By Greg Ninness
Lower quartile house prices are falling in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch making life a little bit easier for first home buyers in the main centres, according to interest.co.nz's latest Home Loan Affordability Reports.
The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand's lower quartile selling price in Auckland was $649,000 in July, down by $31,000 (-4.6%) from its peak of $680,000 in March.
It was the fourth straight month that the lower quartile selling price (the price point at which 75% of homes sold would be above and 25% would be below) putting home ownership slightly more within the reach of aspiring first home buyers.
Unfortunately most would likely still struggle to get into their own home unless they had higher than average incomes.
According to the Home Loan Affordability Reports, the mortgage payments on a home purchased at Auckland's lower quartile price of $649,000 would be $698.61 a week, which is 43.4% of the after tax pay of a couple earning the median full time pay for people aged 25-29 in Auckland.
That's down from 46.1% of their take home pay if they had purchased in April, but the mortgage payments are still likely to be a struggle because other property related expenses such as rates, insurance and maintenance come on top of that.
More than 7 years to save a deposit
But the biggest hurdle many first home buyers in Auckland could face is saving enough money for a deposit.
According to the reports, if a typical couple earning the median pay for 25-29 year olds saved 20% of their net pay every year and earned interest on their savings at the prevailing 90 day bank deposit rate, it would take them just over seven years to save a 20% deposit for a home at the lower quartile selling price.
The basic problem facing first home buyers in Auckland is that over the four years from July 2013 to July 2017, Auckland's lower quartile price has risen from $385,000 to $649,000, a whopping 68.6% increase.
But over the same period of time, the combined median take home pay for couples aged 25-29 has increased from $1500.65 a week to $1610.14, up just 7.23%.
So house prices have risen at nearly 10 times the pace of wages for typical first home buyers over the last four years.
The effect of that on mortgage payments has been mitigated to a degree by falling interest rates, with the average of the two year fixed rates offered by the major banks dropping from 5.64% to 4.84% over the same period of time.
However even with falling interest rates, the mortgage payments would have increased by two thirds over the same period (assuming the home was purchased with a deposit equal to the amount saved over four years), rising from $422.12 a week in July 2013 to $698.61 a week in July this year.
That's also pushed out the time it would take to save for a 20% deposit which has more than doubled, rising from just under three years to more than seven.
So even with the recent falls in Auckland house prices, home ownership is likely to be beyond the means of typical first home buyers on average wages in Auckland.
Easier elsewhere
Things are quite a bit easier for first home buyers in other parts of the country.
In Wellington and Christchurch lower quartile prices remain well within affordability limits for typical first home buyers, and recent falls in prices have helped that situation even further.
In the Wellington region, the REINZ lower quartile selling price was $360,000 in July, down by 11.1% from its peak of $405,000 in April.
That means it would take a couple on the median pay for 25-29 year olds just under four years to save a 20% deposit and the mortgage payments would take up just 21.2% of their take home pay.
In Canterbury the REINZ lower quartile selling price was $327,000 in July, down from its peak of $355,000 in November last year.
That means it would take a typical first home buying couple just over three and a half years to save a 20% deposit and the mortgage payments would take up just 19.7% of their take home pay.
118 Comments
FHB couples should get out of Auckland.
If you are qualified and skilled, the reduced salary in Palmerston N, New Plymouth, Napier, etc is still relatively far higher relative to your $250k regional city mortgage than your Auckland $750k mortgage.
Auckland is not viable for most NZers anymore.
In a country that is discussing increasing its military commitment in Afghanistan by 20% - from 10 to 12 soldiers - it's easy to see that encouraging workers to leave Auckland for smaller regions will have a dramatic effect of the already lesser salaries/wages in those areas. An influx of worker = more choice for employers = lower wages, as those who don't find work in their area of expertise vie for work in other areas just to claim a pay packet.
Why do we think New Zealanders headed for Auckland in the first place? Not just for fun, but because....that's where the work was....and still is.
Auckland is not viable for most nzers
You could say Parnell was not viable for most nzers, then as time and circumstances progressed it was Central Auckland, then all of Auckland. then Wellington and so on. Globalism and immigration will inevitably and markedly expand the range of desirable property locations. Stable government, peaceful society, property laws, ethnic infrastructure, English language, job opportunities, international airport, good weather and so on will all add up to increase prices. Of course you could limit immigration and foreign ownership but that would be counter to the current direction that the world is taking and will meet strong resistance. Already the most vocal opponents to this trend are generally deplatformed and deligitimized.
