What? Not a peep from Labour? Why not?

The Labour party opposes foreign ownership of our farms, they campaign to stop the chinks buying up the Crafar Farms. They used such examples in their campaigns about our land being stolen, sold off to foreigners and not being able to get it back.

Strangely though I can’t find a press release about the latest sale that has been announced. Why is that? Is it because it is Americans buying the land?

One of New Zealand’s biggest farms, described as being the size of Christchurch, has been sold to a North American investment group for an undisclosed sum.

The Overseas Investment Office has just given approval for the sale of Mt Pember station in the Lees Valley, about 85km north-west of Christchurch.

It is a massive 27,242 hectare (66,700 acre) property believed to be capable of carrying almost 53,000 stock units. 

The farm was owned by John and Bernice Ramsey who have other farming interests in the North Island, and is an amalgamation of seven runs and stations – encompassing Mt Pember, Wharfedale, Kingsdown, De Bourbles, Island Hills, Snowdale and Okuku Hills.

Mt Pember was bought by the North American investment group’s New Zealand-registered company Lees Valley Station LLC.

The property will be managed by Grasslands NZ LLC, a ranch and farm management/consulting company and will continue to be operated as a large scale diversified grazing operation, with a focus on dairy support, sheep, and beef.

In addition to the land and buildings, Lees Valley Station LLC has also bought all livestock and plant equipment for an undisclosed sum. Mt Pember has previously carried in the region of 28,323 sheep stock units, 20,413 cattle stock units and 5052 deer stock units.

Being run by an offshore management company too.

I wonder if they could find some outrage over the sale if the headline had perhaps said “Chinese Backed US investors buy one of our biggest farms”.

 

  • blokeintakapuna

    But don’t the Left just hate those big American Corporations wit their fat cat 1% owners? Why the silence indeed?

    Bigger fish to fry? Labour being distracted? Too much naval gazing and CYA weekend?

    At least Labour are consistent with their inconsistencies.

  • fastcompany

    here is the problem with overseas land purchase that seems to have evaded the political and media discussion to date. the value of land goes up when it is used more productively, whether it is a farm or a commercial lot. the reason it goes up in value is because as people become smarter and work harder they can make a higher profit from the land and it then allows more rent to be paid, which then increases its sale value. adam smith said “the price of land is high because the price of corn is high” which demonstrates this point well, but in this case we have learnt how to grow more corn, rather than there being a shortage. here’s the twist, an overseas investor simply buys the land and waits for the locals to work smarter and harder and push the value of it up. in other words, the overseas investor receives a windfall benefit on the back of the new zealanders hard work and better education etc. the overseas investor then can sell the land and take the money away. the simple solution is to only sell land to residents, with overseas investors being more than able to apply for residency and likely have it approved, that is the win win. any politician or media that talks about overseas investment being good because it brings in new capital to the country has failed to understand why land has a value and how its value is created, and more importantly who created it, and the cost to the country if the capitalised value of the residents hard work is not available.

    • Whafe

      Your example on corn is good, for the NZ townies,lets use the word Maize ;)

      :D

      • Patrick

        Same applies to milk, when the cockies are getting consistently high payouts they are willing to pay good money for land & cows. This was seen during the last run of + $7.00/kg payouts with some going beyond their means especially when the payout dropped to the mid $5.00/kg which was still historically a good payout.

    • kehua

      This big run is hardly what you would call `farmland` it is running less that 1 sheep to the Acre, 1 stock unit is the equivilent of 1 Ewe. I imagine it is mainly tussock and native grasses and would be basically uneconomical to run as a commercial farming enterprise.

    • cows4me

      What rubbish. Overseas investors can not afford to just sit on land. The trouble with farming is that most of your income has to be put back into the land be it fertilizer, fencing, pasture, cropping etc . If this is not done the land becomes a liability as there are still the numerous costs like rates. Your property has a rateable value judged by other properties in the vicinity, it doesn’t matter how you run your farm you still have to pay the rateable value. If one was simply to make money by sitting on land you would be sure we would all be doing it. You are in fairy land if you believe overseas investors do not add value to the land, if they don’t up keep the land it will cost new buyers many times more to bring the farm up to profitability.

