More than one-in-six of the Auckland residential properties sold in the September Quarter of this year (Q3) were sold at a loss, according to property data company CoreLogic's latest Pain & Gain Report.
The quarterly report measures the percentage of residential sales in each major urban area that were sold for less than their previous purchase price, leaving their owners with a loss - which is the pain part of the report.
Across the entire country, 9.8% of sales in Q3 made a loss, while loss making property sales ranged from 2.5% of total sales in Queenstown-Lakes to 16.6% in Hastings. The table below shows the regional figures
The size of the losses were often substantial, with the median loss ranging from $10,000 in Gisborne to $106,750 in Napier.
Those losses will be magnified once selling expenses such as agent's and legal fees, and potential moving expenses, are added.
Of course if 9.8% of the properties sold in Q3 went at a loss, it follows that 90.2% were sold for more than, or at least as much as, their previous purchase price - the gain.
The report says the percentage of properties being sold for a profit is declining, while the percentage of loss-making sales is increasing.
"While most sellers are still making a profit, the balance has shifted in favour of buyers, giving them more leverage in price negotiations," CoreLogic NZ Chief Property Economist Kelvin Davidson said.
"These figures reflect a changing market, with buyers now holding the upper hand as challenges persist," he said.
"This follows a prolonged decline since the extended peak in 2021, when 99% of resales were profitable.
"Given the recent weakness in the wider housing market, it's not surprising that both frequency of profitable transactions and the size of the gains has decreased," he said.
The main determinant of whether a property sells for a profit or a loss is the length of time they have been owned by the vendor.
The median length of ownership for properties that sold at a loss was 2.9 years, while the median length of ownership for those that sold for a profit was 8.5 years.
However the type of property being sold also made a difference, with apartments much more likely to sell at a loss than houses.
In Q3, just over a third (34.9%) of the apartments sold made a loss, compared to just 8.9% of house sales that were loss making.
| CoreLogic Pain & Gain Report | ||
| Q3 2024 | ||
| Residential Properties Selling at a Loss | ||
| Per cent of total sales | Median Loss | |
| Whangarei | 7.5% | -$45,250 |
| Auckland | 16.1% | -$69,500 |
| Hamilton | 10.6% | -$47,000 |
| Tauranga | 8.8% | -$75,000 |
| Rotorua | 5.4% | -$35,500 |
| Gisborne | 3.9% | -$10,000 |
| Napier | 10.8% | -$106,750 |
| Hastings | 16.6% | -$76,498 |
| New Plymouth | 6.4% | -$30,000 |
| Whanganui | 3.0% | -$98,674 |
| Palmerston North | 6.4% | -$67,500 |
| Wellington | 9.9% | -$93,575 |
| Nelson | 8.1% | -$72,500 |
| Christchurch | 4.4% | -$30,000 |
| Queenstown-Lakes | 2.5% | -$20,000 |
| Dunedin | 8.1% | -$32,500 |
| Invercargill | 4.1% | -$16,000 |
| Total NZ | 9.8% | -$55,000 |
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.
141 Comments
If you look at population projections, stats NZ thinks we will get that mass immigration.
I do agree though, the big risk in property investment is low population growth. But you can find similar possible risks to all forms of investment if you try and predict the future.
A lot of the migrants that are coming arrive already in debt. They are the equivalent economic impact of a Gen Z with a student loan. Buts it's worse because third world loan sharks don't lend interest free. They may aspire to own a house one day. But it will be a long road of hard work to get there. They can only stimulate rental demand for now. But the household sizes will be larger so dwelling demand will be less. Considering that they are replacing downsizing or dying boomers and younger family units emigrating.
Great point on the baseless claim of cashed up migrants arriving in the country.
Also, Asian work experience is still to an extent considered inferior in NZ, so many skilled, experienced workers have to start out in lower positions here and take several years to find stable footing in the job market.
The average is not a good metric.
Over 100,000 households, or around 1 in 16, experienced crowded living conditions in Aotearoa New Zealand in 2023. In 2018, around 1 in 17 households were crowded, up from around 1 in 20 in 2013.
https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/more-than-100000-crowded-households-in-n…
Anyone thinking the activity fueled by 2% borrowing was "the real market" was deluded.
Reminder of the following economic conditions in 2020 (when stress test rates got as low as 5.8%):
1) deflation (i.e falling prices)
The country's set to see its largest quarterly fall in inflation for at least five years, but possibly the biggest fall since 1998, when Statistics New Zealand unveils the June quarter Consumer Price Index on Thursday (July 16). (For the record a -0.5% fall would be the biggest quarterly drop since the fourth quarter of 2015, while -0.6% or more would be the biggest fall since the fourth quarter of 1998.)
