More than one in five Melbourne units resold in the June quarter changed hands for less than their previous purchase price, highlighting a sharp divide between apartment owners in Australia’s two biggest cities and sellers in stronger housing markets elsewhere.

Cotality data reported by ABC News shows 20.8 per cent of Melbourne unit resales recorded a nominal loss during the quarter. Sydney units also showed elevated losses, with 11.4 per cent selling below their previous purchase price.

The figures do not point to a nationwide housing crash. Across more than 94,000 residential resales nationally, 95.4 per cent still made a nominal profit, and the median gain was about $371,000. Houses remained more likely than units to sell above their previous purchase price, with 97.8 per cent of house resales profitable compared with 90.5 per cent of unit resales.

Instead, the data shows how uneven Australia’s housing market has become.

Melbourne has been one of the weaker capital-city markets in recent years, particularly for some apartments bought during periods of strong investor demand or high levels of new construction. Owners who purchased recently, paid a premium for new stock or bought in buildings with large numbers of similar units can be more exposed when demand softens.

The resale result is especially striking because it measures the sale price against the property’s previous purchase price. A recorded loss therefore means the property sold for less than the seller originally paid, before allowing for additional costs such as stamp duty, agent fees, legal costs, interest, maintenance and taxes.

That also means the “profit” side of the Cotality data is a gross nominal comparison rather than a calculation of the seller’s final return after every transaction and ownership cost.

Long-held properties are still much more likely to show large nominal gains because Australian dwelling values have risen substantially over long periods. That helps explain why national profitability remains historically high even as some recent buyers are selling at losses.

The split between houses and units is important.

Detached houses often have a larger land component and, in many established suburbs, face more limited new supply. Apartments can be added in much greater numbers, particularly in inner-city and middle-ring areas, and individual units often compete directly with similar apartments in the same building or nearby developments.

That does not mean apartments are automatically poor investments. Location, building quality, purchase price, local demand, body corporate costs, supply and the length of time a property is held can all materially affect the outcome.

But the latest figures show that owners of units in Melbourne face a much higher probability of a nominal resale loss than the national average.

Sydney’s 11.4 per cent unit loss rate was lower than Melbourne’s but still significant. ABC reported that Sydney and Melbourne units accounted for a large share of the total value of unit resale losses nationally, reflecting both the size of those markets and the higher prices involved.

At the other end of the spectrum, Brisbane remained exceptionally profitable for sellers. Cotality’s figures showed 99.8 per cent of Brisbane resales made a nominal gain, with a median profit of about $525,000.

That contrast reflects the different paths capital-city markets have taken since the pandemic.

South-east Queensland benefited from strong interstate migration and a major lift in dwelling values, while Melbourne’s market was softer by comparison. Victoria has also had substantial apartment construction over the past decade, giving buyers more choice in some locations.

The national result remains strong despite a broader cooling in housing conditions.

Cotality described resale profitability as historically high, even as the number of profitable transactions eased and dwelling values weakened through the June quarter. The data therefore points to a slowdown and geographic divergence rather than a broad collapse in household property wealth.

For homeowners, the risk of a loss is strongly linked to timing.

Someone who bought a unit two or three years ago and needs to sell into a weaker market has much less accumulated price growth to absorb a downturn than someone who bought 15 or 20 years ago.

That makes forced or time-sensitive sales particularly difficult. Owners dealing with relationship breakdown, job loss, relocation, refinancing pressure or a change in family circumstances may not have the luxury of waiting for conditions to improve.

Higher transaction costs also magnify the pain. A seller can technically record a small nominal profit in the Cotality data and still be worse off after stamp duty, selling costs, mortgage interest and other expenses are considered.

For prospective buyers, the figures can cut the other way.

A market in which more sellers are accepting losses may create opportunities to negotiate, especially where many similar apartments are listed. But a cheaper purchase price does not remove the need to examine strata finances, building defects, insurance, special levies, local supply and expected holding costs.

The numbers are also a reminder that headline measures such as a citywide median price can hide very different conditions within the same city.

Melbourne houses and Melbourne units do not necessarily move together. Nor do established low-rise apartments behave exactly like high-rise investor stock or newly built developments.

The practical question for owners is therefore not simply whether “Melbourne property” is rising or falling. It is how their particular segment, suburb and building are performing relative to the price they paid.

Nationally, most Australians who resold a home in the June quarter still made a substantial nominal gain. But for Melbourne apartment sellers, the latest Cotality data shows the softer side of the market is no longer theoretical: roughly one in five unit resales crystallised a loss against the previous purchase price.