Optimism rises among investors
The latest Crockers Property Investment Index Survey shows that optimistic investors outnumber the pessimists by five to one.
Property investment is expected to show improved performance over the next year by 43% of respondents, compared to 8% who think things will deteriorate.
Better or unchanged returns were expected by 43% and 49% of respondents, respectively.
Those expecting worse returns tend to be at the lowest end of the investment spectrum, with less than $500,000 in residential rental property.
The proportion of those planning to increase their residential property investments remains at 22% and is skewed toward those with $750,000-plus invested, 31% of whom plan to increase their investments.
Respondents surveyed who plan to make no changes to their portfolio sit at 65% and those looking to reduce their portfolio are down from last month to 12%.
This research, undertaken by Ipsos on behalf of Crockers, surveyed members of the Crockers Market Research subscribers’ database during the second week of September.
Respondents included property owners, residential and commercial landlords, property managers, estate agents and tenants.
Somewhat unsurprising, 68% of respondents chose residential property as the safest investment over the past 12 months.
At second and third, respectively, were shares/stocks (46%) and term deposits (40%). Currency, commodities and gold were considered riskier.
More by Chris Hutching for NBR NZ Property Investor
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions3
Would it be politically expedient to make Auckland not only the most liveable but especially for lower to middle income earners also the most affordable? What would it take for central government to do that? Could it force Auckland Council to open up 'large tracts of land for development' as recommended by the Productivity Commission? Would that in effect rub out the Rural Urban Boundary? If that happened, what effect would that have on house prices? Would central government then be liable for much less to pay for those poorer people who are dependent on central government for accommodation support? Would that be very good grounds for central government implementing a strategy to achieve to lower a major cost? What then of residential property investors view of safety in that investment sector?
Umm. Given how much land Auckland Council says is vacant, serviced and zoned for development -but not being developed- why would opening up "large tracts" result in more development and cheaper homes?
And what would be the costs if it did? We've recently being contributing to the IQ of both Oz and NZ by living in Sydney. Inner city areas are well serviced with world class cultural ammenities, public transport of a standard and frequency that makes it an easier way to access the CBD than driving and a vibrant waterfront tourism precinct. In contrast, areas further out are crime-ridden slums whose citizens seem to indulge in random drive-by shootings for recreation. Well planned urban intensification, or at the very least development along mass transit routes, would seem more sensible than mindless sprawl to satisfy the greed of fly-by-night developers of 'leaky home' ilk.
Opening up more land just leads to more urban sprawl and more expensive investment in necessary infrastructure. The way forward is higher density housing.