The pros and cons of owning rental property in retirement
Property also offers flexibility. Retirees can sell when the market is favourable, downsize, or tap into equity if needed. In contrast, fixed-term investments lock up funds and offer little adaptability.
Importantly, owning property gives retirees control. It's a tangible, familiar asset not subject to the same volatility or institutional risks as many financial products.
In summary, residential property delivers inflation protection, income growth, security and legacy value, all vital advantages that cash-based investments can't reliably provide.
A: You're referring to last week's Q&A, in which I said rental property isn't a great investment during retirement, 'unless you are wealthy and enjoy being a landlord, or regard the property as your children's inheritance'.
That's because you tie up money in the property you could otherwise spend gradually through retirement.
While last week's correspondent said income from their rental was less than they would receive from a term deposit, I didn't mean to imply that proceeds from selling a rental should go into term deposits – as you seem to think.
I've said in this column, many times, that it's wise to put retirement savings you expect to spend in the next three years in bank deposits or a cash fund. But invest three-to-10-year money in a bond fund or medium-risk fund, and longer-term money in a higher-risk share fund – in or out of KiwiSaver.
I agree that term deposits may not beat inflation, but over the years a share fund will, in much the same way as property.
And while shares certainly have their ups and downs, property values have also wobbled.
Infometrics data shows that since the year ending March 2005, New Zealand's average house value has risen sharply - 11% to 14% - in five years, and rose a dramatic 24% in 2020-21.
But there have also been four years when values fell. Two were in the Global Financial Crisis, in 2009 and 2011, and two were in 2022-23 (-12%) and 2024-25 (-2%). See our graph.
True, shares tend to wobble even more. But that's why I recommend putting only longer-term money in share funds, so there's always time to recover before you spend it.
On your comment that 'rental income typically increases over the years, especially as housing demand will in time continue to rise', I'm not so sure.
A recent article on the Auckland Property Investors Association website says, 'In April 2025, annual rental inflation fell by 0.7% nationwide, with Auckland (-2.4%) and Wellington (-3.1%) leading the drop… The gear is shifting and investors need to pay attention.'
It quotes the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development on three factors causing this: 'a surge in completed builds', slower net migration and a high number of rental listings.
Other reasons selling a rental before retirement and investing in bank deposits, a medium-risk fund and a share fund – as outlined above - is a good idea:
Flexibility. If you suddenly need a large sum for major home repairs, a car, or a hip replacement without a long wait, the cash is there. Being forced to sell a rental fast – dislodging tenants and perhaps accepting a low price – doesn't work well.
Diversification. Owning your own home and a rental property doesn't spread your risk well. But if you sell the rental, you can easily spread your money over bonds, international shares and so on. If you love property, put some long-term money in a property fund. You can even dabble in gold or cryptocurrencies – although I wouldn't recommend doing that with more than 5% of your savings.
Hassle. Rental property can come with unexpected maintenance issues, tenants who can't or won't pay, and changing regulations. KiwiSaver and similar investments just sit there.
Enjoyment! With the money that was sitting in real estate you can travel widely, buy the good seats to shows, eat out often, spoil the grandkids, drive a car you love…
And if you're concerned about inheritances, you can still leave plenty – perhaps half or a third of the proceeds from selling the rental.
I expect, though, that I won't convince you. It's hard to argue with the first half of your statement: 'Importantly, owning property gives retirees control. It's a tangible, familiar asset not subject to the same volatility or institutional risks as many financial products.'
But, as I've noted, property prices and rents are indeed volatile. And how about increasing landlord regulation and possibly tougher capital gains taxes as institutional risks? Rental property often works well, but it's not risk-free.
Still, there's a psychological element. Some people just seem to prefer to own 'bricks and mortar'. Perhaps they enjoy DIY maintenance, or like the idea of providing good long-term housing for a family. If that's you, go for it. I hope it works well.
What about commercial property?
Q: I have read your column for many years and do not recall you ever mentioning commercial property as an investment.
