Nearly 20% of the homes sold in central Auckland in the first three months of this year were sold to overseas buyers, according to Statistics NZ.
Nationally, just 3.3% of home sale were to overseas buyers in the first quarter of the year, up from 2.9% in the fourth quarter of last year.
But the figures also show that overseas buyers have been most active in those areas where the housing shortage is greatest and property prices are highest, with 9.7% of all homes sales in the Queenstown-Lakes district going to overseas buyers and 7.3% in the Auckland region.
In Auckland's Waitemata ward (the CBD, Parnell, Grafton, Herne Bay, Ponsonby, Westmere) where property prices are among the highest in the country, 19% of sales were to overseas buyers in the March quarter.
Other areas with high levels of slaes to overseas buyers were Upper Harbour 14.3%, western North Shore (Beach Haven, Glenfield, Northcote, Birkenhead) 10.3%, Eastern North Shore (Castor Bay to Devonport) 8%, Howick 8.5% and the Whau ward (Avondale, Kelston, Blockhouse Bay) 7.2%.
But in Franklin on Auckland's southern fringe where prices are much cheaper, only 1.7% of sales were to overseas buyers.
Outside of Auckland and Queenstown overseas buyer activity was negligible, with just 1.6% of Wellington sales to overseas buyers and 2% in Canterbury.
However the actual number of overseas buyers may be significantly higher because the figures do not capture sales made to corporate entities such as companies, which accounted for around 10% of sales in the March quarter.
"Information on the ownership of these entities (by New Zealanders or overseas people) is not currently available," Statistics NZ said.
Statistics NZ said nearly 33,000 homes changed hands in the March quarter of this year, and almost 80% of those were transferred to at least one New Zealand citizen.
The other 20% were transferred to corporate entities, resident visa holders and overseas people.
The proposed amendments to the Overseas Investment Act, which could make it more challenging for overseas buyers to purchase residential land in New Zealand, may have been a factor in the increased number of sales to overseas people in the first quarter of this year, Statistics NZ said.
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.
218 Comments
On the basis that the number went from 2.9% to 3.3% ? Really? I'm not actually defending them, but today's data seems consistent with earlier data.
If you are serious about understanding this issue, I would encourage you to download the data that was released, here, and check the numbers directly. You will find that jumping to a conclusion that they are "all Chinese" is not actually the case, far from it. (Table 6)
The definition they have been using (I am sure I will be corrected if wrong) is
A non-resident buyer - i.e. they live and reside overseas.
Foreign citizens, permanent residents, recent migrant, etc... living in NZ are not counted.
I agree with you. The measure should be very simple to ascertain - How many non-citizens are buying?
If someone was born in the UK, has an English family, speaks English all day but has been in NZ for a few years and have a piece of paper saying so - are they a Kiwi to you?
or anywhere 'white' ?
or
If someone was born in Tonga, has an Tongan family, speaks Tongan all day but has been in NZ for a few years and have a piece of paper saying so - are they a Kiwi to you?
Casual racism is still racism. Please don't post like that on interest.co.nz. It's dreadful.
If someone was born in the UK, has an English family, speaks English all day but has been in NZ for a few years and have a piece of paper saying so - are they a Kiwi to you?
No
If someone was born in Tonga, has an Tongan family, speaks Tongan all day but has been in NZ for a few years and have a piece of paper saying so - are they a Kiwi to you?
No
Casual racism is still racism. Please don't post like that on interest.co.nz. It's dreadful.
Please don't name call. Or I'll be forced to inform you that while sticks and stone may break my bones - names will never hurt me.
Calling someone racist for a non racist comment is a name, more specifically a label used to insult. You yourself for failing to read and then berate that person seem to be the one with the more irrelevant contribution. How about you take a breath and try to act like an adult. You are also still welcome to act like a child packing a fit and telling people you don't agree with to leave your pretend treehouse but I would recommend you look at giving rational discussion a go.
Good comment pacifica. Always enjoy your insights. Saving_for_auss simply observed that nationality is now defunct and largely meaningless and I think he is right. People need to see themselves as belonging to an ethnoscape if they enjoy that sort of thing and actually work on preserving and promoting the best things about it....again, if they are into that sort of thing. Forget about governments or corporations doing that work for you.
Alternatively you could view yourself as belonging to a city or even part of a city. I see myself as an Aucklander or even a Grammarzonian (coined by ZS!). This city has treated me well and I owe it my loyalty.
I think be what you want to be. This is the joy and beauty of our modern age and especially so in the New World Global Cities.
It is good that you feel belonging. That is quite a significant feeling in the great path of life. Finding people to share that feeling with as well really helps cheer the soul.
I weary at the bickering to constantly separate into artificially divided groups that have no resource or country based legal framework. I can understand the importance of distinction of race in the medical terms, much like genetic variabilities that can give someone an idea if they are more prone to heart disease or cancer and for future health management that is important. Resource based migration across countries is how the species spread out and even mixed with other species. Each move because we need more resources & to discover. But now we have covered the globe, the resources are limited, we have to build & work with a system of measure & conservation. To also preserve and celebrate some cultural history where ties across the globe bind us all in time. https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/A1QO0k%2B1wZL.jpg Likewise food is always a great distinction in culture which is a gift to share. Many faiths and cultures are born to celebrate variables in arts and history. I even support affirmative action to some degree to right past social injustice.
