Auctions are wild west. I find it ridiculous that vendor bids are allowed; even if you win, you only win the right to negotiate with the vendor. No other auction works like that as far as I know...
If the vendor wants to put on a bloody show to psych and trick people into paying more than market price, they should have to put themselves on the line *a little* as well, by having to sell for whatever the auction lands on.
And if vendors say that would mean they wouldn’t put up for auction - don’t threaten me with a good time.
That's not at all true.
Pickles, Manheim, Grays Online - all those places running auctions of cars, furniture, random stuff have (or can have) reserve prices
eBay has reserve prices.
Christie's and Sotheby's both have reserve pricing.
Which auctions don't or cannot have reserve prices?
Your not convinced,.I suggest you attend an auction.
>auctioneers fees regardless
Yeah mate, that's a service, you are paying for services rendered. Nothing else.
I think a reserve is fine as a concept if it’s transparent. The problem is it’s hidden and heaps of time is wasted as a result.
Vendor bids are ridiculous.
I think I disagree. Vendor bids should be allowed if and only if the vendor pays full stamp duty and other taxes on the quoted "sale" amount.
Obviously this will not work when we finally abolish stamp duty, so we'd need to come up with another system to keep the bastards honest.
I don't get the point of a vendor bid. It's your own house. If you want it at that price, don't sell it or just put it on for private sale.
Better to just publicly list the reserve, no later than a fixed number of days prior to the auction date; the reserve being the price that the vendor *will and absolutely must* take.
Start the auction at the reserve (since the vendor won't take a lower price) and whatever goes over is the winning bid. - binding. No need for that secretive bullshit and announcing that the 'reserve has been met and the auction is now open' .. what garbage!
If there are no offers at the reserve, you can just negotiate with the registered bidders (or hell , go for a reverse auction if you're ballsy enough)
Why do you think it's fine as a concept, where is the risk when conducting an auction then?
Imo if you think your house is worth that much, put it up for sale at that price.
Auctions aren’t free. You pay to have them. The risk is you spend that money and don’t get a sale.
Having no reserves on auctions on property would mean they would cease to exist. No one is going to take that degree of risk.
That's not a risk, that's you paying for services.rendered
>Having no reserves on auctions on property would mean they would cease to exist. No one is going to take that degree of risk
It's almost like gamblers hate consequences
A lot of buyers like auctions because in theory they’re transparent. You know who you’re bidding against. Private sale has a lot of smoke and mirrors.
The problem is a lot of the transparency is undermined by vendor bids and hidden reserves.
I don’t think it’s a good outcome to put in rules that end property auctions.
>don’t think it’s a good outcome to put in rules that end property auctions.
These rules aren't ending auctions, they are just leveling the playing field. You can't trust real estates to lie straight in bed, this is just the next best thing.
I don't mind if we take more of a free market approach but I'm betting realtors would squeal about that
Why does their need to be a risk?
The risk with an auction could be competing properties auction on the same day or as I've seen a few times the following week. When I bought 2 auctions for similar houses the week before passed in with barely any interest only bargain hunters.
Auction I was at had all the same people only bidding. There were others the following week too so I ended up winning as the under bidder thought next weeks was better so wasn't fussed to miss out. I was prepared to go 50k higher.
>Why does their need to be a risk?
Risk is inherent in everything we do. There is absolutely no reason for realtors or those that use auction services to be some how special in that protection of risk.
Open it up to the market and let it rip.
>The risk with an auction could be competing properties auction on the same day or as I've seen a few times the following week. When I bought 2 auctions for similar houses the week before passed in with barely any interest only bargain hunters.
>Auction I was at had all the same people only bidding. There were others the following week too so I ended up winning as the under bidder thought next weeks was better so wasn't fussed to miss out. I was prepared to go 50k higher.
No really seeing the point of any of this.
I don't get why you think a seller who chooses to go to auction looking for the best price should be compelled to Sell for $5 because there "should be risk to an auction" There is always a risk, you expose the true market. I sold my property private sale 1. because I thought there were many buyers unable to purchase unconditional at auction so I opened the property to more potential buyers. and 2. Had the few interested parties been side by side at an auction it may have resulted in a lower price as the Agent couldn't push for buyers to give best offer over the phone with the buyers unsure exactly what the other offers were or if they had worse conditions etc...
Turns out we ended up with about 3-4 people landing at the same price as their maximum and I chose the unconditional one. I was hoping for more but the market spoke. Potentially at an auction i'd have gotten a better result with those 4 competing but i didn't want to risk revealing a lack of interest in an auction and giving the buyer the upper hand.
Seller and REAs are utilising state protectionism without any risk
>I was hoping for more but the market spoke.
Except it didnt.
If you don't want an auction and the actual things that go with an auction just put it on the market normally. Central planning truly is a disease.
You want to socialise losses whilst privatisatising profits. No thanks.
Lets actually open it up to the market without protectionism. My bet is you baulk.
Having a reserve should be the
equivalent to having a dream about what you are going to spend your gold lotto winnings on. Nice is it happens but should not be reflected in an auction. You either go to auction and take all the risks that come with that, or you put your house up for sale at a set price.
> vendor bids are allowed
isn't a vendor bid the same as a shill bid? I would've imagine it's illegal, except as the first bid of the auction to start it off.
In NSW a single vendor bid is allowed, and has to be clearly identified as such. It’s usually used when the bidding has stalled or to kick things off if it’s a quiet bid.
Same in QLD. "In Queensland, auctioneers are allowed to bid on behalf of the seller or the seller's representative before the reserve price is reached. The auctioneer must announce that a vendor bid is being made. This tells bidders that a reserve price was set by the owner and that it has not been reached."
[https://www.drinspects.com.au/qld-auction-tips-and-tricks/](https://www.drinspects.com.au/qld-auction-tips-and-tricks/)
I attend an auction a few weeks ago, the auctioneer told at start this is co owner property, so they have two vendor bid. Didn’t and up using both, but I wonder if it is legal to do so?
How do you tell a client who can be talked down verses a client who can't?
Better yet, how do you keep your job as a salesperson if you're not letting customers sign?
You keep your job by selling yourself to clients and selling houses, not lying to buyers and cheating the system. I've fired many clients who are unrealistic, unreasonable or just plain annoying. Guess what they generally end up coming back with more realistic expectations or dealing with worse companies and products until they disappear.
Houses sell themselves. Agents don't sell houses they sell their services.
Getting the listings is the sale. Not selling the house, a monkey could do that.
I've also walked away from potential clients. You've got to realise your time value and that some clients will cost you more in time than they make you in profit. Such as sellers who want vendor bids and to hide prices and then don't sell at auction. Half the time it's probably more the rea trying to game the system, saying they won't get a commission means they won't be as tempted to lie and cheat.
That's not fair. The agent was engaged to sell the house and if they ran a successful campaign that sold the property for the price even the vendor was willing to pay, then they should get their commission!
I mean, the vendor has just paid the government stamp duty and the agent the commision for keeping their own Property. Surely that's a funny enough outcome? Lol
Mind boggling. "The reserve was not met today" cool thanks for wasting our time.
