35% of houses will not sell in a year?

NEH

Henry_P_Chester wrote: »

Everything has it's price. The higher the price the less likely to sell, the lower the price the more likely to sell. This doesn't mean that the lowest priced flat will sell first but that's the most likely outcome all else being equal.

It all depends how much you really want to sell and how long your prepared to wait. You could raise the price and wait a decade or more for a buyer or you could drop it considerably and sell it tomorrow.

If all the flats in your area were priced half what they are now there would be plenty of viewers and plenty of offers. The demand is there just not at the price your asking.

Oh course people would buy it at 50% less than the asking price, they would get it at a price that was paid 10 odd years ago...You would be a mug to sell it at that!

and as i keep saying but it gets delibrately ignored one has just gone that is on the market at a higher price than us and yes the lower price one has gone under offer but it's got severe timber rot that will likely cost hundreds if not a grand or two to sort it out bringing it to the same price as us.


and please answer my question which again has been ignored repeatedly the other people with the same Solicitor as us did what you said would bring in buyers and it didn't work, they haven't had any more interest than ours even at that lower price so how would lowering the price make a difference if someone has already done that and failed...Or should we all knock 10 years off our prices...

neverdespairgirl

Brallaqueen wrote: »

Saying 35% wont be able to sell doesn't explain why they won't sell - it's not always price?

It's always price.

If you were to put the 35% up for sale at £1, they'd almost all sell within a week.

neverdespairgirl

Iconic wrote: »

Most people seem to imply if a house is not selling the price is to high. I think it is a lack of buyers in some sections of the market.

Lack of buyers = price too high.

tomstickland

NEH wrote: »

So we know it's not the price....With flats you can hardly knock off 20K as there isn't that room for manovere...If we thought dropping the price would make a difference then we would do it but i honestly think the banks aren't lending to FTB in particular and the market is saturated with flats, maisonettes and 1 bed starter homes...

That's the price.

tomstickland

Brallaqueen wrote: »

How many will be 'in need of modernisation' and not suitable for FTBs or a young family to move into straight away? How many will be only of interest to BTL landlords or builders (repossessions, structural issues)?

Saying 35% wont be able to sell doesn't explain why they won't sell - it's not always price?

All the places in need of work attract a lot of interest as a cost effective way of buying a house. We've been through all of that. It's all overpriced.

tomstickland

There's a 2 bed terraced house near me that's been on the market since the start of the year. It's not shown any signs of shifting.
The 2 bed flats down the road used to sell for £135K, they're now sinking to £100K asking prices. The 1 bed flats where I live sold for £90K in 2006, the last one to sell fetched £63K a year ago.

tomstickland

Brallaqueen wrote: »

How many will be 'in need of modernisation' and not suitable for FTBs or a young family to move into straight away? How many will be only of interest to BTL landlords or builders (repossessions, structural issues)?

Saying 35% wont be able to sell doesn't explain why they won't sell - it's not always price?

All the places in need of work attract a lot of interest as a cost effective way of buying a house. We've been through all of that. It's all overpriced.

nembot

Prices are on average 30-35% higher than they should be, the silly lending has all but stopped and many will find themselves chasing the market down over the next few years.

Just like they did from 1989 to 1995, we heard the same ole story back then "prices aren't too high" they were wrong, just like they are today. The only people who disagree have a vested interest, which is usually a second property and who really could blame them, they're only human.

Davesnave

nembot wrote: »

Prices are on average 30-35% higher than they should be, the silly lending has all but stopped and many will find themselves chasing the market down over the next few years.

I'm not sure as you about the average % properties are overpriced, but I totally agree that they are, and that many will be chasing a falling market in the next year or so.

It takes courage to go significantly lower than comparables. Vendors who do may face both derision and anger, since asking prices are keenly watched. They will be called fools and questions will be raised about their reasons, so undercutting the market puts individuals outside their comfort zone in more ways than one. The majority don't like to see prices falling in their road.

In 2008, we sold for £15k less than our immediate neighbours paid in 2006. They bought an unextended wreck, whereas our was one bed larger and updated. Guess how they felt!

Not that we were too bothered, mind, even though they were lovely people. It was their 'restoration project,' rusting on their drive, which put more than one potential buyer off! :rotfl:

tyllwyd

If it turns out to be true that a third of houses won't sell within a year - maybe that is a sign that the rules of the game are changing. We are all used to a market where houses typically sell within a few weeks or months of going up for sale. Maybe that's not going to be the case in the future, and waiting a year or more to sell is going to be the norm rather than the exception. Unless you are forced to sell, or you've inherited a house etc, for a lot of people they are better off living in the house/extending where they are alreay living rather than slashing the price of their own home and ending up in negative equity or not being able to afford the move to the next house.