We’re number one!

Written By: - Date published: 7:55 am, May 3rd, 2016 - 34 comments
Categories: housing - Tags: ,

housing-number-one

34 comments on “We’re number one! ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. whateva next? 1
    3 May 2016 at 8:09 am

    Go TeamKey!!!!

  2. Colonial Viper 2
    3 May 2016 at 9:40 am

    Need to make houses affordable for the average household income of $85,000 per year.

    At an affordable price/income ratio of 4:1 that means house prices need to fall to $340,000. Of course at this price, plenty of people will still never be able to afford their own home, but it would be a major improvement on the current situation.

    Which political party has a plan for achieving this.

    • Sabine 2.1
      3 May 2016 at 9:46 am

      none. there i answered it for you.

      when will you create your party that makes these things happening so that we can join?

      • Colonial Viper 2.1.1
        3 May 2016 at 9:50 am

        Seems like its time to pull support from political parties which bitch and moan but refuse to make meaningful changes, then.

        • leftie 2.1.1.1
          3 May 2016 at 11:39 am

          Agreed, its well past time that people pulled their support for National.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 2.1.1.1.1
            3 May 2016 at 1:30 pm

            I encourage Labour and/or the Greens to campaign on reducing the average house price in Auckland to $340k. Vote winner, right there.

            • leftie 2.1.1.1.1.1
              3 May 2016 at 2:25 pm

              Until they get kicked out in 2017, why can’t National do it? they are the government after all. I have no doubts at all that housing is going to be campaigned on by Labour and the other opposition parties, its one of National’s weaknesses.

  3. save NZ 3
    3 May 2016 at 9:41 am

    Planet Key, strikes again.

  4. alwyn 4
    3 May 2016 at 9:57 am

    There was an interesting column in the DomPost on Saturday.
    http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/79395178/Parents-should-not-be-guilted-into-forking-out-for-kids-forays-into-housing

    If the numbers are correct, and Janine’s stuff is usually accurate, we are actually in a fairly good state here in New Zealand.
    We would appear to have a very long way to go before we get “expensive” by world standards.

    She doesn’t give the source of her table but one statement stands out.
    “New Zealand ranks 90th out of 102 countries, meaning we are nearly in the cheapest 10 per cent”
    New Zealand is listed as having a median house price/median income of 6.28.
    Among those given as being above us are China (24.9), Brazil (17.4) Russia (12.9), France (11.9) United Kingdom (9.28) and Australia (8.43).

    I guess the fact that we are going up at a faster rate than other countries may only be a reflection of the fact that we are currently cheaper.

    • dv 4.1
      3 May 2016 at 10:57 am

      From the same article

      Ten flat-whites a week each, two tubs of coconut yoghurt and a Sky TV subscription with 3 per cent compound interest over a decade will add $90,000 of savings. Factor that in to your donation.

      BUT what is missed is
      In that decade a house of value $500k at a growth of say 7% will now cost

      just under $1,000,000

      a growth of $500k

      • Sabine 4.1.1
        3 May 2016 at 11:12 am

        Question:

        Who in NZ will buy ten flat whites a week with their own money? oh yeah, no one unless they have an expense account and write their coffee addiction off at the end of the year.

        How many people in NZ actually have Sky TV, especially those that rent?

        and what the eff everlasting love of yoghurt, it is now a luxury to eat yoghurt?

        Seriously. Who makes that shit up?

        as for Sky TV:
        this: The average Sky Television customer spends just under $80 a month on its service.
        http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/77295996/Sky-TV-grows-despite-competition
        this: n 31 December 2015, Sky had 860,445 subscribers, making it the largest pay television platform in New Zealand.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Television_(New_Zealand)

        so I really don’t think that quitting a Sky subscription is getting any one in a house, nor do I believe that the plebs are living it large with their Sky subscriptions considering that not even one million people have subscribed to the service.

        and i think maybe just maybe, having Sky TV as the main entertainment provider for a household with kids is just a bit cheaper on a monthly basis compared to going to the Zoo and spending 80$ for one afternoon.

        Fuck, really NZ is going to be a sad place in the future if we make a home ownership depended on giving up the cheapest form of entertainment for many and of not eating somewhat nutritional food.

        • dv 4.1.1.1
          3 May 2016 at 11:18 am

          Sabine this is who wrote the original article
          * Janine Starks is a financial commentator with expertise in banking, personal finance and funds management. Opinions in this column represent her personal views. They are general in nature and are not a recommendation, opinion or guidance to any individuals in relation to acquiring or disposing of a financial product. Readers should not rely on these opinions and should always seek specific independent financial advice appropriate to their own individual circumstances.

          I thought for a financial commentator the article was weak, and you pointed that out well

          • Sabine 4.1.1.1.1
            3 May 2016 at 11:30 am

            It is the general assumption that were outlayed that got me.
            And both articles about Sky TV can be found within a second after typing any of my questions into Google.

            Good grief, if you have any money do not get advise from this women. She seems to know how to spend money, but has very little idea ab out how to safe it, if these are her only things she could find.

            • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1.1
              3 May 2016 at 11:43 am

              SKY should help people to save.

