Average dwelling values are continuing to rise across the country but at a much slower rate than previously.
According to Quotable Value (QV), the average value of all developed residential properties in the country was $697,204 at the end of October, up 2.8% compared to October last year.
But that growth is almost half what it was 12 months ago, when the average value was up 5.4% on a year earlier.
And Auckland still lags the rest of the country with the average dwelling value in the region sitting at $1,031,447 in October, down 1.5% compared to October last year.
The average values in most Auckland districts are still below where they were 12 months ago, with the biggest decline occurring in North Harbour -4.3%, Gulf Islands -2.8% and Onewa -2.2%.
The three Auckland districts that went against the trend and showed growth in average values compared to a year ago were North West Manukau +0.1%, Papakura +0.3% and Franklin +0.6%.
In other main centres Wellington showed strong value growth with average annual growth of 6.4%, but that was down from 10.2% a year ago.
However the annual rate of value growth in Christchurch has doubled over the last 12 months, rising from 0.7% in October last year to 1.4% in October this year.
But Dunedin was the star of the main centres with average annual growth there rising from 10.5% in October last year to 14.7% in October this year. (The chart below gives average values and their percentage change over three and 12 months in all districts).
"The residential markets in all our main cities have shown value growth over the last three months, with this largely attributed to the recent reduction in interest rates by the major banks," QV General Manager David Nagel said.
"As we head towards summer, all eyes will be on the RBNZ to see what happens with LVRs in their November announcements.
"With many economists also predicting further cuts to the OCR in November, the property market could be in for a late spring surge as we head into summer."
The comment stream on this story is now closed.
| QV House Price Index | |||
| October 2019 | |||
| Territorial authority | Average current value $ | 12 month change% | 3 month change % |
| Auckland Region | 1,031,447 | -1.5% | 0.6% |
| Wellington Region | 730,019 | 6.4% | 2.4% |
| Main Urban Areas | 799,748 | 1.4% | 1.3% |
| Total NZ | 697,204 | 2.8% | 1.4% |
| Far North | 469,203 | 7.6% | 1.4% |
| Whangarei | 545,547 | -1.4% | -0.4% |
| Kaipara | 556,109 | 2.2% | 0.4% |
| Auckland - Rodney | 934,994 | -0.6% | -0.3% |
| Rodney - Hibiscus Coast | 912,204 | -0.8% | -0.6% |
| Rodney - North | 958,046 | -0.5% | -0.1% |
| Auckland - North Shore | 1,189,357 | -2.2% | 1.5% |
| North Shore - Coastal | 1,373,299 | -1.1% | 2.7% |
| North Shore - Onewa | 952,140 | -2.6% | 1.3% |
| North Shore - North Harbour | 1,132,290 | -4.3% | -1.1% |
| Auckland - Waitakere | 812,691 | -1.9% | 0.4% |
| Auckland - City | 1,216,417 | -1.2% | 0.5% |
| Auckland City - Central | 1,070,797 | -0.8% | 2.1% |
| Auckland_City - East | 1,530,015 | -1.3% | -0.4% |
| Auckland City - South | 1,080,395 | -1.3% | 0.6% |
| Auckland City - Islands | 1,105,653 | -2.8% | -0.7% |
| Auckland - Manukau | 892,729 | -1.1% | 0.4% |
| Manukau - East | 1,136,302 | -1.7% | 0.3% |
| Manukau - Central | 695,703 | -1.0% | 1.3% |
| Manukau - North West | 777,987 | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Auckland - Papakura | 703,287 | 0.3% | 0.2% |
| Auckland - Franklin | 675,058 | 0.6% | 0.3% |
| Thames Coromandel | 764,214 | 3.2% | 1.1% |
| Hauraki | 431,691 | 6.6% | 2.4% |
| Waikato | 492,217 | 1.2% | 1.0% |
| Matamata Piako | 488,965 | 7.4% | -0.4% |
| Hamilton | 592,125 | 2.9% | 1.2% |
| Hamilton - North East | 738,510 | 1.4% | 1.0% |
| Hamilton - Central & North West | 547,365 | 3.5% | 1.8% |
| Hamilton - South East | 546,324 | 4.9% | 1.5% |
| Hamilton - South West | 527,827 | 2.5% | 0.9% |
| Waipa | 599,687 | 7.0% | 1.9% |
| Otorohanga | 363,937 | 33.6% | -1.7% |
| South Waikato | 263,475 | 7.8% | 2.6% |
| Waitomo | 229,167 | 5.3% | 3.8% |
| Taupo | 552,346 | 14.6% | 5.6% |
| Western BOP | 664,765 | 5.5% | -1.3% |
| Tauranga | 757,521 | 7.0% | 2.6% |
| Rotorua | 491,610 | 13.4% | 4.2% |
| Whakatane | 483,474 | 6.0% | 1.3% |
| Kawerau | 250,012 | 4.1% | -4.3% |
| Opotiki | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Gisborne | 378,736 | 17.7% | 4.2% |
| Wairoa | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Hastings | 540,583 | 18.7% | 3.3% |
| Napier | 561,394 | 8.7% | 1.3% |
| Central Hawkes Bay | 386,505 | 10.6% | 2.5% |
| New Plymouth | 481,139 | 6.1% | 3.3% |
| Stratford | 307,306 | 19.8% | 6.8% |
| South Taranaki | 256,035 | 13.2% | 4.4% |
| Ruapehu | 219,289 | 10.4% | -3.6% |
| Whanganui | 319,127 | 15.8% | 3.6% |
| Rangitikei | 252,404 | 6.4% | 5.3% |
| Manawatu | 420,238 | 18.0% | 5.3% |
| Palmerston North | 469,827 | 13.6% | 4.6% |
| Tararua | 242,378 | 13.9% | -0.5% |
| Horowhenua | 388,327 | 15.5% | 3.7% |
| Kapiti Coast | 612,985 | 8.3% | 1.5% |
| Porirua | 628,210 | 8.5% | 1.2% |
| Upper Hutt | 582,840 | 15.2% | 2.6% |
| Hutt | 627,365 | 9.8% | 5.4% |
| Wellington City | 839,618 | 3.6% | 1.5% |
| Wellington - Central & South | 832,590 | 2.7% | 2.0% |
| Wellington - East | 906,098 | 4.3% | 2.3% |
| Wellington - North | 767,543 | 4.5% | 0.8% |
| Wellington - West | 949,005 | 3.0% | 1.5% |
| Masterton | 398,731 | 10.6% | 2.4% |
| Carterton | 458,896 | 16.1% | 5.7% |
| South Wairarapa | 546,586 | 10.7% | 3.4% |
| Tasman | 617,484 | 5.6% | 1.3% |
| Nelson | 632,690 | 7.1% | 1.5% |
| Marlborough | 490,373 | 4.1% | 1.2% |
| Kaikoura | 470,869 | 11.8% | 4.3% |
| Buller | 205,794 | 8.3% | 4.5% |
| Grey | 220,532 | 1.2% | -0.1% |
| Westland | 258,062 | 1.9% | 1.9% |
| Hurunui | 394,888 | 2.4% | -0.1% |
| Waimakariri | 452,641 | 1.6% | 0.5% |
| Christchurch | 499,840 | 1.4% | 0.4% |
| Christchurch - East | 383,469 | 2.5% | 1.6% |
| Christchurch - Hills | 670,072 | 0.8% | -0.6% |
| Christchurch - Central & North | 584,220 | 1.0% | -0.5% |
| Christchurch - Southwest | 475,664 | 1.0% | 0.7% |
| Christchurch - Banks Peninsula | 529,472 | 3.3% | 1.6% |
| Selwyn | 557,062 | 0.6% | -0.3% |
| Ashburton | 361,592 | 2.0% | 1.0% |
| Timaru | 374,001 | 3.2% | 1.7% |
| MacKenzie | 543,174 | 7.9% | 5.3% |
| Waimate | 262,727 | 6.9% | -5.9% |
| Waitaki | 329,735 | 9.2% | 2.8% |
| Central Otago | 543,843 | 6.0% | -0.2% |
| Queenstown Lakes | 1,202,463 | 3.1% | 2.3% |
| Dunedin | 486,395 | 14.7% | 6.0% |
| Dunedin - Central & North | 503,993 | 13.5% | 6.6% |
| Dunedin - Peninsular & Coastal | 449,421 | 16.0% | 7.0% |
| Dunedin - South | 463,353 | 14.4% | 5.7% |
| Dunedin - Taieri | 501,828 | 14.7% | 4.7% |
| Clutha | 243,161 | 8.6% | 2.3% |
| Southland | 324,677 | 15.1% | 1.3% |
| Gore | 251,280 | 9.8% | 4.7% |
| Invercargill | 318,785 | 13.6% | 5.0% |
| Auckland Area | 1,031,447 | -1.5% | 0.6% |
| Wellington Area | 730,019 | 6.4% | 2.4% |
| Main Urban Areas | 799,748 | 1.4% | 1.3% |
| Total NZ | 697,204 | 2.8% | 1.4% |
No chart with that title exists.
