It's official, housing values are on the rise again, even in the difficult Auckland market.
The latest data from Quotable Value shows that the average value of residential properties throughout the country was $691,460 in September (based on settled sales in the three months to the end of September) up from $688,760 in August.
Nationally, average values are 0.6% higher than they were three months ago and 2.4% higher than they were 12 months ago.
The rise in values includes the troubled Auckland market which has just been through a difficult winter during which prices in many districts came under downward pressure.
In Auckland the average value was $1,027,392 at the end of September, compared to $1,025,193 at the end of August.
Significantly the rise in values compared to August occurred in all of Auckland's sub-districts from Rodney in the north to Franklin in the south.
In most cases the increase in average values was just a few thousand dollars, but the fact that it occurred across all parts of the city suggest a turn in the Auckland market, even though QV's House Price Index shows that average values in most parts of Auckland are still below where they were three months ago (see table below).
The rise in values was nationwide with all major centres including Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin showing an increase in average values in September compared to August.
On an annual basis the biggest increases in value were in some of the small rural towns where property prices are still relatively cheap compared to the larger towns, with values up 31.7% in Kawerau compared to 12 months ago, while Otorohanga posted a 26.6% increase and Opotiki a 23% increase.
Average values were also up strongly across the bottom of the South Island, with values in Dunedin rising from between 10.3% and 15.5% depending on the area, while Southland was up 16.5%, although Queenstown-Lakes posted a more modest 1.9% annual gain.
Although average values were up in Christchurch, on an annual basis the gains were very small, ranging from just 0.2% in the central and northern suburbs to 1.3% in the eastern suburbs.
The annual gains in the Wellington region were more impressive, ranging from 4.1% in Wellington City to 15.3% in Upper Hutt.
The table below shows average values in all districts throughout the country and their movement over three and 12 months.
The comment stream on this story is now closed.
| QV House Price Index | |||
| September 2019 | |||
| Territorial authority | Average current value $ | 3 month change % | 12 month change % |
| Auckland Area | 1,027,392 | 0.0% | -1.9% |
| Wellington Area | 715,740 | 0.8% | 7.4% |
| Total NZ | 691,460 | 0.6% | 2.4% |
| Far North | 479,832 | 10.5% | 14.7% |
| Whangarei | 543,155 | -0.9% | 1.6% |
| Kaipara | 546,927 | -1.2% | 0.7% |
| Auckland - Rodney | 941,180 | -0.3% | -0.9% |
| Rodney - Hibiscus Coast | 924,311 | 0.8% | -0.9% |
| Rodney - North | 960,445 | -1.0% | -0.8% |
| Auckland - North Shore | 1,173,529 | -0.3% | -3.5% |
| North Shore - Coastal | 1,351,277 | 0.6% | -2.8% |
| North Shore - Onewa | 942,948 | -0.2% | -3.8% |
| North Shore - North Harbour | 1,123,897 | -2.2% | -5.0% |
| Auckland - Waitakere | 813,055 | -0.1% | -1.4% |
| Auckland - City | 1,215,401 | 0.6% | -1.5% |
| Auckland City - Central | 1,070,601 | 2.3% | 0.0% |
| Auckland_City - East | 1,533,894 | 0.1% | -1.9% |
| Auckland City - South | 1,076,260 | 0.3% | -2.1% |
| Auckland City - Islands | 1,104,906 | -1.0% | 0.9% |
| Auckland - Manukau | 886,133 | -0.4% | -1.3% |
