By Greg Ninness
Rents are continuing to rise faster than take home pay in Auckland and Wellington, but in Canterbury the reverse is true, according to Interest.co.nz's latest quarterly review of rents.
This shows that in the first quarter of this year, the average rent for all new tenancies through out the country registered with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment was $446 a week, up $23 (+5.4%) compared to the first quarter of last year.
Over the same period, the average pay packet rose from $929.84 a week after tax*, to $960.87, an increase of $31.03 a week (+3.3%).
The fact that rents are rising more strongly than wages has some potentially significant implications for the economy, because it means progressively more of the household budget is being eaten up by rent, leaving less money for people to save or spend on other things.
However there are also some significant regional differences.
| Average Weekly Rent | Average Weekly Net Pay | |||||
| Region | Q1 2016 | Q1 2017 | Q1 2018 | Q1 2016 | Q1 2017 | Q1 2018 |
| Auckland | $493 | $517 | $540 | $950.20 | $965.81 | $999.44 |
| Wellington | $441 | $470 | $506 | $993.58 | $1,014.73 | $1,045.62 |
| Canterbury | $390 | $382 | $390 | $895.61 | $910.83 | $941.03 |
| All NZ | $402 | $423 | $446 | $912.19 | $929.84 | $960.87 |
In Auckland, the rental and income figures both follow the national trend very closely.
The average rent in Auckland increased by $23 a week (+4.4%) between the first quarters of last year and this year, while average net pay was up $33.63 (+3.4%) over the same period.
But in the Wellington region, rent rises have far outstripped pay increases.
Between the first quarters of last year and this year, the average rent in Wellington increased from $470 a week to $506, up $36 (+7.7%).
But over the same period average after tax pay increased from $1014.73 to $1045.62, up $30.89 a week (+3%).
That means rents in Wellington increased by more than average take home pay in both percentage and actual dollar terms and that appears to be part of a longer term trend.
In the two years since the first quarter of 2016, the average Wellington rent has increased by $65 a week, while average take home pay in Wellington has increased by just $52.04 a week over the same period.
But while renters in Wellington may be doing it tough, renters in Canterbury are on the pig's back, with rents there hardly moving and wages continuing to rise.
The average rent in Canterbury was $446 a week in the first quarter of this year, up just $8 a week compared to the first quarter of last year and unchanged from the first quarter of 2016.
However average take home pay in the region has increased by $30.20 a week between the first quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year, and by $45.42 since the first quarter of 2016, leaving Canterbury's renters laughing all the way to the bank, or perhaps to the pub.
No chart with that title exists.
*Notes: Average rent is calculated by interest.co.nz from bonds data supplied by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. Average weekly net pay in based on pay rates in Statistics NZ's Querterly Employment Survey (Full Time Equivalent, including overtime) with income tax and ACC employee levy deductions calculated by interest.co.nz using IRD's standard rates for individuals. This does not include any student debt repayments or Working For Families allowances.
133 Comments
Not surprised at all, less buyers means more renters. It's almost worthwhile not selling now as rents are pretty decent and no shortage of renters. If you can afford to keep your investment property keep it as this trend will continue. Only the savvy are buying right now so not a great time to sell. Simple supply - demand rents will keep going up as cities with lots of jobs keeps attracting people.
Chessmaker is 100% correct .
This Government has done everything legally possible to discourage , prevent, bully , frighten and intimidate anyone from investing in residential property .
Landlords are in many cases running scared of likely changes to the tax treatment of their investments .
There is now no one left to provide rental stock in to the market , the Government has shown its incompetence and Housing New Zealand is a shambles .
The only consequence is that rents will rise as no one provides rental stock
The only thing the Government has left to hammer landlords with is illegal in New Zealand ............... we all know what Chairman Mao did to landlords.
Wrong. Being an amateur landlord is not being an investor. This is foolish. Unless you like the idea of dealing with problem tenants, rates, insurance, repairs, maintenance, liabilities, etc.
If you absolutely must invest in real estate just buy a REIT and call it a day. Otherwise a low cost diversified index fund is a much better long term investment at about 1/100 the expense
The problem in Auckland is that the yield is so low, My Landlord gets a 2.9% yield which equates to about the same as an after tax term deposit only there are rates, repairs and maintenance on top of that.
Now that capital gains have disappeared its no wonder there are 12500 houses for sale on Trade Me, its not worth the effort in a flat to falling market.
Obviously there is more space for increased rent for some but for others they will just move or get more people into the house to help pay it.
