Properties up for auction are twice as likely to sell under the hammer if they are near a body of water, a recent study suggests.
Jason Andrew Auctioneers discovered, based on a sample of almost 150 auctions, that ‘sea change properties’ were more popular in terms of registered bidder numbers and overall sale price in relation to the reserve when compared to ‘tree change’ properties.
A first group, comprising 42 sales, included properties considered to have a ‘tree aspect’, including parkside, rural or hinterland locations and large or acreage blocks. Seventy-three per cent of the vendors of these properties were in a forced sale position and the average marketing spend was $6,000.
In comparison, a second group of 97 properties comprised those that had some relationship with water – either with waterfront or water views, or located in close proximity to a beach, lake or river. Fifty-three per cent of these vendors were in a forced sale position, 20 per cent fewer than the tree change owners, and the average marketing spend was also significantly lower at $4,500.
Tree change properties attracted an average of 17 inspections throughout the marketing campaign, resulting in one registered bidder on auction day and active bidding on 47 per cent of occasions.
Water-front properties attracted an average of 21 inspections throughout the marketing campaign, which was only slightly higher than the first group but which generated one and a half times the average number of registered bidders on auction day at 1.57.
Most interestingly, the vendors of tree change properties that sold were required to shift their reserve downwards by an average of almost eight per cent, while the sea changers’ average sale price was hitting higher than the reserve on average.
Jason Andrew said he wasn’t surprised by the outcome, but didn’t expect such a difference between the numbers.
“Sea change properties were clearly the most highly in demand throughout winter while the acreage market was one of the hardest hit segments,” Mr Andrew said. “No great surprise, but what is surprising is the size of the gap.”