It looks like being a hard winter for the residential property market with stock levels at the end of April at an eight year high and sales remaining in the doldrums.
Property website Realestate.co.nz had 28,643 residential dwellings available for sale at the end of April, up 5.9% compared to the same time last year and was the most stock the website has had available at the end of April since 2015.
Sales numbers for April are not yet available. But in March the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand recorded 5877 sales, which was down 14.6% compared to March last year.
So the trend so far this year has been for sales and stock levels to be heading in opposite directions.
The high level of stock relative to sales has occurred even though the number of new listings received by Realestate.co.nz was down 18.9% compared to April last year. And it was at its lowest level ever for the month of April, apart from April 2020 when the market was basically closed down due to severe pandemic restrictions.
Realestate.co.nz spokesperson Vanessa Williams said when new listing numbers drop but that decline isn't reflected in stock numbers, it means buyers are taking their time.
"Many are delaying their purchase decisions given the current economic climate," she said.
Around the country the biggest increase in the amount of stock for sale at the end of April compared to a year earlier occurred in Coromandel, up 73.6%, while Gisborne posted the biggest decline at -33%.
The tables below show the full regional stock and new listing figures for April compared to a year earlier.
The comment stream on this story is now closed.
- You can have articles like this delivered directly to your inbox via our free Property Newsletter. We send it out 3-5 times a week with all of our property-related news, including auction results, interest rate movements and market commentary and analysis. To start receiving them, register here (it's free) and when approved you can select any of our free email newsletters.
120 Comments
The Mexican standoff continues. Who will blink first - I’m predicting it will be vendors
Its always the same horsemen
Death, Divorce, Da Bank.... will drive the blinkers.
I think with boomers aging the pre-Death move into a retirement village/aged care/support/downsize will drive the market a LOT. Once Dead the remaining kids will want the cash to put on their own mortgages... it must be sold will increase in taglines. These sellors will be happy to accept 100k less, as if shared across 3 its only 33k each. Its just human nature, would you rather get $200,000 now from grannies house or $170 per week if rented and cashflow shared. (That $200,000 will save you $13,500 in interest a year for the next blah blah blah years)
Yep this is true, I am happy to have moved my parents into a village 3 years ago, they sold just prior to the top but they bought in the same market so they did ok.
The market value is set up and down by comparative purchases or sales, the foreign buyer effect was powerful on the way up (they were not price sensitive to this market) and the "3D's of doom" will drive it on the way down.
Agreed. Many vendors are waking up to the fact its not that people don't want to buy the property, its the inability to get finance approval at the stupid price expectation created from covid panic and 2% debt. Wake up - neither of those exist now.
This is a gap that widening as rates climb. Popcorn...
Rates are not climbing, they are falling. The gap is actually narrowing as real house prices approach pre-covid levels.
Only because banks are using the cheap debt they loaded up from the Govt. Inflation is still roaring so the only action from the OCR is up. Spin the wheel and load up on housing debt, off you go take your chance. Waiting for the next global shock, cos everything overseas is in such good shape.
Cheap debt from the government? Banks use international swap markets, predominantly. Rates are falling because inflation has peaked. You can hold onto whatever narrative you like.
I won't be loading up on debt, but I do prefer to live in reality and assess what's actually happening out there.
It is going to be even tougher in spring when the usual high number of listings hit the market to take advantage of the warmer weather. People will have more choice and some vendors might have to lower their price expectations.
Talk of a falling OCR will be mainstream by then.
My view is that Orr knows his job depends upon a falling OCR by election time as our potential new masters are already on record that they will demand his resignation. (Hey! I'm allowed a conspiracy or two.)
No it doesn't. His job was recently renewed for 5 years.
RBNZ have but one key target which is keeping inflation in check. If they lose control of that then Orr and whoever is in government at the time is toast.... people are really anal about affording food and warmth
If inflation isnt falling at the next RBNZ meeting and the banks arent keeping rates up then expect a good ocr hike and warning to everyone who can influence wages and consumer spend. RBNZ would rather a major recession than out of control inflation.
This theme normally continues till about elections time. Anyone who’s been around long enough will know.
It's safe to assume that Labour will not promise to change much after the election, they would be wise to actually do stuff now if it needs to be done.
Its safe to assume that National will allow full interest deductions as a valid expense.
The floodgates are open at immigration NOW so that policy , even through not announced has been enacted.
Current Price levels, interest rates, affordibility and the risk of loosing equity are the driving factors here.
