A Remuera house that sold for $6.35 million was one of the highlights of Bayleys' latest auctions.
The four bedroom house on a 1586 square metre section that overlooks Kings School, came with four bathrooms, triple garaging a swimming pool and tennis court.
Another property which attracted plenty of attention was a beachfront house at Hahei on the Coromandel Pensula which fetched $3 million.
For those with a slightly more modest budget but seeking a weekend retreat, a three bedroom/two bathroom apartment with harbour views in Whitianga went for $381,000.
The cheapest sale of the week at the Auckland auctions was a studio apartment in the Luna building in Grafton, which sold for $170,000.
We have the results of 70 properties auctioned by Bayleys in the last week, including properties in Marlborough, Hawke's Bay, Waikato, Matamata, Bay of Plenty and Auckland.
Details of all the properties offered including a photograph, and the selling prices of those that sold are available on our Residential Auction Results page.
You can receive all of our property articles automatically by subscribing to our free email Property Newsletter. This will deliver all of our property-related articles, including auction results and interest rate updates, directly to your in-box 3-5 times a week. We don't share your details with third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time. To subscribe just click on this link, scroll down to "Property email newsletter" and enter your email address.
93 Comments
Latest results using eight sales of typical Auckland houses where I exclude apartments, obviously problematic houses and remarkable anomalies like the mansion at Te Kowhai Place which sold for 2.45M below RV.
Total of 12.29M of sales with a 2017 RV of 11.33M giving a sales over RV of +8.5%
If I take out the house (Orakau) that sold for 500K over 2017 RV I get +5.7%
All successful sellers got good prices with no remarkable bargains.
Not included as it is a pretty crazy exception. It is a house that is unique, has no sales history and doesn't show on homes.co.nz or have an estimate on TradeMe property insights. It's not what I would call typical. I'm really just looking at the climate for typical suburban houses in good and average locations.
People could include this exception and proclaim a -7.38% drop in prices but I don't believe that would be particularly helpful.
Rezoned homes gain new value - an answer for you Zachary.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sponsored-stories/news/article.cfm?c_id=15037…
Zachary the statistician , now providing truncated results. We will soon have seasonally adjusted or Arima before long. Will the Te Kowhai sale be used to calculate the average values. On reflection , in regards the Te Kowhai property, and one can argue about its uniqueness, sales history ,et al, is that it sold for just 10 percent over its 2014 valuation . The increased 2017 valuation was solely a reflection of increased land value. The neighbours who all rushed to review their updated valuations on Monday will feel somewhat deflated by the auction result.
I don't think so.
Also I always provided somewhat truncated results and have been pretty open about that explaining why. Leaky homes and apartments for instance.
If you use the Te Kowhai sale as a weapon you are being a bit desperate IMHO.
That said the excitement over the new RVs this time has been a bit muted. There is a sort of "jumping the shark" feel about it. But who knows? Time will tell and recent sales indicate there are people willing to pay the asking prices for good properties.
Zach as you know i appreciate your numbers,because they are timely and you most often just lay them on the table. A little of what I wrote above is slightly in jest, desperation - no. We both know that the majority of the increased revaluations are attributed to land value .Have the land valuations in Te Kowhai or elsewhere been a little hot, on one sale as you say who knows. Actually I miscalculated , and the sales price was only 4 percent over the 2014 valuation, which does put it in left field.
Similarly, houses are still being sold, and the turnover rate sits around the 4 percent mark. At present the market is quite stable, what lurks around the corner .
Cowpat, I understand and you seem much more reasonable these days. Who knows what is around the corner? I think not being able to claim tax against salary and wages wont be as devastating as people think. It was always a nice to have to pay for the yearly week on a tropical island for most if they were wise. It has always been under threat. Accountants may suffer as more landlords start to do their own accounts to save money. What can happen when the going gets tough is that the tough get going. Every little expense is analyzed and every opportunity to get more money is taken advantage of instead of just cruising along.
A lot will have built up significant equity which reminds me of the old Adam Smith quote:
“This will be the ruin of the nation,” said Mr. Sinclair.
“Young man,” said the Dean, Adam Smith, “there is a great deal of ruin in a nation.”
