Trade Me Property says housing rents have plateaued while house prices continue to rise

Trade Me Property says housing rents have plateaued while house prices continue to rise

There's good news for tenants with the latest figures from Trade Me Property.suggesting housing rents are stagnating across the country, although landlords won't be so pleased.

Trade Me's head of property Nigel Jeffries said the national median asking rent for rental properties advertised on the website in March was $430 a week, which was unchanged from February and up just $10 a week compared to March last year.

In Auckland, where demand for housing is greatest, the median advertised rent was $500 a week in March  which was unchanged for the third month in a row but up $20 a week compared to March last year.

"While the enormous demand in the Auckland area for sale market is driving prices through the roof, the same can't be said in terms of rent, where we're seeing a very stable rental market with strong supply," Jeffries said.

"It's extraordinary to see the divide between the rise in property prices and the rental market.

"The stability in the rental market is one small mercy for renters looking to get onto the property ladder, as they've had reliable rents to plan around saving for that ever increasing deposit."

On an annual basis, advertised rents in March were up 4.2% in Auckland, 2.5% in Wellington and down 15.5% on Canterbury.

Other regions to record annual decreases in their advertised rents were West Coast -8%, Taranaki -5.4%, Nelson -1.4% and Gisborne -10.7%.

And while rents were flat or declining in the main centres, some regions had very strong annual growth in asking rents, led by Marlborough up 25.9%, Bay of Plenty +17.6%, Southland +13.6%, Manawatu/Whanganui +13.5%, Waikato +12.5%, Northland +9.5% and Otago +7.8%.

"It's not an easy time to be a landlord," Jeffries said.

"Particularly one who has bought a property recently as they won't be getting the assistance they want with their mortgage.

"Of course tenants will be happy because they're seeing very stable rents in most parts of the country.

The figures showed that rents and prices were drifting apart.

"We've crunched the numbers and a tenant in Auckland would need to pay rent of $500 a week for 32 years before spending as much as someone buying a typical property at the city's average asking price of $834,000," he said.

You can receive all of our property articles automatically by subscribing to our free email Property Newsletter. This will deliver all of our property-related articles, including auction results and interest rate updates, directly to your in-box 3-5 times a week. We don't share your details with third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time. To subscribe just click on this link, scroll down to "Property email newsletter"and enter your email address.

 

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.

88 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).
10
up

So Auckland house prices are up 16.5% in a year, while rents are up just 4.2%. I've personally not had a rent rise in three years and counting.

I'm eagerly awaiting the first attempted explanation of how this reflects a "housing shortage" rather than "rampant, out of control speculation on future capital gains". Anyone?

Edit: 24 hours and not one person has attempted a defence of the holy "it's a supply side issue!" theory, as favoured by our Government and right wingers everywhere. I know there are a lot of commenters on this website who think that the Auckland house crisis is due to a lack of supply of homes. I ask you again, do you still think the rapid price rises seen are due to lack of supply rather than an excess of demand? If so, justify your position in light of these figures.

Where as Dunedin and PN are up only 6-7% in price but up 13% in rents. . I know where I'd be buying

..Simon ..Ive worked it out...youre actually Grant Smith!

I think standard practice is to raise rents only when tenants change or difference between current and market rent is over 20% (about every 5 years or so).

Hahahahahahhahaa.

You clearly have never rented in Auckland from any of the major agencies.

No but I rent to tenants in Auckland.

Since these are TradeMe offered rents, it's safe to assume the tenant is changing.

Was responding to the comment about rents not having risen in 3 years. I meant that you don't generally get a rent increase unless you move houses.

Sorry. That's totally wrong.

Yep happens to heaps of people all the time.

It's a supply problem for sure. That being an oversupply of credit and chinese banknotes that need to be washed clean.

Does anyone else feel that house prices are like an amateur tightrope walker at the top of the circus with no safety net below? It all feels scary and precarious with no real substance or foundation.

Rent yield is the safety net. High net migration too.

