Kiwibank cuts two-year mortgage rate to new market low

Personal Finance

Competitive pressure in the face of languishing house sales is driving mortgage rates lower. Kiwibank's latest cut brings sub-4% rates to fixed terms of two years

26th Jan 19, 12:02am by David Chaston

Kiwibank has cut its two year fixed home loan rate by -20 basis points to 3.99%.

This is the lowest rate of any home loan in the current mortgage market, and for the longest term.

Westpac has a 3.99% offer for a one year fixed term. That matches HSBC Premier, which also offers the 3.99% rate for an 18 month term. Now Kiwibank is offering that rate for a two year term.

Anecdotal market comment suggests that 3.99% is now matched by most banks for a one year term. The promotion of the same rate for a two year term by Kiwibank is likely to shift actual market pricing to this duration as well.

It may well draw a competitive response - just as this one is likely to have been motivated by the Westpac move down.

Borrowers under the Kiwibank offer require a minimum of 20% equity. But unlike Westpac (and others), Kiwibank does not require them to hold a transactional account with them or require that their salary is paid to a Kiwibank account.

The new rate is also available for customers utilising the Welcome Home Loan program. The rate becomes effective on Monday, January 28, 2019.

This latest mortgage rate cut comes even though it is not really supported by wholesale rate movements. In early November 2018 the two year swap rate was about 2.02%. This rose sharply to 2.20% soon after but slipped back to about 2.05% in mid December. On this slip-back, Kiwibank cut its two year rate from 2.29% to 2.19% in early January. Now the wholesale rate for two years is 1.92% (and near a record low) which represents a fall of -13 bps. Today's mortgage rate cut is a -20 bps reduction, on top of the -10 bps reduction a few weeks ago. It seems fair to observe that retail mortgage rates are falling faster than the wholesale swap rate.

And it also needs to be pointed out that term deposit offer rates are not reducing either. The lower home loan rates will be coming at the expense of net interest margins.

3.99% is not the record low two year rate. SBS Bank offered 3.95% in late October, early November 2018 for that term.

See all banks' carded, or advertised, home loan interest rates here.

Here is the full snapshot of the advertised fixed-term rates on offer from the key retail banks.

below 80% LVR	6 mths	1 yr	18 mth	2 yrs	3 yrs	4 yrs	5 yrs
as at January 28, 2019	%	%	%	%	%	%	%

ANZ	4.99	4.05	4.19	4.29	4.49	5.55	5.69
	4.95	4.05	4.19	4.29	4.49	4.95	5.09
	4.99	4.10	4.79	4.29	4.49	5.19	5.39
	4.99	4.05		3.99	4.49	4.99	5.09
	4.99	3.99	4.09	4.29	4.59	5.29	5.49

	4.10	4.10	4.29	4.35	4.49	4.99	5.19
	4.85	3.99	3.99	4.19	4.69	4.99	5.29
	4.99	4.15	4.49	4.29	4.49	4.99	5.09
	4.85	4.05	4.19	4.25	4.49	4.95	4.99

In addition to the above table, BNZ has a fixed seven year rate of 5.95%. TSB no longer has a 10 year offer.

Fixed 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.

64 Comments

by MortgageBelt | 26th Jan 19, 7:48am 1548442139

Perhaps indicating that mortgage rates generally are not going to come under upwards pressure over the next 2 years.

by MisterB | 26th Jan 19, 1:08pm 1548461294

Not sure it indicates that at all. It possibly indicates a desire to grab market share, even if it makes a loss. KB have retail term deposits for 2 years at 3.55% ... can't run a bank on 0.44% gross margin. Still I guess they'll just ask mum and dad for money, you know, since apparently they're 'ours'

RBNZ proposed capital requirements will undoubtedly put upwards pressure on mortgage rates.

by MortgageBelt | 27th Jan 19, 9:58am 1548536334

I doubt whether banks would offer 3.99% for 2 years if they were foreseeing significantly higher interest rates from the OCR, or Swap rates, or term deposits over the next 2 years.
In fact, recently some borrowers have broken some fixedterms, paid the break penalty, and refixed at lower rates.

by MisterB | 27th Jan 19, 10:12am 1548537128

They aren't forecasting interest rates in the future by offering one now. They lock it in and execute a funding contract based on wholesale rates ... which will do whatever they do in the next 2 years (it's this movement that drives 'break penalty', as they need to break out of the funding contract.