| Manukau - East | 1,123,605 | -1.0% | -2.5% |
| Manukau - Central | 692,679 | 0.8% | -0.9% |
| Manukau - North West | 774,167 | -0.3% | 0.0% |
| Auckland - Papakura | 696,914 | -1.8% | -0.4% |
| Auckland - Franklin | 671,280 | -0.2% | 0.2% |
| Thames Coromandel | 765,304 | 1.8% | 3.4% |
| Hauraki | 426,423 | 1.2% | 6.5% |
| Waikato | 488,000 | -0.4% | 2.0% |
| Matamata Piako | 490,534 | -0.1% | 7.3% |
| Hamilton | 590,500 | 0.9% | 3.2% |
| Hamilton - North East | 736,354 | 0.6% | 1.4% |
| Hamilton - Central & North West | 541,968 | 0.4% | 2.5% |
| Hamilton - South East | 546,079 | 1.3% | 5.9% |
| Hamilton - South West | 528,032 | 1.4% | 4.0% |
| Waipa | 601,507 | 4.1% | 8.2% |
| Otorohanga | 346,922 | -4.3% | 26.6% |
| South Waikato | 258,931 | 0.4% | 12.5% |
| Waitomo | 223,439 | -1.9% | -1.3% |
| Taupo | 538,854 | 3.7% | 12.0% |
| Western BOP | 662,733 | -2.5% | 5.2% |
| Tauranga | 747,493 | 0.5% | 5.4% |
| Rotorua | 475,936 | 0.7% | 9.2% |
| Whakatane | 483,774 | 4.0% | 9.7% |
| Kawerau | 263,260 | -1.9% | 31.7% |
| Opotiki | 354,698 | 11.0% | 23.0% |
| Gisborne | 369,210 | 4.7% | 13.5% |
| Wairoa | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Hastings | 535,219 | 2.5% | 15.3% |
| Napier | 553,128 | -0.9% | 8.2% |
| Central Hawke's Bay | 386,669 | -0.6% | 14.5% |
| New Plymouth | 477,553 | 3.0% | 6.4% |
| Stratford | 293,989 | 3.5% | 12.1% |
| South Taranaki | 253,025 | 4.0% | 14.3% |
| Ruapehu | 220,253 | -0.1% | 16.1% |
| Whanganui | 292,921 | 0.8% | 12.3% |
| Rangitikei | 245,114 | 4.6% | 10.3% |
| Manawatu | 407,939 | 3.5% | 16.5% |
| Palmerston North | 461,061 | 3.5% | 13.4% |
| Tararua | 239,721 | -2.5% | 12.1% |
| Horowhenua | 382,948 | 1.6% | 19.5% |
| Kapiti Coast | 612,870 | 1.9% | 8.5% |
| Porirua | 611,562 | 2.2% | 8.9% |
| Upper Hutt | 574,557 | 2.1% | 15.3% |
| Hutt | 607,896 | 1.9% | 13.2% |
| Wellington City | 827,436 | 0.0% | 4.1% |
| Wellington - Central & South | 819,047 | 0.2% | 2.3% |
| Wellington - East | 886,365 | 0.3% | 6.2% |
| Wellington - North | 762,239 | 0.4% | 5.6% |
| Wellington - West | 932,674 | -0.9% | 3.1% |
| Masterton | 397,141 | 3.1% | 11.5% |
| Carterton | 440,187 | 1.5% | 15.8% |
| South Wairarapa | 537,873 | 6.6% | 11.3% |
| Tasman | 608,721 | -0.4% | 4.3% |
| Nelson | 629,287 | 0.8% | 7.1% |
| Marlborough | 484,920 | -0.8% | 4.4% |
| Kaikoura | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Buller | 200,105 | 1.8% | 5.3% |
| Grey | 218,583 | -0.5% | -0.2% |
| Westland | 264,307 | 4.0% | 5.3% |
| Hurunui | 396,724 | 2.5% | 1.6% |
| Waimakariri | 451,150 | 0.1% | 1.2% |
| Christchurch | 497,290 | -0.5% | 0.7% |
| Christchurch - East | 378,332 | 0.1% | 1.3% |
| Christchurch - Hills | 676,698 | -0.3% | 0.6% |
| Christchurch - Central & North | 581,984 | -1.3% | 0.2% |
| Christchurch - Southwest | 473,674 | -0.2% | 0.6% |
| Christchurch - Banks Peninsula | 518,563 | -0.7% | 0.4% |
| Selwyn | 556,189 | -0.1% | 0.2% |
| Ashburton | 358,793 | 0.2% | 1.4% |
| Timaru | 371,669 | 1.5% | 3.6% |
| MacKenzie | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Waimate | 264,737 | -2.0% | 8.4% |
| Waitaki | 323,654 | 0.9% | 6.3% |
| Central Otago | 534,739 | 0.5% | 5.5% |
| Queenstown Lakes | 1,191,923 | 1.6% | 1.9% |
| Dunedin | 473,702 | 2.9% | 12.8% |
| Dunedin - Central & North | 487,675 | 2.4% | 10.3% |
| Dunedin - Peninsular & Coastal | 433,217 | 4.4% | 14.5% |
| Dunedin - South | 458,864 | 3.8% | 15.5% |
| Dunedin - Taieri | 490,069 | 2.2% | 12.2% |
| Clutha | 241,586 | 5.9% | 8.2% |
| Southland | 316,268 | -0.7% | 16.5% |
| Gore | 248,041 | 5.0% | 8.9% |
| Invercargill | 314,216 | 4.7% | 13.3% |
