35% of houses will not sell in a year?

tyllwyd

Alan2020 wrote: »

I am sorry but a house does become obsolete, in fact all houses do. The land if a freehold property appreciates, the house depreciates.

I said a house does not become obsolete in the same way as a mobile phone does. I would stand by that.

OK in theory you could keep updating the internal parts of a mobile phone, but you can't take a 1980s mobile and make it do the same job as an iphone. But people can and do live in Victorian houses - admitted, some can be updated for modern life more sucessfully than others - and in some cases the old house might have been demolished and rebuilt. But a 200 year old house and the land it stands on is still more useful than a 20 year old phone.

And what do you mean people want to sell in their lifetime and enjoy their wealth? Where do they live once they sell - travel around the world permanently in retirement on a (rapidly depreciating) yacht? I'd say the majority of people want to enjoy living in a stable, secure home, and if that means that their wealth is tied up in bricks and mortar, that's a choice that a lot of retired people are willing to make.

dboswell

Davesnave wrote: »

And they operate without reference to the national macro-market?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but I guess there are some places that are more immune to external influences than others., like, say, Sandbanks, or waterside properties on the Fal estuary, select places in London & the Home Counties etc.

How many of us live in such locations?

Its a fact. The national housing market is made up of thousands of micro housing markets influenced by a range of local issues such as postcode, schools, transport, amenities as well as the national economy.

Just like there is no such thing as a typical rate of inflation or a uniform swing in a general election. So when broadcasters blurt an eyecatching headline - there is more to it than meets the eye.

A 2 bedroom city centre flat in Halifax and a 3 bedroom house in south west london dont move identically. Even during 2008 and 2009 when national prices were falling, I can think of several areas around London, outside the centre, that bucked that trend. Its pretty basic supply and demand.

Likewise, I can think of a few places in the West Midlands that had larger than average falls due to local issues.

Davesnave

dboswell wrote: »

Its a fact. The national housing market is made up of thousands of micro housing markets influenced by a range of local issues such as postcode, schools, transport, amenities as well as the national economy.

Ah.....

Thanks.

So, as my English teacher used to say, you were just giving us a tantalising glimpse of the obvious.

SimonMrGreenWard

Alan2020 wrote: »

Why do you think they are not selling? Lets take a different product say a mobile phone, because the market is FAST moving the price for a top end phone can be £400 at launch to £50 at the end of its life, even less. In order to sell the phone most retailers have a knack of getting the price right for the quality of the phone.

Welcome to a house market that was always stable and rising, now it is like the mobile phone market, and should rightly be so. There is supply and demand, too much supply less demand. How do you break it, by lowering the prices. We have a free market, so it will mean prices will come to the correct value in say 20 years, if it was a controlled market prices will always be close to the correct value.

Take some of the flats in the UK, a one bed costs £150K in reality to build such a flat, it would cost the builder £15K to 30K with the market value of labour. And if the market was heavily regulated a flat in the UK will cost anywhere from 20K to 35K, but oh no it costs £150K, why?? Because it is overpriced and unsustainable.

Imagine trying to sell a Nokia 3310 (yes the old brick) for £1000, how many people would buy it, no one, £10 someone might. So the 35% of houses are simply overpriced as they haven't moved with the market.

The housing monopoly will only be broken when someone with huge capital gets land in a prime location and builds well designed prefabbed flats in all the major cities in the UK at £35K for 1 bed, £45 for 2 beds and £55 for 3 beds with terraces/balconies. This will crash the overpriced flat market and generate the new Bill Gates of the housing market. Whoever does that will be simply the richest person in the world.

This caught my eye. Simply baffling. How much do you think the land will cost?

Jowo_2

There are 4 terraced properties in my street that have been put up for sale since Easter originally on at 360k, 375k, 380k and 400k. 2 are sold subject to contract and had offers on them close to the asking price within a couple of weeks of going on sale, 2 have not yet sold despite being heavily discounted.

