Barfoot auctions achieve sales rates of up to two thirds for central Auckland properties, one third on the North Shore and just over a quarter in South Auckland

Barfoot auctions achieve sales rates of up to two thirds for central Auckland properties, one third on the North Shore and just over a quarter in South Auckland

Barfoot & Thompson sold 40% of the properties they marketed for sale by auction last week, with 85 of 212 auction properties finding new owners by 5pm the day after the auction.

Homes in the central Auckland suburbs continue to sell most readily at auction, with the sales rate hitting two thirds at Barfoot's auction in their Shortland St rooms on 4 April, where a selection of homes form suburbs including Epsom, Mt Albert, Mt Eden Mt Roskill and Avondale were offered, with sales edging past 50% at the Shortland St auction on 5 April, where homes from suburbs including Remuera, St Heliers, Greenlane, Mt Eden and Mt Albert were offered.

However the auctions were slower in Manukau and on the North Shore, with a sales rate of 28% at the Manukau auction and 33% on the North Shore.

At the affordable/investment end of the market, the highlights included a one bedroom apartment with a car park in Grafton that sold for $300,000 and a one bedroom apartment in the Waldorf building on Bankside St in the CBD that went for $288,000.

At the North Shore auction a two bedroom, brick home unit with a single garage in the heart of Birkenhead sold for $555,000, while a traditional brick and tile one bedroom unit at Milford sold for $590,000.

To see the full results go to our Auction Results page.

Barfoot & Thompson Auction Results: Week ending 7 April 2017
Venue  Sold* Not Sold* Total
On site. 13 13 26
Manukau, 4 April.  7 18 25
Shortland St, 4 April. 8 4 12
Whangarei, 5 April 3 4 7
Shortland St, 5 April. 22 21 43
Pukekohe. 5 April. 1 3 4
Takapuna. 6 April. 17 35 52
Shortland St, 6 April 8 15 23
Shortland St, 7 April. 6 14 20
Total 85 127 212
*Sold includes properties sold under the hammer or by 5pm the following day. Not sold includes properties that remained unsold by 5pm the day after the auction and those properties that were withdrawn from sale or had their auction date postponed.

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

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

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.

34 Comments

Thanks for the balanced, factual headline Greg

Yes, agree with Yvil here. Thank you Greg for reporting it as it is.

Sales edging past 50% at the Shortland St auction on 5 April, where homes from suburbs including Remuera, St Heliers, Greenlane, Mt Eden and Mt Albert were offered.
Yes!

Nearly half their clients paid the additional marketing and auctioneer costs associated with going to auction for no return on that spend - and you think that's a Yes!?

Money for nothing.

My interpretation

Central Auckland vendors have become more realistic and are meeting the market by lowering their prices and obtaining results

North Shore and South Auckland Vendors are showing a reluctance to bite the bullet

Oh North Shore is an environment of mixed housing Best divide into areas like East Coast Bays , Birkenhead Albany etc .
I'm sure they will adjust their prices. Nothing like divorce to create a wanna sell Now vibe

Why are the Whanagrei figures included above.. thought this was about Auckland? Does not change the 40% figure, but could skew med prices..

Listing numbers are down again in Auckland (under 11000) after steadily rising since December. And they are down below 600 in Wellington (city) too. Be interesting to see April sale price figures as to whether we have dropping prices leading to increased sales, or whether people have just withdrawn their properties from the market, because they can wait out any (possibly temporary) cooling of the market.

I would personally like to see house prices drop to healthier affordable income multiples but really don't know if we are seeing that turn in the market now, or just a little slowing.

Even if prices just go back to July 2014 levels, they'd seem more realistic and affordable.

The listing numbers are erratic as listings regularly expire then get relisted again. If sellers do pull back to wait out the cooling market, what we'll find is we'll be left with the desperate sellers who would NEED* to sell at lower market expectations (read: closer to July 2014 CV levels) which would then set the market trend downwards and cause everyone else's valuations to go down.

*NEED due to job loss, change in circumstances, moving out of Auckland, divorce, being overleveraged, can't afford repayments etc

At 8:30 in the morning, a quartet of real estate industry professionals takes the stage to whoops from the crowd for a panel on Toronto’s housing market. Local realtor Daryl King (the “king of real estate!” according to the moderator) tells the crowd the key for first-time buyers is just to get a foot in the door. “We haven’t seen the end of it,” he says of the region’s double-digit surge in home prices. “So buy today, before it’s too late.

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/realestateeconomy/how-canada-completely-l...?

What is a little disturbing is the rate at which a lot of people in Aus, Can and NZ have lost their ability to think rationally when it comes to property and debt.

It's almost as though for many (say DGZ and ZS) is that the irrational, is now rational. In 5 years time, if the market corrects, will they wake up and say jeez, I really lost my perspective there for a while. Or will they say that the market is now irrational. It was more rational at Price to Income ratios of 10:1. A price to income ratio of 5:1 with interest rates of 8% is so irrational.

The nature of bubbles is that they provide evidence to reinforce people's belief. If ever rising prices are all the proof you need of an assets value then you will always be assured there is a justification to purchase until the bubble pops. The only thing that keeps those of us believing in the irrationality of the current prices is past experience of bubbles. We know that every bubble in history has followed the same pattern, the last stage being denial that gravity exists and a fervent belief that this time is different.

In this case I can't believe that we saw this 10 years ago in USA, Ireland, UK, etc. and that people can still post here and talk in the media as if New Zealand is different, that Auckland is a global city so that means prices can go up forever without correction. I guess London wasn't a global city in 2007 :).

first you have to admit you have a problem.

It is tragic that the financial advice we communicate to people through the media is that the smartest thing you can do is borrow as much money as you can and buy a single asset in a single purchase because the price of this special type of asset will always go up enough to justify the cost of debt. It's insane. Surely tulip buys were saying the exact same thing.

Back in 2007 people were also touting Dublin as a "global city" the "gateway to Europe/UK" etc etc and I heard then the same things I hear now about Auckland, the same behaviours and the same blinkered view of the downside risks, the same property spruiking seminars/headlines/media coverage etc. Their economy was held up as the Celtic Tiger other countries would do well to emulate. Until it all went wrong.

Still its different here isn't it? After all NZ is a rock star, not a celtic tiger.

Dublin the gateway to Europe.

Hah we trump that.

Auckland is a gateway to the West Coast, Coromandels and Bay of Islands. (Thats a joke).

Auckland: the gateway to Australia.

Has certainly been used that way a lot, including by the migrants who then leave their recently-imported elderly parents on welfare in NZ.

I think DGZ/ZS have said that they would hold tight and play the long game with any downward turn in the market. There will be some very lucky , privileged people that can choose that option. Some investors will even buy up additional properties in the event of any downturn Personally, I can't imagine DGZ/ZS losing sleep.
People who have banked on capital gains, those who are heavily negatively geared and topping up rent income with wages, those who have bought at peak (whenever that might be), they will be a horrendous position and I certainly think those people will be ruminating on their irrationality and seriously angry with government.

Robert Shiller (the rational expounder of bubbles and creator of Shiller US House Price Index and Shiller CAPE10 ratio) make some interesting comments in his Irrational Exuberance book that there is always a local narrative that people buy into in a bubble. Those who think current prices are rational are buying into the Auckland narrative. Maybe not today or this year but the market will revert to fair price and the narrative will be proved to be just that.

Here is a link that revisits 2006 ... ( Michael Hudsons view on US housing ).
Very relevant today....

https://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/RoadToSerfdom.pdf

Thanks for the link Roelof. A very timely and sobering read.

The article states, Canada is a country deeply reliant on real estate. The industry accounts for roughly 12 per cent of its gross domestic product.

Do we have a comparative stat for New Zealand?

Here you are - you can propbably work backward from these REINZ commission data

Interest.co.nz estimates that rising median prices pushed a typical sales commission to $16,554 (including GST) last year, up 4.8% compared to 2013, which took the total estimated commission revenue generated by the industry to $1.234 billion for the year, down just 2.5% on the estimated $1.266 billion in commission revenue in 2013, but well up on the estimated $1.13 billion generated in 2012 and the $919 million estimated to have been generated in 2011.

2014 = 1.234 billion
2013 = 1.266 billion
2012 = 1.130 billion
2011 = 0.919 billion

http://www.interest.co.nz/property/73640/real-estate-agencies-earned-est...

That works out around $40 billion per annum gross sales - so yeah it's a pretty big % of NZ GDP

Approximately 17%

Truly frightening.

Thanks, John Key! What a legacy!

Rick ,
could be that the amount of time you spend posting lefty comments on this web site has something to do with your not being able to afford a house ? Do you have a day job ?
Just saying ..

And no I am not a Boomer , housing investor , National supporter .. or John Key .

Totally agree with paashaas. There are many affordable houses even in Auckland (over 200 listings < $600k on TradeMe). I'm trying to be nice here, and my advise is that if you're looking to buy a house to live in or as an investment property, then stop moaning and start working hard. A day job is definitely a pre-requisite.

Disclaimer: I'm not a boomer, not a RE agent, have a day job and an investor in Ak.

Oh paashaas...you have quite the mistaken impression.

I'm well-employed, earn more than most Kiwis, and do own real estate - albeit not in Auckland. I have also voted for National most of my life, and never for Labour.

However, none of that should stop me from giving a toss about the needs of young and upcoming generations of average Kiwis, should it? Should it? Or stop me calling out National on their failure to address the housing crisis, especially given they campaigned on it.

Sometimes it seems like there are many who are too vested in their own interest to care about the legacy they leave. You'll have to excuse me for agreeing with those around the world that housing affordability is an important issue, rather than just contenting myself with being better off than most.

I mean...what...write-off caring about affordability for NZers (rather than foreign investors) as "Lefty"? Are you suggesting that those who have voted right most often shouldn't care about the lot of Kiwis?

Or is it more that those who are completely uninterested in the needs of wider Kiwi society simply don't like their selfish behaviour pointed out? Nor that their holdings have more to do with luck of being born at the right time than simple hard work, and rather than making proclamations of "hard work" they should do the maths of what young Kiwis do and will face.

Besides that - it would be almost criminal to allow prices in Auckland to keep on rising as they have been, locking more young Kiwis out. The best bet for young Kiwis is to seek political change and policies that will restore some balance and affordability and make houses about homes rather than investments. Change is what young Kiwis should be working toward.

The only impression I have Rick is that you have a lot or time on your hands - as the latest diatribe illustrates so well. Protest too much ?

What does make your comments "lefty" is that you studiously ignore the principal issue on the supply side caused by consistently left-leaning council we have a misfortune of having in Auckland.

I don't see Rick as a Leftie. I think he probably leans more toward Alt-Right. The general theme of his comments are focused on the historical stream and how Boomers and Generation Xers (if we are being honest) have abandoned their historical role. People should focus on maintaining traditions or else making the country a better place for the up and coming generations. The problem is, and why I think the effort is futile, Auckland is an immigrant town. It has gone past the point of no return. Any major restructuring would probably greatly benefit immigrants more than locals and continue the replacement of true blue Kiwis in Auckland. Unless the restructuring was heavily biased toward locals. I just don't see that happening in a city that has such a large immigrant population. A lot of locals are also enamoured with globalisation and social justice for all so his position is very much a minority one. I sympathise with it but consider it unfeasible. The only thing to do is adopt an immigrant mindset yourself. Try to maintain your heritage but be prepared to move on to a better place if you need or want to. Or just make Auckland your home and play the game. Riding the tiger is what I like to call it.

Yeah, not too a bad reading, Zach. I've been a National voter almost all my life (hence I do feel somewhat entitled to hold them to account, especially given they campaigned on the housing crisis).

We may disagree on some of the feasibility aspects (e.g. I'd like to see us try a Stamp Duty to prioritise locals - including immigrants - vs. foreign investors) but I think we'd probably enjoy a beer and a banter.

I do know a lot of others who are similarly unhappy with National's mismanagement of the housing crisis too. Many of these have children and grandchildren who are tremendously affected...and despite the fact they'll leave a slice of a grand, beautiful Auckland villa or other properties to them, it's not enough to really help when spread among them all. A number of them are disappointed in National because they work in the industry and know the amount of foreign buying that has been going on while National has insisted there's nothing to see there.

"Auckland is an immigrant town. It has gone past the point of no return. Any major restructuring would probably greatly benefit immigrants more than locals and continue the replacement of true blue Kiwis in Auckland."

"Try to maintain your heritage but be prepared to move on to a better place if you need or want to."

You must have a lot of friends down the local pub and the rugby club.

So your basically saying Aucklanders need to like it or lump it and leave as immigrants have taken over. Hope National uses you as their PR campaigner.

Eh, I write fast. If it took me much time it would be a bother, but it's not.

I don't ignore the supply issue, but do highlight the demand issue because the government ignores it and even actively makes it worse. And who's not connected on multiple devices these days?

I also find the "ooh, but it's a left wing mayor" sort of talk as being a big part of the problem. Can't people leave the "my team" / "your team" thinking aside for the smallest period? Should I raise the failure of Rodney Hide's supercity efficiency to materialise? What would be the point?

I'd rather be prepared to hold even the party I've voted for the most to account for their failure to address the housing crisis.

Moods latest report states that nz is one of the 4 countries with aaa rating that could face a house price correction in the near future