Why won't the agent take no for an answer?

lisyloo

Crashy_Time wrote: »

And maybe see the value drop further?

It’s entirely up to the OP.
For many people a paper loss is irrelevant if they don’t have a need to move.
Values can drop at any time, it’s one of the risks of owning an asset, but one of the massive advantages are that you can live in it, eventually rent free.
As has been said many times, you can’t live in a share certificate.

parking_question_chap

Strange as it might seem perhaps the agent thinks you actually want to sell your house. If you are getting offers no more than £210k and you refuse to accept under £240k you might as well take it off the market and stop wasting everybody`s time.

spadoosh

parking_question_chap wrote: »

Strange as it might seem perhaps the agent thinks you actually want to sell your house. If you are getting offers no more than £210k and you refuse to accept under £240k you might as well take it off the market and stop wasting everybody`s time.

Id say the agent was wasting peoples times.

It sounds like the OP has made it clear they want at least £240k. With the OP likely not being particularly proficient in selling properties hence using an agent surely the onus is on the estate agent to decide on marketing the property based on their perceptions of achieving the OPs requirements with their expert knowledge of the area?

Crashy_Time

lisyloo wrote: »

It’s entirely up to the OP.
For many people a paper loss is irrelevant if they don’t have a need to move.
Values can drop at any time, it’s one of the risks of owning an asset, but one of the massive advantages are that you can live in it, eventually rent free.
As has been said many times, you can’t live in a share certificate.

None of that justifies the massive property debt bubble that the bankers made though, a house as you say should be for living in not for using as an investment, and it is this mistake that has led us to the political/social mess that we are in now.

lisyloo

Crashy_Time wrote: »

None of that justifies the massive property debt bubble that the bankers made though, a house as you say should be for living in not for using as an investment, and it is this mistake that has led us to the political/social mess that we are in now.

No it’s not.
It the 1/3rd million net immigration every year coupled with the lack of building new homes.
Strong demand for homes will continue whilst we have record low unemployment.

I’m not trying to justify any banking actions, just that mathematically if you planning to stay in one place it’s a mathematical certainty that you’ll be better off buying than renting over the long term. There are exceptions such as sink holes but they are the exceptions.

Albala

lisyloo wrote: »

No it’s not.
It the 1/3rd million net immigration every year coupled with the lack of building new homes.
Strong demand for homes will continue whilst we have record low unemployment.

.

Not really. The lack of houses to buy, and the high prices of those for sale, are both the result of a rapid expansion in an inadequately regulated private rented sector. And much of that sector is subsidised by the state, directly in the form of housing benefits and other subsidies, and indirectly via tax credits. Prices of houses are also being propped up by right to buy. If all the state money spent on the foregoing, or even a good wedge of it, was spent on social and affordable housing, and renting was regulated in the way most EU countries regulate their rented sectors, it would solve a lot of problems at one go.
Agree most people would be better off buying, but a lot of people are paying more in rent than they would on a mortgage but still can't get a mortgage.

getmore4less

lisyloo wrote: »

No it’s not.
It the 1/3rd million net immigration every year coupled with the lack of building new homes.
Strong demand for homes will continue whilst we have record low unemployment.

I’m not trying to justify any banking actions, just that mathematically if you planning to stay in one place it’s a mathematical certainty that you’ll be better off buying than renting over the long term. There are exceptions such as sink holes but they are the exceptions.

People not dieing as fast as they used to is not helping, just as much as the net immigration.

lisyloo

getmore4less wrote: »

People not dieing as fast as they used to is not helping, just as much as the net immigration.

I agree that it’s a factor, not sure on just as much.
There are number of factors. Net migration is one that’s easy to put a figure on as the ONS publish figures.
People living longer is more difficult. It is a factor but a bit more difficult to put numbers on.
I’m not sure on “just as much” because some are making very efficient use of accommodation in residential homes with just a small room, many will have downsized to retirement accommodation. Some of course have a family home (I do have relatives who’ve left LPA too late and don’t want to do COP so they are leaving an empty home and waiting for the 99 year old lady to die before selling as COP is too expensive). Do you have any figures to show longevity is as much of a factor as immigration?

A variety of factors, but when we have increasing population and very low unemployment then there would need to be a trigger for a Crash (as opposed to a correction).

AdrianC

Natural growth figures - the number of births minus the number of deaths - are published. They show that natural growth is on a par with net migration as a contributor to population growth.

Of course, natural growth is a drag on the economy - because babies and the elderly aren't economically active - whereas migrants are mostly economically active (more so, by most measures, than the population that's born here).

That often gets countered by "Oh, but the babies are born to migrants" - as if one baby is somehow inherently inferior to another, simply because of where its parents were born...

lisyloo

Ok, so we have 1/3rd million net immigration (high % economically active) and 1/3rd million natural growth and we know we’re not building enough houses.
That looks like a major factor against a house price crash to me.

Crashy wants a house price crash and doesn’t like what happened.
But what crashy wants and thinks isn’t a factor.

Population growth and unemployment rates are major factors.

FWIW - I own my home and it’s value to me is as a place to live so I’m not personally invested in what happens to house prices. I may not even sell during my lifetime.