Sales are improving at Barfoot's Manukau auctions but the North Shore remains subdued

Barfoot & Thompson had an overall sales clearance rate of 43% at the agency's auctions last week.

The highest sales rates were achieved at the Shortland Street auction on July 11 and the Pukekohe auction on July 12, with sales at both hitting 57%.

Sales have been slightly better at the Manukau auctions lately, hitting 41% last week, which was an improvement on what was being achieved a few weeks ago.

However, sales remain subdued on the North Shore where the clearance rate was 37% last week (see table below).

The full results with the prices achieved on the individual properties that sold are available on our Residential Auction Results page.

Barfoot & Thompson Auction Results 10-16 July 2017
Date/Venue Sold* Not sold* Total % sold
10-16 July. On Site. 2 4 6 33
11 July. Manukau. 7 10 17 41%
11 July. Shortland St, CBD. 4 3 7 57%
12 July. Shortland St, CBD. 12 13 25 48%
12 July. Whangarei. 2 4 6 33%
12 July. Pukekohe. 4 3 7 57%
13 July. North Shore. 10 17 27 37%
13 July. Shortland St, CBD. 5 5 10 50%
14 July. Shortland St, CBD. 4 7 11 36%
Total 50 66 116 43%
*Sold includes properties sold under the hammer or by 5pm the following day. *Not sold includes properties remaining unsold by 5pm the day after the auction and properties that were withdrawn from sale or had their auction date postponed.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment or click on the "Register" link below a comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current Comment policy is here.

193 Comments

What a result! 43%

Its amazing what a little price dropping can achieve!

Another 15% price drop and we'll be back to 100%!

It's 43% not 47% have you forgotten to wear glasses this morning?

Thanks DGZ! Corrected now. I was just so excited.
Next week we'll see 47% I'm sure.

Told ya, dead cat bounces.

Toronto House Prices Crash 192k since April.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGL0ysImPCo

Auckland Albany House Prices Dive 13.5%
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/94154549/house-prices-dive-in-...

The Crash Is Coming.

Hi John I was trying I was trying to find some info re Canada price trends. Do you have any other links -perhaps with some credibility?

TheFuzz - You may like CNN ! LOL.

If Mr Peter has a role in the make up of the next Government after September election, which is very likely. You can bet that house price is going to take a deeper dive!

How so?

If he does manage to get into the marquee he might be able to stabilise immigration numbers
To get house prices down he would have to start deporting overstayers and low-skilled
To get rid of the low-skilled he would have reject all applications to stay on, regardless
Otherwise he would have to implement an extermination program, and I don't see that happening

In the past he has been harping about placing restrictions on foreign buyers, now that's a start!

It's also quite likely that highly skilled, well paid New Zealanders would start to leave and want to sell their houses, and that immigration from people likely to want and be able to afford to buy houses would slow down, thus both increasing supply and reducing demand

up
15

two otherguys - Peters is no fool. He knows Chinese Foreign money has been laundered here illegally so it can be washed clean through the Real Estate Casino. This has come at the cost to young families in Auckland who could not afford homes. More corruption will soon be exposed as to how and who allowed this to happen, and when the dirty money runs back to China the real avalanche in property prices will be evident. This is happening in Toronto, and Vancouver etc. Lets not be so naive to think it wasn't the case here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9GRENUsHjA

Interesting link JW. I believe there's dirty money from China in Auckland too, which I think we can both agree has stopped coming into NZ now. You say corruption will be exposed and dirty money will return to China. What corruption do you see on NZ's side ? and how do you think dirty money will run back to China ?
PS, I'm trying to have a constructive discussion, not an argument

Yvil - Just Follow The Money. R.E. Agents, Lawyers , Councils , Politicians , anyone who stands to make money from helping illegal foreign Chinese money laundering property scalpers set up business here. Once the foreign Chinese property scalpers can see that the market is going backwards and Peters is coming for them, they will sell as fast as they can to avoid Peters placing Caveats over there properties so the money cant be taken out. The Cunning ones will sell now before Peters is in control.

Have you seen the repeated argument on here, 'more immigrants on the way so house prices will rise' - the expectation is built into the market. Noone is buying for yield, the investment story only works if you assume prices will continue to rise at a decent clip. Take away one of the reasons for that and current prices should fall as investment demand dries up.

Totally agree. I have told my kids to wait after the election before buying their first homes, I am confident they will save $100k+ for the same house if they are prepared to wait.

Those people fixated on the joys of a crash in the housing market might well be disappointed.

An alternative view is that prices will level-off, plateauing for a significant period of time. Major lenders and, indeed, the REINZ have all expressed this scenario as a reasonable/realistic one.

Medium/long term prices are likely to rise, in order to ration the considerable demand for housing - particularly in Auckland and Wellington.

up
10

The Real Estate Institute of NZ doesn't think we're in for a crash? Well colour me surprised!

Long-term of course they will rise, hopefully it will be in line with wage inflation, which keeps property affordable. Unlike the current mania which only stokes boom and bust cycles.

Hi Solidname,

The CEO of REINZ had the following to say about the Auckland Region market in the REINZ report of 13 July 2017:

"On a more positive note, prices are steady and are not expected to decline much, if at all.” REINZ Chief Executive Officer, Bindi Norwell

Suggest you go check out the REINZ report for yourself. (You can find it on the REINZ website.) It's better to have the facts than shoot from the hip, if credibility is important to you.

LOL.

You may want to re-read what Solidname wrote, you may be missing some of the tone his surprise.

