sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

REINZ says national median house price dropped 5.3% in January to $426,000; Auckland median down 2.7%; national sales volumes up 2.6% on January 2014

Property
REINZ says national median house price dropped 5.3% in January to $426,000; Auckland median down 2.7%; national sales volumes up 2.6% on January 2014
<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/">Image sourced from Shutterstock.com</a>

The housing market slipped into more of a usual summer pattern in January, with sales volumes falling sharply from the previous month and median prices slipping.

According to the Real Estate Institute there were 4841 dwelling sales nationally in January. While this is up 2.6% on the number sold for the same month a year ago, it represents a thumping 31.5% decline on the 7064 sales recorded in December. The December figures had been the highest for that month since 2006.

REINZ said the national median price was $426,000 for January, which was down 5.3% on the $450,000 recorded in December. But more significantly, the latest figure was a 6% increase on the median recorded as of January 2014.

The regional breakdown and commentary can be viewed here.

Westpac senior economist Michael Gordon said the housing market "took a breather" in January, after a few months of "very strong catch-up growth" following the September election.

He said that house sales volumes had fallen 13.5% in seasonally-adjusted terms.

"While the fall in sales was larger than we expected, at this stage we're not inclined to see this as anything more than a larger than usual holiday-related lull. A sustained pullback in sales wouldn't fit with the more timely data on mortgage approvals, which continued their strong growth in January after a small December dip."

In the much talked about Auckland market there were 1764 houses sold, a slight rise on the 1737 sold in January 2014, but well down on the 2734 sold in December. Auckland's median price, at $660,000 is up some 16% on the same time a year ago, though the figure has dropped slightly from $678,000 in December - which was a record.

The latest figures will be closely scrutinised by the Reserve Bank, which has been indicating its strong concern about the recent reheating of the Auckland market. It would appear the central bank would not be able to draw too many conclusions about the latest figures and will likely want to see the returns for February - when more normal levels of activity will have kicked in after the summer break - before contemplating any more action to attempt to dampen the market.

But it is unlikely either that the latest figures will have done much to calm the RBNZ's concern.

The REINZ Stratified Housing Price Index, which adjusts for some of the variations in the mix that can affect the median price fell 1% compared with December to sit at 4,037.3. Auckland fell 1.2%, Christchurch 1.1% and Wellington 0.6%.

For the 12 months to January the Auckland Index rose 15.1%, the Christchurch Index 4.5% and the Wellington Index 3.0%, while the national index increased 7.5% compared with January last year.

REINZ chief executive Helen O’Sullivan said the figures for January reflected "the typical summer slowdown at this time of the year, with volumes dropping back and prices easing across the country".

"December was a strong month, so the slowdown in January was a little more pronounced than usual."

She said the continuing strong performance of Auckland prices was "vexing commentators and policy makers alike".

"However, the root cause of the problem remains a shortage of property available for sale. Listings across Auckland remain very low by historical standards and this, coupled with continued high demand, is seeing prices inevitably move upwards.

"Increases in supply from new construction will help to ease this position, but for the present the lack of listings is the main impetus driving Auckland dwelling prices. The data shows that Auckland’s median price increased by 16% over the past 12 months, compared to just 1.8% for the rest of the country."

The comments on listing numbers were earlier borne out when Auckland's largest real estate company Barfoot & Thompson recently reported that its available listings were well down on the numbers available at the same time a year ago.

Volumes sold - REINZ

Select chart tabs

Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ
Source: REINZ

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.

47 Comments

This would have to be a first. Where are all the property spruikers who should be saying this is just a small temporary blip in the Auckland market. Or are they running scared and are busy selling as the tide has turned and are too busy to comment.

Up
0

I think the article did the job for them:

 

... the figures for January reflected "the typical summer slowdown at this time of the year, with volumes dropping back and prices easing across the country".

 

It's the same old story every year gordon. It's seasonal. We need to wait and see if the trend continues into February and March. Then there will be something meaningful to talk about. But I doubt it.

Up
0

He said that house sales volumes had fallen 13.5% in seasonally-adjusted terms.

