11 house hunters for every home on the market

Mistermeaner

If you're suitably qualified / experienced to get the best jobs up north it's possible to feel pretty rich on what by London standards would be mediocre income.

Not many nice restaurants near me but no crime, all the schools are good, and there's miles of accessible countryside on my door step.

Just saying, life doesn't need to take place in london

Graham_Devon

Something missed from this article on this thread is that the Estate Agents themselves are stating this is a problem.

At first glance, it would sound good for the estate agents...more buyers for their products. But what they also state, at least on other articles is their stock has reduced by 30%. What stock they do have is proving sometimes difficult to sell.

So for estate agents working on commission this is bad news. Less properties to make commission on and harder work to sell them.

11 "hunters" does not necessarily mean 11 buyers. And therein lies the problem. Many of those 11 hunters will be looking for the properties the estate agents don't have as they are all priced out of their reach. It could well be as more people find they cannot buy, they remain hunters, so the number of hunters increases.

So while there are more people "chasing" each property on paper, there are also less sales and less stock. Bad news if you make money selling that stock or if you are looking for stock within your range.

Graham_Devon

Oh and the other issue which I was pleased to hear was raised on the BBC earlier is those who want to sell, but cannot afford to.

These people generally would like to move on, but cannot afford the extra outlay. All well and good your own house rising by 30k, but if the next house has risen by 60k, you now need to take on an extra 30k mortgage. That costs an extra £180 (or thereabouts) every single month.

So it would appear many would like to sell, but simply find themselves priced out of the market now. They may be on a rung of the ladder, but they are completely stuck on it.

When mobility in the market falls away, you find the number of properties for sale falls away.

Mistermeaner

Thanks graham

chucknorris

Mistermeaner wrote: »

If you're suitably qualified / experienced to get the best jobs up north it's possible to feel pretty rich on what by London standards would be mediocre income.

Not many nice restaurants near me but no crime, all the schools are good, and there's miles of accessible countryside on my door step.

Just saying, life doesn't need to take place in london

That is very true, but what also is very true that after a decade of more of owning in London you can also (in the past, so no guarantee of course) usually enjoy a good financial uplift when you sell up and move out of London.

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

If you're suitably qualified / experienced to get the best jobs up north it's possible to feel pretty rich on what by London standards would be mediocre income.

Not many nice restaurants near me but no crime, all the schools are good, and there's miles of accessible countryside on my door step.

Just saying, life doesn't need to take place in london

whilst that is of course true, at the moment it seems that a large proportion of the immigrants choose London

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

whilst that is of course true, at the moment it seems that a large proportion of the immigrants choose London

It looks that way as London over the last ten years took on about 20% of the population growth although it has only 12.5% of the homes

This is one of the main reasons IMO London has outperformed the rest of England over the last 10 years.

That will probably continue simply because most foreigners can only name the capital and maybe a couple more cities in another country and because existing migrant communities act as a magnet for new arrivals

In many ways it looks like London was undervalued twenty years ago rather than overvalued massively today

cells

chucknorris wrote: »

That is very true, but what also is very true that after a decade of more of owning in London you can also (in the past, so no guarantee of course) usually enjoy a good financial uplift when you sell up and move out of London.

If you assume house prices will go up by just inflation and that mortgage rates cost about the same as inflation then you would find that any house you buy is free to live in.

You pay 3% mortgage but the house goes up in value 3% so you are effectively living there for free

In which case you are best off living where your wages are highest and buying the nicest most expensive house you cab afford

Doubt many people think of it that way though

chucknorris

cells wrote: »

If you assume house prices will go up by just inflation and that mortgage rates cost about the same as inflation then you would find that any house you buy is free to live in.

You pay 3% mortgage but the house goes up in value 3% so you are effectively living there for free

In which case you are best off living where your wages are highest and buying the nicest most expensive house you cab afford

Doubt many people think of it that way though

I certainly think that way, house values rise over time, yet interest rates only fluctuate. Also whilst London wages are higher, I don't think that they fully reflect the additional cost of London property, BUT when (if) you sell up and move away you are compensated for that extra cost.

kabayiri

I can only agree that London property has been a pretty good deal for those who bought in recent years.

I'd like to throw in a slightly different angle.

Has anyone else tried to sell a house in a falling market? I can still remember the experience in the early 90s, and it wasn't particularly pleasant.

Would this process only be exascerbated for those unfortunates who happen to buy into a London market close to the peak? Private owners might slow the decline because of the inclination to stay put and tough the downturn out, but some BTL'ers would just cut their losses and get out.