The following shows that well priced properties do sell while those that are optimistically priced don't.

The ones that were snapped up were originally two cheapest properties which actually have longer gardens and an extra bathroom compared to the 2 others. The neighbour whose property sold very quickly told me that the estate agent who was marketing one of the other properties was very frustrated when the owner ignored their advice on the valuation of the property and forced them to put it on the market for more than they valued it.

The properties that haven't sold were previously owned by landlords who have partly or fully refurbished them, though presumably on the cheap as presumably many of the buyers viewed most of properties up for sale in the street and weren't tempted by them, despite having vacant possession unlike the 2 that sold quickly so even being in a chain was not a deterrant.

The unsold houses been discounted in price to similar or less than their rival properties, with one originally marketed for £400k now reduced to £365k and the one on at 380k now reduced to 360k. But all that means is that these owners have reduced their prices to match the 2 others that were successfully sold despite lacking a decent size garden and extra bathroom. This may explain why they've still not shifted 2.5 months later - they are still pricing them too high if they are charging a similar price to properties in the same street that offer a bigger garden and an extra bathroom.

Henry_P_Chester

NEH wrote: »

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...

So at some point between 50% and your asking price is the price that it will get interest and sell.

As I said the lower priced are more likely to sell first, not gauranteed to sell first. If they lower priced flat is still not getting interest then that too is overpriced for the current market.

You have three choices:

1, Drop the price to a level that brings in demand.
2, hold it at the same price, possibly for years, hoping for a buyer or the market to dramatically improve.
3, Don't move.

ixwood

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...

Sorry, but of course it's the price. If it was £1, it'd sell tomorrow! Somewhere between £1 and your asking price is the current value.

If that value is what it was worth 10 years ago, then that's the value. 10 years isn't that long really and there's no law that says that prices must increase.

You've either got to accept that and sell, or keep it until it's worth what you think it should be, whenever that will be.

Why are flats different to houses then and you can't just knock 20k off? I don't see the difference. If anything, they're a lot less desirable than a house, so more should be knocked off.

NEH

Henry_P_Chester wrote: »

So at some point between 50% and your asking price is the price that it will get interest and sell.

As I said the lower priced are more likely to sell first, not gauranteed to sell first. If they lower priced flat is still not getting interest then that too is overpriced for the current market.

You have three choices:

1, Drop the price to a level that brings in demand.
2, hold it at the same price, possibly for years, hoping for a buyer or the market to dramatically improve.
3, Don't move.

We moved out last year as my health was failing and the flat was no longer suitable.

ixwood wrote: »

Sorry, but of course it's the price. If it was £1, it'd sell tomorrow! Somewhere between £1 and your asking price is the current value.

If that value is what it was worth 10 years ago, then that's the value. 10 years isn't that long really and there's no law that says that prices must increase.

You've either got to accept that and sell, or keep it until it's worth what you think it should be, whenever that will be.

Why are flats different to houses then and you can't just knock 20k off? I don't see the difference. If anything, they're a lot less desirable than a house, so more should be knocked off.

Because you don't have far to go until you sell it for 30k or lower at which point we would be stepping off the property ladder and couldn't afford to buy again for at least 10 if not longer years...

I can't see how taking a 30/40K off your asking price and then renting somewhere else for 10 or more years is beneficial. Surely it is better to rent it out for the time being until things ease a little and supply doesn't outstrip demand, as i said we don't know which way things will go in the area the flat is in as it's different to other parts of the country.

dboswell

Davesnave wrote: »

Ah.....

Thanks.

So, as my English teacher used to say, you were just giving us a tantalising glimpse of the obvious.

yes but I had to explain it twice to you, which is worrying. :T

diable

House in my street was on the market for £650,000 and was sold for £630,000 3 weeks later. It all depends on what area you are in and of course supply and demand. Oh it also needed lots of work doing to it.