Cherubium
-
Posts
183 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Cherubium
-
-
Loving the England flag.
No need for property bee to tell when that house was first listed!
-
Mmm.... So which generous bank with a great fee structure will all you people closing your accounts be moving to?
-
Actually there's something fundamentally wrong with all these people the media drag out.
I mean, you'd never turn on Top Gear or read a car section in a paper and find a bloke from Ford telling you why the new Fiesta is a great investment, but the media is full of 'property experts' who have clear vested interests.
-
I wonder if all those people who go round saying, 'London sets the trend for the rest of the country' have noticed the 4.1% drop!
-
I work in publishing and if I was interviewing two graduates and one had a third in maths, while the other had a first in Publishing or Media Studies, I'd go for the 3rd in maths every time, provided they showed a genuine interest in the job.
-
I'm beginning to wonder about the longevity of this glut.
I've had the same Primelocation daily alert running for about a year.
Traditionally, I get 3-8 properties per day listed in the e-mail. About 6 weeks back, it was averaging more like 10-15, but now it seems to have gone back to normal, maybe even a little lower than normal.
Can't help wondering if like a lot of these housing trends, this one had already happened before the mainstream media even noticed it.
-
Friend of mine owns a house in a street and is convinced his house is worth £1m
this is because his is better than the one that's been on the market for 950k for the last year.
He didn't like it at all when I pointed out that there were two other houses that had been on for less than two weeks in the same road and sold for around 800k.
If you put a house on the market for the right price, it will sell. The problem IMO is people trying to sell houses for prices over 2007 peak and then giving up claiming that the market is dead.
-
Most common reasons for no chain:
1. Death
2. New build
3. 2nd home
4. Going abroad
In theory, if there's no chain for a buyer and seller, the whole house buying process can happen in 3-6 weeks.
-
I would tend to agree with this.
Granted when I was at one of the above institutions we did have weirdo mathematicians who would get a first and then couldn't get a job, but they weren't the sort to have girlfriends as is the case above. You do get some extremely bright (and I mean off the scale) people who are essentially unemployable due to a complete lack of social skills, presentation and personal hygiene/grooming.
That said these are the sort of people who can be useful for things like code breaking when there is a war on.
And for the third time. I made it perfectly clear that these two were both going to land decent jobs sooner rather than later...
My point was not that they're going to work in McDonalds all their lives, my point was:
(and I'll do it in big letters this time so that people who are clearly less intelligent than grilled cheese get the point I was trying to make instead of going off into tangents about maths degrees and quality of universities):
EVEN IF THEIR HOUSEHOLD INCOME HITS 50-60K PER YEAR IT'S STILL GOING TO BE 6-8 YEARS BEFORE THEY'RE ABLE TO PAY OFF STUDENT DEBTS AND RAISE A 15% DEPOSIT FOR A STARTER HOME.
Multiply that over the next few years, and you're going to end up with a massive lack of first time buyers, creating downward price pressure.
-
Basically there's not much incentive for EAs to drop houses.
They'll obviously focus marketing budgets on stuff that's going to sell.
Even when houses are no longer listed with an agent, they're not above ringing the seller if a potential client comes along. I had this once where I did a viewing on what was supposedly a new house. Turned up and found it full of chavs who'd wrecked the appliances and filled the garden with 2nd hand motors!
-
sorry but this sounds like cr*p - someone with a maths degree from Oxbridge, Imperial or UCL (which is what you directly implied they have) is not going to have problems getting work for long, and certainly not likely to end up working at McDonalds.
Did you actually bother to read what I wrote?
"I expect they'll land half decent jobs eventually, but the thing that struck me was that there's absolutely zero prospect of these two being in a position to buy property until they're 30+ unless prices tumble."
Their Uni was Warwick. I'm guessing it's GCSEs that were A*s and all As at A level.
In some respects the fact that the couple I used as an example are so bright and dead posh probably distracts from the thing that really struck me. These kids basically need to save 70k to pay off debs and get on the 'property ladder' at current prices.
Even when they get into a position where they've both got reasonable jobs and can save £1000 a month, it's still going to take 7 years to pay debts and raise a deposit. And that's assuming that there are no babies, no spells of unemployment, no bouts of illness, no sick parents to look after, no decison to say screw it and travel around the world for two years...
I left school with bad A levels at 18 and by the time I was 21 I could have bought a small flat as a single person. Now we're looking at a situation where a couple who are good graduates will be at least 30 before they're in the same position.
But you very rarely see property commentators talking about this.
-
Met a young couple I know yesterday, both 21. Both public school, both with A* a levels, Both studied maths at a top uni. One has a first, one has a 2.2.
Between them, they have over 35k in student debt. One is currently unemployed, the other is on below minimum wage as a McDonalds trainee (min wage doesn't apply to trainees).
Parents are respectable middle class. Bank of Mum & Dad is not impossible, but they both have multiple siblings also going through public school and uni so there's very little money around.
