By Alex Tarrant
The Reserve Bank has been the target of what could be argued are veiled threats from both major political parties in the lead up to September’s election about its on-going imposition of loan-to-value ratio (LVR) restrictions, and warnings that debt-to-income (DTI) ratios are not political flavour of the month.
Prime Minister Bill English and Labour Party leader Jacinda Ardern maintained they would respect the Bank’s independence. But both on Tuesday morning hinted at dissatisfaction over how LVRs were impacting first home buyers.
Their comments come after the Real Estate Institute (REINZ) last week called on the Reserve Bank to remove LVR restrictions on first home buyers. You can read David Hargreaves' take on that here.
First home buyers in focus as election nears
On LVRs and DTIs, English was first up on his way into the National Party’s weekly caucus meeting in Parliament Buildings. Asked his thoughts on whether it was still appropriate for the RBNZ to be imposing LVR restrictions, he replied that was a matter for an independent Reserve Bank. But he also encouraged the Bank to at least have in mind what economic conditions would allow for removal.
“They put them in place. I think it’s pretty clear now that the market is, [with] that policy along with a number of others, has got prices flattening off – takes a bit of pressure out of the market,” English said.
“The Reserve Bank makes those decisions according to their views about financial stability. So, I would expect that they’re doing work on what conditions would have to be met to remove them, but there’s no indication at the moment that they’re going to.”
English acknowledged the macro-prudential tool had made it tougher for some first home buyers. “It was designed to put some restrictions on that, and it seems to be having its effect.”
This was why government was helping this class of buyers through HomeStart grants and by allowing KiwiSaver withdrawals; 30,000 first home buyers had taken advantage of this so far, and there was enough funding for another 60,000.
“In time, you would expect that the LVR restrictions would be looked at by the Reserve Bank. So far, there’s no indication that they are,” English said. “In my meetings with them I’ve said to them that I would expect that they’re thinking through what the conditions would be. But it’s their decision…”
Asked whether he thought the Bank needed to be thinking about ‘taking a break’ on the policy: “Well a good regulator would do that. If you bring something in as a temporary measure, then you should be clear about what’s involved in removing that.”
Was that comment a message to the Bank? “They were always meant to be temporary measures, so they need to think about what conditions would be in place to remove them. But I have to say, there’s no indication at the moment that they’re going to remove them right now. And the market…is flat and in some places falling,” English said.
However, he again reiterated that relaxing LVR restrictions was a matter for the Reserve Bank. “I’m not here to tell them what to do.” English said government was not going to make the decision for them and that he did not want to give the public the impression that politicians could decide to remove them. “The Reserve Bank decides that.”
Housing market correction
Meanwhile, English welcomed the recent correction in the housing market, with annual price rises falling from near 20% annually to near flat currently. “We’re seeing some sort of correction, we’ve yet to see how it will flow out,” he said.
“Some real estate agents are saying that, because of the election, that’s prolonging what would usually be a quieter winter period, and that prices might pick up again after the election. That might depend on the certainty or otherwise of government policy.”
A flattening of the market meant a bit less panic for people looking to buy, English said. “I think it’s a good thing that prices have flattened out. Everyone gets a bit of time to think about what they can afford, we’re able to get on with supporting the building of 200,000 more houses over the next six years, and gearing up the infrastructure that goes with that.”
That there had been a correction in the New Zealand housing market was “pretty obvious,” he said. “Prices were rising at 15-20% per annum; they’re now rising at – it’s pretty much flat – and I think that’s progress.”
Asked how long that would have to last before he thought the Reserve Bank could remove LVR restrictions, he said: “You’ll have to talk to the Reserve Bank. But it raises the question of how long they will be there for. It’s important that the people who put them in place have thought through the conditions under which they remove the LVRs, because, ideally, they are not a permanent feature of the market.”
