Remuera mansion got top price of $6.35m at Bayleys' latest auctions

Property

Latest auction results from Bayleys in Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Hawke's Bay and Marlborough

25th Nov 17, 6:10am by Greg Ninness

A Remuera house that sold for $6.35 million was one of the highlights of Bayleys' latest auctions.

The four bedroom house on a 1586 square metre section that overlooks Kings School, came with four bathrooms, triple garaging a swimming pool and tennis court.

Another property which attracted plenty of attention was a beachfront house at Hahei on the Coromandel Pensula which fetched $3 million.

For those with a slightly more modest budget but seeking a weekend retreat, a three bedroom/two bathroom apartment with harbour views in Whitianga went for $381,000.

The cheapest sale of the week at the Auckland auctions was a studio apartment in the Luna building in Grafton, which sold for $170,000.

We have the results of 70 properties auctioned by Bayleys in the last week, including properties in Marlborough, Hawke's Bay, Waikato, Matamata, Bay of Plenty and Auckland.

Details of all the properties offered including a photograph, and the selling prices of those that sold are available on our Residential Auction Results page.

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.

93 Comments

by Zachary Smith | 25th Nov 17, 7:54am 1511549670

Latest results using eight sales of typical Auckland houses where I exclude apartments, obviously problematic houses and remarkable anomalies like the mansion at Te Kowhai Place which sold for 2.45M below RV.

Total of 12.29M of sales with a 2017 RV of 11.33M giving a sales over RV of +8.5%

If I take out the house (Orakau) that sold for 500K over 2017 RV I get +5.7%
All successful sellers got good prices with no remarkable bargains.

by Yankiwi | 25th Nov 17, 8:06am 1511550392

Is this including the house that sold for ~$2M under RV?

by Zachary Smith | 25th Nov 17, 8:27am 1511551665

Not included as it is a pretty crazy exception. It is a house that is unique, has no sales history and doesn't show on homes.co.nz or have an estimate on TradeMe property insights. It's not what I would call typical. I'm really just looking at the climate for typical suburban houses in good and average locations.

People could include this exception and proclaim a -7.38% drop in prices but I don't believe that would be particularly helpful.

by Double-GZ | 25th Nov 17, 8:46am 1511552771

Rezoned homes gain new value - an answer for you Zachary.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sponsored-stories/news/article.cfm?c_id=15037…

by Zachary Smith | 25th Nov 17, 9:02am 1511553744

Hard to know what to do now. My rental went up 465k over and above what I anticipated was going to be a 42% increase. I imagine I could only get this sort of money if my cross-lease neighbour and I sell at the same time to a developer.

by Cowpat | 25th Nov 17, 9:25am 1511555159

Zachary the statistician , now providing truncated results. We will soon have seasonally adjusted or Arima before long. Will the Te Kowhai sale be used to calculate the average values. On reflection , in regards the Te Kowhai property, and one can argue about its uniqueness, sales history ,et al, is that it sold for just 10 percent over its 2014 valuation . The increased 2017 valuation was solely a reflection of increased land value. The neighbours who all rushed to review their updated valuations on Monday will feel somewhat deflated by the auction result.

by Zachary Smith | 25th Nov 17, 9:32am 1511555560

I don't think so.
Also I always provided somewhat truncated results and have been pretty open about that explaining why. Leaky homes and apartments for instance.
If you use the Te Kowhai sale as a weapon you are being a bit desperate IMHO.
That said the excitement over the new RVs this time has been a bit muted. There is a sort of "jumping the shark" feel about it. But who knows? Time will tell and recent sales indicate there are people willing to pay the asking prices for good properties.

by Cowpat | 25th Nov 17, 10:01am 1511557274

Zach as you know i appreciate your numbers,because they are timely and you most often just lay them on the table. A little of what I wrote above is slightly in jest, desperation - no. We both know that the majority of the increased revaluations are attributed to land value .Have the land valuations in Te Kowhai or elsewhere been a little hot, on one sale as you say who knows. Actually I miscalculated , and the sales price was only 4 percent over the 2014 valuation, which does put it in left field.
Similarly, houses are still being sold, and the turnover rate sits around the 4 percent mark. At present the market is quite stable, what lurks around the corner .

by Zachary Smith | 25th Nov 17, 10:30am 1511559029

Cowpat, I understand and you seem much more reasonable these days. Who knows what is around the corner? I think not being able to claim tax against salary and wages wont be as devastating as people think. It was always a nice to have to pay for the yearly week on a tropical island for most if they were wise. It has always been under threat. Accountants may suffer as more landlords start to do their own accounts to save money. What can happen when the going gets tough is that the tough get going. Every little expense is analyzed and every opportunity to get more money is taken advantage of instead of just cruising along.

