We can’t say we weren’t warned

190 comments on “We can’t say we weren’t warned ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ad 1

   1 August 2016 at 7:36 am

   Good post Anthony.

   I’ve previously commented that this boom has given unheard-of mobility to those in Auckland who can sell out and move to the regions, or to something smaller, with a massive chunk of cash. Which is still true and I’m still seeing it a lot.

   But the risk to the entire economy of housing is now far worse than the risk from dairy ever was.

   Housing has now become its own commodity cycle.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     1 August 2016 at 8:05 am

     Housing has now become its own commodity cycle.

     And that is the problem with the neo-liberal paradigm of allowing selling land/houses/businesses to offshore interests, private ownership and not taxing capital gains.
     • Chooky 1.1.1

       1 August 2016 at 3:01 pm

       +100 DTB….and Winston Peters NZFirst seems to be the only politician , political party recognising this and concerned with this

       …this is why I am giving my vote to them
2. Paul 2

   1 August 2016 at 7:43 am

   Another article forewarning collapse.

   “When bright young white bankers can’t buy a half-decent place within 15 kilometres of work, you know things are out of whack. Capital, not income, is the thing you need to buy a house these days.

   Senior economists and rising business leaders can’t afford to buy within five kilometres of my leafy suburb home.”

   “Even the cheerleaders for rising house prices have gone quiet lately. The National Government, the defender of privilege, has been looking uncomfortable.

   These are signs we are at an extreme moment in our history, and at a heightened risk of economic upheaval.

   New Zealand has gone so long without a real economic crisis, we have almost forgotten they can happen.”

   http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/82483575/Rob-Stock-Signs-of-the-coming-prop-ocalypse
   • Draco T Bastard 2.1

     1 August 2016 at 8:07 am

     New Zealand has gone so long without a real economic crisis, we have almost forgotten they can happen.

     Well, personally, I consider the rising poverty that we’ve seen over the last thirty years to be an economic crisis. It seems that politicians, economists and bankers only consider it a crisis when the rich lose money.
   • mosa 2.2

     1 August 2016 at 8:29 pm

     This property bubble cant burst John Key wont allow it.
     Its going too give the government a fourth term.
     They have created property millionaires and bought their votes.
     The economic crisis is still with us it is just being disguised as the rockstar economy and the effects are only hurting those as usual by the people doing the heavy lifting.
3. miravox 3

   1 August 2016 at 8:00 am

   I can’t help thinking that unless investor purchases are curtailed this is just adding to the impeding collapse

   The Government’s HomeStart scheme is being amended, allowing first-home buyers to earn more and buy more expensive houses but still qualify for the subsidy, which itself remains unchanged.

   The scheme offers a grant of up to $10,000 for an existing house, and $20,000 for a new house to add to a deposit for first-home buyers.

   Building and Housing Minister Nick Smith yesterday said higher income and house price caps were needed because of a rise in wages and residential property prices since the scheme was first announced.

   “These changes are about deliberately screwing the scrum in the housing market in favour of first-home buyers,” he said.

   Encouraging more buyers into the market can’t be good for controlling house prices.
   • Pat 3.1

     1 August 2016 at 9:07 am

     is simply another inflationary delaying tactic by the government….one that will be borne by anyone foolish enough to make use of it.
   • Heather Grimwood 3.2

     1 August 2016 at 10:28 am

     To Miravox at 3: The problem Nick Smith is blinded to or deliberately ignores, is that his ” screwing the scrum” accommodates only those who are pretty well-off in the first place.
     • miravox 3.2.1

       2 August 2016 at 5:53 pm

       Yup. This move is intended to assist those want to get into the housing market rather than those who need to get into housing.
4. BM 4

   1 August 2016 at 8:00 am

   The voters will blame Labour and the Greens when the housing market pops.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.1

     1 August 2016 at 8:14 am

     Well, there is the fact that the voters have been well informed that it’s actually National that caused it.
     • Puckish Rogue 4.1.1

       1 August 2016 at 9:03 am

       Except that the Greens have stated they want the house prices to drop so when it happens they’ll get the blame, along with Labour because of the MOU, whether its deserved or not
       • BM 4.1.1.1

         1 August 2016 at 9:18 am

         Yep, when you put yourself front and center there’s a very high chance you’re going to get the blame.

         Don’t hear John Key talking about trashing the value of peoples homes, that’s because he’s not an idiot, unlike others.
         • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.1

           1 August 2016 at 9:21 am

           Don’t hear John Key talking about trashing the value of peoples homes, that’s because he’s not an idiot, unlike others.

           Actually, he is an idiot as he’s not doing anything about the bubble that’s going to trash the economy.
           • BM 4.1.1.1.1.1

             1 August 2016 at 9:25 am

             No he’s not.

             National is actually doing quite a bit behind the scenes, which is the way anyone with any brains would operate.

             Give it another 6 months to a year.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               1 August 2016 at 9:40 am

               National is actually doing quite a bit behind the scenes, which is the way anyone with any brains would operate.

               No, that’s how corrupt arseholes operate.
               • marty mars …

                 1 August 2016 at 6:32 pm

                 + 1
             • Anno1701 …

               1 August 2016 at 9:55 am

               “National is actually doing quite a bit behind the scenes”

               i love it …” just trust me”
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 1 August 2016 at 10:13 am

                 Whatever it is they’re doing (zero), when it comes to nothing, they’ll say Labour did it too.
             • Brian Smith …

               1 August 2016 at 6:31 pm

               “National is actually doing quite a bit behind the scenes”….yes, lining their own pockets, feathering their own nests, particularly with their new asian friends.
             • John …

               1 August 2016 at 9:08 pm

               John Key recognised that the housing industry was in crisis as far back as 2007. He has had a team of his brighter future ministers working on it night and day ever since. Another 6 months and they’ll crack young nzers hope of owning their own home for ever
         • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.2

           1 August 2016 at 9:24 am

           “We agree that this sudden reduction in the value of peoples homes is highly distressing, and we will be working closely with the reserve bank and other market players to see what can be done to give home owners security and stability in this troubled time.

           Meanwhile it is my personal opinion that members of the Labour/Greens partnership have acted unbelievably irresponsibly in the recent past by saying that they wanted to see the worth of Kiwis homes fall by as much as 40%.

           Now that they have their wish maybe you should ask them if they are happy.”
           • Puckish Rogue 4.1.1.1.2.1

             1 August 2016 at 9:35 am

             Yeah its not exactly hard to work out what’s going to happen is it and those middle class voters with mortgages they vote Green aren’t going to be very happy about it (and others with mortgages as well of course)
         • srylands 4.1.1.1.3

           1 August 2016 at 9:28 am

           How would the Greens get the blame if they aren’t in Government?

           The current Government will be blamed.

           Of course the causes of the house price crisis are multiple. Sadly voters can’t deal with complexity.

           So we ask smart folk to report on the complex causes. Then when they report we totally ignore them.

           http://www.productivity.govt.nz/inquiry-content/1509?stage=4
           • BM 4.1.1.1.3.1

             1 August 2016 at 9:34 am

             Because they’re the ones scaring the horses by making all the noise.

             The market does need to correct but it has to be done gradually over quite a period of time, compare that to Greens and Labour who give the impression that they desperately want the market to crash now and they’ll do anything to try and make it happen.

             Who cares if many hard working people get wiped out, if there’s a chance to make National look bad and get a shot at power, we’ll take it !
             • left_forward …

               1 August 2016 at 12:22 pm

               This is total nuts BM!
               Read the article and you might see (go on, you might be surprised) that the Greens are among a wide range of experts/commentators that have expressed concern for the people that you absurdly claim they don’t care about.
             • Anno1701 …

               1 August 2016 at 2:03 pm

               “Who cares if many hard working people get wiped out, if there’s a chance to make National look bad and get a shot at power, we’ll take it !”

               The quality of your work is dropping

               sharpen up !
             • framu …

               1 August 2016 at 3:06 pm

               ” compare that to Greens and Labour who give the impression that they desperately want the market to crash now and they’ll do anything to try and make it happen.”

               no – thats you getting it wrong – the greens explicitly stated they want it to be gradual

               you illustrate a common problem of people not actually listening before concluding
               • You_Fool …

                 1 August 2016 at 3:15 pm

                 no he illustrates a common problem where the extreme right cheerleaders deliberately misconstrue the greens or labours policy position to try and change the perception of any voters who may not have listened closely the first time

                 See also John Key’s debating skills
               • Colonial Viper …

                 1 August 2016 at 8:46 pm

                 no – thats you getting it wrong – the greens explicitly stated they want it to be gradual

                 As someone mentioned to me, there is no mechanism to gradually deflate an asset price bubble.

                 The moment investors believe that you are serious about causing them losses, even if the losses are only 2% or 3% per year, they will run – not walk – to the exits.

                 And the market will collapse.
           • Puckish Rogue 4.1.1.1.3.2

             1 August 2016 at 9:39 am

             Because its a similar situation to the power company shares when Labour tried to sabotage the deal
             • srylands …

               1 August 2016 at 9:43 am

               Nope not similar. Labour could have won that election. It had credible policy that would have sabotaged the power co sales.

               The Greens have no credible policy on housing.