When a riverbank is undercut by the current, it's invisible until it can't hold itself up any more, and falls in.

Why would anyone listen to the REINZ? They are hopelessly compromised, as are all the major banks. I would not listen to a thing they say on projections of market change.

Hi Boobster,

You write: "Why would anyone listen to the REINZ? They are hopelessly compromised, as are all the major banks. I would not listen to a thing they say on projections of market change."

I would respectfully suggest that neither the banks nor the REINZ are as compromised as the majority of people who contribute here.....

I don't know the backgrounds of the contributors here, I assume plenty have investment properties but this doesn't by definition blind them from reality. Whereas the banks and the agents are up to their necks in it and depend on the continued strength of the market for their businesses. So yeah, REINZ and the banks are hopelessly compromised.

Hi Boobster,

When it suits many of the people who come here, they are more than happy to quote the REINZ and the banks.

Notably, however, there are plenty of independent/professional commentators who see a plateauing in house prices as being a credible possibility. Who is anyone to say that won't (or can't ) happen?

I am not aware of any credible commentators outside of REINZ, the banks or media dependant on the property industry (ie NZH) who takes that view. Please name names?

To plateau in a gentle arc back in real terms to the long term average would take decades. The likelihood of this bubble being slowly deflated by rising incomes is zero. And no one is suggesting an auckland average of 10x income, or even 8x income, is sustainable, as this implies that household debt is maintained at or increased from its already unprecedented level. Again, the chance of that is zero. A return to long term averages without a big jolt at some point just looks mathematically impossible. Any moderately informed person can form a view on this.

Hi Boobster,

You are not well informed at all!

For a start, read what the independent economic forecasting agencies are saying. If you do not know them by name, then you are naive. They are quoted in the mainstream media on a virtual daily basis.

The reality is that there are plenty of organisations that give credence to a plateauing of house prices - including the banks, other mainstream lenders, REINZ and economic consultancies/forecasters. Such agencies are a lot more than "moderately informed".

Some of them may be even better informed than you.

How well informed are you @tothepoint?

He is picking up on your comment ""On a more positive note, prices are steady and are not expected to decline much, if at all.” REINZ Chief Executive Officer, Bindi Norwell"

What would you expect the REINZ to say, honestly? Are they going to come out and say people shouldnt buy what they're selling because there is a substantial risk of a price correction. Now who's naive.

Name an "independent economic forecasting agency" who say prices are not expected to decline much, "if at all"? If you don't know them by name, then you're naive.

I'll see that and raise you:

IMF
OECD
Moodys
Fitch

I would rate international agencies with a little more experience in bubbles to be more objective and more than moderately informed.

Note I am not saying that prices will 100% not plateau, who can say that,.... but your comment stream is and has been that they cannot fall. You've posted that plenty of times and you have provided no empirical evidence as foundation for being that bullish. Stop being a boobster. (ps his name is bobster)

PS, when even barfoots says that prices are definitely falling, you know there's more to come....

https://www.barfoot.co.nz/market-reports/2017/june/m
arket-update

“While prices invariably fall as we head into winter, June’s results confirm that prices are definitely falling.

“Monthly sales numbers have been below the previous year’s numbers for nine consecutive months, and that is finally having an effect on prices.

“What is positive for the market is that prices are edging down rather than falling rapidly, and at current prices still represent a good outcome for vendors.

Edging down does not mean plateau. The fact is, prices are down on where they were 5 months ago. Down is not a plateau.

There are a number of highly reputable economic forecasting agencies in this country, which I note you've avoided mentioning.

Time you considered a range of views - rather than your one-eyed approach.

I listen to all reputable sources - not just sources that trot out a line that accords with what I happen to think.

A soft-landing is completely plausible and, in my view, much more likely than a crash. The history of property cycles in this country supports a soft-landing.

While some people here are desperate to see a crash, the reality is that there's a good chance it won't eventuate - with plenty of forecasters/commentators elsewhere supporting that view.

If house prices start falling, then preventative action will start: reduced interest rates, increased FHB concessions, increased immigration, extended marketing to foreign buyers, etc.

If prices fall, and people lose confidence in the market and think they will fall further, demand will dry up. Banks will tighten credit, and buyers will stay away. LVR changes would at that point be irrelevant, as the banks will be applying their own limits and house demand will fall (why buy now if prices are falling?). The government will not set policy to support house prices at what are already unaffordable levels. If this decline has an impact on the wider economy then rates may be cut, but that's it.

Actually, I am pretty sure most parties have conceded that these levels are unsustainable and are looking for prices to decrease. It's about controlling the rate of descent and ensuring financial stability (think LVRs etc)

There is very little wiggle room in NZ central bank rate to stimulate the economy when the OCR is already so low. That's the underlying issue with a ZIRP environment. Plus, as NZ credit rating degrades relative to peers, funding becomes much more expensive, and NZ is a net-spending economy, not a net-saving, so very very exposed to increased costs.

Interesting and what do you think the outcome of those interventions would be? I'm amazed that some people (not saying that you are one) believe in the power of the market to decide when they're winning, then want the Govt to intervene when it's not heading in the right direction.

Who?

Please provide a reference.Actually it looks exactly like you trot out a line that accords with what you happen to think... the REINZ one, I haven't seen any other references that support the plateau view while I have seen plenty - including other real estate agencies.

A soft landing refers to the speed of fall - so which is it, do you think it will plateau (i.e. in 1 year from now, the prices will be the same as now) or a fall, where prices are less?

