For first home buyers, August didn’t bring any affordability relief even though first quartile house prices fell on a national basis.
Prices for a house (actually a dwelling, so it may not be a stand-alone house) came in at $575,000 in August, down from $590,000 in July.
However, interest rates inched up. The base rate rose just five basis points to 6.79% for a fixed two year mortgage. However, for a first home buyer with only a 10% deposit, that effectively became a 7.99% rate after the low equity premiums are applied by banks. You need a 20% deposit to get the 6.79% rate. That rate was up from 5.35% just a year ago, so the cost of servicing a mortgage is rising quickly now.
And that shows up in the relationship between take-home pay and the mortgage payment.
Take-home pay rose 3.6% in the year to August. After tax, an average national household take-home pay is now $1975.17 a week. In Auckland it is worryingly little more than the national average, being $2,010.87 on the same basis in the Queen City.
But lower quartile house prices are significantly higher in Auckland, even if they hardly moved in August from July, at $799,000. (The zone in Auckland with the lowest August lower quartile house prices is Papakura at $710,000.)
With a 10% deposit, incurring premium interest costs, but on a falling national house price ($575,000), a new buyer would need to assign 44.3% of their take-home pay just to the mortgage. The rising interest rate essentially offsets the lower house price so this unaffordable level is unchanged in August from July. A year ago in August 2022, the ratio was 41.5%, still unaffordable but significantly less so.
That means a first home buyer in August 2023 now has to find an extra $54.94 a week from the household budget to make the mortgage payment than if they had bought the same house a year ago. That is $2,857 after tax extra, in a year.
But for all those costs, it only takes 2.94 years (153 weeks) to save a 10% deposit for an August 2023 purchase, little-changed from a year ago. In fact it has been like that since October 2020.
However, to save a 20% deposit (and get the much better interest rates and repayment levels) you would need to save hard for almost 300 weeks (5.74 years). No doubt you will need to rent a basic house, so much of your two-income-no-children household can be saved to achieve a minimum deposit. It has never been easy, but it is certainly harder now (2023) than any time since we started assessing home loan affordability in 2004.
These time-to-save numbers are the national average. It is significantly longer in Auckland – ‘significant’ being an understatement. Even in Auckland’s most ‘affordable’ zone (Papakura) the time to save is 3.56 years (185 weeks, seven months longer than the national average) but that then requires you to assign a massive 53.7% of your household take-home pay to pay the mortgage. That is severely unaffordable for the average household in the 30 year old cohort.
The tables below show the main affordability measures for typical first home buyers with either 10% or 20% deposits in all main urban districts throughout the country in August.
[* Greg Ninness is on vacation].
| AFFORDABILITY WITH 10% DEPOSITS | |||||||
| Weekly | |||||||
| LQ House | 10 % Dep | Time To Save |
Mort Req | Repayment | Take Home Pay |
Affordability | |
| Northland | 540,000 | 54,000 | 2.9 | 486,000 | 821.40 | 1,856.20 | 44.3% |
