Greater transparency is being introduced into residential property advertising and sales, with new rules designed to make it harder for homes to be marketed without meaningful price information. Changes in New South Wales and Victoria are intended to give buyers clearer information when assessing properties and comparing recent transactions, addressing longstanding concerns about vague price guides, underquoting and access to sale results.
In New South Wales, agents can no longer advertise a property using only descriptions such as “for sale”, “expressions of interest” or “contact agent”. Instead, an estimated selling price must be established and advertisements must include either a selling price or a price range. The changes mean prospective buyers should have a clearer indication of vendor expectations before investing time in inspections, research and due diligence.
Agents and sellers will also be required to provide a formal “statement of information” explaining how the advertised price was determined. This adds another layer of accountability to the pricing process by requiring the estimate to be supported rather than presented without context. Comparable sales and relevant market evidence can therefore play a more visible role in helping buyers understand whether a guide is realistic.
The changes address one of the more frustrating aspects of property searching for buyers. When no meaningful price information is provided, purchasers can struggle to determine whether a home fits within their budget. They may attend inspections, organise building research or become emotionally invested in a property only to discover that vendor expectations sit well above what they can afford.
Price ranges do not eliminate uncertainty because the final sale price will still depend on competition, property quality, vendor motivation and market conditions. However, providing a guide gives buyers a starting point for their own assessment. It also allows them to compare the advertised expectation with recent sales and determine whether further investigation is worthwhile.
Victoria has introduced a related transparency measure focused on completed transactions. From October 1, Victorian real estate agents are required to disclose the sale price of a home within seven days of the transaction. The change is designed to improve public access to transaction prices, allowing other buyers to gauge local market trends and assess how accurately advertised price guides reflect eventual outcomes.
Timely sale-price information can be particularly useful in fast-moving markets. Comparable sales are one of the most important tools buyers use to estimate property value, but that information becomes less useful when results are unavailable or delayed. Requiring disclosure within seven days can give purchasers a more current picture of what buyers are actually paying.
It may also make it easier to evaluate quoting practices. If a property is marketed at one level and sells substantially above that range, buyers can consider whether intense competition genuinely pushed the result higher or whether the original guide may have been too low. No individual transaction provides a definitive answer, but greater access to data gives purchasers more evidence.
Concerns about misleading pricing are not theoretical. Earlier this year, a Finder survey involving 1010 respondents found more than a quarter of buyers believed they had experienced underquoting or fake bidding at auction. The finding highlights the level of distrust that can develop when buyers feel the information available during a campaign does not reflect the likely transaction price or genuine competition.
Underquoting can be particularly damaging because buyers make financial and emotional decisions based on advertised expectations. They may pay for professional advice, obtain reports, attend multiple inspections and prepare to bid, only to find the property was never realistically available near the advertised level. Clearer pricing rules cannot remove every uncertainty from a sale campaign, but they can improve the quality of information available before buyers commit resources.
Fake bidding concerns create a different challenge because auctions depend heavily on confidence that competition is genuine. Transparency and effective enforcement are therefore important to maintaining trust in the process.
For buyers, the new rules should complement rather than replace independent research. An advertised price remains the agent’s estimate, not an independent valuation or guarantee of the eventual sale price. Purchasers still need to examine recent comparable transactions, property condition, land characteristics, location and buyer demand.
The broader direction of the reforms is nevertheless significant. New South Wales is requiring clearer expectations at the beginning of the campaign, while Victoria is improving disclosure after the transaction. Together, the measures provide more information at two important stages of the buying process.
Residential property will never have perfectly predictable pricing because every property and negotiation is different. Greater transparency, however, can help buyers make better-informed decisions. Requiring meaningful advertised prices, supporting those estimates with information and making final sale results available more quickly should reduce some of the uncertainty that has traditionally surrounded property campaigns.