But race wars, & social exclusion? Personal attacks against imagined slights. We had the Rwandan genocide in our time, along with numerous other race based murders. If we cannot handle recognition of consciousness, emotion & human rights across the board how can we do so for other species or even more artificial transmitted consciousness... It is odd since even NZ is far more multicultural than a simpletons binary version of skin tones, (of which there never is in existence a binary division of humans). But discrimination comes in spades for the many cultures, religions, spoken languages, writting forms, genders, sexual preferences, ages, financial status, abilities, hair colours, musical tastes, pet preference, games, game races, game sexes, DC or marvel, grammatical foibles in code, spaces or tabs, colour or color, sulfur or sulphur. Oh there is discrimination to spare. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MNNl-oOI7I
It does not matter what race, creed or colour the person is. NZ resident for overseas buyer data purpose is a person as long as they have citizenship of NZ either by birth or have got one by due process or have residency.
Tourists, students and people on short tern visa are NON RESIDENT BUYERS along with people who are buying properties from their home country and not in NZ.
Unfortunaty the overseas buyer data to suit vested need have been manipulated and only people who are overesas considered as overseas buyer. Fact is otherwise.
If nothing to hide let us present a data mentioning citizens, residents, students and other short term permit holders along with that 3% of buyers who have not visited NZ seperately for people of NZ to decide for themselves.
In politics perception is very important so why does a political party does not clear the perception or myth.
Have seen National and how they have manipulated and lied. Now let us see how and what labour does.
In the March quarter 79% of buyers involved at least 1 nz citizen throughout nz. So 21% of buyers were not citizens (all nz). https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/property-transfer-statis…. Cant tease out permanent residence visa's versus other visa types though.
David, what is the piece of paper you are referring to? If citizenship or permanent residence, I'd say they have shown enough of a commitment to the country to be considered a kiwi regardless of where they are born. However, without permanent residence or citizenship, I'd say no.
I appreciate your point, but I think we have to be careful about calling people racists as it is a very serious charge. There are perfectly legitimate economic reasons to be concerned about immigration. There is certainly a stigma associated with being critical of current immigration levels due to inevitable false accusations of racism. I think this too often stifles legitimate conversation.
I appreciate your point, but I think we have to be careful about calling people racists as it is a very serious charge.
Questioning someone's legitimacy to be considered a full member in NZ society because of their racial identity and language they use stinks of what David referred to as "casual racism."
You are a disgrace. Racism is vile and to accuse someone of this is a very serious indictment of their morals and character.
People like you that don't think we have to be careful about leveling this sort of accusation will lead to the term being made meaningless as it is just banded about thoughtlessly. Also, just spewing this label on people carelessly very often stops meaningful debate and breeds resentment. I'm sure you would be very careful about calling someone a pedophile, but flippantly tarnishing someone as racist is apparently just fine.
You are the one being precious and racist. Deal with the absence of racism in the leading comment considering the formal classification of country nationality. Any country could have been chosen. Picking the one with the largest population in the world by a landslide as an example would be only sensible. You don't need to bring in insults to people because you see yourself as a social warrior.
You really don't understand concepts like citizen, residency, immigration and visa do you. Suggesting nationality as a formal definition has a classification with those variables is not racist, (this next part is in caps for those who have trouble reading through the holes in their head) SAYING SOMEONE'S NATIONALITY IS NOT OF A CERTAIN COUNTRY WITH THE FORMAL DEFINITION DOES NOT IN ANYWAY STATE THEY ARE NOT A MEMBER OF SOCIETY. Right . Call that a lesson. Bringing up concepts of international adoption or surrogacy must be a nightmare around some folk.
DC. I think the dividing line should be citizenship. Don't care if they came from New Zealand, England, Tonga or China, if first language is English, Tongan or Chinese or how long they have been here. If they are citizens then they are in.
I would regard Non Citizens, including Permanent Residents as furrigners. We should count home ownership on that difference, as well as provide access to education, health services, benefits and pricing of Great Walks. (including that every drunk violent Irish backpacker gets a ride in handcuffs to the airport within 24 hours of the offense).
But if you are citizen, of whatever origin, Nu Zild is your oyster.
People generally don't say those things because they are even mildly racist per se... they've missed the boat and now they are just looking for someone to blame to make themselves feel better... so they are willing to twist the stats and say whatever ridiculous things that comes to their mind... anything that doesn't fit their narrative is wrong... NZ's tall poppy syndrome is alive and well, it should really be called socialistic syndrome... people play victim rather than try to better themselves... Labour with their soundbites basically accelerated the hatred and getting everyone to play victims... suddenly strikes everywhere... but let's hear it from the "i don't mind paying a bit more tax to fix homelessness, poverty and clean rivers" brigade
Neither David. No matter the ethnicity, no matter the skin colour, or hairstyle, or accent, or language, or religion, or social pastime, or culture, etc if they are not a citizen or permanent resident, something you can check formally no they are not formally classified as a NZder. You are the one being precious and racist. Deal with the absence of racism in the former comment considering the formal classification of country nationality. Any country could have been chosen as an example. Picking the one with the largest population in the world by a landslide would be only sensible. You don't need to bring in insults to people because you see yourself as a social warrior.
Another millennial snowflake raging without a thought... I'm a millennial myself but I am wondering what they are being taught at school these days... I heard some of them say communism is like being involved in a community, just like socialism is like being social with people so what is the problem... and they vote with this mindset... talking to some of the younger ones makes me think we are going backwards
Ever since they dropped School Certificate and University entrance exams we have been going backwards. The school dropouts of those days somehow got into positions of power and tried to erase their failure at school. Now nobody fails at school and look where it has got us.
Hi David, Just a thought.
If this data of 20% is based on the defination that foreign buyer are only those who are nor present in NZ, just imagine what the percentage will be if we add actual non resident buyers who are students and others on short term Visa basically not citizen or resident (PR) of NZ.
Real data if announced (Have doubts) will be alarming but Labour should do it to prove a point that their original estimate of foreign non resident buyer was correct.