Up
0

And then he went on to say:

 

"While the fall in sales was larger than we expected, at this stage we're not inclined to see this as anything more than a larger than usual holiday-related lull."

 

Let's not requote the whole article! I'm just saying one month's data does not a trend make.

Up
0

Gordon, as an investor I will own the same properties in the future as I have owned in the past.

So why would I worry about an up or down in the property market in January 2015?

 

 

Up
0

Locals buying hasn't dropped (ie from sod all to bugger all)

However free finance on foreign shores are getting better offers elsewhere, and political heat from the lights starting to be shone on the source of many property transaction makes those people look elsewhere for a while.   You don't hide shadow money in shadow investments while everyones watching...

Up
0

Because not are all in your position YL. My nephew who is a FHB is off to an auction today armed with a $900k loan offer and he is nervous about being beaten. There is a lot of debt in the Auckland market. It needs to keep going up and I hope it does for all those fully loaded with debt who are paying a lot of rent to their Bank.

Up
0

900k for a first home is pretty ambitious.

Up
0

Beat me to it.

$900k is what a family member sold there house for and it wasn't their first home.

Up
0

Maybe, as the ages of those who CAN buy a first home has risen, there needs have too?  In your mid thirties you need to by a home for the wife and kids rather than a one or two bedroom place?  And in Auckland, 900K for a 3 bedroom is about what it takes.  Crazy but true.

Up
0

Not true. I just bought a 3-4 bedroom weatherboard on 700m2 section with freehold title in a great street in Titirangi for under $600k. Close to good schools, 25 minute drive to downtown Auckland or 5 mins to the train station. Close to beaches, close to New Lynn and the soon to be upgraded mall as well as the giant c*ck and b*lls art installation (very trendy!). Gordon's nephew could have snapped it up.

Up
0

He can live further in as he has the income to service $900k and currently no dependants. Why would you have all that down time travelling in Auckland traffic when you can buy closer to work.

Up
0

So  Gordon, he's a first home buyer who is helping drive up Auckland's house prices. Price is secondary to location.

Yet almost everyone on this website says how hard done by first home buyers are. 

(By the way... good on your son-in-law Gordon for doing well)

Up
0

He said he could have gone a bit higher but the Chinese buyer was determined to buy it so he let it go. Like a lot of people in his generation he wishes he didn't have overseas competition. I have deliberately put that sentiment forward very politely. One would think those who were born here had certain claims on land before others? 

Up
0

What about those who are born here's right to sell to the highest bidder?

Not that I dont agree btw, but how you (not specifically you) want things seems to be a lot of the time dependant on which side of the transaction you are rather than what's best for NZ, our society/country.

So yes sure lets ban sales to foreigners if they dont live here, but no one whine when they get 10% or more less when its time to sell.

Up
0

Interesting seeing such a point coming from you steven !

(1) They don't have that "right" when it comes to foreigners.   Because it not just the 'land parcel' they are selling.

(2) Beads and blankets.  So this generation of poor marketeers are conned or dazzled into cheap sales, should future generations uphold their lousy contract - after all the next generation got no beads nor blankets.

(3) "Yes... Yes... This is a fertile land and we will thrive. We will rule over all this land and we will call it... This Land."
 Those who are born into a country, it is their home, and they have no other home to claim.
 Whether it is local people in New Zealand using the racist term "Pakeha" (the local equivalent of the term "nigger").  Or modern Greeks trying to sue modern Germans for a war their Great Grandparents started.
 
 When the land is sold it is the heritage of the people who live on it - it is home, not a house.
Selling to outsiders a _non-replacable_ resource of "home-ness" is a privilege that the land owner DOES NOT HAVE.   The land owner possesses homeness, but takes theirs with them when they move.  Selling the future to outsiders violates that.

Now New Zealanders and many others don't mind inviting a few similar people with compatiable mindsets to share their home and family.  But no-one likes an invasion.

