A. Ha, nope!

More like 'now theres demand lets get compeditive' Re-financing at present and those rates are not the lowest on offer if they want your business
RE lag, apparently the same on the way back up too

speaking of BNZ here is Tony Alexander on CGT (he's clearly not a fan of it, and I have to agree with some of his points about it being potentially counter productive):

An editorial in a newspaper this week noted that were the government to introduce a capital gains tax on
residential investment property it might be able to eliminate the "...biggest structural flaw in the economy."
Putting aside the issue that there is actually a far greater structural flaw "“ the sheer unwillingness of Kiwis to
save "“ consider for a moment what the impact of a CGT might be.
The criticism of a CGT absence is that it encourages over-investment in housing hence fuelling inflation etc.
etc. The inflation link comes about because we bid up the prices of each others' houses just as farmers bid
up the prices of each others' land. As we feel wealthier we take on more debt and buy more consumer
goods.
Now "“ two things to consider. First, if we invest less in houses because of a CGT, will this lead to the widely
presumed movement of billions of dollars into productive business investments? Definitely not. Why?
Because most of the money which gets "invested" in housing is borrowed from foreigners and not part of a
big pool of funds we have here in New Zealand ready to go into some investment. If we don't buy each
other's houses we will not shift our $350,000 instead into a business. Maybe a 10% deposit of $35,000 will
become available but that's about it.
Second, consider what happens when there is speculative over-investment in something. Suppliers provide
more of it and one ends up with excess supply at market prices once one takes away the speculative
fervour. Think for instance in terms of angora bunnies. But there is no evidence that the tax attractiveness of
housing has led to massive excess construction except in the apartment markets of Auckland and
(temporarily) Queenstown. The supply of new houses is constrained by the regulatory environment.
And so we get to a point we have made here before and which ultimately rules out introduction of a CGT in
New Zealand. We have a housing shortage which is getting worse because of the four decade low level of
new house construction at a time of above average net migration inflows. Regulatory restraints have been
enough to restrict a large construction response to rising house prices, but there are clearly housing
developments which get marketed as provided tax free gains to investors. If a CGT was introduced these
sometimes large scale developments would presumably not occur or be far smaller in magnitude.
The result therefore would be a further restriction in housing availability. This would tend to place upward
pressure on house prices over the long term and suggest that if introduction of a CGT was followed by a
period of price decreases that period would provide a good environment to increase one's property
exposure.
Oh, and here are two other points to consider. First, the presence of CGT in other countries has not stopped
their housing markets experiencing periods of speculative price gains. One would expect therefore a CGT
here to fail to prevent such periods of strong price rises also.
BNZ WEEKLY OVERVIEW
Page 8
Second, in a way over the next few years we are going to see the equivalent of a CGT-induced restriction of
new housing construction anyway. This will arise because of the low availability of funds from finance
companies to allow a lot of the sort of subdivision development which occurred in the past.
In other words "“ one may as well introduce a CGT now and bank the short term suppression of the house
price cycle in order to help extend the current period of low short term interest rates and perhaps have a
small downward currency impact as well. And what are the chances of CGT in the near future? Zero

https://www.bnz.co.nz/binaries/w170909.pdf

KIwibank will be first to lower under 5% !?

Nah BNZ will lead the way with 4.99% to capture the lions share of the business

Gosh i wonder what rate they will give you if they ask nicely what hedging they have - before you go elsewhere... i reckon there would be another 10 to 15 basis points under what all of them are offering if it was a business retention scenario...

Pointless headline gaining BS. The fun begins when the bubble explodes into fragments of debt and misery across the country. The banks will be screaming when the loans turn bad, the ratings agencies report the truth and the whole pile of shite collapses. Only fools believe bubbles go on forever.

Who is Bill English?

Lara, I'm afraid that the point is not necessarily whether other countries with CGT had a property boom or not. That's a red herring.

The point is that during those booms all profits on investment property sales were taxed, just like any other investment income. This meant that those governments and therefore the general populace of those countries benefitted from another revenue stream. Individuals who sold investment property at a profit simply didn't make as much money out of it individually as they would have done if it was tax-free. Trust me, that is very much viewed as the normal way of life in these countries - being originally from the UK I'm speaking from experience. They also pay stamp duty (another tax) when PURCHASING a property!

CGT is not a silver bullet to prevent property booms. It is however one measure that encourages a more balanced investment portfolio. It would help the Government pay for hospitals and infrastructure, rather than having to borrow quite so much. As the government look for ways to start paying down their debt, alternative revenue streams like CGT are going to look very, very attractive.

I tend to agree with Tony Alexanders points though - I don't see that a CGT is going to redirect massive amounts of cash into business investment, simply because the banks won't let you have the money for that purpose! It's fine if you want to borrow to buy property, or have property to back your loan, but forget it otherwise.

It might take a few years, but I think it's coming.

I know few business owners borrow money against their family home to put money into their business.

lowering is just another marketing ploy competing and creating new business from those who cant afford it
Have the lowest while rates can be low, then pick up the profits WHEN rates increase.
Do we see the bank manager saying to the customer yes we have the lowest, and you can afford it now....but can you afford it in 2 yrs time when the interest rate will be 8 or 9% ...NO.
Well he meets the legal requirement to maximise profits to share holders within the law and no social responsibility to those less educated.
backyard Used car salesmen and bank mangers would have to be at the same level...still.
All the bank manager sees is even if they go under, the bank will still get their money back and make a profit to boot.

@ Matt S

That is exactly what I am saying - welcome to the game...

@ Janman

It is called customer retention, if they about to lose you, they will pull all tricks out of the bag to retain you (provided of course that they want you) and it does add up, remember a penny found or saved is always worth more than a penny earned.

Lara, Bill's that bloke being chased by a Mallard.

Only for nats Roger, they eat nats.

Debt is not quite 50/50, if I had 100k to put into term dep I'd want better than someone with 10k too! If you don't ask you don't get and never pay retail! Have been on 5.99 for some time when rate was 6.49, don't want to fix as restructuring soon.

Great Site, Very interesting information, keep up the great work and Info.