sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.
Breaking news: Barfoot & Thompson's sales solid in July - market charges on through winter... More soon.

ASB, BNZ, Westpac and Kiwibank indicate they will not be matching ANZ's requirement for housing investors to have 40% deposits at this stage

ASB, BNZ, Westpac and Kiwibank indicate they will not be matching ANZ's requirement for housing investors to have 40% deposits at this stage

Other large banks don't appear in a hurry at this stage to match the country's largest home lender ANZ in requiring housing investors to have 40% deposits.

The 40% move with immediate effect from ANZ on Tuesday goes further than the recommendations of the Reserve Bank, which is moving to have 30% deposits for investors in place by March.

Kiwibank, ASB, Westpac and BNZ have all declined to follow suit, at least for the moment.

The move from ANZ comes as the housing market has absolutely taken off with prices having risen by 18.5% in the past 12 months.

The RBNZ is currently consulting to reintroduce loan to value ratio (LVR) restrictions, which it removed in May.

The proposal from the RBNZ is to reinstall the restrictions exactly as they were when removed in May. This means 30% deposits for investors and 20% for owner-occupiers, with banks able to lend up to 20% of their new mortgage lending for loans in excess of 80% of the value of the property (IE for deposits of under 20%). Most major banks have already adopted these rules ahead of the planned March reintroduction.

But now ANZ has gone further. The 40% deposit level for investors actually aligns to what the requirement was back in mid-2016 when, with more than a hint of desperation, the RBNZ slammed 40% deposits on all investors. It worked. Subsequently these rules were relaxed over the past two years as the heat came out of the housing market.

We approached the other big four banks for comment.

ASB executive general manager for retail banking Craig Sims said: "We believe a balanced and sustainable housing market is in the best interests of all New Zealanders, and we are committed to playing our part in helping first home buyers get onto the property ladder. As part of this, we made changes to our lending criteria last month, requiring a greater [30%] deposit from investors. We continue to monitor developments in the housing market and we regularly review our credit settings, and will make changes as appropriate."

A Kiwibank spokesperson said: "At this stage Kiwibank will maintain its current loan-to-value ratio (LVR) settings. These settings align with Reserve Bank LVR restrictions. For property investors Kiwibank requires a 30% deposit and owner occupiers a 20% deposit which we consider appropriate. It’s something we consistently review, and we’ll continue to consider our response to market conditions."

A Westpac spokesperson said: "While we regularly review our LVR settings, we currently have no plans to change our deposit requirements for residential investors. We have taken a consistent and responsible approach to lending throughout the year, and did not change our lending criteria when the RBNZ removed its LVR 'speed limit' restrictions in April.”

A spokesperson for BNZ said that bank was "sticking with 30% for now" in terms of deposits for investors. 

It is not the first time ANZ has talked about going further than the RBNZ official rules. In 2016 then ANZ NZ chief executive David Hisco suggested 60% deposits for investors.

In the New Zealand market, ANZ is a very big player. It accounts for just under a third of the total mortgage lending.

ANZ's managing director of personal banking Ben Kelleher said the bank's decision followed two months of record levels of mortgage lending. 

In those two months some 32.4% of the new mortgage lending had gone to investors, while 18.3% had gone to first home lenders.

“Escalating property prices are putting home ownership out of reach for many Kiwis," Kelleher said.

"The current settings favour property investors particularly over first home buyers, potentially locking a generation of New Zealanders out of home ownership.

“It’s in everyone’s interests for residential property prices to be sustainable long term, and for home ownership to be accessible to as many people as possible.

“As New Zealand’s largest home lender, decreasing the LVR on residential investor lending is one thing we can do to help bring balance to the residential property market.”

Here is the announcement from the ANZ:

ANZ Bank NZ today announced it would require a 40% deposit from residential property investors as a step to bring balance to the housing market.