The fact is - they still only have a short gap between retail deposit and retail lending rate, which is clearly unsustainable.

You may wish to read up on RBNZ capital proposals. This will affect bank margins and will likely be recovered at least partially through pricing in order to attain a similar return to what they do now. Even RBNZ admit this will have upwards pressure in prices.

by Miguel | 27th Jan 19, 12:18pm 1548544737

My understanding is it won’t dirextly impact Kiwibank as they already used the standardised model. It will only change funding costs for the big for Australian banks

by MisterB | 28th Jan 19, 10:18am 1548623915

While the change in the risk weighting won't impact them (it it will be standardised), there is still increased capital requirements proposed and a change in what is acceptable, which will hit all banks.

by RickStrauss | 29th Jan 19, 9:16am 1548706593

If their competitors are forced to increase their rates I can't imagine KiwiBank staying significantly below them.

by Nic Johnson | 29th Jan 19, 7:42am 1548700921

Hi MisterB.

Using an assumption that the banks lend from deposits I could see how you would arrive at that conclusion about Gross margin. But it's simply not the case. Deposits are created when a loan is written. You may find this link useful.

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

by MisterB | 29th Jan 19, 8:11am 1548702675

You may wish to read the RBNZ rules around lending to deposit ratios and avail yourself of the GDS for each bank.

While it may be true that a matching deposit is created in the market when credit is created, that deposit is not necessarily with the bank that issued the credit (it goes to the vendor) and once it is on the market, the banks still compete to attract the deposit.

There are a bunch of regulatory requirements on maintaining their balance sheets.

Your notion implies a financial institution can merely lend and never take deposits. Wouldn't you think everyone would just do that then?

by NorthernLights | 27th Jan 19, 5:07pm 1548562025

How can Auckland & Tauranga rank above San Francisco which has obscene property prices ?
Note where Auckland & Tauranga rank in affordability
Some perspective compared to other cities with Ponzi housing markets
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/01/23/least-affordable-cities_a_2365…

by NorthernLights | 27th Jan 19, 5:08pm 1548562081

by bw | 26th Jan 19, 9:36am 1548448562

"unlike Westpac (and others), Kiwibank does not require them to hold a transactional account with them"

Kiwibank needs to be mindful that it could end up with a book of subprime/delinquent stuff. I'm sure it's taken that into account with this policy, but losing track of the income side of a customers balance sheet can prove costly. ( eg: Job loss and failure to report 'change of circumstance' to the lender. Too late when the regular scheduled payments cease)

by Voiceofreason | 26th Jan 19, 10:13am 1548450790

If first home buyers stop buying, that’s when the market falls over, but at these unaffordable bubble prices, lower and lower rates to keep them buying is an unsustainable situation.

by bw | 26th Jan 19, 10:46am 1548452811

First Home Buyers arguably just replace Last Home Buyers in some degree, who die off and sell their stock to the new entrants at the start of the process. Everyone talks about the demand at the beginning, but who noticed the supply coming on at the end? Not many, and more of it is coming to market as every day of an aging society passes. At some stage, there could be more supply of deceased estates than there is demand from FHBers. After all, the Last Home Buyers can own more than one 'home' from a lifetime of accumulation whereas the Newbees only need one to start with.

by Voiceofreason | 26th Jan 19, 12:23pm 1548458625

The difference is that those last home buyers bought in at historically normal income to price ratio, probably about 3. Current FHBs are currently buying in at 9 times national income.

by Nzdan | 26th Jan 19, 12:41pm 1548459664

Correct, average house prices nationally are now 10 - 11 x the average WAGE instead of 3 - 4 x in the late 70's. People often quote "House Price to Household Income" stats which are distorted, the average household income today is made up of 2 average wages, instead of 1. A much larger deposit must also be saved with a much lower interest return on savings. Sources below.

https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/boomers-v-millennials-which-generation-h…
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/the-1970s/overview

1978 - Average House Price = $29,698, 20% deposit = $5940 or 7 months wage
1978 - Average Household Income = $8204 per year (oneroof link above, table halfway down the page)
1979 - Average Wage $157 per week ($8164 per year nzhistory link above)

2018 - Average House Price = $525,000, 20% deposit = $105,000 or over 2 years wage.
2018 - Average Wage/Salary $50,000 per year (stuff link below)
2018 - Average Household Income = $105,000 per year (stats.govt)

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/97237664/chart-new-zealand-…
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/household-income-and-hou…

by Yvil | 26th Jan 19, 4:58pm 1548475119

NZDan, can you add the interest rates back in 1978 to get a full picture:

1978 interest rate …?
2018 Interest rate 4.2%

by Plutocracy | 26th Jan 19, 5:24pm 1548476674

Probably should include the pace of wage inflation in that case. Remind me, did wages go up faster in 1978 or 2018?

