Originally posted by Keys
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
RBNZ: Investors will require 40% deposit from September
Collapse
X
-
You can find me at: Energise Web Design
-
Originally posted by Don't believe the Hype View PostNot dishonest... i go to bank x say i want to buy a home for me to live in... home = 20% deposit, i move in live in for a week - if i move out there is no requirement for me to tell the bank that i'm now renting the place and then to stump up the further 20% funding to get my LVR to 60%.
Then go to bank y and say i want to buy a home to live in ... move in, 20% deposit stay a week, move out... repeat...
Comment
-
The policy maker intent will be defrauded.. No law is perfect and there are always ways and loopholes to take advantage from but the fact that there are loopholes doesn't justify the abuse of them.
Don't take me wrong I also do not agree with the RBNZ's new LVR policy but a policy is a policy and must be respected so has the democratic institution.
Comment
-
fraudulent behavior definition from dictionary: characterized by, involving, or proceeding from fraud, as actions, enterprise, methods, or gains: a fraudulent scheme to evade taxes. 2. given to or using fraud, as a person; cheating; dishonest.
In the case we are discussing the last two applies. You cheat knowing that will move out in a week or twoLast edited by FASATRIX; 21-07-2016, 02:48 PM.
Comment
-
You want to talk dishonest...
Ever parked without buying a parking tickets? driven your car even 1km over the speed limit? Downloaded a movie or song without paying the copyright owner?
Not only fraudulent by your definition but also illegal... If you claim you've done none of these... You're a liar! Think before you take the moral high ground...
Comment
-
haven't called you a liar but you did and haven't also prosecuted your intentions as you have not done anything (yet) but you did ...
Just focus on the debate which was whether taking advantage of loopholes is fraudulent or not and in my view it is. Whether you or anybody else will be caught doing so that's a totally different story and taking the risk will be a personal choice (so the consequences)... After all if the RBNZ will achieve the intent with this policy (stabilize or lower house prices) where is the problem? Is not what we all love as investors (buying as cheap as possible). The way I see it there are only three categories of investors that don't like the new policy and they are: speculators, first time investors and the one too leveraged but they enjoyed cheap rates and loved the RBNZ making those decisions as working at their advantage (house prices soaring - building equity etc).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Don't believe the Hype View PostNot dishonest... i go to bank x say i want to buy a home for me to live in... home = 20% deposit, i move in live in for a week - if i move out there is no requirement for me to tell the bank that i'm now renting the place and then to stump up the further 20% funding to get my LVR to 60%.
Then go to bank y and say i want to buy a home to live in ... move in, 20% deposit stay a week, move out... repeat...
Who knows what will happen in practice.
Comment
-
Any advice on what i should be doing:
I'm in christchurch and I've only got two houses - one with 43% equity with ANZ and another with 30% with ASB. I had pre-approvals to borrow against each, so was ready to buy two more (one rental, one family home) but given the falling rents in chch i was happy to sit back and wait and the pre-approvals expired a couple of months ago.
Should i try and get the pre-approvals redone and buy asap? I'm guessing there will be a spike in prices followed by a lull once the rules kick in.
Or maybe I try and refinance both back to 20% equity and have the cash sitting in revolving credit, ready to buy at 40% deposit hoping prices drop??
I can't see any other options for me currently.
For small investors these rules are bad news. Overnight i've gone from:
- expired but could have had reinstated pre-approval for 600k purchase price, no deposit needed (borrowing against equity in first rental through ANZ), and
- expired but could have had reinstated pre-approval for 800k to build a family home with 100k deposit and equity in second rental through ASB
To currently:
- 100k deposit on family home up to 500k, or 100k deposit on rental up to 240k.....
Comment
-
As far as I know the Banks will not reinstate old approvals but hey, you have to try.
Outside of the Banks there are two or three non Banks happy to assist to 80%www.ilender.co.nz
Financial Paramedics
Comment
-
Originally posted by FASATRIX View Posthaven't called you a liar but you did and haven't also prosecuted your intentions as you have not done anything (yet) but you did ... .
I did not call you a liar... I said if you claimed to do none of those things listed I'd then call you a liar
You didn't deny that you've done one or more of that list of items so I guess you're not a liar but more in the space of hypocrite given you're calling me out on the ability to find this loophole in the poorly designed and rushed through policy but seemingly have no concerns speeding or failing to pay for parking, music or movies and when that is pointed out you change the subject.
And for the record I'm none of the 3 categories you've outlined... I am however someone educated enough to know that interfering in markets created instability and complexity that allows for systemic failure. These sorts of interventions are likely (some would say more likely) to cause a crash rather than a controlled reduction of heat in the market which is their stated intent.
Comment
-
My broker just told me that all the banks are applying all the rules right now. So i can't get old pre-approval reissued nor can i refinance to 80%. So i'm screwed until i can show another 100k, unless i buy new, but my guess is that every investor in the country will be looking at new builds..
Comment
-
Originally posted by theFan View PostMy broker just told me that all the banks are applying all the rules right now. So i can't get old pre-approval reissued nor can i refinance to 80%. So i'm screwed until i can show another 100k, unless i buy new, but my guess is that every investor in the country will be looking at new builds..www.ilender.co.nz
Financial Paramedics
Comment
-
leOriginally posted by Don't believe the Hype View PostI did not call you a liar... I said if you claimed to do none of those things listed I'd then call you a liar
You didn't deny that you've done one or more of that list of items so I guess you're not a liar but more in the space of hypocrite given you're calling me out on the ability to find this loophole in the poorly designed and rushed through policy but seemingly have no concerns speeding or failing to pay for parking, music or movies and when that is pointed out you change the subject.
And for the record I'm none of the 3 categories you've outlined... I am however someone educated enough to know that interfering in markets created instability and complexity that allows for systemic failure. These sorts of interventions are likely (some would say more likely) to cause a crash rather than a controlled reduction of heat in the market which is their stated intent.
About the speed limits. Of course as anybody else I might have exceeded it but most of the time not on purpose as I am pretty careful having kids in the car all time. For the record exceeding the limit of 1km/h is legal as there is a buffer of 5km but I take yours as an example and assume that you meant I was exceeding the speed limits breaking rules..
Just as a general thought. Maybe you are not familiar with the concept but there is a big difference between breaking rules on purpose or accidentally breaking them. Rules are there to put order and avoid otherwise anarchic behaviors, not to police people at all times. But if one breaks a rule it is inevitable to pay the price for having done that. Well you have called me names one more time and that explains a lot about yourself (looks like you are unable to control yourself and have a peaceful debate with ppl with different opinions from yours without crossing lines).
Are you really educated? Well if you are you would know that it is in the mandate (not the power - pay attention to the differences) of the reserve bank to use macroeconomic tools, leverage on interested rates all to promote stability of the market and control inflation. So have they done anything illegal here? Well no, debatable of course but still in their mandate. That's called a democratic system and if you do not agree with it make sure you confront it via legal ways (next time make sure you vote wisely and hope that the new finance minister will appoint someone whose ideas are inline with yours)... always... Having a corrupted system leads to instability and instability makes citizen worse off in the long run, so be careful to what you are promoting through your behavior/example.Last edited by FASATRIX; 21-07-2016, 03:02 PM.
Comment
Comment