House hunters out in force

Really2

Emy1501 wrote: »

I know because if roughly 1 in 7 properties sell per agent according Riona and roughly 100k sell a month then there are 700K properties on at one time. This means 2.8m mainly couples register each month so nearly the whole population within a year.

How do you work this out?

To get what you said you would need 700,000 houses coming on to the market each month!!

The actual figure in the article is 4 buyers per house so if there are 700,000 on the market at anytime then there is only 2.8M registered buyers at any time.

Was it just a poor calculation on your behalf?

the_flying_pig

Those "four house hunters for every property" stats are hilarious, quite apart from the presumably reasonably high number of registered buyers that EAs have who are either no longer interested [because they've decided not to move or who have found somewhere] or who were never really seriously interested in the first place.

I can't think of any reason why a buyer would register with as few as one estate agency unless he particularly likes only having access to a small proportion of the properties of an area that he's interested in.

But, obviously, it's the norm for sellers to use a single agent.

A situation in which there a town has five EAs, each with five properties up for sale, and there are 25 possible buyers, all of whom register with all five EAs [since registering with, e.g., one will only give you access to one fifth of the town's properties], gets you straight to a whopping '5 to 1' ratio for every agent. And, presumably, 'soaring' pwoperdee prices.

p.s. I didn't realise Rinoa was lurking on here - he is the worst class of troll imaginable. Everything Hamish says is more or less on the verge of being plausible, it's just a highly biased interpretation of the facts, but Rinoa, dearie me... on HPC he once described the Rightmove index as "a leading indicator" of actual sold prices. I had a terrible choking/laughter fit upon reading the page on which he'd gushed that little kidney stone of wisdom.

HammerSmashedFace

StevieJ wrote: »

Malthus was an astute researcher and a meticulous analyst. It is true that Malthus was wrong when he argued that food production only increases arithmetically, while population increases geometrically. Technological advances changed the equation.

Fusion anyone?

Fusion to be developed for industrial & domestic use along with an entire global infrastructure to support it within 15 years ? Good luck with that one, considering the most optimistic of physicists believe that just to get it to work positively on an extremely small scale is at least 3 decades away.

I must also point out that many believe it will never happen. Regardless, I come back to the cast iron fact that time & scaling are the main issues, not enough of the former, and way, way too much of the latter.

doire_2

Rinoa wrote: »

http://www.introducertoday.co.uk/News/Story/?storyid=2684&type=news_features



The expected return to normality after the snow and stamp duty issues.

According to estate agents :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Next!

Emy1501

Really2 wrote: »

How do you work this out?

To get what you said you would need 700,000 houses coming on to the market each month!!

The actual figure in the article is 4 buyers per house so if there are 700,000 on the market at anytime then there is only 2.8M registered buyers at any time.

Was it just a poor calculation on your behalf?

No why dont re read riona post. She is saying that there are 4 new buyers each month for every house on the market. According to her there are roughly 50 houses per agent on at any one time. Roughly on 6/7 sell each month so only 1 in 7/8. About a 100k of homes sell each month so roughly 700K on at anyone time. She is suggesting that there are 250+ new buyers coming onto the market each month but only 6/7 new properties. Therefore roughly 2.8m a month.

Really2

Emy1501 wrote: »

No why dont re read riona post. She is saying that there are 4 new buyers each month for every house on the market. According to her there are roughly 50 houses per agent on at any one time. Roughly on 6/7 sell each month so only 1 in 7/8. About a 100k of homes sell each month so roughly 700K on at anyone time. She is suggesting that there are 250+ new buyers coming onto the market each month but only 6/7 new properties. Therefore roughly 2.8m a month.

Just reading your calculation.

TBH I think the 4 registered buyers is the correct figure so if there are 700,000 on the market, there would indeed be 2.8M registered buyers.
These would not be new though IMHO
If there were 6 new houses you expect 24 people to have registered that is all.

Emy1501

Rinoa wrote: »

Actually it's probably a lot more than 4 buyers to every seller.

You only register with the EA once, not every month. If the average EA has 55 houses and sells 6/7 per month, then they probably have 6/7 new instructions each month too.

In say 3 months they only have on avarage 18/21 new properties to sell but 750 people registering.

:beer:

Edited to add Chucky beat me to it ~ sort of.

Really can you explain The above where has Riona got her 18/21 new sellers register but 750 new buyers after 3 months. My calculations show Riona cannot be correct. What you are saying is proabably true

StevieJ

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

Fusion to be developed for industrial & domestic use along with an entire global infrastructure to support it within 15 years ? Good luck with that one, considering the most optimistic of physicists believe that just to get it to work positively on an extremely small scale is at least 3 decades away.

I must also point out that many believe it will never happen. Regardless, I come back to the cast iron fact that time & scaling are the main issues, not enough of the former, and way, way too much of the latter.

'Mater artium necessitas.'

Really2

Emy1501 wrote: »

Really can you explain The above where has Riona got her 18/21 new sellers register but 750 new buyers after 3 months.

No, the OP would have to answer that for you.

Emy1501

Really2 wrote: »

No, the OP would have to answer that for you.

So can we agree that the OP and the other that agreed with them are talking rubbish now?

My workings out were to show that the OP and others were talking rubbish with their suggestion that after 3 months you would have 18/21 new seller but 750 new buyers. Simple maths could have told them they were not making sense.