I don't think change of governement will turns things around, though things may well take longer to play out under National.
The market cannot be saved, as its overvalued.
It needs to find a level where buyers and sellors reluctantly agree on pricing levels, homes are reasonably affordable, and pricing levels find some stability. Just a functional market will be a win for National, the covid booms times are gone forever....
Overvalued just like Sydney etc. guess we’re all heading for an Ireland type crash.
We are already in Ireland type crash just price’s are going down much quicker in New Zealand.
No. Very different. We hardly have any mortgagee sales for one. So overall it’s mostly paper losses for most people. Key word most.
Agree, once the forced sales start we may make Ireland look like play school. Amazing 20% drops with no real forced sales, just imagine with forced 40-50%?
Cant disagree. What will be the trigger for forced sales to start....?
The question I've got is, if any forced sales start en masse will you be able to afford any?
Haha. IT GUY avoids answering this question.
When prices finally stop falling - a long way off, ref Ireland - nearly everyone will have a lot less equity and feel poorer. Interest rates won’t fall nearly as fast as they rose, and banks will be increasing margins to cover ballooning non performing loan costs, and won’t pass much on. So there will be no immediate bounce, just a long period of relatively flat prices. Unemployment will be higher so net migration probably lower. If only construction productivity and cost could be improved there may be decent opportunities for the young to find decent affordable accommodation
The same people that said when interest rates rise propert falls. I bet they find it hard to accept that rates drop, property stops dropping too. Classic.
Interest rates are at the top and are about to begin trending lower. That’s hard facts, there’s no reason to believe that we’re suddenly going to have forced sales - it’s just wishful thinking like it’s been for the past year and a bit.
If there's no risk of forced sales, then it's because unemployment remains strong. And if unemployment remains strong, then there is no reason for the RBNZ to drop rates while inflation is still outside of its target range.
Please dont bring reality into this.
What? You mean there’s no risk of forced sales because employment remains strong, not unemployment.
Thats right, I got my words mixed up.
Other hard facts I've heard is that property prices could never fall significantly in NZ, that there was zero risk for FHBs getting into negative equity while buying during a period of FOMO, and that it would be impossible for the OCR to go above 4% again because the housing market wouldn't handle it and the government would never allow it.
In reality it turned out that 'hard facts' were just opinions of vested interests who desired a particular outcome that would benefit them the most - as opposed real world risks that are real and possible.
How much housing market debt do you have? (a question I have asked of every commentator on here who shows an extremely high degree of bias in their views - because how could you possible provide a fair and balance opinion of something, if your own vested interest means you desire and believe in only one, of many possible outcomes? How does that help people make financial decisions if you are only telling them what you want to happen for your own financial gain, as opposed to what could happen?)
Who said housing pricing in Nz could never fall? They’re totally deluded. Falls/corrections/troughs are the only things guaranteed along with long term gains as a result of population gain, inflation etc. Recent FHBs will be in temporary negative equity but as long as they can service their mortgages they’ll still be better off in the long run, if not - good luck with timing the market. Have you ever considered if I’m biased, you might be too with your gloomier outlook??
Exactly. Why do people have to be all doom or completely deluded? Plenty of us understand and have been saying for years that residential property is a market like any other, with the potential to go up or down. You just have to read the economic drivers and understand how these are mediated by the 'animal spirits' or whatever you want to call it.
Comparisons to the Irish crash are completely out of whack with reality. RBNZ installed strict prudential controls to mitigate that exact risk, and they are currently doing their job. We are nothing like Ireland back then. Stop saying it, you sound silly.
You’ve mixed up the wishful thinking and the hard facts
Typical nonsense from the DGms, it’s taken them by surprise again how resilient the market has been, barring a correction after crazy increases. Keep up the wishful thinking.
Disagree. Just like Ireland
At this point I cant see Nat getting in.
A Party and leader riddled with multiple rentals reducing the tax on landlords is going to cost Nat big time.
Pity.
The party for Landlords might just squeeze in ...depends on what other lollies at can dream up.?
What's that got to do with running the country properly ? Seriously some people should not be allowed to vote. Populistic voting is what got us into this mess with Labour. National are going to romp home, this country will be on its knees come election time.
Realistically you had better bet that Luxon is the next Prime Minister of NEW ZEALAND
I'd add a small correction, if I might.
Its safe to assume that National will allow full interest deductions as a valid expense if the electorate accepts a CGT.
And that's how you keep everyone happy.