Of course you could limit immigration and foreign ownership but that would be counter to the current direction that the world is taking and will meet strong resistance.
At the moment it's almost a cynical selling out of the younger generations of Kiwis.
At some point young Kiwis will have to either a) vote for a party that will think of their interests and not just those of the old and the foreign, or b) make the idea of coming to and investing in NZ property much less attractive.
If their elders are basically going to say to them "Eh, it's survival of the fittest right now and you got unlucky by being born too late, and as a Kiwi you don't have any rights to NZ", then we may as well advise young Kiwis that intergenerational warfare is now "all go!" because that's likely the only thing that will help them.
Why are they coming to NZ?
What is the population like in their country?
My guess is their countries are overpopulated, polluted, poor infrastructure all because of large populations. What good does a large population give you. Increased homelessness, increase traffic, longer waiting times in hospitals, low wage economy, the list goes on. Nothing good comes from larger population.
Oh yes thats right, if our house supply is limited and we dont keep up and build more houses, what happens to property prices. Oh yes prices may go up. So ruin the country for greed.
Zach Maybe all the gas station worker, food shops, supermarkets, coffee shops etc etc etc should close down and and leave Auckland and go live somewhere else getting there same minimum wage and everyone left in Auckland can drive to Hamilton for a Big Mac , or get there groceries
Zachary,
Do you ever look at the rubbish you post and think,I wish I hadn't written that?. Immigration is being curtailed in the UK,in the US and several European countries. How much immigration is allowed in China and Japan?
In any event,i am surprised to see a self-confessed Trump admirer arguing for unlimited immigration!! What does deplatformed mean? By whom have 'the most vocal opponents' been delegitimized?
But don't stop,it wouldn't be as much fun without you.
The reason Natonal wants to flood NZ with immigrants is to keep house prices up and wages down.
The property investors and the wealthy business people that support National will vote for them.
Also, most politicians have rental properties.
Up until now they have been very successful.
If your area of expertise is in software and you can't work remotely. It would be pretty hard to get more than 34% of what you can get in the city in the regions. Even then, sure your mortgage may have gone down by 2/3 but food, fuel, power, internet, water, etc still cost just as much
Agree with you Mortgage Belt - and, yes, Palmerston North is an ideal place to live for many people.
A reasonable 3brm family house with sun and garage can be purchased there for $350,000. And even in the top suburb, Hokowhitu, $600,000 goes a long way.
Palmerston North is the headquarters of Massey University, has an excellent public hospital, an airport that flies to Australia, as well as top sports/recreation facilities. Very good schools too. Plus, it's flat and easy to get around and just a 100 minute drive to Wellington. All up, PN offers inexpensive living - but very good living standards.
But the main thing for many people is that it's growing and there are jobs. It's a thriving agricultural centre and light industry is prospering. Plus, of course, it's a major education centre and popular destination for conferences.
Auckland has become a rich person's city - and, increasingly so, Wellington. If you want lifestyle without the stress of a demanding job and big mortgage, there are good options like Palmerston North.
Anyway, New Zealand does offer quite a bit of choice.
I would not recommend Palmerston North. The weather is crap (see http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/88229139/Palmerston-North…) and eventually the combination of bad weather and boring christian zealots will make you want to top yourself (see https://e2nz.org/2015/12/16/john-cleese-shuns-palmerston-north-suicide-…).
A city really needs a certain critical mass in the first place, to be able to "take over deflected growth" from the nation's biggest cities. Is Palmerston North deliberately running a pro-growth regime or are things relatively nicely in balance now because it really isn't that popular a destination?
But economic realities count for a lot - there is a massive opportunity for any city in NZ with plenty of flat land around it, to adopt a deliberate strategy of "growth as an industry in itself", using the lessons of the very fast-growing and yet still-median-multiple-3 cities of southern and heartland USA. Businesses and residents can both be attracted by the same competitiveness in urban land costs.
I still find it hard to believe though that National had enough power to a) create a "super" city council out of multiple councils to achieve economies of scale (heh) and b) create quite different laws to deal with pressing housing needs in Christchurch, but yet couldn't manage to do anything to influence land supply in Auckland. Maybe they just weren't motivated enough to...after all, high prices were apparently a "good problem to have" and a "sign of our success".
