Here are the key things you need to know before you leave work today.
MORTGAGE RATE CHANGES
ASB cut its one year fixed rate to 3.95%, but raised two other rates at the same time. ditto Sovereign. The Co-operative Bank has trimmed its one year rate, but only to 4.10%.
TERM DEPOSIT RATE CHANGES
The Co-operative Bank has changed most term deposit rates, some up, some down.
FOOD PRICES LITTLE CHANGED
Food price rises are tame according to the October report from Stats NZ. The only movement of note was for meat which was up.
FONTERRA HAS A CHINA WIN
Fonterra was a seller on Alibaba's Singles Day platform in China again this year. More than 30 million people visited the Anchor online store within 24 hours and an equivalent of 8400 tonnes of product was sold. They achieved average prices +5% higher this year than last. Anmum sales increased 41%. Twelve tonnes of Anchor unsalted butter was sold – 22 times the amount sold last year.
ANOTHER PALMY
As at September 2018, New Zealand's population was 4,907,200. That represents a rise of +1.9% in the past year or +89,400 (another Palmerston North in one year) or +637,600 in the past ten years. By our estimate, our population is currently 4,919,125 so we should be over 5 mln by September 2019.
A MORTGAGE BOND STANDARD
The Reserve Bank today published a consultation paper proposing a new mortgage bond standard aimed at supporting confidence and liquidity in the New Zealand markets.
NEW RBNZ SURVEY
The RBNZ is to start monitoring credit conditions in a six monthly survey. In the first survey, mortgage demand was noted as falling from March to September when availability was rising.
COMING UP
The REINZ sales data for October will be released at 9am tomorrow morning. This will record sales activity in the meat of the Spring selling season. For reference, 5849 properties sold in October 2017, 1677 of them in Auckland. Your guess for 2018?
STOCK MARKETS STRUGGLE
It has been a tough day on equity markets on Wall Street. The S&P500 was down -2%. In Shanghai, markets were up yesterday a strong +1.4% but have opened today by giving back -0.4% of that. Still, it is early in their session. The NZX is down -1%, the ASX is down -1.6%.
'MAJOR TRANSFORMATION UNDERWAY'
Global demand for electricity is expected to surge by around +60% over the next twenty years, the IEA predicts. Smaller, more efficient machines mean greater use of electricity.
SWAP RATES SOFTER, FLATTER
Swap rates are unchanged for two years, down -1 bp for five years, and down -2 bps for ten years. The UST 10yr is lower at 3.15% today with the 2-10 curve at +26 bps. The 90 day bank bill rate is up +1 bp to 2.00%. The last time it hit 2% was at the end of June 2018.
BITCOIN DIPS
The bitcoin price has slipped today to just on US$6,300, a decline of -1.4% in the past 24 hours.
NZD HOLDS
The NZD is a little lower than this morning at 67.2 USc. But on the cross rates we are firmer at 93.6 AU, and at 59.8 euro cent. That puts the TWI-5 at just on 72.1 and unchanged from this morning.
This chart is animated here. For previous users, the animation process has been updated and works better now.
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
87 Comments
China extends crackdown on labour protests as activism spreads
https://www.ft.com/content/cbecd5d8-e627-11e8-8a85-04b8afea6ea3
France calls for EU 'empire' and warns of euro break-up in next crisis
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/11/12/france-calls-eu-empire-…
"Ambrose,
This is the truth,
"Many in Berlin suspect that the real French objective is to lay hands on the German credit card."
And
“My reading of 70 years of history is that no German chancellor will cross that line,”
When the bond markets finally come to the same conclusion, that the political will for sovereign debt pooling does not exist, then the Euro will unravel in a matter of hours.
National central banks in the Euro zone had better be preparing for the resuscitation of their national currencies.
No amount of globalist hot air from Macron in Paris will change the outcome.
Jonathan Wilson"
Empire 2.0: the fantasy that's fuelling Tory divisions on Brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/08/empire-fantasy-fuellin…
same reason guys love girls like this
https://nypost.com/2018/11/09/woman-says-she-was-denied-entry-to-louvre…
There are numerous facebook groups specifically for this exact problem;
https://www.facebook.com/groups/whyisbabyboomerhumoursoweird/
My take is quite different, I think cognitive dissonance is at play when it comes to insecurity of body image. In both directions, fit or fat. If you are happy about things then you won't take offense.
