Gen Ys becoming property orphans

Property

Gen Ys giving up on buying a house and loading up on credit card debt says Veda

23rd Sep 14, 12:37pm by Greg Ninness

Forget about buying a house and hit the credit cards says Gen Y <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/">Image sourced from Shutterstock.com</a>

Gen Ys are rapidly becoming property orphans as they give up on buying their own homes and load themselves up with debt to take holidays and fund other lifestyle purchases, according to credit analytics company Veda.

Veda describes the trend among Gen Ys (those aged below 28), which is drawn from credit inquiry information, as very concerning.

The credit inquiry statistics show that younger New Zealanders are no longer applying for mortgages at the rates seen in previous years, but are increasing their borrowing through personal loans and credit cards, indicating a shift in their credit habits.

"They are property orphans because their behaviour suggests they may be unable to save the 20% deposit required under the Reserve Bank's LVR restrictions and not helped by spiralling property prices," Veda NZ managing director John Roberts said.

Veda figures show that mortgage-related credit inquiries have declined for the last 11 months and across all age groups were down 30% in the three months to August compared with the same period last year.

However the GenYers mortgage inquiries were down the most at 32%, while their personal loan inquiries were up 12% in the same period and their credit card inquiries were up a whopping 20%.

"Potentially this could indicate a major structural change to the New Zealand economy as has played out in other jurisdictions such as Europe," Roberts said.

"It looks like Gen Y is seeking to borrow for purchase on consumer items or travel, and has given up, at least for the meantime, a desire for home ownership which may appear unattainable."

"They might be destined to be renters for life which is likely to have an impact on net savings for this group in New Zealand for years to come."

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

Our new free Property email newsletter brings you all the stories about residential and commercial property and the forces that move these huge markets. Sign up here.

To subscribe to our Property newsletter, enter your email address here. It's free.

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

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.

66 Comments

by gordon | 23rd Sep 14, 12:47pm 1411433248

"they want it now". " I have worked hard so I am entitled to treat myself "

I REST MY CASE YOUR HONOUR.

by raegun | 24th Sep 14, 6:31am 1411497067

House today in Auckland low price $450,000 time required to save the deposit given high rents probably about 7 years, price of same house in 7 years probably about $700,000 or so, deposit needed then under current regime $140,000 time need to save that about 10 years. Meanwhile woman is aging and childbearing years are getting later and later, relationship may not last the distance

How do expect people to deny life for 10 years or more while saving for a deposit that may still not be able to do the deed?

Gordon you do need to think a bit more, the ONLY thing that counts is how many years wages did it take for you to buy a house back when and how many it takes to buy one now. THAT IS THE ONLY THING it IS much much more nowadays

I rest my case

by The Bear | 24th Sep 14, 8:53am 1411505639

Raegun that's the truth. The underlying fact is that a house is only worth what it earns you: either rent if you let it out, or saved rent if you live in it. And rent is based on income.

Property prices in Auckland are currently ludicrious (vs rent and income) and the reasons are blatantly obvious, and arguably all at an inflection point for reversal:

1. Artificially low interest rates.

- low interest rates mean that a mortgage is cheaper to service, so you feel that you can borrow more.

- if you can borrow more, you can pay more, so this fuels house price rises (has clearly happened in NZ where our household debt ratios are now above where the Us was when it caused the global financial crisis)

- of course, given NZ mortgages are all at the "short end" of the term curve (ie max 5 years) the interest rates are more volatile in response to market changes in particular inflation here and in the US

- US rates are about to start a rising cycle, which has been well flagged by the Fed. This will (and has already) directly raise our fixed mortgage costs. More of this is to come. The only thing that would stop it is China and Europe both going into a depression and in that event we would also tank anyway.

- NZ floating rates, despite a recent lull, will also have to rise soon. The RBnZ will get nervous about inflation when e kiwi$ falls in response to rising USD and falling commodity prices next year

- once interest rates normalise (everything reverts to the mean...) then house prices will fall. Mathematical certainty as buyers cant afford to pay more.