What 2-3 per cent in Auckland is a safety net. And from that you pay interest, rates, insurance and maintenance. I suppose you have perfect tenants who do not create any wear and tear ZS/DGZ/ZS69.

People seem to think landlords only bought their houses yesterday and that we have no capital in them. The yield is calculated on the entire portfolio taking into consideration mortgage outlay etc. The capital component is not really taken into consideration much. We work out things on what we originally paid for the property.
What I am really saying is that properties can be treated as money generators and are thus safer than something like, say, tulips or gold. A property can be kept for a long time fairly easily if it is rented out especially if it has gone up significantly in value.

You work out your yield based on what you originally paid for the property?
You must love the properties you bought the longest time ago as they will undoubtedly have the biggest yield. Great logic.

How else do you do it? Take my example. Paid 722k 12 months ago, neighbours place sold for 840k 2 weeks back which makes the calculated yield worse if I used 840k. It also make the LTV worse as well. You have to use the purchase price. I couldn't care less about the yield anyway. The goal was always to get a subdividable section to add value along with the capital gain.

Whats it rented 4?

550

And what if prices remain flat or head south for the next 5 years?

You work out your yield based on what you originally paid for the property?

Yes I might but ObeseBallerina is right, we don't worry about yields, just let nature take its course. I think people get too hung up on the figures and it holds them back. Just let the force be with you.

I learnt that from a wise old investor before I bought my first place in London. Pick an average area with not too much social housing, wait for gentrification.

On a rising market yes but in a falling market you are left holding a lemon subsidising the tenants but losing equity at the same time. Do that for 5 years and you go bust.

Fortunately that has never happened in Auckland. Current indications are there is still plenty of gold in them thar hills.

Rental yield is a pretty flimsy safety net seeing rents have barely changed while house prices have risen hundreds of thousands of dollars. Real yields are now around 3% for many Auckland properties, which is a terrible return on investment by any measure. A safety net isn't much good when it's spread out on the concrete floor.

High net migration could plausibly lead to increased demand, but as long as actual measures of demand (ie. rent) are stagnant, it's nothing but speculation. Along with all the other factors trotted out to justify increased prices (Lonely Planet just named Auckland the 13th most liveable city in the world! Add another 100k to the valuation!")

3%? Before or after tax, expenses, etc.?

Gross, before expenses, and fully tenanted for 365days a year.

Rental yield is a pretty flimsy safety net

I see it like this. A buyer will be easy to find if your property is a good business proposition. Rent covers mortgage, positive cash flow. You may need to take a hair cut but the fall shouldn't be fatal if your deposit was big enough.
I think the tightrope walker is the FTB who could lose their deposit if they had to sell in the first couple of years. If you plan on keeping for a decade or more I wouldn't worry.

Actually Zachary it isn't, especially when the current migration trend seems to be largley importing low waged and unskilled workers, hence why that can't afford to pay for higher rents and the slow down in the rental increases. I did point this out a while ago, plus noticed that rental property was sitting on the market in key Auckland areas which would have previously been snapped up.

Also the quality migrants (Qualified and high wage earners) are now not as interested in moving to NZ due to not being able to afford the unaffordable house prices. They will opt for other easy picking to migrate too, such as Canada where in some areas house prices have peaked and are now falling, check out cities like Edmonton's Alberta Canada property listings you'll see a lot of reduced price tags: https://www.edmontonrealestate.pro/listing/Rural-Bonnyville-M.D./None/e4...

https://www.edmontonrealestate.pro/listing/Rural-Parkland-County/Gramini...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/the-market/alberta-housing-ma...

And they've got much lower mortgage rates then us!

Good points. And I am noticing quite a few properties where less wealthy immigrants (Indians, filipinos) seem to be cramming into properties.
I also said recently that we are likely to be less appealing for wealthier immigrants who are salary earning professionals. Relatively speaking NZ housing was still quite good value 10 years ago. Not any more!
It is also important to note that NZ's non-housing cost of living is really high. Also factor in the obvious fact that we are a long way from everywhere (in terms of immigrants getting back 'home' to see family)

I think immigration will drop away. We'll still get lower skilled, lower wealth immigrants, as well as the really wealthy. These things might help the housing issue, a touch.

