Why is nobody selling?

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

Maybe the GFC showed people it really wasn't that important to move every few years.

Who can be bothered and churn a load of money into the bargain at the same time?

new builds play a big part in housing sale volume

Lets pretend we used to build 200k homes a year and now we build 100k homes a year.

Straight away that is 100,000 fewer sales

But most buyers of new build homes are sellers themselves. Maybe 70% of them. So thats 70,000 fewer second hand home sales to buy the new builds...

And then another chain and another etc

Until you find that 100,000 fewer builds is actually resulting in something like 350,000 fewer sales

and thats more or less what has happened in the uk

cells

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My current property was built in 1933 and I'm only the 4th owner.

My mothers house was build in 1961 and she's only the 2nd owner.

Not everyone feels a need to churn property at great expense.

Transaction costs are definitely a big break on house sale volumes.

If it costs £2k to move you might do it, £20k and its a no

But maybe the biggest factor in the volume of sales is the new build rate. Probably even bigger than sales due to death

In normal times (a little before the recession) 200k new homes were being built or close to it. That results in 600k-700k house sales as an average chain for a new build sale is maybe 3-4x long

Now with closer to 100k new builds it is resulting in 300k-350k house sales.


So the low new build rate is also impacting greatly the number of second hand home sales

michaels

cells wrote: »

Transaction costs are definitely a big break on house sale volumes.

If it costs £2k to move you might do it, £20k and its a no

But maybe the biggest factor in the volume of sales is the new build rate. Probably even bigger than sales due to death

In normal times (a little before the recession) 200k new homes were being built or close to it. That results in 600k-700k house sales as an average chain for a new build sale is maybe 3-4x long

Now with closer to 100k new builds it is resulting in 300k-350k house sales.


So the low new build rate is also impacting greatly the number of second hand home sales

Are new build chains that lot - aren't a lot of new builds these days FTB 1 and 2 bed flats because of the strict limits on land made available.

Running_Horse

There was a study or report a while back saying you should only build large executive type houses, I forget who wrote it. The idea being that you improve the housing stock,give something for those in smaller homes to move up to, and free up starter homes for FTBs. It might get everyone moving again, but would not be an efficient use of limited land.

I agree with cells on cost being a limiting factor; stamp duty has been an easy tax to raise without thinking about other consequences. But I would also add the general hassle and expense of mortgage fees (when did that happen?), chancel liability, certificates and indemnity insurance for just about everything. You feel you are being fleeced for insurance policies you will never be able to claim on.

If only the system could be simplified and made more affordable.

cells

michaels wrote: »

Are new build chains that lot - aren't a lot of new builds these days FTB 1 and 2 bed flats because of the strict limits on land made available.

No there is a good mix of bedrooms in new builds, if anything the few years post crash the proportion of homes went up and flats went down

Also its just my guess but clearly 100% of new builds can not be sold to FTB's and BTL'ers.

My guess was that 1/3rd go to that group and 2/3rd go to existing owners who need to sell their own home first

If the 1/3rd to 2/3rd ratio is correct that means an average chain is 3 homes. eg 1 new build results in 3 sales

cells

Running_Horse wrote: »

There was a study or report a while back saying you should only build large executive type houses, I forget who wrote it. The idea being that you improve the housing stock,give something for those in smaller homes to move up to, and free up starter homes for FTBs. It might get everyone moving again, but would not be an efficient use of limited land.

I agree with cells on cost being a limiting factor; stamp duty has been an easy tax to raise without thinking about other consequences. But I would also add the general hassle and expense of mortgage fees (when did that happen?), chancel liability, certificates and indemnity insurance for just about everything. You feel you are being fleeced for insurance policies you will never be able to claim on.

If only the system could be simplified and made more affordable.

That would be the natural state of things. In germany and France the average new build is now 120 square meters in size (which means half of them are bigger than that)

By UK standards that would be a good sized 4 bed or even 5 bed detached.

The builders get more per unit. The housing stock is improved. And for each big new build sold there is a smaller one sold to buy it, and a smaller one sold to buy that...etc etc

The UK is the odd one in that we build tiny homes with tiny rooms barely big enough for a bed and wardrobe let alone a desk and some room to move in

Spidernick

cells wrote: »

In Germany and France the average new build is now 120 square meters in size (which means half of them are bigger than that).

Metres, please (!) and no it doesn't mean that!*

PixelPound

Near me the council demolished some 1930's housing a decade ago and the plots are now being built upon they are having to incorporate letters into house numbers as they are fitting more new semi's where old terraces were.