The auction reporting season started again over the weekend, with the Real Estate Institute of Victoria (REIV) reporting a ‘healthy’ preliminary clearance rate of 71% from 108 auctions reported to the REIV (see below table).
While the reported auction clearance rate was solid, there were 24 auctions (around 20%) classified as “no result”, suggesting that the final reported clearance rate could fall into the mid-60% level once late results are chased-up by the REIV. According to the REIV, vendors have three days to sell under legal auction conditions, which means that the final clearance rate will not be known until Wednesday evening, when it is updated on the REIV’s website (even then there are usually some missing results, suggesting failed auctions).
The REIV is expecting the number of auctions to ramp-up in coming weeks, with 220 auctions expected next weekend increasing to a high of 950 auctions on 23 and 24 February. As usual, these results will be analysed on MacroBusiness and, when possible, compared against results published later in the week by RP Data.
Note: there were no auctions results published by the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales.
unconventionaleconomist@hotmail.com
I would like to see a world where EVERY AUCTION RESULT REPORTED !
Pie in the sky?
SvetlanaBabe, you are not alone.
The truly appalling statistics around property transactions needs to be be replaced with quality data. Here is my one citizen campaign.
http://www.prosper.org.au/2013/01/31/house-market-needs-sale-3-data/
http://www.prosper.org.au/2012/01/12/australia-deserves-better-property-sales-data/
Auction results go missing every month, its just a given.
Correct. This is a very strong result. It’s silly to dismiss it because results are missing. Results are always missing.
Sydney had a 70%+ clearance rate this weekend too. All looking good.
“It’s silly to dismiss it because results are missing. Results are always missing”.
So we shouldn’t demand better, more transparent, data then?
Why do you keep deleting my reply?
Mod: you already made that comment before, don’t need to repeat it 5 times. Please read the comment rules carefully.
OK, I read the comment rules like you suggested. Would you mind quoting the section that I’m breaching, thanks!
Comment rules
RULES OF THIS SITE
YOU MUST READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING BEFORE POSTING A COMMENT
1. There are general and specific terms and conditions which apply to use of this site. If you do not agree to those terms, please do not post anything on the site.
2. In particular, you must acknowledge and agree to abide by all rules of this site. This site is for information and discussion of topics by those who have agreed to abide by all terms and conditions.
3. Postings on this site are not monitored but any concerns should be addressed to the web master at david.smith.media@gmail.com giving full details. We reserve the right to remove any material at any time for any reason.
4. You must familiarise yourself with these terms and conditions and comply with them and always respect the rights of others. If you have not already done so, please read the general terms of use and the specific terms and conditions which relate to the posting of material.
General Terms and Conditions relating to postings
The following rules are obligatory on any person wishing to post any material whatsoever on this or any associated site.
No material shall be posted which is defamatory or abusive.
No material may be posted which is obscene or vulgar.
No material may be posted which is in contempt of court, in breach of any privacy provisions, in breach of any confidence or court order or which otherwise violates any law.
No material may be posted which threatens, intimidates or harasses any person.
No material may be posted which is in breach of the copyright of any person or entity or which constitutes any breach of trademark or other intellectual property right or which is deceptive or misleading.
No material may be posted which involves or promotes any illegal activity.
No material may be posted which contains any virus or other damaging material.
No material may be posted which is in breach of the rights of any person.
No material may be posted which is offensive or involves unlawful discrimination against any person or group on the basis of age, gender, religion, race or ethnicity, disability, sexuality or any other attribute whereby state or Australian laws may be breached.
By posting any material you thereby grant to this website and its operator the irrevocable right and royalty free licence to display, publish or otherwise deal with such material in any form, edited or otherwise and by any means or technology.
You undertake not to impersonate another person or entity and that all facts stated in any posting shall be accurate and that all opinions shall be honestly held.
Yes, which is why reporting standards should be improved and made more transparent.
Mod: watch your tone Archie – stop the sniping and snide comments or you can comment elsewhere. And do not respond to this warning.
Totally agree Leith. If ever there was an industry in desperate need of some transparent honesty to repair an incredibly tarnished image this is it. A simple way would be to disclose every result from the prior week by latest Friday to give a true indication. Early indicators can then be ignored by those who are happy to wait for the real picture leaving the nonsense cheerleader squad reporting to the MSM on Monday. If they aren’t reported by Friday then assume not sold by then and calculate as such. The industry is a sham at the moment and auction reporting is a decent bell weather of their behaviour.
Who will pay the cost for producing complete and timely auction results? They can’t be provided for free.
Those with a vested interest in presenting themselves as above board citizens of the property world. They happily state a number of them for free. It’s not hard to say not sold for free too.
Given they’re around 75% of the way there now with their reporting, I doubt it would too much of a stretch to get the rest in and put us back in our place when we continuously describe them as dishonest figure massage artists.
Why are the results not published on Wednesday when all the auction data comes in, instead of in an incomplete fashion.
The idea of releasing the data early without all the data shows desperation on the part of REIV as it’s a given that the headline number of auctions will look better than the actual number once all data has been complied.
And why the rush, only 3 more days until all settlements are in.
It’s very deceptive and miss-leads the general population who are most likely not aware of outstanding results data yet to come in.
Because the RE industry can use the excuse of not receiving all the data from agents to cover any undesirable results.
An independant body needs to created to monitor and publish RE data.
It does feel like they are calling the results early. One can only assume its in their favor, otherwise why not wait. Why the need to rush their figures out leaving then open for critics to pull them down?
There’s much to be gained from timely data but if its not accurate then it can do more harm than good.
I’d like to see some figures on the breakdown of the missing results. This will give an indication of any deliberate bias.
If its fair then I would expect the missing results to mirror the bulk, but if its way off we know there’s more going on.
. “One can only assume its in their favor, otherwise why not wait. Why the need to rush their figures out leaving then open for critics to pull them down?”
I would think the rush is definitely for their gain. I mean they need to get the figures into the next week’s advertising campaign, making sure its all spruiked up to “sell at auction”, pay all that money, “look at the great results!”
Its all part. of the scare campaign to buy now or miss out!
Scaring the ill-informed. It is like coercion, and it is deceitful.
I know so many people, even family who think if its in the newspaper it must be true and unbiased.
I would be happy with accurate, an option notably ignored by the housing industry.
Why would somebody go to the trouble and expense of arranging an auction only to sell before the date of the auction? Based on the stats presented we have only a 48% verified clearance rate in the true sense. Not sure if there’s any trend data available, but could the number of “sold prior” properties tell us something about vendors’ tendency to take the hand off somebody – anybody – who makes them a non-lowball offer? After all, presumably that same offer would be made at the auction if the market actually values the place at the price offered? If the market doesn’t, then you’ve kissed the difference goodbye. And vendors must be making their own risk assessment of that outcome vs the cost of actually proceeding with the auction.
I haven’t been following the figues, but a 23% (at least) “sold prior” figure seems intuitively quite high to me. I wonder if there are any noticeable trends in the proportion of “sold prior” results? Could be a useful gauge of market (vendor) confidence. As it is, it seems that the vested interests are happy to claim it as the same as a sale at auction. Not sure that’s really right.
I would be happy with all auction clearance rates to be advertised on the following Wednesday as to give the in this case REIV enough time to get their ducks in order. If still missing / postponed by the following Wednesday than it must be counted as failed. Easy. My major issue has always been that the spruikers hang their hats on these initial figures and therefore mislead the general population.