Labour’s pin up example for a needy first home buyer

October 1st, 2013 at 6:48 am by David Farrar

did a photo op yesterday with an aspiring first home buyer who now can’t buy his first home because of the Reserve Bank’s new LVRs. has promised to destroy the independence of the Reserve Bank by stating it will instruct the Bank to exempt aspiring first home buyers from the new rules (despite the Reserve Bank saying they won’t work if you do that).

So who was the aspiring first home buyer they highlighted to show how his or her dreams had been crushed after presumably years of saving for a first home so they can live in it.

Labour leader David Cunliffe met would-be first-time buyer , 23, in central Auckland today.

He’s 23? Labour’s pin up child for being locked out of the property market is a 23 year old? Someone who has probably been in the work force for just two years?

Mr Mongia, an IT consultant was looking at properties in the $400,000 to $500,000 range in south Auckland or Mt Wellington.

Tell me Labour are joking? their big photo op was with a 23 year old wanting to buy a half million dollar house? This is their rationale for wanting to destroy the independence of the Reserve Bank?

“If it’s good enough I could live in it, otherwise it could be an investment property.”

It gets worse for Labour. He wants it as an investment property!!!!

Mr Mongia said he has been looking for four or five months and has enough saved for a 10 per cent deposit.

Okay so let’s look at this in full. Labour is proposing to destroy the independence of the Reserve Bank so 23 year olds can buy half million dollar investment properties with a mere 10% deposit?

Now all credit to Kanik Mongia. It’s great he has saved even $50,000 by age 23, and great he wants to buy a house so early on. But when we talk about and propose radical solutions such as having the Government over-ride the Reserve Bank, then you need a much much much stronger case than the fact that someone may have to wait until they are 24 to buy their first investment property.

UPDATE: Love the irony in this Stuff story:

Labour leader David Cunliffe ramped up pressure on the Government with a public meeting with Kanik Mongia, 23, an IT consultant, who had mortgage pre-approval for a 90 per cent loan cancelled by ASB because of the LVR changes. He was seeking $450,000 for an investment property.

Cunliffe said there was need to cool the property market, especially in places like Auckland, but the new lending rules would have “unintended consequences” on first home buyers.

“Unfortunately they are taking it out on the hide of first home buyers like Kanik, and that’s not what we want. We want young people to be able to get into their homes and we don’t want young speculators driving prices through the roof,” he said.

I’m sorry, but this is as big a fail as you can get.

Tags: , ,

77 Responses to “Labour’s pin up example for a needy first home buyer”

  1. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Yeah thats a typical labourite, give me everything for doing nothing.
    However Key has made the most ridiculous statement saying how for the life of him he cant see how the LVR will affect first home buyers.
    Try telling that to my sons friend who is having his agreement removed to build a new house in tauranga outskirts

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11132533

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. tas (625 comments) says:

    That’s exactly what I was thinking.

    Cunliffe is attacking the policy by saying that it won’t bring down house prices. I agree; it’s just as ineffective at lowering house prices as Labour’s plan to ban foreigner buyers. But that’s not the point. The Reserve Bank is implementing it to maintain the integrity of the banking sector, not to reduce house prices.

    The left have blamed the banks for causing the global financial crisis by lending too much. Now they’re complaining that banks aren’t lending enough.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Camryn (543 comments) says:

    Looks like he started full time work in February 2012, but also worked part-time through uni and had some kind of scholarship too (value unknown). He has done well to put that $50,000 aside so probably does feel aggrieved he now can’t use it as intended. Still, another couple of years and he’ll have his $100k and the savings in interest over the course of the mortgage will counter any house price increases in that time. Also, banks are paying about 4% on savings accounts right now so his savings will be earning a nice risk-free return while he waits. He’ll also be that much safer from any drop in house prices after he buys. His frustration today will be nothing like how he’d feel if he went underwater on the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Well Tas for the life of me i dont know how prices keep rising. !5% in the last year.
    I know of no one getting payrises like that.
    Rents arent rising, im seeing some places go un-let as landlords want too much.
    Once interest rates rise this bubbles over. The RB should of started moving rates up, people a calling their bluff

