In this section
Offers for readers
The comment stream
Recent comments
Editors choice
The news stream
Latest news
Most commented
- Emerging problem with uninsured property 179
- House values still falling, QV reports 146
- Tuesday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 83
- English defends Govt's SCF moves 62
- 90 seconds at 9 am with BNZ 59
- 90 seconds at 9 am with BNZ 53
- Wednesday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 49
- 90 seconds at 9 am with BNZ 40
- Why our savings need working on 38
- Treasury sees NZ$4bln earthquake bill 34
Most viewed
Interest on Twitter
Opinion: 5 reasons why house prices don't represent 'fair value' (Update 1)
By Bernard Hickey The New Zealand Herald led this morning with a report on Westpac Economist Doug Steel's comments at Auckland's regional job summit yesterday, where he said housing now represented 'fair value.' (Update 1 to include Westpac slides.) I've asked for the full research that his comments are based on and will update this opinion piece once I have it, but here's the gist of his argument.
Westpac economist Doug Steel told an Auckland regional job summit yesterday that house prices were now "around fair value" based on rents, interest rates and other costs. "The negative sentiment towards housing is overblown," he said. "That's not to say everyone should leap into the housing market. Our view for house prices is that they will drop by 5 per cent in 2009 and stay flat in 2010, but I think that is more positive than many." On Westpac's calculations, based on rents averaging $11,400 a year ($219 a week) and a five-year mortgage rate of 6.75 per cent, an investor on the top tax rate should be willing to pay $332,000 for the average house. Westpac says the rolling average of sales in the past three months was $325,000, noticeably under the "fair value". The bank assumes that the Government will go ahead with its election promise to cut the top tax rate on incomes over $70,000 a year from 39 per cent now to 38 per cent next week and 37 per cent from April next year. The fair value index already assumes a tax rate of 37 per cent. It also assumes investors will factor in long-term capital gains of 6 per cent a year, based on expected inflation of about 2.7 per cent and a mean real capital gain from 1971 to 2006 of 3.3 per cent a year. "In the next year or two many might not be able to get that, so at least in the first year or two it doesn't stack up," Mr Steel conceded. "But in the longer term that short-term myopia dissipates." Falling interest rates have pushed the investor value up again, so it is now higher than actual median house prices.
Here's five reasons why I think housing doesn't represent fair value and won't until the REINZ median house price has fallen 30% from their November 2007 peak of NZ$352,000.
1. Longer term interest rates are already rising. Many investors will choose to go for the cheapest mortgage rate at the moment, which is around 5.69% for around 6 months to 1 year. Others will go for a variable rate (around 6.4% now) believing, rightly, that very short term interest rates are likely to fall further because the Reserve Bank is likely to cut the Official Cash Rate again on April 30. But many are already considering locking in 3,4 and 5 year rates, believing that interest rates are close to the bottom and are likely to rise over the next 5 years.
ASB, for example, has increaed its 5 year fixed mortgage rate from 5.95% to 6.75% in the last month. Westpac, ANZ-National, BNZ and now Kiwibank have followed. 2. Incomes are not rising. The 'fair value' analysis depends at least in part on house values rising 6% a year, including 2.7% of inflation and real capital gain of 3.3% a year. That in turn depends on real incomes rising relatively fast. They had accelerated in the last couple of years as unemployment approached 4%, but that wage growth is now slowing. 3. Unemployment is rising
I find it difficult to see house prices rising at 6% a year when unemployment is rising quickly and is likely to hit 8% by early 2011. This will create more stress on highly leveraged home owner-occupiers and rental investors. All these mortgagee sales (which represented 4.4% of all sales in December according to Terralink) 4. Rents are not rising Our close monitoring of rents on a monthly basis show they are flat at best, with some areas such as Auckland apartments showing significant falls in recent months as swathes of pent up new supply hits the market.
5. The top tax rate is falling One of the main drivers of the housing boom between 2002 and 2007 was the imposition of the 39 cent tax bracket, which encouraged many salary income earners to buy into rental property so they could offset cash losses from their property against their regular salaries. They figured they could make up the cash losses over the longer term with far bigger capital gains that would not be taxed. The incentives for such behaviour diminish the closer the top tax rate gets to the company tax rate and family trust tax rates.
Your view? Comments below please

1 Comments
I go with you Bernard....I
I go with you Bernard....I think we are seeing some shockingly bad comments on the state of play....I wonder if its fear, ie we are seeing some people too afraid to contemplate the possible (for me probable) financial melt down (or at best a decade of stagnation ~ stagflation) so jump at anything that "shows" we have bottomed out and are starting to rise. All I can see is everything is so volitile right now that commiting to a plan of action is gambling.
Aside from that I talk to the younger people where I work and many rent because a mortgage is impossible for them, so OK landlords (babyboomers) buy up the property as an "investmant" and rent it out....OK short to medium term (maybe) but what happens 10~20 years from now? ie when those investors are looking to sell for a retirement? (or die and their estate wants the $) The renters of today still wont be buying and the 20 somethings wont be buying....so as a long term strategy (20 years+) I have my doubts on housing....
Westpac earns a lot of
Westpac earns a lot of money writing mortgage business but not when sales volumes have collapsed.
They wouldn't be talking up the market to get it moving so they can write more loans.
Surely not.
Even if Mr. Steel's logic
Even if Mr. Steel's logic is correct, it is only valid for a small proportion of potential property purchasers (investors on the 39% income tax rate). This cohort has traditionally accounted for a small minority of buyers.
Hey, give Westpac a break!
Hey, give Westpac a break! According to their figures for average housing prices & rentals, then deducting for rates, insurance & maintenance, yields for a newly purchased rental must be starting to head towards 3%!!! With interest rates at good ole Westpac little more than double that, to make the investment particularly spectacular! & surely we must get over "myopia" and see that housing must inevitably revert to healthy annual price rises of 6% or so.
"The audacity of blind hope"
3% yields? Wow! Jump in
3% yields? Wow! Jump in now!
But of course Bank economists are independant
Further to my comments in
Further to my comments in the NZ Herald article today by Simon Colins in response to Westpac economists Doug Steels views that residential investment properties have now reached "fair value" - this highlights why these "mixed measures" are seriously flawed and should not be used.
I would suggest readers Google Search Australian economist Alun Brewards comments on the ABC programme Ockham's Razor way back mid 2005 "Housing Affordability Measures Under the Spotlight" for further guidance on this serious issue.
The reality is that the Banks and property industry groups have been at this nonsense of employing "mixed measures" for years - deliberately confusing "housing affordability" and "mortgage affordability" to mask inflated house prices.
Its long overdue the media woke up to this nonsense.
And - this is why I initiated and co author the Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey ( www.demographia.com ) based on the Median Multiple (median house price divided by gross annual median household income) - as recommended by the United Nations, World Bank and Harvard University - to illustrate clearly why housing prices should not exceed three times annual household incomes.
New Zealand is grossly over infated at 5.7 times income - Auckland 6.4; Christchurch 6.1; Wellington 5.9; Dunedin 5.5; Tauranga 6.6. Australia overall is at 6.3.
Prior to the Demographia Surveys being generated - New Zealanders and Australians didnt have a clue just how inflated their housing markets were. The Banks were in no hurry to tell them either.
I would urge responsible public and private organisations to stop using these clearly technically unsound "mixed measures" - where essentially they generate hokus pokus numbers to entice unwary buyers in to inflated housing and excessive debt. Surely - we are now past these silly games.
Hugh Pavletich
When a Bank economist comments
When a Bank economist comments I switch off...unless you are in it for the entertainment value. The value in bloggs like this is that it highlights to a wider group of people the possibility that bank economists may be an extension of the Banks PR department rather than a source of robust, independent economic analysis.
Definitely agree with you Speckles
Definitely agree with you Speckles ( and others ). I have similar views on Bank spokespeople on foreign exchange movements -- there is often a conflict of interest.
But comments like Doug Steele's with fancy, misleading mathematical calculations are exactly what got us in this mess in the first place. The sooner they are totally exposed the better. Further investment in housing is not going to get us back on track.
Speckles - well said. This:
Speckles - well said.
This:
"a source of robust, independent ecomomic analysis"
is not easy to find.
Any model which has a
Any model which has a 6% capital gain p.a in its assumption in the current market with over-valued property isn't worth the paper its written on. And the only way to claim tax back is to have a loss....pretty stupid when asset prices are dropping.
Good to see the spin is being spread from the agents to the banks to the economists...
Well done Bernard. I am
Well done Bernard.
I am sick and tired of these so called experts spouting such rubbish. It really is getting far too tedious.
And if one more person quotes Occam's razor I'm going to scream.
Occam's razor: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
My version: The simplest explanation for the simpletons.
Annual rents have typically been
Annual rents have typically been 7 to 9 per cent of housing value. Currently they are under four percent. Landlords have been taking massive losses for the last four years (check the tax office).
Based on long term historical averages I get $154 000 for the fair value of that house. They are more than double what they should be based on either rents or incomes.
If we got away from
If we got away from the concept of ones personal dwelling being an investment, and saw it clearly for what it really is, an expensive item of consumption ; would we consider housing to now represent reasonable value ? As Hugh points out, at 6 times average wages, house prices are still very high.
Scour the world's stockmarkets, and you can find a plethora of property trusts trading at less than 50% of their asset backing. Some are well run operations, with strong insider ownership, world-class tenants, and superb locales. Most have addressed their gearing ratios, and many are resuming generous dividend pay-outs.
Now if you feel that a $ 300 000 house in Kiwi-land represents better value than that, then you really are a lost cause to the bankers, real-estate agencies, and other spruikers of the dictum, "you can't go wrong with bricks and mortar, my boy !"
This is why we need
This is why we need to get rid of the loop hole that enables investment losses to be subsidized by the tax payer, it artficially increases the return on property at the tax payers expence. House prices won't be fair value untill rental yeild is 7-8%
Roger Thompson, suggest you focus
Roger Thompson, suggest you focus on the average household income.
Hugh continues to push this average wage argument. It was pertinent when the boomers were young (you know it's the white picket fences, hubby going to work and mum bringing up the kids we see in olden day movies?) but it's so obsolete now it's laughable.
THIS GUY really lays it
THIS GUY really lays it on the line:
http://erudito.livejournal.com/710656.html
"Bob Day's address on housing policy"
".......Nations in the 20th century that either adopted, or had democratic institutions imposed upon them, proceeded immediately to the one-person-one-vote method of election rather than going through the property ownership stage "“ which in England lasted over 800 years. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why such democracies have proven so fragile. Without property of their own, voters have limited interest in protecting the property of others......
"........The fact that not just people on average incomes, but many on less than average incomes, could become home owners, was an important factor in Australia's political stability since federation. Australia was a property owning democracy, a nation of home owners.
Since World War II the average Australian was able to buy their first home on the average wage. Traditionally, the median house price was around three times the median household income. For example, when the median income was just 1,000 pounds per annum in the early 1960s, one could buy a basic house on a basic block of land for around 3,000 pounds. When the median income was $10,000 per annum in the 1970s the median house price was $30,000. And when the median income was $40,000 per annum in the early 1990s the median house price in most capital cities was $120,000. Young couples could get a start in the housing market, manage a home loan on one income, start a family, and work their way up from there.
Today, in Adelaide, Melbourne and Brisbane, the median house price is more than six times the median income and in Sydney and Perth it is more than eight times. The long-standing nexus between house prices and incomes has been broken......
"........Think about that for a moment "“ a ten fold increase for a commodity (land) controlled by Government (with a so-called "˜price containment' policy), compared with virtually no increase at all for a commodity (the house) controlled by the private sector (with no price containment policy). One can only conclude that had the private sector been allowed to manage land supply like it has managed housing supply, we'd be enjoying land prices significantly lower than they are today.
This massive escalation in the price of land carries with it a multitude of detrimental impacts. Establishing affordable rental accommodation for those in greatest need becomes even more difficult for social and public housing authorities as they seek to purchase land and houses in a greatly inflated market. Road widening and major infrastructure projects experience cost blow-outs as land acquisition costs sky rocket, and the cost of establishing schools, community centres, health services and business facilities becomes difficult, and at times impossible. Inevitably the whole community suffers as a result of increased tax, transaction, finance and establishment costs......
"........urban growth boundaries are the surest way of limiting supply. The government sets the rules, plays in the game and then decides who else can and cannot play against them. Not only that, they make millions from extra Stamp Duty as property prices rise. If that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is. State and Territory governments have made windfall profits at the expense of Australia's first home buyers.
It is important to remember that the scarcity that drove land prices is wholly contrived. As anyone who flies into our major cities can observe by looking out the aeroplane window, this so-called "˜land shortage' is not real. It is the product of restrictions inposed through planning regulation and zoning. The so-called "˜land shortage' is a matter of political decision, not of geographical reality. Australia did not, and does not, have to suffer this housing affordability crisis.
But as well as the profit motive, State and Territory Governments have been spurred along by an ideologically driven, urban planning cabal obsessed with curbing the size of our cities and pushing a policy of urban consolidation or "˜urban infill'. Between them they have excluded more low and middle income earners from home ownership than at any other time in Australia's history.
The case for urban consolidation has been advanced on the back of a number of arguments "“ namely, that it is good for the environment; that it stems the loss of agricultural land; that it encourages people on to public transport; that it saves water and energy; that it leads to a reduction in motor vehicle use, and that it saves on infrastructure costs for government. All of these claims, I repeat, all of these claims are false. The facts and evidence from around the world refute each and every one of them.
Urban consolidation is not good for the environment; it doesn't stem the loss of agricultural land; it doesn't encourage people onto public transport; it doesn't save water or energy; it doesn't lead to a reduction in motor vehicle use, and it doesn't save on infrastructure costs. In fact building brand new infrastructure on the fringe is significantly cheaper than renewing or upgrading old infrastructure in the inner suburbs that was not designed for higher density living. Infrastructure developed to accommodate 1,000 to 2,000 people per square kilometre simply cannot withstand housing densities double that number.
It has also been suggested that the housing affordability crisis is all part of a world wide trend. Not true. An international housing affordability study by Hugh Pavletich and Wendell Cox of Demographia has confirmed that land rationing of the very kind we have seen in Australian cities is the principal cause of escalating land prices. The authors found that housing unaffordability was not the worldwide problem it was made out to be but was largely confined to Australian cities and cities on the East and West Coasts of America where constrictive land use polices are in place......
"..........In human affairs there has been an imprecise, and at times neglected, moral contract between generations which dictates we should leave things better than we found them. In other words, we shouldn't arrange our lives simply to serve our own needs but we should consider those who are to follow.
When it comes to home ownership however, we are clearly breaking our contractual obligations. We are making home ownership much harder for the next generation. If we do not act to ensure that housing affordability is restored we will most certainly deny vast numbers of young people the opportunity to become home owners.
The social and economic consequence of large numbers of people reaching retirement as renters will not only effect the quality of their lives and the choices they are able to make but it will also create an enormous burden for government in funding housing and social services.
The economic consequences of all that has happened over these past few years have been as profound as they have been damaging. The capital structure of our economy has been distorted to the tune of many hundreds of billions of dollars and getting it back into alignment will take time. But it is a realignment that is necessary. We cannot deny the rising generation a home of their own merely to satisfy the ideological fantasies of town planners and the financial concerns of State and Territory Treasury officials. We cannot deny ourselves the joys of grandchildren because the young women of Australia have to work to pay mortgages instead of raising a family. The joke that high mortgages are the new contraceptive is becoming no laughing matter. Young women used to be afraid of getting pregnant, now, as they approach 40, they are afraid of not getting pregnant. We have to get back to the situation where a couple can pay off a mortgage on one income so they can start a family in their late 20s, not in their late 30s or early 40s.
One of the more pernicious aspects of high land prices ie high mortgages, is the forced misallocation of capital and family income into mortgage payments instead of higher standards of living, assets, goods, travel, children's education, appliances or even foregone income to spend more time at home. The most serious manifestation of this gross distortion in our capital structure, is the postponement of raising a family, and the impact on fertility rates which accompanies this trend.......
"..........Let me touch now on the financial problems which are spreading around the world as a result of the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market in the United States.
California, the birthplace of the sub-prime mortgage industry, is paying the highest price of any State in America as the housing meltdown persists. California had nearly 500,000 foreclosures on properties last year and by far the biggest decline in house prices. By the end of 2008 property values in that State alone will have fallen by $600 billion.
Not surprisingly, almost half of the 25 biggest US subprime lenders were based in California.
California also happens to have one of the strictest urban planning regimes in the world. It, along with Florida, another highly regulated urban planning regime, account for around 70-80% of all sub-prime losses in the US.
Wall Street believes that investors will lose between $300 billion and $400 billion on sub-prime loans. And it's not over yet. The Chicago futures market for house prices suggests there could be another 8 to 9 per cent price decline during the next 12 months. Fourteen million people who purchased homes during 2006 and 2007 could end up with negative equity in their homes.
Foreclosure losses however are significantly lower in States like Texas and Georgia where planning and regulation were held at bay. Losses there are one tenth the losses in California and Florida.
Like most epidemics, the US sub-prime (and now "˜prime') mortgage housing crisis can be traced back to this one source "“ urban planning laws........"
