sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

QV figures show property values on a long slow decline in Auckland, starting to head downwards in several other regions

QV figures show property values on a long slow decline in Auckland, starting to head downwards in several other regions

Average residential property values in Auckland are continuing to slowly but steadily decline, according to the latest figures from Quotable Value.

QV says the average value of residential properties in Auckland declined for the eighth consecutive month in July, down from $1,050,647 in November last year to $1,025,389 in July this year. Across the region average values were 2.6% lower in July than they were in July last year, and 0.8% lower than they were three months ago.

On an annual basis the biggest falls have been in some of the region's most expensive districts, with average values in the Gulf Islands (mainly Waiheke) and North Harbour both down by 4.8% on a year ago, followed by coastal North Shore which is down by 4.5%.

The only district in the Auckland region where average values are not lower than they were 12 months ago is Franklin on Auckland's southern flank, where July's average value of $673,372 was up 1.3% compared to 12 months ago.

Around the rest of the country average values in July were mostly well up compared to 12 months earlier, although in several places they are down compared to three months ago, suggesting the strong gains of the past may be coming to an end.

Areas where average values are down compared to three months ago include parts of central, north west and south east Hamilton, plus Tauranga, Whakatane, Rotorua and Taupo, all of Wellington City, Christchurch's central, northern and hills suburbs, Timaru, Queenstown Lakes, and Dunedin central, north and south.

Over all main urban areas throughout the country, average values in July were up 0.7% compared to 12 months previously, and down 0.3% compared to three months previously (see the table below for the figures for all districts).

Over the country as a whole, average values are up 2.2% compared to a year ago, and up 0.1% compared to three months ago.

"In the comings months, we're anticipating no major changes in market activity," QV general manager David Nagel said.

"Market conditions appear to be relatively stable, with record low interest rates likely to continue supporting steady buyer demand.

"As per usual as we emerge out of winter, we're expecting a slight increase in listings and sales volumes, although this won't have a substantial impact on market trends," he said.

The comment stream on this story is now closed.

QV House Price Index - July 2019
Territorial authority Average current value $ 12 month change % 3 month change %
Auckland region 1,025,389 -2.6% -0.8%
Wellington region 712,681 8.5% 0.9%
Total New Zealand  687,683 2.2% 0.1%
Far North 462,797 13.6% 3.6%
Whangarei 547,711 2.9% 0.9%
Kaipara 554,028 2.6% 3.4%
Auckland - Rodney 937,656 -1.0% -0.6%
Rodney - Hibiscus Coast 918,060 -1.0% 0.1%
Rodney - North 958,597 -0.9% -1.1%
Auckland - North Shore 1,171,694 -4.3% -1.5%
North Shore - Coastal 1,336,977 -4.5% -2.0%
North Shore - Onewa 940,108 -3.4% -1.8%
North Shore - North Harbour 1,145,339 -4.8% 0.1%
Auckland - Waitakere 809,335 -1.8% -0.9%
Auckland - City 1,209,861 -2.9% -0.5%
Auckland City - Central 1,048,868 -3.1% -2.1%
Auckland_City - East 1,536,306 -2.4% 0.1%
Auckland City - South 1,074,174 -3.0% -0.2%
Auckland City - Islands 1,113,311 -4.8% -1.2%
Auckland - Manukau 888,950 -1.2% -0.6%
Manukau - East 1,132,462 -1.6% -0.1%
Manukau - Central 686,555 -1.7% -1.4%
Manukau - North West 777,112 -0.4% -0.8%
Auckland - Papakura 702,017 -0.4% 1.0%
Auckland - Franklin 673,372 1.3% 0.3%
Thames Coromandel 755,715 2.4% -0.8%
Hauraki 421,431 2.0% 1.5%
Waikato 487,503 3.2% -0.2%
Matamata Piako 490,906 9.7% 1.9%
Hamilton 584,962 4.8% -0.1%
Hamilton - North East 731,229 3.1% 0.4%
Hamilton - Central & North West 537,796 4.9% -0.5%
Hamilton - South East 538,331 5.1% -0.9%
Hamilton - South West 523,088 7.0% 0.6%
Waipa 588,508 6.4% 2.2%
Otorohanga 370,162 35.5% 12.6%
South Waikato 256,818 24.2% 0.0%
Waitomo 220,815 -3.7% -3.3%
Taupo 522,819 9.3% -0.4%
Western BOP 673,793 6.9% 2.9%
Tauranga 738,277 5.3% -0.3%
Rotorua 471,786 9.9% -1.5%
Whakatane 477,120 11.4% -0.5%
Kawerau 261,145 29.2% 4.1%
Opotiki 319,347 14.3% -0.4%
Gisborne 363,333 16.1% 3.3%
Wairoa 211,697 9.0% 7.1%
Hastings 523,520 14.7% 2.5%
Napier 554,387 7.8% -0.2%
Central Hawkes Bay 377,028 4.7% -3.2%
New Plymouth 465,713 4.2% 0.3%
Stratford 287,725 6.0% 3.5%
South Taranaki 245,216 10.5% 2.2%
Ruapehu 227,370 17.8% 5.7%
Whanganui 307,997 21.7% 11.2%
Rangitikei 239,680 15.7% 4.2%
Manawatu 399,000 17.2% 4.9%
Palmerston North 449,281 13.8% 2.4%
Tararua 243,650 18.2% 5.5%
Horowhenua 374,487 18.1% 1.8%
Kapiti Coast 604,215 7.5% 1.4%
Porirua 620,516 11.2% 3.9%
Upper Hutt 567,809 15.9% 3.5%
Hutt 595,235 10.8% 2.6%
Wellington City 827,177 6.2% -0.5%
Wellington - Central & South 815,879 4.6% -1.5%
Wellington - East 886,126 6.4% -0.1%
Wellington - North 761,197 9.1% -0.1%
Wellington - West 934,980 3.4% -0.2%
Masterton 389,489 11.1% 2.3%
Carterton 434,115 10.3% -0.1%
South Wairarapa 528,532 10.7% 3.3%
Tasman 609,444 5.0% 1.9%
Nelson 623,256 6.8% 0.3%
Marlborough 484,747 4.0% 1.0%
Kaikoura N/A N/A N/A
Buller 196,974 6.5% 4.6%
Grey 220,830 2.8% 1.4%
Westland 253,234 5.6% -1.1%
Hurunui 395,142 3.2% 1.2%
Waimakariri 450,564 2.7% 0.5%
Christchurch 498,006 0.5% 0.0%
Christchurch - East 377,582 1.1% 0.3%
Christchurch - Hills 674,238 0.3% -2.2%
Christchurch - Central & North 587,089 0.4% -0.1%
Christchurch - Southwest 472,437 0.0% 0.2%
Christchurch - Banks Peninsula 521,143 1.7% 2.7%
Selwyn 558,801 1.4% 0.9%
Ashburton 358,021 2.2% 1.0%
Timaru 367,616 2.5% -1.2%
MacKenzie 515,764 2.4% 0.1%
Waimate 279,294 14.0% 13.7%
Waitaki 320,653 5.4% -0.1%
Central Otago 544,669 9.9% 5.5%
Queenstown Lakes 1,175,745 0.7% -1.5%
Dunedin 458,974 11.7% 0.3%
Dunedin - Central & North 472,799 9.7% -0.3%
Dunedin - Peninsular & Coastal 420,109 12.4% 2.0%
Dunedin - South 438,252 12.8% -1.3%
Dunedin - Taieri 479,514 12.7% 1.6%
Clutha 237,810 14.2% 2.8%
Southland 320,572 14.7% 2.0%
Gore 240,015 10.0% 3.2%
Invercargill 303,611 13.6% 3.2%
Main Urban Areas 789,807 0.7% -0.3%

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.


Cue end of days rants...


.... so far, you're the only one to mention "end of days" Falling house prices is a healthy development. It's how they fall that matters from here on.


On the contrary...

For young Kiwis, this is good news. Young Kiwis who have been saving and waiting over the last year or two have seen their deposits grow while not watching their equity being reduced by falling prices.

Nothing about that is doomy or gloomy.

Rick Strauss needs to understand that the longer one delays purchasing a home, the longer one continues paying rent (while suffering a host of other disadvantages).

