January is usually a busy month for real estate agencies as vendors start listing their properties for sale and agents start preparing the marketing plans and getting them underway. They do so with the aim of selling the properties over February and March, usually the busiest months of the year for residential real estate.
The auction rooms by contrast, remain relatively quiet in January. That's usually because the extended Christmas/New Year break reduces the pool of prospective buyers and the timeframes for marketing campaigns are usually condensed.
However, the last couple of weeks in January also provide an opportunity to present a property while there is little new stock on the market to compete for potential buyers' attention.
Over the last week (18-24 January), interest.co.nz monitored to the auctions of 37 residential properties, mostly in Auckland with a few scattered around the rest of the country.
That's just a drop in the bucket compared to the 500 or so that were being auctioned every week just before the Christmas break.
But going ahead with an early auction seems to have worked well for many vendors who took the early plunge, with 17 of the auctioned properties selling under the hammer, giving an overall sales rate of 46%.
That compares very well with the sales rates at the end of last year, which ranged between 35% and 41% in the weeks leading up to Christmas.
However, the latest results also suggest buyers remain extremely cautious on price.
Of the 17 properties that sold, only one achieved a price above its rating valuation, one sold for the same amount as its rating valuation, 12 sold for less than their rating valuation, and we were unable to match selling prices with rating valuations on the remaining three properties.
But let's not read too much into these early results.
The numbers are so small they provide just a peek of what the market might hold for us this year.
We will probably have to wait at least another two-to-three weeks before we get a good look at how things are shaping up.
The comment stream on this article is now closed.
148 Comments
Will sales go up, will sales go down, will prices go up, will prices go down, anyones guess. It will be an interesting year.
It's gonna keep going down in ponzi town..........
How much do you think it will go down?
Bit of both
likely to be flattish over the whole year
I see Homes values have been reduced nationwide recently - good job as they were inflated and giving unrealistic vendors false evidence and hope
"The one area I think we could have pushed through harder, but is now happening, is around housing. Because housing affordability is such a significant driver of misallocation of capital [and] poverty for lower-income households.
“It’s like a juggernaut that needs to be turned around. And we got started on that. But perhaps we could have pushed harder. Sometimes these things are a matter of public acceptance. I mean, the current Government’s making decisions in that area which would have caused a riot as recently as 2017.”
Bill English. Very interesting comment.
In other words ‘our government was about people pleasing (even though the people had lost their minds) instead of doing what was needed and what would have been the right things to do at the time - even if those things would have been unpopular’
English and JK were not leaders but populists. (So was Adern and I’m not sure what to even think of Luxon at this stage)
Politics is a popularity contest. He's admitting that the pendulum has swung and the majority now want affordable housing. So let's see what happens I guess...
In an interview a year or so ago, he acknowledged that if housing spiked again under National, they'd be toast.
Although in saying that, properly addressing housing affordability would be a 10-20 year undertaking.
or an unpopularity contest.
Ardern was moderately populist on housing, she implemented fairly controversial policies that the coalition have since rolled back to satisfy the landlord/property donors. I don't think you can call her a populist on other issues. Many of the decisions she made to try to address structural issues were deeply unpopular and she got punished at the elections for them.
Luxon is straight up grifter, failed upwards.
She was populist in her branding and rhetoric. What you'd expect when you have a PM majoring in Communications.
I would say we haven't had a non-populist PM since Helen Clarke.
I found this bit bizarre “I remember making a few speeches around housing supply when it was regarded as a cranky right-wing idea that supply had any influence on housing prices,” English said. Cranky and right-wing? Seems like common sense.
Econ 101
Maybe. But local government continued to pander to 'local' property 'investors' up until 2016.
But thanks to Auckland Council's leadership - the lid got blown off and increased supply showed what could happen.
(And will continue to happen for 20-30 years. If you want untaxed capital gain, sorry. you aren't going to get it.)
Correction - thanks to John Key’s leadership
You keep skirting around the fact that the Unitary Plan was mostly the Key government’s doing
I didn’t care for the guy, but facts are facts
I for one cannot put political bias ahead of the truth, and look myself in the mirror
@tomjones_04,
Can you please share the source of these quotes?
Would like to read the entire original source article.
Thank you in advance.
Thank you Time Lord.
Buyers have the whip, so take control of the beast...
If you need to buy, you need to be going in at least 40% below current cv. Don’t pay any more than that. It’s a grossly over valued asset in relationship to historic norms and average nz salaries.
Plus, there is now an over supply with very few buyers (all gone to oz).
Thats about right, -40% off the 2020 to 2022 CVs.
Choose the lower of that, or the 2015 valuation/sales data for this period.
Or walk, thousands of listings and vendors under serious and increasing pressure to liquidate in 2025.
- The next 2 years of Vendor capitulation will be written about by poets in the future, as DTIs revert to 4 to 5x.
Its a wonderful thing and all in NZ can rejoice ...... except maybe those ole Debt and Leverage junky monkeys.
Those overleveraged will learn the same old lessons that have been seen for hundreds of years, yet many dismissed these lessons.
Yet still today, some have never heard of the Dutch Tulip bubble of 400 years ago. NZ Housing is still the modern day Tulip - earnings and value detached from any sane reality....this is why the price is midway into the crash that is now over 3 years old.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBG47EGsV3o
Buyers beware!
Thats about right, -40% off the 2020 to 2022 CVs
Wasn't it 40% off 2015-2018 CVs a few weeks ago?
Hard to keep up with you hard bargainers.
Edit:oh, you edited
earnings and value detached from any sane reality....
If I gave you a section for free.
You wouldn't build a house on it and come in 40% cheaper than a similar existing house, next door.
Signs of you getting old..
Signs of firing shotgun shells loaded with wishful thinking.
If the economy sucks with a mild housing dip, it'll be carnage at 40%.
100% agree. Just as I don’t have time for the Spruiker nonsense, I don’t have time for the crap at the other end of the spectrum
And there is a lot of it.
The good old "wasting everyone's time" offers
What if you told the vendor you'd hold your breath until they accepted?
Someone I know recently made two offers 5-10% under asking. They never even got counters.
Our market doesn't have anywhere near enough distressed sellers, and doesn't look to anytime soon. Despite claims for years now that they're all over leveraged and about to soil themselves and drop their pants at a moment's notice.
At the same time there are record listings and No FOMO -> points to a slow adjustment downwards.
Any market needs as many buyers as there are sellers to even hold still.
What is your estimate that housing value will decrease by this year?
I think we will have more global impacts this year compared with last, I see it falling vs rising.
I do not think its found a base yet due to the overhang and low clearance rates. There is no liquidity.
But can you give your estimation in a percentage of how much it will go down this year exclusive of inflation?
It will go down, different cities by different amounts, make your own calls based on your own research.
I cannot see gains with so much property listed and less immigrants, more departures and an economy that will need a lot to get it moving again, and a finance minister that is still talking slowly to Newstalk ZB about balancing the books.
Most industries are barely beating inflation in growth hence NZ is going to go no where.
Farmers will bank money here imho rather then bid land prices up.
Wanaka and QTown may get hit if builders and traddies decide to bail due to low starts.
Mates who have a few rentals from long ago are starting to plan to subdivide and build on back site once prices start rising, planning at the moment they all think its a 27 or 28 story. these guys all sold a few at the top so are cash flow positive.
If I gave you a section for free.
You wouldn't build a house on it and come in 40% cheaper than a similar existing house, next door.
Vendors do sell below current replacement cost.
That is how market price can fall below current replacement cost.
Vendors of existing residential dwellings don't reference current replacement cost to determine what they are willing to accept when selling.
Vendors reference most recent comparable transaction prices and this could be below current replacement cost.
Houses will only sell under replacement for so long. As you wouldn't keep building to sell for a loss.
Longer term, the replacement value is somewhat of a floor for how cheap any house can get. If you could throw up a 150m2, 3 bedroom stand alone for $300k, no one's paying up to a mill for a 50 year old basic bungalow. But they will if the build cost is a million bucks.
"no one's paying up to a mill for a 50 year old basic bungalow. But they will if the build cost is a million bucks."
If the build cost is a million bucks, why does a buyer pay a million bucks if the most recent comparable transactions in the area are below this price (i.e market price is below build cost)?
except people don't live in tulips
Yeah but you can use Bitcoin to acquire all your needs, insurance, rent, power, food, gas, phone bills, etc
Once you convert it into fiat.
You answered your own question?
That there's no intrinsic value there.