English was then asked on his views of the Reserve Bank perhaps imposing debt-to-income ratio limits. He acknowledged further tools were being examined, and if there was a need for them the government would be open to it. “But we don’t see the need at the moment,” he said. “We won’t be looking at them before the election.”
‘Labour never favoured LVRs’
Labour’s Ardern said she had heard plenty of personal stories from individuals who had really struggled to buy a first property because of the existence of LVRs.
“We’ve never favoured them, but we’re also very clear that they’ve been introduced by the Reserve Bank because not enough has been done by the government to ease the pressure on the housing market. So, this is something that they’ve made a decision on because of that inaction,” she said.
“We’d like to see them gone but we’re not going to remove the independence of the Governor of the Reserve Bank.”
On DTIs: “We’ve never favoured them either,” Ardern said.
Labour would focus on removing the circumstances under which the Reserve Bank might feel it had to use macro-prudential tools by easing the pressure on the supply side through initiatives like Kiwibuild.
“But we’ve not proposed removing their ability to set those…use those tools,” Ardern said. “We’re not taking away their discretion and independence.”
153 Comments
The initiative to lower LVRs is driven by the REAs, who can see volumes declining and their jobs disappearing, and the national party, who basked in the glory of rising prices and fear the political risks that go with fallling prices. To prop up a falling market they propose loosening lending requirements for the most vulnerable set of borrowers in that market, FHBs, with the clear intention to induce those FHBs to support demand and buy into that falling market with smaller equity and greater leverage than they would otherwise have had.
That's what is being proposed. And you're fine with that? Shame on you.
Yes you are right and people need to be hit where the problem is and less for others, so if housing isn't affordable maybe we should just split the LVRs up more, say first home buyers 5 or 10%. , other home owners 20% and investors 20% for there first rental and 40% above that, and a capital gains tax on houses sold under 10 years
Nice analogy. What it does show is that the leading candidates to head the next NZ govt are both afraid of saying the wrong thing to make the flock feel insecure. They need to inspire hope from a number of angles: from the starry eyed who dream of a suburban comfort zone to those who have staked their claim and are banking on their suburban castles and their right to reap the rewards that they feel they deserve.
..it is not the existence of LVRs that are the problem, but the extortionate price of housing?
I can refine this a little:
- it is not the existence of LVRs that are the problem, but the extortionate price of
housingLAND - And That's down to planning, zoneration, MUL's RUB's and other Brit Town & Country Planning Act fads
- Which restrict Land Supply and impose non-tradeable costs on the land which can be developed and sold
- Which in a situation of high Demand, causes, (Whodathunk?) High Prices....
Not true, chemo can cure cancer, as much as you can ever say it has been cured. Of course it's usually best used as part of a large toolkit of supplementary treatments. Shame the government is holding one of the RBNZ's hands behind their back on this.
What damage do you think the LVR rules are having on the market? Stable house prices, rising values of mortgages going to first home buyers, I'd choose this world over the pre-LVR world any day.
You could say the same thing about the record low interest rates, which were introduced post GFC to artifcically low levels.. At some stage they are going to have to go back up to realistic levels. The fact is that the LVRs are in place, because house prices rises have got out of control,largely because of the record low interest rates, which are a result of the GFC. I would be all for removing the LVRs if the problems are now over, but interest rates should also rise too. They are remaining artificially low because the problems are still there.
DTI's are already in existance! Do we reallty think that if mortgage rates were 15% instead of 5% that banks would still lend the same amount out? Of course they wouldn't! DTI's are as much a function of the cost of debt as they are the income of the applicant. The answer, of course, is to let The Market set the price of Debt, and not an artificial constrainer like the RBNZ/Government. All that follows is financial common sense.
Why do these politicians think it is OK to load up the younger generations with obscene debt? Is it because it will keep their older and more numerous voters happy as their house prices continue to rise? Or is it because a significant number of young people are desperate to get into home ownership? I don't know -
but regardless of this - whoever promises to remove these loses my vote as it will obviously just push up the price of the cheap houses. Bring on the DTI ratios I say!