A real estate agent once told me that residential property is for people who do not understand commercial property. The tenant pays the rates, insurance, body corp fees etc.
I know there are [arguments] for and against, but commercial property investment has done well for me.
A: You're right – I don't write much about investing in shops, factories, offices and the like. I don't know a lot about it, and it seems to be an area in which those who know can hoodwink the babes in the wood!
I've heard of people doing really well in commercial property – like you. But I've also heard of a few whose property value plunged. And I'm sure there are others who don't talk about it.
One way to reduce the risk is to invest in a commercial property fund that holds several properties. You get diversification and hopefully expert management. But, as discussed recently in this column, there can be problems getting your money out when you want it.
And, just like residential rental property, I reckon tying your money up in commercial property in retirement is not a great idea – for much the same reasons.
Managing care payments
Q: We have a managed investment of $1 million. My husband, who has Alzheimer's, will soon go into residential care costing approximately $100,000 a year. Should I separate out the $100,000 at the time of entry to care?
We have rental properties as well, so I am not anticipating running out of money. These don't provide a lot of income.
I don't know how to manage our money in this regard.
A: And I'm sure you have a lot else running through your mind at this difficult time.
Some readers will criticise me for including your letter, given that you are much better off than most people. But you still need a financial plan. And, as always, I hope other readers will find this Q&A helpful.
I suggest setting up your money as described in the first Q&A, with three years of care costs and other spending money in bank deposits or a cash fund, and so on. Then, every year or so, move another $100,000 plus spending money from higher risk to medium risk, and from medium to low risk.
Your current managed investment will probably be medium or high risk. Ask the provider. You could use that fund as part of your plan.
You might also consider selling your rental properties after reading the above Q&A!
If all of this feels too complicated, find a good financial adviser. I recommend advisers whose only reward is payment from you, in the form of fees.
Other advisers, who are paid salaries or receive commissions for placing your money in certain investments, might be free or cheap. But they may not act in your best interests.
I used to run a list on my website of advisers who charge fees. A while back I passed the list on to MoneyHub, which now runs it. You can see the list at tinyurl.com/NZAdvisers. Please note that I don't know any more about these advisers than how they charge for their services. But there are tips there on selecting someone.
Info for retirees
Q: We are recent retirees, and have noticed that there has been a lot in the media of late regarding living with superannuation only, or what is available to top that up.
We are in our 70s, have no children, a mortgage-free home and are debt-free. Unfortunately we do not have a great amount in savings. We are looking at any financial plans that are available to supplement the superannuation.
We do not like at all the concept of reverse mortgages – even though they have a Government guarantee.
Can you recommend any other plans that may supplement our super payments?
A: Firstly, there is no government guarantee on reverse mortgages. Still, the main providers – Heartland Bank and SBS Bank – are regulated by the Reserve Bank. And given they are lending you money, as opposed to your investing money with them, I don't see how there's any risk.
The only worry, really, is that you borrow a large amount early in retirement and, through compounding interest, the debt gets uncomfortably big. But the value of your house will almost certainly rise too, over the years. And the reverse mortgage lenders are pretty careful not to lend an amount that is likely to lead to later problems.
A reverse mortgage can work really well for people in your situation. But if I can't persuade you to look further into it, there may be government help for you beyond New Zealand Super. This page on the Work and Income website lists what is available: tinyurl.com/NZSeniorsHelp
It includes info on the SuperGold card, the accommodation supplement – which can include help with homeowner costs, the disability allowance, temporary additional support, the Community Services Card and payments for residential care.
I also recommend you go to tinyurl.com/SeniorsNews and sign up for the Seniors Newsletter, emailed monthly, which has all sorts of info that might help you.
When debt doubles
Q: Last week you said it's not uncommon for someone to repay more than twice the original mortgage over the years, because of compounding interest.
Contrast that to credit card debt, Mary. Perhaps you need to roll out the Rule of 72 again, this time concentrating on the doubling time for credit card debt.
