Residential property investors have a narrow window of opportunity to purchase new properties that won't be subject to the extended five year bright line capital gains tax the government is introducing, but those who are offsetting losses from their existing properties against other income had better start working on plan B.
In an extended video interview with interest.co.nz, Housing and Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford outlined the state of play of the new Labour-led Government's plans for housing industry reform.
He said extending the bright line test so that residential investment properties would be taxed on any capital gains if they're were sold within five years of purchase did not require a change of legislation, which meant it could be introduced reasonably quickly.
But it would not be retrospective.
Twyford said the extended bright line test would only apply to properties purchased after the date on which the regulations changed, and the existing two year test would continue to apply to properties purchased under the existing rule.
This means most properties purchased now would be unlikely to be taxed on any capital gains if they are not sold for at least two years.
Twyford also confirmed that although investors would be taxed on capital gains if they sold within five years, any capital losses that arose if they sold at a lower price than they purchased for, would not be tax deductible.
That means that if the market goes in to a downturn and investors take a hit, they must wear the full extent of those losses.
But investors hoping to beat the new rule had better get their skates on.
The window of opportunity that exists before the rules are changed is not expected to remain open for long.
However investors currently offsetting losses from residential investment properties against other income would not be so lucky.
Once the new regulations ring fencing tax losses were introduced, they would apply to all residential property investments regardless of when they were purchased.
So investors who are currently offsetting losses from rental properties against other income such as wages or salaries, had better start working on plan B.
Twyford also outlined his plans for the new Affordable Housing Authority, which will operate along the lines of an urban development authority with compulsory acquisition powers, although he maintained those powers would be used sparingly.
"I don't anticipate the Authority will use those [compulsory acquisition] powers with any kind of frequency," he said.
"You'd only use it in extreme cases where there was a holdout gaming the planning laws to make a windfall profit and essentially blocking a major development in the process."
Twyford said the Authority would have powers enabling it to cut through red tape and vested interests to enable large scale development projects to take place.
And it would likely be run by people from the private sector.
"We want to staff it with people who understand development, who understand property and are used to doing those big projects," he said.
"We don’t want to staff it full of policy analysts from the Ministry.
"It's got to have people who really have that commercial experience."
The Authority would work with private sector developers and possibly iwi-based groups and spearhead the government's plans to build 100,000 affordable homes over 10 years, with half of them in Auckland.
Twyford also reconfirmed the price targets for affordable homes in Auckland that Labour used in its election policies, to have apartments and townhouses available for under $500,000 and standalone houses available for $500,000 to $600,000.
"They are stretched targets and it will be tough to meet them, but that what's we intend to do," he said.
He also said that the scale of the government's house building plans could see a greater involvement by overseas companies in this country's residential property development market.
"We are going to be building so much, there are going to be opportunities for New Zealand companies, but we are not averse to the idea of overseas companies that are used to working at scale, coming in and acting as a disrupter and I think possibly shaking up and improving some of the supply efficiencies and doing some of these big projects," he said.
"And by tendering construction work at scale, at say thousands of homes with multi-year contracts, companies will be able to scale up and invest in offsite manufacturing - build factories that can build quality homes at a more affordable cost."
You can receive all of our property articles automatically by subscribing to our free email Property Newsletter. This will deliver all of our property-related articles, including auction results and interest rate updates, directly to your in-box 3-5 times a week. We don't share your details with third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time. To subscribe just click on this link, scroll down to "Property email newsletter" and enter your email address.
160 Comments
Just put a land / property transfer tax of 1.5%
A capital gains tax on all property including the family home after the first 750K
Increase the ridiculously low rates \ property tax that Aucklands wealthiest suburbs enjoy
It’s time the lower classes stopped subsidizing the wealthier suburbs
Try Boston as a template
Homes are for living in - not for speculating on.
Being that all these changes will likely trigger a run for the exits, will IRD view that as a signal that some intended to sell at a profit in the first instance? I can see in some instances IRD will apply the CGT on some individuals regardless. Note on the IRD website there is no time limit on performing retrospective assessments. It was John Key that warned speculators about that very thing in 2015, see here; http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/68612603/Tighter-rules-on-residential-p…
"You'd only use it in extreme cases where there was a holdout gaming the planning laws to make a windfall profit...."
So in other words, the govt doesn't want the current landowner to make a profit on the value uplift on the land. The govt wants it for itself!
Why would anyone sell? If you couldn't sell the land for the new intensively zoned valuation, you'd hold out and become very grumpy or do the project yourself.
That's why there should not be urban growth boundaries or density restrictions (ie land zoning). All urban planning should be effects based as was the original intention of the RMA.
Ideally we also need building systems where we can keep adding modular marginal floors to existing buildings until there is no more profit, then the land supply would be elastic rather than near inelastic as it currently is.
As for the land bankers, I hope the IRD gets its fair share from all of them.
This is laughable. No density restrictions would mean Auckland becomes a slum. This modular floor things is a total joke as well. All you do is add cost to all buildings while in reality only some will actually end up going skyward and the majority is just wasted over spec building.
The only thing you say that makes sense is IRD should get its fair share, which of course it wont sadly.
This from Bloomberg this morning:
"The party is finally winding down for Australia’s housing market. How severe the hangover is will determine the economy’s fate for years to come.
After five years of surging prices, the market value of the nation’s homes has ballooned to A$7.3 trillion ($5.6 trillion) -- or more than four times gross domestic product. Not even the U.S. and U.K. markets achieved such heights at their peaks a decade ago before prices spiraled lower and dragged their economies with them.
