David Hargreaves wonders whether the Reserve Bank would be best served by leaving tough deposit restrictions in place on housing investors for the time being

By David Hargreaves

With all the discussion around the Reserve Bank's housing loan to value restrictions, one point not highlighted enough is that the tough deposit rules for housing investors since mid-2016 appear to have given first home buyers much more of a chance to buy.

It is unlikely such a scenario was particularly sought or even envisaged by the RBNZ when it announced in July 2016 that housing investors would have to find 40% deposits for house purchases. The figures, however, as highlighted by the excellent lending by borrower type data that the RBNZ has been releasing since August 2014, speak for themselves.

While the tap has been turned off big time in terms of housing investment since the new deposit rule came in, the first home buyers have remained very much in the market and are now claiming a much bigger share of the new mortgages.

Indeed, while the overall amount of mortgage lending has fallen substantially since mid-2016, the dollar amount being borrowed by FHBs has not. In fact the figures show they are now borrowing more than they were in 2015. 

A bit of number crunching of the monthly figures to produce annual figures for each of the past three years demonstrates the point:

New mortgage lending by borrower type 2015-17
   All borrowers First home buyers Other owner occupiers Housing Investors
Year NZDm NZDm NZDm NZDm
2015 68,790 7,214 38,739 22,020
2016 72,256 8,808 41,007 21,641
2017 59,052 8,428 36,320 13,632

(For the full breakdown of monthly figures from August 2014, see table at bottom of this article) 

Within these figures as shown above, it's worth breaking down what happened during 2016. In the first half of 2016, there was $36.4 billion of new mortgage money advanced. Of this, a third - just over $12 billion - was advanced to housing investors. The FHBs borrowed a shade over $4 billion, or 11.4% of the total. 

By strict definition, the 40% deposit rule came into force on October 1, 2016. However, it was announced on July 19 - and the banks essentially applied the 'spirit' of the new rule from that point on.

Additionally, there were reasonable signs and indications coming from the RBNZ as far back as May that year that perhaps investors might be targeted. There are two sides to that then - maybe there was a rush of investors in the first half of the year to beat what were seen as likely forthcoming restrictions. Or, in the second half investor interest simply just dropped with the onset of the changes.

Whatever, the case, 2016 really was a year of two halves because in the second six months of that year there was $35.8 billion of new mortgage lending, with the investors accounting for only a little more than quarter of that, at $9.5 billion, while the FHBs borrowed $4.6 billion, or just under 13% - which is quite a turnaround from the first half.

The pattern has continued.

The full 2017 year saw the overall amount of new mortgages drop by $13.2 billion. Of this, investors contributed some $8 billion of the fall, while the amount advanced to FHBs dropped by under $400 million. In percentage terms, the amount borrowed by investors dropped 37%, while for FHBs the fall was a bit over 4%.

FHBs up this year

For the first two months of this year the amount borrowed in numerical terms by the FHBs was greater than in the corresponding month of the previous year, while for the investors it was down in January, but very slightly (a few million dollars) higher in February.

In percentage terms, in February, investors accounted for about 22% of total borrowing - well down from highs of around 35% in mid-2016, while the FHBs accounted for over 15.5%.

All of which shows that the calls we saw from many in the real estate industry heading into last year's election for the LVR restrictions to be lifted for first home buyers were misplaced.

Those making the calls were missing the fact that in what is now a much quieter housing market the FHBs have remained as active as they were during the raging market of the recent past. In fact arguably in dollar terms they are more active - when you see that the amount borrowed by FHBs in both 2016 and 2017 was higher than it had been in 2015.

So, the real point that the figures give us, I feel, is that the large-scale pull back of investors is giving FHBs a chance in the market. That probably wasn't an intended consequence of the new rules, but that is what has happened. And certainly in a country like New Zealand that strongly cherishes the idea of the young being able to own their own homes - it would be seen as a virtuous outcome.

What does this all say about the market and trends into the future as the RBNZ mulls possibly further lifting LVR restrictions?

To refresh memories, the RBNZ relaxed the rules from January 1. From then on investors needed 35% deposits, down from 40% previously. In terms of mortgage lending for owner-occupied housing, the restriction on the amount of high LVR lending (above 80% LVR) that banks could do was also slightly relaxed. As of now banks can advance up to 15% of new mortgage lending at high LVRs, up from a previous limit of 15%.