| Auckland | 799,000 | 79,900 | 4.0 | 719,100 | 1,215.36 | 2,010.87 | 60.4% |
| Waikato | 579,000 | 57,900 | 3.0 | 521,100 | 880.72 | 1,944.67 | 45.3% |
| Hawkes Bay | 540,000 | 54,000 | 2.9 | 486,000 | 821.40 | 1,889.16 | 43.5% |
| Manawatu/Wanganui | 425,000 | 42,500 | 2.2 | 382,500 | 646.47 | 1,911.85 | 33.8% |
| Taranaki | 461,500 | 46,150 | 2.4 | 415,350 | 701.99 | 1,911.85 | 36.7% |
| Wellington | 599,000 | 59,900 | 2.9 | 539,100 | 911.14 | 2,072.16 | 44.0% |
| Nelson/Marlborough | 590,000 | 59,000 | 3.1 | 531,000 | 897.45 | 1,893.78 | 47.4% |
| Canterbury/Westland | 520,000 | 52,000 | 2.7 | 468,000 | 790.98 | 1,952.47 | 40.5% |
| Bay of Plenty | 615,000 | 61,500 | 3.3 | 553,500 | 935.48 | 1,901.73 | 49.2% |
| Otago | 449,000 | 44,900 | 2.4 | 404,100 | 682.98 | 1,884.82 | 36.2% |
| Southland | 360,000 | 36,000 | 1.8 | 324,000 | 547.60 | 1,991.67 | 27.5% |
| New Zealand | 575,000 | 57,500 | 2.9 | 517,500 | 874.64 | 1,975.17 | 44.3% |
| ---------------------- | |||||||
| Auckland Central | 770,000 | 77,000 | 3.9 | 693,000 | 1,171.25 | 2,010.87 | 58.2% |
| Auckland North Shore | 970,000 | 97,000 | 4.9 | 873,000 | 1,475.47 | 2,010.87 | 73.4% |
| Auckland South | 764,000 | 76,400 | 3.8 | 687,600 | 1,162.13 | 2,010.87 | 57.8% |
| Auckland West | 755,000 | 75,500 | 3.8 | 679,500 | 1,148.44 | 2,010.87 | 57.1% |
| Tauranga | 690,000 | 69,000 | 3.7 | 621,000 | 1,049.56 | 1,882.07 | 55.8% |
| Wellington City | 700,000 | 70,000 | 3.0 | 630,000 | 1,064.78 | 2,351.27 | 45.3% |
| Wellington Hutt | 590,000 | 59,000 | 3.0 | 531,000 | 897.45 | 2,014.18 | 44.6% |
| Christchurch | 526,000 | 52,600 | 2.7 | 473,400 | 800.10 | 1,945.31 | 41.1% |
| Whangarei | 570,000 | 57,000 | 2.9 | 513,000 | 867.03 | 1,977.75 | 43.8% |
| Hamilton | 628,000 | 62,800 | 3.3 | 565,200 | 955.26 | 1,937.71 | 49.3% |
| Rotorua | 520,000 | 52,000 | 2.7 | 468,000 | 790.98 | 1,930.76 | 41.0% |
| Gisborne | 460,000 | 46,000 | 2.7 | 414,000 | 699.71 | 1,701.23 | 41.1% |
| Napier | 535,000 | 53,500 | 2.9 | 481,500 | 813.79 | 1,896.33 | 42.9% |
| Hastings | 520,000 | 52,000 | 2.8 | 468,000 | 790.98 | 1,889.16 | 41.9% |
| Palmerston North | 530,000 | 53,000 | 2.7 | 477,000 | 806.19 | 1,992.79 | 40.5% |
| Wanganui | 370,000 | 37,000 | 2.1 | 333,000 | 562.81 | 1,774.90 | 31.7% |
| New Plymouth | 530,000 | 53,000 | 2.8 | 477,000 | 806.19 | 1,883.52 | 42.8% |
| Porirua | 749,000 | 74,900 | 3.9 | 674,100 | 1,139.31 | 1,962.65 | 58.0% |
| Kapiti Coast | 595,000 | 59,500 | 3.3 | 535,500 | 905.06 | 1,846.70 | 49.0% |
| Nelson | 590,000 | 59,000 | 3.1 | 531,000 | 897.45 | 1,893.78 | 47.4% |
| Timaru | 413,000 | 41,300 | 2.3 | 371,700 | 628.22 | 1,787.65 | 35.1% |
| Queenstown | 980,000 | 98,000 | 5.3 | 882,000 | 1,490.69 | 1,884.82 | 79.1% |
| Dunedin | 460,000 | 46,000 | 2.6 | 414,000 | 699.71 | 1,769.58 | 39.5% |
| Invercargill | 360,000 | 36,000 | 1.9 | 324,000 | 547.60 | 1,903.34 | 28.8% |
| Wairarapa | 427,000 | 42,700 | 2.7 | 384,300 | 649.51 | 1,609.90 | 40.3% |
| Rodney | 895,000 | 89,500 | 4.5 | 805,500 | 1,361.39 | 2,010.87 | 67.7% |
| Papakura | 710,000 | 71,000 | 3.6 | 639,000 | 1,079.99 | 2,010.87 | 53.7% |
| Franklin | 810,000 | 81,000 | 4.1 | 729,000 | 1,232.10 | 2,010.87 | 61.3% |
| AFFORDABILITY WITH 20% DEPOSITS | |||||||
| Weekly | |||||||
| LQ House | 20 % Dep | Time To Save |
Mort Req | Repayment | Take Home Pay |
Affordability | |
| Northland | 540,000 | 108,000 | 5.7 | 432,000 | 648.60 | 1,856.20 | 34.9% |
| Auckland | 799,000 | 159,800 | 7.8 | 639,200 | 959.69 | 2,010.87 | 47.7% |
| Waikato | 579,000 | 115,800 | 5.9 | 463,200 | 695.45 | 1,944.67 | 35.8% |
| Hawkes Bay | 540,000 | 108,000 | 5.7 | 432,000 | 648.60 | 1,889.16 | 34.3% |
| Manawatu/Wanganui | 425,000 | 85,000 | 4.4 | 340,000 | 510.47 | 1,911.85 | 26.7% |
| Taranaki | 461,500 | 92,300 | 4.8 | 369,200 | 554.32 | 1,911.85 | 29.0% |
| Wellington | 599,000 | 119,800 | 5.7 | 479,200 | 719.47 | 2,072.16 | 34.7% |
| Nelson/Marlborough | 590,000 | 118,000 | 6.1 | 472,000 | 708.66 | 1,893.78 | 37.4% |
| Canterbury/Westland | 520,000 | 104,000 | 5.2 | 416,000 | 624.58 | 1,952.47 | 32.0% |
| Bay of Plenty | 615,000 | 123,000 | 6.4 | 492,000 | 738.69 | 1,901.73 | 38.8% |
| Otago | 449,000 | 89,800 | 4.7 | 359,200 | 539.30 | 1,884.82 | 28.6% |
| Southland | 360,000 | 72,000 | 3.6 | 288,000 | 432.40 | 1,991.67 | 21.7% |
| New Zealand | 575,000 | 115,000 | 5.7 | 460,000 | 690.64 | 1,975.17 | 35.0% |
| ---------------------- | |||||||
| Auckland Central | 770,000 | 154,000 | 7.6 | 616,000 | 924.86 | 2,010.87 | 46.0% |
| Auckland North Shore | 970,000 | 194,000 | 9.5 | 776,000 | 1,165.08 | 2,010.87 | 57.9% |
| Auckland South | 764,000 | 152,800 | 7.5 | 611,200 | 917.65 | 2,010.87 | 45.6% |
| Auckland West | 755,000 | 151,000 | 7.4 | 604,000 | 906.84 | 2,010.87 | 45.1% |
| Tauranga | 690,000 | 138,000 | 7.2 | 552,000 | 828.77 | 1,882.07 | 44.0% |
| Wellington City | 700,000 | 140,000 | 5.9 | 560,000 | 840.78 | 2,351.27 | 35.8% |
| Wellington Hutt | 590,000 | 118,000 | 5.8 | 472,000 | 708.66 | 2,014.18 | 35.2% |
| Christchurch | 526,000 | 105,200 | 5.3 | 420,800 | 631.79 | 1,945.31 | 32.5% |
| Whangarei | 570,000 | 114,000 | 5.7 | 456,000 | 684.64 | 1,977.75 | 34.6% |
| Hamilton | 628,000 | 125,600 | 6.4 | 502,400 | 754.30 | 1,937.71 | 38.9% |
| Rotorua | 520,000 | 104,000 | 5.3 | 416,000 | 624.58 | 1,930.76 | 32.3% |
| Gisborne | 460,000 | 92,000 | 5.3 | 368,000 | 552.51 | 1,701.23 | 32.5% |
| Napier | 535,000 | 107,000 | 5.6 | 428,000 | 642.60 | 1,896.33 | 33.9% |
| Hastings | 520,000 | 104,000 | 5.5 | 416,000 | 624.58 | 1,889.16 | 33.1% |
| Palmerston North | 530,000 | 106,000 | 5.2 | 424,000 | 636.59 | 1,992.79 | 31.9% |
| Wanganui | 370,000 | 74,000 | 4.1 | 296,000 | 444.41 | 1,774.90 | 25.0% |
| New Plymouth | 530,000 | 106,000 | 5.5 | 424,000 | 636.59 | 1,883.52 | 33.8% |
| Porirua | 749,000 | 149,800 | 7.5 | 599,200 | 899.64 | 1,962.65 | 45.8% |
| Kapiti Coast | 595,000 | 119,000 | 6.4 | 476,000 | 714.66 | 1,846.70 | 38.7% |
| Nelson | 590,000 | 118,000 | 6.1 | 472,000 | 708.66 | 1,893.78 | 37.4% |
| Timaru | 413,000 | 82,600 | 4.5 | 330,400 | 496.06 | 1,787.65 | 27.7% |
| Queenstown | 980,000 | 196,000 | 10.3 | 784,000 | 1,177.09 | 1,884.82 | 62.5% |
| Dunedin | 460,000 | 92,000 | 5.2 | 368,000 | 552.51 | 1,769.58 | 31.2% |
| Invercargill | 360,000 | 72,000 | 3.8 | 288,000 | 432.40 | 1,903.34 | 22.7% |
| Wairarapa | 427,000 | 85,400 | 5.2 | 341,600 | 512.88 | 1,609.90 | 31.9% |
| Rodney | 895,000 | 179,000 | 8.8 | 716,000 | 1,075.00 | 2,010.87 | 53.5% |
| Papakura | 710,000 | 142,000 | 7.0 | 568,000 | 852.79 | 2,010.87 | 42.4% |
| Franklin | 810,000 | 162,000 | 8.0 | 648,000 | 972.90 | 2,010.87 | 48.4% |
108 Comments
Credit is what pays for it, and there's definitely a moral hazard with malinvestment and over-lending.
But there's also certain dynamics with how our housing supply presents itself that means newer entrants are inherently disadvantaged. A 30 year old with a family is almost never going to be able to compete for a house in Epsom.
