History of House Prices in New Zealand

[orion]

Would anyone have, or know of anyone that has a 50 year history of house prices in NZ?

What I would like is the following areas in a yearly graph format from 1960 until 2007: -

Whangarei
Auckland - (including 4 or 5 parts eg North Shore, Manukau, Remurewa etc)
Tauranga
Hamilton
Rotorua
Napier
Palmerston North
New Plymouth
Wellington - (including 4 or 5 parts eg Lower and Upper Hutt, Mirimar and Newtown)
Nelson
Christchurch
Dunedin
Invercargill

I would be very interested if anyone has a graph with these or similar on it. I have one starting in about 1980 somewhere, but would like to go back further if possible.

Regards
Graeme Fowler

[Ivanhoe]

Hi Graeme,
I found this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ce_History.gif
so I suppose QV should have this info?

[Glen]

Hi Graeme,
I found this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ce_History.gif
so I suppose QV should have this info?

'74.....ish looks great!(I wouldn't know personally, as I hadn't even started school),....But bring it on again!

[Hound]

Interesting when they go below zero, it's not by much & not for very long. Demand seems pretty constant. Might stick the graph on my desktop.

Much outcry, little outcome. - Aesop

[orion]

Thanks for the graph, interesting.

Well, I found the stats I was looking for and have also collected all the median prices for 2007 in the areas. I also found the 1968 newspaper I was looking for. Lower Hutt house prices were approx $12,000 and Tauranga prices were $13,000 approx.

Hutt Valley is now approx $333,000 and Tauranga is $370,000.

Since 1968, average rate od increase is about 8.5% p.a. for Hutt Valley and approx 8.75% p.a. for Tauranga.

From the other areas I have checked so far including Wgtn, Auckland, P/North, Taupo, Rotorua, Gisborne, Dunedin, Napier/Hastings since 1981 the approx increase has been around 8% p.a. increase for all.

So much again for the theory about buying in high capital growth areas.
If this doesn't prove the point to people, I don't know what will!!

Regards
Graeme Fowler

[Gatekeeper]

That is interesting, pity theres not data further back (anyone?)

It made me think of the other variables, like land size, house size, and inflation over that period.

The CPI inflation was easy, RBNZ have a calculator, it was 7% compounding.
The average house size was about 60% bigger in 1998 than in 1975, so it may have doubled now, and more than likely the land area is a lot smaller.

The average house in the Hutt back in 68 was probably sitting on a big piece of land. Nowadays, it's hard to find one that hasn't been watered down.

But yeah, all regions seem to rise at about the same level over time.

[orion]

That is interesting, pity theres not data further back (anyone)?

I actually nearly said that jokingly in the last message! I was going to say "I suppose people will want to go back even further for more proof!" I would think it would have been similar before this as well.

The jobs section in the 1968 paper was there as well and wages were approx $42 - $50 p.w. which is say about $2,500 p.a. If the wages now are $35,000 p.a., house prices in the Hutt Valley if keeping solely in line with wages would be about $170,000, so they have kept well above that which shows that it is takes working a lot longer to buy a house these days than back then. Also interest rates were a lot lower, Mum & Dad had a 30 yr loan fixed at 3% p.a. This was $23 a month and finally got paid off in 1993 after 30 years. They are still in the same house today. They paid $6,000 for this in 1963, it's a Beazley home with approx 650m2 land and 3 brms.
Taxes have gone up hugely over the last 40 years as well, now most families have both partners working to get by whereas in the 1960's one person could work, provide everything for the family as well as pay a house off.

Regards
Graeme Fowler

[Commercial Dan]

Don't forget the severe inflationery times back in the late 70s, real prices (without inflation) dropped 30% in a ot of areas, we could get something similar this time in these types of poor areas.

Remember in high cap growth areas you have more certainty, as the greatest investment champion Warren Buffet says, 'buy quality and hold on forever' with his less is more approach.

Crap will always be crap!

[orion]

Don't forget the severe inflationery times back in the late 70s, real prices (without inflation) dropped 30% in a ot of areas, we could get something similar this time in these types of poor areas.

Remember in high cap growth areas you have more certainty, as the greatest investment champion Warren Buffet says, 'buy quality and hold on forever' with his less is more approach.

Crap will always be crap!

I think you're missing the whole point!!

What do you mean high cap growth areas?? I just said they are all pretty much the same over a long period of time, what do you not understand??

Regards
Graeme Fowler

[Commercial Dan]

I think you're missing the whole point!!

What do you mean high cap growth areas?? I just said they are all pretty much the same over a long period of time, what do you not understand??

Regards
Graeme Fowler

What you don't understand is that you are measuring things in % terms not money terms, properties in the likes of Mt Victoria in Wellington are worth more and go up more in money terms, you are better off buying more of those than rubbish in the likes of Stokes Valley. Anything close to the city (with the shift of people to cityt life) will be far more properous in the longterm.

You are also far more likely to get a premium in a high cap growth area like the one mentioned above because the people buying them have plenty of money or borrowing power and are motivated by status more than anything. It is commonsense investing, low cap growth properties are for the financially naieve.

[Monid]

*gets popcorn, sits back relaxes*

Well this should be fun...

David

[Halfway To Paradise]

Here in Rotorua I have been keeping an eye on prices in one of the 'exclusive areas' where people would expect to see good capital growth and these properties have been sitting around the $750k mark for the last 2 years. Areas which many would consider less likely to benefit from good capital growth have gone up by about 30-50% in the last 2 years.

Rob

[brettc]

Wrong timeframe

I have been keeping an eye on prices in one of the 'exclusive areas' .... have been sitting around the $750k mark for the last 2 years

Yes, but the exclusive area would have jumped 50% in the 2 years previous. The growth starts in the quality areas, and spreads outwards.

I believe there is thory kicking round that the same is true in a slump?

[orion]

What you don't understand is that you are measuring things in % terms not money terms, properties in the likes of Mt Victoria in Wellington are worth more and go up more in money terms, you are better off buying more of those than rubbish in the likes of Stokes Valley.

Okay, I might have to go slow here. So I will just take one comment at a time so as not to confuse things.
When you say, measure things in % term, not money terms - do you mean for example if you buy two properties in Stokes Valley with the equivalent value in Mt Victoria? Eg price for two Stokes Valley properties = $400,000 and one Mt Victoria property = $400,000?
So, if they go up 10% each over say 5 years, the two in Stokes Valley are now $220,000 each which is $440,000 and the Mt Victoria one is also $440,000.

If I look back at the 1968 paper, Khandallah and Oriental Parade had properties for sale at around $20,000 - $22,000 with one Khandallah property at $32,000. I would think that compared to the other suburbs such as Naenae, Tawa, Porirua, Stokes Valley etc, they are still very much in relation to what they were 40 years ago. Newlands and Lower Hutt were around $11,000 - $13,000 back then.

Sorry Commercial Dan, but your logic just does not add up with what the actual facts are. But don't be too concerned, most other people have been brainwashed their entire investing lives with the same false information.
Most other investors also believe there are such things as high capital growth areas and low growth areas as well.

Regards
Graeme Fowler

[Commercial Dan]

The areas I refer to are far more exclusive now than in the past and it will stay that way for a while...numbers of properties in little towns or poor areas are for the financially naieve. You refer to Oriental Bay being 22k and Lower Hutt being 12k or so back in 1968. Oriental Bay is now 2 mil and Stokes Valley 400k, ahh, looks like one has grown more than the other!