TSB Bank hikes floating mortgage rates

Personal Finance

TSB fifth bank to lift floating mortgage rates since the Reserve Bank increased the OCR last Thursday

29th Jul 14, 10:04am by Gareth Vaughan

TSB Bank is the fifth bank to increase its floating mortgage rates since the Reserve Bank hiked the Official Cash Rate last Thursday.

The bank has today increased its floating mortgage rate by 25 basis points to 6.74%, and its revolving credit rate by 25 basis points also to 6.74%.

The Reserve Bank last week increased the OCR for the fourth time this year, by 25 basis points to 3.50%, but signalled a pause before any further increases.

TSB Bank's increase to floating mortgage rates comes after Westpac today lifted its floating mortgage rates by 35 basis points to 6.59% from 6.24.%. BNZ yesterday increased its floating mortgage rates by 25 basis points to 6.74%. Its revolving credit rates were also lifted 25 basis points with BNZ's Mortgage One and Rapid Repay rates are now 7.15% and 6.74%, respectively.

ANZ and ASB were first out of the blocks, moving last Thursday, with their floating mortgage rates increased by 25 basis points to 6.74% and 6.75%, respectively.

See all carded, or advertised, bank home loan rates here.

You can also see all bank non-interest rate home loan incentives here.

TSB Bank's new floating home loan rates compare with their main rivals this morning as follows:

below 80% LVR	Floating	Revolving
		Credit
	6.74%	6.85%
	6.75%	6.75%
- Total Money	6.74%
- Standard & FlyBuys	6.74%	6.74%
Kiwibank	6.40%	6.40%
	6.59%	6.75%

Co-op Bank	6.45%	6.45%
	6.59%	6.80%
	6.30%	6.35%
TSB Bank	6.74%	6.74%

--------------------------------------------------------------

Mortgage choices involve making a significant financial decision so it often pays to get professional advice. A Roost mortgage broker can be contacted by following this link »
--------------------------------------------------------------

Mortgage rates

Select chart tabs

Source: interest.co.nz

Source:

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.

46 Comments

by Your Landlord | 29th Jul 14, 10:40am 1406587213

It's tough for the good guys in the world to provide "affordable" housing when costs like the price of money keep rising.

by Zombie ponzi | 29th Jul 14, 2:25pm 1406600758

Yeah but it's chicken and egg, house prices would be lower if interest rates were higher. Case in point Sydney prices going exponential since the RBA started cutting.

For the prospective buyer saving for a house, higher interest rates are arguably better. Just like the LVR rules are. Although first home buyers may not see it that way.

by Zombie ponzi | 29th Jul 14, 2:55pm 1406602535

You clearly know nothing about the Sydney market - it is all investor and self managed super fund driven - all of it debt fuelled.

Jobs are being lost in Australia, confidence is at near GFC lows, the economy is struggling, that's why interest rates are so low.

Do some research for once.

by iconoclast | 29th Jul 14, 5:08pm 1406610515

Not so kimy

Until a few years ago SMSF's were unable to borrow and use debt to acquire assets. The assets invested in SMSF's were debt-free freehold investment properties, Shares and Bonds and Cash

Then the rules changed and people with SMSF's were able to shift their owner-occupied homes into their super funds - for the tax deductions

Which of course took with it any encumberances such as mortgages

Which opened the door to debt

Then the rules were changed again allowing self managed super funds to leverage into investment properties with debt

And they are going at it with their ears pinned back

At the moment SMSF's are the biggest proportion of property buyers in Sydney

SMSF's are nearly 50% of a $1½ trillion industry

And that's being driven by the appalling performance of the fund managers

Who happen to be the big-4 banks

Wait till NZ allows kiwi-saver to become self-managed

by Spidy Sense | 29th Jul 14, 11:25pm 1406633156

SMSF's actually cannot hold a trustees owner occupied property. The rules surrounding the gearing into SMSF's are such that LVR's naturally remain quite low. Not really sure where you're getting your facts and figures from but they're a wee bit off.

by Spidy Sense | 29th Jul 14, 11:25pm 1406633159

by cowboy | 29th Jul 14, 7:18pm 1406618289

isn't that what kimy just said?

job loses are causing economic stall. debt fuelled buyers are feeling the pinch. interest rates are lowering to keep the game moving.

by cowboy | 29th Jul 14, 7:16pm 1406618189

Houses price wouldn't be lower.

