Median house prices declined in Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga in February, according to the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand.
Although the price declines were small, combined with a big drop in the number of homes being sold and a rise in the volume of unsold stock on the market, the outlook for the housing market over the rest of the summer selling season looks weak.
In Auckland the median selling price was $800,000 in February, which means it has declined for four consecutive months since it peaked at $868,000 in October (see chart below). Over that period, the Auckland median is down $68,000, or 7.8%.
In Waikato/Bay of Plenty the median price was $460,000 in February compared to the peak of $470,000 it hit in November.
Compared to January, February's median price also declined in Hawke's Bay -4.4%, Manawatu/Whanganui -1.9%, Taranaki -3.1%, Nelson/Marlborough -4.3%, and Southland -3.2%.
Median prices rose in all other regions in February compared to January, led by Wellington +13.2%, Central Otago/Lakes +15.1%, and Northland +5.4%.
Nationally the median price was $495,000 in February, up slightly compared to January's median of $490,000 but down from the peak of $520,000 in November.
However a bigger concern than weak prices for the real estate industry is the bigger drop in the number of homes being sold.
Nationally 6253 homes were sold in February, down 14% compared to the 7291 sold in February last year.
In the country's largest real estate market, Auckland, 1661 homes were sold in February, also down 14% compared to a year earlier, and in Waikato/Bay of Plenty there was an even bigger decline, with 1099 homes selling in February, down 23.5% compared to February last year.
There were also substantial falls in the number of homes sold in February compared to a year earlier in Hawkes Bay -17.5%, Wellington -21.4%, Nelson/Marlborough -14.4%, Canterbury -9.5%, Central Otago/Lakes -8.6%, Otago -9.4% and Southland -22%.
The decline in the number of homes being sold and rising numbers of new listings is pushing up the total inventory of homes for sale.
The REINZ said the inventory of homes for sale in Auckland was up 20% compared to a year earlier and increased particularly sharply over the last three months.
Auctions sales had also declined, with 921 homes selling by auction in February, down 29% on February last year.
Perhaps not surprisingly, homes were taking longer to sell, with the median number of days to sell a property rising to 39 across the country compared to 36 in February last year.
In Auckland and Waikato/Bay of Plenty the median days to sell rose to 43 compared to 36 a year ago.
'A strong sense the Auckland market has peaked'
In a First Impressions note on the REINZ figures, Westpac acting chief economist Michael Gordon said prices in Auckland had effectively stalled since the middle of last year and combined with falling sales and rising inventories of unsold homes, there was a strong sense that the Auckland market had peaked.
"Mortgage rates have been heading higher since November, ending a steady downward trend over the previous couple of years," he said.
"Our view remains that higher borrowing costs will have a more meaningful and sustained impact on house prices than the temporary effects of lending restrictions."
Click on the link below for the REINZ's full regional reports:
Median price - REINZ
Select chart tabs
202 Comments
Just read the report summary. Certainly very weak numbers on the sales volumes nationwide - widespread double digit decreases with only a few area's bucking the trend. An 8% Auckland median price decline in 4 months should also be concerning especially when coupled with increasing inventory and days to sell. Bearish overall. This comments section is going to be entertaining!
.. you seen those old films about the French Revolution ... the ones where the toothless crones are cackling and knitting around the guillotine as the heads of the aristocrats get lopped off ...
Well ... that's me and the missus .... having a ringside seat ... sniggering with glee as the Auckland property spruikers lose their heads .... smiling our gummy smiles ...
Zachary,
To be picky,it's actually .......one day as a tiger,than .......as a sheep. If you are going to be guillotined,I feel sure you want to get it right. Anyway,just why would it be better?
Since Elysium is a place of the dead,your phrase seems a little incongruous.
GST is only payable if you are a property developer, definitely not a residential landlord. In fact even if you are registered for GST then rent a property out for residential purposes for five years no GST is payable under income tax law (provided you account for GST correctly during that period, ie you can't claim GST and not pay it back).
I suspect its more of a reflection on whats actually selling. The FOUR six bedroom houses that were built and completed in December are all still for sale in my street if you have $1.5M. Still not really a worry unless a similar trend continues for another 6 months.
I'm on the North Shore and they are not selling. Other less expensive property in my area has sold stickers on the signs. Far too much property at the $1.5M threshold and your typical Kiwi's just don't have that kind of money or if they do they are now 70 years old.
Surprisingly over 90% of the properties listed in my DGZ suburb are all sold (and some within a week). Obviously the median house price on our streets are mostly over $2m and they're definitely selling either by auction or negotiation. Not sure why the other areas in Auckland can't keep up??? I am puzzled.
In my area of interest, Greenlane, the listing numbers have remained pretty much the same and almost all houses have sold over the last three months. The only ones languishing are a couple of the very cheapest which look a bit like motel units. They are asking 100K over the high estimate on homes.co.nz and almost twice CV mind you. A very small sample size though with usually about 20 listings at any one time.
Pretty much the same thing in Remuera, but we have larger sample size with a few notable sales in the last month of over $6m in price but largely anything between $1m and $3m are selling really well. Did you go to see 43 Orakei Rd in the weekend? Are you the one with a black 4WD that parked right outside the property Zach?
DGZ and ZS, you guys are old enough (or Aucklander's for long enough??) to remember what an Auckland property market crash feels like, right??
It's a funny thing when "premium" properties go on the market at seemingly giveaway prices and still no one wants them...
