Halifax down 0.5% MoM, 15% YoY

westv

carolt wrote: »

Only if you think that general market conditions excludes large swathes of property transactions.

Doesn't make sense to me.

Are there people who refuse to look at any of these categories in case they should accidentally get a bargain?

Why include properties that have either been sold at a discount or a premium when trying to work out price increases/reductions for property that most (??) people deal with?

carolt

Most??

Surely in a downturn these types of transaction become much more common.

bluey890

carolt wrote: »

But given that unemployment is rising and lending is reduced, I'm not really clear where the supposed recovery is supposed to be coming from.

The fall in the value of sterling?

ad9898_3

westv wrote: »

Why include properties that have either been sold at a discount or a premium when trying to work out price increases/reductions for property that most (??) people deal with?

Totally disagree, it's these very properties that need to be factored in to give a realistic perspective of the current market, for example if five houses are sold in a street and four are forced sales and one isn't then why just take the one house as the true value......... the true value of something is what someone is willing to sell for and someone whose willing to buy at, not what an EA thinks it's worth.

westv

carolt wrote: »

Most??

Surely in a downturn these types of transaction become much more common.

That's why I put (??). I would have said they are more common but still a small percentage of the overall figure. I don't have percentages. Do you?

westv

ad9898 wrote: »

Totally disagree, it's these very properties that need to be factored in to give a realistic perspective of the current market, for example if five houses are sold in a street and four are forced sales and one isn't then why just take the one house as the true value......... the true value of something is what someone is willing to sell for and someone whose willing to buy at, not what an EA thinks it's worth.

Overall I would have thought the places where 4 out of 5 houses in a street are forced sales would be very low but I have no info to back that up.

ad9898_3

westv wrote: »

Overall I would have thought the places where 4 out of 5 houses in a street are forced sales would be very low but I have no info to back that up.

I'm sure you're probably right, however it doesn't change the fact that a lot of houses that are being sold for 25%+ off peak through auctions or forced sales are not showing up in any figures.

Just to edit..... If these sales only take up a 'fraction of the current transactions', then there is even more of an argument to include them...... we would then finally once and for all have an index that no one could dispute......... the simple fact is they are a much larger proportion than would like to be admitted, and an inclusion would possibly see prices overall down by over 30% so far....... causing a real panic in the market. The powers that be do not want to see this, as most of them are homeowners themselves.

Harry_Powell

We've been house hunting for a while and have seen a couple of 'forced sale' properties, they're not in great condition and they're not being given away either.

In one fo them the previous owners went BR and ripped out anything of value from the property while it was still 'theirs'. The place was gutted and would have cost a fortune to put right.

I used to believe that the LR figures shoudl include repo's but after seeing some of them, I've changed my mind, they're priced at a lower value for a reason.

Out of interest, is anyone else here actively looking? We're having real difficulty finding anything decent at the moment, and I'd like to know if we're just too picky or whether anyone else is having the same problems.

chucky

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Out of interest, is anyone else here actively looking? We're having real difficulty finding anything decent at the moment, and I'd like to know if we're just too picky or whether anyone else is having the same problems.

i'm looking in West and Central London and there hasn't been anything around of quality and at the 'right price' for months.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Harry_Powell wrote: »

In one fo them the previous owners went BR and ripped out anything of value from the property while it was still 'theirs'. The place was gutted and would have cost a fortune to put right.

I used to believe that the LR figures shoudl include repo's but after seeing some of them, I've changed my mind, they're priced at a lower value for a reason.

And that would be exactly why it's ridiculous to include them in the LR figures. Why include all the fire damaged, tenant vandalised, half gutted or uncared for dregs of the market? It serves no purpose for practical comparisons of quality properties that most normal people would actually want to buy.

The types of specialist buyers that would take on repo's and distressed properties already know what they're going for at auction.

And the total volumes are low, at a projected 65K this year, thats only a few K more than last months sales. One months sales is not enough to seriously swing the market, particularly given how many of them are in terrible condition.