RBNZ points out its new tools could be used for 'targeted interventions' such as on housing investors

RBNZ points out its new tools could be used for 'targeted interventions' such as on housing investors

The Reserve Bank is floating the idea of using its so-called macro-prudential tools to target housing investors.

The direct suggestion of doing this comes in an article in the latest Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bulletin by Lamorna Rogers, an advisor on macro-financial stability at the Reserve Bank. This comes hot on the heels of a Reserve Bank consultation paper issued last Friday, which raised the prospect of changing the treatment by banks, under capital adequacy rules, of various types of loans.

In the consultation paper the Reserve Bank suggested if the borrower is dependent on the income generated by the residential property dwellings to make principal and interest repayments, then the loan would be treated as a business rather than a residential mortgage loan.

Another option it floated is setting a limit on the number of dwellings that can be included in a residential mortgage loan. Under this option, if there are more than four dwellings used as security by the borrower, then the loan exposure(s) is business rather than a residential mortgage.

Such moves would mean the banks having to hold more capital against these loans, with banks' potentially passing on their increased costs to customers and/or possibly doing less of this type of lending. Also see David Hargreaves' commentary here.

One of the four macro-prudential tools in the Reserve Bank's arsenal, following a memorandum of understanding with Finance Minister Bill English in May, is the ability to adjust sectoral capital requirements, or increase the amount of capital banks hold against loans to specific sectors where the Reserve Bank sees sector-specific risks.

In her Bulletin article Rogers writes that the Reserve Bank's recent decision to impose loan-to-value ratio (LVR) restrictions on residential mortgage lending was driven by risks surrounding  the housing market, and the likely greater effectiveness of LVR restrictions in dampening housing demand than other instruments.

"Instrument selection feeds into and overlaps with the implementation of the macro-prudential instrument(s). For example, it might be decided to target the intervention to reduce welfare costs, assuming it was still possible to meet a minimum effectiveness threshold. An example would be targeting housing investors," Rogers suggests.

"The Reserve Bank is improving its capacity to undertake targeted interventions. For example, new data collections are being put in place, which will provide breakdowns of housing lending by categories such as investors, first home buyers and businesses."

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.


Aw gees Olly you'd better come read this...... from CGT's to RBNZ's looks like a pincer move to gather in the tax dodgers.

Determined government initiatives to increase the housing stock, LVR restrictions, rising interest rates, cracking down on property investors and to top it all off losing the America's Cup, could be interesting times for house prices!! :)

Just what I was thinking Mark.
Government needs to pull the feeverish speculation out of the market and get back to values that are in line with the people who work and live local economy.

hopefully the government plays along, rather than coming up with some dodgy policies that undoes what the RBNZ is trying to do

Zanyzane was on Olly's CGT article spouting forth that providing rentals is a business. Presumably, he will be happy that the RBNZ agrees with him.

Given the RBNZ did follow thorugh with the LVR limit, it will be interesting to see what happens with this idea. 
Will be much screaming and gnashing of teeth I suspect.

Especially from those who are unable to hold down an actual job....they can pull carrots....
Kind of looking dodgy for speculators out there, Green's and Labour nd now the RB wanting to target them.....

Rug pulled out metre by metre - go you good thing, Graeme.

yes, its a bit uplifting that the RBNZ is FINALLY doing something valuable!!!

... but they arent actually doing anything at present... just talking, which is what reserve banks are best at of course.... still they maybe able to jawbone the froth out of the market without actually doing anything more...

Isn't that what exactly what we all were saying when they were talking about LVR limits?

Probably MM. But as it relates to the vast majority of property investors I dont think the LVR limits have made any difference to them, as most have a tonne of equity in their own homes. Its the first home buyers who will have to rent for longer while they save their first deposit who bear this burden.

Haha...   you people...  clutching at straws.  Before you start celebrating I'd read the details. 
95% of PIs have less than 4 properties in a portfolio.  So not effected. 
"banks' potentially passing on their increased costs to customers and/or possibly doing less of this type of lending" - key words, potentially and possibly.  Name me a bank that wants to lose market share?
There is a shortage of properties in Auckland to rent and buy, you make 5% of PIs sell, the remaining 95% enjoy higher rents.  From this announcement they also hear, more stable banks and more stable investors = more stable market and a better place to invest.
The only thing that will stop prices going up in Auckland is to dramatically increase the supply and/or stop immigration.  Tinkering will do little. 