Well the good news is for First Time Buyers is that house prices in Auckland are falling now that the top end Foreign Investors are gone and the Ozzy banks have pulled the plug to lending to overseas Speculative Investors that includes us here in NZ.
So the message to all First Time Buyers is to hold off and wait at least six months to a year for property prices to bottom out to more affordable levels now that the Investors are gone. It's likely there will be a surge of property coming on to the Auckland market after the election and if you want to give yourself a better advantage VOTE for change.
National only care about themselves and the top 1%. Hence why house prices have become so decoupled from wages.
http://www.imf.org/external/research/housing/images/pricetoincome_lg.jpg
As I understand it, farming is also changing.
Young sharemilking farmers no longer have the path to ownership they used to, in the face of foreign purchasing and increasingly corporatised farms. NZ's farming backbone might be weakening. I suppose we face some serious risks to our national wellbeing from losing control of our most productive assets over time...people say "but we still have legislative control over the land", but heck, we couldn't even keep two French terrorists in jail in the face of trade threats, let alone facing off against foreign public-private influences that hold our farmland.
Given that the difference between $100,000 and the Auckland median is about 10x and that the dole + accomodation benefit is about $20,000. Being on the dole in one of those places would put you on more income relative to house prices than being on about $200,000 in Auckland.
Simple supply and demand. There's a logical reason why people want to live in Auckland. It's where the economic opportunity is. Those hoping Auckland will become affordable are living in fairy land. It's been a lot more expensive to live there in my whole working lifetime and much of that was pre immigration booms. You either accept that price or move elsewhere, which I see as a logical response for some professions.
That just doesnt make sense.
Why would the government want all the workers to move away from Auckland unless they want to bring in immigrants to fill the gap.
Makes sense for people to leave, even their families and friends and uproot their kids. But why would the government have policies in place so this becomes a reality.
You can also buy houses that cheap within that driving distance of Manhattan. But not Auckland. Spillover effects from absurdly distorted-supply cities are significant. But having freedoms to build housing in "rural" areas, is what helps in the New York region even if New York itself is "not cheap" (but its median multiple is nowhere near as high as Auckland's!).
Banks should have fully enforced LVR rates here many years ago, this is how house prices managed to run away with themselves fueled by unregulated selling practices where buyers have been pressured in to buying at auction.
Auctions sales have put huge pressure on buyers and banks didn't help by being too lax with mortgage credit in the past.
"Low wages 'advantage' for NZ - Bill English"
Yes, it's a dated comment, but do we think he's changed his mind?!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4869938/Low-wages-advantage-fo…
And a quick message to all you RE's out there. You may want to think twice before encouraging Foreign Investors from China to purchase NZ property which involves them having to smuggle cash out of the main land.
Here's why; China’s PBoC Announces An Army of Over 400,000 To Prevent Money Laundering
https://betterdwelling.com/chinas-pboc-announces-an-army-of-over-400000…
Or this might happen to them, so don't encourage and facilitate money laundering :-
The Epoch Times article; Missing Chinese Tycoon’s Tomorrow Holdings Puts Investments up for Sale
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2265162-missing-chinese-tycoons-tomorro…
Quote from article: A billionaire with links to China’s Communist Party elite, Xiao vanished earlier this year. He was last seen in the early hours of Jan. 27, leaving the Four Seasons Hotel in Hong Kong in a wheelchair with his head covered, accompanied by several people described in media reports as mainland Chinese agents.
Xiao’s whereabouts are not known but his dramatic disappearance sparked widespread speculation he had been caught up in Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s crackdown on corruption.
Chinese authorities have not commented on Xiao’s disappearance, and his family could not be reached for comment.
The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Act 2009 has been extended. Effect from 1 October 2018.
The extended rules will also apply to lawyers, real estate agents, conveyancers, high-value dealers and the NZ Racing Board. Collectively these businesses and accounting practices that provide services within the scope of the Act (whether or not they consist of members of professional bodies) are known as Phase 2 reporting entities.
The legislation:
• imposes a comprehensive set of reporting and compliance requirements on Phase 2 reporting entities;
• sets out a risk-based approach to tracking possible money laundering and terrorism financing activity; and
• details an enforcement regime for the supervision and monitoring of AML/CFT obligations including civil and criminal offences.
http://info.charteredaccountantsanz.com/rs/978-RJC-018/images/AML%20Inf…
Far too late ...