Housing price would rise slower.

You have to factor in what's driving the demand.

If there is cost recovery, higher interest actually increases prices. If there is urgency in sale, which there is not for most sellers, then that might bring the price down; remember it is the real estate brokers job to keep those prices UP.

by Zombie ponzi | 29th Jul 14, 7:55pm 1406620517

I think we agree, if interest rates had been higher over the past few years, prices would have risen slower, and would be lower today than they are. Same with LVR rules.

Doing some sums using a 20% interest rate shows clearly that interest rates effect house prices. But it probably relates more to marginal demand (i.e. how much someone can spend on a house) because once someone has a mortgage they will do anything they can to pay it.

by gordon | 29th Jul 14, 11:12am 1406589136

I thought you and your mates were in the position of modest debt levels against your rentals therefore any increases in interest rates had minimal affect on your positions if any

by cowboy | 29th Jul 14, 11:19am 1406589544

cashflow yes, but return on equity not so much. It makes updating and renovation very pricey and tenants aren't often keen to pay the extra cost

by Your Landlord | 29th Jul 14, 11:43am 1406591023

Yep absolutely the case in my circumstance gordon.

But most developers of new property always seem to me to be working with high debt and small margins, so pushing up the cost of money immediately pushes up the cost of housing. Same for the first-time buyer.

I am not a developer, preferring long-term investment. So for me rising interest rates means rising yields on deposits, means rising yields on properties .

I don't mind seeing rates rise. But, of course, that's one of the benefits of long-term investing isn't it.

by gordon | 29th Jul 14, 11:48am 1406591319

I think a lot of the long term investors in rentals have high debt YL. My experience in dealing with them professionally was that many of them were teachers, policeman , nurses and alike and were on pretty average incomes therefore were borrowing big time to try and get ahead and good on them. Most workers in New Zealand find it hard to save capital as we are poor payers to our workers who need to leverage off debt to get ahead.

by cowboy | 29th Jul 14, 1:00pm 1406595640

yes. And while we're stripping away at wealth, instead of researching into the use of income as a equal decent lifestyle, I suspect it will keep going that way.

You have listed the very reason I got into my first two houses when I did. I had lousy income, so any principal paydown was more than nothing, and it seemed the only way to stop the house-price-clock in my favour. Yes, I had to "buy my freedom" (like a medieval peasant) from the bank, and it cost a lot but at least it opened up opportunities, which with NZ's cost structure I just couldn't achieve by wage, or small business startup.

by gordon | 29th Jul 14, 1:28pm 1406597295

cowboy I remember our earlier discussions on this site about the need to pay more wages in NZ and you were disagreeing with me. That suprises me as today you have admitted you were once on low wages. You have experienced how hard it is to survive and get ahead and yet you seem reluctant to see wages increase across the board in NZ. I would have thought you would be more compassionite to those at the bottom of the tree as you have been there. We need to pay those at the bottom a living wage and once we do that we will get rid of many social problems currently being experienced in our communities.

by cowboy | 29th Jul 14, 3:21pm 1406604060

I disagree with the _ability_ for many NZ business to pay higher rates.

And very much disagree with minimum wage being _forced_ up by _government_compulsion_ in order to try and band-aid the leaking dam.

That we either wages need to be lower (to increase hirage) and that means lower compliance and government finding other ways to _drop_ the real cost of life; or there needs a way of _affording_ higher wages. But the higher wages means higher prices, so I'm very much in favour of ways to reduce life cost.... one of those is reducing the cost of wealth, in this topic "interest" cost as it's passed on to the end consumer, who doesn't get the choice of a vege patch out back and heating their stream-water in the copper using wood from their neighbourhood.

When I have given breaks to those at the bottom of the tree the usually do (a) buy more electronic and consumer junk, including travelling to concerts, and/or (b) borrow money to do same. this hardly increases their wealth ! So I'm a little more choosy about who I help these days.

Problem with paying living wage, is, as mentioned finding the money to do it. As being discussed and pointed out before, leverage makes a great profit, but that profit must be paid for above 5% interest and that compounds to some solid future price to recover. And at the moment the motto is leverage more borrowing to make enough profit to cover it.... which means it kicks the can down the road, or the price of finance would have to shrink... but the only way for finance cost to shrink is have more free money going around. But that will create bidding wars forcing prices up (bad for low income).