               If the bubble bursts National is doomed.
               • Puckish Rogue …

                 1 August 2016 at 9:51 am

                 Maybe, maybe not but it probably won’t happen until after the next election
                 • Infused …

                   1 August 2016 at 10:47 am

                   I’m guessing early 2017 to be honest. There’s not a lot of room left.
               • Lloyd …

                 1 August 2016 at 9:46 pm

                 WTF! At least the Greens have a policy, an objective clearly stated and and a good analysis of the problem.. The Nats are just starting to admit there might be a mild bump in the flight, when the engines are all over-running and on fire.
                 Nick Smith admits young people can’t buy houses in Auckland.
                 Greens want a gradual reduction in house prices.
             • Stuart Munro …

               1 August 2016 at 9:46 am

               Oh, you mean when the government ignored the referendum and stole the assets anyway? Still Labour’s fault? Only in your crazy far-right dreams.
               • Puckish Rogue …

                 1 August 2016 at 10:23 am

                 No I mean where, prior to the election, National said they’d partially sell some of the power shares and the Left said they’d block the sale

                 And NZ voted National back in
               • srylands …

                 1 August 2016 at 10:45 am

                 A partial sell down of some power companies by a government is hardly “far right” is it?

                 Sadly, all Labour managed to do is hand a healthy profit to those who bought the shares as the share price rebounded following the 2014 election. And it is not “stealing”. We paid money for the shares. And as predicted, the Crown has higher dividend streams now from the 51% it owns compared to what it was getting from 100% ownership in 2013. Win win for everyone.

                 Anyway this has nothing to do with housing, so apologies for the off topic comment.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   1 August 2016 at 11:12 am

                   And it is not “stealing”.

                   When someone sells something against the owners wishes then it’s theft.

                   And as predicted, the Crown has higher dividend streams now from the 51% it owns compared to what it was getting from 100% ownership in 2013. Win win for everyone.

                   The only way that could have happened is if the prices for power have gone up meaning that power costs more than it should. Win for the new bludging shareholders with their unearned income and an ongoing loss for everyone else.
                 • framu …

                   1 August 2016 at 3:07 pm

                   ” And it is not “stealing”. We paid money for the shares. ”

                   just like that telly i bought down the pub in the weekend
                   • Stuart Munro …

                     1 August 2016 at 10:20 pm

                     The thing to remember is that we do have laws against theft – just as we have laws against the insider trading Key did in Rail shares. There’s a place for thieving scoundrels like Key, a Serco operated space for thieving scoundrels like Key…
                 • Stuart Munro …

                   1 August 2016 at 3:19 pm

                   “A partial sell down of some power companies by a government is hardly “far right” is it?”

                   True – it’s more dishonest than Right. This asset theft provided the Gnats with a war chest their austerity policies could not produce from governance.

                   So extreme dishonest – notionally rightwing – core Key behaviour.
                   • Lloyd …

                     1 August 2016 at 9:56 pm

                     Neo-liberal ideology is theft. Greed is all.
                 • Augustus …

                   1 August 2016 at 4:11 pm

                   If the government gets more dividends now than they did with 100 % shareholding, it is absolutely theft. Off the consumer…
           • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.3.3

             1 August 2016 at 9:47 am

             Sadly voters can’t deal with complexity.

             Yes they can.

             So we ask smart folk to report on the complex causes. Then when they report we totally ignore them.

             Considering that those ‘smart folk’ happen to be completely bloody wrong why should we listen to them?
             • srylands …

               1 August 2016 at 10:31 am

               So the NZPC, employing some of the best economists in the country, knows nothing about the housing market, and you do? I don’t think so. Who do you think the Government should employ to provide them with housing policy advice then? Susan St John? John Minto?

               The housing problem is primarily one of politicians not allowing markets to operate.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 1 August 2016 at 11:08 am

                 No, the housing problem is one of capitalism and the efforts to put in place a delusional market system.
                 • Anno1701 …

                   1 August 2016 at 2:05 pm

                   “No, the housing problem is one of capitalism”

                   yep like a lot of societies problems really…
               • Brigid …

                 1 August 2016 at 1:20 pm

                 “The housing problem is primarily one of politicians not allowing markets to operate.” It beggars belief how you can believe this.
                 The government has not restricted the market one bit. If houses are being sold 3 times in 17 months doesn’t that suggest there’s little restraint on the market?

                 The housing problem is one of politicians allowing an unfettered market to operate.
               • Sabine …

                 1 August 2016 at 1:54 pm

                 hjahahahaha

                 you go write a letter to the current National Party led Government. Go tell them that they need to de-regulate the ‘markets’ some more, in fact that they should just do away with Government altogether. They can then get a job in the ‘markets’. Especially that Bennett Women, i think she never actually had a job at the markets. Oh what fun and joy the ‘markets’ would experience.

                 you are a very funny dude
         • Skinny 4.1.1.1.4

           1 August 2016 at 10:12 am

           “Don’t hear John Key talking about trashing the value of peoples homes, that’s because he’s not an idiot, unlike others.”

           We don’t hear Key saying sorry for trying to ram through the TPPA that is a lame duck in America either.

           Kiwi’s squarely see National as the architect’s of inflaming the bubble through allowing mass migration, and foreign property investors in Auckland.
           • Lloyd 4.1.1.1.4.1

             1 August 2016 at 10:29 pm

             Its unfortunate that Kiwis don’t squarely see that all “investors” that don’t live in the houses they own are the primary cause of the house price bubble.
             The government’s lack of a cheap housing option for low income families, the lack of good rights for renters and a lack of appreciation of what is occurring to the people of Auckland are as important as the lack of a tax regime that makes speculating using houses so profitable.
             Mass migration ain’t got too much to do with the price bubble.
             We are building houses. Pity is that most of them are too big.
         • greg 4.1.1.1.5

           14 April 2017 at 11:30 am

           honest john resigned you idiot
       • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.2

         1 August 2016 at 9:23 am

         House prices need to drop and will drop. It’s just a question of if it’s handled or not. The Greens are looking to handle it while National are just looking to cash in on the free-ride of the bubble.
     • John 4.1.2

       1 August 2016 at 8:27 pm

       Don’t see how that can happen. John Key clearly signalled in a speech in 2007 that there was a housing crisis in NZ. His brighter future team have been working night and day ever since to fix the problem
   • North 4.2

     1 August 2016 at 10:05 am

     “The voters will blame Labour and the Greens when the housing market pops.”

     Wow……that is so meet ! I mean it’s not like the Weak Man’s been PM for the last eight years or anything, is it ?

     No BM. Risible wishful thinking on your part. It’s entirely predictable that in the face of an exponential inequality you and the Weak Man should seek to blame others. That’s the way gutless, sociopathic bullies roll.

     Indeed, to the mind of the gutless sociopathic bully, advancing inequality is a vindication of the theism ludicrously accorded the Weak Man. “No pain no gain……..(as long as the pain’s not suffered by me and mine).”

     Hurrah…….all is well !

     You’re sick BM.
   • Wensleydale 4.3

     1 August 2016 at 2:47 pm

     Only the stupid ones.
5. Draco T Bastard 5

   1 August 2016 at 8:01 am

   Nats will be hoping it holds off until after the election.

   At which point they will blame Labour for the collapse of the economy that they engineered.
6. esoteric pineapples 6

   1 August 2016 at 8:08 am

   When the crash happens, I’m sure National voters will blame Labour and the Greens
   • Sabine 6.1

     1 August 2016 at 8:38 am

     oh look we don’t have to wait that long, we already have enough posters here that blame Labour for anything from the biblical floods to high sugar contents in beverages.
     So who cares?
     • Wensleydale 6.1.1

       1 August 2016 at 2:50 pm

       Labour were also responsible for the war in Bosnia, the genocide in Rwanda and Zayn Malik leaving One Direction. They’re awful, awful people.
   • Stuart Munro 6.2

     1 August 2016 at 9:48 am

     True – but the floaters won’t. Johnkey Boy is gonna wear that one.
     • mpledger 6.2.1

       1 August 2016 at 10:20 am

       I’m picking John Key is going to do a runner before the next election.

       It would be better for National if he stays – they might make it back into govt, maybe.

       But it would be better for Key to not be around. He’s smart enough to know that a catastrophic failure (a mauling in the elections based on the property market bubble exploding) doesn’t look good on the cv.
       • You_Fool 6.2.1.1

         1 August 2016 at 3:50 pm

         But winning a fourth term looks better… he will bolt before the 2020 election for sure, but it is going to be a risk/reward thing for next year….
         • mosa 6.2.1.1.1

           1 August 2016 at 10:10 pm

           For Key its all about control, wealth and keeping National in the centre where elections are won and ego.
           Legacy for him and the adulation that goes with that is the driving force behind his desire too create a place for himself in NZ and National party history.
           He has contributed nothing worthwhile to make a REAL difference in real kiwis lives and despite the prospect of winning a fourth term the first too do so scince 1969 and you ask New Zealanders in 20 years time how he really improved their lives and made this country one too be proud of where everyone was given a stake in its success and our children would benefit from the ideas he put in place then the answer is no he wont be remembered for anything.
           He will retire in 2018-19 after a decade in the leadership and will be knighted very soon after because a title in his mind will cement his legacy and staus and his adoring dwindling supporters ,members of the media and a grateful National party will be ecstatic at how amazing he is and how loved he is and how grateful kiwis should be for supporting him the most popular PM in NZ history and keeping them in office for 12 years and seeing off 5 leaders of the opposition.
           Arise Sir John of Parnell, Matakana and Hawaii
7. Colonial Viper 7

   1 August 2016 at 8:11 am

   The only way Auckland median house prices will fall by more than 5% is when global financial crisis 2 hits. Then it’s game over: a 20% plus slide.

