To those selling in these difficult times Part Deux. AKA sellers support network!

monkeys_bunny

the.ciscokid wrote: »

Does support mean you would like advice, or want to wallow in self pity? I am only pointing out some fact which may be of use to people trying to sell their house, so there is no need to be rude.

Why are my views pointless? If you are not happy with what I am saying, you could just ignore me?

rude, dont think i was as rude really. yes we all know its hard at the moment, its hard for everyone. the only point i am saying is that just because its hard doesnt mean i have to give my house away.

as i have said before i you were selling your car for £1,500.00 you would probably expect to get £1,000 for it at the lowest. if i came along with £500 and said to you well thats all i have so you should sell it to me as thats all i have, you would tell me where to go, would you not? and in all fairness i would have looked for cars in my price range to start off with.

i hope this explains my point better to you

yes this is a support thread, we cheer each other up and advise on pictures etc and tell people honestly if we think something is wrong we do not however just stomp in with "lower your price" as nothing is black and white. also we have seen on here that lowering your price does not work all the time anyway, there are lots and lots of factors and buyers should save and then look around for what they can afford not expect sellers to pander to them

this is just my view

thank you

harz99

the.ciscokid wrote: »

Does support mean you would like advice, or want to wallow in self pity? I am only pointing out some fact which may be of use to people trying to sell their house, so there is no need to be rude.

Why are my views pointless? If you are not happy with what I am saying, you could just ignore me?

Precisely; and happy to take that advice from you in future - now please go away to a buyers thread if you cannot give SUPPORT on the SELLERS thread!

the.ciscokid

monkeys_bunny wrote: »

rude, dont think i was as rude really. yes we all know its hard at the moment, its hard for everyone. the only point i am saying is that just because its hard doesnt mean i have to give my house away.

Totally agree, you absolutely do not have to give your house away at all.

What we all need to do, buyers AND sellers, is look at BOTH sides of the equation, and the broader economic picture. Please note this only applies if you have to, or absolutley want to sell. If you have no need to sell, it is utterly irrelevant.

as i have said before i you were selling your car for £1,500.00 you would probably expect to get £1,000 for it at the lowest. if i came along with £500 and said to you well thats all i have so you should sell it to me as thats all i have, you would tell me where to go, would you not?

100% agree. I wouldn't. But then, buying a car is not comparable to buying a house in my humble opinion... unless you buy a camper van of course

and in all fairness i would have looked for cars in my price range to start off with.

100% agree with you again. However buying a house has slightly more implications, if for example you have kids, you dont want to buy a studio flat... but if that is all you can afford due to the banks lending criteria, well, you are a bit stuck.

I absolutely agree people need to save more deposit to be able to afford the house, but again it is a 2 way street IF sellers need to shift their houses. It then has a knock on effect up the chain, and the original seller buys his house cheaper in theory.

My assertion is that, until this grease is applied to the cogs of the housing market, we are going to be stuck in a rut for a long time.

i hope this explains my point better to you

It does, thanks.

yes this is a support thread, we cheer each other up and advise on pictures etc and tell people honestly if we think something is wrong we do not however just stomp in with "lower your price" as nothing is black and white. also we have seen on here that lowering your price does not work all the time anyway, there are lots and lots of factors and buyers should save and then look around for what they can afford not expect sellers to pander to them

this is just my view

thank you

Yes, buyers should save, I absolutely agree, and if you are prepared to wait, as a seller, for all that saving to happen then that is great. But what are the wider economic implications?

It's a bit narrow minded if you are not open to peoples opinions though. A little bit of realism may just help the market, and we all end up happier as a result. Possibly wishful thinking at the moment though.

the.ciscokid

harz99 wrote: »

Precisely; and happy to take that advice from you in future - now please go away to a buyers thread if you cannot give SUPPORT on the SELLERS thread!

Just for my own understanding, would you please define what you mean by "support"?

Emy1501

as i have said before i you were selling your car for £1,500.00 you would probably expect to get £1,000 for it at the lowest. if i came along with £500 and said to you well thats all i have so you should sell it to me as thats all i have, you would tell me where to go, would you not? and in all fairness i would have looked for cars in my price range to start off with.

Depends on whether your car is worth 1K and the potential buyer is looking out of their depth or whether the car is only worth £500. You can turn it around and say should a buyer pay 1k because thats what the seller needs to get to buy a better car etc regardless of whether the current market dictates the car is worth 1k or not.

sonastin

the.ciscokid wrote: »

It is probably to do with the idea that if the house you are selling decreases in price, so will the one you are buying... not that you have to go renting... that's a little bit dramatic!

When vendors say that they can't afford to reduce their price any more because they won't have any equity left and won't be able to buy a new house, the I-have-saved-some-money-so-I-am-owed-a-house brigade like to respond with helpful comments like:
"why should I have to fund your next house"
"why should I have to bail you out of your bad decisions"
"why do I have to pay for your negative equity"

Even for vendors who do have equity, being told "you must reduce your price because I have only got 10% of what I want your house to be worth and I don't want to / can't save enough to have 10% of what you want to sell your house for" is effectively saying "I deserve to swap places with you. I have too small a deposit but I want to own a house. So sell me your house at a low price and then you can be the one with the deposit which is too small, hoping that vendors will be prepared to reduce their price and I can be the one who owns a house". Sounds pretty selfish to me.