If there is a bubble that's going to burst, younger home buyers' ability to buy houses won't shift. Just as we are seeing now, with decreasing values, but increasing service requirements. There's a big element to it that's relative, and the credit just deflates the value of a dollar.
Bemused - Luxon states in the interview that housing supply is the problem, yet commits to the same number and funding as the current Labour government. Then goes on to say that the FBB will increase demand. Nice one.
If it's the same interview I'm thinking of, she had him rattled and unstable for the majority of the interview by asking very simple questions. The best part was the rehearsed grimace about halfway through
Edit: Are his teeth photoshopped here!?!?
Yep, dumbest rule change ever for creating further house price inflation.
Of course then what happens… Foreign buyer gets the $1.9mil house for $2mil, next NZ’er in line pays $1.9mil for the $1.8mil house, and so on.
Clearly the Nats don’t give two ‘hoots about affordability.
"Never win with TD's" - Priceless! You keep telling yourself that if it helps.....
So, while you're paying a net 8% interest on a declining asset, I'm receiving it (and banking it). Sh-t, if I was paying 8%, I wouldn't have TD's either. I'd be getting rid of debt first!
edit
When rates where sh-t, I was receiving 4.25% pa (int paid monthly) on a 5-year TD that came out in Jan this year. It was also a nice earner. It was also with Rabobank. We have no debt, own our house outright and have three substantial incomes. We don't need to diversify. There are always those who think they know how to invest the money of others.
.....and what did you say you invested in again?
Flying High, is this seriously all you've got to contribute? I would love to know where Nifty has his money invested but he won't tell me. Much like Pa1nter, He's quick to criticize but offers nothing of substance in return.
Despite what you want others to believe, I'm not intending this as a pissing contest. Anyway, Nifty has now conveniently disappeared.....so I guess we shall never know what specific investment advice this self proclaimed Oracle has on offer.
Most people are not in your financial position RP and most will probably never be there either so they don't get it. Its pointless banging on here about TD's, by the time you have a significant TD you have made it because you will also be debt free. People don't have a TD when you have a mortgage.
Plenty of people can and do hold counter-productive investments and debts.
Not for poppy possibly, cause he's older so as you say, there's probably less debt. Although he's also having to work to put money in his TD, so if we were making a graph of return, vs the value of your remaining years, a TD is actually god awful.
No idea why someone would feel the need to constantly advertise any of this. Well, some idea, and it's not about the rate of return.
All I can say is that I'm a little surprised by how much TD's (and todays accompanying rates) trigger some posters here. I think it speaks more of their own situation than mine. Some here need to self reflect as to why they're triggered in the first place as I'm "apparently" on a counter-productive path to financial self destruction.
Instead of feverishly trying to shut me down, why not instead wish me well?