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. All_on_Red (1,581 comments) says:

    What tas said

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Yeah i agree with Tas that the RB is protecting the banks but i think The RB is doing it wrong.
    They should of raised rates and/or restricted the LVR to Auckland.
    The currency is more effected by what the US does than what our rates are by a quarter or a half percentage points

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Morgy (172 comments) says:

    I was at the gym last night when the new was on. I couldn’t hear the item due to music in my ears but I thought to myself, OK, who is that guy….what’s the back story etc. Sure enough, yet again the Labour party uses smoke and mirrors trying to get a point across. 23 year old looking for a $500k home? How about bringing us a family from Palmerston North (for example) of 5 where the parents both work good middle income jobs who have saved $40k over a year but now need another $20k because of this. It won’t change my view in that a 20% is fine but it would be a better working and ‘real life’ example.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. berend (1,708 comments) says:

    Why oh why are the lefties prepared to do ANYTHING, except the one thing that matters: increase supply of land.

    They have saddled us with extra-ordinarily harmful city limits, but that’s the one thing we are not allowed to change.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. berend (1,708 comments) says:

    martinh: They should of raised rates and/or restricted the LVR to Auckland.

    I don’t think I have seen any commentator who thinks the LVR change will have any effect on Auckland or Chistchurch. Only the rest of the country.

    But as you said: this is not about bringing home prices down. People gotta live. And NZ is a very expensive country.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    When I saw this story yesterday I checked Trademe for houses under 450- 500K in the greater Auckland area.
    There were in excess of 1300.
    Plenty of those were in the South Auckland area.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. NK (1,243 comments) says:

    If you criticize Cunliffe for this, like the padding of his CV, you get called names over at the Standard and the likes of mickysavage write deflection stories about how lazy Cameron Slater is. They are all complete and utter disgraces.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. flipper (4,051 comments) says:

    My 16 year old grandson, who fancies himself as a would-be economist, watched same item on both 1 and 3 (yes, that is possible using MySky), and wondered aloud why the media did not more closely question the jerk. They just accepted the Labour fed potion because it suited their story line. And that ignores the incredible argument that 400-500K is the target for a first home owner. Rubbish, whether it be Auckland or not. The price reverts to location, location, location…. and matters of convenience.
    The young pricks cannot bother to travel…they want leafy, inner city suburbs, but expect to pay distant suburban prices.
    As always, simply pathetic. But the whole LVR thing is much a-do about nothing….unless it is to avoid a repeat of the cause of the 2008-08 GFC. Anyone who really wants that is screwed in the head.

    So, Labour/red melon apologists …fuck off.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Flipper, you dont need to worry- he wont get anywhere near his leafy suburbs for years and years- ha ha i laugh at him and his investment property talk

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Longknives (4,737 comments) says:

    Won’t owning a half million dollar ‘investment property’ make him exactly the sort of ‘Rich Prick’ Labour and the Greens openly detest so much?
    None of this makes any sense….

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Longknives.
    Of course the left a hypocrites, always have being, always will be, Skycity was the best showpiece ive seen of that since Cunliffe said he lives in Herne Bay for breast feeding reasons

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. duggledog (1,554 comments) says:

    Just going on this one story, if enough NZers are that disengaged from who wants to run the country and how, and want a Labour / Greens government in November next year, it really is time to think about whether to stay in NZ long term, or have your money invested here.

    Where are the tigers in National to tear Cunliffe a new one over this?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Cunliffe can’t even check his CV properly. Why on earth would anyone be surprised that he didn’t check the details on his LVR poster-child?

