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

ASB launches a home loan for new-builds with a 1.79% floating interest rate, using cheap RBNZ funding. In addition it is offering a cash incentive if the new home has a high energy efficiency rating

ASB launches a home loan for new-builds with a 1.79% floating interest rate, using cheap RBNZ funding. In addition it is offering a cash incentive if the new home has a high energy efficiency rating

ASB is offering a 1.79% floating rate mortgage on loans used to buy newly built houses.

This rate will be available for up to three years from when the customer makes their first draw-down. A variable rate means customers are also free to make lump sum payments or fix their rate at any time.

They are funding it from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Funding for Lending Programme, which follows ASB's previous statements that money from that programme will be used for a special purpose.

ASB's standard variable rate is 4.45% and very similar to its main rivals, except Kiwibank which is at 3.40%.

ASB’s Executive General Manager of Retail Banking, Craig Sims, says the bank wants to help create "a more sustainable housing market by addressing housing supply issues".

“Housing supply is a huge issue for the New Zealand economy. That is why we’re keen to give a leg-up to customers who want to join us in being part of the solution. We’ve deliberately chosen to make the offer available to both owner-occupiers and investors in recognition of the role investors can play in making new, high quality homes available for Kiwi families.”

In addition, ASB is incentivising borrowers with a cash back if they incorporate energy-efficient design into their build.

ASB has partnered with the New Zealand Green Building Council to encourage Back My Build homes to incorporate sustainability principles, and will reimburse customers with $2,000 if they can evidence their intent to build a six Homestar rated home (or higher).

Sims says, “The ASB Back My Build variable rate is unique and we’re confident that the special market leading rate coupled with the Homestar reimbursement is going to make a significant difference to first home buyers in particular, while helping to create a more sustainable housing market longer term.”

The RBNZ's Funding for Lending programme allows eligible banks to borrow directly from the central bank at the Official Cash Rate (OCR), which is currently 0.25%. The borrowing rate will adjust over the term of the transaction if the OCR changes, whether up or down.

It is a programme that started in December 2020 and runs until 6 June 2022 for the initial allocations, and until 6 December 2022 for the additional allocations.

ASB drew down $500 million under this programme on March 12. So it has had almost 10 weeks of very low funding cost benefit before launching this new offer, and it will be many more weeks before any material drawdowns start using this low cost funding.

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.

114 Comments

30
up

Interest Only loan when mixed with very low interest rate is a lethal combination to inflate the bubble - more the need to ban interest Only loan to counter side effect of very low interest rate.

22
up

Will you ever write a positive comment? This is a great offer from ASB, a big incentive to build more houses and moreover energy-efficient ones

17
up

Positive will be if rbnz and goverrnment spells out, what action are they going to take to stop house price shooting again from here.

After a year when prices have jumped another 20%, or 30% from here on,will come in front of the camera and shed crocodile tear just like they did now.

Even if supply increases but if house prices goes up, how many FHB will be able to afford - last year FHB were struggling when median was appox $900000 and now with 1.3 million are bleeding, so any jump from here will even kill the dream of owning their home unless Jacinda Arden defination to have a roof over your head is Ghetto house.

Hate approach of 'least regret' to support one section and 'wait and watch' for another section who are struggling.

For now it is positive for investors / speculators who will be able to exploit the situation and defintely not for FHB, unless establishment act and based on experience perception is that FHB will be screwed , only posistions will change.

15
up

FHBs almost certainly don't buy median priced houses. They tend to buy first quartile priced houses. The latest national average for those is $598,000. In Auckland it is $852,000 and less in the South and West of the city. Miles less than $1.3 mln.

David, if you participated in the comment threads more often especially as fact checker and nonsense rebutter, I suspect you could increase clicks and get back a few old commentors. Site looks great. Congrats.

