Current Market Insights
The Current Market Insights Podcast is brought to you by Harris Partners Real Estate.
Understanding the property market can be a challenging thing, with highs and lows, twists and turns. The media and agents tend to spread the news they want you to hear, with the advice they want you to follow.
Current Market Insights is an unbiased look into what is happening, what tips you can use to buy, sell, or rent, and that you wont find anywhere else.
Current Market Insights
Episode 92: Sydney’s Property Underquoting Scandal
Hosts Ciaran O'Brien and Peter O'Malley break down the Reserve Bank’s 0.25% interest rate cut — the third in 2025 — and what it means for property buyers and sellers. At the same time, Sydney’s real estate sector is reeling from a major underquoting investigation, with high-profile agents and systemic practices under the microscope.
We also discuss:
- Sydney Morning Herald exposé on widespread underquoting practices
Four-month suspension for top agent Josh Tesolin - RBA decision to lower the cash rate to stimulate a slowing economy
- Impact of three consecutive cuts on borrowing capacity and buyer sentiment
- NSW Fair Trading’s crackdown on misleading price guides
- “Auction bunnies” and the psychological toll of repeated buyer disappointment
- Auction clearance rates holding steady at 52.6% amid rising spring listings
As always if there is a specific topic you would like for us to cover, please reach out and let us know!
All down, all silent, going, going, going, gone. So congratulations.
Speaker 2:Welcome to the Current Market Insights podcast brought to you by Harris Partners Real Estate. Each episode we chat with real estate author and industry leader, peter O'Malley, to discuss the current property market conditions and provide insights to assist you on your property journey.
Speaker 3:Hello and welcome to another edition of Current Market Insights. I'm your host, kieran O'Brien, and with me, as always, is Mr Peter O'Malley. Peter, hello.
Speaker 1:Kieran, great to see you.
Speaker 3:Great to see you for another week, my friend. We've got a big episode today, so let's just get straight into it. Since we spoke last week, the RBA met yesterday, as we're recording this, and the board and the governor made their statement and made a decision on the interest rates, which I'm sure most people have heard by now. But, as you always do with the statements, take our listeners through what was said and what you think the messaging kind of indicates from here for the next cycle, when the RBA do meet in six weeks.
Speaker 1:Yeah, thanks, kieran. So we got a 0.25% interest rate cut of course no larger, which some people would have liked to have seen, and some will argue that could have been justified, yep, but we did say last week whatever the RBA did at this meeting, they had data to back up their decision and they did finish their statement, which we'll pick apart quickly before moving on. But they did finish their statement by saying that today's policy decision was unanimous. That's interesting, because last month, when they were on hold, it was 6-3 to hold versus cut, but it was unanimous today.
Speaker 3:I wonder just very quickly whether they were unanimous to cut or whether there was unanimity around the extent of the cut. You know, was it unanimous? Yes, we all agree we should cut, but did they actually agree on the numbers?
Speaker 1:Oh, it says today's policy decision was unanimous. So I think there was only one. There was only two options on the table hold or 0.25. Yeah, so even though we speculated, would they go higher? Would you know, with a high, a larger cut, not higher. But would they go with a larger cut? Last week was never considered looking at this and there wasn't anything in their statement to suggest yeah they were looking at anything other than a hold or a 0.25 cut.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the statement um is sometimes very insightful, kieran, which is why we pull it apart, and then sometimes it's very bland, and I saw a lot of media commentary on this statement before I read the statement and when I look at the statement and read it, they didn't say too much other than we're cutting interest rates by 0.25% and reiterated some of the key data points and the thinking and the key points in the statement that they came out is that interest rates, inflation rates, are moderating. We're happy with that. We're on a sustainable path. Inflation has fallen substantially since the peak in 2022, as higher interest rates have been working to bring aggregate demand and potential supply closer towards balance. So that's all pretty straightforward stuff. One of the journalists did pick this up and he was right to do so In every statement. It feels like maybe not, but it feels like every statement for the last six meetings has highlighted the risks in the global economy, in financial markets, and the RBA's preparedness to stand behind and support the Australian economy and Australian jobs if they need to.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And it's in this one again.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And it was David Taylor, the fellow from the ABC, who wrote along the lines on ex-Twitter that it's pretty obvious. The RBA look like they are preparing for a global market event.