2) Expectations of a double dip recession
ANZ economists are raising the prospect that the country might see a 'double-dip' recession from the end of this year and into next year.
3) OCR at 0.25%, talk of negative OCR due to a possible double dip recession
"If New Zealand enters a dreaded double dip recession, or W shaped disaster, then negative rates may go from being possible to probable."
4) mortgage interest rates of 2.55%
When a value is imputed for rental yield (or avoiding rent through living in the abode) then the 10% group will have done better than the analysis indicates.
And then there are the intangible / non-monetary benefits of house ownership which are many and varied - and vital to home owners. They must be factored into the equation for the analysis to be robust.
The vast majority of property owners will remain unperturbed.
TTP
I was thinking the same, but without the sarcasm. One of the worst house price "crashes" we have ever had, the first significant downturn in decades, supposedly worse than the Irish crash, and the end result is 10% lose a bit of money (which they will probably make back). Compare that to a share market crash / Bitcoin crash / Finance company failure which happen much more frequently and many people lose almost everything, housing really is a very safe investment. (by the way I don't own investment property)
"Compare that to a share market crash / Bitcoin crash / Finance company failure which happen much more frequently and many people lose almost everything, housing really is a very safe investment. (by the way I don't own investment property)"
They didnt however lose a place to live....nor did overvalued equities cause substantial portions of society to struggle....the speculation was limited to those with excess 'capacity'.
"housing really is a very safe investment"
This is the underlying belief that led to the property price bubble under the following conditions
- upward rising house prices, with little to no house price falls experienced in recent memory
- a wide spread focus on capital gains
- a willingness to take on high levels of leverage
There are very few reports in the mainstream media of loss making vendors as there is virtually no incentive or public interest to do so. Most of New Zealand aren't even aware of the few news reports or have tuned them out.
Here are a few who may now be revisiting that belief in light of their own lived personal experience:
1) https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/301009099/new-zealands-unluck…
2) https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/301022869/40k-paid…
3) https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/s-we-cant-afford-this-homeowners-fear-th…
the facts:
The average annualised return of the NZX 50 for the past 10 years has been 8.99% — more than 3.5% higher than New Zealand's top term deposit interest rates for 5 years.11 Oct 2024 Zooming out, the average annualised return of the NZX 50 for the past 10 years has been 8.99% —
The return for the US is even higher.
In addition you can sell anytime you like and get your money in two days.
I am not saying property is a bad investment, it is just illiquid and moves generally altogether in one direction.
Even in a bear market some shares do well and continue to pay dividends.
One of the worst house price "crashes" we have ever had, the first significant downturn in decades, supposedly worse than the Irish crash, and the end result is 10% lose a bit of money (which they will probably make back).
We haven't had the crash, we are crashing, it is still crashing. The end result will not be known until after the crash. How long did the Irish crash take to fully play out?
"How long did the Irish crash take to fully play out? "
Also look at other property price bubbles
1) Japan 1990's
2) Switzerland 1990's
2) US 2006
3) Spain 2006
4) Hong Kong 1998
5) Singapore 1998
Time periods for real estate market prices (nominal) that are yet to recover to peak price levels in some residential real estate markets:
1) Japan: 33 years and still counting (peaked in 1991)
2) Russia: 18 years and still counting (peaked in 2006)
3) Kazakhstan: 17 years and still counting (peaked in 2007)
4) Cyprus: 16 years and still counting (peaked in 2008)
5) Spain: 16 years and still counting (peaked in 2008)
6) Italy: 13 years and still counting (peaked in 2011)
7) Saudi Arabia: 10 years and still counting (peaked in 2014)
8) Qatar: 9 years and still counting (peaked in 2015)
9) Macau: 6 years and still counting (peaked in 2018)
10) Hong Kong: 5 years and still counting (peaked in 2019)
For the 36 year period from 1955 to 1991, nominal house prices grew at a rate of 13.1% per annum. A house price extrapolator may have expected this historical rate of house price growth to continue into the future. Or being "conservative", they may have used a annual rate of growth of say 8% p.a (5 percentage points below the 36 year historical average, 39% lower than the 36 year historical average)
What was the actual nominal house price growth for the following 33 year period from 1991 to 2024? (-0.8% p.a for 33 years)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QJPN628BIS
A reminder for price extrapolators of the general investment warning: Past performance is no guarantee to future returns.
