The average value of New Zealand homes is declining by about $10,000 a month, according to Quotable Value (QV).
According to the QV House Price Index, the average value of New Zealand homes was $934,761 in January, down by $10,006 (-1.6%) since December last year, and down by $129,004 (-$12.1%) since January last year.
The biggest declines in dollar terms over the January year was in the Wellington Region. There average values declined by $222,749. This was closely followed by the Auckland Region with a drop of $220,355. Tauranga posted the third largest decline of $143,668.
In percentage terms the biggest decreases in average value over the 12 months to January were in the Wellington Region -20.4%, Palmerston North -17.3% and Hastings -14.7% (see first table below for the full regional figures).
The only major urban district to post an annual increase in average value was Queenstown-Lakes which was up $89,788 (+5.6%) compared to January last year. Even there values appear to have started falling, and in the three months to January declined by 0.7% (see the second table below).
That was Queenstown-Lakes first quarterly decline in average value since August 2020.
"The new year had started more or less how the old one ended, with widespread home value reductions across much of Aotearoa," QV Chief Operating Officer David Nagel said.
"Has the property market started 2023 how it will go on? Only time will tell for certain, but it certainly looks as though the market hasn't hit bottom yet."
"As a result, it seems many prospective buyers are being very cautious right now, waiting to see exactly how far prices will fall."
"Others are finding it too difficult to obtain finance, or are unwilling to make such a commitment given the very high level of economic uncertainty right now," Nagel said.
The comment stream on this story is now closed.
- You can have articles like this delivered directly to your inbox via our free Property Newsletter. We send it out 3-5 times a week with all of our property-related news, including auction results, interest rate movements and market commentary and analysis. To start receiving them, register here (it's free) and when approved you can select any of our free email newsletters.
82 Comments
The weather must be bad, no comments for two hours after this property story posted! At least this news is good!
House prices down, CPI under control, she's all bikkity-too.
Normal business has resumed. More comments on this that on the "National state of Emergency"
Can see where everyone's priorities lie.
So. Are we going to take this unfolding opportunity to restructure our residential property market? Or are we going to wait for 'the bottom' and then furiously buy it back and return it to the normality of the last 40 years?
With any luck, Adrian will choose the former. Because we know that politicians of any colour with go for the latter.
Will need DTI and a land tax brought in to stop the specvuestor greed taking off again. Real investors (yield driven) are not buying because the math still has a long way to be stack up.
I agree, bring in a DTI of 4-5 to moderate any future property ponzis. As the data from the RBNZ shows such a DTI will hit investors much more than FHBs
If you want a land tax, vote TOP.
Yup! LVT is the way, only one party is suggesting it.
Well history would side with the "Or are we going to wait for 'the bottom' and then furiously buy it back and return it to the normality of the last 40 years?".
Adrian was only too happy to juice housing for the wealth effect as early as 2019. His inflation mandate must seem extremely inconvenient these days.
I agree regarding current politicians, none have said or done future generations any medium to long term favours. However, voters get a chance to change out some of the current politicians this year and give some new faces a chance. The Opportunities Party (TOP) wants the first 15,000 income tax free paid for with a land tax. While many like the idea of not paying tax on the first 15k of income, it's how it's paid for (land value tax) that could really bring long term benefits in my opinion. For example, overseas owners and under the table rentals would start having to paying tax. It would foster supply by encouraging those with empty homes to sell/rent and those with empty sections to sell/develop. Land price (and hence house prices) would also decrease - one of the few (only?) tax that would make the item being taxed cheaper.
My point is this, it's voters that choose the politicians. Voters have to take responsibility for the current housing mess because they have not been prepared (in sufficient numbers) try to change things for all manner of weak excuse such as not wanting to risk a 'wasted vote'.
I will be voting TOP this election because I want to do everything I can to "take this unfolding opportunity to restructure our residential property market". If you think the main cost of living crisis is and has been housing costs for decades as I do, then I challenge you to do what you can to effect change on election day. Red/Blue/Green/Black is not a vote for change, it's a vote for more of the same.
