Thanks Labour..really!!

[donna]

Yep Labour has so far been great for rising rents, but not much else.

cheers,

Donna

[Perry]

WFT!? All the statistics I've ever heard say the exact opposite - that the bulk of tenancies are ended by the tenant. And I'm pretty sure the tenancy compliance guy who spoke to our local PIA last week said the same!

C'mon. Were you expecting truth from a gummint Minister?

Silly you.

[McDuck]

WFT!? All the statistics I've ever heard say the exact opposite - that the bulk of tenancies are ended by the tenant. And I'm pretty sure the tenancy compliance guy who spoke to our local PIA last week said the same!

I'll bite.
(Just waiting for some undercoat to dry on a window repair).
Where did you get that quote?
I mean the Minister's one.

[artemis]

I'll bite.
(Just waiting for some undercoat to dry on a window repair).
Where did you get that quote?
I mean the Minister's one.

Post #5 above. Official response recorded by Parliament for posterity.

[OnTheMove]

Just wanted to put it out there I vote blue not red...buuutttt!

Well done on that one.

I too USE to vote blue, but I could stomach the printing of money during the GFC, imo we should have taken the hit then. And subsequently we have been in la la land with mums and dads following a few investors pushing rates to unsustainable levels and imo 40% over our median worth going on the old double your house every 10 years or 8-9% PA. Id much rather that, than the craze that occured, sending us into the most unsustainable housing market in the world, the highest house price to income rate in the world, mnimum 150% personal debt to GDP. We sell some lamb, some milk (which is starting to become unpopular in the US from what ive been reading, not NZ specific), a bit of tourism of our trash littered beaches and hiking trails.

The thing with Labour now is scrapping kiwi homes and starting again with 2% built in snail pace, and now the grants to first home owners who earn under what is the only form of income that can possibly sustain a mortgage, especially if 3.8% turns to 23%. All to get kiwis into buying homes. The only answer to this is to correct the unsustainable market, as an investor I know that means I will lose money, but I honestly cant see it from a non investors perspective, working any other way.

The other issue with Labour who only got in due to the Cannabis referendum, Jacinda in a snake move puts it off until she is potentially out of Government wiping her hands of it. The only survey shows all groups are yes accept National voters 50+ and it gets worse the older the group, I mean who wouldnt trust Nixon, Reaghan unfortunately inherited Cannabis being demonised. Such a great oppurtunity for NZ. Our economy needs every bit it can get if we are going to avoid a major property correction imo. Helen Clarke is on board and behind it. In the US they have 2000 odd strains which can help with everything from Asthma to MS or just simply offer you a non Benzo based sleep with no hang over. Then after that survey, some left wing christian group tried a loaded gun question poll, ie if you were to sell cannabis to 10yo's would this be a bad thing? So one thing I will say Jacinda has done well, to back up that SURVEY, not the poll the nutties did, is to organise a scientific committee to provide educationa and facts to the public, not Rhetoric loaded gun propaganda, or to fight it I should say. They were spurting out idiot statements like, drug driving will occur. Well sorry but that happens now, not only with setiva dominant strains, but its also already illegal and detected.

I think ACT nearly had it across the line last year but were waiting on one vote, hes being a bit of a lime light grabber wanting to take his time, but its pretty much assumed by many Canberra will fully legalise this year I believe.

The Pharma companies have bought all the big Farms, they know their Benzos and synthetic heroin pain killers are not wanted and both at a medicinal and recreational level it is a much better choice. With so many strains available, its time to ignore those that simply state, I tried bush weed once and it wasnt for me. Well 2000 strains is a hell of a range. Indica based strains leave you relaxed, potentially sleepy, but more body impact than the psychodellics of bush weed.

So while I applaud Jacinda on that, if this does pass and every poll and certainly a factual survey suggests it will outside the loaded gun poll which was idiotic if you read the questions, then I think the biggest step needed for home grow is setting a limit, ie 1 plant drying 1 plant growing, but giving us access the seed bank they have in places like Cali or Canada.

Great websites are available to help people choose the right plant for them, whether recreational or medicinal. ie Insomnia. Go to https://www.leafly.com/ and type in sleep and click on deep sleep, https://www.leafly.com/indica/deep-sleep

The website tells you things like its medical properties, in this case insomnia. It will give you impartial reviews. Some seeds will have things like how best to grow the plant etc.

The one I want when legal is ACDC for my MS, it is a 20:1 CBD to THC strain, the THC gives just a slight lift to euphoria without the mind bending stuff and the CBDs are much higher than the oils I currently have to use which are rubbish vs vapourised or smoked plant material.

And of course Im all for if you do not want to grow, it being available retail and of course Taxed, which imo with Cannabis having very low health issues if not decreasing hospital related illnesses, that TAX can be used in out GDP to offset this out of control debt to GDP ratio.

[Perry]

The only answer to this is to correct the unsustainable market, as an investor I know that means I will lose money . . . .

How and why? If the same rent is being paid, your ROI will go up, not down. CV/RV and the like are just so much paper-based guesstimates.

[OnTheMove]

How and why? If the same rent is being paid, your ROI will go up, not down. CV/RV and the like are just so much paper-based guesstimates.