My motivation is more that the average person loses 50% of their muscle mass between the age of 50 and 80. What is more is that the motor unit loss is the same, they get weak and slow down. Those that have been althletes have half the loss of the average, but the inference from studies is that any loss is entirely preventable. I am not going to be a part of the average club. I can deadlift more now than I could in my 20's, that is 7x180kg. That is more than double my bodyweight and I am 6'1" (opposite of the bodytype suited to this). When you have just finished lifting 180kg the feeling is amazing. When you have just tested yourself in a 2 hour endurance race the feeling is amazing.
No economics can buy that feeling, you have to work for it. If you don't work for it you won't be around to enjoy whatever wealth you think you have. What others think is irrelevant.
Outlive your enemies.
Errrm. Well, I'm not entirely sure of the relevance to anything? It just seems like maybe you're finding an excuse to discuss your body on an anonymous financial media comments section? Not that I disagree with any of what your saying but just struggling to understand why you are posting it here?
Myself, I was commenting about generalisations about "girls" liking bastards and the other gender-stereotyping link, which I just don't find funny. Not because I don't laugh, I laugh a lot. But because it simply isn't funny to me. None of that is about cognitive dissonance.
Well your reaction by calling out sexual repression, dissatisfaction or inadequacy seems rather an extreme response, and reading a lot, into a one liner. Not that it is necessarily an indicator, but tf you have followed Andrew comments you will know he has more than his fair share of daughters and it highly likely to be simply taking the piss but with a hint of a life of observation. I think his observation and intuition skills are well worth regarding.
As I say fella, it is a feeling thing. Might be you never have. No point is being rich, but old and decrepid. There is compelling statistics for life expectancy vs body composition, that is clearly an economic factor and worthy of discussion. Surely the most significant investment factor is the declining return on investments for those that expect to sit back and live off the unearned income. Good luck with that strategy if it is yours, and even better luch to your kids.
On a slightly separate, but related note, it is believed there are nine types of intelligence. It is my personal theory that people like to express their preference. Some might have more than one preference eh?
I'd be reluctant to advise deadlifting for older folk as it puts quite a bit of pressure on the spine. Bench pressing however is a good alternative. I was surprised how much bench pressing exercises the abdominal muscles.
Also chinups are good but I avoid pullups.
sorry ginger, I was tortured by 9 years in private boys boarding school from 9. Nothing you see is but a veneer, never the real me, life is what is though and life goes on.
I have also sat in churches while dear friends marry bastards so yes girls can and do like difficult men.
ginger, you miss the nuances of bloke speak. I have known scarfie though the comments on here for years, I know he's not a bastard in fact I regard him highly. I was responding to him calling himself a bastard which he obviously isn't. 'The girls love bastards', was my way of saying to him theres a girl for you out there somewhere.
Take care Andrew
When I was young I worked in Nth Alberta oil country, I suppose you could call them real men, make a wrong comment and they will put you on your arse so fast. Swear like troopers rough as guts, great with their hands but oh so rough compared to what I was used to, but very respectful around women.
I also work with my hands around some pretty tough guy's, great if you need to fight a war or get into a scrap at the bar.They know how it feels to go to bed exhausted from work every night, I like being around people like this. Im happy to put up a house, fix fence or the water pump, then change the oil on the bulldozer, go shoot deer, climb a mountain, climbed a few when i was younger. Go to the beach to fish or dive, pretty handy in the water, partly from playing underwater hockey.
Hurt one of my girls and I will kill you ,slowly. I taught them all to do stuff, so they can drive a tractor, dive, surf, go into the hills etc, made them all learn a musical instrument and dance, they can ride a horse like the wind, love natural horsemanship, Im not sure how that makes then fit in today. I was laughing, the other day one of my girls was in London and visited some people in a house boat on the Thames, they wanted to cross the river but you need a boat masters, at 23 she had one of those and took the boat across the river for them.
I think Vulnerability is ok , it took me a while to get that one, Im not talking weakness. I know less and less about more and more.
should add we homeschooled our children, dyslexia was knocking one around, we had tutors too. So my children were raised on a farm. My wife went to boarding school when she was 7, so we had both decided that we were going to make a close family priority, I had the advantage of being on a farm and I had staff.
Andrew, as we all know humour is subjective. It doesn’t mean your not good at it (if you were aiming for a wide audience and not just scarfie it might be different but it seemed in line with the thread to me). I don’t like to see people brow beaten for an attempt at humour and hope we’ll see more future comments.
A life without humour would be terrible and if we don’t use it we’ll lose it.