   Having said that the median house price will still be in the 700K range. Affordable for white professional bankers on $140K pa maybe, but no other first home buyer will be helped much.

   To say that National will be hurt and Labour helped because of the advent of GFC2 is also an interesting prediction, but it may not hold as National will not be blamed for what happens on the NYSE and LSE.
   • Nic the NZer 7.1

     1 August 2016 at 8:31 am

     Also it seems difficult for people to make a connection between a fragile (because highly indebted) private sector and any prior govt failures to address that. For all the rhetoric around here many don’t level the failure at the previous Labour govt failing to regulate the finance company sector(implying they should have regulated themselves). They also fail to recognise that it takes one of these collapses for the overseas triggers to have domestic impacts.
     • Colonial Viper 7.1.1

       1 August 2016 at 9:51 am

       I keep pointing out that an average wage earner on $50K pa wanting a first home was already frakked in the Auckland housing market by 2005/2006, but political partisanship means not a lot of people here will acknowledge it.
   • Wayne 7.2

     1 August 2016 at 9:34 am

     There was a very interesting discussion on Morning Report, this morning, assessing the fundamentals, especially the multiples to income and debt levels both for families, but also nationally.

     I think there is some confusion about median house prices and start up house prices. Relatively few first home buyers pay the median price, they get a cheaper house/townhouse/terrace house/apartment than the median price. So I imagine many first home buyers in Auckland are spending $500,000 to $700,000 depending on their circumstances.

     For instance. my first house, admittedly many years ago, was in the bottom 20% of available prices, and was certainly nowhere near an expensive suburb. But since then I have moved, from south Auckland to central Auckland to North Shore, and am in my 5th house, now in Bayswater. The shortest ownership time was 2 years, the longest by a considerable margin is where we currently live at 14 years. I am sure that this is common story.

     However, back to current first home buyers. I think the multiple of household income (probably $120,000 for couples in their late twenties) and the first home is too high, at least in Auckland.

     If a suitable first home could be got for say $450,000 (3 bedroom apartment/terrace house), it would seem more sustainable than current prices, It would mean a multiple of 3.75 of household income. It would probably mean a mortgage of at $350,000 to $400,000. These are still big numbers. Mortgages of this size are affordable at low interest rates of 4 to 5 %, but would they be at 7%?

     So my conclusion is that we are at the top of the bubble. Prices will settle and maybe fall a bit, though there is still a lot of unmet demand so maybe not.

     It also implies we need more govt driven projects, such as the one in Weymouth
     which Nick Smith took John Campbell to, and which is on the RNZ website. Many of the houses were around $500,000.
     • Crashcart 7.2.1

       1 August 2016 at 9:54 am

       Have to agree. I can’t see how the price can drop in the near future. The current government seems unwilling to try and influence demand and as of yet nothing they have done has come close to keeping up with the increase in demand let alone exceed it. This can only lead to at best a steadying of the market, at worst a continued rise.
     • lprent 7.2.2

       1 August 2016 at 1:23 pm

       The problem is that I haven’t seen a three bedroom apartment or terrace house going for $450k for several years. Try $600k plus more.

       You probably need to talk to someone who is actually trying buy a place at the lower end – you can find them at the airport
       • lprent 7.2.2.1

         1 August 2016 at 1:29 pm

         Maybe some leasehold houses below $600k. Of course they do tend to have really large per annum payments immediately or inverter near future.
         • Wayne 7.2.2.1.1

           1 August 2016 at 2:25 pm

           Waimahia Inlet in Weymouth has 3 bedroom homes with internal one car garage (127 sq metres) for $550,000. All finished off with a heat pump, fences paths etc.

           They are relatively simple, but the designs and the build quality appears to be a much higher quality than my first home. Which was a Neil built of 88 sq meters but no garage, no footpath, no fences, actually also in Weymouth. I commuted by bus or train to Auckland city (but drove to the train station in my little old car). The recollected memories of ones youth.

           So not $450,000 but no so far away from that cost either.

           So the situation is not completely hopeless for younger couples with joint incomes of say $120,000 (which would be a teacher or similar and an clerical worker or similar) starting with their first house.

           In short there are credible options out there, even in Auckland. Mind you the mortgage of say $450,000 must seem pretty daunting. You would certainly want the interest rate of say 4.3 % locked in for not less than 5 years, if that was possible.
           • Sabine 7.2.2.1.1.1

             1 August 2016 at 2:59 pm

             you need to also include the student loans that couples now a days all have but which may not have been the norms when you were young.
           • Nic the NZer 7.2.2.1.1.2

             1 August 2016 at 11:32 pm

             This is quite a summary…

             “So the situation is not completely hopeless for younger couples with joint incomes of say $120,000 (which would be a teacher or similar and an clerical worker or similar) starting with their first house.”

             I think ~$90,000 was the average (median around ~75,000) household income for the country in June-2015.

             “In short there are credible options out there, even in Auckland. Mind you the mortgage of say $450,000 must seem pretty daunting. You would certainly want the interest rate of say 4.3 % locked in for not less than 5 years, if that was possible”

             The available 5-year rates appear to be nudging ~4.8% at the extreme low end, with most being 5%+ territory. There are a few 3-year rates which are around 4.3%.

             And 100K deposit (again more than the Average household income last year) took how long to accumulate?
           • lprent 7.2.2.1.1.3

             3 August 2016 at 8:38 pm

             Looking at the rough calculations on a mortgage calculator, you could possibly be right

             Lets assume that they have at least $55k for a deposit (ie 10%)

             Then they could do what you are suggesting if and only if

             1. They both have similar salaries so that they pay minimum tax.
             2. They don’t do kiwisaver – even 3% each would bee too high.
             3. They don’t have any student loans that need repaying.
             4. They are prepared to pay something close to 40% of their nett income in just interest.
             5. They don’t have kids and don’t plan on having any for quite some time.
             6. They can afford to run two cars to work because the bus routes in Weymouth look like they can get to other parts of Auckland only at the expense of hours. It takes 1:30 minutes by bus to Auckland Central, 1 hour to Penrose, and 40 minutes to Manukau city.
             6. They are prepared to stay in Auckland – which at these prices I don’t think that it is economic for such a poor couple to do.

             Personally I can think of simpler methods of financial torture. Perhaps National will be prepared to ‘deregulate’ the building industry again and reintroduce leaky buildings? At least this hypothetical couples tormented drive into bankruptcy will be less.

             Essentially National has failed in one of their core infrastructural duties. They have, through a invigorating level of ideological stupidity, managed to reintroduce the exact same kinds of conditions that led to State housing being established in the first place. There were few affordable and habitable houses being built from the 1920s and up to 1937 because it was more economic to build houses for the affluent. The housing issues got worse and worse until state housing was introduced.

             The State should use its ability to build affordable housing with a sharp cost control and no profit, concentrating on density housing close to transport hubs and work. The state can leave the peripheries like transport free Weymouth to the people who can actually afford to work from there – even at a mere $550,000.
             • lprent …

               3 August 2016 at 9:17 pm

               BTW these $550k houses in Weymouth the ones that are mandated as being “affordable” as part of one of the State’s special housing areas?

               Are there any in that estate that are less than $600k that are not subject to the restrictions of the state?

               I’ll bet that they are part of this not-for-profit http://www.nzhf.org/housing-projects/30-waimahia-inlet-development, which from memory essentially had the land gifted to them at a reduced rate by the State.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               3 August 2016 at 10:26 pm

               There were few affordable and habitable houses being built from the 1920s and up to 1937 because it was more economic to build houses for the affluent. The housing issues got worse and worse until state housing was introduced.

               Put in place the same policies as the 19th century – get the same results.
   • mpledger 7.3

     1 August 2016 at 10:23 am

     If China really starts beating the war drums then a lot of people and their money are going to skip back to China.
8. Pat 8

   1 August 2016 at 8:16 am

   “The only way Auckland median house prices will fall by more than 5% is if there is when global financial crisis 2 hits.”

   no financial crisis required….a simple rebalancing of supply and demand will work fine.

   http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201810347/housing-expert-unitary-plan-will-improve-affordability
   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     1 August 2016 at 8:25 am

     ?

     I love your belief in the rational function of markets.

     btw what year do you expect this “simple rebalancing” of supply and demand without a GFC to take effect in the Auckland housing market?
     • Pat 8.1.1

       1 August 2016 at 8:37 am

       what year?…National will be hoping not before the election and is why they have done everything they can to delay….Im guessing they may just succeed in that delay but not by much….once it is understood that there will be a real increase in supply the prices will fall and you can almost guarantee an overshoot….so in the next year or two. hopefully sooner rather than latter.

       You may believe markets are not rational and indeed they are not invariably, which is why bubbles occur but the fundamentals of supply and demand do not change.
       • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1

         1 August 2016 at 8:49 am

         GFC2 will happen before any supply and demand rebalancing is my bet.