If you have a good long term tenant you may wish to keep them. There are a lot of instances of tenants who don't pay and make promises but end up bailing and even if the bond covers it, it is a hassle.to manage.
For what it is worth, median gross yields in some suburbs in Auckland currently - (this is before operating costs such as rates, insurance and repairs and maintenance)
1) Epsom 1.4%
2) Mt Eden 1.7%
3) Herne Bay / St Mary's 1.8%
4) Westmere / Surrey Cres 1.9%
5) Remuera 2.0%
6) Pt Chev 2.1%
7) Mt Albert 2.2%
8) Kingsland 2.3%
9) Royal Oak / One Tree Hill 2.3%,
10) Mission Bay 2.3%
11) St Heliers / Glendowie 2.3%
12) Kohimarama 2.3%
13) Parnell 2.4%
For other suburbs, check out - https://www.qv.co.nz/property-trends/rental-analysis
Note one observation - Most of the house prices of the suburbs in Auckland (excl apartments) are yielding below 3.5% p.a - that rate is the 1 year time deposit rate offered by ANZ Bank currently (bear in mind, gross rental yields still need operating costs such as rates and insurance to be paid)
Food for thought - from a purely financial perspective, for some owner occupiers, and financially driven owners who have negligible mortgages (and unwilling to take on additional debt), it might be better to sell their low yielding property and rent in the same area as they would receive higher interest income on the proceeds than they would need to pay if they rented. Of course, this excludes peace of mind and other benefits of ownership.
When you have a mortgage, you think Nirvana is getting rid of it. Then you realise you can’t retire without a swag of cash. When you have a swag of cash you worry about returns and principal loss. I can’t imagine what I would do with the pressure of investing another swag of cash or for that matter becoming a renter.
Yields are irrelevant for owner occupiers. Not sure when you last looked trying to rent a place in those Central suburbs, it's fn expensive with zero upside for the tenant. You'll be lucky to even get a property to rent, no pets of course and can't change anything you want. You get f all from the bank in interest and in my experience shares, commodities, etc are way too risky. Others will disagree of course, but these types of investments are too easy to manipulate by the big players. Poor mum/dad investors at their mercy. It's better to have a house for stability and live happily with family before you start venturing into riskier stuff. If it's your own house, what does it matter that it goes up or down. You not looking to sell on a hurry.
Wrong. Being an amateur landlord is not being an investor. This is foolish. Unless you like the idea of dealing with problem tenants, rates, insurance, repairs, maintenance, liabilities, etc.
If you absolutely must invest in real estate just buy a REIT and call it a day. Otherwise a low cost diversified index fund is a much better long term investment at about 1/100 the expense.
Just remember Landlords; the more you hike your rents up, the more pressure you are placing people under to leave and move to a more affordable city/town. Or they simply move back to their parents home so they can save to buy their own home.
I can tell you from my own experience that all the young kiwi staff that I work with, the majority have decided to stay with their parents or have had to up stakes and move abroad.
@cj099 ............. DONT BLAME LANDLORDS ............ they are simply reacting to market conditions , in part created by a Government who does not want residential property investment by the private sector .
The Government has put every obstacle in the way of residential property investors , so they are leaving the market .
No one is filling the void to provide housing stock , and only a fool would do so
The consequence was always going to be a mess , as we see renting families being turfed out and the houses being bought by DINKY'S ............( Double Income No Kids Yet )
Multiple families/income earners in one rental and that’s the way of the future with not enough houses being built in Auckland. Rent to wage ratio is just assuming there’s only one or two income earners. Renter chose to live in Auckland will have to live with others or move to other affordable cities.
and in Auckland
On the corner of my street there are 2 family's and one set of grandparents living in a 2 bedroom house. 9 people and 5 cars in total.They are of Asian decent but I wouldn't know if that is normal practice in their culture.
There is also another house around the corner that is 4 bedrooms with 9 cars, got to imagine there are a far few occupants.
.
Interesting, that Christchurch curve, innit.
It demonstrates, over a long-term series, that taking the constraints off land supply and actually allowing new development, close to the city (e.g. Prestons) has, quelle surprise, a stabilising effect on house prices and median rental costs.
Mind you, it took a substantial earthquake sequence (>16K at latest count with at least 5-6 of those in the Hazardous to Health range), and an Enlightened Despot, to achieve this happy result. It's hard to detect either of those preconditions (an unfreezing of the status quo, and Gubmints - local or central - that know what they are about in economic terms) in Awkland......
