NSW Good outlook for Sydney Property in 2018

It's not last year.

 

Yep great result for a market in decline... I.e. nothing to write home about

 

Im in.

 

Wages are stuck in a coma, so don’t expect a big pay rise this year

This will seriously curtail growth in Sydney/Melbourne compared to other areas of the country as they have the highest property prices.

 

I love it their used to be my weekend home when I lived in the area.
Please let me know when you are in Sydney it would be nice.

 

I'm in Sydney. @Meristone Double bay coffee with us lads

 

Ok done! I'm in Rose Bay and unemployed so I can make it anytime

 

Just to point out, the 73% result is all of NSW (including other major markets like Newcastle which might be moving in a completely different direction to Sydney), so the number for Sydney is best taken as Domain's result. Still, it's hard to know where the result should stand. I noticed Domain's result dropped from last week (69%) while CoreLogic's went up.

@HGM you've hit the nail on the head; a comparison to what results were doing last year is probably the most reliable thing this stat offers now. Auction clearance rates have become unreliable, with too many unreported auctions week to week. The best comparison is either to last year, or over at least a month in terms of direction.

 

PM yas.

 

Well no but it's a trend. How the result compares to the same time last year is very helpful in terms of where the market is sitting. A fair fewer homes are selling at auction than last year. Comparing week to week is hard because of the growing number of unreported auctions, so if you're not comparison to last year, it's best to take at least a month of resultsto see if it's going up or down or staying steady.

 

whats happening in London?

 

Ultimately if people want to view the data in a one sided way and continue to bash something, it doesnt matter what is being posted they will be of the same opinion still.

I have not posted this to provide food for thought for the conspiracy theory enthusiasts. Its just data. If it was reliable 5 years ago it will be reliable today and if it wasnt then it wont be today either. Use your common-sense.

Playing with words and just posting to stir things up and get under each other's skin isn't really going to help anyone.

There is the Domain data if you dont like the "NSW" in the auction results data which is within reason close to the REA data. But again if you know better, feel free to ignore my post.

 

What? How am I viewing it in a one sided way? How am I a "conspiracy enthusiast?" Do you understand how data works? Mathematically, smaller sample sizes are less reliable and more open to swings. Fewer auctions are actually going ahead or being reported, according to the numbers. That has a huge effect on data reliability; the same methodology used five years ago is not necessarily as reliable if one of the variables (the number of auctions being reported relative to the number of auctions listed) undergoes a shift due to a change in reporting, market behaviour or otherwise.

Suggesting that is a conspiracy theory is as dismissive as it is ridiculous. I'm not "playing with words" or "stirring things up" in explaining basic data analysis. Frankly I think I was perfectly pleasant in my earlier comment. Your response was defensive and completely over the top. All I did was tell you one of the values you claimed to represent Sydney actually applies to all of NSW (a fact) and suggest some of the possible limitations of auction clearance rates. Honestly people are overly fixated on them (a few posters seem intent on holding them out as "proof" Sydney isn't experiencing a downturn).

 

Prices have come a bit since Brexit.

Good buying I reckon....

 

Whats is your point? that the data is unreliable?

I said this in my post:

Its just data. If it was reliable 5 years ago it will be reliable today and if it wasnt then it wont be today either. Use your common-sense.

Who cares?

Either there is a conspiracy here where agents are fudging numbers or the numbers are right. These numbers have been reported for years now. Howcome all of a sudden you have developed a keen interest in how they are being reported?

Even if what you are saying is true, so what?

Suggesting that agents are conspiring to fool you is ridiculous. Are you saying that even if by some elaborate conspiracy plans, all agents around Sydney collaborated with each other and decided to report false numbers, you couldnt look into sold data and make an informed decision yourself?

Over the top is writing two paragraphs trying to teach how data is being reported when you dont even know it yourself. Get over it.

Its auction results data, right or wrong it is being reported by the only two prominent property advertisement portals in Australia. If you dont like it, write a them a complaint letter or something.

Government once used the number of adverts going on seek to determine unemployment numbers. Only if you knew how agencies have their way with their advert numbers and packages on seek. It means nothing. Find a better hubby.

 

Tenex...why do you persist and discount the evidence?

You obviously are entitled to your opinion but me thinks you are in la la land and do not want to hear anything that contravenes that Sydney is in the midst of long overdue correction.

Most people can no longer borrow to the dizzing sums of money...due to APRA and the banks...investors are thin on the ground....and the Chinese investors have disappeared...so what exactly is going to drive the market up......

I for one is watching the market closely and in some areas the drops have been 150...250...drops...and these are places which have sold for 1.45m to 1.8m....only a year ago.

 

Tenex, I'm surprised to see this post from you. I understand El Nino... but clearance rate?

It's well known the clearance rates are not reliable. For many years. Due to wrong methodology, not only sampling size. It was critised in media as well and can be easily verified for any auction date. Their numbers are more or less reliable only when 'reported:listed' ratio is close to 100% (let's say 85-90%). In other cases, only fools (or who want to fool) can quote it and 'analyse'.

It's not about "reporting false numbers", it's about "not reporting when sales are weak AND an auction failed".

Once methodology is changed to have the reporting compulsory, the rates will be much more reliable. Till that moment their number are rubbish. It's only useful to check individual sales.

 

Or there's a middle ground, where the methodology just isn't great. It's not a conspiracy. It's just not as meaningful a statistic in the current environment. I'm not suggesting agents are out to fool you.

No they still do this, it's a regularly reported statistic. Unemployment though is calculated according to an international standard.

But I feel we'll have to agree to disagree here.

 

Sash I like you, do you like me?

Will you teach more of your property investment stories? you know the ones you have learned from attending auctions and talking to your neighbour.

 

I am really not sure why you have jumped up and down over a simple post of some reported data.

I have simply quoted another website, if you have a problem with it, why not write to them telling them their information is wrong?