      • fastcompany

        if i bought your house and rented it to you and then sold it after ten years, booted you out, and went overseas with the $250k profit, who wins? me. what did i contribute, not much. you are confusing the owning of ‘the investment’ which is the land and the running of ‘the businesses’ on that land, these are separate, by all means sell the overseas investor the business, take their capital and expertise etcx. just dont sell them the land. take this example. imagine if one person owned all the land in nz and then rented it back to the nz population. it would be much harder for people to then leverage of the value of there assets as they grow in value and then start new businesses, etc. history shows that land ownership is the key to a countries prosperity, alongside education and a legal system.

        • cows4me

          They can’t put the land in their back pocket and take it nor can they demand any price they see fit. If the land owner rents the land but is unwilling to maintain it, then he’ll not receive the return other “farms” would. Land isn’t like a house, it has to be developed and look after to return a greater return. As for someone owning all the land, we’re talking communism, that’s another kettle of fish.

          • fastcompany

            they cant take the land but they can take the value of the land in dollars, leaving the next owner, perhaps a nzr, a little less well off. did you know that 20 people own 40% of the worlds land – i imagine they do not loose sleep over maintenance costs and have benefits from the odd rent increase over the years

          • GazzW

            Are you sure about 20 people owning 40% of the world’s land? C’mon, that’s the equivalent of Asia & Europe combined. Give us a few names.

          • fastcompany

            heres a couple. read “who owns the world” by kevin cahill

            Queen Elizabeth II

            6,600 million acresKing Abdullah of Saudi Arabia553 million acresKing Bhumibol of Thailand126 million acresKing Mohammed IV of Morocco113 million acresSultan Quaboos of Oman76 million acres

          • cows4me

            Oh please and how many cows do these clowns run on said land.

          • fastcompany

            several

          • AnonWgtn

            Please tell me how much land The Queen owns – Sandringham and Balmoral – both virtually small holdings.
            Sandringham is a working small farm, and Balmoral is Scottish tussock hills.

          • fastcompany

            remind me what has the queen done again to make her fortune?

          • GazzW

            I don’t know about the the Middle East lot but I do know that QE2 does not own those vast tracts personally. Cahill’s work has been described as a blurred personal agenda and he purposely confuses land owned by the Crown and land owned personally. He even goes as far as including the total land mass of Canada, Australia & NZ in the queen’s personal landholdings. He’s Irish and born in the US – nuff said.

          • fastcompany

            your right but the point is irrelevant, a few people own most of the land – nuff said

        • Patrick

          The point C4M is making is if an investor (whether foreign or local) fails to invest in at least keeping the land up to scratch in terms of fencing, farm & residential buildings, weed, gorse & other issues & fails to put at least enough fertiliser on to maintain the current state then the land will go backwards & will devalue in comparison to the neighbours properties where the investment has been made. Take a drive through any rural area in NZ & compare the properties. In many cases it is very evident where the boundaries between farms are, just look at the state of the fencing & pasture.
          As an aside the foreign owner will have to rely on local resources to do the work, unlike a large percentage of local cockies who will do most of the work themselves. So these foreign investors actually add to the employment statistics.
          Making a comparison with an investment in a house is not in any way a fair comparison, a house left neglected for 10 years (as long as the tenant has not structurally damaged it) will still fetch a good price after a water blast & a lick of paint because houses are bought on emotion not rational thought, case in point being the Auckland housing market, totally irrational prices in many cases. Land neglected for 10 years will take much more effort & expense to bring it back to production.

          • fastcompany

            so you suggest that overseas owners do us a favour by letting us work our land for $15 and hour then decide to sell up after 20 years for a big profit when the farm has tripled in value, and take the money overseas ? at least if a nz land owner bought the land and sold up after 20 years the profit would be more likely to stay in nz, eg passed down to kids or new businesses etc.

