HOT TOPICS:   Gold   |   Unitary Plan  |    Mortgage rates

The comment stream

Recent comments

Reader poll

How many new houses will the Government-Auckland Council accord produce in Auckland over the next three years?

Choices
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 15 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

Rent or buy?

Posted in Property

The Rent or Buy report - New Zealand

24 May 2013

A monthly assessment of renting a property versus taking out a mortgage.

To buy or to rent, that is the question...

The purpose of this Report is to help you decide when to move from renting to owning. The indicators in here show whether you should continue to rent-and-save-for-a-deposit, or when the time is right to buy.

For many, the goal of owning your own home remains a powerful objective - one we support. But affordability issues can be serious barrier to achieving this, and renting is often seen as a ‘second best’ outcome – what you are left doing if you can’t afford to buy.

However, this Report is aimed at renters who want to buy, and suggests when conditions are appropriate to make the move from renting to owning.

Market overview for April

Strong demand for residential properties in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and other cities has pushed the volume of sales to the highest level for the month since 2007. A total of 7,104 houses changed hands compared to 5,676 units in the same month last year and 4,987 units two years ago. The three metro areas accounted for almost two-thirds of this volume.

The national median house price has increased by 7.0% to $390,500 in April compared to the same month last year. Auckland has recorded a significant annual growth of 13.3% while Christchurch and Wellington recorded 11.0% and 5.1% annual increment, respectively.

Lower quartile house, which are usually sought by the landlords and first-home buyers, rose 6.2% annually to $273,000 at national level. In Auckland this category rose 14.3%. Christchurch and Wellington have recorded an annual increment of 8.3% and 3.5%, respectively.

In April 2013, weekly rents have also risen as fast as the house prices. At the national level, median rents for a three bedroom house were $345/week, 4.6% higher than they were a year earlier.

Christchurch has dominated the growth for renting the same profile house with which recorded an annual growth of 14.3%. The growth is then followed by Wellington with the annual surplus of 9.9% and 7.1% for Auckland region.

 

The global economic slowdown and the Christchurch earthquake were among the dominating factors that have changed the residential property landscape. But regulatory impediments also loom large, especially in Auckland.

Lower rates of return in alternate investments such as term deposits and bonds, along with the complete demise of the finance company industry, have investors looking at property in a new light. The lower interest rates behind these changes have certainly spiced up buyer interest.

 

The rent or buy results for April 2013

In April 2013, it takes 26.6% of household take-home pay to service the mortgage and related household costs on a lower quartile priced house.

But it also takes 23.5% of household take-home pay to make the median rent on a 3 bedroom house

That means in April 2012, it takes 3.1% more of your household income to afford the mortgage than to rent. Of course, this assumes you have saved the deposit to afford a mortgage, and that may well be another big barrier for many.

It takes a household 3.6 years (with a saving rate of 20%) to save a 20% deposit, as now required by most banks.

 

Key drivers in April

Rent affordability

The median weekly after tax income for a first-home buyer household in New Zealand was $1,465.86 in April, up from $1,463.67 last month and up from $1,430.69 in April 2012.

Median rent for a 3 bedroom house in New Zealand was $345 per week, up from last month’s $340 and up from last year’s $330 per week.

In April, it takes 23.5% of your after tax income as a first home buyer household to pay the median rent of a 3 bedroom house. This is up from last month’s 23.2% and up from last year’s 23.1%.

Buying affordability

HLA measures of the percentage of after tax income needed to service the mortgage of a lower quartile house bought in February.

Factors that determine this figure includes house price, interest rate, income, rates, insurance and maintenance.

In April, a floating mortgage rate of 5.76% and a lower-quartile house price of $273,000 will require a weekly mortgage payment of $335.08. This is down from last month’s $345.25 and up from the $311.03 that was required the same month last year.

In addition to the mortgage payment, this analysis also includes the household costs of rates, insurance and maintenance, amounting to $55.45 per week.

This is equivalent of 26.6% of the after tax income of a first buyer household income. This is down from last year’s 25.1%.