This has never happened as far as I can recall. There was a time when lifestyle blocks were difficult to move and prices hardly moved for around ten years. In 1997 I was cashed up after a divorce and prices went down 15-20%. Foolishly I thought what remained of my wealth was better in the bank and I enjoyed being a tenant. Suddenly the Landlord wanted his place back and I found myself regretting not buying during the downturn because prices soon bounced back up.
My advice is buy the best house you can during the downturn, if you need a house.
You clearly haven't followed the market for long enough...
Remember 88-91 when absolute top end Auckland property was being sold at a fraction of it's pre stock market crash value?? I recall Florence Court in Epsom appearing on the Holmes show, when it's buyer (with a deferred settlement) was now bankrupt a couldn't settle on the $7m sale price. It subsequently went for something like $2m!! (The middle and bottom of the market didn't fear as badly but...)
Then there was 98-2001. I remember rougher rental houses in Ponsonby that had been $450k in 1997, languishing on the market at $350k in 2000. Even when we we looking in 2012, there were some vendors still struggling to recoup what they paid in 2007.
It's worse in other boom/bust hotspots, like Queenstown...
You must be joking Chris_J. I recall you saying the same thing in 2010 but I have never seen any premium properties with giveaway prices. You sure it wasn't a dream? ;-)
AND it looks like the MAJORITY agree with me http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=118…
If you go back and follow my comments, you will see that in 2008/9 when I first started commenting I was adamant BH was spouting nonsense with his 30% fall predictions.
I said at that time prices will flatten, but probably not fall in real terms. BH didn't/doesn't like me for it but it was true.
I made comments at that time prices will recover strongly in another boom in 5 or so years time. What happened??
If you recall, we did buy a large number of properties in 2012 (including half a dozen in Auckland). I have been adamant that the market was peaking in 2016, and we have liquidated enough to hold negligible debt.
This market is on a knife edge at the moment. Prices in Auckland aren't sustainable at current levels, a long of period of flat to falling prices is on its way...
They all doubled in value. We still own a lot of properties (more than 50 NZ wide), but yes I think prices need to fall. I don't want to make further investments in bubble prices, if they were realistic and the fervour dissipated, I would look at Auckland again. Right now I've got the barge pole out.
The fact is, the market has already turned, and I know a downturn when I see one. I even had two cold calls today alone from agents I know well, with "hot" properties with no one on them, that could be going for a song. The agents know me well and will only call when they have something good, in fact I haven't had cold calls like this for years (but with 2 today, that makes 3 in a week). That tells me it's quiet out there.
I wonder how many investors have been sitting on the sidelines for the past year or two like me. Excellent LVR even in the face of double digit declines. Good to go when people start to panic sell. Nothing has changed with regard to the (under)supply of houses in Auckland. I think prices will not crash because of this supply problem. Equally I think they can't rise a lot more because we have reached the limit of what people can pay. As people panic sell there may be some good opportunities to secure buy and hold properties that present reasonable long term returns.
Effectively house prices have been flat to falling for nearly 12 months in the central Auckland suburbs. Medians have only been buoyed up by refurbishments and lower priced housing not really being on the market much.
Try selling at the moment rather than buying and you will realise that what you think your property is worth is not really attainable...
I don't agree at all. Like I stated in my post above in my DGZ suburb over 90% of all listings have been sold, either via auction or negotiation if passed in at auction in the last 2 months. I have not seen any that have been withdrawn because of 'no buyer'. To illustrate this the following are just some of the sales I am aware of:
1) 142 Upland Road - Sold in Feb 2017 for $3,340,000
2) 64 Lucerne Rd - Sold in Feb 2017 for $7,200,000
3) 25 Eastbourne Rd - Sold Mar 2017 for $6,400,000
4) 2/266 Victoria Ave - Sold Mar 2017 for $2,000,000
5) 2 Raumati Rd - Sold Feb 2017 for $2,800,000
6) 640 Remuera Rd - Sold Feb 2017 for $4,000,000
7) 178 Victoria Ave - Sold Feb 2017 for $2,970,000
8) 93 Benson Rd - Sold Feb 2017 for $9,000,000
9) 24A Mount Hobson Rd - Sold Mar 2017 around $6,000,000
10) 44 Shore Rd - Sold Feb 2017 for around $2,000,000
Last week's Barfoot auctions, 14 eastern suburbs properties (Parnell to St Helier's), 8 not sold on auction day. 3 Remuera/Parnell properties, 1 sold.
They are all just figures, and not particularly relevant, but if you don't believe a market can downturn, I hope you are not over stretched, because markets turn quickly and get ugly quickly, and I've seen it all before, early 90s, 98-2000, and to a lesser extent in 2008-10
Yes, markets can turn quickly. In fact, had it not been for the RBG making all the downwards interest rate changes back in 2008;
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-policy/official-cash-rate-decisions
I suspect that period would have been much more severe in terms of the market downturn. Recall everyone scrambling to break their existing mortgages? That cushion doesn't exist this time round.
And I know from history, no one cares about the gamblers who leveraged to the hilt to buy property. And only the SFO care about those that fudged their bank loan documents...
If you're highly leveraged in Auckland at the moment, the question is can you sustain selling for 20% less than what you think the property is worth (because that is the margin you will lose, by the time you have sales fees, other selling costs (eg vacancy and tidying) and the all important discounting to actually achieve a sale - and the bad news is that is only if prices remain flattish, if they fall bigly watch out...)