A lot will have built up significant equity which reminds me of the old Adam Smith quote:

“This will be the ruin of the nation,” said Mr. Sinclair.

“Young man,” said the Dean, Adam Smith, “there is a great deal of ruin in a nation.”

by NorthernLights | 26th Nov 17, 10:51am 1511646691

I knew I’d find plenty of laughs in the comments here
A ex Post & Telegraph worker grown up in working class Sandringham fixing computer hardware & spruiking Kiwi RE
Sad those figures are a little low property here values in a league far pricier
You don’t even pay decent property taxation down there it’s laughable
Keep up the laughs it’s hilarious and keep working hard boomer boys

by Zachary Smith | 26th Nov 17, 3:27pm 1511663253

Always good to get a bit of a pep talk from someone who led the way NorthernLights. All the best! Boomer Boys 4ever!

by J.C. | 25th Nov 17, 4:30pm 1511580611

Zachary the statistician , now providing truncated results.

Ahhh....no. Big difference between statisticians and data analysts compared to keyboard warriors whose ability is limited to random inferences from small samples that would be worthless in representation.

by Zachary Smith | 25th Nov 17, 4:51pm 1511581860

People seem to enjoy the reports J.C. don't take that away from them.

by J.C. | 25th Nov 17, 6:23pm 1511587424

Banter has nothing to so with statistical competence and expertise.

by Zachary Smith | 25th Nov 17, 7:19pm 1511590761

We're just looking at how very recent sales compare with the new RV. We're all very interested in that. I think there are other reasons why you are objecting.

by J.C. | 25th Nov 17, 7:29pm 1511591371

You can look at and compare whatever you want, I'm just pointing out that making inferences over 8 sales transactions has nothing to do with statistics or analysis. It's trolling for emotional reactions, not using data for insight.

by pacifica | 25th Nov 17, 8:27pm 1511594867

You could then say the same for many interest property article headlines then. However that you came to read the article and take into account the information presented is a sign you consider it worthy of looking at. Yes it is taking an extremely short subset of data points, weekly area related auctions from a few service providers usually, but that is what you would expect from the headline. If the comment was a 'I predict 2018 to have a sales trend in exactly this manner' then sure, argue and berate away. However no one is predicting the exact nature of sales trends, even the statisticians (BAs don't count for very obvious bollocks). Overall the best you will get is the binary predictions, the general direction predictions, and the seasonal ones. Leave the point on point stuff for the gamblers with lots of money to lose.

by NorthernLights | 26th Nov 17, 10:53am 1511646820

J.C. Absolutely right but don’t stop the fools mangling the figures
It provides me with great entertainment

by john wheeler | 25th Nov 17, 11:11am 1511561509

I see Zachary Smith you have been busy voting for yourself under your other user names, eg Yvil , Robert Redford, Tothepoint, Double-GZ, etc. Its amazing what this Real Esate Agent will try to do to manipulate this forum. But the ship is still sinking !!!

by NorthernLights | 26th Nov 17, 10:56am 1511646990

John Wheeler you saying that Zach isn’t the computer hardware repair man he claimed ?
Ha ! it’s even more comedic than I thought then

by tothepoint - d… | 25th Nov 17, 8:15am 1511550941

Thanks for the update, Zachary.

Some here have been saying that Auckland market/sale prices will be less than the new 2017 RV's. But it appears that's not the case at all.

Noted that the Auckland market is holding up.

TTP

by Retired-Poppy | 25th Nov 17, 8:33am 1511551990

TTP, realestate.co.nz has 13,677 Auckland listings. No evidence whatsoever sales volumes are increasing to soak up this bloating inventory. TTP, your comment will be dismissed as just pyramid talk from a real estate agent.

