Scots continue buying at inflated prices

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kriss_boy wrote: »

My point is its highly unlikely that the volume/proportion of properties being modernised each year remains constant.

No, it probably fluctuates. But I very much doubt it is amy more than a tiny minority of properties.

Is it not at all probable that the flipped properties you found to be showing a profit in recent years only achieved those medicore profits due to being moderised?

Inspite of these probable rennovations the overall value only marginally rose indicating the intrinsic value of property has indeed dropped.

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now, claiming all the houses selling are modernised/refurbished.

Why do you find it so incredibly hard to believe prices in Aberdeen are back to peak, and go looking for bizarre and improbable alternative explanations?

The indices show it, the home reports show it, the asking prices show it, and the individual properties sold prices I look at show it.

!!!!!!, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a f ecking duck. Not an alien imposter masquerading as a duck.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kriss_boy wrote: »

those medicore profits

Plus imputed or realised rent, old boy....

So, for example, if a house bought for 200K in 2007 sells for 220K in 2010, you have a mediocre 20K profit.

PLUS the 7% typical Aberdeen rental yield per year, whether imputed or realised..... (what you either got by renting it, or saved by living in it and not renting somewhere else for yourself)

Which for 3 years in the example given is another 42K.

A £62,000 return in just 3 years is far from mediocre.....

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

!!!!!!, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a f ecking duck. Not an alien imposter masquerading as a duck.

Might not be a duck. You don't wanna know what those pesky pervy scientists get up to these days.

PS, love your "saved by living in it" analogy. That's class. Makes it sound like living in a house is completely free. I like it. I must have saved a packet by paying out for a mortgage instead of paying out the same amount on rent.

I'm off to flick through the holiday brochure now, I must be absolutely minted! I work out I must have about 20k somewhere?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Might not be a duck. You don't wanna know what those pesky pervy scientists get up to these days.

:rotfl:

PS, love your "saved by living in it" analogy. That's class. Makes it sound like living in a house is completely free. I like it. I must have saved a packet by paying out for a mortgage instead of paying out the same amount on rent.

No, imputed rent is a standard method of measuring benefit.

I would agree that IF you have a mortgage, (and around 50% of households don't) you should deduct mortgage interest.

Which for most people, for the last 3 years, will be a hell of a lot less than the equivalent rent paid in a place with rental yields as high as Aberdeen's. Tens of thousands less.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Plus imputed or realised rent, old boy....

So, for example, if a house bought for 200K in 2007 sells for 220K in 2010, you have a mediocre 20K profit.

PLUS the 7% typical Aberdeen rental yield per year, whether imputed or realised..... (what you either got by renting it, or saved by living in it and not renting somewhere else for yourself)

Which for 3 years in the example given is another 42K.

A £62,000 return in just 3 years is far from mediocre.....

So basically H, 10% capital gain post 2007, 7% "typical" rental yield even post those gains... Aberdeen is a pwoperdee wonderland? it's the real estate equivalent of the house in Hansel and Gretel that's made entirely from cakes and sweets?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

the_flying_pig wrote: »

So basically H, 10% capital gain post 2007, 7% "typical" rental yield even post those gains... Aberdeen is a pwoperdee wonderland? it's the real estate equivalent of the house in Hansel and Gretel that's made entirely from cakes and sweets?

1 bedroom flat for rent, Holburn Street, Aberdeen

Rent = £600 per month

http://www-s.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/283472?ID=FMACBNEB#picture


1 bedroom flat for sale, nicer than the one for rent, also in Holburn Street, Aberdeen

Price = o/o £95,000, so call it a nice round 100K.

http://www-n.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/283032?ID=FMACBNEB#picture

Rental yield for comparable flats on the same street = 7.2%


Average house price in Aberdeen, January 2007, £148,000

Average house price in Aberdeen, January 2010, £167,000

http://www.ros.gov.uk/professional/eservices/land_property_data/lpd_stats.html


Increase in average house price over those 3 years = 12.8%


Hansel and Gretel had nothing on us mate....:cool:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

And the silence is deafening......

Perhaps piglet has to look for another fairy tale to describe the Aberdeen market.

May I suggest Goldilocks and the three bears.

Because it rather seems the Aberdeen market is "just right".....

1984ReturnsForReal_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And the silence is deafening......

Perhaps piglet has to look for another fairy tale to describe the Aberdeen market.

May I suggest Goldilocks and the three bears.

Because it rather seems the Aberdeen market is "just right".....

Just in case you don't know.

You & your figures (questionable at best) are a lagging indicators.



I thought you would of figured it out by now but I think you have been to busy living in make believe world to notice.

kriss_boy

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No, it probably fluctuates. But I very much doubt it is amy more than a tiny minority of properties.

Its a very fair and rational assumption to make that during very tough times many people, not a tiny minority, are modernising their properties in an effort to sell them in an extremely stagnant market.

If you refute that and deem it to be a negligible proportion then theres really no point in discussing this further.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now, claiming all the houses selling are modernised/refurbished.

Can you offer a quote where I have suggested 'all the houses selling are modernised/refurbished'.

Im simply suggesting that unlikely in 2005-2007 sellers realise that a property has to be in tip top condition to have any chance of selling. Times have changed and I think generally people probably spend more money on their homes these days. People are design savy and thanks to the likes of 'location, location, location' etc I think people are more clued up on how to decorate and improve a property.

To suggest Im scraping the barrell is a cop out.

I've made a valid point- that those in negative equity are excluded from 'average house price' stats and therefore the true value of property is hard to quantify at the moment.

kriss_boy

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

1 bedroom flat for rent, Holburn Street, Aberdeen

Rent = £600 per month

http://www-s.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/283472?ID=FMACBNEB#picture


1 bedroom flat for sale, nicer than the one for rent, also in Holburn Street, Aberdeen

Price = £85,000

http://www-s.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/278148?ID=FMACBNEB#picture

Rental yield for comparable flats on the same street = 8.4%

Do you think we are a bunch of mugs?

You're example conveniently compares the asking price of a £600 fully furnished flat with all the mod cons, versus a studio flat located above shops that is listed as 'offers over'.

I think your rental yield of 8.4% is a little outrageous isnt it...