Here's our summary of key economic events over the weekend that affect New Zealand, with news China is starting to roll out more industry support to bolster its flagging economy.
But first, this coming week will be a busy one. And it will be dominated by the US Fed rate decision on Thursday (NZT). Analysts expect a +25 bps rise to 5.50%.
The Americans will also release their first estimate of Q2 GDP growth, and there will be more earnings results for more large companies. Other important releases to watch out for include the US PCE price index, durable goods orders, and many PMI survey results for July.
Both the ECB and the Bank of Japan will also review their benchmark rates and we will get Q2 inflation rates for Germany, France, Spain, and Australia.
Over the weekend data showed that Canadian retail sales stalled in June following a small rise in May. Things would have been worse if it wasn't for strong new car buying.
In China, their economic weakness is spreading and now coming out in corporate earnings. Listed companies, especially in industrial sectors, have issued profit warnings for the first half of the year, raising questions about the government's optimistic depiction of the economy. Analysts say almost a third of mainland-listed companies have released first half earnings previews, with less than half making positive announcements. Basically there is no 'recovery', or if there is one, it is weak. Beijing is clearly rattled.
Beijing outlined a ten-step program to support their car-making industry, emphasising electric vehicles. A lot of it involves local government becoming a big buyer, and extending EV infrastructure into the countryside.
In Japan, inflation continues to run above their central bank's 2% target. It edged up to 3.3% in June from 3.2% in May but less than market forecasts of 3.5%. Core inflation also ticked higher to 3.3% in June from 3.2% in May. It has been higher than 2% for 15 straight months now. Note that Japan's 3.3% CPI rate is higher than the US's 3.0%. That is a generational rarity.
The Russian central bank raised its key interest rate by +100 bps to 8.5% in its Friday meeting. This was double the market expectations of a +50 bps hike. And they signaled more rate increases in incoming decisions. It was their first rate hike since September. They warned that upside risks to inflation have increased significantly recently, underscoring the need to weigh on demand and balance it with the limited supply of goods and services in the Russian economy as the military mobilisation and military-aged diaspora triggered a fresh labour crisis in Russia.
In other media, a lot has been made about the potential 'surging' wheat price after the Russian abandonment of the grain deal with Ukraine and the subsequent missile strikes on port facilities. But it seems like the wheat market is ignoring the chatter, focusing on the rising wheat output in many other countries. Yes the price rose but the recent rises were modest in the perspective of the past year.
In the US, their cattle herd shrank more than expected to the lowest seasonal levels since 2014. That will underpin good prices for beef for the next few years. The decline was -2.7% in this latest survey, more than the -2.3% expected. In an industry are large as that, this is a significant shortfall.
Also shrinking rather fast are asset values for icon office buildings. Bloomberg has a scary story for Korean investors who bet big a while ago in London, Paris and New York. They are facing a disastrous outcome now. And big banks are raising their provisioning for loans for commercial real estate, expecting a wave of defaults.
And in Australia, Jardens are noting that investors are increasingly selling properties to reduce leverage and improve cashflow, as the fastest interest rate tightening cycle in a generation makes it increasingly difficult for them to service multiple loans. The trend is strong enough for analysts to worry that it could reverse the recent rises in prices there.
The Spanish are voting today in snap national elections. It is expected to be close but with the right taking power this time. Voter turnout is reported as low. Early indications are that the swing right isn't as strong as anticipated. But it is early; polls have just closed. Of special interest will be the extent of influence the far-right party (Vox) gains. There has been a shift right in southern Europe in recent elections, from Greece to Italy and now Spain, mostly based on anti-immigrant sentiment. So far, the resulting governments seem to have been more moderate than feared.
The UST 10yr yield will start today at 3.84% and exactly where it was a week ago. Their key 2-10 yield curve inversion is essentially unchanged at -101 bps. Their 1-5 curve is still at -126 bps. And their 3 mth-10yr curve is more inverted at -153 bps. The Australian 10 year bond yield is now at 4.01% and up +1 bp from Saturday. The China 10 year bond rate little-changed at 2.66%. The NZ Government 10 year bond rate is down -2 bps from Saturday to 4.67%. A week ago it was 4.62%.
The price of gold will start today at US$1961/oz and little-changed.
And oil prices are holding at just under US$77/bbl in the US. The international Brent price is now at US$80.50/bbl.
The Kiwi dollar starts today unchanged from Saturday at just under 61.7 USc. But a week ago it was 63.8 USc so the cumulative fall is more than -2c, or a -3.4% devaluation. Against the Aussie we are slightly lower at 91.7 AUc. Against the euro we are down at 55.5 euro cents. That all means the TWI-5 has fallen to 69.5 and is down -150 bps from a week ago.