Are they though, Poppy?
You have an inordinate amount of posts that are hoping you've upset the other commenter.
I don't feel the need to share such financial information on here. I can understand someone else might, but there's not really a good reason for someone to continually cream themselves from a TD return.
Pa1nter, and here was me thinking it was mere theatrics. An effort to arouse the emotions of others against me. I felt you conveniently chose to share that part of your life online in a timely fashion.
Perhaps the solution is you "playing" with someone else?
End of life care is truly tough on families. I sincerely apologize if I caused you offence.
Not so. Many just want the normal economic rules to apply.
We are coming off a very very abnormal period of access to debt. That has created a massive overshoot in speculative debt without supporting income - speculative gambling n investment. All that's happening is a return to more normal costs of debt. Perhaps China and the US will start massive printing and dumping of money into circulation again, in repeat of what effectively bailed out the over leveraged last time. With Xi Jinping saying "houses are for living in, not for speculation", and the Fed signaling "more QT and higher rates to be the norm"....perhaps not.
For those long on 2% debt, look up. You are the steak about to be ground into mince...
Here's a bit of affordability measurement from the tabloid media focusing on the Sydney bubble. Even though Daily Mail doesn't have a fancy pants name like Corelogic or Westpac, I think they do a good job of showing the sheeple something using a bit of the ol' envelope calculations to show how house price inflation has outstripped the CPI 4:1.
Proof Sydney's property market hasn't ALWAYS been insane:
Vintage advert from 1968 shows you could snap up a furnished house 16km from the CBD for just $200,000 in today's money
- Vintage advert from 1968 offers an insight into the housing market 51 years ago
- A four bedroom home in Beverly Hills in 1968 would cost someone $34,000
- Furnished house 16km from the CBD would cost $200,000 in today's money
- An average home cost less than what buyers spend in stamp duty in 2019
- Sydney home owners currently spend about $35,000 on stamp duty alone
- Sydney's median house price of $866,524 is 10 times the average salary
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7207421/Vintage-advert-1968-sh…
Further to this, just seen Westpac showing average savings is $22K and median savings is $4K across all bank customers. Assuming 66% fall within 1 SD of a normal distribution, this would suggest that many h'holds facing interest rate rises are close to tipping point. And it also shows that young people are very unlikely to participate in the ponzi on their own steam.
Government should take 0.5% fee on all house transactions paid by seller then put this fee into building social housing to be rented at low rates this would take down rent cost and house prices. If you open property market to rest of the world most of the population who don’t already own a house will be priced out market.
Relief for FHBs will come once all the three-yearly rating valuations are re-done to reflect the current slowdown/price drops. Presently, it's a Mexican standoff due to the outrageously high valuations from 2020 and 2021. In many/most cases, banks won't even lend to those levels.
Never seen a council drops its rating level unless you force them by challenging the valuation. In Awkland Council delayed setting the RV, and waited until the peak to lock in the maximum level of income for themselves. Commercial was especially gouged to crazy levels. The process is normally not prone to such fluctuation, but has been distorted by the stupidity that 2% debt introduced.
They'll go down - as revaluations are based on recent market sales in the district/neighbourhood. That's why everyone went up - and it's the same reason why everyone will come down (depending on timing of revaluation in the three-year cycle).
From a Council rates perspective, valuations don't matter as total income needed for any particular year is set based on what a council needs to recover in order to meet their long-term plan expenditure budget. This amount is then apportioned across all properties (rateable units) based on either land value or capital value.
Hence, property values can decrease and Council's will still be able to charge/collect what they need.
It's called a balanced budget, not a profit/loss one. Hence, council's can never budget for a deficit in the sense that central government does.
Thats how long I think it will take. 1-3 years, very slowly, we will see land sales, developers selling holdings, sections subdivided, and we may see land values fall, those sales are hard to find in a lot of areas, but the rating revaluations will show up the falls in the market across the board, even as the cost to build increases with inflation.
if NACT roll out their investor tax relief, the RB better get some DTI's in place quickly before the market takes off again and it would be great if deposits for subsequent properties had to be cash rather than equity to put FHB's & OO's on an even footing with 'investors'
if NACT roll out their investor tax relief, the RB better get some DTI's in place quickly before the market takes off again
The central bankers know that the money supply is more or less a function of private bank credit creation. Over the past 20 years, the annualized rates of broad money supply increase per capita:
- United States: 6.2%
- Euro Area: 5.5%
- Japan: 2.9%
Guess where asset prices and price inflation are more benign.