173 Comments
Palmerston North UP 13.6/4.6 percent over 12 and 3 months respectively. Nothing else matters right TTP
Hi Houseworks,
Indeed, those who took my advice re buying in Palmerston North won't be too disappointed.
TTP
Interesting to see the figure for "Auckland City - Central" over the last 3 months [+ 2.1%].
The prestigious inner-city suburbs (close to the CBD) can be expected to perform well - especially given Auckland's traffic/transport dilemma.
TTP
It's called falling interest rates Ttp that's what is propping up mid range property values. Multi million dollar homes are still going to stagnate until they drop to more realistic wage earner levels. The reason why Auckland's city center has increased a bit is because of apartments owner have been dropping their prices to almost giving them away.
CJ099 you said "Multi million dollar homes are still going to stagnate until they drop to more realistic wage earner levels." That's the quote of the day probably... $25 to $30 per hour gross can buy a Multi Million dollar home in CJs vision for the future. Thanks CJ
Talking twaddle again HW. How about you go and read the recent September 2019 Home loan affordability report. No mention of FTB's or even home owners with some equity being able to afford Multi Million dollar homes. The report talks about the being able to afford in the lower quartile price brackets at best. https://www.interest.co.nz/sites/default/files/hla/2019/september/Auckl…
Talking shite again?
Comparing winter to spring? We all know what that looks like.
I had more fun poking my eye balls out with a fork than living in Palmy North!
Lol Chairman! John Cleese best sums up Parmy Nth by calling it the "arsehole of the World"!
The council responded by naming the rubbish dump Mt Cleese. https://www.amusingplanet.com/2018/04/john-cleeses-rubbish-dump-in-palm…
Hi Chairman Motor Moa,
Am not surprised by your comment above.......
With all due respect, Palmerston North is too sophisticated for you. (You'd be a square peg in a round hole.)
Never mind, old chap.
TTP
Whatever TTP (The Turd Painter)...! As they say "you can paint a shit pink, but at the end of the day, its still a shit!" Like you and your forever optimistic spruiking!!!!
Bang on Chairman, Palmy is a cold, windy, dreary shithole lol
I lasted two full years living in a shxt cold house in Fergusson Street.. That two years I can't never get it back!
The regions are definitely seeing a bull run at the moment. Even Christchurch has seen its biggest increase in values in more than a decade, almost beating inflation which is great news.
Auckland is the new Perth.. down down she'll continue to go
Dunedin is the new New Hampshire ... the median price of Americas 18'th most expensive state to buy a house in is $US 309 900 . .around $ 172 / sq ft ... Dunedins $NZ 486 000 equals $US 313 700 .
Difference being that the average wage in New Hampshire is about NZ$41/hr and household expenses are much lower.
Yes ... and , in New Hampshire the average house is 180 sq metres ... slightly bigger than the average in Dunners , I suspect . ...
... Wellington region , at $NZ 730 000 equates to Americas 4'th most expensive state , Massachusetts : $US 479 900 for an average 177 sq m house ....
And Massachusetts has the highest average annual salary in the country - NZ$113,000. I cant believe a good proportion of the population tolerate this. We are sheep.
...agree 100 % .... the average house across the Orc Land region is about 3 to 4 % dearer than the average in Americas most expensive state , Hawaii ... $US 635 000 ...
It's because a good proportion of the population got in cheap thanks to earlier government efforts to boost access to affordable housing, and then have benefited as those have been abandoned. It's become a world of do as I say, not as I've done.
Privilege is often just a matter of good luck. Still worth holding onto though.
It's all a matter of luck and like you I feel it's worth holding onto. Plenty of people vote NZF for exactly that reason and it seems like that was a master move.
Why all the fanfare about the States. I just got back from the States, nice place to visit great to come home. There are so many reasons why property is expensive in NZ one very important reason being desirability. Many people are blind to the jewel were we live and how appealing it is to others around the world, maybe some of the sheep have never been outside of NZ, I know where I would rather live.
I've travelled a lot and my take is that it's massively overrated by the parochial, patriotic masses. I just see an overly inflated market which was pumped full of easy credit. Do you think all that foreign capital was looking at Queenstown, Milford Sound etc?
I'd happily live in the States. Most NZers think its fast food and school shootings thanks to our wonderful media. Going there myself was a real eye opener as to what life is like outside of NZ. Going to visit again in February, this time more outside the city limits. My thoughts are NZ is overpriced and in many ways, overrated
"The three Auckland districts that went against the trend and showed growth in average values compared to a year ago were North West Manukau +0.1%, Papakura +0.3% and Franklin +0.6%."
Hmmm, is that simply because those are areas where there is a load of new construction pushing average values up, but the value of the average older existing homes is going nowhere? (Or backwards like the rest of Auckland where the new construction isn't so plentiful to prop up the averages)
Papakura median is 685
... that'll get you an average 165 m sq house in Americas 5'th most expensive state , Colorado .. $US 429 800 ...
Exactly what it is.
Given the significant amount of new build sales in the transaction data, there will be a substantial upwards bias in these broad averages.
The estimates are pathetic - all of these estimates suffer from the same issues. If you believe that the average house in Stratford increased in value by 20% (for example) in the 12 months to October, you are a moron.
Yes, it's hard to know whether the collection of these stats, and/or the presentation of them is done through, 'that's the best we can do,' or 'that's all we unawarely know' as in a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.
Or it could be a deliberate clickbait ploy which seems to be working.
Yep. Prices of existing stock down.