Wayman, I used to live & practice Architecture in Chch up to the EQ when I lost my house and moved to Auckland.
IMO what Chch demonstrates is supply & demand.
1) The EQ wipes out many houses, supply drops rentals & house prices rise
2) The rebuild is complete, supply increases, rent & house value drop
I do think it is that simple
But the point is, it is that simple in Auckland as well.
1) Council cuts land supply, constrains building industry of Auckland City (whilst opening up amazingly large sprawls miles away).
2) Housing supply drops, rental and house prices rise.
3) Professionals with transferable skillsets (like you of 10 years ago) leave.
It is very interesting to see that the average wage is bugger all more in Auckland than Christchurch!
The average weekly rent seems pretty low for Christchurch going by our prices, so,there must be a lot of landlords under renting their property.
Gordon doesn’t really appear that Chch rents are dropping, although if you say they are, then you must be right as you are an authority on Chch property aren’t you?
Extremely debateable that you think that Auckland weather is better than Chch!
Always rains in Auckland and Chch summers are better!
Living is far more costlier than Chch so I will stick to CCh where I find there are more opportunities and the people are friendlier.
TM2, I lived in Chch for 20 years and now 6 in Auckland. There is no debate at all, Auckland weather is much, much warmer (or less cold as the maxima are often close but the minima in the evenings, nights and mornings are often 8-10 deg less cold in Auckland). Yes amount of rainfall in Auckland is much higher but that is due to the fact that it rains hard vs drizzling for hours in Chch. The proof is that Chch & Aucks have about the same amount of sunshine hours pa (about 2'000 hours).
The bitter fact is that this Clever CoLs are going to fork out more AS of our money as time goes by to help lower income and beneficiaries, Let alone the Homeless people.
PT crocodile tears about homelessness doesn't fool anyone anymore, he is actually making little sense while reducing his kiwibuilt quota now as he faces reality... while insisting on going down the same road and continue the same nonsense.
They've already started begging for anything available to rent or to house the homeless people. these are the same people crying foul and blue murder about motel expenses 8 months ago ! ..Hypocrisy is not enough to describe their action.
Once the Negative Gearing ban takes its toll, they will face a bigger problem in rental supply shortage, and they will spend many folds of the TAX take from NG on topping up AS and housing people made homeless by these actions ...
They just refuse to comprehend what "Unintended Consequences" means and eventually hurting the same people they are claiming to be protecting.
No, the bitter facts as being reported everyday by everyone - there is a reaction to every Action taken !
You can hide behind your thumb RP, Blaming me, Landlords, or National wont serve the people who are suffering from the consequences of ill studied policies and lack of solutions, it just serves the narrow political aims of some, and that is gradually becoming apparent to all and sundry.
The deniers moan about how tough and expensive life is becoming. They don't want to know about who is causing it and why it is happening and what is done about it!
Just finding someone to blame wont make the problem go away. Defying common sense is worse than defying gravity.
I wonder which would be Fairer to people, Gathering more tax from landlords who are on NG and chasing them away from the market Or more homeless people and higher rents and higher AS and motel expenses?
Echo Bird, can you think first before you whinge about Coalition policy? First, study the nine years of policy that got us here and then drum up some logically thought out counter policies and solutions.
You have one big axe to grind that's made pretty clear. Presenting un-oiled arguments against well oiled policy only outs yourself as a bitter sufferer. Be thankful for the nine years you had on the take. Although it's mostly unbanked.
lol, well oiled policy ..eh?
Oh I didn't know that , But hey, that is great then.
Everyone including tenants, homeless, beneficiaries, and FHBs should be happy and feel great as long it is well oiled.
And No one should complain about rental shortages and rents getting higher because , as you say, the Policy is Well Oiled !! :)
I rest my case RP, keep trolling and misguide your audience with this BS until they feel the pain and realise what a clever dude you are (were) , Not!
and your logically thought out counter policies and solutions are what exactly.......? You think not, whinge a lot, unconcerned about tenants, homeless, beneficiaries, or FHBs. Simple tasks such as calculating percentage yield is beyond you and it appears you lack the business acumen to diversify. Your views are just so warped and self indulgent is scary. I rest my case too.
I hope you feel better now RP ..:)
lol, in fact coming to think about it, you seem to be right... there is no better policy than this "well oiled" one that is being implemented.
Spoon feeding is what their supporters are used to, gives us an alternative or else they make a big mess ....
2.5 years left RP ... just a blip in human history.
