A strong rise in new listings and a modest lift in sales at Barfoot & Thompson in October

A strong rise in new listings and a modest lift in sales at Barfoot & Thompson in October

Sales at Auckland's largest real estate agency were pretty average last month, with Barfoot & Thompson selling 824 residential properties in October.

That was up 6.9%  from the 771 it sold in September but down 6.8% compared to the 884 it sold in October last year.

However, October's sales were still well ahead of where they were in October 2017 (634) and October 2016 (778).

Prices were largely flat, with Barfoot's average selling price of $939,132 in October up slightly from September's average of $922,863, but barely changed from where it was in October last year.

Looking at the bigger price picture, Barfoot's average selling price has barely moved since October 2016 when it was $943,801 (see chart below).

The median selling price has followed a similar trend, coming in at $845,000 in October, down a tad from $850,000 in September and little changed from the October 2016 median of $865,000.

However, the agency recorded a big jump in new listings, with 1605 in October, up a whopping 33% compared to September but still down 22% compared to October last year.

New listings in October were the lowest they have been in the month of October since 2011.

Stocks levels were also well down, with the agency having 3820 residential properties available for sale at the end of October, down 21% compared to October last year.

Barfoot & Thompson Managing Director Peter Thompson said both buyers and sellers were being increasingly realistic in their price expectations.

"What October's data signals is both vendors and buyers are coming to accept that the market conditions that have prevailed for more than two years now are the new norm, and that there is no big price increases or major price declines on the horizon," he said.

"There is a growing acceptance that today's prices represent where the market is valuing property and that's where it's likely to stay."

The comment stream on this story is now closed.

Barfoot Auckland

Select chart tabs »

The 'average price growth % year on year' chart will be drawn here.
The ' average price' chart will be drawn here.
The ' number sold' chart will be drawn here.
The ' new listings' chart will be drawn here.
The 'Auckland market share' chart will be drawn here.



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.

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.



Look at the spin on this:

"Auckland property market surges: listings jump to set new annual record" (annual meaning for this year)

"In October that changed, with new listings being a third higher than in September, and more than 40 per cent higher than the average for the previous three months.
Committed buyers had returned to the market with sales for the month increasing to 824, up 6.9 per cent on those for the previous month and 3.1 per cent higher than the average for the previous three months."

Beautiful. Shows how much Anne Gibson knows about maths... assuming no vested interest. Listings up 40%, # of sales up 3.1% compared to previous 3 months average. To me that means the existing stock isn't selling.

B&T's report doesn't disclose the actual listing number (strange, they usually do).

So has Anne Gibson just calculated 1,605 based on the percentages provided (appears just grossed up by exactly one third)?
Not a big deal I guess.

Appears that downside pressure is building again.
The fail rate of B&T listings is climbing - 45.5% of listings in the last 12 months ("LTM") have failed to result in a sale.
14,681 listings
9,029 sales.
That's a high fail rate on the lowest LTM listings since B&T started disclosing in 2016 (peak was 20,145 listing in the 12 months to Feb-16)

This LTM fail rate was as low as 31.5% In December 2016 (11,884 sales on 18,567 listings)


Truely unbelievable. This has to be one of the more impressively egregious examples of fake news I've seen in a few weeks.

And you talk to journalists, and they say they cannot figure out why everytone hates them so much, nor why public trust in traditional journalism is falling.

If you're interested, here is the experience in Ireland - role of media during the property boom.


Careering toward outright propaganda, is the Herald at this point. Seemingly a deliberately misleading headline.


The figures are correct. The 2016 figure is included to show how little prices have moved over the last 3-4 years. You can see the monthly movements in Barfoot's average and median prices going back to 2007 in the interactive chart at the bottom of the story.


Yep, found that and deleted the question just before you replied. Thanks.


"Sales at Auckland's largest real estate agency were pretty average last month, with Barfoot & Thompson selling 824 residential properties in October.

That was up 6.9% from the 771 it sold in September"

Ah yes, my bad, I was incorrect there.

I only noticed because I made exactly the same misunderstanding on my first read through.