Foreign buyers statistics are a farce anyway My Chinese neighbour purchased many Auckland properties for family connections back home in China. Why are we scared to face reality ? David that may be the case using these statistics but a visit to the North Shore will reveal just how many are in fact Chinese migrants of which my own street was almost totally bought up by Chinese including my own seaside property My neighbours property sat for years with occasional visits from its Chinese caretaker family members who lthemselves resided in Milford down the road. Go check out the totally Chinese focused shops in Rosedale Rd Albany etc Or simply check out downtown Aucklands CBD and compare it to 1990
The fact is NZ has had a significantly higher per capita of population influx of migrants that has and will continue to change NZs society. This has not been a balanced immigration policy at all
There Is nothing racist in my statement either I visit China at least once a year
I find the hand wringing laughable because let me assure you kiwis the Chinese are tougher than we are and fully recognize they’re taking over
"7.3% in the Auckland region". That is highly significant and enough to inflate prices for young couples wanting to buy a home. Plus many NZ residents have bought on behalf of non-residents, according to my rather good sources in real estate. Is it a coincidence that cities such as Auckland, Sydney, New York, Vancouver all seem to have been affected? I think you will be hard pressed to deny that a wave of fearful capital fleeing what is at heart a Communist state has created serious anomalies in many housing markets.
If I'm reading table 6 correctly it says
China 504
Australia 381
UK 90
USA 75
We can remove Australia from the data due to being our neighbour with reciprocal rights and closer economic relations treaty - ie family.
Since the Chinese Communist Party are now threatening anybody that doesn't officially include Taiwan as part of China its only fair to add Hong Kong and Taiwan to the numbers.
504 + 78 + 48 = 630
The next biggest country impacted by the foreign buyers ban is 90 and even that country is extended family, we have only been a breakaway province for less than a human lifetime and we refused to remove the union jack from our flag.
How is China not absolutely dominating here?
Christ.
Furthermore, if you look at all the countries listed they are buying and selling comparable numbers of properties giving a very low net change.
With the enormous glaring exceptions of China and Hong Kong where the buying massively dwarfs any selling.
It would be good if Mr Chaston could write up a more thorough analysis of these numbers. China is the problem by a country mile.
Probably. It's usually just blowhards playing the kiwi variant of this:
I don't really understand the columns in that raw data
The unhelpfully labeled "Series_title_3" column is a categorical feature with 5 types (I added numbers showing how many times each category occurred in the column)
At least one student or work visa -> 680
Buyers -> 186976
No student or work visas -> 612
Sellers -> 184196
Total where no NZ citizens or resident visas -> 680
The "Series_title_2" column is a categorical feature with 6 types
All property -> 112011
Property type unknown -> 70734
Buyers -> 1462
Sellers -> 510
Home involved -> 110927
No home involved -> 77500
It seems mixed up! Why are Buyers and Sellers in both columns? There are 373144 rows, anyone understand how to interpret a row of that data?
anyway pfft whatever, I don't need to graph ropy data to tell me what's been blatantly obvious for years.
Here's some other weird stuff. The column called "Series_title_1" appears to contain the locality of the sales in question. It's a categorical feature with 109 types. Someone mentioned Oraki and indeed "Orakei Local Board Area" is one of the 109 features. Here are the number of occurrences of a select few categories of this column. Remember this data is 373144 observations (rows) spanning the years 2013 to 2018
Orakei Local Board Area -> 2924
Auckland Region -> 18292
Auckland -> 2618
Area Outside Territorial Authority -> 2176
All property -> 986 ?? wtf
Area outside region -> 2006
Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Area -> 2586
Do you lot ever look at the data? In Q1 2018, 4.4% of buyers for Orakei properties had no NZ Citizenship or Residency visa. Given 2.2% of sellers also had no NZ Citizenship or Residency visa, that means a net 2.2% of buyers were not NZ'ers or Residents. Whoopdedoo
The equivalent data (even broken down into regions in the same way) seems to have been available for some time now, but apparently no-one was mining the data, and Stats NZ are reporting rather differently to how LINZ did.
https://www.linz.govt.nz/land/land-registration/prepare-and-submit-your…
I think this info has been there for a while if you'd looked for it.
Yeah National suck, but I don't see Labour banning overseas/none resident buyers. Infact I don't even see Labour banning letting fees for renters ..
I don't see Labour dealing to the land bankers or building material monopolies. All talk from Labour - no action. At least with National their supporters could believe the lies.
Labour are just leading their supporters down the garden path of inactivity and watered down policies. National were very clear, "there is no housing crisis". At least you knew who National stood for - property speculators. As for Labour, nobody knows.
Zack Brando. How true.
I have a friend who is die hard Labour supporter and when asked about the labour promise on foreign buyer, he still is positive and says wait and watch what happens on 21st June.
Real shame that he like may other labour supporters are not able to see through that NOW when in power Labour has no real intent in implimenting the promises that were done during election.
Or that their policies were nice sounding ideas that weren't actually workable. Or cause more grief than relief. Labour didn't actually expect to have to deliver as they didn't expect to get anointed by our Great Leader, the Most Excellent and Majestic Viceroy, Lord Winston Peters.
At the end of the day some saying a die hard labour supporter obviously shows who they vote for, so the comment sounds a little hollow. After 9 years of National (a party I voted for) and a ruined country, I'm willing to give a party its 3 years before I make an assessment. In my shame it took me 7 years for me to see the wood from the trees for National.
If labour does not implement the changes I want, I'm just going to give up. But at least I don't have misconceptions about one party or the other, I will judge them on what they do. For me after what National has done, it may come down to who is the lesser of 2 evils.
Yes its a hot topic every where and there's a huge reason why the globe elite are buying up around the world.