We will probably get a better reading on what, if any difference, these changes have made so far to market patterns when we get the March mortgage figures released in about two weeks' time.  

Based on the figures for January and February, however, the amount of FHB activity seems if anything to have lifted a little, while the dial has not been moved in terms of investor activity.

The RBNZ will at the very least make some updated observations about how it is seeing the housing market and the LVRs policy in the next Financial Stability Report to be released on May 30.

It is possible that further relaxation of the LVR policy might be at least signposted.

Relax the rules for everybody?

Logic would suggest therefore a further relaxation in both the investor deposit rule and the overall LVR 'speed limit' rule applied to banks for lending to owner-occupiers. 

However, would 'logic' be right? 

Is it desirable at this stage to relax the investor rules?

I pose that as a genuine question rather than as a statement because there are always going to be differing views on how desirable or otherwise it is to have large numbers of houses owned by investors.

The RBNZ may see it as desirable that the proportion of bank lending going to investors is dropping. And conversely it could be seen as positive that the numbers of FHBs are as a proportion of the total increasing.

One school of thought would be that in a falling housing market, investors might be tempted to sell - putting further downward pressure on the market, while FHBs would sit tight obviously because that is their home and there's no point in selling it at a loss. 

Arguably, the housing market is given greater stability by a bigger proportion of owner occupiers - and therefore the scope for price falls is potentially reduced. 

Keep a differential?

So, is there some scope for maintaining a fairly substantial differentiation between investors and owner-occupiers? Therefore should the relatively high deposit limits for investors be retained, at least for now?

Have we accidentally come across one way of giving FHBs a better go in the housing market; not necessarily by making it easier for them as such, but making it more difficult for would-be multiple homeowners?

I think this is an issue that's worthy of fairly deep consideration before the RBNZ makes any more moves to relax the LVR rules.

What do readers think?

New mortgage lending by borrower type monthly figures 
  All borrowers First home buyers Other owner occupiers Housing Investors
Month NZDm NZDm NZDm NZDm
Aug 2014 4,024 392 2,403 1,167
Sep 2014 4,264 430 2,541 1,226
Oct 2014 4,884 465 2,918 1,421
Nov 2014 5,109 539 2,996 1,499
Dec 2014 5,531 613 3,173 1,666
Jan 2015 3,565 360 2,011 1,146
Feb 2015 4,628 457 2,692 1,418
Mar 2015 6,314 596 3,560 2,073
Apr 2015 5,657 561 3,193 1,841
May 2015 6,162 591 3,520 1,980
Jun 2015 5,745 577 3,229 1,856
Jul 2015 6,010 631 3,310 2,002
Aug 2015 5,940 624 3,251 1,989
Sep 2015 6,500 700 3,490 2,239
Oct 2015 5,853 672 3,385 1,717
Nov 2015 6,415 745 3,654 1,955
Dec 2015 6,001 700 3,444 1,804
Jan 2016 4,117 459 2,338 1,287
Feb 2016 5,166 591 2,855 1,640
Mar 2016 6,572 753 3,589 2,141
Apr 2016 6,504 789 3,464 2,182
May 2016 7,287 833 3,881 2,489
Jun 2016 6,803 738 3,623 2,368
Jul 2016* 6,305 689 3,457 2,095
Aug 2016 6,107 760 3,524 1,759
Sep 2016 5,831 718 3,511 1,530
Oct 2016 5,360 772 3,268 1,265
Nov 2016 6,349 897 3,880 1,506
Dec 2016 5,855 809 3,617 1,379
Jan 2017 3,533 462 2,184 844
Feb 2017 4,379 591 2,720 1,024
Mar 2017 5,985 819 3,655 1,425
Apr 2017 4,558 630 2,738 1,143
May 2017 6,036 849 3,630 1,490
Jun 2017 5,097 713 3,099 1,219
Jul 2017 4,802 699 2,985 1,062
Aug 2017 5,105 740 3,182 1,125
Sep 2017 4,567 658 2,809 1,048
Oct 2017 4,605 722 2,789 1,050
Nov 2017 5,293 778 3,330 1,136
Dec 2017 5,092 767 3,199 1,066
Jan 2018 3,696 564 2,317 783
Feb 2018 4,667 727 2,854 1,038

*The July 2016 figures are highlighted, as this was the month the deposit restrictions for investors were announced and applied 'in spirit' by the banks.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment or click on the "Register" link below a 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.

