Interesting that some R/E commentators are now pushing the line, "It's not a bull market at the moment - just a normal one".
Read that as...'See. You don't need to rebalance the economy or change the taxation rules, as it's all quite manageble with the current setting in place'

Hi All It seams we are catching up with AUstralia(Sep. 2009 data in AU$).

Auckland media price for Sep. 2009 is NZ$455k.

Sydney

Median house price: $610,500 - 6.87% increase in last 12 months.

Median unit price: $427,000 - 8.24% increase in last 12 months.

Melbourne

Median house price: $524,500 "“ 8.87% increase in last 12 months.

Median unit price: $400,500- 9.97% increase in last 12 months.

Brisbane

Median house price: $452,500 "“ 1.59% increase in last 12 months.

Median unit price: $358,000- 1.11% increase in last 12 months.

Adelaide

Median house price: $387,500"“ 3.9% increase in last 12 months.

Median unit price: $305,000- 4.68% increase in last 12 months.

Perth

Median house price: $482,500"“ -4.42% fall in last 12 months.

Median unit price: $389,500- 0.60% increase in last 12 months.

Darwin

Median house price: $482,000 "“ 13.35% increase in last 12 months.

Median unit price: $377,000 - 16.52% increase in last 12 months.

Hi Bernard
It is not responsible to say "It shows that New Zealanders have given up on all other investment choices, including the stock market, managed funds and bank accounts, as either too risky or offering too little return"

The fact is the NZX50 increased over 800 points(from 2400 to 3200) from 03/09 to today, it is a 33% increase. This year the share market is a big winner.

Apparently fundamentals mean diddly squat in never never land.
Seven times median income? Has anyone done a trial household budget for a couple on median income? With the usual fixed outgoings and occasional necessities - dental bills, vehicle or appliance replacements and so on - and an 80% mortgage it's virtually impossible to live on the median income. What are folk doing for food?

What are the mechanisms that will get the median income up to a level that would make this sustainable? Labour shortage? Hell, we're trying to compete with folk on twenty dollars a week, could someone give Mike Moore a ring and get him to explain how this is all supposed to work again.

I can't see house prices going anywhere but down, may be a drawn out process rather than the rapid declines in the US and UK.
Cheers,
David.

Joe Blog, there is no actual money in the share market, there have been no initial offerings to speak of so the money spent on shares just goes to the seller, same as when you buy an existing house. The market price, which is what you're talking about, can be bid up unrealistically on quite small volume and is mostly a gauge of the collective hope of the participants. If that hope proves unjustified, look out below.
Hope is not a strategy.

Jh
That link is bad for my health

Property Council's underlying policy is that
economically sustainable communities are good for New Zealand's future well-being, and that such
communities will only be viable if we do three things:

re-establish New Zealand as an attractive investment destination

greater overseas investment;

delivering the dividends of wealth creation back to the creators of wealth

the opportunity for all New Zealanders to own property, gain financial security and enjoy a quality standard of living

Pete, Joe,

Many thanks for the challenge. Mums and Dads have less than NZ$15 billion invested directly in the NZX. They have NZ$600 billion in the housing market. There has not been a successful float on the NZX since Contact.
There are less than 35,000 direct investors in the NZX. There are at 1 million New Zealanders invested in the housing market.
The RaboPlus survey recently showed most investors are confident in housing and they are least confident in the stock market.
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/09/22/new-zealanders-...

I'd suggest asking anyone who invested in Feltex what they think of the NZX. Or finance companies.
This is one of the reasons why the housing market remains so strong.

cheers
Bernard

@ Joe and Pete, bernard never said the sharemarket wasnt a winner, just that people feel it is to risky and few play the game.

@ Bernard i like your proved wrong (for now) addition, as i still believe that your predictions may come true, might take a little longer than you predicted, but i think you could still be on the money or close to it, this is the strongest sign that i have seen that you you havent totally backed down, maybe the timining was wrong but too soon to write off the correction.

rob of the north, yes good sense from John Stewart and confirms what we are seeing.
There is little pent up demand or folk living under bridges for lack of a house. Some active first home buyers but they are very restricted by deposit and/or income requirements.

