Reduce price?

MeteredOut

Exodi said:

Bigphil1474 said:

BobT36 said:

BungalowBel said:

And , being a baby-boomer, I don't think the interest rates are high at all    I remember 15%, and for a short while, 17%.  Give me 5% any day!

Yes but think how percentages work. On what total value? 

Give me 15% anyday on the price of a house back when you're thinking of, rather than 5% of the massively increased prices we have now.
heh @Exodi beat me to it. 
I don't earn that much more than people did back then (comparatively, especially taking into account inflation), yet back then I'd have been able to buy a house with CASH, just on my income! 
Yet now even with both me & my partner having high salaried jobs, we still need a mega mortgage. You're also losing the benefit of one person being able to be at home providing childcare and homemaker work too. 

We bought our first house in 1995 for £45k. At the time I was on about £10k a year. My partner also worked . We've just sold that house for £180k, and my salary is £40k. My partner no longer works. The ratios are identical. 

... erm OK? Thanks for the anecdote I guess, though I'm not sure what your point is? 

There's so much data out there about average house prices and average earnings, I can only conclude that you either already know the ratio between average house prices and average earnings has obviously increased (but then I'm not sure of the purpose of your comment) or you truly believe houses are still 4.5x average earnings (which I truly find hard to believe)?

Honestly I really don't know what else to say to you... I can link sources if you want, but I mean they're not hard to find...

EDIT: and you have a high post count so you're clearly active on this forum. What is going on!

Using national average house prices and national average earnings to give a single view on affordability is even more meaningless now than it was when for the period where boomers could by a whole street for ten shillings, particularly because the now drastically increased difference in house prices between the south east and other parts of the country (and some other localised price hot spots too).

In some parts of the country, property is just as affordable as it was 20, 30, years ago, but people are not wanting to live there (for reasons varying from just not wanting to, to much more valid ones such as jobs/family).

A much better comparison is local wages as a ratio to the price of a starter house in that same area.

Albermarle

A much better comparison is local wages as a ratio to the price of a starter house in that same area.

Nationwide HPI News - Charts (nationwidehousepriceindex.co.uk)

 See the chart 'FTB house price earnings ratios by region'

GixerKate

ok, back on topic....you mention you want to move out of London, do you know where to, have you any properties in mind?  Rather than 'what can I get for my flat', how about looking at it as 'what do I need to get from my flat to enable me to buy my next place?'.   That should help answer the question about dropping the price, a lower price will always generate interest but it needs to be affordable for you.

Exodi

MeteredOut said:

A much better comparison is local wages as a ratio to the price of a starter house in that same area.

Albermarle said:

A much better comparison is local wages as a ratio to the price of a starter house in that same area.

Nationwide HPI News - Charts (nationwidehousepriceindex.co.uk)

 See the chart 'FTB house price earnings ratios by region'

OK to save the time and use Albermarle's link, not a single area has retained a similar house price v earnings ratios since 1995 (as per Bigphil1474's example that was originally referenced).

To be honest, I really don't get what we're debating here, my view that house prices have increased faster than earnings is hardly contentious (well perhaps on MSE it seems to be?), it's not a closely guarded secret that only few people know. It feels like I've said the sky is blue and we're now having a debate that it's not blue because someone glanced out their window during sunrise and saw it was red.

I own a house, but the constant playing down of the property crisis I find particularly grating. Which is why I took issue with Bigphil's comment which suggests that house prices v earnings haven't changed for 30 years. I'm tired of people (mostly boomers) holding the view that it's young peoples fault they can't afford houses (because takeaway coffee, or avocados, or whatever). It's probably fresh in my mind because yesterday I watched someone polling random people on the street about this, and you wouldn't believe some of the reasoning coming out of peoples mouths (commonly people who simultaneously held the view that they'd 'earned' the 10x increase in their own house price).

MeteredOut

Exodi said:

MeteredOut said:

A much better comparison is local wages as a ratio to the price of a starter house in that same area.

Albermarle said:

A much better comparison is local wages as a ratio to the price of a starter house in that same area.

Nationwide HPI News - Charts (nationwidehousepriceindex.co.uk)

 See the chart 'FTB house price earnings ratios by region'

OK to save the time and use Albermarle's link, not a single area has retained a similar house price v earnings ratios since 1995 (as per Bigphil1474's example that was originally referenced).

To be honest, I really don't get what we're debating here to be honest, my view that house prices have increased faster than earnings is hardly contentious (well perhaps on MSE it seems to be?), it's not a closely guarded secret that only few people know. It feels like I've said the sky is blue and we're now having a debate that it's not blue because someone glanced out their window during sunrise and saw it was red.