Rick - not sure why you would “forget” to acknowledge this central issue???


Basic maths, TP.

Folks have explained it on here before. People have well been able to rent cost-effectively while saving, having it cost them less overall than it would have had they bought and lost their equity, not even to mention the cost of interest (did you forget that?). They would have paid interest and watched their deposit shrink in size as they lost equity.

Not sure why you would "forget" these earlier examples provided so often on this site???

Of cost, "host of other disadvantages" applies to both renting and home ownership. It's no heaven and hell comparison. Does TP need to understand this?

Hi Nick Strauss,

That’s highly disingenuous of you Nick.

Each person’s circumstances are different. Sorry my friend - but there’s no “one size fits all”.......

There are plenty of people in Auckland and elsewhere (including, of course, first home buyers) who wish they’d bought a year or three ago - after allowing for ALL the tangible and intangible items.

Ignoring important opportunity costs when undertaking an investment analysis, or being “selective” (as you have been) is spurious....... If you can’t measure and value all the relevant variables, then you should at least acknowledge them.

Otherwise, the analysis (and ensuing commentary) isn’t robust. Rather, it misleads and, thus, is worthy only of rejection.


Crikey that's some waffle, TP. You objected to not enough financial measures being included, and now you seem unhappy that more were added.

Home ownership in a falling market
- Loss of equity in a falling market
- Cost of interest on mortgage
- Cost of rates
- Cost of maintenance
- Cost of insurance

Rent in a falling market
- Cost of rent
- Cost of renter's insurance
- No loss of equity/deposit
- Interest on term deposits

Seems like you've resorted to moaning about intangibles and circumstances, and "relevant variables"... What else did you want to include?

The simple point that stands is that potential FHB have done okay out of waiting in a falling market. They haven't seen their equity eroded by falling prices.

It was not a general argument that people should never buy, or that renting is always better than home ownership. It simply recognised the current falling Auckland market. Nothing to get yeasty about.

Hi Rick,

You’ve tied yourself in a bit of a knot, my friend.

In your lengthy commentary above, you are effectively agreeing with the thrust of my post above that. A valid analysis must include/acknowledge all the relevant variables - intangible and tangible.

But be it a rising or falling market, there can be NO hard and fast rules. The best decision for the individual is based on the relative magnitudes of the tangibles and the intangibles for that individual.

For me personally, taking all the prices and costs (meaning opportunity costs) into consideration, it would have been bliss to have bought a modest home in Ponsonby a couple of years ago......... And with the benefit of hindsight, many of my friends/colleagues are similar. :-(


Right, so vague mumblings aside, sounds like you're acknowledging that financially potential FHBs who held off have done well, but it's "the intangibles" that now matter more instead of your original objection re cost of rent, since that's been dealt with.

Hi Nick,

To suggest I’m “moaning about intangibles” is just plain silly. Neither am I “waffling” or “mumbling”.

For many people, the intangibles are just as important as the tangible items (such as rent). Clearly, BOTH are of critical importance and need to be dealt with in any investment analysis. (I’ve emphasised that on many threads - not just this thread.)

In your original post (above) on this topic, you selectively ignored both - which is negligent/spurious.


Actually, you called out continuing to pay rent as the "central issue" in your original comment. I specifically also did address your sub-comment re "a host of other disadvantages", highlighting that both renting and ownership had their advantages and disadvantages. You didn't actually start with "intangibles".

Rick Strauss needs to understand that the longer one delays purchasing a home, the longer one continues paying rent (while suffering a host of other disadvantages).

Rick - not sure why you would “forget” to acknowledge this central issue???

If you want to move away from that and make it all about "intangibles" rather than the finances we were originally discussing, well, congrats. Bit spurious of you.

Hope that helps.

Hi Nick,

You continue to be disingenuous.

I don’t believe you’re as ignorant as you’re trying to make out.

Paying rent is central to many/most individuals - and intangible items can be just as important to others.

Neither should be ignored - but you chose to do so on your original post above.......

My objection to your approach sparked this discussion.


Hate to point out the obvious...but your point re paying rent being central was covered off in the subsequent comparison. You only raised "intangibles" in later posts. Time travel is not yet a thing. It's there in black and white (and quoted, previously).

Hope that helps.

Hi Rick,

I believe readers now have quite sufficient information from each of us to make up their minds about the matter, so now conclude the discussion.

In any case, I’m reminded of the time-honoured wisdom.......

“Arguing with a fool only makes you look like one.”


+1 for for Rick. Hindsight investing isn't a thing.

And once you buy, you have to pay interest on the mortgage, rates and maintenance. Which is more expensive is situational - in Christchurch I found owning more expensive in cashflow terms, but cheaper once you account for the principal payments. In Auckland, I suspect it's more expensive to own even ignoring principal payments. The real benefits kick in years down the line once rents have risen and your mortgage payments have not. If you're able to sit back, increase your deposit and watch prices fall, this will come even sooner.

I wonder why "Ten dollar" Tauranga house prices are still rising? The local wages are minuscule but the comparable house prices in areas like Pukehina, Papamoa and Matua are now higher than in most of Auckland? How long can this madness continue?


DGM nonsense. These are just oscillations. It's unpossible to lose with property. Ron Con Fong assures me that my slum hut will double every seven years.

** Ramble ramble ** Something about how house prices have doubled over the past 10 years so these "small drops" are just reversing glorious gains. Many vendors will be extremely happy with the gifts the housing market God has given them over the years, shes a resilient beast.

Masterton still looks good!

Eyes open or closed ?

Oh you mean the increase, I thought you were referring to the visual feast.

I agree! We were extremely lucky with our purchase.

You make your own luck NZ Dan, you made the decision to buy and which house you bought, well done!

Happy with my purchase in Palmerston North 2 years ago.

Hi frazz,

If ever there was a soft-landing, this is it.

Yes - good old Palmy North has been performing strongly (as I predicted).

Wellington and Auckland remain well-placed for the future.

In the meantime, strengthening rental yields are keeping most landlords/investors content.



Straight out of the 'Ya can't Lose With Property!' textbook

Auckland and Wellington remain well placed to return to historical norms.

Historical norms? You mean the same pattern that has recurred for the past 40 years? I agree.

DD, sure, including price to income ratios, and not 40 years, hundreds of years (worldwide). Our market is a historical outlier right now in terms of its inflated values, that’s internationally well documented and recognised. It will adjust (correct if you prefer that term).

"Those who do not learn the lessons from history are doomed to repeat them"

Interesting to see the different historical data points regarding the Auckland house price discussion, that people choose to believe and focus on, that lead to contrasting conclusions about future house prices in Auckland.

1) historical house price gains over the past 40-50 years
2) historical house price to income ratios

Some learn the correct lessons from history, some learn the incorrect lessons from history.

The belief of one of the above has also contributed to how property prices in Auckland have reached current price levels.

I think both data you refer to above 1) & 2) are consistent with each other and not opposite, they both show a clear increasing trend over the last 40 - 50 years

In terms of house price to income ratios, my view is much the same. I don't think the long term trend is going to drastically change. Upward pressure on incomes could have an impact, so an improving ratio does not necessarily mean falling house prices.

DD, your “long term” trend is simply not long enough. What we are going through is an anomaly historically. Our unsustainably high national private debt levels in Australia and NZ are Important too. Housing values are high and so are our debt levels. It’s the debt that will cause the problems as prices correct. Incomes would have to rise a lot in a short time, and prices remain relatively flat, to give us a soft landing. Incomes won’t rise much because our current economic model of the past 40 years or so has been driving down incomes in the West. Roger Douglas et al wanted a lower wage economy and we have it. It’s been great for the entrepreneurial and the already wealthy. It has also driven asset bubbles and busts.

You say “what we are going through is an anomaly historically” I.e “this time is different”.

1978 is the furthest back I could find in a graph. Would be good to see back to 1970, this is plenty long enough for me.

DD, go much further back. I can recommend a very readable book: Devil Take The Hindmost: A History of Financial Speculation, which looks worldwide going back before tulip mania and ends with the Japan housing bubble. What we are going through has happened over and over and over. It often takes decades to build, boom and then bust.

How much further back? & I’m keen to see the data.

You are correct that what we are going through has happened over and over - this is exactly what I am saying. Each cycle typically takes 10 years to run its course.

DD, look outside NZ, we’re not different! Please excuse the Wikipedia link (but other articles are linked from there), but check out the similarities in the recent Spanish property bubble: it talks about starting from the 1980s, silimar growth path to NZ, high construction activity at the end, leading to construction industry difficulty, double digit growth near the end, high household debt... it’s all there imo.

So you're saying this time is different in terms of NZ's historic record, and we are the same as Spain? Ireland too I guess? How about Timbuktu?

I’m saying it’ll be ok in the long run but we’re shaping up for a major correction in NZ, as our situation is currently similar to other corrections elsewhere in the world. Australia and Canada look to be in similar situations post-GFC. Flooded the market with incentives and cheap credit, now we have bubbles.

It's important to understand what was going on during that 40 year timeline to make it unlike anything before. First the inflation of the late 70's/early 80's makes it appear that prices were rising (but in real terms they were being matched by rising wages). Since then the only thing that has been supporting prices growing significantly faster than inflation/incomes is debt. Since the banks were deregulated our Household Debt to income ratio increased from around 45% to 160% and debt to GDP went from 30% to around 95%.

How long can debt continue to be increased as a ratio of incomes/GDP?

When you consider a very high number of the worse major economic crises (Great Depression, Great Recession, Japan early 90's) have been caused by excessive private debt in various forms. Then you look at the fact worldwide private debt to GDP ratios are at record levels and it does make you wonder how long it can go on.

This point is vital.

The whole 'property doubles every 10 years' thing is a complete lie when you look at real prices, v nominal prices.

In the two most recent cycles ( (leading up to the GFC, and this one), real prices did double. However in no other cycle prior did houses double when looked at in real terms.

Due Diligence,

"In terms of house price to income ratios, my view is much the same. I don't think the long term trend is going to drastically change"

Just checking that I understand you correctly.

The chart shows the house price to income ratio of about 3 in 1978.
The house price to income ratio in Auckland currently is about 9, so the house price to income ratio in Auckland has basically tripled in 41 years since 1978.

So in another 41 years from today (i.e. 2060), the house price to income ratio in Auckland could triple again? That would mean going from 9 currently to 27?

Not sure, but I don't think it is going to revert to the historic mean or global average. I'm not making any predictions about house price to income ratios. Who knows what is going to happen to incomes.

I lived in London for a while. Over there an "average house" is a modest 3 bed terraced unit located not that close to the city center. If you want an average Auckland house (stand alone 4 bed with a yard) located in London, I wouldn't be surprised if it'll cost you something like 27 times median income today. I think this will be the scenario in Auckland come 2060.

I'm guessing you haven't done the math on that one.

Lets say after tax income for a household is $110,000. A property at 27 times income cost $2.97 million. It would take 13 years to save a 10% deposit if you could save 40% of your after tax income (unlikely). Lets say rates are 3.5% on a 40 year term .... it would take 100% of your income to service the loan. Lets say you can get a 1% mortgage and use 40% of your income to pay the loan ... it would take a mere 78 years to repay.

Doesn't sound that reasonable.

Again, you chime in with a comment that proves nothing but the fact that you’ve entirely missed the point. The type of person that lives in a 4 bedroom stand alone house with a yard in London is earning many times the average income. The average person is living in a small terraced unit that costs much less than 27x income. I didn’t say the average house would be 27x income in Auckland - the type of house considered “average” in Auckland in the future will be much more like what is currently considered average in London.

In London I have bought a property on 3 * income and I definitely do not make millions.

Are you referring to the houses billionaire Russian oligarchs buy????

You can get something like this for £1M in London - . Not that different from your average Auckland house - 3 bedrooms with a yard, nice but not fancy. This is more than 27 times average household income in the UK. This may be the average house in Auckland, but it is not the average house in the UK. The average house in the UK is a terraced unit.

If this site is correct, the average household income is around £33,500

...get a room you two and spare us the love fest.

Isn't it better than all the bickering that's going on, on this site?

Speaking of "daily gyrations"...

(a few comments down from here)

And that's all that matters, good on you frazz



Auckland is interesting,
supply is not keeping up with growth
so is it lack of credit growth? no
is it rising interest rates? no
is it lack of overseas buyers?
is it lack of flippers out for quick CG?
now demand is reduced and you can see that by sales, we are starting to see prices slip back towards the fundamentals
price paid = credit available + interest rate + local wage ability to fund purchase

Sharetrader, see the post from yesterday about sales. In Auckland sales at the top AND bottom ends are falling. Supply is more than keeping up with demand and growth, and I think the acute shortage is false. We’re building too many apartments I’d say, like Sydney did. This is starting to show in the data. Lack of overseas buyers is starting to show as well, which I’m sure was far higher than the guesstimate figures.

Exactly the foreign buyers numbers only included offshore foreign buyers. It completely ignored foreign student buyers and foreign temp workers. Also excluded foreigners buying under a company or trust.

Well done Labour for stopping that circus and giving new zealand citizens a chance by taking out the global demand.

Our area dropped 0.1 percent last 3 months, up nearly 5 percent over 12 months. Official figures. Who can complain at that certainly not me although share investors might scoff. Only 5 percent .... but their daily gyrations would do my head in.

"but their daily gyrations would do my head in."

The daily price gyrations witnessed by the general public in the sharemarket leads them to conclude that they are risky. The general public is aware that market prices can fall by a large percentage and hence are more wary investing in the sharemarket than investing in residential real estate.

On the other hand, the lack of price gyrations of house prices (with an upward bias) makes many property owners comfortable with owning residential real estate. (& they do so with high amounts of leverage - some have LVR's of 80-90%). The lack of large downward house price gyrations, leads many property owners to believe that they cannot fall by much. As a result, many highly leveraged property owners can be caught out if property prices unexpectedly fall significantly as can be seen in Ireland 2008/ 2009, US in 2008/2009.

It's always interesting when people see high liquidity and transparent pricing as a negative.

Cmon CN your sharemarket bias is obvious. The property examples you cite are from 10 plus years ago. Here is just one sharemarket warning and its March this year.
"Don't Be Fooled By The Latest Stock Market Rally"

I have picked you up before on your out of date references.


Thank you for the article on the sharemarket warning.

"The property examples you cite are from 10 plus years ago"
"I have picked you up before on your out of date references."

1) Some people may consider those examples out of date and irrelevant, and ignore the historical example.
2) Some others may consider those examples relevant and choose to learn from those examples in order to avoid repeating them in the future. As the investment adage goes "Those who fail to learn to the lessons from history are doomed to repeat them".

People are free to choose which of the two approaches they wish to take. The approach to learn vicariously is much more effective, time efficient and least costly than having to learn those same lessons firsthand.

For example, some people who have ignored or are unaware of the lessons of the property example from 10 years ago, may choose to take on a large amount of debt (relative to their cashflow and debt servicing ability) to purchase their owner-occupied house and / or investment property portfolio. Some may have maximised their borrowings to maximum allowable levels using equity release and deposit recycling techniques - that makes them potentially more financially vulnerable in the event of unexpected circumstances. Then they might experience the same financial difficulties as that in the property example. The guy who went bankrupt in the example did not learn the lessons from people before him who went bankrupt, so he repeated the process himself. He would have saved himself a lot of time and money if he had learned the same lesson from someone else's experience, rather than having to have experienced firsthand and lost all of his equity that likely took many years to save - now he has to start from zero again with less time in life, and it will take many more years of savings to recoup that lost equity (if ever).

"to finish first, you must first finish"

Reminds me of another quote from somewhere - “Learn from others. No one has enough time in life to make all the mistakes themselves and to then become successful"

I disagree cn your quotes are excellent though so you got a like from me :)


Looks promising. It's still a very orderly retreat in Auckland. It'll be interesting to see what Spring brings.

Spring figures will be down compared to 12 months ago but up on now (3 months ago) which is not a fair measurement (spring vs winter) just like looking at today's 3 month's comparison is not fair (winter vs autumn).
The only true measure is the 12 month's comparison

It's rather perplexing that this seems to be true. After all, houses really shouldn't be worth more (or less) in winter.