Like entering the Grand National Steeplechase the day after the race is run and the crowd has gone home. Just like a Bright-Line CGT has been implemented after all the gains have been made and capital losses will now be the order of the day and govt will be paying out tax refunds
Well they've simply changed their tune a bit DGZ.
Now they're willing to admit that Auckland's house prices have softened (falling).
But the RE's still claim that some how the market is going to magically bounce back in a short while??
And of course they don't even try to provide any evidence or even reasoning as to how the property market would start to sky rocket again under the current circumstances. Not that hard to spot them.
Agree with you, DGZ.
Most real estate agents tend to be right-wing, free-marketeers - so this blog would be well outside their comfort zone.
Most of the people who comment here are undoubtedly left-wing/socialist in their politics. Most support Labour: only a small minority support National.
The problem with your comment TTP is that NZ doesn't allow a free market to operate in the property sector.
There is uneven tax treatment, LTV ratios, housing supplements and numerous other issues that muddy the water. I agree that most RE agents probably vote National but I don't see RE agents demanding that housing be taxed the same as other investments. But they do demand that LVR's be lifted. They only want a free market when it suits their pockets, when it doesn't, they are very quiet about a free market. In reality, when has there ever actually been a free market?
And for the record, I completely reject the left vs right spectrum in politics. I have voted on both sides depending on which parties offer more trustworthiness, credibility and sensible policies.
Hi Gingerninja,
I agree with most of what you say.
For sure, there are very few markets that are completely free. NZ is very much a "mixed market economy".
Agree that real estate agents operate largely in what's in their own best interests - which generally translates into maximising their commission. When competition suits them, they're happy. When regulation suits them, they're also happy.
So long as they're ethical in their sales practises, I suppose it doesn't really matter....... But because the real estate industry is so heavily regulated suggests that a significant number of them aren't as ethical (or law-abiding) as our society would like.
I'm a swinging voter too - seldom make up my mind until election day. But many people I know are staunch Labour, or staunch National. They never deviate. But, everyone to their own.
It's interesting you say that tothepoint (re: this site), I would also say, if true, it's very worrying for the future of the National party. If you take a look at the advertise link at the bottom of this page you'll see the demographics of the site that are sold to advertisers - average Household Income $105,601, high socio-economic, high disposable income - that's the National audience right there, so you should be singing to the choir on here.
If only a small minority support National, then that should be ringing alarm bells somewhere...
So now that the hot Chinese money is gone (and as provided in links above, we may see a big sell-off once the Chinese government ask for their money back) and local investors are hamstrung by the 40% LVRs, the focus is now back on FHBs.
House prices are falling (and will keep falling) and it won't be 5% or 10%. It will be down to what local NZers can afford and it certainly won't be 10x income. Think maybe 5x-7x which is what banks would be comfortable with to lend. I'd say around 2014 CVs would be the benchmark.
2014 CVs, I severely doubt it. They were out of date before they were even published. You underestimate how kiwis HATE to sell anything at a loss. Property markets tend to be sticky-up.
I'm expecting things to settle out about 15-20% below the 2016 highs and level there for a bit in Auckland. The regions might end up 10-15% down. Don't forget we still have a shortage of houses where people want to live in NZ.
I don't expect the Kiwis to sell anything at a loss.
I fully expect NZ based Chinese who bought on behalf of rich Chinese to sell at a loss. They wouldn't really have a choice once the Chinese government starts twisting their arms. That's to put it lightly.
Chinese are also known to act in droves, and not afraid to sell at a loss once things start going south. Here's a recent example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Chinese_stock_market_turb…
I agree with you that we have a shortage of houses, but that goes back to my point - if only the people who can buy houses are the locals and basically need a mortgage from the bank, then it's not up to us to decide what the level is going to be. The market will speak for itself.
What's 20% decrease from the 2016 highs? Maybe around 8x household income? Hey, if the banks are okay to lend out that much then cool.
I'm still picking around 5x to 7x
You must have misheard.. I said I hate "agents", not "Asians".