Owner occupier buyers: CAVEAT EMPTOR
A relative is looking for a place in centralish Auckland at the moment. The agents are trying invoke FOMO to push things along 'this starts with a 2, and will sell', 'you're dreaming', 'you've missed the market' are all statements that have been made at open homes.
The current stats re prices going up or down don't seem to reflect what is happening on the ground - at least in Auckland. Open homes are (mostly) rather busy at the "average price" and a little above level of the market; and a number of my friends are constantly missing out at auction with the prices paid on most properties way over expectations. Quite hard to get in at around $1m - $1.4 on anything decent. It will be interesting to see what the data for the next Quarter looks like it could be very different.
People's desperation to find assets that will outpace inflation long term have led to this rampant speculation in housing, pushing them to ridiculous levels. Even at current prices the actual utility value of these properties (to live in as a home) is nowhere near 1-1.4M dollars. When the average household income in Auckland is only around $160k, the value of your time that has to go into paying for that property is insane. We have lost our minds.
The multiple in NZ is 7 times salary. Same as Canada. US and UK a bit higher, and Australia higher still. Two other random examples are Norway 8.2 and Netherlands 10.5.
Affordability of houses is a worldwide problem and NZ is not alone (although the situation here is better than many Western countries).
So many on this forum seem to be under the misapprehension that this is a NZ problem, rabbit on about the ponzi scheme, etc etc. We are not different to the other Western countries which is probably why we suffered such a big fall after the Covid run up in prices.
Almost all home owners have a big mortgage at the start, to exclude interest rates from the affordability equation is nuts. Multiples of 3 existed when interest rates were double digits. If we still had a multiple of 3 when interest rates were 2.5%, the weekly mortgage repayment would be super affordable, but it couldn't happen as no one would build new supply at that price (* unless we get population decline)
"If we still had a multiple of 3 when interest rates were 2.5%, the weekly mortgage repayment would be super affordable, but it couldn't happen as no one would build new supply at that price"
1) would residential dwellings in the existing dwelling market also be priced at 3x if only owner occupier buyers were allowed in that market?
2) If existing dwellings were priced at a multiple of 3x, would land prices be cheaper?
Why stop at 3? Why not 2 or 1 or even 0? We can get to 0 by not allowing any buyers.
Is 3x still affordable in Turkey where interest rates are 50%? You have to pay 1.5 times your salary each year in interest!
The 3x rule is utter rubbish. Its the mortgage repayments that dictate affordability, and that is mostly due to interest rates.
"Do you mean a country with no rentals? Or only state owned rentals? "
Only the original premise "If we still had a multiple of 3 when interest rates were 2.5%,".
No other assumptions are made about the potential consequences of the above premise on the rental market.
Meh it's really the population behaviour to blame, governments can only try to change that, but buying houses is a tough one to shake.
My theory is that the ease of access to the share market, and growing awareness of it, along with some fringe incentive changes that have already taken hold will be the biggest drivers away from frothy housing markets in future.
Consider ...the 'value' of the NZ housing market is currently around 1.6 trillion NZD and comprises around 2.1 million dwellings....what else do we have/do that provides that capacity for 'growth'?....and then ask what will occur if that value continues to increase at the long run average of 7% for the next decade?
Something's gotta give.
"what will occur if that value continues to increase at the long run average of 7% for the next decade?"
For the 36 year period from 1955 to 1991, nominal house prices grew at an average rate of 13.1% per annum. A house price extrapolator may have expected this historical rate of house price growth to continue into the future. Or being "conservative", they may have used a annual rate of growth of say 8% p.a (5 percentage points below the 36 year historical average, 39% lower than the 36 year historical average)
What was the actual nominal house price growth for the following 33 year period from 1991 to 2024? (-0.8% p.a for 33 years)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QJPN628BIS
A reminder for price extrapolators of the general investment warning: Past performance is no guarantee to future returns.
Owner occupier buyers: CAVEAT EMPTOR
I wondered what the resale profit was ....
The median resale profit fell to $269,000 in Q3, down sharply from $305,000 in the previous quarter. Mr Davidson said this is a significant drop from the highs seen during the post-COVID housing boom when the median profit peaked at $440,000 in late 2021.
As well as investor activity .....
The proportion of investors selling for a loss climbed to 11.1% in Q3, up from 8.5% in Q2 and the highest level in a decade. In comparison, owner-occupier loss-making resales rose to 8.8%, highlighting a slightly widening gap between the two groups.