Phase 1 & 2 of TOPs plan is to steal equity from the homes that people worked their whole lives to build up for their retirement and their families & give it as a UBI to people who can't be bothered getting out of bed.
Once embedded, land tax will be same as GST: another ticket clipping toy for politicians of all parties to game +% instead of ever facing up to the need to actually grow the economic pie before dividing it.
https://www.top.org.nz/universal-basic-income-policy#:~:text=Introduce%…,(no%20changes%20to%20superannuation).
TOP's policy will increase productivity (growing the economic pie) rather than ticket-clip, for several reasons. One is that it involves a reduction in income tax, which encourages labour and productive enterprise. If you tax something, you get less of it (except land!). Conversely, if you reduce taxes on something, you get more of it.
Land value tax is well known to be a "neutral" non-distortionary tax, because it doesn't reduce the amount of land available. By swapping income tax for land value tax, we get a more productive society with cheaper land values, making it easier for future homeowners to buy land.
The UBI is a great way to stop the welfare trap, where people on the benefit currently get less money if they start working, so they often don't start working. For everyone else, it just functions as a negative tax rate.
They worked for the purchase price and interest. The did not necessarily work for the current home equity (land and house value increase) as you refer to it. It's only a tax on the land value, so renovations/improvements to the house will not be taxed. Hence my comment that a land tax encourages development. UBI has been replaced for the tax switch this election. If they get in, do phase one then sure, don't vote for them in 2026 if they are campaigning on a UBI then. But they are not this election, so UBI isn't a factor for 2023.
That said, UBI seems like a way to make the MSD delivery much more efficient - UBI would replace existing benefits that already do the thing you seem to fear most (paying people that can't be bothered getting out of bed). So no significant change there from status quo.
To your last point, certainly a land tax will raise funds differently. But these funds are currently raised anyway via PAYE (which gets reduced so it's tax neutral) etc. The key difference for me is that people who can be bothered getting out of bed will be better off (reduced PAYE) for doing so - think of it as an incentive to get out of bed and work regardless of if you own or rent a house. Those that rent or want to 'trade up' will also be better off because a land tax encourages housing supply (cheaper for developers to buy land, encourages land bankers to develop, encourages those with empty houses to rent out or sell). So really it's about making housing affordable again like it used to be 30 plus years ago. It's about giving the next generation of ordinary people (and the current ones that don't own a house) the opportunity to do so and this in my view will also help with many of the things people complain about in society today too such as crime, mental health etc.
Plus they will change the rebates system which disincentivises those who are out of work, from joining the work force again. WFF needs to be looked at as well, for the same reasons.
Not at all. Tops policy is to shift tax onto land speculation (tax free rentals) and reward productive activity by reducing tax on working. Speculords will naturally enough not be a fan. Thankfully the leveraged speuvestor is only a very small part of the population at election time.
"...equity from the homes that people worked their whole lives to build up..." a haaaa haaaa haaa! They "worked" to build up equity, you MUST be having a laugh. A ridiculous monetary and tax system has bought them wealth which they claim is theirs through "work".
The only way to grow the economic pie, is to focus on the PRODUCTIVE sectors. So you tax the unproductive (land) and encourage the productive. That's literally TOPs policy.
Yes I am partly to blame for voting National in 2008 because I thought John Key at the time was going to do something about the "housing crisis" that began under Helen Clark's Government.
In my defense, it was my first year of voting eligibility so I was young and gullible.
Ha, I voted Labour that election because I wanted Helen and Michael to face their own mess (and I didn't trust John Key - voted National with Don Brash the 2005 election for tax cuts). But to be fair, John Key said the right things back then and deserved the vote, so don't be too hard on yourself!
Crazy weird convos going on then. Clark tells Key he has a womans voice while key hit back saying she has a man's voice 🤣🤣
NZ Herald
Voice experts back Clark's boast https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/voice-experts-back-clarks-boast/…
Not sure what else I can add to this comment. If a voter/commenter loves their red/blue/green/yellow/black party then by all means cheer and shout and vote as you always do. But if one is from the middle 50% of NZ tossing up which of our centrist parties will take things in a better direction, then a teeny vote for TOP is the best chance of expressing a desire for something new.