    Will the next headline be “David Cunliffe defends rights of property speculators to low equity loans”? Because that is the substance of his position in this example.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. martinh (1,257 comments) says:

    Although i think Norman, Fitzsimmons and Rob Donald were/a the real mccoy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. JC (955 comments) says:

    I’d say exempting 1st home buyers creates a moral hazard, as in the banks lead a lot to such buyers, the bubble bursts and the banks get in trouble. They would have a lot of leverage with the Govt for a bailout because its policy skewed house loans towards the more risky end of the market.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    So lets tell this poster child that not only will Labour help him buy his first half mill investment property – it will also want 39% of his profiit for being a rich prick when he sells it…. Lets see if he still thinks intervention, command and control for the sake of electoral popularity, is a good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Nigel Kearney (1,012 comments) says:

    Duggledog, we have a culture of entitlement which National has made little effort to roll back. Many people just no longer expect to have to work hard for a long time in order to get ahead. So it’s not surprising there is plenty of support for the parties that are offering the biggest handouts. The fact that you and I find this kind of story bizarre will not prevent that.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. All_on_Red (1,581 comments) says:

    Flipper “My 16 year old grandson, who fancies himself as a would-be economist, watched same item on both 1 and 3 ”

    You made him watch both TV news? Mate- that’s cruel. What had he done wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    bhudson said

    Will the next headline be “David Cunliffe defends rights of property speculators to low equity loans”? Because that is the substance of his position in this example.

    Cheers bhudson; you’ve given me a blog-post title for later in the day :D

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Reminded me of this old one, where Labour had a website where they told a *builder* just how much better off he’d be if the government paid for his insulation.
    http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/helplessness-by-labour/

    For a party that supposedly represents the working man, they really seem to struggle to find good case studies.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Given Cunliffe’s fail on Radio NZ this morning where he presented data that was so obviously cherry-picked, one has to ask – is he already being undermined by his own staff?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. m@tt (629 comments) says:

    Labour defending the right of an individual to do business on terms agreed with a third party (the bank) without undue regulatory influence.
    Kiwiblog defending the right of the reserve bank to enforce arbitrary regulation on an industry that will restrict the rights of individuals wishing to carry out business.
    The world has gone mad.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    m@tt,
    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack ring any bells?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. m@tt (629 comments) says:

    alex. Didn’t the market sort them out quite well…
    Anyway. As I said. It’s the world gone mad….

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    M2tt,
    I have to agree with you. We live in interesting times.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Ian McK (237 comments) says:

    Len Brown endorses living wage . . . so now those in his super city working on lower than his minimum wage, will need to take on extra work to pay rates/wages for those in council employment holding lower qualifications and ability than themselves. If we don’t get rid of goons being elected by non-ratepayers, we are stuffed, take a look where this clown gained his voting base, not ratepayers. Principal ratepayers only, voting in local body elections, not freeloaders and bludgers.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RRM (9,916 comments) says:

    Now all credit to Kanik Mongia. It’s great he has saved even $50,000 by age 23, and great he wants to buy a house so early on.

    :lol: LOL – interesting choice of words DPF, “even $50,000″.. that is a lot of money to have in the bank especially at his age.

    Labour – welfare for everyone! Even high-earning young I.T. professionals!

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    Add this to Cunliffe showing his “smarmy” side on TV1 news last with his comments on the economy. After reporting the economy was in good shape, he commented with words like ” Well when you have $3B of insurance money to spend in Christchurch what do you expect. Even a school kid could do that” My wife , who is not into politics, turned to me and said ” What a prat !!”

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. gravedodger (1,566 comments) says:

    Let us have a bit of digging how this posterboy for Silent T amassed his $50k.

    Oh I forgot that would require a bit of investigative reporting, as if that will happen

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. decanker (184 comments) says:

    Weird story alright, like a trojan horse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    How many houses does Hulun Clarkula own? 10 ? 20?

    Rich bitch.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. freedom101 (504 comments) says:

    This is fun. There isn’t a problem on earth that can’t be solved by installing a Labour minister between the supplier and the consumer.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Rick Rowling (813 comments) says:

    If the “journalists” presenting this story on TV & newspaper were any good at all, they would have raised this obvious inconsistency.

