Misleading and Incorrect Auction Reporting

I have just read the Sunday Telegraph’s property section and in particular under the “Sales action: South”, after attending several of the auctions reported here on Saturday and taking into consideration that I must be objective, there are several discrepancies but none more glaringly obvious as the paragraph regarding the property result in Lilli Pilli.

One of my staff attended this auction. If there were 3 bidders they must have all have introverted personalities to the extreme as no hands were raised which therefore makes it very difficult to pass the property in to a bidder at $3.1mil? Which begs the question, which auction did the writer of this editorial attend? From the article I would say none and definitely not the one in Lilli Pilli which had only one bid, a vendor bid of $3.1mil. I had assumed that these pieces were written by journalists that had attended the particular auctions they focused their articles on. Now that I understand that reporters are reliant on getting the information 2nd hand from the agent it explains why reporting of general market conditions can be so off the pulse and so far from reality. Any buyer/seller/person interested in real estate reading that article would think that 3 bidders competed for that property up until $3.1mil at which point negotiations stalled. In actual fact, no bidder put up their hand.

It is an offense of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 for an agent to report that a property passed in when in fact it passed in with a vendor bid.  Since launching our auction tracking system we have noticed many discrepancies with what results are recorded for in the Sunday papers but none has been so inconsistent from an editorial piece.

To be fair when I checked the Sun Herald’s real estate section, the Home Price Guide’s auction results show the property passing in, no figure available but at least they didn’t embellish the  result in a paragraph of incorrect, misleading reporting.

I think the media has a responsibility if they are going to report on the real estate market that some effort is made to check accuracy.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , dsadsaPosted by on

Mid week Easter auctions

Last nights local in-room auctions gave us 1 of each result. Of the 4 properties up for auction, 1 sold prior, 1 sold under the hammer, 1 was withdrawn and 1 was passed in.

There are no auctions scheduled this weekend, everyone will be enjoying the last rays of this stunning weather instead. Happy Easter!

, , , , , , , , , , , , dsadsaPosted by on

Auction Series Part 2: The Vendor Bid

To continue on with my Auction Series, this week I’ll explain the concept of the vendor bid. To view last week’s blog explaining the difference between a private treaty and an auction, click here.

In NSW, a vendor or seller of a property is entitled to make one bid on their own property at auction. This rule was introduced in 2003 with the theory behind it being that often buyers are reluctant to make the first bid. There is always those anxious few minutes where everyone sits on their hands so the vendor bid is useful to kick things off!

There are rules that apply to the use of a vendor bid:

  • A vendor bid cannot be made unless the auctioneer has, before the commencement of the auction, clearly stated that a bid may be made by or on behalf of the seller
  • If the vendor bid is used at the auction it must be clearly announced at that time
  • If the property passes in with a vendor bid as the last bid of the auction, the result must be published as ‘vendor bid’ and not ‘passed in’. For example, the Sunday Telegraph or Sun Herald will publish the result as $600,000 VB.
  • If the vendor bid is not the last bid, i.e. there are other buyer bids following the vendor bid but the property has still not reached its reserve and passes in, then it can be published as ‘passed in’.

Normally the auctioneer submits the vendor bid on behalf of the vendor, and the vendor bid can be made at any point during an auction.

, , , , , , dsadsaPosted by on