By Bernard Hickey
Auckland's biggest real estate agency group Barfoot and Thompson has reported sales volumes were down 25% in September from a year ago, but that average prices were slightly higher than both August and September a year earlier.
Barfoot and Thompson Managing Director Peter Thompson said sales in September of 689 were still only "ticking over" and sales had not exceeded 700 in a month for four months.
Sales were down 24.8% from the 917 reported by Barfoot and Thompson in September last year and were up only slightly on the 637 reported in August.
The average sales price of NZ$523,861 was up 2.5% from NZ$510,879 in August, but was up 1.7% from September a year earlier.
About a third of all property sales in New Zealand are from Auckland, with Barfoots' market share in Auckland around 43%. Barfoots was responsible for about 15% of sales nationally in August. It is the first group to report sales and price data for September.
“The average price we achieved in September was right in line with the average monthly sales price achieved for 2009," Thompson said.
“It points to prices being stable and is a pleasing return after the decline seen in August," he said.
“While prices have moved on the back of the return of Spring, sales remain quiet. For example, in September last year we sold a quarter more homes. However, a sign that the market is stirring is new listings increased, and in September we listed 1203 homes, an increase of 10.8 percent on those for August but still well down on last September’s 1466 new listings."
Barfoot and Thompson had 5,572 homes on its books at the end of September, which was in line with the number at the end of August and 6% above September last year. \
Rents rise
The average weekly rental recorded by Barfoot and Thompson in September was NZ$407, up NZ$1/week on that for August and NZ$23 a week more than in September last year.
The company let 717 properties in September, up 2.3% from a year ago.
(Updated with interactive chart)
Barfoot Auckland
Select chart tabs
75 Comments
I would consider 8% significant, not slight. Then again, we've come to expect the same old bullshit from Bernard Hickey on this website. Talk up the negatives, downplay any indication of improvement.
What I see is supply and deman at work - when prices fall to unacceptable levels people refuse to sell - the decreased volume indicates price support at the current levels. But this doesn't play into Bernard Hickey's ridiculous prognosis of huge declines in property prices (still waiting on your 40% prediction, Bernard).
My current prediction is for a 15% fall in median prices from the November 2007 peak. Has been since March last year. We're down around 5% now so about 10% more to go.
By the way. When I talked about my March 2008 view that prices could fall 30-40% with Mark Hotchin, he told me in July 2008 (when Hanover was frozen) I was wrong and that prices would bounce back in 2009.
Many development properties, apartment and sections have fallen at least 30%. Hence the writedowns in values for many finance companies.
I was pretty much the only one talking about the negatives in early 2008. If finance company investors had decided then that the property slump would last longer than 6 months they might have chosen to not to extend and pretend...
I think we have a while longer to go. I've been consistent in saying that deleveraging will keep a lid on prices and even press them lower.
Welcome your thoughts.
cheers
Bernard
Thanks for proving my point. You cherry pick the bad statistic - make a noted point to express the % stastistic for the decrease on last year, but then leave it to the reader to work out the month on month increase. I call that disingenuous. I doubt you have actually taken the time to analyze the monthly historical volumes in detail, but this 25% down cannot persist longer than December. If you look at seasonally adjusted data you'll note it was september that was the highest during the flash in the pan resurgence in prices and volumes during CY09. The run rate after that started to peter on a SA basis for the next few months, and then collapse in January/February (March was strongish). Anyway - I suspect these YoY changes will start to lower (with exception of REINZ sep because of CHCH sales - you'll have to focus on Auckland), and then in jan and feb I expect we will be about 5% higher than last year.
All time best prediction:
"I’m sticking to that 30% price fall forecast because the global economic catastrophe of the last 6 months is only now starting to lap at our shores and banks will be forced by New Zealand’s foreign lenders to curb most new lending" BH March 12 2009
You seem to be very consistent in modifying your predictions
Dr Housing Bubble in California points out again and again, that their price crashes took 2 years to come after the sales dropped and the number of listings started to bank up.
Reading "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis, I am impressed with just how LATE in the piece the clever hedge fund operators in the USA started to "short" mortgage backed securities - and how late in the piece the big insurers were still willing to sell them derivatives. The bubble markets had well and truly banked up with stock already, and the mortgage defaults had begun; it was just that the price falls hadn't really started. The big insurers like AIG - indeed, virtually everybody, were still saying that the market was sound and that a few signs of trouble were only temporary.
Right now, things are hotting up on this front in Aussie.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/cba-takes-the-advice-of-the-agency-it-parodies-20100914-15b0o.html
I LOVE this line in "The Australian":
"........The Australian housing bubble debate is running hot, with hedge funds looking at short-selling opportunities......"