The bitcoin price is still in in its recent yoyo pattern and now is at US$30,115 and back up +1.1% from this time yesterday. A week ago it was at US$30,316 so a -0.7% slip from then. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been low at just over +/- 0.9%.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
125 Comments
Even so, to me at least, a far more frightening prospect is a government that will include Labour’s Maori faction, The Greens & TMP which would count for say 30 plus strident dysfunctional mps, outnumbering the remainder of government a bunch of proven nonentities and incompetents. The voice of the former as strong as the latter is weak. God defend New Zealand. Nothing else would.
I am struggling with this too. No one actually represents what I want as outcomes. The actual performance of the state and delivery of services seem to be a secondary concern. I don't want to slash and burn and I don't want it to get fat and bloated as outcomes get worse and worse for everyday Kiwis.
National have zero appeal to me, their childcare subsidies would basically disqualify anyone who earns enough to get a mortgage in Auckland, who require high incomes and two of them by default. Would just end up being a transfer to people in regions who can survive off lower incomes. Labour's plan is not income-tested but has had zero consultation with the sector and it may not even be possible.
So do I vote for National who won't address problems or Labour who talks a lot about them but can't fix them despite collecting more tax year-on-year by stealth? Do I vote National to minimise ACT's influence or side-line NZF, or do I vote Labour to minimise the nutty Greens and increasingly militant TPM influence? It seems like I have a protest vote, as opposed to a vote for anyone who truly represents anything I stand for.
Messianic comparisons aside (hopefully you don't edit your comment) I agree with Mr Trotter's lament - this election is just a vote for the least worst, and I really think it's a challenge to argue that Labour with the added bonus Greens & TPM is not the worst option. Therefore I'll have to vote either National or ACT, I just haven't yet decided which.
No party greatly appeals, no party I feel represents what I want to see, but Labour has proven itself incapable at this point and I don't see how adding the likes of Marama Davidson and TPM to the mix will make things better.
At least NACT is likely to be more stable and a bit of a steady hand on the tiller, comparatively speaking at least.
100% correct. That period between firing Bridges and Luxon finally seeming to steady the ship (whatever your thoughts on his personality and policies - of which I am not particularly fond of either) was about as bad as it could get ... but Labour is determined to pull the "hold my beer" trick.
I actually feel sorry for Chippy. Unlike Ardern, who really seemed to have a deep-seated need for public adulation and worship like some sort of Roman Emperor - and who became rapidly disinterested and condescending towards the plebs once that adulation dried up - Chippy seems to have a degree of genuine care and interest in the average Kiwi. I prefer him as a PM to Luxon by a country mile, and think he's represented the country well so far.
However, no man is an island, and at the end of the day he is the figurehead of a government that seems packed-to-the-gills with some of the most dangerously incompetent individuals ever to have walked through the front door of the Beehive. He also mucked up big time by not kicking Kiri Allan to the curb over the workplace bullying incident (which has come back to bite him now).
Nobody can convince me that adding the inherent instability of The Greens (I quite like Shaw and Swarbrick, but the rest of them seem like genuine nutters - e.g. Marama Davidson) along with the singularly-focused nature of TPM is going to be a recipe for improving Labour's performance.
Bridges was too precipitate, impatient. If he had let Joyce assume leadership and bided his time, he would have been leader in waiting instead of the barely arrived Luxon. Ironically Bridges in interviews and addresses now is far more convincing and articulate than he was post 2017 etc.
It's not common sense to have to rent your own house off the government after decades of governmental failure caused the housing affordability issue to begin with.
'Common sense' says I'll just end up paying even more tax and we'll still have a housing affordability issue.
The usual TOP defence. "Oh you just aren't smart enough to figure it out". Spare me.
I've been on the website. I've used the calculator. It results in a shitty outcome for me. I suspect I've done more digging into it than some of the people who plug TOP with mid-western levels of evangelistic fervour here.
Maybe, and hear me out here, maybe... it's just a really crappy policy! So if you want to tell me why I wouldn't end up renting my own home and paying more tax, and that TOP's caclulator is somehow wrong and that we should trust them to run a tax policy when apparently they can't run a website, I'm all ears. But otherwise, it's just the same rehashed garbage where people mistake a complex solution for a good one because it makes them feel smart.
In the early days of TOP I read up on what Gareth Morgan was espousing and was not impressed. He was of the view that private property seemed to mean you weren't paying someone else rent and that just couldn't be permitted. Lost me very quickly when that became apparent.
No, its the usual defence to you not understanding.
I assume when you pay rates, that also means you are renting your house from the local government when you pay rates right?
If you are significantly worse off under their tax switch policy you either:
1. Are very high income household
2. Have very expensive land holdings
3. You are using it wrong
For instance, I put in a household income of $275k pa with a land value of 500k. That's quite a wealthy family situation, likely somewhere in the top 5% of households in the country. It comes out with a slightly positive income tax return, compared to the existing regime.
I also put our families situation in and we would have to pay around $200 extra tax per year. Given our income, I wouldn't notice it. Lower incomes are significantly better off.