Mitch His figures are based
Mitch
His figures are based on median household income (includes mum) if it was based on a single wage it would be even worse at around 8-10 income.
There is more from Bob
There is more from Bob Day in the latest "Quadrant" magazine. This is not online, unfortunately, so I will wear my fingertips out now to give you all the benefit of his wisdom:
"Anthony Richards, Reserve Bank Economics Analysis Dept, recently said:
".....In principle, the price of housing should be close to its marginal cost, determined as the sum of the cost of new housing construction, land development costs, and the cost of raw land. In the absence of any restrictions on supply, the price of raw land on the fringes should be tied reasonably closely to its value in alternative uses, such as agriculture..."
(End of Anthony Richards quote).
".......Home owners have better health, their children do better at school, they move less frequently, they are more involved in their communities.......in communities where home ownership is higher, crime is lower, household incomes are higher......divorce rates lower......
".......With changing demographics, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT PEOPLE OWN THEIR OWN HOMES BY THE TIME THEY RETIRE. Future pensions will never be able to meet mortgage or rent payments........
".......The escalation of house prices has led to A CONCENTRATION OF HOME OWNERSHIP IN THE HANDS OF THE OLD AT THE EXPENSE OF THE YOUNG. This has produced inequity between generations that will only be fully realised over time, and has diminished the tangible stake emerging generations have in the democracy of which we are so proudly a part........."
(My emphases).
Bernard, I would like to
Bernard,
I would like to see a chart showing the housing bubble with the 3% trend line from that last 10 years. I have a feeling that housing prices will depreciate at least another 8% until it reaches its full corrected value. ($290,000)
I always look at the
I always look at the writter's side. As I am on buyer' side, I usally dont cheer up by the articals written by the other sides
# Mitch O Says: March
# Mitch O Says:
March 24th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
"Roger Thompson, suggest you focus on the average household income.
Hugh continues to push this average wage argument. It was pertinent when the boomers were young (you know it's the white picket fences, hubby going to work and mum bringing up the kids we see in olden day movies?) but it's so obsolete now it's laughable."
Mitch, Hugh's arguments, and the Demographia surveys, ARE based on household income. If they were based on individual income, the outcomes would be very much worse: how about 12 times income instead of 6 times?
The fact is, that we are now much WORSE OFF, ON DUAL INCOMES, than we WERE ON SINGLE incomes. Is this the independence women fought for?
The very best reason why
The very best reason why it won't happen. Please note the cost estimate for the cheap affordable new housing.
www.stuff.co.nz/national/2287140/Vast-subdivision-defies-recession
Want new housing then that's what it costs. Cheap second hand housing will soon run out. Get your heads around the market guys. spreadsheets will never match reality.
Hugh couldn't be more right
Hugh couldn't be more right !! Dump all those "Bank Economist" and "Industry Experts"
into a new catefory : "Lying Cheating RATS".
Doug Steel economics is nonsense. As a trained economist myself, i am ashamed such drivel can even be printed. I am glad I stopped buying the NZ Herald long ago.
" At least in the first year or two it doesn't stack up," Give it up Doug, if it don't stack up, it won't !!
Which by the way, I have read a lot recently of spinning by Bank economist (not just Wespac) about the property market "bottom" and "Fair value". Are they trying to spin up the value of their mortgage collateral and/or trying hard to prevent more collateral damage to their portfolio? The smell is coming stronger and stronger......
Agree with BH and Hugh
Agree with BH and Hugh P. The ancient household income-price multiple is the best measure of 'reality' despite the bankers and the realtors talking their books.
And it's worth recycling (yet again, how many more times does it take?) the Times piece from a venerable Lord:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/ar...
Wherein it is written that a truly effective bubbulator depends on four key elements:
"1. license housebuilding, so that no one could build a new house without a licence, or even rebuild an old house or a redundant barn.
2. encourage developers to maintain large land banks in order to benefit from rising prices.
3. leak out new permissions only after long periods of delay.
4. combine this with an unlimited flow of mortgage credit and relatively low rates of interest.
If you restrict supply below the market clearing level and increase funding, you will inevitably create a bubble and you will lock people out of the market."
So, what piece of that puzzle don't we have here, in spades?
1 - NoMoDIY as the credentialism ethos extends to the building trades (and look at what even the lowly Scaffolders have to gain - a 'how not to fall off Ladders' certificate...)
2 - land-banking, because them prices will always go up, and they aren't making any more of the stuff....
3 - Planneritis, with exceedingly long cycle times and a direct effect on the 'carry' - the holding costs of #2
4 - Easy money, including the fabulously dopey 2002 introduction by an economically illiterate Gubmint of $100k credit for anyone who could fog a mirror, which had the instant effect of adding $100,000 to every existing price. Who says stimulation doesn't work? The biggest larff was that this brave attempt to free up credit supply for the NZ version of sub-prime borrowers, was only taken up by about 2,000 battlers. Pity about the entire rest of the housing market (unless you were sitting on a hovel or three...).
Thing is, the 'real' needs of people are quite simple: food, shelter, transport, security. Get the incentives and pricing wrong in any of those areas, and look out below. Whereas, a glorious SNAFU in, say, cell-phone ring-tone pricing is, shall we say, fixable.
Undoing a decade of perverse incentives and behaviours, and letting out-of-kilter valuations decay to a sustainable level, is not a quick, popular or painless exercise. As BHO is discovering, and the 'Tea Parties' are reacting to.
Particularly if you've treated your hoose as an ATM, and the screen is now flashing 'out of order'...
Look, the betrayal of the
Look, the betrayal of the younger generation in ever-escalating house prices, is this bad:
The older generation can keep cashing out their house value increases to use as deposits on investment houses, which they then rent to the younger people who cannot save money as fast as the house prices go up.
As far as I am concerned, this is a recipe for revolution if it was not that economic collapse will come first.
The people I am most sorry for, is the first home buyers who get bankrupted when the bubble bursts after they stretched to the limit to get on the home ownership gravy train. They were set up. They deserve a government bailout. The investor class can just take a bath, the colder and deeper the better.
And the people on here who are saying in effect, "let them eat cake"; what address do we send the tumbrel to?
Hey, waymad, thanks for that
Hey, waymad, thanks for that great article and your comments on it. Great posting all round. You are right onto it, as usual. Where have you been lately? We need more of your contributions.
"This last Tuesday the Wall
"This last Tuesday the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by my friend Gary Shilling and Richard LeFrak. They offer a simple solution for the housing crisis: give foreigners who will come to the US and buy a home resident status (green cards)."
"Let me put up front a few benefits of a program that would allow legal status to immigrants buying a home. Housing values would stabilize and in many cases rise. The massive losses because of bad loans that are being subsidized by US taxpayers would be stemmed, saving many hundreds of billions, if not a trillion or more dollars. The excess inventory of homes would quickly disappear and the millions of jobs that were lost as home construction fell into a deep depression would come back. If housing values rise, many families would be able to refinance their homes at lower rates and have more income left over after paying their mortgages. $12 billion in commissions would end up in real estate agents' pockets, helping a very battered and bruised group. Hundreds of billions will flow into local businesses, as these new immigrants will need to furnish their homes. This could mean as much as a half trillion dollars in sorely needed stimulus in the next few years, without one penny of taxpayer money and actually adding taxes back to governments from local to national. And we are not bringing in 1 million foreigners, we are attracting 1 million mostly middle-class new Americans, which, if we are smart in how we do this, will result in more jobs for all Americans. So let's jump right in and look at the details."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/solving-the-housing-crisis/
Westpac's "Investor Value" concept is
Westpac's "Investor Value" concept is hilarious. There was a classic press release from them titled "Bubble Schmubble" (google it) back in 2007. Those who love formulas can read an analysis of it in the RBNZ paper "The tax system and housing demand in New Zealand". The figures they plug in to the model assume unsustainably high long-term capital growth based on prices at the peak of the bubble, use the current low medium-term interest rates, and assume very high annual rent increases to arrive at their "fair value". Also it only applies to property investors, not to homeowners, because homeowners don't get the tax deductions.
I've had a chat with
I've had a chat with Noddy and Big Ears about this. They reckon the rates will hit 10%
within 24 months. Now that is a real possibility and my advisors are usually spot on.
The Banks are getting a
The Banks are getting a hard lesson in "civic responsibility" in the United States - and its long overdue the senior managements of the Banking institutions in Australia and New Zealand "grew up' - and told their Economics Departments to stop generating drivel.
In case the Boards and CEOs of the Banks havent noticed it yet - young peoples lives are being unnecessarily disrupted because of these inflated housing prices. Conning people in to excessive debt is no joke.
And while Im on the subject of "civic responsibility" - it would be greatly appreciated if the property academics could discuss this issue as well. They are after all in the fortunate position of not being exposed to the commercial / political pressures I have had to face these past few years.
Joe Floods comments (and generally the rest of them) are most helpful. To follow up on Joes point could the property academics in this country inform us all how much residential rents are artificially inflated in comparison with the affordable North American markets. Come on Bob Hargreaves of Massey and Chris Eaves of Lincoln - where are you guys on these important structural issues?
Hugh Pavletich
Given our appalling taxation system,
Given our appalling taxation system, which as Bernard indicates, skewers savings towards housing, there is a legal answer to our home affordabilty problems. We buy each others houses, swap ownership papers, stay living in our dwelling, and cross-charge each other rent. Write off the interest payment on our mortgages against our wage income.
Now this sounds a tadge extreme, but people do stretch the limits of sanity to get around knarly situations. In 1999, Cullen introduced the 39 % tax bracket, an act of sheer stupidity on his part, and exacerbated this lunacy by fixing that rate to kick in at only $ 60 000. Estimates are that this added 17 % to the subsequent increase in house prices. Ironically enough, he left us all paying higher average income taxes than our Australian cousins. Only in the above $ 200 000 pay bracket are Kiwis better off than Aussies. So much for Clark & Cullen"s socialist agenda of egalitarinism.
Until we get a sensible taxation system ( any-one remember the McLeod report, circa 2001, promptly shelved by Cullen ? ) Kiwis will over pay for housing. And at this juncture, under these rules, that is perfectly understandable.
Thx for your kind words,
Thx for your kind words, PB.
I don't contribute or blog nearly as often these days - older and sadder, you might say. But I do read voraciously, and the book which has my attention at present is Before the Dawn - Nicholas Wade.
http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancestors/dp/014303...
It is the best exploration I've ever read of our monkey background, extended to behaviours and predelections. A sample:
"It may be that chimps and people are the only species able to figure out that the extra effort required to exterminate an opponent will bring about a more permanent solution than letting him live to fight another day."
(Sssh, don't tell the Greens, who apparently believe in predator-free ecosystems.)
What we're seeing from the 'economists' Bernard rightly slags, is a form of ritual chant. It's faith-based, not science based. And faiths are, from the outside, always more or less ridiculous.
Roger Thompson - I agree
Roger Thompson - I agree with your views and am interested in:
"In 1999, Cullen introduced the 39 % tax bracket, an act of sheer stupidity on his part, and exacerbated this lunacy by fixing that rate to kick in at only $ 60 000. Estimates are that this added 17 % to the subsequent increase in house prices."
Do you have, or can you point me towards, any information on that 17% estimate please?
Sure, Les : I read
Sure, Les : I read that figure in the Chch Press, in separate columns, one written by someone within the "Infometrics" group, and the other was from "NZIER". Sadly I didn't keep the articles, it depresses me too much to think of the wonderful opportunity we had as a country, during the commodity boom, to really build our economy, to encourage thrift/ industry/ and entreprenuership...... and Cullen wasted it all in a frenzied 9 year spree that would have left most shoppaholics in speechless awe !
Bernard, Are you still on
Bernard,
Are you still on for a 30% fall from Nov 2007 house prices by Nov 2009?
Would need some serious black swans to come out for that to happen now. Yes/No.
I think that the 30% plus mark will be reached - but more likely weighted to Nov 2010.
Still plenty of denial to be exorcised yet.
BMR
@ jh Although having foreigners
@ jh
Although having foreigners buy property in the US in exchange for residency is a great idea. China technically owns Michigan @ $18,000 USD an Acre. However, American's are just too insular and xenophobic to let the reality take hold.
BTW China is already doing this with just without the residency.
Hugh Thanks for making a
Hugh
Thanks for making a stand against the banks. We currently have the highest number of houses and sections for sale in years yet because of the current tax system banks are able to say inflated prices are 'fair value' at 5-6 income and in a over supplied market why? because we have rediculous tax incentives for property investment, remove the tax incentive and suddenly its no longer fair value but over valued. Untill that happens Doug Steel is right over inflated house prices at 5-6 income still make a reasonable investment and wether you like it or not investors are the ones who set the prices.
Viking, I know of other
Viking,
I know of other developments in the wellington region by this developer. I note that house prices for these developments have come gone from 580,000- 545,000 to now asking price of 500,000-420,000.
They may not be affordable yet, but i can asure you the prices have been dropping.
Also the "cost estimate" in the article is by an real estate agent and is not the cost to build but an estimate of sale price, which would of course include a nice profit for the developer.
Maria, it is partly "profit
Maria, it is partly "profit for the developer", but it was FIVE YEARS getting permission to start the development, PLUS how long before that had the developer owned the land as a "land bank" investment, PLUS how much other land does the same developer own, sucking up interest costs while he gambles on future zoning decisions?
Who'd be a developer? In this scenario, you have to expect the value of the land to be inflated AT LEAST 1000% over what it was worth for agriculture.
As I commented above:
Anthony Richards, Reserve Bank of Australia Economics Analysis Dept, recently said:
""¦..In principle, the price of housing should be close to its marginal cost, determined as the sum of the cost of new housing construction, land development costs, and the cost of raw land. In the absence of any restrictions on supply, the price of raw land on the fringes should be tied reasonably closely to its value in alternative uses, such as agriculture"¦"
THERE, my friends, is why we are talking about a new subdivision where houses that cost $180,000 to build, are expected to sell for a "LOW" price of $420,000 minimum. This is freakin' Kafkaesque nonsense. It is no wonder that the civilisation that works this way is now collapsing.
Two things about the Westpac
Two things about the Westpac PR paper need comment.
One is, their graph of the relationship between mortgage rates and house prices. It really bothers me that they might be right, lower interest rates now might just start prices going up again. But we cannot avoid the meltdown that will come to us just like it has to the USA, if we persist in this bubble folly.
Two, Westpac should know better than to talk about "The US Housing Market" being oversupplied, when there are two separate problems depending on the restrictions on land use. The real damage has been done where prices have blown up, like California.
Brian Gaynor nailed this whole
Brian Gaynor nailed this whole issue in the Weekend Herald a couple weeks ago. People talking about land shortages, building costs etc etc, totally miss the point which is that house price appreciation over the past decade has been primarily driven by credit growth. That is G-O-N-E and it is not coming back any time soon. This is not a temporary "environment" as most commentators say, rather it is a fundamental, once-in-a-generation, transformation to a less leveraged world. The process of undergoing the change however, is very very slow. The property market is a $600 billion supertanker that takes a long time to turn around. It has only begun to turn down. Ideas that is has reached bottom or "affordable" levels are frankly ridiculous. Of course, if you want to buy a house to live in and can afford to do so, then do it. But as an investment, forget about it for the next 5 years at least.
There will be (at least some) symmetry to this graph:
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/keygraphs/Fig4.html
PhilBest, I guess the point
PhilBest,
I guess the point i was trying to make is more along the lines of the house prices have been decreasing for developments similar to the one proposed in the stuff article, so i don't believe 500,000 is as viking said "what it costs for new housing". Prices are being forced down which can only be a good thing right.
What is forcing the prices down? Sure isn't less red tape, the consent took 5 years and concessions have been made, 20% of the land is no longer there for development. Is this s good thing? Does this show that the resource consent process works? Will these houses now be nicer to live in because of the retention of bush and wetlands?
Many "ordinary" NZ's are developers on a much smaller scale, subdividing their larger block and building a house out back, selling both or continuing to live in one of the houses. I believe its how the developer in the article started out.
There is risk involved which is one of the reasons why some would not wish to be a developer, but since this developer is still in business he must be doing something right. Many developments have tanked lately, im not sure if they are the cause or effect of the many finance company collapses.
The land in question wouldn't be worth much as agricultural land, so if it was brought cheaply after all the hard "development" work will give a big profit which is why people are developers, for the money. Not so they can make utopia suburbs with 180,000 houses.
Roger - thanks for that.
Roger - thanks for that. My interest in this discussion and others on this site stems from my involvement with New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association (NZMEA). (Website linked from my name.) The preference of investment flows going to passive non-productive assets (property) brought about by the structure of the tax system is a concern as much as the impact of associated inflation drivers on the exchange rate yielding levels more related to speculative money flows (credit to fund said passive investments) than real trade flows.
In terms of house price inflation the point is 17% (nearly 1/5) of increase in house prices since that time is not insignificant. I am of the view that this problem is multi-causal and not mono-causal as purported by the view that constraint of land supply is the major issue and is where effort for change should be prioritised. I certainly respect that view and the good work that Hugh Pavletich for instance has done say. However, my concern is that anything other than a perfect solution to that single issue will not resolve the problem as a whole and in avoiding the other nettles that need to be grasped, by the time we realise the "perfect solution" to de-constraining land supply is slow in coming, (or not coming at all) we arrive at 'Ground Hog Day' (another damaging property bubble) which does not help the domestic sector and certainly will not be welcomed by the productive sector, especially if RBNZ are still dealing with inflation as they have in the recent bubble.