Yet how do we, and should we, level out a system, when some folks are willing to put in 80% of their life into accumulating smart wealth? Or what about generations compounding it? Seriously, how can that really be levelled? and should it? But those at the bottom do deserve at least a chance... pushing up minimum wage removes that chance...but redeveloping the market system to create a livable standard (including hope) is necessary.

by steven | 29th Jul 14, 4:08pm 1406606880

Much accumulation of wealth doesnt strike me as "smart" unless its smart-arse, ie the richer you are the more parasitic it seems you are. Pushing up the minimum wage, gives ppl a lot more chances IMHO, once they get some disposable income they have the opportunity to save, otherwise they have none. Sure some will waste it but so it seems are some of the wealthy. ie how wealthy you are seems to bear no realtionship to whether you watse it, or not.

regards

by cowboy | 29th Jul 14, 8:18pm 1406621920

Pushing up minimum wage... who pays?

If it comes from the wages, then wage bill increases, prices increase... you effectively have _less_ disposable income.

How wealthy you are bears much relationship to whether you'e wasting it or not, because the wealthy can choose not to. Or they can choose to waste some of it. That's why people like copying the wealthy looking peoples' lifestyle. But that's a quick way to be poor.

The real wealthy don't waste it. That's how they get wealthy and stay there.

The more parasitic people aren't the wealthy ones. They're the poor ones, who with little resources, and little control over their environment they become a literal parasite, demanding and/or requiring the results of other peoples' efforts. As said elsewhere, there's no point working hard (or getting lots of information or even working smart) if your client based has nothing to trade with you. Parasites then expect the proceeds of other peoples' work to be seized from them under threat or violence to pay for the parasites lifestyle.

this is different from being wealthy, where over time and care, resources and income generating systems have been developed. Those that developed poorly, fail. Those that are done better, aside from the parasites sucking off them, provide a positive tradable return. Weathy is the benefit after costs deducted, food on the table is wealth, roof over your head is wealth, a factory which makes useful things and employs workers is wealth. You think we should get rid of the wealth? No roof over peoples' heads? No food on their tables? No factories or offices for them to work in to trade labour for desirable things - how are they going to support themselves now, are they going to plait their own clothes or hunt and gather their own food? from where I might add. And how will they get there? With nothing to trade, no wealth of skills, from the wealth of knowledge and expertise accumulated in schools and higher training insitutions.

What does need to come up is the income (ie disposable income) in order to counter the debt that wealth is raising. That's the cycle as all that wealth accumulates, it takes resources - as real resources as our debt-money is. We seek returns and leverage, but the interest cost involved is passed along to the product. Our wealth _doesn't_ provide direct income - even a bunch of term deposit receipts provides no income...until a borrower on the otherside pays out for our interest. And that's where we're up to in the cycle, I leverage for a profit, someone else lends to get their profit from wealth, I pass on my costs, but the wage can't be lifted, so incomes are low.

Many of the rental properties are owned by near average waged people. Of the higher waged people, it makes sense to go for assets with higher risk (and less possibility of physical issues). Of the very low income people they can't service the debt yet, to ante into either investment tier. So for those near average waged people, they have to pass on their costs, it can come from tenants, or it can come from their own disposable income. they don't have much "wealth" yet because much of their equity is completely tied up! If they had enough wealth to access, then they wouldn't be affected by the interest rate changes.

but if incomes where higher, then there would be options for others to buy. Sure they would have to make that choice - for many it simply isn't a priority. they want the gadgets, the overseas holiday, volunteer works, time with kids or hobbies, or are just too lazy or disorganised (or unlucky). But that choice and the responsibility and consequences are their -right-. However they will always be in that lower income bracket and that is a result directly of those choices. For those that choice to make the sacrifices needed to move ahead, they will need income, to overset the wealth they don't have. And that's the tough part, we are now at the point in the cycle where previous wealth owners, many have used credit to draw on their wealth to provide leverage or other buying power - often in the case of the near average wage houseowners it's just to get into the market. And since they'd used that credit, there's costs that get passed on. The only way to beat that is to increase income as a ratio to wealth. One way, which might be popular with the spender crowd, is simply to nationalise everything - no wealth, everything is income. sadly it would completely crash everything, as it does in the countries which tend to practise it. The other point is that not all locations or segments of the economy are in phase and reach the peak at the same time, due to the flow from one segment to the other. (which is why RBNZ hikes are so damaging). thus we need ways to increase income, but not from leveraged borrowing, in a culture addicited to borrowed credit.