FHB, note that this is just the very beginnings of a buyer's market. True bargains are coming.

by Zachary Smith | 25th Nov 17, 8:37am 1511552231

How will FHBers recognise a bargain when it comes along?

by Double-GZ | 25th Nov 17, 8:42am 1511552562

He will probably say when an average 3-beddy on a full site in DGZ sells for 3x household income LOL

by Retired-Poppy | 25th Nov 17, 9:14am 1511554477

Zachary Smith, how will FHBers recognise a bargain when it comes along? When television documentaries air about how property Spruikers have become an extinct species. It's the time when the nation sees home improvement shows as much value as infomercials - ZERO. It will be painful for the highly leveraged. Houses prices will reflect the prevailing sentiment - poor buyer confidence. Its close in coming because of how many think it's unlikely, such as yourself. Times are about to change, careful you don't get left staring out the window thinking ïf only I had"

by Zachary Smith | 25th Nov 17, 9:19am 1511554753

I think it will be when purchasing makes more sense than renting. That's probably when potential rental yield is about the same as what you pay in rent. Say you bought a home and then a couple of years later headed overseas for awhile. You should be able to rent out your home and have that cover the mortgage interest, rates and insurance. But then there are other factors like desirable location which adds a premium home owners are often willing to pay. So if you want a nicer home than a typical rental you will have to pay a bit more.
If things "corrected" and remained stable you would likely be looking at house prices appreciating at least 3% per year. So the home you have left behind while overseas is earning you 3%. If the rent is covering the fundamental expenses that is a pretty good deal. This leads to a situation where it might be advisable to pay a little bit more than a neutral yield calculation.
Say a three bedroom basic home in Henderson that rents for $550 a week. A figure of 550K would be a good buy. This home is likely to appreciate by 15-20K a year. The rent will cover mortgage interest, rates and insurance. It would be snapped up. But then there will be competition for it so you might be outbid by someone who really wants it. If it is particularly desirable, close to a school, transport etc it will attract a higher price. Probably up to 100K more.
So 650K for a house that a FHBer wants in Henderson seems about right for a FHB to strike. Such a house is likely to be about 700-800K right now.

by Retired-Poppy | 25th Nov 17, 10:13am 1511557993

Zachary, this is a very wordy comment that only serves as proof you like many others choose to ignore the risks - like many others, are too afraid to take notice. The one part that does make logical sense is that presently renting makes more sense than purchasing. Other than that, it's just all real estate agent talk, derived from property seminars. Todays % income return on rentals does not reflect the underlying risk that accompanies tenants. It's only got this way because of capital gains being perceived by the naive as tax free and its all a one way bet. Rental return should be at least twice the much safer term deposit rate at a bank. This would imply the risk of a substantial correction is in the offing.The party is over Zachary, its clear by your comments you may be left wondering "if only I had"

by Zachary Smith | 25th Nov 17, 9:45am 1511556314

Your reaction only makes me think I am probably right. I'm just trying to be helpful here and you are not offering any sound metrics on when it would be a good time for a FHBer to purchase. I suspect you would have told them to wait, five, ten, years ago too.

Here are some possible places that if bought for 50-100K cheaper than asking price could be good:

https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auctio…
https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auctio…
https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auctio…

by Retired-Poppy | 25th Nov 17, 11:55am 1511564145

Zachary, feel free to grab the nearest spade and fill your boots with "bargains". Like you say, renting does make more sense than purchasing and this situation will prevail longer than you might accept. At the end of the day, whose advice is more likely to render many financially naked when the tide goes out? - YOURS!

by pacifica | 25th Nov 17, 8:49pm 1511596172

Those are not good sections for land $, sure low slope but the footprint for all is minimal. At those prices, in those locations that is the updated range for 2017+, not even close to values at 2014, so much further away for FHB affordability. One even has a significant flaw in the ad unless it is cross lease and 'shared' with the property attached, (however not mentioning & showing that could just be a nice surprise). Any FHB should have brought 7 years ago in that area, (or 2 years ago for a development section). Considering the recent section sales in the same area of 2 of the properties above the ads seem overpriced even if they dropped another 100K. Now for investment it would be another story.

by zorba - old | 25th Nov 17, 9:47am 1511556448

In response to Zachary best assessment of the current situation I have read yet. Particularly the first sentence!

by swapacrate | 26th Nov 17, 1:07am 1511611637

They will be able to afford it and get a loan.

by CJ099 | 25th Nov 17, 9:19am 1511554772

Yes that's true, high property listings volumes and low sales will continue to bring prices down.
As for expensive property selling that will likely grind to a halt once the foreign buyers ban is brought in to help prevent money laundering.

by Foyle | 25th Nov 17, 11:25am 1511562345

REINZ had 1632 Auckland region sales last week, so 13677= more than 10months inventory (I still can't understand how REINZ comes up with their average of 35days to sell, when these numbers suggest it must be at least (half of 10) = 5months average).

by Foyle | 25th Nov 17, 12:54pm 1511567651

had a little more thought on the math of this, and it is analogous to radioactive decay, with half live being average time to sell. With 10months inventory - ie about 10% chance of selling per month, the average time to sell (half life) is about 200days, (6.5months), not 35days as REINZ is claiming.