I tell you what. I know two couples of Hickey's brown people who have bought a 3-bdrm and are also taking in a boarder. Sounds crazy to us, but living in super-crowded conditions is normal where they are coming from. They did the math and worked out that it is considerably cheaper than renting.

Scary, isn't it?

Nearly no NZ house has any substance as such. Cow barns in central Europe are usually more solidly built than our shacks.

However, do consider our geostrategic position in a world that is undoubtedly getting more dangerous by the day. Islam is taking over Europe, China is shaky and unpredictable dictatorship, US politics and society are divided and acrimonious as seldom before. The Middle East and North Africa are out of control and we are in a silly conflict with Russia.

Suddenly the shack in Auckland looks a lot better. At least until Key's immigration treason has given us a Muslim subculture doing what it is doing everywhere else in the world.

On the other hand, say there will be another global mega crisis. Do you rather have a roof over the head or hold stocks and bonds then?

Owning at least one house in NZ makes completely sense and even building up a portfolio of the stuff is economically not irrational.

Our property manager (in AKL) asked for a 20$ increase. We said no. He said ok sorry stay. Good tenants are not easy to find! In the meanwhile I also asked for a pay rise. Boss said no as well.

agreeded if you find a great tenant you hold on to them as long as you can, the extra rent not charged is more than made up for in expenses and time.
i know many PI's that work on that theory and they have many horror stories to tell about the awful tenants

10
up

C'mon this is complete crap, as a renter (an excellent one too if I do say so myself) in Auckland for the last 10 yrs I'm here to tell you.

Most owners use agencies, and the agencies don't give a rat's about you being a 'great tenant'. They will crank the rent up as much as they think they can get away with, welcome problem tenants as it gives them something to justify their job, and enthusiastically kick you out with 6 weeks notice once they've sold the owner on the idea of liquidating his speculative gains and transferring the property from the rental management dept over to sales for a juicy commission.

They've also become complete pricks to deal with on an interpersonal level, and tricky to get to fulfill their obligations under tenancy regulations, as they know that fresh tenants are lining up to take your uninsulated run-down 1940's shack with rattling windows at a $50/week increase.

i am talking from personal knowledge, if you find a good landlord and you are a good tenant you will find its a symbiotic relationship.
i know plenty of landlords that have not put the rent up every opportunity, even given certain tenants breathing space on the rent when they had a big bill let it side a couple of weeks and they made it up with extra money on the following weeks
But these are very few and normally long time PI's who understand if you can get a good tenent in your place long term then the mortgage gets paid down and you end up at the end goal with less hassle.
yes there are a lot that use agents and have no understanding of what they are doing and what there obligations are. they are in it because they are following the herd and have heard all the wonderful stories about how rich there friends have become doing it.
that is why in the future i can see a government beefing up the rights of tenants and making it harder for landlords

Totally agree (in part)... I've had opportunities to increase (rental $), however once relationship is established with good tenants, I leave them to peace. I also choose to manage property myself, from experience tenant requests aren't outrageous. I live in the home and get the environment fit for my family first, then move on to the next project.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Simple

My point being, not all PIs are something that rhymes with brass poles ;o)

If only more landlords were like you Brendan, unfortunately it doesn't seem there are many of you around!

I had the same thing and I took it. New rental, had 8k worth of repairs and a ARC rates hike. I'm not eating all of that. I always thought it was rented too cheap in the first place anyway.

Yes I must admit I was very surprised that here in NZ it's the Landlord that pays for their property rates. Not sure how it works in other countries but in the UK it's the Tenants that pay the Council Tax (The equivalent of the old rates property tax system here), on the property that they rent.

lots more expenses coming landlords way too.
have been saying this for a awhile as the balance tips towards way more tenants than owner occupiers, there will be policies brought in to favor them

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1162...

lots more expenses coming landlords way too.
have been saying this for a awhile as the balance tips towards way more tenants than owner occupiers, there will be policies brought in to favor them

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1162...

