Posts by Katharine Moody
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Don't put words in our mouths, Rob, in reply to Russell Brown,
The letter doesn’t say offshore Chinese buyers either.
I think you can glean offshore by the reference to end of semester and ‘during on holiday’. The student is likely returning to mainland China for the semester break and the agent is referring to any friends/family etc. you come across during the holidays who would like to buy property here. Refer them to me and I’ll pay you a commission (although I love the very politically correct way that is framed):
I shall show you my appreciation in a tangible way
It’s been reported as common practice in Aus. No reason not to expect it here as well. That said, have you seen the fees an overseas student gets charged to study here?
-
Barfoot's have another problem - if the letter is authentic, that is;
-
OnPoint: Don't put words in our mouths, Rob, in reply to william blake,
I think Bob Jones misses a possible conclusion as to “why” such a “dumb” proposal is being offered locally. The investment model is likely being run for Auckland properties (and likely by jurisdiction/geographic location for many of the ‘bubble’ cities) in mainland China for mainland Chinese investors. It’s a betting (as opposed to an investing) market – like the horse races, only the house races.
-
Polity: A week on from the housing controversy, in reply to Steve Barnes,
I could go on but I feel I am wasting my time here.
Not with me, you’re not! Agree these should all be considerations for government in relation to policy settings, if that is, they weren’t wedded to monetarism (orthodox economics) and its political expression: neoliberalism. Which is part of the basis of a new ideology: globalization;
-
OnPoint: Don't put words in our mouths, Rob, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
The buyer was a Band F realtor
What’s a Band F realtor?
Sorry forget that - I've figured it was a typo - you meant B and T.
-
OnPoint: Don't put words in our mouths, Rob, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
Ultimately, all the focus on name-analysis, or overseas-buyer registers, hides the fact that local investors also put home buying out of reach.
Yes, there are far more local buyers (using local incomes to pay and local borrowing to leverage) than there are buyers with foreign earnings and foreign leverage. But the key driver of prices in the RE market is the price differential that foreign sourced funding arrangement will/can pay over-and-above local sourced funding arrangements.
In real estate (and more particularly in a supply constrained market), it is the highest price (for an equivalent good) that sets the price signal in terms of seller expectation. If sellers don't get their price - they wait/don't sell (in most cases).
Point being, even if the level of foreign sourced funding - invested directly into the Auckland market is at 5-10% of all sales .. these buyers are still setting price expectations for all sales.
And the sad fact of the matter is that local NZers, earning/borrowing under local funding arrangments are taking on far more debt than they would otherwise need to.
-
Polity: A week on from the housing controversy, in reply to steve black,
And let’s remember that thanks to the very same Rob Salmond it seems like the Government doesn’t always describe official advice accurately, nor follow it:
And then sometimes they ignore it altogether and do what they want to - but the why that they want to do stupid things (when there are simple, esay, clean and good for NZ things to do) really puzzles me (this from discussion on another site);
The new rules the government is proposing to bring into effect on 1 October 2015 will create a Frankenstein monster of the government's own making
The best and simplest solution was to require all incoming migrants, on purchasing property in new Zealand to produce a Tax-Clearance Certificate from the country in which they are tax-resident. No Tax-Clearance, no-purchase - simple - it would be up to the Tax Authorities in the source country to confirm or deny - thus no requirement for the NZ government to get into a battle with that other country
As it now stands, if a criminal from China pops up in NZ (with fraudulent funds) and that crime is punishable by death in China, NZ will resist extradition and allow the person to stay with the naughty money - and it cant seize the funds because no crime has been committed in NZ - quite a dilemma
Full discussion for context here;
-
Polity: A week on from the housing controversy, in reply to chris,
Not my implication at all - it's a point about the emphasis you place on price, as if it were the only (or the principle) consideration in the production process that makes a good "competitive". In this case, Kiwirail explain in your link that the supplier was chosen because;
Kiwirail says it turned to the overseas firm because New Zealand workshops were not competitve and could not complete the contract on time.
"Not competitive" means, I assume, the NZ workshops price was higher than the successful tenderer. And "on time" meant the successful tendered could deliver the goods earlier than the NZ workshops bid.
In the end, the actual price for the goods might have been lower (for the purchaser), but the cost of production was higher for the seller than anticipated - and the actual in-service delivery date was likely delayed beyond the in-service date that the unsuccessful NZ tenderer might have delivered them.
So neither of the two criteria on which the "success" of the tender was determined were delivered. Both buyer and seller's profit/business objectives were not realised.
I think it's useful to view/analyse commerce/commercial transactions from a labour theory of value (as opposed to an orthodox) economic lens.
-
Polity: A week on from the housing controversy, in reply to steve black,
Great research paper - thanks for the link, Steve.
Ben, this answers some of your questions on whether or not Auckland is a bubble - conclusion: it is. Discussion toward the end on whether it will correct - only conclusion is that such a correction is unlikely to come from rents catching up with prices (incomes don't allow it). So, more likely to be an external shock.
-
Polity: A week on from the housing controversy, in reply to chris,
Chinese company CNR Corporation has won a $29 million contract from KiwiRrail to build 300 new rail wagons.
Kiwirail says it turned to the overseas firm because New Zealand workshops were not competitve and could not complete the contract on time.
Yep, the ones with the asbestos problem;
http://www.kiwirail.co.nz/news/299/78/Locomotive-Testing-Results-Received/d,news.html
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/pdf-library/latest-news/summary-kiwirail-investigation.PDF