Yes, a life without humour, gosh golly, how dare anyone question what another finds funny. I mean, imagine not being able to joke about skin colour, for instance, what a party pooper that person would be! The outrage! Degrading stereotypes are so frickin' hilarious. My bad.
Interesting: many black comedians do and they are hilarious. So a woman making stereotype comments about women may be OK? I never found 'ab fab' exceptionally funny. Interesting how humour changes - 50 years ago Monty Python had me in stitches but my best friend bravely and uniquely said it did nothing for him. Now it doesn't seem as funny - have I changed or has humour?
Human consciousness is evolving I reckon. All old movies and things are pretty cringy as will be everything we are doing now. I thought "The Young Ones" would be timeless but it is barely watchable now.
I did think of this skit when reading Andrew's comments above though:
Lapun, really? You need that explaining? Perhaps when an oppressed, disempowered group uses humour as a means of rebellion, subversive criticism and satire it is different to when a privileged, powerful group does it? I wouldn't know when it's okay for a woman to make a stereotyped comments about another woman. It would probably greatly depend on the situation, I wouldn't assume to make those kind of generalisations which is my point really.
But it's interesting that so many boomer, white men on this comment section have rushed to defend their right to make sexist generalisations and jokes. Patting each other on the back and explaining why I can't possibly understand the nuances of their manliness. Ho ho, silly overly sensitive "girl". Perhaps it's my hormones and lady parts just preventing me from good wholesome "bloke" humour? Or perhaps it's POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD!!!!???? It's only a comments section, let a man have his jokes about girls and scantily clad women.
I forget that many of you grew up with this cultural backdrop;
""when an oppressed, disempowered group uses humour as a means of rebellion, subversive criticism and satire it is different "" that is exactly what I was saying but obviously not clearly enough to be understood.
You wrote ""how dare anyone question what another finds funny. I mean, imagine not being able to joke about skin colour"" without any qualification.
@Gingerninja. Everything is on the table when it comes to humour. There are people who can make something funny out of something horrible, it's the intentions behind the joke which count and I doubt you can attack the intentions here. In fact, if anthing Andrew was humorously building Scarfie up after a self deprecating comment.
Like anything humour needs to be developed through practise, let's let it breath rather than try to shut it down.
Nice of you to make assumptions about my gender, race and orientation. It only shows that you don't consider ideas, you instead try to pigeon hole them into a box that conforms with your ideology. In this case - Withay has said something I don't like therefore I will assume he is xyz as only xyz thinks that because they are racist, sexist etc.
Can you see how you are doing exactly what you are criticising me of?
Anyway, I didn't say the joke wasn't a misogynistic slur. I defended the intention and right to use humour. Please don't strawman comments and purposely misrepresent them so they fit into your box. Let's have an honest conversation.
Withay LOLWUT? Hardly. Most of the commentators in the thread above have identified themselves previously by age, race and gender, so it's not an assumption. Furthermore, the meme I linked to is itself a joke, not a criticism. So perhaps you would like to defend my intention and right to use humour as a way to engage with sexism that I find personally offensive? FYI I don't really pray just in case you thought that wasn't intended to be humour either.
Withay, IMO some humour is laughing with and some humour is laughing at. When it comes to laughing with, I agree, nothing is off the table. When it is laughing at, then IMO some of that humour is to be criticised because it rests on power and privilege.
" Here’s the thing about political humor: It’s meant to poke fun at the politics, the issues and candidates’ responses to the issues, and to make us laugh about the campaign. More important, it’s designed to make us consider and condemn what is problematic about the politics in question.
Instead, what we have here are jokes about a culture—so who’s laughing, and what are they laughing about? People in the in-group are laughing at the out-group, but it’s supposed to be OK because it’s “all in good fun.” That is the essence of privilege: “This joke isn’t harming me, so it’s not harmful at all.”
If the line between satirizing a political figure and mocking someone’s identity isn’t obvious, think about it in terms of this question: Who holds more power in society?
The use of humor by people with more privilege about people with less has a very specific social function".
https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/its-not-just-a-joke
Do you read this article and think the writer is making wild assumptions and spoiling everyone's right to make a joke?
I appreciate the thoughtful response. In summary I do believe that the writer of the article is spoiling the right to make a joke.
The article is written from a "social justice" standpoint which I fundamentally disagree with as I think it is an oxymoronic idea. If you look at it in that context - the oppressed, oppressor narrative then it kind of makes sense but that to me is a flawed idea. In NZ we have exactly the same rights regardless of sex, race etc. so to play the oppressed card you must assume historical oppression of which one now does not suffer personally or claim difference in outcome is evidence of current oppression. This is why I don't buy into it.