Yep, its going to make little difference, which is why the limit of 4  properties will have to probably be reduced to 2 or 3 if its going to have any effect at all on the overall market... still its just a discussion at this point... and rents will rise and the cost benefit of renting vs owning will swing in ownings favor, a good thing I believe...

"renting vs owning will swing in ownings favor"  and you will have more demand to buy the same short supply of properties and prices go up.  Buyers already have more of a deposit to save thanks to LVR restrictions, and now they will have higher rents to pay while they save.  And when they finally have a sufficient deposit they have to compete with 1m more immigrants. 
Which ever way you 'swing' it PIs win. 

and as prices rises its relatively cheaper to rent and so the cycle goes on regardless of what they do... and as interest rates rise demand for rentals grows... Which is why I think they should ring fence property losses and at least end the taxpayer subsidy to PIs and put them on a level playing field with home buyers, beyond that I dont think the govt can make much difference, and even that will not make a huge difference in the long run...

Even if they have less than 4 they still may be caught out by the provision of whether it makes income (as Simon points out below).
Will this also impact holiday home owners who rent out their homes when they aren't using them, will this define those loans as 'business loans' as well?

I think its highly unlikely they will actually enact that for a whole host of reasons.
As an accountant I can think of ways around it just off the top of my head for most PIs, and it would change  every time the interest rate changed... doesnt make sense in practise....

Out of interest what reasons, and aside from claiming not to be renting out property (which is tantamount to fraud) how would you get around an income provision?

Well I guess its problematic, to start with whose income do we include? And over what time frame is that income assessed? How do we actually determine if they can afford principle and interest repayments or not?
Take me for example. I live in my own house that has no debt owing, so I dont pay rent either, as would be the case for many thousands of NZers. If I add my wifes income to mine the 3 rentals I own, I actually could pay the mortgage without any rent coming in, thousands of property investers with 1 or 2 rentals would say the same thing. How about a couple who buy a rental based on their combined income and then the wife goes on maturnity leave - does that mean the loan changes to a business loan? Who monitors this?At what rate/term is the principal supposed to be repaid? What if I had a loan on my own place - changed it to interest only and took in a border, I've just increased what I can afford, then kick out my border - does my loan change to a business loan? What if I resign my job and are without personal income for go on holiday and then look for another job - does my loan change to a business loan then? And when would it change back?. And as house prices go up whats to stop me refinancing and paying for the repayments that way? Do you count capital gain on my own home as income, as it changes my equity, therefore changes my borrowing power therefore changes what I can afford? And how about if I borrow money from my parents (or anyone, or another lender) for a deposit so that I can afford the reduced mortgage amount - is that included? And if interest rates go up at what point does it change to a business loan? How do you see this working? How many property investors - most of whom, like me, aren't highly geared do you think it will be effecting?
My point is that in real life it just becomes so very complex. It would be much simplier for the RBNZ to set an LVR limit of say 70% for rental investment houses and to treat anything above that as a business loan (or easier just cap it at that full stop), and even that would not be without problems.

They may be caught out but what if the bank doesn't change the terms of thier loan because they don't want to lose the business?  What if they're fixed?  So nothing changes. 
Even if some sell you are just bringing me back to my original point, the less rental properties there are out there the higher rents go, PIs win.  A supply shortage is only fixed by increasing supply. 

Regardless of whether banks want to not lose the business; if the Reserve Bank makes it a condition of the registration they simply will not have a choice in the matter.
If the supply of rentals is reduced, short of demolishing the house, that still leaves the same amount of properties available; it will either be bought by an occupier (freeing up another rental) or by another investor.
The Reserve Bank is playing an interesting game, taking aim quite pointedly at the demand for credit.

Exactly, every time any policy action is discussed all the PI's come out saying "rents will go up!" which is utter rubbish.  
The only thing that makes rents go up is an increasing shortage of housing stock or fewer people occupying each house.  
Policy changes do not make houses or people living in them disappear, what they do is change the desirability of renting vs owning at current prices.  What adjusts is the PRICE not the number houses or the number of people!