Better dwelling article: Global Real Estate Prices Are Synchronizing & Creating A Real Estate Supercycle… That’s Bad
https://betterdwelling.com/global-real-estate-prices-are-synchronizing-…
Juwai Partners To Sell US and Canadian Real Estate To Ultra Rich Asian Investors
https://betterdwelling.com/juwai-partners-sell-us-canadian-real-estate-…
The previous Government said that nationally overseas buyers were around 3% (as per the above figures). However, what they never said was that overseas buyers were concentrated to a few places. If 20% of buyers are overseas for central Auckland that will definitely affect the market.
Let's not forget that is 20% of overseas buyers in Auckland, in the past quarter, AFTER the market has cooled significantly.
All anecdotal evidence is that many offshore buyers disappeared after the market topped. So while we may have 20% foreign buyers in central Auckland now, that could easily have been 30% or 40% during the peak of the madness!
That 20% is also only those who are not in NZ as all other be it student and all other short term visa holders are not included in that 20% besides students comming and buy number of properties for friends and families overseas..
It is a shame that some argue against it but vested interest is supreme
Another thing that National denied was the quality of Steel from China but .............though everyone knew what is happening but the National Bosses
NZTA knew about substandard Chinese steel, emails show :
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/06/nzta-knew-about-subs….
Question to be asked now is : 9 years good enough time for National to sell NZ and just imagine what would have happened if national would have got power again.
Thank WP :)
Wait! moving forward.. 20% of them will be for sale shortly..
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/chinese-debt-a-major-risk-t…
In the last quarter of 2017, Auckland Central (Waitemata) was at 12% going to overseas or 'mixed'. The first quarter of 2017, it was 8%. The data was available.
https://www.linz.govt.nz/land/land-registration/prepare-and-submit-your…
It's possible Stats have changed the methodology a little from LINZ, I haven't fully read up on that yet.
Why not break it down to neighbourhoods? Heck, break it down to individual properties and you can get 100% 'foreigner' ownership. Cherry picking can make any argument..
I don't think anyone ever said the [prior] data was an evenly spread across all cities, towns, suburbs, streets, etc.
But in the end, it is really only the national data that means anything from a public policy viewpoint.
With the school zone being such an important factor to many foreigners who buy in NZ, it is no wonder that buying behavior has been so concentrated. It will have increased the prices in the desirable suburbs more than what they would have been.
In theory the schools/universities in these zones will go from strength to strength.
Whether this concentration effect is a neutral thing would depend upon whether "elite" suburbs are a good thing to have, or not.
Not really, to me the national data is of little concern, particularly for those in Auckland. If there is an effective foreign purchase ban brought in by the Government, then asset prices in the artificially inflated (high-foreign buyer) suburbs will fall - and the rest of Auckland will follow (whether or not foreign buyers bought in their neighbourhoods in prior periods).
Just as the trend worked in the opposite direction - i.e., asset values rose across Auckland generally when the high-foreign buyer suburbs inflated.
The Auckland market should never have been exposed to this prospect of wild booms and busts - it's only local/resident asset holders that end up suffering, not the government members that facilitated the boom.
JK was no fool in cashing out when he did.
Again, I don't think that matters. There are really only four places in New Zealand where housing for first home buyers is unaffordable, and only two where it is severely unaffordable.
Auckland's North Shore, and Queenstown are severely unaffordable. Auckland's central isthmus and Auckland's West are just over the boundary of affordability. Everywhere else does have affordable housing for first home buyers.
Our own detailed home loan affordability series is the evidence, and it is pretty clear.
The argument is that unrestrained foreigner demand and buying is making New Zealand unaffordable. It just isn't, other than those few exceptions.
What might be happening is that some people can't afford to buy in a place they want because values there are shifting. But it is completely unreasonable to expect desirable inner city detached housing, which will never expand to meet demand, should stay at the same price it was in some buyers memories 10, 15, 20 years ago.
The public policy question should be, are there enough affordable properties available within commuting distance of available jobs? The evidence is that in most cases there is. And in those areas where it is stressed, we seem to be getting public policy responses for lower cost (but denser) housing supply.
But for just about everyone else, that unrestrained foreign buyer demand has not crowded out affordable housing. It may have disappointed some nimbys, disappointed some parents who wanted their kids to be able to buy in their own neighborhoods, disappointed some millenials who wanted a first home in a fancy neighborhood (and disappointed some casual racists). But overall, the housing market has worked, supplying affordable homes for 90%+ of those who want to buy and who realise you start out with something modest and graduate to better standards later. (But I am not doubting you can find individual stories of genuine stress, just that these are the exceptions. Nor am I ignoring the very real problems of severe overcrowding in far too many neighborhoods, but that is a rental market supply and affordability problem more related to local authority planning issues than foreigners rushing in to buy these places for themselves. Different issue.)
For most people, the evidence is housing affordability (to buy) is manageable, still.
David, I suspect your cogent argument is lost on the frothing-at-the-mouth masses. These figures are quite startling. In Orakei, which has some of the highest housing values in New Zealand we are looking at the following in Q1: ~ 143 transactions where a net 3 buyers were neither NZ citizens or Resident Visa holders. Is anyone really suggesting those buyers set the market? If a ban is ever put in place, it will do next to zip.
Kate is making very cogent arguments here. No frothing, and no myopic focus on a single 3% figure...A figure which obfuscates somewhat by virtue of bundling citizenship and the very easily accessible (in recent years) residency status. (Cogent isn't just a label for a perspective you prefer.)
As others have pointed out further up, looking deeper than a single measure portrays things quite differently: Almost half of purchases in Upper Harbour involved no NZ citizen as a buyer. And coincidentally, that area is extremely unaffordable for NZers. Basically, Kiwis are being displaced.
