Fantasists?

powerful_Rogue

lookstraightahead said:

Elliott.T123 said:

lookstraightahead said:

There are thousands and thousands of buyers where the valuation is vital, or they just don't want to pay for a house that the lender won't even risk. And of course those who have a specific LTV bracket which makes a wealth of difference. This doesn't just affect the buyer, it affects the seller, who has to remarket when the buyer has to, or wishes to, pull out.

I agree that both parties need to be realistic. The issue is that the seller is often the initial one not being realistic. There's a definite theme with sellers being over optimistic (I mean greedy) and that just starts a spiral of events that wastes everyone's time.

A buyer needs to remove all the marketing that so often comes with selling a house (or any product) and see it for what it really is. After all, that's why it's called marketing. There to entice. And often people see something that's more expensive as better quality. Sometimes it is, often it isn't. 

I don't doubt for one moment though that lots of sellers are after that one particular buyer who is happy to pay whatever for their "dream home". There are lots of people who never want to negotiate as well, as it's uncomfortable to do so. So they either get lucky or their house waits around for ever. Recently lots have sold so they're still holding on to this. There are also buyers who bought recently holding on to this. The fact is that generally house prices are heading downwards now. Who knows how long this will be for, but it does pose a question more so to a buyer now. They're going to take it into consideration when offering.

Each to their own, but I don't trust what a house goes on the market for any more than what my daughter used to 'sell' her veg for in her pretend shop when she was little.  

I would argue that it is impossible for the seller to waste everyone's time. The seller has advertised the property at a price they are looking to receive. If a buyer makes what they feel to be a fair offer and it is rejected for being too low how has the seller wasted their time. They made it clear what price they wanted.

The only person who has wasted time is the buyer wasting their own time looking at a property they do not feel is worth the value that the current owners feel it is worth....

But I've never paid what a seller has initially asked for. 

My experience is that you don't just pay what is asked - or have we changed how we buy houses now, and it's all about not upsetting a seller? 

Depends how much you want the property. I went straight in at asking price as the property ticked every single box we had and more.

[Deleted User]

lookstraightahead said:

RelievedSheff said:

You don't need to trust what a house goes on the market for (whatever that may mean).

It is generally easy enough to compare the asking price with recent sale prices and other similar properties currently on the market.

If a property is already "priced to sell" then you are not going to get a reduction on that. If a property is keenly priced then yes the vendor may accept a lower offer.

ok well maybe it's because most of the houses I've bought have no comparables as they're all different. 

But then the market changes too. And sellers and EA value differently. What are they basing their valuations on? Winning business? Selling a dream?

That's very unusual in the UK, where most houses are identical terraces.

jimbog

[Deleted User] said:

lookstraightahead said:

RelievedSheff said:

You don't need to trust what a house goes on the market for (whatever that may mean).

It is generally easy enough to compare the asking price with recent sale prices and other similar properties currently on the market.

If a property is already "priced to sell" then you are not going to get a reduction on that. If a property is keenly priced then yes the vendor may accept a lower offer.

ok well maybe it's because most of the houses I've bought have no comparables as they're all different. 

But then the market changes too. And sellers and EA value differently. What are they basing their valuations on? Winning business? Selling a dream?

That's very unusual in the UK, where most houses are identical terraces.

I'm not sure in which country you are based but that is very much not the case

lookstraightahead

powerful_Rogue said:

lookstraightahead said:

Elliott.T123 said:

lookstraightahead said:

There are thousands and thousands of buyers where the valuation is vital, or they just don't want to pay for a house that the lender won't even risk. And of course those who have a specific LTV bracket which makes a wealth of difference. This doesn't just affect the buyer, it affects the seller, who has to remarket when the buyer has to, or wishes to, pull out.

I agree that both parties need to be realistic. The issue is that the seller is often the initial one not being realistic. There's a definite theme with sellers being over optimistic (I mean greedy) and that just starts a spiral of events that wastes everyone's time.