Do you think a 16% rise in wages from 1978 to 1979 would have helped or hindered those with a mortgage?

by Nzdan | 26th Jan 19, 5:33pm 1548477201

1978 Interest Rate = 12% (11.xx but rounded up to 12%) -> https://teara.govt.nz/en/graph/23100/interest-rates-1966-2008

From the house prices in my previous comment:

1978 = $58 per week over 25 years @ 80% LVR @ 12%. = 36% of average wage ($157 per week)
2018 = $522 per week over 25 years @ 80% LVR @ 4.2% = 54% of average wage ($50k or $960 per week)

But nobody is complaining about mortgage serviceability, it's the deposit requirement!!!! How hard is that to understand?

by Yvil | 27th Jan 19, 10:38am 1548538720

Thanks NZ Dan : )

by Shoreman | 27th Jan 19, 1:27pm 1548548836

I believe the last time income to price ratio was at 3 interest rates were 18% just saying...

by Dale Smith | 27th Jan 19, 2:00pm 1548550824

Good point.

But you would have been more correct to say that the Price to Income Ratio (PIR) was almost always at 3x PIR up until the late 1980'a ie irrespective over time of what the interest rate was.

It was only after that, by legislation and council ideology, that the house price (ie the land) became decoupled from the income.

by kiwimm | 28th Jan 19, 11:38am 1548628724

And there are many places in the world that have maintained 3-4x income pricing even as rates have fallen to all-time lows - Houston, Atlanta, Chicago, Germany etc etc

by Yvil | 26th Jan 19, 10:55am 1548453314

Why do you think it's an "unsustainable situation"?

by Voiceofreason | 26th Jan 19, 12:21pm 1548458470

Yvil, because as I said it’s a bubble. Bubbles are not sustainable by definition. Those FHBs last in, paying bubble prices, with mortgages at those prices will be left with negative equity as the market falls. See Sydney and Melbourne right now, with the FHBs who bought in the past couple of years.

by CN | 26th Jan 19, 4:49pm 1548474571

Unfortunately many owner occupiers in Auckland who have bought in the last 2-3 years using maximum allowable leverage by the banks are potential collateral damage.

You have first home buyers and also those upgraders - sold their property to upgrade to a larger house, a house in a better neighbourhood, etc.

by Yvil | 26th Jan 19, 5:01pm 1548475283

You know VoR, Real Estate is not really made of soap and water, it's more land and building, bubble is only a metaphor. So if we accept that, you're saying it's not sustainable because prices are too high?

by Voiceofreason | 26th Jan 19, 8:16pm 1548486974

Yes, of course, prices are way too high compared to incomes (second in the world now I think). The prices are unsustainable, and the market is unsustainable at these levels. We can debate how the market will correct, but property markets never have soft landings from these levels. They tend to remain flat or drop suddenly. It’s so high it’s very unlikely to remain flat.

by refactornz | 27th Jan 19, 12:30pm 1548545442

Except that's not true; there are many countries with higher price to income ratios. Take a look here to get an idea: https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/rankings_by_country.jsp

by Shoreman | 27th Jan 19, 1:30pm 1548549015

Wow that's an interesting table showing price to income in other countries !!

by Pragmatist | 27th Jan 19, 1:51pm 1548550295

Might want to look at how they calculate price to income ratio before referring to that site...

Price to Income Ratio is the basic measure for apartment purchase affordability (lower is better). It is generally calculated as the ratio of median apartment prices to median familial disposable income, expressed as years of income (although variations are used also elsewhere). Our formula assumes and uses:
net disposable family income, as defined as 1.5 * the average net salary (50% is assumed percentage of women in the workforce)
median apartment size is 90 square meters
price per square meter (the formula uses) is the average price of square meter in the city center and outside of the city center

1) apartments, not houses/all residential property
2) assumed household income, not actual data
3) uses price per square meter, so very different for places with high density housing.