Also, don't mistake a broad based observation of fundamentals with a desperation to see a crash. I have no desire to see one. There are other economic impacts of this. However, the tenor of your posts are all bullish and subscribe to the "property can never go down in value" which is an absolute mis-statement, and exactly what all the punters in many OECD countries said directly before their crashes.

You have not named a single forecaster on which you rely as support for this "plateau" view. Who are they exactly? I am not aware of any major agency that has made such a prediction. Outside agencies have certainly identifed a horrendous credit bubble. Reliance on banks who are mortgage lenders for this type of view is not compelling. They are so heavily invested in the market they can hardly say anything else. Similarly NZH is so reliant on property advertising revenue it's virtually the marketing department of the REINZ.

Do the maths. A plateau back to long term averages at current levels of wage growth assuming no increase in house prices would take decades. Does that sound likely to you? No, me neither. And what happened in the past is no guide to what will happen in the future. We have never had this amount of debt or prices so out of whack with fundamentals.

None of these organisations are allowed to say a crash is on the way, they will get blamed for the enevitable crash because they through fear into the market.

All you hear is, leveling off, plateauing & stabilising but the market has already turned (in Auckland anyway) and all the levers that pushed the market up to ridiculous levels have gone.

It heading for a big correction and everybody knows it including yourself, regardless of whether you admit it or not.

-20 to -25% in Auckland is my prediction - time will tell

thegic - They cant say Crash but they sure can say BOOM. One would wonder if this has anything to do with money agendas ?

What is your definition of Medium Term and what is your definition of Long term?

Yeah all things being equal, I agree.
But all things are not always equal.
Any number of factors could cool demand in Auckland in the future, including but not limited to:
- baby boomers selling their homes and moving to retirement villages or other regions
- fewer younger people coming to Auckland, instead going to the booming Waikato / BOP
- more younger people from Auckland moving to those places
- an event in China that stops demand in its tracks and/or leads to mass disposal of Auckland property

Define "crash" - 5%, 10%, 20% ????
My pick is 10% YOY

I'm gambling on 10% too maybe 15%. I think there is a floor to this period of price falling as there is still a lot of demand.

But lets be clear, its all a gamble at this point. Way too many things could happen in the near term (6 months) to be able to forecast this with any degree of certainty.

I called 10-20% at start of year and am holding to that.
10% is my baseline prediction but I think there is a low- moderate chance of 20% hence the range

Hi Fritz. Not much of a collapse... so a 1mil house will then cost, let's split the diffs of your prediction and say will soon cost 850k. Who is going to be able to afford that house...? I did the maths somewhere else, but effectively you will need to be on a 160k a year salary, have to pay a 170k deposit and weekly payments of $1000ish a week... yip, it will be all on when prices drop that low...

It will certainly be interesting, now that so many houses are priced at this sort of level and capital gains seem to have mysteriously disappeared. When people are buying for a place to live or buying for yield, the maths doesn't look anywhere near as attractive as it was for buying to flip in a year.

If this change in sentiment gains in momentum, I don't see why we can't have 50% drop in Auckland house prices. It won't be great for the country but nor is current pricing...

Now which one is it?
- A declining plateau, or
- A plateauing decline.

A decreasing rate of plateauing decline maybe =)

So presumably you wouldn't encourage people to buy in Auckland at present, if the best case scenario is stable prices? Better to put your money to use somewhere with reasonable returns rather than jump into the Auckland market and wait potentially years for it to start rising again.

You'd think, right, but tothepoint has recommended buying a number of times in comments in this forum. #pumpndump

No, these prices are not supported by owner occupier demand or incomes. I have not heard a single person say Auckland prices are sustainable at 10x income, because it will be plainly absurd to suggest that. Over the long term prices will revert to mean income and yield ratios, which implies significant drops in real terms. Were this to occur by a flatline of nominal prices to allow incomes to catch up that would take decades. That too is an obviously absurd proposition. Owner occupier demand is a complete red herring, this is a credit bubble, owner occupiers who borrow money by reference to their salaries cannot afford to buy at current prices. Anyone who thnks that house prices will continue to rise to ever higher multiples of incomes, to the point they are in excess of current levels or of somewhere proximate to the long term average, is living in lala land.

People reliant on exponential rises in the housing market are currently disappointed.

The current position is that prices have levelled off. They may plateau for a significant period of time. It is also entirely possible that house prices will drop to a level where yields and serviceability of borrowing costs as a percentage of income mean something. This will be a return to a reasonableness and realism in house prices.

In the long term, house prices are likely to rise again, especially if there continues to be a tax distortion favouring property speculation, or a shortage of other tax beneficial investment opportunities. In the medium term increased costs of living in Auckland and Wellington may cause young people and retirees to move to the regions, reducing housing demand in Auckland and Wellington, but causing a mini price boom in the provinces.

I think u have it the wrong way around. There may be under and overshoots in the short and medium term, but in the long term ratios will revert to the long term average.

You are correct. in order to maintain current house prices we need to ensure 20% year on year wage increases for the next ten years.

Is that the numbers? Wow. Thats likely. Not

That's a currency collapse - which is not impossible to imagine

A depreciation in the NZD has no effect when the debt and the repayments are in the same currency. Changes in NZD have no impact on affordability as between NZ debtors and creditors.

Normal correction happening, drop in prices, sales lift a little, this'll go On for a bit,some will be forced to sell, soon we'll get to the stalemate stage, people that don't have to or go underwater but can afford the payments will leave the market, buyers will move to buying of people the sell for the normal reasons and probably didn't pay to much for there house, probably pre 2012, these are the buyers that need affordable homes, I would say they will find them, probably ex rental houses and hopefully immigration is slowed a little, the big overseas investor money in gone, that would be helpful, 2015 was good times can't wait

I'd hate to think how outside Auckland is going to fair when Aucklands sales dip to far

I suspect they will only do about 2-3% better year on year than Auckland. However if internal migration out of Auckland accelerates or external immigration into NZ declines the regions might elevate to a as much as 10% performance advantage.

I don't get it, Auckland is slowing, immigration is still really high , so what does the immigrants we are getting in nz got to do with housing, obviously they have a part but it must be small

Is the penny just dropping with you? Even with these high numbers migration numbers rentals in Auckland have gone nowhere. Price increases have little to do with population change and everything thing to do with credit growth ie it's a credit bubble. Current prices are not supported by owner occupier demand. When the volume of credit reduces, price will fall.

It's pretty simple.
High prices are sustained by high wages or, in our case, FDI.
Given that our population mix is increasing significantly in low wage proportion and FDI has cooled, expect there to be no sustained price increases.

I am assuming FDI stands for Foreign direct investment.

There's always good demand at the end of a boom, but still we crash and normally for 2 to 6 years, the last boom 2002 to 2008 with a slowdown most people I speak to would say over nz went for at least 5 years, this boom is mind boggling, unbelievable, so far in such a shorts time, outside influences etc etc ect, don't rule this correction out as being large , just be careful when u buy, buyers can afford to wait and see, people that brought made there decisions they don't need your help

No , this is where the better agents sort out the also -rans.

Good agents educate their buyers and moderate their expectations , and this will result in sales

Yes.
But if that happens, as it should, prices (on average) will definitely come down further

Those agents will have an uphill job. Much kool-aid has been drunk.

Still very low sales volumes, plus if you look at the actual sales results most are selling at more affordable levels around the $600 to $750k bracket. Even those in the more expensive areas don't appear to be selling all that highly.

I'll dig a bit deeper later on but does anyone know how much the Milford property sold for it (10 Frater Avenue, Milford) its just listed as sold and no sales price result?

I'm calling that the people that didn't try hard enough to sell there houses before the election run a big risk of getting a lot less for there house after the election, who ever gets in, and housing will fall a lot in the first year and a little each year after for 5 years , at least 30%, , to the small % of all people in nz that payed to much this please isn't gloom and doom, you must have been happy when you brought or you wouldn't have so just keep it, there's always booms and bust, try to help FHB and future ageing investors for there retirement

John wheeler, yeah peters will drain the swamp, and naive, yeah despite hopeful , I'm sure deep down most people know the country did the wrong thing over the last 3 years and we all will now pay the price, but there's some pretty desperate People out there with a lot they thought tied up in house, I no they new the risks but surely not naive

Half of China's rich PLAN to move overseas - http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/17/half-of-chinas-rich-plan-to-move-overseas...
These folk will be welcomed with open arms into NZ and I can assure they will be able to get there money out somehow. I cannot see prices in Auckland collapsing.or even dropping more than 5% ( as much as I personally would love to see them back to 2007 prices).
National will win the elections with the usual suspects, there is no ground swell of anger at the mess they have made over the last 9 years. The assurance that NZ is a rockstar economy has been bought hook line and sinker by the media, ergo the NZ public...

Half of China's rich half been leaving for years, and still we drop, and peters will be with national or labour and his beliefs , that's for sure

wanting something and the reality of things are two very different things, 04 normal. Peters won't be the king maker despite the hype and the echo chamber of interest.co.nz. David Chaston is correct about polls, most of them have been spot on! National will govern with ACT, Maori Party and the guy with the lovely hair (the usaual suspects as I call them).... am happy to bet you a six pack on this as I have with Yvil and one other person, can't remember who, but am sure she will remind in the highly unlikely situation I somehow am proved to be wrong...

Peters will be PM. Labour and National leaders will be rolled. The Peters detail will insist - PM for two years while you guys get your new leader sorted. Then deputy PM of whomever party will take over in year 3 (Jacinda or god helps us, crusher). Peters having finally achieved his gaol - to be NZ's first Maori PM.

Who will buckle and agree first..Nat or Lab?

... not necessarily so ... if the Greens stopped being Labour's door-mat ... and got pragmatic about MMP .... they could forge an agreement with the Gnats ... and shunt Winston out of the picture ...

That is , if the Greens still care about the environment , and want to push an agenda of cleaning up the country's freshwaterways .... and placing a levy on the use of water ...

... or , they could spend another 3 years in the wilderness , letting someone else seize the baubles of office by default ... and let the environment go to hell in a handbasket ,as it currently is ..

..well that would be nice gb. I did get dragged to a greens do in the pub a few weeks ago (the beer helps). James Shaw spoke, thought he did a decent job (or was that the beer)?.

take my hat off to Metiria...the welfare system is designed to encourage dishonesty and fraud is massive - for me that was the key point and good on her for highlighting what everybody knows but no one admits. How will the public react?

The Nats had 9 years and have done zilch about it....now we suddenyl have a move on child support. Well Ill be buggereed! Timing.

On Metiria, note also how carefully phrased Paula Bennett's words were (on whether she has also received welfare fraudulently). Along the lines of that she's "not deliberately lied about her circumstances to receive money"...

I'm guessing perhaps it'll come out that she received money she wasn't entitled to due to not informing WINZ about changes of circumstances on occasion. Will be curious to see if this does come out.