? I didn't say rents can't go up, I simply said they are determined by the imbalance between the supply and demand of housing stock.  Not by policy changes such as CGT, LVR, capital ratios etc, those impact house prices not rents.

The question we should be asking is - who decided that PIs are to blame?  PIs provide a essential service, the supply of rental property.  There has been a concerted effort to portray PIs as the sole cause of Aucklands increasing house prices, this is factually incorrect.  The causes are overpopulation, lack of construction, artificial land shortages and Aucklands geography. 
It's just easy to point the finger at one group and say it's their fault not ours. 
I know lots of PIs and I promise you that not one of them is even blinking at these macro prudential tools.  Most PIs I know are switching up a gear.  As long as population is forecast to grow and houses are not being built, people will invest because capital gains are guaranteed.  What I'm saying is not popular because it makes people confront the hard reality that this is not a easy fix. 

and as a result a % of speculation, as a reuslt some ppl rent because they cannot afford to buy.  Ergo take out the specualtion and more will buy and less will rent.
In terms of shortages then we should see rents up as well, we dont its flat, suggesting an over-supply of rental property.

You are right on the caveman logic....sums up many property speculators admirably, though I'd suggest Neanderthal as yet more accurate.

steven, I respect your opinion, especially when it comes to property. 

I agree PI's are not to blame for lack of construction, land shortages etc. but they are clearly to blame for bidding up house prices further and further.
It's very simple, if PI's stopped turning up to auctions those houses would still sell. They would now sell at a lower price to the first time buyers in the room. That first time buyer would no longer need to rent!
Don't kid yourselves that you are providing a service, most of your tenants want to own not rent!  You are standing in the way like a giant leech, adding no value but squeezing money out of the first time buyer who is now forced to be your tenant!

You wont see too many PI's doing "new" urban residential builds and then renting them out. They prefer to let someone else do the dirty work. Then pick the eyes out of it. Parasites

Puketepapa - There is a difference between a Property Developer and Property Investor. Some developers might also be investors and vice versa.

Julz - it is human nature to lay blame on issues outside of ourselves BUT are those the real issues that are causing the problems?
If we wish to lay blame we must ensure that we have the facts and can prove our statements. Merely attending housing auctions and then blaming the PI's who are buying is not proof that the problem of unafforable house prices is created by them. PI's are in the exact same market as a FHB and must also compete against the forces that set the market.
It is in every PI's best interest to get value for money as they have a business to run. PI's have to keep their eye on far more real market issues than the average Joe Blogg homeowner who doesn't understand the NZ or Global business environment.
Ask the average Joe bloggs how much it costs to build per square meter and they wouldn't have a clue. Ask them other basic questions like how much the Council charges for building consents etc and they still don't have a clue and many are actually uninterested.
How many people actually have to go through the RMA process in their lifetime?  And how many people oppose applications for consents which all add to the cost of housing?
The realestate market is competitive and the prices have escalated simply because there are legislative and policy settings which have created distortions in the supply.
As long as people remain distracted and refuse to take a closer look at the real issues the longer the supply side is restricted.

No one is denying there are other issues contributing to higher house prices.  I'm reacting to the complete denial from all the PI's on here that they are also contributing to the problem.
It's very simple, buyers push prices up and sellers push them down.  If PI's are buying they are pushing prices up! Whether they are looking for bargains or not is completely irrelavent.  It still takes houses off the market and reduces the supply which forces prices up! 

Julz - The PI's are using houses for the rental market. Rental market demand is their business model.
Home owners and PI's compete in the same market for the stock that is available. Renters are generally in a lower income bracket so the PI always has to keep rents achievable in mind when pricing the stock plus other outgoings and debt servicing.
The Home owner buyer tends to look at the income they earn and what they can afford to borrow and the debt servicing costs of that borrowing plus outgoings (rates, insurances).
If you have 1000 homes for sale and only 500 buyers the price would decline. If you have 1000 buyers and 500 homes the price increases.
It doesn't matter what mix the percentage of buyers is in the PI and home owner mix it is the total buyers that is important to total stock available.

