There was a flurry of activity in Barfoot & Thompson's auction rooms last week with the agency putting nearly 250 residential properties up for auction.
Of the 248 properties Barfoots marketed for sale by auction, sales were achieved on 80 of them, giving a sales clearance rate just a smidgen short of a third.
The biggest auction of the week was at Barfoot's Shortland Street rooms on October 17 where 63 properties were offered, mostly from central Auckland suburbs such as Kohimarama, Glendowie, Epsom, and Mt Eden. Sales were achieved on 18 of them, giving an overall sales rate of 29%.
The auctions at Manukau (48 properties) and North Shore (51 properties) were also whoppers, and they had respective sales rates of 29% and 35% - see the table below for the full auction break down.
Barfoot's Pukekohe office also had a particularly busy auction last week, with 11 properties marketed for auction and sales achieved on five, giving a clearance rate of 45%.
Of the 51 sales where the selling price could be matched with a rating valuation (RV), 31 sold for more than their RV, 18 sold for less than their RV and two sold for the same as their RV.
Details of the properties offered and the selling prices for most of the properties that sold are available on our Residential Auction Results page.
| Date | Venue | Sold | Not Sold | Total | % Sold |
| 15-21 October | On-site | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| 16 October | Manukau | 14 | 34 | 48 | 29% |
| 16 October | B&T, Shortland St, CBD. | 4 | 13 | 17 | 24% |
| 17 Cctober | B&T Mortgagee/Court | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50% |
| 17 Octpober | Whangarei | 1 | 0 | 1 | 100% |
| 17 October | B&T Shortland St, CBD | 18 | 45 | 63 | 29% |
| 17 October | Warkworth | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50% |
| 17 October | Pukekohe | 5 | 6 | 11 | 45% |
| 18 October | North Shore | 18 | 33 | 51 | 35% |
| 18 October | B&T Shortland St | 9 | 16 | 25 | 36% |
| 19 October | B&T Shortland St | 9 | 14 | 23 | 39% |
| Total | All venues | 80 | 168 | 248 | 32% |
132 Comments
It is only if the mortgagee wishes to get a loan that they would need security or gold...
The fun begins when the existing loan is due, and the current loan conditions have more stringent requirements than the prior loan (such as requiring some equity in the property or other available security).
The 'auction' bit is the last stage of the process of selling. It's what happens when all other avenues of sale during the marketing programme have failed. Most properties these days will be quite amenable to an offer before the auction, and that's what is hoped for. If you get to auction these days, the probability is (32/68!) that you aren't going to sell.
An auction is the first step in the sales process, not the last. You take your property to auction and you find its clearing value, about a 1/3rd find a price they will sell for. From there you decide if you want to list as price by negotiation and sit patiently, sell and take the loss or if you want to withdraw the property and wait for a year or three. Failing to sell at auction is not the same as failing to sell at all, many will sell a few weeks or months later.
@BW is a pre-auction offer considered an unconditional offer? If yes, why would anyone want to put in an offer before the auction? I also read that even if you put in a pre-auction offer that the property can still proceed to auction. That is my understanding and so I take a wait and see approach. If the property doesn't sell at auction then only would I consider putting in an offer. I wouldn't waste money on unnecessary inspections.
*My understanding may be incorrect so please excuse my ignorance. Auction house sales are a new thing to me.
Yes you are right.. It is just the first part of the sale process ...not the last. Auctions are there to get buyers to get their ducks in a row within a certain time frame. If I was a seller I would be want to have a chance of selling within a certain time frame and unconditionally even with a 33% chance of success. I wouldn't want to wait for conditional buyers to have to sell or get finance which is becoming a lottery. .If it doesn't sell at auction ..it doesn't matter because at least you have given it your beast shot . move to plan b and put a price on it.