Why do these politicians think it is OK to load up the younger generations with obscene debt? Is it because it will keep their older and more numerous voters happy as their house prices continue to rise?
Yes. It is.
Also, they're worried they'll lose their jobs if houses start to come down.
But really, they should have done the job they campaigned for in the first place, then NZ would not be in this position it is.
Almost 100% of young couples want to own a home. Young Kiwi's are leaving NZ in slightly concerning numbers in part because of how hard it is to buy homes. Prices are the underlying fundamental but the RB has layered additional difficulties on top of that. The govt doesnt want and probably cant tolerate, a major decline in house prices. So the best they can hope for now is a moderate correction followed by flat prices and frankly that wont solve FHB problems. So if they can get some sort of correction and constrain house prices from moving up to fast in the future, then they will want to see LVR restrictions removed for FHB and that seems perfectly reasonable and sensible to me.
They are cheap for a reason - less demand. If you want certain opportunities in NZ, then Auckland is the only place to be, which is why people are so passionate on this forum - they want to stay in Auckland but are priced out of the market. Otherwise they'd simply get on with life and move to the Provinces. Mind you, housing would be the only thing more reasonably priced. Food is just as expensive in Taupo as Auckland.
Actually the growth in Auckland population has partially been a function of Govt policy. I use to head an economic development agency. When we lost firms to Auckland we would investigate why aspects such as the accommodation supplement allowed them to pay their workers the same but reduce transport and other costs. The anomaly was that a $500 rental in Auckland gets a $100 a week more than a $500 rental in provincial New Zealand. However, a $500 rental in provincial New Zealand is somewhere you can raise a family.
The principal beneficiaries of reduced LVRs for FHBs will be vendors who will then be able to receive higher bids from FHB using greater multiples of leverage. The single biggest benefit to FHBs would be a fall in house prices. This correction has barely started, it should be left to run its course. By every metric houses continue to be grossly overvalued. There is no justification for demand support at this level.
This is a purely political decision by govt who clearly cannot bear the thought of a material price correction. They sucked up the kudos when prices were going up, and they don't want them to go down.
You are looking at LVR restriction on FHBs today. But actually their largest in impact was when prices were much lower. The main effect on FHB was to shut them out in 2013 and 2014, and they fought their way back, basically it stalled them out and led to them buying high. If they had exempted FHB the main difference would have been FHB activity in 2013 and 2014 would have been about 15% higher, that is to say a lot FHB missed out on a 45% run in prices. Id hate to see them miss the dipp again just because of LVR restrictions.
DTI is almost being applied by the Banks now - although with varied ratios and case by case ... Not sure it would benefit FHB or young buyers as their income is relatively lower ... further restrictions on what we have will kill the market - and seems to be rejected even by the main parties
Rising interest rates? not for a while ...
http://www.interest.co.nz/bonds/89307/economists-are-pushing-out-timefr…
It doesnt matter what the Reserve Bank does, commercial banks get their money on the international market, and the cost of borrowing is going up. It will be the banks that put mortgage rates up, not the Reserve Bank. And its already happening.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/88784545/mortgage-interest-r…
@ K.W. It absolutely does matter what the RB does. If they cut rates the variable rate will drop, the 1 year will drop a ton, the 2 year a lot, the 3 year a bit, the 4 year slightly and the 5 year will still nudge lower. Never the less to make the claim that the long term global interest rate trend (down) has reversed is frankly bold to say the least. With the world saturated in debt how do you propose the globe can move rates upwards long term?
@ K.W. What? Where do you come up with claims like that? Interest rates were rising just back in 2006 but it didnt change the fact that we have been trending towards 0 for 40 years. Rates go up and down but ever lower. The world is drowning in debt so it seems a bit wishful to expect long term rising interest rates.