Speaker 3:Yeah, look, I think that's probably a very astute insider assumption. I can't help but think that they all of the statements you know have been quite bland. I feel like they're just keeping their cards close to their chest and they're giving themselves room to make rash decisions in whatever direction they need to, in the event something happens. I mean they, you know they've been proselytising that the global economy is in strife for a long time, you know, with all the things that have been happening wars and government changes and all those kinds of things. But I do wonder whether they're just hedging their bets to try and avoid the level of scrutiny or disdain that can come with making an unpopular decision.
Speaker 1:I think they're capable of unpopular decisions. Their statements are normally bland, but you can sort of read between the lines to juice it up a bit. But this one, as I say, was particularly bland. They went on to say with underlying inflation continuing to decline back towards the midpoint of the 2% to 3% range and labour market conditions easing slightly, as expected, the board judged that a further easing of monetary policy was appropriate. This takes the decline in the cash rate since the beginning of the year in 2025 to 75 basis points.
Speaker 1:The board nevertheless remains cautious about the outlook, particularly given the heightened level of uncertainty about both aggregate demand and potential supply. It noted that monetary policy is well placed to respond decisively to international developments if they were to have material implications for activity and inflation in Australia. So it's saying it'll act further if it has to, but it's by no means promising more rate cuts in that statement. What does that mean for the property market? As we touched on last week, vendors think it means higher prices, wrongly or rightly, and they very much welcomed the news. Buyers are not so impacted by interest rate cuts, although there will be an element of buyer who says rate cuts will be good for the property market, so I'd rather buy sooner rather than later. What buyers are really looking for is a broader base of supply, because stock levels are very tight still.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, look, I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption. The only other comment I'd make the way they frame that ability to react gives me the impression they feel like they're kind of in the midpoint of where they should be. You know they could go a little bit lower, they could go a little bit higher, but they feel like they're, you know, in the middle of the seesaw and if they need to switch one way or the other they can, which you know, if I'm reading between the lines tells me that we've kind of we might be at a point an interest rate setting or a cash rate setting where, uh, they feel it's there's a bit of long-term stability. Potentially they could, they could adjust either way, but you know we're not going to expect a two percent cut from here. We're kind of at a nice level field where things are coming down the right direction.
Speaker 1:But we could adjust either way if we need to yeah, I think it was anz are predicting three more rate cuts yep down to a low of 2.85 by february, march next year. Um remains to be seen if, if that's the way it unfolds, the rba would be very, very conscious not to front run their thinking and have expectations of further rate cuts in the system Because, as we've seen, at the beginning of 2023 or was there was this sense that the RBA were going to start cutting rates imminently the market behaved and the economy behaved as though those rate cuts were a lock. Everyone got excited, pushed property prices up 5%, 10% and then the rate cut didn't come in 2023, and there was a deflation there. So carefully managed messaging. There's no doubt.
Speaker 3:Certainly Look. Moving on then, I know we normally spend more time on the interest rates and the RBA statement, but pretty juicy topic I want to talk about today, peter, the overarching topic under quoting. We have spoken about ad infinitum and we will continue to talk about it forever while it's in the industry and we have a podcast. It is a topic that our listeners are no doubt aware of if they've listened to us before. But in the last few weeks to month we have spoken in detail about some stories coming out about a particular agent, josh Teschelen in Western Sydney and some of the investigations from journalists and fair trading and other you know complaints from consumers around some of his activities and we have said throughout all of those episodes that he is most certainly not alone in his conduct, in the way that he conducts business. Just this week there's been a pretty major investigation come to light in the.
Speaker 2:Herald.
Speaker 3:Now, I know you are intimately across this piece, but also you know obviously you're a subject matter expert on. You know the dealing itself. So I'd love for you to talk to our listeners about, firstly, what the the follow-on is from the teslan story in particular, but then what is the the kind of broader conversation that's come out with this large-scale investigation.
Speaker 1:Yeah, thanks, kieran. So look, uh, we all woke on saturday morning to uh, under quoting and the agent in question on the front page of the herald. The other thing that we have said over the last few weeks is Joss Teslin did not deserve, nor does anybody deserve, to be trialled by media. Yeah, which is what was happening. Yeah, of course, and intelligently or not? Joss Teslin's only response to all of this is I've been under investigation for three years. If I've done a crime, tell me what it is and I can defend myself.