| Main Urban Areas | 793,322 | 0.4% | 1.1% |
102 Comments
"Just part of the central bankers desperate plan to keep blowing the asset bubble in order to wreck what is left of our country?" Yes you are correct in that assumption. Remember folks property prices can only really keep rising if our mortgage rate keep falling. We're currently down to 3.15% for the lowest current mortgage on offer, not sure how much lower they'll be willing to go.
How about to zero and beyond.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/aug/13/danish-bank-launches-worl…
And we have not even started printing money yet!
No, you have spent over a year hinting that "prices may rise" in response to any change in the macro conditions. You did it when there was a relaxation of LVR's ... and you were wrong. You did it when the CGT was ruled .... and you were wrong.
Now after a single instance of a MoM rise and you claim this proves you have been correct all along? Do you really believe a month on month rise in spring shows conclusive proof of a wider trend rather than normal seasonal movement?
Ok here's my big prediction....drum roll please...
My prediction is that over coming months TTP will continue to conveniently oscillate between saying 'there is every likelihood' of significant price rises (much more certain), and that 'significant price rises can't be ruled out' (much less certain).
That's his game, and he'll keep playing it.
I think we all know that! That is all you ever post!
If everyday you say you think its going be thunder and lightning today, eventually you will be right.
Never any evidence to back it up or fundamentals that you believe are driving your "opinion". And this is why people say you are a REA or Spruiker, as your opinion never changes as imput factors change.
Values go up 1 month in Auckland and you are boasting like you've won the lottery. Well there is an old saying "one swallow does not a summer make".
So lets wait and see how the summer selling season pans out, before you get on your megaphone shouting "told you so"
Hi Miguel & Thegic,
You are patently incorrect in your comments above.
To set the record straight:
For about 2 years leading up to July/August 2019 my sustained position was that the (Auckland) housing market was flat and that it would likely remain that way for some time. For instance, I explicitly stated here on a number of occasions that it seemed, "unlikely that there will be any significant price increases until 2021 - at the earliest".
However, since July/August 2019 (and based on new information) I have written on several occasions that, significant house price increases could not be ruled out within the next few months and into 2020.
That change in my position has been based on careful consideration a number of factors, including the Government's backdown on a Capital Gains Tax, continuing falling interest rates, difficulties with new building developments (including KiwiBank and the tardiness/inefficiency of local authorities in issuing resource/building consents), as well as on-going demographic issues.
Note that only yesterday, I wrote here, "We can't rule out that Auckland house prices will firm over forthcoming months." This has also become the opinion of some mainstream forecasters/commentators. It is a legitimate position.
With all due respect, you are entitled to your opinions. But it is unethical for you to misrepresent the opinions of others - such as me - as that is both misleading and deceptive.
Please play the game fairly and honestly, forthwith.