A: Good idea! The Rule of 72 is really handy for giving us a pretty accurate idea of compounding interest. Some examples:
If an investment has doubled in, say, nine years, divide nine into 72. The investment return is about 8% a year.
If you know the return on an investment is, say, 6%, divide six into 72. It will take about 12 years for your investment to double.
As you point out, this can also be applied to a debt:
If the debt has doubled in nine years, the interest charged is 8%.
If you're being charged 6%, and you make no repayments, your debt will double in 12 years.
It's important to note the 'you make no repayments' bit. With a mortgage, you make regular repayments, which reduce the interest compounding. (The exception is reverse mortgages). And hopefully, with credit card or other debt, you are also making repayments.
With no repayments, a debt can grow alarmingly, given that credit card interest rates are often around 20%. If we divide 20 into 72, we find that a 20% debt with no repayments will double in about three and a half years. And then double again, and so on. It's not pretty.
* Mary Holm, ONZM, is a freelance journalist, a seminar presenter and a bestselling author on personal finance. She is a director of Financial Services Complaints Ltd (FSCL) and a former director of the Financial Markets Authority. Her opinions do not reflect the position of any organisation in which she holds office. Mary's advice is of a general nature, and she is not responsible for any loss that any reader may suffer from following it. Send questions to mary@maryholm.com. Letters should not exceed 200 words. We won't publish your name. Please provide a (preferably daytime) phone number. Unfortunately, Mary cannot answer all questions, correspond directly with readers, or give financial advice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
What Happens If My Partner Dies Without A Will?
, Money Correspondent Got questions? RNZ is launching a new podcast, No Stupid Questions with Susan Edmunds, next month. We'd love to hear more of your questions about money and the economy. You can send through written questions, like these ones, but - even better - you can drop us a voice memo to our email questions@ What is the situation with joint property and joint bank accounts, when someone dies without a will? I have been living with my partner since the late 1980s. Our house, main bank accounts and one car are in both names. Our latest car - bought last year from joint bank accounts - could only be registered in his name, due to changes in NZTA rules. I have a separate bank account in my name, which has a small amount of inherited money. He also has a separate bank account with some money from his family and a few shares in his name, which were acquired through his work. Many years ago, I was told that if either of us died, then any assets in joint names would go to the surviving partner. We have not made wills, have no children, my parents have both died and his father has died, but recently, I saw that if someone has a spouse or partner, and parents, but no children, the spouse received the personal effects, $155,000 and two-thirds of what is left. The deceased person's parents get the remaining third. That means, if I die first, all I have goes to him, which is what I want, but if my partner dies before me, does his remaining parent inherit a third of our house (meaning I will need to sell it, as I do not have funds to buy her out in my 60s), plus a third of our two cars, a third of our joint bank account money, and a third of his KiwiSaver, private superannuation, bank accounts, insurance payouts and shares in his name? His mother is in residential care with dementia and already has enough funds to cover her care for decades. I am worried I may become homeless. What is the situation with joint property and joint bank accounts, when someone dies? As a starting point, it might be re-assuring to note that assets that you hold in a joint name would pass to you, so if you own your house jointly, it would be yours, if your partner died. I went to Public Trust principal trustee Michelle Pope for more detail to answer the rest of your question. She said, when someone died, their estate would be distributed according to the Administration Act. "In the writer's case, if they die first without a will, their entire estate would pass to their partner, as they have no children or surviving parents," she said. "Assets held in joint names, listed by the writer as the house, main bank accounts and a car, will automatically pass to the surviving partner. However, it's important to confirm whether the property is legally owned jointly or in equal/unequal shares. "If it's jointly owned, it will pass by survivorship. If not, the deceased's share will need to be administered as part of their estate, which can add complexity. "If the writer's partner dies first without a will and has a surviving parent, Section 77(3) of the Administration Act 1969 applies. In this scenario, the writer would receive all personal chattels (including the car solely owned by the partner), a prescribed amount of $155,000 plus interest and two-thirds of the remaining estate. "The surviving parent would receive the remaining one-third of the estate. For clarity, the assets owned solely by the partner would appear to be a bank account, some shares, KiwiSaver, private superannuation and insurance. "Given the house is owned jointly, the writer can expect that the house will pass to them by what's called 'survivorship' in legal language and will not form part of their partner's estate. "It goes without saying that I'd encourage the writer and their partner to create wills. A will that clearly outlines their wishes can help remove any uncertainty when a person dies and can make the estate administration process a lot easier for loved ones." Having separated earlier this year, I chose to move out of the family home where my ex still resides. She is paying the mortgage, refuses to pay the house insurance or rates etc. the roof is leaking and she refuses to agree to making repairs, the ceiling is now ruined and mouldy. Though she has indicated she wishes to buy me out, she has not shared any form of offer or plan. She now refuses to engage in any form of correspondence at all. My questions - how do I go about necessary repairs to the house and how do I get her to move out, so that the house can be sold? Online research seems to point to tenancy/landlord situations which don't apply in this case. Is it actually just time for a lawyer to sort this out? Yes, I think the best - and really only - way to deal with this is to go to a lawyer as soon as possible. Can you please answer some questions about the way supermarkets operate. If I deliberately deceive customers, it's called deception. If I deliberately load, unload prices to make you think you are getting a better deal when you are not, this is manipulation to enhance your profit. Surely both of the above are profiteering and fraudulent. Supermarkets - and all retailers - have rules they have to comply with, when it comes to discounting, and it is illegal for businesses to mislead shoppers about prices. You can complain to the Commerce Commission, if you think someone has got it wrong. There is a lot of focus on supermarket pricing at the moment and Consumer NZ has been vocal about the current regime not being effective enough. It is calling for tougher penalties and infringement notice powers.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
The pros and cons of owning rental property in retirement
While term deposits gradually deplete, property preserves capital. Selling may seem practical, but once the money is spent, it's gone. Retaining the property provides a steady income stream while keeping your financial base intact, a crucial advantage for those concerned about longevity or wanting to leave an inheritance. Property also offers flexibility. Retirees can sell when the market is favourable, downsize, or tap into equity if needed. In contrast, fixed-term investments lock up funds and offer little adaptability. Importantly, owning property gives retirees control. It's a tangible, familiar asset not subject to the same volatility or institutional risks as many financial products. In summary, residential property delivers inflation protection, income growth, security and legacy value, all vital advantages that cash-based investments can't reliably provide. A: You're referring to last week's Q&A, in which I said rental property isn't a great investment during retirement, 'unless you are wealthy and enjoy being a landlord, or regard the property as your children's inheritance'. That's because you tie up money in the property you could otherwise spend gradually through retirement. While last week's correspondent said income from their rental was less than they would receive from a term deposit, I didn't mean to imply that proceeds from selling a rental should go into term deposits – as you seem to think. I've said in this column, many times, that it's wise to put retirement savings you expect to spend in the next three years in bank deposits or a cash fund. But invest three-to-10-year money in a bond fund or medium-risk fund, and longer-term money in a higher-risk share fund – in or out of KiwiSaver. I agree that term deposits may not beat inflation, but over the years a share fund will, in much the same way as property. And while shares certainly have their ups and downs, property values have also wobbled. Infometrics data shows that since the year ending March 2005, New Zealand's average house value has risen sharply - 11% to 14% - in five years, and rose a dramatic 24% in 2020-21. But there have also been four years when values fell. Two were in the Global Financial Crisis, in 2009 and 2011, and two were in 2022-23 (-12%) and 2024-25 (-2%). See our graph. True, shares tend to wobble even more. But that's why I recommend putting only longer-term money in share funds, so there's always time to recover before you spend it. On your comment that 'rental income typically increases over the years, especially as housing demand will in time continue to rise', I'm not so sure. A recent article on the Auckland Property Investors Association website says, 'In April 