You're also making a blanket assumption that may not be valid: that 3% (even if it's assumed to be a valid way to measure) has no potential distortionary effect in the market.
Not withstanding that assumption then, what it does suggest is that the combination of running immigration at twice the average OECD rate and allowing rapidly awarded residents to purchase land has pushed it out of the reach of Kiwis. Slowing immigration and implementing a foreign buyer ban would thus hit the 3%, and the ones who don't get counted in that figure.
That just comes down to how you define "affordability" doesn't it?
I mean if two median income people with no kids and a big deposit handout from daddy boatman can enslave themselves for the next thirty years with nightmare levels of debt and pray to sweet Jesus that interest rates stay at record lows, and that no correction occurs, just in order to buy a rotting dump and can pull it off that is technically "affordable".
The people that don't fit that criteria can go whistle of course.
It's laudable to start out with something modest, but it's not okay when that something modest starts at 700k and you are approaching middle age.
To claim that unrestricted foreign buying hasn't crowded out hard working kiwi families is deeply disingenuous.
Other benchmarks of affordablity have New Zealand as the most hopeless place in the WORLD.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2017/03/new-zealand-housing-most-u…
If that's not crowding out I don't know what is.
Hi David. I think you misunderstand the policy problem I believe the bubble, caused largely by foreign capital investment in local residential RE, has created.
All existing homeowners in AKL have experienced a 'wealth effect' - and many (if not a majority) have increased their borrowings against it.
My concern on reading these stats is not that a $700K West AKL property might be 'affordable' (or not) for a new entrant because the foreigners are not buying there. The concern I have is that the asset is not worth the $700K that the existing homeowner thinks it is - not unless, of course, the influx of foreign capital in the narrower/high end residential RE market continues unabated.
But it won't, as this Government (rightly, in my opinion) seeks to remedy that influx and therefore, improve home ownership rates within the local population. It's a good aim as the evidence is pretty clear that retirement is only comfortable/affordable if one owns ones own home outright. And since this bubble gained momentum, how many NZers have cannibalized their retirement accounts to purchase (or increased their borrowing on) assets with false/incorrect valuations - both in terms of int'l comparisons, as well as local DTI metrics?
20% is a very high percentage of sales and it doesn't really matter that the foreign buyer purchases have been concentrated in only a few locations - every location in greater AKL has ridden the wave up.
AKL has consumed its future and it does seem that this has occurred over a relatively short space of time. (i.e., a very rapid acceleration since around 2013 );
https://www.interest.co.nz/charts/real-estate/median-price-reinz
That wave has moved to Franklin, where Pukekohe has million dollar properties for a normal house, and Waiuku has houses for 900K. These are just houses, not houses on lifestyle sections. Its a joke, unless your a big wave surfer. These prices are equivalent to places in Surrey, 30 mins on train into Waterloo. Waiuku same as Surrey, not withstanding the £20 mill mansions.
It seems as if the tide may be slowly going out now though with no takers at the last Auctions, maybe its the outer reaches that are the last to get the wave and the first to retreat.
maybe its the outer reaches that are the last to get the wave and the first to retreat.
Yes, I fear that might be the way it plays out. And the real concern with that from a public policy/national well being perspective is that the highest of the LVRs and DTIs are in the lower income communities and the outer/fringe new developments/suburbs.
This population of existing AKL home owners are also the most vulnerable with respect to job security in a general downturn.
So, the National government turned a blind eye to the influx of foreign capital/foreign ownership in the AKL RE market - and these are the victims of their "market play".
John Key's personal wealth increased by an estimated $13m - tax free - over the term of his government on the sale of his Parnell property.
When you think about his earlier accumulated wealth being estimated around some $50m - that single Auckland real estate "play" by him increased his wealth by one quarter. I'll bet his blind trust didn't do so well over that period.
Horse hockey, as Auckland became more and more unaffordable for Aucklanders, pushing them out, the nett result has been that other areas have become unaffordable themselves for those who live there. The rot has spread, with a national average of well over $600,000, housing is utterly unaffordable unless you want to live in the boonies, but you will be pushing those who previously inhabited the boonies out.
And remember these latest figures are since foreign buyers basically deserted the market, mostly Chinese, because their government tightened up on capital flight.
I will reserve to the right call it as I see it, the Chinese buyer is/was different, not because they are Chinese but because of the political system they come from and the inability to freehold land in their own country. You are foolish indeed to ignore this for fear of being labeled a racist.
First, NZ's residential property "investment" fetish is a bubble, not a boom. There's a very real difference. A boom is the result of tangibles that benefit the economy. Bubbles are based on nothing but hype and hot air.
Second, I agree with you on all other points.
Japan's residential property market is an excellent example (despite the desperate claims by Kiwi spruikers that Un Zud us duff'runt un spusshull). Anyone can purchase a house in Japan, but only young Japanese couples are doing so. Houses came to be viewed as an expensive semi-liability after the Japanese property bubble burst in the late '80s and prices have fallen every year ever since and are expected to do so into the foreseeable future. Not much of an investment, but ideal for keeping the weather off your kids' heads at night.
but only young Japanese couples are doing so.
Not true, I am not a "young Japanese couple"
and prices have fallen every year ever since
They have actually increased slightly in the last couple of years.
Also, Japanese people do not generally buy and sell their houses often and live in them for many many years. All of my neigbours have been there for at least 20 years with most being there for more than 40 years.
"But in the end, it is really only the national data that means anything from a public policy viewpoint."
I disagree and so does the city of Vancouver who have brought in tax laws that are unique to Vancouver (in Canada) alone.
http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/empty-homes-tax.aspx
https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/how-has-vancouver-changed-proper…
The COLs foreign buyer ban was supposed to stop this. Oh wait that's right there's still no foreign buyer ban. The can is being kicked down the road.