As Stewart points out, buyers are very selective which is not what you would get in a bull market that relies on the "greater fool" factor to make up for your bad purchase decision.

The surveys showing rising price expectations should not be taken too seriously IMO, public opinion is a fickle beast, usually well and truly disconnected from reality.

So this median figure, eh...

Anyone got a graph showing the following over time...

1. median house price
2. volume
3. median house size

If not, show me the data and I'll whip up a graph.

Prices will go up if there are no other alternatives which is true. It is hard to imagine them coming down as well. Even with the Reserve Bank implementing new core funding rules to take effect from next April/June, will this really impact house prices. Noted in the Economist article -

"But the policy is not as tough as it seems. The banks' larger Australian parents can always borrow cheaply in the short-term market in Australia, where no comparable rule exists, and pass on the proceeds in the form of longer-term lending."

Doesn't this mean our banks will just get their overseas funding via Australia, if they can't attract enough local deposits, and given the increased global money supply, won't it just be business as usual.

For this reason, I really can't see house prices dropping.

Just another ARTICLE with a different point of view, Kokila Patel. But we're different, even to Australia.
I like the bit about 'mortgagee sales' as being seen as 'an opportunity for investors', not the diasaster for the individual and the economy that they really are.

Roger

Ever been thru a North Dakota winter?

Neven

Dakota, gives a new meaning to cold and the Indians get a bit ugly too. I spent a bit of winter in Northern Alberta, its probably still cheap there too.

You don't have to go to North Dakota. You can ship a house here for cheaper. Respect to First National for calling it a little more even. We're not in a boom, because there are few listings. Auckland is expensive compared to Australia, because I'd get 40-50% more money over there. (yes, yes, I know they have stamp duty over there etc).
Perhaps the banks are wanting to raise interest rates - there has to be some excuse. But why lend at 95%. Fuel to the fire. Perhaps it's the deposit competition and they want to raise their rates?
When you trade a market that is thin on buyers and sellers, prices can be volatile. It depends on who turns up on the day.

ROGER...

VERY APT.....You do not have to stay for the WINTER as any one will point out with half a brain..

Simple....just get a MANAGER in for that period...plenty of UNEMPLOYED in AMERICA.....

I do not stay here in NZ......I cannot stand NEW ZEALAND winters either.

320 ACRES....more a lifestyle block with INCOME... than any I have ever seen in NZ in recent years. Anyone want to SHARE FARM for LIFESTYLE..... Can build houses cheap in USA....no PROBLEM....or MOVE a few houses on....PLENTY around the place empty...it is the OLD...kiwi way.

And certainly a better place to INVEST in land. Way over priced here....except to sell to another MUG.

OUR prices are SHOT....and a JOKE. People here live in CLOUD CUCKOO LAND.

As I reported last week, a 2 acre dunga for 650K ...or this farm...NO CONTEST in my humble opinion.

FUND-a-mentals....APPLY.....and we have funded enough of em in PARLIAMENT, CIVIL SERPENTS, DOLE, WWF, DPB, et al....

I must just tell you why our DOLE QUEUE is not reported as large....They are all on the SICKNESS BENEFIT now.

That has gone through the roof....(You might say....but I could not possibly comment...SIR NIGEL!!).

I have a coupla nephews moved back home...never worked a stroke in their lives....and have been moved on SICKNESS BENEFIT to get STATISICS down.

Parents are at their wits end...but THEY BRED EM....so I have no sympathy.

NO CHANGE HERE...not even small change.

INVESTMENT....a shon-KEY house....only in LA-LA land with VESTED INTERESTS.

Way better overseas...PARADISE????.....DUCK.

