Johnny Moore: I blame baby boomers for housing mess

Forums › Off topic › Johnny Moore: I blame baby boomers for housing mess

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1597749 24-Jul-2016 15:10

gzt: Statements like "I blame ______ for housing mess" are rarely accurate.

It does not usually end well.

This will be no exception.

Yes, there are so many factors, many are offshore economies that dictate us.

Housing? I reckon immigrants can only come here if they build a new home. Come here, allowed to rent for a year, if they have a build in progress, fine. That moves the demand from existing house auctions and suchlike, to the building industry being able to expand. If not, The Govt can create a state owned builder operation, where the houses are built as fast as they are wanted, and at sensible prices, ie. cost plus margin, to eliminate over priced quotes in times of high demand. Need more? Hit the trades education system to bring on the skills. If all this sorted itself, out, the state owned builder can be sold off to private builders.

mudguard

2327 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#1597751 24-Jul-2016 15:17

Could it not be as simple as determining that a loan is for business purposes (IE a rental). Then simply charging commercial interest rates?

gzt

18669 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7805

Lifetime subscriber

#1597754 24-Jul-2016 15:41

tdgeek:
gzt: Statements like "I blame ______ for housing mess" are rarely accurate.

It does not usually end well.

This will be no exception.

Yes, there are so many factors, many are offshore economies that dictate us.

Housing? I reckon immigrants can only come here if they build a new home. Come here, allowed to rent for a year, if they have a build in progress, fine. That moves the demand from existing house auctions and suchlike, to the building industry being able to expand. If not, The Govt can create a state owned builder operation, where the houses are built as fast as they are wanted, and at sensible prices, ie. cost plus margin, to eliminate over priced quotes in times of high demand. Need more? Hit the trades education system to bring on the skills. If all this sorted itself, out, the state owned builder can be sold off to private builders.

Imo if people are coming here to work or whatever then they should be able to buy a home if they want to. That is just sensible and not disruptive.

Offshore investment in housing is a different story and that is best employed in creating new high quality housing that everyone can afford.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4794

#1597771 24-Jul-2016 16:43

Many of the immigrants are actually just NZers returning to NZ as the work in Oz or the UK has dried up, or the living conditions are no longer as good as they were. A lot of it has to do with the wars, terrorism, etc occurring and NZ is one of the few safe countries ATM.

I don't have a problem with immigrants buying housing stock, although I do believe they restrict them in Oz and require immigrants do new builds.. But I do have a problem with overseas buyers who are buying houses for investment reasons, buying NZ properties, but they live overseas. They are doing as a another place to invest their money. This has resulted ina lot of empty houses / zombie houses.

Queenstown for example has around 10% (if not more) of their houses owned by people living overseas, which is a big number. The fact that we don't really have any stats on who are buying our homes is also really poor management, as it has helped cause this problem, resulting in not enough houses being built.

People who have purchased houses at the very top of the market, are likely to be burnt when the bubble bursts, but you always get that with any type of bubble, you get the winner and losers. It is just a pity the banks haven't been more conservative. If you hear the CEO of ANZ bank, he said that they would like to rise the LVR to 60%, but they can't because if they did this, people would just go to other banks for the loan. So rising it won't help NZ unless it rises centrally. But NZ is just so slow at making changes. The time to act was 5 years ago. Now it really too late for at least some people not to get badly burnt IMO.

I do think that this type of article that has been published, which isn't the first of these type of nasty little articles, isn't helpful, and creates division between generations.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4794

#1597774 24-Jul-2016 16:50

jmh:

alasta:

richms:

The ones I do feel sorry for in the upcoming correction are those that have their cash together for a deposit and as a young couple/group are mortgaged to hell for a pretty average property that will become worth a lot less than they owe on it. And because of how things work in NZ, they are liable for the whole value of the loans, no walking away like in the USA.

Up until now politicians have been encouraging young people to get up to their eyeballs in debt to buy a house because it's never politically expedient to tell them that they can't or shouldn't buy houses. It was a relief a few days ago to finally near Nick Smith admitting on Morning Report that now is a bad time for young financially stretched people to buy houses.

The real risk here is that housing investors are relying on capital gains for their income. When those capital gains eventually dry up then rents will have to increase substantially, hence creating a huge amount of inflationary pressure, which will then prompt the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates. When interest rates go up then highly leveraged homeowners could be in real trouble.