Conclusion:

For many people who are renters and potential first-home buyers, now is a good time to consider buying. The costs are similar between the two options, but interest rates are low and likely to stay low for some time. It will not be the comparison between renting or buying that will be the main decision point however – it will be whether you have saved enough for a deposit. It is generally unwise to extend yourself excessively by buying with little equity.

Future market directions are uncertain, and if they turn against your circumstances, you can be wiped out financially. When the technical data shows little between the costs of renting or owning, you are probably best to spend some additional time saving to ensure you have a sensible equity buffer before you buy. In our book, that is buying with a 20% deposit. Besides, with that down-payment, banks will work hard to give you their best deal.

That means, if you are buying a first-quartile house, you need to have saved $54,600.

 

A short list of the regional rent or buy affordability comparison for April 2013

 
House Prices
Rent
% household take-home pay
 
LQ hse
Median
Buy
Rent
Differential
Auckland North Shore         546,600
490
50.34%
30.11%
20.23%
Queenstown         386,250
395
42.82%
29.19%
13.62%
Auckland West         407,200
400
40.50%
27.02%
13.48%
Auckland South         400,500
410
42.76%
29.81%
12.95%
Auckland Central         450,400
500
41.98%
31.63%
10.35%
Kapiti Coast         292,500
330
30.31%
24.10%
6.21%
Wellington City         405,400
500
34.39%
28.40%
5.99%
Christchurch         320,700
400
33.17%
27.83%
5.35%
Invercargill         153,800
240
16.02%
18.23%
-2.22%
Wanganui         128,000
220
14.09%
17.18%
-3.08%
Timaru         167,500
280
18.00%
21.42%
-3.42%
Gisborne         153,000
280
17.97%
23.47%
-5.50%
New Zealand         273,000
345
26.64%
23.54%
3.11%

Full regional reports are available below: 

Auckland region Auckland Central Auckland North Shore Auckland South Auckland West New Zealand Wellington region Wellington City Hutt Valley Porirua Kapiti Coast Northland Whangarei New Zealand Waikato and BOP Hamilton Tauranga Rotorua Hawkes Bay and Gisborne Napier" Hastings Gisborne Taranaki Manawatu and Wanganui New Plymouth Palmerston North Wanganui Nelson and Malborough Nelson Canterbury Christchurch Timaru Otago Cent Otago Lakes Southland Queenstown Dunedin Invercargill New Zealand

Here is a cool tool that helps you assess a range of factors.

Now, the assumptions

We assume you are a first home buyer household, renting a 3 bedroom house and paying a median rent. Your household income consists of one male median income and one female median income from the 25-29 age group.

We assume you want to buy a similar house, but as you are starting out, it will be one priced in the first quartile. You have saved a deposit based on 20% of your household income for the past four years to a maximum of 20% of the house price. The resulting mortgage is for 25 years as a traditional table mortgage. In this report, the two-year fixed mortgage interest rate is used until August 2010. From September 2010 onward, this research has adopted a variable or floating interest rate as the market is shifted to a lower and cheaper rate on a floating basis.

Note to Editors

This work must be referred to as the interest.co.nz rent-or-buy Report. It has been produced by www.interest.co.nz. Please direct queries via email to info@interest.co.nz, or see our contact information below.

 

Sources / Definitions / Methodology

Targeted renter or buyer: An individual in the 25-29 year old age group that buys the lower-quartile priced house with a deposit as calculated below.

Interpreting this Index

These affordability indexes measure the proportion a weekly median rent for a 3 bedroom house and a weekly mortgage payment is of weekly take-home pay. A separate measure is generated for each region, plus a national one, and for other various mortgage interest rate terms.

Household Weekly Income

The source on which we base our estimates of weekly income, is now the LEEDS (Linked employer-employee data survey) data from Statistics New Zealand.

A household of one male and one female, both on full median incomes, is used.

Income tax rates from IRD are used to calculate a take-home pay (which is the LEEDS-based data net of the specific income tax rate).

Deposit - First home buyer index: 

As house prices vary by region to a larger extent than wages, we refrained from using a simple 10% deposit-90% mortgage rule to emulate a first home buyer. Instead, to capture the disparity between incomes and house prices we estimate the deposit as a function of savings – that is 20% of weekly income saved for 4 years, plus interest earned at a 90 day deposit interest rate.