Sore Loser : Someone with half a brain did point out the winter exodus , me ! And as my wordwork teacher Mr Beardsley used to say , " come on lads , if Thompson can do it , anyone can . " Lovelly chap !

Osty : Previously the figure of $ 200 billion was put on the rental housing stock in NZ . And the fact that IRD pays out $ 150 million annually , because of negative gearing . It's a no-brainer that rentals garner 14 times as much investment capital as does the NZ stockmarket , from Mom & Pop .

Roger - Ahh thank you for that. A figure for rental housing stock is much more accurate. And yes, the point remains that many times more funds are put into housing than the NZX. However, as far as investments from mom & pop go, I don't think you can make such a clear cut comparison. How much of the $200 billion is from mom & pop, and how much is from a "small number" of full time property investors? Such as people who own rental properties as a business / full time job? The Moms & Dads that work a 9-5 job, and have some cash to invest may be a small percentage I suspect.

My point is that you cant just look at a figure like $600bn vs $15bn and say "Oh my gosh, moms and dads love investing in the housing market!"...

as i have always said...

Hi Bernard, no offence, where did you get the number of 1 million of property investors? It seams too high to me.

@ JB: Perhaps Bernard means that 1mio. New Zealanders 'have an investment ( ie: monetary interest) in' housing, not that they are active investors for monetary reward?

Kate - Yes that is one thing I was thinking of as well. Its a different ball game really. Since most people actually have NO MONEY, maybe property is the ONLY real investment they can make? LOL!

Kate, Osty

Not necessarily.

Margin lending, CFD etc allow people to trade large positions on the stockmarket ($100ik +)with very little $2-5k of their own money.

Its just a whole lot riskier than putting any money (yours or someone elses) into bricks & mortar, hence property is a much safer option for the average mom & pop wanting to preserve what little they may have left.

I suspect Bernard safely stored a crate of Moet under his house a year ago.
I am a little more conservative & not pushing for its delivery just yet- prepared to see what happens mid next year. Does Moet age well ? :)

You are on to it Kate, all about leveraging. Bank just approved me 500K at 100%

"...the main contribution to population growth during the September 2009 year came from natural increase (excess of births over deaths),.... Natural increase contributed 34,700."
Wonderful things, stats....I'm just not sure how many houses a baby needs!

Harriet - everyone has to live somewhere! If young mum & young dad have recently flown the coop, they'll need their own place to raise a family, either rented or owned.
It just doesn't pay to look at immigration figures alone, our population would have increased by around 1 million from natural increase alone (without immigration) in the last decade or two. Would that have meant there was no need for any more houses?!........

Hi Kate

Two problems with cashing up
1. Inflation, if it does jump up cash aint worth anything
2. Shares and property provide capital gains and a cash flow, cash doesn't

Agree that term deposits will be much better and back to 8-10%+ returns in 2010

ROGER THAT...RODGER...

Me no sweat.....her in doors....and no OUT DOORS..however, .wouldn't stay for the WINTER, if you PAID me...anywhere cold.

In France it was between 28 to 46 degrees this NZ winter....So bearable in the sea and pool with a cool beer and A wee siesta in the heat of the day made all the difference.

Pleasant out until midnight etc...too. Doesn't go cold and no TRASH on the streets to worry about like here. Saw no signs of trouble like is prevalent here when out.

tis a hard life.

Only had a few HEAT induced thunderstorms....overnight in 4-5 MONTHS.

Food is comparable if sensible, wine is cheap, beer is even cheaper.

Still they have problems, in cities.....saw 3 would-be illegal immigrants climbing under a bus in CALAIS, heading for UK.....and that is where the real problems are...some immigrants do not integrate, but want to take over...

I am an immigrant, so can say that.....I do not want to TAKE OVER.....like Some key person had plans to do.

NZ will learn the HARD WAY....I have no DOUBT.

Can take yer pick of where to go in the WINTER, Spain and Italy are similar. Did them previously.... Just do not go near the big cities...there can be trouble there...like UK.