Will New Zealand housing follow Australia down the hole? The foundations of our wonky market share the same foundations (4 big Aussie banks) . AMP are now forecasting 20% falls in Australia by 2020.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/amp-downgrad…
Westpac and ANZ both sitting near 2 year share price lows. Anyone fancy taking another interest only loan to help keep the market propped up?
Like many others here, my expectation has been that the housing market won’t firm until early-2021......
But I/we may be wrong. There’s enough to suggest that a more buoyant market may emerge before then.
The prospects of picking up a “cheap property” are steadily diminishing - especially in Central Auckland.
TTP
Auckland price to income ratios approaching 10%, gross rental yields sub 4% and agent TTP says grab a cheap property while you still can......
https://www.interest.co.nz/property/house-price-income-multiples
Unforgivably cringeworthy.
Hi Retired-Poppy,
Since April 2017 my position has been clear and consistent: Auckland house prices would hold relatively stable, fluctuating within a narrow band. This is exactly what has transpired,
In sharp contrast, you told everyone here that Auckland property market would crash before the end of 2017.....
And when that didn’t happen you said it was going to crash before the end of 2018. Again, completely wrong.
Who would believe a word you say - based on your dreadful, inaccurate track-record.
Indeed, one ponders how Retired-Poppy (the most prominent member of the DGM tribe) could be SO WRONG FOR SO LONG.....
TTP
Barfoot and Thompson are now introducing a new team song for morning meetings and to run during the Auctions
Nzdan. This one's for you.
I guess there must be a lag to acquiring the data. Looks like they're up to Sunday as I type this:
https://www.interest.co.nz/property/residential-auction-results
My point is, there's no cherry picking here. Just a presentation of the facts which we can interpret in our own ways.
What do you mean "who writes this stuff? The author's name is at the top of the article, sunshine.
What part of the article or title is factually inaccurate?
Without fail there are always a few sookey babas that come out of the woodwork to spit the dummy when auction results aren't framed negatively.
I tried to bait the DGMs yesterday but it didn’t work so I won’t bother today. According to the auction listings Kohi had 5 and only one sold @ 122% of CV. The other four listings were a set of sausage B&T flats. 37 Southern Cross Road sold last week after 80 days on the market. Listings are clearing with single site homes in the $2.2 million plus range. The market there is neither hot nor cold, it’s clearing. Of course this is a niche market but maybe you DGMs could actually post some data to support your views.
Yes, I agree the market is flat. Unfortunately this website has become infested with miserable DGMs that value feelings over facts. The level of confirmation bias going on here is stunning. "I want the housing market to tank, therefore the housing market is going to tank".
Figures time gents as requested by Ex Expat
5500 sales across the Country in September. Today there are 35,713 properties for sale on realestate.co.nz. If no more houses were added to the market it would still take 6.5 months (and that's unlikely without the foreigners to assist us now) to clear the market of stock. Or put simply sellers have a 1 in 6.5 chance of selling each month and if they don't own something very very unique will have to stand out from the crowd by making their home appealing on price - otherwise they will just sit there as sensible new sellers enter the market at clearing levels (lower values).
The latest REINZ report states that national median days to sell is 36. Please explain how you calculated that “sellers have a 1 in 6.5 chance of selling each month
You say that there are 35,713 properties for sale on realestate.co.nz. In context you imply that you are referring to houses, but does this figure include commercial/office/industrial/farms? In terms of residential property, the REINZ report states that the number of properties available for sale nationally increased by 5.2% YOY from 21,727 to 22,847 last month.
It's hard to interpret data without context, i.e. what was it like during the last boom and during the last bust?
There's a similar published set of data here:
https://www.interest.co.nz/Charts/Real%20estate/Housing%20inventory
Inventory is definitely ticking up, but not to historically high levels. Auckland is back to where it was before 2012, a time when prices were reasonably flat, the price drops back in 2007-09 had much higher inventories.