And this one from "The Age" article:
".......At this point, if I’m an international investor, I’m thinking ‘we gotta short these chumps’......"
Google "Shorting Australian Housing" or "Shorting Australian Mortgages". If you've got money to invest at big odds, there are some hedge fund operators out there right now who want to talk to you about this. (Presumably NZ is too small to bother with). Just bear in mind that the market can stay irrational longer than you might be able to stay solvent. Michael Lewis's book talks about some people who abandoned their "short" bets on mortgage backed securities after about 2 years waiting for their crash. These people must have felt SOOOO sore about the successful betters who did their "short" bets late in the piece.
The big banks on Wall Street who were acting as middlemen on the derivatives transactions, one by one over a matter of days, ceased to take the bets - just as they were getting a "wave" of people who "got it" and who were making inquiries how to get in on what was becoming an obvious way to gain BIIIIG from others mass stupidity.
What I find all the more ironic about all this, is that in this part of the world, we love knocking the stupid Yanks. Yet even with their negative example to learn from, us and the Aussies are guilty today of almost exactly the same collective illusions about our property markets.
The thing is it must be at least 2 years since most predicted big price drops in the NZ housing market and we have also had a recession in between which you would think should have triggered it (although the subsequent drop in interest rates might have an impact). Maybe we will just see 10 years of no price growth rather than a significant drop in prices?
In which case ," Sell!", as the cost of rent has a long way to go to catch the cost of ownership. ( assuming wage rises allow further expenditure on rent , that is) By then you'd be quids in on the after tax yield in the bank. When that idea really dawns on the masses, then the fall you deride, Jimbo, will arrive ~ with gusto!
I don't own investment property. I could sell my own home and rent, but what would I do with the money? Put it in stocks and wait for them to tumble? Put it in the bank and get less than inflation after tax? Buy gold and watch the price drop if the US does get properly out of recession? I think my house could just be the safest bet!!
And in all honesty, that's what it's all about Jimbo. Each to their own, and a house for all. Nothing wrong with property as an investment as long as others don't have to subsidise it. For me, it helps if the number's make sense as well! I did the opposite to you. Sold my one and only, and after renting, it's saving me $1000.... per week. ( +/- over 30 months) But I don't have 'a home' of course!
The thing is, the difference between rent and mortgage will erode over time if you buy a house - assuming that rent does increase with inflation and that interest rates stay fairly flat. In 10 or 15 years it is likely that the rent you will be paying will be more than the interest on the mortgage if you bought now, and in 40 years time the rent you would be paying may be a number of times more than the interest on the mortgage (assuming you never paid off any capital which of course you would)
I agree that the difference between renting and owning is currently way too high, but I doubt it will ever get to the level where it costs no more to buy a home than to rent.
Sounds like reality is catching up in Aussie as well,their spin machine is far more sophisticated and able to tell the mugs what they want to hear for a bit longer.We might rely on Aussie..but Aussie relies on China..GDP. in China looks great on paper....but this is a Country with empty bullet trains to nowhere..and people that dont earn enough to buy the empty apartments..Massive hotels half finished with no one in them...Sounds like the road to nowhere,in a Surelists dream..
In Auckland I'd don't remember a time that it wasn't cheaper to rent than to own a property, however I also don't remember a time in Auckland that property prices have not doubled in 10-12 years. Very dangerous position to be in, if you have sold your house, to save by renting. Does not via well for your retirement years.
Sunday Star Times article (not on line) made out the cost of buying an average house v renting amounted to $100k over five years. Analysis suggests that they ignored the opportunity cost of not earning interest on the deposit which added another $15k to the equation.
Has anyone asked B&T the effect quoted in the other SST article from the valuers that:
"Another notable feature of the market is the number of people with multimillion-dollar homes who were selling and downsizing", Brunsdon said. How does that affect the median price?
How does that affect the median price?
Basel, I guess in another 10 years we will again have the results. Can't personally see inflation not rising at the rate some Governments are printing money.
Nicholas, well done you obviously do your research well, however many don't have that ability and would be better off in the long run by simply owning a home (and paying it off) rather than renting.
Many run into problems with housing by increasing their mortgages rather than paying them off.
That's the 'comulsory savings' arguement, Gavin. As I said, emotion over financial sensibility, and the accpetance of a lower quality of dwelling ( buying whatever one can afford) versus what one can afford to rent ( as you noted above, always cheaper to rent a better quality house in Auckland). So that's all I do. 'buy' a better quality of life from another. Re printing: It's not going to work, this time. Give people money, printed or otherwise, today, and what will they do with it? Pay off debt, not spend it. The spending was done 5, 10 years ago. Now it's payback time. All non discessionary asset prices will fall.
Love to, Gavin! If I'm wrong, and property prices double by then (wherever I am!) then I'll have to pay twice as much to buy ~ if I choose to give up renting. If I'm right, a lot of people will see their net worth halve, or more precisely evapourate. Given that 80% of New Zealanders have a net worth of $20k, or less, each, I hope you're in that other 20%!
That can't be true - an awful lot of NZ houses are mortgage free, and only a very small percentage of NZ house owners have less than 10% equity. I would say almost every home owner in NZ has more than 20k net worth (at current house values) unless they have a massive car loan or something. So surely at least 50% of NZ has a net worth more than $20k?
The level of ownership is irrelevant if there are fewer buyers prepared to pay anything like asking prices. As retirees start to want (need?) their cash, they have to find a buyer willing to sacrifice rent freedom for years of mortgage stress, should asset revaluation not occur and let them off the hook.
I hear that the reason Germany has much less property excesses than us is their preparedness to rent for longer or until they have saved a necessary 30% deposit. nfortunately they gave up much of their fiscal freedom by accepting costs of reunification with the burdensome East and also allowing the EU to let in less frugal partners.
Not that one always should! But I'm just going off what was in the Sunday Star Times last weekend. But I do agree. It's shocking, and underlies the true state of our savings base. Something like ( brain getting tired here!) 20% had.... zero... net worth. As you say, it's all the 'other' bits, and the mortgage equity releases, cards etc. that have been going on for the last 10 years. And let's not forget that 50% equity = 50% debt = zero in the Net Worth column!
I guess it's all about who does what with the stats. Jimbo. Here's another shot, with a better 'net worth'!
The average net worth of a New Zealander over the age of 15 is approx $70,000
• Approx 50% of us have 0 net worth
• 800,000 of us have less than $20,000 in assets
http://nz.biz.yahoo.com/b/lisadudson/425/planning-your-financial-future
Ray, sales number up 8%, price up 2.5%, you got them mixed up...
And I'd like to see seasonally adjusted figs.
Nicholas 50% equity 50% debt give u net worth from asset of 50% it's value not zero net worth.
Either way IMHO there is serious downside risk in nz property and little risk for much upward movement so smart money stays away.
"The average sales price of NZ$523,861 was up 2.5% from NZ$510,879 in August, but was up 1.7% from September a year earlier."
LMAO..they dont give up do they...If I take all the sales for the last month (that I have kept a records of since 2006) Yep I get a 2.2 increase...
but if I remove the 3 top sales that are way over the ave (and still way below the 2007 peak)
And to keep some sort of balance, remove the bottom 3.. I get a 1.1 drop....
Any person who has an understanding of markets, and a basic understanding of Statistics, would have mentioned in the report that a few exceptionally high sales have dragged it up...
But such honesty seems to be too much to expect from real estate agents....which leaves BHs prediction still current.
What I really want to know is what theory or evidence is behind the people bagging BH for saying property will drop. The long term trends are that people spend 30 odd percent of their salary towards the mortgage and that house prices are 3-4 times the average salary.
Please don't humour me by talking about low interest rates which is very short term or the influx of immigartion which has proven to be a load of BS now that kiwis are flocking in droves.
If the new norm is to pay 7 times the average salary and up to 60- 80% of your salary towards mortgages then the economy will eventually crumble and you guessed it property will go down.
I want to hear some facts and not emotional BS. Someone please entertain me and tell me how we can sustain the new trends of 7 times the average salary over the next 50 years.
@marct
I have asked that question on here many times and to date, have not got an answer...The figures released today from Bullsh*t & Thompson just back up my theory that lower price properties are not selling and the higher price ones are trading amongst the existing owners of these properties.
Whoever thinks that properties worth 6-7 times the average salary is good for the overall economy must have rocks in thier head !
Marct
But you can't dismiss interest rates given they play a big role in decisons to buy/sell/hold. And people seem to believe they will stay low when you look at the number moving to floating. This has to be encouraging marginal equity owners to hang on a bit longer and thus delay the correction.
We used to say a percentage ( 30% from memory ? ) of sales were 'forced' ie transfers, relationship breakup etc and that these sellers being obliged to meet the market set new price floors/ceilings. Sure people who can are withdrawing their houses from sale when faced with accepting a drop but why is this 'forced' phenomenon not (apparently) affecting prices as it was once believed to ?.
If the aussie RE bubble bursts we'll quickly follow suit otherwise I reckon a slow price decline unless interest rates climb a few points.