TTP
Looks like your intuitions may well prove to be correct. No doubt the swarm of doomie gloomies that have infested this site will start acting up even more in the coming months, which will be fun to watch. They'll try give each other comfort with comments promising collapse, which will no doubt be up-voted into the stratosphere, no matter how vacuous or disconnected from reality. Pitty you can't buy an investment property with up-votes.
Lots of deluded souls.
"We're waiting for the market to pick up again before we sell".
I've heard it so many times.
Reminds me of friends when I was on my OE in London who said in 2012-13:
"We're waiting for the Pound to get back to 'normal', 33p to the dollar, before we transfer money back to NZ".
... OK, you do that.
Why is it shonky?
Both are examples of unsophisticated punters making statements about markets for which they do not understand the fundamental drivers.
In both examples said punters could tick a fair few of these off:
https://www.magellangroup.com.au/insights/10-cognitive-biases-that-can-…
You could learn a few things - check out bandwagon effect, hindsight bias & anchoring bias.
A tunnel with a train at the end of it should suit the majority of market participants me included. A flatish market with the train engine humming along in the background is good for genuine buyers and owners. Only stupid people (on both sides) who leave themselves to the mercy of the train, go and throw themselves under it....By making bad choices.
Today's Breakfast Briefing news starts with :
"World trade growth is on the skids."
But that's OK. House price escalation will save us all.....
Australian media seems at odds with itself as well!
"A new housing boom is upon us" + "Australian household debt hits another record high" = Interesting time ahead!
Well if you bring in 70,000 new immigrants and only build 10,000 houses .............. WTF do you expect ?
There can be no other outcome than prices rising .
As long as we lag behind in building houses and pile in more people , we are going to see house prices increasing either slowly or rapidly .
And when Auckland Council , an organisation not renowned for understanding the concept of commercial urgency , uses property development as a major revenue source and rips into it , then the problem can only get worse
With interest rates going so low, I can imagine there will be a bit of a market lift in Auckland for the next few months.
Yesterday reported the average asking price in Auckland dropped $9000 mom In Sept but today the values are up almost $2000 mom , so still some mixed messages in there.
What is always a good barometer is the sales volumes, if they start lifting significantly yoy then you know that there is a change happening
For a alternative perspective, in light of what is occurring and the opportunities outside these islands, although Auckland QV prices are now slightly lower than for the same period three years ago , in USD terms the average Auckland home has now fallen from 770861 USD to 636767 USD , around 17 percent. Although Roger would never agree, the NZD can decline much further ,
If house prices are rising again (let's see if the trend emerges) then my advice to everyone without a house (myself included) is to leave NZ. There is no future for you here and the government and opposition parties won't do anything to help.
This government and now the opposition call it a "housing crises" but they don't act like it's a crises. The boomers are squeezing the last dollar out of their children. But I say, no - sell your house to someone else. I refuse to participate in this con.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/116234526/house-price-growth-subdued-in-…
Anyone notice that suddenly the mainstream news sites are reporting property prices in a negative tone while interest.co is reporting in a positive tone? Wasn't it just the opposite a couple of months ago?
Yeah, although still some of the language from Stuff.
"Salaries may have to catch up to house price growth before the property market can start *booming* again."
*Booming*. *Again*.
How about "Salaries might have to catch up before the property market sees moderate increases in-line with wage growth"?
Comment from real estate agent yesterday is that the lazy boomers have done little to no maintenacne on these properties (inherited from parents probably)- original kitchens (including Zip warter heaters), no insulation, lead paint, rusty roofs. Only a good view and they can walk away with a million - and the property needing $300k to modernise. - NZ land of the long white rentier class.
This report: https://bit.ly/2k5RljL analyses the cost of building a new property in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Sydney and Melbourne. With these costs, how houses can ever become affordable? and before you say land is very expensive and land prices can fall, in Christhcuch and Wellington the land is only 6% and 8% of total costs (in Auckland it is 20%). The development fees payable to councils on other hand are more than 13% (of total costs) for both Wellington and Christchurch. So land itself is not expensive, it is servicing it that is very expensive. And that cost continue to rise (under what scenario this council costs will reduce?). the other big components are material (20% of total costs), labor (18% of total costs) and the builder margin (12%) plus GST (11%). Costs of material and labour will continue to rise. WHen NZ has the third highest minimum wage in the world, is it then surprising that the houses that are built by builders are expensive? (the same applies to material as a component of that is also wages and labor).