I have the opposite view, interest only loans are the answer not the problem. High house prices are here to stay and interest rates aren't going to rise much, far better that FHB's stop paying rent and get into a house - interest only achieves this. Why pay down the principle on an appreciating asset? Companies don't, those days are over. If you were to buy a house today with 20% deposit interest only, I can guarantee by the time you retire the debt servicing costs will be a lot lower than renting that house at that point.

Why pay down the principle on an appreciating asset?

Sure. Let's just wipe out repayment of debt full stop.

Where did I say the debt get's wiped out? At some point it is repaid (if the owner moves, passes away, circumstances change). Repaying the principle on mortgages feels like yesterdays finance. If I had to choose between renting and paying interest only - that's a total no brainer.

Instead of the debtor paying down the loan in instalments, they just rely on the next fool to borrow a bigger amount, because capital gains are an entitlement.

I borrowed $257,000 interest only mortgage in 2001 as a 100% loan on a rental property. Still have that same $257,000 interest only loan on different house but it is only 20% on the house value now. In 2001 the rent on the house was $240/week now it is $735/week. I think interest only is a great way to get on the ladder.

The only debt that is repaid is the debt servicing. The asset is the principal debt owed. It's a moronic suggestion and only speeds up the devaluation of currency.

If you dislike it, it's clearly got potential.

I tend to agree. Surely nobody taking out one of these mega mortgages these days realistically thinks that they will ever pay off the principal before they sell down the track.

Te Kooti,

in a spirit of helpfulness, principle should be spelled principal. Principles are what all too few politicians have.

Totally agree.

You often post some very smart stuff.

He didn't directly say they were purchasing the median house.

28
up

The offer isn't so much from ASB, as it is from the tax-paying public, who are ultimately the ones on the hook for lending money out at artificially low rates via the FLP.

More new-builds increases housing supply!

TTP

Try getting a good builder at the moment. Many seem to be booked up for at least a year. So it will be a couple of years before moving in. Maybe people can buy a new build in a development, but unlikely to be good value, and FHBs should have kiwibuild homes to choose from which seem to be far better value. If you go to the kiwibuild website, the number on it has dropped significantly, and now only a few and most, if not all are in Auckland.

12
up

Don't forget inelastic supply conditions.
This is going to juice the hell out of the price of new builds.

Indeed. It's not as if there are any builders sitting idle, just wishing that they had some customers.

Hi nymad,

My housing economist friends tell me it's fallacious to think supply conditions are inelastic. They believe an increase in new-build houses works in the interest of lower house prices.

If they're correct then I'm happy..... I rent because I can't afford to buy a house at current market prices.

TTP

You are such a perpetual negative.

This is an outstanding opportunity for a FHB

15
up

It's an outstanding opportunity for developers and property owners.
Not FHB.

Where did it say its an IO loan ?

At that level . . . .

FYI - build loans are only I/O for a maximum of one year to free up cash flow while the build is in progress, in most cases people are paying rent/have an existing mortgage, so it makes sense to try to keep weekly payments low while the build is in progress. In my experience just about everyone chooses to start P&I as soon as they move in the new property. I do agree long term I/O isn't a great long term option but it certainly has its place in the market.

"We’ve deliberately chosen to make the offer available to both owner occupiers and investors in recognition of the role investors can play in making new, high quality homes available for Kiwi families.”

What percentage of FHB specially in Auckland be availing compare to investors.

It is for investors and to avoid any ......have added FHB also, knowing that it will mostly benefit investors.

17
up

Let's keep the ponzi going.
These bankers really need to be sorted out.
The bankers along with the real estate industry are the perpetrator of the mess we have with the NZ housing market.
I agree band the interest only loans.
Better still depower these two and make it so banks can only loan on a registered valuation.
This is what happens with commercial property.

12
up

Unbelievable, some people are just never happy. This is a great offer from ASB which gives incentive to build more new homes, this is a GOOD thing, even better it rewards energy efficient houses

Agreed, lots of negative people in NZ, would prefer to see the country crash and burn rather then work through the issue.

