Quotable Value says in October report values now rising across most of NZ, spreading from central Auckland, ChCh; Your experience

Quotable Value says in October report values now rising across most of NZ, spreading from central Auckland, ChCh; Your experience

By Bernard Hickey

Quotable Value (QV) has released its October report showing house values rising across most of New Zealand as strength in prices in central Auckland and quake-hit Christchurch starts to spread across the country.

QV, which is the state-owned valuer, said nationwide property values were up 1.2% in the three months to October from the same period a year ago.

“While initially the upward movement in values was being driven by Auckland and post-quake Christchurch, many other areas of the country are now increasing also,” said QV.co.nz research director Jonno Ingerson.

“Auckland Area values have increased 2.7 percent over the past year and are now only 0.1 percent below the previous market peak. Within the Auckland council area values in old Auckland City have increased 3.8 percent over the past year, and are now 1.6 percent higher than the previous peak of 2007. Across the rest of the Auckland area values have increased by between 0.2 percent (Papakura) and 1.6 and 4.6 percent (Franklin) apart from Rodney where values have dropped slightly,” said Ingerson.

QV estimates how house values have changed in the three months to the end of October from the same period a year ago. It takes into account prices of recent sales to compare 'like with like' in any particular area or region. Real Estate Intitute of New Zealand (REINZ) figures simply measure the median house price of all houses sold in the month. REINZ figures are seen as more up-to-date, but slightly more volatile. QV's figures are seen as less affected by month-to-month volatility and less 'skewed' by shifts in the types of houses sold.

Barfoot and Thompson, Auckland's biggest real estate agency chain, released its sales figures for October last week showing average prices up 1.1% in October from September and were up 5.7% from a year ago. Prices in some central and eastern suburbs of Auckland were up around 15% from a year ago. See our article here.

See the Barfoot and Thompson breakdown by suburban region in Auckland here.

Housing supply in Auckland has been limited in recent years by a lack of new house building and problems with leaky buildings, while demand from new migrants (both international and local) has boosted demand. Prices of a limited number of undamaged Christchurch houses have firmed since the earthquakes in September and February, and have accelerated in recent months as some insurance payouts are used to buy existing houses.

Ingerson said values in Hamilton had edged up slightly and were now only 0.7% below the same time last year. Tauranga had risen slightly in recent months and was now 0.5% below last year. Both Hamilton and Tauranga remain about 12% below their peaks, he said.

“After declining for the first half of 2011, values in the Wellington area have started to rise again and are only 0.9% below last year and 7.3% below the market peak” said Ingerson.

“Christchurch values continue to increase due to demand for undamaged houses, particularly in the Northern and Western suburbs. Values are now 3.4% above last year and only 2.0% below the market peak. The areas surrounding Canterbury have also been increasing in value since the start of 2011, with Waimakariri up 5.4% and Selwyn District up  4.9% since January,” said Ingerson.

"While values in Dunedin have been volatile over recent months they are currently about equal with where they started the year, but 2.4 percent below the same time last year and 6.8 percent below peak,” he said.

Provinces rallying now too

Ingerson said “while there has been a slight increase in new listings in many areas, this has yet to translate into an increase in the number of sales. However looking back over the past 20 years while sales generally pick up in October and November, that trend has been largely absent in the last few years, with any increases tending to be in February and March”.

"The index shows an increase in values in the last month for most of the Provincial centres in a further sign that values are rallying across the country. Despite these recent increases values remain below last year in most towns with Wanganui (-5.3%) and New Plymouth (-3.0%) the furthest below. Gisborne and Palmerston North are both 0.3% above last year while Nelson is 1.9% up following six months of gradual increases."

(Updated with detail, background, links to previous reports, intearctive chart below)

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

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

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.

107 Comments

Still bouncing along the bottom I think. One month up and one month down.  Some might be rising from a low, but nothing like they were 4 years ago. 

QV rubbish.

Agree with you completely Hugh.  The stable prices are a function of the severely limited supply more than offsetting weak demand.  Prices won't be going up in any meaningful sense in next couple years as inflation errodes prices back towards more reasonable real values.

No new supply in this market Hugh...killer tax sorted that out. Go with the bubble, trading the existing rubbish before it rots into a mush of fungi or turns into borer dust.

To be fair we need to be careful what we wish for.  Most countries would kill to be able to manage down a bubble rather than deal with the financial crisis that follows one bursting.  Time and inflation - or a slow depressed squeeze of nominal prices thanks to tinkering with the RMA - are our friends.  Surely it is better to live with some of the annoyances of overpriced housing for the 3 three or so years rather than the chaos of a burst bubble.