Why people are so surprised that houses are so expensive and that prices are so sticky? Under what realistic scenario house prices can fall under what it costs to build a new one? And while the houses are built by ever more expensive labor using ever more expensive material paying ever increases council fees and expenses, this costs will continue to rise and not fall.
Why is it so hard to accept that if we want to have living wage of $22 an hour, then we will have expensive houses? when it costs so much to build hospitals, schools etc, the value of land will reflect that.
Yes, clearly what is driving house prices is the cost of building, as displayed in this graph.
My question is if it is reasonable to expect house prices to reduce below the cost of building a new house? So while house prices can fall following an increase of 57% (mainly iin Auckland) but what will be the bottom of such drop? I use this report to see what is the cost of building a new house in NZ as a proxy. You need to read the whole report and dont stop at a diagram. In both wellington and Christchurch, the cost of raw land is relatively low but the cost of infrastructure is very high. So while it is true that land is a very important component of building a house, at least for places outside Auckland, the biggest part of the cost is infrastructure costs by the Councils. Material and labor will not become cheaper either. The developer margin may reduce (from the current 12% to as low as 6% maybe), and the cost of raw land may also reduce (but given that Wellingotn and Chch raw land is already relatively cheap, this drop will not have a significant impact. In Auckland the cost of raw land can reduce, but I have no idea by how much. Probably by 12% at a maximum?) so house prices in Auckland can reduce by lets say 20% due to reducing raw land value and developer margins. But the very high cost of building will provide a floor for how low prices can go. This is very obvious.
Whatever the increase in house prices over the decade and whatever its driver, it remains an independent fact that cost of building is very high and very unlikely to reduce regardless of all other things.
The report was for Fletchers. So it gives Fletchers perspective.
For instance is Auckland really comparable to Sydney and Melbourne? What about using Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane? What about costs for Newcastle and Canberra or similiar sized Aussie cities to compare with Wellington and Christchurch?
What about international building material costs. What if Australia is nearly as bad as NZ? Shouldn't that issue be investigated?
I think there is a good argument that the cost of new housing is a major factor determining prices and rents for existing housing. I am just not convinced this report gives all the facts on how those costs can be improved.
This is what it costs. My personal experience with building costs in CHC and Wellington is that this report is not significantly off the mark in terms of the costs. Is comparing Auckland with Sydney and Melbourne a sound comparison? have no idea. What i refer to from this report is cost of building new houses in NZ cities. It does provide a sound basis for the breakdown of the cost.
Should they be this high? I have no idea. Is a 12% margin for the builder (and probably similar margins for other subs involved) fair or is it too high? have no idea. Why material is so expensive? are there better alternatives that we can use? have nothing against that. But at present, with existing building models, existing regulations etc, these are the costs.
I am just saying that it costs a lot of money to build a new house and not many of the costs involved (under the current model) can be expected to reduce. Labour is expensive in NZ. It is. It may be fair, it actually may be more fair for it to be more expensive. But that will be reflected in house values. The cost of building a house does provide a benchmark for prices of existing houses. Specially in the long term.
I have no preference for expensive housing. I am just saying that unless it becomes cheaper to build houses (and at least outside Auckland, raw land is not as massive a component as people argue) the house prices will remain very high.
Sorry, why wouldn't new houses cost more? Buildings depreciate in value over time. A new building should cost more, and if you place it on land of equal value, the price should be higher, not lower.
So the cost of building a new house should provide a ceiling, not a floor, for older houses.
And what the chart shows anyway is that the prices of houses went up with basically no connection to construction costs, what appears to be about 3 times faster. Clearly, there is capacity for them to decrease.
