Financial Armageddon!!

[Bluekiwi]

Yep he got us through the GFC and the Chch Earthquakes, NZ was very lucky the labour buffoon's and axis of stupidity were not in charge at the time.

[Wayne]

Yep he got us through the GFC and the Chch Earthquakes, NZ was very lucky the labour buffoon's and axis of stupidity were not in charge at the time.

If you say so.
NZ was very lucky that the good management from Labour left the country in a good financial position to withstand the GFC and earthquakes.

[Bluekiwi]

If you call bribing students $15 Billion in student debt to get in power as "good management", then all power to you.

[Wayne]

If you call bribing students $15 Billion in student debt to get in power as "good management", then all power to you.

And National got rid of that even though they were opposed? No they didn't because they were after votes rather than good policy

[Bluekiwi]

Sounds like a 100% admission that is was bad policy that cost the country billions.

That's my point, you just proved it, if Labour had been in Govt when the GFC, we would have been stuffed.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

It's stupid debt which they should just write off.

[Perry]

It's The Name of the Game

I really don't think you two disagree - overall. (Wayne, Paul)

Oneupmanship. Brinkmanship. Bullshitemship.

Bribing voters is stock-in-trade for the W'gton woodenheads and wannabes.

It's never changed much and never will, from what I've seen.

If you call bribing students $15 Billion in student debt to get in power as "good management", then all power to you.

The 1957 'transfer/theft' of the social security fund into the gummint's consolidated fund. (Contributions were one and sixpence in the pound!);
Nordie's Black Budget of 1958;
Piggy robbing the EQC fund;
National increasing the Fire Services levy part of insurance premiums.
Or . . . .

When is an increase not an increase?

When it's just a 'change.'

Like the reds no new taxes (but that didn't include increasing existing taxes) and the NZ suckerstituency fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

Eventually, the costs of the fatuous promises comes home to roost.

But the W'gton woodenheads don't pay.

You and I do.

[mrsaneperson]

Anyone get the Property Report supplement with the Herald a few days ago? Many of the Auckland residential ""leafy suburbs" that experienced the largest median price gains are now experiencing median price decreases :

Epsom [-0.5%]
Remuera [- 22.7%]
St Marys Bay [- 63.6%]
Freemans Bay [-22.7%]
Orakei [-12.5%]

These figures are the median price decrease over the last 3 years to March 2018. In effect this is a signal for the overall bubble burst as its always the top areas that fall first followed by everything else below.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

Epsom [-0.5%]
Remuera [- 22.7%]
St Marys Bay [- 63.6%]
Freemans Bay [-22.7%]
Orakei [-12.5%]

May it keep on going down...

[flyernzl]

. . . its always the top areas that fall first followed by everything else below.

I'd like to see the research behind that statement. I doubt that it is true.

In economics the topmost-top is generally the most stable recession-resistant, as 'old money' has the durability and established resources to ride out short/medium-term recessions and depressions.

Generally, it is the middle market that is the most unstable, as this is the aspiring middle class, clawing their way up on hope and a prayer with little to fall back on. Thus even a short-term recession can send them tumbling.

Of course, at the bottom the poor are always poor.

[Scouser]

I'd like to see the research behind that statement. I doubt that it is true.

In economics the topmost-top is generally the most stable recession-resistant, as 'old money' has the durability and established resources to ride out short/medium-term recessions and depressions.

Generally, it is the middle market that is the most unstable, as this is the aspiring middle class, clawing their way up on hope and a prayer with little to fall back on. Thus even a short-term recession can send them tumbling.

Of course, at the bottom the poor are always poor.

It's one of those rules of thumb that is generally true across most property markets in that the expensive properties lead booms and busts (sorry too lazy to find the research). The theory is that richer people have more discretionary income so when things are going well (normally at the same time as a lifting market) then they have the extra cash 1st. Ditto on a slowing market. Their discretionary income drops 1st.

In terms of whether the top end of the market dips or crashes that varies. In the largest boom bust cycles it's not uncommon for the top end to have the greatest swings in prices. As an example detached (more expensive) houses dropped harder and faster than semi-detached houses post the GFC in London.

Also compare how house price trends in Auckland generally lead national prices. From personal observation of several cycles across 3 countries it's been true most of the time in the ones I've observed.

[Wayne]

Anyone get the Property Report supplement with the Herald a few days ago? Many of the Auckland residential ""leafy suburbs" that experienced the largest median price gains are now experiencing median price decreases :

Epsom [-0.5%]
Remuera [- 22.7%]
St Marys Bay [- 63.6%]
Freemans Bay [-22.7%]
Orakei [-12.5%]

These figures are the median price decrease over the last 3 years to March 2018. In effect this is a signal for the overall bubble burst as its always the top areas that fall first followed by everything else below.

I suspect you need to couple the % fall with the relative number of sales.
A big drop can happen because there are few sellers or buyers and has been suggested already most ride out the dip.
It is those who have to sell that are caught out.
It doesn't mean that the market isn't weak just that the impact isn't great overall.

[Perry]

Winter chill hits New Zealand property market

New Zealand's property market has flattened and is likely to stay that way for at least the rest of the year, valuation data provider QV says.

[Bluekiwi]

Yep I have been reading all that stuff, and while the stats wont say it (as only good houses in good area's sell, and only richer people buy in a down market) but prices have fallen about 10% on average in Auckland already.
The stats may catch up to that at some stage.
The market has maybe another 5% to fall.

And then slow for another couple of years really.
Peak June 2016.
Slow 2017 / 2018 / 2019 / 2020.

Auckland market usually starts its upward leg in Summer, so question is whether its Summer 2020 or Summer 2021.
Often there is a trigger for that, America's Cup 2020 ?

But I would hazard a guess that there is no boom or bubble 2021 to 2025.
More a simmer and puff.

[mrsaneperson]

I suspect you need to couple the % fall with the relative number of sales.
A big drop can happen because there are few sellers or buyers and has been suggested already most ride out the dip.
It is those who have to sell that are caught out.
It doesn't mean that the market isn't weak just that the impact isn't great overall.

Only the Saint Marys Bay one might apply in that case scenario , its sales numbers are only around 5 in the last 3 months of each financial year for the last 3 years but that still doesn't negate the decrease in median price