by MortgageBelt | 30th Jul 14, 9:56am 1406670991

The World Bank? IMF? UN? You have to remember these appointees are accountable to entities outside of NZ.

by steven | 30th Jul 14, 9:57am 1406671061

I think the Govn can ask for his resignation, either directly or by changing the legislation making his tenure un-supportable.

The point is, his mandate to control inflation in a post peak-oil world is obsolete. So the RB is the ambualnace at the bottom of the cliff, it is the Govn you should be blaming.

Really if you are not happy with the RB, vote out the present Govn in September.

Though "devil or the deep blue sea" springs to mind.

regards

by gordon | 29th Jul 14, 5:54pm 1406613255

Why does everyone have to live like you. You should be willing to employ anyone and pay them a living wage whether they live to your expectations or not. Why should everyone live up to your standard Cowboy.

by cowboy | 29th Jul 14, 7:10pm 1406617859

because my standard is based on research and testing.

You can live like a peasant working their masters field forever, if you like. You can work for income with no hope of residual income in your old age, if you want. You can spend all your money and live the Greek Big Party Night lifestyle, if you think you can afford to.

But.

Your right to live how you want, stops when your try to make it my responsibility to pay for it.

And last time I checked you weren't hiring my staff, nor paying them. So you don't get the call on what they're paid until you personally do.

by gordon | 29th Jul 14, 9:19pm 1406625564

I am not too sure whether I would want you as my employer Cowboy. One of the companies I have an interest in employs 25 - 30 people. Some of them have far more overseas holidays than I do yet I do not begrudge them that. That is their business and I have no right to comment about how they spend the $ 20 - $30 an hour or so I pay them. The trips make up for the many hours they work hard for the company so good on them. We are all different.

by cowboy | 29th Jul 14, 10:19pm 1406629140

(Abusive comment removed, Ed).

by gordon | 29th Jul 14, 10:45pm 1406630711

Retail Cowboy. Very tough since 1 January 2009. Worse years than dairy farmers. I have lent multiple six figures to it to keep it going. Never laid anyone off. Saw the need to keep loyal workers and their families in work. I am probably too soft but loyal workers are worth looking after. Increased their wages even when making losses as inflation continued to erode the worth of their existing wages. Retail is tough , even tougher than farming . Just look at the shops that are closing down all over NZ. Far more than farms that struggle. You don' t know how lucky you are.

by Casual Observer | 29th Jul 14, 11:12pm 1406632356

You don't know how lucky you are gordon. Neither can it be tough if you have a business that needs multiple six figure propping up, and despite this, increase staff wages while making losses. You running a tax avoidance scheme there or what?

by gordon | 30th Jul 14, 7:21am 1406661705

I am getting some interest on the loan as it is a large business owned by two families and only I could afford to prop it up. Good staff are hard to replace and therefore we needed to keep their incomes up to date as their costs are increasing. I would rather not have lent the money to the company but there is a lot at stake if it fell over. The interest payment due at 30 June has not been paid yet as there are no funds to do it with. Retail has been very slow since 1 April 2014 and is not improving. People are not coming in until 10am or so. Watch this space. More shops to close. Who will re employ the laid off workers. New World in Hawera to close next month announced this morning on Stuff.

by cowboy | 30th Jul 14, 7:40am 1406662841

" The interest payment due at 30 June has not been paid yet as there are no funds to do it with. Retail has been very slow since 1 April 2014 and is not improving"

Face palm.

Maybe you need to pay your staff more then gordon. (without money coming in, they can't spend, and they shouldn't go deeper in debt)

I certainly can't afford to pay more/hire them on a $6 payout, or even support your business.