Well said LVR's and DTI are there for a purpose and that is to try and make sure reasonable people do not get themselves into a dangerous financial position. The Bank have always used these tools on the average property buyer. BUT they saw a way of strong lending growth in lending to investors who had strong equity. BUT when things got to the point who did they tighten up the credit on. Not your Speculator but the average Jo Bloggs.
I think it would show a remarkable (but perhaps consistent) lack of strategic thinking to reduce LVR's now. This would be a move to help real estate agents rather the FHB's. Given prices are likely to drop further FHB's equity is likely to be lost. It would be a continuation of a wealth transfer from FHB to the current generation of speculators.
@ ex socialist Its not really the govts job to tell people what to do. They should curb house price rises but LVR restrictions make life for FHB extremely difficult. Many of them dont care what you think will happen to home prices, they frankly dont care about home prices at all, they just want to own a home and build a life.
On the contrary - LVRs do not seem to be discouraging first home buyers going by the amount of mortgage borrowing they are doing
http://www.interest.co.nz/property/88983/new-reserve-bank-figures-show-…
To suggest that FHBers don't care about house prices when they are looking to buy is crazy. Affordability is a huge issue for them and reducing house prices is the best way to improve the issue.
@mfd Not at all on the contrary you are just lazy at research. in 2013 with LVRs looming FHB rushed in and then fell off a cliff after. Pre LVR they were about 20% of the market and after they were 17%. Over time that normalized which only means that FHB were locked out of the more affordable housing and investors bought it all. Later, after they begged mum and dad, they could buy at the higher prices. The LVR restrictions were a disaster for FHB with many missing out on a 45% gain.
https://www.qv.co.nz/property-insights-blog/could-2016-be-the-year-for-…
I can assure you that my statement does not mean that price is not important, i literally say they should curb prices, but what most are missing here is that most FHB want a home, they wanted a home in 2013, they want one now and LVR restrictions unfairly target them. They missed out on much more affordable homes because of the LVR rules but you dont seem to care that they got screwed.
You're aware of the existing Welcome Home Loan exemption? Buyers with a household income of less than 130k can still borrow 90%, would you really want to expose FHBs to the risks of a <10% deposit? Or are you discussing FHBs earning more than that who are simultaneously unable to to raise a 20% deposit over the 4 years in question? Perhaps they have issues other than the RBNZ.
I find it hard to imagine that no LVR restrictions for the last 4 years would not be associated with higher house prices today, and I consider house prices the most fundamental obstacle in the way of a FHB. The RBNZ has limited options to curb house prices and the Government has failed to step up and help, so it has used whatever was to hand.
You can exempt FHB from LVR restrictions, you dont need to throw the baby out with the bath water. The WHL has a regional price cap that renders it unusable for most and has huge fees that gouge your deposit. The proof is in the pudding my friend, FHB were locked out of a 45% gain and thats a bloody shame, it was perfectly foreseeable, was warned about extensively and could have been easily avoided. I am hoping that we do not see a repeat of it during this correction and opportunity.
I'm going to go ahead and guess you aren't a first home buyer. I am, and would much rather have a higher %LVR and lower price, than a lower % LVR and higher price. Also they're there for a reason, because with such lofty prices, and high valuations by all measures, any drops could cause those with high LVRs to get in to trouble (and therefore the banks). I wouldn't think it's a good idea to increase risk when the market has stalled and could potentially fall. I imagine the RBNZ feels the same way.
@tgcam4 FHB got locked out of a 45% gain. They should not have been targeted. Consider LVR restrictions been made harsher for most but exempting FHB's. Now with prices dropping many FHB's will miss out unless the LVR is removed for them. What dont you get about this? I even literally said "They should curb house price rises".
As to risk, the idea is that the RB puts the brakes on in rising markets and then pushed on the accelerator in declining markets. That is how you get some level of stability. Stepping on the brakes during a downturn is how you get 1929.