TBH it just sounds like you are either super high income or have a lot of property and are covering for this by pretending any policy that makes you slightly worse off is horrific and claiming it will be for everyone. Whereas its better for the grand majority of people. You neglect to even recognise the significant change this would make to the NZ economy by switching tax to speculative property and lowering income taxes, making us more productive all around making us all wealthier over time as the productive effects of the policy start adding up.
So keep voting Labour and National GV, then come back here next year and blast away that the same policies still haven't fixed the problems that they have caused. All because you are actually just a tribal/swing voter that doesn't actually want real change because you are benefitting from the status quo.
I mean there's a lot of assumptions here, but I'll speak to two of them.
1) The high income bit. You need a high income to maintain a mortgage in Auckland, that's how it is. Two working parents come with a higher income but also more costs. Believe me, I would love to be at home playing with my kid, but he's in daycare and I have to pay for that. No one else comes to the party there.
2) Land costs. I have a postage-stamp-sized section in Auckland, 30 mins from the CBD and a townhouse. The TOP tax would be based on a land value of $600K. So I pay more tax on the high income I need to buy in the first place, only to get hit by a tax on a sliver of land in the name of... efficient land use? Because I'm not displacing another family out of the rental market because I bought my own?
Finally as an aside, unless that is regionalised, you're going to have huge equity issues with Auckland land values. A section double the size of mine in Taupo with a much bigger new build house than mine has half the land value, but is objectively a far nicer house. But someone with the exact same income as my household would pay far far less tax on aggregate.
And that's before you touch the cost of the debt I've taken on in order to generate this imputed rent, which is very real (unlike the imputed rent) and the agency issues with a government being able to profit from high land prices and what incentive it would ever have to bring them down if it became a core part of how the Crown gathers revenue. So claims the country would be 'better off' are a pretty huge leap.
On your final point; I do want change, I just want it to be one worth making, not the workings of technocratic fetishists. You can denounce me as a swing voter, but if the alternative is voting for complex solutions that cause more problems than they solve and committing to whoever gives me the biggest ego boost, you're going to have a hard time making me feel bad about it.
You are thinking only "step 1" regarding the LVT, how does that affect me right now. It might affect you negatively to start with, correct, but not by much given your household income is likely greater than $250k per year for it to negatively affect you. The secondary effects are that land and house prices should moderate compared to incomes, it will essentially bring in land into taxation rules, hence the productive use of it will become an inevitability as individuals and companies profit motive ensures tax minimisation. That's basic economic principles.
New Zealand used to have an LVT, in 1990 it was abolished by Labour. It's not even a new tax for this country, so hardly a technocratic idea, not a new one, nor a difficult one to implement. Since 1990, has housing and infrastructure development gotten better or worse? Has land speculation increased or decreased? Has urban sprawl increased and put huge demands on infrastructure and council?
So meanwhile, we sit around to wait for perfect policy to fix these problems, we ignore good policy. You are letting perfect be the enemy of good and don't even realise it.
I might actually do that. My vote singlehandedly isn't going to swing the election, so might I'd rather vote a deserving party and have my say.
The change could begin once at least a single TOP MP in, so they can get some MSM airwaves that are currently wasted on the likes of Luxon and Marama.
I believe I said a while back is that all National need to do is sit back and watch it all hit the fan. The state of the economy is going to be rock bottom leading into the election anyway and Labour are now just throwing their parliament office furniture on the fire. The biggest ever landslide is pending bar some earth shattering National stuff up.
TOP is available as a centrist party, we all want a better health service (to support us oldies), and a better education system to support the future generations. I have personally used the health service a great deal, 10 heart attacks, 7 stents and counting, 1 stroke. With TOP I am financially worse off, by a little each year About 3000 dollars each year. But we need a tax switch (and a wealth tax won't do it as money can be moved off shore, land has to stay in NZ.) TOP has such a policy.
I believe we also need to compete with Australia on a tax free threshold, but ours needs to be about $25,000 to compete with their $18000, TOP's $10,00 tax free threshold should be just a start. Then our nurses and teachers we have paid to be trained have an incentive to return.
The current systems we have in place an not working.
That is my rational for voting TOP.
I think I'll just end up paying more tax under TOP. Which would be fine if it was used to invest in NZs future, but instead it will just be used to make even more people reliant on government. Whatever happened to personal responsibility and paying your own way...
That's like saying I'll pay for a road so long as no bad drivers go on it.
Any system that's allocating resources for public good is going to be prone to some level of exploitation. Your challenge then becomes how much additional resources you want to allocate to policing and monitoring said system.
Our government now operates with such a focus on recording what they're doing, they've lost sight on actually doing things. Because the public demands accountability.
It's one of those things where people think a zero-rate bracket is a good idea but don't understand how costly it is because everyone qualifies for it.
It also raises questions about whether 'fairness' in the tax system is the people who already pay a stack-load end up paying more tax and people who pay nothing or close to it get to pay even less.
I prefer the 'poacher turned gamekeeper' argument. The government won't suddenly become competent enough to fix problems governments have created over decades because you gave them a fancy new revenue stream. They'll piss it away and you'll have a new tax, and almost certainly the exact some outcomes. You will however piss off a huge chunk of the people your tax system was already hugely reliant on to begin with, and who may object to decades of deferred tax administration and policy seeing them lumped with even more of the bill than they cover already.
Yep it is a question of what level is fair, it is pretty arbitrary really but voters end up setting the level.
But also is it fair to make such a massive change to the tax system after people have invested in houses without a land tax. You could argue homeowners have made a lot of money so who cares, but for most middle class NZ homeowners they just own the house they live in, its value is only of interest when they die (if they still own it).
Really ? Someone said here the Australian tax free threshold was $18K and that's Aussie so that's NZD$20K. What it does is encourage low paid workers to get off their asses and get a job because by the time you take your crap salary and the travel expenses out which are now huge its not worth it. If the Australians can do it then so can we.
Uhhhh, how about "it's hard to have a system that cares for those in need, without also creating people dependent on the system".
I think there's a lot of people across the board working or otherwise questioning the value of hard work.
The value should be apparent, but I guess it's sometimes hard to see when people doing less might receive slightly similar, or even more.
Bull dust. The reallocation would be from property owners to non property owners. And almost all middle income people would be better off as their income taxes would drop more than the LVT would add in taxes. The ones that would be worse off are the people who sit on highly valuable land close to city centres, land bankers etc. Think about all those empty lots or disrepaired buildings in our cities, the single lot carparks in the centre of town, the huge land banking arrangements by the supermarkets and people who just see the price of land they hold skyrocket year after year. Its about using our land more productively and hence lessening the need for costly infrastructure spread out in a mass urban sprawl. This will mean, over time, we get better use of our infrastructure, more people living in cities, denser population spaces, so reduced local government taxation. And it will mean our incomes aren't as highly taxed as before, giving more freedom to choose where money is spent.
Auckland and its adjoining suburbs/satellite towns is the same area as many cities in the world that hold 10m people plus. And it still has single house sections 5 minutes from the central city. None of that makes sense if you want livable cities that aren't wracked by massive rate increases.
The ones that would be worse off are the people who sit on highly valuable land close to city centres, land bankers etc.
Nonsense. I live in a townhouse on a tiny parcel of land miles from the City Centre. I'd be worse off, all in the name of 'efficient land use'. Again, the claims people make trying to justify this don't stand up to reality.
Why would more people live in cities if you want to tax them far more for being in them than you would tax someone on the same income living somewhere else? How is that going to make us more productive? It's not going to make the same government agencies that can't build infrastructure any better at building infrastructure. Will it also cure the common cold? Will it add three to six inches? Will it make me immortal? Don't worry if you're old and haven't got a job, we'll just force you to take out a reverse mortgage against your estate! See how generous we are?!?!
But I'm sure a tax designed to hit at the same rate in Auckland as it does in Te Awamutu or Taupo or Tekapo will definitely result in no inequitable outcomes whatsoever. Real big-brain stuff.
Why would more people live in cities if you want to tax them far more for being in them than you would tax someone on the same income living somewhere else?
Is this a serious question? Some people want to live in cities and sacrifice space for it. Nice cities are vibrant places, with good access to all services. This happens all around the world, the best cities to live in have really good infrastructure that is built a lot of the time because the density of the city allows it (enough "customers" to make it worthwhile).
It shouldn't surprise you that the sewer and water pipes in Stratford have less volume going through them compared to Auckland city. That's because of increased density, more people use it. That means that Auckland city has a better return on investment on their infrastructure, more people use the pipes. The pipes are bigger as well, but the shared cost of building that is still considerably lower per person, per metre of build.
If you can't tell, that makes us more productive because we have more shared resource use, so can pay less for those resources individually. That's basically the definition of productivity, getting access to more and paying less for it.
A tax rate based on the value of land will make the tax equitable between Te Awamutu and Auckland. Its a rate, not an absolute value and Auckland land is worth more because its a city. Surely you understand these things?
Great post. Even though it seems obvious to you and me, I don't think people in NZ understand the productivity benefits of cities and how you can improve that further by investing in things that are proven to make cities work better (public transport, density rules, etc...)
They pretty much are never applied to primary producing land, nor council land (parks etc), nor National Parks. Really only residential housing, lifestyle blocks, industrial land (often at a discount), retail zones etc. We have zoning rules though, so easily applied to existing land.
For farmers, maybe their house section it would apply. Usually its rural sections though, so the tax wouldn't be that onerous as the land value of their house section only wouldn't be worth a lot.
A Minister of Justice arrested for reckless driving and resisting arrest, you could not make it up. Should have been DUI as well but they exercised their "discretion" and issues an infringement - many don't get that privilege.
