Vancouver's Chinese property investors

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › Vancouver's Chinese property investors

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1759978 10-Apr-2017 06:49

mattwnz:

tdgeek:

I dont buy the equity issue. The bank loaned the funds, its their problem. If houses dropped 20% today, the owners are still paying the mortgage. The bank has a risk, and the owner lost equity. Should interest rates go up a lot, thats another issue, as that will affect the affordability of the repayments. As you say, it would not surprise me if they didn't do anything, and prices stay static.

If a bank in NZ fails, it becomes everyone's problem, and it means a potential run on the other banks, as we don't have any government guarantee scheme like other countries. Also it may mean that a bank may need to be bailed out by the tax payers. Although they say a bank failure is an 'unlikely event', it has happened before.

The problem is that banks never want to be lending more to someone, than the house is actually worth. If they are then it causes all sorts of problems for them. That is why no one wants the price to plunge, except first home buyers, who have been locked out of buying in some place. So if houses do say static for 10 years, in reality they are dropping in price due to inflation. Inflation is probably going to save NZ from this housing crisis in the long run.

Bank failures are very rare, no bank fails and there is a cash run, thats a many decades ago, and more a US type of thing. BNZ had issues yonks ago, it was bailed out. And I imagine that more an underwriting thing than giving then gazillions. Sure, banks want security, but they also loaned on houses in a heavily rising market, so they are as guilty as those that bought in a heavily rising market, if the bubble collapses. If it did, they have risk, but the mortgages are still being paid, and an underwriting could occur. But not apply to owners who chose to sell.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1759979 10-Apr-2017 06:50

Linuxluver:

surfisup1000:

UHD:

When foreign investment is less than 10% of the issue and Auckland is already as bad as it is then you know we'll never be like Vancouver. The existing Kiwi investors will never permit it.

I don't understand you at all.

You say kiwi investors will never allow chinese investment into housing? How on earth can the block it when it has already been happing for the last 25 years?

A friend recently put their house on the market in Auckland. The very first thing the real estate agent said was that he will find some chinese to buy it. Chinese money in the auckand real estate market is huge already... despite what the politicians may say.

The real estate agents are the ones you need to listen to.

I agree. Investors vote for National and National opened the immigration floodgates. Investors profit by this arrangement at the expense of everyone else. They won't just stand for it, they'll vote for it.

And that immigration dilutes the National vs Labour/Greens Vote, strengthening National

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1759982 10-Apr-2017 06:52

UHD:

All economists and analysts agree that the bulk of investment and speculation is done by Kiwis. A small portion (which only serves to further exacerbate an already out of control situation) is foreign investment but this is tiny compared to Kiwi money. The only organisations who are yet to get on board with the data seems to be NZ Herald/Stuff.

'Chinese investment' will always pale in comparison to the rampant speculation conducted by Kiwis regardless of how the Auckland market plays out. Global capital always looks for safe places to rest and NZ is relatively safe but there are still much safer and lucrative locations than Auckland in the world.

Those economists and analysts lump the Auckland market in with everywhere else and come up with a small nominal percentage.

It's effectively a lie.

Look at the level of foreign investment in the most desirable suburbs of Auckland and the percentage will leap to the skies.

Attend a few auctions and you soon understand the foreign investors tend to follow a "pay whatever it takes" strategy to buy the properties they want....so a relatively small (according to perceptions, not actual effects) portion of the buyers can have a HUGE impact on prices....and that is exactly what has happened.

Of course locals are the larger part of the market. No one is saying they aren't. But the "locals" are our very own "1%" (or 2% or whatever tiny portion it actually is) who already have access to the capital to buy the properties they want.

The other 99-ish% don't.

That's the problem right there.

Plus, looking at it on an annual basis is also misleading. Lets look across a decade. Go to some of the suburbs around central Auckland and see if you hear any English being spoken. Three percent a year is 30% after 10 years....and we are there.

I'm not anti-immigration. But I am 'anti' misleading reports about consequences.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1760027 10-Apr-2017 10:04

Linuxluver:

UHD:

All economists and analysts agree that the bulk of investment and speculation is done by Kiwis. A small portion (which only serves to further exacerbate an already out of control situation) is foreign investment but this is tiny compared to Kiwi money. The only organisations who are yet to get on board with the data seems to be NZ Herald/Stuff.