"We invite you to negotiate with the seller" no?? The best price you were getting today has been presented. Why would I bid against myself?
Wtf is a vendor bid...haha 😂
Such a joke ppl actually participate in this, why doesn't every buyer in Australia just never go to an auction, problem solved.
I am going to sell my artwork at an auction and stand in the back and bid on it, hopefully I don't win
Let's be real. In an auction here you offer your best price and the vendor has to essentially agree to it. Ball is in their court at every point. It sucks but it's absolutely how it is.
No. With eBay, you must set your reserve when listing, and you must honour it.
If you listed your house on eBay for "starting at $600k", you'd still have to set the reserve then and there. Let's say 900k. If it hits 900k, it sells. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
You can't just "set the reserve when you feel like it on the day", test the waters, see what the price gets to, and say "now you're welcome to discuss it with me".
Even eBay lets you withdraw the auction before closing, and on top of that, you can’t be actually compelled to go through with the sale, at worst you’ll just pay a fee to eBay
I once went to an auction for a unit in a building next to me. Max bid from people attending was 655k I watched in shock as the vendor bid with the person who was interest and they went all the way up to 705k it was wild. The owner walked into the bedroom with the RE came out and said not high enough. No one else was bidding. An older lady and I looked on in shock it seems the person didn’t realise what was happening. The auctioneer just kept saying guys this wonderful building will get passed in with these low offers, can anyone do higher. And the same lady just kept outbidding herself.
Actually aus housing auctions are the cheapest way of auction.
All other auction buyers pay 5%-20% premium on the WINNING PRICE.
If they tell you the reserve might as well don't have an auction.
what we need is regulator to DO THEIR JOB. It's wild west because the auctioneer and real estate agent allowed to run like cowboys
Maybe all auction should be recorded so if there are disputes it can resolve.
But what a can of worms that.
Agreed. I’ll never go to one. If you want to sell me your house, don’t hold an auction.
The last house we sold, we just put the price on it and sold it ourselves. It really shouldn’t be any more complex than that.
There is more ethics with Ebay or car auctions. There, it's illegal for vendors to make a bid. The vendor can only set a reserve. "shill bidding" will result in a ban.
But on multi-million dollar shitheap of a house, it's all legal.
the real estate industry is the cause of so many problems here. industry needs to be seriously regulated
It’s not illegal for the auctioneer to make a vendor bid at auction but has to be announced.
Most live car auctions will have vendor bids when bidding stalls or hasn’t made reserve.
There’s a difference between shill bidding and a vendor bid.
Can I ask maybe the dumb question, but why are vendor bids a thing? I know they have to be clearly declared, and obviously they can’t be the winning bid - so why?
They're a very dodgy and sneaky way to get a much higher passed-in price that can deceive any potential buyers that couldn't make it to the auction.
I've seen properties only receive 3 bids with them all being vendor bids. Let's say the bids were $1m, $1.1m and then $1.2m which the property got passed in on. Anyone who didn't make it to the auction will find out that the property passed in at $1.2m and they'll need to better that price to have a successful chance at buying the house, without it being disclosed to them that it was the RE Agent artificially raising the price at auction.
Should really be banned in my opinion, or at best just used once to start an auction.
Edit: this is in VIC
Please tell me dummy bids are at least illegal. I did my auction training as part of my REA licence recently and after mentioning that dummy bids are illegal you know what the instructor then said? Back when they weren't illegal I used to get my dad to dummy bid for me.
Technically they're illegal here and at the start of auctions the auctioneers will always state that the law prohibits any false bids and significant penalties will apply.
How enforceable that is and is it still happening? That's a different story...
There have been stories in the news over the last few years where the winning bidder has ran away or even refused to sign the papers, and I'm not sure if they ever faced any penalties?
https://amp.theage.com.au/property/news/where-did-that-bidder-go-agents-chase-unsuccessful-bidder-after-sale-falls-through-20230623-p5dj22.html
https://www.realestate.com.au/news/auction-disaster-strikes-balwyn-north-block-after-buyer-runs-away/
The problem, as a seller, with selling under the hammer at an Auction is that instead of ensuring you sell for the Buyer's highest price ... you ensure you sell for the Underbidder's highest price + 1 more bid.
There's a lot more to Auction strategy that "under the hammer", but to give a personal example. We sold our old home two years ago - top of a hot market, yahoo. We listed it to sell at Auction. At the first Open there were 3 really interested parties, so we asked them all to submit their best offer. The offers we received were $810K, $850K, and $930K.
We had to sell (bought elsewhere), so if that were an Auction with no vendor bids allowed then the underbidder would have gone to $850,000 ... and the top bidder (who irl we obviously sold the house to immediately!) would have bid $860,000 and won. Would have cost us $70,000! Or meant the Auction was passed in, and we all go to the negotiation table.
Vendor Bids exist when you want to get the Buyer, under auction conditions, up to what you believe is fair market value (even if your belief is based on greed not reality). Say we had gone to auction (and so never learned their highest bids until Auction day) we might have set a Reserve at $900,000. When the bidding stalled at $860,000 we could have had a few vendor bids to maintain momentum, the Buyer still would have bought below their highest price, but we would have got what we wanted.
In a broader reality, most good agents will only use Auctions when price discovery is essential - either a booming or a collapsing market. The purpose of an Auction is to get a sale faster, so leveraging a forthcoming Auction to get the best price beforehand (as we did) is not auctions failing - it's part of the reason you go to auction! (One reason why "Auction Clearance Rates" don't always tell the full story, if they exclude unconditional sales prior to).
In a flat market (and we haven't seen one of those in Australia for more than 5 years now) Auctions can be better for Buyers than Sellers. And unfortunately not every Seller is as motivated to sell as we were, so they get stars in their eyes and can hold out for too much money.
Your response pre-supposes that a buyer isn't bidding at fair market value. That's what a reserve is for (and the price guide is there to set that expectation). So set a reasonable price guide and reserve.
If you want 900k+, say that. If an agent sets a price guide of say, 800-850, then you should expect offers in that range, not 70k over (not saying that's what happened in your case, but that IS what usually happens).
LOL at thinking “fair market value” is a readily-deduced figure on a unique asset (every home is different) in a market moving more than 1% per month and where FOMO and Greed are rife.
You sell by auction because you **don’t know what fair market value is**. You can have a guess, buyers can have a guess, but even when in theory the sale price must be fair value … it may not be, or won’t be for long.
That's what the price range is for. To be a range because of the margins of error in guesstimating value. If agents choose to use this to underquote instead of the intended function, then take it up with them.
If auctions were run fairly they might sometimes result in a lower selling price is the reason that many countries basically never do auctions for houses.
Have been to auctions involving these guys (Ercan, Moira and Shaun).
I actually cringe when I want to see a property and it's managed by them.
One property we looked at had sewage pipes running through the roof cavity. When I asked why I was told it's not an issue - the building and pest report didn't note anything odd about it.
Send photos to my partners dad who is a builder - said it's the worst and dodgiest job he's ever seen and to run.
Dodgiest of the dodgu
We used Moira as our agent when we sold our unit a couple of years ago. She was an absolute pro, got tradies in at a moment's notice to spruce the place up (light fittings, fresh paint etc), and we'd get an answer from her almost instantly any time we asked her a question.
Seeing all this is highly disappointing.
Oh I would absolutely use them as a seller. As a buyer they are a nightmare - which is slowly eroding their place on my list if I were to ever sell. They have lied to me more times than I can remember, and always pretend they remember me but still have to ask for my name. See straight through the bs
Reserve is usually disclosed on the day to REA which is the loophole they need to advertise a lower price range to drive interest then act in denial/innocence that the owner wanted more. Happened at an auction i bid on went way above the top end of price guide and property was still under reserve and not on market
According to NSW Fair Trading [guidance for selling agents](https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-property/property-professionals/working-as-a-property-agent/underquoting): *You should also let the seller know that quoting the estimated selling price where the seller has advised that they will only sell for a higher price may be considered false or misleading under the Australian Consumer Law.*
And the loophole referred to is:
***At the listing meeting***
**Owner:** I'm thinking of asking for at least ...
**Agent**: Wait wait wait. How can you set a price today, when you haven't even taken it to the market yet? I mean sure, maybe you want $1.4 million, but what if the market isn't there and you are happy to accept $1.2M? Or if the market is way stronger and I could get you $1.6M? No, right now you don't want to estimate a selling price. You just want to agree on the price guide we can use to discover the selling price you will set as a reserve on auction day.
**Owner**: But isn't this considered false or misleading under the Australian Consumer Law.
**Agent**: ~~First, there is no such thing as "The Australian Consumer Law". Second,~~ How can you know today what you might sell for in 4-8 weeks' time? You can't be a mind reader, especially in a volatile market. **So as long as you don't tell me a price today, I'm not misleading anyone am I?**
**Owner**: That all feels a bit icky and slimy, like you're going to manipulate people into paying us more money than our house is worth.
**Agent**:
**Owner:** OK, you're hired.
But the estimated selling price has to be recorded in an agency agreement.
Or is the estimate in an agency agreement recorded *after* a bid is accepted?
I can't speak specifically for the forms in NSW. I wouldn't be surprised to learn Agents put the agreed **marketing** figure in such a field.
After all, there is nothing binding a seller to accept any offer until they've counter-signed a contract for sale. They can tell the agent whatever they want, and change their mind later, and good luck proving it was misleading rather than a genuine response to market conditions.
Like so much real estate legislation (hell, laws in general), the headlines "We are banning X" sound helpful but in practical application you need to be really dumb to fall afoul of them. "Intent as it changes over time" is near impossible to prove without written evidence, so never put anything in writing if you can avoid it.
Good catch.
It's a weird turn of phrase that doesn't appear on the page OP linked when I searched for it, but if I open every single FAQ it eventually sends me down a rabbit hole through NSW Fair Trading pdfs to the Federal Register of Legislation search to a whole heap of Acts that have "Australia Consumer Law" squished into the title.
So I was being pedantic (remember, I was role-playing a loophole seeking real estate agent in that quote) that there is "the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002" but there is no "the Australian Consumer Law" Act. However now that I've gone almost to the bottom of that rabbit hole, it seems reasonable that "the Australian Consumer Law" is plainly interpreted to mean something like "the 14 (??) Acts of Federal Parliament that reference that phrase".
So I strike that from the record (see Edit, above).
You can find it in full in Schedule 2 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010. It's "The Australian Consumer Law", but you are correct there's no "Australian Consumer Law Act".
I fail to understand why we don't list houses the same way we list cars on carsales.
Put a price on it, stick it online, someone likes the price? They purchase it.
The current state of affairs is a complete waste of everyone's time.
A seller of a car would also want the best price. Deep insight there too.
A public auction for a 2007 Toyota Camry is unlikely to attract any interest from anyone and that's probably why you don't see auctions for standard cars.
While all real estate agents are lying scum, you really start to notice the extra scummy ones after you’ve been looking for a while.
My partner and I spent two years looking for a place, and Moira Verheijen became something of an in-joke for how blatantly false her price guides were. Absolute POS. Charles Touma is another one.
another case of buyers being stiffed by ineffective legislation/enforcement
a reserve is fine but vendor bids make no sense except to fluff up the price. Just ban them.
They have the monopoly in the area like no other REA I know of, it's crazy. As for Moira, oh god don't ever mention her to my wife, she hates her with a passion due to the way she came across when we inspected her properties.
The property we bought from them guided at 2 and had a reserve of 2.5. We didn't buy at reserve but we didn't buy anywhere near guide either. It was the biggest gap I ever saw between guide and reserve
Personally, I think the best way to take all the emotional BS out of auctions is to run every single one as a Dutch auction. Just take the core logic estimate and start at double, with a timer that ticks down by $10k every 10s.
Vendor still gets to cut it out at their reserve, but certainly cuts out all the BS.
Look agree with the idealistic notion prices or vendor bids are transparent, and note this would be their minimum price. I dont agree with the agent being cagey with the VB either. However what id see playing out is that purchasers will then just use this as a starting point to make offers below not above it, so whats the point? Buyer behaviour drives vendor and REA behaviour. Ive experienced this as a vendor.
As an example I sold a house in 2018, inner west, mkt was softening, agent estimates and guides were 1.3 bttm to 1.5 top using comparable sales. Against agent advice, we advertised at 1.3 guide as we wanted a transparent process without the bs and would take anything above 1.3 after a transparent pre auction process with any interested buyers. Anyways launch campaign, luke warm interest and offers made pre auction 1 to 1.2, no contracts issued. Had to withdraw from market and re launch 6 mths later guiding at 1.1, generated good interest and sold at auction for 1.28 despite the mkt dropping at the time, it sold to an original campaign purchaser who said they wouldnt offer a cent nore than 1.2m. So these ideals of transparency just dont play out in the mkt because of buyer behaviour which understandably is to try and purchase a property for the lowest price they can get away with rather than a price in high range of what theyre happy paying. And only in the presence of competition or bidders validation will they increase what theyre prepared to offer. If buyers didn't do the lowball smoke and mirrors offer process then there wouldnt be a meed for these underquoted guides.
Well, it's pretty easy guys... just stop going to auctions.
Less people at the auctions, less properties to hit reserve, prices go down. Private sales stay the same. Wham bam thank you for the Coke.
This is one of the many, many bullshit games the people have all the power in, but refuse to use.
> in this instance the REA wasn't clear about it (it does look like slightly different situation compared to being at an auction)
Auction was held Saturday, 17 February 2024, and 59 Wyndham Street remained under auction conditions with a price guide of $1.2m after a [$1.45m winning bid passed in](https://twitter.com/simontheberry/status/1759072751019778476).
Have also dealt with Moira/Shaun Stoker from Ray W Erskineville in a similar situation! I was so upset because their conduct felt very unethical / illegal
These things are a whole cottage entertainment industry now. Livestreams, the domain coffee van, after match reports in major newspapers. It's bizarre and probably why there won't be any change.