Yeah but you can use Bitcoin to acquire all your needs, insurance, rent, power, food, gas, phone bills, etc
Yeah it was sarcasm. Despite it's high value, it's still not a common medium of exchange. To use it, you're going to need to turn it into something else.
Or gold bars?
@NZ Gecko
"Vendors under serious and increasing pressure to liquidate in 2025."
You are now making things up Gecko. Can you give us any evidence for your statement?
Commenters were talking about 2024 being the year of serious pressure for liquidation, yet it didn't happen.
Interest rates have dropped from 7.29% to 5.29%, taking away any of 2024s pressure. In short, the big sell off didn't happen, and it doesn't look like happening.
Indeed, if you look at the data
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/project/sites/rbnz/files/statistics/se…
The number of home loans 90+ overdue is roughly 4x what it was ($terms), or 2.5x in % of housing lending in late 2019, before covid, the fomo bubble and Interest rates being slashed. And it looks to have levelled off in the last 6 months, and with lower rates feeding thru there's little reason for it to turn back up anytime soon. It's still about 0.6% of housing loans being 90+ overdue. Which is half what it was in the aftermath of the GFC, and that was not the end of the world.
In the UK many many people with massive negative equity kept up there payments....
Banks here are also trying to help people keep their homes vs force sale at the moment.
More deflection. Gecko was talking nonsense about increasing pressure to sell, Tron called him out for evidence and so far I can't see any..
Do the spruiker class really need spoon feeding, especially the DDDDebt GraviTRON?
Tronny, best you jump off, while still intact, as the Debt centrifuges - tempestuous whirl, can mess peoples up financally..... reminder of the Tulips analogy.
Ask the banks, how many thousands each have of financially walking dead mortgage customers??
They are all managing thousands of precarious customers and their mutual only hope, is that the 3-year NZ Housing market crash, ends early 2025.
Hence the banks all "hopefully predicting" of 5 to 10% gains to be had, in NZ.
They all need a 5% gain, or the thousands of weak antelopes will need culling as the "kindness" ends.
More likely, is another year of -5% to -10% falls, within NZ.
Yawn, a wall of verbal diahorrea and conspiracy theories, no data. But it'll get a dozen thumbs up because 'market crashing'
Why so much overhang why so many listings and so few sales - the data is staring at you, most of these houses seem to have no one making acceptable offers. Its not always that people have to sell, buyers can limit prices by only being able to afford so much, IMHO this is what is happening here.
If people do lose there jobs they may only get "wasting everyone's time offers".
Rents are stable and houses easier to find, I suggest buyer are less motivated then sellers.
There's been low sales and excess stock since mid 23 when the pullback from the '21 Fomo bubble ended, and since then prices have gone sideways, a little up, a little down but more or less gone nowhere. Look at the QV or Reinz median and HPI graphs, there's some actual data.
Ps: 13% more houses sold in 24 than in 23 According to the REINZ report.
I'm predicting more of the same for '25, although volumes may start picking up more towards the end of 25.
And 66-100% more sold each year 2002-2008, before the Auckland property bubble spread to the rest of the country, following the GFC.
Sure, that was a normal healthy market with an economy not in recession and prices were increasing. Not really relevant to current conditions.
@Gecko
"They all need a 5% gain"
Who needs a 5% gain? I certainly don't. Maybe 0.5% of homeowners do.
I'm predicting a flat market for 2025, in terms of price rises. I don't agree with the bank economists' predictions of 7-8% gains.
Wang told OneRoof he and his wife had been investing in Bitcoin for about six years and after crunching the numbers had decided the cryptocurrency was a better investment than property
Well blow me down with a feather...careful however it's not a store of value apparently 🥱
Its all about tax free speculative investment ...so why not.
That's the world we live in.... where a speculative make believe coin is more valuable to some people than a home.
So you are deep into the Tulips too, Rookie?
You are deep in lies to yourself hoping that people are over leveraged when they are not.
One of the most sensible comments you've posted, Rookie. Well done.
In investing - there is risk.
Get the basics sorted first - and then, with spare uncommitted cash - up the risk.
Its funny when I mentioned the leverage Saxo offer and several said be careful, but mortgage leverage is like koolaid.
"mortgage leverage is like koolaid."
Most buyers are comfortable with buying a residential dwelling from 500% to 2000% of their net worth (LVR 80 - 95%) due to:
1) over 50 years of house price data in NZ showing
a) upward rising prices (leading to the 7.2% p.a future price growth expectations for residential dwellings)
b) very few instances of price falls
i.e much lower market price volatility than for financial securities
2) population growth leading to a shortage of housing supply
3) leading to belief that housing is a no lose purchase.
On the financing side for most owner occupier buyers, there is no mark to market by banks and hence little risk of margin calls for those with significantly reduced equity or even negative equity. Bank lending for owner occupier residential dwellings is primarily based on income and debt servicing with the secondary source of repayment being the asset value.
Financing in financial markets is asset based financing subject to second by second mark to market valuations. The contract with securities brokers allows them to liquidate the asset should minimum equity levels be breached. The sale of the asset is the primary source of loan repayment - there is little to no consideration for income of the borrower.
Look at this case study - the buyer was right about the stock as the price increased 6,600% from his purchase price, yet they ended up losing all their life time of savings. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/put-life-savings-nvidia-lost-161517204.h…
Get the basics sorted first - and then, with spare uncommitted cash - up the risk.
I like that.
It's not their home though, it's a rental, they likely have a home for themselves so it could well be a case of them "get(ting) the basics sorted first (a home) - and then, with spare uncommitted cash - up the risk" ... and for them they choose bitcoin. Good way for them to get some free advertising too.
I wonder if this would pass the Brightline intention rule. Their capital has clearly been deployed with the intent to derive a capital gain, hence their plan to switch to a non-dividend yielding investment as it is "a better investment than property".
The mortgage would be discharged once the property is sold. I.e. the security would no longer exist. They'd need to look for new lending. And on bitcoin? Good luck with that.
No luck needed Chris..they can sit back and relax..
Auckland ratings are going to be very very interesting
Delayed until may 25
Wellington revaluations next month (originally Sept/October 2024). ChCh next year I think.
WCC use QVNZ current market value so no real reason for any delays ?
They just need to bite the bullet and do it, Tauranga managed it. I can see the problem however, CV's go down and then rates go up. The average person thinks the two are directly linked and will be on the phone expecting a rates reduction not a rise.
How do they determine property ratings when houses aren't selling and are being 'passed in' at auctions? Is the extension a matter of price discovery or waiting in the hope the market improves by mid-year?
Houses are selling at low prices.
The issue is the sites like Homes etc... don't reflect the massive crash as they are manipulated by real estate industry. So council's are concerned that when they put the true valuations they will get a massive load of appeals as people want their house to be valued more than it is worth. Of course they will also be pushing to have everyone else's property 'up-valued' because otherwise they pay higher rates proportionally speaking.
When I see a property sell at auction below CV, homes.co.nz puts it as TBC. Those TBCs sit on the map for a couple months before disappearing. But if it sells above CV, homes.co.nz shows the price and leaves it as a red dot on the map for a couple of years, even though it’s not a recent sale. So, it’s kind of skewed to the upside.
Both Holmesy.co and Onespruikerspoof.co are unscrupulous sites, with info that is slanted toward housing spruikerism, they are both laughable!
- their info is so loaded to one side, trying gallantly to hold up this mid-death-NZ-housing-market-Ponzi-pop, the Homes Boat, is listing badly to one side, about to awash the sinking boat gunwale's.
Hope they both go the way of the failed and near broke CNN.....
Where the hell is the ComCom or FMA on all this? They are obvious the Captain of the Titanic, blithely sailing in Iceberg country, without a good man on watch......
Meanwhile the odd, gumbly FHB, is shot to death financially paying anywhere near CV.......fools and cash are soon parted and NZ has its fair share of uneducated Finacial fools. Poor sops, sopping up the DDDebt of the hopelessly overleveraged.
What is your estimate that housing value will decrease by this year?
Who really gives a f how much - the fact is that inflation adjusted the party has stopped and so long as it keeps decreasing to something rational it’s all good. Long may it continue.
I agree with you. Unlike some on this site I do not give a toss how much my home is worth. It’s just a thing. I am healthy for my age, I am able to exercise regularly, I am retired and happily married , I can afford to eat well and my eldest granddaughter who is 4 is staying the night. These all mean far more than things.
I've yet to have a paid experience that tops a night around a campfire somewhere in the boonies. There's a lot of frills people seek at the expense of the more valuable things you've mentioned.