Effective immediately, investors will need equity of 40%, up from the current 30%, when borrowing to buy residential property. There are no changes to deposit requirements for other residential buyers, including first home owners.

ANZ Managing Director Personal Ben Kelleher said ANZ would also be recommending to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) as part of the current consultation that loan-to-valuation ratios (LVR) be set at 60% for residential property investors, rather than the 70% that has been proposed.

“We’ve been closely monitoring the impact on residential property prices of historically low interest rates, reduced LVR requirements and existing issues with supply and demand,” Mr Kelleher said.

“Escalating property prices are putting home ownership out of reach for many Kiwis. The current settings favour property investors particularly over first home buyers, potentially locking a generation of New Zealanders out of home ownership.

“It’s in everyone’s interests for residential property prices to be sustainable long term, and for home ownership to be accessible to as many people as possible.

“As New Zealand’s largest home lender, decreasing the LVR on residential investor lending is one thing we can do to help bring balance to the residential property market.”

ANZ has seen two record months of residential property lending with 32.4% going to residential property investors and 18.3% to first home buyers.

He said ANZ would longer term be guided by the outcomes of the RBNZ’s consultation process early next year.

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.



Do you expect us to believe that ANZ is doing something for the good of the people? what's the real reason behind this?


Over-exposure to housing would be my guess. Risk on


5,359 and growing rentals available in Auckland. This maybe a concern for the Banks. Unless landlords can pay the rent themselves.

Just the usual seasonal increase.

Also they know the bigger the bubble, the higher the crash . They are trying to minimise the damage should the bubble burst. On the other hand CEO of ANZ called for 60% LVR on investors in the past, maybe he does have morals ?


Their analysts have concluded that there will be a global synchronized slowdown starting in January 2021 once the rent evictions in the USA start. Otherwise if they were expecting ever-increasing prices, it would be foolish of them to make it harder for investors to borrow from them.


Yep. Risk management. Their coffee circuit at the RBNZ and Govt circuit is giving them a clear signal that is not public yet. Reality is it should have never been removed.


Seems like the Banks are scared. What do they know that we don't ? Even RBNZ must be off footed by these moves...

RBNZ will get their excuse to go negative rates then.

Banks know before everyone else , guaranteed risk management but interesting the other banks are not following suit yet. Maybe ANZ just bring extra careful since they have a third of Nz mortgages


Chairman of ANZ John Key taking a bold step to address inequality. Transformational leadership from John, delivering solutions. This is the kind of bold leadership New Zealand needs right now.


Oh it hurts, stop it.

You are being sarcastic right?

A good question. My guess more about business reasons (self interest):
- In self interest they can add 1% low equity premium for LVR <40% with out negotiating, and
- They are likely seeing a flattening of the market, possibly with chance of some minor correction - which could be for an extended period as nobody can argue current rate of increase is sustainable.
There is no shortage of very, very cheap funds to lend; extra $10bn in deposits in NZ banks (at less than 1% on TD) and I understand FLP not touched yet (at OCR).


Just received ANZ Property Focus.
Haven’t had time to read it fully other than glance at it . . . But certainly sustainability of current rises is a concern and with affordability issues a “disorganised correction” is an increasing risk.
Before the bubble burst rhetoric starts - I have commented for a month that the current rises are not sustainable and I see RBNZ taking action such as their LVR to cool the market for economic stability reasons.
Clearly continuing current monthly rate of growth (they say it’s unprecedented) is unsustainable and increases risk of a considerable correction if left unchecked. It’s not only households exposed, but also banks and they are risk aversion.
Bottom line for us Joe Bloggs is that the market is likely to be peaking so I wouldn’t be buying now on the expectations of good short term capital gains.
The best of this party is over.

Good comment. Agree.
But...I think there could be more rises to come if the ocr goes negative, although if coupled with the LVRs then the rises probably won't be big...