(and yes, I am saddened to hear your business is troubled. Having been down that path before in computer retail & consulting. You might want to start brushing up on your exit counselling skills, it gets very hard to do when the heats on, and the tax-paid government and justice system have no sympathy for business owners if they aren't perfectly compassionate to staff they have to let go, despite the crushing stress and pain affecting both parties)

by cowboy | 29th Jul 14, 11:56pm 1406634989

you got to borrow multiple six figures? I have to come up with 2 mill, on a$6 payout. I read in the trade papers and media, about how wonderful it is the Fonterra share price is lifting.... co-op agreement says I have to buy 1 share per kg supplied.... I have to PAY $6.07 (current market) for every $6 (current price, may drop) supplied!

Tough ??

I broke the small bone in my hand 2 weeks ago, pulling a wire out of the feed spreader. I have yet had enough time to get it x-ray-ed, let alone do anything else with it, and damn does it hurt when a cow kicks it.

What did I do saturday and sunday? The 4wheeler tyre was dead flat, but if I pump it up I got an hour out of it, ao I could bucket the cow poo, sand, lime, and odd bits of grass out of the underpass sump. I can only lift the bucket with two fingers on that hand, which is tough doing the splits, in full wet weather gear, bucketing sht and sand. Sadly humanity can put a human on the moon but they can't get a sump pump to manage NZ dairy effluent.

I got around the broken crowd ram on the tractor by using a chain, until the weekend was finished and an engineer shop was open to get it welded. So I could lift and carry bales, but no tilt, so often hip deep spreading around stinking silage.

Fortunately with the broken bone in my hand it was a good excuse to call a vet, to pull the calf out, when one cows afterbirth showed odd. Good call, as internally it was caught, so mum and heifer calf both doing well (and drinking sweet). But when you've got medical emergencies like that, it's down tools and go. And not just because I can be arrested and fined for not acting quickly.

I lost half a tooth last week. but the calfs are coming, I'm managing 6 mobs of cows (milkers, springers, almost springers, and some drying off; another 2 mobs, one due to come back, another longer term grazing.) all on different feed patterns, all need shifting and feeding. Sure that's less than the guys with yearlings and rising twos, but between milkings, and ensuring calves and fed same time, same temperature everytime, it's a challenge.

And I'm processing end-of-year accounts, and trying to finalise the finance for the purchase of the property, and ongoing development resilience plans for breakdown management...I barely have time to catch-up with my FX stuff these days.

I had to cut one of my part time staff. As I've sad before. the year following the $7 payout was a $5-something payout. they got $10, I was getting $9, but minimum wage went up, but with a $5-something payout wages get cut. Not like I can diversify futher, or take on more work. So with them getting $13/hr, and me getting $3/hr something had to change.

Tie in with current topic, most farmers (and PI's) get around this by sinking income in wealth. Then equity can go up and down, and that bit of wealth tracks with it. But in farming, their is no margin allowance for rent or premises; Fonterra and the other companies don't payout enough to cover it. That's why just about every dairy equity partnership hits the rocks. That's one reason I wanted to investigate the problem, from the inside...but I made the mistake of going sharemilking (so when Fonterra cut the margin on MY YEARS SALES to UNDER BREAKEVEN I caught caught in the sharemailker poverty trap).

You know about that then? In retail...when your inventory person (ie fonterra) decides to sell your entire years stock at under breakeven. Not that we haven't heard a peep out of the Fonterra Shareholder representatives yet.....

by Your Landlord | 30th Jul 14, 12:21am 1406636485

You have lots of issues cowboy and you have been abusive in your posts this evening. Perhaps you are in the wrong industry... it seems too stressful for you?

by cowboy | 30th Jul 14, 7:33am 1406662390

Your Landlord, there is a limit to how much ignorance and stupidity I can be expect to just sit here and take from someone in gordon situation saying he's got it tough.

Yes, as mentioned if I could get out without declaring bankruptcy and taking several people down with me I would. That is what sharemilking debt is about.

And this is actually one of the easiest years farm-wise (with exception of payout). weathers warm, feed is on ground, staff are doing well, a few less breakdowns than normal (thanks to resilience planning previous 5 years).

the difficulty is the money...

I would really like to take on extra staff and run reasonable shifts. But with Fonterra destroying the payout price, I can't pay people to cover that work, nor is there money to put technology solutions in place.