"It doesn't matter what mix the percentage of buyers is in the PI and home owner mix it is the total buyers that is important to total stock available."
I agree but of course if PI's stepped aside the total buyers would reduce and there would be more total stock available
"Rental market demand is their business model"
We all know rental demand is only part of the business model, if capital gains and tax breaks are attractive enough rent yields can be pushed lower and lower as price go higher and higher.  Rental demand is also heavily influenced by PI activity it is not removed from it.  As PI's out bid first time buyers they are creating a captive audiance who are now forced renters.

So...  how many houses have you built?  What have you contributed?
"Rental demand is also heavily influenced by PI activity it is not removed from it." PIs are almost solely responsible for providing this essential service. 

I'm not having a go at PI's for not contributing to society, I would be happy if they contributed nothing.  My issue is that they are leeching off society and dragging it down.
Half that rental demand might be an "essential service", the rest are first time buyers that are being gamed and locked out of the market by PI's.

So you've built nothing and contribute nothing, hmmm....
It's a shame that your blind hatred clouds your judgement. 

There is a difference between speaking out against injustice and hatred.  I have no hatred towards you or any other PI's.  I also did not say I have not built a house, some of us do not like to disclose personal details on public forums.

Jultz - If PI's stepped aside the total numbers of people requiring housing doesn't change. 
If the total numbers of people needing housing (renters and home owners) is 1000 and there is only 500 houses for sale you have the same problem, a shortage of supply.
All housing regardless of whether it is PI or Home owner gets the capital gain break. WFF and other housing supplements are also a tax break on those people receiving them and all home owners regardless of whether they are a PI or home owner get an increase in the value their property due to these distortions.
The tax breaks that people should be concerned about are Off-shore investors who through relevant tax treaties don't contribute to the NZ income tax system. I'm not going to get into the income tax system here and it's perceived effects. It is too large a topic to cover and any past posts I have made on this topic made me realise that a large number of people are ignorant of income tax legislation on business in NZ.
I am all for afforable housing but afforable housing requires a serious, honest and immediate commitement by all Politicians, bureaucrats, citizens and media. NZ needs to take immediate action and address the supply constraints issues. Builders should be forming their own material supply co-op and going head to head with the duopoly. Councils should be immediately sidelined and most of this zoning BS abandoned.
We have the fiasco of a housing shortage partly from the rigid heinous rules that came into effect from the leaky homes debacle. Many of those people who raced into building a house didn't do their due diligence on the products,the builders, architects and designers etc.   The whole industry was penalised by a few cowboys who are probably still operating.  Some brown cardigan wearing, beige mindset bureaucrats have been out of their depth and made recommendations that have been pushing house prices upwards ever since.
If you increase the housing stock and get a level of afforability into the market then ordinary home owners will be able to afford a house and the PI will have to adjust his'her expectations accordingly.
If people woke up in the morning and saw headlines in the news of build were you want now, the supply issues would be solved in no time. Everyone who had landbanked would get stuckin as they would know holding that land was going to cost them money.

I agree with this, it however doesn't change the fact that PI's are pushing up prices even further than they would otherwise be.  If they stepped aside yes there would still be a supply problem however houses price would be less elevated and they would trade at a lower multiple of wages than they do now.

Take it to the extreme, if 99% of property was owned by PI's there would be a huge number of potential first time buyers out there locked out of the market.  Are you honestly going to tell me that if a policy change forced PI's to sell house prices wouldn't come down?? are you trying to say that same policy change wouldn't help first time buyers get into their own home??

Jultz - If you have a housing shortage houses will not trade at a lower multiple of wages.
You will need to address far wider implications on the economy if a policy were ever to be implemented that forced PI's to sell their house stock.  Dumping any type of stock in a market has serious ramifications for the whole economy however there is a difference between an over-supply dumping and under-supply dumping.
Your last question "are you trying to say that same policy change wouldn't help first time buyers get into their own home??"  Do you mean "same" as in referring to your previous policy of forcing PI's to sell....or......is it a typo.....meant to be some policy change? if it iwas "some" I think I have already covered where change could occur.
If you did mean  same?.......please advise.
Most property in NZ is privately owned, so I don't think anyone is being locked out of any market participation.  Are you saying that changing a piece of legislation or policy to fit your chosen group is acceptable under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The NZ Bill of Rights and other documents that make up the NZ Constitutional framework is acceptable? Where does prohibiting something start and finish? Who defines what causes should merit interference?