    And they would have balanced the story by mentioning the problems likely to be associated with politicising the Reserve Bank.

    But no, stick a camera in front of the politician, and let him say what he wants / reprint the press release, take your pay check and go home.

    Lazy, lazy churnalism. You get more investigation on Jono & Ben at Ten.

    /And I started 3 sentences with conjunctions – deal with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. flipper (4,051 comments) says:

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
    All_on_Red (547) Says:
    October 1st, 2013 at 8:23 am
    Flipper “My 16 year old grandson

    *****

    I plead guilty, m’lud…. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    I am utterly astonished by using this as an example. Cunliffe, WTF were you thinking? You couldn’t find a better affordability poster-child than this? I’m certain there are plenty of working families with 2.5 kids struggling to get on the property ladder in Auckland, even on the less desirable areas like out West or 1 hour+ commutes on the Shore. Virtually every line in his statement is contradicted.

    * Says he doesn’t want to interfere with the independence of the RBNZ – in the next breath says he wants to exempt certain groups and certain regions, and even threatens a change in legislation around RBNZ controls.

    * Says he wants to make property more affordable as prices are too high – believes his policies won’t bring down prices (probably fearful at the massive backlash from the majority of voters that already own property)

    * Says he wants to avoid speculators driving up prices – uses his poster-child for affordability a high earning professional wanting to buy an INVESTMENT property.

    Mr Cunliffe, if you want to get some traction, how about you stop making own-goals or you’ll turn into a Shearer.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Rich Prick (1,700 comments) says:

    My bullshit detector is in overdrive. It usually is when Labour trot out a planted “sad-case” example.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    While the issues around housing affordability are complex and regional, here are a few of my thoughts (coming from a banking & finance background).

    * The price pressures in Auckland are artificial at the moment, largely due to a lack of supply. We have had 5 years of virtually no new housing construction, while the population (and thus demand) has steadily risen.
    * Part of this is land supply, as others have stated above… however the other elephant in the room is building cost. Yes, there are ridiculously high council contribution costs and red tape, but these can all be negotiated if the affordability of construction was better in the first place
    * We have a forestry issue that is struggling, how many mills have closed down over the years in these small provincial regions that are on the bones of their arse due to the contraction of their primary industries? A large portion of the construction cost of a new house is the cost of timber – How about we support this industry to reduce material costs?
    * We have unemployment issues in many parts of the country with semi/un-skilled labour. In the USA one of the reasons that build costs are substantially lower is that there is a large swath of semi-skilled (not being racial here… ok I am…) Latino labour willing and able to doing a lot of the heavy lifting.
    * We have gutted the secondary finance market through the credit crisis, yes certainly strongly contributed by their own making by ridiculous commercial projects. Second tier financiers fund a significant portion of new construction, which then transfers to the first tier lenders once the developments are complete – credit appetite at the main banks for funding new build is low.
    * Expectations of living conditions are high. What portion of new house constructions have 2.5 bathrooms, granite kitchen benches, double garage, 270sqm build on a postage stamp sized section. How about mucking in and building some cheap template duplex homes – 110sqm houses that share a concrete cinderblock wall.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Do what I did. Buy an apartment. I have an awesome city pad that I bought for about $260,000. My partner and I have a good combined income and no kids, but we knew parts of Auckland were still miles out of our range.

    But no. Kids these days (along with people like Jacinda Ardern and Metiria Turei) are full of envy and want a quarter acre section on Ponsonby or Grey Lynn close to cafes and boutique designer stores. Solidarity with the blue collar workers indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    So Labour’s policy is to force the Reserve Bank to create the conditions for a US-style sub-prime crisis. Is that a promise for Cunliffe’s first term?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    BAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

    So this dude wants to keep living at home with his parents and nailing some poor bastard who has to rent haahaha

    the lefts pin up boy!

