sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

ANZ, ASB and Westpac have now pulled the shutters down now on lending to investors over 60% LVR ahead of introduction of new RBNZ rules

ANZ, ASB and Westpac have now pulled the shutters down now on lending to investors over 60% LVR ahead of introduction of new RBNZ rules

ANZ and ASB have joined Westpac in quickly dropping the shutters on lending to property investors at over 60% of LVR ahead of the Reserve Bank's implementation of a nationwide limit on September 1.

And ANZ has also tweaked its maximum LVR for all owner-occupied lending too.

The ANZ changes are: A maximum LVR of 85% applies for all owner-occupied home lending across NZ (previously 85% Auckland and 90% rest-of-NZ).

A maximum LVR of 60% applies for Residential Investment Lending (RIL) across NZ (previously 70% in Auckland).

ANZ said it intended to honour all existing pre-approvals, but any renewals of pre-approvals that might have expired would then be subject to the new policy.

"While the Reserve Bank has announced it will be consulting on new LVR restrictions, we have made changes in the spirit of the RBNZ announcement. We believe the changes are a sensible and responsible response to market conditions. As a responsible lender we want to make sure people are in a position to comfortably repay their home loans," ANZ said.

ASB said it will no longer provide new approvals for lending with an LVR greater than 60% that is solely secured by non-owner-occupied residential properties.

Existing approvals and pre-approvals greater than 60% LVR issued before July 21 will be honoured until their documented expiry date.

These moves followed Westpac earlier saying it was not taking any new loan applications from investors above 60% LVR as of 4.30pm Wednesday - well ahead of new RBNZ restrictions coming into place on September 1.

In announcing on Tuesday the forthcoming new 60% nationwide LVR limit for residential property investors, RBNZ Governor Graeme Wheeler said: “We expect banks to observe the spirit of the new restrictions in the lead-up to the new policy taking effect.”

Westpac has done that.

A short advisory from the bank noted that there was a shorter transition period allowed for banks to meet the RBNZ's requirements than in 2013 and 2015 when there was a six month period to make all the necessary adjustments and comply.

"The new regulations announced yesterday are expected to come into effect in less than six weeks on 1 September with the RBNZ asking banks to act within the spirit of the new regulations immediately," Westpac said.

"Westpac has already signalled it will work in the spirit of the new regulation.

"To do so, and given the period allowed for adjustment, we will not take new loan applications, beyond the revised 60% LVR restriction, from property investors from 4.30pm today. Those with pre-approvals will still be assessed as per the usual process."

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.


Quick action from the banks.
Still no action from the government, too busy to handle the dumps, wonder when they can see the dumping people issue?

The banks are just placating the media's (and most of the chicken lickens posting on interest:) doom sensationalism by pretending to be on board. With the increased property values the new LVR is just keeping track with the 30% LVR introduced last year.

New investors are too late to the game so those already in will have less competition now and bigger valuations and equity to throw around.

The only risk is that overseas money stops flowing in but that is unlikely as National knows that is all that is keeping NZ chugging along. My prediction is immigration hits 100k this year and will now include more cashed up Poms and Yanks fleeing Brexit and Trump.

The height of human arrogance - National Government.


ANZ boss coming out today saying auckland is going to be messy, must be internally reviewing most at risk customers


Yes, I was reading that right now.

More alarm bells ringing..

That is a messy article. The ANZ boss is basically saying that upping the deposit to 40% is not enough to stop prices rising. So the sky is hardly falling if Westpac immediately implements it. They did that last time too so this is no surprise.


Yet another former cheerleader getting ahead of the curve. These guys know where the bodies are buried.
Things are getting ugly.

The last thing I'd expect to read from a banker. Is he just brown nosing the establishment or being sincere?

Just starting to soften up the shareholders a little for the turbulent times ahead....


Wow. When banks that make their money by lending are sending a signal that people should stop borrowing, it is a definite sign. You would have to be absolutely crazy to buy right now in Auckland, it is not too late to cancel any last minute buys.

