How far will house prices fall [volume 4]

[kiethton]

hyphen said:

Going back to London apartments, City Of London Corporation has apparently purchased 68 new builds in Kensington for £10 Million, so average of £147k each which is claimed to be the 'cost price'.

To be used for social housing for the Grenfell ex-residents.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/gr...

Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 21st June 22:36

It was the dedicated social housing element at the development so sounds about right

[TheLordJohn]

hyphen said:

Going back to London apartments, City Of London Corporation has apparently purchased 68 new builds in Kensington for £10 Million, so average of £147k each which is claimed to be the 'cost price'.

To be used for social housing for the Grenfell ex-residents.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/gr...

Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 21st June 22:36

Wonder if there'll be a load of illegal sub-letting going on there, too!?

[fido]

Pork said:

"But volumes are so low, prices are on the up"

EAs afraid of reducing listing prices and won't reduce through fear of contagion. It has potential to deflate as quickly as it inflated, just no one is prepared to say so.

I've noticed a few property auctions in my locale - people are skipping agents out completely and getting pricing and sales done properly! I might give it a shot if I don't make any progress on my sale.

[Dicky Knee]

fido said:

Pork said:

"But volumes are so low, prices are on the up"

EAs afraid of reducing listing prices and won't reduce through fear of contagion. It has potential to deflate as quickly as it inflated, just no one is prepared to say so.

I've noticed a few property auctions in my locale - people are skipping agents out completely and getting pricing and sales done properly! I might give it a shot if I don't make any progress on my sale.

Residential Property Auctions are pretty standard in Australia and it makes me wonder why the UK Real Estate market doesn't switch.

From a sellers viewpoint you list with an agent, they run a 4 week campaign which consists of advertising online and in local/state newspapers and open house once or twice a week. A seller can't offer a house for sale until all the legal docs have been produced and packaged up. The auction is on the 4th weekend either on site or in rooms. On the day of the auction interested buyers have to register to bid. On the fall of the hammer (assuming the reserve has been reached) buyer and seller exchange including the paying of a 10% deposit (or less if pre-arranged and agreed). Completion is usually 4 weeks later but again can be changed by mutual agreement.

From a buyers viewpoint, you have to get all the docs reviewed, inspections done and mortgage approved as well as having the ability to write a cheque on the day for the deposit. If you don't win the auction you have spent cash on a solicitor and inspection which are worthless.

The banks work to the system meaning they are pretty quick at making mortgage decisions and bridging finance is readily available. You also know you can have your house sold within 8 weeks.

The UK s system of getting caught in chains of sales and purchases just seems so inefficient.

[Sheepshanks]

Dicky Knee said:

You also know you can have your house sold within 8 weeks.

In the Australian market - In practice do people buy their next house first, then sell their own?

It sounds clean, but you're pretty stuffed if your house doesn't sell - or you have to let it go for a lot less than expected.

If you do it the other way around - sell first - and then miss out on the house you want then you're homeless!

Edited by Sheepshanks on Thursday 22 June 14:20

[p1stonhead]

Sheepshanks said:

Dicky Knee said:

You also know you can have your house sold within 8 weeks.

In practice do people buy their next house first, then sell their own?

It sounds clean, but you're pretty stuffed if your house doesn't sell - or you have to let it go for a lot less than expected.

If you do it the other way around - sell first - and then miss out on the house you want then you're homeless!

Generally find somewhere you want and then stick your house on the market sharpish.

Or if you generally know you want to move, put it up for sale then try to find somewhere. You get under offer though not actually move out and make yourself homeless - this is why 'chains' are so fking annoying - lots of people wanting to sell but also dependent on the ones they are buying and so on up the ladder.

[fido]

Sheepshanks said:

If you do it the other way around - sell first - and then miss out on the house you want then you're homeless!

It's no different to when you sell chain-free - get a sh8t load of cash in the bank and rent for the time being. Obviously you only do this sort of thing if it fits your circumstances. I have cleared out all the extra furniture and ready to box my stuff - could easily move out in a few weeks.

[Dicky Knee]

Sheepshanks said:

Dicky Knee said:

You also know you can have your house sold within 8 weeks.

In practice do people buy their next house first, then sell their own?

It sounds clean, but you're pretty stuffed if your house doesn't sell - or you have to let it go for a lot less than expected.

If you do it the other way around - sell first - and then miss out on the house you want then you're homeless!

It depends. We sold our house first and put the money in the bank and rented until we saw what we wanted. But I'm risk adverse. Many people see a house they want and bid for it first.if they get it they bridge until they sell. If it doesn't sell at auction the Real Estate Agent has it in the contract that they keep the listing for a period and generally it gets sold. If it doesn't sell you have to work out if you want to hang on and bridge finance or take the hit.

There is also quite a large rental market so if you do get caught between transactions you won't be homeless, just renting for a while and ready to go when the next thing comes up.

Chains don't happen although sometimes there is a request for a delay in the settlement. Another place we bought was owned by 2 old ladies (sisters). Sadly one died after we exchanged but before we completed which slowed things down by a couple of months but we just extended the lease where we were at the time.

[Sheepshanks]

Thanks.

[sjg]

Dicky Knee said:

The UK s system of getting caught in chains of sales and purchases just seems so inefficient.

Yep, NZ is much the same as Australia. Seems fairly common to sell first, move into rented / stuff into storage for a bit then find the next place.

It needs more effort and commitment from the seller - all paperwork to be in place, and some money spent up front on decent photos, marketing, auctioneers fees, etc. You have to want to get your house sold, and there's a lot to be said for knowing it'll be gone in a certain time.

The UK system just seems to encourage aimless speculative advertising, so no wonder it takes an age to get from offer to completion and so many end up in long chains.

[p1stonhead]

sjg said:

Dicky Knee said:

The UK s system of getting caught in chains of sales and purchases just seems so inefficient.

Yep, NZ is much the same as Australia. Seems fairly common to sell first, move into rented / stuff into storage for a bit then find the next place.
.

In many parts of the country for many years (not necessarily right now though), being 'out of ownership' means a huge risk of the market running away without you and you never being able to get back in.

[Dicky Knee]

p1stonhead said:

sjg said:

Dicky Knee said:

The UK s system of getting caught in chains of sales and purchases just seems so inefficient.

Yep, NZ is much the same as Australia. Seems fairly common to sell first, move into rented / stuff into storage for a bit then find the next place.
.

In many parts of the country for many years (not necessarily right now though), being 'out of ownership' means a huge risk of the market running away without you and you never being able to get back in.

In those circumstances most people will be happy to buy before they sell as there is more confidence that their place will sell and will sell at a good price. Being out of the market in the main cities in Australia is always a risk...according to the most recent stats, my area of Sydney was up 18.7% in the last 12 months. Not sure if that is really the case though.

[markcoznottz]

hyphen said:

Going back to London apartments, City Of London Corporation has apparently purchased 68 new builds in Kensington for £10 Million, so average of £147k each which is claimed to be the 'cost price'.

To be used for social housing for the Grenfell ex-residents.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/gr...

Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 21st June 22:36

Assuming they are the affordable part of that build, why would they be available right now, and why at cost, who's taken the hit surely not the developer. Is this arrangement normal

[Burwood]

Dicky Knee said:

p1stonhead said:

sjg said:

Dicky Knee said:

The UK s system of getting caught in chains of sales and purchases just seems so inefficient.

Yep, NZ is much the same as Australia. Seems fairly common to sell first, move into rented / stuff into storage for a bit then find the next place.
.

In many parts of the country for many years (not necessarily right now though), being 'out of ownership' means a huge risk of the market running away without you and you never being able to get back in.

In those circumstances most people will be happy to buy before they sell as there is more confidence that their place will sell and will sell at a good price. Being out of the market in the main cities in Australia is always a risk...according to the most recent stats, my area of Sydney was up 18.7% in the last 12 months. Not sure if that is really the case though.

Auckland is flat now after 250% in last 6 years. Mental doesn't scratch the surface.

[Derek Chevalier]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

"Over 75 per cent of rising house prices since the 1970s can be put down to rising land values"

Does he believe that land prices drive house prices?

[Sheepshanks]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I wonder how many of those are scams?

[fishseller]

z4RRSchris said:

Sheepshanks said:

However I think it's a reasonable assumption that people who aren't there will spend a lot less than people who are there.

Ish. We have normal chaps in £2m flats who spend a normal amount of cash. We also have arabs and russians who fly in for 4 weeks to the same £2m flats and spend an obscene amount of money in those 4 weeks.

They will book and pay for 2/3 restaurants a night and decide which one, if any, they feel like eating at.
RR Ghost with driver on hire 24/7 for 4 weeks. £2000 pd= £56,000!

Ooo I want that job get my self a used ghost and pimp my self out !! where do I apply ?

[AstonZagato]

Derek Chevalier said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

"Over 75 per cent of rising house prices since the 1970s can be put down to rising land values"

Does he believe that land prices drive house prices?

I couldn't read once I saw "Common Weal". A bunch of Marxist communist Scottish independence nutters.

[Rovinghawk]

Sheepshanks said:

I don't like the State interfering but it instinctively doesn’t feel right to have property sitting empty. It surely must cause all kind of distortions. It forces prices up – OK, at the “superprime” level that doesn’t matter much, but presumably it happens at all levels.

Replace 'house' with 'car'; do you think those with a car they rarely use should be penalised or have it taken from them?

If it's unacceptable for one item of property then it's unacceptable for the other.

[Sheepshanks]

Rovinghawk said:

Replace 'house' with 'car'; do you think those with a car they rarely use should be penalised or have it taken from them?

If it's unacceptable for one item of property then it's unacceptable for the other.

Cars aren't in limited supply.

I'm bemused anyone could think they're comparable situations.