The relevance of CVs (Capital Values) has been questioned recently. It's not the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last, but the one thing I think we have to come back to is that CVs are a great anchor point for market value and, either consciously or sub-consciously, pretty much everyone in the market uses a CV as a guide.
In fact, there are a number of automated valuation models (AVMs) in the market and these models look at the characteristics of recently sold properties to calculate a current market value for all properties. One of the key input characteristics for these models? The CV.
The important thing to remember is that no one expects a property to sell for its CV, because that value is relevant only at the time of calculation. But, what is relevant is what similar properties are currently selling for in relation to their CVs.
We naturally do it when looking at houses selling in our neighbourhood. Statements like "Did you see the house at #23 sold for $800k? Ours must be worth at least $850k then!" are common, and it's a perfect example of how we automatically use comparable properties to assess the value of our own. Models just formalise this. And without CVs they'd be much less accurate.
To add some stats to it, right now in Auckland, higher value properties (especially those with a CV above $1.2 million) typically sell at, or slightly below, their CV. Properties at the lower end? They're selling slightly above.