This road leads all the way back to Jacinda who appointed Kiri, the body of evidence that she has been our worst ever PM continues to grow.
Kiri clearly needed to step aside a while back, Hipkins probably viewed she was untouchable. Labour deserve to be out of office, they are a shambles.
I think this is just a case of the story being somewhat poorly worded. If you blow over the limit there are effectively two limits - an infringement limit (at which you are issued a fine and demerits I think and sent on your merry way) and then a higher limit at which you can be charged with drink driving.
I think what's happened is she has fallen into the former category, i.e. she was over the lower limit but not the criminal charge limit.
Still an appalling look, but I don't believe she is "getting away with it" either.
Most importantly, a vital need to think about the person herself. She has battled back from cancer. So have I. All those that have find it still perches somewhat on your shoulder, and you do your best not to let it prey on you, but undeniably you are changed. Pressure and stress are the worst enemies. Time for Kiri to think about Kiri’s life choices, I would suggest and how she really wants Kiri to be.
'....back to Jacinda.' Give it a rest. Allan proved she could do the job until she couldn't. The woman fought and beat cancer then lost her wife and family while running an 18 hour a day impossible job. She couldn't handle it. Not many could and to lay that at Ardern's feet is just wrong. P.s. I m no Ardern fanboy
Thank you. 'Handling it' is an interesting phrase. It is really, really common for people who have had cancer to dive back into their previous life, and then crash 2 to 2 1/2 years later. Mostly those are people who aren't government ministers with multiple portfolios. Some do end up having relationship break ups post cancer. So it's not about 'handling it'. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of humans would not continue on as normal with all that she has been through, and with the job she has.
If we want Mental Health issues in NZ improved it starts here - with empathy and acknowledgement of being human, and how important it is to notice when people are struggling and help them. They often can't see it. As a front line health care professional I am sick of people in the community passing the buck to us and not doing their bit. This includes reporting the facts here and then leaving it behind. The media need to stop reporting on this by lunchtime today - this woman is at risk, and we need to stop and let her get better, no matter what her job was up until this morning. And I would defend any of you, regardless of your politics or job, and care for you the same way. Enough!
This isn't about Kiri or the challenges she has faced or the stigma of mental health, no one has shown a lack of empathy. Many battle daily to overcome adversity, illness, pressure at work and family trauma. A lot of crime can be traced back to mental health and toxic risk factors at home, do they get your sympathy? If Kiri for what ever reason didn't want to step aside, and I get it why that was hard, Hipkins needed to have done it. Yet here we are with the Justice Minister charged with resisting arrest. It should never have gotten to this.
The Jacinda reference is to the total shambles of a Cabinet Hipkens inherited.
We are beginning to see the avalange of job losses I predict. And it seems those born around 1970 are the ones getting the notices.
It makes me furious.
What is about New Zealand, ageism and experience gets the shove for bottom line of companies?
Yes we have been hearing over the weekend of our children's uni friends end of week notices of take the redundancy etc.
What is about New Zealand, ageism and experience gets the shove for bottom line of companies?
Is it ageism or is it just not having the deck totally stacked in Gen Xers favour which I suppose they've understandably come to expect?
Not much point in appealing for equity along generational lines here, that's not how things work, apparently. Perhaps they could 'harden up', 'have fewer takeaway coffees' or whatever other garbage that particular cohort has been happy to dish out when it's not them under the pump?
Gen X when leaving school came out to no jobs, the stock market had crashed beforehand. Interest rates were high.
Since lots of office jobs became redundant the only work you could find was blue collar work. Those labouring job's, you turned up to even if you were injured or sick otherwise you got fired. Gen X is used to adversity. Also Gen X don't usually have the ideological blaming of the old or young. They are more realistic, you need to go to work, save etc . Many gen x from experience have learnt to be wary of people who try to tell you what and how you should invest it. How and what you should believe in. Who and what to love or hate. Gen X learnt very early to harden up. It's nothing new.
What makes you so sure it's ageism? The age of the people you know of being offered redundancies? Could it just be a natural result of higher levels of employment in that cohort (the youth unemployment rate is considerably higher)? Or could it be that, in their own little microcosm of the world, they're simply the lowest performers - and their employer is now facing the hard task of pruning the deadwood? Non-performing 'experience' is simply not worth paying for when money gets tight.
Its more as people get older they get paid more & move into middle mangement. When tough times hit and corporate's need to trim the fat, most fat is to be found in this middle management. This is where the 50 something who is coasting to retirement is venerable. They are generally the targets of a restructure.
Is this reasonable value. They say to " get in quick." spruiking or genuine?
Otahuhu, 2 bedrooms https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-to-rent/auction…
Probably not, I expect to see another downside in property in nominal prices before a drawn out stagnation resulting in more loss in real terms. This despite being in a conditional contract on a property right now, if circumstances were better I'd have waited longer.