Home Loan: (Lower quartile house price less the deposit)

Mortgage repayments are based on the value of the home loan, paid weekly for 25 years, using the 2 year bank average interest rate. The home loan is assumed to be a standard table mortgage, where both interest and principal is repaid in a fixed weekly payment made in arrears. The repayment is calculated using the tools on our Calculators section.

Mortgage Rates

Average mortgage interest rates are sourced from www.interest.co.nz. These averages are for banks only as banks have 90%+ of the mortgage market. Affordability calculations are done for mortgages at the floating rate and one year through to the five fixed-rate terms.  In this report, the two-year fixed mortgage interest rate is used until August 2010. From September 2010 onward, this research has adopted a variable or floating interest rate as the market is shifted to a lower and cheaper rate on a floating basis.
 

House price data

Median house prices are as reported by the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand. Although the REINZ series is more volatile than the QV equivalent, there is a highly positive correlation between the two series. The REINZ series is more current and offers an earlier indication of market trends.

Saving Rates

Average savings interest rates are sourced from www.interest.co.nz. These averages are for banks only, and use the 90 day term deposit rate. Saving calculations take into account the individuals marginal tax rates as defined by IRD.

Rents

This study uses data sourced from the Department of Building & Housing tenancy bond service, focusing on median rents for a 3 bedroom house.

Rates, Insurance and Maintenance

These are costs paid by a landlord and included in rent. To ensure this Rent-or-Buy analysis is fair, we have assumed the following costs will be incurred by homeowners:-

Rates and insurance – The average rates and insurance costs are sourced from the Household Economic Survey published by Statistics New Zealand.

Maintenance – Based the average weekly property maintenance related expenses as sourced from Statistics New Zealand.

Disclaimer

IMPORTANT – PLEASE READ

No reader should rely on the contents of this report for making a specific investment or purchase decision. The information in this report is supplied strictly on the basis that only overall market trends are being reported on, and that all data, conclusions and opinions expressed are provisional and subject to revision.

If you are making a specific investment or purchase decision, you are strongly advised to seek independent advice from a qualified professional you trust.

The conditions and disclaimers set out in our Terms and Conditions are applicable to this report as well.

This report is made available on these terms only, and JDJL Limited or www.interest.co.nz is not responsible for any actions taken on the basis of information in this report, or for any error in or omission from this report.

Contact

For more information, contact

David Chaston
Publisher,
www.interest.co.nz

JDJL Limited
206 Jervois Road, Herne Bay
PO Box 47-756, Ponsonby
Auckland, New Zealand

Phone:  (09) 360-9670
Mobile:  021 997-311
Fax:       (09) 360-9319

Email:   david.chaston@interest.co.nz

24 Comments

All this discussion about the

All this discussion about the price of everything ( and the value of nothing ) leaves me cold.  I just spent my lifes earnings on a beautiful block of land where I will happily while away my time and play at being self sufficient as much as possible. I will happily be buried there under a tree, and if its worth a whole lot less when that time comes, I care not a fig. If it cost me 0.0024% more per acre  to buy it in March 2011 than It would have if I had invested the deposit and waited till 3rd quarter 2015 or something of the like, would I have been better off? Or should I have bought it in Waikikamukau where land is 3.72% cheaper than it was last year. Its not about how much you make over time, its about what you make of the time you have got.  

Murray I agree absolutely. 

Murray I agree absolutely.  And here is an item which discusses the consumption value of owning your own home.

http://baselinescenario.com/2011/05/13/renting-and-buying-compared/

 

The salient part:

  • Now for the usual caveat: Everything above discusses buying a house as an investment. Most people get more consumption value from owning a house than from renting an equivalent house because most people get utility from living in a place that they own. They like the security, the ability to make modifications to the house (even though most of those modifications are probably money-losers), and so on. Also, in many markets you just don’t have a choice. I live in a small college town, and the rental market here is primarily geared toward students, so it’s hard to find a nice house for rent (especially one that will let you have a dog, which we did when we moved here). So there are plenty of good reasons to buy a house other than the idea that it’s a good investment. Those are valid reasons why you might buy a house even while thinking that it’s a bad investment. Except for scale, it’s no different from, say, eating at a nice restaurant now and then. Buying an expensive dinner is a lousy investment, but it gives me consumption value.