The thing that struck me, was that when I left school, these two would have got OKish jobs and by the time they were 23-24 would save 5k and be on the 'property ladder,' moving into a little one bedder.
But these two have 35k to pay off, followed by needing a 25k deposit. And this is two very posh kids, with the best education money can buy.
I expect they'll land half decent jobs eventually, but the thing that struck me was that there's absolutely zero prospect of these two being in a position to buy property until they're 30+ unless prices tumble.
The more I looked at these two, the more I realised that there's just going to be a massive hole in demand for starter homes for a very long, unless prices drop by absolutely huge amounts.
-
Meh... I can't believe people are practically writing suicide notes after a single month's figure.
The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that the market is dead right now. And houses that aren't selling don't get reflected in an index based on mortgage approvals.
-
Maybe so, but if you're in a position to be able wait - why not do so ?
Better to buy after prices have fallen than before, surely ? You end up with a similar house for less money, or a better house for the same money.
Absolutely (I've been house hunting for two years, so I might just be a master of this myself!)
But it ain't a lot of use if you're in a 1 bed flat and the wife's up the duff
-
Corrected for them.
AAARGH, this mentality that you're a 'fool' to buy a house that goes down in value makes me nuts.It perpetuates the myth that property is a commodity to speculate on.
Beyond property speculators and TV property porn, most people buy houses because they want somewhere to live. They move because they change jobs, have more kids, got sick of flatsharing etc.
If something is going to make your life better and you can afford to pay for it, why not have it? Nobody buys cars, clothes or anything else based on how much the price will rise.
And back to the article, it seems spot on to me. Great to see something so level headed in the mainstream media.
-
The discount is going to depend on the developers financial position, and on how the development is selling, and critically how well they've priced it in the first place.
For examples I'll use two new developments I've looked at this year:
First I looked at a Shanley homes development near Watford (Sadly gone from their website now). The houses had been realistically priced at around £1m when shabby homes 30% smaller were being marketed in the surrounding streets for similar prices.
I turned up on the open day and there were cars whizzing in and out the whole time I was there. Three went on the first weekend. I put in an asking price bid on the last plot, but the developer withdrew it and sold it for 50k more than the others a couple of weeks later. All went to chain free buyers, and all are now occupied.
Then there's this development, in Crouch End: www.bristongrove.co.uk
I looked at it in Jan, told the agent it was 350k over valued and put in a low bid which the developer turned down. It's now dropped by 100k, one has been under offer since Feb, but basically all four houses remain unsold and the developer won't budge on price.
And ultimately, the Watford houses were better value at the asking price than what I think the Crouch End ones would be with 25% off the asking price.
-
Noticed a pretty awful one when I was paying for a hair cut the other day.
Barber shrugs, says, 'I'm leaving next week mate boss is a [insert rude word!],' and put it in the till!
-
To add, I was not in the Market for a new build but these seem to tick a few box's, the rooms layouts seem ok etc, although for every reason why i shouldnt buy a new house as stated above these seem to be ok. Also, I wonder if it is easier to do a 'deal' with a builder than a vendor that wont negotiate. Obviously I am trying to building in falls that will occur as this year progresses, I am thinking
Just offer a low price and see what happens. I can never understand why people are afraid to make low offers. If it doesnt' work, offer a bit more, or wait.
There's not going to be a 'Barratt' price that applies to all developments. If they've just put a new development on the market and it's selling well, they'll tell you to get stuffed. If it's been sitting there for a long while, there may be deals on the table.
Two tactics big builders use are:
1. Claiming that they never give discounts.
2. Deflecting you towards a special offer, such as free carpets, part exchange etc. There's nothing wrong with these offers, but put a price on them. Don't be fooled by swish marketing for the 'luxury package,' that basically boils down to a grand's worth of carpet and some metal light switches and taps worth less than a grand.
The other thing to bear in mind is that you'll be dealing with professional sales people, so think of it more like buying a new car than buying a house. Don't believe anythign they tell you.
As for the quality issues, check the unit you're actually going to buy and get a snagging report before you sign anything. Don't be fobbed off with the builders, 'quality assurance program'
For quality in general, new homes tend to be built pretty shabbily. However, anyone who believes that older houses were built in some golden age when everything was done by craftsmen should firstly take a look at the damp in my basement, and second buy a copy of The Ragged Trousered Philantropists to show how little the construction industry has changed over the years!
-
Forgive me for my confusion.
I am a new poster to this site, but have been reading the posts on and off for a year now with great interest. There are many varied view points and I think anyone looking at the site may not agree with whats being said, but at least pause to think before they leap.