For the sake of those looking to purchase their first home at a reasonable/sensible price, hope this is the start of what they have been hoping/expecting for a very long time.. the next 6 months is going to be a very interesting with
-> Rising interest rates
-> Election impact on housing as its the biggest issue being debated
-> Bill English not able to FAKE IT AS WELL AS MY KEY DID
Poor thing! Here's one for you...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/90370714/country-homestead-in-…
On what basis? What is the average income in Omakere and therefore what is the likely earnings multiple? Buy this house and you'll probably be doing the same as the current owners i.e. having to eventually move to see more of family and spruiking the listing in a newspaper.
Like I said, interest rates are a killer for all who were considering buying over renting. Rentals are looking a lot better now and in my area alone there are 40% more rentals available at decent prices because of the competition. There are about 400% more properties for sale as of last week. Time are a changing!
This is also interesting: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-12/who-hit-brakes-bank-loan-creat…
BTTD: don't forget the ZD bit from last week.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-09/australian-banks-deny-speculat…
- and the colourful comments
hey, they are our banks too!
because look who is charge
http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/the-best-and-worst-p…
- yay for video based audi.
I am not a doctor
Hmmm - very interesting..
Given that Feb into March are normally the "boom months" do we now say there is a definitive trend? Relative downside to upside must be weighted to the down - higher interest rates, low sales volumes and stock increasing daily?
March will be interesting - been fooled too many times before to be confident about it!
Interesting.. the price went up considerably in the main areas (i.e Auckland City, North Shore, Waitakere) and dropped on the outskirts (Rodney, Papakura, Manukau). I guess anything central will tend to hold it's value as who really wants a 1hr commute when you can have a 20 min commute?
Yes that's what I have said before, however a 17 minute door to door commute to the CBD starting at 5:30AM for me is a 45 minute minimum commute in peak hour traffic. The further you move out the worse it gets, in fact it becomes intolerable once you go over an hour. Property closer to where the work is will hold or even increase in value based on the travel aspect alone.
Have you been to Clonbern Rd New World? I have never come across a situation where I have to worry about parking there, so 'easy' is an understatement. I don't go to the Shore at all, and my local shopping mall is Newmarket which is a major bus/train interchange. Very easy to get to by PT.
are you kidding? most places you can not get close to the speed limit at all during that day.
maybe I am looking through eyes of someone that used to drive all over Auckland doing deliveries 15+ years ago and now can see a big difference and speed of change in travel times from point to point.
and guess what it is only going to get worse, more people means more traffic on the roads
From the sounds of that you should be walking :p Smarten up, slacker!
But yes, your example reinforces precisely the point I made: Even as Aucklanders are starting to get unhappy with commutes, it's still paradise compared to third world countries, and National can essentially open the tap as wide as they wish without ever running short of those willing to come to Auckland.
Thanks for reinforcing the point.
And without the money being generated to address infrastructure, those commutes will obviously get a lot worse. Rates will need to increase fairly dramatically at some point (or be supplemented with such measures as a foreign purchase stamp duty, real CGT etc.).
(Doesn't affect me either, I walk to work. None of this lazybones driving three minutes to a train station.)
DGZ, having to lower yourself to take public transport and work in an office?? Why bother if you can make tax free double digit capital gains on all of those grammar zoned investments??
At 24 (earlier this century), I used to drive from home (near the city end of Jervois Rd) to park in the building next to my office in Queen St. Surely public transport is only for liberals and those with a mindset of being a lifetime employee?? It seems quite contrary to your bullish view on property!! It does make me wonder if your bullishness is actually due to a lack of experience in property downturns...
And as Brendon linked in another thread - the is the ACC plan for fringe development going forward;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=118…
Hi Kate.
This is also a bit of a follow on from my reply to you on another thread, but the link you supplied above is an example of the stupidly of our system.
Lets have a map that highlights the next lot of land the councils want to have development control over, so the land bankers can now all rush out and secure said land and between the lot of them (which is not many), ensure maximum rentier gain is achieved.
In reality they don't have to wait for the map, its' easy to work out which land is next up if you are in the game.
In Australia (for which there are figures available unlike NZ), the 1/2 major land bank players have up to thirty years worth of supply land banked.
If they needed to show such a map in Texas, it would show all rural land as potentially zoned, and that it could be developed in any order. This in practice gives SO much land available for potential development, that no group of land bankers can capture the market to extract a monopoly rentier price. Therefore it is easier to buy development land at close to its rural land value anytime you want.
This means any developer tries to reduce his land holding costs as much as possible as he is in competition with everyone also that can do the same thing. Houses can and are build quickly to meet demand at very affordable prices and better quality.
Dale, I agree. As I said, vote Labour as they are going to do away with the MUL. Any land owner can then apply for a private plan change to convert their land from rural/rural residential to residential.
What I can't understand is how that differs from what you are proposing?
Kate
That is only addressing half of the issue.
As long as ex urban development is reliant on council provided / funded / managed infrastructure, an abolition of growth boundaries means nothing.
As an urban planner, my position is that I would like to see an urban boundary maintained, so that a green belt is retained. What I have proposed is then zoning for cluster housing in 8 areas in the Auckland region beyond that green belt. Within those areas development could be as small as 10 houses or as large as 1000 houses. The scale is largely irrelevant. What becomes relevant and central is how those communities are designed and how they address infrastructure considerations.