There will be greedy vendors out there still with considerable equity who consider selling a dwelling for anything less than what it could have got in 2021 as an inconceivable loss.
With risks of increased interest rates, it's entirely understandable if bag holder anxiety is abound given the ongoing state of the market/economy.
- Bloating inventory
- Low sales volumes
- Low new lending volumes
- Rising unemployment
One of our current problems is many New Zealanders expect property values to go up based on recent history.
No one is explaining the risk to new buyers of overpaying. Before this was justified because house prices went up. Now if you buy it’s unlikely you can on sell and recoup your interest expenses. (I’m pretty sure the profit calculations in this article don’t account of interest spent)
The old argument that by buying you’re saving on rent is a fallacy
"No one is explaining the risk to new buyers of overpaying."
There are no vested self interests in explaining or highlighting those risks to buyers publicly in the media. There are no marketing budgets or marketing dollars to inform potential buyers of house price risks. That is how property buyers can become collateral damage in a property price bubble. There have been warnings by commenters on interest.co.nz who can see the risks that most don't see for quite a few years before the peak, yet those with their vested financial self interests have attempted repeatedly to discredit, negatively label and villify those commenters and their warnings.
The vested financial self interests are in promoting property transactions and receiving the financial revenues associated with that economic activity. Some vested self interests and their vested financial self interests:
1) media - advertising revenues from property and construction sector
2) property mentors & seminars earning revenues
3) real estate agents earning their commission
4) mortgage brokers earning their commission
5) property builders, property developers - property sales
Those with vested financial self interests with their large marketing budgets and repeated and frequent messaging in the media can drown out the low profile risk warnings given by those without marketing budgets.
Owner occupiers: CAVEAT EMPTOR
When a mortgage on our home would be three times what we pay in rent (plus owning costs), we are very happy renting to save on buying.
Buying a house is not the only way to financial success. People just need to learn that renting (and investing) is a viable long term option that gives you much more flexibility and a lot less stress. Especially if you don't have children which is more and more common. We've almost tripled our net worth since the 21 peak of the housing market.
"No one is explaining the risk to new buyers of overpaying."
The risk of overpaying.
1) Peaker
The median house price at the peak for Auckland was $1,300,000
With an 80% LVR, this is a mortgage of $1,040,000
The 20% equity is $260,000
2) Buyer Today ("BT") - Sept 2024
In 2021, the buyer who waited, deposited the same $260,000 equity into a bank deposit earning interest. Also BT would rent an equivalent house and have still saved money due to the rental being below the monthly P&I mortgage payments of Peaker - in 3 years the savings would have been about $20,000 annually. So a Buyer Today would have an amount of $340,233 to use as a deposit.
The current median house price for Auckland is around $950,000
Equity deposit of $340,233
The mortgage at this purchase price would be $609,767 (an LVR of 64%)
The Peaker has a mortgage which is higher by $430,233 (mortgage of $1,040,000 for Peaker vs $609,767 for BT). BT's mortgage is 41% lower than Peaker's mortgage.
Assuming BT, pays the same exact dollar amount each year that Peaker pays for their mortgage, as a result of that additional borrowing, Peaker is paying $1,232,229 more over the 30 years than BT (This is due to higher borrowing amount of $430,233, and total interest on this of $801,996 over 30 years). BT is mortgage free by the year 2037, whilst Peaker continues to pay their mortgage until 2051 (14 years later) - so after the year 2037, BT can save all that money that Peaker continues to pay on the P&I mortgage.
Assuming same incomes, and same living costs (food, travel, etc except mortgage) , BT can save the total $1,232,229 in payments that Peaker is paying. If BT invests the annual P&I payments that Peaker continues to pay after the year 2037 at 4.0% p.a, then in 2051 this amount will grow to $1,401,500.
Remember that at the end of 30 years, the house price will be EXACTLY THE SAME for Peaker and BT.
BT will have more money available for retirement than Peaker. Conversely, Peaker will have less money than BT at retirement.
That single decision to buy in November 2021 would have cost $1,232,229 extra to buy the exact same house for Peaker compared to a Buyer Today.
Note: as at September 2024, equity position
1) Peaker: NEGATIVE $90,000 (based on interest only and no mortgage principal payments) - a loss of over 100% of their savings
2) Buyer today: $340,244
A repeat of previous warnings given.
A reminder for all potential owner occupier buyers and current owner occupiers - choose your scenario and act accordingly.
Which will the owner occupier regret most:
1) missing out on future potential gains in equity?