Is it not to do with the fact that people who sell in Winter tend to be doing it in a rush/for reasons outside their control? Because if you had a choice, you would always want to sell in Summer, simply because it makes the property seem nicer (and sun can help mask any water related issues with the property).

At least that was my assumption.

Yeah. Harder to sell at a higher price if your house is clearly damp in winter. Perhaps easier in summer.

Sure, but it seems like people should have worked this out and adjusted accordingly.

I guess the transaction costs are too high to make buying in winter and selling in summer a viable strategy to exploit the difference.

Replying to Yvil:
Yes it's obvious, a basic assumption even, that seasonality is important and thus YoY comparisons are crucial. My post did not mean to imply otherwise. What I'm interested in is whether the YoY delta is widening. Will Auckland be more than 2.6% down in Spring, and if so how much more?

I closely track the YoY delta for Auckland HPI, but not for the Auckland QV average. A quick search shows the QV Average was down 1.5% in March, 1.5% in April, 2.1% in May, and 2.7% in June. Looks like we're currently consolidated around the 2.6/2.7% down level. It'll be interesting to see what Spring brings :-)


House supply increasing, demand crashing , global economic conditions worsening = massive house price falls to follow

Even granny Herald confirms the SLIDE


So FACT - Auckland is a weak and falling market.
NOT a flat market.

Indeed, Auckland has fallen 2.4% to be factual

If the fall in Auckland only amounts to 2.4%, them it’s a measly fall.

In fact, it’s minuscule compared with the magnitude of the last upswing.


Correct, IF the fall was only 2.4% then sure, no big deal.

However I think most people here are seeing this as the start of a Canada/Aus/London type fall, which would be a long way from measly...

Newshub Headline that house price value in region up.....

Data are interpreted to suit vested outcome.

yes they are up.
But many of us are most interested in Auckland. Either because we live here, or because where Auckland goes, the rest usually follows

Major city always lead and in NZ - Auckland is the biggest city.


If *average* values are down, and as we know the top end is tanking, then we can expect HPI will paint a very gloomy picture for some people.

Anyone who wanted to sell their $1.5m Mcmansion in the last 6 months will have taken quite a hit, and some buyers will have got a bargain (or what looks like it today - in a year maybe it won't). This will push HPI lower. No wonder there's a focus on average.

I wouldn't touch this market with a sh*tty stick.


Exactly as, well, anyone at all who looks at past bubbles could predict. A leading urban market's rises and falls lag further out. Auckland (lag) Wellington (lag) Rest of the country. Same on the way down as on the way up. You see exactly the same dynamic in Aus: Syd (lag) Melb (lag) Rest of country. Or Canada: Vancouver (lag) Toronto (lag) Rest of country.
To reiterate: same on the way down as the way up. The Auckland price declines will apply everywhere. And when the prices start to go up again, however long that may take, it will begin in Auckland.

Yes, it’s quite a drop on the North Shore in Auckland for the past 12 months. If it keeps going, we can expect it to spread. As you say, the last to rise will be the last to start falling, as happened across the Tasman. There’s been a 15% average fall in Sydney and 20% in Perth so far (and much more in certain suburbs of each). Would not be surprised at all to see similar in Auckland, over years not months.

When on a glide slope you sacrifice altitude for forward motion. Lets see what headwinds like hard brexit and escalating trade war bring over the next twelve months. Picking ugly with a side of really ugly.

Hmm so the ponzi is failing. 20 years of out of control immigration and overseas "money" has pushed prices beyond the fundamentals of the local market. 20 years of chasing free and easy money. No new entrants and not enough new credit.

OCR cuts are merely an attempt to alleviate the debt burden. Economic growth was done and dusted at the last tech boom. There is no new or more productivity. Corporations demanding more productivity from the serfs while they focus on share buybacks and bonuses.

Campbells Soup sells Arnotts to KKR to lower debt levels, while we sell homes to each other.

Remove all the debt and then show me the "money". It's just a crazy merry go round of numbers.


We've basically had a repeat of the 2000 to 2006 asset prices expansion cycle. Interst rates going from 8.5% in 2000 down to about half that now with ossscilations in between. Fueled by the banks, speculative international capital and immigration. To me there seems to a huge problem of affordability. Large swaths of society can't afford to buy a house and must rent or live somewhere cheaper. For fundamental reasons this is bad news for the economy. Where are the next generation of buyers comming from? Household formation is an important economic driver. Locking too much of society out from this opportunity is bad news long term.
Neoliberalism left it all up to the market. In a world of free movement of capital, goods and people what happened what a speculative betrayal of social contracts for windfall gains.

In a world of free movement of capital, goods and people what happened what a speculative betrayal of social contracts for windfall gains.

Indeed, the combination of pulling the ladder out from the younger generations whilst still expecting them to fund the lifestyle of the older generations does not sit well.

Did anyone even bother to look at the numbers in the table above ? The drops are still insignificant in Auckland, even the worst of them and thats before you see the rest of the country is still climbing.I'm starting to see things in the market like "Deadline Sale" but still no crash in the market as yet.

For sure there's no crash yet, but there's a definite trend downwards. E.g. back in March/April Auckland average was down 1.5% YoY, now it's down 2.6% YoY. Let's see what it is in Oct/Nov...

Nobody seems to add inflation onto the falls either. Add a further 2% approx per year to the declines.

Hi Carlos,

The DGM know very well that Auckland’s price drops are minuscule - especially when compared with the price rises in the previous upswing..........

But, as we are aware, few (if any) of them have the ethical backbone to acknowledge this.


No one is arguing that the current falls are big cheese. We are arguing that they are the start of much larger falls.

Your argument is like somone on the deck of a ship that has just hit a rock, tearing a gapping hole in the side, causing water to start to pour in.

"But look, hardly any water has got in since we hit the rock"...

Hi Milkyone,

The DGM have been pronouncing that we are about to experience large falls in house prices for well over a decade.......

The issue is that these imminent large falls have never transpired.


Therefore they never will happen, it's that simple!

Only have to be right once...

Even Granny herald is starting to ring the alarm bells... (article today)

"Auckland house prices are undeniably on the slide with concerns first-home buyers are now also retreating from the market.

The news comes on top of falls in the number of luxury houses for sale and new data that shows consistent property price falls across the market over the past 18 months.

The city's median house price hit $825,000 in July, according to data released today by analysts OneRoof-Valocity."

More importantly though I'm seeing a ton of stock where prices are being slashed to try and sell it.

29 Ridings in Remuera is a nice example. Price slashed 500k to $2.495mm. DGZ and a nice old cottage, decent sized land. No bid.

29 Ridings Rd is an interesting one. Nice spot, but I suspect (not entirely sure) it might be some sort of historic building with additional restrictions on how it can be developed.
Overall I agree that there are more fixed prices appearing which is a really good thing for buyers.

RMB is devalued so it's more expensive to buy now.. just added to the mix

It's very interesting that they're now starting to moan about the lack of first home buyers. Who's going to take on the debt load if there aren't new people to buy in?

I would be an FHB but the prices are insane. Have actually managed to save a deposit on my own steam. But it was too hard won to waste using it to bolster the boomers retirement scam or investors money printing trees. Just going to wait for the bubble to properly deflate. May take another couple of years, in the meantime I'm holding some pretty good cards, and they're only getting better.

With foreign investors gone, it's not likely to be a good investment for a decade, but I need space for my hobbies and side business.

For those who do have time on their side...
"Darwin and Perth have experienced vicious housing downturns of 39.9% (Darwin) and 36.3% (Perth), with Darwin’s running for nine years and Perth’s 12.5 years"
...and for those who see Auckland having a 'soft landing' did Perth and Darwin a few years back! Soft landings are 'the worst'. They go on, and on, and on....people hang on and on and on..until, lo and behold...the change in value has stacked up to 40%! Much better (financially, not socially) to have a quick nasty collapse - at least there's a better 'bottom' to have the confidence to buy off.


Are those nominal prices or inflation adjusted prices?

If they're inflation adjusted prices, do you have the nominal price falls?

Agree. I am terrified of a long term, slow decline.

Indeed. Serious question, why is Brissy so much more for your money than Awk?

Easier to build here and Councils opened up new areas regularly.. Plus CGT and FB restrictions on existing properties

The Remuera one looks like another cold-as dog box.