71 Comments

More first home buyers buying at the peak means that more first home buyers stand to lose the most in the event of a crash? Investors generally disappear from a market just before the peak and return once it drops somewhat?

They'd only lose if they were forced to sell. But that's the risk for anybody, whether they are an FHB or investor.

If a true FHB bought a house for the long run to live in, then even if house values drop all of a sudden this year, they will have the next few decades for house values to climb back up again.

Assuming Job-relationship-children factors don't change for a decade I guess they can hold out on and wait till they aren't selling from an underwater position..

Ah, no - if you hold an asset and it's value drops, you lose regardless of whether you sell it - that should be obvious. My estimated net worth and its future projection (which is largely tied to the value of the real estate I own) informs my decision making about important aspects of my life, regardless of any immediate plans to buy or sell property. Just because many people prefer to plant their heads firmly in the sand, doesn't mean they aren't affected by changes in the value of assets they own!

I can’t say that the value of my home dictates what I’m going to have for breakfast tomorrow or whether we take that holiday to Gore. I don’t use my home’s equity as an ATM or a means to leverage investment from though so maybe that’s the difference?

I'm sure this must be tongue in cheek and you haven't really missed the point by that much - I'm talking about long-term, strategic decisions. How about life decisions like: whether you can afford to have a child (or another one), or if you might be in a position to reduce your income in favour of work-life balance? It's the same principle as the performance of your retirement savings driving strategic lifestyle decisions. If you don't buy any of that, what about the feeling of security one gets from a decent equity buffer? It would be pretty hard to sleep soundly if you owed more than the value of your assets, for example.

The reality is, if you buy property at a 'good' time (either prior to a large run-up in prices, or after a large drop), your life is easier than it otherwise would have been.

Can I see a line plot of debt to income ratio for NZ first home buyers over the past 50 yrs please?

It is not available for 50 years. And certainly not available for FHBs. It is only available since Dec-1998 - that is, 17 years.
here: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key-graphs/key-graph-household-debt
and here: download the data in the above link.

But be careful with this data. Remember it is a Stock:Flow measure, not a Flow:Flow which I think is a more realistic measure.

And, the Household Debt data includes the business debt of unincorporated housing rental businesses (but not the income from such businesses), so it is unbalanced to the high side.

The real stress test is the Flow:Flow measure in these same series, Debt Servicing as a % of Disposable Household Income.

If you ever find a Debt-to-Income series that goes back 50 years, please let us know. Or a debt Servicing ratio. That would be interesting.

Haven't ever come across a person who regretted purchasing their first home........

The only regret expressed is that they didn't do it sooner.

TTP

up
11

I have. The particular one I have in mind bought before the crash in the UK in the late 80s, was trapped in negative equity for a number of years (unable to move and forking out money for years just to break even) and permanently put off property in the same way many Kiwis seem to be put off shares after losing money in the 1987 crash. I'm sure there are many millions of similar cases around the world, and will be more in the future.

This owner occupier in Ireland - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfcSWLJBIRg

Hi mfd,

Ok - I guess if one thinks hard enough and goes back far enough (and to other countries) as in your case of going back to the late '80s in the UK (that's 30 years ago!!), then you might find someone who regretted buying their first home.

But....... how many NZers do you know who regretted buying their first home?`

TTP

None. I've only been here a few years. Was just pointing out that perhaps you're working from a small, non-random sample yourself, and I'd consider it irresponsible to say that buying a house is inevitably a good idea.

Have you heard the phrase “past peformance isn’t indicative of future returns”?

Yeah but that’s a disclaimer that only applies to real men’s investment vehicles. Property is one of those passive simple mans investments that only ever goes up, so past performance “is” indicative of future returns.

Just because the sun came up this morning is no reason to believe it will rise tomorrow.
NZ has never had a real property crash but that does not mean it will not happen. If it does, then there will be thousands of property investors having to live of "scraps" in their retirement. Property seminar presenters all tell their clients that the only way to secure a good retirement is to put all your money into property as it will never fail.

Itsme,

Here is a story out of Australia where a property investor bought a number of investment properties so as to secure a passive income for her retirement (this is how they are pitched by property tutors who charge their students $30,000 - $50,000) - worth watching the 8-9 min video.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/interest-only-home-loans-under-scrutiny/9540724

Here are a couple more stories out of Australia.

The really sad case is where the single woman who was essentially mortgage free was then persuaded to purchase an investment property for passive income for her retirement ...

