Are Victorian Statements of Information useless?

Domain had a reporter at the sale of Josh and Elyse's home today, and the report mentions:

The man and the couple then went toe to toe in $1000 bids until the couple eventually placed the winning bid of $1,631,000, which was $80,000 above the reserve price.

So the reserve was around $1.55 million, but both the listing and statement of information put the estimate at $1.35 to $1.45 million. It's not the first time that it's happened either. Which makes me wonder if the whole underquoting laws are a bit useless.

That said, 4 Harvey Street in Malvern had an estimated price of $2 million, but sold for $2.7 million today, which would appear to be a much more egregious act of underquoting than Josh and Elyse's agents went in for.

It's possible that the buyer bought it and number 6 (estimated price of $3 million, went for $3.5 million) in order to consolidate the blocks into a single 1100 m2 lot, in which case it's a bit of a bargain compared to 9 Haverbrack Avenue...

 

People will pay what they want to pay - there was a painting that sold for nearly 600M, is it actually worth 600M I guess so but I would only pay 1k for it as I value it very differently.

As a vendor I would rather get 1.6M over 1.5M and I don't care which buyers I upset as I can only sell it once.

 

I think "The Block" proved how ineffective Victoria's underquoting laws are.
Ronnie and Georgia’s home was passed in as it failed to reach reserve. Highest bidder offered above reserve and was knocked back and an offer was sought from a party that had not bidded...and their (higher) offer was accepted and Consumer Affairs Victoria approved the conduct.

So it would seem that "underquoting" is fine iin Victoria if you call it a "reseserve" as you dont have to sell on receipt of an offer abo e reserve.

 

Effective Underquoting - Fletcher's

 

Yep, not worth the pdf they are printed on! Add 50-100k plus to any range, or indicative selling price.
Also, you'll soo notice comparables are usually the oldest comparables available, and not really comparable be it the part of the suburb, the house or the land size. I have felt like reporting underquoting a few times but its not worth my time or energy for something that is not likely to result in anything happening anyway. It does irritate me though. Perhaps Consumer affairs should offer a reward system for dobbing in underquoting, and stricter criteria for quoting so that they can't lie their way out of it.

 

Depends on the agent.

I certainly wouldn’t rely on what they put down re the estimate but at least you get something to work with. It certainly beats the old “contact agents”.

Agents are really gaming it on the comparable sales though. More often than not they have concluded there are no available comparable sales even if the neighboring duplicate house has sold in the last six months.

If they do provide comparable sales they are usually worse properties which they use to justify the low range price indication. But hey, they used to do this anyway..

More info is always better than nothing, it can even be a way to open up a conversation with the agent.

However as alway you absolutely must do your own research

 

Well, property's not a commodity that tends towards stable pricing. There's powerful emotion involved in the decision for most and people are notoriously unpredictable. I really struggle to see the point of underquoting legislation as any market can go down, or up.

 

I still don’t understand why the minimum price that the vendor is willing to take is not the starting price. Why start it 10% under what they will even consider? To me it only attracts people with lower budgets than the target market, except those who have bought previously and know to look at properties priced 100k below your budget to actually have a chance in getting something within your budget

 

So this property was advertised with price range between 590000 and 640000. At the auction, it was passed in at 665000. Is it not a case of underquoting? Should they not be reported?

 

Yes they should be reported. Passednin price was higher than any of their comparables too

 

I went to an auction a few weeks ago where the SOI had a single price of $1.45M. I spoke to the agent afterwards and he said the reserve was $1.6M. When asked about underquoting he said it's not underquoting cos he didn't know what the reserve was going to be until the night before...

 

This property was advertised at $480k to $528k.
https://www.realestate.com.au/property/unit-2-24-manuka-dr-ferntree-gully-vic-3156
During the auction, it was passed in at $600k (14% higher than the top of SOI).

 

I think this should be reported.

I think this should be reported.

It's about time agents were brought to account for breaking the law.

 

The Hughesdale one is now marked as sold - agents must have known they could get another $20k out of the top bidder post auction.

 

I have been through the same thing as a seller. I don't remember the exact numbers but say I wanted $700k, the agent wanted to list at $550k. We argued for days about the list price and in the end I gave in and let him do what he wanted. Well, at the auction the bidding got to (say) $680k and he passed the property in. I don't think it is right and it's what the underquoting laws are supposed to stop.

 

RateMyAgent don't seem to have a problem with underquoting.

Here's their poster boy: https://www.propertyobserver.com.au...erquoter-tim-heavyside-agent-of-the-year.html