Gotcha, my concern is that there are enough fhb to induce more irrationality to the market if they are offered high lvrs. Maybe there isn't a high enough number of fhb to have an effect on prices- I admit I don't know. If it wasn't enough to raise prices, then the concern would be fhbs all buying in while investors sell out and getting burnt by a falling market with not much equity... Maybe I'm being too nanny state, if you buy in at these valuations its your own risk to discover.
Two potential future PMs than are clueless as to why the LVR is there. It's only a percentage and for FHB a lower than 20% is already allowed. The real reason for problems now is both the extremely high prices and the bank credit tightening of which the LVR is responsible for neither of them.
From now on we're going to see a lot of populist idiotic gibberish from the red and blue parties.
I'm not claiming to have better DTI answers than RBNZ. They just have to ask the questions (at last they are) and be allowed to answer them (currently under debate). I might be skeptical of their residual market fundamentalism. No, I don't have a website but bis.org, worldbank.org and profstevekeen.com all do. Steve Keen's latest book outlines the problems of private sector debt and nominates NZ as one of many debt zombie nations. He's been repeating himself on this since before GFC 1.0 but the repetition hasn't quite worked yet.
To my understanding Steve Keen says private debt should be constrained, not that DTI's are the answer for NZ.
He says he clarifies this in his book, but one major question is that that if affordability is filtered through interest rates, then what fundamentally creates the private debt limit that he claims causes the crises.
DTI's are crude, dont make sense in relation to interest rates and would require a ban on foreign buying.
Steve Keen i follow closely and respect but it doesnt make dti's the answer unless the major global economies do it first.
Its not that they are asleep at the wheel by the way, they genuinely believe private debt doesn't matter and it has not yet been proven untrue.
Dear Jacinda, FHBs do not want a reduction in LVRs, they want a reduction in prices. We don't want both main parties to tow the same line to protect one generation over another. We (the younger generations) had hope you would be the one to listen to us but it looks like you are the same as the rest of them.
When the LVR restrictions were put in place houses were 31% cheaper. So a lot of FHB indeed got screwed pretty hard on that. More importantly though its not our job to tell FHB what to do, but it is or job to make sure they arnt getting unfairly targeted by policies.
Who cares about REA's? Lots of people complain about LVR restrictions because as we pointed out in 2013 it handed all the gains to investors and shut FHB out of a market they could have done well in. LVR restrictions may stop many from taking full advantage of the dipp as well. FHB should be exempted. This policy of locking them out cost many many FHB's a 45% gain and could cost them yet another opportunity now.
The more recent LVR restrictions have specifically targeted investors and successfully reduced their role in the market. Would you agree that the 40% LVR rate for investors should be kept as is? What would be an acceptable LVR limit for FHBs? Should they be allowed 90% mortgages, 95%, 100%?
@Kate What if they had been able to buy in 2013? Thats 4 years of household formation lost. What if the restrictions dont ease and they miss the dipp. I think a lot of FHB have been screwed. Many couldn't give a toss about house prices and really just wanted to own a home.
If FHB had been exempted in 2013 they could have bought a median Auckland home for $570,000 that today would cost them $830,000. They would have had 4 years of mort payments behind them and may well have already had some children. No, many would be FHB will never forgive the RB for delaying their lives 4 years.
If they buy for 10%, then prices fall 20% then dont sell. If they must sell because they didnt have insurance for some reason then thats sad but thats also reality, carry income protection. Almost all of the time they would buy for 10% and then move on to live happy lives in a home they can call their own.
I suggest you do some research on outcome based on LVR borrowing. This is a good start:
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/ReserveBank/Files/Publications/Policy-d…
That document is about servicing restrictions not loan to value ratio limits. Perhaps you mean to post a different link?
Here is actual data on LVR's.
https://www.qv.co.nz/property-insights-blog/could-2016-be-the-year-for-…
As you can see it devastated FHB in 2013 and 2014. Effectively it stalled the FHB market and they ended up buying later at higher prices, yay... Its what we said would happen, its actually happened, and it didnt have to happen.
