. Up to 15 % variations on vals on the same property in the same week,
ta
rolf
and therein lies the behind the scenes issue.
15%, in the good old accounting world: the issue of materiality is 10%
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
. Up to 15 % variations on vals on the same property in the same week,
ta
rolf
Auction on the weekend for a place where a client bought a slightly above median priced house at near 300 k.
Auction was well attended and contested, the property was a little tired and was in need to a tidy up.
Well................for the 3rd time in 12 years, the banks valuer has come back with a lower val than the public auction price.
Won't be long IMO before a lot more auctions end up in trouble as well after banks start cracking down on hammer price valuations...
I think your comment that is just silly. The definition of "market value" is fully covered by a price being paid at auction, under the hammer, after a 4-6 week public auction campaign.
Sorry rolf, but that can't be right, such occurrence is not possible according to Propertunity
We've pretty much seen houses rising across the board for the last 12 years with no serious property down turns (except perhaps for 2008 at which point the government started artificially buoying prices through stimulus and bailouts) and we've had no recessions.In any case, over the last 12 years of doing this type of work, this type of occurrence in percentage terms is 0.0015 % of all purchases, and well under 1% for auction sales.
As opposed to many doom and gloomers who typically haven't invested in anything and are praying for a downturn so they can purchase something on the harbour at "fair market value".I'm not into gross macroeconomics, I work on everyday stuff, with real people, with real money and real emotions, on the ground, everyday.
thanks
Rolf
Who pays the bank valuer????
got some information on the grape vine that cant be discussed publicly.
But in a nut shell, the valuers are being instructed by the banks, make sure your valuation is ****** conservative, we are footing the bill, so you will do what we tell you.
I wonder if LMI rates will go up if this continues...
this news is about 3 years too late - negative equity rose its head as a problem in 2009. the market has bottomed out now and on the improve. you read it here first - will probably be available to read online in about 2014/15?
Still negative equity in Perth depending on when and where you brought. Getting mixed messages on whether dead cats are bouncing but I think on the balance of probabilities Perth has at the very least stablised.
this news is about 3 years too late - negative equity rose its head as a problem in 2009. the market has bottomed out now and on the improve. you read it here first - will probably be available to read online in about 2014/15?
On the other hand, I'm still seeing high end stuff in the GC, Sunshine Coast and FNQ selling at 30-50% discounts to 2006 val/purchase price.
I know several property valuators in Brisbane and they have told me they been instructed by the banks to devalue each property if they can on average by around $50,000. The reasoning for doing this is to offset their risk levels by under pinning lower risk loans or balancing their books to try to reduce the cost of insurance towards borrowing money from the market, as is based on their holding of loans.
So atm there the banks are looking after themselves by raising rates and deleveraging the market for there own needs. Those that are paying cash for properties in Brisbane you really need to negotiate hard, as there is no bottom at the moment and the market is very confused. So anyone who has bought in 2009-11 you may have little to no CG by end of the year. Some properties are already back to 2004-05 prices already and will be interesting if they go to 2002-03 levels.
how would lowering property values help banks? if anything it would cause them to collapse if it goes too far. "The reasoning for doing this is to offset their risk levels by under pinning lower risk loans " doesnt make sense - the risk is your LVR against val, not what you secretly beloeve theval to be. and once all vals come in $50k then there is no secret val - the val is the market
how would lowering property values help banks?
The underlying asset is the same no matter what valuation is written on paper.
Therefore on lower valuations they can charge a range of fees. Also it forces the credit teams to tighten lending going forward and on comm properties it forces repayments of some debt.
But the underlying asset is the same.
That's not true. If someone purchased a property for $500,000, an 80% lend is a $400,000 loan. If the bank's valuer values it at $450,000, that means that for the $400,000 to come through, mortgage insurance would need to be paid. Otherwise, an 80% lend would now only be a loan of $360,000, which means the purchaser has to cough up $140,000 in his own cash rather than $100,000. This does lower the bank's risk because there is far more equity to play with and/or coverage by mortgage insurance.
that's great except they have a portfolio of loans that is suddenly exposed at higher LVR.
equity if the property was worth $500k = $100k
equity if the property was worth $450k = $90k
now if the property was secretly worth $500k then yes they have squeezed some wriggle room - but that lasts for all of... oh, one or two deals
Yes but the lower equity is insured by the LMI...which is paid for by the borrower. So the bank is covered regardless of the LVR being 80% or 90%.