(Emphasis added)

 

Kwak continues:

  • As Rappaport says,

“Homeownership, at least until recently, was often described as a great investment that also includes a place to live. More accurately, homeownership should have been described as a place to live that also includes an expected investment benefit.”

  • There is an expected benefit there, but remember that it’s not that big and it comes with greater financial risk.

In addition note Kwak says  

  • " as your expected holding period decreases, owning becomes less attractive because you have less time over which to amortize the transaction costs."

I would comment that the converse applies " as your holding period increases, owning becomes more attractive because you have more time to amortize the transaction costs." so if we moved less often we aould gain more.

 

I have been in flats and it

I have been in flats and it sucks. You can't beat owning your own home. its all yours, no crappy landlords mucking you around. No flatmates moving out in the dead of night, or having to chase up for bills money.

You own your home, and there's no people crap to put up with, and after 15 or 20 years its all paid off and then there's no more mortgage to be payed, and your pay is all yours to do with, what ever you want to do with it.

You can't beat it.  Thats only my point of view of course.

 

I know this report is updated

I know this report is updated regularly.

However I still await reference to the "opportunity cost" of the saved deposit funds.

As I see it when you buy your house you not only have to pay out interest on a mortgage together with the other ongoing expenses. You have also given away income on the 20% deposit.

For example $80000 saved and earning 5% is $4000 annually before the tax so possibly $3000 net on average is also  given up.

There must be a new monthly

There must be a new monthly report about now.

Please Bernard, can we address the "opportunity cost" on the deposit and come up with "real" figures?

Another 6 weeks gone by so I

Another 6 weeks gone by so I guess any answer on the opportunity cost of a deposit is either not relevant or "too hard"???

Hey guys, I'm not sure that

Hey guys, I'm not sure that the LEEDS dataset should be used for this survey...it doesn't include students, pensioners, beneficiaries etc...

After looking at the Statistics website, the NZIS would be a better dataset because it includes a wide range of sources. LEEDS just uses people in paid work, and in NZ we have about 300,000 people of working age on welfare - and they should really be included.

Below is a quote from the Statistics website:

"The NZIS includes “income for everyone over the age of 15 years and over, including those not in paid employment” (Statistics NZ, 2008a, p2).

This means that, unlike the Quarterly Employment Survey (QES), the Labour Cost Index (LCI) and the Linked Employer-Employee Dataset (LEED) job-level datasets, the NZIS includes people who are not engaged in paid employment (for example beneficiaries, superannuitants, stay at home parents and students) as well as those receiving both wages and salaries and other forms of income such as government transfers. As a consequence, the NZIS includes income from a greater number of sources, such as income from government transfers (for example benefits and tax credits) and investments as well as from wages and salaries and from self employment. (Statistics NZ, 2008a, p6)"

 

This buy v. rent cost of

This buy v. rent cost of carry is not a fair comparison. Basel Brush III is correct. You have to give the deposit to both the renter and the buyer. The buyer is about $80,000 richer than the renter (as far as I can work out). A renter could use that deposit to "live free" for 4 years!
 
There may be significant nonmonetary benefits of home "ownership", but there are significant benefits to having the deposit rather than the financial claim on the house. These relative personal benefits can be evaluated by the individual, but there is the need for a fair comparison of current costs of renting v. buying for the graph to be useful
 
Diversification of wealth has never been easier, and a house means that you are 100% dependent on the local economy. This may work out, but it is an extreme bet. What about putting a bit of the deposit in Indian stocks and commodities and farmland and world fixed income which may pay off if the local economy tanks. (I would suggest putting the renter's deposit into a short-term term NZ bank deposit for the calculations in the graph).
 
The flexibility to change your asset allocation as conditions change is also a major benefit. (These benefits can be gained by selling the house but there are large transaction costs.)
 