              They should put an “Instant Unsubscribe” button on their remote controls to help empower their consumers.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.2
            3 May 2016 at 11:44 am

            Janine Starks is a financial commentator with expertise in banking, personal finance and funds management.

            Ahhhh, a caring woman in our society who has risen to a position of influence and power, always good to see.

        • alwyn 4.1.1.2
          3 May 2016 at 2:18 pm

          There are a couple of things you should be aware of.

          You suggest “that not even one million people have subscribed to the service”
          That is subscriptions, not viewers. As Roy Morgan pointed out in October 2015, in a piece on Netfix
          “Over half of New Zealand homes already have Sky, but that hasn’t stopped them from adding Netflix to their Pay TV mix”
          that is more than half of all the homes in the country and it is certainly far more than a million people who have it. You can’t confuse subscriptions with people.

          “Who in NZ will buy ten flat whites a week with their own money?”.
          I don’t know about the rest of the country but in Wellington casual observation of the people who work in the city would appear to be the vast majority of the people under 35 do so. It is absolutely amazing how many people can’t seem to survive without their multiple coffee/day fix. I really don’t understand it myself, but I am of an earlier generation for whom an occasional coffee was a real luxury.

          “Readers should not rely on these opinions and should always seek specific independent financial advice appropriate to their own individual circumstances”.

          This sort of qualification will appear on most opinion pieces on financial or legal matters that are published in the paper. For example Tim Fairbrother also writes opinion pieces for Stuff. This appears at the bottom of his articles

          * Tim Fairbrother of Rival Wealth authorised financial adviser and certified financial planner. This information is of a general nature and is the opinion of this authorised financial adviser. This is not intended to be personalised financial advice. A disclosure statement is available on request and free of charge.”

          They are covering themselves if someone claims that they relied on this material and lost money.

    • r0b 4.2
      3 May 2016 at 3:40 pm

      New Zealand is listed as having a median house price/median income of 6.28.

      And in Auckland (same article): “Auckland houses are now selling at almost ten times the median income ($820,000 house price and $88,000 income)”.

      There is a housing crisis in Auckland, and it is spreading elsewhere.

      • alwyn 4.2.1
        3 May 2016 at 4:15 pm

        Sure Auckland is worse than the rest of New Zealand. Nobody is disputing that. In Auckland at least I think the main problem is the shortage of land to build on. People I know who live there seem to have properties with land values pushing a million dollars and improvements of a couple of hundred thousand.

        However if the numbers in that article are correct Auckland is about on a par with the average for the whole United Kingdom. Not just London but the whole country.

        I regularly visit Paris. In “tourist” Paris, the home of about 2 million people in the 20 arrondissements inside the Peripherique the average price for an apartment, which they all are, is about 14,000 Euros per square metre. For the space of a typical New Zealand home of say 140 sq metres, and without any land for a garden you would have to pay about $3.2 million dollars.
        And we think we have it bad. I don’t know how anyone can afford a place there. It is no wonder they advertise studio flats of about 10 sq metres.

        The US is so low because, in much of the country land to build on is readily available. It is places like San Francisco with its nimbys where prices are insane.
        In Texas prices are quite cheap. Note that California has one of the highest property tax rates in the US, at about $US3,000 per year as a median figure. That is about the closest thing to a land tax and it hasn’t really held the state’s house prices down.

  5. Joe-90 5
    3 May 2016 at 11:02 am

    At the heart of this, local incomes have less of a connection to house prices (unless you are local!) than in the past. So to immigrants coming in with capital commensurate to their former world class income levels, or even better, some income still coming in from the rest of the world (family, a business, investments), the pricing remains cheap for what you get and can be bid up further yet. Ditto for offshore investors not resident here. I believe a component of any solution therefore involves better management of immigration flows, and restrictions on non resident purchases (new builds I’m fine with), and land taxes or something that makes holding expensive and less of a one way bet. Otherwise for those locals not lucky in their careers or choice of parents, they will be certainly looking at renting. Tenants in our own land huh. (I’m a home owner and making more in tax free capital gains each day than I take home after tax from working btw – something is seriously screwy about that).

  6. Anno1701 6
    3 May 2016 at 12:52 pm

    I havent drunk coffee in about 20 years

    ,NEVER had a sky subscription

    AND we have an EZI-YO

    now wheres my f&#king house ?

    • alwyn 6.1
      3 May 2016 at 2:54 pm

      Drink a bottle of malt whiskey every day.
      Buy a New Mercedes every year.
      Never had a job in my life.
      Bet at least $5,000/week on slow racehorses.

      There, finished it for you.

      Like George Best.
      “I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered”
      Who needs a big house anyway?.

  7. Grim 7
    3 May 2016 at 12:55 pm

    Has anyone pointed out the simple fact that the MSM, herald etc don’t change sides, don’t suddenly see the light, don’t grow a conscience.

    They spread the message that their master want to be spread.

    When they “change their tune” what is happening?

    Problem Reaction Solution

    Housing crisis, manufactured. (it’s real alright, but didn’t happen by accident)

    Reaction? demand for change, maybe even change of government.