'Chinese investment' will always pale in comparison to the rampant speculation conducted by Kiwis regardless of how the Auckland market plays out. Global capital always looks for safe places to rest and NZ is relatively safe but there are still much safer and lucrative locations than Auckland in the world.

Those economists and analysts lump the Auckland market in with everywhere else and come up with a small nominal percentage.

It's effectively a lie.

Look at the level of foreign investment in the most desirable suburbs of Auckland and the percentage will leap to the skies.

Attend a few auctions and you soon understand the foreign investors tend to follow a "pay whatever it takes" strategy to buy the properties they want....so a relatively small (according to perceptions, not actual effects) portion of the buyers can have a HUGE impact on prices....and that is exactly what has happened.

Of course locals are the larger part of the market. No one is saying they aren't. But the "locals" are our very own "1%" (or 2% or whatever tiny portion it actually is) who already have access to the capital to buy the properties they want.

The other 99-ish% don't.

That's the problem right there.

Plus, looking at it on an annual basis is also misleading. Lets look across a decade. Go to some of the suburbs around central Auckland and see if you hear any English being spoken. Three percent a year is 30% after 10 years....and we are there.

I'm not anti-immigration. But I am 'anti' misleading reports about consequences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKGUwCb5GuA&t=1s

I'll give you a chance to do your own research and retract your position. Anecdotally considering auctions in desirable parts of Auckland isn't really a counter to any argument at all.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1760031 10-Apr-2017 10:18

UHD:

Linuxluver:

UHD:

All economists and analysts agree that the bulk of investment and speculation is done by Kiwis. A small portion (which only serves to further exacerbate an already out of control situation) is foreign investment but this is tiny compared to Kiwi money. The only organisations who are yet to get on board with the data seems to be NZ Herald/Stuff.

'Chinese investment' will always pale in comparison to the rampant speculation conducted by Kiwis regardless of how the Auckland market plays out. Global capital always looks for safe places to rest and NZ is relatively safe but there are still much safer and lucrative locations than Auckland in the world.

Those economists and analysts lump the Auckland market in with everywhere else and come up with a small nominal percentage.

It's effectively a lie.

Look at the level of foreign investment in the most desirable suburbs of Auckland and the percentage will leap to the skies.

Attend a few auctions and you soon understand the foreign investors tend to follow a "pay whatever it takes" strategy to buy the properties they want....so a relatively small (according to perceptions, not actual effects) portion of the buyers can have a HUGE impact on prices....and that is exactly what has happened.

Of course locals are the larger part of the market. No one is saying they aren't. But the "locals" are our very own "1%" (or 2% or whatever tiny portion it actually is) who already have access to the capital to buy the properties they want.

The other 99-ish% don't.

That's the problem right there.

Plus, looking at it on an annual basis is also misleading. Lets look across a decade. Go to some of the suburbs around central Auckland and see if you hear any English being spoken. Three percent a year is 30% after 10 years....and we are there.

I'm not anti-immigration. But I am 'anti' misleading reports about consequences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKGUwCb5GuA&t=1s

I'll give you a chance to do your own research and retract your position. Anecdotally considering auctions in desirable parts of Auckland isn't really a counter to any argument at all.

Eaqub is correct and I don't disagree with any of that. The fundamentals are bad. Neo-liberal policies have stunted wage growth, exported thousands of jobs that used to pay well, eliminated entire careers of skilled work that used to be done here and is now done elsewhere....and much else.

Into that mix - the cream on the cake - comes the all-time record immigration levels that are keeping the "rock star economy" afloat.....and adding that extra push to house prices which would, as Euqub rightly points out, have been rising anyway.....

But if the economy was flatter.....and immigration was lower.....like 70,000 people a year lower......then pressure on housing would be correspondingly reduced as we wouldn't have the extra 350,000-400,000 people who arrived since 2008 to accommodate.

If I have an argument at all it is one that avoids the black and white absolutes. I'm saying the all-time high immigration has added to the long term structural problems in a way - and with an intensity - that has had a big impact in the past few years.