Note: A little perspective, but it is only home ownership provided you pay your mortgage (the bank has a lien and owns your home unless you make the mortgage payments, and not making the payment results in the "default" state), 
 

The other problem is why use

The other problem is why use a cheap home to buy when you use the median home to rent? Again not apples to apples.
Here's a back of envelope calculation:
AKL Median 3-br home =500,000 (actual REINZ 513, 612).
$400,000 25-year mortgage, no fees, 5.74% floating from interest.co.nz = $580/week
Rate, insurance and maintenance = $20/week ($1,000/year, LOW?)
 
BUY > $600/week
 
AKL median 3-br rent = $550/week (www.interest.co.nz graph)
Interest from deposit = 100,000 * 4.7% (interest.co.nz 2 yr bnz) /52 = $90/week
 
RENT > $460/week
 
Cost of carry advantage of renting at current prices = $140/week.
Buy to Rent = 1.30
 
Buy if the perceived benefits of owning are greater than $7,280/year

How about just using a "P/E"

How about just using a "P/E" ratio = 513,612/(550*52) = 18 for Auckland 3-br house.
The article mentioned by Julienz (http://baselinescenario.com/2011/05/13/renting-and-buying-compared/) says if the P/E is above 15 renters do better financially than owners.

When you can show that :

When you can show that : Growth per week is greater than the diffrence  Z .....then BUY
Morgage Interest + Capital repayment + Insurrance + Rates and Waste water Tax + Maintenace  per week  = X , and Rent per week = Y   .Then X less Y = Diffrence  Z
 

Snippy you are so very

Snippy you are so very correct - and it is this simple little formula that saw some wealthy people in Australia sell their private homes as renting their luxury homes was cheaper than owning.  When the formula changes they buy again. But most people just don't seem to get it and they don't allow for a worst case scenario (interest rates rising or a job loss etc) they just HOPE things will be OK.

Another worst case scenario

Another worst case scenario is you have bought in an inflated market, and when the bubble bursts, you end up with negative equity in your properties.  The banks will chase you for more equity as protection, or you lose your houses and work for many more years to pay off the shortfall in loan that you can't pay back in full after the mortgagee sale.  It happened in HK during the Asian financial crisis in the 90s.  But personnally I feel safe and confident in Auckalnd properties.  
 

One more question ,if you or

One more question ,if you or your partner loose there job ,can you still afford the payments ,or can you sell and break even ? ? ?

Let's face it.  Real estates

Let's face it.  Real estates always go up in value in stable and war free countries. When you put money in the banks as term deposit, you expect to earn an almost risk free return. The same happen to property investment, otherwise home owners will end up losing over long term taking into account of inflation, maintenance cost, mortgaging interest and etc.  

Such as Japan and USA?

Such as Japan and USA?

In long term, yes

In long term, yes

I had to build my own

I had to build my own spreadsheet that reflected my actual choices recently when I had to move out of a rental and had the choice of buying or renting here in NZ.   In short for me renting remains a better option - but YMMV.    The model doesn't place a value judgement on the virtue or otherwise of renting vs buying. 

The question the model asks is not 'rent or buy' now - but by how much does house price inflation need to beat general inflation or other investments in order to be better than renting - over the lifetime of the mortgage. 

Such a model includes some of the key issues mentioned above.

1. The renter and the buyer both start with the same deposit money - e.g 80k. the buyer uses it as a deposit - it reduces his mortgage payments.  The renter uses it as a savings nest egg. 

2. They buy or rent the same house. - based on realistic rent to buy ratios for the area.  This is important because at a time when rents are effectively capped by people's ability to pay, house prices are capped by people's ability to borrow - i.e the price of credit.  Hence they rise when interest rates are low and are expected to remain low. 

It is not realistic to assume that renters are buying lower quartile houses or that they are first time buyers. 

3. The buyer has to cover the cost of ownership of the house - rates, insurance etc.  This can add a significant amount to the weekly rate.

4. Both buyer and renter spend the same amount each month.  i.e when rent is subtracted from mortgage and property costs the rest goes to the savings investment. 

5. Interest rates can go up or down, but savings pay a higher interest than loans.  so for example the renter is making 2% more on their savings than the buyer is paying in mortgage.  For the model what is more significant is the long term interest rate over say a 15 year mortgage than the current low interest rate.  I set the spread to be conservative to match the supposed security of housing investments.   For my example I set base rates at 4,6 and 8% .   Much higher interest rates obviously distort the model as they have the capacity to blow the buyer out of the game. 