This forms a position halfway on the spectrum between the highly planned approach and the totally Laissez faire approach
I'm saying it answers Dale's point.
Yours is a separate issue.
One can resolve infrastructure problems without an MUL. No MUL, according to Dale, would have the advantage of bringing down the price of land.
The idea of an artificial urban boundary providing a green belt is odd - as much of the land the other side of this artificial boundary is in private ownership. A green belt concept (if one wants to incorporate it into a plan), I'd have thought would be open space in public ownership - like the Waitakere Ranges or the Wellington Town Belt..
No it's not odd. It prevents contiguous urban sprawl. And creates a distinction between the truly urban and the ex-urban.
My concept still brings land prices down as it seriously reduces the monopolization of land. Not as much as a complete removal of growth boundaries, but still a big difference from present.
People need to move away from this black and white thinking.
They way I look at it Fritz - Auckland housing is in crisis on both demand (price) and supply (homelessness) measures. No time for ideals. Time to just do everything that might make a difference. Ridding the place of that MUL might work - who knows? But what we do know is that retaining it keeps land prices high.
Why do we need a "distinction between the urban and the ex-urban" ... that will always be there - somewhere will always be the hinterlands - and one thing for sure, we are not short of open space/conservation land in NZ.
Mmmm
Well that's still binary, black and white thinking. ie. we need to have a MUL or not have a MUL.
What I'm talking about frees up an awful lot of the Auckland region's rural land - it's just it keeps some areas as no go - highly productive farmland, ecological areas, and much of if not all the area immediately adjoining the existing urban area.
By enabling say 30-40% of the rural area of the Auckland region to be developed as cluster housing communities, it massively reduces the monopolistic position we are faced with at the present - whilst maintain some semblance of spatial planning.
I'm not saying it's the perfect solution - but what is?
Why can't we widen the debate?
What you are suggesting provides planning gains to 30-40% of the rural area and makes no difference to 60-70% of the other rural areas - it merely re-configures the monopoly... it's a drip feed. I'm not a sprawl convert - simply because I wouldn't wish those ridiculous commute times in traffic on anyone. I'm more convinced that intensification would be far more beneficial to not only the people but the look and feel of Auckland. But, that said - it's all privately owned land, and I'm not sure why we push against property right holders having the right to make as many choices as possible for themselves.
Getting municipal infrastructure to that land is another matter - but weren't you supporting the self-contained, onsite systems approach? Removing the MUL surely makes this prospect more possible.
Sorry, I don't think abbreviated messages here will work, and I don't have time to write a large exposition of my concept.
But needless to say...
30-40% of rural Auckland is a huge area with a huge number of properties.... so it's very very far from a monopolisation. So I totally disagree with your contention.
BTW, in line with my non-binary thinking, I'm also a big proponent of urban intensification. But not the desperate, carpet density we see in the unitary Plan. Like my ex-urban concept, it needs to be nuanced and thought through
I think the ACC planners are implementing something very close to your concept;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=118…
to visualise it, look at this image at the link below and imagine this multiplied numerously across specific rural locations - 8 'cluster housing zones' - in Auckland region. On big rural sites, there might be 30-50 houses in each cluster, in 5-6 clusters.
http://knowlesdesignnh.com/index_files/page0013.htm
Yes, I understand the concept -something very like it has been implemented in Waikanae. Google Waikanae Eco-hamlet (although the hamlet there is not self-contained - it receives municipal services). So, such structure plans of a similar sort exist already. But they do not deliver the volume of houses projected as required in Auckland - as you can see from the numbers quoted in the above link.
I think your vision is achievable already in NZ - it's just not the solution for Auckland's woes at this point in time.
Hi Kate, I see you and Fritz have had a good chat.
There is a fundamental lack of understanding of how MUDs really work that all the politicians fail to see, and therefore when they propose doing away with the MUL, it's not that same thing.
There is some research about that has said that zoning thirty years of land use ahead, so this amount is available at anyone time, is the same equivalent as having no zoning (like Texas), ie to establish a market where there is enough supply that no one can gain a monopoly position by landbanking and therefore land can be purchased at close to its rural value. This does not mean that the land has to be serviced, but is immediately available, without asking, if you which to service it.
Unfortunately this has been interpreted as releasing enough land that will be used over the next thirty years, this is not the same has having enough land released that is the equivalent of thirty years supply being able to be developed now continuously.
In the Govts mind, they might say they will release enough land now for 180,000 houses to be developed over the next thirty years, but what they mean is they will only be developing 6,000 house per year and this will only be on a staged basis following on from the last contiguous developed stage. Any landbanker can easily monopolize this arrangement.
That is why in Aussie the large landbankers can already own thirty years supply ahead, and yet a monopoly still exists.
What Texas and others have done is say all land has a presumptive right to be developed when and where the owner see fit, EXCEPT for all the land that has been designated as environmentally sensitive, parks, set aside for elite soil protection, set aside of growth easements etc. On the rest the owners can put in their own infrastructure (you don't have to do it through council), develop and pay the cost of this at their own economic risk. This approach always means that potentially there is always 30+ years always available to be developed now continually.
As you can see, this is nothing like what any of the politicians are suggesting.
But they will say it is, and waste a lot of time implementing their version, and when it fails will claim MUD's don't work.
And to say that at least the removal of the MUL is a good first incremental step, that is like saying you can get across a chasm with a number of small steps rather than one large leap.
