The Governor of the Reserve Bank was interviewed over the weekend on Newshub Nation. Perhaps even fewer people than usual watched the programme, since it was on over a holiday weekend, but I saw a few comments – public and private – suggesting it was a rather odd performance so I finally had a look myself. I had to agree with the commenters.
There were three broad topics covered in the interview:
- infrastructure finance,
- bank conduct issues, and
- mortgage lending.
Of those three topics, only the third is really within the ambit of the Governor’s responsibilities.
On infrastructure finance, you’ll recall that a few weeks ago the Governor weighed in on this issue, claiming to be speaking both in his former capacity of head of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (NZSF) and in his current role as Governor. He was venting about his frustration that NZSF had not been able to invest in infrastructure projects in Christchurch after the earthquakes.
“My single biggest frustration when I was at the Super Fund was the inability to be able to invest in New Zealand infrastructure.
“We never got to spend a single penny in Christchurch. I stopped going down. It became too hard,” Orr said.
“I went down, even once CERA [the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority] was formed, and the person said ‘it’s great to see you here, Minister [Gerry] Brownlee is very pleased you’re here. Now, tell me again which KiwiSaver fund you’re from’.”
Understandably, that upset Gerry Brownlee and prompted a rare criticism of a central bank Governor from the Leader of the Opposition and a suggestion that the Governor should stick to his knitting – the core stuff he now has legal responsibility for.
Orr now claims he wasn’t being specifically critical of the Christchurch situation – although see the quote – and that he was just making a general point, one he is not defensive about at all. There isn’t, in his view, enough “outside capital” being brought into infrastructure development, here and abroad.
His mandate, so he claimed in this latest interview, was his obligation to contribute to “maximum sustainable employment” – the words recently added to the Policy Targets Agreement governing the conduct of monetary policy. As I’ve pointed out recently, this argument just doesn’t stack up: the words in the PTA are about the conduct of monetary policy (interest rates and all that) not a licence for the Governor to get on his bully pulpit and start lecturing us – politicians and citizens – about all manner of other policies he happens to think might be a good idea. It is a doubly flawed argument because even the new monetary policy mandate is about employment – not productivity or GDP per capita – and the Governor will know very well that you can have a poor fully-employed economy or a prosperous fully-employed economy. Infrastructure finance – even well done – has almost nothing to do with sustainable levels of employment.
In the latest interview, he was asked (very first question) about the recent bid by NZSF to invest in light rail in Auckland. Instead of gently reminding the interviewer that such things aren’t his responsibility any longer, the Governor weighed in. Any opportunity for outside capital should be welcomed, we were told. The Governor went on to lament the “hang-ups” people have – “people”, we were told, were the problem here, “getting in the way” of sensible solutions. The Governor complained that all this leads to infrastructure being financed by debt or taxes, when it really should – in his view – be financed by equity (perhaps he didn’t notice that the NZSF itself was, and is, funded by debt and taxes, or that he has previously called for governments to take on more debt). The Governor complained about politicians being scared of tolls, and argued that they “need to get over it”. Challenged as to whether these were not political debates, the Governor argued that he was trying to get these out of the political debate – as if mere citizens, the dread “people”, might not reasonably have a view not only on what projects should be done, but how they should be owned/financed. Wrapping up that particular segment of the interview, the Governor opined that the wider economic benefits of light rail were “incredibly important” to maximising sustainable employment”.
It all remains, as I put it some weeks ago, very unwise and quite inappropriate. Even if his views had merit (which, I would argue, they mostly don’t), these are issues which have nothing to do with the Reserve Bank (where the Governor wields a great deal of barely trammelled power). As I put it in an earlier post
The Governor holds an important public office, in which he wields (singlehandedly at present) enormous power in a limited range of areas. It really matters – if we care at all about avoiding the politicisation of all our institutions – that officials like the Governor (or the Police Commissioner, the Chief Justice, the Ombudsman or whoever) are regarded as trustworthy, and not believed to be using the specific platform they’ve been afforded to advance personal agendas in areas miles outside the mandate Parliament has given them. We don’t want a climate in which only partisan hacks have any confidence in officeholders, and only then when their side got to appoint the particular officeholder. And that is the path Adrian Orr seems – no doubt unintentionally – to be taking us down.
