MSE News: House prices fell in July

RenovationMan

Merlinpixie wrote: »

Well at the peak in Dec 2007 the previous owner paid £296, 6 months later he sold to us due to divorce for £271, we have spent £20k on conservatory and landscaping garden which I appreciate we wouldn't get all back, but why would I sell for a huge loss? Whilst I need to move I would not if I can help it make a loss on the house.

Is the job relocation permanent? In my industry whenever I get a new job I just commit to 2 years before I look up and see if I can get something better. Is the payback from the job worth all the expense? Will your OH work there (or in that area) for the rest of his life?

I worked in Central London and rented a studio apartment while my family stayed in Manchester, it's not easy but then why should my wife and kids keep getting moved about for my career. I now have a job in Manchester, so I'm glad that we didn't relocate.

Merlinpixie

Yes to all those things, permanent, want to stay there long term as this is our home town and family around.

ukcarper

Phreaky wrote: »

So the absolute lowest you would go is 5% under asking? No wonder it hasn't sold, jesus christ.

These type of comments make laugh especially when you know nothing about the house.

brit1234

Merlinpixie wrote: »

A silly offer was 50k below asking. House on for £300k, they offered £250k to get below stamp duty. You could say a house is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it but since we paid above stamp to get a better house (there seems to be a difference above and below stamp) we are not prepared to give it away with a big loss. We would have taken £285k.

The house we are buying is 270k and we are prepared to pay that bit more for a better house.

It does not sound a silly offer to me. selling prices are 30% below asking prices. You were offered 16.5% under asking.

It seems strange that you want more for your house and not prepared to be realistic for your sale but at the same time saying you have a cheaper price for a bigger/better house you want to buy compared to the one you want to sell.

Sellers need to get realistic or simply not sell.

J_i_m

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

The fundamental difference between now and then is that two full-time incomes are the norm and mortgage interest rates are less than half of what they used to be. This has resulted in a one-off major adjustment in house prices to a new long-term norm. That’s why the old 3.5 times single income benchmark is completely obsolete. 4-6 times single income is where prices should now sit.

With regards to shared-ownership, yes it boosts new build prices, yes it supports land values and the wider market – and that’s exactly why it will remain in place. Like duel income and lower rates, shared-ownership is now an entrenched component of the market and establishing values.

Oh, and did I mention competition from investors and the emergence of BTL, population growth of 250,00 per year and ever lower house building levels? Didn't have those factors 30 years ago either did we.

That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation though isn't it? You're assuming that because in a previous generation the family model tended to be the man as full time provider whilst woman was full time house wife that mortgages would only be 3.5x annual single salary... But now after more empowerment of woman.. And more twin salary the lending criteria has to shoot up to 4-6x salary?

... So... What about billy no mates with no wife and just a single outcome, what does he do? Is he not supposed to own a house?

sten_super

J_i_m wrote: »

That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation though isn't it? You're assuming that because in a previous generation the family model tended to be the man as full time provider whilst woman was full time house wife that mortgages would only be 3.5x annual single salary... But now after more empowerment of woman.. And more twin salary the lending criteria has to shoot up to 4-6x salary?

... So... What about billy no mates with no wife and just a single outcome, what does he do? Is he not supposed to own a house?

You'll have to excuse the rampant generalisation here, but it's difficult to argue either side of this argument without doing so.

20 (or more) years ago, the 'average' housebuying household had a single (full time) average income. Now, the 'average' housebuying household might have 1.5 x a single average income (assuming one full time and one part time - in some cases this will be more, in some cases less). Income multiples for the purpose of housebuying should be compared to the average income of the household doing the purchasing, rather than average income of an individual.

This increase in household income of the average purchaser is (given that the increase in supply of houses is typically below the increase in demand) likely to lead to higher house prices.

I'm not saying it's right, or that it's fair, but that's what you'd expect given the situation I outline above, at least amongst property aimed at 2-adult households.

brit1234

J_i_m wrote: »

That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation though isn't it? You're assuming that because in a previous generation the family model tended to be the man as full time provider whilst woman was full time house wife that mortgages would only be 3.5x annual single salary... But now after more empowerment of woman.. And more twin salary the lending criteria has to shoot up to 4-6x salary?

... So... What about billy no mates with no wife and just a single outcome, what does he do? Is he not supposed to own a house?

You forgot those selfish couples who decide for some unknown reason want to have children. They too should be banned from home ownership. We don't want the UK population to have kids so that we can always have 2 people working to keep house prices inflated.

ukcarper

brit1234 wrote: »

It does not sound a silly offer to me. selling prices are 30% below asking prices. You were offered 16.5% under asking.

It seems strange that you want more for your house and not prepared to be realistic for your sale but at the same time saying you have a cheaper price for a bigger/better house you want to buy compared to the one you want to sell.

Sellers need to get realistic or simply not sell.

You know that is rubbish so why do you keep saying it.

ukcarper

J_i_m wrote: »

That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation though isn't it? You're assuming that because in a previous generation the family model tended to be the man as full time provider whilst woman was full time house wife that mortgages would only be 3.5x annual single salary... But now after more empowerment of woman.. And more twin salary the lending criteria has to shoot up to 4-6x salary?

... So... What about billy no mates with no wife and just a single outcome, what does he do? Is he not supposed to own a house?

According to halifax in relation to earnings prices are less than 10% above long term aveage so not as high as people make out.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

You know that is rubbish so why do you keep saying it.

It's not really rubbish.

What's the point in getting a mortgage based on BOTH incomes, if you plan to have children, and (in all likeliness, for anyone under or around average wage) will be better off staying at home for a few years?

You've not left yourself a dual income mortgage to pay on one income and added another person to feed.

I know this won't happen, an dit's just a pipe dream, but the whole debt situation and living standards / happiness would be a shed load better if most of us didn't have debt nooses around our necks and we able to go out, enjoy our family, support the local economy etc.

There are enough articles doing the rounds about parents dreading the school holidays as they simply cannot afford to do anything now, as they have taken reductions in earnings, part time jobs etc etc and everything costs so much.