2. Foreign buyers

- I'm certainly not against an open economy for trade and productive investment

- but you have to recognise (as all economists do) that prices are set at the margin. Ie if i have 10 identical houses and 10 identical buyers, and i add in another buyer, the price for at least one of the houses will rise

- so adding in foreign buyers for existing houses, even if only 3% per year (which would translate to probably around 6-7% in Auckland given concentration of interest there) does in fact cause prices to rise

- now the reality is that offshore buyers of NZ real estate are going to be wealthy and have access to exceptionally low interest rates (all the main markets, China, USA, UK still have central banks with "emergency rescue financing" interest rate structures which have depressed borrowing rates) so as to my point 1 above, they can bid prices up because they can borrow more (today)

- so we have a situation where offshore buyers are pushing prices up amd we have Nz buyers competing and the only way they can do this is by borrowing more.

- This is incredibly destructive for our country's economic prosperity. Trading existing homes doesn't create any additional GDP other than through fees to lawyers and etate agents. And this is far outweighed by the drag from disposable income being paid as interest offshore for 25 years.

- offshore demand may taper off as China keeps slowing and US rates rise, but in the interim it is wreaking untold damage on our nation's future wealth

And whilst we have a government that is pretty solid in most areas, they are out to lunch on housing. The current settings are very poor for our economy and are leading us into a housing bust. What we need them to do is take the heat out of demand by stopping offshore buyers and then Let the market settle as interest rates rise. Other countries have cottoned on to the fact that foreign buyers cause unwanted price pressure (Canada just changed its rules, Aussie is in the process of cracking down on evaders of their rules).

And National should shelve its home bubble (sorry, home start) policy. This is economically flawed (only serves to further leverage demand through a subsidy) and financially incompetent. Pension savings shouldn't be used to put into housing. We need a diversified savings base to maximise risk adjusted returns. Kiwisavers will be saving for 45years or more. Guess what, if you had put $1000 into the Us stock market 45 years ago and reinvested the dividends, this would now be worth around $80,000. The beauty of long term compounding.

by cowboy | 24th Sep 14, 11:50am 1411516217

or what you can make after living and then reselling it (eg doubling down).

Pension savings (and adverts for pensioner income) are effective because of the huge house price - on a fixed income (from a % of historical wages saved). By investing pensioner money into houses it's cheap necessary roof over their heads, otherwise they have be to paying enough to service a landlords asset based on modern asset value (ie yield-return or interest paid for purchase on a house).

A house paid off 10 years ago is housing cashflow cost of the same nearly uninflated figure as it's maintenace cost at purchase date 30 years ago !

vs

large percentage of pension to pay of todays interest on todays market price (+/- 5yrs).

by Muppet King | 24th Sep 14, 11:27am 1411514853

Thing is for any Gen Y's, complaining about it and reading rubbish like the articles how we are locked out isn't going to get you in your own home, only work will so best to stop bothering about whats in the media and get on with work.

I will say this though. I know of a rocket scientist who will not buy property in Auckland because its a ridiculous proposition and the gains of the last 20 years will not be had over the next 20. Also, when $500,000 won't get you a decent place in a decent area, or $1,000,000 only gets you a hut in a good area, something ain't right.

And yes the Baby Boomers are all to blame. It's all about the $ for you guys ain't it? Thats why you would rather sell all the houses to immigrants given half the chance because they will pay more. When this country is a chinese retirement village you'll only have yourselves to blame, and you'll probably be dead by that time so you won't be around to see it unfortunately.

Financial services makes up more of our yearly GDP than agriculture. Years ago we were a farming nation, thats what we were good at, and specialised in. Now we specialise in selling houses to each other, giving each other mortgages etc.

And thats why a lot of people are just going to move from NZ.

Oh by the way, some of the election billboards were in Mandarin. GRATZ

by Kate | 23rd Sep 14, 12:48pm 1411433328

And they've woken up to the No Assets Procedure.

Can you blame them? I don't.

A society which saddles bright young and ambitious people with student debt and at the same times fuels housing price rises deserves no respect.

by David Chaston | 23rd Sep 14, 1:00pm 1411434040

If you are referring to NAP (bankruptcy lite), then I am not sure you are right. These have fallen consistently from the first anniverary when they became available.

by Kate | 23rd Sep 14, 1:07pm 1411434436

Yep, that's it. It takes a while to build up the debt, lose the job and then file because you can't reasonably be expected to pay.

Point is, if you never intend to take out a mortgage, if credit card companies and deferred finance folks are happy to load you up with debt at excrutiatingly high interest rates, it's not a bad plan for consuming beyond your means in the here and now - provided you understand the legislation well, that is.

by two otherguys | 23rd Sep 14, 1:12pm 1411434737

Kate: You should ponder your second comment a little more. In the 3 years since the last election, at least 200,000+ youngsters came of age and became eligible voters, while at least 200,000 old-timers will have fallen of their perch

Yet less people voted this time around, and with the re-mix of the voting population, increased numbers voted for National, whose stated policies are to maintain the status-quo. So why are the newly eligible cohort voting to maintain the noose around their neck?

by Kate | 23rd Sep 14, 1:14pm 1411434896

Because times are good in that consumer credit is in abundant supply.

by fat pat | 23rd Sep 14, 12:51pm 1411433508

Surprise surprise! All those foreigners with their ZIRP, NIRP, and QE cheap money are buying all the property. But what are they actually buying? Of course they’re buying the future earning potential of Gen X and Y New Zealanders, doctors lawyers, accountants, engineers.

Same story with farms, foreigners are buying the future earning potential derived from the country’s main primary export. Oh never mind I guess we’ve still got the massive finance sector to earn money for the country. Oh wait, that doesn’t actually generate money does it, it’s just a cost of business.

by fat pat | 23rd Sep 14, 12:59pm 1411433972

When those Gen X and Y's get into their mid 40's the bank will no longer give them a loan to buy a house. Tthey will rent for the rest of their lives and the wealth transfer will be complete.

by cowboy | 24th Sep 14, 11:53am 1411516396

actually getting a house is easier at the 40's level - provided you can still get life assurance cover. I think it's because they're sure it's the large interest sale they can make to you for the rest of your life - got to get their sale money before someone else does...and any sale on the day is better than no sale

by James007 | 23rd Sep 14, 12:49pm 1411433386

They don't have to worry - their parents own investment properties that will be passed onto to them!! And/or they are beneficeries of trusts and they will get the goodies that way.

Party now and pay off the debt later when they sell their inheritance!!

by Kate | 23rd Sep 14, 1:08pm 1411434526

Exactly - and in the interim, if the inheritance takes a bit long to come through you can declare bankrupcy using the No Asset Procedure and have your consumption debt wiped.

by James007 | 23rd Sep 14, 2:20pm 1411438812

I see that you have this process sorted. Tried it too?

by Kate | 23rd Sep 14, 10:34pm 1411468491

Sort of. We definitely lived way beyond our means making use of a credit card debt during those 20-30yo years when our kids were young. Had the boat, the cars, the overseas holidays .. the lot. Thing was, we also bought and sold houses alot - making untaxed capital gains on the way through and paid off the cards in full with those profits. Then spent up large again, rinse and repeat.

The other thing was - jobs were so plentiful that if you needed more money, you just changed your employer. I never worked anywhere for more than five years in a row up until 2004 - so most of myt working life that is.

I realise this would sound like a fantasy to most 20-30 year olds today - and I feel bad about that. They have been screwed royally by the boomers-in-charge and most folks my age continue to vote to keep screwing them into the future. It as plain as day to see - the 20-30yo of today just won't have it as good or as easy as we 50+ year olds did when we were their age.

A mortgage debt in NZ stays with you if you default - consumer debt doesn't (provided you have no assets). There are likely to be a whole lotta people that will wish they never took out a mortgage one day, if a US bubble-type burst ever reaches our shores.