         No one can build the 12,000 houses a year that Auckland needs to “keep up”.
         • Pat 8.1.1.1.1

           1 August 2016 at 8:58 am

           the signals matter…..if the belief is the supply will increase the impact begins to occur before the actual event, until this point everyone has known that there has been no intention or possibility of rebalancing..
           • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1.1.1

             1 August 2016 at 9:05 am

             Well, let’s see who is right. IMO the market has assessed that politicians blowing hot air in the media about bringing thousands of extra accomodation units online a year is just about that. There’s no actually physical possibility of it being accomplished in the next several years in terms of extra money or extra builders.
             • Pat …

               1 August 2016 at 9:22 am

               it is a two sided equation….it could as easily be impacted by restricting demand (as requested by RBNZ)
               • Colonial Viper …

                 1 August 2016 at 9:26 am

                 It’s as easy as finding politicians with the political will to ban foreign buyers if NZ property. Winston?
                 • Pat …

                   1 August 2016 at 9:28 am

                   that, or reducing immigration, or CGT or land tax….a range of demand reducing tools….all of which this government has deftly avoided
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     1 August 2016 at 9:53 am

                     Is there a political party willing to slash immigration? (Winston)

                     Or a political party willing to institute a CGT? (not Labour)

                     As for land taxes – do the Greens have that as part of their policies? Labour and National won’t institute one.
                 • Pat …

                   1 August 2016 at 10:21 am

                   http://www.labour.org.nz/cracking_down_on_speculators

                   http://www.labour.org.nz/housing

                   these policies would impact prices (despite the line taken by Labour that they will merely reduce price growth to 2 or so % p.a.)
       • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.2

         1 August 2016 at 9:27 am

         …but the fundamentals of supply and demand do not change.

         You need to read more of Steve Keen:

         In the first half of this lecture, I show that even if all consumers were utility maximizers whose individual demand curves obeyed the “Law of Demand”, the market demand curve derived from aggregating these consumers could have any shape at all.

         There is no fundamentals to supply and demand. Yeah, the economists were wrong about that as well.
         • Pat 8.1.1.2.1

           1 August 2016 at 9:30 am

           you will need to do better than that to convince me……and anyone purchasing something.
           • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.2.1.1

             1 August 2016 at 9:44 am

             The first lecture on there is 45 minutes long, the second is 44.

             I suggest you watch them both before even contemplating an answer. Then you should probably watch a few more of his lectures and read Debunking Economics. Or do the book first and then watch a few of his lectures.

             Either way it’s going to take longer than three minutes.
             • Pat …

               1 August 2016 at 9:47 am

               you’re assuming I haven’t already seen them
   • Nic the NZer 8.2

     1 August 2016 at 10:50 am

     This is an absolutely bonkers view of the market economy. First of all its not only a view of the housing market its a view of supply and demand balancing across the whole economy because you expect prices (including wages) to balance in relation to each other.

     And if supply and demand balance in the jobs market and there is equilibrium across the whole economy then the economy is running at full employment! Which is happening next when?

     Pityably, i doubt pat is even aware of the theoretical implications of his own statement.
     • Pat 8.2.1

       1 August 2016 at 11:03 am

       interesting word pityably….no autocorrect huh?
       • Nic the NZer 8.2.1.1

         1 August 2016 at 11:20 am

         Are you usually so easily confused by such trivial miss-spellings? Or only when you don’t have any interest in addressing a substantive argument?
         • Pat 8.2.1.1.1

           1 August 2016 at 6:49 pm

           lol…when you post a substantive argument I will address it
           • Nic the NZer 8.2.1.1.1.1

             1 August 2016 at 8:40 pm

             Careful pat, don’t go making promises you can’t possibly keep.

             I did make a substantive argument but we can ‘inch’ through it again if that’s the way you prefer it.

             First point, you said (with reference to excessive house prices, kind of obviously implying excessive relative to incomes),

             “no financial crisis required….a simple rebalancing of supply and demand will work fine.” – Pat

             Do you then accept that for House Prices to adjust relative to Incomes (via supply and demand) this requires equilibrium to be reached in (at minimum) both the housing market and the jobs market.

             If you don’t accept that, what theoretical (if not practical) basis can you give for believing that the ‘out of equilibrium’ jobs market and/or housing market will create and further maintain a desirable price ratio between them?
             • Pat …

               1 August 2016 at 8:46 pm

               “Do you then accept that for House Prices to adjust relative to Incomes (via supply and demand) this requires equilibrium to be reached in (at minimum) both the housing market and the jobs market.”

               No…and therein lies your misconception.

               Do you accept that what we are experiencing is a speculative bubble (particularly in Auckland)?
               • Colonial Viper …

                 1 August 2016 at 8:58 pm

                 According to you its not a speculative bubble, it is a simple market matter of imbalances between supply and demand. Do I not understand you correctly?
                 • Pat …

                   1 August 2016 at 9:27 pm

                   excuse me?….where have i said it is not a speculative bubble?
               • Nic the NZer …

                 1 August 2016 at 10:22 pm

                 Well, If you answer no to that question then you simply must put an argument for, “what theoretical (if not practical) basis can you give for believing that the ‘out of equilibrium’ jobs market and/or housing market will create and further maintain a desirable price ratio between them?”. I mean one might have assumed that by discussing ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ you were referring to the typical supply and demand equilibrium market theory which answers ‘yes’ to that question. But you answered no so you have your own theory with its own definition’s of supply and demand, or what?

                 However to answer your question,

                 “Do you accept that what we are experiencing is a speculative bubble (particularly in Auckland)?”

                 No, I don’t think that. What has been proven (unequivocally) by economic theory is that supply and demand equilibrium does not function in any market with almost any kind of imperfection (even realistic imperfections such as a difference in tastes, e.g if people have different demand curves).
                 Because of this its totally un-realistic to believe that real-world markets have a tendency to reach or head towards equilibrium. This applies if you believe speculators are part of and participants in the market, or even if you believe speculators are an imperfection who can somehow be eliminated from the market.
                 The upshot is the result in Auckland is what you will get when the government has absolved itself from intervention in the property markets and the jobs market.
                 There is a large low wage sector in NZ because the government has not been supplicating the jobs market with sufficient employment, supporting unionization and producing supportive labour regulations.
                 There is also substantial property debt in NZ due to less-regulation of finance, a reduced amount of government spending in the economy, targeting very low inflation rates and limited regulation of foreign participation in the NZ economy.
                 Unless the govt participates substantially in both markets in these kinds of ways house prices are likely to remain substantially out of whack in relation to incomes. If it stops participating in these kinds of ways then house prices will get substantially out of whack in relation to incomes.
                 The argument about supply and demand usually follows off down a track of claiming that its local govt restriction on supply, or building regulations, or taxation issues (though eliminating negative gearing actually adds a taxation imperfection). By implication if we eliminate some of all of these imperfections then supply and demand will sort things out from there, well….
                 Actually (to reprise where I started from) supply and demand does not sort markets out in the presence of any ‘imperfections’, especially reasonable ones like local government, govt regulations, a realistic banking system (supply and demand models only model a barter economy), wage contracts, any market with fewer than infinitely many participants (giving sellers some price setting power), etc…

                 Anyway, what I think is irrelevant, and does not change in any way the argument you were already making, something about supply and demand re-balancing?
                 • Pat …

                   1 August 2016 at 11:37 pm

                   lol….oh dear back to Mr Keen….you can’t predict equilibrium to the “n”th degree so your theory is crap routine…..never mind that he only argues the quantification not the direction.Although classical economist over simplify it they are broadly correct though i prefer Keynes take that equilibrium can take too long and cause too much misery (assuming the market is not destroyed) particularly in light of the fact we don’t operate in truly free markets.

                   curious that you don’t consider the Auckland property market a bubble….what is your definition a bubble? (assuming you believe they occur)….the generally accepted definition is a disconnect from intrinsic value (your old friend), the causes debatable but imo greed plays a big part closely followed by baseless optimism.

                   If we have a bubble (which you apparently don’t believe) then there is a disconnect between cost (including labour) and price so arguing semantics on whether equilibrium can be accurately predicted is irrelevant, particularly in light of the fact that one of the drivers (DFI) has no connection to the local economy

                   However the bubble can be effectively burst by increased supply and/or reduced demand (it will at some point crash anyway, as prices increase and locals are increasingly shut out the political pressure to intervene will become impossible to ignore and the ability to service becomes harder and harder)…there is a certain element of rational thought to the formation of this bubble in that although insupportable by local conditions this government has demonstrated they are unwilling to act on either side of the equation and therefore it could be argued that it has a lot of room left to grow due to massive unrestricted demand which would rationalise the investor behaviour (and to hell with the local population)
                   My contention is make it clear that the supply will increase significantly (and/or demand restricted) and reality will kick in and cause a reduced appetite for the risk and a subsequent easing (crash) in prices…..that is not to say we will achieve a local equilibrium nor that the prices will not become disconnected again , especially should the required increased supply or restrictions not be forthcoming.

                   The affordability aspect (connect) will likely still need to be met by state intervention as even with a withdrawal it will still leave a significant portion of the population unable to afford the new “affordable” homes, however that has always been so and with interest rates projected to remain low for the foreseeable a 3-4:1 median ratio is unlikely to be achieved ….unless we have a severe recession,which is not out of the question.