No sign of a Spring boom some had anticipated

Instead quite a poor October on historical terms

3rd worst October for volumes sold since 2011


Went to an open home yesterday, and turns out it was the real estate agent selling her own rental. Also her only listing according to the company website. Tough times for RE agents.


Went to one yesterday too.
Appalled by the number of misleading statements made by the agent.

- cmat: "Aren't properties selling below CV in this area?"
- REA: "Absolutely incorrect - properties either side have sold above CV"
- cmat: "yes, but one was completely rebuilt and the other comprehensively renovated - so apples & oranges don't you think?"
- REA: (pointing) "that one wasn't renovated"
- cmat: "the listing from your own agency is still online and says, verbatim, "comprehensively renovated""
- REA: "this house is listed for less than CV anyway. Even land value is $X.Xm"
- cmat: "The number you mentioned is $100k more than the actual 'land value' of this property. Also, a property less than 100m away on exactly the same size plot sold for less than 'land value' last month"

The bullshit castle is crumbling.

Talked using your outdoor voice

Agents are always going to spin a certain amount of BS. Some less than others, but ultimately they all work for the vendor.


Ultimately, they all work for themselves.

yep, trying to talk buyers up, and vendors down.. anything to get the two of them to agree on a price so they get a commission.

Well yes but I don't think that's truly awful, bs aside. It's a tough job getting two people to agree when they both have very different ideas of value. If people didn't compromise nobody would ever sell a house.

A "certain amount of BS", sure.
But details in that discussion contravene the REA's rules on marketing & advertising.
Specifically regarding "accurate price range".

So pays to remember that, despite being a BS merchant, there is only so much BS you are allowed to spin.


Sure but those rules are difficult to enforce and, in my experience, do get broken from time to time. Plus, agents suffer from mistakes and wishful thinking just like the rest of us. My strategy is to treat everything they say with caution, and not get too stressed if some of it doesn't align with my view of things.

Meh, I guess you're right.

I've worked as an investment banker - perhaps I just have too high expectations for people marketing and selling assets of value to:
a) Understand their market & concepts of fair value; and
b) To act professionally, accurately and with integrity.

If you expect that from REAs, you're going to be disappointed a lot.

I expect it from everyone I deal with and when I don't get it I'm quite comfortable calling them out on it, sometimes in very embarrassing situations for them.

*Especially* when someone is acting under the pretense of being a "professional".

And *especially* when someone tries to pull the wool on a million dollar decision.

[*Especially* when someone is acting under the pretense of being a "professional"].

Real estate agents are "professional" sales people in an industry where most people have a one time transactional relationship. As a result, their focus is on closing the transaction, and little value is placed on the continuing future relationship. Even less so if the person is the buyer as the real estate agent is paid by the vendor. If the real estate agent expects to deal with you in future for many transactions (e.g property investors), then they will value the relationship, as they can generate potential future revenues.

If sales people have an on-going continuous transactional relationship - then they are more likely to be mindful of that continued relationship with their client, as they realise that if they put that relationship at risk, so is the sales person's future revenues. This includes the world of investment banking when bankers look to generate future potential revenues with that client.

"Even less so if the person is the buyer as the real estate agent is paid by the vendor."

Not necessarily true.
The last house I sold, as vendor, we used the same real estate agent who sold it to us.
And subsequently I have recommended him to 3 friends who have used him.
I'd never heard of or had anything to do with the guy prior to my purchasing experience with him.

Shows what being professional gets you in life.
I was in the business of financing, buying & selling businesses - that's far more 'transactional' than real estate.
Your most important asset is your reputation. 100%.

NZ is too small a market to sh!t on people on the basis of a 'transactional relationship' - some of our friends from, shall we say, "the north" who migrate here forget that.

Thank you for your comment and perspective.

When you mentioned investment bank, thought that perhaps you had previously worked in a global investment bank overseas, where they do a lot of other follow on business. For example, the investment banks may do the IPO, then they may do additional equity capital raisings, then they may also do debt raising in capital markets. Then as a result of the high wealth of the owners, they may also provide private banking services, trust services, etc.