18
up

The issue is that people with triple digit IQ's understand that the constraint on more new houses getting built isn't the supply of credit.

Brock L,

People with triple digit IQs know that there should not be an apostrophe where you put it.

If you're going to be the spelling and grammar police, at least be right. Acronyms and apostrophes have divided opinion.

This is not about being happy.
This is about looking after our young people.
I for one are not Happy about having to buy homes for my children.
Come on wake NZ this has been the biggest ponzi the country has ever seen.

Will you never understand that what might make you happy might cause pain to others? This will just keep the ponzi going, if that's a good thing for you, well that says it all.

I'm struggling to understand this comment. We have a supply/demand issue here driving high house prices. The banks are creating a low interest environment (for only 3 years) for people to invest in more supply. How does this drive a ponzi scheme. If anything its redirecting cheap funding to drive down house prices - through more supply.

The only risk attached to a low loan like this is builders and building suppliers driving up house prices through expensive builds and expensive material. There is a simple fix to this. The NZCC needs to ensure that building material prices are fair.

Providing loans to new developers / housing construction outfits to get started would be a way banks can encourage supply. Providing cheaper loans to house buyers is a way banks can encourage demand. This policy increases demand, not supply.

They are adding to demand first. The first supply input is land, which is not very elastic due to Govt. policy restricting how much is available and how quickly it can be brought to market.

So while this news will get immediate phone calls to the bank ie increase demand, the supply to satisfy that demand could take two years to match it (it's more new builds only remember), which only puts more demand pressure on any sections available on the market today, hence prices rise which will more than negate cheaper interest rate drops.

This is exactly the same as what is happening with labour and material supplies. There is a shortage of some materials due to factory shutdowns over Covid, Ports of Auckland handling debacle, and shipping route logistic changes causing container shortages in any exporting countries.

This is basic economics that any saving in a system is captured by the most restrictive part of the system, hence interest rate falls push up the land price due to restrictive land supply policies.

We have a supply problem with the number of houses being sold. About a 1/3 down from normal numbers (approx 20,000 compared to 30,000). But apparently NZ has enough houses. Just that people are not selling them. This maybe due to uncertainty with covid. Many are vacant or being used for AirBNB etc. In my town there are a lot of empty houses, and quite a few are used solely as weekenders or airbnbs

Excellent. Incentivising new builds, adding to supply.

Golden opportunity to hit two birds with one stone. Opportunities like this don't come up often.

I think policies that encourage new development and reduce demand for existing stock are a good idea. The investors can help solve the housing supply issue leaving the older homes for first home buyers. This will also improve the housing stock as owner occupiers in older properties will maintain and improve them, unlike many landlords. Now lets get rid of interest only loans on existing houses.

This is a major step and is bound to see a jump in house price.

Big Catalyst.

Another jump from here is inevitable unless RBNZ act to contain the side effect but why will they as this is what they wanted.

Nay, sounds more like wishful thinking. There's a common perception prices did already get to the top since except for those upgrading pretty much everyone else has been pushed out of the market.

24
up

wasn't this money suppose to go into business investment....NZ is a basket case

gnx: by "business investment" do you mean our already overvalued stock market; if not then what?

I wouldn't back Joe Public to start a business.

The banks do it all the time for people running rental property businesses. Or is that only considered a business when it's convenient?

Banks willingly lend against fee simple property. That's the diff.

That's fair. As pointed out in the article on here a few weeks ago from a Westpac (from memory) economist, the interest rate differential is largely due to RBNZ mandated risk weightings allowing the banks to lend more to property investors than they could to a business, for a given quantity of equity. So, I don't blame the banks for acting according to the rules given to them and hope that RBNZ will make some tweaks to make business lending more affordable, relative to mortgage lending.

This offer could incentivise some builders to increase their productive capacity, fro ma glass half full perspective. Read below for the glass half empty one.