I knew I’d find plenty of laughs in the comments here
A ex Post & Telegraph worker grown up in working class Sandringham fixing computer hardware & spruiking Kiwi RE
Sad those figures are a little low property here values in a league far pricier
You don’t even pay decent property taxation down there it’s laughable
Keep up the laughs it’s hilarious and keep working hard boomer boys
Zachary the statistician , now providing truncated results.
Ahhh....no. Big difference between statisticians and data analysts compared to keyboard warriors whose ability is limited to random inferences from small samples that would be worthless in representation.
You could then say the same for many interest property article headlines then. However that you came to read the article and take into account the information presented is a sign you consider it worthy of looking at. Yes it is taking an extremely short subset of data points, weekly area related auctions from a few service providers usually, but that is what you would expect from the headline. If the comment was a 'I predict 2018 to have a sales trend in exactly this manner' then sure, argue and berate away. However no one is predicting the exact nature of sales trends, even the statisticians (BAs don't count for very obvious bollocks). Overall the best you will get is the binary predictions, the general direction predictions, and the seasonal ones. Leave the point on point stuff for the gamblers with lots of money to lose.
TTP, realestate.co.nz has 13,677 Auckland listings. No evidence whatsoever sales volumes are increasing to soak up this bloating inventory. TTP, your comment will be dismissed as just pyramid talk from a real estate agent.
FHB, note that this is just the very beginnings of a buyer's market. True bargains are coming.
Zachary Smith, how will FHBers recognise a bargain when it comes along? When television documentaries air about how property Spruikers have become an extinct species. It's the time when the nation sees home improvement shows as much value as infomercials - ZERO. It will be painful for the highly leveraged. Houses prices will reflect the prevailing sentiment - poor buyer confidence. Its close in coming because of how many think it's unlikely, such as yourself. Times are about to change, careful you don't get left staring out the window thinking ïf only I had"
I think it will be when purchasing makes more sense than renting. That's probably when potential rental yield is about the same as what you pay in rent. Say you bought a home and then a couple of years later headed overseas for awhile. You should be able to rent out your home and have that cover the mortgage interest, rates and insurance. But then there are other factors like desirable location which adds a premium home owners are often willing to pay. So if you want a nicer home than a typical rental you will have to pay a bit more.
If things "corrected" and remained stable you would likely be looking at house prices appreciating at least 3% per year. So the home you have left behind while overseas is earning you 3%. If the rent is covering the fundamental expenses that is a pretty good deal. This leads to a situation where it might be advisable to pay a little bit more than a neutral yield calculation.
Say a three bedroom basic home in Henderson that rents for $550 a week. A figure of 550K would be a good buy. This home is likely to appreciate by 15-20K a year. The rent will cover mortgage interest, rates and insurance. It would be snapped up. But then there will be competition for it so you might be outbid by someone who really wants it. If it is particularly desirable, close to a school, transport etc it will attract a higher price. Probably up to 100K more.
So 650K for a house that a FHBer wants in Henderson seems about right for a FHB to strike. Such a house is likely to be about 700-800K right now.
Zachary, this is a very wordy comment that only serves as proof you like many others choose to ignore the risks - like many others, are too afraid to take notice. The one part that does make logical sense is that presently renting makes more sense than purchasing. Other than that, it's just all real estate agent talk, derived from property seminars. Todays % income return on rentals does not reflect the underlying risk that accompanies tenants. It's only got this way because of capital gains being perceived by the naive as tax free and its all a one way bet. Rental return should be at least twice the much safer term deposit rate at a bank. This would imply the risk of a substantial correction is in the offing.The party is over Zachary, its clear by your comments you may be left wondering "if only I had"
Your reaction only makes me think I am probably right. I'm just trying to be helpful here and you are not offering any sound metrics on when it would be a good time for a FHBer to purchase. I suspect you would have told them to wait, five, ten, years ago too.
Here are some possible places that if bought for 50-100K cheaper than asking price could be good:
https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auctio…
https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auctio…
https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-for-sale/auctio…
Zachary, feel free to grab the nearest spade and fill your boots with "bargains". Like you say, renting does make more sense than purchasing and this situation will prevail longer than you might accept. At the end of the day, whose advice is more likely to render many financially naked when the tide goes out? - YOURS!