That said, unless you're born into it, super smart or super lucky, that whole experience you've listed, house, health, etc now has a minimal margin for success that requires a maniacal approach to work and a monk like existence.
Health and time spent with those who you love are certainly precious, I will be the devils advocate here though and say I’d bet you’d care a wee bit more what your house is worth if you and your wife were early in your careers, your children were young and you’d brought your house 2021.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve zero sympathy for those who over leveraged on spec houses to try and make a quick buck, but I do have empathy for those young families who got caught out/sucked in.
So do I. I have kids in their 30’s.
NZ Housing has been the "worst hedge on inflation" all in a time, we have all lost 20% buying power since 2020.
Another years NZ Housing market loss of -5% to -10% looks most likely for 2025, PLUS THE INFLATION LOSS!!
But don't worry spruikers, we can all glimpse financial heaven in 2027. Maybe.
As I've pointed out though, the cost of a functional house has also increased. At some point, you pay for that. If house prices actually did your 40% drop, no one would build any new ones (except the rich/state).
So you're in a scenario of an increasing population (because no government has advertised lowering the population, because it's in their interests for as many bodies as possible), competing for a static volume of houses - with too many in some areas and not enough in others.
Without something systemically changing (actually a lot would have to change, and there would be carnage), everything is stacked against housing in NZ getting relatively more affordable. Although it might not get as expensive as other things.
None of this is to promote housing as an investment either, I think longer term private small landlords will get regulated into oblivion. But I'm pretty close to the coalface of construction in NZ, from "split the land up via council" to "here's your front door keys", and none of it's getting substantively cheaper anytime soon.
If house prices actually did your 40% drop, no one would build any new ones (except the rich/state).
and none of it's getting substantively cheaper anytime soon.
What specific inputs into housing construction result in prices being where they are? House price to income ratios are the highest they've ever been.
Sounds like turkeys voting for Christmas if the construction industry just decides to "build no houses" because the ROI has dropped to historical norms inflation adjusted. I'll take a stab in the dark, those that rely on house building the least to stay employed (land bankers, councils) take the biggest share of the "profit"?
What specific inputs into housing construction result in prices being where they are?
It's a long list
Council wants at least a hundred grand to draw a line on a map
Theres a regulatory machine that has to keep feeding new regulations into the design and build process.
Constrained number of tradespeople leading to higher labour costs
Almost bespoke approach to the design and build, each time (no economies of scale).
The nature of the materials keeps getting more expensive, either by obsolecence, or varying commodity costs.
Etc etc. If you wanted to make a fundamental change, you'd want to change the nature of it from the ground up.
Fundamental change could happen automatically if the industry costs itself out of work and into widespread redundancies.
Growth has been largely off the back of a) the ability for people to pay more through a combination of lower interest rates and increased equity in existing houses and b) reducing the footprint size of new dwellings. I don't think material costs getting more expensive is what has ultimately driven prices to where they are today and will prevent the cost of building from falling, unless these "double every 10 years".
Fundamental change could happen automatically if the industry costs itself out of work and into widespread redundancies.
That still wouldn't make new dwelling construction cheaper. Likely the opposite long term.
Growth has been largely off the back of a) the ability for people to pay more through a combination of lower interest rates and increased equity in existing houses
Ayup. Effectively we are financing to pay for all the escalated costs. Pass the bill down the line.
Or are costs able to escalate because people can rack up bigger bills? We have mortgages which is lending specifically for housing. The amount that can be lent has increased significantly due to lowering interest rates, stimulating the market and seeing prices rise to react.
Do you think new build prices would be where they are today if interest rates stayed at over 8% since 2008?
I think all those cost pressures were going to happen independent of fiscal policy.
Maybe without the borrowing some aspects of building would've been rationalized. And we'd just be building less houses.
The cost to subdivide a section has risen about 500% in 20 years. Do you think the councils are just ratcheting up because money is cheaper?
This
@NZsheep
Both Homes.co and Onespoof.co are scamster sites, with info that is slanted toward housing spruikerism
Do you have any proof of this?
Where the hell is the ComCom or FMA on all this?
Funny how the biggest regulator of Comercial activity is totally off the ball on this and a random commentary on interest.co.nz is right. /sarc
Homes.co valuations on ChCh property is generally on the low side, with most selling for more than what they guesstimate!