    “if its good enough id live in it”.

    also, he couldnt find a 500k house in a shit area after looking for months? you can imagine the offers he was putting in. “i will give you 400,000 cash for your 700,000 dollar home”

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RRM (9,916 comments) says:

    2013 is shaping up to be a good year for Chardonnay…

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    People please – you are missing the only important thing here – people will vote for government assistance to buy a home. Move on …

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Jim Anderton might have a solution to this – “A Peoples Bank” which upon viewing your union card will offer you a Fanny May style loan of 130% of the property value so you can also buy a new car and have a weeks holiday to celebrate the glorious Labour government.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. coge (190 comments) says:

    I expect Cunliffe, or someone in his staff simply accosted this young fellow outside a REA office thumbing through a copy of Property Press. High earners purchase expensive investment properties so they can pay less tax. Whatever happened shows the new leader of the opposition is a bad communicator, like his predecessor.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. King Kong (41 comments) says:

    Sorry, I am confused.

    I thought Labour was against nig nogs buying our property.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    King Kong

    They are lefties – they will say whatever they think it takes to get them elected. The outcomes of their policies are for National (and tax payers) to worry about in 3-6 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. RRM (9,916 comments) says:

    Noooo no no no no, I won’t have that.

    Niggers are the West Indians. These people are Wogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    I heard a couple of weeks ago that Cunliffe’s team was trying to lure “Hey Clint” Smith away from the Greens. Whoever set up this photo-op for the leader without checking bona-fides is either slack, or has started white-anting the new leader already.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. OneTrack (3,088 comments) says:

    “and wondered aloud why the media did not more closely question the jerk”

    Because they are biased and incompetent apologists for the left ?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. OneTrack (3,088 comments) says:

    “Although I think Fitzsimmons and Rod Donald were/a the real McCoy”

    FIFY

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. wf (441 comments) says:

    This IS fun.

    I want a grin/laugh vote please DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    I see that Kanik migrated here from Delhi with his family in 2001. So he is, in fact, one of the very foreigners that labour wanted banned from buying homes.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (888 comments) says:

    Who is leading the polls now bros? Curryleaf can’t do no wrong…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    In actuality buying a first property and renting it out is the best way to get a foot on the property ladder, this whether you live there yourself or not.

    On another thread the same commentators here would be saying buy a smaller property flat/rental first and then think about a home with a section.

    But as the simplistic mentality is to find a way to be critical of Labour and then have commentators restate this in their own words, so consistency of argument across threads is out the window.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    The RB is not concerned with equity but with banking stability and containing inflation.

    Yet the LTV ratio is adverse to those saving for a home – by the time they have the 20% deposit the mortgage required to buy will be higher than it is now. Thus whatever interest rate that applies then will be on a higher mortgage than now – thus the repayment burden required later will be more onerous than that required now.

    Those with a 10% now seeking to buy at 300-500,000m may well buy with a 20% deposit at 360-600,000. They will forgo the 20% gain in equity from rising property values still to come before supply is increased (while interest rates remain low) and still end up with a higher mortgage to repay.

    Thus both political parties will have to address access to first home buyers to the market – and find ways other than shutting them out to contain demand for property.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Anthony (796 comments) says:

    That’s a huge assumption that house prices will relentlessly rise at much faster than inflation! Even Auckland has ups and downs and have you never looked at house prices in Oamaru for example?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. OldIter (1 comment) says:

    Not sure whether anyone’s noticed – he gives his occupation as “IT Consultant”. Quite often means self employed contractor.
    Highly paid when working, but no income otherwise.

    Lender opinion, quite often I would suggest – risky for mortgage without considerable equity.

    Sounds like not 10% deposit material.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    No not really, there was a failure to build enough houses in the 2008-2013 period in Auckland that has yet to be resolved. Supply will not be resolved by the end of next year either, let alone catch up with 5 years of under supply. Builders will be working in Christchurch etc.

