We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Phew
Comments
-
So you're not man enough. Hardly a surprise.
Who needs every flat to sell at 2003 prices? I only need to buy one.
Plus the current property I posted is on at 250K - but not under offer. So presumably still too expensive.
apologise for what?? do you really need someone to apologise to you on an internet forum to satisfy you!? get a grip woman!!Load of new house prices for one area I'm tracking just come in. Am pleased to report that whatever is going on nationally, or even in average terms in my area, the sort of houses I'm looking at are still all coming in at 2004 prices - under 250K.
you can't say that property is at 2003 or 2004 levels when it's not.
you do realise how averages work don't you... some will come in higher and some will come in lower to calculate the average...
the average for that street is not at 2003 or even at 2004 prices - you can continue to believe that it is but it's not true...
you've just proved it by saying that property is under offer at £250k - it's no where near the 2003 and 2004 price but between the 2007 and 2008 average price for that street.0 -
Harry_Powell wrote: »Ah, but the question is... will it be cheaper to buy in 2009 than 2010, 2011, etc.? Surely of more interest to prospective FTBers? Especially those of us who were not in the position to buy in 2003.
Well, there's not much of 2009 left, so you'd have to get in quick...
But yes, agree entirely. But would I rather be paying the same as someone who bought at peak - or even higher - or the same as I would have paid a few years ago?
It does matter, because local comparisons matter. When negotiating on a propery, if you can point out to the EA that the one down the road has just sold for 2004 prices, it gives greater weight to your 2004-type offer. And makes it more likely that it will be accepted. Which is why I keep watching prices, even though I'm not planning to buy before next year (with the exception of my dream house and/or a total bargain).0 -
-
apologise for what?? do you really need someone to apologise to you on an internet forum to satisfy you!? get a grip woman!!
you can't say that property is at 2003 or 2004 levels when it's not.
you do realise how averages work don't you... some will come in higher and some will come in lower to calculate the average...
the average for that street is not at 2003 or even at 2004 prices - you can continue to believe that it is but it's not true...
you've just proved it by saying that property is under offer at £250k - it's no where near the 2003 and 2004 price but between the 2007 and 2008 average price for that street.
Yes, if someone has accused me of being a liar in a public forum, and it is then proved I am no such thing, I would expect anyone in that situation to admit to it and apologise. It's called common courtesy.
And please re-read my post. Nowhere did I say the flat was under offer at 250K - I said it was asking that. But it hasn't gone under offer, despite this supposed frenzy of property buying that's apparently going on...somewhere. :rolleyes: Presumably because it's overpriced.
When it does sell, it will probably sell for rather less than those averages.0 -
JonnyBravo wrote: »Only one? Surely you need to one rent out as well?
Silly me. I quite forgot.
But only 1? Not much of a property empire, that. 0 -
So - to refer to Harry's not unreasonable point that what really matters is how much one would pay NOW, the answer is - less than 2003.
If the average is higher now would it not be a reasonable assumption that the single lowest priced property in 2003 will also be lower than the single lowest in 2009?
(I cant be !!!!!d to check.... Cleaver can you check?)
(Please note I'm not saying it is.... but it's more than possible..... having thought about it, the closeness of the averages and the fact we are in a much more volatile market now means it's only 50/50 in my book)
(ok I'm interested now and off to look it up myself)0 -
Don't see why that need follow - but yes, Cleaver - please do check. 0
-
Oh come on now.
chucky, julieq, ISTL, you wanted specific links.
I give you specific links, but ones that don't place me in any danger, and I am met with...silence.
I can't wait to hear your arguments about how the 'verifiable data' is wrong. :rolleyes:
Or are you only interested in evidence that fit into your pet theory? Hmmm.
Your met with silence as I've not been on to post anything.
I don't sit here waiting or holding my breath waiting for you to back up what you say.
Otherwise we'd be waiting a long time.
You give us 2 hours yet I asked 4 days ago for you to enlighten us to the area you were referring to (and were still waiting)
I've had a look at the link for the long road.
I'm sure you understand or maybe you don't, that you cannot take figures sold in the same road as common. We can see this road is made up of detached, semi-detached, terraced and flats, let alone know the make up of the properties i.e. how many bedrooms.
I notice that there are a few that have re-sold since 2003.
Only two properties re-sold in 2009
Property 176 sold in June 2009 for £235,000 while previously it sold in November 2004 for £208,000.
Property 212 sold in August 2009 for £230,000 and previously sold in October 2004 for £209,950
It would therefore appear factually that properties in this street are selling at circa 2005 prices not 2003 as you try to claim.
Comparing them as you have done, I could easily pick out properties that sold in 2007 such as no's 5,7, 41, 115 & 162 that sold for £238,000, £240,000, £236,000, £235,000 & £235,500 respectfully and state that the properties in the street are selling at 2007 prices :rolleyes:
If the truth be told, it would appear by graphing all sold properties that prices in this street have remained pretty stagnant since 2003.
I don't think you can really claim this to be a massive drop when you review the actual data.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
JonnyBravo wrote: »If the average is higher now would it not be a reasonable assumption that the single lowest priced property in 2003 will also be lower than the single lowest in 2009?
(I cant be !!!!!d to check.... Cleaver can you check?)
What am I, your PA?
Not sure the validity of looking at this to tell you anything, but the cheapest sale in 2003 was £177k, the cheapest sold in 2009 was £195k.0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
If the truth be told, it would appear by graphing all sold properties that prices in this street have remained pretty stagnant since 2003.Load of new house prices for one area I'm tracking just come in. Am pleased to report that whatever is going on nationally, or even in average terms in my area, the sort of houses I'm looking at are still all coming in at 2004 prices - under 250K.
Good. Job done.
All this slanging match to basically agree.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards