So taking just the raw comments, it's:

"More sellers are entering the market and the 1386 properties we listed for sale in July were an increase of 16.6 percent on June, and an 18.4 percent increase on July last year. Our new listings were the highest they have been in four months"

"The average price was down 2.8 per cent on June, with sales volume down from that month by 9.5pc."

the above is an extract from this mornings Herald article on Thompson trying to spin up the market!

the reality is this.
people that have been holding off over the last year have heard the markets on the go so they're putting their homes on the market, ergo more listings.
sellers don't have as much cash or certainty but still have to move around hence prices dropping etcetcetc.

what will happen is that r/estate agents will start talking the vendors down again once they've flushed out that most precious commodity of their trade, namely listings.

int. rates will start rising soon along with deposit rates and the " sheeple" trying to sell their homes will get confused all over again and the market will pick up where it left off earlier this year and start it's continual slow slide to a realistic price range.

all we've done is waste around 9-12 months letting the real estate co's try and do the impossible by re-igniting the market on fundamentals that are impossible right now!
it's not rocket science....do the maths...rising unemployment, rising int.rates, lack of money around.

this time next year the market will be down after the next major global market shudder comes roaring through driven by the collapse of major European banks and a very sluggish global economy.

oh,yes...then there's our export driven economy still struggling along trying to flog off beef,lamb products etc.and potential rating downgrades and a rude GDP figure!

me?...i'm going to back my judgement and stay out of the market till next year.

rock on elves

no oint speculating until we are back to normal rates and high unemployment

Journalism is a very interesting study on the way the truth is presented / distorted!!!!

this website's heading is:

"Barfoot and Thompson say prices, volumes down in July"

The Herald says:

"Auckland property prices rise in July"

Both are kind of true, although the Herald heading is a bit of distortion, as the way it is worded it reads that prices have risen in July from June, whereas they are higher than they were in July 08, but lower than June 09

After reading that article in the Herald I feel I have to pinch myself to believe that the "average" Kiwi can afford $507,384 for an "average" house!!! Hubby and I earn above "average" income and couldn't afford that sort of house (in that it would absorb nearly one entire income), yet we have the 20% deposit. Oh, that's right, we don't NEED 20% deposit anymore - so fill your boots!!! Fill 'em with massive debt at a low interest rate, then sit back and wait till a) you or you partner loses your job, b) the missus gets pregnant, c) interest rates start to take off.........or whatever else could go wrong - this is so incredibly sad! How do young FHB not see this?

Another RE Agent just phoned me about a house that we looked through last week and fell utterly in love with so she got her S&P agreement out and when we got to the part where we put our offer on paper it went no further! She wouldn't even present it to the vendor. They want $15k more than we were prepared to pay (and that was more than we'd previously agreed on as well). So we walked away. Anyway, she just phoned me now saying it's still for sale and the $15k extra is only the price of a couple of coffees each week......surely we could afford that? Jeez, there is so much at stake here if something went wrong - a couple of bloody coffees would be the least of my worries. I get what she's saying, and I love the house to bits, but there's something fundamentally wrong with this situation!

Just make sure you are well away from the rear end of the elephant when it decides to sit on Noddyland. The RBA is now only weeks from raising the aussie rate and the banks will lift first. The trend will be copied here. Once this starts, it will gain critical mass and continue into the teens. There is not enough credit on the world market to meet the demand from all the moronic govts and overleveraged corporates. Imagine fronting up to your bank with your fixed rate term coming to an end and facing 15% as the best deal, or even 21%. No reason why it won't happen. Somebody care to remind us of the rates in the 70s?

Here's a reminder of sorts.
The Aussies don't have to go back to prehistoric times! In mid 1990 their Variable Term Rates ( Our Floating ones) were at 17%.
PS: Veedub - each 0.5% will impact on those vendors marginally holding on.

"Auckland home sales fall as listings rise!"

"Auckland home sales fell last month while the number of listings rose, suggesting the property market may be shaking off the worst of the slump, according to real estate firm Barfoot & Thompson (B&T). "

this extract from todays The Landlord site.
is it just me or am i missing something?

"shaking off the worst of the slump?"

words like "sales fell" and listing rise" all seem to be good news for buyers and bad news for vendors.
i reckon those spinners at Barefoots etc are so punch drunk...oh yes they are...yes,yes,yes!

@ Matt Nolan - here in Wellington (where I live) the average is $492,724 (according to QV on Trade Me). So not far behind Auckland. The problem, as I see it, is if you want to earn "above average" income you'd most likely have to live in a main centre, but the house prices are in the vicinity of half a million dollars. Most of NZ's population live in one of the main centres so this is a big problem that affects a lot of people. It's a catch 22 - I know I always have the option of moving to Featherston, or Pahiatua, or Eketahuna, or Levin or whatever, but will I be able to get a job there? Probably not doing what I'm qualified to do. I could work in retail, or some other more generic job. Jeez, just thinking about working in the local 4 Square in Eketahuna and living out my days there is enough to make me want to cry. But at least I'd be able to afford my own home :-)

there's a good golf course there, veedub!
and there's one service station that sells pies!

my sentiments entirely, Josh !

"...no more downside can occur once all the people have seen reality."
Not quite. In the UK '88 to about '93, even after reality had set in, negative equity imprisoned people for years in houses they had lost all their equity in. Slowly, as savings ran out; debts mounted; jobs were lots etc. people were squeezed out at way below the replacement cost of building, against their rational sense that the 'bottom was in.' Rents bore no resemblence to interest rates as rents were way ABOVE the cost of mortgage interest. People just couldn't sell/buy to move as to do so would be to realise a loss of their equity, ( loss of their deposit money) so they held and rented. But time erases the pain, and here we are ...again.
The bottom and the top of a trend can often be a lot further away than expected.

Laurence - yeah, I will. If not longer. The particular house in question (with the $15k no mans land) is due for its next valuation next month so that'll be interesting. The vendors bought in 2002 so have had the good years. I don't know their circumstances, but I think if it were me in their shoes, I'd sell it to me in my shoes - to hell with the extra $15k :-) They had another offer (with the extra $15k) but it was conditional on the people offering selling their house, which fell through. With me they wouldn't have to worry about that - I'm good to go! Again, I dont know their circumstances, maybe they need the extra $15k. But on the face of it, they've damn near doubled their money in 7 years - I'd take the money and run.

Hey veedub, did you know the agent MUST present your offer to the vendor, don't let them fool you otherwise, or take any of the other rubbish they throw at you.

The contract is between the buyer and vendor, the agent is just the donkey in the middle and got nothing to do with them (although they'd like to think so). Don't get fooled into the spin about what they the agent *thinks* the property is worth.

2.5% drop - property is now a bargain. Get in now for a once in a lifetime opportunity. YOU CAN NOT LOSE!!!!!! ... unless proces drop or stagnate of course, and then you can lose. but thant cant happen in NZ.

Safari said - "I browse through immigration blog sites . Its interesting to see that the Brits and Yanks are still keen to live here. Most seem set on buying a house by the beach / lifestyle block. Wont our housing market continue on its merry way - until the day these good folk stop arriving ? What do others think ?"

Safari, as a Pom who has lived here for many years there is a paradox in so many of my countrymen wanting to move to New Zealand - a country doing everything in its power to replicate the tragedy they wish to leave! (This is what intending migrants need to understand! They are not escaping the Orwellian abyss into which Britain and the U.S. are sinking, they are merely buying some time - unless Kiwis wake up pretty quickly) Moreover, hitherto, Poms and Americans have been able to move here and buy the big house because of the issue of currency relativity and greater (if declining) prosperity. That is why they wind up in living in a big gaff - but being flabbergasted by how high the cost of living is and how poor the wages are. What might stop the flow is a currency crisis in terms of the U.S. Dollar or Pound Sterling, because then the issue of relativity to the Kiwi might weaken. Personally, my suggestion to any English countryman thinking of putting all their eggs into New Zealand - especially into something immobile like a house - would be to think carefully. If the U.S. and Britain do develop a real monetary crisis (probably precipitated by collapsing tax receipts) New Zealand would be lucky to escape without severe collateral damage! Could be better to remain near your family and long-term friends in difficult times than to be stuck thousands of miles away for the sake of a big house?

Veedub - Never forget they are 'professionals' having passed a 6 day course. Qualified to comment on the state of the market ----------------not

Speaking of RE "professionals", here's a personal experience..

Was interested in a house, was going to auction but decided to not to go. GV of property was $470k. Come auction day property was passed in, so RE called me up and asked if I wanted to put in a offer.

That's where the fun started. I asked what price it was passed in at and she said "about $450-$460 ish".. I thought that was strange, and asked if she was there at the auction.. RE agent said yes, so I asked again, what price it was passed in at, but this time phone the auctioneer. Turns out was passed in at $430k...!!! Very "professional"...

So next I say my offer is $435k... I get told the "property is worth much more than that"!! So I asked why did all the buyers stop bidding at $430 then? Silence ... RE had no come back for that one...

Anyway, RE goes away and later phones to say multiple offers, do I want to up the price? I say no thanks. Next day I get a call to say its now back on the market at $499k, if I was still interested I would need to put in a "serious offer" !!

I have met some good and professional RE agents, and I know that there are many out there, but you have to look hard. My advice to anyone buying, don't just deal with the listing agent if you feel like they are acting in an unprofessional manner. You can always speak directly to the branch manager. If that fails, just walk away from the deal, your the buyer and your the one with the power .. there are plenty of houses for sales and you have the cash.