Speaker 1:But, at the moment, it's all this smoke around me. My word's not his, the smoke around him. But there's all this innuendo, but there's no charge put to me. So how can I respond to that? So on Saturday morning, well, we must go back. It would seem that him whether it be my mutual decision or one party cut the cord, but Teslon and the Ray White Network went separate ways over this issue and the coverage. Read into that what you will. And then, shortly thereafter, teslon rebadged his business and then, within a week of the re-badged business commencing operations, he was hit with a four-month suspension of his license, with further investigations to take place. Underquoting was not the only charge put to him. Dummy bidding, underquoting, high, high-pressure sales tactics and this one, if found guilty of, I think, will have major ramifications and producing false documents to fair trading are among the allegations being levelled against one of Australia's highest earning real estate agents. Yeah, so anyway, he's now got charges to defend um and if he's innocent, that'll come through um. But yeah, this is he's.
Speaker 3:Unfortunately for him, wrongly or rightly, he's become the poster, the poster boy for all that is wrong with sydney property, when it is an industry-wide problem under quoting yeah, yeah, look we uh, as you say I I should have said uh, alleged, because again, you know he does now have a case to answer for with fair trading, uh, and I think I have to agree with you that if there is uh, you know, wrongdoing is one thing, uh, but then you know perjury perjury not that it's perjury in this case, necessarily, but uh, you know, delivering false documents, lying to a court, lying to an investigation, whatever those things do bode very poorly and certainly don't give as a reporter, don't give any confidence to anyone reading that that in fact he has done the right thing and maybe he's just a victim here, but maybe the first cap to fall in what could be a much larger issue. We know it's like a system-wide issue, but the Herald goes on to talk about a much larger problem.
Speaker 1:So if you can talk us through what the article kind of goes into, what the investigation itself kind of comprises of or what it did comprise of, and what really this does mean, yeah, so, whether it be the Herald or the Department of Fair Trading or both, but it's very, very obvious, based on the content in this article, that agents probably unknowingly for many of them have been getting monitored for the last few years. Yep, instead of the regulator zeroing in on isolated incidences where the agent says you know, I support your attempts to clean up the industry with underquoting, but the market just took hold on this one and it beat all expectations and my file's in order. Have a look at it here. What they're doing is they're tracking franchises, individual agents, individual firms and getting data sets on the price performance of those respective agents, firms and franchises over a greater period of time to see who the systemic underquoters are. And they've mentioned firms in here and I don't want to start a war with the real estate industry or individuals.
Speaker 1:It's all there in the article online for anyone who wants to read it. But there are agents who have systematically underquoted the likely selling price of their listings and they systematically sell for 20% to 25% more than what they've quoted the consumer. Now, if it's a one-off, I've had that happen in isolated instances and that's great for us and it's great for the vendor and we've got to say to the underbidders we never saw that coming. So I'm not saying we've never had that happen, but what the what the herald article did with all of the data is? You can only blame the market once or twice before it becomes a tactic. And agents are now even in our marketplace in the inner west are suddenly really responsive and really compliant suddenly with the way they're managing price during their campaign. But if you look, if you read between the lines in this article in the Herald, it's too late.
Speaker 3:It makes me wonder we spoke about to be honest, I can't exactly remember when the episode was, but we talked about some of the changes and how fair trading was starting to issue what I said on the podcast at the time ridiculously low and pointless fines to agencies for what appeared to be cases of underquoting.
Speaker 3:I now wonder, and I'd love to get your insight on this do you think that that was a very deliberate kind of drip feed of notice to agencies to in some ways draw them off the fact that they were heavily, heavily investigating with a much more punitive action in mind? And you did say at the time, to be fair, that this will likely result in something more extreme, but I wonder whether that was a bit of a red herring oh look, you know we might come and check on your documentation to make sure you're compliant when in fact, they were building an enormous case which, if this data is correct, is exactly what's happened. They have built a massive data set that shows some pretty consistent, broad, like misleading conduct, which is, you know, unfortunately confirms a lot of what consumers have said to us over the years, that how do you trust any of these agents? The pricing's terrible, it doesn't make sense. You know it's the whole industry is cooked.
Speaker 1:Well, it is, and we've spoken on other podcasts where if you're an honest real estate agent with a $2 million listing and two of your competitors down the road have got a competing $2 million listing but they're quoting 1.6, you can quote an honest price of $2 million, but the reality is all the buyers who might be interested in your listing are down the road in the open houses at 1.6.
Speaker 1:Yeah, of course, and that is how it's a rush to the bottom with underquoting. Where the agent that goes the lowest, he's setting the tone for all of their competitors within that respective marketplace. So there's many agents, kieran, who will find themselves doing a compliant version or a non-compliant version of underquoting or pricing below expectations, because when they quoted market price, no one turned up to the inspection of underquoting or pricing below expectations. Because they have to, because when they quoted market price, no one turned up to the inspection.