The majority of sellers had to save for a deposit. They had to work hard to acquire their first homes. They prioritised home-ownership over other fun things to spend money on. Just because circumstances have changed now, and buyers have to work a little bit harder, doesn't mean that sellers should throw away they work they put in just to make life easier for buyers - especially as a lot of the buyers complaining now prioritised the fun stuff when they could have bought when houses were easier to buy.

the.ciscokid

sonastin wrote: »

When vendors say that they can't afford to reduce their price any more because they won't have any equity left and won't be able to buy a new house, the I-have-saved-some-money-so-I-am-owed-a-house brigade like to respond with helpful comments like:
"why should I have to fund your next house"
"why should I have to bail you out of your bad decisions"
"why do I have to pay for your negative equity"

Even for vendors who do have equity, being told "you must reduce your price because I have only got 10% of what I want your house to be worth and I don't want to / can't save enough to have 10% of what you want to sell your house for" is effectively saying "I deserve to swap places with you. I have too small a deposit but I want to own a house. So sell me your house at a low price and then you can be the one with the deposit which is too small, hoping that vendors will be prepared to reduce their price and I can be the one who owns a house". Sounds pretty selfish to me.

The majority of sellers had to save for a deposit. They had to work hard to acquire their first homes. They prioritised home-ownership over other fun things to spend money on. Just because circumstances have changed now, and buyers have to work a little bit harder, doesn't mean that sellers should throw away they work they put in just to make life easier for buyers - especially as a lot of the buyers complaining now prioritised the fun stuff when they could have bought when houses were easier to buy.

Wow, relax... don't let the cheap shots get to you would be my advice... though it seems some on here are pretty keen to dish them out. That said, a little dash of realism now and then can be useful, would you agree?

I agree with you completely with the implied point about financial responsibility. There are though 2 sides to the equation, and both buyers and sellers need to think in terms of the others situation. Banks won't lend, so buyers can't borrow and pay the sellers asking price - hence there is a stalemate.

If the seller doesnt need to sell, they can just wait... and there is no harm done. The same applies for the buyers. The question is, what will the future bring?... and no one knows the answer to that.

monkeys_bunny

the.ciscokid wrote: »

However buying a house has slightly more implications, if for example you have kids, you dont want to buy a studio flat... but if that is all you can afford due to the banks lending criteria, well, you are a bit stuck..

i dont really want to get into this any more but i will end my point with. If you wanted to start a family you should have done it the old fashioned way, prepared for your family by purchasing a home for them and then having the fun producing them. if you have a family you also have to understand that they are your responsibilty and just cos i happend to have scrimpt and saved to buy my house in the first place while you were off having kids does not mean i have to slash the price now so you can put a roof over their heads.

sonastin wrote: »

The majority of sellers had to save for a deposit. They had to work hard to acquire their first homes. They prioritised home-ownership over other fun things to spend money on. Just because circumstances have changed now, and buyers have to work a little bit harder, doesn't mean that sellers should throw away they work they put in just to make life easier for buyers QUOTE]

here here

Quote I agree with you completely with the implied point about financial responsibility. There are though 2 sides to the equation, and both buyers and sellers need to think in terms of the others situation. Banks won't lend, so buyers can't borrow and pay the sellers asking price - hence there is a stalemate.quote

but this is not strictly true is it. the banks will lend but you have to be prepared to save a little more and get a nice healthy deposit not just expect them to give you a big fat hand out like they used to, this is one of the ways we got into this mess. the banks are just being a lttle over protective now they got burnt. shut your computer down and go get a job and save like the wind haha (not sure how wind saves )

harz99

Please everyone, try to ignore the child and he/she will get bored and go away.

wherediditallgothen

sonastin wrote: »

When vendors say that they can't afford to reduce their price any more because they won't have any equity left and won't be able to buy a new house, the I-have-saved-some-money-so-I-am-owed-a-house brigade like to respond with helpful comments like:
"why should I have to fund your next house"
"why should I have to bail you out of your bad decisions"
"why do I have to pay for your negative equity"

Even for vendors who do have equity, being told "you must reduce your price because I have only got 10% of what I want your house to be worth and I don't want to / can't save enough to have 10% of what you want to sell your house for" is effectively saying "I deserve to swap places with you. I have too small a deposit but I want to own a house. So sell me your house at a low price and then you can be the one with the deposit which is too small, hoping that vendors will be prepared to reduce their price and I can be the one who owns a house". Sounds pretty selfish to me.

The majority of sellers had to save for a deposit. They had to work hard to acquire their first homes. They prioritised home-ownership over other fun things to spend money on. Just because circumstances have changed now, and buyers have to work a little bit harder, doesn't mean that sellers should throw away they work they put in just to make life easier for buyers - especially as a lot of the buyers complaining now prioritised the fun stuff when they could have bought when houses were easier to buy.

It's not selfish of either party imho. Buyers want the best house at the lowest price they can get. Sellers want to get the best price they possibly can, and in some cases they need a certain amount to move, or ensure that they can cover debts.

Obviously both sides have different views, and hopefully they can compromise somewhere in the middle that makes the process mutually beneficial although not 'perfect' for either party. In a nutshell, both sides will HAVE to compromise right now for a sale to go through.