Long story short, I believe in equality hence why anyone should be able to make a joke in any direction. Do remember though I think intentions are of utmost importance with this which coincides with a lot of what you have said. The only thing dividing us (in my guestimation) is the social justice narrative. Other than that we would be way more similar than different.
I don't so much come from the social justice narrative... but more of the human beings are a social primates who create social constructs which become part of the way we think and act narrative. So for instance, the ABC video I link to above from 1961 are a prime example. In 1961, the women in the interview had the same rights to education as their husbands, the inequality they subscribed to was based on beliefs and values not law. They were oppressed by the internalised values... social norms and constructs are every bit as influential on the act of living as the laws a society writes (indeed the former always informs the latter).
Changing a law and creating rights is not sufficient to create equality and negate inequality. Just like creating laws is not sufficient to create a crime free society because crime and the inequality exist within the minds, deeds, values and motivations of people regardless and so we have law enforcement and social discourse and discussion to question and examine society.
Regarding your first paragraph, the best way to alleviate those problems is with individualism and individual rights hence why I mentioned law. If you identify as an individual you are more free to choose your path, if you follow more of a group identity you are more likely to achieve outcomes based on that group hence your “internalised values” comment (this can be positive and negative).
For your second paragraph, the first line is correct. We will never negate inequality as we are all unequal. This quote summarises it best “any society that is equal isn’t free and any society that is free isn’t equal.”
Serious question, do you see freedom or equity as more important?
Withay Firstly, I would say that I am an advocate of equality of opportunity, rather than some undefined notion of equality. Secondly I would say that both freedom and equality of opportunity are inextricably linked and I do not believe one can exist without the other. They are mutually inclusive.
As a species who constantly reconstruct our values, the very notion of value is mutable and constantly in a state of flux, which is why there is merit in questioning and possibly criticising the values that we maintain because in so doing, we can influence or create new values. There will always be tension there in that debate and it is freedom of speech at the very center of that process.
Hi Gingerninja. I haven't identified myself but you still assumed who I was hence why I missed the humour in the meme as the sentiment epressed in said meme is typically used to strawman/dismiss others ideas than to be funny. I will always defend your right to use humour, I will just question the intent in this instance (if it was a genuine attempt then I apologise).
Just so we don't lose the forrest for the trees, I agree and am often an avid "thumbs upper" on your comments in other threads. However, as a keen follower of comedy, particularly stand up comedy I do jump when I see it threatened as I did in this case. Comedy is historically first on the chopping block in the errosion of free speech in society and I see that happening in our current social climate.
Withay, I totally agree with you regarding humour and free speech. However, I didn't ever threaten anyone's free speech, I merely expressed my own. I think it is important to analyse humour, whether it is a privileged, powerful group mocking, and/or in-group/our-group humour. My comments to the self identified white boomers above was to mock their humour with my own humour. However, the implication in subsequent comments was that if I didn't find their misogynistic humour funny, it was my lack of humour that was the issue, rather than the privileged base misogyny that informed their humour. That isn't to say that there is any topic of humour that is taboo or should be banned. The following video is humour based on gender stereotype and generalisations... and it made me laugh...however the power dynamic is different and is an example of the group with less privilege and power using subversive humour to challenge gender issues, rather than posting pics of a woman with cleavage as a joke. I am entitled to say that I don't find the posting of cleavage pics woman with a comment "same reason guys love this" after a comment "women love bastards" funny. I didn't report those comments or try to silence anyone, I simply voiced my own perspective.
https://www.facebook.com/bbcthree/videos/quickies-men-are-witches/15938…
The most commen way free speech is repressed nowadays is via the hecklers veto which was kind of happening to the original comment that kicked this off. I’m not disagreeing with you expressing yourself, I feel the initial joke was taken in the wrong way. The intention behind it was fine, and it’s a long bow to draw to get to a mysoginistic point with “girls like bastards.” It is essentially a take on girls like bad boys which rings very true. They weren’t mocking an out group, it was a consolatory/build up in joke.
Laminar "Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny is manifest in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny
I think sexual objectification qualifies because it ultimately causes psychological and emotional harm to women. When a human person is limited in status to that of an object of someone else's desire, you are inherently dehumanised. Your personality, intelligence and other traits are diminished. The all pervasive nature of female sexual objectification means that many women also sexually self objectify and only regard their own worth via the lens of male opinion. This can often lead to catastrophic mental health issues, especially in later life. Beauty and sexual objectification is often limited to youth, so as women age, even if they had once been considered attractive, they suddenly cease to receive any attention or status of the kind they were led to believe was most important. Interestingly, over 20% of the over 50 female population in NZ take antidepressants and this is the biggest demographic. I would suggest there may be some correlation.