6. At the end of the mortgage period the buyer obviously owns the house, while the renter has a stack of cash ( which which they could also buy a house outright, or live on for many years).  

7. We leave out issues of liquidity, mobility, moving costs etc. 

I am not an economist and I setup the table to reflect my own income (well above median)  and current rents and prices.  But the conclusion is that to buy I would need to find a house under 400k that is as good as the place I rent.  I would have to limit myself to a 10 year mortgage and would need to get 5% annual house price inflation to beat renting/saving.  

A more realistic local house - say 450 would take 15 years to pay off, so the house capital gain would need to be over 8%pa (every year for 15 years).  

The killer though is the effect of mortgage interest rates in the 8% range. They require house prices to rise by 20%pa.  (for 20 years).  - but we already know that high interest rates squash house values and can lead to falling prices.   

I'm sure there is lots wrong with the model - if anyone wants to take my assumptions and produce a better version I would be grateful.   For example what would be the effect of a period of higher inflation or deflation.

I've owned houses since I was 25 (now 50) and switched to renting 5 years ago.  So I know all about the other issues - like bad landlords, lack of tenure etc.  So I am not partisan on this issue.  But my summary of the current NZ situation (Especially Auckland) is this:  House prices are historically high both in comparison to rents and incomes.  Interest rates are historically low.  House prices may/could continue to rise due to a variety of factors but if you buy now you are paying a lot for the privilege - like buying apple stocks today.  This means you need prices to rise much, much more in the future in order to cover your loan,  you also need interest rates to stay historically low and you need enough secure income to stay in the game - if you are forced out (i.e. have to sell in a falling market) you could lose your entire stake.

Having run rental residental

Having run rental residental properties for a considerable amount of time (20+ years, since my cherry).  I would have to say I find almost all of your assumptions inaccurate.

 

Don't know many folks with 80k sitting in the bank.
Most renters I know of don't have a stack of cash floating about after 5-20 years.
Your spending habits change considerably when you own vs when you rent.
Many landlords wear a portion of the overheads, especially if they're not renting to government salaried tenants (eg teachers, medical professionals) or other wealthy folk.

Interest rates do go up and down, and savings never pay more than loans - where would the banks margin be?

House prices only lift marginally with low interest, they lift substantially when area wages and salaries lift.  The interest issue only softens the market, not drives it.

Shifting, mobility and liquity costs are actually very significant effects, and all in favour of the renter.  The owner tends to "send down roots" even on own-to-rent.

 

Building equity through an asset (in this case an asset being something producing positive value return) is the only real value of ownership, as is a small degree of control over your domicile (although some parties including IRD would love you to charge you for the privilege).   "Having a place of your own" is a lie in NZ as the law favours government and companies over private ownership (ie it's "having a place the council, government and "for the public good companies" will let you look after at your cost for now".

Thats ok if you disagree with

Thats ok if you disagree with my assumptions - thats why no one model fits everyone and much of the chatter here is moot.   However I was interested to see that the NYtimes online model in a previous comment gave much the same results. 

But I'll comment on a few of your points:

Don't know many folks with 80k sitting in the bank.

- where does the deposit for a house come from then?   Borrowing over 80% of a mortgage significantly increases the cost of the loan?   

Most renters I know of don't have a stack of cash floating about after 5-20 years.

- I will agree with that - unless the renter agressively saves or invests the difference between the rent they pay and the mortgage and expenses they would pay if owning then they will not end up with an equivalent asset.  However the point here is to choose between investment assets - house or other fund. 

Your spending habits change considerably when you own vs when you rent.

- yes, you spend a lot more on the house.  But seriously I agree that a mortgage is a form of enforced saving for those unable to set up an AP into a long term savings account.

Many landlords wear a portion of the overheads.  

- Yes tenants usually do not pay property taxes, house insurance etc.  However this overhead gets amortized into the rent.  Rents may not represent the true cost of the house - thats the point of the discussion really - rents are a market. 

