sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Investor immigrants will be able to invest in approved managed funds for build to rent developments as government expands active investor plus growth category

Business / news
Investor immigrants will be able to invest in approved managed funds for build to rent developments as government expands active investor plus growth category
A composite image of New Zealand money overlayed with luggage
In April 2025, changes were made to Active Investor Plus visa. Composite image source: 123rf.com and interest.co.nz

Wealthy investors migrating to New Zealand will soon be able to include build to rent developments as part of their overall investment.

Immigration Minister Erica Stanford says from December, applicants in the Government’s growth category will be able to include a build to rent component to their investment.

Applicants will be able to invest in build to rent developments through approved managed funds (direct investment will not be available). However, visa holders and their families won’t be able to live in a build to rent development funded through their investment.

The build to rent model involves large residential developments, created for renting rather than sale. These types of developments are managed by specialist operators with investors owning shares in the development.

Stanford said the growth category was particularly focused on investment that supported business growth, innovation and productivity. 

“Adding build to rent gives investors another option, while keeping that focus through the managed funds model," she said.

The active investor plus (AIP) visa settings were changed in April 2025, and two categories - growth and balanced - were introduced. The Government describes the visa as the 'golden' visa.

For the growth category, people are required to invest $5 million over a three-year-investment term. In the balanced category, a minimum of $10 million is needed over a five-year investment term.

The growth category is focused on higher-risk investments, which includes managed funds and direct investments in the country's businesses. The balanced category looks at mixed investments, which means people can choose investments that are lower risk.

On expanding to build to rent developments, Stanford said this targeted change was part of the Government’s “ongoing work to keep the visa competitive, effective and focused on investment that benefits New Zealand.”

Housing Minister Chris Bishop said adding the build to rent component gives experienced investors another way to put their capital into the country, while helping support the delivery of new rental housing.

“Build to rent can add to rental supply over time, while the managed funds model provides clear safeguards around who manages the investment and how developments are delivered,” he said.

“New Zealand needs more homes of all kinds, including more long-term rental homes that are purpose-built for renters.”

This isn't the first time the Government has made changes to the growth category, with Stanford announcing applicants could have a philanthropic component to their investment from June 1.

$4.935 billion potentially invested, Immigration NZ says

Last updated on September 4, Immigration NZ’s website said since changes were made to the visa, there have been 904 applications. Of those, 132 are in the balanced category and 772 in the growth category.

So far 467 applications have been approved with 75 in the balanced category and 392 in the growth category. 

About 253 applications have been approved in principle and 141 applications are still in progress. 

Of the total applications received, 43 have been withdrawn or declined.

People who successfully apply for the AIP visa can live, work and study in NZ indefinitely.

Applications for the active investor plus visa can include a person's partner and children. People in the growth category can apply for permanent residence after three years of keeping funds in NZ, and those in the balanced category can apply after five years.

"Since changes were made to the Active Investor Plus Visa in April 2025, around NZD $4.935 billion have been added to the investment pipeline or committed to investment in New Zealand," Immigration NZ said.

Broken down, about $2.215 billion has been added to what Immigration NZ calls the "investment pipeline" (this is in progress and approved in principle applications), while $2.72 billion is considered committed capital (approved applications and funding transferred to the country).

When it came to capital committed by investment type, Immigration NZ said: “Managed funds have been the most popular investment type for committed funds under the growth category, and bonds have been the most popular investment type for committed funds under the balanced category."

The highest number of applications by nationality has been received from the United States. This was followed by China and Hong Kong.

Other applications by nationality include Germany, Taiwan, Singapore, Great Britain, Vietnam, South Korea, Switzerland, Japan and Canada.

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.

25 Comments

You build me a mansion, ill build you a mansion, and we can rent them off each other. 

Up
4

 One can dream. But unfortunately renting is quite tax disadvantaged compared to owning.

Up
0

What's the disadvantage? I see a nice advantage if both parties have a large mortgage and can deduct the interest payments from rent received, which a homeowner cannot do, but I am pretty sure this is illegal. 

Up
0

It's only deductible because because the rent is taxable income. Whereas if its an owner occupier the imputed rent is simply completely tax free. Deducting expenses from the taxable income can only ever be worse compared to the income simply being all tax free.

Up
1

Got it. 

Up
0

Come on in and bleed us

Signed: Ideologically blinkered

Up
5

I don't think selling citizenship is ideologically blinkered - instead it's ideologically repulsive.

It's why we have one of the most repulsive individuals on the planet, Peter Thiel still qualified to own a NZ Passport.

The current Labour Party really should apologise for that and commit to getting rid of this repulsive checkbook immigration policy if elected.

Edit - correction - it was a National government that granted him the citizenship;

Thiel's citizenship was approved on June 30, 2011, under an "exceptional circumstances" clause of the Citizenships Act, by then-Internal Affairs Minister Nathan Guy.