And Nats' & ACT's big donors need not worry as the NACT will ensure any CGT has plenty of loopholes for their donors to wade through. (Oh dear. That's two conspiracy theories in one day. I'm turning into a terrible cynic.)
The REALLY big cap gains is subdividing 100H on edge of town into a new suburb
yep - landlording is a mugs game when you can just landbank and lobby your mates on the council for zoning changes.
Demographics. More and more voters are renting.
NZ desperately needs house prices to come down so all of society can aspire to ownership.
Its not ok to farm people to pay off an asset and you, not them get to own it.
Nat need to wake up.
NZ desperately needs house prices to come down so all of society can aspire to ownership.
Not ALL. 67% DO own a house, 10% will never own a house due to unemployment and attitude, 23 % are aspiring to house ownership. Most will get there.
Homeownership rates have been slowly falling for decades. https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/home-ownership-rate
And the rest of your relative comparison about 'never own' & 'aspiring to' is out of context to 'who does own.'
.
Home ownership peaked in the 90s at 73%. At present it is 67%. It really hasn’t changed much.
Overall maybe not, but for the under-50s it's changed hugely - as of 2018, it was under 60% for the 35-39 age group, more than 20% down on what it was in 1986, and I don't imagine it's improved in the last 4 years or so. This has massive implications- if you don't own a house by 40, your chances of ever owning one, and of managing to pay it off by retirement, are not great,
https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/homeownership-rate-lowest-in-almost-70-y….
And the stats are for owner-occupied housing. That means anyone living at home, in a multigeneration home, or in a flatshare house where one individual owns the house is going to be collected in those stats as a "homeowner".
Not entirely clued up on the terminology though so could be wrong.
Correct me if I am wrong but weren't those figures a bit biased, as it counted someone living with their parents, or in a multigenerational home as a "homeowner" when in reality that isn't really the case.
In which case the proportion of those under 40 owning a house probably hasn’t changed [if earlier figure counted people living with parents as home owners].
Bit confused on this conclusion.
The stats show it has changed, near 20 percent drop for those key age groups, and on top of the fact the majority of "homeowners" in the those age groups these days are actually living at home rather than owning the property themselves. The stats are only for "owner-occupied" housing.
I am (anecdotally) assuming wasn't the case previously as the majority of people I know in the older generation moved out quite early rather than living at home, so an even higher percentage were likely owning their own homes back then at younger ages which is reasonable to assume since housing was dramatically cheaper than it is now.
I could be wrong on this though I don't have any exact stats to back it up so I am working on assumption.
You entirely correct.
the 2018 Census, the proportions of people who owned their home (or held it in a family trust), and those who did not were relatively even, at 51.8 percent and 48.2 percent, respectively.
https://www.interest.co.nz/sites/default/files/embedded_images/housing-…
And the only reason household ownership rates haven't fallen further is the population bulge (boomers) have had high ownership rates and are living longer than previous generations. Home ownership rates have fallen dramatically for 20-40 age groups.
Thanks for digging that up. Will be interesting to see what the figures are from the 2022 census.
.
Yes I forgot about the election. That causes some anxiety anxiety until it’s all over with. The cost of living including interest is affecting everyone.
Good point. Which begs the question, if looking likely to take power, how will National give confidence they will save the property market?
They won't, because they can't. What's happening in our housing market right now has nothing to do with who's in the Beehive.
Right on Chebbo, but the vested would like you to think they control inflation….
Yet another FOMO inducing attempt from this crumbling “market”.
Yes it does! It was Robertson and his mate Orr that flooded the country with unproductive cash
Orr's not in the Beehive, but that's besides the point. Our housing market problems go back much further than our disastrous COVID-19 response, and span both National and Labour governments.
It has a lot to do with who’s in the beehive. Bring back interest deductibility and watch.
The removal of interest deducibility didn't cause prices to fall. Why would reintroducing it cause them to rise?
Because it can be used to rinse income tax. The focus on that has been one of the drivers skewing house prices.
Because it was a staged approach over 5 years so no immediate impact. Sentiment will def change when National get in as they’ve promised to scrap that ridiculous rule.
So no immediate impact or sentiment change when it was removed, but somehow re-introducing it is going to be like a spark in the proverbial tinderbox.
Investors def went to the sidelines when interest deductibility was removed, but most didn’t sell. They didn’t sell because they didn’t feel the impacts of it yet as it’s staged over 5 years. If the dumb law is changed again, of-course it becomes appealing again. Did I really have to spell that out.