Yes it's much different to what was happening at the peak of the market when all the foreign buying was going on. Wow times have changed, remember this: "The average value for the Auckland Region is $1,051,387. QV said the Auckland market increased 12.8%" and that's when the market started to slow down as China clamped down on their capital flight. QV figures December 2016. https://www.interest.co.nz/property/84882/house-prices-nationally-rose-…
Cheep suburbs are likely seeing increased demand from lowered interest rates. New construction would tend to increase supply and lower price.
Housing affordability won't exactly improve much in Auckland as other living costs continue to creep up and wages stagnate making saving up for a deposit harder.
We've built an expensive housing market on a low-value economy.
Our high cost of living (ex housing) is something that is rarely talked about. It effectively means that our housing costs are even worse than they first appear when we compare to Aus, USA, Canada
Hang on, wasn't enlarging our population base supposed to solve this problem? More people, greater economies of scale - anyone feeling better off from the massive influx?
We not only get unaffordable housing but we also get poor quality housing, a double whammy.
What is important actually, is the amount of disposable income we are left with when all the bills are paid.
The irony of course is that the system is geared for any disposable income to be reinvested in property which turns into a vicious cycle as any savings we might make on the housing side (to produce more disposable income) is automatically capitalised back into the price of that property asset that has the first monopoly, ie the land price.
Auckland has reached the limits of affordability at the lower end of the market - dual income households, 40% of net pay on mortgage payments, etc.
Prices won't/can't increase above the rate of wage growth anymore. Unless the flood gates for foreign capital are reopened - which I fear they will be.
Anyone in the market can see the divide. Open homes in the $700-900k mark attract hundreds of (desperate) buyers, while those over the $1mil mark are dead.
Developers are loosing their shirts on the fringe - feigning interest we have been offered completed new builds at discounts of approximately 15%..
But nope. Ashley Church, says another bull run is just around the corner and prices will again double by 2025...
Meh, when I hear the spruikers talk of "bull runs" in Auckland I just mentally insert the words 'with the' in the middle of it... makes it far more accurate.
Nymad, nymad, nymad, "loosing", really, you too?
(will delete this line if you correct this atrocity)
I tend to agree that developing is in the doldrums and the mania for large sections has passed for now. A lot of investors bought large sections on the fringes and now stuck with very poor rental returns on property they would be lucky to break even on.
However $1m plus houses are selling very well around my area. They are all selling near me and some for very high prices, especially the very well presented homes. This one for example sold at auction for well above RV just last week:
https://www.barfoot.co.nz/property/residential/auckland-city/greenlane/…
It seems you can't go wrong with a lot of white! Sold for 2.420M with an RV of 2.1M and appears to be cross lease too!
Just around the corner sold in the same week this land banker's dream:
https://www.barfoot.co.nz/property/residential/auckland-city/greenlane/…
Sold for 2.750M with an RV of 3.750M ( one million below RV). A very large section in DGZ, Central Auckland, would normally fetch 3.5M.
Too much wood and not enough white perhaps?
Comparing renos' sale prices to CV is *highly* misleading.
Of course they will sell above CV - it's apples vs oranges.
13 Momona Road: "fresh modern interior" - How much did they spend on that?
103A Wheturangi Road is a better gauge - unchanged condition.
You can cherry pick examples and give anecdotes but the fact remains that volumes sold at >$2m have fallen off a cliff this year:
Eastern Suburbs: https://ibb.co/0rFBBMc
Parnell & Remuera: https://ibb.co/khfqBpC
Picking out places that sold above CV after extensive renovation, to demonstrate how high value places are actually selling above CV, suggests...
A: you are trying to blatantly twist numbers
or
B: you are a moron
Pick one.
Thanks for posting those examples Zac. Seems a few people are sensitive to any example sales that are above CV.
Somehow they seemed to miss the main point of your post, which as I read it was not related to CV.
Thanks house hunter, I thought I was just giving two interesting examples, one, a mildly renovated (nothing structural), well presented, property and the other having land size as it's most appealing attribute. If you bought two years ago the immaculate, well located properties have done better than the large sections which is somewhat surprising.
Extra value can be gained from properties that can be easily renovated with paint, carpets and a new kitchen and bathroom. A larger section may not be appealing any more.
ZS' weak "point" was that "$1m plus houses are selling very well around my area...some for very high prices."
Then cited 2 properties above $2m.
Patently incorrect to state that high value properties in his area (around Greenlane presumably) are selling well.
Misleading to include a renovated property as an example of a property selling for "for well above RV."
Eastern Suburbs: https://ibb.co/0rFBBMc
Parnell & Remuera: https://ibb.co/khfqBpC
Nymad claimed that those selling "over the $1mil mark are dead". I was really reacting to that statement which seems an exaggeration but I do acknowledge that there is very little for sale under $1mil around here so my view is somewhat influenced by that. Anything under 1.5M that isn't problematic sells very quickly from what I have observed and I watch closely often attending the auctions. Houses with large sections in the 3M+ category are slower to sell. I don't bother with those auctions as they are out of my price range. I guess that is the DGZ equivalent of the "$1mil mark".
I guess my area of interest is entry level houses in desirable suburbs. If you can get one of those that just needs tarting up you can't go wrong even in today's market.
Humm, can't see much happening in the auction results in your area so can't be that desirable. Still keep polishing you're ivory tower Zac you may manged to reach your 2017 CV value some time in the future. :)
This is another of CJs wind ups
HW the stats are right there, go look at the QV figures in this article and the auction results. Or better still how about you post a link to the amazing huge numbers sales results for Central and East Auckland. Can you do that? No because there aren't any.
Considering that ZS was responding to someone who said " those over the $1mil mark are dead." I think saying that $1m plus houses are selling very well in his area is reasonable enough. Perhaps "quite steadily" would have been more accurate, but the point is that reports of their death are greatly exaggerated :-).
Regarding the example of a renovated property selling over RV, I honestly don't see the problem. The link was provided and it'd be perfectly obvious to anyone interested that it was a renovated property. Renovated properties often sell above RV, and this was an excellent example of such. Quite the opposite of misleading actually.
And he even provided a 2nd example that sold (1M) under RV. Talk about balanced. Haters gonna hate I guess.
Well the stats I posted links above (twice, in case you're slow) show volumes over $1.2m have fallen off a cliff in some of Auckland's premium suburbs.
So, no, they are not selling "well".
Unless you have evidence to the contrary then yours and ZS' reckons mean nothing.
Yeah, you're a bit of a lost cause if you can't see an issue with comparing a renovated property's sale price to its CV.
RV is based on a property's relative value in its state prior to renovation - you're comparing *apples & oranges*.
Whereas the property that sold for $1m less than CV appears to be in the same state the council assessed it - *apples & apples*.
So it's not balanced.
It's a bullshit castle.
I've spent my life studying & working in fields involving asset valuation.
If I'm looking to purchase an unimproved property I'm going to call out any idiot pointing to sales-price-to-CV ratios on renovated properties.
They mean nothing and there is no way I'm paying away that multiple to a vendor.
"I've spent my life studying & working in the field of asset valuation."
cmat,
A) What are your thoughts on current level of house prices in Auckland?
B) Where do you see median house prices in Auckland in 3-7 years?
1) What percentage change from current price levels?
2) And on what basis did you arrive at your conclusion?
Lost cause does indeed seem to be an appropriate term here.
