ROS: Scotland Reaches ANOTHER new peak price.

IveSeenTheLight

mitchaa wrote: »

Aberdeen and Burnley are the first areas to be assessed.

Yep, noted in post 79

Engeroosi

I unfortunately had to move to Aberdeen due to work, although it wouldn't be my first choice of area to live but I love my house and the area I live in, every city has good, bad, ugly and indifferent areas.
As for the house prices, as long as there is Oil and Gas coming out from the North Sea then it will always be able to withstand issues which affect elsewhere but only to a certain level. Aberdeen has slowed down and flatlined but appears to be pulling through again but for how long nobody will know.

I did buy so I'm hoping there isn't too big a crash if it does hit. But i'm here for a few years yet so overall I will be fine but pity those struggling to meet payments and having to sell throughout the uk.

This is an amusing thread but is getting very petty. "My town is better than yours"

nearlynew

Engeroosi wrote: »

I unfortunately had to move to Aberdeen due to work

Do you know my mate McTittish?




He lives next to a brothel if that narrows it down a bit

Engeroosi

Ha ha, no don't know him. Don't even know where the brothels are. Wouldn't want to as got a wonderful fiance!

IveSeenTheLight

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

My FIL is selling one of his properties at the moment.
Got a bid from his first viewer £15k (7.3%) under the valuation and he turned it down.
He had bookings for another 3 viewings yesterday.

Ok, an update, the FIL received an improved bid and accepted an offer 4.8% below the value.
There were other interested viewers but not quite ready to make a bid.
As he's retiring he decided to sell up and enjoy the proceeds.

Thats another 2 bed flat to add to the stats that went for £195k

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Thats another 2 bed flat to add to the stats that went for £195k

You've done Aberdeen proud.

But I thought the process up there was 10% over asking. Not 4.8% under?

kriss_boy

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Your right, I don't know the condition of the properties.
An average is an average though, it will take into account the various conditions of properties that sold.

Except as we both agree people are far more likely to accept an offer on a property that brings profit rather a loss. So we dont know the true extent of those in negative equity and mightn't know for a few years to come.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You seem to want to relate to your personal copy of the schedules and ignore the blatant facts from the ROSEA and NETHOUSEPRICES etc then go ahead.

Because to suggest that the mean value of a commodity sold in a given month, irrespective of its size, condition, location etc, somehow represents the mean value of that particular commodity irrespective of size, condition, location etc is utter nonsense!

Maybe in a predictable, healthy, buoyant market you could surmise correlations and use these figures to anticipate the direction in which prices are going. But amidst a recession with considerably lower sample numbers? Im not convinced.

Perhaps a greater proportion of buyers are jumping several steps on the property ladder- cashing in on the properties they bought 10 years ago in favour of big family homes.

IveSeenTheLight

kriss_boy wrote: »

Because to suggest that the mean value of a commodity sold in a given month, irrespective of its size, condition, location etc, somehow represents the mean value of that particular commodity irrespective of size, condition, location etc is utter nonsense!

It's simply an indicator, of course individual specific properties can vary wildly from the average indication.

There are always exceptions to the rule and in this instance, variances of the exceptions.

doire_2

Seriously folks. Do you all really care that much about aberdeen?

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You've done Aberdeen proud.

But I thought the process up there was 10% over asking. Not 4.8% under?

There are variances in many processes.
As you should know, supply and demand are a large factor.
Timing is as well.

This buyer benefited from having the finance in place whilst others had not and a seller who is now looking to enjoy retirement.

He was extremely happy with the rental yield over the years and was not going to squable over an additional 4.8% which will be affected by his capital gains.

Is it a sign of the times, maybe, or it could be down to this specific instance.

I did also a few months ago share an instance where a colleague was 8th out of 10 bidders on one property and then only finally seured a property after bidding 15.2% above the valuation (Valued at £250k and bought at £288k)

I personally don't get too much drawn into individual property or months data.
Much better to consider a wider viewpoint.