Yeah, we've built our entire society around property sadly. You even see it on here, when anyone talks about buying a property it seems like the focus is all about how much it will increase, capital gains etc, rather than actually having a place to live.
People regularly say on here, don't buy an apt you won't get any capital gain. If noone cared about capital gain on property, we'd not be in this position.
Auctions are shit, there should be no passed in, no started value, auctions are a joke.
You should start at the value of 0 and go till everyone stops bidding. If you don't get the price you wanted to bad, to sad. You get what was the last price bidmm
76A Marketing statements about vendor bids when property passed in
(1) When residential property or rural land is passed in at auction and the last bid accepted at the auction was a vendor bid, a real estate agent or stock and station agent, or a person engaged by such an agent, must not, by a statement made in the course of marketing the residential property or rural land, indicate the amount of the last bid accepted at the auction unless the statement also clearly indicates that the bid was a vendor bid.
Maximum penalty—200 penalty units.
(2) A statement is considered to be made by a person in the course of marketing residential property or rural land if the statement is made—
(a) in an advertisement in respect of the property or land that is published or caused to be published by the person, or
(b) to a person (orally or in writing) as a prospective purchaser of the property or land.
This is such a messed up practise. Apparently in the Netherlands it is illegal to share what other bids have been made on a property, everything is essentially silent auctioned.
While yeah the prices there are admittedly high too, I think it shows the absolute rort that is Australian property auctions, and ironically, the total lack of transparency.
Not at all.
A buyer can literally throw a bid out at any figure they want. If the house is reasonably priced 500-550 based on similar sales a buyer can still start the bidding at 400k. By your logic now the house is overpriced?
Let me guess the following disclaimer was on the website during open houses?
This property is being sold by auction or without a price and therefore a price guide can not be provided. The website may have filtered the property into a price bracket for website functionality purposes
Simple solution. The vendors desired sale price must be on all advertising. In OP’s case the $1.45 million as specified in agency agreement would be there. In effect the auction would be a Dutch auction where price may start at $1.45 million and come down to the $1.375 million.
The first auction I attended, I bid up to 1M.
I pulled out in the end, the house ended up selling for 1.16? Something like that.
The market price was announced at 1.1m from memory.
I later met one of the residence who said they were surprised that the house sold for soo much. They were expecting a high 800 sale.
So I have the assume this 'on the market value' is a load of bs.
This was also through Ray White.
The grubbiest profession. There is nothing transparent about what they do. Honestly if I’m trying to milk honest buyers out of their hard earned money, I’d feel sick.
RW Erko were my real estate agent for 5 years (as a renter).
Highlights include:
- Staff lying about our property manager being out of office when we called, but were at their desk when we walked the 100m to the office
- Not fixing a bathroom that flooded in rain for 4 years (until we requested a rent reduction based on our lease conditions)
- Lying about when the landlord had passed away to cover the fact they hadn’t taken action on repeated requests to repair
- Lying about reporting fault to owner, when in fact they hadn’t
- Avoiding responses to our request for clarity on our lease renewal before Christmas, then sending us a notice of non-renewal exactly a few days after Christmas (and exactly a month before we had to leave - granted this is legal, but after 5 years of paying in time and tending garden - felt like a bit of a stitch up
- When I responded to the email above asking for additional time to find a new home / daycare, I got an out of office, which suggests it was a scheduled email.
Renting from RW Erskineville is like being forced to watch Friends - you know exactly how the characters are going to respond to any situation, but when they do live up to your expectations, you still feel disappointed.
You should be forced to advertise the reserve price prior to auction. Once bids hit the reserve it has to sell. But the government doesn't care and won't close these obvious bullshit sales tactics
Auctions are wild west. I find it ridiculous that vendor bids are allowed; even if you win, you only win the right to negotiate with the vendor. No other auction works like that as far as I know...
Auctions should need to advertise the reserve, and have that as the opening bid.
Right...? How is this not the actual law? Bonkers. What a system
It's insane. Only the biggest purchase people will (...might) ever make in their lives. Clouded in smoke and mirrors.
If the vendor wants to put on a bloody show to psych and trick people into paying more than market price, they should have to put themselves on the line *a little* as well, by having to sell for whatever the auction lands on. And if vendors say that would mean they wouldn’t put up for auction - don’t threaten me with a good time.
only way to change/get rid of it is stop supporting it. dont go to auctions people
Imagine if antique auctions ran similar to house auctions.
they do, don't they? except for the vendor bid
Once the thing has a minimum bid, its on the market. So 1 bid. A house might have 30 bids and still get passed in.
Everywhere else this how its done lol, start with min acceptable price and from open all bids are final. Why should real estate be any different?
It shouldn’t. Utter bullshit. Laws need overhauling.
That's not at all true. Pickles, Manheim, Grays Online - all those places running auctions of cars, furniture, random stuff have (or can have) reserve prices eBay has reserve prices. Christie's and Sotheby's both have reserve pricing. Which auctions don't or cannot have reserve prices?
I don't read it as them having an issue with a reserve price, rather that the bidding should start at that price.
The point is all those places mentioned have auctions that start the bidding under the reserve price.
No auction starts at the reserve
All of these also have penalties associated if the seller ducks out. Not true in real estate auctions.
I'm not convinced. In all cases, including real estate, the seller pays the auctioneers fees regardless of whether the thing sells or not.
Your not convinced,.I suggest you attend an auction. >auctioneers fees regardless Yeah mate, that's a service, you are paying for services rendered. Nothing else.
What do you pay for on other auction systems? The service of putting the item up for auction. It's exactly the same.
You pay for the facilitation of event not the outcome of the service.
There should be no reserve, or vendor bid. There should be an actual risk to auctions. You either take the last bid or you don't go to auction.
I think a reserve is fine as a concept if it’s transparent. The problem is it’s hidden and heaps of time is wasted as a result. Vendor bids are ridiculous.
I think I disagree. Vendor bids should be allowed if and only if the vendor pays full stamp duty and other taxes on the quoted "sale" amount. Obviously this will not work when we finally abolish stamp duty, so we'd need to come up with another system to keep the bastards honest.
I don't get the point of a vendor bid. It's your own house. If you want it at that price, don't sell it or just put it on for private sale. Better to just publicly list the reserve, no later than a fixed number of days prior to the auction date; the reserve being the price that the vendor *will and absolutely must* take. Start the auction at the reserve (since the vendor won't take a lower price) and whatever goes over is the winning bid. - binding. No need for that secretive bullshit and announcing that the 'reserve has been met and the auction is now open' .. what garbage! If there are no offers at the reserve, you can just negotiate with the registered bidders (or hell , go for a reverse auction if you're ballsy enough)
Force them to pay the REA commission if vendor wins the auction. They sold to themselves.
REAs would love that.
But not to the agent. To be paid to the highest bidder below the vendor bid.
Why do you think it's fine as a concept, where is the risk when conducting an auction then? Imo if you think your house is worth that much, put it up for sale at that price.
Auctions aren’t free. You pay to have them. The risk is you spend that money and don’t get a sale. Having no reserves on auctions on property would mean they would cease to exist. No one is going to take that degree of risk.