11
up

rents and wages are paid with REAL money, that's way they stay low. The shit has already hit the fan and we're turning the fan speed up with fake money!

For an investor, the lower interest rates offset the slow rise in rents and the increasing house prices to a large degree. When interest rates will start going up the rent increases will speed up, I imagine. An investor in Auckland who only gets a rental yield of 3% is also paying 5% less (roughly) in mortgage interest rates then they did 10 years ago when they were getting a much higher rental yield from a similar property. So from investor's point of view the overall net return, is still somewhat justifiable (add to that capital gains of 43k on lower quartile properties in the month of March) and they are still smiling.

Yields now are less than mortgage rates and many term deposits - this is not the same as 10 years ago.

It'll be interesting how the taxman sees houses that have yields lower than term deposits - obviously the main purpose of purchasing isn't the yield, so I would say more people getting hit for capital gains tax even beyond the 2 year bright line.

I'd imagine that most property INVESTORS don't buy their properties in order to sell them any time soon, if ever. So they don't worry too much about the capitals gain tax, especially if it's only got a 2 year 'live' period. The property TRADERS, who make their living from buying properties in order to flip them for a profit don't worry about capital gains tax either because their capital gains constitutes as their 'income' so they always had to pay tax on that anyway. Regardless of the capital gains rules. I don't think that true 'Investors' are actually phased by the capital gains tax, they don't sell their properties to realise the capital gains but instead they use it to purchase even more properties. Their income often comes from other sources until the point when they can live off the rental income from their properties. It's the KIWI way of retiring, isn't it?

Capital gains are payable no matter the period held, if it is determined that the intent of buying the property is for capital gains. If you hold it for 10 years with the rent only paying down interest on the mortgage then sell, I'd say you are likely to pay capital gains.
And it should phase property investors, as this is a % of money they cannot invest into the next property purchase if they do get taxed on sale.

Well, tax is only paid on realised income. If you never sell the houses you buy you never pay capital gains tax because you are not actually realising that income into cash. Investors don't have to actually sell the existing property for a purchase of an additional property. They can keep the existing one and buy another, without paying any tax on the gains made on the existing property because they have reinvested the gains without realising them into a 'cash profit/income'. But even if they DO happen to sell the house after 2 years they still aren't liable to pay tax on the capital gains because there is no CGT in NZ, regardless of whether they had an 'interest only' mortgage or not.

I think you have a big tax bill coming Mystery. You sound desperate to convince youself, but your self belief is not the critical factor.

All sounds perfectly logical to me. How can you pay CGT when it effectively doesn't exist? Its income that's only realised when you sell. Why is that so hard to understand?

>>>> But even if they DO happen to sell the house after 2 years they still aren't liable to pay tax on the capital gains because there is no CGT in NZ, regardless of whether they had an 'interest only' mortgage or not. The same goes for shares or any other instrument that appreciates with time and isn't bought to be traded but bought as an investment.

Incorrect, the only relevant factor is your intent when purchasing. If you buy an income producing asset for the income, and it happens to appreciate in value but that wasn't your intent up front, then luckily for you there's no CGT and you're happy. If on the other hand you buy something that you clearly expect to appreciate, like shares or, I dunno, some shack in Auckland, then your intent is profit - doesn't matter whether you call it trading or investing, the IRD gives no damns - and you're up for income tax on the net profits when selling.

In theory.

In reality of course it's complete BS and the landed gentry are strongly favored by landowning MP's and a feeble IRD that would never dare go after the speculative for-profit 'investors' in NZ property, i.e. Auckland home owners. Yes, all of them. Nobody owns property in Auckland whether as an investor or a live-in owner, unless they are counting on significant appreciation. It makes zero financial sense without that factor. The yield is terrible for a PI vis-a-vis lower risk alternatives, and the cost (mortgage interest and opportunity cost on equity) is appalling for owners compared to rent.