Guys I'm not a doomsday talker by any means but just be careful right now. Before I used to argue with all the Bulls previously with my view points and was sure when the time came I already had the Ï told you so" posts lined up, but now that the very scenario of an extreme downturn is near and in motion, I actually feel bad for people who will no doubt see a large portion wiped out. I hope everything works out well -Stay safe, peace!


Whatever the signals, whatever the experts may say, whatever people may say but remember what our HON PM says that their is no housing crisis.

Logically than either everyone is wrong or our elected PM.

National party will drown that is not our worry ( may be blessing) but the worry is that will take down newzealanders with them.

Cannot do much but wait helplesely and hoplesley for year to end for election.

I imagine if you do have the 40%+ the banks will be tripping over themselves to lend you money. There should be some good deals for those in that position and possibly more choice.

Lets do some simple math:

40% of an average house (~850k) is about $340k. Now how many people have that lying around?
Now suppose you do find a few that do have that amount in cash/equity lying around, they may buy one more before it gets maxed out. Even then it is a huge risk as you are essentially going to be buying something that will go down immediately after the purchase and into negative equity. Most wise people would not do this.

Basically the buying side of the equation has been taken out. Not many people can front up $300k-$400k deposits and consequently prices will drop.

Heaps of people have a lot of equity in their own homes. With interest rates going down and rents edging up there could well be some good opportunities for these people to buy neutral or even positive return properties. A lot of investors are not going to sell their current stock because it will be harder to buy another one for them. For them too the interest rates going down will make holding on very easy.

Except in Christchurch where rents are in decline

Rents edging up? 3% increase over the last year in Auckland? That is bugger all and as Bill English said earlier this week and we are noticing, a LOT of supply is going to be hitting the market very soon as soon as migration is coming down. People are not keen to come in as there are no jobs. There are a few examples I know of rent increases being pushed back by tenants and landlords giving in. They are so leveraged that they cannot afford the property sitting vacant for more than two weeks. I even know few cases recently where the landlord offered to reduce the rent but still the tenant moved on. There is a lot of choice out there, it is not as crazy out there any more - you can easily find rentals.

Another good incentive to move is the Brexit. Suddenly by repatriating NZ dollars back to the UK gives you an instant ~20% gain. I know of several expats who put their houses on the market and want to send money back into the pounds at a much higher exchange rate. At the same time UK property market is falling fast so there are likely yo be deals snapped up for cash buyers.

I agree that not many investors will sell right now. But you can be sure as hell they will sell in 2 months time. At that point anyone who bought for 800k would cut their loss and sell at 700 rather than wait till it gets much lower. The madness of crowds. I agree that interest rates will probably go down but many of them don't earn enough rent to cover expenses and are for pure capital gain. When that goes backward your "asset" becomes a liability and you will need to sell.

Rents are not really moving much in Auckland ATM. But Zach you might find your tenants will be asking you for rent reductions over the next several months as they come up for renewal.

I'm not sure that's true Zachary. RBNZ still have requirements to hold extra capital for loans with Investor Properties against them 1 November (as a new sub asset class)

Presumably these additional costs will flow through somewhere or other.

Huge OCR cut soon people! Savers, prepare yourselves.

Remember not too long ago I advised ALL depositors to make sure your cash savings are the upmost liquid. I stand by those comments. Just be ready as things could go bad to worse in a very short time period.

Alternatives: There are Kiwibonds. And at the moment Kiwibank is govt guaranteed.
Lets see whether the implicit guarantee of Kiwibank is foregone when the govt sells half of it to itself.

What guarantee are you referring to? Not the one claimed to be backed up by NZ Post? that's null and void now

Kiwi Bonds are backed by the NZ Government so a default is highly unlikely.


Don't know why you would want to be liquid at the moment. It is time to strike as highly leveraged investors are now out of the game (less competition = better bargains) and interest rates will be falling again soon.

Just be sure to hold those houses for two years before cashing in or you will fall afoul of the new capital gains tax.

I was more talking in regard to TD and PIE investments.

No need to rush yet Heavy. And I have no interest in investment properties. I run a business

Please can someone explain to me the sudden panic. I want prices to come down but I dont understand why these business leaders and senior bankers are suddenly so worried when we keep being told that the whole world wants to live in NZ. What is on the horizon? And could the panic be self fulfilling?