          • Patrick

            I doubt any overseas millionaire is of the habit of doing favours, I merely pointed out one of the side effects of foreign ownership. One point to remember with the farm tripling in value after 20 years is so has all the other farmland. Therefore the profit is only realised when the land is sold & the money utilised elsewhere. Like purchasing a flash boat (c/w foreign owned engine manufacturers). Traditionally in NZ family owned land is not sold in such a manner therefore that profit is not realised as such. More than likely the increased value is used to leverage the next generation into farming, it is the banks, farm equipment sellers etc that see the gain. If you want to drill down into that 99% of the lending institutions are foreign owned & so are the equipment manufacturers such as John Deere etc. So are we going to extend the foreign ownership stuff all the way – where do we draw the line?

          • fastcompany

            the only part of this that i have an issue with is the foreign investor taking windfall or unearned profits out of nz that is made on the back of nzr’s hard work. this is possible through land investment as their are windfall profits, unlike any other investment type. it is something that is in our countries interest but not others. here’s an old school explanation that better explains my position.

            “Landlords operate a certain kind of monopoly against the tenants. The demand for their commodity, site and soil, can go on expanding indefinitely; but there is only a given, limited amount of their commodity…. The bargain struck between landlord and tenant is always advantageous to the former in the greatest possible degree…. Besides the advantage he derives from the nature of the case, he derives a further advantage from his position, his larger fortune and greater credit and standing. But the first by itself suffices to enable him and him alone to profit from the favorable circumstances of the land. The opening of a canal, or a road; the increase of population and of the prosperity of a district, always raises the rent…. Indeed, the tenant himself may improve the ground at his own expense; but he only derives the profit from this capital for the duration of his lease, with the expiry of which it remains with the proprietor of the land; henceforth it is the latter who reaps the interest thereon, without having made the outlay, for there is now a proportionate increase in the rent.”

          • Patrick

            First point – it would be helpful if you included the source of your quoted commentary. Sounds like a communist manifesto to me.
            Next point – use of emotive terms such as “windfall”, “unearned profits” is misleading. There are no windfall profits to be had in farming unless BP discovers oil fields under the soil. Unearned profits? So you completely ignored any of the previous points above? A foreign owner will have to either employ someone to manage the properties or manage them him or herself. Farm land cannot be left to sit idle as it deteriorates. There would not be a foreign investor of land in NZ paying millions of dollars with the intention of doing absolutely nothing with the land. Whatever is done requires effort on the part of the owner, whether that be directly or indirectly.
            Another facet to this – these guys are playing the exchange rate game as well, NZ dollar is now very high v USA, when the land is sold if the reverse is the case will you allow the owner to write off the difference against any taxable liabilities?

          • fastcompany

            Source is Jean Baptiste Say, very much a capitalist. Windfall and unearned are not at all emotive terms. Lets say you own a lamb farm and international land prices double. as the farm owner you can now make more money growing lambs. this means you can sell your farm for a higher price. this means you have a profit, all on the back of doing nothing

          • Patrick

            But if land prices have doubled you have to work the land twice as hard to realise the return on investment. You own a farm worth $1million, it returns to you $100k per year, that is 10% return. Your land is now worth $2million but is only returning the same amount? ROI has gone through the floor. You would have been better selling up to a foreigner & putting the money on term deposit at a foreign owned bank.

          • fastcompany

            land value is based on the return not the other way around as you suggest. the return increases as nz becomes better at farming. the overseas investors in land then benefit when we get better at farming, as land price rise because our returns per farm rise. their purchase of the land does not contribute to nz’ers getting better at farming. this is their windfall unearned profit.

          • Patrick

            Your scenario above was based on land prices doubling not returns doubling. mine is reality if your investment increases then you need a greater ROI to justify it. Otherwise sell up & put your money elsewhere. The argument being made by you & others is that foreign owners do not work the land, they just sit & wait for capital gains. Therefore your argument put forward about the returns increasing is not applicable to foreigners because the foreign owner’s farm just sits idle. You cannot have it both ways, either the foreigner invests & works the land and receives the benefits of this or he doesn’t.

          • fastcompany

            foreigners can buy farms and hire nz managers to run them. as the owner of the farm the receive any profits from the running of the farm, which are no doubt slim, and alsoprofits from land value increases, which are no doubt pretty good

          • johnbronkhorst

            and yet in the Chinese case it is mostly about security of supply!

          • Patrick

            I am not aware of the chap but the fact he was doing the rounds in 1800 kind of makes the above commentary irrelevant. The world is a very different place now from 1800 won’t you agree?

          • fastcompany

            the basics have stayed the same, get some land, rent it out, make some money, simple but effective strategy

          • dyannt

            It doesn’t sound like you’ve ever been a farmer!

          • fastcompany

            no, but a see a few wealthy farmers around, sounds like a good option, if you can get a foot in the door that is

          • dyannt

            So you’ve seen their bank statements showing the state of their borrowings/mortgage, have you?

          • fastcompany

            no but its predictable, mortgaged to the eyes, barely making ends meet, hoping for a good capital gain as an exit strategy

          • fastcompany

            here’s the thing, land prices or rents extract all profits, leaving just enough in for the guy that does the hard yards, question is should that be a fellow nz r or a distant investor

          • Liberty

            When was that?
            The 1950s

          • Patrick

            As an aside I suggest you try farming before you jump in boots and all to try to make a capital gain. Mostly 7 days a week often more than 12 hour days & always in all kinds of weather. Can be inconvenient at times as well, that night out with the mates cancelled because a cow is struggling to calve or the water pump is broken or the roof blew off the shed etc. etc. This is not a dig at you but there needs to be an appreciation of the time & effort put in by farmers to their business. It isn’t as simple as buying a block of land & sitting on the porch watching your capital gains grow. That may be the case buying a section in town & waiting for the rest of the subdivision to be built out. That is the easy way to capital gains through land investment if I ever saw one.

          • cows4me

            Well said sir, I’m afraid fastcompany has no idea of the effort involved in farming. As they say “if it was so easy every one would do it”, take my word for it, we fucking work for what we earn.

          • Patrick

            As an exercise it would be interesting to work out the income of a cockie x hours worked, 8 @ average wage, rest @ 1.5x & see what the annual income would be. In a lot of cases you would need to include the missus’s time & the kids. Then subtract the actual annual earnings.Then compare that to the capital gains made when selling the farm at retirement age. There is a whole lot of time put into farming that is unaccounted for, most on wages would be asking for recompense for that time, farm owners cannot.
            Edit – Wonder how the figure would look if you calculated it using an “executive” salary? After all most farms are enterprises worth millions & we “know” we have to pay big dollars for those sort of managers – the Public Service keeps telling us that.

          • johnbronkhorst

            What you are missing in any business model.
            The purchase price paid today holds no risk, it is cash, today!!!
            In order to benefit from income and capital gain, investors must RUN the business, it MUST increase in productivity to increase in capital gain!
            Farms go to ruin, if you leave them, work must be done to maintain and expand their value. Wages to the workers are cost against this, as workers get more skilled with time wage demands become higher, as profit increases so do taxes and rates as values rise.
            In order to sell a farm for a capital gain, it must be worth more than you paid plus what you have invested and spent on it.
            Cash flow and running costs have to be exceeded to make a profit (obvious)!
            There is at the end of all this, if you have been prudent and clever with your management, still the risk factor of market forces effecting your sale price.
            Apart from changes to the business environment, eg years ago there was a massive growth away from sheep in goat farming (prices were high), then deer farming, now it is dairy. Gone, long gone, are the days when NZ lived on the back of the sheep. But who, 50 years ago, would have predicted this? And over the next 20-50years, what will change?

          • fastcompany

            so are you saying that land prices in nz have not gone up over time in real terms?

          • johnbronkhorst

            Please, leave the stupid statements out of this.
            Prices only increase in REAL terms IF work and investment are made to encourage this. Nothing is achieved without work, true in Physics as well as business!!
            ALL benefit from this investment of money , labour and expertise. In terms of money & education, improving all peoples (involved) ability to make more wealth!!!

          • fastcompany

            i agree. work and investment in education lead to land value growth. we are now better at grolwing cows so the price of land is higher. in the future we will be evern better again at growing cows and the land will be worth more still. my preference is for this growth in land value to be retained by nz’rs – purely a selfish benefit for the people of this country

          • johnbronkhorst

            except, what you get, as in genetics, is inbreeding.
            In genetics you get a weakness of population.
            here without outside ideas and finance, you get financial weakness over time.
            Foreign investment does not weaken NZers ability, it strengthens it with money in the short term and education in the long term.
            The USA (post war), allowed all sorts of foreign investment and expertise into their country, they fast became the most powerful nation in the world, economically. They need to get back to their old methods to prosper and we need to copy their old methods.
            Allowing investment that benefits NZ.

          • fastcompany

            if the new investor brings in this expertise then possibly worthwhile, tough one to prove though. do they need to own our land to bring this expertise, surely the expertise finds its way to countries with people needing to own land? interesting point

          • johnbronkhorst

            Otherwise, why would he come?
            All contracts are about offer and acceptance, cost and benefit.
            If you offer no benefit, the investor won’t invest….SIMPLE!

          • fastcompany

            what if the main benefit is the capital gain?

          • johnbronkhorst

            Your whole argument is around stopping that!!

          • fastcompany

            stopping it going overseas, yes

          • cows4me

            Thank you Sir

      • http://manymonkeys.co.nz/ Hamilton Lad

        I feel that Fastcompany may well have found Economics 101 too challenging!

  • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ Keeping Stock

    I blogged about this yesterday. Say what you like about Winston Peters, but at least he is consistent with his opposition to overseas investment, and doesn’t discriminate between white investors and yellow ones.

    Labour and the Greens’ silence on this after the outrage of the Crafar farms is deafening, and it is absolutely hypocritical.

    • Garbageman

      Summed up nicely thank you
      can you provide a link to you blog please

    • Patrick

      Because the Crafer Farms issue was a trojan horse to attack the Government, nothing more. Funny how they were all attacking the Government about foreign ownership when the holders of the mortgage & therefore owners were Westpac Bank, a foreign owned corporation. Perhaps the Greens & Labour should campaign to make any entity lending money for property purchase in NZ fully NZ owned.
      If they wanted to drop the arse out of the property market & tip many into negative equity then that would surely do it. That would be the surest way to make their Utopia of Communism a reality as the Government/taxpayer would be the only entity willing to & capable of loaning to the masses – or collective as Cunliffe calls it.

      • le sphincter

        principatus ageretur ad mulgendum vaccas absens cum Seres dominis Landcorp

        • Patrick

          I don’t know what you think you are achieving with your recent posts, I am not bothered dropping your comments into Google Translate so whatever it is you are posting it is lost on me.
          Lay off the mind altering substances.

          • Bunswalla

            Just ignore, he’ll get sick of it eventually like a four-year-old that’s learned a swear word. Think’s he’s very clever, but isn’t.

          • Patrick

            He really needs to be in full time employment to occupy himself

      • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ Keeping Stock

        Which is consistent with Metiria Turei’s comments on The Vote; the ones she said were a mistake, but are probably what she really thinks.

        • Patrick

          But of course, the facade dropped momentarily and the communist idealism was revealed. I am sure “Hey Clint” will be delivering media coaching to Comrade Turei before her next public appearance.

          • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ Keeping Stock

            He already has been, and has been spinning madly across social media trying to undo the damage she caused.

  • kohibruce

    Labour haven’t had much luck running sheep.

    • Patrick

      More sheep botherers than anything else.

  • Garbageman

    we dont mind pissing off the asians but not our friends the yanks
    has anyone told these tards where most of our imports & exports go to

    • le sphincter

      Nisi Canadenses Nuntiata sunt accipies ambulo

      • Bafacu

        If you want to continue to communicate in Latin, become a priest or f… off to Ancient Rome (the latter preferably!)

  • justin

    90% of all our success economically is about kiwis working the land. It’s absolutely despicable that we are selling off our land to foreigners.
    The key is to split these giant land tracks into smaller units and therefore make it more possible for kiwis to purchase. Case in point is the crafer farms… why were they sold as a collective, rather than sold separately? Economics 101 is more buyers the higher the price. Economics 101 if I buy one car I pay higher price than if I talk to the dealer about buying 20 at once – the price will be lower.
    Too many kiwis selling out to foreigners for that extra set of $. Treason.

    • cows4me

      So farmers are only allowed farms of a certain size, to big and it must be split up, is that right? And we are only allowed to sell to Kiwis. Why don’t you suggest the same rules to the Auckland property market and see how you go, surely this is “despicable” after all young Kiwis can’t afford a house. If you are going to accuse farmers with treason I would start with the townies first but then again there are rules for some and rules for others.

      • justin

        Yes if that means that we keep our productive sector in our hands. I do suggest the same rules for all property. You need to live here to own it. The land has been our source of collective wealth for the entire history of NZ outrageous to sell it out. Same applies for our residential – shelter is a core need Economics 101 – no benefit to NZ if our landlords are overseas.

        • cows4me

          So you can only own so much land and by that measure only so many houses? and can only sell to a Kiwi. Yes that will work a treat. ( sargasm )

          • justin

            Yes that would work. We should definitely have restrictions on our land ownership, no doubt about it.
            Here I’ll rephrase your leading question before… will test your level of kiwi loyalty…
            A kiwi offers you $100k for your house and a foreigner (you know won’t live in NZ) offers you $101k… who will you sell to?
            This is the trick with property (and unrealized equity) it’s a game of margins the last sales set the new “value”.
            But the world is so much bigger than us there are so many more $’s out there that kiwis will inevitably be unable to compete. Globalisation and mass immigration is a generational issue – the younger generation have much more “competition” than the older generation had.

          • cows4me

            Trouble is Justin if you are willing to regulate peoples lives to such an extent then where do you draw the line in the sand. You regulate land and house prices why stop there. Regulation as such as you suggest would send us all to the poor house. Like it or not we are part of the global community, my product is auctioned on a global market, I pay global prices for machinery, fuel etc. Your policy is deeply flawed and you can’t turn back time.

          • justin

            No no don’t paint me with that brush. This is land – our productive sector and shelter – a human need.
            I’m not flawed, I’m recognizing and pointing out what is best for kiwis and what is best for NZ. You are thinking about your own individual net worth.

          • cows4me

            Fine I suggest you stand for parliament and gauge public opinion. This isn’t your land nor mine but to be honest I wouldn’t wish to live in a country governed by your rules.

          • justin

            No the land is part of NZ and should be for NZ’ers. Our country set up the rules when there wasn’t mass transport, easy immigration status, millions of foreigners with freshly printed cash to buy up our land.
            You want to live in a country where the people are tenants? Look C4M the home ownership rates dropping (look closer at the rates for the younger generations). Look C4M at the balance of payments and the amount of profits extracted out of NZ by aussie banks. Our leadership are blind or stupid or self serving.

    • Patrick

      So I offer $100k for your house & one of those “slitty eyed pan faces” offers $150k. Who are you going to sell to justin? After all I am a Kiwi, so surely me.

      • justin

        Our leaders need to have the structures in place to ensure that this happens. The simple reality is that housing is a need. Why should kiwis miss out on housing to enable you to profit from a need.
        Foreigners who come and make their lives here are super welcome. Overseas landlords are of zero benefit to NZ collective.

        • Patrick

          You avoided the question – right now would you sell your property to the highest bidder? Especially if that bid was way higher than the next one. Or would you sell to the nice Kiwi fella in the black singlet, Stubbie shorts & redband gumboots that was offering substantially less?

          You do realise that the impact of your policy means that your own property will devalue, possibly tipping you into negative equity. Something most Kiwis have not experienced, I have seen the damage first hand in the UK in the early 1990s. The damage was wreaked for years after the property market recovered with people unable to get mortgages because of their previous loan defaulting.

          Negative equity sure helps address all those foolhardy decisions to put the new car, boat & flash LCD telly on the mortgage based on the increase in property values but if those campaigning for change spelt out the true effects of their policies they may find little appetite for change amongst the voters. Turkeys don’t vote for Xmas.

          • justin

            Just up above..

          • justin

            OK lets get real with equity. It’s all unrealized until the sale goes through. The “value” of the equity is set by the current market conditions (remember only about 2% of the housing stock is for sale)… so I bought 10 years ago and my mortgage has gone down by my principal repayment but the market has moved up – I feel richer, as do all property owners. The feeling is false until it’s realized – yet I’m protective of my wealth.
            Meanwhile my fellow kiwis that are purchasing are doing so at the new market value (bricks and mortar haven’t changed)… so who wins?? Answer the aussie banks they get increasingly larger share of our GDP through higher loan values.
            We need leadership with a long term view of what’s best for NZ collectively. You have a myopic view of your house and the extra $50k a foreigner will pay you. Right now the majority of voters hold property and are self invested to sell out to foreigners.
            Lets not kid ourselves that this is anything but economic treason.

          • Patrick

            Two points – you are assuming that most kiwis manage their finances as you suggest you yourself do. In many cases this is not reality. Kiwis see the increase in property value giving them an increase equity in their house & go out & spend the increase on consumer items such as cars & boats. They then rely on capital gains to get them out of the cart. These increases are “paper” increases until such time as the property is sold. At that stage the market sets the value of the house as it is only worth what someone will pay.
            Next point – only 2% of the housing stock is for sale? Bulldust to that one, everything has a price, there may be only 2% of the stock currently listed but if I knocked on your door & offered you silly money most would accept it. It is the way of the market. We all have a price, ethics & morals aside.

          • justin

            No Patrick it’s the rest of the world not managing their $ in rational ways. They’re printing like mad there are great wads of money circulating the globe and the NZ property market is a common destination.
            Kiwis needing shelter and strategic assets (farm land) need to be protected from this false market. Come on Patrick you must concede that it’s not good for kiwis to be bid up to huge mortgages to aussie banks and the profit of our primary sector to go overseas.
            Your position is undefendable when you look at it from a macro view.

          • Patrick

            But the reality is not aligned with what you say, have a look on Trademe for instance for property for sale there are over 20,000 3 bed properties on the market for under $500,000. Sure none will be in Herne Bay next door to Cunliffe but peoples’ expectations are different from what they were in previous generations. Everyone wants a 4 x 2 in a flash suburb as a first home & your solution is to manipulate & regulate the market to achieve that. Have a look at other countries where the market is left alone, previously downtrodden suburbs are regenerated as the prices in neighbouring suburbs become out of reach. Instead in NZ these days we consign these areas as shitholes & we all try to purchase in the flash suburb. When we cannot afford it we moan about dirty foreigners, giving the likes of Winston Peters opportunities to peddle his jingoistic views. He would have to be the most conflicted of all, a foreigner hating politician who was a Foreign Affairs Minister in Clarke’s administration – but I am getting sidetracked with that discussion!

          • cows4me

            Before you accuse homeowners of economic treason perhaps the real issue lies at the feet of our governors. Why do so many people invest in homes, because the state continually tries to take their wealth. Of course they sell their homes to the highest bidder if the money had been left in the bank the bastards would have taken it buy now. The fault here isn’t greedy kiwis it’s the socialist state.

          • justin

            Definitely agreeing here. The “market” is far from with so many property govt subsidies (WWF, Accomodation Benefit, income write off from investment properties).
            The reality is NZ would be way better off if we hadn’t had massive increases in housing costs over the last 15 years.

          • Patrick

            Those increases – has there been a proper analysis of where the increases come from? I doubt construction costs are the main cause, I would assume bureaucracy overheads & land costs – much of which is due to local government policy are the main contributors. Too many local governments “taxing” the productive sector through rates & development contributions. Cut those overheads & suddenly housing is affordable – but the very politicians shouting from the rooftops about unaffordable housing are the ones responsible for the policies causing the issues.

          • Bunswalla

            If you think equity in a property is unable to be realised until the property is sold you’re a complete idiot.

          • justin

            I see Patrick neither you or cows4me (aka land4foreigners) have answered my what if a kiwi offers you 100k and the foreigner offers you 101k. See you know you’re selling out this country (but as an individual you’d be stupid not to take the money and run)… that’s why we need leaders in the country to put in the rules around foreign owners.
            As for the comment about the UK property slump and negative equity.. the bigger issue is to avoid being tenants in our own land (that’s why Brit’s came here in the 1800’s)..

          • Patrick

            Your question was addressed to C4M therefore I did not respond to it directly. However the question of the $1k difference really comes down to the worth of the $1k to the seller doesn’t it? I mean if you walked through my door & offered $1k less & I liked you & thought you would keep my property in the condition I had as opposed to a chappie that offered $1k more & i thought was a prized chump then I would accept your offer in 9/10 cases.
            However if the prized chump offered substantially more then I would hold my nose & accept his offer.
            That takes me back to the original question – how would you behave? One offer $50k more than the other but the person is a foreigner – which one would you agree to? All very well talking of the “good of the collective” when it is other peoples money but how would you behave as the individual? Still thinking of the collective good, or your own benefit?

          • johnbronkhorst

            In investment properties, which this basically about, you would be fool to accept the lower offer, no matter what! As this is the “extra” money to invest in your next venture!

          • Patrick

            Yes I admit I was confusing the investment property & own home situation

          • LabTested

            A question posed by Larry Williams yesterday was ‘If you are against this purchase, then you must also be against Fontera buying land in Tasmania’ You can’t have it both ways

            I have an investment property overseas because it generates better value than buying in NZ.

            Why should NZ farmers/companies be restricted to only investing in NZ. Why should I be restricted to only investing in NZ

          • johnbronkhorst

            Something about sauce being the same for goose and gander.

      • BJ

        If there were rules in place to stop absentee foreign ownership then the scenario you describe would not arise so there would be no dilemma for Justin

    • Bafacu

      Economics 101: if a small parcel of land is less economic to work it will return a smaller price. Sometimes economy of scale is necessary to enable profitable enterprise.

    • Liberty

      Now go sing the red flag. It will give you a real buzz.

  • Patrick

    So here’s the thing, the Left bitch & moan & carp on about this issue but the Greens own super scheme invests heavily in commercial & residential investment properties in NZ. Hypocritical? They hate capitalism but it is ok when they are profiting from it.
    The likes of Clarke, Goff & others within Labour have their own (in some cases) substantial property portfolios but they are the very first to sneer at the capitalists making profit from their property investments.
    But the lemmings that follow these hypocrites cannot see the wood for the trees, they listen & nod their heads at all the rubbish they are peddled by their political leaders & never think any more than skin deep. Those very same people maligning the nasty foreigners are doing exactly the same thing.
    It is very much the modus operandi of an African dictator like Mugabe.

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    Talked to Curryleaf. He says – “non-issue move on. We have better things to worry about here in NZ”. Get back to your TV shows National bros.

  • Steve (North Shore)

    I thought the topic was about ‘not a peep from Labour’?
    Off on a tangent about how to run a farm in a business manner and whether overseas owners are capable.
    I would like an answer from the three Labour leadership stooges, or anyone here supporting them. Not a peep from Labour – yet.
    Come on lefties!

  • Ken Mathis

    enlightenment: using the word “chinks” seriously and having none of your audience raise a peep of concern

    might as well break out the “I’m not racist I have an asian friend” line.

    but hey we can laugh at Labour because they ask the voters what they think right?

96%