Perhaps commission by omission - oops forgot

More heat and steam over the unfortunates while ignoring the multi-nationals - come one, come-all - open slather on that side of the ledger

Reckon if one has their jollies for long enough poking around here and there ending up with a $4 million debt for child maintenance they'd bugger orff to Australia too - reversing the deportation

Putting krazy back in Kamikaze

Two major Greens initiatives this past week were non-green and non-environmental, Turei accusing Peters of Racism, followed by Turei pulling the ripcord on her suicide-vest
https://twitter.com/two_otherguys/status/887095665708355584

a) I think the Greens have decided at several? AGMS they would not form an agreement with National as the gap is too wide to bridge. Just bear in mind the Green's are really to the left of Labour and getting "worse" (hence why I left the party)

b) Winston is in ascendance while the Green's are stagnating. I'd be inclined to bet that NZF will hold more seats or will be at least close to par with the Greens post election count.

c) "as it currently is" that's just it. Just consider that the Green's are as much a progressive and liberal party (if not more so) than Green ergo they couldn't sit by and not want to see the social problems addressed. TOP on the other hand are more pragmatic and balanced IMHO.

... agree with everything you say ... but , my take on it is that a simple Greens-Gnats alliance for 3 years would assist the Greens policies far further than a mutli-party coalition with Labour and NZ First ... and be a more stable government than a ménage a trois ...

I guess is depends on which is the more toxic arrangement , the Greens in bed with Winston , or playing tootsies with Wild Bill ..

Blue meanie you may well be right. If a pollster came to me right now I would say my vote is going to WP, but that would likely be a lie when actually faced with putting pen to paper in 66 days. I want Nick Smith gone, but voting WP is "throwing the baby out with the bath water". As someone said a few weeks back, "all steam and no hangi". BTW: 21 year old son shows no more interest in this election than the last so it doesn't look good for the lost votes if he is typical.

blue meanie, I'm still holding my end of the bet made... in January I think, that National won't have a clear majority and that they will need WP to form a government. 2 months to go. Leffe Blonde for me, you ?

The funny thing about property prices is no matter what happens everyone is going to claim they were right ! The doomsters are predicting a crash, which only needs to be more than 10% or its actually just a correction and even if this happens do that many people really care ? The gains have been so huge over the last few years whats a 10-15% decline ? also then what happens when the doomsters stop clapping and the decline stops and prices start going up again ? clearly the doomsters were wrong if you take the long term view of the market. Basically unless house prices move in a very extreme direction, which is not going to be good for anyone, then no one can be wrong with their prediction.

up
10

The doom is if prices keep on increasing!!!

.. so true ... the ones who want to see house prices come down , are the one's who want affordable houses for NZ citizens .... and not for rich Americans nor Chinese ....

It'll be doom on a mega scale if the property bubble keeps inflating .... only to be followed by a harsh reality check when the pin hits it hard ...

... and there's a heaping helping of pin-heads around the world today .... rising interest rates .... North Korea .... Donald Trumo ....

In the end, there are some folk who want to contribute to a society and are appreciative of what society has done for them, and there are others who have no motivation beyond their own selfish greed.

The second are net negatives in NZ society, in my opinion.

They often think they've achieve all they have purely under their own steam and on their own two feet, but that's a load of historically ignorant bollocks.

No, a 15% fall will not fundamentally change the affordability equation for owner occupiers, especially if credit conditions continue to tighten and interest rates increase. If you think the market needs to fall to a level supported by fundamentals such as income and yield it would need to go much further than that.

This is Auckland - the market is not supported by fundamentals. Our council is restricting land supply so that costs remain high forever (or at least for 20 years). At any level of growth above economic collapse prices in Auckland will stay elevated beyond the fundamentals. High costs are guaranteed by the council policy. Auckland is going to spend the next 20 years with housing being costly compared to wages.

The downside is obvious, the locked in high costs are detrimental to Auckland attracting new investment and it is highly likely that wages will grow slower in Auckland than in the rest of the region. When capital investment looks at Auckland now, it just sees high costs.

Auckland will probably slowly fall behind the rest.

I know several business ownwrs and property developers who have effectively given up on Auckland. All of them have turned their gaze to the Waikato. With much improving access it's becoming incredibly attractive. Couple that with lower land prices and rents, and more affordable housing.
Auckland will always have its allure and benefits for businesses and I don't see it falling off a cliff. But its growth is going to be lower than many expect/hope.

No. The predominant cause of the prices increases is not a shortage of land or dwellings. See rentals, which have not moved beyond inflation in Auckland. It's credit, it's not about supply. No one has yet indentified to me a structural change in the Auckland market which explains why the long term ratio to income should not apply. Both the income ratio and the rental yield indicate the Auckland market is priced way way beyond fundamentals.

Bobster,

No. The predominant cause of price increases HAS BEEN credit. Easily available credit upped demand and made prices soar.

But we want to know what will happen when credit is not easily available, we want to know what prices will be when demand side does not predominate. We need to find out the supply curve, Well good news, this is pretty easy to figure out, because the massive availability of credit experienced in Auckland has also applied in a myriad of places. Look at the rate of construction of new housing across a wide range of markets, all of which have had easily available credit. Auckland builds the slowest. Auckland decided to restrict land supply, up costs and build 20-50% slower than other markets. The other markets - Melbourne, Tauranga, Brisbane, Hamilton, Sydney and so on (Toronto, Vancouver, Seattle, Houston, San Fran, LA) and so on - all built quicker.

Now to state the bleeding obvious, the costs in Auckland are abnormally high. So when credit availability decreases...

When credit falls, house prices will fall proportionate to that fall. Over the long term if credit continues to shrink there will be a fall in construction costs, esp labour costs. You can't pay for goods with money you don't have. All this mortgage credit that has been tipped into the housing market has flowed through to construction costs, esp wages. When that tide recedes, so will costs. When house prices fall I also expect some disruption in the residential construction sector, there will be businesses that fail.

Looking also at income and rents I see no owner occupier support for prices at these levels. So even on the current levels of supply and demand prices referenced to fundamentals will fall.

You can't buy goods that don't exist.

The mortgage credit that flooded the housing market especially did not flow to wages in Auckland, it did flow to wages in lots of places just not in Auckland. Auckland built so slowly, because lots of that mortgage credit went into paying high non-labour construction costs (primarily land) of Auckland.

Here is what I think is going to happen. Costs will remain high in Auckland for the next twenty years and wages will be suppressed irrespective of demand increasing or decreasing.

Rich Chinese picking Auckland with the places they would be aloud to go to with open arms, I'm still on the floor

of course this has never happened before, it's just a guess.... NO! Wait a minute! .. It has been happening... it just slowed down considerably last year... or were those houses bought by the 'poor' Chinese?

up
10

One thing we can bank on, if rich Chinese arrive en masse. National will swear black and blue that it's not happening, there's nothing to see here.

Correct Rick... great comment! :)

Carlos67, your word doomsayers and most bears I've seen on here use words like correction, and down is down , they were right , prices aways go back up in the end, what's your point, and hopefully it isn't a big CRASH that you keep going on about

And still we go down

The prices achieved for entry level houses out West and South still look pretty good for sellers with sales around 30-40% over CV. A lot of CVs are in the 400-500K zone for these houses.

Would be cv,s were done in 2014 weren't they , are the drew to be renewed this year

Property prices always trend up. In 25 years when I retire one thing is for sure, there will be more people in NZ and still not enough houses. I'll hold thanks.

I'm with you, once your in the market don't get out. I guarantee that anyone buying a house now it will be worth more in 25 years, most likely it will be at least double.

Wow where can I get me some of that sweet, sweet 2.81% compound annual growth rate?

I guess it's a little better than the last twenty years CPI CAGR of 2.00%.

OK, for your next exercise try comparing property prices to any alternative asset classes. The decision is not property or nothing, and I hope you're not crazy enough to stick all your eggs in a single basket. That would be taking a large risk with your financial future.

Thank you for the concern & advice. Just lucky I have a couple of bitcoins to fall back on ;)

Shares, bonds and term deposits too boring for you?

Haha yeah... so 1980s

So do you think that house prices will increase more than business profits? What a depressing thought for the productivity of this country.

Oh c'mon I was being facetious... lighten up!

When did you buy your bitcoin?

end 2013

Well done. Not worried about August 1?

@propertyminx, you've recently said you're 32. Will you retire at 57? Nice.

The question isnt whether the nominal price will go up, it's whether the real, dollar adjusted price will go up. Although, sometimes the issue is the former. For example, in Ireland, nominal prices are sill only 89% of where they were in 2005

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-rppi/rppijan2017/

Or, take Japan. In 1991, NOMINAL house prices were 191 when indexed to 2010 prices... but only 107 now, so down in value over that 26 year period. Same is true in REAL dollars.

Play around with the data on here, if you really want a data driven understanding:
https://data.oecd.org/hha/housing.htm

It's super scary what could happen. Hope not to that magnitude, but that's a hope, not a conviction!

Excellent comments. It's real prices that matter, not nominal.

Thanks MisterB- indeed, the 'what-if' picture is scary and indeed many foreign housing markets have fallen foul of what many probably believed was a no lose situation. There were many many factors which helped the result along in your Japan/Ireland examples. And some similarities to NZ's situation, for sure.... but investing is never without its risks, no matter what investment you choose. We all play ball knowing this. I hold my breath for those who leveraged up also believing ours is a no lose situation.. but I have confidence in a soft landing for NZ because whilst there are some similarities within NZ's macro economic position to Japan/Irelend, there are also a few fundamental differences. And yes, retirement by 57 is the plan :)

What Auckland is going through is very similar to what Brisbane (and QLD) went through in 2004-2010. Back then Brisbane's capital gain was in the 10-15% level per year and they had endless queue of buyers snapping up everything. Now after the mining boom and other economic factors, you'd be lucky to get 1-2% gain per year.

Hi Chairman Moa. If only... look at this one. 30 min from the Gabba! Stand alone NZ$430k...
http://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-qld-forest+lake-125959722

Rise of fall but one thing is definite that the boom is over at least for the next few years. People who have bought for long term need not worry but anyone who has bought in last one or two year for quick money is in for a shock.

If you believe in exponential growth on a finite planet I guess so, me, no.

Are you talking home owner or investor? As a home owner, maybe. As an investor, perhaps not. As has been articulated on this site dozens of times, sentiment is changing and time will see the tax and regulation bias towards landllording ending.

There is a huge risk to landlords that building wofs, tenancy protection, ring fencing losses, increased personal tax rates and so on will destroy values. One reason valuues are up is the absence of such....... level the playing field and we might see what rentals are really worth.

abnz1, yes I agree, people that have brought for the long term need not worry, but if they say brought for $1000000 with a 20 to 30 % deposit , yes they brought happily knowing there repayments and they mighted change but it would be taxing on the brain if u new your house was only worth $700000 and u couldn't go to the bank for a loan for anything for years, but yes there alway the chance of a boom and after 15 years the mortgage would start to look better

Yes not only an election in September but a new property valuation in about October-November ? Clean forgot about that one, well that's going to be interesting because that bit of paper has a serious effect on the psychology of people and what they think their property is worth. How many people like selling below the CV ? answer......none. Is your valuation going to be higher than the last one ? answer.....yes.