Okay. We'll see I suppose.
Why is that rule ridiculous ? From discussions I see and have had, many involved in property are hell bent on paying minimal tax. It's like the fat kid no longer getting free lunches. Chef Luxon to the rescue ?
Agreed. This one policy is what puts people off voting National. Reinstating mass exploitation via land lord tax rinsing.
Saving the property market = let prices drop 30%+ so we can try and make life bearable for most.
See my reply to IT GUY above.
Re-instating mortgage interest deductibility while introducing a massively watered down CGT would keep many people happy.
Cool pic. The agency signs are somehow reminiscent of a graveyard.
Ironic, Covid drove the last dying days of the boom, not many in NZ died of covid, but now RE agency staff are dropping faster then during a pandemic.
Remember the good OL days when a property was listed with more than one agency at once?
Multibid..... put your best foot forward...
The comments section has more diverse views now. At one point I regularly got told I am "the last spruiker" left here.
Not any more.
Do you now walk with a spring in your step HW2?
HW2, as of late, your attempts at toning down the ad-hominem laced (pro-property) rhetoric has not gone un-noticed. Well done!
One can be pro-property here and others will respect the accompanying views provided it has insight. Otherwise you're just another Spruiker.
Adhom comments and unfounded claims are made regularly by dgm still !!! Please sort that lot out rp (asked in jest)
Your side has proved its point, nominal house prices are down 20 ish percent and that's before discussing real prices.
Yet I know there are some who won't be happy until prices are near zero such as prices based on 3 times a single salary
Give it another 12 months or so HW2 (assuming prices drop another 15-20% in real terms - making a 40-50% drop overall in income inflation adjusted terms) and I'll be on your team, arguing that it will be a good time to be bullish on property.
And instead of arguing, we might for once be in agreement.
But while prices remain so detached from incomes, and with inflation so high, I can't be bullish on property (or any asset to be honest, be it most shares and bonds - although if a pivot in interest rates is approaching, then bonds may very soon be a good play).
And pigs might fly
Last year, 12 months ago, people were on here saying that when things cannot get worse, that will be the time to buy.This is it. All time low business confidence, as well as the above
And Why do you say prices are detached from incomes, thats not true. Go back and re-read the affordability index report.
Finally btw, do you know that commercial bond value growth is taxable as advance interest. Buying at high yield and selling on a lower one, pushes the bond value higher. IRD taxes the gain
You're on record saying things won't get worse. What say you about employment? People need jobs to pay mortgages.
Before you answer, be mindful that to a Spruiker void of insight, good times are always around the corner but they cannot explain why...
Everyone agrees, that'll get worse and unemployment will rise. Its still relative. The fat economist (sorry I forget his name) is quote as saying 5 pct, but thats his outside figure. Whats your pessimistic figure and your optimistic one.
Btw it was obvious you were leading up to something with your false compliment above.
Yip agree - to ever admit that the forecast doesn't look good would turn a spruiker into a doom gloom merchant - and how could one possible be something that one is morally superior to?
Therefore, the future must ALWAYS look better than the present.
by HW2 | 1st May 23, 12:51pm 1682902284
And pigs might fly
Last year, 12 months ago, people were on here saying that when things cannot get worse, that will be the time to buy.This is it. All time low business confidence, as well as the above
And Why do you say prices are detached from incomes, thats not true. Go back and re-read the affordability index report.
Finally btw, do you know that commercial bond value growth is taxable as advance interest. Buying at high yield and selling on a lower one, pushes the bond value higher. IRD taxes the gain
Not really sure where to start with this HW2 - other than to say you must have lived a sheltered life if you think this is as bad as it gets. I've lived through a property crash before (in the US) and what we've witnessed so far is just the end of the beginning.
My argument is that things can (and possibly will) get much worse than this. We've still got record low unemployment - ie at a level that central banks are uncomfortable about so they have a desire/need to make things worse to bring about stability (crazy right...they are going to have to cause instability to bring about stability - have a real about Talebs theory on being anti-fragile which explains this concept).
The US 2/10 is still highly inverted, and being a near 100% bellwether that the economy is going get worse before it gets better (it is forecasting even more trouble within the next 12 months).
And money supply has decreased in the US for the first time since the 1930s - and the only other times this has happened is has caused (with 100% reliability) banking panics, unemployment >10% and depressions.
So if you think our record levels of unemployment that we currently have is 'as bad as it gets' then I suggest you, my trusty property bull, open your eyes and consider that this isn't really as bad as it gets.