I suggest you watch a documentary called Boom and Bust on Netflix. This will help you understand why booms and busts happen and the mentality of humans not wanting miss out.

Ok I will do. But aren't downturns normally triggered by something more significant than 'damn we let prices get too high'?

Not necessarily. There just needs to be a change in sentiment in the herd. Bit like when sheep run across the road in front of you. It doesn't necessarily make any sense at the time. But it only take one or two sheep to take the lead, then a few more follow decide they're going to follow and before you know it everyone is selling houses in Auckland and prices are plummeting.

# sheeplesNZ

Good questions buzby. The very fact you are asking should put the hairs on you up

Yes it's an excellent film and not as gloomy as you would think. Particularly like the social experiment with the monkeys to highlight human behaviour patterns.

I think the idea is to panic a bit when there is no real need to panic in an effort to flatten prices.No one panicked enough last time and Auckland continued to skyrocket. After all it is not an awful lot different with the new rules for Aucklanders. It was kind of the least they could do when you think about - before you needed 30%, didn't work, now 40%. What is needed is a bit of panic...but not too much. More a battening the hatches, circling the wagons sort of situation.

Well not sure how far Auckland's property prices will fall since we still have our off shore players who could well use the new restrictions to their advantage.

So it will be funny if the Auckland prices don't drop. Because at least we know when we did experience a recent price drop of -8% in Auckland, that was due to the IRD restrictions from October 2015 to January 2016, so over a three month period. Quite a big drop for such as short space of time.

If these new lending restrictions don't have much effect on our property market for Auckland, then I'm guessing our non-resident investor figure of 39% is correct, So we'll need to finally act on that too and not just inflict restrictions on our Local Investors.

I think NZ banks are bracing themselves for another OCR cut. NZD is too high and inflation is below target. next cut will see cheap money flood the market and they need to control the fallout. Don't see what will make the market fall (yet).

Correct, but I wonder what will happen getting up towards xmas when the foreign buyers have a field day in an empty Auckland market where investors and home buyers has sat on the fence?
The Storm that is probably coming is BRexit aftermath, and Europe going more into its slow down ... hence we might have more people coming home or reaching for stability..

My bet is that prices will notch up another 5-10% with very little local players... Then What? ... will everyone start shooting themselves in the foot again?

It will be interesting to see how the ACC will react to the Unitary plan ??

And to those who complain about Chinese buyers and the gov non action to immigration dadada ? what does china's reaction towards the steel dump enquiry tell you? In fact what dos NZ reaction to that tells you?

I guess the first thing is that the whole world doesn't want to live in NZ. Low wages and high cost of living isn't appealing to everyone. How many Americans for example moved to nz last year ? 5 thousand a year or less.
Hardly the entire world wanting to live in nz.

Great to hear that the head of one of the largest banks calling it a bubble. Also calling on the government to do its job and act and not just sit back and point the finger at others.

Hopefully the loan to income controls come in earlier than expected. The investors themselves are claiming 40% won't make a difference so it sounds like they too want further controls.

Can you provide a link to where he says it is a"bubble"?

He does say this:

New Zealand is a great country and we've come out of the Global Financial Crisis well compared with many. But logic tells me things cannot continue to run this hot.

But I agree we don't want the whole world to live in NZ. I have long maintained that an advantage of high property prices is that it makes things a bit exclusive without having to come out and say why that may be a good thing..

CJ099 don't forget
Non resident =4%
Temp workers and foreign students = 35%
Foreign persons = 39%
Foreign persons is what Australia classify non permanent residents. Australia apply a stamp duty to this group when buying existing properties.

Would be good if one of the David's from were to write an article on the Australian stamp duty explaining their foreign person classification etc and how that would apply to the LINZ data as so many people are confused by this.

Anyone know when the next release of data is coming out from LINZ, or are they still trying to figure out the "right" questions to ask?

they have not changed question 2 so would disregard the info as it is useless, why do they not want to know how many non kiwis buy?
it should be tick the box you fall into, how hard is that to design
Q2.1: Are you or a member of your immediate family a New Zealand citizen or a holder of either a resident, work or student visa?