A buyer needs to remove all the marketing that so often comes with selling a house (or any product) and see it for what it really is. After all, that's why it's called marketing. There to entice. And often people see something that's more expensive as better quality. Sometimes it is, often it isn't. 

I don't doubt for one moment though that lots of sellers are after that one particular buyer who is happy to pay whatever for their "dream home". There are lots of people who never want to negotiate as well, as it's uncomfortable to do so. So they either get lucky or their house waits around for ever. Recently lots have sold so they're still holding on to this. There are also buyers who bought recently holding on to this. The fact is that generally house prices are heading downwards now. Who knows how long this will be for, but it does pose a question more so to a buyer now. They're going to take it into consideration when offering.

Each to their own, but I don't trust what a house goes on the market for any more than what my daughter used to 'sell' her veg for in her pretend shop when she was little.  

I would argue that it is impossible for the seller to waste everyone's time. The seller has advertised the property at a price they are looking to receive. If a buyer makes what they feel to be a fair offer and it is rejected for being too low how has the seller wasted their time. They made it clear what price they wanted.

The only person who has wasted time is the buyer wasting their own time looking at a property they do not feel is worth the value that the current owners feel it is worth....

But I've never paid what a seller has initially asked for. 

My experience is that you don't just pay what is asked - or have we changed how we buy houses now, and it's all about not upsetting a seller? 

Depends how much you want the property. I went straight in at asking price as the property ticked every single box we had and more.

Why didn't you offer over asking just in case someone offered higher? 

Seems to be the way to go.

lookstraightahead

[Deleted User] said:

lookstraightahead said:

RelievedSheff said:

You don't need to trust what a house goes on the market for (whatever that may mean).

It is generally easy enough to compare the asking price with recent sale prices and other similar properties currently on the market.

If a property is already "priced to sell" then you are not going to get a reduction on that. If a property is keenly priced then yes the vendor may accept a lower offer.

ok well maybe it's because most of the houses I've bought have no comparables as they're all different. 

But then the market changes too. And sellers and EA value differently. What are they basing their valuations on? Winning business? Selling a dream?

That's very unusual in the UK, where most houses are identical terraces.

No they're not

jimbog

lookstraightahead said:

powerful_Rogue said:

lookstraightahead said:

Elliott.T123 said:

lookstraightahead said:

There are thousands and thousands of buyers where the valuation is vital, or they just don't want to pay for a house that the lender won't even risk. And of course those who have a specific LTV bracket which makes a wealth of difference. This doesn't just affect the buyer, it affects the seller, who has to remarket when the buyer has to, or wishes to, pull out.

I agree that both parties need to be realistic. The issue is that the seller is often the initial one not being realistic. There's a definite theme with sellers being over optimistic (I mean greedy) and that just starts a spiral of events that wastes everyone's time.

A buyer needs to remove all the marketing that so often comes with selling a house (or any product) and see it for what it really is. After all, that's why it's called marketing. There to entice. And often people see something that's more expensive as better quality. Sometimes it is, often it isn't. 

I don't doubt for one moment though that lots of sellers are after that one particular buyer who is happy to pay whatever for their "dream home". There are lots of people who never want to negotiate as well, as it's uncomfortable to do so. So they either get lucky or their house waits around for ever. Recently lots have sold so they're still holding on to this. There are also buyers who bought recently holding on to this. The fact is that generally house prices are heading downwards now. Who knows how long this will be for, but it does pose a question more so to a buyer now. They're going to take it into consideration when offering.

Each to their own, but I don't trust what a house goes on the market for any more than what my daughter used to 'sell' her veg for in her pretend shop when she was little.  

I would argue that it is impossible for the seller to waste everyone's time. The seller has advertised the property at a price they are looking to receive. If a buyer makes what they feel to be a fair offer and it is rejected for being too low how has the seller wasted their time. They made it clear what price they wanted.

The only person who has wasted time is the buyer wasting their own time looking at a property they do not feel is worth the value that the current owners feel it is worth....