Also the owner occupier buyers who scrimped and saved to buy a house and then got caught up as collateral damage in the property price bubble.

https://youtu.be/hYMiTlZ9iN4?t=16m16s

Itsme,

Another story - from Australian property investor of the year in 2012, to financially stressed four years later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYX_dGKcpwk

I'm sure all FHBs regret they didn't buy three years ago!

slash regret they werent born earlier

Its their own fault they were too lazy to be born earlier.

TTP, when it all tanks, remember to leave your contact details so FHBs can express their remorse to you personally. Didn't your Mother tell you not to listen to a boasting Hare? There are plenty out there. "look at me, look at me"

When will you apologise to the potential first home buyers now that you have had a 180 about turn??

I know plenty of potential FHBers who took their advice from a total stranger’s comments on interest.co.nz, held off on their purchases and are now baying for blood. Watch out R-P.

Hi Nzdan,

Tired-Poppy is as keen as mustard in accumulating property and growing his wealth........

His comments here are aimed at driving down house prices, so that he can purchase more of them cheaply.

For that reason, he's sometimes called "Mr Duplicity".

TTP

Nzdan, TTP and grimeworks, all you Hares just outed yourselves as ones who cant save a penny to save yourselves plus you foolishly "missed the point" together - ha-ha-ha :) Its timely for you to prove to yourselves and your family's, you CAN save a penny or two the hard way.

We are entering an prolonged period where it's imperitiver the Landlord/speculator has cash and be free of debt.This group represent a significant risk to the entire banking system. Its for this reason that FHB's should continue to observe on the sidelines and save.

..depends when they bought dont it? I cringed when a work collegaue purchased the 100% geared rental 18 months ago. Guess who is asking for a bit of advice this week? ...tenant moving out, new rates increase just arrived, cap gains dead in the water....time will tell, but for me a silly time to have big debt on dog box.

Houseworks when will you apologise for ripping off your tenants and denying them their legal rights?
You used to make the odd sensible comment here and there but you've lost all credibility now, especially when you're calling out other people.

Houseworks, this guy reduced his rates bill by becoming the Mayor of Hamilton!; http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12028477

Don't make your tenants suffer any longer - ok!

Oh very funny. You are the guy who knows everything yet is permanently in pause mode. Now that's funny

Hold on and calm down rmnz. You are blowing hot air again. Breathe hold breathe hold breathe hold

...and what do you mean the odd sensible comment :( all my comments are from a wealth of hard earned experience so at least you agree with me sometimes cheers

Mandatory disclosures for home loans announced by Westpac Australia today.

Clothing and personal care, groceries, medical and health, transport, owner occupied property utilities and, for the first time, investment property utilities, rates and related

Typical supermarket spending for groceries, including food and toiletries.

How much spent on recreation and entertainment, including alcohol, tobacco, gambling, restaurants, any club membership fees, pet care and holidays.

Other categories required detailed disclosure on investment properties including rates, taxes, levies, body corporate and strata fees, repairs and maintenance.

Spending on telephones – both home and mobile – internet, pay television and media streaming subscriptions will also be required.

Any category where the applicant claims to have no expenses will "require a reason and comments", bank staff and brokers are being told.

A notional rent of $650 will be applied automatically to a serviceability assessment where an applicant is living with their parents.

http://www.afr.com/business/banking-and-finance/how-westpac-plans-to-cra...

What, no line item for Smashed Avo. Bloody lax if you ask me!

I can see a great opportunity for shopper loyalty cards shared between banks and supermarkets.

In all of this we need to remember that the motivation for FHB and investors are quite different and that LVR for each may be less significant than the article focusses on.
For FHB, many tend to be motivated more by intrinsic value (i.e. homeownership which is an aspiration of the majority of New Zealanders) and less by economic factors such as both being able to realise capital gain and a willingness to accepting having to pay more in mortgage repayments than rent. Although FHB will most likely trade houses as they move up the property ladder, as they will be in the market for a considerable period (a lifetime) so downturns in a five to ten year period are less important as they will be buying and selling on the same market.
On the other hand landlords are motivated more by economic factors in both the short and medium term and the both the outlook for capital gains is at best currently low or negative, and rent yields are generally not attractive compared to even less hassle and safer bank term deposits.
Especially for Auckland, it is generally acknowledged that the market has either plateaued or reached a peak and is showing some decline. The motivation for FHB for homeownership is largely unaffected, whilst the motivation for property investors (and especially property speculators) is very low.
Currently FHB will be appreciating that with the market is at best stable. Their on going savings have meant that they will be having a little catch-up, and in many instances are probably buying the properties being sold by property investors taking their gain and exiting the market.
I wish FHB well. In the short to medium term house prices are (for them) at worst are likely to be stable and at best experience some decline which will open up more opportunities to buy. As long as FHB do not over extend themselves and allow for the possibility of mortgage rate increases and do not over capitalise, then any short to medium downturn is not important. However, time is on FHB side to really get that property that they want, rather than being fearful of being unable to enter the market due to rapidly escalating house prices as has been witnessed over the past six to eight years.
Over the past two years or so we have entered a new era and ,while LVR are important, they may not be the most significant factor.