Hi Joe, Yes I very much agree with you. I would be wonderful if we could have a follow up article on what impact the new imposed Australian tax regulations will have on Non-resident Investors (Foreign Investors) in Oz? I guess it's quite early days though this should have a fairly quick effect on their property prices.

And in particular for Sydney, where their house values have risen more than 50 per cent over five years. That may sound good but this is really effecting their business and I'm seeing more and more Australian companies advertising jobs and trying to get people to work remotely, since it is now far too expensive for people to live in Sydney without dramatically increasing wages to support the cost of living.

There's a fairly recent article here that points out that their Foreign Investors made up around 25% of the NSW market: NSW Budget 2016: Foreign property buyers in NSW to be hit with stamp duty and land tax hikes.

I'm guessing that a lot of the Non-resident Investors that have been squeezed out by Australia will end up here in Auckland. Well at least we've rolled out the red carpet for them, so not going to hold my breath about Auckland property prices dropping any time soon.

Except Kiwis are exempt from foreign buyer restrictions in Australia.

Per the Herald article assuming the reporter hasn't miss reported:

The chief executive of New Zealand's largest bank has warned that house prices are over-cooked and the market may face a "messy end".

I would take overcooked meaning bubble.

An interesting comment by one reader:
Is ANZ now requiring 60% deposits on all its mortgages to property investors? Why ask the Reserve Bank to make it a rule when you can do it yourself? - Michael

Zac, probably because if one bank does it voluntarily then it's a huge competitive disadvantage. Imposed by RBNZ means everyone has to play by the rules.

Trust me Brexit will not have an impact on the Auckland housing market. The pound is weak, the housing market there in decline and it takes a long time to extract yourself from a country. Yes there will be increase in interest in NZ but those skilled migrants lucky enough to get residency are not in a position to buy up Auckland.

The right questions were asked

We know 4% non resident and 35% temp workers and foreign students

It was just how the media reported the figures. Media focussed on non residents (4%) in the headlines instead of foreign persons (39%)

Subtle yet huge difference. Everyday I need to explain this hence why it would be nice for to save me the hassle and write up an article on it.

Don't forget that on top of that 39% there's an unknown number of foreign buyers acting through trusts and companies.

Nice sleight-of-hand in the way it was reported. Joe Average and his mum think of foreign buyers as constituting non- permanent residents and non-citizens. Media reports 4% non tax residents. Joe Average only reads the headline and assumes that the 4% applies to non-residents and non-citizens, government can deny problem and be believed so long as people don't think it through.

It's one big charade

exactly Kakapo

all the NZ media outlets focussed on non-Residents (4%) yet they are only a small part of the total foreign buyers (39%).

I guess are kiwis happy that temp visa workers and students buy 35% of properties ?

Singapore and Australia both have different rules for foreign persons ie non-permanent residents

Why do we only care about Non-Residents in NZ ?
Why should temporary residents have the same rights as permanent residents/citizens ?

David can you explain ?

Except Kiwis are exempt from foreign buyer restrictions in Australia.

and so are Australians in NZ its called reciprocal rights,
but we don't have those rights with china and we have restrictions in other countries where we have to pay stamp duties or become residents to purchase.

Residential property investors are still the winners here as leverage wins the day...The only loser in these new policies will be the tenant and New Zealand residents in general as there will be less cash floating around to fix stuff and float the economy. There will be less cash floating around and this will hit the plumbers, painters and corner dairy basically everyone. And once they kick in the Lending ratios and totally screw the investor market we will then probably head into our own little created recession. The winners will be the property investors as they have made their gains and everyone else (including them) will suffer day to day.

But if the market declines in this self made recession only the investors who have sold up will be the winners. The clever speculators will have sold recently, the long term investors are in it for the yields. Not so sure anyone else will be gaining with a change in these lending conditions.......?

If you define 'winning' becoming wealthy through the exploitation of other people less privileged than yourself and making them 'rent slaves', and by taking advantage of suspiciously dodgy tax rules/regulations that favour the rich and punish the poor - then yes I guess you're a winner.

