WWYD - accepted high offer Friday, nowhere to move yet

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Well: Gordon Brown was probably the best chancellor since the Wilson years! He managed the economy very well so long as Blair was around to take the credit: it was only when he took the top job and was distracted from the economy that things went to pot. Not to mention a few problems with sub-prime lending and banks in the USA...

You must be on Acid.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_UK_gold_reserves,_1999%E2%80%932002


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531448/Browns-raid-on-pensions-costs-Britain-100-billion.html


The latter is particularly awful, and we're only beginning to see the real side effects now. Almost every DB scheme is in the red now (Tata, BHS et al), when almost all of them were in the black 20 years ago.

marksoton

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

Heh - Paul Krugman thought Gordon Brown was a financial sage!

:rotfl:

Then Paul's a moron.

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Well: Gordon Brown was probably the best chancellor since the Wilson years! He managed the economy very well so long as Blair was around to take the credit: it was only when he took the top job and was distracted from the economy that things went to pot. Not to mention a few problems with sub-prime lending and banks in the USA...

:rotfl:

Words fail me........

cajef

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Well: Gordon Brown was probably the worst chancellor since the Wilson years! He managed the economy disastrously so long as Blair was around to take the blame: it was only when he took the top job and was distracted from the economy that things went more to pot. Not to mention a few problems with sub-prime lending and banks in the USA...

Corrected that for you.

harrys_dad

Assuming you are trading up, as most people do, then a fall in house prices would be good for you. The "price to change", which is all that matters, would fall as the rungs of the ladder got closer together.

This is what happened to me a few years ago. My house was "worth" around £165000 and the sort we wanted to buy were about £250,000. I eventually sold mine for £130,000 and bought for £192,000. So the price to change fell from £85,000 to £62,000. Although my house theoretically sold for £35,000 less than peak value I actually saved £23,000.

cloo

I would just go through the sale as usual and try to find somewhere to move to. You can never tell what the market will do and 'waiting for the market to fall' fairly seldom pays off because it's not just a case that suddenly you can get things cheap. If you can't find much now, you'll find even less if the market does collapse, which I don't think is going to happen right this minute. Better to get yourself in your next step.

I have to say, I am super relieved we got into our 'forever home' before Brexit and this, because we basically don't have to worry much what the housing market does anymore!

saajan_12

Why do you think this will affect markets at all meaningfully?

Even the Brexit vote which devalued GBP by around 11% and caused turmoil across financial markets, had a fairly muted if any impact on house prices. Today's election has left most instruments across markets unchanged (with the exception of Mexico). Sure things will move once the plan for the next 4 years becomes more clear, but in my experience the initial reaction is a good indication.

AnotherJoe

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

W
Who predicted that? The same ones that predicted recession if we voted to leave the EU?

Indeed. Probably the same people that predicted a no to Brexit and a Clinton win and less than a couple of years ago that by now interest rates would be about 6x higher than they are.

Hoploz

You are wasting everybody's time. All the people who put in the offers and bids ... Choosing the offer you consider best....

It's all done with the best of intentions, but until you find a property to buy, your buyers should be keeping an eye on other houses making sure they look elsewhere, as you may take months to find your property or indeed give up six months down the line.

There is never a right way to do this - find first or sell first - but until a complete chain can be formed, or someone agrees to break the chain (in a rising market you'd be foolish to sell first as you'd miss out on your own house increasing like the one you're going to buy is) it's all academic and everyone is free to continue looking elsewhere to cover all bases.

Bonfire_Bride

We broke our onward chain after being messed around by the vendors. We continued the sale of ours and are currently living with my mother until our new purchase goes through.

You may be in a better "position" when you do eventually find a property if you temporarily move into rented. You will have the funds in the bank and be appealing to a seller. If you try and rush to find a property, you may end up regretting it. If you take loads of time to find a new property...your buyers may end up getting itchy feet. They may say that they are happy to wait, but it is still early days.

CBeardsworth

It sounds like your house is highly desirable, so if your buyers dropped out it shouldn't be too difficult to find more, right? Personally if the markets are what you are worried about then I wouldn't go into rented. If you are right and the market values fall then your house value may fall (although if it is in a super desirable area it may be less affected) but so will the value of houses you are looking at. On the other hand if you are wrong and house prices continue to rise then your own house price would rise with it. Going into rented would be riskier in case you didn't find anything for a long time and your deposit became a smaller and smaller percentage of your dream home value. If you find a house quickly then it won't be a problem for your buyer anyway.

No need to worry quite yet, I think.