With both Nick Smith and Bill English telling people to 'be patient' it makes me wonder whether they know a price crash or take-down is on the way.

The other risk for investors/landlords is if unemployment rises suddenly and people can't afford to pay their rent.

If unemployment rises a lot, so over 12% the whole economy will suffer, as it has a big knock on effect. The problem with rising house prices, is that rents also need to increase for investors to get a reasonable return. Especially as they can't then rely on capital gain at the moment. But investors do have the choice whether they should drop their rent to a more affordable level. People will also get government handouts if unemployed to cover rent.

When rents decrease or can't go up any more, houses will be worth less for investors, and you will get more selling up, which will then give an opportunity for first home buyers. This will be a good thing, and these things all go in cycles. I always cringe when I hear investors say they are doing it for public good and they are providing a public service. Some maybe doing this, but I think the majority are doing it to make money.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1597778 24-Jul-2016 17:01

mattwnz:

People will also get government handouts if unemployed to cover rent.

There's already about $2 billion per annum being spent on accommodation supplement. Completely nuts - not that people should be forced out of homes to live in the street - but subsidising landlords by topping up what the market is unable to afford so that investors can line their pockets with taxpayer funded rental income is shameful.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4794

#1597787 24-Jul-2016 17:17

Fred99:

mattwnz:

People will also get government handouts if unemployed to cover rent.

There's already about $2 billion per annum being spent on accommodation supplement. Completely nuts - not that people should be forced out of homes to live in the street - but subsidising landlords by topping up what the market is unable to afford so that investors can line their pockets with taxpayer funded rental income is shameful.

The thing is the government don't want to be dealing with housing, they would prefer to contract all that out. It is the same with most things, they would prefer to contract it out, and put it in private hands, and let the market dictate the price. The amount they are lending for emergency housing is terrible too, some people must be making a lot of money from it all.

The government probably needs to crash the market to a certain level, and banking stress tests show that banks will cope with this. But their is no political motivation to do this from either party. Also most polys have houses so they don't want to see their investment also go down.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1597809 24-Jul-2016 18:32

mattwnz:
tdgeek:

Go back when times were supposedly good. More affordable homes, baby boomers bought them. Thats normal. Who was running the country then? Not baby boomers. Perhaps the previous generation is to blame. Or put the blame to baby boomers who bought, saved, invested, thanks to the older generation then, who ran the place

There are several reason why house prices are high. But that will change as these things go on cycles. The thing is house prices don't always go up, and when there is a glut of house supply prices will come back. If you are a good investor you never buy at the top of the market, you wait for a correction.

They do go up, ask Bob Jones or Oliver Newland to name but two. Historically, house prices double every 10 years. Not linear. With todays low inflation and low wage increases that no doubt changes. But its like food, a solid investment. The market will show a lack lustre gain, so people move to stocks, then back to property. If I had my way and if I was voted PM for 10years, I would make property, electricity and whatever other necessities, state owned. No profit, get the necessities done as low cost as possible, and let the market take care of luxuries.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1597810 24-Jul-2016 18:36

gzt:
tdgeek:

gzt: Statements like "I blame ______ for housing mess" are rarely accurate.

It does not usually end well.

This will be no exception.

Yes, there are so many factors, many are offshore economies that dictate us.

Housing? I reckon immigrants can only come here if they build a new home. Come here, allowed to rent for a year, if they have a build in progress, fine. That moves the demand from existing house auctions and suchlike, to the building industry being able to expand. If not, The Govt can create a state owned builder operation, where the houses are built as fast as they are wanted, and at sensible prices, ie. cost plus margin, to eliminate over priced quotes in times of high demand. Need more? Hit the trades education system to bring on the skills. If all this sorted itself, out, the state owned builder can be sold off to private builders.

Imo if people are coming here to work or whatever then they should be able to buy a home if they want to. That is just sensible and not disruptive.

Offshore investment in housing is a different story and that is best employed in creating new high quality housing that everyone can afford.