So are these EQC guys from outside NZ?

Because nobody who has ever lived in a NZ house - or even seen one - could possibly believe NZ houses of any price, type or vintage, or in any location, are anything but embarrassingly cheap garbage.

Travel in any other developed nation to understand just how bad and astoundingly overpriced are NZ houses.

I think you meant to 'say' "embarassingly high priced garbage"

 

"Cheap", syn., as in "shoddy", "tawdry", "tatty", etc.

Not "cheap", meaning "inexpensive".

Sorry for any confusion.

Having lived overseas I can completely agree with you on that score.

This criticism of NZ housing is often found in this venue. But as I look at properties owned since early 1930's by 3 generations of our extended family in Australia - I see houses of much the same quality; & frequently with the same problems.

"the... revaluation has now been completed and the capital value (CV) of every property updated. The QV residential property index is based on the ratio between sales price and these CVs.."

So capital value have been updated ,  primarily for council rates purposes ( to raise more money from property owners!) and the 'new value' is nearly what is was at its peak..which was before the new values were added in? Further...

"Ms Glenda Whitehead of QV Valuation said; “Statistics aside, ( Good idea, Glenda! They don't appear to count for all that much!) our valuers on the ground report that little has changed over the past couple of months. With no real boost to spring listing numbers trends look similar to those experienced in the winter months...."

Why does everyone think the council gets more money from higher CVs?? The CVs are just used to make the richer home owners pay a bigger share. The council can set the total rates collected to whatever they wish.

If house prices (and CVs) were to drop 90% tomorrow, the council would still collect the same amount in rates.

Well there you have it.

Proof positive that the end of the world has not come.

That property is going from strength to strength

That BH and all the other gloomsters were dead wrong.

That the smug renters have missed the boat .

To all those who wallowed in self induced misery convinced that property was dying, if not

dead already - go eat your words. 

Goes to show doesn't it?  Olly Newland was 100% dead right - as usual.

 

 

I'd have thought even Olly Newland would reflect on real prices, BigDaddy, not a concoction of ratings valuation statistics..From the reports own words....."QV’s Residential Price Index is... not the same as the average sales price..." But if Olly likes to use this as ' proof'....well the disappointment will be even more pronounced...when it comes.

My QV gone up 20% (OMGWTF) ...  more rates income for Mr Brown's ___dream!

He was looking at Hybrid Lexus, a cool 185K..  perhaps it's one reason for the jump in my QV...

 

Why does everyone think the council gets more money from higher CVs?? The CVs are just used to make the richer home owners pay a bigger share. The council can set the total rates collected to whatever they wish.

If house prices (and CVs) were to drop 90% tomorrow, the council would still collect the same amount in rates.

Unfortunately, our household of 3 use the same resources as a househould of 3 elsewhere in the city (in fact less).  I have worked in modelling a ratings system in the past,  the analysis of richer homes use more resources from the council isn't true! Infact it's not even a criteria

I have noticed that the nicer areas do get more council spending though. All the leafy suburbs seem to be getting completely brand new footpaths - in our area they just seem to be replacing the really bad bits.

Don't think the rates payers in such areas have a choice in foothpath reconstruction - I know they are paying attention on the number of complains received - may be you and your neighbours should ring the council more often! 

I don't think it matters how much resources you use - what matters is how much you can afford to pay!!

I can't - can anyone else?

If the council rates system is based on that basis... well it's just dandy isn't it!

That is probably true, but I'd almost put money on property taxes going up with increasing property values.

It's just inflation, but we have to pay for all these people who can't be bothered working.

Did anyone watch the TV3 commentary after the news last night. 6! children and a sky subscription - because it is good for the children. FFS.

yes I did, I used to flat next to a family with 7 children in wellington, her weekly benefit was close to $900/wk.  Only yet e stayed with her and she regularly spent a big chunk on pokie at local pub.!  Sad and the policy encourages that lifestyle.

"Quotable Value (QV) has released its October report showing house values rising across most of New Zealand"

Yet when we go and look at the actual report, we find that of the 15 regions shown in the chart at the bottom of the page, values have fallen in 11 regions.

Yeah, I noticed that too.  Bizarre statement from QV.

QV knows that most of the people likely to quote them aren't very good readers.

"The index shows an increase in values in the last month for most of the Provincial centres in a further sign that values are rallying across the country."