Interest rates do go up and down, and savings never pay more than loans - where would the banks margin be?

- I think I may have expressed myself badly there - at any point in time the cost of borrowing money (the mortgage rate) is high in comparison to the return on savings ( at least for normal people).  That is the banks margin.   

 

As you say - you have run residential properties for many years - that implies that there is a long term balance between people who are prepared to buy and those who want to rent.   I'm sure you would not claim that its always better to buy than rent - if this were the case there would be no market for rentals.  The question each of us needs to ask accurately is at what price point does the switch over occur or put more precisely how long would you need to own  a property for in order to do better than renting + other investment. 

I would go further and suggest that the property rental market needs to get away from the parochial idea that rentals are just for young people who can't afford to buy a house.  This leads to crap housing stock and bad landlords who don't regard the tenants as an asset.  Remember rental + tenant is the asset - not an empty rental. 

 

I agree with your point

I agree with your point regarding the parochial idea.  House ownership in a mobile employment environment is significant risk.  And landlord, especially when someone has bought to live in a place they like then moves and rents it out is sub-optimal.  For the non-landlord experienced, if you want to buy to rent, you go looking for suitable rentable properties ( low maint, average neighbours, appearance to your available repair skillsets)  but if you buy-to-own you're looking for a nice place, suited to your lifestyle (either lots of grounds eg kids, or almost none, yuppies/travelling breadwinners) and convenience needs (I don't use buses, but some students do, medical folks want to be in walk distance of work etc.).

As for a tenant in one of my places...I'm strictly "no pets". Agent puts in 2 guys, who have a band, have 2 rotweillers. Turns out these guys shop for places in need of repair. Agent lets the place out when I said hold off for 3 weeks, I can't get out because the Agent signed them up (90day minimum).  But tenant pays for a month, then wrecks stuff, backdoor, guttering, window broken, demands new dishwasher. (I only hear about the dishwasher, agent doesn't pass on the rest). Tenant refuses to pay. Refuses to move out. Calls council who serves Agent notice on the stuff the tenant broke.  I call back on date Agent said tenant would be out by, only to find the Agent stuffed up the dates on the "notice to vacate", and now it goes to court. Tenant claims place is "unliveable"...still refuses to move out.  When I can't work out why tenant is taking us to court (remember I had only heard about the dishwasher, which I replaced new, the next day, 2 weeks into the tenancy), the Agents admin mentions the council notice..."say what!!".  I demand all documentation from Agent,  turns out tenant busted a bunch of stuff, then complains, agent does nothing, so tenant sues.  Me and agents staff won't go near the place because of the dogs (which bit the building inspector). 
 Final count we finally get tenant out, I put the place on the market, but costs a fortune to repair the damage...because codes had changed and council ignores minor things...until they have official interaction. So all tenants an asset?  NO.  But some tenants very much so.  2 of my other places were fine ... if you like cleaning up and having to dump a piano, after people.

 

Actually the cost of borrowing money is quite low, and the return of savings abysmal.  That's why leverage exists.  That's how banks get margin, and we can afford to pay it.

 

"- where does the deposit for a house come from then?   Borrowing over 80% of a mortgage significantly increases the cost of the loan?   "

Generally from gifts, or from existing property, sometimes from liquidating work positions (sometimes overseas, used to be redundancy cash).  Often it's "the old fashion way", inheritances.    Although, remember not all of NZ costs 400k to buy into.  Another common practice, is a own&let deal, where parents/grandparents/trustfund will make the purchase with the deposit and the recipicant takes management of the property, then sells and rolls their equity forward (and sometimes repays the inital deposit) into their own new place.

As for matching models NY or otherwise.  One bad model (theirs), matching another poor model with known limitations, doesn't prove causaton, only corellation. And corellation, knowing the obviously and significant short comings of your model, tend to highlight the probability of faults in the other model, rather than strength the case of your own.