Been to a few open homes today and certainly people are looking.
Yes some will just be lookers as they are possibly not in the position to be able to buy and yes they may never be in that position, so it is great that there is private landlords doing a splendid job for the country, providing accommodation.
…..so it is great that there is private landlords doing a splendid job for the country, providing accommodation.
Spoken like a true self interested boomer. Please keep this talk going as that’s exactly the messaging that will end this farce as more people hear the fake altruism Maybe try to put your specs on and read the room once in a while before putting your foot in your mouth.
It shouldn't be too hard for you to link to some recentish sales (say 2-6months old) that aren't on homes as recent sales (red dots) then. I'll wait...
I have one. I'm not linking for the person's privacy, but the house my brother bought last month has been expunged from homes. Photos removed from all sites (trademe, homes, oneroof, etc). No record of the sale on these sites.
Sold by a developer for $100k less than what it's showing as being 'worth' on homes. Not even marked as TBC. Surrounded by sections not yet developed.
Mt brother's previous house, however, has been listed in full glory - made almost 600k in 5 years.
Has it even settled yet? It often takes more than a month from settlement for the data to filter thru the lawyer, the council and make it to homes. Check back in month or two.
Both have settled, for those interested.
Note how pragmatist keeps trying to find excuses - in every post. I'm beginning to think they have a vested interest.
Whilst your criticisms are valid, the point remains - the higher price was listed almost immediately, while the lower has been left to wait for discovery. This is market manipulation by the RE cabal. In this case we know it was the vendor (a developer who owns the surrounding sites) who hid the price - as everything related - even that it was listed - has been removed from the RE sites.
This would be further, locked in proof, of market manipulation (by exclusion) of recent unhelpful sales, by these REA linked, selfish interested sites.
Those Holmesy/Onespoof sites are not to be used, as anything more, than info on past CVs.
Those self-interested here, who try to hold up these spoofing sites as credible are totally exposed as trying to hold up and support this mid-stage dying housing Ponzi.
Agnostium
The issue is the sites like Homes etc... don't reflect the massive crash as they are manipulated by real estate industry
Are you insinuating the properties are crashing in price but the websites are manipulating the data?
Yes, the websites are manipulating the data. I mean it's not like they are even cagey about it. Any real estate agent can go in and put whatever value they want into a home.
Haha i didnt take you for a conspiracy theorist.
When you are delusional you think everyone is lying to you
Here's some from an area I follow, all within the same area. Are we supposed to believe that this small pocket of Devonport is an aberration.
Valued at 1.8M on homes up until the point is was sold at 1.25M
Valued at close to $3M on homes up until the point it was sold for $2M
Sold for $1M recently and currently valued at $1.8M on Homes.
Look at where they sit on the Homes trendlines. If you understood how the algorithm works and how the inputs are tagged, by who, and when, then you would understand how this is done but you're a rookie.
https://homes.co.nz/address/auckland/devonport/4-garden-terrace/norYM
https://homes.co.nz/address/auckland/devonport/3a-garden-terrace/XQZjJ
https://homes.co.nz/address/auckland/devonport/29-clarence-street/QXK15
Comcom isn't involved because they are not selling anything to the public directly. Ask who actually pays to use it and you'll find out who they are working for.
Whenever I've flagged stuff like this before the spruikers jump in to claim they are an exception/outlier/mistake. I got bored of sharing.
Whenever I've flagged stuff like this before the spruikers jump in to claim they are an exception/outlier/mistake. I got bored of sharing.
It's because many of your examples are the sort of listing that'll have the line "bring your builder" in them. They'll always take higher losses in this sort of environment - hence one of your examples sold for half the price of another one over the road.
Look at the three examples. None of them are Reno jobs. You're correct that some sell for the estimate and these are immediately uploaded onto the site and the algorithm adjust accordingly. When it sells for low price it isn't.
This isn't a conspiracy, it's straight up good marketing by Homes and the real estate industry. I find it bizarre that some people think Homes would spend time and money providing a free service to Joe public for Joe public's benefit.
#4 Garden Tce and Clarence St both need money chucked at them (you've mentioned Clarence St before, and we've already had this conversation):
This 94m² home sits on a flat north facing 293m² site. It's a classic original cottage which could be transformed into a home with all the modern needs fulfilled and the exterior of a charming and character turn of the century Devonport home.