Well, not necessarily. If you can find a correlated stat it's interesting, especially if it starts to change before price changes show up. But, for anyone to convince me that they have data showing prices are falling, as a starting point I want to see what was happening to that data last time prices were falling, and I'm not sure Nic is there yet. Like you, in the meantime I'm just watching the prices flatline in Auckland and Chch and waiting to see which way the curve goes next.
The metric of days to sell is actually days to sell per agent, so if you change agents it resets the clock. More to the point though is that it is median days to sell. It means about 50% sell before that and about 50% sell after that. If you have a long tail then you can build quite a big inventory even with okay days to sell.
@Nic Johnson Because house clearance rates are a function of multiple variables its unreasonable to look at clearance rates alone and conclude anything about scarcity. For example if there was an extreme shortage but interest rates rose a percent or two you would have almost no sales outside of some forced sales, simply because affordability was wrecked.
Sure its like that, the same conversation where you couldn't even add to 6, then tried to ram a single outlier in 2012 as evidence of trend change... I then appropriately charted how ludicrous your claim was that GDP per hour is "flat" or "lower than unity". If you remember this was the chart formula applied after your rather pointless request for a non-linear: y=88.48x^0.057 which illustrates a declining rate of productivity growth but never the less, a non negative rate of growth.
Here is the data series by the way:
2001 - 91
2002 - 92.8
2003 - 94.5
2004 - 94.1
2005 - 94.0
2006 - 95.4
2007 - 99.1
2008 - 96.0
2009 - 101
2010 - 100
2011 - 102.2
2012 - 105.7
2013 - 103.6
2014 - 102.8
2015 - 104.6
2016 - 105.2
nymad 2017: "What about the change from 2012 to 2016? is 105.2/105.7 lower than unity, perhaps?"
Lol@that quote, trend is up over time, cant cherry pick an outlier and be taken seriously.
Here is the linear:
y = 0.9806x + 90.54
Its a better fit.
Quote
"Here is another way to look at this data:
0.01978022
0.018318966
-0.004232804
-0.001062699
0.014893617
0.038784067
-0.031281534
0.052083333
-0.00990099
0.022
0.034246575
-0.01986755
-0.007722008
0.017509728
0.005736138
That is the list of productivity change by year. It generates the following line shape:
y = -0.31ln(x) + 1.573
which is more illustrative of growth over time and even includes societal collapse :-)"
You fitted a log function to a stationary data series. It was stupid and proved my point that you had no idea what you were doing.
This is too funny. Do you not realise what you are looking at? That data is the annual change is GDP hours. It isnt stationary, it is gradually declining. You can fit a line or a curve to that data. If you choose to fit a log curve to it then it estimates that in 160 years productivity will turn negative, which i found cute.
Given you need things in simple formats ill make your life easy:
1.98%
1.83%
-0.42%
-0.11%
1.49%
3.88%
-3.13%
5.21%
-0.99%
2.20%
3.42%
-1.99%
-0.77%
1.75%
0.57%
Clear enough for you now?
Funny that you have made an astounding discovery in time series modelling. You can forecast non mean reverting, non constant variance data. What's more it's also fine to make out of sample predictions from in sample estimates.
Queue Nobel Prize in econometrics, Laminar.
Also interesting that the differenced data removes you 'outlier'.
But hey, you are obviously the expert on time series statistics.
BEA does the same thing as me:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._GDP_Growth_Rate_Over_Time…
GDP growth is trend reverting and so is productivity, underutilisation recovers to trend after most corrections. Growth in any one year is not independent from previous years.
Average growth rates, and average productivity gains are declining on trend, and extrapolated that would eventually become a problem. It likely simply represents the reality that baring some great leap forward the law of diminishing returns will sap the Wests ability to expand.
Here is Mises doing the same thing:
https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/full_width/s3/shos5.PNG?ito…
The outlier is clearly visible as the above trend build from data point 8 to data point 11, you just have no idea what you are looking for. Youd help yourself if you actually graphed these things. A simple two point moving average will reveal the outlier function with great clarity. You could even fit trend lines to the cyclical sub series, then calculate their gradients to see the outlier as compared to prior cycles in tabular form.