Im talking immigrants. We have a housing crisis, although everyone is housed, so theoretically no crisis, no need for more park benches. I don't want to buy a house and be competing with immigrants with 2 gazillion to spare, who think One mill is cheap as bro. They can be here, thats good for NZ but build your own place, don't compete with me buying on my NZ income, house yourself, away from auctions.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1597812 24-Jul-2016 18:38

mattwnz:

Many of the immigrants are actually just NZers returning to NZ as the work in Oz or the UK has dried up, or the living conditions are no longer as good as they were. A lot of it has to do with the wars, terrorism, etc occurring and NZ is one of the few safe countries ATM.

I don't have a problem with immigrants buying housing stock, although I do believe they restrict them in Oz and require immigrants do new builds.. But I do have a problem with overseas buyers who are buying houses for investment reasons, buying NZ properties, but they live overseas. They are doing as a another place to invest their money. This has resulted ina lot of empty houses / zombie houses.

Queenstown for example has around 10% (if not more) of their houses owned by people living overseas, which is a big number. The fact that we don't really have any stats on who are buying our homes is also really poor management, as it has helped cause this problem, resulting in not enough houses being built.

People who have purchased houses at the very top of the market, are likely to be burnt when the bubble bursts, but you always get that with any type of bubble, you get the winner and losers. It is just a pity the banks haven't been more conservative. If you hear the CEO of ANZ bank, he said that they would like to rise the LVR to 60%, but they can't because if they did this, people would just go to other banks for the loan. So rising it won't help NZ unless it rises centrally. But NZ is just so slow at making changes. The time to act was 5 years ago. Now it really too late for at least some people not to get badly burnt IMO.

I do think that this type of article that has been published, which isn't the first of these type of nasty little articles, isn't helpful, and creates division between generations.

I agree, overseas ownership and no residency is an artificial way to disrupt the real buyers, i.e the living population contributing to NZ. It should be banned, full stop.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1597815 24-Jul-2016 18:46

mattwnz:

jmh:

alasta:

richms:

The ones I do feel sorry for in the upcoming correction are those that have their cash together for a deposit and as a young couple/group are mortgaged to hell for a pretty average property that will become worth a lot less than they owe on it. And because of how things work in NZ, they are liable for the whole value of the loans, no walking away like in the USA.

Up until now politicians have been encouraging young people to get up to their eyeballs in debt to buy a house because it's never politically expedient to tell them that they can't or shouldn't buy houses. It was a relief a few days ago to finally near Nick Smith admitting on Morning Report that now is a bad time for young financially stretched people to buy houses.

The real risk here is that housing investors are relying on capital gains for their income. When those capital gains eventually dry up then rents will have to increase substantially, hence creating a huge amount of inflationary pressure, which will then prompt the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates. When interest rates go up then highly leveraged homeowners could be in real trouble.

With both Nick Smith and Bill English telling people to 'be patient' it makes me wonder whether they know a price crash or take-down is on the way.

The other risk for investors/landlords is if unemployment rises suddenly and people can't afford to pay their rent.

If unemployment rises a lot, so over 12% the whole economy will suffer, as it has a big knock on effect. The problem with rising house prices, is that rents also need to increase for investors to get a reasonable return. Especially as they can't then rely on capital gain at the moment. But investors do have the choice whether they should drop their rent to a more affordable level. People will also get government handouts if unemployed to cover rent.

When rents decrease or can't go up any more, houses will be worth less for investors, and you will get more selling up, which will then give an opportunity for first home buyers. This will be a good thing, and these things all go in cycles. I always cringe when I hear investors say they are doing it for public good and they are providing a public service. Some maybe doing this, but I think the majority are doing it to make money.

Investors dont do it for public good, they do it for number 1. Supply and demand. Rents are too high, no tenants, rents drop, house follow, as income is relative to investments.

Ive invested in property at age 18. Its a money making exercise, nothing else. Rent less expenses, can be lucrative if your well geared, then you have capital gain. Easy as. But, housing is for living in, owning, passing it on, wealth, and by that I mean family wealth from ending up with freehold for yourself and for the kids. More money to spend on the economy than interest for banks.

So, eliminate the investment angle and you satisfy the real home ownership, i.e. the ones the live there. CGT helps that. I feel that there is a huge gain from real home ownership, self worth, security, and so on.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1597816 24-Jul-2016 18:49

Fred99:

mattwnz:

People will also get government handouts if unemployed to cover rent.