Ha-ha-ha-ha :) I know chessmaster certainly does. No doubt you'll make that vote count in 2020. I think we're in for at least one more term. It's in the first year of term, Governments usually implement new policy - sometimes unpopular. Polling takes a small battering then its hopefully all bearing fruit by 2020 and for the Coalition its a home run.
Retired Poppy - you just called eco bird a bitter person. Really is that even a necessary comment. Very personal and absolutely unnecessary. You Can disagree with people's view but no need for personal attacks like this. Clearly when we behind a keyboard, we can say anything as no physical consequences but I'm sure you're clever enough to debate opinions so need for personal attacks. You make your points articulately anyway which is always interesting to read even though I disagree. Try to keep it professional Sir.
By discourage you mean level the investment playing field.
I look at those graphs, 2br flats in Akl have gone nowhere, and the long term rent graph shows it is following its natural course with 3 brm houses. A one month spike is pretty meaningless.
Plenty of people are leaving the fine shores of AK, plenty of employers are also leaving. It will work itself out.
Yes indeed Auckland is low salary and low wage just as the rest of the country but with an exorbitant cost of living. You have to really want to live there to put up with so much. Younger generations are much better off leaving to experience a bigger, well run efficient easy to live cities where you will earn far more and have many many more opportunities. There is always the option to come home later but what usually happens is one partner will convince the other that they should move home for family/nostalgia/children or whatever reasons. They finally pull the trigger make the move and realise very quickly what a terrible place its become. Then they are usually back where they were living a year later. I see it time and time again.
I'm opposite of that Tui12, not Auckland per se, but I loved living in Auckland when I was last there great fun. But I have been through 8 months of utter dreariness in London, cold, no sun utter utter dreariness. I have lived here off and on for 18 years. Last time I was back in NZ lived in Whitianga for 6 months, I also lived in Waiheke for 6 months. Im looking at buying a bach in Whiti as I'm into kitesurfing and friends have a nice big boat there. Been doing sums and things look reasonable.
I miss home quite a lot, I like the down to earthiness of NZ where I wear jandals and shorts all the time, go fishing and go to beach with kids. Whiti has some nice cool places to eat now as well.
I do agree cost of living is high, but I have been looking at a few businesses, and working things out so I can make the trip home. I feel suffocated by traffic, and people so when your away from city NZ is a great country. If you like big cities like London I understand, but its definitely not for me. Give me a beach with hardly anyone on it any day, or sitting on a boat with my friends and a cold beer while catching fish. Bliss.
The fact that rents are rising more strongly than wages has some potentially significant implications for the economy, because it means progressively more of the household budget is being eaten up by rent, leaving less money for people to save or spend on other things.
Most NZers don't really understand the relationship between consumer spending and the economy. However, what they understand even less is the relationship between consumer spending and house prices. For example, if rents increase 5% in real terms, that is effectively revenue that is not "spent" into the consumer economy in certain sectors. For example, a consumer may have to forgo certain food categories to balance the h'hod budget. What the Hosk and the other commentators don't talk about is the pressures that puts on the economy. Probably good to think about it another way. The more h'holds spend as a proportion of h'hold income on rent, the more detrimental the impacts on the wider economy.
The impact on house prices caused by less consumer spending into the economy is unknown. All we really know is that bubbles are generally positive for consumer spending. It is smart to pay attention to this.
I am sorry but Auckland and vibrant don't belong in the same sentence Gordon you need to get out more. Its the dullest city I have ever lived in by a country mile and a ghost town most of the time unless you are taking about the traffic being vibrant. Vibrant is Sydney, Melbourne, London, New York etc. not Auckland
High land costs in Auckland City mean less construction jobs and higher rents. Low wages, high rent are now the norm.
But wait there is more.
Phil Goff has tripled the land supply of almost every town in the Auckland region except Auckland City to give us more sprawl, more congestion and more pollution as well.
It never ceases to amaze me how much energy is wasted fighting residential housing as an investment class. Sure, debate the morality of it if you want but in my experience, unless you pick the next Apple or Amazon, there is no better investment available for the long term investor. Nothing comes close to the stability and benefit of leverage and inflation. Who cares what house prices do over one or two years, over the long run (15+ years) they will return 10% to 20% per anum on a 20% deposit. The biggest mistake/limiting belief is that it's different now - it's not. The entire economic system supports this and it will continue. It make take a bit of time and effort dealing with tenants but if the alternative is to pay ridiculous fees to fund managers and over-promoted and under-performing execs and boards, I welcome it.
Supposedly houses will double every 10 years, forever. It's going to happen again so i'm told. Wages however increase at around 3% per annum.
