Solution for FTB's MAYBE.

rizla01

Would this idea help.

What do you think?

As we know one of the problems with the existing property market is that there are fewer first time buyers to oil the wheels of the Property Chain.

Do you think that if it were to made easier for the FTB to afford a property (for example, if the seller was able to reduce the selling price) then that would help the situation? If so then I think that the solution, in part, could lie in the hands of the NAEA.

If EA's were to actually subsidise the sales below, say, £150k and that the NAEA were to pay them a subsidy to cover the costs then that would help the lower end of the market to get moving, surely?

If Sales of the higher priced properties were to be used to fund this payment back to the NAEA then nobody loses. (What harm would .05% out of their normal 1.75% from the sale of a 1,000k prop, do to Savilles? )

"Ah, yes", I hear you say, "what about areas where there are NO props under £150k they wouldn't benefit" .

"What about areas where there are no props ABOVE £150k, they will be gaining more than most".

Trouble with a lot of EA's is that they are running round like the headless chickens, unable to help themselves and (quite rightly) wouldn't offer to cut the fees for the lower priced sector even if it did help because it would be helping others EA's further up the chain, who contributed nothing.

Please bear with me and read the following.

A rabbi was talking with God about Heaven and Hell.
"Come," said God. "Walk with me, and I will show you Hell."
And together they walked into a room of cold, rough stone. In the center of the room, atop a low fire, sat a huge pot of quietly simmering stew. The stew smelled delicious, and made the rabbi's mouth water. A group of people sat in a circle around the pot, and each of them held a curiously long-handled spoon. The spoons were long enough to reach the pot; but the handles were so ungainly that every time someone dipped the bowl of their spoon into the pot and tried to maneuver the bowl to their mouth, the stew would spill. The rabbi could hear the grumblings of their bellies. They were cold, hungry, and miserable.

"And now," God said, "I will show you Heaven."
Together they walked into another room, almost identical to the first. A second pot of stew simmered in the center; another ring of people sat around it; each person was outfitted with one of the frustratingly long spoons. But this time, the people sat with the spoons across their laps or laid on the stone beside them. They talked, quietly and cheerfully with one another. They were warm, well-fed, and happy.

"Lord, I don't understand," said the rabbi. "How was the first room Hell; and this, Heaven?"
God smiled. "It's simple," he said. "You see, they have learned to feed each other."

By helping other members they will be rescuing themselves

The NAEA could suggest this to all of it's members and set up a fund for the purpose which would be solely for the benefit of it's members.

Hopefully this would also encourage greater membership of the NAEA as well as assuring existing members of the added benefits of being a member.

WTF?_2

rizla01 wrote: »

Would this idea help.

What do you think?

So basically, the suggestion is that estate agents create business for themselves by somehow subsidising the sales of lower-priced properties?

That's moronic - where is all the cash supposed to come from, Pixie Land? EAs typically take a small percentage of selling price so realistically any subsidy would have to be less than this in order for them to turn a profit on the transaction. Unless of course you believe the NAEA are some sort of Illuminati-style operation sitting on the Treasure of the Knights Templar :rotfl:

I guess you could apply this amazing plan to almost any industry where they weren't selling enough of their product. Better call General Motors in the US and tell them if they'd just start buying their own cars their problems would be over :rolleyes:


Here's an idea - how about EAs work to get their clients to post sensible asking prices for their houses instead of la-la-land pricing based on the madness of last Summer? Houses aren't shifting because they are too expensive. One of the reasons they are so expensive is because EAs shamelessnessly and short-sightedly did their best to push the market up and up beyond sustainability. Now the price expectations created by their past actions have come back to bite them.

rizla01

That's moronic - where is all the cash supposed to come from, Pixie Land?

Why is it moronic to expect the higher priced properties on which the EA's make HUGE amounts for the same amount of work, to subsidise the lower priced properties, which in turn would spur a move in the property market?

When you bear in mind that this could enable the housing market to move again, aren't you able to see that the EA's would then sell MORE of the higher priced property and therefore, instead of LOSING money, would, in fact make MORE money?

I'd call it Moronic, if you are not able to see that computation.

Property prices are governed by whatever people are prepared to pay for any given property - Nothing else. But then that is not the point of discussion here.

pickles110564

And you lot think im out there.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

bluejake

Falling prices are the only solution to first buyers who want to buy but cannot afford to. Crackpot schemes will not stop the inevitable happening - prices coming down to a level that people can afford to pay.

Those who propose these schemes do not want to help first buyers, although they claim to, they want to keep prices high and preferably increasing for their own interests.

jamescredmond

rizla01 wrote: »

Why is it moronic to expect the higher priced properties on which the EA's make HUGE amounts for the same amount of work, to subsidise the lower priced properties, which in turn would spur a move in the property market?

When you bear in mind that this could enable the housing market to move again, aren't you able to see that the EA's would then sell MORE of the higher priced property and therefore, instead of LOSING money, would, in fact make MORE money?

I'd call it Moronic, if you are not able to see that computation.

Property prices are governed by whatever people are prepared to pay for any given property - Nothing else. But then that is not the point of discussion here.

what's moronic is your 'prepared to pay' assertion.

haven't you spotted the 'fund availability' thing?

further research req'd, obviously..

rizla01

bluejake wrote: »

Falling prices are the only solution to first buyers who want to buy but cannot afford to. Crackpot schemes will not stop the inevitable happening - prices coming down to a level that people can afford to pay.

Those who propose these schemes do not want to help first buyers, although they claim to, they want to keep prices high and preferably increasing for their own interests.

So do you seriously believe that it is in the country's best interest if property prices fall to say, 2/3rd (or less) of what they are today?

what's moronic is your 'prepared to pay' assertion.

haven't you spotted the 'fund availability' thing?

further research req'd, obviously..

I'm sorry JamesC, You have completely lost me?

Do you have an intelligable version of those statements or at least one better explained?:rotfl:

Explain, perhaps, what is wrong with my so called 'Prepared to pay' assertion? Are you somehow saying that people are NOT prepared to pay the price asked?

Also explain to us all what relevence your statements have to the original question posed - if any? And if not what is the purpose of your post?

Sorry, having been accused of making 'Moronic' statements (Quite rude aren't we) :T I can only assume that you are both correct and that I am, in fact a Moron which explains why I see what you have written as pure gobbledegook.


I was asking for opinions but not personal attacks. If my suggestion troubles or upsets you so, then kindly don't read it, move on and definitely don't respond.

Thank you?

wisbech_lad

rizla01 wrote: »

So do you seriously believe that it is in the country's best interest if property prices fall to say, 2/3rd (or less) of what they are today?

Yes. It is the best interest of the UK economy that real property prices drop about 30-40% from peak.

dannyboycey

The best solution for FTB's is the ongoing crash. In the interim, there will be many more hair brain schemes to try and lure the last few lambs to the slaughter. The common denominator of these schemes being that they don't benefit the FTB in any way.

kristianwilliams

....so its best for house prices to stay high for the economy......... why? Surely

lower house prices = lower mortgage repayments = more disposable income = more sales / shopping = more jobs = a better economy.

High house prices = high mortgage repayments = less disposable income = less sales/shopping = less jobs = a false/falling economy based on debt = now.

ruggedtoast

I've got a zany idea. Why dont we just let house prices continue to come down to an affordable level so that people can buy them without crippling themselves, lenders can lend on them without going broke, a lesson is finally learned and there isnt another ruinous boom and bust, and the British public never again have to see sarah Beeny or Kirstie Allsopp on tv?