And to finish off - you keep saying the community decides...yet the resistance to foreign ownership and high levels of immigration is very high, as you've noticed local resentment is high,  yet does the community get to decide?
 The OIO was supposed to ensure any foreign purchaser had "scoial benefit" at least equal to the loss of heritage involved (and not just jobs or cash), but they utrterly failed at their task repeatedly at a rate so constant we have to ask if they're been coerced !!

It's not _land_ when it's sold to foreign powers, it's our peoples future.  (go ask any indigenous population how it works out in the end...their "elders" sell them out... the people get....????)

Up
0

notwithstanding all your other points...

 

"Whether it is local people in New Zealand using the racist term "Pakeha" (the local equivalent of the term "nigger"). "

 

As a New Zealand born "Pakeha" whose family has been here two hundred years (give or take a few), I find what you have written there extremely offensive.

 

Comparing those words is so misguided it's not funny.  One of those words is only "deemed" to be offensive by some who don't understand the true meaning.  One of those words invokes a history of slavery and servitude.  

 

Very bad post - I hope it is edited or deleted.

Up
0

I find the term "pakeha", A term defined by a outside group of people and used for most of my life and by outsiders and imbeciles as a derogatory term.  It has several meanings - The most applicable is "Pa (home) keha (far away)"   however "keha" is also an insect that jumps a long way (flea).

      My home, and my families home for over four generations has been New Zealand.  
Akaroa was settled 1830, those of my family and family name were amongst the first to disemembark to that settlement.

And comparing those words are very accurate.  If you had any education (and could do history and arithmetic) you would know that "nigger" was a term used to describe ALL South and mid African people not just the US slaves.   Not that many New Zealands aren't treated by law as slaves (in deed if not in word) anyway.   It was a word applied by skin colour and ancestoral heritage.

And so that "P...." word is very offensive .  You like it?  you keep it.  Don't dare use it on others - or perhaps you CAN go back home...

Up
0

Absolute rubbish.

 

http://maorinews.com/writings/papers/other/pakeha.htm

 

keha can also mean turnip or ulcer/sore.  Don't just stop at flea...

 

Comparing those words is accurate?  Dream on...  Why don't you do some research on the origins of the maori word, what it actually means to be pakeha, and then read up on some American History...

 

Just because outsiders or imbeciles use a word as derogatory - doesn't make it so.  Just makes them show their ignorance...

Up
0

Origins of the Maori word for the foreign colonists... ok I'll ask my Maori friend, the mother of my children...or our Tohunga (which is her cousin).
 It's not turnip nor is it sores (context).   
It can also means fleas/lice because thats what some of the Maori claimed they were invested with when they came, so they also got the slang derogative "lice/flea's"  There are some that claim it means white fleas, but that's incorrect as Ma is White, not Pa.

As for research, a close friend did his degree on the Maori Wars.
And of course there is my own family history on both sides from when each of my ancestors landed.

As fpr the Paake (pale people or ghost people) that linguistically (as opposed to literally) translates to goblins or spirits and is not a good thing.  It is not a term that is applied to living People.

And no I don't like the word "Maori" either, the correct term "the People" doesn't really translate to English and since there isn't a a term, and the People have seized on the term Maori for themselves, then that is what I used for them until asked otherwise.

However, the term "P....ha" is highly offensive and if you read that article you quoted but racist both in genetic terms and in "skin tone".

And the "flea" story....was told to me by several of the people who used it that way.  Actual experience gathered  evidence trumps BS articles and bowel observing academics everytime.

..... Oh yeah ... you don't believe me ask one of the people about using the word for the "pale spirit people".... check to see if the custom fits with use of the racist "P" term

Point being my home is not far away and I do not like being addressed by a racist term.
I am a New Zealand, as is my girlfriend and we're both proud of our home (although both growing less so).   We have both looked into our ancestoral lines as part of our spiritual paths, and they are very different - as are the people who live in those lands.

Up
0

I would say there is a lot of truth to that.  

Anyway, it doesn't matter how deep your pockets are.  You are going to be paying way over the odds for any standard of housing thanks to Chinese hot money.

Up
0

It doesnt NEED to keep going up at all.

