buy further investments. It's so unfair. It is so much harder to save $200,000 than it is to 'magic up' $200k in equity. It's this equity magic that led to ever ballooning house prices. I also want to see an end to interest only mortgages for investors - if you're an owner occupier, banks won't consider it (unless you're in financial hardship). But somehow, in 2019, half of all mortgages to investors were interest only. I also would like to see regular reporting on the number of homes owned by owner occupiers, and investors. Ideally, over time we will see fewer investors and more home owners. I know the government likes to think it's all about supply, but I think labour's interest deductibility removal showed if you make property investment less attractive, investor demand will fall, and prices will adjust correspondingly. We need an approach that addresses supply and demand.
Labour's rule changes PROVED that it reduced rental housing supply and pushed up rents to astronomical levels. It forced tens of thousands of people on to the social housing waitlist. It increased homelessness. It didnt even help the First Home Buyers because their numbers havent increased at all, and in fact, have fallen since pre-Labour.
Trying to pretend that every single mum, beneficiary, minimum wage worker, and recent immigrant is a First Home Buyer if only investors stop buying houses, is completely deluded. There is an enormous pool of people who will always be renters - and NZ needs the private market to provide homes for them, not taxpayers.
Low interest rates drove demand for rental supply which the landlords then collectively attempted to ratchet up the non-productive rent seeking behaviour when their cost of finance skyrocketed, in an attempt to offload their poor financial risk management into their tenants. This resulted in a higher portion of net household income being siphoned off (at this point rents are no different to tax from a robber baron given how much % they are taking).
Open borders enabled this behaviour as economic migrants were willing to cram more working age people into the same sized houses compared to the average Kiwi. HFL + sending a hatchet man after immigration is the solution. Investments into housing are seen as risk free and high returns, these investments are primarily going towards purchasing existing stock and not funding developments of new stock. This is categorised by economists as non-productive rent seeking behaviour. For the sake of making a fairer country we need to put more pain onto those who try to extract without benefit from our country. Investment in productive enterprise must be seen as more attractive than landlordship.
SKF
You could also argue that the rule change proved that rental housing is seen predominantly by most as a speculative asset with no regard for the occupants. See as landlords hocked off houses for profit left right and centre while using profits to buy more property elsewhere in cheaper areas with leveraged equity.
That would be ridiculous, considering that is where the greatest need for housing is. Low income tenants are struggling, they can't afford to rent brand new houses or upper quartile homes. They need more cheap homes to rent not less. Otherwise they all end up in social housing and taxpayers end up paying billions more in taxes on funding something that could easily be provided by the private sector for nothing.
Investors should not be inventivised to compete for existing stock, they should be incentivised to develop new stock. New houses at the top means someone from the middle moves up, which means someone from the bottom moves up, which means there’s a new entry at the bottom of the market…
SKF
The worst part being that government should not have to pick up costs from peoples speculative choices in the pursuit of profit. That is a mentality that leads to making financial decisions for one's favour knowing full well the govt will pick up the societal bill later if the choices are poor.
"Otherwise they all end up in social housing and taxpayers end up paying billions more in taxes on funding something that could easily be provided by the private sector for nothing."
Not nothing....private taxation.
The cost always exists and when the private sector provide there is the requirement for a return...whereas there is no need for a return over and above costs for the state.
It is a question of who you wish to pay the tax to and how much...but taxed we will be.
Yeah looks like we are getting cuts earlier, November is looking likely. Again it all depends on the fed who are pivoting into earlier cuts too.
The economy is falling apart far faster than expected.
Though I'm worried about inflation bouncing back with shipping costs going up again into a falling OCR, nightmare fuel.
Cost increases for shipping into New Zealand have only increased moderately so far in 2024. And off a very low base. Nothing close to what we saw in 2021. There will be an attempted to raise shipping prices ex Asia in August. But the ability to make that stick is subject to demand and demand is weak all over NZ for durable goods.
Domestic inflation printed well above forecasts in the March data and scared the central bank into discussing hiking interest rates during their May meeting.
Out of touch
No its the same stupid logic that ardern and co used. They went too hard for too long and thats what helped stuff her prime ministership in the end and Labour thrown out.
Maybe an obscure reference but the comment was made in the light of A Orr threatening to raise interest rates just three months ago, the stupidest comment of all.
Baywatch I should join all the dots in my comments from now on, just for you and Grandpa so you dont get triggered
Some pretty dangerous rhetoric by A Orr at the May meeting if so. And now having to slam the conversation into reverse is completely poor management
Next quarter the Auckland fuel surcharge will come off adding to downward inflation while the sept 2023 1.8% will also drop out. Could easily be below 2 percent for the year
Council rates increases next quarter, I think it will actually be a higher one (maybe 0.8%), but combined with the 1.8% falling out my prediction is we will be just over 2%. Of course a lot can change between now and then.