Anything that encourages new Supply I'm all for.

Everything done in the cover of panademic and supply = support housing ponzi.

Supply should be increased but here the way it is been played out, cure is worse than disease.

Now it has become crucial, to watch out what action does Mr Orr takes to avoid another jump in house prices like or more than last year which is inevitable with 1.79% interest and that too floating loan with no stings attached.

Mr Orr and Mr Robertson intention to boost supply is good but it seems that now housing market is like a runaway train...unstoppable.

Even if supply is increased and now wheen median touches 1.5 million, whom are they helping - FHB or Investors.

They shoud also now not be talking about productivity as now it is conferemed that till times to come only business in NZ will be housing and related to it - good or bad only time will tell.

Will like to read overall view from economist and experts or will they be silent.

11
up

""ASB’s Executive General Manager of Retail Banking, Craig Sims, says their special purpose here is to help create "a more sustainable housing market by addressing housing supply issues".""

Providing finance that underprices risk, from a temporary bucket of money that is disconnected from market dynamics, to help keep things more sustainable.

Sounds like the opposite to me.

Reasoning and Arguments could be many but all roads leads to ponzi.

Wait for Mr Orr's Reasoning......

This could be good for supply but like any antibiotic, action should be taken simaltenously to avoid adverse reaction ( That is if Mr Orr consider the housing crisis to be a ponzi).

This is bound to move house price higher as land value will go up along with building material.

Don't look behind the curtain you'll ruin the show ;) !

Homestar 6 is basically any new build being built and achieving the same performance standards as basic NZ code which is a pretty low bar to achieve,.

And especially since MBIE is working on substantial improvements to the code that will make these 'improvements' redundant in a few years, then it is an opportunity lost to show real leadership in building better.

It's just enough to get maximum branding and with minimal improvement.

Indeed and I mean it's not as though the building materials will be available anyway...

do we need to use tax payer money to subside mortgages for landlords ?,there are two million houses in NZ for our team of five million.a big part of that wealth is being hoarded already and this move as an enabler by ASB keeps that inequality increasing.

Is there any scope for recent new builds with CCC in the last 12 months to get this?

15
up

Doco on tv last night about prime land being gobbled up for housing to the detriment of horticulture.
The ugly destructive and unsustainable mess caused by excessive population growth.
Eyes still wide shut.

Sounds interesting, what was the name of the documentary?

Not so much a documentary, more a current affairs program. It was the “Sunday” program at 7:30pm on tele 1.

Typical poorly researched doc. Didn't even know what questions to ask.

Simple fix.
1) Council does not have to rezone that land to residential and put the farmer's rates up by doing so.
2) The farmers that own it do not have to sell it to developers, they can put a covenant on it so it could only be used for growing veggies if they wanted, but of course, would not be able to sell it for multi-millions. The real piss-take at the end was the farmer saying he was going to become a developer but would be adding supply to make housing more affordable, ie like 400m2 flatbush section at $700,000. Crocodile tears. And their main complaint was the neighbouring new homeowners didn't like them spraying chemicals so close to their families. I wonder how the Netherlands does it with their huge agricultural output and population on a land size approx. the same as Canterbury?

Housing intensification rather than sprawl I'd guess

If it is zoned residential they can't use it for rural activities.

Yes, like I said the council does not have to rezone it as future residential and then residential, which is usually done with the support of the landowner.

They were interviewing two types of farmers in that program, ones that own the land they farm, and ones that only lease it.

There is a collusion between the landowner and council to change the zoning so they both get what they want. The council gets more ratepayers on land that is immediately next to their next infrastructure hook-up points, and the landowner gets to sell at a greatly inflated price above the rural land price.

But the impression given is that it is some mysterious force that is making them do this bad thing. It's their own doing, for their own great financial benefit.

WOW, a stunning offer!!! Well done ASB on doing your bit to encourage building more houses and even better, energy-efficient houses!

