If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Andrew, do you disagree with the 45% investor figure posted in the article at the start of this thread?
If you do disagree, what is your figure?
If you do agree, are you saying that 41% (45% of 92%) of the buying market are not affecting prices ?
Property investors group says investors aren't to blame for driving up Auckland house prices
As the president of the Auckland Property Investors' Association (APIA), I am regularly approached by members disputing the portrayal of investors as the main driver of Auckland house prices.
Last edited by speights boy; 22-07-2014, 01:40 PM.
You know this how ?
What an arrogant statement to make.
Yes I admit it was arogant, guess what, I dont care.
But true arogance is naming towns as zombie towns in the newspaper and effectively condemning people in those towns who have jobs and own houses.
I think my comment is rather innocent compared to the destructive nature of SE's.
My idea of banishing anyone on the dole to these underpopulated town's is a heck of a lot more positive.
Reduce handouts as housing is cheap and plentiful, and there is greater self sufficiency potential with gardens and fishing and hunting.
Plus the income (govt) to these area's will then create a nexus of wealth and economic development.
Note how I have solved 3 social issues in one fell swoop.
It's not a lot more positive to the people who currently live in those towns. In fact, it's pretty damned negative for them.
Sending 30,000 people from Auckland to the far north is a heck of a lot more cheaper than building 10,000 homes in Auckland.
Where is your social responsibility Leftette.
Thats a 7 Billion saving for NZ, and supports rural towns, supplied bodies for those empty houses, and free's up auckland traffic.
Saving another 3 Billion on auckland roads.
Heck I think I have just solved 5 major social issues now.
My social responsibility lies firmly in the camp that says a Govt should never have the power or ability to send people to live where the Govt believes is best.
My social responsibility lies firmly in the camp that says a Govt should never have the power or ability to send people to live where the Govt believes is best.
They dont, think outside the square lefty.
They abolish all housing support in auckland and christchurch.
If these people want housing assistance, then they "Choose" to go somewhere less populated and less expensive.
Further to my questions in post # 17 for Andrew - or anyone here from the AIPA for that matter - I note you say this.
In the case of residential property investment, return is determined by the price we pay for a property in relation to the rental income it generates after all the expenses have been deducted.
Investors view properties through a very different set of lenses as home-buyers.
After all, investors are acutely aware that a high purchase price will only have a negative impact on the net return.
Are you saying that Auckland investors are buying cashflow positive properties as the general rule ?
Last edited by speights boy; 22-07-2014, 03:33 PM.
^ If you had to guess, how accurate would that 40+% of AKL sales going to investors be do you think ?
Last six months from experience in the market trying to buy auckland property, attending lots of auctions and putting in offers, and buying 2 houses.
I would estimate:
60% chinese (NZ or otherwise, or asians that look like they might be chinese, but could be Taiwanes / Korean maybe).
25% NZ home owners
15% investors
Thats what I am seeing.
NZ investors and home owners getting anything the chinese dont want.
Confronted by the undeniable current upward trend of Auckland house prices and setting aside the rhetoric, I feel compelled to ask, 'If investors are not driving up the house prices then who is?'
Would you think it is fair to say that investors are a large enough part of the market that there is little doubt they are very much part of the demand side.....hence contributing - probably significantly- to the price rises ?
If the answer is "they only invest for yield" then they cannot be contributing.
If the answer is BK's, which is "the reason is not yield" then they must be contributing.
It cannot be both, but given the yield is shite in Auckland, then BK must be correct and Andrew must be wrong, given the % of buyers that are investors.
Comment