by frog
Sayeth the NZ Herald:
the number of mortgagee sales – where a borrower’s property is sold by the [bank] – reached the highest levels since records began
They’ve only been keeping records since 1994 though 
At the end of the article there are some numbers, which I made a graph of
Manukau (orange line) is pretty extraordinary – in 2007 there were less forced sales than Waitakere.
The graph is a bit misleading – in percentage terms, Auckland City had less of an increase than most. Manukau is still clearly the stand-out, with a 1242% increase.
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | % increase | |
| Auckland City | 86 | 161 | 387 | 450.00% |
| Manukau | 26 | 147 | 323 | 1242.31% |
| North Shore | 20 | 65 | 173 | 865.00% |
| Rodney | 19 | 56 | 155 | 815.79% |
| Waitakere | 31 | 54 | 135 | 435.48% |
| Papakura | 7 | 19 | 53 | 757.14% |
| Franklin | 8 | 17 | 48 | 600.00% |
Does anyone have figures for earlier than 2007?
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by frog on Thu, March 4th, 2010
Tags: economy, housing, mortgage, mortgagee sales
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Foreclosure eminently states how these premises lack banking’s liquidity, but my question is do they leak?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Come on, Frog, this is poor work. I looked at that graph and thought, gee, there must be a lot of data to support drawing such nice curves. Then I looked further and discovered you had THREE data points. Then I looked further still, and discovered you were calculating percentages to SIX significant figures.
You can always fit a quadratic perfectly to any set of three points [unless they're in a straight line, that is]. It doesn’t tell you anything useful. What would you have done if you had 2006 data — fit a cubic?
And quoting figures like “600.00%” for Franklin suggests that you can tell the difference between that and 600.01%. But this is nonsense. The smallest possible increment you can have in that case is 12.5%.
So, to improve:
1. Show the data points on your graph as dots, or circles, or triangles, or something, so it’s obvious how much data supports it.
2. Throw away the quadratics and fit straight lines instead.
3. Round all your percentages to the nearest 10%.
HTH. HAND!
[PS. I tried posting earlier from my iPhone but was having problems. If there are dupes, keep this one.]
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
These are good
http://www.zoodle.co.nz/cms/blog/mortgagee-sales-close-out-2009-at-record-levels.html
http://www.zoodle.co.nz/cms/blog/mortgagee-sales-in-september-grow-to-set-new-record-high.html
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Sorry, those curves are way too smooth to be real.
Don’t fudge them like that! It leaves an instant Bad Taste in the mouth.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
Umm, John Foughy and John Carter, you can’t deny the data which frog has also provide, for those who like facts as well as coloured-line graphs.
Frog-
so this is what Nat ministers mean when they say ‘the recession is lifting?” – oh, there’s no risk of mortgagee-sale in Remuera or Parnell, it’s all ok again, then!
BTW, the last big king-hit of mortgagee sales was at the post-’87 crash property-slump low-tide of 1992, which is why the figures began to be collected in 1994 – someone decided it was a good indicator of banking equity, to know what was happening in the housing mortgage market, so that banks couldn’t end up required to shed all their mortgages like Marac did in ’92.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
It would be nice to have more data-points. What would be more intersting is to know how many are owner-occupied mortgagee sales and how many are rented properties under thwe hammer. My understanding of media comment is that it is the later. If so, it appears as if some folk are “investing” poorly, much to their angst… and also to others unable to afford the properties these investors “purchased”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)