Do not fear, my friend Nymad. Even when they reopen the "flood gate", there wont be much foreign capital getting in New Zealand anyway, as the second largest economy country China has banned capital to flow oversea sepecially for property investiment. The golden era of property speculation has already passed. Stop dreaming and come back to the reality. Lets be honest here, without those Chinese, who would buy properties in New Zealand for investiment? Americans? Australians? Give me a break, USA has way better ways to put your money into investment. Why would they pay 1M$ for a damping and overpriced property here?
More tham money Investing it was money Laundering
With the NZD taking such a big drop in recent times they've lost a larger proportion of that laundered money.
North Harbour is now down 7% or $86,000 since March 18, anyone have an idea on why that is leading the pack for drops????
Really? I see North Harbour down 4.3% YoY and down 1.1% last 3 months. Where are you getting the 7% figure from?
The QV website, you can go back
North harbour down just over 7% since March 18
Ah, OK. I thought for a moment I was missing something in the article.
I guess you mean this page https://www.qv.co.nz/property-trends/residential-house-values
Pretty handy tool that I hadn't used before, thanks.
Tons of apartments now being built on the Shore. In Takapuna there are apartments going up all over the place. The city looks like a crane garden. That's gotta impact on average value along with the drying up of foreign money that in the past bought the premium properties on the shore. Interesting to see the next HPI figures (September's were -2.5% YOY for the Shore).
Interesting stuff. Of course I'll be looking to the upcoming REINZ stats for the most up to date reflection of the market.
Agreed hh.
While expecting a currently firming of the Auckland market prices, as previously posted I didn't expect QV figures to show this. I expect that REINZ figures to do this.
The reason the QV will be slow in identifying change are due to the nature of its data. There are two aspects:
- QV figures are for three months whereas REINZ figures are for the month, and
- QV are based on settlement (possession) which can be a month or two after a property going unconditional on which REINZ figures are based.
This means that QV data can be based on data up to five months after an agreement is confirmed and will therefore be very slow in showing any change in the market.
QV data has advantages - it includes all property sales and not just those made by REINZ, it eliminates abnormal monthly variation especially in a small market, and it can even out factors such as affects related to weather (August?) and timing of the variable Easter holiday period.
However, its disadvantage is that it is much like a large ship - very slow in changing direction and showing that change once the rudder is changed.
However the data gives a couple of YOY indications positive to the market:
- firstly, the Auckland region annual change at -1.5% compared to -1.8% last month and this move can be only be if the last month was better than this result (the 0.3% upswing over the last three months is probably simply seasonal), and
- the period last year covered the last three to five months of foreign buyers and even only -1.5% down the effect of FBs appears not to have been very significant.
So the data does not counter a number of other indicators suggesting that there are signs that the Auckland market prices maybe firming.
Of course the DGM will not accept this, but FHB and investors looking to buy, as well as investors looking to sell, will be considering their timing on the basis as to where the market is heading.
While seeing a firming of Auckland prices, I do not see a bull run especially like that between 2012 and 2017. If that starts to occur, then a see RBNZ tightening LVRs which could be specifically related to Auckland which has occurred in the past.
I think if a FHB saw a quality house three or four months ago that ticked all the boxes and they decided to wait for further price falls they probably made a mistake that will cost them. They will either need to pay more for the same house or settle on a less desirable one. Not huge money but reasonably significant.
Hi Zachary
Correct; that is the key message for FHB.
No, fomo should definitely not be the key message for FHBs in the current market.
Yep interest rates can only drop to a certain amount. My guess is by this time next year they'll be at their lowest and the AKL multi million dollar homes owners who need to sell will be forced to drop their prices to more of a realistic level. Fist Time Buyers would be better of waiting until then.
CJ1099
You sound like Retired Poppy - FHB keep your life on hold by putting of buying until the market bottoms. The reality is that, like one's KiwiSaver growth fund, short term fluctuations are irrelevant. This is especially so for a home; one is looking to owning a home for considerable time, but whatever the market does wake up in the morning and one has the same house. The only positive in your comment was that you see the market bottoming out in a year whereas Retired Poppy saw deflation and waiting for eight years.
The over 75,000 FHB mortgages - over 110,000 now home owners in the past three years disagree with you.
There are a number of factors other than the OCR and interest rates that are drivers to the Auckland market including continuing high levels of immigration and housing shortages.
While new consents are pleasingly up, the reality is that these will not equate to new homes for six months or so and will not meet demands of population growth (both natural and immigration).
Given all the variables - usually changing in importance - it is very difficult to predict long term and the certainty of long predictions tend to be very uncertain.
FHB need to consider what the indicators are for the short to medium term, act, and ensure that they are prudent to ensure that they are not adversely affected by the unknown. One can rest assure that the bank (with its 7% interest rate test) will be assuring themselves for their vested interest that one is able to withstand reasonable worse case scenarios.
And CJ1099 owning a home is more than just about the economic decisions as the recent 110,000 FHB will agree.
Thanks for the rant Printer8, Though I think you're running out of ink and you'll be soon to run out of falling mortgage interest rates too! Then where will you be; Stagnating house prices that's where but you're far too short sighted to see it. :)
cheers CJ1099
Why don't you substantiate your view for a change?
LOL Nahh, I prefer to keep my point of view in with the facts of what's actually happening. :)
Cheers CJ1099
As I thought - not prepared to make any justification.
Unsubstantiated views have no value - they are simply guesses.
There are guesses and there are educated guesses backed up by facts. I would advise posting article links to support your views as I do. :)
Sh** tastes amazing, as the 100 billion flies will agree.
It's nice to buy a house and then see values edge up a little don't you think? A young couple, both working, could buy a nice place in West Auckland and pay less in interest than they would in rent and also see their capital investment retain its value.
Umm, No. Because the chance are they'll struggling in a few years when mortgage interest rates have to increase.
CJ1099
Two things you don't acknowledge:
- Your bank, in their vested interest, tests whether you can withstand an interest increase, and
- You are not noting the Reserve Bank Governor who has stated that interest rates will be lower for longer.
If you also look at the rates for 5 to 7 years term deposits you will see that markets are not anticipating an increase in interest rates over this period. Your "few years" is not consistent with that.
So your claim mortgage rates will have to rise in a few years is simply unsubstantiated and baseless dgm scaremongering.
“buy a nice place in West Auckland and pay less in interest than they would in rent and also see their capital investment retain its value.” Capital investment retaining value over the next few years in West Auckland is a hopeful assumption at this point.
Yes I would agree with you. That buying in the more affordable parts of Auckland below the million mark, including West Auckland (Nicer than South Auckland) is a much better for FTB's. Not sure if they're get much return on that investment though but they should negotiate hard to get a good affordable price.
On baseless, at this point I cannot see a base for trying to create FOMO in first home buyers. The current state of things in Auckland:
1. Properties taking more days to sell
2. Negative REINZ HPI year on year
3. ~1,000 sales fewer than were achieved in Auckland by this point last year
4. Negative QV values year on year
5. Plummeting apartment and section sales year on year
6. NZ Herald crowing about pick-up yesterday, only to reveal it was a pick-up in listings, i.e. more choice for first home buyers.
All of this at a time of record low interest rates.
These don't suggest a time for trying to stir Fear of Missing Out in first home buyers. Especially on the basis of a sole month in the year that's seen more sales than the same month last year, which folk were crowing about.
