Vendors reducing their asking prices to meet the market has probably been one of the biggest influences on the residential property market this year.
When the monthly average asking price figures from property website Realestate.co.nz are compared with the median selling price figures for the following month from the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand (REINZ), it shows the gap between the two has been steadily narrowing.
Although average and median prices are compiled differently, it is the monthly trends for each that are important and allow a comparison to be made.
The graph below shows both sets of figures, with Realestate.co.nz's average asking prices form January to August compared with the REINZ's median selling price from February to September.
While both follow a roughly similar trend, the most noticeable feature is that the gap between the two has narrowed, and this is mainly due to a decline in asking prices.
In January this year the average asking price was $882,386, while the median selling price the following month was $762,000. That's a difference of $120,386 (-13.6%).
That difference between the two steadily narrowed and by September the gap had declined to $70,144 (-8.2%).
That suggests vendors have been getting more realistic in their price expectations, and consequently the gap between asking and selling prices is becoming easier to close.
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.
85 Comments
With JH in play, selling prices will gradually feel the pressure..
When adjusted for inflation, prices are still falling. As expected, patient and disciplined FHB's hold the upper hand while enjoying returns of 6% before tax. They stand a better chance of owning more equity up front they don't have to pay 8% interest on.
Autumn 2024........
It depends which time period you look at. But just glancing at that chart above, it looks like sale prices are up about the same as inflation since January. Add the fact that we voted in a government determined to keep house prices going up, I am not so sure it is best to wait, probably 50/50.
By the way that is not my favoured outcome, I would prefer house prices to drop further, but I don't see any evidence of that happening.
I respect your opinion. I think the cost of money stacked alongside high expectations from the new Government and not delivered on, fixed interest rollovers and increased financial stress are going to cause prices to once again trend lower from early next year.
The argument is kinda moot because an FHB often doesn't have the same motivations as a value investor.
There's only a finite amount of time, and some things in life are best not deferred indefinitely.
Back yourself, and assume you'll also be able to improve your income as you mature. Kids are a good motivator, men with children earn 50% more than those that don't. Because they usually have to....
Pa1nter, well said (yes I really mean that). When one has kids of their own (which I do) there's more incentive there to prevent them being taken advantage of financially...
That's not what I was meaning at all.
Lotta kids still living at home in their 30s these days tho
That's a shame. It's a normal parental instinct to want to protect your kids from financial exploitation to some extent. I thought you might at least acknowledge that part...
Any semi-adjusted parent won't want their kids getting exploited. That wasn't at all what I was conveying though.
Then again, you also can't shelter your children from harm. They need to live their own lives, make mistakes, grow and develop on their own. At best, we can try to give them the tools to navigate life through all it's ups and downs.
👍
"some things in life are best not deferred indefinitely" - however at the moment it is something like 50% cheaper to rent, I'm not sure we have ever seen that before, so it could be a very good time to defer for a few years. As I said above, I would be a bit 50/50 if I was a FHB right now.
Does this take age into account? I’d expect most 40 year olds to earn double what a 20 year old makes. Kids or not.
On top of age. I.e. a 40 year old with kids will earn more than a 40 year old without l
50% more?
Is it from the need to provide or the need to escape?
That’s a salient point, Pa1nter. Deferring important matters indefinitely is seldom a recipe for a progressive, fulfilling life - and property decisions are no exception.
The reality is that if you accept the advice of the DGM then you’ll NEVER own a property. You’ll raise your family paying rent to a landlord - and continue paying rent through your retirement years until you decease……
If such a lifestyle pops your cork, then fine. But remember that those who possess the wherewithal to strive and own property seldom look back and regret - even though the early years of property ownership can be tough. Property owners possess a different mentality and vision from those who forever procrastinate - suspended in a vice-like grip of negative thoughts / terminal pessimism.
TTP
TTP, you timed your post perfectly. Like I said, it loaths me to think FHB's are getting taken advantage of financially by the vested.