Australia’s obsession with property is firmly entrenched in the nation’s economy and psyche, fueled by record-low interest rates, generous tax breaks, banks hooked on mortgage lending, and prime-time TV shows where home renovators are lauded like sporting heroes. For many, homes morphed into cash machines to finance loans for boats, cars and investment properties. The upshot: households are now twice as indebted as China’s."
How familiar it sounds. A CGT for NZ is a waste of time. A tax on capital is the only way.
Better than a tax on capital is a tax on land. The incentives are far better. Specifically motivating productive use of land, disincentivising land banking, and land can't be shipped off overseas, and it makes it cheaper to buy, so reducing borrowing against land which comes directly out of bank profits. Plus it's a natural resource of the nation so it's only fair.
Protect Pukekohe soils first and foremost, or prove for once and for all the human race is quite possibly the most stupid species to have ever lived on earth.
Get some sort of target for the stopping of all this ridiculous growth by immigration, it is utterly unsustainable.
Lastly, any foreigners seeking to make money out of our housing disaster need to be only able to do this for a short while, to kick start it, as it were. Building should be part of the internal economy, not outsourced (along with a number of things we have outsourced, leaving us with little opportunity for "growth" other than increasing our numbers).
The ringfencing is going to be the biggest problem for most investors especially Auckland and surrounds.
Other business losses in other industries are allowed to be offset against other income so can’t see how they can legally do this without altering the rules on other businesses?
Doesn’t affect us but will be major for people who provide a service and rents will definitely go up where landlords are propping up other people’s living!
You always say it does not affect you The Boy. One wonders whether you are telling us the truth as you moan so much about LVR's and other measures. If you were not affected by them you would not need to protest. You strike me as not caring a stuff about anyone other than yourself so I do not believe you are worried about others when you protest on this site.
Gordon, how many times do I need to tell you, I DONT TELL LIES!!
I do mention the LVRs as rant is what has affected the no. of sales. Rather than lack of demand!
Once again if you want to take up the challenge it is still on offer, but I get sick and tired of you never saying whether you will take it up or not!
Yes I have got sympathy for first home buyers in Auckland but as I have said numerous times, the housing market is just not Auckland.
I'm a bit confused. You say that ring fencing losses will hit most investors, yet you've said a few times before no-one negative gears property? Also, how do landlords prop up other people's living? Tenants pay money for a service; how is that being subsidized by landlords?
Labour pre election proposal was to bring in changes to negative gearing at 20% pa over 5 years.
https://www.interest.co.nz/property/87693/labour-led-government-would-p….
Is this still current or have further announcement been made? Thanks
I"m expecting the next phase of housing reform will be freeing up land banked property. Which needs to be done. They will really target foregin investors since they're the ones who don't bother to rent out their properties since all they're looking for is capital gain.
Given that MBIE is sabotaging a number of large projects depending on New Zealand Building Code C/VM2 (fire safety verification method) by amending the rules on short notice I think a lot of developers and property owners are going to have much confidence in Government projects. The rules changed and came into full force on Friday and the link to the documents was only circulated at around 9am on Friday.
This change is going to damage construction companies so I tried to contact the Minister of Building and Construction but she did not intervene. The fact that National are spamming the new Ministers with absurd requests isn't helping but I'm in a position where I need to act to protect the construction industry from job losses. Next week I will be working on obtaining an injunction to stop NZBC C/VM2 Amendment 5 to protect the construction industry and property investors. Phil Twyford's words do not fill me with confidence when the Government is ignoring a problem that could cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to the construction and property industry. What large international companies will want to to work here when the Government changes the rules where you only have 3 days notice just to cripple construction projects with red tape?
The only thing that has changed is section 1.2 which is the scope of the document with the remainder of the content being the same. The restriction against applying it to tall buildings, rest homes, hospitals, shopping malls and airports doesn't make much sense.
With respect to any change you need time for changes to occur. Are there issues with C/VM2? Of course. It is a highly flawed document that MBIE screwed up badly in the first place. This approved document has been in use for years, so phasing waiting a few more months isn't going to make much difference.
If you want to be really serious about safety concerns the version they issued for public comment included irresponsible changes that would increase the cost of very tall while decreasing safety by using a standard used in Grenfell Tower. I pointed out the issue and that whoever was involved lacked the necessary engineering expertise. Why are MBIE receiving advice from parties with no understanding or experience in engineering?
Having concerns over safety and then trying to make things worse is not a responsible way to approach the issues.
There is a further issue of the attempt to extend Fire and Emergency New Zealand interference in the building consent process. Their involvement since 2004 with what was formerly the Design Review Unit (DRU) commenting on fire designs involves the DRU making defamatory comments to hold up the building consent process. In fact one comment from the DRU last year would have made a fire sprinkler system unsafe. Some top management at a Council tried to enforce the DRU's unsafe advice and it ended costing those manager's their jobs.
There's a lot more going on that what people realise with serious safety concerns and complaints being buried. This includes three complaints I filed with MBIE that was all mysteriously lost. The last person I left this with was Nick Smith with an email in June this year. His office kept providing emails saying that the Minister would respond.
MBIE having concerns about safety for their own incompetently assembled approved document? That document is entirely their own fault and they should be held accountable for their actions.
Just to give people some perspective C/VM2 was worked on over the past 3 years and MBIE managed to add 4 notes to one small section of the document. Certainly money well spent taken 3 years to do an afternoon's editing.
They also screw up the Acceptable Solutions and tried to stamp out Alternative Solutions (which remained in the Building Code Handbook). The fire Acceptable Solutions were changed 5 years ago and broken in to seven separate books. Over past 3 years all they have done is work on putting those 7 books back together into one document (which is not yet released). They did make a dramatic change changing it from portrait to landscape format, but someone complained so they changed it back again.
MBIE are peddling really fast and going nowhere. None of the fire safety issues have been fixed and all the red tape that has escalated building complaint costs while not improving safety have not been fixed. You would be safe to refer to the Loopy Rules Report as it is still accurate today despite the appearance of MBIE having done work.
As appendix I could mention just some of the interested parties.
NZ Fire Services
Insurance companies
Fire Protection Companies
City Council Inspectors
Building Designers
Property Developers
Regional Building Approval people
Fire Protection Engineers
And last, but unconsulted....
The poor devils that use the building.
Oh dont forget the idiots that write the legislation, 22 years old, degree from Victoria University
MBIE could be reformed to have a goal of serving the community as a whole instead of serving themselves.
There is another area where legislation and regulations are being passed without trying to draw attention and it's the Fire and Emergency regulations. Changes to evacuation schemes that add requirement in excess of and overriding the Building Act. Fire fighting water supply changes that only require consulting the local Council and not necessarily listening to them, which leaves the ratespayers potentially on the hook for requirements that could be imposed on Councils.
It would be really good if democratic processes could be reinstated in New Zealand. The operation of Government Departments seems to be aimed at avoiding any interaction with the public at all.
Hmm,
I once managed a old accommodation and dealt with the all the organisations telling us what to do about fire safety. They were all protecting their butts.
But moving on I think your paragraphs 1,2 say VM2 is unsuitable for any marginal evacuation situation, only suitable for domestic maybe?
Lets recognise that and stop the application of VM2
Disclosure, I have never been part of the Building Industry, or a property speculator/ investor or a dairy farmer.
C/VM2 is not useful or applicable for housing. Instead the Acceptable Solution C/AS1 sets a very low bar for houses and townhouses. Safety is set very low for housing compared to commercial buildings. I wouldn't recommend opening that can of worms because we already have problems with housing affordability.
With respect to C/VM2 there are useful parts to it that can be used in design. The serious mistake that MBIE made when they developed it is they tried to take away engineering judgement and make Alternative Solutions for fire safety a cook book. As a part of their process leading up to 2012 they deliberately excluded fire engineers from the process. They sought to limit input from the industry and made Councils hostile towards anyone submitting a building consent. Red tape from wall to wall. Certainly Wellington City Council stooped to making secret recordings of meetings, bullying tactics and I received a threat that WCC would file a complaint against me if I complained about the building consent manager to the CEO of the Council. It has taken 3 years but all the dubious characters in their building consent section have been shunted aside. Making threats and illegal recordings has no place in the process set down by the Building Act.
The recent attempts at consulting for C/VM2 made me seriously concerned as they had developed a number of unsafe design scenarios. This is MBIE just going through the same process of completely screwing up again. There is something seriously wrong with their processes as they have no idea what they are doing.
I happened to see an old building file , pre ww2 and the only interest the local body had was its effect on the 3 waters..
Perhaps we should return to that.
Also local bodies make no attempt to control vehicles, instead it is national legislation and manufacturers comply with national standards or face penalties.
Behind the companies are engineerings standards set by engineer associations.
Works for them..
What I will answer in relation to mass production in construction without going outside of confidentiality is that it is tough to achieve a low cost and meet the Building Code requirements for a commercial building. That's not to say the building code is wrong as the building needs to be safe from a seismic and fire safety point of view.
For some container projects I've seen the applications are limited without escalating costs.
Then there's another issue of protecting intellectual property and there are methods to do that which is evident from what has been done overseas.
I just don't see anything happening without some sacrifices being made to the building code requirements or for economy of scale (where our population is too small). Research and development of a total modular building system could potentially work but there hasn't been much support for R&D in New Zealand, and a lack of tax breaks.
It's possible to reduce red tape and maintain safety but for most cost savings we may have to make hard decisions about what we are prepared to sacrifice. Those decisions are typically only made at a political level, or where there is widespread public support.
However it does work with civil aviation where engineers and designers are involved. However that works as they are a part of the company doing the work. The way construction works in New Zealand is that some companies will cut corners if they think they can sneak it past the building inspector or engineer doing inspections. Others do not know how to do the work and only get a chance to improve when someone picks up that there's a problem. You can have the best engineering design in the world but be let down by construction defects or lack of inspections. You can have the best construction company and inspectors but be let down by a bad design. MBIE seems to be focused on blaming engineers for their failure to provide a regulatory framework that will succeed.
Perhaps MBIE should be lead by those with engineering knowledge instead of administrators.
I agree, MBIE only advisors should be engineers.
Industry should negotiate with an engineering association.
Take your point and commercial should stay in the existing structure.
Domestic , set free.
Certify the builder to national standards and minimal council input, recession planes, utilities, zoneing, list of approved materials.
Plenty of liability insurance.
That is much the British model but we have always copied them.
It would be nice to step away from the idiotic red tape that National put up via MBIE so they could pump up house prices by restricting building consents. The continuous stonewalling and evading doing their job properly has not helped either. The thing is Nick Smith did nothing to help.
The Building Bill 2003 was the start of the screws ups. Labour weren't interested in what I had to say. I warned them in the select committee hearing that the red tape was going to add a huge amount of cost to construction. I also warned them that the PWC estimate of the 10% increase in compliance costs was wrong. If anyone bothers to look at the submissions you'll find that I said there would be a 30% increase in costs. It turned out both PWC and myself were wrong. The costs increased by 50% by the next year. Now the compliance costs are at least 6 times more what they were in real terms prior to the changes to the Building Act.