Frankly, its got so many fudge factors and assumptions you may as well pull numbers out of your butt.

by J.C. | 27th Jan 19, 1:52pm 1548550336

Might want to look at how they calculate price to income ratio before referring to that site...

That's a modern-day problem of easy access to information on the internet.

by J.C. | 27th Jan 19, 1:50pm 1548550242

Except that's not true; there are many countries with higher price to income ratios. Take a look here to get an idea: https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/rankings_by_country.jsp

When you look at Numbeo indexes, you should really understand the data sets of what you're looking at. For ex, even on price-to-income ratios, Japan is ranked higher than NZ. Do you think that this is really a reflection of reality? Or do you think the Japan property bubble has further to fall?

by Dale Smith | 27th Jan 19, 1:51pm 1548550268

It is true.

The Numero index uses a different formula methodology than the Demographia survey.

To Quote them

'Note that there is no standard formula to calculate property price indices. Our formulas differs from Case-Shiller Index, UK Housing Price Index, etc.

Price to Income Ratio is the basic measure for apartment purchase affordability (lower is better). It is generally calculated as the ratio of median apartment prices to median familial disposable income, expressed as years of income (although variations are used also elsewhere). Our formula assumes and uses:

net disposable family income, as defined as 1.5 * the average net salary (50% is assumed percentage of women in the workforce)
median apartment size is 90 square meters
price per square meter (the formula uses) is the average price of square meter in the city center and outside of the city center.'

The Demographia survey is the one used by the World Bank and most other institutions - except interest.co.nz.

by refactornz | 28th Jan 19, 7:46am 1548614794

Agreed that the numbeo data is not fully accurate and is based on apartment prices. The point I was making though is that the oft quoted "NZ most expensive" or "NZ second most expensive" housing market should really have a disclaimer: "amongst OECD countries" and even then there are clearly some individual cities that have higher price to income ratios.

by Yvil | 26th Jan 19, 10:56am 1548453393

FYI, I got 4.0% from ANZ earlier this moth for 1 year fixed, interest only. (I thought it was not worth fighting over 0.01% but you can most likely get 3.99%)

by Nzdan | 26th Jan 19, 12:18pm 1548458287

Nice. Just out of curiosity and I can understand you may not want to divulge, but this 1 year fix you've just secured at Interest Only:

Is it a re-fix of an existing mortgage?
If so, was the previous term Interest Only as well?
What happens to your cash flow when the Interest Only terms are up? I thought IO mortgages were normally a maximum of 5 years with P & I being paid on the remaining 20 years. Or does your bank extend you indefinite Interest Only terms because you're a valued client?

by CN | 26th Jan 19, 4:52pm 1548474754

NZDan

Note that different loan products have different terms and conditions.

Loan products for business customer / commercial customers have very different terms and conditions compared to loan products used in consumer residential lending such as a traditional consumer mortgage. Some of the professional property investors with larger property portfolios are treated as property businesses and borrow on business or commercial loan terms. There are different pressure points for these borrowers with these loan products.

He did previously indicate that he has a loan product which needs renewing every year. As you know, traditional consumer mortgages does not require renewing every year.

Consumers have also taken advantage of a loan product with an offset facility - not exactly sure of the terms & conditions of these facilities, how often they are required to be renewed, and what the covenants are (if any)

by Yvil | 26th Jan 19, 5:08pm 1548475684

Hi NZDan,
- It's a re-fix
- Previous term was also IO
- There is no time when interest only term comes "up". I've heard before someone post in the past about 5 years of IO, this is definitely false, maybe it applies to Aus, definitely not in NZ.
Look, the bank is in no hurry for me to pay back the loan, they're happy for me to pay interest forever. Because the loan is for investment, I'm also very happy to pay the bank interest forever at 2.68% (4.00% - 33% tax deduction). It is a different story if it's for your own home, then knock that mortgage on the head as soon as you can

by Nzdan | 26th Jan 19, 6:13pm 1548479608

Cheers for that! I just was a bit confused because according to ANZ:

Interest only repayments

The principal (the amount you borrow) must be repaid at the end of the loan term. Interest only terms are generally available up to two years for the purchase of an owner occupied property, and up to five years for the purchase of a residential investment property

https://www.anz.co.nz/personal/home-loans-mortgages/manage-existing-mor…

I guess that's at their discretion though as it does say "generally", like you said if the money is rolling in then what's the issue?