Those are not good sections for land $, sure low slope but the footprint for all is minimal. At those prices, in those locations that is the updated range for 2017+, not even close to values at 2014, so much further away for FHB affordability. One even has a significant flaw in the ad unless it is cross lease and 'shared' with the property attached, (however not mentioning & showing that could just be a nice surprise). Any FHB should have brought 7 years ago in that area, (or 2 years ago for a development section). Considering the recent section sales in the same area of 2 of the properties above the ads seem overpriced even if they dropped another 100K. Now for investment it would be another story.
had a little more thought on the math of this, and it is analogous to radioactive decay, with half live being average time to sell. With 10months inventory - ie about 10% chance of selling per month, the average time to sell (half life) is about 200days, (6.5months), not 35days as REINZ is claiming.
You obviously haven't kept up with news this week, Labour has admitted debt is going to increase by $8billion, while ANZ is picking more like $14billion. Looks a lot like a >$10billion dollar hole to me. But no hurry, Winston has chosen his government, so lets check in again in 3 years time and see just how right Joyce was, and how wrong all those supposed 'economist' naysayers were.
Many would say that national debt is far less of a problem than household debt. And if government debt, long term increases quality of life, productivity and even GDP longer term, then actually it was a very savvy economic investment. We shouldn't think about national debt the way we think about private debt at all.
And many would say that both types of debt results in an increase in the near-term gains at the expense of the long term. In other words, borrowing from the future to finance a better present. There are a few countries that one can look at to see how this works in the long term.
The Labour debt hole wasn't caused by maths errors as Joyce initially claimed. The cause of the debt hole is their wildly optimistic tax take, coupled with their wildly optimistic GDP growth rate. Both of these estimates were considerably optimistic as compared to the PREFU. I noted this discrepancy on this site quite some time ago during the election campaign, although others were not caring or believing at that point.
The tax take and economy growth rate were considerably optimistic as compared to the PREFU and are now even more optimistic as the consensus prediction from all of the economist comments of late is that the PREFU numbers were decidedly optimistic. Hence, the debt predictions of Labour is likely to be at best similar to Joyces evaluation and possibly higher. This is not a good thing for the country.
On a more serious level, I have issues with the concept that one should compete in the race to the bottom. NZ has been relatively good in not following this race, and the economy has outperformed much of the world due to this. We would have been even better positioned excepting for the debt incurred due to the earthquakes.
As to SCF, the government cost was considerably less than the initial Crown deposit guarantee scheme payment as there were significant assets that offset a portion of the cost.
The only way "we did well" was selling billions of residential housing to foreigners, effectively throwing a generation of kiwis under the bus. If race to the bottom was a measure of deteriorating prospects for the young citizens of a country then National won the race through and through.
The primary cause of price appreciation here in NZ is due to kiwis. This has been shown in various articles on this site, where the foreign ownership is currently at one of the lowest points in recent history. The younger generation was thrown under the bus by the mom and pop investors. The price appreciation isn't owned by any party in particular. A large amount of price appreciation happened under Labour, which denied any issues when it was in power. National decried the decreasing affordability, then came into power and did just about the same amount of change as Labour did. Blaming just one party when the data clearly shows that both parties are culpable is a symptom of willful blindness. I'd say instead that National was just the second runner in the unaffordable housing race. We shall see whether Labour this time around does anything meaningful in regards to increasing housing affordability.
I'll believe a party is serious about housing affordability when a party comes forward that explicitly states that they are for affordable housing via a desire for a reduction in existing house prices. This mythical party should be advocates for ringfencing of individual investment properties, a CGT that doesn't have any exceptions, and a prohibition on negative gearing for investment properties.
Blaming offshore boogeymen when the primary cause is your fellow countryman is another symptom of willful blindness. The immigration issue is an important issue but is only a little bit related to unaffordable housing. Many immigrants rent when they arrive. Rent prices are not increasing at anywhere nearly the rate of home price increases. I'll believe immigration is a big issue on home affordability when the rent costs rise in a commensurate fashion as the home prices. If high immigration is the primary cause, then why are housing listings increasing and sales decreasing at a time of very high immigration?