Renting and living it up is the safest place to be if you're 20-something, I'd say.

by Kirsty | 24th Sep 14, 9:39am 1411508390

Know of people in USA with student loan debt doing something similar. In the USA, like here, you can't go bankrupt and wipe the student loan, it stays as a debt....but you can easily get heaps of consumer debt through credit cards. Using multiple credit cards to payoff the student loan has become common, you then go bankruupt on the consumer debt. There is an upper figure to get something similar to NZ's 'no asset' bankruptcy (i.e. no more than $40,000 I think it is), but what an easy 'out' for the younger generations.

by Kate | 24th Sep 14, 10:34am 1411511641

Yes the threshold here for the No Asset Procedure is $40,000. It's not really an easy out, because bankrupcy, even in its "lite" form is difficult, brings with it limitations and consequences - so one has to weigh up all these things in a rational manner. And as I've said before, a thorough understanding of the law.

by Kirsty | 24th Sep 14, 11:04am 1411513464

I'm not disagreeing with you. It just that in the states there are individuals that have student loan debt that are paying it off to a certin extent by using the 'bankruptcy lite' equivalent laws. They are racking up the consumer debt, using it to pay off the student laon debt (which you can not escape via bankruptcy) and then going bankrupt on the consumer debt (credit cards). I just don't know what that 'bankruptcy lite' $ figure is. But if you know the law (in the USA) and are happy with the consequences, then some people are finding that its an easy out from a lot of student loan debt.

by Kate | 24th Sep 14, 11:22am 1411514569

Yes, a completely rational decision for some - especially those who did the study, incurred the debt and cannot find a graduate level pay in terms of employment post qualification. I've read over there that many with degrees are working on minimum wages - which are really, really low in the US. Plus, I beleive, their student debt has interest charged. So, yes, desperate times/desperate measures. And I don't blame the young for looking to use/abuse the system to their advantage. That's what 'rational' high earning adults do to minimise their taxes - and it is this wide-spread acceptance of tax minimisation schemes that made free education at tertiary level "unaffordable" in the first place.

by cowboy | 24th Sep 14, 1:22pm 1411521749

I'll go full CGT support...when they back date it to all sales last 150 yrs.

Similar to the dairy...the people able to afford the modern gear, aren't those trying to start now, they the ones that profited most when they didn't have the rules. I think it's more than a bit rude to penalise new folk doing a great job, when compared to others who made their cash when those rules weren't around - if they had 50yrs low overhead, why should current generation get punished.

Same goes for student fees/loans.... should be levied equally, not just against today's students.

Not talking "use of money" or any gouge like that - just if this is the cost, you had the benefit of lower cost, then pay up if you support the new cost.

by Kate | 24th Sep 14, 3:20pm 1411528812

I'm more in favour of Gareth Morgan's Big Kahuna model of comprehensive capital tax (as opposed to CGT) - and I think it would likely solve the problems you mention about the new rules around dairying/effluent treatment. Ex-farmers who have cashed in and taken high capital gains based on lower outgoings would find whatever investment type they had chosen for the purposes of reinvestment of that capital - if the returns on that type of investment aren't good enough to be considered productive - then there is CCT to be paid. I think CCT would focus, not only farming but other industries away from volume (as a goal of) production (a numbers game) and in to managing the business with an eye on maximising the ROI.

by cowboy | 24th Sep 14, 3:32pm 1411529549

It's not so much the ex-farmers and ex-building owners. Although they indeed in the crosshairs

But it's also...and to pick a name as the advertisement/promotion is sitting in my mail.

Murray Jamieson - of DairyNZ. 30 years farming high and low input systems, Multiple farming awards, provides advice to Lincoln, MPI, Corporates, Iwi. yadda yadda...

"We cannot deny the constant march of progress, and we can either adapt, fall behind, in my view, lead from the front" - Quoted from this mornings DairyNZ board of directors Election material.

- -

So here's a guy with 30yrs profits (on and off farm) from rough practice and question practice tough hiring hours, inductions, grazings creeks and river sides, low push on effluent practice - not to say he didn't do well. Nor do we know how he came into his dairy holding..from the bottom with 3yrs as a farm labourer? as a transfer from average wage job?

Now he's saying to the new folk, you got to pay all the bills AND buy all the new toys/rules to keep up.