    Solution? taxpayer funded, corporation controlled, provided, and managed housing,

    simple transfer of wealth from the unwashed masses back to the ruling class via taxation by which ever party the ruling class place in power.

    Corporate housing the final piece in the puzzle, Right wing vs left wing, fuck off, left and right are tools of the ruling class, they infiltrate all power structures,

    Labour will be the instrument to place workers back in tenanted cages, it will sound very sociable and fair.

    To think political parties are the top dogs is naive, they are just power structures to be controlled and manipulated to achieve goals.

  8. Bob 8
    3 May 2016 at 1:26 pm

    Third term-itis (AKA complete arrogance) is starting to rear its ugly head: http://www.newshub.co.nz/business/smith-housing-a-challenge-not-a-crisis-2016050307#axzz47Y55bvBt
    “Despite the International Monetary Fund finding New Zealand house prices increased at the second fastest rate in the world last year, Dr Smith maintains they’re more affordable under National than they were under Labour”
    Nick Smith has completely lost the plot!

    • alwyn 8.1
      3 May 2016 at 2:27 pm

      As I have shown previously on this site Smith was completely accurate in what he said. You might not like it but when he claimed that housing was, according to Massey University’s Housing Affordability Study, more affordable now than it was when National entered office he was absolutely correct.

      After all so is a Bentley. It cost 10 years household income in 2008 but it is down to only 9 years and 8 months now. It is “more” affordable than it was.
      You might think it is crazily over the top but it is still “more affordable”. I wouldn’t recommend that you rushed out and bought one though.

      • Bob 8.1.1
        3 May 2016 at 4:20 pm

        Not true at all!

        Nick Smith is looking at housing affordability in a 12/24 month basis. If you were paying off the house in that time he is correct. If you are taking out a 25 year mortgage because ‘housing is more affordable now’ how are your finances going to look if interest rates are 8% in 3 years time?
        Thinking he can sell that line is treating voters with a ridiculous level of contempt

        • alwyn 8.1.1.1
          3 May 2016 at 4:51 pm

          ” looking at housing affordability in a 12/24 month basis”
          He clearly isn’t. He is comparing now to when Labour were last in power.
          That is about seven and a half years.

          “how are your finances going to look if interest rates are 8% in 3 years time”.
          You don’t really expect Labour and its hangers on to win the next election do you?

          And if you really think they are going that high all the banks offer 5 year fixed rates of just over 5% (typically 5.15%). I expect that if you have a L/V rate less than 0.80 you could get 5% flat. Fix your mortgage if you want to.

          • Bob 8.1.1.1.1
            3 May 2016 at 5:28 pm

            “He is comparing now to when Labour were last in power. That is about seven and a half years”
            Yes, but he is doing it with complete disregard to movements in the OCR over a 25 year period, which a mortgage holder would have to deal with. It is the kind of arrogant response that opens the door for the left to waltz into power.

            “You don’t really expect Labour and its hangers on to win the next election do you?”
            No, but if this kind of attitude keeps up…

            “And if you really think they are going that high all the banks offer 5 year fixed rates of just over 5% (typically 5.15%). I expect that if you have a L/V rate less than 0.80 you could get 5% flat. Fix your mortgage if you want to.”
            I don’t have a 20% deposit as yet, my biggest issue is I am struggling to save faster than house prices are rising! At around $100k / year house price increase, I need to save $20k just to stand still on my deposit, meanwhile the size of my potential mortgage keeps growing. With patronising comments like this out of Nick Smith, I for one am actually starting to look closely at the alternatives. I might even be forced to hold my nose and vote Labour! (more likely NZ First or the Greens though)

            • alwyn 8.1.1.1.1.1
              3 May 2016 at 6:17 pm

              “I need to save $20k just to stand still on my deposit”.
              You have my sympathy. I don’t know your circumstances so I can’t possibly offer anything much else without coming across as patronising and I certainly don’t want to do that.

              I bought my first house in 1969. It was about 100 sq metres, almost at the end of Karori and certainly didn’t have such things as an en suite or a garage.
              I do worry about some people who claim they are looking for a first house these days though. I remember one last year, interviewed in the DomPost, who was insisting it had to be in Mt Cook and had to have 4 bedrooms.

              She wasn’t willing to consider living away out in the wilds of Haitaitai. That must be at least 3km from the CBD. I think, although I may be wrong, that Annette King lives there.
              Terrible place for yuppies of course. However for people like her (not Annette) I can see no hope of getting started.

  9. Keith 9
    3 May 2016 at 3:16 pm

    Key didn’t lie after all when he said “I think we are on the cusp of something special”!

    Albeit Keys “something special” rates up there with the kind of things the PR men created for the Mayor of of Chernobyl 30 years ago.

  10. Booker 10
    3 May 2016 at 10:19 pm

    Also check out the stats on interest.co.nz:
    http://www.interest.co.nz/property/house-price-income-multiples

  11. Sutton's li'l helper 11
    4 May 2016 at 8:52 am

    Worth a watch applies here just as much

    http://youtu.be/Zl9VzTQ6p9g

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.