Both govt and the REAs only care about FHBs now that prices are falling. They are now looking around for fresh meat to feed into the Ponzi scheme. "Hey, why don't we let those nice 30 year olds who just got married take on even more grotesque amounts of debt, if that's what it takes to keep me in a job and you in power?"
Sorry, but that is utterly cynical and disgraceful.
Prime Minister Bill English and Labour Party leader Jacinda Ardern maintained they would respect the Bank’s independence. But both on Tuesday morning hinted at dissatisfaction over how LVRs were impacting first home buyers.
I understood LVRs are part of the RBNZ's alternate macroprudential tool kit to underpin bank financial stability, given interest rates at record lows fueled excessive, potentially destabilising asset price growth.
Surely, neither the right or left wish to undermine this regulatory balancing act?
Negative equity isnt a big factor at all, what do you mean nothing worse? Negative equity doesnt change anything about your day to day life unlike say. Infertility, illness, heartbreak, death, assault and the list goes on. Negative equity is almost irrelevant. But more to the point is LVR restrictions shut FHB out of a 45% gain and could shut many out of buying the dipp.
Absolutely correct. Unless there is a written requirement for a certain amount of security coverage the Bank is only interested in the mortgagor maintaining agreed payments. Don't forget that NZ mortgages are all obligations mortgages i.e. remaining debt doesn't die with the sale of the property so banks don't need to have the same actions as their US counterparts.
Isn't the residential property the security and if it's value drops below the bank's declared asset value, namely the mortgage, how are the books balanced to the RBNZ's satisfaction, if a write down is necessary?
What happened here, albeit on a grander scale of catastrophe.
Banks run two balance sheets:
First the despot and loan book
Secondly the capital book (capital adequacy)
The value of a house isnt on either. Banks lose money when a loan turns bad and they fail to recover it, that loss is paid from capital, so the books are connected in that sense.
The security also is not mark to market, and so the drop in value is not recorded unless a change is made to the contract that requires a valuation check. Even then it simply means you cant borrow more, they cant force you to post capital.
Banks lose money when a loan turns bad and they fail to recover it, that loss is paid from capital
Don't the four Aussie pillar banks set aside ~$2.70 against every one hundred dollars of mortgage credit issued - and you claim nobody monitors the collateral value until the loan turns bad? What does 'bad' mean exactly for the mortgagor?
A loan is 'good' while arrangements are met. However, with any pool of loans there will be an expected loss and general provisions are made for that loss. Banks do not mark security to market, however they do look at loss given default. If the banks expected bad loans to make more losses, say through lower security values then they would make bigger general provisions, they would not run out to high LVR customers and ask them to top up the security or pay down the loans. BTW Banks make unsecured loans as well.
Banks do not mark security to market, however they do look at loss given default.
Why take security collateral if it's value doesn't demand the attention of the credit fabricator?
I worked my whole professional career buying bond assets financed by RP (short term financing). There was an initial borrower credit related loan haircut (ie 105% collateral value to 100% loan value, say) and ongoing daily mark to market collateral calls if it's value fell and the opposite if it rose.
Mark to market is generally used where the underlying asset is the main source of repayment e.g. margined shares, gold or in your case bond-backed short term loans. No assessment is made of other income to repay the loan. The margin required is a function of market volatility and liquidity, set so the lender is unlikely to make a loss. A bank writing a mortgage is primarily relying on the borrowers income to repay the loan, and the secondary source of repayment is sale of the collateral. Banks monitor how much they lose in mortgagee sales to assess the likely loss given default. What people seem to be forgetting in their crash predictions is that borrowers' incomes and loan expenses are not impacted by a fall in housing demand so loan quality is unlikely to be impacted. If prices go down it will be a confidence issue, not a repayment issue.