And as this mornings announcement of $5.30 projected payout proves. DairyNZ isn't adding any profitability down at the farmgate, to pay for all those must have toys/rules. So the only decent thing is to go over Murrays old records and make him catch up on all the cost structure he's propsing for others. After all if it's good enough to force on todays generation, then it's good enough to expect those who have lined their pockets with cheap practice in the past to match. Especially in someone like Murray's situation, whether he's professionally advocating for high costs structures (rather than generational profitability)

by Value Added | 24th Sep 14, 5:16pm 1411535807

Thanks Kate - your comments are quite refreshing. Most of the time I'm told by 50+ people that it's completely my fault for not owning my own house. They like to tell me I drink too much, smoke too much, buy big screen tvs, BMW's and that it's my fault. For the record, I don't smoke, I brew my own beer, I don't own a TV and I walk or bus to work.

Another thing I'm accused of is "setting my sights too high". I'm quite open to purchasing a "do up" in an outer suburb of auckland or even a small apartment but I see the likes of yourself and others warning that the market is overpriced.

We're not stupid, we're not lazy - we just don't want to walk blindly into massive debt and potentially end up negative equity. It could end up crippling us for life.

by Kate | 24th Sep 14, 5:39pm 1411537151

You're welcome. When I look around at all my BBer friends - and then their children - I honestly can't say I've seen any of their children doing as well as their parents did at the same age. And moreover, when I look again at these same BBer friends, I note that without exception they did better than their parents. We (the BBers) in the Western world benefitted from the rise of the middle class on the back of our parents and then turned around when it was out time in government and destroyed it.

I find that inexcusable - particularly for my grandchildren if indeed the erosion of the middle classes keeps going at pace.

Given my vote to halt that erosion in this election didn't work - I'm taking to the streets.

by gordon | 23rd Sep 14, 2:26pm 1411439169

And ruin your future credit rating! You make it sound so wonderful as if it's just like winning Lotto. I can only imagine many of those who have been through the process will regret as there are consequences.

by Jamin | 23rd Sep 14, 12:51pm 1411433494

I watched a talk Warren Buffet gave to a university audience. He said the only general advice he could give to all young people was "don't get a credit card" It's a shame more young people from NZ don't take his advice.

by Stephen Hulme | 23rd Sep 14, 3:00pm 1411441243

He also claimed he paid less tax than his secretary.

by two otherguys | 23rd Sep 14, 3:09pm 1411441752

No, he actuallly said he paid a lower "rate" of tax than his secretary - big difference

by Stephen Hulme | 23rd Sep 14, 3:15pm 1411442140

Yes, you are right - my apologies.

by Basel Brush III | 23rd Sep 14, 1:35pm 1411436132

Currently in Oz.

In The Australian today they are looking to fine RE agents, lawyers, accountants if they fail to report illegitimate buying by (mainly Chinese) non residents.

They already can fine up to $85k for foreign buying per tranasaction but the Chinese regard this as "buying risk" that they are prepared to take.

Meanwhile NZ has no restraints at all.

Boom boom Basel.

by Zoltuger | 23rd Sep 14, 2:16pm 1411438592

Article in Saturday's Herald titled "Kiwis pack bags for several trips away a year"

So certainly if you're spending money on several overseas trips a year, you can't afford a house. As a Gen Y myself, I don't desire travel at all, so I have a 30% deposit ready for my first home. Whereas my wife demands travel at least annually, so naturally she has no money to contribute to the home.

by Flatcap | 23rd Sep 14, 2:33pm 1411439615

I always thought in a marriage that "Whats yours is hers, and whats hers is hers"

by sadr001 | 23rd Sep 14, 2:50pm 1411440642

Couple of houses first, 1 to live in 1 to rent, then travel in your thirties sounds like an excellent plan!

by cowboy | 24th Sep 14, 3:47pm 1411530421

why should she? When you split up she'll be entitled to half of everything the two of you own.

She's consumered hers, heaven forbid you should be that nasty man who casts a wife out with nothing (even if like my ex, she was the one who spent it all)

by gordon | 23rd Sep 14, 2:43pm 1411440212

One of the main reasons I could retire at 58 is because my wife and I were on the same page money matters wise and because our monies have always been joint. Any major purchase or investment was a joint decision.

by Zombie ponzi | 23rd Sep 14, 2:48pm 1411440501

Veda's MD makes some good balanced points.

It will be very interesting to see how banks maintain credit growth over the longer term with GenY not able/willing to save a deposit and take out a mortgage.