That isn't to say that high immigration isn't an issue. It is a serious issue in terms of infrastructure loading, which then gets reflected in a reduction in the quality of living. The growth rate needs to be managed intelligently.
Yankiwi you can try towing that line if you like, but I doubt you'll convince anyone. You certainly wont convince anyone who lived through the hyperinflation years in Auckland (2010-2016), went to the auctions trying to compete with Chinese foreign buyers, or anyone who saw the houses on their street get purchased for over 2 million dollars, then get left empty to rot with cow parsley growing knee high.
Just out of curiosity, to what do you attribute the even higher gains that occurred between 2000 and 2007? This stretch had some rather outsized gains, similar in nature to the 2010-2016 house price gains. Both periods are important to understand in terms of the causal factors for unaffordability. Neither should be looked at in isolation.
Gains isn't the correct term. It's hyperinflation! 800k to 2.5 million in 6 years (2010-2016) is hyperinflation. Hyperinflation of an asset that had a high base price to begin with. In nominal terms, in price to income terms. The hyperinflation that occurred in Auckland under National is unprecedented in New Zealand's history (as far as I'm aware).
In economics, hyperinflation occurs when a country experiences very high and usually accelerating rates of inflation, rapidly eroding the real value of the local currency, and causing the population to minimize their holdings of local money.
So, no, it's not really hyperinflation.
exactly! it is hyperinflation of a single asset class. Your copy and paste definition is essentially what has happened. Also Jim Rickards narrows the definition to price increases > 10% pa for a sustained period. Auckland houses, as an asset class, went well beyond that.
One more interesting fact.
Housing affordability for the lowest quintile is currently at its worst since the mid '90s. The group that has been squeezed is the middle class. Note carefully the years where the middle quintiles lost affordability. Hint, it wasn't after 2010.
Have a look at this data: http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Sub-sites/Social/content/Ex…
Look at Table 2 for details.
I agree with you Yankiwi to a certain extent however immigration plays a key role in the house price inflation. Brook Landers implied the other day that it was nonsense to say that foreigners hadn't bought large amounts of property just because the foreigners were now bona fide Kiwis. Many immigrants who arrived in Auckland over the last thirty years have become owners of multiple properties as it was perceived, correctly, that this was a good way to make money. They exploited something that was already here. It is astonishing really that many Kiwis didn't seem to realise that housing in Auckland could essentially be free over the long term if you bought more than one house. The reasons for this may be cultural as many Kiwis were of the view that it was morally wrong to own more than one house. It may have been a sort of unconscious thing. I know I was like that in my youth and recall berating my sister who was considering buying a second property. I've always been a bit of an extreme nationalist. It was also a good excuse not to take that plunge as well as it was never particularly easy due to making losses in first few years as house prices caught up and there were other things to do like the big OE. There was also an element of risk.
These days at least 40% of Auckland is foreign born and many have gotten into the property game. It is a consequence of globalism and neo-liberalism where people are encouraged to largely look after themselves. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just how it is.
The alternative is a somewhat repressive and insular society that focuses on maintaining the privileges of the natives and the sacredness of the land. After all it is ridiculous to expect that diverse immigrants would somehow morph into Barry Crumps and Fred Daggs and read Janet Frame in their spare time. Indeed people now consider cultural assimilation to be repressive so we all just try and accumulate as much stuff for ourselves as possible. Diversity means more intense competition for the trappings of success. We don't compete in any other way. We don't try and outdo each other culturally just materially. Indeed we are not even allowed to compete culturally if we are ethnically European because it is mandatory to be inclusive. The common glue that binds us together now is competing for assets. This is the Boomer legacy.
Is that a American Kiwi ? Yankiwi
I think it was time for change
The NatNil govt provided no strategy’s
The massive levels of migrants had to be tempered by someone
Let’s hope that actually eventuates
Mr Joyce cynical attempt to fudge figures should be treated like one of his zoological thesis’s
Much better govt up here we have a complete moron
There may be worrying developments in some property markets, but the world’s biggest sovereign wealth fund says it has no intention of pulling back from real estate.
