Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
13594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2453

Trusted

  Reply # 1639973 24-Sep-2016 19:17
Send private message

gzt: The thing about low/lower house prices is that a house is very likely to be the same value in relation to other houses. Buying a different house with the proceeds of an existing house is not a problem.

 

Nailed it. Those who bought 30 years ago are still laughing, maybe not as much. Those that bought  3 months ago, well they know its a heated market, they took the punt. No issues there.

 

If you want to upgrade, downsize, just sell/buy in the same market to hedge it


13594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2453

Trusted

  Reply # 1639976 24-Sep-2016 19:22
Send private message

dejadeadnz:

 

MikeB4: Hands up here all current home owners who want to see their market valuation drop by 10, 20, 30, 40 %

 

I for one couldn't give a stuff if my properties dropped 20% in book value. We currently rent where we live and own a couple of rentals (and behave like responsible tenants and landlords). Our leveraging is low and the rentals were bought as genuine investments, rather than speculating for capital gain. Sensible people can easily ride out drops of 20% or more. And I am sure the country overall will benefit from some price sanity in the long term. Not everyone focuses only on the tip of their nose every second.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep. Shares, there is a sharemarket downturn. The soundness of the stock is unchanged. Its not like a share price downturn , or crash, means that and every other company is rubbish. Its actually time to buy. My house value drops 20%, doesn't affect me. It rises 20%, also doesnt affects me. 

 

As has been stated previously, the GFC hard a fat lower effect here. Being small we are very exposed to global issues, but this country was low affected by the GFC as we are not in boots and all in the global financial system


14410 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1886


  Reply # 1639981 24-Sep-2016 19:33
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

dejadeadnz:

 

MikeB4: Hands up here all current home owners who want to see their market valuation drop by 10, 20, 30, 40 %

 

I for one couldn't give a stuff if my properties dropped 20% in book value. We currently rent where we live and own a couple of rentals (and behave like responsible tenants and landlords). Our leveraging is low and the rentals were bought as genuine investments, rather than speculating for capital gain. Sensible people can easily ride out drops of 20% or more. And I am sure the country overall will benefit from some price sanity in the long term. Not everyone focuses only on the tip of their nose every second.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep. Shares, there is a sharemarket downturn. The soundness of the stock is unchanged. Its not like a share price downturn , or crash, means that and every other company is rubbish. Its actually time to buy. My house value drops 20%, doesn't affect me. It rises 20%, also doesnt affects me. 

 

As has been stated previously, the GFC hard a fat lower effect here. Being small we are very exposed to global issues, but this country was low affected by the GFC as we are not in boots and all in the global financial system

 

 

 

 

Although try telling all the people who lost money in finance companies that. Hundred of millions of dollars of savings , of mostly retired people were lost. Many lost it due to incorrect information in the prospectuses, so it was outside of their control . There wasn't enough regulation back then, it is always the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff in NZ for this type of thing.  This time around many of the greys have put their money into houses, because they don't trust the sharemarket (after the 80's crash), or our financial markets

 

 

 

Shares are far more volatile than houses because you can buy and sell shares instantly, which means panic buying and selling can occur. Whereas houses take weeks to buy and sell. So the price swings are a lot slower, and there is less panic buying and selling. But external conditions outside of NZ could affect it, if cheap credit dried up, or overseas buyers weren't allowed to buy NZ homes.


13594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2453

Trusted

  Reply # 1640009 24-Sep-2016 19:49
Send private message

mattwnz:

 

tdgeek:

 

dejadeadnz:

 

MikeB4: Hands up here all current home owners who want to see their market valuation drop by 10, 20, 30, 40 %

 

I for one couldn't give a stuff if my properties dropped 20% in book value. We currently rent where we live and own a couple of rentals (and behave like responsible tenants and landlords). Our leveraging is low and the rentals were bought as genuine investments, rather than speculating for capital gain. Sensible people can easily ride out drops of 20% or more. And I am sure the country overall will benefit from some price sanity in the long term. Not everyone focuses only on the tip of their nose every second.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep. Shares, there is a sharemarket downturn. The soundness of the stock is unchanged. Its not like a share price downturn , or crash, means that and every other company is rubbish. Its actually time to buy. My house value drops 20%, doesn't affect me. It rises 20%, also doesnt affects me. 