"pretty dangerous rhetoric" - the rhetoric is needed to make the markets play ball. Without it he may have needed an even higher OCR.
they won't know if you have cancelled but you will be in breach of contract. standard clause in your loan contract, although the contract may reference a seperate memorandum that stipulates it and outlines what the bank does in the effect insurance money is paid out (i.e. they have first rights to it)
I was a few days late in paying my home insurance premium one year, and received a sternly worded letter from my bank. I don't recall exactly, but I think it said they would arrange insurance and bill me for it if I didn't sort it out. By the time I received the letter I had already paid the premium and nothing came of it.
Dear council rates team, I choose not to receive your services. Dear mr bank ceo I cant afford to switch banks but I refuse to pay your much higher NIM
The good people of thames are getting ripped off for their fuel costs, what other options do their residents have, complaining doesnt work
You mean get on board with repeatedly injecting bank finance to support the ponzi vs getting inflation under control?
The no1 cause of societys challanges is overpriced shelter via mortgage and or rent. Underlined by the screams as rates are back in the lower end of normal. No2 is mass uncontrolled immigration without preparing for it with prepetory infrastructure investment. No3 is cheap debt acting like meth on the ponzi buyers.
No3 and No2 fuels No1. Let's not even talk about lack of electoral mandate for 2.
Will the RBNZ cut the OCR soon?
Remembering we have so many inflationary things still to come ... Tax cuts, Rates rises, insurance premium flow through, etc. etc.
Methinks our RBNZ will stick to its (obviously wrong) stance of being within the 1-3% range before they do anything. (Hope I'm wrong. NZ Inc is suffering needlessly.)
Edit: Any chance the RBNZ will actually address the dis-inflationary effects that a cut to the OCR would have next time around? (Nah. They like to pretend the OCR doesn't cause - or entrench - inflation.)
I agree -if you look at last three quarters CPI 0.5, 0.6, now 0.4 we clearly have local inflation below target -which is the only inflation that RB has any chance of impacting
Imported inflation could easily be higher next quarter as could that of monopoly service providers so continuing on the current track will just destroy more of our economic base adding further to our high cost low value economy - run by the cult of managerialism - maybe thats what the socialist civil service wants
I read the markets have priced in September for the first cut for the Fed, and we won't be until after that, would that be Oct or Nov, I'm not sure when our next review is after their Sept one. My bet is on our first cut being Nov unless the Fed don't cut. It's all about the Fed, we won't cut before them.
refix due end of this month. Tossing up the options:
a) 6 month refix
b) 12 month refix
c) float for a couple of weeks till the August OCR meeting then a) or b).
Just need to see how much extra the cost of ~4 weeks at floating rate will cost vs what i'd save if the rates drop 0.25% after the OCR
The bank hasn't moved on the rates they are offering since before the OCR, so i'm holding out till they do.
But you're right, based on the rates being -0.5% in 6 months, the difference between floating for a month to get half of that now, and just taking the current 6 month offering and refixing in 6 months works out to less than a modest dinner out since its under $200k that is up for refix.
The flight of our talented to Aussie will continue unless the pressure is eased. RBNZ damage to the economy is going to take a long time to heal so why stay here and put up with it. Fine for Orr to sit in his office looking at outdated figures but the realtime destruction happening now to NZ businesses and families.
This is job done, The only thing keeping us outside the band is the Sept 23 QTR that needs to wash through. If the Sept 24 QTR increase is 0.5% this will take the index from 1272 to 1278. Then divide the projected Sept 24 Index by Sep 23 Index (1253). This gives Sept 24 CPI of 2%, Bang right on target.
So why is the reserve bank still screwing over young kiwi's who are trying to make their way in the world with a mortgaged house for their families?
I know I may be ignoring rising insurance and yesterdays letter from Mercury showing a 20% increase in Gas pricing.
Those young kiwis you weep for were screwed over by having to pay twice the price for that family home you mention, as they would have done a mere few years before they bought it. That's the problem - the size of the Debt, not what the Cost of the Debt is. It's far easier to handle a rise from 5% to 8% mortgage rates on a Debt of $300k than on $600k. Fix that for future young kiwis, and we are getting somewhere.
Even if interest rates remained static on both borrowing scenarios ($300k @ 10% vs $600k @ 3%) with the same weekly outgoings, a smaller principal amount would always be the preferred option. Any increased repayments from pay rises/lump sum amounts come straight off a smaller balance.
When people wail about 20% interest rates in the 70's, they're not "mathing" very well. 20% interest rates would imply high levels of general inflation, so those increased repayments from wage increases are more certain.
My parents lived through 20% interest rates in the 80s. But they also paid 38k for their house in Auckland, and paid it off in full in less than ten years on one manufacturing wage, while my mum raised kids at home. The fact you could even do that shows you how much easier it was back then. The equivalent family wouldn't have a hope in hell now.