Have a mate who bought turn key at the peak and is now unable to get finance upon completion. The value has decreased by an amount around the same as their initial deposit. Unsure if their contract allows them to sell.
The housing market is exactly that, a market. All markets have winners and losers, and no market has ever been a sure bet.
Your fear mongering needs to be called out for what it is. Keep your vested interest in check.
Typically, a FHB shouldn't be buying a turnkey. Decent depreciation exposure in a meh market.
They may not be able to afford anything else. Most older homes are either on expensive blocks of land or built during the leaking period.
There's always an old house thats a cheaper alternative to a new house, somewhere.
Something unrenovated, but built before about 1980 and after 1930 should be fine.
You typically pay a similar price to a new build, but get a house that is miles away from modern living standards and the cost to upgrade it is getting crazy. The longer you hold it, the less acceptable it will be to the market, and the more expensive it will be to fix. There is also the maintenance costs too, a lot of the old wiring, plumbing, etc is past its use-by date.
I agree it was the right choice a decade ago, not so sure now. I would never live in a house that is not double glazed and fully insulated again, most of the market will feel that way at some stage.
Where I am a new house is close to double the price of something 40+ years old. Double glazing and whatever is a nicety, but if you know how to heat and vent a house it shouldn't be a problem. Insulating floors and ceilings isn't hard to do (but it sucks), and isn't that expensive.
City centres are different because land near the centre is at a premium, and older houses there are usually using the space inefficiently.
Keep in mind most FHBs are at the bottom of the market, so they can only buy a terraced new build or a small old house on a tiny subdivided section. I would say that pretty much anywhere in Auckland those two options are a similar price, not sure about other cities. The older house will have extra value because it is detached and may have some land, but the flip side is that it is much worse to live in and is costly to maintain and upgrade. I would personally buy the older house because I like the DIY, but if you are not handy the terrace seems like the better option to me.
Yeah, so you pay a premium for new, for convenience.
I don't really know about the "much worse". We've made it 100s of thousands of years without double glazing and waterfall countertops.
We've made it 100s of thousands of years without cars, electricity, etc too. People would have said the same thing about flushable toilets, going outside is fine.
Yes you pay a premium for new. But you also pay a premium for old, as they haven't come down in value as much as the cost to get them up to scratch has increased. To get a small unmaintained 1950's house up to a decent standard is going to cost $150k+ with current build costs, even without double glaze. A re-roof alone might be $20k, re-wire and re-plumb another $20k. Even a very basic bathroom costs $30k these days, same with a very basic kitchen. Repaint the weatherboards and windows, probably $20k. Then you still have flooring, decoration, insulation, landscaping, etc to pay for. And after all that you still don't have double glazing or waterfall countertops.
We've made it 100s of thousands of years without cars, electricity, etc too. People would have said the same thing about flushable toilets, going outside is fine.
The move from no kitchen to a kitchen is far greater than moving from a 40 year old kitchen to a brand new one. Functionally, they're 99% the same. Unless the place is super run down, most of your list of expenses aren't really critical, unless you want the old house to perform exactly the same as a new one.
It's sort of like cars, something from the early 80s (assuming it's maintainted) is going to serve basically the same function as a brand new $70k car. We tell ourselves we need lane keeping assist, 12 speakers, auto tailgate and 8 airbags, but in reality you're paying a huge premium for what is essentially the same experience.
A basic bathroom is $10k. Off the shelf toilet, shower and/or bath. Flooring. Vanity.
A moderate level $20k.
High spec made to order etc $30k. Or your tradie is simply ripping you off.
Same here - for the price of a new 2 bedroom townhouse with no garden or garage, you could buy an older 3 bedroom house on a 600-700 sqm section with a garage. If you wanted to buy a brand new house you would be paying another $150k min on top and still get only half the land size. That $150k difference could be spent on renovating an older home and installing insulation, double glazing, and updating the kitchens and bathrooms, and you would still come out on top.