by MisterB | 27th Jan 19, 10:15am 1548537339

It's an issue for the borrower if they assume it can keep being rolled over. In a year, ANZ may well (within their rights) say no, if the 5 years is up.

by Yvil | 27th Jan 19, 10:40am 1548538833

The 5 years have been up a long time ago

by Retired-Poppy | 27th Jan 19, 2:17pm 1548551876

Wrong Yvil. Westpac and their main rivals were flat out signing up interest only 30 year mortgages in 2014. (five yearly interest only renewals) Times now up for many. With the backdrop of ring fencing and sliding values, at the banks discretion, they can ask that the principle needs repayment.

https://www.junoinvesting.co.nz/property/2018/7/19/do-you-have-an-inter…

“The investors who are paying principal and interest are comfortably cash-flow rich – they can have a decent lifestyle and chip away at their principal.”

The question remains, are the remaining investors a risk to the financial system? Probably yes.

42 per cent of rental property lending is on an interest-only basis and 8% of investors owe 40% of the debt.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/104323467/reserve-bank-says-8-pe…

by Yvil | 28th Jan 19, 11:10am 1548627051

Wow RP, you know my banking deals better than I and my bank do, you're truly full of it.

Yvil: "I have just baked a pecan pie"
RP "You're wrong, you have not, here is the link why you have not, I have read lots about it"

Folks, listen to people who do things, not to retired people who read, criticise and do nothing themselves

by Nzdan | 28th Jan 19, 11:44am 1548629078

I think RP is trying to wish a little bit of misfortune on to you.

"These greedy little whippersnappers with their Interest Only mortgages making a profit at the expense of my Term Deposit rates, by golly they'll get their comeuppance just you wait. They don't call me Retired "Schadenfreude" Poppy down at the bowling club for nothing."

He's probably got a severe case of Whistle Tooth going on as well.

by Retired-Poppy | 28th Jan 19, 2:25pm 1548638711

Yvil, now-now, settle down :) I've done plenty. What irks you greatly is I that I possess the discipline to pause and observe whereas you've become addicted by way of an apparent greed. Each to their own but I of course I do hold those in high regard who (dont) present themselves as a contributing hazard to the financial system. Reading your posts since being a member, I highly doubt you're one of those. I wish no one miss fortune other than knowing miss fortune presence itself to the unskilled and uninsightful regardless! We are just one global shock away from knowing who really has meat on their bones.

The Spruikers are certainly thinning in numbers of late.

by Yvil | 28th Jan 19, 4:14pm 1548645290

Haha, very funny NZDan

by Retired-Poppy | 28th Jan 19, 5:58pm 1548651509

Yvil, Nzdan, all good, really - I get it :) Its sleep depriving knowing others receive interest income whilst you pay it. Capital gains means everything to you. The only problem is your timing......

by Nzdan | 28th Jan 19, 6:11pm 1548652315

Nothing wrong with the timing on our purchase. Capital gains on our property are only a measure of opportunity cost. We have saved 10’s of thousands of dollars in extra mortgage borrowings by buying when we did. Then you factor market rent if we had held off on our purchase, which is much higher than our combined mortgage/rates/insurance payments.

by MisterB | 28th Jan 19, 10:36pm 1548668168

Which is not true of the average FHB in Auckland at these inflated prices. market rent is most certainly lower that interest, rates and insurance on a mortgage. Especially so on a like for like basis

by Retired-Poppy | 29th Jan 19, 8:47am 1548704830

Nzdan, in depth analysis has revealed its cheaper to rent right now revealing your views as being somewhat uninformed. An abundance of opportunities awaits those who watch this debt fueled unravel. As you witness this, I'm guessing you'll wish you had waited and patiently saved (a form of buyers remorse)

Interest, insurance, rates and preventative maintenance are dead money too. Your precious capital gains are also unbanked and can be taken from you tomorrow whereas you still have your relatively enormous debt.

https://www.interest.co.nz/property/rent-or-buy

by Nzdan | 29th Jan 19, 8:53am 1548705239

18 months of home ownership and our (as you put it) relatively enormous debt is $160k. Combined mortgage/rates/insurance are $300 per week for a 3 bedroom house on a touch under 1/4 acre. Even if mortgage rates hit 10% our mortgage payments will be under $350 per week. I think we're going to be absolutely fine.

by Retired-Poppy | 29th Jan 19, 10:01am 1548709277

Nzdan, and the total amount you will pay over the lifetime of the loan is...

