Auction clearance rate steady amid high unreported results

By Leith van Onselen

The Real Estate Institute of Victoria (REIV) yesterday released its preliminary auction results for the weekend just gone, which registered a solid 69% preliminary clearance rate on 204 auctions reported to the REIV. This compares to last week’s preliminary clearance rate of 71% from 108 auctions, which was later revised down to 69% once late results were chased-up (note: last week’s final clearance rate still included 8 auctions with “no result”, which were likely failed auctions). It was also much better than the 54% clearance rate recorded in the same weekend of last year.

However, this week’s preliminary clearance rate is tempered somewhat by the large number of missing results, with 48 auctions listed as “no result” by the REIV, representing 19% of total auctions held over the weekend. The final reported clearance rate could, therefore, 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).

Auction volumes are expected to continue rising over coming weeks, the REIV expecting around 470 auctions next week followed by 970 the weekend after.

Note: there were no auctions results published by the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales.

unconventionaleconomist@hotmail.com

www.twitter.com/leithvo

 




15 Responses to “ “Auction clearance rate steady amid high unreported results”

  1. mlsc1974 says:

    Wondering if someone can tell me if the following observed situation in legal or not in NSW.

    On the weekend I went to an open inspection in the neighbourhood for a sticky beak. The auction is scheduled to occur in 2 weeks and the guide price on all documents and from the agent’s mouth is $630k. A couple of buyers were talking to the agent with keen interest and asking what he thought it will ultimately go for at auction….

    The agent replies “we already have a couple of offers and the highest is $690k, we doubt it will even get to auction”…

    So, I left thinking is this guy talking up the price and just lying. Or, if this offer is real then is it dishonest/illegal to advertise it in this way.

    I don’t know the answers – but at a minimum I find this scenario highly deceitful and unethical.

    • Christiaan says:

      “highly deceitful and unethical”
      .
      .
      Google that and im sure it takes you to the REIV website. :-D

      • Snagdog says:

        Hahahahahahaha. I love to know how the Dr W types talk about these things to there family and friends

      • Winston says:

        I honestly don’t know what’s in it for Dr W to keep talking up the real estate market. Surely the press and APM will get just as many readers regardless of whether the market is rising or falling (actually, probably more in a falling market). He must be highly leveraged!

      • Snagdog says:

        As I have previously said why not wait till mid week to give enough time to these extremely busy agents and agency types and then announce the clearance rates. An accurate figure that the spruikers can use as the premise of their optimistic articles aimed at the future buyers/ investors. It’s common sense if transparency and ethics are important.

        Leith can you lead the charge ?????? Or get it onto Kochie/ today tonight etc.. And let let everyone know what’s going on.

    • squirell says:

      2 things should happen as a bulwark against REA deceit.
      1) mandatory up to date independant market valuation should be provided on sale of ALL properties
      2) mandatory up to date building report should be provided on sale of ALL properties
      3) cost shared by purchaser and vendor on sale.

      1) and 2) are small change assuming a sale occurs. Its when as a purchaser you fork out 500 buck each only to discover you arent in the range OR the house would cost too much to fix up that its oppressive. We should do everything to encourage transparency, ultimately that is good for markets.
      … but dont hold your breath. The Aus housing market exists for the property industry.

      • The Patrician says:

        Whoa, what have we got here?

        The unholy alliance exposed.

        I hope Fairfax have some good evidence to back it up.

  2. Stomper says:

    Welcome to the world of Real Estate.

    “Is this guy talking up the price or just lying?”

    In RE speak this is “tactics”

    At the end of the day the buyer has to do their homework and establish fair value.

    The RE agent acts on behalf of the vendor – it’s their job to get the best price outcome by whatever legal means at their disposal.

    The way they work is to firstly set the “price” low – get vendor interest – then play one off another until they reach maximum price.

    Is it deceitful and unethical?

    Yes, but only if you don’t realise that’s the game.

  3. forty-niner says:

    Over the last few months I’ve noticed some properties are advertised for auction but don’t quite make it to auction day (i.e. they are advertised right up to auction day, but come auction day are listed as ‘sold prior to auction’).
    Would these sales be included in auction clearance results?

    • Stomper says:

      I think you will find that properties “sold prior to auction” WILL be included in the clearance rates.

      Properties “withdrawn prior to auction” WONT be included in the clearance rates.

      and then there are all those properties passed in at auction and not subsequently sold that go missing from the clearance rates.

      Like unemployment statistics the devil is in the detail!

  4. Cornflakes says:

    I attend an “auction” on the weekend which was called off at the time of the auction. My guess is there was a lack of serious buyers as they paid great attention to me.

  5. myne says:

    Clearly unreported results should be counted as “not sold” and revised upward later or removed from the total to work out something approaching reality.

    This current ridiculous method has a very defined upward bias. Not reported = sold!

    What retard thinks that’s a fair and honest reporting methodology?

    • Cornflakes says:

      They are after all real estate agents; known for their upstanding honesty and they have never been known to put a biased positive spin on things.

      But seriously, one thing that is always missed is there are often a handful of Sunday auctions in Melbourne (in the Jewish areas in particalur) that are not picked up until later in the week.