Article 17.  Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
  • (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 29.

  • (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
  • (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
  • (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

^ Top

Article 30.

  • Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Now if we are going to solve the afforable housing we need to address the issues of supply and that means gettting the State out of the people's way so the people can enjoy the rights that they have been granted. This housing fiasco is State created.

If you have a lack of housing supply of 1% a policy that encourages PI's could cause that small imbalance to result in massive price increases.  A policy that deters PI's on the other hand would result in much more modest price increases.  Please tell me you accept that concept and stop trying convince me it is only about the lack of housing supply.  Property investors and policy that impacts their behaviour has a large role to play.
Yes I did meant "same" the policy change I was refering to in the previous sentence. I was of course refering to the policy being discussed here such as LVR, Captial ratios and CGT

PI's do not need to be in the market, there is no human right being trodden on if they are restricted from owning mulitple rental properties.


Hooray for common sense:
If the borrower is dependent on the income generated by the residential property dwellings to make principal and interest repayments, then the loan would be treated as a business rather than a residential mortgage loan.

Common sense..???   Really....  ??      What has happened to the idea of the relationship between  interest rates and risk..???
Since when did a Central Bank get so myopic that they start interfering in a particular mkt....I find it bizarre... 
Mortgages for house are what they are because of the "risk "....    Business loans are much higher because of the inherent "risk".
Banks love houses as collateral... because they are relatively liquid and  values tend to be sticky to the downside...    ie. they are a safe asset.
I have a brother in law who is rich....    he can get business loans and Mortgages for commercial properties at cheaper rates than I can get a home moprtgage...... He can negotiate with a bank because he is low risk and borrows large sums...
Isn't that what Capitalism and the free mkt is all about..????
I understand the logic of LVRs' in regards to prudential policy .( banking system stability)... But i can't make any sense of the Reserve Bank wanting to make a distiction between a house that is owner occupied or a house that is rented.....
Sounds very.."Big Brother" to me...... 

Whats a business rate and whats a household rate and what's a private rate  ?
Banks lend what they can and how they can lend on the day.  Not by artifical catagories.
Once upon a time, and a long time ago, the great lurk for the cunning and connected was to buy something wholesale.  Thats been gone for decades.  

Agree, loans are not charged by what the loan is for, but what it is secured by.
Higher risk = lower LVR and higher intetrest. Most business loans are riskier than property so pay a higher interest rate ( unless secured buy property. )
Property = low risk so will have higher LVR and lower interest rate whether it is called a business or a residential loan.
Will make absolutely no difference to call it a business loan or a property loan or a fried green tomatoes loan.

Agree. As a business customer my loans secured against residential property are treated just like any other residential loan, same rates etc. - even though I guess they are technically business loans. The only difference is my pre-approval for new loans to buy more property last 90 not 180 days. 
As a side note, after being a business customer for many years I wouldn't want to be a retail customer! So, this treatment of PI's as business customers could be a really good outcome for the PI's. Go RB!

Targetting invesotrs is just plain dumb , exactly who is going to provide housing rental stock ....The Taxpayer through Housing New Zealand?  
I think not , the state cannot afford that , both  fiscally and because it cannot afford to worsen the already burdensome  culture of dependancy  

PI's have never provided housing stock, they stand in between first time buyers and home ownership. While they are able to shut first time buyers out of the market they rent a house to them. The rental housing stock they provide is only required because PI's have bought those houses in the first place!

Calling me a coward and suggesting I give the ONE house that I live in away is not contributing to the debate.

It might surprise you but nearly everyone is looking to pay as little as possible when they buy a home, it's not just property investors who like bargains.
The point is irrelevant anyway, it's not what you pay for that one house that impacts the over all market.  What matters is that the property an investor buys is taken off the market resulting in more competition for fewer properties, that's what drives prices up.
The fact that you bought properties 10 years ago also changes nothing.  More properties tied up by investors = fewer owner occupiers = more first time buyers competing over fewer properties = higher prices.  
Imagine if 10% of the population owned all the houses as investment properties.  The remaining 90% of population aspiring to own a property would have to compete fiercely with each other if they wanted to secure one.  The current situation is worse in that investors are also competing for the remaining stock although granted they don't yet own 90%

That is so hilariously self-important.  Poor, poor, persecuted you.  Ridiculous drama queen much?