Hi Fritz
Agreed that there will be balancing of OCR, FLP, LVRs and further QE.
However, despite what Orr says about having no responsibility for housing, they will be acutely aware of the housing market as it is not in RBNZ interests to see housing instability and with its economic consequences. I don't rate Orr as a fool.
The delay in LVRs until March has much to do with the current uncertainties around Covid risks and the risks to the economy; RBNZ seems prepared to wear increasing house prices in the short term (into the new year) to counter the current uncertainty and risk rather than having the uncertainties/fears generated by having LVRs on and then off.
With the opening of travel bubbles and and the economy returning to normal (locally and hopefully and somewhat globally such as currently in China and in the USA with vaccine rollout) I see less need for stimulus coming from RBNZ.
So my guess is that there is some likelihood that OCR may not go negative (holding back on some of the diminishing ammunition). I think this is supported from understanding is that banks have not taken up the very cheap funding available under FLP - plus they are currently awash with funds having $10bn extra deposits which they need to do something with.


Surprise Surprise- I wondered how long it would be. The banks must be seriously worried about the housing market and how much it is overheating. The only reason for a higher LVR will be they fear investors have paid too much for houses and wont necessarily get enough rent to service the loan in the next 12-24 months (especially when you consider the amount of new builds completing in the next 6-12 months- adding to supply when there is low immigration). If investors cant get sufficent rent there is a high risk of loan default and the banks are wanting to make sure there is sufficent buffer on the loan if they have to sell the property.


I'm surprised NZ banks don't have investor rates at 1 or 2 base points higher than owner occupied. Majority of this additional revenue generated from these higher rates then passed on to where it is needed (risk mitigation). A step further would be removing the interest paid as a deductible on tax returns (more government tax). This would then appeal only to cashed up investors in the market rather than 20%/30%/40% LVR's.

Good suggestion. The higher rates on investor property loans could subsidise the Term Deposit interest to 65+ senior citizens, who could get a point or two more ..

Nah they will keep it for themselves. To hell with Term Deposit customers

Another suggestion would be to exempt tax on interest up to 15k on bank deposits...Encourage the savers.

Banks are going to be very reluctant. Investor means the person already has one or more properties. thus more assets in hand.
would bank charge more interest rate for people with more assets?

Ryu.. I like the idea however it doesn't make commercial sense for banks to charge more for loans with way lower risk. Unfortunately the casualties will be the FHBs who got in right at the end and are forced to sell. Most investors will be able to hold on for years if need be due to high equity and usually a much better overall financial situation.

I knew a broker in recent times who sold many loans to many first time "investors", many of whom passed themselves off as first home buyers, using their Kiwisaver only to rent the house upon settlement. A lot were otherwise intelligent people in good jobs and essential roles in which they excelled. But many did not comprehend the costs rentals involved.

Anyway, time after time they came across a disturbing lack of understanding from these "investors" as to the most basic fundaments, principally what a yield calculation is, what a cash flow forecast is. Many were universally blind to the massive cost of property maintenence when required. I'm talking new roofs, hot water cylinders that go bust, constant repairs, not to mention healthy homes compliance. They weren't meant to but would ask bluntly "have you considered net yield if you get a long period of vacancy? Or, what if you - shock horror, don't get the rent you're asking?".

These questions and more were against the brokers remit of write as many f loans as possible. Some banks started checking out the loans and started sniffing around. At least the banks were kind of being prudent in their own twisted, enabling way. True story.

There is an online tutorial for investor to get loan to buy investment properties without any deposits.


Your mate Ron Hoy Fong again?

Specuvestors would never attempt to circumvent borrowing restrictions or tax. Tui.

32.4+18.3=50.7% So who are the other 49.3% and what influence do they have on the market?


Presumably people who are borrowing for their own homes, but not first-time. I would guess maybe less influence on price than the other groups as they aren't adding demand, but it's just a guess.