                   You may be interested to know (or not) that Auckland house prices have increased 52% the past 3 years , construction labour has an average LCI of less than 2.5%p.a. in that period and labour accounts for approx 20% of a new build price….its a bubble.
                   • Nic the NZer …

                     2 August 2016 at 2:12 pm

                     Unfortunately, this is simply unconvincing and is largely addressed in the comment (8.2) I made already.

                     First of all its very far from “you can’t predict equilibrium to the “n”th degree” if that was the main issue with theory it would be in pretty good standing. As you say Keen “only argues the quantification not the direction” which is a product of the argument he is quoting from the “Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu” theorem. The theory is sometimes the “Anything Goes Theorem” because in aggregating multiple individual demand functions (even if they all obey the WARP, in itself an extraordinary assumption contradicted by experiment) then the aggregate demand function can take any shape at all (it doesn’t obey the WARP itself).

                     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenschein%E2%80%93Mantel%E2%80%93Debreu_theorem
                     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference

                     So Keen can’t tell you which direction the supply and demand analysis is a little off because nobody knows. Supply and demand analysis tells you little to nothing about the aggregate. Say we increase supply in some way, does that mean that house prices fall as a response? There is certainly no solid practical (even theoretical) basis for assuming that. The history of this dis-equilibrium analysis has a long ‘lineage’ going back at least to Keynes (but probably earlier). Keynes quip (in the long run we are all dead), belies the mathematical fact that even idealized theoretical mathematical markets take ‘infinite’ time steps to reach an ‘equilibrium’ state. What is argued in the ‘general theory’ (that the economy has no general tendency to equilibrium, in Keynes day it was argued that this would eventually resolve the great depression) is largely in line with what Keen is saying anyway.

                     The implication that what I have said somehow rejects the existence of bubbles in flatly wrong. The idealized model (which you claim is the underlying driver) does however reject the existence of bubbles in the case of “truly free markets” (better referred to as fictional mathematical models). Some people even claim that these are actual useful models of reality (which is bonkers).
                     https://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/nobel-prize-winner-bubbles-dont-exist

                     In fact what I have argued is that actual real-world markets frequently contain speculation, bubbles and out of equilibrium behavior. I have also argued that the ‘ideal’ of “truly free” markets is a fiction. In a similar vein neither does “intrinsic value” exist (its a general equilibrium price, so it obviously doesn’t exist unless the economy has a unique general equilibrium state, and in practice tends towards that state). If its possible to (more presciently) model the economy than what comes from supply and demand analysis then the model will need to examine the effects of these market behaviors on actual supply and demand aggregate outcomes.

                     In brief your summary would have been better described as
                     “My contention is make it clear that the supply will increase significantly (and/or demand restricted) and” fiction “will kick in and cause a reduced appetite for the risk and a subsequent easing (crash) in prices”.
                     This is about as sane as believing Hurricane Sandy is gods punishment for gay marriage!
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     2 August 2016 at 3:59 pm

                     lol….oh dear back to Mr Keen….you can’t predict equilibrium to the “n”th degree so your theory is crap routine…..

                     Oh Frak off. That is not what Keen is saying AT ALL.

                     Professor Keen says that neoclassical economists have completely ignored their own academic literature.

                     Do you realise what that means?

                     It means that there is no way for you, me, himself, anyone else to determine what the shape of any given supply/demand/price curve is.

                     Or even if it is a curve of any kind at all.

                     You obviously believe in the BS however.
                   • Pat …

                     2 August 2016 at 10:38 pm

                     “There is no fundamentals to supply and demand. Yeah, the economists were wrong about that as well.” DTB

                     “Actually (to reprise where I started from) supply and demand does not sort markets out in the presence of any ‘imperfections’, especially reasonable ones like local government, govt regulations, a realistic banking system (supply and demand models only model a barter economy), wage contracts, any market with fewer than infinitely many participants (giving sellers some price setting power), etc…” Nic

                     “It means that there is no way for you, me, himself, anyone else to determine what the shape of any given supply/demand/price curve is.

                     Or even if it is a curve of any kind at all.” CV

                     so to be clear it is the opinion of all three of you that increasing supply (or restricting demand) will not impact house prices?
       • Nic the NZer 8.2.1.2

         3 August 2016 at 8:34 am

         “so to be clear it is the opinion of all three of you that increasing supply (or restricting demand) will not impact house prices?”

         This is not what is being said at all. What is being said is that increasing supply (or restricting demand) will impact house prices. We don’t know which direction prices will be impacted.

         A possible scenario.
         The govt undertakes a direct building program selling output below market value. House prices fall then? Wrong. One company gained market share overall (implementing the production) but the rest of the sector shrank by the same amount. Over all the dominant company put up prices to the non govt building sector and costs increased across the whole sector. Eventually the net outcome is building costs went up and overall this pushes up house prices and restricts further supply. Net result house prices actually increase.
         • Pat 8.2.1.2.1

           3 August 2016 at 9:04 am

           and you make the same mistake that the classical economists make….you ignore time.

           the scenario you present may indeed create that effect (assuming those conditions remain unchanged) and your “eventually” may well occur, possibly after the market has collapsed anyway and we are all living in caves and have lost the ability to build anything….however the short term impact of the below (current) market value of the gov building programme does indeed impact price (do you seriously wish to suggest that that impact would be an upward price point movement?)….and is consistent with my understanding of Keynes position….the role of government in removing the peaks and troughs (destruction, chaos) evident in free market theory

           The current situation (price)exists because of the supply/demand settings (signals) the government has in place and the markets reaction to those settings….those settings can be rebalanced to move the price.
           • Nic the NZer 8.2.1.2.1.1

             3 August 2016 at 12:13 pm

             Clearly pat, if we are going to consider what will happen then all the consequences of the policy intervention and not some sub-set of the consequences consistent with your favoured micro economic theory. Say my scenario (there are many possible others of course) is the eventual one do you expect that people should be satisfied that the govt acted appropriately in causing (and they did cause it as an output of their actions) house prices to rise? In the context of ignoring time are you actually satisfied because shortly following the govts intervention house prices dipped slightly and only eventually rose to higher levels again. Its like the second Iraq invasion, job done in a few months never mind the ongoing multi decade occupation resulting.

             What economic theory is telling you is supply and demand analysis only tells you what will happen in the imaginary micro-econonic context where some outcomes are ignored because they have marginal impact on the transaction under examination (e.g. a house may change state from for sale to no longer for sale but this is not important to what price it sells for between two theoretical micro actors). In the real world or even in the context of theory looking at whole markets however this analysis doesn’t work any more (e.g the fact that a satisfied sale takes a house off the market is important to the overall market price outcome). These effects cant be ignored because they are significant to the outcomes. The current price therefore can not possibly be an outcome of supply/demand settings because these dont tell you definitively what will happen for whole markets.

             Overall you may be satisfied with the govt acting as if it exists in a fantasy economy which can not possibly exist or function that way in reality. I am far from being satisfied with that.
             • Pat …

               3 August 2016 at 5:52 pm

               “Overall you may be satisfied with the govt acting as if it exists in a fantasy economy which can not possibly exist or function that way in reality. I am far from being satisfied with that.”

               Why you seem to think any setting is fixed in stone is beyond all logic…..adjustment to settings to account for effect is always an option…a far better option than trying to model for every and any eventuality (an impossibility imo) and rigidly sticking to it.

               Adjusting for circumstance is the best dynamic model around.
               • Nic the NZer …

                 3 August 2016 at 6:29 pm

                 Absolutely agree, and this is a significant about face from saying ‘oh supply/demand is driving everything and will fix that’ when actually even in theory thats not well known.

                 Why is that an important destinction you might ask? Well there is a similar theory of supply/demand in the jobs market which says that if you pay welfare too generously then people will choose that over employment. Actually that is the only mainstream explanation for excess unemployment it simply must be caused by over generous welfare or some similar regulation like a minimum wage.

                 So we could (on the basis of this belief) solve the unemployment problems of society by being ruthlessly mean spirited towards those on welfare and kicking them off it. We have a theory backing this ( that its all supply/demand in the jobs market) to show its justified after all. I am hinting at a current govt policy here in fact, do you think the govt should change it and admit that their economic theory is disfunctional then?
                 • Pat …

                   3 August 2016 at 7:17 pm

                   “Absolutely agree, and this is a significant about face from saying ‘oh supply/demand is driving everything and will fix that’ when actually even in theory thats not well known.”

                   the statement was…”no financial crisis required….a simple rebalancing of supply and demand will work fine.”

                   and indeed it will with regard to house prices….it just requires a willingness on the part of the policy makers to do that and as we know this administration are not willing ….for political reasons.

                   “I am hinting at a current govt policy here in fact, do you think the govt should change it and admit that their economic theory is disfunctional then?”

                   you appear to have cast me as some sort of neolib when a simple examination of my posts will clearly indicate a consistent Keynesian bent….consider Keynes vision of the future and where the benefits of increased productivity fell in his vision…..oh and he didn’t dismiss supply and demand either.
                   • Nic the NZer …

                     3 August 2016 at 8:17 pm

                     You are some sort of neo-liberal which is a label i apply to people who exhibit a strong belief in the correctness and usefulness of what is presently mainstream economic theory (it seems in your case you are however frequently ignorant of what theory actually says).

                     You probably believe that label should not apply to an economic school (the left wing faction of the mainstream) which calls itself new-Keynesian. But there is nothing Keynesian about the economic theories of this school which roughly speaking occupy the position Keynes argued against in the General Theory.