Please enlighten me where you can buy an old 3 bedroom house in Auckland on 600-700 sq m for 650-700k, and which doesn’t need at least 150k spent on it.
I am all ears
A suburb that starts with "O" and rhymes with Sahara
Yeah.
Our winter power bills (in our new double glazed townhouse) are less than half of what we paid in the last two rental places we were in, which were 1980s builds.
And putting aside the financial aspect, so much more comfortable and healthier too.
No Jimbo is right. Old houses come with larger sites, that means automatically high price.
Unless you are talking about older flats. How much do those 1960s/1970s brick and tile flats go for these days? I will check and report back.
update - notably there are very few brick and tile flats for sale on TradeMe. Secondly, where they do exist they are ‘price by negotiation’. But what I recall from when I bought 4 years ago, they were often a similar price to new build townhouses, often smaller and in need of renovation in the short term
I agree - and know of several who have been caught in similar situations recently, one more to come mid to late next year.
"Have a mate who bought turn key at the peak and is now unable to get finance upon completion. The value has decreased by an amount around the same as their initial deposit. Unsure if their contract allows them to sell."
Unfortunately there will be more of these situations coming of owner occupiers being unable to finance their off the plan purchase.
"if you accept the advice of the DGM then you’ll NEVER own a property". Likewise if you accept the advice "those who possess the wherewithal to strive and own property seldom look back" you may buy a property at the top of a massively inflated asset bubble. You could have probably said the same thing about Kodak shares at one point.
At the moment it is something like 50% cheaper to rent than buy, that seems very unusual to me. There needs to be quite a capital gain coming to make buying a sensible choice compared to putting that extra cash into a TD or similar. Deferring for a few years is not deferring indefinitely.
The yield equation is very unappealing, if prices suddenly take off by 20 - 30% it'll put the gross yield in the 2-5% range. In most cases net yield will be negative for years even on interest only loans. You are literally better off in the long term by saving in a non interest paying deposit account rather than holding on to hope that capital gains will build your equity portfolio at a rate of higher returns and assuming investors will take a lower and lower yield hit into the future.
"In most cases net yield will be negative for years even on interest only loans."
Most non owner occupied property being rented out in the long term rental market is positive cashflow after ownership costs such as rates, insurance, maintenance.
It is how a property purchaser chooses to finance that purchase that determines whether the property remains positive cashflow or negative cashflow.
Let's take two situations:
1) a 100% equity financed property is positive cashflow.
2) a 100% debt financed property is negative cashflow.
That's a good point JJ. My parents never owned a house, it was not because it was impossible for them to afford one, they weren't rich, but they could have bought a modest house. They never bought because of fear! They were always scared something bad would happen. Today my dad has passed away but my mum is still renting after 58 years !!! 58 years of paying rent, and not a penny to her name to show for it. What a tragedy !
It really depends on what your goal is in life. I dont think renting forever is a tragedy if its a conscious choice. It affords freedom and time. The amount of energy NZ expends on thinking about, working on, and paying a mortgage on a house is a horrendous waste of life in my opinion.
When considering purchasing residential real estate when there are high house price risks, some people prefer the risk of loss of opportunity over the risk of loss of their hard earned entire life time savings.
Conditions change and at some point house price risks will be reduced and it will become attractive to purchase residential property.
Long-term renting also was probably far more common in some societies where the politicians local and central weren't accidentally on-purpose running policy that inflated prices and rents ridiculously beyond incomes, while they themselves coincidentally speculated heavily on property.
Well, I rented until I was 46. I would have rather bought earlier. But then my children wouldn’t have gone to the fantastic schools that they went to, as we couldn’t afford to buy in those locations.
Maybe they would have been fine in schools in poorer areas, but I doubt they would have thrived to the same extent.
But renting for life is common in many central European countries right? And there are much better tenant rights, typically. And better build quality.
Or is Switzerland different from some of those other Euro nations?
