Seller raises asking price substantially. A sign of the times?

julieq

tommy75 wrote: »

Yer, I can see the mentality of it but I look at it a different way. If I had bought that house prior to 2003 I would of paid about half the price it is today. Even with the mortgage interest the debt wouldn't be asmuch as the amount I would have to find just to buy the house in 2009. With this in mind, Is 130k still a bargain?

In 2015 it'll probably look like a bargain, yes.

the_ash_and_the_oak

think he'll have to drop the price if he wants to move imo

carolt

We've got a house like that near us - prices up and down like a yo-yo, came on at 330K, I think, well over a year ago, changes price every few weeks - currently standing at 300K, but no takers.

I think their problem is that others in the street sold recently for under 240K - I happen to know this one is bigger than the ones that sold for that, but unless you know the street well and have been keeping an eye on it - we nearly bought there a few years back, so I watch it now for sentimental reasons - you'd just think it was horrendously overpriced.

Just think there are some very indecisive sellers out there who fervently believe everything they read in the property pages - so everytime they read there's been a rise, they put prices up, even though their house blatantly wasn't selling at the lower price. Then when - surprise, surprise! - it doesn't sell, they lower it again.

Until the next headline... :rolleyes:

purch

A sign of the times?

More like, a sign of Insanity !!!

nickj_2

we got into this mess by having people buying
houses that were way beyong their means
to the h/m to raise considerably surely means that
we have not learnt anything
the govt is scared that people could be £10's of 000's
in neg equity if house prices were to get to a realistic level

nearlynew

The seller is obviously a chancer.

Greed and stupidity is a wonderful combination.

Rockporkchop

A couple of months ago I was hoping to buy a house with four attached holiday cottages in Norfolk, directly through the seller. Unfortunately the night before I was due to go through the books and get a detailed look at the property, I had a call from the seller. She said she had spoken to an estate agent and he had advised her that she was underselling the property and should reconsider the pricing, especially due to a promising amount of forward bookings for 2010.

When we had previously discussed the price, she said she was hoping for £850k ono. It is now on sale with the estate agent for £1.1m!!

tommy75

Related article from Jan 09: Stockport being NW's second dearest town.

http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/news/s/1093163_stockport_is_nws_second_dearest_town

Includes Alderly Edge & Wilmslow?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tommy75 wrote: »

Yer, I can see the mentality of it but I look at it a different way. If I had bought that house prior to 2003 I would of paid about half the price it is today. Even with the mortgage interest the debt wouldn't be asmuch as the amount I would have to find just to buy the house in 2009. With this in mind, Is 130k still a bargain?

And if you could have bought the house in 1970, it would be even more of a bargain.

Without a time machine however, neither scenario is likely to happen.;)

Still, in 10 years, todays prices will look like a bargain, so at least you can look forward to that.;)

geoffky

I can post thousands that have dropped in price......whats the point of this thread?