Went there for a few weeks too.....ok in the villages...but boy...otherwise.

BROWN/MITTERAND are as nutty as the rest of the POLLIES in the WORLD. That is why we have problems...NUFF SAID.

All theory and no practicalities.

What is PHILIPPINES like......what would you recommend.

I had hoped that people here would like to form a new POLITICAL PARTY, but they are too busy fiddling with their houses. A dangerous pre-occupation.

Either side of the FENCE....is as stupid as the other.

We need a totally different breed in future.

There are not enough sensible people left working in the WORLD, they all think that the rest will PAY for them....indefinitely, using houses as the only TOOL.

Must be something in the WATER....the beer is all FINE, I have tested it.

Bred more IDIOTS than I care to deal with.

I blame it all on the PILL...and hell-ed back & also cull-ed....and the close relationship mixed with HONE-Y.......... too much of each plays havoc in the WATER these days.....

Way too much TESTOSTERONE, and way too, too much ESTROGEN.......MANUKA is OK, but that other HONE-Y is not sweet enuff......and no healing POWERS, which would be key to a bright future.

Not sure that you can say that here....still.....Ya gotta laugh or you would cry....NZ.

WAKEY WAKEY.

LOL, sore-looser! You would believe the number of converstaions in this household start with, "Well, I blame it all on THE PILL". Must be an age-thing.
But re Gaul. A longstanding friend relocated from Sydney to Languedoc; loved it for a while, but hated the taxes and missed The Harbour. Food and wine was fabulous, though. So maybe home is best?

Hi Harriet

I agree that life is a series of 'what if's'. I'm not one to personally wait around for term deposits to improve and to cash up. I've got my plan and I'll stick to it.

What if the end of the world comes in 2012...we are all stuffed. What if housing does fall by 30%. BH will be owed alot of bottles of grog ;)

Regards

28_year_old - but where investment is concerned you have to be forward looking and take advantage of adjusting your strategy based on likely future trends.

Interest rates on deposits are trending upwards.

Interest rates on long-term loans are also trending upwards.

Bollard's 'new tool' when implemented will drive interest rates (particularly on short term, or floating rates) further upward.

Unemploment is rising and the number of distressed sales are also rising.

Cash has always been "king" in te RE business.

Given all of the above, you might likely be able to repurchase a smaller portfolio, but one that is debt free, if you put money in the bank and wait for a year or so.

Harriet - "logic" dictates that everyone has to live somewhere. You didn't answer my question, if the population increases 1 million by natural increase over x number of years, are you saying we wouldn't need any more houses for them?
If the answer is we would, then we need to take natural increase in to consideration, and not just immigration alone....

I'm not actually saying anything, Murray You posted that we had a shortfall in houses being built in the last 12 months of 5,500.
I am asserting that using the same set of data and same mathematics it can be shown that there was an excess of supply of 7,300.
But if you want an ad hoc answer to natural population increase, I will say that my observations are that middle aged singletons are now recombining households as the prospect of an ageing society dictates that no one wants to end up "old and alone'. The older our society gets, the less houses we shall need as we 'down grade' or get-back-together. The decades of family fragmantation are hopefully behind us.

Harriet - "it can be shown that there was an excess of supply of 7,300" - I don't agree. If we don't consider recent natural increase on the basis that babies don't buy houses, then we need to look at natural increase from 20 - 30 years ago which was even higher, although as I said a certain number will have left our shores.

I agree it's hard to make conclusions based on recent building activity vs recent population growth, but as I said "the longer population grows faster than housing stock, the tighter things get". Perhaps a more accurate picture could be formed from looking at population growth over say a 10 or 20 year period compared with new dwellings built over the same period?

"The older our society gets, the less houses we shall need" - not sure I agree on that one either. Our population is forecast to hit 5 million in just over a decade, at current housing densities that will require another 237,000 houses by then. Unless what you meant was the number of people per house increasing from 2.7 currently to maybe 4? or more?