I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that if there were 350,000 fewer people here looking for housing that prices would be as high now as they are.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1760032 10-Apr-2017 10:20

I'm more concerned with housing and interest rate policies being set for all of New Zealand based entirely on what is happening in Auckland.

For example, Gore is not Parnell.... Yet buyers there are under the same strictures and paying the same interest rates.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1760046 10-Apr-2017 10:36

Linuxluver:

UHD:

All economists and analysts agree that the bulk of investment and speculation is done by Kiwis. A small portion (which only serves to further exacerbate an already out of control situation) is foreign investment but this is tiny compared to Kiwi money. The only organisations who are yet to get on board with the data seems to be NZ Herald/Stuff.

'Chinese investment' will always pale in comparison to the rampant speculation conducted by Kiwis regardless of how the Auckland market plays out. Global capital always looks for safe places to rest and NZ is relatively safe but there are still much safer and lucrative locations than Auckland in the world.

Those economists and analysts lump the Auckland market in with everywhere else and come up with a small nominal percentage.

It's effectively a lie.

Look at the level of foreign investment in the most desirable suburbs of Auckland and the percentage will leap to the skies.

Attend a few auctions and you soon understand the foreign investors tend to follow a "pay whatever it takes" strategy to buy the properties they want....so a relatively small (according to perceptions, not actual effects) portion of the buyers can have a HUGE impact on prices....and that is exactly what has happened.

Of course locals are the larger part of the market. No one is saying they aren't. But the "locals" are our very own "1%" (or 2% or whatever tiny portion it actually is) who already have access to the capital to buy the properties they want.

The other 99-ish% don't.

That's the problem right there.

Plus, looking at it on an annual basis is also misleading. Lets look across a decade. Go to some of the suburbs around central Auckland and see if you hear any English being spoken. Three percent a year is 30% after 10 years....and we are there.

I'm not anti-immigration. But I am 'anti' misleading reports about consequences.

Thats exactly it. It just takes one per auction to pickup what they want, typically for their kids, or the kids buying, funded by the parents. It could be Chinese, rich Americans, it doesn't really matter, they dont buy how we do, based on deposits, how much we can afford repayments, they just buy. In some cases, it may well be cheap for them too. Its an artificial factor, not relying on 70% of buyers being foreign. Just enough to appear at auctions will do

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1760052 10-Apr-2017 10:49

Geektastic: I'm more concerned with housing and interest rate policies being set for all of New Zealand based entirely on what is happening in Auckland.

For example, Gore is not Parnell.... Yet buyers there are under the same strictures and paying the same interest rates.

The foreign buyers havent pushed prices up since they began coming here, its been recent. Interest rates recent. So the kiwis can now afford the premium that the foreigners will pay for the house they choose. Before it was probably, " a foreign buyer is keen, lets add a bit more to the price you want, eh?" Now, the low rates allow kiwis to compete. Now, its too high to compete so they buy elsewhere, and then those other towns/cities go up too

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1760059 10-Apr-2017 10:56

tdgeek:

Geektastic: I'm more concerned with housing and interest rate policies being set for all of New Zealand based entirely on what is happening in Auckland.

For example, Gore is not Parnell.... Yet buyers there are under the same strictures and paying the same interest rates.

The foreign buyers havent pushed prices up since they began coming here, its been recent. Interest rates recent. So the kiwis can now afford the premium that the foreigners will pay for the house they choose. Before it was probably, " a foreign buyer is keen, lets add a bit more to the price you want, eh?" Now, the low rates allow kiwis to compete. Now, its too high to compete so they buy elsewhere, and then those other towns/cities go up too

I doubt that you will find too many people queuing to buy in all but a small handful of other places as a result of that.

Our house, for example, has been on the market for two and a half years. There just is not a market at the upper end of our local price range. Likewise Gore or Gladstone or somewhere. Even places with close proximity to Queenstown, which has seen bigger increases than Auckland, have not gone up that much.

Although difficult to implement, it would make sense to have an interest rate that is higher in some places than others, or an additional tax that applied in some places but not others.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1760062 10-Apr-2017 11:02

Geektastic:

tdgeek:

Geektastic: I'm more concerned with housing and interest rate policies being set for all of New Zealand based entirely on what is happening in Auckland.

For example, Gore is not Parnell.... Yet buyers there are under the same strictures and paying the same interest rates.

The foreign buyers havent pushed prices up since they began coming here, its been recent. Interest rates recent. So the kiwis can now afford the premium that the foreigners will pay for the house they choose. Before it was probably, " a foreign buyer is keen, lets add a bit more to the price you want, eh?" Now, the low rates allow kiwis to compete. Now, its too high to compete so they buy elsewhere, and then those other towns/cities go up too

I doubt that you will find too many people queuing to buy in all but a small handful of other places as a result of that.

Our house, for example, has been on the market for two and a half years. There just is not a market at the upper end of our local price range. Likewise Gore or Gladstone or somewhere. Even places with close proximity to Queenstown, which has seen bigger increases than Auckland, have not gone up that much.

Although difficult to implement, it would make sense to have an interest rate that is higher in some places than others, or an additional tax that applied in some places but not others.

All places rise, in sympathy, but your right, some more than others, ideally where the real premium demand is

wellygary

8312 posts

Uber Geek

#1760068 10-Apr-2017 11:06

Linuxluver:

We're already there....and have been since the immigration floodgates opened in 2008 to allow National to gerrymander elections by bringing in people who will vote for them.

But thats just plain incorrect,

Only those with Residency/Citizenship can vote in NZ and if you look back at the number of permanent residency approval since 2000 you find very little change.... most of the headline "migration" numbers you see are students, (who can't vote), along with NZ/OZ citizens coming and going (which the govt has no control over)

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/research/migrants---monitoring/migration-trends-and-outlook-2015-16.pdf

Total residency approved and arrived (Page 37 and 39)

2001/02 50,619

2002/03 46,296

2003/04 37,676

2004/05 47,563

2005/06 50,122

2006/07 45,905

2007/08 45,026

2008/09 45,025

2009/10 44,559

2010/11 39,521

2011/12 39,356

2012/13 38,040

2013/14 42,672

2014/15 41,538

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1760095 10-Apr-2017 11:24

Geektastic:

tdgeek:

Geektastic: I'm more concerned with housing and interest rate policies being set for all of New Zealand based entirely on what is happening in Auckland.

For example, Gore is not Parnell.... Yet buyers there are under the same strictures and paying the same interest rates.

The foreign buyers havent pushed prices up since they began coming here, its been recent. Interest rates recent. So the kiwis can now afford the premium that the foreigners will pay for the house they choose. Before it was probably, " a foreign buyer is keen, lets add a bit more to the price you want, eh?" Now, the low rates allow kiwis to compete. Now, its too high to compete so they buy elsewhere, and then those other towns/cities go up too

I doubt that you will find too many people queuing to buy in all but a small handful of other places as a result of that.

Our house, for example, has been on the market for two and a half years. There just is not a market at the upper end of our local price range. Likewise Gore or Gladstone or somewhere. Even places with close proximity to Queenstown, which has seen bigger increases than Auckland, have not gone up that much.

Although difficult to implement, it would make sense to have an interest rate that is higher in some places than others, or an additional tax that applied in some places but not others.

Wanaka and Cromwell has gone up 40% in the last 24 months. 2 years! 40% !

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1760133 10-Apr-2017 11:53

Linuxluver:

UHD:

Linuxluver:

UHD:

All economists and analysts agree that the bulk of investment and speculation is done by Kiwis. A small portion (which only serves to further exacerbate an already out of control situation) is foreign investment but this is tiny compared to Kiwi money. The only organisations who are yet to get on board with the data seems to be NZ Herald/Stuff.

'Chinese investment' will always pale in comparison to the rampant speculation conducted by Kiwis regardless of how the Auckland market plays out. Global capital always looks for safe places to rest and NZ is relatively safe but there are still much safer and lucrative locations than Auckland in the world.

Those economists and analysts lump the Auckland market in with everywhere else and come up with a small nominal percentage.

It's effectively a lie.

Look at the level of foreign investment in the most desirable suburbs of Auckland and the percentage will leap to the skies.