What people seem to be forgetting in their crash predictions is that borrowers' incomes and loan expenses are not impacted by a fall in housing demand.
Depends if general depression is the cause.
The bonds I dealt have the full faith and credit of the US taxpayer and generally paid an annual coupon greater than the short term funding rate (government guaranteed with a positive carry return - hard to beat) - default was never a stipulated issue. It was my institution's credit rating that determined the haircut - which in realty was in the TBTF category in 2007/8, by which time I had been long retired for 10 years. How many homeowners can claim the same? It will inevitably be a liquidity issue which transforms into an insolvency event.
Mark to market is generally used where the underlying asset is the main source of repayment
I guess that must include buy to let.
Without a doubt there will be recessions in the future and some home owners will lose their incomes and possibly have to sell up, however it would take a Depression sized event to impact on material numbers of incomes and therefore portfolio quality. The Banks stress test their portfolios for such events in any case.
The Banks stress test their portfolios for such events in any case.
Really?
RWA adjusted capital of ~$2.70 for every $100 of mortgage credit creation is lacking risk stress planning in the extreme, and I don't care how many mortgagors owes less than 90% on their original current liability ledger.
You may be confused with the US system where the market is dominated by loan originators but the loans are then on-sold and sometimes bundled as mortgage backed securities. Regardless in NZ borrowers of Term Loan Facilities cant not be made to post capital under any circumstance other than default.
Not a snowball's chance of that working. There was a very good article linked here a few months back explaining why developers don't supply stock to the market that risks oversupply and falling prices. Land and infrastructure is useless unless someone wants to build on it.
1. There is insufficient detail stated to make such any accurate judgement, therefore you are jumping to conclusions without facts.
2. The hidden assumption to the idea that "developers will simply buy all the land" is they possess the capacity to do so. You can corner a limited market but you can't corner an open market. By using the word "vast" I meant to portray that the idea that the amount of land released must exceed the developers ability to simply buy it up. These things are spirals, should land value start to deflate by 10-30% developers who buy and hold at yesterdays prices are taking huge financial risk to the downside. Should significant deflation start I suggest smart developers would dump holdings which were held at inflated prices before the leverage bankrupts them.
3. Both history and examples elsewhere on the planet where this has worked suggest snowballs must be more effective than you suppose.
I am not interested in playing by current developer/council rules.
Few FHBs in their right mind would borrow 810k for a 900k property in auckland unless they earn "quarter of a million dollars" like REINZ says. Imagine if they bought in march 2017 and another 8% drop in the next few months happens....
And by the way how many of these couples that earn "quarter of a million dollars" are there? Surely not the policeman, nurses or teachers in auckland...
The LVRs should stay. To stop the stupid and desperate.
Just had a look at August to date sales volumes, it is an unscientific method and small sample but it looks like August sales volume and price declines will make July figures look good!. I cant believe how fast the market is turning, I wouldn't have expected this until September/October.
@ Lemington_05 Link will be required there friend.
https://www.qv.co.nz/property-insights-blog/could-2016-be-the-year-for-…
The data im familiar with showed FHB at about 20% of the market, surging to 22% just before the LVR rules then been savaged to 17%, slowly recovering to 21% as prices peaked out.
To sum: FHB got locked out of the low prices in 2013 and 2014 and were forced in to buying much later than they wanted, essentially been stalled in to higher prices.
Auckland is similar: 20% to 24% before restriction then crashing to 19% after and slowly increasing as prices rose. This is exactly what we didnt want. We wanted more FHB in 2013 and 2014, the LVR restrictions caused us to get the exact opposite.
LVR restrictions were good, but FHB should have been exempted as we said in 2013.
The Welcome Home Loan scheme has always been a 10% deposit, hasn't it? One of our kids bought their first home a few years back using it. Not sure what you're on about;
http://www.welcomehomeloan.co.nz/
Yeah, some AKL house prices were so ridiculous that they didn't qualify - but surely that's a good thing? First homes need to be affordable for FHBs. When you first take on mortgage debt is the most vulnerable/at risk time in any period of family formation. Common sense must prevail.