But I've never paid what a seller has initially asked for. 

My experience is that you don't just pay what is asked - or have we changed how we buy houses now, and it's all about not upsetting a seller? 

Depends how much you want the property. I went straight in at asking price as the property ticked every single box we had and more.

Why didn't you offer over asking just in case someone offered higher? 

Usual practice is to offer the asking price and then if a bidding war ensues then a buyer would offer more 

lookstraightahead

jimbog said:

lookstraightahead said:

powerful_Rogue said:

lookstraightahead said:

Elliott.T123 said:

lookstraightahead said:

There are thousands and thousands of buyers where the valuation is vital, or they just don't want to pay for a house that the lender won't even risk. And of course those who have a specific LTV bracket which makes a wealth of difference. This doesn't just affect the buyer, it affects the seller, who has to remarket when the buyer has to, or wishes to, pull out.

I agree that both parties need to be realistic. The issue is that the seller is often the initial one not being realistic. There's a definite theme with sellers being over optimistic (I mean greedy) and that just starts a spiral of events that wastes everyone's time.

A buyer needs to remove all the marketing that so often comes with selling a house (or any product) and see it for what it really is. After all, that's why it's called marketing. There to entice. And often people see something that's more expensive as better quality. Sometimes it is, often it isn't. 

I don't doubt for one moment though that lots of sellers are after that one particular buyer who is happy to pay whatever for their "dream home". There are lots of people who never want to negotiate as well, as it's uncomfortable to do so. So they either get lucky or their house waits around for ever. Recently lots have sold so they're still holding on to this. There are also buyers who bought recently holding on to this. The fact is that generally house prices are heading downwards now. Who knows how long this will be for, but it does pose a question more so to a buyer now. They're going to take it into consideration when offering.

Each to their own, but I don't trust what a house goes on the market for any more than what my daughter used to 'sell' her veg for in her pretend shop when she was little.  

I would argue that it is impossible for the seller to waste everyone's time. The seller has advertised the property at a price they are looking to receive. If a buyer makes what they feel to be a fair offer and it is rejected for being too low how has the seller wasted their time. They made it clear what price they wanted.

The only person who has wasted time is the buyer wasting their own time looking at a property they do not feel is worth the value that the current owners feel it is worth....

But I've never paid what a seller has initially asked for. 

My experience is that you don't just pay what is asked - or have we changed how we buy houses now, and it's all about not upsetting a seller? 

Depends how much you want the property. I went straight in at asking price as the property ticked every single box we had and more.

Why didn't you offer over asking just in case someone offered higher? 

Usual practice is to offer the asking price and then if a bidding war ensues then a buyer would offer more 

Makes me shudder 😵‍💫. Totally beyond my understanding are bidding wars. Will never go anywhere near them. It's just lining people up whilst a seller rubs their hands together. Although not quite so much now. 

powerful_Rogue

lookstraightahead said:

powerful_Rogue said:

lookstraightahead said:

Elliott.T123 said:

lookstraightahead said:

There are thousands and thousands of buyers where the valuation is vital, or they just don't want to pay for a house that the lender won't even risk. And of course those who have a specific LTV bracket which makes a wealth of difference. This doesn't just affect the buyer, it affects the seller, who has to remarket when the buyer has to, or wishes to, pull out.

I agree that both parties need to be realistic. The issue is that the seller is often the initial one not being realistic. There's a definite theme with sellers being over optimistic (I mean greedy) and that just starts a spiral of events that wastes everyone's time.

A buyer needs to remove all the marketing that so often comes with selling a house (or any product) and see it for what it really is. After all, that's why it's called marketing. There to entice. And often people see something that's more expensive as better quality. Sometimes it is, often it isn't. 

I don't doubt for one moment though that lots of sellers are after that one particular buyer who is happy to pay whatever for their "dream home". There are lots of people who never want to negotiate as well, as it's uncomfortable to do so. So they either get lucky or their house waits around for ever. Recently lots have sold so they're still holding on to this. There are also buyers who bought recently holding on to this. The fact is that generally house prices are heading downwards now. Who knows how long this will be for, but it does pose a question more so to a buyer now. They're going to take it into consideration when offering.