So it's interesting to go and compare that with REINZ's September month-on-month median price data released about 3 weeks ago (here) which shows the following:

Southland -13.6%
Central Otago Lakes -11.5%
Waikato/BoP/Gisborne -6.1%
Otago -4.7%
Northland -4.6%
Canterbury/Westland -4.2%
Taranaki -3.0%

Come on now Mark, stop nitpicking, get with the programme, listen to the headline and book your ticket for Big Daddy's next seminar.  Dont get bogged down by details such as a real annual fall of 3.4% with inflation at 4.6%.

I thought that one of the major themes of the late 80's reforms was to free up market competion so that all costs could be driven down.  The therory was that all the nations cost are ultimately reflected in its ability to compete in the export market.  Housing is the single largest cost that we all face and as such indirectly one of the largest cost components of our exports.  Do we want a successful compedative export led ecconomy?  Or will we continue with our love affair with property speculation, undermine our compedativeness and whole ecconomy by biding up each other's properties?  If we go much further down this path, the overseas lenders financing this self destructive game may well eventually require us to face the sort of consequences that now face Greece.  Freeing up the supply of residential land and close scruitiny of the near monoploies in the building material supply industry is far more important than worrying about competition in the phone market.  (not that we should not worry about the phone market)

Hugh,

The world's changed significantly since the 1920s, and if you judge our performance in terms of economic and technological development we've fallen far behind. Our policymakers and business leader have consistently been backing the wrong horses and we've therefore fallen far behind in the Race since the 1950s at least. When other countries were industrializing in the 1950s, New Zealanders were smugly congratulating themselves for living in the pastoral "Pavlova Paradise" until the collapse of the wool boom in 1966. In the 1960s and 1970s, other nations, particularly in Asia, were focusing on export orientated trade, ours focused on parochial import-substitution autarky. In the 1980s whilst future focused governments and business leaders in South East Asia and Finland, were investing in education directed mainly at the hard sciences and high tech skills upgrading of their workforces, ours were madly stripping out our industrial capacity and leaving it to the "market" to direct educational investment with their "bums on seats" tertiary educational policy.

And no the article you cited was very poor indeed and characteristic of the skewed ideological perspective you'd expect of someone from the Center of "Independant" Studies. Like the high tax ideologues here when they compare New Zealand's taxation to Australia's. the author failed to account for the massive fiscal overhead of Chinese provincial governments in his flawed statistics.  

How bad is the problem? It’s too early to say for sure. China has an ability to hide debts and nurse banks and state bodies along that would be considered insolvent in a more open and transparent commercial environment. Victor Shih, a professor at Northwestern University, is forecasting government debt to hit 96% of GDP as infrastructure projects continue to eat up cash and produce negligible returns. “The worst case is a pretty large-scale financial crisis around 2012,” he is quoted as saying. “The slowdown would last two years and maybe longer.” Let’s hope for all of us it doesn’t come to that.

http://agmetalminer.com/2010/06/29/is-china-as-debt-laden-as-greece/

hey Hugh,

I'm sorry for belittling your friend who you obviously admire, but I have a major problem with people attacking government's interference in people's economic affairs on the grounds of economic efficiency rather than morality and justice as they should be. They are therefore forced to make absurd arguments which support political regimes like China, Hong Kong, and Singapore that are fundamentally at odds with their underlying moral philosophy. Luckily for them, the Progressive Left are likewise beset with their fair share of ideological inconsistencies as well so they're unable to call your friend and his like up on their logical flaws. 

I hope you're correct that New Zealander's will learn to address the fundamental structural imbalances in the economy, but I don't hold much hope for that, because there are just too many people who are quite satisfied with the current way of things. Bankers, property investors, house flippers, realtors, the media, and likely the whole political class (they likely all have rental houses). 

I thought you may like the article below, which you may find imformative. 

http://www.theage.com.au/business/wanted-a-new-economic-theory-20090206-7z7h.html

An Economist that I really admire is Mason Gaffney, that has a good grasp of the problems that beset our society though I'm not sure I'd uncritically support some of the policies which he advocates to address them. This is in my view, the best of his publications.

http://www.masongaffney.org/publications/I1Full_Employment_Limited_Land_&_Capital.CV.pdf

 

Looks like there is no need to prepare that spot under the bridge just yet, for me anyway.

 

Hu, bill English is clearly a man who is all talk and no action - a big disappointment

These QV figures are incomparable with any previous figures, because:

"Auckland homeowners can expect their house valuations to shift by up to 10 per cent after the largest ever property revaluation in New Zealand. The revaluations, due to be mailed to owners from October 27, bring all 516,000 properties within the Auckland Council area into the same valuation cycle.The previous valuations, conducted by the disestablished councils that make up the super city, were done in 2007, 2008 or 2009...."