I've worked for a global name here and a boutique name overseas.

In London I was working on deals that were highly transactional (often founders selling pan-European businesses) - Once in a lifetime transactions.
Even still, that was a thin, highly networked market. A deal you do for someone in Zurich could lead to a referral from Stockholm.

Pays to live by the mantra:
The toes you step on today could be connected to the arse you have to kiss tomorrow.

Just out of interest, were you living in Europe when the GFC hit?

No, just after. It wasn't pretty.

heh, nothing unusual about that. My partner made the mistake of asking the agent selling the rental what sort of price feedback they had received. Silly girl... :)

Just saw the ad on the auction we attended yesterday has been updated to price by negotiation, vendor must have held out for more than the $10k increase over what they paid 18months ago that it was passed in at, and they haven't done anything to improve it. Buyers and sellers failing to find a middle ground.

Yep Cmat, sums up REA's quite well. :) Much like funny sketch John Clark (Fred Dagg) Real Estate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbFlstJ4u8E

Real Estate is a very powerfull and Rich lobby so do control the media, so called experts - In NZ - being such a small country/ecenomy can count them on fingers (So called Ecenomist/experts) so more easy to manipulate to build positive sentiment to suit vested RE Lobby.

The only way RE will survive in this market is by playing with the fear of FHB of losing out.

No doubts interest rates are low but the very reason that interest rates are so low is an indication of the shape/condition of the economy - more the reason to think and buy despit low interest rate.

Antibiotics are good but the very reason that someone is taking an antibiotic indicates that something is wrong somewhere and BE AWARE.

About 15% of REAs are rich as you put it.
Certainly media do like to suck up, because they get lots of ad revenue form REAAs and not much form elsewhere.

Went to 4 x open homes over the weekend. All at different price brackets. Lowest CV was by far the busiest. Highest CV the least.

8 Hubert Henderson Place, Remuera, Auckland City, Auckland
1/279 Kepa Road, Mission Bay
71 Reihana Street, Orakei, Auckland City, Auckland

Went to the below one the other weekend. Was a ton of people at it. Agent called and said 89 people had attended.

93 Fancourt Street, Meadowbank­, Auckland City, Auckland

Personally, I don't sit on one side of the fence or the other. (sprukier or the other). But its a bit busier out there from my personal experience. The real estate market in this country seems to be drive by click bait media like NZ herald & an industry organization with a vested interest. Not great for the wider economy/country, but the market is the market.

The "big picture" here is that following the housing market boom of 2012-2016 there's been a very soft landing.

The crash that numerous people here predicted has simply not eventuated.

The market remains steady/stable - though there are signs that trading conditions may become more buoyant over the next few months.

Further, significant house price increases cannot be ruled out. Certainly, rental returns have been rising.



Further, significant house price increases falls cannot be ruled out either.

Yes especially when we run out of falling interest rate wiggle room, which is the only thing propping up the Auckland housing market prices at the moment. Or worst case scenario; mortgage interest rates start to rise again but I think that's going to be unlikely for now.

I don't expect it too fall, just find TTPs constant spruiking about imminent price increases exceedingly tiresome.

I think its going to bump along sideways like it has been for a few more years yet. Govt keeps propping up the lower end every time there is any sign of weakness with things like the First Home grant, and the First Home loan, but the price to income ratios mean there is little upside for prices from owner occupiers.

(should say i'm only looking at the Auckland Market, and the <$1 million segment. I don't really have an opinion on what might happen in Invergiggle or in the >$1m price bracket etc.)

Yes, I largely agree with you Pragmatist. The thing that fascinates me, is what is going to that upper >$1m price bracket or multi million prices bracket here in Auckland? Will in continue to stagnate, or slip and slide until prices fall to more realistic levels and could that have a knock on effect on lower end prices. Thing is we know there's not much that can help the upper price brackets, not unless there's another glut of overseas money pouring in to NZ and that's even less likely to happen then interest rates falling to zero any time soon. :)

I've seen some strong sales in the upper part of the market recently - might not be stagnating. I believe that high net migration is part of the reason, which is made worse by the currently weak NZD. Also, assuming there's a change in the distribution of NZ wealth, that might be another factor.

Humm, Got any stats on that claim? You say strong sale in the upper priced property market. Not from what we can see in the recent auction results. Oh and looks like we're about to have another official cash rate cut, yep real strong economy there holding up those multi million dollar homes.
Perhaps that was just a few money launders slipping through that you saw purchasing those million dollar homes.

No stats sorry CJ, but considerable anecdotal evidence.

Hi Pragmatist,

Where has TTP said price increases are "imminent"?

Or is this yet another of your attempts to mislead and deceive people?



Speaking of exceedingly tiresome... here he is..

as for the stupid question.. have you forgotten what you wrote above? "...though there are signs that trading conditions may become more buoyant over the next few months."

And referring to yourself in the third person.. well, Pragmatist might conclude that you have a screw loose. ;)

Base on today's comments I take it you are backtracking on your earlier prediction/suggestion that Auckland prices will slowly and steadily decline? If I recall correctly you also said the Auckland market was a falling knife, or something along those lines. Bit different to your "sideways" talk nowadays.

Sure, sideways is significantly different from slowly drifting down if that makes you feel better....

As anticipated, Pragmatist (above) has avoided answering the question.

To set the record straight, NOWHERE has TTP said house price increases are "imminent".

TTP has said that price increases "can't be ruled out", which happens to be the view of many others.

Pragmatist: you are UNETHICAL - and a DISGRACE.


Here you go https://ibb.co/BGvdv5J

You didn't use the word "imminent", but I think we all understand the gist/thrust of what you were saying there.

Sorry GGP - but there's a big difference between saying something is "imminent"compared with saying something "can't be ruled out" / likely to happen "over the next 12 months".

With your comments above you risk developing the same appalling reputation as Retired-Poppy (aka "Crash Crusader").

While you might not agree with me - which is fine - there's no excuse for misrepresenting what I have said.


If there is such a big difference, please go ahead and explain it to me.

Here is how I see it. First, you didn't write "can't be ruled out" or "likely to happen". You wrote "every likelihood", the gist/thrust of which is certainly at least a 90% chance.

"Over the next 12 months" means it will be starting very soon and continuing over a 12-month period. There is no functional difference between that and saying it is "imminent".

I wouldn't waste your time GGP. Some people exist here to troll and rile people up.

The big difference seems to be timing.

If a particular week's results seem to go the way he'd like, TP seems to crow about having called it. If the numbers don't look so good, TP is at pains to point out he's been noncommittal to the point of saying "something may happen at some time"...which is the reality.

As per the other respondent (GGP), you might not have used the word imminent, but its surely what you are implying. In a market where a transaction typically takes a month or more to settle, and the finance period is often 30 years, a few months is a very short timespan, ergo it can considered imminent.

As for your other BS, rack off.

Hi Pragmatist,

See my comments in my previous post (above).

Resorting to using the term "BS" indicates the level of your mentality.

Further, I'm sure you'd like me to "rack off" - but I can assure you that I won't be.


Am observing slightly better sentiments all over in Auckland (Particulary in Buckland beach and nearby area) than year ending till September, I may be mistaken as may be it is just a matter of chance that auction that I went had positive sentiments than before (Also decent number of Chinese and bidding like before). Also for new listing earlier RE Agent was asking 10% to 15% below CV in most case (though must be expecting to sell as close to CV) but now are asking near around CV. Many property listed in Pakuranga, Howick, Buckland Beach, Sunnyhills, Cockle Bay and near by area where earlier a house with CV of high 900s to 1.1 Million will be expecting mid 800s or somewhere in 900s, now when checking with RE Agent are also asking near or saying that the market feedback is near around CV (Unlike last few months) - So will be wait and watch to see if the positive sentiments turns into reality or was just being optimist as mose auction of those houses are in November.

Still pretty quiet out there. I'm wondering if the next two weeks will finally have the spring listings jump, but hearing that there's not a lot in the pipeline.

Gotta love all the mixed signals. Both spruikers and DGMs will have something to point at while citing their (our) usual mantras.
Sales up but down, listings up but down... The only thing that's down by every comparison is the median price.
But I'm sure we'll get an explanation on why that's a very bullish signal.

Hi Greg
There seems to be some inconsistencies in the figures and data:
"Barfoot's average selling price of $939,132 in October (2019)" and
"Barfoot's average selling price has barely moved since October 2015 when it was $840,402" - is the later meant to be $940,402?

Nope, from the graph the numbers are right for October 15. Maybe Greg meant to mention October 16, which was $943,801, which is indeed basically no movement, an insignificant drop over three years.

Well according to the above "average price" charts, We're still selling below the March 2017 peak price of $968570. But hey at least the number of listings has improved and Sellers are becoming more realistic about their prices. :)

I see that the figure has since been amended to 2016.

I’m going to say it again. Look up Zillow and see what you can currently get for $NZ855k/$US550k in some of the US’s fastest growing cities with high liveability ratings. It’s MUCH better value than NZ. NZ it currently way overpriced. Fight me.

Oh come on, stop it with the Zillow, you are depressing me.

Which cities? Not sure US550k is going to get you a lot in any city on the west coast.

Yes, west coast is expensive, especially SF, but that’s the tech hub of, well, the world and tech companies are overvalued right now too. Look up some of the following though. I’d been fine with buying here. I’d avoid the guns n god towns though, but that’s me. There are a lot more than this, but some not bad choices here.

Those are all much smaller than Auckland, and mostly not geographically constrained. If you want comparisons with those, try chch (if you can imagine no quake).

If you are an investor, don’t you want future growth and capital gain? People are moving there in droves from bigger places for lifestyle and affordability, and values are going up, but not already expensive. So many examples of small, nice places in the US that have become expensive in past decades. Compare the price to income, and growth trend, not the size.

Despite the more attractive relative valuations, many smaller property investors are put off direct ownership of houses in distant locations due to:

1) lack of economies of scale to invest abroad -
2) US state and federal taxes and paperwork
3) distance, time to travel and costs to monitor, and inspect - especially if it is only one property, and it impacts on the net returns on the property
4) lack of familiarity with residential real estate laws / landlord laws
5) lack of familiarity with local suburbs (e.g which are the good suburbs, which ones to stay away from, etc)
6) the extremely litigious nature of the US - be sued for tenant injury, be sued for workman injury, etc

If property investors have lived in the area and are familiar with the local real estate market, then their comfort level might be increased.

Having travelled to Utah previously, it is a very lengthy journey. Takes too long to travel to and too far just to own one property for my personal preference. Perhaps it may be attractive for others.

Had someone offer an investment in an investment partnership in US residential real estate in smaller cities in US a while ago, but those are entirely different financial economics from direct ownership in residential real estate.

I agree, those are significant drawbacks, but the relative valuations and fundamentals remain true, which is good to keep in mind when analysing NZ property investments. For the US, yes you’d really have to invest significantly to make it worth it, and have the right local management and legal people engaged, which takes time and money to organise. Visiting at least once a year would be a good plan too, with significant time on the ground to find the right properties at the right price.

Yes, good point. This is the thing how can NZ charge Silicon Valley property values with out the salaries to support those prices? Even more illogical is that Wellington has higher salaries than Auckland, and yet Wellington's property prices are still lower than Auckland's. Could it be that Auckland still has a hanger over from all that overseas dodgy money that was so easy to come by only a few years ago.

Wellington managed to develop housing close to its arterial road and rail networks due to its geography, so unlike in Auckland where haphazard price increases occurred due to inconsistent transport development in certain areas, you could avoid buying an overpriced apartment in Wellington City if you choose to walk 10mins followed by a 15-min train ride to work every morning.

Yes Wellington more importantly has a lot of the Tech business that move down from Auckland when the cost of living got fat too high for them to thrive here in AKL. Not to mention that Wellington also has a huge film industry that helps to support their higher salaries and therefore property prices.

whats the asset tax rate in the US? does it vary from state to state?


Interest payments and property tax in the US is income tax deductible!

I understand it’s a little complicated but the US is generally very open to foreigners buying property, despite the immigration rhetoric. You don’t have to have residency.

is there tax cuts for those that live/work in the US vs those who just rental properties?

Take this one as example in Brisbane, most comparable city to Auckland (please don't try to compare Auckland against Sydney or Melbourne! It's nowhere near it). Late 700K and only 8km from CBD

But Auckland's diffrunt! Rockstar economy, wages skyrocketing, best beaches in the world, and proximity to the up-and-coming world class supercity Hamilton!

Yeah, some of the smaller and mid growth spots in the US are petty nice, with great outdoor things, for a lot less $. NZ is paradise for sure, but paradise can get overvalued too.

and unlike the US of A we don't have inequality, violence, terrorism....oops

Businessinsider report that the median house price in the US was $US 226 800 in April 2019 ...$NZ 353 000 ... the cheapest median was Vermont state , $US 166 488 ... just $ 98 per square foot ... Hawaii was most expensive at median $US 635 000 , $ 521 / sq ft ...

Washington DC was second dearest , $US 599 000 ... and California third on $ 550 th. ... or $ 324 per square foot ...

"Hawaii was most expensive at median $US 635 000" JK's favourite hang out island!

That converts to a million NZD's......DonKey always knew where the money was ...he was a FOREX dealer in New York in a past life after all ......

There are a lot of very affordable places in the US but some are losing population so I’d steer away from those. You can buy houses in the North East: Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo etc for US$20-$50 (look it up)! However some nice up and coming places have population growth comparable with Auckland, and are a lot cheaper. I’ve heard that some of those very cheap places have high rental yield but still not sure it’s worth it.

Those living in the US have the luxury to choose from a variety of cities to live in with decent standards and ample job opportunities.

The population in the US is fairly spread out and the combined population in their 10 largest cities makes up less than 8% of total national population. These 10 cities don't even include the fastest growing cities in the US such as Denver and Atlanta.
However, more than 60% of our population are restricted in our 5 largest cities, which grew considerably in the last decade and continue to grow at very rapid rates.

Yes, the likes of Denver and Boise are growing fast. In the case of larger Denver, nice satellite cities such as Fort Collins and Greeley have been growing fast but are still really affordable. Notably, they have the amazing Rocky Mountsins as their playground. Colorado Springs is reasonably affordable too, with excellent snow and mountain biking activities. NZ is not the only place with good outdoor activities and scenery.


Agree that houses particulary in Auckland are overpriced compare to wages in NZ

Hugh Pavletich co-authors " Demographia " , which has shown that NZ has amongst the highest price of houses to household income ratios in the world , for a decade or so ...

... the Gnats refused to see a problem with this ... Labour refuses to attempt a viable solution ...

The market will correct one way or another. I like current comparisons with the US market because they’ve had their big correction and the market (or markets) has risen substantially again since then, but many nice places still way more affordable than NZ and Australia.

For sure the NZ market seems over priced, but you need to be careful with comparisons to the US. Great place to live if you have plenty of money, but can be harsh otherwise. You better have health insurance for starters. And you better have been putting money into your 401K. CGT is another big difference - no exception for the family home either.

Labour did bring FBB (Forced as had promised and no way out) but now are doing nothing - infact trying very hard how to manipulate or do or not do (Capital Gain Tax) to lift the housing market as even they have realized that the only sector for the ROCK STAR Ecenomy is housing Sector and national was correct in turning it into a gambling den (Speculation) and Tax heaven for money laundering.

Next step will be reducing the LVR so that RE agents gets somthing to beat and play with "Fear Of Losing Out" of FHB.

Wait and Watch

Yep and it really does matter that wages need to keep up with property prices or things could get messy. It's not just us here in NZ that had a glut of overseas money that had a huge negative impact on their wider economies. Take Canada for example, their Tech salaries are similar to ours, yet prices were pushed up far out of reach for most wage earners. Better Dwelling article: Vancouver’s Tech Scene Shows Just How F**ked Up The City’s Real Estate Is. https://betterdwelling.com/city/vancouver/vancouver-tech-scene-shows-jus...