Over the past two years or so we have entered a new era and ,while LVR are important, they may not be the most significant factor.

That's an understatement.

Risk of catching falling knife ignored here. Also, it is not just a risk if forced to sell. Risk is if and when have to renew loans at higher rates of interest, on lower equity figs due to falling prices. Then banks ask for MORE and FHB have not got it. Then? Banks get nice mortgagee sale to add to their bottom line.

Well there's the crux of it. The average Joe has no idea of the complexities and risks of what's going on in the bigger picture, but he's the ultimate fall guy.

There have been times in my life where I never saw the big picture and it was to my advantage looking back. Sometimes you just have to go for it or your life will be one long procrastination and you will go nowhere. There is risk in everything but you find out that if there is no risk then there is also no fun.

That is plain wrong. In a mortgagee sale, the mortgagor can only recover what is owed them (including costs of forcing the transaction). But it never gets the difference between the sale price and the costs it is recovering. It is pure myth that banks can enhance their bottom line by forcing a mortgagee sale. All they can do is prevent a loss or minimise a loss.

Any excess goes back to the original owner. (A bit like Auckland Council's forced sale of Penny Bright's house for endless unpaid rates. Bright will get most of those proceeds from the process after the outstanding rates are paid.)

Right, but the power dynamics are pretty obvious and the banks' interests take priority.

The discussion of LVRs miss a fundamental point - these limits prevent people going into more debt. Debt is not good, it’s bad.

If you reduce the limits, this may change who gets the house, but it more surely will increase the amount of debt the eventual buyer incurs.

If you have two people with the same income but one has a higher deposit, the person with a higher deposit will always get the property (assuming both go to the max of their ability to borrow). Hence, lowering the limit only increases the debt load, it doesn’t making housing more accessible.

But in answer to your question, the limits on investors should be higher because they pose a greater systemic risk.

Not all investors require a mortgage to purchase, (indeed not all FHB require a mortgage.) What matters are the numbers of homes being purchased by each group. FHB taking on more debt, as shown by the spike in 80 percent LVR does not necessarily equate to FHB purchasing more homes. The recent Stats NZ tenure figures , albeit estimates show that home ownership rates nationally continue to fall ,and will continue to fall and will be adjusted down further. Given the recent population spike, FHB should be falling over each other to set up home. They are not

Hardly, debt is not bad at all!
The richest people in the world have always had debt.
Debt is what all business has and that is what pays its employees!
It is how you manage your debt, and providing your debt is producing income more than what it is costing you, then what is the problem????

Debt is good if it's invested in a productive asset, if it's used for speculation in unproductive assets, creating bubbles it's likely to be troublesome.

More debt is worse than less debt. If NZers can own all the houses for $200B in debt (with restrictions - LVR/DTI) or for $300B in debt (with no restrictions) then clearly the ‘with restrictions’ option is better. If we assume a 6% cost of capital the $300B option costs and additional $6B per year, primarily borne by FHBs who have the most debt.

Debt is good if you can protect yourself from it via LLCs, bankruptcies etc. If you hold personal responsibility for it that you cannot easily get out of, that's not necessarily so good.

Hardly:

You can look at debt in 2 ways ... good or bad... the rich like debt they leverage and grow their pipeline using other peoples money (banks) to race away.
Debt helps you break free from the day to day grind... I retired at 33 thanks to leveraging and getting into a lot of debt to accumulate property.

Your missing the point in two ways:

• First I’m talking about buying the same assets in both scenarios. Borrowing an extra $100B for the same houses is objectively a worse outcome.
• Second, as someone pointed out above, borrowing to buy productive assets can work out in your favour (if you are judicious), borrowing for houses does not fit into that scenario.