Taking your point that you are guessing, and the lack of influence on prices, but if you are correct then a fair portion of the mortgage market are possibly increasing their debt at a time when the prudent advice would be not to? (note that is is NEW mortgage lending)


Out of RBNZ, govt and banks - would've liked to have thought the former two could have moved first..

No, no, no. They need to give the banks until March to prepare their systems for this huge change.

The banks want to lower interest rate, even into negative. To do so they have to restrict lending. Because with current settings they have smaller revenue and need interest to be slashed. Once they will stop approving mortgages RBNZ will not have other choice as go into negative and QE.

The banks dont want negative rates (RBNZ and the government do - the banks are actually speculating that a negative OCR will not be required). The banks make lower margins when interest rates fall - they cant lower term deposits too far as this results in lower savings and less deposits to lend out- unless of course the government lends them the money needed for loans (which it is doing so under the FLP program) so their margins are constricted as they pass through lower borrowing rates but still need to pay deposit rates.

Banks increase LVR rates when they are concerned that there is risk in default of the loan and they will have to sell properties at a price lower than the market valuation/ or price paid for the proerty - a 40% deposit means they can sell the property for 60% of the current valuation (or price paid for the property) and the loan is paid off - eliminating the risk of a bad debt for the bank - the house owner carries then the loss not the bank. All banks care about is ensuring their loans are paid back in full.

The banks do not need your deposit at all. They can get money from the thin air. They only need deposit as part of regulation when they are required by law.
When interest goes down the house prices will go up.
If you know they it will go into negative and house prices will increase there is no need to make such limit for deposit. Specially when there is competition and other banks will not do it.
If they are concern about house prices will go down and defaults then interest should go up.

This does not change much in the property market. What's the net effect actually going to be given the massive increases in equity over the last 12 months ? Interest rates with be lower come March and with Aussie about to open up net migration will be up.The pressure is on in the main cities due to land constraints , regulatory and building costs. Supply is not going to out strip demand anytime soon. And as the oracle says 'sustained moderation' remains the Government's goal when it comes to house prices, as people 'expect' the value of their most valuable asset to keep rising.


Anyone want to think about and comment on the following idea? The government introduces a law which prohibits mortgage lending on anything but one residential property. I.e. you can borrow for your own home, but if you want to buy investment property, you have to finance it yourself. What effect would that have on the property market? And what effect would it have on how banks make other kinds of loans? Any other thoughts on the impacts? I don't imagine it as retrospective - just on future loans, starting from an announced date maybe a few months away.

There would be substantially lower demand for housing and would put downward pressure on prices. TBH I think the bottom would fall out of the market.

Critical that new builds are exempted so that supply is not affected.

Agree and like that new build idea.

You'd be better off keeping restrictions off new builds as they are adding to the stockpile. In fact I'd go as far as to say offer limited period tax incentives to investors who build new housing and apply taxes to investors who rent existing, older dwellings (10+ years.)

In addition local councils should get an incentive (e.g. a match $ for $ for taxes collected for every dwelling under 10 years old) from central government for consenting new dwellings and should be capped on council tax rates on existing housing over 10 years old. This would encourage development and redevelopment.

Not my idea, these are a couple of tools stolen from Germany which has been very successful in providing affordable housing. I've never understood why we don't just steal our housing policy from a more successful country, it would require little skill (copy and paste?) and incur little risk. No need to reinvent the wheel or have some lengthy process that will be stifled and never deliver.

Great ideas. Yes we need to incentivise new building, not discourage it.

Main reason Government does not limit immigration is it would devastate the building industry which employs 250,000

That's a fallacy, I remember an article Brian Fallow wrote that had migrants working in construction as less than 10% of the total, and at a proportion almost exactly the same as the existing population. And that was while the Christchurch rebuild was in full swing.

Migrants add overwhelmingly to the demand side of housing, much more than they contribute to supply.

I think that was Icons point...they add to the demand. Without the extra demand we would be oversupplied with construction capacity.

I see what he means now ... how about if surplus capacity develops in construction, the government uses some of the billions to go hard out building state houses.