Attend a few auctions and you soon understand the foreign investors tend to follow a "pay whatever it takes" strategy to buy the properties they want....so a relatively small (according to perceptions, not actual effects) portion of the buyers can have a HUGE impact on prices....and that is exactly what has happened.

Of course locals are the larger part of the market. No one is saying they aren't. But the "locals" are our very own "1%" (or 2% or whatever tiny portion it actually is) who already have access to the capital to buy the properties they want.

The other 99-ish% don't.

That's the problem right there.

Plus, looking at it on an annual basis is also misleading. Lets look across a decade. Go to some of the suburbs around central Auckland and see if you hear any English being spoken. Three percent a year is 30% after 10 years....and we are there.

I'm not anti-immigration. But I am 'anti' misleading reports about consequences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKGUwCb5GuA&t=1s

I'll give you a chance to do your own research and retract your position. Anecdotally considering auctions in desirable parts of Auckland isn't really a counter to any argument at all.

Eaqub is correct and I don't disagree with any of that. The fundamentals are bad. Neo-liberal policies have stunted wage growth, exported thousands of jobs that used to pay well, eliminated entire careers of skilled work that used to be done here and is now done elsewhere....and much else.

Into that mix - the cream on the cake - comes the all-time record immigration levels that are keeping the "rock star economy" afloat.....and adding that extra push to house prices which would, as Euqub rightly points out, have been rising anyway.....

But if the economy was flatter.....and immigration was lower.....like 70,000 people a year lower......then pressure on housing would be correspondingly reduced as we wouldn't have the extra 350,000-400,000 people who arrived since 2008 to accommodate.

If I have an argument at all it is one that avoids the black and white absolutes. I'm saying the all-time high immigration has added to the long term structural problems in a way - and with an intensity - that has had a big impact in the past few years.

I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that if there were 350,000 fewer people here looking for housing that prices would be as high now as they are.

No one disagrees that immigration is not a compounding factor on Auckland housing but it is a small one. The issue I have is that it is the first one mentioned in almost every discussion despite the fact that it is only a tiny portion of the problem. Which is exactly what you did...

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1760141 10-Apr-2017 12:04

UHD:

Linuxluver:

UHD:

Linuxluver:

UHD:

All economists and analysts agree that the bulk of investment and speculation is done by Kiwis. A small portion (which only serves to further exacerbate an already out of control situation) is foreign investment but this is tiny compared to Kiwi money. The only organisations who are yet to get on board with the data seems to be NZ Herald/Stuff.

'Chinese investment' will always pale in comparison to the rampant speculation conducted by Kiwis regardless of how the Auckland market plays out. Global capital always looks for safe places to rest and NZ is relatively safe but there are still much safer and lucrative locations than Auckland in the world.

Those economists and analysts lump the Auckland market in with everywhere else and come up with a small nominal percentage.

It's effectively a lie.

Look at the level of foreign investment in the most desirable suburbs of Auckland and the percentage will leap to the skies.

Attend a few auctions and you soon understand the foreign investors tend to follow a "pay whatever it takes" strategy to buy the properties they want....so a relatively small (according to perceptions, not actual effects) portion of the buyers can have a HUGE impact on prices....and that is exactly what has happened.

Of course locals are the larger part of the market. No one is saying they aren't. But the "locals" are our very own "1%" (or 2% or whatever tiny portion it actually is) who already have access to the capital to buy the properties they want.

The other 99-ish% don't.

That's the problem right there.

Plus, looking at it on an annual basis is also misleading. Lets look across a decade. Go to some of the suburbs around central Auckland and see if you hear any English being spoken. Three percent a year is 30% after 10 years....and we are there.

I'm not anti-immigration. But I am 'anti' misleading reports about consequences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKGUwCb5GuA&t=1s

I'll give you a chance to do your own research and retract your position. Anecdotally considering auctions in desirable parts of Auckland isn't really a counter to any argument at all.

Eaqub is correct and I don't disagree with any of that. The fundamentals are bad. Neo-liberal policies have stunted wage growth, exported thousands of jobs that used to pay well, eliminated entire careers of skilled work that used to be done here and is now done elsewhere....and much else.

Into that mix - the cream on the cake - comes the all-time record immigration levels that are keeping the "rock star economy" afloat.....and adding that extra push to house prices which would, as Euqub rightly points out, have been rising anyway.....