That's nice :).

By the way, borrowing a whole lot of money to invest in asset on the hope it will go up in value > the cost of the debt is gambling. You could have just gone to the casino. Just because it worked doesn’t mean there wasn’t risk it would and it certainly doesn’t mean it’s going to work again.

Hardly, not like going to the Casino at all!
Firstly you can’t win at the Casino long term and secondly they have table limits as to how much you can invest!
If you are a winner you will get banned, not with house investment, you are unlimited if you know what you are doing.
Hardly, you perogative to think what you want, but I will guarantee that you will not get anywhere financially if you do nothing!

Investing and gambling are both examples of probability. While the probability of total loss in gambling is generally higher than mainstream investing, if you factor in leverage then there is a real chance of total loss.

Consider the following.

You buy a house as an investment with a 90% loan, the probability of a 10% drop in value is 20%, the probability of a 10% rise in value is 20%. The probability of no change in value is 60%.

Therefore, you have a 20% chance of doubling your equity and a 20% chance of losing your equity. And a 60% chance of nothing happening.

If you bet on a hand at blackjack you have a 49.5% chance of doubling your money, and a 50.5% chance of losing it.

Do you see how investing with leverage is similar to gambling at the casino based on those two examples?

BB101 you are totally correct.
There are people in this world that speculate to accumulate and generally will do better than the ones that just don’t do anything.
People that use debt to leverage will end up far better off!
Well done to you although many on here will say you were very naughty
!

No one has any problem with you increasing your wealth.
What they have a problem with is the stupid method by which you righteously trumpet your success.

Lay people like yourself only get rich in property investment due to rent seeking.
I would not be surprised if landlords in New Zealand are probably the single largest burden on the welfare system in New Zealand.
The aim of modern society is to increase the wealth/wellbeing of all citizens. The way to do this isn't by advocating a method of investment that doesn't generate any real wealth.

I don't blame you for acting on an incentive. But don't for one second act as though you are a self made man. Because, you are far from it.

The Man 2 I just wish people would look at the history of property over the last day 60 years before posting silly comments and wasting peoples time. The sun is up not too much wind I’m heading off for a fish!

Personally don’t fish, did when I was a teenager.
We do have the time to do what we want to do though, include travel.
Don’t have any financial worries due to property investment, however that is a no no on here.
You are meant to have a 9 to 5 JOB or be unemployed, that is what you are meant to do apparently!

Maybe if you go out a bit more, might help your personality.. fishing does help.. just saying

Personality not considered a problem with people that know “The Man”.
When you have time and the financial nous you have the opportunity to do what you want and when you want.
If you knew “The Man” he would be able to show you how YOu could have both as well.

you have to be on very strong drugs.. why on earth would anyone want to learn from you..

Yes I am very strong drugs, it is called intelligent investing!

The Man 2 well done on opening up time. Time is #1. I think it’s best we stop here and don’t educate people too much. Enjoy buying up in the down turn nothing better than buying wholesale.

Waste of time trying to educate people on this site. There are two camps, one waiting their whole life for a property crash and the other lot who just got on with it as recently as 3 years ago and are glad they did.

@Carlos67,

Maybe you need to educate your mates as well. They seem a tad negative about the whole thing:
https://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?17894-Financial-Armage...

Groen_mamba do yourself a favour and check out the history of property prices over the last 50 years... anywhere in nz!its a long game if you have the ability to hold we you will do exceptionally well

BB101, something doesn't add up. Post your alleged successful leveraging escapades, why have you exited property now? In your eyes, does the next ten years look like a sh-tstorm compared to the last 50? If so, its poor advice to encourage others to gamble their financial futures in this ponzi.

Those that irrestably leverage up don't all of a sudden stop unless their bank tells them too. Are you giving readers an accurate picture or are you painting a financial success story of yourself using words?

RP, you are either Gordon or his full brother!

TM2, Ha-ha :),still nope, and I'm not John Wheeler either.

Retired poppy who said I have stopped... sorry I should of said semi- retired as I do actually work about 2-3 hours per week.
10 rentals all cashflow positive bought before the boom and leveraged every cent I could. Some would say naughty boy some would say lucky boy. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

It's good they are cash flow positive. Many late arrival Landlords find they're not these days. Yield on capital are at new lows that are just plain scary and don't reflect the investment type risk.