I thought the cheap Reserve Bank funds were meant for business loans---oh thats right NZ is just one big housing ponzi business funded by the banks?
Gotta keep the house of cards growing.

How so?

The only way this is useful is if it were to benefit FHB's which it doesn't. A FHB still needs somewhere to live while their home is being built and therefore doesn't help them until the house has been finished. Any improvement to supply needs to happen much faster than this otherwise it's negligible.

This offer only really benefits developers who will continue to pump out un-affordable homes to fuel their greed and therefore doesn't contribute towards what the country needs.

Sadly, very few houses that are marketed as energy efficient are in fact efficient. They are merely a small step up from the existing rot boxes. They have NZ double glazing and maybe a heat pump. Notice I say NZ double glazing. This is minimum standard and quality and will not stand the test of time. European style double glazing is the way to go especially if you are on an exposed site or on South Island. There are much better ways of building but the majority of property being built now especially around my area is not that good. As someone mentioned above NZ minimum building regs are quite a low bar achievement but in my experience that seems to be acceptable to the majority. Maybe because house price costs are already extraordinarily high and secondly, because the majority don’t know what else is available. It’s good that NZ is starting to build warm dry houses in theory, but in practice they aren’t warm as you still need to heat them so our new 250sqm house cost the same to heat as the old 250sqm 1950’s house and the aluminium double glazed windows were just as wet as the old single glazed wooden windows.

Yep, those Aluminum frames are a big conductor of heat. Seems other countries can put thermal breaks in their windows, but too hard and expensive here. Also vacuum double glazing would be a major advance.

It's even more bizarre than that. To the extent that you can get proper double-glazed windows here, if you try hard enough, if you might be selling any time soon you have to be cautious of the stigma of pvc windows.

Well I can tell you that moving from a 1996 Monoclad single aluminium glazed house to a 2015 double glazed house has been dramatic. All I need is a medium sized heatpump now to raise the temperature inside to 22C no problems at all. We are not in Antarctica in the North Island, no need for triple glazing and a barrier in the aluminum joinery. The additional costs do not offset your electricity bill enough to warrant it. The biggest issue is still humidity inside the house, if you can get that down then you feel warmer and dryer. Auckland is a hopeless case the humidity is high all the time my single dehumidifier couldn't cope it was probably pulling 6 to 8 litres of water out in a 24 hour period.

Heat pumps operating in cooling mode also dehumidify the air.

You've been able to get thermally breaked aluminium windows in NZ for ages now. They're just not offered as the standard and so most people don't know they exist, and won't pay the premium for them.

Argon is more sensible for double/triple glazing than trying to vacuum seal it.

Not sure how you can vacuum seal it. As the story goes from my Father in an old house in the UK, for some reason he put a vacuum cleaner onto the double glazed window and it shattered. You have something like 14.7 pounds per square inch suddenly develop if you remove all the air. Some sort of inert gas inside it would be my pick. Standard double glazing is all you need if you only going to save $20 in power a month for 3 or 4 months of the year.

Locked in for 3 years ... could be a very nasty shock for purchasers at the end of that term.

Nasty shock of having saved $20,000 - $40,000 compared to other banks' rates for new builds?

you mean subprime

1. You're not "locked in". It's a floating rate. You're probably unlikely to get any rate lower than that however, so you'd be foolish to move away from it.

2. Banks price mortgages assuming a 5-6% interest rate. They wouldn't give you the loan if after 3 years you had a 'nasty shock' that you couldn't accommodate on your income; unless of course your circumstances changed, but that has nothing to do with the loan itself.

The bottom line is things need to be done to increase residential supply. But if those things are done in isolation, they will be inflationary. ie up go land prices.

These comments clearly show why some people are happy and successful and others aren't. It's all about mentality and outlook in life, some people look at the positive, see opportunities and find a way to make things better, others can only see the bad and look at anything that can wrong and therefore end up making excuses why life isn't fair and hasn't worked out for them. We all make our own lives, smile, see the good and make it a great life!