Lets have some fun 2011 CV $570K, 2014 CV $710K, 2017 CV ? the winner gets a chocolate fish.

Location North Shore, Auckland.

$25m!!

Did I win?

negative $25m ??... better?

no... I've got it!

$100 Quintillion. To easy. Where's my fish. I want two.

78,452,126 CNY (RMB)

Awesome!

Cv mean nothing and everyone knows that except RE agents using it to there benefit, they're only accurate really for that final 6 month period, I have a rental that went ,$333000 next cv was $289000 then 435000 and I'm pick the next one will be around 300000, , the main part of the Auckland correction will be after the new cv, s and most people will be get a idea of the likes of trademe and other, meeting the market or sit there dreaming

Agreed. It's just a taxation ratio. Has nothing to do with sales price though agents do track an average price above cv ratio. I always challenge mine and get a valuation to drop it down, as it's real money that you actually have to pay to subsidise those stacked 15 deep in other houses to subsidise their rubbish and sewage volumes.

I'm surprised Auckland didn't bring there rates time back a year, I think they have the right to done new rates anytime in a 2 to 3 year period. Councils do nicely on higher prices, not sure about Auckland but I guess it's the same over nz, if they had done it late last year values might have been higher for them, of course like 2008 then after cv went back down and some councils did it hard

I dont think the higher prices make any difference - it's only relative differences in movement. The pie is still the same size + x% rates increase, it's just the apportioning of the rates that's different.

I expect many fringe suburb owners will be most disappointed as I somewhat expect their piece of the rates pie to have proportionately gone up - say the Manurewa properties that were $300k which may now be rates at $600k... whereas more central suburbs may not have escalated to the same degree relative to 2014. Will be interesting! It could make borderline investments (based on yield) be underwater, given limited prospects on rent increases.

That period I mentioned above where my cv went from $333k to $289k to $435k by the way wasn't even the 2008 crash it was years 2011, 2014 and 2016, they did 2016 a year earlier,

My CV went from 500k to 870k to 1.5m to 2.35m and in 2017?? Who knows!

I can see now why People get so upset when people talk about prices return to the 2008 highs or 50 % drops or back to price affordability, holy hell is auckland full of this paper wealth, what was the main driver of that, please don't say overseas investors

It's simple: greed. For real details we're going to have to wait for things to unravel. I'm sure there's more than a little mortgage fraud, dodgy deals and money laundering involved.

The main driver has been low interest rates and aggressive, bordering on reckless, bank lending. The overseas investor numbers (verified, not the anecdotal ones) barely move the needle. The immigration numbers look big but rents and yields have gone nowhere. So this is another property boom / bubble where it's all about credit.

There was that influx of insurance money after the earthquake, too.

Hi O4 normal

Only a neurotic would get upset with that sort of talk.

Serious, long-term property investors have better things to do with their time than listen to the chattering classes here - and elsewhere.

Which is why you're on here spending your time listening to the "chattering classes" (when you say that, you sound so Marie Antoinette-esque)

but still here you are

Figures Double-gz , just sent are so worrying, pre 2008 high to 2014 , $500k to 235k , no wonder Hamilton , tauranga etc got hit with such larger amounts of money, so many must have cashed up, tauranga people are starting to drop there prices but not papamoa, papamoa always builts fast, the council must be on to it, but there's a lot of new houses on the market now and the don't seem to be moving, after seeing what double-Gz wrote about how large these moves have been, well , all I can say is all bets are off

Yes, Tauranga is a strange one, lot of land to build on around Papamoa and lots of construction, so beyond the short term population change won't support rental yields or prices

Yes, Tauranga is a strange one, lot of land to build on around Papamoa and lots of construction, so beyond the short term population change won't support rental yields or prices

Also lots of land within a 20-30 minute drive if people want to live further out and commute to Tauranga.

Yes Tauranga central is pretty horrible to be honest, much nicer housing being built 17 to 20 minutes out at the Lakes for example. Partners parents cashed up in Auckland and only needed to spend half of it to get a really nice house down there.Put the rest in the bank and enjoy a great retirement.

That's good for them. I bet there are a few wishing now that they'd done that months back (or last year).

TGA, latest Priority One report listed recorded residential consents, commercial vehicle 's sales (tradie utes), and nil commercial consents. So other than migrating retires, what's happening down there....?

Who cares who brought the houses but the amount of sales over the last few years in Auckland must have set record after record and the amount of money and loans , I just can't believe it, even if Auckland came back half what it went up, my eye are watering

Where are all these people bringing these houses from?

Yeah and a lot of really nice houses in papamoa that normally you would never see rented being rented, a real lot, now there's more houses for sale in papamoa than all of tga which isn't normal at all , and slowly changing from auction to price

There's to much supply now, demands dieing , mainly from Auckland

Can someone tell me why this house is not sold after sitting in the market for over a month now. It was passed in at $3.8m at the onsite auction and now with an asking price of $4.55m but still no takers! http://www.boulgarisrealty.com/listings/17230409/

Because I looked at houses in your area with my mother before buying in Red Beach and can remember the prices, which you yourself have quoted in your CV's so they are now GROSSLY overpriced. Its not only people that have a lot of money but I concluded its also a certain type of person living there, the type of person I hope I never become.

Yeah Mike Hosking lives just round the corner.

That should bring the prices down a bit, the Hosking's factor, guaranteed to wipe 90% off your house value.

If you never want to become it, you won't. In NZ we dont have many anyway. Most people (even wealthy ones) come from humble beginnings and like the outdoors, we are not like the US, UK or Europe where there is really old money, with vast amounts, where they dont know any different.

I like our countryness and relaxed beach lifestyle.

Because its $3.8m

Well it was passed in at $3.8m meaning someone bidded for the house at that price but was rejected by the vendors. Now it has an asking price of $4.55m.

love the vendors aspirational thinking , they might get a 4 in front but 4.55 sort of la-la-land (enjoyed the movie btw)

They are probably going to regret not taking the $3.8m, the market peaked in October 2016 as far as auctions were concerned. They probably will now have to hold for what could be 5 years before they get that price.

Perhaps it's because the asking price is 56 times the median wage. Once upon a time (8 years ago) that house would have been within reach of up and coming white collar hard working doctors lawyers, engineers, and scientists. Those guys are the lowly tenants in Auckland now. That house like so many others in Auckland is purely the domain of nobel laureate murdering Chinese communist party officials, money launderers, & drug dealers. Thanks National

Thanks for the feedback fat pat.

you're welcome

Because that's probably what a kiwi family, working and paying tax in NZ, with a house already, is prepared to sell and buy in this market for. Will be interesting if that becomes the "new market", IF outside interference is indeed gone. History always shows in any market that higher end properties always go up more and drop more than average houses. Overseas money has pushed dgz into the extreme higher end.

I remember years ago a friend, a real estate old timer in the game saying, there is only one reason something does not sell. I will leave it to you to figure out what that might be.

arr go on , tell us..

I think the Tauranga area looks good for future affordability, Aucklanders to tga will slow a lot, lots of new houses everywhere, larger big spaces for grown, wages are ok but hold prices to reasonable levels, with the large amounts of Aucklanders prices should drop back

OMG this house is highly affordable!
BEAUTIFUL FAMILY HOME ON 963m2!
4a Logan Road, Buckland
Price Guide: High $700s - Low $800s
With 4 bedrooms including the Master with ensuite, this beautiful home with large open plan living and dining area sits on a large 963sqm freehold section in the heart of Buckland.
https://www.barfoot.co.nz/599877

And only a MERE 52km from CBD (via a slow moving car park that is the southern motorway)

Can always find a job locally. Why would you want to go to the CBD anyway? So much construction going on and so many homeless people and beggers. Just this morning I was cursed by a begger for not giving him the $2 just outside McDonalds. It's not good.

So many jobs in Pukekohe that can service mortgage on an $800k property eh?

You could work for Counties Custom Killing - not as Contract Killery as it sounds....
http://www.trademe.co.nz/jobs/trades-services/butchers-bakers/listing-13...

Thank you Brian. I will consider it.

So, do you have shares in petrol companies as well?

Why bother, this is cheaper
http://www.realestate.co.nz/3028172
and you can be in Queenstown in under 2 hours for a days skiing

Im from this area, and 700-800K for basically a golden home is nuts. I will move back to this area, but more rural as I want land, a view and no close neighbours.

I live in Surrey 30 mins on a train to London. I have a house, not as much land as that, but you wouldnt expect that, this close to london. My property cost $800K, just on outskirts of london. That house is in Pukekohe miles from anywhere populous, with a lot of land in between Auckland. Its nuts how you can buy a house in Pukekohe for similar prices to London with 9 million people.

Mmmm

Worth a read - Paul Lochore says - "I reckon about 30 per cent of the apartment buildings on the North Shore have leak issues right now."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1189...

I wonder how many he sold?!

Anyone keen to buy an apartment?
This would really put you off.

I reckon a lot of the houses in grammar zone are leaky too. Lots of shockers that people with too much money and not enough sense are buying...

Apartments are generally lot more vulnerable than stand-alone houses in a softer market.

In the long-term, it's land that appreciates in value - not structures.

The Media admitting where the finance for property in Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland has been coming from?
"ANZ stopped accepting loan applications based solely on foreign income in March last year, while introducing tougher rules to prevent fraud and money laundering amid concerns over billions of dollars of suspicious property transactions by Chinese nationals."
.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1189...
.
Only 3% of course.

It was only 3% in Canada by their new tax. Of course now their property market is crashing in spectacular fashion. I wonder which country is next.

Yes this news article also supports your point of view Dictator. Looks like they've all run to the US for property investment all those ultra low taxes.

Canada Sees Largest Drop In Real Estate Sales Since June 2010
https://betterdwelling.com/canada-sees-largest-drop-in-real-estate-sales...

Foreign Buying of US Real Estate Surges Over 32%
https://betterdwelling.com/foreign-buying-us-real-estate-surges-32/

Investing in US residential is the logical move. There prices have only recently recovered, and there are many large scale investors holding large volumes of houses. They'll get to exit their position and make a profit after all these years.

A shame about Canada as people are panicking and they are breaching contracts to avoid buying houses as the prices drop. Some big problems will appear in Canada soon and it's unfortunate.

Good news if you want to pick up a 400 m2 house in Epsom with a mortgagee auction.
http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction-...

Kiwis have been taken to the cleaners by a whole lot of fraudulent offshore BS. Really sad. And our government is effectively complicit