[mdasen]

Silly question, but how do you budget given floating interest rates?

Let's say that you buy an $800,000 place at 3% interest with a 20% down-payment ($640,000 borrowed). Your payments are $2,698/mo. Fast-forward a couple years and you're now at 7.3% and your payments are up to $4,388/mo. That's a 63% increase in your housing budget. That's an extra $20,280/year in housing costs.

Yes, rent can increase crazy amounts which makes budgeting hard as well and we've seen rent go up 20% from pre-pandemic levels in many markets (though that seems to be rapidly falling as the market changes). However, you're not committed to that rent. Yes, it might be bad to downsize to something smaller that you're renting or to a less desirable location, but it's theoretically possible. In this case, you now have to pay 63% more money without a possibility of alleviating that burden.

As rates go up, the amount you can sell a property for likely goes down (since it's now a more expensive property). In the US, at least you can continue living there at your low interest rate and fixed monthly payment. In NZ, your $800,000 place is now worth $700,000 and your payments have gone up 63% and you can't really sell it because you owe more than it's worth and you also can't afford the payments...?

I feel like I might be missing something, but your answer might just be "yea, that's how it is here."

[Negitivefrags]

Yes. This is how you get wrecked in the housing market. This is because buying a house is taking a risk. The question is just who is taking it.

In 2008 my mother had her equity completely wiped out due to the exact situation you describe. Underwater mortgage, unable to afford the interest, forced to sell at a loss, zero net worth at the end after paying off all her debt.

On the other hand, we didn't suffer the 2008 banking crisis and overall the economy was basically fine with only a minor recession, mostly due to worldwide conditions.

[SturgeonsLaw]

Your scenario desribes how it works in Australia (similar system to NZ). Almost all mortgages are variable rate, you can lock in a fixed rate for a few years but otherwise you're at the mercy of interest rates.

Buyers are subject to strict lending criteria to determine whether they can afford $current_rates + $future_increases. This means a lot of people are locked out of owning housing.

The system is benefiting the already wealthy and leaving others, particularly young people, out in the cold.

[robocat]

> The system is benefiting the already wealthy and leaving others, particularly young people, out in the cold.

That is correct, but I think your cause and effect analysis is wrong.

We have 5 million people bidding against each other on 2 million households.

People bid as much as they can on their home, so if lending becomes looser, home prices shift up. The long term affordability doesn't change much. There can be other dynamic effects in the short term, I am talking about long term stability.

People bid to the limit of their affordability, so houses remain at the limit of affordability, regardless of the actual prices.

The structural problem is that home prices are a zero-sum game where we collectively bid to the point we can individually only just afford the interest payments. And we also screw the country because we are bidding on how much money we can give to Australian banks.

Home prices follow the same distribution as income (I think), until you reach a minimum wall of a few hundred thousand, below which nothing is available.

The problem of house prices is an effect of bidding, and I believe prices have almost nothing to do with land availability or the costs of building houses.

We could build more houses, but wealthier people will just buy two or more. I would like to own a second home in town for my occasional use.

What to do? I don't know. Keep increasing minimum wage so that 50% of people are in the lowest income bracket? Extra taxes on investment properties or empty vacation homes? Suggestions?

Are our city council rates already a significant way towards a Georgist taxation system? I looked at a wealthy suburb in Christchurch, and they were paying 5x as much as I do on rates ($15k per annum for the house I looked at).

Living in Christchurch, we had heaps of as-is houses that couldn't get a mortgage, and their prices reflect the cash price, which was wayyyyyy lower than the same home would be with a mortgage. I bought a perfectly good 3 bedroom home for land-valuation + $5000. At least half the price, because a mortgage was unavailable (and market was slow, so amplification factor on price too).

[tmnvix]

> What to do?

Make housing less attractive as an investment vehicle. In my opinion the best way to do this is with the tax system (which, in NZ, currently favours property investment to a large extent).

Two proposals that are often discussed are a capital gains tax (CGT) and a land value tax (LVT). Personally I would prefer a LVT. A CGT would be an improvement on the current situation, but it would be a big impediment to freely moving to take up a new job or for family reasons. An LVT has the opposite problem of being a potential impediment to staying put if the value of your land increases relative to other areas. For an older person who is no longer working this could force them to find a new home but could be dealt with by deferring payments until sale or settlement of an estate.

[robocat]

I am a strong opponent to CGT for businesses. I suspect it would be hard to introduce CGT just for real estate. Reasons for hating on CGT:

1. in NZ we need more investment in businesses, and less in real estate. I think introducing CGT would decrease business initiation and growth.

2. Most businesses fail i.e. your expected returns are often negative. The power law returns mean your expected return is highly dependent on winning big (VC model that one massive winner makes up for 10 losers), but CGT discourages winning big, and it discourages early investment in businesses.

[tuatoru]

I don't think it would be hard to apply a CGT to real estate only, as all transactions are centrally recorded, but it would disincentivise exchange (which presumably occurs when the buyer sees a more valuable use for the land), unless it is charged on unrealised gains, which is a can of worms.

Other possible measures:-

Stamp duty, as in the UK. Also disincentivises exchange.

Unimproved land value tax (Georgism). (Would need to apply to alienable land only, or there would be significant impact on rural iwi, and possibly a threshold of say $100k/ha unimproved land value since farmers whinge so loudly.) Fewest problems in tax policy terms.

Revise zoning. Change residential to mixed use (light traffic commercial, up to 25 employees, say), allow up to four storey and multiple-household buildings, prohibit "amenity" and "character" objections to consents (apart from noise and smell) and building size/usage/land use covenants near (<10 km radius) the centres of cities, and probably some other measures. Densification policies. Streamlined planning and consenting of developments.

I agree that we need to build capital for business investment. Tax policy (and middle class culture, as embodied in zoning rules and district plans) is heavily tilted against that. Been that way my whole life.

[dzhiurgis]

I’d like to add - forbid leveraged investors from buying existing stock.

[McNutty]

You've had multiple replies, but I think that one key piece of information missing from all of them is the fact that you could move between floating and fixed. In your example you might see rates going up and you'd decide to change from the floating rate to a fixed rate for a term of 1-5 years. A few years later you might go back to floating. You might also have your mortgage split up into 2 or 3 tranches with 1 floating and 1or2 fixed at different rates. You can move from floating to fixed at any time, but you can only from fixed to floating at the end of the fixed term (or earlier by paying the bank a break fee)

[rr888]

> "yea, that's how it is here."

Its also how it is in the UK and most other countries. There is a benefit that the central bank can control the economy much better. When the fed raises rates most people dont directly notice, where with floating rates the majority of households have less money every month straight away.

[climb_stealth]

Yeah, that's how it is here. Part of the thinking is that everyone is in the same boat and the government couldn't possibly let everyone go to ruin.

It's nuts. Talking about Australia though.