|
|
|
Handle9:look in the mirror.
Lol. Funny how you can't substantiate your point so you need to engage in a personal attack.
labor put restrictions on which "closed" the market a bit. so yes you missed that it was "closed".
tweake:
Handle9:look in the mirror.
Lol. Funny how you can't substantiate your point so you need to engage in a personal attack.
labor put restrictions on which "closed" the market a bit. so yes you missed that it was "closed".
There are no restrictions on the market being removed, interest deductability for property investors is the only change, and that's being phased in over a number of years.
Handle9:
There are no restrictions on the market being removed, interest deductability for property investors is the only change, and that's being phased in over a number of years.
so their restrictions on money via tax is not a restriction, just like "no one makes money on nz housing" fantasy of yours.
then of course add in nationals plan to dump kiwibuild and there was something else they have planned but i need coffee.
so we get high immigration making more demand, slow down in building due to costs which creates more demand, govt to stop building homes which creates more demand, open the flood gates for investors which increases demand, national would have opened up selling to overseas which would create more demand but thats seams off the table at the moment. all this to push up house prices so people can make money off homes, pretend to be rich, and doom the next generations to come.
Handle9: Dumping kiwi build has approximately zero impact on the housing market. Over 6 years it built around 1800 houses. The original target was 100,000 over 10 years but it was a well publicised mess and did not much at all.
Immigration was high under labour so that’s not changed. Foreign buyers hasn’t changed.
It’s fun and all to rant about the new government but it’s pretty meaningless without substance.
Correct as the damage by both parties over previous decades was already done
It was well publicised and did not deliver for obvious reasons, the current NAF Govt wont deliver on its similar vote buying flagship policy . Except one of them costs taxpayers
kingdragonfly: Not sure how applicable it is to here in New Zealand.
Moneywise: ‘Your U.S. tax dollars are helping Wall Street': Big-money institutions could control a stunning 40% of US rental homes by 2030, analysts say — here's why that's a problem
While most Americans are anxiously watching the housing market show signs of cooling after running red-hot for years, one group may be cheering for a crash.
After the 2008 financial crisis, corporations and institutional investors looked to ramp up their purchases of residential real estate, including single-family rentals (SFRs).
Now analysts worry history may repeat itself. According to a 2022 report from MetLife Investment Management, 4-in-10 single-family rental homes could be owned and controlled by Wall Street within just seven years.
This could pose a problem not just for ordinary renters, but also for the rest of the economy.
...
Given the recent surge in inflation and the Federal Reserve’s raising of interest rates in response, many ordinary homeowners could be forced to sell, as these financial pressures seem likely to persist. MetLife believes institutions will step in to buy many of the newly available homes, along with others that will be constructed in the coming years, giving the Wall Street-backed investment firms control of 7.6 million SFRs — 40% of the market — by 2030.
...
It is not unusual in Europe for homes (typically apartments) to be owned by pension funds or investment funds. The difference there is there are strong protections for the tenants*, unlike here and in the USA where the investment funds will work very hard to extract the maximum rent they can from their tenants.
* can you believe that one year I received notification of a rent reduction, since CPI inflation showed a slightly negative figure.
Looks like the Auckland Unitary Plan has been a good thing. Still not nearly enough houses built to meet demand IMO but I guess it's better than nothing.
kingdragonfly: THE HOUSING LADDER An arcade game to try and buy a house before you die.
So DTIs have been announced and coming in July. So banks will have their lending books limited to no more than 20% of loans to customers with a debt to income ratio of six to one.
A little bit too little too late but a start. I had a quick look to see how I would have got on under this rule (I bought my first home in 2021) and I would have just scraped in. It does appear to be a sledge hammer to the investors at seven to one which I guess was the point as well.
mudguard:
So DTIs have been announced and coming in July. So banks will have their lending books limited to no more than 20% of loans to customers with a debt to income ratio of six to one.
A little bit too little too late but a start. I had a quick look to see how I would have got on under this rule (I bought my first home in 2021) and I would have just scraped in. It does appear to be a sledge hammer to the investors at seven to one which I guess was the point as well.
More info here: https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/05/29/dtis-and-lvrs-unpacked-what-these-acronyms-could-mean-for-you/
I had a look through, not sure if this would help me or hinder me as a potential first home buyer.
stuff article https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350292161/what-will-new-debt-income-rules-mean-you
At those ratios, owner-occupiers with a gross annual income of $126,411 (the current household average) would be able to borrow up to $758,466. An investor with the same income could borrow $884,877.
so basically it favors investors and allows them to outbid everyone else especially fhbers.
tweake:
stuff article https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/350292161/what-will-new-debt-income-rules-mean-you
At those ratios, owner-occupiers with a gross annual income of $126,411 (the current household average) would be able to borrow up to $758,466. An investor with the same income could borrow $884,877.
so basically it favors investors and allows them to outbid everyone else especially fhbers.
Not really because you missed the fine print, that you have to subtract existing debt from the limit, Investors only get the higher limit if they basically don'r have any other debt, if they do, its deducted from the limit
Investment
Borrowing over 7 x gross (before tax) income, minus any debt, is considered high-DTI.
Take the example of a household with a total annual income of $100,000 and total debt of $20,000. If they borrow over $680,000, they will be considered high-DTI."
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/education/explainers/dti
|
|
|