I asked the following questions in another blog on this site here:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/02/02/guest-blog-hugh...
"Let me ask, if we listed the inflation drivers and factors that have led to poor home affordability, in New Zealand, how much impact as a percentage would you ascribe each one for reducing affordability?
Let me now ask where the more widely considered costs and benefits lie for the solutions to these drivers?"
So Roger, although not verified yet (it could be no doubt) you have helped with part of the answer to the first question. I'd really like to see futher discussions and possible answers around both questions, and then discuss proposals for a solution set based on significance of particular drivers, solution impacts and ease of implementation. I suggest that a more rounded (and rational) discussion of the type I am advocating may see us dealing with some nettles once we realise the benefits, rather than simply kicking a vote catching football around with the banks and politicians simply because certain hands are too soft to grasp the nettles. That said, if we have land that can be used to build requisite housing without turning the country into a toilet, let's be doing that too - in relation to it's significance, positive impact and ease of implementation.
DC - I found Brian Gaynor's article interesting too and quoted it here if anyone is interested in the link:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/02/02/guest-blog-hugh...
The housing bubble is surely
The housing bubble is surely the greatest of all "ponzi" schemes. As long as people keep attributing value to their homes and people mortgage their lives to climb on board it will continue.
My fear is that inflation and interest rates will re inflate the bubble in NZ only to see it explode even more spectacularly once the boomers decide you can't live in 11 houses.
DC is right, Gaynors article was very good the other week on this subject.
Troy, good point about Chinese
Troy, good point about Chinese ownership of American land. A similar analysis applied to our own country makes for worse reading - based on the NZ$162 billion of foreign funding required for mortgage lending to NZers (figure taken from Brian Gaynor's Herald article a couple of weeks ago) and the NZ Statistics figure for the number of households in the country (1.612 million), the average NZ household owes its foreign masters a cool $100k.
Prices are to high, and
Prices are to high, and it will be till we see more redundancies, especially in public sector. Those pen-pushers are all well paid and most are home owners. Iam affraid only redundancies can pull this country out of recession and I expect new goverment to start big clean-up very soon.
Great post DC :) <blockquote><b>Brian
Great post DC :)
Gibber just mentioned this to me:
[UK] Rents fall as properties flood the market
By Myra Butterworth, Personal Finance Correspondent
Last Updated: 7:52PM GMT 17 Nov 2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/houseprices/3473690/Rents-f...
The US, then UK, now NZ......
Seems like London rents may
Seems like London rents may be continuing to fall. Gee, just this time last year there were articles about housing shortages propping up the UK property market....
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23663042-details/Rents+fa...
The drop in residential rents seems to be less than the drops in commercial rents
http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=297&storycode=3135059&c=1
Over 30% of NZer's own
Over 30% of NZer's own their homes without a mortgage. are they going to sell? Most probably not.
40% of Kiwi's rent houses. Can they or do they want to buy their own homes? most likely not. So are we going to lose many renters?
So we are left with 30% who may want to sell, may have to sell or may not want to sell and may want to buy.
If they sell they are either going to buy another or rent or maybe live in a cardboard box.
Our population is growing everyday so lots of boxes I suppose.
Unfortunately too many people consult their computers for everything and the old saying of garbage in garbage out remains true to this day. For those that chose to attack real estate people,( and I am not one), go walk a few months in their shoes rather than look at your screens. Geeks, university professors, analysts and so on add very little to the knowledge of the real economy for they have no blood in the game.
For all those with all the talk I'd just say this; A very wise wealthy person told me a long while ago to never to take financial advice from someone who wasn't already very wealthy. Now that made sense to me so unless you have at least a million or two net worth and not including the house you live in then we should probably ignore your rambling.
Maria, that developer is going to spend huge amounts more money above what he has already spent so he won't be selling cheap sections. Even sections on flat land cost a lot but he has hills to contend with and then the builder down there has to build to withstand the cold, the wind and earthquakes. So no cheap houses sorry.
And that's not forgetting that today people don't want to buy a Keith Hay anymore but do want all the mod cons and design. The developer will also place covenants on the sections prohibiting cheap housing to protect the investment both in the subdivision and others houses. (Won't want another Porrirua)
The reality is that no one can build a cheap house in a new subdivision anymore unless
you all want some more Otara's or Porrirua's.
As it happens I was born and bred in Lower Hutt and in the sixties bought a section at the back of Waiwhetu on the foothill for $3000.00. I then went to Sydney to work and low and behold there were units in Neutral Bay that cost $100,000. In Pipers Point the prices were beyond my experience as I recall. Well they still are, a mere 30 Mill will buy something nice. The more money is debased the more property prices will rise.
But its not all gloom and doom for there are other forces at work.
Never ever in the history of NZ has their been so many wealthy older people. (Even if we take out those that have "Invested" in the financial industry of which we are all to well aware.)
Many many estates and Trusts from older generations are coming forward now with large amounts of money in their balance sheets. Trusts are able to lend to families for housing and estates share a lot of wealth with the beneficiaries. There are very large sums being inherited. I have never heard any commentator factor this into the house equation.
So will house prices crash, most likely not and if they do every bank in NZ will be in strife for they too have to value their assets.
No doubt plenty of jobless
No doubt plenty of jobless leaving London. What else would you expect. They are mostly transient people.
Just before people don't want
Just before people don't want to sell doesn't mean that won't. Job loss, family circumstances, monetary requirements etc all have an impact whether you have a mortgage or not. Sure 30% may not have a mortgage but how many are elderly, near retirement etc relying on that asset to provide their nest egg and are now seeing it drop in value (esp. with the lower interest rates). Sell now or wait for a worse return later as prices keep going down...
If a 500k propety drops 10% that's 50k worth of funds gone in a year or around 2-3 years worth of national super value. And can we all get away from the rubbish about buying and selling in the same market. Any house sale will cost about 15k in fees etc so even when buying another house or new one there is a loss of value.
The British Labour MP Tony
The British Labour MP Tony Benn said,many years ago,look behind the headlines to see whos benefitng from them!This still holds true today!!:(
jh [March 24th, 2009 at
jh [March 24th, 2009 at 12:47 pm] - you state this
"And we are not bringing in 1 million foreigners, we are attracting 1 million mostly middle-class new Americans"
i can only conclude you are an idiot...
Westpac economist Doug Steel represents
Westpac economist Doug Steel represents the risky lending bankers. Yield has to be about 8% on a housing investment. The tax rate for the higher income bracket cannot be used to adjust the expected yield for rental properties. Banks sell these "fair value" gimmicks to investors because banks have taken excessive risks and lent beyond their real worth. The so called "million dollar" view does not worth million dollars unless banks lend and sustain such higher prices.
The simple formula to assess the maximum fair value for a rental property is 800 times the weekly rent. A house with $300 rent is worth $240,000. The size of the land may allow some extra valuation beyond $240,000 as long there is a possibility of subdivision. What is the yield of a long driveway leading to property? Not much. The rent may go up by 10% due to privacy benefits.
The capital gain argument does not make much sense because we cannot double dip after adjusting for the inflation. Capital gains after adjusting for the inflation is about the rate at which a rental property depreciates. If the replacement value is high, then it means that the depreciation and maintenance expenses are also high.
Banks are simply hiding the fact that houses prices are inflated because of the excessive lending by banks, which increased our household debt to phenomenal levels in the last 5 years. Why cant banks accept the full risk and take the house if a mortgage walks away? They wont because they know they will loose.
it used to be the
it used to be the 6 D's that forced a sale through without the informed willing buyer and informed willing seller scenario
De Bank
Developers
Divorces
Death
Dummies
Deadlines
but now let's add another
Depressions...
does that now mean there are seven opportunities to purchase well????
Robert - hmm, doesn't sound
Robert - hmm, doesn't sound like very good advice to me, only take advice on wealth matters from very wealthy people....actually a lot of very wealthy people have become very poor in recent times
Les Rudd, you may find
Les Rudd, you may find the DPMC report useful in researching some of the factors which have lead to the current situation. As you say, it has a multiple of interacting causes, and the DPMC effort does tease out some of them, in the bloodless language expected of a commissioned report. Didn't get much attention at the time (mainly because Act II of the Credit Crunch was upon us, and the then Gubmint was well into CYA mode.)
Oh, the link:
https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dpmc/publications/hpr-report/hpr-6.html
Great link waymad, thanks for
Great link waymad, thanks for posting it, I sincerely hope the prime minister impliments the policies recommended (especially the tax changes) and the sooner the better considering the economic crisis is caused by over inflated house prices.
Look, guys, I really think
Look, guys, I really think you should give Westpac a bit of a break here. Remember two years ago they were saying that NZ houses were 30% overpriced, and that they predicted that therefore rents would rise by 6% per year for five years to bring the market back into kilter?
Mind you, with rent increases static over the last year, plus prices predicted (Westpac latest prediction) to get back onto the escalator at 6% per year also, that must mean rental increases will shortly be into double-digit rates.....
As a current renter keeping well clear of the market, what does that all mean for me? EEeeekkkk! I'm staring down the barrel, according to reputable, learned & dispassionate economists! I'd better buy soon!!! Now, what nice altruistic bank might give me a nice fat mortgage to save my miserable bacon??..........
Hi everyone me again,just finishted
Hi everyone me again,just finishted my 12h shift at work and thought id do some catch up "on the state of play" didn't get to read any comments following my blog but guess i may have offended sum people SO sorry about spelling the word write{wright} wrong.
Anyway i guess we can all agree on something "gone are the days of buying a dump for 200k throwing some paint at it and flicking it a month later for 300k inviting your fellow cohorts aroun for a bar-bque and braging how hard you had to work the last month to make a 100k" !
The reason for the this property market is sitting on the rail crossing is simple really "NO ONE IS BUYING INTO IT".
I agree with peter. Im
I agree with peter. Im Gen Y. I can afford a house and freehold, I skimped and saved and avoided the temptations of easy credit over the boom. I drove a shit car and used my credit card wisely, Unlike many other Gen Ys, but easy credit we thought was normal and the way to go. Im dont want to buy a house now (I have owned properties b4) as im better to put my money into a business or keep in the bank where the finacial return comes back to FUNDAMENTALS.
1 out of 10 of my generation can barely afford a house or even the deposit . with out parents or lotto etc. That really blows the supply demand and price increase B.S out of the water. FUNDAMENTALS. This would be an interesting discussion topic, GEN Y AND HOUSE PRICES CAN THEY AFFORD THEM NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. Because we inherit the future and with house prices and wages in this counrty the way they are it is not a rosey furture, I geuss thats why 8 of my friends left for aussie 07-08.
The banks know this but cant admit it or they will bankrupt themselves and our country from their mis lending practices and greed.
I dont want house prices to fall, but unfortunately. they are not affordable. And this is a baby boomer party and problem, they own the ten properties in trusts and companies. We do not have the money to pick up where you will leave the party. And a half site 3 bed 90m2 house for $500k bringing in $450 a week is ridiculus, and is not fundamentaly right.
Its really frustraighting waiting for things to correct and balance themselves in this country just let the house of cards fall. And let us get back to fundamentals.
Peter Winstone Says:
March 24th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
The housing bubble is surely the greatest of all "ponzi" schemes. As long as people keep attributing value to their homes and people mortgage their lives to climb on board it will continue.
My fear is that inflation and interest rates will re inflate the bubble in NZ only to see it explode even more spectacularly once the boomers decide you can't live in 11 houses.
DC is right, Gaynors article was very good the other week on this subject.
Boomers don't live in 11
Boomers don't live in 11 houses. That's just crap. They live in one and rent the others.
But I guess if you have to keep making excuses because you can't steel yourself to buy a house then you will have to take what happens.
If you want an affordable house I can sell you one. 3 Bedroom , refurbished about 4 years ago, nice and warm , not large, nice gorunds. Sell price 135000.00
If you are really keen then say so. Oh but the catch. Its in Tokoroa. A bit of a way from all the nice things that you all want, day trip to the beach,etc. But.it is affordable.
A dose of reality is needed by some.
Maria Says: March 24th, 2009
Maria Says:
March 24th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
"PhilBest,
I guess the point i was trying to make is more along the lines of the house prices have been decreasing for developments similar to the one proposed in the stuff article, so i don't believe 500,000 is as viking said "what it costs for new housing". Prices are being forced down which can only be a good thing right.
What is forcing the prices down? Sure isn't less red tape, the consent took 5 years and concessions have been made, 20% of the land is no longer there for development. Is this s good thing? Does this show that the resource consent process works? Will these houses now be nicer to live in because of the retention of bush and wetlands?
Many "ordinary" NZ's are developers on a much smaller scale, subdividing their larger block and building a house out back, selling both or continuing to live in one of the houses. I believe its how the developer in the article started out.
There is risk involved which is one of the reasons why some would not wish to be a developer, but since this developer is still in business he must be doing something right. Many developments have tanked lately, im not sure if they are the cause or effect of the many finance company collapses.
The land in question wouldn't be worth much as agricultural land, so if it was brought cheaply after all the hard "development" work will give a big profit which is why people are developers, for the money. Not so they can make utopia suburbs with 180,000 houses."
Thanks for that, Maria.
Have you read many of Hugh Pavletich's articles and press releases and above all, the Demographia surveys? $180,000 new houses are not utopia, it is purely a matter of the political will to "let it happen". Not "make it happen", "let it happen".
Yes, the fact that so many developments have tanked lately IS a significant factor in finance company crashes and pensioners losing their nest eggs. Risk needs to be priced; so the developers who are still standing need to be making a killing, at the expense of the first home buyer.
We need to all wake up to the consequences of land use regulations. There are enough links and quotes already on this thread, people need to take time and read them. The one that should be added here, is THIS one:
Wendell Cox and Ronald Utt:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/bg2247.cfm
"......As the record reveals, states and communities that have implemented the land-use regulations common to "smart growth" strategies are the same states and communities that have seen their housing prices soar over the past decade and have experienced the most severe delinquency and foreclosure rates, as well as the sharpest declines in house values in the past year. In sum, these "smart growth" strategies are an important contributing factor in the housing finance mess and severe recession that now confront the United States and several other countries that have implemented the same abusive land-use regulations....
"........Not surprisingly, delinquency and foreclosure rates in the areas with tight land regulations and inflated housing prices are among the highest in the nation. They are also the areas that have experienced the greatest declines in housing prices over the past year, thereby further destabilizing regional housing markets and the national mortgage finance system.....
".......In addition to the substantial monetary loss that each foreclosure in these areas imposes on mortgage lenders, these same areas seem likely to receive a disproportionate share of whatever federal subsidies are provided in a nationwide program of foreclosure mitigation, loan renegotiation, or loan refinancing. As a consequence, taxpayers nationwide are being placed in the position of having to bail out borrowers in those few regions whose abusive land regulations contributed to the bubble in home prices and its subsequent collapse......
"........A number of other English-speaking nations, notably the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland, have land-use regulations that are more intense than those generally in force in the U.S."”and even higher housing prices as a result. In recent months, national and regional leaders in some of these overregulated countries have recognized the source of the problem and have announced a commitment to lessen the regulatory burden in order to reduce housing prices......"
Take a look at Page
Take a look at Page 17 of THIS report:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/pub_38_-_full_...
The UK has been through all this before, more than once. Why? The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. These bubbles must have had severe effects on the UK economy each time they happened; has the penny never ever dropped?
I am quite frankly becoming more and more mystified why so many intelligent people not only can't see the central role of land use restrictions in this whole crisis, many of them leave it out altogether and don't even give it a peripheral role in their analyses.
We are faced with two tough realities here. The first is central reserve banking. On the track record, we are going to get boom-and-bust cycles forever. So much for the ideal that central reserve banking would "smooth out" the cycles of the free market. This is just another absurd conceit like planned economies under communism.
Booms and busts in liquid assets like stocks and shares have been a fact of life for decades. Why did it not affect houses before? Well, it did, but if you look at graphs of house price fluctuations in previous decades, it was never anywhere near as bad as this time. The obvious exception is that graph above concerning the UK.
I very much doubt that honest, thorough, deeper analysis will show anything other than that land use restrictions are the deciding factor in the way that monetary policy induced booms have fed through to destructive housing bubbles all over the world at THIS particular time and not earlier. The obvious difference is the "Green" conservation driven land use restriction policies that have become so fashionable in the last decade or two.
I very much doubt that honest, thorough, deeper analysis will show anything other than that the UK and any other countries which introduced such restrictions earlier, have also suffered severe housing bubbles earlier, and any countries/States that have not yet introduced such restrictions, have missed the bubble experience. Thank goodness that some examples still exist.
A brief over-supply of low price new homes, which is what Westpac refers to, is of an altogether different scale of economic damage than a speculative pricing bubble. It is this latter that is responsible for the economic crisis today, not the former.
Certain misguided "Green" policies concerning forest "management" are rightly being blamed today for the severe, life-destroying forest fires that have occurred in Australia and also earlier in California. We need to wake up to the blame that "Green" land "management" policies are owed for the whole economic crisis that has come on us today.