by NorthernLights | 26th Nov 17, 11:00am 1511647215

Foyle
Please provide more figures like Zachary
It provides great entertainment

by dictator | 25th Nov 17, 1:00pm 1511568034

The REINZ numbers stack up if you learned mathematics from Steven Joyce.

by Foyle | 25th Nov 17, 2:09pm 1511572185

You obviously haven't kept up with news this week, Labour has admitted debt is going to increase by $8billion, while ANZ is picking more like $14billion. Looks a lot like a >$10billion dollar hole to me. But no hurry, Winston has chosen his government, so lets check in again in 3 years time and see just how right Joyce was, and how wrong all those supposed 'economist' naysayers were.

by gingerninja | 25th Nov 17, 3:12pm 1511575920

Many would say that national debt is far less of a problem than household debt. And if government debt, long term increases quality of life, productivity and even GDP longer term, then actually it was a very savvy economic investment. We shouldn't think about national debt the way we think about private debt at all.

by Yankiwi | 25th Nov 17, 8:34pm 1511595268

And many would say that both types of debt results in an increase in the near-term gains at the expense of the long term. In other words, borrowing from the future to finance a better present. There are a few countries that one can look at to see how this works in the long term.

by Yankiwi | 25th Nov 17, 4:07pm 1511579267

The Labour debt hole wasn't caused by maths errors as Joyce initially claimed. The cause of the debt hole is their wildly optimistic tax take, coupled with their wildly optimistic GDP growth rate. Both of these estimates were considerably optimistic as compared to the PREFU. I noted this discrepancy on this site quite some time ago during the election campaign, although others were not caring or believing at that point.

The tax take and economy growth rate were considerably optimistic as compared to the PREFU and are now even more optimistic as the consensus prediction from all of the economist comments of late is that the PREFU numbers were decidedly optimistic. Hence, the debt predictions of Labour is likely to be at best similar to Joyces evaluation and possibly higher. This is not a good thing for the country.

by positivelywallstreet | 25th Nov 17, 4:13pm 1511579593

so who cares...
the bailout of SCF and it cronies was 1.5 billion dollars.
Money means nothing in the world of QE

by Yankiwi | 25th Nov 17, 4:14pm 1511579684

In that case, send me yours!

by Yankiwi | 25th Nov 17, 4:31pm 1511580694

On a more serious level, I have issues with the concept that one should compete in the race to the bottom. NZ has been relatively good in not following this race, and the economy has outperformed much of the world due to this. We would have been even better positioned excepting for the debt incurred due to the earthquakes.

As to SCF, the government cost was considerably less than the initial Crown deposit guarantee scheme payment as there were significant assets that offset a portion of the cost.

by fat pat | 25th Nov 17, 7:13pm 1511590391

The only way "we did well" was selling billions of residential housing to foreigners, effectively throwing a generation of kiwis under the bus. If race to the bottom was a measure of deteriorating prospects for the young citizens of a country then National won the race through and through.

by Yankiwi | 25th Nov 17, 8:26pm 1511594782

The primary cause of price appreciation here in NZ is due to kiwis. This has been shown in various articles on this site, where the foreign ownership is currently at one of the lowest points in recent history. The younger generation was thrown under the bus by the mom and pop investors. The price appreciation isn't owned by any party in particular. A large amount of price appreciation happened under Labour, which denied any issues when it was in power. National decried the decreasing affordability, then came into power and did just about the same amount of change as Labour did. Blaming just one party when the data clearly shows that both parties are culpable is a symptom of willful blindness. I'd say instead that National was just the second runner in the unaffordable housing race. We shall see whether Labour this time around does anything meaningful in regards to increasing housing affordability.

I'll believe a party is serious about housing affordability when a party comes forward that explicitly states that they are for affordable housing via a desire for a reduction in existing house prices. This mythical party should be advocates for ringfencing of individual investment properties, a CGT that doesn't have any exceptions, and a prohibition on negative gearing for investment properties.

Blaming offshore boogeymen when the primary cause is your fellow countryman is another symptom of willful blindness. The immigration issue is an important issue but is only a little bit related to unaffordable housing. Many immigrants rent when they arrive. Rent prices are not increasing at anywhere nearly the rate of home price increases. I'll believe immigration is a big issue on home affordability when the rent costs rise in a commensurate fashion as the home prices. If high immigration is the primary cause, then why are housing listings increasing and sales decreasing at a time of very high immigration?