I'd vote for it., Exemption for new builds.
Maybe even complete tax exemption for new builds, combined with absolute prohibition on investors buying existing stock. Ah, to dream.

Instead of cheap properties we will end up with huge McMansions because if you are only allowed a mortgage on 1 property you need that property to be worth as much as possible so that you can leverage against it to buy other properties without having them added as mortgage security.

Developers would quite quickly switch from small low margin work to high margin McMansion work. Home owners will start aggregating adjacent sites into a single title to facilitate the expansion of their McMansions.

You’ll also end up with multiple dwellings on single titles with no sub division, because mortgages are held against titles. This will mean unless you can buy multiple dwellings at once it will be more difficult to get on “the ladder”.

What you're describing is the current situation.
Why would people be seeking massive leverage from their properties if they weren't going to invest in housing (because they can't, unless they're bona -fide property developers, in which case they can use commercial financing rather than equity in their own home)?

Much, much easier to borrow against residential real estate. At the minute even if you build 4 or 6 units on a site you generally subdivide and sell them separately. Only allowing 1 mortgage would make developers skip the subdivision step, “live” in one of the units and have the whole lot count as owner occupied. Maybe buy up the neighbouring plots whenever they come in the market. You would make land owners very desperate to own their neighbours plots (so that can merge the titles) because you would effectively have restricted them to only developing their portfolio around their existing house. This would completely lock first home buyers out (instead of chasing the best yield, you end up with developers chasing the only real possibility for expansion.

Who wants to live in a poky little townhouse with no yard. McMansions all the way thank you. Why I moved to the country and commute.

Unintended consequences? Less private rental properties coming on line, fewer new developments progressing?

New builds were exempt under the LVR restrictions. Not sure what ANZ policy is though.

A lot less private rentals would be needed if house prices were lower.

In theory, agree. But it's not going to happen, or at least it won't happen enough to make a meaningful difference. For example, a 20% drop now wouldn't be particularly meaningful.
Nz has forever changed, we need to accept this, and we need to make renting better and more affordable. The best way to do that is to get lots of new supply.
And the government can focus on building a lot more housing for the truly needy.


Excellent. 40% deposits on speculators is a good starting point. 60% or 80% would be better, but this is better than nothing.
I think that all the other banks will follow suit, and I hope that they will improve on it.

Exemptions for new builds, though.

ANZ made no rule for "speculators" the max 60% lending applies to investors


ANZ Managing Director Personal Ben Kelleher said the bank's decision followed two months of record levels of mortgage lending.
In those two months some 32.4% of the new mortgage lending had gone to investors, while 18.3% had gone to first home lenders.

Why do banks and the RBNZ not wish to acknowledge this reality?
And persist with this absurd nonsense:
Banks extending 60 % of their lending to one third of already wealthy households to speculate in the residential property market because the RBNZ offers them an RWA capital reduction incentive, to do so.
Or this:
RBNZ cutting OCR in half five times since July 2008, causing the rich to capitalise rising discounted present values of future asset cash flows.

Will we see BlueChip Property type funds ready to fill the gaps perhaps?


Goes to show that the RB's excuse of waiting till March 21 to re-apply the LVR's because "banks need time to get ready" is rubbish

Will be case by case behind closed doors, 40% just advertising like the carded rate.
Anyway it is good as less competition for many.

Seems more like "ANZ is preparing for a housing market downturn of up to 30%" (leaving them a 10% buffer). Why would they be taking away potential lending? It's their core business, to assess lending viability and sign up new loans. In a highly competitive environment, they will be losing business. At the same time, as the biggest bank they have both the largest amount of data available to make this decision (I helped build it) and the biggest potential exposure.

Again this is showing how bad the RBNZ is, in the absence of sensible regulations, the banks are having to self regulate. It means the RBNZ is blind to the risks the overcooked housing market represents. RBNZ are a rogue agency, simply not doing their job as regulator and not adhering to their mandate of long tern financial system stability.