    The downs coincide with the ability to lower interest rates and thus any temporary negative equity is resolved by the easier ability to pay the mortgage. This is why there were so few foreclosures in 2007-2009.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    this is just awesome for property investors. With several properties in the $400,000 plus range I get to sit back and see these properties rise in value. First time buyers might have snapped up recently listed properties at the lower range but have been staunched out by Key/English. Now, investors will soak some of these up given the heightened rental demand by those who might previously have been eligible to buy a house. This will also engender competition for the remainder of the 400k to 600k price bracket.
    Nice own goal Key and English.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. hj (6,991 comments) says:

    Increase land supply
    ………………….
    population increase is government policy: speak up Labour Gits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. hj (6,991 comments) says:

    The Great Growth Disconnect: Population Growth Does Not Equal Economic Growth
    http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/09/great-growth-disconnect-population-growth-does-not-equal-economic-growth/5860/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Anthony (796 comments) says:

    Monique – FFS, how does making it more difficult for first home buyers increase rental demand? What are those potential buyers doing at the moment – rentlng! What will they be doing for a bit longer – renting! What will happen if a landlord buys an existing house – no change to the supply!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    How will increasing land supply result in more houses if people cannot access to finance to buy them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    SPC (3,387) Says:
    October 2nd, 2013 at 3:04 pm
    How will increasing land supply result in more houses if people cannot access to finance to buy them?

    Possibly it wouldn’t, but your argument is a strawman. People can still get finance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Hardly a strawman, there will be fewer first home buyers in the market. That means less buyers, if no one buys existing homes who amongst existing home owners will leave them to move into a new one?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Hardly a strawman, there will be fewer first home buyers in the market.

    Not true. There will be the same number of first home buyers in the market. But a number of them (a minority) will not be able to borrow quite as much because of the LVR restrictions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Are you for real, if they do not have a 20% deposit they cannot buy. Of course there will be less first home buyers in the market. They have yet to get to a 20% deposit level.

    Given few first home buyers have a 20% deposit now, the majority will be affected.

    I doubt the value of property will fall from $500,000 to $250,000 so their $50,000 deposit will be enough to buy a property, so most will be out of the market looking to save another $50,000.

    And if the $500,000 homes are not sold who is going to leave them to buy a new home? So what will increasing land supply achieve if there are not the buyers in the market?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    They have yet to get to a 20% deposit level.

    No they don’t. In order to be a first home buyer they simply need to not yet own, or have owned, a home. Affordability doesn’t determine their status as a first home buyer, only whether or not they currently own one, or have ever owned one, does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    That most first home buyers have yet to save the 20% deposit now required by them to access finance is a fact. Thus there will be less first home buyers in the market

    Your point is supposedly, if you had the wit to make it properly, is that many existing home buyers have over 20% equity in their property and even 20% of a new one, so are still in the market.

    But they first have to find a buyer for their own home in a market with fewer first home buyer entrants before they can trade up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Your point is supposedly, if you had the wit to make it properly, is that many existing home buyers have over 20% equity in their property and even 20% of a new one, so are still in the market.

    No, my point is much simpler than that. Any person wishing to buy a home who has never owned one in the past is a ‘first home buyer.’ Their ability to afford a deposit merely impacts their ability to execute their desire. It does not affect their status as a first home buyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    You also overlook a rather salient point about LVR restrictions. That is that the restriction is that the value of mortgages cut with less than 20% equity must not be greater than 10% of the total value of all new mortgages signed (by the individual bank.)

    It does not prevent LV home loans. It merely means that some will get low equity loans and some will miss out.

    A rather blunt instrument approach.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Meaning that banks will favour customers with serious money at the bank over other clients.

    Thus customers will be dependent on the bank they save at to get their below 20% equity loan, and hope that their bank is not passing on the low equity loans to property investors over first home buyers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    And National were clear that they did not particularly want to see LVRs. And are accepting of them now solely because the alternative would be increased interest rates for all.

    Whereas Cunliffe and Twyford are on record as promoting LVRs as part of the kitbag for the RBNZ under Labour.

    So you know who to pin the political blame on for what you clearly postulate as a problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote