I have a question on Past Auction/Sales Results????

Hey Darcy,

We use RP Data…..subscription to this allows you to access sale prices but only gets loaded onto the system a few days after the property has settled.

Alternatively if you're only after the odd property sale price then you can buy individual reports.

Link: http://www.realtor.com.au or http://www.rpdata.com.au

there are a few more services similar to this but i can't remember their names….one of them even sms's you the details.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Kim

Keep in mind with AUCTION results that many include the results of a sale that happens before or after the auction date.
This is spin on the actual result; especially if quoted in newspapers.
A sale made before or after the auction is not an auction result; it is a private sale.
This may not be important, but the r/e industry and newspapers use an inflated and false stat for AUCTIONS to promote auction sales and make the market look better than it really is.
Agents love them as they invariably get a fast result (a sale) – good or bad and make a few extra dollars along the way from advertising.
So there is a vested interest in promoting auctions as a tool to sell real estate.
Look carefully at the passed-in results of auctions in relation to the total amount of auctions, and who is funding the publication of those results.

Also beware of sales results that quote AVERAGE and MEDIAN PRICES. They are extremely generalised and may not reflect the true value of a particular property type in a particluar neighborhood.

For example; the MEDIAN PRICE of a suburb is the price of the property that is exactly halfway between the total number of sales.
Say there are 100 sales for a suburb, and the median is quoted in the paper as $300k. This is the price of the 50th property sale.
Then there are another 20 houses sold in that suburb for around $250k over the next 3 months. The median price will reflect a price drop in the median.

For example; the AVERAGE PRICE for a house in a suburb is the price of each house when averaged out across the total amount of sales dollars for that suburb.
Say there are 100 sales, and the total dollars for those sales is $40mill. The average price of a house is $400k. But then the next 50 sales are of houses in the $700-800k price range and no-one buys a house below $400k for the period being studied. This will reflect a rise in the average price, but the real price of the lower end houses hasn't increased at all.

"The Auction programme is a three phase marketing process that allows the Seller to present their property to the market without a price in order to let interested Bidders compete in an open and visual forum – the Purchaser is the person who is prepared to offer the highest price.   This process sometimes allows for the sale to be made prior to the Auction date (and this is often noted on the advertising as 'prior offers accepted') at Auction or after Auction.   The only time that a Vendor price is mentioned is after Auction because by then the Vendor should know where the buying public see the value of their property. (this does not mean that the Vendor will listen to this information) and this is the only phase that the property is classed as private treaty."

Jon,
Sorry, but you sound like an agent making a pitch to a prospective Vendor.
Are you an agent? I was for a time. I still hold a current Victorian Real Estate Representative's Licence (Victoria is the home of the auction). I've also been involved in buying and selling property since 1985, have dealt with 100's of agents and am a fan of Neil Jenman and Terry Ryder. They don't like auctions either. If you haven't seen their websites or read their books I suggest you should. They are very informative for the consumers of real estate – the buyers and sellers.
Without blowing my own trumpet; I have lots of experience in this caper.

You are right Jon; I don't like auctions as there are so many dodgy practices involved in their process it is totally disgusting, and in my opinion the process is bordering on, at the very least; gross negligence by the real estate industry for not cleaning up the disgrace that it is. The terms "overquoting and "underquoting" should never have to be mentioned in the auction process of selling real estate, but unfortunatley they are mentioned – very often.

"The Auction programme is a three phase marketing process"
Jon, you are also right that it is a 3 phase process; 
1. "buy" the listing. (inflating the prospective sale price to the Vendor to get the sale authority).
2. "condition" the Vendor. (work on them to drop their expectations of a high sale price during the marketing campaign).
3. get the property "on the market" at the auction and make a sale at all costs. (pressure the Vendor to allow the property to sell with or without further bids).
 
"the Purchaser is the person who is prepared to offer the highest price."
The Purchaser is the person who is prepared to pay ONLY the price they have to pay to buy the property. You know as well as I do Jon, that this is almost always not how much they can actually pay.
The auction system quite often robs the Vendor of the best price they might get for their property, and many Vendors, who are inexperienced in real estate selling/buying don't know this.
For example; if I have $400k to spend on a property, and at the auction my nearest competition only bids $385k, do you think I will bid the full $400k to secure the property? Absolutely not Jon; I'm going to offer $385,500, or even $385,100 thus robbing the Vendor of $15k that I might have had to spend if there was genuine interest in the property and I had to offer my best price, not knowing what other buyers have offered.

"This process sometimes allows for the sale to be made prior to the Auction date (and this is often noted on the advertising as 'prior offers accepted') at Auction or after Auction."
So if offers are accepted prior to, or after the auction, then why have an auction that costs a lot of non-refundable dollars at all? Aren't offers to purchase normally what occur in a Private Treaty Sale? Of course they are Jon.

An auction sale is where the property is put before the public who will openly place bids to hopefully buy that property. The property is sold to the highest bidder on the day, provided the highest bid has surpassed the vendor's reserve price.
If someone makes an offer before the auction and the Vendor accepts it, then this is a PRIVATE TREATY SALE. No AUCTION took place.
The same thing goes for a sale that is completed after the auction has been conducted and the property is passed in. The Vendor is then negotiating with only one buyer; this is a PRIVATE TREATY SALE.

Of course Jon, the real estate industry will spin this result to show it as an auction sale. Everybody then gets the impression that auctions get results; and they do. That's why agents love them. They are virtually guaranteed a sale and a commission no matter whether the Vendor has received the best price or not. The agent's number one priority is to get a sale and the all-important commision, auction fee and advertising budget dollars that are subsidised by the printed media.

It is a well known fact that real estate agents try to steer the Vendor towards an auction because it usually results in a sale by a certain date, (or soon after if the agent has done his/her job well) and they can also generate thousands of dollars in extra income through the marketing campaign. Of course, there is also the auction fee as well.

The normal procedure in the 1st "phase" is the agent tells the Vendor they can get X dollars for the property. They usually inflate the price to "buy" the listing; the vendor gets excited over the prospect of a high price for their home. Then the agent advertises the property several thousand dollars below what the agent has promised the Vendor they will get for it. When the Vendor asks why the advertised price is low, the agent invariably responds with a line such as "this will attract a lot more buyers and create more interest". The problem is, it attracts buyers who can't afford to pay what the Vendor is expecting and the buyers don't even know they can't afford it yet. This is "open and visual"? yeah, right.

The 2nd "phase" is the "conditioning" of the Vendor. Over the next few weeks, as open for inspections are held to show prospective buyers the property (and for agents to collect names and numbers for future sales leads) the buyers make tentative or even strong offers, or show interest at the price range that was advertised and also what they can afford. When people ask what the property will sell for, the agent is usually vague and gives broad ball-park figures; quite often well below what the agent has told the Vendor they can sell it for, and what the Vendor is expecting. Of course, the agent doesn't let the Vendor know what he/she is telling the prospective buyers about price range.
The agent meets with the Vendor at various times to let them know that there is interest, but at a lower price range. The agent may say something like "this is what the market is telling us your property is worth". This hopefully plants in the the Vendor's mind the thought that the property may not sell for what they expected, and to be prepared to accept a lower price.

The 3rd "phase" is on auction day. The Vendor meets with the agent, who summarises the marketing programme and shows the Vendor the level of interest and/or any offers (usually too low to be of any interest to the Vendor). The agent will also ask the vendor what the reserve is. The auction is conducted with serious (and painfully annoying) theatrics, and hopefully bids are received.
a) If there is no interest the property is passed in and the whole program reverts back to a Private Treaty Sale. The Vendor has just done a $1000 or so for the waste of time auction and more for the subsidised advertising, and will need to start again. The agent gets the auction fee and the advertising budget. Yahoo!! The Vendor still hasn't sold the property.
b) The property has bids, but not high enough to sell the property to the Vendor's expectations. The property is "passed in" to the highest bidder. The Vendor now negotiates with the highest bidder; a Private Treaty Sale occurs, the Vendor sells the property hopefully and the Vendor has wasted the cost of an auction. The agent gets a commission, auction fee and subsidised advertising budget. Double Yahoo!!
c) The property is sold at auction after it is put 'on the market". Many times the bidding will end soon after this with no further increase in price. The Vendor is obliged to sell the property now. No-one knows how much the successful buyer would have paid; probably more. The agent gets the auction fee, the commission and the subsidised advertising budget. Double Yahoo!! The Vendor may have sold it for more. We will never know.

"The only time that a Vendor price is mentioned is after Auction because by then the Vendor should know where the buying public see the value of their property."
The agent and the Vendor have already discussed the prospective price of the property when they sign the Sales Authority. No-one ever sells a property without a price in mind. In an auction, this is kept a secret from the buyers (and sometimes from the agent). This is not exactly an "open and visual forum" for the prospective purchasers.
In a Private Treaty Sale, everyone knows what the starting point is and the agent (if they are any good) will work hard to get a price as close to the asking price as possible. That's why they are paid very large commissions one would think.

My final shot is this Jon; if Auctions were such an "open and visual forum", then why did the Govt have to introduce a law to outlaw dummy bidding, and why did the Govt introduce fines (that are not enforced) for overquoting and underquoting?

I said: "For example; if I have $400k to spend on a property, and at the auction my nearest competition only bids $385k, do you think I will bid the full $400k to secure the property? Absolutely not Jon; I'm going to offer $385,500, or even $385,100 thus robbing the Vendor of $15k that I might have had to spend if there was genuine interest in the property and I had to offer my best price, not knowing what other buyers have offered".

Jon said: "This is right out of the Jenman handbook and is exactly an indication of how he works on peoples fear of loosing money. Let be honest, everyone knows that all Sellers have an inflated value of their property and all Sellers believe that they have paid too much for it and all Agents do nothing but get paid for just being there. But lets look at your example from both sides of the scenario".

Whether the above scenario is straight out of the Jenman handbook as you say, the above scenario of only bidding just enough to buy the property is one that I have witnessed many times myself. Neil didn't invent the scenario; he just reports on it. He has exposed the practices in public and agents don't like him for that.
Don't forget Jon that I am also a TERRY RYDER fan as well. He is a highly respected lawyer, specialising in property related issues. He has similar views as Neil and his website http://www.hotspotting.com.au is a great site for educating comsumers and investors alike.
Both of these men are successful in their own right before they ever started to go public with their views and findings. They don't need the extra money.

On the subject of the Vendor's inflated view of their properties' value, if the agent knows this, then why doesn't he/she say to the Vendor; "no, your house is not worth $500k; it is only worth about $450k and you are asking too much".
The agent chooses to say nothing because he/she knows they would not get the listing; no listings = no sales = no commission = no food on the table, so they go along with it and work on the Vendor, or hope for the best. The Vendor meanwhile, is waisting everyone's time either knowingly or unknowingly, and the agent facilitates this waste of time knowingly.
I once bought a house 8 months after it came on the market; having to wait until the price came down to somewhere near what it was really worth. Throughout the 8 months there were 3 different agents handling the sale (a Private Treaty sale). Did the agents try to tell the Vendor his price was way too high and he should drop the price? maybe. But with each agent the starting advertised price was the same as the with the last agent.
What we need is for a qualified valuer to tell the Vendor what the property is (officially) worth based on the valuer's expertise, then the Vendor makes up their own mind what they want to sell the property for. If it is priced correctly, it will sell in a few days to a week, if it isn't priced correctly, it will sit there until the Vendor comes to his/her senses and lowers the price.

On the subject of Neil Jenman using fear; he alerts people to the games and practices in the industry; just like I did in my post. This makes people educated, more informed and less likely to waste valuable time and money during the process of buying and/or selling. Many people spend many dollars and hours on building inspections etc, not knowing that they haven't got a hope in hell of every being able to afford the property they are hoping to buy. At least if there is a price tag on the property to begin with, they can then decide whether they can afford it or not, or make an attempt to haggle the price down to one they can afford. The haggling process, which pisses everyone off, is part of the deal, and the agent is paid handsomely to ferry the information back and forth. That's what they get paid for, and Vendors know they are always going to receive an offer below what they are asking unless there is a boom frenzy going on.

Of course; we could always just haggle directly with the Vendor and cut out the agent and save several thousand dollars for the Vendor in commissions; how would that be Jon? I'd love that, but not many people are game to sell their property without an agent unfortunately.

Even though I was talking to you Jon, I was actually trying through my post to alert many of the newbies on this forum to these situations and maybe they can avoid them; not fill them with fear. When I first started in property I had little education, so I was filled with fear. Now I have the education and the fear is gone.

Legislation is always changing to hopefully make things better in the auction process; but again, it is proof of the argument that there has to be legislation brought in in the first place to protect the consumer from what is largely a process rife with highly unethical tactics that cost consumers lots of money. And even though the legislation has/is changing; the auction process (at least in Victoria) is ostensibly unchanged and very little intervention by authorities ever happens to punish the bad guys. I am yet to see an agent get put out of business for underquoting an auction in Victoria.

I think there were a couple of agents fined in the last couple of years; it's a start.

To be honest, I think Jenman is a bit strange – in the Michael Jackson sense.  Especially after seeing his odd fascination with some dead Australian author I've never even heard of, on the ABC a few days ago.  But to give a voice to the general public on this…

Most people (both buyers and sellers) HATE auctions – and RE agents rate similar to car salesmen, telemarketers and Jehovah's Witnesses, on the opinion scale.

What people want is a set price – even if it is too high.  Then there can be some negotiation and someone will end up buying a house.  Oh sure, people will still go to auctions – but we hate doing it.  Most of us there are thinking, "For goodness sake – why all this foolishness!?  Just tell the vendor to set a vaguely reasonable price and SOMEONE will buy!"

It saves everyone's time, frustration, and means we don't have to deal with "those R/E creatures" any longer than absolutely necessary.  (No matter how much RE agents bill and coo at us – we all have this image in our minds they are vultures with knife and fork waiting to dine on us.)

While I think Jenman is a bit odd…  He (generally) only confirms what we the public suspected all along.