I also gave the select committee a stern warning that people's lives would be at risk from black market construction caused by high compliance costs. That was Labour's contribution, but National exceeded my expectations from 2003 by botching the changes that they made in 2012.
I don't really understand what you are both talking about but from a layman's perspective of trying to build a house some of the building rules are ridiculous. I would like to build a ground floor that maybe one day if I needed I could rent out as a minor dwelling so it needs to be fire rated and have a fire engineer involved. I may not rent this out but have been told by the Council if it is fire rated and has a second kitchen/sink they will charge me higher rates even if I do not receive an income and it is not rented out. The only way around this is if I had a notice put on the title that I was not able to rent this area out period. I have thought that I could have one connection for water and power but with sub meters maybe installed at a later stage. Surely there is some mechanism whereby I can in the future declare that part of the house will be rented and then and only then pay higher rates. That then brings into question Labour's intention at the next election to bring in a Capital Gains Tax but exempt the family home, this makes me very nervous as this essentially will be my family home with a Granny flat underneath (though it will not be a Granny Flat after the Council has declared it to be a legal minor dwelling). So how will they treat this building, I have a horrible feeling it will not be treated as a family home and incur a Capital Gains Tax. What to do?
The next idiotic rule is being limited to having a window no less than 1 meter off the floor on a second storey supposedly to stop someone dropping out even though there is a roof directly underneath and no risk of dropping to your death. Most of the houses in NZ do not comply with this.
PS - it seems to me that I am/will be heavily penalized for being responsible and installing fire prevention measures
The struggle is real. When you apply for a commercial consent the problems are 10-20 times worse. The reason why I'm in the engineering profession is because I like the design aspect of the work. Instead I've had to devote a huge amount of time to filing complaints about unprofessional and unethical behaviour by Councils. Now I need a lawyer to protect the construction industry from MBIE so they don't do to us what Gerry Brownlee did to the Christchurch rebuild.
When it comes to changes in law the details matter a lot. There's a long way to go yet as the new Government has only been working on their promises for 3 weeks.
Good luck with your house. There are mechanisms to address metering but the costs and problems to use them are even worse than what you are already dealing with.
Thanks, I apologize I added a PS after your response.
What do you mean about - "There are mechanisms to address metering but the costs and problems to use them are even worse than what you are already dealing with." Now I am truly afraid as I have a limited income and am truly pushing the envelope.
Should I give up on trying to make it fire rated and a legal minor dwelling and just have this area as a "granny flat", boarder situation. I have already employed a fire engineer on the advice of my architect. Thank you for you assistance.
You'll be fine you've got the right advice via your architect and fire engineer. I don't want to go into other processes as they are lengthy to explain and would be horrible to use. Stick with the advice you have as it's the right advice.
I don't want to give advice here as I am subject to numerous rules, would be subject to liability and there is also court precedent. Best to direct that question to your consultants. Remember that doing the right thing isn't bad.
I thank you, I am very familiar with Court precedents both in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and understand your position however would like to explore your personal, non professional opinion regarding metering on a financial basis not from an engineering perspective but from a financial perspective, which should give you the freedom to comment. LOL
If you had check meter that you check yourself that's something you may be able to do. Thing is that's getting into electrical engineering where I don't know the rules. If that option is feasible then you can determine how much electricity is used on those circuits. Probably get an indication from your sparky about what would be involved.
Having a single supply and two households that is typically done via a Body Corporate which is what I was originally thinking of. That would cost a lot of money and I recommend avoiding creating a Body Corporate in part because of cost, insurance issues etc. The costs and time hassle are not worthwhile and why I live in a house with the worst thing on the title being a shared driveway.
Yeah put a cheap check meter on the units' supply. Have an agreement with the renter that you will show him/ her/ transgender the kWhrs on the site total monthly bill. Or two monthly. Whatever. You will both go to the check meter and calculate his proportion. Doesn't need to be the exact same day. It'll come out in the wash. Subtract it off the total kWhrs. Have an agreement on who pays what proportion of the fixed part.
Done.
Thanks where I am renting at the moment the Real Estate Agency managing the property comes around and reads the water meter attached to my unit and then calculates the difference, so I made some enquiries with the power supplier they said it was possible though it is not possible with gas. I must say renting is whole different experience than living in your own home, it would be soul destroying if you thought your situation would never change, constant inspections, no privacy, strangers taking photos of your belongings, not being able to put up artwork etc
Thank you, a check meter is probably what I meant and used the incorrect terminology. That's a relief if I had to set up a Body Corporate I think I would abandon the whole project. I feel for you if you are having to deal with large commercial properties, my little house is giving me nightmares, I never want to build another house and can understand why people just end up going to the large building companies where everything is taken care of
I can confirm that if you do the right thing you will be punished. I did the right thing with my designs and Wellington City Council sought to punish me for it. It's as if people were making defamatory statements about me.
It's a shame but people will be treated like a criminal for doing the right thing in New Zealand.
MBIE just plain got too big under National/Joyce - have a look at this;
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/about/our-work/our-legislation
The bigger the bureaucracy that you work in, the more bureaucratic your mindset and your behaviour becomes.
At MBIE, there will be too many layers of middle/upper management - and with each layer these higher managers will want some new type of reporting or procedure carried out because they (i.e., the upper echelons) have no idea about most of the work the Ministry does.
Supersizing that ministry was a dumb idea.
Kate the Chief Executive of MBIE is currently violating Section 25 of the Building Act as the approved documents are all inaccessible from the website. That section was added to avoid another leaky building syndrome. MBIE needs to be broken up to become function but probably needs to be completely rethought.
Agreed. A lot that are really specuvestor will start to wonder why they are in it, and the ejector seat will be the easiest option. For flats that are a long way away from new codes, and have heaps of unconsented mods, who will buy them....?
No tax pass thru will be the biggest bullet for group.
Yvil, who is going to buy these rental houses? Will they just go "pooof" and disappear? Why does Yvil think tenants can never become homeowners? Is it because your a Landlord scratching for an opportunity to raise rents.
Landlords have little room to raise rents. Tenants will become more resourceful, overcrowd or head home to their parents. This is not a time for Landlord utopia talk.
When rentals convert to homes the average number of heads per home falls.
When the cost to manage a rental rises and at the same time renters receive more in benefits, rents rise. Its documented from the past and is likely what will occur in this instance as well.
Phil Twyford has issued this statement today;
Minister commissions stocktake of New Zealand’s housing crisis
Housing and Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford has commissioned three of New Zealand’s leading experts to provide an independent stocktake of the housing crisis.
“For too long, the previous Government refused to accept the housing crisis and establish the scale of the problem we face,” says Minister Twyford.
“For instance, it was only once the Labour-led Government came to office that we learned MBIE’s official figures show a nationwide shortfall of 71,000 houses and that projections show house building would fall if not for KiwiBuild.
“The previous government never acknowledged or accepted the official numbers, and also refused to accept its own official definition of homelessness.
“Shamubeel Eaqub, Philippa Howden-Chapman, and Alan Johnson are among New Zealand’s foremost experts on housing. Their insight will be invaluable.
“This report will provide an authoritative picture of the state of housing in New Zealand today, drawing on the best data available. It will put firm figures on homelessness, the state of the rental market, the decline of homeownership, and other factors in the housing crisis.
“The Labour-led Government is already pushing ahead quickly with initiatives to make housing more affordable and healthy, including banning overseas speculators, passing the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill, cancelling the state house selloff, and setting up KiwiBuild. This report will help the Government refine and focus that work where it is most needed.
“I have instructed officials to provide the experts with any and all information they request. The years of spin and denial are over,” says Phil Twyford.
The report will be due before Christmas.
Note:
·Shamubeel Eaqub is a respected independent economist and commentator, and author of Generation Rent.
·Philippa Howden-Chapman is Professor of Public Health at Otago University. She has led groundbreaking research on the health impacts of cold, damp housing.
·Alan Johnson is Senior Policy Analyst for the Salvation Army and author of The Salvation Army's State of the Nation report, which highlights effects of the housing crisis.
This "stocktake" report may not be good news for speculators. In July 2016 economist Shamubeel Eaqub said (see here) that the RBNZ:
- has acted recklessly and failed in its fidiciary duty;
- has been complicit in creating the housing bubble, resulting in more debt in the economy relative to the size of the economy ever in history.
- should have been far stricter in terms of the lending restrictions that take place in terms of mortgages.
Has the RBNZ got the message? - we shall see on this Wed Nov 29th when the RBNZ will give its views on lifting LVR limits.
I most strongly question whether Shamubeel Eaqub has the ability to do undertake an impartial analysis.
How have these 3 earned the title “experts in housing”? All three have knowledge in a particularly area which is very small in comparison to the overall size of everything housing!
Labour’s policies do not make sense. On the one hand they want young NZers to get into the trades. They then want houses built on the cheap so want foreign help by way of prefabricated type buildings and foreign labour. They criticised Nationals policies of HNZ and then in the next breath praised some of the outcomes of those policies. Twyford made reference to the sole trader builder not being productive enough and then suggests bigger companies can do it faster and cheaper. The real irony is that SMEs will be ones making the biggest contribution to the NZ tax take but Labour wants to kick them down while foreign corporates can choose tax breaks through existing tax agreements. Labour wants rental housing standards but also wants to own a huge number of HNZ housing stock which is not up to the standards required.
It’s the private enterprise tax payer who has to generate all the income which brings about the tax base which pays for everything including Twyford’s shoes and he’s shaking all over the place like a wet dog keeping us all in suspense as to where the drips are going to fall. This government is a damn nightmare!!
If I go to the dentist I expect someone that has practical experience in doing dental work. I don't want an expert on how expensive it is, an expert on how it's hard for the poor members of society to afford dental care and an expert in infections you can get if your dental work is not done properly.
Surely when commissioning a report on state of NZ's housing crisis one would include at least one 'expert' that had some experience in producing houses.
Landlords buy houses and maintain including all costs damage and insurance also council rates to provide for tenants.
In New Zealand there are thousands of Landlord provided houses for tenants so if you add up all these costs every year it is billions of dollars that the taxpayer receives for free.
If the taxpayer had to pay to buy and maintain thousands of properties because the government has brought in numerous tough policy to eliminate most Landlords it will cost the country billions of dollars.
If house prices decline then NZ will be in a recession and the banks won’t be lending money to all those tenants you talk of. Recession will bring job losses, more homeless, more government debt, less tax take from business...........less owner occupied dwellings and less happy families!
notaneconomist, I live in hope this coming shakeout gradually increases home ownership rates, closes the wealth gap. A happy ending some might say.
Under Nationals watch, house prices went unchecked. Like others I think it could all go pear shaped in a way as you describe. Will Labour get the blame for having the backbone to fix it?
@notaneonomist: Depends on how you look at it, declining house prices is actually a positive thing, since it is now lowering the NZD making it easier for our main economy drivers such as exports and encourages business investment due to lower costs, making it easier to employ skilled people. Not sure if you noticed but lots of business haves been on the decline due to over inflated living costs over the last few years whilst they're trying to compete in a global market place.