A housing unaffordability chasm unfortunately is what they have allowed to open up from where we are, to where we need to be.
This is why we need a government who will follow the example of previous NZ governments and use a targeted land tax to break up and discourage landbanking. The speculators doing this are not assisting the future of NZ's society in any way, rather they are actively reducing the ability to create a better future society.
It's always a bit confusing how they evaluate and calculate these figures. I'm sure Auckland had hit the one million mark as the average house price before the Capital Flight regulations hit us and cause the markets to scale back. Though I suppose if you calculate it on the 'Medium' sales price it seems less of a price drop.
Average Auckland house price inches back to $1.1m; National average rises to $628k; Uncertainty remains over whether LVR restrictions and looming interest rate rises will keep slowing house price growth
http://www.interest.co.nz/property/85437/average-auckland-house-price-i…
Thanks Yvil, I just keep getting the feeling that they (Certain parties) want to keep us interested in buying property even when it's a falling market and there's market factors completely beyond our control, such as Overseas Investors who were the top end Buyers and are now largely absent.
Who knows how long this will last? Could be for the foreseeable future. I for one will wait for the market to bottom out and return to more realistic levels in line with peoples wages. Seems the logical thing to do.
Oh it's fine with me property price declines, I'm sick of seeing my industry being squeezed out of Auckland due to the extremely high cost of living. That's more important to most employed people in Auckland than ridiculous house prices that are completely detached from wages. :)
Seriously, those that are on here and feel happy because the housing market has slowed down by both prices and number of sales being made, really need to go and do something.
Of course it is going to slow at some stage and the LVR alteration by the Banks is the main reason rather than the lack of people wanting to buy.
Don't beleive that the interest rates are a big thing at all at the moment as they are lower than they were 2 years ago.
The rises of the rates from the low point of 4 per cent affects the servicing ability of mainly first home buyers in The dearer Centres.
Hi TM2,
What is it you want us to go and do? And why?
Also how are you so sure its LVR? The Economist basically wrote a whole article on foreign buyers buying up New Zealand property as a safe haven asset class. So it is equally as likely assume that since prices are on the ropes these investors are exiting the market.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/03/daily-chart-6
On you point about interest rates increasing. FHB will get the benefit of having to borrow less to offset the interest rate changes. So still not sure where you are going with this?
Aurelius, people should be more concerned with their own business and not be worrying about what other people are doing.
Being bitter about house prices in Auckland is self deflating and if the market drops then so be it, but to be preoccupied with it is pointless.
In Chch where I know the market and market participaters, it is solely the Banks position in regard to clawing back more equity u der the new LVR regulations.
Pointless having to put 40 per cent into a property unless it is a great buy, returning a great return.
In Chch the interest rate rises will have more impact on a First home buyer than a slight drop in prices of houses, as they also have to put in a larger deposit than they previously had to as well!
I have to disagree with your opinion that people shouldn't inform themselves about the state of the country and the economy. Lets leave aside the obvious ironies of you commenting on this story about how no one should be commenting on it.
I know I've shown you this link before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in
http://www.interest.co.nz/property/86219/new-reserve-bank-figures-show-…
The reserve bank's policies are having the intended impact, affecting investors more than they do first home buyers. Again, if you disagree please provide some evidence. I'd expect them to be benefiting from only requiring a 20% deposit versus the investors needing 40%. Interest rates rise and fall, but saving on the cost of a house is forever.
Well explained, As you pointed out 40% does not impacts first home buyers and TM2 in calculating his repayment wrong if he thinks the expected interest rate hikes will have a greater impact than a 10% or more decrease in prices on a 20-30 year loan. Different if you're investing, but for FHB this is a good thing as long as this down turn does not hurt the economy.
When is something a good buy? Interesting to read the commentary. "There is more stock than buyers. The market is poised on something of a knife edge." No wonder you have been moaning and sniveling so much lately. After all you are so much in touch with the market and you are aware of what is happening.
Welcome Gordon.
Haven't been moaning or snivelling at all, and just enjoying life.
Have pointed out the alteration to the LVR as the reason for the slower market, but doesn't really affect us at all Gordon.
As for a good buy, I know them when they come up but don't really need any more property, but then sometimes it just happens.
It's my first comment on the site (go easy...), but I thought I'd give my impressions of the market from the perspective of someone whose family home is about to go to auction in two days (http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction…) , in one of the suburbs mentioned above (Papakura).
The market has definitely slowed... we have had approx 15-20 groups through open homes over a 4 week Auction campaign, in September/October last year, we were attending open homes ourselves with this many people each day).
We weren't especially sold on Auction as a sales method, but we did believe that our property had several unique attributes (character bungalow, large section, development potential under MHU zoning under Auckland Unitary Plan) that would see auction possibly deliver the premium we were looking (hoping!) for, in order to take that next step up to a larger property.
We've been keeping an eye on other properties on the market around us, like 5 Butterworth (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=1263536807) and 14 Liverpool (http://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auction…).
5 Butterworth went to Auction March 7th - failed to attract a bid, held at rooms as part of 33 other auctions. Now listed at $989k. 1500+ sq/m.
14 Liverpool went to Auction March 11th - failed to attract a bid, held on site with 2 people attending. Now listed at $875k. 1000+ sq/m.
The days of high-flying auctions appear to be well and truly over. Knowing how we searched for property ourselves, we tended to give auctions a fairly wide berth, and it seems many buyers are now doing the same. There seems to be far more appetite now for actually negotiating a price beforehand, and possibly (heaven forbid) actually having a purchase conditional on selling something existing first.