How many ANZ mortgage holders are on Full deferment now? The banks has full visibility on them now. Money in money out. Credit cards. They know based on current finances how many of them could not even pay the interest on their mortgages right now. So once the Covid conditions allowed by the RBNZ run out in March. Their lending books will need to be brought into order. It only takes a small surplus of houses on market versus available buyers to turn prices down. Once the expectation is that prices will be falling. Then buyers evaporate.

Often the margin between over supply in a market and under supply can be very fine, especially where demand is fueled by exuberant greed. When things change they can do so very quickly and catastrophically.

Not if the government has your back.

Am I right in that investors do not need to pony up with the 40% in cash? All they need is to have retained at least 40% or more equity in all their houses after purchasing the new one.

Pretty sure that is correct assuming lending within a specific bank. It in most cases includes the family home as the primary equity point as a legacy from the loss transfer model that got way over subscribed. If you have loans spread all over the market to hide your true debt exposure, then probably not.

Yes, the foundations of a Minsky moment.

Hence why I think our housing market has ponzi characteristics - prices rise so investors have more equity, so they buy more houses, then house prices rise so they have more equity so they buy more houses, then house prices rise so they have more equity so they buy more houses, then house prices rise so they have more equity so they buy more house........(this describes the last 30 years...) when does this stop? Opposite could be true if/when cycle reverses.

they need to have at least 10% in cash the rest can be in equity in another property

That would be for the deposit on the new house which could be drawn from a revolving credit facility.

ikimpaul..10% cash. Are you sure? I am freehold. Pretty sure banks would lend me 100% for an investment property (no cash) as long as they held my house as security.

Can borrow 80% against your own home but need 30% deposit to buy investment with main banks.

10% cash is untrue. The bank just looks at total portfolio value to total loan value. Talking from experience

No they don't, they look at total portfolio being 80% approval against own home and 70% against rental property. You don't get 80% across whole portfolio if you've got rentals in there.

Hence why I think our housing market has ponzi characteristics - prices rise so investors have more equity, so they buy more houses, then house prices rise so they have more equity so they buy more houses, then house prices rise so they have more equity so they buy more houses, then house prices rise so they have more equity so they buy more house........when does this stop? At some point we may collectively realise that we've bid prices far above intrinsic value and the equity used to buy more homes could evaporate in months if prices start falling and it could turn into a nasty feedback loop - opposite to what we've seen on the way up.

Prices start falling so investors lose equity, so banks stop lending, so prices fall further, then everyone loses more equity, so banks restrict lending even further, so prices fall further....


Yeah, so for serial investors with a number of properties and plenty (more than 40%) of equity this means diddly squat. It will have some effect around the margins, but not much.

Remove interest only loans.... game over for speculators

gnx.. interest only loans are a relatively new thing. Couldn't (or very hard?) to get them 30 years ago. I know cos I tried various banks and failed.

25% of all new mortgages are interest only at present

How to, "makes them (Banks) accountable to locals" & how "each community would have their own ‘central bank’ that they control", from The Alchemy of Banking, by @scientificecon
@ProfessorWerner Password for all articles is SustainableBanking5 Link

For investors you would think that there should be a rule that stipulates mortgage interest cost must be less than rental income minus rates and insurance.

Or better yet, Mortgage payments (Interest only not allowed) must be less than 48weeks rental income, less rates and insurance.


The government is moving at glacial pace to implement even a travel bubble with Australia. No chance of international students next year or any restart to mass immigration. Tourism is still crushed. Yet thousands of houses will be completed in Auckland alone with Zero population growth. Mortgage holidays will end March 2021. Owners who have not made the required lifestyle adjustments by then will be encouraged to sell. The market will give back the gains of 2020. Johnny come lately specuvestors will be laid to waste. The banks know this. The pump is complete. Get some Christmas pudding in ya and prepare for the dump next year.

