Auction numbers remain low but 51% sales rate at Barfoot % Thompson's latest auctions

Property

The sales rate was around 50% at all of Barfoot & Thompson's main auctions last week

17th Sep 19, 9:51am by Greg Ninness

Barfoot & Thomson achieved sales on half the properties it marketed for sale by auction last week, although the total number of properties being auctioned remains low.

The real estate agency, which is the biggest in Auckland, marketed 81 residential properties for sale by auction last week and achieved sales on 41 of them. That gives an overall sales rate of 51%.

Of the 41 properties that sold, 33 sold under the hammer, five sold prior to their auction and three sold immediately after their auctions.

The notably higher sales rates was evident throughout Barfoot's auction rooms with all of the major auctions achieving sales rates in the 45% to 56% range.

The only outliers were three smaller auctions where just one or two properties were offered and the sales rates were either none sold or 100% sold (see table below).

So although there wasn't a lot to choose from last week, buyers were out and about and were prepared to bid if they found a property that suited them.

The comment stream on this story is now closed.

Barfoot & Thompson Residential Auction Results 9-15 September 2019
Date	Venue	Sold	Sold Prior	Sold Post	Not sold	Postponed	Withdrawn	Total	% Sold
9-15 Sept	On-site	2						2	100%
10 Sept	Manukau	5	1	3	8		3	20	45%
10 Sept	Shortland St	4			3	1		8	50%
11 Sept	Shortland St	13			12	1		26	50%
11 Sept	Pukekohe	2			2			4	50%
12 Sept	North Shore	6	4		6	1	1	18	56%
12 Sept	Shortland St				2			2	0
13 Sept	Shortland St	1						1	100%
Total	All venues	33	5	3	33	3	4	81	51%

You can receive all of our property articles automatically by subscribing to our free email Property Newsletter. This will deliver all of our property-related articles, including auction results and interest rate updates, directly to your in-box 3-5 times a week. We don't share your details with third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time. To subscribe just click on this link, scroll down to "Property email newsletter" and enter your email address

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.

71 Comments

by theglc | 17th Sep 19, 10:05am 1568671500

copy and paste comments from last week....... now

by HeavyG | 17th Sep 19, 10:06am 1568671616

No comments would be even better!

by Pragmatist | 17th Sep 19, 11:43am 1568677426

Lead by example :)

by northman46 | 17th Sep 19, 10:22am 1568672567

"This proves everything is stable and there is a Spring bounce!" or "This proves everything is terrible and estate agents must be starving to death!"

Commence the 120 comment argument.

by Good Samaritian | 17th Sep 19, 12:59pm 1568681947

Havent heard anything from Yvil yet?

Maybe he cant pay his power bill anymore, now that his commission has dried up!

by CJ099 | 18th Sep 19, 8:51am 1568753519

Umm.. Yes not even TTP either? Looking at the auction sales and price figures there's not much to crow about in the results.

by Milkyone | 17th Sep 19, 12:07pm 1568678872

These articles, and the comments, do feel a bit 'Groundhog Day"-ish don't they?...

by GGP | 17th Sep 19, 10:16am 1568672163

The article doesn't compare CVs to sales prices this time for some reason. I went ahead and looked through the first page and calculated it myself, out of interest. I looked only at the Barfoot and Thompson sales for Auckland, and only the first page of results, to be clear.

There were a total of 21 properties where the comparison could be made. 6 sold above CV. One sold for exactly CV. The other 14 sold for below CV. In percentages, 66% went below CV, while 28.6% sold above CV.

In total, CVs were $779,500 higher than sales prices, averaging out to a difference of about $37,000 per property.