Ultimately, only the actual transaction price is relevant to 'value,' as it represents what a buyer is willing to, or is able to pay, for a property. Not what either a willing or unwilling vendors asks for, or an 'independent' body estimates it is worth.

 

 

No, no, no...A property is worth whatever the seller and his brother-in-law says it's worth.

Anyone who declines the honour of paying that asking price obviously doesn't understand the property market.

Nigel Mayson & Olly Newland got it right.

Everyone else got it wrong. 

Anyone prepared to apologise? 

"Shame on all you doom merchants
October 23, 2009 by Nigel Mayson <

I think I’m right in saying Gareth Morgan predicted up to a 40% decline in the property market? It was certainly a big number. Bernard Hickey predicted a 30% decline in house prices by 2010. From the market peak. He recently back-peddled and halved his predicted decline to 15%…..by 2012 this time. Kieren Trass said property prices could still fall by another 15%…..on the basis that overseas markets declined by up to 40%.

In May this year Treasury (with all their resources and intellectual horsepower) forecast that property prices would fall by a further 12%. They then admitted they were wrong and revised their outlook by saying they expected prices to in fact increase. Very wisely they didn’t commit to saying by how much this time!

The property market doomsayers assumed that the economic carnage seen in property markets elsewhere would be repeated here in New Zealand. Their predictions were not just wrong…they were woefully off the mark".

<http://capi.co.nz/2009/10/23/shame-on-all-you-doom-merchants/#respond>  

 

 

This Nigel Mayson ? I'd expect him to have the same views as Olly Newland, BigDaddy. And to be fair to Bernard, he did make his original call back in March 08, before the financial world exploded. And at that time the market was headed towards a 10% fall...and probably his 30% expectation. Arguably, the GFC ( as the Aussie call it) stalled the inevitable fall in New Zealand's property prices. It's not a matter of 'if, BigDaddy,' but.... 'when' and' how'...and most importantly...who's ready for it and who's going to profit from it! It won't be those with ownership, today.

The reality is, NA, that nobody knows for sure. As they say, it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future...

Professional economists often do not get it right, let alone those who are much less "in the know" (pun unintended). There are too many factors at play. For now, IMHO, property should remain a valuable component of one's diversified investment portfolio, with its weighting corrected up or down depending on what happens in the market / world.

You're right, ALex 13. No one, not even me :), knows what WILL happen. But here's the thing; it's about the ability to get it wrong, and survive, that's crucial, in a market like this. WE have never seen an economic environment like this, and probably never will again. So it's about risk and reward. If I am wrong, and property doubles, then I will have to pay twice  the amount I would today if I am so inclined, or keep renting. That means that I will need just double the10%  deposit money ( on a 90% LVR loan) to buy. But what would happen to those who are wrong about property maintaining its value and falling by a similar margin; halving, -50%. What would they be able to do to keep going? Most will have lost most if not all they have, or will ever have.

Dont forget the scenario where prices and rents double.

Coming soon(now) to a suburb near you.

(Well probably not near you, I mean to a suburb where people actually want to live)

So my rent goes to $1200 per week...no biggy...I was paying $1000 per week ten years ago ...in Christchurch, to boot...so rents doubling is only a cashflow item, SK, not a capital account issue. Leverage is great on the way up ( if you miss a rise in property, it only means you have to acquire more deposit; and as it's an appreciating item, it's only an opportunity capital cost that's lost) but leverage is a KILLER on the way down. It wipes out capital and cashflow. Me? I'm prepared for either, and expecting to benefit from one...:) Are you prepared, SK, for when or if you are wrong...

And if you back yourself to correctly pick a fairly obvious big rise (which is what seems to be happening in Auckland) - and have some leverage  - off you go to retire in Rio.

You take the double rent payment - others take Rio.

The Big Rise has happened in Auckland, SK. It happens bewteen 2001 and 2008. What has been purchased after 2008 has missed the accelarated capital gains stage. It has to have had. Simply because of the world we see about us. The days of 'unlimited' credit provisioon by the banks are over, for many reasons. And without 'more debt' the cycle, firstly, slows; comes to an end and then reverses. The debts that New Zealand has today, are yesterday's spending. And what are people doing? Paying down the mortgage; paying off debt. That's the best sign that asset price rises are over. And without wages rises, as you will find out, rents cannot rise in aggregate. Add in CPI rises and they are likely....to fall.

Dont let the facts get in the way mate - every Wednesday at Barfoots you can see shacks in inner Auckland going for 20 - 40% more than they did in 2008.

Is that not accelerated enough for you?

Its becoming common to pay around the 1mill mark for anything with 400+sq in those areas - no matter whats on the 400!

