Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by EdinburghCrash

  1. When I was looking at flats in the autumn there were numerous places advertised -- on ESPC and the EA's -- as holding Sunday viewings that were not in fact holding viewings. In fact, Blair Cadell advertised one place as holding Sunday viewings for over a month after it _sold_. Total cretins and extremely unprofessional. EC.
  2. OIEO £190,000 for a basement flat in Leith: http://www.findaproperty.com/displayprop.aspx?edid=00&salerent=0&pid=9172049
  3. Here is a good resource for buy vs. rent calculations (but note you have to tweak the settings a bit to account for differences in the UK, e.g., the fact that tenants rather than landlords pay property/council tax): http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html EC.
  4. update: According to the property bee plug in, the listing was changed to say "Closing Date noon on March 14th" at 8:54 am. today -- March 14th! EC./
  5. A couple of months ago I was interested in this property: http://www.espc.com/buying/296682.html which came on the market in late November. When I telephoned to set up a viewing, however, the listing agent told me it was 'temporarily withdrawn from the market'. This was in early January, I think (although possibly late December, I can't remember), because of a few minor repairs that needed to be done to the communal stairs in the building. The listing on the agent's website was very shortly thereafter changed to reflect this....the listing was still there (on espc.com as well), but "temporarily withdrawn" was listed on the page. The agent said it would be back on the market and I gave him my contact details, asking him to let me know when it came back on the market. A few weeks later, the posting disappeared from the agent's website, and I assumed it was permanently withdrawn from the market. A month or more went by, and then suddenly, last week, it appeared again on both the listing agent's website and espc.com. Then today I notice the ad suddenly says 'going to closing at noon on March 14th". I'm not sure when it was changed to say this, but it has only been back on for a week, and it didn't say that as of last Tuesday or Wednesday. Also, the agent never contacted me to let me know it was listed again. This all seems very strange to me, especially given that it is a _bank sale_. I thought the solicitor was obliged to try to get the most for the property that s/he can. But listing a property just briefly over the Christmas period, then taking it off the market and not showing the property, then putting it back on for at most a week, and not even contacting people who have expressed interest in the property....hard to believe this is what a responsible solicitor would do. Any thoughts? Am I alone in finding this very strange? EC.
  6. Somehow we go from 'how will you convince all these companies to pay for your service, when there are better established websites they are already giving their money to?' to 'they'll sue you if you try to offer free advertising'. I am familiar with the term 'copyright law', and wonder if you're familiar with the term 'google'? I take two points from it: 1. It fairly easy to design a website that compiles information from other websites without breaking copyright laws. 2. Companies fight tooth and nail to get listed high in google search results, since that's the first place people look. But somehow we are to believe they will try to hide the properties they have for sale from the website I'm envisaging. Anyway, I imagine people on this thread are a bit sick of this conversation, so I'll desist. (The Americans will come along and design this website soon enough, anyway. I just hope they think to extend it to Scotland.) EC. p.s. I'm crossing my fingers this makes it over here soon as well: http://www.manilla.com/
  7. I don't know the business model of other sites, but I would say don't bother asking established agents to sign up, just have a spider crawl their websites and compile the information. Make money some other way, e.g., by selling ads to mortgage companies and other firms home buyers/sellers might have special reason to be interested in. EC.