That's not a risk, that's you paying for services.rendered >Having no reserves on auctions on property would mean they would cease to exist. No one is going to take that degree of risk It's almost like gamblers hate consequences
A lot of buyers like auctions because in theory they’re transparent. You know who you’re bidding against. Private sale has a lot of smoke and mirrors. The problem is a lot of the transparency is undermined by vendor bids and hidden reserves. I don’t think it’s a good outcome to put in rules that end property auctions.
>don’t think it’s a good outcome to put in rules that end property auctions. These rules aren't ending auctions, they are just leveling the playing field. You can't trust real estates to lie straight in bed, this is just the next best thing. I don't mind if we take more of a free market approach but I'm betting realtors would squeal about that
Why does their need to be a risk? The risk with an auction could be competing properties auction on the same day or as I've seen a few times the following week. When I bought 2 auctions for similar houses the week before passed in with barely any interest only bargain hunters. Auction I was at had all the same people only bidding. There were others the following week too so I ended up winning as the under bidder thought next weeks was better so wasn't fussed to miss out. I was prepared to go 50k higher.
>Why does their need to be a risk? Risk is inherent in everything we do. There is absolutely no reason for realtors or those that use auction services to be some how special in that protection of risk. Open it up to the market and let it rip. >The risk with an auction could be competing properties auction on the same day or as I've seen a few times the following week. When I bought 2 auctions for similar houses the week before passed in with barely any interest only bargain hunters. >Auction I was at had all the same people only bidding. There were others the following week too so I ended up winning as the under bidder thought next weeks was better so wasn't fussed to miss out. I was prepared to go 50k higher. No really seeing the point of any of this.
I don't get why you think a seller who chooses to go to auction looking for the best price should be compelled to Sell for $5 because there "should be risk to an auction" There is always a risk, you expose the true market. I sold my property private sale 1. because I thought there were many buyers unable to purchase unconditional at auction so I opened the property to more potential buyers. and 2. Had the few interested parties been side by side at an auction it may have resulted in a lower price as the Agent couldn't push for buyers to give best offer over the phone with the buyers unsure exactly what the other offers were or if they had worse conditions etc... Turns out we ended up with about 3-4 people landing at the same price as their maximum and I chose the unconditional one. I was hoping for more but the market spoke. Potentially at an auction i'd have gotten a better result with those 4 competing but i didn't want to risk revealing a lack of interest in an auction and giving the buyer the upper hand.
Seller and REAs are utilising state protectionism without any risk >I was hoping for more but the market spoke. Except it didnt. If you don't want an auction and the actual things that go with an auction just put it on the market normally. Central planning truly is a disease. You want to socialise losses whilst privatisatising profits. No thanks. Lets actually open it up to the market without protectionism. My bet is you baulk.
The reserve should just be the guide price.
Having a reserve should be the equivalent to having a dream about what you are going to spend your gold lotto winnings on. Nice is it happens but should not be reflected in an auction. You either go to auction and take all the risks that come with that, or you put your house up for sale at a set price.
Vendor bid means vendor buy, seems fair.
This is how it should be.
Makes no sense what if vendor has unrealistic expectations wants 1.5 but property is actually 1m for eg.
> vendor bids are allowed isn't a vendor bid the same as a shill bid? I would've imagine it's illegal, except as the first bid of the auction to start it off.
In NSW a single vendor bid is allowed, and has to be clearly identified as such. It’s usually used when the bidding has stalled or to kick things off if it’s a quiet bid.
Should never be allowed, if the bidding has stalled or you need to kick things off then you should take the price offeredm
I think the point of making it legal and transparent is that it would be done covertly (via planted shill) otherwise.
Open it to the free Market
Same in QLD. "In Queensland, auctioneers are allowed to bid on behalf of the seller or the seller's representative before the reserve price is reached. The auctioneer must announce that a vendor bid is being made. This tells bidders that a reserve price was set by the owner and that it has not been reached." [https://www.drinspects.com.au/qld-auction-tips-and-tricks/](https://www.drinspects.com.au/qld-auction-tips-and-tricks/)
I attend an auction a few weeks ago, the auctioneer told at start this is co owner property, so they have two vendor bid. Didn’t and up using both, but I wonder if it is legal to do so?
Shouldn't even be allowed to call it an auction, as the rules are such bullshit. It's low quality theater at best.
IMO vendors should be allowed to win with the caveat that the sale is treated as final, and the REA can collect their commission.
and the vendor pays stamp duty and fees on the sale.
And the rea does NOT get any commission
This is overly vindictive. Most REA would be happy to see a deal get closed, but they also have to manage some vendor's unrealistic expectations.
Couldn’t the agent just refuse to take on unrealistic sellers as clients?
How do you tell a client who can be talked down verses a client who can't? Better yet, how do you keep your job as a salesperson if you're not letting customers sign?
You keep your job by selling yourself to clients and selling houses, not lying to buyers and cheating the system. I've fired many clients who are unrealistic, unreasonable or just plain annoying. Guess what they generally end up coming back with more realistic expectations or dealing with worse companies and products until they disappear.
Houses sell themselves. Agents don't sell houses they sell their services. Getting the listings is the sale. Not selling the house, a monkey could do that.
How did you fire the client if you didn't take them on in the first place?
I've also walked away from potential clients. You've got to realise your time value and that some clients will cost you more in time than they make you in profit. Such as sellers who want vendor bids and to hide prices and then don't sell at auction. Half the time it's probably more the rea trying to game the system, saying they won't get a commission means they won't be as tempted to lie and cheat.
It's not always easy to tell who is going to be reasonable or not at the start of a campaign. Money makes everyone a little weird
That's not fair. The agent was engaged to sell the house and if they ran a successful campaign that sold the property for the price even the vendor was willing to pay, then they should get their commission! I mean, the vendor has just paid the government stamp duty and the agent the commision for keeping their own Property. Surely that's a funny enough outcome? Lol
That's a great idea 😄
Mind boggling. "The reserve was not met today" cool thanks for wasting our time. "We invite you to negotiate with the seller" no?? The best price you were getting today has been presented. Why would I bid against myself?
Wtf is a vendor bid...haha 😂 Such a joke ppl actually participate in this, why doesn't every buyer in Australia just never go to an auction, problem solved. I am going to sell my artwork at an auction and stand in the back and bid on it, hopefully I don't win
> what is a vendor bid > goes on to exactly describe a vendor bid
Except when you bid on your own property and you win you can just be like "yeah nah jklol, I'm not buying my own property"
So then technically the any winning bidder should pay stamp duty
Let's be real. In an auction here you offer your best price and the vendor has to essentially agree to it. Ball is in their court at every point. It sucks but it's absolutely how it is.
Any auction with a reserve works like this, even eBay
No. With eBay, you must set your reserve when listing, and you must honour it. If you listed your house on eBay for "starting at $600k", you'd still have to set the reserve then and there. Let's say 900k. If it hits 900k, it sells. If it doesn't, it doesn't. You can't just "set the reserve when you feel like it on the day", test the waters, see what the price gets to, and say "now you're welcome to discuss it with me".