There's already about $2 billion per annum being spent on accommodation supplement. Completely nuts - not that people should be forced out of homes to live in the street - but subsidising landlords by topping up what the market is unable to afford so that investors can line their pockets with taxpayer funded rental income is shameful.

I agree. The state needs to step in. Not that Im favouring a socialist outcome, but food, shelter and clothing should be a given. Remove the profit, and help those that try to help themselves. Power supply the same. Why we had a state owned power supply and gave it away to companies to take a profit is beyond me.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1597819 24-Jul-2016 18:52

mattwnz:

Fred99:

mattwnz:

People will also get government handouts if unemployed to cover rent.

There's already about $2 billion per annum being spent on accommodation supplement. Completely nuts - not that people should be forced out of homes to live in the street - but subsidising landlords by topping up what the market is unable to afford so that investors can line their pockets with taxpayer funded rental income is shameful.

The thing is the government don't want to be dealing with housing, they would prefer to contract all that out. It is the same with most things, they would prefer to contract it out, and put it in private hands, and let the market dictate the price. The amount they are lending for emergency housing is terrible too, some people must be making a lot of money from it all.

The government probably needs to crash the market to a certain level, and banking stress tests show that banks will cope with this. But their is no political motivation to do this from either party. Also most polys have houses so they don't want to see their investment also go down.

Sad but true. Food, SHELTER clothing, ugh. Some upstart needs to state own electricity and give a state entry to housing.

MileHighKiwi

782 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 581

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1597820 24-Jul-2016 18:52

It goes on and on. The 20-30 somethings blaming baby boomers today will one day in their 50's and 60's, maximising their earning potential, owning property etc...and their kids will be moaning about the new 'baby boomers' taking all the wealth, buying all the houses. Everything goes in cycles. The market will adjust soon and people will be complaining about losing money on their homes.

sxz

761 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 194

#1597821 24-Jul-2016 18:54

tdgeek:

mattwnz:

jmh:

alasta:

richms:

The ones I do feel sorry for in the upcoming correction are those that have their cash together for a deposit and as a young couple/group are mortgaged to hell for a pretty average property that will become worth a lot less than they owe on it. And because of how things work in NZ, they are liable for the whole value of the loans, no walking away like in the USA.

Up until now politicians have been encouraging young people to get up to their eyeballs in debt to buy a house because it's never politically expedient to tell them that they can't or shouldn't buy houses. It was a relief a few days ago to finally near Nick Smith admitting on Morning Report that now is a bad time for young financially stretched people to buy houses.

The real risk here is that housing investors are relying on capital gains for their income. When those capital gains eventually dry up then rents will have to increase substantially, hence creating a huge amount of inflationary pressure, which will then prompt the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates. When interest rates go up then highly leveraged homeowners could be in real trouble.

With both Nick Smith and Bill English telling people to 'be patient' it makes me wonder whether they know a price crash or take-down is on the way.

The other risk for investors/landlords is if unemployment rises suddenly and people can't afford to pay their rent.

If unemployment rises a lot, so over 12% the whole economy will suffer, as it has a big knock on effect. The problem with rising house prices, is that rents also need to increase for investors to get a reasonable return. Especially as they can't then rely on capital gain at the moment. But investors do have the choice whether they should drop their rent to a more affordable level. People will also get government handouts if unemployed to cover rent.

When rents decrease or can't go up any more, houses will be worth less for investors, and you will get more selling up, which will then give an opportunity for first home buyers. This will be a good thing, and these things all go in cycles. I always cringe when I hear investors say they are doing it for public good and they are providing a public service. Some maybe doing this, but I think the majority are doing it to make money.

Investors dont do it for public good, they do it for number 1. Supply and demand. Rents are too high, no tenants, rents drop, house follow, as income is relative to investments.

Ive invested in property at age 18. Its a money making exercise, nothing else. Rent less expenses, can be lucrative if your well geared, then you have capital gain. Easy as. But, housing is for living in, owning, passing it on, wealth, and by that I mean family wealth from ending up with freehold for yourself and for the kids. More money to spend on the economy than interest for banks.

So, eliminate the investment angle and you satisfy the real home ownership, i.e. the ones the live there. CGT helps that. I feel that there is a huge gain from real home ownership, self worth, security, and so on.

Then aren't you part of the problem?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5