The property market and reality

chucky

Pobby wrote: »

I`ll have you know that Bruno is in fact a master of predictions and uses well thought out debate. Not at all extreme.

i don't know enough about him or seen any of his posts. just the stories on these threads.

good to see that you haven't denied him being your buddy.

Cleaver

carolt wrote: »

As I used to live in West London, I had a look at a road I used to live in. When we left in spring 2003, you could buy a flat here (it's a good comparison, as basically all the flats are identical 2 bed maisonettes, and it's a long road, so there's lots to compare), for £200-250K ish.

You can now buy a flat for...the same price.

So - from this lone but quite large sample - it seems clear that prices in West London are not rising, but have fallen back 6 years...just like that.

Using the data from that road Carol the following are the average prices in each year:

2009 £224,990
2008 £252,375
2007 £246,797
2006 £223,018
2005 £222,615
2004 £211,867
2003 £202,867
2002 £168,769
2001 £153,524

So using yearly average sales, prices are up around 11% on that road since 2003. So looking at the data prices in that particular street are back to around mid-2006. This is all based on averages of course. The last two flats on the street sold for an average of £240k, which is only a 5% fall from the average peak price of 2008.

Then on the other hand, a flat sold in August for £195k which means the buyer picked up a flat for 2002 kinda prices.

But then number 176 which just sold in June 2009 cost the buyer 13% more than it did when it last sold in November 2004.

The person who picked up number 209 in March 2008 paid a whopping 61% more than the person who bought it back in November 2002.

Number 68 sold at a 20% loss in July 2006 compared to when it sold last in March 2003.

With so much variation in just one street is it any wonder no one can ever agree on anything on this forum?

chucknorris

Cleaver wrote: »

Using the data from that road Carol the following are the average prices in each year:

2009 £224,990
2008 £252,375
2007 £246,797
2006 £223,018
2005 £222,615
2004 £211,867
2003 £202,867
2002 £168,769
2001 £153,524

So using yearly average sales, prices are up around 11% on that road since 2003. So looking at the data prices in that particular street are back to around mid-2006. This is all based on averages of course. The last two flats on the street sold for an average of £240k, which is only a 5% fall from the average peak price of 2008.

Then on the other hand, a flat sold in August for £195k which means the buyer picked up a flat for 2002 kinda prices.

But then number 176 which just sold in June 2009 cost the buyer 13% more than it did when it last sold in November 2004.

The person who picked up number 209 in March 2008 paid a whopping 61% more than the person who bought it back in November 2002.

Number 68 sold at a 20% loss in July 2006 compared to when it sold last in March 2003.

With so much variation in just one street is it any wonder no one can ever agree on anything on this forum?

Hey that's cheating you are just using maths, logic and common sense to spoil the 'smoke and mirrors' illusion.

Cleaver

chucknorris wrote: »

Hey that's cheating you are just using maths, logic and common sense to spoil the 'smoke and mirrors' illusion.

I wasn't actually agreeing or disagreeing with what Carol said, just making the point that even looking at one street, in one place, doesn't give you a straightforward answer as to what property costs.

On the one hand, I'm sure Carol's right: you could probably go to that street now and maybe pick up a flat for 2003 prices. Maybe someone who needs to sell, maybe paid a bit much in the first place.

On the other hand the most recent flat bought on the street has cost the owner 10% more than when it last sold in October 2004, so this obvously well above 2003 prices.

It's all sentiment, individual situations and intricacies. And it's interesting that you can portray almost any view you want to based on the same stats for just one street.

carolt

Truly bizarre, as I know for a fact the whole street is identical! (The flats, that is.)

Clearly there are some mugs out there who overpay - but if you can buy at 2003 prices, why pay more?

Or maybe the ones that sold at 280K, just used v expensive tins of magnolia, and a trusty pot plant?

There's one born every minute.

Harry_Powell

Cleaver wrote: »

I wasn't actually agreeing or disagreeing with what Carol said, just making the point that even looking at one street, in one place, doesn't give you a straightforward answer as to what property costs.

On the one hand, I'm sure Carol's right: you could probably go to that street now and maybe pick up a flat for 2003 prices. Maybe someone who needs to sell, maybe paid a bit much in the first place.

On the other hand the most recent flat bought on the street has cost the owner 10% more than when it last sold in October 2004, so this obvously well above 2003 prices.

It's all sentiment, individual situations and intricacies. And it's interesting that you can portray almost any view you want to based on the same stats for just one street.

Surely the argument should be about what a house will cost in 6 to 12 months in that street (or whatever period it is before carolt buys) than what prices were 5 years ago. We don't have a TARDIS, so it's pointless arguing about how much you could have bought a house for in 2003.

The important topic for discussion (for carolt and anyone in the position of buying) should be what price she pays when she buys in 12 months time (or whatever) than the price should could have paid if she bought right now.

Cleaver

carolt wrote: »

Truly bizarre, as I know for a fact the whole street is identical! (The flats, that is.)

Clearly there are some mugs out there who overpay - but if you can buy at 2003 prices, why pay more?

Again though Carol, saying that people 'overpay' is just sentiment and / or a comparison with previous prices. If someone can afford somewhere and wants to buy it for a price they may not care that they are paying a certain percentage over what that same flat cost x number of years ago.

To you these people are overpaying. But these people may just be quite happy buying a place for a certain price and see it as good value. All subjective.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

Truly bizarre, as I know for a fact the whole street is identical! (The flats, that is.)

Clearly there are some mugs out there who overpay - but if you can buy at 2003 prices, why pay more?

I don't know the street nd haven't clicked the link.:o

The flats might be identical layout, but they might have different positions: top floor ''pent house'' appeals more to some, ground floor access out for a dog/pushchair/wheelchair appeals to others. Then, while we're on easy access, some might have had special adaptations: generally evaluing to most, but perhaps worh paying more for by the occasional house hunter. sme will be nearer a bus stop, or a particular end of the road ...then all those other aesthetic choices''. There are all number of reasons for variations of pricing, some maybe a few thousand, some a couple of tens of thousands, on an average price for identical flats. I suppose.

soe

carolt

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't know the street nd haven't clicked the link.:o

The flats might be identical layout, but they might have different positions: top floor ''pent house'' appeals more to some, ground floor access out for a dog/pushchair/wheelchair appeals to others. Then, while we're on easy access, some might have had special adaptations: generally evaluing to most, but perhaps worh paying more for by the occasional house hunter. sme will be nearer a bus stop, or a particular end of the road ...then all those other aesthetic choices''. There are all number of reasons for variations of pricing, some maybe a few thousand, some a couple of tens of thousands, on an average price for identical flats. I suppose.

soe

No, they really are all identical - either first floor or ground floor, identical layouts, both have identical sized share of back garden.

There's a train station at both ends of the road, so even if you're right in the middle of the road, you'll never be more than a few minutes walk from transport. There are no buses. If ground floor matters to you, 50% of them are on the ground floor, so there's not exactly a shortage of properties. Certainly not enough to justify an 80K+ gap.

It really is down to the tin of magnolia.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

No, they really are all identical - either first floor or ground floor, identical layouts, both have identical sized share of back garden.

There's a train station at both ends of the road, so even if you're right in the middle of the road, you'll never be more than a few minutes walk from transport. There are no buses. If ground floor matters to you, 50% of them are on the ground floor, so there's not exactly a shortage of properties. Certainly not enough to justify an 80K+ gap.

It really is down to the tin of magnolia.

How odd! A brilliant street to monitor then: its rare any street has such uniformity!