Buyers beware as confident home sellers start to hold out for the asking price

Harry_Powell

chucky wrote: »

i accept you're apology

You've just said "I accept you are apology". No wonder you struggle to understand people on this forum.

chucky

Harry_Powell wrote: »

You've just said "I accept you are apology". No wonder you struggle to understand people on this forum.

i understand people perfectly - but i find it hard when something makes no sense at all.

i should have inserted the <sarcasm> tag around it for you...
<sarcasm>"I accept your apology"<sarcasm>

you are being really, really sensitive - do you want to talk about things?

Bluebirdnick

amcluesent wrote: »

"Buyers are beginning to lose the upper hand in house sales as fresh evidence suggests that in some regions of the country sellers are successfully holding out for close to the asking price.

Nearly two thirds of estate agents across the country said the difference between asking prices and selling prices narrowed sharply over the past three months.The margin between asking and sale prices is narrowing fastest in the South East of England."

GET IN!

For a few mad months, I was considering entering the housing market in summer 2007. Of the 10 houses I looked at (2-bed terraces, £180-£200k), 5 are still on Rightmove at their original price. One has sold for £155,000 (original asking price £189,000). 4, it would seem, have given up. Sellers gaining the upper hand? Not around here.

JonnyBravo

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

All I've said is, its AN EFFECT.

That I agree with.

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

For FTBS it will be in 1st place, I'd have thought, as it would sink their mortgage offer....

This is what I disagreed with.

But to your credit you supplied some evidence.

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2009/06/18/housing-market-confidence-outweighed-by-unemployment-fears/
Housing market confidence outweighed by unemployment fears

"However, fear of redundancy continued to put up a barrier with 61% of respondents citing this as their main concern when considering a house purchase. The proportion is unchanged from March."

But this seems to be a survey of those who are merely thinking not acting. I'm yet to be convinced of how important this "fear of redundancy" really is and how many serious purchasers are put off by this.
eg Harry isn't put off by this.
How about those who want to buy but just can't get a mortgage?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/13/mortgage-first-time-buyerd

"....tightened lending criteria meant first-time buyers applying for a large loan had a two-in-three chance of being rejected, with lenders only interested in "squeaky clean" borrowers with perfect credit records."

lostinrates

JonnyBravo wrote: »

But this seems to be a survey of those who are merely thinking not acting. I'm yet to be convinced of how important this "fear of redundancy" really is and how many serious purchasers are put off by this.

Well, Harry balances us out. We would buy, we have said that all along, but the fear has been present about redundancy: with the high level of cuts in City law firms we would be very foolish and arrogant to fail to consider it a posibility.

How about those who want to buy but just can't get a mortgage?

We can still get a decent normal domestic mortgage. But for the agricultural mortgage, things have really, really changed: in this last week. Regardless of the furture interest rate it became, this week, dramatically less likely for us, that we will buy in 2009. Now, other eoe's timing will of course be very different, as will what they want to buy : while we are art of the statistic that makes u the average I accet we might be far from that average FTB

Harry_Powell

lostinrates wrote: »

Well, Harry balances us out. We would buy, we have said that all along, but the fear has been present about redundancy: with the high level of cuts in City law firms we would be very foolish and arrogant to fail to consider it a posibility.

I have a job that's pretty secure from redundancy, but I also have a girlfriend who earns more than I do and who also has a really secure job, and we don't have any dependants. We therefore feel secure enough to consider buying a house, though considering and actually doing are two different things.

IveSeenTheLight

MrDT wrote: »

Of course I do, 50% of homeowners have no mortgage, they have 100% equity.

Do you believe that of the remainder over eight in ten have at least 75% equity? Bearing in mind that one in every ten of them are in negative equity.

Only one in ten mortgage holders have a ltv anywhere in the range 0% to 75%?

Nonsense, and you knows it

Hey, I didn't quote the percentage, however....

You accept that roughly 50% are mortgage free.
The CML in this report from Q1 2009 says http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/filegrab/Homeownerhousingequitythroughthedownturn.pdf?ref=6360

The absolute size of negative equity is currently small, with the value significantly less than £10,000 for two thirds of all borrowers in negative equity.

With relatively few homeowners in negative equity, modest shortfalls and negative equity more widely distributed across borrower types, ages and geographies, its impact is not yet as severe as in the 1990s market.

we estimate that 900,000 owner occupiers are now in negative equity, substantially less than estimates of the peak of negative equity in the 1990s.

As the estimate of those in negative equity is 900,000, with two thirds less than £10k (see above)
And there are 11.1 million mortgages (http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/2285), then this suggests 8.1% of mortgages homeowners are in negative equity or by our rough calculations 4.05% of all homeowners.
96% of homeowners therefore are not in negative equity.
600,000 in negative equity are estimated with less than 10K in negative equity.

Through all this, we still do not know the percentage with 75% equity or more, maybe the OP meant less than 75% LTV

MrDT

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

<Figures that support my point exactly>

That silly woman* states that over 90% of homeowners have at least 75% equity.

I'm going to try to simplify the numbers a little.

Say there are 100 homeowners in the uk, it follows that her supposition is now "at least 90 of them have at least 75% equity".

We can assume relatively safely that about 50 of them are mortgage free. They have over 75% equity.

Of the remaining 50 that have mortgages, 5 of them are in negative equity. (4 by your working, whatever, negative equity calcs aren't an exact science due to the dependency on sold prices to ascertain true market value, tell you what - let's go for 4 then).

We have 46 homeowners left with a mortgage balance whom aren't in negative equity.

Does she honestly expect anyone to believe that 40 of the 46 have 75%+ equity, leaving only 6 of them have a mortgage balance anywhere in the range of 0%ltv up to 75%ltv?

Shurely shome mishtake?

Whoops! No, she tries to pass it off as fact without any supporting evidence (though a lovely promise of a non existant link and a slight change of wording to allow some wiggle room ).

Things we have learnt from this post:

1 - IveSeenTheLight and MrDT agree on some numbers
2 - MrDT should get a life, this took nearly 5 minutes to write
3 - honeypopper is a clownshoe


*She just is, isn't she? A woman, I mean. 'honeypopper' is a woman, right? Clearly there's no question about the whole 'silly' thing.


edit: oh, it's islandannie - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=20371313&postcount=57 I was a bit slow catching on this time

Patmoore

Harry_Powell wrote: »

It was more than that, I was given the impression more than once that the asking price was very negotiable.

My wife and I are are in exactly the same boat, about to bid on a property in the morning that I feel is insanely overvalued. The agent said he 'probably agreed' that it was. Couldn't believe it!

ad44downey

Thery would seem to be small drops if you're an estate agent.