No Switzerland is just as you described other Euro countries But the point stands, the renter ends up with nothing to his name after 25 - 30 - 35 - 40 - 45 - 50 - 50+ years of paying rent.
Unless….. you do something novel like, you know…saving or investing in non-property things.
Most NZ real estate investors forget that that NZ real estate is only one of many asset classes to gain wealth.
For a number of the ultra wealthy, real estate may be a very small proportion of their wealth.
Most of the following seem to have the source of their wealth from sources other than real estate.
At the moment it is something like 50% cheaper to rent than buy
the trouble is, is house price currently too high, or is rent is currently too low? or both?
Yes perhaps it is time that consumer inflation caught up with asset inflation, maybe rents will go up (which would also require wages to go up). Of course that inflation would also devalue those assets.
Or are both too high?
except they compete int eh same market -- so if investors are not buying FHB's can get there at a lower price than before as their competition is mainly themselves at this stage
That said i agree entirely -- and as someone who has split from my wife after 28 years -- i recently bought in Waverly -- its nice and very very affordable -- as i will live there and dont care about which way the market goes re me buying the house -- certainly hope it goes down further and stays down longer from a long term good for the country perspective -- cheaper homes cheaper rents better standard of living and more equitable for all
Nice choice (the house location). Plenty of great places nearby to Waverly within 30min or so and friendly folks there too :-)
With inflation it must be over 20% on average, which is a crash according to one property expert on the radio. But haven't people in the property game been saying that prices have started in increasing again?
Its not that people dont want to purchase houses, they do.
It's the crazy expectations reinforced by agents desperate for comission thats the issue. Today's funding controls prevent stupid lending and place a logical ceiling on price unless there is some bank of mum and dad, or laundered funds from offshore. That and placing that risk for poor lending squarely on the banks directors.
Let's see what 2024 brings with a new Govt.
I's a cycle. Vendors want to buy ____ for [insert overvalued price here], so they need to sell their property for [unrealistic price] to be able to afford what they want, and get REA's reinforcing this, or for the REA's who give them the hard word on the market to try and get the sale, the vendors rebuff this with the classic "I'm not underselling!". For those with a timeline they won't face reality until the last minute, in which they will have made further decreases in price and HAVE to accept the market value of the time. We are just starting to get to this point, however the tell will be how many of the houses for sale that didn't sell and were put up for rent, go back to being for sale.
I've already seen a couple of places asking 1.3m in Nelson sell for ~900k and prices are still ticking down slowly as the sales come in and impact the local stats.
Vendors want to buy ____ for [insert overvalued price here], so they need to sell their property for [unrealistic price] to be able to afford what they want,
Look at the U.S. People can't sell their houses because the cost of debt is too high if they move and have to take on more debt. It's become too complicated to sell houses there. People are trapped.
The difference being, they are trapped in a completely affordable mortgage at 2% interest. Poor them.
Maybe. Sticker prices are too high for FHBs. It's not the 1950s anymore Tonto.
The difference being, they are trapped in a completely affordable mortgage at 2% interest. Poor them.
The difference being, they are trapped in a completely affordable mortgage at 2% interest. Poor them.
No they are not. Interest only perhaps. F'more, cost of mortgage debt at those levels illustrates a broken financial system.
It will be very interesting looking back in 10 years time, to this year, to see how far through the crash we are.
No one really knows, we could be 2 years through a 3 yr crash, or it could end up being a 5 year crash or even be an Irish style crash that will take 15 years to recover.
All I know is the folks suggesting green shoots and prices bubbling up again are going to be very dissatisfied with the next 12 months .
How do you know that? As per the chart above house prices are up since Jan. While that makes no sense to me considering current interest rates, I have seen the housing market defy logic too many times to think it won't do it again.
It's logical that interest rates impact affordability.
It's also logical that if there's a spread of debt requirement amoung a population, and not enough supply, then the people with actual money still have to compete amoung themselves.