Have you told the BEA about their outlier issues? Or does it not matter when the effects suit your rhetoric?
"Growth in any one year is not independent from previous years."
Well yes and no. However, when data is properly forecasted any of this dependence is controlled for. Forecasters don't just draw a line and extrapolate that out as you advocate.
"GDP growth is trend reverting and so is productivity, underutilisation recovers to trend after most corrections. "
No. In a growth sense they are mean reverting. Not trend reverting. This is an important assumption in time series - that the data moments are approximated to constants and the data is characterised as randomly generated (mean reverting).
To say the latter (trend reverting), like I said, means that you cannot model and forecast them in the manner you are. Simply fitting a function to an observed dataset and projecting out of sample is not how forecasting is done.
There are Granger techniques you can use to prove reversions to trend. But this is not what you have been advocating.
Keep going. I did a PhD in stats, so love this.
Evidently its not a PHD in economics because that is exactly backwards. I specificaly dont want to subtract or divide out the trend, because the trend is what im trying to establish. Im actually smoothing out the cycles and seasons, noise and such to establish the long term trend.
The reason forecasters detrend data is to make short term predictions, exactly what im not doing. You cant forecast out 160 years, and even though i was actually making fun of you with that 160 year 'societal collapse' statement, if you were going to guess at what happens in 160 years, you would do exactly what i have, which is manage out the seasonality, cycles and noise to establish a long term trend and a trend line does that very neatly.
You are like the people who say global warming stopped in 1998, because you fail to understand that within larger trends you have reversals, and these reversals do nothing to invalidate the long term trend. 2012 was an outlier, formed from a longer period of productivity gains than is typical, it is not a trend change.
I meant actual sales vs CV, remaining stock, days on market etc. You present as someone trying to confirm a bias with high level stats and/or flawed data e.g. using LINZ data to see if people owe a lot .
I take a different approach and just look at my area. I see modest listing numbers, listings selling if priced properly and stable prices. Granted it's a small sample but if the market were sick wouldn't the higher priced areas be tanking as well?
Spring is the prime listing time. Gardens are in good condition, weather is usually warm and people don't have other distractions, plus they can likely settle prior to the Christmas shutdown. Why this is perceived as a sign the market is flooded is beyond me. Prices are still around CV with explainable differences. Relax and be happy, get on with life. The market is stable.
Uh-huh, so if it's not happening in your backyard then whos? https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12…
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/107694820/auckland-christchurch-proper…
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/106902193/heres-where-house-prices-are…
Of course prices are sagging on a wider basis. You're both just trolling :-)
No idea, just posting what the Bank's estimate of my home value is, given by Core Logic. Maybe someone in the know could tell us how Core Logic derive their value? In general I'd put more store in them than Stuff or the Herald.
Edit: Just noticed those articles refer to Core Logic data. I guess mine is the most up to date and precise measurement for my property and those articles are general. It's the same source but mine isn't used to sell newspapers or clicks.
Frankly, anyone who wants the market to soar or tank is a menace - and usually driven by their own self-interest/greed. (Unfortunately, there are a number of such people who contribute here - including the notorious DGM.)
An extended period of stability would now be a good thing. There’s not too much wrong with stability in any market.
Stability, of course, is a key aim of wider Government - and the Reserve Bank. Long may such a prudent/commonsense approach prevail.
TTP
So to summarise - people who want to be able to afford a family home are greedy, while people who want homes to stay unaffordable so they can profit from investments off the backs of poorer people are... fine upstanding citizens?
I really wish I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth like you.
Hi Saving4AUhouse,
No silver spoon ever in my mouth.
Whatever I happen to have I’ve worked damned hard for.
I know it’s tough - but I suggest you also work hard, save, get good market information and use it astutely...... That’s the best way of achieving success and satisfaction.