  8. It's a good question why I would expect or hope for a one-website-clearinghouse for property but not for cars, bathroom supplies, etc. I think there are many relevant differences, most of which have to do with the fact that houses are usually quite distinct individuals, whereas what stores, car dealerships, etc. typically sell are _types_ of products. Here's a comparison...check out what is for sale on this website: http://www.etsy.com/ It seems obvious that the people who sell on this site will, with probably very few exceptions, sell vastly more than if they each had their own website. And this isn't despite, but rather because, they're sharing space with other people they are in competition with. For people like Rettie, the advantage is market exposure: they would unquestionably get more market exposure if they were part of a conglomerate. At etsy.com, not every product gets viewed, even within the category...people look at purses or whatever until they see one they really like, and buy it. That's because there are a zillion for sale...of course you can't look at them all. But with a conglomerate website for property you filter down to what you want by area, price, size, sometimes features, and then you look at all the properties listed. So a place like Rettie wouldn't have to worry about their properties being 'lost' in a sea of competition. As ccc said, this is also about a business opportunity. Someone at etsy.com is probably making a lot of money. Finally, suppose there were a site of the kind I imagine. Wouldn't it basically kill all the competition? Would anyone waste time on espc.com, rettie.com, etc. I can't imagine they would bother. But that's a testimony to why a site like this would be valuable. EC
  9. From the article: "Announcements about cuts to council or ministry budgets are broadcast by the BBC almost daily. But Coalition ministers are often left seething at the failure to put them into the context of the Government's mammoth task of reducing the nation's crippling £155billion deficit. " It seems Cameron is pissed they are reporting news of cuts -- that is, that they are reporting news -- rather than reporting the news and offering the government spin/explanation on it.
  10. What is onerous is having to look at many websites, and not even knowing which ones those are. Sure, I suppose a person could find a listing of all the estate agents or solicitors or whatever that might list properties for sale in Edinburgh, then try to determine which use espc.com, and from that determine a list of websites one needs to check to find which properties are for sale in Edinburgh. And then check those websites regularly. But yes, this seems quite onerous to me and it seems ridiculous that selling agents haven't devised a better plan -- if for no other reason than that it would be in their interest to do so. But perhaps I have different expectations of what business should do to thrive. I have that 'new world' expectation that they should actually make it easy to buy from you. EC.
  11. TTD (or anyone else), do you have opinions on the best place to look to see all listed properties in Edinburgh? (This is a follow up to the point you made about not all properties being on espc). Do Rettie etc. really expect people to visit their websites, or is there some general clearinghouse for this information? thanks, EC.
  12. http://www.propertysnake.co.uk/site/detail/32186327 oops. Kinda fecked that one up, didn't you? EC.
  13. Alternatively, don't accept them as clients in the first place. It looks bad on an EA when they list a property well above what it's realistic value is, because it damages their credibility. The thing to remember is that the line between the seller and the EA gets blurred in the eyes of buyers and in reality. After all, while we know the seller owns the house, it's the EA who advertises it, promotes it, is associated with it, and so on. And if we see that you -- yes, you, not just the seller -- are trying to get 15% more than it's worth, then we feel, very correctly, that you are trying to take us for a ride. Just say to the prospective client: I'm sorry, I cannot accept this listing if you insist on pricing it at N pounds. I think it is only worth N-10% (or whatever), and so to advertise it to the public and try to sell it at N pounds would be to engage in the process of trying to rip people off. I'm not willing to do that. Put in these terms, it's frankly shocking that EA would ever accept overpriced listings. It's as if they do with the small hope there might just be a sucker out there. No wonder so many people take such a dim view of them. EC.
  14. Thanks all. As soon as I saw the 'whits' as 'what's' it made perfect sense. A lovely saying. EC
  15. What does 'Whits for you will no go by you' mean? I'm a foreigner. thanks, EC.
  16. holy shite. Small kitchen, small lounge, two small bedrooms. £410,000. http://www.qmile.com/component/realdev/58/275 I am sure it is nicely furnished, and for some people it's a good location. But it is about £250,000 more than a similar floorplan that hasn't been upgraded. And £250,000 will go a very long way to upgrade such a small flat. Gold leaf wallpaper, anyone? EC.
  17. I know this isn't Edinburgh specific, but it fits the theme of this thread and no doubt captures what some people around here think. Check out this: http://www.home-truths-blog.co.uk/dont-drop-your-asking-price I agree with some of what she says, in that in some regards dropping the price of a house is bad strategy for the reasons she mentioned. But what she gets wrong is that it is a bad strategy relative to pricing it properly in the first place, not relative to leaving it on the market at an unrealistic price! What she should have written is this: Don't price your property unrealistically, because then you'll have to drop your price if you want to sell. But once you do that, the property looks bad for various reasons, and you'll end up getting _less_ than if you priced it correctly the first time. By the way, her mantra is that she 'passionately believes people don't buy homes on price'. Lords knows why. Obviously they don't buy _only on price_. But nobody thinks they do. So her passionate belief is either a platitude that even a fool believes or it is the claim that price doesn't matter at all to buyers, which is insane. EC.
  18. The plot thickens re 7 Learmonth Court. I thought this was a sensible seller bringing the place to market at offers around £185,000 (the property bee plug in says it is a new listing in January). But the schedule downloadable from the solicitor lists a price of offers over £198,000. And a bit of googling shows it listed at some point at £215,000. I'm curious to know how long they've been 'trying' to sell it. A slight tick against the place is the £90 a month factor charge. Not a fortune, but a bit steep I would have thought. EC.
  19. Barring a closer inspection, I expect the place will sell reasonably soon at something close to asking (i.e., at £175 or higher). I have looked at a lot of centrally located two-bedrooms advertised between £175 and £220, and most of them are complete garbage imo. One effect of the fact that most would-be sellers are keeping prices high (and thus not turning into sellers) is that it is very easy to make your flat look like a good deal by undercutting those.
  20. If ourproperty.co.uk can be trusted, 7 Learmonth Court sold for £155,000 in December 2005, and £78,000 in July 2001. Not sure how to extrapolate from the 2005 price to peak. EC.
  21. Now even you are talking up the market!
  22. I don't really see the point. How are the would-be-buyers/would-be-sellers being dictated to? The would-be-buyers are being dictated to by the fact that they can't get enough credit? How's that different from the fact that I can't afford a ferrari? No one is forcing buyers not to pay the inflated prices people are still asking. Banks are telling people they won't lend them enough money to pay those prices, but that hardly means the banks are forcing anything. No bank will lend me the money to, say, buy a share (which costs $100,000) in Berkshire Hathaway, but there is still a proper market for those. For what it's worth, I don't think banks are being particularly tight with credit anyway. For ages and ages a 25% deposit was standard, wasn't it? I know someone who was just offered a £185,000 or £195,000 (I can't remember which) mortgage with just 15%, which hardly seems tightfisted. Moreover, wouldn't banks be insane to lend money with less than 15% down, given the HPC so many are predicting? EC.
  23. I hope no one minds my posting yet another cretin-esque house pricing (I think this might be my form of therapy): http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-22862891.html Here's the kicker: it's been listed since August 30, 2008. So it's been on the market for around 525 days. Duh. Can't you take a hint? We don't want your shite house at the price you want to sell it for. EC.
  24. This was a very nice piece to see but I don't at all buy the presenter's view that because places aren't selling, it's not a proper market. That just doesn't make sense. It is a proper market in the sense that would-be buyers and would-be sellers are making decisions about what they're willing to buy for/sell for. Those decisions just disagree, and hence there are few sales. Most people don't own ferraris, because the price that people are willing to pay and the price the company is willing to sell don't match. But that hardly means there isn't a real market in ferraris. EC.
  25. Good posts, ccc. There really are a lot of 1-beds in Dalry/Gorgie under £100,000, and some decent enough flats in the 80s. I continue to go to open viewings and have noticed an odd pattern -- most of the places I am looking at (in the £150,000 to £200,000 range) were purchased about four years ago. I mean, I think about 80% of the flats I've viewed fall into this category. I wonder what the explanation is, assuming it is not a mere coincidence (the sample size is admittedly small). One possibility is that the 2007 buyer isn't the buyer who purchased with a long term interest in living in the property. That includes BTL, of course, but also renters and students who finally (in 2007) thought they'd get on the bandwagon since 'renting was dead money'. Just a guess. Most of the vendors, by the way, appear completely delusional on prices (e.g., expecting to get what they paid in 2007, or even more). EC
  • 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.