Advice on what to bid on 'offers over £190k' + pics!

dinofabio

neas wrote: »

Can I ask a serious question of those who 'would offer' significantly less are you guys FTbers waiting for a bargain?

No. Most people offering significantly less like me will be cash buyers. FTB's haven't got the bargaining power of a cash buyer.

neas wrote: »

I ask because a seller putting 20k on what other houses are 'asking' in the local area is 'nuts'.

Yes, it wouldn't be the best idea in the world

neas wrote: »

But in the same light a buyer taking 20k off the price the market dictates is also 'nuts'.

No not nuts. Your argument is illogical. Selling a property for a lot more than it's worth is not the same as selling a property for less than it's worth. Selling a house for more than it's worth with similar type properties on the market going for a lot less would be near impossible (unless it was an absolute fluke!). Selling a house for less than it's worth with a lot of similar type properties on the market is a very real possibility - dependant on the circumstances obviously.

Personally, a 20% reduction is a step too far. But if you look at the reductions some people have had (on another thread), it's not impossible. 15% is what I'm looking for, but if I really liked the house I might increase the offer a little. Either way, it cannot be describes as nuts; unless you are living in an area where house prices are increasing (london and parts of the south east), then I suspect you would certainly be wasting your time. Outside of these areas, you shouldn't have much of a problem getting a significant reduction providing you don't fall in love with property and want to get it at all costs.

neas wrote: »

Whats obvious in addition to the figures bounded around is a bias towards lower prices. The house is up for 190k and people are talking they'd be happy with 136k.

.

With the figures you quote, that would be making an offer of over 28% lower. Nobody has said this. Somebody mentioned a 15% reduction on a £160K house and that would be £136K. I think you are confused with some of the figures/ properties. To make an offer of £136K on a place for £190K lol yeh maybe, but I wouldn't fancy your chances TBH.

WibbleSnarf

sinbad182 wrote: »

Does WibbleSnarf suffer from some kind of mental defect?

Ha ha. Love it. What's up? Can't counter my rational arguments and data? Bought at the wrong time and think that posting on this forum is going to halt the decline?

Go on, debate my points instead - it's muuuuuch more fun that way...:)

sinbad182

WibbleSnarf wrote: »

Ha ha. Love it. What's up? Can't counter my rational arguments and data? Bought at the wrong time and think that posting on this forum is going to halt the decline?

Go on, debate my points instead - it's muuuuuch more fun that way...:)

You couldn't debate your way out of a paper bag son - you've got an pov/agenda (not sure which) that you seem bizarrely obsessed with making everyone else agree with. Thats not debating, it's just obsessive.

demontfort

Sinbad and Neas = Nequity

Don't worry fellas I'll do you both a favour and snap up your houses on the cheap when NRAM finally puts you out of your misery.........:rotfl:

sinbad182

demontfort wrote: »

Sinbad and Neas = Nequity

Don't worry fellas I'll do you both a favour and snap up your houses on the cheap when NRAM finally puts you out of your misery.........:rotfl:

Give us a quick run down on how you've deduced I'm in negative equity.

Actually, dont bother. A quick read through your post history makes it clear your one of these house price obsessives who accuses anyone who doesnt agree with them as being akin neg equity or a buy to letter.

demontfort

sinbad182 wrote: »

Give us a quick run down on how you've deduced I'm in negative equity.

Actually, dont bother. A quick read through your post history makes it clear your one of these house price obsessives who accuses anyone who doesnt agree with them as being akin neg equity or a buy to letter.

Come on Sinbad old chum no need to get hot under the collar, for all I know you could be the Duke of Westminster and own half the property in London or you could be in nequity. As for BTL'ers I have nothing against them they're just trying to make a few quid and right now they need all the breaks they can get. Either way I don't care who you are nor do I care about your financial circumstances.

My point is that we all need to now accept that the housing market is in a long, slow, downward slump. So whether you're a buyer or a seller you should adjust your strategy accordingly to ensure you get the best price for your sale or purchase. So if you're selling, buying or just stuck and unable to move then good luck to you and enjoy the bank holiday rain!

DRP

dinofabio wrote: »

No. Most people offering significantly less like me will be cash buyers. FTB's haven't got the bargaining power of a cash buyer

//snip.

Why do you think a cash buyer has more bargaining power than a FTB?

WibbleSnarf

sinbad182 wrote: »

You couldn't debate your way out of a paper bag son - you've got an pov/agenda (not sure which) that you seem bizarrely obsessed with making everyone else agree with. Thats not debating, it's just obsessive.

You'll never find out how well I'm able to debate if you won't engage me.