TTP
You're trying to turn this around. You're trying to say that if someone is bearish about this property market, they are moaning and groaning. They are trying to will the market to do what they want. They're also bad, selfish people.
I'm telling you that's bullshit. It's doom and gloom for most of the country, because they can't afford a house. I earn a decent income, I'll be OK, but there are people out there earning half or less what I earn and - because I have a heart - I feel for them.
So to try and say people who want the housing market to correct are greedy and selfish is bullshit. NZ houses are unaffordable by objective measures. If anything, you are greedy and selfish if you want prices to stay as they are.
Hi Saving4AUhouse,
There’s little prospect of house prices falling significantly - so you’d better get used to it.
And relying on ANY government to put a roof over your head if you earn a decent income would be pretty naive.
For those in genuine hardship through disability/disadvantage, government has a legitimate role and the present government is responding - or attempting to respond.
By the way, it’s not all doom and gloom. Plenty of people have done the hard yards and got themselves into a basic first home. That will continue.
TTP
"Of the 51 sales where the selling price could be matched with a rating valuation (RV), 31 sold for more than their RV, 18 sold for less than their RV and two sold for the same as their RV"
Greg, please amend your statement to suit commenters posts on this site, values are dropping significantly and now that the foreign buyer ban is in place they are truely plummeting
What, if you're one of the lucky 32% that sells theres a 61% chance that it will go above RV?
So of all the properties that went to auction 19.52% sold for a price about RV. That means four of every five houses didn't sell above RV or didn't sell at all.
I don't think anyone has labelled this a truely plummeting market, but I can understand peoples reasoning behind being pessimistic about the present and very concerned about the future.
No change in sales conversion, just more listings, so no change to the last year or so other that more looking to cash out. Note OIAA 2018 effective two months after Royal Assent so 22nd of October and still only a third conversion. Is this the last Auctions before the ban, auctions in November will tell the story. Imagine for a moment that the sale conversion rate of 1/3 drops even further...
Still calling a big drop for DGZ non sub dividable property. Stuff that can be intensified likely to hold up going forward. i.e. subdivision potential is a logical historical driver of value.
I would also like to see the bill drawn last week that will limit Super to those that have actually worked for 20 years in NZ extended to cover Public healthcare and Public Education. If you can pay twice the going rate for a house, surely you can pay for private education and healthcare.
So, well into peak selling season and can still can even clear 1/3, that's pretty dire!
Realestate.co.nz AKLD res property listings now over 13500
Trade me AKLD res property listings now over 12600
Lots on offer, not much demand, FBs gone, by the end of Summer .... freefall
Will be interesting to see - next Auction Result (Pre and post foreign buyer ban).
If foreign buyers were and are active would have rushed to buy before the ban is put in place. Must be do or die situation for foreign buyers who were interested in buying in NZ.
Will be interesting if can have the data of the buyers residency status in last Auction
Wait and watch.
When you consider that a lot of houses sell just a few days after the auction these results are very stable. Auction is still a perfectly valid way to sell provided you have a good location, present it well and are not too greedy about price.
Very few of the successful results will be for houses where the vendor bought in the last two years or so.
...and being that it's a buyers market, the best presented and tastefully renovated are more likely to fetch premium prices, near, on or even above CV. If carefully done, what the vendor puts in $$ wise, the vendor hopefully gets out. In this market, the rest (jittery specu-slumlords) have no choice but to pursue the fewer buyers that remain.
Would be very interesting to find out what the reserve at auction was, and what the number on the final contract was. Are vendors having to take a lot less than they want to get rid of properties that don't sell at auction, or are they only a few percent under their original reserve, or even possibly (but unlikely) the buyers eventually coming up to meet the original reserve.