My pick is NZ continues to sell itself (to keep property prices inflated) or prices correct massively to a multiple where GenY can afford to buy (in 10+ years time).

by cowboy | 24th Sep 14, 3:58pm 1411531133

They're repositioning with a subscription/services model, rather than a capital model. Same as newpapers and media do.

The next step they'll make is the same. The banks incomes will not come from interest returns on assets of the majority (ie each kiwi with a home), nor will it be from services (bank fees). It's started now, but they'll be providing services via App and connectivity... and just like what you see down the side of your screen here on Interest.co.nz, the income will be from selling blocks of access to (datamined, focussed) customers. the apps will be free, the access will be low cost, so the big business will be paying big advertising bills to get preferrential access and perferrential financing. That way the service is controlled by the providers, and the cost is completely spread across the customer population, whether they wanted to buy or not.

Flybuys style groups will have the sales power, with groups like that have "Killer App" products and services in their Group. You won't be selecting a bank, or a shop - your App (like iTunes or Flybuys) will have a group of service providers that are paying the bank to be part of the group and providing their group with promotional discounts, social support and freebies. Fail to supply, and you'll be the Edsel or Betamax of the age.

by rastus1 | 23rd Sep 14, 3:09pm 1411441791

...I can empathise with them.....just maybe they are getting warn down with the continued bad news ..be it war, famine, terorists, enviromental degrdation, student debt, exploding house prices, stagnant wages and so on.

I had little of this in my youth...but not so sure i would be the Mr Frugal I was as a teen as i would be in todays mad world. Its not for us from days gone by to caste judgement on them - we are leaving them with a world in a pretty sad state.

by Kate | 23rd Sep 14, 10:51pm 1411469496

Well said.

by Jamin | 23rd Sep 14, 4:18pm 1411445898

I'm 35 so just out of the gen Y age group. I think it's become so normal to do an OE now, that most people want to do this first and think about buying a house when they get back to NZ. Whether you think this is right or wrong, I'm pretty sure this is what the data is showing. I didn't even think about buying a house until I was 31. Now I have two. People are simply buying a house...having kids 8 - 10 years later.

by Value Added | 24th Sep 14, 5:21pm 1411536119

This is quite common - many friends of mine who bought four years ago now have a home and a rental. I only got back from overseas late last year and it felt like the horse had already bolted.

There is a major split in my friend group - those that bought 4/5 years ago are extremely sound financially, many with two houses. Those that were still travelling during that period and got back recently feel priced out of the market.

by Jamin | 25th Sep 14, 10:18am 1411597096

Probably worth mentioning the rental I own is in Dunedin, while the hosue I live in is in Queenstown. Big price difference and rental yield. Dunedin is a great place to own a rental. Getting just over 8% yield there. I couldn't have afforded to buy a home and a rental in Queenstown.

Might be worth mentioning how I bought the house in Queenstown. Private sale. This is the BEST way to buy. I paid in two installments, plus part of the payment was to let the current owner live on for six months rent free while he found somewhere else ( am currently doing the six months now....it's very tight but in December Ill have my dream home ) When buying priavtly you can negotiate anything you want. If I bought this the normal way I wouldn't have been able to afford it.

by Chairman Moa | 23rd Sep 14, 4:25pm 1411446340

what's wrong with this? perfectly good 1st home.

http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction…

by Gummy Bear Hero | 23rd Sep 14, 10:20pm 1411467602

... what's wrong ? ... they slipped and accidently put a " 5 " on the front of that figure , instead of a " " 2 " ...

It is $ 215 000 ..... isn't it ! ..... it couldn't possibly be $ 515 000 ...