No property bubble, stuff all subprime mortgages, no shonky CDO's, no shonky CDO-based derivatives. Social home ownership related objectives met with a minmum of moral hazard. Utopia? No, just a free market without conceited ideology-driven "planners" stuffing it up.
Viking: This means YOU: PhilBest
Viking:
This means YOU:
PhilBest Says:
March 24th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Look, the betrayal of the younger generation in ever-escalating house prices, is this bad:
The older generation can keep cashing out their house value increases to use as deposits on investment houses, which they then rent to the younger people who cannot save money as fast as the house prices go up.
As far as I am concerned, this is a recipe for revolution if it was not that economic collapse will come first.
The people I am most sorry for, is the first home buyers who get bankrupted when the bubble bursts after they stretched to the limit to get on the home ownership gravy train. They were set up. They deserve a government bailout. The investor class can just take a bath, the colder and deeper the better.
And the people on here who are saying in effect, "let them eat cake"; what address do we send the tumbrel to?
Phil Best, Add to the
Phil Best,
Add to the "green" policies the "heritage" overlay policies. Both policies are in the main promoted by the priveleged who already own in "green" or "heritage" areas and dont want to see their bit of paradise spoilt y having to share with others. It is a disgrace that they present this pure self interest as a moral crusade.
Waymad - thanks, this is
Waymad - thanks, this is useful stuff. It's fairly obvious this is a multi-causal problem, in New Zealand, and it's also fairly obvious some of those causes are significant, maybe nearly as significant as constrained land-supply, or on aggregate as much or more so perhaps.
On the basis that they were unable "to analyse sufficiently to draw firm conclusions," in certain areas, not surprisingly they recommended further work, in particular in areas associated with land and construction supply. However, they seemed fairly clear, like others, on the influence of credit supply and tax structure, from section 13 'Policy Directions':
"Existing tax arrangements favour housing over other investment options. The tax system also gives mortgaged investors in rental property an advantage over similarly mortgaged first home buyers. Accordingly, there are a number of changes that could be made to the current tax regime that could contribute to a moderation in the growth of house prices, through a reduction in investor demand."
The question is, why won't an NZ government grasp the nettles and make changes that would so obviously not only benefit a large group of young people aspiring to home ownership, but also benefit the wider economy by levelling the playing field between the domestic and productive sector? (Get this balance happening and affordability will also improve due to improving personal incomes.)
It can't be because we are waiting for the reccommended further research, because one of those was the influence of the RMA, and a judgement has been made to address that. (Good.)
So what is lacking - information, will or judgement?
In addition, this is a good read if you've not seen it before:
Bernard Hickey: End the giant rental property tax break
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1052...
Phil; I started work on
Phil; I started work on 20 pound a week not on 40-50 thousand a year, company car and super.
I sat on apple boxes not the latest furniture and worked anything up to 20 hours some days,and nothing has changed about earlier generations being able to leverage their assets.
So stop wingeing about what I have.
Its not the money you earn but the money you get to keep and save.
Funny how you never hear from those that get their heads down and arse up and work especially partnerships with common goals. No only the wingeing class.
Join the real world.
Viking, You miss the point.
Viking,
You miss the point. Housing used to be 2.5 times average income, it is now 6.5. Harping on about Furniture and plasma TV purchases from Gen X and Y and how you used to sit on beer crates (how many times have i heard that one) are red herring arguments from boomers designed to divert us from the real issues. It is unequivocally a lot worse now than 30 years ago. I agree that complaining may not get us anywhere - the real question is - can we do something about it?? the answer is YES. And phil's proposals would make some serious steps to creating more affordable housing.
The real challenge is to convince the government (types like yourselves are a lost cause, proved by your honest but woefully misguided viewpoint that you deserve the capital gain that has come mainly from the inflated debt the younger generation has had to take on). I think we are at a cross roads where it is plain for all to see that overpriced housing is THE NUMBER ONE cause of the mess we are in as it:
1) strangles households discretionary spend
2) blows out our current account deficit as we pay interest to foreign owned banks
3) misallocates investment from productive to non productive activities
4) starves the govt of much tax revenue via -ve gearing claims
5) causes additional family stress by requiring 2 incomes to service a mortgage
6) creates a misplaced confidence amongst retirees regarding their net inflated wealth so when it blows up the state has to support these people.
7) leads to massive emigration because no one on a NZ salary can afford a house
No sane government can ignore these factors. Financial crises provide opportunties for governments to take previously politically unpalatable measures because there is general consensus that the system itself is broke and no longer serves those who it is supposed to (by this I mean NZers who want to buy a house as opposed to foreign owned banks, investors, REAs etc etc etc)
"Join the real world."
To summarise - We are in the real world, we dont like it, we can change it and so we should.
I will assume the house
I will assume the house comes with a P lab next door and 30% reduction of that price, that is if you can release and sell it from your portfolio without getting stung by Mr IRD. ok that was the dis you bit,but Tokoroa may work for some people, But I will assume that Tokaroa is real happening place and the amount of people wanting to get ahead in Tokoroa is large. Not for me. So Viking you tell me, you live in Tokroa what is the average wage of a family and job propects in Tokoroua? That will determine if your house is worth what you are asking for? Im talking about Auckland prices btw. I know someone who bought a house in 2001 it doubled and a bit when it was sold in 2004. In 2001 I think houses were just that houses! So there are only a few things cheap credit and easy credit that is tax benefits holding up the values of houses when I was 19 I went to the bank because i needed a loan to do a renovation on my house(i was using equity from the house) my bank manager told me I quote, you can use the money for anything. Mispractice and a mismanaged banking system thatv alowed people to pay crazy prices for properties that arent worth it. One non publicised event that isnt in the news papers that would allow someone overseas using OUR banking system to pay $1.1 million for a penthouse on leasehold land then allow it to get sold for half price at a mortgagee auction. PONZI SCHEME ?. And agents in auckland are still trying to sell it. So if I need a reality check its you that is wanting the CHEQUE. Because you have stayed on the boat to long and are wanting off.
So there is sacrifice yes!! ie live in Tokoroa versus live in Auckland, but we are talking about fundamentals, wages versus house prices/ supply/demand/location and credit to make the property that is suposedly worth $500k actually worth $500k (in Auckland that is) Take the tax benefits out of the equation does this make the $500k house worth $500k?
Viking Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Boomers don't live in 11 houses. That's just crap. They live in one and rent the others.
But I guess if you have to keep making excuses because you can't steel yourself to buy a house then you will have to take what happens.
If you want an affordable house I can sell you one. 3 Bedroom , refurbished about 4 years ago, nice and warm , not large, nice gorunds. Sell price 135000.00
If you are really keen then say so. Oh but the catch. Its in Tokoroa. A bit of a way from all the nice things that you all want, day trip to the beach,etc. But.it is affordable.
A dose of reality is needed by some.
I'll play the broken record
I'll play the broken record once again.
The base construction cost of a decent (not luxurious) house runs around $950-$1200/sq m. Check out any of the surviving building chains, for corroboration of this, and figure that if they're into media adverts etc, you are probably looking at a 10-15% overhead. So a basic 120 squares shack (one probably much like most of us Boomers grew up in) should run no more than $144,000 at that higher rate.
No, it won't have granite countertops, a 2.7 stud, or a Euro double wall oven.
But it will have 3 bedrooms and double glazing, be stuffed full of wall, floor and ceiling insulation, and be a darn sight more livable than that 50-year-old icebox.
And if no architect has gotten near it, it will have eaves, a simple hipped or gable-end roof, and it will therefore never leak.
And as further proof that this is possible, check out the cost of transportables, which for this size will run around $100-120K.
Now, ask yerself, what's the difference between this simple-house-build $, and most of the land-and-house packages that you see advertised?
Hmmmmm...........we have the glimmerings of an answer, don't we.
And it's Not the builders.
It's complexity in layouts and roofs (Complexity Causes Cost).
It's the nice-to-haves which have transmogrified into must-haves.
It's the TLA imposts for infrastructure contribution which are a very recent creature, as TLA's have realised that instead of raising debt for the step-function increases in infrastructure needed every 15 years or so (which have to be explained patiently to ratepayers with deep pockets but short arms), it's politically much easier to sock home buyers up front via developers (who everyone hates, anyway) and just put the dosh in the bank. No more explaining debt via LTCCP's, just pencil in the revenue line, hooray. And hope that it's still there in said bank when the fateful time comes.
It's zoning rules, which while starting from the sound premise that you don't want a tannery or an abattoir next door, or upstream from your water intake (unless you are on the Waikato, good luck), have taken off into the reductio ad absurdam of attempting to specify just what anyone can do, anywhere. Consequently for the most part, the rules are just blithely ignored by existing landusers, particularly those with high fences and quiet work habits. But the squiggle of a planner's pen can determine market pricing and so there is always a long queue of hopefuls to joggle that pen. Bit like the ME boundary maps, which were dashed off on a napkin over a boozy lunch in the early 1900's, and the results of which we are still working through.
It's school zoning, which can have a pricing influence of 10-15%.
It's neighborhood dynamics, because the old real estate adage of 'buy the neighborhood, not the house' is always true, even though it's not PC to admit it as a major buying influence.
But I digress....
Good thinking Matt; it makes
Good thinking Matt; it makes much more sense to ask poor people where they got their money from. not.
Matt in Auck Says:
March 24th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Robert - hmm, doesn't sound like very good advice to me, only take advice on wealth matters from very wealthy people"¦.actually a lot of very wealthy people have become very poor in recent times
The very first post -
The very first post - Steven - "as a long term strategy (20 years+) I have my doubts on housing"..............ummmmmm.... by then your mortgage would have been paid off. Even if inflation has been 0% for 20 years you will still be much better off.
It constantly amazes me how many people think the only way to make money in property is to sell it next year for a profit. That is TRADING, and as such the IRD will be knocking on your door looking for income tax, acc levies & gst not just on your profit but also any rental income. Buy for the long term, watch your loans shrink, and stop fixating on prices so much. In the unlikely event of 0% inflation for quarter of a century, you will still own the place outright.
Viking & Robert are right, but you'll never convince someone who spends their life staring at a computer screen. And for those groaning about baby boomers having it easy, I'm gen X, I just got started young and worked hard at it while all my mates were on OEs and partying up. James - when did we have housing 2.5 times average income? The stats I have back to 1965 show 4.4 times back then. I think 30% price drops and 3 x income ratios are both pipe dreams.
I must admit Phil that
I must admit Phil that after some more reading I my opinion may well be begining to turn.
I would really like you or hugh to give me an example of how "normal / natural urban consolidation" that hugh p has been advocating would work, preferably the example would use wellington as an example as I lived there for over half my life. I am also familiar with tauranga, which has seemingly transformed over the last 5+ years, a lot of houses built on the fringes, much more easily done in taurange than wellington of course! Is what has happened lately in Tauranga "normal / natural urban consolidation" ??
And is the starving of the fringe land supply the result of land banking by developers or council planning rules?? What can councils do about land banking?
Murray Im gen x as
Murray
Im gen x as well and built a house in 2002 (when I was young also) by 2005 its value had increased 50% without doing anything to it. I was very close to using the extra equity to buy a rental investment but I sold it and bought a small business instead. You know full well most investors are classed as 'long term investors' and use untaxed capital gains as a deposit to buy more houses.
The fact is the price increase was the result of a housing investment bubble from 2002-07 if you don't think this is the case and prices won't be corrected you have got your head well and truly buried in the sand. Prices are currently 5.5 household income to get back to 4 (I agree 2.5 is a pipe dream) they will have to drop 30% from peak, they have only dropped 5.7% so far. It sounds like you will be losing alot of money.
Maria, thanks for that comment;
Maria, thanks for that comment; I am so sure that anyone would come round if they just look at the facts.
Hugh Pavletich's press releases etc. are all on Scoop.Co.Nz and "Demographia" site has a lot more.
But I regret not posting THIS earlier: it possibly gives you more of the arguments in one place than anything else:
http://www.audacity.org/downloads/IPA-06a-Tragedy-of-Planning.pdf
Alan Moran: "The Tragedy of Planning: Losing the Great Australian Dream"
I reccomend that to everyone on here.
If you've got time, there are a lot of incredibly useful analyses HERE: (don't just stop at page one; some of the best ones, particularly by Oliver Marc Hartwich, are further back)
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/research_areas/economics.cgi?page=1&top...
Kieran - we had the
Kieran - we had the same "bubbles" between 1982-87 & 1992-97, except those "bubbles" percentage-wise were even bigger, yet neither of those booms were followed by a 30% drop in median. There were individual properties (mortgagee etc) that did suffer huge drops and the same has been happening recently.
Interesting too that following the mid 90s boom and Asian financial crisis, our population growth and immigration reached far worse levels than it has this time around.
Time will tell, I'm still sticking with 15% maximum drop in median, and a sideways crab market for a few years. I won't be losing any money as I'm not selling and I live off rental income not the value of my properties. My mortgages now are quite small, and the interest rates on what's left have just practically halved, so excuse me if I don't feel very pessimistic.
Just a footnote - a
Just a footnote - a friend of mine recently listed their house for sale, and after reading all the pessimism on here I advised them to be prepared to get less than CV and take 3 - 6 months to sell. It's just sold in 2 weeks for more than CV and $90k more than they paid 3 years ago. Must have just been lucky eh?
Phil i am still coming
Phil i am still coming around, i have not turned just yet.
I now have a much clearer understanding of the theory, but am not convinced.
I will endevour to read the alan moran piece and the policy exchange ones look good.
I would of course still love to know: Is the builiding activity that has happened recently in Tauranga not "normal / natural urban consolidation" ??
And is the starving of the fringe land supply the result of land banking by developers or council planning rules?? What can councils do about land banking?
Murray I cant find any
Murray
I cant find any data on median prices for 1982 but in jan 1992 median prices were $105,000 in jan 1997 they were $153,000 a 45% increase (current bubble 90%) prices then went sideways for the next 5 years. Have a look this graph. You say this bubble is smaller!!
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/keygraphs/Fig4.html
It sounds like you bought your rentals well before 2002. If you managed to buy a cashflow positive rental property after 2005 you would be in a very small minority. I am not predicting any time frame except that bubble values will be removed eventually 1-5 years of decline or 5-20 years of platau who knows, time will tell.
interesting article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/
interesting article:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/2288924/House-price-bounce-ca...
Kieran, thanks for the RBNZ
Kieran, thanks for the RBNZ link. Yes unfortunately all the older data seems to be in averages not medians. The stats I have are for Auckland average house prices from 1965, and they show for the decade of 1970-1980 average prices increased around 230%, 1980-90 around 290%, 1990-2000 around 75% and 2000-2009 about 65%, which is why I say the last boom was actually the least spectacular percentage-wise - especially if you compare with the mid 80s !
Yes we bought our last rental in 2003 and after that the numbers didn't work anymore, but I have seen some recently where the numbers work again.
What I do remember happening around 1990 and 2000 is that it was cheaper to buy an existing house than to build one (like now) and people just stopped building (like now). Eventually this led to a shortage, and both times the problem was made worse by an upswing in immigration. With new house constuction in the doldrums and immigration forecast to rise, it's hard to see big price drops coming to fruition.
I'd be happy with your 20 year plateau, in theory that would give us very low interest rates and improve my cashflow further. Again though it's hard to see it happening. Stats NZs population forecasts require around 24,000 new houses per year, currently new house starts are down to about 16,000. Generally people won't build unless it's equal to or cheaper than buying existing, and that fact tends to limit price drops because it chokes the supply. So unless you can convince all the builders, councils, solicitors, material suppliers to drop their prices 30%, or not put them up for the next 20 years!!................
Murray Considering inflation and interest
Murray
Considering inflation and interest rates were between 10-20% in the seventies and eighties I wouldn't give those figures much creedence. Can you tell me what the average price was in 1970 and now?
If the numbers didn't work in 2003 they definatly don't now.
You are right new house construction won't pick up again until section prices drop more. If you think prices will fall 15% then be flat for a few years then maybe its not such a good time to buy at then is it.
You must of got those
You must of got those figures from the barefoot & thomson propaganda delivered around Auckland showing average price was around $10,000 in 1970. Its interesting that the average income was $2,500 back then 4 times a single income and 7% rental yeild.
The average price in 2009 is around $540,000 thats 14 times a single income or 9 times household income and 3% rental yeild. The below report shows the massive gap between prices and historic rental yeilds that has developed during the bubble, its a very good read. Prices will return to fundamentals of value again. Current prices are definatly not fair value.
http://www.sra.co.nz/pdf/housinghellupdate.pdf
His other reports contain good imformation as well.
Hello again Kieran. I'm in
Hello again Kieran. I'm in the Waikato and we don't have Barfoot & Thompson.
The stats are from Valuation New Zealand (before they became QV). Average male income was $3,343 in 1970. Average Auckland house prices were $13,553 giving a multiple of 4.1 - compared to the current medians of household income $75,000 and house price $330,000 - giving a multiple of 4.4 .Average rents were around $10 per week giving a yield of 4% and taking about 15% of the average wage. The NZ average house price would have been lower than Auckland and so would show a slightly higher yield, but I don't have that info.
It's a bit hard to compare apples with apples, the old figures are averages and male income, todays stats are medians and household income, but the argument is that back then the male income WAS the household income.