                     Here is a post about this very subject,
                     https://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/adas-models-and-the-disappearance-of-involuntary-unemployment/
                 • Pat …

                   3 August 2016 at 8:24 pm

                   good grief….is english your second language?
9. Rae 9

   1 August 2016 at 8:16 am

   Sadly, I do not believe it will crash unless the foreigners are completely taken out of the market. I think all this “flipping” business will be being done, in the main, by them. They are having a ball, using Auckland (particularly) as a casino, and Aucklanders are spreading the rot around the country.
   If somehow or other, either by us shutting the gate on foreign purchasers or their own countries placing curbs on this spending, they are removed from the market, then the fall WILL be spectacular, because as far as I can see, it can only be that element that is driving the market. If they were out of it, there would still be some sort of boom from the shortage, but it would not be anywhere near what we see now. Foreigners, especially nationals from a couple of particular countries, are doing the damage, but I think they may feature in different sectors of the market.
   The right thing to do is to get them out of the market, and I am sure, somewhere in his tiny little mind, John Key knows that as well. As for Nick Smith, did his father not tell him not to piss into the wind?
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     1 August 2016 at 8:23 am

     +1

     We need to ban offshore ownership and we need to do it now.
     • Observer Tokoroa 9.1.1

       1 August 2016 at 9:42 am

       .
       Hi Draco T Bastard

       I agree with you.

       We need to stabilise demand from speculators both within New Zealand and Foreign. We need to do it today. Straight away.

       We must put a moratorium on all immigration until housing has been stabilised.

       We must support the concept of building affordable housing throughout the nation. Based on the formula of no greater mortgage cost of 3 * annual salary.

       1) We live in a low wage economy. This governs what we can afford to pay. Added to that, we are taxed on every piece of income and on everything we purchase. So even a Beneficiary or a Pensioner pays 20% approx tax on income. Added to that a15% of tax for the necessities of life, transport, manitenance of property, cost of schooling, cost of shoes and clothes; cost of heating etc in our cold wet country.

       We must understand that wealthy people are permitted to effectively avoid paying tax. Also, GST seems to be an optional thing for many.

       2) Currently we have totally unaffordable house prices 10 * annual salary.

       3) We have exorbitant Rental charges. The extreme of which is Ms Bennett charging people $200 per night to live in her emergency accomodation. Wit the added proviso of forcing the tennants to accept that every cent will be paid back to Paula.

       4) There will be no housing price collapse. The wealthy will make sure of that, as they buy more and more houses and charge higher and higher rentals.

       So – The New Zealand population at large will become poorer and poorer and poorer. Which will fulfill the ambition of the Nationals, the Act, the Maori party, the United Future.

       Their vicious circle of : Low wages, Unemployment, Unaffordable Housing, unaffordable Rents, unfair Tax burden … Is the way this Parliament has chosen to turn NZ citizens into medieval Surfs.
       • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1

         1 August 2016 at 11:52 am

         +1
         • Rae 9.1.1.1.1

           1 August 2016 at 3:41 pm

           Ditto
   • Pat 9.2

     1 August 2016 at 8:28 am

     foreigners “flipping”McMansions is exacerbating the problem ,but if there is increasing supply of everyday housing for local needs the median price will fall…..if the foreign investors want to keep piling money into the top end of the market it will have increasingly less impact on the “real” housing needed and will become increasingly detached.
     • Crashcart 9.2.1

       1 August 2016 at 9:26 am

       You keep doing the same thing as JK. Talking about how supply side is what will determine price. Even if you hold to the basic tenants of Economics there are two sides. Supply and demand. In fact it is demand that is supposed to drive supply. If there is more demand then supply should increase to meet it. If there is less demand there should decrease. This is in essence the unseen hand that drives price to equilibrium.

       Simply stating increased supply will drive the price down ignoring the supply side is unrealistic. It also ignores that the property market left uncontrolled appears to not be able to function correctly. This is most probably because Housing is a need and not a want. There will always be demand. Therefore turning it into a profit earning asset inflates the existing demand therefore warping the manner in which the market acts. This is why anything that is a basic human need should not be traded as a commodity.

       **edit** I note that in a post written whilst I was putting this together you point out the effect demand has on the market.
       • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.1

         1 August 2016 at 9:31 am

         This is why anything that is a basic human need should not be traded as a commodity.

         And should, as a matter of fact, be supplied by the state.
         • Rae 9.2.1.1.1

           1 August 2016 at 5:58 pm

           I would not go so far as to say that, but, if all regulations and laws around housing began with the premise that houses, first and foremost, are for the citizens to make homes in, I reckon the right laws and regulations would write themselves.
       • Pat 9.2.1.2

         1 August 2016 at 9:38 am

         “In fact it is demand that is supposed to drive supply.”….dont forget about lag.

         Supply/demand is a seesaw, you cannot change one without impacting the other you can however create settings (policy) which favour one over the other

         “Simply stating increased supply will drive the price down ignoring the supply side is unrealistic. It also ignores that the property market left uncontrolled appears to not be able to function correctly.”

         It may appear so, but the market is not uncontrolled in this instance….there are a number of deliberate policy settings that have led to this and sustain it.

         State housing is a circuit breaker within this and an obvious important difference between National and Labour as it is outside of the market (broadly) but does impact it through both sides.
   • RedLogix 9.3

     1 August 2016 at 10:17 am

     I agree. The bubble will continue indefinitely because China represents, relative to the NZ market, an almost infinite source of puff. And our govt is powerless to stop it.

     We may have only seen the beginning.
10. One Anonymous Bloke 10

    1 August 2016 at 8:36 am

    Since houses are being bought and sold like shares, the “best” thing to do now is short the market.
    • Puckish Rogue 10.1

      1 August 2016 at 9:08 am

      Here you go: https://givealittle.co.nz/
11. esoteric pineapples 11

    1 August 2016 at 8:41 am

    I thought this was a particularly interesting fact from the 12 Reasons story as despite John Key going on about supply being the problem, it is primarily an issue over demand which is driven by overseas investors. It suggests that we should look to the Australian and Chinese property markets for when the New Zealand market collapses. As long as there is a seemingly endless supply of overseas investor capital to prop up the market it won’t fail.

    “An influx of foreign home buyers in recent years has contributed to the inflation of New Zealand’s housing bubble. Australians and Chinese – who both hail from countries that are experiencing bubbles – account for 42 percent of these foreign buyers, which means that the false prosperity booms in Australia and China are spilling over into New Zealand’s housing market.”
12. ianmac 12

    1 August 2016 at 8:56 am

    Not surprising that the immoral Government is desperately scrambling to avoid a burst by doing nothing concrete. Of course when reading the tea leaves Key might call a very early election so that the crash happens on Labour/Green watch.
    • Wensleydale 12.1

      1 August 2016 at 2:59 pm

      Thus setting them up to fail, which is just the sort of dick move for which Key is known. Just ask Todd McClay. Of course, only drooling half-wits would actually fall for the “it’s all Labour’s fault” line.
13. Adrian 13

    1 August 2016 at 9:10 am

    Housing has become, for a huge numbers of New Zealand citizens, their drug of choice, and, as many of us know, this despicable drug is highly addictive (some studies, compare it’s addictive qualities to methamphetamine) and comes with serious and long lasting personal and social side effects.
    I think it is time we seriously think about a nation wide intervention, before they destroy themselves and adversely effect the Nation as a whole.
    But just keep in mind, if you have to have dealing with one of these unfortunates, that they are addicts, so will not welcome your offers of help. The addict will often become emotional and aggressive if they perceive you are keeping them from the source of their ‘fix’.
    At this stage I am not advocating criminalization, but if this epidemic continues on it’s current trajectory, it cannot be ruled out.
    I am hoping the Labour Government could be persuaded to implement a not for profit housing rehabilitation scheme, which has been shown to be very effective in cases with this level of addiction, before criminalization would become necessary.,,,we shall see whether they have the political will to really face this dark scourge of society.
    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      1 August 2016 at 9:14 am

      Nice metaphors

      Worth asking who the dealers and the dealers mates are
      • Adrian 13.1.1

        1 August 2016 at 10:06 am

        The dealers are Neo Liberal economics as run by National and enabled by Labour.
        What a lot of people don’t seem to grasp is that this National Government is probably one of the most ideologically pure political regimes to govern in NZ.
        They have been and are absolutely, as a party, all on board in implementing their twisted vision, even in the face of wholesale economic destruction, as we are all now witnessing, quite fascinating and disturbing to watch.
        Unfortunately Little has not presented himself in this moment as a leader of real fundamental change, a man with a party with a long term vision for New Zealand into a more fair, just and equal future for all, I mean affordable houses at over $500,000, it is an embarrassment.
        It is certainly not a Labour Party that will mobilize and inspire the people in any kind of significant numbers, that much is for sure.
        • Lloyd 13.1.1.1

          1 August 2016 at 10:55 pm

          +1
    • mac1 13.2

      1 August 2016 at 9:46 am

      Lovely, Adrian. What is the cure?

      Cold Turkey? or Enforced Renting? A new drug called Rentadone? A graduated tax on room size, window area, number of rooms?

      Aversion therapy by sleeping rough for a year? No reading Property for sale papers or viewing housing porn?