2025, annual rental inflation fell by 0.7% nationwide, with Auckland (-2.4%) and Wellington (-3.1%) leading the drop… The gear is shifting and investors need to pay attention.' It quotes the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development on three factors causing this: 'a surge in completed builds', slower net migration and a high number of rental listings. Other reasons selling a rental before retirement and investing in bank deposits, a medium-risk fund and a share fund – as outlined above - is a good idea: Flexibility. If you suddenly need a large sum for major home repairs, a car, or a hip replacement without a long wait, the cash is there. Being forced to sell a rental fast – dislodging tenants and perhaps accepting a low price – doesn't work well. Diversification. Owning your own home and a rental property doesn't spread your risk well. But if you sell the rental, you can easily spread your money over bonds, international shares and so on. If you love property, put some long-term money in a property fund. You can even dabble in gold or cryptocurrencies – although I wouldn't recommend doing that with more than 5% of your savings. Hassle. Rental property can come with unexpected maintenance issues, tenants who can't or won't pay, and changing regulations. KiwiSaver and similar investments just sit there. Enjoyment! With the money that was sitting in real estate you can travel widely, buy the good seats to shows, eat out often, spoil the grandkids, drive a car you love… And if you're concerned about inheritances, you can still leave plenty – perhaps half or a third of the proceeds from selling the rental. I expect, though, that I won't convince you. It's hard to argue with the first half of your statement: 'Importantly, owning property gives retirees control. It's a tangible, familiar asset not subject to the same volatility or institutional risks as many financial products.' But, as I've noted, property prices and rents are indeed volatile. And how about increasing landlord regulation and possibly tougher capital gains taxes as institutional risks? Rental property often works well, but it's not risk-free. Still, there's a psychological element. Some people just seem to prefer to own 'bricks and mortar'. Perhaps they enjoy DIY maintenance, or like the idea of providing good long-term housing for a family. If that's you, go for it. I hope it works well. What about commercial property? Q: I have read your column for many years and do not recall you ever mentioning commercial property as an investment. A real estate agent once told me that residential property is for people who do not understand commercial property. The tenant pays the rates, insurance, body corp fees etc. I know there are [arguments] for and against, but commercial property investment has done well for me. A: You're right – I don't write much about investing in shops, factories, offices and the like. I don't know a lot about it, and it seems to be an area in which those who know can hoodwink the babes in the wood! I've heard of people doing really well in commercial property – like you. But I've also heard of a few whose property value plunged. And I'm sure there are others who don't talk about it. One way to reduce the risk is to invest in a commercial property fund that holds several properties. You get diversification and hopefully expert management. But, as discussed recently in this column, there can be problems getting your money out when you want it. And, just like residential rental property, I reckon tying your money up in commercial property in retirement is not a great idea – for much the same reasons. Managing care payments Q: We have a managed investment of $1 million. My husband, who has Alzheimer's, will soon go into residential care costing approximately $100,000 a year. Should I separate out the $100,000 at the time of entry to care? We have rental properties as well, so I am not anticipating running out of money. These don't provide a lot of income. I don't know how to manage our money in this regard. A: And I'm sure you have a lot else running through your mind at this difficult time. Some readers will criticise me for including your letter, given that you are much better off than most people. But you still need a financial plan. And, as always, I hope other readers will find this Q&A helpful. I suggest setting up your money as described in the first Q&A, with three years of care costs and other spending money in bank deposits or a cash fund, and so on. Then, every year or so, move another $100,000 plus spending money from higher risk to medium risk, and from medium to low risk. Your current managed investment will probably be medium or high risk. Ask the provider. You could use that fund as part of your plan. You might also consider selling your rental properties after reading the above Q&A! If all of this feels too complicated, find a good financial adviser. I recommend advisers whose only reward is payment from you, in the form of fees. Other advisers, who are paid salaries or receive commissions for placing your money in certain investments, might be free or cheap. But they