Barfoot's latest Auckland average price was $512,536 which equates to 9.8% per annum for 40 years. Many people think 10% for 40 years equates to 400%, but it is actually closer to a whopping 4,000% - that is the cruel reality of compounding. People that understand this know that the best way to "inflation-proof" yourself is to own property long-term.
On page 4 of your link above, they say the same thing I am saying - prices will lilkely crab sideways while inflation pushes other prices up. The article was also written in November last year before the big interest rate cuts, and they say that if the RBNZ gets "overzealous" in it's rate cuts then median prices may actually head up again. Shame they used a linear graph in the first chart, since linear graphs are meaningless when charting prices over time. The cost of a postage stamp over the years draws an upward curve on a linear chart.
I'm not saying anyone should rush out and buy property, though I do think a window of low interest rates and desperate sellers may have just passed. People might pat themselves on the back for buying next year at 15% off and 7% interest rates, but if they'd been actively looking recently they may well have bought at 30% off and 6% rates.
Another point I'd like to make is on the income ratios, many people keep quoting the US and a 3 x ratio. That is the average over the entire US, and is brought down by a lot of land-locked remote areas (not to mention trailer-parks and ghettos). The ratio in New York is still around 7, and Los Angeles is 10. It would be fairer to compare cities such as Auckland and Sydney with these cities. Even after 20 years of sideways to negative growth in Japan, the price to income ratio for a condo in Tokyo was 6 in 2006. This is why I say 3 x income in Auckland is a pipe dream. As someone earlier pointed out, you can buy in Tokoroa at 2 x income, and I've seen places advertised in Bennydale at 1 x. No offence intended to anyone living in those areas, it's just a fact of life that buying property in main centres is expensive.
I would like for my kids to be able to buy property at 3 x income, but I don't think it will ever happen. I was predicting a 15% drop in median and a sideways market until around 2012. Now I'm not so sure - the RBNZ has more than halved the cash rate, building levels are very low, immigration is predicted to pick up, and National will be keen to be more than a 1 term government and likely do anything to get the economy simmering again by 2011.
My kids will probably have to fork out between $500k to $1 million for their first house, but they will probably also leave school and start on between $100k to $200k.
As we both said before, time will tell !!
;)
Murray As you have pointed
Murray
As you have pointed out there is a large difference between average and median figures, medians are more reliable as they are not distorted by extremes. Averages have always been higher than medians because of this. The latest data available from the NZ stats website show median household income for the june 2008 year was $57,947 the median wage income was $35,000 here is the link:
http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/hot-off-the-press/househo...
Median house prices in June 2008 were $340,000 thats 5.86 household income or 9.47 personal wage income.
here is the link:
http://reinz.co.nz/reportingapp/default.aspx?RFOPTION=Report&RFCODE=R100
House prices have come down slightly but household incomes have probably dropped as well considering unemployment is rising and the number of hours worked is dropping. From 1970 house prices averaged 4 x income and rental yeilds averaged 7.7% over this time (the linear graph IS based on inflation adjusted prices) current yeilds are 5%. Corporate bonds are yeilding 6-10% without the hassle of tenants.
In the short/median term with house prices still falling property investment isn't going to protect you from inflation actually the opposite.
Interest rates are meaningless you still have to pay any increase/decrease eventually. Current low interest rates might increase returns in the short term but falling prices nullifies this. If medians fall then this brings down values for ALL houses. Sayng you got 30% off, what does that mean exactly? Valuations in the current enviroment are worthless. What matters now is fundamentals of value such as income and rental yeild.
I beleive there will still
I beleive there will still be desperate sellers in the future. Last year I thought we might of had a larger and faster correction of prices (this would of been better for the economy and for long term investors) but as you say it could be long and drawn out with inflation doing the damage. Either way capital gains will be non existent in the short term (and long term if medain prices don't drop faster) Rental yeilds are only 4-6% well below what you can get from corporate bonds and shares. The fact is without capital gains property is on the bottom of the heap when compared to other investment alternatives.
Kieran, 30% off - I'm
Kieran, 30% off - I'm talking about mortgagee sales or people that are heading towards a mortgagee sale and have recently been selling at 20 - 30% less than what they paid. I don't think those sorts of bargains will be available next year, I could be wrong. These make up a small percentage of total sales which is why the median won't reflect these sales.
I did say property will "inflation-proof" you long-term! not necessarily in the next few years. The replacement cost of a house will follow inflation or better, and houses won't get built unless they can be sold at least marginally above their cost.
Houses these days are also much bigger and grandiose than in years gone by, which would go some way in explaining higher income/price ratios and lower yields.
Its extremely pleasing to read
Its extremely pleasing to read the excellent quality of the comments here.
As you will all know - I have been "at" this issue for 4 plus years - and there is simply screeds of my stuff at www.PerformanceUrbanPlanning.org .
For thise who have not dome so - I would urge you to read in particular "Getting performance urban planning in place" on my website - where I attempt in laymans terms to walk through thees issues with suggesrted solutions.
The New Zealand Government is committed to addressing these issues - with a focus on land supply - as its Media Statement on the day of the release of this years Demographia Survey makes clear.
For the "doubting Thomass" who dont think its possible to provide housing at or below 3 times annual household income - they need to at the very least learn how they are currently doing it in North America. And check back through history as well - by in particular reading the "Levitt Story" on my website.
It needs to be borne in mind too - that a long history of "prescriptive planning" has seriously degraded the pricing / productivity performance of New Zealands residential construction industry. Even worse still in the United Kingdom - where the prescritive planning problem has gone on much longer. I cover these withn an article available on my website "Planning degrades construction performance" around 2 years ago.
Its very important people read the screeds of quality international research out there - and ponder these issues.
Housing bubbles are unnecessary and hugely destructive. The sooner this country has good quality affordable housing and a sound environment of real wealth creation - the better.
Hugh Pavletich
Hugh The reason new housng
Hugh
The reason new housng will never be 3X household income is because of the income side of the equation, our incomes are about 1/3 less than USA, untill we adress this by increasing productivity 3X prices will be a pipe dream. When we were at the top end of the OECD 1950-1970 houses were at 3 (when we had Keynesian policies and 0% unemployed) untill we stop our over investment in property and our under investment in capital assets our incomes will keep falling. Our current account balance is out of control because of the massive amount of foreign lending by banks for housing. We need to get back to creating wealth through productivity and not artificially inflating house prices using all our domestic and foreign savings because by doing this all we are left with is massive debt and low incomes.
Kieran - the "income excuse"
Kieran - the "income excuse" is a false one - and I would urge you to read the international research on this - much of it accessible via www.demographia.com and www.PerformanceUrbanPlanning.org .
In particular - read the "Levitt story" accessible down the left column of my website. Bear in mind that through the 1950's they were supplying new housing at around 2.5 - 3.0 times the annual household income - with only one household earner.
It simply can be done.
Within the affordable North American markets currently - they are supplying 235 square metre starter homes on 700 square metre lots for $US140,000 - $US30,000 for the lot $US110,000 for the actual house construction - comprising double garage, sep dining, 4 bed one with ensuite and ducted air conditioning. Manufactured housing for $US73,000 all up on large lots as well.
Fringe development ratios are - 17 - 23% for the serviced lot - the balance for the actual house construction. You might like to inform readers of the current idiotic fringe development ratios here in New Zealand.
After generating 5 Annual Demographia Surveys - one would think that politicians and industry people in Australia and New Zealand may have "taken the hint" to get off their rear ends and get over to North America to learn a thing or twenty.
Its long overdue they did.
It can - and must - be done. None of this is "rocket science".
Hugh, if we convert $US140,000
Hugh, if we convert $US140,000 to NZD at .59 - we get NZD $237,288 - which means our average income would need to be NZD $79,096 to get that 3x multiplier ratio.
Our average income is way below that - and hence even using the US example, our wages just don't stack up.
Hugh No its not rocket
Hugh
No its not rocket science
GDP/capita:
New Zealand $27,000
United States $47,000
Population:
NZ 4,000,000
US 306,000,000
But of course urban planning is the problem not the fact that in the fifties our GDP per capita was the same but has since dropped to almost half nor has it got anything to do with the fact their market is 76 times bigger than ours obviously economies of scale have nothing to do with it. Im glad your not a rocket scientist.
Maybe our politicians need to start learning from America how to increase our national income instead?
Interesting to read the front
Interesting to read the front page of the sunday star times today, and the very large increase in mortgagee sales. They will only increase as unemployment rises.
The same time as I was reading the article in the cafe a few real estate agents were having coffee and were chatting enthusiastically about how the market has turned and they were looking forward to a good year.....
Hugh - I agree affordable
Hugh - I agree affordable housing should be possible at or below 3 x income, but I doubt it will ever be near to a main city centre. It should be possible to do a low-cost subdivision with sections at $50k and houses costing $100k for a total of $150k. However, whether that's possible on the fringe of somewhere like Auckland I'm not so sure. Also the houses would have to be no bigger than about 90m2.
A lot of folks in my generation (gen x) & gen y seem to think they should be able to buy a 250m2 house close to a city centre at 3 x income or at least median price, and I doubt that will ever happen. They also want them furnished with the latest big screens and leather lounge suites from Harvey Norman ;-)
My first two homes I bought were 70 & 80m2 and about half the median price at the time. A quick search at realestate.co.nz shows over 2,000 houses for sale nationally at less than $150k, so indeed you can buy existing at less than 3 x income - but no, none of them appear to be in Auckland.
I agree housing bubbles are destructive, especially for those that aren't prepared for them, though I would say it's the compounding effect of inflation that destroys a lot of people's wealth. The herd mentality of humans will no doubt ensure that we always have cycles in any market. Property, shares, bonds, gold - everyone wants in when everyone else does and wants out when everyone else does. It takes a lot of courage to be counter-cyclical, but people that manage to often do well.
We brought our first house
We brought our first house in Papatoetoe 5 years ago when we were 24 and 25 - because it was what we could afford ($300K with the half the deposit secured over the in laws property and the other half cash). We knuckled down and paid most of it off by the end of last year. We sold for $355K in December after 4 weeks on the market and brought in Howick for $455K with a mortgage of $150K. We have paid another 20K off that and would be comfortable on either mine or my wifes salary. We also managed to squeeze in 2 years in the UK.
We have friends who tried to buy straight into the Central Suburbs. They are still struggling along with huge mortgages and haven't been overseas. Most of them earn more then us as well. I would recommend buying where you where you can afford to pay down the mortgage in less then 10 years.
frontpage article from the Herald
frontpage article from the Herald on the huge rise in mortgagee sales:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10564171
These are just going to rise and rise as job losses grow
And to think there are people out there who think the maket has bottomed out!!!!!
Thank you for all your
Thank you for all your comments above.........
Kate - this is why i bought up ther Levitt example for a little history. May I suggest you go over to Prof Steve Keens Debtwatch for a superb overlay figure by Stapeldon illustrating the movement in Australian house prices with Case Shillers US ones going back to 1890. Just brilliant. Possibly someone with more computer skills than me may kindly provide a link here to that article / figure of about a week ago.
Indeed - is there any property research firm prepared to do an overlay of New Zealands housing price performance from this time - showing Stapeldons Australian data and the Case Shiller US data?
That would illustrate that housing was affordable / near affordable here in New Zealand prior to the early 1980's.
The major measure Kate is the Median Multiple - and again - that markets should not exceed three - and to keep them below that - tthe fringes act as the inflation vent where new acceptable product should be going in at 2.5 MM. Thats what holds a market in the affordable catagory.
The planners have stuffed it - by starving fringe land and inappropriately financing infrastructure - so new product is going in on the fringes at 6, 8 and 10 multiples. It is this that inflates the rest.
Kieran - you must do your best to resist the temptation constantly telling us why Kiwis are not as smart as Americans and those Mexicans!!! We have done it in the past and are quite capable of doing it again - provided the politicians and planners actually "allow" it to happen.
Remember the Japanese going to Detroit to learn how to build cars years ago? Why dont the guys here get off their rear ends and get over to North America and re learn how to do it? A little initiative please.
Murray - your thoughtful comments are much appreciated. May I suggest you also research the Municipal Utility District (MUDs) structures for the long term debt financing of infrastructure. This would assist enormously in slicing these costs out of the price of sections as well.
What also needs to be borne in mind is what I term the "urban echo values" that build up outside the inflated urban areas - where these fringe rural land values inflate because of their future urban zoning potential. So to currently get "true rural values - one has to go a good distance from the urban fringe - something I discuss within my paper of March last year "Getting performance urban planning in place".
Over time - as more fringe urban land is released and the currently inflated values decrease - these "urban echo values" in the adjoining rural areas will decrease as well - as land bankers realize that the days of artificially created scarcities are over.
These artificial scarcity values with the inappropriate development fees / levies (as stated previously should be properly long term debt financed - for reasons of economic efficiency and intergenerational equity) - can ramp up these fringe land vakues by $1 million $2 million and more per hectare - way above their open maket value.
These "artificial scarcity values" on the fringes must be done away with as soon as possible. There is no way these can be justified.
As these land supply constraints are removed and infrastructure appropriately financed - allowing builders to be confident of affordable serviced lots - you will find that "miraculously" housing construction productivity / pricing performance will improve rather quickly.
It is amazing what good solid competition can achieve.
Jeff, Nice work on your
Jeff, Nice work on your housing ladder experience. My mother-in-law suggested that we (small family) buy in Pukekohe (sp?) or similar in 2006 when we arrived from California. Of course she has heard similar stories as yours. If we had taken her advice I'm pretty convinced that we would now be broke. I think its less important to have a certain strategy, than to have good timing.
Hugh, median income for wage
Hugh, median income for wage and salary earners is around $37,000 if I'm not wrong. Are you sure we can ever get to a x3 multiplier?
Hugh - here are the
Hugh - here are the actual numbers on median salary and wage earnings in NZ;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/personal-finance/665938
And the single income calculation based on $$729/week - means the affordable home at a x3 multiplier = a new house build at $113,724.
If we take the combined median incomes of a full time employed male ($863/week) plus a full time employed female ($600/week) - means the affordable home at a x3 multiplier - a new house build at $228,228.
So, how much for the section and how much for the house are you calculating?
geografree You are right timing
geografree
You are right timing the market is better than time in the market if you had bought in 2006/7 with a 10-20% deposit your equity would be wiped out by now the same for those people who think now is a good time to buy - you know the saying about trying to catch a falling knife, dead cats bouncing and all that.
Kieran & geografee, I have
Kieran & geografee, I have to disagree with your "timing" comments. Timing is important if you are a trader, and want to get in and out reasonably quickly.
Anyone that has substantial wealth in property has usually held property long term (Time In The Market) and not bought and sold much along the way. Buying and selling creates much more risk, not to mention income tax, gst, acc, estate agent fees.............
What matters more is that you can afford to pay the mortgage on properties you buy, and avoid the urge to continuously "top up" the mortgage for new cars, boats & overseas holidays! I've seen too many people make some equity in a house, only to spend it on a car & a boat - and then they sell and give their last bit of equity to a real estate agent. Achieving decent equity in your first house is the hardest part and you must protect it, but if you use it wisely it gets easier after that.
Hugh - I agree land on the fringe seems to already have the sub-division potential built in to the price (as does a lot of in-fill housing), but I can't see how prices can be regulated in a free market. The price of anything is set by what a willing seller and a willing buyer are prepared to pay. Perhaps the government should be building rows and rows of rectangular state houses like in years gone by and keeping immigration to a minimum. This would add to supply and dampen demand which is the best way I know of to reduce prices, and as an added bonus would also employ a lot of people. However, currently it seems the opposite is true - very low construction levels and increasing immigration - perhaps National have an ulterior motive?!!
One thing no-one seems to
One thing no-one seems to mention is the issue of demographics. We have an aging population who are more likely to own their properties.
Youger generations complain they are priced out of the market by boomers with multiple properties.
But what happens when they start to die off? Sure some of their houses will go to family but many more will go on the market. Just looking at the age demographics tells us that there will be a lot of houses needing buyers.
And that glut in 15-20 years will be the real cause of pricing decreases.
Stop worrying about short term fluctuations - be more concerned about the effect of such a large amount of housing stock hitting the market.
Kirk - I seem to
Kirk - I seem to be a bit of a lone voice so far on this one, but I don't quite go along with the whole "baby boomers exit en masse" predictions.
Between 1946 - 1965 there were 1.125 million babies born in NZ, which was significant and our population went from about 1.7 million to about 2.6 million.
The missing 225,000 must have been due to emigration, deaths, and the 30,000 we lost in two world wars.
In the 40 years since there has been well over another 1 million babies born, and combined with immigration our population has increased another 1.7 million or 65% to about 4.3 million. So it seems to me that:
1. There will be plenty of people to buy properties from baby boomers, and
2. The baby boomers won't all be selling in the same year, but over a 20 year timeframe, by which time our population is forecast to exceed 5 million.
I also think a lot of baby boomers have actually already sold up and down-sized and have since had their money in fixed interest, shares and bonds etc - I know this is true of my own parents and many of their friends.
Kirk - you might be
Kirk - you might be fairly new to this blog but I have written extensively on the baby boomer impact.