      Forbidding bidding? Counselling for Auction Fever? Chronic Housing Crisis intervention?

      Or state-run housing in Paremoremo or Rimutaka?
14. DH 14

    1 August 2016 at 9:17 am

    I really can’t see it. Housing isn’t like other markets, it tends to be naturally self-righting.

    For a genuine crash to occur it would require the supply of houses to exceed the demand and for that to happen we’d need to see an exodus of people. It will take years of building to even catch up with the existing demand so I can’t see us facing a housing glut in the short term.

    With the present scenario I think we’ll likely see a pause in the inflation with perhaps a mild downturn followed by an inexorable increase in rents.
15. Psycho Milt 15

    1 August 2016 at 9:24 am

    Why would the bubble collapse before the election, when it’s the currently-elected government inflating it? As evidenced by your post on the Ray White deal with a Chinese company, the government is allowing foreign investors to drive Auckland property prices upwards. For a market this size, the number of potential Chinese investors is effectively unlimited, so the bubble will inflate pretty much as long as the government allows it, or until there’s a serious crash in China. At our end, the only thing that could change things is a change of government to one that doesn’t want the bubble to continue.
    • Draco T Bastard 15.1

      1 August 2016 at 9:35 am

      At our end, the only thing that could change things is a change of government to one that doesn’t want the bubble to continue.

      And to stop the bubble they’d have to ban offshore ownership.
16. fisiani 16

    1 August 2016 at 9:33 am

    Smart move would be to sell your house in Auckland for $1,000,000 and buy a similar house in the regions for $500,000 and have $500,000 in the bank. Or wait hoping for $1,100,000 and the bubble bursts and you only get $700,000 but the house in region costs $400,000 so you only have $300,000 in the bank.
    • Draco T Bastard 16.1

      1 August 2016 at 9:37 am

      Smart move would be to sell your house in Auckland for $1,000,000 and buy a similar house in the regions for $500,000 and have $500,000 in the bank.

      Wow, I didn’t realise that people who owned houses were all freehold.

      /sarc

      Fuck, you really are an idiot.
      • fisiani 16.1.1

        1 August 2016 at 11:25 am

        If you sell your Auckland house that pays off your mortgage. That still leaves you able to buy another house in the provinces. Admittedly you would not have as much cash as if freehold but it still makes good sense to move.
        • Draco T Bastard 16.1.1.1

          1 August 2016 at 12:24 pm

          Admittedly you would not have as much cash as if freehold but it still makes good sense to move.

          No it doesn’t as there probably isn’t a job for you in the provinces. Sure, the house may be cheaper but you still can’t afford it if you still require a mortgage.

          The regions need to be developed, and I’m not talking farming either, before moving to the provinces is viable for most people.
          • fisiani 16.1.1.1.1

            1 August 2016 at 1:28 pm

            citation required for “There probably isn’t a job for you” There are more jobs available outside Auckland then in Auckland.
            If you retired you don’t need a provincial job. Sell your Auckland house to a young couple and get a great value place in for instance Blenheim or Masterton.
            Also you are very rude. There is no need to swear unless you have a severely limited vocabulary.
            • Lanthanide 16.1.1.1.1.1

              1 August 2016 at 2:37 pm

              “There are more jobs available outside Auckland then in Auckland.”

              In total perhaps. Doesn’t help if you are skilled in area Y and there are very few Y jobs available outside of Auckland (or the other big cities).

              Obviously you know this, you’re just doing your usual job of being deliberately misleading.
            • Draco T Bastard 16.1.1.1.1.2

              1 August 2016 at 4:10 pm

              Sell your Auckland house to a young couple and get a great value place in for instance Blenheim or Masterton.

              And what’s the support that elderly people need like in those areas? Could those areas support far more people who require hospitalisation regularly? Are you happy for your taxes to go up to make it so that they can?

              Also you are very rude.

              No I’m not, I’m very polite and always tell the truth. I do this so that people can be assured that when I call you a ‘fucken idiot’ they can be certain that you’re a fucken idiot.

              There is no need to swear unless you have a severely limited vocabulary.
      • srylands 16.1.2

        1 August 2016 at 11:41 am

        Fuck and you really are rude aren’t you? How about some basic manners?

        No not all houses are mortgage free. But most are. In Auckland (in 2014) 64% of all houses are mortgage free.
        • Draco T Bastard 16.1.2.1

          1 August 2016 at 12:18 pm

          Fuck and you really are rude aren’t you?

          Nope, not in the slightest.

          How about some basic manners?

          I treat people the way that they deserve to be treated. fisiani is always on here lying and getting caught doing so and so I treat him as the scum he is.

          In Auckland (in 2014) 64% of all houses are mortgage free.

          [citation needed]
          • Lanthanide 16.1.2.1.1

            1 August 2016 at 2:40 pm

            In Auckland (in 2014) 64% of all houses are mortgage free.

            [citation needed]

            Looks like a very poor reading of the stats by srylands, surprise surprise.

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11348661

            36% of owners in Auckland are paying mortgages. 25% are not. 39% are tenants in rental property.

            Extrapolate that out, and 59% of people who own their own home in Auckland are paying mortgages, a far cry of sorrylands claim of 36%.
    • srylands 16.2

      1 August 2016 at 9:39 am

      Yes that is great for those who can. I know someone on Auckland who has just retired on the back of a $1 million capital gain

      But the situation is terrible for the country both economically and socially. The best way to fix it would have been to not let it happen. Now that it is here the politically palatable solutions are not enough to deal with the problem.
      • Bob 16.2.1

        1 August 2016 at 10:51 am

        “But the situation is terrible for the country both economically and socially”
        Is it? That person moving to the regions is creating supply in Auckland and have the cash to help the regional economies, don’t we need both of these things at the moment?
        The ones that would lose out are speculators in Auckland if a large enough portion of the (preferably retired/nearing retirement) population started to shift to the regions, their short term capital gains would start to dry up.
        • srylands 16.2.1.1

          1 August 2016 at 11:02 am

          The situation exacerbates inter-generational inequality. If you are 25-35 and don’t have parental help, you are probably not going to be able to buy a house in Auckland. Even if you can, you are facing a life of mortgage slavery.

          Remember these are just houses. Little buildings for folk to live in. So yes for a small country with lots of urban land to have done this to ourselves is very bad. And make no mistake – we have chosen as a society to do this. There are many insiders who benefit from the current situation. National will win the 2017 election. In no small part they will thank Metiria for that.
          • Draco T Bastard 16.2.1.1.1

            1 August 2016 at 11:20 am

            And make no mistake – we have chosen as a society to do this.

            Actually, it was done by the politicians at the behest of the rich against the wishes of the people. National got voted in to power in 1990 with promises that they’d undo what the 4th Labour government had done. They then reneged on those promises and further entrenched this failed system on us and it’s been that way ever since.
            • Wensleydale 16.2.1.1.1.1

              1 August 2016 at 3:03 pm

              True. Just ask Aroha Ireland exactly how full of shit John Key is with his manufactured concern for the “underclass”.
          • Colonial Viper 16.2.1.1.2

            1 August 2016 at 3:58 pm

            I want the real srylands back
          • Ad 16.2.1.1.3

            1 August 2016 at 6:19 pm

            The moment we are going through as a society is as big a sorting mechanism for class and class immobility as 1987-1988 was.
      • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2.2

        1 August 2016 at 11:39 am

        …economically and socially…

        So there is such a thing as society after all! Who knew!

        I wonder how the faithful peddlers of policy lies will take this fundamental attack on their religion. I suppose when you’re a hypocritical sophist you simply make up some more bullshit and move on.
    • Ad 16.3

      1 August 2016 at 6:17 pm

      I now lots of people doing that.
      They’ve done exceedingly well.

      I will likely do that myself in a few years.
17. Tarquin 17

    1 August 2016 at 9:44 am

    Nothing will happen until interest rates rise. Why would you put money in the bank and make virtually nothing when you can buy a house and make some real money?
    • ropata 17.1

      1 August 2016 at 1:41 pm

      You can’t make real money until you flip it. So you’ll have to wait 2 years. You might end up a million bucks in debt for a $400K house.
      • Tarquin 17.1.1

        1 August 2016 at 3:58 pm

        Always the risk, I’ve lost money on houses.
18. shorts 18

    1 August 2016 at 9:53 am

    articles warning of property bust vs articles pro property and how strong the market is – um, one of these things is not like the other, one side has a few showings… the other dominates our media and has done for years

    we might have been warned… but like the wolf calling child… this warning has been ushered before (I remember it being similar during Clarks era) and nothing bad happened

    so whats an investor to do – easy one bet gives riches… the other contains no rewards worth mentioning, business as usual in other words
    • Pat 18.1

      1 August 2016 at 10:36 am

      theres something to be said for being satisfied……greed drives many to ignoring reality as has been demonstrated ad nauseam.
19. Neil 19

    1 August 2016 at 10:32 am

    1987 all over again
20. xanthe 20

    1 August 2016 at 10:38 am

    The problem as i see it is that there is a similar situation to the USA toxic debt situation where there are genuine buyers who simply need accomodation in Auckland are under a huge mortgage and will lose their homes if the mess crashes
    these people are now in the same boat as highly ‘leveraged” speculators and land bankers.
    what is missing in the various “solutions” (if such a work can apply to the auckland house market) is the protection of those genuine family home buyers for whom the “market” is actually supposed to exist!
    So for me the first step in any policy to deflate the bubble has to be to protect the family home buyers.
    regulation preventing banks from throwing people out of their homes
    debt holidays in event of devaluation of home occupied by buyer
    debt writeoff in event of devaluation of home occupied by buyer

    probably niave, no doubt there are other solutions but you get the intent
21. Johan 21