2) potential loss of their savings invested as the initial deposit for purchase of the house or even potential negative equity?
For owner occupiers, a reminder of the impact of leverage (it amplifies property price changes both on the up and down):
Scenarios of financial impact of leverage on equity, assuming an 80% LVR for owner occupier, for a recent $1,000,000 property purchase, $200,000 initial deposit, mortgage $800,000. (simple round numbers used for illustration purposes)
A) Scenario - property price rise:
1) property price rises 5% to $1,050,000, mortgage $800,000, equity $250,000, so 25% gain in equity value from $200,000.
2) property price rises 10% to $1,100,000, mortgage $800,000, equity $300,000, so 50% gain in equity value from $200,000.
3) property price rises 15% to $1,150,000, mortgage $800,000, equity $350,000, so 75% gain in equity value from $200,000.
4) property price rises 20% to $1,200,000, mortgage $800,000, equity $400,000, so 100% gain in equity value from $200,000.
5) property price rises 25% to $1,250,000, mortgage $800,000, equity $450,000, so 125% gain in equity value from $200,000.
6) property price rises 30% to $1,300,000, mortgage $800,000, equity $500,000, so 150% gain in equity value from $200,000.
7) property price rises 35% to $1,350,000, mortgage $800,000, equity $550,000, so 175% gain in equity value from $200,000.
property price rises 40% to $1,400,000, mortgage $800,000, equity $600,000, so 200% gain in equity value from $200,000.
9) property price rises 50% to $1,500,000, mortgage $800,000, equity $700,000, so 250% gain in equity value from $200,000.
10) property price rises 100% to $2,000,000, mortgage $800,000, equity $1,200,000, so 500% gain in equity value from $200,000. (i.e if they believe that the property price doubles every 10 years)
Remember, the owner occupier must be able to hold on under ALL economic environments (including any potential significant reduction in household income).
B) Scenario - property price falls:
1) property price falls 5% to $950,000, mortgage $800,000, equity $150,000, so 25% loss in equity value from $200,000.
2) property price falls 10% to $900,000, mortgage $800,000, equity $100,000, so 50% loss in equity value from $200,000.
3) property price falls 15% to $850,000, mortgage $800,000, equity $50,000, so 75% loss in equity value from $200,000.
4) property price falls 20% to $800,000, mortgage $800,000, equity is ZERO, so 100% loss in equity value from $200,000.
5) property price falls 25% to $750,000, mortgage $800,000, equity is NEGATIVE $50,000, so 125% loss in equity value from $200,000.
6) property price falls 30% to $700,000, mortgage $800,000, equity is NEGATIVE $100,000, so 150% loss in equity value from $200,000.
7) property price falls 35% to $650,000, mortgage $800,000, equity is NEGATIVE $150,000, so 175% loss in equity value from $200,000.
property price falls 40% to $600,000, mortgage $800,000, equity is NEGATIVE $200,000, so 200% loss in equity value from $200,000.
"Equity means nothing for the BN person"
What is the BN person? Are you referring to BT above?
If so, BT has more money at retirement than Peaker - that is the point of the example in not overpaying.
If BT and Peaker have to sell in the year 2051, (downsize at retirement, health issues, move closer to family or the property is sold when they die and the proceeds become the estate of Peaker / BT) Peaker's value is below that of BT, by $1,232,229 in the year 2051.
Peaker is free to pay an extra $1,232,229 for the same house as BT. There are consequences to Peaker by choosing to pay an extra $1,232,229 for the same house as BT that Peaker is likely to be totally unaware of. (e.g. Peaker has to work longer because they don't have sufficient funds for retirement, whilst BT can retire earlier)
People are free to choose, however people are not free to choose the consequences of their choice.
If protecting the ponzi at the expense of all savers in NZ is your only focus. Prices eroding another 20% would be good for the overall economy and retention of young people. Lets remember, today's cost of debt is only at the lower end of long term normal. Look here.
"i am not sure you can save yourself to wealth"
Has any commenter on interest.co.nz said that?
Has anyone suggested that people should rent for the rest of their entire life?
What many commenters are saying is that people can choose to rent now and buy later (when prices and returns are more attractive). Property is not attractive under ALL conditions. Under some conditions, it is better to rent now and buy later.
Indeed. I would counter that requiring debasement of debt just to prop up those who paid to much for housing is not the answer either. All the spec crowd go on about how they are running businesses. As a business owner if you make a bad decision you should wear the outcome. Bad decisions should not be socialised to the rest of NZ taxpayers (majority) thru increased inflation bailing out the speculative (minority).
