Consultation on proposed RTA changes

[klauster]

That's what I see too. The biggest impact will be on the lower end of the rental market, supply will tighten, no one will dare to take a risk with anything other than a well proven, quality tenant. Tenants who are on the margins and have a poor reputation will simply to shut out of renting.

True, by tightening the rent application process the number of people not finding a rental will increase (so the bills for the taxpayer to support the homeless).

[Wayne]

That's what I see too. The biggest impact will be on the lower end of the rental market, supply will tighten, no one will dare to take a risk with anything other than a well proven, quality tenant. Tenants who are on the margins and have a poor reputation will simply to shut out of renting.

Do people take a risk now or rent to 'best bet'?
Why would you take a risk now even with our current rules?

[Don't believe the Hype]

Fences are clearly in the depreciation tables - both Building and fitout (BDFO) and Building and structures (BUIL)
Remember when building depreciation was removed it was done for commercial as well.
They are the same but the definition of 'fitout' was tightened a bit.

brilliant -much appreciated Wayne and thanks for the PM with accounts details.

[klauster]

By a happy landlord – you never know how much time is left.

The RTA Reform paper is something every investor might read, even if not making a submission. LL’s issues are clearly underrepresented. Working through the survey - it is a massive amount of considerations originated by tenant lobby groups. It hits like a train at railway crossing.

Four nuggets:
[1] Removing NO CAUSE termination inclusive 42 days notice and ending a tenancy by 90 days notice only if the tenant had an opportunity of remedy opens all doors for retaliation claims. Not having control, not being able to sell vacant or renovate before selling has financial consequences (it’s a devaluation).

[2] More RIGHTs for tenants on LL’s expense. More rights (how it works in countries with good experiences) are bound together with obligations for tenants to be responsible for maintenance of the fit-out or bring your own. Also council levies are charged to the occupant/tenant directly not to landlords.

[3] The bond scheme that is not covering LL’s risk but for the benefits of the tenancy services stays on.

[4] Central dealing with outstanding rent, illegal use of substances and drugs, etc – is not part of the proposal. The extent is documented by TT orders, but negative social developments are remain LL’s problem. In contrast LLs get MBIE's enforcement groups.

Who knows about the size and content of the NZPIF submission paper?

[Davo36]

My property manager says they've lost heaps of listings in the last 6 months - all because of people selling up due to the incoming regs. Mainly older mum and dad investor types. This is Auckland.

[Perry]

Why do you suppose it is that the new crop of woodenheads at the helm can't or won't or refuse to see these sorts of (almost entirely predictable) consequences?

[Keys]

Just finished the survey. Took ages. Nobody who has no skin in the game would even bother.

[Davo36]

Well in this case Perry, not only do they see it, they like it. They want houses to be owner occupied, not rented...

[Davo36]

Just finished the survey. Took ages. Nobody who has no skin in the game would even bother.

They just vote Labour! And you know, then the government will look after them, give them free stuff etc.

[Perry]

The Sky is Falling! Quick - To The Cave.

I suspect we all knew that, David. But it still begs the question:

Why do the new crop of woodenheads at the helm refuse to see that most renters are that way because they can't be owner-occupiers? (Or don't want to be.)

And that's without even considering the de-homed (what is it? 18-20 people) when every 10 houses move from being rented to being owner-occupied.

Are they really that thick / stupid?

Or are their sycophantic policy advisors that thick / stupid?

Or maybe both?

[Don't believe the Hype]

Well in this case Perry, not only do they see it, they like it. They want houses to be owner occupied, not rented...

when a large number can’t pay the rent, how lenient do you think the banks will be on late payment of mortgages?

Perry - here is a prediction for you. Headline circa 2020: Landlord sells house to FHB for $500k, buys it back at Mortgagee sale for $400k

[Perry]

when a large number can’t pay the rent, how lenient do you think the banks will be on late payment of mortgages?

Perry - here's a prediction for you. Headline circa 2020: Landlord sells house to FHB for $500k, buys it back at Mortgagee sale for $400k

Candidly, I can't see it happening on any widespread basis. Mainly because the banks will not likely be lending to many wishful-thinking-homeowner, wannabe ex-tenants in the first place.

Most pessimists get that way by financing optimists!

[AlFa]

Well in this case Perry, not only do they see it, they like it. They want houses to be owner occupied, not rented...

Wonderful on the paper - totally doesn't work in real life. My personal experience - selling 3 rentals. Offered tenants to buy them at discount. Everyone was eager. Not one was able to secure finance.

How's that Taxinda???

[Perry]

Dhil Twitford will have a deep and meaningful chat with the banks, eh what?

[Davo36]

Well to be fair the prices did go up under National.

As well as the population. And of course interest rates went way down. And then anyone and their dog in the world was allowed to buy here.

Labour are not really changing any of this.

DBTH - In the last downturn, banks did in fact save their mortgage holders. They did so because if they didn't and everyone had to sell then they'd lose money on mortgages all over. So they kept the party going.

AlFA - Yes I understand. We have expensive houses, but most of the population can't afford them.

Perry - I guess it's about getting re-elected. If you have to destroy things to do so, then so be it.