I agree to some extent with Murray - it probably has been blown a little out of proportion, however I think it will still be a significant factor, more significant perhaps than Murray thinks.
Murray - there is a a bit of a hole in the mid 20s to mid 30s age group. These are the children of the early baby boomers. Comparatively there is quite a large population in the 0-20 age group- this is the generation of children of the majority of the baby boomers
Given there is a bit of a hole in the mid 20s to mid 30s age group, which should be the prime first home buying age, I suspect we will see less house buying demand over the next 5 or so years. Of course immigration will plug the hole to some extent. At the same time, as quite a large number of people reach their early to mid 60s over the next 5 years and look to downsize there could be a steady increase in supply of houses to the market.
My parents and most of their friends downsized to townhouses 4 or 5 years ago in their early 60s. I suspect some will be holding off in the current market, but once things stabilise and start creeping up again we will see quite a few boomers looking to sell up.
I work a little around the retirement village industry and know that villages are struggling to sell units off the plans because retirees don't want to sell in the current market. I suspect, based on this knowledge, that once house prices stabilise and creep slightly upwards there will be a surge of retirees or near retirees putting their houses on the market. This surge in supply of houses to the market, and fewer people being in the prime house buying age, could be one factor in minimal / low house price growth over the next 4-5 years. But I don't see the baby boomer retirement as being something that crashes the market.
I think its important to note that there are likely to be regional variations in terms of the housing market implications of baby boomer retirement. For example, housing markets in smaller centres that attract relatively few immigrants - eg. places like Whangarei - might really struggle as their populations ages and they struggle to get immigrants. Sure they've got a farily large young population too, but that will be dominated by a poorer Maori demographic. Places in the sunbelt like Nelson and Tauranga might do better, as ex urbanites flock to the sun for retirement.
I think the impact in the bigger cities might be fairly neutral, although again there will be different impacts in different areas within a city like Auckland. For example, suburbs further out from the centre might lose value, as increased population increases traffic and commuting times, petrol prices rise, and boomers look to sell up the large family home in the suburbs (I think you'll find that most middle class suburbs are dominated by baby boomers) . Conversely more centrally located porperty may rise.
All good points Matt, I
All good points Matt, I pretty much agree with all of that! Especially about "regional variations" - it's quite common for medians and averages to show 0% (for example) when in fact different regions/suburbs/streets have gone up 10% and down 10% for a variety of reasons.
just further to my last
just further to my last post....
remember too that many of the prospective first home buyers now in their mid 20s to early 30s will have sizeable student loans
This will reduce the potential for people in this age group to save for decent deposits - I can't see the banks returning to 100% or even 90-95% mortgages any time soon
in conclusion - I think the effects of the baby boomers ageing on the housing market will be quite significant (but not huge). There won't be one simple effect across the board, there will be lots of complex and varied effects depending on location etc.
Kate - the Median Multiple
Kate - the Median Multiple as employed by Demographia, the United Nations, the World Bank and Harvard University (just a few examples) is the median house price divided by the GROSS ANNUAL MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME. You are confusing INDIVIDUAL incomes. The reason for this is that it is the household income that determines a households capacity to buy and borrow.
The Demographia Surveys clearly illustrate that normal affordable urban markets must not exceed 3 MEDIAN MULTIPLE - and I explain at some length within my March 08 Paper "Getting performance urban planning in place" how markets should move from the floor multople of 2.3 through the swing multiple of 2.5 to the ceiling multipule of 2.7 - through a normal building cycle.
To ensure this happens - new starter stock of an acceptable standard (depending on the urban markets overall household income) must be provided on the fringes at around the 2.4 to 2.5 Median Multiople mark.
I have already outlined how in Houston for example they are providing fringe staeter housing for $US140,000 all up - at a development ratio of about 20% serviced lot - the balance the actual house construction. On this basis the serviced lot iis $27,000 - the actual house construction $133,000 - on a per square metre basis (at 235 sq metres) $596 per square metre - $119 towards the cost of the serviced lot - the balance at $477 per square metres for the actual house construction.
You would think the above numbers would send shudders through the Authorities and the residential construction industry here - that diplomatically - they might have something to learn about residential development / construction productivity and pricing. I covered these issues at some length within the article 080428 "Urban Planning degrades housing productivity" (refer my website) - which clearly illustrates our woeful - and the even worse British - residential constructionproductivity and pricing.
There is simply MASSIVE scope for improvement in this country. But this can only happen as and when Governments at all levels "allow" affordable housing to be constructed.
In this regard I do hope the Coalition Government is internally making substantial progress on dealing with these "blockers to growth". With respect to Local Government / infrastructure / housing issues - specifically English, Joyce, Hide, Heatley, Williamson and Smith.
I am becoming increasingly concerned that there is over the past few weeks - not sufficient progress on these issues. Things seem to have become worryingly quiet. I might have to say something about this before long - reminding Key of his Wall Street Journal comments.
I see the latest Statw NZ residential construction figures just released at 1000 a month (12,000 per annum) are "extremely weak". Key and the other guys need to decide how much longer they intend just letting the residential construction sector run in to the ground - towards British and California levels.
Hugh Pavletich
Kate and readers - just
Kate and readers - just a few further points -
What this "focus on affordable housing" is all about - is to enhance the standards of living of people households. We should by now have learnyt enough that by being bubble bunnies and mortgage slaves - we are only becoming poorer.
Suggest readers go to a recent article on the Tory Gattis website "Houston Strategies " where he draws reasders attention to a recent Report by the Center for an Urban Future (I have yet to read it) - which illustrates that Houstomians need $US50,000 to get in to the middle class , $63,000 in Chicago, $80,000 in LA and $123,000 in New York.
I spent some considerable time in Houston mid last year - and was struck by the wealth of the place and just how easy going and tolerant people were. Its economy is three times the size of our own.
My wife and I went on a cruise through the Caribbean out of Galveston on the Carnival Conquest - and were amazed the numbers of fanilies on board from Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and elsewhere. Readers are urged to go to Vacations to Go to see what Americans pay on a daily basis for Caribbean cruises. Way cheaper (generally) there than in Europe or this part of the world.
It was great to see young families doing things like this - because of affordable priced housing - and a lower cost of living allows that to happen.
We must get out of the habit of wollowing in our poverty Kate. It is really "dumb" - and there is no need for it.
Hugh Pavletich
Matt, some banks are reserving
Matt, some banks are reserving discretion to lend up tp 95% of house value, even up to 100%. At least two, according to my mortage broker.
Allen - Yes they are,
Allen - Yes they are, and I think most will return to 90% lending when they perceive prices to have stabilised.
I beleive baby boomers will
I beleive baby boomers will have a very big impact on future prices infact I believe once they are aged out of the market housing will never recover for decades.
Brian Gaynor wrote a very good article on the subject here:
http://www.milfordasset.com/publications?objectId=c0a5299a-7847-4fbb-900...
He says the baby boom generation is like a "a pig passing through a python" having had a massive impact on residential housing over the past 40 years. With them now passing out the back end and changing from buyers to sellers they will keep having a massive impact for the next 40 years except the other way around.
Hugh, if by "We must
Hugh, if by "We must get out of the habit of wollowing in our poverty" you mean that NZers should accept lower wages for similar work/qualifications in NZ than we might expect overseas - why? As you point out - there are absolutely great places to live overseas (America being one that you point out).
What I am trying to do is determine whether our comparatively low wages make achieving this x3 Median Multiple possible or impossible.
Here is the two-working person household income median;
"If we take the combined median incomes of a full time employed male ($863/week) plus a full time employed female ($600/week) - means the affordable home at a x3 multiplier - a new house build at $228,228.
In accordance with your formula, the serviced lot would be worth 20% of the $228,228, or $45,645 - and the building $182,583. What I'm asking is - what's the average cost of building (materials and labour) on a per m2 basis these days?
And, what size house can actually be built for this amount?
Kate - I understand current
Kate - I understand current building costs to be in the $1,100 - $1,500 range per m2. Affordable housing should be at the lower end, since it wouldn't have expensive kitchens, bathrooms or other features. I think the difficult part of your equation above is finding sections at $45k. I'm sure they exist currently, but as I said earlier they won't be close to any main centres!
Right - so that's a
Right - so that's a 150m2 house at $1,200 per m2.
Yes, I agree a $45,000 section sounds a thing of the past, but Hugh is the one who suggested the lot should represent 20% of the Median Multiple.
The full cost of providing services to that section would have to fall on the existing ratepayers (which was, before the introduction of Development Contributions, largely the case anyway) meaning either rates would go up or other services would need to be trimmed - and the present rural use of the land would have to be less economic than its conversion to residential.
Lot's of 'ifs'.
Murray - I think you
Murray - I think you are pretty close with those building costs. That would be for very basic materials and finishes mind you, and assuming single storey construction.
Costs also vary between centres, with the costs generally being more expensive in Auckland and wellington than other places (due to higher labour costs)
Lets assume $1200 for build costs. $182,583 divided by 1200 equals say 150 square metres
If you assume a double garage at say 40 square metres, that only leaves a liveable area of 110 square metres
the 230 square metre houses that Hugh is talking about would cost about $275,000 + lot at 45K = $320,000 ie. about 5x that average household income
perhaps Hugh could explain how he thinks he could build 230 square metre houses for less than $200,000. Prefrabication? Illegal labour from the islands???
Matt - "Costs also vary
Matt - "Costs also vary between centres, with the costs generally being more expensive in Auckland and wellington than other places" - true, though the costs in smaller areas can be surprising with extra transportation costs, plus travel & accommodation for any tradespeople that can't be sourced locally ;)
The only way I can see cheap housing being achieved, is if it is done by the state - i.e. buying farmland, passing legislation allowing them to rezone it cheaply and subdivide it cheaply, then building lots of identical boxes allowing them to keep costs down by replicating and bulk buying. I guess it could be achieved by the private sector also, if the legislation was there to support it - which I think is Hugh's argument. The state could do it for non-profit though, whereas the private sector generally expect some profit!
Kate - in response to
Kate - in response to your abocve points -
1) Kiwis accept lower wages? No. What I am saying is that we must provide the political / regulatory environment that "allows" us to be more productive. Our wages are aleady generally low in New Zealand.
2) Do our low wages make achieving the 3 Multiple impossible? Again - no. We did back in the 70's and early 80's. These current bubble prices in too many urban markets are unprecedented. Historically - since the time of Levitt - affordable housing was the norm - not the exception - as it is currently.
Since we are "poorer" than the Americans and the Australians - of course our fringe starter housing would not be as large as theirs. As we become "wealthier" our starter housing will get larger as well.
3) Combined income - example one you provide - yes a $228,228 house - thats exactly whats happening within the affordable housing markets of North America based on the combined annual gross income of $76,076. And this means theiir mortgage load initially should be about 2.5 times their annual income - about $190.190. Certainly not being conned in to mortgage loads of 4,5.6 times household earnings as the Banks like sucking people in to here - or as was the case in California where they were lending up to eleven times household earnings - before they all went broke.
4) Build costs - I covered these within the article I referred to earlier - "Planning degrades housing construction productivity". I could go on for hours discussing this - but hopefully it is adequately conered within this article and elsewhere.
Starter housing construction costs per square metree here in Christchurch (in following local builder advertising) are in the order of $900 - $1200 per square metre - considerably less than places such as Auckland. Serviced lot ' section costs here on the fringes of Christchurch - if you can find them - in the order of $200 - $250,000. So to get your 235 sq metres starter quality home up on the fringes of Christchurch - there will be very little change out of half a million dollars - some (wait for it) about 10 times the Median household income of the place. Simply shocking.
My estimate at this stage is that the focus must be to get serviced lots / sections provided on the fringes - with appropriate infrastructure financing - for in the order of $40,000. The Total house / land package should be in the order pf $140 - $150,000.
A local quantity surveyor advised me that providing builders had the affordable land supply where they were confident of getting new marketable supply in - build costs should come back to $500 - $600 per square metre.
So the next pioint is - how much house would you get for $100,000. At $500 per square metre a 200 sq metre house - at $600 per square metre a 166 sq metre house - at $700 per sq metre a 143 sq metre house - at $800 per sq metre a 125 sq metre house.
My sense is that if there were sufficient affordable fringe lots made available and the builders were confident of future supply -we would stimulate enormous competition in the residential sector - and before too long these guys would figure out ways to get the stuff in at $600 per square metre - and they wouild prove to be quite capable of supplying 160 sq metre new houses on reasonable sized lots around the $140,000 mark - all up.
There would be some long overdue pressure pui on the New Zealand building suppliers - which would trigger the usual crying from those quarters - as geared up efficient builders (with some very efficient Australian builders joining them hopefully) had the volumes to source product globally at cheaper prices - and encouraged the local guys to "work with fine pencils".
One or two of the major building suppliers with a shameful history of political griovelling in this country - would think all this was a bad idea of course - as their old inflated margins get "done in". And there would be some long overdue pressure on the professions associated with the residential construction industry - to get across to North America - fast - to learn a thing or twenty about how to build housing efficiently.
The only "ingredient" required Kate - is the political will............
So if I am understanding
So if I am understanding you correctly Hugh you believe that freeing up land supply would allow builders to build more, therefore with bigger volumes of work they could reduce their profit margins
Hugh, Interestingly enough, "political will"
Hugh,
Interestingly enough, "political will" can often be changed by crisis or natural disaster. As in the case of the Kobe earthquake, the government was "forced" to provide temporary shelter built from recycled newsparer designed by architecture visionary, Ban Shigeru. These shelters cost no more than USD20,000 but were heralded for their outssanding insulation qualities (often better than Japanese homes). Ban has always protested against the building material and construction industries in Japan. While most Kiwis will probably not accept, the NZ building industry is equally unimaginative and is only interested in upholding the status quo.
I would imagine many NZers would probably scoff at people and ideas like Ban (which is more in recognition of their own ignorance rather than any superior understanding or knowledge).
For some basic info on Ban: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigeru_Ban
One would think that a major depression could "jump start" creative solutions to fixing the problem, but I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for the government to instigate anything should a depression not happen. The creativity will have to come from the individual, and in the land of tall poppy syndromes and ingrained vested interest, that creativity will be tested by barriers, scorn, and ridicule.
Matt - yes - freeing
Matt - yes - freeing up the land on the fringes where people actually want to live - and ensuring that there were regulatory mechanisms in place, so that these "artificial scarcity values" did not build up again - would give the builders and their financiers - the confidence to produce far more efficiently.
It is hugely important strategically - that New Zealand get on and deal with these issues - now - so that we becoming more and more affordable and open a gap up with Australia.
Just note the impact of one small article in the Wall Street Journal by Prime Minister John Key. Business - both locally and globally - always reacts positively to sound governance and real progress on the political front.
As our housing becomes more affordable - it will enciourage more skilled ex pats and entrepreneurial immigants here to New Zealand.
Importantly too - the more competitive and dynamic we can make our domestic economy and our major metros (the growth engines of a modern economy) - the more our exporters are assisted as well.
J.C. Im quietly confident the NZ Government is well aware of all this - and is indeed committed to getting the necessary sensible structural changes in place. As the co author of the Annual Demographia Survey covering the 6 English speaking countries - I am happy to say that New Zealand is in the best political position to deal with these issues.
Way ahead of the likes of the UK, Ire, USA and Australia (Canada doesnt have a major housing crisis overall).
There is no reason why New Zealand cant turn things around relatively quickly.
New sections for $40,000 would
New sections for $40,000 would be great but there are costs involved in developing land you can't just buy rural land and build houses on it you need roading, curb and channels, footpathes, lighting, sewage, stormwater, electricity, phone lines to get these things in place it costs around $45,000 per section. Rural land costs money as well most rural land around urban areas is highly productive dairy or horticultural land worth around $20,000-$30,000 Ha at best $5,000 per section. Developers expect a profit for doing this work or else there wouldn't be any development happening a 15% profit margin is $10,000 per section. So even without any council costs or consents the basic cost is $60,000 per section. There will allways be rules around developent though so that enviromental and public good is taken into account, consents and council development levies are needed because when urban areas grow more infrastructure is needed and this costs money. Paying for it with debt is just passing the burden on to future ratepayers. These costs average $25,000 per section even if they were cut down to $20,000 by making consents the consent process easier and faster basic costs for supplying new sections are around $80,000 (2002 prices)
Hugh maybe you could explain what costs can be removed so that we can have $40,000 sections.
The fact is there is no supply constraints we have been supplying more than enough new sections and houses to meet market demand. The problem is property speculation that cause prices to bubble above basic costs.
The first priority for the government is to ensure the economy doesen't go into a depression. Even if it means propping bubble prices up with low interest rates and increased fiscal debt. Once the risk of depression is over interest rates will go up (its happening allready) with higher interest rates bubble values will keep dropping, we will eventually get back to normal prices and by then the babyboomer factor will start to have an effect.
Last two comments in this
Last two comments in this blog seem like 'Ground Blog Day'!?
Who is winning the discussion?
And why?
Keiran - Many thanks for
Keiran - Many thanks for your comments above.........commenting briefly.....
Lets summerize the costs you outline above per lot / section at say 12 lots at 500 sq metre each average per hectate......