You can express a desire for 'something new' by voting for someone else if you think paying to rent your own house from the government is insane.
Isn't it just as insane that your employer pays the government for your labour?
If you a referring to PAYE then the employee pays it from their income. The employer merely withholds the PAYE from the gross amount to be paid to the employee. This regime ensures the employees "pay as you earn" as if employees received their gross salary and then were stung with a tax bill of say 30% of that amount at the end of the tax year the chances of payment would be... zero.
While true, it's not like you can keep your house if you don't pay rates either so local govt okay, central govt not? (I'm thinking there isn't much difference - you can and are being levied/taxed currently). Land tax has been used in NZ before too, so it's not new and unprecedented. I know it may seem like the last thing you need right now, but I would direct your anger at those that forced you to pay more than is reasonable in the first place than those trying to fix the broken housing and resultant broken society. Also, if you only own one house and work, you'll likely be better off due to the tax-free threshold - even more so if a two-income household.
The concept is a land-value-tax, not a house tax. The value of my land benefits greatly from every positive thing in my community and in my city, the majority of which is led by the government. Clearly I am not all-in on searching for and buying the pieces of property and land that I think are prime to benefit from the work of other New Zealanders to make the country a better place.
There is some strange deeply embedded idea that voters have that having already paid some tax to the government that runs this country, if they stop earning then they should now get a nicely-run country for free. The obvious game that follows is - how can I earn without appearing to earn? I know - buy houses and fight tooth-and-nail to avoid any change from the status-quo.
As has been explained to you before GV, if you are a working family, TOPs policies will most likely make you better off. Yes you will get an LVT, but you will pay less income tax to make up for it. Yes grannies in 4 bedroom 1/4 acre sections in multi million dollar houses on land close to cities will suffer. It will encourage them to move on to cheaper land on the outskirts but will mean housing and land is better utilised.
Feel free to keep voting blue or red though as they have done such a great job over the past 20 years and are sure to recycle the same policies that got us all into this mess.
Voters have to take responsibility for the current housing mess because they have not been prepared (in sufficient numbers) try to change things for all manner of weak excuse such as not wanting to risk a 'wasted vote'.
That's simply not true. At least 3 of the last 5 governments were elected on housing mandates, and all failed to deliver.
What we need is some way to eject the abject failures warming parliaments benches. Are there any other jobs where you can fail to meet your targets time and time again, yet remain employed for 3 years?
As much as I am a fan of local representation, we need to be putting people who are competent rather than popular into parliament. I would like to see the electoral system changed to people running for policy positions, and the abolition of parties.
I have some sympathy for your comment as per my reply to NZDan - John Key said the right things first election (also TOP didn't exist then). Ditto the current government when they initially went into coalition with NZF. Alas, I still can't quite believe how badly they failed on the housing (eg kiwibuild, lame foreign buyer ban) and immigration (didn't reduce demand for housing which could have been done with stroke of a pen no different to how they did it when covid hit) front.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me still applies to my mind.
Regardless, I hope we can agree this election both Labour, National, NZF and the Greens cannot be trusted to fix housing regardless of what they say and that it's now time to give truly different faces a chance be they TOP or another party that hasn't been in parliament and already proved their incompetence.
You mean, fool me twice, shame on ME I think
When the FBB was proposed and implemented did you really think it would be the salvation you wanted
Thank you, I certainly do mean that (edited).
I'm so pleased to see you helping out TOP supporter HW2, can I interest you in attending a TOP meetup sometime?
Regarding the FBB you're also correct. When a boy born in Gore (myself) is asked to hire a van so one group of non-English speakers can show another group of non-English speakers all their Auckland rental properties I knew this was a factor in that more demand will always increase prices all else being equal. I thought it better than nothing but would be impossible to stop due to how they were already buying. I wasn't even a RFRM advocate (too complicated) but again better than nothing (I want affordable houses for those in full time employment), both my post-election TOP surveys advocated for a simple land tax so I'm very happy with how TOP's policy has changed in that direction and actually feel like I want to vote for them rather than them being the least bad option!