Of course Auckland houses are overpriced compared to wages!
The market is what people are prepared to pay and need to pay to buy a home.
You can talk as much as you like though about the market, but reality is that the ones that are in the market are the ones who are benefitting from home ownership, and not having to pay rent and Achieving capital gain.

Nahh, You need to take your blinkers off M2. The only people that were prepared to pay massively over inflated house prices are now GONE! Plus we have a Foreign Buyers Ban or haven't you noticed.

"You can talk as much as you like though about the market".. yep CHCH is still pretty average (and full of skin...!)

Skinhead in Chch is so 80s. You may be mistaking the white soldiers from out past Rolleston, compulsory haircut I'm afraid. I guess its much easier to spot soldiers in places like Hong Kong. They have full riot amour on and are spraying tear gas and clubbing the hell out of students and old people.

Averageman, correct!
Haven’t seen skinheads in ChCh for over ten years!
Chairman is dreaming!!

"white soldiers from out past Rolleston.." LOL..FYI, white soldiers don't yell out to other people "F##king asians, go home ya ching. That's what they yelled out at Countdown Supermarket in Moorehouse Ave to us..
TM2 told us once before that he never goes outside!

"Of course Auckland houses are overpriced compared to wages! The market is what people are prepared to pay and need to pay to buy a home." You should look into the rhyming of history in this type of market situation TM2. The market eventually corrects (often over-corrects), when the collective delusion ends.

Voiceofreason ....I have tried on this forum a few times to show what you can get in the USA vs. Auckland ...and I can speak from experience, as I have been in the USA market since 2011 (while all the time living in Auckland, with a trip once a year over there) and I'm still in the market now...in that time I have watched Auckland just go stupidly overpriced, while I am getting 13% to 14% gross on my rental returns in the States. Plus I have capital gains on the way too ...and still going in the right direction.
I am always gobsmacked when I see what I can get in States v. what I can get in Auckland ...many of the properties in Auckland are poorly built, weather tightness issues, not double glazed, damp and cold etc etc ...if they were on sale in the USA at an Auckland price (even with US dollars) they would be laughed outta town !
A few on this forum just "can't see the wood for the trees" .......and any comment made against what we are saying, invariably comes from parties with very "vested interests" and pushing their own wheelbarrow - although they will NEVER divulge their examples etc.

Thank you CH, we can but only try to point out the obvious. If only more people would actually do a bit of research. Good on you for being in the US market since 2011. That would’ve been a great time for bargains.

Yep, this is true, with bells on. I own two rentals in the USA (Arizona). Bought in 2006 and 2008. One for USD120K, one for USD156K. 185sf each. Really nice places. 9ft /high vaulted ceilings, tiled flooring. Modern layouts with 2 bathrooms and attached 2 car garages. Each rents for USD1300 a month. Rent is nothing like it is here but we've been cash flow positive since we bought them (note: we owned them pre and during the GFC which hit AZ hard - v glad we hadn't overextended ourselves like so many here) so once they are paid off we will have a couple of nice little nest eggs if all goes well. We have a trusted real estate agency managing them for us which eats into the profit but it's all tax deductible and we have virtually no hassles whatsoever with them, it's all done. All repairs, maintenance, payments, rent, finding tenants, dealing with HOAs etc. They'll even take care of the mortgage payments from their trust account if we like (we said no). We've sold two other ones remotely as well. The agent took care of it all and we got a nice check at the close of the transaction. It was basically hassle free.

Downsides are we can't actually check them out in person between tenants. If I was emotionally attached to them (I'm not) this could have been a problem. Also mortgage rates are higher than here. There's also the tax hassles of owning overseas but that's more complex for us because my partner is a US citizen.

I guess having lived there makes it a lot easier as we have many contacts and understand the place. There are tighter regs regarding what you can and can't do but a good letting agent will take care of all that.

Cali always had various cheap areas too. If you want yield you have heaps of options out west. Nevada as well. Its probably quite similar to NZ. You can choose yield or capital appreciation. Although Arizona is a bit further to go than Rotorvegas :)

Hi Big_Data ...just read your above post with much interest. I visited Phoenix back in November 2011 looking at property....the place was awash with absolute bargains and I remember the auctions on the town hall steps. However, it was decided to look back east to Maryland - Prince Georges County etc (only 8 miles from the White House, so very central to DC) with a very good friend's family and all their contacts, so with their combined great help, bought my first US rental property in 2012 - then did a joint flip with another property to buy my second rental. Got all properties paid off quickly, purely because they were so cheap (the 2 rentals were both bank repossessions for $113 and $143 K ) - we did them up with about 20 -30k each and are getting $1800 and $1750 per month - so a great gross return. However just 2 months ago sold and settled on the $143k property and are now freehold on our home in Auckland ! ....and still have the other property over there earning a good income for the capital invested.

Anyway, just thought I would tell you my continuing USA property story, as you are doing something very similar.

While after 9 years my thoughts on it are - have excellent and trusted communication channels and look after your tenants, in fact go overboard and they will treat the property as their own (never had a bad tenant either) .

Have a trusted and great builder/contractor, realtor and property manager !

And finally a good accountant .....although my US accountant forgets sometimes where we make our money in NZ is converting those US greenbacks back to NZD !

Actually I love doing business over there - all of the people I meet are so warm, friendly and helpful which makes it all a joy, so much so that we considered (well mainly me !!) moving over there ....but one thing stopped us - Medical Insurance costs ! ...but that is another story !

Its a soft landing. When you fall 1500m without a parachute, the first 1499m feel very soft.

But you can count on that bouncing effect!

Sales up 7.3% compared to September 19
Last October it was up 24% on September. Not OBB of course....
12m sales down 6.3% compared to 12m to end of October 18.
Central Auckland and its suburbs sales flat
North of that (NSC and Rodney) down.
South Auckland and Pakuranga up and these two are only 2 that are up in past 12m also.
New listings 22% below October 2018
Better sales in October than I expected. As stated above: this is due to South Auckland.
Indicates to me that buyers preferring new builds and will be interested to know prices in the 2 areas relative to median for Auckland as a whole.

I'll jump in first mikekirk29 before TM2, are you a genuine RE agent?

Someone put a muffler on that Motor Moa ;)

Chairman, he is not an agent anymore, he didn’t last very long.
He couldn’t list and sell houses, so he is bitter about that, and now just wants to bore us all with stats, that is just so damn tedious!
Needs to get a job at the Dept. Of Statistics and bore them.

Back to normal calumny today I see. And inaccurate also.

What is inaccurate Mike?
How many listings and sales have you had?..

Sydney’s preliminary auction clearance rate sat at 77.2 per cent after 695 auctions were held and 484 reports received.

Chief economist at AMP Capital Shane Oliver said results were holding up in Sydney with the final number expected to be about 70 per cent.

“It’s a pretty strong number at the same time we saw another pick up in listings – they’re up 8 per cent on a week ago and around 50 per cent on a year ago,” Dr Oliver said.

Well apparently Auckland is Sydney is Beijing is Vancouver is Timbuktu. I look forward to hearing from the doomie gloomies about how this is great news for Auckland property investors.

Article from 2015 - > https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/76100/corelogics-jonno-ingerson-says-...

Same story, different names
Since 2009 the overall increase in value in Sydney and Auckland is almost identical, up 65%, with Melbourne not far behind. The other cities are around 10% up.

This argument was made ad nauseam on this site when Sydney was going down. I doubt those commenters will be pushing this theory at every opportunity now that Sydney is rebounding.

Yes I do recall this argument being made by DGMs, and conversely spruikers were claiming that Auckland was "diffrunt". So is Auckland the same or "diffrunt"?

I don't have a strong view on it either way, but I certainly don't think Auckland is tied at the hip to Sydney, Melbourne, Vancouver, Beijing or Timbuktu. For example, there was lots of speculation that Auckland would experience the dip that Sydney did, but this failed to eventuate. My point is simply that it was DGMs that were pushing this narrative, so lets see if they continue to do so - they won't.

Well has Auckland gone down in value over 12% like Sydney has? There's your answer