'And Why do you say prices are detached from incomes, thats not true. Go back and re-read the affordability index report'
The affordability index report is a crude attempt to gauge affordability and is very depend upon mortgage rates.
If houses were as affordable at current prices as the report suggests, why have banks stopped lending, vendors stopped selling and buyers stopped buying? Is it because they are so affordable? Do a quick logic check and see what you conclude.
Do you follow statistics
Making up your own is more reassuring for you
by HW2 | 1st May 23, 2:18pm 1682907535
Do you follow statistics
Making up your own is more reassuring for you
Do you put blind faith in everything you are told and read? Or do you analyse and draw effective conclusions from the data presented to you, including identifying the limitations of the data set used in generating the given statistics?
I REJECT THAT!!
Do you reject anything that disagrees with your world view. Its goofy like
by HW2 | 1st May 23, 3:08pm 1682910509
I REJECT THAT!!
Do you reject anything that disagrees with your world view. Its goofy like
Some world views are closer to reality than others.
If you tell me the world is flat I will reject your view. I feel we have a social responsibility to shine a light on misinformation when it misleads others into inferior decision making and risks financial and social instability (ie making the collective future worse than the present).
Does that upset you - if so, why?
HW2: ‘the world is flat’ (house prices will never fall so yesterday was the best time to buy and because I’ve got a big property portfolio’
IO: ‘this isn’t completely true as house could fall much further and house prices this high relative to incomes are bad for social and financial stability - your personal financial position shouldn’t bias your view or the risks involved here - is your personal financial wealth more important than the financial and social stability of the economy as a whole?’
HW2: ‘you reject anything that disagrees with your world view IO’ (while rejecting IO’s world view)
IO: ‘but house prices have just fallen 20% and could fall further’
HW2: ‘you’re goofy’
Just so that you know, I usually ignore your long-winded manic posts. And before you berate me or insult me for a lack of intelligence, please read the interest.co guidelines. It could save you some time in future.
'Finally btw, do you know that commercial bond value growth is taxable as advance interest. Buying at high yield and selling on a lower one, pushes the bond value higher. IRD taxes the gain'
What is your point? Don't buy bonds because they are taxable?
Its so unfair isnt it that IRD call bond capital gains 'taxable income'
Buying and selling things as a 'trader' makes the buying and selling of things, including capital things, taxable income.
Not really that unfair if that is how you are generating income.
If I or you were to sit here and buy and sell shares (or bonds) all day in order to generate income, why shouldn't I be taxed?
Did you have a point you wished to make with this line of thinking, which appeared to be counter argument that bonds might be an ok investment soon if interest rates have peaked and may soon fall?
Who said anything about being a bond trader and one who trades in them. Investors are allowed to sell investments without having to declare the gain. The exception is with bonds. The name's Bond, James Bond. Enjoy your evening.
From above, this may have got missed following retireds tangent
Finally btw, do you know that commercial bond value growth is taxable as advance interest. Buying at high yield and selling on a lower one, pushes the bond value higher. IRD taxes the gain
The median multiple is based on household income, which use to be a single salary.
This is what people don't get, it's about universal laws. IE any saving in a restricted system will be captured by the most restrictive part first.
So in the good old days when the non-salary earner decided to work a few extra hours, their motivation was for extra money (holidays, extra savings etc.) beyond what was needed to pay the mortgage etc. But within a few property cycles that money was captured by the most restrictive part, which is land, hence two salaries are needed just to stay ahead if you are lucky. Your motivation now is not, 'will I or won't I', it's 'I have to.'
With everyone now playing a musical chairs game about the timing of passing your property onto the next person, before the chairs run out.
There are some good reasons why a property might never be 3x median income again, mainly due to an increase in value-added costs, but still, due to land use restrictions (non-value-added costs) we are paying at least a 1/3 more than a house could easily be developed from land to build form.
That extra 1/3 is debt that you have to pay off with interest, just because of poor Govt. land use policy.
Or perhaps some self doubt is creeping into HW2s outlook, afterall parts of AKL and WGTN have seen almost 400k drops, and OneWoof has run several stories of investors selling for eyewatering 18month loss numbers.
Hint the long term trendline for all NZ medium house price has a way to fall to support around 600k
IT MAN
as above... the question I've got is, if any forced sales start en masse will you be able to afford any?
The more important question is how far further south from here does buying become affordable for FHBs and banks are willing to lend, and how far do they need to fall before the yields look attractive for investors?