And it's not just us that have been feeling the negative impact of high house prices, check out Vancouver: Better Dwelling article: Vancouver’s Tech Scene Shows Just How F**ked Up The City’s Real Estate Is
https://betterdwelling.com/city/vancouver/vancouver-tech-scene-shows-ju…
Yvil, who on here has ever "wished" for house prices to collapse. These are your words. A collapse, if it occurs, is an unfortunate side effect of excessive greed turning to fear. The smart ones see it coming. They try to warn others who are smart enough to listen and get out of the way.
I'd be happy to say that I've 'wished' for a house price collapse - and I'd accept losing my job as a result. If it means that I'm out of work for 2-3 years during a recession as a result of house prices dropping 50% in Auckland then that's great.
If the average house price drops from $1,000,000 to $500,000 then over a 2 year period I'm effectively earning $250K p/a (or more over the life of a mortgage of that value) while doing nothing.....lets do this! I certainly won't earn that amount of money by continuining to work over that period of recession.....for a younger person in NZ, it's the best thing that could happen. Sure the oldies who are sitting pretty will think it sucks, but hey, you can't have your cake and eat it too - although in your ignorance/arrogance, you some how have been mislead into thinking that you can (and I'm confused as to why/how this has happened).
R P. You say "Landlord forced to sell at discount price, tenant buy at affordable price. NZ home ownership rate increases."
I have read similar comments from other commentators as well. It sounds great, truely it does. A few tenants will indeed buy a house as you say, but most won't. Most tenants are happy to have the freedom to move easily whenever their situation changes, most tenants don't want the commitment to a 25 year mortgage, and the associated liabilities of paying rates insurance & maintenance. Is human nature. My parents are a perfect example
Of course Yvil hasn't. He assumes that tenants are happy based on a tiny sample (his parents renting a house owned by the family trust?), and generalises from there, which is so very convenient when one is a landlord.
This seems to be a pretty common illogical argument among landlords. It goes something like this:
1) Tenants are itinerant;
2) Thus they are happy to have no fixed longer-term rental contracts in place;
3) Therefore they do not want to own.
What it conveniently forgets to present are the causes of part 1: many are itinerant because of speculation of the houses they rent, and thus being forced to move every time there is a transaction.
So you can see that the argument jumps from forced itinerant to not wanting to own by some leap of logic which is only convenient for the landlord and their continuing justification of the lack of homeowning opportunities for so many.
So Yvil, I'd suggest actually speaking to some tenants and stop presuming to represent their views until you have done so.
Hahaha ... I just love your simplistic view on things Poppy and even more your endless passion in jumping to conclusions built on your own illusions and assumptions !.... Even more the number of thumbsup from clever folks who enjoy your wishful thinking and comments ....lol
Geez, wish life was as simple as you describe Poppy !... but alas it is not .. and sorry to say, you are wrong ! ... Nothing would force Landlords to sell other than facing Bankruptcy or a disastrous recession, at which time you might not even get your pension.
You also seem to forget that houses in hotspot areas like Auckland had appreciated by 60-70% if not more in the last 3-4 years...!! so no one will be forced to sell at a "discount" !! and discount from what ??
Lol, you say : " Less overleveraged speculator come Landlords owning ten or more properties, more owner occupied dwellings."
Landlords who hold more than 10 properties are only few compare with the majority who own 2-3 rentals and these who hold 10+ won't be forced to sell ever, they will be happy to rent them or lock & leave them empty rather than sell ... just so you know ! .. obviously there will be anecdotal exceptions to the above ...just like anything else.
Enjoy your retirement and stay out of complex issues like "buying and selling houses" .... (•◡•) , leave that to the younger generation to sort their problems out.
Plenty of funny things ahead ...
Landlords don't do all that out if the kindness off their hearts, they are there to make a profit, i.e increasing the cost of housing. If a landlord isn't profitable without a tax break and relying on capital gains then they shouldn't be in the game. Also if they have to sell up it's not like the house just goes missing is it?
Yvil, Landlords themselves often neglect their houses. They are in over their heads and siphon every cent they can from tenants.
If any houses become vacant and also derelict then they are pulled down and replaced by several more waiting for caring homeowners. It's like sweeping away the rubble to restore something of actual use!
Landlords are merely being precious when they think the coming shakeout would usher in a rental crisis.
Yvil, you are 100% correct ...
House prices will continue inching up in the next 3 years ...PT is confirming that everyday by hoping to sell affordable homes for 550 - 600K ... ( he started with 400 - 500K ) these will be a One or two bdrm townhouses or Terrace apartments in mixed urban developments ... where only the cheap stuff will sell and the developers will struggle to market the valued more pricy ones ones - as no one would like to pay market value to live next a block of HNZ and similar complexes. He failed to mention what would happen if some or most of the first KiwiBuilt homes fail to sell at all for any reason? how long will it take to turn around the $2 Billion ?? and what would happen if only 50% was sold? will the program stop or will they pump another $2 Billion into that black hole??
Now , judging by the qualification and field of expertise of the 3 "experts" who will soon pore in with their precious in depth knowledge and expertise of the housing market, the future can only be as bright as a moonless night !
Soon, everyone involved in this Saga will be Struck and be Shocked by the realities on the ground and the reaction of a huge Market -- They will simply either blame each other or come up with the usual stupid spin " Oh, We didnt know that " or " At least we tried "
Most here arguing against these basic market forces have either No Clue, No Stake, and No Understanding of basic economic cycles and think of housing as a second hand tool sold on trademe - Most are wishful thinking people who moan about anything and everything to pass time and provoke a useless discussion ( argument) - some still think that the elections are next week so keep campaigning hard with the same BS we heard last season ....
