If I bought a house in June 2007 at the peak...

worried_jim

The latest research from Halifax reveals the ten most expensive streets in England and Wales are all in Greater London.
The most expensive street in England & Wales
Wycombe Square in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is the most expensive street in England and Wales with an average property price of £5,401,447. The Royal Borough provides half of the 20 most expensive residential streets in the country.
The second most expensive street is Ingram Avenue in Hampstead with an average house price of £4,872,500.
Outside the capital
Outside the capital Moles Hill in Leatherhead in Surrey (£2,645,000) is the most expensive street. South Road in Weybridge (£2,550,625), Leys Road in Leatherhead (£2,549,545), Woodlands Road West in Virginia Water (£2,543,500) and Phillipines Shaw in Sevenoaks (£2,351,538) are the other most expensive streets.
Southern England
The most expensive street outside southern England is Withinlee Road in Macclesfield (£1,205,833). The two next most expensive are both in Altrincham in Cheshire; Park Lane (£1,167,500) and Eyebrook Road (£1,090,916). Five of the nine regions in England have streets with an average house price of over £1,000,000.
Druidstone Road in the Old St Mellons area of Cardiff is the most expensive residential street in Wales with an average house price of £621,000.
What our housing economist says
Nitesh Patel, housing economist at Halifax says "Unsurprisingly, many of the most expensive residential streets in England and Wales are in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea with more than half of the 30 most expensive London streets in the borough. Kensington and Chelsea has long had a global appeal, but the fall in the value of Sterling has helped to attract foreign buyers over the past year despite the worldwide economic recession."
All prices are based on transactions between 2005 and 2009 recorded on the Land Registry database.

carolt

In my area, 2 houses I might have bought in 2007 if the prices hadn't been so loopy, sold for 325K and 302K. Equivalent houses in sae roads now selling for 238-240K.

So quite a way to go yet.

nollag2006

carolt wrote: »

In my area, 2 houses I might have bought in 2007 if the prices hadn't been so loopy, sold for 325K and 302K. Equivalent houses in sae roads now selling for 238-240K.

So quite a way to go yet.

More unattributed anecdotal nonsense. Hardly evidence of anything now, is it?

nearlynew

I'd rather take notice of anecdotal evidence than the spin and bullsh1t put out by the mainstream media and so-called industry experts.

nollag2006

Goodone nearlynew !!



Everyone out there is a VI - all one big conspiracy I tell you ...


Froth ... froth...

jojo1964

nearlynew wrote: »

I'd rather take notice of anecdotal evidence than the spin and bullsh1t put out by the mainstream media and so-called industry experts.

Even the so-called experts are divided.

nollag2006

jojo1964 wrote: »

Even the so-called experts are divided.

They're not:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8386796.stm

Most commentators vouch for continued rises

The only ones calling for a fall in 2010 are HPC and Capital Economics, neither of whom have any credibility

Davesnave

nollag2006 wrote: »

Most commentators vouch for continued rises

The only ones calling for a fall in 2010 are HPC and Capital Economics, neither of whom have any credibility

So, as most commentators seem to get it wrong most of the time, we can conclude......?

nollag2006

Davesnave wrote: »

So, as most commentators seem to get it wrong most of the time, we can conclude......?

The only commentators to have a consistent track record in getting it completely and utterly wrong is Capital Economics.

See the April 2007 section in this article:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article7183.html

I see they are now predicting a 10% fall in 2010 (down from their forecast of falls in the 35-50% region for 2009).

:rotfl:

So I'd say, given their forecast accuracy, we can reasonably conclude...?

Davesnave

nollag2006 wrote: »

The only commentators to have a consistent track record in getting it completely and utterly wrong is Capital Economics.

See the April 2007 section in this article:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article7183.html

I see they are now predicting a 10% fall in 2010 (down from their forecast of falls in the 35-50% region for 2009).

:rotfl:

So I'd say, given their forecast accuracy, we can reasonably conclude...?

No, thats not the point at issue. I agree that Capital Economics have a poor track record. It is also the case that most forecasts regarding 2009 were wrong, though how 'wrong' they were depends, perhaps, on where in the country you're viewing from.

What I was hoping to find out, I suppose, is who has got it least wrong in the past three or four years. What they say might be worth looking at.

Otherwise it's back to the trusty rabbit's foot and piece of seaweed...After all they have 100% track record of getting it right for me in '09.:D