Give me the list of' the shacks' and I'll run them through Terranet and let you know what I think.

What you think?

You plan to explain the reason for each sale beating 2008 by 40%?

 

To that I say "meet the walking dead", financially, anyway.  When your assets are worth less than the debt attached to it...there you go.  Your options become limited...  Like NA, I might pay a little more (doubt it), but I won't lose everything when the prices go below the debt owed.  I believe we are seeing this now. 

 

You can interpret the tea leaves as you please.  I'm making plans for my family, that includes NOT buying for some time.  I don't think NZ is immune to the world's problems. 

True, but this holds for any significant financial investment decision one makes. Risk assessment has to be part of the decision making process (along with a number of other considerations).

What I find amusing is when somebody, instead of saying that something might happen, or is likely to happen, etc. claims that they know what will happen, often without a sensible or comprehensive enough justification for their opinion. Such claims usually are made from both sides. The downside of this is not only that such claims (and arguing that follows them) take up bandwidth, it is also in that some naive readers take those claims as gospel and let them to influence their financial decisions without critically processing those claims through the scrutiny of, and often instead of applying, their own judgement.

I don't know what you do, Alex13, but if you've ever traded an asset, might and likely, aren't words that inspire confidence or action. You have to know with every fibre of your being what will happen...otherwise you'll just sit on the fence..or worse...diversify !

"You have to know with every fibre of your being what will happen..."

You very seldom do so with investments, NA and this is why you assess (and mitigate) risks and - yes - diversify!

That may suit you, but not me. I choose to invest where I am paid to have a view, and accept the minimal return for being wrong, or the massive return for being right. At present it cost me far less ( pays me) to rent that own. So owning has only a downside for me, each and every week, and has done for nearly 4 years. As for diversifying; that to me is the same as saying "I don't know..." and thats' when I  choose to do...nothing.....

Where did you find investment opportunities where the price for being wrong is only "the minimal return" and the returns when getting it right are "massive"? Most often, massive returns potential comes with the risk of massive losses in case things go wrong...

Minimal return for me was locking in my cash from total sell-up of all other assets - property, shares, horse, cars and art- for 5 years at 8.9% in May 2008 ( actually I had a string of deposits from 1-5 years at 20% in each run, and each has been rolled for another 5 years at maturity - so the yield dribble down marginally) The massive return will be when those same assets fall invalue and I can pick and choose which ones I want to replace :) or choose another line of action. I don't see what that is other than cash, right now. The risk was that assets didn't fall (but  they have) and that minimal return was resticted to 8.9% pa and that I would have to re-buy at higher prices, if I needed to..

"That may suit you, but not me. I choose to invest where I am paid to have a view, and accept the minimal return for being wrong, or the massive return for being right. At present it cost me far less ( pays me) to rent that own. So owning has only a downside for me, each and every week, and has done for nearly 4 years. As for diversifying; that to me is the same as saying "I don't know..." and thats' when I  choose to do...nothing....."

 

well put.  couldn't agree more...

Here is what we can say i believe with a degree of certainty.  House prices in NZ are currently 5-6 times income in 10 years’ time they will be 2.5-3.5 times income.  How this comes about may be subject for debate but the numbers won’t be.  It could be through your wages inflating along with the cost of living while your property value stagnates.  Or it could be due to your house value decreasing, or a combination of the two.  There are just so many down side risks to property for the next 10-20 years that there is no way anything else is possible.  Ageing population, high debt levels, low growth etc etc By the way I belong to the next generation who will be relied on to buy your property’s and we are not going to do it at current prices. 

How old are you Realistic?

I note that you qualified your predictions by such words as "I believe" and “with a degree of certainty" - just in case some other readers decide to interpret your comment in a way as if you know what will happen.

When you buy a property, you are paying for the value of the land and the materials and labour required to build a house on that land. Many people do not have enough money upfront to pay for all that - hence the necessity to borrow and pay for the land, materials and labour values bit-by-bit over a reasonably long time period. As soon as the borrowing arrangement is available, the price-to-income ratio becomes a less strong factor in defining the price compared to the other factors at play, including supply and demand, the desire to "have your own home", competition with other buyers, immigration, etc. So, the conclusion is not such a slam dunk as it may seem…

"you qualified your predictions by such words as "I believe" and “with a degree of certainty"

Must be a climate scientist.

You must be one of the numbskull army that has no clue about how science actually works.

No scientist in any discipline would ever make an unqualified statement, unless it's to say "we have definitely ruled out the possibility of... Maybe..."

Science cannot prove that something "is", it can only demonstrate with a very high degree of certainty that something almost certainly "isn't". It's known as eliminating suspects.