A gap is opening between what stock-pickers think real estate is worth and what assets could be worth in the physical market, a potential sign that a correction could be looming. For example, the largest real estate investment trust in the U.K., Land Securities, now trades at a 36 percent discount to net asset value.
“It’s clearly a red flag in pricing if anything is too far off in any direction,” Karsten Kallevig chief executive officer of Norges Bank Real Estate Management, said in an interview at his Oslo office on Wednesday.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-24/1-trillion-norway-wealth-fund-…
Has anyone noticed this recent article from Bloomberg: The Party Is Over for Australia's $5.6 Trillion Housing Frenzy
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-23/australia-faces-hous…
Now if the property part over for Oz then you can be absolutely sure it's all over for NZ!
CJ099, if it all goes horribly wrong, how can the banking system remain sound? Australian Govt guarantee on bank deposits finished in 2015 see here :https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2016/mar/5.html
Consider the flow on effects of a China event or otherwise, what wriggle room the the Australian Govt have to prop up the big four banks next time? Where does that leave NZ banks if the Australian parents are weakened?
How safe are NZ bank deposits when we have OBR? see here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/78727017/How-safe-are-…
OMG.
CJ099
Don’t let facts the property ponzi is coming to an end upset the spruikers here
They understand nothing about Socionomics let alone economics !
Look at the selective use of sales figures spruikers here use to justify their utopian view of Auckland RE
If they were genuinely clever they’d be investing in undervalued asset classes not Remmers RE !
NZ Herald Mary Holm. This is what can happen in leafy suburbs! Loss of 30% on a property in St Heliers. Leafy areas often get hit the hardest in a downturn. And no, saying she paid too much for it won't cut it - ok.
Its foolish to think that some areas are immune. It's like leafy suburbs have been inoculated or I'm wearing protection so my house will be ok!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=119…
Did Mary Holm actually lose 30%? It's not clear in that article. In fact I believe it is more likely at one point she calculated the value of her home had gone down 30% but I doubt she sold and lost that much. Subsequently it went back up in a very short period of time. If she sold at that low point she was very dumb.
Also from that article:
Nobody is predicting another 30 per cent price plunge..
....and the rest Zachary!: Nobody is predicting another 30 per cent price plunge, but who knows? One thing is certain: house prices will continue to fall sometimes. Given the recent trends, you might want to sit on the sidelines a while longer and see what happens.
Zachary, the message is loud and clear so read it more carefully.
I'm merely seeking clarification of this important point. Was it a transitory paper loss or was it a real loss?
What's more, national average prices mask a wide range of experiences. The price fall around 1991 looks quite mild. But — as regulars may recall reading before in this column — I lost a full 30 per cent on a house in that year.
We had bought in upmarket St Heliers before the 1987 share crash. In the aftermath of the crash, many St Heliers residents must have had to sell their homes in a hurry. The resulting property crash was worse for many than the share crash.
"in that year", hmmm. Could it be in that year my house went down 30% but later it went back up? I may be wrong but it's a funny way of stating it. Can someone ask her?
Zachary, I accept the article is quite difficult for some to read. It was written by someone who suffered financial loss first hand. Wouldn't it be wiser not to argue the toss with such experts. If you believe her article to be fake news tell her yourself: http://www.maryholm.com/maryholmproperty.php
Click on "contact Mary" tab.
Again, the message is perfectly clear. FHB wait, there is no hurry.
I was researching current property trends in Vancouver and Toronto and came across this:
Toronto, Vancouver house prices set for rise: CIBC report
At the same time, Tal said that actual demand in the housing market is stronger than official estimates. He pointed out that Canada's annual immigration quota is slated to rise from 250,000 to 300,000, and eventually 450,000. That comes amid a current tight land supply based on rules that don't capture the changes in the market, he said.
Also, official estimates of household formation in the Greater Toronto Area tend be 10,000 below the mark if adjustments are not made for immigrants and non-permanent residents, who Tal said tend to be younger than the general adult population.
"Actual demand is much stronger than official numbers often used to determine the extent to which we overbuild relative to household formation," Tal said.
Finally, the growing percentage of young adults living at home translates into pent-up demand of roughly 9,000 household, including about 6,500 in the Greater Toronto Area.