Anyway, we can bash on at this for hours. You feel successful as much as I am liberated and that's what matters at the end of the day.

by Nzdan | 29th Jan 19, 10:23am 1548710585

Assuming I stick with payments over 25 years and interest rates remain the same - $300k.

When I break my 2 year fix and double my payment amounts - $200k over 8 years.

If I take my current Mortgage/Rates/Insurance amount per week, apply a 2% p.a. inflation rate, over 25 years I'd have paid $500k in rent.

But hey, I'm not in Auckland so it's apples and oranges.

by Yvil | 29th Jan 19, 10:03am 1548709398

The biggest difference between renting and owning is that after 25 - 30 years (maybe less) you own a freehold house in one case and … you own nothing at all by renting

by Retired-Poppy | 29th Jan 19, 10:14am 1548710069

Yvil, as spoken by the undisciplined spender. Those that live within their means would do better renting for some time to come with the view to owning a home.

The mounting evidence is very much in favour that it's now wiser to receive than to give others dead money (interest).

by nymad | 29th Jan 19, 10:13am 1548710036

Rubbish. Not in New Zealand.
Financially literate people may do better in the short term renting, but definitely not in the long term.

by Retired-Poppy | 29th Jan 19, 10:22am 1548710562

agreed. One should always aim to own one's own home over the longer term. Buying at the top of a cycle is a game for fools.

Anyway, barring a financial shock, house prices could easily underperform inflation for ten more years! Renting while this is happening is the way forward for the self disciplined and patient.

by CN | 26th Jan 19, 5:25pm 1548476708

NZDan

The other point to note is that even if a consumer mortgage product is being used, a borrower who is able to meet the debt serviceability tests is able to renew on an interest only basis. In order for a property investor to meet current debt serviceablity tests for a consumer mortgage loan product, the LVR is probably 50% or below.

by Retired-Poppy | 26th Jan 19, 1:24pm 1548462268

Yvil, when you've figured out that by speculating on big gains and forking out interest (rent) to ANZ, is yesterday's game, hopefully you'll discover a new addiction. That feeling of being liberated ;-)

It offers a great sense of accomplishment. Trust me, I know.

The following article describes Westpacs 30-year "interest only" mortgages as irresponsable. in 2014, a quarter of their portfolio was interest only, slightly less for the other major banks. It also describes the risk of interest only junkies being rendered under water when the market falls.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/63014826/null

From the 2014 article "Applying those figures across the industry suggests New Zealanders are treading water on about $40 to $50 billion worth of mortgage debt"

If anything, today with property peaking and vulnerable to big falls, the "treading water" situation is now probable much worse. Specufolks, it's time to pay your P & I!

Today, speculators such as yourself still have access to others money. It's best described as a movement of helpless addicts repeatedly rolling a lopsided dice.

by Lanthanide | 26th Jan 19, 11:36pm 1548498986

Interesting that this article points out SBS had 3.95% for 2 years in October, but didn't mention the much more relevant offer from BNZ on November of 3.99% for 2 years.

I broke all of my existing lending with BNZ, the highest was at 4.59%, and refixed it all at that rate. Will save $12,000 on interest over those 2 years, after accounting for the break fees I had to pay.

by iliketobike | 27th Jan 19, 9:35am 1548534949

"Kiwibank cut its two year rate from 2.29% to 2.19% in early January."

No they didn't.

by Andrewj | 27th Jan 19, 5:41pm 1548564081

they are following GDP.

by lukek | 6th Feb 19, 10:19pm 1549444777

Hi, for anyone interested, I have just broken all existing lending with ANZ (4 separate loans, due to roll off in between 3-6 months time; break fee $395) and refixed for 2 years @ 3.99%. Deal was done via a broker, initial offer was 4.05% for 2Y - broker pushed back and they then matched Kiwibank at 3.99%.

Lending is slightly over $500k, owner/occupied property, value $900-950k in Auckland.

Hopefully helps anyone in a similar situation considering whether or not to break in order to try and secure these lower rates.