Everyone - and I mean everyone - who sells their property in Auckland in the near future, at a profit but doesn't pay any tax, is getting a free ride at the expense of the rest of us. It should make us all very angry.

Rents cannot increase if wages don't increase. Otherwise the tenant would go back to Bangalore

Yes and the Europeans, Canadians and Americans will look else where if they can't afford a home here.

It seems to me that it's the Kiwis who buy much of the properties here. But regardless of that , the general consensus is that NZD, in the medium term, should still come down which will make our real estate more affordable to many foreigners. An example- a couple of months ago NZD was close to 62 US cents. It has come down all the way from 88cents in 2014. That's a 26% drop in the exchange rate. So any of our properties which have gone up 26% from the middle of 2014 to now, to an American have gone up 0%!. Everything is relative.

I agree ian64. But what potentially is more likely to happen if rents rise but wages do not, is that more people will simply be sharing accommodation to make it more affordable. Like people do in many other countries I suppose, where it's not uncommon to have your grandparents or your "uncle" living in the same house as you due to housing affordability issues.

agree, just like in the middle ages. Good way forward NZ!

Lets regress to the stone age - anyone know of a good cave up for sale?

Large seemigly hollow one in Wellington :)

Seriously though we're going to endup as a basket case economy if we keep heading down this road, and quicker than you think.

As a property investor of over 25 years I have always looked at my total portfolio rather than each new property I have purchased. Goodness back in the 90's I would never have purchased any more property then if I expected to be cash positive for each new property because the interest rates were usually higher than the net rate of return. Cash profits on existing properties pay for losses on new properties. It certainly does get easier as you get older. More capital behind you, more income, and the interest the banks charge you often gets lower. Like all businesses the extra competition from new investors over supplying the market has the most impact on my profit.

Fantastic comment. All the crash trolls and Doom mongers here can't see the big picture.

Why? His scenario is one of endlessly appreciating values and endlessly reducing interest rates. His only 'work' in this is managing the cashflow and marveling at how clever he is. Do you suppose this is sustainable?

Hes been right for close to 30 years by my reckoning.

Of course he has, and so has everyone else who won the birth lottery and was in a position to benefit from selling out the country's future and grabbing their own children's wealth.

Do you imagine that is sustainable?

No the crash trolls have been through crashes and seen what happens to those who are over leveraged. If people are sensible in their approach it can work, others might time things badly or push their finances too far. You can also have property as a part of a balanced investment portfolio.

The growing property fever in some comments is concerning. Property isn't the only way you can build capital.

You think? It looks to me like a heap of younger people that just want a cheap house. As far as over leveraged goes have you tried getting a mortgage lately? They make you jump through hoops! It sure ain't 2004 in mortgage land anymore. I'm not saying there wont be a pullback at some point. Of course there will be. But 50-70% predictions are nothing short of comedy.

Actually I got a mortgage when banks wouldn't give you anything unless you had a 20% deposit. It was a good time to buy while banks were rebalancing their mortgage books so they didn't breach the RBNZ rules.

By all means call a price drop on that scale comedy. We've been fortunate not to have a correction on that scale happen here. We really don't need a crash on that scale as it would be really bad. Let's hope it never happens but it's not an impossible event. Just look at Iceland, everyone got on the bandwagon of their bubble.

The things that I see as positive is that we do have a significant amount of deposits and capital in our banks. When I looked into it it was more than what I thought they'd have.

All I want is for people to be sensible with their investing, and not take excessive risks.

Ill say it again, where is the loose lending? Iceland was everything that was wrong with banking in the early 2000's. If you want a good watch check this out. Early on is a segment on how Iceland blew up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQzEWeGJLP0

I paid a 20% deposit too 12 months back - as I would expect, as we all should expect. Because this.... stops loose lending! which leads to 50% crashes like America, Ireland, Spain saw in the GFC. As a reminder Auckland dropped 15% for less than a year in that time. You will have bigger things to worry about in a situation where there are 70% drops. You wouldn't need a house. you'd need a fallout shelter.