 

As has been stated previously, the GFC hard a fat lower effect here. Being small we are very exposed to global issues, but this country was low affected by the GFC as we are not in boots and all in the global financial system

 

 

 

 

Although try telling all the people who lost money in finance companies that. Hundred of millions of dollars of savings , of mostly retired people were lost. Many lost it due to incorrect information in the prospectuses, so it was outside of their control . There wasn't enough regulation back then, it is always the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff in NZ for this type of thing.  This time around many of the greys have put their money into houses, because they don't trust the sharemarket (after the 80's crash), or our financial markets

 

 

 

Shares are far more volatile than houses because you can buy and sell shares instantly, which means panic buying and selling can occur. Whereas houses take weeks to buy and sell. So the price swings are a lot slower, and there is less panic buying and selling. But external conditions outside of NZ could affect it, if cheap credit dried up, or overseas buyers weren't allowed to buy NZ homes.

 

 

Pretty much agree. Shares are a lot like houses. They will appreciate over time, so ignore the bear and bull markets. When house prices are flat, i.e. not rising, shares and term deposits are good, as typically interest rates are higher. If your a share investor, its good to have negative drama, the market reacts downwards, yet the companies you invest in are often unaffected, time to buy, to reduce the average portfolio price per share. Its a funny and weird phenomena, as once a person becomes a shareholder, they become, well a share holder. Yet the panic, buoyancy of the market perception often overrides reality. Like property, don't go in for the short term. But you might male a tidy short term return if you are lucky


13594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2453

Trusted

  Reply # 1640011 24-Sep-2016 19:52
Send private message

The finance company issue was a great pity, thats the Govts fault 100%. Allowing freedom, or at least lack of monitoring/regulation that allowed excessive leverage. Leverage is awesome, until it bites. 


2575 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1216


  Reply # 1640020 24-Sep-2016 20:25
One person supports this post
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

The finance company issue was a great pity, thats the Govts fault 100%. Allowing freedom, or at least lack of monitoring/regulation that allowed excessive leverage. Leverage is awesome, until it bites. 

 

 

It's not the government's job to regulate the soundness of someones investment decisions.

 

The Crown regulates the banking sector because of systemic risk issues - there are hurdles and regulatory barriers in return for being allowed to call yourself a bank, and benefits as well. If you put your money in a bank you can have some confidence that they are being monitored (and implicitly supported, to at least a degree) by the central bank. If you put you money with a finance company you passed on the benefit of having it as closely regulated as a bank, and explicitly took on more risk, in return for a higher interest rate.

 

If finance company investors wanted less risk they should have deposited their money in a bank. If they wanted basically none, they should have bought government bonds. Instead they deliberately took on more risk to try and make more money. For many years that worked for them and they did better than being in a bank, until the risk materialised. Not the government's fault (either Labour when the crash started, or National's later on) at all.

 

Investors took a risk, and lost money when it didn't turn out for them. Move along .... nothing to see here.

 

 


13594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2453

Trusted

  Reply # 1640027 24-Sep-2016 21:02
Send private message

JimmyH:

 

tdgeek:

 

The finance company issue was a great pity, thats the Govts fault 100%. Allowing freedom, or at least lack of monitoring/regulation that allowed excessive leverage. Leverage is awesome, until it bites. 

 

 

It's not the government's job to regulate the soundness of someones investment decisions.

 

The Crown regulates the banking sector because of systemic risk issues - there are hurdles and regulatory barriers in return for being allowed to call yourself a bank, and benefits as well. If you put your money in a bank you can have some confidence that they are being monitored (and implicitly supported, to at least a degree) by the central bank. If you put you money with a finance company you passed on the benefit of having it as closely regulated as a bank, and explicitly took on more risk, in return for a higher interest rate.