I own a house, but the constant playing down of the property crisis I find particularly grating. Which is why I took issue with Bigphil's comment which suggests that house prices v earnings haven't changed for 30 years. I'm tired of people (mostly boomers) holding the view that it's young peoples fault they can't afford houses (because takeaway coffee, or avocados, or whatever). It's probably fresh in my mind because yesterday I watched someone polling random people on the street about this, and you wouldn't believe some of the reasoning coming out of peoples mouths (commonly people who simultaneously held the view that they'd 'earned' the 10x increase in their own house price).

But, for example, pick 1983 (earliest) to Q4/23. Scotland goes from 2.5x to 3.25x, North goes from just under 3x to a bit more than 3x.

Or, pick 2008 as the starting point....

My point is, using the national average income versus the national average house price is pretty much meaningless unless you want a make a headline.

Exodi

MeteredOut said:

Exodi said:

MeteredOut said:

A much better comparison is local wages as a ratio to the price of a starter house in that same area.

Albermarle said:

A much better comparison is local wages as a ratio to the price of a starter house in that same area.

Nationwide HPI News - Charts (nationwidehousepriceindex.co.uk)

 See the chart 'FTB house price earnings ratios by region'

OK to save the time and use Albermarle's link, not a single area has retained a similar house price v earnings ratios since 1995 (as per Bigphil1474's example that was originally referenced).

To be honest, I really don't get what we're debating here to be honest, my view that house prices have increased faster than earnings is hardly contentious (well perhaps on MSE it seems to be?), it's not a closely guarded secret that only few people know. It feels like I've said the sky is blue and we're now having a debate that it's not blue because someone glanced out their window during sunrise and saw it was red.

I own a house, but the constant playing down of the property crisis I find particularly grating. Which is why I took issue with Bigphil's comment which suggests that house prices v earnings haven't changed for 30 years. I'm tired of people (mostly boomers) holding the view that it's young peoples fault they can't afford houses (because takeaway coffee, or avocados, or whatever). It's probably fresh in my mind because yesterday I watched someone polling random people on the street about this, and you wouldn't believe some of the reasoning coming out of peoples mouths (commonly people who simultaneously held the view that they'd 'earned' the 10x increase in their own house price).

But, for example, pick 1983 (earliest) to Q4/23. Scotland goes from 2.5x to 3.25x, North goes from just under 3x to a bit more than 3x.

Or, pick 2008 as the starting point....

My point is, using the national average income versus the national average house price is pretty much meaningless unless you want a make a headline.

But the data Albermarle linked shows the same unless you want to cherry-pick different dates... I can't help if you've also decided that national averages don't count.

But if you think you prove your point by using the 2008 financial crisis as a reasonable starting point, then there's probably little sense going round in circles on this, so as GixerKate says, let's get back on topic.

Sorry for derailing all.

MeteredOut

Exodi said:

MeteredOut said:

Exodi said:

MeteredOut said:

A much better comparison is local wages as a ratio to the price of a starter house in that same area.

Albermarle said:

A much better comparison is local wages as a ratio to the price of a starter house in that same area.

Nationwide HPI News - Charts (nationwidehousepriceindex.co.uk)

 See the chart 'FTB house price earnings ratios by region'

OK to save the time and use Albermarle's link, not a single area has retained a similar house price v earnings ratios since 1995 (as per Bigphil1474's example that was originally referenced).

To be honest, I really don't get what we're debating here to be honest, my view that house prices have increased faster than earnings is hardly contentious (well perhaps on MSE it seems to be?), it's not a closely guarded secret that only few people know. It feels like I've said the sky is blue and we're now having a debate that it's not blue because someone glanced out their window during sunrise and saw it was red.

I own a house, but the constant playing down of the property crisis I find particularly grating. Which is why I took issue with Bigphil's comment which suggests that house prices v earnings haven't changed for 30 years. I'm tired of people (mostly boomers) holding the view that it's young peoples fault they can't afford houses (because takeaway coffee, or avocados, or whatever). It's probably fresh in my mind because yesterday I watched someone polling random people on the street about this, and you wouldn't believe some of the reasoning coming out of peoples mouths (commonly people who simultaneously held the view that they'd 'earned' the 10x increase in their own house price).

But, for example, pick 1983 (earliest) to Q4/23. Scotland goes from 2.5x to 3.25x, North goes from just under 3x to a bit more than 3x.

Or, pick 2008 as the starting point....

My point is, using the national average income versus the national average house price is pretty much meaningless unless you want a make a headline.

But the data Albermarle linked shows the same unless you want to cherry-pick different dates... I can't help if you've also decided that national averages don't count.

But if you think you prove your point by using the 2008 financial crisis as a reasonable starting point, then there's probably little sense going round in circles on this, so as GixerKate says, let's get back on topic.

Sorry for derailing all.

I think you think i'm saying something I'm not saying and its triggered you. I don't think many (if any) are denying it is now more expensive to buy houses. But, Its a fact that different regions have significantly different levels of income to house price ratios, and using the national average income and the national average house price hides that.

ReadySteadyPop

BungalowBel said:

gwynlas said:

If it is comparatively priced there is no point in a reduction as a buyer could place an offer anywhere from £350K upwards then it will be up to you to decide if you accept. From what I see locally sales are slow everywhere and there is a lot of uncertainty due to upcoming election. Regarding storage it is important that you do not have cluttrer on display. Here there is no where to store ironing board so I am considering buying a full height cupboard./wardrobe that will fit in somewhere downstairs,

There was not storage at all in my 1930s bungalow when we bought it.  We made sure we got underbed storage, wardrobes with room to put storage boxes inside (as well as clothes!) and my ironing board is a tabletop one that hangs up in the freestanding cupboard I use for hoovers and brooms etc.  

Maybe putting a cupboard/ underbed storage box or similar and putting things away might help, so people just don't see things with nowhere to store them?

And , being a baby-boomer, I don't think the interest rates are high at all    I remember 15%, and for a short while, 17%.  Give me 5% any day!

House prices were lower when rates were 17%, and people then didn"t really have debt for anything else beyond their mortgage, today many are going to struggle at 5% when their fix ends as other COL expenses have also gone up.

ReadySteadyPop

Addison89 said:

We had our flat for sale for now about 2 months with a few viewings but no offer. It’s 2 bed, renovated with a private garden. Other similar properties in the area (London) priced for about the same. EA is asking if we would like to reduce price. I’m hesitant. Should we reduce or take it off the market and wait for interest rates to go down? We would like to move out of London and I noticed houses don’t really get sold there either and many properties prices have been reduced. Any advice would be appreciated!

With Japan now raising rates I wouldn"t gamble on rates going down, if they do more hikes it could really push borrowing costs up and you could find it even harder to sell, take the EA"s advice and reduce price now, but it probably needs to be more than 2.5% in this market.

ReadySteadyPop

MeteredOut said:

Exodi said:

MeteredOut said:

Exodi said:

MeteredOut said:

A much better comparison is local wages as a ratio to the price of a starter house in that same area.

Albermarle said:

A much better comparison is local wages as a ratio to the price of a starter house in that same area.

Nationwide HPI News - Charts (nationwidehousepriceindex.co.uk)

 See the chart 'FTB house price earnings ratios by region'

OK to save the time and use Albermarle's link, not a single area has retained a similar house price v earnings ratios since 1995 (as per Bigphil1474's example that was originally referenced).

To be honest, I really don't get what we're debating here to be honest, my view that house prices have increased faster than earnings is hardly contentious (well perhaps on MSE it seems to be?), it's not a closely guarded secret that only few people know. It feels like I've said the sky is blue and we're now having a debate that it's not blue because someone glanced out their window during sunrise and saw it was red.

I own a house, but the constant playing down of the property crisis I find particularly grating. Which is why I took issue with Bigphil's comment which suggests that house prices v earnings haven't changed for 30 years. I'm tired of people (mostly boomers) holding the view that it's young peoples fault they can't afford houses (because takeaway coffee, or avocados, or whatever). It's probably fresh in my mind because yesterday I watched someone polling random people on the street about this, and you wouldn't believe some of the reasoning coming out of peoples mouths (commonly people who simultaneously held the view that they'd 'earned' the 10x increase in their own house price).

But, for example, pick 1983 (earliest) to Q4/23. Scotland goes from 2.5x to 3.25x, North goes from just under 3x to a bit more than 3x.

Or, pick 2008 as the starting point....

My point is, using the national average income versus the national average house price is pretty much meaningless unless you want a make a headline.

But the data Albermarle linked shows the same unless you want to cherry-pick different dates... I can't help if you've also decided that national averages don't count.

But if you think you prove your point by using the 2008 financial crisis as a reasonable starting point, then there's probably little sense going round in circles on this, so as GixerKate says, let's get back on topic.

Sorry for derailing all.

I think you think i'm saying something I'm not saying and its triggered you. I don't think many (if any) are denying it is now more expensive to buy houses. But, Its a fact that different regions have significantly different levels of income to house price ratios, and using the national average income and the national average house price hides that.

In many cases that is because people selling for a lot in London bought in other areas around the country helping to distort those markets as well.