Unlike scientists, mathematicians deal in proof. That's because they can. 1 + 1 = 2. Scientists don't have the luxury of proof. They have to make do with credible evidence.

Mate you are a rude blighter but you make a lot of sense and you give me a laugh some times!

Realistic View: says "I belong to the next generation who will be relied on to buy your properties and we are not going to do it at current prices"

That's the trouble with wide sweeping generalisations RV. Are you talking NZ generally, or a specific location, such as Auckland? If using AK as your model, you may need to build into your algorithm the possibility you will be outgunned by the wealthy migrants who will over-bid you everytime. 

You do realise that more than three quarters of the nation's population doesn't live in Auckland. Right?

"I don't think it matters how much resources you use - what matters is how much you can afford to pay!! "

Eh? Since when? If ability to pay was the case then rates would be based on one's INCOME.

No one from Council has asked me what my income is........or I must have missed the phone call...???

To extrapolate that arrogant attitude would mean the checkout operator should be able to gaing access to one's bank account at the checkout so a loaf of bread could be priced accordingly!!!!

Do you agree with that every time you go shopping? 

Many people are 'asset rich-cash poor' and with the blanket approach to how QV is arrived at, this creates much hardship. There has to be a better way of charging rates.

Like most taxes, richer people are charged more in rates than the poor. If you have a very expensive house but think you are poor, maybe you should sell that house and buy a cheaper one.

I think the rating system is very fair - much fairer than income tax is. e.g. a single person earning 50k is much better off than a family of 6 earning 60k but the family pays more tax.

Actually, because of WFF, a family of 6 with an income of 60k wouldn't pay any income tax at all..

 

1st thing first , Council collects rates not taxes

The council is set up to provide services to its people (i.e. rates payers).  They are not tax collector (although they are act like one sometimes).  Uniform and user charges should be a fairer system rather than based their revenue on some arbitary values of your property.  Beside, why should I have to sell down and move to another area because the council dictate whether I am able to pay or not.  They might as well tell me what clothes I am allowed to wear!

CM - I think most councils have a scheme whereby you can pay your rates in a reverse-equity type arrangement.  The accumulated bill becomes a charge on your estate.  Allows the asset rich/income poor retirees to stay put if that is what they want to do.

 

I believe this only applicable on folks on super..

It's interesting that I am here in Brisbane, by size Brisbane City Council is slightly larger than Auckland Council.  A similar property here would pay much much less rates than my current property in Auckland and yet the services provided are way more superior.  Most of the rates here are based on uniform charges and only small component of it is based on property value. 

I believe this only applicable on folks on super..

Well, that's a lot of people. And as the Baby Boomers begin to retire en-masse, it will be even more. Since the majority of residential property in New Zealand is owned by Baby Boomers and people already on superannuation, this will become hugely important.

same here in Adelaide, Moa

Interesting too here, Council consent fees are MUCH lower than NZ. A minor planning application here costs about $200 versus $2000 in Auckland

And with GST at 10%, and building costs much more competitive, the construction sector looks a lot better here than NZ

most kiwis don't know how much they are being ripped off

 

 

Rates are a form of tax - in England they call it council tax instead of rates. The council provides services to rate payers just like the Government provides services to tax payers. Taxes are never fair - the rich have to pay more because the poor simply couldn't afford to pay their 'fair' share.

Also I think you will find that those in the richer parts do actually get more from the council than the poorer parts - whether it be a nice new footpath or a well maintained set of local shops or the fact that they use the facilities in the city more because they live closer.

When you buy a house you are committing yourself to pay rates. To my knowledge the rating system has been based on the value of the property for a long time. So if you bought an above average house you can hardly complain about paying a lot of rates - you knew that when you bought it. If you bought an average house and it has become an expensive house - well you have made a whole lot of tax free money for doing nothing so again hardly worth complaining about. 

As to whether the council are ripping us off - well I am sure they are. Especially with building consents. I'm not big on privatisation but I do think they should privatise consents - basically when you do building work the only thing you need to do is pay for a 30 year insurance policy on that work. The insurance company decides how much that will cost and what inspections, materials, etc they will allow. There will be much less red tape - if it looks like you have done a good job and used good materials you will get insurance - if you have used some cardboard and done a bad job you won't (or you will have to pay a big premium). We could throw away all regulations completely. And when you buy a new house you can be comfortable in the knowledge that it is insured against building defects for 30 years.

 

Two points, Jimbo. In the UK,the tenant, not the landlord, pays the council tax, rates, in addition to the rent out of their wages; their after tax income .In New Zealand landlords pay the rates, and then offset them against  income, whether it be rent or other income, thereby  avoiding the tax implications that apply in the UK. That is but one illustration of how out of wack the NZ rental system is! And the other point ? The insurance company has to still be in busiess for the 30 years to honour any claim :)

 "privatise consents"....there goes your invite to the council xmas splurge Jimbo.

So QV are saying prices are falling in most regions with only 4 regions showing rises???

Even Wellington region is falling??  Bernard says Wellington is rising.   Presumably wellington city rose??

Has Bernard crossed over to the other side? 

Fact: qv property values rose 1.2% across NZ.
Prices also underpinned by low interest rates. It is now 40% cheaper to Service a mortgage than 2008.ipredict rates 90% chance of no Ocr rises in Dec & January. 70% chance of no Ocr rise in March.

And yet it still makes no sense to buy houses when they are so insanely overpriced.

House price only 1 factor. Loan servicing is the cheapest it has been for 30+ years.

Disingenuous.

For the majority of people, mortgages are long-term propositions.

When you pay too much for a house now, and interest rates rise later, and incomes are going backwards due to the rising cost of just about everything, it doesn't matter what the rates are now.

Or at least, not to intelligent people.

The usual suckers and fools may not think that way.

MortgageBelt

I would like to know your views on the wider global economic situation

Do you see the global problems blowing over and having minimal impact on NZ? Like john Key, do you think NZ is largely decoupled from the world at large? 

Because I don't - I think NZ will be affected significantly, and that we will see growing unemployment and another dip - perhaps 5 to 10% - in house prices

Whatever happens you can expect governments to print more money.   House prices have to be seen in the context of money devaluation.   Pretty soon Europe is going to be printing to cover italy or spain.  It is only a question of when and already NZ commodity prices are at record prices.   People holding cash are just going to be wiped out.

MIA. Yes think we have been fortunately insulated ESP cf to USA. But we may be flatlining for a while. In a way, a dip in house prices still good for SN owner occupier as mortgage rates likely to stay low as RB Government and banks want prop up prices. All you can do individual ly is to make yourself as valuable in ye job as possible. And no capital growth means you can't use your house as an ATM!

Nothing to stop you running mortgage for 15 years. Float low for next 2 years then fix for 5 years you're halfway there. No guarantee of prices dropping. If you work hard, upgrade your quals and network you should increase your income.

The problem is that the cost of living is rising faster than most people could ever realistically increase their income.

Not to mention the price of houses.

Actually for most working NZ-ers, e.g. teachers, police, sales reps, etc the last 3 years has been pretty good.  Their salary has gone up with cost of living increases, they may have moved through promotion or salary steps. Meanwhile their mortgage costs have gone way down.  They have been able to repay debt faster, or decrease repayments.  

From what I read here you guys sound like a bunch of moaners who can't afford an average $1.5M house in Parnell/Mt Eden/Herne Bay/Remuera/Epsom/Ponsonby/Westmere.  What a bunch of losers you lot are.

Not everyone are Assholes like you!!!!

doublegz don't judge! for all you know I might be the person living next door to you in that bigger house!

.

One of the basics of property that most seem to be missing is that "houses" themselves devalue. The only thing that increases in value is the land that the house sits on. (some exceptions but not many)

However a house "adds value" simply because it can produce an income from the land.

The reason land continues to rise is that generally they are not making any more of it. (again a few exceptions)

So that is why in cities like Auckland after 60 or so years houses are often demolished to make way for a new home, this is simply because of the rise in value of the land.

Hence apartments will not increase at the same rate as that of a house on a full size site simply because of the portion of land involved.

As long as you know what you are doing and don't get sucked in by over leveraging things property will be very kind to you over the long term and this is still a very good time to purchase, despite what other here might beleive.

As for the baby boomers selling everything up, rubbish! many like me are continuing to buy and I don't see that changing any time soon. Our challanging is training the next generation to handle the inheritance wisely so that they don't lose things but rather continue to build.

 

Land Tax, Gavin,, will put a hole in your calculations, each and every year. It will come in sooner or later; most other juristictions have it, and a Government in need of cash will seek it out there. And property only makes an income, when it is above the risk free rate of return, and by a margin to cover commercial risk. Buying now is not that. Just putting cash on term deposit has been a better bet for the last 5 years, and will continue to be so.

Gavin, agree with the challenge of keeping the wealth in future generations. Just researched my family tree and discovered a significant part of St. Heliers was owned by previous generations. Nothing left now, but perversely unwittingly bought back part of the original holding. My children and future generations will not have to do the same. We have to take a long term view. Some here seem to be obsessed by monthly price movements and the need to prove that they're visionaries. My vision is simply that my family has a place to call home and maintains its wealth as a buffer. What else than property can do that over the generations?