And the rent/own line - depends more on peoples' circumstances.  If they're mobile - rent.  If they need to build equity, buy, as the "forced savings" is hard for lower incomes to pay rent AND save large deposits, it's one of the few "good credit" type HP systems. Although you do have to watch out for the "Spread"...what it costs to pay a real estate agent & advertise; no point building equity and not being able to liquity the majority of it.  As for buy vs rent-to-live-at-then-let, the person would learn as they do their due diligence on the latter, because it's more about whether they can live in their future rental (or if like me, your missus decides shes going to set up nest in your rental!) than a hard line.  It's seldom a cash question, more a location one :)

Blah blah blah. It's simple

Blah blah blah. It's simple really. You rent a house, you buy a home

I'll continue to answer your

I'll continue to answer your points - although there is nothing to answer really, as I said my model is correct for the choice in question - in my current circumstances should I rent or buy. I get to choose the assumptions.  I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything.

 but if you buy-to-own you're looking for a nice place, suited to your lifestyle (either lots of grounds eg kids, or almost none, yuppies/travelling breadwinners) and convenience needs

And as the other commenter says - you can't rent a home. 

You actually put your finger on a serious blind spot with landlords - why do you think that a renter wouldn't want _exactly_ the same set of features as someone buying a house.  I'm fifty, married, good job and assets and I want a nice place to live. I have enough for a deposit. But there is no house that fits my criteria in this area that makes any sort of financial sense.  

I seriously doubt that we will see 10 to 15 years of continued low interest rates.  (but thats a personal opinion). The rent to price ratio here is over 25  and price/income ratios near an all time high.  There is a non zero risk of interest rate rises and falling house prices as we have seen in many other OECD countries.   All in all it looks like a bad deal at the moment - one which may well get worse before it gets better.

Its _not_ a bad deal if your circumstances are (or were) different - especially if you already own the assets.  If you were living in NZ in 2003 and bought then (or sooner) you would indeed have done quite nicely.  Lots of people did that - which is why there are plenty of rentals around.  If you are a landlord who has already amortized a big bunch of borrowing costs, and leveraged into a second or third property etc then good on ya.   

Next you tell a bad news story about tenants.  I'm sure most landlords have such stories - so what price/value would you put on good tenants?  How much more would you value a 2 or 5 year tenancy agreement over the default 1 month?  Most long term tenants can tell similar war stories about landlords who never do repairs, who try sell the place while you are still living in it etc.  How do we set up a deal whereby I get a good landlord and house and you get a good tenant? 

If investors want nice wealthy middle class tenants who pay regularly, maintain the place nicely, grow gardens and trees etc. then they need to look more closely at the 'product' they are offering.  Genuine long term successful businesses focus on identifying customers need and meeting those needs.  The rental market in NZ is about as sophisticated a business as a car boot sale.  There are much better profits to be had for the 'Toyota' of property management companies.  

NZ appears to be stuck in a circle:

Rentals are for low income earners, So properties have to be cheap and turnover high, so they don't have basics like fences, good insulation and double glazing, let alone quality features like solar hot water,  so people have to buy to get a 'home' so they put all their resources (and leverage) into doing so depleting the rest of the NZ economy and leaving the rental market for those who cannot rather than would choose not to buy, and so it goes on. 

In many countries - especially those with good tenancy rights, many people choose to rent a nice house or apartment for much of their lifetime - and there is no stigma to renting.  This creates a market for well designed, good quality rentals, as well as a mature legal framework that supports the needs of both owners and occupiers.  Landlords who are businesses rather than a ma and pa who are using the house as a pension scheme are less emotionally involved with the property and can be objective about providing a good product and service for a good fee.   

Think of it this way - I can cut my own grass or outsource it to a gardener, I can own my own car - or outsource it to a taxi/public transport, I can get my kids privately educated or in the public schools.  In each case I can choose different ways to source the service I need taking into account my current circumstances and flexibility.  Where a good market exists the quality of service and the value of customers rises.  I happen to want to outsource my living accommodation.

I agree that the best

I agree that the best solution out is to save and save before you finally settle down and decide on a mortgage. Having extra money is most certainly a better option, as compared to having shortage of funds. A mortgage is a long term commitment and if you are short of funds monthly, it can drag your other expenses down too for a very long time. In the end, you might end up with more losses rather than profits even when you are an owner, and are not just renting. Think wisely and give yourself ample time before settling down for a mortgage plan.