Mortgagee sales in Auckland – graph

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

mortgagee_sales_aucklandManukau (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?

6 thoughts on “Mortgagee sales in Auckland – graph

  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”.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.]

  5. Foreclosure eminently states how these premises lack banking’s liquidity, but my question is do they leak?

Comments are closed.