    1 August 2016 at 10:58 am

    Reminds me of the housing collapse in Ireland. Shonkey was funnelling massive amount of money into Ireland through Merrill Lynch. Later these wankers, I mean investment bankers, weren’t satisfied so transferred their funds to the Caribbean.
    Aside: By the way, has Shonkey shown his income tax returns yet;-)))
    • Jack Ramaka 21.1

      1 August 2016 at 8:14 pm

      Nah neither has Trump
22. r0b 22

    1 August 2016 at 12:05 pm

    And another one:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/309850/property-prices-a-risk-to-economy-economist
23. ropata 23

    1 August 2016 at 12:20 pm

    Don’t worry, IF (a big if) the crash happens, John Key will make sure that Aussie banks and Chinese speculators don’t lose money.
24. Corvidae 24

    1 August 2016 at 2:02 pm

    So as far as I can tell, the conversation seems to go like this in political circles:

    1 – Houses are too expensive – this is a bad thing
    2 – House prices can’t drop – that would be a worse thing
    End of ‘informed’ debate.

    In all honesty I’ve come to realise that I don’t actually care if Aucklanders want to overpay for houses. The monetary worth of something is what a willing seller agrees with a willing buyer. And the buyers are willing; they not only pay ridiculous prices but compete with each other to do so. So who are we to interfere. And who are we advocating for here? Those living in cars, or Y-gens who ‘want house now!’? Once the bourgeois ‘make a decision’ to live in cars I expect this will be solved pretty fast (for them that is).

    But enough of the emperor’s new clothes. Once again this is simply a failure due to the purpose of something (‘to live in’) circumvented by a secondary use (‘to make money from’). As a commodity scarcity increases value. Even so, it would be easy to force people to release land banked land for mass development, but apparently that’s a far greater wrong than making kids live in cars or damp garages without plumbing.

    Once again we can easily fix this, we just can’t ‘afford’ to. Until we start acting like we live in the same society as one another we’ll have these ‘issues’.
    • Sabine 24.1

      1 August 2016 at 2:20 pm

      i would assume that you will start to care once the issue comes to a neighborhood near you.
      It is not Aucklanders that create the issue, it is that Aucklanders are priced out. They are not the ones buying anymore and in many cases are not even the ones selling anymore as they know that they will never buy again. So they – Aucklanders – are holding tight.

      And yes we can easily fix it, and we can afford it. Its just that some may only get 500.000 for a property instead of a 1.000.000 . 🙂 And that would be the issue then ey?
      • Corvidae 24.1.1

        1 August 2016 at 2:35 pm

        I wouldn’t go assuming anything.
25. Poission 25

    1 August 2016 at 2:24 pm

    housing sales to offshore buyers increase by 50% in the last 1/4,now 5% of ak buyers.

    http://www.linz.govt.nz/news/2016-08/new-property-data-consistent-last-quarter
    • fisiani 25.1

      1 August 2016 at 3:04 pm

      So instead of 97% of sales being to locals is it now 95%. And your xenophobic point is……???
      • maninthemiddle 25.1.1

        1 August 2016 at 3:11 pm

        And then there’s the fact that NZ’ers purchase land offshore. Perhaps Poisson thinks these ‘foreigners’ will come and dig the land up and take it home.
      • Poission 25.1.2

        1 August 2016 at 3:25 pm

        oh its worse then that,there are also 15% of sales to temporary/student visa holders.

        far better to implement a xenophobic tax on foreign buyers like hong kong.
        • Colonial Viper 25.1.2.1

          1 August 2016 at 4:08 pm

          Nice to be a student able to afford a three quarter million dollar Auckland home
          • Rae 25.1.2.1.1

            1 August 2016 at 6:07 pm

            Probably more than one
      • Stuart Munro 25.1.3

        1 August 2016 at 5:32 pm

        It’s not xenophobic Fisi – it’s a matter of accountability.

        The government are accountable to us – not to foreign investors. There must be NO homeless kiwis ever.

        Selling property offshore while there are homeless kiwis is simply treason.

        Sons-of-bitches must pay.
26. Chooky 26

    1 August 2016 at 3:07 pm

    personally I dont believe there will be a burst housing bubble! ( this is naive)

    ( as long as demand exceeds supply)

    …in other words as long as this jonkey nact government allows open slather for foreigners to buy up New Zealand

    …we will soon be a province of China ( heaven help us !)
27. Leftie 27

    1 August 2016 at 3:22 pm

    Seen it with my own two eyes. The same houses being bought and sold over and over a number of times. Saw a house sell 700,000 sold a few months later, this time for a few dollars shy of 1 million. Foreign speculators can afford to wear National’s pathetic penalty, because in real terms it doesn’t mean a thing. And this activity fluctuates too; it’s like a tide, as speculators flow in and out of the market, so expect another surge with the kind of deal Ray White has made to directly market to millions of Chinese buyers eager to make a killing out of a tax haven New Zealand that John key has created.

    And this is what John key is banking on.

    Currently, Fletcher’s is on a huge recruitment drive in the UK to entice a new flood of immigrants onto our shores, they really need to take notice of Observer Tokoroa’s message of warning he posted @9
    <a href="http://thestandard.org.nz/nz-in-the-international-news-again/

    And lets not forget the large Chinese state owned construction company with it’s easily obtained NZ government contract slipping quietly into the country to provide work for it’s Chinese nationals. No one can deny any longer that John key is pumping whatever it takes into the bubble to see him through to the next election. The question is, will the majority of New Zealanders bearing the brunt of key’s fake economy, that is allowing him to cling to power, put up with it anymore?
28. Observer Tokoroa 28

    1 August 2016 at 5:38 pm

    .
    . Hi Leftie
    .
    > Keep up the the good work. We have to point up the wrong doing of our sick Parliament.

    May I ask, do you find that the great majority of your friends, fellow workers and acquaintances are really decent people?

    Or am I a fool? For I think nearly everyone I meet is pretty decent in New Zealand, hard working too and pleasant.

    So who has called for and caused all this current stress and unnecessary insecurity ? It simply cannot be the decent people whom you and I mix with and offer neighbourly friendship.

    It cannot be the Salvation Army whom a member of our Parliament lied about to degrade them. She being unspeakably callous. And remarkably stupid.

    I know who it is that has ravaged our “golden equality” way of life.

    For while the rest of the world is recovering from the Murderous USA Deliberate Financial Catastrophy of 9 years ago, we in New Zealand are getting savaged, bullied and blamed for things our wealthy politicians have organised here deliberately.

    OUR GOVERNMENT OF GREEDY INDIVIDUALS has taken so much from us – without a cent of Compensation. And made the few wealthy, $Billions of dollars more wealthy. It has been the SOLE DESIRE of this Government to create an impoverished nation on behalf of their crooked wealthy friends. They have done it throughout the past 8 years.

    They have increased the wealth of their own families and friends. Casinos and Hotels. They have cultivated their foreign friends above all. Given them access to everything we once thought belonged to we the people of New Zealand.

    For your information, this 8 year long degradation of New Zealanders has been the primitive and savage work of an unspeakable caucus of corruption.

    Namely: The Nationals; The Act; The Maori Party; The United Future.
    • Leftie 28.1

      2 August 2016 at 2:42 pm

      +1000, and thank you Observer Tokoroa. You are no fool, and that’s a YES to your question.
      The Nationals; The Act; The Maori Party; The United Future HAVE TO GO!!!
29. Paul 29

    1 August 2016 at 5:39 pm

    Toby Morris nails it.

    http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-rent-rage
    • Ad 29.1

      1 August 2016 at 6:13 pm

      Excellent.
    • Chooky 29.2

      1 August 2016 at 6:17 pm

      +100…great cartoon!…when are people , especially the younger generation, going to take to the streets?
    • Leftie 29.3

      2 August 2016 at 2:44 pm

      That’s spot on Paul.
30. Glenn 50 30

    1 August 2016 at 8:29 pm

    Todays Daily Mail.

    Perhaps we should move to France. Interesting comparisons between the UK and France. Might cost a wee bit to heat these places.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3717348/Should-snap-cut-price-chateau-couple-did-swapped-two-bed-East-London-47-rooms-private-forest-moat-swap-pokey-flat-18th-century-castle.html

    Should you snap up a cut-price chateau? This couple did and swapped a two-bed in East London for 47 rooms, a private forest and a moat and you could swap a pokey flat for an 18th-century castle
    Dick Strawbridge and his wife Angel sold their two-bedroom flat in London and had £300k to spend on a new home
    The pair bought a house in Pays de la Loire, France, which has 47 rooms, five floors, a private forest and a moat
    The married couple snapped up the unique property for just £280,000 and moved for the ‘lifestyle and the space’
31. Lloyd 31

    1 August 2016 at 11:06 pm

    Does the rest of New Zealand realise Aucklanders pay really low rates?
    Do Aucklanders?
    Would doubling Auckland’s rates do anything?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS