Nat/act/nzf 2023

[Bjauck]

Yes the idea that LL's are now just going to kick people out onto the street is nuts. Just fearmongering by BJ as he continues to try to make a storm in a teacup.

Life will go on much as it always has after this change.

And if there are any landlords who decide they don't want to rent the property out all they need to do is give a very reasonable 3 months notice. They certainly do not need to explain their actions to BJ, or anyone for that matter.

So what is the point of introducing the ability to have no cause evictions, if it will not be used?

[Baa_Baa]

Good luck getting a loan from the bank to borrow money to buy shares, on the security of the shares themselves.

It's called 'margin lending', easy peasy. For example ASB Securities (ASB Bank) offer lending on a swag of shares, most between 50% to 70% of the value of the shares held, with the shares being the backing security.

[iceman]

So what is the point of introducing the ability to have no cause evictions, if it will not be used?

It gives LL's a bit more confidence when selecting tenants that if they get it wrong and the tenants turn out to be bad tenants that show no respect for your property, you can get rid of them. Currently this is not the case and it stops lots of potential tenants being selected, even though they may well be totally good tenants. One just can not take risks with one's properties. The result is a huge increase in people on emergency housing waiting lists, sleeping in cars or motels. This rule change is one piece of many in the puzzle to get people into decent housing in NZ.

[Bjauck]

It gives LL's a bit more confidence when selecting tenants that if they get it wrong and the tenants turn out to be bad tenants that show no respect for your property, you can get rid of them. Currently this is not the case and it stops lots of potential tenants being selected, even though they may well be totally good tenants. One just can not take risks with one's properties. The result is a huge increase in people on emergency housing waiting lists, sleeping in cars or motels. This rule change is one piece of many in the puzzle to get people into decent housing in NZ.

If tenants turn out to bad, doesn’t the current legislation allow the tenancy to be ended if there is serious damage, three weeks non-payment of rent, or if a 14 day notice to remedy a breach has passed? I have no experience but In your experience does the tribunal make in difficult for landlords to seek redress? What is the process to appoint tribunal adjudicators (is it open to political interference)?

I certainly agree that with the high investment value wrapped up in a residential property, I would be protective of it, if I were an owner. How do you think we should cope with chronically indigent tenants. They would become a social issue, one way or another.

The need to build more housing to relieve overcrowding and cope with the growing population is an ongoing issue.

[causecelebre]

Thats the thing isn't it. The pearl clutchers will tell you the landlord is mean and morally corrupt. The reality is we are running a business, not obliged to provide a house to anyone. In any other business its the owners prerogative to choose which customers they deal with and if said customers cause more trouble than its worth you stop trading with them: You are under no obligation to "help" a customer (though often its good business practice - but thats a different conversation)

[mistaTea]

Thats the thing isn't it. The pearl clutchers will tell you the landlord is mean and morally corrupt. The reality is we are running a business, not obliged to provide a house to anyone. In any other business its the owners prerogative to choose which customers they deal with and if said customers cause more trouble than its worth you stop trading with them: You are under no obligation to "help" a customer (though often its good business practice - but thats a different conversation)

Yes, BJ and his good moral mates are the same crowd who inflicted CCCFA on us.

I rest my case.

[Bjauck]

Thats the thing isn't it. The pearl clutchers will tell you the landlord is mean and morally corrupt. The reality is we are running a business, not obliged to provide a house to anyone. In any other business its the owners prerogative to choose which customers they deal with and if said customers cause more trouble than its worth you stop trading with them: You are under no obligation to "help" a customer (though often its good business practice - but thats a different conversation)

I love the turn of phrase some of you posters use to put down those with whom you disagree!

Each business type has particular rules and regulations. If you don’t like them, invest your equity elsewhere. For some, supplying ball bearings would be a better fit rather than supplying homes.

[Panda-NZ-]

Thats the thing isn't it. The pearl clutchers will tell you the landlord is mean and morally corrupt. The reality is we are running a business, not obliged to provide a house to anyone. In any other business its the owners prerogative to choose which customers they deal with and if said customers cause more trouble than its worth you stop trading with them: You are under no obligation to "help" a customer (though often its good business practice - but thats a different conversation)

All these salt of the earth business owners.

Oh wait its not a business and it takes 10% of the effort with 0% of the tax.

[Bjauck]

It's called 'margin lending', easy peasy. For example ASB Securities (ASB Bank) offer lending on a swag of shares, most between 50% to 70% of the value of the shares held, with the shares being the backing security.

Last time I read about margin lending, the interest rate was double a mortgage rate, and the facility limit could be changed quite dynamically.

[Baa_Baa]

Last time I read about margin lending, the interest rate was double a mortgage rate, and the facility limit could be changed quite dynamically.

You started by saying "Good luck getting a loan from the bank to borrow money to buy shares, on the security of the shares themselves."

You don't acknowledge that you are incorrect. Instead you double down implying that margin lending has risks, of course it does, all borrowing does, and which are all fully disclosed in the public domain!

Then you say the margin lending rates are "double" mortgage lending rates. Incorrect, the margin lending rate from ASB is 9.35% which is not double most mortgage rates, and is considerably less than most personal loan interest rates, or business borrowing interest rates.