Speaker 3:Yeah, look, I agree with you entirely. But I also hate that viewpoint right that they have to do it to be competitive, because I just think again, that's a systemic issue. But if the regulator didn't police the issue.
Speaker 1:This is what the agents had to do to survive and this is what the vendors were prepared to do to sell. Yeah, so it's. It's actually the side effect of no regulation or no over proper oversight.
Speaker 3:This data match that we're talking about here is going to clean that up very, very quickly so from a before we actually get into a bit more of the nitty-gritty around the data itself, because I'd love to just get some rough figures. But in reality, let's say this investigation is reported by the Herald but is going on very, very thoroughly through Fair Trading and they decide to come out with a bunch of punitive actions here. What do you think the actual effect is? So let's say, agency X that's listed and has 45% or 50% of their properties going 30% above guide very clear cases of underquoting. Do you think it's a scenario where Fair Trading will use financial?
Speaker 1:I'll just answer the question because two people within the industry that have more insight well, three people actually, who have got much more insight than me have all said the same thing over different periods of time. So there is a real estate agent in surrey hills who, um, whose target market or his specialty is real estate agents right, and he has said publicly at a seminar two years ago the department of fair trades investigation into real estate agents on underquoting is real and agents are going to lose their licences. If you're doing it, stop, and if you're not doing it, don't do it.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 1:This week on a podcast, John McGrath and Tim McKibben of the New South Wales. President of the REI both said real estate agents are going to lose their licenses over this issue and on the front page of the Saturday Herald star, agent Teflon Josh has license suspended pending further investigations so that is where it's going.
Speaker 3:Do you think that will be the end of the line and obviously you don't know the answer to this but obviously license cancellations, suspensions, whatever that is the punitive action for the agent or agencies involved. But do you think there'll be any financial implications here other than loss of business as a result of losing your licence?
Speaker 1:I think they've been handing out warnings and administrative fines.
Speaker 3:They're the ones we've talked about before.
Speaker 1:Yeah, which for a long time. But the blatant cases, the firms we're talking about that have miraculously and I say that sarcastically miraculously been achieving 20%, 22.5% above the listed guide for all of their listings, or essentially all of their listings, for the last three years. They've got major problems and the thing is they don't have problems that go away by doing the right thing next Saturday.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 1:The digital footprint is recorded and there for all time it's. You know, the long hand of the law moves slowly, justice moves slowly, but it's coming for all those home buyers that were blatantly misled into bidding at auction and you know, we've spoken about it before. You were one of those, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3:Through Ray White, happy to name drop. They were dreadful and refused to take accountability and, you know, tried to put the blame on us for being unrealistic in the. You know all of the tactics that get used, right.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 3:Which is anyway. It's a sore point for me.
Speaker 1:Yeah, well, I didn't want to bring that up for that reason, but a journalist from New Zealand Herald rang me today and saying hey, we've got this going on in New Zealand. Could you share some of your experiences with me? And we got onto talking about the auction bunny. It's like what's the auction bunny? And the auction bunny is the bidders that have maxed out in price before the properties even hit the vendor's reserve. Yeah, and the reason they've maxed out on price and they're at the auction and they think they're a chance is because they've listened to the agent on the agent's price guide.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 1:So to bring specificity to that, you've got an auction guide of $2.2 million. You say, hey, we could pay $2.45 for this, count us in. But everybody in every real estate agent in the suburb knows the listing's worth 2.8. And you're bidding in good faith to 2.45 million, thinking you're a chance, and it's not even on the market and then it eventually sells for around 2.8. And it's that stage that you work out. You're a stooge, you've been played and you are the auction bunny for the day.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and to anyone who hasn't listened to our episode where we actually talk about my case, it wasn't on the market until I think from memory it was 48% above the guide, the guide given on the morning of the auction. 48% above. That is when it finally went on the market and it sold for over 60% above the guide, which you know. Obviously that's an extreme case but it certainly happens. I guess, looking a little bit closer at the data itself, in terms of where the data suggests this is happening, I guess two questions. Is it happening at a particular range in the market, you know, is it the lower end, the higher end, the middle?
Speaker 1:That's the first question. It's right across the industry, it's right across the city, it's right across every price point.
Speaker 3:Okay, that was my follow-up question. Is there any particular regions you know? Is this an isolated issue to Quakers Hill and the Ray White kind of agencies out there?
Speaker 1:or are we seeing this all across?