(P.S. I've never actually seen a house with 2.7 people in it ;) )

j.s - yeah some of my mates were in that situation, even crashing head to toe with someone else! "Bugger that" I think was what I said at the time. It didn't sound like a better standard of living than staying in lil' ole NZ....

Trudy - 28_year_old will have equity in other properties and won't be 100% overall, probably less than 80%.
I recently borrowed $600k 100%, but I'm only 25% overall....

Last i checked the rental market in auckland had close to 10% vacancies. Similar to what you see in the US, and much worse than all of the major cities in Aussy. Yes most are appartments. But if you're going to bring up '"logic" that dictates that everyone has to live somewhere then I'd say we would have plenty of room

Murray:
The natural increase ( births) from 20-30 years ago has already been recorded in any previous stats. It is not reasonable to 'recount' them now, or logically we should leave out the babies born in this set of stats.?
So; just as an excersise: Using the article that you sourced, assume the NO, (or 34.700 less to be precise), babies were born last year..and do your sums again. Do you still come up with a housing construction shortage of 5,500 last year? A single or 2.7 or 34,700 babies do not buy houses, therefore they can not be used in your calculation when determining the optimum housing uptake in a given year.

Actually, you have 'made a deposit' 28yo. It's just been made as a pledge rather than with cash. You are paying for it in the interest charged on the 100% you have borrowed; and rather than foregoing interest, you are actually paying a higher price for 'the deposit' by paying the borrowing rate for the privelege, rather than forgoing the deposit rate. Banks LOVE to lend more- they make more!

heres another article, this time from the ANZ saying tax changes for ppty are inevitable. http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1060...

I really think change of some some form will occur. Whether its unpopular or not is irrellevant. neither was Rogernomics. We are now in a position where we can't afford to do otherwise.

So how do we quantify the effect of a tax change?? I dont know. I think negative gearing has to be worth in the range of 10-15% on fundamentals alone (ie it allows another 20% in mortgage payments based on the losses offset on a 4-5% yeilding property). But removing a "real" supporting factor is one thing. The other is triggering the removal of irrationally positive sentiment. A tax change could be the thing to trigger this. It has to happen some time.

So leave the babies out of this set of stats. Murray. That leaves the increase in the year to Sept 2009 as 17,000, not the 51,700 you have used, to calculate the number of houses required. You cannot arbitrarily add back an unkown number from 20-30 years ago into the calculation that you originally did, otherwise you would have done! You can't have it both ways.....

Murray! They're ALL in there! People turning 18 and 21 and 60; people going oveseas and coming here; people being born and dying; .....the whole lot! That's why it's called the NET population increase.
You know how you calculated YOUR figure of 5,500 houses to few, and NONE of the above obfuscations in any of your subsequent post will change that.
Tell me again, then, how you calculated that 5,500 too few houses were built last year and how any of your last post is relevant to the calculation.

In mid to long term, unbalanced and excessive level of investments into housing will hurt the whole nation. It'll make houses unaffordable for families with young children. Wages aren't going up because of significant lack of investments into human capitals. Productivity growth will then stagnate further as a result. Consumer behavior will be polarized because there will be a huge gap between those who have (houses) and those who haven't (houses). Rising pricing of houses will eventually make it very difficult to raise children; lowering birth rates will have a significant impact on replacing working age population in near future. It will be difficult to attract immigrants to replace reducing number in the working age population as houses are too expensive which aren't easily purchased with stagnating level of wages.

Who really wants to live in a country with just buildings without people living? Capitalizing on buildings and houses may be very attractive but working against our productivity growth. What has happened to Japan (and other countries) isn't too far from what I've written.