In a time when it is so difficult for so many in New Zealand to get a job let alone a decently paid job and for many to provide their families with the basics such as regular nourishing meals, it  annoys me we have to put up with the greedy contributors to this site who are so happy to think their properties in Auckland are rocketing up in price and further away from those who aspire to buy just a modest one to house their families in. The gleeful greedies should be concerned however with the news coming out of Italy, China and even Australia. This is not a good time to be holding a lot of assets outside of cash. Ask any retailer in New Zealand today about the current state of the economy and you will get a very negative response. When  a Noel Leeming store gets no customers in a single day and a Harvey Norman store is reducing staff hours you know things are getting tight out there.

…an avalanche of unemployment after Christmas - but not only here in New Zealand.

How much economic knowledge do our members of parliament have - telling us of 170’000 new jobs or are they just - under the "election toudimudi" lying to us - again ?

...and considering the world- wide problems - how much more billions do they spend, leading us, NZfamilies and our country into bankruptcy ? Do they really know what’s coming ?

Now now Walter...you're getting all worked up again....have a cuppa tea.

Wolly - honestly -  as the PM I would at least sack 4-5 ministers including the minister of Tourism - because of underperforming and not telling the public, what is really happening.

Walter for hecks sake...the PM is the Minister for tourism!...sack yourself by all means.

Wolly - is a little joke too much for you ?

Of course he should be sacked as well - the PM not performing- neither as PM,  then as minister of tourism.

It’s not a good time to buy because for the majority of people that means borrowing at least 80% on a house which is quite possibly over priced by at least 50% compared to long term averages.  What does this mean for NZ, each house that is brought means that we increase our overall debt levels a little bit more.   Who do we owe this money to? Foreigners that’s who, debt on land that we always owned as a country but since we went crazy bidding up each other’s prices is now in essence owned by those foreigners who lent us the money. (take farm land for instance, my grandfather owend it in 1940with no debt, now if I want to buy it I need to take a loan from the Chinese, or whoever, to cover the 6mil price tag)

 What stupidity!!!!!!! 

One word there RV....this debt fiasco is likely to see the liars flood the place with paper and do the debasement trickery in one hit...and that would mean your cash in the bank will drop in buying power overnight...QED better to flick the toilet paper for good land now .

Remember what Alan said...he has the "nuclear option" ready to go......!

Whatever QE is done, Wolly, it won't get to Mainstreet. The only paper that gets there, will be the bill; the higher taxes and the austrity measures that will be imposed on citizens to repay the QE debt created by Governments to replace the last lot of debt. It's a sovereign debt consolidation, if you like! And in those circumstances, cash in the bank will be worth far more...even at 0%...as the taxes and austerity will drive all asset price... and wages, lower...

NB: I see the RBNZ has delayed the bank capitisation plans by 6 months...in effect lower interest rates here, as the need to redeploy bank capital, is delayed.

May be so Wolly but remember there are no winners with high inflation.  If Inflation goes too high interest rates will have to go up, eventually AB will have no choice, and there are so many in NZ who are only just meeting their repayments as it is.  So even with my cash having devalued it will still go a long way at those mortgagee sales.

 

Anyhow what’s the alternative to cash, a bright metal that we dig up and store for no real reason, don’t think so. 

Wrong RV....the winners are those who flipped the toilet paper for the land, or the boat....and the alternative to cash is to barter...my eggs for a leg of your pig....spuds for fruit....fish for firewood...any of the above for some labour to help mix the cement or paint the boat....

Haha Wolly, as nice as that sounds unfortunately a world with a population of 7Bill will not survive on barter trade.  That would be the end of life as we know it, productivity would drop to levels not seen since last century and billions would starve to death.  Not saying that it won’t happen, just that we have to fix the current system somehow.  

It has happened before RV....my points were about the local and the family level...but I would not be gobsmacked to see deals done on fresh water for oil...electric power for food....technology for gold....oops how did gold get in there...dang that's cooked the toilet paper goose....

I spotted this item in weekend newspaper. An investment of $10,000 in 2001 on a metal ore minining company (Australian of course).  It's now worth 12 millions. 

Propery investors.. beat that!

Fortesque Metals, Chairman Moa? One of my closest friends, and his friend Andrew, formed that company in the late 90's after a rather disasterous start in metals at Anoconda Nickle. Peristance pays off.....! Andrew is worth about $5 billion, these days, so I guess he kept his shares.

Yes it was.. NA