A few people I've talked to recently are saying that banks will only lend them 40% of what they would before interest rates started rising. And interestingly this aligns with a 40% drop in prices that happened when I ran the cash flows on a rental property over the duration of a loan (with 7% inflation of cash flows throughout and mortgage rates rising from 3% to 7% to control this high inflation).
Thanks IT MAN. That has nothing to do with the question that was asked
by HW2 | 1st May 23, 2:21pm 1682907714
Thanks IT MAN. That has nothing to do with the question that was asked
Only because it doesn't fit the narrative you wish to promote by your line of questioning and don't appear to be able to refute it with datapoints or evidence - as opposed to 'hope' that prices won't fall further and impact your personal wealth that is tied up with property.
Kaaarrrkkkkk
I agree. But Printer 8 still needs lots of therapy. He had another go at me this morning, unprovoked.
Also, I can see that at least HW2 has a bit of a heart despite the rough edges.
P8 has got a really nasty streak.
Gee HouseMouse
My post was both in the context of the thread of the discussion and it was regarding your much and continuously vaunted predictions for “May Day” (ie today).
So quite appropriate and timely to raise your predictions to which, as you responded were, I quote, “ATROCIOUS” (your capitalisation).
You really do trigger too easily - something to do with an over inflated ego or immaturity?
Cheers
Here's some facts for you from REINZ figures - Unconditional sales for Hamilton City - April 21, 390 - April 22, 234 - April 23, 136 showing as of today - I would expect this to increase to around 150 or so before the deadline ends for Agents filing sales... so with all the talk of Feb and March sales figures being shockers, this will be another...
RE agencies must be suffering a significant (extraordinary might be a better description) drop in revenue based on these numbers.
Peter Thompson said that things have to pick up by now, and they have not....... You will see office mergers IMHO, they will need to reduce expenses
Barefoot needing a less expensive footprint...
I think so, already seen a flash car traded for something modest here.
Cheap, late model, low milage Audis coming your way!
Well, RBNZ is thinking of relaxing LVR rules and may also give up DTI ratios. Real Estate Market has Friends in high places ?
RBNZ announcement that it may give up DTI ratios? Link please - thanks
Quote :
A property economist said it was possible DTIs would never be used.
"There's no doubt they would bite, but by the time they're ready, there's every chance the market will have slowed of its own accord and the Reserve Bank won't need them," CoreLogic senior economist Kelvin Davidson said.
Unquote:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/444870/debt-to-income-ratios-will-h…
"Quote :
A property economist said..." 😅
They have just cut LVR restrictions and there are no current DTI, market is still falling, perhaps no DTI and market would.... keep falling? The problem for the market right now is that buyers can't / won't pay current prices. How will these changes solve the can't/won't problem?
Why would the RB relax the rules? History has shown that people need protecting from their own greed (and from dodgy Real Estate agents, of course). To me it seems that LVR and DTI limits could help to prevent future housing inflation.
House prices falls will carry on - until people can afford to buy them. But well before that, there will be very few new homes built or consented. So when that point comes, it could be a very quick turnaround in price direction.
With the gates open to immigration because we need more workers, Sharon Zollner is probably about right in saying house price falls have just about bottomed out.
Inflation is down, interest rates look to be flat or slightly falling. The inflexion point does look to be about now.
Time will tell.
"House prices falls will carry on - until people can afford to buy them" - I agree with that and nothing else. Have any of you recently checked your property buying power - i.e. what the bank would lend you to buy now vs 18 months ago? My wife and I are in the same jobs we've been for the last few years, but the mortgage the bank is willing to give us today is about 40% less than 18 months ago. If I extrapolate that to the average population, the property prices have a bit more to fall..
What you are watching is the sales and stocking of marginal rentals IMO.
People are being advised by their banks or driven by fear to drop their marginal investments in property, which is showing up in the small towns on the periphery of cities. Carterton/Masterton/Featherston/Levin/Otaki for Wellington. Whatever hellish towns surround the nuclear wasteland of Auckland, all the towns surrounding Christchurch from Ashburton to Kaikoura etc.
The question is, where are the deals going to be? If I was to speculate, it is these marginal areas where the incomes are locally lowest but within an hour and a half drive of a major city.
"Whatever hellish towns surround the nuclear wasteland of Auckland" - nice.
Those towns have all just become bits of Auckland with other names, and it's the people that have half-lives (the other half stuck in traffic), not the dust.
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.