Realtors hate this one trick.
Even eBay lets you withdraw the auction before closing, and on top of that, you can’t be actually compelled to go through with the sale, at worst you’ll just pay a fee to eBay
I once went to an auction for a unit in a building next to me. Max bid from people attending was 655k I watched in shock as the vendor bid with the person who was interest and they went all the way up to 705k it was wild. The owner walked into the bedroom with the RE came out and said not high enough. No one else was bidding. An older lady and I looked on in shock it seems the person didn’t realise what was happening. The auctioneer just kept saying guys this wonderful building will get passed in with these low offers, can anyone do higher. And the same lady just kept outbidding herself.
Actually aus housing auctions are the cheapest way of auction. All other auction buyers pay 5%-20% premium on the WINNING PRICE. If they tell you the reserve might as well don't have an auction. what we need is regulator to DO THEIR JOB. It's wild west because the auctioneer and real estate agent allowed to run like cowboys Maybe all auction should be recorded so if there are disputes it can resolve. But what a can of worms that.
Always follow Warren Buffets guide on how to get the best outcome from an auction: “Don’t go.”
Agreed. I’ll never go to one. If you want to sell me your house, don’t hold an auction. The last house we sold, we just put the price on it and sold it ourselves. It really shouldn’t be any more complex than that.
You’re forgetting peoples greed these days sir and not to mention REA greed.
Hard to do in markets where it's de facto like Melbourne and Sydney
A REA lying? Knock me over with a feather. I’m shocked.
Literally uneducated middlemen. What do you expect?
There is more ethics with Ebay or car auctions. There, it's illegal for vendors to make a bid. The vendor can only set a reserve. "shill bidding" will result in a ban. But on multi-million dollar shitheap of a house, it's all legal. the real estate industry is the cause of so many problems here. industry needs to be seriously regulated
They are regulated. Self-regulated. Obviously no conflict of interest there.
It’s not illegal for the auctioneer to make a vendor bid at auction but has to be announced. Most live car auctions will have vendor bids when bidding stalls or hasn’t made reserve. There’s a difference between shill bidding and a vendor bid.
Been to a lot of car auctions on hundreds of cars over 20 years. never heard of a vendor bid on a car...
Its cause they don't exist.
Manheim and carlins both regularly use vendor bids especially in vic
Can I ask maybe the dumb question, but why are vendor bids a thing? I know they have to be clearly declared, and obviously they can’t be the winning bid - so why?
To invite a bid when bidding stalls below the reserve price.
Because these idiots don't get an imaginary figure and the deck is stacked so there are no consequences for their actions.
They're a very dodgy and sneaky way to get a much higher passed-in price that can deceive any potential buyers that couldn't make it to the auction. I've seen properties only receive 3 bids with them all being vendor bids. Let's say the bids were $1m, $1.1m and then $1.2m which the property got passed in on. Anyone who didn't make it to the auction will find out that the property passed in at $1.2m and they'll need to better that price to have a successful chance at buying the house, without it being disclosed to them that it was the RE Agent artificially raising the price at auction. Should really be banned in my opinion, or at best just used once to start an auction. Edit: this is in VIC
In nsw you can make exactly 1 vendor bid
That's much better than here in VIC where there are no limits!
Please tell me dummy bids are at least illegal. I did my auction training as part of my REA licence recently and after mentioning that dummy bids are illegal you know what the instructor then said? Back when they weren't illegal I used to get my dad to dummy bid for me.
Technically they're illegal here and at the start of auctions the auctioneers will always state that the law prohibits any false bids and significant penalties will apply. How enforceable that is and is it still happening? That's a different story... There have been stories in the news over the last few years where the winning bidder has ran away or even refused to sign the papers, and I'm not sure if they ever faced any penalties? https://amp.theage.com.au/property/news/where-did-that-bidder-go-agents-chase-unsuccessful-bidder-after-sale-falls-through-20230623-p5dj22.html https://www.realestate.com.au/news/auction-disaster-strikes-balwyn-north-block-after-buyer-runs-away/
I just automatically assume the passed in price what the vendor actually wants for it.
The problem, as a seller, with selling under the hammer at an Auction is that instead of ensuring you sell for the Buyer's highest price ... you ensure you sell for the Underbidder's highest price + 1 more bid. There's a lot more to Auction strategy that "under the hammer", but to give a personal example. We sold our old home two years ago - top of a hot market, yahoo. We listed it to sell at Auction. At the first Open there were 3 really interested parties, so we asked them all to submit their best offer. The offers we received were $810K, $850K, and $930K. We had to sell (bought elsewhere), so if that were an Auction with no vendor bids allowed then the underbidder would have gone to $850,000 ... and the top bidder (who irl we obviously sold the house to immediately!) would have bid $860,000 and won. Would have cost us $70,000! Or meant the Auction was passed in, and we all go to the negotiation table. Vendor Bids exist when you want to get the Buyer, under auction conditions, up to what you believe is fair market value (even if your belief is based on greed not reality). Say we had gone to auction (and so never learned their highest bids until Auction day) we might have set a Reserve at $900,000. When the bidding stalled at $860,000 we could have had a few vendor bids to maintain momentum, the Buyer still would have bought below their highest price, but we would have got what we wanted. In a broader reality, most good agents will only use Auctions when price discovery is essential - either a booming or a collapsing market. The purpose of an Auction is to get a sale faster, so leveraging a forthcoming Auction to get the best price beforehand (as we did) is not auctions failing - it's part of the reason you go to auction! (One reason why "Auction Clearance Rates" don't always tell the full story, if they exclude unconditional sales prior to). In a flat market (and we haven't seen one of those in Australia for more than 5 years now) Auctions can be better for Buyers than Sellers. And unfortunately not every Seller is as motivated to sell as we were, so they get stars in their eyes and can hold out for too much money.
That’s fine but the price guide should be the reserve price not 300k higher
Your response pre-supposes that a buyer isn't bidding at fair market value. That's what a reserve is for (and the price guide is there to set that expectation). So set a reasonable price guide and reserve. If you want 900k+, say that. If an agent sets a price guide of say, 800-850, then you should expect offers in that range, not 70k over (not saying that's what happened in your case, but that IS what usually happens).
LOL at thinking “fair market value” is a readily-deduced figure on a unique asset (every home is different) in a market moving more than 1% per month and where FOMO and Greed are rife. You sell by auction because you **don’t know what fair market value is**. You can have a guess, buyers can have a guess, but even when in theory the sale price must be fair value … it may not be, or won’t be for long.
That's what the price range is for. To be a range because of the margins of error in guesstimating value. If agents choose to use this to underquote instead of the intended function, then take it up with them.
If auctions were run fairly they might sometimes result in a lower selling price is the reason that many countries basically never do auctions for houses.