One foreign buyer injects $3,000,000 cash into the Auckland market. That money then gets spent on the next Auckland house $1,000,000, a purchase in the Hawkes Bay and a flat in Wellington. Plus all the subsequent transactions that the sellers of Hawkes bay, Auckland ($1,000,000) and Wellington property are then able to make. The impact is enormous when you actually think about it. Does explain why the bank shares are getting hammered at present, they have to reduce rates so the system they've bet the loan book in doesn't collapse overnight.
Have you ever watched dominoes falling in sequence? that's what the foreign buyer facilitated, without them, it's just debt that someone has to want to take on and be able to access to.
..you just need one buyer going to every auction on the weekend and being second highest bidder. 20 auctions and everyone thinks there are 20 wealthy bidders or more still to buy. When there was always only one (plus the 20 suckers).
Extreme example, but inc in a buy frenzy, easy to see how it keeps on keeping on...
I have some Remuera apartments going cheap. As the listing says it's right in the DGZ. Think of the potential.
https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auctio…
They are both data points and largely irrelevant to both of us as neither of us are buyers or sellers. We can surmise that 107 was a development purchase, I have no idea why your ex property only sold for what it did. I do recall you posting something when you sold it. I think we can both agree that the current market is stratospheric and we fail to see the value. My interest in posting is keeping the pundits honest. It's fact becoming clear how useful my Bank's Core Logic figure is as I don't have the energy to look at each sale. Right now the value is bang on the 2017 CV.
Maaate! you should jump at it.. get it signed up with a 20% deposit, and a 15year mortgage, then "lose" ya job, you and the mrs on the dole + accommodation supplement can cover the $212/week mortgage easy, grow ya own veges and let the govt buy you a house. Create a you-tube channel reviewing Xbox games or something and you're set for life.. mortgage free property owner in just 10 years!
/sarc
Not going to lie - your idea is pretty tempting. Might as well milk this welfare state for all it's worth. Kind of a smart plan actually - work hard, save enough money to purchase most of a house, lose my job somehow, have kids, let the government support us and our mortgage, work on an online business - then when it takes off flip the property and leave for a lower tax jurisdiction.
Low tax usually equals low service. Singapore for one.. is it really low tax when you pay 7% tax, and then another 20% of your income is compulsorily taken and placed in the CPF account to pay for healthcare and retirement? With the slight difference that anything left in your CPF fund when you kick the bucket goes to your partner/kids, its really not that different from ~25% tax a median wage earner in NZ pays with free healthcare and pension is it?
Rent isn't that cheap in singapore, and salaries look lower. Might not be the cheap paradise you expect. $440/week rent for a 45m2 studio apartment in an average area, from a senior software engineers salary of $70k.
And i Hope you don't like cars.. minimum 100% tax, up to 180% tax on cars.
I never really considered singapore (you're right about the rents at least), but lol at some of yours assumptions.
1. I'm a millennial, We're not going to be getting NZ pensions. We'll just be paying for the previous generations.
2. Have you availed yourself of our 'free healthcare' before? To get decent care here you need to go private, no ifs or buts.
Working in healthcare, I can tell you that my specialty is essentially the same whether you go private or public. The public waiting times are short, treatment is the same and in some cases better, and we are larger with more experienced staff available for complex cases than our local private centre. The larger size makes it easier for us to keep up with newer techniques and implement them safely.
The Drs involved in treatment will be the same. The machines treating you are the same. The timelines are the same. All your money buys you is a nicer waiting room and a bit more time for people to fuss over you.
Other services may vary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnnmmQb1XO4&t=75s
6 months on from this little message from Tony Alexander. What a charlatan. The recent auction clearance rates and soggy sales data suggest a far from rosy picture.
There's only so much I could watch of that. Some of his points were correct but he seemed oblivious to the fact that cutting off skytv and broadband at home could not possibly provide enough money to cover a house deposit. He pushed that after pointing out he spent $6k per year at cafes. He keeps shoveling the same nonsense.
Seems like everyone has a crystal ball now !
https://tmmonline.nz/article/976513803/comment-have-we-hit-the-bottom?u…
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.