Don't worry, be happy.

Some people see this for what it is - market manipulation and to push the market even higher. We're already building houses as fast as we can so this will just boost prices. This view has nothing to do with outlook on life or a person level of success.
Just like in the stock market, being super positive works, until it doesn't, and surely having an understanding of how markets work (or should work), is a benefit that will serve them well over the long run.

You've basically proved Yvil's point right there.

Um No I haven't. You just aren't getting what I'm saying.

I've sent this guy https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/auckland-man-facing-315000-bill-afte... your comments on feelings rather than facts.

He is happy now, but apparently, the house is still in the same place.

His comments are a quite obviously a generalisation on the correlation between attitude and success. Perhaps you could poll the contributors here and correlate that with their net worth? I'd expect you would find a statistically significant result.

So what if it is a generalization as you say, it does not invalidate other peoples presenting evidence to the contrary.

Most people that gain money by whatever means would be expected to be happier than not, but it does not always make them right.

But I did find his statement humourous.

And if you want to have a poll, go for it.

Jesse, Dale, you can't see it but your comments are perfect exhibits of my original post

Keep that happy thought, hope springs eternal.

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

Which way do you think the correlation goes? Maybe those of us who've had enough lucky breaks to end up well off tend to feel more positive because we don't have to worry about our finances? Those struggling to buy a house likely have a few negative emotions as a result.

And if anyone thinks they became well off through their own work rather than lucky breaks, I suggest more introspection.

When I was in my early twenties a male mentor of mine told me that when I get older a lot of people would tell me how lucky I was. Hard work, sacrifice, calculated risk and financial management has a funny way of making people 'lucky'. I came from a solo mother living in the bronx so dont go talking about inequality and lack of opportunity. Not saying your entirely wrong but get tired of the assumption that one shoe fits all.

My experience, wealth doesn't automatically equal happiness - just a different kind of problem. I have worked with people who were not as talented but infectiously upbeat and resilient and they invariably did well. Yvil makes a good observation but it's largely wasted on this audience. He's not advocating some nauseatingly Panglossian attitude, just that a positive mindset can get you ahead.

Thanks for being one of the few to "get it"

A few do get it Yvil but no point trying to push that barrow on here because its like Trump vs Biden and the views are very entrenched. Its very hard for people to change their views on life as it can become ingrained by experiences but a big factor is your personality type. Sometimes you just have to be able to admit that your wrong for you to be able to change direction.

Yvil's assumption that because people are critical of something, that they are just negative and unhappy and then unsuccessful is a string of completely wrong and baseless assumptions. It also no a self interested discussion like Yvil seems to think.

You are certainly blessed with a strong work ethic and likely above average intelligence, and have used them well. Congratulations. There are others out there who weren't given such genetic gifts and other opportunities who won't succeed as a result.

I don't mean to belittle your achievements, but I do like to remember that everything that got me where I am is down to luck, whether it's the generic lottery or the people around me. I think that's helpful to think about when considering issues of fairness and wealth redistribution.

" I do like to remember that everything that got me where I am is down to luck"

I find this an incredible statement, so you think that what you did or didn't do in life has had no outcome on where you are now? Wether you studied or not, if you overspent or were moneywise, if you decided to do drugs, drink heavily, be overweight or live healthily and eat well, be nice to others or treat them badly, wore the condom or not… nothing had any influence to the life you live now, according to you it's all up to luck ?!? I disagree

The luck comes one step before you are considering it. Yes, I chose a good degree and worked hard, and have saved and invested and done alright for myself. What gave me the ability to complete my degree? Where did my work ethic come from? For me the only difference between me and someone on struggle street is luck. Maybe they were born in a difficult environment, had bad parents, had poor intellectual abilities or lack the genetics for a strong work ethic.