may not act in your best interests. I used to run a list on my website of advisers who charge fees. A while back I passed the list on to MoneyHub, which now runs it. You can see the list at Please note that I don't know any more about these advisers than how they charge for their services. But there are tips there on selecting someone. Info for retirees Q: We are recent retirees, and have noticed that there has been a lot in the media of late regarding living with superannuation only, or what is available to top that up. We are in our 70s, have no children, a mortgage-free home and are debt-free. Unfortunately we do not have a great amount in savings. We are looking at any financial plans that are available to supplement the superannuation. We do not like at all the concept of reverse mortgages – even though they have a Government guarantee. Can you recommend any other plans that may supplement our super payments? A: Firstly, there is no government guarantee on reverse mortgages. Still, the main providers – Heartland Bank and SBS Bank – are regulated by the Reserve Bank. And given they are lending you money, as opposed to your investing money with them, I don't see how there's any risk. The only worry, really, is that you borrow a large amount early in retirement and, through compounding interest, the debt gets uncomfortably big. But the value of your house will almost certainly rise too, over the years. And the reverse mortgage lenders are pretty careful not to lend an amount that is likely to lead to later problems. A reverse mortgage can work really well for people in your situation. But if I can't persuade you to look further into it, there may be government help for you beyond New Zealand Super. This page on the Work and Income website lists what is available: It includes info on the SuperGold card, the accommodation supplement – which can include help with homeowner costs, the disability allowance, temporary additional support, the Community Services Card and payments for residential care. I also recommend you go to and sign up for the Seniors Newsletter, emailed monthly, which has all sorts of info that might help you. When debt doubles Q: Last week you said it's not uncommon for someone to repay more than twice the original mortgage over the years, because of compounding interest. Contrast that to credit card debt, Mary. Perhaps you need to roll out the Rule of 72 again, this time concentrating on the doubling time for credit card debt. A: Good idea! The Rule of 72 is really handy for giving us a pretty accurate idea of compounding interest. Some examples: If an investment has doubled in, say, nine years, divide nine into 72. The investment return is about 8% a year. If you know the return on an investment is, say, 6%, divide six into 72. It will take about 12 years for your investment to double. As you point out, this can also be applied to a debt: If the debt has doubled in nine years, the interest charged is 8%. If you're being charged 6%, and you make no repayments, your debt will double in 12 years. It's important to note the 'you make no repayments' bit. With a mortgage, you make regular repayments, which reduce the interest compounding. (The exception is reverse mortgages). And hopefully, with credit card or other debt, you are also making repayments. With no repayments, a debt can grow alarmingly, given that credit card interest rates are often around 20%. If we divide 20 into 72, we find that a 20% debt with no repayments will double in about three and a half years. And then double again, and so on. It's not pretty. * Mary Holm, ONZM, is a freelance journalist, a seminar presenter and a bestselling author on personal finance. She is a director of Financial Services Complaints Ltd (FSCL) and a former director of the Financial Markets Authority. Her opinions do not reflect the position of any organisation in which she holds office. Mary's advice is of a general nature, and she is not responsible for any loss that any reader may suffer from following it. Send questions to mary@ Letters should not exceed 200 words. We won't publish your name. Please provide a (preferably daytime) phone number. Unfortunately, Mary cannot answer all questions, correspond directly with readers, or give financial advice.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
KiwiSaver growth strong despite lagging NZ market
As for default funds, all funds with the notable exception of Fisher Funds (2.3%) returned over 4%. 'However it is worth noting that Fisher Funds' default fund is marginally the strongest performer for the trailing one year and is middle of the pack over three years,' Morningstar said. Generate, Quay Street, Milford and Westpac produced some strong performances across many risk profiles for the quarter. Morningstar said it was most appropriate to evaluate the performance of a KiwiSaver scheme by studying its long-term returns. Over 10 years, the aggressive category average has given investors an annualised return of 8.6%, followed by growth (7.8%), balanced (6.4%), moderate (4.6%), and conservative (4.1%), it said. ANZ led the market share with almost $22b. ASB was in second position, with a market share of 14.6%. Fisher, Milford and Westpac round out the big five. The New Zealand equity market (S&P/NZX 50 Index) posted a 2.8% gain in Q2 2025, recovering from an initial dip. 