" Landlords don't do all that out if the kindness off their hearts "
Indeed, this analogy also applies to other necessity of life providers .... like Supermarkets and ALL food manufacturers - they do not provide food out of Kindness of their hearts either !! - It is a business, and guess what? it is still legal to do business in NZ ...and sell products and services for a Profit ....
So...Damn those Supermarkets and businesses making billions out of poor people by selling them food and clothing for profit !!! and Damn any Gov for subsidising these Profits through WFF and other benefits ... eh? ....
Better get this discussion up to a higher level of intelligence for a change instead of repeating tasteless stuff said previously by other tasteless and clueless people.
Cool, Chinese city builders will build new cities so we can sell them to new residents. Great idea, we'll make millions. Come on now, who is he kidding?
So Phil basically says they will override planning laws and the RMA at will, compulsory purchase as they see fit, use foreign builders and persecute landlords.
What could possibly go wrong?
Beautiful house. Would polish up to be quite stunning
Not GZ but still very good schools
Suggesting you won't get any change from 2mil for this place. I would love to buy it.
https://touch.trademe.co.nz/property/listing/view/1470383734
It really scares me when this govt. thinks they know of 3 experts who will give them the true dimensions of the housing problems. I understood from pre election time when we were told by the then opposition that we had and they appeared to give an impression as if they knew we had a housing problem. BTY, the then govt. was working on. But now when in govt. they are forming committees of "experts" to inquire into the "problem" and advice them of their chosen move to remove the problem. but they do know that they may need to compulsarily aquire some land to build more houses. Confucious says one foot can't stand on 2 boats. Golfers say the same thing- paralysis by analysis. it is a nightmare.
I actually think Phil Twyford makes a lot of sense in his interview, i agree with the policy changes and the plan to build more Houses. I truely do. Getting it done is the next step and the real test.
It will be very interesting to see the outcome in 6 years time (I mean this without sarcasm)
Yvil, as you are an Architect (IIRC) you will have a perfect insider's view as all of this unfolds.
I also think (despite my VRWC tendencies) that the whole schemozzle probably cannot be even partially fixed any other way. But to take up a couple of points from elsewhere in the thread:
- The 'expert group' is anything but. An economist, a Sallie SJW, and an academic are hardly a Brains Trust, particularly as the conundrums of fast, abundant, affordable housing will include the two most thorny issues of all: land costs and automated building methods. One would have expected some Builders, Engineers, Manufacturers and Overseas folks in the group. But hey, the old mantra reasserts itself: 'We Know Best'.
- The other salient point is about the inherent commercial risk involved in socialising any of the moving parts of the solution. In Christchurch, f'rinstance, no construction company with any economic sense will put its hand up for the now-foobarred Metro Sports Facility, because the Gubmint has just tossed the head contractor (Leighs-Cockram) under the bus. I foresee something quite similar to this caution in the Hoosing Debacle: with such a swirling mess of Regulation, Land issues, Construction Methods and attendant risks, what CEO is gonna say to the troops - 'hey, this looks juicy, lets spend a coupla mill and get in on the action' ??
I think we all are gonna need a Contract with Popcorn suppliers, to sit comfortably on the sidelines and watch the Great Game unfold. And as Popcorn may well be GST-Free soon (being an Essential Food), perhaps a futures contract of some sort to minimise tax......
The new CV for this cross-lease 2-beddy is $1.7M. No wonder they're selling!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=119…
Surely it does. It says that "this two bedroom home is framed by native green and a fairy-tale picket fence. Step out and listen to the birds; enjoy the timber decking and have a bbq in the sun while you watch the children enjoy the safe and secure garden area." https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auctio…
Double-GZ, even financial advisors with impeccable credentials such as NZ Herald's very own Mary Holm are spreading caution. She recalled losing 30% on a home in St Heliers.
As I said earlier it also rains in leafy suburbs too: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=119…
I think the birds that you hear could be vultures circling? Listen again.
The interesting thing about the graph in Holm's article - is that with each subsequent drop below the 0% line - the bottom is lower than the previous. This fits with current economic thinking - and so we should see the next downwards cycle being something more than the -10% experienced in 2009. My guess is it will be nearly a doubling in magnitude (i.e., close to -20%).
It's a really good time not to be overextended.
Zachary, small declines should be seen positive things - the more we have the better. The more time that passes without a rebalancing the bigger the mess. Cheap interest rates will not be as effective in the next slump simply because policy makers have accommodated the wishes of people such as yourself - all for their own political survival! Its seems as though you live in some sort of denial that houses are a one way bet. It's not. Rental property yields have aligned like junk bonds. It's all been about capital gain and this has pushed yields to ridiculously low levels and carnage is coming.
I feel there is no way out but through a massive correction first. If policy does not succeed in deflating these bubbles slowly then a financial crisis will close the wealth gap whether we like it or not.
The market bottom was 10/91 or close there-to. The higher the property's value was the harder it fell, up to 30% in the leafy suburbs as Mary said. Property at the bottom only fell a few percent if at all. There was a regression line formula for this market behavior which plotted quite consistently. Naturally almost no-one either knows or remembers this. It was only 26 years ie one generation ago.
Double-GZ, Tothepoint, Yvil, Robert Redford, Zachary Smith, all the same Real Estate Agent trying to manipulate the forum. I sure hope for your sake your Real Estate Company you SPIN for pays you an hourly wage even if it is only the minimum rate. I dont think commission would bring you in a single cent !