Have AUCKLAND houses ever been affordable. Fixed it for you. We have segregated markets in nz with very different market prices in each. Auckland and Queenstown are the only truly unaffordable housing markets.
I would never vote for a party whose founder is a hypocrite, openly and proudly ripping off the tax system yet says its ok for others to pay tax. Gareth Morgan 🤣
Prior to 1994, Auckland market was 3x median income, like the rest of NZ.
You could also say that there are thousands of buyers each month, therefore it is still affordable.
Why didnt everyone buy a house in those days, it was not that easy
The number of buyers is not the definition of affordability.
And there are many good reasons why people prefer to rent, at least for the short term than own.
Also, the 3x median household income was usually provided with the income of only one person on a 40 working week. With the balance of time and money used on what was known as the Kiwi lifestyle.
Nowadays the median is 8 to 10 plus, both parents working longer hours, etc.
Early 90s was a great time to buy, still not everyone who wanted a house could buy. No savings, low-income.
Yes the ratio to median income went up. Are houses unaffordable now or just more expensive.
I used to think they were overpriced when QUARTER of a MILLION. Others would have refused to buy and waited for prices to drop.
At one point I think Auckland would have been - I'm not sure when though 1980's? I moved there in the late 90's and people like me from around NZ plus the overseas immigration was well under way by then (excess demand, increasing prices). I think now the whole country is unaffordable, no more 25k cottages in Clinton to buy but accept that Auckland and Queenstown will have a premium compared to elsewhere and I'm fine with that as long as those who own the most desirable places pay a little more tax for the privilege.
I'm not aware of anything Gareth said which sounded like ripping off the tax system or a being hypocrite. Regardless, he is no longer involved - I encourage you to look past the history and instead to whether or not their current policies would make for a better NZ society going forward.
Stupid councils wouldn't let you build, the council hoops were being installed. Now the house price horse has bolted and you'll never get prices back down
We are still 15 percent or more above march 2020
I agree that zoning and covenants have a lot to answer for too. Years ago I asked the local council if I could build a house on my parent's lifestyle block of 25 acres, but the answer was no. In this case it was the rules preventing another house being built.
Murray for PM. Or Raf...
My cunning plan exposed so soon!
I'm so sick of everything being made too complex to solve. Those who seek office, running from accountability. I better stop.
Would it be wrong if I upvoted anyway?
Murray, you might be right in saying this:
"The Opportunities Party (TOP) wants the first 15,000 income tax free paid for with a land tax. While many like the idea of not paying tax on the first 15k of income, it's how it's paid for (land value tax) that could really bring long term benefits in my opinion."
...but
There are similar tax laws in Australia - first 18k is tax free, and there is a bunch of taxes on property, like land tax, etc. Not least of which is a stamp duty tax, which is around 55k on a 1mil property (in Victoria) and which you have to part with even before you get to "own" the property you buy. I don't think these taxes prevented house prices in Aus from sky rocketing, so they might not prevent them from sky rocketing in NZ either, in the future. House prices in Melbourne and Sydney are very similar to Auckland prices, maybe even more expensive, despite the tax changes that you mentioned. (I don't know much about other markets in Aus or NZ except for Melb/Syd and Auckls ).
Just my 2c worth.
Hi Mystery,
Of course the 15k tax free and land tax policies are not mutually exclusive, but I think both are a good idea and should be done (one pays for the other if you do both as proposed by TOP). Just for clarity, I'm not saying the having the first 15k of income tax free will lower house prices at all.
I am saying that all else being equal, a land value tax (LVT) will lower what people will pay for land. How much it lowers it will depend on the rate of taxation.
There are of course other things that effect what people will pay for land, for example, if interest rates fall or banks 'lend freely' then people tend to pay whatever the bank will give them. The last two years show this is a large factor so having a land tax by itself won't stop the market rocketing away while the likes of Adrian Orr are deliberately dropping interest rates and LVR restrictions for their stated intent creating the wealth effect caused by rocketing house prices.