Speaker 3:Sydney, absolutely not Okay.
Speaker 1:So it's they talk about in the article. Sorry, can I tell you why? Because they all go to the same training. We're not going to name that training, but they all go. Let's not forget for our listeners, consumers out there. This is the industry that rushed to the Gold Coast five years ago to pay $1,500 a ticket to listen to the Wolf of Wall Street, jordan Belford. Yeah, yeah, and who was there? It was sub-35-year-olds with short pants and no socks, if you get the idea.
Speaker 1:Yeah yeah, sitting in the front row taking notes from the Wolf of Wall Street. Yeah, that is the real estate industry.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's. Uh, I think it's. Yeah, it's unfortunate. The sales in general right, that's. That's now kind of portrayed as the way to succeed. Is that slightly manipulative slick. You know maximize opportunity kind of process as opposed to matching people with solutions, you know. Yeah, anyway, look again. Super interesting topic, peter. We say this every time. I really hope there is some major, major change that comes out of this. I I remember, you know, all my time working with you in real estate. I always had that kind of lingering feeling in the back of my head that I was unanimously hated by everyone who knew me just by virtue of the industry that I'm in, and I always felt that was unfair because I'm an honest, kind of honourable guy and we are surrounded here.
Speaker 3:I told you to stop wearing paisley ties, Well you know you've got to put on what you know make sure look young and fresh, peter, but I you know there was always that niggling thing right that it really is, you know, consistently rated as one of the least trustworthy industries and you know this data supports that that's probably with good reason. Uh, I really do hope that there is some massive punitive damage here and people realize that you can't. You just can't do this.
Speaker 1:So in closing, kieran, in the podcast that we were listening to between John McGrath, tim McKibben and Tom Panos, they were interviewing John and Tom were interviewing Tim McKibben and they said they were asking him questions. And Tim said let me ask you a question, does underquoting get higher prices? And they said they're asking him questions and Tim said let me ask you a question Does underquoting get higher prices? No, not a bad question. Yeah, yeah, and John and Tom both gave their answers, which were versions of no, but that's the wrong question. The question is why do real estate agents underquote?
Speaker 3:Well, I think, because it gets more people there to push the price, because it works.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah. How do you have an auction with one buyer? You can't underquote. How do you have an auction now that dummy bidding has been stamped out and no one wants to take the?
Speaker 2:risk to do that you underquote.
Speaker 1:How do you create a frenzy? Well, occasionally, as you would know from your time in real estate sales, the odd listing and in the odd market environment naturally creates frenzies. But by and large, it's about bringing a buyer and a seller together. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:So how do you create frenzies week in, week out? Well, you make it seem too good to be true, you underquote, yeah. Frenzies week in, week out? Well, you make it seem too good to be true, you underquote, yeah, yeah. So that's when the consumer understands that. Why do real estate agents underquote? Because the tactic works. It might be non-compliant, it might be a dirty, low-rank sales tactics, but the reality is is that's why they're doing it. The consumer becomes a little bit wiser about how to play the situation.
Speaker 3:Yeah, a little bit wiser about how to play the situation. Yeah, yeah, as a final point before we move on to our final piece today, peter, I still love and I must remind our listeners the digital footprint you talk about. If you have ever followed a property on domain, you still get those price updates. Whether the agent changes them or not, whether they follow compliant procedure or whatever, there is a digital footprint. I have some on my phone still going back five, six years, where every price change is there and if it wasn't changed and then sold for a ridiculous like under quote to over over achievement price, it's all there for them to find. So I suspect this is going to uh, you know, this might be the first 18 months of data, but there is a lot more to collect.
Speaker 1:Yeah, Now to keep the consumer balanced on this issue. If you engage in a property and you are outbid above the reserve, you haven't been underquoted. You've been outbid by a buyer who wants it more or can pay more yeah. But if you are the auction bunny, where you, in good faith, have followed the agent's price guide, the agent's clearly got sufficient interest in the property to have a strong sale, or they're underquoted and you follow the agent's price guide right through to the auction and turn up to the auction and you bid your best price and expire above the agent's price guide but below the vendor's reserve price, you are a victim of underquoting. You are an auction bunny.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And the journalist from the New Zealand Herald said how do we stop this? And I said well, there's a couple of things. Vendors who are complicit in underquoting need to be on the hook. That's how you stop dummy bidding is. It wasn't just the real estate agent that got a fine if a dummy bidder turned up to an auction. The vendor got one too. So the vendor said I'm not doing that. And then suddenly the practice ceased.