Average Auckland house is $800k (conservative)
Average salary is $70k
in 15 years time, the average house will be $2.3 million and the average salary will be $105k.
Assuming interest rates and taxes remain the same:
25 year mortgage of 80% = $2500 per week
$105k salary = $1500 per week
People won't be buying properties to live in, people will be buying properties to farm the middle class.
It never ceases to amaze me how much energy is wasted fighting residential housing as an investment class. Sure, debate the morality of it if you want but in my experience, unless you pick the next Apple or Amazon, there is no better investment available for the long term investor. Nothing comes close to the stability and benefit of leverage and inflation. Who cares what house prices do over one or two years, over the long run (15+ years) they will return 10% to 20% per anum on a 20% deposit. The biggest mistake/limiting belief is that it's different now - it's not. The entire economic system supports this and it will continue. It make take a bit of time and effort dealing with tenants but if the alternative is to pay ridiculous fees to fund managers and over-promoted and under-performing execs and boards, I welcome it.
Nonsense. In the case of Australia, house prices have risen by a factor of 10 since 1870, but for 75 years from 1870–1945, prices barely moved. Prices rose 3.6% from 1955-1975. From 1991-2012, real house prices doubled.
Most of what you consume about how house prices behave is garbage and little more than snake oil.
Can I suggest you re-read my post. You are missing both the income from the asset and the leverage (I specifically said 20% deposit). If you bought a house in 1996 Auckland or Wellington then the IRR on your 20% deposit will have been 12-18%. The key point is leverage, it brings risk but also reward. I would far rather rely on rent than dividends. Leverage and inflation are the key determinants, the compounding affect is material.
Can I suggest you re-read my post. You are missing both the income from the asset and the leverage (I specifically said 20% deposit). If you bought a house in 1996 Auckland or Wellington then the IRR on your 20% deposit will have been 12-18%. The key point is leverage, it brings risk but also reward. I would far rather rely on rent than dividends. Leverage and inflation are the key determinants, the compounding affect is material.
I see. 1996 is 'Year Zero' in your narrative. Is this some decree from Granny Herald or Mike Hosking? The BBQ explanations of the fantastical nature of how asset classes behave are flimsy at best. You need work to convince me that asset markets and prices are only really understood in the suburbs of NZ.
It has occurred to you that the other 80% you've borrowed from the bank you have the pleasure of paying interest on right?
What you are suggesting is playing a high stakes game of arbitrage and extrapolating past performance to future returns.
I really don't think you've thought about this very hard.
Has it occurred to you the rent pays the interest? This is about as simple an IRR exercise as you can manufacture, what is the return on the equity invested in the house? I'm simply giving my experience that the two investment properties I bought in 1996 have performed light years better than my stocks and pension over the same period. A lot of this is due to the easy access to leverage on housing. Will this continue for the next 22 years? I believe so. My point is simply this, the bitterness in these forums seems to suppress any rational discussion on the economics and that leverage and inflation are powerful tail winds in the long run.
Will this continue for the next 22 years? I believe so.
OK, so you;re saying that your forecasts are "faith based" (what you believe) because people can "leverage". Fair enough. That's not really any different than extrapolating the past and present into the future based on your personal experience.
Any old monkey can do that, but it doesn't mean that it will happen as you expect.
I guess so long as interest rates drop to 1% that might end up being doable..
I guess we have 1% loans in some part(s) of the world right ? japan ?
If your maths suggest that 35:1 is possible by manipulating interest rate ? I think these bankers will even do that. or rather what stops them doing the rate manipulation further, to keep this going ? :-(
Well, don’t want to rain on your parade, but if prices were to revert to their long term averages in terms of rental yields and loan to income ratio this would imply a fall in houses prices of 30-50%. Maybe it’s best to think of house prices over the whole of the economic and interest rate cycle and not just look at it through the prism of the biggest credit bubble in our history....just saying
Well, don’t want to rain on your parade, but if prices were to revert to their long term averages in terms of rental yields and loan to income ratio this would imply a fall in houses prices of 30-50%. Maybe it’s best to think of house prices over the whole of the economic and interest rate cycle and not just look at it through the prism of the biggest credit bubble in our history....just saying
Well that all depends. If Year Zero is 1996, that paints a whole different picture than if it were 1870. Hence the problem of "LTAs". How most people perceive is a construct of what they have consumed.
Under the Khmer Rouge, Year Zero was actually 1975. However, Cambodia is pretty new to the paradigm of asset prices.