I'm not really sure what specific taxes are in place but in Australia sorry. In summary, I agree with you re TOP policy not stopping price fluctuations, I'm also not saying TOP policy will fix them BTW. TOP policy will however be a solid step towards giving more people the opportunity to own and therefore feel a part of society rather than a rent slave.
Couple of erroneous premises there ... ;)
... are we going to wait for 'the bottom' and then furiously buy it back and return [the residential property market] to the normality of the last 40 years?
1. The NPS/UD (National Policy Statement / Urban Development) and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill means there will be no return to anything like the last 40 years. Both enable significant intensification - or more dwellings per sqm - than was ever allowed previously. I.e. on a per dwelling basis - the value of the land will become a far smaller proportion. Or, on a city-wide basis, there is now much more land available.
Because we know that politicians of any colour with go for the latter.
2. Um. They didn't & haven't. Labour (with some cross party support) got the new NSP/UD through. And Labour & the Nats got the Housing Supply Bill through (leaving Act to look just a tad foolish).
And ... As I posted before - using house price stagnation between 2016 when the new Akl Unity Plan was introduced and the NZRB clumsiness in dealing with COVID as evidence - we'll be looking at a whole new normal for the next 30+ years.
You're conflating density with affordability. There is no link. If there was, Hong Kong, having the highest density, would have the most affordable housing, not the dearest.
While it is counter-intuitive, the NSP/UD has not removed restrictions on land supply, which happens at the fringe. The cost of fringe land sets the price for all land back into the center, whatever the density.
Nothing in the present system will prevent another return to a boom in house prices.
Auckland's, and other big center's, big problems were a) the shortage of land and b) what the territorial authorities allowed you to build on the land. Central government blasted b) out of the water with the NPS/UD and the HSB. And not before time! The net result is a dwelling - the unit that is purchased and lived in - has a much smaller proportion of the most expensive and limited resource, being the land.
This has a dual effect. 1) The individual dwelling become less less expensive. 2) More dwellings can be built per hector (a lot more). No conflating there.
Your assertion that the cost of fringe land sets the price for all land back to the center is extremely tenuous and only held (some) water when what the land, both center and fringe, could be used for was heavily restricted. Both the NPS/UD and the HSB have removed so many artificial constraints that what was 'fringe' has now moved closer to the center. Much closer. (Many large sections on the outer fringes of Akl that were bought for $2k per sqm, or more, in 2019/20 are now worth only $500 per sqm (and in some places even less). Whereas land in the center where apartment buildings can be built has barely moved in price.) Btw - it is completely intuitive that neither the NPS/UD or the HSB has increased land supply. What they have done is increased the potential for many, many more dwellings in the existing land supply.
Your HK counter-argument doesn't recognise many issues that simply don't apply in almost any other place. E.g. HK has no fringes to expand into - they have a border with China. HK has very strictly controls what can be built where and lots of HK land is parks and reserves (and enclaves for the very rich). And even with those other issues added in, your argument fails to acknowledge the price of HK land ... 5058sqm recently sold for $935m HKD or about $37k NZD per sqm if you can in fact buy it (most bare / brownfields land simply isn't available to purchase and you must submit a development plan to buy it, i.e. land banking is a no-no). Comparing apples and oranges will not prove your assertion.
There is nothing tenous about the link of fringe setting the price. Everything from the Demographia report, to Adam Smith, Alan Evans, Alain Bertaud, and the Productivity Commissions report into housing acknowledges this.
On a $m2 basis apartments are the most expensive housing form to build and while still maybe slightly cheaper in total than something free standing and bigger, results in the purchaser trading anemity for affordability when if the right policies are put in place, they could have both, like they used to.
The fact that sections are $500m2 is admitting failure of the NPS. And your confusing potential of when sections can be delivered with the potential of when the market wants them, or doesn't want them.
And Hong Kong perfectly illustrates Aucklands Walter Mitty complex. IE urban restrictions caused by Govt policy or country borders dictate what the price of land costs.