Funnily enough, real estate prices in Japan are trending up this year, up to 7%, and prices in some areas now exceed pre-bubble prices.
Prices for properties in some areas of Tokyo have always been expensive, like Minato-ku. Ginza had the most expensive land prices and they were down up to 70% from peak to trough.
If National want to reinstate mortgage interest deductibility on people's speculative hobby homes, then they should introduce the same for owner occupiers. Quite an incentive to prevent credit bubbles from forming as interest rates increases will take a huge chunk of tax revenue from owner occupiers with a mortgage.
Tax equity release (e.g. flat 30%). If you really want to tap up that equity to buy more property, then the government may as well raise some tax revenue off it. Have some reasonable system to allow for buying a new home to move in to while waiting for your current one to sell or whatever, but ultimately it would be one way to raise revenue and mitigate some of the deleterious effects of leveraged property investment at the same time.
So the older couple that wants a new kitchen boat or overseas holiday will pay 30 percent more to account for the equity tax.
Or the one who wants to live in better style than just the super and they ask for a reverse mortgage has to lose 30 percent of that payout. Heartlands reverse mortgage offerings will be an unwanted hard sell
Everybody is so hung up on tax they can't see the forest for the trees.
Debt leveraged asset inflation and consumerism is why our economic and societal issues also continue to grow. Nobody's really "winning" except the mega corps and financial institutions.
Reverse mortgages are a relatively new financial "product". You really gotta think who it really serves. The only reason it works is because of the imbalances in the system.
LQ house 799k in Auckland would this be like a 2 bedroom flat. 4 years to save 10% deposit no sure how they would be able to save 20k per while renting then on two peoples wages 60% of all income on mortgage. 800 left over to pay for food petrol rates water hope they don’t have car loan or credit cards or children. Is this what we want for our young generations a lifetime of debt. The house prices will continue to fall or with no hope many of our children will just go and live in countries with more opportunities.
Can't see housing taking off even under Nact. We just need things to settle down a bit. Europe about to enter the freezer with no clothes on. China in debt up to its eyeballs - and beyond. North America not much better. South America gone socialist. Middle East about to blow up. Africa still a series of small eternal wars. The South West Pacific's the place.
Reading this I cant help but think how blessed I am to have been born when I was. I was able to buy my first home as a uni grad in 2010 for 195k. That put me on the ladder. I now have my own place in Auckland with a modest mortgage serviced by two rental incomes. It is not because I am smarter or harder working. There is no way I could hope to live as well as I do if I was a 20 something today.
It's literally impossible within a closed market for everyone to own their own home and have two rentals as well (note I'm assuming two rentals and not flatmates). There's no tears here - 1689baptist has climbed aboard the ladder and oh how well they did, whilst now partaking of the rentier economy to a) deny others home ownership whilst b) simultaneously exploiting their need for a home.
A humble brag if ever I saw one.
Well, you could sell, and to a FHB, sure. No need to sell "below market rates", though. You'd still have what you need, right - a house for your family? in a location you desire, and with a nice low mortgage? Minus the rent slaves, though, so that might be a bit of a downer, if your into that sort of thing.
Sadly we have had 3 couples of younger friends breakup this year. All had mortgaged homes and now have ended up in either a hopeless or precarious financial position due to housing costs. They can't afford to have 2 failed relationships so all but 1 have told us they wouldn't consider a new relationship with someone who is basically broke. I should report back in a couple of years how they went with that plan.
That cracks me up. Have a similar net worth. If your talking about a woman looking for a man with high net worth at that age, I'm picking the guy will go for a younger person, and low stress, who likes him for who he is. Sure there may be an exception, but its exception not the rule. Especially if he has high net worth and has a choice. If its a guy looking for high net worth woman. I'm not sure that actually happens. I think a guy wants a stress free life, low baggage, thats pretty much it other then one key ingredient I'm missing out. At 40 ish if your looking for the perfect person whoever you are, I think the marriage should have been worked on harder, a lot easier then looking with high standards with a limited market. Thats made my day pretty funny really.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.