Same thing is happening in the rental market that happened with houses for sale. New two beds being supplied at what used to be a 3 bed price. Pushes the price up of everything above it. Repeat over and over again as construction costs and delays push prices up. There is no chance of a price equilibrium being reached because there is always an excuse to lift the floor.
We need a glut, not just more homes. We need too many homes.
A government that could build rapid transit would be a good start. Once you start making it possible to move around a city, the distance from it matters less. Auckland has the worst of both worlds in that regards. Huge amounts of housing in the North/North-West and South going in, but no rapid transit and no one capable enough to deliver it.
But its probably about $500 too low to stack up as a decent investment! I have no idea why anyone would own a rental right now, I guess they are hoping National win the election, it looks like Kiri has delivered for them. National's policies like decreasing living standards, building less houses, and giving back the tax perks may cause a dead cat bounce, but its hard to see how National will address the big elephant in the room, interest rates, especially while giving tax cuts.
Saw this - on todays "the Post site" As someone who last year regularly reported on the Lower Hutt House Market- despite the claims of real estate agents - my data shows Median price is at a 3 year low- with lower Hutt prices back to Oct 2020, and the majority of houses are listing as deadline sale and 3 weeks later have a price on them - ie certainly not racing out the door. Stock is low but that's a lack of listings rather than a large volume of sales. My data shows that for every10 houses that have sold 7 more have been listed and withdrawn from the market.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/nz-news/350037772/buyers-flocking-back-lowe…
I also note we have another article in the Herald this morning about kiwis record debt and talk of Mortgage defaults, the problem is the Real Estate industry which drummed up the FOMO ( I have seen a number of times them push prices up on young buyers - not by thousands but by tens of thousands of dollars) - have got away with minimal blame for why so many households are up to their necks in debt.
It's quite sad that we haven't done anything to stop real estate agents behaving this way.
But first, this coming week will be a busy one. And it will be dominated by the US Fed rate decision on Thursday (NZT). Analysts expect a +25 bps rise to 5.50%.
If Powell Wants Higher Rates, He Should Ask Why He's Not Getting Them
Car industry the first to get big new Beijing support
Hmmmm....
The roof is on fire Volkswagen in crisis as switch to e-cars destroys profitability
Modi govt rejects Chinese EV maker BYD's $1b mfg plant proposal in India
They have a long way to go from being a virtue signal hobby car to the main stream.
"Government guidelines state that due to fire risk, damaged BEVs awaiting repair should be stored in an outside quarantine area, at a safe distance of 15 metres from other nearby objects.
As such, an outside storage space with capacity for 100 ICE vehicles, would allow for the safe quarantine of just two BEVs, representing a potential 98% reduction in repair capacity.
...Currently, the cost of a replacement HV battery is causing a significant increase in the risk of ‘total loss’ or write-offs.
The cost of HV batteries varies widely from high-end vehicles, currently costing £29,500, to the low-end costing £14,200.
The ‘depreciation curve’ of battery cost versus average used value, says Thatcham, shows that the cost of a replacement battery is more than the used price of the vehicle after only one year."
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/latest-fleet-news/electric-fleet-news/…
A battery that fails within one year is likely still covered by another seven years of battery warranty. So there's not a chance in hell you'd be paying anything for that on a new car if one failed.
And I like how you didn't cherry pick this quote:
“It’s important to reiterate that most, if not all, of the outcomes highlighted by the report could be avoided with the right solutions in place,” said Watson.
And finally: they're mainstream. I work near the dealerships in town. Three of the dealers (Ford, VW, Audi) all have EV offerings. Not exactly niche brands, are they? And that's one side of the road.
Let me know when those right solutions kick in. The article is about EV repair not warranty issues.
"The headline figure from the earnings report is that the legacy car maker is losing an average of $58,333 per electric vehicle sold in the first three months of 2023."
https://www.carscoops.com/2023/05/ford-is-losing-almost-60000-for-every…
"VW estimates it would take about 77,000 miles of motoring before its 2015 electric Golf would have less impact than a diesel-powered Golf. The trouble is, many newly bought e-Golfs will never reach 77,000 miles — they will be traded in for a better model long before the car has racked up anywhere near that mileage."
Reading clearly is not your strong point, that was the guy in the article you linked to, not me. I just, you know, read a bit more than the bits you cherry-picked to support your own argument.
But come on, that's your baseline? The 2015 E-Golf? My man, that is eight years ago.
If you're going to come at me with talking points, try some from this decade.
Yes, I am able to recognise a quotation. But I think you know that. The point is none of these solutions are in place - you can't even recycle a battery without shipping it off to China for "recycling". Sorry to upset your delicate sensibilities - should I just cut and paste the whole article?
You'll have to ask VW why they chose the model for comparison. Do think more modern models will fair any better given the tendency for bigger and heavier EV's? Especially with all the future investment needed in stronger bridges, parking buildings and tarmac.