... aw come on .... you're sh*tting me , man .... you're serious ..... $ 515 000 for that ..... no way , Jose !

by pouggey | 23rd Sep 14, 10:24pm 1411467863

That's what I thought too! A half billion dollar shoe box...

by Chairman Moa | 23rd Sep 14, 10:28pm 1411468135

C'mon it's Auckland (trendy Ellerslie) not Tokoroa

by notaneconomist | 24th Sep 14, 11:36am 1411515367

$A649K 4 bed, 3 br 3 car park and a pool

http://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-qld-mermaid+waters-117934287

by raegun | 24th Sep 14, 6:36am 1411497398

$515,000 for THAT, I wonder what Gordon thinks

by notaneconomist | 24th Sep 14, 11:27am 1411514842

Prefer this.

http://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-qld-broadbeach-117144467

by Boatman | 23rd Sep 14, 5:10pm 1411449009

I dont beleive the headline , which is somewhat alarming .

by frazz | 23rd Sep 14, 7:15pm 1411456531

Sitting up here in Tonga sipping my beer, I just wonder who the future buyers of those million dollars homes will be if Gen Y has given up? May as well sell too offshore buyers and keep the boomers happy, not those Gen Y slackers

by steven | 23rd Sep 14, 7:31pm 1411457491

There will be buyers, just it wont be at 1mil.

regards

by cowboy | 24th Sep 14, 4:12pm 1411531958

by the time the inflation is processed, and the government gets kickbacks via selling tax on property, it'll be 5 mill (and wages will have doubled)

by Happy123 | 24th Sep 14, 8:40am 1411504825

Expectations need to change. No, gen Ys can't buy a 5 bed villa in Herne Bay for 300k... they will never be able to, ever. My first property was a 1 bed ground floor flat in London, I worked up from there. The lucky gen Ys will be the ones that realise early that they need to start in a flat, apartment or terraced house as these are still afforadable. Auckland is forecast to grow by 1m people buy 2040, anyone who thinks property is going to get cheaper is seriously deluded.

by cowboy | 24th Sep 14, 4:13pm 1411532038

what are you going to be feeding those 1m Aucklanders?

by crypton | 24th Sep 14, 8:51am 1411505506

And then they wake up and realise that the media has been wrong all along and they can actually get a house with a 10% deposit. Take Kiwisaver withdrawal, HNZC first home buyer subsidy of $5k each and they have half of their deposit right there, or all of it if you are in Invercargill!

by jr19 | 24th Sep 14, 8:56am 1411505806

tut tut gen Y (he says looking in the mirror) superfluous debt serves only to make the chain longer. Effective debt management can be a boon - e f f e c t i v e debt managent. I envy the "baby boomers" generations exposure to basic education in things like book keeping. Compulsory subjects on basic econ and accounting practises through intermediate and early high school can only help those who are trying to emulate Riley and Flynn see the pitfalls. When did it become uncool to save, the more $ I had in the bank the less I wanted to spend it, I liked seeing my zeros grow, and like the house they turned into. Wifey and I will travel in the next 2 years, a few weeks at a time each year is the plan, we are looking forward to remembering the travels, without the self induced porcelain truck driving, without the groggy mornings and wasted days "how come it hurts when I pee?" - and hey guess what we will have debt to come home to but in the form of an appreciating asset that we can sleep in - cant sleep under a small piece of plastic unless youve kept all the "payment due" letters, then maybe you can stick them together for a blanket.

by Value Added | 24th Sep 14, 10:06am 1411509971

To put this in context...

The bank won't consider giving me a mortgage (I have a 20% deposit) - but they've given me whatever credit card limit I can possibly dream of, 10's of thousands. No I haven't taken it.

But go for it fella's judge away. In fact, it's probably my fault for not having rich parents who can act as guarantors... my bad, soz.

by crypton | 24th Sep 14, 10:29am 1411511393

Sounds familiar. Maybe time to let the mortgage broker earn their money and find you a decent bank

by cowboy | 24th Sep 14, 11:31am 1411515102

yep.

They're waying up your future business value as a customer. If they give you a credit card they can "sell" you the maximum amount of profit (ie strip you of as much cash as possible) in as short a time as possible.

If you have managed a 20% deposit (and aren't "connected") then there's a high chance you will get a house - at a low lending rate....but that kind of deposit means you'll also probably pay it off quickly. Meaning little profit fro the deal.

Next bank perso you talk to try extending the conversation to doubling down on your homes equity and/or upsizing to build equity. Rather than being the fish, learn to bait your hook.

by Basel Brush III | 24th Sep 14, 12:30pm 1411518611