I make no claims to know where the market is heading. Am merely pointing out that the stoking of FOMO doesn't look to align well with what the market has been doing.
LOL Printer8, Interest rates are based on many factors including global market shifts. How can YOU be so presumptuous to just assume that NZ will remain at record low mortgage interest rates for the average life span of a mortgage 25 years! Hardly scaremongering to predict that at some point they're going to have to rise. It is you that is scaremongering, pushing the fear of missing out only life long debt to purchase a massively over valued house.
Umm, No. Because the chance are they'll struggling in a few years when mortgage interest rates have to increase.
Banks stress test at around 6% currently, so unless there is an employment shock I'd say homeowners/investors are more resilient than you think. And it will be many years until interest rates are that high again, by which time incomes will very likely have risen enough (even just on account of inflation) to counteract the higher interest rate.
Pointing out the obvious flaw with your logic. Re Bank stress testing - That's why our banks are currently having to drop their mortgage rates to historic lows so they're not swamped by mortgagee homes with people not being able to pay their home loans. Also keep in mind that a lot of home owners are now coming off their Interest Only Mortgages, who will now need to go on to repayment mortgages that will in most case double their mortgage repayment rates. Article ABC News: Interest-only loan reset hurting borrowers despite the rate cuts https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-28/interest-only-reset-hurting-borr…
Banks are lowering their interest rates because the RBNZ has lowered the OCR and banks compete with each other for mortgage business. Banks aren't reducing interest rates so that "they're not swamped by mortgagee homes". The interest only issue you mention is in a problem in Australia, not so much in New Zealand. We are a different country, believe it or not.
..Banks are lowering their interest rates because the RBNZ has lowered the OCR ..
OCR only affects floating rates, i believe. Currently the fixed-rate also gone down significantly; that could be do with reducing delinquencies and to attract more people to this scheme so as to spread the risks
Most of our banks are Australian and NZ is effected by the same factors or haven't you worked that one out yet? There are reasons behind WHY the RBNZ has had to lower the OCR. First thing you should ask yourself is WHY are both Australian and NZ banks lowering rates and it's not just competition otherwise they would have done that years ago. Here are the key points:-
* Hundreds of billions of dollars in interest-only loans will be reset in the next three years (Not just Australia it's NZ as well)
* Borrowers coming to the end of interest-only periods face thousands of dollars of extra repayments (Not just Australia it's NZ as well)
* Some economists warn that the reset could cause a fire sale of properties if borrower can't meet repayments (Not just Australia it's NZ as well)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-28/interest-only-reset-hurting-borr…
Interest only has been much less prevalent in NZ. And Zachary's comment was referring to a young couple buying a place in West Auckland - virtually nobody in this situation/demographic goes on interest only terms. Interest only is is limited almost entirely to a subset of investors. Again, banks are stress testing at 6%ish, so buyers such as those described by Zachary are much more resilient than you have assumed. And interest rates are very likely to be low for quite some time. By the time interest rates are high again, a young couple's income would very likely be notably higher than it is today (2%-3% income increase per year), making higher interest payments more manageable.
Have you got any evidence to prove that it was only Resident Investors who took out interest only mortgages? I very much doubt it. Because I know plenty of people in Auckland who had to take out interest only mortgages, so they had any chance of competing with Foreign Buyers during buying their homes from 2010 through to 2016 when the banks started to realize that having too many interest only mortgages on their books was a very bad idea especially when China was clamping down on their capital flight so there would be a very limited number of top end buyers.
I didn’t say only investors are on interest-only mortgages. I said very few owner occupiers are on interest-only mortgages.
“...borrowers who live in their own homes are much more likely to be paying down some principal with each mortgage payment. In fact, 84.6% are, building equity and financial resilience.“
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/91545/loans-worth-almost-half-nations-g…
15% isn't very few in my opinion but hey each to their own, if Non-Performing Interest Only loans work some people then go for it I guess?
I’m 100% interest only. Why would I put that money into the mortgage to save myself 3.5% interest when it can earn me 5%-7% elsewhere? And inflation eats away at the mortgage while it sits there.
There is an 85% chance the young couple in Zachary’s story isn’t on interest-only. I like those odds.
Just out of interest, where do you see house prices,in Auckland in 3-7 years?
1) What percentage change from current price levels?
2) And on what basis did you arrive at your conclusion?
This is a key and important assumption for first home buyers.
Some first home buyers have purchased in the last 3 years. The property values have fallen by say 7% and they have an unrealized loss on their initial equity deposit (their equity value may have fallen by 35%). Instead if they had waited, they could have bought a better place (say larger size, more bedrooms, better located) at the same purchase price. They would have had smaller mortgages as in that 3 year period, their savings would have increased the size of their deposit. Some now regret that earlier purchase decision as they could have bought something better, rather than buying due to FOMO.
Seen some estimates of expected 60% price increase in 3-5 years in Auckland (based on historical price charts and technical price analysis thereon)
See other estimates of 10-20% price falls.
Depending on future price expectations, in one case, FHB should buy, and in another case, FHB should wait.
Hi CN
Who are you asking? If
If it is CJ1099, then he will be predicting that they will be considerably lower - but don't expect a basis or justification from him for arriving at that conclusion.
For me, chiefly with current levels of immigration, what is seemingly continuing low interest rates, housing shortages (although an increase in consents this will probably be still short of meeting existing shortages and continuing high levels of immigration) not matching needs in the short term of 3 years or so, and reports of increasing investor activity (possibly due to poor returns from other secure investments such as TDs); I see Auckland house prices increasing at around the rate of inflation or possibly around 3%pa. This is consistent with the RBNZ governor and possibly slightly less than some commentators such as Westpac. I don't see any bull run of considerably more as I feel that the RB will intervene with LVRs due to the associated affordability and risk issues; and for the for economic stability reasons RB is likely to act on LVRs if prices fall.
For the provinces, I see rates of increase starting to slow.
This is of course based on the current drivers (such as immigration and interest rates among others) remaining consistent for which appears likely. There is also the risk of some unknown/expected off-shore risk but that is always ever present.
I have advocated potential FHB acting but have always pout a caveat that; to avoid risk I would be paying down debt as much as possible over the next few years.
As to house falls - yes the Auckland market has trended down. I posted over the 2016 period (when every man and his dog thought that prices would always continue to rise) that increasing house prices were not sustainable so a slowing - and is typical of past bull periods (e.g. 2005) and not unsurprisingly - some decline but I refuted a "bubble burst". To those who bought post market peak, yes there equity has declined; however, a home is both a long term investment in which short term falls are irrelevant as you say there is no intention for realising the value of one's house unless under very selected reason.
As to negative fluctuations, I owned both a home and residential property during the GFC and saw RVs fall by as much as 10%. It made not one difference - I still had the same home and the rent still came in and as to the investment properties I had no intention of selling but did so when the market improved.
Cheers
Printer8,
Thank you for your explanation.
"I have advocated potential FHB acting but have always pout a caveat that; to avoid risk I would be paying down debt as much as possible over the next few years."
Many FHB in Auckland may already be spending 40% or more of total net after tax household income on debt payments, so may have limited ability to repay down principal any faster than the normal principal included in their regular P&I payments.
The other key is that FHB can continue to maintain debt payments under ALL conditions. During the GFC, some lost their jobs and were unable to hold on, and forced to sell.