Seriously though, never in my comments have I brandished hate on any particular race, including Chinese, so be careful with your words because that's slander. These overseas investors using local Kiwis to buy property on their behalf could be any race and my sentiments wouldn't change. I know you're just trolling but you're taking things a bit too far.
Really DGZ if you're trying to intimidate people in to not discussing economics and the direction of where capital has flowed and in this case now where it has stopped flowing from, then you're on the wrong website forum.
We need to discuss these topics otherwise it's impossible to judge whether to invest or not. Stop trying to brush them under the rug.
You are dumber than I give you credit for. I neither hate Asians nor agents. It's a freaking joke, ya big dummy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YM9Ereg2Zo
how many houses are sitting empty in Auckland (or the rest of country) that are owned by foreigners, or more specifically Chinese investors/speculators? That would be a very useful stat and could really determine the future supply/demand ratio especially because as you pointed out, the Chinese have a history of doing things in droves.
is that racist?
Is this a reply to me or to Double-GZ? I'll answer it anyway - yes, it would be very useful to know how many empty houses are bought with foreign Chinese money that are about to be "asked back" by the Chinese government so we know the gravity of the situation. It's not racist at all - it's all very factual and relevant.
Esprit ,You're right the people that brought high over the last 2 or 3 years won't sell at a loss, they probably won't sell for years because prices will be to low for them, they'll be out of the market, the people that brought houses over the last 2 or 3 years are a very small % of the total houses, the two sides that will be the buyer and the seller will be the buyer ONLY if they can afford it and the bank willing to lend it, and the seller who is the 100s of thousands of Aucklanders that over the last 2 to 3 years didn't sell but brought very cheap and will come onto the market for all the normal reasons that people sell, you need to understand the market dropping in price doesn't need the last small % of buyers to carry on , the market needs buyers and that % now is very small, and highly in need of affordability and 90% of Aucklands houses are owned by people that brought before 2013 and for cheap and that didn't play the market just recently , life Does go on
I'm in my 40s. Most people I know would LOVE to get out of Auckland & have a better lifestyle for their family. However it's the support having friends & family nearby that keeps them here. When you have young children that's important. However traffic congestion often means the working parent barely gets to see their children. I guess it comes down to priorities & it's usually a tricky decision. We left Dunedin (great lifestyle) to return to Auckland to be closer to my elderly father. I'm waiting for prices to bottom out. My 3rd house will be a shit heap I'm sure. It's like starting all over again & I'm renting for the first time in 15 years. It's stressful & depressing at times. Thanks, National!
Buddy your just being selfish, its not about you, its about Auckland becoming an overpopulated city and bringing more people in so house prices can increase ad infintum.
Dont worry about family, and your roots, Aucklands for the new rich overseas people now, its not for Aucklanders anymore.
(Since Im not sharing a beer with you and hassling some of these people to their faces, this is sarcasm/ Just in case you couldnt tell)
It's disgusting what has been allowed to happen. Seems like basic planning/maths to me. Why let in so many people when clearly there aren't the houses & schools & roads aren't coping. It doesn't make sense. In fact it's down right stupid. Locals are bound to get bitter.
Local investors haven't helped our (like FHB) situation either. Our previous Auckland landlords owned 10+ properties. Personally, I see that as greedy. Do you need 10 + houses? Thank goodness I'm not competing with local investors anymore, they certainly played their part in driving up the house prices. Btw I'm more of a wine drinker than beer, but I've noticed most people on this site are predominantly male for some reason.
Thank you. I'll be voting for change, that's for sure! It's a start. Yes, doesn't pay to take it all too seriously, if I did I'd cry to be honest. Never should have sold that house on the Shore with sea views that I bought in 2002 for $250k! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I'd be mortgage free by now. Actually, I'd own a house in Auckland. I really feel for the next generation. We'll get a house. But the young uns that want to study & then purchase a house, well something has to change. We need to look after each other, not watch the rich get richer. Hhhhmmmm.
If they have risen 10 times, then logic would conclude that somethings is wrong. One could also conclude that they could also drop back quite a bit. But whether that will be allowed to happen without causing problems with NZ banks and the economy is another question.