Create your own dream and live it! These opportunities are becoming less and less in our seaside village so jump on board, bring your builders, architects and designers and get ahead of the pack.
The aggregate sites don't factor in the state of the property. Less of an issue in a healthy market, but in a market like this, severe fixer uppers take a bath.
Clarence street was also the one he insisted was a villa wasn't it.
And yes, he is right that agents can update the price on these listings, but it not hidden, Clarence st is one, a look at the estimate history graph shows two circles and a footnote about it.
I guess it's the evil real estate agent cabal that created the nonsense council RVs too? It sold for not much more than it's 2014 RV..
And yes, he is right that agents can update the price on these listings, but it not hidden, Clarence st is one, a look at the estimate history graph shows two circles and a footnote about it.
And yet the estate agents didn't update the estimate to reflect the actual true value when it was in the market and even of they sell lower they can go back in straight away and bump it back up to the post Reno valuation. The effect is that whenever a house sells for under the estimate it is not counted towards the suburb average and when it sells for the estime or over it is. This pulls the suburb average up and this in turn pulls all the individual estimates up. It's not rocket science.
And yet the estate agents didn't update the estimate to reflect the actual true value when it was in the market
Eh? They updated the estimate in July and it sold in September? Looks like the agent updated it as soon as they got the listing.
The effect is that whenever a house sells for under the estimate it is not counted towards the suburb average and when it sells for the estime or over it is.
Nope, this is pure conspiracy theory shit.
Councils code the sale, Homes probably exclude all S12 coded sales (sales that more than acceptable amount away from CV) whether high or low value) as anomalies, and definitely exclude S13 coded sales (related party sales).
No, it was on the market before July, they only updated the estimate once the vendor put an asking price on it and they couldn't reconcile the overestimated price. From memory, at one point the asking price was significantly lower that the homes estimate which is obviously completely impossible.
Like I said, I've flagged these before but people make up excuses rather than face reality.
Or you are making this all up in your head and everyone else sees reality.
I give up. I should have taken the age old advice, don't feed the troll.
To make it simple for you. Imagine there are 3 houses in a suburb all similar. Baseline estimate for all three is 1M.
2 go up for sale.
Market is falling and one vendor sells for 700K. The other manages to hold on and gets 1M.
The algorithm is updated with the new 1M sale but not the 700K sale.
The suburb average stays at 1M instead of dropping to 900K.
The reverse never happens.
aggregate sites don't factor in the state of the property. Less of an issue in a healthy market, but in a market like this, severe fixer uppers take a bath.
That's exactly my point. Not sure why you think number 4 needs money thrown at it. It's in the same condition as most of the other villas in that area that are in exactly the same state as the one you say is a doer upper (which isn't by the way), yet they are all valued at the price the fully renoed properties are valued at. If the Clarence St one is a doer upper and not worth 1.8M the. So are another 10-20% of the properties in that area. And if it's the condition of number 4, then that's pretty much all the villas in the area.
They are all being valued on Homes as if they were fully renovated or at the level of the better properties. This is because the algorithm is manipulated when they sell lower than the estimate (by omission, delay and tagging) to reflect higher values, and that increases the average suburb value and that pulls up all the individual estimates.
You are literally explaining how it works. Look if you don't want to accept it then fine, go ahead and buy at the Homes estimate and be one of the suckers that overpays by 10-20%.
Stating that Homes is being manipulated by agents does not make one someone a conspiracy theorist Rookie. Another very silly comment on your part. In fact what you are saying is highly defamatory..
In fact what you are saying is highly defamatory..
🤣🤣🤣 I didn't take you for a comedian.
How can you defame someone who is anonymous?
I use a pseudonym Rookie but a number of people including my family know it. We are never anonymous. One comment does not make someone a conspiracy theorist just like seeing one swallow does not mean spring has arrived.
Never the less that's hilarious 😂
How is it hilarious. You certainly show your inability to debate. I am being serious. One comment does not make someone a conspiracy theorist.
Is it not deformation on real estate agents or homes.co.nz if someone is accusing them of manipulating data without any proof?
Actually more so since they are public visible operations with reputations.
Not a random anonymous commenter on the internet.