I think you'll find you contradicted yourself there. Note "During the GFC, some lost their jobs and were unable to hold on, and forced to sell". Thing is NZ and Australia we're not as effected during the GFC as much as the rest of the Western world was due to you having lots and lots of dodgy money pouring in from China, so we're not the same situation as before.
"I think you'll find you contradicted yourself there"
To avoid misunderstanding with P8, was merely taking an extracted comment from P8's earlier comment and responding to that portion only.
Ahh yes, I see. It was a rather long winded rant from P8, Took a while to wade through it. No worries. :)
Hi CN
I agree that it must be tough for FHB and that the mortgages and repayments are daunting and that initially they are highly committed to meeting payments.
It is important that one keeps a balance and enjoys life especially family time.
One thing I have found - and talking to others - what is surprising is that it is surprising that with wage increases - especially related to promotion - repayments become less daunting.
"wage increases - especially related to promotion - repayments become less daunting."
Yes, agree with you that it certainly is very dependent upon the level of wage growth.
Promotional pay raises are much faster than those who have limited promotional prospects who can only expect much more limited wage growth.
Exactly right.
The moronic chant of 'its always a good time to buy your first house' is mathematically illiterate.
Amazing period in NZ housing market history, for those with a global perspective. The national (!) average is now around $US445,000. What you could buy in well located places around the world for that figure, and particularly in the US, makes NZ look very expensive. As probabilities go, it won’t be sustained.
.... that means the average price of a house in NZ equates to a spot half way between Americas 4'th and 5'th most expensive states ... Massachusetts and Colorado ... woo hooo ...
Cheers GBH.
We used to have postings how the NZ (Auckland) market was closely linked and would follow the crashing markets in Australia, but now that the Australian markets are improving we need to ignore that and look further afield to the USA.
Cynicism aside, I agree - New Zealand housing tends to be comparatively expensive to the USA.
... you're welcome... Americas cheapest state to purchase a house is West Virginia , $US 166 488 .. . equivalent to NZs Westland $NZ 258 062 ...
P8, I see Australian prices as still similarly high to NZ in global terms, except perhaps Perth, so US is a better comparison with a more “normal” market - although US is also considered expensive again in many places (like Calif).
... the US is the best comparison ... and as Ngrrk pointed out , average wage rates and salaries are far higher there than here in NZ ... double whammy against us ...
Yes, let’s say the greater Denver area (including attractive Golden, Fort Collins, Greeley etc). It’s a popular, growing city with the Rocky Mountains as the beautiful winter and summer backyard playground. US$450k can get very good quality 3&4 bed family homes there.
Here’s a random example: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3884-Sandoval-St-Brighton-CO-80601/1…
... the houses in the US appear to have a larger floor area than those in NZ ... which makes the comparison look like NZ is even more overpriced than the US ... And , I'd be very surprised if their homes leak !
And they'll have "niceties" that homes here usually don't have. Like central heating/cooling, double glazing throughout and proper insulation. Not to mention things like vinyl siding that doesn't need to be repainted/replaced every couple of years. The homes in NZ are pure garbage compared to what's built in states like Colorado.
Some comparison:
This 3br apartment at the heart of Brisbane CBD circle
https://www.domain.com.au/515-8-deshon-street-woolloongabba-qld-4102-20… (early 600K); 3br, 2 carparks and 2 bathroom
Auckland, a cool 1.17 mil
https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/new-apartment/auction-2382383926.htm…
The investors who bought in Dunedin have sure been smart. Especially the out of town ones who had the brains and foresight to get out of their comfort zone and go for it.
Dunedin is an interesting place to invest in.
Firstly you would need to want to live in Dunedin as you wouldn’t be wanting someone else to be managing a property down there.
Secondly, if you wanted your property not well looked after then it would be a very good
place to invest in, however you would always be needing to do repairs and therefore be next to no profit in it cashflow wise.
Personally prefer to invest in a market that ensures property is maintained by tenants and not needing to go to tenancy tribunal and receive good solid yields guaranteed.
Not every home in Dunedin is rented by students The Boy. Once again you show your inability to accept the fact you have let your family down by not willing to get out of your comfort zone. There will be happier landlords in Dunedin than the landlords in poor old Christchurch renting out to skinheads that your town is full of. The most successful landlords I know have rentals in key parts of New Zealand. They were smart and not afraid to get out of their patch.
The overall quality of housing needs to be improved. Really low quality for the price now in NZ, which is another warning sign. We’re paying national average $US 455k for these cold, low quality houses? Please.
I had a look at Dunedin back in early December last year, mainly for my boy who might be studying medicine at Otago uni. It's actually very good returns and there are some quality buy if it's facing the right way for the sun! You are right, not all are rented out to students.
oh and please don't mention "skinheads" apparently, they are just white soldiers!
Gordon have you and Chairman lived together in Christchurch and had the same experiences with Skinheads.
Once again I reiterate haven’t seen a Skinhead in ChCh for 10 years and even before that had no bad experiences with them.
More problems with racism in the North Island than the South Island without doubt.
LOL, may be you are pale skin and had no interest to them. Also in Mar this year - what happened in Christchurch? Ok his haircut wasn't No1..
I've met plenty of skinheads when I was living in Christchurch 5+ years ago. Not many of them had shaved heads, however they did have a confederate flag or 2 in the garage along with the EB Falcon on cut springs. I didn't associate with them, they weren't my mates, we just normally had a sober driver take us around various random word of mouth parties in the suburbs before we hit town so it's amazing the mix of people you come across.
Had cops with bushmasters show up at one party because an Asian noise control officer had the windows of his patrol car smashed out by the host's flatmate who lived in the sleepout. The address was supposedly know to be gang affiliated due to his prior bail conditions. This happened in Hoon Hay.
Pretty naive if one thinks CHCH has no skinheads problem, they are every where just much more prominent in CHCH
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/18-06-2019/it-is-time-to-talk-about-chris…
Nice share CM... providing common sense to those that do not wish to see sense, is sometimes draining!
Hey The Spam 2! Everyone knows how racist Chch is!!!! White sheets on special at the local supermarket!
Took a drive around massey, where a 600 house development is happening for a year now.. initially the houses were built using traditional methods, but all the new ones being constructed are using prefab... was amazing to see the scale and depth prefab is taking over
Just checking, is cost of construction of prefab lower than traditional method of construction?
If built in scale and automation.. else not much in price, but still beats on pace
All potential owner occupier buyers (including FHB) in Auckland should read this report in order to make a fully informed decision. You are free to choose to ignore the report, however you are not free from the potential financial consequences of ignoring the report.
Note that the report is free from the financial interests of real estate agents, property mentors, property developers, economists who are employed by banks to promote bank lending, mortgage brokers who promote bank lending, etc, and others who have a vested interest in promoting property.
https://thepolicyobservatory.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/7508…
Credit to Fritz for sharing this.
Thank you CN and Fritz ... wow , that is an absolute crackerjack report ... a must read for all FHB's ... leave your KS where it is , guys !
Very interesting. However I drew a slightly disheartening conclusion from it.
The author states that we are in a bubble, which will either 'pop', or gently deflate. He then talks about the myriad of vested interests ensuring this does not happen.
Vitally, his final conclusion is; "The solution to this mess is inevitably governmental policy that compels market behaviour."