Yes some people choose to rent and yes we need some PI's to service that need.  My position is not an extreme one although to get my point across it may appear that way at times.  My issue is that the balance has tipped way too far towards investment properties and away from owner occupiers.  
The majority of renters do want their own home and would love the chance to clean up that mess and turn a do-up into their own home.  A chance you have now denied them.  
I'm all for policies that tip the balance back towards home ownership. Forgive me but I feel more sorry for the tennant locked out of the market than the Poor PI purchasing their third or fourth home.  No one is denying supply issues need to be addressed but let's not ignore the over investment in rental properties by PI's.

Jultz - it is not PI's who are denying FHB an opportunity to buy and do up their own home.
It is red tape and bureaucracy.
Many people have tried to point out to you the issues of supply and demand but you seem very unwilling to acknowledge the supply and demand issues.
Any policy that restricts supply causes prices to increase. Council restricts supply and the new LVR's are going to restrict credit. You need to broaden your perspective and understanding on these issues if you truely care about house prices or else you are a part of the problem.
People who do not believe in the free market as being the best model, develop and implement policy that creates supply and demand on a whim. They sell their policies to the ignorant people who believe in them on election day. It is emotional rubbish that has to capture a majority on election day.  We have a situation in NZ where one group of idiots on the opposition benches develop policies and target them at the lower  income populace and the current Government developing policy that assists big corporates.
There is not one Political party who develops policy that is respectful and equal for all people.  To develop such policy would require the absolute goal of abstaining from interventionist policy in all market areas.  Everything is supply and demand even idiots and intelligence is affected by these two factors.  If people have a problem with housing affordability then they had better look within themselves and see what and whom they have been electing.  It is people's dishonesty in not allowing freedom that has created the problems and the smart money has been able to take an advantage from those who are dishonest at election time. The Greens and Labour polluted the environment, sacrificed their supporters on the alter and ensured any clean-up was going to take years and years.  All this rubbish can only occur as idiots do not understand the fundamentals of the documents that make up NZ's constitutional framework.
Jultz if you take out PI's then you will create tent cities.

Zanyzane & notaneconomist - you make good points regarding all the other buyers out there who are pushing prices up and all the supply issues that also contribute to the unaffordability issue. I don't disagree with you but because of your personal interests you appear unable to see the significant impact that PI's are ALSO making.
The issue of excessing investment and speculation by PI's is the topic of this thread and is currently getting attention because it has been ignored for so long. I am not aware of any other country where property investment is without restrictions and without specific taxes of some kind. The simple fact is the percentage of home ownership is on the decrease and the percentage of investment properties is on the increase. Properties locked up by investors are no longer available to first time buyers, it's not rocket science!!
Neither of you seem to appreciate that in a supply constrained market any additional demand can cause prices to sky rocket. Why should we ignore the significant demand coming from property investors??

Jultz - You make an assumption that I have a personal interest in PI. I have a portfolia of investments none of which is currently invested in NZ rental property. Personally I believe residential property to be significantly over-valued but I do not see this over-valuation being corrected by any drop in prices now or in the future. The mechanisms at play will not allow any price correction. There are many influences that have affected pricing and these influences will not be dealt with so property will keep increasing.
PI are actually pretty low paid for all the work that is involved. PI requires a longer  time factor to get a good return but after a certain period can achieve reasonable results.
PI play a significant role in price stability as they factor in and analyse different data sets of information in the industry that the normal home-buyer doesn't consider.
NZ'ers need to consider having diversified portfolios and not keep all their eggs in the one basket in the one country. Too many people in NZ rely on their only time investment as being their job which holds them poor. 

Zanyzane wrote "Your emotional need to have that house at whatever cost"
Not in New Zealand. From the start of the week people may recall I had noticed that if you add up the added household borrowing in Ireland it explains all the prices rises in their housing boom, but if you add up all the added household borrowing in New Zealand at most it can only explain 1/3 of the rise in prices.
To add to that, to the end of this week I managed to put together a series of data for the U.S.A., and it shows exactly the same pattern as Ireland. It is the NZ housing market that is the different one. In NZ it is mathematically impossible for the majority of the increase in house prices to have come from borrowing in the same way as Ireland or the U.S.A.