P.S. Voting for yourself does not count ! LOL.
If I were an agent I would take a completely different approach. I would argue that as a home owner you have probably made a handsome profit so what's a little less? Be reasonable and meet the market. Your next house will be cheaper too so what have you really lost? There's hordes of people out there willing to buy if only you would just adjust your expectations.
What difference does it really make to an REA if a house sells for 1M or 800K? Why would agents be keen to keep house values high? Turnover is what they would primarily be interested in.
Anyone selling in the regions where listings are few and far between - be sure to approach multiple agents as we have found three different agents (all national agencies) willing to agree a fixed fee (some thousands lower than the standard percentage of sale price based fees) alongside a free marketing program.
Haha, is that all that you can resolve John?
anyone trying to correct twisted views about housing market and matters should be a REA ? ...
Well try this for a mental exercise, what if they are NOT REAs and what if what they are saying could be true ?? LOL and what if all the moaning and prayers we had since July did NOT reduce the overall quality house prices at all --- ? Huh?
What if PT is missled by his own illusions and dreams or getting ahead of himself believing what many others in the industry know that it cannot be as rosy as he puts it, What if all his dreams fall apart along with his "experts" on misery and poverty no matter what the propaganda machines keep feeding us ....
One clear indication of his early failure is his persistence of Blaming the previous Gov ... He forgets that he is in charge now and that the election is over !! Maybe if he added few REAs to his expert team he would get a much better advise than clueless economists.!! -- I am surprised they didn't add BH's expertise to this valuable expert team !!
First things first, good idea to appraise if an actual shortage currently exists.
I had the thought the "Crisis" was being manufactured to enable GDP growth.
The proposed rules around overseas investor purchasers must be complete with immediate money laundering compliance rules. This will enable investor groups fronted by NZ resident individuals with foreigner connections to be identified and brought into the complete compliance regime. It will in my view ease the market back to a normal level. Tracking where the money comes from and goes to is a crucial compliance issue.
The driver is crazy low interest rates, causing those with cash to invest in hard assets world wide. Governments are to blame fairly and squarely - at least this coalition is looking at ways to fix. Good on them
John Key is smart - perhaps he exited knowing GDP growth reliant on housing price increases could not continue. Overwhelms our debt per person. For those who boo hoo the issue, think of your kids and your grandkids, if nothing is done family as we knew it is finished.
What a lightweight. I’ve never met a property trader who doesn’t pay GST and income tax. Nobody negative gears anymore, that was abandoned a few years back when the LAQC tax structures were banned.
I was expecting more, but it is all smoke and mirrors. It’s all quite pathetic really.
At a Capital property investors meeting with Grant Robertson present before the election, the audience was asked to put up their hands if they negative geared, not one put up their hand much to the embarrassment of Grant Robertson. Nobody does that anymore, if anyone does then they are fools.
The left wing supporters need to stop being followers of their masters’ orders. Ardern could tell the likes of you that breathing is bad for ones’ health and you would probably would believe it.
Ok so we're agreed you've made a false statement based on anecdotes. Strangely enough if you understand science, you'd know breathing can be bad for your health - it all depends on cleanliness of the air you breathe - for example it is bad for your health to breathe in the air in London, Delhi and other polluted cities. Doctors in Delhi believe that the breathing in the air is equivalent to smoking 40 cigarettes per day, your attempted besmirch failed too http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/10/health/delhi-pollution-equivalent-cig…. Back to school with you.
They do negative gear for new property purchases if they have a property portfolio already that is positive cash flow. In other words they are still positive cash flow overall, once the new property is bought. But a new investor would hardly do negative gearing in this environment (not to say some idiots might).
none of these policies are going to be a panacea
I disagree. Already the data is telling us that FHBs are (rightfully) re-taking their place as the bread-and-butter of the residential RE market - as they should be;
https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/91091/new-reserve-bank-figures-show-…
The era of the RE property investors and the FIRE market carrying so much weight in terms of government actions/decision making are hopefully ended.
Sure, it will take longer for everyone to sell a house and a lot more sales will be conditional on the sale of another home - but this was the norm before the madness began. And sure, land of all shapes, sizes and land uses are likely to reduce significantly in price - a correction most certainly needed.
For the NZer wishing to stay and reinvest in NZ that will be of no consequence whatsoever - far more upsides than downsides.
I dont have losses, having had my rentals for over 11 yrs, all are positive cash flow, so none of what Twyford says scares me at all. If they tax more on assets or CGT I will put up rents which are currently slightly below market levels. Currently rents are on the rise (who cares about prices) and we have low interest rates. The warrant of fitness idea is a good one, and so am happy to comply.What else can they chuck at us??
Property King, I learnt how to buy multiple properties trying for cash flow positive properties,, and so did my friends. The rule we learned was that every 5th property could be a negatively geared one, as long as the previous 4 are positively geared. They are still buy cheap housing in the regions using negative gearing ie adding to their portfolio, which has really good cash flow. So they would sacrifice a bit of cash flow from their current portfolio to but a house that is good for capital gains rather than rental income.
Well Property King, I suspect I am one of many readers who are centralist. I think more and more about my family though, and how this craziness will filter down as time passes. Simple as that really. Give it a try.
Respect some comments, some are from seasoned long established owners of multiple commercial and residential property. They know a bit.
No silver bullet, National let it run to far for to long.
Gearing beyond income capacity catches people regular. Many stalled big projects around at present, an omen for the smaller investor. Lenders are ruthless.
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.