Our expectations around our own auction are (we believe) realistic, and based on reasoned facts and recent sales for comparable properties in the area. Wednesday will be interesting, and I'll report back if anyone's interested in hearing further details...
Further to my comments above, we sold our house via auction / negotiation earlier this evening. We set the reserve (optimistically) at $850k believing we would face pressure from multiple people (buyers, agents, auctioneer) and would need to possibly drop. We had 3 parties bidding, 1 dropped out at 640k, 1 was out at $710k and the final bid was $740k, at which point we entered more of a negotiation under same auction terms. We dropped to $820k, they came up to $800k and we closed it out. Of course, we would have loved more (who wouldn't!?) but we feel the price achieved was fair and reasonable. It enables us to move onto what we want and had purchased (conditionally), and best of all, means we're not dealing with RE agents
again for hopefully at least a few years!! Oh and gooki, I negotiated $5k reduction in commission on the deal, which the agents agreed to in a hearbeart to help get the deal across the line...
Thanks DGZ, doubled value in less than 6 years, which we'd have said was outrageous when we purchased it ourselves...But equally, we've had to pay probably slightly too high on what we've purchased, so it's all relative really. Not that we're planning on flipping it in a month, it's likely a 10+ year play, so time will take care of it hopefully.
Yes it is a blessing! I purchased my home over 8 years ago and the value has more than doubled, in fact 99.99% of Auckland property values have doubled since 2008 except for leaky plaster-clad homes.
We are the lucky ones who happen to have the option of buying and selling...but like you said, it is all relative if we're still transacting the same market.
Onwards and upwards - well done matey!
Well played! Interesting that they dropped the commission considering it was a home that needed to be sold urgently. But then you had bought conditionally which I think was a good strategy. I bought unconditionally once and needed to sell my house and that was pretty stressful at the time. So stressful that it turned me into a landlord so I didn't need to sell when moving house. This is the good thing about the not so hot market. Conditional upon sale of your own property should become more common and it is a good thing.and more choices for buyers. It looks like you maintained that property really well.
Homes.co.nz price prediction was pretty much on the money.
A beautiful bungalow! Lovely property.
Yes,I am interested, especially as you have that advantage of the re-zoning to MHU and a good sized re-development site. My thoughts are that property with good re-development potential might just retain its attractiveness in a falling market.
But of course, in many of these cases, the existing dwelling needs to be removed in order for the re-development/intensification to happen. This is why in another thread I made the point about needing a ready market for those dwelling assets to be relocated to new vacant sections elsewhere in the Auckland area.
But I believe many of the new land developments have covenants on them that do not allow for relocatables, and if this is so, I suspect the value of your bungalow to a purchaser who wants to redevelop the site is very low (in other words they are unable to recover any reasonable amount in that regard)..
In my opinion, the ACC needs to think very hard on this, if indeed there is not a ready market for re-use of existing dwellings. I suspect that fringe land needs to be opened up without covenants if they want intensification to work.
Best wishes for the sale!!!!
Best of luck with the auction.
Thanks Kate, appreciate your comments. Before we put it on the market, we worked through a number of scenarios, including developing the site further ourselves - and came to the conclusion that we just didn't have the capital to make it work. In an ideal world, I think I'd keep the existing property on site, but move it to the front to gain access to the rear via the existing access and driveway. But who knows what will happen :) We did also look at re-locating it ourselves, and you're right, there was no land we could find where there weren't covenants preventing this for one reason or another (minimum home value, minimum floor size, specific roof pitches etc). Will let you know what happens!
Removing the existing property and design-building a say, four unit title residential development on the site would make much better (and more profitable) use of the land (providing the planning regs allow such a development on the 1000m2 site). In other words, the real money for a developer is in higher density, multi-unit development (provided of course that there is a market for that type of development). And that's where the real lower cost housing for the general public gets a big boost.
5 Butterworth paid $480,000 in Oct 2012 now asking $989,000
14 Liverpool paid $400,000 in Mar 2008 now asking $875,000
Insane - no wonder the haven't sold - far too high for Papakura!
Most of Auckland now able to be developed to a level not seen before, now the Unitary Plan is in. Trademe appears to be awash with "potential development" properties but not so sure the bank managers are too keen to fund such projects.
I would agree but not according to the REINZ spokesperson quoted in the Herald!
"In Auckland, median prices rose a seasonally adjusted +11 per cent (6.7 per cent median change) year-on-year, although the median price dropped $5000 (-1 per cent) during February."
Anyone know how to reconcile this with the chart here. And what is 'seasonally adjusted' y on y anyway - it's comparing the same season!
The impression I got in Auckland was that the outer suburbs prices went too far. Houses in South Auckland were selling for 60-100% over CV while Central Auckland was more like 20-30% above. I did register my concern about this at the time. It would be good to see a breakdown by suburb in Auckland of the price change.
Well yeah that's what will happen, the outer suburbs will fall first followed by the gradual decline of the inner suburbs. That's what happened during the GFC. And don't confuse Auckland with London's property market performance.
London was propped up by wealthy foreign investors from Middle East, Russia, China and Europe, so it didn't feel the full effect of the property decline that the rest of the UK felt.
Remember Auckland has been very much held aloft by pretty much China mostly.