Here's the shortcut you posted to base your calculations on. Murray.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0911/S00118.htm

You used the gross figure of 51.700. It clearly states that the natural increase ( births over deaths) is 34,700 of that number.
Put plainly, your simple divison of that gross number by your 2.7 household number gives you your optimum housing uptake number of 19,150 - less actual builds of 13,600 produces your shortfall of 5,500. Right? Well, wrong! That gross 51,700 includes 34,700 babies who CANNOT buy a house. Only 17,000 of the population increase 'might' buy a house. And at 2.7 that's 6,300 - ergo if 13.600 were built that's 7,300 too many houses built to satisfy demand this year; they will be there to satisfy your next years demand. I have no idea what the lag from previous years may or may not have been, or where government policy may go from here. But on this set of figures we are overbuilding.

Oh Murray - if only you could have the good 'ol days back, eh?

The 'market value' for a house is what someone else has the intent and the ability to pay. Not what they would pay IF they had the money - which is what a 'market valuation' .... a notional value in a the event there might be a person capable of purchasing at the price given in the valuation.

Not worth the paper it's written on. Cash/liquidity will be the real measure of a properties value going forward.

We are in a period of massive asset devaluation and delveraging worldwide. Debt is the enemy - not the friend. There is no such thing as a 'market price' for a property when there is such a thin 'market'.

Kate - "Not worth the paper it's written on"
bugger, I'm not a millionaire after all ;)

"Cash/liquidity will be the real measure of a properties value going forward"
So my house will only be worth whatever cash I've got stuffed under my mattress?

So my house will only be worth whatever cash I've got stuffed under my mattress?

No, another guys house will only be worth whatever cash you've got stuffed under your matress - that is, if you decide that's what you want to spend your cash on!!

:-)

Kieran - "Good points re population" - I wouldn't say they were good points, Harriet was just thoroughly enjoying nitpicking the fact that babies don't need new houses.

You still have to account for natural population increase one way or another, otherwise only the immigrants would build houses and the rest of us would have to cram in to the existing ones, which would be interesting for those with 4 children, 12 grandchildren and 27 great grandchildren!

Sure, counting net migration + births is a very rough measure, but ignoring natural population increase altogether is even less accurate.
If you don't count babies born today, you would have to count them in around 20 years time when they move out from home, which would also mean today you have to count births from around 20 years ago. If we could minus off those that have left the country, that to me would give some idea of how many kids might be moving out of home.
The most accurate figures we get are on census night, but for some reason they don't do that on a monthly basis!....

"Building consent numbers are an indication of demand not supply" - so what then would you propose is a good indicator of new supply?....

Matt in Auck - could be more work for architects - The government is opening up the immigration floodgates on the 30th of November:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10609740

Thousands of wealthy foreigners are lining up to move here, just weeks out from the introduction of business migration laws that will grant them residency almost immediately.

About 12,000 people have registered their interest in the scheme. Most interest had come from would-be business migrants in the United States, Britain, India, the Philippines and Ireland.

Under a new Entrepreneur Plus immigration category - effective on November 30 - entrepreneurial migrants who create at least three fulltime jobs and invest $500,000 in their business will be offered a fast track to residency.

Currently, entrepreneur migrants are issued with a long-term business permit and can apply for residency only after two years. Although there is no minimum investment capital required, neither is there a guarantee their residency application will be approved.

The new scheme will grant conditional residence virtually as soon as an application is made. "There is no time requirement that you must have operated your business for to be successful under this category," the Immigration New Zealand website says.

An imbalance between demand and supply is putting upward pressure on prices in the residential property market, according to the latest report from Harcourts New Zealand.

The real estate agent said it had a good volume of written sales in October but there was not a traditional upsurge in new listings in spring. This ensured that there was a strong level of competition from buyers for the available properties, said Harcourts New Zealand chief executive Bryan Thomson.

Mr Thomson said Harcourts New Zealand completed 53 per cent more written sales last month than in October 2008, ranging from an 80 per cent increase in the group's northern region to a 31 per cent increase in its Wellington region.

Figures published by the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand on Friday showed the national median house price at a new high in October of $355,000, nearly 6 per cent above a year earlier, and $5000 higher than September.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/3068539/Housing-market-under-...