Iceland had interest rates exceeding 10% in advance of the crisis, and up to 18% max.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iceland/interest-rate

You don't need loose lending with current NZ interest rates. They are loose regardless of bank policies.

Sorry, I'm lost. Are you comparing the Icelandic banking system of the early 00ies to the present day NZ banking system?

When you said 70% I assumed you meant a price drop to 70% of the original value. A 30% drop would be bad. A 70% drop we'd be in a depression and I'd probably have to set up a soup kitchen to feed the neighbours. A 30% drop is the worst scenario I see at this time.

I don't have access to any bank's books so I don't know what might be out there. I don't know if someone is bending or breaking rules. There's always a risk, and the risk might be mostly external for all I know. There are major problems with the positions of some of the US banks, apparently they didn't learn anything from the GFC.

Ive seen 40-70% corrections bandied around by crash trolls recently. Thats where that number came from.

If the "normal value (whats normal these days) of a house to income is 3:1 and we are 9 to 1 then a 60~70% drop back to normal would be correct. That is also then business as usual grow for ever economic model but we are on a finite planet, oopsie.

The thing about a 30% drop is, what stopping it at 30% if it drops that much? and yes I think we'll be in The "Greatest Depression" ever recorded.

"unknown" risk, indeed, except there is enough circumstantial evidence saying that is not good to me, the risk is large and the impact will be huge.

Get out of Dodge.....is what I am trying to do ie get debt free.

Steven, Income to house price ratios in other "developed" countries:

Hong Kong 60 x1
Japan 35 x 1
Singapore 27 x 1

etc.

I don't want to mention some of the really backward ratios like the one in India where the ratio is 647 x 1.

I agree with you Stephen, I hope that NZ incomes can find a better equilibrium with the house values. It will benefit everyone!. But the above is to illustrate that NZ income to house value ratio isn't that ridiculous when compared to some of these other countries.

"It's not an easy time to be a landlord," Jeffries said.

Property values up, interest rates down, rents up, unemployment low and migration at record highs all sounds fairly good for the landlords.

It's fairly good for anyone that owns a house.

Sure, and must be having a positive impact on consumer spending. We don't have some of the most indebted households in the world for nothing. It keeps the economy pumping.

I have seen the odd comment about a return to the Middle Ages or neo-feudalism. Or maybe a little later in history with talk of a new 'landed gentry' class developing.
You know it didn't have to be like this. Everyone in New Zealand could have a lovely home, maybe a bach too but it would require a collective will and a collective mobilization and a degree of isolation from the world. It would need to be sort of organic or biological. The days of that happening are now gone because of globalization.

Some people here call landlords parasites however to not take advantage of the benefits of being a landlord would require people to have some sort of common disdain for charging your fellow countrymen more than the minimum for housing. But why would you do that? Perhaps you would if you had some common vision, some shared destiny and you saw the country as one big family. Families will often help each other out with housing.

However with the rising inflow of migrants we lose such collective sentiments. Other people coming in would not have the same ideas about the New Zealand family. Without common, unwritten laws, binding us together, we seek other things that bind us. Collective notions of taste, social behaviour and personal wealth. People cluster in areas that are defined economically but also have these collective standards of behaviour and trust. This is why we have locations that are more expensive than others.

This may explain the explosion in house prices in certain cities around the world. Suddenly whole cities have become desirable locations just like desirable suburbs but on a larger scale. With mass migration and globalization it seems logical that this would happen. The young people of Auckland now find themselves in a situation where the whole city has become Epsom, at least price-wise, due to global desirability.

Nicely put. National identity has largely been replaced by a kind of global caste system. "Rich people" from NZ, say John Key (of the International Party), feel a lot closer to their fellow rich in China than to a New Zealand farm hand.

Hence the social contract is now broken. But that being the case, why should people accept in the long run to e.g. pay taxes for a system that does not by definition serve them any more?

