How is this news

[wilditr]

The purchaser knew the market and was able to make use of his network.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11813743

[Don't believe the Hype]

The story is about the greed of a previous owner who couldn't care less that the property was on sold their only issue is that someone else made money.

had Mr. WU not been able to settle and the original owners had to relist and sell for less would they have been prepared to take the loss or would they chase Mr WU for the difference I wonder.

The original sale had a willing buyer & seller, above advertised price. The fact that Mr WU knew he had a market that would pay more is not illegal - the original owners might want to have a chat to their realestate agent and how well they did.

[Anthonyacat]

Wu had better be getting some form of compensation from his lawyer, now that a confidentiality breach caused his name to appear in the paper in such a negative light.

This isn't news, it's clickbait. Like 40% (and rapidly growing) of the rest of the Herald.

[jimO]

i think their land agent needs a kick in the nuts

[Anthonyacat]

The guy says he's declared the profit for tax purposes, but it happened in May last year, and it isn't yet the end of March. Bit funny there.

[sidinz]

i think their land agent needs a kick in the nuts

Nope. Article says:

"There was nothing in recent sales history anywhere in the neighbourhood that was indicating a price around that figure [$900,000]."

So they have no reason to be, as they put it in the article, "pissed off." It was marketed at the prevailing market rates and sold for slightly more. Nothing to see here.

They also made $400K from the house and said:

"Another $80,000 would have been amazing," Joanne Booth said. "We would have no mortgage now at all."

In other words, they made enough on their house so that at their relatively young ages, they have a mortgage of under $80K. Clearly something to wail and gnash their teeth about, because they think it could have been more. In reality, it couldn't have been, because they didn't have the contacts who, it seems from the article, paid over the odds for the house.

[Nick G]

Check out these rents. It seems Mr Wu might have talked this one up a bit...

[Don't believe the Hype]

Check out these rents. It seems Mr Wu might have talked this one up a bit...

Seeing that sort of thing down here too... Out of town (maybe even country) buyers paying over the top then trying to rent far above market. They sit around a few weeks before slowly dropping back to reality

[Nick G]

It happens a lot. We get rents appraised independently for any of our projections and then advise buyers take the mid-range. If projected numbers don't come through then we hear about it REALLY fast. Fair to say we've been through a few property managers....

[flyernzl]

Wrote to the Herald, pointing out that Mr Wu was acting as a property trader not a property investor.
That letter appeared in todays Herald print edition.

[eri]

saw that

see this?

The watchdog for real estate agents says it has reviewed 300 cases in which Auckland properties were quickly onsold to check whether the agent involved had acted illegally.see this?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11815142

[cube]

flyernzl's letter: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/your-views...ectid=11814614

[Frezzinghot]

Nothing to see here people, move along, move along!

[donna]

Great work. It's about time reports/journos got it right. Ignorance is inexcusable - these journos are professionals! Property trading has been an acceptable practice for businesses for years and now it's mainstream for sole traders etc too so well done in calling the Journo to task - not that we're expecting any change in their tactic - to do so would limit their ability to 'landlord bash' and with the election this year we're going to see more of it.

cheers,

donna