Raw land...............................$5,000
Physical costs.......................$45,000
Consenting / levies / prof.......$25,000
Margin say...........................$10,000
TOTAL...............................$90,000
1) Raw land costs at $5,000 per lot x 12 = $60,000 per hectare would be "very rich" for fringe land without the "urban echo values". So over time as more land is released - these "urban echo values" would come back substantially. Lets lower the raw land component down to $2,500. It would vary greatly around the country of course - but in a more open marjet situation - the raw land costs are a negligable component of the total costs.
2) Physical costs. Bear in mind within the affordable markets of Nortn America these are in the order of $US17,000 per lot. At $NZ45,000 as you suggest - our physical costs per lot are in the stratosphere. Could you ask your New Zealand Quantity Surveyor to break these costs out further please - so that we can compare them with the US costs? There is obviously huge scope for productivity improvement in this country.
3) Consenting / levies / prof fess at $ 25,000 per lot are grossly excessive.
4) the first question that needs to be asked then is - where are the $90,000 lots on the fringes of our metro areas. Even with our excessive fees and obviously exorbident physical costs - we have lots being retailed at $200,000 and often much more - at least $110,000 of "monopoly profits" per lot.
5) So - even if we get the land supply openned up on the fringes - do in those "monopoly profits" - and bring those serrviced lot costs back to $90,000 per lot - that would be a good start dont you think? That would mean that we could start seeing new start home land / house packages on the fringe for $200,000 - so households with $70,000 annual income could get new housing with a mortgage of say around $170,000 or about 2.5 times their annual income.
6) Then we could start looking at the costs you outline above to see how these could be trimmed back further.
7) Lets "penic in" the raw land cost at $2,500, bring the physical costs back closer to American levels to a reasonable figure of $25,000, fees at $10,000 and a $10,000 margin - gives us $47,500.
8) Lets say we take $15,000 of the physical costs out of the equation - and via a MUD structure appropriate debt finance these long term - and transfter these across to the local authority at an appropriate time - this would suggest that the retail price of the lots could be in the order of $32,500.
9) The above rather rough numbers would indicate that the $40,000 per lot is achievable.
10) Bear in mind that much of this infrastructure is not actually "owned" by the lot / section owner - and for obvious reasons of intergenerational equity and economic efficiency - it should be owned and appropriately debt financed by the infrastructure owners.
11) Why arnt policy makers and industry people getting over to North America to learn how to get lots / sections in place at prices people can afford?
I trust these brief sketch is of some assistance.
Best regards,
Hugh Pavletich
Here is a breakdown of
Here is a breakdown of costs (not inc GST)
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Survey fieldwork, field calculations and pegging $3,500
Survey plans $6,500
Charges for processing survey plans and documents $500
Engineering construction drawings for new services $1500
Quotes for work, administer contract, supervise & certify work $1,000
Power reticulation $4000
Telecom Services $4000
Stormwater & Sewer connection $10,000
Right of way preparation, kerb & channel and sealing $10,000
Water reticulation and meters $4,000
Total $45,000
COUNCIL COSTS
Application plan $500
Written application to council for subdivision resource consent $300
Assessment of environmental Effects $500
Registered Valuation of New Lots for reserve fund contribution calculation $500
Geotechnical certification of a building site on the new lots $3,000
Reserve Fund contribution - 5.5% of value of a New lot $5,000
Development Levies $11,500
Council costs of inspecting and approving works completed $500
Legal fees $1500
Total $23,300
There is economies of scale for large subdivisions but the costs are roughly the same the extra value at the moment is because of speculative demand for existing houses over the last 7 years which has increased section prices in the process this is 'priced into' fringe rural land. When bubble values for existing houses have dissapeared section prices and fringe rural land values will drop also. Existing house values determine what price new sections will sell for and this sets fringe land values (not visa versa) the minimium is set by basic costs. House values are set by investment return (farm and business values are the same) there is a premium paid for more desirable locations.
Kieran - your contribution above
Kieran - your contribution above is very much appreciated and an excellent "foundation" for us all to work from in getting down to the actual current subdivision costs - and most importantly - how these can be improved.
Commenting briefly -
1) I have sent out an email to Warwick Quinn, CEO of the Master Builders - expressing disapointment with his comments in The Press yesterday (C1 Consents for new homes halved" - cced this to political, industry and media people and bcced it to many others.
2) Below the above email were copies of emails to a Government Ministry dealing with these issues - and below that again a copy email to a Quantity Surveyor colleague - requesting that he comment on the itemized numbers your QS has generated above. I have encouraged recipients to on forward this email communication - to encourage others to come on to this website to discuss these issues.
4) Should interest co nz wish to publish the above email communications - they are welcome to do so.
3) When my QS colleague has completed his review of your numbers above - I will communicate with my Houston colleagues - and ask that they participate in this discussion as well - outlining for us (following your format above as much as possible) the itemised hard (physical) and soft (fees etc) costs for subdivision works there - and importantly - how much comes out of them, and is parrked up within the Municipal Ultility structure debt financed long term and vested with the adjoining local authorities.
4) With all due respect - the last paragraph of your above comment is rather confused. It is most important to understand that the fringes are the ONLY supply / inflation vent of an urban market. If you strangle fringe supply and inflate it - so that new stock is going in at 6, 8 and 10 Median Multiples (when it should be going in at 2.5 MM) it simply creates a housing bubble behind it, throughout the reast of that urban market.
5) As the old development saying goes "Get the land wrong - and everything else is wrong". Our construction costs and development ratios are all to hell".
6) Even with your numbers above - with our inflated construction industry pricing and inappropriate debt financing of infrastructure - if adequarte land supplt was openned on the fringes - new serviced lots / sections should be supplied at around the $100,000 mark or slightly below. The Government must work closely with Local Government to deal with these "monopoly profits" / "artificial scarcity values with urgency - to allow the residential construction industry to start supplying new house / land packages at or below 3 times annual household earnings - with mortgages of 2.5 times annual household income. Otherwise residential construction will tank unnecessarily - as is happened in California and the UK.
Once again Kieran - many thanks for your important contributions to the discussion of these issues.
Hugh Pavletich
Hugh : We have a
Hugh : We have a home ownership psychosis in this country. Decades of large government, of voters electing nanny-stateism, have embued into us a safety first policy. Getcha job, followed closely by getcha first mortgage.
How much richer would we be as a nation, if youngsters flying the school coop had as a first thought " getcha business". Where is our thirst to strive and succeed ? Houses are dull and boring, they just sit there and...well....rot ! The business sector is where the excitement is, the cut and thrust of doing deals...... And all the average graduate thinks about is getting a stand-up lump of bricks and wood in the 'burbs !
We have failed to elect good governance. And opposing voices have failed to give us grand alternatives. Our obession with housing, sadly, is as strong and virulent as ever.
Roger thompson - what you
Roger thompson - what you are saying in a rather colouful way I assume - is that we need to wean ourselves out of this bubble mentality with respect to housing - which is exactly what I and many other posters here want to see happen.
If there were the appropriate planning disciplines put in place - to restore housing over a reasonable and realistic time frame to 3 times annual household income - there simply wouldnt be the incentives for Kiwis to engage in speculative housing bubble behavour - and they would be encouraged then to figure out REAL ways to create wealth.
The sooner this happens the better.
Hugh Pavletich
Can't be 'Ground-Hog Day' this
Can't be 'Ground-Hog Day' this soon can it:
Home sellers now asking for boom-time prices: Real estate report
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1056...
Roger Proverbs 24:27 "Plant your
Roger
Proverbs 24:27 "Plant your crops before building your house"
Hugh I disagree with you, urban consolidation is a much better 'supply vent' than urban sprawl its easier and cheaper to supply mid/high density housing close to city centres than it is to supply low density housing way out in the fringes and this is where future demand will be, but I will put that ground hog day disagreement aside now.
Existing section prices need to halve before they represent 'fair' value to costs. I believe its going to take a quite a while before the new 'market reality' sets in. Les Rudds link proves that property buffs still haven't accepted this new reality and even bank economists still talk about 6% capital growth. The sooner they start facing reality the better because the mexican stand off is getting a bit tedious.
Im looking forward to hearing what your colleagues have to say about those costs.
Kieran, where do you get
Kieran, where do you get your information from......?
"....urban consolidation is a much better 'supply vent' than urban sprawl its easier and cheaper to supply mid/high density housing close to city centres than it is to supply low density housing way out in the fringes and this is where future demand will be...."
This is just sooooooo wrong.
In practice, mid/high density housing closer to the city centre is much more expensive than new homes on the fringe. The ratio is roughly consistent; the resulting price of mid/high density housing closer to the city centre is higher if fringe land is also higher. If fringe sections are $40,000, the land closer to the city centre will be a third the price it will be if fringe sections are $120,000, and a sixth the price it will be if fringe sections are $240,000.
Alain Bertaud, in "The Costs of Utopia", shows an interesting graph of urban density profile for Curitiba and for Portland, two cities that are advocated as models of urban limit planning. What is clearly visible in contrast to less-restricted cities, is that infill development is taking place predominantly at the fringes of these cities because frankly that is the only place that the houses that result from infill development are (relatively) affordable.
By contrast, in less regulated cities, the depression of all land values as a result of the extremely low prices at the fringe, result in demand for infill development closer to the city centre being met at an affordable equilibrium price.
The ironic outcome is that average commute distances are higher in Portland than if they had allowed a natural density profile to occur.
Do you bother to read anything I refer to over and over again?
Alan Moran, in "The Tragedy of Planning: Losing The Australian Dream", discusses the fact that infrastructure closer to the city centre is older, close to capacity, and very expensive to access and temporarily withhold for upgrading. It is in fact much cheaper to do Greenfields infrastructure.
One of the perverse results of insisting on "development/infrastructure fees" for fringe development and not for inner city infill development, is that the cost burden falls heavily on the poorer people who buy the cheapest homes they can, at the fringes - they are paying for their own "development/infrastructure costs" AND paying in rates for the cost of infill development infrastructure upgrading, the benefits of which are captured by rich people.
The conceits of the "planner" class are actually responsible for a lot in the form of perverse outcomes. The tragedy is that those who suffer the most are unaware of where the true blame lies.
Kieran, I take that scripture
Kieran, I take that scripture in Proverbs to refer to personal circumstances: you ensure your food supply before spending time and effort building your house. The same goes for a society, say in the third world, that does not yet have a secure food supply.
But in our first world societies, we have huge agricultural surpluses that we export. Even the UK has agricultural surpluses and could well afford on this principle to allocate land to housing to bring their absurd land prices down.
In Genesis 1, man is told to multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.......
I am coming more and more to the conclusion that the fashionable mania that insists that we live in higher densities to save resources, is most likely wrong on every level. As Hugh P. and Owen McShane have been pointing out, studies of this tend to show that high density living is more wasteful of resources, not less wasteful. In a complex world, I have developed a deep skepticism of all fashionable conceits that insist on "all-knowingness"; the USSR got all this completely wrong and I doubt we are likely to do any better. I do not believe for a a moment that the USSR was a dismal failure "in spite of the advantage of being able to plan high density living and public transport". I insist that those things were an integral part of the "because of",......the "reasons why" the USSR's economy failed so dismally.
Another thing I liken this to, is the fashionable scepticism for man re-ordering nature by genetic modification and the like.......yet we seem to think that cities can and do develop "naturally" and there is an intrinsic beauty and balance about the results that are actually spoiled by our conceited interference. Look at those urban density profiles in the Alain Bertaud study: aren't the profiles in non-regulated cities so beautifully uniform and "natural"? But look at the ugly results in Portland; and the intentions of the regulations are not achieved, in fact the consequences are perverse on every level.
Think about this: if resources really do become so scarce that we have regular power cuts, would you rather be living in an inner city dystopia, or out in the suburbs where everyone firing the barbecue up to cook their dinner won't asphyxiate the entire neighbourhood? There are many, many implications like this one to consider. Quite frankly, the opportunities for "sustainable living" are much, much higher out in the suburbs.
Kieran and others - it
Kieran and others - it will be Friday before I respond further - and look foward to others perspectives as well, in the meantime.
These are worth a read:
These are worth a read:
Predicted growth surge positive for housing
http://www.landlords.co.nz/read-article.php?article_id=3426
The bargains have gone
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/analysis/2305184/The-bargains-have-gone
Brian Fallow: Shrewd banks have kept us stable
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1056...
(Needed a swig of Tui after this one!)
Anyway, I've come to a point where I am wondering if this discussion might not be quite futile.
Not because I disagree with the constrained land-supply position, whether deconstraining be at the fringe, in the middle or somewhere in between, or all three - it's good to have choice. I don't disagree with the functional logic of the arguement and much of the supporting evidence presented, it's 'Economics 101' stuff, classic supply and demand dynamics.
I'm pleased the present government have started to look at streamlining the RMA. Whether this translates into more affordable housing remains to be seen.
I'm pleased to see Hugh and his work has attracted the attention of government:
Bringing better balance to the housing market
http://beehive.govt.nz/release/bringing+better+balance+housing+market
Again, whether this translates into appropriate government action and more affordable housing, remains to be seen.
My sense of futility is not related to the fact that this issue is multi-causal and is not receiving the attention I believe it should in the other areas - all of which, and including de-constraining land-supply, would benefit the productive sector, which is my primary concern. Although like any community member, I'm keen to see others own their own home, if that is their choice, instead of having to find it outside of New Zealand; so it's been good to engage in the wider aspects of this debate.
Neither is it down to a realisation that anything but a 'perfect' solution to the ONE land-supply issue is unlikely to have the effect desired and that the probability of this is not high.
The sense of futility originates with the view that if the aim of affordable housing is to be achieved by a SOLE focus on reducing the NUMERATOR of the ratio, especially by just ONE sole solution, ie. de-constraining land-supply - then given the wide and diverse range of vested interest it will impact, it's like expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas! It ain't gonna happen! Especially as some turkeys depend on votes for their living, no matter what they put on their website; what real power do they have to deal with the vested interests in an appropriate way? (Ever seen turkeys play football in a nettle patch? Stay tuned till the next housing 'bubble'.)
So, either, perversely, hope for the situation to change to such a degree that said impact of ONE sole solution pales to insignificance in comparison to the radical remedies required in such a situation. Or, be supportive of a multi-causal analysis and MULTIPLE solutions that will spread the effect of the impact and include those that increase the DENOMINATOR of the ratio - that is, improve real incomes. See:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/03/06/new-zealand-cou...
I'm off for a tin of Tui.
Thanks, Les Rudd, sadly there
Thanks, Les Rudd, sadly there is truth in the "Turkeys don't vote for Christmas" comment. At least you agree about the mechanisms of land supply.
But here is how it should be sold to NZ-ers.
It will make no difference to all the existing home owners in the long term, whether or not there are new supplies of affordable homes coming onto the market. They still have the same mortgage payments to make for the next 20 years or whatever. The choice they have, is whether to have an unreal freeze of the economy like Japan for 20 years while the bubble slowly and painfully deflates and the building sector remains stuffed, growth remains low, and young people remain priced out of the market or condemned to mortgage slavery; OR, they can have an economy coming to life again, houses getting built, other development happening, young people getting into affordable homes, incomes growing, and house prices rising again on a REAL basis.
Either way, it will take a decade or two for house prices to even out relative to incomes; it seems to me to be only a matter of spite that people would insist on the first course if they had this explained to them.
Phil Best - Yes I
Phil Best - Yes I agree, it's a no brainer in terms of reducing an inflation driver. However, for the reasons stated, do you agree that what is required is to:
"be supportive of a multi-causal analysis and MULTIPLE solutions that will spread the effect of the impact and include those that increase the DENOMINATOR of the ratio - that is, improve real incomes."
Yes or no.
If no, please explain - not by supporting the land-supply solution - I've no problem with that - but by highlighting the flaws/weaknesses in the multi-solution approach and the other solutions suggested.
If yes, please say why and highlight those you think will have a positive impact on the problem.
If another answer, please could you explain.
Kieran - it will be
Kieran - it will be Tuesday before I get back to you regarding subdivision cost matters.
Les Rudd, I agree with
Les Rudd, I agree with your point in so far as that a healthy supply of lower price new homes is perceived as the cause of prices overall dropping, the impact will need to be ameliorated. But people do need to understand that the prices of their homes were going to track the US experience anyway, whether earlier, or later thanks to monetary stimulus - lower interest rates now, allowing prices to re-inflate temporarily.
I am pleased to see that you have just got in on the "Philip O'Connor" thread re interest rates and house prices, I would have referred you to that. I look forward to continuing the discussion there; I really value your intelligent input.
In a way, I am
In a way, I am coming at the problem in only a slightly different way to you. I see the land supply issue as the primary one, without addressing that, we are not going to be able to prevent investment being drawn away from other parts of the economy and pumping up a housing bubble.
But I'll revert to the other thread from here.
Phil - if you are
Phil - if you are to pursue deconstraining land-supply as the primary issue and seek to address only that, what is your proposal for a 'change effective' implementation of your preferred solution?
By 'change effective' I mean a solution that could actually happen with a high probability of sucsess.
No need to reiterate the solution - what I would like to hear is how it gets done, with anticipation of the implementation risks and your practical proposals for dealing with them.
Les, that is a huge
Les, that is a huge subject and we really need to move the discussion towards that once we have more agreement that land supply is the main problem. I don't claim to have nutted out all the answers ahead of time. I agree that we do not want to sink the solution through political fallout from consequences of its implementation.