Rarely does anything totally defy logic, we're just not aware of every logical factor.
People can definitely defy logic.
There's truth, and then there's logic. The latter is often highly subjective. I can often see why other people do what they do, they usually have different motivations.
The sample size of sales for this year is the smallest per capita on record.
The true test is when sale volumes double - what will prices do?
Logically I agree with you. But I have heard similar arguments for a long time that have never actually eventuated.
Strange post Starrider. I was fully with you when you said: "No one really knows (about the future)", then you start the next paragraph with: "All I know... are going to be very dissatisfied".
I think the obscenely high levels of immigration is having an impact. Even if few of those immigrants have money to buy a house, 5% (for example) of 100,000 people is 5000 house purchases, which is significant. I think immigration levels will fall away quite a bit, which will reduce that support for the housing market.
Here are the median and average asking prices for houses in Auckland since Dec-21 where they are listed as 'Asking price' or 'Enquiries over' and so you can actually get a number out of trademe. Most of the drops in asking price happened last year, graphs been pretty flat this year.
House prices trending up on Homes.co.nz now
People can only pay based on their access to credit. The whole "Price by Speculation", I mean "Negotiation", then onto Tender, and then onto "List a mad price" and wait... is just wasting time in a declining market.
But have at it...
They can also pay based on their access to debits.
If the people selling aren't distressed enough, and there's enough cash or low debt buyers out there, pricing isn't going to shift much.
I think at 7% interest, inflation and stubbornness on price plus slow process to sell with new listing could add a potent mix. We will see.
An Einstein conclusion 😊
It takes sometime for a cruise liner to stop so passengers can disembark . Picking the stop time is a little harder.
The article says they are buying property because they love the lifestyle but also says they dont want to move here. 🤔
Property Insider: Singaporeans lured to Hobsonville, The CAB; supermarket anti-theft prospects; Costco Oz/NZ boss retiring, who’s taking over?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/property-insider-singaporeans-lured…
I would take Granny Herald's insights with a grain of salt. They will pump the stories of busloads of Chinese with suitcases of cash because they have to. Granny relies on the income.
It's not out of the odds. It's been in Singaporean news for some time that the middle class are getting squeezed and many are leaving due to lack of housing. Their DTI on freehold property is more like 15:1.
Why choose Hobsonville though? Wouldn't they prefer either city life like they are used to, or a complete change to a standalone house? Hobsonville seems to be the worst of both worlds doesn't it?
Why do more Indians live in Mt Roskill, South Africans on the North Shore, or East Asians out Botany way?
Different areas lure different types of people. Then it ends up becoming a bit of a trend within that community.
North shore is because of beaches, I would live there. I like the shore. But I'm from the country down south, good fishing, so live there. But the shore makes sense.
Williams corp have an office in Singapore. They push it pretty hard.
Hope they're being truthful and not risking a lashing from the cane.
So, looking at the graph, from January to today, the asking price has gone down but the selling price has gone up. That's interesting!
This suggests that whilst sellers are asking for less money today, they are also less willing to negotiate down their asking price, and that buyers are more willing to up their offers today, to get closer to the asking price.
This is true, volumes are low historically, I suggest this is because few can or are willing to take on debt with such high rates..... summer is ment to be the most active sales period in NZ going to be a long summer at curent clearance rates. if average # of houses come to market
Can only go as far as bank will lend, and you can afford. Was looking at Main Banks interest rates, 7% fixed 5 years give or take. Seems as if 3% days are gone. What's quite funny that I've seen, some flippers are trying to unload at the price they paid. Which was extreme, houses are a mess, but market house on resource consent, we will see what happens there. Real Estate agent said some flippers are feeling the heat.
Some good houses out there, but even those aren't moving in our area, things are dead, no listings except life style blocks, very little sales. We are not experiencing what articles say, we only live hour from Auckland. Not sure rest of New Zealanders situation.
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.