Not sure exactly what you are asking about with how and why, but you have seen our countries key indicators and our personal debt levels? The Juice from this orange (market affordability) has been squeezed, resqueezed and now blended with skin and all. The issue with a correction on rents outside extra debt, will be and is now, homes are becoming cheaper to buy than rents, which is tragic given we are supposedly the most inflated property market in the world, or 2nd (Canada first). Losing money on house and then recalculating the ROI is irish logic :-)

Or are you refering to specifically rental properties? People will always need rentals regardless if the price of rent goes up or down or is cheaper to buy etc. So if you are a buy and hold and as long as the property is positively geared, I too would be fairly nonchalant about a property correction. This is why for me, I would never buy a rental at minimum deposit. Much like they teach you at Uni with a business, always 51/49, ownership to liabilities. Its not the same equation perhaps, but the same sentiment. You cant go wrong if you own the property. Some will say that equity not being used on new properties, but at some point people need to retire and enjoy life. IMO if you own your own home, have the toys you want, 3 IPs owned outright at $1.5m will provide plenty enough income for MOST normal people.

For me, my dream is actually more nautical, a good 5 years liveaboard/sail, so that would be 4 IPs for a period. Then either live in my dream land property or remain liveaboard as I will always get the itch to visit some island somewhere. And the cost of liveaboard even not selling, living in a marina, is significantly less than a house rental (even for Catamarans, price of berth goes up by length). Given performance cruiser Cats are like modern apartments but with better entertaining areas and indoor outdoor flow, its not a bad option for SOME (the sea, even in a Marina, isnt for everybody)

Yes I agree, I ignore CV/RV, I use tools and saved homes in a database (just a small excel driven one) to formulate MV, market value, its only important what people are willing to pay for it. Which is why I believe Im seeing such a massive wait for homes in Remers-Central to sell. People either just dont see the value in asking prices or they just cant afford them. The bubble has reached its peak 2 years ago, but there is one guy, not in my area, trying to sell a property privately, hes asking 2017 prices, where the MV around him has dropped $300k, plus the house he is trying to sell is still decorated nicely in 70s fashion lol. Needs new everything basically. It does have good bones and a great view, but I think he is so out of touch because he hasnt asked an agent. Prime example of why trying to time selling for maximum CG is a very bad idea. Its been on the market over 12 months. By the time we have a crash, and a plateua, we might have a slow rise before hes willing to assess its actual market value and it will be back at his asking price in 20 years haha.

[Perry]

You said that "as an investor I know that means I will lose money . . . ."

My question is simple. How and why will you lose money?

[spaceman]

Minister Faafoi is either muddled or deliberately misrepresenting this. The latest General Social Survey (to March 2019) says something very different. See the link to the data on housing quality and tenure security at the below link. Not only is landlords terminating tenancies not the main reason, but add the other reasons together to get tenant driven tenancy ending.

It is reported there that -

Tenancy ended by landlord 17.7
Moved from rental to owned dwelling 20.6
Social reasons 12.8
Education or work-related reasons 10.3
To move to a better quality home (e.g. warmer) 8.6
To move to a more suitable home (e.g. more accessible/better size) 11.4

The notes to the data expand on eg social reasons.


https://www.stats.govt.nz/informatio...tatistics-2018

Firstly remember you can tell when a politician is lying by checking to see if his lips are moving.


But in this case he has you....check out what he said

Statistics New Zealand’s General Social Survey shows that the most common reason for movement in the rental market is due to landlords ending tenancies.

At 17.7% the landlord is the most common reason....."but but but" I hear you say "20.6% is bigger that 17.7%" ….yes of course it is but 20.6% are moving OUT of the rental market into their own homes. 17.7% is the biggest/most common reason for moving IN the rental market.

Numbers don't lie, but there are lies, dam lies and statistics.

Cheers
Spaceman

[Perry]

Welcome back, Lawrence!

Good to see you contributing again.

[spaceman]

Welcome back, Lawrence!

Good to see you contributing again.

Thanks, still dreaming of having my very own robot lawnmower......now off to the 9/11 thread …….weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

[Perry]

Minister Faafoi is either muddled or deliberately misrepresenting this. The latest General Social Survey (to March 2019) says something very different. See the link to the data on housing quality and tenure security at the below link. Not only is landlords terminating tenancies not the main reason, but add the other reasons together to get tenant driven tenancy ending.

It is reported there that -

1) Tenancy ended by landlord 17.7
2) Moved from rental to owned dwelling 20.6
3) Social reasons 12.8
4) Education or work-related reasons 10.3
5) To move to a better quality home (e.g. warmer) 8.6
6) To move to a more suitable home (e.g. more accessible/better size) 11.4

The notes to the data expand on eg social reasons.

https://www.stats.govt.nz/informatio...tatistics-2018

---

Firstly remember you can tell when a politician is lying by checking to see if his lips are moving.

But in this case he has you....check out what he said

At 17.7% the landlord is the most common reason....."but but but" I hear you say "20.6% is bigger that 17.7%" ….yes of course it is but 20.6% are moving OUT of the rental market into their own homes. 17.7% is the biggest/most common reason for moving IN the rental market.

Numbers don't lie, but there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

I was prompted to review those stats. Spaceman asserted that the LL 17.7% thing is indeed the most common reason, statistically.

Perhaps he read the report in full and so has the right conclusion? But I do wonder if 3, 4, 5, and 6 necessarily meant tenants were not moving within the rental market? E.g. T'would seem average for a residential rental tenant to move to another rental for "Education or work-related reasons." (4)