The most obvious proof is that Sydney, Melbourne, Toronto, Hong Kong are continuing to rise today. Those markets were being buoyed by the same global investment demand and that demand continues.
If Auckland house price rises are mostly due to foreign investment the Auckland prices will still be going up.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/david-uren-economics/h…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/toronto/demand-fuels-toronto…
People will one day realise it was simply cheap loans that forced up the price of property and in years to come will wonder why some Kiwi and foreign investors were paying $1M for the 3 bedroom house in an average suburb.
The same thing happened in the 2007 share market crash except the drop was fast and deep whereas a property crash is death by a thousand cuts.
Has the NZ Herald property editor resorted to outright lies for her masters now?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=118…
"In Auckland, median prices rose a seasonally adjusted +11 per cent (6.7 per cent median change) year-on-year, although the median price dropped $5000 (-1 per cent) during February."
"The median price rose an average of 10.6 per cent over the past three months, versus 10.5 per cent over the same period a year ago, indicating a very similar performance between the first three months of 2017 and 2016."
Two issues:
1) How do you "seasonally adjust" year on year figures?
2) The median price fell 6.2% (852k to 800k) over the last three months, not went up 10.6% like their article claims ???
I think they just print whatever the agents tell them to print. There was an article in stuff a few months ago - 'Kelston house sells for three times it's CV'. I rang the agent who said the printed selling price was wrong but wouldn't tell me what it was. Stuff ignored my emails asking to correct the article.
They are right that it's up year on year. But that's because of the big gains March 16 - Oct 16. The significant fall away has been since Oct 16.
So they are right but I would suggest have not provided a balanced view in terms of the direction down over the last 6 months. Whether that imbalance is intentional or not I couldn't say
I've just checked and the Herald has simply just reported what REINZ reported. That's not very good is it, when the statement doesn't, at face value, make sense.
I can't see from REINZ's data what the Auckland City movement in median sales value is for the past 3 months.
Maybe the good folks at interest.co.nz can find out what's going on?
I like pictures;
https://www.reinz.co.nz/Media/Default/Statistic%20Documents/2017/Reside…
This is the full report you wanted,
https://www.reinz.co.nz/Media/Default/Statistic%20Documents/2017/Reside…
You are welcome.
I'm Gen Y or whatever it is now, but I started following realestate at 8, and given your views DGZ, I'm guessing you started REALLY looking at real estate in 2010 ish?? (Even if you bought earlier??).
That would explain the lack of fear about downturns...
Oh and remember 1999, after 9 years of National and house prices then on the skids and the long time PM Jim B getting rolled, National got thumped in the election... Sound familiar? Just sub John K for Jim B...
For auckland
7% increase from Feb 16(750K median) to Feb 17(800K median). This is what I would be interested in never mind that seasonal nonsense really.
For Auckland
<1% drop from jan 17(805K median) to Feb 17(800K median) although they did say in the vid
1% increase from Jan 17(490K median) to Feb 17(495K median) for nation wide.
Interesting that they used the 7% increase in Auck y on y figure of 7% and the national figure of 1% increase compared with last month.
who knows
Still plenty of demand for the top end properties in the best areas from wealthy migrants.
Not so much demand for cheaply done reno's.
As said above in Auckland it is all about buying with proximity to the City Centre. Location,location,location. It's a cliché but is true.
The next couple of months of data will be the real tell tale for Auckland. Inventory is clearly increasing while sales volume is decreasing. Typically pricing lags the fundamentals of supply and demand so we will see. The other losers in this report are the real estate agents -9% reduction in national sales on 6253 total sales is ~618 less total sales X $495k average price X 3% commission = $9.1MM in lost commissions...
As I said last Thursday after talking to a mate who is an authoritative source of intel in the RE sector, prices are down 10-12% on average. This data hasn't caught up with that.
High value locations are kind of holding up OK, but some of the low/mid value locations are getting battered
Its a good point. Investors could be nervous about a potential change of government resulting in a CGT, curtailed immigration or other supply side legislation. It would seem smart to cash up now and take that risk out. I doubt owner occupiers are racing to sell their own residence only to have to buy another.
Wow you're really grasping at straws unaha-closp. It would be best to check the sales data against recent previous years and I think you'll find that property prices increased particularly for Auckland last Feb to March 2016.
Most of the RE's promised that property prices would increase again this year with the Chinese New Year and we simply haven't seen that.
What we have seen is Auckland's sales and house prices dramatically drop as soon as the Capital Flight restrictions were brought in to full force late last year by the Chinese Government. Our housing market has very much felt the Trump Effect.
If anyone else can provide an alternative explanation as to why our property market is falling I would love to hear it. :)
Any long term investor will take no notice of this article/headline. The majority are willing the headlines and are waiting to say they called it. If you don't understand that property is cyclical then don't get involved with it. It's going to go up and down and sideways. If you're investing for the long haul it will have no bearing for panic now, or next month or the year after. If you have been trying to make a quick buck and have speculated to a point which has squeezed day to day income, perhaps these headlines will drive your panic! Clinging to every little article and trying to time the market can be a very dangerous game.
More noise for now...
As covered by other, lots of headwinds for housing right now. No one will want to purchase with the possibility of an immediate capital loss, whether they be investor, overseas money hider, or first home buyer. Throw into the mix other things happening this year, Fed rate increases (rates hikes everywhere), NZ election (overseas ownership, immigration and tax on property getting hot discussion). None of these boost property values.