Why do people on here keep repeating high immigration equals high house prices , immigration levels have been high for years and only been getting higher and house sales and prices going in the complete opposite direction, da, also dropping LVR ,s for FHB , come on now, banks couldn't let that happen even if they were aloud, its the total price of the home that needs to come down not a larger mortgage, and why'll we're being real here, the election, come on again don't you think if national could have turned this correction in the housing market coming into a election so it didn't look bad in there watch don't you think they would have. And one last thing this 3% of sales only going down as overseas investors COME ON, what planet are you on, the rumours alone unless you are blind and the over whelming comparisons in other city's with the same activity and on top of that it's been reported the overseas investors getting locals to buy and the anz and harcourts alone had newly started brokerage companies run by the Chinese that , HELLO have been recently shut down and under investigation, ok the greed local investors added and took the prices higher and for longer, more so in the cheaper areas. Cheap rentals , BUT COME ON PEOPLE, the market is going down , FHB will be ok soon, the more expensive is going to crash, local investors will trim back to 1 or 2 rentals balancing everything better, the only problem I see is if we are stupid enough to keep immigration high ( and we know these people ARENT buying many houses because we would see it now) that numbers per house will just keep getting worse, slum Auckland,
OMG I just found out that 30 Orakei Road sold for $12M last month. The CV is only $4.8M and this is 152% over the CV wow!! http://www.boulgarisrealty.com/listings/11039937/
That's just sad DGZ that you keep encouraging money launders to your neighborhood. Still thankfully they're few and far between so top end properties will deflate far more than the rest of Auckland. Have you check out the mortgagee listings latley? Quite a few in expensive areas.
It's the top end of the market that will feel the impact of the decline the most.
Cj099... Can u provide a link to where you get your mortgagee listings data..???
I've been searching for a site that provides it like interest.co.nz used to..
( If u check out their chart , you can see that they sourced their data from realestate.co.nz listings.)
I did the same now, for auckland, and it showed 10 properties with the word "mortgagee."
Look at the linked interest.co graph to see some perspective.
http://www.interest.co.nz/charts/real-estate/mortgagee-listings
Here you go Roelof. They're fairly easy to keep track of just go on to the tradeMe website and put mortgagee in the search option, that will give you the current listings.
So here's one for Mission Bay which is quite an expensive area: http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction…
And another: http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction…
St Johns: http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction…
Kohimarama: http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction…
Most of these have been on the market for a while and even I'm surprised that they haven't sold yet.
Sorry I don't have any stats charts on mortgagee sales but they did start it appear again for Auckland not long in to this year.
Not sure what you mean. All I can say is that, to me, you come across as a rather petty, hypocritical and nasty individual who often posts links that completely contradict your assertions. Like your suggestion to check TradeMe for mortgagee sales.Carry on though, repeating the same thing over and over, accusing everyone of being criminals, it just makes you look silly.
CJ099 wants house prices to be affordable for most NZers, not sure how that is petty and nasty.
To me the nasty ones are the people who want house prices out of reach for the normal person. To create some type of elite. Which to me is plain weird. I want to share the wealth, more people to buy me beer.
Yeah and someone who had a $500k house early 2000,s and that house is worth $2 million now is NO better than someone with $500k now, they didn't work for it or do anything great, just johnny on the spot, others were ether to young or not the right time with there deposit , these people need a shot in life, and if house prices dropped, and in a normal market without outside influences these housing gains would NEVER have been achievable , like for like , local to local , income to mortgage, this market is 30 to 50% to the more expensive over valued
House prices in about 90% (guesstimate) of New Zealand are affordable ( like I've been saying $100,000 houses within an hour of Hamilton, Taupo or Palmerston North ) . The problem is that people want houses of specific quality ( roughly $400,000 including council stuff, worth of quality ), in specific places ( roughly $400,000 worth of location/amenity value ) and complain that if they don't get houses like that then they can't afford a roof over their heads...
Zachary that's a rather pathetic attempt at an attack even for you. You know full well that I've being trying to protect First Time Buyers and I want the market to return to more affordable levels.
I don't think I've posted anything that's contradictory but please feel free to show me the evidence. And at least I've never been temporarily band for posting extremist comments as you have been.
After two decades of lowering interest rates, its the Cental bank that's inflated house prices, along with most other assets. Wages have not kept up with this inflation. It is a scandal that we accept that our hard earned currency is debased in such a manner. More and more credit is created to buy a finite availability of land. Lowering the cost of money discourages innovation and decreases productivity. It let's bad governments off the hook, hidding bad policy with cheaper borrowing. Look how many more NZ dollars it takes to buy the same house your folks brought 20 years ago, the house is still a house, still performs the same purpose. The only sector that has grown substantially in the last 20 years is the finance sector, on the back of house Mortages the cost of which must be constantly lowered to maintain the illusion. Like most western nations, NZ is in the grip of a failing economic experiment that when the next down turn occurs, will be far more problematic the 08.