Anecdote: Couple want to split but can't afford the loss or the relocation/new house costs. So they are staying put ( in the same nest; a different partner each. Must be fun?!). So their 'forced sale' won't enter the chain. There will be similar situations in all the 'forced' areas. Perhaps the '30%' only works in a rising market?
There is a theory called supply and demand. Auckland has, for the first time, is transitioning from a provincial town to a city. The population is heading towards 2 million people over the next 20-30 years. However while the population is increasing our town planning is still focused on providing 3 bedroom stand alone houses only - hence even in the boom house supply in Auckland was increasing at a slower rate than growth in number of households (refer statistics NZ data). Since then supply of houses has slowed even further and increased density (which is the only way the city can sensibly grow) has been banned in most zones (refer District Plan Central Area PC2 or Isthmus Section PC196 etc.). Suburban sprawl (which is the most stupid way the city can grow) is also problematic. Houses at 3-4 x average salary might be normal in a provincial town, but is not normal in cities.
Anyone relying on the figures from BT today to say things are improving is dreaming. What they probably forgot to put in their report today is the fact that the lower priced houses are not selling as the average person is not able to get easy finance anymore and investors are getting thin on the ground as you would have to have rocks in your head to be investing and borrowing in a falling market. If the cheaper houses are not selling like they used to then the average price has to rise. Colleagues in Auckland tell me it is still a tough market and agents are still leaving the industry to get income flowing again from other forms of employment. BH got it wrong in saying how quick it will happen. The market is going to keep dropping until at least the end of next year. If we go into another recession as some say is already happening and small businesses lay off more staff then the pace of the price drops will only accelerate.
So houses aren't selling and asking prices are too high. Mexican stand off. People who need to sell will have to lower their prices and people who have to buy will have to offer more? Anyone have any averages on how much less from the asking price buyers are getting houses for? If a house in Sandringham, Auckland is £630,000 with a GV of £540,000 is that way over priced?
DC, pretty sure it's $ and not £, although you're welcome to buy my house in £ if you like!
GVs can be very inaccurate, better to go by RV (registered valuation) although if you've looked at a lot of properties you'll soon get a feel for what's over-priced and what isn't....
"My current prediction is for a 15% fall in median prices from the November 2007 peak. Has been since March last year. We're down around 5% now so about 10% more to go."
Bernard, you keep (rather conveniently!) mixing up the REINZ median price with the REINZ's new stratified index.
Your original prediction was for the median to fall 30% from $352,000 to around $250,000 by November 2009. You then revised that to 15% and around $300,000 by 2012.
This year you have been quoting the median price is down 5% and 'only' has 10% to go. The 5% you are quoting is the stratified price that was only introduced in August last year. It is currently at $360,675 and is down 5.4% from Nov 2007 when it was $380,900 (it was introduced in Aug 2009 but has been calculated back).
The median price that your initial predictions pertained to is actually down only 0.5% to $350,000
They both hit a low point in January 2009 when the median price was down 7.6% to $325,000 and the 'stratified' price was down 11.4% to $337,400
Is your current prediction that the REINZ 'stratified' price will drop 15% from $380,900 down to $323,765 ??
If so, your price predictions will have gone from $250k to $300k to $324k. I'm pretty sure you'll soon be predicting a median price of $350k.... and you'll be spot on! It was always highly likely that nominal median prices would slip sideways for several years while 'real' prices were eroded. If only you'd used the words 'real prices' from the beginning!.....
Murray,
Fair points. You are right. I need to be more specific and stop mixing up my REINZ medians and stratifieds.
My predictions have always been around the plain old REINZ median. It hit that peak of NZ$352,000 in November 2007. I'm sticking to my prediction it will drop 15% to NZ$299,000.
But you're quite right. The plain old median was NZ$350,000 in August 2010, so it's not down 5%. The stratified is down 5%.
We'll get there.
Glad to hear you're relaxed about the property market's health. Yet somehow something has changed...
Chris - If only a few finance company investors had thought in mid 2008 things might take a while to come right and values would fall by 30-40% they might not have chosen to extend and pretend.
The sky isn't falling. But it is awful dark out there.
cheers
Bernard
Chris - If only a few finance company investors had thought in mid 2008 things might take a while to come right and values would fall by 30-40% they might not have chosen to extend and pretend.
So are you trying to justify your ridiculous predictions and misleading use of statistics by telling people you can save them from themselves if only they would act on your assertions?
Bernards achievements have been recognized by other media, this from Herald: " plunge in house prices of up to 30 per cent was tipped for 2009 by one excitable commentator; instead they headed up towards 2007 highs" (after winning last year's"The dicky crystal ball award")
Iam pretty sure there is only one "excitable commentator" around
He is on the track for another one this year, for both his house prices and mortgage rates predictions....will get there.
Bernard, thanks for clarifying which price you refer to.
My opinion is that we won't see a $299k median, and we won't get back to the $325k of Jan 2009 either. More likely to hover around the $350k for another year or three, before beginning another gradual rise thanks to low construction rates, higher material prices, a growing population - and despite what the politician's promise, probably more red tape and higher compliance costs.
The 'property market's health' seems no different to me than '87 - '92 and '97 - '02 when many were also predicting large falls and an end to inflation and economic cycles, though I do conceed that this time around incomes got left further behind and that will probably be the biggest limiting factor in the next cycle.
Yes, I am "relaxed" about it. Investment for me is more about secure income than capital gain, and after 3 years of doom & gloom my rents are up on average about 10% and my borrowing costs are down about 50%, meaning my cashflow is better than ever.
It's not that dark out there! Many small businesses I talk to are quite positive, some actually did better than usual through the recession. There's always dark clouds around, more so during and after a recession, but it's not all gloom.
I suggest you get out more, but take an umbrella - just in case!
Bernard you big sheep dog, herding most NZers into the anti-property corner. All you need is one of those spring lambs to break free from the mob and bolt and the rest will follow. Yes the property market is subdued and will crawl side ways for a while, but there is a shite load of investors sitting on the sidelines gobbling up every monthly property report and waiting waiting waiting to jump back in. We NZers are all a bunch of sheep waiting to follow the leader, except for the bunch of black sheep on this great site that follow that big sheep dog every where :)
Spring lambs, soon to be 30 year old.? If an exceptional storm arrives a la South Island last week; even if it's seen and forcast well in advance, it still kills a huge number. Those that survive tend to heed future warnings, stay close to Mum and will grow a little older and wiser for the event.
LOL - Yeah shiteloads of them everywhere just waiting to come out of the caves and explode into the market place. Brilliant
Why on earth would anyone (unless they had no choice at all), be borrowing to buy in the current market conditions? The word bargain is laughable, come on, use of the word is simply crass. If you have to borrow money to buy a house why not wait to see what happens, instead of quite likey overpaying for "the bargain" and owing the bank even more in the long term. Brainwashed is a better word to use than bargain, or perhaps groomed....
There are only a shite load of worried existing investors actually who are seeing their so called bullet proof portfolios going backwards in value by the month and for years to come. The few who are watching will pull back more and more from further buying as the market continues to deteriorate. Agents are telling me more and more investors are actually trying to sell the dogs they paid too much for with borrowed money of course. Watch this space. Prices will continue to drop as the vendors get more and more desparate to grab a buyer,especially in the so called cheaper housing brackets where people actually find it harder to borrow than people who are buying in the more affluent areas.
Agree with your last sentence ex agent not many investors out there with pre-approval....I've got mine and vendors are def willing to drop their prices to develerage, few bargins to be had. Thanks for the advice black sheep Nic, but winters over, roll on summer ;)
Why would you borrow and buy in such a fragile market. And what you think is a bargain is actually the figure the agents and valuers will use for similar houses in the area you bought in so it is now the market price not the bargain you thought. And then it continues to drop in value and you borrowed that money you bought. with. Don't you think it would be better to let the market bottom out no matter how long that takes. Why the hurry to spend borrowed money.
And here's more detail from Barfoot and Thompson on the Auckland market.
http://www.barfoot.co.nz/Market-Info/Analysis/Market-Analysis-September-2010.aspx
Central suburbs looked strong with more sales in the last year and a 7% increase in the average price. I put that down to strong demand from foreign buyers for established (non-leaky) houses in a market with little new supply and a whole generation of buildings wiped out by the leaky building problems.
cheers
Bernard
RBA starting to see property sense in Aussie ! ...
"..Buying an asset just because you are expecting the price to rise in the future, well that is actually the academic definition of a bubble..... So that would be undesirable and be seen as a problem. (Head of Financial Stability ,Dr.Luci Ellis ) added that RBA considered the recent levelling off in housing prices as desirable, although didn't need to get back to their 1970s levels. But they can't go onwards and upwards faster than income forever," she said.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/RBA-speech-pd20101006-9XVPH?OpenDocument&src=hp1
With both house prices and sales nudging up, interest rates and building consents staying low, it's time for Bernard to modify his prediction yet again....
when BH predicted 40% drop, prices nudged up, I can only imagine what will actually happen now with his 10% drop prediction :)
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to 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.