Matt S - very interesting story, and it just confirms what I've been thinking about RE agents in this current economic climate. But at the end of the day - would they not be acting according to the vendor's wishes? If the vendor says "I want $500k and won't look at anything less" then isn't that what the RE agent has to do - not bring any offers les than $500K? I guess that will work for a while, then the vendor will have to wonder why they're not getting any offers at all, and the RE agent will have to tell them that there actually has been a bit of interest, just not at $500k and then the vendor has to decide whether he's serious about selling or not. If not, he waits it out and the listing has the potential of becoming stale. Then even less potential buyers are interested. I know, from my own experience, when I see a listing that's more than a couple of months old I wonder what's going on. I firstly assume that the vendor is dreaming in terms of asking price and then secondly, that there's something majorly wrong with the place.

My Dad has this theory that the freshest offers (ie - the ones that come in as soon as or not long after the place is listed) are usually the best offers. To that end, I guess he's saying that the longer a place is listed the less likely the vendor is to get his original asking price, or close to it, if it was in fact reasonable to begin with. What are your thoughts on that?

The Heralds is a joke with a vested interest. Since the Real Estate boys visited them to say that with their bad press they were talking down the market and thusly there will be less advertising revenue from the real estate agents listings for them. I challenge you to find a negative headline in regards to house prices in the last year in that publication, despite a reasonably tough time in that particular asset class.

Compare to the Sunday Star times weekly headlines, but we own trademe so not as vital to get the ad listings in black and white.

@ rob of the north, the fantastic term "sheeple" has been added to my vocabulary. Good stuff

Veedub, I'd agree with your dads theory.. vendors definitely become more flexible as time passes. But on the other hand buyers may end up paying too much if they rush in with an early offer. Reason is that one of tricks of the RE trade is to talk up the listing price with the vendor.. vendors are more likely to list with an agency who dreams up the highest price.

I'd be cautious about going over GV in this market, irrespective of what any RE agent will tell you.

Totally agree Marky Mark and you should do what suits. What gets me is people saying lets wait until the prices drop blah blah blah, if you want to buy a house you should buy one and stop trying to time the market as you will never get it right.
My house cost around 550k to build 2 years ago and was worth around 500 this time last year but is probably worth what it cost now. I wasnt balling my eyes out at losing 50k last year anymore than I am cheering about being up 50k. People tend to own houses for 30-50 years so you will see many cycles which you tend to totally ignore.
My home is beautiful and I love it and being rational I should be renting but its an emotional thing too.

My friends

Those that have houses and incomes, don't follow the interest rates or economy and think house prices will rise. Talk to them about what's really happening to the economy and they shut down. They don't want to know.

Then there's my friends that look past the real estate & bank media releases, realising it's a passive form of advertising and chase the actual facts.

Interesting to note one of my friends lost his "job for life" the other day and now wants to know everything. He may get to Christmas before having to sell his house as jobs offers that once came his way, just don't exist anymore.

My business minded friends who once owned $700k-1 houses have been renting for a while now.
One a private developer is buying only where vendors are dipping below 30% of gv and so far has brought four sections. He now admits he started buying too early.

My point is that 8 out of 10 of my friends just don't care, don't know and those that do dig a little deeper are sitting back on the side line after making informed decisions.

All I can advise is that playing the house market be informed and plugged into the source information and make your own decisions. This excludes the NZ Herald, Stuff and Sunday Papers who play the extremes.....if they have regurgitated REINZ stats and haven't done considerable research. It would be good if they put the persons name to the article and not just NZPA, then they could be held accountable for their C^%$#!

veedub - you stated further up "15 years ago my partner and I earned half of what we earn now, and comfortably bought a house that was worth 6 times less than what I'm looking at now. Interest rates were a lot higher 15 years ago"

How did you end up in a position 15 years later where you do not have enough deposit for a house in order to feel comfortable with the repayments? You should have made massive capital gains if you were in the market for the last 15 years - am I missing something here?

I don't know about Vedub, Lara, but life is not monoselective. Try an illness; a divorce ( the 'biggy' in many average people's lives) or a business emergency to remove the equity that one has in a house, no matter when it was bought or how long it has been held !

@ George, yep, there was a divorce in there too so had to sell a house that was worth less than what we paid for it (stinkin' provincial towns).

The significant think here ,for me, is that there are more listings. No doubt there are many motives in the vendor's thinking, but I suspect many are following the Sunday Star Times advice to sell now.

Most property owners rarely thin of selling because it entails a huge upheaval, so an increase means a change in economic ciscumstances they wish to captialise on. Some think it a good time to trade up. More, i immagine, see a chance to trade down. some will sell to realise their equity-- because they are leaving, moving or cannot meet mortgage payments. Some anticipate lower prices in future.

my guess is that many think the market will decline so they are cashing up and will rent. many sell now to avoid fore-closure. An increase in offerings is generally because orf hardship, or believing the market is going down.