"same reason guys love girls like this" I took that as being the oppoiste equivilent of "girls like bastards" - hence the "same reason" part. I didn't take it as a comment on attractiveness, in the context I thought it was more about personality.
Do you think your personal experience as you describe was what lead you to see it in an objectificational way?
For the rest of the comment. Everyone has there own cross to bear and I mean that in the sense that your attractiveness has negative consequences to you - what about those who aren't attractive? Are they not affected in an equivalent opposite way? What do we do about that then?
"Am I impinging on male freedom of speach by saying... don't comment on my appearance constantly?" Are the comments addressed to you or about you? Was it said in private or was it said so you can hear? Do any of us have the right to discuss anyone? If we can't discuss other people then what are the consequences of that? Answer to me is you have the right to your freedom of speech at anytime, "wisdom" is knowing when to use it (as the saying goes). It's all context. Also, I've never said anything about your appearance niether has anyone here as I'm assuming we all haven't met and as I said in another comment I generally really like your commentary.
"Do you think it is fair that a woman like me spends her life being sexually objectified against her choice and will?" Believe me, we all get objectified or judged on our appearance against our will. Do you think your experience is different and more consequential to any one else?
To stop everything your describing you would need to change how society thinks. This is where I see the freedom of speech as important. Speech is our thoughts and if were not allowed to say something it effects our thoughts. If we say something and have a reasonable conversation about it then all the better. As a comedian once said "speech has to be free because were going to use so much of it to figure out where we're going, we couldn't afford to pay for it."
How is "guys liking girls who look like this" the opposite equivalent of "girls like bastards"? One is about appearance and one is about behaviour. Or have you just fallen in to the exact trap I have tried to highlight. That women become reduced to the value of their physical appearance, whereas men get to have traits of behaviour valued?
The assumption of the two being equivalents is itself sexist IMO. AndrewJ is not making his jokes about "girls" privately to his friend. He is making is publicly, on a written comments thread. I ONLY made personal comments about my own life after he had already done so to contextualise my comments, because several other men jumped on to defend him.
We all have reasons and motivations for how we react to things, which is why perhaps a comments section isn't the place to make sexist jokes IMO, you don't know the people who will read it, there is no way of understanding the position of the audience.
For me personally, yes I receive comments regularly, however, because of how I understand human social structures, I also understand that men feel it is acceptable to make such comments to me, in a totally unsolicited and creepy, sometimes scary and sometimes abusive way, because of the wider context and cultural where men feel sexually objectifying women is totally acceptable and innocuous (and I consider AndrewJ above as an example of this). The more often something happens and receives a positive response the more pervasive something becomes and the converse is often true. I said I didn't find it funny, I responded by mocking Andrewj with my own humour. He responded by describing personal things about himself and you responded by defending his right to humour and critcising my humour and my right to question him, and then questioning my describing personal things about myself, when I actually only did that to see whether the additional context would make any difference to you and it hasn't. Actually several men jumped in to defend AndrewJ and perhaps that is because this a male dominated site or perhaps you all think AndrewJ is so fragile and vulnerable that he can't take his humour being criticised but assume that I can take all the criticism you can muster? Perhaps you can explain.
I really don't understand why you keep accusing me of being a threat to free speech. At no point have I even remotely attempted to silence AndrewJ or indeed anyone. It's almost like you have an agenda to keep bringing it up. I mean, if the agenda is that there are some people online who do indeed attempt to silence others and some of those people might be referred to as "feminazis" because they will not tolerate anyone to have any view outside their own and indeed shut down any comment any man (or dissenting opinion) says ever on the basis of him being a man, then you aren't helping either. I have rowed with those women on line as vociferously as I row with you now, I have been blocked and banned myself for questioning what I perceive to be bullying and aggressive behaviour towards men. I see the danger in their behaviour for the future and indeed I think we already witnessing some backlash.
The sexual objectification of women affects everyone. The women who are deemed by male gaze to be less attractive are just as diminished and damaged by the sexual objectification, as the woman who are deemed to be attractive. My suggestion for what to do about that is to be more thoughtful about sexual objectification. Men are sexually objectified in modern culture too, and we are now seeing similar mental health and psychological consequences there too. However, the wider societal value of male roles and skills is still unequal. Physical appearance is rarely represented as the most valuable attribute of a man, but it is frequently represented as the most valuable attribute of a woman, which is why is contributes and perpetuates to inequality.