Must have been another rainy week.

by BadRobot | 17th Sep 19, 10:21am 1568672475

Nah, just wait for the narrative revision for this who find it inconvenient......

by CourtJester | 17th Sep 19, 11:00am 1568674852

Or just the usual "Vendors ready to meet the market can sell at a good price! It's a great time to buy!"

by Dgm | 17th Sep 19, 10:39am 1568673571

"Must have been another rainy week"

You reckon its rain or tears???

by alittle | 17th Sep 19, 1:05pm 1568682307

Data can be presented to suit one's vested interest.

by GGP | 17th Sep 19, 1:09pm 1568682586

Assuming that's not a non-sequitur and you're criticising how I presented the data, how would you do it?

by Kezza R | 17th Sep 19, 3:42pm 1568691745

No slight on the artical. Thinking that what people are looking at is properties sold above / at / below CV's.
There's a comment above that works it out to be 60% plus below CV sold. The last couple of weeks have worked out to be 50/50 so we are seeing a plus 10% slip in prices.
It would be interesting to do a comparison over the years as it wasn't that long ago that not many if any sold below..

by GGP | 17th Sep 19, 3:53pm 1568692388

You might be responding to the wrong person? The "comment above that works it out to be 60% plus below CV sold" you're talking about is mine.

by Kezza R | 17th Sep 19, 5:17pm 1568697472

Replying to GGP. He was asking about what he could do with the artical.
66% below is a shocker, 50/50 the last while.
The headlines should be 'Sellers lower expectations 66% sold lower than CV!!!'
That's a 16% increase since last week......

by VeryInterested | 17th Sep 19, 10:26am 1568672790

Have noticed in my area - Auckland Eastern Suburbs - an increase in properties for sale in the $2m plus price range. Out of roughly 30 new listing all are in this price range with the exception of a couple of 2 bed units. There is a fairly even spread those going to auction and those not with 1 tender thrown in where the owner purchased in 2017. Will be interesting to see what happens over the next month.

Also a question for any agents out there.... why are people selling? Upsizing, downsizing, moving out of Auckland/Overseas

by Chairman Moa | 17th Sep 19, 11:13am 1568675591

Why people moving overseas?
Because for 1.1 mil I can get this massive home in Aust where as for the same price I'd be lucky to get a 3br unit in Ponsonby. Btw this home is about 4-5 km from the CBD!
https://www.domain.com.au/61-gower-street-toowong-qld-4066-2015526232

by Dgm | 17th Sep 19, 11:11am 1568675519

forgot the link :)

by GGP | 17th Sep 19, 11:13am 1568675583

The cheapest unit 3br unit in Ponsonby is like 1.5 million. Maybe not the best suburb example.

by Iceman | 17th Sep 19, 11:52am 1568677935

@chairman Moa - Did you just really make that comparison? Auckland is NZ's largest city. If you want to compare it to Aus, compare it to Sydney. Can you find anything similar close to the city in Sydney for 1.1m? I don't think so. Brisbane is probably more comparable with Wellington or maybe even CHC.

by Chairman Moa | 17th Sep 19, 12:07pm 1568678831

@Iceman, Auckland population is even less than Brisbane. it's only marginally larger than Adelaide. Compare to Sydney, Auckland would be like a hick town! (Sydney 4.67 millions, Melbourne 4.9 mil, Brisbane 2.28 mil, Auckland 1.65 mil, Adelaide 1.32 mil)
Btw, have you spent much time in Sydney or Melbourne? I lived in both Auckland and Sydney.

by Iceman | 17th Sep 19, 3:04pm 1568689470

@chairman Moa, it's not about the population, it's about the jobs and opportunities. I have lived in Melbourne and been to Sydney a few times. Sydney is the financial capital of Aus, while Auckland is that of NZ. Comparing population is irrelevant if you are talking about house prices in inner city suburbs. They are not fair comparisons.

by Fritz | 17th Sep 19, 3:14pm 1568690081

I think the truth is actually in between.
Iceman's points about Auckland's 'Financial centre' status are relevant, but so are Moa's comments about Auckland's smaller population.
So maybe Auckland prices should be halfway between Sydney and Brisbane.

by Chairman Moa | 17th Sep 19, 5:43pm 1568699036

@Iceman "it's about the jobs and opportunities". Interestingly in our department, we have 3 new kiwis from Auckland this month; one IT Security Analyst; one BA and one Cloud Network Engineer. All said they couldn't find any suitable jobs in Auckland!
Already we have at least a dozen of kiwis working here.

by CJ099 | 18th Sep 19, 8:46am 1568753218

Yes I would agree with you on there not being suitable IT jobs in Auckland. That's mostly due to a lot of IT companies folding or having to relocate to Wellington because they can't afford to operate in Auckland. Put simply the cost of living is far too high in Auckland for most legitimate businesses to thrive.

by RickStrauss | 18th Sep 19, 9:14am 1568754856

I've seen quite a few senior IT folk leave Auckland. Generally because they wanted to get away from the housing situation in Auckland and simply build a good life with their family.

by swapacrate | 17th Sep 19, 8:10pm 1568707836

Isn't it comparable to where you can get jobs, economy etc by that logic iceman we would compare Auckland to London, New York, Paris. Little old NZ on the other side of the world with equivalent house prices to these cities.

To me NZ is no economic powerhouse, at least Brisbane has the Australian market as well. Auckland has Hamilton, Whangarei huge powerhouses of economic activity.

by Dgm | 17th Sep 19, 12:21pm 1568679700

Measured internationally, Auckland’s performance is relatively poor: it is ranked 69th out of 85 metro regions in the OECD in terms of GDP per capita” – and notes it has a 40 per cent lower GDP per capita than Sydney and Melbourne.

by Kezza R | 17th Sep 19, 3:46pm 1568692007

Lots of people relocating out of Alk and Wellington as well.
Dunners going off... house down the road expected to go sell in the early $700's just sold on auction for $820 plus.
You guessed it Alk buyer.

by CJ099 | 18th Sep 19, 8:38am 1568752739

Wages are actually higher in Wellington then they are in Auckland. And a lot of business folded in Auckland (Particularly in IT) or had to relocate to Wellington simply due to the cost of living having been driven up due to foreign buying which sent rent and property prices sky high.

by Chairman Moa | 17th Sep 19, 10:34am 1568673276

No negative comments please as strictly instructed by The Man 2. And don't forget to buy in CHCH!

by CourtJester | 17th Sep 19, 11:05am 1568675101

But... but I was just about to buy in Palmerston North, the City of the Future. I'm so confused!

by Chairman Moa | 17th Sep 19, 11:12am 1568675542

Believe me, I lived there before! The only future for Palmy north is Kmart and Hokowhitu Lagoon, it's getting greener with algies.

by THE MAN 2 | 17th Sep 19, 7:04pm 1568703852

ChCh is the adrenaline capital of Nz
Be in quick

by Chairman Moa | 17th Sep 19, 8:38pm 1568709505

100%, nothing beats the adrenaline of being chased by a pack of skinheads..

by THE MAN 2 | 18th Sep 19, 12:13am 1568722431

Seriously Chairman , your phoebia around skinheads is unbelievable.
You obviously have had a bad experience but we have never even seen them to any degree, especially in the last 10 years.
The coalition government is a helluva worse outcome for NZ than some people with short hair.

by Chairman Moa | 17th Sep 19, 11:11pm 1568718713

Perhaps you should get out more..

by Houseworks | 18th Sep 19, 7:08am 1568747328

What is the fascination with christchurch skinheads here on interest? The terror attack was committed by an Australian so do we ban all Australians because of one person?

by GGP | 18th Sep 19, 8:14am 1568751251

It's banter.

by Houseworks | 18th Sep 19, 11:09am 1568761766

Great comment ggp. Now build a bridge and get over it

by GGP | 18th Sep 19, 11:26am 1568762807

I think it's a pretty succinct and accurate answer to your question. It clearly is banter - Chairman Moa says it all the time to get under The Man's skin, and it somehow works every single time. Seems to work on you, too?

by Houseworks | 18th Sep 19, 11:36am 1568763388

No it doesnt, you just looking weird

by Chairman Moa | 18th Sep 19, 12:58pm 1568768336

Countdown's special for this week is Blackmores brand vitamin to boost your sense of humour, 60 tablets for $9.95.