Well COL Bill English got rinsed for ignoring public sentiment and if you don't implement this ban you will also get rinsed.at the next election.
Completely agree. Making it simple for all...if it comes down to Labour/Green/Winston and no ban, or National and no ban, its a complete no brainer. No one will put up with Labout/Greenunion leftist PC crap without getting something in return (hint hint...ITS THE BAN). If its not delivered the Coalition are toast because National will pick up the votes that leaked to Winston over this promise in 2017.
Deliver on this core election promise or get ready to get totally routed in 2020.
You are the one who is confused I think. Being long an asset does not necessarily imply an intention to sell .
I can be long shares intending to hold them indefinitely ( for the dividends for example ) . I am still long those shares - without having any intention to sell.
Would be interesting to know the net % of sales to foreigners (along with the concrete number owned obviously). A number like 3% might not sound like much but if they aren't selling their properties as much as they are buying them that's a sizable chunk getting transferred to foreign ownership every year.
And it would be interesting to know the percentage stats by type of occupancy (i.e., long term rental; short term rental/BNB; unoccupied; etc) for all foreign-owned residential assets. I suspect the majority of these properties are not available as long term accommodation for local residents. I think I saw a documentary report on the huge housing issue created for local Barcelona residents when the BNB trend took over whole neighbourhoods. Same issue QT Lakes DC is grappling with presently.
The data tells us about land transfers. They might necessarily not be sales and could be title transfers from syndicates ( which we all know exist but in denial, especially the syndicates buying on foreign buyer's behalf) to foreign buyers before the ban. The property sale to the syndicate might have taken place ages ago, the transfer is taking place now to the actual buyer . This will surely show up as a spike on the data radar
Whoa !! On closer look at the data if you filter by people eligible to buy after the foreign buyer ban which are
Atleast one Citizen, Atleast one Nz resident(but no citizens, Au Australia, NZ New Zealand, Mixture of NZ tax residents and non residents,
These groups constitute only 44% of total sales !! Rest 56% foreign buyers?
This is as per data shared by David
Wow, thats a different picture to what John Key was painting. The actual figures will be even worse if you consider house purchases that are financed from overseas sources!! So basically china is controlling the auckland real estate market and this is the evidence!!
This Article really shows the true colors and envious foolishness of some comments I read here today ...
Why on earth would anyone care about 20% of sales in a focused expensive area of NZ, to foreign or otherwise, of properties that can only be afforded by less than 5% of the Private Citizens in this country? ....
IT is NONE of your business who buys multi million dollar properties in Auckland leafy burbs or elsewhere ... whether buyers or sellers are foreign or not makes no difference at all when these properties are out of reach of almost everyone but the few rich and famous folks ... !! these are private properties - not Industrial or productive Land or Projects .. They are private HOMES!
This has nothing to do with FHBs, 2nd home buyers , not even most 3rd home buyers ... so what are you guys On about? .. These are private properties only available for exclusive buyers who can afford them with no sweat .. they are not your heritage, public property or Granny's jeules and silverware.!!
Save your Crocodile Tears, Stick with KB shoe boxes and the lack of that, chase your CoLs for broken promises and BS that they splashed everywhere.
IF you want accountability, Go and chase your MPs on spending MILLIONS of " Your Money " on consultants , committees and interim committees , studies leading nowhere .. While we have over 3000 kiwis sleeping rough in Aussie cities like Melbourne and living on handouts and food parcels from charities and supermarkets !!
enough said today !
Absolute rubbish!
Allowing foreign buyers to buy property in NZ does one thing that is undeniable. It raises the price, especially when it is concentrated in certain area's as the data above clearly shows it is.
Ask this question: When you strip out any short term economics of allowing foreigners to buy here ( money from building and the real estate sector ) what are you actually achieving long term. Answer: You are taking the most prestigious locations out of the hands of kiwi's (in most cases) permanently.
If you allow 7 billion people to set the price of something, instead of 4.5 million of course if quickly becomes too expensive for the 4.5 million in the most desired area's. Anyone been to Queenstown lately?
Blowing the conversation out of proportion is a poor way of proving a point, as you know ! ... 7 billion are not interested in us nor they are dictating our RE prices, so let's get real!
The New Foreign buying proposed law will not prevent foreigners holding residency from buying properties in Leafy Auckland suburbs, just like it didn't prevent them from buying in Australia, Canada, and elsewhere, Why? because they are still allowed to " buy " permanent residency in this country and for these people, money is no issue!
As to the suggestion that The Gov should ban Kiwis from selling their own property to non kiwis ( by regulation) is absurd and useless protectionism -- unless you want us to go backwards, live in our own Shells and stop trading with the world ...
Maybe you and others will learn, just like this CoLs did of late, that is easier said than done.
"...7 billion are not interested in us..."
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! Congratulations Eco Bird.
So many Kiwis love to believe the whole world is watching and it's putting New Zealand on the map, no matter what "it" happens to be. But nobody is watching. The very few who have even a vague recollection of hearing the name New Zealand will admit to knowing essentially nothing about the place and caring even less. Most people on planet Earth are just as likely to assume "New Zealand" to be a groin infection or a Finnish boy band.
Correct! 7 billion people are not currently looking at buying a house in Auckland, just as not all 4.5 million kiwis are. ( I was not suggesting this, it's just the population facts )
Food for thought though, if only 0.1% of those 7 billion people are thinking about this, that is roughly 1.5 times New Zealand's entire population.
Anyone that underestimates the overwhelming influence population disparity can have on a small country like NZ is either a little naïve, or can't do maths.