Now, give yourself a little pat on the back. You're helping!
"The climate effect of our electric-car efforts in the 2020s will be trivial. If every country achieved its stated ambitious electric-vehicle targets by 2030, the world would save 231 million tons of CO2 emissions. Plugging these savings into the standard United Nations Climate Panel model, that comes to a reduction of 0.0001 degree Celcius by the end of the century."
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/policies-pushing-electric-vehicles-sho…
"Councils should check the weight limits on bridges to ensure they don’t collapse with heavier electric cars travelling across them, ministers have suggested.
The news comes after concerns were raised that multi-storey car parks might collapse if too many electric vehicles (EVs), which can weigh as much as 33 per cent more than traditional petrol cars, are parked on them."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/07/electric-vehicles-33-per-ce…
Complete nonsense, the Tesla models that sell well here in NZ have LFP Batteries, and are far more stable than NCA or NMC batteries.
If you want to know about EV battery fires, the Chevy Bolt looks like the king of the ring. (we dont get those in NZ btw)
Feel free to back your statement up with some evidence.
Plenty of links here, go nuts (and why restrict to New Zealand? Are they only sold here?)
https://www.flyingpenguin.com/?p=40123
Safety of the Bolt vs Tesla
Nice sidestep, we were talking random battery fires while charging/parked at home, which as your link shows, Chevy had to recall a lot of Bolts over. Fires that start by driving a car into a solid object at speed are a totally different story.
PS, a few more than the 3 bolt fires mentioned in your link: Everything we know about the Chevy Bolt EV fires | Electrek
So they finally caught up to Ford and the rest? Ford Car, Truck and SUV Financing Options For Purchase or Lease | Official Site of Ford Credit
Tradies and and farmers are so grateful to be able to support your hobby.
"We combine billions of hourly electricity meter measurements with address-level EV registration records from California households. The average EV increases overall household load by 2.9 kilowatt-hours per day, less than half the amount assumed by state regulators. Our results imply that EVs travel 5,300 miles per year, under half of the US fleet average. This raises questions about transportation electrification for climate policy."
https://www.nber.org/papers/w28451
"First, as of the time of the survey, 89% of households with an EV also had a non-electric vehicle in addition to the EV. Second, 60% of households with an EV also had a non-electric SUV, truck, or minivan. Third, 66% of households with an EV also had a non-electric vehicle that was driven more miles per year."
https://haas.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/WP322.pdf
"VW estimates it would take about 77,000 miles of motoring before its 2015 electric Golf would have less impact than a diesel-powered Golf. The trouble is, many newly bought e-Golfs will never reach 77,000 miles — they will be traded in for a better model long before the car has racked up anywhere near that mileage.
...A few years ago, an American research company ranked vehicles according to their carbon footprint. To most people’s surprise, the Jeep Wrangler, a gas-guzzling 4x4, came out one of the best. It easily beat the Toyota Prius, which at the time was the darling of eco-warriors and image-conscious Hollywood stars. How come? Because people who bought Wranglers tended to keep them for a long time. The Jeep was solidly built and its classic design barely changed from year to year, so owners saw no need to replace it. Using “dust-to-dust” emissions calculations that account for manufacturing, mining and recycling, as well as fuel consumption, the Wrangler outdid cars that seemed superficially greener."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/is-keeping-your-gas-guzzler-greener-…
Lots of numbers, but dodgy analysis.
Did they account for the number of EV owning households that have solar, therefore the amount of load pulled from the grid is less than expected. And ditto for those that don't charge at home, not going to affect their apartment powerbill if they only use public charging or workplace charging.
Perhaps they should get some primary data rather than trying to extrapolate from very low quality secondary data.
As for your second point. so bloody what. most American (and NZ) households are multicar, so the fact they still have one or more ICE isn't exactly a surprise. We're a two car household, our other car is still ICE. It won't be once we get to the point we need to replace it, but thats probably 5 years away.
Edit: also crap analysis in that report. Lets compare EV owning households with all US households (including the ones that don't own a car), because that makes sense. Lets not adjust for income: EVs are still more expensive, and mostly not purchased by low income households. The sort of analysis that is right up Profiles alley.
"VW estimates it would take about 77,000 miles of motoring before its 2015 electric Golf would have less impact than a diesel-powered Golf. The trouble is, many newly bought e-Golfs will never reach 77,000 miles — they will be traded in for a better model long before the car has racked up anywhere near that mileage.
And the traded in car gets crushed right? Or does it go on to clock up more milage with its second/third/forth owner?
More nonsense from Profile, does anybody actually take this shill seriously?
I didn't say their data was dodgy (it might be, it wasn't even worth looking at the data when the analysis was complete nonsense).
If that analysis is the best that the NBER and the Times can come up with, they should both shut their doors and piss right off. That NBER paper looks like it could be used as a case study for first year students to detect poor/biased analysis.