Mind you, if I was faced with coherent arguments and a point of view formed from studying the empirical data and wider market evidence, I'd probably resort to trite swipes too.

I'm no more 'obsessed' or 'obsessive' than anyone else who holds a point of view on something they have studied (as a hobby, not formally) for the better part of a decade and it matters not to me whether or not 'everyone else agree with [me]'. Whether you choose to accept it or not, I have a well informed view of the housing market and as someone in my mid-thirties who has enough put away buy a house tomorrow and support my family for the next decade, should I choose to do so, I have little by way of vested interest for how things pan out.

What matters to me is that an obscene, and largely unspoken, timebomb is ticking in our social economy. Most of my peers bought young enough (and cheap enough) to be able to afford their repayments and now have a home of their own. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of those starting their secondary education when I was completing my formal education still live with their parents and have little prospect of owning their own homes in the short term.

Reassuringly for me, for others who share my concern of the implications of this, and for those of the priced-out generation, things are now moving ever more definitively in the right direction.

You may (or may not - I've no idea) have reason to wish that this isn't happening but there are some out there for whom this is inevitably going to be a very hard landing. Buy-to-let landlords, the over-leveraged, those in negative equity who borrowed from lenders with non-competitive SVRs - especially those who have had changes of circumstances and who didn't insure themselves against those possibilities, and more.

Whatever your circumstances, I wish you the best of luck - don't allow your conviction to become your downfall. The evidence is out there - the only person who is going to suffer by you getting all huffy and willfully disregarding the evidence is you and it would be a shame to have to look back in 5 years time knowing you made mistakes when people were trying to help you understand where you were going wrong.:)

WibbleSnarf

harrup wrote: »

I don't wish to hijack the OP thread so I shall bow out after this....but to answer your question:

It "appeared" to be worth it because, in comparison, for more than TWICE the price I could buy this:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-22337433.html

Or this
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-35489224.html

Or this

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-35309014.html

Evidently, my perception of what properties are "worth" has been severely skewed by a decade of looking at listings like the above.

I applaud you and your generation for being less foolish than ours and to say "no, not at that price".

Either way, it explains why I thought the AP wasn't unreasonable.

My generation?! I'm in my mid-thirties!!! I do, however, applaud you in your willingness to consider the reality of the paradigm change that has been gradually gaining momentum over the last 3 or so years.

For those genuinely interested in considering where we might, although I believe this to be the best/worst case (depending on your point of view) scenario, have a look at what is happening in Northern Ireland. Remember, before you read this, that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and we share the same currency (GBP).

Click here for a recent BBC Link and click here for a fascinating recent blog on the subject.

WibbleSnarf

ukcarper wrote: »

You are wrong and I suggest you do some research at how they all get to the figures they use.

The fact that you can't tell me *how* I'm wrong and that you just persist in boorishly stating it as though it's fact tells me and everyone reading all we need to know about who understands how this data is produced. If you disagree with the data (presumably because it doesn't support your point of view?) then please feel free to point out how the manner of the production of the data renders it unreliable.

ukcarper wrote: »

If the vendor accepts it but they are unlikely to accept an offer of 15% below what it is actually worth.

Unlikely?! That may be the case in individuals cases but some vendors, and some agents, are more realistic and motivated to sell than others.

Knowing it's a falling market, that the vendor may be motivated to quickly get the property off their hands, that they may be fearful of turning away an offer of cash (who knows where the next offer may come from or how much it will be for when?) for their depreciating asset, etc. you'd be a fool to yourself not to start the bidding with an offer that you may consider derisory. Remember that the vendor has probably 'made' tens, or hundreds, of thousands of pounds over the last few years for sitting on their posterior doing nothing. That 'value' never really existed, per se, in the sense that the asset was probably not improved and thus the 'inate value' probably remained about the same. All that happened was that there was a proliferation of cheaply available credit and a popular conception that house prices could only go up. Of course, few dared to question this while the bubble was inflating and was there to be cashed in on but the cyclical nature of these asset bubbles is always broadly the same and offering someone a price that their house may very well only prove to be 'worth' in a year or 2 anyway (if not before!) is, little more than savvy 'moneysaving'.

Finally, I'd ask you how you define "what it is actually worth." Is it, perhaps, the lowest price that the vendor is willing to accept? Maybe you think it's the highest price that is offered by prospective buyers once the house has been advertised by an agent on the open market for a predefined period of time? Maybe it's the material cost to build the house from scratch plus a fixed amount per sq ft for the land on which it's built? I'm genuinely interested to understand how it is ever possible, without a transaction actually occurring, to know 'what [a house] is actually worth'?