Not saying we shouldn't try and have no influence on our outcomes, we should absolutely make the most of our gifts. But for me this is a strong argument against the classic right wing 'sink or swim' argument, as it's only the luck of my birth that stopped me from sinking with them.

I think like this too. I never deserved being born into the family and place that I did, providing me with the opportunities that I've had. I did nothing to get into that starting position.
This line of thought leads to empathy towards others and society, which is the angle I think a lot of people have here - thinking about the bigger picture and whether lower interest rates are really what we need right now. This isn't negative thinking, if anything it's selfless thinking.

"I never deserved being born into the family and place that I did"

I think you're being serious? (not sarcastic). Do you not see an issue with self-confidence? You don't have to shout that you're the greatest but saying that you don't deserve to be born into the family you did… Being nice to others is a great quality to have but you also need to be nice to… yourself, you will be with… yourself until the end, be kind to yourself!

The Cambridge dictionary definition of 'Deserve' is: "to have earned or to be given something because of the way you have behaved or the qualities you have".
Before I was born I didn't behave in any way or have any qualities (obviously), therefore can't deserve anything at that point, yet I started in a good baseline position.
Since then I have deserved many things through effort and hard work with some lucky and unlucky things along the way. But still on a trajectory from that good baseline position, which I'm grateful for. Gratitude is linked to happiness - and I'm pretty happy :)

Many many successful people did not start from a 'good baseline position' that you refer to. I believe coming from a lower socio economic background is often what drives success, due to being able to go without, appreciating the smaller things in life, wanting to better your circumstances, being innovative and creative, and being able to empathise with a wider group of people. Many also succeed without tertiary education, including myself, you often hear people spouting off about their degree like it somehow makes them intellectually superior to others. I do understand the point you are making in relation to your circumstances but to generalize that success can only or predominantly come from a 'good baseline position' is a flawed assumption.

It's certainly not black and white, but the odds are pretty clear. Would you back the rich, well educated kid given an internship at the father's company and a helping hand to buy their first house and start a business, or the kid born in a refugee camp and receiving no education?

This is not about ignoring the achievements of those who make it in difficult circumstances, but about those who have had relatively easy lives appreciating the luck of their birth when thinking about how others should be treated. On the other hand, you see people like Donald Trump showing no awareness of the leg up they have received and thinking their success is down to their hard work and nothing more, and therefore they deserve to keep all their hard earned money.

The good baseline position can be just being born in NZ. Those of us born here were very lucky compared to many other places in the world. We can't take any credit for that part. This was originally a rebuttal to those that didn't think luck played a part in success and being born here compared to somewhere like poorest Africa has certainly played a part in being able to live the life that we live here. Luck happens though life too and people can either make the most of the lucky opportunities that they get or they can waste them.

"Which way do you think the correlation goes?"
That's a great question mfd, I certainly used to believe (like most) that something good comes first, then as a result you are happy or positive. I don't believe this anymore. Things happen to all of us in life, intrinsically these things are neither good nor bad, they just are, people qualify these events as good or bad and the same event can be viewed as good by one person and as bad by another person (complaining about the rain or singing in the rain). You see we cannot hold a happy and a sad thought simultaneously, it's "either or" and whichever it is, leads to more similar thoughts. That's how depression works, bad thoughts lead to worse thoughts which become unescapable. The reverse is also true about positive thoughts.

There will be many looking at a first IP on this. Dirt cheap and tax deductible.

The LVR is the hurdle.

This really shows how low rates should be across the board, yet FLP is just being used for clever PR by ASB & other banks taking on additonal profit.

Yay cheap money!
Only problem is, there isn’t a single section left to buy in my fast growing town.
Hundreds of sold sections (mainly house and land packages) waiting for building to start, and many houses nearly finished but missing things like heat pumps and dishwashers which are apparently in very short supply currently.

If you have already started building but not finished can you still get in on this?