I'm not really much of an environmentalist either, not sure the 2L Turbo gas guzzling road legal racecar I got rid of a few years ago, or my long involvement in motorsport really fit the environmentalist theme. EVs just make for a far nicer everyday car, once you get one with a decent range and charging speed. Still plenty of combustion cars that i'd love for a weekend warrior hoonmobile, but no garage means they'd spend most of winter going green parked out front. I'll let you know if I hit powerball and add a Mclaren to the stable, along with a new house. :)
Likewise, I'll let you know when my big oil pay cheque comes in and we can hit the road.
I think the analysis was more robust than you suggest and covers some of the points you raise.
"...They find that electricity consumption rose within a couple of weeks of an owner registering an EV, and that it largely remained constant for the next six months. Increased electricity consumption was concentrated between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am, suggesting drivers charge their EVs when they come home and leave them plugged in overnight.
...What explains low EV electricity consumption? One possibility is that EVs are being charged primarily away from home. This would run contrary to existing administrative data. By the researchers’ estimates, in order for EVs to be driven as much as their gasoline-powered counterparts, away-from-home charging kWh would have to be three times what is currently reported to state regulators. The researchers reason that this is unlikely because Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits, worth between $0.20 and $0.25 per kWh — well above the price of electricity — are paid to chargers who report.
...“If EVs are being driven as much as conventional cars, it speaks to their potential as a near-perfect substitute for vehicles burning fossil fuels,” the researchers write. “If, on the other hand, EVs are being driven substantially less than conventional cars, it raises important questions about the potential for the technology to replace a vast majority of trips currently using gasoline.”
https://www.nber.org/digest/202105/what-charging-habits-owners-reveal-a…
And still it is extrapolating from secondary data. It will be interesting to see what happens in NZ when the data from WOF checks becomes available in a few years time.
Also a factor in the US will be the fact that apart from the Tesla supercharger network, long range driving is difficult due to different charger standards and availabilty (Somewhat a factor in NZ to, but far less as CCS2 is the DC charging standard and Chargenet is pretty dominant compared to the rest.)
Some data from primary sources for you..
(random text insertion to unbreak the formatting issues witht he read more thingy )
Tesla Model Y Average Annual Mileage Is Higher Than US Vehicle Average (insideevs.com)
And heres one that uses primary data from a high quality public source, the UKs MOT vehicle database.
Study: Teslas cover more miles in their first 3 years than other auto brands (thenextweb.com).
EVs burn much less often than ICE cars
- EV= 25 per 100,000
- ICE = 1,530 per 100,000
- Hybrid = 3,474 per 100,000
So an ICE is 61 times more likely to catch fire than an EV.
Study claims hybrids start more fires than petrol cars & EVs combined - NZ Autocar
EVs are undoubtedly better than ICE but that is missing the point somewhat. Both are not sustainable. It's our almost exclusively car-based transport system that is the problem. It's not just unaffordable from a national balance of payments point of view, it's also unaffordable from a maintenance and funding point of view.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsroom.co.nz/budget-docs-reveal-pres…
Let us know when the gubbermint (at all levels) stops pissing around and pissing away billions on low return pubic transport projects. Lets spend billions on tunneling one light rail line from the city to Mt Roskill instead of spending the same money building 3 or 4 surface lines.
The tunnel option will be canned soon. It's only because the guys running the project are 1 - a guy who has made a career of building the biggest type of infrastructure possible 2 - another guy who has made a career from building tunnels. Tunneled light rail is the shitest option. The only reason it's still there is because the are trying to link it to the Harbour crossing tunnel for cars project
If you decoupled the two projects you'd find that you would go with surface light rail on the isthmus and a PT and walking and cycling bridge across the harbour. A car option would not stack up. By pushing for a tunnel in both options they hope they can wrap up a road tunnel in the options.
Shameless.
Lots of discussion above re the election and who will/should win. But it won't matter. In fact, this is probably the election to lose, given the economic and social challenges that are headed our way in short order. Sitting on the Opposition benches and doing your job; throwing stones and mud, will be the ideal place to be.
"Sitting on the Opposition benches and doing your job; throwing stones and mud"
I think this sums up the issue with our politics at the moment. The role of the opposition is to challenge the government, but not on everything. The opposition should be looking to work with the government on issues where there is agreement and the country will benefit. It is the idea that you have to oppose and criticise everything the government does that is part of the problem. You also end up with really weird outcomes where the party in opposition ends up opposing things that they normally would be proposing.
This is why I think Bridges and Collins were better than Luxon as a leader, they at least allowed some bi-partisan support of things where the National interest was at stake. Under Luxon, it seems to have degenerated into not proposing anything substantial but criticising absolutely anything Labour proposes. It's childish and reminds me of the more extreme Republicans in the US.
This election will be like animal farm, just as the recent elections and governments have been (be it National or Labour led).
Orwell was right!
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.