 

If finance company investors wanted less risk they should have deposited their money in a bank. If they wanted basically none, they should have bought government bonds. Instead they deliberately took on more risk to try and make more money. For many years that worked for them and they did better than being in a bank, until the risk materialised. Not the government's fault (either Labour when the crash started, or National's later on) at all.

 

Investors took a risk, and lost money when it didn't turn out for them. Move along .... nothing to see here.

 

 

 

 

Not quite correct.

 

Non bank financial institutions are regulated, and were regulated before the small handful of inept and illicit finance companies folded. In 2007 regulations that existed were enhanced, and in a rush, to improve this situation. 

 

So it it is the case that it is the Govts job to regulate investment decisions, that has been the case for non banks for a long time. Little different to many parts pf our lives where Govt regulatory behaviour exists.


5216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2123


  Reply # 1640216 25-Sep-2016 13:48
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Pretty much agree. Shares are a lot like houses. They will appreciate over time, so ignore the bear and bull markets. When house prices are flat, i.e. not rising, shares and term deposits are good, as typically interest rates are higher.

 

 

Shares collectivity grow (slowly in NZ) over time. A single stock can rapidly collapse and never rebound. Plenty of once great companies have gone to the wall.  Plenty of people lost almost everything in 1987 and in the GFC.

 

Shares are OK if you have the skills to manage a portfolio.  Most people don't.  I certainly don't and I really have no interest in learning. 

 

So many shares are based on intangible assets that can vanish overnight.  Companies with significant market capitalisation that own very little in the way of real assets.  BS and jelly beans.

 

My Kiwisaver is my investment in shares and everything else I don't understand how to trade.  I only have that because it gets me contributions from employers and govt.





Mike

7540 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3953


  Reply # 1640247 25-Sep-2016 14:16
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

tdgeek:

 

Pretty much agree. Shares are a lot like houses. They will appreciate over time, so ignore the bear and bull markets. When house prices are flat, i.e. not rising, shares and term deposits are good, as typically interest rates are higher.

 

 

Shares collectivity grow (slowly in NZ) over time. A single stock can rapidly collapse and never rebound. Plenty of once great companies have gone to the wall.  Plenty of people lost almost everything in 1987 and in the GFC.

 

Shares are OK if you have the skills to manage a portfolio.  Most people don't.  I certainly don't and I really have no interest in learning. 

 

So many shares are based on intangible assets that can vanish overnight.  Companies with significant market capitalisation that own very little in the way of real assets.  BS and jelly beans.

 

My Kiwisaver is my investment in shares and everything else I don't understand how to trade.  I only have that because it gets me contributions from employers and govt.

 

 

 

 

There's actually a big difference missed here.

 

In most cases shares are paid for by private investors using (surplus) saved cash, in most cases property is purchased using borrowed money.

 

As an "investment" therefore, as most property "investors" are highly geared - which is great when you're enjoying an upturn in the market - but you're also exposed to a much larger downside when the market heads South.  Share market investors are therefore much less likely to be in a position where they're forced to sell in a downturn - at least these days they are.  The '87 crash was a little different, as in that case a lot of shares were owned by private investors - and many had borrowed heavily to invest - they took a bath.

 

I don't think the statement "they will appreciate over time" is correct.  They have, on average, appreciated over time - you're relying on faith alone if you're a believer that past trends will continue.

 

 

 

 


3821 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1248


  Reply # 1640298 25-Sep-2016 18:05
Send private message

I feel for my kids, their future is bleaker than mine. 

 

I don't see how they will ever afford the 2 million plus it will cost to own a house in Auckland when they get older. 

 

If wages kept up with house price growth we'd have an average salary of 500k a year. 

 

I bought my first house easy.  If anything , i think my generation were able to fritter away money and still afford a house, the latest younger generation of house buying age have to live with their parents, shack up with a partner, or get into multi-generational loan type deals. 

 

The important question to me, is when will interest rates rise. 

 

 

 

 


14410 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1886


  Reply # 1640308 25-Sep-2016 18:25
Send private message

surfisup1000:

 

I feel for my kids, their future is bleaker than mine. 