It's a good time to hold off buying a property in Auckland right now - unless you really need to for family/personal reasons.
There's a decent chance that the market will remain flat for the next few months (at least) and given the rising inventory of properties listed for sale, further price falls might reasonably be expected.......
For those of you who didn't read the report, who are just singing along the 'Market Crash' pop song, the majority of Auckland median house prices are actually UP!
North Shore City $1,013,000 (Feb 17) $965,000 (Jan 17) $940,000 (Feb 16)
Waitakere City $805,000 (Feb 17) $761,500 (Jan 17) $683,000 (Feb 16)
Auckland City $891,000 (Feb 17) $845,500 (Jan 17) $825,000 (Feb 16)
Metro Auckland $846,000 (Feb 17) $830,000 (Jan 17) $785,000 (Feb 16)
The Auckland Region median was only brought down by South Auckland, Rodney and Outer Auckland.
Well I guess that is the point. This data doesn't necessarily represent the whole of Auckland, it represents a sample of Auckland. The relevence depends on what type of conclusions you are trying to make from the data, and it might suit your purpose but might not suit mine. Isn't statistics a blast.
How does median of Auckland sales prices not represent the whole Auckland?
It suits everyone's purpose when someone is interested in whole market's representative.
Unless, if you are only interested in Auckland city centre area.
It does not sample the monthly sales data but itself represent the whole data, there is no such sample, It's the population itself.
I only have a master's degree in econometrics but your theorem of yours is very new to me.
No worries mate. If you were looking to make comparisons on house values from this data, then you want the sample distribution to be similar. With the decline in sales perhaps it isn't, so therefore we might not be comparing apples with apples. As you say, if you just want to compare sales rather than values then as we were. Well done on your masters by the way. Do you work for a bank or something like that now?
Again, it is population data itself. No sample.
They did not sample but aggregated all the data.
No matter how they are distributed, the median number represent the median of the whole sales in the month.
This is comparing apple to apple.
I think you've got this wrong with sampled data.
You are right if the data is sampled evenly from the categories (say... choose 10 samples from city and 10 samples from manukau...), than such cluster may cause a biased result.
But this is again, the population itself, nothing to do with the sampling.
The number does not represent the whole auckland property market but it is itself.
DGZ, I haven't seen the data set yet, but Auckland overall is going to go yr on yr negative for medians this month unless there is a lift happening right now (which there definitely isn't). That's because of the big jump Feb 16 to March 16 ($750k to $820k).
Within a few months medians may well be done 10% from the peak Q3 16.
Aucklanders are going to have to live with flat or declining prices for a while yet. Chch has had nearly 3 years of flat prices and declines are now starting to set into some sectors. Yields are relatively high in Chch, so it hasn't sent panic into the market, but Auckland is unsustainable, in a speculative bubble and the impending flat to falling prices will be felt...sharply.
Rundown houses on undevelopable sections in average outer central suburbs selling for $1.5m when they would be lucky to rent at $550pw is completely irrational. The same rent can be achieved in prime non Auckland locations for a quarter of the capital outlay.
These properties don't stack up as family homes at this level either. The only market for them is speculators. Realistically prices could see 25% shaved off peak 2016 levels easily. There will be tears...
I reckon mid range central Auckland houses are actually more than 10% down from mid 2016 already.
The RBNZ data which is miles behind (in terms of release dates) will be telling - but realistically we won't get the data for now for over half year, so it will be more than clear what is happening by the time that data is released...
Chris, not sure I agree with you that prices have been flat for the past 3 years in Christchurch and the figures would show that.
No it hasn't been a dramatic increase but a reasonable increase.
I appreciate it that you are very well versed with the Chch market, but the affect that the "as is where is" market has on prices over the last few years is significant to the average.
Yes we are currently oversupplied with rental property in Chch and may be for a few years yet, but well managed and maintained property is still returning excellent returns for longstanding investors, and opportunities are forthcoming.
Chch I firmly beleive will be the city of choice for many as it continues to be rebuilt.
There's been a small increase, a little larger than inflation. I'm interested in why you think that 'as is where is' houses have affected the trend over the last three years? Sure, the average will be lower with more munted houses in the mix, but do you think the proportion of sales that are 'as is where is' has increased in the last three years? If the proportion is steady or falling, then it won't be having the effect you're proposing.
My own assumption would be that the proportion is falling as earthquake repairs are steadily done, houses are demolished and rebuilt and the initial 'fleeing the city' dies down. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Remember TA telling everyone in mid 2008 that everything was fine and interest rates would only fall marginally and slowly over the next few years??
I do. I questioned him at one of his "road shows" about it, saying isn't this like 1998 and the Asian financial crisis and things might turn suddenly??
Just don't bring such things up with him because he doesn't like it (I have evidence of that...).
Personally I would be selective on what advice I would take from him, very selective...
Still support that government of the day should have acted and should accept that their is a housing crisis instead supporting and justifying the crisis as sign of prosperity.
May be overseas buyers have doubt being election year for if change of government the new government may not be as friendly to overseas investors and speculators.
Wait and see.
Prices are still dropping and will continue for awhile, but doubtful they go back to what they use to be years ago, as long as they become more affordable. Currently uncertainty continues in the Auckland property market, most are leaning towards property market retreating, hence over flow of property listings.
yet Nick smith wants to build/ sell off reserves https://goo.gl/j8zD2T
Is it just me or is this guy crazzzzzy?
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.