The arrogance of it all is pretty breathtaking too – we “the people” are the problem. Officials and politicians sometimes say things like that in private (feeling that they really deserve a better class of “people”), but generally not in public. And the Governor seems to have no conception of the way in which genuine outside capital in a private project in a competitive industry, where all the gains and losses accrue to the private providers, differs from the public-private partnerships he waxes lyrical about (even while championing what would, at best, have been only public-public partnerships, since NZSF is just another pot of government money). Contracting, in ways that both preserves the public interest and ensures continuity of high quality service, has proved hellishly difficult. Providers of outside capital in PPPs – whether state entities of the sort Orr has championed or private ones – don’t care at all about the fundamental merits of a particular project, so long as they can write a contract that more or less guarantees returns to them. In such a world, easy access to money can be a recipe for a smoother road to more really bad projects being done – anyone recall the synthetic petrol plant, as an example of outside capital and guaranteed rates of return?
I’m not suggesting the Governor is totally wrong – I’m pretty sympathetic to congestion pricing on city roads for example – but in his official capacity, it is none of his business. There is a vacancy coming up for Secretary to the Treasury; perhaps could apply for that position? Or he could run for Parliament – though probably not with that dismissive attitude to “the people” – or retire and get a newspaper column. But it is nothing to do with the Reserve Bank, and he jeopardises the Bank’s position – both the ability to do its day job with general support, and increasing the chances of future partisan hack appointments – if he goes on this way.
And what about his claim that infrastructure finance is really core to what the Reserve Bank does? There was this from his public statement a couple of weeks ago
I have spoken about specific issues recently because increased infrastructure investment opportunities provide sound investment choices, risk diversification for financing goods and services, and improves maximum sustainable employment by relieving capacity constraints.
These are all core components of the Reserve Bank’s role and something we often speak about in our Financial Stability Reports.
In the last month, we’ve had a Monetary Policy Statement and a Financial Stability Report. There were no mentions at all of infrastructure in the Monetary Policy Statement and, once again, a single mention in the Financial Stability Report – a brief reference to “market infrastructure”. The Governor just seems to be making it up on the fly, when these issues are no more part of his official brief than most other areas of government policy are.
The second strand of the weekend interview had to do the ongoing banking conduct investigation – in which the Reserve Bank and the FMA demand banks and insurers prove their innocence, on points which (at least in the Reserve Bank’s case) are really not the government agency’s business. There wasn’t much new in this part of the interview, apart from the somewhat surprising claim that the Reserve Bank has a very good insight into banks and insurers (which makes you wonder how CBL failed, or Westpac ended up using unapproved capital models for years, or how a few weeks ago the Governor could have been convinced there were no problems here, but now leaves open the possibility that he could recommend a Royal Commission).
As the Governor ran through his checklist of issues, it was more and more clear how little any of this had to do with the Reserve Bank’s statutory responsibilities. He was concerned, for example, as to whether banks were “customer-focused”. Personally, I rather hope that, as private businesses, they are shareholder-focused, working first in the interests of the owners. Now, working in the interests of the owners does not preclude caring a great deal about good customer service (whether in banking or any other sector) but it shouldn’t be the prime goal. And whether or not banks offer good customer service has very little to do with the Reserve Bank’s statutory focus on the soundness and efficiency of the financial system. Perhaps we all wish it did, but some friendly customer-focused banks fail, and most flinty hardnosed one don’t, and vice versa. There is no particular connection.
Similarly, the Governor was concerned about remediation when customers have problems with their banks. Perhaps there is a role for some agency of government to take an interest (perhaps…..) but there is no obvious connection to the Reserve Bank’s prudential regulatory functions. Over the years I’ve had plenty more complaints about my supermarket than about my bank, but (fortunately) no one seems to think governments should regulate customer service in supermarkets.
The Governor has found a partial defender in Gareth Vaughan at interest.co.nz. But as Vaughan notes, it hasn’t typically been the Reserve Bank way
In 2015 when Australian authorities were probing high credit card interest rates, my colleague Jenée Tibshraeny tried to find someone, anyone, in a position of power in New Zealand to take an interest in credit card interest rates here that were at similar levels to Australia. This is what a Reserve Bank spokesman told Jenée;
“The Reserve Bank of New Zealand regulates banks, insurers, and non-bank deposit takers (NBDTs) at a systemic level – i.e. to make sure the financial system remains sound.”
“We don’t regulate from an individual customer protection perspective and don’t have comment to offer about pricing of products and services offered by banks, insurers and NBDTs,” a Reserve Bank spokesman said in 2015.
That stance is entirely consistent with the legislation the Reserve Bank operates under. Vaughan concludes
Personally I welcome the Reserve Bank thinking of consumers, be they borrowers, savers or insurance policyholders. By taking an interest in consumer outcomes Orr is humanising the Reserve Bank, and making it more relevant to the general public.
However, if this is the path the Reserve Bank wants to go down, and has government support to do so, then perhaps phase 2 of the Government’s Reserve Bank Act review is a good opportunity to enshrine this more consumer outcomes focused role into the Reserve Bank Act. The terms of reference for Phase 2 are due to be published during June.
In a sense, that is the point. Responsibilities of government agencies are something for Parliament – the pesky “people” and their representatives again – to assign, not for individual officials to grab. I happen to disagree with Vaughan here – between the FMA and generic consumer protection law, there is no obvious gap for the Reserve Bank – but it should be a matter for Parliament.
It remains hard not to conclude that Orr is driving this populist bandwagon for two reasons:
- to avoid letting the FMA take the limelight (the Reserve Bank has never been keen to play second fiddle to the FMA, especially on anything affecting banks) and
- to distract attention from the Reserve Bank’s own poor performance as a prudential regulator, encapsulated in the recent scathing feedback in the New Zealand Initiative report.
He seems to have been remarkably successful so far – journalists seem to have been so pleasantly surprised by on-the-record media access to the Governor that they don’t bother asking the hard questions, and the Governor gets to portray himself as some sort of tribune of the abused masses (with or without evidence).
Personally, I find the sort of concerns outlined in today’s Australian about the Royal Commission itself , or concerns about the potential for these show trials to reduce access to credit, including (in particular) for small businesses, ones our officials or politicians might take rather more seriously. But, probably, feel-good rhetoric is more satisfying in the short-term.
The final part of the Governor’s interview was about mortgage lending. It wasn’t impressive. The Governor declared that “we’re scared” about the high debt to income ratios evident among households with mortgages, but then in the next breath stressed that banks were very well capitalised and highly liquid etc. Those two observations are simply inconsistent: if the Reserve Bank really has grounds to be scared (a) bad outcomes should be showing up in their stress tests (which they don’t) and (b) the Bank should be articulating a concern that banks are insufficiently capitalised and raising capital requirements further. And it isn’t clear how the Governor thinks that, in a regulatory climate in which land prices are driven artificially high, ordinary people would be able to buy a house without a very high initial debt to income ratio. But this seems to have become an evidence and argument-free zone, in favour of emoting about the “high debt” (not, as I noted last week, much higher relative to income than it was a decade ago).
The final question in the entire interview was about whether loans for Kiwibuild houses should be exempt from the LVR restrictions. The Governor’s initial response was that he didn’t know, and couldn’t answer. But then, pushed a little further, he expressed a view that such loans should be exempt……..they were, after all, about adding supply, and doing it quickly, and helping low income people into homes who might not otherwise be able to manage it.
Quite what was going on there wasn’t very clear. There is already an exemption for people purchasing new houses (and any debt developers take on in the construction phase isn’t covered by LVR restrictions anyway).
The new dwelling construction exemption applies to most residential mortgage lending to finance the construction of a new residential property.
The construction loan should either be
(1) for a property where the borrower has made a financial and legal commitment to buy in the form of a purchase contract with the builder, prior to the property being built or at an early stage in construction. This could be traditional ‘construction lending’ where the loan is disbursed in staged payments, or it could be a loan to finance the purchase of a property, which will be settled (in one payment) once the build is complete.
(2) For a newly-built entire dwelling completed less than six months before the mortgage application. The dwelling must be purchased from the original developer (the contract to buy at completion can be agreed while the building is still being constructed).
This exemption didn’t exist when LVR were first rushed in by the previous Governor, but pretty quickly industry and political pressure built up and the Reserve Bank amended the policy. In doing so, they revealed the fundamental incoherence of the LVR framework: the Reserve Bank has always claimed that it is about protecting financial stability and reducing (their view) of excess risk in bank mortgage books. And yet, lending on new properties – all else equal – is riskier than lending on existing houses. Existing houses are, for one thing, finished. They are also in areas that have been occupied for some time. By contrast, new houses – especially in new subdivisions – can be left high and dry when and if the property turns, or the economy turns down. Think of the pictures of abandoned subdivisions on the outskirts of Dublin, or of some US cities in the last downturn.
And the Governor’s, apparently off the cuff, suggestion that credit restrictions should be easier for low income people who might not otherwise be able to get into a house, was distressingly reminiscent of the US policies – political and bureaucratic – in the decade before the US crisis, which ended badly (for banks, and for many borrowers). It is a recipe for encouraging banks – supposed to be “customer-focused” in the Governor’s view – to be more ready to lend to people relatively less able to support debt. It is, frankly, irresponsible. (And all this is before one even gets to questions about the extent to which Kiwibuild will simply crowd out other construction – the Bank’s analysis on which they simply refuse to release, despite having opined on the issue in past MPSs.)
The quality of policymaking – official and political – in New Zealand has fallen away quite sharply in the last 15 or 20 years. Sadly, Adrian Orr as Governor increasingly seems at risk of averaging it down further. All while showing no sign of addressing the problems in his own backyard – whether as regulator, analyst, or as sponsor.
20 thoughts on “Another Orr interview”
I don’t see Adrian’s comments or willingness to talk about a diverse range of topics in the same way as you.
For me the problem with NZ regulatory agencies such as RBNZ and ComCom (to name just 2) is that they are not really subject to scrutiny by elected politicians or legislative bodies.
The problem isn’t that the Governor of the RB talks to much or that Chair of ComCom talks not enough, it is that few politicians are scrutinizing them, providing commentary about them, holding them to account, or imposing changes.
I don’t know if you have read it, but you should be interested in the book by Sir Paul Tucker “Unelected Power: The Quest for Legitimacy in Central Banking and the Regulatory State”. I’ve not (yet) read it, but I have listened to an FT podcast of him talking about it.
His over-arching point is that a well-functioning democracy encourages participation and he starts with three criteria for judging the legitimacy of delegation to unelected agencies:
1. There should be reasonably settled public agreement about the goals. For instance, it is reasonable to delegate power to a central bank to pursue stable prices and a stable financial environment, such objectives are widely shared by the public with few objectors.
2. The objectives of the agency must be set by politicians and must be clear, readily understood and monitored. It should not be up to the agency to design its own goal posts, because if it can it will always “succeed”.
3. The justification for the delegation should be a credible solution for a problem identified by the politicians. Unelected people should not be delegated too much power especially when decisions rest on values or relate to redistribution.
He then addresses how agencies should be designed to exercise their discretion effectively. In this regard his criteria are:
1. Objectives must be clear and able to be monitored. If an agency is given several objectives, the objectives must either be ranked or decisions about ranking priorities should be defined.
Using as an example the UK version of the Financial Markets Authority, he notes that its goals include the promotion of efficient allocation of capital and the protection of individuals; with priority between these two goals being up to the agency. A lack of prioritization is acceptable if elected politicians are not sure themselves, but that places an onus back on the politicians to monitor the agency to make sure they are comfortable about how discretion is being exercised.
The greater is the delegation of power and discretion the greater needs to be the parliamentary oversight.
2. Delegated powers should not go further than are needed to do the job. He gives an example in the area of financial stability where central banks are responsible for developing and implementing “macro prudential” rules. Many of the central banks have interpreted this discretion to justify restrictive loan/value rules to stop banks providing some loans. Notwithstanding that many of the disqualified borrowers are people who would benefit from having access to the loan funding and would be perfectly capable of meeting their borrowing obligations.
3. There should be clear promulgation by the regulatory agency of its approach and operating principles. Amongst other things to ensure that the agency is consistent.
4. Transparency and accountability to elected individuals and/or the legislature is critical. For instance, agencies should regularly give public testimony to elected representatives and should draw legitimacy from this. This can only happen if there is a credible threat of losing delegated power. Such processes should not be a charade where the outcome is always the same irrespective of the testimony.
Having participated in the NZ Initiative’s review of a number of NZ’s regulatory agencies, many of Sir Paul’s prescriptions resonate with me.
I don’t blame Adrian for a willingness to talk about a diversity of topics. I do blame politicians for abdicating responsibility to the RBNZ for regulatory functions. RBNZ is just a tool of parliament and parliamentarians should wise up to that.
Grant Robertson’s educational studies and most of his working life has been in Political Science. He has not studied Economics nor finance or worked in any capacity in those areas. As Finance Minister he is ill equipped to understand even the basics. He is therefore dictated to by his treasury staff, all of whom are highly qualified economists who are long serving bereaucrats not appointed by Grant and therefore not answerable to him. Adrian Orr has effectively been interviewed and appointed as Grant Robertson’s mouthpiece in all matters that Grant Robertson is uncomfortable with fronting up to media with.
Good to see Paul Tucker’s ideas getting another airing here – I’ve quoted him in various posts in recent weeks, mostly on Rb reform issues
I guess my take is that there are two, quite different, points here. I think it is unwise and inappropriate for the unelected Governor to be loudly talking about all manner of contentious issues outside his remit (as it would be Police COmmissioner or the like) – and that doing so damages his institution and public confidence in the individual. In his specific case it is also unwise because we are soon moving to a committee-based approach for mon pol, where there will (it seems) be more expected emphasis on consensus, not on vocal individuals.
But I also, separately, thoroughly agree about the lack of serious scrutiny and accountability for our regulatory agencies (not just the Bank). It is a really serious weakness, on the part of our MPs. I don’t go as far as Tucker in saying we should only have independence if there is really serious demanding scrutiny – partly because such scrutiny is quite rare in other countries too – but our MPs should be ashamed of how they have abdicated their responsibility.
Incidentally, Tucker also counsels independent agencies to adopt an ethic of self-restraint, which I read him as meaning to encompass things like central bankers not sounding off on all and sundry issues, or playing tribune to the masses.
Hi Michael – I don’t have the full context to Governor Orr’s comments but there doesn’t have to be an inconsistency between him saying “that “we’re scared” about the high debt to income ratios evident among households with mortgages, but then in the next breath stressed that banks were very well capitalised and highly liquid etc.” RBA Governor Lowe has expressed similar sentiment recently. His line is that Australia’s high level of household debt (2nd highest in the world when measured against disposable income) is not an issue right now and the broader banking system is well capitalised and showing few/no signs of stress. One day, however, there will be a recession and while the well-capitalised bank system can survive a decent sized housing correction these high levels of household debt risk making the economic downturn deeper than would otherwise be the case. if so, hitting their inflation target will be more difficult. peter
I’m not really convinced by that sort of story, especially as Adrian was talking about it from a financial stability perspective not a monetary policy one. As far as I can see, there are no good grounds to be concerned about the soundness of the financial system – in NZ or Aus – and talk of being “scared” is here often cover for ill-founded interventions like LVR rules. NZ/Aus banks aren’t perfect by any means, but they have had a pretty track record of lending for 25 years now, and pretty decent capital buffers (recall that the RB/APRA stress tests include very severe unemployment scenarios – in effect allowing for any compounding effects of debt overhangs).
I think one problem is that neither the RBA nor (especially) the RBNZ have ever faced up to the fact that the only credible way house prices go down and stay down (a long way) is far-reaching land reform, and that doesn’t seem likely in either country. WIthout it, home purchasing generations will need to borrow a lot more from other generations (raising PSC/GDP and M3/GDP ratios) than we were used to in generations past.
On the mon pol side, to the extent there is anything in the debt overhand story – and I’m sceptical of eg Mian and Sufi – it will be an argument for an aggressive use of mon pol in the next recession. Sadly, both central banks have been cautious and grudging in recent years – hence persistent inflation undershoots – and neither has got themselves positioned for hitting the near-zero lower bound on nominal interest rates in the next serious recession. If anyone deserves to be scared, it is probably the citizens (especially those with weaker labour market connections, who end up unemployed first)
Chaps (this isn’t just a response to Michael)
I don’t have a problem with Grant Robinson’s relationship with RBNZ or Adrian. Grant gets to write the governor’s contract and presumably he has a say as to the board. A Minister of the Crown is a member of the executive. He and the organization he represents has to be accountable to Parliament. But these days (I really don’t know if its ever been different) parliament is more interested in delegating power to unelected agencies than it is in holding them to account.
On the point raised by Peter and Michael, about what a governor should talk about and how he should manage the public utterances of others. I read Ben Bernake’s autobiography and he wrote at length about this matter. In general he supported a permissive approach but with a few boundaries. I’d be very surprised if Adrian took a different approach (wither either his team at RBNZ or with the others on the MP Committee), and I think that is the best choice.
John McDermott tends to be the RB official who now presents to the post MPS breakfasts which ANZ and BNZ host on a regular basis. He is very candid. Answers every question. And never (to my knowledge) misleads.
In the past we (in my office) have been mislead by gnomish comments by one governor which cost us plenty. He had intimated that RBNZ was so uncomfortable about the NZ$ it was going to do something about it…. and they didn’t.
RBNZ has more data and more economists than any other institution in NZ. The more they improve awareness relevant to this, the better. Just as long as they don’t create misleading impressions.
On a totally different point, whether NZ Super (and for that matter ACC) should be investing in NZ. This is something I would like to see debated. In particular with EQC insolvent, isn’t there a case for the government’s financial assets to be parked outside of NZ just in case there is an other major earthquake? I only raise this because Adrian did and it seems to be yet another issue where at least some elected politicians should be taking responsibility (after all, politicians created both NZ Super and ACC).
Just quickly, what John McDermott (and others) won’t be free to do at post-MPS sessions or elsewhere is to run their own preferred view on policy in public (or private) fora.
On the plans Grant Robertson announced a few months ago, it is intended that under the new structure, only the Governor will be free to speak openly, and all other members (internal and external) will simply have to run the party line. That is a very different system from those adopted in (notably) the US, UK, and Sweden (altho it is basically the Australian system).
I’d favour NZS investing almost entirely outside NZ, altho more for governance reasons than earthquake ones. Of course, most of their assets are now held abroad, but all hedged back to NZD. I would favour ending that latter policy. Doing so would mean a higher short-term variance of returns, but greater resilience in severe downturns (which is when we are most likely to need the money).
I do not think that there is a profitable return in investing in NZ rail lines. Certainly not along low density suburbs along Dominion Road in Auckland. Traffic now being diverted through the Waterview Connection has meant that only us local suburbia use it and most of us live in single houses all along dominion road. It takes only 15 minutes to get from Dominion Extension to Mt Eden. The delays is when you actually get into the city itself that congestion slows the traffic down to 20 minute crawls
Even Rail to the airport from Auckland City looks rather suspect in terms of profitability because from Mt Roskill to drive to the airport is a clear easy 20 minute run most times other than peak 9am and peak 5pm traffic which will stretch you to 30 minutes since the completion of the Waterview Connection.
Planning new roading would still give a better return through tolls.
Orr seems to not realise there is the Fair Trading Act and CCCFA administered by the Commerce Commission which would seem the appropriate protections for bank customers being poorly treated in many instances. Maybe his next job can be chair of Comcom?
Apropos the article on “an abundance of land” – now the danger of “Prime brokerage” – Todd Corporation have been bogged down owning significant land holdings in Okura. Since 2003. They are stuck with it. Todd’s are the second wealthiest NZ family behind Graeme Hart
Todd’s have a number of raw land holdings through NZ
After having just completed Final Inspection on a 3 site subdivision with 2 existing cross lease houses and now waiting for already 2 months for CCC. The entire process from RMA to Final Inspection took 4 years and still counting because I am still waiting on CCC after replying to an RFI where Council already had most of the information but either can’t read, or Council staff just delaying for the sake of longer lunch and tea breaks. I am personally sitting on 11 sites but feeling rather old and tired with cost and debt blowouts from one small development. I can understand Todd Corporation reluctance to build. The risk of delays and cost blowouts from development can cripple you mentally, physically and financially.
I have a great deal of sympathy. Nonetheless, you are on record as a big fan of John Key. Contrast his words in this speech – which I only came across yesterday – with what he actually did in office. Reading the speech reminded me why, on occasion, before 2008 I occasionally was a little optimistic.
Didn’t you get tied up in red-tape with the local IWI over your subdivision on the slopes of Mt Roskill volcanic cone (Mt Puketepapa) and the discovery of shellfish in a midden. How’s your $7 million property portfolio going now?
Iconoclast, the portfolio hit a high of $9 million in valuation in November 2017 but since then the value has come off its high but still retaining the same property portfolio. Rents are rising nicely with too much tax to pay. Just increased rents by $30 to $50 a week on 4 Auckland properties with the property manager promising another $20 increase after completion of insulation works in 6 months. Rent increase was prompted by one of the tenants asking to move ahead on insulation but they also asked for a heatpump due to a sick child. The property had a DRV system so not sure why they want a heat pump. So rent went up to cover costs.
But the rent went up by $100 a week in a Huntly property. It jumped from $310 a week to $410 a week after I had to give the previous tenant notice and cleaning up a asbestos ceiling. The cost was $15,000 to remove and to re-plaster and paint to comply with health and safety. I think I could have got away with just a paint job but I thought better to just sort out the problem once and for all.
Actually dealing with Iwi was relatively easy. There was a 4 month delay in following up consultants, getting a archealogical assessment report and chasing up the Minister of Lands to complete the sign off.
The Iwi members were actually quite friendly. After a few beers they just send you the bill for earthwork attendance but most times just did not bother about showing up but the bills would just show up to be paid. All up costs was around $6000 for attendance of earthworks and to write a Heritage report.
After a long time resident in AU, my intention was to return to Auckland and locate somewhere coastal between Orewa and Whangarei. After 4 years of hunting, regrettably, nearly all the arable land was Regional Reserve and what was available was “mountain goat country” and any/all available housing was high-maintenance 2-storied pole houses. Demoralising.
Eventually we searched in the South Island and found a rural block of coastal land for ¼ of the cost of a residential 1000 sqm section in Auckland. We applied to the local council for approval to build and it was all over and approved in 6 weeks
Auckland Council – like so many of its peers – enemy of affordable land and housing, even as it champions rapid population growth.
Barely related, I’ve just been listening to the book launch address for Paul Tucker’s “unelected power”, I hope you will read it and digest its lessons for our context. https://media.rawvoice.com/lse_publiclecturesandevents/richmedia.lse.ac.uk/publiclecturesandevents/20180523_1830_unelectedPowerTheQuestForLegitimacyInCentralBankingAndTheRegulatoryState.mp3
Thanks. I’ve written various posts already drawing on tucker’s book ( agreeing – mostly – and sometimes disagreeing)
I’m sure you would like to sit Orr down and make him take detailed notes on the “on self restraint” part at the end of the speech I linked to 😉 It could have been written for him personally…