Less houses comimg to market!

baileysbattlebus

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Our immediate neighbours put their house on the market in early April 2008. As they wished to move to get their daughter into a better school for the autumn term.

They finally completed a sale just before Easter this year.

Problem was, they perceived their house to be worth more than people offered. Was under offer 3 times before getting the final agreed sale. As property is in short supply in our locality seemed if people made an offer to reserve the house whilst still looking and didn't actually progress the purchase further.

So their spring bounce went very flat..........

That could very well be what is happening in our area - all I wanted to do was point out is that where we live the the number of properties up for sale has increased around five fold in the last month and the proportion sstc is significantly higher too.

This is different from a number of posters' observations about their own area - just goes to show every area is different and that it's the area local to you that's important.

michaels

Looks like it is very regional - I am another in a town where supply was very tight earlier in the spring and even the dross that had been on for ages was selling. I think others have now noticed and a few more properties have been coming on (and at higher prices), not sure if there is enough demand for them to sell.

Re HIPS - if it were not for HIPS we might have put ours on and thus be looking more seriously (nothing like having an offer or two to make us sure what it might be worth) but the cost of a hip is a good excuse not to make the effort.

Having read the above though it sounds like our thermal store (= almost endless hot water without a ridiculously oversized boiler) would probably confuse the assessor...

the_ash_and_the_oak

dopester wrote: »

You really can't snap out of this thinking can you. You are so wrong.

Supply needs to increase to see larger falls? :rotfl:

yeah tbh not really seeing anything thats changed my mind on this yet imo.

you're not really into this so much - which is the bit you disagree w?

i) more transactions to occur in 2010 than in 2009

ii) yoy price drops to be greater in 2010 than in 2009

dopester

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

yeah tbh not really seeing anything thats changed my mind on this yet imo.

you're not really into this so much - which is the bit you disagree w?

i) more transactions to occur in 2010 than in 2009

ii) yoy price drops to be greater in 2010 than in 2009

What about the falls in value we are seeing in many areas of around -20% compared to what homes were selling for at the end of the boom?

How many sales do you think have gone through compared to the total stock of homes? A fraction is the answer, yet those sales, at lower prices, brought about the falls in value for all homes in all areas.

Transaction levels don't really matter. All that matters is the prices being paid.

Not all homes are for sale at any one time. Only a small percentage of the total stock of homes.

All it makes for all home to rise in value is for those who are selling and those who are buying, to agree to do buy/sell at higher prices.

That makes EVERYONEs home rise in value.

Asset prices rise not because of "buying" per se, because indeed for every buyer, there is a seller. They rise because those transacting agree that their prices should be higher. All that everyone else - including those who own some of that asset and those who do not - need do is nothing.

Everyone's home rose in value by those buying for at higher prices. Even old people who haven't moved home for decades... their home rose multiple-times in value, all the way to 2007/08 peak, simply by people paying ever high prices for the similar homes which were available on the market. Those pensioners didn't have to do anything to get the bulk of the rise in value.

The few transactions in the market (compared to total stock of homes not on the market), month after, month, year after year, gave them the increases in value.

Values for homes are lost when the transaction in the market, even if transaction rates are low, are struck at ever lower prices. Even if the homeowner doesn't have their home for sale, their home loses value by the buyers and sellers doing deals at lower prices.

the_ash_and_the_oak

dunno feel the 2009 falls have been pretty small so far (comparatively) imo

i kinda see where you are coming from but do you really think 2009 falls are going to be larger than 2010s??? cant really see it tbh

the_ash_and_the_oak

dopester wrote: »

What about the falls in value we are seeing in many areas of around -20% compared to what homes were selling for at the end of the boom? .

kinda feel the bulk of the 20% really was a 2008 thing - feelin the falls during 2009 not so marked as 2008. reckon we'll see lower yoy % falls at end of 2009 than 2008. don't really see it as anything more than postponing (dont mark to market - there is no value). falls to increase apace in 2010 - greater yoy falls at dec 2010 than 2009.

guess it doesn't really matter just think the figures'll work out this way imo

dopester

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

kinda feel the bulk of the 20% really was a 2008 thing - feelin the falls during 2009 not so marked as 2008. reckon we'll see lower yoy % falls at end of 2009 than 2008. don't really see it as anything more than postponing (dont mark to market - there is no value). falls to increase apace in 2010 - greater yoy falls at dec 2010 than 2009.

guess it doesn't really matter just think the figures'll work out this way imo

You do a lot of feeling. The crash rate of decline in values has been epic.

Compare it to the last crash.

Halifax -1.7% for April just gone. These are £billions in lost value wiped away from UK homes.

Not just sellers homes. All homes.




It is obvious there is much confusion here, because in the latest Halifax thread, son,e people were expressing surprise at the fall.

Given reports of transaction levels going up from previous months - a Spring bounce - they expected prices to rise.

Wrong. Bounce in transactions or no bounce in transactions, all that matters is the prices buyer and sellers agree on. When lower than in previous months, that brings down the value of all homes.

I agree 2010 should continue with the falls, but 2009 is not over. I agree transaction levels may be up in 2010, but that alone doesn't mean faster decline in values.

the_ash_and_the_oak

dopester wrote: »

You do a lot of feeling. The crash rate of decline in values has been epic.

Compare it to the last crash.

Halifax -1.7% for April just gone. These are £billions in lost value wiped away from UK homes.

Not just sellers homes. All homes.




It is obvious there is much confusion here, because in the latest Halifax thread, son,e people were expressing surprise at the fall.

Given reports of transaction levels going up from previous months - a Spring bounce - they expected prices to rise.

Wrong. Bounce in transactions or no bounce in transactions, all that matters is the prices buyer and sellers agree on. When lower than in previous months, that brings down the value of all homes.

I agree 2010 should continue with the falls, but 2009 is not over. I agree transaction levels may be up in 2010, but that alone doesn't mean faster decline in values.

wasn't really expecting any kind of bounce tbh. think we'll see a few months along the way with rises. the ones so far have been no surprise - prob some others here and there no?

don't think higher transactions alone means faster declines by any means. just think the falls during 09 haven't been so much (don't think they've stopped either)

not really sure if you're disagreeing w me or not now. larger falls in 09 or 10? which you think? more sales 09 or 10? which you think?

the_ash_and_the_oak

agree w you that falls have been pretty sharp - what proportion of the falls do you think happened between peak and introduction of 0.5% base rate? and what proportion after?