Paid to much...sell at a loss, or let the inevitable Bank managed exit take place.
It's not all about housing, although it's good you're able to recognize the precarious state of the market. That said, and with recent events considered, I think a 0.75% cut is now more likely that ever to send our currency tumbling than not, then send inflation soaring.....
Ignore happenings in America at your peril.
You should not lose with property !
The ones that do lose, are clearly not that great at investing or havent sought advice from the ones that have been financially successful!
Even the property industry professionals have lost with residential property
1) However, it wasn’t all good news as Rawson had still taken a massive hit on the development project overall, which had cost him a total of $2.35m including the $1.332m he paid for the undeveloped property back in 2021.
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/cheeky-buyer-offers-real-estate-boss-6-f…
2) https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/thedetail/529730/the-detail-the-billion-doll…
Most owner occupier buyers are novices in the residential property market (perhaps 1-3 purchases over their entire lifetime), and should not be compared with property industry professionals (property developers, builders, traders / flippers, etc).
Yawn that's what happens when you only stay in the place for 3 years after buying at the peak. New Zealand is hopeless, probably the fastest home turnover rate in the OECD. The average must be 5 years or less. My first place was 15 years, lost count the number of times the neighbours changed.
"Of course if 9.8% of the properties sold in Q3 went at a loss, it follows that 90.2% were sold for more than, or at least as much as, their previous purchase price - the gain."
This comparison is between those who bought in the property price bubble and those that bought before the property price bubble.
To get a true sense of the property price bubble, need to also look at all the buyers from 2020- 2023 who are still holding on as long term owners and where the property is substantially unchanged (i.e no "add value" work done) to see how many have experienced an increase in the market value of the property. This data may not be available.
How much was the house? If it was $1 mil and you had put that into S&P 500 on 20 march 2020 (at 2304), it would now be worth $2.6 million (at 5983).
Of course I picked my dates to include the bottom of the market for dramatic effect, but had you invested in the S&P on 14th Feb 2020 (before the Covid drop, at 3380) it would now be worth $1.8 million (at 5983).
Its not an investment, its a lifestyle and some of you on here just don't get it, its like talking to a brick wall. Hopefully most people on here will end up owning their own home with the mortgage fully paid off and money in the bank and then the penny will finally drop.
@jimbojones - and where do you live when you are saving for a house? or like me would like to go and live in France for a year/ or try out Taupo for a year / or go and live in Bali for 4 months? You might not agree and above is not to annoy you its just to point out buying a house to rent out has merrit.
This is definitely not the case in North Shore, 60% of the total sales are above 2021 RV and if we take into count that 10-20% of the properties are townhouses and apartments, this is pretty much amazing news, for house owners of course, not for buyers. Now that the OCR keeps going down, I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of 2025 we might see a 10-20% increase in house prices
house prices will double again in 10 years time
Houseworks, is that you? Lets be honest, from 2021, knowing you would have said the same thing back then, a pound of butter is more likely to double by 2031.
Anyway, if like you say "Trump will shag the Global Economy from early 2025" what will higher interest rates do to house prices?
Never ever got close to losing money on any sale in ChCh.
Personally do not know anyone in ChCh that has lost money on any sale either.
Just doesnt make any sense to me with knowing the ChCh market, and there has been plenty to be made over the last decade or so!
Even currently there is profit from sales, so I am at a loss as to how anyone in ChCh has lost money on a sale?They clearly paid too much for what they bought unless they needed a very quick sale?
There have been some good buys by agents underselling properties but the owners still mustve psid too much in the first place!
You make money when you buy as they always say, which is correct!
Of course there are people who make losses. Death and divorce for a start make people sell when the timing is not the best. People want a clean break when divorcing and children want their inheritance when a parent dies. Then of course people become unemployed and there is not the usual income to service the housing loan. Better to sell before the Bank sells it. In saying that there will be less losses than in Auckland for example as more people live up there because of the opportunities and therefore prices are much higher.
Prices are much higher in Auckland but they certainly are not better value than Christchurch!
Of course people often have to sell fir various reasons, but that does not mean you should be selling for less than you paid for it, unless you paid far too much for it.
Yes I have seen many people pay overs for their property but that is their perogative obviously.
Anyway we have to be responsible for our decisions we make whether it is how much we buy a property for or how much we sell for!
What I have learnt over the years is that many people are just not very financially savvy, and that is passed onto future generations.
I have helped many people over the years improve their financial position greatly, and will continue to do so if they ask for advice!
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.