But if the economy was flatter.....and immigration was lower.....like 70,000 people a year lower......then pressure on housing would be correspondingly reduced as we wouldn't have the extra 350,000-400,000 people who arrived since 2008 to accommodate.

If I have an argument at all it is one that avoids the black and white absolutes. I'm saying the all-time high immigration has added to the long term structural problems in a way - and with an intensity - that has had a big impact in the past few years.

I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that if there were 350,000 fewer people here looking for housing that prices would be as high now as they are.

No one disagrees that immigration is not a compounding factor on Auckland housing but it is a small one. The issue I have is that it is the first one mentioned in almost every discussion despite the fact that it is only a tiny portion of the problem. Which is exactly what you did...

And if the admittedly small numbers front up at every desirable auction and blow us out of the water? Its their capability to continually pay more than normal, that makes the higher prices the new norm.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1760170 10-Apr-2017 13:03

tdgeek:

UHD:

Linuxluver:

UHD:

Linuxluver:

UHD:

All economists and analysts agree that the bulk of investment and speculation is done by Kiwis. A small portion (which only serves to further exacerbate an already out of control situation) is foreign investment but this is tiny compared to Kiwi money. The only organisations who are yet to get on board with the data seems to be NZ Herald/Stuff.

'Chinese investment' will always pale in comparison to the rampant speculation conducted by Kiwis regardless of how the Auckland market plays out. Global capital always looks for safe places to rest and NZ is relatively safe but there are still much safer and lucrative locations than Auckland in the world.

Those economists and analysts lump the Auckland market in with everywhere else and come up with a small nominal percentage.

It's effectively a lie.

Look at the level of foreign investment in the most desirable suburbs of Auckland and the percentage will leap to the skies.

Attend a few auctions and you soon understand the foreign investors tend to follow a "pay whatever it takes" strategy to buy the properties they want....so a relatively small (according to perceptions, not actual effects) portion of the buyers can have a HUGE impact on prices....and that is exactly what has happened.

Of course locals are the larger part of the market. No one is saying they aren't. But the "locals" are our very own "1%" (or 2% or whatever tiny portion it actually is) who already have access to the capital to buy the properties they want.

The other 99-ish% don't.

That's the problem right there.

Plus, looking at it on an annual basis is also misleading. Lets look across a decade. Go to some of the suburbs around central Auckland and see if you hear any English being spoken. Three percent a year is 30% after 10 years....and we are there.

I'm not anti-immigration. But I am 'anti' misleading reports about consequences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKGUwCb5GuA&t=1s

I'll give you a chance to do your own research and retract your position. Anecdotally considering auctions in desirable parts of Auckland isn't really a counter to any argument at all.

Eaqub is correct and I don't disagree with any of that. The fundamentals are bad. Neo-liberal policies have stunted wage growth, exported thousands of jobs that used to pay well, eliminated entire careers of skilled work that used to be done here and is now done elsewhere....and much else.

Into that mix - the cream on the cake - comes the all-time record immigration levels that are keeping the "rock star economy" afloat.....and adding that extra push to house prices which would, as Euqub rightly points out, have been rising anyway.....

But if the economy was flatter.....and immigration was lower.....like 70,000 people a year lower......then pressure on housing would be correspondingly reduced as we wouldn't have the extra 350,000-400,000 people who arrived since 2008 to accommodate.

If I have an argument at all it is one that avoids the black and white absolutes. I'm saying the all-time high immigration has added to the long term structural problems in a way - and with an intensity - that has had a big impact in the past few years.

I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that if there were 350,000 fewer people here looking for housing that prices would be as high now as they are.

No one disagrees that immigration is not a compounding factor on Auckland housing but it is a small one. The issue I have is that it is the first one mentioned in almost every discussion despite the fact that it is only a tiny portion of the problem. Which is exactly what you did...

And if the admittedly small numbers front up at every desirable auction and blow us out of the water? Its their capability to continually pay more than normal, that makes the higher prices the new norm.

Arguably they are simply redefining 'normal'. A common professional valuer's definition of market value is

“the estimated amount for which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm's length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion."

A public auction would seem to fit that description.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5