If the raw land price is not within 10% of its rural productive price, then it is overvalued, which it will be because it is still part of a restrictive land zoning methodology (which will include the rationing of infrastructure by council monopolies).
And there are savings in our building methodology that would allow savings in the cost of building, but the present system of land restrictions and council monopolies means that any savings in build costs get capitalised into the price of the land or council bureaucracy.
The result is nothing ever gets more affordable by design.
What you are saying is well above my pay grade. My point is about the existing system. It is fair to say that at least in Christichurch (where there is abundant amount of residential lands to buy. there seems to be a considerable excess in fact), the cost of raw land is not a significant contributor to the total cost of built. It may be still overpriced, but even if the land value is further reduced, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on total cost of a new build. Development fees payable to CCC, material, labour and professional fees will add up to a considerable amount regardless and they will not reduce. I am not saying or wishing that house price should never reduce. I am just saying that in my opinion the current high cost of built does support an expensive housing market.
Yeah com'on Mike, 'logic' tells you.
Stop with this supply-demand equilibrium and gobble-de-gook about what happens in other places.
Everyone knows higher prices beget higher prices - that's how it works here in NZ, always has always will.
Market exuberance just means greed is back which means it's a great time to get in and buy more.
Buy at whatever price it takes to get in because it's always a good thing - that's how logic works.
Everyone thinks like that Mike, so it's never going to change - you just extrapolate the return from last year and that's what you'll make this year.
And the year after.
And the year after.
Voila!
That's how it works Mike - Logic.
Auckland market expansion is a Ponzi driven by land sales and leverage derived from money acquire that way. Section sales in Auckland are down over 30% since OBB. This deflates housing market and economy. It’s all about money and leveraging loans. Mortgage debt is not rising at all now according to rbnz. Hence desperate interest rate cuts
I don't get it, the top line says there has been -1.9% growth in Auckland over the past year and 0% in the last 3 months. But the headline and picture is insinuating things are taking off in Auckland.
Huh?
You would expect a Spring bump everywhere anyway right? Very confusing...
Pandaring to a bear market is not all Black. Some times it is the Polar opposite and white. Sometimes well... red. When we win the Gold Cup in Japan, all the world will want to come and live in Awkland and raise the steaks again. It will be a mellow market, that I will stake my money and my section in life upon. It will go through the roof. Tourism will flourish...mark my words.
Landfill can be used to expand in any market, especially if they can bring a suitable deposit to fill the gap. Acting on a bear market has only one way to go in times of expansion, and sliding the Interest Rate smaller and smaller whilst raising those steaks higher and higher. Inflation of assets must be accounted for, especially when trying to Thomas Cook it and Jamie Oliver it. It is a reasonable assumption that we all must follow, borrow and raise your hopes and dreams where you will. We are all bullet proof in the big scheme of things, nuffin can go wrong, except maybe in Hong Kong and we are second to none to them, come what may, beholden to Chinese interests. I was gonna Bank on things turning the tide away from Housing and move to the Beach, but tis a rocky road to rely on shifting sands of time and nothing concrete to work upon. So I will just say, I hope point blank we do not antagonize and canon into any other small island Nation that demerits us from achieving our status of a valued opinion, here in the Land of the Long White invasive perspective. Lots of folk think stuff the bear market, it cannot ever be repealed, but time and tide, waits for no man...Bernanke accepted. Print and be damned....a little change is never a good thing. Borrow to the point of no return. We is invincible. Forever 21....and counting.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12… Plus you can always cater for the 300$ per night homeless victims. in this poor Housing State of Affairs NZ style if you own multiple rental mentals...eh..
ABSURD.
We signed up to absolute carbon reduction not per captia and yet the government continues to run a very high immigration rate (one of the highest in the world per capita).
House prices are among some of the highest in the world relative to income & we have people living in garages.
Government has failed to amend the RMA to date to free up zoning & density restrictions.
There is simply no strategic thought & direction from government.
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.