I cannot see a smooth transition from our good old nation state to your vision of global mega-castes. Either we pull the break and return to manageable entities and institutions or we will descend into chaos. If you have ever been to India, you can observe how a country works where public interest is unknown and people only operate on the basis of family, clan, caste, money. It is a brutal hell on earth and the reason why these people want to come to us in the first place.

Great comment PeterPen.
Yes, we are selling out/off our nation state, for some short term financial gain, while we lose our lifestyle, our set of values, and our 'inheritance' if you like.

@ Zachary smith - yes, I agree with your sentiment and thoughts.

There is an air of inevitability about this but I cannot see why as a sovereign island country we cannot control not only the rate, but also type of immigrant we are selecting.

This government (which I have voted for, but not again...) has simply thrown the floodgates open and taken money from nefarious sources...at the detriment to its own citizens and this is the issue I have.

I was at auction after auction on Auckland North Shore a few years ago as the wave of money from China hit like a ton of bricks - NZ'ers were blindsided with huge bids from offshore that reset the housing market so fast it took your breath away. Bids 30-40% above the expected price via the telephone.....

Immigration, in a controlled, with a well thought out selection policy can be a positive thing but the complete and utter denial of what has happened, so quickly, by the government is more than infuriating. It's bordering on contempt.

No wonder its "screw everyone, look after yourself" now - It was implemented and sold as a Govt policy! :/

And of course the facts are GDP per capita is dropping, not increasing!

So the long term implications are poor - cheaper labour from India suppressing wage inflation (especially in IT and Tech related fields where I am involved) - enormous (and probably illegal since they can only take $50k USD out of china....yeah right) capital flight from china inflating housing costs - yet no increase in productivity as a country?

I mean what moron made buying a house a pass mark on an investors permit - at minimum a local business should be started with a quota on NZ staff if coming in on a permit like this...

How does this end? I ask seriously as a layman......

Simple commonsense says no amount of house inflation can fix us if we're broke right?

More and more people making less per head is simply madness?

There is no easy fix but to continue this path I am positive will be viewed in history as the time at which the fabric of NZ was destroyed for political ideology and propping up a failing GDP and surplus promises..

I hope I'm wrong but as you say the collective who are fat and happy with their latest property valuation don't want to think about it.

Are we still in control? Look at the feeble nations of Europe and how they are overrun by illegals from backward countries. Their police and soldiers just watch on as illegals cross broders. If the illegals riot and throw stones and get tear gas in response, the NZH Rachel Smalley compares the treatment of the poor illegals to the Holocaust (no kidding).

Hypocritical moralism has displaced the rule of law. Media critical of illegal mass immigration is virtually non-existent, not in NZ and not anywhere else in the so-called West.

Parliamentary opposition to illegal mass immigration is also virtually non-existent. If NZ First would snap up 30% of the vote, Labour and the International Party would go into coalition to preserve the status quo.

If NZ was not as far away from everything as it is, John Key would be the last person in the world to stop an illegal immigrant armada. He would throw the doors open just like this silly woman in Germany. While they are not coming, he does his bit in the grand scheme of Soros financed think tanks and invites bogus students and sucks up to Chinese money to finance his anti-patriotic flag campaign.

We are actually still lucky, but not because of our astute institutions but simply because we are too far away. The grace of distance.

agree. That's what happened in Italy. After the 5star movement became the second party, the former "enemies" left and right got together in a coalition government to preserve the status quo. You have to wonder how much they were really in opposition to each other before!!!!!

I don't blame landlords as it is human nature to follow a dollar. I blame the government for not eliminating tax advantages for investors (domestic and overseas) compared to FHBs. That is driving the market. Most immigrants cannot afford to buy here and rent isn't going up which shows there is adequate supply.

Mostly agreed - although I think the fact rent isn't going up doesn't show there is adequate supply, more that it is already very high and people can't afford more. How can someone on say $20 an hour afford more than say $450 in rent which is about the cheapest in Auckland now.

I can't see rents going up until there is wage inflation. People are maxed out on rental payments.

Good point. A true reflection of income. Guess people are sharing more and more.