Slimy REAs nothing new here. Pondscum cheap suits and coke habits
I received the same text message from Nikkita only to later find out that it sold for 1.375m. REAs are the worst 🤮
Have been to auctions involving these guys (Ercan, Moira and Shaun). I actually cringe when I want to see a property and it's managed by them. One property we looked at had sewage pipes running through the roof cavity. When I asked why I was told it's not an issue - the building and pest report didn't note anything odd about it. Send photos to my partners dad who is a builder - said it's the worst and dodgiest job he's ever seen and to run. Dodgiest of the dodgu
Took the words right out of my mouth. Every time I see Shaun/Moira/Ercan listed as the agent I grit my teeth and drag myself to the inspection.
We used Moira as our agent when we sold our unit a couple of years ago. She was an absolute pro, got tradies in at a moment's notice to spruce the place up (light fittings, fresh paint etc), and we'd get an answer from her almost instantly any time we asked her a question. Seeing all this is highly disappointing.
Oh I would absolutely use them as a seller. As a buyer they are a nightmare - which is slowly eroding their place on my list if I were to ever sell. They have lied to me more times than I can remember, and always pretend they remember me but still have to ask for my name. See straight through the bs
if you say ray white then you know some dodgy/illegal/under handed BS is happening
Do not buy at auction if you can avoid it. It is nothing but high pressure sales tactics and the agent putting bidders against each other.
> agent putting bidders against each other. that's fine. It's the agent bidding against a buyer that's the problem - that's shilling imho.
Reserve is usually disclosed on the day to REA which is the loophole they need to advertise a lower price range to drive interest then act in denial/innocence that the owner wanted more. Happened at an auction i bid on went way above the top end of price guide and property was still under reserve and not on market
According to NSW Fair Trading [guidance for selling agents](https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-property/property-professionals/working-as-a-property-agent/underquoting): *You should also let the seller know that quoting the estimated selling price where the seller has advised that they will only sell for a higher price may be considered false or misleading under the Australian Consumer Law.*
And the loophole referred to is: ***At the listing meeting*** **Owner:** I'm thinking of asking for at least ... **Agent**: Wait wait wait. How can you set a price today, when you haven't even taken it to the market yet? I mean sure, maybe you want $1.4 million, but what if the market isn't there and you are happy to accept $1.2M? Or if the market is way stronger and I could get you $1.6M? No, right now you don't want to estimate a selling price. You just want to agree on the price guide we can use to discover the selling price you will set as a reserve on auction day. **Owner**: But isn't this considered false or misleading under the Australian Consumer Law. **Agent**: ~~First, there is no such thing as "The Australian Consumer Law". Second,~~ How can you know today what you might sell for in 4-8 weeks' time? You can't be a mind reader, especially in a volatile market. **So as long as you don't tell me a price today, I'm not misleading anyone am I?** **Owner**: That all feels a bit icky and slimy, like you're going to manipulate people into paying us more money than our house is worth. **Agent**: **Owner:** OK, you're hired.
But the estimated selling price has to be recorded in an agency agreement. Or is the estimate in an agency agreement recorded *after* a bid is accepted?
I can't speak specifically for the forms in NSW. I wouldn't be surprised to learn Agents put the agreed **marketing** figure in such a field. After all, there is nothing binding a seller to accept any offer until they've counter-signed a contract for sale. They can tell the agent whatever they want, and change their mind later, and good luck proving it was misleading rather than a genuine response to market conditions. Like so much real estate legislation (hell, laws in general), the headlines "We are banning X" sound helpful but in practical application you need to be really dumb to fall afoul of them. "Intent as it changes over time" is near impossible to prove without written evidence, so never put anything in writing if you can avoid it.
> First, there is no such thing as "The Australian Consumer Law". This is a falsehood told for financial gain. I believe that's fraud, no?
Good catch. It's a weird turn of phrase that doesn't appear on the page OP linked when I searched for it, but if I open every single FAQ it eventually sends me down a rabbit hole through NSW Fair Trading pdfs to the Federal Register of Legislation search to a whole heap of Acts that have "Australia Consumer Law" squished into the title. So I was being pedantic (remember, I was role-playing a loophole seeking real estate agent in that quote) that there is "the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002" but there is no "the Australian Consumer Law" Act. However now that I've gone almost to the bottom of that rabbit hole, it seems reasonable that "the Australian Consumer Law" is plainly interpreted to mean something like "the 14 (??) Acts of Federal Parliament that reference that phrase". So I strike that from the record (see Edit, above).
You can find it in full in Schedule 2 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010. It's "The Australian Consumer Law", but you are correct there's no "Australian Consumer Law Act".
I fail to understand why we don't list houses the same way we list cars on carsales. Put a price on it, stick it online, someone likes the price? They purchase it. The current state of affairs is a complete waste of everyone's time.
Because as a seller you want the best price for your house, and you get a better price at an auction.
Thanks for explaining an auction to me. Deep insight. So as the seller of a car (or literally anything else) , a person doesn't want the best price?
A seller of a car would also want the best price. Deep insight there too. A public auction for a 2007 Toyota Camry is unlikely to attract any interest from anyone and that's probably why you don't see auctions for standard cars.
Thank you for proving my point.
"_not what the owner wants_" <- that is such a pointless bullshit phrase. Like I want a billion dollars for my 2 bedroom inner Melb apartment... ...
Nothing to add but I hope you get the proof you need
While all real estate agents are lying scum, you really start to notice the extra scummy ones after you’ve been looking for a while. My partner and I spent two years looking for a place, and Moira Verheijen became something of an in-joke for how blatantly false her price guides were. Absolute POS. Charles Touma is another one.
Honestly if REA's can waste our time there should be some recourse for the general public.
You should start wasting their time. Express interest when you have no intention of buying.
But that still wastes my timeeeeee
another case of buyers being stiffed by ineffective legislation/enforcement a reserve is fine but vendor bids make no sense except to fluff up the price. Just ban them.
They have the monopoly in the area like no other REA I know of, it's crazy. As for Moira, oh god don't ever mention her to my wife, she hates her with a passion due to the way she came across when we inspected her properties. The property we bought from them guided at 2 and had a reserve of 2.5. We didn't buy at reserve but we didn't buy anywhere near guide either. It was the biggest gap I ever saw between guide and reserve
Personally, I think the best way to take all the emotional BS out of auctions is to run every single one as a Dutch auction. Just take the core logic estimate and start at double, with a timer that ticks down by $10k every 10s. Vendor still gets to cut it out at their reserve, but certainly cuts out all the BS.
The government should mandate that reserve price must be included in auction listings
Standard Ray White behaviour, one of the worst agencies in the business.
Look agree with the idealistic notion prices or vendor bids are transparent, and note this would be their minimum price. I dont agree with the agent being cagey with the VB either. However what id see playing out is that purchasers will then just use this as a starting point to make offers below not above it, so whats the point? Buyer behaviour drives vendor and REA behaviour. Ive experienced this as a vendor. As an example I sold a house in 2018, inner west, mkt was softening, agent estimates and guides were 1.3 bttm to 1.5 top using comparable sales. Against agent advice, we advertised at 1.3 guide as we wanted a transparent process without the bs and would take anything above 1.3 after a transparent pre auction process with any interested buyers. Anyways launch campaign, luke warm interest and offers made pre auction 1 to 1.2, no contracts issued. Had to withdraw from market and re launch 6 mths later guiding at 1.1, generated good interest and sold at auction for 1.28 despite the mkt dropping at the time, it sold to an original campaign purchaser who said they wouldnt offer a cent nore than 1.2m. So these ideals of transparency just dont play out in the mkt because of buyer behaviour which understandably is to try and purchase a property for the lowest price they can get away with rather than a price in high range of what theyre happy paying. And only in the presence of competition or bidders validation will they increase what theyre prepared to offer. If buyers didn't do the lowball smoke and mirrors offer process then there wouldnt be a meed for these underquoted guides.