Up
0

My nephew has just rung me. Thought he had it but at last moment blown out of water by a Chinese national. Go figure. 

Up
0

Did your nephew do citizenship checks on the other bidders? That's thorough! 

Up
0

Since it is convienient for the agents and authorities to not collect the data and pretend that there is problem we will never know for sure on a case by case basis. 

But its pretty damn obvious that a large number of them are not citizens and there is a lot of anger brewing.  Time to drop the faux political correctness and call a spade a spade.

Up
0

Tell you nephew not to bother trying to buy a house in Auckland unless the letter box number contains a 4.  It's unlucky in chinese you see.  14 means certain death, and 28 means double death. 

Up
0

Gordon, 

have you looked at the stats of who buys houses?  half of all houses sold are to NZ investors.  THAT is the problem.  8% are sold to non residents.

 

The group buying all the blimmin houses probably looks more like you.  Domestic NZ Investors are eating the FHBers

Up
0

Nonsense bob dringle. Investors are buying houses for people to live in. The houses aren't going away.

There's no problems. They buy them and make them available for people to live in.

Up
0

That all depends on your interpretation of "live" through doesn't.  Being farmed by some two-bit slumlord doesn't met the definition of "live" for most people.

Up
0

I would love to buy all essential items needed for your ability to live.

 

then I would sell them to you at double the price, or totally deny you the use of them.

 

I see no problems with this

Up
0

Cutting out even that 8% (and I seriously question that number) would significantly reduce pressure.

In fact, you might even find without them that prices would stop rising, which would completely remove the incentive for local speculators.  A small change in demand can have a big effect.

Up
0

yes, you are probably right.  

 

we need data.  

 

I would like to see only nz citizens, or people holding resident visas being allowed to buy

Up
0

It's all fun and game until someone loses an eye:

4 years ago who'd have thought!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-07/house-passed-in-at-auction-after-…

 

Up
0

Makes no difference whether a NZ citizen or not they are dominating sales.

Up
0

I've seen the same thing with my own eyes.

Up
0

Surely it makes all the difference gordon?

Up
0

Why?

Up
0

The debate should be about NZ citizens and non NZ Citizens. Not about "us" and "them". Assuming anyone of asian descent is a chinese national is bigoted. As everybody keeps banging on about we need some solid statistics on who is buying. I think we probably agree on the point that we shouldn't be selling off our property to non NZ Citizens. Nevertheless nearly 1/3 of Auckland's population is of Asian ethnicity so we need to be very careful about how we state the argument. A lot of the people who are assumed to be chinese nationals buying property are actually kiwis.

Up
0

How much hot money have (for excample) Thai people to spend here?

Up
0

Not much I expect. There's a smart country though, in one respect at least. Only Thai citizens can own land. Foreigners can at the best only lease for 99 years.

Up
0

Can Thai citizens own debt?
I thought only registered corporations could be approved public project debt in Tland.

Up
0

Not sure about public project debt (?) but Thais can have mortgages and other loans if that's what you mean. It's tougher for lower income earners. They have to buy the property outright before they can lend against it, at least that's what I've been told. 

Up
0

And that helps the FHBers? Of course they all live here, the Immigrants who became citizens. My nephew just sees overseas buyers with overseas money beating him and his generation.

Up
0

FHBers will get help from their parents if they are rich enough.  If parents have no money, then they have a hard task ahead of them.  

 

 

If they cant buy their own place to live, NZ society will look down on them, and say they must have made some poor decisions.

Up
0

Just an observation from an 'adopted' kiwi (immigrated from the states in '97). Many friends of mine who are kiwis of Asian descent have commented how at one time or another they have been thought of as 'Chinese nationals' or not 'true kiwis' even though they were born here. Racism is everywhere believe it. NZ is definitely not as bad as the states but still very evident...

Up
0

I came here in 95 and actually I found that local  Kiwis dont like anyone not a local kiwi, unless they cant take huge advantage.

 

 

Up
0

I'm not disagreeing with your experience and I believe that some kiwis are like that - but that is a large generalisation to make about local Kiwis...

Up
0