I've done the figures and there is no reason other than restrictive Govt land use policies that prevents land prices from being far cheaper relative to median income, just like they used to be before the restrictive policies were put in place.
All other things left unchanged - there is a link between fringe land and inner city land. The key phase is the qualifier - All other things left unchanged...
Problem is though ... Things change all the time.
- the introduction of the car led to a fall in the relative price of inner city land & rises in fringe land
- inner city public transport led to a rise in the relative price of inner city land & falls in fringe land
- the oil shocks of the 70s led to a rise in the relative price of inner city land & falls in fringe land
- the Auckland Unitary Plan of 2016 led rise in the relative price of inner city land zoned THAB zone land & falls in fringe land
- the NPS/UD & MDRS has led to significant falls in fringe land and falls in outer city land relative to inner city land of any zoning
I could go on. But I see you are agreeing with me now when you say:
... i.e. urban restrictions caused by Govt policy [, local government policy] or country borders dictate what the price of land costs.
Note the correction. Almost all restrictive and/or constraining policies are defined by local government driven by nimby interests and the extremely conservative views of those that do vote in local body elections.
I've done the figures and there is no reason other than restrictive Govt land use policies that prevents land prices from being far cheaper relative to median income, just like they used to be before the restrictive policies were put in place.
If you mean continuing to build further and further out - I'd love to see those numbers. Do you think they'd stand up to economic scrutiny? I've never seen any that have when all costs are considered.
You made that qualifier up yourself.
Not one of your points 1 to 5 is correct as to why we are many multiples more expensive than other jurisdictions that have had all the same things happen to them as you mention.
And what's with the correction? The restrictions are by both State and local Govts, with many of the restrictions due to bad compact city ideology, or just the sheer inertia of command and control bureaucracy.
And having developed, both on my own behalf, and for some of the largest developers in NZ, and in jurisdictions overseas that have truly affordable houses because of better land use policies, my figures are real coal face numbers.
bw,
No to the first sentence, an emphatic yes to the second.
Tragic to lose a service person in Murawai. Total respect for all in the line of duty during this storm. Thoughts for all affected.
Indeed. Puts some of those embarrassing 'storm, what storm?' comments from yesterday into sharp context.
Indeed..
What kind of person would be stupid and arrogant enough to post something like that!?
Sadly there are many on Twitter. Most would be best described as raving right wing nuts jobs. Scrolling through the feed of one @AC_Black and all the usual tickets get ticked.. Trump, Guns, Anti-vax, thick as pig shit..
Sadly there are many on Twitter. Most would be best described as raving right wing nuts jobs. Scrolling through the feed of one @AC_Black and all the usual tickets get ticked.. Trump, Guns, Anti-vax, thick as pig shit..
Saw a great post on Twitter about Steve Bannon talking about QE, negative interest rates, and the hollowing out of the Western middle and working classes. He understands it better than most and shows more concern for people than the likes of the progressive left, the woke, and leaders like Cindy and Chippie.
Oh yes he really cares..
Mr Bannon, 68, is accused of cheating donors to a fundraiser to help Mr Trump achieve his policy goal of building a wall on the US-Mexico border.
Prosecutors in New York allege he lied to donors and diverted some of the money to two associates.
According to the indictment against him, Mr Bannon told donors he was "kind of a volunteer" to the We Build the Wall non-profit, which raised more than $25m (£22m) from thousands of people online.
Despite his vow that "not a penny" would be pocketed by him or others, Mr Bannon is said to have diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars to two associates.
Yes, yes. Nevertheless, his comments as I referred to are gold-plated. Focus on the words. Not the person.
I'm focusing on his actions JC...you should as well.
J.C.
Focus on the words. Not the person. Personally, I focus on people's actions and in Bannon's case, that rules him out for me. He is a truly appalling human being IMO.
Focus on the words. Not the person. Personally, I focus on people's actions and in Bannon's case, that rules him out for me. He is a truly appalling human being IMO.
I thought so too. But that's beside the point. He's pointing out things that are essentially at the crux of what's breaking down the Anglosphere and the sheeple are wholly focused on identity politics.
HPI out very soon and that will give us a current optic on what’s happening in 2023
Fantastic another 25% will be great.
The sellers and their handlers (RE Geedy agents) are still far asleep in 2021 and are asking prices which are totally not affordable at 7% interest rates.
Hopefully they come out of their slumber soon.
4 Sale signs being removed around our neighbourhood..sellers giving up as cannot stomach the big cuts to asking price needed.
Investor Facebook group comments all follow the same theme "don't sell, hold on until prices go back up next year". Could be a good Tui billboard?
So supply is falling? :)
I have been tracking supply in Christchurch, Nelson and Dunedin for the last 3 years. Its now higher than it has been in the last 3 years.
4 Sale signs being removed around our neighbourhood..sellers giving up as cannot stomach the big cuts to asking price needed.
Don't believe you without any evidence. You're just laying troll bait. NZ is driven by too many 'reckons'.
You're just laying troll bait..??? Did you not get any sleep last night JC?
Asking $1.4m...been on the market since June last year - sign now removed outside
https://www.realestate.co.nz/42184595/residential/sale/15a-riddell-road…
Sellers are still dreaming of 2021. Hopefully another 75-100bp increase due shortly will jolt a few.
Went to an open home in the weekend for a townhouse on 212m land, single car garage, no bath, basically a very simple box painted as “luxury”.
The agent said they were looking for $2mil “because the market’s a little soft and there’s solar panels on the roof so your power’s basically free”. I couldn’t help but laugh out loud.
She admitted after a while the vendor bought off plan for $2.2mil and really needed to get rid of it. Then she continued to shamelessly feed me stories about how the directors and shareholders bought the other 4 townhouses and were all planning to move in after telling me the company builds 200 homes a year!
Not a word of truth comes out of the Mouth of RE agents ever. Not sure how they get sleep in the night by talking so much BS all day.
Seriously how do they live with themselves. No shame, no self respect, no values what so ever.
You give them a key, they talk shit and untruths and they are paid more than you would pay a surgeon trying to save your life. Go figure!
Climate change is going to have a say as well.
How much for a place in Whitianga/Coromandel today, or on Waihiki Island, if the incident of access become more and more of an issue? Or Queenstown, if the snowfields disappear and The Lake takes its turn at overfilling again? Or anywhere on a suspect cliff with a fabulous view?
That may be some time off, if at all, but waiting until it's irrefutable will be too late.
It's called weather. It's what you see when you look out the window. NZ's "climate" is temporate. One degree in 100 years isn't going to change that or anything.
When I woke up this morning it was 15 degrees, a couple of hours later, it's 20 degrees - that's a natural cycle.
Climate loonies deny anything natural ever happens.
Thanks for clearing that up
I remember reading about specuvestors piling into Palmy and paying insanely over inflated prices and like many thinking "This cannot be sustainable!!!". It appears I was right.
What was Ireland's first year falls after the Celtic Tiger?
Fri Feb 1 2008
House prices nationally fell by 7.3 per cent last year, with second hand houses in Dublin falling by an average of 9 per cent, according to the latest Permanent TSB/ESRI house price index.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/house-prices-fell-by-7-3-in-2007-1.8181…
The average value of New Zealand homes is declining by about $10,000 a month, according to Quotable Value (QV).
And by a heck of a lot more, if they are in the recently highlighted flood zones, or teetering on rain soaked cliffs.
So at bare minimum, those who will soon be forced to sell, and spent the last 10 years saying for their deposit, stand to lose absolutely everything. 🤷♂️
House prices are back to June 2021 level. A year prior to that, in June 2020, they were around $750,000. At the time that was considered very unaffordable and there was a lot of talk about housing crisis. Salaries have gone up a little since then, but not that much. 950K is 200K above the "very unaffordable" level. Not much to cheer about...
Yes, there still is the potential for further falls.
There is still approx. 1/3 the price of a house that is made up of non value added costs ie costs that only exist to monopoly restrictions within the system. Examples being land banking, and council monopoly over consenting and infrastructure supply timing.
What happened to the demand everyone insisted was supporting house prices?
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.