I have been looking for a house to live in as a home and recently had an offer accepted on a house. I decided I did not want the chore of reading clauses in mortgage offers regarding setup fees, over repayment and exit fees, so I went to an independant financial advisor who advised me on mortgages. I am a FTB with, on the house I am purchasing, 56% LTV (I believe I am using the term correctly, in that this is the amount of the purchase price I will be borrowing). According to the IFA this made available to me to some of the best deals on the market, of which Nationwide featured heavily. I opted for a 5 year fix with Nationwide at 4.5%
Now comes the confusion...
I made this choice because I have never been a financial risk taker, it's the way my parents raised me, never borrow money, save etc. I am borrowing a little over three times my salary, which as has been suggested on this forum should be the "affordable" amount allowed to be lent. I chose 5 year fix at a higher rate than a 2 year variable because I figured over 5 years they can not keep rates at their current low, maybe they can't even do this for 2... I came to this assumption from reading many of the posts, interpreting some of the points as making sense and that rates must rise. In fact I am seeing that banks are raising their rates, all be it by small amounts, despite the BOE rate remaining at 0.5%. I apologise if I am going on, but now I read this post and am interested in the forums thoughts, I will try to get to a question soon.
The OP questioned the effect on the Nationwide survey has as the "canniest buyer" would go elsewhere. There was also mention of a Nationwide 5% market share. Is this a 5% market share because people are still stuck in Northern Rock style mortgages because they can't go elsewhere? Did the IFA and the software he had access to not have the most current data available and Nationwide does not offer the lowest rate cheapest to arrange 5 year fix? Would, based on what I have read on this forum, it be safe to assume that rates must go up at some point? Would it also be safe to assume that the media and BOE can not forsee the future and in a self serving manner be mearly manipulating the current situation to their advantage when in fact it remains largely out of their control?
I guess I am asking how can one class themselves as prudent in this current uncertain climate and not go for a long fix? I might be mistaking the "canniest buyer" as requiring some kind of prudence to fit that description. Is it in fact prudent to know what your outgoings are for the next 5 years and paying for that security?
As I said earlier I am interested in and value forum members thoughts. I have found a home that I believe I can afford, suits me now and hopefully for the forseable future. Many things have been said about HPC and the devaluation of the pound, I am sure we will all be suprised by what happens. I can only thank everyone here for at least making me think about what I am doing, rightly or wrongly.
I reckon if you want a home and you're not overstretching yourself financially or planning to move in the near future, you shouldn't worry too much about the market. Most things that people buy depreciate, and I don't like this idea that someone is a 'muppet' or a 'fool' because they buy a home for themselves and their family that may go down in value.
Back to the nationwide thing. IFAs only sell products that are sold through IFAs. That may seem obvious, but if you're a bank offering a top deal, you don't need to sell through IFAs and pay them comission to attract customers.
A good example of this is First Direct, who've had some of the best mortgage deals going for ages but only sell direct.
IFAs main use is if you need a special deal. If you're a good borrower with half a brain, you'll do just as well to look at the best buy tables in your Sunday Paper.
-
I was vaguely looking at mortgage rates (been looking for a house for 2 years, but not yet seen THE one at THE price!)
I've always been a Nationwide customer, so thought I'd check out their rates.
They're not terrible, but they're a long way off best buy status, and they don't offer any kind of SVR or offset deals.
So as the Nationwide house price index is based on their approvals, could you argue that the canniest buyers would shop for the canniest mortgage deals and therefore not really be represented in this survey?
Also, is it reasonable to assume that the NW and Halifax indexes are going to fluctuate based on how competitive their market offer is at any given time?
I'm not saying that this is what is happening, I'm just curious to know what everyone things about this theory.
-
Productivity always jumps in a recession.
For example, imagine a car maker with two factories.
Recession bites, they have to shut one down.
They shut down the older less productive one, so they have half as many workers, but productivity has increased.
(This also works on a smaller scale, as firms lay off less productive workers, or retire older less productive systems and machinery)
-
Good on the sellers.
I think it shows two things:
(1) Even in a slow market, certain types of properties will be in demand.
(2) Essentially, all the estate agents undervalued the home. Which just goes to show that their supposed expertise and local knowledge is no more valuable than someone with half a brain looking at Rightmove and Land Registry figures.
-
...from what I understand they talk up the market to the sellers...get the business, wait a while then talk down the market to real buyers with real money or committed buyers of their own homes.....this is then a real incentive to any real seller, to sell at a real price.
In my experience, the buyer just has a strop and takes the property off the market!
-
It continues to be a mystery to me why EAs constantly talk up the market. All it does is drag out a few extra sellers with unrealistic price expectations.
Surely the best thing for EAs is a lively well priced market with loads of turnover. Probably some of the smarter ones have already worked this out.
Nationwide Hpi - Predictions
in House prices and the economy
Posted
Nationwide have brought in some flexible repayment Flexaccount holder only mortgage deals to stop them from losing richer customers, so there may be a shift to valuations to higher value properties. But how accurately is this shift in their product range built into their statistical model?
Could their new range of mortgage products have as much affect on the next couple of months figures as the market?