Bagrie gives his piece courtesy of Granny Herald:
Eyes will be on how investors react in the near term though. Will they flee markets where rental yields are very low? That's Auckland in the first instance where rental yields are below borrowing costs. You need the capital gain. There isn't any in Auckland at present.
However, times are changing, and quickly. Weaning the economy off a capital gain mantra won't be easy and will create economic potholes.
Rising asset prices not only boosted spending, they make that next investment easier to finance. The challenge is to find economic replacements — and quickly, such that the potholes don't turn into a crevasse.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12…
This property bubble has been building since the early 2000s. The GFC caused that bubble to pop in various parts of the world and in those parts the deleveraging has been severe. That bubble did not pop in our part of the world (seems to me more by luck than judgment) and our bubble, like Australia and Canada’s, has continued to inflate. So I see where we are now as a continuum from the early 2000s, it’s the same cycle with a blip for us at the GFC stage. But however you look at it, we are at the top of the cycle now, surely
Tradeable goods deflation has been the most significant contributor to house prices as the RB has had to hold the cash rate very low. Internet aggregators, China production and advances in manufacturing technology have pushed prices down to the point where you can buy a TV or pair of jeans cheaper today than 20 years ago. Wage growth is low however demographics are changing. More people are entering the workforce (unemployment is at record lows), family units are changing, people are living and working for longer, it's expensive to build. Property bears battle the entire financial system relying on historical relationships and correlations that I suspect are breaking down. The entire financial system is structurally set up so house prices grow. Those who want to swim against this and a fast changing world in the hope you pick one of the few pullbacks, knock yourself out.
Cause life's like this, uh huh, uh huh that's the way it is. Chill out, what you yellin' for?
Lay back, it's all been done before https://teara.govt.nz/en/economic-history/page-5
I called out leverage as a significant contributor. Any asset with those returns must have some risk associated with it. The question is whether the returns justify the risk (risk/reward), in my experience yes, nothing else has come close. I get that this is an emotive topic and many have not benefited from the last 7 years.
I did but its a stranded asset in effect, ie I cant realise the capital gain. Also you are looking at that 22 years and guesstimating that the next 22 will be similar, my view is that is totally wrong due to, a) peak oil, b) CC, c) demographics, d) debt e) financial fraud. These 5 were and are all significant and all will play havoc with your guess.
But Auckland has a future and that is why the population is five times or so bigger than the population in Christchurch. Throw in the weather, the harbour and surrounding waters, the work and business opportunities and you can understand why. People want to live in Auckland hence house prices have risen. People have left Christchurch for obvious reasons and hence house prices are going backwards. Auckland will continue to grow in size to the expense of other areas of New Zealand.
Canterbury in absolute terms is the second fastest growing province in NZ after Auckland. Up 50,000 in last five years. Mostly coming from Greater Christchurch. So it is not falling demand that is causes Christchurch to have affordable rents. Maybe it is increasing supply.....
Looks like even the NZ Herald is turning bearish. i kid you not!
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12…
Why does the Web Address for this article say canterbury-renters-are-pigs?
The reporter needs have a course in understanding statistics. You should not be comparing wages with rents. Firstly you should be using income not wages. (they are different). Secondly they should be comparing household income against rent levels.
I would like to see an article on the characteristics of property investors. Are the number of properties per investor going up and what relationship there is between investor income (not wages on their day job) and the number of properties they own.
Houseworks, (spoon fed) if you want to know what you think you can get away with charging, you can just Google it; https://www.tenancy.govt.nz
Greg is on vacation for a few days; hopefully he doesn't mind me responding. The data he used for incomes was from StatsNZ QES, and unfortunately that doesn't come with more city drilldown. But we do have our HLA FHB income data which is close to that StatsNZ series he used, and we can extend it based on that. Here is an update for March 2018:
| Avg weekly rent | Avg wkly Net pay | |
| Napier | $385 | $745 |
| Palmerston North | $305 | $823 |
| Nelson | $364 | $774 |
| Dunedin | $371 | $709 |
Rents in cities like Hamilton, Tauranga, Dunedin and the likes could have had average rents rise up by 7 and 8 percent over the last 12 months. Auckland 4 percent, Canterbury 2 percent and All NZ average is up over 5 percent. Despite the govts extra specs its good times right now and ahead for landlords with homes in ever increasing demand. Legislation sure does work, retired poppy.
Houseworks; Sorry to burst your little utopia. It seems you missed out on some vital earthbound facts. Read the following; https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12…
Yes, legislation works.
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.