Daily Archives: June 11, 2009

Nelson Home Sales Report May 2009

The Real Estate Institute of NZ have released sales figures for May 2009. They indeed display that the median price was up on both the previous month of April 2009 and also when compared to May 2008.

Volume/number of homes sold (not counting residential sections) in May 2009 was up on the previous May 2008 period, and also up when compared to the previous month, April 2009.

One interesting standout was the 14 residential sections sold, at a median of $202,500 and more surprisingly at a median of 97.6% of asking price. (just the 1 was auctioned, all the others had a asking price.)

The numbers on the bottom line above mean that each column refers to the number of bedrooms the property has.

I’ve also introduced “AWAP” which means Advertised With A Price. Hopefully this will give browsers an insight into how many Auctions / Tenders / Price by Negotiation are taking place in the previous month, in comparison to those AWAP’s which are listings that show a price.

Again with the apparent delays of agencies reporting, my original preview figures were way off, so from here on in I think I will be suspending those previews.

The Real Estate Institutes president had this to say about the national situation……

Mr Elford said the biggest issue currently facing the industry is a shortage of stock.
“With an apparent reluctance to sell in what is perceived to be a buyers’ market, people are tending to hunker down and sit tight on their properties. This, combined with a seasonal trend for people to hibernate rather than put their home on the market in the winter months, has led to an acute shortage of houses on the market.”

and if you live in Nelson just check out how many SOLD’s are on the signs as you drive in to work tomorrow morning and you’ll concur with that sentiment. REINZ Full Report here.

I received a comment recently about the figure I show on the top chart regarding % of asking price achieved compared to the advertised listing price.

The comment went like this – David – as we have discussed before your attempts to ascertain a pattern from asking price versus selling price are meaningless unless you use the ORIGINAL asking price. Many houses which sell are NOT selling at the original asking price but are selling at a subsequent discounted price having failed to sell initially. Summit’s Friday property release again had numbers of properties with ‘new price’ to which this applies. Unless you incorporate this in your analysis (which I recall from previous discussions that you do not) then your conclusions are deeply flawed (but I guess you know this anyway).

To which I replied  – in using the original asking price, and currently the only ones tracked are the advertised ones, then overall May (ex sections) comes in at a median (prelim. data of course) at 96.5% from first advertised date. This compares to the overall Nelson May median (still prelim. figures of course) of 98.8%. The challenge here is the reporting method of the “offers over” type of pricing. And as about 27% of the residential sales last month didn’t have a fixed price to start, ie; no price marketing, it also adds some distraction to the equation.

So what I was alluding to was that at this stage was that this is the most accessible info that I can extrapolate from the monthly returns, and I believe a trend or pattern could be noticed or tracked by interested parties.

Yes it’s not perfect, but is it better than nothing, you tell me?

I can only go off data that details an advertised price & compare that to a final sell price, so it makes comparing final selling prices achieved at Auction / Tender & Price by Negotiations very difficult to factor into the mix.

No I didn’t take the easy way out and just insert / replace the sell price in the advertised price column to assist the medians, you can’t because in many occurrences the price achieved by some of these no price methods may have not have met vendors expectations.

So when you scan the top chart you will note that, for example in Nelson for May there were 14 out of 45 3 bedroom homes that did not display an advertised price. So there’s a puzzle there in how to factor that 30 odd percent in?

Just out of curiosity here is the National chart for the month before, April 2009 by example.

It took some minutes to compile, and I haven’t had that luxury this month, so that’s why it’s Aprils.

When I get time I will be compiling a chart that shows the answer (as best as current data allows) to the comment. Can say that I did look into it briefly a week ago for May with about 70-80% of the returns and the figure returning then was 96.5%.