"That army of potential buyers can be seen as an insurance against long-lasting significant price decline," said Tal.
An army of potential buyers are coming to the rescue!
I think you're correct Zachary.
After a period of relative stability in prices (smallish fluctuations/oscillations) house prices will increase across the medium to longer term.
A number of structural factors are now underpinning the housing market - and these weren't evident even 5 years ago. So future prospects are very good.
In a few years time, we will all look back at the bargain house prices of 2017.
TTP
I've done a bit of investigation on the Mary Holm 30% loss thing and found the following from gleaning the articles she has written:
NZ Herald February 5 2005
I once took a huge loss on a good St Heliers house when values plunged after the 1987 share market crash. But - before you leap to conclusions - the value of my Sydney house almost doubled in two years, and I've done very nicely thank you on several others.
NZ Herald 24 October 2009
Certainly that seemed to be the case in the property slump of the late 1980s. I know a couple who bought a house in the pricey suburb of St Heliers in early 1987. A year or two later they decided to buy a better house in a cheaper suburb.
Anyone know of a worse story - of a house price that dropped more than 30 per cent? In what sort of neighbourhood?
NZ Herald 31 August 2013
As an example of this, let's dip into the history of someone I know well. She once bought a house in St Heliers for $380,000 and sold it a couple of years later for about $265,000 - a 30 per cent drop. On another house in Birkenhead, she spent $150,000 doing it up and recouped none of that when selling. On the other hand, she's also made some great gains, including a house price that almost doubled in two years in Sydney.
NZ Herald 25 November 2017
The price fall around 1991 looks quite mild. But - as regulars may recall reading before in this column - I lost a full 30 per cent on a house in that year.
The story is a bit different in each article. Sold in the late 80's or in 1991? Is "someone I know well" herself? Compare August 2013 article to 2005 article. The 2013 article mentions buying a house then selling a couple of years later yet elsewhere she mentions buying before the crash of 87 and selling in 1991 which is 4 or 5 years later. 380K for a house in 86-87 was quite a lot. I recall buying a house with two bedroom flat underneath in Glendene for 70K that year. It's curious. I assume now she did take this sort of loss but why so many different stories?
Good research Zachary. I remember the post crash period well. In hindsight it was the most formative experience in my life. I lost my job, went back to Uni, and thereafter became averse to debt.
I wouldn't wish a recession on anyone, but if it happens it will redirect the economy and expose the leveraged, allowing an opportunity for those of us with solid incomes and savings to pick up an investment property, something I've been reluctant to do so far as I want to buy in 1071 where I would get tenants I could watch over carefully, or more preferably use as an Air BnB.
BTW: Property took a while to react post the '87 crash, but nothing is immune to recession and job losses. I don't recall a property crash as such, but don't doubt Mary's word on her own situation.
Story is not different in any meaningful way. I interpret it as : Property slumped in late 80's, decided to sell a year or two later = ~89-90, and she sold/settled in 91 before prices recovered. Apart from trying to avoid making the story about her its entirely consistent, if not very precisely reported.
The devil is in the detail. It should be more of a cautionary tale about what can happen if you buy another house before you sell the current one with no plan B rather than a general drop in value in a particular area. No one else can recall the 30% drop perhaps because it passed by relatively quickly.
Zachary, Mary has the credentials whether you or TTP like it or not. I prefer her version of events any day as opposed to an amateur's feeble attempts at undermining the intent of a helpful and informative article:
The key facts:
It's often "leafy" suburbs that drop the most - no area is ummune.
First home buyers should wait - there is no hurry.
I presume you've contacted her directly for clarification rather than just assuming?
There's definitely a place for people like Mary Holm.
But I think of her more of a writer/journalist come advisor - than a researcher/analyst. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Thus, the inconsistencies that Zachary points to (above) don't surprise me too much.
For more sophisticated/scientific analysis, there are other avenues to explore - such as university property/valuation departments.
TTP
Hi Retired-Poppy,
I now note you've retracted your earlier comment (by editing your post) - in response to my comment immediately above.
Yours was a most unfair comment - so thank you for doing that. (I write this for the sake of transparency about what you've done.)
TTP
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.