Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

cadogan

New Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cadogan

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. This is not the most overpriced SH but the least overpriced SH - obviously, I am in the wrong section but then I am quite new to this and I am only trying to see if I can post a link here! http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sa...y-24550238.html
  2. I notice from this Allsops one and yesterday's Savills auction that there weren't THAT many repossessions. I still remember the auctions in the latter half of last year where it was no exaggeration to say that most stock came from HBOS. Does anyone know why given that the economy has not got better (to say the least)? Would it be because its new "owner", the government, has stopped them from blatantly auctioning off properties at crap prices so that they are at least selling private treaty to try to achieve some decent prices?????
  3. Looks like that we HPC lot have already investigated the problem and the SFO can just stop work saving us tax payers money! All we need to do now is to send the brief to the House of Lords to decide whether this is fraud or not. Eaaasy!
  4. I personally think the root of the problem lied in the manner newly built properties in a large development were valued (now I understand that the rules are changed). Correct me if I am wrong, as far as I know once a developer had sold an X number of flats then the price per sq ft had been set and any subsequent valuers would not be negligent to follow this price per sq ft for this development. So there was nothing to prevent a developer selling the first X number of flats to its associates and this was (and is) not illegal. Once the price per sq ft was set for the development, then all they needed were inexperienced speculators. I don't think, at least in a case like this, these speculators can sue the developer or any lawyers or valuers really - otherwise all the major plc-developers would be worried!
  5. Thanks. I honestly did not know they have ex-local authority in Mayfair.
  6. Wouldn't it because of the higher costs of importing those Lo'real or what have you hair care producs from Paris?
  7. I suppose it is not a bad buy-to-let (what is the legal minimum for a habitable room - 70 sq ft or 80 sq ft?? - so that I don't get prosecuted if I buy it and rent it out) Does any one know whether there a Fitness First or Virgin Active nearby so that my tenant can go and have the shower in the morning? I know there is a Chinese takeaway nearby and that'll cover the lack of the kitchen. I suppose a rent of 100 per week is not unrealistic and that's 433 per month and I'll throw in the Fitness First membership at 50 per month - (433 - 50) x 12 = 4600 per annum - it is still over 7% return! [Oh no, I don't work for Foxtons! ]
  8. This is not surprising. You must have heard of the Hill House fiasco in Thamesmead London SE28 when 80 or so flats in a block of 84 flats were repossessed and 250k apartments were knocked down for 105k - 120k in auctions. A guess from me is that these apartments were not worth the 230k whatever they were sold for. The true 2006 value might very well be 160k. When a new flat has lost its virginity, it automatically drops 10% and let's say that the general property market has dropped by 20%, so one would expect a drop of 30% (loss of virginity 10% and general drop 20%) and 160k x 70% would bring you 112k. However the problem here is that there are so many of such identical flats flooding the market, then even the 2008 value of 112k becomes 91k. When it comes to auctioning them, large auctioneers would not even take a property on unless the vendor is willing to accept 30% below market expectations and that's why the guide (and possibly a reserve) of 60-70k. Your next question might be why apartments worth 160k could be sold for 230k in 2006 - well I cannot pin point a reason for this particular block. It could be the particular developer's superb marketing skills but in some other developments, I've heard that flats worth 180k each could be sold "on paper" to an investment company for 250k each - the investment company did not need to pay 250k and it only had to pay 180k - ie this 250k was only on paper. This was a win-win situation - as the developer could then use such sales as comparables to justify to the normal individual buyers and their mortgagees' surveyors that the flats are worth the 250k each. As for the investment company, it then raised 90% mortgages in these flats - a flat with the paper price of 250k could be mortgaged for 225k and the investment company then pocketed 45k each flat (225k minus 180k). When the market collapsed, the investment company and all its directors and personal guarantors simply all disappear with the pocketed cash and leaving the lenders with the rest!
  9. That's why estate agents put in the ads "PRICED TO SELL" - these properties are usually more realistically priced. Seems to suggest that all the other ones in their books are wasting your time though!
  10. I am new and just trying to practise using the "funny signs". Re: the Eltham 4-bed - I cannot believe somebody actually bought a house at record price post-Northern Rock to flip! Must be out of his mind!
  11. When it comes to selling, my view is that in the case where the Borrower still has some equity, the Bank tends to be more cautious - I don't know if this is because there is somebody "watching" (the Borrower must be watching) or if this is because the Bank knows that there is still equity which it can debit its monthly interest from (at default rate!?!) and hence it can sell cautiously. On the other hand, if it is clear that there is no equity left, I seem to have the impression that the Bank seems "couldn't care less" and will knock it down at whatever price at the auction . It seems that the Bank is saying "OK the mortgage debt is £250k, the property is worth £150k, but I can't be bothered to sell it slowly by the law books, I am to sell it tomorrow for £100k - the way we like it - and the difference you owe us will be £150k instead of £100k but so what, a £150k debt will bankrupt you but a £100k debt will bankrupt you too - either way you are bankrupt - what can you counterclaim and sue us for!"
  12. This is my first ever message and I am trying to see if I can post anything successfully. Have to start somewhere! As for this particular topic, I always wonder if the Bank behaves differently in the following two cases: 1. Property now worth 150k and the Borrower owes only 100k 2. Property now worth 150k and the Borrower owes 250k (say one of those City-centre brand new flats bought with 100% for 250k) Would be good if there is someone who knows the decision-making process adopted by these banks.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.