Speaker 1:So the vendor has to be on the hook in instances where they've been complicit in underquoting. The other thing is that where a property passes in for 10% more than the agent's advertised guide, it should be investigated. I'm not saying a penalty should be issued in every instance, but it should be investigated. In instances where a property is not on the market and it's obvious that it's not on the market and you can always ask for the reserve letter the regulator can ask for the reserve letter to be sent to them. Instances where the it's not on the market and you can always ask for the reserve letter the regulator can ask for the reserve letter to be sent to them. Instances where the property is not on the market inside 10% of the agent's advertised guide should also be investigated.
Speaker 1:And again, I'm not saying in every instance there should be a penalty to the agent or the consumer, but someone should be taking a look at it.
Speaker 3:Yeah, oh look, I slightly disagree with you on the last point. I think if there is an obvious discrepancy between the guide and the reserve letter uh, outside the range then they, they should inherently be punished.
Speaker 1:But vendors, vendors blindside real estate agents all the time. I hear you, I hear you, I need to sell it, I want to sell it, make sure you've got it sold, and then they're overly aggressive as a protective measure on auction day and and and blindside them. So there will be isolations. The reason I love policing this issue through the mass data that they're now doing is you.
Speaker 1:You can always have a reason for an isolated incident which is plausible and truth yeah but when you have 80% of your listing, sell for 20% more than you've quoted the buyers for three years in a row.
Speaker 3:They're not outliers anymore.
Speaker 1:They're not outliers yeah exactly, yeah, great topic.
Speaker 3:As I said, we've got a lot more to uncover in this space and we'll certainly talk about this again, I have no doubts. As we wrap up today's episode, then, peter, as is customary, I'd love you to take our listeners through the auction clearance data for the week from SQM Research and how you felt this data reflects what you've seen through the week on the ground.
Speaker 1:Thanks, kieran. Look, 52.6% clearance rate for the week. Out of 775 auctions, 225 were sold under the hammer. 183 of the successes were sold prior, 35 were sold after, 205 were re-advertised for private treaty. Look, it's on trend for what's been happening.
Speaker 1:Big difference between the Saturday clearance rate and the midweek clearance rate. I don't know if that means anything or not, but the Saturday clearance rate was 55.1% where the midweek clearance rate was 45%. More properties clearly go to auction on a Saturday than midweek, so that's why you got a final reading at 52.6%. Look very similar to what we've seen for the last month. Seems like the higher the price of the property, the easier it is to sell. Agents are probably still putting too much of the wrong stock to the auction market. Generic apartments, strata issues Very hard to sell under the auction conditions at the moment because the depth of bidders is not there. The demand is there for housing, but when you're talking about apartments with strata issues or generic apartments, there's not the depth of bidding to justify the auction process in any way, shape or form yeah, certainly I, I think pretty much line ball figures really from the week before.
Speaker 3:You know, even the, the number of scheduled is about the same, clearance rate about the same. So holding, holding, as you expected. And you know we're moving toward the end of winter so we expect those numbers will, at least the volumes will rise. But interesting to see if the clearance rate holds as the stock comes to market. Oh, that's right.
Speaker 1:You've got two interesting dynamics for the market now, so a very vanilla trend that has been continuing for the last four to five weeks. But from this point on you've got lower mortgage rates or you know coming yeah coming banks will move reasonably quickly.
Speaker 1:So you've got lower mortgage rates, um, and you've got high stock levels, yeah, so, um. Buyers that are saying I'm waiting to spring for the stock, we're saying, yep, you can do that. Keep in mind that mortgage rates will be lower by then, so that'll play out the way it plays out. And vendors who are saying they're cutting interest rates, so property prices will go up, we're saying, yes, they have cut interest rates now, but stock levels are going up and we don't pretend to know how it all truly plays out. That's why we track the market wrap each week, kieran, because when there's a clear trend line, as they've been, there's not much to discuss. But what happens from this point, with two big factors higher stock and lower mortgage rates, it will be interesting.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it certainly will Well look. Really great chat today, Peter, especially the topic around underquoting. I think we are going to be spending quite a bit of time on over the next 12 months. As always, I really appreciate you coming in and sharing your knowledge with our listeners. Thanks, Kieran, All the best, All the best and thanks to everyone for listening to Current Market Insights. We look forward to speaking with you next time.
Speaker 2:Thanks for joining us on the Current Market Insights podcast brought to you by Harris Partners Real Estate, the podcast providing real estate insights you won't find anywhere else.