Hugh P. says that these things are being discussed at the highest levels of the National government.
But here are a few thoughts.
Developers are going broke anyway. Land is failing to sell anyway. Developments are being abandoned anyway. Existing property owners are going underwater anyway. We are not going to have a resumption of "party time" due to productivity and income increases and fundamentals like that, for a long time. We might get a "lost decade" like Japan.
The public needs to understand that our whole approach to resource utilisation needs to change. When the chips are down, people do care more about their incomes than about "the environment", especially if the economy is headed in the wrong direction. We have actually held up for years, projects that we would now be economically very grateful for; but the investors have disappeared now. Getting them back will take a lot more than "hope that things are getting back to normal". We will need to change the rules of the game so that these things can proceed with certainty at the lowest possible cost.
In the current economic climate, I do not see that we will end up with rampant over-development and despoilation and paving over of paradise. I do not see that public majorities would be anything other than grateful for projects that provide work and income.
Similarly, "housing" needs to be made a specifically "permitted use" of any land. Again, in the current economic climate I would not expect to see a rush to over-development; we are in the state of having to coax flickering embers back into life, not of pouring fuel on a bonfire. I would go as far as to suggest that it be made possible to incorporate new municipalities for new developments so as to remove the power of existing municipalities to impose costly conditions and fees. The trend to amalgamation is in my opinion, wrong, as this removes choice and the chance of a fairer treatment for the poorer members of society and the young and first home buyers.
Who loses out? Many of the losers will have been losers in any case. There have been much worse inequities as a result of the status quo, than would occur as a result of land use reform now. Developers/speculators took risks; risks have materialised worse than their worst dreams. A case for bailout/compensation in the event of land values being brought down by reform, would have to be carefully weighed.
Certainly developers who have paid huge upfront fees to councils, and then had to abandon developments, should be refunded now anyway. Developments should be able to proceed under new ownership if the existing developer has gone broke, and proceed at new fair levels of land value, not at the level of the inflated expectations of the recent past.
My quick suggestion for keeping the great majority of people on board with land reforms now, and providing a shot in the arm to the economy in the process, would be to make existing mortgage interest payments at least partly tax deductible as house values drop. The tax deductibility could be linked to the drop in values. Or maybe it would be better to link the deductibility to repayment of the "overhang" value of the principal of existing mortgages.
I find complex bureaucratically administered schemes distasteful in the extreme, and make the above suggestions only as a temporary measure to cope with a situation caused by wrong policies in the past. But as I say, the implications all round need attention from a dedicated team of experts.
By the way, please understand that as I say on the other threads, I agree with implementation of the various suggestions like CGT's. I agree with shifting the taxation burden off income and onto capital gains and land. I just think that failing to address the land supply issue would mean that these things would actually result in further inequities, especially if future governments saw ways to maximise their revenue through land supply manipulation.
just wanted to point out
just wanted to point out how dear nz real estate now seams.weve all heard about americas houses falling in price but ive just bought a house in orlando fllorida.i dont think i have met anyone in nz who has any idea whats happened to prices. im paying $20,000 us for a 3 bed in a nice area, ok it needs work but it needed work 18 months ago ang it still sold for $140k........this isnt a rare example its normal .las vegas is worse.clark county currently has 36000 houses going up for morgage...and thats with half the banks not doing repos.im goin to sell my house in nz for about 320000 nz.to some sucker .take the money to america and buy 5 freehold places .rent them out and get about 4000 a month us.im not trying to be dramatic but this is whats happening right now and some kiwis are saying theyre going to buy rentals in nz again.good thinking...without you id never be able to sell.
A lot of talks =
A lot of talks = 143, but then the situation changes and all of a sudden reality is here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upN-tfp_qiE&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrH_hToGwN4&feature=related
....or does the rest of the world like to live here in paradies New Zelaland ?
NZ needs to consider a
NZ needs to consider a succesful US model for Affordable Housing. The CLT-Community Land Trust. see www.burlingtonassociates.com for all details.
A CLT acquires land, by longterm (99 year) lease, gift from community minded people or by purchase using government funds.
The CLT builds housing and sells to low - middle income earners WITHOUT the land (owners LEASE the land) at anaffordable price, taking a smaller % than commersila builders would.
THEN, a CLT home owner who owns the house outright (gets a mortgage)may sell the house back to the CLT only. This is at a predetermined price and includes any renovations/additions the owner has made, plus a probably 25% of capital gains.
This home is then on-sold to a new owner at an Affordable Price---Permanent Affordabilty.
Check it out.
Grace McCaughey - two key
Grace McCaughey - two key points need to be recognised regarding the housing bubbles / housing affordability problems. Firstly - the issues to be dealt with are simple in the extreme - and secondly - that the cause of them is governance failure, not allowing affordable housing to be built.
I would like to think I have explained these issues very very simply these past four years - and you are most welcome to tell me whee you think Im wrong, by reading carefully the Demographia Surveys and my extensive writings at www.PerformanceUrbanPlanning.org .
Soundly governed urban markets should be able to supply new fringe housing at a Multiple of 2.5 and Manufactured Housing at 1.3.
Throwing taxpayer money at these issues only masks the problems. Note I quote Dr Sowell and Steven Malanga of the Manhattan Institute on these matters in my last article "Housing Bubbles are a Local Issue".
The Housing Affordability / Housing Bubbles issue is in essense a "political nonsense" - that should never have got out of hand the way it has. You may like to read my article of earlier this year with regard to the economics profession role in this fiasco.
Hugh Pavletich
Hugh - good to see
Hugh - good to see you back
Any word on when the Government might start getting serious about these issues?
I'm sure a man of your influence is making traction
I was in the camp
I was in the camp of thinking that NZ house prices do not represent the 'fair' value due to reasons such as the prices are too high to the income levels, the poor quality construction, etc. I also thought the market will correct and prices will fall. But the reality is that the RBNZ, banks, and the government do their best to hold the prices. This includes monetary policy adjustments such as lowering the OCR (at the cost of savers who derive a return below the rate of inflation after 38% tax), no tax on capital gains, restricting land supply, and by other incentives like allowing excessive migration, etc. Houses are deliberately kept as the security for business lending and most short term economic growth has been invariably linked to the level of house prices. So there is no point in being a saver and keeping huge sums of money in bank deposits. I do feel stupid, and decided to follow the other sheep in making a housing investment. The threats of inflation and quantitative easing are much more serious than facing the risk of a little fall in house prices in the short term. House do make a good long term investment given the past history of prices.
Most politicians and many top civil servants have made investments in housing than in shares for their retirement saving. So I am cynical of them doing good to the poor of country by making houses affordable. Higher house prices represent the power of those who manage the economy, politics and bureaucracy.
Yep Sam P, I think
Yep Sam P, I think you are quite right with some of those observaitons
Remember too just how much of NZ's wealth is tied up in housing (far higher than Aus and the USA) and there's another reason why those in power do their best to keep it inflated
For they know that the NZ economy lacks depth and essentially relies upon housing to keep its economy afloat
This helps the economy in the short term but its longer term consequences are potentially dire
Sam, Matt - “Red pill
Sam, Matt - "Red pill or blue pill?"
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/06/11/house-sales-ste...
"Finally, we have to decide, do we really want lower property inflation? And, what "˜we's' would answer what?"
I think we know what "we's would answer what."
"Red pill or blue pill?"
As in, just maintain the comfortable status quo, or what?
Matt in Auck, I have
Matt in Auck, I have been keeping over 150K in bank deposits and some in shares for the past 7-8 years. I live in a small house even though I could have easily bought a bigger house 10 years ago. In comparison with some of my "˜wealthier' friends who earn about half my income, I am not wealthy. My friends took excessive mortgage to buy a bigger house, and they are rewarded handsomely. Being a historical saver, I am punished enough.
I do understand that the long term consequences of excessive debts can be dire. Unfortunately, the Government can still resort to quantitative easing, and punish the savers (as happened in US & UK). The risk is mainly for those who have meagre equity in their housing investment. I could have easily bought an investment property for 150K in palmy 7-8 years ago and the same house will cost over 300k now. There is a systematic discouragement to saving and lot of incentives to take debt.
sam.p, I tend to agree
sam.p,
I tend to agree with you that there are vested interests that would like to see the Housing market propped up.
Bollard cutting the OCR now would probably have as much impact as a pop-gun firing blanks.
Having the Carry Trade reappear might give him the heeby jeebies. Low OCR, interest rates going up anyway, strong NZD AND readily available credit.. Housing boom in danger of being reignited, Economy on the ropes.... Whats a Central Banker to do?
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20090612/down-under-turn-above.htm
Hello Matt and others........ Im
Hello Matt and others........
Im not sure about the "influence" you suggest I might have Matt - other than that I have the extremely important position of "citizen" and have been making a lot of noise these past few years on housing / local government matters.
I have to say though - that of the 6 english speaking countries covered by the Annual Demographia Surveys (5th Edition out this year) - New Zealand is making the most political progress.......by a country mile. Indeed at National / Federeal level in Aust, the USA, UK and Ireland the "progress" is simply pitiful. The State of Victoria in Aust is the only other jurisdiction making substantial progress.
You will note I have highlighted some of the major statements by the New Zealand Government on my website to date. I think we need to realize too that we will not see crash / transformative change - but instead solid consultative evolutionary change - something I much prefer. Hon Nick Smiths recent speech to the Planners is worth a close read.
For change to "stick" it must happen in an evolutionary way "with the consent of the governed" - something the ideologues on the far right have yet to understand. The RMA was "transformative change" at the time back in 1991 - but look how much progress that made,
Hugh Pavletich
Gibber - " tend to
Gibber - " tend to agree with you that there are vested interests that would like to see the Housing market propped up." - you are a master of understatement.
"Bollard cutting the OCR now would probably have as much impact as a pop-gun firing blanks." He couldn't, he was firing blanks last time and all this talk of keeping the powder dry is absolute tosh - it's wet through, like....
Anyway, take the cut scenario; banks give the finger, where would NZD be now? He took the the most exporter friendly(?) route, which is unlikely to last for long, if/when risk aversion carries, excuse the pun.
So your'e in this bus carreering away all over the shop - out of control - and if you drop your 'Speed' below, ohhh say, present OCR - ka-buum-ba, and Denis H asks, "What do you do?" [Hope you seen the film, or that is meaningless.]
What do we do?
What should be done?
what do we do?? invest
what do we do??
invest in shares, and mostly overseas.
Les - love the analogy
Les - love the analogy to the movie Speed.
I couldn't agree more. Why don't we move towards the Singapore method, a basket band and crawl approach.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw05/050723ft.htm
It can't be any worse than the method we've got at the moment. Or can it ???
Interesting article by David McEwen,
Interesting article by David McEwen, quoting from "The Remarkable Story of Risk", Peter Bernstein:
1)... studies ... show how reluctant we are to accept a loss, because to do so proves we are inept and doesn't fit our self perception, and
2)..research shows that all actions have an average to which they revert.
Now where are we, again, against the long term NZ property averages?
"2)..research shows that all actions
"2)..research shows that all actions have an average to which they revert.
Now where are we, again, against the long term NZ property averages?"
Someone posted a link...maybe on interst.co.nz (???) about 4 to 6 weeks ago to a graph going back to about 1990.
It shows a rectifiation of values would be a drop of approx 30% from nov 2007 at that time...but as time goes on and the ave slopes the 30% reduces about 3 to 4% by 2010/11.
It's clear to me that
It's clear to me that so long as our corporations and government remain indebted at current levels there is very little that can be done with respect to mortgage rates. When the US succeeds in generating the inflation their economists are trying to initiate bank lending rates have nowhere to go but up. Wally's prediction of 10% mortgage rates is a conservative one: I well remember double digit interest during the 1980's. Unfortunately, there will be no time lag between increased lending costs overseas and here; they will be reflected overnight.
And waymad's post about building restrictions that prohibit DIY builders is a far more important variable when talking about the housing picture - especially outside of Auckland and Wellington. Labour changed the rules to make criminals out of honest people who owned a piece of land and wanted to build their own bach. Getting rid of that regulation would offer an alternative to buying into the human warehousing we see in our planned communities.
Many here have said it better, "The fundamentals of the economy are the only factors that matter when talking about the housing market." Any rational examination of the fundamentals today point towards higher interest costs, higher taxes, a decline in economic activity and higher unemployment - not exactly the things one finds in a seller's market.
@ Steps: But surely to
@ Steps:
But surely to revert to a mean over a given time, a period of "under trend" has to be factored in to produce the average? 2010/11 seems a bit close to me to acheive that?
(Sorry, Step, I put that
(Sorry, Step, I put that badly!) My point being that unless we get a quick revertion to mean ( your 2010/11) by a fall in prices, that time erosion to revert to mean will produce an extended period of stagnation. ( Bernard's 2018?)
What’s the long term average
What's the long term average cost of a mortgage if Gen X and Y decide not to buy property? Do house values fall, Does supply and demand kick in?
This is after all just pyramid selling on a huge scale and if the next generation get's smart they will not play this stupid game and invest instead in the productive economy. They can make the decision to earn foreign currency instead of standing at the street corner begging for it as we see today.
I have high hopes for the next generation and hope they will see the fastest way to turn this economy around is not to play by the Boomers rules. Leave the Boomers with their passive asset based wealth and focus on job creation, cash flow and profits instead. Things could quickly change in that environment. Let's face it Boomers and Banks have a lot in common. They love inflation and high interest rates. Now let's see who has the power and control in New Zealand oh that's the boomers and their friends. The change required to sort out this economy can only come from political change as vested interests like it just the way it is and that's a global issue not just in New Zealand. With health and superannuation set to double as a percentage of GDP and the next 30 odd years and those paying tax declining if I was a Gen X or Y I would be starting a new political party to represent my interests.
@ Selwyn. Here, here. My
@ Selwyn. Here, here.
My father liked inflation, "Pay today's bills off with tomorrows money" was his mantra. Fabulous when he had a job. But he retired in 1988, and isn't finding it as easy to pay today's bills with yesterdays money.
10% by xmas yes but
10% by xmas yes but I don't see the rise stopping there. The growing political argument in economics offshore seems to be between those desperate to hang on with the splurging stimulus spendups well into any signs of inflation, while the rest want the QE and fiscal splurging to end now before the inflation monster escapes containment. My money is on the idiots winning the battle and holding the gate wide open to inflation. I fully expect Bollard's prediction of inflation to become very real and that he will be forced to shove the ocr back up bloody quickly. We can expect rates to rise due both to the supply of credit falling short of the massive demand and to the ocr going up, way up. The impact on this disfunctional economy will be a second round of misery and a final collapse of residential property prices in line with the falls in dairy farm prices.
Grace - you must think
Grace - you must think you just walked into a mine-field! You sure got this thread going again, which as you can see was quite popular in it's day anyway.
SimonD - see:
English defies the evidence on monetary policy
at http://www.mea.org.nz/media/pressreleases.aspx
There are a variety of options that would work better than what we have now, it's not as though other choices are unavailable. Unless, some are willing to swallow their pride and lead that is.
The longer it takes to swallow the pride medicine, and we continue to maintain the 'status quo', the more sick we will ALL become.
Les - thanks for those
Les - thanks for those links. They were interesting.
I wonder if given the sensitivity of markets at the moment, public discussions on monetary policy are off limits. Perhaps (I'm not optimistic) the movers and shakers are talking behind closed doors. What will it take to wake up the policy making elite, that they really need to try something different? It ain't working guys, it is time to get the brains trust of the treasury and RBNZ together and agree on some options.
Anything has got to be better than what we've got now.
The exchange rate volatility of the NZ dollar is ridiculous, if I were an accountant (I'm not) it can't be possible to justify the investment in an export business currently the risk is too high.
SimonD, "I wonder if given
SimonD,
"I wonder if given the sensitivity of markets at the moment, public discussions on monetary policy are off limits."
It's exactly the time to be re-discussing things, but..
"Perhaps (I'm not optimistic) the movers and shakers are talking behind closed doors."
You'd think huh, but instead we are going to try stuff that has failed in the past, because, well.....that's who we are. See:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/06/15/90-at-9-g8-mini...
"What will it take to wake up the policy making elite, that they really need to try something different?"
Swallowing pride and/or a brain transplant!
"Anything has got to be better than what we've got now."
We don't need to accept anything, there are options, ideas, mechanisims available that would work a lot better for us, but back to the pride and brains issue.
"it can't be possible to justify the investment in an export business currently the risk is too high"
Dunno - best ask those firms and ops that have given up, and/or moved offshore.
I don't have a problem with floating currencies, but ours would be less volatile if it's value more closely reflected real goods and services trade flows than speculative money flows, and that could be achieved, if.... you know what's coming next.
Also, like your new name for NZD in another post - the 'Yo-Yo'.
You are so cynical. But that's how being real sounds sometimes I guess.
Experts have talked about this
Experts have talked about this before. How many times have you read about the importance of "˜adding value' for your audience? How many times have you read about "˜building trust' with your readers/prospects?
Many, many times. You know it well. Every marketing guru has spoken about this topic. I'm sick of hearing it. But it STILL bears repeating.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Post new comment