So there's a situation where we have to pay higher income because the country needs it. Yet where is that money coming from ...not from a $6 payout that's for sure! Again....some farmers will "afford" it, because they own the land and rent it to themselves for free - which is anti-entrant, anti-tax-income for NZ, and anti-competitive (ie illegal) yet they're are allowed to continue doing so.

gordon wants higher wages. Does he have any idea what is going to happen to provincial towns if Fonterra does a Glaxo??

Where do you think the buying power comes from in NZ? We frequently hear about foreign funded people buying up property especially in Auckland, without the income from agriculture and through provincial towns, where do you think the income is coming from for NZers to be paid to compete on that market. Or is it that everyone else is only interested in lining their own pockets?

With Fonterra dropping prices, who is going to be the cashed up market for all the agricultral science and technology???????? What is going to happened to all those manufacturers, engineers, scientists and support experts? Do you think they're just going to retrain as real estate agents in NZ? It's bad enough we give our IP away to anyone visiting, and push our top researcher to leave the country for Germany (where she won't be sell real estate or working at a fast food joint, I tell you). All that expertise will go to countries that actually want it...and it will _never_ come back.

So to hear people like gordon TELL me I have to pay more in wages, and that he doesn't begrudge sales people $30-40 (try getting that in farm wage!) because they "work hard".

That is the _absue_

(and if you can pay urban/sub-urban staff $20-30/hr then you can damn well afford to pay a reasonable price for absolute essentials of living like the qualtiy food you're demanding)

by gordon | 30th Jul 14, 8:53am 1406667204

Cowboy you can attack me personally but here are the facts;

1. My shop staff are family and friends as I have known them for 10 years.

2. They work hard to make the shop work but cannot be blamed for lower sales caused primarily by the gfc.

3. They have families and are entitled to a living wage. If I employ them they have a right to be treated fairly and with dignity.

4. I do not want to lay them off as they would find it hard to get replacement work that pays them fairly.

5. They know I have the wear with all to keep things going. I could not look them in the eye and lay them off when I am retired at 58. After all they are human beings, not animals.

by notaneconomist | 30th Jul 14, 11:12am 1406675531

Gordon......if it goes belly-up then they won't have a job and won't get treated fairly and with dignity at a future point in time......they would have to meet the market in terms of wages they can achieve elsewhere.........sometimes treating people fairly and with dignity requires a high level of honesty by informing them that cut-backs have to be made........and then you might have options of lowering their wages to at least keep them employed until you hopefully trade out of the situation. At the moment you are appearing to avoid the pain and the only reason you can avoid it is you have the financial means to prop things up......but can you do that propping up for an extended period of time? Eventually you will be forced to plug the holes!!!

The reality is staff can turn up to work........and get paid......

A business has to jump through many hurdles to keep the work and products rolling so those staff who turn up receive that pay........and sometimes we have to alter how we are doing things in order to ensure the business survives to keep people employed.

by gordon | 30th Jul 14, 12:11pm 1406679092

In the last six years or so and in order to reduce overheads we have not replaced some staff who have retired or left on their own accord. Unfortunately we cannot reduce the rent which is the biggest overhead after wages. Despite the fact we are a retail outlet that is not affected by online retailing we cannot get the sales back to where they were before the gfc. People are starting their retail activities later and later and so we have a large number of staff standing around from 8.30 to 10.30 each morning and hardly any activity. You cannot ask staff to start at 10.30 as they would up and leave and rightfully so. Retail all over NZ is painfully slow this year and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.One of the keys to retail is having good staff who know their product that they are selling and who give the customers good service when they walk in the door. If you get rid of good staff they are hard to replace. The lease has two years to go so you might as well say I guarantee the lease for a further $400k. That is the reality of retail. I tried to buy the building but the landlord was greedy with the price he wanted and now he will be wishing he sold it to us. In two years time we will be looking at less expensive premises. In the meantime I am proping it up as I can afford to and it feels the right thing to do.I would feel a failure if I walked away and there is always the threat of being sued pursuant to the personal guarantee given to the landlord so what would be the point of doing that anyway. As I said retail is hard and it has its risks. And unlike farming there has been no good years since early 2009.

by notaneconomist | 30th Jul 14, 12:51pm 1406681490

If your customers don't want to come in unti 10.30 in the morning then that is when you should open......if you had a restaurant would you open it in the middle of the night when everyone is sleeping???

I see your dlimemna in regards to the rent......go back and renegotiate....keep at your landlord like a whining kid......do you not have an arbitration clause? What about unfair contracts etc?