by THE MAN 2 | 18th Sep 19, 7:46am 1568749569

Chairman, I do get out and about heaps in ChCh and never see skinheads anywhere.
They were around 10 years ago but nothing of any note since.
We are in Europe at the moment and I can confirm that London etc. is where the problems are, not ChCh.

by Houseworks | 18th Sep 19, 11:11am 1568761868

What's the feeling there in england about boris and brexit

by Averageman | 17th Sep 19, 11:10am 1568675431

Lower for longer...lower sales, interest rates, bank profits, bank bonuses, overseas laundering, immigration, and Govt funded large capital projects. All adds up to winning on debt farming.

by Dgm | 17th Sep 19, 11:11am 1568675470

Add to the ALREADY SLUGGISH market, the implications of the Saudi oil attack.. may need a new title.. Sluggish and Murky market...

by Ocelot | 17th Sep 19, 11:22am 1568676143

Meh, it's still 10% down on April prices. Wake me up at $100 a barrel.

by Dgm | 17th Sep 19, 11:51am 1568677891

im not referring to just oil prices as a result of the attack, more on what lies ahead in terms of geo political risks...

there is now more evidence that Iran was behind the attack...

by Voiceofreason | 17th Sep 19, 12:56pm 1568681812

After the Iraq WMD intelligence rubbish, that they waged war over, can we believe whatever they say about who is to blame? In any case, there are powerful people in the US govt who want to attack Iran militarily, so that is a real risk.

by Fritz | 17th Sep 19, 2:39pm 1568687951

I presume the Russkies would jump in if the yanks attacked Iran? That must be a bit of a deterrent because things could then get really bad.
I just don't think the benefits of an attack can outweigh the costs. Hopefully there's the odd rational person advising Trump...and he did just sack an Iran hawk.
Iran are being cunning, they know this. They know the USA could only possibly justify an attack if Iran's own attack was much more substantial.

by Kezza R | 17th Sep 19, 3:51pm 1568692289

$100 a barrel would crumble the Alk property market. 50c increase with all the driving and no wage increase would ba a killer. Plus the increased costs of food / services... it would sink NZ into recession..

by Fritz | 17th Sep 19, 6:30pm 1568701834

absolutely, would be a killer.
I don't think it will happen, fortunately.
The USA will only attack Iran if they have a more compelling reason to do so.
So we would need sustained or larger attacks from Iran. Then all bets are off.

by mikekirk29 | 17th Sep 19, 7:28pm 1568705288

USA does not need to attack Iran.
Saudi will do that (and lose)
America provoked Japan into Pearl Harbour by economic strangulation. They learn nothing

by Voiceofreason | 17th Sep 19, 11:32am 1568676756

We need overall sales numbers, not samey auction numbers. The most important thing will be how fast and many of all the new builds are selling, so we can tell if the much tauted shortage is legit.

by Kezza R | 17th Sep 19, 6:45pm 1568702706

A plus / minus on sale price v CV.

by CN | 17th Sep 19, 12:35pm 1568680506

Greg

Is this data series still being updated? The data is very useful. The most recent data is June 2018 - about 15 months ago.

https://www.interest.co.nz/Charts/Real%20estate/House-price-to-income

by Voiceofreason | 17th Sep 19, 12:53pm 1568681582

An update on that would be great.

by Nzdan | 17th Sep 19, 1:27pm 1568683657

I recall David Chaston commented on here in the last 6 - 12 months to disregard House Price to Income stats, because it's mortgage serviceability that's important.

by Voiceofreason | 17th Sep 19, 5:41pm 1568698880

Oh yes, ignore the glaring number that spells trouble and insist that it’s only current serviceability that matters - a new normal, a new paradigm etc.

by BigDaddy | 17th Sep 19, 3:32pm 1568691122

It can be noted that on Trademe currently there only 12,000 houses, units, flats and town houses for sale which is only a third of the number for sale 12 months ago. You would think, if demand was there because of the "housing crisis", that they would all be snapped up, but yet sale data shows that only half the listed properties sell at auction. It shows that there is no housing crisis at all, except for the relatively small number of homeless people who will always be with us. It also shows that only a very small number of people really have to sell or buy, and would stay where they are or rent. But renting is a double edged sword since the Government declared war on investors by piling on one draconian regulation and expense after the other onto the rental investors. The next "Housing Crisis" is in sight. A drastic shortage of rentals and ever increasing rents followed by even more regulations. Anyone contemplating being a landlord of residential property should be immediately committed to the appropriate facility.

by GGP | 17th Sep 19, 3:40pm 1568691658

There will only be a (greater) shortage of rentals if existing landlords not only leave the business of renting but burn their investment properties down on their way out. Their actual options are to sell to another investor, or to sell to an owner occupier. Either way, at least in theory, it keeps the balance of rental supply vs demand exactly the same.

by CN | 18th Sep 19, 10:05am 1568757907

"There will only be a (greater) shortage of rentals if existing landlords not only leave the business of renting but burn their investment properties down on their way out. Their actual options are to sell to another investor, or to sell to an owner occupier."

By my calculations, based on the FY2016/2017 tax filers, about 22% of privately owned non owner occupied residential property were claiming tax losses. The number of negative cashflow non owner occupier residential property owners is likely to be higher if you allow for those that are profitable and on P&I, and the principal payments result in negative cashflow.

If these owners choose to sell (especially capital gain oriented owners in the absence of capital gain in Auckland, or due to increased debt payments from going from an interest only mortgage to a P&I mortgage), there may not be active buyers (either owner occupiers or investors) at current market price levels. If the owners need to sell, owners may need to lower their price to attract active buyers if they need to sell.

by GGP | 18th Sep 19, 10:03am 1568757783

Agreed. Because of that, the logic is that there is more reason to expect a reduction in house prices than any change in rental costs. (And then if purchase price goes down while rental costs stay the same, the rental yield should go up until we reach an equilibrium where investors are interested again).

by Pragmatist | 17th Sep 19, 4:35pm 1568694955

You would think, if demand was there because of the "housing crisis", that they would all be snapped up, but yet sale data shows that only half the listed properties sell at auction.

The difference is between desire and actual economic demand.. People who can't afford (or aren't willing) to pay the prices being asked don't count as demand, they are mere bystanders.

by Fritz | 17th Sep 19, 5:36pm 1568698566

'People who can't afford (or aren't willing) to pay the prices being asked don't count as demand, they are mere bystanders.'

Exactly. 'Effective' demand

by brisket | 18th Sep 19, 11:48am 1568764117

It's amazing how this is overlooked.
There is *demand* for a house, from me, but given my income I'm irrelevant to the market unless it falls a fair way.

by mikekirk29 | 17th Sep 19, 7:25pm 1568705126

There are, evidently, ALWAYS buyers and sellers.
The point is, there are a LOT fewer than there used to be and it depends on what year you compare to.
The Auckland market is selling almost precisely the same number residentially as it sold in 2017.
That is because the primary driver in both years was a cut in funds coming into the market from abroad.
Meanwhile interest rate cuts have not led to more sales.

In May to August (4 months) 2017, there were 6919 sales.
In same period in 2019 there were 6757. Or 2.76% fewer.
In 2018 there were 7621 in the same 4 months, so 2019 is down 11.2% on that.
In 2006 there were 11,389 sales.
Auckland will continue to drift sideways, all in all, with some parts of it doing better and worse than others.
prices will continue to drop gradually unless there is an economic shock: like a war between Saudi and Iran?

by CN | 17th Sep 19, 8:02pm 1568707357

This is the first article mentioning the potential over-supply of property in Auckland. Note that they are referring to effective supply over effective demand thereby creating a buyers market.

This is very different to underlying supply and underlying demand as calculated by most economists, and property market commentators.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/115747375/high-sales-low-prices-signs-…

by Carlos67 | 18th Sep 19, 5:13pm 1568783618

Spring is here. Open home that's been on the market in our street for like 6 months was mobbed in the weekend and the SOLD sign went up today. Amazing what a difference the time of year makes in selling your property, especially Rural where wet, wet, wet is a real problem.