Posts by Chris Waugh
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to "chris",
Overseas Chinese, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau residenrts
It may be worth noting, despite the risk of sparking a major political row, that Macau and Hong Kong are undisputed Special Administrative Regions of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan (big risk....) has never declared independence from China - in fact, Ma Yingjeou (or however he Romanises his name) is president of the Republic of China.
[ducking for cover]
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to David Hood,
Ummm... so article 139 says NZ can or can't treat Chinese investors differently from Australians? I'm really confused.
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to Sacha,
Well, there's this:
Article 139 requires that Chinese investors be treated no less favourably then investors of any other country.
And from the article I linked to before:
Trade law specialist Daniel Kalderimis of Chapman Tripp told the Herald that on an initial reading, the policy could breach the most-favoured-nation treatment article of New Zealand's free trade agreement with China, though not the article on national treatment.
The most favoured nation clause says that any favourable conditions China or New Zealand offers to third parties for investment activities must be offered to New Zealand or China as well. That means that any exemptions for Australians from new house-buying rules should also apply to Chinese.
-
Ah, some explanation of the FTA thing. Exempting Aussies means we have to exempt Chinese. And other FTAs may be affected, too, although for different reasons.
And Raymond Huo's comments absolutely do not surprise me.
But does John Armstrong actually understand the policy? My interpretation was that banning non-resident foreigners from buying existing houses but allowing them to buy or build new houses would encourage more houses to be built, yet he writes as if a non-resident foreigner buying a new house will somehow cause an old house to magically vanish into thin air.
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to BenWilson,
From what I see, I'm not convinced by the "eventually tenanted" assumption, and the "knocked down and turned into something else" sounds like a great way to lose whatever you capital you thought you were going to gain from the investment.
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to "chris",
but I found this a little unreasonable,
Ah, yes, I was a touch preoccupied, but that's the kind of information I was thinking I need to find to complete what I was trying to say. It's worth noting, though, that at least here in Beijing foreigners have it easy compared to wàidìrén/Chinese whose residence is registered outside Beijing, who have to prove residence and solid income for, last I heard, 5 years. Can't see a date on your article, though, and I'm curious what effects the new visa regulations that came in 1 July have.
-
Cracker: Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland…, in reply to BenWilson,
If they’re not going to live in it, they’re going to rent it out. If no one will rent it, it has no value, unless someone else will buy it, which in turn will be a proposition based around whether they can live in it, or rent it out for money
Not necessarily. There's plenty of examples up here of people buying up many, many apartments as an investment and leaving them empty.
-
Because China has been mentioned...
...Not sure it's about ease of credit here so much as the same demand that's driving China's real estate market to the moon and back. China's rich want something to do with their money, the stock markets look even more like casinos than other stock markets, and leaving it in the bank is just as good a way to see it disappear as hiding it behind the stove (it's been done. Paper burns). I've heard of real estate-buying tours to the US, wouldn't be surprised if there's a similar thing going on in NZ and other "Western" countries. Perceptions of relative stability and lack of corruption probably help. And, of course, in China you can only own land use rights which can be, and often are, taken away arbitrarily and your home forcibly demolished and you paid a paltry sum in compo - hence "nailhouses" and incidents of people setting themselves on fire on the roof as the police-escorted bulldozers move in.
And I've probably said this before, and will probably say it again a million times, but anyway: When we were last in NZ in February 2010 my wife developed a fascination with the property section of the Waikato Times, did a few calculations, and decided we could buy a lifestyle block in the Waikato for less than what an apartment in Beijing would cost.
-
Street sign and buildings over the road in a tin fence, from a few days ago.
And sunset today.
-
Capture: Upside Down, Inside Out, in reply to Nora Leggs,
a car park reflecting a real park
Now that is really, really mind-bending, especially the top one where what seems to be a reflected tree branch leaps out of the mirrors, across a white space, and back into the mirrors. Great captures.