There will never be a time when as many as 0.1 percent of the world's population is thinking about buying a house in New Zealand! Kiwis must put these delusions behind them. The whole world isn't watching, and nothing you do short of starting a nuclear war will ever put New Zealand on the map. You're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.
I have an air bnb flat under my house in Queenstown. This gets rented by all different nationalities. Often they come up to chat or their children play with ours and you get have some great insightful conversations.
I would love for you Malarkey for you to have been present for some of these, especially the ones from China. It can really give you a glimpse into seeing the world through a different nationalities eyes.
The Chinese are very worried about their over pollution. They often feel their children are put under too much pressure in their schooling system and they view the ability to own the land as a rare and precious thing as you cannot do this in China. They say all the wealthy Chinese all want to own land but have to look off shore to do so.
One conversation my father was there for changed his opinion towards this topic. I wonder if it would do the same for you.
I live in Japan and work in Los Angeles (and occasionally a few other places in the U.S.) - the vast and overwhelming majority of people outside New Zealand have not heard of the place. The few who have don't think about it. They certainly don't care about it, or have plans to move there.
Kiwis have an orgasmic meltdown every time some big overseas celeb gushes about NZ in the NZ media. You party in the streets and hug complete strangers in your joyful celebration of some big star's guaranteed-to-happen permanent migration to New Zealand. But you apparently missed it when the same celeb gushed about Spain to a reporter from Madrid, and promised (s)he planned to move there some day. Or when they said the exact same thing to the media in Edinburgh. And Bonn. And Bangkok. And...
The desperate need of New Zealanders to be noticed and loved by foreigner big shots is so palpable that they will say whatever it is they think you want to hear just to get you to leave them alone. So, you really need a new set of fantasies, as your current bunch is irreparably broken. Sorry.
Wow and here I thought my fantasy was getting out of the quarter finals in the Rugby World Cup, you have to take one game at a time.
But now I'm orgasmic over someone I don't know, cool. The more fantasies the better, I need more then just rugby, fishing, surfing, kitesurfing and beer.
No need to be sorry your opinion does not keep me up at night, just says more about you.
If it's 20% in the Waitamata ward in 2018, what could it have been at the peak in 2016 before the Chinese clamp down on capital flight and a stagnation of prices? This shines a light on the influence of foreign buyers "adding fuel to the property fire". 20% is not insignificant - that could be sufficient to act as a "tipping point" effect. 20-25% is also what has been reported for years in Sydney, Melbourne, Tornonto etc.
My travels take me to Vancouver often and across Canada for that matter. I've always argued that Vancouver and Kelowna, have always been a looking glass into the future of Auckland and Otago 2/5/10/20 years from now. Indeed, if you ever have an opportunity to travel to Vancouver and Toronto, you'll see very clearly , without argument and with conviction the affects of foreign ownership economically , socially and politically. This isn't new, its been happening around the world for generations. I once asked a Vancouver local ..."hows life in Vancouver ?". His answer wasn't surprising but resonates as constant reminder of things to come and perhaps too late to reverse. " I hate it , he said". "I was born and raised here 3rd generation and every morning I travel 2 hours to get to a job I can't find outside the city. Only to serve those who pushed me out of the city where I was born". Forget the statistics, government reports, percentages and just open your eyes. I think we all know the affects of foreign ownership. Just look to other parts of the world, look to Auckland, look to Otago . It all comes down to what and how we want our New Zealand to look like for generations to come. This is the debate we should be having....Lets stop pretending that foreign buyers have no affect and stop spending waisted money on surveys and committees. Our senses , the faculty or power of seeing does not lie...we just need to open our eyes and admit the truth.
Back to their roots https://youtu.be/g9rsxFaq6Ig
Fear of foreigners, by the way, to our "racism" trigger contributors above, is called xenophobia, not racism. racism is the belief that another Nationality (not race, as there is only one race - human) is inherently inferior to ones own. That said, Stats NZ figures are important, not least because we have some facts on Auckland that LINZ mysteriously was incapable (and uninstructed) to collect and analyse, let alone present for public debate. These details show that non NZ people and Corporates are indeed (just as many prev said, to howls of protest and racism chants) buying. large % of primarily expensive property in Auckland and this inflates the prices because they are able to bid more (as every RE salesperson in North Shore , Central Auckland and Orewa knows full well, but does not like to say in public) Study of Stats NZ tables for these sales will make interesting reading which I shall now do. For 8 months my view has been that the uptick in sales compared to 2017 was due to overseas buyers getting in before the ban. As in any "brought forward" sales, there will be a predictable and natural hats (read: drop) after the policy is passed (IF?) That will mean a substantial drop in Auckland sales and prices.
"racism is the belief that another Nationality (not race, as there is only one race - human) is inherently inferior to ones own"
Or you can believe they are human which is reason enough to act suspiciously and worry about the scientifically known issues with unsustainable population increases & overpopulation pressures. Humans can be really ****ed up. Humans in an overpopulated group with resource pressures even more so. Heck I am suspicious of even certain family members but that is because I had to clean up the blood and look out for weapons around them, I hope they don't breed but only because I would not want a child in that environment.
These are the most telling words in this article
"However the actual number of overseas buyers may be significantly higher because the figures do not capture sales made to corporate entities such as companies, which accounted for around 10% of sales in the March quarter."
Edit: a typo I see. That 10% should have read 20%
I'm a little confused by your stance here, I read the original post as the baseline is 3% and there's an additional 10-20% unaccounted for.
If the accepted baseline is 3%, with 10-20% additionally "unaccounted" for, the baseline remains the same, it can only be increased by examining the 10-20% "unaccounted" for, it cannot be decreased by the lack of foreign buyers in that additional 10-20%. If there were none, it would remain at 3%, it cannot go down based on those additional 10-20% as they are extra over and above the 3%.