'This performance, while positive, trailed stronger returns seen in international shares (+9.3% hedged to NZD) and Australian shares (+7.4%),' Morningstar said. The Reserve Bank's rate cuts and improving domestic sentiment were supportive factors for local equities, it said. Both international and New Zealand fixed interest markets delivered positive returns in Q2, with gains of 1.2% and 1.3% respectively. The general trend of lower interest rates has supported bond prices, although yield curves steepened marginally. Morningstar said the residential property market, while still recovering, was showing increased activity among first-home buyers. 'The declining interest rate environment and recent government policy changes (such as restoring mortgage interest deductibility for rentals) are expected to bolster investor demand in the medium term,' it said. 'Investors may find opportunities as the market gradually gains momentum.' Morningstar noted the weaker New Zealand dollar. 'Investors with international holdings should consider the impact of currency fluctuations on their unhedged returns,' it said. Jarden on Genesis Investment firm Jarden has given its seal of approval to the deal done by Genesis with the other big power generators to support the Huntly Power Station. This week, Genesis Energy, Mercury, Meridian and Contact signed agreements to establish a strategic energy reserve centred on Genesis' Huntly asset. 'This is positive for Genesis, as it supports the longevity of its Huntly assets and should reduce some of the political risk around the industry, managing dry-year risk without intervention,' Jarden said in a research note. The initiative enables deferral of planned decommissioning of one of the Rankine units (originally scheduled for February 2026) through to 2035, and the establishment of a 600,000-tonne solid fuel reserve. The strategic reserve has been developed in response to tight market conditions during winter 2024, where declining gas availability, low hydro storage and subdued wind output spurred concerns about security of supply. Michael Hill's share holding Sir Michael Hill died holding 148.3 million shares (38.4%) in the company that bears his name, according to a notice filed with the NZX soon after his passing. Separately, acting chief executive Andrew Lowe said in an update that despite retail trading conditions remaining challenging in all markets, the jewellery business had delivered full-year earnings and gross margin broadly in line with the prior year's. A 'relentless' focus on store productivity brought a second-half lift in group same-store sales of 2.4%, Lowe said. The company's trading update for the 52 weeks to June 29 showed the jewellery retail chain's earnings before interest and tax would be around $14m to $16m. For the 2024 period it was $15.9m. NZX downgraded Forsyth Barr has downgraded its rating of stock exchange operator NZX to 'underperform' from 'neutral'. 'We believe its sustainable growth level is lower than market expectations given: (1) increased competition in the low-fee passive funds industry has heightened fee pressure on NZX and softened net inflows to its high-value KiwiSaver product, and (2) our view that the headwinds to earnings growth in its capital markets segment over the last decade will persist rather than ease,' the broker said. Over the last five years, NZX's earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation had shifted from about 90% markets to around 40% funds management. With funds management generating lower returns, more cyclical earnings and higher competitive pressures, it represented a lower-multiple earnings stream, Forsyth Barr said. 'Despite this shift, NZX is trading at a higher 12-month forward price earnings multiple today of 23 times than its pre-Covid average of 19 times. 'A sizeable valuation needs to be assigned to its wealth tech platform to explain the difference, which we believe is unjustified in light of historical merger and acquisition multiples,' the broker said. NZL's Capital Review Farm landlord NZ Rural Land (NZL) is to undertake a capital review of its strategic options. Proposals to conduct the review for completion within the current financial year ending December 31 have been sought, the company said. 'NZL has been listed for coming up to five years. In that time the company has made strong progress in growing its asset and earnings quality and size. 'That has not been reflected in the share price. 'The board considers that the full range of strategic options on the capital structure requires review and input from shareholders.' Shares in New Zealand Rural Land Company (NZRLC) debuted on the NZX at $1.31, a 4.8% premium to their $1.25 issue price, in December 2020. The stock last traded at 99c, after spending much of last year at 85c. Jamie Gray is an Auckland-based journalist, covering the financial markets and the primary sector. He joined the Herald in 2011.
