JustYield

Presumably the cash over the kitchen table deals are significantly less than EAs would push for - so what it this about: saving face, moving on and leaving the place in the right hands? Eventually the Land Registry gets the data. I made similar speculative observations in my Country House thread, but nice to see it confirmed.

...and aren't most village Summer fetes a way to raise money for the church roof fund?

I've been looking at Rightmove for the last few days. I soon twigged about getting the Firefox PropertyBee add-on (offer prices) and I've known about nethouseprices (historic selling prices) since it came out. My point is that sellers are now realising that all this information is readily available and some are withdrawing for a more discreet process. If I were a seller, I'd be cautious about being too visible on the web - a sale if priced correctly should complete within 3 months of the decision to sell, otherwise you don't really want to sell. Kite-flying for years on end can seriously damage the eventual selling price especially when everyone can see the offer reducing.

This one's been on the market for > 2 years now: Hallelujah!

What you've spotted is that house prices were "re-rated" as interest rates fell. This is a technical term, worth digging into. The takeaway point is that a re-rating can only happen once (in each cycle). It has happened. Those expecting a continuation of the capital gains seen in the last 10 years are deluded. In theory, affordability should not affect valuation. But we know in practice it does - because rent creeps up to absorb all spare cash generated by the working man, and rent underpins fundamental value. However, once prices get beyond the cash available for debt service, then they become unaffordable, e.g. interest rate rises, real wage erosion, tax increases, rising costs of living... What then for valuations based on affordability? Nice try.

Finally! A reason for all that extra space. Live-in staff. Has that ever been tried before? (That Scottish place must be close to being worth bagging btw at 250K, jeez!)

I think you might be right.

Some of these rural mansions can be on the market for years and years (unofficially). Those that are visible on Rightmove I guess are the more naive and/or desperate. I'm also curious about what people do with all that extra space? Obviously it's nice to have but beyond a certain point it becomes a liability (all that maintenance just to stand still). Does size equate to happiness in any meaningful way? What's the optimal abode size for a nuclear family of 4?

There's a couple in Theydon Bois / Epping Forest / M11/M25 / end of Circle line area for example. Still expensive of course, but comparable to 2 bed leasehold flat prices in central London... which I cannot stomach. City (London) prices are supported because for every sale there are ALWAYS at least 2 buyers bidding each other up. I reckon in some parts of the countryside, if you are relaxed about which one you complete on, you could be practically the only bidder right now on several desirable rural retreats (with good transport connections etc). All it takes is one distressed seller to bite your hand off and you might end up with a property that hasn't been on the market in several generations. Just sayin'. Not sure why I'm talking against my book as a potential buyer, but anyway, collecting opinions I guess.

It doesn't mention title, so I assume it's a short lease-hold too. People who buy these things know something we don't. Or perhaps they simply have too much money - remember they're not spending GBP7M so much as parking it somewhere relatively safe until they really need it.

I've been whiling away the dog days of Singapore's summer on Rightmove. Addictive isn't it? (I dreamed of this site being available in the 90s - combined with Google maps/earth and Nethouseprices.) I'm even starting to see relative value in quaint mill-houses in deepest Kent, old rectories in Essex and stone cottages wherever... But hold on. What on earth supports country house prices? Who buys these things at today's prices?

So it's like a barman extending a drunk's tab so he can gain a little bit more insight into how drunk he is?

there was a windows media player option below, which works for me, my apologies. Don't know why it couldn't work it out without my intervention. Merve has given cricket and sailing analogies so far. What next? Comparisons to FIFA?

thanks that one asks for silverlight, whatever. I'll try the Beeb thru vpn. It's getting hot now. Tyrie is a cool customer, isn't he?

is there a live feed? Did Diamond and Tucker agree to collude in their evidence? Only logical conclusion I can see so far.

Oh, I thought of a another one: Know your limits: e.g. by all means, get your game up in tennis, ski-racing, squash, chess or piano... but if you're never going to be in the top 1000, stop and keep it social / instruct. You can have a very nice living being ahead of the pack but just behind the pros. Remember, the one who has the most fun wins.

The most important thing is that they should remain enthused about learning new skills throughout their life: learn how to learn. A couple of specifics: Don't let them leave home without learning the trucker's hitch - Also knowing how to set up a 3:1 z-system might save a friend's life one day. Obviously practical knowledge of outdoor survival stuff is a given. In general, kids need to appreciate that they are nothing special:

Funny, I had 275 in my mind. For the South East, mind.

Perfect post, nothing to add.

Well, not to be argumentative, but lions kick out their male young before they can find a mate. (i.e. they don't ensure grandchildrencubs are born, in the male line at least.) Now, let me go and find out what this thread is all about...

Just for fun: If you can walk into a gritty pub confidently walk up to the bar and get served your beer within a minute or two while getting matey nods from fellow drinkers, working class. Money doesn't change you. If you can give your gardener (or maid or gamekeeper) clear, concise instructions in a firm but friendly manner and muck in to help if necessary, upper class. Money doesn't change you. If either of the above cause you acute embarrassment, middle class. Money changes you.

Yes, bondholders are subordinate to depositors. They are all subordinate to the employees in the banks, who carry on regardless. What are you talking about? What do you mean by "bad savings"? Are you saying that capital adequacy is a facade and is in fact inadequate? Why do banks shares in that case have a price at all?

So that's just one of the many positive feedback loops in the system. How do we explain those who remain relatively slim and healthy? How do they resist the junk? Are they less weak? Presumably they are no better at burning off the sugars? I think the obesity problem should be approached with the same seriousness as any of the other crises we face: it's right up there, especially when you factor in the long term costs. Also there's the aesthetic argument... but I won't go there. Quantitative tightening anyone?

It's quite easy to identify the equity and bond holders. Funnily enough, they don't seem keen on taking the hit they signed up for. Savers signed up for no such thing.

Well, price "movement" is fractal...