It is easy to look over the fence and assume farming has been having good years...... sheep and beef boys with high debt loadings (new entrants in particular) have struggled.

The reason all business including farming struggles in NZ is the high overheads that are placed upon it via the regulators........do your homework on overheads because they have escalated astronomically. All those regulatory costs end up lowering wages to the workers as the money is directed from those who are productive to those who are not. Personally I'd rather pay my workers more and slash the overheads to around a third. But that can't be done when I have every government dept with its hand out for some damn payment or another.

by gordon | 30th Jul 14, 12:11pm 1406679097

by Casual Observer | 30th Jul 14, 12:19pm 1406679551

Down where I live retail hours are 9-5.30 so why can't you ask staff to change their working hours? If it is still busy at the end of the day why not change to 10-6pm?

by cowboy | 30th Jul 14, 8:09am 1406664563

So which industry are you offering me a job in, sorry forgot to ask.

My IT skills and electronics skills are about 8 yrs out of date. I suffer daytime tiredness (so can't drive much) and planar fascitis (so can't spend long time walking, and less standing)

And from what I hear... minimum wage isn't much of a life either. At least with this I can do some long term good, something useful, and out of busy periods, get some time to myself without bosses screaming about 85% minimum chargable hours...

by cowboy | 29th Jul 14, 8:58pm 1406624336

Don't forget, not all of us have cushy businesses like yours.

Fonterra just wiped 80+% of my margin off in the last 30 days (they REALLY need to put a reserve on that auction,, if it goes any lower we need to start paying some company salaries in kilos of butter and WMP)

by cowboy | 29th Jul 14, 7:05pm 1406617553

ok that's a bit long.

it's not the wage (which is an expense to employer),

it's the income you get to keep (which is lifestyle, investment, debt recovery) that is key.

at the moment wealth pays, and can be drawn on (providing income for the wealthy) but that can't go on forever. drawing on wealth uses up it's credit-ability. Rebuilding takes income, but if all the income is lost to debt or the cost of drawing on wealth, then the rich will fall (and the poor will get poorer).

by gordon | 30th Jul 14, 12:32pm 1406680375

They actually get to work well before 8.30 to get car parks they cannot get at 9am because of pressure from surrounding businesses. Retail is dead at 5pm during the week, especially in winter. In fact retail is dead fall stop and you just have to drive around anywhere especially regions to see that. Traditional businesses are closing down and are not being replaced by new tenants or are being replaced by another food or alcohol outlet. Many people have struggled since the gfc and there is no sign of any improvement. Retail employs a lot of NZ workers and if more of them get laid off it could mean more benefit assistance is needed which goes back to the taxpayer for funding. Look at Hawera in Taranaki. The New World is closing next month as Foodstuffs says it only needs the Pak N Save. Who will employ the 50 fultime and part time workers?

Notwithstanding the above retail is a fantastic game to be in and despite the daily challenge I would not put my investment into anything else.

by Casual Observer | 30th Jul 14, 12:40pm 1406680801

If you are propping the business up and losing money gordon, how can you possibly call it an investment - it is a charity you choose to support.

by gordon | 30th Jul 14, 2:00pm 1406685643

Four years of losses which I propped up, two years of profits and no tax paid as losses to offset against but now struggling again. Is it the election that is slowing down the economy or are people just plain struggling. No lack of money for coffee and muffins from what I see.

by Casual Observer | 30th Jul 14, 3:05pm 1406689517

And you complain about farmers not paying tax or being able to offset losses against profits? Wow, you should be applying for charitable status gordon. As it obviously isn't a business you are running.

If you haven't figured out if it is the election or the economy that is slowing down retailing gordon, what are you doing in business?

by gordon | 30th Jul 14, 5:32pm 1406698372

CO in my own right I pay a lot of tax. This retail company which I do not have a formal role in other than as a director and shareholder is struggling like all retail shops. I would rather it made profits and paid tax.

by gordon | 31st Jul 14, 9:42am 1406756533

CO my wife and I do not have a community services card and never will. And our children when at university incurred student loans not student allowances. Unlike dairy farmers and their children who benefited from structures put in place to take advantage of cards and allowances they did not need but wanted as after all it is up to all the other tax payers to keep the farmers going.