 

I don't see how they will ever afford the 2 million plus it will cost to own a house in Auckland when they get older. 

 

If wages kept up with house price growth we'd have an average salary of 500k a year. 

 

I bought my first house easy.  If anything , i think my generation were able to fritter away money and still afford a house, the latest younger generation of house buying age have to live with their parents, shack up with a partner, or get into multi-generational loan type deals. 

 

The important question to me, is when will interest rates rise. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is one of the byproducts for wanting to grow our population so much and quickly. But I get the impression that government are doing this as a way to make the economy look far better than it actually is.I do fear for the next generation, that we are going to have a shortage of resources for healthcare and education, as well as huge infrastructure costs are going to be needed. There will be housing, but it will be higher density townhouse and apartment living. If people don't want that, they should vote out political parties that are for such policies. Personally I think we are heading down  a track where we are changing what make NZ such a special place to live in. We have some really cheap and nasty developments being built. We are also destroying our environment, which is our number 1 resource.


5216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2123


  Reply # 1640309 25-Sep-2016 18:26
One person supports this post
Send private message

A decrease in property value does not force a sale.  It doesn't effect your ability to service the debt.

 

As long as the debt is serviced, the bank don't care

 

A decrease in net cash-flow position can effect cash flow and therefore force a sale, examples might be: -

 

Increased interest, decreased rental income, decreased other income (e.g. salary).





Mike

14410 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1886


  Reply # 1640316 25-Sep-2016 18:42
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

A decrease in property value does not force a sale.  It doesn't effect your ability to service the debt.

 

As long as the debt is serviced, the bank don't care

 

A decrease in net cash-flow position can effect cash flow and therefore force a sale, examples might be: -

 

Increased interest, decreased rental income, decreased other income (e.g. salary).

 

 

 

 

Banks though do get very uneasy when a property is worth less than the amount they have lent out to a home buyer.


13594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2453

Trusted

  Reply # 1640340 25-Sep-2016 20:14
Send private message

mattwnz:

 

MikeAqua:

 

A decrease in property value does not force a sale.  It doesn't effect your ability to service the debt.

 

As long as the debt is serviced, the bank don't care

 

A decrease in net cash-flow position can effect cash flow and therefore force a sale, examples might be: -

 

Increased interest, decreased rental income, decreased other income (e.g. salary).

 

 

 

 

Banks though do get very uneasy when a property is worth less than the amount they have lent out to a home buyer.

 

 

If thats was 8 years ago, no prob. If it was 8 months ago, thats the banks problem. The heated market is not lost on anyone especially the bank.


13594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2453

Trusted

  Reply # 1640342 25-Sep-2016 20:19
Send private message

mattwnz:

 

surfisup1000:

 

I feel for my kids, their future is bleaker than mine. 

 

I don't see how they will ever afford the 2 million plus it will cost to own a house in Auckland when they get older. 

 

If wages kept up with house price growth we'd have an average salary of 500k a year. 

 

I bought my first house easy.  If anything , i think my generation were able to fritter away money and still afford a house, the latest younger generation of house buying age have to live with their parents, shack up with a partner, or get into multi-generational loan type deals. 

 

The important question to me, is when will interest rates rise. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is one of the byproducts for wanting to grow our population so much and quickly. But I get the impression that government are doing this as a way to make the economy look far better than it actually is.I do fear for the next generation, that we are going to have a shortage of resources for healthcare and education, as well as huge infrastructure costs are going to be needed. There will be housing, but it will be higher density townhouse and apartment living. If people don't want that, they should vote out political parties that are for such policies. Personally I think we are heading down  a track where we are changing what make NZ such a special place to live in. We have some really cheap and nasty developments being built. We are also destroying our environment, which is our number 1 resource.

 

 

Im not aware of any party gong down that track. If they did, fine, Ill still buy my large house and large section. How great is NZ? Its remote, thats a good thing. We have scenery, so does everyone else, if not better. But being small and remote is what I like. If we grow our population we will always be insignificant, which to me is great.

 

Every now and then we beat Oz in cricket, every 8 minutes we beat them in rugger, whats not to like??  :-)


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.