This government seem to move at glacial pace on everything.

The only thing ANZ is concerned about is the Reserve Bank bringing in Debt to Interest tools which would really kill off lending.

This is probably a last ditch attempt by ANZ to prevent that. Making out like they are trying to do some good.

I think the banks are actually pretty worried. So are Orr and Robertson. They understand that any real sustained downturn could put banks under serious pressure. But not to worry, they would be bailed out again, a la 1990, (BNZ) using our money. It's all good.
In 2008 some of the best risk analysts (Taleb, Lewis, Shiller, Seastraight) told us that we must not allow corporations(especially banks) to ever become too big to fail again. Did we listen? Did we Fcuk. We will likely reap what we sow.


Yeah the last 10 years in NZ have been quite insane (in my view). As you say we will likely reap what we sow - massive private debt. Interest rates now at rock bottom. A society addicted to greed and FOMO but being 'very nice' to one another by either turning one's neighbour into a rent paying tenant, or being forced to pay taxes to house victims of this messed up game in motels. While we have the highest homelessness rate in the OECD (by a massive margin). How bloody stupid.

We have very low rates of elder poverty yet very high rates of child poverty. It's all about what we've prioritised.

Sharon Zollner on twitter:

Housing unaffordability is an enormous problem in New Zealand. It requires big, bold, urgent policy action. Engineering an orderly response that leads to better outcomes is absolutely possible.

We have the highest level of homelessness in the OECD, nearly twice the rate than Australia that is number 2. And now 15 years average to save a deposit for a house! So typical young person starts saving at 22 (after gap-year/s and tertiary training), so will be 37 by the time they're in a position to buy a house!

For those that say NZ is the bright light, well I'm not so sure. Perhaps it was.

I.O.. yeah I usually like and agree with what Sharon Zollner says. Apart from Shamabeel she seems to make the most sense to me.
And if you are 16 and not 22 and things continue your financial future just looks a whole lot worse.


And once again I will point out the obvious in this whole bloody mess. MASS IMMIGRATION. It has to stay at the low levels we have now for at least another 10 years and then we might get somewhere, geez it pees me off. The Guvmint never seem to talk about it. It has to bloody stop. Think I need a cup of tea and a lie down.

Both population growth and investor behaviour means supply can never keep up with demand.
I would rather see controls on population growth than in estoril activity, it's getting more to the core of the problem, and as I have said in the last couple of days whacking investors could generate unintended consequences.

I think if you read the long term plans from Treasury you realise that unless we bring in lots of people to pay income taxes, the retirement of boomers is a risk of crippling the country’s finances. So what do you want - disfunctional housing market or severe recession depression with crippling taxes to pay boomers super?

Yes sorry boomers. We have to implement policies to inflate the value of your assets. So we can afford to pay you a universal social welfare benefit that is not asset or income tested.

And power bill subsidies don’t forget... $32 dollars a week during winter

Plenty of commentators have pointed out that mass low skill immigration is actually harming our productivity and making us all poorer.

If you stop overseas students the the teaching capacity at tertiary level will have to be used (or sacked) to train Maori and Pacific Island students but they have no money so how will the vice chancellor be paid $700,000 a year and live in Parnell.... yikes...

Boomers can sell their houses and rent... it will happen to a lot of them... the die is cast... too much debt has been issued.

The problem is that at current valuations the current rents can only service the interest cost plus expenses. No principal can be repaid.

No, Boomers bought their properties long ago, at way lower prices than they are today. Interest rates are low, and they have massive capital from price rises over the last 20yrs, so they don't have any problems paying for maintenance and rates, or Mortgage (Int plus principle). Also rent has gone up massively. GNX do your homework please. Your talking through your...

Where she is wrong is her focus on home ownership. It's dead and buried for low- middle income households without the bank of mum and dad.
Where she is right is homelessness, and that is (partly) addressed by building more state housing