Each to their own, but I don't trust what a house goes on the market for any more than what my daughter used to 'sell' her veg for in her pretend shop when she was little.  

I would argue that it is impossible for the seller to waste everyone's time. The seller has advertised the property at a price they are looking to receive. If a buyer makes what they feel to be a fair offer and it is rejected for being too low how has the seller wasted their time. They made it clear what price they wanted.

The only person who has wasted time is the buyer wasting their own time looking at a property they do not feel is worth the value that the current owners feel it is worth....

But I've never paid what a seller has initially asked for. 

My experience is that you don't just pay what is asked - or have we changed how we buy houses now, and it's all about not upsetting a seller? 

Depends how much you want the property. I went straight in at asking price as the property ticked every single box we had and more.

Why didn't you offer over asking just in case someone offered higher? 

Seems to be the way to go.

There we no other offers. We were also selling our house with the same estate agents. I would have been more then happy to go 20% over asking price if needed. Anything more would have been unaffordable for us.

lookstraightahead

powerful_Rogue said:

lookstraightahead said:

powerful_Rogue said:

lookstraightahead said:

Elliott.T123 said:

lookstraightahead said:

There are thousands and thousands of buyers where the valuation is vital, or they just don't want to pay for a house that the lender won't even risk. And of course those who have a specific LTV bracket which makes a wealth of difference. This doesn't just affect the buyer, it affects the seller, who has to remarket when the buyer has to, or wishes to, pull out.

I agree that both parties need to be realistic. The issue is that the seller is often the initial one not being realistic. There's a definite theme with sellers being over optimistic (I mean greedy) and that just starts a spiral of events that wastes everyone's time.

A buyer needs to remove all the marketing that so often comes with selling a house (or any product) and see it for what it really is. After all, that's why it's called marketing. There to entice. And often people see something that's more expensive as better quality. Sometimes it is, often it isn't. 

I don't doubt for one moment though that lots of sellers are after that one particular buyer who is happy to pay whatever for their "dream home". There are lots of people who never want to negotiate as well, as it's uncomfortable to do so. So they either get lucky or their house waits around for ever. Recently lots have sold so they're still holding on to this. There are also buyers who bought recently holding on to this. The fact is that generally house prices are heading downwards now. Who knows how long this will be for, but it does pose a question more so to a buyer now. They're going to take it into consideration when offering.

Each to their own, but I don't trust what a house goes on the market for any more than what my daughter used to 'sell' her veg for in her pretend shop when she was little.  

I would argue that it is impossible for the seller to waste everyone's time. The seller has advertised the property at a price they are looking to receive. If a buyer makes what they feel to be a fair offer and it is rejected for being too low how has the seller wasted their time. They made it clear what price they wanted.

The only person who has wasted time is the buyer wasting their own time looking at a property they do not feel is worth the value that the current owners feel it is worth....

But I've never paid what a seller has initially asked for. 

My experience is that you don't just pay what is asked - or have we changed how we buy houses now, and it's all about not upsetting a seller? 

Depends how much you want the property. I went straight in at asking price as the property ticked every single box we had and more.

Why didn't you offer over asking just in case someone offered higher? 

Seems to be the way to go.

There we no other offers. We were also selling our house with the same estate agents. I would have been more then happy to go 20% over asking price if needed. Anything more would have been unaffordable for us.

Fair enough. But it also makes sense in that case that some sellers would accept 20% lower and some buyers would offer 20% lower. 

It shows what buyers and sellers are willing to do in order to move on.

BobT36

Not sure how anyone will be able to afford a house, with how it's going.
Normal "houses" (not mini-mansions) around a third to half-a-million quid now. Salaries have NOT risen accordingly. 

Just where is the money coming from to buy these? It used to be that a house was 3x the household salary, now it's over 10x..