Murray you are right regarding the census being the only accurate measurement of population. Other measurements like net migration and net births/deaths are crude estimates only untill the next census and shouldn't be used as an indicator of housing demand because as Harriet said babies don't buy houses. Take a look at the census data and see the size of each age group in 2006 we will only find out in 2011 how that has changed but the statisticians have already predicted that the majority of growth will be in the older age brackets not the 20-30 year olds.

Kieran said:

"The last time I looked on there where well over 30,000 sections on the market at the moment "

A quick check on realestate.co.nz shows that there are currently 16,000 sections for sale (accepted that a few of these are multisection listings, but not many). Out of those 16,000, 2,000 are over $500K, and out of the remaining 14,000 listings, 6000 are between $200K and $500K. That leaves just 8,000 sections under $ 200K.

So sure, there are some sections around, but there aren't that many and they aren't that cheap. No wonder no-one is building affordable housing any more.

Russell - from your NZ Herald immigration story - "Property development, education, training and tourism were among the most popular areas for potential investment, an Immigration NZ spokesman said."

A little surprising in the current environment that "Property development" would even qualify?! It still employs a lot of people and brings in tax for the government and fees for councils, it just seems weird that they are doing this on the one hand and talking tax disincentives on the other hand.....

You lot have to stop reading Key's copy of "Governing a debt bloated economy for dummies"...if you want to know where he's going ...what he will do...just reread economic policy decisions by nutty NZ govts over the last fifty years and hey presto you will have a view on the future madness.

Strummer you are right there are 16,000 listings but a large number of them are multi section subdivisions often with more than 20 sections on one listing so 30,000 sections is a conservative estimate its more likely to be well over that which equates to 60-90,000 building consents.

Murray economics 101
Supply = how many units sellers have available to sell.
Demand = how many units buyers require to buy
If supply is greater than demand prices fall and visa versa

To answer your question
Supply = the number of sections on the market which as stated before is well over 30,000 or 90,000 units.
Demand = population growth even if you hypotheticaly take a very high estimate of 60,000 and divide by 2 per dwelling = 30,000 units at the most but as I said before building consent numbers show demand to be half that.

At current supply and demand levels there is at least 3 years worth of stock and thats without any new land developments happening in the next 3 years. There is only one way for land prices to go to under this senario and thats downwards.

Everyone knows the govt will be highly successful in turning this pigsty housing based economy into an even bigger pile of shite...so why fight it. I'm with Murray...run like hell with the wind and avoid the stench and splatter when it hits the fan.

Strummer I never said there is a majority of multi listings I said a there is a large number. Out of 100 listings I looked at there were 6 multi listings. So out of 16,000 I would expect around 900 to be multi listings which add at least another 14,000 sections which is a large number. If you want to be picky then add the lifestyle blocks as well which I estimate there to be at least 5,000.

Murray a new house can be built in less than 3 months consents can increase by over 10,000 in 6 months (but only if there was the demand for new houses)

Wally - surely you're not admitting to secretly adding a few bargains to your property portfolio whilst advocating the opposite?!!.... I've heard a few "guru" commentators (who shall remain nameless) have been doing just that.....

Murray said: "A little surprising in the current environment that "Property development" would even qualify?! It still employs a lot of people and brings in tax for the government and fees for councils, it just seems weird that they are doing this on the one hand and talking tax disincentives on the other hand"¦.."

The beauty of connecting this to immigration is that you inflate the existing housing stock and then 'denounce' the Kiwi owners thereof for their 'windfall gains'. Voila - the pretext to impose an additional lien on Kiwis earnings - on the erroneous basis they got rich - is nicely delivered. Moreover, if they can't afford to pay they can sell their home to a cashed up immigrant and then rent it back off them.

Kieran - this is a good initiative that will help with housing supply
key now is for a clever person to dleiver a small house that can be replicated + built on small sites