If you've managed to continue to be able to see the difference between right and wrong throughout all this, and see that the values and principles of this country slowly being eroded away by people becoming obsessed by money in the form of capital gains, then in your eyes you'd probably see these good people as being 'losers'.

But I guess that is just a difference of opinions/values/principles/ethics/morals.....We can each decide which side of the fence we're going to reside. For the homeless, it's the street side of the fence..near the dumpsters.

I have rented my entire adult life and have never lived in my own house, why am I a slave? Hurting investors will only see more homelessness, my investment homes are packed to the rafters. Investment properties tend to have more people living in them.

Why don't you go and live in one of the homes you own?

I live overseas

You are nothing like people who have no choice but to rent and no option to buy.

People with "opinions/values/principles/ethics/morals" tend to cope well with life and become winners.
If you don't have these qualities living out of a dumpster or worse is more likely.
In a multi-cultural, globalist and automated world that promotes individualism the result of these differences will be exacerbated as affluent zones concentrate and expand. Your vision of a fair and just society across the board would either require an extraordinary collective consciousness held together with something akin to a religion or an authoritarian and draconian system that enforced equality. Or we could have what we have now, the social welfare state where individuals with opinions/values/principles/ethics/morals are allowed to prosper and everyone can make their own decisions without fear of starving to death or dying of exposure even if they are less capable.

ho hum how many times have I heard about the winning formula of leverage and good debt, and how many companies and high rolling investors have I seen crash and burn when an economy charges direction and the debt burden becomes unserviceable

New builds are excluded so this should encourage more supply

So the plumbers builders etc will have more business not less. Flawed argument again.

End of the day even plumbers and and builders need roofs over their heads and they don't want to have to pay 40% to much for a house just so investors can line their pockets.

No worries folk, salesman is on world tour drumming up more buyers, all the chatter just a bit of scare mongering to take the heat off a bit.

Westpac same colour as Labour Red.

I saw an ill-advised ad from some realtor (in Hamilton I think) suggesting that now might be a great time to sell. Something like: if you're thinking of selling in future, you should do it now, because investors are going to be falling over themselves to buy before the new LVR restrictions come in.

Made my blood temperature increase slightly, but I'm pleased to see the banks acting as they are expected to and making somewhat of an idiot of this guy.

interesting language from ASB - where lending is only secured by non owner occupied property - opens up the possibility of using equity in your won home or in a business or other significant asset as security for additional borrowing ie

property value - $1,000 000
Borrowing $800,000
security - Property and additional business assets

would be against the spirit but complying with the legislation if the assets were worth enough to reach $1333,334

Hey zac or share trader I've got a question for u.I'm currently in debt of two million but am yielding eight percent on average over these properties.should I sell one down and lighten the load in case of a downturn or just keep going?we are being paid as it's cash flow positive but reading all these coments saying there's a crash on the way is making me wonder?cheers

I would say yes and no. It is a rather difficult question without knowing all the facts about the properties you own. If you have a property that a tenant is vacating and you have owned for a while I would be tempted to sell and put the cash aside and pay down some other mortgages when they come up for review. I would be loathe to upset a good tenant unnecessarily under the current circumstances. A bit of churn is good and I think the banks like to see a mortgage reduced or payed off from time to time.
Yet you are cash flow positive and immigration is still huge and mortgage rates are likely to go down so it looks like a good bet to still be in property. It sounds like you are in a very good position so you won't go too far wrong either way.

good on you for being cashflow positive, that is the key to all good investing.
from where you are I would run your own stress test, i.e if there is a downturn how much can I handle, can I handle 10 or 20% loss of equity , can I handle a loss of a tenant for 2 to 6 months, have I built a buffer fund to tide me over until pickup or can I and how long will it take, can I defer any maintenance etc etc
once you go through the process you will answer any questions you may have, be prepared and may even be set up to take advantage of any downturn which ironically is when the rich get richer
as the saying goes "fail to plan, plan to fail"

Thanks for your advice guy's! !!