The WHL has regional limits that make buying for most n Auckland totally untenable. The steep fees used to cover the insurance charges sitting in behind the WHL gouge the deposits. In short the WHL does not do an adequate job and the proof is in the numbers. FHB got rekt in 2013 and 2014, exactly when they could have been buying *cheap* (in relative terms). They got locked out of a 45% gain and ended up buying later at higher prices.
Assorted vested interests want to keep the party going longer, keep the champagne flowing and suck in the late-comers.
That the party will eventually finish is in no doubt. Only question is how sore the heads will be in the morning.
Pathetic, self-interested expediency.
It annoys me when people see the ease of gaining credit as the best way to make housing more affordable. People need lower prices not easier credit.
While in principle I agree with Bill English's sentiment that there must be a scenario in the future whether LVRs and other temporary measures are not required, I don't think New Zealanders financial decision making will ever be at the point where these backstops are no longer necessary.
Unless we have a 1987 type event in housing which changes the false assumption that housing never goes down and borrowing excessive amounts is always the smart decision, then people won't learn. It worries me that we had a massive housing bubble overseas in 2007 and New Zealanders tell ourselves we are special and it won't happen here because Auckland is a global city. This crap is why we need LVRs to protect us from ourselves.
Goodness me. Just make the house prices go up and up and up. Go bananas please.
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=1394303409
You mistinterpretted my words. I agree, tighter credit = lower house prices = more affordable housing. Therefore the restrictions on credit should stay or get tighter through DTIs.
Give a man $10,000 and house prices go up $100,000. Take $10,000 from a man and they go down $100,000. We think putting cash in people's pocket makes houses affordable, it doesn't. Any extra cash just unlocks debt many times that amount. As long as the money is broadly available, no purchaser is better off.
I'm VERY surprised Labour does not support LVR (or DTI). Make no mistake the LVR's are the main reason the housing market has slowed to a halt. I understand Ardern is saying Labour will fix the housing problem by building more... Hmmm, that is easily said but much, much harder to do. You need many more builders and trades people to build more houses, more infrastructure, more capital and it also takes a huge amount of time. Building material costs and hourly wages for builders and tradespeople are escalating (I've been an Architect for 25 years, I have a fairly good idea)
Labour - trying to be everyones friend with "we'll sort it out in other ways" while taking a dig at the Nats
National - "We want them to stop now but its not up to us." makes it look like they are doing something
Both election posturing to the layman but also showing their complete lack of understanding of the market forces at the moment
Ackland prices need a crash and will inevitably get one - looking at houses priced under 800,000 (fhb target) on the realnz website the houses are total junk, half of them look leaky monolithic claded poop not worth half of what they are asking. honestly FHBs out there you are better off renting until prices find their true value. Even consider renting for life rather than taking on huge debt for low quality crappers. They will just end up a constant headache. Be warned!
Renting for life was not an option for me. It was only on the radio the other day the shit the current 65 year olds are in as they approach retirement and have nothing to show for it. Imagine what a whole generation of "I couldn't be bothered buying a house, they are too expensive and I cannot do a 25 year mortgage so I blew all my money on just having fun" is going to do for the state of affairs in NZ. Unless your parents are absolutely loaded and even then your shouldn't count on inheriting all the loot, you need to get your own life sorted. Your parents money should be just the icing on the cake, you should lead your life on the assumption your not getting any of it.
NZ Herald had a lead item coming out against removing LVR's this morning at 05:00am....article seems to have disappeared...pressure from above perhaps:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=119…
They had another one by Liam Dann titled "First home buyers need LVRs to stay". I read it in the print edition of yesterday's Herald, then wanted to find it online. I had to search through three layers, it was buried deep in the property news archive. Maybe their advertisers complained?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=119…
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.