You're conflating investors crowding out the market for capital gains with first home buyers wanting a home to live in.
Boy did investors crowd out the market too, they outnumbered FHB at least 3:1 in 2014/2015 when RBNZ C31 data series first started and on similar (sometimes larger) average/aggregated borrowed amounts.
RBNZ needs new / better tools. Not sure what the answer is but it's clear hammering already under pressure younger-generational home-owners for the greedflation of others over the last few years has it's limits and is just benefitting Australia.
Especially when you see the many cashed up mortgage free property owning class freely spraying their money around europe and the world - whilst many here nervously watch the supermarket check out screen.
Seems the 'cost of living crisis' only applies to some.
I wouldn't necessarily suggest they're spraying their capital gains around the world. Those will be accumulating interest in a bank account.
Many would be spraying their $20k p.a. taxpayer funded old person's welfare payments around the world. You're right though, cost of living crisis doesn't apply to cashed up wealthy retirees who will still claim a benefit while the rest of society tightens their belt. We shan't dare look at how our much more wealthy neighbor tests their pension payments.
Just claim something about a social contract, and how making something universal cuts down on admin costs even though we have existing admin that prevents me from claiming an unemployment benefit due to my income.
The problem is, though, that any wealthy NZ Superannuation claimant can become poor, overnight, if any Means Test etc comes in with the way our taxation, gifting and asset transfer laws are. Their children, would, in that same overnight period, become the wealthy ones in their stead.
What do we need? Reform in the above areas; taxation (including Gifting Tax, Negative Gearing, Capital Gains Tax and Inheritance Tax) and Stamp Duty on asset transfers, as a good place to start. Then, bring in Means Testing.
But none of the above looks like a viable political platform to run on, does it?!
The OCR may be cut before end of year if this inflationary trend continues. As I have posted many times before on here though there are still risks of further inflationary surges down the track a bit due to the global geopolitical situation, climate change and future monetary policy responses by central banks. Shipping costs are also on their way back up, oil is still over the $80 a barrel mark so this could play out in the months to come or be a year down the track depending on what unfolds. Global inflationary forces remain in the background bubbling away so its something to keep an eye on. Hopefully we get a lengthy relief period in between any future surges.
Enjoy today's reading! It will be the lowest for some time because there is only upward pressure from now on: See: https://www.interest.co.nz/business/128743/global-shipping-rates-have-n…
Shipping costs have a 3-9 months lag on our supply chain costs and will bite us coming 2 quarters.
See: https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/128739/insurance-council-tells…
See: https://www.transpower.co.nz/system-operator/notices-and-reporting/mark…
Click on the report and scroll to page 2 to see the strong increase of electricity spotprices due to very low hydro lake levels and high thermal generation commitments. Futures for 2025 have dramatically increased last couple of weeks.
the storage position gauge on your report says "storage levels normal"
normal does not mean "very low"
See the risk curve here https://www.emi.ea.govt.nz/Environment/Reports/3UN1KD
Happy to wager $20 bucks we do not get into danger territory this winter.
Wait to you see how much profit NZs largest insurer reports from their NZ business soon...i think it will be embarrassing and there will be some hard questions that will need to be asked, especially as a major contribution to inflation with such high premiums...or i could be wrong!
Apparently NZ is the only country in the world that has climate risk that must be priced in to insurance and Council rates. Luxury high rise Gold Coast towers are planned for the waterfront from Southport all the way down to Coolangatta now - havent the Aussies heard about sea levels rising ???
Sorry to hear about your parents.
Depends how old you are. this is what i would do.
1. pay off mortgage 100% on current place.
2. keep 6 months of living cost in savings as an emergency fund.
3.buy another property and rent it out OR invest in a good managed fund. personally i would get another property if you can afford it.
Domestic inflation printed well above forecasts in the March data and scared the central bank into discussing hiking interest rates during their May meeting.
Is anyone going to tell the RBNZ (and many idiotic pundits) that hiking domestic interest rates - and holding them too high, for too long - also takes time to trickle through the economy?
Or put another way - businesses will often hold off price increases for as long as they can - especially if they're not monopolies or oligopolies. (These are the the biggest employers in NZ Inc. i.e. small businesses). But eventually the higher costs of working capital have to be passed through.
Or put another way - just like how how OCR increases take time - 2 years - to trickle through the economy - so do the costs of higher interest rates!
Why the RBNZ is surprised - or anyone else for that matter - by 'sticky' domestic inflation - aka non-tradable inflation - simply astounds me.
Like I have said ... If they'd started the easing cycle back in November 2023, domestic inflation would have been (note the past tense) going backwards at the same rate as 'imported' inflation.
Sorry - worst RBNZ we've ever had. By a huge margin.
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.