We are hitting that wall now, this is only the start, you get 2 sorts of corrections the big drops at the beginning then years of little drops and stagnation or little drops from the start for years then stagnation, the big drops at the beginning are people more so that brought on the high and took on to much risk and have to bail quickly and the little drops correction is those people hanging in so the market slowly goes down usually because the market went to far, to much dept so then the buyers disappeared in large amounts and generally start buying off the 90% of the people that weren't playing the market over the last boom, so because of that those sellers generally brought lower and can sell lower and sell now because of the more normal reasons like down sizing, moving because of a job etc etc, of course the election has put the market slightly on hold, but that doesn't change anything, overseas investors and immigrants with suitcases of cash is larger then this government will ever admit it and can't or they'll be shot, but over is over , locals tapping up there houses and buying all the cheap to middle priced housing and turning those houses into rentals with those ex owners leaving Auckland is over, although it did supply immigrant with rental property's which in a way helped the supply of rentals ,which no one seems to talk about, funny thing is that's all about to be reversed with FHBers buying back those rentals and cheap I would think, funny world . I guess you need to ask yourself is this going to be a little or large correction, nz got away lightly in 2008 with the GFC , we didn't have much to do with it, labour left us financially good, houses hadn't lifted that much, the RBNZ had done there job lifting interests rates slowly to 9% by 2008 giving a nice drop over the years after 2008, This correction we see, miles over the top house prices, record braking dept, interest rates left low so taking away the large help they give, affordability totally neglected by first time records, totally turning a blind eye to the stupidity a outside force can upset affordability with overseas investors and a stampede in valve, we may have broken every record ever or made our own GFC, ask yourself
Greg Ninness has touched on an important point.
I have been saying things like the following for years:
https://voakl.net/2014/10/28/guest-essay-in-reply-to-bill-english-on-ho…
"...In a housing market with a house price median multiple of 3, which is a historical norm, there tends to actually be a match between income earners at each level, and available properties – even $90,000 homes for $30,000 income earners. But when the land cost is inflated, while the median multiple for the market as a whole may rise to “only” 6, the shape of the graphed curve of house price distribution is changed considerably: the tail at the bottom is eliminated completely. There will definitely not be any $180,000 homes for the $30,000 income earner. The bottom end of the housing market will tend to be at least “12 times” the bottom end of the income distribution.
There are many critics of the “median multiple” as a measure of affordability (for example as used by Demographia) but none of them seem to make the perfectly valid objection that it does not show up how disparate the impact of inflated house prices are on the lowest income earners.
There is something natural and undistorted about a housing market with a house price median multiple of 3, which is a historical norm. The distribution of house prices around the median is relatively uniform; there is a long tail on the low side. Row-houses and old streetcar suburb houses in poor condition can be found for under $100,000. There are dozens of US cities where filtered Real Estate site searches will support this conclusion. Anyone who is old enough will remember ultra-cheap bottom-end housing in Auckland, often the same hovels that are now selling for $1 million plus.
The actual match-up of homes with purchasers across the income spectrum, is skewed completely, so that the home that would have been bought for $90,000 by a $30,000 income earner is now bought for $360,000 by a $60,000 income earning household; the home that would have been bought for $180,000 by the $60,000 income earning household is now bought for $600,000 by a $100,000 income earning household; the home that would have been bought for $300,000 by the $100,000 income earning household is now bought for $900,000 by a $150,000 income earning household, and so on. In fact up at the top of the distribution, you will find the people paying $4 million instead of $3 million for a typical mansion. Because the price inflation is all in the land, the impact is disparately greater at the bottom end and less in percentage terms (and “multiple” terms) at the top end. The people at the bottom end no longer get an opportunity to buy at all..."
Even Christchurch is looking more and more like another country. The "diversity" is all isolated too. I went to the swimming pool recently. Kiwis down one end, Asians down the other end. When I go to an ATM I have to choose the language.
This is an absolute joke. The boomers have sold my generation out.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.