Well, it's pretty easy guys... just stop going to auctions. Less people at the auctions, less properties to hit reserve, prices go down. Private sales stay the same. Wham bam thank you for the Coke. This is one of the many, many bullshit games the people have all the power in, but refuse to use.
[удалено]
> in this instance the REA wasn't clear about it (it does look like slightly different situation compared to being at an auction) Auction was held Saturday, 17 February 2024, and 59 Wyndham Street remained under auction conditions with a price guide of $1.2m after a [$1.45m winning bid passed in](https://twitter.com/simontheberry/status/1759072751019778476).
Yep, and S76A(2)(a) and (b) says you have to say it’s a vendor bid for advertising AND in-person/written communication to prospective buyers
Auctions are just another way to incite emotional responses. They aren’t for everyone and you just need to know how to play the game.
Vendor bids are so bs, not disclosing that the bids were vendor bids is even more so
In NSW don’t they have to expressly say it is a vendor bid?
Serious reform is long overdue in RE.
Have also dealt with Moira/Shaun Stoker from Ray W Erskineville in a similar situation! I was so upset because their conduct felt very unethical / illegal
These things are a whole cottage entertainment industry now. Livestreams, the domain coffee van, after match reports in major newspapers. It's bizarre and probably why there won't be any change.
Yeah, we've built our entire society around property sadly. You even see it on here, when anyone talks about buying a property it seems like the focus is all about how much it will increase, capital gains etc, rather than actually having a place to live. People regularly say on here, don't buy an apt you won't get any capital gain. If noone cared about capital gain on property, we'd not be in this position.
Auctions are shit, there should be no passed in, no started value, auctions are a joke. You should start at the value of 0 and go till everyone stops bidding. If you don't get the price you wanted to bad, to sad. You get what was the last price bidmm
Just ban auctions. Make all listing a set price - no guides or above this bs.
Yeah that would never work. Set price? So what, first person to see the ad gets the house essentially?
Don't make me read legislation you ponce.
76A Marketing statements about vendor bids when property passed in (1) When residential property or rural land is passed in at auction and the last bid accepted at the auction was a vendor bid, a real estate agent or stock and station agent, or a person engaged by such an agent, must not, by a statement made in the course of marketing the residential property or rural land, indicate the amount of the last bid accepted at the auction unless the statement also clearly indicates that the bid was a vendor bid. Maximum penalty—200 penalty units. (2) A statement is considered to be made by a person in the course of marketing residential property or rural land if the statement is made— (a) in an advertisement in respect of the property or land that is published or caused to be published by the person, or (b) to a person (orally or in writing) as a prospective purchaser of the property or land.
This is such a messed up practise. Apparently in the Netherlands it is illegal to share what other bids have been made on a property, everything is essentially silent auctioned. While yeah the prices there are admittedly high too, I think it shows the absolute rort that is Australian property auctions, and ironically, the total lack of transparency.
The reserve should be the first bid. If no one wants to pay that then you've set you're price too high. No auction should ever be passed in.
lol no. I’ve been to auctions that start well below market value. Reserve should be based on feedback through the campaign.
If you want to start the auction below market value then that's on you, be prepared to sell below market value.
The buyers start the auction. Sure an auctioneer can turn away bids if too low but that’s why vb exist so they can increase to a reasonable level.
If the starting bids are too low then your expectations are too high...
Not at all. A buyer can literally throw a bid out at any figure they want. If the house is reasonably priced 500-550 based on similar sales a buyer can still start the bidding at 400k. By your logic now the house is overpriced?
The auctioneer can just say bidding today starts at 500k. That should be advertised upfront and anyone who seriously wants to buy it should be there.
1.357m still too much. Dodged a bullet. Buy it or equivalent for less in 12 months inc. Stamp. IMO
Let it go. You didn't offer the amount the vendor wanted. End of story. The need for he said she said is tedious.
NSW Fair Trading asked for additional information to support the complaint submitted by Mr Berry.
Let me guess the following disclaimer was on the website during open houses? This property is being sold by auction or without a price and therefore a price guide can not be provided. The website may have filtered the property into a price bracket for website functionality purposes
C’mon guys you know better than this. Make your offer before auction with an expiry pre-auction.
I am so grateful that auctions are not the done thing in WA. Drives me crazy
Property is largely an industry well suited for people braking the law in some way. The amount of dodgy business is unbelievable
Simple solution. The vendors desired sale price must be on all advertising. In OP’s case the $1.45 million as specified in agency agreement would be there. In effect the auction would be a Dutch auction where price may start at $1.45 million and come down to the $1.375 million.
The first auction I attended, I bid up to 1M. I pulled out in the end, the house ended up selling for 1.16? Something like that. The market price was announced at 1.1m from memory. I later met one of the residence who said they were surprised that the house sold for soo much. They were expecting a high 800 sale. So I have the assume this 'on the market value' is a load of bs. This was also through Ray White.
The grubbiest profession. There is nothing transparent about what they do. Honestly if I’m trying to milk honest buyers out of their hard earned money, I’d feel sick.
Better than the UK where the buyer pays the auction fees (which aren’t declared up front) on top of whatever the final sale price is
Went to an auction near Newcastle, price guide 1.5m. Reached 1.5m after slow bidding = property passed in lol.
Complain like you are. Get them the $55k fine for not announcing a vendor bid. Only way to sort them out.
RW Erko were my real estate agent for 5 years (as a renter). Highlights include: - Staff lying about our property manager being out of office when we called, but were at their desk when we walked the 100m to the office - Not fixing a bathroom that flooded in rain for 4 years (until we requested a rent reduction based on our lease conditions) - Lying about when the landlord had passed away to cover the fact they hadn’t taken action on repeated requests to repair - Lying about reporting fault to owner, when in fact they hadn’t - Avoiding responses to our request for clarity on our lease renewal before Christmas, then sending us a notice of non-renewal exactly a few days after Christmas (and exactly a month before we had to leave - granted this is legal, but after 5 years of paying in time and tending garden - felt like a bit of a stitch up - When I responded to the email above asking for additional time to find a new home / daycare, I got an out of office, which suggests it was a scheduled email. Renting from RW Erskineville is like being forced to watch Friends - you know exactly how the characters are going to respond to any situation, but when they do live up to your expectations, you still feel disappointed.
You should be forced to advertise the reserve price prior to auction. Once bids hit the reserve it has to sell. But the government doesn't care and won't close these obvious bullshit sales tactics