 

 

 

  

Up
5

When they do I suggest Nathan Guy can have his rescinded too. Worst minister of Agri ever, no one even close 

Up
0

Bringing in a bunch of capital (resources), and building housing for our people doesn't seem like a very effective way to "bleed us" to me.

Up
0

Bringing what? Proxy isn't resources. Cement and steel can be traced to resources, though. And are subject to entropy. 

'our people'? 

We have enough housing for 'our people'. And ex fossil energy, we are already overpopulated. This is to bring in and house more people, to 'kick start growth'. 

They're fools. 

And where would the rental-profit go? Offshore. So bleed it is. Same as a concert by a major overseas act - people say it 'makes money', but it doesn't. It draws down (finite or flow-restricted) planetary resources, shifts proxy from some NZ pockets to other NZ pockets, and a lot of planetary-part proxy goes offshore in the act's pockets. It's a loss to NZ (entertaining it may be, but loss it is). 

We are overdue a shift to Ecological Economics - proper accounting. 

Up
4

We don't have enough housing, that is why prices are high. There is enormous housing demand growth from kids moving out, empty nesters knocking around in 4bed houses, people wanting a work from home office, incomes rising, more and more lifestyle blockers able to consume enormous amounts of land and real resources. A stagnant population count, demands additional housing. And those with the means, will outbid those without unless more is able be be built.

So capital coming into the economy == not real resources. But profits going offshore == real resources?

Even if you thought that economic growth was finite (its not) the thing to do in that case would be to attract as much foreign exchange as fast as possible, then buy a bunch of real resources, concrete, steel, cement, from overseas and build that into long lived goods (housing being an example) to maximise wellbeing for as long as possible.

Up
0

"We don't have enough housing,"

Wrong...we dont  have enough affordable housing. There are enough rooms for the population simply not available at a price that can be paid, assuming they are all available to rent, which they are not.

Up
1

While you work on the regulation and public support for the state compelling mums and dads across the country to rent their spare bedrooms and go flatting again, if we could let people put capital into building more housing so those not already sorted have the opportunity to buy or rent one, that would be great.

Up
0

I'd say all things considered, if you add in AirBnB's, batches, second homes etc there would likely be enough housing. The issue being underutilisation.

Up
0

I live in an impoverished area with many in poor housing situations. The district also has 20% empty  house rate .

Up
3

More large projects of the scale of Simplicity. More pressure on ma and pa rot box owners as there will be more options for renters, and a lot less hassle from the landlord selling it out from under you etc.

Up
2

Those Simplicity long term rental developments also have a 150 year design life and a per square metre production cost about 30% below Housing NZ. 

More investment in that kind of development would be very welcome. 

Up
1

On the surface sounds like a great idea. But who's going to stump up for a build-to-rent in Aotearoa? Seems an incredibly risky and costly exercise for a visa.    

Up
0

Too late in the game. 

The global goal-posts are shifting, in case nobody noticed. Many dollars in many denominations, are going to become worth less (some of the debt-bets you can drop the hyphen: worthless). Saving position, is the only game in town. Putting proxy over an ocean, in these times? Only if it gives you a foot in the immigration door. 

Up
1

But who's going to stump up for a build-to-rent in Aotearoa?

Any rich individual overseas who wishes to have a potential out for their own country when it all hits the fan.

Up
0

This is something the UK is well into, in terms of housing delivery, although it is controversial, with vast wealth funds, having 25 year horizons, dominating investment.  They tend to be delivering at the top end, and as some suggest, in 30 years time the nation will be left with a cohort of people with zero wealth due to paying rent.  The fear is that come retirement, they will fall onto the state.  

I wonder why NZ does not attract modestly wealthy aged bods.  By that I mean say Brits with say £1 million/$2.3 million NZ (from a house sale etc in the UK).  They buy one of the vast number of NZ family homes for sale, and support the economy as retired people do - travel, gold clubs, shopping etc.  They would typically be spending around $50,000 a year living at least.  

Up
0

I wonder why NZ does not attract modestly wealthy aged bods.

Additional future strain on the healthcare system of which there is already a population bulge with increasing health needs in the baby boomers. 50k/annum spending is paltry compared to the need for mor hospitals, operation theatres etc the govt is responsible for funding, a.k.a taxpayers. 

Up
1

Sorry, I forgot to mention, a key requirement would be health insurance, as is typical in EU countries if you want to reside there. Spain has a scheme where to become a resident: police check, health check, mandatory health insurance, proof of circa $50,000 per person in bank account, plus you are not allowed to work...just spend and the locals love them!

A typical full on health insurance fee would be circa $7,000 - $8,000, a small amount for the group I am thinking of.  

 

 

 

Up
0

Fair enough Marcus, however I'd query if we even have enough facilities, be it private or public, to withstand the influx if your suggestion were allowed via immigration. It would simply create a bottleneck in private facilities. Even today in parts of the country to get things done under insurance isn't as speedy as many expect, as many surgeons do part private work, part public work, and part ACC work, however this will vary based on location around the country.

Up
0

Even greater commodification of the basic need for shelter, with profits flowing off shore.

Up
1