He didn't say "guys liking girls who look like this," he said "same reason guys love girls like this." Again, taken literally the key is the "same reason" indicating personality not looks. I think you might have fell into a trap yourself of reading it wrong and that then effects the rest of your comment.
For guys approaching girls, it's tough. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. The difference between a wanted advance and an unwanted advance is generally whether the girl likes the guy or not. A non confident good looking guy is endearing, a non confident not good looking guy is creepy. There are many incompetent approaches made which can lead to a bad representation of guys (which you appear have experienced) and also a loss of self esteem for guys which has it's own issues. I'm saying this as you've been bringing up your personal experiences and I'm hoping to shine a light on the other side as not all of it is malicious. Society (and biology) still dictates that the majority of the time a guy will have to approach a girl so it will happen and it's not always pure objectification.
Why do I bring up free speech? The hecklers veto point I made earlier. You very quickly linked to a facebook page titled "shut the 'f' up boomers" and another about their body parts. It appears to be more of a shout down than debate or humour (if it was an attempt at humour then let me know). And I'm not accusing you personally of being a threat to free speech just the method.
Even though I'm taking the opposing view on a lot of issues, I do agree with your comment about being more thoughtful about sexual discrimination. It would be a good outcome but I question your method to achieve it. Are you wanting to win a debate or engage in dialectic? As one is zero sum and the other is a positive move towards understanding.
RBNZ are worried about falling house prices and may relax LVR to juice the market,
which is strange because you would think in a downturn they would like the banks to have a buffer
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/108568591/reserve-bank-expects-easing-…
Hi Hardly
They are terrified that if the rate of growth in private debt slows, it doesn't even need to go negative, it just needs to slow. If that happens then the economy will go into recession and we'll have an even bigger housing collapse.
National unsold housing stock has risen (realestate.co.nz) from 36,775 on 6th November to 37,773 today - a rise of 2.7% in a week as it continues its upward climb
Auckland unsold housing stock has risen (realestate.co.nz) from 13,858 on 6th November to 14,205 today - a rise of 2.5% in a week
Trademe Auckland rentals have also risen to 4445 from 4277 on 6th November - a rise of 3.9% in a week.
Make of it what you will.. We'll see the real estate stats tomorrow and for some reason there is a suggestion of a mortgage bond being bandied about by the RBNZ?
Parents sold house in Feilding 16 weeks ago for 600k, RV of 425k.
Neighbours with pretty much an identical house liked the sound of this so put theirs on the market. They have now taken it off the market after 12 weeks of advertising. The best offer they have received in 535k
The difference between the two houses? Nothing.
Good anecdote, but who will be better off long term? Although the neighbours could not repeat the obviously good result of your parents home, in another ten years from now house prices in general could be, and are very likely to be, far above what they are now so it does not mean the neighbours will lose out. There are many accidental auckland landlords from the last recession of 2009/10 who today are far wealthier as a result of their short term misfortune.
Watching with interest Nic – still don’t think you’re going to make the 15,000 – a few new listings to come I imagine but countered with others being removed by those throwing in the beach towel - for the time being anyway.
Barring anything dramatic probably not until mid-February that we’ll be underway again – and maybe then a better idea of whether the buyer or seller is in more of a mood to capitulate.
Hi Rastus.. We followed Australia on the way up and appear to be following them on the way down
Here's latest post from Digital Finance Analytics...
Australian Household finances in the gutter.
This one is better from Martin. A guest English real estate guy. Giving an insider and outsider view. A lot about the NZ market as well as Australia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-fgQ_RaySM
You don’t need to convince me Nic! I have several podcasts I download and listen to each week, dfa is one, others include Bloomberg and macro voices, a few others. Same theme pretty much..... I’m fully prepared for the train wreck, the ppty bulls leave me shaking my head... do you laugh at them or just feel sorry for their families?
This bet is good fun, I’m glad Nic proposed it.
In answer to David’s question, my pick is for October to look half decent, similar to barfoots results, but November looks very dark so I’m more interested in that data.
I think we’ll start to see more price movement soon. Sellers are going to have to respond to the market if they want to sell and move on with their life.
Westpac likely to face a bigger fine for irresponsible lending:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/judge-tears-up-35m-…
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.