I just find it funny how offended you are on someone else's behalf. More so it just points out the you feel a need to prove me wrong. A seasoned investor needs to prove the rookie wrong. How petty.
Another Rookie set of statements.
It's not defamatory of the Homes.co site, when their home pricing manipulation is true.
THEY ADMITTED IT!!!
Homes.co.nz criticised for allowing estate agents to influence price estimates | Stuff
They admitted in full view, that they allowed the Real Estate Cabal to alter "valuations" pricing........ It is a fact.
I call it out as financial scamming and dishonest. but thats just hand in glove within the REA game.
Their valuations are misleading and fools can take it as a true reflection, at their own peril. Rookies probably would.
He or she was not talking about Homes manipulating the market. Rather that some agents are changing values upwards before they list the particular home probably because their vendor has an unrealistic view on what their property is worth at that time. I have experienced it myself. As soon as my daughter bought her current home the agent reduced the value on Homes down by $250k to where it was before being listed. Hmm This is not defamation. This is true. It happened.
You can prove this right, that it was the agent, not the algorithm reacting to sales data or registered valuations on similar properties in the area? Because otherwise, yes it is defamation of that agent.
One comment? Err, there's a lot more than one comment, he's been banging this drum for a while.
It still does not make him or her a conspiracy theorist. I have a brother who is a conspiracy theorist. Covid is a sniffle, there is no climate change, journalists are all left wing and all left wing governments are out to get you and so on. Needless to say there is not a lot of joy or happiness in his life.
You don't have to buy into every conspiracy theory to be a conspiracacy theorist, only takes one.
Saying Homes is manipulated by some agents is simply stating something that is true. It does actually happen as experienced by my family. That doesn’t make me a conspiracy theorist.
That's not the only thing he has been saying, and you know it.
I don’t know what else he has been saying actually. Unlike some on this site I have a life. My main priority along with my wife is helping our children care for their children.
Lol, very selective reading you do, considering that several of his nonsense claims are on this very page, but you only read the one.
You're as full of shit as he is.
I acknowledge that you don’t agree with his views and think they are nonsensical but that does not make him a conspiracy theorist.
I think you also missed the part where he says homes.co.nz don't report sales that are under estimate prices.
That's pretty conspiracy theorist to me
And arguing with younger FHB about data manipulation and deforming, probably younger than your own children.
I suppose it makes sense when you're retired and have bugger else all to do.
You and RP must get along
Both you and Pragmatist are getting very personal now. This shows you are both feeling you are losing this debate.
Unlike some on this site I have a life
As are you old pal 😉
It's not that bad tbh, if homes doesn't reflect a valuation then you should be able to change it.
Some have extremely low rating, some overly high. It's up to the buyer to pay what they believe is fair.
Auction isn't the only way houses sell...1800 properties sold each month in Auckland in the months around the valuation date. Include the two preceding and the two following months and you have a sample size of about 9000 properties.
The only thing that's changed is when they are releasing the new CVs, they are still the CV as 1 May 2024.
I don't think this is correct. My understanding is that values may change.
The valuers will be revising their valuations to better match the market value as at the valuation date. If you evidence otherwise feel free to post it.
Rhonwen Heath, Auckland Council’s head of rates, revaluations, and data management, asserted that the data was generally of good quality but required further refinement to ensure consistent application across various parameters like sales data and zoning.
This meticulous approach aims to guarantee that valuations reflect market conditions as of May 1, accurately and fairly.
Yes that is their job, they are staffed to do this, why is this cycle taking so long?
Who exactly are you talking about?
Seriously - what's setting the value? Is it based on sales prices achieved over a certain window, plus perhaps improvements from registered activities?
I really don't see how this is hard to do, when surely a computer is doing the heavy lifting? And I really don't see how it can be almost a year overdue!
I don't believe it's a conspiracy to hide the crash - it smells very strongly like incompetence in management.
The valuers will be revising their valuations to better match the market value as at the valuation date.
That's what I'm saying. They have initial values based on the valuation date and will be revising their valuations to better match the market valuation as at the valuation date.
Whats wrong with that?
Nothing. I took pragmatists comment to mean they had the values sorted and it was just a matter of releasing them
The only thing that's changed is when they are releasing the new CVs, they are still the CV as 1 May 2024.
They are infact working on the values which are harder to set given the falling market and newly factored in climate change risks/insurance costs and how this impacts values.
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.