Which unless I'm mistaken was the original point of Pocket Aces, so I'm guessing you've misconstrued something there.
paashaas as a contributor here just likes to question and debunk (with quick little one liners) any comment that doesn't fit some sort of narrative he's following to try make himself sound intelligent, some sort of attempt at having 1 up on everyone.
Possibly because he's Dutch.
131 million Chinese tourists travel the world every year spending $360 Billion. This is due to increase by another $100 Billion over the next 5 years. NZ attracts a very very small proportion of those spenders, believe it’s around 400,000 per annum. It’s growing but it’s still tiny overall. Over 11 million Chinese visit Bangkok every year. Puts things into perspective about how much they are thinking of NZ. Labour singling out foreigners (to appease Winston) and implying their money is not welcome would be a big shame for many small businesses in NZ.
The money will find an outlet elsewhere in another more open market.
And do you know what most Thais outside of the tourism industry think about all those Chinese visiting, about the effects they're having on Bangkok and other heavily touristed spots? Let's just say that the usually polite Thais are speaking out.
The Thais did get one thing right though....outsiders cannot buy land there. Condos (with various conditions) yes, but not land.
this level of buyer is not new or unknown to most, what still annoys me is the lack of progress in shutting the open door policy and the lack of a proper register of whom owns what.
how can you shape policy without accurate facts, how many investment properties against OO or FHB
who is buying is important to shape any future tax arrangements, do we need incentives for investors in rental stock to purchase new builds against reducing the incentives for existing stock?
how much do overseas owners pay in tax ?
national had a pretty fair idea of whom was buying from there RE donors hence the strategy of turning the debate into a racial profiling one to shut down discussion.
why has labour not had the form changed from tax status to collect better data
why has labour not set up the register yet
"Labour and New Zealand First have agreed to ban foreigners from buying existing homes and set up a register of foreign-owned land and houses."
https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/house-sale-stats-continue-mislead-foreign…
So – is the door swinging open to the possibility of a “new” NZ First Party.
I’m not advocating some extreme, nationalist hateful collective – but is there room for a NZ First Party that looks beyond simply getting its’ leader into power and then standing back and mindlessly witnessing his basking in the baubles of office.
Such a party could well get a legitimate 5% vote – and use it more productively in any coalition talks and subsequent policy initiatives than the current pretenders.
Also take away the vote from non resident citizens who have not lived in NZ since the last election, which can be reinstated when they return to NZ permanently. A simple way to enforce this is no postal ballots from overseas. The basis is that you have no right to a say if you aren’t prepared to suffers under the actions of the party you voted for.
One in five foreign buyers in central Auckland is still a high rate of sales to non-NZers.
And that data would not include many buyers who are, in reality, a foreign buyer in a non-countable form.
So now we know that house prices have been very much driven up by foreign buyers and foreign-related buyers.
I am migrant like all Kiwi. The only difference is I moved into the country at 2012. I got residency in 2013. Never been outside of the country and never planing to return back to country of origin (even for holiday).
However, I am considered as foreign buyer. Not local. This is not fair.
I think article need more details regarding statistic (if possible):
Permanent Residence visa holders who permanently live in NZ, should be considered as locals (or been tracked in a separate column)
Passport holders who permanently living overseas might need to be considered as foreign (or at least been tracked).
I am migrant like all Kiwi. The only difference is I moved into the country at 2012.
That's quite a huge difference compared to someone who grew up here, wouldn't you say?
What do you think what would happen to me in these secenarios?
"I'm a migrant like all Indians"
"I'm a migrant like all Chinese"
"I'm a migrant like all Saudi Arabians"
I would never be so entitled to move to a new country with a different language as an adult and within a few years claim that nationality. But nationality in NZ is cheap and meaningless.
@Moxnach well, in that case you are NOT a Kiwi and not local. You need to suck it up that you're a foreigner buyer until you have a citizenship. It is irrelevant if you plan or not plan to leave NZ in the future. For goodness sake you've only just arrived in 2012 and you try to claim to be a local?!? What a joke!!
I agree you lot have pulled the racism card on some of our posters so easily which is completely hypocritical given the point you are trying to make.
The simple fact of the matter is we have a problem with far too many immigrants from a particular county coming to NZ which has affected peoples lives massively. It needs to be more balanced.
Reckon this type of article is simply positioning for the sheeple while the ban becomes law. Will be interesting to see how many DGZ houses that are essentially non-maintained rental slums that come onto the market in the next 6 months.
I can see the tag lines now "Owners moving overseas" (never lived in NZ anyway), "Must sell" (let me bank the capital gain), "once in a lifetime opportunity" (I paid a lot...you should to), "unlock the potential" (slum lord owner - needs everything), "huge park-like" (I want development profit with no development risk), "Its GZ /DGZ" (Chinese buy my house before the ban), "Arts and Crafts" (was cool...in 1940 needs everything done), "strong potential" (last done up in the 80s - could be nice again with lots more of your money), "dream location" (about to be overshadowed by massive high rise development), "future proofed" (enjoy 13 years free health care and education while paying low tax in Asia)
Oh wait...most of those are tag lines on TM right now...
I have to admit future-proofed rings more towards the sustainability and engineering slant so this real estate definition is a complete curve ball to me. What says future proofed about a home if not the structural build, longevity of features and ease of maintenance & repair (certainly not NZ homes built to fail in less than a couple of decades)?
The greater issue was that over 9 years National simply let far too many migrants in from all nations (not just China) into the country due to very lightweight criteria and such ease of entry. Shut the door on migration for 3 years then cap it at 10,000 with very strict criteria, ban foreign buyers and that will solve your housing crisis.
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.