Cunliffe's constituent Liu?

[bogan]

I'm not the one contradicting myself every second sentence, dude.

Fact: reduced interest rates equal reduced cost of home ownership, not increased cost of ownership.

You already found that house prices per meter are actually cheaper now, what cheap cost of borrowing allowed people to get into was houses twice the size.

And as I also pointed out the people paying for the houses are obviously of the opinion that their choice is affordable, or they wouldn't fucking buy them, would they?

So YET AGAIN: Houses are no more expensive than they've ever been, and according to anyone that currently owns a house in NZ they're affordable.

I'm not asking you to like it, but your own research agrees with that assessment.

I think its not so much the interest rate, as the overall ease of getting one, like way back when the bank needed more deposit, and a quicker payoff term. Yet now those things have relaxed, so it can cost more overall if buyers take that option. Which of course just means we aren't comparing apples with apples. If on the one hand it is easier to get a house, but on the other it is more expensive overall; becomes difficult to say which way things have gone.

[Katman]

So YET AGAIN: Houses are no more expensive than they've ever been, and according to anyone that currently owns a house in NZ they're affordable.

How does the number of mortgagee sales today compare to 60 years ago?

[Ocean1]

I think its not so much the interest rate, as the overall ease of getting one, like way back when the bank needed more deposit, and a quicker payoff term. Yet now those things have relaxed, so it can cost more overall if buyers take that option. Which of course just means we aren't comparing apples with apples. If on the one hand it is easier to get a house, but on the other it is more expensive overall; becomes difficult to say which way things have gone.

Again, buyer's choice: spend more and pay it off slower or spend less and pay it off more quickly. If more relaxed borrowing conditions now allow people to borrow more, or commit themselves to higher percentage of their income then who are you to say they shouldn't? And who's to say our parents wouldn't have done the same given the choice. It's really none of anyone else's business, as long as politicians don't interfere with the market, (as happened in the US to cause the GFC), and as long as nobody outside of the loan agreement is going to be expected to pay for the cost of the increased risk.

Which implies a flexible interest rate, dunnit?

Or a return to the good ol' times: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mone...than-LVR-NZIER

[Ocean1]

How does the number of mortgagee sales today compare to 60 years ago?

Dunno. Probably higher, you don't get easy loans without a corresponding increase in risk.

Which, as above, is a risk the bank should absolutely be responsible for. Completely.

[Katman]

Dunno. Probably higher, you don't get easy loans without a corresponding increase in risk.

Which, as above, is a risk the bank should absolutely be responsible for. Completely.

So if the rate of mortgagee sales is a lot higher than 60 years ago it would indicate that houses aren't as affordable as back then, wouldn't it?

[Brian d marge]

I'm not the one contradicting myself every second sentence, dude.

Fact: reduced interest rates equal reduced cost of home ownership, not increased cost of ownership.

You already found that house prices per meter are actually cheaper now, what cheap cost of borrowing allowed people to get into was houses twice the size.

And as I also pointed out the people paying for the houses are obviously of the opinion that their choice is affordable, or they wouldn't fucking buy them, would they?

So YET AGAIN: Houses are no more expensive than they've ever been, and according to anyone that currently owns a house in NZ they're affordable.

I'm not asking you to like it, but your own research agrees with that assessment.



And again, reduced cost of loans reduces overheads. Lots. No such thing as a free lunch Steven, fix the cost of new, smaller houses and the prices of small houses overall will drop.

No ya stuck in a mind set
Houses and the cost of you asked me to adress that point I did ... they are cheaper to build today aparently

even larger 202 sq m ones

As for affordability there are very cheap houses available ...in Tokaroa but if the work is in Auckland

See , supply and demand

If people with money ( Brits or Chinese ) or even people willing to work all hours drive up the prices ...investment , rental properties etc

where does that leave the people with out the skill set to own a home ?


all the arguments for and against were laid out in the link you supplied .....

Im not contradicting my self or saying anything different ,,,,,,

Sorry nothing more to see here folks move on ,,,,,on ya way please

Stephen

I will how ever find out when the banking regulatory changes happened in nz to allow the low interest rates and easy credit

[Ocean1]

So if the rate of mortgagee sales is a lot higher than 60 years ago it would indicate that houses aren't as affordable as back then, wouldn't it?

Broadly, yes. There will always be those who spend more than they should, the difference is that in later years the bank lent them the money anyway, whereas in the past they wouldn't have.

And in spite of that: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10879903

Another indication that house ownership has been getting easier, eh?

[Oscar]

So if the rate of mortgagee sales is a lot higher than 60 years ago it would indicate that houses aren't as affordable as back then, wouldn't it?

Making comparisons using that sort of data is next to impossible since the lending enviroment has changed so much.
On the one hand we habe the change in the amount of deposit required and the relatively low interest rates we've enjoyed over the last few decades, on the other things like State Advances loans and the ability to cash up your Family Benefit...

Has anyone tabled this, yet?

http://nzinitiative.org.nz/site/nzin...FULL%20RES.pdf

Although a slim majority of New
Zealanders now think rising house
prices are undesirable, the current policy
quagmire has created a situation where the
interests of those who are lucky enough
to own property are often opposed to
the interests of non-owners or younger
people seeking to get a first step on the
property ladder.
However, it should also be remembered
that since the 1980s, houses in New
Zealand have not only become more
expensive but they are also much bigger
with a far greater square footage and
better insulation and fittings. These
improvements are partly the result of
changes to government and local authority
rules in recent years. As a result, many
first-home buyers now have an unrealistic
expectation of what standard of house is
available at what price

[mashman]

I probably don't have any idea what your problem with the system is - the blame however is yours alone, because despite the thousands of lines of drivel that you've inflicted this site with, you rarely even begin to make sense.

Entitlement complex? I worked for everything I have.
Social damage? You are a pompous twat that doesn't know me, how can you begin to know how I fit into society?
You are a dreary, jealous, slighty boring Troll.

That's because it's not a problem. The blame is mine for many things, but it isn't my fault that you don't understand what it means to be a human being... anymore.

You have worked for everything and therefore you believe that you are entitled to it because you're better than others.
I don't begin to think how you fit into society, ever... but I know insurance salesmen are usually nice people.
And you are a strong and beautiful woman.

[Katman]

Broadly, yes. There will always be those who spend more than they should, the difference is that in later years the bank lent them the money anyway, whereas in the past they wouldn't have.

What did Oscar call that sort of lending earlier?

[Ocean1]

Has anyone tabled this, yet?

http://nzinitiative.org.nz/site/nzin...FULL%20RES.pdf

I've been banging on about little else for the last several pages.

With little effect.

I particularly liked this, from Matt Ridley: "Well, knock me down with a feather. You mean to say that during three decades when the government encouraged asset bubbles in house prices; gave tax breaks to pensions; lightly taxed wealthy non-doms; poured money into farm subsidies; and severely restricted the supply of land for housing, pushing up the premium earned by planning permission for development, the wealthy owners of capital saw their relative wealth increase slightly? Well, I’ll be damned."

[Ocean1]

What did Oscar call that sort of lending earlier?

Dunno. He's a sensible chap, probably something like "ill advised" I should imagine.

[Katman]

Dunno. He's a sensible chap, probably something like "ill advised" I should imagine.

I also thought he suggested that banks frowned on that sort of behaviour.

[Katman]

Do banks make money out of mortgagee sales?

[Ocean1]

I also thought he suggested that banks frowned on that sort of behaviour.

They do, it cost them shitloads to foreclose.

But in the US, for example the govt effectively mandated easy access to loans for low income earners.

The banks onsold the dodgy loans as fast as they could, of course, wrapped up in multiple layers of disguise. The result was pretty predictable in hindsight.

That link I posted last is an attempt in the other direction: let's lend only what WE think they can afford, 'cause it's us that have to pay for their failure.