That isn't to say that high immigration isn't an issue. It is a serious issue in terms of infrastructure loading, which then gets reflected in a reduction in the quality of living. The growth rate needs to be managed intelligently.

by PocketAces | 25th Nov 17, 8:37pm 1511595465

What a load of todge, every paragraph the exact opposite of the truth

by Yankiwi | 25th Nov 17, 8:48pm 1511596102

You are claiming that the prior housing affordability increased under the last Labour government?

And, you are claiming that National did something about housing affordability?

Clearly you are not conversant with fact.

by fat pat | 25th Nov 17, 9:01pm 1511596886

Yankiwi you can try towing that line if you like, but I doubt you'll convince anyone. You certainly wont convince anyone who lived through the hyperinflation years in Auckland (2010-2016), went to the auctions trying to compete with Chinese foreign buyers, or anyone who saw the houses on their street get purchased for over 2 million dollars, then get left empty to rot with cow parsley growing knee high.

by Yankiwi | 26th Nov 17, 4:01am 1511622067

From the posts here, the Chinese buyers have been almost entirely gone for quite a while. Why is it that prices have barely decreased since these buyers have left?

by Yankiwi | 26th Nov 17, 6:20am 1511630456

Just out of curiosity, to what do you attribute the even higher gains that occurred between 2000 and 2007? This stretch had some rather outsized gains, similar in nature to the 2010-2016 house price gains. Both periods are important to understand in terms of the causal factors for unaffordability. Neither should be looked at in isolation.

by fat pat | 26th Nov 17, 12:49pm 1511653762

Gains isn't the correct term. It's hyperinflation! 800k to 2.5 million in 6 years (2010-2016) is hyperinflation. Hyperinflation of an asset that had a high base price to begin with. In nominal terms, in price to income terms. The hyperinflation that occurred in Auckland under National is unprecedented in New Zealand's history (as far as I'm aware).

by Zachary Smith | 26th Nov 17, 1:32pm 1511656346

In economics, hyperinflation occurs when a country experiences very high and usually accelerating rates of inflation, rapidly eroding the real value of the local currency, and causing the population to minimize their holdings of local money.

So, no, it's not really hyperinflation.

by fat pat | 26th Nov 17, 9:18pm 1511684294

exactly! it is hyperinflation of a single asset class. Your copy and paste definition is essentially what has happened. Also Jim Rickards narrows the definition to price increases > 10% pa for a sustained period. Auckland houses, as an asset class, went well beyond that.

by Yankiwi | 26th Nov 17, 6:37am 1511631454

One more interesting fact.

Housing affordability for the lowest quintile is currently at its worst since the mid '90s. The group that has been squeezed is the middle class. Note carefully the years where the middle quintiles lost affordability. Hint, it wasn't after 2010.

Have a look at this data: http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Sub-sites/Social/content/Ex…

Look at Table 2 for details.

by Zachary Smith | 26th Nov 17, 7:52am 1511635943

I agree with you Yankiwi to a certain extent however immigration plays a key role in the house price inflation. Brook Landers implied the other day that it was nonsense to say that foreigners hadn't bought large amounts of property just because the foreigners were now bona fide Kiwis. Many immigrants who arrived in Auckland over the last thirty years have become owners of multiple properties as it was perceived, correctly, that this was a good way to make money. They exploited something that was already here. It is astonishing really that many Kiwis didn't seem to realise that housing in Auckland could essentially be free over the long term if you bought more than one house. The reasons for this may be cultural as many Kiwis were of the view that it was morally wrong to own more than one house. It may have been a sort of unconscious thing. I know I was like that in my youth and recall berating my sister who was considering buying a second property. I've always been a bit of an extreme nationalist. It was also a good excuse not to take that plunge as well as it was never particularly easy due to making losses in first few years as house prices caught up and there were other things to do like the big OE. There was also an element of risk.

These days at least 40% of Auckland is foreign born and many have gotten into the property game. It is a consequence of globalism and neo-liberalism where people are encouraged to largely look after themselves. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just how it is.