To which I would ask; "sure, but is that actually likely to happen?"
Because so far the govt has show it is not all that interested in taking the radical sorts of action the author is asking for. So if you were to conclude the called for government policy to 'compel market behaviour' is not in fact forthcoming, would the final conclusion not be 'actually, this bubble might not ever really pop'.
I personally agree that it is a bubble, and lean towards a 'gently deflate' view of the future. But this article to me suggests, in the absence of government intervention or outside economic shock, a long term stagnation of prices, allowing the various affordability metrics to catch up.
Agree. As he points out it is all about vested interests protecting the status quo. I think you being disheartened by this is just picking up on the underlying frustration by the author and futile attempts to provide a solution that any Govt. would actually go with.
And there is no bigger vested interest that Govt, as the country's largest land owner, landlord, and then the rest the private landowners are votes to it.
I think he misses the point about land supply, but all the restrictions he mentions are ultimately tied to a Govt. doing was needs to be done for the countries long term good, not what makes voters feel good for the next election.
I read it a bit differently.
I think he sees the bubble bursting or deflating.
However his implication may be that it could just re-inflate again, without intervention.
The thing is, too, that even with a 20% drop, the market would still be unaffordable to a lot of people. So there would still be a need for the policy response he is advocating.
I don’t actually believe it has that much to do with supply anymore. Sure if we did build lots more houses than we need then prices would drop. But the real reason we have high prices is because interest rates are so low. Unlike the States we are (and always have been) obsessed about owning houses, and we are prepared to put a fairly high percentage of our take home pay into a massive mortgage. I don’t see house prices changing much unless the RBNZ hikes interest rates, but I don’t think they could because most of us would go under.
I would be keen to see this with updated data
Thanks guys, good article
Exactly the same view about the levels of construction matching population growth.. and this was over a year ago, today we are building at a higher rate than population growth.. SWELL
I suggest the next Government will have some impact in the near term. The current COL will maintain status quo and look to push less profit for the Aussie banks via greater cash reserves and making them take more risk. If the Nat's reclaim power then it is easy to see Bank control measures being removed, overseas ownership flood gates reopening, and tax change in the favor of "investors" farming large amounts Aussie bank debt.
End of the day any great change to monetary policy will be driven from and overseas event vs anything that the Nat's or COL do. If cash printing gets going again in a big way and sloshes around the globe like the last ten years, then being leveraged up the wazo is the best place to be. Those with cash in the bank will simply be cast further adrift, and continue to be more disenfranchisement and disgruntled as per Fiz and CZ's link above. Will Winston let this happen to his core voting group (retired old people).
Interestingly JP Morgan (largest US bank and one of the largest in the world) is moving in a large way into long term bonds (security), and away from riskier assets including cash (US dollar). https://www.zerohedge.com/health/its-incredible-scale-what-jpmorgan-doi…. Why would they avoid short term bonds in favor of long term one?
Make of that what you will, perhaps they know something we don't...
Thanks CN.
Tookey has no vested interest in the bubble. That makes it more powerful.
Thanks for sharing the article CN, the author states, I quote:
"Circa 2005–2006, as readers may recall, the housing market was dubbed ‘unsustainable’ and a ‘dangerous bubble"
"The second feature shared by all bubbles is that they burst. Every single one. Auckland housing will do just that"
Just imagine all the poor FHB in 2005 - 2006 who listened to this kind of advice and waited for "the bubble to burst"... they can now no longer afford to buy a house because of the terrible advice from an academic with no clue.
Unfortunately there are still many mis-informed FHB's who think the same today, I'll wait till the prices come down… they will still be FHB in 10 years time, no this time is not different
i have been reading some of your posts and it seem to you seem to gloat over your position and take great pleasure in rubbing it into people less fortunate
Hi BS, I can't see how you come to your conclusion when my post above says that i feel sorry for FHB whi have missed out because they have been listening to bad advice.
I can assure you I take no pleasure at all from people not doing well, quite the opposite but I admit to getting frustrated with some commenters who don't understand RE and are being detrimental to FHB with their misguided advice
Yvil,
Just out of interest, where do you see house prices,in Auckland in 3-7 years?
1) What percentage change from current price levels?
2) And on what basis did you arrive at your conclusion?
This is a key and important assumption for first home buyers.
Some first home buyers have purchased in the last 3 years. The property values have fallen by say 7% and they have an unrealized loss on their initial equity deposit (their equity value may have fallen by 35% - and how long has it taken them to save that initial deposit, only to see it evaporate). Instead, if they had waited 3 years, they could have bought a better place (say larger size, more bedrooms, better located, more land) at the same purchase price. They would have had smaller mortgages as in that 3 year period, their savings would have increased the size of their deposit. Some now regret that earlier purchase decision as they could have bought something better, rather than buying due to FOMO.
Seen some estimates of expected 60% price increase in 3-5 years in Auckland (based on historical price charts and technical price analysis thereon)
Seen some other estimates of 10-20% price falls.
Depending on future price expectations, in one case, FHB should buy, and in another case, FHB should wait.
CN, house prices in 3 -7 years will most likely be up by quite a bit but how much is very hard to tell.
I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to your way if thinking for FHB which seems to be trying to time the market. Firstly you won't get it right, secondly it's a great way to still be FHB in 10 years time. Your first house is your home, you have pride of ownership, security of tenure, freedom to do what you like with the house and you build your life and memories in your house. So many on this site are so obsessed with every RE article, how much has the average gone up or down, or the median or the HPI. It's ridiculous and as waste of time. Instead, spend lots of time finding your home and you will be able to buy 10 - 20% below market. It doesn't matter at all if "the market" drops 7%, you are probably young but when you will be 50, your house will be worth so, so much more than now, you will also probably have paid it off and you will laugh at yourself for jeopardizing your purchase for fear of losing $.
Buying a house is more of an emotional matter than a financial one, we can be very good at finding plenty of reasons why we should not buy because of fear. Be brave, trust that all will be fine (it will) and have a great life.
Yvil,
Thank you for your explanation.
"Instead, spend lots of time finding your home and you will be able to buy 10 - 20% below market"
Just to confirm that my understanding of your comment is correct, first home buyers should make a purchase at a price 10-20% below market.
So that means:
1) if you are an interested buyer of a property, you are purchasing at prices that are 10-20% below what a registered valuer would value the property at?
2) if the vendor doesn't accept your offer of 10-20% below the registered valuation, then you would move on and look at another property to find a vendor who is willing to accept your price offer of 10-20% below market?
In short, yes. Focus on what you can control = finding a good house at a great price, not on things outside your control = guessing where the market is going.
Many vendors are not aware of the true value of their house, most think it's worth more, some think it's worth less. Pick an area, then look at lots and lots of houses, soon you will get a good feel what a house is worth. You see houses are not like cars where you can search a model on Trade Me and compare them exactly. Houses are location specific and they are all unique, that's why vendors don't know the exact value of their houses, your job is to find these houses and you will if you look long enough
If trying to time the market is futile, then assuming prices will increase is as well. Both of these are guessing at future outcomes of the market, and may be undone by the random walk of prices.
FHB should buy when the want/need the security of a place to call their own. But they also need to be able to afford it. If they sell in the future they will most likely buy again in the same or similar market to retain home ownership, so capital gains are moot. Capital losses on the other hand, will be painful.
Well I will take the analysis of an independent professor in construction and property over property spruikers with obvious vested interests every day of the week.
Well prices did go down a few percent so there was money to be saved. Now they seem to be recovering again, but it's hard to know if it's a real recovery or just a blip on the way down. Basically nobody knows, and if they say they do they should be viewed with suspicion.
Not sure what I'd do if I were a FHB in this market. I think holding onto your money is a valid strategy, but not sure I'd want it all sitting in TDs. Might put some in low fees funds of varying risk profiles. If buying a property, I'd want a good margin for error with a view to paying off extra principal in the first few years. If young with good qualifications/experience I'd consider a spell working OE to build up additional funds.
I do enjoy looking for my city of Nelson/ Tasman and confirming no other little cities nor many bigger cities have higher property prices than here in the low 600's. I always scratch my head and wonder why Canterbury and Otago are so cheap compared with us. Any comments readers, apart from blaming me ?
Christchurch is very affordable still and is the most steady market in the country.
For investors I doubt there is a better place to invest in due to it being rebuilt, having universities and opportunities.
The answer is that you need to buy well with future upside.
Hi The Man 2, you seem to be from Christchurch.
Your view for long term investment and for someone not residing in Christchurch (My friend stays in Auckland and is plaining to buy investement house in CHC as going overeseas for few years and cannot afford to invest in Auckland) 1 : Which suburbs are good for future growth/ivestment in Christchurch and 2 : Should one buy new 4 bedroom/2 bath house in 500s or 600s like in the one being build in new suburbus like Marshland or old 3 / 4 bedroom house with land in range of 300s or 400s which are available in suburbsa like Shellypark, Burswood, etc. (Basically to invest in new suburb in newly built house or old suburbs and old house with Land)
Who on earth would buy in a city that has a clear over supply of houses to sell and let. In fact it is perhaps the only city in NZ like that. When people start heading off to Australia or back to China and India again the whole country will be asking what happened. The hardest hit places will be those that were flooded with houses whilst the rest of us have a shortage.
Everyone here bemoans auckland and nz house prices being too high and unaffordable and then scoff at Christchurch because it has oversupply of houses and land .... which keeps house prices affordable.
Property Leader, not sure why you think there is an over supply of houses no more so than Auckland.
We are currently working thru who is staying on for next year as far as tenants go, and we are going to have a few moving on for various reasons.
Some will transfer to other houses we have that are going to be relet.
However we have started to advertise and we have been inundated with response to the 2 put on the web and tomorrow we are showing many thru and no doubt we will be having applications for next year.
ChCh is progressive .
We found that tenants who shifted from one property to another of ours were then wanting to move again and break their contract. In the end we just refused to allow
We are good landlords and often tenants will ask if we have anything else available, whether it be because they need less bedrooms, less rent or a different area due to schooling etc.
If we have something available that is coming available and we like them, the we will try and accommodate.
Happens occasionally because we don’t ever have much trouble resetting our stock as they are all well maintained property and have no downtown really
Curious what TM2 thinks of Wigram Skies. There seems to be a very vibrant little centre there now.
House Hunter, personally don’t own any in Wigram Skies, and don’t intend to buy any in there at this stage and haven’t really looked in there.
We live pretty close to there however that subdivision doesn’t appeal to us.
Capital gain hasn’t been that flash either due to being quite a few for sale at the one time as some sellers moving back overseas.
Yes it does have good food and beverage facilities there and a reasonable New World.
Thanks for your perspective TM2. I have family near there, and have followed the development during visits over the years. Not where I'd choose to live but I was impressed with how it took shape.
A little, a older home say 40 year old in a good suburb in ChCh.
You need to buy well and by that I mean something giving you a 6% return and nothing surer is that a ChCh is going to be the city of choice in the years ahead.
People on here go on about Auckland continuously but reality is that Auckland is overpopulated and that is only going to continue to exasperate the problems that it already has.
Young ones will desert Auckland when they realise that they are going to be paying a large mortgage off forever.
ChCh has the lifestyle and affordability.
The young will not leave Auckland for Christchurch The Boy. Why would they leave an exciting warm city for a cold boring town. It would be like moving from the Greek Islands to Siberia. Your little insignificant little town does not offer enough to get them to move away from their family, friends, clubs they belong to and their current jobs. The proof in the pudding is Auckland’s large population and house prices and your small population and low house prices. Throw in your earthquake history and unfortunately you get even less attractive to move to. Auckland will continue to grow and Christchurch will stagger on at best at its current population levels.
Auckland is far from exciting!
Why would they leave?
Because they can not afford to buy a home in Auckland,Gordon and if they do they will be a slave to the Bank for their whole working life.
Personally, the earthquakes don’t worry me one iota now!
I would be far more annoyed with Being stuck in traffic all day, having no money due to mortgage debt and lack of immigration policy.
The huge difference in population between the two says it all. It has been and will always be like that. Auckland draws in people and your town does its best to get rid of them. You have nothing you can argue with. Get used to it. You live in a town a huge majority of New Zealanders do not want to live in.
Gordon, get serious.
It is the second most populous place in NZ!!!!!!
Get a life!
Dude, according to Stat NZ, June 2018 data Urban by population. Wellington is the 2nd most populous, CHCH is the third!
Now say sorry to Gordon!
Not going to diss CHCH because I like it. Even though someone who calls themselves the man likes it, unusual thing to do, normally people say that for fun if their friend does something cool, but do not label themselves as the, man, unusual.
Anyway I digress I prefer to live in Auckland even though I will live in the country near a beach 40 minutes away, but have lived 10 years in Auckland.
Auckland has so much going for it, you have the shore, Devonport, Takapuna, Browns Bay, Mellons Bay, Murrays Bay, Long Bay lots of bays with little beaches pubs and communities.
Then you have St Heliers, Parnell, Kohimarima, Mission Bay, huge expanses of water surrounding Auckland. The viaduct is cool now and getting better, not to mention Ponsonby has good night life. The food is also great, I particularly like a little curry place in Parnell, and there is a tonne of good sushi. Anyway good compare to London.
If you go searching for some bars you will find lots of cool quirky little bars around Auckland.
Then you have quick drive up north to Orewa, Whangaporoa, Snells Beach, Leigh.
OR short trip to Waiheke, I love Waiheke and the races, love the beaches.
Then you have Bay of Islands, not far, Coromandels, Tauranga all easy drives away. For someone who loves the beach and all that goes with it, I love the proximity of all the beaches to Auckland.
Except John Cleese didn’t say that. He alluded to Palmy being like a rubbish dump.
The Rolling Stones called Invercargill the arsehole of the world.
Cleese said that the weather was lousy , that the local theatre was a bit of a dump , and the audience were a little weird ... he also made the suicide comment about Palmy . . But he did not call the town a dump...
Im very casually looking for another property.
Ive never been chased so much by realtors and mortgage brokers. Why have they got so much time on their hands, and why are they wasting it on a mostly uncommited buyer.
a) because there are no listings, or sales
b) because there are no buyers, either
This is the reason why me like many others have turned our backs on NZ ... I make double the wages and everything is half the costs... there nothing that anyone can state in this forum that can mitigate the fact, that if you cant afford property, then you are in a state of poverty...
https://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/kiwi-traveller/117213477/new-zealand-almos…
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.