The alternative is a somewhat repressive and insular society that focuses on maintaining the privileges of the natives and the sacredness of the land. After all it is ridiculous to expect that diverse immigrants would somehow morph into Barry Crumps and Fred Daggs and read Janet Frame in their spare time. Indeed people now consider cultural assimilation to be repressive so we all just try and accumulate as much stuff for ourselves as possible. Diversity means more intense competition for the trappings of success. We don't compete in any other way. We don't try and outdo each other culturally just materially. Indeed we are not even allowed to compete culturally if we are ethnically European because it is mandatory to be inclusive. The common glue that binds us together now is competing for assets. This is the Boomer legacy.

by NorthernLights | 26th Nov 17, 11:04am 1511647444

Oh QE definitively does mean something
Your moniker “positively wallst” will talk to you if you think really hard

by NorthernLights | 26th Nov 17, 1:29pm 1511656182

Is that a American Kiwi ? Yankiwi
I think it was time for change
The NatNil govt provided no strategy’s
The massive levels of migrants had to be tempered by someone
Let’s hope that actually eventuates
Mr Joyce cynical attempt to fudge figures should be treated like one of his zoological thesis’s
Much better govt up here we have a complete moron

by Zachary Smith | 26th Nov 17, 1:35pm 1511656558

So, it's okay for you to live in another country but not okay for other people. A bit like it's okay for you to be a landlord and make money in property but not okay for others to do that now. I see.
Actually I'm a bit like that, I believe in privilege too.

by NorthernLights | 26th Nov 17, 11:13am 1511648019

Dictator
Anyone who has spoken to Joyce wonders how he got zoology let alone maths

by dictator | 26th Nov 17, 11:23am 1511648585

Well he wasn't going to get through economics either.

by tothepoint - d… | 25th Nov 17, 5:50pm 1511585419

[ Deleted. Please keep the person insults out of these conversations. Ed ]

TTP

by Retired-Poppy | 25th Nov 17, 8:35am 1511552158

TTP, again your comments send warning signals. People who have some insight don't rely on luck to succeed.

by Andrewj | 25th Nov 17, 2:21pm 1511572882

There may be worrying developments in some property markets, but the world’s biggest sovereign wealth fund says it has no intention of pulling back from real estate.

A gap is opening between what stock-pickers think real estate is worth and what assets could be worth in the physical market, a potential sign that a correction could be looming. For example, the largest real estate investment trust in the U.K., Land Securities, now trades at a 36 percent discount to net asset value.

“It’s clearly a red flag in pricing if anything is too far off in any direction,” Karsten Kallevig chief executive officer of Norges Bank Real Estate Management, said in an interview at his Oslo office on Wednesday.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-24/1-trillion-norway-wealth-fund-…

by CJ099 | 26th Nov 17, 8:09am 1511636953

Has anyone noticed this recent article from Bloomberg: The Party Is Over for Australia's $5.6 Trillion Housing Frenzy

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-23/australia-faces-hous…

Now if the property part over for Oz then you can be absolutely sure it's all over for NZ!

by Retired-Poppy | 26th Nov 17, 8:57am 1511639826

CJ099, if it all goes horribly wrong, how can the banking system remain sound? Australian Govt guarantee on bank deposits finished in 2015 see here :https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2016/mar/5.html

Consider the flow on effects of a China event or otherwise, what wriggle room the the Australian Govt have to prop up the big four banks next time? Where does that leave NZ banks if the Australian parents are weakened?

How safe are NZ bank deposits when we have OBR? see here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/78727017/How-safe-are-…

OMG.

by NorthernLights | 26th Nov 17, 11:26am 1511648795

CJ099
Don’t let facts the property ponzi is coming to an end upset the spruikers here
They understand nothing about Socionomics let alone economics !
Look at the selective use of sales figures spruikers here use to justify their utopian view of Auckland RE
If they were genuinely clever they’d be investing in undervalued asset classes not Remmers RE !

by Retired-Poppy | 26th Nov 17, 12:05pm 1511651110

NZ Herald Mary Holm. This is what can happen in leafy suburbs! Loss of 30% on a property in St Heliers. Leafy areas often get hit the hardest in a downturn. And no, saying she paid too much for it won't cut it - ok.

Its foolish to think that some areas are immune. It's like leafy suburbs have been inoculated or I'm wearing protection so my house will be ok!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=119…

by Ex Expat | 26th Nov 17, 1:10pm 1511655047

So you’re predicting the leafy suburbs will have a worse outcome than the general market? If so what is your prediction relative to the general median? Another 10%? Another 20%?

by Zachary Smith | 26th Nov 17, 1:12pm 1511655176

Did Mary Holm actually lose 30%? It's not clear in that article. In fact I believe it is more likely at one point she calculated the value of her home had gone down 30% but I doubt she sold and lost that much. Subsequently it went back up in a very short period of time. If she sold at that low point she was very dumb.
Also from that article:

Nobody is predicting another 30 per cent price plunge..

by Retired-Poppy | 26th Nov 17, 1:45pm 1511657114

....and the rest Zachary!: Nobody is predicting another 30 per cent price plunge, but who knows? One thing is certain: house prices will continue to fall sometimes. Given the recent trends, you might want to sit on the sidelines a while longer and see what happens.

Zachary, the message is loud and clear so read it more carefully.

by Zachary Smith | 26th Nov 17, 1:45pm 1511657101

Did Mary Holm buy a house in St Heliers in 1987 for, say, 500K and then sell it in 1991 for 350K?

by Retired-Poppy | 26th Nov 17, 1:46pm 1511657182

Zachary, calm down! Read the article carefully.

by Zachary Smith | 26th Nov 17, 1:54pm 1511657654

I'm merely seeking clarification of this important point. Was it a transitory paper loss or was it a real loss?

What's more, national average prices mask a wide range of experiences. The price fall around 1991 looks quite mild. But — as regulars may recall reading before in this column — I lost a full 30 per cent on a house in that year.

We had bought in upmarket St Heliers before the 1987 share crash. In the aftermath of the crash, many St Heliers residents must have had to sell their homes in a hurry. The resulting property crash was worse for many than the share crash.

"in that year", hmmm. Could it be in that year my house went down 30% but later it went back up? I may be wrong but it's a funny way of stating it. Can someone ask her?

by Retired-Poppy | 26th Nov 17, 1:55pm 1511657723

OMG........

by Zachary Smith | 26th Nov 17, 1:56pm 1511657816

Why didn't she write, "I was one of the many that had to sell that year"?

by Retired-Poppy | 26th Nov 17, 2:32pm 1511659939

Zachary, I accept the article is quite difficult for some to read. It was written by someone who suffered financial loss first hand. Wouldn't it be wiser not to argue the toss with such experts. If you believe her article to be fake news tell her yourself: http://www.maryholm.com/maryholmproperty.php
Click on "contact Mary" tab.

Again, the message is perfectly clear. FHB wait, there is no hurry.

by NorthernLights | 26th Nov 17, 1:35pm 1511656529

Oh I’ll take a bet with you Zach your property value will decline !
Keep up the jokes

by Zachary Smith | 27th Nov 17, 6:09am 1511716158

I was researching current property trends in Vancouver and Toronto and came across this:

Toronto, Vancouver house prices set for rise: CIBC report

At the same time, Tal said that actual demand in the housing market is stronger than official estimates. He pointed out that Canada's annual immigration quota is slated to rise from 250,000 to 300,000, and eventually 450,000. That comes amid a current tight land supply based on rules that don't capture the changes in the market, he said.

Also, official estimates of household formation in the Greater Toronto Area tend be 10,000 below the mark if adjustments are not made for immigrants and non-permanent residents, who Tal said tend to be younger than the general adult population.

"Actual demand is much stronger than official numbers often used to determine the extent to which we overbuild relative to household formation," Tal said.

Finally, the growing percentage of young adults living at home translates into pent-up demand of roughly 9,000 household, including about 6,500 in the Greater Toronto Area.

"That army of potential buyers can be seen as an insurance against long-lasting significant price decline," said Tal.

An army of potential buyers are coming to the rescue!

by tothepoint - d… | 27th Nov 17, 7:52am 1511722331

I think you're correct Zachary.

After a period of relative stability in prices (smallish fluctuations/oscillations) house prices will increase across the medium to longer term.

A number of structural factors are now underpinning the housing market - and these weren't evident even 5 years ago. So future prospects are very good.

In a few years time, we will all look back at the bargain house prices of 2017.

TTP

by Zachary Smith | 27th Nov 17, 7:13am 1511719988

I've done a bit of investigation on the Mary Holm 30% loss thing and found the following from gleaning the articles she has written:

NZ Herald February 5 2005
I once took a huge loss on a good St Heliers house when values plunged after the 1987 share market crash. But - before you leap to conclusions - the value of my Sydney house almost doubled in two years, and I've done very nicely thank you on several others.

NZ Herald 24 October 2009
Certainly that seemed to be the case in the property slump of the late 1980s. I know a couple who bought a house in the pricey suburb of St Heliers in early 1987. A year or two later they decided to buy a better house in a cheaper suburb.
Anyone know of a worse story - of a house price that dropped more than 30 per cent? In what sort of neighbourhood?

NZ Herald 31 August 2013
As an example of this, let's dip into the history of someone I know well. She once bought a house in St Heliers for $380,000 and sold it a couple of years later for about $265,000 - a 30 per cent drop. On another house in Birkenhead, she spent $150,000 doing it up and recouped none of that when selling. On the other hand, she's also made some great gains, including a house price that almost doubled in two years in Sydney.

NZ Herald 25 November 2017
The price fall around 1991 looks quite mild. But - as regulars may recall reading before in this column - I lost a full 30 per cent on a house in that year.

The story is a bit different in each article. Sold in the late 80's or in 1991? Is "someone I know well" herself? Compare August 2013 article to 2005 article. The 2013 article mentions buying a house then selling a couple of years later yet elsewhere she mentions buying before the crash of 87 and selling in 1991 which is 4 or 5 years later. 380K for a house in 86-87 was quite a lot. I recall buying a house with two bedroom flat underneath in Glendene for 70K that year. It's curious. I assume now she did take this sort of loss but why so many different stories?

by mfd | 27th Nov 17, 8:30am 1511724654

Reminds me of when Double-GZ 'misspoke' about his flat which turned out not to be his. You were much more understanding of him than you are about these commends spread over 12 years.

by Zachary Smith | 27th Nov 17, 8:37am 1511725056

I don't think I made any comment about that incident. I do recall blushing a little.

by Ex Expat | 27th Nov 17, 9:58am 1511729890

Good research Zachary. I remember the post crash period well. In hindsight it was the most formative experience in my life. I lost my job, went back to Uni, and thereafter became averse to debt.

I wouldn't wish a recession on anyone, but if it happens it will redirect the economy and expose the leveraged, allowing an opportunity for those of us with solid incomes and savings to pick up an investment property, something I've been reluctant to do so far as I want to buy in 1071 where I would get tenants I could watch over carefully, or more preferably use as an Air BnB.

BTW: Property took a while to react post the '87 crash, but nothing is immune to recession and job losses. I don't recall a property crash as such, but don't doubt Mary's word on her own situation.

by Pragmatist | 27th Nov 17, 9:53am 1511729629

Story is not different in any meaningful way. I interpret it as : Property slumped in late 80's, decided to sell a year or two later = ~89-90, and she sold/settled in 91 before prices recovered. Apart from trying to avoid making the story about her its entirely consistent, if not very precisely reported.

by Zachary Smith | 27th Nov 17, 10:08am 1511730513

The devil is in the detail. It should be more of a cautionary tale about what can happen if you buy another house before you sell the current one with no plan B rather than a general drop in value in a particular area. No one else can recall the 30% drop perhaps because it passed by relatively quickly.

by Retired-Poppy | 27th Nov 17, 8:07am 1511723255

Zachary, Mary has the credentials whether you or TTP like it or not. I prefer her version of events any day as opposed to an amateur's feeble attempts at undermining the intent of a helpful and informative article:

The key facts:
It's often "leafy" suburbs that drop the most - no area is ummune.
First home buyers should wait - there is no hurry.

I presume you've contacted her directly for clarification rather than just assuming?

by Zachary Smith | 27th Nov 17, 8:39am 1511725181

From what I can gather from the "stories" Mary bought another house before selling the current one forcing her to sell at a loss. It's hard to be sure and I'm not sure why it couldn't be related in a little more straightforward manner.

by tothepoint - d… | 27th Nov 17, 8:10am 1511723413

There's definitely a place for people like Mary Holm.

But I think of her more of a writer/journalist come advisor - than a researcher/analyst. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Thus, the inconsistencies that Zachary points to (above) don't surprise me too much.

For more sophisticated/scientific analysis, there are other avenues to explore - such as university property/valuation departments.

TTP

by Retired-Poppy | 27th Nov 17, 8:17am 1511723848

.....TTP, youvé again discredited a person with EXPERIENCE and CREDENTIALS. Your comment sends the clearest signal yet for the FHB to wait.

Your credentials are.......

OMG.

by tothepoint - d… | 27th Nov 17, 8:13am 1511723581

Hi Retired-Poppy,

You don't know my credentials - so that's a very naughty comment.

TTP

by tothepoint - d… | 27th Nov 17, 8:18am 1511723907

Hi Retired-Poppy,

I now note you've retracted your earlier comment (by editing your post) - in response to my comment immediately above.

Yours was a most unfair comment - so thank you for doing that. (I write this for the sake of transparency about what you've done.)

TTP

by Retired-Poppy | 27th Nov 17, 8:22am 1511724136

TTP, I errored in assuming you have no credentials - I was wrong.

What are your credentials?